Did you honestly believe ESO would not go b2p before console launch?

Elsonso

@eventide03b14a_ESO‌

I quoted you and replied because that would have surprised me. Mostly due to your predicted timing and the fact that you said "F2P".

They announced a Premium B2P at a Console Announcement in the last half of January. This was the highest probability outcome, venue, and time frame.

I was not willing to discuss any business model rumors that I considered true, however, I had no qualms about shooting down any rumors I felt were not strictly true.

I decided in early January to not feed the hysteria, mostly because any business model change would be fait accompli, so why fret about it. I tried to hide it, but looking back it was pretty clear I was thinking B2P plus subscription before mid year, even as I appeared to say otherwise.

I can see from your comment history that you are still angry. I am much more calm about it now than I was 2 weeks ago. It was very hard to hold my counsel.

So, I am well beyond raging and blaming. I accepted the change before they even announced it, so all confirmation did was make me sad. Now I am free to discuss what this all means and how to proceed.

LionheartRichard

I'm honestly amazed that this many people didn't see the removal of subs coming. It's not exactly the first mmo for this to happen to. I knew this day was coming the day they announced the subscription plan.

technohic

I wouldn't say it was obvious. I kind of thought it would and just earlier this week, I kind of speculated about the loss of subs the game had and was thinking to myself how this game might do it; but someone kind of pointed me in the direction here that showed some data that this game had recovered sometime late last summer and into fall.

I even saw an article talking about ESOs success kind of laughing in the face of people who thing pay to play is dead. So in a way; I kind of felt like it would, but had my doubts at the same time.

eventide03b14a_ESO

lordrichter wrote: »

@eventide03b14a_ESO‌

I quoted you and replied because that would have surprised me. Mostly due to your predicted timing and the fact that you said "F2P".

They announced a Premium B2P at a Console Announcement in the last half of January. This was the highest probability outcome, venue, and time frame.

I was not willing to discuss any business model rumors that I considered true, however, I had no qualms about shooting down any rumors I felt were not strictly true.

I decided in early January to not feed the hysteria, mostly because any business model change would be fait accompli, so why fret about it. I tried to hide it, but looking back it was pretty clear I was thinking B2P plus subscription before mid year, even as I appeared to say otherwise.

I can see from our comment history that you are still angry. I am much more calm about it now than I was 2 weeks ago. It was very hard to hold my counsel.

So, I am well beyond raging and blaming. I accepted the change before they even announced it, so all confirmation did was make me sad. Now I am free to discuss what this all means and how to proceed.

I hope you didn't take it as an insult. I just think it's funny that my post got 10 LOL's like it was the craziest thing people heard, only to find out that it was in fact 100% true two days later. I really don't see how at this point this game can be successful. At the very least I just don't see how it in any way resembles an Elder Scrolls game. Sure on the surface it has the lore and some of the controls, but it's not going to take most people very long to see it's really just like every other MMO, except not the ways that are good. Here's an example:

Ways that it should be like an MMO:
UI Menus-Sorting, character information, chat features, etc.
Integrated voice chat.
Functional LFG system.
Large scale end game content-Raids.

Ways it should be more like a single player TES game:
No block casting.
No animation cancelling.
Substantial penalty to defense while wearing only cloth armor.
Better stealth mechanics.
More immersive world.
Sandbox.

grimjim398

heroofnoneb14_ESO wrote: »

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

heroofnoneb14_ESO wrote: »

I suspected something like this would happen due to one company alone: Microsoft.

The X-Box console has never allowed an online game to skip out of their gold membership, at least to my knowledge. This means that folks would have to pay for gold membership as well as the sub fee.

With Sony, if they made ESO an exclusive title like FF14 did, the may have gotten away with no online fee in addition to subscription, but being cross platform means Sony is going to want it's due, and are not going to let Microsoft get the more profitable deal.

So, at the point you know that there is going to be a 15 dollar a month charge on either before your subscription fee, how can you get people to sign up and make a profit? A B2P model is one of the few viable options.

This is coming to us on PC first though due to "fairness", they don't want to lose more players because the console is getting a different model than us. I feel the announcement was a bit rushed, but hearing the console date at the same time makes me feel the two were connected.

Don't blame Microsoft for ESO's bad decisions.

Blame is a strong word, but ZOS is absolutely dancing to the tune of what Microsoft would offer. It was ZOS's choice to offer ESO on all consoles and to go with the B2P model, but those choices are largely colored by the restrictions Microsoft places on its online access.

The galling part of this is that ZOS had to have known this from the beginning and still carried on this charade. This means all the naysayers and skeptics who've been criticizing ZOS from the beginning were right. I thought I was too old to be this naive. Oh well, live and learn.

HeroOfNone

grimjim398 wrote: »

heroofnoneb14_ESO wrote: »

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

heroofnoneb14_ESO wrote: »

I suspected something like this would happen due to one company alone: Microsoft.

The X-Box console has never allowed an online game to skip out of their gold membership, at least to my knowledge. This means that folks would have to pay for gold membership as well as the sub fee.

With Sony, if they made ESO an exclusive title like FF14 did, the may have gotten away with no online fee in addition to subscription, but being cross platform means Sony is going to want it's due, and are not going to let Microsoft get the more profitable deal.

So, at the point you know that there is going to be a 15 dollar a month charge on either before your subscription fee, how can you get people to sign up and make a profit? A B2P model is one of the few viable options.

This is coming to us on PC first though due to "fairness", they don't want to lose more players because the console is getting a different model than us. I feel the announcement was a bit rushed, but hearing the console date at the same time makes me feel the two were connected.

Don't blame Microsoft for ESO's bad decisions.

Blame is a strong word, but ZOS is absolutely dancing to the tune of what Microsoft would offer. It was ZOS's choice to offer ESO on all consoles and to go with the B2P model, but those choices are largely colored by the restrictions Microsoft places on its online access.

The galling part of this is that ZOS had to have known this from the beginning and still carried on this charade. This means all the naysayers and skeptics who've been criticizing ZOS from the beginning were right. I thought I was too old to be this naive. Oh well, live and learn.

If you believe that, but what 'beginning' are you talking about? Back when they first launched? Sometime later when they were removing subs? As I said if they were trying to negotiate no sub fees then it would have been detrimental to let us know what that plan was. This feels like a plan B move, it's not what they would prefer but something forced into.

I wouldn't doubt they had a plan for different payment models for a while though. They have had a lot of critics calling out to them that they would go F2P since launch, so doing it as a derogatory remark or because folks said they didn't want to pay a monthly subscription.

Don't let your dislike for the announcement give you paranoia that they've been out to bill your money the entire time though. There would have been much easier ways to do that up till now.

ebunts14_ESO

I had actually thought that Zenimax might be the company you could believe in. Yet they chose the same road of deceit and lies that Blizzard, EA and every other company had taken.

Now if DLC's are released every 3 to 4 months, and costs $15, you be a sucker to stay subscribed. Here's why, subscription for 4 months = $60. Unsub and play for free for 4 months and purchase the DLC = $15. The bonuses you get for staying sub is not going to be worth it.

Shinozuka

I kinda figured the Consolers would get B2P

Blud

Just after this game launched, I looted or received as a quest reward what I believed was a placeholder xp potion. With hindsight, I can see that b2p or f2p was planned from that time. Also, having the Palomino mount was the initial set up of the cash shop.

Here is what I wrote back in May of June of last year:

XP Potion Placeholder for future CS? I got this item as a quest reward. Tonic of Accelerated Time. When I got it, the name sounded like something that might give an xp boost. I couldn't use it. Here is a thread in the official forum. http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/82790/tonic-of-accelerated-time

I didn't see why it would be necessary to get through the level 1-50 content, but after reaching VR 1, I can now see that a lot of people would be interested in this type of potion because of the game design making the VR levels much harder to get through.

Someone else posted in these forums at that time:

forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/82790/tonic-of-accelerated-time

This makes me think there was some amount of deception. What else could a tonic of accelerated time have been?

Romo

Despite the conspiracy theories, and dim view of ZOS by many, I didn't "know" B2P was a done deal from the beginning.

I always thought B2P or F2P were a "possibility".

Add to the mix it appeared ZOS was negotiating with the Console Crowd to get TESO on the Consoles with no need for the Console fee, or a much reduced fee. Then P2P for Consoles and PCs would be possible.

Alas it was not to be, so we are stuck with B2P, a tad better than F2P, but not much.

Funny thing is, if they had pulled it off, and the console sales had reach the old solo game numbers.. what a coup!

Nazon_Katts

Blud wrote: »

Just after this game launched, I looted or received as a quest reward what I believed was a placeholder xp potion. With hindsight, I can see that b2p or f2p was planned from that time. Also, having the Palomino mount was the initial set up of the cash shop.

Here is what I wrote back in May of June of last year:

XP Potion Placeholder for future CS? I got this item as a quest reward. Tonic of Accelerated Time. When I got it, the name sounded like something that might give an xp boost. I couldn't use it. Here is a thread in the official forum. http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/82790/tonic-of-accelerated-time

I didn't see why it would be necessary to get through the level 1-50 content, but after reaching VR 1, I can now see that a lot of people would be interested in this type of potion because of the game design making the VR levels much harder to get through.

Someone else posted in these forums at that time:

forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/82790/tonic-of-accelerated-time

This makes me think there was some amount of deception. What else could a tonic of accelerated time have been?

It was built in right from the start. They knew they were entering a glutted and limited market, so being prepared speaks for them, actually.

Here's my thoughts from back in April last year:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/comment/682354#Comment_682354

Nazon_Katts wrote: »

If you take a close look at soul gems, enchantments and the revive mechanic, at transportation costs, including horses, at inventory and bank management, you can already see a groundwork lending itself quite easily towards a F2P model. IF they change from P2P it's gonna be a freemium model and I'm certain - at least in the beginning - we won't even notice much of a difference. That one thing, they got right.

Wasn't sure nor bold enough for WHEN back then, however.

Blud

Brianna Royce at Massively says:

"...it's impossible at this point not to believe that studios like ZeniMax did not have this planned from the beginning (well, maybe everything but the outrageously long console delay, which will have cost it so very much money). I'm annoyed by the suspicion that ESO wasn't just sticking to subs out of principle but was probably plotting from the start to milk PC subscribers, stringing them along with minimal updates until the console launch."

massively.joystiq.com/2015/01/22/the-think-tank-analyzing-elder-scrolls-onlines-b2p-model/#

Nivzruo_ESO

Honestly I thought it would be worse, as in straight up f2p.. it will still go f2p thou just only after they've gotten a good amount of console players to buy it.

HeroOfNone

Folks can complain that ZOS doesn't listen, but seeing articles like that with critics saying "you should go subscription based, no pay shops" before launch, and then articles after "sub being a bad idea before launch.", sounds a lot like they may be listening to some people, just maybe not what seems to be the minority now.