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

DeLindsay

I'm perfectly fine with ESO being a Sub based MMO. I'm also perfectly fine if they add Utility/Vanity crap to their cash shop.

trimsic_ESO

@olemanwinter‌
You don't have to play an MMO game if you want to play a game with a lot of B2P contents. There are many games out there where you can buy a DLC for every new zone. In general, it's all about solo contents, with great stories you can live for your fun.

However, you have to play an MMO game if you want to participate in epic battles involving hundreds of peoples in the battlefield. Grouping to achieve epic goals, in PvE or in PvP, is probably what characterizes the most an MMO.

Of course, new content is needed, since otherwise people are starting to do the same content again and again, and this is not really exciting. But no matter the time the developers have spent building this new content, the player community exhaust it in much less time than required to develop it. So, what?

The only alternative then is to propose a character progression system, so people have always something to do before the next available zone or dungeon or whatever else is ready for release. Many games such as WoW, D3 (Blizzard games in general), and this is not a coincidence if they are so successful, are based on character progression.

Character progression is all about what motivates people when they connect their character. They can make it stronger, more appealing, with new equipment or spells. And, if you step back a few seconds, you may realize that character progression is the fuel of the game industry actually, I mean what makes a game so profitable and enjoyable in the long term.

My 2 cents...

miahq

trimsic_ESO wrote: »

@olemanwinter‌
You don't have to play an MMO game if you want to play a game with a lot of B2P contents. There are many games out there where you can buy a DLC for every new zone. In general, it's all about solo contents, with great stories you can live for your fun.

However, you have to play an MMO game if you want to participate in epic battles involving hundreds of peoples in the battlefield. Grouping to achieve epic goals, in PvE or in PvP, is probably what characterizes the most an MMO.

Of course, new content is needed, since otherwise people are starting to do the same content again and again, and this is not really exciting. But no matter the time the developers have spent building this new content, the player community exhaust it in much less time than required to develop it. So, what?

The only alternative then is to propose a character progression system, so people have always something to do before the next available zone or dungeon or whatever else is ready for release. Many games such as WoW, D3 (Blizzard games in general), and this is not a coincidence if they are so successful, are based on character progression.

Character progression is all about what motivates people when they connect their character. They can make it stronger, more appealing, with new equipment or spells. And, if you step back a few seconds, you may realize that character progression is the fuel of the game industry actually, I mean what makes a game so profitable and enjoyable in the long term.

My 2 cents...

To me it always seemed more about feeling powerful rather than pure character progression itself. Though in a lot of MMOs I realize it's more about maxing out everything. But if that's the case maybe they should take it a bit slower so that trying to grind out a max level character is next to pointless, that way people will reach a certain point and generally feel like they're good to go and go out and play the game.

They don't because if they did that people would realize there is no game, the entire point is just to level up and get new armor sets. That's the WoW model. And frankly, I don't think it's one worth following. Lots of games have tried to copy WoW, they've not been successful. You just aren't going to be successful by simply copying the person who came before you.

If they'd done a leveling system more like oblivion (I realize there's is currently a little like that) where you gained experience in individual skills separately from your main character level, and then made each of those skill sets twice the size they are now and 5-10 levels deeper in morphs-- where each point still takes about an hour of game time to earn, with multiple ranks in each-- you could spend the entire 2100 hours the champion system gives you and only completely max out 3-4 skill sets. That may be a little too much, but you get my point I hope that you could still max out your character level and it would take you another 1-2 years minimum to max out everything else.

People would grind for a little here and there, but then they'd go play the game. The problem of course is if there is no other content. And there usually isn't much other content.

Sindala

Hodor!

kewl

No thanks. I'll insert coin to continue.

Mandragora

I think F2P model works for MOBA only because it doesn't require big investments and on the other hand it does require wide player base.

But it doesn't work for RPG games with a lot of quests and less PvP because such game need a lot of money to be made in high quality.

What I saw - if it was F2P from beginning, it was horrible with no content, really low quality, and if it went F2P later - first 2 years they simply lived from the content that was made for customer's money before it went F2P and after 2 years it went down. Because in F2P model you cannot earn enough money to keep high standard, it will require a lot of grind - more then it is acceptable.

I would prefer B2P model because I wouldn't have the feeling Im renting the game I bought and if I would loose job or get ill or for some reason I wouldn't have money, I would be still able to play a game I paid for. But I didn't play Guild Wars or B2P model so I don't know if customer's servis would be absent because of that.

Or another solution would be game card where you could have only hours you played really - not days, so you wouldn't feel forced to play if you don't want that day.

Muizer

Hmm, of all monetazing models I've read about I prefer the subscription exactly because it doesn't make me consider the cost of play all the time. With a subscription, I do that once a month, looking back, and then I can go on playing without a care for the financial aspect.

Nikolas

Muizer wrote: »

Hmm, of all monetazing models I've read about I prefer the subscription exactly because it doesn't make me consider the cost of play all the time. B2P and F2P both would have me wondering all the time "is it worth it"? With a subscription, I do that once a month, looking back, and then I can go on playing without a care for the financial aspect.

Great response mate. NO I won't hear you OP - I prefer sub sorry

Happy new year all

Auricle

olemanwinter wrote: »

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.

... Go... outside..?

Has it really come to that? Oh, the humanity!

Teiji

Oh. My. Goodness.

The original poster has hit the nail on the head.

How?

How can anyone use money they don't own, in order to pay for a game they don't own where they then exchange more money they do not own in order to play a game they don't own? Those that take the money then use the money that they don't own, in order to exchange it for stuff'n'things, where those that obtain the money, do not own it either.

I'll let that sink in for a moment. Okay, now. Ready? No one owns money.

With this said, It's impossible to pay for anything because no one owns money and money is essential in paying for things, if you don't own money, you don't pay for anything, if no one owns money, then it's impossible to pay for things.

What does this mean?

Ladies and gentlemen, in this humble forum for the videogame The Elder Scrolls Online we've received confirmation, Half Life 3 is on its way.

/thread

Hortator Mopa

No,

I'm sorry but I am not even going to read your thread.. Why? Because I like new content... (even though the new stuff lately and future new stuff sounds bad..)

miahq

Teiji wrote: »

Oh. My. Goodness.

The original poster has hit the nail on the head.

How?

How can anyone use money they don't own, in order to pay for a game they don't own where they then exchange more money they do not own in order to play a game they don't own? Those that take the money then use the money that they don't own, in order to exchange it for stuff'n'things, where those that obtain the money, do not own it either.

I'll let that sink in for a moment. Okay, now. Ready? No one owns money.

With this said, It's impossible to pay for anything because no one owns money and money is essential in paying for things, if you don't own money, you don't pay for anything, if no one owns money, then it's impossible to pay for things.

What does this mean?

Ladies and gentlemen, in this humble forum for the videogame The Elder Scrolls Online we've received confirmation, Half Life 3 is on its way.

/thread

Lol, i can't even begin to follow this. But I'm pretty sure you were handing out poorly xeroxed pamphlets outside my work the other day.

Vikestart

Despair9 wrote: »

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.[/i]

Idk, that's just one example. GW2 is plagued by free content updates as well. That's problematic. New content should not be free, so that a bigger part of their income can come from that instead of lousy item store stuff.

TSW has been Buy-to-Play since December 2012, and has now actually started to pick up the pace of releasing new content. One reason for this might be that all new content is paywalled as well.

In 2013, we had 3 large content updates.

In 2014, we had 5 large content updates, 4 of them in the second half of the year.

There's no pay-to-win stuff in the Item Store at all, though it is packed with cosmetics, pets, etc. + a few convenience things like XP boosts, character rename, etc. But that's harmless really.

I'm convinced Buy-to-Play can work as a subscription model

Free-to-Play can't. F2P is just horrible. If the company can't generate income from the base game and new content, which is what people want, they have to generate it from things that people don't want, namely a big fat Item Store. This balance is skewed is why F2P games tend to fail.

Still, I do prefer Pay-to-Play indeed I just think that Buy-to-Play can work nicely if new content is paywalled.

alainjbrennanb16_ESO

simple is, ur trying to force like the rest of the short pocketed people zos to go to f2p, there is no hearing out, once the game is bought it is f2p. there will be cash shops, pay gate etc. you say no there wont and will give an example of gw2 or swtor. but they do have paygates, unseen pay gates, like in swtor where u have less bars if ur f2p, so please don't have a go at the sub we all know they will open new areas slowly, thats what the sub is for, so if ur unwilling to pay the sub please leave well alone and find a game thats has what u want

Hortator Mopa

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

simple is, ur trying to force like the rest of the short pocketed people zos to go to f2p, there is no hearing out, once the game is bought it is f2p. there will be cash shops, pay gate etc. you say no there wont and will give an example of gw2 or swtor. but they do have paygates, unseen pay gates, like in swtor where u have less bars if ur f2p, so please don't have a go at the sub we all know they will open new areas slowly, thats what the sub is for, so if ur unwilling to pay the sub please leave well alone and find a game thats has what u want

Yep.. the price compared to hours of enjoyment is so small anyways...

Say someone plays ONLY 3 hours a week, thats 12 hours a month.

$15 / 12 = $1.25 a hour...

Id like to see a movie go for that price.

Elsonso

olemanwinter wrote: »

lordrichter 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?

This is a merging of my views on F2P-Like business models and the whole Champion Point issue.

In this thread, someone said that they felt obligated to play because they were paying a subscription. My take is that they actually pay a subscription because the subscription is less than they value that they attribute to the game. These are identical concepts viewed from two perspectives and business model does not matter. F2P, B2P, trial, and term subscription models are all the same.

In the Champion Point thread, some people were missing, or outright disregarding, the fact that an MMORPG is based on character progression. That character progression should not be lost. My take on this is that ZOS knows that and that people are getting upset, or gleeful about those getting upset, for no reason. The Champion System will compensate for effort in the game as it replaces Veteran Ranks. If ZOS does not know, then they are getting an education.

The bottom line in both threads is simple. Effort makes value. Value determines how much money the developer can get. The business model is just how they get that money.

If the effort that a player puts into the game does not generate enough value to meet the real-world cost of the game, people will not pay that amount. If the effort the player puts into the game is lost, then the game has less value, and that new value may not meet the real-world cost of the game.

On the subject of this thread:

If ZOS is currently considering a change to F2P or B2P, we are talking about a game that would be going the Free-To-Play route in order to stop or prevent a financial crisis, best case, or to grab more cash for their investors, worst case. Not only would they be looking to generate new revenue by getting people who would not normally pay to start paying for the game, they would exploit the current subscribers by hoping that some will pay more for the game than they are now.

No one switches from P2P to one of the Free-To-Play models with the expectation that revenue would stay the same or drop.

It is in the case where ZOS would leap directly from P2P to one of the Free-To-Play models that I jump ship. Either the financial state of ZOS is teetering on collapse, in which case the prospects for a long term relationship with the game are bleak, or they are doing fine but have decided to do a cash grab to make more revenue, in which case I refuse to be a mark.

Faugaun

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/144721/if-eso-goes-f2p-will-you-stay#latest


Because that percentage of $15 per month sub's is a lot of money and that's a significant portion of your player based to get rid of

kelly.medleyb14_ESO

miahq wrote: »

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.

This is far from a WoW clone, you need to speak of things you know about.

trimsic_ESO

miahq wrote: »

To me it always seemed more about feeling powerful rather than pure character progression itself. Though in a lot of MMOs I realize it's more about maxing out everything. But if that's the case maybe they should take it a bit slower so that trying to grind out a max level character is next to pointless, that way people will reach a certain point and generally feel like they're good to go and go out and play the game.

They don't because if they did that people would realize there is no game, the entire point is just to level up and get new armor sets. That's the WoW model. And frankly, I don't think it's one worth following. Lots of games have tried to copy WoW, they've not been successful. You just aren't going to be successful by simply copying the person who came before you.

If they'd done a leveling system more like oblivion (I realize there's is currently a little like that) where you gained experience in individual skills separately from your main character level, and then made each of those skill sets twice the size they are now and 5-10 levels deeper in morphs-- where each point still takes about an hour of game time to earn, with multiple ranks in each-- you could spend the entire 2100 hours the champion system gives you and only completely max out 3-4 skill sets. That may be a little too much, but you get my point I hope that you could still max out your character level and it would take you another 1-2 years minimum to max out everything else.

People would grind for a little here and there, but then they'd go play the game. The problem of course is if there is no other content. And there usually isn't much other content.

A lot of MMOs have tried to copy WoW and you are right when you say that they all have failed. They failed actually because these copies did not include any character progression at all when they were released.

WoW: character progression + equipment progression through new dungeons
D3: character progression + equipment progression through a loot system
Hearthstone: deck progression

All these games have been successful, for a very simple reason: your investment in the game is always rewarded. So people play more to have more.

And, in order to make sure that the gap between the hardcore gamers and the others is not becoming too huge, a tier system (or a season system) has been put in place since ages in many games (EQ, WoW, ...).