ZOS: When does the 6 month subscription return?

bellanca6561n

Weberda wrote: »

wenxue2222b16_ESO wrote: »

I thought Zenimax and Bethsoft were private companies and didn't have to answer to shareholders in the same way? Sure I recall someone saying that.

It is a private holding but they have investors that need to see a ROI which makes them akin to shareholders in a public company.

In some senses, but the levels of required disclosure under law are QUITE different....as in much many fewer

The fuss here is simply another case of their needing to learn the communication needs of this genre and this medium...as in there being MANY more than in single player games.

I believe they are learning. It's an earnest group of people, particularly in development, support and community management. Changes like this, though, get handed down from elsewhere to front line folks, often with no explanation at all.

Hence they often lack the tools they need to communicate with us, and still look professional to their employers.

Artis

Sounds like they just want more money. The excuse about "players choosing 1 and 3 months subs" is ridiculous.

One of two.
1. There're not many players left and they are trying to raise sub (that's what they do basically) in order to keep the game afloat longer and not go F2P. That is probable because come on is there anyone in your faction leaderboard who you haven't seen? They were promising us a megaserver and mirrors.. And if the player base was at least 10k players, what are the chances that all the players that are on the leaderboard are on my mirror? And I've seen or even ran with every single one of them! How would that be possible if we had 1 million players? I don't know how things are on EU servers and in NA AD, EP, but NA DC seems to be very low-populated and have only one "mirror".
2. They just want more money. As simple as that.

zaria

Ethona wrote: »

Folks, I highly doubt this game would go Free to Play. However, It may go Buy to Play, which is a fair and widely used model for consoles. B2P still would mean a great game, that just so happens to be fair to consoles, and a bit more enticing to new players, while bringing in a good profit. I don't own any consoles, and I'm OK with paying a sub, and I'm also OK with B2P option as well. If the game gains a B2P option than you'd probably see a 20 dollar price tag every 4 months for a new ZONE + the dungeons, trials, and content that would come with it. I do not trust a thing ZOS say anymore, but sure there's a little side of me that would like a B2P option. Anyways, we all will know in 2 or 3 months.

B2P dont make sense on an mmo, only one who use it is GW2 who has few updates and moving towards F2P

F2P don't make sense in current setting before console release.

Alternative explanation is that resubs from 6 month is far lower than 3.
Remember its an recurring payment who runs if you have money and dont cancel. The 6 month might be above an its expensive threshold for more

criscal

The scenario I expect now is that the console start is less than 3-4 months away. Any f2p announcement before selling the console version would be bad news, so it is postponed to 2-3 months after console start. So the plan might look like that: cancel the 6 months subscription for more flexibility on business model, bring out the console version and cash in the development costs at least. The hardware is probably not going to be stocked up for console to hedge the investment. The Resources I.e.phases and helpdesk will be allocated mostly to console players. Pc players won't be able to tell anyway whether the lag is due to less resources or more players using the resources. The next step in the scenario depend on the player numbers after the first month of sales of the console version. If the numbers are unexpectedly high, there won't be f2p. If the numbers are low, the game will be f2p and more pets and hats will be sold.

criscal

lordrichter wrote: »

criscal wrote: »

Well, nothing new to add. Just stating that only a very high ranking company representative's statement would stop the f2p rumours now. Everybody not wanting f2p should quit now and only subscribe again after 6+ months or said statement. I like the game currently and will continue playing it as long as I like it.

Yes, because the one thing that will teach them that they should stick with the subscription model is for everyone to drop their subscriptions.

Sheesh.

I haven't cancelled my subscription here yet, but I expect like with 99% of the online services, that you can submit a reason for cancelling and that would be the teaching part, you flamer. Something like "I don't want to waste my time with a game that it going f2p soon anyway"

DDuke

This game going F2P or B2P -> Zenimax Media joins EA & Ubisoft in my boycott list

That much I know for sure

AshySamurai

Gidorick wrote: »

AshySamurai wrote: »

Gidorick wrote: »

The 6 month subscription offered a discount of like 2 bucks per month. They're doing to it get that extra 6 bucks. I want to know if I'm signed up for 6 months, can I continue paying my $70 for 6 months?

12 bucks. (2×6=12 )

LOL. yea... I wasn't quite clear. I thought someone might think my math was janky. Let me clarify:

We get $1 off per month for paying in 3 month chunks... $2 off per month for paying in $6 months chunks... so if I pay one time for 6 months (12X6) it's $72. If I pay in two 3 month chunks for those 6 months (13X6) it's $78.

$78-$72 = $6.

it's an extra $6 over the maximum discount we can get now paying 3 months at a time.

Oh, now I get it. My bad ^^

LtCrunch

\

Sindala wrote: »

Guppet wrote: »

RazielSR wrote: »

What if it have to do with console release in 6 months more or less and the game going to be by obligation f2p to be released in consoles?

Why does it have to be free to play on consoles? Modern console players that play online already understand about pay subscriptions.

You would effectively have to pay 3 times to play the game.
Once for your Internet provider,
once to sony/xbox for their internet connection and
one to Zenimax to play the game.

Would you really do that for a game a year old that your probably at VR14 on the PC anyway??
Plus they are trying to grab console players who normally only buy the game once then play it thru.
This type of MMO is pretty new to consoles (don't quote ff14 as that's not a western MMO) and to entice people things have to be free not come with a $15 per month price tag (just a guess).

Except Sony said long ago that a PS+ subscription would not be required to play ESO. So for those on Playstation it won't be any different than what we already pay on PC.

Sindala

Brandalf wrote: »

\

Sindala wrote: »

Guppet wrote: »

RazielSR wrote: »

What if it have to do with console release in 6 months more or less and the game going to be by obligation f2p to be released in consoles?

Why does it have to be free to play on consoles? Modern console players that play online already understand about pay subscriptions.

You would effectively have to pay 3 times to play the game.
Once for your Internet provider,
once to sony/xbox for their internet connection and
one to Zenimax to play the game.

Would you really do that for a game a year old that your probably at VR14 on the PC anyway??
Plus they are trying to grab console players who normally only buy the game once then play it thru.
This type of MMO is pretty new to consoles (don't quote ff14 as that's not a western MMO) and to entice people things have to be free not come with a $15 per month price tag (just a guess).

Except Sony said long ago that a PS+ subscription would not be required to play ESO. So for those on Playstation it won't be any different than what we already pay on PC.

I'd like to see that quote.....Sony giving stuff for free??? what's next, good customer service from EA?? lol

Nazon_Katts

criscal wrote: »

The scenario I expect now is that the console start is less than 3-4 months away. Any f2p announcement before selling the console version would be bad news, so it is postponed to 2-3 months after console start. So the plan might look like that: cancel the 6 months subscription for more flexibility on business model, bring out the console version and cash in the development costs at least. The hardware is probably not going to be stocked up for console to hedge the investment. The Resources I.e.phases and helpdesk will be allocated mostly to console players. Pc players won't be able to tell anyway whether the lag is due to less resources or more players using the resources. The next step in the scenario depend on the player numbers after the first month of sales of the console version. If the numbers are unexpectedly high, there won't be f2p. If the numbers are low, the game will be f2p and more pets and hats will be sold.

Thinking of it, this would just explain nicely why we're continuously experiencing more lag with less players. PS4 and XBone are already running on "our" data centers and won't get their own.

Same as with their phasing system; a fantastic idea in theory, but apparently not that easy to implement in practice.

ers101284b14_ESO

Sindala wrote: »

Brandalf wrote: »

\

Sindala wrote: »

Guppet wrote: »

RazielSR wrote: »

What if it have to do with console release in 6 months more or less and the game going to be by obligation f2p to be released in consoles?

Why does it have to be free to play on consoles? Modern console players that play online already understand about pay subscriptions.

You would effectively have to pay 3 times to play the game.
Once for your Internet provider,
once to sony/xbox for their internet connection and
one to Zenimax to play the game.

Would you really do that for a game a year old that your probably at VR14 on the PC anyway??
Plus they are trying to grab console players who normally only buy the game once then play it thru.
This type of MMO is pretty new to consoles (don't quote ff14 as that's not a western MMO) and to entice people things have to be free not come with a $15 per month price tag (just a guess).

Except Sony said long ago that a PS+ subscription would not be required to play ESO. So for those on Playstation it won't be any different than what we already pay on PC.

I'd like to see that quote.....Sony giving stuff for free??? what's next, good customer service from EA?? lol

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2014/01/28/the-elder-scrolls-online-on-ps4-your-questions-answered/

Will playing online with The Elder Scrolls Online have a separate subscription compared to PlayStation Plus?
A PlayStation Plus membership is not required to play The Elder Scrolls Online. PS4 players will only be required to pay the same monthly subscription associated with The Elder Scrolls Online that PC and Mac users will pay — nothing more.

http://www.ausgamers.com/news/read/3406991/the-elder-scrolls-online-drops-playstation-plus-fee-xbox-live-gold-required

http://kotaku.com/you-wont-need-playstation-plus-for-the-elder-scrolls-o-1510650456

Winnower

I believe the term you may be looking for is:

"free to pay to play"

Like the SW:TOR Cartel Market Game, where all the interesting looks and gear are only available from the cash shop.

Like the LoTRO "MORDOR SALE! GOING OUT OF BUSINESS! BUY NOW!" cash shop,

and others.

Neizir

I really, really hope that this is not an indication of F2P. The only model that ESO deserves is P2P.

If it really does come to the worst and ZOS has to drop the subscription fee then I'd prefer it'd go B2P rather than F2P. F2P would completely ruin the game.

DDuke

Neizir wrote: »

I really, really hope that this is not an indication of F2P. The only model that ESO deserves is P2P.

If it really does come to the worst and ZOS has to drop the subscription fee then I'd prefer it'd go B2P rather than F2P. F2P would completely ruin the game.

B2P eventually becomes either stagnant (less incoming revenue=less developers=less content & patches) e.g. Guild Wars 2, or converts into F2P.

Both are almost equally bad choices.

bellanca6561n

zaria wrote: »

Ethona wrote: »

Folks, I highly doubt this game would go Free to Play. However, It may go Buy to Play, which is a fair and widely used model for consoles. B2P still would mean a great game, that just so happens to be fair to consoles, and a bit more enticing to new players, while bringing in a good profit. I don't own any consoles, and I'm OK with paying a sub, and I'm also OK with B2P option as well. If the game gains a B2P option than you'd probably see a 20 dollar price tag every 4 months for a new ZONE + the dungeons, trials, and content that would come with it. I do not trust a thing ZOS say anymore, but sure there's a little side of me that would like a B2P option. Anyways, we all will know in 2 or 3 months.

B2P dont make sense on an mmo, only one who use it is GW2 who has few updates and moving towards F2P

F2P don't make sense in current setting before console release.

Alternative explanation is that resubs from 6 month is far lower than 3.
Remember its an recurring payment who runs if you have money and dont cancel. The 6 month might be above an its expensive threshold for more

F2P actually makes a lot more sense for the console given the difficulty of charging a subscription on top of the monthly or quarterly fees for the online service for Xbox and Sony.

It doesn't matter what those early press releases say. Live and whatever Sony's thing is are vending machine businesses based on DLCs.

Esha76

My sub just re-subbed. My account page says: BILLING DATE
You will be billed on June 15, 2015 for $77.94 (plus applicable taxes)

Doesn't prove or disprove anything. Just throwing it out there.

As usual, clarification from ZOS would be decent, let alone necessary. I'm starting to believe they are entertained by the endless speculations and arguments on these forums over important things they neglect to keep the community informed of. They really need to vastly improve their communication to their player base.

Ethona

zaria wrote: »

Ethona wrote: »

Folks, I highly doubt this game would go Free to Play. However, It may go Buy to Play, which is a fair and widely used model for consoles. B2P still would mean a great game, that just so happens to be fair to consoles, and a bit more enticing to new players, while bringing in a good profit. I don't own any consoles, and I'm OK with paying a sub, and I'm also OK with B2P option as well. If the game gains a B2P option than you'd probably see a 20 dollar price tag every 4 months for a new ZONE + the dungeons, trials, and content that would come with it. I do not trust a thing ZOS say anymore, but sure there's a little side of me that would like a B2P option. Anyways, we all will know in 2 or 3 months.

B2P dont make sense on an mmo, only one who use it is GW2 who has few updates and moving towards F2P

F2P don't make sense in current setting before console release.

Alternative explanation is that resubs from 6 month is far lower than 3.
Remember its an recurring payment who runs if you have money and dont cancel. The 6 month might be above an its expensive threshold for more

Look, I don't care so long as ESO continues to be offer as a game that I and great many others can play! Sub, B2P, F2P, in the end so long I can access this game for 15 dollars a month or less I'm 100% happy. However, don't kid your self with your 'Alternative Explanation' in which you gave. Historic facts speaks for themselves and what ZOS did is outside of the norm! I think there's too many players that put far too much faith in ZOS, even though we'll all find out it's always something different with ZOS. You'll see, everyone will see, time is all we need to prove this is something more.

Elsonso

Neizir wrote: »

I really, really hope that this is not an indication of F2P. The only model that ESO deserves is P2P.

If it really does come to the worst and ZOS has to drop the subscription fee then I'd prefer it'd go B2P rather than F2P. F2P would completely ruin the game.

They may be happy to hear people say that, to be honest with you.

However, buy to play requires a vibrant cash shop or paid updates in order to keep cash moving inwards. If they go B2P, then updates, like we have seen this year, may be restricted to additional purchases. The combination of new sales and cash shop revenue might not be enough to finance updates.

I suppose they could always throw a Pepsi or Ford logo in the corner of the screen.

In the end, before they try something like F2P or B2P, I would have to suggest that they offer more than 30 days of free play or offer a trial that gets you to Level 9.9999999 and sets limits on what you can do and where you can go without a paid subscription.

Anyway, if it is to the point where B2P is looking sweet to them, to say nothing of F2P, then the game I signed up for may already be dead.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

You guys are crazy. Just because they remove one kind of payment plan you go crazy screaming all these paranoid rants. The game is not going f2p. It wont be f2p on consoles either. Relax.

Also for those demanding ZOS come in and make some kind of statement... Its Christmas eve guys. Calm down go spend some time with family.

Heruthema

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

You guys are crazy. Just because they remove one kind of payment plan you go crazy screaming all these paranoid rants. The game is not going f2p. It wont be f2p on consoles either. Relax.

Also for those demanding ZOS come in and make some kind of statement... Its Christmas eve guys. Calm down go spend some time with family.

I agree. Every little change that happens brings out the 'End of the World Crowd'. Relax everyone and enjoy the game.

driosketch

Also just to point out, going F2P does not make sense as a reason for dropping the 6 month sub. Other games that went F2P have continued to run a sub along side. What you're suggesting by this speculation is that ZOS is both sleazy enough to try and slip F2P in under the radar, yet nice enough to also not trap their new customers into a long term sub when it happens. Those two lines of thought don't go together.

criscal

Well, as for myself I can say that I never made a demand that ZOS has to explain itself. I am just stating that only clear and authorized statements will stop any rumours. And killing the 6 months option is not a nicety - it's about avoiding a costly rollback of transactions in case it goes f2p. ZOS started the rumour mill by never publishing official player numbers. All the friends that didn't start playing yet stated that they are waiting for a year until it is f2p anyway in their opinion. And that was in April after the first reviews. Anyway, I will keep my subscription for now, as I still like this game a lot. The champion system might be even better than now, who knows.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

criscal wrote: »

Well, as for myself I can say that I never made a demand that ZOS has to explain itself. I am just stating that only clear and authorized statements will stop any rumours. And killing the 6 months option is not a nicety - it's about avoiding a costly rollback of transactions in case it goes f2p. ZOS started the rumour mill by never publishing official player numbers. All the friends that didn't start playing yet stated that they are waiting for a year until it is f2p anyway in their opinion. And that was in April after the first reviews. Anyway, I will keep my subscription for now, as I still like this game a lot. The champion system might be even better than now, who knows.

Explain to me how there would be any rollback? LOTRO and all the other f2p games have a subscription option. So there would be no costly rollback. No refunding anything. You arent even making sense.

criscal

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

criscal wrote: »

Well, as for myself I can say that I never made a demand that ZOS has to explain itself. I am just stating that only clear and authorized statements will stop any rumours. And killing the 6 months option is not a nicety - it's about avoiding a costly rollback of transactions in case it goes f2p. ZOS started the rumour mill by never publishing official player numbers. All the friends that didn't start playing yet stated that they are waiting for a year until it is f2p anyway in their opinion. And that was in April after the first reviews. Anyway, I will keep my subscription for now, as I still like this game a lot. The champion system might be even better than now, who knows.

Explain to me how there would be any rollback? LOTRO and all the other f2p games have a subscription option. So there would be no costly rollback. No refunding anything. You arent even making sense.

Ok, my thinking here was that f2p would not come together with a subscription, but with buying in-game stuff instead. In the case of not offering a subscription anymore, you would have to refund people for the rest of the time that they could not use the subscription for. I was not aware of that some f2p games still offered a subscription, which is counter-intuitive to me.
I am not a lawyer, but another thing is that changing the service to f2p might qualify for a special cancellation right in one or more countries that the service was sold in as well. This as well would trigger refunds.
Anyway, no comfortable explanation for the removal of that 6-months option has been offered yet. What's your best try? Being a less popular choice can't be the real explanation, as there is no extra overhead for that choice in the IT systems.

criscal

sorry, I got the last comment doubled by accident. no deletion option available I guess.

sirston

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

criscal wrote: »

Well, as for myself I can say that I never made a demand that ZOS has to explain itself. I am just stating that only clear and authorized statements will stop any rumours. And killing the 6 months option is not a nicety - it's about avoiding a costly rollback of transactions in case it goes f2p. ZOS started the rumor mill by never publishing official player numbers. All the friends that didn't start playing yet stated that they are waiting for a year until it is f2p anyway in their opinion. And that was in April after the first reviews. Anyway, I will keep my subscription for now, as I still like this game a lot. The champion system might be even better than now, who knows.

Explain to me how there would be any rollback? LOTRO and all the other f2p games have a subscription option. So there would be no costly rollback. No refunding anything. You arent even making sense.

you demand a refund for making something free, that you paid for... or people claim they didn't pay the 6 month option to there bank. Then the bank takes back the money (False Claim For Getting Money Back)

NotSo

Well if it's going F2P then you will be able to tell in 3 months when the 90 day sub disappears.

Wolfshead

Well it can also mean that if you remove the 6 month sub that you get your money fast if you only have 30 days and 90 days for with 6 month you have wait like 180 days until you get pay next time and if you have like 80 % of playerbase use 6 month options that mean basically that your financial hurt more for at the end of day you want to make money of your product.

Btw it say on my subscribe details that im still on 6 month subscribe this can also mean that new member cant start up a new 6 month subscribe but if you still are on 6 month you will continue on your current 6 month cycle you already have.

SFBryan18

Fingers crossed for f2p.

Baragorath

Model F2P can be a good perspective for PVP dedicated players as many who posts here seems like they are PVE oriented players.

For PVP dedicated player F2P model means tons of meat and AP, PVP raids, 7/24 fun.

ESO was announced as PVP oriented end game without PVE raids etc.

Announcement was there would be no need to raid to get best gear in game.

All promises felt down months ago but PVE players have not seen this till it reached their PVE world.

Trials had to be added as additional part of the game and not as must be.

There is no change in PVP since release, it take months for casual player to pass via those PVE quests which can be fun part of the game. (grab skill points, shards etc.)

But how about core of this game PVP, why always PVE, PVE, PVE...

And complains from PVE oriented players this class is useless and this OP on trials, I have nothing to do, increase difficulty, why ZOS you made it so easy mode for everyone to accomplish etc...

ZOS maybe better you go F2P model as soon as possible and become mostly PVP oriented end game as promised.

And here is reminder from last year:

' When The Elder Scrolls: Online ships later this year, PvP will not only be available, it will be a big part of the game. Because of this, the developers are putting a lot of time into the PvP elements to make sure they're not only balanced, but fun. '