GeneralSethman wrote: »

Question is in the title, but I ask because I am curious why a game would include things that could possibly create divisions between players. It seems similar to a class system where some can just buy what they want while others have to work hard for even the little things. Is this a common mmo design? Do I just not see the upside?

I'm new to mmos and it doesn't seem elder scrollsy to let people buy an in-game horse with real world money.

Have you opened the crown store? The only things in it are cosmetics and ways to save time. There is no hard work involved in grinding motifs or leveling your mounts.

As for ESO Plus, it's a 10% bonus to XP. It's basically negligible.

They need to make money somehow

Common it is getting there. Yet all the great MMO's in the past were better only going with subs.

F2P = Free to play, (Ragnarok Online, PSO2, and recently SWTOR and Star Trek online)

B2P = Buy to play, i.e. purchase the game and then play it online with little or no need for further expenditures. (Guild Wars 1/2, Defiance, and Diablo 3 while not strictly an MMO it does use a model similar to this.)

Sub = Monthly or yearly subscription model which has been the standard for most MMO's since the genres inception.

If you look at the BIG games then Sub is the way to go, WoW and the Final Fantasy games.

I always looked at F2P more like a casino so am happy ZoS at least went with the B2P option. not saying it was the best choice. But better than F2P.

ESO Plus is in no way creating divisions in the player base. It's purely cosmetic or time simple time savers. There is a big difference to what ESO offers and Buy to Win or Micro-transactions. I for one love the route ESO has taken.Take DCUO, who went straight to F2P with an optional subscription. Sure they're game was F2P and yeah the first 1-30 character levels were fun, but anything after that you HAVE to have a subscription or atleast buy a month or two of it every now and then.

For one example DCUO F2P model would limit the amount of cash you could hold to a max of 1000 (I believe, its been awhile) and to do anything late game to even just repair your gear would cost WAY more then that, meaning you pretty much had to buy a subscription. And after awhile it became very apparent that they weren't truly F2P and were still a subscription based service that also offered minor Buy to Win micro transactions. I loved DCUP but I really wish they would've just stuck with the subscription model or went B2P.

Either way, ESO:TU is the best model and games in the future will surely follow suit

GeneralSethman wrote: »

Question is in the title, but I ask because I am curious why a game would include things that could possibly create divisions between players. It seems similar to a class system where some can just buy what they want while others have to work hard for even the little things. Is this a common mmo design? Do I just not see the upside?

I'm new to mmos and it doesn't seem elder scrollsy to let people buy an in-game horse with real world money.

There is no upside. The principle behind ESO+ and cash shop is markedly similar to corruption: they take money from few in exchange for doing favours for them and hurt many in the process, subverting the whole structure that keeps them in place to begin with, be it state, an organization or a game.

ESO suffered from a lot of bad publicity at launch of the PC version, which pushed back the launch of the console version and I think doomed the subscription model. This new model is their way of adapting to their financial circumstances. Also, like others said, console folks already pay a fee to play over the Internet. They probably wouldn't be as inclined to play with an added $15/mo subscription. ESO+ and the Crown Store are the best shot that ZOS has of keeping this game around for awhile.

This is the first Crown-based thread that doesn't crap on Zenimax. I like this thread.

But yeah, I view it like Jayce does. I love Bethesda and Zenimax, and I enjoy the cosmetic based cash shop.