How do you feel about the B2P announcement

Seraphyel

Razzak wrote: »

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.

FFXIV ARR is a separate game. It's totally different than the 2010 launch version (remember, ARR came out August 2013, three years later than FF XIV "Classic").

Sure MMORPGs are long term projects, but their most important moment in lifetime is launch. Launch is defining everything regarding public perception.

Razzak

Dislike - fears of cash shop roadblocks on content

Seraphyel wrote: »

Razzak wrote: »

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.

FFXIV ARR is a separate game. It's totally different than the 2010 launch version (remember, ARR came out August 2013, three years later than FF XIV "Classic").

Sure MMORPGs are long term projects, but their most important moment in lifetime is launch. Launch is defining everything regarding public perception.

I stand corrected. I thought FFXIV was put on hold due to bad reception by the players and then been updated according to what players were complaining about, hence ARR version.

Adrastes

Like - all of the "likes" above

i quit playing somewhere late september 2014 as i thought it is way too much to keep paying monthly for this game on top of first needing to buy it. So this is nice news for me, and i will be coming back to game.

Mercutio

Like - all of the "likes" above

Razzak wrote: »

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".

Apparently the people who have an actual financial stake in the well-being of the game disagree with you.

Razzak

Dislike - fears of cash shop roadblocks on content

Mercutio wrote: »

Razzak wrote: »

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".

Apparently the people who have an actual financial stake in the well-being of the game disagree with you.

Well being of the game or their short to medium term profits?

You and I seem to agree on:
"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".

EölMPK

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

Well, there are too many conflicting personal opinions here, so I guess is useless keep this discussion. We are in a loop now.

Just want to throw something here:

Next big MMO's coming:

- Everquest Next -> f2p
- Eternal Crusade (Warhammer) -> b2p/f2p
- Albion Online -> f2p
- Black Desert -> f2p
- Skyforge -> f2p
- The Repopulation -> f2p
- Camelot Unchained -> p2p

/thread

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

angel59 wrote: »

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.

I did a cursory look to provide basic links, expecting you to do the rest.
Actually, you had that choice straight away and instead you chose to post a flaming answer rather than do your own research.

The game was cheaper online even at launch:
http://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/1xmejw/preorder_the_game_for_cheap_eu_only/

Other retailers:
http://www.simplycdkeys.com/other/the-elder-scrolls-online

Even amazon had it for cheaper than 50% off in august:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Elder-Scrolls-Online-PC/dp/B0080V93Q8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405642413&sr=8-1&keywords=elder+scrolls+online

http://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/2t8qvh/90_of_all_standard_edition_codes_from_g2a_have/

It's anoying the wayback machine didn't index those pages. Hence why I resorted to link to posts of people talking about them.
Perhaps it is because I've been following the game too closely for my own good, but in the "reddit world", the game rarely was above $20, many got it at $12 and on kinguin the going rate was always around $17, sale or no sale.

So that steam finaly joins in the party is not a sale for anyone doing some research before buying a game. Perhaps I'm over estimating people though.

You're new to this discussion, I've been participating in it for a few weeks. At first I was posting links upon links, but bare a few exception, people don't read them, even less understand them.
At this point, if someone takes offense in what I say, it's for the better. They can use their outrage and will to prove me wrong to motivate them to do their own research and learn on their own. I have plenty of background for my assertions, and the facts are out there for everyone to see.
But I guess that, again, I expect too much of people.

Another reason why I some times cut corners is because I expect most people to do their own homework before joining into a discussion. For instance, when I say that WoW is the largest game out there, I should not have to provide links to back that up. Some things are just common knowledge and should be the basics.

Also, facts are nothing without proper interpretation.

For instance that blip you see in November is unrelated to any sale.
https://www.steamprices.com/us/app/306130/the-elder-scrolls-online
http://steamcharts.com/app/306130
According to this website, a sale occured late september, so the blip should have been in October, yet activity was still falling that month. A bit slower than the previous months though(the sale impact). November then went back to closer than normal but slower decline. We could shalk that up to better player retention after the September sale and the first tremors of the turn around occuring in December and January.
Then another sale occured at the start of December, which I think is the one you're refering to, and that indeed caused a rise in activity. But the real rise only started after the 17th and was most apparent on the 22nd. Rise that went on to continue until the 12th of January, ignoring vacation or sales boundaries.
Activity lowered but then went on to be stabilized up until now. Ignoring the b2p anouncement or 1.6 on the PTS.
It's even ignoring the January sale, which is the lowest recorded on steam.
With this, and the knowledge the game was easily available at cheap prices, It's safe to say that while they do have an impact, steam sales are minimal.

What is noteworthy is that this is the first time in the game's history that activity stabilized rather than free falling. And it stabilized at a decently high plateau.
You can't deny that this is a new behaviour and that it means something.
Seeing how previous sales had no visible impact nor any "turn around" effects, the logical conclusion is that player retention is now suffiscient and it's up to the game to grow or fall now.

Should I type these whole paragraphs each time I link to the steam charts?
Or I am I correct to expect people to zoom in and make their own analysis?

For @eisberg‌ latest post, his facts are correct but his interpretation isn't. he doesn't take into account the context of the industry.
Late 2009 is the time where DDO went free to play and when the "trend" of games going f2p started. It was the early days when it was reasonable to believe that f2p could maybe work for MMOs. Games were switching left and right.

However, as I already linked to him in another thread, wait, actually, I believe he sent me that link himself:
http://www.superdataresearch.com/market-data/mmo-market/
Even if we were to focus just on the pretty picture at the top, discarding the analysis underneath, we can see that lately the other games have picked up some slack.
The issue here is that we only have estimates for 2014, and I can't find equivalent numbers for 2012.
The best I could find was this, but it's not world wide.
http://www.newzoo.com/infographics/the-global-mmo-market-sizing-and-seizing-opportunities/

But if we are to work with the superdata estimates:
WoW had 9.6M susbcribers q4 2012, it ended with 7.6 q4 2013.
A loss of 1.8M susbcribers over a year. That's pretty much the estimated losses for global subscription revenue in 2014.
The market is stabilizing as most people caught up that f2p does not work for MMOs.

Another issue in those data is that superdata counts mobas and other lobby based games as MMOs, which skew the results by a very large margin. I wish we could find worldwide data about MMOs only, even better if WoW could be left out of it. But I doubt that's possible.
With those we could really say if it isn't simply the MMO market that is declining back to its normal size as a niche genre, and we could see if f2p MMOs really are overtaking sub MMOs in revenue.
The latest link I posted seems to point at a global 50/50, which is pretty bad seeing how many more f2p MMOs there are currently.

From the examples we have of games forced to supply some data, all f2p mmo focused companies have falling revenue:
- The stats you yourself pulled from Funcom sinking.
- Stats like these about GW2:
http://mmofallout.com/ncsoft-third-quarter-finances/
- Sony dumping SOE.
- SWTOR going from $165M (from first year of f2p) to $139M (second year of f2p) (super data)

The pattern is always the same: Great revenue the few months after the switch and then a fall down to normal/worse active players but without the stability of the susbcription revenue.
Here's an interesting read that helps explain why this is happenning:
http://mud.co.uk/richard/The Decline of MMOs.pdf


@eisberg‌
On your GW2 answer. I never said they said they wouldn't do an expansion, that's irelevant to the point I was making.
I was saying that they need to make an expansion to stay afloat.
Your belief that doing an expansion is a mark of success is missguided. It's not investing money in the game, it's using whatever money is left for changing course to save a business.

If the cash store concept was working, they could have kept working on content for the game and the work that is going into that expansion would have kept more people playing / paying. At least that's the rethoric behind defending f2p games. Yet, seeing how much revenue was falling, it was not work.

The smart move, what they chose, is to salvage the already invested player base by making them pay for new content rather than free updates.
A paid expansion is a lifeline and it's also reverting to their GW1 business model, something they know works.

EölMPK

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

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

The market is stabilizing as most people caught up that f2p does not work for MMOs.

But in the real world, is exactly the opposite :P
Most people actually see the sub model is awesome for the companies but not for their pockets, and games like GW2 showed them that MMO's dont need subs to keep evolving and running

Remember my friend, sub = good for company but not for customers pockets, b2p = middle ground, f2p = big bet from company's side

PS:

Here, a passage from EQ Next's game director that I agree, and that shows what a real f2p mmo (team) should think:

“There’s nothing wrong with the subscription model. I have personal opinions, which I’ll go ahead and share because I’m just that cocksure of myself… I think that free-to-play is the way that gamers should want their MMOs to be, and the reason I think that is that if we don’t do a really good job and we don’t entertain the player, we don’t make a dime.”

http://gamerant.com/everquest-next-director-mmos-free-to-play/

Although I prefer b2p, I have to agree with this. And like I was saying from the begining on this thread, it's on the company's hands to make their game a success, regardless the business model.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Seraphyel wrote: »

Razzak wrote: »

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.

FFXIV ARR is a separate game. It's totally different than the 2010 launch version (remember, ARR came out August 2013, three years later than FF XIV "Classic").

Sure MMORPGs are long term projects, but their most important moment in lifetime is launch. Launch is defining everything regarding public perception.

WoW and Eve both had terrible launches. In Eve's case, worse than ESO.
Launch has an impact, sure, but what matters the most is how the company reacts to it. All 3 "outliers", WoW, Eve and FFXIV chose to accept that their game needed work and they turned things around, each in their own way.
It ended up with two of them being cash cows for a decade, and FFXIV having that potential too.

700k players not a lot? Are you still comparing MMOs to WoW?
200k or 300k susbcribers is great, even if your game costed $100M.
Just one year at 300k is $18M boxe sales + $54M yearly.

What other industry can offer a ROI in less than 2 years and ongoing profit for a decade afterwards?

Grunge wrote: »

Well, there are too many conflicting personal opinions here, so I guess is useless keep this discussion. We are in a loop now.

Just want to throw something here:

Next big MMO's coming:

- Everquest Next -> f2p
- Eternal Crusade (Warhammer) -> b2p/f2p
- Albion Online -> f2p
- Black Desert -> f2p
- Skyforge -> f2p
- The Repopulation -> f2p
- Camelot Unchained -> p2p

/thread

Once upon a time, the vast majority of people thought that the earth was flat.

I follow all those games (except Skyforge) and the only one that seems to have a reasonable chance at success is Camelot Unchained because they have planned things smartly.
They are creating the game for $5M and plan to be profitable for 50k susbcribers.

EQ Next is pretty much dead in the egg thanks to SOE's obsession with f2p and how it got ditched by by Sony as a dead weight.
I hope it sees the light of day though, and hopefully as a susbcription MMO.

EölMPK

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

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

I follow all those games (except Skyforge) and the only one that seems to have a reasonable chance at success is Camelot Unchained because they have planned things smartly.
They are creating the game for $5M and plan to be profitable for 50k susbcribers.

EQ Next is pretty much dead in the egg thanks to SOE's obsession with f2p and how it got ditched by by Sony as a dead weight.
I hope it sees the light of day though, and hopefully as a susbcription MMO.

Your post shows that you need to improve your data sources.
Camelot did it right, yeah, they are knocking their heads on the wall and chosing p2p, at least they are expecting a very small playerbase. But this already prove my point.

EQ Next is so so so, but sooooooooo far from death. It's the most expected MMO since 2013, it will be totally free and cross platform, it's from a successful franchise that every MMO player know about or even played it before, have a very rich lore, it will not have vertical progression, tons of viable builds.
Seriously dude, it just seems you want to be the opposite of everyone :P for the sake of being the opposite lol


See my lastest post quoting EQ Next's game director in order to see that they will never chose an outdated and not wanted business model, and to see how he thinks about f2p/b2p. Try to understand his point of view (and ours too), and please, see that subs models SUX hard. Stop trying to give all this money to companies, please, let some of it stay in our pockets.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Grunge wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

I follow all those games (except Skyforge) and the only one that seems to have a reasonable chance at success is Camelot Unchained because they have planned things smartly.
They are creating the game for $5M and plan to be profitable for 50k susbcribers.

EQ Next is pretty much dead in the egg thanks to SOE's obsession with f2p and how it got ditched by by Sony as a dead weight.
I hope it sees the light of day though, and hopefully as a susbcription MMO.

Your post shows that you need to improve your data sources.
Camelot did it right, yeah, they are knocking their heads on the wall and chosing p2p, at least they are expecting a very small playerbase. But this already prove my point.

EQ Next is so so so, but sooooooooo far from death. It's the most expected MMO since 2013, it will be totally free and cross platform, it's from a successful franchise that every MMO player know about or even played it before, have a very rich lore, it will not have vertical progression, tons of viable builds.
Seriously dude, it just seems you want to be the opposite of everyone :P for the sake of being the opposite lol


See my lastest post quoting EQ Next's game director in order to see that they will never chose an outdated and not wanted business model, and to see how he thinks about f2p/b2p. Try to understand his point of view (and ours too), and please, see that subs models SUX hard. Stop trying to give all this money to companies, please, let some of it stay in our pockets.

You're confusing two things here. My feelings and the truth.
I'm like everybody else, I wish I could play every game in the world for free, unfortunately the truth is that developing games costs money.

The susbcription model is the best for everyone involved.
The devs get money to develop the game properly, we get a game developped properly. It's a desirable exchange. Just like I expect a cook at a restaurant to serve me better food that I could create on my own for the premium price I'm paying. There is value in craftsmanship.

My comment was not about EQ Next itself but how the company developing it is in a bad spot right now. Haven't you heard of Sony selling SOE and SOE becoming Daybreak Game Company, or something.
I've been waiting for a game like EQ Next since I played my first MMO 16 years ago, and Smedley's hubris is ruining that potential.
Haven't you heard of h1z1 and the supply drops fiasco?

And again, a lot of people expecting a game and playing it at launch is not a good indicator of sustained success. You need people to pay for it.

CU is planning to be profitable at a minimum of 50k, doesn't mean they don't expect more, it just means that they tailor their operating costs to maximise profit margins.
And remember, 50k subscribers is $9M revenue a year. That's half of Funcom's revenue with only one game compared to 4.
http://www.vg247.com/2014/03/05/funcom-q4-revenues-down-but-mmos-cash-flow-positive/

You really need to understand that f2p games don't pay much.

EölMPK

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

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

The susbcription model is the best for everyone involved.
The devs get money to develop the game properly, we get a game developped properly. It's a desirable exchange. Just like I expect a cook at a restaurant to serve me better food that I could create on my own for the premium price I'm paying. There is value in craftsmanship.

Well, I cant say that for myself, my pockets tell me otherway.
Just to be clear, I dont want to play everything for free, I just want to pay the fair. B2P is fair for both sides, 15$ a month is far from fair imo (for customers).

You are telling that subs are the only way to make a game's develop properly, but GW2 shows thats not true. GW2 gives me more fun and quality experience then I had with all p2p mmo's I played (not considering UO, there will never be a good game like UO again, not even the Shroud of the Avatar fiasco, and even UO I used to play more time at private servers than at the official, because of subs).
I'm not saying that mmo's dont have costs and all, just that the subs money is much more that whats need for this development. So, you're being navy if you really think that, cause the subs money goes to the game's development, but it also goes to the tied guys pockets. The b2p makes less money to their pockets, but doesnt means it's less money for the development. That's why I said its good for companies, not for customers.
And that's why we really need a game to come and make this even more clear, so this kind of discussion we are having stop existing.
It's just a matter of time though, cause day by day we will have less and less subs, fortunatelly.
ESO can be one of those cases of evidence, but if it does not, EQ Next sure will be.

This is the real trend, it began at Asia, but this cart show us the situation at US and Germany (Europe):

http://www.newzoo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/MMO_Revenues_F2P_Newzoo_120712_tn.png

It's not going to change, at least for good years ahead.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Yet, we still have no "examples" so far.
ESO or EQ Next won't be either. Both companies running these games have shown they don't have it in them.
GW2 is the closest we could have had, but even them aren't able to be an "example".

The money will always go to the pockets first, to development second.
Less money means less money trickles down to development.

Not to mention that with a cash shop, you have to develop the game to support it. this means boosters everywhere and other more direct p2w aspects.
This means it won't focus on fun first, it will focus on selling items first.
Maybe that's subjective, but to me that's not developing a game properly.
Fun and replayability should come first, always.

EölMPK

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

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Yet, we still have no "examples" so far.
ESO or EQ Next won't be either. Both companies running these games have shown they don't have it in them.
GW2 is the closest we could have had, but even them aren't able to be an "example".

The money will always go to the pockets first, to development second.
Less money means less money trickles down to development.

Not to mention that with a cash shop, you have to develop the game to support it. this means boosters everywhere and other more direct p2w aspects.
This means it won't focus on fun first, it will focus on selling items first.
Maybe that's subjective, but to me that's not developing a game properly.
Fun and replayability should come first, always.

Thats why we are disagreing. In my point of view, if the company think that way (pockets first, dev after) it is a cash grab, without long term perspective. And this invalidates all that I said, cause I'm defending only and only the right things to do, not the greed things.
It's like the corrupt politicians in my country, they are so dumb that they want to steal all they can without doing anything to make people happy. But they failed to see that it just screw them, and if they are able to do something good while still stealing from people (not that I really agree with that, just to be clear :P ) they will be able to steal even more in long term.

Thats why I keep repeating that's all in the companies hands, to have less profit now, but keep the game excellent and long term, or make more profit now and after months keep maintaining empty servers.

I'm not assuming p2w aspects at all too, it also invalidates my points. If ESO goes p2w, I will be here agreeing with you about their bad moves, you can remember that. But this is not the same of impling that all b2p/f2p are like that, they really can be done right.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Have you personally seen a game be able to do that? Or is it just a belief?
I have yet to see a game with a cash shop not be p2w. Even GW2 has p2w items and rng chests.

The reason is simple: an "honest" cash shop does not generate enough revenue. Heck, even "dishonest" p2w cash shops don't generate as much revenue than a susbcription model as we can see from swtor and others.
And it comes at the price of quality being secondary.

An f2p/b2p game is not in the business of making a good game, it's in the business of making you spend on the cash shop. It will do anything it needs to in order to reach its bottom line. Even if that means breaking part of the game.
A susbcription model is in the business of making a game its playerbase enjoys playing for a long time at the risk of losing revenue. There is a presure put on the devs to produce quality content.

I said "dishonest" with the quotes because frankly, we cannot blame the companies that do that. It's what they have to do to earn a living and keep their jobs. It's an inevitability and it will always happen.
Until someone starts running an MMO as a charity, there won't be any "honest" f2p/b2p games.

I understand that you're happy you'll get to play for a price that you consider reasonable regarding your own means. I'm genuinely happy for you and all those that will get to experience this good game for free.
But it is not a good change for the developers that wanted their revenue to increase on the long term or for the gamers that wanted the quality of the game to improve.

Have at least the honesty to admit you're supporting this change by selfishness rather than the good of the game.

EölMPK

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

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Have you personally seen a game be able to do that? Or is it just a belief?
I have yet to see a game with a cash shop not be p2w. Even GW2 has p2w items and rng chests.

The reason is simple: an "honest" cash shop does not generate enough revenue. Heck, even "dishonest" p2w cash shops don't generate as much revenue than a susbcription model as we can see from swtor and others.
And it comes at the price of quality being secondary.

An f2p/b2p game is not in the business of making a good game, it's in the business of making you spend on the cash shop. It will do anything it needs to in order to reach its bottom line. Even if that means breaking part of the game.
A susbcription model is in the business of making a game its playerbase enjoys playing for a long time at the risk of losing revenue. There is a presure put on the devs to produce quality content.

I said "dishonest" with the quotes because frankly, we cannot blame the companies that do that. It's what they have to do to earn a living and keep their jobs. It's an inevitability and it will always happen.
Until someone starts running an MMO as a charity, there won't be any "honest" f2p/b2p games.

I understand that you're happy you'll get to play for a price that you consider reasonable regarding your own means. I'm genuinely happy for you and all those that will get to experience this good game for free.
But it is not a good change for the developers that wanted their revenue to increase on the long term or for the gamers that wanted the quality of the game to improve.

Have at least the honesty to admit you're supporting this change by selfishness rather than the good of the game.

Sorry, GW2 have nothing p2w, absolutely nothing. What is p2w in gw2 cash shop?

Lets disregard p2w games, you keep quoting SWTOR, and its a failure not because of its business model, but case it's a low quality game. TOR is an example of how to not do a MMO. SWG is an example of how to do a SW MMO.

And again we are in a loop :P so let's make a deal: Six months after TU, lets see how things are and obviously one of us will have to take his hat off. ok?

Your last words, in my conception is totally the oposite. It's a win-win. I want a better game to, and imo b2p will make ESO way better than whats now. So I'm thinking in the game's quality AND my pockets. And I'm one that will buy the ps4 version too when it releases, so you can see I'm not a leech, I just don't want to be sucked to the bones in order to be able to see my character. So, that's why I dont think I'm selfish at all, but a suporter

angel59

Like - all of the "likes" above

Warning: wall of text.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

I did a cursory look to provide basic links, expecting you to do the rest.
Actually, you had that choice straight away and instead you chose to post a flaming answer rather than do your own research.

He who presents the argument has to present the proof. You provided a couple references but nothing near proof that it was a regular occurrence. See my original post that provided sufficient proof to make my point

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

The game was cheaper online even at launch:

Amazon UK: £19.99 = $30 USD
G2A and Kinguin are cheap < £20, but gray market reseller. Risk is worth it for many. (Best left for another thread).

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

It's anoying the wayback machine didn't index those pages. Hence why I resorted to link to posts of people talking about them.

Agree. I tried it for Kinguin and G2A.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

So that steam finaly joins in the party is not a sale for anyone doing some research before buying a game. Perhaps I'm over estimating people though.

It is for people who do not buy gray market, or who are not aware of gray market resellers. In my opinion, sellers like Amazon, Steam, Green Man Gaming, are reputable while gray-market may not be reputable. I am not saying that gray market is bad, I just don't know where their keys come from. I don't use Ebay either for the same reason. (Again, best left for another thread)

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

You're new to this discussion, I've been participating in it for a few weeks. At first I was posting links upon links, but bare a few exception, people don't read them, even less understand them.

I have been following for weeks and finally decided to challenge you on the incomplete support that is being provided.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

At this point, if someone takes offense in what I say, it's for the better. They can use their outrage and will to prove me wrong to motivate them to do their own research and learn on their own.

Exactly what I did with facts, not opinion.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Another reason why I some times cut corners is because I expect most people to do their own homework before joining into a discussion.

I agree, but they should not have to do your job of providing proof. Their job is to present counterarguments with a proper source.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

For instance that blip you see in November is unrelated to any sale.
https://www.steamprices.com/us/app/306130/the-elder-scrolls-online
http://steamcharts.com/app/306130

I am not sure what the chart represents because there was a Steam Black friday sale Nov 26 to Dec 1 . (You may not be aware of it because of North American emphasis).
Linus Tech Tips - Black Friday
BBC Guide - Masssively's Black Friday
N4G - Announce Amazon Black Friday
Think that is enough.

...

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Then another sale occured at the start of December, which I think is the one you're refering to, and that indeed caused a rise in activity. But the real rise only started after the 17th and was most apparent on the 22nd. Rise that went on to continue until the 12th of January, ignoring vacation or sales boundaries.
Activity lowered but then went on to be stabilized up until now. Ignoring the b2p anouncement or 1.6 on the PTS.

The Steam Holiday Sale began on the 19th or 20th which, in my opinion, caused the increased activity over the holiday season. My earlier message provided sources.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

It's even ignoring the January sale, which is the lowest recorded on steam.
With this, and the knowledge the game was easily available at cheap prices, It's safe to say that while they do have an impact, steam sales are minimal.

What is noteworthy is that this is the first time in the game's history that activity stabilized rather than free falling. And it stabilized at a decently high plateau.
You can't deny that this is a new behaviour and that it means something.
Seeing how previous sales had no visible impact nor any "turn around" effects, the logical conclusion is that player retention is now suffiscient and it's up to the game to grow or fall now.

I looked at the Steam activity chart you linked in a previous message and I agree that there is stability now. It actually looks neat because you can see the jump in activity on weekends.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Should I type these whole paragraphs each time I link to the steam charts?
Or I am I correct to expect people to zoom in and make their own analysis?

Of course people can make their own analysis. However, there have been past assertions where you provided nothing to look at. That is my whole point. You make a claim, you have to provide the evidence. Without evidence, it is nothing but baseless conjecture.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

For @eisberg‌ latest post, his facts are correct but his interpretation isn't. he doesn't take into account the context of the industry.

Your opinion, not a fact. He did provide published information to support his argument.

I will step back now that I have said my piece.

Over and out

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

g2a and kinguin are gray market, but the sellers considered safe on those sites are indeed safe. But you're right, this is an entire other debate, and I can understand that some have trust issues.
I myself bought the impreial edition full price at release on the official website. But I did it on purpose to support the game. (silly in retrospect)

I am of the opinion that there should be a presumption of innocence. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
I personally work this way and trust people I discuss with and only fact check the most outlandish comments.
If you feel I'm being dishonest, challenge me. As you've seen I've always had proof behind each of the assertion you "called me out" on. Which other ones do you think are baseless?
Something you surely have noticed is that I am prone to post walls of text. I'm trying to find a middle between explaining everything or explaining nothing.
It's something I'm actively working to improve.

For instance, mentioning and linking to the steam activity charts should be suffiscient. It replaces 2 large paragraphs.

That second link I added for cross references also shows that black friday sale. You have to zoom on it to see the proper dates. (bad layout)
That's why I said: why did the activity pick up only around the 17th of December? Why did the raise in activity lasted until the 12th of January?

The steam holliday sale was only $0.60 less than the black friday one and it lasted from 19th the until the 25-26th of January. Why would this sale have an impact when all the previous ones had almost none, including black friday? Why did the raise of activity stop mid sale without "vacation" boundaries?
The b2p anouncement and 1.6 on PTS are much later than the 12th, and as we can see had absolutely no impact. The 1.6 info dump livestream occured on the 17th of December. We also know that no steam sale ever was cheaper than the "street" price.(which can explain their lack of impact)

Do you see another logical explanation than this one:
Only players aware of 1.6 could know they should start playing to "prepare" for the champion system.That sale was very conveniently timed, and most likely got on board new players on the fence and unaware of the gray market. But the catalyst was 1.6 and it mostly caused resusbcription.

Whether that's the proper cause or not is, ultimately, irelevant. The game is stable now, and it reached that state before the b2p anouncement.
I know you dislike estimates, but if we look at peak online in July and peak online the last 30 days, that's 358.3k subscribers.
This is not a bad point to stabilize at. $64M revenue is very good for a game so young.
In light of this, it makes even less sense to to a b2p switch.

Facts have no value without proper interpretation.
I could link to a psychology article saying that the color blue is soothing and link to a picture of the sky showing that it is blue. Those would be facts, but they wouldn't make my theory that aliens are trying to pacify us before invading us any less ludicrous.

TL;DR:
What other assertion do you need proof for?
Why don't you think that the burden of proof is on accusers?
What other logical interpretation can you provide regarding the given facts?
Don't you think that, even if we were to ignore history and the rest of the market, the new found stability discredit the "need" to switch to b2p?
How are you preparing for the alien invasion?

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

@Grunge‌
So despite history and logic, you reject the fact that b2p/f2p reduces the quality of a game?

Or perhaps you're talking about value offering?
Do you feel "bad for free" is better than "good at a price" and that's why you think it improves the game's value to you?

eisberg

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

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Grunge‌
So despite history and logic, you reject the fact that b2p/f2p reduces the quality of a game?

Or perhaps you're talking about value offering?
Do you feel "bad for free" is better than "good at a price" and that's why you think it improves the game's value to you?

I don't think F2P/B2P in of itself reduces quality. To say it is a fact that it does, would be incorrect. What reduces quality is what the developers do themselves. Guild Wars 2 puts out good quality content, feature updates, and patches, and I have heard The Secret World does as well.

bearclawmcbainb16_ESO

Dislike - fears of new content slowing down

eisberg wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Grunge‌
So despite history and logic, you reject the fact that b2p/f2p reduces the quality of a game?

Or perhaps you're talking about value offering?
Do you feel "bad for free" is better than "good at a price" and that's why you think it improves the game's value to you?

I don't think F2P/B2P in of itself reduces quality. To say it is a fact that it does, would be incorrect. What reduces quality is what the developers do themselves. Guild Wars 2 puts out good quality content, feature updates, and patches, and I have heard The Secret World does as well.

I haven't played GW2, so I can't comment on that, but I played TSW when they went F2P, and I can tell you for a fact that content releases and updates/patches slowed down considerably.
The thing I like about TSW's submodel, is that on the month(s) they release actual content, the DLC never costs more than the amount of cash shop money you get for that months sub. So you basically buy the DLC with your sub, and can still play it later if you unsub.

But back on track, reduction of quality. How can you deny that this is happening already? How long has it been since an actual content update ingame? How long will it be until the next?
It used to be 4-6 weeks, and now we are looking at nothing the next 3+ months. If that is not reduction of quality, then I don't know what is.

bearclawmcbainb16_ESO

Dislike - fears of new content slowing down

Matt Firor said it best himself:
"We're building a game with the freedom to play - alone or with your friends - as much as you want. A game with meaningful and consistent content - one packed with hundreds of hours of gameplay that can be experienced right away and one that will be supported with premium customer support. Charging a flat monthly (or subscription) fee means that we will offer players the game we set out to make, and the one that fans want to play. Going with any other model meant that we would have to make sacrifices and changes we weren't willing to make."

Making sacrifices. That is what they have done now. They can no longer afford to do the things they wanted to do from the beginning.
That is what reduction of quality means.

Iluvrien

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

bearclawmcbainb16_ESO wrote: »

But back on track, reduction of quality. How can you deny that this is happening already? How long has it been since an actual content update ingame? How long will it be until the next?
It used to be 4-6 weeks, and now we are looking at nothing the next 3+ months. If that is not reduction of quality, then I don't know what is.

That is a reduction of quantity, not quality. Quantity is the amount of content we get, quality is about whether what we get is any good or not.

While I can accept that the hybrid model will result in a lower quantity, that doesn't really scare me as much as what might (and I expect will) happen to the quality.

So while we can comment on the reduction in quantity in a fact-based fashion, at least for the short-term as as that has already been confirmed by the devs, we have yet to see the quality of anything developed purely under the aegis of the hybrid model and so the discussion with regards to that is, as yet, speculative.

...and I am saying that as someone who considers the B2P transition fundamentally abhorrent.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

eisberg wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Grunge‌
So despite history and logic, you reject the fact that b2p/f2p reduces the quality of a game?

Or perhaps you're talking about value offering?
Do you feel "bad for free" is better than "good at a price" and that's why you think it improves the game's value to you?

I don't think F2P/B2P in of itself reduces quality. To say it is a fact that it does, would be incorrect. What reduces quality is what the developers do themselves. Guild Wars 2 puts out good quality content, feature updates, and patches, and I have heard The Secret World does as well.

In theory, if a game was to be run like a charity, it could have no impact on quality.
However in all swicth cases we've noticed either loss of quality, lowered frequency or "breaking" of the game to support the cash shop.
Even paying players get a lesser game.
And it is logical that this happens as devs have to focus on what earns them money. And it is not deep and interesting mechanics, those can't be sold individually.

GW2 is a slightly different case as it was always planned as a b2p so there was no "changes" to notice. But the same effects on quality applied straight away at launch.

I've played it for the first 6 months and still log in regularly to unlock the story episodes and do occasional sPvP with friends.
It is fairly apparent that the game has "flaws" designed to support the cash shop. Be it the sheer variety of boosters available in the game, unlimited tools including some that can safeguard glyphs, gems to gold purchase in order to buy legendary mats, rng chests, bank/inventory slots, or simply the scaling in all zones mechanic.
The game not only has p2w mechanics but it also uses free drops of boosters/shop items just like mobile games do with their currency.
It's very smart.

Where I'm getting at is that, at its core, GW2 has been designed as a lesser quality game that people can pick up and drop anytime. And I say that as a compliment, they have created an amazingly well designed product.

Anecdotal and subjective, but I've also heard reports from people I trust and from blogers and random people on internet that the quality and frequency of content has lowered over the course of GW2's life. The "GW2 is doing fine" isn't unanimous.
Which coincides with the steep decline in revenue and most liquely resources progressively redirected to create the paid expansion.

The business model choice not only hurt the revenue, but also hurt the game itself. If the features I listed above do not bother you, I can understand, but the very least you can aknowledge is that having to split off part of your resources to create a paid expansion is hurting the current, and maybe past, progress of the game. But at least the yare doing something that will work out well for their company rather than the traditional layoffs.

In ESO for instance, we already are hurting even before the change. The champion system, while very interesting, will be a great motivation for boosters. We also know that new zones have been delayed in order to work parallely on 7 DLCs that we know off. Had DLCs never been part of the picture, they could have worked sequentially and we'd have at the very least Orsinium, perhaps even the imperial city, in the game already.

eisberg

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

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Grunge‌
So despite history and logic, you reject the fact that b2p/f2p reduces the quality of a game?

Or perhaps you're talking about value offering?
Do you feel "bad for free" is better than "good at a price" and that's why you think it improves the game's value to you?

I don't think F2P/B2P in of itself reduces quality. To say it is a fact that it does, would be incorrect. What reduces quality is what the developers do themselves. Guild Wars 2 puts out good quality content, feature updates, and patches, and I have heard The Secret World does as well.

I've played it for the first 6 months and still log in regularly to unlock the story episodes and do occasional sPvP with friends.
It is fairly apparent that the game has "flaws" designed to support the cash shop. Be it the sheer variety of boosters available in the game, unlimited tools including some that can safeguard glyphs, gems to gold purchase in order to buy legendary mats, rng chests, bank/inventory slots, or simply the scaling in all zones mechanic.
The game not only has p2w mechanics but it also uses free drops of boosters/shop items just like mobile games do with their currency.
It's very smart.

I don't even know why people buy boosters in the game in the first place, leveling is actually fast, faster then I have seen in any other MMO including subscription MMOs. Unlimited tools are just that, makes it so you do not have to buy new tools every once in a while, new tools can be bought in so many different places and frequently and cheap that the unlimited tools are basically being bought for their looks and not so much the negligible savings in buying tools. If people want to use real money to buy stuff for the legendary skins, then so be it, doesn't change their power in the game, and are purely optional. RNG Chests are just full of random stuff in the store anyways and maybe a ticket/scrap to get a weapon skin, again if people want to spend real money on skins then have it, not paying for power.

What does the level scaling mechanic have to do with anything? That is a great idea, one of the best mechanics in the game. Keeps all content in the game relevant no matter what level you are, and makes it so the higher levels do not ruin the lower levels experience.

Guild Wars 2 has zero pay to win mechanics.

Also, yes the frequency of the living story updates did slow down a little, but they also added a lot more permanent content (and bigger) in Season 2 of Living Story as compared to season 1. The trade off was well worth it. And IMO the quality has been increasing over time, the quality of the content we got recently has been better than the quality of the content during the first parts of Living Story season 1.

Arenanet has 2 teams of 12 people each working on the Living story. All the other developers in Arenanet have been working on big projects, which now we know the expansion is one of them. They didn't take resources away from the living story team, otherwise the amount of content would not have been bigger then what was in Season 1 for season 2.

The game was not hurt at all for not being a subscription. If anything, being a subscription would have killed them, and I highly doubt we would have seen the updates and the high quality coming from them if they were subscription based.

bearclawmcbainb16_ESO

Dislike - fears of new content slowing down

Iluvrien wrote: »

bearclawmcbainb16_ESO wrote: »

But back on track, reduction of quality. How can you deny that this is happening already? How long has it been since an actual content update ingame? How long will it be until the next?
It used to be 4-6 weeks, and now we are looking at nothing the next 3+ months. If that is not reduction of quality, then I don't know what is.

That is a reduction of quantity, not quality. Quantity is the amount of content we get, quality is about whether what we get is any good or not.

While I can accept that the hybrid model will result in a lower quantity, that doesn't really scare me as much as what might (and I expect will) happen to the quality.

So while we can comment on the reduction in quantity in a fact-based fashion, at least for the short-term as as that has already been confirmed by the devs, we have yet to see the quality of anything developed purely under the aegis of the hybrid model and so the discussion with regards to that is, as yet, speculative.

...and I am saying that as someone who considers the B2P transition fundamentally abhorrent.

Numbers do not only serve as measures of quantity.
They promised regular content updates every 4-6 weeks. That was part of their service for a flat monthly subscription. The wait between content updates is now confirmed to get much much longer. That is a decline in quality of service.

Seraphyel

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

WoW and Eve both had terrible launches. In Eve's case, worse than ESO.
Launch has an impact, sure, but what matters the most is how the company reacts to it. All 3 "outliers", WoW, Eve and FFXIV chose to accept that their game needed work and they turned things around, each in their own way.
It ended up with two of them being cash cows for a decade, and FFXIV having that potential too.

700k players not a lot? Are you still comparing MMOs to WoW?
200k or 300k susbcribers is great, even if your game costed $100M.
Just one year at 300k is $18M boxe sales + $54M yearly.

What other industry can offer a ROI in less than 2 years and ongoing profit for a decade afterwards?

WoW & EVE launch happened a decade ago - that's a huge difference. Back by then, the amount of MMORPGs was tiny and it was a niche genre.

In 2014, there were dozens, maybe over one hundred different online RPGs.

FF XIV ARR is a cash cow, too. It's very successful in its own "world".

Just look at Warhammer Online - the miserable launch paved the road to hell. The same with SW:TOR. And nearly the same with ESO.

Yes, 700k players for your 2nd payed month are nothing when your game costed $100-200 million. That's NOTHING and for sure less than everyone, especially Zenimax, expected.

If you spent hundreds of millions, you want back your investment within the launch frame - that's what those guys plan to. Look at Hollywood blockbusters, it's the same thing with a shortened time frame.

ESO had a rocky first year full of failures. That's sad, but it's the truth. If they would have launched ESO with 1.1-1.6 instead, it would have been in every way more successful.

_________

The most important thing everybody can't deny is the necessity of the model change. If they wouldn't change the model, be sure we would have gotten LESS QUALITY AND QUANTITY.

Troneon

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

As soon as I heard I came back to the game to try it out, my only worry is they will lack content updates now and go very heavy microtransactions which always ends up costing players more than a subscription in the long run having to buy everything bit by bit.

Having ESO Plus allowing players to have everything with a sub still takes that worry away a little bit but again lack of content updates is another worry.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

@eisberg‌
I'm not the targeted customer for p2w, I never feel compeled to pay, but it doesn't change the fact that the possibility is here and some will definitely use it.

Xp boosters and things that gain you time is p2w. For equal efforts, time investment and skill, you end up being stronger by paying. You bought power, you paid to win.
Not to mention there are also currency and magic find boosters in the game.

The guaranteed upgrade extractor and guaranteed salvager let's you keep power when it would have a chance to get lost for non payers.

Also, being able to pay for gold is p2w.
Especially in GW2's context when you can save up months of grind to get the best gear in the game. This is the main offense because unlike Eve, you can't lose power once you acquired it.

RNG chests are only partly p2w. They contain p2w items but it's defect is mainly in being a cheap "slot machine" feature. It plays on people with addictive tendencies and is very dangerous. It's generaly frowned upon for very good reasons.

The level scaling is a feature that works well within the context of GW2. it's not a game you are suposed to play for long ,so constant "dificulty" is desirable. But It is not desirable for an MMO. Vertical progression is a very valuable motivator for long term involvement, look how badly received the VR system was.
There are other threads on ESO's forums discussing this matter and people explaining why scaling has negative effects on games. In Oblivion, and to a lesser extent in Skyrim, scalling was considered a flaw.
It artificially increases the content in the game, though, which is a nice side bonus. But at the cost of making it feel "bland" to some.

But as I said in my previous post, if you don't mind all of this, then great. But they wouldn't be in the game if it wasn't designed as a b2p.

For the quality/frequency of updates, that really is subjective and I can't say for sure. I haven't been following the game this closely but I do like the concept of fractals and that the story can be replayed/bought at a later date.

But one thing is certain, a susbcription would give them more revenue. They would not need to split off to create an expansion and instead of 2 teams, maybe they would have 3 or more.
If we take worst case scenario of each member of those teams costing 10k per months, a team of 12 only costs the equivalent of 16k subscribers.
ArenaNet had 300 employees in early 2013 according to wikipedia.
Don't you think that GW2 can get more than 200k subscribers?


@Seraphyel‌
We don't know FFXIV's numbers yet. We'll have to wait the end of March for an accurate description of their first year of operation.
But it is indeed a cash cow, saving Square Enix. It has sold 2.5M copies(fact) and has rumored between 500k and 1.3M susbcribers.(rumors)
That's being on PC, PS4 and PS3(?).

How can that game be a cash cow and ESO not be one with 300-400k susbcribers on PC only?
What about when it will launch on consoles? If DCUO and Skyrim are any indication, we can expect more than triple the number of players on consoles than on PC.

Eve was also considered a cash cow at 300k susbcribers. Granted it didn't cost as much than ESO to make.

We know from dev comments that ESO did not cost more than $200M. (I lost the link, sorry) but even if it had cost this much, ROI is nearly attained.
Some rumors state that ESO sold 1.2M copies, made $111M in its first 6 months and in July had 772k subscribers. We also know from various retailers that at launch, the Imperial edition outsold the standard edition by five times.

These infos are pretty consistent with each other. And it paints a very positive picture for ESO. ROI has been reached, or will be with the console launches.

We also know from the steam activity tracker that at least for the steam population, activity has stabilized. It's safe to assume that this shows a trend that applies to the overall population. With the current peak active, we can estimate around 355k subscribers. (explanation earlier in this thread)

ESO already is a cash cow too.
Keep in mind that pre wow, the best MMO was at 400k. (EQ) Eve Online is at 400-500k in western market and 200k in China. That's the "normal" size of a succesful MMO.
If they expected more, they are unreasonable.

The switch to b2p is a short term strategy, and as you said, mimicks the movie industry and the traditional game industry patterns. But those patterns are not the most effective way of managing an MMO.
It will net them a decent amount of cash but ESO had long term revenue potential they just gave up for no valid reasons.

Seraphyel

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

It will net them a decent amount of cash but ESO had long term revenue potential they just gave up for no valid reasons.

They want to milk what's left, that's all.

ESO for sure has NO long term (= at least 5 years) revenue potential as a p2p MMORPG - they ruined too much within the first months and the launch. It's first year didn't have it at all and that's the point where every MMORPG has its peak.

I highly doubt ESO has +300k subscribers. If they indeed would have them, Tamriel Unlimited would launch with the console version and not a day earlier. That they change the model 3 months ahead (and scrap ~ $10 million) just shows that Zenimax wants to get every Penny they can get right now.

The PC version is left behind like an abandoned child, we are beta testers for the console version - on the one hand I understand why they are neglecting us now (because PC underperformed) and are reaching for the rescuing rope (console launch), but it's still no good.

Zenimax and ESO both earned quite an infamous reputation within ESOs first year. That's nothing anybody can deny. The worst part about this is, that once you ruined your reputation, you hardly can get it up anytime soon. That's why console launch is some kind of phoenix from the ashes for Zenimax & ESO and that's why they totally ignore PC playerbase.

I am happy they are changing the model because this could (and possibly will) lead to a longer life of ESO.