Would ESO have made more money initially if it had originally been announced as B2P instead of P2P?

EJRose83

I'm of the opinion that the game would have sold more copies if they had branded it as a B2P game from the very beginning, a la Guild Wars 2.

Misa

not so sure, everyone I knew that tried it in beta didn't buy it because of all the bugs and to them the gameplay felt horrible.

I bought it myself around November and liked it since.

Shunravi

Honestly, to me it seems as if their original intent was B2P. It was the community who asked for the sub and promised we would support the game.

Merlin13KAGL

Sub promised a certain separation and hopefully more quality of content. We expected a certain level of return with a Sub only game (that I believe ES was probably the only one that could pull off).

Somwehere in there, they decided that wasn't good enough for them...and they changed.

What you see before you is the result.

EJRose83

Shunravi wrote: »

Honestly, to me it seems as if their original intent was B2P. It was the community who asked for the sub and promised we would support the game.

@Shunravi Oh, I totally agree with this. I think it's such a shame though that the content they developed with the sub money, (Imperial City, Wrothgar, Mirkmire, Clockwork City, etc.) they're now going to be charging us extra for, when we've already funded and paid for it in essence. Kind of makes me feel like I'm being charged twice for the same product...

PainfulFAFA

WIth all the bugs ESO had even at beta, I doubt that they would've gained more profits.

PvP alone needed balances and fixes. Remember the infinite batswarm? lol

idk

EJRose83 wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that the game would have sold more copies if they had branded it as a B2P game from the very beginning, a la Guild Wars 2.

Doubtful. Cash shop is the key to B2P being lucrative. They clearly didn't have that developed at launch. B2P is always the #2 business model of a halfway decent game. F2P being the weakest.

c.p.garrett1993_ESO

Most definitely. Among my circle of associates, friends, and coworkers the subscription was the number one deal-breaker. This was followed immediately and closely by the gameplay and bugs, which we expected to be patched over time.

Of those that lost interest I was immediately able to sell the game for two or three of my coworkers by simply telling them the subscription model was removed. In turn they each have friends who may be convinced to buy the game now. All of this without any mention of the gameplay changes as I have not bought the game or played since beta. I did, breifly, participate in the promotional weekend. This has highly increased my odds of buying the game myself. I am waiting for the console version, though, as the majority of my friends play on PS4.

EJRose83

The reason why I'm asking about this is because I think the appeal of certain games, such as Guild Wars 2, in part at least is that there's no sub fee attached, which can mean an increase in sales. The original Guild Wars wasn't anything special, but the fact that there wasn't a sub fee enabled it to sell 6,000,000+ units, not to mention some of the expansion packs and what not.

B2P by itself is an excellent marketing tool when applied to MMOs.

Audigy

EJRose83 wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that the game would have sold more copies if they had branded it as a B2P game from the very beginning, a la Guild Wars 2.

Cant speak for others, but I would not had bought it then. The GW2 debacle taught me a lesson, mistakes shall not be repeated so I would had passed. The only reason I play ESO now is that its F2P for me, a B2P is always a cash cow to milk its customers like GW2 has shown.

Bouvin

c.p.garrett1993_ESO wrote: »

I am waiting for the console version, though, as the majority of my friends play on PS4.

Unfortunately, console gamers have MUCH LESS patience for bugs. So when they see the state of the game they are not going to be very happy.

ChampionSheWolf

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that the game would have sold more copies if they had branded it as a B2P game from the very beginning, a la Guild Wars 2.

Doubtful. Cash shop is the key to B2P being lucrative. They clearly didn't have that developed at launch. B2P is always the #2 business model of a halfway decent game. F2P being the weakest.

This is such a flawed and provably false argument, there is just nothing to really say at all about it.

Amsel_McKay

NO... they had to sucker people into buying the game... if it was B2P (F2P hidden under a starter fee) I would not have played.

idk

ChampionSheWolf wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that the game would have sold more copies if they had branded it as a B2P game from the very beginning, a la Guild Wars 2.

Doubtful. Cash shop is the key to B2P being lucrative. They clearly didn't have that developed at launch. B2P is always the #2 business model of a halfway decent game. F2P being the weakest.

This is such a flawed and provably false argument, there is just nothing to really say at all about it.

Prove it as false. If your going to say it's false and provable dish it out instead of just a lame drive by comment.

The weak comment me laugh.

Lord_Kreegan

You have to consider the human mindset; we are by nature rationalizers. It's what sets us apart from the beasts.

We don't have sharp claws (unless you're really a Khajit), large fangs (unless you're really an Orc), great size like an elephant, or great strength like an ape, but somehow we ended up on the top of the food chain (until the roaches take over). But we can lie to ourselves; we can rationalize.

"Sure, we can fight that tiger! Just have George get his attention from the front while we stick him with a spear from behind. Oops... sorry about that, George... "

A subscriber will rationalize all the bugs in the released game and lie to himself. "They're going to fix it for us! They won't let us down! They're going to develop new content for us! They promised!"

If the game had been B2P everyone would have said, "The game's just not good enough for a subscription! Look at all the bugs! I'm not going to buy that!"

You think the marketers didn't know that?

ChampionSheWolf

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

ChampionSheWolf wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that the game would have sold more copies if they had branded it as a B2P game from the very beginning, a la Guild Wars 2.

Doubtful. Cash shop is the key to B2P being lucrative. They clearly didn't have that developed at launch. B2P is always the #2 business model of a halfway decent game. F2P being the weakest.

This is such a flawed and provably false argument, there is just nothing to really say at all about it.

Prove it as false. If your going to say it's false and provable dish it out instead of just a lame drive by comment.

The weak comment me laugh.

So let's see, TSW, GW2, Neverwinter, Star Trek Online, Rift, TERA, SWTOR. Need more? I am sure you could find it if you actually took the blinders off.

Oh and on the opposite end of the spectrum, for P2P, WoW takes 6 months to a year to produce new content for their game, and this is with millions of subscribers. So the subscription gets more content argument doesn't exactly pan out.

In short, there was nothing to prove, other than the fact that people still laughably defend P2P model as if it guarantees anything. It guarantees nothing except you are flushing money down the toilet for something on a whim, and they still institute cash shops. All subscriptions are now are just walls for entry, that have passed their time and proven that they are 100% ineffectual at keeping out undesirables, as the launch of TESO, WAR and many other MMOs that use the tired and outdated P2P system in recent history have proven.

Hell, if P2P proves anything is that it sends MMOs to an early grave in this day and age. AKA WildStar, WAR and others says hello.

idk

ChampionSheWolf wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

ChampionSheWolf wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that the game would have sold more copies if they had branded it as a B2P game from the very beginning, a la Guild Wars 2.

Doubtful. Cash shop is the key to B2P being lucrative. They clearly didn't have that developed at launch. B2P is always the #2 business model of a halfway decent game. F2P being the weakest.

This is such a flawed and provably false argument, there is just nothing to really say at all about it.

Prove it as false. If your going to say it's false and provable dish it out instead of just a lame drive by comment.

The weak comment me laugh.

So let's see, TSW, GW2, Neverwinter, Star Trek Online, Rift, TERA. Need more? I am sure you could find it if you actually took the blinders off.

Oh and on the opposite end of the spectrum, for P2P, WoW takes 6 months to a year to produce new content for their game, and this is with millions of subscribers. So the subscription gets more content argument doesn't exactly pan out.

In short, there was nothing to prove, other than the fact that people still laughably defend P2P model as if it guarantees anything. It guarantees nothing except you are flushing money down the toilet for something on a whim, and they still institute cash shops. All subscriptions are now are just walls for entry, that have passed their time and proven that they are 100% ineffectual at keeping out undesirables, as the launch of TESO, WAR and many other MMOs that use the tired and outdated P2P system in recent history have proven.

Thanks you helped prove my point and seem to agree with me. B2P (and F2P which some of your examples are) requires a decent cash shop to be lucrative.

Glad you are begining to see the light of logic.

The main reason subscriptions fail is they require a smooth running game with new content flowing in. The steady cash flow is desirable but ESO came up short on a smooth running game and end game content. Just because you feel it's tired doesn't make it most desirable, it just needs a game that can back it up and most MMO teams don't create a game that can back it up and resort to cash shops for their income.

ChampionSheWolf

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

ChampionSheWolf wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

ChampionSheWolf wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that the game would have sold more copies if they had branded it as a B2P game from the very beginning, a la Guild Wars 2.

Doubtful. Cash shop is the key to B2P being lucrative. They clearly didn't have that developed at launch. B2P is always the #2 business model of a halfway decent game. F2P being the weakest.

This is such a flawed and provably false argument, there is just nothing to really say at all about it.

Prove it as false. If your going to say it's false and provable dish it out instead of just a lame drive by comment.

The weak comment me laugh.

So let's see, TSW, GW2, Neverwinter, Star Trek Online, Rift, TERA. Need more? I am sure you could find it if you actually took the blinders off.

Oh and on the opposite end of the spectrum, for P2P, WoW takes 6 months to a year to produce new content for their game, and this is with millions of subscribers. So the subscription gets more content argument doesn't exactly pan out.

In short, there was nothing to prove, other than the fact that people still laughably defend P2P model as if it guarantees anything. It guarantees nothing except you are flushing money down the toilet for something on a whim, and they still institute cash shops. All subscriptions are now are just walls for entry, that have passed their time and proven that they are 100% ineffectual at keeping out undesirables, as the launch of TESO, WAR and many other MMOs that use the tired and outdated P2P system in recent history have proven.

Thanks you helped prove my point and seem to agree with me. B2P (and F2P which some of your examples are) requires a decent cash shop to be lucrative.

Glad you are begining to see the light of logic.

The main reason subscriptions fail is they require a smooth running game with new content flowing in. The steady cash flow is desirable but ESO came up might on a smooth running game and end game content. Just because you feel it's tired doesn't make it most desirable, it just needs a game that can back it up and most MMO teams don't create a game that can back it up and resort to cash shops for their income.

No, I was disagreeing with your point of B2P and F2P being weaker than P2P, which P2P is actually showing that it is the weakest model of the lot. Using WoW as your prime example is a slippery slope argument, especially in lieu of the fact that WoW has a cash shop on top of their P2P model, demonstrating that a cash shop is way more lucrative. In fact, if you actually look around, you find that the number of successful P2P game models has dwindled significantly, with WoW of course being the biggest one out there. The others are EVE, which actually provides game play that is not copy and pasted from every other MMO on the market, and FF14. The more successful MMOs out there are actually either Buy to Play or Free to Play now.

None of the models work though if the initial launch of the game doesn't recoup the investment to begin with, again as WAR and WildStar have demonstrated quite well.

idk

ChampionSheWolf wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

ChampionSheWolf wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

ChampionSheWolf wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that the game would have sold more copies if they had branded it as a B2P game from the very beginning, a la Guild Wars 2.

Doubtful. Cash shop is the key to B2P being lucrative. They clearly didn't have that developed at launch. B2P is always the #2 business model of a halfway decent game. F2P being the weakest.

This is such a flawed and provably false argument, there is just nothing to really say at all about it.

Prove it as false. If your going to say it's false and provable dish it out instead of just a lame drive by comment.

The weak comment me laugh.

So let's see, TSW, GW2, Neverwinter, Star Trek Online, Rift, TERA. Need more? I am sure you could find it if you actually took the blinders off.

Oh and on the opposite end of the spectrum, for P2P, WoW takes 6 months to a year to produce new content for their game, and this is with millions of subscribers. So the subscription gets more content argument doesn't exactly pan out.

In short, there was nothing to prove, other than the fact that people still laughably defend P2P model as if it guarantees anything. It guarantees nothing except you are flushing money down the toilet for something on a whim, and they still institute cash shops. All subscriptions are now are just walls for entry, that have passed their time and proven that they are 100% ineffectual at keeping out undesirables, as the launch of TESO, WAR and many other MMOs that use the tired and outdated P2P system in recent history have proven.

Thanks you helped prove my point and seem to agree with me. B2P (and F2P which some of your examples are) requires a decent cash shop to be lucrative.

Glad you are begining to see the light of logic.

The main reason subscriptions fail is they require a smooth running game with new content flowing in. The steady cash flow is desirable but ESO came up might on a smooth running game and end game content. Just because you feel it's tired doesn't make it most desirable, it just needs a game that can back it up and most MMO teams don't create a game that can back it up and resort to cash shops for their income.

No, I was disagreeing with your point of B2P and F2P being weaker than P2P, which P2P is actually showing that it is the weakest model of the lot. Using WoW as your prime example is a slippery slope argument, especially in lieu of the fact that WoW has a cash shop on top of their P2P model, demonstrating that a cash shop is way more lucrative. In fact, if you actually look around, you find that the number of successful P2P game models has dwindled significantly, with WoW of course being the biggest one out there. The others are EVE, which actually provides game play that is not copy and pasted from every other MMO on the market, and FF14. The more successful MMOs out there are actually either Buy to Play or Free to Play now.

None of the models work though if the initial launch of the game doesn't recoup the investment to begin with, again as WAR and WildStar have demonstrated quite well.

Your argument is based on a false premise. Your examples are methods for games use to grab cheap cash be developing strong content. The unfortunate reality is developers dream big (of s game worthy of P2P) but come up far short due to the costs of time and capital required.

Not that I can find that I mentioned WoW (used well to bring about distraction), your examples are ones of cheaply developed games vs a high quality game as ESO had once promised and has failed from launch to deliver.

With that, back to my original answer, ESO didn't have a cash shop prepared at launch and as such would not have don't better launching as B2P (and less as F2P). Absolutly nothing you have said even begins to suggest otherwise.

At this point you can bring up any tired discussion you wish, I am moving on from this thread. Thx for the entertainment.

Valnas

If they had been transparent about their desire to run siegeville to complete with Zinga for marketshare and sell leapords and tigers, I don't think too many of the initial subs would of even made it past beta.

"We're building a game with the freedom to play - alone or with your friends - as much as you want. A game with meaningful and consistent content - one packed with hundreds of hours of gameplay that can be experienced right away and one that will be supported with premium customer support. Charging a flat monthly (or subscription) fee means that we will offer players the game we set out to make, and the one that fans want to play. Going with any other model meant that we would have to make sacrifices and changes we weren't willing to make."

They went out of their way to make promises in good faith that they were making a game for people who expected content to be rolling out instead of sold to us piecemail.

They in fact were excited and willin to put all content and performance issues relating to the existing game on the backburner for 6 months to roll out a cash grab store and then end subs and immediately try to sell us the content we expected 6 months ago, and paid for many times over.

JamilaRaj

c.p.garrett1993_ESO wrote: »

Most definitely. Among my circle of associates, friends, and coworkers the subscription was the number one deal-breaker. This was followed immediately and closely by the gameplay and bugs, which we expected to be patched over time.

Of those that lost interest I was immediately able to sell the game for two or three of my coworkers by simply telling them the subscription model was removed. In turn they each have friends who may be convinced to buy the game now. All of this without any mention of the gameplay changes as I have not bought the game or played since beta. I did, breifly, participate in the promotional weekend. This has highly increased my odds of buying the game myself. I am waiting for the console version, though, as the majority of my friends play on PS4.

They can't make more money from people that pay less, unless a) these people are thoroughly stupid and in fact pay more than they would have paid on subs or b) business relies heavily on box sales and at the same time these people are really many (which equals to game being appealing to would be players and if it is somewhat appealing to actual players, then by accident only, because it would be wasted effort).

Anyway, for some of us then P2P regime was on the contrary deal maker. Not that I bought it on premise that it would not go F2P; I bought it on premise that it was P2P and might have remained, as I believed (and am still convided) the market is more than saturated with F2P cash shops thinly veiled as games and therefore any genuinely P2P possesses competittive advantage. So, despite not feeling betrayed by them going F2P (the fact they withheld information about working on cash shop is another matter, that is not how civilized people do business), they still managed to surprise me, because it well might have worked. Seems like tide won't turn yet.

Danikat

I think it would definitely have sold more copies initially, simply because it's a much lower barrier to entry. Many people who weren't completely sold on the game would have taken a chance on it if the only cost to them was the box price. If you get 50 hours of enjoyable gameplay out of it then you're on a par with most single-player games and therefore getting your money's worth.

Whether it would have been more profitable is hard to say.

With the 10th anniversary of Guild Wars 1 coming up I think it's safe to say buy-to-play games can survive. But as far as I know it's difficult or impossible to get detailed information on the profits of any MMO without working for the company (and then you're not allowed to say) and without that it's hard to get a real idea of how profitable they are.

Eliteseraph

ESO would have done better if it didn't ship in such a half-finished weaksauce state. If ESO had shipped without the Elder Scrolls brand, this game would have fallen flat on it's face and died within the first 6 months.

And now we have the split community for the console audience. I don't really know how that's going to turn out, but I REALLY hope it generates enough interest and revenue for Zenimax to get their act together and clean this game up to where it's actually fun and in good working order.

drschplatt

As others have stated in this thread, the reason ESO didn't make as much from the start as people figured it would is because most individuals oppose paying a subscription to be BETA testers for a year.

SoulScream

Maybe! the sub cost wasn't worth it but the people leaving still would have from all the bugs.

Nyghthowler

Bouvin wrote: »

c.p.garrett1993_ESO wrote: »

I am waiting for the console version, though, as the majority of my friends play on PS4.

Unfortunately, console gamers have MUCH LESS patience for bugs. So when they see the state of the game they are not going to be very happy.

Seeing as how most console gamers most likely won't be Plus subscribers because they are already paying for PS pass/XBLive, ZoS won't be loosing much revenue when they leave.

LameoveR

i don't like those dogs on avatars. really.

phairdon

Gw2 appears to have done okay from the b2p model. Now have an expansion coming too. Cannot see b2p with a cash store doing any harm to a game.
My take on this game, is that due to all the hiccups with the game & players leaving for whatever reason, ZOS decided/were forced to change models. Could also tie in with the console release & console players were faced with paying two fees to play this game if subscriptions were mandatory.

Jaxsun

LameoveR wrote: »

i don't like those dogs on avatars. really.

lolwut?

LameoveR

Jaxsun wrote: »

LameoveR wrote: »

i don't like those dogs on avatars. really.

lolwut?

Dogs.
On avatars.

King Bozo

There are a lot of console players that have been playing pc because launch was pushed back. There are also lots of console players that would probably pay 100 bucks for this game on launch if it was required. Console players will make ESO crown store a lot of profit.