1.6 looks great, forget about b2p/f2p.

marcmyb14_ESO

JamilaRaj wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Gidorick‌ and @JamilaRaj‌
As I pointed at in the op, they will not be able to keep the money flowing.

Reversal is a matter of survival.
And nothing technicaly prevents them to reverse course. No copies of tamriel unlimited have been sold yet. That gets released in March.

What they need to do is convince the proper people that they are wrong. I'm just attempting to give them ammunition for that.

I am not enraged by that they have gone P2W, because that was possibility and even likely (though not inevitable; there is so many P2W games, sucking as a result of business model that it makes room for profitable non P2W game that would have genuine competitive advantage precisely because it would be fair and scam-less), I am not enraged by how they announced it, as some cool thing that will make us happy, because that is also likely way to put it.
But, just as I can not imagine to keep playing, because I would either reward ZOS with money for enacting P2W or make game more intriguing for people that would reward them (as they need to have non paying people for their bonuses to provide advantage and be worth their cost), I can not say right away that I would keep playing if they backed off. They have developed cash shop and DLC behind our backs, very likely using money from sales and subs. I am not particularly enraged by this neither, but it's not business practice I am okay with and by continuing to pay I would be saying it is okay to stab and then reverse. I would be inviting them to pull it off repeatedly on X month basis. So, tempting, but...not really sure.

Dude, it's NOT pay2win. It's buy2play. There's a huge difference.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

marcmyb14_ESO wrote: »

JamilaRaj wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Gidorick‌ and @JamilaRaj‌
As I pointed at in the op, they will not be able to keep the money flowing.

Reversal is a matter of survival.
And nothing technicaly prevents them to reverse course. No copies of tamriel unlimited have been sold yet. That gets released in March.

What they need to do is convince the proper people that they are wrong. I'm just attempting to give them ammunition for that.

I am not enraged by that they have gone P2W, because that was possibility and even likely (though not inevitable; there is so many P2W games, sucking as a result of business model that it makes room for profitable non P2W game that would have genuine competitive advantage precisely because it would be fair and scam-less), I am not enraged by how they announced it, as some cool thing that will make us happy, because that is also likely way to put it.
But, just as I can not imagine to keep playing, because I would either reward ZOS with money for enacting P2W or make game more intriguing for people that would reward them (as they need to have non paying people for their bonuses to provide advantage and be worth their cost), I can not say right away that I would keep playing if they backed off. They have developed cash shop and DLC behind our backs, very likely using money from sales and subs. I am not particularly enraged by this neither, but it's not business practice I am okay with and by continuing to pay I would be saying it is okay to stab and then reverse. I would be inviting them to pull it off repeatedly on X month basis. So, tempting, but...not really sure.

Dude, it's NOT pay2win. It's buy2play. There's a huge difference.

In the end, there isn't.
Especially not when skill lines will be hidden in DLCs and you can get all sort of gameplay impacting advantages by paying more than other players.
Both of which are already anounced as part of the crown store.

marcmyb14_ESO

Brittany_Joy wrote: »

B2P is not so bad. The problem is that ESO does not have any competitive PvP. Small-scale PvP such as WoW's Arena and LoL's Ranked 5v5 tend to attract more dedicated and active players. Wildstar has arenas and yet it isn't swimming in the dough, so there is another variable. Balance and variety is very important to keep the attention of the consumer.

ESO needs to provide a multitude of different play styles to satisfy the player's need for individualism. They can make it easy just by building around archetypes; They need a viable build for a Shapeshifter, Necromancer, Shaman, Mage, Warrior, Thief, and Hybrid play styles. Ensuring that there are viable builds for each playstyle will keep players satisfied and interested in ESO.

ESO needs competitive PvP and a variety of builds that offer unique playstyles to keep and attract consumers. PvE is another important aspect that needs to be considered.

They already said they are working on Battlegrounds, so that's good. It's just kind of a shame it didn't launch with it, or all of this stuff, because that's what would've kept people from the start.

But besides that, I just really don't understand why some people insist on intertwining B2P and F2P. And then some insist on calling it P2W when it obviously isn't. These people don't know what a P2W model is.

You want to see pay2win? Look at LOTRO. That game is pay2win. You pay for classes, you pay for skills, you pay for skill slots, you pay for (their version of AP) boosters. Damage, defense, etc. stat boosters are in there too, pretty sure. You pay for EVERYTHING. ESO will NOT be like this. People, learn the difference. ESO will never be Pay-to-win.

Tandor

marcmyb14_ESO wrote: »

You want to see pay2win? Look at LOTRO. That game is pay2win. You pay for classes, you pay for skills, you pay for skill slots, you pay for (their version of AP) boosters. Damage, defense, etc. stat boosters are in there too, pretty sure. You pay for EVERYTHING. ESO will NOT be like this. People, learn the difference. ESO will never be Pay-to-win.

I agree. Plus, both LoTRO and ESO offer subscriptions if you don't want to go down the route of paying for separately for all the content. There are some boosters in LoTRO that could fairly be described as pay2win, but I don't consider things like unlocking quests and zones etc to be pay2win, that's just a different way of paying for content - and quite a lot of people favour that method because it enables them to pick and choose so they only pay for what they want. I have a couple of lifetime accounts there so it doesn't affect me, but I'd certainly opt for the subscription option otherwise, I really regard any form of B2P/F2P in a hybrid game with subscriptions to be no more than a trial. If I'm committing to a game I'd far rather subscribe to it.

Digiman

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

On another hand, all b2p/f2p games are losing revenue yearly. Even games that are actually not doing that bad (gw2) or have a very strong IP (swtor) lose around 20 to 30 percent revenue each year. SWTOR, star wars for free, can barely attract 1.2M active players. TES is strong, but not as strong as Star Wars.

They barely do that because they are still using shard realms as megaservers where populations are sparse. Coupled with long queue times and their adamant responses to cross server platforms (Which is no) it's hard to find active players to have fun with in group content.

This is compounded by the mass of restrictions they placed on F2P where preferred players have a hard time filling in roles where groups are looking for a particular role in a group instance run because the Preferred player has reach his weekly cap.

Because of this system most preferred players stick to a real casual environment where they will barely visit the game. In the end it means less players and less players mean more time to form a group at which point those paying players will leave.

Haven't really gone back since I finished all the class specific stories for all the classes in the game and the restrictions are driving me away even when ESO on maintenance there is something I would rather do then play SWTOR as preferred.

Finally how do you know the subscription surge isn't correlated with the fact the game is going B2P? Most might find that an enticing method to go back and support this game if they feel their money is no longer being taken for granted which in ZoS case can be insinuated given their history an communication with customers.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

FF11 and FF14, even the portion of DCUO paying $30 a month also proves you wrong about console players and their willingness to pay for a subscription.

He's not wrong, he didn't say what you're trying to say he did:

marcmyb14_ESO wrote: »

You just don't understand business. Console players (for the most part) don't want to pay a monthly sub.

So, he clearly accepts that, per your examples of FFXI and FFXIV, some console players do happily pay subs.

Thus, he isn't wrong, at all.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO

marcmyb14_ESO wrote: »

B2P will be fine. I seriously think people are overreacting.

History has several examples of games going through this change .. SW:TOR shows how it can degenerate to Runescape levels of MT, LOTRO shows had terrbily it can affect game design (the entire thrust of all content design in that game now is focused on 'driving' Store sales) .. only Rift of these three I play(ed) has continued pretty much unaffected in terms of game updates and content from a subscribers' perspective.

SOZ MAY follow Trion's direction, however the fact ZOS have already said there will be no in-game method of acquiring Crowns means ESO will start out already more Store-focused than Rift, so the portents are good.

rawne1980b16_ESO

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

And this is not an opinion piece but an assessement based on facts. I may be wrong, I do not have access to the real numbers, but it is undeniable that the industry's climate is bad for f2p/b2p titles compared to subscription.

Considering only 2 MMO's are managing to survive with a subscription only model, WoW and Final Fantasy 14, and both of those games are a hell of a lot more popular than this. I don't think you are correct at all.

EA has shown numerous times that SWTOR has become far more profitable since it went free to play.

To be fair, it's globally known that free to play games bring in a lot more money than they would if they were sub based. Where you get your information from that says they are bad for income I don't know but not many people agree with you that work in the industry,

It's been said time and time again that the day of the subscription is coming to an end. Sooner or later, games will stop trying to release with a subscription.

The "facts" are you are assuming based on things you've read. Quarterly reports from companies are available to read, like EA's for example. Those show they are making far more money since the free to play model was introduced.

Someone keeps linking the Steam charts to show this game is getting more players but what they haven't done is shown how many players it's getting.

http://steamcharts.com/app/306130

The recent peak time players is 2095 and it's highest peak time amount of players is 3107. For an MMO that's not good.

ESO is not doing as well as some people are making out it is.

No, i'm not happy about that. I'm not trying to say it's a bad game but it does need to make drastic changes. The subscription mdel obviously isn't working.

I want, no I need, this game to do well. I need it to grow so they can add the content i've been waiting for like Dark Brotherhood, thieves guild and housing. So it can grow from the half Elder Scrolls game it is now.

The sub model just isn't working. It won't work on consoles and people aren't flocking to pay it on PC either.

As people keep saying but you keep failing to understand, your opinion on the change doesn't matter. They aren't going to stop because people on the forum don't like it.

marcmyb14_ESO

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »

marcmyb14_ESO wrote: »

B2P will be fine. I seriously think people are overreacting.

History has several examples of games going through this change .. SW:TOR shows how it can degenerate to Runescape levels of MT, LOTRO shows had terrbily it can affect game design (the entire thrust of all content design in that game now is focused on 'driving' Store sales) .. only Rift of these three I play(ed) has continued pretty much unaffected in terms of game updates and content from a subscribers' perspective.

SOZ MAY follow Trion's direction, however the fact ZOS have already said there will be no in-game method of acquiring Crowns means ESO will start out already more Store-focused than Rift, so the portents are good.

On the contrary, having in-game methods of acquiring store currency gives companies an excuse to add all kinds of boosters in the store since "well you don't have to pay to get it", in essence fooling people into thinking it isn't actually P2W. The fact that ESO chose not to do this proves they aren't out to make ESO a P2W game.

marcmyb14_ESO

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

And this is not an opinion piece but an assessement based on facts. I may be wrong, I do not have access to the real numbers, but it is undeniable that the industry's climate is bad for f2p/b2p titles compared to subscription.

Considering only 2 MMO's are managing to survive with a subscription only model, WoW and Final Fantasy 14, and both of those games are a hell of a lot more popular than this. I don't think you are correct at all.

EA has shown numerous times that SWTOR has become far more profitable since it went free to play.

To be fair, it's globally known that free to play games bring in a lot more money than they would if they were sub based. Where you get your information from that says they are bad for income I don't know but not many people agree with you that work in the industry,

It's been said time and time again that the day of the subscription is coming to an end. Sooner or later, games will stop trying to release with a subscription.

The "facts" are you are assuming based on things you've read. Quarterly reports from companies are available to read, like EA's for example. Those show they are making far more money since the free to play model was introduced.

Someone keeps linking the Steam charts to show this game is getting more players but what they haven't done is shown how many players it's getting.

http://steamcharts.com/app/306130

The recent peak time players is 2095 and it's highest peak time amount of players is 3107. For an MMO that's not good.

ESO is not doing as well as some people are making out it is.

No, i'm not happy about that. I'm not trying to say it's a bad game but it does need to make drastic changes. The subscription mdel obviously isn't working.

I want, no I need, this game to do well. I need it to grow so they can add the content i've been waiting for like Dark Brotherhood, thieves guild and housing. So it can grow from the half Elder Scrolls game it is now.

The sub model just isn't working. It won't work on consoles and people aren't flocking to pay it on PC either.

As people keep saying but you keep failing to understand, your opinion on the change doesn't matter. They aren't going to stop because people on the forum don't like it.

Show me one shred of evidence that FF14 is "a hell of a lot more popular" than ESO. Steam charts don't count btw. Most ppl that bought the game didn't buy it on Steam.

Btw, I agree with you, just not about that. :P

marcmyb14_ESO

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

marcmyb14_ESO wrote: »

JamilaRaj wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Gidorick‌ and @JamilaRaj‌
As I pointed at in the op, they will not be able to keep the money flowing.

Reversal is a matter of survival.
And nothing technicaly prevents them to reverse course. No copies of tamriel unlimited have been sold yet. That gets released in March.

What they need to do is convince the proper people that they are wrong. I'm just attempting to give them ammunition for that.

I am not enraged by that they have gone P2W, because that was possibility and even likely (though not inevitable; there is so many P2W games, sucking as a result of business model that it makes room for profitable non P2W game that would have genuine competitive advantage precisely because it would be fair and scam-less), I am not enraged by how they announced it, as some cool thing that will make us happy, because that is also likely way to put it.
But, just as I can not imagine to keep playing, because I would either reward ZOS with money for enacting P2W or make game more intriguing for people that would reward them (as they need to have non paying people for their bonuses to provide advantage and be worth their cost), I can not say right away that I would keep playing if they backed off. They have developed cash shop and DLC behind our backs, very likely using money from sales and subs. I am not particularly enraged by this neither, but it's not business practice I am okay with and by continuing to pay I would be saying it is okay to stab and then reverse. I would be inviting them to pull it off repeatedly on X month basis. So, tempting, but...not really sure.

Dude, it's NOT pay2win. It's buy2play. There's a huge difference.

In the end, there isn't.
Especially not when skill lines will be hidden in DLCs and you can get all sort of gameplay impacting advantages by paying more than other players.
Both of which are already anounced as part of the crown store.

The thing is there's no evidence that proves those skill lines will actually give you an advantage over other players. Thieves Guild will probably be mostly skills that make stealing easier, more profitable, etc. Dark Brotherhood... maybe. But maybe they won't be any more powerful than say a Nightblade is. If it is, I'd agree that could be viewed as P2W. But I don't see ESO going down this route at all. They have been trying hard this whole time to balance classes and skills and that would seem to go against everything they've done. Once again, this isn't LOTRO, this isn't even GW2. This B2P/Sub model is the best that I've seen from any game so far, so history be damned.

Alphashado

I agree with the OP. It's a mistake. The CS and the eventual removal of Vet Ranks would have brought in a tremendous amount of subs. But I don't believe they did it because of lack of revenue. I think they did it because of the rumors about not being able to charge a sub legally on consoles. At that point they had two choices.

1. Switch to B2P.
2. Ditch Consoles.

Makes it look like a pretty easy choice.

rawne1980b16_ESO

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

Show me one shred of evidence that FF14 is "a hell of a lot more popular" than ESO. Steam charts don't count btw. Most ppl that bought the game didn't buy it on Steam.

Btw, I agree with you, just not about that. :P

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/09/23/final-fantasy-xivs-first-patch-and-player-numbers-revealed

http://www.novacrystallis.com/2014/04/final-fantasy-xiv-passes-the-2-million-subscriber-mark/

http://www.craveonline.co.uk/gaming/articles/676685-ffxiv-a-realm-reborn-surpasses-2-million-subscriber-milestone

http://kotaku.com/ffxivs-got-1-5m-players-guess-that-massive-overhaul-p-1455290001

http://2p.com/8338858_1/Chinese-FFXIV-Preorder-Number-Hit-1-Million-Release-Conference-on-Aug-20-by-flamedust.htm

Coming up on 2 million global players and 1 million pre orders in China. Nearly 3 millions players total.

I'd say it's doing a little bit better than ESO.

But then again it is Final Fantasy. It's always been massively popular.

xtago

Just to let people know steam carts doesn't show alline the people playing.

I don't have a steam Install

marcmyb14_ESO

Alphashado wrote: »

I agree with the OP. It's a mistake. The CS and the eventual removal of Vet Ranks would have brought in a tremendous amount of subs. But I don't believe they did it because of lack of revenue. I think they did it because of the rumors about not being able to charge a sub legally on consoles. At that point they had two choices.

1. Switch to B2P.
2. Ditch Consoles.

Makes it look like a pretty easy choice.

...Where'd you hear they can't charge a sub legally for consoles?

marcmyb14_ESO

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

Show me one shred of evidence that FF14 is "a hell of a lot more popular" than ESO. Steam charts don't count btw. Most ppl that bought the game didn't buy it on Steam.

Btw, I agree with you, just not about that. :P

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/09/23/final-fantasy-xivs-first-patch-and-player-numbers-revealed

http://www.novacrystallis.com/2014/04/final-fantasy-xiv-passes-the-2-million-subscriber-mark/

http://www.craveonline.co.uk/gaming/articles/676685-ffxiv-a-realm-reborn-surpasses-2-million-subscriber-milestone

http://kotaku.com/ffxivs-got-1-5m-players-guess-that-massive-overhaul-p-1455290001

http://2p.com/8338858_1/Chinese-FFXIV-Preorder-Number-Hit-1-Million-Release-Conference-on-Aug-20-by-flamedust.htm

Coming up on 2 million global players and 1 million pre orders in China. Nearly 3 millions players total.

I'd say it's doing a little bit better than ESO.

But then again it is Final Fantasy. It's always been massively popular.

OK, well maybe it's more popular in Asia, but I doubt it's more popular in the USA.

Abr4hn

No.

ThatNeonZebraAgain

Yeah Steam numbers can only show a fraction of the story.

I do agree with this, though:

Alphashado wrote: »

I agree with the OP. It's a mistake. The CS and the eventual removal of Vet Ranks would have brought in a tremendous amount of subs. But I don't believe they did it because of lack of revenue. I think they did it because of the rumors about not being able to charge a sub legally on consoles. At that point they had two choices.

1. Switch to B2P.
2. Ditch Consoles.

Makes it look like a pretty easy choice.

While we don't have access to any numbers, it definitely felt like the game was turning around since 1.5/the holidays, and picking up many new and returning players. 1.6 has loads of promise as well, they themselves called it ESO2.0, which was already poised to bring in even more people and possibly prompt some new professional reviews of the game. But, it's pretty obvious now that the B2P move has been in the works for several months, so the decision was already made before any of this. I never doubted this game could be the "premium" AAA subscription-based game it was announced as, but that *** doesn't happen overnight, especially in the current MMO market and given the bad rep it got from launch (and from launching prematurely). I feel like with 1.6 they should have attempted to double-down on their original strategy of offering the next big premium sub-based MMO. But, in the end they must have been losing too much money to continue playing the "wait and see" game and/or had to pick between B2P and keeping consoles or staying with the sub and losing consoles.

rawne1980b16_ESO

marcmyb14_ESO wrote: »

OK, well maybe it's more popular in Asia, but I doubt it's more popular in the USA.

2 million global players.

That includes USA and EU.

There are only a couple of EU servers that can take new players, the rest have been locked since it launched due to being over crowded. Same on US ones.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying ESO is a bad game. All i'm saying is it's not doing as well as the two "big" subscription based games that are going at the moment.

We know WoW is losing subs and will probably continue to do so. It's 10 years old, people that have played for a long time are getting older and moving on to new things. Those that were young when they started now have jobs and families, priorities change.

We'll never see an MMO that hits 12 million players again. It was a one off and it didn't last.

On the other side of that coin....

Star Wars, on the name alone, should have been a massive success. It's an IP that can print money. It didn't work though.

A lot of MMO players are fickle. If they don't like what they see they move on. The problem for games like ESO is there are a hell of a lot of other games to choose from and more on the way. If it doesn't grab people they will just play something else.

I know people love this game and probably won't accept or like anything I say but it's never going to be a massive success. They didn't grab the PC market and if 1.6 isn't a huge hit they won't grab the console market.

It will survive, of that I have no doubt. It's not a bad game at all, I love a lot of the things about it. All that said, it's not the only fish in the sea and people found some of the other fish to be a lot tastier.

I want it to do well, I really do.

Jennifur_Vultee

I like how Zenimax level up their Legerdemain skill...

Release the hounds by telling people ESO is going Buy to Play...totally redirect their attention with releasing 1.6 on the PTS with Champion points and Justice system. Nope no slight of hand there folks...they're smarter than many people seem to think.

ThatNeonZebraAgain

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

All i'm saying is it's not doing as well as the two "big" subscription based games that are going at the moment.

...

They didn't grab the PC market and if 1.6 isn't a huge hit they won't grab the console market.

Becoming a "big" sub MMO doesn't happen overnight, or even over one or two years, especially with how ESO launched. I would've been of the mind that 1.6 and hyping the 1-year anniversary of the game (e.g. soliciting new professional reviews, and all the new "upcoming" content they have in store that is now going to be sold as DLC) would've made a great way to gain ground for generating subs. If all that failed by next fall/winter, then yeah, the B2P move would make more sense a year from now. I think they just gave up on the sub model and being a "premium" MMO way to early is all.

ThatNeonZebraAgain

Jennifur_Vultee wrote: »

I like how Zenimax level up their Legerdemain skill...

Release the hounds by telling people ESO is going Buy to Play...totally redirect their attention with releasing 1.6 on the PTS with Champion points and Justice system. Nope no slight of hand there folks...they're smarter than many people seem to think.

Ha, yeah, that was definitely their plan.

Dave2836

Whats with the back and forth argument about popularity? The comparisons dontatch up because of the extremely skewed numbers.

1-We have limited data in the overall sales of ESO, ZOS never released specific numbers and neither do a lot if the brick and mortar stores that sold the retail boxes.

2-ESO has a completely different market when compared to FFIV, as well as different geographical and cultural audience.

3-You are also comparing a game that was created on a console with a game created for a pc in their respective origins and indicative of how their market base evolved.

4-JRPG is its own genre and not to be confused with the western rpg. One tells a story while the other tries to make the player be the story.

5-Game journalism is broken, and I'd sooner believe Batman is real than believe in game journalism.

All the above references and comparisons have done is spread misinformation, I'd rather have no information than the wrong information, as some people might be gullible enough to believe everything they read on the internet.

Naivefanboi

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

jjf42001_ESO wrote: »

FF realm reborn is available on pc,360,ps3,ps4,xbone
And they can all play together ...its not just on 1 console

Also eso has alot of competition on cobsole actually,

Planetside2
Neverwinter p2w garbage
Dragons dogma in japan states next possibly
Destiny as garbage as it is people still play it like wow
CoD
Dying light
Raindbow six siege or wtf ever they calling it now
Battle field hardline
Gta 5 online heists might actually be out by then
Dcuo
Final fantasy realm reborn
Warframe
Deadisland
Could prolly find more but hopfully you get the idea.

Being b2p on console could work out great, GW2 did amazing with the model, and they allowed people to buy gold ... Least eso isnt starting with p2w stuff.

Paying a sub doesnt gaurantee content or quality
Example wow, their next update is a flippin "selfie " camera and quests to upgrade it ......

jjf42001_ESO wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

jjf42001_ESO wrote: »

FF realm reborn is available on pc,360,ps3,ps4,xbone
And they can all play together ...its not just on 1 console

Not xbox one, not yet.
All you can find is that they were in talks to get on the xbone.
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/129355-final-fantasy-xiv-could-be-coming-to-xbox-one-after-all-yoshida-confirms-microsoft-talks

You're probably confusing it with FF11 which is available on xbox 360.

Well it might not be on xbone, but i have it on my ps4. ...
And no its realm reborn

For your edit of the first comment: I took what was better than the best competition they had: DCUO and Warframe, both available on both PC, ps4 and/or ps3.
All those other games you've listed are doing worse than the two best revenue maker of the platform.
The point was that the best they can hope to achieve is the revenue they are doing now. And to do that would require many changes, including p2w aspect.

GW2 had great sales at launch, and is the flagship of the b2p model. However, it is not doing wonders with the model and is consistently losing 20-30% revenue every year. They are doing an expansion to counteract the fact that a cash shop does not sustain a game properly.

And ESO is starting out with p2w items or anounced ones. Thieves guild and the Dark brotherhood content and skill lines will apparently be DLCs. And boosters/convenience items are an indirect form of p2w as well.

But you're right that a susbcription model does not guarantee quality.
But it is the only model that allows it.

When the devs have stable monthly revenue, they can allow themselves to focus on improving the game rather than creating more of whatever sells the most in the cash shop.
They also don't have the presure to release things at a high frequency, they can take the time to do more under the hood work, like 1.6 is, in order to improve on the long term appeal of the game.
Look at the OP again: If what they anounce pleases players, they will subscripe and remain subscribed even before the changes get released.
If they deliver what they promised, they increase the trust factor and even more people will susbcribe next time they anounce something.
It's a virtuous circle.

yea that must be why ive unsubbed.but am still playing and waiting to see what happens.most of what ive seen people dont like the change. and trust them less, i understand it but im in the same boat dont like it, and dont trust them.but i love the game so what can i do. to bad its gonna take 3-6 months to see how big of a liar they are.

i was just listing competition on console. ITS CONSOLE games like destiny and cod console gamers eat up like candy, point being console players are alot less picky when it comes to their genre. does it have co op? pvp? cool works for me long as i cna play with friends... thats destiny basicly
anything that is 4player co op is gonna be serious competition.

i suppse you consider DCUO competion for destiny? its not, but assuming it is how is dcuo more of a threat then destiny? thats basicly my point. dcuo may be competition, but they are far from the heaviest hitters.

sorry but your idea of numbers are completely bogus.
please link me info showing that DCUO is doing better then destiny or CoD...youve seen their sales for the year riiiight?

yes GW2 might have alot of turnover. but company still gets there money. they also sell gold for cash. eso doesnt have that, yet.
i left gw2 because all i did was pvp, which was fine. but then they had their "culling" issues, which they denied existed for 3 months or so, then 3 more months of claiming it cant be fixed...if you cant display everything on the battlefield....dont make the battlefield. so that was last straw for me. aside from the lack of raiding game was really good imo if all you wanted to do was pvp and quest once in ahwile. got off topic my point is the game from my perspective ran on an almost purely pvp community. if eso ended up in that boat like gw2 i would honestly consider it success.

sub model is not the only model just gonna have to agree to disagree. while im all for it and yes its the model i prefer. but to say sub or die sounds unrealistic.

the dlc argument isnt p2w from my perspective. its b2p with options.
ZOS already stated content updates wont be on par with 2014 speed wise. they also said theyere done reworking the game for awhile it needs to "breath" basicly we dont wanna anything till console launched and running smooth as possible. so i dont think them getting a sub makes a huge difference. theyve been working on this since quakecon atleast.

i hope for the best but honestly ZOS has made this bed and they deserve to sleep in it.

mistermagic87b14_ESO

I'm 99.9% sure this change is only happening to appeal to console players. They seemed to be doing fine just on PC subs - I was seeing plenty of my friends and others on forums that I visit reactivating as well - even before the announcement.

They are now trying to appeal to the console market and I highly doubt it would work requiring players to pay ZOS an ESO monthly sub fee on top of their respective PS4/Xbox one console sub fee.

Name a console MMO/game that has a $14.99 required sub fee that is successful. I haven't heard of one.

DLC is the console revenue model and they are following it - it makes sense from the perspective - why try to force change when they can adapt and do what players are used to doing through other games.

They won't change it back it doesn't fit console - period.

At first I was against the change - now I'm excited for it.

More players to both platforms means more revenue for ZOS and more revenue means continued support.

I feel they're going to be pumping out content pretty consistently to get more revenue. More revenue to me = even more quality content.

Gidorick

jjf42001_ESO wrote: »

FF realm reborn is available on pc,360,ps3,ps4,xbone
And they can all play together ...its not just on 1 console

Also eso has alot of competition on cobsole actually,

Planetside2
Neverwinter p2w garbage
Dragons dogma in japan states next possibly
Destiny as garbage as it is people still play it like wow
CoD
Dying light
Raindbow six siege or wtf ever they calling it now
Battle field hardline
Gta 5 online heists might actually be out by then
Dcuo
Final fantasy realm reborn
Warframe
Deadisland
Could prolly find more but hopfully you get the idea.

Being b2p on console could work out great, GW2 did amazing with the model, and they allowed people to buy gold ... Least eso isnt starting with p2w stuff.

Paying a sub doesnt gaurantee content or quality
Example wow, their next update is a flippin "selfie " camera and quests to upgrade it ......

But... there aren't any other B2P/F2P FANTASY games... yet.

Dragon's Dogma Online this is going to hurt ESO... if it comes to "the west"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlInSHHbKE8

rawne1980b16_ESO

Gidorick wrote: »

But... there aren't any other B2P/F2P FANTASY games... yet.

Dragon's Dogma Online this is going to hurt ESO... if it comes to "the west"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlInSHHbKE8

I need that game.

I quite enjoyed Dragons Dogma, i'd love more of it.

Darklord_Tiberius

Funkopotamus wrote: »

They have lost even more developers in the last 3 months.. That alone tells me that the people that are left are willing to "Ride this ***** till the wheels fall off"

With the announcement that after 1.6 there will be no other large updates says it all.. My concern is they are going to then just milk players through the cash shop until the wheels actually do fall off and people no longer play the game at all..

Those developers that left did so on their own btw..

No large updates, means that they are focusing on pushing a smooth transition for ESO:TU. They have already stated that content will be put on in forms of DLCs. A player can either get access to these updates by subscribing meaning ESO PLUS (what we do now) or buying the DLC from the crown store.

DLCS WOULD INCLUDE: Imperial City, 2nd phase of Justice system, spell crafting, dark brotherhood and thieves guild, adventure zones (two of which have already been named, forgot the names though) and much more that they probably have not even mentioned yet.

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Rude and Insulting Comments]

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

@Digiman‌
We know already about some p2w practices that will occur in ESO.
There is no doubt that as things evolve, more will come into play. And the more DLCs get released, the more limitations will be put on free players.
If there is any valuable group content getting released in DLC, then anyone not paying will be a burden to their guild.
ESO will suffer the same fate than every other game, you'll either pay or get driven away.

And this surge is since the 17th of december, you can check the day by day progress on the link I provided in OP. That's the date of the 1.6 livestream.
The b2p anouncement came a bit more than a month later.

It's too early to know, but the progression for this month was at +30% when the news hit, and it is now at only +20%. It could mean nothing if course, but we'll know next month if the b2p change actually caused a loss in activity.
At the very least, we know it is not causing any increase in activity.

@fromtesonlineb16_ESO‌
I took a shortcut when reading and saying he was wrong, my bad.
But the points I raised in tha reaction still are valid:
Console players, just like PC players, aren't MMO players for the most part. Of course these wouldn't want to pay a sub, but they also don't matter when discussing ESO.
However, the console/pc players interested in MMOs have proven they were ready to pay for a subscription when the game is worth the price. That is what is interesting to MMO devs.
ESO could have been the western Final Fantasy XIV. A bit like the TES franchise is the western equivalent to the FF franchise.

@rawne1980b16_ESO‌
What? Only 2 MMOs are surviving on subscription? If I were a less patient man I would have stopped reading there.
You really need to do some more research and make an opinion for yourself.
You've been able to roundup a great deal on FFXIV, why not look into other games in the genre?

For instance, I've been paying attention to the industry for years, and always doubted anything PR related. This is the first time a game I still actually care about goes through a switch so before even posting about it, I went through about 15h of market research. Since I started posting, I must be at 30h now of reading articles, press releases, interviews, financial reports and so on.
This thread is the conclusion of this work: They are making a mistake.

All that EA has shown is that they lose 20-30% revenue yearly and can't even get 1.2M actives at a time interested in their free star wars game. Star Wars!
This is not a success.

I've shown links after links in many thread you participated in that show that all those so called successes are just not cutting it. In this very thread I show you the best pc+console f2p mmorpg game barely making what ESO is doing now.
Those industry "experts" are people like massively, now getting shutdown, that are just repeating the PR talk of companies trying to save face.
f2p does not work for mmorpgs, it's only succesful for mobas, fps and other simplistic games. The amalgam is easily made if you lump everything together, but for the comparisons that do matter, mmorpg vs mmorpg, the only path to sustainable success is the subscription.

The only reason why the subscription model is in danger is because of the kind of ripoffs Zos and other devs did: launching an MMO with no intention of supporting it. They release those games as single player games with bonus revenue and reduce the price over time just like a steam lifecycle.
This makes people distrustful of new mmos and eventually, almost no one will buy games at their launch.

This is not how you run an MMO. An MMO does not devaluate over time unless you break it. As the devs improve it and add content, its $15 a month gain more and more value and over time, more and more people want to pay that amount to play it. Just look at games like Eve Online, WoW, Lineage, FFXIV, UO, Darkfall, DAOC, etc. Not all of them are current today, but they all started low then raised numbers, some for years, some for over a decade. As long as the team is able to update them meaningfully, they keep growing.

Those steam charts only show people that bought the game on steam. They are only relevant to notice trends. It is only a subset of the whole playerbase.
It's also a limited metric, we only know the average active, but we don't have unique daily active players.
What we do know is that alegedly, in July, the game had 772k subscribers and that caused 1992.6 average players that month.
We can use that to estimate the current player base with a simple calculation.
And the resulting subscriber numbers are good. Even when they were at their worst they were still good.
Do you have any idea what 50% profit margin represent at those scales?
That's the worst month for ESO, and all it does is show that the subscription model does indeed work.

It's not about liking or not liking the change, it's not about popularity and polls, it's about pointing out mistakes and attempt to be constructive.
ZOS is free to ignore our feedback, evidently they often do. Ultimately, they have the right to be wrong, it's their livelihood. Unfortunately, we lose a great game in the process.

@marcmyb14_ESO‌
I honestly envy your optimism.
Unfortunately, ZOS has proven they do not mind telling lies. That they word things like "we have no plans" is worrying. At this point to have faith in anything they say is naive.

As long as those DLC only skill lines have any purpose in game, they are p2w. Any advantage gained through real life money is p2W. Even if it just makes stealthing easier, or other seemingly small advantages, it will be making some builds stronger thanks to money.

@jjf42001_ESO‌
You don't compare apple to oranges.
COD is not a multiplatform f2p mmorpg so it is not direct competition. It isn't targeted at the same audience at all.
DCUO is and that's what ESO aspires to be. We don't have exact numbers for DCUO but we have articles from Smedley stating that Warframe is doing better.
Warframe has available numbers, so I used those to compare.

The conclusion is that ESO is doing better now at its "worst" than a multiplatform f2p mmorpg does at its best.

ESO should aspire to be like FFXIV, because that thing is trucking along and ravaging the land. 2M susbcribers, at least 500k unique daily active players.
And it isn't on the xbox one. ESO will have that whole cake to itself!

@mistermagic87b14_ESO‌
Name of a console MMO that requires a sub: Final Fantasy XIV
Just look a bit above in this very thread for a lot of literature about it.

Consoles aren't the reason for this change, the subscription model works everywhere because all players are mostly the same: they are willing to pay for quality.

The reason is that the higher ups want to handle this game like a single player game. Trying to reduce its price to sell the most box sales and then stop supporting it. It's just to get a faster ROI and ignoring the long term.

But the additional box sales from not having a sub are marginal compared to years of stable subscription revenue. More players is of no interest if they don't pay anything. And if the devs had kept on growing the game like 1.6 is going to do, it would have been years of growing revenue.

They won't be getting more revenue, and you won't be getting more content.
You were correct at first: You should be against the change.

ThatNeonZebraAgain wrote: »

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

All i'm saying is it's not doing as well as the two "big" subscription based games that are going at the moment.

...

They didn't grab the PC market and if 1.6 isn't a huge hit they won't grab the console market.

Becoming a "big" sub MMO doesn't happen overnight, or even over one or two years, especially with how ESO launched. I would've been of the mind that 1.6 and hyping the 1-year anniversary of the game (e.g. soliciting new professional reviews, and all the new "upcoming" content they have in store that is now going to be sold as DLC) would've made a great way to gain ground for generating subs. If all that failed by next fall/winter, then yeah, the B2P move would make more sense a year from now. I think they just gave up on the sub model and being a "premium" MMO way to early is all.

Exactly this. Things don't happen overnight.
It took 10 years for Eve Online to reach 700k subscribers
The consoles are great accelerators though as it took only 1 year for FFXIV to reach 2M.
ESO would have done amazingly well.

1.6 was already turning things around without even getting released.
I'm certain that if they hadn't planned the switch, we'd have at the very least one additional zone in the game.

This is just higher ups handling this MMO like a single player game.
I recommend reading the opening post of this thread:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/147220/was-zenimax-stupid-like-a-fox/p1
It really puts into words what all MMO vets have been feeling about the industry for the past 8 years.

mistermagic87b14_ESO

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Ok there's one game that was/is successful with pay to play model on console.

However, I feel it's still not the standard for console gaming - they went the safe route and the route people are used to.

It's all just speculation and I feel it's going to be in the company's favor.

Only time will tell.