At 20$ a box, is there a real difference between F2P and B2P?

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO · January 2015

so your asking is 20$ the same as 0$
really, I mean really?
just do the math if your capable.

eisberg · January 2015

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@eisberg‌
MOBAs aren't mmos. World of tank is not an MMO. Heck, I don't know what Counter strike online is, but I doubt it is an mmo either.
They all have a lot of players and are online games, but they are lobby based systems, they do not have the massively multiplayer aspect. it's about how many players you can interact with at a single point.

Because of this, those market data are hard to use to compare f2p mmos and subscription mmos. There is simply too much noise.

And this "shrinking" market is what I explained in the other thread. In short, it's simply because the games that get released as susbcription have a form of planned obsolescence. They no longer are aimed at being long term endeavors so they don't stay sub long enough to maintain the market size.
The few games that have actually attempted to be susbscription only have succeeded. ESO did not even try.

For the cash shops in some subscription only MMOs, that's just adapting to new times. It tells more about how people are ready to pay a sub than it says about f2p. Those games can get players to pay a sub, some times for expansions and even sparkle ponies. Why shouldn't they?

I disagree, what I see is a crap ton of MMOs that tried to be subscription based and failed, and the MMOs that are still subscription based are the lucky few. I see all these MMOs that were meant to be long endeavors, and they thought they could do it with a subscription, but they soon realized that if they want to make a profit for the long haul, they needed to go move away from a subscription only model, cause if they stayed at subscription only model they would more likely have to shut down instead, or go into maintenance mode at best. Changing their model was not just for the short term, it was for the short and the long term.

Vusile · January 2015

If a game costs $0.01, is it B2P or F2P?

Sarah_Lynn · January 2015

For me it's more that you should be giving out correct information, rather than how "drastically different" it is.

terence.caroneb17_ESO · January 2015

The game will also be at 20$ on consoles ... for people who played on PC before June 30th #winning . (Yeah my pc is too weak, I prefer to switch on a stable console version, got plenty of stuff to explain to console friends ah ah)

xtago · January 2015

danno816_ESO wrote: »

It can be a disincentive to getting banned, or participating in activities that can get you banned.

The worst of the f2p freeloaders are so cheap that even $20 will make them hesitate. The proof is that you will hear them complain that it is not completely free, even now when it only costs $20.

Like locking your door, it is just a deterrent, not foolproof.

jpatek0501ub17_ESO wrote: »

Nijjion wrote: »

F2P I can create 100 accounts for free.

100 accounts for b2p game for $20 will cost me 2 grand. Big difference.

Its Not that much for a gold selling/farming/ botter.

It is, but only if the company is aggressive at banning accounts quickly. It definitely has an affect on Gold Spamming in chat, since that is usually a quick ban.

There's plenty of people with 20+ active accounts, just for bots in the game.

Emencie · January 2015

AlexDougherty wrote: »

Carina wrote: »

AlexDougherty wrote: »

Gyudan wrote: »

F2P: free to play - you download the game for free and play as much as you want afterwards, without a subscription fee.
B2P: buy to play - you pay a certain amount of money for the box and play as much as you want afterwards, without a subscription fee.

Every time someone comes up with another news flash saying "ESO goes F2P", there's always a discussion about how the game is actually B2P and how it is a huge difference. The initial payment would act as a floodgate and prevent the game from being invaded by trolls, griefers and bots.

If the price of the game was the same as when it launched (60-80$), they would be 100% correct. However, due to numerous sales (and this has been going on for months, it's not new), the box price has dropped a lot, -50% at least, and that's still with the 30 days subscription included.

Do you think the current box prices maintain the difference between F2P and B2P?

The initial purchase puts off some overentitled people, but apart from that, no, they both operate of the same principles, revolving primarily on getting us to spend in the cash shop.

WoW, which requires a paid subscription, has had a cash shop for years.

OK, it doesn't diminish from my arguement that F2P and B2P are essentially the same. And they their business model is geared around the cash shop. I know they've said Cosmetic and nothing you can't get in game anyhow (I noticed they didn't actually say no gear), but they will be adding items with the intention of them being must have items.

Not sure what WoW Cash shop sells, and how much of it's revenue comes from that, so I can't say anything about it.

Ugh...

WoW's cash shop sells a 11 vanity pets, 9 mounts and various player game services like server transfer or faction change.

To put that in perspective... There are 475 mounts in WoW today. And 9 of them are sold in the store, and not a single one of those store bought mounts has a special ability. All special and prestigious mounts are gained in game. That is less than 2% of the mounts sold in the "cash shop".

On the other side ESO 1.6 has a total of 11 mounts, 6 of which are bought in the cash shop, and 1 that is purchased with the CE. That is 63% of the mounts in the game purchased outside the game!

@AlexDougherty is 100% right! There is a very big difference in the game model of F2P and it is nearly identical to B2P because they both revolve around the cash shop.

Where a Pay to play game has to create content and "fun" to keep people subscribing to turn a profit, a F2P game has to create incentives to buy from their cash shop to turn a profit. This can take a lot of forms sure, but it all still boils down to the cash shop being the number one driving factor in a F2P game and a B2P game. Which is why they are virtually indistinguishable.

xtago · January 2015

Overall b2p is just a fancy term for f2p.

F2P sees you needing to buy basic stuff, To get ahead In the game.

B2p sees you buying the game but you need to buy content to get further I the game.

There's very little difference really.

Mjollnir_NL · January 2015

I do not really get it. Free 2 play means everyone can download it. Even the kiddos most are so scared off. Now they need to use 20 dollar to buy something. They will buy it only when they like it. Not for just being a troll. And most kids wil save the money for call of duty or something.

So 20 dollar is not f2p

phairdon · January 2015

The console versions of the game are listed at $108 in my country. PC version had dropped in price to about $50. Ironically, with the release of Tamriel Unlimited PC version, the price has risen to $99.
Wondering if the same price rises will be world wide?

Mathius_Mordred · January 2015

Gidorick wrote: »

lol. yea... a $20 difference.

But really, no there's not. ZOS is pushing the difference between B2P and F2P because they don't want to look like they COMPLETELY sold out this early.

Also, it provides them the opportunity to go F2P later and launch for a THIRD time with a big announcement:

"We've listened to our players and we are pleased to announced that we are now able to give them exactly what they want. We've removed all pay-walls to access to get into ESO. Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited: Uprising of the Factions will give players the core Elder Scrolls Online experience at no up front cost so that any player that joins will get to play at no cost to them.

Additionally, because we have been listening to what players want, we will be introducing Champion Trainers. These in game NPCs will allow players to pay 1000 Crowns to immediately advance to the next level. Once at level 50 they will offer 10 CP for the same 1000 Crowns.

We are making these changes because this is what you have told us you want and we believe this new model will enable us to make the ESO that we have always envisioned."

Even Cryptic haven't stooped that low!

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · January 2015

eisberg wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@eisberg‌
MOBAs aren't mmos. World of tank is not an MMO. Heck, I don't know what Counter strike online is, but I doubt it is an mmo either.
They all have a lot of players and are online games, but they are lobby based systems, they do not have the massively multiplayer aspect. it's about how many players you can interact with at a single point.

Because of this, those market data are hard to use to compare f2p mmos and subscription mmos. There is simply too much noise.

And this "shrinking" market is what I explained in the other thread. In short, it's simply because the games that get released as susbcription have a form of planned obsolescence. They no longer are aimed at being long term endeavors so they don't stay sub long enough to maintain the market size.
The few games that have actually attempted to be susbscription only have succeeded. ESO did not even try.

For the cash shops in some subscription only MMOs, that's just adapting to new times. It tells more about how people are ready to pay a sub than it says about f2p. Those games can get players to pay a sub, some times for expansions and even sparkle ponies. Why shouldn't they?

I disagree, what I see is a crap ton of MMOs that tried to be subscription based and failed, and the MMOs that are still subscription based are the lucky few. I see all these MMOs that were meant to be long endeavors, and they thought they could do it with a subscription, but they soon realized that if they want to make a profit for the long haul, they needed to go move away from a subscription only model, cause if they stayed at subscription only model they would more likely have to shut down instead, or go into maintenance mode at best. Changing their model was not just for the short term, it was for the short and the long term.

The thing is, even "bad" games make a profit with the subscription model. Darkfall, for instance, is extremely niche, screwed up big time with its playerbase and is progressing at a snail pace that makes ESO look like a shooting star.
It has been susbcription since 2009 and has been hiring new people and moved to larger office twice since then. if a small greek company of borderline incompetent devs can make the sub work, so can ZOS with ESO.

On the other hand, f2p/b2p that are "good" are losing revenue every year.
If swtor , gw2 and tsw, those doing it "right", are not increasing but decreasing, what makes you think ESO will? ZOS has proven they were competent, but not as much as arenanet. And free star wars, that's one of the most iconic IP in the world, for free, and it can't pull more than 1.2M players.

When top of the line console+PC f2p games like Warframe makes as much revenue as ESO is supposed to be making currently in a bad state, I don't see how you can still hold your position.

http://steamcharts.com/app/306130
Since 17th of December, date of the livestream about 1.6, the active players were growing fast, up to half of what it was at the steam release (alegedly, 772k).
If we consider the community followed the steam trends, it means that at the worst point, in November, it was at 198k subscribers. That's more than 50% profit margin at its worst and $35.64M minimum revenue a year.
And we're now back to 410k susbcribers so more than150% margin.

Remember, Warframe, top f2p on consoles, is a huge hit with only 32% profit margin and even chinese chicken breeders want a piece of that.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-10-16-digital-extremes-sells-61-per-cent-of-shares-for-usd73-million

I get that you want to keep hoping this is a good move and that it is in the best interest of the game. We all do, but we have to face the facts.

Even if we were to have faith in execs and believe they are pure of heart and ethical, this would still be a bad move.
All f2p/b2p mmos are losing revenue, only subscription based MMOs can become lucky ones that increase.
8 months is too early to call it quits and give up on the opportunity to become a lucky one. Even LOTRO waited 3 years.
From the few numbers we have about ESO, it suposedly made $111M in its first 6 months. ZOS has operating costs of at most $18M a year. (from studios of similar sizes)

They are in no financial danger for at least 3 years and it leaves them 3 other years of margin to attempt other things, or giving 50% of their revenue back to investors. And that's if they stoped earning anything more after the 6 first months, but we already know that's not true. (min $35.64M)

And finaly, one thing you cannot remove is that even if it were a smart business move, it is still bad for the quality of the game.
f2p/b2p puts pressure on the team and forces them to make sacrifices. Sure, some teams manage to improve a bit the game, but the bulk of their efforts is to make things that sell. This is not good for a game.

There is no realistic doubt that all of this is just the strategy illustrated earlier by myself and others. And until ZOS releases numbers and trends showing it was not sustainable, they have no excuses that can make us believe they did this for the good of the game.

I think we can leave it at that because clearly, you are not yet in a position to be convinced. History will eventually do it. In a year or two, once it is revealed that ZOS is losing revenue constantly and ESO fades into anonymity, remember our discussion here.