I miss required subscriptions

Thestephenmcraeub17_ESO

Weird, right? I was looking through the Crown Crate offerings for this season, and seeing more and more motifs appearing in the CS at ridiculously high prices has really pushed me into a stance of wanting to earn things in game by playing the game. There are 4 mounts you can get in game, and dozens and dozens that you have to pay for. I realize that they all do the same thing, but just look different, but people have proven that they like things that look certain ways. ZOS has capitalized on that by putting a bottleneck on the way you can get things that look cool - cash transactions. The addition of motifs in the crown store and the drop rates of motif pages (and the fact that there are fourteen pages needed to complete a set) are blatantly obvious ways to make players spend more real money in the game. I know that before Tamriel Unlimited, there wasn't much variety in mounts, but it felt like I was getting something for my money for subscribing. The DLC felt like some real time and effort were put into it (Craglorn). These days, 1/3rd of the DLC is just adding some 4-player dungeons. It's not that I think ZOS is getting lazy - I'm sure they're under a lot of pressure to produce content for the game, and for the most part, I think they're doing a great job. It just feels to me that, since crown crates were introduced, ZOS has been trying to take more and more, while not giving that value back to the game. I know that from a business perspective, their goal is to make as much money as possible. That's the goal of every for-profit business. I also realize that a subscription-based system may not have been as profitable as a B2P game with optional cash transactions. But to sell us cosmetic and "convenience" items, there has to an inconvenient alternative. I guess I just don't like them capitalizing on my aversion to inconveniences.

AlienatedGoat

Thestephenmcraeub17_ESO wrote: »

I know that from a business perspective, their goal is to make as much money as possible. That's the goal of every for-profit business.

Honestly, the goal of every video game developer should be to make as great a game as possible. This idea that ZOS is some business-oriented establishment is just wrong - they are video game developers, and that should be their priority. Unfortunately, big daddy Zenimax Media gets in the way with their shoddy business sense and forces ZOS to make some questionable business decisions.

I also miss the days of subscriptions. Maybe if TESO had gotten rave reviews from the beta and full release, it could have sustained the subscription model. Things didn't go that way (for many reasons) and the players didn't come in droves like ZOS had hoped. Things had to be changed for the game to survive. I've made my peace with that.

CromulentForumID

Phage wrote: »

Thestephenmcraeub17_ESO wrote: »

I know that from a business perspective, their goal is to make as much money as possible. That's the goal of every for-profit business.

Honestly, the goal of every video game developer should be to make as great a game as possible. This idea that ZOS is some business-oriented establishment is just wrong - they are video game developers, and that should be their priority. Unfortunately, big daddy Zenimax Media gets in the way with their shoddy business sense and forces ZOS to make some questionable business decisions.

I also miss the days of subscriptions. Maybe if TESO had gotten rave reviews from the beta and full release, it could have sustained the subscription model. Things didn't go that way (for many reasons) and the players didn't come in droves like ZOS had hoped. Things had to be changed for the game to survive. I've made my peace with that.

I firmly do not believe any game of this size could survive on a sub-only model. In general, the current gaming population is not one that wants to pay to buy the game, then keep paying each month. There are too many other games to play, and we've gotten pretty used to getting our entertainment for free, at least when it comes to online entertainment.

AlienatedGoat

CromulentForumID wrote: »

I firmly do not believe any game of this size could survive on a sub-only model

WoW would beg to differ. From the onset of TESO, it was commonly called the WoW-killer, and that was the expectation. It failed in that regard. Sorry to crush your firmly held beliefs.

AlMcFly

Phage wrote: »

CromulentForumID wrote: »

I firmly do not believe any game of this size could survive on a sub-only model

WoW would beg to differ. From the onset of TESO, it was commonly called the WoW-killer, and that was the expectation. It failed in that regard. Sorry to crush your firmly held beliefs.

Lol. If I had a dollar for every game that was presumed to be the "WoW-killer", I'd have like 25 dollars.

CromulentForumID

Phage wrote: »

CromulentForumID wrote: »

I firmly do not believe any game of this size could survive on a sub-only model

WoW would beg to differ. From the onset of TESO, it was commonly called the WoW-killer, and that was the expectation. It failed in that regard. Sorry to crush your firmly held beliefs.

You are right. I should have described what I meant a lot better. My mistake.

I should have said: A game released either now, or since ESO was released. Or said better, a "modern" MMO.

Do you honestly believe ESO could survive as a game with a sub-only model? Any other MMO that isn't meant for a smaller audience? I really don't think games are going B2P or F2P just for funsies. Maybe I am wrong, but I would have to think, game companies would rather get their money from subs instead of having to devote resources to cash grab mounts and gamble boxes that are constantly criticized.

AlienatedGoat

CromulentForumID wrote: »

Do you honestly believe ESO could survive as a game with a sub-only model?

I think that TESO has the better IP and had the potential to survive as a sub-only MMORPG. Both Warcraft and Final Fantasy manage to maintain their own sub-only MMOs, even today.

Unfortunately that potential was squandered. The beta was riddled with bad reviews and negative press, as well as developmental problems. The official release wasn't much better. The hype surrounding the "Multiplayer Elder Scrolls" and the developmental failures killed TESO's chances of being sub-only. There is no going back to subscriptions for TESO - the game doesn't have enough committed players who would be willing to (or able to) pay monthly to play. And that's ok - honestly the game is better for it.

Elsonso

Phage wrote: »

the game doesn't have enough committed players who would be willing to (or able to) pay monthly to play.

Obviously, we cannot know whether enough people subscribe to ESO Plus to make revenue targets. ZOS is unlikely to cough up that information.

I am fairly certain that people who don't subscribe to ESO Plus, yet play the game more than just occasionally, are in a definite minority. There are just too many perks to ESO Plus for people who play routinely for it to be any other way. People can rage against the idea of ESO Plus and refuse to pay, but I expect that most of them stop playing routinely.

... which brings us back to the first paragraph.

vamp_emily

Before crown crates, I used to buy almost every mount that was released in the store. When crown crates were released and I seen all those nice items hidden in those boxes my purchases had dropped to almost zero ( except for a few manors I purchased ). In the past I use to buy tons of crowns when they had the sales. The last time crowns were on sale I didn't buy anything because I knew they were going to continue hiding stuff in the crown store.

Someone should do a poll on how much people spend on crown crates, that would be interesting. It must be a lot because there are so many players like me that will not purchase crown crates and would rather buy what they want in the crown store.

Elsonso

vamp_emily wrote: »

Before crown crates, I used to buy almost every mount that was released in the store. When crown crates were released and I seen all those nice items hidden in those boxes my purchases had dropped to almost zero ( except for a few manors I purchased ). In the past I use to buy tons of crowns when they had the sales. The last time crowns were on sale I didn't buy anything because I knew they were going to continue hiding stuff in the crown store.

Someone should do a poll on how much people spend on crown crates, that would be interesting. It must be a lot because there are so many players like me that will not purchase crown crates and would rather buy what they want in the crown store.

Back before Crown Crates, I spent a lot more in the Crown Store. There was just more stuff coming up to buy. Now, not so much. Plenty of new stuff, but I can't just buy it. I have to buy chances and wait for RNG to give me what I want.

RNG seems to be the only tool ZOS has. Like a man who only has a hammer, all problems look like nails. ZOS needs someone with a different tool.

This year, I think I will make it through the year on my ESO Plus allotment. That is a big change from 2016.

pdebie64b16_ESO

I prefer sub mmo's without a cash shop were you can obtain every item in game by playing the game like it was back in the day.

Good old times with DAOC and some other old games.

Kilandros

Yep. When you have a subscription, business decisions are made around keeping subs active and getting new players to sub. Things like bug fixes, quests, balance, content. But when you have a B2P model with a cash shop, business decisions are made around increasing cash shop revenue. Costumes, mounts, RNG boxes, etc.

There's a reason why the initial ESO Dev team said that the subscription model was absolutely necessary to the game they wanted to design. And if you go back to patch notes during the subscription era of this game you can see the difference. There were loads of bug fixes and balance changes and QoL improvements to the base game and Cyrodiil in every patch. Because keeping the actual quality of the game high was fundamental to having a successful subscription revenue.

But now we have this B2W RNG Box monstrosity. ESO was and could have been a truly great MMO, but now it's basically just GW2 and SWTOR--decent, but most people only play it because there isn't a great MMO on the market right now.

I do take some small satisfaction that mobile games will put most of the current modern MMOs out of business over the next 10 years, because that might clear the field enough for a publisher to design a game that attracts enough players to support the subscription model.

Apherius

I have only a few problem with the crown store:

Motifs
I don't have problem with buoyant motif anymore , cause i was talking with some people and i realize that both motif are based on RNG ... that both have a way to get them without deal with the RNG ( gems and guild merchant ) and both are expensive ! My problem is mainly about those CS exclusive motif ... I farm all my motif but i will never be Master crafter cause i miss these motif ... it's even more annoying when the Frostcaster motif for exemple is beautiful and asked by a lot of teamates...

Skin
Not all skin , all the Quest related skin seems good and deserve to be put into the crown store , the thing they made with the mind-shriven skin was good. But when they released a new skin ( the purple one , if you see ) i was just shocked ... not that much cause this stay a quest related skin but mainly because this was a copy past of the spiderkith skin ... and when they released the blood-forged skin this was just an abomination ... the skin is beautiful it's true but it's engame content related ! Why this is a problem ? Because when you finish a dungeon you can prove you finished it in Hm/no death/ speed simply by wearing this skin ... but some of those who have the CS skin didn't get the achievements or don't even know what dungeon it's related to ... this is also a bit disgusting when you try hard a dungeon you paid 1K5 crown and finally get a disgusting reward while the one who buy the CS skin for 1K2 crown look better. this also seems like they design skin and costume and vote for wich is the ugliest... then they throw this one at the end of a dungeon for the completion of nodeath/hm/speed. This is the same problem with the Bloodroot forge hat ... here a screenshot when you clearly see a design difference ,one earned with one click on the crown store ,the other earned from the nodeath / hm and a speed that i tried 8/9 times cause it was buggy.
it's like a day they decide to add the ruby throne in the crown store or an other empereur costume wich look better in CS.



btw , i don't agree with the second part of this " ZOS has been trying to take more and more, while not giving that value back to the game " if we are talking in term of content, this was 3 DLC per years before ,now it's 1 chapter + 1 dungeon pack + 2 quest zone if i remember correctly, they do a awesome work in term of design , and some good thing about mechanics in dungeons/raid.
if i'm wrong say me plz , it's by chating with some players that i understood that the buoyant armiger motif in the CS wasn't so bad.

ArchMikem

If the required sub was reintroduced, the game would see a GIANT exodus of players. Many people play because of the one and done payment, and especially Consoles already pay $60 a year just to access online play.

Also not to dash your beliefs, but having a required sub wouldnt stop ZOS from their Crown Store price hiking. Youd like to think theyd change course to quality, but theyre a Company, Companies are always in it for profits.

Dracindo

Required subs would make alot of people quit. You bought the game, you get to play the game forever. Simple. When it was still required to sub, I was pissed. I bought the game, and I couldn't play it, unless I paid monthly. In those times I didn't know if it'll ever be gone or not, so for all I knew, I could've wasted hundreds of euros on ESO.

When I look at the ESO+ 3-month subscription plan, I think to myself, "Hey, instead of spending money on this thing to make my ESO life easier, why don't I just buy this amazing new game, which I'm guaranteed to sink hundreds of hours in?"

If this game would become required to sub again, I would have no choice but to sell my account.
So no! No required subs!

Elsonso

ArchMikem wrote: »

If the required sub was reintroduced, the game would see a GIANT exodus of players. Many people play because of the one and done payment, and especially Consoles already pay $60 a year just to access online play.

This is true. It would take real guts, and a stellar development studio to back it up, to move from being able to play freely, with voluntary subscription, (ESO currently) to a subscription model. ZeniMax Media does not currently have an MMO studio that could pull something like that off. ZOS is being "built in place" and might become that studio, one day. Honestly, I doubt they are interested. If they can make boatloads of money off what ZOS is cranking out, there is little incentive to invest in improvement. Why build a game studio to build a game that is better than what is needed?

I would love it if ZOS was that studio, and Bethesda had those guts, and ESO was that game. When pigs fly over frozen oceans in Hell.

Dracindo wrote: »

When I look at the ESO+ 3-month subscription plan, I think to myself, "Hey, instead of spending money on this thing to make my ESO life easier, why don't I just buy this amazing new game, which I'm guaranteed to sink hundreds of hours in?"

I pretty much do the same thing, right now. That is why I do the ESO+ 180 day subscription. I sink hundreds of hours into ESO, and hardly any of it farming for equipment. Still, my in-game hours for September are down considerably from June, which was a peak month for me due to Morrowind.

idk

Phage wrote: »

CromulentForumID wrote: »

I firmly do not believe any game of this size could survive on a sub-only model

WoW would beg to differ. From the onset of TESO, it was commonly called the WoW-killer, and that was the expectation. It failed in that regard. Sorry to crush your firmly held beliefs.

WoW probably survives from an older generation of players and ofc from those that play on potatoes.

It's the rise of a younger generation that is less likely to stick with a game enough. It's why Steam is so popular and especially their early release games. IMO.

Elsonso

idk wrote: »

Phage wrote: »

CromulentForumID wrote: »

I firmly do not believe any game of this size could survive on a sub-only model

WoW would beg to differ. From the onset of TESO, it was commonly called the WoW-killer, and that was the expectation. It failed in that regard. Sorry to crush your firmly held beliefs.

WoW probably survives from an older generation of players and ofc from those that play on potatoes.

It's the rise of a younger generation that is less likely to stick with a game enough. It's why Steam is so popular and especially their early release games. IMO.

Someone recently noted that the younger generation should just be called the ADD Generation. They have the attention span of

AzraelKrieg

lordrichter wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Phage wrote: »

CromulentForumID wrote: »

I firmly do not believe any game of this size could survive on a sub-only model

WoW would beg to differ. From the onset of TESO, it was commonly called the WoW-killer, and that was the expectation. It failed in that regard. Sorry to crush your firmly held beliefs.

WoW probably survives from an older generation of players and ofc from those that play on potatoes.

It's the rise of a younger generation that is less likely to stick with a game enough. It's why Steam is so popular and especially their early release games. IMO.

Someone recently noted that the younger generation should just be called the ADD Generation. They have the attention span of

I think the gaming industry is a bit to blame for the way kids these days jump from game to game.

Rohamad_Ali

I would subscribe if the quality of the game improved . The whole game , not just PVE .

NewBlacksmurf

CromulentForumID wrote: »

Phage wrote: »

CromulentForumID wrote: »

I firmly do not believe any game of this size could survive on a sub-only model

WoW would beg to differ. From the onset of TESO, it was commonly called the WoW-killer, and that was the expectation. It failed in that regard. Sorry to crush your firmly held beliefs.

You are right. I should have described what I meant a lot better. My mistake.

I should have said: A game released either now, or since ESO was released. Or said better, a "modern" MMO.

Do you honestly believe ESO could survive as a game with a sub-only model? Any other MMO that isn't meant for a smaller audience? I really don't think games are going B2P or F2P just for funsies. Maybe I am wrong, but I would have to think, game companies would rather get their money from subs instead of having to devote resources to cash grab mounts and gamble boxes that are constantly criticized.

This limited thought of a MMO subscription, no it wouldn’t survive because it was marketed on console and PC simultaneously.

It would’ve been fine to release with a price set.
Offer cosmetics for real money (not crowns)
Never should it have had any subscription for consoles but maybe for PC only.

On console, they should’ve utilized a seasons approach based annually.
Outside of that, they should sale dlc for real money only not crowns.

No form of eso Plus should’ve come either.
The focus of the company is a mixed model where it’s a little bit of everything because in someone’s head more options seems better.

Sadly that’s not how consumers work if you need a consistent base of customers. Even if the base changes, this game would’ve had much more success with seasons and no crown store but let people buy thing with real money.

kyle.wilson

SydneyGrey

Them dropping mandatory subscriptions is the best move they could have made, though, because people are now trying the game who would never have tried it when they had the mandatory subscription model. I'm one of those people. I didn't like the idea of paying for the game AND being forced into a monthly subscription on top of that, when I'd never played before and didn't even know if I'd like it.

After they dropped the mandatory subs, I bought the game on sale on Steam to try it, and it's now my favorite game. I now subscribe every month willingly.

It's no coincidence that their total number of players made a gigantic jump after they dropped the mandatory sub model, and has stayed high ever since.

Dragath

i don't think ESO could survive as a sub only mmo.
i'm quite sure, most of the earnings do come from the crown store content, which is a lot easier to produce than quality in-game content.
ZOS would have to step up their game tenfold, and frankly, there is neither enough manpower nor talent to accomplish that.

CaffeinatedMayhem

I agree with OP - with the motifs appearing in crown store, it's starting to feel like P2W. For crafters, motifs get more Master Writs to drop, traits researched get more writs to drop. Master Writs get you the access to Rollis Hlaalu's store. IMHO - motifs and research scrolls in the Crown Store IS P2W for crafters. Am I disappointed? Yes. Did I really expect ZOS to live up to the "Crown Store will NEVER be for P2W" statment? Not really, but I hoped they would.

Ilsabet

SydneyGrey wrote: »

Them dropping mandatory subscriptions is the best move they could have made, though, because people are now trying the game who would never have tried it when they had the mandatory subscription model. I'm one of those people. I didn't like the idea of paying for the game AND being forced into a monthly subscription on top of that, when I'd never played before and didn't even know if I'd like it.

After they dropped the mandatory subs, I bought the game on sale on Steam to try it, and it's now my favorite game. I now subscribe every month willingly.

It's no coincidence that their total number of players made a gigantic jump after they dropped the mandatory sub model, and has stayed high ever since.

This is me too, except I have made the choice not to sub. I've never liked the idea of being on the hook for a monthly fee, and I only considered playing the game once I knew that I could just buy it once and call it good. With that said, though, I will spend money on crowns and expansions if there's content that I find worth buying.

I crunched some numbers, and determined that I've spent $200 on this game ($60 for the base game, $100 in crown packs, and $40 for Morrowind). If I had subbed for those 24 months, the total cost would have been $460. Maybe ZOS would rather have 460 of my dollars than 200, but I'd much rather spend less for the same benefit, and if they had kept the sub mandatory they would have gotten 0 of my dollars. So I'd say it's been win-win.

iiYuki

I have no problems with it tbh, I play wow and have paid a sub for years and barely play it anymore. I think there should be more for ESO+ players too.
That being said dropping the sub brought people back and kept new people, and I guess they make more on the crown store then they would with subs. Especially with crown crates, i've spent a year's worth of subs in a single day on crates on my own.

CromulentForumID

lordrichter wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Phage wrote: »

CromulentForumID wrote: »

I firmly do not believe any game of this size could survive on a sub-only model

WoW would beg to differ. From the onset of TESO, it was commonly called the WoW-killer, and that was the expectation. It failed in that regard. Sorry to crush your firmly held beliefs.

WoW probably survives from an older generation of players and ofc from those that play on potatoes.

It's the rise of a younger generation that is less likely to stick with a game enough. It's why Steam is so popular and especially their early release games. IMO.

Someone recently noted that the younger generation should just be called the ADD Generation. They have the attention span of

I am sad this joke was completely missed

BrianDavion

It's owrth noting that even with F2P in game store, the game need SOME quality "things to do" to survive. SWTOR's dying fast

Delte

Phage wrote: »

Thestephenmcraeub17_ESO wrote: »

I know that from a business perspective, their goal is to make as much money as possible. That's the goal of every for-profit business.

Honestly, the goal of every video game developer should be to make as great a game as possible. This idea that ZOS is some business-oriented establishment is just wrong - they are video game developers, and that should be their priority. Unfortunately, big daddy Zenimax Media gets in the way with their shoddy business sense and forces ZOS to make some questionable business decisions.

I also miss the days of subscriptions. Maybe if TESO had gotten rave reviews from the beta and full release, it could have sustained the subscription model. Things didn't go that way (for many reasons) and the players didn't come in droves like ZOS had hoped. Things had to be changed for the game to survive. I've made my peace with that.

You are wrong.
Eve Online at release only had 20,000 subscribers and they paid each month to play the game, it never got rave reviews either and many reviewers went back to the game a few years after release and took another look at the game. Now with subscribers in the millions they have both a F2P and a P2P model which works very well.

So when anyone says they didn't have enough subs on release I say their information is wrong and they need to take another look at other less popular mmos which still have a subscription.

The big reason they went B2P is because of the release on PS4 and Xbox, yet Final Fantasy Realm Reborn is a subscription paid mmo even with the PSN fees. So all Zenimax are doing is going for the cash grab, and with the advent of the Creation Club for Skyrim this just expounds this point even more. They put content behind a pay wall and random loot in loot crates on a timed offer, which means if you want one of those items you Have to buy the loot crates and hope to find the item you are after within. This in itself is a way to generate huge amounts of cash from the players.

I bet that those who buy things from the cash shop and loot crates actually spend more money on the game each month than they would do if it was a paid subscription. Or near equal to it.

With no way to earn in game crowns or the loot crystals (like other you can in some other B2P and F2P mmos) you have to spend real cash to get those items.

Also if it wasn't for a bunch of freeloaders who demanded a F2P model this game could of survived on its subscription numbers.

Drakkdjinn

ArchMikem wrote: »

If the required sub was reintroduced, the game would see a GIANT exodus of players. Many people play because of the one and done payment, and especially Consoles already pay $60 a year just to access online play.

Also not to dash your beliefs, but having a required sub wouldnt stop ZOS from their Crown Store price hiking. Youd like to think theyd change course to quality, but theyre a Company, Companies are always in it for profits.

Not to dash your assumptions, but the most profitable MMO of all time is on a subscription model that has steadily increased in price -- they still boast more players worldwide than ESO after a decade.

Just sayin'; you may now resume being an expert in things that have not happened.