Was Zenimax stupid like a fox?

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

It really was, they really did a lot of marketing around it pushing it as if they were going to break the trend. No other game did such active defense of their sub model choice. The only one that came close to them is FFXIV, and they have held their word so far.

B2p/f2p "works" in the sense that it still draws in some revenue. But all the big games of the mmo genre that did the switch are losing revenue by 20-30% each year. That's when they are "successful".
That's why I say it isn't sustainable for mmorpgs. It only works for mobas and simple arena games.

With a susbcription based mmorpg, when it is successful, it grows yearly and increase in revenue over long periods of time. Even non succesfull games have this type of stable increase.

Subscription does not guarantee success, but it is the only path to true victory.

rawne1980b16_ESO

Bouvin wrote: »

I mean.. who here would be excited about the next release from Funsoft?

I was quite surprised, i'd never heard of Funsoft before. Had to google that. Only game i'd heard of by them was Battle Arena Toshinden.

On topic....

People who think changing business model is a knee jerk reaction and not pre planned are incredibly naive.

People who think a company like Zenimax, who have been around a long time, would change business model and not know what they are doing are incredibly naive.

People who think they know better than Zenimax about what they are doing with regards to this change are just outright foolish.

They knew this change was coming. They may not have known when, as someone said above, the delayed console release may have moved plans forward, but this change was always going to happen.

Make back development costs and then milk players in a cash shop. We all know people spend a lot more in a cash shop than they do on subscriptions alone. Those hypercrates in SWTOR bring in a hell of a lot of money, a lot more than any sub model would have done.

I don't think "the sky is falling", I don't think it's a failed game. I think this change was always going to happen when they had made their initial costs back. Now it's seeing how much more profit they can bring in.

Robo_Hobo

Interesting article, and if that is the case for Zenimax's decision to go B2P, it does seem pretty smart and logical. Ruthless, of course, but well that's how CEO's are; you don't get far being nice with money-making in that position, or in that position in the first place. That said I'm not very economically-minded so what do I know other than the interpretation given by the article.

LuxLunae

michaelb14a_ESO2 wrote: »

I wanted to spark some intelligent discussion the events of today. BTP, P2W, FTP, PTW, premium, freemium, "cosmetic" vs. "non-cosmetic", all that I'll leave to the other threads (of which there are numerous), as are the opinions.

Instead I want to focus on the industry and facts that I know we can all agree on. Today, Isaac Knowles blogged the following, and I think it deserves attention and discussion.

"There exists a pattern of MMO publishers initially offering access to their games on a subscription basis, and later switching to a free-to-play or 'tiered' membership plans. Analysts, including myself, have attributed this behavior to repeated, apparently naïve attempts to release pure, subscription-based games, in hopes of enjoying some of the success of the paid MMO king, World of Warcraft. Those publishers soon get a cold splash of reality, the story goes: Recognizing they were doomed from the start, they switch to F2P in search of profits, or at least enough money to break even.

But now I’m starting to think differently. I’m beginning to think that repeated initial use of subscription with later conversion to an F2P option is not a failure of publishers to come to grips with reality. I’m beginning to think it’s a conscious decision, from the start, to engage in a practice known as intertemporal price discrimination.

The basic idea of price discrimination is that you charge different people different amounts for the same – or nearly the same – product [1]. In the games industry, the most obvious example is the sale of standard and premium editions of the same game. Usually the latter includes an extra inducement – a book of game art, a statue of the game’s main hero or villain, etc – that costs far less to produce than the extra amount players pay for it. The publisher thus extracts some of the additional value that premium version buyers place on the game and its associated IP.

Intertemporal price discrimination (IPD) is when you sell the same – or nearly the same – product to different people in different time periods. The goal here is to take advantage of the importance people place on consuming a product now rather than later. People who want to consume it right now are willing to pay more than those who are willing to wait a few weeks or months, or even years. A well-known example comes from the movie industry, which has become expert at releasing its products in different formats at different times: first theater, then second-run theater, then pay-per-view, then HBO/Showtime, then BluRay, then Netflix, then cable, and so on. On a per-consumer basis, each of these viewing options is slightly less valuable to movie studios than the one following it. Video games publishers engage in IPD, too, by gradually lowering the price of their games over time.

Along these lines, I’m beginning to suspect that switching from pure subscription to a system with a free-to-play option is more – possibly much more – than a “Whoops!” moment for MMO publishers. I’m beginning to think it’s an example of IPD. In the case of the MMO, the publisher gets both money from the sale of the software, as well as recurring payments from players who want to maintain access to the game. Anyone who strongly values the game, and who simply can’t wait for the inevitable switch to F2P, will pay for the subscription. The game publisher gets what it can from these high value players. Eventually, the supply of such customers is exhausted. Their value starts to fall into equilibrium with the potential value of consumers who are still waiting to get in for free. When that happens, the company begins to offer a free-to-play option.

Why not offer F2P from the start? The typical charge of $15/mo/user far exceeds the ARPU of any free-to-play game. That’s a lot of money to forego from consumers who would be willing to pay it, but who would switch to an F2P option, given the choice. MMOs with high production value based on venerable IP have long lifetimes; there’s no need to rush into the market for the least valuable consumers when there are so many high-value consumers who are willing to pay more.

The trick, of course, is the timing. If you don’t spend enough time with the subscription model, you won’t extract the full value from users who just can’t wait for free-to-play. If you spend too long, those other users will lose interest, move on to competitors’ games, and will generally become less valuable.

Given the above, Zenimax Online’s announcement of the F2P option for Elder Scrolls Online strikes me less and less as an admission of defeat, and more and more as a good business decision made well in advance. The game no longer requires the subscription, but you will need to buy the software (still a cool $60). If you’re time constrained, or you really care about advancement, you can pay for the Plus membership to get additional benefits. Eventually, the price of the software will start to fall as well, and more and more consumers will be able to justify the expense. Each additional consumer will be worth less to Zenimax on average, but they will still be worth a positive amount of money.

I offer up this highly stylized analysis in anticipation of the inevitable “I told you so” stories (and comments) that are already starting to appear regarding Zenimax Online’s move. For example, Forbes offer this tidbit: “Sure enough, the subscription model doesn’t seem to have delivered quite the results that Bethesda was hoping for, and they’re transitioning it to a one-time purchase model…”

But if what I've said above about IPD and subscriptions is true, this diagnosis is off-base. In fact, it may be that the subscription has delivered to Zenimax precisely what it wanted, and the move away is a logical step planned well in advance.

The fact is that game publishers have become incredibly savvy at finding, retaining, and extracting value from customers. We should expect future, “failed” forays into subscription-based models. Not because publishers are stupid, or ignoring history, but because they are trying to make the most money they can over the lifetime of the product that they sell."

Originally Posted on Gameasutra.com by Issac Knowles

Why is it when I said something similar when they first announced this, people bashed me for it? The Mod even locked the tread.

I pretty much said that this type of system will allow players who would not have bought this game otherwise, buy it. Then they may subscribe 1-4 months in a year. If you get enough people from XB1, PS4 and PC playing this game and on average subbing 4 months in a year, they make more profit than the current best case scenario for the subs system.

Gyudan

This thread ruined my day. Thank you Truth.

Razzak

LuxLunae wrote: »

michaelb14a_ESO2 wrote: »

I wanted to spark some intelligent discussion the events of today. BTP, P2W, FTP, PTW, premium, freemium, "cosmetic" vs. "non-cosmetic", all that I'll leave to the other threads (of which there are numerous), as are the opinions.

Instead I want to focus on the industry and facts that I know we can all agree on. Today, Isaac Knowles blogged the following, and I think it deserves attention and discussion.

"There exists a pattern of MMO publishers initially offering access to their games on a subscription basis, and later switching to a free-to-play or 'tiered' membership plans. Analysts, including myself, have attributed this behavior to repeated, apparently naïve attempts to release pure, subscription-based games, in hopes of enjoying some of the success of the paid MMO king, World of Warcraft. Those publishers soon get a cold splash of reality, the story goes: Recognizing they were doomed from the start, they switch to F2P in search of profits, or at least enough money to break even.

But now I’m starting to think differently. I’m beginning to think that repeated initial use of subscription with later conversion to an F2P option is not a failure of publishers to come to grips with reality. I’m beginning to think it’s a conscious decision, from the start, to engage in a practice known as intertemporal price discrimination.

The basic idea of price discrimination is that you charge different people different amounts for the same – or nearly the same – product [1]. In the games industry, the most obvious example is the sale of standard and premium editions of the same game. Usually the latter includes an extra inducement – a book of game art, a statue of the game’s main hero or villain, etc – that costs far less to produce than the extra amount players pay for it. The publisher thus extracts some of the additional value that premium version buyers place on the game and its associated IP.

Intertemporal price discrimination (IPD) is when you sell the same – or nearly the same – product to different people in different time periods. The goal here is to take advantage of the importance people place on consuming a product now rather than later. People who want to consume it right now are willing to pay more than those who are willing to wait a few weeks or months, or even years. A well-known example comes from the movie industry, which has become expert at releasing its products in different formats at different times: first theater, then second-run theater, then pay-per-view, then HBO/Showtime, then BluRay, then Netflix, then cable, and so on. On a per-consumer basis, each of these viewing options is slightly less valuable to movie studios than the one following it. Video games publishers engage in IPD, too, by gradually lowering the price of their games over time.

Along these lines, I’m beginning to suspect that switching from pure subscription to a system with a free-to-play option is more – possibly much more – than a “Whoops!” moment for MMO publishers. I’m beginning to think it’s an example of IPD. In the case of the MMO, the publisher gets both money from the sale of the software, as well as recurring payments from players who want to maintain access to the game. Anyone who strongly values the game, and who simply can’t wait for the inevitable switch to F2P, will pay for the subscription. The game publisher gets what it can from these high value players. Eventually, the supply of such customers is exhausted. Their value starts to fall into equilibrium with the potential value of consumers who are still waiting to get in for free. When that happens, the company begins to offer a free-to-play option.

Why not offer F2P from the start? The typical charge of $15/mo/user far exceeds the ARPU of any free-to-play game. That’s a lot of money to forego from consumers who would be willing to pay it, but who would switch to an F2P option, given the choice. MMOs with high production value based on venerable IP have long lifetimes; there’s no need to rush into the market for the least valuable consumers when there are so many high-value consumers who are willing to pay more.

The trick, of course, is the timing. If you don’t spend enough time with the subscription model, you won’t extract the full value from users who just can’t wait for free-to-play. If you spend too long, those other users will lose interest, move on to competitors’ games, and will generally become less valuable.

Given the above, Zenimax Online’s announcement of the F2P option for Elder Scrolls Online strikes me less and less as an admission of defeat, and more and more as a good business decision made well in advance. The game no longer requires the subscription, but you will need to buy the software (still a cool $60). If you’re time constrained, or you really care about advancement, you can pay for the Plus membership to get additional benefits. Eventually, the price of the software will start to fall as well, and more and more consumers will be able to justify the expense. Each additional consumer will be worth less to Zenimax on average, but they will still be worth a positive amount of money.

I offer up this highly stylized analysis in anticipation of the inevitable “I told you so” stories (and comments) that are already starting to appear regarding Zenimax Online’s move. For example, Forbes offer this tidbit: “Sure enough, the subscription model doesn’t seem to have delivered quite the results that Bethesda was hoping for, and they’re transitioning it to a one-time purchase model…”

But if what I've said above about IPD and subscriptions is true, this diagnosis is off-base. In fact, it may be that the subscription has delivered to Zenimax precisely what it wanted, and the move away is a logical step planned well in advance.

The fact is that game publishers have become incredibly savvy at finding, retaining, and extracting value from customers. We should expect future, “failed” forays into subscription-based models. Not because publishers are stupid, or ignoring history, but because they are trying to make the most money they can over the lifetime of the product that they sell."

Originally Posted on Gameasutra.com by Issac Knowles

Why is it when I said something similar when they first announced this, people bashed me for it? The Mod even locked the tread.

I pretty much said that this type of system will allow players who would not have bought this game otherwise, buy it. Then they may subscribe 1-4 months in a year. If you get enough people from XB1, PS4 and PC playing this game and on average subbing 4 months in a year, they make more profit than the current best case scenario for the subs system.

Will console player be subbing or just buy the box?

rawne1980b16_ESO

LuxLunae wrote: »

Why is it when I said something similar when they first announced this, people bashed me for it? The Mod even locked the tread.

I pretty much said that this type of system will allow players who would not have bought this game otherwise, buy it. Then they may subscribe 1-4 months in a year. If you get enough people from XB1, PS4 and PC playing this game and on average subbing 4 months in a year, they make more profit than the current best case scenario for the subs system.

Mainly because everyone has an opinion on this and everyone likes to think they are right.

If you say something that's different to what they think they will launch at you.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

LuxLunae wrote: »

michaelb14a_ESO2 wrote: »

I wanted to spark some intelligent discussion the events of today. BTP, P2W, FTP, PTW, premium, freemium, "cosmetic" vs. "non-cosmetic", all that I'll leave to the other threads (of which there are numerous), as are the opinions.

Instead I want to focus on the industry and facts that I know we can all agree on. Today, Isaac Knowles blogged the following, and I think it deserves attention and discussion.

"There exists a pattern of MMO publishers initially offering access to their games on a subscription basis, and later switching to a free-to-play or 'tiered' membership plans. Analysts, including myself, have attributed this behavior to repeated, apparently naïve attempts to release pure, subscription-based games, in hopes of enjoying some of the success of the paid MMO king, World of Warcraft. Those publishers soon get a cold splash of reality, the story goes: Recognizing they were doomed from the start, they switch to F2P in search of profits, or at least enough money to break even.

But now I’m starting to think differently. I’m beginning to think that repeated initial use of subscription with later conversion to an F2P option is not a failure of publishers to come to grips with reality. I’m beginning to think it’s a conscious decision, from the start, to engage in a practice known as intertemporal price discrimination.

The basic idea of price discrimination is that you charge different people different amounts for the same – or nearly the same – product [1]. In the games industry, the most obvious example is the sale of standard and premium editions of the same game. Usually the latter includes an extra inducement – a book of game art, a statue of the game’s main hero or villain, etc – that costs far less to produce than the extra amount players pay for it. The publisher thus extracts some of the additional value that premium version buyers place on the game and its associated IP.

Intertemporal price discrimination (IPD) is when you sell the same – or nearly the same – product to different people in different time periods. The goal here is to take advantage of the importance people place on consuming a product now rather than later. People who want to consume it right now are willing to pay more than those who are willing to wait a few weeks or months, or even years. A well-known example comes from the movie industry, which has become expert at releasing its products in different formats at different times: first theater, then second-run theater, then pay-per-view, then HBO/Showtime, then BluRay, then Netflix, then cable, and so on. On a per-consumer basis, each of these viewing options is slightly less valuable to movie studios than the one following it. Video games publishers engage in IPD, too, by gradually lowering the price of their games over time.

Along these lines, I’m beginning to suspect that switching from pure subscription to a system with a free-to-play option is more – possibly much more – than a “Whoops!” moment for MMO publishers. I’m beginning to think it’s an example of IPD. In the case of the MMO, the publisher gets both money from the sale of the software, as well as recurring payments from players who want to maintain access to the game. Anyone who strongly values the game, and who simply can’t wait for the inevitable switch to F2P, will pay for the subscription. The game publisher gets what it can from these high value players. Eventually, the supply of such customers is exhausted. Their value starts to fall into equilibrium with the potential value of consumers who are still waiting to get in for free. When that happens, the company begins to offer a free-to-play option.

Why not offer F2P from the start? The typical charge of $15/mo/user far exceeds the ARPU of any free-to-play game. That’s a lot of money to forego from consumers who would be willing to pay it, but who would switch to an F2P option, given the choice. MMOs with high production value based on venerable IP have long lifetimes; there’s no need to rush into the market for the least valuable consumers when there are so many high-value consumers who are willing to pay more.

The trick, of course, is the timing. If you don’t spend enough time with the subscription model, you won’t extract the full value from users who just can’t wait for free-to-play. If you spend too long, those other users will lose interest, move on to competitors’ games, and will generally become less valuable.

Given the above, Zenimax Online’s announcement of the F2P option for Elder Scrolls Online strikes me less and less as an admission of defeat, and more and more as a good business decision made well in advance. The game no longer requires the subscription, but you will need to buy the software (still a cool $60). If you’re time constrained, or you really care about advancement, you can pay for the Plus membership to get additional benefits. Eventually, the price of the software will start to fall as well, and more and more consumers will be able to justify the expense. Each additional consumer will be worth less to Zenimax on average, but they will still be worth a positive amount of money.

I offer up this highly stylized analysis in anticipation of the inevitable “I told you so” stories (and comments) that are already starting to appear regarding Zenimax Online’s move. For example, Forbes offer this tidbit: “Sure enough, the subscription model doesn’t seem to have delivered quite the results that Bethesda was hoping for, and they’re transitioning it to a one-time purchase model…”

But if what I've said above about IPD and subscriptions is true, this diagnosis is off-base. In fact, it may be that the subscription has delivered to Zenimax precisely what it wanted, and the move away is a logical step planned well in advance.

The fact is that game publishers have become incredibly savvy at finding, retaining, and extracting value from customers. We should expect future, “failed” forays into subscription-based models. Not because publishers are stupid, or ignoring history, but because they are trying to make the most money they can over the lifetime of the product that they sell."

Originally Posted on Gameasutra.com by Issac Knowles

Why is it when I said something similar when they first announced this, people bashed me for it? The Mod even locked the tread.

I pretty much said that this type of system will allow players who would not have bought this game otherwise, buy it. Then they may subscribe 1-4 months in a year. If you get enough people from XB1, PS4 and PC playing this game and on average subbing 4 months in a year, they make more profit than the current best case scenario for the subs system.

No it's not.
The best case scenario is half those people paying a sub for 12 months a year which is a LOT more revenue.
They could even go the WoW route and have that crown store cosmetics without the consumables for additional revenue.

Look at swtor, even free it only attracts 1.2M active players. And that's Star Wars, one of the most recognised IP in the world.
Games have a maximum amount of people interested in them, and a smaller number of people that really are part of the core audience that will play for years and pay for things.
Going f2p only temporarily inflates that number but they all end up getting down to what they should be, and then they get lower because the games simply aren't as good under the f2p/b2p model.

The strategy illustrated in OP is short term based. They do not aim at making the most money, they aim at making back investment as fast as possible then move on.
It's only a smart decision for the investors, but for the publishers, the studios and the players, it is a bad move.

Faugaun

Ourorboros wrote: »

Great article. I think it is spot on, and for me, eye opening. So the game industry has adopted the movie industry model. From a business perspective, smart move. SInce this is my first MMO, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth for the genre. I'm not likely to venture into any other MMOs. As a comparison, I used to watch every sporting event possible. Then there was the MLB World Series strike. Even though the players had valid reasons, it opened my eyes that sports are not about fans, players, sportsmanship, loyalty. They are just an entertainment commodity, whose primary aim is to make money. Since the strike, I rarely spend my time or money on that form of entertainment. Now that I'm aware of the IPD business model game publishers are adopting, I'll likely take the same approach to games that I take to my other major leisure activity, movies, which is to see a very select few in theaters (averaging about 2-3/yr now), and the rest see on Netflix/Amazon/torrents. Steam looks better every day now.

Lol I lost interest in MLB the same way and time and I'm just now getting to where I can watch it again (mostly cause my 8 yoa son). This post speaks volumes and probably represents a good portion of people near my age.

I had an amazing baseball card collection and everything...and then it just stops the year of the strike.

One event lost the baseball industry 20 years of money from me.

Faugaun

Derra wrote: »

I think its quite true. Have to admit, i don´t care. I would have played/paid/whatever if they´d have told me upfront (hell i even suspected it from the start).
Take my money i had loads of fun. A visit in the cinema is more expensive than a month of eso subscription was. I couldn´t care less.

I think it's more the distaste of dishonesty than anything...the original gamers are all grown up with professional careers fancy cars mortgages kids etc....and the generations after them are catching up fast the $15 a month is nothing compared to (kids school, feeding a family (just one meal at McDonalds for a family of 5 is $20-$40, mortgage, car note, etc...) other expenses of this generation. I would venture to bet as gamers continue to age and gain more expendable income we might actually see an increase in future subscriptions (there's just a lot more kids than the 1 generation of grown gamers, wait till there are 2-3 generations of grown gamers and only one generation of kids).

Also compared to hobbies (golf, bowling, racing, etc...) MMOs are a pretty cheap hobby (well the game itself, laptops, computers etc...can be but do not have to be expensive).

For me its coming to be a trust issue more than anything. I and many others get that MMOs are a business venture they cost money and attempt to make a profit. We also get that there is risk that devs want to minimize. Heck we are probably OK with profit margins in the 20-50% range (assuming at least some of that is reinvested into new products for us to enjoy).

So my question (not just to ZOS but to the gaming industry in general) is can we trust you?

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Actually, MMO profit margins are way above what you expect.
When you have a team of 250 people and you have 200k susbcribers, you're making 50% profit margins, and it just goes up from there as you increase susbcribers.

The issue is that MMOs are driving away their core audience with the current business model "revolution". Those that would really be interested in games and keep on paying and playing for years just don't see the point any more when it is f2p.

Here's an interesting read regarding this, and other issues in the industry:
http://mud.co.uk/richard/The Decline of MMOs.pdf

Xexpo

Rescorla_ESO

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.

Someone apparently is not a big fan of Homer Simpson and the use idioms.

MornaBaine

Mercurio wrote: »

it's a con job that only works for a bit before consumers wise up, and then things crash. Newly-launched MMOs are going to be in a rough financial spot from now on, if not DOA or intentionally low-reaching.

Exactly this. After my experiences with Age of Conan, SWTOR and now ESO, all of which I heavily supported even before launch and subbed immediately as soon as a sub was available and sunk at least a full year into, I think it is now highly unlikely that I will ever do so again. ALL of those games "promised" things initially while still in development that they either failed outright to ever deliver or changed directions radically at some point and became games I no longer wanted to play. I'm honestly beginning to lose hope that the game I truly WANT to play will ever be designed let alone actually be made. And I know I'm not alone. This does not bode well for the MMO industry.

Mercutio

Businesses exist to make money. This takes a back seat to ethics until such time as it impacts the revenue. That's just the reality. It helps that consumers have poor memories for the most part and, while they tend to grumble at what they perceive as injustice will rarely follow through and vote with their wallet, at least not till they have a replacement firmly in hand.

Did they plan this switch from the start? Who knows. I'm sure it was 'Plan B' if nothing else.

Maybe I'm just jaded, but I really don't care. For fifty cents a day, truly a trifling amount, I had a good time under the subscription model and now even that price is going down to effectively zero. I'll keep playing till either A) I'm not having fun, B ) Something new that I enjoy more comes along, or C) They commit some offense so heinous to my sensibilities that I quit.

Option 'C' is certainly a possibility. There are companies I won't support (SOE, CCP), but it takes a special level of mismanagement to prod me into taking that step.

This? Switching payment models? Eh, just business. The game is fun and I'm looking forward to buying a Dune Hound for my Redguard.

Tomg999

Mercutio wrote: »

Businesses exist to make money. This takes a back seat to ethics until such time as it impacts the revenue. That's just the reality. It helps that consumers have poor memories for the most part and, while they tend to grumble at what they perceive as injustice will rarely follow through and vote with their wallet, at least not till they have a replacement firmly in hand.

Did they plan this switch from the start? Who knows. I'm sure it was 'Plan B' if nothing else.

Maybe I'm just jaded, but I really don't care. For fifty cents a day, truly a trifling amount, I had a good time under the subscription model and now even that price is going down to effectively zero. I'll keep playing till either A) I'm not having fun, B ) Something new that I enjoy more comes along, or C) They commit some offense so heinous to my sensibilities that I quit.

Option 'C' is certainly a possibility. There are companies I won't support (SOE, CCP), but it takes a special level of mismanagement to prod me into taking that step.

This? Switching payment models? Eh, just business. The game is fun and I'm looking forward to buying a Dune Hound for my Redguard.

Totally agree. So what if they switched models. I had fun & got my moneys worth.
If I see a film in the theater the night it comes out, do I begrudge the folks who watch it on Netflix later? If I book a hotel room in advance and pay a high rate cause i love the place & want to lock in my vacation, the fact that someone went to priceline the night before doesn't diminish my purchase.

MornaBaine

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?

You'd have to be able to prove it. Bait and switch could also easily apply...but again you'd have to prove it. The odds are with them and they know it.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Aside from the dishonesty and bait and switch, the whole point is that this change is a bad business decision.

They will make less money in the medium to long term and those of us enjoying the game and how it was worked on/improved will see the game become a lesser product in order to appeal to the cash shop crowd which will inevitably dwindle.

We want the devs to make the most money possible, and the only viable path for that is through the subscription model.

Faugaun

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Actually, MMO profit margins are way above what you expect.
When you have a team of 250 people and you have 200k susbcribers, you're making 50% profit margins, and it just goes up from there as you increase susbcribers.

The issue is that MMOs are driving away their core audience with the current business model "revolution". Those that would really be interested in games and keep on paying and playing for years just don't see the point any more when it is f2p.

Here's an interesting read regarding this, and other issues in the industry:
http://mud.co.uk/richard/The Decline of MMOs.pdf

That's kinda what I was saying, again the profit margins are less important than the trust...the profit margin may be 50% with 200k sub's (if you ignore longterm profit margins, the 7 years to develop).

Just curious from an investor point of view wouldn't they be better with a more open PR strategy posting record sales sub's and really promoting the game to potential new players (unless of course there really is nothing there to promote) ....this same visibility would increase the stock value and value of the longterm investment. If pitched correctly the shareholders looking for short term capitalization could then sell their shares quickly for good profit margins while the purchasers could get steady dividend checks for years in the ball park of 10-20% per year for years and at the end of the game they still have ownership in a company that is hopefully producing other quality titles and maintains a great reputation with its customer base and still holds great value despite the game finally dying. The additional profits get reinvested into the company providing more value and further increasing share price.

I also imagine that a company with a nice sub based game has much greater access to liquid assets than other companies (suppose I went to a bank and said hey I make 50 million a year in profits which are increasing at 10% per year, I need a loan for 200 million to start work on our next title). We can pay it back over the next 7 years with 10% interest per year. I think that's a decent sell fairly safe investment already back by a successful product. Generally I'm against leverage systems but under a profitable sub model it makes sense to leverage the next hit if it can speed up development a few years.

rawne1980b16_ESO

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

They will make less money in the medium to long term

Only according to you.

Personally I disagree.

Mightylink

They where stupid for trying a subscription in the first place, thinking they can complete with World of Warcraft in every way payment wise...

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

They will make less money in the medium to long term

Only according to you.

Personally I disagree.

According to logic and all the financial reports of every f2p/b2p mmorpg out there. f2p only works for simplistic games like moba and shooters.

You're allowed to be wrong.

Mightylink wrote: »

They where stupid for trying a subscription in the first place, thinking they can complete with World of Warcraft in every way payment wise...

They don't have to compete with WoW over susbcribers.
The game is different enough to be addressed to mostly different audiences.
It's not like there was a finite amount of gamers, each game gets their very own players.

@Faugaun‌
Well, the 7 years of development are most likely already almost reimbursed.
The box sales are meant for that and one of the few official stats we've seen, the imperial edition outsell the standard edition by 5 times during the preorders.
The console box sales will probably make it go well beyond its initial costs.

And I agree with you on publishing the numbers being a good PR move. But it is also a double edged sword. For instance, if we knew that they had X amount of subscribers, they couldn't make this b2p change without a larger outrage.

A lot of people are buying into the marketing of f2p/b2p switches, that it is either that or shutting down the game and that those games make more money that way. But if you scratch a bit, you can easily find out that beneath the surface, it's just false.
If the players had access to numbers contradicting those statements, they wouldn't be so gulible.

For that last part of your post, you're correct too.
CCP could, with the income of Eve Online, work on two very large projects that eventually ended up as failures without even being in financial trouble.
Blizzard can do whatever it wants now and pretty much never run out of money. They work on stuff for years, and if it doesn't pan out, they cancel them. (titan)
Even small studios can afford with a sub money to get investments and not update their game for 2 years and still stay afloat. (Darkfall Online)

A susbcription model MMO that can stabilise its subscribers number is a cash cow. A cash cow is the most desirable type of product in business.
ESO was mostly stable and was starting to grow again with the hype of 1.6. With the consoles, it would have at the very least tripled its subscribers, and probably much more sicne those markets have virtually no competition.

This b2p change is insanely shortsighted.

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/148940/1-6-looks-great-forget-about-b2p-f2p/p1

Faugaun

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO‌

I agree mostly with your reply to me, not enough where I do disagree to debate it at least. I wish they stayed p2p and hope they can avoid the perils of b2p and f2p and p2w for a long time....

I do think one of the major factors was Microsoft...and again a more open PR policy would help negate that double edged sword effect (but that's just speculation).

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

@Faugaun‌
Honesty would have been enough, yes.
"Sorry guys, we're bringing you the game on xbox one but couldn't get the xbox live fee removed."

For what it's worth, most players interested in multiplayer games already pay it, so adding an MMO to their game library would just make their subscription even more worth it.

And I don't foresee how it is even possible for the game not to become p2w. Cosmetics and DLC only won't support the game. Every other game had to dip into the water.
They've been smart not to release xp boosters yet in the store on PTS, but they will come. Same for DLC exclusive skill lines and gear.

Faugaun

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Faugaun‌
Honesty would have been enough, yes.
"Sorry guys, we're bringing you the game on xbox one but couldn't get the xbox live fee removed."

For what it's worth, most players interested in multiplayer games already pay it, so adding an MMO to their game library would just make their subscription even more worth it.

And I don't foresee how it is even possible for the game not to become p2w. Cosmetics and DLC only won't support the game. Every other game had to dip into the water.
They've been smart not to release xp boosters yet in the store on PTS, but they will come. Same for DLC exclusive skill lines and gear.

See my thread here for an idea how to avoid p2w

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/150031/how-zos-can-get-lots-of-new-players#latest

Summation is shift their focus to cater heavily to RPers ...who will pay for cosmetics ...

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Faugaun wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Faugaun‌
Honesty would have been enough, yes.
"Sorry guys, we're bringing you the game on xbox one but couldn't get the xbox live fee removed."

For what it's worth, most players interested in multiplayer games already pay it, so adding an MMO to their game library would just make their subscription even more worth it.

And I don't foresee how it is even possible for the game not to become p2w. Cosmetics and DLC only won't support the game. Every other game had to dip into the water.
They've been smart not to release xp boosters yet in the store on PTS, but they will come. Same for DLC exclusive skill lines and gear.

See my thread here for an idea how to avoid p2w

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/150031/how-zos-can-get-lots-of-new-players#latest

Summation is shift their focus to cater heavily to RPers ...who will pay for cosmetics ...

I saw your thread already.
Honestly, I don't think it can work. The Rpers haven't been a force to reckon with since a decade ago. Their last stand battle has been lost on Darkfall with the fall of the Hyperion Empire.

However, as a secondary revenue source, a cosmetic cash shop would be great. Keep a team of 3 to 5 artists to make alternate mount skins, pets and costumes and sell only that.
And for the rest, keep the subscription based approach.

It's similar to what WoW is doing ,and it's working great for them.

Soulshine

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Faugaun wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Faugaun‌
Honesty would have been enough, yes.
"Sorry guys, we're bringing you the game on xbox one but couldn't get the xbox live fee removed."

For what it's worth, most players interested in multiplayer games already pay it, so adding an MMO to their game library would just make their subscription even more worth it.

And I don't foresee how it is even possible for the game not to become p2w. Cosmetics and DLC only won't support the game. Every other game had to dip into the water.
They've been smart not to release xp boosters yet in the store on PTS, but they will come. Same for DLC exclusive skill lines and gear.

See my thread here for an idea how to avoid p2w

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/150031/how-zos-can-get-lots-of-new-players#latest

Summation is shift their focus to cater heavily to RPers ...who will pay for cosmetics ...

I saw your thread already.
Honestly, I don't think it can work. The Rpers haven't been a force to reckon with since a decade ago. Their last stand battle has been lost on Darkfall with the fall of the Hyperion Empire.

However, as a secondary revenue source, a cosmetic cash shop would be great. Keep a team of 3 to 5 artists to make alternate mount skins, pets and costumes and sell only that.
And for the rest, keep the subscription based approach.

It's similar to what WoW is doing ,and it's working great for them.

The last stand of the truly hardcore RPs... is in LotrO

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Soulshine wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Faugaun wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Faugaun‌
Honesty would have been enough, yes.
"Sorry guys, we're bringing you the game on xbox one but couldn't get the xbox live fee removed."

For what it's worth, most players interested in multiplayer games already pay it, so adding an MMO to their game library would just make their subscription even more worth it.

And I don't foresee how it is even possible for the game not to become p2w. Cosmetics and DLC only won't support the game. Every other game had to dip into the water.
They've been smart not to release xp boosters yet in the store on PTS, but they will come. Same for DLC exclusive skill lines and gear.

See my thread here for an idea how to avoid p2w

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/150031/how-zos-can-get-lots-of-new-players#latest

Summation is shift their focus to cater heavily to RPers ...who will pay for cosmetics ...

I saw your thread already.
Honestly, I don't think it can work. The Rpers haven't been a force to reckon with since a decade ago. Their last stand battle has been lost on Darkfall with the fall of the Hyperion Empire.

However, as a secondary revenue source, a cosmetic cash shop would be great. Keep a team of 3 to 5 artists to make alternate mount skins, pets and costumes and sell only that.
And for the rest, keep the subscription based approach.

It's similar to what WoW is doing ,and it's working great for them.

The last stand of the truly hardcore RPs... is in LotrO

Yeah ,there are scatered survivors, remnants of this once great civilisation.
I even heard of people Rping in WoW.
But the last time Rpers were strong enough to control a large portion of a virtual world and nearly conquer it was then. Unless some corporations in Eve roleplay?

I personally can't roleplay in non sandbox games. The whole themepark aspect just freezes me. So I wouldn't be able to roleplay in ESO, especially with all the phasing/instancing. I always react in roleplay fashion, though, if someone is roleplaying at me. I have a background for all my characters just to be ready and not ruin someone else's immersion.

Faugaun

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Faugaun wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Faugaun‌
Honesty would have been enough, yes.
"Sorry guys, we're bringing you the game on xbox one but couldn't get the xbox live fee removed."

For what it's worth, most players interested in multiplayer games already pay it, so adding an MMO to their game library would just make their subscription even more worth it.

And I don't foresee how it is even possible for the game not to become p2w. Cosmetics and DLC only won't support the game. Every other game had to dip into the water.
They've been smart not to release xp boosters yet in the store on PTS, but they will come. Same for DLC exclusive skill lines and gear.

See my thread here for an idea how to avoid p2w

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/150031/how-zos-can-get-lots-of-new-players#latest

Summation is shift their focus to cater heavily to RPers ...who will pay for cosmetics ...

I saw your thread already.
Honestly, I don't think it can work. The Rpers haven't been a force to reckon with since a decade ago. Their last stand battle has been lost on Darkfall with the fall of the Hyperion Empire.

However, as a secondary revenue source, a cosmetic cash shop would be great. Keep a team of 3 to 5 artists to make alternate mount skins, pets and costumes and sell only that.
And for the rest, keep the subscription based approach.

It's similar to what WoW is doing ,and it's working great for them.

There are a lot of good ideas over there that could make the game more attractive to RPers.

I think the reason RPers haven't been a force is perhaps because the genera treats RPers as second class citizens. Everyone else gets exp, gold, content etc...focused for them and the RPers get whats left over. The rp community being fairly low maintenance and independent in the creation of their own content takes the mistreatment and has allowed it to get to this point (both sides are guilty). The end result is predictable. Imagine though an atmosphere where the RP was the focus and where the attention was placed. Frankly if I am a mmo developer the rp community is my focus....they will tolerate sub par graphics as the game ages, they are there for the social aspect, if PvP isn't quite balanced its not as big a deal, if something is op in PvE they don't sweat it as much. Heck if another player cheats to be super powerful...they just ignore them. For a laid back chill community that will pay for cosmetics these all seem like desirable qualities in a player base. Heck they will even go out hunting critters (you know the low level rats, snakes etc...) For the sake of furthering an rp plot line. They don't chew through content at the breakneck pace that min/max players do. Well developed environments have unlimited replay ability with this crowd instead of the onetime use for non end level content typical of the min/max crowd.

Look at these forums if the community was an rp community how many of these whine threads would have been created in the first place?

Now you ask me Zos has a real opportunity..they can stay the course on the known mmo path...the path is predictable (the timing isn't) or they can say bugger that I'm trying something new and innovating...my personal opinion they would be surprised (I won't lie there is risk in this route). Zos will probably stick to the known path....businesses typically hate to step out of the box (unless they are chaired by elon musk...). Which is sad because there is probably a gold mine put there that businesses haven't discovered yet.

EölMPK

Good article, but I don't know why people keep saying ESO will go F2P, if it's B2P.