zos - Please start charging a monthly sub...

GeneralLee

Minno wrote: »

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

Don't know if you read that last article, but it is actually really postive towards the game... it states that ESO is a great MMO, far ahead above most of its competition and that the only reason it didnt sell many copies on the console is due to a lacking marketing strategy. The author of the article greatly recommends people to play ESO and says that sales are increasing due to word-of-mouth publicity ;-)

Quote: "I honestly hope that the PR and marketing departments pick up the pace, because this is a game that MMO, fantasy, and RPG gamers should be picking up. Fortunately, word of mouth seems to be doing its job, and sales are climbing. I’m sure someone thought that after the boom of Skyrim, they wouldn’t need to give a major push to ESO, that word of mouth would carry it all the way."

Cadbury

Minno wrote: »

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)

Well, I wasn't trying to get into a conversation about the "evil business practices" of various MMO companies. That's your lot. I personally don't make judgement calls on what games other people play and why

That being said, I do agree that it is all to easy for people to fall into a vicious cycle of letting a game take over their lives. Hell, in my line of work, Gaming Addiction is often just as big of an issue as drug or alcohol abuse.

In the end, I feel anything not taken in moderation could potentially become habit-forming, whether it's an MMO or not.

Minno

GeneralLee wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

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

Don't know if you read that last article, but it is actually really postive towards the game... it states that ESO is a great MMO, far ahead above most of its competition and that the only reason it didnt sell many copies on the console is due to a lacking marketing strategy. The author of the article greatly recommends people to play ESO and says that sales are increasing due to word-of-mouth publicity ;-)

Quote: "I honestly hope that the PR and marketing departments pick up the pace, because this is a game that MMO, fantasy, and RPG gamers should be picking up. Fortunately, word of mouth seems to be doing its job, and sales are climbing. I’m sure someone thought that after the boom of Skyrim, they wouldn’t need to give a major push to ESO, that word of mouth would carry it all the way."

Correct. But the overall theme suggested ESO could have beaten destiny on console but it sold less copies. The author blamed PR and marketing because as a casual RPG, ESO is amazing.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

What a first person shooter beat a MMO on console?! Say it isnt so. (sarcasm)

ZOS is laughing all the way to the bank. Between xbox one and ps4 there have been almost 3 million copies sold.

KaleidoscopeEyz

You couldn't be more wrong. ESO would completely die on Xbox One and PS4 if they started charging a monthly sub. I love it but as a console player, I've never paid a monthly sub and I'm not about to start now. I would simply find a new game. Honestly, I want whatever your are smoking, Mr. Money Bags.

Thornen

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

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

More like 4 pages bashing op for dumb thread.

Vaoh

Sorry OP, but a monthly subscription will only cause a significant portion of the community to quit. This would be terrible and on top of this would not in the slightest guarantee ZOS fixes their game with it in place. It is their inability to assess bad design decisions (ex. AoE Caps) with real fixes rather than bandaid fixes.

Isn't it sad? One of the best MMO's honestly ever is being killed by incompetent leadership. Crazy stuff

Volkodav

Whatzituyah wrote: »

I hear an angry mob coming saying it should stay buy to play.

*sees pitch forks and torches in the distance with angery shouting*

I wouldn't mind this actually others might I already pay monthly for ESO+

I pay for Plus already,and have since it was released.Bought ESO before it came out,and subbed from day 1.

Benie

I wouldn't mind if they went back to their subscription service back in 2014. Yet I also want a guarantee the money will not be pocketed -- instead going to the development of the game.
If no guarantee can be given, it brings fear and uncertainty (not to mention frustration) that you just can't trust anyone with your money nowadays.

ESO's current condition doesn't warrant certainty that the optional sub fee is being spent on the game and the game only.

Lightninvash

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*

see the issue is that if they did that they would lose many of the console players. due to us having to pay our respecting console network providers so play on the game as is. if there was an added monthly fee many would stop playing and they would lose money.

I know they wanted to make it where there was a fee but users on consoles who paid for the monthly fee to play would be exempt from paying the online fees for Microsoft or ps4 network just for ESO but that proposition was declined( probably Microsoft) so they scrapped that and made it buy to play instead of subscription based.

At least this is my understanding as to why they are not going that route. hope this helps

Volkodav

Benie wrote: »

I wouldn't mind if they went back to their subscription service back in 2014. Yet I also want a guarantee the money will not be pocketed -- instead going to the development of the game.
If no guarantee can be given, it brings fear and uncertainty (not to mention frustration) that you just can't trust anyone with your money nowadays.

ESO's current condition doesn't warrant certainty that the optional sub fee is being spent on the game and the game only.

I dont have any insurance where my money is going.I dont think about it.I only want to make sure I can play the game.And,I can.I have no problem on my PC,as so many seem to.
It isnt my business to tell ZOS where they had better spend the money I gave them.

Vatter

The lag was the exact same when they were charging a sub. thats why most people left. There used to be a huge pvp base. now it's maybe 10% what it used to be. Why do you think they switched to a BTP model in the first place? This game has never stopped being in a beta version. it always has been and always will be. I for one can't wait for another MMO to come out. Gonna flush this one down the toilet where it belongs.

AFrostWolf

Just about anyone who plays this game and cares about it's well being subs anyways.

Lysette

JamilaRaj wrote: »

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).

And here is the mistake in that line of thinking - bug fixes should not be sold but be free - why? - because the game does not work as it should. To bind this to new content is silly - bugs have to be fixed asap and this should be done in more frequent patches in a timely manner to when the bug was reported.

NeillMcAttack

Two months is being VERY generous.....

Thevampirenight

Adding the sub is like building a wall to keep people out. I rather they not do this, heres a funny vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tE6T-ecmg

This vid is what a subscription model is like lol. It prevents people from entering the game that can't afford too, sometimes people just want to buy the game then be able to play it.Then when they go to play it, they are stuck with this situation unable to log on, another vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW3BJvmYKlA
but thing is the paywall gatekeeper is unkillable unless you really pay money. This was how the game was before buy to play.
I was able to sub and play before buy to play and played the game months before it went to buy to play I got all the loyality rewards the dwemer sphere every thing that was given to us for subbing before the switch. But thing is some people could not get past the unkillable paywall gate keeper.

IcyDeadPeople

How do you know the buy-to-play model doesn't generate more total revenue than subscription model?

Anyways, it's not like performance in Cyrodiil could be magically improved by suddenly charging a subscription fee (other than the obvious impact of lower population).

Lysette

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

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.

Well, EVE online has the subscription model since 13 years and it is no issue there, because CCP introduced a method to acquire game time with ingame currency (given that another player is buying that time with real cash and selling the pilot license for 30 days ingame). It is all included in the subscription, bug fixes are very responsive and the game is well balanced. I am happy to pay a subscription there, because it matches the overall top-notch service quality.

anitajoneb17_ESO

AFrostWolf wrote: »

Just about anyone who plays this game and cares about it's well being subs anyways.

Nope. I do care and I don't sub. I don't see the two things being related, ZOS is not a charity, and is not crowdfunded either.

.

Moonshadow66

Lysette wrote: »

Skullz11c wrote: »

khele23eb17_ESO wrote: »

Skullz11c wrote: »

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.

Some would. Vast majority wouldnt. And the very idea of having to pay a sub would put many potential players off giving the game a try.

I have to disagree. Sure some people would leave, but the business model of monthly subs is a tested and proven model that works. All they would have to do is model their subscriptions like WOW. Offer people free to try months and once they are hooked you charge them to stay. It works.

I also feel the majority of people who leave would come back if they heard the game runs smooth and the majority of bugs are resolved.

A lot of us pay already a monthly fee for ESO+ - this does not change anything. It takes the will to do it, as long as the management of ZOS is not willing to enforce quality for their product, no money ever will change anything. This is a pure lack of leadership here.

Yep.
Also, the game even WAS subscription based for almost a year (and it was crowded back then, means, a lot of incoming cash), and during that time, it didn't actually become better. Some bugs were fixed and others were added instead (which is still the standard), and the overall performance just got worse. It wouldn't change anything to go back to the subscription model.

Tandor

What some don't seem to get is that the whole basis of B2P is that once you have made an initial payment to access the game the choice is yours as to how you proceed. If you feel the game is worth your time and money you may subscribe. If you feel it is worth your time but not your money you can continue to play most of the game for free and spend your money selectively on any additional aspects you consider are worthwhile, or not spend any additional money at all. If you feel it is worth neither your time nor your money you can choose not to log into the game but play the forum instead.

DannyLV702

I wouldn't mind paying a little extra in my subscription...

Leogon

There's already a monthly sub available and people who are interested in that are already paying for that. Now that the game is B2P, they just can't change it back to P2P because most people who are playing the game because it's B2P will just leave and that's a large amount of players. Thus, subscribers would probably end up paying a more expensive monthly sub + paying for all the DLCs and hope to keep the game alive.

DaveMoeDee

If there were subs, I would play the game maybe twice or once a year for one month to play the new DLC. I would save money paying for only a 1 month sub instead of buying each DLC, even adjusting for the fact that I only buy crowns during 5500 for $24 sales.

I prefer the game as it is now to that model, but I would probably enjoy gaming more if I only played this twice a month as I would spend more time on games I haven't played yet and wouldn't feel compelled to do daily writs, level alts, unlock PvP skills, and do other busy work year round. I would just play through the DLC 2 at a time.

On the other hand, there is the change I wouldn't even come back annually.

DaveMoeDee

Vatter wrote: »

The lag was the exact same when they were charging a sub. thats why most people left. There used to be a huge pvp base. now it's maybe 10% what it used to be. Why do you think they switched to a BTP model in the first place? This game has never stopped being in a beta version. it always has been and always will be. I for one can't wait for another MMO to come out. Gonna flush this one down the toilet where it belongs.

Saying most people left due to lag is assuming that of the people that left, most were focused on PvP. I'm skeptical of that claim.

Based on your post, should we say that ZOS would be wise to focus DLC on the people who want more story driven content and who are here for Tamriel, not MMO tropes?

jcasini222ub17_ESO

I know I'm in the extreme minority of gamers but as subs go I'd easily pay 30 to 35 dollars a month for the original promises and goals ZoS had stated. That goes for any game that can deliever massive open world PvP battles, crafting tied into the scope of the game, (dedicated crafters who search for rare materials to craft goods 90 percent of the time for their teammates), and fresh raiding experiences.

Like I said extreme minority. Shockingly enough while I'd pay high monthly I dont consider myself a whale since I rarely use cash shops.

Lysette

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

If there were subs, I would play the game maybe twice or once a year for one month to play the new DLC. I would save money paying for only a 1 month sub instead of buying each DLC, even adjusting for the fact that I only buy crowns during 5500 for $24 sales.

I prefer the game as it is now to that model, but I would probably enjoy gaming more if I only played this twice a month as I would spend more time on games I haven't played yet and wouldn't feel compelled to do daily writs, level alts, unlock PvP skills, and do other busy work year round. I would just play through the DLC 2 at a time.

On the other hand, there is the change I wouldn't even come back annually.

Funny thing is - if you calculate ESO+ membership over the course of 3 years - like I have done in 2 posts - all of your crowns, which you got during those 3 years are actually just like they would have costed 24€ (and a bit) for 5500 crowns (with DLC content evaluated at an average price of 2500 crowns each). Long term ESO+ is really worthwhile - and this does not even take into account, that you have XP bonus and will get a crafting bag soon.

Merlight

Tandor wrote: »

What some don't seem to get is that the whole basis of B2P is that once you have made an initial payment to access the game the choice is yours as to how you proceed. If you feel the game is worth your time and money you may subscribe. If you feel it is worth your time but not your money you can continue to play most of the game for free and spend your money selectively on any additional aspects you consider are worthwhile, or not spend any additional money at all. If you feel it is worth neither your time nor your money you can choose not to log into the game but play the forum instead.

Pretty solid marketing talk, I'll give you that. The problem with B2P/F2P is that it's a cancer, especially for games proclaiming competitive environment. It poisons the game. You're not a customer they want to keep long-term, you're a mammal they want to milk as much as possible before you notice and leave for greener pastures. Resources are devoted to designing / twisting game mechanics with the sole purpose of coercing players into buying in-game power, relief, etc. for real-world cash. Very few games manage to keep those additional aspects you talk about strictly cosmetic, non-intrusive and not affecting the competitive environment.

imenace

pay a fee for this? are you [Snip] me? LMFAO the game has been broken since launch

[Edited to remove Profanity]

Arthmoor

Yes, the game would probably run great if it went back to subscription only.

Why?

All the people who started playing after that terrible idea was finally dropped would leave. Subscription gaming is a cancer that should be excised permanently. It is not something to be encouraged. I don't think anyone supporting this model truly realizes just how many people have joined since the subscription model was dropped.

Also, anyone who feels this way, you can already do it. Put your money where your mouth is.

So yeah, if lag is your only concern, go ahead. Kill off the player base. Cyrodiil will be nice and empty for everyone and all your worries will evaporate. (actually no they won't but you'll think they did)