By going B2P ESO has REALLY increased their competition

daneyulebub17_ESO · January 2015

I agree it's all about the consoles. That's been there plan from day one--they weren't willing to try to get console players to pay both for their console network and an extra sub and buy a box. It WOULD have drastically reduced their market.

Because of the consoles, we've had not only B2P foisted on us, but a game with a (wink) "minimalist" UI suited for consoles, and one must assume a huge amount of their development has been "under the radar" as they build up for the big console release. Imagine what this game could have been had they focused their energies on a great game over the last 6 months instead of secretively putting in the cash store and console features--I'm sure a lot of features and improvements are so dependent on the console/cash store they haven't released them yet. Lucky us.

I think the console release, sadly, will be hugely successful at first. They'll likely get a lot of eager consolers and casuals jumping in. What I HOPE happens in 6 months or so, though, is these same console players aren't going to produce enough "whales" or people willing to buy bling in the cash store, plus a lot will move on to the next big console release, and the game will implode, revenue-wise, after the first year. Then the devs will become more and more desperate, offering worthless DLC and increasingly gaudy, P2W store items until its a sad joke, and a giant blemish on the ES brand. Which is exactly what the producers deserve for their shady, cynical business model.

Gidorick · January 2015

The average console player spends more in cash shops than the average PC player. I think it's less about the whales in the console arena.

And DCUO has proven consoles can provide a larger, more sustainable audience. There's WAAY less MMO competition on consoles. That tendency to move on to the next thing is much greater in the PC market when it comes to MMOs.

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/145482/how-ffxiv-dcuo-might-be-influencing-eso

Edit: all sorts of corrections. I hate typing on my phone. :disagree:

eisberg · January 2015

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@eisberg‌

GW2 numbers I've shown were two years after the initial launch, the percentages I quoted are comparing two quarters unrelated to the launch sales but based mainly on cash shop.

Having anounced an expansion to me is more of a sign of "defeat". They are trying to go back to GW1 style success to compensate for their shop deficiencies.

And the updates are, arguably, small and consequenceless. I know some find them suffiscient (a couple of friends of mine still play actively the game) but when I see the updates from when I was playing and what they have now, it's actually sad.
I also went back to try out GW2 with said friends, and I found that I got spoiled by ESO. The combat hasn't aged well.

Even the developers and NC Soft stated the sales were still doing better than expected, even after over a year after the game released. That is the part that matters the most, it means they are making more profit then they expected, and the investment they are putting into it is justified. The game is hit, not failing at all.

They have been working on the expansion since before the game even launched, and Living Story season 1 and 2 have all been about building to this point for the expansion. They already stated 2 years ago that the living story consisted of two 12 man teams, while everybody else in the 350 employee company were working on other projects, and this expansion was the biggest project they have been working on. They kept it a secret for so long because they learned a long time ago to not talk about plans till there is some concrete information and timeline they know and can share.

The updates in the last year have actually been bigger and better, and more consequential than the updates during season 1.

As far as combat, that is your opinion, and mine differs. I prefer Guild Wars 2 style of combat, ESO reminds me to much of FPS with swords, though I still like it just not as much as GW2. That subject is very much subjective though.

technohic · January 2015

Amsel_McKay wrote: »

I thought that was WOW not EQ next... what a disappointment...

Yeah, they have kind of dumb looking graphics and character models, but its the AI and world interaction I would be more interested in with EQN. Something other than a mob of 3 standing there, waiting for you to get really close and attack with some mixed quantites doing the same thing, 30 meters away and maybe 1 walking back and forth. None of them seeming able to see or even hear all the conflict going on. Or maybe they wander past a dead corpse like its not even there.

Delgent · January 2015

Bloodfang wrote: »

Amsel_McKay wrote: »

I thought that was WOW not EQ next... what a disappointment...

Yeah I've seen the art style a few months ago, I couldn't stop laughing. EQ Next will be aimed at kids just like WoW...

ESO was never a threat to WoW, it was simply aimed at a more mature playerbase. However EQ Next could potentially steal at least half the people from WoW..

My wife and I are both pushing 50, and ESO did take us from WoW. Not that it's going B2P, we're once again giving our monthly sub to WoW. ESO was the first game to get me to cancel my WoW account, and I thought they had me.

We've both played enough F2P and B2P microtransaction games over the years to know that it's not what we enjoy.

I wish ESO the best and am a bit sad I won't be here to see how it evolves, but with work and real life commitments, I tend to only have time to invest in one online game, and I'm choosing the monthly sub game.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · January 2015

@eisberg‌

Sorry, I can't accept to call a hit a game that apparently surprises itself about how much it stills sells boxes and yet is losing revenue. This doesn't make sense. MMO hit games increase revenue non stop by 20-30% a year, not the opposite.

Fair enough about the combat, we all have different tastes and I was just stating my opinion about it. Same for the updates, perhaps I don't expect the same things in updates than you. The only thing noteworthy to me are fractals. I even thought some changes were step backwards.
I must be a harder customer to please than you, let's leave it at that.

For the expansion, I didn't know, but it does make sense, seing how GW was a respectably successful game with its model. As I said, GW2 is well managed, and again, this shows it.

My question is this then, why do you play ESO?
You seem very satisfied with GW2, why waste time with another game? Especially one that, until now, required a sub?

I personally do not play multiple MMOs at the same time. I always have one that is my main game, and I play smaller solo or arena style games for variety on the side.

You did not address my other points. Is it due to lack of time or agreement?

eisberg · January 2015

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@eisberg‌

Sorry, I can't accept to call a hit a game that apparently surprises itself about how much it stills sells boxes and yet is losing revenue. This doesn't make sense. MMO hit games increase revenue non stop by 20-30% a year, not the opposite.

Fair enough about the combat, we all have different tastes and I was just stating my opinion about it. Same for the updates, perhaps I don't expect the same things in updates than you. The only thing noteworthy to me are fractals. I even thought some changes were step backwards.
I must be a harder customer to please than you, let's leave it at that.

For the expansion, I didn't know, but it does make sense, seing how GW was a respectably successful game with its model. As I said, GW2 is well managed, and again, this shows it.

My question is this then, why do you play ESO?
You seem very satisfied with GW2, why waste time with another game? Especially one that, until now, required a sub?

I personally do not play multiple MMOs at the same time. I always have one that is my main game, and I play smaller solo or arena style games for variety on the side.

You did not address my other points. Is it due to lack of time or agreement?

Because NCSoft/Arenanet know more about the MMO market then you do, so they know how to make reasonable expectations. Now days it is extremely rare for an MMO to actually increase, and the ones that do seem to be the ones that released 2004 or before, and WoW and Lineage both saw declines in subscription numbers from their peak in recent years.

Having too much of 1 game is actually a bad thing, no matter how good it is. Sometimes I take breaks playing Guild Wars 2. I get about 10-15 hours per week to play games, and there are times when I want to take a break from Guild Wars 2 since it seems to take up the majority of my time with games and if I want to play something else, I really need to stop playing Guild Wars 2 to leave time for the other games. In the last 29 months with Guild Wars 2, I have probably spent about 20 months of those in the game, the other 9 months is my breaks where I play other games, which have always been single player games.

For ESO, I will probably spend about 5 hours per week in the game, and the other 5-10 hours per week probably in Dragon Age Inquisition and Elite Dangerous. Then we have Pillars of Eternity coming out in a couple of months, that will take time away from Guild Wars 2, and then Witcher 3 a couple of months after that. I might not actually play Guild Wars 2 all that much for the next 6+ months because of PoE, DAI, and Witcher 3, I might get an occasional week in the game though. Now that I think about it, ESO might be forgotten about here in a few months for me, ah well the game only cost me $12 =D

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · January 2015

@eisberg‌

Yes, they know the market well enough to know that they could improve on GW1's formula by having a games that was entirely built around its cash shop and that bypassing the subscription phase they could have people not notice it as much.
The result is that GW2 has great revenue. The devs know what they are doing.
Its greatest limitation is its business model, nothing else prevents it from growing.

Yet how could FFXIV manage to grow? Eve? Dofus? Heck, even Darkfall which is run by truly incompetent fools managed to grow. WoW and, Lineage did lose people, one because it looks like the 90s, and the other because it became a bad game through certain changes. But as long as they were good and becoming better, they grew. How do you think they got so high in the first place?

Sub works, but as I said ,requires to not have publishers planning the subs->b2p->f2p cash grab
It's less common nowadays because when the first WoW clones genuinely failed, they noticed they could make a lot of money quickly out of failure rather than making an honest attempt at success.
Now it's just the thing to do.

I see, we're different kind of gamers. I want to invest myself in a game fo years rather than drop in now and then. Because of its change, ESO will be the MMO I played the least.

eisberg · January 2015

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@eisberg‌

Yes, they know the market well enough to know that they could improve on GW1's formula by having a games that was entirely built around its cash shop and that bypassing the subscription phase they could have people not notice it as much.
The result is that GW2 has great revenue. The devs know what they are doing.
Its greatest limitation is its business model, nothing else prevents it from growing.

Yet how could FFXIV manage to grow? Eve? Dofus? Heck, even Darkfall which is run by truly incompetent fools managed to grow. WoW and, Lineage did lose people, one because it looks like the 90s, and the other because it became a bad game through certain changes. But as long as they were good and becoming better, they grew. How do you think they got so high in the first place?

Sub works, but as I said ,requires to not have publishers planning the subs->b2p->f2p cash grab
It's less common nowadays because when the first WoW clones genuinely failed, they noticed they could make a lot of money quickly out of failure rather than making an honest attempt at success.
Now it's just the thing to do.

I see, we're different kind of gamers. I want to invest myself in a game fo years rather than drop in now and then. Because of its change, ESO will be the MMO I played the least.

FF14, FF11, and Dragon Quest 10 have 1 million subs combined, and FF14 had 2 Million account registrations at one time, with 1.8 million players having 6.7 million characters among them. This shows that FF14 didn't grow, rather it shrinked.

Eve got itself into a great niche, and really the only game that is like it, and doesn't have much competition. ESO is another fantasy game.

Again, it seems like the vast majority of Pay to Play MMOs that have actually seen growth, are the ones released 2004 or before. But for any P2P MMO released after 2004 seem to struggle, especially the AAA ones.

Korah_Eaglecry · January 2015

Arato wrote: »

Samadhi wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

...
I have yet seen an subscription MMO that gave more content for the vast majority of its players (from casual, to people with no life) then Guild Wars 2, not even WoW (2005-2006, not sure about now).
...

It is unfortunate that GW2 is able to do this, but that ESO will not be able to.
The devs have already stated that we will see less frequent content updates under the b2p schedule, and among those updates are things that we had previously been promised for free which were held back in order to charge extra for them.

GW2 may have more content than WoW; WoW may have more content than GW2.
Regardless of how the two compare, the ESO devs have stated that ESO after b2p will have less frequent content updates than ESO had as a sub game.

Suppose it is possible that ESO may increase in update frequency if they find a method of making the cash shop lucrative enough to cover the costs though.

You didn't pay attention to the stream very well.

They said that FEATURE AND BALANCE updates will be less frequent. They did not say CONTENT updates will be less frequent. Basically after they roll out the champion system and justice system, the other major system they want to push is spellcrafting. After that? The core gameplay they feel will be where they want it, so they won't want to constantly rebalance things unless they find that things are severely imbalanced in some way.

They can then release DLC content packs fairly often because they can devote their time to making new zones, new dungeons, new trials, rather than tweaking the balance of classes and progression system overhauls.

I expect their first year under the B2P method to be slow content wise..Theyll be spending this time adjusting to having a Cash Shop competing for attention from the Artistic Devs. After that I think theyll find their groove and start pushing out content more regularly. I think what we will see content wise is Wrothgar, The Imperial City and Murkmire. I expect Imperial City will launch at the same time as Wrothgar or Murkmire, whichever is done first.

Sindala · January 2015

Arato wrote: »

Soulshine wrote: »

@Gidorick‌

At this point, the only "true competition" on this payment model IMHO is the elephant in the room you neatly neglected to mention in your list. At a little over two and a half years of life, they have sold over 3 million copies of the game to date, consistently delivered updates and content as they said they would (check out the post launch development section for an eye full), and without charging people a dime for it. Now set to release it's first expansion, I'd say it remains to be seen if from a business standpoint Zo$ is even remotely able to stay in the same league, let alone genre...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars_2

Meanwhile we here are looking at "renting vs paying" for DLCs....? Not even close.

actually it's over 7 million copies. When they launched in China they about doubled their sales instantly.

Erm, No they didn't.....that's why there is still no Asian server only N/A and Europe (even though we all know this is back in N/A again).
If they sold more than both those in one place it would damb well have it's own server and not have to ping half the globe to connect.

Edit, my bad, thought we were talking about ESO here then....poxy forums missing half the posts.

eisberg · January 2015

Sindala wrote: »

Arato wrote: »

Soulshine wrote: »

@Gidorick‌

At this point, the only "true competition" on this payment model IMHO is the elephant in the room you neatly neglected to mention in your list. At a little over two and a half years of life, they have sold over 3 million copies of the game to date, consistently delivered updates and content as they said they would (check out the post launch development section for an eye full), and without charging people a dime for it. Now set to release it's first expansion, I'd say it remains to be seen if from a business standpoint Zo$ is even remotely able to stay in the same league, let alone genre...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars_2

Meanwhile we here are looking at "renting vs paying" for DLCs....? Not even close.

actually it's over 7 million copies. When they launched in China they about doubled their sales instantly.

Erm, No they didn't.....that's why there is still no Asian server only N/A and Europe (even though we all know this is back in N/A again).
If they sold more than both those in one place it would damb well have it's own server and not have to ping half the globe to connect.

China does have their own servers, but they are not linked to NA/EU server pool. They sold 3.8 Million in China.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-07-10-guild-wars-2-has-sold-3-8m-in-china

It is ran by another company out there, and not NC Soft. This other company pays royalties to NC Soft, so when NC Soft has their quarterly earning reports, all revenue from GW2 China goes under Royalty sales, and not under Guild War 2 sales.

This is how it works for all MMOs in China, every MMO in China is ran by a chinese company that pays royalties to non chinese companies. It is this way because of Chinese laws. The same thing for WoW, which is why you cannot play on a chinese server.

Gidorick · January 2015

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

Arato wrote: »

Samadhi wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

...
I have yet seen an subscription MMO that gave more content for the vast majority of its players (from casual, to people with no life) then Guild Wars 2, not even WoW (2005-2006, not sure about now).
...

It is unfortunate that GW2 is able to do this, but that ESO will not be able to.
The devs have already stated that we will see less frequent content updates under the b2p schedule, and among those updates are things that we had previously been promised for free which were held back in order to charge extra for them.

GW2 may have more content than WoW; WoW may have more content than GW2.
Regardless of how the two compare, the ESO devs have stated that ESO after b2p will have less frequent content updates than ESO had as a sub game.

Suppose it is possible that ESO may increase in update frequency if they find a method of making the cash shop lucrative enough to cover the costs though.

You didn't pay attention to the stream very well.

They said that FEATURE AND BALANCE updates will be less frequent. They did not say CONTENT updates will be less frequent. Basically after they roll out the champion system and justice system, the other major system they want to push is spellcrafting. After that? The core gameplay they feel will be where they want it, so they won't want to constantly rebalance things unless they find that things are severely imbalanced in some way.

They can then release DLC content packs fairly often because they can devote their time to making new zones, new dungeons, new trials, rather than tweaking the balance of classes and progression system overhauls.

I expect their first year under the B2P method to be slow content wise..Theyll be spending this time adjusting to having a Cash Shop competing for attention from the Artistic Devs. After that I think theyll find their groove and start pushing out content more regularly. I think what we will see content wise is Wrothgar, The Imperial City and Murkmire. I expect Imperial City will launch at the same time as Wrothgar or Murkmire, whichever is done first.

So that's TWO years we will have to support a "promise"? Bummer.

Woolenthreads · January 2015

Gidorick wrote: »

Games with similar "themes" as ESO

Everquest Next

Looks very nice if a bit "toony", has an existing background and history.

Gidorick wrote: »

Shroud of the Avatar

Kickstartered it so I guess I support it

. I haven't kept up with the dev emails.

Gidorick wrote: »

Black Desert Online

Looks good.

Gidorick wrote: »

And one that looks a LOT like ESO Stylistically... Bless

nice

Gidorick wrote: »

And then there's the Sci-Fi MMOS

Skyforge:

Seen the blurb, meh

Gidorick wrote: »

Star Citizen

Kickstartered it

. They've decided pretty though very high graphics is the way to go. IMHO they're making a huge mistake making an MMO style game need a very high end computer.

Gidorick wrote: »

The Repopulation

hmmm....

Gidorick wrote: »

And as simple as it looks... Firefly Online

Cowboys in Space! Woot.

Gidorick wrote: »

Here's to hoping this new revenue model will allow ESO to become the MMO that so many of us believed it could be, and still believe it can be.

My actual issue with B2P is that with a subscription I had incentive to keep exploring, even with other games to play. Without it, I walk away to do other things and come back when the urge hits to play for an hour or two then go do other things/games again.

The four things that brought me to ESO and kept me playing were being hassled by a friend

, FP view, rpg-style and background history.

Exarch · January 2015

Gidorick wrote: »

Players that subscribed not only felt a sense of ownership and pride, they also felt a sense of belonging and kinship because the people they were playing with had also made that commitment.

I can't say I ever felt anything of the kind. I enjoy playing ESO, and don't mind paying the fee to have access, but that fee does not evoke positive feelings, nor imbue the game with any additional virtue; renting a car does not give me a sense of kinship with everyone else who rents that model of car.

grimjim398 · January 2015

Arato wrote: »

You felt PRIDE over buying a game and subbing?

Don't be ridiculous.

Only thing I felt from paying my sub every month is an OBLIGATION to play the game, even if I didn't feel like it at the time, because I'm spending money on it.

I also felt like I was being hustled, because even if I buy things in GW2's gem store, I spend less than $15 a month (maybe $10 every other month or so), and I spend way more hours in GW2, plus whatever I bought in the GW2 gem store, I get to use, like, a new outfit/cosmetic armor set, or a new infinite use mining pick or a new mini pet, etc, all while I got to log in and play for no cost at all.

Here I fork over more money, and get nothing to show for it. Why?

Because here at ESO they announced they're going to turn the entire character progression system on its head.. so I didn't want to get too invested into the Veteran Rank system only for it to change so drastically on me.

I'm glad the system is going to change and I can't wait to get back to playing regularly, but feeling PRIDE at being hustled every month for a subscription?

Give me a break.

B2P is an infinitely better system than Subscription.

I'm actually excited for the B2P switch. Most of my favorite online RPG's have been B2P, not subscription.

Diablo 2, Diablo 3, Guild Wars, and Guild Wars 2. All provided thousands of hours of entertainment without a subscription at reasonable costs.

Meanwhile I shudder to think about how much money I spent on playing WoW for 2 years. LotRO is kind of a mix because I got a lifetime account and in the long run it more than paid for itself.

Feeling pride and exclusivity about being hoodwinked... now I've heard everything.

So you don't pay a cable subscription, or a fee every month for your phone? Right. Subscriptions are fees for regular service provided, nothing more or less. It's all a hustle. You get what you pay for. You're just another kind of sucker. I'd gladly have paid this very cheap subscription price in order to be involved with a committed bunch of players like I was involved with when I played Eve Online. It makes a real difference both to the developer and the players if there is a long term vision to back up what you're buying for the monthly fee. I hoped for the same thing here but that's not going to happen. But I won't buy your line of crap. I'm an adult, I can pay for the services I choose, and I'm not being hoodwinked when I do. So bray all you want about the savvy free-to-pay crowd, because we know what kind of animal brays.

rawne1980b16_ESO · January 2015

I'm waiting for a few of those MMO's (and No Man's Sky because it looks fantastic) but I already own The Repopulation, it's pretty decent.

Buy to play here works out better for me.

I don't play one game for long periods. I was here during beta and 2 months after launch and then left. I came back yesterday for a month and then i'll be off again.

Makes it much easier to have it sat there and I can pop on whenever without having to set up and cancel my sub.

Bit of a selfish reason but ahh well.

Exarch wrote: »

Gidorick wrote: »

Players that subscribed not only felt a sense of ownership and pride, they also felt a sense of belonging and kinship because the people they were playing with had also made that commitment.

I can't say I ever felt anything of the kind. I enjoy playing ESO, and don't mind paying the fee to have access, but that fee does not evoke positive feelings, nor imbue the game with any additional virtue; renting a car does not give me a sense of kinship with everyone else who rents that model of car.

Have to agree here.

When I sub to a game, or jump in with a pre order like I did here, I don't feel any personal connections. I certainly don't feel any "kinship" with people purely because we happen to be playing the same game.

Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy it when i'm playing but that's it. I play for my own enjoyment.

Soulshine · January 2015

I find it rather amazing that there is agreement this change in payment models is "all about the consoles" yet no connection is being made to the fact they have been planning to launch the game on that platform from inception and delayed that date by one full year. Am I supposed to buy that they just now magically realized that a sub model is not going to be good for console players? Come on...

The fact it launched first on PC with very vehement argumentation from ZoS in media and promos defending their reasons for the subsritpion model as the only way they could go for their development goals, at this point just smacks of the worst kind of sham and hypocrisy.

LuxLunae · January 2015

Star Citizen will be the biggest let down if not worse since... well... you know...

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · January 2015

eisberg wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@eisberg‌

Yes, they know the market well enough to know that they could improve on GW1's formula by having a games that was entirely built around its cash shop and that bypassing the subscription phase they could have people not notice it as much.
The result is that GW2 has great revenue. The devs know what they are doing.
Its greatest limitation is its business model, nothing else prevents it from growing.

Yet how could FFXIV manage to grow? Eve? Dofus? Heck, even Darkfall which is run by truly incompetent fools managed to grow. WoW and, Lineage did lose people, one because it looks like the 90s, and the other because it became a bad game through certain changes. But as long as they were good and becoming better, they grew. How do you think they got so high in the first place?

Sub works, but as I said ,requires to not have publishers planning the subs->b2p->f2p cash grab
It's less common nowadays because when the first WoW clones genuinely failed, they noticed they could make a lot of money quickly out of failure rather than making an honest attempt at success.
Now it's just the thing to do.

I see, we're different kind of gamers. I want to invest myself in a game fo years rather than drop in now and then. Because of its change, ESO will be the MMO I played the least.

FF14, FF11, and Dragon Quest 10 have 1 million subs combined, and FF14 had 2 Million account registrations at one time, with 1.8 million players having 6.7 million characters among them. This shows that FF14 didn't grow, rather it shrinked.

Eve got itself into a great niche, and really the only game that is like it, and doesn't have much competition. ESO is another fantasy game.

Again, it seems like the vast majority of Pay to Play MMOs that have actually seen growth, are the ones released 2004 or before. But for any P2P MMO released after 2004 seem to struggle, especially the AAA ones.

Maybe it's because I lose it in wall of texts each time, but I've addressed what you're saying multiple times and you've never really responded to it.

Those games are not switching due to failure nor to make more revenue.
It's their planned lifecycle for short term gains.

WoW does not impact negatively the MMO market, it actually expanded it and made the genre more socially acceptable.
Most of its susbcribers are not MMO players, they are WoW players that got into it for cultural reasons, not because it is the kind of game they are naturaly interested in.

What you see since 2004 is a change in business practices.
It took only a couple games for business men to realise that wow clones aren't gonna work. However, they sell a LOT initially and they get 2-3 months of extra subscription making them essentially selling 2 games to 1 person.
They then noticed that with f2p, they can have essentially a second launch, with those that wouldn't pay the first price and that under the cover of f2p they got money they wouldn't have had access to otherwise.

It was never the intention for most AAA games to be subscription based.
They are created as single games that can, be sold 2-3 times in a row because people are suckers.

The games created before 2004 are games that were made with a different strategy. They were meant to be long term cash cows, and that's what they are.
They make more revenue that way, that's why they didn't change model. If there was actually more revenue to be made as f2p, they would all have changed.

Their model was not damaged by the dozens of f2p games released since because those that play f2p never were their target. As people get disgusted by f2p practices, they get more and more interested in subscription games.

And that's exactly where ESO came in.
As a subscription based offering, despite being fantasy, it had very little competition. It had that niche of being a game players could rely on improving and getting better.
They advertised it pretty strongly pre launch and people bought into it.
They've just ruined it for them and for any other game that will come next that is actually being honest about wanting to fill this role.

Nihil · January 2015

Soulshine wrote: »

I find it rather amazing that there is agreement this change in payment models is "all about the consoles" yet no connection is being made to the fact they have been planning to launch the game on that platform from inception and delayed that date by one full year. Am I supposed to buy that they just now magically realized that a sub model is not going to be good for console players? Come on...

The fact it launched first on PC with very vehement argumentation from ZoS in media and promos defending their reasons for the subsritpion model as the only way they could go for their development goals, at this point just smacks of the worst kind of sham and hypocrisy.

Actually based on what they said in the media might be the reason why they are switching to a B2P format. The council release was originally planed for 2 months after the game was initially launched, due to what ever reason it has now been pushed back an entire year. This could mean that they had found that it is a lot harder to translate updates from the PC to the xbox and PS. In one of their statements about the subscription (if I remember correctly) they stated that they are able to support the P2P model due to having frequent updates (aiming for 4-6 weeks between updates). If they found they can no longer keep up that time frame (as they said updates will slow due to the council and trying to get updates on all platforms at the same time) they might of decided that it would be best to do a different payment method to work with the slower pace they now will be going at (all theory but in my head it sounds sound).

With that, council release also eliminates some of the competition, persay, from the MMO market (for console), they truly have one competitor on consoles and that is FFIV. By going a B2P format they have set them selves apart from it.

Now I am personally on the fence about the change as I am waiting to see what they all add to the Crown store. If they keep the benefits to what Plus members have and don't allow them to stack, and what you can get from the imperial edition. And then if they just have sub par potions / consumables, and leave it to expansions / cosmetics, I will be fine with it. To me it would be basically a subscription game with the option to play a water down version (which you can upgrade) if you don't want to / have the money to invest at that moment.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · January 2015

@Nihil‌
It took me longer than it should have, but I was wondering which council yo uwere talking about.

I doubt that the update schedule is a motivation for going b2p either. @Soulshine‌ is right in his assessement.
DLCs and shop items are updates too and they are certainely going to release them more often than every 4 to 6 weeks.

You are right though when you say that going on console increases their potential market by a lot. But the b2p format gives them no advantage there.
Keep in mind that FF14 managed in a year to gain 1M susbcriptions thanks to being released on playstation only.

Even if ESO managed just a fraction of this, in addition to its PC subscription base, it would do very well. And it will be releasing on two consoles rather than only one. Xbox users would have paid the sub, despite the xbox live requirement, as it doesn't have FF to compete with on that market.

The problem with the b2p switch is that they've already advertised p2w items. We also know they will hold back on gameplay mechanics in favor of content.
The game won't be the same, it will lose quality or at best stagnate forever.

Instead, the subscription model encourages devs to improve their game because players will subscribe if they like the direction the game is taking.
Just look at how the mere hype of 1.6 brought back subscribers.
Steam stats show a double of active players since the livestream with all the details about 1.6.

Nihil · January 2015

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Nihil‌
It took me longer than it should have, but I was wondering which council yo uwere talking about.

I doubt that the update schedule is a motivation for going b2p either. @Soulshine‌ is right in his assessement.
DLCs and shop items are updates too and they are certainely going to release them more often than every 4 to 6 weeks.

You are right though when you say that going on console increases their potential market by a lot. But the b2p format gives them no advantage there.
Keep in mind that FF14 managed in a year to gain 1M susbcriptions thanks to being released on playstation only.

Even if ESO managed just a fraction of this, in addition to its PC subscription base, it would do very well. And it will be releasing on two consoles rather than only one. Xbox users would have paid the sub, despite the xbox live requirement, as it doesn't have FF to compete with on that market.

The problem with the b2p switch is that they've already advertised p2w items. We also know they will hold back on gameplay mechanics in favor of content.
The game won't be the same, it will lose quality or at best stagnate forever.

Instead, the subscription model encourages devs to improve their game because players will subscribe if they like the direction the game is taking.
Just look at how the mere hype of 1.6 brought back subscribers.
Steam stats show a double of active players since the livestream with all the details about 1.6.

lol sorry about that, that would just be my horrible spelling and not paying attention to it while trying to type fast.

I am not saying the update schedule is 100 % reason, but trying to show that due to their media announcement they made when ESO was announced as a P2P game, which they tied to frequency of updates, it could be part of the decision to do away with p2p. I personally think it has many facets that has been considered first. I had originally assumed that the game would introduce some form of cash shop (beyond selling the plushies / figurines to get pets) way before they switched business models, as even p2p games are coming out with those already in game at launch.

It does give some advantage in increased base sales and more players possible dipping into the store to buy their goods. FF is doing well by the sounds of it, but it doesn't mean that ESO would of done just fine following the same model (I personally think it could of but trying to keep an open mind). I might have to give FF a second shot if it is doing well... the combat just bore me after coming from Tera XD.

I haven't personally heard of p2w items, the main things I have heard about is the potions (weaker then crafting), dlc later on and cosmetics (obviously they will also release some exp buffs / gold buffs but if they don't go over what subscribers can get with plus and won't stack with that I personally don't consider that p2w). I again haven't looked into their shop enough, the times I tried to watch ESO live I for some reason wasn't able to view it.

I am personally all for subscription over other payment models, I think it encourages developers to invest more into their game and care more for it like a living breathing entity. I have some hope for ESO still as they have yet to cave in in some regards. They declined putting real life holidays into the game to stay with in lore, and stayed mostly away from a cash shop up to this point. They have shown me that they can listen to players request, but won't always cave in even when people yell loudly on the forums. This is more then what I can say about other games I have played extensively that were p2p before they went f2p. It all will come down to how they care for the game in the coming months.

rawne1980b16_ESO · January 2015

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Instead, the subscription model encourages devs to improve their game because players will subscribe if they like the direction the game is taking.
Just look at how the mere hype of 1.6 brought back subscribers.
Steam stats show a double of active players since the livestream with all the details about 1.6.

The problem is the subscription model hasn't been a reliable long term financial route.

Devs don't do things like this on a knee jerk reaction. If things aren't doing as well as they need it to then they need to change things to improve the financial side of things.

People can debate it all they want but the fact of it is they need to make money to survive. Obviously the sub model isn't going to do that for them.

There are a lot of PC players that hate paying a subscription, it will bring them back.

Console players already pay a subscription for Xbox Live or PS+ as well as their monthly internet fee. That would be 2 subscriptions you're asking them to pay and I don;t think that would have been as successful as you seem to think it would.

daneyulebub17_ESO · January 2015

So, pick your poison:

1. All about the consoles--ZOS used the pc players in a evil ploy to fund a game that, from the start, was B2P bound and console focused

2. Greed - The game was doing fine sub wise, but ZOS in an evil ploy to make more money and a quick ROI, changed models to a cash store one at the expense of the long term quality of the game and ES franchise.

3. The game was bleeding financially due to a bad roll out and mismanagement by ZOS and had to go with this model to salvage something, while evilly touting the change as due to player demand.

The only consistent thing I get from all this is... ZOS is evil.

Good luck with those no "Pay to Win" promises!

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · January 2015

@Nihil‌
They've announced that the Thieves Guild and the Darkbrotherhood will both be DLCs. So that means skill lines are on the shop. That's clearly p2w.
They also said that there will be boosters in the cash shop. Not everyone realize it but this is p2w too.

They also said "we have no plan to include gear on the cash shop".
This is a bad sign, because we know them to not hold true to promises, so wording something like this means that they are leaving it open.

I actually would not have minded a cosmetic shop being released.
It can be a slipery road if too many artists are assigned on it, and costumes can give a small edge in PvP, but the costumes they've shown in the stream are cool.
the alternative mounts skin are okay as well. But that's the limit.
i'm all for companies gaining revenue as long as it doesn't impact the quality of the game experience.

And finally, yes it may mean a bit more sales. It certainly means that a good deal of players that were in at launch will be back now.
But the amount of players doesn't equate to revenue gains.
For instance, LOL has 67M players, WoW has something like 7M susbcribers. LOL only makes 20% more revenue.
Another example, DOTA 2 has 7 or 8 times more players than FFXiV, yet they both have the same revenue.

Will ESO be able to maintain that kind of ratio? And are f2p mmorpg players as spending as moba players?

First question: If we were to assume ESO now has 300k subscribers on PC, it will need to maintain 2.1M active players on PC to compensate the loss of subscriptions.
For the record, swtor can barely reach 1.2m actives, and that's a free Star Wars game that even non mmo players know about.

Second question: An average of all f2p games is that only 2.2% of f2p players actually pay anything. And 46% of revenue hinges on 0.22% of the playerbase. Those stats include mobile games, bu they are an indication that more players isn't necessarily better.

Whether ESO is doing good or badly now, it will be doing worse as b2p.

@rawne1980b16_ESO‌
A lot of what I've said above applies to your comment too.

And as an addition, do you sincerely look at your internet fee as part of your mmo subscription?

I doubt it, you most likely have it already for other things and playing an MMO just makes it be even more useful to you.
It's just the same for console players and their xbox live or psn account. Most already have it to play COD with their friends. Playing an MMO makes it even worth it.

And this is most likely not a kneejerk reaction from the dev but an executive strategy. It's the trend for a few years now to "fail" on purpose. It means they can create multiple waves of locust swarm, each with lower standards, and get money from all the population faster.
Pretty much like they do with normal games and lowering their price or doing steam sales on them.
Thing is, this is a short term strategy to move on to other projects because they do'nt want to bother with the long run. However, the long run of a subscription model would net them much much much more money.

Just look at Eve Online and how their MMO enabled them to fail two other massive game projects without even feeling an heat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_cow

Soulshine · January 2015

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Instead, the subscription model encourages devs to improve their game because players will subscribe if they like the direction the game is taking.
Just look at how the mere hype of 1.6 brought back subscribers.
Steam stats show a double of active players since the livestream with all the details about 1.6.

The problem is the subscription model hasn't been a reliable long term financial route.

Devs don't do things like this on a knee jerk reaction. If things aren't doing as well as they need it to then they need to change things to improve the financial side of things.

People can debate it all they want but the fact of it is they need to make money to survive. Obviously the sub model isn't going to do that for them.

There are a lot of PC players that hate paying a subscription, it will bring them back.

Console players already pay a subscription for Xbox Live or PS+ as well as their monthly internet fee. That would be 2 subscriptions you're asking them to pay and I don;t think that would have been as successful as you seem to think it would.

Bolded bottom for emphasis on the following: people seem to have very short memories. They have known this all along about console players just as they had planned all along to launch it on console.

I have followed this game since earliest stages of coverage in media of it's development. You didn't hear them offering up any apologies to console players for the prospect of charging a sub fee when they said it would launch June 2014 on sub model did you? No you did not. They just stuck to their guns about why the sub model was what they were doing whether people approved or not and that they had no intention whatever to change it as it did not fit their development plans. Plans, eh?

And what have they done with those plans? Delayed the console launch by a year to the date of the original, all the while without meeting the content delivery schedule for PC they promoted themselves as providing. One cannot put the cart before the horse - but they did; we have been the cart. They are now feeding the horse. We'll see just how far it's willing to travel in the end if the road is not what they are promising.

rawne1980b16_ESO · January 2015

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@rawne1980b16_ESO‌
A lot of what I've said above applies to your comment too.

And as an addition, do you sincerely look at your internet fee as part of your mmo subscription?

No because I pay my internet fee then a subscription.

I don't pay my internet fee, a subscription to use my PC online and then a subscription for a game.

I wouldn't. Why, oh why, would I pay 2 subscriptions on top of my internet fee just to play one game?

There are more and more MMO's moving on to console now which don't charge a subscription.

The people making these decisions have a lot more insider knowledge on what's going on than you do. You saying a subscription only model will bring them more money is obviously a lie or that's what they would be doing.

They have a lot more insight on what's going on than you do so i'm going to take it that they know what they are doing.

I'd much rather accept their decisions than trust major business choices to random forum goers. At least that way they have a chance of staying in business. Keeping an obviously flagging subscription on model would lose them potential income.

No matter how much people say the subscription model is working, the choices ZOS are making show otherwise. We have zero facts on their income or subscriber numbers and whether it's viable to keep or not. All you have is guesswork and the people that have been in the business for years are hardly likely to leave that business in the hands of random forum goers.

Korah_Eaglecry · January 2015

Gidorick wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

Arato wrote: »

Samadhi wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

...
I have yet seen an subscription MMO that gave more content for the vast majority of its players (from casual, to people with no life) then Guild Wars 2, not even WoW (2005-2006, not sure about now).
...

It is unfortunate that GW2 is able to do this, but that ESO will not be able to.
The devs have already stated that we will see less frequent content updates under the b2p schedule, and among those updates are things that we had previously been promised for free which were held back in order to charge extra for them.

GW2 may have more content than WoW; WoW may have more content than GW2.
Regardless of how the two compare, the ESO devs have stated that ESO after b2p will have less frequent content updates than ESO had as a sub game.

Suppose it is possible that ESO may increase in update frequency if they find a method of making the cash shop lucrative enough to cover the costs though.

You didn't pay attention to the stream very well.

They said that FEATURE AND BALANCE updates will be less frequent. They did not say CONTENT updates will be less frequent. Basically after they roll out the champion system and justice system, the other major system they want to push is spellcrafting. After that? The core gameplay they feel will be where they want it, so they won't want to constantly rebalance things unless they find that things are severely imbalanced in some way.

They can then release DLC content packs fairly often because they can devote their time to making new zones, new dungeons, new trials, rather than tweaking the balance of classes and progression system overhauls.

I expect their first year under the B2P method to be slow content wise..Theyll be spending this time adjusting to having a Cash Shop competing for attention from the Artistic Devs. After that I think theyll find their groove and start pushing out content more regularly. I think what we will see content wise is Wrothgar, The Imperial City and Murkmire. I expect Imperial City will launch at the same time as Wrothgar or Murkmire, whichever is done first.

So that's TWO years we will have to support a "promise"? Bummer.

You know...You dont get to pick and choose what counts as content right? ZOS has pushed plenty to the Live Servers over this last year. You should be glad they spent any time at all balancing the game since many companies give up on balance and leave it as the mess it launched in.

The Champion System might not be 'content' as in quests but its going to actually give players something to do with their time besides trying to beat a timer.

Same with the Justice System. Its not content per say. But its definitely going to affect how you play this game. No longer are you going to be able to run up and just grab things. And you arent going to be able to turn it around and sell it to any old vendor either.

You can call your monthly sub whatever you like. But you got what you paid for. The Box told you exactly what you were getting, the ads didnt mislead you as to what was waiting for you in game, and your sub was YOUR choice. You didnt have to stick around for another year. Now its not like they arent trying to say thank you. From Loyalty Rewards to adding a stipend with boosts. You can be unhappy with it if you like. But its coming one way or another....And if you dont get off the train while you can. Then you arent that damn upset after all.

Nihil · January 2015

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO
the news about Darkbrother hood and thieves guild is disheartening as 2 skill lines can have a drastic advantage over other players so that I am disappointed about. But will that really be considered P2W? There needs to be incentive to buy DLC, specially if the DLC is going to replace them ever making expansions (hoping for no expansions and just DLC). This would be like players being upset in Destiny that they can't obtain raid gear by not buying the raid pack. I would of personally preferred to see these as non DLC systems, as it has been a huge expectation from before launch.

First I will reiterate I prefer subscription, I think it is a better model for payment and tend to get annoyed when games switch to F2P/ B2P mainly because the focus does tend to go towards gutting the player (and game) and try to encourage them to buy with real life money to participate in RNG (keys/locked box). I understand that numbers of players is not any sort of indication of revenue for a company. If they stick with releasing content regularly I do think it could work out for them, this is the payment model that players who came from Skyrim are use to. They can buy the game and just continue to buy the DLC as it is released and they want to try it, they could come back a year from now notice all these new areas and buy them all at once. The audience they are trying to sell it too could very well be more suited to the DLC then the subscription model, and for all business they need to look at their target market.

I personally feel annoyed with the change, and would of preferred if they stuck with the subscription model, but I also don't have the figures they do, I can't see the active accounts that are currently being played. I don't see the players leaving, nor do I see how many players are coming back. More then paying a subscription (which I will stay a plus member while I play), I want to see this game thrive.