Should ESO go back to a subscription only game?

coop500

I would not be able to play this game if they did that.

swippy

as long as you don't take away my Craft Bag i don't care what you guys arrive at

AzraelKrieg

lagrue wrote: »

AzraelKrieg wrote: »

MilwaukeeScott wrote: »

Back?

ESO on PS4 has never been a sub only game.

Consoles are the reason why it's not a sub only game right now. When it launched on PC in 2014 it was sub only until March because MS and Sony kicked up a fuss.

Well then why does FF14 get away with it?

Square Enix managed to make a deal with Sony to do so. Additionally, FF14 isn't on XBox so what does that say about MS and how they treat devs on their platform

Slick_007

crjs1 wrote: »

No, it would kill the game, which is basically funded on casuals. The game isn’t ‘free to play’ we have all paid for it and Morrowind. We need to be actively encouraging new players not putting up barriers.

except a lot of people didnt pay for morrowind. they whined about how it wasnt DLC and they didnt get it for free.

ADarklore

Because ESO developed such a horrible reputation at PC launch and the subsequent failure to deliver on console launch for well after a year as planned, there was no way they could continue to ask people to pay for a game that had such a horrible rating and reviews. The only way for them to tempt people to try it or come back, was to drop to the B2P model with optional subscription.

Further, right now with Crown Crates and the Crown Store, ZOS doesn't need to cater to people who say, "Don't fix your game, I'm unsubbing"... because ESO doesn't revolve around the need for subscriptions. If subscriptions were required, I would imagine the number of players who currently play would drop substantially, just look at those who even complain about how much ESO+ costs. There would also be this sudden demand for everything to be free, nothing in the Crown Store, etc... 'because we sub we expect everything for free' attitudes... we already have similar with some ESO+ subscribers.

I'm OK with Crown Crates, because I have willpower and accept personal responsibility for my choices... I'm not someone who is going to blame ZOS or anyone else for me spending money on them. Funny how addicts always want to blame everyone else for their lack of person willpower and responsibility, this includes gambling addicts... but in the end it all comes down to YOU and YOUR choices. ZOS is a business who wants to make as much money as possible, how is that being 'greedy'? Perhaps it's YOU who is being 'selfish' in that you expect things for free or that you shouldn't have to pay for things you want.

Geroken777

First of all, I dont see a reason we should do this at all.

Second of all, crown crates won't be removed. I'd rather pay a monthly crown crate subscription than a game subscription which i already payed full price for.

Third of all, there are NO advantages of going back to sub only mode. It's your choice to whether buy crown crates or not; cosmetics are NOT compulsory. You are all whining because you can't get a skin for a mount or else.

pdebie64b16_ESO

Back in the day there were only sub mmo's, and you needed to pay for dlc's aswell. It was and still is my favorite mmo model.

More steady income means more employees, better server performance and so on.

Lets say eso was a sub based game without a cash shop, and you could obtain that fancy hard to get mount not by paying real life money for it but obtain it by some sort of quest, much more fun imo.

But it looks like players prefer to buy crown crates and other crap from the crown store instead of paying for a sub.

WhiteCoatSyndrome

@Stewart1874 Minor point: Free DLC for subs is already on its way out, witness the introduction of 'Chapters'.

Ch4mpTW

If the game would be more stable (performance-wise), and would have an even better form of customer service? I’m all for it. As is I’m currently subscribed to ESO+, and in the past I was subscribed for so long that I received the loyalty bonuses (e.g. Tiger mount). So, it would truly make no difference to me.

I’m here to give ZOS money, IF things return to the amount of smoothness that it once had. If the customer service truly was as passionate about helping out the customers as they once were before, and the devs really began quality testing of their product before releasing it. Deadline or not, they make sure that they iron out the vast majority of the bugs and other issues.

Geroken777

pdebie64b16_ESO wrote: »

Back in the day there were only sub mmo's, and you needed to pay for dlc's aswell. It was and still is my favorite mmo model.

More steady income means more employees, better server performance and so on.

Lets say eso was a sub based game without a cash shop, and you could obtain that fancy hard to get mount not by paying real life money for it but obtain it by some sort of quest, much more fun imo.

But it looks like players prefer to buy crown crates and other crap from the crown store instead of paying for a sub.

Its not really a question of its either subscription or crown crates. Do we have a sub that you can pay for? Yes. Do we have RNG boxes which you could pay for? Yes.

We have both.

I really don't understand the whole point of this argument.

Kozato

There's some good reasons they threw the subscription requirement away in the first place. Don't bring ESO back a few steps again.

Zorvan

ZeniMax Media
Type Private
Total equity US$2.5 billion (2016)
Number of employees 1,500+ (2017)
Subsidiaries Arkane Studios BattleCry Studios Bethesda Softworks Escalation Studios id Software MachineGames Tango Gameworks ZeniMax Online Studios
Website zenimax.com

I think they can afford to drop the boxes.

Neurosis84

For me and lot of people is more interessing to buy dlc than buy eso +

I only buy sold crown, so 5500 for 20 euro and buy dlc is less expensive, yes i cant buy cosmetic, but lol, cosmestic are so ugly in this game...

Elsonso

I already subscribe, and it is worth it to me, so would not be an issue.

However, this game is not well maintained and would die under a forced subscription model.

Edited to be more nice and friendly.

mirta000b16_ESO

CaineCarver wrote: »

Square Enix managed to make a deal with Sony to do so. Additionally, FF14 isn't on XBox so what does that say about MS and how they treat devs on their platform

FFXI also had a sub fee on PlayStation. It's not uncommon. And Microsoft refused to have the game not due to sub fee, but due to having to share servers with Playstation users. Which is why ESO is separated into PC, Xbox, Playstation servers. This is something SE did not agree to do.

Varana

If it had stayed subscription only, I'd certainly not be playing now.

I played a few months when it first came out on PC but then didn't renew my subscription because frankly, there was a multitude of other games I bought and wanted to play. (I usually play single player games.)

I got back into the game only because I could just fire it up and run around to see if it was still fun. If I had to fork over a subscription fee first, I certainly wouldn't have done it.

As of now, I've been running ESO+ for several months. That's money that ZOS never would've gotten if the game were subscription-based.

I also don't buy loot boxes. It's neither necessary nor are the rewards particularly appealing. If I have some crowns left over from ESO+, and I'd not have anything else worthwile to buy with them, maybe.

I also probably fall quite neatly into the "casual" category, so there's that. It's the only way to have fun playing a game. ;D

Bax

I disagree with subscription, I never played subscription based games for a simple reason - I don't feel like I own the game. Also monthly subscription model is so strict. It forces me to play the whole month in which I paid for subscription otherwise I have a feeling of lost money. I have no problem with buying crowns. I own all DLCs and several costumes, mounts and pets. I am looking forward to purchase some house if there is one which catches my eyes. I prefer to play when I want to and not when my subscription is running. Sometimes I like to take few days off and I don't like the idea of forcing those days off on time when I run out of current subscription.

Simply, I like freedom and B2P system gives me this freedom and since I appreciate it, I am eager to support the game by purchasing DLCs and other cosmetics. The day they will decide to enforce subscription again will be the day I stop playing. I would maybe consider subscription if the base game is free and subscription is based on smaller units (so for example you purchase X minutes of game time instead of a month).

In a way MMOs are already sort of risky to play, because they can be cancelled anytime and all my purchases are gone without any offline variant still available for me. But that's the type of risk I am willing to take and paying monthly subscription on top of it would be overkill for me.

Anhedonie

Subscription based model is no longer possible.

Elsonso

mirta000b16_ESO wrote: »

CaineCarver wrote: »

Square Enix managed to make a deal with Sony to do so. Additionally, FF14 isn't on XBox so what does that say about MS and how they treat devs on their platform

FFXI also had a sub fee on PlayStation. It's not uncommon. And Microsoft refused to have the game not due to sub fee, but due to having to share servers with Playstation users. Which is why ESO is separated into PC, Xbox, Playstation servers. This is something SE did not agree to do.

Actually, I think it is all on Microsoft and ZOS. Rumor has it that Sony had already agreed to drop PSN fees. Microsoft did not want to drop XBL. I think that a disappointing launch of ESO caused Microsoft to figure that they would get more money in XBL fees than they would with their cut of ESO Subscription money. I think that the disappointing launch of ESO, along with an unproven studio at the helm, resulted in recommendations from multiple sources to drop the idea of a subscription if they wanted to save their game.

Niobium

TheMaster wrote: »

No. The loot crates are not required for them to support the game; they’re just being greedy.

That's some awesome info you have there - can you show me where you saw their financial breakdowns for loot crates vs subscription (current) and projected models of sustaining if they do away with loot crates as a source of income. Of course this should come with their yearly outgoings for salary, server hosting, DOS protection and all their other business costs.

I've been hoping to go over their financials and it seems you could point me in the right direction.

Malic

They should have never changed it.

They cant go back now, Zenimax credibility with a lot of players (not all of them I concede) is completely shot. I'll never trust this company again, and I sure as *** will never buy another game that has the names wrobel or firor attached to it in anyway.

Knootewoot

I can only play a mmo actively when I need to pay a subscription. For some reason I always have the feeling a B2P or F2P mmo lacks real attention from the devs and all they do is squeeze money out of customers (not the devs, but the guys in suits) using ingame stores and gamble crates and not. And they probably use that money to develop other ideas to suck out their customers.

yes, Morrowind was beautifull but also it was not free. Since ESO went B2P I find the updates / fixes lacking.

I might be outnumbered, but I rather have a subscription based game with real attention from the company in bug fixes and content and not 40 dollar horses.

(EDIT: and will it work, I don't know. I will find out when I play Pantheon in this or the next life)

zaria

mirta000b16_ESO wrote: »

Huyen wrote: »

Blizzard-entertainment still manages fine with their sub model. I dont see why ESO cant do the same, and get rid of the horrible lootboxes. They just have to up their game a bit with better stability and quality dlc's.

Blizzard has over 14 million concurrent subscribers, while being built to survive off less than 1 million. ESO was being built with an expectation of 6-7 million, while their initial sub numbers were around 1 million. They did not budget right for sub model to work, hence why they had to drop to B2P to begin with.

WOW had 14 million at peak, I guess its between 4 and 7 now. The stopped publishing at 5.
If they budgeted that they needed 6 million subs they was idiots. its an unrealistic high number.
And yes targeting for 1 million makes more sense. Note that more than that would bring more income so you could add more stuff to the game faster.
Note that part of the reason to drop sub was low acceptance from console players espesialy xbox ones who also has to pay for life even if only play eso online, that is 1/3 of the player base.

Kiralyn2000

Like many Internet-fueled outrages, the loot box thing is overblown. Are there issues with some of them? Sure. Is it the world-ending apocalypse that the Internet would have you believe? No, no more than EA is actually the "worst company in America" (god, that was an embarrassing poll result. Way to show your priorities, people)


As for subs... not going to happen. Subs had already gone away before crown crates, if they stopped crates there still would be a crown store full of stuff to buy & ESO+.

MissBizz

It'd be a whole lot cheaper for me if this game went back to sub to play..

code65536

mirta000b16_ESO wrote: »

FFXIV was built to run off 100K users or less. ESO developers expected 6 million concurrent players or so.

[citation needed]

MinarasLaure

I've never had eso+ and the only reason why I buy crowns is for the dlc.
Never spent any "real money" for cosmetics or other "in game" advantages.
The thing is that I can't play more than 10 hours a week, so a monthly fee wouldn't be worth for me.
And like me, there are many others (pretty much the majority of adults with a 40+ hours pw job and a family).
So no, the game shouldn't be sub only, if zos wants to reach as many players as possible.

Elsonso

MinarasLaure wrote: »

I've never had eso+ and the only reason why I buy crowns is for the dlc.
Never spent any "real money" for cosmetics or other "in game" advantages.
The thing is that I can't play more than 10 hours a week, so a monthly fee wouldn't be worth for me.
And like me, there are many others (pretty much the majority of adults with a 40+ hours pw job and a family).
So no, the game shouldn't be sub only, if zos wants to reach as many players as possible.

Up to 10 hours per week. Up to 40 hours per month. ~40 cents per hour of play. May I ask at what cost per hour does it become worth it?

Davor

I still don't get it. Why do games need subscriptions? After all if Skyrim can make over twenty million dollars and Bethesda makes a TES game ever five years plus why do games need a monthly subscription then?

If a company knows how to make a game they wouldn't need a subscription. It just goes to show you that Zenimax Online Studios or the marketing team, don't know how to make a great playable game where people will buy it.

If Bethesda can do it, I can't understand why Zenimax can't either. After all Elder Scrolls Online is mostly a single player game now with a bit of MMO thrown in it. So why not just make it a single player game and only have internet connection when people want to multiplayer on it.

Davor

MinarasLaure

lordrichter wrote: »

MinarasLaure wrote: »

I've never had eso+ and the only reason why I buy crowns is for the dlc.
Never spent any "real money" for cosmetics or other "in game" advantages.
The thing is that I can't play more than 10 hours a week, so a monthly fee wouldn't be worth for me.
And like me, there are many others (pretty much the majority of adults with a 40+ hours pw job and a family).
So no, the game shouldn't be sub only, if zos wants to reach as many players as possible.

Up to 10 hours per week. Up to 40 hours per month. ~40 cents per hour of play. May I ask at what cost per hour does it become worth it?

It depends on what you can achieve with 10h a week, really.
10h a week it's 1 hour and 30 minutes a day, which is on average, the time I spend in game daily.
And you can't really do that much honestly, which is the reason why I'm playing eso as a single player game with the exception of the pledges (and cyrodill).
Am I having fun? Sure, otherwise I wouldn't play.
Is it rewarding? No, it isn't.
Vet trials and even normal trials are not a thing cause unfortunately I don't have enough time to spend in game and even if my guild(s) organize them, time frame doesn't match (hello there working during prime time)
I'm not saying I'd like to have uber drops from fungal grotto I or vet trials of 15 mind duration, I actually like how the game works, but for what I can get from this game, 12$ pm is not worth it