Would you still play if ESO went Monthly Subscription

Dovahkiin02191973

No

The original game started as paid subscription only and that is why I quit playing after a few months. My original account still exists cause my toon's name is still showing up as used. I can't access my original account as the email address associated with it has been terminated by google for a prolonged unused period of time and is not retrievable. When they made the pay to play optional I came back to the game. If it were reversed I'd leave again. Can't afford monthly charges like that.

idk

Yes

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

I think one thing to keep in mind is that no company is trying to find ways to decrease revenue and lower margins. This thread is asking about a situation where ZOS increases risk while lowering revenue. What exactly would be the motivation for that?

I am not saying the hypothetical isn't interesting to discuss. It is. But we are talking about a bad business decision that isn't going to happen, regardless of how interesting it is to discuss whether we would sub.

This is essentially my point and addresses the aspect that is not being addressed in the OP.

I am all for a game requiring a subscription as it affects the quality of players in the game as there is more of a commitment there. However, I also realize that 15 USD a month is very low for one of the most costly games to create new content. It is significantly more costly to create new content for ESO than it is for Blizzard with WoW and Square Enix with FF14 as voice-overs increase the cost as much as they increase the quality.

amm7sb14_ESO

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

I voted "other", because I am already currently paying for ESO+, which means I am obviously willing to pay for a sub for this game, however I don't agree with a required subscription to play the game. I feel like required subs are a thing of the past and don't have a place in MMO's anymore in this day and age.

Also, since ESO+ is an additional cost, if the game went to a required sub, they would either have to make things like the craft bag available for 100% of the playerbase, which they don't want to do, or make the craft bag part of an ESO+ that would cost an *additional* amount above the subscription, which is the most likely outcome.

So I voted other because I'm already paying for a subscription, but I disagree with making it a required sub.

idk

Yes

Iluvrien wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Iluvrien wrote: »

idk wrote: »

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

Linaleah wrote: »

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

PizzaCat82 wrote: »

A large portion of people already pay for ESO plus. What makes you think they'd change that model when the crown store makes them so much?

Entire countries banning clown crates?

which doesn't do anything about direct purchases. crown crates are a fraction of what is sold on a cash shop. should they be banned, all the contents of crates will be sold directly. some - at much higher prices than you'd hope.

I disagree.

Firstly, that "crown crates are a fraction of what is sold on the cash shop." This is demonstrably not true.

@WhyMustItBe

I would suggest no one who actually knows if it is true or not will be commenting in this thread.

BTW, anything that is part of the whole is by definition a fraction of the whole. So, in fact, crown crates are a fraction of what is sold in the crown store regardless of how significant, or not, those sales are. So it demonstrably true. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do, but that would require actual financial information from Zos related to this.

As someone who started playing this game at launch, when a subscription was the only way, my answer is obviously yes. But as I stated earlier, the statement in the OP and the question does not even try to take in the economics of the game and as such does not present meaningful information to Zos.

What nature of economic argument would you like to see? If we take your point that the OP doesn't have access to ZOS's financial information at face value, what kind of economic argument would you expect them to present?

To the contrary of the point @idk was making about meaningful information. The OP's poll speaks to intention without introducing factors upon which players cannot be expected to make accurate judgments. That the poll lacks any attempt to address all possible factors, and is based in those firmly in control of the respondent suggests greater meaning. Not less. If this kind of data wasn't meaningful, then why did the multi-national companies that the market research agency I used to work for (repeatedly) ask for it?

Now, whether ZOS has any desire to listen to it, or any mechanism by which it could be considered, is another question. The answer to which does not reflect on any meaning inherent to the data set itself.

au contraire

I never said we need to see Zos' financials to discuss what OP has put forward here. We do not need to see Zos' financials to know that they derive a significant ammount of revenue from the crown store outside of selling DLCs and this should be fairly obvious. Additionally, DLCs would not be sold separately as they are now if a subscription was required. Seriously, Zos would not bother creating all those cosmetics and homes if they did not generate a significant ammount of revenue. So yes, it is not meaningful to discuss this in such a vacuum, especially considering the low monthly price of 15 USD.

Your desired response from the OP does require knowledge of ZOS's financials.

To know the impact of any of the items listed (crown store, DLCs, cosmetics, homes) against the subscription cost of 15 USD/month absolutely requires knowledge of income/profit/costs etc. before any of these things can be considered in anything more than the hand-wavy fashion you have done.

Again. Without the possibility of accurate analysis, any data collected in a poll based on their interpretation of these factors would muddy the data due to biases/inaccuracies introduced through the framing of each question(s)/response(s).

idk wrote: »

@Iluvrien Name one major MMORPG that has a sole revenue source of 15 USD/month/account after the original purchase of the game. I am thinking that the number is zero.

Is it zero? Are you sure?

The problem is that the question is inexact. Which are the major ones? For how long and under what circumstances should that revenue source be maintained? How long did it have to last to fit the criteria? Does it have to be global or local? Does it matter if it was closed by the studio to move onto the next project or does it have to be proven to have failed purely due to finances?

As it stands, how could anyone except an industry analyst expect to answer it? You are usually so careful with logical construction, syntax and semantics (c.f. definition of "fraction"). This seems out of character.

idk wrote: »

Further, if we want Zos to listen we do need to take into account the required essentials of the subject. This not only takes into account a realistic revenue generation but also what Zos is to do with all those customers that only purchase DLCs. Even the annual subscription rate is higher than the purchase of 4 DLCs per year before taking into account buying crowns on sale.

Zenimax Online Studios is a business after all and these are the realistic points that they would need to consider.

ZOS has to consider these points. We, the customers, don't. That is where their feedback mechanisms come in. Not at the point of polls like this.

That was the point made in my penultimate paragraph. I wasn't asking what business like ZOS look for in customer responses. I was telling you what my actual experience of working with companies like them was. I started on the phones asking the questions, then I moved to head office as an analyst and worked on the mechanics of which customers were asked, what they were asked, and what information the businesses wanted derived from those responses. I did this for two years.

We were told time and again that a customer cannot be expected to make informed decisions about how a business should fundamentally restructure itself. Any suggested change to the work we did that was focused around any customer input that was not directly linked to either motivation/intention ("would will/would they do...?") or experience ("Service sucked that day!") was shot down.

This poll speaks to pure intention, with the OP continuously reminding us of this fact. It pleases ex-market research analyst me very greatly indeed.

1. I never required the OP to have any information about Zos' financials. I suggest you go back and read that post again as I was replying to @WhyMustItBe who said crown crates and said they disagreed that "crown crates are a fraction of what is sold on the cash shop. This is demonstrably not true." To demonstrate something like that would require actual financials. However, I correctly pointed out in that reply that as long as any crates are sold they are in fact a fraction of the crown store sales.

So again, I never suggested the OP needed specific information for this discussion to have meaning. However, this discussion is being held in a vacuum that ignores the revenue impact the crown store has or thinks it is trivial enough that there is no reason for Zos to miss it.

And again, that person I quoted and replied to said their opinion was very demonstratable also they did claim actual knowledge and that they could prove it.

2. Since I asked you to name a major MMORPG that has a sole revenue source of 15 USD/month/account after the original purchase of the game and you seem to not be able to name one it seems my point is on solid ground. The question is not inexact as it is pretty clear to most what constitutes a major MMORPG (of today's time ofc). To help you with this, WoW, ESO, FF14, GuildWars, and probably BDO are all major titles. Things drop fairly precipitously after that.

3. You are correct that Zos does have to heed the economics as I have pointed out while we, as customers, do not. I have merely pointed out that ignoring such major impacts does make the conversation less meaningful and less worthy of Zos listening to this over that monthly bank deposit from the cash shop. After all, this is basic economics I am speaking to.

idk

Yes

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

Iluvrien wrote: »

...

idk wrote: »

@Iluvrien Name one major MMORPG that has a sole revenue source of 15 USD/month/account after the original purchase of the game. I am thinking that the number is zero.

Is it zero? Are you sure?

The problem is that the question is inexact. Which are the major ones? For how long and under what circumstances should that revenue source be maintained? How long did it have to last to fit the criteria? Does it have to be global or local? Does it matter if it was closed by the studio to move onto the next project or does it have to be proven to have failed purely due to finances?

As it stands, how could anyone except an industry analyst expect to answer it? You are usually so careful with logical construction, syntax and semantics (c.f. definition of "fraction"). This seems out of character.

...

Why the pure devil's advocate response? Why not name even a single MMORPG as an example? Even if it isn't major. They offered an assertion. Respond to the claim with an example and work from there. You seem to be avoiding engaging in the hopes of a stalemate of generalities and non-engagement of data.

Thank you for such an appropriate response.

Katahdin

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

I have been sub/ESO+ since day 1.

We had a sub, they got rid of the mandatory sub for reasons.
Some say its because of the console release, some say there werent enough subs to support the game.

If its because of consoles, its because they already pay a monthly access fee (or did) and didnt want to pay another one so the console launch would have been unsuccessful.
If its because of the lack of players then something needeed to change or the game was going to die.

Either way they got rid of it because it wasnt enough to support the game/get additional revenue.
Mandatory subs are not going to be a thing for ESO again.

Lumsdenml

Yes

I already sub ESO+, so that wouldn't change if it were suddenly required.

And as a side note, I will say that although it is fashionable to bag on Cyrodiil performance, I believe it has improved quite a bit over the last month or two. Not there yet, but there are actual noticeable differences.

Akrasjel

They did it and failed to deliver their value to justify the price of the sub

mayasunrising

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

Yes and no for me. I usually maintain an ESO+ sub anyway and for the most part enjoy the content. So if it were just a mandatory monthly fee I would most like pay that as well. However; I always want the freedom to unsub as needed. right now for instance I'm not playing much and just want to make sure I have the extra money available so I unsubbed. What's good about the current model is I still have access to the game and all the content I've already paid for. I doubt that would be the case if they went to a mandatory sub model.

Overall I guess I like it fine as is. I think ZOS does a great job on the game, and I love the community. I'm willing to support those efforts and that community as I'm able too with a sub, and with crown store purchases now and again.

UGotBenched91

Yes

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

I think one thing to keep in mind is that no company is trying to find ways to decrease revenue and lower margins. This thread is asking about a situation where ZOS increases risk while lowering revenue. What exactly would be the motivation for that?

I am not saying the hypothetical isn't interesting to discuss. It is. But we are talking about a bad business decision that isn't going to happen, regardless of how interesting it is to discuss whether we would sub.

Thank you for understanding this is a hypothetical post. A lot of unexpected replies were people are trying to argue the hypothetical scenario instead of just giving insight into the post itself. Good work!

daim

No

Probably no.

I mainly sub when I'm playing more because I don't want to deal with the inventory issues.

While I'm not ESO+ I still do log in, doing some dailies or whatnot. If I wouldn't be able to do that I probably wouldn't return after ending ESO+ sub. Free mode hooks me up, otherwise I would delete the client and probably wouldn't bother to reinstall.

MagicalLija

No

If it had built in ESO+ DLCS and constant craft bag then yes. But having to pay $10-$15 to play, then an extra $10 for plus is just crazy talk. 100% it would lose so much of the player base. Especially since one of the main selling points for ESO is that its pay once to play.

Edit: I would like more mounts/pets to be available in games. Content is becoming stale. We get 1 pet, maybe a costume and sometimes even a mount for free with DLC. Having to pay to get anything good cosmetic wise is unbelievably annoying and makes end game only PvP/Achievement/Set/Housing Grinding.

ThePlayer

No

Just for try new update stuff, let's say for 1/3 of year or less.
Otherwise useless for me wasting my money for a game that love wasting my time.

Iluvrien

Yes

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

Iluvrien wrote: »

...

idk wrote: »

@Iluvrien Name one major MMORPG that has a sole revenue source of 15 USD/month/account after the original purchase of the game. I am thinking that the number is zero.

Is it zero? Are you sure?

The problem is that the question is inexact. Which are the major ones? For how long and under what circumstances should that revenue source be maintained? How long did it have to last to fit the criteria? Does it have to be global or local? Does it matter if it was closed by the studio to move onto the next project or does it have to be proven to have failed purely due to finances?

As it stands, how could anyone except an industry analyst expect to answer it? You are usually so careful with logical construction, syntax and semantics (c.f. definition of "fraction"). This seems out of character.

...

Why the pure devil's advocate response? Why not name even a single MMORPG as an example? Even if it isn't major. They offered an assertion. Respond to the claim with an example and work from there. You seem to be avoiding engaging in the hopes of a stalemate of generalities and non-engagement of data.

1) Because the person making the assertion should provide the evidence. The burden of proof is not on the listener. It is a direct appeal to ignorance.

2) Because a quick check of Wikipedia's list of MMORPGs gives 52 candidates, 31 of which seem to either be, or have been, pay to play. I have played the following MMOs (excluding MUDs or MOOs) myself: LotRO, URU, SWTOR, and ESO. Of those the only one I am sure is maintained without a cash shop is URU, and that is by direct donation, and it wouldn't fit the definition of "major" in anyone's book.

That leaves all 31 MMOs named for me to check for possibilities.

If I were to just cherry pick a few that seem likely: Asheron's Call (seems to have run 1999-2017), Camelot Unchained (Upcoming but mentions a sub and no cash shop), FFXI (seems to have run since 2002 with no cash shop), Legend of Mir 3 (2004-2012), Lineage (1998-2011), Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds (1996~), Star Wars: Galaxies (2003-2011), Vendetta Online (2004~).

Several of those ran for a long time. Some may even have run for a long time without cash shops. There are several online times in there that are longer than ESO's, and certainly longer that ESO's sub-required period. I couldn't hand check every detail though. Not enough hours in the day. I am a teacher, a husband, and a father. (Also see point 1).

Do I believe that this either proves or disproves the capacity to run an MMO like ESO without a cash shop (and certainly without Crown Crates)? Nope.

In my own opinion, the shift away from P2P has very little to do with whether an MMO like ESO could keep the lights on (and continue to produce content) and everything to do with publisher ROI, i.e. whether people would sub for $15 or not is actually irrelevant because there is no consideration here other than money.

idk

Yes

UGotBenched91 wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

I think one thing to keep in mind is that no company is trying to find ways to decrease revenue and lower margins. This thread is asking about a situation where ZOS increases risk while lowering revenue. What exactly would be the motivation for that?

I am not saying the hypothetical isn't interesting to discuss. It is. But we are talking about a bad business decision that isn't going to happen, regardless of how interesting it is to discuss whether we would sub.

Thank you for understanding this is a hypothetical post. A lot of unexpected replies were people are trying to argue the hypothetical scenario instead of just giving insight into the post itself. Good work!

I have merely pointed that out. Some seem to strongly defend this as otherwise, to the point that they suggest there may just be a major MMORPG that does well off only a 15 USD/month subscription and no other means for revenue.

idk

Yes

Iluvrien wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

Iluvrien wrote: »

...

idk wrote: »

@Iluvrien Name one major MMORPG that has a sole revenue source of 15 USD/month/account after the original purchase of the game. I am thinking that the number is zero.

Is it zero? Are you sure?

The problem is that the question is inexact. Which are the major ones? For how long and under what circumstances should that revenue source be maintained? How long did it have to last to fit the criteria? Does it have to be global or local? Does it matter if it was closed by the studio to move onto the next project or does it have to be proven to have failed purely due to finances?

As it stands, how could anyone except an industry analyst expect to answer it? You are usually so careful with logical construction, syntax and semantics (c.f. definition of "fraction"). This seems out of character.

...

Why the pure devil's advocate response? Why not name even a single MMORPG as an example? Even if it isn't major. They offered an assertion. Respond to the claim with an example and work from there. You seem to be avoiding engaging in the hopes of a stalemate of generalities and non-engagement of data.

1) Because the person making the assertion should provide the evidence. The burden of proof is not on the listener. It is a direct appeal to ignorance.

2) Because a quick check of Wikipedia's list of MMORPGs gives 52 candidates, 31 of which seem to either be, or have been, pay to play. I have played the following MMOs (excluding MUDs or MOOs) myself: LotRO, URU, SWTOR, and ESO. Of those the only one I am sure is maintained without a cash shop is URU, and that is by direct donation, and it wouldn't fit the definition of "major" in anyone's book.

That leaves all 31 MMOs named for me to check for possibilities.

If I were to just cherry pick a few that seem likely: Asheron's Call (seems to have run 1999-2017), Camelot Unchained (Upcoming but mentions a sub and no cash shop), FFXI (seems to have run since 2002 with no cash shop), Legend of Mir 3 (2004-2012), Lineage (1998-2011), Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds (1996~), Star Wars: Galaxies (2003-2011), Vendetta Online (2004~).

Several of those ran for a long time. Some may even have run for a long time without cash shops. There are several online times in there that are longer than ESO's, and certainly longer that ESO's sub-required period. I couldn't hand check every detail though. Not enough hours in the day. I am a teacher, a husband, and a father. (Also see point 1).

Do I believe that this either proves or disproves the capacity to run an MMO like ESO without a cash shop (and certainly without Crown Crates)? Nope.

In my own opinion, the shift away from P2P has very little to do with whether an MMO like ESO could keep the lights on (and continue to produce content) and everything to do with publisher ROI, i.e. whether people would sub for $15 or not is actually irrelevant because there is no consideration here other than money.

@Iluvrien

1. Oddly, the post of mine you quoted was replying to someone who stated someone else's comment was "demonstrably not true" and I asked them to demonstrate it.

Ofc, I presented the obvious and easy argument that proved their assertion wrong. That no matter what percentage of crown store sales that the crates make up they are in fact a fraction of the sales of the entire crown store by definition as long as some crates are sold.

I am providing a link to that comment of mine you quoted so others can see it was 1000% accurate.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6905841/#Comment_6905841

2. It is good to see you are providing actual names of MMORPGs that do charge a subscription fee and offer no other means of revenue. Some of them were major titles in their day like FFXI. However, their days have long past. So technically the question was answered Since games who's day in the spotlight have long since passed were the only examples provided it, with no major MMORPG titles in today's time and economy were named, the question if there was a major MMORPG title existing on a mere 15 USD sub and no other means of continued revenue has been answered and that none exist in today's economy.

Thank you

peacenote

Yes

I paid when it was subscription only, I pay for ESO+ now, and if it switched back I'd still pay (unless I quit the game for something else).

I think at this point the complete removal of the Crown Store would be bad for this game, but what I would like to see is that DLC/chapter sales be eliminated if subscriptions went back to being mandatory. The reason for this is not what you'd think -- I don't mind paying but I don't like that there are new players who don't understand the segmentation who would like to check out a certain dungeon or trial but can't because they don't have the content that allows them to play it. I'd prefer that everyone can try everything to increase the amount of potential participants to all members of the community... especially when it comes to DLC dungeons which are not always popular due to how difficult they can be.

Keep the Crown Store for cosmetics but allow all players to access all areas, dungeons, trials, and new features (like jewelcrafting and transmutation) when they subscribe.

Linaleah

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

idk wrote: »

Iluvrien wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

Iluvrien wrote: »

...

idk wrote: »

@Iluvrien Name one major MMORPG that has a sole revenue source of 15 USD/month/account after the original purchase of the game. I am thinking that the number is zero.

Is it zero? Are you sure?

The problem is that the question is inexact. Which are the major ones? For how long and under what circumstances should that revenue source be maintained? How long did it have to last to fit the criteria? Does it have to be global or local? Does it matter if it was closed by the studio to move onto the next project or does it have to be proven to have failed purely due to finances?

As it stands, how could anyone except an industry analyst expect to answer it? You are usually so careful with logical construction, syntax and semantics (c.f. definition of "fraction"). This seems out of character.

...

Why the pure devil's advocate response? Why not name even a single MMORPG as an example? Even if it isn't major. They offered an assertion. Respond to the claim with an example and work from there. You seem to be avoiding engaging in the hopes of a stalemate of generalities and non-engagement of data.

1) Because the person making the assertion should provide the evidence. The burden of proof is not on the listener. It is a direct appeal to ignorance.

2) Because a quick check of Wikipedia's list of MMORPGs gives 52 candidates, 31 of which seem to either be, or have been, pay to play. I have played the following MMOs (excluding MUDs or MOOs) myself: LotRO, URU, SWTOR, and ESO. Of those the only one I am sure is maintained without a cash shop is URU, and that is by direct donation, and it wouldn't fit the definition of "major" in anyone's book.

That leaves all 31 MMOs named for me to check for possibilities.

If I were to just cherry pick a few that seem likely: Asheron's Call (seems to have run 1999-2017), Camelot Unchained (Upcoming but mentions a sub and no cash shop), FFXI (seems to have run since 2002 with no cash shop), Legend of Mir 3 (2004-2012), Lineage (1998-2011), Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds (1996~), Star Wars: Galaxies (2003-2011), Vendetta Online (2004~).

Several of those ran for a long time. Some may even have run for a long time without cash shops. There are several online times in there that are longer than ESO's, and certainly longer that ESO's sub-required period. I couldn't hand check every detail though. Not enough hours in the day. I am a teacher, a husband, and a father. (Also see point 1).

Do I believe that this either proves or disproves the capacity to run an MMO like ESO without a cash shop (and certainly without Crown Crates)? Nope.

In my own opinion, the shift away from P2P has very little to do with whether an MMO like ESO could keep the lights on (and continue to produce content) and everything to do with publisher ROI, i.e. whether people would sub for $15 or not is actually irrelevant because there is no consideration here other than money.

@Iluvrien

1. Oddly, the post of mine you quoted was replying to someone who stated someone else's comment was "demonstrably not true" and I asked them to demonstrate it.

Ofc, I presented the obvious and easy argument that proved their assertion wrong. That no matter what percentage of crown store sales that the crates make up they are in fact a fraction of the sales of the entire crown store by definition as long as some crates are sold.

I am providing a link to that comment of mine you quoted so others can see it was 1000% accurate.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6905841/#Comment_6905841

2. It is good to see you are providing actual names of MMORPGs that do charge a subscription fee and offer no other means of revenue. Some of them were major titles in their day like FFXI. However, their days have long past. So technically the question was answered Since games who's day in the spotlight have long since passed were the only examples provided it, with no major MMORPG titles in today's time and economy were named, the question if there was a major MMORPG title existing on a mere 15 USD sub and no other means of continued revenue has been answered and that none exist in today's economy.

Thank you

yep. none of the MMO's still active are active without some form of cash shop present. that includes MMO's that have mandatory subscription. like Eve, Final fantasy 14, WoW - to name a few of the top of my head.

of the list above, the MMO that came anywhere near running into present day - was Asheron's Call and a quick google search tells me that it went free to play maintenance mode with last content update coming out in 2014 after 2 years of no content updates.

another google search tells me that Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds has a cash shop to support itself and had to let go of mandatory subscription if it even had one.

the reality of the situation is that while costs for everything have gone up (thanks inflation), players are still expecting their subscription costs to stay the same. that means... game companies pretty much have to resort to supplementing in other ways. ergo - cash shop. with or without subscription.

idk

Yes

Linaleah wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Iluvrien wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

Iluvrien wrote: »

...

idk wrote: »

@Iluvrien Name one major MMORPG that has a sole revenue source of 15 USD/month/account after the original purchase of the game. I am thinking that the number is zero.

Is it zero? Are you sure?

The problem is that the question is inexact. Which are the major ones? For how long and under what circumstances should that revenue source be maintained? How long did it have to last to fit the criteria? Does it have to be global or local? Does it matter if it was closed by the studio to move onto the next project or does it have to be proven to have failed purely due to finances?

As it stands, how could anyone except an industry analyst expect to answer it? You are usually so careful with logical construction, syntax and semantics (c.f. definition of "fraction"). This seems out of character.

...

Why the pure devil's advocate response? Why not name even a single MMORPG as an example? Even if it isn't major. They offered an assertion. Respond to the claim with an example and work from there. You seem to be avoiding engaging in the hopes of a stalemate of generalities and non-engagement of data.

1) Because the person making the assertion should provide the evidence. The burden of proof is not on the listener. It is a direct appeal to ignorance.

2) Because a quick check of Wikipedia's list of MMORPGs gives 52 candidates, 31 of which seem to either be, or have been, pay to play. I have played the following MMOs (excluding MUDs or MOOs) myself: LotRO, URU, SWTOR, and ESO. Of those the only one I am sure is maintained without a cash shop is URU, and that is by direct donation, and it wouldn't fit the definition of "major" in anyone's book.

That leaves all 31 MMOs named for me to check for possibilities.

If I were to just cherry pick a few that seem likely: Asheron's Call (seems to have run 1999-2017), Camelot Unchained (Upcoming but mentions a sub and no cash shop), FFXI (seems to have run since 2002 with no cash shop), Legend of Mir 3 (2004-2012), Lineage (1998-2011), Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds (1996~), Star Wars: Galaxies (2003-2011), Vendetta Online (2004~).

Several of those ran for a long time. Some may even have run for a long time without cash shops. There are several online times in there that are longer than ESO's, and certainly longer that ESO's sub-required period. I couldn't hand check every detail though. Not enough hours in the day. I am a teacher, a husband, and a father. (Also see point 1).

Do I believe that this either proves or disproves the capacity to run an MMO like ESO without a cash shop (and certainly without Crown Crates)? Nope.

In my own opinion, the shift away from P2P has very little to do with whether an MMO like ESO could keep the lights on (and continue to produce content) and everything to do with publisher ROI, i.e. whether people would sub for $15 or not is actually irrelevant because there is no consideration here other than money.

@Iluvrien

1. Oddly, the post of mine you quoted was replying to someone who stated someone else's comment was "demonstrably not true" and I asked them to demonstrate it.

Ofc, I presented the obvious and easy argument that proved their assertion wrong. That no matter what percentage of crown store sales that the crates make up they are in fact a fraction of the sales of the entire crown store by definition as long as some crates are sold.

I am providing a link to that comment of mine you quoted so others can see it was 1000% accurate.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6905841/#Comment_6905841

2. It is good to see you are providing actual names of MMORPGs that do charge a subscription fee and offer no other means of revenue. Some of them were major titles in their day like FFXI. However, their days have long past. So technically the question was answered Since games who's day in the spotlight have long since passed were the only examples provided it, with no major MMORPG titles in today's time and economy were named, the question if there was a major MMORPG title existing on a mere 15 USD sub and no other means of continued revenue has been answered and that none exist in today's economy.

Thank you

yep. none of the MMO's still active are active without some form of cash shop present. that includes MMO's that have mandatory subscription. like Eve, Final fantasy 14, WoW - to name a few of the top of my head.

of the list above, the MMO that came anywhere near running into present day - was Asheron's Call and a quick google search tells me that it went free to play maintenance mode with last content update coming out in 2014 after 2 years of no content updates.

another google search tells me that Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds has a cash shop to support itself and had to let go of mandatory subscription if it even had one.

the reality of the situation is that while costs for everything have gone up (thanks inflation), players are still expecting their subscription costs to stay the same. that means... game companies pretty much have to resort to supplementing in other ways. ergo - cash shop. with or without subscription.

Exactly. Thank you for bringing in these facts. granted, there may be a game out there that was once a contender that is merely in maintenance mode that just has a sub, but it is no longer a major MMORPG by any means.

Of the last three MMORPGs that are or where major titles starting off requiring a subscription-only one succeeded and it still has a cash shop. The reality of the conversation being held in this thread is ESO started off requiring a subscription (with plans to add a cash shop) but could not make it on a subscription-only basis.

That provides the real answer to the question the poll asks.

Zardayne

Yes

I've been paying a MMO sub for 20+ years of gaming...no need to stop now lol

Honestly I don't mind funding the folks who make the game I currently play as long as they are still actively adding content that's worthwhile.

Linaleah

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

idk wrote: »

Linaleah wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Iluvrien wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

Iluvrien wrote: »

...

idk wrote: »

@Iluvrien Name one major MMORPG that has a sole revenue source of 15 USD/month/account after the original purchase of the game. I am thinking that the number is zero.

Is it zero? Are you sure?

The problem is that the question is inexact. Which are the major ones? For how long and under what circumstances should that revenue source be maintained? How long did it have to last to fit the criteria? Does it have to be global or local? Does it matter if it was closed by the studio to move onto the next project or does it have to be proven to have failed purely due to finances?

As it stands, how could anyone except an industry analyst expect to answer it? You are usually so careful with logical construction, syntax and semantics (c.f. definition of "fraction"). This seems out of character.

...

Why the pure devil's advocate response? Why not name even a single MMORPG as an example? Even if it isn't major. They offered an assertion. Respond to the claim with an example and work from there. You seem to be avoiding engaging in the hopes of a stalemate of generalities and non-engagement of data.

1) Because the person making the assertion should provide the evidence. The burden of proof is not on the listener. It is a direct appeal to ignorance.

2) Because a quick check of Wikipedia's list of MMORPGs gives 52 candidates, 31 of which seem to either be, or have been, pay to play. I have played the following MMOs (excluding MUDs or MOOs) myself: LotRO, URU, SWTOR, and ESO. Of those the only one I am sure is maintained without a cash shop is URU, and that is by direct donation, and it wouldn't fit the definition of "major" in anyone's book.

That leaves all 31 MMOs named for me to check for possibilities.

If I were to just cherry pick a few that seem likely: Asheron's Call (seems to have run 1999-2017), Camelot Unchained (Upcoming but mentions a sub and no cash shop), FFXI (seems to have run since 2002 with no cash shop), Legend of Mir 3 (2004-2012), Lineage (1998-2011), Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds (1996~), Star Wars: Galaxies (2003-2011), Vendetta Online (2004~).

Several of those ran for a long time. Some may even have run for a long time without cash shops. There are several online times in there that are longer than ESO's, and certainly longer that ESO's sub-required period. I couldn't hand check every detail though. Not enough hours in the day. I am a teacher, a husband, and a father. (Also see point 1).

Do I believe that this either proves or disproves the capacity to run an MMO like ESO without a cash shop (and certainly without Crown Crates)? Nope.

In my own opinion, the shift away from P2P has very little to do with whether an MMO like ESO could keep the lights on (and continue to produce content) and everything to do with publisher ROI, i.e. whether people would sub for $15 or not is actually irrelevant because there is no consideration here other than money.

@Iluvrien

1. Oddly, the post of mine you quoted was replying to someone who stated someone else's comment was "demonstrably not true" and I asked them to demonstrate it.

Ofc, I presented the obvious and easy argument that proved their assertion wrong. That no matter what percentage of crown store sales that the crates make up they are in fact a fraction of the sales of the entire crown store by definition as long as some crates are sold.

I am providing a link to that comment of mine you quoted so others can see it was 1000% accurate.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6905841/#Comment_6905841

2. It is good to see you are providing actual names of MMORPGs that do charge a subscription fee and offer no other means of revenue. Some of them were major titles in their day like FFXI. However, their days have long past. So technically the question was answered Since games who's day in the spotlight have long since passed were the only examples provided it, with no major MMORPG titles in today's time and economy were named, the question if there was a major MMORPG title existing on a mere 15 USD sub and no other means of continued revenue has been answered and that none exist in today's economy.

Thank you

yep. none of the MMO's still active are active without some form of cash shop present. that includes MMO's that have mandatory subscription. like Eve, Final fantasy 14, WoW - to name a few of the top of my head.

of the list above, the MMO that came anywhere near running into present day - was Asheron's Call and a quick google search tells me that it went free to play maintenance mode with last content update coming out in 2014 after 2 years of no content updates.

another google search tells me that Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds has a cash shop to support itself and had to let go of mandatory subscription if it even had one.

the reality of the situation is that while costs for everything have gone up (thanks inflation), players are still expecting their subscription costs to stay the same. that means... game companies pretty much have to resort to supplementing in other ways. ergo - cash shop. with or without subscription.

Exactly. Thank you for bringing in these facts. granted, there may be a game out there that was once a contender that is merely in maintenance mode that just has a sub, but it is no longer a major MMORPG by any means.

Of the last three MMORPGs that are or where major titles starting off requiring a subscription-only one succeeded and it still has a cash shop. The reality of the conversation being held in this thread is ESO started off requiring a subscription (with plans to add a cash shop) but could not make it on a subscription-only basis.

That provides the real answer to the question the poll asks.

I also looked up Camelot Unchained. its currently in Beta and they are going for the whole "mandatory subscription and no Cash shop at all"

it is advertised as a sandbox game with the world changing with player actions, focusing on large scale pvp. while apparently its also shipping with the dungeon and it does have discoverable lore... I cannot find any information about their plans for future content. or whether there is a predetermined story, quests, anything like that. it almost sounds like... Fallout 76 before wastelanders but more massive. so.. maybe it IS possible to maintain a game like that on subscription alone. you know, just maintenance mode for the world that was created, relying primarily on emergent gameplay/content from players to keep it interesting.

the question is... how many people are actualy interested in playing a game like that? and is that quite possibly VERY niche income - enough to keep the company going? I suppose we'll find out, once its out.

SshadowSscale

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

Get performance at atleast a decent place then we can talk

trackdemon5512

No

This is what ESO initially was and it was terrible. The mandatory subscription stops players who may enjoy the game from trying it out because of fear of having to always commit. Mandatory susbscriptions are a recurring barrier to entry and populations drops in ESO would be noticed due to the megaserver format.

Keep it as it is and let players decide whether or not they want extra features for price but can still enjoy everything for a one time payment.

Knootewoot

Yes

Yes, maybe

But maybe they now earn more money with the crown store then they would with sub. I don't know.

So maybe not.

alanmatillab16_ESO

Yes

Absolutely yes. As for the store and earning stuff in game the best system I have seen is how Turbine used to run Lord of The Rings Online back when I used to play it regularly. You could buy their equivalent of Crowns for cash, get 500 per month for subscribing, or earn them via in game activities. Earning them in game was not in small amounts either, I earned enough to buy access to all of the expansions when they became available.

Rungar

No

They would have to issue a refund to everyone, playing or not, who purchased the game under the current buy to play system.

After that you can have your $50 subscription if the game was still operational.

Grianasteri

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

The reason ESO STOPPED being monthly sub, is because it was failing, badly.

Removing the sub and making the game available for free opened it up massively to a wider audience and increased player population. Think about that next time you are queuing endlessly for a dungeon or struggling to fill a 12 person trial group.

Would that be replicated if subs were reintroduced? I imagine a very large percentage of the player base would vanish over night. Yes some may return without the Crown Store, but not enough to replace the drop in numbers, that's my estimate anyway.

I already pay for ESO+, because I can. Many cant and I feel making it sub only (ESO+ only) would be regressive and counter productive.

idk

Yes

Linaleah wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Linaleah wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Iluvrien wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

Iluvrien wrote: »

...

idk wrote: »

@Iluvrien Name one major MMORPG that has a sole revenue source of 15 USD/month/account after the original purchase of the game. I am thinking that the number is zero.

Is it zero? Are you sure?

The problem is that the question is inexact. Which are the major ones? For how long and under what circumstances should that revenue source be maintained? How long did it have to last to fit the criteria? Does it have to be global or local? Does it matter if it was closed by the studio to move onto the next project or does it have to be proven to have failed purely due to finances?

As it stands, how could anyone except an industry analyst expect to answer it? You are usually so careful with logical construction, syntax and semantics (c.f. definition of "fraction"). This seems out of character.

...

Why the pure devil's advocate response? Why not name even a single MMORPG as an example? Even if it isn't major. They offered an assertion. Respond to the claim with an example and work from there. You seem to be avoiding engaging in the hopes of a stalemate of generalities and non-engagement of data.

1) Because the person making the assertion should provide the evidence. The burden of proof is not on the listener. It is a direct appeal to ignorance.

2) Because a quick check of Wikipedia's list of MMORPGs gives 52 candidates, 31 of which seem to either be, or have been, pay to play. I have played the following MMOs (excluding MUDs or MOOs) myself: LotRO, URU, SWTOR, and ESO. Of those the only one I am sure is maintained without a cash shop is URU, and that is by direct donation, and it wouldn't fit the definition of "major" in anyone's book.

That leaves all 31 MMOs named for me to check for possibilities.

If I were to just cherry pick a few that seem likely: Asheron's Call (seems to have run 1999-2017), Camelot Unchained (Upcoming but mentions a sub and no cash shop), FFXI (seems to have run since 2002 with no cash shop), Legend of Mir 3 (2004-2012), Lineage (1998-2011), Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds (1996~), Star Wars: Galaxies (2003-2011), Vendetta Online (2004~).

Several of those ran for a long time. Some may even have run for a long time without cash shops. There are several online times in there that are longer than ESO's, and certainly longer that ESO's sub-required period. I couldn't hand check every detail though. Not enough hours in the day. I am a teacher, a husband, and a father. (Also see point 1).

Do I believe that this either proves or disproves the capacity to run an MMO like ESO without a cash shop (and certainly without Crown Crates)? Nope.

In my own opinion, the shift away from P2P has very little to do with whether an MMO like ESO could keep the lights on (and continue to produce content) and everything to do with publisher ROI, i.e. whether people would sub for $15 or not is actually irrelevant because there is no consideration here other than money.

@Iluvrien

1. Oddly, the post of mine you quoted was replying to someone who stated someone else's comment was "demonstrably not true" and I asked them to demonstrate it.

Ofc, I presented the obvious and easy argument that proved their assertion wrong. That no matter what percentage of crown store sales that the crates make up they are in fact a fraction of the sales of the entire crown store by definition as long as some crates are sold.

I am providing a link to that comment of mine you quoted so others can see it was 1000% accurate.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6905841/#Comment_6905841

2. It is good to see you are providing actual names of MMORPGs that do charge a subscription fee and offer no other means of revenue. Some of them were major titles in their day like FFXI. However, their days have long past. So technically the question was answered Since games who's day in the spotlight have long since passed were the only examples provided it, with no major MMORPG titles in today's time and economy were named, the question if there was a major MMORPG title existing on a mere 15 USD sub and no other means of continued revenue has been answered and that none exist in today's economy.

Thank you

yep. none of the MMO's still active are active without some form of cash shop present. that includes MMO's that have mandatory subscription. like Eve, Final fantasy 14, WoW - to name a few of the top of my head.

of the list above, the MMO that came anywhere near running into present day - was Asheron's Call and a quick google search tells me that it went free to play maintenance mode with last content update coming out in 2014 after 2 years of no content updates.

another google search tells me that Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds has a cash shop to support itself and had to let go of mandatory subscription if it even had one.

the reality of the situation is that while costs for everything have gone up (thanks inflation), players are still expecting their subscription costs to stay the same. that means... game companies pretty much have to resort to supplementing in other ways. ergo - cash shop. with or without subscription.

Exactly. Thank you for bringing in these facts. granted, there may be a game out there that was once a contender that is merely in maintenance mode that just has a sub, but it is no longer a major MMORPG by any means.

Of the last three MMORPGs that are or where major titles starting off requiring a subscription-only one succeeded and it still has a cash shop. The reality of the conversation being held in this thread is ESO started off requiring a subscription (with plans to add a cash shop) but could not make it on a subscription-only basis.

That provides the real answer to the question the poll asks.

I also looked up Camelot Unchained. its currently in Beta and they are going for the whole "mandatory subscription and no Cash shop at all"

it is advertised as a sandbox game with the world changing with player actions, focusing on large scale pvp. while apparently its also shipping with the dungeon and it does have discoverable lore... I cannot find any information about their plans for future content. or whether there is a predetermined story, quests, anything like that. it almost sounds like... Fallout 76 before wastelanders but more massive. so.. maybe it IS possible to maintain a game like that on subscription alone. you know, just maintenance mode for the world that was created, relying primarily on emergent gameplay/content from players to keep it interesting.

the question is... how many people are actualy interested in playing a game like that? and is that quite possibly VERY niche income - enough to keep the company going? I suppose we'll find out, once its out.

Again, ESO went for that mandatory subscription and look how long that lasted and ESO is from a much larger IP than Camelot Unchained. Camelot Unchained seems to be suffering from some serious issues and is questionable it will ever go live.

mairwen85

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

The current model works well enough and has a decent coverage of players by their means and what they want. If it was subscription only, I can imagine those subscriptions being sorted into tiers like bronze, silver and gold level with better benefits the higher you're willing to pay--I don't like those models.

Dovakhan

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

Depending of the price. If it's TESO+ ones, then I'd probably have no objections...I pay it anyway :P

Although I do like owning the game and DLC's. That's why I paid them for.

Anyway, I doubt that Zenimax will ever go that way exclusively when they're probably currently making tons of money with both (Game-DLC purchases and ESO+).