Paygate and ppl rant

Ysne58

ShadowDisciple wrote: »

Ysne58 wrote: »

Will we even notice the paygate before the first DLC comes out?

Well not essentially...and even when it does come out, it will probably be alot cheaper then if we paid sub for a few months before it hits us....but i dont really see people being mad about need to pay dlc's... more the fear that this new Cash Shop will streamline production in ZOS and that everything will revolve around cash shop and not new content

A lot of people are concerned about that happening.

Morshire

Ysne58 wrote: »

Will we even notice the paygate before the first DLC comes out?

That is the huge debate right. I mean, if crowns have no value to said player, then....What really got me riled up was when ZOS said they would not be keeping the same pace as 2014 for "content". I am still trying to decide what to make of that. I figure, if I wanted crowns, I would buy them. And if that is all my money gets me....Now don't get me wrong, I could easily be that credit card cowboy and buy my way through the game. But I have no desire to do so. Heck, I bought 3 Imperial additions and never used the rings. I did cheat with that, I wanted a cheap horse. So call me a looser.

Hopefully we notice the paygate way less than the cash shop.

Elsonso

Morshire wrote: »

Ysne58 wrote: »

Will we even notice the paygate before the first DLC comes out?

That is the huge debate right. I mean, if crowns have no value to said player, then....What really got me riled up was when ZOS said they would not be keeping the same pace as 2014 for "content". I am still trying to decide what to make of that. I figure, if I wanted crowns, I would buy them. And if that is all my money gets me....Now don't get me wrong, I could easily be that credit card cowboy and buy my way through the game. But I have no desire to do so. Heck, I bought 3 Imperial additions and never used the rings. I did cheat with that, I wanted a cheap horse. So call me a looser.

Hopefully we notice the paygate way less than the cash shop.

We were facing a slowdown in updates no matter whether it was B2P or P2P.

They need to focus on console to make that rollout solid. That would result in fewer Updates right there.

After that, they have doubled the platforms that they have to test. This also means a slowdown in Updates.

* Note that this assumes constant resources.

Morshire

lordrichter wrote: »

We were facing a slowdown in updates no matter whether it was B2P or P2P.

They need to focus on console to make that rollout solid. That would result in fewer Updates right there.

After that, they have doubled the platforms that they have to test. This also means a slowdown in Updates.

* Note that this assumes constant resources.

That *Note is what bothers me. So where do the "resources come from? Cash shop? I mean, from a business stand point, that is the most logical way to get revenue in a hurry. Especially considering the fiasco they made for their other sources of revenue. I mean, they will get a good short term influx of capitol from the box sales, but development takes time and resources. Those box sales will dry up. I just hope there is enough DLC already in the wings to allow them the time to develop more without having to hit the piggy bank called a cash shop.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

The game will not be the same, and this is not a win/win but a lose/lose.
Stop fooling yourselves.

Even with the best intents, a cash shop harms a game.
A game studio's focus is always to what brings them money. If it is to keep people susbcribed for months/years, then they'll create content geared to that effect. If it is to sell more boosters/dlcs/conveniance/rng chests in the game store, then the game will be modified towards that goal.
It's as simple as that.

No game before managed to balance that and grow sustainably in revenue. Even those using all the tricks in the book are not growing and barely have the revenue they would have had the kept the susbcription.
SWTOR, GW2 and TSW are all perfect examples, they are in some ways the most "successful" of their kind, yet they all followed the same pattern:
A high income increase at the switch due to the new influx of players and then a steady decline of about 20 to 30% revenue each year.

It is naive to believe even an instant that ESO will be an exception. There are no special snowflakes, and if it was even possible, ZOS are not the ones that will manage to pull it off.

If we are to go with anecdotes as "proof" of what this change will entail, for every person that have a tell of "my entire family will buy the game now" there is an equal opposite. For instance, my guild which most have already purchased the game had a simple reaction when I announced them it would be f2p for them in a couple months: "lol, we should be paid to play this game".

This is how badly the game needs to be improved, as for some people that were interested enough in the concept to buy the box and were prepared to pay a susbcription for the game don't even think it is worth their time.
Just look at swtor, star wars for free, and it can't pull more than 1.2M players, it is ridiculous to expect more from ESO.

A business model that requires by design to "break" the game to function cannot be the source of improvement ESO needs at this point. Making it mostly free won't improve its value, and the game will at best stagnate when it could have, and should have, been improved.

This is not going to end well for ZOS, and by extention, for us the players.
This is not elitism, it's just common sense.

Funkopotamus

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Where are people picking up all this "elitism" nonesense?

.

Basically NBlackSmurf is just a person that feels jaded somehow. There is no reason anyone should have a problem with paying a sub fee for an MMO that they enjoy. These people that cry about it is exactly what is wrong with the world economy right now. Everyone wants something, but they feel it should be free or the cost should not exceed what they are willing to pay for it.

When in fact these same people that are crying about a $15.00 Subscription fee are probably sitting in front of a computer that cost more than they make in a month as they are eating a greasy fast food item that they just paid $10.00 for and drinking a redbull/*insert energy drink* that cost them $1.50-$2.00.

Bottom line is people COULD pay the sub fee to support the game that they are supposed to like, but hey.... Nah lets just cry about things until we can get it for free right? It makes me sick to be honest.. If you cannot afford $15.00 a month on entertainment maybe it is time for you to restructure your financial wellbeing and rethink some life choices..

You speak of "Elitist" when in fact a subfee keeps that very thing in check.. You would pay the exact same thing that I have paid to enjoy the game therefore we would be EQUAL. Now with a BTP/P2W system all you have done is make your argument invalid as NOW those elitist WILL have an advantage over you! Those elitist WILL spend more than you and WILL be "Elitist" over you.

Find any other reason you want to bash on a subscription model, but at least come up with one that can stand on its own legs in an argument.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

You're a bit aggressive and extreme here. A lot of people genuinly think that b2p makes financial sense and that the company will earn more that way. It has nothing to do with entitlement but more with a lack of understanding / knowledge of economics.

You do have a point though, the dlc/expansion is geared towards enginering "elitism".

By segregating players, they create a social presure to purchase their inventory.

By breaking down the game in small pieces, it forces the player base to act as evangelists for the content they bought in order to run it with friends.

That some guilds want to be subscribers only does not shock me. It's just a way to avoid the hassle of managing which member has bought which dlc.
It's a pragmatic approach.

If that is considered "elitism" and disliked, then blame the root cause: The business model.

Slurg

Morshire wrote:

...And no, no matter the money spent/not spent on this game does not give anyone IMO the right to treat others with disdain...

Whether or not we agree with each other's choice of words, fundamentally we agree on this point. A lot of us love this game and don't want to see it go downhill like other games have when they adopt this model. But if it does, I doubt it will have anything to do with whether some of us pay subscriptions and others buy content a la carte from the crown store.

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO‌ had a good point as well - perhaps the company's intent is to pit the subscribing community against non subscribers as a pressure tactic to get more subscriptions and redirect our attention away from the fact that the pace of development will slow and we're getting less for our money.

Jeremy

Slurg wrote: »

Morshire wrote:

...And no, no matter the money spent/not spent on this game does not give anyone IMO the right to treat others with disdain...

Whether or not we agree with each other's choice of words, fundamentally we agree on this point. A lot of us love this game and don't want to see it go downhill like other games have when they adopt this model. But if it does, I doubt it will have anything to do with whether some of us pay subscriptions and others buy content a la carte from the crown store.

@frosth.darkomenb16_ESO‌ had a good point as well - perhaps the company's intent is to pit the subscribing community against non subscribers as a pressure tactic to get more subscriptions and redirect our attention away from the fact that the pace of development will slow and we're getting less for our money.

lol and I thought I was cynical.

To suggest the developers did this to cause strife between players as a diversionary tactic so they can slow the rate of content without it being noticed sounds more like misandry toward the company.

I think there are two reasonable theories here.

1. ESO wasn't living up to expectations so they are downgrading development costs and are going to try to squeeze all the money they can from a cash shop before pulling the plug.

2. They wanted to accommodate their console players and not force them to pay both network and subscription fees.

Both of these theories make sense to me and I hope it's the second. Because if it's the first - get ready for the this game to turn into crap so as to appeal to the kiddies wanting to use their daddy's credit card.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

It's just the concept behind expansion/DLCs. It works like that in WoW and in any fps out there. Your friends have bought it and play the new content so you want it too, and that player segregation drives sales.

I don't think it's either 1 nor 2.
ESO was doing well, or at least was doing above reasonable expectations. If they expected WoW numbers ,then they are morons, but for a new MMO having 300k+ susbcribers after only one year is great.
Eve Online ,one of the most successful MMO ever, took nearly a decade to reach that point.

And accomodating console players is not necessary. Those players already pay for a network fee, and an internet fee, and their electrical bill and rent.
It's just what you have to pay if you enjoy online games and ESO would be just one more title they would play online.
That the network fee got removed from Playstation is great, but it doesn't mean that it couldn't be launched on xbox. Quite the contrary, there is no competition on xbox, so a network fee is no issue. On playstation ,there is actual competition , so the removal of the fee is a competitive advantage.

I nthe end, there is some truth in your 1. They are just trying to squeeze a quick buck out of the game then move on. It's the only plausible explanation to this switch.

Slurg

The bottom line is that ZOS is a company and it either makes a profit or it fails. There can be multiple motivations for any given action but all actions are intended to result in profit.

Decisions the company makes about the future of this game are of course going to be all about making money for the company. Of course they would try to make money as many ways as possible while spending as little as possible on development.

eisberg

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

It's just the concept behind expansion/DLCs. It works like that in WoW and in any fps out there. Your friends have bought it and play the new content so you want it too, and that player segregation drives sales.

I don't think it's either 1 nor 2.
ESO was doing well, or at least was doing above reasonable expectations. If they expected WoW numbers ,then they are morons, but for a new MMO having 300k+ susbcribers after only one year is great.
Eve Online ,one of the most successful MMO ever, took nearly a decade to reach that point.

And accomodating console players is not necessary. Those players already pay for a network fee, and an internet fee, and their electrical bill and rent.
It's just what you have to pay if you enjoy online games and ESO would be just one more title they would play online.
That the network fee got removed from Playstation is great, but it doesn't mean that it couldn't be launched on xbox. Quite the contrary, there is no competition on xbox, so a network fee is no issue. On playstation ,there is actual competition , so the removal of the fee is a competitive advantage.

I nthe end, there is some truth in your 1. They are just trying to squeeze a quick buck out of the game then move on. It's the only plausible explanation to this switch.

Another plausible explanation, they were seeing subscriber attrition rate going up, and they predicted the number of subscribers they would end up with wouldn't justify putting more money into the game, so they would either shut it down or just have the game in maintenance mode, if they didn't do the switch. You have no idea if 300K would actually be enough to justify the investment they would continue to make, you have no idea if their predictions actually showed they would even have 300K subscribers.

Eve Online is also a bad comparison. You have no idea the costs difference between the 2 studios. Also Eve Online never lost subscriber numbers till last around 2013/14, before they they kept on climbing. It was very clear that ESO did not climb at all, and that they lost subscribers, and there has been no proof of any subscription only MMO released after 2004 to actually gain subscribers once they already started to lose subscribers.

Kragorn

eisberg wrote: »

and there has been no proof of any subscription only MMO released after 2004 to actually gain subscribers once they already started to lose subscribers.

WOW, November 2014 not long before the release of WOD, numbers climbed over a million.

Of course, it remains to be seen how long those new numbers are sustained but that evidence disproves your comment pretty easily.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

@eisberg‌
This is only the first year. Every game at launch has tourists that then leave.
That's up to 80% of the launch population in most cases.
Almost every launch in MMO history has been a failure, WoW and Eve included.
If you expect a game to grow during its first 6 months, you are just as inexperienced as the people making decisions at ZOS.

100K susbcribers is already making a profit for a studio of ZOS size, and from the few estimates we can make, their lowest was 192k and since mid december, it raised to above 400k.
And that's not people resubing to "check out the patch", that's people resubing at the very least 2 months before any patch gets applied.
Of course those are only estimates, but until we get official numbers, there is no valid reason to believe it was a financialy sound decision.

Subscriber attrition rate was fine, and actually surprisingly good for such a recent game.

angel59

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

If you expect a game to grow during its first 6 months, you are just as inexperienced as the people making decisions at ZOS.

100K susbcribers is already making a profit for a studio of ZOS size, and from the few estimates we can make, their lowest was 192k and since mid december, it raised to above 400k.
And that's not people resubing to "check out the patch", that's people resubing at the very least 2 months before any patch gets applied.
Of course those are only estimates, but until we get official numbers, there is no valid reason to believe it was a financialy sound decision.

Subscriber attrition rate was fine, and actually surprisingly good for such a recent game.

This nonsense got old last week, yet you still present your economic theories as fact. You provide this data with a small disclaimer that these are estimates. However, you fail to indicate that these are YOUR estimates and that they are based on limited, if not biased, information that has been refuted by others.

Please provide proof that 100k subscribers is a profitable level for ZOS. I am not interested in your hypothetical estimates. I want to know what their actual costs are and what the actual revenue numbers are. Oh, you cannot provide that, you say, because ZOS is a private company with no public information.

You have estimated the low subscription level and the current subscription level based on a couple data points on Steam, which has also been refuted by others. Steam came to the party late and the purchasers may represent a different population than those who purchased prior to steam selling. Yet you lump them all together. You assume that they represent the same but you cannot establish it. Maybe the early purchasers are less active because they played out earlier. Your theory does not include this assumed factor.

Finally, you theorize that any increase of subs is from new sources rather than resubs. Please provide the source, not a theory, for this (mis)information.

Your hypothesis that ZOS would be profitable, if they maintain the subscription plan, is nothing more than an hypothesis. You have provided estimates that are biased to your hypothesis.

Please stick to economics. Your theories can be argued amongst your peers. Business management and analysis is best left to those who are qualified. You cannot apply broad economic theory to an individual business. Especially a private business who provudes no information.

eisberg

Kragorn wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

and there has been no proof of any subscription only MMO released after 2004 to actually gain subscribers once they already started to lose subscribers.

WOW, November 2014 not long before the release of WOD, numbers climbed over a million.

Of course, it remains to be seen how long those new numbers are sustained but that evidence disproves your comment pretty easily.

I said any subscription MMO released after 2004, WoW released in 2004 not after. I was aware of WoW having an increase around the times of expansions, and this is why I specifically stated any MMO released after 2004. Some MMOs released in 2004 and before seem to be the outliers now, and they enjoyed growth in subscription numbers for a long time after 2004, where as MMOs released after 2004 peaked at the beginning near launch, and then dropped in subscriber numbers after that and never saw their numbers grow close to that peak.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

angel59 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

If you expect a game to grow during its first 6 months, you are just as inexperienced as the people making decisions at ZOS.

100K susbcribers is already making a profit for a studio of ZOS size, and from the few estimates we can make, their lowest was 192k and since mid december, it raised to above 400k.
And that's not people resubing to "check out the patch", that's people resubing at the very least 2 months before any patch gets applied.
Of course those are only estimates, but until we get official numbers, there is no valid reason to believe it was a financialy sound decision.

Subscriber attrition rate was fine, and actually surprisingly good for such a recent game.

This nonsense got old last week, yet you still present your economic theories as fact. You provide this data with a small disclaimer that these are estimates. However, you fail to indicate that these are YOUR estimates and that they are based on limited, if not biased, information that has been refuted by others.

Please provide proof that 100k subscribers is a profitable level for ZOS. I am not interested in your hypothetical estimates. I want to know what their actual costs are and what the actual revenue numbers are. Oh, you cannot provide that, you say, because ZOS is a private company with no public information.

You have estimated the low subscription level and the current subscription level based on a couple data points on Steam, which has also been refuted by others. Steam came to the party late and the purchasers may represent a different population than those who purchased prior to steam selling. Yet you lump them all together. You assume that they represent the same but you cannot establish it. Maybe the early purchasers are less active because they played out earlier. Your theory does not include this assumed factor.

Finally, you theorize that any increase of subs is from new sources rather than resubs. Please provide the source, not a theory, for this (mis)information.

Your hypothesis that ZOS would be profitable, if they maintain the subscription plan, is nothing more than an hypothesis. You have provided estimates that are biased to your hypothesis.

Please stick to economics. Your theories can be argued amongst your peers. Business management and analysis is best left to those who are qualified. You cannot apply broad economic theory to an individual business. Especially a private business who provudes no information.

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/148940/1-6-looks-great-forget-about-b2p-f2p/p1

Feel free to discuss the logic I explained there.

Steam shows trends, trends that usualy represent what the general population trends are. The same way that political polls are of limited numbers but are generaly good estimates.
Those data points cannot be refuted, they are facts, and I'm fairly confident I use them conservatively. For instance, I use the average active rather than the peak number. Which means I'm using a value that necesarily will be lower than the truth.
This is a voluntary error in logic in order to have an estimate that will be as low as possible to avoid being too optimistic.

We know for a fact that ZOS is at this day a similar if not smaller studio than Funcom. If Funcom gets positive cash flow and seems happy with the equivalent of 95k subdcribers, a worst case scenario of 100k susbcribers for ESO to break even is actually pessimistic.
The break even could be at 50k or 75k, but we don't know that for sure. However, we do know that 100k is more than plenty.


Again I'm being pessimistic on purpose.
A more "logical" approach would be to take the known 2012 ZOS employee count of 250, take down whatever layoffs we know happenned at launch and then multiply that by $5000 per month. (the average cost of a medium end programmer in salary, taxes and office space)
A still pessimistic estimate since ZOS isn't composed only by high end pay checks. If we were to take the 250 number, that's 83.34k susbcrsibers necessary for breaking even.
It's is of course lower, since we're not taking into account the layoffs that occured and the lower marketing budget post launch.

I also never said those susbcriptions were new sources, I specificallyused the word "resub" each time. I don't see how you can get any notion about new players in my post.

If anything, I have actively tried to get results biased against my hypothesis, even to the point of making mistakes on purpose.

And I have in other posts provided enough facts that show that cash shop oriented model are always less profitable than subscription models.
For instance, UO in 2008 had revenue equivalent to the whole Funcom stable fo games. 10 years after its launch it was worth more than 4 f2p games launched mostly recently.
Or the loses in revenue GW2 and swtor are facing, swtor being now around the same revenue it was at when it switched but failing at a very fast pace.
That should be proof enough that whatever game is taken into account, the susbcription model is more favorable to them.

In ESO's case, it will have two new markets opened to it without any real competition. It was growing again sooner than most subscription games start growing again, and it could only have gone up from there.

Good games succeed, bad games fail, no matter the business model.
But the cash shop model does not create good games. And that's the final and msot important factor. Whatever short term gains ESO has from this switch, it will not get the improvement it needs to become a true success.

ShadowDisciple

lol...seems like everyone here has a PHD in Economics and are a part of the Zenimax accounting team xDDD

Tbh i believe this conversion to b2p is simply because of the fact that its getting released on consoles, and quite frankly i dont see sub-based games being popular on consoles...

What i believe is that they are trying to reach an influx of players pc and console alike...to increase the probability of people subbing for ESO +... and in adition to that to get a significant influx from box sales and future DLC's...

Seems reasonable to me... but i guess you PHD peeps will find a way to crap on my theory

cote-bmsb16_ESO

I'll pay for Dark Brotherhood DLC or player housing!

ShadowDisciple

cote-bmsb16_ESO wrote: »

I'll pay for Dark Brotherhood DLC or player housing!

Exactly my point...if the DLC's are really good and attractive...and they cost between 15-25$ everyone will buy them and that a huge influx of cash periodically...

Coupled with the console release and a huge influx of ppl which a significant number of them might subscribe to eso+ ..i can see this as a good bussiness move by zenimax...

If content that will be released is good i dont see any problem here

angel59

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

angel59 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

If you expect a game to grow during its first 6 months, you are just as inexperienced as the people making decisions at ZOS.

100K susbcribers is already making a profit for a studio of ZOS size, and from the few estimates we can make, their lowest was 192k and since mid december, it raised to above 400k.
And that's not people resubing to "check out the patch", that's people resubing at the very least 2 months before any patch gets applied.
Of course those are only estimates, but until we get official numbers, there is no valid reason to believe it was a financialy sound decision.

Subscriber attrition rate was fine, and actually surprisingly good for such a recent game.

This nonsense got old last week, yet you still present your economic theories as fact. You provide this data with a small disclaimer that these are estimates. However, you fail to indicate that these are YOUR estimates and that they are based on limited, if not biased, information that has been refuted by others.

Please provide proof that 100k subscribers is a profitable level for ZOS. I am not interested in your hypothetical estimates. I want to know what their actual costs are and what the actual revenue numbers are. Oh, you cannot provide that, you say, because ZOS is a private company with no public information.

You have estimated the low subscription level and the current subscription level based on a couple data points on Steam, which has also been refuted by others. Steam came to the party late and the purchasers may represent a different population than those who purchased prior to steam selling. Yet you lump them all together. You assume that they represent the same but you cannot establish it. Maybe the early purchasers are less active because they played out earlier. Your theory does not include this assumed factor.

Finally, you theorize that any increase of subs is from new sources rather than resubs. Please provide the source, not a theory, for this (mis)information.

Your hypothesis that ZOS would be profitable, if they maintain the subscription plan, is nothing more than an hypothesis. You have provided estimates that are biased to your hypothesis.

Please stick to economics. Your theories can be argued amongst your peers. Business management and analysis is best left to those who are qualified. You cannot apply broad economic theory to an individual business. Especially a private business who provudes no information.

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/148940/1-6-looks-great-forget-about-b2p-f2p/p1

Feel free to discuss the logic I explained there.

Steam shows trends, trends that usualy represent what the general population trends are. The same way that political polls are of limited numbers but are generaly good estimates.
Those data points cannot be refuted, they are facts, and I'm fairly confident I use them conservatively. For instance, I use the average active rather than the peak number. Which means I'm using a value that necesarily will be lower than the truth....

I am at work now and cannot address the additional arguments you have provided. I will answer them when I get home.

I do wish to address the steam issue. On December 17, 2014 the change to the game was announced. On December 18, the Steam Christmas sale began and ESO (standard editìon) went on sale for $17 instead of the normal $60. This would allow a puchaser to try out a full month of ESO on the cheap. By your own arguments in other threads, a $15 monthly cost is only a couple fast food meals. I venture that many people were willing to buy ESO during the sale to test drive it, before they put any money down on a subscription. I think that the Feb 17 announcment may have been a small factor, but not enough to significantly move the trend. I believe the sale was the mitigating factor for the rise.

A look at the steam graph you provided seems to substantiate my theory. The increase in users begins climbing on Dec 19, peaks around the end of the year and declines back to the pre Christmas sale user count. This decline ends around Jan 9, the approximate date that students return to school.

My conclusion is this short burst in activity is only a seasonal anomoly due to the sale and the overall trend is a continuos decline and that the game would not provide sufficient funds to continue unless the business model was changed.

Edit to add: will post links when I get home. I always screw them up on my phone.

angel59

It is so much easier to use links on my home computer than my phone. (ESO site is blocked at work)

Sources for Steam sale in December 2014. The sale may not have started on the 18th of December, but there is evidence that ESO was on sale on December 20th, and possibly the 19th.

Date of sale: The date of the sale can be interpreted to mean the 19th or 20th of December from the Reddit Thread posted on December 2014. See first and third post, both from Tierney11290. The first post references the December 19 date and the sale is confirmed in the third post .

Sale price of ESO on Steam: There is a reference to a $17 price on Gamefaqs: post 27 dated December 22, 2014. "The sale price on steam (like 17$ right?) is essentially 30 days for the price of a sub anyway (15$). "

I also saw references to $20 on other forums so the price is between $17 and $20.

The Imperial edition was also on sale at $25.99 as found in the ESO Forum Thread from mozhackerub17_ESO: "I bought the Imperial edition for the greatly reduced price of $25.99." The actual date is a little harder to pin down because we only have the month\year.

angel59

ShadowDisciple wrote: »

cote-bmsb16_ESO wrote: »

I'll pay for Dark Brotherhood DLC or player housing!

Exactly my point...if the DLC's are really good and attractive...and they cost between 15-25$ everyone will buy them and that a huge influx of cash periodically...

Coupled with the console release and a huge influx of ppl which a significant number of them might subscribe to eso+ ..i can see this as a good bussiness move by zenimax...

If content that will be released is good i dont see any problem here

LOL. @ShadowDisciple This is a great post. I am more in agreement with your theory. By the way, I am not an economist, but I am a CPA, so have a little understanding of business numbers.

Rust_in_Peace

I know I personally won't spend money on any DLC until they fix the grouping tool. It's hard to enjoy new content when you're not part of a premade guild group.

angel59

Warning: Wall of Text.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/148940/1-6-looks-great-forget-about-b2p-f2p/p1

Feel free to discuss the logic I explained there.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Steam shows trends, trends that usualy represent what the general population trends are. The same way that political polls are of limited numbers but are generaly good estimates.
Those data points cannot be refuted, they are facts, and I'm fairly confident I use them conservatively. For instance, I use the average active rather than the peak number. Which means I'm using a value that necesarily will be lower than the truth.
This is a voluntary error in logic in order to have an estimate that will be as low as possible to avoid being too optimistic.

I addressed this in a previous message. Basically, your analysis did not take into account a significant price reduction in Steam's Christmas/Holiday sale at the same time the game change was announced.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

We know for a fact that ZOS is at this day a similar if not smaller studio than Funcom. If Funcom gets positive cash flow and seems happy with the equivalent of 95k subdcribers, a worst case scenario of 100k susbcribers for ESO to break even is actually pessimistic.
The break even could be at 50k or 75k, but we don't know that for sure. However, we do know that 100k is more than plenty.

Again I'm being pessimistic on purpose.

We do not know if ZOS has a smaller studio than Funcom. However, Funcom has been bleeding cash since 2010. VG247 March 2014 shows the developer stating: “All games in the large-scale MMO segment are cash flow positive and will remain so in the foreseeable future,”

However, if you review their published financial reports, you will note the following Year End Cash Balances.
2013 Annual Report $2.582m
2012 Annual Report $8.048m
2011 Annual Report $19.428m
2011 Annual Report $22.693m (Opening Cash Balance - 2010 Year end balance)

It appears that Funcom needs more subscribers in order to break even.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

A more "logical" approach would be to take the known 2012 ZOS employee count of 250, take down whatever layoffs we know happenned at launch and then multiply that by $5000 per month. (the average cost of a medium end programmer in salary, taxes and office space)
A still pessimistic estimate since ZOS isn't composed only by high end pay checks. If we were to take the 250 number, that's 83.34k susbcrsibers necessary for breaking even.
It's is of course lower, since we're not taking into account the layoffs that occured and the lower marketing budget post launch.

Like you, I don't know what is their staff level. It does not really matter because your emloyee all in costs of $60,000 is significantly below a Gamasutra 2013 Salary Survey result that shows an average programmer salary of $93,000. Add an additional 30% for taxes, office and any other employee costs you have 120k per year. Double your estimate. (I am Canadian and we will use 40% of salary to estimate the all-in costs.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

I also never said those susbcriptions were new sources, I specificallyused the word "resub" each time. I don't see how you can get any notion about new players in my post.

If anything, I have actively tried to get results biased against my hypothesis, even to the point of making mistakes on purpose.

You are absolutely correct. You specifically used resub and in no way used new subscribers. I apologize for my error.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

And I have in other posts provided enough facts that show that cash shop oriented model are always less profitable than subscription models.
For instance, UO in 2008 had revenue equivalent to the whole Funcom stable fo games. 10 years after its launch it was worth more than 4 f2p games launched mostly recently.

I am not sure the relevance of comparing 2008 stats with 2014 estimates so I wont bother looking into this.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Or the loses in revenue GW2 and swtor are facing, swtor being now around the same revenue it was at when it switched but failing at a very fast pace.
That should be proof enough that whatever game is taken into account, the susbcription model is more favorable to them.

GW2 Earnings Releases confirm the decline in annual revenues.
I also looked at EA's 2014 Annual Report and on page 36 section:Service and Other Revenue it says (paraphrased) annual revenues are driven by FIFA Ultimate Team, Star Wars: The Old Republic, and SimCity. At the same time, there was an $86m decline in revenues from The Sims Social, which shut down in June 2013, Star Wars: The Old Republic, as well as Pogo-branded online game services. In essence, while overall revenues are up, there is a decline in the revenues including SWTOR. However, it does not provide the specific amounts. The annual report does not segregate SWTOR numbers. If you have a legitimate source for this information, I would appreciate a link to it.


GW2

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

In ESO's case, it will have two new markets opened to it without any real competition. It was growing again sooner than most subscription games start growing again, and it could only have gone up from there.

Hypothesis, if not opinion only.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Good games succeed, bad games fail, no matter the business model.
But the cash shop model does not create good games. And that's the final and msot important factor. Whatever short term gains ESO has from this switch, it will not get the improvement it needs to become a true success.

While I agree that good games succeed, you have not proven that ESO cannot improve. Only time will prove the end state.

I am not trying to be antagonistic. You have provided all kinds of "stats" estimates as facts. I have been able to rebut your arguments with facts, or confirm your arguments with facts. Unfortunately your assessment of the Steam trend left out the most significant factor, a very large discount in price for ESO on Steam.

I also showed that the substantiated average all-in employee cost is double what you, yourself, estimated. This does not account for annual interest costs, server farm cost, etc.

Finally, I have real data to support your decline in revenues for GW2 and SWTOR.

In conclusion, the errors I found were so significant that, IMO, they should raise serious doubts to your estimates. I have looked at the logic of your premise and find it fails to take count of real data.

I am certainly open to correction, but I want facts, not estimates.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

@angel59‌
Thank you for providing the first constructive reply to my post.
You are not antagonistic and I a mgrateful someone took the time to read and try to understand.

Ulitmately, you're right: these are just estimates based on very limited data.
I never tried to hide that and always attempted to provide a worst case scenario.

I did consider the sale and the vacations but didn't mention them in my post because I thought they had little impact. As I said, I believe it is more a matter of resusbcribing than actual new sales. I don't find it logical that 200k people that were interested in the game waited on a steam sale to buy it.
The game was always available at $12 to $17 since last summer. A steam sale may have provided some exposure and some new sales, but it was still more expensive than the street price and would have a marginal impact.
Any burst of activity that sale could have provided would have been cancelled by the hollidays. Unless things have changed since my school years, the christmas season was always the time of least online activities.

But I see your point and it has validity, maybe I underestimate the impact of that steam sale and maybe player habits have changed. But as I stated above, I had reasons not to take it into account.

As for ZOS and Funcom comparison. We have numbers from wikipedia. In 2012 ZOS was at 250 employees. There was a layoff at launch, so we don't know the current number. We also know of Funcom's numbers being around 282 at some unknown point. But they had layoffs too.
That's why I consider ZOS of similar size, if not smaller.

I used the $5k per month value of employees from the funcom information(dividing revenue by employee count) and from real life experience as a dev myself in France.(we have over 40% taxes)
Also, not everyone at ZOS is a developer or designer, QA and other managerial tasks are closer to minimum wages. The gamasutra census you mentionned is a great read. Maybe the average is closer to $6000 per month.
Even if we were to take your estimates of $10k per month, we'd still end up at less than166,7k susbcribers necessary to break even.
But again, I find it highly doubtful that it is nearly double of what Funcom needs to have "positive cashflow".(even if, as your data pointed at, they are losing on that too)

My UO comparison was just to show how a game of 10 years old at it's "lowest" was still more of a cash cow than 4 f2p games. It was just a fun fact.

We have some "reliable" data of SWTOR on its own in the superdata yearly "top 10" reports. After the switch in november 2012, swtor had $165m revenue in 2013 and $139m in 2014.
swtor is the flagship f2p game and GW2 the b2p flagship. They are both falling in revenue at a 20 to 30% per year. That's a pretty brisk pace.

The best that this business model has to offer is failing, the best that the susbcription model has to offer is WoW, Eve and FFXIV.

My mention of "good games succeed" was aimed at that. A susbcription model does not guarantee success, but according to MMO history, it is the only path that leads to it.

The TES audience is mostly comprised of console players. There are also not many MMOs on consoles, and the only one that is worth mentionning as competition is FFXIV that is mostly asian and only playstation for now.
The whole "console players won't pay a sub" is not only wrong but also not a justification to change the model. They already pay "season passes" and that's just another way of calling a susbcription.
There is a demand, ESO can be the only supply in town and thus has the power to set the price. It seems like a pretty sound hypothesis to me.

Finally, on f2p/b2p not allowing games to improve, it's both by design and by experience. No MMO managed to grow after a switch to f2p, it always was the end of improvement. By design, in the words of ESO's devs, it requires sacrifices and the focus of the dev team is no longer on making a good game but making a game that sells cash shop products.
When you have less revenue, less resources and depend on a source of income you can temporarily improve by "breaking" a bit of your game, then it becomes secundary to improve the game.

Not to mention how not sustainable it is. Most items are either direct p2w or indirect p2w like boosters to cut time, so those that would be willing to pay "finish" the game sooner and leave.
Which then encourages to try to target lower, or put more incentives on trying to convince people they need to pay. Which drives away newer players before they graduate to customers.

Maybe my estimates are entirely wrong on what is necessary for ESO to break even, but my assessement that they will make less money as f2p/b2p stands.
If cash shops worked for MMO the way marketing departments try to convince us they do, the long term market leaders would all be f2p.
Yet, to this date, none are.