1500 crowns per outfit slot (1 slot) just under $1200 for every slot

Elsonso

Wayshuba wrote:

HungryMonkey007 wrote: »

However I would assume the outfit system costed a lot of money to develop so ZOS is going to recover that cost from the players that really want to use it. It seems out of balance with the price of the storage chests, but the storage chests is two fold. It makes owning a house more useful so might push some players towards purchasing one, and it is appealing to more players so they will sell more of them overall and will be able to recoup development costs faster. And the development cost of the storage chest system was probably peanuts compared to the complexity of outfit changes.

I personally believe ZoS's current CS pricing schema is losing them more money than it is making. As I mentioned above, how many people were going to buy slots and now are not versus those that bought them at 1500 Crowns. Let's say, for example, that for every person buying a slot at 1500 Crowns, 24 other people will not because of the price point. So ZoS made 1500 Crowns on it instead 8750 (if 25 people bought one slot at 350 Crowns). Which way made them more money?

By appearances, ZOS has come up with some manner of formula or levy that is placed on each feature that they create. It must contain a monetization method built into it. The players pay for each "free" base game feature they roll out. This makes the studio look money hungry, and it is rather tiring to see it, as a consumer. As a long-term consumer, that is.

I don't think they are all that interested in policies that retain long-term players. I think that long-term players are the minority in the game. (EDIT: From a revenue perspective, to be sure) The Outfit Slot pricing is obviously designed around short-term players, tourist players, who are wandering from game to game, or are taking a break from their normal game to vacation in Tamriel for a short time. Long term players see the massive price tag on the system, but tourists are likely to only buy one of them and that will be enough. Many tourists probably only have one character, so for them it is an account wide purchase. No biggie.

There is a reason why the term "tourist trap" was coined. I think that ESO is one.

OrdoHermetica

Yeah, at a certain point we get to the core design philosophy behind the game. For some studios, the focus is on making a good game, and making enough money to support that objective. For other studios, the focus is making money, and making a good enough game to support that objective.

ZOS is clearly in the latter category, at least in its current state. I still really enjoy this game, and I suspect I'll keep playing it for a while yet. But I also get the feeling that, when I do stop playing, it will be because I've found (or returned to) a game that is developed by a studio that takes the former approach. Mission-driven companies are definitely where I prefer to spend my money, in video games and in real life.

OlafdieWaldfee

Well, price-policy succeeded. I am giving WoW another shot after all these years.

Elsonso

OlafdieWaldfee wrote: »

Well, price-policy succeeded. I am giving WoW another shot after all these years.

I have been considering a return to WoW when my ESO Plus expires. Normally, I would be excited for information about the Chapter this year, but I find myself being more apprehensive than excited. Morrowind was over-priced for what we got, and I figure that ZOS heard that Morrowind was not "full enough". That means Chapter 2 will cost me more. If it doesn't have a higher purchase cost, it will be loaded down with Crown Store "opportunities" to make up the difference.

With WoW, I don't have to figure the marketing angles to decide how to proceed. I just pay the subscription, then sit back and enjoy the game. Harder to do that with ESO.

Morgha_Kul

OrdoHermetica wrote: »

Yeah, at a certain point we get to the core design philosophy behind the game. For some studios, the focus is on making a good game, and making enough money to support that objective. For other studios, the focus is making money, and making a good enough game to support that objective.

ZOS is clearly in the latter category, at least in its current state. I still really enjoy this game, and I suspect I'll keep playing it for a while yet. But I also get the feeling that, when I do stop playing, it will be because I've found (or returned to) a game that is developed by a studio that takes the former approach. Mission-driven companies are definitely where I prefer to spend my money, in video games and in real life.

Well said, but unfortunately MOST studios these days are more interested in making the money than in making a good game to make the money. It's the churn model in action. Theme park instead of sandbox.

Honestly, it's why I often find myself going back to older games, even single player, like Vampire Bloodlines or ESIII: Morrowind.

I've said it before. I've said it HERE before. The microtransactions model is a deathknell for any game. The decline is inevitable. It happens at different rates for different games, but it ALWAYS happens. I hate being right.

OrdoHermetica

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

I've said it before. I've said it HERE before. The microtransactions model is a deathknell for any game. The decline is inevitable. It happens at different rates for different games, but it ALWAYS happens. I hate being right.

I disagree that the micro-transactions model is always a death knell for a game. I think this particular model is not feasible in the long term, but in my experience you absolutely can balance micro-transactions against mission-based design (i.e. using micro-transactions to support the game, not the the other way around).

Planetside 2, for example. It's an MMOFPS vs. MMORPG, granted, but from a monetization perspective they're similar enough for comparison. So, Planetside 2 is 5 years old at this point - 6 years old if you count the open beta - and still going strong, despite being sold to a different studio and going through major staffing cutbacks. Despite Daybreak's often dubious business decisions, I think the reason it's doing well enough to continuously release new content and address community feedback in balance passes is because it's mission driven.

It's truly free-to-play, and you can unlock every weapon, upgrade, and class skill in-game without that much grinding, especially compared to other F2P games. Subscriptions are optional, and like ESO offer slightly faster progression and a monthly allotment of cash store currency. And while it does have a cash store, that cash store is reasonably priced, not exclusionary, and completely and truly optional - you can enjoy the game just fine without ever using it or even looking at it. The only things that are cash store exclusive are novelty "weapons" (New Year's fireworks launchers, for example) and unique weapon, vehicle, and armor skins, and although you can buy weapons with cash rather than unlocking them in-game, you still have to level them up by using them, just like everyone else. They've been very careful to avoid anything even remotely resembling pay-to-win, and it shows.

But to reiterate the "reasonably priced" thing, here's an example: if you want to buy a fancy new gun without unlocking it normally, it's going to cost you about $7. Super fancy deluxe limited release skins of the same gun (identical stats-wise, though) might run for double that, or MAYBE $20 at the high end. The gun itself will represent a solid 20+ hours of gameplay for most people as they unlock upgrades for it, try it out in combination with other gear setups, etc. and remains genuinely useful for as long as you continue to play the game. With a few exceptions (because balancing games is hard), there are no useless weapons in the game. Every single weapon has an area where it's at least decent, if not outright exceptional, including starting weapons. This means that people who participate in micro-transactions have no actual advantage over those who don't; skill and experience are what ultimately count.

So, substantial, enduring quality content for, on average, $7. Compared to what you can get for $7 in the Crown store, well... it becomes pretty clear pretty quick that the Crown store is significantly overpriced for what it offers. Oh, and also, major releases, like new continents or new systems? Those are all completely free, vs. the cost of DLC or Chapters in ESO.

Planetside 2 isn't without its problems by any means, but you know what? I never resent paying them money, because I know my enjoyment of their game doesn't hinge on it in the slightest, and I keep coming back to it because I honestly feel valued as a customer. I can't quite say the same about ESO. And that's a huge difference.

Ydrisselle

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

OrdoHermetica wrote: »

Yeah, at a certain point we get to the core design philosophy behind the game. For some studios, the focus is on making a good game, and making enough money to support that objective. For other studios, the focus is making money, and making a good enough game to support that objective.

ZOS is clearly in the latter category, at least in its current state. I still really enjoy this game, and I suspect I'll keep playing it for a while yet. But I also get the feeling that, when I do stop playing, it will be because I've found (or returned to) a game that is developed by a studio that takes the former approach. Mission-driven companies are definitely where I prefer to spend my money, in video games and in real life.

Well said, but unfortunately MOST studios these days are more interested in making the money than in making a good game to make the money. It's the churn model in action. Theme park instead of sandbox.

Honestly, it's why I often find myself going back to older games, even single player, like Vampire Bloodlines or ESIII: Morrowind.

I've said it before. I've said it HERE before. The microtransactions model is a deathknell for any game. The decline is inevitable. It happens at different rates for different games, but it ALWAYS happens. I hate being right.

I disagree with you. Star Trek Online is stronger than ever and it's switched to a microtransaction model long ago. They have just enough free content to make the store not so bad. And that model can be done right, my favourite example is Atlas Reactor (although the game itself has way too few players, their model itself is quite generous).

Morgul667

I still believe those price are crazyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Donari

I've noted this thread is moving more slowly now. Which is only natural, the very strong points it's made about the egregious pricing of the slots have been well hammered home.

I would just like to point out to ZoS that the ebb in new posts complaining about this is not due to people giving up and accepting the price. It's due to people not wanting to reiterate a definitively stated position ad nauseam.

Hopefully the 1500 crown character bound slots will sell so poorly that the ZoS suits will have to agree they erred (and will understand it's due to the price, not to disinterest in the slots). I don't blame the devs at all, I'm fairly sure they are as appalled by this marketing as the rest of us, they just don't have marketing authority.

edit: Spelling error someone else pointed out, oops! Sadly the error is preserved in quotes below.

QuebraRegra

Dracane wrote: »

You can freely edit your existing outfit slot over and over.
I said it once before, but you really only need that 1 default slot. Make an outfit that you like, wear it to death and edit it if it begins to bore you. I don't see any use for more outfit slots, unless you are very lazy.

wait... you can re-edit an outfit for FREE!?!?!? I was holding off because I thought it would be "carved in stone".

verify?

Anthony_Arndt

QuebraRegra wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

You can freely edit your existing outfit slot over and over.
I said it once before, but you really only need that 1 default slot. Make an outfit that you like, wear it to death and edit it if it begins to bore you. I don't see any use for more outfit slots, unless you are very lazy.

wait... you can re-edit an outfit for FREE!?!?!? I was holding off because I thought it would be "carved in stone".

verify?

No. Every time you add or change an item, it costs gold relative to the quality and rarity of the item. Every time you change the colour, it costs gold. It might only cost a few thousand gold, or 20-30k, but it still costs gold every time you change anything.

WhiteCoatSyndrome

Donari wrote: »

I would just like to point out to ZoS that the ebb in new posts complaining about this is not due to people giving up and accepting the price. It's due to people not wanting to reiterate a definitively stated position ad nauseum.

Very much this.

Esha76

WhiteCoatSyndrome wrote: »

Donari wrote: »

I would just like to point out to ZoS that the ebb in new posts complaining about this is not due to people giving up and accepting the price. It's due to people not wanting to reiterate a definitively stated position ad nauseum.

Very much this.

Same.

I have not, and will not, bend on this. I will never buy these outfit slots in their current state. And I've expressed my point clearly, multiple times, in this thread and in other avenues to ZOS... That's the only reason I haven't said anything else. Until now to agree with these statements.

Morgul667

Esha76 wrote: »

WhiteCoatSyndrome wrote: »

Donari wrote: »

I would just like to point out to ZoS that the ebb in new posts complaining about this is not due to people giving up and accepting the price. It's due to people not wanting to reiterate a definitively stated position ad nauseum.

Very much this.

Same.

I have not, and will not, bend on this. I will never buy these outfit slots in their current state. And I've expressed my point clearly, multiple times, in this thread and in other avenues to ZOS... That's the only reason I haven't said anything else. Until now to agree with these statements.

Same here, only reason this thread is falling down is that the hype for outfit is gone (no outfit event can make up for it)

Wont buy a slot for sure and i'm not using the system, not by rage but by disappointment

Morgha_Kul

OrdoHermetica wrote: »

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

I've said it before. I've said it HERE before. The microtransactions model is a deathknell for any game. The decline is inevitable. It happens at different rates for different games, but it ALWAYS happens. I hate being right.

I disagree that the micro-transactions model is always a death knell for a game. I think this particular model is not feasible in the long term, but in my experience you absolutely can balance micro-transactions against mission-based design (i.e. using micro-transactions to support the game, not the the other way around).

Planetside 2, for example. It's an MMOFPS vs. MMORPG, granted, but from a monetization perspective they're similar enough for comparison. So, Planetside 2 is 5 years old at this point - 6 years old if you count the open beta - and still going strong, despite being sold to a different studio and going through major staffing cutbacks. Despite Daybreak's often dubious business decisions, I think the reason it's doing well enough to continuously release new content and address community feedback in balance passes is because it's mission driven.

It's truly free-to-play, and you can unlock every weapon, upgrade, and class skill in-game without that much grinding, especially compared to other F2P games. Subscriptions are optional, and like ESO offer slightly faster progression and a monthly allotment of cash store currency. And while it does have a cash store, that cash store is reasonably priced, not exclusionary, and completely and truly optional - you can enjoy the game just fine without ever using it or even looking at it. The only things that are cash store exclusive are novelty "weapons" (New Year's fireworks launchers, for example) and unique weapon, vehicle, and armor skins, and although you can buy weapons with cash rather than unlocking them in-game, you still have to level them up by using them, just like everyone else. They've been very careful to avoid anything even remotely resembling pay-to-win, and it shows.

But to reiterate the "reasonably priced" thing, here's an example: if you want to buy a fancy new gun without unlocking it normally, it's going to cost you about $7. Super fancy deluxe limited release skins of the same gun (identical stats-wise, though) might run for double that, or MAYBE $20 at the high end. The gun itself will represent a solid 20+ hours of gameplay for most people as they unlock upgrades for it, try it out in combination with other gear setups, etc. and remains genuinely useful for as long as you continue to play the game. With a few exceptions (because balancing games is hard), there are no useless weapons in the game. Every single weapon has an area where it's at least decent, if not outright exceptional, including starting weapons. This means that people who participate in micro-transactions have no actual advantage over those who don't; skill and experience are what ultimately count.

So, substantial, enduring quality content for, on average, $7. Compared to what you can get for $7 in the Crown store, well... it becomes pretty clear pretty quick that the Crown store is significantly overpriced for what it offers. Oh, and also, major releases, like new continents or new systems? Those are all completely free, vs. the cost of DLC or Chapters in ESO.

Planetside 2 isn't without its problems by any means, but you know what? I never resent paying them money, because I know my enjoyment of their game doesn't hinge on it in the slightest, and I keep coming back to it because I honestly feel valued as a customer. I can't quite say the same about ESO. And that's a huge difference.

I can't say much about that game, as I don't know anything about it. However, you mention that there were cutbacks and layoffs. Not typical of a game that's flourishing. The real issue is that the game's decline has already started. As I said, it happens at different rates, but the pattern is always the same: Microtransactions are introduced, with the intention of being only cosmetic. The developers announce they will carefully balance the store and the game so neither suffers. Time passes, and non cosmetic things start to appear on the store, often under the banner of "convenience." More and more, the store gets all the development time, and the game itself gains less and less. In time, the game becomes completely stagnant, and all the development time is spent on the store. Champions Online has reached this point. Star Trek Online is close.

Ydrisselle wrote: »

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

OrdoHermetica wrote: »

Yeah, at a certain point we get to the core design philosophy behind the game. For some studios, the focus is on making a good game, and making enough money to support that objective. For other studios, the focus is making money, and making a good enough game to support that objective.

ZOS is clearly in the latter category, at least in its current state. I still really enjoy this game, and I suspect I'll keep playing it for a while yet. But I also get the feeling that, when I do stop playing, it will be because I've found (or returned to) a game that is developed by a studio that takes the former approach. Mission-driven companies are definitely where I prefer to spend my money, in video games and in real life.

Well said, but unfortunately MOST studios these days are more interested in making the money than in making a good game to make the money. It's the churn model in action. Theme park instead of sandbox.

Honestly, it's why I often find myself going back to older games, even single player, like Vampire Bloodlines or ESIII: Morrowind.

I've said it before. I've said it HERE before. The microtransactions model is a deathknell for any game. The decline is inevitable. It happens at different rates for different games, but it ALWAYS happens. I hate being right.

I disagree with you. Star Trek Online is stronger than ever and it's switched to a microtransaction model long ago. They have just enough free content to make the store not so bad. And that model can be done right, my favourite example is Atlas Reactor (although the game itself has way too few players, their model itself is quite generous).

Star Trek Online died years ago, and was necroed by Perfect World. Practically EVERYTHING in the game is about the store. Sure, I can play the game without using the store (and I do), but if I want a tier 6 ship (necessary for newer content, such as it is... minimal and uninspired), I have no choice but to go to the store. Want the classic Starship Enterprise from the TOS? Gambleboxes. Want pretty well ANYTHING of value in the game? Gambleboxes. That means buying keys from... the store.
Star Trek Online is Star Trek after the Ferengi conquered the galaxy.

OrdoHermetica

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

I can't say much about that game, as I don't know anything about it. However, you mention that there were cutbacks and layoffs. Not typical of a game that's flourishing. The real issue is that the game's decline has already started. As I said, it happens at different rates, but the pattern is always the same: Microtransactions are introduced, with the intention of being only cosmetic. The developers announce they will carefully balance the store and the game so neither suffers. Time passes, and non cosmetic things start to appear on the store, often under the banner of "convenience." More and more, the store gets all the development time, and the game itself gains less and less. In time, the game becomes completely stagnant, and all the development time is spent on the store. Champions Online has reached this point. Star Trek Online is close.

Actually, the cutbacks and layoffs had nothing to do with the game; the game itself was profitable and doing fine (which is why it wasn't axed like some of the other IPs when sold). It was a case of an underperforming studio in general, not the game doing poorly. In fact, its monetization scheme didn't become more predatory or aggressive after the sale and shrinking. If anything, it became more reasonable.

Also worth noting that the micro-transactions were there from the start, as it launched and was always intended to be a F2P game. I think that's an important distinction as well - it was designed with sustainability in mind. ESO's Crown Store really wasn't, I don't think, given that it was a late addition.

Kendaric

Ydrisselle wrote: »

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

OrdoHermetica wrote: »

Yeah, at a certain point we get to the core design philosophy behind the game. For some studios, the focus is on making a good game, and making enough money to support that objective. For other studios, the focus is making money, and making a good enough game to support that objective.

ZOS is clearly in the latter category, at least in its current state. I still really enjoy this game, and I suspect I'll keep playing it for a while yet. But I also get the feeling that, when I do stop playing, it will be because I've found (or returned to) a game that is developed by a studio that takes the former approach. Mission-driven companies are definitely where I prefer to spend my money, in video games and in real life.

Well said, but unfortunately MOST studios these days are more interested in making the money than in making a good game to make the money. It's the churn model in action. Theme park instead of sandbox.

Honestly, it's why I often find myself going back to older games, even single player, like Vampire Bloodlines or ESIII: Morrowind.

I've said it before. I've said it HERE before. The microtransactions model is a deathknell for any game. The decline is inevitable. It happens at different rates for different games, but it ALWAYS happens. I hate being right.

I disagree with you. Star Trek Online is stronger than ever and it's switched to a microtransaction model long ago. They have just enough free content to make the store not so bad. And that model can be done right, my favourite example is Atlas Reactor (although the game itself has way too few players, their model itself is quite generous).

STO allows players to gain their store currency by ingame means as well as buying it for cash. Sure, it's grindy as hell to do so but it's possible.

Wayshuba

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

As someone with some marketing and sales experience, you are well aware that models are developed based on quantitative and qualitative studies of consumer behaviour, and decisions are made according to a chosen goal.
Given that you don't know that goal and don't have any of the data, I wonder how you can say that the model is bad. It's pretty much like saying "they chose the wrong type of car" without knowing their budget, nor if hey intended to use that car for everyday town use, races or a roundtrip around the planet.

That you as a customer are not happy with the price of outfit slots is understandable (neither am I), but that doesn't mean it's a bad choice for the company.

As someone with almost 30 years marketing experience I can say two things:

1.) The majority of pricing set by companies is based on little data. Most is looking at what competitors are doing and taking a guess at what a company thinks it can get for it's products. This is how about 90% of company prices are set - by a wild guess.

2.) I have stated this before, even if you do go through the discipline of targeted marketing tests to determine optimal pricing, ZoS has not done that. These tests would not be secret as to do it would require it to be seen by customers.

That being said, let's take the specific example in hand. In almost all other MMOs that have costume/outfit slots, these are sold for $2-$4 ACCOUNT WIDE and also usually have an in game gold option to purchase. For example, in SWTOR an extra costume slot is 120CC (about $0.80) per character or 300CC (about $2.50) ACCOUNT WIDE or 30k credits. ZoS, knowing this, put the outfit slots at 350 Crowns on the PTS. When it went live, they increased it to 1500 Crowns.

So, given the data points I just covered, what magical data do you think they have that told them pricing something at 1800% more than standard market value was a good idea?

Morgul667

Wayshuba wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

As someone with some marketing and sales experience, you are well aware that models are developed based on quantitative and qualitative studies of consumer behaviour, and decisions are made according to a chosen goal.
Given that you don't know that goal and don't have any of the data, I wonder how you can say that the model is bad. It's pretty much like saying "they chose the wrong type of car" without knowing their budget, nor if hey intended to use that car for everyday town use, races or a roundtrip around the planet.

That you as a customer are not happy with the price of outfit slots is understandable (neither am I), but that doesn't mean it's a bad choice for the company.

As someone with almost 30 years marketing experience I can say two things:

1.) The majority of pricing set by companies is based on little data. Most is looking at what competitors are doing and taking a guess at what a company thinks it can get for it's products. This is how about 90% of company prices are set - by a wild guess.

2.) I have stated this before, even if you do go through the discipline of targeted marketing tests to determine optimal pricing, ZoS has not done that. These tests would not be secret as to do it would require it to be seen by customers.

That being said, let's take the specific example in hand. In almost all other MMOs that have costume/outfit slots, these are sold for $2-$4 and also usually have an in game gold option to purchase. For example, in SWTOR an extra costume slot is 400CC (about $2.50) or 30k credits. ZoS, knowing this, put the outfit slots at 350 Crowns on the PTS. When it went live, they increased it to 1500 Crowns.

So, given the data points I just covered, what magical data do you think they have that told them pricing something at 400% more than standard market value was a good idea?

They built hype, saw people enthusiasm and thought they could get away with crazy prices ?

Ydrisselle

Kendaric wrote: »

Ydrisselle wrote: »

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

OrdoHermetica wrote: »

Yeah, at a certain point we get to the core design philosophy behind the game. For some studios, the focus is on making a good game, and making enough money to support that objective. For other studios, the focus is making money, and making a good enough game to support that objective.

ZOS is clearly in the latter category, at least in its current state. I still really enjoy this game, and I suspect I'll keep playing it for a while yet. But I also get the feeling that, when I do stop playing, it will be because I've found (or returned to) a game that is developed by a studio that takes the former approach. Mission-driven companies are definitely where I prefer to spend my money, in video games and in real life.

Well said, but unfortunately MOST studios these days are more interested in making the money than in making a good game to make the money. It's the churn model in action. Theme park instead of sandbox.

Honestly, it's why I often find myself going back to older games, even single player, like Vampire Bloodlines or ESIII: Morrowind.

I've said it before. I've said it HERE before. The microtransactions model is a deathknell for any game. The decline is inevitable. It happens at different rates for different games, but it ALWAYS happens. I hate being right.

I disagree with you. Star Trek Online is stronger than ever and it's switched to a microtransaction model long ago. They have just enough free content to make the store not so bad. And that model can be done right, my favourite example is Atlas Reactor (although the game itself has way too few players, their model itself is quite generous).

STO allows players to gain their store currency by ingame means as well as buying it for cash. Sure, it's grindy as hell to do so but it's possible.

I know, I'm playing it way too long

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

OrdoHermetica wrote: »

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

I've said it before. I've said it HERE before. The microtransactions model is a deathknell for any game. The decline is inevitable. It happens at different rates for different games, but it ALWAYS happens. I hate being right.

I disagree that the micro-transactions model is always a death knell for a game. I think this particular model is not feasible in the long term, but in my experience you absolutely can balance micro-transactions against mission-based design (i.e. using micro-transactions to support the game, not the the other way around).

Planetside 2, for example. It's an MMOFPS vs. MMORPG, granted, but from a monetization perspective they're similar enough for comparison. So, Planetside 2 is 5 years old at this point - 6 years old if you count the open beta - and still going strong, despite being sold to a different studio and going through major staffing cutbacks. Despite Daybreak's often dubious business decisions, I think the reason it's doing well enough to continuously release new content and address community feedback in balance passes is because it's mission driven.

It's truly free-to-play, and you can unlock every weapon, upgrade, and class skill in-game without that much grinding, especially compared to other F2P games. Subscriptions are optional, and like ESO offer slightly faster progression and a monthly allotment of cash store currency. And while it does have a cash store, that cash store is reasonably priced, not exclusionary, and completely and truly optional - you can enjoy the game just fine without ever using it or even looking at it. The only things that are cash store exclusive are novelty "weapons" (New Year's fireworks launchers, for example) and unique weapon, vehicle, and armor skins, and although you can buy weapons with cash rather than unlocking them in-game, you still have to level them up by using them, just like everyone else. They've been very careful to avoid anything even remotely resembling pay-to-win, and it shows.

But to reiterate the "reasonably priced" thing, here's an example: if you want to buy a fancy new gun without unlocking it normally, it's going to cost you about $7. Super fancy deluxe limited release skins of the same gun (identical stats-wise, though) might run for double that, or MAYBE $20 at the high end. The gun itself will represent a solid 20+ hours of gameplay for most people as they unlock upgrades for it, try it out in combination with other gear setups, etc. and remains genuinely useful for as long as you continue to play the game. With a few exceptions (because balancing games is hard), there are no useless weapons in the game. Every single weapon has an area where it's at least decent, if not outright exceptional, including starting weapons. This means that people who participate in micro-transactions have no actual advantage over those who don't; skill and experience are what ultimately count.

So, substantial, enduring quality content for, on average, $7. Compared to what you can get for $7 in the Crown store, well... it becomes pretty clear pretty quick that the Crown store is significantly overpriced for what it offers. Oh, and also, major releases, like new continents or new systems? Those are all completely free, vs. the cost of DLC or Chapters in ESO.

Planetside 2 isn't without its problems by any means, but you know what? I never resent paying them money, because I know my enjoyment of their game doesn't hinge on it in the slightest, and I keep coming back to it because I honestly feel valued as a customer. I can't quite say the same about ESO. And that's a huge difference.

I can't say much about that game, as I don't know anything about it. However, you mention that there were cutbacks and layoffs. Not typical of a game that's flourishing. The real issue is that the game's decline has already started. As I said, it happens at different rates, but the pattern is always the same: Microtransactions are introduced, with the intention of being only cosmetic. The developers announce they will carefully balance the store and the game so neither suffers. Time passes, and non cosmetic things start to appear on the store, often under the banner of "convenience." More and more, the store gets all the development time, and the game itself gains less and less. In time, the game becomes completely stagnant, and all the development time is spent on the store. Champions Online has reached this point. Star Trek Online is close.

Ydrisselle wrote: »

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

OrdoHermetica wrote: »

Yeah, at a certain point we get to the core design philosophy behind the game. For some studios, the focus is on making a good game, and making enough money to support that objective. For other studios, the focus is making money, and making a good enough game to support that objective.

ZOS is clearly in the latter category, at least in its current state. I still really enjoy this game, and I suspect I'll keep playing it for a while yet. But I also get the feeling that, when I do stop playing, it will be because I've found (or returned to) a game that is developed by a studio that takes the former approach. Mission-driven companies are definitely where I prefer to spend my money, in video games and in real life.

Well said, but unfortunately MOST studios these days are more interested in making the money than in making a good game to make the money. It's the churn model in action. Theme park instead of sandbox.

Honestly, it's why I often find myself going back to older games, even single player, like Vampire Bloodlines or ESIII: Morrowind.

I've said it before. I've said it HERE before. The microtransactions model is a deathknell for any game. The decline is inevitable. It happens at different rates for different games, but it ALWAYS happens. I hate being right.

I disagree with you. Star Trek Online is stronger than ever and it's switched to a microtransaction model long ago. They have just enough free content to make the store not so bad. And that model can be done right, my favourite example is Atlas Reactor (although the game itself has way too few players, their model itself is quite generous).

Star Trek Online died years ago, and was necroed by Perfect World. Practically EVERYTHING in the game is about the store. Sure, I can play the game without using the store (and I do), but if I want a tier 6 ship (necessary for newer content, such as it is... minimal and uninspired), I have no choice but to go to the store. Want the classic Starship Enterprise from the TOS? Gambleboxes. Want pretty well ANYTHING of value in the game? Gambleboxes. That means buying keys from... the store.
Star Trek Online is Star Trek after the Ferengi conquered the galaxy.

You still can get at least 2 free T6 ships every year, one from Risa and one from the Winter Wonderland. They may be not the best, but they are still available, and you don't pay for them, only with your time (which is 10 minutes per day for 25 days).

Vapirko

ESO+ should surely provide a second slot for free.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Wayshuba wrote: »

As someone with almost 30 years marketing experience I can say two things:

1.) The majority of pricing set by companies is based on little data. Most is looking at what competitors are doing and taking a guess at what a company thinks it can get for it's products. This is how about 90% of company prices are set - by a wild guess.

2.) I have stated this before, even if you do go through the discipline of targeted marketing tests to determine optimal pricing, ZoS has not done that. These tests would not be secret as to do it would require it to be seen by customers.

That being said, let's take the specific example in hand. In almost all other MMOs that have costume/outfit slots, these are sold for $2-$4 ACCOUNT WIDE and also usually have an in game gold option to purchase. For example, in SWTOR an extra costume slot is 120CC (about $0.80) per character or 300CC (about $2.50) ACCOUNT WIDE or 30k credits. ZoS, knowing this, put the outfit slots at 350 Crowns on the PTS. When it went live, they increased it to 1500 Crowns.

So, given the data points I just covered, what magical data do you think they have that told them pricing something at 1800% more than standard market value was a good idea?

Whether ZOS or ANY company uses data is not the point. The point is that YOU do not have ANY data to evaluate ZOS' decisions.
As to your comparison with other MMOs, in my opinion they're not relevant. There's no such thing as a "standard market value" for "outfit slots". It's pretty much like saying "Walmart and all department stores sell perfume for 2$ a bottle, therefore Dior will fail with their perfumes at 45$ a bottle".

We've been reading such posts all over the forums ever since the crown store exists, people promising ZOS to go bankrupt and make all players flee over to other games because of supposedly too high prices. As far as we can see, the game's still full of players, toons exhibit expensive crown store stuff all over Tamriel, and ZOS is seemingly doing fine (hiring people, promoting ESO in gaming events, etc.). So they cannot be THAT wrong.

Elsonso

Wayshuba wrote: »

ZoS, knowing this, put the outfit slots at 350 Crowns on the PTS. When it went live, they increased it to 1500 Crowns.

Really? I did not notice them at 350 Crowns on PTS. I also did not buy any. Anyway, normally, everything is 1 Crown, so 350 is surprising.

Wayshuba

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Whether ZOS or ANY company uses data is not the point. The point is that YOU do not have ANY data to evaluate ZOS' decisions.

My response was to your comment about them using data. Now you say that isn't the point?

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

As to your comparison with other MMOs, in my opinion they're not relevant. There's no such thing as a "standard market value" for "outfit slots". It's pretty much like saying "Walmart and all department stores sell perfume for 2$ a bottle, therefore Dior will fail with their perfumes at 45$ a bottle".

Sorry, but no. There are these things called market segments. $2 perfume and $45 Dior are targeted at completely different types of customers. The same as a Honda Civic and Mercedes S-Class are targeted at different market segments.

When you determine what segment your targeting, a company then sets prices within a pretty standard range across that segment. The one exception being the "billionaire class" whereas pricing is all over the map.

That being said, what particularly different MMO segment do you envision ZoS is targeting to charge 1800% more than market rate? Are you aware how many people currently playing ESO were formerly playing SWTOR?

It's the same market segment.

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

We've been reading such posts all over the forums ever since the crown store exists, people promising ZOS to go bankrupt and make all players flee over to other games because of supposedly too high prices. As far as we can see, the game's still full of players, toons exhibit expensive crown store stuff all over Tamriel, and ZOS is seemingly doing fine (hiring people, promoting ESO in gaming events, etc.). So they cannot be THAT wrong.

I never made such claims. A business exists to make as much money from their efforts as they can. I never claimed they are not making money. What I have said is they are probably making 30%-40% of what they could be because of their pricing and limited sales schema. Furthermore, the more they keep moving prices upwards - the smaller the base of customers purchasing an item becomes.

Players will not flee the game as long as ZoS keeps the content cadence they have. What they will do, eventually, in greater numbers is ignore the Crown Store more and more until the latter eventually effects the former. As it is, more and more game design decisions, as evidenced with the outfit system, are being driven by the Crown Store. This road is typically a bad one to take (see SWTOR case history as an example).

As I said, I am not complaining about this, I am just pointing out that ZoS is in fact making some very poor decisions with their Crown Store pricing as I have seen these so many times over and over again with companies (ZoS isn't alone with this).

OrdoHermetica

Wayshuba wrote: »

I never made such claims. A business exists to make as much money from their efforts as they can. I never claimed they are not making money. What I have said is they are probably making 30%-40% of what they could be because of their pricing and limited sales schema. Furthermore, the more they keep moving prices upwards - the smaller the base of customers purchasing an item becomes.

Players will not flee the game as long as ZoS keeps the content cadence they have. What they will do, eventually, in greater numbers is ignore the Crown Store more and more until the latter eventually effects the former. As it is, more and more game design decisions, as evidenced with the outfit system, are being driven by the Crown Store. This road is typically a bad one to take (see SWTOR case history as an example).

As I said, I am not complaining about this, I am just pointing out that ZoS is in fact making some very poor decisions with their Crown Store pricing as I have seen these so many times over and over again with companies (ZoS isn't alone with this).

I find it fascinating how many people on these forums take a statement of "It is my opinion that the Crown Store is too expensive, and here's why" and interpret it as "Clearly ZOS doesn't know what it's doing and isn't making any money" or "How dare ZOS make money?! Why won't they give me things for free?!"

As it turns out, a company can price things competitively and still make money. Similarly, a company can be community-focused and still make money. Lots of it. And customers can understand the need for a company to make money and also be critical of their pricing models. In fact, customers can support a company even while disagreeing with some of their business practices. None of these things are contradictory.

Runefang

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

OrdoHermetica wrote: »

Yeah, at a certain point we get to the core design philosophy behind the game. For some studios, the focus is on making a good game, and making enough money to support that objective. For other studios, the focus is making money, and making a good enough game to support that objective.

ZOS is clearly in the latter category, at least in its current state. I still really enjoy this game, and I suspect I'll keep playing it for a while yet. But I also get the feeling that, when I do stop playing, it will be because I've found (or returned to) a game that is developed by a studio that takes the former approach. Mission-driven companies are definitely where I prefer to spend my money, in video games and in real life.

Well said, but unfortunately MOST studios these days are more interested in making the money than in making a good game to make the money. It's the churn model in action. Theme park instead of sandbox.

Honestly, it's why I often find myself going back to older games, even single player, like Vampire Bloodlines or ESIII: Morrowind.

I've said it before. I've said it HERE before. The microtransactions model is a deathknell for any game. The decline is inevitable. It happens at different rates for different games, but it ALWAYS happens. I hate being right.

I'm sorry but have you seen the success of FIFA?

It's built on the micro-transactions model and gets bigger year on year.

Baracuta

I think they should retroactively lower the price of outfit slots, make them account wide, and refund the "extra" crowns to those who have already purchased them. For people who have more than 10 outfit slots total across multiple characters, then they could do one of the following:
A.) Refund the crowns for the extra slots
B.) Remove the limit on outfit slots
Personally, I think option B would be the better choice, because it'd personally work more for me.

In this thread, I have seen many complaints, and much discussion. At this point, I am absolutely certain that they at least know the general opinion of the pricing, which is negative, so I would recommend that we now start suggesting solutions.

@ZOS_GinaBruno If you could let us know your guys' thoughts on this over at ZOS, then I will say that myself and many others here would be very grateful.

NewBlacksmurf

disintegr8 wrote: »

It is a non essential component of the game which you do not have to buy.
If I want a Porsche but can only afford a Hyundai, do I complain to Porsche about trying to rip me off?

I don’t think you understand @disintegr8
It’s as non essential as in your example saying well you don’t need to buy a car just walk or Uber. ?????

It is essential that you wear gear and more than often the gear looks can’t be changed therefore people would like to cover up their look with more than one look.

So as you say to them....don’t buy any car just walk....I’d say to you, do you own a car or transportation pass....or do you just walk everywhere?

Likely your answer is no. But if you were forced (using your example) to buy only a Porsche cause any car was removed as an option....would you just walk?

anitajoneb17_ESO

Wayshuba wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Whether ZOS or ANY company uses data is not the point. The point is that YOU do not have ANY data to evaluate ZOS' decisions.

My response was to your comment about them using data. Now you say that isn't the point?

The point is that YOU do not have ANY of the data they most probably are using to make their pricing policy. And that you do not know if they are using data and what data they're using. The point is that you're making statements based on thin air.

Wayshuba wrote: »

Sorry, but no. There are these things called market segments. $2 perfume and $45 Dior are targeted at completely different types of customers. The same as a Honda Civic and Mercedes S-Class are targeted at different market segments.

When you determine what segment your targeting, a company then sets prices within a pretty standard range across that segment. The one exception being the "billionaire class" whereas pricing is all over the map.

That being said, what particularly different MMO segment do you envision ZoS is targeting to charge 1800% more than market rate? Are you aware how many people currently playing ESO were formerly playing SWTOR?

It's the same market segment.

True, there ARE market segments.
Do I know how many people currently playing ESO were formerly playing SWTOR ? No, I don't, but neither do you.
ESO and SWTOR are NOT NECESSARILY on the same market segment. You lack even the most basic information to say so. Your statement is - again - based on thin air.

Wayshuba wrote: »

What I have said is they are probably making 30%-40% of what they could be because of their pricing and limited sales schema.

Just keep on pretending that you know better while having ZERO information about their market positioning. If that makes you feel better...
Just keep on pretending that the micro transaction option is a bad one while most games out there choose it and become golden goose. Just go ahead.

Karius_Imalthar

Ouch. I'm glad I haven't purchased any slots yet. Thank you for the heads up about it not being account wide.