Should ESO go back to a subscription only game?

SirAxen

It wouldn't survive. It would be dead within six months if they did that.

LittlePinkDot

I think what OP said is a better idea. Subscription fees only for the pc platform, thats where all the hackers/exploiters are that Zos will have to constantly spend money on countering for all eternity. Keep crown crates ect. For consoles.
Pc and console dont play together anyway.
Then for a limited time they can allow people to transfer their account to whichever platform they prefer.

TelvanniWizard

Jade1986 wrote: »

OH GOD!!!! The game will be FINE without the loot boxes. they can take all the stuff in those boxes and put it in the crown store and more people will buy the stuff because they KNOW what they are getting! Enough with the doom and gloom!

This. Couldn´t say better.

monktoasty

Geroken777 wrote: »

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.

Wait..so removing microtransactions thus putting all content back in the game isn't an advantage?

I think the issue is consumers are coddled babies who want everything free now is the problem. You can't even charge 1 dollar for an app game or the majority will cry that it's not fair.

ArcVelarian

WhiteCoatSyndrome wrote: »

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

Not to mention Morrowind was extremely overpriced for the amount of content included (I only bought it because I found a $90 gift card under my couch).

Honestly, if they want to charge $40 for a "chapter" they need to include:

1. 2 or more Trials
2. 3 or more dungeons

That's in addition to everything else.

Jade1986

luen79rwb17_ESO wrote: »

B2P model brought the largest ammount of players to ESO for the longest time so I doubt they're switching back to sub based model.

Besides requiring a sub would de-facto wipe a % of your current player base. It's bold to assume those players will sub and I doubt the switch to sub would bring such a large ammount of new players to compensate that loss AND keep a positive growth % of players active.

They would have to bring out some seriously innovative content for them to sub. I sub because of the craft bag, that is literally it. If that wasnt there, I wouldnt sub. Seriously, why would i?

MaleAmazon

ESO+ is fine IMO, costs a little less than 2 cheap pizzas/month and I get the DLCs and the craft bag. ESO is a timesink even if it´s a low priority for me. It will run its course, you can unsub and come back, so long as I play the sub is fine.

I don´t know how other players think, but personally I believe the amount of people who left if it was a sub would be a bigger hit than any profit. I am sure the Crown Store and DLC is a better model; though I am almost loathe to see RPGs being financed by borderline casino methods.

Kiralyn2000

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Money has consumed development time. The development of content was never fast, but it wasn't exactly slow, either. Nowadays, the lion share has gone into crown crates.

I sincerely doubt that modeling a few mounts & a couple outfits (everything else is recycled/reskinned) every three months, takes the "lion's share" of development time. (Heck, considering it's spread over three months, it could just be one or two art guys. The mount animations - horse/bear/camel/cat/guar - are all reused, it's just modeling a theme onto the usual body shape.)

Building a new zone for a DLC, new art assets (like, say, clockwork-theme buildings & furniture), new mobs, all the quest dialogue & structure, etc, etc, etc.... is a lot more work than the stuff in a crate.



disclaimer - I haven't bought any crown crates, I don't care about fancy mounts. Sure, I'll get the three free ones from this weekend's event, but that's it.

Varana

"Sincerely doubt" is way too mild for that load of nonsense.

EvilCroc

If it means return of loyalty rewards - I'll be happy. Can't stop subscription anyway, because of crafting bag.

Jake1576

CaineCarver wrote: »

With all the controversy lately surrounding loot boxes in the news and all the players who think they are "evil" Gambling devices I find myself looking at how games are funding themselves and the future of games. With the current free play models, there are several problems that I fear hurt the future of MMOs in particular. With players demanding free to play (even complaining about buy to play products like ESO / Morrowind) game companies find themselves needing to provide hosting for players that may or may not buy content to support needed hardware. One need only experience the holiday server overloads to realize companies are trying to balance huge numbers of extra casual players with costs (this is true in all games buy much more so in free to play products).

In addition to the costs of supporting the extra hardware for free players, companies are forced to race new content to market as they depend on DLC and cosmetic sales for income (some even fall to the temptation of pay to win items). This means they can not afford staff and resources to fix bugs and improve current systems the way they did in the older subscription game days. Overall the free play games are having a hard time keeping quality to the standards of the past.

With all of these struggles, many game studios are hesitant to take on new MMOs. The number of potential games out there in various stages of "go fund me" has skyrocketed in the last few years. Yes, we have more titles to choose from but most of them are just "reskins" over the same engines with only cosmetic and theme changes. Companies try to squeeze more and more out of the work by simply tossing another free to play version on the market. The current marketing play models realize the current gamers as a whole are hopping from one free to play product to the next. Players are spending months instead of years in a game as they chase the easy "high" of learning and leveling "fun" instead of the "grind" needed to max and master end game content. The hope is to catch more casual players that might spend some money on DLCs or cosmetics. Making long-term investments and development a gamble for even the best studios. As a whole, the one and done stand alone and online version box games are much safer investments than MMO persistent games.

In my opinion, the future of MMOs is not looking stellar unless we convince the player base there is no such thing as a free lunch and the game companies start standing their ground on subscriptions. What do you think?

I wished they would go back to this model where subscription was required it would probably get rid of the bots if they did

Malthorne

$100+ premade exclusive houses, $40 exclusive mounts, Crown Crates and the whales to buy it all up ...they aren’t going back to subscription. I’m willing to bet the suits at ZOS wish ESO launched with the current business model

Kalifas

Yeah they should but they won't due to more money this way now.

When ESO first went B2P I ranked it as one of the best buy to play model around. But I left when they started locking more and more things behind the sub, I thought it should go pure sub. GW2 has a way better B2P now.

Now I just dabble in the game here and there. I would sub to the game personally if I didn't have to deal with the microtransactions. Not happening, more money for them this way.

pdebie64b16_ESO

Geroken777 wrote: »

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.

Iam a subscriber and stll have to pay real money for exclusive items from the crown store what cant be obtained from just playing the game.

Back in the day with sub games only you could get every item the game offered by just playing the game.

Alexandrious

Guys guys GUYS! It does not matter in the end.....we got Pantheon, Scam of creation....AiR....and bless.....though two of em will fail due to bad optimization issues cuz lolunreal3, one is a highly possible cash grab scam and one is designed for hardcore players.....but its ok, zenimax is putting all your monies into not fixing the game, but Fallout Online!

All The Kek

Alexandrious

LittlePinkDot 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.

The game is better on console. No hackers, and no garbage mouse and keyboard to cause carpel tunnel syndrome

Get proper equipment and learn proper routines and ya wont get carpal. Sounds like a money issue in your case. Meh.

Also, cheat engine isnt hacking.....

All The Kek

Geroken777

monktoasty wrote: »

Geroken777 wrote: »

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.

Wait..so removing microtransactions thus putting all content back in the game isn't an advantage?

I think the issue is consumers are coddled babies who want everything free now is the problem. You can't even charge 1 dollar for an app game or the majority will cry that it's not fair.

The debate between removing microtransactions and going back to sub-only mode is different. I've paid this game to get the full content, not to pay for future unwanted subscription.

Betsararie

Of course it should, Free to play games are an embarrassment.

Usually the only MMOs worth playing will be on a subscription pay 2 play format, but with this game being Elder Scrolls (one of the overall best video game series of all time), it's hard to pass up.

Granted, ZOS is providing the single best free to play experience I've ever seen, but the game would still be soo much better if it were based off the subscription format.

I would really want to see it return to a pay 2 play format ASAP, and personally don't care who leaves because of it.

bloodthirstyvampire

No credit card so no

gronoxvx

RebornV3x wrote: »

I wouldn't play this game if it was a mandatory sub this game has way to many technical issues

I think this is the main concern regarding this subject.

Ive been a ESO+ subber for nearly 2 years and in all honesty if it did go back to being subscription only then ZOS would need to GREATLY improve their quality assurance as it would be the main expectation for me (and im sure a lot of others as well). they would also need to also improve their consumer confidence so people would have confidence in ZOS and the quality of their product/service. Perfect example is MAW being broken on xbox for 6+ months, almost completely destroying the end-game raiding community. it took months of hassling on the forums and in game for them to even acknowledge it, which as we’ve all discussed/seen is completely unnacceptable.

I love the game and play it religiously (borderline addicted), but with the current issues with the game on xbox, i couldnt see myself playing it if was subscription only UNLESS Significant improvements in the game were made and guarantees were made by zos of the quality of their product.

.

coop500

TBH if they switched, it'd be unfair to every player who started because of the B2P model, you all are being extremely selfish.

jaschacasadiob16_ESO

I definitely would IF lore were enforced in the game. No need to get to RP.

WrathOfInnos

I don't think it could go back to sub. Many people bought the game as B2P and their would be (legitimate) outrage if it suddenly required a sub.

That being said, I don't understand how anyone can handle the level of inventory management that is required for non subscribers. I'm basically forced sub at this point, because the game would be more chore than fun without craft bag and double bank space.

Betsararie

coop500 wrote: »

TBH if they switched, it'd be unfair to every player who started because of the B2P model, you all are being extremely selfish.

To which I will rebut, MMOs were never supposed to be F2P to begin with (enough with the B2P bs, I picked this game up for $10.00 thinking I'd never even play it, it's effectively F2P.)

Since MMOs incur ongoing costs to keep the game running, the subscription model made sense because in theory it would pay to keep the game running while also providing adequate profits.

The issue is so many people couldn't grasp why paying an ongoing fee for a game would make sense when there were so many (worse) single player games around that are B2P, therefore B2P MMOs came to be.

They have always been, and always will be worse. That is how we end up with the Crown Store in the state it's in (Crown Crates?) as opposed to having meaningful content in game which gives those items as rewards. MMOs with subscription fees also have much better customer support and stability on average.

coop500

Blanco wrote: »

coop500 wrote: »

TBH if they switched, it'd be unfair to every player who started because of the B2P model, you all are being extremely selfish.

To which I will rebut, MMOs were never supposed to be F2P to begin with (enough with the B2P bs, I picked this game up for $10.00 thinking I'd never even play it, it's effectively F2P.)

Since MMOs incur ongoing costs to keep the game running, the subscription model made sense because in theory it would pay to keep the game running while also providing adequate profits.

The issue is so many people couldn't grasp why paying an ongoing fee for a game would make sense when there were so many (worse) single player games around that are B2P, therefore B2P MMOs came to be.

They have always been, and always will be worse. That is how we end up with the Crown Store in the state it's in (Crown Crates?) as opposed to having meaningful content in game which gives those items as rewards. MMOs with subscription fees also have much better customer support and stability on average.

So then it's okay for me to be robbed of over $100 because people want a mandatory sub? I paid for a B2P model, unlike you I bought the gold edition for $40, then Morrowind for another $40, then a handful of crown packs for DLCs and two months of ESO +. I tried to hold my fingers (not tongue because ya know) but this is getting out of hand. I and everyone else deserve what they were promised and now suddenly have it where now we must pay MORE money than promised?

Yes I know, people from launch will whine and say 'b-but we were promised a mandatory sub model!' The difference is, you now pay less money to play the game, while you want us to pay MORE money.

KingMagaw

It already is engineered to anyway. Any daily player, for any QoL will sub for craft bag. This was designed this way. All the additional items and restricted space makes it so.

As it is designed so now, no reason to change it. That is why there is no storage in housing and only bank space was doubled since the game was launched.

JWKe

That'll be a slap in the face for us players who came to Zo$ aid when they were down on their luck. Besides, even when ESO had a sub they took forever to even fix things.

WhiteCoatSyndrome

I don't suppose there's any precedence for grandfathering existing B2P players in while requiring future customers to sub?

coop500

WhiteCoatSyndrome wrote: »

I don't suppose there's any precedence for grandfathering existing B2P players in while requiring future customers to sub?

That would only be the fair way to do it if they MUST go needed sub, otherwise it's just plain robbery.

Betsararie

coop500 wrote: »

Blanco wrote: »

coop500 wrote: »

TBH if they switched, it'd be unfair to every player who started because of the B2P model, you all are being extremely selfish.

To which I will rebut, MMOs were never supposed to be F2P to begin with (enough with the B2P bs, I picked this game up for $10.00 thinking I'd never even play it, it's effectively F2P.)

Since MMOs incur ongoing costs to keep the game running, the subscription model made sense because in theory it would pay to keep the game running while also providing adequate profits.

The issue is so many people couldn't grasp why paying an ongoing fee for a game would make sense when there were so many (worse) single player games around that are B2P, therefore B2P MMOs came to be.

They have always been, and always will be worse. That is how we end up with the Crown Store in the state it's in (Crown Crates?) as opposed to having meaningful content in game which gives those items as rewards. MMOs with subscription fees also have much better customer support and stability on average.

So then it's okay for me to be robbed of over $100 because people want a mandatory sub? I paid for a B2P model, unlike you I bought the gold edition for $40, then Morrowind for another $40, then a handful of crown packs for DLCs and two months of ESO +. I tried to hold my fingers (not tongue because ya know) but this is getting out of hand.

I think what's even more interesting is that you're willing to pay 20k crowns for a unicorn, but are worried about $100 over the course of a year.

You wouldn't have had to buy any of that DLC if you would've just subbed to ESO+, and you would also have had massively imrpoved QoL in the game if you would've subbed. I've actually bought all the dlc up to CWC even though I've been subbed essentially since I've started played, and I bought Morrowind at release as well. I'm right there with you, I support the game as well and also buy crowns etc if I so choose.

But what I'm more saying is literally every aspect of the game in terms of performance and gameplay would be improved if we returned to a subscription based model, so I would very much like to see that happen. Your gameplay experience would be greatly improved as well if you'd sub under the current model, or if the game were returned to a subscription based model and you stayed onboard.