I don't get the change to b2p hubub

BlueIllyrian

You don't drop a frog into the boiling water, it jumps out. You drop it into a lukewarm water and then you slowly increase the temperature to the boiling point thus cooking the frog.

SFBryan18

You people talk as though they won't make at least $50 - $100 million in profits from console sales. All this speculation on what they will need to make money and keep the game running is ridiculous.

BlueIllyrian

SFBryan18 wrote: »

You people talk as though they won't make at least $50 - $100 million in profits from console sales. All this speculation on what they will need to make money and keep the game running is ridiculous.

$50 - $100 mil?

Maybe in Mr. Firor's wet dream he'll get 1 million console players, portion of which (say 25%) would stay and pay.

If market was there and significant, I suspect EA or Blizzard or some other developer would already swoop in.

asteldian

Bloodfang wrote: »

.

asteldian wrote: »

You are forgetting the key element of consoles. Yes, currently they make $180 a year per person, but in reality there are likely only 300k subs by now. That is $54M a year.
By going B2P they really open up the console market. 11M+ played skyrim, I find it hard to believe none of them will try ESO. Lets say just 2M buy and stick with the game. At $50 a box that is $100M initial sales. Almost double an entire year of current rate.
Lets assume PC numbers go to 500k due to no more sub and assume no one subs.
Total population 2.5M. Lets say 3 DLC a year (a more seensible rate than last year which was too fast). Lets sell them at just $15 each.
$25M per DLC. $117M a year.
That is already over twice the amount more a year with new model and assumes a cheap DLC and very small % of console skyrim players.
That is before you even consider the cash shop which at this point only needs to sell fluff as it is not the primary money maker.
In summary, whether or not B2P ruins the game is all down to console success.

Skyrim was sold to:

~18mil players on Consoles
~3mil players on PC

Even better. That means the 2M figure should be on the very low side of uptake,that means money from a few DLCs each year alone will dwarf the meager profits made from current subs. So, again, if the console release is a success (technically only 2M buying it would not be a success, but financially compared to now it would) then yearly in take from DLC will be far higher than current income and therefore there would be no need for heavy dependance on cash shop.
That also does not take into account the disgusting amount of money box sales could make if the game were to be a big hit on console

RSram

If both Facemace and Asteldian assumptions hold true then there really is no point to having a subscription.

SFBryan18

BlueIllyrian wrote: »

SFBryan18 wrote: »

You people talk as though they won't make at least $50 - $100 million in profits from console sales. All this speculation on what they will need to make money and keep the game running is ridiculous.

$50 - $100 mil?

Maybe in Mr. Firor's wet dream he'll get 1 million console players, portion of which (say 25%) would stay and pay.

If market was there and significant, I suspect EA or Blizzard or some other developer would already swoop in.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/

Take a look at how many copies of Skyrim sold, and what the percentage was from consoles. You underestimate this franchise.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

@Flynch‌

History suggests that your conditions will not be maintained and the question is not "if" but "when" things will go south.

asteldian wrote: »

You are forgetting the key element of consoles. Yes, currently they make $180 a year per person, but in reality there are likely only 300k subs by now. That is $54M a year.
By going B2P they really open up the console market. 11M+ played skyrim, I find it hard to believe none of them will try ESO. Lets say just 2M buy and stick with the game. At $50 a box that is $100M initial sales. Almost double an entire year of current rate.
Lets assume PC numbers go to 500k due to no more sub and assume no one subs.
Total population 2.5M. Lets say 3 DLC a year (a more seensible rate than last year which was too fast). Lets sell them at just $15 each.
$25M per DLC. $117M a year.
That is already over twice the amount more a year with new model and assumes a cheap DLC and very small % of console skyrim players.
That is before you even consider the cash shop which at this point only needs to sell fluff as it is not the primary money maker.
In summary, whether or not B2P ruins the game is all down to console success.

For one year.

The franchise is strong, but the game has bad reputation and console players that already own Skyrim do not need a second version of it.
Even if we were overly generous and gave 3M sales for the b2p version of the game accross all platforms, that is only 180million.
There is no guaranteed retention of players. Gamers are especially fickle and jump on all shiny things. We'd be lucky to even keep 20% of those new players for more than 4 months.
Are 600k more freeloaders really interesting for a business?

Keep in mind, only 2.2% of all players ever spend in a cash shop, and not much money. 46% of all revenue of cash shops come from whales that represent only 0.22% of the playerbase.

On the other hand, you have the subscription model.
As you said, last we know, the game had 772k susbcribers in July. At worst, it has 300k subscribers now which represents 54M per year of steady income.

But we also know that the game can achieve 800k subscribers.
The game can only go up and if we look at steam stats, it has been going up since more 1.6 info was being released.
With 1.6, the 6 shown DLC introduced as normal content, 1.7, the Imperial City and PvP aspect of the justice system, the game could have easily reached 500k subscribers by the end of the year. With the spell crafting system coming early next year, it would keep growing.

In short, what you're saying is that a one time sale bringing180M is more interesting than making over100M a year for years to come?

Look at Eve Online. It expanded a tiny niche into becoming part of the top 10 most financialy succesful game. It gained more subscribers every year for over a decade.
That's what ESO should emulate, except that ESO isn't working with a small niche and no resources. ESO is working with one of the strongest IP in gaming, expanding in the fantasy themepark genre and has a lot of resources.

SFBryan18

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

The franchise is strong, but the game has bad reputation and console players that already own Skyrim do not need a second version of it.

And they won't be getting a second version of it since Skyrim was on last gen consoles and next gen consoles don't have a TES game yet. In fact, the new consoles have a really terrible selection of games right now which can only help ESO sales.

Septimus_Magna

The comparison between console en PC is not really fair in the case of Skyrim. Its hard to get a illegal version for console but its very easy for PC. So probably more people played on PC but you dont see it in the sales figures.

BlueIllyrian

SFBryan18 wrote: »

BlueIllyrian wrote: »

SFBryan18 wrote: »

You people talk as though they won't make at least $50 - $100 million in profits from console sales. All this speculation on what they will need to make money and keep the game running is ridiculous.

$50 - $100 mil?

Maybe in Mr. Firor's wet dream he'll get 1 million console players, portion of which (say 25%) would stay and pay.

If market was there and significant, I suspect EA or Blizzard or some other developer would already swoop in.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/

Take a look at how many copies of Skyrim sold, and what the percentage was from consoles. You underestimate this franchise.

You are assuming that those who played Skyrim would want to play ESO, Skyrim was released in 2011 and has a huge modding community.

You are also assuming nothing changed from 2013.

You also disregard competition and overvalue console community.

If ESO sold 3.5 million copies in first 48 hours like Skyrim it would have no problems whatsoever.

IP draw is iffy as people know full well that ESO isn't Skyrim.

And further more you are comparing multiplayer apples to singleplayer oranges.

Khivas_Carrick

grimjim398 wrote: »

stewhead2ub17_ESO wrote: »

I really don't understand all the moaning and blustering. I plan on continuing to sub. I will be no worse off after the transition (actually I'll be a little better with the rewards). Contrary to what many confused individuals think, the game is not going ftp, though that wouldn't affect me either. I pay for what I enjoy. If it's not fun anymore than I move on. Good luck all

What you really mean is you don't agree that people should be upset about it because they should only be upset about things when you are upset about them, too. I also pay for what I enjoy and I am moving on, as soon as my subscription expires in 12 more days and after I delete the rest of my characters. Good luck to you, too. Try to avoid the dim side of the Force.

Can I have your gold and mats?

cesmode

I agree with the OP. Game stays the same after the change. If you stay subbed the only difference is you GET stuff that non-subbers don't get.

The only thing I see veterans being upset about is the 100 crowns per month for the last year or so. Sure, its a bit underwhelming. Theres still time for Zeni to adjust it a bit, but still, its not the end of the world.

Everyone needs to relax. Same game, same fun, new additions, more rewards for subs. People should be cheering not crying.

Stonesthrow

grimjim398 wrote: »

stewhead2ub17_ESO wrote: »

I really don't understand all the moaning and blustering. I plan on continuing to sub. I will be no worse off after the transition (actually I'll be a little better with the rewards). Contrary to what many confused individuals think, the game is not going ftp, though that wouldn't affect me either. I pay for what I enjoy. If it's not fun anymore than I move on. Good luck all

What you really mean is you don't agree that people should be upset about it because they should only be upset about things when you are upset about them, too. I also pay for what I enjoy and I am moving on, as soon as my subscription expires in 12 more days and after I delete the rest of my characters. Good luck to you, too. Try to avoid the dim side of the Force.

You keep talking about using your remaining game time for deleting your characters in every thread you post in… are you doing something special to them first?

12 days is like… serial-killer long for dispatching 8 peeps.

Just curious.

Otherwise, agree with the OP. Stay or go, everyone gets there opinion, whatever makes you happy either way.

Khivas_Carrick

Seriously still think this game will be fine.

reften

The key is this.

If I've been playing since release, and continue playing, will it be impossible for me to buy everything I want without paying more?

i.e. Lets say between launch and 6 months later I get a total of 10,000 crowns.

And lets say a guar mount is 8000 crowns...and a cool costume I'd like to have is 15,000 crowns.

so, in order to acquire items I want, I can't farm, I can quest, I can't just play a lot...I have to PAY MORE MONEY.

so after playing for a year and a half, paying $330, I can't acquire items I want, without paying more money.

If that is the case, then I will be very disappointed. BUT if my crowns, as a lifetime player, are enough to buy 2-3 new mounts, 2-3 new costumes...maybe some gems, I'll be happy.

BlueIllyrian

Khivas_Carrick wrote: »

Seriously still think this game will be fine.

It will be alive, fine is a matter of perspective, some will say Star Trek Online is just fine.

Khivas_Carrick

Whatever floats your boat baby.

Morshire

RSram wrote: »

So here's my conclusion:

1) The frequency of new DLC content will determine whether it is viable to continue a subscription. I'm currently spending $180 a year to play ESO so if the cost per year in buying DLC content is less the $180, then it makes no sense to continue a subscription. Do the math!

2) I doubt that the developers could create more than one DLC every three months. If I am right then that's four DLC's per year. This would mean ZOS would have to charge above $45 dollars per DLC content to make it worthwhile to keep a subscription. That's close to the $60 box price of the game. If the DLC content sells for $15 to $20 as some have suggested than they will start losing subscription IMO.

3) So when ZOS starts to lose subscriptions, they will need to sell items in the cash shop, that every player wants that is B2W items, to make money in between the DLC releases.

So I know that this has been discussed, but I grabbed the original post (I think) to make a point. Yes, what the above says is true, but what no one has mentioned, LOTRO fell to the point of not "needing" the subs and it being cheaper to buy the DLC unless you want to PVP. You cannot go to the Moors without a sub. So that is how they can justify keeping subs if they cannot deliver DLC fast enough. There are plenty of ways to do this at the beginning (not sure if LOTRO still requires the VIP "sub" for PVP, been a minute since I logged last), the question is how much will they hide behind the "paywall" as some have pointed out? I am not saying they will do this, I am saying that ZOS "needs" to make a profit. And sure, they may have some DLC in the wings waiting for this and they will be able to deliver, for a time, on the new content. But eventually, their time line seems too ambitious, IMO to maintain, and then they will.....

That is the part of the speculation that is driving these threads. Uncertainty sucks fat monkey balllllzzzz. Uncertainty leads to feeling helpless to change the direction, past experience fuels said uncertainty, and helplessness leads to anger. I get it. I am not beating the drums for ZOS right now. I am even feeling as some of you do. I had so many high hopes for this game. And when my "friends" complained about the $15 subs, I told them suck it up. All of them bought it (Happy to support ESO there) but quit after the "free" month. Now they are ecstatic, I eat crow, they will come back and play. But to be honest, I am disappointed. That same mentality of not wanting to pay $15 a month will lead to ZOS trying other ways to get their $$$$. I smell a squeeze coming, and I hate hugs.

Tapio75

Because no matter if we continue to sub or not, game will be developed with different goals from that point onwards.

Other games have shown that developing things to sell is always more important than giving players a good game. Even bug fixes are going to take even longer.. Not to mention visual bugs that most likely will now never be fixed

Tapio75

Darlantan wrote: »

Wizzo91 wrote: »

You people still don't get it, do you?

At initial release the system seems fair and not p2w. But wait 6-12 months, after most box sales and when they notice that revenue is not high enough? They will slowly start adding more and more p2w items.

In the last months you should of noticed that zos was never honest with us, B2P was in the planning for AT LEAST 3 months. Maybe even since release. They clearly lied to us multiple times. So why trust them on the Cashshop? They will tell you now, it won't be p2w so they can milk you until it changes.

The next point is, that content will come a lot slower. Why do you think 1.6 was so late? Because of the new model and the development for REAL content will continue to slow down, because of the focus on the cashshop.

I just hope most players will not buy EXTRA crowns. Just stay subscribed, spend your crowns and be done with the casshop. If people start dumping money into the cashshop they will start adding more and more bs.

People where saying the same thing for lots of game like STO and it's still there after 4 years. Neverwinter is still there and expanding to the x-box...

In fact when UO came out people say the game would be dead in a few month.... That was 17 years ago.

And STO for example, is now pure pay to win game with all the best ships in the store... In fact all the new ships since f2p announcement have been shop ships that you need real money to buy.. Or numerous moths of subscription. Those ships also have unique consoles that make them even more powerful, consoles that can not be bought from anywhere else.

grimjim398

cesmode wrote: »

I agree with the OP. Game stays the same after the change. If you stay subbed the only difference is you GET stuff that non-subbers don't get.

The only thing I see veterans being upset about is the 100 crowns per month for the last year or so. Sure, its a bit underwhelming. Theres still time for Zeni to adjust it a bit, but still, its not the end of the world.

Everyone needs to relax. Same game, same fun, new additions, more rewards for subs. People should be cheering not crying.

Funny thing though, lots are not cheering. So apparently many people don't agree with this thinking at all. As for relaxing, I'm just fine with this game going in another direction but I have no intention of going with it. I just don't intend to leave quietly.

stewhead2ub17_ESO

Tapio75 wrote: »

Because no matter if we continue to sub or not, game will be developed with different goals from that point onwards.

Other games have shown that developing things to sell is always more important than giving players a good game. Even bug fixes are going to take even longer.. Not to mention visual bugs that most likely will now never be fixed

Sorry but I just think this is pure speculation on your part. It's in any company's best interest to provide a good game/experience. For this game and whatever titles they plan in the future.

grimjim398

oren74 wrote: »

The key is this.

If I've been playing since release, and continue playing, will it be impossible for me to buy everything I want without paying more?

i.e. Lets say between launch and 6 months later I get a total of 10,000 crowns.

And lets say a guar mount is 8000 crowns...and a cool costume I'd like to have is 15,000 crowns.

so, in order to acquire items I want, I can't farm, I can quest, I can't just play a lot...I have to PAY MORE MONEY.

so after playing for a year and a half, paying $330, I can't acquire items I want, without paying more money.

If that is the case, then I will be very disappointed. BUT if my crowns, as a lifetime player, are enough to buy 2-3 new mounts, 2-3 new costumes...maybe some gems, I'll be happy.

Do you really think the goal of adding a cash shop to the game is to get you to spend exactly the same amount of money you spend now?

Sallington

It's not bad at all right now. That's not why people are angry. They are angry because this sets the game down a path that will eventually lead it to F2P and a cash shop driven experience.

The cash shop is now their first priority. It won't be apparent right away, but once the console box sales die down and it's all they have to collect revenue (since the sub model doesn't exist), the game will be more and more based around the cash shop.

That's why people are angry. Not at the immediate situation, but at the inevitable path the game is now on. That and they told us it would never transition from a subscription model to something else, effectively having us pay to beta test for the god damn consoles.

Tapio75

Indeed, you will only be able to get one small meaningless item like hat for crowns that you get mothly. If you wish to get mounts, pets or costumes, i fear ypu will have to sub a considerably more moths which is not bad if you are patient..

But most are not, sadly. They will pay extra for more crowns and that eventually means more content to shop..

Cash shops stay good only as long as game is subscription based, when free to play, thet will eventually become pay to win shops.

Soulshine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CbWr0zO7Ac

grimjim398

When CCP even hinted by its actions that it was adding a cash shop to EVE Online, the player base basically rioted in the game, dropped subs, and stopped the process dead in its tracks. There was actually no real evidence that the game was heading in a pay-to-win direction but the player base did not trust the developers and did not hesitate to make its will known, and they brought CCP to its knees in no uncertain terms. If that company can make that game with its relatively small player base viable for ten years using a subscription model, then ESO could certainly have held out longer than 10 months. The ESO developers spoke very passionately about the freedom that the subscription model would give them to develop a premium product. Nothing but hypocrisy in those statements, as it turns out.

The ESO player base is just rolling over for this, and saying things like, well, this is okay, this isn't THAT much of a change, we'll be okay with the cash shop, it doesn't really matter that the developers did a 180-degree turn; they were lying in the past about the subscription model but now they're telling the truth about the crown shop and it really will be just cosmetic items. This is not a passionate player base and this group will never be able to sustain this game in any form other than the one that is most profitable for the accountants and their ilk. The bottom line is that these developers never really had a vision for a first-rate game to begin with; if they had, they wouldn't abandon it now. Matt Firor is on record years ago as saying that all that can be done with an MMO has already been done, which meant from the outset that this game was just going to be a rehash of old tropes and ideas, and that's exactly what it is. The only thing unique about this game was the subscription model and the talk that the game would not compromise about that but would build itself steadily into a premium game, and now that's gone.

The developers don't intend to have the console market save this game; they don't have any vision of the game to start with. It's the community that makes the game anyway, as EVE and WoW have proven over and over again. This is nothing but a dive for dollars. Even if the game survives it won't be worth playing once the no-subscription crowd gets hold of it. The reason they don't want to pay a subscription is that they don't want to commit to anything but what's fun for them this week, and next week they'll be off to something else. That's their right and their choice. But that's not what I came here for and I'm not waiting around to see the waves of stupid that are about to roll over this game.

daneyulebub17_ESO

grimjim398 wrote: »

When CCP even hinted by its actions that it was adding a cash shop to EVE Online, the player base basically rioted in the game, dropped subs, and stopped the process dead in its tracks. There was actually no real evidence that the game was heading in a pay-to-win direction but the player base did not trust the developers and did not hesitate to make its will known, and they brought CCP to its knees in no uncertain terms. If that company can make that game with its relatively small player base viable for ten years using a subscription model, then ESO could certainly have held out longer than 10 months. The ESO developers spoke very passionately about the freedom that the subscription model would give them to develop a premium product. Nothing but hypocrisy in those statements, as it turns out.

The ESO player base is just rolling over for this, and saying things like, well, this is okay, this isn't THAT much of a change, we'll be okay with the cash shop, it doesn't really matter that the developers did a 180-degree turn; they were lying in the past about the subscription model but now they're telling the truth about the crown shop and it really will be just cosmetic items. This is not a passionate player base and this group will never be able to sustain this game in any form other than the one that is most profitable for the accountants and their ilk. The bottom line is that these developers never really had a vision for a first-rate game to begin with; if they had, they wouldn't abandon it now. Matt Firor is on record years ago as saying that all that can be done with an MMO has already been done, which meant from the outset that this game was just going to be a rehash of old tropes and ideas, and that's exactly what it is. The only thing unique about this game was the subscription model and the talk that the game would not compromise about that but would build itself steadily into a premium game, and now that's gone.

The developers don't intend to have the console market save this game; they don't have any vision of the game to start with. It's the community that makes the game anyway, as EVE and WoW have proven over and over again. This is nothing but a dive for dollars. Even if the game survives it won't be worth playing once the no-subscription crowd gets hold of it. The reason they don't want to pay a subscription is that they don't want to commit to anything but what's fun for them this week, and next week they'll be off to something else. That's their right and their choice. But that's not what I came here for and I'm not waiting around to see the waves of stupid that are about to roll over this game.

Damn that was well put.

Sallington

grimjim398 wrote: »

When CCP even hinted by its actions that it was adding a cash shop to EVE Online, the player base basically rioted in the game, dropped subs, and stopped the process dead in its tracks. There was actually no real evidence that the game was heading in a pay-to-win direction but the player base did not trust the developers and did not hesitate to make its will known, and they brought CCP to its knees in no uncertain terms. If that company can make that game with its relatively small player base viable for ten years using a subscription model, then ESO could certainly have held out longer than 10 months. The ESO developers spoke very passionately about the freedom that the subscription model would give them to develop a premium product. Nothing but hypocrisy in those statements, as it turns out.

The ESO player base is just rolling over for this, and saying things like, well, this is okay, this isn't THAT much of a change, we'll be okay with the cash shop, it doesn't really matter that the developers did a 180-degree turn; they were lying in the past about the subscription model but now they're telling the truth about the crown shop and it really will be just cosmetic items. This is not a passionate player base and this group will never be able to sustain this game in any form other than the one that is most profitable for the accountants and their ilk. The bottom line is that these developers never really had a vision for a first-rate game to begin with; if they had, they wouldn't abandon it now. Matt Firor is on record years ago as saying that all that can be done with an MMO has already been done, which meant from the outset that this game was just going to be a rehash of old tropes and ideas, and that's exactly what it is. The only thing unique about this game was the subscription model and the talk that the game would not compromise about that but would build itself steadily into a premium game, and now that's gone.

The developers don't intend to have the console market save this game; they don't have any vision of the game to start with. It's the community that makes the game anyway, as EVE and WoW have proven over and over again. This is nothing but a dive for dollars. Even if the game survives it won't be worth playing once the no-subscription crowd gets hold of it. The reason they don't want to pay a subscription is that they don't want to commit to anything but what's fun for them this week, and next week they'll be off to something else. That's their right and their choice. But that's not what I came here for and I'm not waiting around to see the waves of stupid that are about to roll over this game.

I love you, and this needs to be stickied and reposted in any thread regarding the B2P transition.

Tapio75

grimjim398 wrote: »

When CCP even hinted by its actions that it was adding a cash shop to EVE Online, the player base basically rioted in the game, dropped subs, and stopped the process dead in its tracks. There was actually no real evidence that the game was heading in a pay-to-win direction but the player base did not trust the developers and did not hesitate to make its will known, and they brought CCP to its knees in no uncertain terms. If that company can make that game with its relatively small player base viable for ten years using a subscription model, then ESO could certainly have held out longer than 10 months. The ESO developers spoke very passionately about the freedom that the subscription model would give them to develop a premium product. Nothing but hypocrisy in those statements, as it turns out.

The ESO player base is just rolling over for this, and saying things like, well, this is okay, this isn't THAT much of a change, we'll be okay with the cash shop, it doesn't really matter that the developers did a 180-degree turn; they were lying in the past about the subscription model but now they're telling the truth about the crown shop and it really will be just cosmetic items. This is not a passionate player base and this group will never be able to sustain this game in any form other than the one that is most profitable for the accountants and their ilk. The bottom line is that these developers never really had a vision for a first-rate game to begin with; if they had, they wouldn't abandon it now. Matt Firor is on record years ago as saying that all that can be done with an MMO has already been done, which meant from the outset that this game was just going to be a rehash of old tropes and ideas, and that's exactly what it is. The only thing unique about this game was the subscription model and the talk that the game would not compromise about that but would build itself steadily into a premium game, and now that's gone.

The developers don't intend to have the console market save this game; they don't have any vision of the game to start with. It's the community that makes the game anyway, as EVE and WoW have proven over and over again. This is nothing but a dive for dollars. Even if the game survives it won't be worth playing once the no-subscription crowd gets hold of it. The reason they don't want to pay a subscription is that they don't want to commit to anything but what's fun for them this week, and next week they'll be off to something else. That's their right and their choice. But that's not what I came here for and I'm not waiting around to see the waves of stupid that are about to roll over this game.

Second this.

If developers had abandoned the will to make a new MMO rather than TES online, things would be different. We would naturally (or maybe not) have smaller playerbase but those players would be dedicated to this game and its developers. If that choice they made would have been announced in that game instead of general MMO, the outcry would have been different but as you said, developers did not seem to have real vision about thsi game at all. Also the fact that this was made under different name than Bethesda, made me think bad things and fear for the game. They clearly had their doubts, otherwise the safety mechanism called ZOS would have never been made and this game would have been developed under the name of Bethesda.