I don't get the change to b2p hubub

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Dave2836 wrote: »

Dedhed wrote: »

Well, it's fun for some people to do this



whenever they get a chance. That's really it.

The most upsetting part is sometimes I observe they have more fun melting down than playing the game for the past 9 months.

Seriously, everyone who is freaking out, do you all disregard the value of time spent in the game and just focus on how much money you had spent on it instead? I had fun, still am having fun, so I choose to embrace the changes. When it stops being fun, well there's other things I can use my more valuable time for.

We value the time we had fun in the game. I spent well over 150hours on the game and haven't done a /played in months so it's well over that.
At $1.5 an hour, I estimate the money well spent.
Much better than if I went to the cinema or to the restaurant.

That's beside the point though, as most of what people are paying the game for was for future development. Objectively, if we were to only pay for maintenance, the game shouldn't cost more than $1 a month and it would make a x10 profit for the publisher. The $14 other dolars are for the devs, artist and designers working on updating and improving the game for our future enjoyment.

Now what we are being told is that content we've paid the development of, DLCs that we were expecting to come as part of the premium service that was advertised, will be for sale for us to buy again, and that we should be grateful for that.

You could say "it doesn't change anything if you continue to pay sub" but it does. The value offering is no longer the same as there is a free alternative.
Not only that, but the advertised product, the one we've bought and supported for 8 month, is essentially changing without much warning. Finally, it is burrying your head in the sand as it is an undeniable fact that a cash shop introduction reduces the quality of games.

It's like having a membership at a scuba diving school. They make you rent the oxygen tanks that allow you to remain under water. But after a few months, they tell you: Hey from now on, we're no longer gonna bring you under water, this way you don't have to rent oxygen! But if you're interested in our Oxygen+ membership, you'll be 10% more oxygenated than people breathing normal air!

It's a silly example, no one would accept this in real life, yet some accept it with virtual goods.
It is a good illustration of how people are yet to adapt to the new technologies.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Ray22 wrote: »

Conspiracy theories aside, I'm going to focus on a few things:

Conspiracy theories are about whether it was planed or not, but advertised promises were broken. Please do not belittle the issue, people should be pissed about that.

Aside from that, thanks for a good reply.

Ray22 wrote: »

- Exclusive gear will be lootable in DLCs. Think of DLC's as expansions in older MMO's. That was P2W too. WoW still works that way.

And WoW can get away with it because it is WoW. It got lucky and became a cultural phenomenom. Everyone plays it because everyone plays it and it still is surfing on that wave.

However, that doesn't make it right, and it still is p2w.
it's also a rippoff. The susbcription is what is suposed to pay for new content, especially at the rate they are releasing it, so WoW expansions really are an idiot tax.

Ray22 wrote: »

- Thieves guild and Darkbrotherhood skill lines and content will be DLC. I completely agree on this one. Skill lines should NEVER be a DLC exclusive.

Yup. And that's just a glimpse into the future of the shop.
They won't have a choice but to do things like that once box sales go down and they'll rely on DLCs to replace susbcription revenue.

Ray22 wrote: »

- Susbcription have boosts and they consider adding AP boosts too. Boosts are borderline, but not P2W, it's P2 go fast.

It's a more insidious version of p2w.
A version marketing departments of previous game succeeded in making acceptable. And that makes them even more dangerous and destructive for the game. It's like culturaly accepted racism/sexism notions.

In the end, if with equal skill and efforts, you are stronger than another player because you spent money, then it is p2w.

And it will get worse with the champion points as there isn't a cap like VR14 that you stop evolving at. You will be able to maintain the power gap for a longer time until you fill out the entire constellations.

When they first talked about the removal of vr system, a fact not many people picked up on is that they also mentioned that gear would be seasonal.
New gear will be stronger, and the old new gear will get easier to get and so on indefinitely. If this is still planed, that's also another aspect where gold boosters or buying the DLCs the new gear is introduced in gives you an advantage to maintain a power gap between you and your competition.

Ray22 wrote: »

- They said in the livestream that anything making you gain time is fair game. Not sure if it is fair or not, but it's not the main concern of most of us. Anyway, time-gaining boosts should be sub only, otherwise it compromises the option they should make attractive to everyone

It should be a concern to everyone.
A lot of thing hinge on their definition of what is "convenience".
If it is getting top tier-1 gear, that is p2w
If their definition is time gaining boosts, that is also p2w.
If it is barber shop, name changes,extra character slots, then that's fine.

Arguably, those services and the cosmetics they have shown would be acceptable in a cash shop suplemental to a subscription model.
Not having to rely on a cash shop to survive and offer truly optional items on it makes the slipery slope less slipery.
It could still use up too many artists, but the rest of the teams wouldn't be affected.

To get back on subject, I believe it was hinted at that there will be boosters in the cash shop. We do not know any more details, maybe they don't stack with the subscription, but if they do it is even worse.
You could p2w with a sub, then p2w even more by getting boosters.

Ray22 wrote: »

- They said in a reddit AMA that DLC content slowed down the dev of the game. They also said they'd focus more on content, they're slowing down changes in gameplay

I noted that too, and forgot to mention it.
This is another argument against the change. The game has been dry of content for a few months and some of that needed content has been held back to become DLC. Arguably, the game has been worse off already due to the change.

But then, if they already state outfront that they are going to focus on DLCs only, which are cash shop items, and no longer on gameplay systems it means they already point out that they'll stop improving the core game due to the shop.

1.6 will be huge, and I understand it will need some time to settle down, but there are still a lot of things it doesn't touch on:
- the Block casting issue will be a bit improved due to aoe damage being blocked and causing the stamina to be drained faster, but it will still be an issue in small scale.
- Buff campaigns still haven't been fixed
- The imperial city is getting delayed too
- The PvP component of the Justice system is the only answer that were said "if/when" meaning it could be cancelled/delayed by a large margin.
- No ETA for spellcrafting
- Jewel crafting too is on the backburner

I am obviously a bit biased towards PvP, but the game hinged on 3 main selling points:
- It would remain sub only and a premium offering without cash shop
- It would have functional RvR
- It would be have great content set in the TES universe

They still have to complete this second point.

And aside that, gameplay systems are what gives depth and replayability to a game. For instance, Planetary management in EvE is not used by all players, same for the crafting, Exploration, Mining, wormhole space, etc. But they are all options that tie into the games main economy.

Focusing equally on systems and content is improving the game, droping either one of them is to stop improving the game.

Ray22 wrote: »

Now, just a little heads-up. Console is always being seen as the reason this is all happening, it's bad, it's evil, blabla. But it might be that little thing most people is forgetting when comparing ESO model to other B2P/F2P models. This is a first, so all previous experience is different.

The consumer target in consoles have different tendencies to PC/Mac gamers, specially DLC-wise. So you might think that saying "no, no, no, no, this time, it's gonna be different" is insane...but the thing is, this time, it's not the same ****ing thing, as Vaas would say.

I get your point there, but before addressing it, I'd like to add something: I do not think that consoles were the primary reason behind the move.

Someone else put it greatly in another thread (stupid like a fox): The motivation is to cast a thinner net to catch smaller fishes now that all the larger one already paid up. It's a small term focused strategy to maximise box sales and revenue over a shorter time period. The next steps is going to be reducing the box price then going full on f2p and cash in on all the even smaller fishes that would buy a few DLCs but not the full box price.
It's just a way for the investors to get a faster ROI and then go on to other adventures. It ruins the game's potential future as a cash cow, but they'll be happy in the now. yay for recession causing logics.

That said, I do see how this situation is unique.
Many MMOs have attempted to go on consoles, and all gave up for technical reasons. ESO is as far as I know the first one to concretise this.
However, I do not think that console players that would be interested in an MMO behave differently than PC players.
There is an MMO player archetype, and consoles/PC is just a prefered means of consuming the same type of product.
Console players have no issues paying a subscription fee for Final Fantasy, and they would not have had issues paying for ESO.
Whatever model fails on PC will fail on consoles too. The players are the same, and cash shops will have the same destructive effects.

On another note that makes the above even truer, the b2p switch is changing the way the game is targeted. It stoped being addressed at MMO players and is now aiming at solo games players.
Solo games players have certain habits with DLCs and season pass, regardless of platforms, but they are also a notoriously fickle crowd compared to MMO aficionados.
By switching target from MMO players to those gamers, they are puting their livelihood in the hands of a kind of gamer that will drop the game when the next shiny thing will be out. A kind of gamer not ready to spend monthly on a game.

Again, this is very shortsighted. It will certainly yield a lot of short term cash in box sales and early DLC sales, but once market penetration is full, revenue will drop. And I do not think that it will last more than a year. ESO's potential market is not large enough and they've shown an inability to put out content fast enough to keep the DLC coming with both high frequency and high quality.
In short, they sacrificed a loyal player base and yearly revenue for an unreliable short term bet.

And to finish, while this is a rebranding and a relaunch, and despite the fact that the game will get re-reviewed by console press, ESO still has a very bad reputation due to its time on the PC. This is an uphill battle and for such a huge change for a game, I've never seen such an impressive collective "meh" on the web.
Nobody cares about ESO's change as it is "yet another game failing ,who cares?".
The only people that do care are TES fans that didn't want to pay a sub and wanted to try out the game. But this is no Skyrim, it's not a solo experience and it has too many MMO aspect to please that crowd, it won't have that much success and word of mouth will probably get worse as those people won't enjoy what ESO has to offer. They will most likely not buy any DLCs.

Again, thank you for an articulated and well thought out answer. I'm sorry I tend to go wall of text, and I'm grateful when people make the effort to read properly and discuss things with me.

Ray22

Awesome answer, long and well explained I shall say. Respectful, and not angry, with lots of well thought scenarios. Of course, we see it differently, but that was just an awesome answer to read. Very pleasing discussion!

Conspiracy theories are about whether it was planed or not, but advertised promises were broken. Please do not belittle the issue, people should be pissed about that.

About broken promises, completely true. Though for all of those saying "they said they would drop it off before going F2P", just comparing B2P and F2P, well...I think that's a big mistake. I don't see this change as a broken promise, but I can see lots of others.

For example, as I've defended twice today, Imperial City and the Thieves guild and Dark brotherhood DLC, among other promises, should be completely free to own for early-adopters (that's the way I call ourselves here, beta-testers sounds way too outrageous, we've had fun).

In the end, if with equal skill and efforts, you are stronger than another player because you spent money, then it is p2w.

Let's agree to disagree there, that's exactly why I called it a borderline. I see your point, but in my opinion, P2W is when you can't get somewhere without paying. That's what really destroys a game.

Also I understand that CP makes this even worse, yet the difference in XP is a 10% (just as rings of mara, 20% if they stack up). Now, that is something acceptable, the 20% seems a bit too much, but that depends also on being with a friend, so it's not that big of a deal. But if they sell other boosters, that would really be annoying. There should be a limit, 10% I don't see it like something crazy bad. Anyway, hardcore, competitive gamers have been paying to play, I can't see a real big change here.

And lets be clear: I'm not one of those hardcore competitive gamers, though I follow some of them for the fun of it, and understand the amazing work and hours they've put through the game. It's mind-blowing.

I noted that too, and forgot to mention it.
This is another argument against the change. The game has been dry of content for a few months and some of that needed content has been held back to become DLC.

Again, the content that was promised and held back, should be free, I'm trying to spread that message in the forum every time I see those "not enough with 100 crowns for old players". Yep, promised content should be the reward! Actually, not a reward. Just fairness.

But I would go as far as saying it's an argument against the change. I think the same thing would have happened if they had kept it PC-only. After 1.6 things need to slow down a little. Solving some of the issues you talk about don't look like a big change, and could be adressed easily in a 1.6.X patch, and that's what I believe should happen. Spellcrafting...yeah, we shall be pacient with that one.

A lot of people have been asking for new content, and this is good news. I am one of those. VR content, and I'm not going as far as VR14, just VR1 with the not-very-smart "do everything from the other factions!" quest line, is just...well, you know that much for sure. Bad, bad, bad.

The next steps is going to be reducing the box price then going full on f2p and cash in on all the even smaller fishes that would buy a few DLCs but not the full box price

Now, this is all going too far in time, and lets be clear here: we are making a lot of assumptions, and as I said in my first post in this forum, ZOS might not do what we think they are going to do, nor copy any other model out there. There are always new options.

But, if you asked me, I don't think that would be a viable option if they were to keep ESO alive for at least 4-5 more years, and would destroy the Elder Scrolls franchise. I believe their catch in the future will be something like: some rebates once the box gets older, and guess what then...new box with DLC's included and crowns and pets!

Whatever model fails on PC will fail on consoles too. The players are the same, and cash shops will have the same destructive effects.

After reading all you wrote on consoles and type of players: yes, there is an MMO archetype of player. But I think we are not left on our own, on the contrary. They are trying to get money from the other less informed, more casual players, of course. But some of it will have a good impact on us too.

The main reason is, lets be clear, there is at the moment nothing clearly stating the P2W issue, aside from the 10% XP buffs. If we were to believe no other buffs would be sold or be able to be stacked, and ZOS kept their word on no lockboxes and so on, the thing is:

Hardcore players who play nowadays get all DLCs paying as they did before.
They level up easier their alts, and the long road to 3700 CP will be 10% shorter.
They get mounts, pets, etc.

So, the key here is the store. IF the store doesn't sell anything other than what's been stated, and they keep it up that way, NOTHING changes. Casual gamers won't get something a hardcore gamer wouldn't be able to get because of a DLC, as a hardcore gamer is expected to own or rent (via sub) that DLC.

Hardcore gamers are not expected to be making use of the B2P option. No sub = everything's worse. No sub + you pay things in store = you may own some more convinience, but access the same DLC (though you own them), and no more boosts than a sub (or better, no boosts at all, so sub is more attractive). And spend more money. That should be it. Making the sub atractive, making the convinience store just something to attract people into subscribing. That is, I believe, their main goal actually.

Worst case scenario I see is: they catch a lot of casual gamers who rapidly lose interest, they just keep the hardcore players who spend money. 'Cause it's not that bad, IMHO, as long as they do NEVER go P2W. Lets state for the case P2W = more boost than a sub, locked boxes, armours or weapons, etc.

The only three things should be addressed before launch, IMHO, are:

1) Never ever have skill lines that depend on DLC's. The explanation that Eric gave ("Adding new skills to the game is just designed to give the players more options, as opposed to more powerful options") is just way too "flower power", things don't work that way and we know it.

2) Give early-adopters all the promised content for free. Haven't seen a lot of people saying this, actually haven't read it at all, and it just makes sense.

3) Make a belivable, long-term statement on what convenience is and what isn't, and a thoughtfull explanation on the crowns shop for the future.

I shall add one more that's currently not being thought off IMHO:

4) What the hell is going to happen to VRs in 1.7?

Cause if there is another change, and this time, after the console launch (lets say for example in half a year)...oh man. That really bothers me, that could really impact ZOS name a lot more.

IMHO, those are the things we should now be asking ZOS, at least, to start with. Instead of that, I'm seeing a lot of "I quit" and "I want more crowns for loyalty" posts. That is what scares me the most, cause up to this point, ZOS may not have done all we wanted, but they have adressed a lot of our problems, and made some good moves. Like with the CP points, for example.

BTW: want one on conspiracy theories? One I haven't read anywhere and just thought of. Already back in October, the physical Lore Books for ESO and Skryim were announced for the 17th March. Have they rushed ESO:TU so they start their sales on the same date? Hmm...

Dave2836

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

In the end, if with equal skill and efforts, you are stronger than another player because you spent money, then it is p2w.

A lot of thing hinge on their definition of what is "convenience".
If it is getting top tier-1 gear, that is p2w
If their definition is time gaining boosts, that is also p2w.
If it is barber shop, name changes,extra character slots, then that's fine.

Focusing equally on systems and content is improving the game, droping either one of them is to stop improving the game.

Ray22 wrote: »

Now, just a little heads-up. Console is always being seen as the reason this is all happening, it's bad, it's evil, blabla. But it might be that little thing most people is forgetting when comparing ESO model to other B2P/F2P models. This is a first, so all previous experience is different.

The consumer target in consoles have different tendencies to PC/Mac gamers, specially DLC-wise. So you might think that saying "no, no, no, no, this time, it's gonna be different" is insane...but the thing is, this time, it's not the same ****ing thing, as Vaas would say.

I get your point there, but before addressing it, I'd like to add something: I do not think that consoles were the primary reason behind the move.

Someone else put it greatly in another thread (stupid like a fox): The motivation is to cast a thinner net to catch smaller fishes now that all the larger one already paid up. It's a small term focused strategy to maximise box sales and revenue over a shorter time period. The next steps is going to be reducing the box price then going full on f2p and cash in on all the even smaller fishes that would buy a few DLCs but not the full box price.
It's just a way for the investors to get a faster ROI and then go on to other adventures. It ruins the game's potential future as a cash cow, but they'll be happy in the now. yay for recession causing logics.

That said, I do see how this situation is unique.
Many MMOs have attempted to go on consoles, and all gave up for technical reasons. ESO is as far as I know the first one to concretise this.
However, I do not think that console players that would be interested in an MMO behave differently than PC players.
There is an MMO player archetype, and consoles/PC is just a prefered means of consuming the same type of product.
Console players have no issues paying a subscription fee for Final Fantasy, and they would not have had issues paying for ESO.
Whatever model fails on PC will fail on consoles too. The players are the same, and cash shops will have the same destructive effects.

On another note that makes the above even truer, the b2p switch is changing the way the game is targeted. It stoped being addressed at MMO players and is now aiming at solo games players.
Solo games players have certain habits with DLCs and season pass, regardless of platforms, but they are also a notoriously fickle crowd compared to MMO aficionados.
By switching target from MMO players to those gamers, they are puting their livelihood in the hands of a kind of gamer that will drop the game when the next shiny thing will be out. A kind of gamer not ready to spend monthly on a game.

Again, this is very shortsighted. It will certainly yield a lot of short term cash in box sales and early DLC sales, but once market penetration is full, revenue will drop. And I do not think that it will last more than a year. ESO's potential market is not large enough and they've shown an inability to put out content fast enough to keep the DLC coming with both high frequency and high quality.
In short, they sacrificed a loyal player base and yearly revenue for an unreliable short term bet.

And to finish, while this is a rebranding and a relaunch, and despite the fact that the game will get re-reviewed by console press, ESO still has a very bad reputation due to its time on the PC. This is an uphill battle and for such a huge change for a game, I've never seen such an impressive collective "meh" on the web.
Nobody cares about ESO's change as it is "yet another game failing ,who cares?".
The only people that do care are TES fans that didn't want to pay a sub and wanted to try out the game. But this is no Skyrim, it's not a solo experience and it has too many MMO aspect to please that crowd, it won't have that much success and word of mouth will probably get worse as those people won't enjoy what ESO has to offer. They will most likely not buy any DLCs.

Again, thank you for an articulated and well thought out answer. I'm sorry I tend to go wall of text, and I'm grateful when people make the effort to read properly and discuss things with me.

A couple of things I have to disagree with. First, excuse me for butchering the quote, but I didn't feel it necessary to include a wall of text when only a few things contradict my thoughts.

In the end, if with equal skill and efforts, you are stronger than another player because you spent money, then it is p2w.

That is either true, or not true. If you truly believe in that motto, then everyone who has a eyefinity monitor set up, mechanical keyboard, mmo gaming mouse, and a 7.1 surround sound system will easily surpass everyone. Those players truly paid to win. Racing Sim fans buy $2000 mock steering wheels with clutch pedals to gain an edge in racing games, but they are no better than the average gamer with a keypad controller. Buying better equipment, or better interface is not indicative of pay to win.

In terms of convenience, time is a major factor. The atm fee is a convenience charge, the foreign currency exchange fee is a convenience charge. Selling time is not a pay to win product, its a convenience feature. Boosts to a time sensitive element is also a convenience, because it saves you time. But saving time is not indicative of paying to win. When all those grinders were exploiting craglorn for vet ranks, were they paying to win? They were paying a sub, and winning their respective battles.

The developers are trying to fix both content and mechanics, and they've come a long way... its unfortunate that a lot of players focus on the mechanics as the content rather than the content itself. Yeah the trials are ok, but has anyone really commented "wow, the voice acting is really good here" or "wait... that voice doesn't fit this tree so well". Have you actually read through your hireling's emails? Someone took the time to write this stuff down, and it gives life to those skill points we've just been taking for granted. That is the content. Pressing E to collect the attachments is the mechanics.

When comparing consoles to desktops, there is one major factor to also consider here. The desktop is a multifaceted machine. We contact our family through social media, we purchase things on Amazon.com, we pay our bills through billpay, we access and maintain our bank accounts, we conduct business. The consoles are there for one thing, and one thing only, entertainment. When Turbotax comes available for PS4, then I'll be impressed and buy one. That being said, this is a game, a form of entertainment. To think the two platforms are comparable even in the slightest is nonsense. To think that a game will ignore trying to port to a console is also nonsense.

A lot of factors go into being able to bring a game onto a console. Verification, graphical adjustments, hardware permutations and their limitations, interface calibration. And lets not talk about licensing. It costs money to bring a game to a console, and use their resources, and use their trademarks, and well thats all I can think of on the top of my head but I'm sure the IP list is quite comprehensive.

For that stupid like a fox thread.... I whole heartedly disagree with that, but can't convince everybody. We all have our theories on the subject of the payment model change. I give you the above explanation of a console versus a desktop, truly a desktop is the luxury item of the two, so it would be plausible the desktop players would be willing to spend the $$ for a sub. The console owners DO in fact think differently. The console is the budget item, it costs less, and does less things, and the majority of content available is geared towards single player offline gaming. That being said, when ZOS was willing to change the payment model to allow consoles on board without having to pay a third sub fee, have any of us really comprehend what kind of hit the game developers themselves were taking when that happened? The game was no where near failing, if it was we wouldn't have live streams every two weeks. We wouldn't have the customer support staff we have now. Even the weekly maintenance wouldn't be taking place either.

You consider the switch shortsighted. I'm going to champion around DCUO for a while here, but its the biggest f2p success on PSN. It is also PSN's highest revenue earner. Console players out number desktops roughly 3:1. Last headcount was hovering around 18million. They do not sell power, they sell convenience. Their cash shop's best selling products are based around time sensitive enhancements. PVP is their endgame focus. They do not charge a subscription, PS+ is not needed for that particular game. There are a lot of positive benefits of the b2p model that shouldn't be ignored, and one of them is community player population. Prior to going f2p, DCUO hovered below 300k subs... now at ~18million players with a good majority of them taking advantage of the legendary sub pricing ($29.99/3mos), they are raking in a hefty profit.

This game has always been an mmo with solo player aspects. The fact that we can jump in any engaged conflict and reap xp, the fact that we can join 5 guilds, the fact that there is a group tool that somewhat works, the fact that certain dungeons are solo, and certain are group... well what are the other examples? So some parts of the game became easier for a soloist might be indicative of the shift to solo play, I beg to differ. I think its an opportunity to create and test out a different build. How many of you tried to become a vampire at lvl 15?

And as far as being re-reviewed by journalists and bloggers.... Didn't Massively's "Nothing" game of the year award teach us that game journalism is broken? Each mag has an agenda, and that's to stay in business with readership. They sell headlines, so they either appease the game publisher with "Oh that water physics is making me so thirsty right now, it looks better than the tap water at home." or they appease their readers by saying "The draw distance in the far planes fade without anti-aliasing, and without a suitable psu and gfx card to provide accurate pixelation on a 4k monitor, this game is force feeding you past-gen graphics in a next gen box. I haven't seen eight bit grass since FFVI." Game journalism is the same as meteorology. They both forcast predictions based on biased information with a marginally high error rate with an inverse relationship in respect to how much time before the forcast and when the game is in the hands of the player. If I wanted to read about water and grass, I'd have subbed to Better Homes and Gardens.

Leeric

Darlantan wrote: »

thomas.k.grayb14_ESO wrote: »

Let me help some:

They are selling soulgems in the cash shop. Wait, how is that a bad thing? Soulgems are to come by... for now. Soul gems will disappear from loot tables and merchants after a while and only be available from the cash shop so if you want them better have some crowns.

The xp boost you get from having a sub? They are most likely gonna have a crown pot for that and all the other bonuses you think you have.

The thing about a cash shop is that they have to make money from it, meaning it has to have items in it that people want to buy. If it is just as easy to come by these items in-game then no one would use the cash shop, meaning no new revenue.

They will start with cosmetic and low convenience first and when that doesn't provide acceptable cash flow better items will be added. These items will keep getting better and better to keep the cash coming in.

More resources will be focused on cash shop items instead of actual content because a stagnant cash shop means less money.

ZoS or whoever is pulling their strings has already played their cards and shown than money > customer satisfaction.

tldr: the age of the CC warriors is soon to be upon us.

got all the from your crystall ball?

Its called knowledge of a business and business structure if someone of you weren't giant fanboys you would get it. Thats exactly how it happens. Its pretty obvious to most.

BlueIllyrian

Leeric wrote: »

Darlantan wrote: »

thomas.k.grayb14_ESO wrote: »

Let me help some:

They are selling soulgems in the cash shop. Wait, how is that a bad thing? Soulgems are to come by... for now. Soul gems will disappear from loot tables and merchants after a while and only be available from the cash shop so if you want them better have some crowns.

The xp boost you get from having a sub? They are most likely gonna have a crown pot for that and all the other bonuses you think you have.

The thing about a cash shop is that they have to make money from it, meaning it has to have items in it that people want to buy. If it is just as easy to come by these items in-game then no one would use the cash shop, meaning no new revenue.

They will start with cosmetic and low convenience first and when that doesn't provide acceptable cash flow better items will be added. These items will keep getting better and better to keep the cash coming in.

More resources will be focused on cash shop items instead of actual content because a stagnant cash shop means less money.

ZoS or whoever is pulling their strings has already played their cards and shown than money > customer satisfaction.

tldr: the age of the CC warriors is soon to be upon us.

got all the from your crystall ball?

Its called knowledge of a business and business structure if someone of you weren't giant fanboys you would get it. Thats exactly how it happens. Its pretty obvious to most.

To say nothing of the fact that only failed/dated games converted to cash shop after initially being launched as p2p.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

@Ray22‌
Thank you, I always try to remain constructive even if I am genuinely angry..
It's patronizing of me to think this way but I see my posting on the forums about those issues as my duty.
I'm a vet MMO player, I've played for the last 16 years and I've seen the transition of the industry and witnessed the same paterns repeat time after time. I fell into the b2p/f2p traps myself and it is important I share my experience.

Newer players need to be educated if we want the future games to change.
Maybe I'm not going to convince anyone now, but once ESO follows the same pattern than previous games, maybe those I annoyed this week will remember a bit of what I said and will be more sceptical the next time.

On to addressing your comments:
We really cannot differentiate b2p from f2p.
It is unrealistic to expect the box price to make any difference. Once the box sales dry out, the cash shop is the only source of revenue.
Even if the box sales never slow down, which is impossible, the cash shop remain the largest source of revenue as it is the one "renewable resource" to make already acquired players pay more.

This means the cash shop is just as much the king in b2p than it is in f2p.

We know the consequences of that and the slow decline it forces upon the game's quality. ZOS will not be the "chosen ones" to remain ethical because it is simply impossible to remain ethical when you do not have subscription revenue.
We can't even trust they can be ethical, seeing how they behaved when they anounced the change. Just doing the switch is proof of lack of ethics.
We already know there will be DLC skill lines, and we know that we're not going to get the initial DLCs for free.
We also know that there will be boosters in the shop, maybe they won't stack with sub, but they'll be there.
There are no long term statement of theirs we can trust.

While yes it is an assumption that they'll drop the box price first then go f2p, it is just a logical conclusion to the strategy we've seen them implement.
They'll try to catch every fish in the spectrum, from the early adopter whale to the small fry that won't pay sub nor box but just that one DLC with the skill line he needs for his build in PvP.

In the end, if with equal skill and efforts, you are stronger than another player because you spent money, then it is p2w.

Let's agree to disagree there, that's exactly why I called it a borderline. I see your point, but in my opinion, P2W is when you can't get somewhere without paying. That's what really destroys a game.

I don't think this is a debatable point where we can end up disagreeing.
Marketing has attempted to teach us that what you can obtain in game, however hard, is good to be sold for money on a shop.
That is wrong.

Direct gear or power is easy to spot and call p2w, so it is destructive in theory but can be avoided. You see that and you just don't join the game.

However, indirect power is more destructive in practice because most, just like you, don't see it as p2w. It means more people fall in its trappings when in the end it has the same effect on segregating the population.

Better gear exclusive to DLCs ends up like buying it on the shop, except it is hidden behind the "content" justification. It's like puting medecine into honey. The effect is the same than if you took the pill alone.

And boosters, subscription bonus or any time saving you can purchase are bought power. For each effort you do, you gain 10% more. For some stuff, for 0 effort, you'll gain things under the cover of "gaining time".
But invested time and skills are what determine the power of a character in a "normal" situation.
If you pay and your friend doesn't, and you guys play just as much, you will forever be stronger than him and the power gab will become wider and wider as time passes. You'll have better gear, some unique abilities, more money and more champion points.
You have bought power, you paid to win.

Please continue reading even if I'm answering to someone else.

@Dave2836‌

Buying specialized hardware is a form of p2w.
In most game it doesn't matter but in simulations, like War Thunder simulator mode for instance, it gives you a competitive edge and you should not expect success against someone flying joystick without yourself using one.
In the end, you spent money to be more competitive and win.

But this is beyond the control of the game and will happen whatever it does.
However, the game controls its gameplay, and it is the devs choice to include p2w mechanics or not.
Please read above my answer to Ray22, gaining time is indeed paying to win.

On the content/mechanic discussion, I'm the kind of guy that reads all the hireling mails and keep the fun ones. I miss Pacrooti. I also listen to all the quest dialogues and mini events in the game. I'm fairly old school in that regard.
But content is just ammunition for the gameplay to shine.

Perhaps it is an issue of philosophy here, in my view content serves game mechanics. Great content isn't enough without good mechanics while good mechanics can stand out on their own. As examples, WoW's kill ten rats content is boring, or Eve's missions or mining are boring. However the progression game mechanic makes those enough to be consumed.
Another example, High end raids are interesting not because of the story but because of the boss mechanics. PvP systems doesn't have any content per say, but the quality of the game mechanics give them replayability and by extent, give the game longevity.

A game with great content and great mechanics would be a step above, and ESO almost has both. Some mechanics still need work, yet we're presented with a model that will focus only on content and push back mechanic improvements or the inclusion of new replayable systems.
It makes sense business wise, it's hard, near impossible actually, to market and sell core improvements while content is easily packaged.
The issue is that this content will most likely decrease in quality to increase frequency and mechanics will stagnate or regress in order to support cash shop sales.
ESO will not have both aspects necessary to be appealing.

On PC vs Consoles, I don't see your point.
Yes PC have more capabilities and are slightly more expensive than consoles, but I don't think it creates a luxury/budget split. For that matter, seeing how games are much cheaper on PC and how a PC gives more bang for buck usage, I'd say the PC is the budget option.
Consoles aren't cheap, have limited uses aside from gaming, require a decent TV and if you want games they almost always come full price. Being a gamer, even casual, on console ends up more expensive.

That's why I cannot believe that the difference between PC and console players is the budget they are willing to put in gaming. It is more likely to be the way they enjoy consuming games. Sitting on a couch and using a large screen TV is a different experience than sitting at a desk.
The whole "console do not want to pay subs" doesn't hold much credence. Porting to the console is though to achieve but a great move business wise, it expands the market so much, but changing the business model for it was not necessary.

The game was no where near failing

We agree on this. I've gone at length in various posts here and on reddit to explain that the b2p switch wasn't a survival move either.

For an example, Funcom has 288 employees and report positive cashflow at $4.27M quarterly revenue. That's the equivalent of 95k subscribers.
Zos has 250 employees, do we seriously think that ESO's subscribers are bellow the 83.4k subscribers it would need by comparison?
And I'm sure the box sales alone were enough to represent a year of revenue, especially with the imperial edition reported to have sold 5 times more than the standard.

About DCUO:

First and foremost, I didn't know about DCUO. but it proves that there is a market for MMOs on consoles. Final Fantasy is another one but it's mostly thanks to Japan being Japan.

Its also a proof that PvP is a great driver of durability. I hope ZOS learns from that and finally spends more resources on AvA. But that would be mechanics and that doesn't directly sell, so it is unlikely.

I searched but couldn't find where you got the subscribers info, could you link to it please? Anyway, if what you say about a majority paying the heroic sub at $30 is true, it's also a proof that there are many players on console that would pay PSN/Xbox live + $15 for a subscription service to an MMO they deem worth it.

Also, those 300k subscribers before the switch isn't bad at all. That's 54M revenue a year and as per Funcom standards, that's around 70% raw benefits.

But on another hand, the only number I could find is 18M registered users. That only says how many players installed the game once, it says nothing about active players or paying players. Using those kind of meaningless numbers is an habitual smoke and mirror tactic.
Again, I'd be interested to read on if you have some sources.

Smed admits in an article of june 2014 that Warframe is above DCUO as far as f2p games go. I couldn't find revenue numbers for DCUO but Warframe sort of does.
Digital Extremes, the game studio for warframe, has had $27M in revenue in the six months leading up to April 30, 2014.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-10-16-digital-extremes-sells-61-per-cent-of-shares-for-usd73-million
I believe they don't have only warframe, but let's be generous and assume all of its revenue comes from it.

This would mean that a game doing better than DCUO makes as much revenue than DCUO did as a sub game.
DCUO has had many f2p trappings added to it and it still lost in the transition.
We cannot say for sure if they would have managed it, but had they kept true to the sub model and improved the game, DCUO would be making more money.

And this just confirms the trend that f2p/b2p is a lesser choice than subs, either on PC or consoles. The one thing it does is a good cash grab after the switch which ends up cancelled a year later by the losses of not having a sub.

What to take away here is that:
- b2p/f2p damage gameplay by design
- ESO was not failing, survival isn't the motivation of the switch
- console players are a lot more than pc players
- many are ready to pay a $30 monthly fee
- Console players aren't a valid motivation for the switch
- the b2p/f2p model is inferior, regardless of platform

stewhead2ub17_ESO

@Frosth time for you to get a new hobby. You seem too wrapped up in this one. Ok well I think it's time for everyone to move on to the next topic. For those of you staying: enjoy the game. For those of you going: see ya. *turns off the light switch*

darthbelanb14_ESO

xtago wrote: »

B2P is really F2P.

F2P really means you have to buy stuff to get anywhere further in the game, once the first lot of "DLC" comes out then people will either buy it or drop the game.

I agree with your fist statement. Fundamentally there is no difference.

However, I stopped reading after your second statement. In Star Trek Online everyone has unlimited access to every part of the game. They've released two expansions and they were free to everyone. So, F2P doesn't necessarily mean you have to "buy stuff to get anywhere further in the game." You can also earn ingame currency to trade for cash shop currency to buy things there. You don't have to pay a cent or shilling to enjoy STO.

Alphashado

Long story short:

We've been there and done that.
Wisdom is the ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight.

Ray22

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Sharing your experience is, undoubtedly, important and something not a lot of people are actually willing to do in such a respectful way. This forum is full of anger ATM, I wouldn't say you are one of them.

Now, even though I'm not a hardcore MMO player, I have been an MMO player ever since FFXI (what a strange and bad game to start with BTW). I've played WoW, SWTOR, LOTR, Age of Conan and both Guild Wars. So I can say I've had my own experience and dissapointments. All of them bought retail.

Even so, I find ESO following a bit of a different strategy anyway, as I've said a few times already. But I want to focus on one of the things you said, and show my own perspective.

And boosters, subscription bonus or any time saving you can purchase are bought power. For each effort you do, you gain 10% more. For some stuff, for 0 effort, you'll gain things under the cover of "gaining time".
But invested time and skills are what determine the power of a character in a "normal" situation.
If you pay and your friend doesn't, and you guys play just as much, you will forever be stronger than him and the power gab will become wider and wider as time passes. You'll have better gear, some unique abilities, more money and more champion points.
You have bought power, you paid to win.

I agree with that, that is the B2P player perspective, but it's not where I'd put the hardcore player anyway. I don't think B2P model is meant for hardcore MMO players at all. Yet, with this B2P + sub model, non hardcore gamers can play as well, and hardcores will be even, as long as their subbed.

Is it P2W? Compared to non-subbed, yes it is. But, lets not forget that nothing really changes, as we were already paying to compete. Now, you pay to be competitive and play more stuff (+ convinience), whilst competing itself is actually free as long as you buy the box.

I hope you understand that perspective. The free thingy is changing our perspective, putting our opinion on the side of the free player, in which case, it sucks, cause a free player will have a harder time to be as competitive, and probably never get there.

Sure, this system segregates, but there is segregation in a subbed model too. Hardcore gamers hate people as myself, because we are not competitive enough. Most wouldn't play with me. Do I care? Not actually, I try to be better, just one step at a time.

The way I see it is, already, distinguishing between hardcore players, who SHOULD go to the sub model, or free + store, casual players.

I only see a problem IF you want to be competitive and not pay a sub. As long as...

The issue is that this content will most likely decrease in quality to increase frequency and mechanics will stagnate or regress in order to support cash shop sales.

...that doesn't happen. Once again, it all depends on ZOS, I don't see the starting point as way too bad. Though as Deltia said (one of the guys I follow for a little wisdom), the "we don't plan to have armours or weapons in the convenience store" is not a sentence that inspires a lot of trust.

For as long as boosts can't stack, and there are nothing but convenience items in the store for subbed people, I can't see a real, big problem.

What I think is the real strategy here is to sell some convenience to casual gamers, and hook people into the sub model. I don't think they are going the greedy "P2W" model other games have suffered. So yes, I'll take it, it's a little of a P2W, but just because it now is a B2P. The important thing is, hardcore or lets say just dedicated gamers as myself, should never need (like really need, not "that horse looks so great, I need it!") anything to be competitive.

If they keep that, sure, some people will go, but lots of others will stay and new ones will get hooked. If there is balance in the subbed model, nothing really bad should happen.

ricku1967

@ Morshire , No, i am not just "an MMO fan"..im a fan of games..period. and since THIS game is made by Zenimax and not the same part of the company that has put out TES 1-5, (which i have played all of them and still have them all, im a HUGE fan of the series) I will not miss the lore of THIS game. i will not miss the immersion into THIS game, and so on. you know why? because i can still play TES 1-5, and Bethesda will come out with TES 6 at some point and i will be right back into the lore of TES. besides..you are still assuming this move will ruin THIS game. which at this point in time, it will do no such thing. I only spoke of leaving this game IF they make the game P2W at some point in the future. Then if that happens, i will leave this game with out losing a second of sleep, not shed one tear, and just wait for TES 6 to be released. it will not be the end of TES, or the world as i know it if I stop playing THIS game.

ricku1967

[/quote]

However, these games are not TES online with TES lore and world and therefore, they are of no interest to me and i suspect that case is same for many TES fans as well.

Other game wont make up for a lost game which lore, characters and world you have attached to and fell in love with.

[/quote]

however, When Bethesda puts out TES 6, that will make up for THIS lost game which lore, characters, and world you have attached to and fell in love with. that Zenimax put out. you can also go back and play TES 1-5. ITS JUST A GAME!!!!!! smdh

ricku1967

@ frosth.darkomenb16_ESO , you are still assuming, speculating, guessing. this move will ruin this game..there are zero items in the "crown shop" that will make this game P2W..having "convenience items" is far from P2W imo. why dont we have a "wait and see' approach before we scream from the tops of buildings that the sky is falling?

Soulshine

@Dave2836

Facts are, ZOS has stated from inception that this game would be delivered to console. That delivery will now be exactly one full year behind what was initially marketed for many, many months in all their promos for the game.

There is no way they have not known all along that console players already pay a fee. That there were multiple public statements about why there WOULD BE a subscription and no other model being acceptable for their development goals is not something you can rationalize away now.

Speaking for myself alone (I do not pretend to know why others are upset about this change), such an anouncement speaks to the reliability and credibility of the company which I handed over my money to for a time - because I can tell you right now, if this game HAD been B2P from the get go, TES be hanged, I would never had bought the game.

miahq

Iago wrote: »

Bloodfang 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

Agree with everything you've said.

Also players don't understand a few others things:

- ESO is not going F2P
- ESO wont be a 100% B2P either. It will be a hybrid P2P/B2P.
- Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this hybrid model is the first in the MMO industry.

- Base game + 6 updates = B2P
- Update 7 and on = P2P

- Cash Shop won't be P2W
- Subbed people will be getting everything from the Cash Shop for "free" eventually anyway -> via crowns (if you'll play long enough).

The only things which is changing for subscribers is getting the vanity stuff for staying subbed (you know like for free).

It's true Zos did say that their cash shop would not be pay to win And they also said They had no plans of ever going by to play or free to play.


Oh wait they lied about the second one So I'm guessing the cash office going to go pay to win too.

A game dev would have to be stupid to come out and say, "we fully intend to have this pay to win within another six months."

What they'll likely do is modify what they'd said about the end game armor sets being only rare drops for a month or so before the next update, after which they'd move to being more easily available. I'd imagine they'd move that now so that after a few months armor sets that were only available in drops are buy able in the cash shop, and new added armors are put in as drops.

Dave2836

Soulshine wrote: »

@Dave2836

Facts are, ZOS has stated from inception that this game would be delivered to console. That delivery will now be exactly one full year behind what was initially marketed for many, many months in all their promos for the game.

There is no way they have not known all along that console players already pay a fee. That there were multiple public statements about why there WOULD BE a subscription and no other model being acceptable for their development goals is not something you can rationalize away now.

Speaking for myself alone (I do not pretend to know why others are upset about this change), such an anouncement speaks to the reliability and credibility of the company which I handed over my money to for a time - because I can tell you right now, if this game HAD been B2P from the get go, TES be hanged, I would never had bought the game.

Just tell me you had some fun before the honeymoon was over. I'm sure they'd pony up half the house but we're all still homeless

Soulshine

Dave2836 wrote: »

Soulshine wrote: »

@Dave2836

Facts are, ZOS has stated from inception that this game would be delivered to console. That delivery will now be exactly one full year behind what was initially marketed for many, many months in all their promos for the game.

There is no way they have not known all along that console players already pay a fee. That there were multiple public statements about why there WOULD BE a subscription and no other model being acceptable for their development goals is not something you can rationalize away now.

Speaking for myself alone (I do not pretend to know why others are upset about this change), such an anouncement speaks to the reliability and credibility of the company which I handed over my money to for a time - because I can tell you right now, if this game HAD been B2P from the get go, TES be hanged, I would never had bought the game.

Just tell me you had some fun before the honeymoon was over. I'm sure they'd pony up half the house but we're all still homeless

Well in all honesty, the most fun I had with the game was during beta, before launch.

Since then, between the nerf bats to quests, dunegons, mobs and bosses... the dumb down on vet content, Craglorn fiascos, the shifting directions of stated goals.... the slow, piece meal changes to revamping the entire veteran system (with still no ETA in sight on the final product...) and now this?

I'd say on the whole it has been a pretty big let down. No, it doesn't freak me out and it did not mean a "life altering experience" or some such nonesense. It is a game to me, not surgery... despite my love for TES... but overall it has not added up to the gaming experience I would have wished for myself and my friends. We had other ideas and hopes in mind for raiding and group content as well which sadly have yet to materialize and, most likely, never will.

Do I regret the time/money I've invested or the fact I still have a sub running to May? No. But until the content they long ago stated would be coming is actually in the game and this whole crown store business unfolds, I have no inspiration to actually play anymore, so my Templar is going to be sitting on V14 indefinitely, CP or no... I could care less about earning any at this point to be truthful. Taking a big wait and see approach since I have nothing to lose.

But, I would go so far to say at this stage that given all that has happened, I am honestly quite happy to wait for Bethesda to produce the next single player entry in the TES series and stay the heck away from Zo$ altogether rather than turn sour on the IP. There are way more appealing MMOs for me to play than this one has turned out to be - something I did not think I would be saying, but it's true for me.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

stewhead2ub17_ESO wrote: »

@Frosth time for you to get a new hobby. You seem too wrapped up in this one. Ok well I think it's time for everyone to move on to the next topic. For those of you staying: enjoy the game. For those of you going: see ya. *turns off the light switch*

That's the point of a hobby. Something you get invested in and that provides enjoyment. The f2p/b2p model scam as a threat to an activity I've enjoyed doing for most of my life. It's my prerogative to try and raise awareness about how damaging this is for the industry that provides the game we love.

@Ray22‌

Thanks.

I see your point, and it is ok to me that some games are addressed to different crowd of people. GW2 has a great niche and is doing not too badly for a b2p game thanks to it.

However ESO was not marketed as b2p. It was marketed for a specific kind of players and now they are changing that to a system that excludes those players.

P2W and other type of gameplay advantages imediately excludes all those that want an equal playing field where their efforts and skills is what matters.
You may not see an issue in stacking boosters and subscription bonuses, but it is p2w and it does change the gameplay.

Content DLC approach has already damaged ESO's quality even before they got released. The ygot worked on parrallely rather than sequentially and many players have been content starved for months and will be for some more.

Not only that but when, as a company, you earn your money by selling content your primary objective is to produce more of it.
The players that wouldn't buy a sub won't pay for expensive DLCs, the max they'll cost is most likely $15, and that's the high end price in my opinion.
This means that quality is not a factor as you can't really market it, but frequency is. Those 6 initial DLCs are probably the best we'll ever going to get as they got developed under the safety of the subscription system.
The future ones will have to adapt.

Had the game remained susbcription only, quality would have been the most important factor. If you take 3 months to develop a new zone, that's 3 months of subscription the players paid in anticipation of the zone you anounced.
The content will need to be of high quality in order for the players to be satisfied of paying 3 months waiting for it. If they aren't you lose revenue as they won't trust your next promise.

In a perfect world, maybe it is possible that quality doesn't drop.
But we not only have proof that it will from past games, we've got glimpse of lower quality in what we know of ESos plans but we also cannot trust ZOS business practices anymore.

ricku1967 wrote: »

@ frosth.darkomenb16_ESO , you are still assuming, speculating, guessing. this move will ruin this game..there are zero items in the "crown shop" that will make this game P2W..having "convenience items" is far from P2W imo. why dont we have a "wait and see' approach before we scream from the tops of buildings that the sky is falling?

Boosters and subscription bonuses already are P2W.
They are indirect ways of acquiring more power.
The anounced skill ines as DLCs too, which in this case is direct P2W.

Those are things we will need to pay in order to be competitive.
Especially with changes like the CP system that is designed for a relatively long term progression system.

I do not know of your experience with these kind of switches, but we've waited for many games before, and we've seen all of them go down the same path.
I understand your will to be hopeful, I too can't shake off the feeling that "this time it will be different", but we're luring ourselves.

ZOS won't be the chosen ones. They won't do anything different than all the other devs. And unfortunately, we already know they're partly doing p2w already and we know we can't trust them to keep their word.
This very switch is the proof of that.


@Soulshine‌

I'm in a somewhat similar position than yours.
I would not have bought the game had they not advertised it so much as a game that would remain cash shop free.

I had some fun, but I had a couple occasions where I couldn't log in to the game for over a month due to a busy life, yet I remained susbcribed to support the future of the game.
The way MMOs work is that you pay in advance for the content that is developed, and the advertised additions to the game were something I wanted to pay for.

I'm regreting that. I regret having spent money for content that will not be as advertised and being foolish enough to trust marketing.

ricku1967

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO , "Boosters and subscription bonuses already are P2W." ?!?!? really?!?!? so, you think that if everyone who plays the game will have access to everything the game has to offer, if they pay extra money or not, is pay to win??? in what universe is that pay to win?? i think you need to go research P2W, because its obvious you have no clue what it means. P2W is a game mechanic that has items people can buy in a shop that is not available/ obtainable anywhere else in the game, to make that person who has the most money more powerful than anyone else in game that doesn't spend any money at all. ESO on the other hand will have items that can be obtained by EVERYONE who plays the game, even if they spend extra money or not. the people who spend money will just get it a little quicker than someone who doesn't spend money. that isnt even in the same area code as P2W. the only way it will effect a player is if they go into the PVP zone (which by the way is only a fraction of the entire game) at level 10, when they haven't hardly played the game at all, where they will be going up against people that are a lot higher level than them.

3/4 of the game is PVE so getting 10% boosts to gold, research, exp. and so on doesn't effect anyone in the game. that is not P2W. by time people are actually ready to play/should play the PVP part of the game, they will already be close to max level. and when that happens, the boosts are virtually pointless and has no effect to the game at all. IF this game was entirely PVP, you would have a great argument. Like i said, wait and see IF they actually do put items in the shop that will make this game a true P2W game, if that happens..ill be right there with you on the rooftops screaming the sky is falling.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Pay to win is simply what it is called: paying to win.

If you pay for any gameplay impacting advantages, for instance granting you more power in any way, you are paying to win. It's quite simple really.

The nuance though is that gear on the cash shop is a direct form of p2w while DLC only gear is an indirect form of p2w.
Boosters are in between, granting you direct gameplay advantages, but an indirect gain in power.

I don't like having double standards, so even lesser form of p2w are a fault in my view. A murderer is guilty, even if there are serial killers out there doing much worse.

stewhead2ub17_ESO

I thought I shut this down. Go home!!

ricku1967

@ frosth.darkomenb16_ESO the problem with your flawed thinking is that nothing in this new format is giving anyone an advantage in a 90% PVE environment. the "convenience" items they have said that will be in the shop will be the exact same things you can get from a vendor if you go into the game right now. and i really dont care how you want to rationalize it, a !0% boost for subscribers doesnt give anyone an advantage. so what if i can research an item a few minuets, hours or days before you can, the research will end up the same in the end regardless. we will just have to agree to disagree

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

@ricku1967‌
PvP is not the only competitive environment. What about trials leaderboards?
Server first, and world first, have value to some people. Being above in the ladder is also wining against everyone under you.
Gaining Champion points faster and getting more gold to spend on gear upgrades/testing new builds is going to impact that.

At at a simple level, if you are of the kind that enjoy the destination more than the journey, getting access to end game sooner than someone else is also winning. You get to enjoy the good parts for longer.

And as I said, 10% is not a constant result. It doesn't mean that you'll get there only 10% faster, but that at any single point, you're getting 10% more. But that 10% can make you reach a power plateau that trivialize content where you complete it faster for the same boosted reward. It snowballs from there on and you end up being much more than 10% faster.

And finaly, aside from being p2w, boosters and other time saving items are pay to not play. This is a core flaw of the f2p/b2p model.
In essence, you make the people that are willing to give you money get bored of the game faster. You chase away your customers.
The value of MMOs is that they have the content to last you for months, if not years. Cut that down in anyway, and you cut down the value of your MMO.