This game should be Buy-2-Play. - Hear me out.

olemanwinter

Okay, calm down and hear me out. I've been thinking about this for a while.

I believe there are two kinds of players. Those who are most concerned with story progression and those most concerned with character progression.

Both of these are legitimate points of view. Any time someone complains about the re-leveling of 1.6 and 1.7, they are inevitably accused of "confusing gaming with work" or get tons of "Just have fun and play the game" type comments.

But of course, if your primary concern is character progression, then the changes coming are a legitimate concern.

Meanwhile, they can't even comprehend how others think it's not a big deal, so they call them "communists" or whiny kids who want something for nothing.

HOWEVER, their point of view is legitimate as well. If your primary concern is story progression, then being forced to replay the same content over and over (Silver and Gold) to reach new story content is also a big problem.

Both of these points of view are legitimate and both have valid concerns about the game.

But what does any of this have to do with B2P or F2P? Well, because I believe that changes the entire dynamic of the conversation.

Paying a monthly fee, even if the amount is tiny, places an urgency on your game time if you are focused on character progression. It must *count for something*. In my humble opinion, a monthly subscription fee turns somewhat indifferent players like myself into hard-core character progression nut. You feel like you either need to advance and progress or quit all together.

If it were BUY to play (not free to play), like the GW model for example, I think people like myself who are extremely ticked off about the changes in 1.6 and 1.7 would be less irritated. Many of us (not all) would probably quietly and calmly wait and see, rather than feeling like progression being halted we should just quit (which is how I and others have written they feel).

Likewise, on the other side of the coin, the people who really enjoy the story and the gameplay would benefit from the emphasis that would be placed on new content development and expansions (which would be sold).

In short, Buy-2-Play would soften the blow of people who spent X time developing their characters to later have them regress or see everyone re-leveled, but it would also keep out the free loaders, not require a cash shop except for pointless stuff (see GW) and would put an emphasis for the developers to release new content and expansions.

I would gladly pay $60 again for access to a new zone, but on the other hand there isn't enough new dye systems, new dungeons, new armor motifs, or other bells and whistles that will keep me paying a subscription when my character (what matters to me) is stalled or regressing!

IMHO.

ers101284b14_ESO

I see where you are coming from. But the problem with B2P is it's not too much different than F2P. Now F2P means no start up from the player and all hope is on the cash shop. B2P you at least have that initial investment so you have money to fall back on. But what happens a couple weeks after it comes out or everyone is done buying it?
You have the money you are going to have from box sales. Even if it does sell really really well for a month you still have limited funds. Eventually those funds dry up and you are still left supplementing income from the cash store. Basically B2P just prolongs the inevitable of what will basically another F2P. And seriously don't F2P and B2P people have enough choices? Can't sub based people just have one that is not a WoW clone? PWEEEESSSE!!!!

Edit: I am 1000000% Pro free trial and free weekend for anyone who was subscribed but is not currently.

miahq

I take a different position, I'm perfectly willing to pay monthly as long as it's for the game they sold me on, that's a truly unique elder scrolls experience, not just another generic WoW clone MMO experience. I'll accept that they may take sometime to flesh that out, and I'm willing to stick with them while they do. I will continue to voice my opinions on what I think would help the game become more immersive and more unique, but if they go down a road I don't like-- to me that's too much like every other MMO-- I'm out. That's basically the way it works.

Am I going to come on here and complain? Probably not much, because I know once they've decided on something they could really give a crap what people have to say. Test servers are to work out bugs, not opinion polls on if people really like it or think things should be changed. Otherwise a TON of stuff would've been changed from the beta. Plus I'd imagine you'd see a lot more devs on here engaging with people on the different ideas people post about. Sure they may go throughout he forums, but it's not like these forums set where the game is going to be going. Like 1.6, most if not all of what I've seen has been just marketing to get people psyched up about it. You really think if people go onto the test sever and hate it they're going to scrap it?

So that would be my suggestion to people. Pay if you like the game, comment if you want. But if you don't like the direction it's goes in, then just walk away. The next ES game will be out in 2016 anyway, and they make another generic WoW clone at least... Every few months? So it's no big deal to me.

Elsonso

Uh. No.

"In short, Buy-2-Play would soften the blow of people who spent X time developing their characters to later have them regress or see everyone re-leveled"

It is the effort, not the cost.

olemanwinter

ers101284b14_ESO wrote: »

Basically B2P just prolongs the inevitable of what will basically another F2P.

That isn't the case with GW2, and more importantly it wasn't the case with GW1 which I played for almost a decade and of which I bought 4 expansions and extra character slots.

But more to your point, subscriptions don't solve your problem either.

If the game is so poorly executed that sales drop off that fast, so too with the subscriptions. If people aren't buying and trying the game after a year, what makes you think people are still paying their subs after a year?

But expansions are the answer to your question. Box sales are rejuvenated by the addition of expansions.....if the game is good.

If the game is fundamentally flawed and poorly executed nothing will really save it, be it P2P, B2P, of F2P.

olemanwinter

lordrichter wrote: »

It is the effort, not the cost.

Of course, but the premise of paying a subscription fee for game access time influences the amount of effort you put into it.

There are times I would have walked away from this game for a brief period to play some other games, but I fee like if I'm paying for it I should be playing it...and if I don't want to play it, then why pay for it?

And so you end up putting in more effort over a shorter period of time. Which makes you feel more emotionally invested in the outcome.

It's just my opinion, but people always talk about hard-core vs casuals. I find it hard to be a "casual" with a P2P game.

TheBull

So ZOS can go broke like Anet two years later and so ESO gets no new content for two years, and so that there is no customer service?

otis67

No thaks

Elsonso

olemanwinter wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

It is the effort, not the cost.

Of course, but the premise of paying a subscription fee for game access time influences the amount of effort you put into it.

There are times I would have walked away from this game for a brief period to play some other games, but I fee like if I'm paying for it I should be playing it...and if I don't want to play it, then why pay for it?

And so you end up putting in more effort over a shorter period of time. Which makes you feel more emotionally invested in the outcome.

It's just my opinion, but people always talk about hard-core vs casuals. I find it hard to be a "casual" with a P2P game.

Whether you feel obligated to play because you paid is on you.

In an MMORPG, the effort expended in the game determines the value of the game.

Subscription models have a fixed cost that is known upfront. This is why I like them. The issue of money, once settled, is done. The developer can focus on making the game while the player focuses on the value they get from the game.

Free-to-play and Buy-to-play depend on this effort and the value it creates in order to get players to spend money on the game. Whether it is to unlock an area, armor, weapons, mounts, classes, abilities, or whatever, the goal is to separate as much money from the player as possible. TANSTAAFL. To me there is a certain amount of psychological exploitation at work here. This is why I do not like non-subscription systems.

But, it is all based on the idea that the effort the player puts into the game is what matters because it creates value. How much the player is willing to spend on the game is derived from that. It is not the other way around.

Misa

I really want to keep it p2p, guildwars was great yes AT RELEASE, nothing interesting to make me come back, clearly they don't have the funds or desire to update the game properly

p2p atleast keeps the game updated

Vikestart

The game should stay Pay-to-Play as long as they can sustain it, which I firmly believe they will.

Worst case scenario though, it's obviously a lot better to go Buy-to-Play than Free-to-Play.

Also, in the event of a Buy-to-Play model, all new content should be paywalled so that they can make most of their income from that, instead of resorting to an obnoxious item store.

Auricle

This seems to be a dilemna you're having with yourself, and not terribly good reasoning for changing the business model for a whole MMO.

I've been subscribed since launch, and, even though I barely played over the summer, I feel like the investment is totally worthwhile. It took a little while to work out the worst bugs, but that's okay. Because great things take time to build. Quality is not instant, and we shouldn't demand that it be.

I'm really happy that I've been supporting the development of this beautiful game. I've been back on since August and I'm thrilled with the changes. ESO is shaping up to be a super interesting and complex experience and I'm around for the long haul, even if I may not "get my money's worth". That phrase really doesn't mean anything unless you let it. Get out of the box, man. Air's fresh out here.

Alphashado

I've played them all. F2P, B2P, P2P.

I can only speak for myself, but to me there is just nothing like a good old subscription model. After years of WoW, I was caught up in all the hype of F2P and B2P. I was looking forward to the change. But after countless attempts at F2P games and a few attempts at B2P games, I suddenly and very distinctly came to the realization one day that I missed the subscription model.

Not only did I miss it, but I craved it. I am soo happy to have found a good subscription MMO again. No need to re hash all the reasons. And I don't think I am alone. I think ESO came out with the sub model again at just the right time. Right when people like me were getting absolutely fed up with the other two options.

Durham

No thanks ... I like the older credit card holding players... No kids please...

olemanwinter

miahq wrote: »

In an MMORPG, the effort expended in the game determines the value of the game.

That should be the case, but doesn't the very nature of 1.6 and 1.7 really defy that?

olemanwinter

Alphashado wrote: »

I've played them all. F2P, B2P, P2P.

I can only speak for myself, but to me there is just nothing like a good old subscription model. After years of WoW, I was caught up in all the hype of F2P and B2P. I was looking forward to the change. But after countless attempts at F2P games and a few attempts at B2P games, I suddenly and very distinctly came to the realization one day that I missed the subscription model.

Not only did I miss it, but I craved it. I am soo happy to have found a good subscription MMO again. No need to re hash all the reasons. And I don't think I am alone. I think ESO came out with the sub model again at just the right time. Right when people like me were getting absolutely fed up with the other two options.

I can see that, but now I'm getting fed up with Zos leaving things broken while presumably making negative (to me) changes down the road that make playing now (and then obviously) less enjoyable while I pay a monthly fee.

miahq

Lol, how am I quoted here ^? I wasn't anywhere in that post.

Cazic

B2P is bad for so many of the same reasons F2P is bad. No thanks. I'm happy to pay the sub for ESO.

ers101284b14_ESO

olemanwinter wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

I've played them all. F2P, B2P, P2P.

I can only speak for myself, but to me there is just nothing like a good old subscription model. After years of WoW, I was caught up in all the hype of F2P and B2P. I was looking forward to the change. But after countless attempts at F2P games and a few attempts at B2P games, I suddenly and very distinctly came to the realization one day that I missed the subscription model.

Not only did I miss it, but I craved it. I am soo happy to have found a good subscription MMO again. No need to re hash all the reasons. And I don't think I am alone. I think ESO came out with the sub model again at just the right time. Right when people like me were getting absolutely fed up with the other two options.

I can see that, but now I'm getting fed up with Zos leaving things broken while presumably making negative (to me) changes down the road that make playing now (and then obviously) less enjoyable while I pay a monthly fee.

Here's the beauty of sub though. You can quit now, come back in 6 months and still have all content available for $15. B2P with paid expansions you could quit but then when you came back you'd have to pay for it to try and see if you liked it but could potentially cost way more. You might get some stuff for free you might not.

Bloodfang

F2P is out of the question, it's just a terrible model.

B2P? Still a terrible model, it's getting some praises only because Guild Wars 2. However for anyone that is familiar with GW2, you should know how that game was "perfect" in its first year. Now it's just an MMO with a lackluster content updates. Sad but true.

If you want ESO to achieve it's potential, if you don't want cash shops or lackluster updates there is only one model saving it -> Pay to play

miahq

ers101284b14_ESO wrote: »

olemanwinter wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

I've played them all. F2P, B2P, P2P.

I can only speak for myself, but to me there is just nothing like a good old subscription model. After years of WoW, I was caught up in all the hype of F2P and B2P. I was looking forward to the change. But after countless attempts at F2P games and a few attempts at B2P games, I suddenly and very distinctly came to the realization one day that I missed the subscription model.

Not only did I miss it, but I craved it. I am soo happy to have found a good subscription MMO again. No need to re hash all the reasons. And I don't think I am alone. I think ESO came out with the sub model again at just the right time. Right when people like me were getting absolutely fed up with the other two options.

I can see that, but now I'm getting fed up with Zos leaving things broken while presumably making negative (to me) changes down the road that make playing now (and then obviously) less enjoyable while I pay a monthly fee.

Here's the beauty of sub though. You can quit now, come back in 6 months and still have all content available for $15. B2P with paid expansions you could quit but then when you came back you'd have to pay for it to try and see if you liked it. You might get some stuff for free you might not.

And that's probably the biggest reason to stick with the sub model, it's a lot easier to win back players. They've already lost a lot, frankly. Partly because of the performance and bug issues, and partly because of the terrible reviews-- both before and after release. With the sub, if they fix some of those issues they can more easily get people back who have walked away.

sagitter

No sorry, i want the game to be updated in its best.

ers101284b14_ESO

miahq wrote: »

ers101284b14_ESO wrote: »

olemanwinter wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

I've played them all. F2P, B2P, P2P.

I can only speak for myself, but to me there is just nothing like a good old subscription model. After years of WoW, I was caught up in all the hype of F2P and B2P. I was looking forward to the change. But after countless attempts at F2P games and a few attempts at B2P games, I suddenly and very distinctly came to the realization one day that I missed the subscription model.

Not only did I miss it, but I craved it. I am soo happy to have found a good subscription MMO again. No need to re hash all the reasons. And I don't think I am alone. I think ESO came out with the sub model again at just the right time. Right when people like me were getting absolutely fed up with the other two options.

I can see that, but now I'm getting fed up with Zos leaving things broken while presumably making negative (to me) changes down the road that make playing now (and then obviously) less enjoyable while I pay a monthly fee.

Here's the beauty of sub though. You can quit now, come back in 6 months and still have all content available for $15. B2P with paid expansions you could quit but then when you came back you'd have to pay for it to try and see if you liked it. You might get some stuff for free you might not.

And that's probably the biggest reason to stick with the sub model, it's a lot easier to win back players. They've already lost a lot, frankly. Partly because of the performance and bug issues, and partly because of the terrible reviews-- both before and after release. With the sub, if they fix some of those issues they can more easily get people back who have walked away.

Yep wouldn't take much. Do a free weekend trial and then they can now have all content for $15 if they come back.

olemanwinter

Auricle wrote: »

This seems to be a dilemna you're having with yourself, and not terribly good reasoning for changing the business model for a whole MMO.

It's not just me. It's every person you see writing things like "why should I keep playing this game everything I do between now and 1.6 going live is a waste" and things like "If I am essentially releveled to lvl 50 after 1.6 and 1.7 I will unsub"

And you can all say "Fine. Go away. Who needs you"

Well, quite ironically, if this was B2P there would be no real benefit in these people, but Zos needs them if this is going to be a sub-based game.

Ask yourself 2 things.

1) If Zos' behavior continues as it has, can they get enough new members to overcome the amount of disenfranchised players that leave?

And even if so,

2) Is that the kind of game you want where 90% of the players are <6 month players who haven't yet experienced some slap in the face?

Auricle wrote: »

It took a little while to work out the worst bugs, but that's okay.

But they never did. Tonight PvP was unplayable. 5 min 7v7 battle where nobody took any damage. 3 days ago I was at the boss stage of lvl 8 (of 10) in Dragonstar Arena when it bugged and NPCs wouldn't spawn. Last week I finished a long run with a Pug in Vet CoH and the final boss died but didn't register.


Seriously, at VR14 what am I supposed to do? DSA bugged, Vet Dungeons bugged, PVP lag-fest. Just pay my subscription fee and wait to have the last few months erased :-/

Instead of all the controversial changes in 1.6...they should be polishing the game.

Auricle wrote: »

Get out of the box, man. Air's fresh out here.

I don't know what that means. But it sounds like you are suggesting I unsub and go outside and play in nature. After 1.6/1.7 I very well do exactly that.

KBKB

I like the post gave you an awesome for it.

I would not be adverse to say a runescape (hold back the lulz plz) style F2P certain skills/ three quarters of the map locked until you pay your sub would bring in new people for the F2P factor then they can sub if they like. Also the RS cash shop had no OP items just so long as they avoid the borderline child gambling Jagex put in place with treasure hunter etc. They are one of the odlest most successful MMOs so they have to be doing something right even if game play is awful.

Even the SWtoR system isn't half bad which is close to the same thing.

miahq

The problem with that thinking though, zos only needs a certain threshold of subs to remain active, and right now it seems they've got... about 750k between their two servers if I remember? Even if that drops to 500k, that's still about seven and a half million a month and more that enough to not give a crap if you, me, or another 250k leave because of the changes they make. Just because devs occasionally fix or change something people are complaining about on the forums, it's not always because we just made an impact and they listened. They change what they want to change and if it happens to be something players also wanted changed, that's usually just a coincidence more than anything. Especially when you stop to consider that half the player base probably didn't want that particular change.

Point is, as long as they stay above that magic number, I doubt they give a crap. And usually it's not too hard to sustain those numbers. If anything, if they lose the ES crowd (which seems pretty likely, as it seems a majority of complaints about the overall game come from the ES fan base) they'll just adjust to appeal more to the MMO crowd, which they already have really.

KBKB

miahq wrote: »

The problem with that thinking though, zos only needs a certain threshold of subs to remain active, and right now it seems they've got... about 750k between their two servers if I remember? Even if that drops to 500k, that's still about seven and a half million a month and more that enough to not give a crap if you, me, or another 250k leave because of the changes they make. Just because devs occasionally fix or change something people are complaining about on the forums, it's not always because we just made an impact and they listened. They change what they want to change and if it happens to be something players also wanted changed, that's usually just a coincidence more than anything. Especially when you stop to consider that half the player base probably didn't want that particular change.

Point is, as long as they stay above that magic number, I doubt they give a crap. And usually it's not too hard to sustain those numbers. If anything, if they lose the ES crowd (which seems pretty likely, as it seems a majority of complaints about the overall game come from the ES fan base) they'll just adjust to appeal more to the MMO crowd, which they already have really.

More is better though, end game for them is money.. they should learn this you don't run a business to keep the wolves off your door you run it so you can have a holiday a year support your family and live well.

Goresnort

B2P with paid DLC, and NO cash shop would work for me.

Prefer the sub model though, but the soon to be console release may have generated practical issues that are forcing Zeni to ultimately re-think their business model.

There are several versions of B2P on the market.

GW2 - B2P with cash shop.
TSW - B2P with paid DLC and cash shop. (Sub optional = DLC included)
Destiny - B2P with paid DLC.

An example for DLC in ESO could be new zones.

Would prefer Sub.
Will keep playing under a B2P/DLC model.
B2P with cash shop or F2P with cash shop is not an option I would consider.

Bloodfang

Goresnort wrote: »

B2P with paid DLC, and NO cash shop would work for me.

Prefer the sub model though, but the conversion to console may have forced Zeni to ultimately re-think their business model.

There are several versions of B2P on the market.

GW2 - B2P with cash shop.
TSW - B2P with paid DLC and cash shop. (Sub optional = DLC included)
Destiny - B2P with paid DLC.

An example for DLC in ESO could be new zones.

Would prefer Sub.
Will keep playing under a B2P/DLC model.
B2P with cash shop or F2P with cash shop is not an option I would consider.

I'd consider B2P only if:

- Cash Shop included only Cosmetic stuff (no stupid things or lore breaking stuff)

- Staying subbed would mean I don't have to pay for a DLC (new zones, features)

miahq

KBKB wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

The problem with that thinking though, zos only needs a certain threshold of subs to remain active, and right now it seems they've got... about 750k between their two servers if I remember? Even if that drops to 500k, that's still about seven and a half million a month and more that enough to not give a crap if you, me, or another 250k leave because of the changes they make. Just because devs occasionally fix or change something people are complaining about on the forums, it's not always because we just made an impact and they listened. They change what they want to change and if it happens to be something players also wanted changed, that's usually just a coincidence more than anything. Especially when you stop to consider that half the player base probably didn't want that particular change.

Point is, as long as they stay above that magic number, I doubt they give a crap. And usually it's not too hard to sustain those numbers. If anything, if they lose the ES crowd (which seems pretty likely, as it seems a majority of complaints about the overall game come from the ES fan base) they'll just adjust to appeal more to the MMO crowd, which they already have really.

More is better though, end game for them is money.. they should learn this you don't run a business to keep the wolves off your door you run it so you can have a holiday a year support your family and live well.

More is better, but most places only consider that at launch, after that it becomes about meeting projections. As long as you maintain a certain market share, you're good. If that starts to slip, you re-evaluate. But zos isn't going to do much re-evaluating after champion. This is already an attempt to increase those numbers and stop hemorrhaging subs from the problems of the past 8 months. Doing it again so soon would be an absolute disaster.

So when this system largely fails (and let's be frank, it will. I mean the complain was vet level CONTENT, not the leveling progression system. This may solve a completely unrelated problem, but pretending it's going to solve the content problem is a bit silly), but when that happens all they're going to do is downsize their projections and expectations, and adjust accordingly.

SFBryan18

I'll play whatever and stop when it gets boring. I like TES, so they have my patience. I took a break for awhile but I came back for the role playing and lore. I don't care how they choose to make money, it not my business.