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
starkerealm wrote: »starkerealm 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.
axiomaticb14a_ESO wrote: »@starkerrealm I'm really not sure why you are trying so hard to defend the game.
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."
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).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).
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.
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.