Is ESO becoming an Asian F2P Game?

starkerealm

Sting864 wrote: »

Cpt_Teemo wrote: »

Not till a year after it launched, because it had a 12 month vet reward no cartel market within that period, or atleast to my knowledge I quit 3 months after launch though

Apparently I have lost a few months of my recollection... When did ESO release on consoles?? When did the Crown store open?? How long were console players required to pay for a subscription to play??

Mandatory Subscription was 10 months. You needed 300 days of paid subscription time for the Tiger mount.

Cpt_Teemo

starkerealm wrote: »

Sting864 wrote: »

Cpt_Teemo wrote: »

Not till a year after it launched, because it had a 12 month vet reward no cartel market within that period, or atleast to my knowledge I quit 3 months after launch though

Apparently I have lost a few months of my recollection... When did ESO release on consoles?? When did the Crown store open?? How long were console players required to pay for a subscription to play??

Mandatory Subscription was 10 months. You needed 300 days of paid subscription time for the Tiger mount.

Ah yeah just looked it up 300 days about 10 months

Thealteregoroman

***NONE OF THIS WILL MATTER AFTER Sunday, June 10, at 6:30 p.m. PT***

Azuramoonstar

jedtb16_ESO wrote: »

Azuramoonstar wrote: »

jedtb16_ESO wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Sting864 wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Yes, that is part of the 'form of'....

OK.... by that definition, a dog is a "form of" cat...
B2P is a form of F2P only inasmuch as they are both business models....

No, this isn't dogs and cats. F2P would be the larger classification, while B2P is the specialized implementation of F2P that adds on the need to buy the game. Much the same way that a Manx is specialized implementation of a cat that removes the tail.

You can have the last word. This debate is years old, and ESO is more of a F2P game now that it was back then, so all that needs to happen this time around is to bring the situation to current.

um, no. b2p precedes f2p by a decade or so.

actually not really. we are talking about the concept of mmo. all MMO prior to WoW was sub based, outside of MuD which are free.

the buy to play model is fairly recent to MMO, while f2p came out after wow.

on first release wow was 40$ with the first 30 days free (the sub was $14.99). that makes it b2p +sub. leaving aside the muds games such as isles of keshmai were pay by the hour.

WoW was $50 and follows pay to play model, not buy to play.

buy to play model in mmo is you just need to buy the game, and can play for free. they make their money from cash shops/lootboxes.

I was playing mmo before WoW launch, and looked into WoW when it launched due to getting game informer around then which had a 2 page article on the launch.

Knowledge

Since Zenimax is not an asian company I am not sure how this can become an asian game. I'm a bit confused by this thread.

Betsararie

I've been advocating for this to go back to the subscription based service like WoW longer than any of you.

This F2P garbage was never the way MMOs were intended to be played. This is how little babies play

Azuramoonstar

Sting864 wrote: »

Cpt_Teemo wrote: »

Sting864 wrote: »

Ummm business models are not like that at all...
What similarities do you see in the F2P and B2P business models?? Besides both not being another business model, Namely PAY 2 PLAY... which involves a subscription requirement...

cash shop

loot boxes

paid currency amount

literally the only difference being you buy the game.

So you are admitting the only difference is the means by which you acquire essential content?
That doesn't make one a subset of the other... The rest cannot be used to define what you are trying to define...
Done and Done....

you are doing semantic debates, which is nonsensical. we are talking about the sustaining model not the purchase model.

the two model types (purchase and sustain) are different. You are making arguments as if you was a small child, and trying to do the "i win" game. You can't win debates using semantics as a base of argument.

when people say b2p and f2p being similar, they are talking about the the sustaining model which replaces the subscription model.

no one is saying they are subsets. you don't seem to understand the "and/or" concept or writing technique behind it.

Outside buying a game or the game free to download, the two share the same sustain model. It is not difficult to understand.

NewBlacksmurf

Not an Asian thing but the model is going towards lots of highly priced cash items and over saturated/diminished ingame cash currency value

Sting864

Blanco wrote: »

I've been advocating for this to go back to the subscription based service like WoW longer than any of you.

This F2P garbage was never the way MMOs were intended to be played. This is how little babies play

Nice Try.... You can call it f2p... but it isn't....
The choice between business models (F2P, B2P, and P2P...) has to do with the initial acquisition of content... Is any of the CONTENT in ESO free?? Can players acquire new ESO content for free? (Hint... NO....)

Sting864

Azuramoonstar wrote: »

Sting864 wrote: »

Cpt_Teemo wrote: »

Sting864 wrote: »

Ummm business models are not like that at all...
What similarities do you see in the F2P and B2P business models?? Besides both not being another business model, Namely PAY 2 PLAY... which involves a subscription requirement...

cash shop

loot boxes

paid currency amount

literally the only difference being you buy the game.

So you are admitting the only difference is the means by which you acquire essential content?
That doesn't make one a subset of the other... The rest cannot be used to define what you are trying to define...
Done and Done....

you are doing semantic debates, which is nonsensical. we are talking about the sustaining model not the purchase model.

the two model types (purchase and sustain) are different. You are making arguments as if you was a small child, and trying to do the "i win" game. You can't win debates using semantics as a base of argument.

when people say b2p and f2p being similar, they are talking about the the sustaining model which replaces the subscription model.

no one is saying they are subsets. you don't seem to understand the "and/or" concept or writing technique behind it.

Outside buying a game or the game free to download, the two share the same sustain model. It is not difficult to understand.

YOU ARE PLAYING "CYA" NOW....business models are concerned with ACQUISITION of content, not this imagined sustaining model.... You seem to be the only one who defines business models in this context... When you say B2P "is a form of" F2P, are you not saying it is a subset??
The fact that you consider the "and/or" concept a semantic debate further proves that you cannot wrap your mind around abstract conceptualization....DONE AND DONER...

Czekoludek

Okay I think this thread needs a little clarification:
1. I think most ppl here know the difference between B2P and F2P games. Yes, if you want to play a B2P game you need to buy it first (thats obvious). What I was trying to say is that ESO sustaining model really looks like a model from typical asian F2P game (well, for me but I can be wrong).
2. Thread was supposed to be a discussion about various cash grab mechanics in this game, how other players understands them and did they agree to them. I asked this questions cuz I was curious how ESO playerbase sees that kind of stuff.
3. Title doesn't mean that ESO literally becomes an Asian F2P game. It was a figure of speech, used to compare that kind of games to ESO. If the title mislead you, I'm sorry cuz it wasn't my intension at all.
4. I understand that company must earn money for their product. For me the problem is that we can see the specific trend to lock more and more things behind paywall. Things like poor drop rates for specific items (for example BA motif) and then putting that items in crown crates, locking jewelery stations only for players with summerset, raising prices for mounts while lowering the % discount on crowns, etc. seems a little shady (again, maybe only for me).
5. Thank you for participating in this thread, many of your post were great and I think some of them helped me understand this problem (a little ). Hope we still can have civil discussion here.
Cheers

Elsonso

Sting864 wrote: »

YOU ARE PLAYING "CYA" NOW....business models are concerned with ACQUISITION of content, not this imagined sustaining model.... You seem to be the only one who defines business models in this context... When you say B2P "is a form of" F2P, are you not saying it is a subset??

I know I said I was done, but I see the problem now. There is a communications gap. MMO business models are concerned with how revenue is generated. They are revenue models.

ESO uses B2P, but they also heavily pull from the F2P model. Neither revenue model, by itself, adequately describes ESO.

It is the amount of emphasis on F2P revenue methods, and what I expect is a corresponding amount of revenue, that has me calling ESO a hybrid B2P/F2P game. It can be argued that a lot of games are hybrids, to one degree or another. ESO seems to be intent on being very much both. It is like they want to be a successful F2P game, but they don't want to lose the initial purchase requirement or the revenue from Chapters. Or, flipping it around, they want to be a successful B2P game, but don't want to miss out on revenue opportunities available from the F2P revenue model. I prefer the first one.

This is why I find their monetization of this game so annoying, and why it seems like they are so [snip] interested in making sure that they get every last coin out of the players. When I play ESO, I increasingly feel like I am playing a F2P game. They are straddling two business models. I play other games where they are not as aggressive about this stance.

Back to my corner.

Zorgon_The_Revenged

Knowledge wrote: »

Since Zenimax is not an asian company I am not sure how this can become an asian game. I'm a bit confused by this thread.

(You're playing dumb, you know what the OP meant)

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Not an Asian thing but the model is going towards lots of highly priced cash items and over saturated/diminished ingame cash currency value

I agree with both of you, I came to the thread expecting a trailer of a new race being added to to ESO -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiyUagSmxm8

I'm quite happy with the "freemium" model they have, I can still play and enjoy the base game I bought, I can either sub to play the DLC or outright buy the DLC and any big base game upgrades being behind the Chapter paywall is also fine to me (they don't massively change my current casual play style or make the game unplayable).
I'm not forced to head to the cash shop (although the placement of cash shop "links" in craft stations etc is annoying) in order to progress at a steady pace or, at the extreme, forced to pay irl cash to go beyond my daily limits on dungeon farming, battleground matches, xp gain, AP gain etc.

If I didn't buy the latest chapter and wanted some jewelry crafted I can still farm mats and the only restrictions I'd have is a guild member saying "I'll craft them when I get time" or they can't craft a particular item yet.
If I'm that bothered by not having the latest chapter, then I'd just buy it, the digital upgrade price is reasonable even if it suffers from the Morrowind "meh" feeling I get sometime.
If it wasn't for the cash shop pop-up and, to me, laughable prices for some items I could completely ignore the fact it has one, some things I have detested since it was introduced.

I've highly enjoyed some f2p games and not spent anything, to the point where I wanted to spend some just to say thanks for all the fun, while being utterly horrified by some other f2p games that seem broken, patchwork and almost "Frankenstein" in the way they play and feel (sad thing is the bad f2p's seemed more populated and more likely to live a longer life than some "quality f2p" games).

AlienatedGoat

This game feels like a Free To Play game, with all the aggressive monetization.

It just gets worse and worse. Just how many other ways can ZOS make money on this game?

At this point, I wouldn't even be surprised if ZOS just makes the base game free sometime in the near future.

Upon which date I will be abandoning the rotted, bloated corpse of the ESO I once knew and loved.

Rohamad_Ali

That Jewelry grind in Summerset tho ...

Doctordarkspawn

Aside from the buying of boosts to crafting, there are no buyable buffs.

And honestly, ESO, whatever else criticism I may lob at it, is of more quality than that.

Betsararie

If you'd debate me on the superiority of the subscription based model- I'll leave you with this.

Take WoW for example. It's been able to sustain itself for this long because it thrives on providing quality content to subscribers-- desireable items and gear are unlocked via completing content in game. The cash shop is less vital there-- Here, one could argue the cash shop is "literally everything". As in, the best stuff is there. Specifically- It's in the 'crap' crates- Which are a necessary evil. I'm fine buyin em at this point because it will sustain the game and this is all I play. I'm a bit of a game junkie and have found this game to be adequate for my needs. Additionally I mainly prefer multiplayer games as I have stated.

Anyway I fear that the subscription based model is a dying breed (it is) because people are lazy and/or childish and don't understand why it would make sense. Additionally as it is now in this game a sub is mandatory to even really play- how are you supposed to play the game without the craft bag I really wouldn't know.

F2P or B2P games which are similar are generally of a lower caliber and there are more blatant cash grabs there which may put off consumers.

So anyway /rant maybe turning more onto the craft bag is the answer and that might increase the number of subs.

lihentian

it isn't becoming, it is.

Nemesis7884

there is nothing free about ESO....except the freedom to throw a metric ton of money at the screen

eso_lags

Czekoludek wrote: »

Recently I found a presentation about Monetization in Asian F2P Games and one thing really shocked me. Why ESO uses so many game systems designed for F2P games to earn money? I mean according to presentation we have systems like:
- Paid mounts
- Paid costumes/vanity items
- Paid time speed-ups
- Secondary currencies
- Buffs
- Gambling systems
- Paid gear
- Paid resources
Right now the only systems we don't have in ESO are paid gear and resources. But they are the mechanics used by F2P Games for which initial cost equals zero. Right now for ESO Collection (edition with Tamriel Unlimited, Morrowind and Summerset update) we must pay 80$. What do you think about that kind of practice? Is it okay for ZoS to make money by using so many F2P mechanics while we still must buy the game to play?

Hmm.. Well i wouldnt say that eso is a normal B2P mmo with a subscription.. In fact i would say they seem more greedy than others.

A lot of mmos do this though and i would expect it, at least when it comes to having new gear in new DLC zones that you have to buy. Or even with the jewlry crafting.. What i do not expect is them making new DLCs and calling them "chapters" to *** loyal eso plus subs out of their PROMISED free content. And people can debate it til the end of time but "Access to all of ESO’s downloadable content " only means one thing. But thats another story.

Also the mount system is messed up. Archeage, wow, guild wars 2, and almost every mmo ive played allows you to buy other mounts in game (besides 4 horses). Eso missed a great chance to give each zone their own mounts... Eso has a lot of bad practices and a lot of others that dont bother me at all. Like buffs, skins, gambling, other currencies.. But the paid speed ups are BULL ***.. It took me a long time to get 9 traits. And now with jewlry crafting I HOPE they dont put the scrolls in for like 6 months after it comes out or the people crafting all jewlry traits in week one are gonna be people who paid for it...

Azuramoonstar

Sting864 wrote: »

Azuramoonstar wrote: »

Sting864 wrote: »

Cpt_Teemo wrote: »

Sting864 wrote: »

Ummm business models are not like that at all...
What similarities do you see in the F2P and B2P business models?? Besides both not being another business model, Namely PAY 2 PLAY... which involves a subscription requirement...

cash shop

loot boxes

paid currency amount

literally the only difference being you buy the game.

So you are admitting the only difference is the means by which you acquire essential content?
That doesn't make one a subset of the other... The rest cannot be used to define what you are trying to define...
Done and Done....

you are doing semantic debates, which is nonsensical. we are talking about the sustaining model not the purchase model.

the two model types (purchase and sustain) are different. You are making arguments as if you was a small child, and trying to do the "i win" game. You can't win debates using semantics as a base of argument.

when people say b2p and f2p being similar, they are talking about the the sustaining model which replaces the subscription model.

no one is saying they are subsets. you don't seem to understand the "and/or" concept or writing technique behind it.

Outside buying a game or the game free to download, the two share the same sustain model. It is not difficult to understand.

YOU ARE PLAYING "CYA" NOW....business models are concerned with ACQUISITION of content, not this imagined sustaining model.... You seem to be the only one who defines business models in this context... When you say B2P "is a form of" F2P, are you not saying it is a subset??
The fact that you consider the "and/or" concept a semantic debate further proves that you cannot wrap your mind around abstract conceptualization....DONE AND DONER...

Can you act any more childish?

The only one doing anything semantics here is you. That is your basis of your debate. MMORPG have 2 models it works with.
A purchase model. And a retaining model. Nearly all mmo (outside korean mmo) were buy the game, and pay the subscription. After WoW popularized MMO as a genre, almost everyone made an MMO. Which lead to a saturation, then comes along korean MMO which started the free to play trend, no buying the game no paying a sub fee. Which trickled into MMO failing, and going buy to play and free to play. BOTH removing the sub fee aspect.

the removal of the sub fee is how buy to play and free to play are similar. No one but you is saying "a form of" You are clearly a child. Mostly due to you just don't get what others are saying and using poor terminology.

MMo require a sub fee of some kids to run. Most buy to play and free to play games rely on cash shops and paid patches aka dlc.

Azuramoonstar

itzTJ wrote: »

Czekoludek wrote: »

Recently I found a presentation about Monetization in Asian F2P Games and one thing really shocked me. Why ESO uses so many game systems designed for F2P games to earn money? I mean according to presentation we have systems like:
- Paid mounts
- Paid costumes/vanity items
- Paid time speed-ups
- Secondary currencies
- Buffs
- Gambling systems
- Paid gear
- Paid resources
Right now the only systems we don't have in ESO are paid gear and resources. But they are the mechanics used by F2P Games for which initial cost equals zero. Right now for ESO Collection (edition with Tamriel Unlimited, Morrowind and Summerset update) we must pay 80$. What do you think about that kind of practice? Is it okay for ZoS to make money by using so many F2P mechanics while we still must buy the game to play?

Hmm.. Well i wouldnt say that eso is a normal B2P mmo with a subscription.. In fact i would say they seem more greedy than others.

A lot of mmos do this though and i would expect it, at least when it comes to having new gear in new DLC zones that you have to buy. Or even with the jewlry crafting.. What i do not expect is them making new DLCs and calling them "chapters" to *** loyal eso plus subs out of their PROMISED free content. And people can debate it til the end of time but "Access to all of ESO’s downloadable content " only means one thing. But thats another story.

Also the mount system is messed up. Archeage, wow, guild wars 2, and almost every mmo ive played allows you to buy other mounts in game (besides 4 horses). Eso missed a great chance to give each zone their own mounts... Eso has a lot of bad practices and a lot of others that dont bother me at all. Like buffs, skins, gambling, other currencies.. But the paid speed ups are BULL ***.. It took me a long time to get 9 traits. And now with jewlry crafting I HOPE they dont put the scrolls in for like 6 months after it comes out or the people crafting all jewlry traits in week one are gonna be people who paid for it...

you do know that the dlc are update patches

and the chapters are the equivalent to expansions yes? gw2 is a mmo that was built off of an orpg. WoW is pay to play but has an aggressive cash shop much like ff14.

Azuramoonstar

starkerealm wrote: »

Azuramoonstar wrote: »

jedtb16_ESO wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Sting864 wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Yes, that is part of the 'form of'....

OK.... by that definition, a dog is a "form of" cat...
B2P is a form of F2P only inasmuch as they are both business models....

No, this isn't dogs and cats. F2P would be the larger classification, while B2P is the specialized implementation of F2P that adds on the need to buy the game. Much the same way that a Manx is specialized implementation of a cat that removes the tail.

You can have the last word. This debate is years old, and ESO is more of a F2P game now that it was back then, so all that needs to happen this time around is to bring the situation to current.

um, no. b2p precedes f2p by a decade or so.

actually not really. we are talking about the concept of mmo. all MMO prior to WoW was sub based, outside of MuD which are free.

the buy to play model is fairly recent to MMO, while f2p came out after wow.

Guild Wars released a couple months before World of Warcraft, as I recall. So, no, even in the range of MMOs, B2P's been around since 2004/2005.

Which doesn't even address the existence of B2P mutiplayer games, like Neverwinter Nights, or any of the old arena shooters. That takes us back into the 90s.

guild wars was an ORPG which is a different genre all together. you log into a hub section, group with friends in that hub then go to instences to do content. Lil to no "open world"

games that fall into orpg are gw1, pso, pso2, psu.

we are talking about buy to play model as seen with mmorpg only. Which is a different beast then multiplayer shooters, orpg etc.

Argruna

Blanco wrote: »

If you'd debate me on the superiority of the subscription based model- I'll leave you with this.

Take WoW for example. It's been able to sustain itself for this long because it thrives on providing quality content to subscribers-- desireable items and gear are unlocked via completing content in game. The cash shop is less vital there-- Here, one could argue the cash shop is "literally everything". As in, the best stuff is there. Specifically- It's in the 'crap' crates- Which are a necessary evil. I'm fine buyin em at this point because it will sustain the game and this is all I play. I'm a bit of a game junkie and have found this game to be adequate for my needs. Additionally I mainly prefer multiplayer games as I have stated.

Anyway I fear that the subscription based model is a dying breed (it is) because people are lazy and/or childish and don't understand why it would make sense. Additionally as it is now in this game a sub is mandatory to even really play- how are you supposed to play the game without the craft bag I really wouldn't know.

F2P or B2P games which are similar are generally of a lower caliber and there are more blatant cash grabs there which may put off consumers.

So anyway /rant maybe turning more onto the craft bag is the answer and that might increase the number of subs.

In terms of WoW, quality content is subjective. Because the people who subscribe to WoW, in a way, locked themselves into playing it. I know too many people that bore of the game quickly but keep playing solely because of the fact that they've been pouring money into the game for years.
Also, it's a fallacy to thing the cash shop is less vital there. Nope, not in the least. They have pets you can buy and then sell on the auction house for gold. You can pay $20 for a game time token and sell that for gold (200k is the going price right now). Back when it was just cosmetics, yeah that point stands, but right now, if you want to hope to win an auction on the black market, you better be willing to utilize the game time tokens in the cash shop.
The 'crap crates' as you like to call them, are a necessary evil however they are infinitely better than most the crates I've dealt with in other games in that you can trade in what you don't want to get what you do want. If Overwatch had that, I'd probably have gotten all of Reinhardt's skins instead of constantly getting skins for heroes I give no clucks for (I'm looking at you, Doomfist) but had no recourse other than hoping I start getting repeats to get the coins.

It's also not a matter on people being lazy or childish about subs. Oh they understand it quite well, but when you realize that most games that do play mmos are in the 20+ range and have obligations, justifying a recurring cost on top of everything else that has a subscription, doing something like Netflix which can be shared with family/friends/roommates compared to a game where you can't exactly share shows more about priorities in money management than being a child. There was also a large reason why ESO did away with the sub in the first place. XBOX and PS4. You have to pay a sub anyway to even connect to the internet so in one hand $15 a month for one game or in the other hand $60 a year and have access to a plethora of games. Making eso+ an optional fee was a smart move to help appeal to a console base.
It is also very easy to play the game without the craft bag, did it for 4 years, this is the first time I've subbed and it's only for 3 months. The whole reason is because I hate alchemy. So gonna get my main crafter all maxed out on everything get as many alchemy ingredients stored away in the bag I can and once that is done? Main crafter gonna be a mule for all that crap while I keep the bank nice and tidy.
Also, at 18 you get a free 30 slot chest for the home. That's been converted into the decor chest for me and placed in every home I own. Open it, drop the stuff in, close it, go into housing decor menu and have full access to all decor without having to put it into my bag. Deposit what I decide not to use if I placed something and it didn't work out then just rinse repeat. So quite easy to do if you don't be Smaug and collect all da things, (like motifs, I get rid of the ones I don't want, some are just downright ugly) and just simply focus on how to manage what you are doing, it's quite simple to have a ton of space.

starkerealm

Azuramoonstar wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Azuramoonstar wrote: »

jedtb16_ESO wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Sting864 wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Yes, that is part of the 'form of'....

OK.... by that definition, a dog is a "form of" cat...
B2P is a form of F2P only inasmuch as they are both business models....

No, this isn't dogs and cats. F2P would be the larger classification, while B2P is the specialized implementation of F2P that adds on the need to buy the game. Much the same way that a Manx is specialized implementation of a cat that removes the tail.

You can have the last word. This debate is years old, and ESO is more of a F2P game now that it was back then, so all that needs to happen this time around is to bring the situation to current.

um, no. b2p precedes f2p by a decade or so.

actually not really. we are talking about the concept of mmo. all MMO prior to WoW was sub based, outside of MuD which are free.

the buy to play model is fairly recent to MMO, while f2p came out after wow.

Guild Wars released a couple months before World of Warcraft, as I recall. So, no, even in the range of MMOs, B2P's been around since 2004/2005.

Which doesn't even address the existence of B2P mutiplayer games, like Neverwinter Nights, or any of the old arena shooters. That takes us back into the 90s.

guild wars was an ORPG which is a different genre all together. you log into a hub section, group with friends in that hub then go to instences to do content. Lil to no "open world"

games that fall into orpg are gw1, pso, pso2, psu.

we are talking about buy to play model as seen with mmorpg only. Which is a different beast then multiplayer shooters, orpg etc.

No, it was an MMO. You could see that if you looked at the contemporary interviews with developers, or press coverage of the game. Just because it doesn't fit your definition of an MMO, it fits the ones that mattered.

I mean, if we were to accept your definition at face value, Star Trek Online would no longer be an MMO. Simultaneously, if we accepted your definition, The Division would be, unquestionably, categorized as an MMO... which doesn't seem right either.

(Also, amusingly enough, Guild Wars actually did have a fully explorable open world, completely distinct from the hubs and mission paths. When I played, very few players wandered into them at all, but it was possible to walk across massive maps. To be fair, it was carved into large zones, sort of like how ESO handles the maps. But, that was a thing you could do, if you were so inclined.

Horker

L2P

Androconium

The cheapest option is to subscribe and buy the four-dlc pack.
You might win a mount with your crate allowance.
Thanks for trying.

TheCyberDruid

Horker wrote: »

L2P

Learn 2 Pay?

red_emu

Seems like a l2p issue to me?

CiliPadi

To the OP:

Please go try out Neverwinter and report back.