How do you feel about the B2P announcement

Razzak

Dislike - fears of cash shop roadblocks on content

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.

Market does not make a good game. It can only make it more or less profitable, with more or less players. And that is something completely different than being a good game.
You appear to primarily want a game with lots of players without paying a sub. Many others would prefer just a good game, regardless if it's sub or not. But sadly, that's still something that only sub based games can achieve.
Why that's so, I don't know. Maybe it's the difference in the way development is focused, maybe in number or type of players. Maybe in something else.
The fact is that this game's development has shifted from more content towards more fluff, simply because of B2P transition. And that' something that no market facts or personal opinion can change. How much chance is there, that this will change in the future?

angel59

Like - all of the "likes" above

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

...
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.
...

I am calling you out on this one. What little credibility you had is gone with the above statement. I want you to provide proof that the ongoing price was $20 or less. I will even direct you to the WayBackMachine to get you started. Present hard facts. I provided real numbers regarding the Steam December sale in the Paygate and Ppl thread. It is time you do the same. You are pulling numbers from your butt so as not to look foolish.

@eisberg has provided ample evidence to support his/her position. I have provided evidence to support my position. You have not. It is time to put up or ***** up. In the meantime, I can prove that there was no price reduction because I have 20 friends who paid 60$.

Your grade in economics: D+. It would have been lower, but I feel sorry for you.

eisberg

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

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

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)

2- I have done the research, and what you say is not backed up by what I have seen in my research. What you say is not backed up by the people who are actually professionals within the industry. What you say is not backed up by history. Rather what you say is only backed up by your own opinions, and by your own opinion what makes something a success.

4- You are making big assumptions as well.

6- http://www.kdbdw.com/bbs/download/192028.pdf?attachmentId=192028
Look at the figures, look at what they are projecting, they are projecting that it will stable out, look at how 1Q14 through 2Q15, Big quarter, then a slow decrease, and then it goes right back up again, and then a slow decrease again. But stays at about the same level as compared to the quarter from the year before. If it wasn't for the expansion, I wouldn't doubt we see the same trend for that period.

Look at Wildstar, subscription only MMO, and got better reviews by far then ESO did, released about 1 month or less after ESO, its revenue is tanking hard.
Available in the same market segment that Guild Wars 2 is, and the Guild Wars 2 numbers we see in that file does not include royalties from China.

EölMPK

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

@Jeremy

WoW is still dominating, yeah, but it's going to change to something like b2p too, must be a reason right?

Again, lotro's quality is purely your opinion, there are others that think the opposite, so, it's not a fact.

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

1 - I was talking about comunities before, cause of an elitism coment from another player regarding that. SWTOR lose revenue cause it's not a good game.

2 - I really think we live on different worlds. In my world, b2p/f2p makes more revenue, cause subs games have too few players to even make it live (WoW is the exception, and FF14 for now but as a ff14 player I can asure you that it's bleeding players. Succesful sub mmo (nowadays, WoW) vs the number of succesful f2p mmos (nowadays, EQ2, Rift, Lotro, DDO, Archeage and for sure, EQ Next). Why? Because your measure of success is different from mine, and from the market's. If you are right, all the companies will be using it right? Cause they really want the most money they can make.

3 - I keep saying that mmo's are products too. DLC's and expansions + cash shop without p2w can make enough money for server costs and future development.

4 - But you are saying that ESO will be just cash shop oriented, and that's the point. If they really go that way, it will be bad for them. If they made it and also deliver for sub players what they want, it's another story. I'm not saying that it will be that way, I'm just saying that if they make it right, things will be better than they are now. If things are good now, they will never make this transiction.

5 - If they are still running, they are not doing bad. No company will maintain a game running if it's generating loss for them

6 - This is totally personal. But I disagree, subs sux and MMO's are totally up to a system that dont need them.

"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)"

Ragnarok did a better profit after the f2p switch than when it was sub, so it's one. And again, its just your opinion, not facts.
If a company goes b2p with subs, and do it well, they can generate the same amount of revenue or even more, cause they will keep the same amount of subbed players, and will have more revenue from the cash shop/dlc's. So, it's pretty the oposite that you are stating.

EölMPK

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

Razzak 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.

Market does not make a good game. It can only make it more or less profitable, with more or less players. And that is something completely different than being a good game.
You appear to primarily want a game with lots of players without paying a sub. Many others would prefer just a good game, regardless if it's sub or not. But sadly, that's still something that only sub based games can achieve.
Why that's so, I don't know. Maybe it's the difference in the way development is focused, maybe in number or type of players. Maybe in something else.
The fact is that this game's development has shifted from more content towards more fluff, simply because of B2P transition. And that' something that no market facts or personal opinion can change. How much chance is there, that this will change in the future?

I agree with that. More players doesnt mean a better game, sure.
But thats not what I want. I want a quality game with enough people to make the game fun (quick group finders, great guilds, great massive pvp). I would pay 150$ for ESO and 100$ for each expansion they release happy in order to support the game and make it quality. But I want to pay it when I can, or when I want, not every month. And I dont want to be excluded from a game I already spend a lot of money cause I didnt pay the damn sub for a month.

Again, I say, if ZOS is able to make a game that makes the subbed players base and the non subbed happy, it's a win-win. I really cant see how they cant achieve that, only if they don't want to, making this a cash grab, and from the start I was not considering TU a cash grab. If it is, bad for ZOS for losing this oportunity, and good for the new shiny mmo company (probably Sony).

EQBallzz

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Some are saying this pay model switch is because ESO was failing or not making money. I honestly don't believe that to be true. I think had they stayed on their current course with a sub the future of ESO would have been fine. I think the real underlying reason they switched to B2P is because it was the only feasible model for consoles so rather than having two pay models existing simultaneously they decided to make the switch.

However, I don't think that makes them immune from falling into the same B2P trap. How they manage this cash shop and future updates will determine what type of game ESO will be. A B2P/sub hybrid that gives players choices and continuous quality content or a P2W cesspool of annoying cash shop gimmicks and lackluster game updates to string people along.

EölMPK

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

EQBallzz wrote: »

Some are saying this pay model switch is because ESO was failing or not making money. I honestly don't believe that to be true. I think had they stayed on their current course with a sub the future of ESO would have been fine. I think the real underlying reason they switched to B2P is because it was the only feasible model for consoles so rather than having two pay models existing simultaneously they decided to make the switch.

However, I don't think that makes them immune from falling into the same B2P trap. How they manage this cash shop and future updates will determine what type of game ESO will be. A B2P/sub hybrid that gives players choices and continuous quality content or a P2W cesspool of annoying cash shop gimmicks and lackluster game updates to string people along.

Agreed with you, but not with the console part. FF14 is sub-only, and it's cross platform (PC, PS3 and PS4). It's totally fine to have a sub game in consoles (in the tech point of view).

PS: The difference that sub games on console show is that you dont need a ps+ or live gold in order to play it. B2p games otherway need one of them in order to play (50$ an year).

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

angel59 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

...
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.
...

I am calling you out on this one. What little credibility you had is gone with the above statement. I want you to provide proof that the ongoing price was $20 or less. I will even direct you to the WayBackMachine to get you started. Present hard facts. I provided real numbers regarding the Steam December sale in the Paygate and Ppl thread. It is time you do the same. You are pulling numbers from your butt so as not to look foolish.

@eisberg has provided ample evidence to support his/her position. I have provided evidence to support my position. You have not. It is time to put up or ***** up. In the meantime, I can prove that there was no price reduction because I have 20 friends who paid 60$.

Your grade in economics: D+. It would have been lower, but I feel sorry for you.

This is harsh. GG for going from someone constructive to being a *** in such a short span of time.
I'm sorry it pisses you off, but your friends have been ripped off.

The exact link I sent my friends at the time was at $17:
http://www.kinguin.net/category/5645/the-elder-scrolls-online-30-days-explorer-pack-dlc-digital-download/

Some of them found links to a $12 purchase, bought it and trolled me for it.
http://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/2t6nsk/for_interested_players_after_the_b2p_news_buy_the/
Read through this thread to see that those deals were still available at the b2p anouncement.

You also have other websites, like g2a.
http://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/2lgfcs/xmas_friends_gift_eso_at_15_from_reliable_website/

That's just a quick research, something you or your friends could have done.
There was a landrush at the b2p anouncement that increased the prices on all those website, but the game has been for months at less than $20.
Even now, at around $30, it still is much cheaper than the full price.

If we have to talk loss of credibility, I guess you just made the news.

Eisberg has been consistently missusing links and/or missunderstanding what were written it whatever he was linking. Also failing to grasp basic concepts like the purpose of a bargain bin and the notion of supply and demands.
If you think he's a valid poster and grade me D+ in economics, then I take that as a compliment.

You seemed smart at first, you managed to make valid points, you should know better.
It's 2015, no one in their right mind can still believe in the f2p/b2p non sense for MMOs.

@Grunge‌
The amount of players doesn't matter, the revenue does. When 100k players provide the same income than 800k-1M but in much more stable form, it's more interesting to go sub and grow from there. Market penetration is a thing and each game has a maximum people interested in them.

And my definition of success is not unique to myself. Grow in revenue, you are succesful, lose revenue, you are failing. Have perpetual negative cash flow, you go bankrupt. It's simple as that.
Just look at radioshack in the US, it has been failing for years and was the but of jokes this whole time. yet it only went bankrupt lately. Being still alive is not a measure of success.

What you see and consider "succesful" mmos are actually just surviving MMOs that still have positive cash flow but are failing year after year.
What the industry is doing is simply noticing that the strategy that was initialy used to cut losses before giving up on a game can actually be a great short term cash grab strategy.
Just like normal games get price decrease over their life cycle to sell to more people, they do the same with MMOs to reach out markets they would not have reached otherwise. They gain a good cash influx for a few months and can then let the game fall down into oblivion. They do that even when the game can actually be succesful.

We'll probably not see Eve or WoW switch to f2p any time soon, because they would make less money with that model. They didn't change model either at their launch when they had more trouble than what ESO is having now.
Instead, they pushed trough the normal hardship of launch and have been cash cows for nearly a decade. That's the example to follow. That is success.

You are idealistic and you are buying into the marketing of those switches.
But despite all the dev anouncement of +300% more revenue the first few months, years later, they don't say anything any more. When they are forced to say something, they end up being happy with not having to shut down just yet.

There have been games trying exactly the same model than ESO, and they failed all the same. SWTOR has optional susbcription, LOTRO, TSW , STO, and so on. It doesn't make a difference because the bulk of the money still comes from the cash shop. It will impact the growth ofthe game revenue wise, but also impact its quality. And again, it costs "nothing" to keep an MMO running, what costs is to actually work on it.

It's such a waste to see a game like ESO used for this strategy.
It could really have made it out.

EölMPK

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

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Thats exactly the point I wanted to show you, even WoW is making less profit then years ago, so there are every mmo.
So, using by your own logic, WoW is not doing fine too. It dropped from 15kk active subs to +-6kk.

Almost every market is not doing fine atm cause of the world's economy situation. The mmo's are just following it as collateral effect.
In hard times like that, being able to run throught years is basiclly the same of doing fine ;P

BBSooner

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Grunge wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

Hortator Mopa wrote: »

eisberg 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.

LuxLunae wrote: »

eisberg 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.

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, Isengard, Rohan... you could not like it, but it was great for me, and too many others I know.

Quote cherry picked from mid thread, dunno if this was corrected, but LotrO went f2p in 2010, between the SoM and RoI expansions. As a former LotRO player (founder) I am curious if you would say the game retained the same quality post f2p as it did pre f2p - considering the yearly layoffs at Turbine since then and the announcement that they would no longer spend development resources on raid content (which screams lack of income).

Edit: I think I'll rescind my question, having read further in the thread I think we will no doubt disagree on whether LotRO is better off now than prior. There are subscription MMOs currently maintaining and growing despite the climate, especially since they are absorbing subs from WoW and providing a strong subscription environment which, imo, is the best deal for players.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Grunge wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Thats exactly the point I wanted to show you, even WoW is making less profit then years ago, so there are every mmo.
So, using by your own logic, WoW is not doing fine too. It dropped from 15kk active subs to +-6kk.

Almost every market is not doing fine atm cause of the world's economy situation. The mmo's are just following it as collateral effect.
In hard times like that, being able to run throught years is basiclly the same of doing fine ;P

Yes, WoW is failing. By its own damn fault might I add.

But one thing you notice if you pay attention to numbers is that the susbcription market has lost revenue inferior to the size of what WoW has lost.
Which means that the rest of the games have been growing when WoW was losing.

My point concerning WoW though is that it has been successful for a long time. Same for Eve, UO, EQ, DAOC, etc.
No f2p MMO had such period of success.

EölMPK

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

BBSooner wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

Hortator Mopa wrote: »

eisberg 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.

LuxLunae wrote: »

eisberg 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.

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, Isengard, Rohan... you could not like it, but it was great for me, and too many others I know.

Quote cherry picked from mid thread, dunno if this was corrected, but LotrO went f2p in 2010, between the SoM and RoI expansions. As a former LotRO player (founder) I am curious if you would say the game retained the same quality post f2p as it did pre f2p - considering the yearly layoffs at Turbine since then and the announcement that they would no longer spend development resources on raid content (which screams lack of income).

You are correct about the f2p date, but as far as i remember this second annoucement was made 2 or 3 years after. It would be a lot earlier if they didnt became f2p though.

Jeremy

Grunge wrote: »

@Jeremy



Again, lotro's quality is purely your opinion, there are others that think the opposite, so, it's not a fact.

We already went over this.

Yes, you can say it's my opinion that its quality was downgraded after going F2P. But what isn't an opinion is that the company laid off developers and reduced the amount of resources and time being put into the product after going F2P.

So once again: your argument amounts to saying the company was able to produce quality of the same caliber with a much smaller staff and budget. Doubtful at best.

So while it is my opinion - the actual facts support it where as they challenge yours.

Jeremy

Grunge wrote: »

Razzak 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.

Market does not make a good game. It can only make it more or less profitable, with more or less players. And that is something completely different than being a good game.
You appear to primarily want a game with lots of players without paying a sub. Many others would prefer just a good game, regardless if it's sub or not. But sadly, that's still something that only sub based games can achieve.
Why that's so, I don't know. Maybe it's the difference in the way development is focused, maybe in number or type of players. Maybe in something else.
The fact is that this game's development has shifted from more content towards more fluff, simply because of B2P transition. And that' something that no market facts or personal opinion can change. How much chance is there, that this will change in the future?

I agree with that. More players doesnt mean a better game, sure.
But thats not what I want. I want a quality game with enough people to make the game fun (quick group finders, great guilds, great massive pvp).

Then LOTRO going F2P certainly failed on that front too. Because going F2P didn't help their group finders any (which was a disaster) and I could sit it for weeks with no response.

The only two MMORPGs I have played with quick group-finders has been World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy 14. Both are subscription-based games.

cyqa

My standing is that I'm just going to wait and see what happens. I don't know enough about the MMO market to make any intelligent estimations about the future of this game. If ESO is going down, I'll just ride it out until it's not fun for me anymore. As it stands, I'm still having a lot of fun. Maybe in 6 months or a year I'll feel very differently.

But thanks to everyone in this thread (on both sides) for your insight.

EölMPK

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

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Thats exactly the point I wanted to show you, even WoW is making less profit then years ago, so there are every mmo.
So, using by your own logic, WoW is not doing fine too. It dropped from 15kk active subs to +-6kk.

Almost every market is not doing fine atm cause of the world's economy situation. The mmo's are just following it as collateral effect.
In hard times like that, being able to run throught years is basiclly the same of doing fine ;P

Yes, WoW is failing. By its own damn fault might I add.

But one thing you notice if you pay attention to numbers is that the susbcription market has lost revenue inferior to the size of what WoW has lost.
Which means that the rest of the games have been growing when WoW was losing.

My point concerning WoW though is that it has been successful for a long time. Same for Eve, UO, EQ, DAOC, etc.
No f2p MMO had such period of success.

Yeah wow is a separate case, too much fans from warcraft series.

Uo is another case too, that game is the best. It is the only one I take my hat off and say it deserves every penny of its sub ( pre trammel though).

But the good f2p games still dont have all this time of existance, so we need more time in order to see it. Eq2 and dcuo are good ezamples though, and at some point is marvel heroes.

EölMPK

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

Jeremy wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

@Jeremy



Again, lotro's quality is purely your opinion, there are others that think the opposite, so, it's not a fact.

We already went over this.

Yes, you can say it's my opinion that its quality was downgraded after going F2P. But what isn't an opinion is that the company laid off developers and reduced the amount of resources and time being put into the product after going F2P.

So once again: your argument amounts to saying the company was able to produce quality of the same caliber with a much smaller staff and budget. Doubtful at best.

So while it is my opinion - the actual facts support it where as they challenge yours.

But they will do that regardless. The game was not generating profit with only the sub, so its easy to see that it will happen too.

Jeremy

Grunge wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

@Jeremy



Again, lotro's quality is purely your opinion, there are others that think the opposite, so, it's not a fact.

We already went over this.

Yes, you can say it's my opinion that its quality was downgraded after going F2P. But what isn't an opinion is that the company laid off developers and reduced the amount of resources and time being put into the product after going F2P.

So once again: your argument amounts to saying the company was able to produce quality of the same caliber with a much smaller staff and budget. Doubtful at best.

So while it is my opinion - the actual facts support it where as they challenge yours.

But they will do that regardless. The game was not generating profit with only the sub, so its easy to see that it will happen too.

We wasn't talking about rather or not it was generating profit though. It's more expensive to produce higher quality content so that of course is going to affect the company's profit margin.

What we were disagreeing about is you continue to maintain the quality of LOTRO remained the same after going F2P. I'm saying it didn't - and become noticeably more shoddy. Which makes sense - considering the budget and staff were significantly slashed.

EQBallzz

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Grunge wrote: »

EQBallzz wrote: »

Some are saying this pay model switch is because ESO was failing or not making money. I honestly don't believe that to be true. I think had they stayed on their current course with a sub the future of ESO would have been fine. I think the real underlying reason they switched to B2P is because it was the only feasible model for consoles so rather than having two pay models existing simultaneously they decided to make the switch.

However, I don't think that makes them immune from falling into the same B2P trap. How they manage this cash shop and future updates will determine what type of game ESO will be. A B2P/sub hybrid that gives players choices and continuous quality content or a P2W cesspool of annoying cash shop gimmicks and lackluster game updates to string people along.

Agreed with you, but not with the console part. FF14 is sub-only, and it's cross platform (PC, PS3 and PS4). It's totally fine to have a sub game in consoles (in the tech point of view).

PS: The difference that sub games on console show is that you dont need a ps+ or live gold in order to play it. B2p games otherway need one of them in order to play (50$ an year).

It may be fine to have a sub on consoles..I'm not arguing in favor or against but I'm saying that was their calculation. Also, they are releasing on PS4 and Xbox (which wouldn't waive the gold fee) so it's not that comparable to FFXIV which was PS4 only. They wanted the opportunity to saturate the consoles as best as they can and their calculation was B2P was the best method (right or wrong). Had they not been going for consoles I think they would have been fine with a sub.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Grunge wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Thats exactly the point I wanted to show you, even WoW is making less profit then years ago, so there are every mmo.
So, using by your own logic, WoW is not doing fine too. It dropped from 15kk active subs to +-6kk.

Almost every market is not doing fine atm cause of the world's economy situation. The mmo's are just following it as collateral effect.
In hard times like that, being able to run throught years is basiclly the same of doing fine ;P

Yes, WoW is failing. By its own damn fault might I add.

But one thing you notice if you pay attention to numbers is that the susbcription market has lost revenue inferior to the size of what WoW has lost.
Which means that the rest of the games have been growing when WoW was losing.

My point concerning WoW though is that it has been successful for a long time. Same for Eve, UO, EQ, DAOC, etc.
No f2p MMO had such period of success.

Yeah wow is a separate case, too much fans from warcraft series.

Uo is another case too, that game is the best. It is the only one I take my hat off and say it deserves every penny of its sub ( pre trammel though).

But the good f2p games still dont have all this time of existance, so we need more time in order to see it. Eq2 and dcuo are good ezamples though, and at some point is marvel heroes.

F2P has existed for a very long time now. The "fad" started around 8 years ago.
UO was reelased around 16 years ago, so f2p MMOs have existed for half the time MMOs have existed.

They had enough time to produce a succesful title, yet didn't.

You can't go around and just call out games to be "exceptions". WoW, Eve, UO all are susbcription based, where are the f2p "exceptions"?

And @Jeremy‌ has some good points. We can objectively point out at loss of quality in most f2p games.
Whether his approach of saying "less employees" or by analysing the game mechanics that start revolving around the cash shop.
I've seen STO and AOC switch first hand, and while both have had some good changes since their switches, the good is outweight by the negative by far.
I've also played GW2 for 9 months, enough to know that most of its design decisions have been influenced in order to bring people towards the shop.

People generally don't know that, but game design is as much a science as it is art. The proper word could be "craft". There are known recipes with known results. The genre is old enough that we can now predict accurately the consequences of certain decisions. Either based of past experience or actual proven logic.
Maybe the people at Bethesda pushing for this b2p change, or those at ZOS allowing it to happen, don't have the experience or knowledge to know better, but they are making the same mistakes than many before.

QuasarLex

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

Just bought ESO because of this announcement. I'm not going to buy anything from the shop anyway. Hope this won't become pay 2 win

eisberg

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

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

But one thing you notice if you pay attention to numbers is that the susbcription market has lost revenue inferior to the size of what WoW has lost.
Which means that the rest of the games have been growing when WoW was losing.

From 2010 to end of 2013, 30.6 Million world wide subscribers to 23.4 Million subscribers for the MMO market, so decreased by 7.2 Million subscribers. WoW went from 12 Million subscribers to 7.8, so a decrease of 4.2 Million subscribers in the same time frame. So that means 3 Million subscribers left other MMOs that had subscriptions. This does not paint a picture of other MMOs growing when WoW was losing.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-07-18-the-old-republic-earned-usd165-million-last-year-report
http://www.statista.com/statistics/276601/number-of-world-of-warcraft-subscribers-by-quarter/
http://www.superdataresearch.com/market-data/mmo-market/

It is 2015, and I cannot believe a few developers/publishers of new MMOs actually believe the subscription model is the way to go.

angel59

Like - all of the "likes" above

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

....
This is harsh. GG for going from someone constructive to being a *** in such a short span of time.
I'm sorry it pisses you off, but your friends have been ripped off.

I know it is harsh and I thought carefully before I made my response. Your statement regarding the Steam Christmas sale being a nonsale astounds me. The proof you provide is on reddit and it refers to a sale that started mid January this year and one from 3 months ago ( mid November). You showed that 2 sales occured - evidence that I appreciate). Unfortunately, there is nothing else that will confirm your "street prices" as a normal price and not a sale. It just seems unreasonable to say that the sudden incease in users on Steam is not a result of the Holiday Sale when proces were reduced by approximately 65%. There was also a little blip at the end of November when ESO was on sale at half price. I will leave that for you to figure out. It is frustrating that you assert something without any background. You have been doing this in many posts.

I will also defend @eisberg (not that I have to) because s/he is providing facts that support the argument. He is not using estimates based on other estimates or conjecture from dated sources. Facts overide opinion every time.

Your arguments would be far more credible if you provide facts rather than just conjecture.

Mercutio

Like - all of the "likes" above

Sweet Baby Jebus this is a nerd fight of epic proportions. I hope Zeni takes notice and erects a statue somewhere in-game commemorating all the slings and arrows unleashed, the forum warriors wounded, the Might Walls of Text erected in defense of the Stick of Truth wielding barbarians storming the gate.

The plaque could read 'The Battle of Aggrocourt' and show a monkish scribe tearing out his eyeballs. As with all works of art it would be subjective - let the viewer decide if said monk is one of the combatants or bystander.

***

I personally hold the view that all companies enact strategies that they believe will create the greatest revenue stream over the longest period of time. Said stratagems may or may not work in the long run, but it seems illogical to me that any for-profit institution would go for short term, albeit sizable, gains over more modest but eventually more rewarding models.

Razzak

Dislike - fears of cash shop roadblocks on content

Mercutio wrote: »

...

I personally hold the view that all companies enact strategies that they believe will create the greatest revenue stream over the longest period of time. Said stratagems may or may not work in the long run, but it seems illogical to me that any for-profit institution would go for short term, albeit sizable, gains over more modest but eventually more rewarding models.

Which makes B2P transition a bad choice. And that makes me wonder why you voted "Yes".

Iluvrien

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Mercutio wrote: »

I personally hold the view that all companies enact strategies that they believe will create the greatest revenue stream over the longest period of time. Said stratagems may or may not work in the long run, but it seems illogical to me that any for-profit institution would go for short term, albeit sizable, gains over more modest but eventually more rewarding models.

Wait... what? You were aware for the global financial crisis? You know, the one where a lot of fingers have been pointed at a lot of banks and real-estate markets for encouraging short-term profits over long term sustainability...

... yes, it is illogical. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.... on a massive scale.

Seraphyel

EQBallzz wrote: »

Some are saying this pay model switch is because ESO was failing or not making money. I honestly don't believe that to be true.

Don't be naive.

PC-ESO was a huge commercial failure. Lukewarm reception, low sub numbers (we just got one and 700k is low) and sales that were not mentionable at all.

To look for an excuse with the console version is a good way to conceal PC-ESO failure, but it's still out there.

If ESO would be successful, they would have found another way for the consoles.

Razzak

Dislike - fears of cash shop roadblocks on content

Seraphyel wrote: »

EQBallzz wrote: »

Some are saying this pay model switch is because ESO was failing or not making money. I honestly don't believe that to be true.

Don't be naive.

PC-ESO was a huge commercial failure. Lukewarm reception, low sub numbers (we just got one and 700k is low) and sales that were not mentionable at all.

To look for an excuse with the console version is a good way to conceal PC-ESO failure, but it's still out there.

If ESO would be successful, they would have found another way for the consoles.

I am wondering who determines what a success of an MMO is? Would there have to be 5 million players in first year? That's unreasonable for even the most die hards. They must have known even from the start, the reception will not be all that good as they were still in late beta stage with literally no end-game and understandably many bugs, as game just launched. A year or two of working on it, might bring to or close to the status they were hoping for, but definitely not sooner.
Who, in their right mind, expects any sub MMO to be a huge success at launch?

Seraphyel

Razzak wrote: »

Who, in their right mind, expects any sub MMO to be a huge success at launch?

There is only one moment for an MMORPG that makes it either a success or a failure - it's the launch.

Launch + 1st month means the peak of players and the most interest in the game you get.

Do you ruin the launch, the game will NEVER be as successful as it was in it's first month. That's a fact. You can look at other MMORPGs, they could stabilize a playerbase after years, but it's still a small percentage of what you got on release.

Let's make two comparisons:

1. Successful MMORPG = FFXIV ARR - good launch, many players at launch, well received by the playerbase - has got a quite impressive playerbase when it comes to numbers and the development after launch has been great (they added a handful of dungeons, half a dozen raids and so on)

2. "Failed" MMORPG = SW:TOR - bad launch, literally no end-content, queues, downtime after downtime, developer with a big mouth and telling how AMAZING their game is, bugs, bugs, bugs, poor development within the first months of the game with tiny content bits you got after launch - best thing that happened to me there was that BioWare brought up a new daily zone and the day after it patched it out again by mistake - with ALL the characters in it (yeah, if you logged out your character there it was gone) - god that was so funny

Launch is building up your baseline for everything. Poor reception at launch? Bad reputation after launch? Mediocre gameplay experience at launch? All of these things will never be forgotten.

Razzak

Dislike - fears of cash shop roadblocks on content

Seraphyel wrote: »

Razzak wrote: »

Who, in their right mind, expects any sub MMO to be a huge success at launch?

There is only one moment for an MMORPG that makes it either a success or a failure - it's the launch.

Launch + 1st month means the peak of players and the most interest in the game you get.

Do you ruin the launch, the game will NEVER be as successful as it was in it's first month. That's a fact. You can look at other MMORPGs, they could stabilize a playerbase after years, but it's still a small percentage of what you got on release.

Let's make two comparisons:

1. Successful MMORPG = FFXIV ARR - good launch, many players at launch, well received by the playerbase - has got a quite impressive playerbase when it comes to numbers and the development after launch has been great (they added a handful of dungeons, half a dozen raids and so on)

2. "Failed" MMORPG = SW:TOR - bad launch, literally no end-content, queues, downtime after downtime, developer with a big mouth and telling how AMAZING their game is, bugs, bugs, bugs, poor development within the first months of the game with tiny content bits you got after launch - best thing that happened to me there was that BioWare brought up a new daily zone and the day after it patched it out again by mistake - with ALL the characters in it (yeah, if you logged out your character there it was gone) - god that was so funny

Launch is building up your baseline for everything. Poor reception at launch? Bad reputation after launch? Mediocre gameplay experience at launch? All of these things will never be forgotten.

I have to disagree with you. MMOs as long term projects, always start as bug ridden as possible. Meaning it takes time to get them to the level they are viewed as good.
FFXIV is a perfect example of that. It's launch was terrible and it took them one year to fix it. FFXIV ARR is not a separate game, it's FFXIV fixed and updated.