Maintenance for the week of November 11:
• [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – November 11, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
· Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – November 13, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – November 13, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – November 11, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
· Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – November 13, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – November 13, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
How do you feel about the B2P announcement
-
EölMPK✭✭✭Like - may be positive like LoL's cash shop, with only vanity itemsfrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »Elitism is strong here...
People seem to never heard about gw2.
B2P is totally fine.
http://mmofallout.com/ncsoft-third-quarter-finances/
GW2 has called, it's not doing fine.
If not doing fine means being out there since 2012 with lots of players, and releasing a real expansion after lots of new content by patchs earlier, I'm ok with that.
GW2 will be there for many years if it stays not doing fine this way.
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/announcing-the-first-guildwars2-expansion/
Can't see a company spending money with a game that gives no revenue.
It's not doing fine revenue wise, mainly because cash shops are not sustainable.
We have no idea how many active players they have as they don't release those numbers, but it probably got lower too.
They are just reverting to their old business model of releasing expansions.
They pretty much "invented" that model with Guild Wars 1, the only MMO I know to work that way, and it works well for them.
I don't have the links anymore, but there were two contradicting articles before the expansion anouncement. One of ArenaNet saying "we have no plans for an expansion", and one week later, one from NCsoft saying "yes they do".
I guess they got put back in their place by their higher ups.
GW2 is doing better than all f2p/b2p games, and better than some subscription based games, but it is not doing fine.
Thats because things are not being good in the world ($$$).
World's economy reflects mainly at hobbies (and things that are not essential to live), and mmo's are one of them.
There is something interesting in the chart you posted too, see Wildstar (sub) is not "doing good" too.
Never said subscription is a guaranteed success. Bad games die, as they should.
But subscription is the only model that allows for success.
Cant agree with that too.
If the game is freaking good, it will make success regardless of business model.
Imho, if ESO manage to keep b2p like gw2, without greedy things on the cash shop, and at the same time being able to keep their subs happy, we will see it grow a lot.
You keep on refering to GW2, which is not a bad game, yet they are not managing to grow in revenue. There are no examples of cash shop oriented games growing in revenue and ESO won't be the exception.
Following the GW2 formula would just mean to lose revenue just as fast.
Other games can lose less fast by going p2w though, which is sort of mandatory after some point or the devs don't get paid.
By your logic, the only game doing fine is WoW. I guess we are screwed than
But the important is, even if ESO doesnt explode in dollars after being B2P, the important thing is that it needs to be better than its now with subs.
And subs will die, this is a fact. People day by day dont want to pay subs anymore, cause people dont want to play the same game for lots of years like in the old days.
Eve Online, FFXIV, Lineage, and others I'm unaware of.
Even UO still pulled not too long ago 90k subscription, that's as much revenue than the entire Funcom games group.
People never wanted to pay for susbcriptions. People never wanted to play games for years. The MMO market has always been a niche compared to the rest of the gaming world. That doesn't mean that the susbcription model is on its way out, it just means that companies are currently trying to address MMOs to non MMO players, and they are all failing.
But that kind of model actually drive away the actual core audience of MMOs and the non mmo players are naturally less commited, so f2p/b2p games are bound to fail.
Those games are not even close to WOW. And they are on pair of GW2.
I play FF14 in the ps4, and there are way less players than gw2, at least that we can see ingame. I play at one of the most populated servers, Behemoth.
UO is a very special case, that game is simply amazing, even nowadays. A masterpiece.
But I still really think that what make a game bound to fail is itself and the developers, not the business model. I'm saying that ignoring f2p with p2w, cause those are cash grabs.
Eöl[MPK]
PS4
Grungebr - Altmer magicka templar
Eölbr - Dunmer magicka necro
Drizztbr - Khajiit stamina nb"In my thoughts and in my dreams, they're always in my mind
These songs of hobbits, dwarves and men, and elves
Come close your eyes, you can see them too..."1 -
Mercutio✭✭✭✭Like - all of the "likes" aboveLove it like a fat guy loves donuts. Were I a metrosexual the new crown store would be product. I dig it like an albino digs SPF 100 skin cream on a hot day in the Florida Keys. It's the whiskey to my Hemingway and the joint to my Lou Reed. Were I Buffalo Bill the Crown Shop would be in a pit, dirty and degraded, as I sang 'Goodbye Horses' to it.
I like it.The problem with arguing with a jackass is that they never stop braying.
*
#DwemerLife4 -
GhostShadows✭✭✭most of u dont realise it is already a pay to win after 1.6.
if u get power from champion points and if u get 10% extra exp for keep sub, u pay to win.
Maybe i m rong but i see it like that.4 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Hortator 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.
And they all suck.
I've never seen a game improve after dropping subscriptions. LOTRO is a good example. I used to love that game. Then it went F2P and the quality of the game went into a free fall.
I hope ESO is exception. But I doubt it.
After going F2P, lotro released Moria, Lothlorien, Rohan... you could not like it, but it was great for me, and too many others I know.
And ESO is not going F2P, it's B2P. Different things, regardless you think they are not.
My god, people are so used of being sucked (sub fee), that the fact that they dont need to keep paying that make them forget that they need to spend 60 bucks in the game.
Its almost masochistic oO
I said I've never seen a game improve after dropping subscriptions. I never said F2P and B2P was the same thing. So not sure what you are on about there.
I'm glad you enjoyed the new content in LOTRO but I sure didn't. It sucked compared to the Shadows of Angmar days when the quality and detail of the content was amazing. It was also supplemented by an excellent combat system that actually required intelligent and thought-provoking gameplay.
Now it's devolved into a simplistic button-mashing chore that a 2 year old could play by banging his hands on the keyboard. It's not even remotely the same game it was - and might as well be compared to a coloring book for toddlers.
And I'm not masochistic. I just rather pay a subscription to play an interesting game instead of not pay one to play a uninteresting game.
If the quality of gameplay in ESO improves as a result of it dropping subscriptions I'll be pleasantly surprised. But that's a big IF considering my past experiences.
The changes in LOTRO gameplay is not because of f2p, is a devs decision, this will happen even if they kept subs, unfortunatelly.
We really hope that ESO improves too, everyone that likes ESO trully wants this. Let's hope that you got surprised
ESO is a niche game. It appeals to old school RPGers who appreciate long term gameplay elements like complex character building and world exploration. Younger gamers don't care for this sort of thing and scorn it as grinding.
So If they abandon the current model to try and increase revenue by appealing to the B2P/F2P crowd they are going to alienate those who currently do play. Because that will take a huge adjustment to current gameplay. That's what I am saying and that's what LOTRO did.
I hope I'm surprised too.
Edited by Jeremy on February 6, 2015 6:03PM3 -
EölMPK✭✭✭Like - may be positive like LoL's cash shop, with only vanity itemsGhostShadows wrote: »most of u dont realise it is already a pay to win after 1.6.
if u get power from champion points and if u get 10% extra exp for keep sub, u pay to win.
Maybe i m rong but i see it like that.
As long as it keep with the diminushing returns, I dont see it as a big problem.Eöl[MPK]
PS4
Grungebr - Altmer magicka templar
Eölbr - Dunmer magicka necro
Drizztbr - Khajiit stamina nb"In my thoughts and in my dreams, they're always in my mind
These songs of hobbits, dwarves and men, and elves
Come close your eyes, you can see them too..."1 -
GhostShadows✭✭✭GhostShadows wrote: »most of u dont realise it is already a pay to win after 1.6.
if u get power from champion points and if u get 10% extra exp for keep sub, u pay to win.
Maybe i m rong but i see it like that.
As long as it keep with the diminushing returns, I dont see it as a big problem.
for me is not a problem and i will keep my sub.
it wasnt a depreciative observacion2 -
EölMPK✭✭✭Like - may be positive like LoL's cash shop, with only vanity itemsHortator 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.
And they all suck.
I've never seen a game improve after dropping subscriptions. LOTRO is a good example. I used to love that game. Then it went F2P and the quality of the game went into a free fall.
I hope ESO is exception. But I doubt it.
After going F2P, lotro released Moria, Lothlorien, Rohan... you could not like it, but it was great for me, and too many others I know.
And ESO is not going F2P, it's B2P. Different things, regardless you think they are not.
My god, people are so used of being sucked (sub fee), that the fact that they dont need to keep paying that make them forget that they need to spend 60 bucks in the game.
Its almost masochistic oO
I said I've never seen a game improve after dropping subscriptions. I never said F2P and B2P was the same thing. So not sure what you are on about there.
I'm glad you enjoyed the new content in LOTRO but I sure didn't. It sucked compared to the Shadows of Angmar days when the quality and detail of the content was amazing. It was also supplemented by an excellent combat system that actually required intelligent and thought-provoking gameplay.
Now it's devolved into a simplistic button-mashing chore that a 2 year old could play by banging his hands on the keyboard. It's not even remotely the same game it was - and might as well be compared to a coloring book for toddlers.
And I'm not masochistic. I just rather pay a subscription to play an interesting game instead of not pay one to play a uninteresting game.
If the quality of gameplay in ESO improves as a result of it dropping subscriptions I'll be pleasantly surprised. But that's a big IF considering my past experiences.
The changes in LOTRO gameplay is not because of f2p, is a devs decision, this will happen even if they kept subs, unfortunatelly.
We really hope that ESO improves too, everyone that likes ESO trully wants this. Let's hope that you got surprised
ESO is a niche game. It appeals to old school RPGers who appreciate long term gameplay elements like complex character building and world exploration. Younger gamers don't care for this sort of thing and scorn it as grinding.
So If they abandon the current model to try and increase revenue by appealing to the B2P/F2P crowd they are going to alienate those who currently do play. Because that will take a huge adjustment to current gameplay. That's what I am saying and that's what LOTRO did.
I hope I'm surprised too.
But ESO was the first ES title with subs, there is no way es fans to be used to it :P (myself as example). I'm used to buy my game and play it as I wish.
But I can understand your point, even if I don't agree. Imo sub is a really bad move toward consumers.
Edited by EölMPK on February 6, 2015 6:12PMEöl[MPK]
PS4
Grungebr - Altmer magicka templar
Eölbr - Dunmer magicka necro
Drizztbr - Khajiit stamina nb"In my thoughts and in my dreams, they're always in my mind
These songs of hobbits, dwarves and men, and elves
Come close your eyes, you can see them too..."1 -
Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above@Grunge
But the business model impacts how the game gets developed.
If you make your money on keeping people engaged with the game for years, then you'll develop the game towards that end.
If you make your money by selling items on the cash shop or DLCs, then that's what you'll be focused on.
The issue here is that one way is sustainable and geared towards the long term, the other is burning the candle by both ends.
A subscription is not a bad move towards the customers, quite the contrary.
It is offering a service for a fixed amount of money with no hidden costs. Ensure that you are providing quality and you won't be losing subscribers.
In a cash shop model, once a player has paid, he's no longer interesting.
GW2 is the same, they have no interest in keeping you around because they already have your money. It's actually more interesting for them if you buy the game and never actually log in.
You may feel that for you this move is interesting, that you'll be saving money, but the game will end up, at best, not being improved and you'll get bored of it.
The norm being the p2w and purposeful breaking of the game in order to increase revenue.
There is a reason why there aren't succesful f2p/b2p mmos, and that's because it doesn't work for mmorpgs.
3 -
Blooddancer✭✭✭The changes they are introducing are significant on a scale that make what we bought not what we will have in the future.
SWG changed so much no-one consider it to be the same game after NGE.
Making major changes after such a short time shows a lack of forward planning on the part of the Devs. I hear a death knell in the distance....1 -
EölMPK✭✭✭Like - may be positive like LoL's cash shop, with only vanity itemsfrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »@Grunge
But the business model impacts how the game gets developed.
If you make your money on keeping people engaged with the game for years, then you'll develop the game towards that end.
If you make your money by selling items on the cash shop or DLCs, then that's what you'll be focused on.
The issue here is that one way is sustainable and geared towards the long term, the other is burning the candle by both ends.
A subscription is not a bad move towards the customers, quite the contrary.
It is offering a service for a fixed amount of money with no hidden costs. Ensure that you are providing quality and you won't be losing subscribers.
In a cash shop model, once a player has paid, he's no longer interesting.
GW2 is the same, they have no interest in keeping you around because they already have your money. It's actually more interesting for them if you buy the game and never actually log in.
You may feel that for you this move is interesting, that you'll be saving money, but the game will end up, at best, not being improved and you'll get bored of it.
The norm being the p2w and purposeful breaking of the game in order to increase revenue.
There is a reason why there aren't succesful f2p/b2p mmos, and that's because it doesn't work for mmorpgs.
I think there is no long term for a sub game if no one wants to pay monthly to play the same game.
"A subscription is not a bad move towards the customers, quite the contrary.
It is offering a service for a fixed amount of money with no hidden costs. Ensure that you are providing quality and you won't be losing subscribers."
This should be true if they charge something like 2-3$ a month, but 15 imo is abusive. Remember that not everyone in america (for example) are paid in dollars, my case. So it's not just 15$ for me. The money I have to spend after converting currencies is not that little.
And other thing, the need to pay to even see your character (log in). This is quite ridiculous, cause you have already bought the game (the 60$ initial cost).
And to end, I fail to see a game as a service, it's a product to me. I really prefer to have the oportunity to buy the content I dont have already when I can, if I want and when I want, not "every month".
But just to be clear, all I said is based on thinking that the game will continue as a good quality game, not a cash grab.Eöl[MPK]
PS4
Grungebr - Altmer magicka templar
Eölbr - Dunmer magicka necro
Drizztbr - Khajiit stamina nb"In my thoughts and in my dreams, they're always in my mind
These songs of hobbits, dwarves and men, and elves
Come close your eyes, you can see them too..."3 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesfrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »@Grunge
But the business model impacts how the game gets developed.
If you make your money on keeping people engaged with the game for years, then you'll develop the game towards that end.
If you make your money by selling items on the cash shop or DLCs, then that's what you'll be focused on.
The issue here is that one way is sustainable and geared towards the long term, the other is burning the candle by both ends.
A subscription is not a bad move towards the customers, quite the contrary.
It is offering a service for a fixed amount of money with no hidden costs. Ensure that you are providing quality and you won't be losing subscribers.
In a cash shop model, once a player has paid, he's no longer interesting.
GW2 is the same, they have no interest in keeping you around because they already have your money. It's actually more interesting for them if you buy the game and never actually log in.
You may feel that for you this move is interesting, that you'll be saving money, but the game will end up, at best, not being improved and you'll get bored of it.
The norm being the p2w and purposeful breaking of the game in order to increase revenue.
There is a reason why there aren't succesful f2p/b2p mmos, and that's because it doesn't work for mmorpgs.
you do know that even a free to play or buy to play a game they have to keep the players engaged in to the game in order to actually get them to want to buy something from the cash shop,right? this is why you see a game like Guild Wars 2 having new content coming out every two weeks for nine to ten months out of the year. the focus to how they get players playing the game is the same no matter what model you choose the only difference is how they monetize the players. but no matter the model they all need players playing in order to actually make money.
also there has been no successful subscription mmo recently going by your own logic. for years now wow has been losing subscribers only getting a resurgence for a short time after an expansion EVE Online has lost subscribers. Final Fantasy 14 has lost subscribers since Square Enix has stated they have under 1 million subscribers for all three of their MMOs together.
how many subscription MMOs have we seen shut down over the years? how many buy to play MMOs have we seen shut down over the years? ever since the idea of buy to play or free to play have become popular we actually see less and less MMOs shutting down instead they switch their model.2 -
Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above@Grunge
I get your points, I pay in euro myself so it is more for me too. But this is a self centered point of view.
An MMO is not only a game service, it is a game development service. You pay the devs for them to expand the game for it to be played for years.
The long term comes from that: the resources and the necessity to create a game people continue to play "forever".
As the game improves, it passes the bar for more and more players.
As long as a game is well managed, it continues to grow. f2p and b2p games canno be well managed as their business models are too agressive.
In the words of ZOS directors: a cash shop requires sacrifices.
@eisberg
No they don't need players to remain engaged. They need them to be engaged enough to have an impulse buy during the "honey moon" phase.
After that, once players have "finished" the game, they won't pay for anything any more, so they might as well log off.
Only games where other players are content have any interest in keeping people playing, but ESO is not geared like that.
On your second point: There has never been a succesful f2p/b2p title in the western market.
GW2 is what came the closest, and it is a commercial success, but seeing its free fall in revenue, it is not a successful MMO. Definitely not as successful as a subscription based one any way.
If yo uwant to call a10 years old game finally stoping to increase a failure, please go ahead.
About new games, all those switches are not failures but planned obsolescence.
It's easier to get a quick cash and then leave a project to rot rather than commit 10 years of your studio's life into only one project, even if it means losing money in the process. As long as investors get ROI and some bonus profit, they are happy to move on to the next project.
And again: where are you getting that statistic for FFXIV? Every other source on the net, even official ones, point at FFXIV being at 2M subscribers, some even 2.3M. I could find some saying that FF11 was at 600K at the launch of of FF14, so maybe your 1M stat is a of all MMOS except FF14 ?1 -
EölMPK✭✭✭Like - may be positive like LoL's cash shop, with only vanity items@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO
Mmo's are games, and games are products. That's why sub models are disapearing. People day by day think this way, and it will be even more now with the newgen consoles. Excluding FF14, all other console mmos will be f2p/b2p (Neverwinter, EQ Next, ESO, WH Eternal Crusade, Destiny, etc)
This is how people want to pay for their games now.
B2P games can be well managed, and don't forget that ESO will keep the subs option. So, here is the thing people fail to see: After TU, ESO will care for both, cash shop people AND sub people, in order to make both happy.
Not an easy job, but still doable and if made the right way, very profitable.
This will be the big difference between GW2 and ESO, cause GW2 have no sub option (and the bot problem, there is a lot of botting in GW2, and this affects directly their cash shop, lowering a lot the gems sells cause of the gold sellers).
Regarding FF14, if you play it you can see it dont have too many players. Great pve mmo though, with a good community.Edited by EölMPK on February 6, 2015 7:46PMEöl[MPK]
PS4
Grungebr - Altmer magicka templar
Eölbr - Dunmer magicka necro
Drizztbr - Khajiit stamina nb"In my thoughts and in my dreams, they're always in my mind
These songs of hobbits, dwarves and men, and elves
Come close your eyes, you can see them too..."2 -
Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above@Grunge
This is not new, people have always wanted stuff for free and they always will.
But on the other hand, they will always pay for what they find valuable.
Whether it is a costume in a cash shop or a susbcription for a game that lives up to it.
MMOs always were a niche, they are not only products but a service and there is demand for that. UO got to 250k, EQ got to 400k, Eve to 700k, Lineage 1M, FFXIV 2M and WoW 17M.
I've been posting this link a couple times this past few days, but it is a really insightful essay on what MMOs are and what hardships they are going through currently:
http://mud.co.uk/richard/The Decline of MMOs.pdf
The author is one of the most respected "researcher" in the field of MMOs, and I suggest paying attention to what he has to say.1 -
EölMPK✭✭✭Like - may be positive like LoL's cash shop, with only vanity itemsfrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »@Grunge
This is not new, people have always wanted stuff for free and they always will.
But on the other hand, they will always pay for what they find valuable.
Whether it is a costume in a cash shop or a susbcription for a game that lives up to it.
MMOs always were a niche, they are not only products but a service and there is demand for that. UO got to 250k, EQ got to 400k, Eve to 700k, Lineage 1M, FFXIV 2M and WoW 17M.
I've been posting this link a couple times this past few days, but it is a really insightful essay on what MMOs are and what hardships they are going through currently:
http://mud.co.uk/richard/The Decline of MMOs.pdf
The author is one of the most respected "researcher" in the field of MMOs, and I suggest paying attention to what he has to say.
I already read this article, but I dont agree with everything.
In the old days, the main reason for the mmo's success were not subscription, but the love of the devs to their work. You can see this even in arpgs, the difference between diablo 1 and 2 vs diablo 3 is brutal. The depth, the details, the complexity of systems.
Subscription was a thing cause of the lack of option. There was no options in the past if you wanted to play a MMO, but there is now.
I really think that if subs are a great thing, they will be very used till the present, and its not the case. Companies follow the market demands, so they do what people want them to do.
If subs costs were more fair, I would pay it gladly in order to have a good game. Something like PS+ (50 bucks an year) or 2-3 bucks/month, like I said before. 15$ a month is too much.
Edited by EölMPK on February 6, 2015 8:45PMEöl[MPK]
PS4
Grungebr - Altmer magicka templar
Eölbr - Dunmer magicka necro
Drizztbr - Khajiit stamina nb"In my thoughts and in my dreams, they're always in my mind
These songs of hobbits, dwarves and men, and elves
Come close your eyes, you can see them too..."2 -
VampiricOmen✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesCautiously optimistic. I've returned after finding out that the game is going B2P, and I'm hoping the rest of the people I once played with will come back too.
All in all I am curious to see how things work out and hope that with this change people who were ambivalent about the subscription fees might consider purchasing the game once the model changes. I know of a few people who were interested but couldn't justify the monthly subscription, whatever their reasons, this opens the game to a larger audience. And after playing for a while yesterday, it could do with the population boost (but perhaps I played at an odd hour for most of the server population). I think this change has the potential to work in favour of the game and will be optimistic about it for the time being.1 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesfrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »@Grunge
I get your points, I pay in euro myself so it is more for me too. But this is a self centered point of view.
An MMO is not only a game service, it is a game development service. You pay the devs for them to expand the game for it to be played for years.
The long term comes from that: the resources and the necessity to create a game people continue to play "forever".
As the game improves, it passes the bar for more and more players.
As long as a game is well managed, it continues to grow. f2p and b2p games canno be well managed as their business models are too agressive.
In the words of ZOS directors: a cash shop requires sacrifices.
@eisberg
No they don't need players to remain engaged. They need them to be engaged enough to have an impulse buy during the "honey moon" phase.
After that, once players have "finished" the game, they won't pay for anything any more, so they might as well log off.
Only games where other players are content have any interest in keeping people playing, but ESO is not geared like that.
On your second point: There has never been a succesful f2p/b2p title in the western market.
GW2 is what came the closest, and it is a commercial success, but seeing its free fall in revenue, it is not a successful MMO. Definitely not as successful as a subscription based one any way.
If yo uwant to call a10 years old game finally stoping to increase a failure, please go ahead.
About new games, all those switches are not failures but planned obsolescence.
It's easier to get a quick cash and then leave a project to rot rather than commit 10 years of your studio's life into only one project, even if it means losing money in the process. As long as investors get ROI and some bonus profit, they are happy to move on to the next project.
And again: where are you getting that statistic for FFXIV? Every other source on the net, even official ones, point at FFXIV being at 2M subscribers, some even 2.3M. I could find some saying that FF11 was at 600K at the launch of of FF14, so maybe your 1M stat is a of all MMOS except FF14 ?
From Square Enix
http://www.hd.square-enix.com/eng/pdf/ar_2014_01en.pdfThree major MMO titles—“FINAL FANTASY XIV: A
REALM REBORN,” which began operation last August,
“DRAGON QUEST X,” which was launched in August
2012, and “FINAL FANTASY XI,” which has entered its
thirteenth year of operation—maintain nearly 1,000,000
paying subscribers all together, and have established a
solid revenue base
Your 2 Million subscribers news is actually 2 million registered users, Registered Users =/= Subscribed Users.
Also, there is a ton of successful, F2P/B2P MMOs in the Market, otherwise they would still not be running today, they would still not be making new content, or doing update now. If they are being profitable, they are being successful. I have not seen any evidence of any MMO (subscription or not) that has actually increased in Revenue over their historic peak revenue for years now. Some of those MMOs have an increase in revenue over the quarter before it due to expansion being released, or a major update being released, but then they start falling again.
As for the "planned obsolescence", that is just an assumption coming from you, and I see no logic in where you are getting that. These MMOs that started off as subscription MMOs, they stated why they wanted to do that before they even released, but things changed. Logic dictates things changed, and they had to change their plans.
Edited by eisberg on February 7, 2015 1:54AM1 -
Lazrael✭✭✭Dislike - otherOnly voted to see what the general consensus was. I am waiting to see where the chips fall.
What I don't care for is how the transition has been announced and handled. It felt very disrespectful to those of us who have played and paid since the beginning.Artists and Theives...2 -
GreySix✭✭✭✭✭
✭Dislike - all of the "dislikes" aboveSaw this in SWTOR, though this looks like a slightly different model. In SWTOR, subscribers gain faster leveling and perks, whereas cash shops are the only way to get extra perks if you don't subscribe.
Wasn't sufficient to keep me as a subscriber to TOR, and it likely won't be sufficient to keep me subscribing to ESO either.Crotchety Old Man Guild
"Hey you, get off my lawn!"1 -
Dislike - all of the "dislikes" abovefrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »@Grunge
This is not new, people have always wanted stuff for free and they always will.
But on the other hand, they will always pay for what they find valuable.
Whether it is a costume in a cash shop or a susbcription for a game that lives up to it.
MMOs always were a niche, they are not only products but a service and there is demand for that. UO got to 250k, EQ got to 400k, Eve to 700k, Lineage 1M, FFXIV 2M and WoW 17M.
I've been posting this link a couple times this past few days, but it is a really insightful essay on what MMOs are and what hardships they are going through currently:
http://mud.co.uk/richard/The Decline of MMOs.pdf
The author is one of the most respected "researcher" in the field of MMOs, and I suggest paying attention to what he has to say.
I already read this article, but I dont agree with everything.
In the old days, the main reason for the mmo's success were not subscription, but the love of the devs to their work. You can see this even in arpgs, the difference between diablo 1 and 2 vs diablo 3 is brutal. The depth, the details, the complexity of systems.
Subscription was a thing cause of the lack of option. There was no options in the past if you wanted to play a MMO, but there is now.
I really think that if subs are a great thing, they will be very used till the present, and its not the case. Companies follow the market demands, so they do what people want them to do.
If subs costs were more fair, I would pay it gladly in order to have a good game. Something like PS+ (50 bucks an year) or 2-3 bucks/month, like I said before. 15$ a month is too much.
But for devs to be allowed to work for the love of their craft, they need job security and a model that ensure that quality gets rewarded.
The subscription model fits that description, the cash shop model does not.
Everyone wants everything for free, does that mean it is a smart move for a company?
I don't think that $15 is unfair. It's actually the entertainment offering with the best value. For $15 you either get a 2 hours movie in the theater, a quarter of a new solo player game, two menus at a fast food restaurant, a bargain bin DVD, a cheap "travel" version of a board game, a CD, a hard cover book or 2 paperbacks, etc.
$15 is nothing.
It's especially nothing when you consider that a studio like ZOS has around 250 employees, some of which are experts in their fields and way above minimum wages. They have marketing costs, their office rents to pay and taxes to pay on everything.
As I said, 200k subscribers would only mean 50% profit margin. It's great compared to the f2p side of the industry, but it's not that much yet.
A friend of mine runs a bar and on drinks they make a x3 or x5.
That $15 is also over15 years old, since then we've had an inflation. The worth of $15 is less than what it was in 1998 when UO got released. For all intent and purpose, the susbcription price should be a bit above $21.5.
$2-$3 is less than the price of a small bottle of water in a vendor machine.
You are not being reasonable if you think that's fair.
1 -
Dislike - all of the "dislikes" abovefrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »@Grunge
I get your points, I pay in euro myself so it is more for me too. But this is a self centered point of view.
An MMO is not only a game service, it is a game development service. You pay the devs for them to expand the game for it to be played for years.
The long term comes from that: the resources and the necessity to create a game people continue to play "forever".
As the game improves, it passes the bar for more and more players.
As long as a game is well managed, it continues to grow. f2p and b2p games canno be well managed as their business models are too agressive.
In the words of ZOS directors: a cash shop requires sacrifices.
@eisberg
No they don't need players to remain engaged. They need them to be engaged enough to have an impulse buy during the "honey moon" phase.
After that, once players have "finished" the game, they won't pay for anything any more, so they might as well log off.
Only games where other players are content have any interest in keeping people playing, but ESO is not geared like that.
On your second point: There has never been a succesful f2p/b2p title in the western market.
GW2 is what came the closest, and it is a commercial success, but seeing its free fall in revenue, it is not a successful MMO. Definitely not as successful as a subscription based one any way.
If yo uwant to call a10 years old game finally stoping to increase a failure, please go ahead.
About new games, all those switches are not failures but planned obsolescence.
It's easier to get a quick cash and then leave a project to rot rather than commit 10 years of your studio's life into only one project, even if it means losing money in the process. As long as investors get ROI and some bonus profit, they are happy to move on to the next project.
And again: where are you getting that statistic for FFXIV? Every other source on the net, even official ones, point at FFXIV being at 2M subscribers, some even 2.3M. I could find some saying that FF11 was at 600K at the launch of of FF14, so maybe your 1M stat is a of all MMOS except FF14 ?
From Square Enix
http://www.hd.square-enix.com/eng/pdf/ar_2014_01en.pdfThree major MMO titles—“FINAL FANTASY XIV: A
REALM REBORN,” which began operation last August,
“DRAGON QUEST X,” which was launched in August
2012, and “FINAL FANTASY XI,” which has entered its
thirteenth year of operation—maintain nearly 1,000,000
paying subscribers all together, and have established a
solid revenue base
Your 2 Million subscribers news is actually 2 million registered users, Registered Users =/= Subscribed Users.
Also, there is a ton of successful, F2P/B2P MMOs in the Market, otherwise they would still not be running today, they would still not be making new content, or doing update now. If they are being profitable, they are being successful. I have not seen any evidence of any MMO (subscription or not) that has actually increased in Revenue over their historic peak revenue for years now. Some of those MMOs have an increase in revenue over the quarter before it due to expansion being released, or a major update being released, but then they start falling again.
As for the "planned obsolescence", that is just an assumption coming from you, and I see no logic in where you are getting that. These MMOs that started off as subscription MMOs, they stated why they wanted to do that before they even released, but things changed. Logic dictates things changed, and they had to change their plans.
That's what I thought, you're operating on outdated information.
That financial report was written early 2014, we are now nearly a year later.
But it's an understandable mistake when even "profesionals" make it.
http://www.polygon.com/2015/1/2/7480177/square-enix-final-fantasy-14-final-fantasy-11-dragon-quest-10-subscribers
You have a couple articles online that cite that as a source but didn't bother to correct afterwards.
Not only that, but that document doesn't take into account the Chinese market.
In FFXIV's case, what they call registered users could actually be susbcribers due to how chinese players cannot be called susbcribers.(they pay hourly) I agree it is ambiguous, but that's just japanese people being japanese.
WoW has no issues calling those chinese players "susbcribers". Eve Online does too. (500k(west) + 200k(China) subs)
The point is that with the other numbers we have access to, at the latest news 750K daily active players excluding China, the 2M total "susbcriber" number doesn't seeem far fetched. Usually the amount of people online daily is around 1/5th of the playerbase. But you do have a point, it is ambiguous.
Let's wait for March 31 2015 to see how things really went for them.
Finaly, "planed obsolescence" is not the proper term but it should have conveyed the notion more easily as it is a more know term.
The proper term is "intertemporal price discrimination". And it's not an assumption, it's just how the gaming industry, among others, works.
In short, it is the same process a normal game goes through. It get released $60, then the price gets lowered until everyone buys it. It maximise sales for a product by targeting the value to the various categories on the spectrum of potential customers. It starts high for early adopters and ends up low for late adopters that would never buy it unless on sale.
Even if the price is much lower, it's money that would not have been earned otherwise.
Unfortunately, that model doesn't work for MMOs.
Or to be exact, it is not the best model for MMOs. MMOs are not products but services, they have ongoing costs, but more importantly, they can have ongoing revenue.
Sure they still make money by starting sub then switching to cash shop. The people only willing to pay $20 here and there would never have paid a sub. They get money faster and from a wider audience, but in total they gain less compared to the sustained revenue of a subscription.
Staying alive is not a measure of success. Growing is.
A company who's revenue is declining year after year is failing, even if it manages to keep the lights on.
Not many MMOs succeed, in part because it is hard to create a working MMO, partly because of the above illustrated principle. But of the few that have succeeded in the past, all were subscription based.
Until an f2p/b2p MMO manages to have 4 consecutive years of growth in his life cycle, like succesful sub MMOs, there are no examples of one being succesful.
Most can't even pull half a year of growth and their peak is at launch/switch.2 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesfrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »@Grunge
I get your points, I pay in euro myself so it is more for me too. But this is a self centered point of view.
An MMO is not only a game service, it is a game development service. You pay the devs for them to expand the game for it to be played for years.
The long term comes from that: the resources and the necessity to create a game people continue to play "forever".
As the game improves, it passes the bar for more and more players.
As long as a game is well managed, it continues to grow. f2p and b2p games canno be well managed as their business models are too agressive.
In the words of ZOS directors: a cash shop requires sacrifices.
@eisberg
No they don't need players to remain engaged. They need them to be engaged enough to have an impulse buy during the "honey moon" phase.
After that, once players have "finished" the game, they won't pay for anything any more, so they might as well log off.
Only games where other players are content have any interest in keeping people playing, but ESO is not geared like that.
On your second point: There has never been a succesful f2p/b2p title in the western market.
GW2 is what came the closest, and it is a commercial success, but seeing its free fall in revenue, it is not a successful MMO. Definitely not as successful as a subscription based one any way.
If yo uwant to call a10 years old game finally stoping to increase a failure, please go ahead.
About new games, all those switches are not failures but planned obsolescence.
It's easier to get a quick cash and then leave a project to rot rather than commit 10 years of your studio's life into only one project, even if it means losing money in the process. As long as investors get ROI and some bonus profit, they are happy to move on to the next project.
And again: where are you getting that statistic for FFXIV? Every other source on the net, even official ones, point at FFXIV being at 2M subscribers, some even 2.3M. I could find some saying that FF11 was at 600K at the launch of of FF14, so maybe your 1M stat is a of all MMOS except FF14 ?
From Square Enix
http://www.hd.square-enix.com/eng/pdf/ar_2014_01en.pdfThree major MMO titles—“FINAL FANTASY XIV: A
REALM REBORN,” which began operation last August,
“DRAGON QUEST X,” which was launched in August
2012, and “FINAL FANTASY XI,” which has entered its
thirteenth year of operation—maintain nearly 1,000,000
paying subscribers all together, and have established a
solid revenue base
Your 2 Million subscribers news is actually 2 million registered users, Registered Users =/= Subscribed Users.
Also, there is a ton of successful, F2P/B2P MMOs in the Market, otherwise they would still not be running today, they would still not be making new content, or doing update now. If they are being profitable, they are being successful. I have not seen any evidence of any MMO (subscription or not) that has actually increased in Revenue over their historic peak revenue for years now. Some of those MMOs have an increase in revenue over the quarter before it due to expansion being released, or a major update being released, but then they start falling again.
As for the "planned obsolescence", that is just an assumption coming from you, and I see no logic in where you are getting that. These MMOs that started off as subscription MMOs, they stated why they wanted to do that before they even released, but things changed. Logic dictates things changed, and they had to change their plans.
That's what I thought, you're operating on outdated information.
That financial report was written early 2014, we are now nearly a year later.
But it's an understandable mistake when even "profesionals" make it.
http://www.polygon.com/2015/1/2/7480177/square-enix-final-fantasy-14-final-fantasy-11-dragon-quest-10-subscribers
You have a couple articles online that cite that as a source but didn't bother to correct afterwards.
Not only that, but that document doesn't take into account the Chinese market.
In FFXIV's case, what they call registered users could actually be susbcribers due to how chinese players cannot be called susbcribers.(they pay hourly) I agree it is ambiguous, but that's just japanese people being japanese.
WoW has no issues calling those chinese players "susbcribers". Eve Online does too. (500k(west) + 200k(China) subs)
The point is that with the other numbers we have access to, at the latest news 750K daily active players excluding China, the 2M total "susbcriber" number doesn't seeem far fetched. Usually the amount of people online daily is around 1/5th of the playerbase. But you do have a point, it is ambiguous.
Let's wait for March 31 2015 to see how things really went for them.
Finaly, "planed obsolescence" is not the proper term but it should have conveyed the notion more easily as it is a more know term.
The proper term is "intertemporal price discrimination". And it's not an assumption, it's just how the gaming industry, among others, works.
In short, it is the same process a normal game goes through. It get released $60, then the price gets lowered until everyone buys it. It maximise sales for a product by targeting the value to the various categories on the spectrum of potential customers. It starts high for early adopters and ends up low for late adopters that would never buy it unless on sale.
Even if the price is much lower, it's money that would not have been earned otherwise.
Unfortunately, that model doesn't work for MMOs.
Or to be exact, it is not the best model for MMOs. MMOs are not products but services, they have ongoing costs, but more importantly, they can have ongoing revenue.
Sure they still make money by starting sub then switching to cash shop. The people only willing to pay $20 here and there would never have paid a sub. They get money faster and from a wider audience, but in total they gain less compared to the sustained revenue of a subscription.
Staying alive is not a measure of success. Growing is.
A company who's revenue is declining year after year is failing, even if it manages to keep the lights on.
Not many MMOs succeed, in part because it is hard to create a working MMO, partly because of the above illustrated principle. But of the few that have succeeded in the past, all were subscription based.
Until an f2p/b2p MMO manages to have 4 consecutive years of growth in his life cycle, like succesful sub MMOs, there are no examples of one being succesful.
Most can't even pull half a year of growth and their peak is at launch/switch.
For Final Fantasy 14, they had 1.5 million registered users in October of 2013, by March 2014 they had less than 1 million subscribers for all 3 of their MMOs together. The fact is they decreased somewhere between August of 2013 to March of 2014. So you can't claim them as a successful MMO, since they had no growth that can be proven, other then registered accounts, which does not equal to subscribers. I highly doubt they are even near 1 Million subscribers for that game, my bet is 500,000 at best at this time. Also the 2 million registered Users released just a few weeks after they stated less then 1 million subscribers for all 3 of their MMOs together. Also I do believe they stated a month before their release of the less than 1 million subscribers, they said 500,000 daily logins. The 1/5th number you are talking about is actually peak concurrent logins, not the daily log ins total, total daily log in is actually far more than that. Eve is a good example, Peak Concurrent Logins was 60,000 when they had 330,000 subscribers, which is ~18% of their subscribers logged in at the same time. http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/06/07/eve-pushes-over-the-60-000-peak-concurrent-user-mark/
No subscription MMO released after 2004 had 4 years of growth. After WoW released, MMOs peak shortly after releasing, and then fall after that. That is the reality of the business, and something we see time and time again, no matter if it is a subscription game or not. Using your logic, there has never been a successful MMO since WoW released. WoW changed the MMO industry, it brought MMOs to the mainstream, and this is why MMO start off big, and peak very early after release, and then go down from there. So what ever in your opinion is what constitutes a success, hasn't happened since WoW released, WoW was the last successful MMO to release using your logic.
Till you actually show something to back up your "planned obsolescence" idea, just going to believe that you are only making an assumptions on that. We have seen zero proof of any MMO released after WoW actually growing over a long period of time instead of a short period of time after release, with or without a subscription. With how many MMOs we saw released after WoW that shut down, and then seeing a decrease in the frequency in MMOs shutting down since F2P/B2P became a "thing" and those games still running and making new content even many years later is a testament to how much more successful the F2P and B2P system is compared to the subscription only MMO. Some MMOs released after WoW seem to do fine as subscription only MMOs, but they are doing no better then the F2P or B2P in revenue as far as we can tell.Edited by eisberg on February 8, 2015 4:52AM0 -
kelly.medleyb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭Dislike - otherI would say the biggest reason ESO failed was because of their horrible customer service, WoW got it right, ESO, failed.0
-
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feeskelly.medleyb14_ESO wrote: »I would say the biggest reason ESO failed was because of their horrible customer service, WoW got it right, ESO, failed.
If there is nothing I can say about about ones customer service, this is actually a good thing, means they have a better product. WoWs customer service is nothing to write home about, just meh. I only had ESO for less than a month and they are "meh" so far. Arenanets customer service, I don't know never had to use it, same with Trions and Biowares for SWTOR. (Little off topic, Apple has great customer service, they were great for the 4 times I or my wife had to contact them for my wifes phone, on the other hand I can say nothing about Motorola's customer service for my smartphone, I never had to contact them, =D)0 -
EsORising✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesI hated it at first but it made sense later on. This game got a unfair bad rep so B2P will bring a constant flow of players and bring back the popularity of the game. This is definitely a good thing for ESO. F2P would be bad though, i hope i never goes that low. $20-30 is enough of a fee to keep the trolls, kids and *** out.0
-
Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above@eisberg
You are exhausting.
I'm not making any assumption, I'm just explaining to you how the entertainment industry works. Movies, music, traditional games, they are all using the same marketing techniques.
Start the price high, then lower it until you've sold the product to the most people possible.
Except it doesn't work well for MMOs because they are not products but services. Whether it is done on purpose to gain as much cash as possible quickly then move on, or it is a genuine mistake due to lack of experience, it still is a loss in revenue over the long term.
Most MMO publishers still reduce their staff at launch, just like they would with a traditional game. Some of those people that have launched dozens of games are now incompetent at their new jobs.
WoW did not change the market, most WoW players are not MMO players, and when they quit WoW they do not join another MMO.
What WoW has changed is the perception of investors and what they expect from a game. That's why we've seen so many WoW clones and games being build to be profitable only with millions of players. They were doomed to fail.
On another hand, games with their own niche grew, even after 2004.
This is the period where Eve saw its growth despite being, according to you, "competing" over susbcribers with WoW.
Same for Dofus, its unique turn based system got it to grow tremendously over the same period and it is still running strong nowadays.
Some mismanaged games like Darkfall even managed to grow for a couple years before being run into the ground by bad decisions.
I'm sure there are others, but I don't need to look more into it because it is irelevant to my point: The only games that have ever been succesful were susbcription based. Be it now or before 2004.
If the f2p/b2p was such a better system, all the outliers should be f2p/b2p games. Except they aren't even close to become outliers, not even a single one.
0 -
Can't vote as I would say I'm all of the above. There are reasons to potentially like the change and reasons to potentially not like the change. It all depends on how they handle it. If they do it right this could be a great move, but if they do it wrong it will kill the game. I personally hope they are smart enough to realize this and are being extremely careful in their decision making and are not too prideful to realize when they've made a mistake and need to reverse it.
I think and hope that those that remain subbed to get their designation of crowns etc will still have full access to all the non cosmetic content. If this is the case then I think overall it will be a good change. Those that are playing for free will have to expect that they don't get all the PvE content, but lets hope that it doesn't give them a disadvantage in pvp as that would be a very bad move IMHO.
XP boosts are no big deal as there is enough content in this game without boosts to get to top level without repeating anything. Lets hope that doesn't change. The only thing I may be upset with XP boosts about is if it gives an unfair advantage in PvP because of the champion point system. If champion points end up giving an unfair advantage to those who have a lot of them in PvP then this game is going to suck. There should not be any Gods in PvP simply because they paid more money while the rest of us are squashed under their thumbs. That would single handedly ruin the game IMHO.0 -
Dislike - all of the "dislikes" aboveAshySamurai wrote: »Well, I did my best in defending ZOS's desigions. Time to grab my torch and join angry crowd.
Save a torch for me.
Was fun while it lasted. GG guys.
#Unsubbed
We're gonna need more torches.
Hand me one, please.
Unsubbed, but will give it some play after the change to see if it's still tolerable. My heart isn't in it anymore, though... *sigh*0 -
eisberg✭✭✭Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly feesfrosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »@eisberg
You are exhausting.
I'm not making any assumption, I'm just explaining to you how the entertainment industry works. Movies, music, traditional games, they are all using the same marketing techniques.
Start the price high, then lower it until you've sold the product to the most people possible.
Except it doesn't work well for MMOs because they are not products but services. Whether it is done on purpose to gain as much cash as possible quickly then move on, or it is a genuine mistake due to lack of experience, it still is a loss in revenue over the long term.
Most MMO publishers still reduce their staff at launch, just like they would with a traditional game. Some of those people that have launched dozens of games are now incompetent at their new jobs.
WoW did not change the market, most WoW players are not MMO players, and when they quit WoW they do not join another MMO.
What WoW has changed is the perception of investors and what they expect from a game. That's why we've seen so many WoW clones and games being build to be profitable only with millions of players. They were doomed to fail.
On another hand, games with their own niche grew, even after 2004.
This is the period where Eve saw its growth despite being, according to you, "competing" over susbcribers with WoW.
Same for Dofus, its unique turn based system got it to grow tremendously over the same period and it is still running strong nowadays.
Some mismanaged games like Darkfall even managed to grow for a couple years before being run into the ground by bad decisions.
I'm sure there are others, but I don't need to look more into it because it is irelevant to my point: The only games that have ever been succesful were susbcription based. Be it now or before 2004.
If the f2p/b2p was such a better system, all the outliers should be f2p/b2p games. Except they aren't even close to become outliers, not even a single one.
Again, you do not know if it is a loss of revenue in the long term. You have no idea what their prediction models were showing in how many subscribers they would actually keep. The fact is, you have no idea. Again, before we saw F2P/B2P become a "thing" in the US/EU, we were seeing MMOs being shutdown left and right and constantly, even ones that were actually still profitable. But now we see the frequency of MMOs being shut down decreased immensely, and instead we see them going F2P/B2P.
Also, using your idea of what makes an MMO's successful, no subscription MMO on the market is successful anymore, they are all losing subscribers. But good thing that is only your idea and opinion, and the industry seems to disagree with you on what is considered a success. MMO developers/publishers would not continue to make new content and features if they were not successful. The Market is different now, MMOs peak at the beginning when they release, and then fall from there.
Also, for the fact that you state that WoW didn't change the market, really shows you have done little to no research about the MMO market. Before WoW, MMOs were not a casual game. WoW is what started the casual movement for MMOs, it brought in the casual players into MMOs, and is the reason why we see MMOs being more casual friendly.
For the fact that I have actually showed links to back up what I have said in the past, and you provided nothing really shows that you have nothing but your own feelings and ideas, and that it is not based on anything. Do you have anything to show all these MMOs that went from subscription only to B2P/F2P would have made more money in the long run if they stayed as subscription only? Do you have anything to show they would not have kept on losing subscribers to the point they would have to shut down the servers?
What do you have to show that ESO would have made more money as staying as subscription only? How do you know they were not losing subscribers at a fast rate? What research/science have you use to predict what their expected subscriber numbers would be over the long period of time?
The fact is you do not know. Going by history of MMOs, it is far more plausible that they needed to do this switch in order to keep the servers running and continue to add content and features, then it is about making big money now and then moving on to something else afterwards.
Again, just for the fact that we see less mmos being shutdown now, then we did in the past, is a testement to how the F2P/B2P switch is more about keeping the servers live and making new content, and less about making big money from the biginning of the switch and moving on.
Also, It is only your opinion of what makes an MMO successful. And yes, you are making assumptions, till you actually show some links to back up what you say, it is all assumptions.Edited by eisberg on February 9, 2015 3:55PM0 -
Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above@Mavrick24
That there are reasons to like the change does not mean it is a good one.
Maybe you're in the case where half the people you know now want to give the game a shot, which is good for you personally, but is not the general case.
For instance, it makes only 2 guildies of mine that bought the game want to try it out again. But the rest of my guild is either saying "they need to pay me to play this game" or just "meh". It wasn't worth their time then, it will not be now.
A PvE real life friend of mine was interested in buying the box, asked me what the changed would be about and as soon as I explained the DLC approach, he said "lol nope" and the convo was over.
In short, experienced MMO players are not interested in this model change.
They've seen the damage too many time and they aren't interested in investing time in a game they know will end up not worth even loging in.
There is no way of making this switch "well". No game before managed to do it, and by design, this business model has to be badly run if it wants to earn money for the devs.
For instance, boosters and other p2w items will slowly creep and become predominant in the cash shop. Expect DLC only item sets, perhaps even bound on pickup for some. And for a while there, DLC skill line were a thing but some statement in an FAQ sort of cast a doubt on that.
And PvP is not the only thing competitive. Trials leaderboards are too. With the way the champion system is designed, if the current time values remain the same, boosters stacked with mara rings and susbcription will really make a large difference in character power.
You may find self centered reasons to like the change, but in the end, we'll all lose.2