Clarification: Why make the change (to B2P)?

starkerealm

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

Sony was willing to wave the PS+ fee, reportedly. Microsoft was not willing to wave the XBL fee, and apparently wanted a chunk of the subscription fees on top of that.

starkerealm

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.

My raw suspicion is that Bethesda thought they could push Microsoft around on their limits. It's happened in the past. Shivering Isles was the largest DLC on XBL when it was released, and well over the size limits Microsoft had imposed on the service in the past.

I suspect they believed it was possible to get Microsoft to back off of their XBL subscription requirements for ESO. But, that was apparently not the case.

axiomaticb14a_ESO

@starkerrealm I'm really not sure why you are trying so hard to defend the game. Its getting to the point that you seem more like a willing mark, than anything. I think @miahq has captured both the known surface issues and the unseen/unsaid facets of the situation fairly well in his assessment. And anyone who has been playing ESO since launch on a regular basis, that can also honestly assess what is happening to the in game population, knows that there has been a continued decline in the player base that has recently gotten worse. Less players in zone, less players in one's guilds, less friends online at any time.

Its a real shame the game came out as unbaked as it did, and that the development of the patches and content since then followed unsound long-term strategies that created, what for many were, predictable problems and contradictions. ESO had so much damn potential, and so much of it has unfortunately been squandered. I don't know if its because of inexperience on the dev side or pressure from the bus side, but ESO has had a shaky and overall downhill trajectory throughout its short history. Large patches boost the population back up, but for short amounts of time, and the time between content has gotten longer and longer. Its a suicidal recipe.

starkerealm

axiomaticb14a_ESO wrote: »

@starkerrealm I'm really not sure why you are trying so hard to defend the game.

Don't you understand, someone is wrong on the internet!

Also, I need to swat someone upside the head periodically or I lose my touch, and while I need it for work, I haven't had the opportunity to do so much lately.

EDIT: Also, I should probably say, there's a huge difference between being able to say, "I picked up a thing, and everything's gone sideways," and "someone throwing a tantrum because they don't know what's going on around them."

Once we actually see the Crown store tomorrow, I may gleefully feed this game into a wood chipper with the rest of you. But all of this, "they *** us with our pants on" crap is premature.

Especially when you've got people saying the reason this happened is the fiction in their own head.

jeevin

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."

That's it in a nutshell. Zeni screwed up releasing the game prematurely. The scary part for me is the game isn't really that much improved. There's not much extra content either. So yeah Zeni flogging the game as a new improved experience is basic PR bollocks.

Sylvyr

starkerealm wrote: »

axiomaticb14a_ESO wrote: »

@starkerrealm I'm really not sure why you are trying so hard to defend the game.

Once we actually see the Crown store tomorrow, I may gleefully feed this game into a wood chipper with the rest of you. But all of this, "they *** us with our pants on" crap is premature.

Especially when you've got people saying the reason this happened is the fiction in their own head.

@starkerealm‌
You're so right about fiction and prematurity. There have been soooo many stabs and guesses as to why as well as repurcussions that may follow. Some things have been more factual and relevant than others, some things have been said out of left field and out of anger.

In thinking of good old Descartes, what I'm trying to get to is a simple fact as well as what is also hard to find these days, a good source.

The question posed to the game director and president of ZOS was a simple one. WHY the change? A very good and relevant straightforward question. It's a very big change, an upsetting change for many, and certainly has created a lot of hubbub.

Mr. Firor responded confidently that this is what the community wanted and certainly seemed happy that he could lead the company to produce something so substantial that the community wanted.

In all good faith and reasonableness, I have to think he's talking about the community of players that partake in ESO. Not his neighborhood community where he lives, or his poker buddy community, or his church. Someone mentioned in this thread that he could be talking about anyone really when he says "community" but come on, he's gotta be talking about the players, let's not assume he's playing with words to make stuff up.

So here we are, general community forums. I am looking for that mass (or at least a handful) of people to raise their hands and say "YES! I asked for this and it's so awesome that it made it to the game! I hope I get a signed poster!" or even easier, anyone that can remember any threads or outcries that the game should go B2P and have the innovation of a cash shop with cool stuff and convenience items (for those that can't play 8 hours a day) as a better model than the current model.

I mean, it's a very interesting idea that introduces a pretty radical shift. Surely this would stick out and be remembered, especially now that this is in a HUGE spotlight.

So many are saying it's a good change and are proponents of it and that's fine. But it came from us, so is NO one going to take credit for it? I want to believe that the president of ZOS is reliable and a good source of information. This is one nugget of truth that should be easy to find. Is NO ONE going to corroborate his statement that the new model came from the players?

All these guesses as to $$$ and subscriber counts and what goes on in their board room and between companies; we can't verify any of that and will continue to guess and bicker as to what is a good source and deliverer of facts. But this we can, this statement points right here to the community that was vocal enough to induce this change and is plenty vocal now.

Please let's eliminate some of the fiction! The lot of you please stand up and verify this one verifiable fact!

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

starkerealm wrote: »

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.

Thanks for quoting me. I agree with you, I'm a fine fellow.

For info, that number was an estimate based on numbers that other game studios consider a "positive cash flow".
I also adapated to other data someone provided and estimated a worst of the worst case scenario of $367M.

If anyone is interested in the thought process, here is where you can read it.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/147886/500-million-to-make-eso
if you disagree with the logic, please participate in the discussion there.

I'm bringing this up here because saying that 772k subs is dismal is absolutely wrong.
$138M yearly revenue gets you in the top 10 most financially succesful online games. That's what DOTA 2 makes. And that's not even counting box sales.

Even if ESO costed something like $367M, it would be reimboursed "quite easily":
- presumed $111M from first 6 months. (estimated 1.2M box sales)(superdata)
- Estimated 300k subs now, so $27M till june launch
- Box sales for console probably around 3M copies so $180M
- 300k+300k+300k subs for 6 months: $81M

$399M revenue over 18 months. Worst case scenario ROI met with some extra pocket money. That's only possible for the subscription model.
Keep in mind the game took 7 years to reach release. That's 7 years of investment reimbursed in one and a half.

Yes those are estimates and it is absolutely certain that they are wrong.
But they paint an accurate enough picture to make conclusions about a business change.

It is also more likely that the actual cost is much lower rather than it being higher.

@Sylvyr‌
No one is going to take credit for it because, truthfully, this change did not come from our community.
Some may be happy now because all they see is that they'll be able to stop paying, but no one that was part of this community were unhappy about paying a subscription fee.

It's not coming from the future console community either.
xbox live/psn or not, people have preordered the game on consoles since launch and were fully aware the game would be subscription based.
There are other games with susbcription fees on consoles, FFXIV with 1M subs only on PS3 and PS4, and some even pay subscriptions in DCUO for $30 a month.
It is also safe to assume that anyone interested in an MMO is also an avid consumer of online games. A large majority of ESO's potential player base already has Xbox live or PSN susbcription.

Is isn't coming either from the players that bought but left the game.
They were willing to buy the game and pay a subscription, but the game was not good enough to keep them. This doesn't mean they demand the game to be free, it means they demand the game to be worth their money.
Make the game better is the solution to please those players.

In the end ,what motivated this change was the community of investors that see MMOs as normal games with some bonus revenue on the side.
They start out with the early adopters, getting their sub money, then do the same process than normal games go through by lowering the price until everyone that could possibly buy the game has.
It is short term based and idiotic, but it makes them get ROI sooner rather than later. And it is also much simpler for them to process.
However, MMOs that are well maintained become cash cows for years, some have been for over a decade. Those that apply this strategy are losing money.
And it is a trend that is damaging the industry as less and less players are buying games at launch or willing to pay a sub.

People are angry nowadays because ESO pushed their pre-launched marketing around becoming a premium experience that would not have a cash shop. In a way, they posed as trend breakers.
The outrage is that they either lied then or are being dishonest now.

And for many, during the last 8 years since this trend started, we've already waited and seen all games go bad after similar changes.

In ESO's case, we already know of anounced p2w features in the cash shop.
Boosters, susbcription bonuses and skill lines like thieves guild and the Darkbrotherhood.
And we also know that ZOS has no issues breaking their word.

At this point, to expect anything but failure is being naive.

darthbelanb14_ESO

I asked for it prior to release. So I'm glad they listened to me.

starkerealm

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

If anyone is interested in the thought process, here is where you can read it.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/147886/500-million-to-make-eso
if you disagree with the logic, please participate in the discussion there.

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO‌

I'd be careful about using those numbers. There's some really shaky accounting coming out of that thread. Not, from Zenimax, but from the people trying to break down where the money went.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

starkerealm wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

If anyone is interested in the thought process, here is where you can read it.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/147886/500-million-to-make-eso
if you disagree with the logic, please participate in the discussion there.

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO‌

I'd be careful about using those numbers. There's some really shaky accounting coming out of that thread. Not, from Zenimax, but from the people trying to break down where the money went.

yeah, the original post is weird, simply because it looks at the wrong company.
That's why I tried to have something more in line with "reality".
I've seen a quote floating around of a dev saying "if you expect this game to have cost more than $200M you'd be wrong" or something like that.
Take it of course with a full bottle of salt, but it makes sense.
If my initial worst case scenario estimate was $240M, I think that in reality, it could be well under $200M.

But it serves to have a high estimate like $368 because it gives a great illustration of how strong the subscription model is. When you get an ROI in 18 months despite being pessimistic about console sales and subscription numbers, that means something.

ESO can definitely get 800K susbcribers, even if it has to pull all 3 platforms together. I doubt that DLC only can compete with that kind of revenue.

starkerealm

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

If anyone is interested in the thought process, here is where you can read it.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/147886/500-million-to-make-eso
if you disagree with the logic, please participate in the discussion there.

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO‌

I'd be careful about using those numbers. There's some really shaky accounting coming out of that thread. Not, from Zenimax, but from the people trying to break down where the money went.

yeah, the original post is weird, simply because it looks at the wrong company.
That's why I tried to have something more in line with "reality".
I've seen a quote floating around of a dev saying "if you expect this game to have cost more than $200M you'd be wrong" or something like that.
Take it of course with a full bottle of salt, but it makes sense.
If my initial worst case scenario estimate was $240M, I think that in reality, it could be well under $200M.

But it serves to have a high estimate like $368 because it gives a great illustration of how strong the subscription model is. When you get an ROI in 18 months despite being pessimistic about console sales and subscription numbers, that means something.

ESO can definitely get 800K susbcribers, even if it has to pull all 3 platforms together. I doubt that DLC only can compete with that kind of revenue.

I think that was Paul Sage, and, "if you think the game cost 200 million, expect to be disappointed." It was a hilarious comment, out of context, which is the only reason I remember it.

If the game can keep 800k subscribers that will easily put it in the top tier for MMO performers. I mean, we do live in the weird world where The Old Republic was both the fastest selling MMO of all time and also failing to meet expectations, because EA had believed they could match WoW's numbers out of the gate. But, I don't get the feeling that happened here.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

starkerealm wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

If anyone is interested in the thought process, here is where you can read it.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/147886/500-million-to-make-eso
if you disagree with the logic, please participate in the discussion there.

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO‌

I'd be careful about using those numbers. There's some really shaky accounting coming out of that thread. Not, from Zenimax, but from the people trying to break down where the money went.

yeah, the original post is weird, simply because it looks at the wrong company.
That's why I tried to have something more in line with "reality".
I've seen a quote floating around of a dev saying "if you expect this game to have cost more than $200M you'd be wrong" or something like that.
Take it of course with a full bottle of salt, but it makes sense.
If my initial worst case scenario estimate was $240M, I think that in reality, it could be well under $200M.

But it serves to have a high estimate like $368 because it gives a great illustration of how strong the subscription model is. When you get an ROI in 18 months despite being pessimistic about console sales and subscription numbers, that means something.

ESO can definitely get 800K susbcribers, even if it has to pull all 3 platforms together. I doubt that DLC only can compete with that kind of revenue.

I think that was Paul Sage, and, "if you think the game cost 200 million, expect to be disappointed." It was a hilarious comment, out of context, which is the only reason I remember it.

If the game can keep 800k subscribers that will easily put it in the top tier for MMO performers. I mean, we do live in the weird world where The Old Republic was both the fastest selling MMO of all time and also failing to meet expectations, because EA had believed they could match WoW's numbers out of the gate. But, I don't get the feeling that happened here.

I don't think they failed either. The game is not a WoW killer, but nothing can be except Blizzard. It did very decent box sales and I'm sure that 1.6 and the next updates could have been a turning point back to growth.

Well, from now on, I doubt it will manage those numbers, especially with DLCs still 6 months out. (to confirm)
For many players, that's nearly a year without new content and all because of the b2p switch.

it will most likely sell well on consoles, but from the trends you can see on the few "top 10" charts we see, a game usually need 7 or 8 times more active players to compensate the loss of the subscription model.

Will that many will remain active after the initial month and the long wait for content? Who knows. We do know that swtor can only manage 1.2M though, so if that's any indication, the future for ZOS employees is bleak.

I really wish they could change their mind and come back to a more sane business model. TSW and GW2 are losing revenue constantly while Eve Online and FFXIV are growing.
I really enjoy ESO and it is sad to see it go.

starkerealm

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

If anyone is interested in the thought process, here is where you can read it.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/147886/500-million-to-make-eso
if you disagree with the logic, please participate in the discussion there.

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO‌

I'd be careful about using those numbers. There's some really shaky accounting coming out of that thread. Not, from Zenimax, but from the people trying to break down where the money went.

yeah, the original post is weird, simply because it looks at the wrong company.
That's why I tried to have something more in line with "reality".
I've seen a quote floating around of a dev saying "if you expect this game to have cost more than $200M you'd be wrong" or something like that.
Take it of course with a full bottle of salt, but it makes sense.
If my initial worst case scenario estimate was $240M, I think that in reality, it could be well under $200M.

But it serves to have a high estimate like $368 because it gives a great illustration of how strong the subscription model is. When you get an ROI in 18 months despite being pessimistic about console sales and subscription numbers, that means something.

ESO can definitely get 800K susbcribers, even if it has to pull all 3 platforms together. I doubt that DLC only can compete with that kind of revenue.

I think that was Paul Sage, and, "if you think the game cost 200 million, expect to be disappointed." It was a hilarious comment, out of context, which is the only reason I remember it.

If the game can keep 800k subscribers that will easily put it in the top tier for MMO performers. I mean, we do live in the weird world where The Old Republic was both the fastest selling MMO of all time and also failing to meet expectations, because EA had believed they could match WoW's numbers out of the gate. But, I don't get the feeling that happened here.

I don't think they failed either. The game is not a WoW killer, but nothing can be except Blizzard. It did very decent box sales and I'm sure that 1.6 and the next updates could have been a turning point back to growth.

Well, from now on, I doubt it will manage those numbers, especially with DLCs still 6 months out. (to confirm)
For many players, that's nearly a year without new content and all because of the b2p switch.

it will most likely sell well on consoles, but from the trends you can see on the few "top 10" charts we see, a game usually need 7 or 8 times more active players to compensate the loss of the subscription model.

Will that many will remain active after the initial month and the long wait for content? Who knows. We do know that swtor can only manage 1.2M though, so if that's any indication, the future for ZOS employees is bleak.

I really wish they could change their mind and come back to a more sane business model. TSW and GW2 are losing revenue constantly while Eve Online and FFXIV are growing.
I really enjoy ESO and it is sad to see it go.

Yeah, the console sales are the real question mark on all of this. Bethesda obviously seems to think they'll pull enough money down on the XBone to justify scrapping the subscription fees. I don't know if they're right, but they'd be the one with the numbers to tell us.

eisberg

Stop saying that FF414 is growing. At one point they said they had 2.5 million account registered, and then later on they stated they have 1 million subscribers between their 3 MMOs combined. This shows that even FF14 lost majority of their subscribers.

Also, Eve Online used to talk about their subscriber numbers all the time, but they have been silent since 2013, and looking at their concurrent log on history, they went from 37K logged on to 27K logged on over the past year. This is a good indication they are shrinking in subscriber numbers as well.

The fact is, the subscription revenue for the industry is shrinking. It has been in decline since 2010. And so far the analyst have been correct about the projections for years now, and the projections for Subscription revenue is not good, decreasing by nearly 40% from 2013 through 2017, all the while Free to Play MMO revenues will increase by nearly 50% in the same time frame.

miahq

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

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.

Thanks for quoting me. I agree with you, I'm a fine fellow.

For info, that number was an estimate based on numbers that other game studios consider a "positive cash flow".
I also adapated to other data someone provided and estimated a worst of the worst case scenario of $367M.

If anyone is interested in the thought process, here is where you can read it.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/147886/500-million-to-make-eso
if you disagree with the logic, please participate in the discussion there.

I'm bringing this up here because saying that 772k subs is dismal is absolutely wrong.
$138M yearly revenue gets you in the top 10 most financially succesful online games. That's what DOTA 2 makes. And that's not even counting box sales.

Even if ESO costed something like $367M, it would be reimboursed "quite easily":
- presumed $111M from first 6 months. (estimated 1.2M box sales)(superdata)
- Estimated 300k subs now, so $27M till june launch
- Box sales for console probably around 3M copies so $180M
- 300k+300k+300k subs for 6 months: $81M

$399M revenue over 18 months. Worst case scenario ROI met with some extra pocket money. That's only possible for the subscription model.
Keep in mind the game took 7 years to reach release. That's 7 years of investment reimbursed in one and a half.

Yes those are estimates and it is absolutely certain that they are wrong.
But they paint an accurate enough picture to make conclusions about a business change.

It is also more likely that the actual cost is much lower rather than it being higher.

@Sylvyr‌
No one is going to take credit for it because, truthfully, this change did not come from our community.
Some may be happy now because all they see is that they'll be able to stop paying, but no one that was part of this community were unhappy about paying a subscription fee.

It's not coming from the future console community either.
xbox live/psn or not, people have preordered the game on consoles since launch and were fully aware the game would be subscription based.
There are other games with susbcription fees on consoles, FFXIV with 1M subs only on PS3 and PS4, and some even pay subscriptions in DCUO for $30 a month.
It is also safe to assume that anyone interested in an MMO is also an avid consumer of online games. A large majority of ESO's potential player base already has Xbox live or PSN susbcription.

Is isn't coming either from the players that bought but left the game.
They were willing to buy the game and pay a subscription, but the game was not good enough to keep them. This doesn't mean they demand the game to be free, it means they demand the game to be worth their money.
Make the game better is the solution to please those players.

In the end ,what motivated this change was the community of investors that see MMOs as normal games with some bonus revenue on the side.
They start out with the early adopters, getting their sub money, then do the same process than normal games go through by lowering the price until everyone that could possibly buy the game has.
It is short term based and idiotic, but it makes them get ROI sooner rather than later. And it is also much simpler for them to process.
However, MMOs that are well maintained become cash cows for years, some have been for over a decade. Those that apply this strategy are losing money.
And it is a trend that is damaging the industry as less and less players are buying games at launch or willing to pay a sub.

People are angry nowadays because ESO pushed their pre-launched marketing around becoming a premium experience that would not have a cash shop. In a way, they posed as trend breakers.
The outrage is that they either lied then or are being dishonest now.

And for many, during the last 8 years since this trend started, we've already waited and seen all games go bad after similar changes.

In ESO's case, we already know of anounced p2w features in the cash shop.
Boosters, susbcription bonuses and skill lines like thieves guild and the Darkbrotherhood.
And we also know that ZOS has no issues breaking their word.

At this point, to expect anything but failure is being naive.

I base the idea topping out at 770k subs is dismal for a newly released, big studio release on the fact other major game developers have essentially said as much. It doesn't mean you can't survive like that if you're willing to stick with it, as I think FF proved better than anyone. But, many game studios aren't willing to do that. They set projections of where they'd like to be, and when they don't meet those projections they simply shift models. SWTOR followed that, so is ESO.

ESO in particular was basically promising four major content updates a year, and that's a lot of work. It means a larger staff with more overhead costs, and that's all on top of the rather sizable debt the studio has at the moment. They obviously had goals they were aiming for as far as revenue, and if they were comfortable with where they were right now they wouldn't be switching to b2p in order to try and capitalize on the console market. Hell, if the console release hadn't been pushed back so much they'd have already have been on a sub model.

The measure is never how much money games are bringing in every year, several years after their release, but first year revenue. People expect first year revenue to be much better in order to pay off the making of the game itself. And the dollar amounts you're quoting aren't that impressive for a brand new title. I mean if you estimate it out for the full period yes they might have ended up in the top ten of MMO money makers, but that's a brand new game competing against games that mostly aren't all that brand new. So the idea that sub fees+actual box sales could barely push it into the lower part of the top ten isn't entirely impressive. As it stands right now though, it's not even in the top 10, it's number 11 I think. I mean they barely beat SWTOR.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

miahq wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

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.

Thanks for quoting me. I agree with you, I'm a fine fellow.

For info, that number was an estimate based on numbers that other game studios consider a "positive cash flow".
I also adapated to other data someone provided and estimated a worst of the worst case scenario of $367M.

If anyone is interested in the thought process, here is where you can read it.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/147886/500-million-to-make-eso
if you disagree with the logic, please participate in the discussion there.

I'm bringing this up here because saying that 772k subs is dismal is absolutely wrong.
$138M yearly revenue gets you in the top 10 most financially succesful online games. That's what DOTA 2 makes. And that's not even counting box sales.

Even if ESO costed something like $367M, it would be reimboursed "quite easily":
- presumed $111M from first 6 months. (estimated 1.2M box sales)(superdata)
- Estimated 300k subs now, so $27M till june launch
- Box sales for console probably around 3M copies so $180M
- 300k+300k+300k subs for 6 months: $81M

$399M revenue over 18 months. Worst case scenario ROI met with some extra pocket money. That's only possible for the subscription model.
Keep in mind the game took 7 years to reach release. That's 7 years of investment reimbursed in one and a half.

Yes those are estimates and it is absolutely certain that they are wrong.
But they paint an accurate enough picture to make conclusions about a business change.

It is also more likely that the actual cost is much lower rather than it being higher.

@Sylvyr‌
No one is going to take credit for it because, truthfully, this change did not come from our community.
Some may be happy now because all they see is that they'll be able to stop paying, but no one that was part of this community were unhappy about paying a subscription fee.

It's not coming from the future console community either.
xbox live/psn or not, people have preordered the game on consoles since launch and were fully aware the game would be subscription based.
There are other games with susbcription fees on consoles, FFXIV with 1M subs only on PS3 and PS4, and some even pay subscriptions in DCUO for $30 a month.
It is also safe to assume that anyone interested in an MMO is also an avid consumer of online games. A large majority of ESO's potential player base already has Xbox live or PSN susbcription.

Is isn't coming either from the players that bought but left the game.
They were willing to buy the game and pay a subscription, but the game was not good enough to keep them. This doesn't mean they demand the game to be free, it means they demand the game to be worth their money.
Make the game better is the solution to please those players.

In the end ,what motivated this change was the community of investors that see MMOs as normal games with some bonus revenue on the side.
They start out with the early adopters, getting their sub money, then do the same process than normal games go through by lowering the price until everyone that could possibly buy the game has.
It is short term based and idiotic, but it makes them get ROI sooner rather than later. And it is also much simpler for them to process.
However, MMOs that are well maintained become cash cows for years, some have been for over a decade. Those that apply this strategy are losing money.
And it is a trend that is damaging the industry as less and less players are buying games at launch or willing to pay a sub.

People are angry nowadays because ESO pushed their pre-launched marketing around becoming a premium experience that would not have a cash shop. In a way, they posed as trend breakers.
The outrage is that they either lied then or are being dishonest now.

And for many, during the last 8 years since this trend started, we've already waited and seen all games go bad after similar changes.

In ESO's case, we already know of anounced p2w features in the cash shop.
Boosters, susbcription bonuses and skill lines like thieves guild and the Darkbrotherhood.
And we also know that ZOS has no issues breaking their word.

At this point, to expect anything but failure is being naive.

I base the idea topping out at 770k subs is dismal for a newly released, big studio release on the fact other major game developers have essentially said as much. It doesn't mean you can't survive like that if you're willing to stick with it, as I think FF proved better than anyone. But, many game studios aren't willing to do that. They set projections of where they'd like to be, and when they don't meet those projections they simply shift models. SWTOR followed that, so is ESO.

ESO in particular was basically promising four major content updates a year, and that's a lot of work. It means a larger staff with more overhead costs, and that's all on top of the rather sizable debt the studio has at the moment. They obviously had goals they were aiming for as far as revenue, and if they were comfortable with where they were right now they wouldn't be switching to b2p in order to try and capitalize on the console market. Hell, if the console release hadn't been pushed back so much they'd have already have been on a sub model.

The measure is never how much money games are bringing in every year, several years after their release, but first year revenue. People expect first year revenue to be much better in order to pay off the making of the game itself. And the dollar amounts you're quoting aren't that impressive for a brand new title. I mean if you estimate it out for the full period yes they might have ended up in the top ten of MMO money makers, but that's a brand new game competing against games that mostly aren't all that brand new. So the idea that sub fees+actual box sales could barely push it into the lower part of the top ten isn't entirely impressive. As it stands right now though, it's not even in the top 10, it's number 11 I think. I mean they barely beat SWTOR.

You have some fair points, and I actually agree that this is what studios are looking at: first year revenue.
The issue is that this way of looking at things is antiquated. It makes sense when you publish a solo game like Skyrim, but doesn't when you're producing an MMO.
The money in the MMO business is to aim for the long term cash cow, and while publishers and devs understand it, some investors don't. And it makes sense, investors are doing a glorified loan to the companies, they have no stakes in seeing the game succeed, they just want their money back with some profit and then they can bail to something else.

Investor shenanigans aside, I think that however we look at it, a worst case estimate of ROI at 18 months seems like a fairly strong first year.
And ESO is doing fairly well for itself, despite what the naysayers believe.

LuxLunae

Sylvyr wrote: »

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.

By community he meant future prospects like myself, who at beta, asked for a B2P model and the console players who didn't want to pay for sub over subs and the community that left the game after a few months.

Take note that you as a sub are not the only community that exists. This opens up ESO to many more people.

EDIT:A yearly sub is $180 I use about $430 a year per year to feed myself. That's about (180/430)=42% where as $60 would be 14% of it. Yes, so ESO was for the well off.

Now with a $60 one time pay, I just have to use the $120 yearly allowance I save up that I use for games, junk/fast food, etc and not have to worry on spending additional revenue anytime soon. This way I can spend money here and there However still have access to the game when I don't have money. This year I may spend $15 the next year $30. A revenue that would not have been gotten had they stayed with the sub system.

I may go with steam as I know they will put the base at $25 so that the imperial edition sells for $60.

That way I can decide if I will have $95 or $60 for the rest of the year.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO

Sylvyr wrote: »

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).

Probably referring to the huge number of cancellation surveys they got back saying ESO wasn't worth $15 a month .. there was never any 'popular pressure' for this move on here or places like Reddit (which ZOS give so much credence to).

Either that or it was simply a lie, when the real truth was revenue had tanked and it was B2P or closedown.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

@LuxLunae‌
I understand your plight, don't get me wrong, but a switch to b2p is a good thing only in your perspective or similar ones.

For the company it is actually a grim prospect, and for players that wanted a game worth paying for, the loss in quality that will come with the change is a big disapoitment.

If they do the change, they'll earn once $60 from you and other players, but will lose $180 a year from most of their playerbase. It's a very bad trade.

@fromtesonlineb16_ESO‌
Cancelation surveys that say "the game wasn't worth $15 a month" probably occured a lot. But I don't understand how not charging $15 a month is a solution to that issue.

The solution is to improve the game until it is worth $15 for more people.
Everyone has their own standards, and the more the game improves, the more players will consider it above their personal $15 barrier.

The game never was in any financial trouble.
Obviously, revenue lowered due to the slowing down of boxsales, but that's just part of the MMO lifecycle. Susbcription take over after that occurs, and ESo has enough to stay more than afloat.

LuxLunae

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@LuxLunae‌
I understand your plight, don't get me wrong, but a switch to b2p is a good thing only in your perspective or similar ones.

For the company it is actually a grim prospect, and for players that wanted a game worth paying for, the loss in quality that will come with the change is a big disapoitment.

If they do the change, they'll earn once $60 from you and other players, but will lose $180 a year from most of their playerbase. It's a very bad trade.

I edited the other post to make i clear what I meant by the $430 not to confuse it with the 180 per year from subs.

If enough people from the consoles and PC buy it and pay a little here and there. The revenue will be more steady and predictable.

For example 700k Subs would be 700K * $180= $ 126 M. Best case scenario if all payed for the 12 months.

and for like 3M partial subs who pay 1/3 the price(4 months over the year on average) would be

3M * $60= $180 M. I get the 3 M from the XB and PS4 players and the players that will comeback to ESO and will pay for on average 4 times in the year for each season.

So the new plan will bring in more money even if they are not ALL full subbed people and partial sub like myself.

When one has more options to pay, they tend to be able to attract more customers.

barely anybody would own a car if they didn't have payment plans that fit the needs of its buyers. Some can buy that car right out of the lot and some can pay slowly for 10 yrs but have the luxury to drive it while paying it. Some may need to make extensions on the payment because they get paid 2 weeks later.
(The analogy is a bit flawed as they can repo the car after not paying for a while which would kinda be like when one stops paying subs but it is to show the many payment options available...maybe I should have used a house as they are more lenient.)

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Attracting more players does not mean attracting more revenue.
In average, to replace subsriptions, a game needs 8 or 9 times more players.
And all f2p/b2p mmo games are losing revenue by around 20 to 30% each year for those that are doing good.

ESO doesn't have such a large potential player base and is already generating as much if not more revenue than the most successful f2p title on consoles.

Going b2p, despite allowing you to play for cheaper, would be a net loss of revenue for ZOS.

LuxLunae

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Attracting more players does not mean attracting more revenue.
In average, to replace subsriptions, a game needs 8 or 9 times more players.
And all f2p/b2p mmo games are losing revenue by around 20 to 30% each year for those that are doing good.

ESO doesn't have such a large potential player base and is already generating as much if not more revenue than the most successful f2p title on consoles.

Going b2p, despite allowing you to play for cheaper, would be a net loss of revenue for ZOS.

3 M/700K=4 times more players and them to pay 4 months out of the year on average to make about the same as the current subs on the best case scenario.

ESO is not B2P they still charge $60 to buy the game.



//

---

IGNORE

---

Skyrim on PC, XB360 and PS3 sold about 17 M copies as of today assume that they
1. bought it when it was $60 or
2. bought it with the dlc for a total of $60

so 17M(M means million, K= thousand)*60=$1,020,000,000
//

---

End IGNORE

---

You fail to factor that when you an others feel as if the game isn't living up to what its suppose to when you are giving them money constantly, you will quickly un sub. By changing to B2P they don't have to feel overly rushed in making any content. You also fail to factor in the buyability of DLC being revenue for them as well (if you stay subbed they will always be opened new or old something else many suggested in the beta)

You can ignore the rest after this paragraph, just tell me why you truly want it to be subscription based game. Do you feel as if you been wronged and you feel others should also pay as you did? Is it because now little children with allowances far greater than mine might play this game? What could it be? help me see this with your eyes.






The subscription model is only to make the money back fast. It does not guarantee content to be updated. For one to think that the content will be extremely polished by trying to use your dollar to force them to throw out anything in a timely manner is crazy. There are some problems that SUBSCRIPTIONS can not solve ONLY TIME will.

So if you are happy with your continual sub for timely updates that are probably not going to be to your liking, keep the old model.

I see some people complaining about things that haven't been implemented like player housing and then talk about their continual sub as if money would make it happen faster.

Making the idea will take time, testing the idea will take time. Yes they can take your sub money and hire a crap load of people just to fire them in a month but is that ethical? Or they can use the money and have a dedicated team with loyalty to build the game the right way over time.

Smokewolf13

For those of you who really don't understand this move, you need to leave this forum of subbed players and check out literally any community that is not revolving around dropping massive amounts of money into this game. This game was pathetic at best at first and was not nearly the 2 Parts Elder Scrolls- 1 Part MMO that was promised. It's still more leaning towards MMO, but they're working on it. I subbed just because they promised rewards for people with previously existing accounts, and I read that the game has improved. I'd say it's worth the $60 label and nothing more. I'm a college student and I don't have over $100 to drop on a game when I could go play literally anything else.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

@LuxLunae‌
I'll answer your question:
I want the game to remain subscription based because this is the only sustainable business model for mmorpgs.
I do not want the game to go down, I want to see it grow, simple as that.

A secondary issue is the presence of a cash shop and relying on it for revenue.
Whether it is DLC, cosmetics or convenience/p2w, the devs cannot
I explained it to you in another thread, but in short: The cash shop / DLC approach means the devs are under pressure to release content at a high frequency. Unless they do, they have no revenue.
This increase the stress they are under and can make them do mistakes or simply cut corners.

Under the subscription model, they have more leeway. Sure, if they don't live up to promises, people will unsub, but if they release content that was worth the wait, they will remain subscribed.
Just look at how 1.6 impacted the game. just the hype of it, one month before being on the PTS and two month before it hits live got people to resub.
At this time, the game is at more than twice it's lowest and back to more than 400k subscribers.
Just for hype.

And seeing how people are relatively impressed by 1.6 on the PTS, the wait was worth it. Sure there are still some tweaking to do, but that's the purpose of a test server. It will keep those people subed for a while and encourage more to trust the devs.

Or it would have, had it not been for the b2p switch.

And hoping that ESO sells as much as skyrim on the console is wishful thinking. It barely sold a quarter of what Skyrim sold on the PC, we can expect at most 5M sales on the consoles if it keeps the same ratio.
Sales that would have happened anyway, susbcription or not. Those guys don't have access to MMOs much, there are only two credible competitors on console, FFXIV and DCUO. Soon there will be neverwinter, but this game is subpar compared to ESO.
Droping subscription is simply put, a move that will make the company lose money and make the game lose quality.
That's how it went for every other game out there, ESO won't be an exception.

eisberg

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

You talked about Darkfall increasing in numbers, I am having a hard time finding that information. Instead what I found is they were having problems with covering expenses with only having 20K subscribers, when they need 35K subscribers. And since then they have added a cash shop to the game in addition to requiring a subscription.

http://mmofallout.com/darkfall-unholy-wars-short-on-subscribers/
http://syncaine.com/2014/06/20/darkfall-unholy-wars-going-f2p-and-other-problems-sink-it/

You talked about FF14 increasing, yet, they have under 1 million subscribers in 3 MMOs combined. They had 2.5 million accounts registered for FF14. Again, showing a decrease in revenue for that MMO
http://arcadesushi.com/square-enixs-mmos-total-under-1-million-subscribers-2015-plans/

WoW, Lineage, and Eve have all saw a decrease in subscription revenue recently.

We have very few examples of games that obviously make enough in revenue, and the ones we are games made during a different time of MMOs, where they got their loyal fan base very early on before the market changed. But we have massive amount of MMOs that started off as subscription and are now Free 2 play, Buy 2 Play, or Subscription with a cash shop (Heck, WoW is subscription with Cash shop). And you only assume this is happening because it was planned from the beginning they would go Free2Play, that is your assumption and you have no proof for it. Instead we have proof that these games tried to be Subscription only, and we know these games were losing subscribers, hence why they had to shut down servers prior going Free 2 Play.

Everything you have been saying is not backed up what we are actually seeing, you only have assumptions. The fact is ZOS and Zenimax Media know what their subscriber number are, they know what the attrition rate is, and they know what the projected revenue looks like based on information gathered. For all you know they saw that at best they were going to have no more than 50K subscribers soon.