Clarification: Why make the change (to B2P)?

Sylvyr

In watching the ESO Live Tamriel Unlimited video - around 12 minutes in Matt Firor is asked why change the revenue model. His answer was basically that it was in direct response to listening to the community demand for it (like the champion system).

I can't seem to remember any. Can anyone recall this? It'd make me feel a lot better knowing this was what the community asked for rather than greed or desperation or whatever.

Ahdora

The only time I ever saw F2P or B2P mentioned was from people saying the game was going to go that route soon, they'd just wait until then to play it because they weren't willing to sub at all, or weren't willing to sub to such a "crap game." Their words.

I have no doubt some people asked, but I find it very VERY hard to believe that the vast majority of players asked for this change. So hard to believe, in fact, that I don't.

spryler

He must be referring to the console community that does not exist yet. To say that the current population wanted this switch is completely incorrect in my opinion.

But hey, lying is part of our culture. It starts with Santa and ends with Politics.

Sylvyr

No way dude, how could Mr Firor lie like that right there on a live stream?

Come on, there's got to be some evidence of this outcry for the revenue model change somewhere! I didn't pay attention to the forums till about Nov-Dec, was it before then? Surely someone remembers!

starkerealm

Sylvyr wrote: »

Can anyone recall this?

It wasn't on these forums, but, as someone else mentioned pretty frequently anywhere else.

Someone on the boards here described them as the "F2P Locusts." Players who look at a box 'n sub game and say "that's not worth my money to play, but if it was free, I'd be all over it." You'd see them in comment threads for nearly any news on the subject.

That said, I think this change actually has more to do with Microsoft than "community demand." Bethesda managed to wrangle Sony into waving PS+ fees for the game, but wasn't able to get the same consideration out of Microsoft's XBL subs. So, players were looking at having to sub twice (to Microsoft and to Bethesda) for the XBone.

Also, there was a rumor on a couple of news sites that Microsoft was also demanding a cut of the subscription fees on XBL. Which would have meant players there were having to pay more ($20-$25 a month) and Bethesda would have been getting less of that than with PC and PS4 players.

Faced with either passing on the XBone, having to offer it without subscription fees on one system, or trying to convince people to pay substantially more on one platform than any others, particularly when that platform was (I think?) the strongest mover for Skyrim.

So, they went with axing subs across the board.

Apparently. But, they're not going to say, "yeah, Microsoft screwed us with our pants on," even if that's true.

Koloki

It is funny that people think this forums represent most of the community.

When Matt talks about the community he is referring not only to us but all the people that bought the game and stopped playing, people that play but don't use the forums, youtubers, reviewers, elder scrolls fans and the gaming community at large that gave then so much heat when they announced the sub model to begin with.

Most of the time consumers don't demand things with words on the forums, they demand it with their wallets, and the demand has obviously been strong enough for ZOS.

Exarch

Never, that I can recall; the only posts in regard to a change to remove the subscription were people threatening to quit if that ever happened.

Of course it could have been on reddit; all the community interaction that matters (to the devs) seems to happen on reddit.

Mountain_Dewed

I just came in to look and see how update 6 was going and it's just now hitting PTS? Actually just saw the B2P thingy also, say what?

I've been running around Steam trying a bunch of different games there and then I found Elite Dangerous and it's awesome! I ain't quitting here but definitely glad I found an awesome space game/sim that'll keep me happy for a while.

The game isn't complete either but it has a lot of fun stuff to do in it now and they actually say that there is more they need to do to the game when they released it, which is nice. And when I say complete, I mean a lot more content coming, there isn't bugs everywhere...

It'll keep me busy and I love this game here and hope this new update is worth it and gets off PTS and on the real server soon.

miahq

It was entirely a business decision. The game tanked on PC for a laundry list of reasons, so a big part of what's going now seems to be less about the existing PC community and more about re marketing the game for console release. That's why it's b2p, and that's why they're really pushing the PR with all the changes-- they can basically build up the hype about it leading in to console release, advertising it as essentially an entirely new game and a new experience.

The idea they listened to their audience is BS, it's just marketing. It just sounds better than simply coming out and saying, "we want to maximize profits and our projections for a subscription based model weren't on target for where we'd like to have been."

Sylvyr

Umm, soooo, if demand came to remove sub at the beginning because of all the problems, in the video he really spends a lot of time exhibiting how far we've come, how awesome and expanded the game is, so... wouldn't that further justify keeping the sub as opposed to agreeing with the people that said it wasn't worth a sub?

As far as a console sub issues. I dunno, seeing lots of rumors, Even if they are true, he wouldn't have to say anything about getting screwed, just that due to bringing in consoles and how the mechanics work they need to change the model.

But he spent a lot of time explaining that we asked for this... Not giving up just yet.

I'm not so much a reddit watcher, and redditors remember this going on over there?

starkerealm

miahq wrote: »

The game tanked on PC for a laundry list of reasons...

You have a source you can cite there, or you're just talking ***?

Sylvyr

miahq wrote: »

It was entirely a business decision. The game tanked on PC for a laundry list of reasons, so a big part of what's going now seems to be less about the existing PC community and more about re marketing the game for console release. That's why it's b2p, and that's why they're really pushing the PR with all the changes-- they can basically build up the hype about it leading in to console release, advertising it as essentially an entirely new game and a new experience.

The idea they listened to their audience is BS, it's just marketing. It just sounds better than simply coming out and saying, "we want to maximize profits and our projections for a subscription based model weren't on target for where we'd like to have been."

@‌miahq
But I'm looking for evidence that shows that they didn't BS us! Damn, i'm losing hope here people! There had to have been a noticeable outcry for them to do this and say that it was requested by the community and happy that they were able to meet that substantial request!

miahq

starkerealm wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

The game tanked on PC for a laundry list of reasons...

You have a source you can cite there, or you're just talking ***?

Um, they peeked at only around 770k -800k subs, for a major release that's pretty crappy. The reviews ranged from tepid to outright hostile. They really failed to capture the larger ES audience, and they turned off a lot of the MMO market with such a buggy release. They cut the number of active PvP campaigns and drastically cut the pop caps for them, but still can't actually pop lock more than a single campaign even at peek hours. Or how about the fact they launched a giant revamp of the game less than a year after release, marketing it as essentially an entirely different game.

Just because people still play the game doesn't make it successful. It didn't hit anywhere near expected numbers, and shed a lot of subs after release. I don't see how any of that is really in dispute at this point. The game kind of tanked.

miahq

Sylvyr wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

It was entirely a business decision. The game tanked on PC for a laundry list of reasons, so a big part of what's going now seems to be less about the existing PC community and more about re marketing the game for console release. That's why it's b2p, and that's why they're really pushing the PR with all the changes-- they can basically build up the hype about it leading in to console release, advertising it as essentially an entirely new game and a new experience.

The idea they listened to their audience is BS, it's just marketing. It just sounds better than simply coming out and saying, "we want to maximize profits and our projections for a subscription based model weren't on target for where we'd like to have been."

@‌miahq
But I'm looking for evidence that shows that they didn't BS us! Damn, i'm losing hope here people! There had to have been a noticeable outcry for them to do this and say that it was requested by the community and happy that they were able to meet that substantial request!

it's a great PR statement because it's not technically a lie. If you polled everyone on here about what model they should use and 70% said stick with p2p with 30% saying switch to b2p, they can still say they listened to the fans no matter what choice they pick. I mean they never said they listened to the majority of fans, just the fans. And you can always find at least a few people who will ask for the wackiest of crap. So it's pretty much a catch all justification to toss out whenever you just need a slick answer. Fans like it when you listen to them, after all. That's why that's always the reason given when pretty much any game makes any sort of change.

superquadockyb14_ESO

Honestly, the barrier of a subscription is quite a big thing, plus the game... well... isn't really 'worth' one in comparison to other MMOs out there with 10x the amount of content. I just recently got Guild Wars 2 and of course the population is basically maxxed out aaaand... well the game is soooooo much better at first glance than ESO is its kinda frustrating and disappointing by comparison.

The liberation of the game from the stress of a subscription is a good idea, asking for 60 dollars plus subscription price is just too consumer unfriendly.

This is all my opinion of course. I wholeheartedly champion this change as I really really wanted more ways to invest into the game I love. I want more cosmetic things, I want more FUN in this game. Combat is fun yes, but it can be so dreary after a long while. I want the chance to make a statement, have a stake in the world, show off some goodies. I don't care about big numbers or statistics, I want fancy outfits, shiny spells and big weapons.

There needs to be something to break the stale nature of the gameworld. (which is quite immerse, just missing that sandboxy player-y touch) And I hope the addition of crowns and hopefully more players via this change would help.

starkerealm

miahq wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

The game tanked on PC for a laundry list of reasons...

You have a source you can cite there, or you're just talking ***?

Um, they peeked at only around 770k -800k subs, for a major release that's pretty crappy. The reviews ranged from tepid to outright hostile. They really failed to capture the larger ES audience, and they turned off a lot of the MMO market with such a buggy release. They cut the number of active PvP campaigns and drastically cut the pop caps for them, but still can't actually pop lock more than a single campaign even at peek hours. Or how about the fact they launched a giant revamp of the game less than a year after release, marketing it as essentially an entirely different game.

Just because people still play the game doesn't make it successful. It didn't hit anywhere near expected numbers, and shed a lot of subs after release. I don't see how any of that is really in dispute at this point. The game kind of tanked.

So, you don't have anything you can cite, just your rambling opinions?

Though, nice for the, "Population doesn't matter, here let me use low population as my evidence."

Also, that $240 million number just came out of your shank too? Or did someone actually disclose that number in a real place?

I mean, I'll grant you, the Microsoft conspiracy theory is kinda shaky, and built on scattered reports, but at least you can say it's analysis. This is just someone trying to pretend to know how to do analysis.

Lynnessa

You guys....

Maybe statements from company representatives are just based on what they're thinking or wanting at the time.

Every developer, every publisher has said things about what they intend that didn't pan out.... I just don't understand why so many people seem to look for opportunities to go, "YOU LIED!"

The most logical reason for the change is that if console players were asked to pay a sub, most wouldn't do so since they already have to pay for network access.

starkerealm

Lynnessa wrote: »

You guys....

Maybe statements from company representatives are just based on what they're thinking or wanting at the time.

Every developer, every publisher has said things about what they intend that didn't pan out.... I just don't understand why so many people seem to look for opportunities to go, "YOU LIED!"

The most logical reason for the change is that if console players were asked to pay a sub, most wouldn't do so since they already have to pay for network access.

It's like no one's ever heard of Peter Molyneux before... oh god, I'm getting old now, aren't I?

Koloki

Sylvyr wrote: »

Umm, soooo, if demand came to remove sub at the beginning because of all the problems, in the video he really spends a lot of time exhibiting how far we've come, how awesome and expanded the game is, so... wouldn't that further justify keeping the sub as opposed to agreeing with the people that said it wasn't worth a sub?

We don't really know, maybe the sub are diminishing, and they are reacting now to a future prediction before its too late.

I do believe they would not change the model if they predicted ESO would continue to thrive on the subs alone. Something has not gone according to plan and now they are having to adapt.

miahq

starkerealm wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

The game tanked on PC for a laundry list of reasons...

You have a source you can cite there, or you're just talking ***?

Um, they peeked at only around 770k -800k subs, for a major release that's pretty crappy. The reviews ranged from tepid to outright hostile. They really failed to capture the larger ES audience, and they turned off a lot of the MMO market with such a buggy release. They cut the number of active PvP campaigns and drastically cut the pop caps for them, but still can't actually pop lock more than a single campaign even at peek hours. Or how about the fact they launched a giant revamp of the game less than a year after release, marketing it as essentially an entirely different game.

Just because people still play the game doesn't make it successful. It didn't hit anywhere near expected numbers, and shed a lot of subs after release. I don't see how any of that is really in dispute at this point. The game kind of tanked.

So, you don't have anything you can cite, just your rambling opinions?

Though, nice for the, "Population doesn't matter, here let me use low population as my evidence."

Also, that $240 million number just came out of your shank too? Or did someone actually disclose that number in a real place?

I mean, I'll grant you, the Microsoft conspiracy theory is kinda shaky, and built on scattered reports, but at least you can say it's analysis. This is just someone trying to pretend to know how to do analysis.

What $240 million number? I never said anything that involved money. Nor would I ever say low population doesn't matter. It matters a lot, especially when your business model depends on it.

And that's not pulling things out of my ass, it's not my "rambling opinions." This isn't a freaking scientific debate, I'm not going to sit here and cite studies or in depth market analysis. Nor does demanding those things actually make you smart, frankly considering that success or failure of a game is almost entirely subjective to begin with it just makes you look like you don't know what the hell you're talking about when you do demand verifiable proof.

And as for opinion on how the game has performed so far, It's been pretty much universal opinion the game didn't meet expectations. 770k subs is dismal for a major release. if you can't be bothered to take five seconds out of your life to google it, don't expect me to do it for you.

Lynnessa

starkerealm wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

You guys....

Maybe statements from company representatives are just based on what they're thinking or wanting at the time.

Every developer, every publisher has said things about what they intend that didn't pan out.... I just don't understand why so many people seem to look for opportunities to go, "YOU LIED!"

The most logical reason for the change is that if console players were asked to pay a sub, most wouldn't do so since they already have to pay for network access.

It's like no one's ever heard of Peter Molyneux before... oh god, I'm getting old now, aren't I?

I honestly don't usually look at the names of people who made the games I play. I hadn't heard of him, but I just read his Wikipedia article. Do you mean to say it's because of Mr. Molyneux that companies think they can get away with such things as over-hype or embellishment? Or why people should be wary?

starkerealm

Lynnessa wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

You guys....

Maybe statements from company representatives are just based on what they're thinking or wanting at the time.

Every developer, every publisher has said things about what they intend that didn't pan out.... I just don't understand why so many people seem to look for opportunities to go, "YOU LIED!"

The most logical reason for the change is that if console players were asked to pay a sub, most wouldn't do so since they already have to pay for network access.

It's like no one's ever heard of Peter Molyneux before... oh god, I'm getting old now, aren't I?

I honestly don't usually look at the names of people who made the games I play. I hadn't heard of him, but I just read his Wikipedia article. Do you mean to say it's because of Mr. Molyneux that companies think they can get away with such things as over-hype or embellishment? Or why people should be wary?

Molyneux has a long history of making grandiose claims, and then failing to quite hit the mark. Some of his development claims when he was working on Fable originally were pretty hilariously out there. Like the claim that trees would grow in real time with the character. He's not being malicious about it, but he does have a long history of going on strange tangents, and ending up promising features that could never be.

There's a Peter Molydeux parody account on Twitter that's almost a better primer for how he's perceived.

miahq

starkerealm wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

You guys....

Maybe statements from company representatives are just based on what they're thinking or wanting at the time.

Every developer, every publisher has said things about what they intend that didn't pan out.... I just don't understand why so many people seem to look for opportunities to go, "YOU LIED!"

The most logical reason for the change is that if console players were asked to pay a sub, most wouldn't do so since they already have to pay for network access.

It's like no one's ever heard of Peter Molyneux before... oh god, I'm getting old now, aren't I?

I honestly don't usually look at the names of people who made the games I play. I hadn't heard of him, but I just read his Wikipedia article. Do you mean to say it's because of Mr. Molyneux that companies think they can get away with such things as over-hype or embellishment? Or why people should be wary?

Molyneux has a long history of making grandiose claims, and then failing to quite hit the mark. Some of his development claims when he was working on Fable originally were pretty hilariously out there. Like the claim that trees would grow in real time with the character. He's not being malicious about it, but he does have a long history of going on strange tangents, and ending up promising features that could never be.

There's a Peter Molydeux parody account on Twitter that's almost a better primer for how he's perceived.

Molydeux is probably the only game dev I could ever say I dislike to the point I'll never buy anything with his name attached to it ever again. Especially after all the BS hype over fable 3. The one good thing everyone would toss around about that game was how beautiful the landscape is... and to those people my one response would be, "go down to the lake, and take a stroll around. And look at the literally one tree that someone copy and pasted all over the damn map."

Lynnessa

starkerealm wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

You guys....

Maybe statements from company representatives are just based on what they're thinking or wanting at the time.

Every developer, every publisher has said things about what they intend that didn't pan out.... I just don't understand why so many people seem to look for opportunities to go, "YOU LIED!"

The most logical reason for the change is that if console players were asked to pay a sub, most wouldn't do so since they already have to pay for network access.

It's like no one's ever heard of Peter Molyneux before... oh god, I'm getting old now, aren't I?

I honestly don't usually look at the names of people who made the games I play. I hadn't heard of him, but I just read his Wikipedia article. Do you mean to say it's because of Mr. Molyneux that companies think they can get away with such things as over-hype or embellishment? Or why people should be wary?

Molyneux has a long history of making grandiose claims, and then failing to quite hit the mark. Some of his development claims when he was working on Fable originally were pretty hilariously out there. Like the claim that trees would grow in real time with the character. He's not being malicious about it, but he does have a long history of going on strange tangents, and ending up promising features that could never be.

There's a Peter Molydeux parody account on Twitter that's almost a better primer for how he's perceived.

Ah, okay. Still, like you said, he wasn't being malicious. And I don't think ZOS is either... and I feel strongly that common forum tropes like "broken trust" or "lack of appreciation" or "deceived us to get our money" are blowing things out of proportion--I mean, why take any of it personally like that?

Also, I've heard of a large number of console games that were cancelled for X console or just cancelled all together because of the hoops Microsoft/Sony put in front of the games' makers. I think it's pretty rad that ESO will see consoles! And really, how could that work out well with charging a sub just for game access?

I think ZOS is taking risks--but I think (hope? deny reality and substitute my own?) that this game is here to stay.

starkerealm

miahq wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

The game tanked on PC for a laundry list of reasons...

You have a source you can cite there, or you're just talking ***?

Um, they peeked at only around 770k -800k subs, for a major release that's pretty crappy. The reviews ranged from tepid to outright hostile. They really failed to capture the larger ES audience, and they turned off a lot of the MMO market with such a buggy release. They cut the number of active PvP campaigns and drastically cut the pop caps for them, but still can't actually pop lock more than a single campaign even at peek hours. Or how about the fact they launched a giant revamp of the game less than a year after release, marketing it as essentially an entirely different game.

Just because people still play the game doesn't make it successful. It didn't hit anywhere near expected numbers, and shed a lot of subs after release. I don't see how any of that is really in dispute at this point. The game kind of tanked.

So, you don't have anything you can cite, just your rambling opinions?

Though, nice for the, "Population doesn't matter, here let me use low population as my evidence."

Also, that $240 million number just came out of your shank too? Or did someone actually disclose that number in a real place?

I mean, I'll grant you, the Microsoft conspiracy theory is kinda shaky, and built on scattered reports, but at least you can say it's analysis. This is just someone trying to pretend to know how to do analysis.

What $240 million number? I never said anything that involved money. Nor would I ever say low population doesn't matter. It matters a lot, especially when your business model depends on it.

Mybad, that actually wasn't you.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

The game costed [sic] at most $240M to make.

Though, I think you could see why I could mistake you for that fine fellow.

The low population thing; that was definitely you, unless you didn't write:

miahq wrote: »

They cut the number of active PvP campaigns and drastically cut the pop caps for them, but still can't actually pop lock more than a single campaign even at peek hours.

I mean, that is saying, "look, part of my argument is there aren't enough people to do X", even if you haven't thought that far ahead.

miahq wrote: »

And that's not pulling things out of my ass, it's not my "rambling opinions." This isn't a freaking scientific debate, I'm not going to sit here and cite studies or in depth market analysis. Nor does demanding those things actually make you smart, frankly considering that success or failure of a game is almost entirely subjective to begin with it just makes you look like you don't know what the hell you're talking about when you do demand verifiable proof.

And as for opinion on how the game has performed so far, It's been pretty much universal opinion the game didn't meet expectations. 770k subs is dismal for a major release. if you can't be bothered to take five seconds out of your life to google it, don't expect me to do it for you.

770k subs is dismal if you sunk over 200 million on a project, I'll grant you that, and you can just ask EA and Bioware if they were happy with TOR's numbers. For a box 'n sub MMO launch, that's not "tanking" except when you have unrealistic expectations going in. So, the question is more, "did Bethesda and ZoS have reasonable expectations for an MMO?" Which is a lot harder to pin down.

rawne1980b16_ESO

Lynnessa wrote: »

I think ZOS is taking risks--but I think (hope? deny reality and substitute my own?) that this game is here to stay.

There are games far smaller than ESO surviving.

The move to consoles will bring in players and folk like me keep coming back to the PC version (even if we don't stick around long).

miahq

starkerealm wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

The game tanked on PC for a laundry list of reasons...

You have a source you can cite there, or you're just talking ***?

Um, they peeked at only around 770k -800k subs, for a major release that's pretty crappy. The reviews ranged from tepid to outright hostile. They really failed to capture the larger ES audience, and they turned off a lot of the MMO market with such a buggy release. They cut the number of active PvP campaigns and drastically cut the pop caps for them, but still can't actually pop lock more than a single campaign even at peek hours. Or how about the fact they launched a giant revamp of the game less than a year after release, marketing it as essentially an entirely different game.

Just because people still play the game doesn't make it successful. It didn't hit anywhere near expected numbers, and shed a lot of subs after release. I don't see how any of that is really in dispute at this point. The game kind of tanked.

So, you don't have anything you can cite, just your rambling opinions?

Though, nice for the, "Population doesn't matter, here let me use low population as my evidence."

Also, that $240 million number just came out of your shank too? Or did someone actually disclose that number in a real place?

I mean, I'll grant you, the Microsoft conspiracy theory is kinda shaky, and built on scattered reports, but at least you can say it's analysis. This is just someone trying to pretend to know how to do analysis.

What $240 million number? I never said anything that involved money. Nor would I ever say low population doesn't matter. It matters a lot, especially when your business model depends on it.

Mybad, that actually wasn't you.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

The game costed [sic] at most $240M to make.

Though, I think you could see why I could mistake you for that fine fellow.

The low population thing; that was definitely you, unless you didn't write:

miahq wrote: »

They cut the number of active PvP campaigns and drastically cut the pop caps for them, but still can't actually pop lock more than a single campaign even at peek hours.

I mean, that is saying, "look, part of my argument is there aren't enough people to do X", even if you haven't thought that far ahead.

miahq wrote: »

And that's not pulling things out of my ass, it's not my "rambling opinions." This isn't a freaking scientific debate, I'm not going to sit here and cite studies or in depth market analysis. Nor does demanding those things actually make you smart, frankly considering that success or failure of a game is almost entirely subjective to begin with it just makes you look like you don't know what the hell you're talking about when you do demand verifiable proof.

And as for opinion on how the game has performed so far, It's been pretty much universal opinion the game didn't meet expectations. 770k subs is dismal for a major release. if you can't be bothered to take five seconds out of your life to google it, don't expect me to do it for you.

770k subs is dismal if you sunk over 200 million on a project, I'll grant you that, and you can just ask EA and Bioware if they were happy with TOR's numbers. For a box 'n sub MMO launch, that's not "tanking" except when you have unrealistic expectations going in. So, the question is more, "did Bethesda and ZoS have reasonable expectations for an MMO?" Which is a lot harder to pin down.

The PvP numbers bit, since they've not release any sub figures since the 770k number way back when, I've just been trying to use that as sort of a window into peak users online at any time. It's not perfect, but unless PvP represents less than 10% of online people at any given time! it doesn't speak volumes for their peak user numbers at this point.

You could fit at max 8-10k if I remember, between the NA and EU servers with the current pop locks. They aren't even getting a third of that though, even on weekends. Only one campaign is usually ever at the pop lock on each server. So even if you were generous and said it was 7-8k, those don't reflect very good numbers. Ultimately that's why they cut the number of campaigns, most likely. the number they opened with likely reflected what they were hoping to have, but with the number of actual players at any given time that many empty campaigns is just a bit embarrassing to look at. Cut the number and it looks a little better, but when you consider how they've cut the pop locks as well, they've either a dismally small fraction of online players in PvP even at peek hours, or they just aren't doing that well.

miahq

Lynnessa wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

You guys....

Maybe statements from company representatives are just based on what they're thinking or wanting at the time.

Every developer, every publisher has said things about what they intend that didn't pan out.... I just don't understand why so many people seem to look for opportunities to go, "YOU LIED!"

The most logical reason for the change is that if console players were asked to pay a sub, most wouldn't do so since they already have to pay for network access.

It's like no one's ever heard of Peter Molyneux before... oh god, I'm getting old now, aren't I?

I honestly don't usually look at the names of people who made the games I play. I hadn't heard of him, but I just read his Wikipedia article. Do you mean to say it's because of Mr. Molyneux that companies think they can get away with such things as over-hype or embellishment? Or why people should be wary?

Molyneux has a long history of making grandiose claims, and then failing to quite hit the mark. Some of his development claims when he was working on Fable originally were pretty hilariously out there. Like the claim that trees would grow in real time with the character. He's not being malicious about it, but he does have a long history of going on strange tangents, and ending up promising features that could never be.

There's a Peter Molydeux parody account on Twitter that's almost a better primer for how he's perceived.

Ah, okay. Still, like you said, he wasn't being malicious. And I don't think ZOS is either... and I feel strongly that common forum tropes like "broken trust" or "lack of appreciation" or "deceived us to get our money" are blowing things out of proportion--I mean, why take any of it personally like that?

Also, I've heard of a large number of console games that were cancelled for X console or just cancelled all together because of the hoops Microsoft/Sony put in front of the games' makers. I think it's pretty rad that ESO will see consoles! And really, how could that work out well with charging a sub just for game access?

I think ZOS is taking risks--but I think (hope? deny reality and substitute my own?) that this game is here to stay.

I can understand how people could feel deceived a bit, but ultimately it's just PR. I mean everyone remembers that Saddam PR guy who was telling everyone that things were great even when there were US tanks in the background, PR for games just isn't that different.

No one in their right mind is going to come out and say, "we've got a ton of bugs, we've had to rush some stuff to get it out, but we'd like you to buy it anyway." But the end result is you hype your game up to the point it can't live up to people's expectations. The b2p bit... if the game had performed better they may have stuck with p2p, or it may have been a fiscal decision that happened independent of PC performance.

With Molydeux though, he's said a lot of things about his games over the years that just didn't turn out to be true. He'd promise things, then not put them in there... but he wouldn't tell people they were no longer in there, he'd just wait until you bought the damn thing and then say, 'oh yeah, we wanted to make that work, but couldn't so we left it out.'

DeLindsay

Did you ever think that maybe the reason ESO is going B2P is because MSoft and Sony wouldn't allow ZoS to charge a monthly sub fee to Console users? There's no way in hell the PC community would continue to play ESO as P2P only while the Console community just had to buy the retail box and then pay nothing to play the game monthly. It's 100% a business decision due to being released on multiple platforms. Anyone that didn't see this coming, well, I have some prime swamp, erm I mean real estate to sell you in Florida

miahq

DeLindsay wrote: »

Did you ever think that maybe the reason ESO is going B2P is because MSoft and Sony wouldn't allow ZoS to charge a monthly sub fee to Console users? There's no way in hell the PC community would continue to play ESO as P2P only while the Console community just had to buy the retail box and then pay nothing to play the game monthly. It's 100% a business decision due to being released on multiple platforms. Anyone that didn't see this coming, well, I have some prime swamp, erm I mean real estate to sell you in Florida

Both companies have allowed subs in the past, they aren't against it really. They're just not going to let the game dev get around their own pay requirements because of it.

starkerealm

miahq wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

The game tanked on PC for a laundry list of reasons...

You have a source you can cite there, or you're just talking ***?

Um, they peeked at only around 770k -800k subs, for a major release that's pretty crappy. The reviews ranged from tepid to outright hostile. They really failed to capture the larger ES audience, and they turned off a lot of the MMO market with such a buggy release. They cut the number of active PvP campaigns and drastically cut the pop caps for them, but still can't actually pop lock more than a single campaign even at peek hours. Or how about the fact they launched a giant revamp of the game less than a year after release, marketing it as essentially an entirely different game.

Just because people still play the game doesn't make it successful. It didn't hit anywhere near expected numbers, and shed a lot of subs after release. I don't see how any of that is really in dispute at this point. The game kind of tanked.

So, you don't have anything you can cite, just your rambling opinions?

Though, nice for the, "Population doesn't matter, here let me use low population as my evidence."

Also, that $240 million number just came out of your shank too? Or did someone actually disclose that number in a real place?

I mean, I'll grant you, the Microsoft conspiracy theory is kinda shaky, and built on scattered reports, but at least you can say it's analysis. This is just someone trying to pretend to know how to do analysis.

What $240 million number? I never said anything that involved money. Nor would I ever say low population doesn't matter. It matters a lot, especially when your business model depends on it.

Mybad, that actually wasn't you.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

The game costed [sic] at most $240M to make.

Though, I think you could see why I could mistake you for that fine fellow.

The low population thing; that was definitely you, unless you didn't write:

miahq wrote: »

They cut the number of active PvP campaigns and drastically cut the pop caps for them, but still can't actually pop lock more than a single campaign even at peek hours.

I mean, that is saying, "look, part of my argument is there aren't enough people to do X", even if you haven't thought that far ahead.

miahq wrote: »

And that's not pulling things out of my ass, it's not my "rambling opinions." This isn't a freaking scientific debate, I'm not going to sit here and cite studies or in depth market analysis. Nor does demanding those things actually make you smart, frankly considering that success or failure of a game is almost entirely subjective to begin with it just makes you look like you don't know what the hell you're talking about when you do demand verifiable proof.

And as for opinion on how the game has performed so far, It's been pretty much universal opinion the game didn't meet expectations. 770k subs is dismal for a major release. if you can't be bothered to take five seconds out of your life to google it, don't expect me to do it for you.

770k subs is dismal if you sunk over 200 million on a project, I'll grant you that, and you can just ask EA and Bioware if they were happy with TOR's numbers. For a box 'n sub MMO launch, that's not "tanking" except when you have unrealistic expectations going in. So, the question is more, "did Bethesda and ZoS have reasonable expectations for an MMO?" Which is a lot harder to pin down.

The PvP numbers bit, since they've not release any sub figures since the 770k number way back when, I've just been trying to use that as sort of a window into peak users online at any time. It's not perfect, but unless PvP represents less than 10% of online people at any given time! it doesn't speak volumes for their peak user numbers at this point.

You could fit at max 8-10k if I remember, between the NA and EU servers with the current pop locks. They aren't even getting a third of that though, even on weekends. Only one campaign is usually ever at the pop lock on each server. So even if you were generous and said it was 7-8k, those don't reflect very good numbers. Ultimately that's why they cut the number of campaigns, most likely. the number they opened with likely reflected what they were hoping to have, but with the number of actual players at any given time that many empty campaigns is just a bit embarrassing to look at. Cut the number and it looks a little better, but when you consider how they've cut the pop locks as well, they've either a dismally small fraction of online players in PvP even at peek hours, or they just aren't doing that well.

The problem with using PvP as your standard is, most players don't PvP. It varies from game to game, so unless ZoS comes out and says, "yeah, X% of our population plays PvP" it's useless data. At least for generating the overall population.

It's useful for tracking trending in data. Generally speaking, PvPers are still normal players, and as they drop out of a game, you can use that to extrapolate what the game's population is doing on the whole. But, by the same measure, SteamCharts is actually as good at giving you trending data. Again, you can't extrapolate population statistics from it, because we don't know what percentage of players actually go through Steam for the game.

The other thing, and all MMOs go through this, was the launch surge. Any MMO that launches will hit a peak number within the first couple weeks, and (probably) never come close to it again. This is players who buy the new hot game, and then move onto the next new hot game when it comes out. These aren't people that leave before their first sub's up, they're gone in under two weeks.

The campaigns were set up to deal with that, and then pruned back. It's also part of why you'll see a lot of MMOs dump excess staff about two months after launch. They needed extra people on in customer support and as GMs for a false population a game will never see again.

To be fair, Atari used to dump staff on their MMOs because they viewed it as a box product, with no ongoing support necessary after launch... but, they're also no longer with us, so...

Safe bet 770k was the highest value during their surge.

If they're still swinging more than 50k subs, that's actually the break even point on an MMO. I suspect ESO needs more than that to stay viable. But with 7-8k in PvP... I would be a little surprised if the game was actually in that dire a situation.