Was Zenimax stupid like a fox?

LordTareq

Very interesting article. Shame on Zenimax if true. (And I suspect it is)

PlagueMonk

roechacca wrote: »

They got everyone to pay for a huge beta that ended up needing a entire system revamp . Crazy like a fox or Crazy like a Con Artist ?

THIS is the correct answer. About the only thing different from a beta (aside from the fact we were paying for it) would be no character wipe. In thinking about it though, the switch to the new champion system even feels like a character wipe of sorts. Imagine that! ><

And to answer the OPs discussion.........if what you say is true and they planned this from the start, that means they have been lying to us from day one! (which seems pretty par for the course looking back other things Zenimax lied to us about)

One of the things that go me interested in ESO was Matt Firor's "claim" that the sub model allowed them the freedom to make the game we all wanted and other models would mean sacrificing that.

Gotta tell you all I am on the fence about continuing to give my hard earned money to a company with a proven track record of deceit and lies.

whiteshadow711jppreub18_ESO

Alcast wrote: »

You can get the game for like 20 Dollars (not 60)
A fox is not stupid

Though nice points up there, could be true, could be not, who knows
As long as the product satisfies me i will keep playing it. It is a good game, and that fact does not change only because they change the *** sub model.

For PC it's like $20, do you really think that the Console's will be like $20.. LOL

I think the Consoles will be like $50-60 and that is just the basic game, not the imperial edition (can you say extra $$ like $20-40 more). It's ok, I'll stick with the PC version and my ESO+ membership.

PS- I was one of those people that figured that it would go B2P when they were gonna drop the Console's.

Dave2836

Intertemporal price discrimination doesnt take into account the projected value of a maturing product. All objects depreciate overtime except for maybe precious metal due to fear and speculation. Entertainment itself is a high risk investment. Would you see a movie twice? Three times? How about watching the Ten Commandments every year?

Other factors to consider are this.

1-cash shop is a money making plan. I believe SW:TOR pulled in 165million as a f2p game in 2013. Thats over 13 million per month. If Zos just wanted your money it would have been b2p since preorder. There was a vision and that vision evolved to the product we have now.

2-the value of the sub has dropped in relation to cost of living standards. Consider when WOW came out at $15/month the price of gas. Pizza. I remember a time when my doctor copay was $15. Yes. That was 9 years ago.

3-understand the target audience and how they as consumers percieve the value of a product. Some people like the standard econoflush toilet while others like the elongated no slam nightlight american standard bowl.

This game, like hot water, is a luxury. IPD is a good theory and can apply to somethings, but it ignores the end result of all dynamic relationships which is entropy, where a product has reached its maximum market share and will start losing influence on their niche. So go ahead and throw that article to the side for another product discussion.

novusprimeb14_ESO

1 word , projected quarterly losses , okay that's 3,

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dave2836 wrote: »

Intertemporal price discrimination doesnt take into account the projected value of a maturing product. All objects depreciate overtime except for maybe precious metal due to fear and speculation. Entertainment itself is a high risk investment. Would you see a movie twice? Three times? How about watching the Ten Commandments every year?

Except that MMOs aren't a fixed product. They are a service getting improved overtime.

If anything, properly managed MMOs gain value rather than depreciate.
Just look at eve online increasing subscription numbers for over a decade.

Dave2836 wrote: »

Other factors to consider are this.

1-cash shop is a money making plan. I believe SW:TOR pulled in 165million as a f2p game in 2013. Thats over 13 million per month. If Zos just wanted your money it would have been b2p since preorder. There was a vision and that vision evolved to the product we have now.

And at what cost?
The game is a shadow of itself, broke its core game, redirected a lot of resources towards filling up the cartel store, had layoffs and has lost long term growth possibility.

The only numbers we have for 2014 is that swtor may have reached 140million.
How will they fare in 2015, how much more will they lose and how much more compromises will they have to do?

In the meantime, the same source (super data) that gave swtor's numbers gave ESO 772k subscribers in July. That's 11m per month for a game with a lower budget and a lower reaching IP than swtor.

We also know ESO made 111millions in its first 6 months, granted that is skewed by preorders and box sales.

Dave2836 wrote: »

2-the value of the sub has dropped in relation to cost of living standards. Consider when WOW came out at $15/month the price of gas. Pizza. I remember a time when my doctor copay was $15. Yes. That was 9 years ago.

I don't get your point here.

If anything, a sub is still the greatest bang for your buck you can get. For the same price than one movie or one restaurant or a quarter of a new game you get unlimited access to a game shockful of content and massive multiplayer interactions.

It is a great value per hour even if you were to only play 5h per month.

And it is even better for devs to keep this number as server technology and bandwidth costs have gotten lower during the past decade.

Dave2836 wrote: »

3-understand the target audience and how they as consumers percieve the value of a product. Some people like the standard econoflush toilet while others like the elongated no slam nightlight american standard bowl.

If launch box sales are any evidence, the market is fairly large.
There are a lot of people out there interested and ready to pay premium money for it. (imperial outselling normal preorders)

The issue here is execution and retaining the playerbase.
ESO had a very bad launch whether you liked what it offers or not. It also has a broken PvP in the grand scheme of things.

When what you are selling is great questing content and a revisiting of RvR and neither work, it is no wonder people stop paying.

However a lot of this has been fixed, and improvements were on their way for PvP. (target caps and balance)
Just getting more info about 1.6 increased player count on steam charts for the past 30 days which, correct me if I'm wrong, is a period that usually see a slow down due to the hollydays.

The traditional mmo model is to fail your launch then slowly but surely reclaim players and continually grow into a cash cow.
Again, just look at Eve or early WoW.

Dave2836 wrote: »

This game, like hot water, is a luxury. IPD is a good theory and can apply to somethings, but it ignores the end result of all dynamic relationships which is entropy, where a product has reached its maximum market share and will start losing influence on their niche. So go ahead and throw that article to the side for another product discussion.

Except ESO has not reached its naximum marketshares.
Perhaps on PC most of those that would have bought the box already did, but that would be yet another argument against the switch. But not everyone that would pay a sub for a properly made ESO is currently paying.

And again, that market of people interested in the concept of ESO is large. It is the overlap of themepark mmos and the elderscrolls. (17M and 20M)
Add to that the homeless RvR population since DAOC and all those who would love to see the idea of it in their generation.

In conclusion, the idea is fine, the execution was starting to be up to par with it and 1.6 and the zones that were held back for the switch would have contributed to that.

Some dudes just wanted a faster ROI and then get out. And for that they are using the strategy ilustrated in OP instead of using the more profitable traditional MMO sub model.

Koensol

Because of this, and because of Matt Firror again just plain lying about having listened to the community, I will most likely not continue my sub for very long. Even though I sort of felt stuff like this was coming, I still feel mistreated by Zenimax and have lost all faith in the game and its management. I also think ESO has been the worst managed MMO I have ever played. Thank you for that wonderful experience ZOS.

From beta it was obvious that ZOS's business practices were shady and unclear and they kept breaking promises or contradicting previous statements.

Star Citizen, please show me it can be done. Because my faith and patience with MMO's has nearly hit rock bottom.

knightblaster

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

I challenge the fact that it is a good business decision. At the very least, it was NOT the best move.

It does give them the most money short term but at the cost of potential long term stable revenue. The subscription model is the most valuable one on the long run as if it is well managed can be a source of constant revenue that increases quarterly over decades.

Eve Online and WoW are basically cash cows and enabled both companies to foray in other projects without a care in the world. If you look at cccp's Darkness world mmo that has been droped and its Dust shooter, both game are failures, yet the company is still healthy despite the sunk investment.

Definitely. It's a lack of patience by companies and investors. CCP didn't have its current playerbase back in 2004 (I was there). It built up over time. Today there doesn't seem to be that kind of patience.

Lorkhan

great post, thank you... i rlly hope moderators dont delete this one, they are too strict these days

Dave2836

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Unfortunately an MMO does not appreciate over time. The value of the coding depreciates, the engine becomes outdated, the fact that the retail price of the initial purchase decreases is a major indicator, and over course of the game's life many additions are created to add content to the overall package.

A good life example would be the STARBUCKS franchise. Coffee is coffee, however what they sell there isn't coffee, its the space, the entitlement to luxury, the amenities. Thats why they give you a wifi password with your reciept at some locations, why they have seasonal peppermint mocha during the winter time, egg nog chai on the cold days. They expanded their service because the cup of coffee had decreased in value.

If MMOs really appreciated in value, then the original WoW box would still cost $60 by itself.

1 - SW:TOR... the unfortunate decline of this game is due to the influence of the supremely dominant megaconglomerate known as Electronic Arts. Their best selling games are sports games, most notably FIFA, and with that have adopted a model of "Lets make money, and to do that, lets make games" + "Get the games out, get them out fast, get them out on time." This leads to creating every game, including Bioware's developments, forming under this model, pushed out before completion, and left with wierd unfinished endings. MASS EFFECT anyone? Even with the whole NCAA screw up, they are still freaking large and their influence over everything is so vast all they had to do was say a few lines of "how can we improve quarterly performance?" and direct that question towards SW:TOR. Don't get me wrong, that game is successful in EA's eyes. It pulls in over $10mil/month, but their motto is money before all else, including artistic vision and consumer loyalty. I remember playing EA games when they were still making Road Rash for the Genesis, that was such a great great game.

Unfortunately the numbers for ESO on Superdata specifically are inaccurate estimations as there are no officially released numbers. We can not say for sure that was the six month revenue, nor that was their ballpark subscriber base. That's like me trying to estimate how much of WoW's $1bil profit is charged back or a result of fraudulent stolen credit cards/money laundering.

2 - As for the comparison of a $15 sub to a $15 copay... yes that is the the point. The sub is a the supreme value vs a b2p & cash shop. That was it, that was the point. By calculation standards, a slice of pizza in 2006 was roughly $1.50 and now it is $2.50. Using a quick mathematical inaccurate comparison if MMOs really appreciated in value we should be paying $25 per month. I remember when I was able to get a cup of coffee for $0.60 back in 2006. Well the leading point is, resources have increased in cost, so why haven't the monthly fee of the sub model done so as well? They tried to provide content and service to you at a value of $0.49/day and unfortunately we are not helping a starving child in a war torn country or saving an abused pet from euthanasia. We are using a service that requires premium resources to operate.

3 - The market IS very large, however this is an RPG first, MMO second. That slims the target audience down quite considerably. I know this might seem as a shock, but this is my first TES game. Never played Arena, never played Daggerfall, never tried Morrowind, Oblivion looked very cool, but alas nope. Skyrim seemed like a true success, however I didn't buy a single copy, never played it, wasn't even interested. I am NOT the developer's target audience, and from the looks of how the rest of the public outcry is, neither is the loud minority voicing their indignation over the game's newly adopted payment model.

I am the demographic that has a stable internet connection and likes to try new things. I am ZOS' target audience on March 18, but I'm here now since early access because I like to try things as they evolve. Unfortunately it seems as though I am one of the few self aware enough to understand that.

And you are absolutely right about this game not reaching their maximum market share. What if I told you their past games were targeted at audiences without a stable internet connection, had a computer with limited processing power, were the console users, enjoyed the solidarity of computer or console games without the interaction of another person and they tried to bring that IP branding into a MMO world. There was a major reason they developed this game so a computer made within the last 5 years would be able to run it. I'm playing this game with an nVidia 9800gt, think on that for a bit. I hope these specific examples and comparisons convey why IPD does not apply to ESO.

OrangeTheCat

So Bethesda allowed their IP to be prostituted. Interesting. I am going to bookmark this article so that the next time a MMO starts announcing their up coming release and the fanboys start cheering, I can direct their attention to it. Maybe, after enough time, we players will wise up.

eisberg

OrangeTheCat wrote: »

So Bethesda allowed their IP to be prostituted. Interesting. I am going to bookmark this article so that the next time a MMO starts announcing their up coming release and the fanboys start cheering, I can direct their attention to it. Maybe, after enough time, we players will wise up.

Bethesda allowed it? Like they had any choice, they are owned by the same parent company as ZOS, which is Zenimax Media Incorporated. The parent company can do anything they want with the Elder Scrolls IP, whether Bethesda likes it or not.

OrangeTheCat

eisberg wrote: »

OrangeTheCat wrote: »

So Bethesda allowed their IP to be prostituted. Interesting. I am going to bookmark this article so that the next time a MMO starts announcing their up coming release and the fanboys start cheering, I can direct their attention to it. Maybe, after enough time, we players will wise up.

Bethesda allowed it? Like they had any choice, they are owned by the same parent company as ZOS, which is Zenimax Media Incorporated. The parent company can do anything they want with the Elder Scrolls IP, whether Bethesda likes it or not.

I stand corrected.

Still going to keep this article and post it where needed. The only way things will change is if we make it change.

clocksstoppe

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »

michaelb14a_ESO2 wrote: »

I wanted to spark some intelligent discussion the events of today

Since you refer to one of the most intelligent of creatures as 'stupid' in your threat title I'm not sure you'd recognise such a discussion even if it ensued.

You are the only stupid creature here. Everyone knows the fox is cunning, and that's why he used that title. You didn't even understand the text in the thread anyways.

lathbury

I think the fact they are throwing in a fools costume shows what they really think of their current subscribers.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dave2836 wrote: »

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Unfortunately an MMO does not appreciate over time. The value of the coding depreciates, the engine becomes outdated, the fact that the retail price of the initial purchase decreases is a major indicator, and over course of the game's life many additions are created to add content to the overall package.

Unimproved MMOs depreciate. Properly managed ones gain value.
That was the core of my argument.

I get your point about how the box reduces in cost, but that goes back to the opening post and the concept of IPD. The box itself isn't the product sold, it's a potential gain at release to bank on early adopters (also to partly recoup development costs) but as more and more of the potential market owns the box, it becomes a barrier of entry.
Companies gradually lower the price to have a finer and finer net to cash on the small fishes once all the large ones have been caught.

Aside from that, the product sold is the susbcription, and that never goes down. And as the game improves, it attracts more and more people ready to pay that cost as they perceive an increased value.

In some cases, like Eve Online, some pay for multiple account as they perceive the game is worth more than only $15 a month.

Dave2836 wrote: »

1 - SW:TOR and EA

EA or not, it just aligned to the practices of the genre. It doesn't use any tricks lotro and others didn't use before it. And every game company out there is in it for the money. They do what they must to make their chosen model work and not go bankrupt.

swtor is arguably the most remotely financialy succesful f2p mmo game in the west. It manages to have 500k subscribers and 1.2m actives which to me is extremely impressive. (official numbers, EA is publicly traded)
Yet it has been losing revenue over the years. It just shows that even a flagship of its model obeys the general trend of non sustainability despite using all the tricks in the book.

Dave2836 wrote: »

Unfortunately the numbers for ESO on Superdata specifically are inaccurate estimations as there are no officially released numbers. We can not say for sure that was the six month revenue, nor that was their ballpark subscriber base. That's like me trying to estimate how much of WoW's $1bil profit is charged back or a result of fraudulent stolen credit cards/money laundering.

I agree those stats aren't to be taken at face value.
However, no one seem to have come out and deny them. Some pretty reputable sources in the paper world seem to trust those sources for a few years. It's worth what it's worth, but I think we can work with that. Especially since the two numbers I compared were coming from the same source and some of them can be comfirmed with official sources.

Either ways, it's all we've got.

Dave2836 wrote: »

2 - As for the comparison of a $15 sub to a $15 copay... yes that is the the point. The sub is a the supreme value vs a b2p & cash shop. That was it, that was the point. By calculation standards, a slice of pizza in 2006 was roughly $1.50 and now it is $2.50. Using a quick mathematical inaccurate comparison if MMOs really appreciated in value we should be paying $25 per month. I remember when I was able to get a cup of coffee for $0.60 back in 2006. Well the leading point is, resources have increased in cost, so why haven't the monthly fee of the sub model done so as well? They tried to provide content and service to you at a value of $0.49/day and unfortunately we are not helping a starving child in a war torn country or saving an abused pet from euthanasia. We are using a service that requires premium resources to operate.

The thing is, since 2006, IT resources costs have gone down by a large margin.
With economy of scales, we should realistically only pay a few cents our subscriptions if it was only for the servers.
The $15 a month in most cases is a rippoff if we were to look at what it actually costs to produce and maintain an MMO. It is already at the advantage of the publishers, way more than the gains per player of an f2p.
For instance, ZOS is suposed to have 250 employees according to wikipedia. Even if the average employee and its work space was to cost $6000 a month, the company would break even at 100k susbcribers.

Publishers could indeed chose to increase the cost of the subscription and keep the same amount of subscribers, like the luxury industry, or they could aim at increasing their susbcription base, like mass consumption.
They chose the later, it remains the same because it is a number people are familiar with and there is no need to change it.

To go back to a point I made above, if a game has increased perceived value, more people will pay, if it decreases in perceived value, less will pay.
Maybe this is lost in translation (I'm french) but to me this enters the notions of appreciation and devaluation.

Dave2836 wrote: »

3 - The market IS very large, however this is an RPG first, MMO second. That slims the target audience down quite considerably.

It is both, it is an mmorpg. And a pretty well done blend for a themepark.

That's why I said an overlap rather than just an addition. Of course ESO's potential market isn't 40 million players. I personally feel it is more around 2M or 3 M players at its peak, all platforms included.
On a side note, I'm not sure the publishers here are conscious of that since they believe they'll make more money selling b2p+f2p than staying sub.

My point was that it is still a larger potential market than those interested in submarines in space that you lose when they go boom and that anyone can make go boom whenever they feel like it.
I love the concept of Eve Online, but ESO can do much better if properly managed.

Dave2836 wrote: »

I am the demographic that has a stable internet connection and likes to try new things. I am ZOS' target audience on March 18, but I'm here now since early access because I like to try things as they evolve. Unfortunately it seems as though I am one of the few self aware enough to understand that.

You are an happy coincidence, just like bronies are for my little pony.
But the initially targeted audience were mmo players and TES players that were willing to be both at the same time.
You could see in their marketing pre launch that they had strong arguments to entice mmo veterans, like RvR, constant updates and the susbcription only approach. They also had strong arguments to get the TES crowd with the possibility to explore the rest of tamriel, play solo and enjoy the lore and atmosphere just as much as the solo games.

Arguably, they succeeded the TES aspect of the game a bit more than the MMO aspect. AvA is pretty much a mess and now they turned coat on the whole "ESO is a premium experience".
The indignation on the forums currently is that a big reason why ESO was bought and suported by some of its hardcore fans just turned out to be a lie.

And the issue I'm having now is that it wasn't done for a valid reason as they will lose money with their new approach all while deteriorating the experience.

Dave2836 wrote: »

I hope these specific examples and comparisons convey why IPD does not apply to ESO.

Sorry but no. You actually made me sway even more into OP's argument. IPD is the strategy they are clearly trying to apply to this game.
The only way in which IPD doesn't apply to ESO is that it will not work out for them.

I enjoy discussing with you. Thank you for taking the time to answer inteligently.

Welka

Whether you agree with OP or not, this is a very insightful and enlightening post. Thanks OP, great reading.

I'm still feel a bit mixed with b2p, I'll just carry on playing as long as I have fun

Winnower

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »
» show previous quotes
Since you refer to one of the most intelligent of creatures as 'stupid' in your threat title I'm not sure you'd recognise such a discussion even if it ensued.

WHAT DOES THE FOX SAY!?

zward887_ESO

Thanks for the post OP, I find that a very interesting read.

Firellight

It's reasons like these why I don't want to stay in MMOs.

wafcatb14_ESO

Personally doesan`t matter to me what it was in terms of good or bad business tactics. I just know I`ll never buy anything they publish, or have a hand in creating, marketing, etc. again .

Gidorick

If this were true and this whole subscription for 1 year to B2P was planned, wouldn't they be liable for false advertising?

Sensesfail13

Excellent article, and I totally agree... I would have thought Everquest was the subscription based king though.

I do, however, think that MMO's could work themselves out of this predicament if they actually cared about the consumer rather than putting so much emphasis on sales. Your product should be able to sell itself not have some bs marketing ploy to sell an inferior product... then again that is pretty much our entire society.

Soulshine

There are actually a lot of people here and plenty more talking about in game as well as Reddit, who called the whole transition change a long time ago... and no, I am not referring to the hoards that were here and quickly left after initial "free 30 days" screaming "it will be F2P in a month! ESO is dead!" I am talking about those who were tracking the ZoS promos in media on the console launch, their subsequent announcement of its delay not once but three times; their deletion of the FAQ about it and removal of threads on it over at Reddit, and to date it's release which has finally been pushed back one year exactly from the original date, all on the basis of their having to change fundamental core systems of the origianal game design to be translated across not 1 but 4 platforms. It seems fairly transparent in retrospect.

There is categorically no way ZoS has not known from day one that console players were paying a fee and that requiring a subscription on top of that for ESO was not going to go over well. Statements about negotiation with Sony and Microsoft over costs of XBox Live Gold, etc. all but disappeared by summer last year and since that time they have not let out a peep one about how their decision to stick with the sub model would affect console player costs. Rightly so. They knew what needed to happen. They just sat on it and waited until the appropriate time in the game's development to change it. Not sure why any of us are suprised really.

Sylvyr

That is a very insightful article!

I think there is one major problem.

There is a HUGE difference between an MMO and a movie.

The movie is 2 hours done. No investment. You paid got it walked out might talk about it later but that's it.

MMO with progression and future content is a continuous endeaver with a lot of investment and attachment.

Movies can change their price and we know if we want to see it in theaters we're paying a premium. If we watch it again on DVD for cheaper we're watching the same movie but for cheaper later.

With an MMO it's not the same MMO a year later. And if it's relatively worse or not better rather in some cases, the customers will always compare then and now and even into the future and also bring in factors about "progress".

As an MMO like ESO changes its pricing and it's product and expectations, it may attract NEW clients well into the new niche but risks alienating the old. Which may or may not affect the bottom line. If the expected revenue from new markets greatly outweighs the old well... we could be all used up, tossed aside...to maximize profit in the transition, they should still try to keep us, and they are, with loyalty rewards and backdated crowns...

But back to the movie VS MMO point... With a movie going between pricing states you know what you are getting. With MMO you might be a lot more prone to feeling like your getting shafted. Chances to leave bitter tastes in customers mouths. And I don't think it's overall healthy for the industry. Yeah, never playing another FunCom title again. And yeah, really curious about the new crowdsourcing models like what they are doing with shroud of the avatar or camelot unchained.

ahstin2001nub18_ESO

Gidorick wrote: »

If this were true and this whole subscription for 1 year to B2P was planned, wouldn't they be liable for false advertising?

not necessarily, it wasn't specifically advertised, as much as just said by some exec at some point. plans do change. i don't think many would have nearly the issue if they weren't assured one thing, then given another.... at least i wouldn't care. i work with the same principals as their B2P, it can net lots of money and surpass subs, but its not steady nor predictable like subs are.

Soulshine wrote: »

There are actually a lot of people here and plenty more talking about in game as well as Reddit, who called the whole transition change a long time ago... and no, I am not referring to the hoards that were here and quickly left after initial "free 30 days" screaming "it will be F2P in a month! ESO is dead!" I am talking about those who were tracking the ZoS promos in media on the console launch, their subsequent announcement of its delay not once but three times; their deletion of the FAQ about it and removal of threads on it over at Reddit, and to date it's release which has finally been pushed back one year exactly from the original date, all on the basis of their having to change fundamental core systems of the origianal game design to be translated across not 1 but 4 platforms. It seems fairly transparent in retrospect.

There is categorically no way ZoS has not known from day one that console players were paying a fee and that requiring a subscription on top of that for ESO was not going to go over well. Statements about negotiation with Sony and Microsoft over costs of XBox Live Gold, etc. all but disappeared by summer last year and since that time they have not let out a peep one about how their decision to stick with the sub model would affect console player costs. Rightly so. They knew what needed to happen. They just sat on it and waited until the appropriate time in the game's development to change it. Not sure why any of us are suprised really.

lots of people are saying that this game was failing so they switched to the B2P model. i wonder if it was the opposite, that they saw their success relative to the average MMO today (i won't compare it to WoW thats a different beast), and sought to further their income. that being said, i think they decided on the b2p model after beta but a few months before they announced the VR changes. they coulda been banking on the F2P market to bail em out from the issues that arose from not holding themselves to their word of "keep playing" thinking only a small faction of the upper levels would leave, but with the uproar changed their direction. then again, i don't particularly trust them, so i will admit to being paranoid and cynical about their actions.

i still think they coulda done both- PC = p2p and console = B2p. they woulda had both sides of the isle covered. i don't mind one bit if consoles have b2p, i think it actually makes some sense.

firstdecan

All ZOS has done with this move is to ensure that a bunch of angry players will make sure TES VI is the most pirated game in history. I am not condoning or supporting this, I am simply stating that many players will feel entitled to a free game when the next one comes out.

The article is a very good explanation of how a game developer can maximize profit potential from their intellectual properties, but consumers don't like to think of themselves as "profit potential." In the case of an entertainment service like this, consumers like to think of themselves as "fans" and "supporters." They don't like to think of themselves as "marks" or "Intertemporal Price Devotees" (see what I did there) who can be lied to and taken advantage of, which is exactly what Zeni did.

The analogy to movies is apt, but it's generally known that movies will go first run, second run, PPV, DVD, etc. When an entertainment service promotes itself as being financially structured one way, and then does a 180 on what they had been saying to their fan base, it's just dishonesty, plain and simple.

On a personal level, I am not that upset, but I'm a bitter and jaded person who expects corporate America to make all concerns regarding their products secondary to their profit potential. Zeni is no different, I had hoped they were but they are not. They will now simply have to see what the market bears for their product in the absence of a supportive fan base. Hopefully this means they'll prioritize fixing game issues that caused people to unsub.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Advertising is any form of public anouncement aimed at showing a product in a positive light. All those interviews where the devs explained the flaws of cash shops and why they were remaining sub count as advertizing.
It was a selling point for many and was put forward as a unique selling proposition in contrast with the rest of the competition.

I don't know how much law makers would understand the current situation, or if it is even worth the effort and cost of a lawsuit, but in principle they can be charged for false advertizing.

Consoles could have had a sub without an issue.
PSN getting waved is just a bonus but something gamers should not have expected. Most gamers that enjoy multiplayer to the point of being interested in MMOs already pay an online subscription for their other games.
Peopel even pre ordered the console version way before the PSN fee was waved.

B2P and f2p are not sustainable models, they just create a quick cah grab as a second locust swarm fill them up, just as OP describes, but after that it's just maintenance mode.
Only the subscription model allows for a game to grow both in revenue and in quality. A properly managed MMO increase in value over time to the point where the fixed $15 price per month becomes worth it for more and more players. Just look at Eve Online, an hardcore niche game compared to ESO that managed to grow continuously for 10 years

In short, those are the reasons why some of us are surprised about this switch:
- We bought the game because, naively, we believed the pre launch marketing. We should not feel ashamed to expect a company to not break their word.
- consoles are not a barrier to the susbcription model. FFXIV being a proof of that.
- It's just such a bad idea to switch to b2p/f2p that no one would expect a company to do it.

I doubt we can make ZOS and the higher ups change their mind, they have no experience running MMOs and are probably handling this like they would a single player, but these kind of threads are great to educate players for whom this is their first MMOs.

knaveofengland

you also have to think business is business , it is well known with micro sales is big business . so what you see is a business plan , love or loath it .
my friends have said your choice is play or don't play if you enjoy most of it then its a no brainer

ahstin2001nub18_ESO

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Advertising is any form of public anouncement aimed at showing a product in a positive light. All those interviews where the devs explained the flaws of cash shops and why they were remaining sub count as advertizing.
It was a selling point for many and was put forward as a unique selling proposition in contrast with the rest of the competition.

I don't know how much law makers would understand the current situation, or if it is even worth the effort and cost of a lawsuit, but in principle they can be charged for false advertizing.

Consoles could have had a sub without an issue.
PSN getting waved is just a bonus but something gamers should not have expected. Most gamers that enjoy multiplayer to the point of being interested in MMOs already pay an online subscription for their other games.
Peopel even pre ordered the console version way before the PSN fee was waved.

B2P and f2p are not sustainable models, they just create a quick cah grab as a second locust swarm fill them up, just as OP describes, but after that it's just maintenance mode.
Only the subscription model allows for a game to grow both in revenue and in quality. A properly managed MMO increase in value over time to the point where the fixed $15 price per month becomes worth it for more and more players. Just look at Eve Online, an hardcore niche game compared to ESO that managed to grow continuously for 10 years

In short, those are the reasons why some of us are surprised about this switch:
- We bought the game because, naively, we believed the pre launch marketing. We should not feel ashamed to expect a company to not break their word.
- consoles are not a barrier to the susbcription model. FFXIV being a proof of that.
- It's just such a bad idea to switch to b2p/f2p that no one would expect a company to do it.

I doubt we can make ZOS and the higher ups change their mind, they have no experience running MMOs and are probably handling this like they would a single player, but these kind of threads are great to educate players for whom this is their first MMOs.

i didn't take it as advertising but if you did more power to ya. i took it more in the "matter of fact" category. law makers already dealt with false advertising by makings laws in the 'states (where they are based) so you would have to go through the judicial branch of the United States government to get your case heard.

i agree, consoles could have had a subscription, but they wouldn't have the same luxuries as the PC line (example: add-ons, enchanced graphics over time). i don't think its needed to treat both the same.

as i already stated, i work under the same principals of b2p, it works just not as steady or predictable as a subscription, and has higher risk. the system going to pay-to-win (a player term, not marketing) is keeping it sustainable, just because we may not like it doesn't change that fact. in fact, not only does b2p principals work, i support taxes operating under the same principal as f2p as opposed general income tax/flat tax. you may end up paying more, but you pay for the support of the things you use. eve is a good example of the benefit of a subscription, because it does tend to be less risky, is steady, and most importantly predictable. that is why in the MMO world i prefer subs. though everquest has now gone to f2p, it also had been a long standing subscription MMO. f2p will be subject to far more variables- school year, holidays, seasons, demographics, MMO/gaming environment (new games/expansions, new generation of consoles), shop(items) quality and/or demands. in essence there will be more things to stop players from putting money into the game since its not an auto-draw from an account every month, regardless of player use.