Maintenance for the week of November 25:
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
How do you feel about the B2P announcement
-
Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above@Akselmo
You are just an example, but your mentality is what cause games to fail and the current state the industry is in.
Unless you pay more than $180 a year, you are a net loss in revenue compared to a subscription model. In average, games need 7 to 9 times more players to have equal revenue with a subscription game. (compare DOTA2 and Eve Online revenue and player base)
In average only 2.2% of players spend any money on cash shops and 46% of the revenue come from only 0.22% of the playerbase.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-04-09-only-2-2-percent-of-free-to-play-users-ever-pay-report
That it advantages you and your friends is great and all, but it doesn't to anything to pay the devs or sustain the game on the long term.
This mentality ruins games, and make it worse for those actually interested in the genre to find a decent game. And after a while, the game won't be worth your time either. We all lose.
The single rain drop never thinks it's responsible for the flood.5 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesHortator Mopa wrote: »Hortator Mopa wrote: »67% Don't like it.
29% Like it.
Yep they are "Doing it because the fans asked for it".
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Because a forum poll on a forum that you have to pay to get into is all that reliable? Umm, no.Hortator Mopa wrote: »67% Don't like it.
29% Like it.
Yep they are "Doing it because the fans asked for it".
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Because a forum poll on a forum that you have to pay to get into is all that reliable? Umm, no.
Exactly what I was going to say!!!
The fans consist of the people who are in this forum, People who payed once to play oblivion and skyrim, and people who play other MMOs
So even if it was 100% yes, that's like 2/3 or more people who are unaccounted for.
You both pretending to be potato? or are you actually potato?
How do you think they will get money from people who dont pay sub to continue running when it goes b2p.If they dont want to pay a small $15 to play a month, then why would they pay money at all in the crown store lol.
Is logic hard or something?
<Looks at the hundreds of MMOs with no subscription> The one lacking in logic is yourself.
2 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesfrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »As for the polls accuracy: No poll in existance is 100% accurate.
Most are of 1000-2500 people to represent populations of millions.
That's good enough to get a good feeling of the general population and opinion trends. They don't need to be accurate.
What this poll here shows is the opinion of over 1000 people out of a population of a few hundred thousands. The sample is biased towards those that care enough about the game to have bought it and hang out on forums.
In short, this poll shows the opinion of those tgat matter for the long term survival of an mmo.
I don't doubt there may be 100ks people out there that want to see the game go b2p and millions that want it to be f2p, but their opinions don't matter.
Retention is more important than acquisition. Especially when dealing with fickle and greedy new players that just want to consume without giving back.
One of my favorite MMOs would most likely still be here today if it went B2P/F2P, Tabula Rasa. Instead they shut down the servers, despite it still making a profit, but the profit was to small for the investment being made.
Going B2P is the best for the longevity of this game, it was losing subscribers at an alarming rate.Edited by eisberg on February 2, 2015 12:45PM4 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesHortator Mopa wrote: »frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »As for the polls accuracy: No poll in existance is 100% accurate.
Most are of 1000-2500 people to represent populations of millions.
That's good enough to get a good feeling of the general population and opinion trends. They don't need to be accurate.
What this poll here shows is the opinion of over 1000 people out of a population of a few hundred thousands. The sample is biased towards those that care enough about the game to have bought it and hang out on forums.
In short, this poll shows the opinion of those tgat matter for the long term survival of an mmo.
I don't doubt there may be 100ks people out there that want to see the game go b2p and millions that want it to be f2p, but their opinions don't matter.
Retention is more important than acquisition. Especially when dealing with fickle and greedy new players that just want to consume without giving back.
exactly. well put.
Yeah, I am sure that the opinion of a user base that was shrinking very fast is the best opinion to go with.4 -
fromtesonlineb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭
I notice you don't have time for the "I'll wait and see", which IMO is the most adult reaction at this time since there are NO FACTS as to just how the game will change.Please choose which one is the closest to your feelings. .
At best you can say you may be 'optimistic' or 'pessimistic' but those allow for a degree of uncertainty, by using 'like' and 'dislike' you don't allow for a middle-ground.
Hence I assert the poll isn't valid as someone like me has no answer that accurately reflects our opinion.
2 -
Akselmo✭✭✭Like - all of the "likes" abovefrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »snip
Well, you put the whole thing in a different perspective for me, and I appreciate that. Sorry about my dullness. I might not fully agree with you, but I can see your points.
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I'm willing to wait and see how it goes. Can't really say the game has failed yet, since nothing has changed yet.
edit: typosEdited by Akselmo on February 2, 2015 12:59PMHun-Tra@Akselmo (EP-EU-PC)
A fan of TES-series since 2005.0 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesChuckyPayne wrote: »ESO yet P2P, most of us love this model. This poll unnecessary because it is not authentic.
Anyone know of any game in which improvement was seen after payment model has changed to B2P or F2P: faster development? more enjoyable playable content? I don't know but I have bad feeling about it. More player, more money, more lag, fewer interactable objects, fewer nodes, slower guild bank, slower mail.
I hope many sub system will crush and will unusable because then they will fix its with top priority.
The head start was very fluent, I loved it, but of course we saw many problems, we will see again
.
We have lots of examples of MMOs that were shut down that didn't make the switch, despite being a little bit profitable, they were just not profitable enough to justify the investment being put into them. I have no doubt that they were faced with either make a payment model change or shut down the servers. This game was losing subscribers fast, Zenimax Media most likely couldn't justify the investment being made with predictions being made about how many subscribers they would actually keep.
it is extremely rare for an MMO to actually increase in subscribers once it already started on the downward spiral of losing subscribers, really WoW being the only MMO that has done that, and that is only around the time of an expansion, and then in short order they go back to their number it was before the expansion.1 -
kelly.medleyb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭Dislike - otherWhat is really pissing people off is how ZoS is treating it's long term loyal customers who essentially paid to beta tests their buggy product in order to give the console kiddies a bug free and FREE experience.
As a reward they throw us a crappy pile of crowns not even equal to a months subscription.3 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesfrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »@Akselmo
You are just an example, but your mentality is what cause games to fail and the current state the industry is in.
Unless you pay more than $180 a year, you are a net loss in revenue compared to a subscription model. In average, games need 7 to 9 times more players to have equal revenue with a subscription game. (compare DOTA2 and Eve Online revenue and player base)
In average only 2.2% of players spend any money on cash shops and 46% of the revenue come from only 0.22% of the playerbase.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-04-09-only-2-2-percent-of-free-to-play-users-ever-pay-report
That it advantages you and your friends is great and all, but it doesn't to anything to pay the devs or sustain the game on the long term.
This mentality ruins games, and make it worse for those actually interested in the genre to find a decent game. And after a while, the game won't be worth your time either. We all lose.
The single rain drop never thinks it's responsible for the flood.
That report is for Mobile games, not for MMOs, 2 completely different markets with a much larger library of apps. Nice try, but your link means nothing for MMOs
http://recode.net/2014/02/26/a-long-tail-of-whales-half-of-mobile-games-money-comes-from-0-15-percent-of-players/
Edited by eisberg on February 2, 2015 1:17PM2 -
Dislike - all of the "dislikes" abovefrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »snip
Well, you put the whole thing in a different perspective for me, and I appreciate that. Sorry about my dullness. I might not fully agree with you, but I can see your points.
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I'm willing to wait and see how it goes. Can't really say the game has failed yet, since nothing has changed yet.
edit: typos
We've waited for many games, and we've seen for many games.
It never worked before, and it most likely never will.
@eisberg
Ok, what's your end game?
You play on semantics(about the polls), fail to get points on purpose(my f2p link), ignore facts that doesn't suit your agenda(subs were growing rather than falling) and just generaly spread around misconceptions and myths(games going f2p for survival)
Yet you seem smarter than this. So you must have an ulterior motive.
Is it worth to see a game ruined just because you don't want to pay a subscription?2 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesfrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »snip
Well, you put the whole thing in a different perspective for me, and I appreciate that. Sorry about my dullness. I might not fully agree with you, but I can see your points.
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I'm willing to wait and see how it goes. Can't really say the game has failed yet, since nothing has changed yet.
edit: typos
We've waited for many games, and we've seen for many games.
It never worked before, and it most likely never will.
@eisberg
Ok, what's your end game?
You play on semantics(about the polls), fail to get points on purpose(my f2p link), ignore facts that doesn't suit your agenda(subs were growing rather than falling) and just generaly spread around misconceptions and myths(games going f2p for survival)
Yet you seem smarter than this. So you must have an ulterior motive.
Is it worth to see a game ruined just because you don't want to pay a subscription?
Your F2P link is talking about Mobile app gaming, not MMOs, they are completely different markets, and that particular market has a much larger library of games to choose from. Your link means nothing for MMO gaming, only for Mobile app gaming.
What shows the subscriptions were growing? We haven't heard anything from the devs stating that subscriptions were growing, we haven't heard anything since they reached the 772K subscribers 6 months ago. Actually, we haven't heard any subscriber numbers from anybody who would actually know.
And yes, the poll means nothing, having to pay to be a part of a poll is far from being reliable. At best it provides smoke, something for the Zenimax to look into to see if it is a good decision or not, but they will also look into the opinions of past subscribers, and the opinions of people who would have bought the game, but didn't for what ever reason. Listening to what is mostly likely a fast shrinking user base is not the best group to listen to. For the fact they wanted to be a subscription based, and stated it was important to be that way, shows that something has changed drastically enough to make them have to change the model. What changes drastically? Not having enough subscribers to warrant the investment made and going to be made is going to be that change.
In the old days, we saw MMO after MMO after MMO getting shut down, even if they were making some kind of profit. We no longer see that all that much anymore since F2P has taken over, now instead of shutting down they change the payment model. So yes, we can see that changing the model is more about survival at worst, or for continuing development on the MMO at best instead of being put on maintenance mode only.
Is it worth seeing ESO going into Maintenance mode only, or getting shut down just because you do not want a cash store? Zenimax would not have done this change if they felt the profit made would justify the investment made and going to be made.
The facts are there, the subscription model revenue is shrinking for the industry as a whole, and it will become harder harder to compete for that shrinking market, especially when WoW holds nearly half of that subscriber revenue market.Edited by eisberg on February 2, 2015 3:00PM1 -
DDuke✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Dislike - all of the "dislikes" abovefrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »snip
Well, you put the whole thing in a different perspective for me, and I appreciate that. Sorry about my dullness. I might not fully agree with you, but I can see your points.
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I'm willing to wait and see how it goes. Can't really say the game has failed yet, since nothing has changed yet.
edit: typos
We've waited for many games, and we've seen for many games.
It never worked before, and it most likely never will.
@eisberg
Ok, what's your end game?
You play on semantics(about the polls), fail to get points on purpose(my f2p link), ignore facts that doesn't suit your agenda(subs were growing rather than falling) and just generaly spread around misconceptions and myths(games going f2p for survival)
Yet you seem smarter than this. So you must have an ulterior motive.
Is it worth to see a game ruined just because you don't want to pay a subscription?
Your F2P link is talking about Mobile app gaming, not MMOs, they are completely different markets, and that particular market has a much larger library of games to choose from. Your link means nothing for MMO gaming, only for Mobile app gaming.
What shows the subscriptions were growing? We haven't heard anything from the devs stating that subscriptions were growing, we haven't heard anything since they reached the 772K subscribers 6 months ago. Actually, we haven't heard any subscriber numbers from anybody who would actually know.
And yes, the poll means nothing, having to pay to be a part of a poll is far from being reliable. At best it provides smoke, something for the Zenimax to look into to see if it is a good decision or not, but they will also look into the opinions of past subscribers, and the opinions of people who would have bought the game, but didn't for what ever reason. Listening to what is mostly likely a fast shrinking user base is not the best group to listen to. For the fact they wanted to be a subscription based, and stated it was important to be that way, shows that something has changed drastically enough to make them have to change the model. What changes drastically? Not having enough subscribers to warrant the investment made and going to be made is going to be that change.
In the old days, we saw MMO after MMO after MMO getting shut down, even if they were making some kind of profit. We no longer see that all that much anymore since F2P has taken over, now instead of shutting down they change the payment model. So yes, we can see that changing the model is more about survival at worst, or for continuing development on the MMO at best instead of being put on maintenance mode only.
Is it worth seeing ESO going into Maintenance mode only, or getting shut down just because you do not want a cash store? Zenimax would not have done this change if they felt the profit made would justify the investment made and going to be made.
The facts are there, the subscription model revenue is shrinking for the industry as a whole, and it will become harder harder to compete for that shrinking market, especially when WoW holds nearly half of that subscriber revenue market.
You speak as if ESO went B2P by necessity.
Truth is, this was planned since the very beginning of development and everything they do is to milk as much money out of you as possible.
If this wasn't planned for a long time, how do you explain them showing Imperial City at pretty much ready state last summer, but not releasing it? Or Wrothgar for that matter. I'm quite sure we saw Murkmire as well in Quakecon last summer, with NPCs placed etc.
Obviously, these were made for Cash Shop instead, because that's how you get the most money out of it. Meanwhile, we were thrown the scraps in form of short dungeons & systems that'll be milked for even more money in the future (dyes, Undaunted chests etc).
Truth be told, it's better for MMOs to shut down entirely, or for them to never be made, since that time wasted on Cash Shop fluff & DLCs could be used to create another good MMO instead, rather than contributing negatively to the overall quality of gaming.Edited by DDuke on February 2, 2015 3:08PM3 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesfrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »snip
Well, you put the whole thing in a different perspective for me, and I appreciate that. Sorry about my dullness. I might not fully agree with you, but I can see your points.
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I'm willing to wait and see how it goes. Can't really say the game has failed yet, since nothing has changed yet.
edit: typos
We've waited for many games, and we've seen for many games.
It never worked before, and it most likely never will.
@eisberg
Ok, what's your end game?
You play on semantics(about the polls), fail to get points on purpose(my f2p link), ignore facts that doesn't suit your agenda(subs were growing rather than falling) and just generaly spread around misconceptions and myths(games going f2p for survival)
Yet you seem smarter than this. So you must have an ulterior motive.
Is it worth to see a game ruined just because you don't want to pay a subscription?
Your F2P link is talking about Mobile app gaming, not MMOs, they are completely different markets, and that particular market has a much larger library of games to choose from. Your link means nothing for MMO gaming, only for Mobile app gaming.
What shows the subscriptions were growing? We haven't heard anything from the devs stating that subscriptions were growing, we haven't heard anything since they reached the 772K subscribers 6 months ago. Actually, we haven't heard any subscriber numbers from anybody who would actually know.
And yes, the poll means nothing, having to pay to be a part of a poll is far from being reliable. At best it provides smoke, something for the Zenimax to look into to see if it is a good decision or not, but they will also look into the opinions of past subscribers, and the opinions of people who would have bought the game, but didn't for what ever reason. Listening to what is mostly likely a fast shrinking user base is not the best group to listen to. For the fact they wanted to be a subscription based, and stated it was important to be that way, shows that something has changed drastically enough to make them have to change the model. What changes drastically? Not having enough subscribers to warrant the investment made and going to be made is going to be that change.
In the old days, we saw MMO after MMO after MMO getting shut down, even if they were making some kind of profit. We no longer see that all that much anymore since F2P has taken over, now instead of shutting down they change the payment model. So yes, we can see that changing the model is more about survival at worst, or for continuing development on the MMO at best instead of being put on maintenance mode only.
Is it worth seeing ESO going into Maintenance mode only, or getting shut down just because you do not want a cash store? Zenimax would not have done this change if they felt the profit made would justify the investment made and going to be made.
The facts are there, the subscription model revenue is shrinking for the industry as a whole, and it will become harder harder to compete for that shrinking market, especially when WoW holds nearly half of that subscriber revenue market.
You speak as if ESO went B2P by necessity.
Truth is, this was planned since the very beginning of development and everything they do is to milk as much money out of you as possible.
If this wasn't planned for a long time, how do you explain them showing Imperial City at pretty much ready state last summer, but not releasing it? Or Wrothgar for that matter. I'm quite sure we saw Murkmire as well in Quakecon last summer, with NPCs placed etc.
Obviously, these were made for Cash Shop instead, because that's how you get the most money out of it. Meanwhile, we were thrown the scraps in form of short dungeons & systems that'll be milked for even more money in the future (dyes, Undaunted chests etc).
Truth be told, it's better for MMOs to shut down entirely, or for them to never be made, since that time wasted on Cash Shop fluff & DLCs could be used to create another good MMO instead, rather than contributing negatively to the overall quality of gaming.
1- Prove they had to planned since the beginning.
2- How do you know Imperial city was in a ready state? Are you a developer for the game? Do you know what work still needed to be done?
3 -
DDuke✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Dislike - all of the "dislikes" abovefrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »snip
Well, you put the whole thing in a different perspective for me, and I appreciate that. Sorry about my dullness. I might not fully agree with you, but I can see your points.
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I'm willing to wait and see how it goes. Can't really say the game has failed yet, since nothing has changed yet.
edit: typos
We've waited for many games, and we've seen for many games.
It never worked before, and it most likely never will.
@eisberg
Ok, what's your end game?
You play on semantics(about the polls), fail to get points on purpose(my f2p link), ignore facts that doesn't suit your agenda(subs were growing rather than falling) and just generaly spread around misconceptions and myths(games going f2p for survival)
Yet you seem smarter than this. So you must have an ulterior motive.
Is it worth to see a game ruined just because you don't want to pay a subscription?
Your F2P link is talking about Mobile app gaming, not MMOs, they are completely different markets, and that particular market has a much larger library of games to choose from. Your link means nothing for MMO gaming, only for Mobile app gaming.
What shows the subscriptions were growing? We haven't heard anything from the devs stating that subscriptions were growing, we haven't heard anything since they reached the 772K subscribers 6 months ago. Actually, we haven't heard any subscriber numbers from anybody who would actually know.
And yes, the poll means nothing, having to pay to be a part of a poll is far from being reliable. At best it provides smoke, something for the Zenimax to look into to see if it is a good decision or not, but they will also look into the opinions of past subscribers, and the opinions of people who would have bought the game, but didn't for what ever reason. Listening to what is mostly likely a fast shrinking user base is not the best group to listen to. For the fact they wanted to be a subscription based, and stated it was important to be that way, shows that something has changed drastically enough to make them have to change the model. What changes drastically? Not having enough subscribers to warrant the investment made and going to be made is going to be that change.
In the old days, we saw MMO after MMO after MMO getting shut down, even if they were making some kind of profit. We no longer see that all that much anymore since F2P has taken over, now instead of shutting down they change the payment model. So yes, we can see that changing the model is more about survival at worst, or for continuing development on the MMO at best instead of being put on maintenance mode only.
Is it worth seeing ESO going into Maintenance mode only, or getting shut down just because you do not want a cash store? Zenimax would not have done this change if they felt the profit made would justify the investment made and going to be made.
The facts are there, the subscription model revenue is shrinking for the industry as a whole, and it will become harder harder to compete for that shrinking market, especially when WoW holds nearly half of that subscriber revenue market.
You speak as if ESO went B2P by necessity.
Truth is, this was planned since the very beginning of development and everything they do is to milk as much money out of you as possible.
If this wasn't planned for a long time, how do you explain them showing Imperial City at pretty much ready state last summer, but not releasing it? Or Wrothgar for that matter. I'm quite sure we saw Murkmire as well in Quakecon last summer, with NPCs placed etc.
Obviously, these were made for Cash Shop instead, because that's how you get the most money out of it. Meanwhile, we were thrown the scraps in form of short dungeons & systems that'll be milked for even more money in the future (dyes, Undaunted chests etc).
Truth be told, it's better for MMOs to shut down entirely, or for them to never be made, since that time wasted on Cash Shop fluff & DLCs could be used to create another good MMO instead, rather than contributing negatively to the overall quality of gaming.
1- Prove they had to planned since the beginning.
2- How do you know Imperial city was in a ready state? Are you a developer for the game? Do you know what work still needed to be done?
Either it was planned, or they're so incompetent it takes over a year to finish up a single piece of content. Pick your poison.
Also, things like Thieves Guild/Dark Brotherhood were promised "two or three months after launch". We all know how that ended up
Plain misleading of customers to keep them subscribed, while creating Cash Shop items & DLC.Edited by DDuke on February 2, 2015 3:34PM3 -
Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above@eisberg
The point you actively missed with that link was simply an illustration of gamer's behavior towards f2p. Anyone reading it would have gathered that.
What showed that the subscription were growing are the trends on steam charts. It usually shows trends of the whole community.
If we take that 772k number as true, which itself is kind of unreliable, we'd get the worst amount of subscribers at 192k and current, after the growth since 17th of december, at around 410k currently.
This poll is useful as it targets the demographic that is the most important for ESO: people that have bought the game and care enough to be on the forums, subscribed or not. Those are the actual core audience of the game, every one else is secundary and optional.
Those that left or unsubscribed can still participate in this poll. And do not confuse the message sent by unsubscribing. It does not mean that the game should be f2p, it means the game has to be worth their money and time.That's their opinion and what should be acted upon.
Those that didn't buy the game yet are not important. If you lose player retention, acquiring new players is useless as they'll go away too.
We really know it wasn't about survival, and that's the myth PR department are trying to spin since the begining of this model.
The goal of such a change is just to create a second launch to have a new wave of locusts. It's just a quick cash mechanic, but it does not work on the long term and it hurts the gameplay in every single case.
f2p/b2p IS maintenance mode, and it doesn't even prioritize maintenance tasks. it is worse than death, and games do not recover from it. Neither revenue wise nor gameplay wise.
You missread the stats. The shrinking is not due to players being not interested but because publishers are shortsighted and just switch to f2p for a quick buck as soon as they publicly can.
Not only that, but you're comparing ALL the f2p games out there to only the mmorpgs, which really is comparing apples to oranges.
But you could point out an article being about mobile gaming, so I assume you have the ability to do so for those stats as well, yet you didn't. It leaves me only with the conclusion you're doing it on purpose.0 -
NewBlacksmurf✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Like - all of the "likes" aboveHortator Mopa wrote: »Hortator Mopa wrote: »67% Don't like it.
29% Like it.
Yep they are "Doing it because the fans asked for it".
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Because a forum poll on a forum that you have to pay to get into is all that reliable? Umm, no.
How do you think they will get money from people who dont pay sub to continue running when it goes b2p.Hortator Mopa wrote: »67% Don't like it.
29% Like it.
Yep they are "Doing it because the fans asked for it".
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Because a forum poll on a forum that you have to pay to get into is all that reliable? Umm, no.
Exactly what I was going to say!!!
The fans consist of the people who are in this forum, People who payed once to play oblivion and skyrim, and people who play other MMOs
So even if it was 100% yes, that's like 2/3 or more people who are unaccounted for.
How will they get money.....
Box sales go along way when considering a launch on consoles.
They is a strong possibility to sale 1 - 4 mil boxes so this along with the console market that strongly supports DLC vs subscription based gaming is mathematically worth the change.
[/quote]
If they dont want to pay a small $15 to play a month, then why would they pay money at all in the crown store lol. [/quote]
Looking at Destiny, BF4, Titanfall, Call of Duty, Dragon Age, etc. sales those particular games are doing well. While some of these games different in the audience, the concept or pay-wall is the same. What works for PC doesn't translate over to console as far as pay-walls but consider that there are just as many if not more customers this market will open up to, the Crown Store will prosper just fine.
-Also, for the PC market, I'm one who has no issue with paying for a subscription but in this game I canceled in Sept/Oct due to the "missing" red boxes and the frequency of the client crashing. Now that the LFG tool doesn't work I feel like canceling again.
I would fully support the crown store vs. access to game time. It a different perspective and seemingly offers a reward for an active subscription that is not based on actually getting online and playing. If I only play for a few days, I still get crowns for the sub.-PC (PTS)/Xbox One: NewBlacksmurf
~<{[50]}>~ looks better than *5013 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesfrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »@eisberg
The point you actively missed with that link was simply an illustration of gamer's behavior towards f2p. Anyone reading it would have gathered that.
What showed that the subscription were growing are the trends on steam charts. It usually shows trends of the whole community.
If we take that 772k number as true, which itself is kind of unreliable, we'd get the worst amount of subscribers at 192k and current, after the growth since 17th of december, at around 410k currently.
This poll is useful as it targets the demographic that is the most important for ESO: people that have bought the game and care enough to be on the forums, subscribed or not. Those are the actual core audience of the game, every one else is secundary and optional.
Those that left or unsubscribed can still participate in this poll. And do not confuse the message sent by unsubscribing. It does not mean that the game should be f2p, it means the game has to be worth their money and time.That's their opinion and what should be acted upon.
Those that didn't buy the game yet are not important. If you lose player retention, acquiring new players is useless as they'll go away too.
We really know it wasn't about survival, and that's the myth PR department are trying to spin since the begining of this model.
The goal of such a change is just to create a second launch to have a new wave of locusts. It's just a quick cash mechanic, but it does not work on the long term and it hurts the gameplay in every single case.
f2p/b2p IS maintenance mode, and it doesn't even prioritize maintenance tasks. it is worse than death, and games do not recover from it. Neither revenue wise nor gameplay wise.
You missread the stats. The shrinking is not due to players being not interested but because publishers are shortsighted and just switch to f2p for a quick buck as soon as they publicly can.
Not only that, but you're comparing ALL the f2p games out there to only the mmorpgs, which really is comparing apples to oranges.
But you could point out an article being about mobile gaming, so I assume you have the ability to do so for those stats as well, yet you didn't. It leaves me only with the conclusion you're doing it on purpose.
I'm comparing all F2P games with MMOs? Are you kidding me? You are the one that tried to use some article about Mobile App gaming and trying to state that it was about MMO gaming, hence why you stated stats from it. I showed you that you were wrong in using that data. Do enough research and you'll find out that it is the consumers that have changed, less and less people are wanting/willing to pay a subscription, and there are some excellent choices out there in MMOs that you do not have to pay a subscription for. Also, I have shown stats in this thread and another, stats that actually relate to MMO gaming, and not Mobile App gaming like you did.
As for hurting gameplay or what not, that is subjective.3 -
JamilaRaj✭✭✭✭✭
✭Dislike - othertexhnolyze wrote: »Well, I'm not a very competitive player, just a casual who loves strolling around doing quests. One thing I know is that the "P2W players" won't be able to do anything to me while I'm not in Cyrodill.
Sure, power of credit card will be felt most in PvP, but make no mistake, everybody will be affected as ZOS will push people to cash shop. Before soon you'll find, while strolling around and doing quests, that there are subtle obstacles at every turn and you either pay to overcome them or suffer.0 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly fees@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO
also, you want to use Steam stats, ok? Lets see:
http://steamcharts.com/app/306130
Month Avg. Players Gain % Gain Peak Players
Last 30 Days 966.8 -39.0 -3.88% 2,095
January 2015 1,005.8 +162.2 +19.23% 2,095
December 2014 843.5 +333.1 +65.26% 1,924
November 2014 510.4 -120.6 -19.11% 1,187
October 2014 631.0 -80.8 -11.36% 1,270
September 2014 711.9 -535.8 -42.94% 1,439
August 2014 1,247.7 -744.9 -37.38% 2,290
July 2014 1,992.6 - - 3,107
So it dropped by 62% from July 2014 to November 2014. It got some more playing during the time that the game was being sold at $18 in December, and those people could still be playing into January on their free month. Plus in January is when it was announced that the model was changing, and it stands to reason some bought the game because of that news as well, myself included and others have mentioned doing the same on these forums.
So not even the Steam stats are really showing any increase for subscription numbers. But it does show 62% less players playing on the average during the time when there was no sale on the game and no news of changing model.
Lets look at another game that changed their model. http://steamcharts.com/app/215280
They changed their model in December 2012, didn't announce the change till the day they made the change. Look at the numbers before it went Buy to Play. Since then it has stayed above those numbers, especially the number in November. So using Steam number like you did, we see an MMO that actually looks to be doing better players playing wise.
But we both should know that using Steam numbers still don't mean anything, right? To many unanswered questions, to many holes.
Only thing we know, ESO wasn't making enough revenue that Zenimax Media and investors wanted, otherwise they would not have changed the model.Edited by eisberg on February 2, 2015 5:30PM1 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feestexhnolyze wrote: »Well, I'm not a very competitive player, just a casual who loves strolling around doing quests. One thing I know is that the "P2W players" won't be able to do anything to me while I'm not in Cyrodill.
Sure, power of credit card will be felt most in PvP, but make no mistake, everybody will be affected as ZOS will push people to cash shop. Before soon you'll find, while strolling around and doing quests, that there are subtle obstacles at every turn and you either pay to overcome them or suffer.
This all depends on how they handle it. Sure what you said could be true, but on the other hand they could treat it like Guild Wars 2, where the store does not effect PvP at all, and while questing/leveling up there is nothing that you need to overcome that can be bought from the store.1 -
Dislike - all of the "dislikes" abovefrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »@eisberg
The point you actively missed with that link was simply an illustration of gamer's behavior towards f2p. Anyone reading it would have gathered that.
What showed that the subscription were growing are the trends on steam charts. It usually shows trends of the whole community.
If we take that 772k number as true, which itself is kind of unreliable, we'd get the worst amount of subscribers at 192k and current, after the growth since 17th of december, at around 410k currently.
This poll is useful as it targets the demographic that is the most important for ESO: people that have bought the game and care enough to be on the forums, subscribed or not. Those are the actual core audience of the game, every one else is secundary and optional.
Those that left or unsubscribed can still participate in this poll. And do not confuse the message sent by unsubscribing. It does not mean that the game should be f2p, it means the game has to be worth their money and time.That's their opinion and what should be acted upon.
Those that didn't buy the game yet are not important. If you lose player retention, acquiring new players is useless as they'll go away too.
We really know it wasn't about survival, and that's the myth PR department are trying to spin since the begining of this model.
The goal of such a change is just to create a second launch to have a new wave of locusts. It's just a quick cash mechanic, but it does not work on the long term and it hurts the gameplay in every single case.
f2p/b2p IS maintenance mode, and it doesn't even prioritize maintenance tasks. it is worse than death, and games do not recover from it. Neither revenue wise nor gameplay wise.
You missread the stats. The shrinking is not due to players being not interested but because publishers are shortsighted and just switch to f2p for a quick buck as soon as they publicly can.
Not only that, but you're comparing ALL the f2p games out there to only the mmorpgs, which really is comparing apples to oranges.
But you could point out an article being about mobile gaming, so I assume you have the ability to do so for those stats as well, yet you didn't. It leaves me only with the conclusion you're doing it on purpose.
I'm comparing all F2P games with MMOs? Are you kidding me? You are the one that tried to use some article about Mobile App gaming and trying to state that it was about MMO gaming, hence why you stated stats from it. I showed you that you were wrong in using that data. Do enough research and you'll find out that it is the consumers that have changed, less and less people are wanting/willing to pay a subscription, and there are some excellent choices out there in MMOs that you do not have to pay a subscription for. Also, I have shown stats in this thread and another, stats that actually relate to MMO gaming, and not Mobile App gaming like you did.
As for hurting gameplay or what not, that is subjective.
I used mine as an illustration of how f2p player bases behave. It's not the first time I use this link as such and apparently you're the first one to missunderstand. The article is so obviously about the mobile platform that it can't be ambiguous. Reread the post and it's quite clear.
We don't have an equivalent for mmorpgs, but even if it were 22% of the player base purchasing things once, it would still be inferior in revenue.
What you are taking as a win for the f2p model is the growth of the moba genre, which is entirely unrelated to mmorpgs.
You're also seeing as a loss for the model the reduction of its revenue when it actually is the increase in popularity of the "cash grab" strategy.
Those switches are no longer about survival. Maybe DDO and LOTRO at their time were, and there is a reasonable doubt for AoC, but all other f2p switches and those that occur nowadays are not due to failure but due to a form of "planned obsolescence". It's just how MMOs are marketed nowadays.
The players can only consume what is offered to them, and there is a reason people return to WoW every time rather than sticking to the f2p games. They simply would rather have an old game that improves than a newer game that devolves.
And in the case of f2p hurting gameplay, there is no subjectivity.
To be exact, in most case, there is nothing subjective about game design. It's partly an art but it is mostly a science. It takes root in mathematics (game/decision theory) and psychology (behaviorialism).
You don't need to know all that, though, just try to put yourself in the developer's shoes and use common sense. The model depends on the cash shop for survival. Which means things that sell are what have the highest priority. In the best cases, everything just takes the backseat, in the average case, some systems are designed with several ways of paying ingame/real money. In the worst case, the working systems are purposefully broken in order to make the cash shop work to repair them.
In all those cases, the gameplay suffers and the game gets less long term improvements.
When even devs openly speak about the sacrifices they have to make in order to make it work, you should understand: it is bad for the games.
That you discuss that a short term strategy is positive for the publishers, that remains credible, they can indeed make a lot of money quickly with a switch and move on to another project.
But you cannot argue that the games aren't harmed.0 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesfrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »@eisberg
The point you actively missed with that link was simply an illustration of gamer's behavior towards f2p. Anyone reading it would have gathered that.
What showed that the subscription were growing are the trends on steam charts. It usually shows trends of the whole community.
If we take that 772k number as true, which itself is kind of unreliable, we'd get the worst amount of subscribers at 192k and current, after the growth since 17th of december, at around 410k currently.
This poll is useful as it targets the demographic that is the most important for ESO: people that have bought the game and care enough to be on the forums, subscribed or not. Those are the actual core audience of the game, every one else is secundary and optional.
Those that left or unsubscribed can still participate in this poll. And do not confuse the message sent by unsubscribing. It does not mean that the game should be f2p, it means the game has to be worth their money and time.That's their opinion and what should be acted upon.
Those that didn't buy the game yet are not important. If you lose player retention, acquiring new players is useless as they'll go away too.
We really know it wasn't about survival, and that's the myth PR department are trying to spin since the begining of this model.
The goal of such a change is just to create a second launch to have a new wave of locusts. It's just a quick cash mechanic, but it does not work on the long term and it hurts the gameplay in every single case.
f2p/b2p IS maintenance mode, and it doesn't even prioritize maintenance tasks. it is worse than death, and games do not recover from it. Neither revenue wise nor gameplay wise.
You missread the stats. The shrinking is not due to players being not interested but because publishers are shortsighted and just switch to f2p for a quick buck as soon as they publicly can.
Not only that, but you're comparing ALL the f2p games out there to only the mmorpgs, which really is comparing apples to oranges.
But you could point out an article being about mobile gaming, so I assume you have the ability to do so for those stats as well, yet you didn't. It leaves me only with the conclusion you're doing it on purpose.
I'm comparing all F2P games with MMOs? Are you kidding me? You are the one that tried to use some article about Mobile App gaming and trying to state that it was about MMO gaming, hence why you stated stats from it. I showed you that you were wrong in using that data. Do enough research and you'll find out that it is the consumers that have changed, less and less people are wanting/willing to pay a subscription, and there are some excellent choices out there in MMOs that you do not have to pay a subscription for. Also, I have shown stats in this thread and another, stats that actually relate to MMO gaming, and not Mobile App gaming like you did.
As for hurting gameplay or what not, that is subjective.
I used mine as an illustration of how f2p player bases behave. It's not the first time I use this link as such and apparently you're the first one to missunderstand. The article is so obviously about the mobile platform that it can't be ambiguous. Reread the post and it's quite clear.
We don't have an equivalent for mmorpgs, but even if it were 22% of the player base purchasing things once, it would still be inferior in revenue.
What you are taking as a win for the f2p model is the growth of the moba genre, which is entirely unrelated to mmorpgs.
You're also seeing as a loss for the model the reduction of its revenue when it actually is the increase in popularity of the "cash grab" strategy.
Those switches are no longer about survival. Maybe DDO and LOTRO at their time were, and there is a reasonable doubt for AoC, but all other f2p switches and those that occur nowadays are not due to failure but due to a form of "planned obsolescence". It's just how MMOs are marketed nowadays.
The players can only consume what is offered to them, and there is a reason people return to WoW every time rather than sticking to the f2p games. They simply would rather have an old game that improves than a newer game that devolves.
And in the case of f2p hurting gameplay, there is no subjectivity.
To be exact, in most case, there is nothing subjective about game design. It's partly an art but it is mostly a science. It takes root in mathematics (game/decision theory) and psychology (behaviorialism).
You don't need to know all that, though, just try to put yourself in the developer's shoes and use common sense. The model depends on the cash shop for survival. Which means things that sell are what have the highest priority. In the best cases, everything just takes the backseat, in the average case, some systems are designed with several ways of paying ingame/real money. In the worst case, the working systems are purposefully broken in order to make the cash shop work to repair them.
In all those cases, the gameplay suffers and the game gets less long term improvements.
When even devs openly speak about the sacrifices they have to make in order to make it work, you should understand: it is bad for the games.
That you discuss that a short term strategy is positive for the publishers, that remains credible, they can indeed make a lot of money quickly with a switch and move on to another project.
But you cannot argue that the games aren't harmed.
Your link doesn't actually state very well what kind of games it is talking about specifically, it just says free to play. I have a feeling you knew this already, and why you kept on stating the numbers for it. You are just back pedaling now that I have proven that your article is talking about something completely different then what you were making it to mean. No one else had a problem with it because either they didn't read the article, or if they did since it was not clear about it being about Mobile App gaming, they probably assumed it was about MMO gaming since it was used to talk about MMO gaming. it took someone like me to dive deeper into your article and found that it wasn't talking about MMO gaming at all, nor the free to play aspect of MMO gaming.
I'm sorry, but what makes a game good or bad, or fun and not fun is purely subjective. What may ruin the game for 1 person, can very well make the game better for another.1 -
Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above@eisberg
Steam numbers are useful to show trends.
They aren't exact numbers for games that also have releases outside of Steam but both communities follow the same patterns.
It's just like how polls of a random subset of the population are used to determine trends in the general population.
That's how we should use those numbers, and that's how I've been using them.
MMOs usually lose 80% of their player base by the end of the third month.
It's not a sign of quality but that's just how the locust behaves when a new game gets released. -62% is actually quite good for a recent game.
The game was available at $12-$17 since months, most of my friends got it at that price in august. December was nothing different aside perhaps christmas. However, unless everyone got early gifts, the activity picked up by the time the livestream about 1.6 got broadcasted.
I do not have available stats about this, but in my experience games usually lose activity over the christmas period due to all the family activities. In the last 16 years I've been playing, all my servers were ghost towns in the second half of December.
The logical conclusion is that the livestream impacted player interest in a positive way.
What we know from the stats is that either the b2p anouncement or the release of 1.6 on the pts impacted player activity negatively. It is too early to know which one, or if both are at cause.
But despite lowering a bit, it is still back at above half actives in average, and the peak players at 2/3.
if we were to trust the 772k subscribers in July statistic, this is a lot more subscribers than what would be necessary for survival. Around 4 times more.
You use superdata in your posts all the time, you obviously trust them, so take the increase for what it's worth: butload of money for ZOS'.
Your TSW example is actually super sad. It shows they failed their switch even in the first few months. They did at best 5 times more players when we know that a game needs 7 to 9 times more players in order to replace the subsciption revenue.(according to superdata) So at their best, they were still doing worse revenue wise.
But of course, it seems we're not arguing about the same thing. For you, doing well is just having more players, but doing well for a company is actually to have more revenue. Whether you gain a million with 2000 or 20 000 customers, what matters is that you've earned a million.
And finally, ZOS is not thinking about the long term but the short term. They think they can repeat the miracle that was Skyrim with some DLC sugar on top and then move on to other projects. That's why they are doing the switch. Not because ESO is doing poorely, we know it doesn't, but because they just want a final cash out and then leave the game to the interns.
EDIT: ok, you caught me, you're smarter than everyone else reading forums and articles. I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you!
I even some times explained that "it was about mobile games" just to throw people like you off my scent, but it wasn't enough. Congrats.
And if it makes you feel better, keep believing games are only about tastes.
In the meantime, devs can recreate virtual skinner boxes and make calculation of depth per complexity ratios in order to engage players.
Humans are not predictable at all and it isn't easy at all to push their butons.
Edited by frosth.darkomenb16_ESO on February 2, 2015 6:14PM1 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesReally, you have stated in the past it was about mobile games? Got a link to show that? Cause in your post I was referring to in this thread you did not state it was about Mobile gaming at all.
Anyways, for B2P/F2P MMOs, it is about having more players, the more players you have the more you end up having paying into the cash shop. Also, the more players who have, the easier it is to retain people because this means more players are able to actually find and play with other people, and so they retain their paying customers even more. When an MMO starts to lose its playerbase, and it keeps on losing them, it becomes harder and harder to find players to play with, and it will just exasperate the falling numbers even more since people will leave for the lack of players.
So yes, the number of players is important for both Subscription and non subscription based games.
Again, neither of us have any numbers for this game, But it is obvious that this game was not making the revenue that was to be expected, otherwise they would not have changed the model. I am not about to claim they were lying from the beginning, without any proof at all. So since they had intentions of keeping the game as subscription model, and something has changed to make them change the model, it is logical to assume it is because they were not making the expected revenue.1 -
Dislike - all of the "dislikes" aboveReally, you have stated in the past it was about mobile games? Got a link to show that? Cause in your post I was referring to in this thread you did not state it was about Mobile gaming at all.
Anyways, for B2P/F2P MMOs, it is about having more players, the more players you have the more you end up having paying into the cash shop. Also, the more players who have, the easier it is to retain people because this means more players are able to actually find and play with other people, and so they retain their paying customers even more. When an MMO starts to lose its playerbase, and it keeps on losing them, it becomes harder and harder to find players to play with, and it will just exasperate the falling numbers even more since people will leave for the lack of players.
So yes, the number of players is important for both Subscription and non subscription based games.
Again, neither of us have any numbers for this game, But it is obvious that this game was not making the revenue that was to be expected, otherwise they would not have changed the model. I am not about to claim they were lying from the beginning, without any proof at all. So since they had intentions of keeping the game as subscription model, and something has changed to make them change the model, it is logical to assume it is because they were not making the expected revenue.
Honestly, I do not have a link and I do not find it necessary to look for it.
I have been using that article for over a week of posting. Sometimes even in threads you were participating in and and you did not "pick up" on any ambiguity then. Really, no one did.
The first time I used that link I even said something similar to "those are the stats I could find. of course they are driven down by mobile games" because at the time I thought it was taking all f2p games into acount which I corrected.
In this current thread I do not think it was an ambiguous use. I explained how people will not spend much in the cash shop, then went on with an illustration: "look at that article on mobile games, no one pays there" with a small "extract" to make people gain time. In the same post I even used the figure that a f2p PC game needs 7 to 9 times more player to compensate the lack of subscription, which contradicts directly with a 2.2% figure.
With the context, I don't see how anyone could misinterpret.
I never said that the number of players was not important, just that it was secundary. Especially with ESO's mega server tech. There could be 2000 players or 2M players loged in, we would see/feel the same amount of players.
Revenue is the main number we need to look at.
We don't have the exact numbers, but we can extrapolate them or at least trends. 772k from superdata, a source you cite and seem to trust, is all we've got. We have the activity charts of that time period too, so we can with the active charts of today do a "cross multiplication" to estimate the current susbcribers. It gives a good idea of how the game is doing.
Which comes down to the fact you really need to address my last point, because each time you just ignore it. They were doing decent money. 50 to 75% profit margins from what we can estimate. For a comparison, at the same revenue and with only 32% margin, the studio that created Warframe gets even chinese chicken kings interested.
The motivation for the change really shouldn't be revenue based, because the game was doing very well for an MMO this early in its lifecycle. The studio doesn't have such high operating costs so at no point did they stop making a fairly nice profit.
It's either honest mismanagement or an attempt at getting a cash grab.
Here's a long but interesting read explaining what I'm trying to say in much better:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/147220/was-zenimax-stupid-like-a-fox/p1
The thing is, even a moderatly succesful susbcription MMO is still getting a lot more revenue. And seeing how some could live and evolve for over a decade, this is a lot of money thrown away just for the sake of the "now".
0 -
Alphashado✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Dislike - all of the "dislikes" aboveHortator Mopa wrote: »frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »As for the polls accuracy: No poll in existance is 100% accurate.
Most are of 1000-2500 people to represent populations of millions.
That's good enough to get a good feeling of the general population and opinion trends. They don't need to be accurate.
What this poll here shows is the opinion of over 1000 people out of a population of a few hundred thousands. The sample is biased towards those that care enough about the game to have bought it and hang out on forums.
In short, this poll shows the opinion of those tgat matter for the long term survival of an mmo.
I don't doubt there may be 100ks people out there that want to see the game go b2p and millions that want it to be f2p, but their opinions don't matter.
Retention is more important than acquisition. Especially when dealing with fickle and greedy new players that just want to consume without giving back.
exactly. well put.
Yeah, I am sure that the opinion of a user base that was shrinking very fast is the best opinion to go with.
Most people (like you) assume that this B2P conversion was because the subscription wasn't bringing in enough revenue and the population was dwindling. It's only natural to think that way because every other MMO that dropped subscription did it for that reason.
HOWEVER. The gigantic difference between ESO and all those other games is that ESO is launching with console versions. That changes the scenario dramatically.
I've been playing this game since launch. I have seen the ebb and flow of the population. I recruit for a major trading guild. I have to recruit 5-10 people every day or so because we boot people after 10 days offline. Know what? That never changed. Never. It was a steady flow of 5-10 people leaving the game every single day from launch till right now. "Hah!" You say. "See! Look at all the people leaving in droves!"
Well here is the kicker. Every single day we are EASILY replacing those players with new players. Not once during the entire duration of this game since launch have we EVER struggled to replace those that left. There was in influx of new players every day that matched the numbers of those that left. After the CS was announced, the population actually increased drastically. Low level zones were overflowing with new players.
Then B2P was announced.
It wasn't because the population was low.
It was because ZoS couldn't come to a legal agreement with Xbox and PS in regards to charging a subscription for consoles.
So please stop with all the "the game was dying" nonsense. That may have applied to other MMOs, but the Console launch absolutely took a hot steaming dump on a loyal, robust subscription community. EVE and WoW are still going strong with a subscription and I am 100% positive that ESO could have as well if it weren't for consoles.
Edited by Alphashado on February 2, 2015 7:29PM0 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesAlphashado wrote: »Hortator Mopa wrote: »frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »As for the polls accuracy: No poll in existance is 100% accurate.
Most are of 1000-2500 people to represent populations of millions.
That's good enough to get a good feeling of the general population and opinion trends. They don't need to be accurate.
What this poll here shows is the opinion of over 1000 people out of a population of a few hundred thousands. The sample is biased towards those that care enough about the game to have bought it and hang out on forums.
In short, this poll shows the opinion of those tgat matter for the long term survival of an mmo.
I don't doubt there may be 100ks people out there that want to see the game go b2p and millions that want it to be f2p, but their opinions don't matter.
Retention is more important than acquisition. Especially when dealing with fickle and greedy new players that just want to consume without giving back.
exactly. well put.
Yeah, I am sure that the opinion of a user base that was shrinking very fast is the best opinion to go with.
Most people (like you) assume that this B2P conversion was because the subscription wasn't bringing in enough revenue and the population was dwindling. It's only natural to think that way because every other MMO that dropped subscription did it for that reason.
HOWEVER. The gigantic difference between ESO and all those other games is that ESO is launching with console versions. That changes the scenario dramatically.
I've been playing this game since launch. I have seen the ebb and flow of the population. I recruit for a major trading guild. I have to recruit 5-10 people every day or so because we boot people after 10 days offline. Know what? That never changed. Never. It was a steady flow of 5-10 people leaving the game every single day from launch till right now. "Hah!" You say. "See! Look at all the people leaving in droves!"
Well here is the kicker. Every single day we are EASILY replacing those players with new players. Not once during the entire duration of this game since launch have we EVER struggled to replace those that left. There was in influx of new players every day that matched the numbers of those that left. After the CS was announced, the population actually increased drastically. Low level zones were overflowing with new players.
Then B2P was announced.
It wasn't because the population was low.
It was because ZoS couldn't come to a legal agreement with Xbox and PS in regards to charging a subscription for consoles.
So please stop with all the "the game was dying" nonsense. That may have applied to other MMOs, but the Console launch absolutely took a hot steaming dump on a loyal, robust subscription community. EVE and WoW are still going strong with a subscription and I am 100% positive that ESO could have as well if it weren't for consoles.
yet Final Fantasy 11 and 14, both on the consoles and have a subscription. So what does this game going to console have to do with anything? Obviously a subscription based game can be on the consoles.
Edited by eisberg on February 2, 2015 7:34PM1 -
Vahrokh✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Like - otherfrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »That's how MMOs work. They start high at launch, then lose 80% of their players, then they improve and regain them back months after months by becoming worht their subs and more.
But for that to happen, the game has to actually improve.
I don't recall of succesful MMOs that went F2P after few months.
I don't recall of succesful MMOs that lost 80% of their player base in the first months.
I don't recall of MMOs that lost 80% of their players and then made it back up.
Some like GW2 started B2P, are succesfull but did not lose 80% of their players.
SWTOR is what comes closest to what you say, and it could do that only because Bioware and EA have so massively huge shoulders to be able and steer a failed AAA budget project into a decently succesful F2P game. Usually bad starting MMOs just drop to the dust, if they make to F2P they just slow down their fall.Edited by Vahrokh on February 2, 2015 8:04PMVaerah, Dark Elf Magicka Sorceress
Trials addict, soloer extraordinaire!
Here are my Elder Scrolls Online videos
Here is the Sorcerer Helper addon I have updated to work on current ESO2 -
Vahrokh✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Like - other
Yes but in Eve you can actually play for free if you choose to. Plex doesn't cost that much, you could earn that in a single day playing the Market or running LvL 4's.If there's no regular content, I don't see a reason to pay subscription. That's why it makes more sense in games like EVE: There's updates almost every second month. In ESO there's not.
PLEXes actually cost more than 30 game time days.
When you "farm" game money (ISK) and buy a "free" PLEX, somebody HAD to purchase that PLEX first, else it'd not be available for sale in game.
Therefore PLEXes are never free. They cost > $19 right now.Vaerah, Dark Elf Magicka Sorceress
Trials addict, soloer extraordinaire!
Here are my Elder Scrolls Online videos
Here is the Sorcerer Helper addon I have updated to work on current ESO2
