How do you feel about the B2P announcement

eisberg

Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly fees

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@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.

Anecdotal on your part. My anecdotal experience is the opposite of yours, and my friends have been playing MMOs since Meridian 59. But they are all anecdotal and really don't mean anything, the fact is you really do not know what % of experienced MMO players really think.

We do not know if we all lose just yet. It really depends on how they handle it, and time will tell on that.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

@eisberg‌
I have sent links after links of proofs over all the various thread where you've stubbornly remained wrong.
At some point, I expect you to have read them and I stop repeating myself.
I guess that was giving you too much credit.

Turns out some times, you didn't even read the links you sent as you've used some that actually went against your point.(the MMO DATA of 2015 and that March 2014 financial report you thought was released a few week ago)
You're not thorough in your analysis, you consistently missread statistics, lack the understanding of basic economical concepts like supply and demand or the purpose of a bargain bin and simply don't show any common sense.
If I was not such an optimist, I would call you a lost cause.

How do I know they would have made more money as a subscription?
Common sense and MMO history.

Games all have a niche. They all have a maximum amount of people truly interested in them. The switches atracts tourists but detract the core audience.
As the population graphs of all games that did the switch show is that the population lowers back to the pre switch numbers in around a year, but then gets even lower because the people that would have remained long term left.

SWTOR best examplifies this as it is in its falling back phase.
Their reported earnings went from $165M(2013, first year as f2p) down to $139M(2014, second year) and falling. That's barely 916k and 772k susbcribers.
In their own words, they were before the switch just bellow 1M susbcribers but well above 500K.
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/1998097009x0x587474/a3017ec2-7f9e-4200-af7f-246d99244d23/Q1_FY13_Earnings_Script_FINAL.pdf
What "just slipped" means number wise is up for debate, but at best, they are now at what they had before the switch and are entering the "even lower" phase.

Why are MMOs not being shut down and switching to f2p/b2p?
It's the bargain bin strategy, purely and simply.
I know you don't understand the concept, but that's the explanation.

It's not aimed at keeping the game running long term, don't be naive, but just to squeeze every last penny possible from it. Going maintenance mode with f2p allows them to gain a little bit more before moving on to other projects.

It costs "nothing" to keep an MMO online, what costs a lot is to actually expand the game. It takes a lot of efforts and skill to turn around a failing game and the revenue provided by f2p is not enough, let alone worth it.
Thay are giving up on the game and selling the furniture for a last gain.

The PR damage alone those switches cause to companies doing them overweights the short term benefits. Would you buy the next EA or ZOS games knowing they'll be free eventually?

The answer is no. Or at least it is for most people. This is burning bridges and future profit potential. It's a stupid way of doing business.

Has the MMO market changed?
No it hasn't. The demand is still there, however the supply is lacking.

The MMO market actually grew, just like Eve and other niche titles kept growing.
The MMO market is not mainstream, it is not casual and no amount of WoW clones will impact it.
As you can see even in the links you provided, the subscription market revenue decreased by less than half of what WoW has lost. How would that be possible if the genre was not healthy/growing?

What you see on the surface is the reason why it is comonly said that WoW players are not MMO players, they are WoW players and no other game will interest them like WoW does. They are just good targets for short term cash grabs like WoW clones, but they'll never stick to another game for long. Very few actually graduate to actual MMO players.

That publishers release games aimed at a them is just a proof that the bargain bin strategy works and is a great way for making quick money.
But that is NOT the MMO market.

What do you have to show that ESO would have made more money as staying as subscription only?
I have already linked several times to it, but I expect you neither read it nor understood it.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/148940/1-6-looks-great-forget-about-b2p-f2p/p1

Compared to other games, ESO has had a better player retention and a stronger evangelist population. It switched from its post launch losing phase to a growing phase much sooner than anticipated. It is also one of the few games that actually will manage to launch on consoles.

Everything points at ESO being succesful already as a subscription MMO, and it would have been even better in the future thanks to virtualy no competition on xbox and only FFXIV on playstation.

The history of MMOs.
I have no idea which history book you're reading. If you're reading the same one that the rest of the world, you really need to work on your interpretation skills.
Despite all the marketing occuring around those switches, numbers years later do not lie. No f2p/b2p mmorpg ever grew in revenue. NEVER.
Before, after 2004, doesn't matter, it's just not something that happens.
However some susbcription games grew after 2004, and in the entire history of the genre, only subscription games ever grew.

It also never "saved" a game. A game that was failing has a short burst in activity then fails even faster because it cannot focus on fixing itself.
When your revenue comes not from having a good game but from selling things in a game shop, when you are making lower and less stable income, when you have reduced team sizes and when you need to break certain aspect of the game to support a business model, it is impossible for a game to improve.

The worst thing is that it removes any chance a game had to actually save itself.
Accepting a phase of just breaking even but focus on improving the game will cause any game to grow. That's what Eve, Wow, FFXIV, the current "outliers", did and that's how they became succesful.
People will pay for good value, that's one of the few universal rules of the world.

You are trying to revive a horse that has been beaten to death so many times it barely resembles meat anymore.
We're early 2015, this should no longer be a debate and there is enough literature out there for you to know better: the cash shop model does not work well for mmorpgs.

EDIT: For your last post, that was my whole point, those posts about "my friends will buy" are all anecdotal. The opposite exist, and neither are valid.
Again, you didn't pay enough attention before posting.

The one truth is that it never wen't well ,there are no proper implementation of a cash shop model that is in favor of the players.
And that means burning out experienced players because those are the one that take the most offense to p2w and whatever other issues come with the model.
They are also those that know the history of the genre and have had the experiences making them leave a game at the sight of such switches.

AhPook_Is_Here

Why can't I choose more than one option? What kind of poll is this?

JamilaRaj

Dislike - other

eisberg wrote: »

We do not know if we all lose just yet. It really depends on how they handle it, and time will tell on that.

We know. ZOS will fail inevitably because they lack integrity that would have prevented them from implementing cash shop/DLC scheme in violation of their earlier promises in the first place and at the same time they will be pressed hard to fail in order to generate revenue from it, once box sales will drop. That is deadly and fatal combo.

Compare Matt Firor's statements then and now. Whether he is doing it willingly or just follows orders does not matter. What does matter is that, if sent to announce win button to be added into cash shop, this guy would totally do it. There is no way he would say no.

eisberg

Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly fees

JamilaRaj wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

We do not know if we all lose just yet. It really depends on how they handle it, and time will tell on that.

We know. ZOS will fail inevitably because they lack integrity that would have prevented them from implementing cash shop/DLC scheme in violation of their earlier promises in the first place and at the same time they will be pressed hard to fail in order to generate revenue from it, once box sales will drop. That is deadly and fatal combo.

Compare Matt Firor's statements then and now. Whether he is doing it willingly or just follows orders does not matter. What does matter is that, if sent to announce win button to be added into cash shop, this guy would totally do it. There is no way he would say no.

If the other option was to close down the servers at worse, or just put the game into Maintenance mode never putting any new content or features into the game at best, should have they done that instead to keep their "integrity"?

Iluvrien

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

eisberg wrote: »

If the other option was to close down the servers at worse, or just put the game into Maintenance mode never putting any new content or features into the game at best, should have they done that instead to keep their "integrity"?

False dilemma. As you point out on multiple occasions, this is one of the questions that we do not have an answer to and are unlikely to ever have an answer to as we don't have access to the accounts or meeting transcripts of ZOS. We don't know that there were only 3 choices available to them (B2P, Maintenance or Shut Down) and so suggesting that if it wasn't one it had to be one of the other two is speculative at best.

That said, if they can't continue to produce quality content on a regular schedule, if they can't retain a focus on the world and the lore of the Elder Scrolls rather pouring development into cash shop items and if they can't make ESO something to be proud of and say "I helped create that!" then yes, I would have preferred they take the option of slowly/quickly closing the project.

Not being entirely self-involved I wouldn't suggest either option to them on the basis of my own feelings on the subject. If I feel they abandoned the integrity of the design and gameplay then I will walk. I have done it before when games became a shell of their former selves. It saddened me on each occasion, but I can and will do it again rather than watch something superb descend into utter mediocrity.... or worse.

Grunge wrote: »

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.

I was playing LotRO and I was playing SWTOR during the F2P transition for both and while I know that B2P and F2P claim to be fundamentally different models the long term prospects seem, to me, to be more than slightly similar.

After I heard about the announcement on the 22nd of January I didn't log in again until 2 days ago. Why? Because I had to decide whether their actions had finally crossed the line. After 18 days of consideration I decided that I would tentatively give ZOS the chance to prove my previous experience inapplicable this time. I still don't have much faith in my final decision. I also still don't feel much like rewarding ZOS in the mean time (maintaining my sub).

However, I have been playing for the last two days and truly enjoying the content but behind every moment of that playtime was the question "Is this as good as it is ever going to be?".

Thanks to the Quakecon video that showed Spellcrafting and the new zones I had high hopes and expectations with regards to the quality of this game. Given ZOS's handling of this transition and its handling of the months leading up to the announcement my expectations are gone and I am left with hope. Hope that has proven to be in error on at least two occasions before.

If they still had their "integrity" maybe I would have more hope. They don't, I don't.


TL;DR It took me 2 weeks to decide to give ZOS the chance to prove my previous experience of MMOs going non-sub wrong.

bearclawmcbainb16_ESO

Dislike - fears of new content slowing down

Iluvrien wrote: »

...snip...

Your words match my thoughts and feelings completely.

Majic

Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly fees

Sub Standards

I let my ESO subscription expire last May and was waiting for this.

Guild Wars 2 has spoiled me, because the ability to start or stop playing anytime I want without worrying about whether to cancel a subscription is so liberating, it's hard to go back to old ways.

Whether or not this means good or bad things for ESO depends on how ZOS handles the transition and the game going forward, and let's face it: that's a big, fat unknown at this point.

Ironically, both my brother and I were so intrigued by the announcement that we both decided to resubscribe. Now we're back in the game and will be here for the transition in March.

Do I think it's good move? Yes. Yes I do. GW2 is doing quite well with this model, and if ZOS manages nothing more than to emulate what ArenaNet has achieved, the future for ESO is quite bright indeed.

YMMV, of course, but without this announcement, I wouldn't even be here to opine at all, and I know I'm not the only player who feels that way.

More players with similar views will be joining us in March.

Barta057

Like - other

It's pretty simple for me.... Yay, more pocket cash for necessities!

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Majic wrote: »

Do I think it's good move? Yes. Yes I do. GW2 is doing quite well with this model, and if ZOS manages nothing more than to emulate what ArenaNet has achieved, the future for ESO is quite bright indeed.

Except this is wrong.
GW2 is not doing well at all. They are presured by their publishers to create an expansion and sell it as a box because the cash shop model is not sustaining the game.

http://mmofallout.com/ncsoft-third-quarter-finances/

$17.95M for a quarter is not bad, it's the equivalent of 400k susbcribers. But the game is implemented in more markets world wide than most MMOs and it is falling continuously. This is not "doing quite well", not for the scale and accessibility of GW2.
As a comparison, Eve Online, a niche subscription game is at 700k subs worldwide.
ESO can be estimated to have near 400k susbcribers now. It is not going to do more money when the switch occur. Sure the console sales will hide that fact for a while, but the game will not be doing well.

EölMPK

Like - may be positive like LoL's cash shop, with only vanity items

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Majic wrote: »

Do I think it's good move? Yes. Yes I do. GW2 is doing quite well with this model, and if ZOS manages nothing more than to emulate what ArenaNet has achieved, the future for ESO is quite bright indeed.

Except this is wrong.
GW2 is not doing well at all. They are presured by their publishers to create an expansion and sell it as a box because the cash shop model is not sustaining the game.

http://mmofallout.com/ncsoft-third-quarter-finances/

$17.95M for a quarter is not bad, it's the equivalent of 400k susbcribers. But the game is implemented in more markets world wide than most MMOs and it is falling continuously. This is not "doing quite well", not for the scale and accessibility of GW2.
As a comparison, Eve Online, a niche subscription game is at 700k subs worldwide.
ESO can be estimated to have near 400k susbcribers now. It is not going to do more money when the switch occur. Sure the console sales will hide that fact for a while, but the game will not be doing well.

But you are making wrong comparisons.
First, GW2 is really doing fine, regarless what you think it's fine or not. I'm a GW2 fan and alpha player, I still do follow them and play it, and I can asure you that they are very fine.

Second, ESO will have a different business model than GW2. ESO will be more like Lotro and DDO, and BOTH of those games are still there and having profit (lotro since 2007, ddo since 2009). This business model (p2p AND b2p) is very profitable, and very fair both for the companies and the customers.

You said that 15$ is nothing, sorry dude, with this money I can go to 3-4 movies, have alsmot 3 fancy dinners at my country. Yeah, I really think it's not fair to pay every month for a product I already bought (60$).

But as you see, you think mmos are services, I think they are products, so we will probably never agree.

But just a final thought: Regardless of business model, do you want to ESO keep existing?
Cause with sub model, they will have to shut down the servers. With TU, we will have ESO for a lots of years.

Razzak

Dislike - fears of cash shop roadblocks on content

Grunge wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Majic wrote: »

Do I think it's good move? Yes. Yes I do. GW2 is doing quite well with this model, and if ZOS manages nothing more than to emulate what ArenaNet has achieved, the future for ESO is quite bright indeed.

Except this is wrong.
GW2 is not doing well at all. They are presured by their publishers to create an expansion and sell it as a box because the cash shop model is not sustaining the game.

http://mmofallout.com/ncsoft-third-quarter-finances/

$17.95M for a quarter is not bad, it's the equivalent of 400k susbcribers. But the game is implemented in more markets world wide than most MMOs and it is falling continuously. This is not "doing quite well", not for the scale and accessibility of GW2.
As a comparison, Eve Online, a niche subscription game is at 700k subs worldwide.
ESO can be estimated to have near 400k susbcribers now. It is not going to do more money when the switch occur. Sure the console sales will hide that fact for a while, but the game will not be doing well.

But you are making wrong comparisons.
First, GW2 is really doing fine, regarless what you think it's fine or not. I'm a GW2 fan and alpha player, I still do follow them and play it, and I can asure you that they are very fine.

Second, ESO will have a different business model than GW2. ESO will be more like Lotro and DDO, and BOTH of those games are still there and having profit (lotro since 2007, ddo since 2009). This business model (p2p AND b2p) is very profitable, and very fair both for the companies and the customers.

You said that 15$ is nothing, sorry dude, with this money I can go to 3-4 movies, have alsmot 3 fancy dinners at my country. Yeah, I really think it's not fair to pay every month for a product I already bought (60$).

But as you see, you think mmos are services, I think they are products, so we will probably never agree.

But just a final thought: Regardless of business model, do you want to ESO keep existing?
Cause with sub model, they will have to shut down the servers. With TU, we will have ESO for a lots of years.

You are correct, we can't agree on everything. One of the things we will probably never agree on, is what kind of game ESO should be. With sub, it might not survive for as long as B2P, but it would have much better chances of regular updates to content, with cash shop it will almost certainly have less content upgrades and more vanity items.
I am one of those that think simply having a game to play (B2P), is less valuable then having a good and constantly evolving game to play (sub).

EölMPK

Like - may be positive like LoL's cash shop, with only vanity items

Razzak wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Majic wrote: »

Do I think it's good move? Yes. Yes I do. GW2 is doing quite well with this model, and if ZOS manages nothing more than to emulate what ArenaNet has achieved, the future for ESO is quite bright indeed.

Except this is wrong.
GW2 is not doing well at all. They are presured by their publishers to create an expansion and sell it as a box because the cash shop model is not sustaining the game.

http://mmofallout.com/ncsoft-third-quarter-finances/

$17.95M for a quarter is not bad, it's the equivalent of 400k susbcribers. But the game is implemented in more markets world wide than most MMOs and it is falling continuously. This is not "doing quite well", not for the scale and accessibility of GW2.
As a comparison, Eve Online, a niche subscription game is at 700k subs worldwide.
ESO can be estimated to have near 400k susbcribers now. It is not going to do more money when the switch occur. Sure the console sales will hide that fact for a while, but the game will not be doing well.

But you are making wrong comparisons.
First, GW2 is really doing fine, regarless what you think it's fine or not. I'm a GW2 fan and alpha player, I still do follow them and play it, and I can asure you that they are very fine.

Second, ESO will have a different business model than GW2. ESO will be more like Lotro and DDO, and BOTH of those games are still there and having profit (lotro since 2007, ddo since 2009). This business model (p2p AND b2p) is very profitable, and very fair both for the companies and the customers.

You said that 15$ is nothing, sorry dude, with this money I can go to 3-4 movies, have alsmot 3 fancy dinners at my country. Yeah, I really think it's not fair to pay every month for a product I already bought (60$).

But as you see, you think mmos are services, I think they are products, so we will probably never agree.

But just a final thought: Regardless of business model, do you want to ESO keep existing?
Cause with sub model, they will have to shut down the servers. With TU, we will have ESO for a lots of years.

You are correct, we can't agree on everything. One of the things we will probably never agree on, is what kind of game ESO should be. With sub, it might not survive for as long as B2P, but it would have much better chances of regular updates to content, with cash shop it will almost certainly have less content upgrades and more vanity items.
I am one of those that think simply having a game to play (B2P), is less valuable then having a good and constantly evolving game to play (sub).

I see your point, but there is something that can make ESO a great mark in the mmo history:

Eso will be B2P with optional subs, so, if ZOS can handle both things, to be able of generating profit with the cash shop + be able to make subers loyal (with content updates and everything people that like to spend money every month want) we will have a game that we all want (both kind of players).

This is really in ZOS hands, they have the knife and the cheese.

eisberg

Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly fees

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Majic wrote: »

Do I think it's good move? Yes. Yes I do. GW2 is doing quite well with this model, and if ZOS manages nothing more than to emulate what ArenaNet has achieved, the future for ESO is quite bright indeed.

Except this is wrong.
GW2 is not doing well at all. They are presured by their publishers to create an expansion and sell it as a box because the cash shop model is not sustaining the game.

http://mmofallout.com/ncsoft-third-quarter-finances/

$17.95M for a quarter is not bad, it's the equivalent of 400k susbcribers. But the game is implemented in more markets world wide than most MMOs and it is falling continuously. This is not "doing quite well", not for the scale and accessibility of GW2.
As a comparison, Eve Online, a niche subscription game is at 700k subs worldwide.
ESO can be estimated to have near 400k susbcribers now. It is not going to do more money when the switch occur. Sure the console sales will hide that fact for a while, but the game will not be doing well.

The royalties from the Chinese market for Guild Wars 2 is not included in the Guild Wars 2 number you see on that quarterly. The part you see for royalties, some of that is going to be from the Chinese Market for Guild Wars 2, which sold 3.8 Million with in 2 months of launching. So that 17.95M is for the NA/EU regions only.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-07-10-guild-wars-2-has-sold-3-8m-in-china


Also, again, you have no idea how many subscribers they had. I can use Steam to make estimates to. Not going to count December and beyond since the game had a major sale for dirt cheap which boosted the numbers temporarily, and the annoucement of the B2P would bolster some numbers as well. So from July to November 2014, they got down to 38% of the players, so at 772K peak in July, that means they went down to 293,360 subscribers by November. We do not know what their prediction model showed them in how many more they would lose, and at what revenue they would stabilize around. But from July to November, they averaged losing 27% of their subscribers a month from the prior month.
http://steamcharts.com/app/306130#All

Seraphyel

I like it.

ESO isn't good enough to be P2P only. B2P is the best way for the game - without a model change, this game wouldn't have last for years.

EölMPK

Like - may be positive like LoL's cash shop, with only vanity items

Subscriptions will die soon, it's a fact.
The thing is adapt or shutdown.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

@Grunge‌
How can I be making wrong comparisons?
I'm looking at the revenue of a game in order to assess the effectivenes of its revenue model.

LOTRO and DDO are not doing well either. The video games arm of Warner Bros has been losing money ever since it acquired Turbine. It's barely staying afloat.

Also, this product/service thing is not something we can disagree on. MMOs are services because they provide an ongoing service. It's not like a solo game where you pay the box and except nothing else from the company.
It is also a fair price. You pay the box for whatever was developed in the past, and you pay the susbcription for the development of future content, that's the service you're paying for. So no, you haven't paid everything with your box purchase.
I understand that for some people $15 is a lot, but for the developers conditions of work, it is a faire price. In any ways, it would be smarter to lower the sub to $10 than to simply remove it.

And finaly, what gives you the impression that a business model that brings in less money will help keep the servers running?
The servers cost just as much whether it is f2p or subscription. Keeping susbcription means keeping a bit more actual developers and have a chance to improve the game.

For ESO:TU, it really isn't a question of "saving the game" but "burning it by both ends" in order to make more cash quickly and then let it rot.

@eisberg‌
Whether you include China or not doesn't matter. You once again miss the point.
In its oldest markets, the cash shop is not sustaining the game and revenue is falling quickly. That they open up to new market is good, but it's just delaying the inevitable and they will follow the same trends.
There is a reason why the publishers are forcing them to work on an expansion, because that's what the GW franchise is good at and their attempt to cash shop has been a failure.

There was no ESO "major sales" in December. That sale was still more expensive than the "street" price you could find online. I had 10 people buy the game for $12 this summer. So at $17, it was actually still too expensive to have a big impact.

And that fall down to 38% is actually very good compared to the rest of the industry. MMOs at launch usually lose around 80% during their first year before starting to grow again. It took for ESO less than a year to grow again, it lost only 60% and it grew back since December, it got back to 2/3 of its historic peak concurrent users in January.
It's still at around half now, and it stoped growing and started going down again since the b2p anouncement. But that's anecdotal, it could also be that 1.6 on the PTS is disapointing some so it would be dishonest to blame b2p only.

Finaly, whatever their prediction model was showing, it doesn't matter.
b2p/f2p provides less revenue than subscription. If they were seeing that their game was not meeting expectations, they had a large variety of solutions to counter that if they wanted an actual remedy. A switch to b2p doesn't even make it on the list.

Such a switch is equivalent to shutting down the servers as it is just as much giving up on the game. Except that this way they get to squeeze a few bucks more for not much efforts before leaving it.

EölMPK

Like - may be positive like LoL's cash shop, with only vanity items

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Grunge‌
How can I be making wrong comparisons?
I'm looking at the revenue of a game in order to assess the effectivenes of its revenue model.

LOTRO and DDO are not doing well either. The video games arm of Warner Bros has been losing money ever since it acquired Turbine. It's barely staying afloat.

Also, this product/service thing is not something we can disagree on. MMOs are services because they provide an ongoing service. It's not like a solo game where you pay the box and except nothing else from the company.
It is also a fair price. You pay the box for whatever was developed in the past, and you pay the susbcription for the development of future content, that's the service you're paying for. So no, you haven't paid everything with your box purchase.
I understand that for some people $15 is a lot, but for the developers conditions of work, it is a faire price. In any ways, it would be smarter to lower the sub to $10 than to simply remove it.

And finaly, what gives you the impression that a business model that brings in less money will help keep the servers running?
The servers cost just as much whether it is f2p or subscription. Keeping susbcription means keeping a bit more actual developers and have a chance to improve the game.

For ESO:TU, it really isn't a question of "saving the game" but "burning it by both ends" in order to make more cash quickly and then let it rot.

@eisberg‌
Whether you include China or not doesn't matter. You once again miss the point.
In its oldest markets, the cash shop is not sustaining the game and revenue is falling quickly. That they open up to new market is good, but it's just delaying the inevitable and they will follow the same trends.
There is a reason why the publishers are forcing them to work on an expansion, because that's what the GW franchise is good at and their attempt to cash shop has been a failure.

There was no ESO "major sales" in December. That sale was still more expensive than the "street" price you could find online. I had 10 people buy the game for $12 this summer. So at $17, it was actually still too expensive to have a big impact.

And that fall down to 38% is actually very good compared to the rest of the industry. MMOs at launch usually lose around 80% during their first year before starting to grow again. It took for ESO less than a year to grow again, it lost only 60% and it grew back since December, it got back to 2/3 of its historic peak concurrent users in January.
It's still at around half now, and it stoped growing and started going down again since the b2p anouncement. But that's anecdotal, it could also be that 1.6 on the PTS is disapointing some so it would be dishonest to blame b2p only.

Finaly, whatever their prediction model was showing, it doesn't matter.
b2p/f2p provides less revenue than subscription. If they were seeing that their game was not meeting expectations, they had a large variety of solutions to counter that if they wanted an actual remedy. A switch to b2p doesn't even make it on the list.

Such a switch is equivalent to shutting down the servers as it is just as much giving up on the game. Except that this way they get to squeeze a few bucks more for not much efforts before leaving it.

Sorry dude, but you need some better info to take account, or maybe use less of your feelings to make this discussion. You clearly hate b2p/f2p for any reason, and you're taking those problems here.

1 - You are making bad comparisons because GW2 will not be the same of ESO, I just used it to show that b2p games can have good communities too. But ESO will still have a sub, and GW2 never did. It changes how money flows.

2 - You keep saying that subs gives more revenue, but if this was really true, every mmo companie out there will use it. Its simple as that. Doesnt matter if someone here and there say the opposite, the facts and the market show us the truth. You can see very clear that just couting the number of subs mmos X the number of free/b2p mmos.

3 - MMO's are games, and games are products

4 - B2P is the reason that you will be able to keep playing ESO for years from now. Its a fact too. If it keeps the game you love online, keep your subscription with some bonuses, and keeps giving you content and quality, whats the point of hating the b2p system at all? I don't hate the b2p or f2p systems, but I do hate some games that have those systems poorly implemented. See the difference?

5 - Lotro and DDO are doing well, stop saying those things dude. Games that don't do fine are shutdown, and those games were not shutdown, can you see this? Doesnt matter if they dont give the revenue you expect to be considered a success, it's just your opinion, doesnt matter in the end of the day for them, they are still running, putting out expansions and dlc's, the engine is still working.

Lotro new content update:
https://www.lotro.com/en/u15

DDO new expansion:
http://www.ddo.com/en/shadowfell/

6 - Again, b2p and f2p are the most profitable business models at this time, and will be while a company make it right (not cash grabs). Subs are gone, thansk god

eisberg

Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly fees

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Grunge‌
How can I be making wrong comparisons?
I'm looking at the revenue of a game in order to assess the effectivenes of its revenue model.

LOTRO and DDO are not doing well either. The video games arm of Warner Bros has been losing money ever since it acquired Turbine. It's barely staying afloat.

Also, this product/service thing is not something we can disagree on. MMOs are services because they provide an ongoing service. It's not like a solo game where you pay the box and except nothing else from the company.
It is also a fair price. You pay the box for whatever was developed in the past, and you pay the susbcription for the development of future content, that's the service you're paying for. So no, you haven't paid everything with your box purchase.
I understand that for some people $15 is a lot, but for the developers conditions of work, it is a faire price. In any ways, it would be smarter to lower the sub to $10 than to simply remove it.

And finaly, what gives you the impression that a business model that brings in less money will help keep the servers running?
The servers cost just as much whether it is f2p or subscription. Keeping susbcription means keeping a bit more actual developers and have a chance to improve the game.

For ESO:TU, it really isn't a question of "saving the game" but "burning it by both ends" in order to make more cash quickly and then let it rot.

@eisberg‌
Whether you include China or not doesn't matter. You once again miss the point.
In its oldest markets, the cash shop is not sustaining the game and revenue is falling quickly. That they open up to new market is good, but it's just delaying the inevitable and they will follow the same trends.
There is a reason why the publishers are forcing them to work on an expansion, because that's what the GW franchise is good at and their attempt to cash shop has been a failure.

There was no ESO "major sales" in December. That sale was still more expensive than the "street" price you could find online. I had 10 people buy the game for $12 this summer. So at $17, it was actually still too expensive to have a big impact.

And that fall down to 38% is actually very good compared to the rest of the industry. MMOs at launch usually lose around 80% during their first year before starting to grow again. It took for ESO less than a year to grow again, it lost only 60% and it grew back since December, it got back to 2/3 of its historic peak concurrent users in January.
It's still at around half now, and it stoped growing and started going down again since the b2p anouncement. But that's anecdotal, it could also be that 1.6 on the PTS is disapointing some so it would be dishonest to blame b2p only.

Finaly, whatever their prediction model was showing, it doesn't matter.
b2p/f2p provides less revenue than subscription. If they were seeing that their game was not meeting expectations, they had a large variety of solutions to counter that if they wanted an actual remedy. A switch to b2p doesn't even make it on the list.

Such a switch is equivalent to shutting down the servers as it is just as much giving up on the game. Except that this way they get to squeeze a few bucks more for not much efforts before leaving it.

the profits are not sustaining the game? is that why they have been releasing 41 content updates and 2 feature pack updates over a 28 month period? I mean, if the cash shop is not sustaining the game, then where are they getting the money to make all these content/feature updates? Why would NCsoft give them money to make content for a game that is not making money to be sustainable? The fact is, more than 2 years out, they have been profitable the whole time.

Also, you have no idea if they were forced to make an expansion or not. And they never ruled out an expansion in the first place: Quote from Arenanet:

"Expansions are definitely something that we’ll potentially look at in the future," he explained. "We don’t have a timetable on it. We’re open to it, but I think our major focus as a studio is making the living world concept as strong as possibly can for the players that we’ve got."

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/03/05/no-guild-wars-2-expansions-currently-planned


More information available here as well
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-01-14-you-thought-that-was-it-for-guild-wars-2

Showing that expansions were never off the table in the first place, Basically hinting about it as well.
Also stating that the decrease in revenue was expected and natural, but was actually less of a drop then what was expected, this was more than a year after the game released.

Also, if the game wasn't sustainable, why did they not have any layoffs? Instead they actually increased the size of Arenanet after the launch of the game. Seems weird to increase the size of a company, and never having any lay offs if your product was not a success and not sustainable, isn't it?

The fact is, what you think is sustainable, and what you think is a success for the MMO industry, is purely your own opinion, and does not match those who are actually professionals in the industry.

Not even going to try to explain to you how Steam having a sale on ESO towards the end of December would bolster the # of people playing the game on Steam in December/January. If you cannot figure out this, clearly shows you lack some critical thinking skills.

EölMPK

Like - may be positive like LoL's cash shop, with only vanity items

Also, everyone in game (ESO) is saying the same thing, that after the TU annoucement, the number of players increased a lot. Not after Xmas. Myself included, before this announcement ESO was in my game's blacklist, simply for the fact of the sub only option.

And I finish repeating again, it's on ZOS hands to make this transition good or bad. Business model fanboism will not help at all now, and for a gamer and a mmo's lover, the most important thing should be the mmo's quality, fun and longevity, not the business model it haves or the quantity of money you spend on it.

Jeremy

Grunge wrote: »

6 - Again, b2p and f2p are the most profitable business models at this time, and will be while a company make it right (not cash grabs). Subs are gone, thansk god

Rather it's more profitable or not is beside the point to me.

Walmart is very profitable - but sells cheaply made products from china that is mostly crap.

Subscription-based games offer higher quality content at a faster pace. That is just a fact.

For example: LOTRO may be making more money since they went F2P - but the content and quality of it's game has taken a nosedive and much of the staff has been laid off.

In the end it depends what you want. Do you want a more profitable game or a higher-quality game? This player picks the latter.

EölMPK

Like - may be positive like LoL's cash shop, with only vanity items

Jeremy wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

6 - Again, b2p and f2p are the most profitable business models at this time, and will be while a company make it right (not cash grabs). Subs are gone, thansk god

Rather it's more profitable or not is beside the point.

Walmart is very profitable - but sells cheaply made products from china that is mostly crap.

Subscription-based games offer higher quality content at a faster pace. That is just a fact.

For example: LOTRO may be making more money since they went F2P - but the content and quality of it's game has taken a nosedive and much of the staff has been laid off.

In the end it depends what you want. Do you want a more profitable game or a higher-quality game? I think most players would pick the latter.

Your post is too much personal opinion, while mine is based on market facts.
I dont think lotro's content post f2p is bad, for me it was the same level of before. But here we are talking about opinions.

Subs is the less profitable business model of games nowadays, and the model that the majority of players dont want to use. It's a market fact, that we see clearly as more and more companies banish it.

My opinion? I rather pay 150-200$ on a good mmo and next expansions, and never have to pay it again, than pay 50$ and have to buy dlc's later. But I really rather the last than have to pay every month to be able to log in, feel myself presured to play cause other way I'm not using my money in this month, and keep thinking that if I'm not able to pay the next sub I will not even be able to see my character.

But it's just my opinion.

But, market shows that the majority's opinions are towards mine, not yours or your friends that think that subs are better.

Jeremy

Grunge wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

6 - Again, b2p and f2p are the most profitable business models at this time, and will be while a company make it right (not cash grabs). Subs are gone, thansk god

Rather it's more profitable or not is beside the point.

Walmart is very profitable - but sells cheaply made products from china that is mostly crap.

Subscription-based games offer higher quality content at a faster pace. That is just a fact.

For example: LOTRO may be making more money since they went F2P - but the content and quality of it's game has taken a nosedive and much of the staff has been laid off.

In the end it depends what you want. Do you want a more profitable game or a higher-quality game? I think most players would pick the latter.

Your post is too much personal opinion, while mine is based on market facts.
I dont think lotro's content post f2p is bad, for me it was the same level of before. But here we are talking about opinions.

Fair enough. But it's not my opinion that LOTRO has laid off a lot of its staff since going F2P and their development team has shrunk since the change was made and not increased.

So for your argument to have merit you would have to make the claim that a much smaller development team with less upkeep cost and less resources somehow puts out the same quality of content on the same time table.

That's possible... but not very likely.

eisberg

Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly fees

Jeremy wrote: »

In the end it depends what you want. Do you want a more profitable game or a higher-quality game? This player picks the latter.

I pick both, which is why I tend to spend a lot more time in Guild Wars 2, then I do with ESO.

Jeremy

eisberg wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

In the end it depends what you want. Do you want a more profitable game or a higher-quality game? This player picks the latter.

I pick both, which is why I tend to spend a lot more time in Guild Wars 2, then I do with ESO.

I made it about 10 minutes into the beta before I was bored with Guild Wars 2.

That game has the most shallow combat system I have ever seen on a game and how anyone can enjoy it is a mystery to me. But I'm glad you like it

EölMPK

Like - may be positive like LoL's cash shop, with only vanity items

Jeremy wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

6 - Again, b2p and f2p are the most profitable business models at this time, and will be while a company make it right (not cash grabs). Subs are gone, thansk god

Rather it's more profitable or not is beside the point.

Walmart is very profitable - but sells cheaply made products from china that is mostly crap.

Subscription-based games offer higher quality content at a faster pace. That is just a fact.

For example: LOTRO may be making more money since they went F2P - but the content and quality of it's game has taken a nosedive and much of the staff has been laid off.

In the end it depends what you want. Do you want a more profitable game or a higher-quality game? I think most players would pick the latter.

Your post is too much personal opinion, while mine is based on market facts.
I dont think lotro's content post f2p is bad, for me it was the same level of before. But here we are talking about opinions.

Subs is the less profitable business model of games nowadays, and the model that the majority of players dont want to use. It's a market fact, that we see clearly as more and more companies banish it.

My opinion? I rather pay 150-200$ on a good mmo and next expansions, and never have to pay it again, than pay 50$ and have to buy dlc's later. But I really rather the last than have to pay every month to be able to log in, feel myself presured to play cause other way I'm not using my money in this month, and keep thinking that if I'm not able to pay the next sub I will not even be able to see my character.

But it's just my opinion.

But, market shows that the majority's opinions are towards mine, not yours or your friends that think that subs are better.

Fair enough. But it's not my opinion that LOTRO has laid off a lot of its staff since going F2P and their development team has shrunk since the change was made and not increased.

So for your argument to have merit you would have to make the claim that a much smaller development team with less upkeep cost and less resources somehow puts out the same quality of content on the same time table.

That's possible... but not very likely.

This issue is not directly related to the business model transiction, it will happen regardless. Lotro back at that time was competing directly with WoW and EQ2, 2 monsters. Lotro is a purely pve mmo (it's mpvp it not considered a real pvp experience for lots of gamers, me included) so it limits it's audience. So, people that really stick with that back that time was the lotr's fans that wanted to pay the sub. I'm a big fan of Tolkien's work (my dark elf's called Tolkienn), but I didnt play much at that time cause I didn't have money to pay for the sub.
They lose lots of players after the game was not the new shinie, and the business model transition was a shot to try to get it back. Didnt work as they intended, so naturally the staff got reduced (it will happen even if they stood with the sub only, cause actually the f2p bringed more players to them, just not what they needed).

Just to be clear, I'm not saying here that b2p / f2p are magic that save games.
I'm saying that if they make it right, it could increase the game for all kind of players, and if they make it wrong, it's the game's last breath.

Jeremy

Grunge wrote: »

This issue is not directly related to the business model transiction, it will happen regardless. Lotro back at that time was competing directly with WoW and EQ2, 2 monsters. Lotro is a purely pve mmo (it's mpvp it not considered a real pvp experience for lots of gamers, me included) so it limits it's audience. So, people that really stick with that back that time was the lotr's fans that wanted to pay the sub. I'm a big fan of Tolkien's work (my dark elf's called Tolkienn), but I didnt play much at that time cause I didn't have money to pay for the sub.
They lose lots of players after the game was not the new shinie, and the business model transition was a shot to try to get it back. Didnt work as they intended, so naturally the staff got reduced (it will happen even if they stood with the sub only, cause actually the f2p bringed more players to them, just not what they needed).

WoW is still dominating them in the competition so that didn't change.

I think you are over-complicating what is a very simple thing.

LOTRO sacrificed the quality of their game by laying off staff and reducing upkeep costs to make more money. I think I can assert that as a fact without being unreasonable here.

eisberg

Like - may draw in more population due to lack of monthly fees

Jeremy wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

In the end it depends what you want. Do you want a more profitable game or a higher-quality game? This player picks the latter.

I pick both, which is why I tend to spend a lot more time in Guild Wars 2, then I do with ESO.

I made it about 10 minutes into the beta before I was bored with Guild Wars 2.

That game has the most shallow combat system I have ever seen on a game and how anyone can enjoy it is a mystery to me. But I'm glad you like it

10 minutes huh? Yeah, that means you do not have a valid opinion at all. If I were to judge the combat system of ESO in 10 minutes, it would be the same assessment that you gave to GW2. But I am know judging a combat after only 10 minutes really means nothing. In Guild Wars 2 in the first 10 minutes you are still in the tutorial area, and only have 3 skills total, and only 1 weapon. In ESO, I spent the first 10 minutes just clicking my mouse button repeatedly to swing my sword during combat.

Jeremy

eisberg wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

In the end it depends what you want. Do you want a more profitable game or a higher-quality game? This player picks the latter.

I pick both, which is why I tend to spend a lot more time in Guild Wars 2, then I do with ESO.

I made it about 10 minutes into the beta before I was bored with Guild Wars 2.

That game has the most shallow combat system I have ever seen on a game and how anyone can enjoy it is a mystery to me. But I'm glad you like it

10 minutes huh? Yeah, that means you do not have a valid opinion at all. If I were to judge the combat system of ESO in 10 minutes, it would be the same assessment that you gave to GW2. But I am know judging a combat after only 10 minutes really means nothing. In Guild Wars 2 in the first 10 minutes you are still in the tutorial area, and only have 3 skills total, and only 1 weapon. In ESO, I spent the first 10 minutes just clicking my mouse button repeatedly to swing my sword during combat.

You are reading too much into what I said and that's leading you to come to false conclusions.

I said I was bored of the game 10 minutes into beta. I never said I stopped playing. I actually played it for awhile and have a max level character. But I did so only because I had a friend who played. If not for that - yeah - I wouldn't have even purchased it after playing on the beta. Because my opinion of the game never changed even after all that play time.

So apparently my 10 minute impression of the game's combat system was pretty accurate

The game had an awesome auction house though. I will give it credit for that.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

I have no ill feelings against f2p/b2p. I play them too. I have GW2, I play STO occasionaly and have played PS2 for months.
What I'm talking about here is neither opinions nor feelings, just facts.

1. I never talked about communities. I only talked about what matters to publishers: revenue and profit. Most f2p games have optional susbcriptions, for instance swtor, and it doesn't prevent them from losing said revenue.

2. Subscription earn more revenue. This is not up for debate, do your homework.
What you see however is publisher and game studios giving up on their games and switching them to f2p/b2p for a last cash grab because it is easier for them to do that than to put the months of efforts necessary to turn around a failing game. It's the equivalent of putting a traditional game on sale or in the bargain bin.
What you should look at is the history of the mmo genre. Count the number of succesful sub mmo vs the number of succesful f2p mmos. You'll end up at a dozen for subs, and 0 for f2p.

3. Is your internet subscription a product or a service? As long as you have ongoing costs to maintain access to whatever you consume, it becomes a service. Traditional games are products because you pay once for a game that won't be updated in the future. You pay a susbcription for a game that will forever be updated.
An MMO is a "game update and access" service.

4. b2p is the reason why we will stop enjoying the game.
You're making two big assumptions here:
- That the choice was either to shut down or go b2p
- That b2p/f2p games keep quality
Both are wrong. It costs the same to keep a game online. Server costs are negligible and that's why f2p is even possible. Aside from the few months after the switch, a cash shop brings in less revenue than a susbcription model which means that as times goes by, the possibility of a shut down and/or layoffs increases
Also, as time goes by and revenue decreases, the dev team is more and more presured into "breaking" the game to sell more items in the cash store. When frequency of sales is the most important factor for your income, keeping your quality takes a back seat.
This is how it went for every game in the past, there is no reasons to expect ESO to not suffer the same fate.

5. Still being running is not doing fine. Doing fine is either growing or being stable in revenue. Falling revenue is failing. Those games are failing.
However, you only shut down something when it is in the red. DDO and LOTRO are still in the black, which is great for them, but they always made Warner Bros lose money. That they are still running is more a testament to how little it costs to let game servers be online.

6. This is wrong in the case of MMOs. For mobas, fps games, mobile games and other simplistic games, it works well due to how little they cost to expand/maintain. But for MMOs, it's not adequate.
I understand you can't afford a sub at EU/US rates, which should be addressed by adapting sub prices to the "cost of life" of countries, but you can't let your self interest cloud your judgment that much.

b2p/f2p is somewhat profitable in the short term, but it is not the most profitable and it isn't sustainable. It causes game to objectively lose quality and revenue over time. And it is impossible to "get it right".
The games that have been truly succesful in the past were subs because it's the only model suitable to the endaevor that is a game that you can play "forever".
No f2p MMO game ever got close to being as succesful than a sub game. (not talking about WoW here)