zos - Please start charging a monthly sub...

Sausage

I did not see this coming.

Sugaroverdose

Skullz11c wrote: »

Game is great, performance is horrendous. This is game sits among the top of the list of broken games I have played. There is no excuse. MMOs have been around for decades and the vast majority perform without flaw. You need to stop releasing DLCs that further break things and focus on getting the BASE game right.

Contrary to the inflammatory posts this is sure to generate, the vast majority of you client base will pay a nominal subscription - 5, 10, even 20 dollars a month. I know I would if it meant the game actually performed the way it was intended and the way it used to.

Take away the game destroying lag and constant FPS spikes. Molag in the Imperial City was broke for almost two months on console. How does this happen? He is the apex boss in the sewers, but was broke for so long. It happens because there is a lack of caring, know how, or manpower within ZOS.

Charging players is a win win for everyone..

*steps off the soapbox*

If they will charge everyone for monthly fee, they will just get more money in short perspective, but they will not spend this money to fix the game as you think. They have opportunity to invest into game fixing until people start dropping game in huge numbers, but they don't want to.

swirve

Sausage wrote: »

I did not see this coming.

Do you know mash?

Minno

I was around before and after they made the switch. Few reasons why ESO went B2P:

1) consule players historically don't work with a monthly sub system. PC gamers are used to it due to 20+ years of MMO's embedded.

2) lighting patch + end quest bug caused subs to drop alarmingly low. I knew alot of friends in game that dropped off the face of Tamreil because they couldn't reach vr14 rank. It took ZOS 2-3 months if I'm not mistaken to fix this issue.

3) sub system doesn't actually work with the "large scale RPG" casual design intent.

KingDuncanVII

I don't get how this is even a thread because no one knows how much money ZOS is bringing in... So how can you blame money for the defects? If it's not based on facts of ZOS, it's irrelevant. And even if you did know how much they were making, do you know how big of a money budget is necessary to run this game? I've been reading some posts and I am not seeing any facts that point to money being the issue... Just ignorant assumptions. Maybe it is a money issue, maybe it isn't, but until someone is able to start showing some financial facts as to why money is the issue for ZOS, this is pointless.

JamilaRaj

Lysette wrote: »

Skullz11c wrote: »

davidtxr wrote: »

Sorry but I disagree with OP I choose to pay the sub if I was forced to I would drop the game

And there are certainly others out there who would agree with you, but I would venture to say, you would be the minority. Historically speaking, MMO players have had no issue paying a monthly subscription. Honestly, the complexity of a good MMO and strain it puts on DEVs almost requires a pay to play model. If you do not have the money to support software development and support the game will slowly die. This is happening to ESO. Month after month, DLC after DLC, the game performance gets worse.

But that is not an issue related to money IMO - but a lack of will to do it in a correct way - frequent updates, a small number of bug fixes at a time and make sure they actually work - instead of a huge bunch of fixes every few months, where resulting bugs are hard to find in the mess of unrelated changes. I don't know what kind of IT guys they hired, but they do not seem to have a lot of experience how bug fixing is done, if it wants to be successful.

How come it is not related? It might have been a matter of will back in the day of P2P, but now it is a matter of business model, regardless of will.
ZOS depends on DLCs, they have to sell them, and, consequently, they have to make relatively large updates every few months. Even if it added nothing the game, no fun, just myriad of regressions and some OP rewards to force sales, new DLC has to be made.
On the other hand, they can not sell bug fixes, not only because asking for money for fixing what they broke or did sloppily in the first place would earn them pitchfork in stomach, but also because they often could not make a fix that would only affect paying players and in cases where they could make it, making it that way would require additional coding, with additional costs and, ironically, bugs (remarkably, the same could be said pretty much about any feature that is subject to montization).

Minno

KingDuncanVII wrote: »

I don't get how this is even a thread because no one knows how much money ZOS is bringing in... So how can you blame money for the defects? If it's not based on facts of ZOS, it's irrelevant. And even if you did know how much they were making, do you know how big of a money budget is necessary to run this game? I've been reading some posts and I am not seeing any facts that point to money being the issue... Just ignorant assumptions. Maybe it is a money issue, maybe it isn't, but until someone is able to start showing some financial facts as to why money is the issue for ZOS, this is pointless.

772,374 subscribers back in 2014.
Source:
https://www.vg247.com/2014/07/18/elder-scrolls-online-subscription-numbers/

772,374 x $14 = $10,813,236 each month.

You need to sell between 600,000 - 700,000 bears to see that number again.

I highly doubt they are seeing the profit they saw a few months after launch.

swirve

Minno wrote: »

KingDuncanVII wrote: »

I don't get how this is even a thread because no one knows how much money ZOS is bringing in... So how can you blame money for the defects? If it's not based on facts of ZOS, it's irrelevant. And even if you did know how much they were making, do you know how big of a money budget is necessary to run this game? I've been reading some posts and I am not seeing any facts that point to money being the issue... Just ignorant assumptions. Maybe it is a money issue, maybe it isn't, but until someone is able to start showing some financial facts as to why money is the issue for ZOS, this is pointless.

772,374 subscribers back in 2014.
Source:
https://www.vg247.com/2014/07/18/elder-scrolls-online-subscription-numbers/

772,374 x $14 = $10,813,236 each month.

You need to sell between 600,000 - 700,000 bears to see that number again.

I highly doubt they are seeing the profit they saw a few months after launch.

What is the playerbase now though, im forever seeing players with cosmetic crap + the dlc itself and some subscribers. They may be making more as RP tend to buy lots of stuff on my experience.

NewBlacksmurf

KingDuncanVII wrote: »

I don't get how this is even a thread because no one knows how much money ZOS is bringing in... So how can you blame money for the defects? If it's not based on facts of ZOS, it's irrelevant. And even if you did know how much they were making, do you know how big of a money budget is necessary to run this game? I've been reading some posts and I am not seeing any facts that point to money being the issue... Just ignorant assumptions. Maybe it is a money issue, maybe it isn't, but until someone is able to start showing some financial facts as to why money is the issue for ZOS, this is pointless.

Cadbury

"Look, we here at ZOS have seen all the complaints about the many issues we have from lag to class balance. We dun goofed and for that we're sorry."

"We're proud to reveal that, for our fans, we are bringing back a subscription-based format to our game. Please stay with us for now, and we PROMISE we'll have a game you can be proud of by 2018.

"Making Tamriel Great Again"


*Prices may increase in Crown Store

Edit: I'd love to see the reaction from the gaming community during this hypothetical press conference

KingDuncanVII

Minno wrote: »

I highly doubt they are seeing the profit they saw a few months after launch.

Not based on facts. Highly doubting something doesn't make it true.

And people aren't only buying bears (or mounts), they're buying Motifs, XP Scrolls, Bank and Bag Space Upgrades, Mount Lessons (because who wants to really build that up), Pets, Costumes, Rings of Mara, ESO+, etc. I am always hearing of people buying from the Crown Store.

KingDuncanVII

I highly doubted that Trump would even be a contender, but look where we are now...

danno8

phairdon wrote: »

Firerock2 wrote: »

ESO began its downhill ride around the same time it went buy to play. Probably just a coincidence though

Disagree. ESO had a lot of issues before b2p was introduced. If I remember correctly, there were a couple of reasons why this game is b2p. Anyone feel free to correct me on this, or add. One reason had to do with consoles, with players forking out for gold membership to play online, on top of a monthly fee. Not enough players to justify a compulsory monthly fee in general.
Also currency conversion can make this game expensive when it comes to paying a monthly fee. Looking back at my records, my first month was charged in Euro's, which for me equated to paying $25 for one month. Since then, the conversion changed to Australian dollars. While the Australian dollar is a lot closer in value to my own country, monthly subs still vary when the dollars falls & rises.

And one other huge reason, and the simplest of all:

Not enough people were maintaining their subs to keep the game going financially.

Now you can argue the reasons why people were leaving until you are blue in the face, but that is the hardline reason it went B2P.

flying_ace2

...

Merlight

Yolokin_Swagonborn wrote: »

" 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."

- Matt Firor - March 2014

Thanks for the link, it was "enlightening". Minor correction -- the Matt Firor quote is from August 2013.

Sadly, there's no going back. The game they set out to make has been shut down a year ago. Many of us who were in favour of the subscription model are simply not the target audience for ESO:TU -- we're less profitable than the people who are willing to buy stats, gold, or gear-grinding licenses in the cash shop; those people don't realize and/or care that they're ruining their own game by telling the executives they like that crap.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

The days of sub only games are pretty much gone. yes WoW can still charge a monthly fee but they are unique. All new mmos are either f2p or b2p. Thats just how the cookie crumbles these days.

flying_ace2

Skullz11c wrote: »

davidtxr wrote: »

Month after month, DLC after DLC, the game performance gets worse.

This is the exact reason that my husband and I both unsubbed. We have been with the game since the beginning - him since Beta - and we will not continue to financially support a product who's performance continues to go down hill. It's really unfortunate because this game has so much potential (or had, I don't know if it does anymore), but we will not give our money to a company that just doesn't seem to care. That being said, if we were forced to sub, I feel confident that we'd both just leave the game unless substantial performance improvements were implemented immediately.

Toxic_Hemlock

I bought the Imperial edition and 2 of the DLC's because I live in Canada and the exchange rate is terrible. If ZOS decided to go back to a sub model it would mean I would get screwed, because I would not go the sub route and loose out on the cash I spent.

As others have said the fact that the game has large amounts of lag most likely has nothing at all to do with their cashflow.

Sometimes throwing more money at a problem just isn't the solution; look at congress!

Young_Archiebold

Why pay for a increasingly solo game? In this games condition there is absolutely no justification for a mandatory monthly payment.

Strider_Roshin

Honestly, B2P is a better model. A lot of people play this game because it's B2P. Not only that ZOS has broken this game so bad that me and a lot of others have unsubscribed. B2P is the reason why so name people even play this game.

Acrolas

It's basically a combination of not being able to put out rapid content, and not wanting to charge console $15 a month on top of their service fees. Even if a console player never buys crowns, at least they have the retail box.

PC gets more of a choice of where to spend money. But generally you'll either sub or buy crowns but not both. Either way, you have access to the base game, which is fun in the short term but feels lacking as a long-term $15 a month investment. There's a line where exclusivity becomes Pay To Grind.

thessera

To be honest :
It's a good game, but it's not worth 20 dollar a month to play.

Why?
Well the content, the size, stability, quality does not live up to the 20 dollar monthly fee.
I would have agreed to a 5 dollar sub though.

Minno

Also other reads:

Basic issues with ESO:
http://www.killerguides.net/blog/mmorpg/why-the-elder-scrolls-online-subscriptions-tanked

Rundown of subscriptions by Forbes (they look at games/MMO's now)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/01/09/will-the-elder-scrolls-online-have-the-last-laugh-with-its-subscription-fee/#4c1fe493b4c8

My favorite, a tactical business reason why b2p was achieved:

"The fact is that game publishers have become incredibly savvy at finding, retaining, and extracting value from customers. We should expect future, “failed” forays into subscription-based models. Not because publishers are stupid, or ignoring history, but because they are trying to make the most money they can over the lifetime of the product that they sell."
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/IsaacKnowles/20150121/234754/ESO_goes_F2P_Was_Zenimax_stupid_like_a_fox.php


ESO's failure on console against destiny:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/archenemy/2015/07/20/the-resounding-whimper-of-the-elder-scrolls-online-release/#5801c82d5ce9

Minno

swirve wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

KingDuncanVII wrote: »

I don't get how this is even a thread because no one knows how much money ZOS is bringing in... So how can you blame money for the defects? If it's not based on facts of ZOS, it's irrelevant. And even if you did know how much they were making, do you know how big of a money budget is necessary to run this game? I've been reading some posts and I am not seeing any facts that point to money being the issue... Just ignorant assumptions. Maybe it is a money issue, maybe it isn't, but until someone is able to start showing some financial facts as to why money is the issue for ZOS, this is pointless.

772,374 subscribers back in 2014.
Source:
https://www.vg247.com/2014/07/18/elder-scrolls-online-subscription-numbers/

772,374 x $14 = $10,813,236 each month.

You need to sell between 600,000 - 700,000 bears to see that number again.

I highly doubt they are seeing the profit they saw a few months after launch.

What is the playerbase now though, im forever seeing players with cosmetic crap + the dlc itself and some subscribers. They may be making more as RP tend to buy lots of stuff on my experience.

True. But costumes at 700-2500 crowns, how long till RP'ers find another game that lets them explore their game style without paying $10-15 per costume? It's a DLC and mount market.

Cadbury

Minno wrote: »

swirve wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

KingDuncanVII wrote: »

I don't get how this is even a thread because no one knows how much money ZOS is bringing in... So how can you blame money for the defects? If it's not based on facts of ZOS, it's irrelevant. And even if you did know how much they were making, do you know how big of a money budget is necessary to run this game? I've been reading some posts and I am not seeing any facts that point to money being the issue... Just ignorant assumptions. Maybe it is a money issue, maybe it isn't, but until someone is able to start showing some financial facts as to why money is the issue for ZOS, this is pointless.

772,374 subscribers back in 2014.
Source:
https://www.vg247.com/2014/07/18/elder-scrolls-online-subscription-numbers/

772,374 x $14 = $10,813,236 each month.

You need to sell between 600,000 - 700,000 bears to see that number again.

I highly doubt they are seeing the profit they saw a few months after launch.

What is the playerbase now though, im forever seeing players with cosmetic crap + the dlc itself and some subscribers. They may be making more as RP tend to buy lots of stuff on my experience.

True. But costumes at 700-2500 crowns, how long till RP'ers find another game that lets them explore their game style without paying $10-15 per costume? It's a DLC and mount market.

Maybe not the best example, but Lord Of The Rings Online survives at least in part due to the LOTRO store, which sells staples like XP scrolls, expansions, clothing, and mounts (some are $25+).

Yet it still lives on. And funny enough, alot of the complaints levied against Turbine are almost exactly like ESO's (coughPvPLagandClassBalancecough)

Basically, don't underestimate the buying power and loyalty of diehard RPers

Minno

KingDuncanVII wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

I highly doubt they are seeing the profit they saw a few months after launch.

Not based on facts. Highly doubting something doesn't make it true.

And people aren't only buying bears (or mounts), they're buying Motifs, XP Scrolls, Bank and Bag Space Upgrades, Mount Lessons (because who wants to really build that up), Pets, Costumes, Rings of Mara, ESO+, etc. I am always hearing of people buying from the Crown Store.

I hardly saw pets. The ones I did see were DLC packs.

Motifs yes were sold. But those are one hit shops and acquired via guild stores for 3-6k gold for some motifs.

Mounts are the only items you cannot easily achieve in the game. It makes sense that when they put out a cool mount, it will always sell (also judging off the fact mounts were always created and released more than costumes.)

ESO+ is a DLC access point. Not reliable.

Mount speed only upgrade worth it. You wasted real world money buying 60 extra spots in your inventory.

Rings of Mara very useful. But not high volume like mounts.

I don't need the specific numbers to know that mounts pull crown purchases following DLC and costumes.

dlepi24

Yep.

anitajoneb17_ESO

4 pages discussing an option that is not even being considered, and based on guessed assumptions...

Minno

Cadbury wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

swirve wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

KingDuncanVII wrote: »

I don't get how this is even a thread because no one knows how much money ZOS is bringing in... So how can you blame money for the defects? If it's not based on facts of ZOS, it's irrelevant. And even if you did know how much they were making, do you know how big of a money budget is necessary to run this game? I've been reading some posts and I am not seeing any facts that point to money being the issue... Just ignorant assumptions. Maybe it is a money issue, maybe it isn't, but until someone is able to start showing some financial facts as to why money is the issue for ZOS, this is pointless.

772,374 subscribers back in 2014.
Source:
https://www.vg247.com/2014/07/18/elder-scrolls-online-subscription-numbers/

772,374 x $14 = $10,813,236 each month.

You need to sell between 600,000 - 700,000 bears to see that number again.

I highly doubt they are seeing the profit they saw a few months after launch.

What is the playerbase now though, im forever seeing players with cosmetic crap + the dlc itself and some subscribers. They may be making more as RP tend to buy lots of stuff on my experience.

True. But costumes at 700-2500 crowns, how long till RP'ers find another game that lets them explore their game style without paying $10-15 per costume? It's a DLC and mount market.

Maybe not the best example, but Lord Of The Rings Online survives at least in part due to the LOTRO store, which sells staples like XP scrolls, expansions, clothing, and mounts (some are $25+).

Yet it still lives on. And funny enough, alot of the complaints levied against Turbine are almost exactly like ESO's (coughPvPLagandClassBalancecough)

Basically, don't underestimate the buying power and loyalty of diehard RPers

Could be because players are'nt educated about abusive purchasing/business models imposed on them?

It's one thing to support a game because you like it and it's fun, but it's obtuse to have players think "I need to keep pouring money because it's contributing to the community".

In addition, games these days aren't just designed to be fun either; many have addictive gamestyles and mechanics that pull you in:

- progression with end-game focus
- high end gear requirements forcing grind mechanic
- grind emphasis
- XP increase items to "help you" spend less time in game lvling to end gear.

Only games to not follow this are:

- Minecraft (only early access game that relied on fun gameplay not abusive tactics. Made more money than most AAA titles.)
- rouge-based games (one life mechanics)
- FPS games (newer titles have rank progression but you can login, use starter weapons and still compete)
- paragon
- LoL/DOTA ( has costume shop but all toons are balanced so its *** point)

Malmai

Skullz11c wrote: »

Game is great, performance is horrendous. This is game sits among the top of the list of broken games I have played. There is no excuse. MMOs have been around for decades and the vast majority perform without flaw. You need to stop releasing DLCs that further break things and focus on getting the BASE game right.

Contrary to the inflammatory posts this is sure to generate, the vast majority of you client base will pay a nominal subscription - 5, 10, even 20 dollars a month. I know I would if it meant the game actually performed the way it was intended and the way it used to.

Take away the game destroying lag and constant FPS spikes. Molag in the Imperial City was broke for almost two months on console. How does this happen? He is the apex boss in the sewers, but was broke for so long. It happens because there is a lack of caring, know how, or manpower within ZOS.

Charging players is a win win for everyone..

*steps off the soapbox*

LAG is OP and its winning.