End of net neutrality will kill f2p/b2p

LegacyDM

I'll keep this simple.

ISPs will now charge content providers (ZOS in this case) more money to offer current services to their customers. Content providers will pass on increased costs to the customer. However, since this game relies on crown store and paid chapter products and not subscriptions, ZOS has a problem. Crown prices are already as high as customers are willing to pay, and chapters are expensive as is, soooooo where will they get the money to stay profitable with increased operating costs?

Didn't think net neutrality repeal would affect you or online gaming? Think again. As long as the repeal to neutrality is here to stay I see a revival in subscription based gaming for the desktop computer gaming market.

Good luck ZOS.

newtinmpls

I liked the sub model better anyway.

mirta000b16_ESO

correction, if ZoS refuses to pay to ISPs to not to throttle their product, it will only affect USA. The rest of the world is perfectly fine.
A lot of game providers, including F2P games, will pay though as the industry is very profitable. NA might see increased prices to compensate.
That and if you have ever lived on throttled internet, you will know that videos by far will be the worst, but online gaming requires relatively little packets to pass backwards and forwards so lag isn't that terrible.

Glurin

LegacyDM wrote: »

I'll keep this simple.

Alrighty then. So will I.

LegacyDM wrote: »

ISPs will now charge content providers (ZOS in this case) more money to offer current services to their customers.

No, they won't. At least not because of "the end of net neutrality". Just not good business. They might do it to cover operating costs and such though.

LegacyDM wrote: »

Content providers will pass on increased costs to the customer.

Yeah. Always have, always will. They can't stay in business (ie. provide content) otherwise. Nobody could. Well, except the government, but even they get bitten in the ass by it eventually.

LegacyDM wrote: »

However, since this game relies on crown store and paid chapter products and not subscriptions, ZOS has a problem.

None that they didn't have before.

LegacyDM wrote: »

Crown prices are already as high as customers are willing to pay, and chapters are expensive as is, soooooo where will they get the money to stay profitable with increased operating costs?

By offering more and better content in exchange for a sum of money like everybody else in a capitalist society?

LegacyDM wrote: »

Didn't think net neutrality repeal would affect you or online gaming? Think again. As long as the repeal to neutrality is here to stay I see a revival in subscription based gaming for the desktop computer gaming market.

Subscription based gaming came about because of good economic times when lots of people had lots of disposable income. Likewise, F2P became a growing trend because of bad economic times when people no longer had much disposable income. It had nothing whatsoever to do with net neutrality.

Hate to break it to you, but net neutrality has a fatal flaw. The spirit of net neutrality is fine, but it can't be enforced without violating that spirit. Look at it this way. You're wanting to keep the internet free of corrupted influences by handing control over to what is hands down the most corrupt and selfish type of entity on the planet. (Fox guarding the hen house comes to mind.) It's just not going to work the way you want it to and it's a good thing to get repealed before any damage is done.

ADarklore

Oh look, the 'doom and gloom' community has started. In reality, online games utilize VERY LITTLE bandwidth... it's the streaming community that should be concerned... anyone who streams movies might see an increase.

Prof_Bawbag

LegacyDM wrote: »

I'll keep this simple.

ISPs will now charge content providers (ZOS in this case) more money to offer current services to their customers. Content providers will pass on increased costs to the customer. However, since this game relies on crown store and paid chapter products and not subscriptions, ZOS has a problem. Crown prices are already as high as customers are willing to pay, and chapters are expensive as is, soooooo where will they get the money to stay profitable with increased operating costs?

Didn't think net neutrality repeal would affect you or online gaming? Think again. As long as the repeal to neutrality is here to stay I see a revival in subscription based gaming for the desktop computer gaming market.

Good luck ZOS.

I'm glad you think so. There are plenty of people on here that would defend any sort of price increase and claim they'd happily throw more money at ZoS for things that even aren't in the pipeline. Don't underestimate the eagerness of the modern day gamer to part with their cash for any old and all shite.

JamieAubrey

I dont care I live in the UK

MLGProPlayer

What if game devs just stopped selling games in the US?

Jade1986

Well that's what happens when ppl bote potatoes into office. Feel bad for those who didn't , but for those who did or didn't vote, no sympathy: Shrug ::

Reverb

I'm far more concerned about the impact on my Netflix subscription than I am my gaming future.

Mephilis78

LegacyDM wrote: »

I'll keep this simple.

ISPs will now charge content providers (ZOS in this case) more money to offer current services to their customers. Content providers will pass on increased costs to the customer. However, since this game relies on crown store and paid chapter products and not subscriptions, ZOS has a problem. Crown prices are already as high as customers are willing to pay, and chapters are expensive as is, soooooo where will they get the money to stay profitable with increased operating costs?

Didn't think net neutrality repeal would affect you or online gaming? Think again. As long as the repeal to neutrality is here to stay I see a revival in subscription based gaming for the desktop computer gaming market.

Good luck ZOS.

So repealing a regulation=forcing all ISPs to throttle.
Got it. CNN is my god, and MSNBC is my savior.

Quit smoking crack

Narvuntien

The growth in F2P and B2P is mostly not from the USA. It is from the developing countries.... people that don't have large savings or incomes but doing well enough to splash some cash into entertainment from time to time.

The PSN and XBox live already have closed internets and the game works just fine as well.

The biggest issue is cable companies crushing start ups.. and new games, particularly those not backed by steam.

Basically instead of new people coming up with a new idea putting it into action and getting word of mouth support, where people will start using thier product because its good. Everything would have to be supplied by the large companies that can afford to negociate with the cable companies and smaller start ups will have to sell themselves to them first.

Steam, Facebook, Amazon, Google... etc. will control the internet and gaming. (more than they already do) They will be come gatekeepers of content.

Jade1986

Narvuntien wrote: »

The growth in F2P and B2P is mostly not from the USA. It is from the developing countries.... people that don't have large savings or incomes but doing well enough to splash some cash into entertainment from time to time.

The PSN and XBox live already have closed internets and the game works just fine as well.

The biggest issue is cable companies crushing start ups.. and new games, particularly those not backed by steam.

Basically instead of new people coming up with a new idea putting it into action and getting word of mouth support, where people will start using thier product because its good. Everything would have to be supplied by the large companies that can afford to negociate with the cable companies and smaller start ups will have to sell themselves to them first.

Steam, Facebook, Amazon, Google... etc. will control the internet and gaming. (more than they already do) They will be come gatekeepers of content.

Thank the eight I live in Germany. Where crowd funded things are encouraged.

mirta000b16_ESO

Jade1986 wrote: »

Well that's what happens when ppl bote potatoes into office. Feel bad for those who didn't , but for those who did or didn't vote, no sympathy: Shrug ::

This did not go through the congress. There were exactly 5 people that got to vote on this and it is effective immediately until supreme court considers it.

Jade1986

mirta000b16_ESO wrote: »

Jade1986 wrote: »

Well that's what happens when ppl bote potatoes into office. Feel bad for those who didn't , but for those who did or didn't vote, no sympathy: Shrug ::

This did not go through the congress. There were exactly 5 people that got to vote on this and it is effective immediately until supreme court considers it.

Well hopefully they strike it down. But sounds like the work of q potato to me. Congress be damned, my word is final.

Sleep724

There was no net neutrality before 2015 and the internet grew just fine.

mirta000b16_ESO

Jade1986 wrote: »

Well hopefully they strike it down. But sounds like the work of q potato to me. Congress be damned, my word is final.

The point was, I don't think people can vote in FCC members. Which is why the American system is so confusing.
The voting was corrupt, 800 000 signatures from dead people were found on FCC website to make the voting go ahead in the first place, if it was literally any other place in the world a) these people would have been arrested rather than let to vote for the corruption and b) it would go through the proper channels and would not be decided by 5 people alone, nor would it be effective immediately.

Jade1986

mirta000b16_ESO wrote: »

Jade1986 wrote: »

Well hopefully they strike it down. But sounds like the work of q potato to me. Congress be damned, my word is final.

The point was, I don't think people can vote in FCC members. Which is why the American system is so confusing.
The voting was corrupt, 800 000 signatures from dead people were found on FCC website to make the voting go ahead in the first place, if it was literally any other place in the world a) these people would have been arrested rather than let to vote for the corruption and b) it would go through the proper channels and would not be decided by 5 people alone, nor would it be effective immediately.

Wow. I repeat. Thank the eight I live in Germany.

Zagnut123Zagnut123

Glurin wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

I'll keep this simple.

Alrighty then. So will I.

LegacyDM wrote: »

ISPs will now charge content providers (ZOS in this case) more money to offer current services to their customers.

No, they won't. At least not because of "the end of net neutrality". Just not good business. They might do it to cover operating costs and such though.

LegacyDM wrote: »

Content providers will pass on increased costs to the customer.

Yeah. Always have, always will. They can't stay in business (ie. provide content) otherwise. Nobody could. Well, except the government, but even they get bitten in the ass by it eventually.

LegacyDM wrote: »

However, since this game relies on crown store and paid chapter products and not subscriptions, ZOS has a problem.

None that they didn't have before.

LegacyDM wrote: »

Crown prices are already as high as customers are willing to pay, and chapters are expensive as is, soooooo where will they get the money to stay profitable with increased operating costs?

By offering more and better content in exchange for a sum of money like everybody else in a capitalist society?

LegacyDM wrote: »

Didn't think net neutrality repeal would affect you or online gaming? Think again. As long as the repeal to neutrality is here to stay I see a revival in subscription based gaming for the desktop computer gaming market.

Subscription based gaming came about because of good economic times when lots of people had lots of disposable income. Likewise, F2P became a growing trend because of bad economic times when people no longer had much disposable income. It had nothing whatsoever to do with net neutrality.

Hate to break it to you, but net neutrality has a fatal flaw. The spirit of net neutrality is fine, but it can't be enforced without violating that spirit. Look at it this way. You're wanting to keep the internet free of corrupted influences by handing control over to what is hands down the most corrupt and selfish type of entity on the planet. (Fox guarding the hen house comes to mind.) It's just not going to work the way you want it to and it's a good thing to get repealed before any damage is done.

Removing it helps protect it how exactly? I think of Australia's *** as internet with this repeal and soon we will be there. This repeal in no way benefits consumers it's ludacris to think it could ever. The infrastructure wasn't even a private company built idea they received for free from the government that paid for it with taxes from all of us, in fact my isp uses government laid fiber lines. So why exactly do they need to be able to nickel and dime us even more?

Easily_Lost

Reverb wrote: »

I'm far more concerned about the impact on my Netflix subscription than I am my gaming future.

^^ This ^^

DPShiro

mirta000b16_ESO wrote: »

it will only affect USA. The rest of the world is perfectly fine.

This^

Dasovaruilos

ESO uses very little bandwidth compared to other services.

Even in intense play, I hardly break 150 MB use per hour.

The ones that will suffer will be YouTubes and Netflixes that uses way more bandwidth.

mirta000b16_ESO

Glurin wrote: »

Hate to break it to you, but net neutrality has a fatal flaw. The spirit of net neutrality is fine, but it can't be enforced without violating that spirit. Look at it this way. You're wanting to keep the internet free of corrupted influences by handing control over to what is hands down the most corrupt and selfish type of entity on the planet. (Fox guarding the hen house comes to mind.) It's just not going to work the way you want it to and it's a good thing to get repealed before any damage is done.

Net neutrality simply did not let you throttle one site in favour of another. UK has their own version of "net neutrality" and you can throttle individual customers based on what they pay and what package they get, but you can not throttle individual sites.

This is if anything anti competition and a way to get more money for ISPs. Simply you contact all popular sites and go "you pay us monthly or we throttle our customer's access to your site". Now monopolies will pay (Google, facebook, steam, etc), smaller companies will not be able to afford to pay, meaning a monopoly is kept a monopoly.

On the upside, for some reason local governments can block this law in their own states, so so far Kentucky, Washington and New York are keeping Net Neutrality (meaning companies can not throttle specific sites when providing service to those states). There's a chance that more states will join later.

Zagnut123Zagnut123

mirta000b16_ESO wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

Hate to break it to you, but net neutrality has a fatal flaw. The spirit of net neutrality is fine, but it can't be enforced without violating that spirit. Look at it this way. You're wanting to keep the internet free of corrupted influences by handing control over to what is hands down the most corrupt and selfish type of entity on the planet. (Fox guarding the hen house comes to mind.) It's just not going to work the way you want it to and it's a good thing to get repealed before any damage is done.

Net neutrality simply did not let you throttle one site in favour of another. UK has their own version of "net neutrality" and you can throttle individual customers based on what they pay and what package they get, but you can not throttle individual sites.

This is if anything anti competition and a way to get more money for ISPs. Simply you contact all popular sites and go "you pay us monthly or we throttle our customer's access to your site". Now monopolies will pay (Google, facebook, steam, etc), smaller companies will not be able to afford to pay, meaning a monopoly is kept a monopoly.

On the upside, for some reason local governments can block this law in their own states, so so far Kentucky, Washington and New York are keeping Net Neutrality (meaning companies can not throttle specific sites when providing service to those states). There's a chance that more states will join later.

I'm so happy I'm in Washington right now. I feel for the impending frustration anyone will have tho.

Samadhi

mirta000b16_ESO wrote: »

correction, if ZoS refuses to pay to ISPs to not to throttle their product, it will only affect USA. The rest of the world is perfectly fine.
...

How will NA server players be affected with a server in Texas
with all infrastructure accessing the server being throttled

Am a simpleton, not clear on how this impacts things; just remember part of the net neutrality discussion was involving a requirement for ISPs not to inhibit traffic through their network
for individuals who weren't paying directly for their network

mirta000b16_ESO wrote: »

...
That and if you have ever lived on throttled internet, you will know that videos by far will be the worst, but online gaming requires relatively little packets to pass backwards and forwards so lag isn't that terrible.

This is both true and false
videos take up an enormous amount of traffic by comparison,
but when my connection used to get throttled in the evenings
ESO was the most impacted program, because ESO used a port range typically associated with torrent programs
thus was given lower priority
at which point, the game would become unplayable (not just in Cyrodiil) for a few hours at prime time every evening until the ISP turned the throttling back off

tho maybe we will see less large and involved DLC packages to keep actual download sizes and times for patches down

Glurin

Reverb wrote: »

I'm far more concerned about the impact on my Netflix subscription than I am my gaming future.

I wouldn't be too concerned about it on the net neutrality standpoint. The number one problem facing streaming video service is bandwidth limitations, which is something that exists regardless of whether or not net neutrality is a thing.

Here's what happens, and I'll try to keep this in laymen terms as much as I can for the benefit of anyone reading this who may not be so technology literate.

ISPs provide service to your area via a pipe. (Yes it's actually called a pipe.) You can think of it just like you would a water pipe running to your house. The bigger the pipe, the more water that can go through at any given time. The pipe can only handle a certain amount of water flow but since not everyone is using it at once most of the time it's usually not a problem. Then someone in your family takes a long shower. (This would be the Netflix user.)

For 30 minutes a day, he's constantly using a certain amount of water flow from the pipe. Then others in your family realize that they too are a bit stinky and decide to take some long showers. (We'll just pretend you've got like fifty bathrooms in your house.) As they use it at the same time, they collectively use up more and more of the available flow of water until they are trying to use more than the pipe can handle.

What happens? The flow of water to each individual person slows down because more people are trying to pull from the main pipe at the same time. The people in the shower are most likely to notice this first since they're basically using more water in a constant stream for an extended period of time than someone filling a cooking pot or something.

Now here's where things start getting really interesting. The people taking showers have decided to blame the ISP and conjured up a conspiracy about the ISP deliberately slowing down the flow of water to the showers specifically. Why? Because for some inexplicable reason, ISPs don't want people to take showers. In reality, it's an infrastructure problem that isn't going to go away without serious investment from the ISP to install bigger and more efficient pipes.

For their part, the ISP tries to hid the fact that they can't provide the needed bandwidth by imposing water limits (data caps) and spreading misinformation that there's only so much water to go around. "If we don't impose limits", they say, "somebody might use up all the water and there won't be any for anyone else." But this is also falsehood because in this case there is an infinite supply of water. The problem is, again, too many people trying to pull more water from the pipe at the same time than the pipe can handle.

So basically it's one, gigantic, monumental mess with both the ISPs and the net neutrality advocates leveling a lot of false accusations and misinformation at each other. Meanwhile there's a bunch of bureaucrats salivating at the idea of getting their greedy claws into the internet under the guise of protecting it from those evil corporations looking to exploit it for their own gain. If history has taught us anything about that group, it's that if you give them an inch, they'll take five thousand miles. And your shoes. As such, it's generally a really stupid idea to give them anything.

Tan9oSuccka

Mephilis78 wrote: »

LegacyDM wrote: »

I'll keep this simple.

ISPs will now charge content providers (ZOS in this case) more money to offer current services to their customers. Content providers will pass on increased costs to the customer. However, since this game relies on crown store and paid chapter products and not subscriptions, ZOS has a problem. Crown prices are already as high as customers are willing to pay, and chapters are expensive as is, soooooo where will they get the money to stay profitable with increased operating costs?

Didn't think net neutrality repeal would affect you or online gaming? Think again. As long as the repeal to neutrality is here to stay I see a revival in subscription based gaming for the desktop computer gaming market.

Good luck ZOS.

So repealing a regulation=forcing all ISPs to throttle.
Got it. CNN is my god, and MSNBC is my savior.

Quit smoking crack

Yes, yes. Expecting large ISP’s do the right thing is always a given. Please.

You corporate shills are in for a nice surprise. Not initially....but just wait.

mirta000b16_ESO

Glurin wrote: »

Now here's where things start getting really interesting. The people taking showers have decided to blame the ISP and conjured up a conspiracy about the ISP deliberately slowing down the flow of water to the showers specifically. Why? Because for some inexplicable reason, ISPs don't want people to take showers. In reality, it's an infrastructure problem that isn't going to go away without serious investment from the ISP to install bigger and more efficient pipes.

Except that with net neutrality you can still throttle, but you would be throttling individual households and not specific connections to specific sites. Now the whole big mess is, they can for example, throttle connections specifically trying to connect to netflix, unless netflix pays up.

Slick_007

Im not entirely convinced the end of net neutrality is a bad thing. Sure, it sounds bad, and im sure some tosspots will take advantage of it. But then look at this from an ISP view.

ESO and other games come along, and other than a large download, they are pretty cool. No massive requirements, no peak bandwidth issues (generally). Games: ok

Netflix etc. Australia saw this effect and in some cases, still is. Netflix make money selling you a product. But the problem is, they want someone else to deliver their product, to you, for free. When you cant stream netflix because your isp doesnt suddently have 10x or more their existing bandwidth, do you complain to netflix? Nope. you went and complained to your ISP. Netflix and others are now generating calls to your ISP, which incurs costs to them. Your ISP as a result has to increase their bandwidth, and during peak hours, holy cow is that a massive increase required. And generally, they cant just buy this bandwidth during those hours. This is a massive cost to the ISP to support someone elses product. Should netflix have to pay something here?

Just a few thoughts. Im still trying to work out how, if at all, this will affect me. But is it a good thing? Could be.

Verbal_Earthworm

You voted Trump for president and Net Neutrality is all you're worried about?

Heh.

Jade1986

Verbal_Earthworm wrote: »

You voted Trump for president and Net Neutrality is all you're worried about?

Heh.

Truer words have never been spoken.