Was Zenimax stupid like a fox?

Rescorla_ESO

MornaBaine wrote: »

Guppet wrote: »

Personally I think it was planned all along. Regardless of what some may claim, it's a very solid business decision. They have maximised profits from the sub model, now they do the same with the new model.

PLEASE tell me that was an attempt at irony Guppet. I'm used to you being pretty smart. The ACTUAL phrase is, "Crazy like a fox" and is used to denote someone who acts in ways that SEEM crazy but are, in fact, quite clever and have a purpose that does not become apparent until later. Which makes the OP's title make perfect sense.

DOH!!!

I'm disappointed that people here are still missing the Homer Simpson reference in the subject title.

JamilaRaj

Grunge wrote: »

f2p: You dont need to pay nothing in order to download and log in to the game. Examples: Archeage, Rift, Lotro, DDO.

b2p: You have to buy the game in order to play, with no aditional mandatory costs. Ex: GW1, GW2, Secret World, ESO Tamriel Unlimited.

p2p: You have to buy the game, the expansions and still pay the subscription fee in order to be able to even see your character. Ex: WoW, FFXIV.

The thing is that difference between F2P and B2P, which sounds big, is in fact very small. B2P is just F2P where developer expects box sales and wants to make some cash out of it (ESO will likely drop box fee at some point in future as market will become saturated). Despite what is says on a tin (free in the former, free after initial payment in the latter case), neither is free by a long stretch.
Companies, unless run by uncorrectable altruists who also happen to be well off, can not make games where people do not pay. They may allow people in, but then they more or less brutally incentivize them to cash shop (or buy DLC) and game mechanic is subjugated to that sole purpose (as a result, these games suck for paying players and for not paying more so). It's scam based on hidden costs, like selling a car for free or $1, but without engine and wheels, or, more realistic example, internet connection, where base is free or cheap, but limits on bandwidth (or content) kick in quickly, unless you pay (more).
Could be also said that while you sure can categorize games this way, it won't tell much about what is a game of given type like, with exception of P2P, where you can with a degree of accuracy expect a game that at least has chance not to suck, because game mechanic is not just vehicle to drive cash shop sales.

Soulshine

oren74 wrote: »

I ask this question...would you do it all again knowing what you know now?

I would...and you'd be lieing if you said you wouldn't

I've had fun with this game, and continue to have fun with this game. This article tells me nothing.

At no time was I promised anything above and beyond what was delivered. I played month by month and could have cancelled any time. I paid to play the game...if you paid to play a future game, than, it's your own fault.

Basically...I paid $15 in January, to play the game. And I was able to play the game.

Why are people so angry over this? Cancel and move on, or keep playing, it's your choice.

Just no for me thanks. I stated already in another thread around here about this particular issue that if I had known from the get go the game would be B2P, or if it had been advertised as such I would never had bought the game. I was willing to try ESO specifically for the IP and because it was a sub model. I do not like F2P models, or B2P either. Has nothing to do with "lieing."

EölMPK

JamilaRaj wrote: »

Grunge wrote: »

f2p: You dont need to pay nothing in order to download and log in to the game. Examples: Archeage, Rift, Lotro, DDO.

b2p: You have to buy the game in order to play, with no aditional mandatory costs. Ex: GW1, GW2, Secret World, ESO Tamriel Unlimited.

p2p: You have to buy the game, the expansions and still pay the subscription fee in order to be able to even see your character. Ex: WoW, FFXIV.

The thing is that difference between F2P and B2P, which sounds big, is in fact very small. B2P is just F2P where developer expects box sales and wants to make some cash out of it (ESO will likely drop box fee at some point in future as market will become saturated). Despite what is says on a tin (free in the former, free after initial payment in the latter case), neither is free by a long stretch.
Companies, unless run by uncorrectable altruists who also happen to be well off, can not make games where people do not pay. They may allow people in, but then they more or less brutally incentivize them to cash shop (or buy DLC) and game mechanic is subjugated to that sole purpose (as a result, these game suck for paying players and for not paying more so). It's scam based on hidden costs, like selling a car for free or $1, but without engine and wheels, or, more realistic example, internet connection, where base is free or cheap, but limits on bandwidth (or content) kick in quickly, unless you pay (more).
Could be also said that while you sure can categorize games this way, it won't tell much about what is a game of given type like, witch exception P2P, where you with a degree of accuracy expect a game that at least have chance not to suck, because game mechanic is not just vehicle to drive cash shop sales.

There are f2p games that you can play it without spending a dime, you have to have a lot of free time though (and patience).
GW2 is a good example that a b2p game is not necessarily focused in the cash shop, or dont have new content, or is not a "full game".
P2P games seems nice and fair, but the cost to the consumer after a year is average $180. Imho, its not fair for customers, at all.

As I said before, if ESO TU will be something like gw2, we all are very fine. We still have a great game, that doesnt suck our money every month, and with a much larger community.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Faugaun wrote: »

Audigy wrote: »

Every MMO I joined since 2006 went F2P later.

I am unsure why this is the case, as none of these games were bad. AOC was awesome and still is the most atmospheric MMO I played. Warhammer was fun and had invention, just the client was garbage.

SWTOR was a fraud, but lets forget about this for now, however I enjoyed it a lot pre F2P ...

ESO was great, yet it went F2P.

I often think that todays companies want to make the big money and therefore forget the basics of MMO gaming. A good client, a decent piece if updates and a healthy but small community.

Maybe its the pressure by the publishers, but games these days seem to always want the big numbers and if they don't get them they go F2P. This is especially sad since an MMO is totally fine with just 100k of players.

Should be totally fine...unless of course they had a 9 figure development budget pre launch

Estimates are around $200M.
Alegedly, the game did $111M in its first 6 months. With the console launch it will easily do double that. So just with box sales, it will reimburse in a year what 7 years of development were worth.
Anything above 100k subscribers is just pure benefit.

Grunge wrote: »

Audigy wrote: »

Every MMO I joined since 2006 went F2P later.

I am unsure why this is the case, as none of these games were bad. AOC was awesome and still is the most atmospheric MMO I played. Warhammer was fun and had invention, just the client was garbage.

SWTOR was a fraud, but lets forget about this for now, however I enjoyed it a lot pre F2P ...

ESO was great, yet it went F2P.

I often think that todays companies want to make the big money and therefore forget the basics of MMO gaming. A good client, a decent piece if updates and a healthy but small community.

Maybe its the pressure by the publishers, but games these days seem to always want the big numbers and if they don't get them they go F2P. This is especially sad since an MMO is totally fine with just 100k of players.

Again, why people say it's going f2p?
It's the same that saying that gw2 is F2P, but you will never find anyone saying that gw2 is f2p.

This boggles my mind oO

Because it is essentially the same thing. Once box sales plateau, the only source of revenue is the cash shop. Even if boxes were to never stop selling, they would still have to replace the subscription.
The cash shop will behave exactly like it would in any f2p/b2p title.

A b2p game is just a variant of f2p where players pay for the right to have access to the cash shop.

wraith808 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.

Have you noticed that even now they're not offering ESO+ on consoles? And they said they had to investigate how to bring that to the consoles? If that's not telling enough as to how much resistance that they've had from other venues, I don't know what is...

They will be offering it. It's tailored around the notion of "season pass" where you get access to all the dlcs. That's something console gamers are very familiar with.

Console players have been paying for subscription like services for years, it's just not called the same and it is nothing a good marketing explanation couldn't solve.

oren74 wrote: »

I ask this question...would you do it all again knowing what you know now?

I would...and you'd be lieing if you said you wouldn't

I've had fun with this game, and continue to have fun with this game. This article tells me nothing.

At no time was I promised anything above and beyond what was delivered. I played month by month and could have cancelled any time. I paid to play the game...if you paid to play a future game, than, it's your own fault.

Basically...I paid $15 in January, to play the game. And I was able to play the game.

Why are people so angry over this? Cancel and move on, or keep playing, it's your choice.

I would not have bought the game and I would not have susbcribed. I would most likely not even give it a second look after the eventual switch.
Being one of the few susbcription based game, with devs actively bashing the concept of a cash shop, was a big selling point for me and others.
I'd even call it a unique selling proposition in today's market.

They promised a game without a cash shop and aren't going to deliver on it. And if you believe you're paying $15 for access to a game, then you're glagly getting ripped off. The deal with mmos has always been that you pay the susbcription to see anounced future content get implemented.

People are angry because not only this is a bad business decision, but it also anounce the devolving of the game. We have paid for the production of content that we're being asked to pay for again as they get released in DLCs.

spryler

As many have said, in a sub model you pay for the current content you are playing and for new content that they are developing.

My point is that I believe they have content that could have (should have) been released already, but they are waiting until the console release so they can sell those as DLCs. That is what smacks of Bait and Switch to me. They sold us a sub service and promised content at regular intervals. If the content is not ready (they're just being slow), then that is one thing. But I believe the content is ready and they are just not releasing it, which is the SWITCH part of the Bait and Switch.

Dishonest, immoral and (should be) illegal.

One point that was mentioned earlier is that ZOS may have shot itself in the foot.

How many people will PIRATE the next Elder Scrolls release because of this decision? How much revenue will this decision cost you down the road?

Iago

spryler wrote: »

As many have said, in a sub model you pay for the current content you are playing and for new content that they are developing.

My point is that I believe they have content that could have (should have) been released already, but they are waiting until the console release so they can sell those as DLCs. That is what smacks of Bait and Switch to me. They sold us a sub service and promised content at regular intervals. If the content is not ready (they're just being slow), then that is one thing. But I believe the content is ready and they are just not releasing it, which is the SWITCH part of the Bait and Switch.

Dishonest, immoral and (should be) illegal.

One point that was mentioned earlier is that ZOS may have shot itself in the foot.

How many people will PIRATE the next Elder Scrolls release because of this decision? How much revenue will this decision cost you down the road?

I'm with ya on that there have already been threads about all future ES games being F2P because of this fiasco

Dazin93

oren74 wrote: »

I ask this question...would you do it all again knowing what you know now?

I would...and you'd be lieing if you said you wouldn't

I've had fun with this game, and continue to have fun with this game. This article tells me nothing.

At no time was I promised anything above and beyond what was delivered. I played month by month and could have cancelled any time. I paid to play the game...if you paid to play a future game, than, it's your own fault.

Basically...I paid $15 in January, to play the game. And I was able to play the game.

Why are people so angry over this? Cancel and move on, or keep playing, it's your choice.

Being very honest here, I wouldn't have ever bought or played ESO if I knew then what I know now. I had never played a TES game game before and only bought ESO for the "massive" PvP experience that was purported to be one of the primary aspects of the game.

I don't enjoy pve and I don't enjoy leveling as for me it's been the same static experience regardless of which mmo for the last 15 years.

If you had asked me if I wanted to play a game that added zero content to pvp, constant bugs and lag/performance issues, months of not addressing balance breaking skills and abilities, and divestment of my sub fees into console and cash shop development, it would have been an emphatic no and that's putting it nicely.

That's without even discussing the experience tracking debacle, the destruction of certain builds and play styles in 1.6, and the host of new bugs and balance issues that will come with it.

That's great for you subscribing on a monthly basis, yet I'm sure I wasn't alone in subscribing for six months and that subscription was based from expectations created from ZOS' own statements regarding the direction and future of the game. Statements that proved to be false and that is why people are angry.

If you wish to have a flippant attitude, then I can be equally flippant and say if you enjoy the game so much why are you posting here instead of playing, move along. Not much of a point in that.

Aidantwab16_ESO

Given the success of Skyrim, I think ZOS genuinely thought they had a shot at staying subs based. I'm sure they planned everything out for the f2p model right away, as a ready backup. So I agree in that I'm sure they were aware of the system the OP just described (It seems a little obvious to me at any rate) however I don't think they had a master overarching goal of "We are going to screw over early buyers". F2P is like a safety net where they can settle comfortably when they miss their target of all-encompassing global success.

Jeremy

[

Aidantwab16_ESO wrote: »

Given the success of Skyrim, I think ZOS genuinely thought they had a shot at staying subs based. I'm sure they planned everything out for the f2p model right away, as a ready backup. So I agree in that I'm sure they were aware of the system the OP just described (It seems a little obvious to me at any rate) however I don't think they had a master overarching goal of "We are going to screw over early buyers". F2P is like a safety net where they can settle comfortably when they miss their target of all-encompassing global success.

I agree.

I'm not naïve and am aware corporations lie. But it would be particular brazen for the company to have spokesmen going around publically saying they had plans to keep the game on a subscription-based model when secretly it was already decided that they had plans to go F2P after milking the so-called high value consumers. Risky too - because that kind of information could be leaked and ruin the company's reputation with investors and consumers.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

@Aidantwab16_ESO‌ and @Jeremy‌
You guys are assuming that f2p/b2p is a safer state to be in and can work as a backup.
It actually isn't. Its only redeeming quality is that it creates a new wave of locust-like players that will spend quickly then disapear again.
But it's burning the candle by both ends.

The safest move is the susbcription model as it is the only one guaranteeing long term revenue. f2p/b2p mmos just lose money yearly and have to race time with trickier and trickier sales on the cash shop.

reften

Soulshine wrote: »

oren74 wrote: »

I ask this question...would you do it all again knowing what you know now?

I would...and you'd be lieing if you said you wouldn't

I've had fun with this game, and continue to have fun with this game. This article tells me nothing.

At no time was I promised anything above and beyond what was delivered. I played month by month and could have cancelled any time. I paid to play the game...if you paid to play a future game, than, it's your own fault.

Basically...I paid $15 in January, to play the game. And I was able to play the game.

Why are people so angry over this? Cancel and move on, or keep playing, it's your choice.

Just no for me thanks. I stated already in another thread around here about this particular issue that if I had known from the get go the game would be B2P, or if it had been advertised as such I would never had bought the game. I was willing to try ESO specifically for the IP and because it was a sub model. I do not like F2P models, or B2P either. Has nothing to do with "lieing."

You got what you bought. So you suddenly don't like it...so quit. How does your experience change from the last 10 months? You really would not have played this great game because in a year they would have a f2p option?

Soulshine

oren74 wrote: »

Soulshine wrote: »

oren74 wrote: »

I ask this question...would you do it all again knowing what you know now?

I would...and you'd be lieing if you said you wouldn't

I've had fun with this game, and continue to have fun with this game. This article tells me nothing.

At no time was I promised anything above and beyond what was delivered. I played month by month and could have cancelled any time. I paid to play the game...if you paid to play a future game, than, it's your own fault.

Basically...I paid $15 in January, to play the game. And I was able to play the game.

Why are people so angry over this? Cancel and move on, or keep playing, it's your choice.

Just no for me thanks. I stated already in another thread around here about this particular issue that if I had known from the get go the game would be B2P, or if it had been advertised as such I would never had bought the game. I was willing to try ESO specifically for the IP and because it was a sub model. I do not like F2P models, or B2P either. Has nothing to do with "lieing."

You got what you bought. So you suddenly don't like it...so quit. How does your experience change from the last 10 months? You really would not have played this great game because in a year they would have a f2p option?

You are making assumptions all over the place. We were discussing here the change of the business model to B2P not "suddenly" disliking the game itself because of it, which is a completly different thing and which I did not say anywhere.

I have been here since beta and subbed on 6-month-at-a-time basis. Like many here I am taking a wait and see approach to yet more game changes, pending what I see happening with the implementation into live of the CP system which I am engaged in testing on PTS at this time as are many other people here.

And I have already stated my views about your question quite clearly and they remain the same, I would not have bought the game if it had been advertised as B2P or if it had been a F2P game.

wraith808

JamilaRaj wrote: »

The thing is that difference between F2P and B2P, which sounds big, is in fact very small. B2P is just F2P where developer expects box sales and wants to make some cash out of it (ESO will likely drop box fee at some point in future as market will become saturated). Despite what is says on a tin (free in the former, free after initial payment in the latter case), neither is free by a long stretch.

Actually, it's quite large, and anyone who knows anything about marketing and selling a product would tell you the same.

The threshold from $0 spent to $anything spent is the most difficult threshold to get over. So F2P vs B2P is creating that threshold, and thus telling a lot about the aims of the company.

In f2p, they're going for the shotgun approach, which also means that you spend more per conversion. Downloads, marketing, etc... you think that's free? And do you think that they *really* want you to play for free indefinitely?

B2P is more honest, in that you have up front costs, and those are paid for in admission. You don't play the game unless you're willing to pay at least some measure to support it. It also reduces the appeal of the game to gold sellers to an extent. An initial investment cuts into their bottom line, and each account banned cuts even more.

So yes, there is quite a difference between b2p vs f2p.



Now, the above chart deals with app purchases, but even with apps, you have b2p vs f2p (couldn't find a similar chart for MMOs in the time I was willing to look, but it illustrates the point)

Pendrillion

Yet still we are here and test their work on PTS as their free QA Team which they should have payed with the salaries generated by the sales revenue. We really are a patient bunch.

I sometimes feel like a hypocrite... But I love the game and I don't want to loose the cool place where I can play with my girl, and meet decent people. It really is a conundrum.

Aidantwab16_ESO

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Aidantwab16_ESO‌ and @Jeremy‌
You guys are assuming that f2p/b2p is a safer state to be in and can work as a backup.
It actually isn't. Its only redeeming quality is that it creates a new wave of locust-like players that will spend quickly then disapear again.
But it's burning the candle by both ends.

The safest move is the susbcription model as it is the only one guaranteeing long term revenue. f2p/b2p mmos just lose money yearly and have to race time with trickier and trickier sales on the cash shop.

In it's most basic form, yes, subscriptions would guarantee long term revenue as long as people are paying them. Where subscriptions become risky I suspect, is that you need to generate larger amounts of content in order to keep subscribers paying for your game's upkeep(and profit). In order to generate enough content to keep subscribers paying, you need a larger Dev team.The cost of running a Subscription-based game is (I suspect) significantly higher than the cost of running a F2P/B2P game simply because you need to pay more people to keep subscribers actually subscribing.


Running a subscription model with a smaller team of employees, I think you'll find your players burning through content faster than you can generate it. People are not going to continuously pay subs for a game in which they've experienced all of the content, and are now grinding away at a near-endless system of minor account enhancements(Champion system). If the game is F2P/B2P however, the majority of subscribers who will stop subbing at this point, will still have enough incentive with the champion system to pop into the game once in a while to grind up another champion point or two, and this is where the cash shop comes into play. A smaller team of developers can kick out minor "enhancements" to the game, and without a subscription program keeping curious/on-the-fence players out, it reaches a much, much larger audience of potentially paying customers.


Now with this system, the devs still have a handful of subs from people that still feel like paying for the bonuses they offer. They also have many, many small transactions coming in from players who are no longer subscribed or curious players who would never have tried the game due to a daunting paywall. This is all done with a smaller team of employees to pay.


TL:DR
F2P may or may not generate as much money as subscriptions, but with a smaller Dev team to pay, it doesn't matter.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

oren74 wrote: »

Soulshine wrote: »

oren74 wrote: »

I ask this question...would you do it all again knowing what you know now?

I would...and you'd be lieing if you said you wouldn't

I've had fun with this game, and continue to have fun with this game. This article tells me nothing.

At no time was I promised anything above and beyond what was delivered. I played month by month and could have cancelled any time. I paid to play the game...if you paid to play a future game, than, it's your own fault.

Basically...I paid $15 in January, to play the game. And I was able to play the game.

Why are people so angry over this? Cancel and move on, or keep playing, it's your choice.

Just no for me thanks. I stated already in another thread around here about this particular issue that if I had known from the get go the game would be B2P, or if it had been advertised as such I would never had bought the game. I was willing to try ESO specifically for the IP and because it was a sub model. I do not like F2P models, or B2P either. Has nothing to do with "lieing."

You got what you bought. So you suddenly don't like it...so quit. How does your experience change from the last 10 months? You really would not have played this great game because in a year they would have a f2p option?

That's the point, we didn't get what we paid for.
We bought a game without a cash shop with functioning RvR and continuous improvement.
2 out of 3 were not delivered, and the third has already been anounced as "slowed down" and being focused on content rather than actual improvement.

b2p is f2p despite the entry cost because it has to operate like an f2p game.
Just look at gw2 and how they operate their cash shop with rng chests and whatever fancy f2p tactics they can implement without losing too much goodwill.
The box sales between b2p and susbcription are not that much different and over time, get closer to each other. sub just sells boxes slower. However, the b2p model only has the cash shop to generate revenue, and it will have to be ruthless if they want to compensate for the subscription.

b2p serves as a barrier of entry and is a great way to get more money from the intermediary group that is willing to pay for a box but not a subscription.
But it is just an intermediary step, eventually, they'll go for f2p to reach the money of people willing to pay for a couple DLCs but not a box.

Aidantwab16_ESO wrote: »

TL:DR
F2P may or may not generate as much money as subscriptions, but with a smaller Dev team to pay, it doesn't matter.

That's the interesting thing with subscription: content is not the most important thing to generate.
As the game thrives on having long term appeal, it needs to focus on replayability and dynamic content. It needs to be a true MMO with social hooks and player interactions.
While zones and new dungeons/trials are necessary, they are just the tools players will use to experience game mechanics.

Dynamic content like the PvP aspect of the justice system, the sandbox creation of spellcrafting and the exploration aspect of it enables the devs to reuse all the old zones with just minor additions to incorporate objectives related to those systems.
It will be the same for the theives guild and darkbrotherhood, just add targets and maybe a questline and that's it.
Those game systems essentially add tons of content with minimal effort, however they can't really be sold as DLCs. Hence why they are taking a backseat.

Or simply fixing and improving Cyrodill. It was marketed as the "end game", even the focus of every cinematic, yet since launch it has been mostly left untouched. Using Cyrodill for high end PvE content with the imperial city and fixing the campaing wining rules would go a long way to make the game sustainable for years. Add some intermediary objectives to change the "riding simulator" and voilà.
DAOC and its "Darkness Falls" dungeon are great examples of similar concept working. Or Eve online and its concept of low sec and high sec.
Deep and dynamic systems keep players engaged and paying.

Most of those things, unfortunately, can't be sold as DLCs and require actual designing work. Something interns left in charge of an f2p can't do properly.

Even if we were to ignore history and assume this "systems" approach doesn't work, just look how long ESO has survived without any new content. Just the hype of 1.6, update adding no new content, has more than doubled the active players (according to steam)
I've seen games remain susbcription for years without new content. Gamers are patient with good games with the proper social hooks. They'll continue playing and paying if they continue to have fun and perceive there isa future for their character.


And the susbcription model bringing in a lot more revenue than the f2p model means you can actually afford a larger team.
Having access to more players doesn't mean anything. If the game is bad, they won't pay. And with a smaller team dedicated to creating things that sell on the cash shop, the game does not become good. In most cases it gets worse and drives away even the hardcores. At best it stagnates and just slowly decend into anonymity.

TL;DR: Yes it matters. f2p games are condemned to have small teams and bad prioritization. They don't grow neither content, quality or player wise.
A susbcription allows a game to pay for a team large enough to create both content and mechanics improvement. It doesn't guarantee the devs will do a proper job, but it is the only model that is designed to let them try.

Spiritreaver_ESO

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

That was a very interesting article. I was familiar with the concept of IPD, but being a lowly sci-major in school i never knew that it was called that or that it even had an actual name. Looking back at ESO's short but interesting history(and the almost unmistakeable hand of Bethesda in the mix), i could see the article's author's theory being more than just theory.

All in all a good read. Thanks for sharing OP.

Jeremy

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Aidantwab16_ESO‌ and @Jeremy‌
You guys are assuming that f2p/b2p is a safer state to be in and can work as a backup.
It actually isn't. Its only redeeming quality is that it creates a new wave of locust-like players that will spend quickly then disapear again.
But it's burning the candle by both ends.

The safest move is the susbcription model as it is the only one guaranteeing long term revenue. f2p/b2p mmos just lose money yearly and have to race time with trickier and trickier sales on the cash shop.

I didn't assume that.

My post disagreed with the idea that it was planned all along to go B2P and the subscription model was just an initial and planned phase to milk high-value consumers.

I agree with you that a subscription-based model is more stable.

Aidantwab16_ESO

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

TL;DR: Yes it matters. f2p games are condemned to have small teams and bad prioritization. They don't grow neither content, quality or player wise.
A susbcription allows a game to pay for a team large enough to create both content and mechanics improvement. It doesn't guarantee the devs will do a proper job, but it is the only model that is designed to let them try.

Ah, I am simply coming from a profit point of view, I completely agree that f2p is not a system built for making and sustaining fun or good games. It is however a good system for making a profit, the last mmo type game I played that started out subscription based, I thought was quite fun and had enormous potential. It needed improvement right out of the gate, and was on it's way in that direction, but the subscriptions were not enough to keep it afloat and the whole company folded. It was picked up by another company who turned it F2P, brought on a handful of the people who originally worked on the game and promptly ran it into the ground, turning it (from a gameplay/atmosphere standpoint) into a farce of what it was originally intended to be. It's still making enough money to turn a profit though, I stopped playing it a long long time ago, but I still pop onto the website occasionally to see what new mystery-box-only weapon people are gambling to get.


P.S. While I only quoted the "TL:DR" I did actually read your whole post, and again, I think you have very good points.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

@Jeremy‌
Maybe not from the start, but for at least several months.
With evidences: the delaying of zones to become DLCs, the recall of old packaging boxes from brick and mortar retailers and the removal of long term subscriptions.
I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, maybe they were honest at launch, but in this case the cash shop was put into place way faster than the usual ZOS velocity.

@Aidantwab16_ESO‌
I'm talking profit too. Subscription MMO not only have more revenue but more profit too.
If you take ZOS as an example, it is of similar sized than funcom and has at the very least double the revenue with only one game.
Here's another post explaining why I say that:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/148940/1-6-looks-great-forget-about-b2p-f2p/p1

The only point where f2p/b2p wins out is the few months after the switch where the new wave of players is still fresh. But after that it goes back to normal or worse activity, and obviously worse revenue.

(quoting just a smal part makes it easy to not flood the forums too much for other readers.)

MrGhosty

I think anyone who has followed the state of the overall games industry understands that many sub based MMOs will transition to B2P or F2P usually in the first year or two. To be perfectly honest I'm okay with that, it's a business at the end of the day and if doing it as they do brings a game I continue enjoying then all is well.

What isn't okay in my eyes is how it feels like those of us who stayed subbed are being pushed to the side without even so much as a thanks. Their conversion would not have been possible without us subbing for that year of time and it feels that now we have fulfilled our purpose they aren't interested in honoring what we did. Yes, we got to play the game but they specifically sold this subscription as future value which it is becoming for everyone who held off not buying the game or paying the sub fee who now get to come back and experience the entire game's content while those of us who stuck with it are left with very little meaningful progress.

I'm not blind, I always assumed this change was coming but I don't tend to continue supporting a company that insults me by saying it was my idea all along and then offers nothing of merit or value as a way to say thanks. They're not in the wrong for making the business switch but they are in the wrong for how badly they're handling it and treating the current player base.\

Just to be clear I'm not demanding the moon and stars as compensation or anything silly like that, just something that recognizes the current subs devotion to the game. From my personal viewpoint they have until the official hand over to satisfy that or I won't sub any longer. It isn't a tantrum, but there just isn't any value being provided for early adopters which has always been the saving grace for many of these monetizing efforts, they look after those who enabled them to reach their goals.

JamilaRaj

Grunge wrote: »

There are f2p games that you can play it without spending a dime, you have to have a lot of free time though (and patience).

Sure, you can, but...I gave example with internet connection. Suppose you pay ISP once and are then connected for free. Unless you want to play games (and need low latency) or download movie (and don't want to be cut off or throttled after first 1GB) or simply want to do something else, other than visit Facebook (I have actually seen an ISP company offering this bizarre tariff marketed as internet connection). While there may people aware of more or less obsucred catches and still okay with it, because they have niche needs, it's still scam aimed at the rest, not aware and with different needs. These are buying more of a disconnection and definitely not for free.
It's no different with F2P. You are given a game for free or cost of a box, but the game is severely crippled unless you pay. Ironically, it remains crippled even if you pay, because focus is on cash shop, not fun.

Grunge wrote: »

GW2 is a good example that a b2p game is not necessarily focused in the cash shop, or dont have new content, or is not a "full game".

I won't argue you are wrong, because I did not play it. I only took a glimpse at GW2 cash shop stuff and my gut feeling is that you are wrong.

Grunge wrote: »

P2P games seems nice and fair, but the cost to the consumer after a year is average $180. Imho, its not fair for customers, at all.

What are you referring to? Unless you made stupid mistake and preordered a game you know nothing about and paid year long sub in advance, you can ragequit a game that sucks before it costs you that much.
Also, at least you know how much it is going to cost you. You can sink $180 in a F2P game only to realize you would have to sink $1800 to e.g. be remotely competitive in PvP. But nevermind PvP, there are games where you have to pay $$ to rent (!) inventory space.

wraith808 wrote: »

It also reduces the appeal of the game to gold sellers to an extent. An initial investment cuts into their bottom line, and each account banned cuts even more.

What reduces appeal to gold sellers is presence of cash shop, because while in P2P game players would have to turn to shady figures to buy gold/whatever, in cash shop based game (and it does not matter if it charges fee for a box/download or not) players can purchase directly in game from company operating given game. Even with relatively timid cash shop as ESO's (as of now), purchase of a horse in cash shop equates to pruchase of 17,000 gold (if not more), though I'll readily admit that Zenimax's integrity was compromised right from the start, because they had imperial horse before cash shop.

So here we are. What was once despised by players and punished by companies, has since been embraced by players and companies as well, curruption has become pillar of gameplay and business. There are people that seek F2P games precisely because they are in fact P2W games; these people feel entitled to advantages and want them for sale.
Which reminds me that ZOS should add paper bags to cash shop. That would be huge success. I'd buy them, so I could, every time I look into cash shop, puke into paper bag instead of on keyboard.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

@MrGhosty‌
Except that this change has nothing to do with keep on providing a game you enjoy. It actually results in the opposite.
It does give a quick burst of cash as a new crowd joins the game and spend a bit, but then it fizzles out. That's how all those switches went for every other game. That's how that business model is designed. Gain quickly then let the game be handled by interns while you pursue other ventures.

They obviously don't care about the long term, neither revenue wise nor reputation wise, because I don't think that ZOS as a company will release any other games.
It was made very clear since the start that ZOS is not Bethesda, that ZOS is shady will not impact the TES franchise aside perhaps a few hardcores.

There will be no compensation ,and probably no apologies.

The best we can hope is in a few years, a post mortem will be made about the game where someone like Paul Sage or Matt Firror will explain "what they did wrong". It will serve as a mea culpa for them in order to get traction on their next project and pin this whole ESO mess on higher ups or their inexperience in the MMO market.

firstdecan

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Aidantwab16_ESO‌ and @Jeremy‌
You guys are assuming that f2p/b2p is a safer state to be in and can work as a backup.
It actually isn't. Its only redeeming quality is that it creates a new wave of locust-like players that will spend quickly then disapear again.
But it's burning the candle by both ends.

The safest move is the susbcription model as it is the only one guaranteeing long term revenue. f2p/b2p mmos just lose money yearly and have to race time with trickier and trickier sales on the cash shop.

Zeni isn't interested in long term revenue. They just want to cash out. One of two things happened.

1 - Active players are dropping or not at the numbers they expected. They determined that the quick cash they'll get from going B2P for a bit will be better than continuing the sub model. This is an attempt to make the game profitable, and the path for sunsetting this product has already been laid.

2 - This was part of the plan all along, and part of what was described earlier in the thread as "Intertemporal Price Discrinimation." This is basically a euphemism for gouging their fan base by charging them high fees up front, and then continually reducing the price for the same product until there's no more blood to squeeze from that stone. It's basically something you do when you want to poison the fan base and destroy an IP.

It doesn't really matter though. In 1-3 years, there will be another "reboot" of the game, probably coming as a separate product that will start off (again) as a sub based game. They will have a new creative director, issue some cruddy "mea culpa" to their fan base, and then repeat the same behavior all over again.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

firstdecan wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Aidantwab16_ESO‌ and @Jeremy‌
You guys are assuming that f2p/b2p is a safer state to be in and can work as a backup.
It actually isn't. Its only redeeming quality is that it creates a new wave of locust-like players that will spend quickly then disapear again.
But it's burning the candle by both ends.

The safest move is the susbcription model as it is the only one guaranteeing long term revenue. f2p/b2p mmos just lose money yearly and have to race time with trickier and trickier sales on the cash shop.

Zeni isn't interested in long term revenue. They just want to cash out. One of two things happened.

1 - Active players are dropping or not at the numbers they expected. They determined that the quick cash they'll get from going B2P for a bit will be better than continuing the sub model. This is an attempt to make the game profitable, and the path for sunsetting this product has already been laid.

2 - This was part of the plan all along, and part of what was described earlier in the thread as "Intertemporal Price Discrinimation." This is basically a euphemism for gouging their fan base by charging them high fees up front, and then continually reducing the price for the same product until there's no more blood to squeeze from that stone. It's basically something you do when you want to poison the fan base and destroy an IP.

It doesn't really matter though. In 1-3 years, there will be another "reboot" of the game, probably coming as a separate product that will start off (again) as a sub based game. They will have a new creative director, issue some cruddy "mea culpa" to their fan base, and then repeat the same behavior all over again.

Either way, they are wrong.
Nothing is more valuable than a cash cow, and ZOS just killed the veal.