How do you feel about the B2P announcement

seaef

Dislike - other

...

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Seraphyel wrote: »

It's first year didn't have it at all and that's the point where every MMORPG has its peak.

This is simply not true.
The successful MMOs never peaked during their first year. Only those that do a switch peak their first year then continuously fall down. Games that are well managed peak every year a bit more.
Look at EQ,AC,UO, Dofus, Eve and WoW while they were well managed.

You're confusing the current trend of short term cash grab strategy with what the performances of an actual MMO are.

ZOS reputation was not as bad as you make it out to be.
Sure ESO caught a lot of deserved and undeserved flak at launch, the internet decided to hate this game waaaay before its release, but during this first year ZOS mostly held true to its promises. Aside from 1.6 being understandably longer, all updates were within a 6-7 weeks timeframe.
The general sentiment is that the game was much better now than it was at release thanks to ZOS's hard work.

Even if you were to disagree with that, incompetence is a much easier sin to forgive than dishonesty and greed. This switch is for many a backstab and a misguided attempt at making a quick buck. If any thing, this change is what is truly ruining the reputation of this game and company.

And a quick buck they will make, but only a small one. I doubt that removing the susbcription will increase the sales on consoles by much. People seem to be under the impression it will double them, but even if it did, that's only worth 4 months of susbcription. And it's not with the DLCs and store items they'll make up for this loss.

They are doing the switch before the console launch just to test 1.6 and the cash shop. They want to have everything stable by then. A stable launch on consoles, a larger audience, is worth more than $15M. As you say, launch is a crucial time and having it run smoothly will net them more box sales.
$15M is only 250k box sales, something an untested update and cash store can easily make them lose.

What matters though is that ESO is now in its first period of stability since launch. This is the turning point where growth should have occured. Had they released their DLC zones sequentialy it might had happenned earlier.
When was the last time an MMO managed to not only stop falling but also grow back to a stable plateau in its first year?
Aside from potentially FFXIV, I don't remember that occuring in a long time. Darkfall did it in 2009, but it then got abandoned by the devs so it's not a good example. Maybe WoW?

Anyway, a long term revenue growth for a susbcription MMO is always there to grab and depends only on the developers. f2p/b2p have no long term revenue growth potential, or at least it never was witnessed. They all just fade into darkness.

Seraphyel

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

What matters though is that ESO is now in its first period of stability since launch. This is the turning point where growth should have occured. Had they released their DLC zones sequentialy it might had happenned earlier.
When was the last time an MMO managed to not only stop falling but also grow back to a stable plateau in its first year?

You have no evidence for this assumption. You take Steam to validy some kind of information that's not more than some kind of rumour.

I have no evidence, too, but some things are quite obvious regarding ESOs first year.

To stop falling and grow back to a stable plateau is something they COULD achieve with the console launch, but we will see, how everlasting this will be.

Right now the stabilization - if existing - is there because of the B2P announcement. I am one of the players who returned after they announced TU. You know what's the problem with these returning players? They want and need something new to STAY. And it's sad to say that but since September and the opening of Upper Craglorn, nothing seriously interesting came to the game. Even with 1.6 there wont be new content, just a half hearted justice & thievery thing.

How the hell is anyone supposed to stay when the only content Zenimax brought up within a year (=Craglorn) will be the only content we will see for the next 5-6 months?

EölMPK

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

Man, this is the 1st time ever I see someone calling gw2 p2w.
GW2 is absolutely not p2w, boosters are useless, skins are comestics, and trading gems for gold is very expensive, didnt worth at all. For the love of God, how can booster can be p2w in a game that both pvp systems scale you to max level? GW2 is one of the few mmo's that player skill > gear or level.

And about content, afaik ZOS during this 1st year didnt release new real content every 4-6 weeks, even with the sub model.

And about the business model subject, b2p didnt imply at all less quality. I will repeat again, it's on the company's hands. If they want the game to have less quality, it will have. If they dont, it will be good. This is not defined by the business model, but by the company's mentality.

WoW is a sub game, the most played mmo, and its pvp looks like smelly *** compared to gw2's wvw. Their quest are ridiculous, so ridiculous that they changed it in the last expansion, now your "followers" can do the quests for you. In gw2 the quests are really funny and you have real reasons to do them, left alone that every quest have more than 1 way to be completed (the hearts on the maps).

Again, company's mentality > business model to define a game's quality.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Seraphyel wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

What matters though is that ESO is now in its first period of stability since launch. This is the turning point where growth should have occured. Had they released their DLC zones sequentialy it might had happenned earlier.
When was the last time an MMO managed to not only stop falling but also grow back to a stable plateau in its first year?

You have no evidence for this assumption. You take Steam to validy some kind of information that's not more than some kind of rumour.

I have no evidence, too, but some things are quite obvious regarding ESOs first year.

To stop falling and grow back to a stable plateau is something they COULD achieve with the console launch, but we will see, how everlasting this will be.

Right now the stabilization - if existing - is there because of the B2P announcement. I am one of the players who returned after they announced TU. You know what's the problem with these returning players? They want and need something new to STAY. And it's sad to say that but since September and the opening of Upper Craglorn, nothing seriously interesting came to the game. Even with 1.6 there wont be new content, just a half hearted justice & thievery thing.

How the hell is anyone supposed to stay when the only content Zenimax brought up within a year (=Craglorn) will be the only content we will see for the next 5-6 months?

That last point is due to the b2p switch and the console release. They have been working on 7 zones at the same time in order to release 6 of them as DLCs together once the game has had some time to "breath". The imeprial city is the 7th and we don't know yet if it will be DLC or not.

If it weren't for the b2p switch, we would not have to wait for 6 months until the next content update. It is very likely that we would have one, maybe two, new zones in the game already.

A console launch would just open the game to new markets, not grow it. The same falling/growing/stabilization would still occur on the PC player base and the console playerbase would follow the same trend.
Releasing on consoles with their current plan is suicide.
As you say, 6 months without content will take its toll. Not to mention the natural drain that occurs with f2p/b2p switches once the tourists are gone.
It's throwing away all that hard work that went into reachign a state where the playerbase was satisfied and stable.

That growth and stabilization dates from December 17th (start of growth) to January 12th (start of stability), around when 1.6 information was released. The b2p anouncement was later than that and didn't impact it at all.
Just read earlier into the thread for more explanations on the timeframe of anouncement, steam sales and population activity.

In short: steam charts are exact for the steam population, but can also be used as a polling mechanic for trends affecting the entire population.
Just like real life polls are conducted on only a few thousand people for populations of millions.
Any subscriber number estimates we use them for are just that, estimates, but the trends we notice in steam should be accurate.

Vraneon

Dislike - other

I am afraid the lots of new players won't be as nice as the existing ones. I think the community will get worse although probably bigger. I have no problem in paying a subscription fee and a buy price. For playing wow you also need a subscription and the game last for a long time already. I think it's nice having a bigger community, but not for the price of getting lower quality. There will be also more goldfarmers and possibly bots, trollers etc. Cuz paying just once and then playing forever is way less expensive than paying continuous fees. Now people only keep up their subscription when they want to play the game, when someone stops liking it, the person stops paying for it. Now someone pays and has forever access to it, which is not good imo.

The cash shop is something completely different and not connected to the subscription. As long as things stay cosmetic idc so much whats in it. It can be a nice way to keep designers, artists busy and get the company some additional money at the same time, while not taking too much effect on the economy or mechanics of the game itself.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Grunge wrote: »

Again, company's mentality > business model to define a game's quality.

A company's mentality is always to make the most revenue possible.
A business model decides the ways revenue is made.
The choice of business model impacts game design.

As I said, the features I've listed in GW2 would not exist if it wasn't because of their b2p decision. Cosmetics are not enough to run an MMO, so p2w items have to exist.

p2w is anything that impacts gameplay in a way to advantage a player that has paid compared to one that did not. It can be small, it can be huge, it can be expensive or it can be cheap, it can be exclusive or grindable. It doesn't matter, as long as it gives an advantage, someone will use it and it will be p2w.

Direct p2w almost doesn't exist anymore, and it doesn't need to, so much people have been trained to believe that boosters or buying gold are not such a bad case of p2w. But you can't go in court and say "I killed only one person, there are serial killers out there, so I'm not a murderer". It would be wrong, you would be a murderer and GW2 is p2w.

Unless you don't believe that p2w lowers the quality of a game, GW2 is a lesser game due to its business model choice.

EölMPK

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

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

Again, company's mentality > business model to define a game's quality.

A company's mentality is always to make the most revenue possible.
A business model decides the ways revenue is made.
The choice of business model impacts game design.

As I said, the features I've listed in GW2 would not exist if it wasn't because of their b2p decision. Cosmetics are not enough to run an MMO, so p2w items have to exist.

p2w is anything that impacts gameplay in a way to advantage a player that has paid compared to one that did not. It can be small, it can be huge, it can be expensive or it can be cheap, it can be exclusive or grindable. It doesn't matter, as long as it gives an advantage, someone will use it and it will be p2w.

Direct p2w almost doesn't exist anymore, and it doesn't need to, so much people have been trained to believe that boosters or buying gold are not such a bad case of p2w. But you can't go in court and say "I killed only one person, there are serial killers out there, so I'm not a murderer". It would be wrong, you would be a murderer and GW2 is p2w.

Unless you don't believe that p2w lowers the quality of a game, GW2 is a lesser game due to its business model choice.

Disagree with all your points.
Nothing in gw2 shop give any advantage at all. AT ALL.
If you are higher level than me, when we go to pvp, we are at equal levels anyway, so your boosters dont help you at all. If I'm a better player than you, I will kick your ... in pvp being a lower level.

A company's mentality is to make money, yes, but they have to chose between short term or long term. This is what I was talking about. If the mentality is to make a lot of money, but in long term, they have to deliver a quality product to keep players interested, and in ESO's case, eso plus + cash shop + box sales + dlcs will generate more money than just a sub. So again, it's in the company's hands. You just cant affirm that b2p turns a game in a lower quality, it's the company's choices that make that.

And fyi, the majority of GW2's cash shop sales are the comestic things. Yes, it's true. People really spends tons of money to have that awesome cerimonial armor skin, or that cute little princess dress skin. Butterfly wings, dragonhorn helms, etc.

GW2 isnt just a great game, its a better game than any actual sub based game (it's better than wow, eve - this is the first time I ever quote this game here, cause it sux hard for me- , or ff14). It's better in fun, quality, business model AND community. But this is imho.

EQBallzz

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Grunge wrote: »

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.

Totally disagree with this garbage of a statement. He is conflating the idea that a game that makes money is necessarily a great game and that couldn't be further from the truth. There are plenty of terrible F2P games that make money because there are enough people playing them and buying things to make money but that doesn't make them any good. If they turn ESO into farmville and it makes money..would you consider that good? I don't think so. This is why I have little hope that EQN will be good..comments like this from that sleazy car salesman Dave Georgeson.

EölMPK

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

EQBallzz wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

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.

Totally disagree with this garbage of a statement. He is conflating the idea that a game that makes money is necessarily a great game and that couldn't be further from the truth. There are plenty of terrible F2P games that make money because there are enough people playing them and buying things to make money but that doesn't make them any good. If they turn ESO into farmville and it makes money..would you consider that good? I don't think so. This is why I have little hope that EQN will be good..comments like this from that sleazy car salesman Dave Georgeson.

You need to increase your reading skills, no offense... I never say that a game that makes a lot of money is good. If you read my post correctly, you will see that I clearly said that the quality of a game is on the company's actions, not the business model. Your response have nothing to do with my post that you quoted oO It was the same that quoting "This car is red" and replying "No you idiot, my mama makes a great cake!"

You talk too much, read too little, and probably think too little before trolling a post.




Edit: Just an example of how ridiculous your post were, League of Legends generate a very good profit for the company, but I think this game smells like rotten feet.

eisberg

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

EQBallzz wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

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.

Totally disagree with this garbage of a statement. He is conflating the idea that a game that makes money is necessarily a great game and that couldn't be further from the truth. There are plenty of terrible F2P games that make money because there are enough people playing them and buying things to make money but that doesn't make them any good. If they turn ESO into farmville and it makes money..would you consider that good? I don't think so. This is why I have little hope that EQN will be good..comments like this from that sleazy car salesman Dave Georgeson.

the games must be good in order for people to actually want to play them and spend money in them. maybe the game is not good to you but to the people who play and spend money in their opinion it is. who's to say who is wrong? in fact no one is wrong it's all a matter of opinion.

EQBallzz

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Grunge wrote: »

EQBallzz wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

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.

Totally disagree with this garbage of a statement. He is conflating the idea that a game that makes money is necessarily a great game and that couldn't be further from the truth. There are plenty of terrible F2P games that make money because there are enough people playing them and buying things to make money but that doesn't make them any good. If they turn ESO into farmville and it makes money..would you consider that good? I don't think so. This is why I have little hope that EQN will be good..comments like this from that sleazy car salesman Dave Georgeson.

You need to increase your reading skills, no offense... I never say that a game that makes a lot of money is good. If you read my post correctly, you will see that I clearly said that the quality of a game is on the company's actions, not the business model. Your response have nothing to do with my post that you quoted oO It was the same that quoting "This car is red" and replying "No you idiot, my mama makes a great cake!"

You talk too much, read too little, and probably think too little before trolling a post.




Edit: Just an example of how ridiculous your post were, League of Legends generate a very good profit for the company, but I think this game smells like rotten feet.

Try taking your own advice and read my post again. I was referencing the quote from the EQN dev that you posted not you (read the last line where I mention Dave Georgeson). His statement was an indication that to make money the game has to be good and I fundamentally disagree with that notion. Maybe next time try reading before jumping to conclusions that you are being attacked personally.

I realize that "good" is subjective but come on..it would be hard to disagree with the fact that there are plenty of terrible games making money so his statement is utterly bogus for anyone who has an expectation of a AAA MMO title that isn't P2W or filled with annoying "BUY ME NOW" ads.

EölMPK

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

EQBallzz wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

EQBallzz wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

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.

Totally disagree with this garbage of a statement. He is conflating the idea that a game that makes money is necessarily a great game and that couldn't be further from the truth. There are plenty of terrible F2P games that make money because there are enough people playing them and buying things to make money but that doesn't make them any good. If they turn ESO into farmville and it makes money..would you consider that good? I don't think so. This is why I have little hope that EQN will be good..comments like this from that sleazy car salesman Dave Georgeson.

You need to increase your reading skills, no offense... I never say that a game that makes a lot of money is good. If you read my post correctly, you will see that I clearly said that the quality of a game is on the company's actions, not the business model. Your response have nothing to do with my post that you quoted oO It was the same that quoting "This car is red" and replying "No you idiot, my mama makes a great cake!"

You talk too much, read too little, and probably think too little before trolling a post.




Edit: Just an example of how ridiculous your post were, League of Legends generate a very good profit for the company, but I think this game smells like rotten feet.

Try taking your own advice and read my post again. I was referencing the quote from the EQN dev that you posted not you (read the last line where I mention Dave Georgeson). His statement was an indication that to make money the game has to be good and I fundamentally disagree with that notion. Maybe next time try reading before jumping to conclusions that you are being attacked personally.

I realize that "good" is subjective but come on..it would be hard to disagree with the fact that there are plenty of terrible games making money so his statement is utterly bogus for anyone who has an expectation of a AAA MMO title that isn't P2W or filled with annoying "BUY ME NOW" ads.

Again, pay attention:

He was talking exclusively about MMO's (like EQN).
Or do you think farmville is the same kind of game like ESO or EQN?

If you do think that, there is no use arguing with you.

And stop making your personal opinion about other games like that is the truth. I really hate LoL, but I cant deny that for a moba player kid its a good game f.e.
Or even an asian p2w fps like Sudden Attack, that is horrible to me, but if a lot of people spend a lot of money on it, it should be very good for them.

Your opinion is just, and nothing more, only your opinion.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

@Grunge‌
Wut?
So boosters are not advantages? Buying gold isn't an advantage? Having more bank space is not an advantage? Being able to extract stuff without any chances of loss isn't an advantage?

I get that you love GW2, but you're exagerating here.
GW2 is not jesus made game, it's not a bad game either. It has interesting lore, decent quests, cute design, awesome jumping puzzles, a combat system in between AoC and ESO dynamism wise and it has a strong potential playerbase.
But it also has flaws, first of which is the cash shop, then you have WvW being a failed implementation of RvR, leveling can be bland and forgetable, at launch it lacked long term content and very little meaningful player driven interactions.
GW2 is a good game, but a bad MMO.

If GW2 proves anything is that good games with a cosmetic shop with a tiny splash of p2w don't make revenue. It proves there is no long term in f2p/b2p.

All the other games with similar business model and optional subscription show the same decline. TSW is doing nearly exactly what ESO is planning to do, and generaly is considered a good game regarding what it aims to do, yet it is failing. SWTOR is doing most of the "dishonest" tricks and is failing despite being backed up by one of the most powerful IP in the universe.
ESO won't succeed where none have.

But your last comment shows something: You're not an MMO player.
I don't mean that in a bad way, please hear me out.
That's why you'll never understand the value of a subscription because the service an MMO provides is not what you are looking for. You can't even see it as a service but merely a product you should be buying only once.
You don't care about power gap integrity, sheltered economy or game mechanics improvement. You just seem to want more content to be added.

That's why GW2 is suited to you, perhaps you'd also enjoy Pay Day 2 as well or any other traditional games that offer a lot of content DLCs.
But you can't continue to play MMOs and expect them to behave like traditional games. You can't have your cake and eat it.

The only thing I don't get is that, I believe, you've said that UO was the ultimate.
I'm curious as to why you think that, would you mind elaborating?

About @EQBallzz‌ , he's trying to express, albeit aggressively, that for any one with a bit of experience in MMOs, whatever comes out from the mouth and keyboards of SOE/Daybreak directors is utter garbage.
Georgeson is perhaps the one that kept the most dignity, but Smedley and his line of thinking has driven SOE into the ground, bringing down multiple amazing franchises with it.

That quote he was taking offense at is amazingly hypocritical.

The notion that f2p forces them to make quality game is laughable. Nothing can force a company to make a good game except their skill and integrity.
However, the rules of business will force a company to do whatever earns them the most money. In the case of SOE games, it always was to nikel and dime on their cash shops and change the games in order to suit that.
Planetside 2 and h1z1 being the best examples of it.

Not to mention that the subscription model is what holds the laurel of "forces you to make a quality game or not make a dime". It's a more binary situation.
Either the game is worth it, or it isn't.
He's more or less stating the exact opposite of the truth.

EölMPK

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

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Grunge‌
Wut?
So boosters are not advantages? Buying gold isn't an advantage? Having more bank space is not an advantage? Being able to extract stuff without any chances of loss isn't an advantage?

I get that you love GW2, but you're exagerating here.
GW2 is not jesus made game, it's not a bad game either. It has interesting lore, decent quests, cute design, awesome jumping puzzles, a combat system in between AoC and ESO dynamism wise and it has a strong potential playerbase.
But it also has flaws, first of which is the cash shop, then you have WvW being a failed implementation of RvR, leveling can be bland and forgetable, at launch it lacked long term content and very little meaningful player driven interactions.
GW2 is a good game, but a bad MMO.

If GW2 proves anything is that good games with a cosmetic shop with a tiny splash of p2w don't make revenue. It proves there is no long term in f2p/b2p.

All the other games with similar business model and optional subscription show the same decline. TSW is doing nearly exactly what ESO is planning to do, and generaly is considered a good game regarding what it aims to do, yet it is failing. SWTOR is doing most of the "dishonest" tricks and is failing despite being backed up by one of the most powerful IP in the universe.
ESO won't succeed where none have.

But your last comment shows something: You're not an MMO player.
I don't mean that in a bad way, please hear me out.
That's why you'll never understand the value of a subscription because the service an MMO provides is not what you are looking for. You can't even see it as a service but merely a product you should be buying only once.
You don't care about power gap integrity, sheltered economy or game mechanics improvement. You just seem to want more content to be added.

That's why GW2 is suited to you, perhaps you'd also enjoy Pay Day 2 as well or any other traditional games that offer a lot of content DLCs.
But you can't continue to play MMOs and expect them to behave like traditional games. You can't have your cake and eat it.

The only thing I don't get is that, I believe, you've said that UO was the ultimate.
I'm curious as to why you think that, would you mind elaborating?

About @EQBallzz‌ , he's trying to express, albeit aggressively, that for any one with a bit of experience in MMOs, whatever comes out from the mouth and keyboards of SOE/Daybreak directors is utter garbage.
Georgeson is perhaps the one that kept the most dignity, but Smedley and his line of thinking has driven SOE into the ground, bringing down multiple amazing franchises with it.

That quote he was taking offense at is amazingly hypocritical.

The notion that f2p forces them to make quality game is laughable. Nothing can force a company to make a good game except their skill and integrity.
However, the rules of business will force a company to do whatever earns them the most money. In the case of SOE games, it always was to nikel and dime on their cash shops and change the games in order to suit that.
Planetside 2 and h1z1 being the best examples of it.

Not to mention that the subscription model is what holds the laurel of "forces you to make a quality game or not make a dime". It's a more binary situation.
Either the game is worth it, or it isn't.
He's more or less stating the exact opposite of the truth.

Lol, man, again, all that you said is all your personal opinion, but not a single fact.

First, I'm not an mmo player? Ok, lets see...
I started playing UO in the end of 97 in the chesapeak shard. Played there till 99 when I could not afford anymore the freaking sub. After that, I played it in a private server till 2003.
When the server went down, I started playing NWN on a RP/action server that was awesome, with a lot of players for that time.
From 2004 till begining of 2005 I played EQ, and at march/2005 (as far as I remember) I begin playing wow vanilla. Played wow till WotLK, after that I quitted for good.
After quiting WoW, I played GW1, Lotro and DDO till 2012 (playing some other titles here and there like AoC, Allods Online, Forsaken World, EQ2, there were others but I cant remember anymore).
2012 -> Present: GW2, Rift, FF14 ARR, Black Gold Online, EQ2, Archeage and ESO.

I'm not a mmo player?????
Dude, please, the very reason you said that was because 1 - I disagree with your opinions that you think are facts, and this make you think I'm not experienced in MMOs and 2 - You think you are so right, that everyone that disagrees with you are wrong and don't know what their are talking about.

There is no use anymore to participate in this discussion, we dont have here facts based on the real world, just personal opinions throwed like they are real facts.

As I said, the fact you think GW2 is p2w shows that. We have too different mindsets. I cant see something like a booster as a p2w item. Imagine that, someone spend money, buy a booster, get to higher level than me, and die for me in pvp. P2loose?

I didnt say that GW2 is a Jesus made game, just that is the best MMO I've played after UO, but I made it very clear that it was only my humble opinion. Thats our biggest difference, I dont think my oppinions are facts like you do.

And that's my final post in this thread, I already said all that I wanted to.
I really hope that TU doesn't disapoint you, I see you care for this game otherwise you will not spend this time in a conversation like this.

Best regards dude, and a friend's advice, there are people out there that although they have different opinions than you do, they can be right, at least in some points.

Cya in TU

Kaizxen

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

eisberg wrote: »

Guild Wars 2 puts out good quality content, feature updates, and patches...

My experience was that GW2's Living Story put out the same content rehashed under a half dozen barely camouflaged skins (find x# of this item, complete this jumping puzzle every day for a week, or interact with this object x# of times) with just enough poorly-written, banal storyline to string along as many players as possible.

ANet has focused so much of its resources on the cash shop that they still have not fixed some of the absurdly broken core aspects of the game that have been known issues since launch (WvW matchmaking and underwater combat are two major ones that immediately come to mind). PvP has been largely ignored as well. At least the new expansion (again, a cash gate) is bringing new PvP modes.

To make matters even worse, their cash shop has demolished any reason to actually play the game, because anything that should have been released as a reward for game content is instead for sale in the cash shop...usually also gated behind some sort of RNG.

So, sure, if you want to use GW2 as an example of a cash shop, go ahead. I would agree with the posts indicating that GW2's cash shop is not P2W, and to that extent it is admirable.

However, my opinion is that GW2's cash shop is a better example of why so many people worry about a cash shop diverting resources from actual development, and detracting from the overall health of the game.

phairdon

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

The_Sadist wrote: »

You forgot an 'indifferent' option.

That being said, I'm happyish to see how it all turns out, GW2 is a good B2P game and if ESO follows suit I can see it working.


Agree. 29 months old & still going strong.

Woolenthreads

Dislike - other

I have found that, now that it's effectively going Freemium, I've mostly lost interest in the game. I know that I can leave and come back and play for free after March, so why bother?

phairdon

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

Kaizxen wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

Guild Wars 2 puts out good quality content, feature updates, and patches...

My experience was that GW2's Living Story put out the same content rehashed under a half dozen barely camouflaged skins (find x# of this item, complete this jumping puzzle every day for a week, or interact with this object x# of times) with just enough poorly-written, banal storyline to string along as many players as possible.

ANet has focused so much of its resources on the cash shop that they still have not fixed some of the absurdly broken core aspects of the game that have been known issues since launch (WvW matchmaking and underwater combat are two major ones that immediately come to mind). PvP has been largely ignored as well. At least the new expansion (again, a cash gate) is bringing new PvP modes.

To make matters even worse, their cash shop has demolished any reason to actually play the game, because anything that should have been released as a reward for game content is instead for sale in the cash shop...usually also gated behind some sort of RNG.

So, sure, if you want to use GW2 as an example of a cash shop, go ahead. I would agree with the posts indicating that GW2's cash shop is not P2W, and to that extent it is admirable.

However, my opinion is that GW2's cash shop is a better example of why so many people worry about a cash shop diverting resources from actual development, and detracting from the overall health of the game.

You know there is an expansion coming out?

EQBallzz

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Grunge wrote: »

EQBallzz wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

EQBallzz wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

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.

Totally disagree with this garbage of a statement. He is conflating the idea that a game that makes money is necessarily a great game and that couldn't be further from the truth. There are plenty of terrible F2P games that make money because there are enough people playing them and buying things to make money but that doesn't make them any good. If they turn ESO into farmville and it makes money..would you consider that good? I don't think so. This is why I have little hope that EQN will be good..comments like this from that sleazy car salesman Dave Georgeson.

You need to increase your reading skills, no offense... I never say that a game that makes a lot of money is good. If you read my post correctly, you will see that I clearly said that the quality of a game is on the company's actions, not the business model. Your response have nothing to do with my post that you quoted oO It was the same that quoting "This car is red" and replying "No you idiot, my mama makes a great cake!"

You talk too much, read too little, and probably think too little before trolling a post.




Edit: Just an example of how ridiculous your post were, League of Legends generate a very good profit for the company, but I think this game smells like rotten feet.

Try taking your own advice and read my post again. I was referencing the quote from the EQN dev that you posted not you (read the last line where I mention Dave Georgeson). His statement was an indication that to make money the game has to be good and I fundamentally disagree with that notion. Maybe next time try reading before jumping to conclusions that you are being attacked personally.

I realize that "good" is subjective but come on..it would be hard to disagree with the fact that there are plenty of terrible games making money so his statement is utterly bogus for anyone who has an expectation of a AAA MMO title that isn't P2W or filled with annoying "BUY ME NOW" ads.

Again, pay attention:

He was talking exclusively about MMO's (like EQN).
Or do you think farmville is the same kind of game like ESO or EQN?

If you do think that, there is no use arguing with you.

And stop making your personal opinion about other games like that is the truth. I really hate LoL, but I cant deny that for a moba player kid its a good game f.e.
Or even an asian p2w fps like Sudden Attack, that is horrible to me, but if a lot of people spend a lot of money on it, it should be very good for them.

Your opinion is just, and nothing more, only your opinion.

It doesn't matter if farmville is an MMO or not. It's a bad P2W game that makes a lot of money. The game is designed to slowly get you invested in the game and extract more and more money from you as you get more and more invested in the game. That is objectively a BAD game regardless of genre. Just because there are herds of sheeple out there that will fall for this trick doesn't make farmville a good game. Profitable != good.

The analogy holds because ESO or EQN could easily turn into this type of game that requires more and more purchases from their cash shop to keep making progression in the game and if they do this it will objectively mean the game is BAD regardless of how many people waste all their money on it. Profitable != good.

Need another example? Duke Nukem Forever actually ended up making a profit and it was one of the worst rated games of all time. Profitable != good.

BTW, you might want to cut back on the condescending tone to be taken more seriously.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

@Grunge‌
Have you even been reading this thread?
Facts after facts have been linked that f2p/b2p games do not work out revenue wise. Be it from me or others. Yet you still discarded them as opinions.
You're showing bad faith here.

It's also a fact that the only MMO games that have ever been growing revenue wise for more than a year were subscription based. It is also a fact that it's been since at least 2009 (DDO switch)that the MMO market is releasing mostly f2p titles or switching to the model. Plenty of time to produce at least one counter example yet nothing has come up.
Business models impacting game design is also a fact.

You are basing your entire "argument" around the feeling you don't want to pay a sub for a quality game and discard as an opinion anything that tells you that's impossible.
It's too easy, and you don't get to storm off self righteously like that.

---

That you like gw2 is an opinion, that you defend it with blind faith is wrong.
I gave you a definition of what P2W is, even the "internet" gives us a similar one:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pay-to-win
To create powerful items faster thanks to money is exactly what happens in GW2. You can also have powerful components avoid destruction thanks to money. If I wanted to get back into GW2 I'd just have to buy some gold and then gear myself up and I'd be able to be equal or even better than my friends that have continued to play since launch. (seeing how I do in sPvP, skill won't be an issue)
That would also be an advantage in WvW since the scaling doesn't impact gear.
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Dynamic_level_adjustment

And boosters, given the same time spent and the same skill is an advantage in power that would lead to victory. In GW2 since there is only down scaling it means having access to new zones faster, so more traits/skill points.
Or simply getting to "endgame" faster is a "win" for people that want to finish the game or use the gear they are paying money for.
GW2 is p2w, and I don't get why this notion bothers you so much. Playing a p2w game is not a sin, we've all done it at some point, there's no personal shame to admit it.

Keep in mind that competitivity is not reserved only to PvP aspects. In ESO where trials have leaderboards, having more champion points and maintaining/growing a gap of power by paying will be an issue.
So in that regard, ESO will be more p2w than GW2.

---

If you consider that f2p/b2p/p2w is not reducing the quality of a game, you're wrong.

And that's why I said you were not an MMO player.
While you have a decent resume, you play MMOs without being their target audience. Maybe you used to be and still think you are, or maybe GW2 just revealed your true preferences, but you don't seem to care about the things that made MMOs exist in the first place.
A persistant, constantly evolving virtual world with meaningful multiplayer interactions.
Other definitions provided by the "internet":
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/MMORPG.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game

This requires a sheltered economy and all players to have equal rights. It also requires as much if not more time spent on game systems than on new content.
Those things can't be provided by a f2p/b2p game. Those rely on breaking the economy and creating a difference between players. Content is also easier to market and sell as DLC compared to mechanics, so mechanics take a back seat or get adapted to sell more things.
Again, the susbcription model is the only known model to work both revenue wise and gameplay wise. That's a fact, and if you still don't believe it, it's your choice to be wrong. Maybe in a few years you'll realize and think about our discussion here.

So I ask you again: why did you love UO?
In addition: why do you love GW2?
Would you pay a sub for GW2 if it was required?

---

(On a side note, I did care about ESO, but not anymore. Just the idea that TU could be a thing despite prelaunch marketing has already disapointed me. I do not intend to play past the console launch. I want to try AvA without an aoe target cap.)
(Second side note: I thought you'd want to know:
http://www.polygon.com/2015/2/11/8020627/layoffs-soe-daybreak-game-company-everquest
EQ franchise seems in a lot of trouble, this is a sad day. Even the "lore master", the one guy that was pushing the most for EQ Next to be quality, got laid off. )

eisberg

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

List some subscription only MMOs that have released since 2005 that had growth to at the very least 2010 and still running today, and any MMO released after 2010 to have growth past shortly after releasing and still running today. Cite sources for subscriber numbers.

EQBallzz

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

{snip}
(Second side note: I thought you'd want to know:
http://www.polygon.com/2015/2/11/8020627/layoffs-soe-daybreak-game-company-everquest
EQ franchise seems in a lot of trouble, this is a sad day. Even the "lore master", the one guy that was pushing the most for EQ Next to be quality, got laid off. )

It's quite fitting that Dave Georgeson is getting laid off now. I was playing EQ2 when he was brought into SoE and was supposed to be some kind of F2P guru that was going to do all these great things for the EQ franchise. EQ2 was a pretty good game but it needed many things fixed/improved. Instead of fixing things they spent all their time/resources converting EQ/EQ2 into a F2P system. It drove me away from that game and I never went back. It seems pretty clear that he was a failure and their grand F2P experiment was also a failure and puts the future of EQN in serious question. Maybe they will change course away from the direction Georgeson was heading and that would be a positive but I doubt it.

Instead of focusing on improving and fixing the game (so people will want to pay for it) they instead focused on monetizing it (and squeezing money out of people) and look where SoE is now. This is why I have serious doubts about what ZOS is doing because it's all sounding a bit too familiar and I have heard the marketing hype before.

Majic

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

Sampling By Us

One thing that is abundantly clear as the thread progresses is how significant it is that this is a poll of players who are subscribed, and are thus at least tolerant of the subscription model.

Players who feel differently have, with few exceptions, let their subscriptions lapse (or never tried ESO at all because of it) and are not here to vote or comment. As just one example, I haven't been here for about nine months, and if it wasn't for the B2P announcement, I still wouldn't be here.

It would be quite enlightening to see how a poll like this would play out in a few months, after the initial surge in B2P sales.

I suspect somewhat differently.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

eisberg wrote: »

List some subscription only MMOs that have released since 2005 that had growth to at the very least 2010 and still running today, and any MMO released after 2010 to have growth past shortly after releasing and still running today. Cite sources for subscriber numbers.

I state that "only susbcription MMOs ever were succesful" and that's your answer? Yes, please, keep on moving the goal post in a ridiculous fashion.

Does being released in 2003 made Eve Online exist in a vacuum and not have to compete against the rest of the market?
Does my answer to your question would change my initialy stated fact?
No on both counts.

I'll indulge you, though, and I hope that in return you'll answer my much simpler question:
Give me a list of f2p/b2p MMOs, including those that switched, that grew in revenue for more than 12 months in a row.

1. Dofus:
Released in France in September 2004, more like a beta, then September 2005 worldwide. It is still up and running and while competing with WoW when WoW was at its strongest.
Dofus grew to 1.5M susbcribers in late
2009. http://www.develop-online.net/news/ankama-celebrates-ten-million-dofus-players/0103554
In 2010 it was at 3.5M subscribers:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/mmo-dofus-has-30-million-users
The game is the first occurence I've can remember of an urestricted trial/demo, something WoW has added later on.
http://www.dofus.com/en/mmorpg/why-subscribe
For more context, the trial zone is about as large as Stros Mkai in ESO.
I recommend to check out this game. Loads of great concepts.

2. Dragon Quest X:
This one is mainly Japan and asian market, so it may not applyif you decide to change your "standards" again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Quest_X#Sales_and_subscriptions
Game released in 2012, started off with 400k susbcribers at launch.
http://nintendoeverything.com/dragon-quest-x-played-300000-people-day/
In 2014 has 300k actives per day. I don't know if it counts "kid's time" players though, pretty much 2h per day per account for free. Mostly japanese resources don't help here.
It shows an actual growth in the playerbase, susbcriber base if it doesn't count kid time. (remember how Dofus had 1M a day with 3.5M subs)

3. Darkfall Online:
This one released in February 2009, had a rocky launch and was very niche.
It grew for at least over a year:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/259666/DarkFall-Counts-for-both-Servers.html
it set up a $1 paid trial for the game which actually was quite succesful, and then switched it to a 14 days free trial.
It went on to shut down for a few months at the end of 2012 and get rebranded for a relaunch in early 2013. This costed a lot of susbcribers due to mismanagement.
Yet, it currently is still running at 20k subscribers.
http://mmofallout.com/darkfall-unholy-wars-short-on-subscribers/
The rebrand wasn't a success, but the game is still alive 6 years later.
I recommend you try this game too. I can't stand it due to having played the superior first version, but it still an impressive game in its own right and in many ways more advanced and more accomplished than ESO.

4. Wurm Online:
Initialy released in 2006, it got a complete overhaul/re-release in december of 2012 and seem to have been growing ever since. It also has an unlimited trial with a cool "plex" like system.
http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/99534-premium-population-graph-for-all-servers-updated-92014/

I sincerely think this list should include other games that were released before and managed to grow despite WoW. They prove the point that WoW did not impact the market the way you think it did just as much as your constraints.
Eve Online: 500k
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_Online#Subscribers
Great article on Serenity(Eve in China)
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/16/big-trouble-in-eve-china/
FFXI:Release 2002, 500k subs in 2008 and still running.
http://forums.ffxiclopedia.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16794
I expect FFXIV to eventually make the list too, I can't wait for March 31 and their release of revenue info.

I think there is a pattern to notice here.All those games have a trial. WoW too has a sort of trial system limited in level. I guess that the barrier of entry of a subscription and box price is lifted whenever players get to try the game.

Actually, thank you for making me make this list.
You made me make a shopping list.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Majic wrote: »

Sampling By Us

One thing that is abundantly clear as the thread progresses is how significant it is that this is a poll of players who are subscribed, and are thus at least tolerant of the subscription model.

Players who feel differently have, with few exceptions, let their subscriptions lapse (or never tried ESO at all because of it) and are not here to vote or comment. As just one example, I haven't been here for about nine months, and if it wasn't for the B2P announcement, I still wouldn't be here.

It would be quite enlightening to see how a poll like this would play out in a few months, after the initial surge in B2P sales.

I suspect somewhat differently.

It wouldn't matter.
Those people have made a clear statement: We do not wish to pay for ESO.
So they'll most likely never graduate to customers.

This poll is biased towards the population that not only has bought the box but also cares enough about ESO to hang out on the forums. Which is exactly the population that should matter to a company.
Those that were willing to pay for ESO are not happy about this change.

I don't think I ever seen a poll with so many answers on these forums. Even if the results were biased toward angry players comming to vent on the forums, the sheer volume of the movement would have some significance.

Seraphyel

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Have you even been reading this thread?
Facts after facts have been linked that f2p/b2p games do not work out revenue wise.

The thing is:

ESO wouldn't have lasted long as P2P. The revenue would have been - FOR SURE - less than with the model transition.

You have to realize this.

They are going B2P because it is NEEDED not because they are so generous. If they would have had enough subscribers, they wouldn't abandon P2P, not even for consoles.

I prefer ESO for 5 years with DLCs as B2P instead of ESO for 2 years with literally no content and P2P.

There is no chance for ESO to grow to the point that makes P2P financial successful for them (again?) - the PC playerbase (where P2P is targetted for) has suffered a year of beta testing and no content. Who the hell would pay for this fo another year? The console playerbase is not meant to pay a sub and could likely be bigger than the PC playerbase, but I really doubt it for the long term.

Sure they will have sales when console launch happens, but I highly doubt they will get anywhere near the point where they acknowledge their product to be a financial success.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Seraphyel wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Have you even been reading this thread?
Facts after facts have been linked that f2p/b2p games do not work out revenue wise.

The thing is:

ESO wouldn't have lasted long as P2P. The revenue would have been - FOR SURE - less than with the model transition.

You have to realize this.

They are going B2P because it is NEEDED not because they are so generous. If they would have had enough subscribers, they wouldn't abandon P2P, not even for consoles.

I prefer ESO for 5 years with DLCs as B2P instead aof ESO for 2 years with literally no content and P2P.

There is no chance for ESO to grow to the point that makes P2P financial successful for them - the PC playerbase (where P2P is targetted for) has suffered a year of beta testing and no content. Who the hell would pay for this fo another year? The console playerbase is not meant to pay a sub and could likely be bigger than the PC playerbase, but I really doubt it for the long term.

Sure they will have sales when console launch happens, but I highly doubt they will get anywhere near the point where they acknowledge their product to be a financial success.

Little known fact: despite its failings and susbcriber counts bellow 300k, warhammer online was a financial success. It was profitable till the end, but EA chose not to reconduct the license. Look it up a bit, especially interviews/post mortems of Mark Jacobs.
ESO is in a very similar situation. Same amount of subscribers at launch ,same amount of presumed box sales and same amount of losses after the tourists fled. From everything we have access to, mostly estimates from semi reliable sources like super data, p2p is already working for them financially.
ESO is already a success on that front.

As in most cases, the switch is not motivated by survival.

However it is a good short term strategy before moving on to something else.
if they are lucky, they will gain more revenue for a few months. But that's assuming they are doing it for short term plans. It could just very well be inexperience in the MMO field and trying to run ESO like a traditional game (lowering value over time to reach more public) or not knowing that player behavior is normal to be like this during the first year and panicking.
Either ways, the results are the same: the game is going to lose overall revenue and whatever long term potential it had.

1.6 is a large update, and activity stabilized before its release, it will probably cause a raise when it hits live. Without b2p, the zones being held up as future DLCs would also be implemented much sooner than in 6 months.
We would already have one or two, with more occuring as they get finished.

Have you seen the livestreams? Have you seen how far advanced those zones looked at Quakecon? How about when presented as DLCs in the anouncement stream?
What if, instead of what happenned, whithin a year the game had fixed its launch issues, received 3 new zones (Craglorn, orsinium and murkmire), a large overhaul (1.6) and was planning to have 3-4 more zones added within 6-9 months? (the shown DLCs and the imperial City a bit later)

Would you have paid a subscription for that?
If the answer is yes, they've just lost at least 9 months of susbcription from you by going b2p.

That's $135 per each player that said yes. To keep each of these players engaged with the game for a relatively short while is worth more than acquiring two new players.
Same for console sales. Console players are normal gamers that enjoy to consume their content on a couch with a controler. They would have paid a sub. Unless the b2p box sales are more than the triple of what the sub sales would have been, it will be a bad deal even in the short term, let alone the future.

Finally, nothing prevents ZOS to salvage their crown store development and keep it as a cosmetics only suplemental revenue source. Eve and WoW do it,as long as it's pocket money and the sub remains the core of the business model, there shouldn't be much ill effects.

Nazon_Katts

Hm, so they're milking ESO now, so they can make FOO the ultimate sandbox experience it should have been?! (Now that's spinning!)

Morshire

Dislike - all of the "dislikes" above

Seraphyel wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Have you even been reading this thread?
Facts after facts have been linked that f2p/b2p games do not work out revenue wise.

The thing is:

ESO wouldn't have lasted long as P2P. The revenue would have been - FOR SURE - less than with the model transition.

You have to realize this.

They are going B2P because it is NEEDED not because they are so generous. If they would have had enough subscribers, they wouldn't abandon P2P, not even for consoles.

I prefer ESO for 5 years with DLCs as B2P instead of ESO for 2 years with literally no content and P2P.

There is no chance for ESO to grow to the point that makes P2P financial successful for them (again?) - the PC playerbase (where P2P is targetted for) has suffered a year of beta testing and no content. Who the hell would pay for this fo another year? The console playerbase is not meant to pay a sub and could likely be bigger than the PC playerbase, but I really doubt it for the long term.

Sure they will have sales when console launch happens, but I highly doubt they will get anywhere near the point where they acknowledge their product to be a financial success.

I am not sure that this statement can be taken as fact. First, we can assume that ESO has always been geared with the console in mind. I mean we have 5 skills and an Ultimate (perfect for console). Also, it has been known that it was the plan of the company through their words and statements. Having invested so much of their "plan" to console, they had to make a change the subscription model to go through with the console launch. In that sense, I bet it was needed. However, saying that subs were not enough and that is the reason behind the change....Not so sure.

As for what this means to us. Well ZOS even stated that the P2P model was what would allow them to provide us with a good game through development, etc. They have taken that away and now we get the announcement that 2015 updates will be less than 2014. This is but one way to show how changing business models is bad for this game (IMO).

Majic wrote: »

Sampling By Us
... I still wouldn't be here.

It would be quite enlightening to see how a poll like this would play out in a few months, after the initial surge in B2P sales.

I suspect somewhat differently.

Well of course the results would be different if we changed the people we were polling. The question wasn't posed to some future players that may/may not be here later. This poll reflects the opinion of the player base that is here. I mean, we could ask everyone here that if they could have a game F2P, never having to spend a dime, yet get the steady good content updates, no bugs or fixes needed, that was constantly challenging and expanding, and never left you wanting for the next 50 years. We would all say yes. But the fact remains, if you change the revenue source, or the target audience, then what a company can offer or provide will change. This poll reflects what the people who came here under the sub based model want from the game, and what they are willing to give to see that achieved. P2P caters to a certain style of gamer, while the F2P or B2P model appeal to an entirely different style gamer. Neither is wrong so much as different. I cannot see how this will "enlighten" anyone.

The real issue, to offer a B2P model that appeals to your type of game play means that my type of game play suffers, and vice versa. The question really, to me anyway, is why should we have to give up this game and the payment model we prefer, so that some one else can gain access? You won't see me going to a F2P or B2P game community and demanding that they refocus their game and payment method to suit my style. What makes it right for anyone to come here and do the same? (Just a generalized question, not meant or directed at anyone in particular.)