Subscribers should receive $5 worth of cash shop currency for every month they have subscribed for

Darlantan

Some people say that the game cost lest than 0.01$ to maintain ok, but what about the development cost of the game itself? You see, people who worked before that game was lunched did not do it free. They received a salaries. The salaries money had to come from somewhere (someone) and that somewhere (someone) want is money back... So the 15$ is to cover that, maintaining the game and future update...

The trouble with that if they took a loan and it work like a normal loan, the few month most of the money they get back goes to cover the interest of that loan an a little bit of the capital they received. Depending on how munch they made it might take a while to balance thing out...

Anyway... Sorry for the people who feel cheated but i don't. Why? Because i had fun, still having fun and i get more of that money than going out to see a movie. I mean going out to see a movie that last at most 2h30, maybe some drink, a popcorn cost me more than 15$ a month. Same thing if i eat out... You do not get a lot for 15$ (please, McDo or crap like that does not met my requirement to eat out).

What make feel cheated is going to the dentist for a simple clean up that take about 20-25 min and getting a bill of 100$ or more (i am do not even live in a very costly city).

EJRose83

Eh, you actually made a good point. If ESO sold 1 million copies of the game for $60 a piece, they would have only made 60 million. Considering the game cost around 200 million to develop, they would need to supplement some of the cost with sub fees. In fact, most of the cost would obviously have to be made up by the sub fees.

starkerealm

EJRose83 wrote: »

Eh, you actually made a good point. If ESO sold 1 million copies of the game for $60 a piece, they would have only made 60 million. Considering the game cost around 200 million to develop, they would need to supplement some of the cost with sub fees. In fact, most of the cost would obviously have to be made up by the sub fees.

Except, of course, this gets back to that quote from Paul Sage that I'm about to mangle, "if you think the game cost $200 million to make, expect to be disappointed." ...or something to that effect.

So, while they won't say what it did cost, it was somewhere south of that number.

Cody

Be happy we are getting the crowns. ZOS did not have to give us(being the subscribers) anything.

EJRose83

Sadly, I think they probably would have sold several times as many units as they did initially, if they had decided to go B2P at launch, which would have allowed them to entirely recoup their development fees upon release. Perhaps if that were the case, we wouldn't have all this awesome DLC waiting for us, such as Wrothgar, Murkmire & The Imperial City.

Rev Rielle

Hejmdal wrote: »

i suggest you to get a job, you can earn money. i was paying since launch and i won t ask nothing, because i got all i paid for.

Quite right. I've gotten to spend hundreds of hours enjoying the game.

I think players sometimes forget all about the game itself, and are instead far too focused on demanding 'rewards because I've done this', or 'loyalty to be shown for doing that'. It simply just makes no sense.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Darlantan wrote: »

Some people say that the game cost lest than 0.01$ to maintain ok, but what about the development cost of the game itself? You see, people who worked before that game was lunched did not do it free. They received a salaries. The salaries money had to come from somewhere (someone) and that somewhere (someone) want is money back... So the 15$ is to cover that, maintaining the game and future update...

The trouble with that if they took a loan and it work like a normal loan, the few month most of the money they get back goes to cover the interest of that loan an a little bit of the capital they received. Depending on how munch they made it might take a while to balance thing out...

Anyway... Sorry for the people who feel cheated but i don't. Why? Because i had fun, still having fun and i get more of that money than going out to see a movie. I mean going out to see a movie that last at most 2h30, maybe some drink, a popcorn cost me more than 15$ a month. Same thing if i eat out... You do not get a lot for 15$ (please, McDo or crap like that does not met my requirement to eat out).

What make feel cheated is going to the dentist for a simple clean up that take about 20-25 min and getting a bill of 100$ or more (i am do not even live in a very costly city).

That's what the box price is for.
You pay for what was at launch by buying the $60 box, then you pay for what will be and some margin of profit with the subscription.

The game costed at most $240M to make.
Alegedly, the first 6 months of the game, it made $111M just with the pc sales and a few months of subscription.
With the console sales and a few more months of sub, they'll be reimbursed and into profit zone.

What they did with this switch is accelerate the ROI and the short term profit but completely ruin their chances at years of true profit with the subscription revenue.

Remember, every f2p and b2p mmorpgs out there loses revenue while subscription based are the kings of the charts.

EJRose83

That last part about subscription based MMOs being king is very true of course. However, I would argue that ESO as it stood at launch and even now, doesn't have the chops to retain a strong subscription base. I think by trying to retain that business model initially, they actually ended up underselling the game by several million copies. But who's to say what's more profitable in the long run...

MornaBaine

First of all, you do not base your $12 figure on anything but a personal hunch. Your poll is premature. Once the Store hits PTS (and what NEEDS to happen there is that all PTS testers need to get the max amount of "crowns" promised to those who have been subbing since launch so they can SEE exactly how much those "crowns" will purchase) and IF we are allowed to see the purchasing power of the "crown" THEN we will know exactly how much that translates to in actual money. ONLY then will we be able to assess if we are being adequately reimbursed for our support of this game as paying beta testers.

For me that means not only had I better be able to purchase EVERYTHING I actually WANT the minute the store opens but all future crowns that I receive as a continuing subscriber had better be enough to cover any new item the store puts out each month.

I do not count DLC in this since, as a subscriber, I will have access to all DLC items as long as I maintain my sub.

EJRose83

We pretty much already know 100 crowns equals $1. This isn't some kind of mathematical proof with a necessary axiomatic foundation or anything :P

MornaBaine

EJRose83 wrote: »

We pretty much already know 100 crowns equals $1. This isn't some kind of mathematical proof with a necessary axiomatic foundation or anything :P

On WHAT exactly, do you base this assumption?

EJRose83

The fact that ZOS is giving subscribers 1500 crowns a month for a $15 subscription. Also, the cash shop is seemingly modeled after LOTRO's as well, where the turbine points to pennies ratio is exactly 1/1.

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO

I'm a 31 year old man and a father of two. I have a job of course. Despite how much respect you think was due, you're comment was extremely rude. You obviously are in need of some manners. Also, I don't need money. It's the principal of the matter that offends me. It doesn't cost $15 a month per subscriber to sustain the client and servers. I work in a data hall, I would know. ZOS could get away with us paying .50 cents a month and that would be more than enough. The extra money we paid for our subscriptions was supposed to (in part) go towards the development of content updates, of which there have been only a few since launch. Now, with the B2P announcement, it seems as though we will be charged again for the content we paid to have developed. This strikes me as wrong and as such, I would like to be reimbursed to a degree, out of principle and for the practical purpose of purchasing DLC I have already effectively paid for.

"So, what do you get as an ESO Plus member? Access to all of ESO’s downloadable content (or DLC) game packs for the duration of your membership"
im sure once you update the client they wont be able to lock you out if you sub runs out

I interpreted the model not as pay for dlc but its, buy to play- and you need active sub to download the new content, so you will just need to activate a 1 month sub each time there is a major content update; and thats the payment. If payment is completely additional to sub I can get behind what your saying, but if you can unsub and just pay the 15$ the day before new content and download it because your subbed, then your just saving money not getting ripped off.

- are you saying we will have to buy the sub to have download access and then also pay again for the the ability to download? or that you have to have reccuring sub or get locked out of new content? neither really makes sense to me, could you elaborate.
-

EJRose83

BOOM

EJRose83

That was the sound of some knowledge being dropped on you, in case you were wondering :P

EJRose83

@dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO You will need an active subscription to access all DLC in the game. If you don't have an active sub, then you will need to purchase each individual DLC pack before you use it. Subbing for one month only temporarily unlocks the DLC content, not permanently.

Castielle

I'd say that most most everyone thought that ESO may go F2P for a long time. It's not that shocking. Most MMOs do at some point in their lifespan these days (Lotro, Rift, SWTOR). That said, I feel like Zenimax said somethings they shouldn't have and made promises they shouldn't have. I imagine they were young execs who were naive. I'm sure they've learned.

I really feel they should have been in better communication with their community during the past year. Not just about this, but about issues in general. Sometimes a little communication is all it takes.

As far as the witholding content so they can sell it, that's just par for the course these days. Look at Evolve for example. They have DLC lined up to sell and the game isn't even launched yet. I'd much rather games go up in price 10$ and we get it all at release, but then I'm sure we'd all wonder if we were still getting all the content...It's a competitive marketplace and Zenimax is trying to stay competitive.

Cas

Morthur

.

AlexDougherty

EJRose83 wrote: »

Considering I will have been subbed for about 12 months when the B2P model goes live, this would leave me with $60 in cash shop currency to spend on DLC I feel either should have been included in the initial B2P client or that I have already paid for with my previous sub fees.

You may consider that, I doubt they do.

I don't expect to get any more than they've said we will get, and have enjoyed the game immensely so far.

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO

EJRose83 wrote: »

@dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO You will need an active subscription to access all DLC in the game. If you don't have an active sub, then you will need to purchase each individual DLC pack before you use it. Subbing for one month only temporarily unlocks the DLC content, not permanently.[/quote

Could you link something that says that.

Tavore1138

A poll based on no evidence doesn't really deserve a vote now does it?

Wait and see what 100 crowns cost, then decide if it is worth getting grumpy.

starkerealm

MornaBaine wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

We pretty much already know 100 crowns equals $1. This isn't some kind of mathematical proof with a necessary axiomatic foundation or anything :P

On WHAT exactly, do you base this assumption?

PSYCHIC POWAHS!

Okay, so... 100 Crowns to the dollar makes some sense for an American market... based on consumer psychology. But, it's still a guess.

EJRose83

A guess, yes. That doesn't negate the fact that its an educated and highly probable guess. Does anyone really think the crown to penny ratio won't be 1/1?

starkerealm

EJRose83 wrote: »

A guess, yes. That doesn't negate the fact that its an educated and highly probable guess. Does anyone really think the crown to penny ratio won't be 1/1?

I think it's possible it won't. I've seen games do a 120 on the dollar conversion before. I know some mobile developers go as high as 1k to the dollar, because, "SUPR GREAT VALUE JEMS U BUY NAO!" crap...

So, it's possible. But, 100 to 150 seems likely.

Tavore1138

If it is $1 to 100c then the monthly sub looks like a good deal.

rawne1980b16_ESO

Never going to happen.

LadyNerevar

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

It doesn't cost $15 a month per subscriber to sustain the client and servers. I work in a data hall, I would know. ZOS could get away with us paying .50 cents a month and that would be more than enough.
-

ESO isn't just a big server sitting there unattended. It is hundreds of people maintaining the game and related services, updating the game and related services. It is the space, equipment, and software they need to do all that. And it needs a profit (a whole lot of profit, ideally) to make the whole venture worth its while.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

EJRose83 wrote: »

That last part about subscription based MMOs being king is very true of course. However, I would argue that ESO as it stood at launch and even now, doesn't have the chops to retain a strong subscription base. I think by trying to retain that business model initially, they actually ended up underselling the game by several million copies. But who's to say what's more profitable in the long run...

True, but it was improving, and that's the whole point of the susbcription based system. Just the anouncement of 1.6 and the release of more info about it increased player activity. Steam charts doubled for the last 30 days before we knew about the b2p switch.
We need to take this wit ha grain of salt, but it is worth noting.
Something similar occured with WoW and its new expansion advertised as going back to the roots for hardcore players. For a game the guys running it were certain it would never increase in subs again, there were subscription increased just with hype.

And that's something MMO devs forgot and newer players do not know: You do not pay for what is but to see the advertised plans get implemented. You pay for your future enjoyment of a game that, over time, will have more and more value to the dollar for your subscription. In a way, it's just like crowdfunding.

And every other game out there can tell what is more profitable on the long term: The susbcription model.
Switches usually net around 1 year of susbcription in extra revenue for a month, then loses revenue forever.
Subscriptions of a well managed game increase for years. And in some cases, forever.

LadyNerevar wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

It doesn't cost $15 a month per subscriber to sustain the client and servers. I work in a data hall, I would know. ZOS could get away with us paying .50 cents a month and that would be more than enough.
-

ESO isn't just a big server sitting there unattended. It is hundreds of people maintaining the game and related services, updating the game and related services. It is the space, equipment, and software they need to do all that. And it needs a profit (a whole lot of profit, ideally) to make the whole venture worth its while.

You missed his point.
If we were to be paying only for access to the servers without any additional development, we'd be paying a few cents at most. The company would be doing an extremely large margin of profit by charging $0.50 per player.

The rest of the subscription is to pay for those hundreds of people working on improving the game. It's a way to execute the core concept of an MMORPG:
"Play a game you can play forever."
It's not about having access to it forever, but have it evolve enough that you don't get bored of it. Essentially, the subscription fee serves to sponsor the changes the company has advertised it will be doing.

In ESO's case, we've paid them to develop 1.6 and all its currently announced DLCs. We've effectively already paid for that.

And as a side note, one of the advertised plans of the game was that it would remain a premium experience without a cash shop, and that hasn't been delivered and never will. Part of our game purchase and ongoing subscription since launch has been wasted.

Many would not have bought the game, nor remained subscribed to it, had it not been for those marketing point pre-launch.

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO

LadyNerevar wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

It doesn't cost $15 a month per subscriber to sustain the client and servers. I work in a data hall, I would know. ZOS could get away with us paying .50 cents a month and that would be more than enough.
-

ESO isn't just a big server sitting there unattended. It is hundreds of people maintaining the game and related services, updating the game and related services. It is the space, equipment, and software they need to do all that. And it needs a profit (a whole lot of profit, ideally) to make the whole venture worth its while.

I never wrote that, that snipit is out of someone i was responding too

rawne1980b16_ESO

Personally I don't think anyone should get anything for the months they were subscribed.

It's a terrible attitude to have to claim you deserve something.

You have been paying to play the game, not paying for future rewards.

"Gimme gimme gimme", I cringe when I read threads like this. What happened to paying to enjoy something, why the hell should you get anything for free?

You are owed nothing.