Wonder how long ago they knew?

daneyulebub17_ESO

I bet they knew for months--if not all along. Considering how many in these forums made it clear they would QUIT if it went F2P, for them to have it in their plans for months and not tell us feels like robbery.

They knew we were wasting our times developing characters and skills when they had full knowledge it would be for nothing. Seriously--I feel like I've been robbed.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

They have known for months according to the latest ESO live.

daneyulebub17_ESO

Nice of them to say... nothing.

McDoogs

They've planned this for years, it was always a possibility. Hell, it would have been criminal for them not to have this as a business plan for when subscriptions dipped or in anticipation for the console release.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

Subscriptions havent dipped tho. The problem is trying to charge console players a monthly fee. Thats why the PC version is being made buy to play. Not because of a dip in revenue but because Microsoft wont allow the game to work outside of xbox live gold.

Kilandros

At least 6 months to a year. Corporations don't make major shifts like this without lots and lots of planning.

RazielSR

Of course, since the very beginning.

Gidorick

I don't think they knew at quakecon.

Amsel_McKay

The second they said "We will turn off the servers before we get rid of our subscription model"

Sallington

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Subscriptions havent dipped tho. The problem is trying to charge console players a monthly fee. Thats why the PC version is being made buy to play. Not because of a dip in revenue but because Microsoft wont allow the game to work outside of xbox live gold.

Exactly. Chalk this up to "consoles ruining it for PC gamers " again.

Metrobius

I think it has been planned since pre launch. If you can get away with recouping your investment with subs for a year, then roll out f2p with console release . . .

Muizer

Watch the video. Asked what prompted the decision they only answered the question "why now". The answer is they've used us to iron out the bugs and fund new content for 1.6 and beyond, so now they feel ready to try to re-sell the game to a new audience (B2P for PC, consoles). I wonder what we'll get for our trouble. Shares in ZoS?

Mission

My guess is they knew when they decided to delay the consoles..They launched the pc version as a test case and delayed to consoles to see how sub would work. And then decided it wasn't enough money so they decided to go ftp and then announce a true console release date. They just took a while to announce it cause they had to iron out all the details on how they wanted to nickle and dime.

BlueIllyrian

I would say 6 to 12 months in advance, probably was planned since launch. Nice touch - get people to pay to play beta so you can prepare the product for your real audience. So diehard supporters enabled this to happen.

Gidorick

Metrobius wrote: »

I think it has been planned since pre launch. If you can get away with recouping your investment with subs for a year, then roll out f2p with console release . . .

I really hope not.... but you're probably right.

s7732425ub17_ESO

I think they always knew the console versions would be playable without a subscription cost (just buy the game and the DLC).

However, I think they added ESO Premium within the last few months so that PC players would not feel cheated. It would be very strange if you had to pay upfront and monthly for the PC version but not for the consoles.

Rev Rielle

Sallington wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Subscriptions havent dipped tho. The problem is trying to charge console players a monthly fee. Thats why the PC version is being made buy to play. Not because of a dip in revenue but because Microsoft wont allow the game to work outside of xbox live gold.

Exactly. Chalk this up to "consoles ruining it for PC gamers " again.

I agree. I can't help but see this as extremely poor planning on Zenimax's part. Very disappointing.

AngryNord

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

They have known for months according to the latest ESO live.

And yet they said the six-month subs were retired "because nobody used them". And did nada when the flow of rumours started... Of course, we've known since the start that communication isn't their strong side, but still...

Roechacca

Is it too soon for a Bill Cosby joke here ? Because ... That's what this feels like .

DaniAngione

All that time...

...

This shall be known as the Coinburst...

The day the evil Zenimmarco deceived the Thousands of Companions to pay the Monthly Fee of Kings for a year before bringing it down and allowing the evil hordes of free players from Consoleharbour to infest our lands!

anitajoneb17_ESO

It's B2P, not F2P.

Maybe some will quit over this (they probably would have anyway).

What does it matter how long ZOS knew ? They were probably analyzing the pros and cons of each system.

Wait until you're really robbed to actually feel robbed.

TheBull

Since they decided to delay 1.6

RSram

I wonder if it was because ZOS couldn't make a deal to wave the subscription fees on the consoles. None of the console gamer's that I know were willing to pay an extra $15 a month over top of their console subscriptions.

kewl

It was either in the cards all along or around 1.4; when meaningful content, like Imperial City, got pushed back.

Dominoid

Amsel_McKay wrote: »

The second they said "We will turn off the servers before we get rid of our subscription model"

This never happened and was an urban legend at best.

Exstazik

i think they new about it from patch with SO

firstdecan

AngryNord wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

They have known for months according to the latest ESO live.

And yet they said the six-month subs were retired "because nobody used them". And did nada when the flow of rumours started... Of course, we've known since the start that communication isn't their strong side, but still...

There's an irony in that their 'new' subscription service has a six month sub.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

AngryNord wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

They have known for months according to the latest ESO live.

And yet they said the six-month subs were retired "because nobody used them". And did nada when the flow of rumours started... Of course, we've known since the start that communication isn't their strong side, but still...

I have to admit I was one of those claiming there was no b2p switch coming. I swore up and down it was all just rumor. Come to find out "the mole" was right.

daneyulebub17_ESO

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

It's B2P, not F2P.

Maybe some will quit over this (they probably would have anyway).

What does it matter how long ZOS knew ? They were probably analyzing the pros and cons of each system.

Wait until you're really robbed to actually feel robbed.

Where do you get that? The people who WANTED subscription-only are likely the most invested in the game. Most would NOT have quit anyway. The ones quitting now are the ones who care about the quality of the game the most.

And it matters because they chose to keep it to themselves in light of knowing otherwise, letting people who had explicitly said they had no interest in a F2P game (or B2P) finance them, knowing they were wasting their time developing characters and skills. Their most loyal customers and staunchest defenders were strung along, left hanging. If this had been their plan from the start, they could have simply said when consoles were released it would go B2P instead of being disingenuous.

I've been robbed. Mugged actually. They broke my jaw in the process. And, yep, this pretty much feels the same. Almost a year of time invested in an MMO I felt I could commit to--gone.