48 Hours (+2): APB Pricing Plan

When the examiner said he'd failed the driving test, he figured 'fuck it'.

The APB Pricing model has been revealed and it’s not quite what we were expecting. Previously it was stated it would be subscription free. And it still kinda be. Basically, buying the game comes with 50 hours of actual shoot-and-driveage. After that, there’s other options, varying from seven dollars for an extra 20 hours, to a play-as-much-as-your-want (gasp!) monthly subscription fee for ten dollars. I’m going to quote the full current FAQ answer below, because there’s some stuff which is worth highlighting and talking about. Join me!

You can purchase a retail version of APB either in-store or via digital download at standard retail price (SRP $49.99/£34.99/€49.99). The game includes 50 hours of action game play out of the box plus unlimited time in APB’s social districts customising, socialising and trading on the marketplace.

Once your game time is up, you have flexibility to top up your action game time from as little as $6.99 (£5.59, €6.29) for an additional 20 hours, while more frequent players can switch to a 30-day unlimited package for only $9.99 (£7.99, €8.99) with discounts available for 90 and 180 days.

The retail package also contains a bonus 100 RTW points towards your next purchases.

An additional benefit to this evolutionary model is the ability for you to convert your own customisations and rewards to tradable products to give to friends or clan-mates or to place on the Marketplace to earn more RTW points (convertible to game time) or in-game cash. Check back later for more details

Okay – basic stuff would be that there’s other options, with paying for longer bits of subscription to save cash and – presumably – the ability to buy bigger than 20 hours hour chunks. And that the “time” only counts when you’re actually in an action area, rather than something in the social or customisation bits. Which is important for the second point…

The key thing is the RTW points idea near the end. As in, you can take things you’ve made, and then swap it for game time. Point being, it’s putting a little bit of a Second Life economy into the world. As in, people will be able to sell their own customised bits and pieces online, to gain more points… which they can spend on game time. So abstractly it’ll be free to play if you can make enough fancy stuff – and the fact there is a reward to create fancy stuff will encourage people to do it, so improve the quality of the content, so improve the quality of the game, which will… oh, you get the point. Neat thinking, basically.

That said, I suspect the 50 hours limit is going to raise a whole load of eyebrows. Talking personally, it wouldn’t stop me from buying the game, but for a game which claimed to be more inspired by Counter-Strike than World of Warcraft, the idea of monetizing the amount of time played will raise some community eyebrows.

104 Comments

  1. poop says:

    yeah I am never going to spend real cash for RTW funbux so I can buy some assholes virtual shirt, especially when the customisation tools are going to make knockoffs really easy to make

    • Clovis says:

      But, as we all know, gaming companies are really concerend about the theft of IP. We can assume that they will actually be policing the creation of knock-offs. We’ve seen the lengths they’ve gone to to protect their own creations. I’m sure they will provide that kind of support to their users. Right?

    • poop says:

      they really wont be abled to stop me from nicking some dudes design when you consider how many are going to be and how hard it will be for the to proove, especially if I then dont try to sell my knockoff

      still, I think the biggest issue is going to be with how *NDA ALARM* cash is so easy to come by in the game that there will never be any reason to sell your shit for anything other that RTWcash, so the market will probably not see much use

    • Premium User Badge

      Maltose says:

      I doubt it’s going to be that easy to “nick” someone else’s design. I mean, just because you can grow your own vegetable in your backyard for cheap doesn’t mean you’re going to stop going to the super market right? Just paying someone a dollar or so for an e-t-shirt is easier than making it yourself.

  2. ChaK_ says:

    As much as I undertand infrastructure cost and all, I don’t think I’m willing to pay montly for this game.

    Except if it gets 9+ everywhere, which I doubt

  3. aldo says:

    Not having played or owt…. my first thought was ‘oh well, never mind’. But 50 hours is actually not too bad a chunk of gametime, assuming the game itself is worthwhile for the majority of those hours.

    Still a bit of a curious decision, though – I was expecting something like a Guild Wars model.

  4. Kieron Gillen says:

    A note for the comment thread: There’s an NDA on the game. If you’ve played the Beta, be really careful.

    KG

    • Gremmi says:

      Guess I shouldn’t mention the level with the kangaroos then, that really surprised me. Also the bit where you travel back in time to WW2, wow, what a mission that was.

    • Rinox says:

      Don’t forget about the zombie levels and the QTE dancing sequences. PURE GOLD

    • Cunzy1 1 says:

      I thought the “origin cave” with the cows and the cake was just a little bit too much fanservice.

    • Man Raised By Puffins says:

      I find it quite astonishing that they took the bold move of using QWOP controls for the on-foot action and only providing cricket bats as weapons, it really is quite something to see rival gangs of crims and rozzers stumbling down the street to batter each other senseless with malformed swings.

    • Sarlix says:

      I thought the level which had Jet-packing dinosaurs with lasers for eyes was the best, that might just be me though.

    • Mac says:

      What’s the worse that can happen – they take away my beta access which is limited to about 2 hours a week – wow fooking wow !

    • oceanclub says:

      I thought the “Hot Coffee” segment with John McCain was a bit much but they’ve assured me in the alpha, it will be changed to Sarah Palin.

      (On the 50 hours kerfuffle; I reckon this is probably an attempt to balance the hardcore-vs-casual fanbase while still allowing them to pay for their servers. Just as long as you don’t leave your character idling, mind. Still, I spent what seemed like an eternity playing Oblivion, yet I think it was only(!) 110 hours, so in that context, 50 hours is a fair chunk.)

      P.

  5. Brumisator says:

    Then again, I doubt I’d play more than 50hours of it.
    Sure, I’d love it to be… more free, but this is hardly outrage-worthy.

  6. monkeybreadman says:

    Still think this isnt going to be all that good. But an interesting business model, i’m sure other publishers will be watching

  7. Sagan says:

    Doing some quick calculations based on the numbers of hours I played Team Fortress 2 divided by the amount of months I played Team Fortress 2, this will be cheaper for me than a regular subscription. Especially since I plan to spend a lot of time in the customization screens.

    So yeah, I’m happy with this pricing model.

  8. Chris D says:

    I think I like this in principle better than the standard MMO subscription model. If I’m paying monthly there always feels like there’s a pressure to be playing that game or you’re not getting you’re moneys worth. If you can dip in and out when you like and the hours are still there then that pressure goes away.

    Also I’d usually consider getting 50 hours out of a game a pretty good run. 20 hours for 5.99 isn’t bad either compared to about an hour and a half at the cinema for about the same price.

    I’d still prefer to just pay once for unlimited play of course, and I suspect I’ll wait for a price drop before I actually dive in, but in principle I think it’s ok.

    • bob_d says:

      Yeah, the monthly fee is a two way street in that it not only makes people feel obliged to play more to “get their money’s worth,” but from a design perspective being subscription-based means the game has to be as padded out as possible so that subscribers *have* to play for months to achieve any progress in the game. The standard trick for RMT-based games is similar, to make it as grind-y as possible and then sell some item that temporarily increases character progression speed (with the end result being that it’s even more padded than a monthly-fee game). A game where people pay per hour creates pressure to design a game where every hour provides concentrated, engaging and rewarding play. As a designer, I’d personally rather make games that provide rich, engaging experiences rather than padded, drawn-out slogs.

  9. John Peat says:

    What I’m seeing is a publisher who believes people will mostly play less than 1 hour-per-day (as it’s cheaper to subscribe if you don’t intend to do that).

    What I’m seeing is a publisher who has done the sum total of zero research into the topic…

    Most people who play non-subs online games like COD, BFBC etc. will exceed 1 hour a day – at least for the first couple of months.

    People who play persistant online games tend to “turn up the wick” a bit more again…

    Summary: they announce a “subscription free” game which it transpires really does have (and for most people will need) a subscription – if they can’t get that bit right – erm…

    • meeper says:

      I know there’s a lot of hardcore gamers out there, but that isn’t the market segment they’re looking to target with this subscription model. Case-in-point: My wife and I thoroughly enjoy WoW but can often only swing a few play sessions a month, consisting of no more than an hour or two each. For us, an hourly rate comparable to APB’s pricing plan would be a *much* better option than a monthly recurring bill. And there’s a whole lot of 30-somethings out here in the same boat as us.

    • Lack_26 says:

      Well, from what I’ve heard, the developers have been really surprised by how long people play for, they expected about an hour or so but found the majority of people play right through the allotted testing time.

      Seems to me that they’re underestimating how long people will actually burn up in play time, but will feel unwilling to pay more for it.

  10. Baboonanza says:

    I don’t see anything wrong with this personally. The comparison to Counterstirke isn’t fair because of a) infrastructure costs and b) running an MMO world is much more expensive in development time/maintenance than running 100 dedicated servers.

    And I think the pricing model is actually really refreshing. Maybe they are trying to address the problem that to get the best value for money from a monthly subscription you have to have lots of free gaming time. Paying based on actual hours used mean you could pay only $7 for your months play if you don’t have that much time.

    And 50 hours of game time is a LOT for people (like me) with jobs, lives and families. This is surely better for consumers than just a single monthly tariff.

  11. Kelron says:

    From the number of comments on other sites expressing incredulity at being expected to pay to play beyond the initial purchase fee, I wonder if RTW have made a big error with their marketing. Being a GTA-online style action game, it must appeal to a lot of people who’ve never had anything to do with MMOs before.

    I don’t mind the sub myself if the game’s fun, if they decide to charge for expansions or churn out lots of “DLC” then I may change my mind.

  12. teo says:

    I haven’t played the beta but I read impressions from people who broke the NDA and they said it was poo

    • Kelron says:

      @teo

      The people who don’t like it are going to be less concerned with the NDA. If I were in the beta, I wouldn’t want to describe how much I’ve been enjoying the game and how you should try it if you get the chance, only to find that my account had been banned for an NDA breach.

  13. Jimbo says:

    Putting the u-turn to one side, I don’t think this is too bad in principle. 50 hours is plenty enough time to decide whether the game is worth your time or not. And if it’s worth your time, then $10 a month is a non-issue.

    For me, 50 hours is probably better than a 30 day trial – but they should probably make it 50 hours or 30 days (whichever comes last), just to make it >= industry MMO standard.

    • meeper says:

      Seconded. Excellent idea.

    • tekDragon says:

      The pricing model isnt terrible except for a couple things. What’s terrible is the semantic gymastics they’re playing with the “subscription free” terminology.

      This game is *NOT* subscription free. In fact at 50hrs of play foir the box, dedicated fans will have to subscribe much sooner than the typical free month offered by many other MMOs.

  14. Tyshalle says:

    Yeah, I can get behind this. I played the shit out of that 10-day free trial of Fallen Earth, and loved it so much that I immediately subscribed. Within a couple of days after subscribing I was like, level 16 or something and really just starting to feel a bit bored with the game, at which point I stopped playing completely, but with every intention of going back to it. They wound up getting the full box fee plus I paid for one extra month for what probably amounted to less than 6 hours of game time post-free trial. Not exactly worth my time, and as has been said above, with the subscription fee model, you feel pressure to play just to get your money’s worth.

    50 hours of gameplay is a LOT of hours for most people above the age of 18. I love Team Fortress 2, bought the Orange Box the day it came out, feel like I’ve invested a ton of time into it, but according to Steam I’ve only played for 59 hours. Same thing with Left 4 Dead, and I’ve only played 45 hours. I played Just Cause 2 obsessively until it eventually started feeling repetitive enough that I got bored, and I only invested 29 hours into it. The longest time I’ve apparently invested into any game (on Steam, anyway) is 89 hours, belonging to Dragon Age, which is a game I am completely in love with, AND I’m pretty sure it’s counting the expansion into those hours.

    My point being, even at the upper levels of that, assuming this game does kick as much ass as it has the potential to, it’ll cost me about $64 to play and I’ll get to spread those $64 across several years if I feel like it.

    So yeah, I’m a fan.

  15. Andytizer says:

    I like the look of the payment model. As a dedicated WoW-player, what stops me dipping my toes into other subscription games is the potential situation of paying more than one sub per month for various games, which would end up costing too much. I would, however, be more prepared to play more LOTRO or WaR if they had a fixed hourly charge for it. And of course, my willingness to pay for APB depends on the implementation of their online features and the value of the gametime.

  16. Flimgoblin says:

    One point to note – it’s only 50 hours/20 hours in the action zones.

    So if you’re standing around in the social hub chatting your clock isn’t ticking down. Given how many hours I’ve spent bouncing around Gothwaite Harbour (DAoC) or the Inevitable City (WAR) chatting/running my guild – this would probably save me some cash ;)

    Question is – as an MMO is it worth the 8 quid sub? if so then the alternate payment types are gravy.

  17. Kits says:

    I don’t mind the subscription plan in general, just the initial 50 hours is a bit mindboggling. We had a 14 hour beta playtest yesterday, and myself and most of the server, from people I ran into repeatedly throughout the day, played all of that in one go, only stopping because the server went down again.
    A vast amount of people that buy the game are gonna tear through that in a week or two.

    Not the end of the world though; Paying for a month after only two weeks instead of four isn’t exactly going to break the bank.

  18. James says:

    Has that been a problem before?

  19. fearghaill says:

    One very smart thing this does is allow people to create stuff for free. That way there will always be user created content available, as there will be people who want to play in the social/customization areas and rarely venture into the combat zones.

  20. Malcolm says:

    According to Steam I’ve played about 130hours of TF2 (my closest similar game) over the last 3 years, so 50 hours of included game time would probably last 6 months to a year for people with day jobs. That and I contribute a few quid a month anyway for the continued running of my favoured server, so this all sounds fairly reasonably priced to me.

    Not that imagine that will pacify the “What do you mean it isn’t free?” crowd.

  21. mrmud says:

    Having played the beta I would really like to pipe in here but ill just say that im very dissapointed.

  22. Lobotomist says:

    Personally i am put off by this.

    There are few reasons:

    1. APB is not MMO in true sense of the word ( That could be said for some new MMOs as well )
    it is glorified server browser. Think Battlenet with graphic interface. Its going to be hard justifying subscription that way. Global Agenda (same principle) launched just month ago , does not have subscription (mostly) And we all know what happened to Hellgate London when they asked for subscription.

    2. F2P is slowly taking over P2P. Even GW2 that will probably be 10 times better than any other MMO will be one time purchase. Its going to be though deciding to subscribe to any MMO now (especially one that isnt really MMO)

    3. Rumors claim that APB is good avatar customization game, but not that good of a shooter or driver game.

    • mrmud says:

      10 times better you say…

      And the rumors are certainly true

    • HermitUK says:

      Certainly agree with point one – this isn’t some massive open city you’re subscribing to, it’s two maps of about Battlefield size. Plus despite there being 100 people per server shard, you’re rarely playing directly against more than 6-8.

      That said, the payment model is an interesting one. Won’t be buying in myself, but it’ll be interesting to see how it fares – and what they end up doing six months down the line if player numbers drop off after their free 50 hours are up.

    • Lobotomist says:

      Payment system is definitely good.
      I wish other MMOs would adopt – pay for hours , business plan.

      But , APB is not a game i see myself paying any kind of subscription.

  23. nine says:

    Will be interesting to think what “the market” thinks of pay-per-hour gaming rather than pay-per-month. I imagine it adds a bit of a psychological weight to your game time… “I’m not having much fun now, and this hour cost me $1.25!”

    • Sarlix says:

      At least when you’re not playing the time isn’t running out like with monthly subs. If you forget or can’t log on for a couple of weeks it’s money down the pan, at least with this model you’re only ‘charged’ for the time you play.

    • bob_d says:

      “I’m not having much fun now, and this hour cost me $1.25!”
      On the other hand, having a monthly-subscription for MMOs creates the opposite problem, which is, “I had to play for more than 20 hours to even begin to accomplish anything.” On a per-hour basis, even a not-too fun experience will still beat most MMOs…

  24. Thisisafalsename says:

    Reading Kieron’s reminder, I will do my
    Utmost to not reveal anything that would
    Break the NDA and result in a
    Ban to my account,
    In case I
    Should decide to
    Have another go at it.

    Uh-huh.

  25. Jerricho says:

    @John Peat
    I am a person who will mostly play less than 1 hour-per-day, certainly of “action time” as there simply aren’t enough hours in the day for me otherwise and I’m sure I’m not the only such person reading these comments so I’m going to have to add my support here. I think the payment model is sound.

    Having played subscription based services in the past such as Age of Conan I’m delighted to have the option to let a few days pass without feeling I’m wasting money. As has been said already, for people with jobs and families and travel, the hours available to dedicate to an MMO are fleeting. 50 contact hours of gameplay for £34.99 amounts to a better value purchase than most tiple-A titles and more time than I ever spent with Crysis or Neverwinter Nights 2. Add to that the time, essentially free, available to create content and socialise when we have time at our computers but aren’t quite sufficiently free to focus on immersive gameplay and we’re surely onto a winning model.

    For the more dedicated players, the standard subscription model remains which seems reasonable in comparisson to other MMOs.
    If Age of Conan had a similar payment model I might still be playing now, but I know I don’t have the time available to merit buying more game time which will ultimately be wasted.

    That all said, if the gameplay is pish then I won’t be subscribing so it will be a non-issue, but at least I have 50 hours to make my mind up beyond that initial weekend when have some free time and the inevitable following fortnight when I just don’t have time to give to it.

    Mind you, a friend of mine has gotten some of his music onto the soundtrack so I’m duty-bound to get it regardless.

  26. Finn says:

    Having played the beta… no thanks.
    I’m not even going to bother buying it as a matter of fact.

  27. Mike says:

    Man. I only played TF2 for sixty hours, and that was over two years. I think fifty hours is a lot more than most people think.

  28. Ghiest says:

    Unless the game offers more than the normal shooter/driving game (not the stupid character design that no one really cares about) then I don’t see why paying to play it after the time runs out is warrented, from what I have seen of the game I still can’t understand why people would pay to play it.

  29. Starky says:

    I like this plan… one of the main reasons I stopped playing WoW, Eve and Warhammer (after only 2 months with the latter) is that I maybe only put in 5-10 hours a month – and paying a subscription for that little game time is a waste of money.

    I’d still be playing all 3 of the games now if they had a pricing model like that – I’m willing to pay up to 50p an hour for game access (hanging in inns/capital cities/stations/docks like this game does should not tick away time, anywhere in wow where you’d get resting icon for example).

    It’s nice to have the option to dip in for a few hours every few weeks, and know that you’ve not got to have a direct debit set up for that.

  30. bookwormat says:

    I find the “pay as you play” model very interesting, but I think the initial price/duration is too high. 20 EUR for both the first and the second 20h subscription would be more like it. And I would make the first 5 hours free so I get some initial customer attention.

    Another problem I see with this is that with the clock ticking, players will try to spent their time as “efficient” as possible. I fear many users will rush through everything and not have fun, so maybe another timeframe would be smarter. Maybe just use days instead of hours. Or make it so you can only loose n hours of your time-budget per day and then play free until the next day.

  31. Po0py says:

    So, um. It’s a game that is subscription free but yet, it has a subscription. I’m so glad we cleared that up.

  32. Longrat says:

    If the beta’s anything to judge (I KNOW it’s a beta, but still) this game isn’t worth a SINGLE payment, let alone recurring payments.

  33. brkl says:

    Sounds pretty okay. Few games deserve more than 50 hours of my time anyway, and I’d much prefer paying for actual gameplay hours than for a month of access.

  34. Kits says:

    For those of you basing your ‘it’s rubbish/awful/boring as hell’ comments on the earlier beta, last weeks patch, that took it from 0.6something to 0.9 really improved the game in a lot of ways. It does still have flaws, but its very different to what it was early on, and bears a lot more resemblance to a ready game than it did just a fortnight ago. *coughcough*borderline-nda-breaking*coughcough*

    • Robin says:

      Unless the final build is drastically optimised, I think they’re going to have more of a problem with the game being unplayable for anyone without an ultra-high-end PC and fibre optic broadband, than any quibbles with the pricing model.

    • Easydog says:

      I’m glad Kits said it and not me. It has been made aparent that the game is still very much in production and it is improving vastly. What I will say is wait and see… oh and most current PC’s would probably be comfortable with it after the improvements. **Cough **DamnNDA** Cough**

  35. Schmung says:

    Very reasonable pricing model. Not fussed on buying it after playing the beta, but can’t argue with the pricing, which is entirely reasonable. 50 hours is bloody ages of free play time TBH

  36. Tei says:

    1) 10€ is a fair priced to pay to play it.

    2) If you somehow can pay less using the hourly model, better for you. I don’t want a stinky hourly model.

    3) There are very few games where you personally hunt down other players. I don’t know… maybe “Silent Hunter – Submarine simulator the MMO”?

    4) I don’t care about tatoos and awesome cars, and that stuff. I would kill you on my fatty and bluebie t-shirt. I can’t care less for customization (at this point, maybe later I will freak out).

    5) Again: The last thing you will see, is my bluebie t-shirt.

    6) Bluebie.

    • Premium User Badge

      Wisq says:

      There are plenty of games where you hunt down other people — just about every multiplayer FPS, really. :)

      I think you’re correct to say that it’s relatively unique in the MMO realm. I don’t think there are many MMOs where it’s your game-specified job to hunt down other players. But there are several titles in which you might want to hunt down specific players (with no particular quest or reward from the game itself), e.g. any PvP-enabled MMO where you want to get revenge on a specific player.

  37. GrappleNuts says:

    Wot I want to say is that 50 hours is a lot….. unless the game is super awesome. If the game is just rockin good, 50 hours is nothing. I personally would only play maybe 4 hours a day if the game was amazing, probably only 1 or 2 if it’s just good, but I know people who will play a game they like for upwards of 10+ hours a day. I had a roommate once who played one of those Koei hack and slash games for 360 for 14 hours straight once. yes, you read that number right. And he continued to play that game A LOT after that.

    50 hours, could be a lot, could be used up in two weeks. If they go open beta and we can all see how the game plays, then we’ll know!

    • Radiant says:

      For people who aren’t aware of the power of “Press button to raise personal number”; that shit is pretty devastating.

    • Tei says:

      Hum.. I have played Mass Effect 1 and Prototype in a go, only pausing to sleep. I also have played with friends a whole weeked of “Civ 4 – marathon mode”.. this is like the “long mode”, only much, much longer. Is actually good because you really learn the units before you create a upgrade, so you use all units.

    • AndrewC says:

      Poor Not-British poeple who didn’t grow up begrudgingly watching ‘Why Don’t You…?’ – this highly inadvisable behaviour is the result.

  38. Purple0limar says:

    I think the important thing to see here is that it’s not microtransactions. And as long as that criterion is fulfilled, I’m perfectly happy with it.

  39. clippa says:

    The beta was terrible, played like a really really really poor man’s GTA. “Subscription free” was about the only thing it had going for it, and now that’s gone. This will be a huge flop.

  40. Radiant says:

    Interest in playing this game just went to zero.
    Especially if the rumours on how bad the gameplay is are true.

  41. Ryan says:

    I think its perfect… If I play an average of 3 hours a day per week. That’s 2 and a half weeks of free play time. By that time I’ll know if im good at creating stuff and get time that way, or pay 9.99 for a sub. Thats less than any other MMO save EVE on sub fee that I know of for this type of game which I’ve been looking for.

    I find this pretty neat.

  42. Jockie says:

    Quite a controversial price plan, for me the 50hour package seems to be exploiting the hardcore players, the guys who will go through the 50 hours in the first week or two and will be addicted enough to instantly pay for another month. It’s basically RTW trying to maximise profits during the first month of release, but after that it will normalise and £7.99 a month is perfectly reasonable.

    I’ll justify the purchase for myself by ordering from play.com for 26.99 then paying for a monthly sub for 7.99 when needed, bringing the price up to £34.99, which is the RRP anyway.

    I’d have plenty more to say were it not for the NDA but I’m still greatly looking forward to release, despite the negative comments you may hear coming out of the beta.

  43. Jad says:

    According to Steam, my most played game last year was Left 4 Dead at 65 hours. After that it drops off to 50 hours for Fallout 3 and 40 hours for Far Cry 2. 35 for Saints Row 2. There are many fantastic games that I’ve played far far less.

    Anyway, if I make it to 50 hours on this game, I will consider it money well spent.

  44. Out Reach says:

    So I presume after those first 100 RTW points each, you have to buy more? Won’t work. People aren’t going to use micro payments to buy the tattoo they always wanted when they can just create it themselves in the customizer (which they are selling as easy and intuitive tool) . Which in turn means the person who made that awesome tattoo won’t get enough RTW to play for free.

    Subscriptions are going to be the only option after a bit, and TBH they said the game would be subscription free. So no. Screw APB. I’ll wait for Guild Wars 2.

  45. mrmud says:

    Thats the thing, isnt it. If the gameplay was great then a monthly fee is no problem. But with gameplay being as terrible as it is, then its a definite no go.

  46. Finn says:

    @Kits: still rubbish, even with the latest patch; I’m not saying some people won’t find it enjoyable, I’m said, personally, I won’t even bother buying the game much less any other payments; I’ve got my hopes up for GW2 and aside the character creation in APB there’s nothing fun about it, not for me.

  47. Namos says:

    I think this is a pretty good payment plan, actually. It really simplifies the bang for the buck equation.
    It’s sort of like a cellphone payment plan – pay as you use, or go for an unlimited plan.

    Would be even more interesting if this model work and exerted pressure on F2P models to sell duration-limited items based on how long you actually played and got to use them.

  48. Alexander Norris says:

    I get to pay 33-50% more than the US and the UK do and then need to top up on top. That’s a lost sale from me.

  49. BigJonno says:

    I have the same problem with paying for APB that I had with playing for Planetside (which I loved); there’s a significant difference between a game being good and entertaining and a game being sufficiently better/different from other titles to be worth paying a subscription for.

    At the moment, it sounds like they’re asking us to pay almost as much as a standard MMO to play a third-person shooter.

    • HermitUK says:

      With Planetside though there was at least the sense that your actions were contributing to a larger war – Holding one base to allow another force to secure another one along the chain, for instance. And while the metagame wasn’t exactly well implemented, there was at least a sense that winning battles mattered on a larger scale. APB doesn’t have that.

  50. Jayt says:

    If this then turns into, amazing game support and updates etc, then it could be worth it. Otherwise, meh.