Would you play ESO if:

Adremal

Danikat wrote: »

According to Wikipedia's list of MMORPGs (which you can sort by release year) many of the oldest games still online are either free-to-play or use some sort of mixed payment model. If you have other data I'd love to see it, especially those graphs and charts you mentioned because this is something I find very interesting.

Not an accurate list. XIV is listed as pay-to-play instead of mixed (it's free up until and including Stormblood which is a huge % of the game, and GW2 is listed as "Free-to-play / Buy-to-play" which contradicts your claim. I don't play GW2 so I have no idea whether your statement is accurate, but still.

Gray_howling_parrot

Yea absolutely.

Most people serious about the game already play for ESO plus so nothing would change and I'd much rather have that than the crazy monetization scheme we see currently.

Danikat

Adremal wrote: »

Danikat wrote: »

According to Wikipedia's list of MMORPGs (which you can sort by release year) many of the oldest games still online are either free-to-play or use some sort of mixed payment model. If you have other data I'd love to see it, especially those graphs and charts you mentioned because this is something I find very interesting.

Not an accurate list. XIV is listed as pay-to-play instead of mixed (it's free up until and including Stormblood which is a huge % of the game, and GW2 is listed as "Free-to-play / Buy-to-play" which contradicts your claim. I don't play GW2 so I have no idea whether your statement is accurate, but still.

That's technically true for GW2. The base game is free, with some limitations, mainly to prevent spam, griefing and real money trading (for example you can't mail items to other players or use the map-wide chat channel), but I think some are also to make it frustrating to stick with a free account, like having less inventory space and only 2 character slots.

I didn't mention it mainly because I didn't want to get too side-tracked, for the point I was making the important thing is it doesn't have (and has never had) any type of subscription, but also because I don't think it's a practical way to play long-term, it's more of a free trial without a time limit.

The point is it's not true that MMOs without a subscription don't last long like the person I was replying to claimed, what exactly they do instead doesn't change the fact that not all long-running MMOs have a subscription.

fizzylu

I prefer an actual subscription over a ton of so called "micro" transactions and an "optional" sub. Games with a mandatory sub are usually better quality from my experience.... my only fear is that Zenimax wouldn't try or be able to deliver the better quality that would be expected with that kind of subscription model. I mean, that is kind of why ESO had it's mandatory subscription model removed to begin with....

duagloth

Plus isn't even worth it now, mandatory sub would be a dealbreaker

Adremal

Danikat wrote: »

That's technically true for GW2. The base game is free, with some limitations, mainly to prevent spam, griefing and real money trading (for example you can't mail items to other players or use the map-wide chat channel), but I think some are also to make it frustrating to stick with a free account, like having less inventory space and only 2 character slots.

I didn't mention it mainly because I didn't want to get too side-tracked, for the point I was making the important thing is it doesn't have (and has never had) any type of subscription, but also because I don't think it's a practical way to play long-term, it's more of a free trial without a time limit.

The point is it's not true that MMOs without a subscription don't last long like the person I was replying to claimed, what exactly they do instead doesn't change the fact that not all long-running MMOs have a subscription.

Thanks for the clarification about GW2. And sure, not all long-running MMOs have a subscription - but the paradigm has shifted in almost all of them. Let's take XIV as an example, it used to be pay-to-play. Then it implemented the "everything is free till the second expansion", which has since evolved into "everything is free up to and including the second expansion".
As things stand now it's not that different from ESO except in ESO many see ESO+ as mandatory, whereas XIV doesn't have nearly as many and impactful restrictions as ESO in its free state. Sure you can't create a Fellowship (guild) as far as I know but you can get into one. There's no craft bag issue. There's more content, I dare say, in XIV to be experienced for free than there is in ESO, and features such as companions (to facilitate soloing content for instance) are not locked behind DLCs. In fact many XIV main story dungeons got support for solo players recently despite the fact that such dungeons took some 15 minutes on average to get done due to systems encouraging veteran players to help new players existing. I think ESO would greatly benefit from such systems. Imagine the good that could come from a system rewarding veteran player for helping newbies in ESO, what with the constant grievances about people rushing dungeons and leaving newbies behind and unable to complete the dungeon quest (which comes with a skill point as well as lore for those who care about it, but in many instances people get kicked out of dungeons quicker than NPCs take to arrive and say their piece).

SilverBride

I already won't play without a subscription, so yes.

tincanman

Good Lord, no!

The current sub is worth less than last year due to one less dlc release and I don't see that changing except to trim more off it (+10% IA currency is no replacement for a whole zone/dlc). To get parity with last year's value they'd have to increase the monthly crown sub stipend by ~1500 crowns.

Also I doubt a fully sub-model would be a panacea for the plethora of issues that have been around for years like performance - unless anyone thinks that the loss of non-sub players would be an acceptable way to boost performance by simply having less extant players? I mean, reducing player amounts/caps has had a less than stellar affect for cyro pvp....

MrGarlic

In my opinion, I think Zos has made ESO the right balance. As stated before, people who would be happy to sub often already have ESO+ and for me, I get ESO+ 2-3 times a year as that's all I can afford.

I would not play at all If sub was mandatory.

Due to currency conversions and cost of living expenses, $15 per month is a lot of money for me.

DarcyMardin

When I started it was sub only (back at the beginning). There was no free to play. And I've maintained subs (ESO+) on 3 or 4 accounts since then, although I just cancelled ESO+ on one of them because I haven't been playing as much.

For me, it's fine the way it is.

Lannharr

1. I can sell solo my stuff without joining a guild.
2. Increased stacks number of items in Bank and Inventory even with ESO+ is limited lol hahaha)


I forgot how many times I suggested this through the years.

Have a good day.

Anumaril

If they did what you said in your comment regarding the Crown Store/Crates, then I absolutely would (and that's coming from a player who is only semi-active nowadays!).

Having cosmetic rewards unlockable through in-game content would transform my desire to play the game, as I'd finally have something to work towards each time I log in rather than just doing daily endeavours, a couple random dungeons, getting bored, and logging off.

I miss the days when you'd spend days (or hell, even weeks) doing a questline, pining after an achievement, or even using online guides to unlock cool cosmetics for your character. I'm a very visually-motivated person, and having all the best (or most cosmetics full stop) locked behind a paywall leaves me little desire to actually be in the game. Once I pay for what I want... then what? To borrow a quote from World of Warcraft: "the hunter is nothing without the hunt".

RuneScape always did this quite well I think, as did WoW itself for many years. In the case of the former you might spend weeks on a single questline puzzling out clues, following leads, and reaching your goal to finally unlock something cool. Often times you'd spend all that time just to unlock yet another lengthy questline that gets you one step closer to the reward you want. Yet you never felt like you were wasting your time. It was an adventure.

LikiLoki

I just need an excuse to move on to other game projects. So in this case, I will breathe a sigh of relief, dismiss 500 people from a successful guild and close this decrepit folio

Tommy_The_Gun

Locking higher levels behind sub is actually P2W. If base game would be F2P, then it would be F2P & P2W game. B2P is way better solution.

Mesite

I never would have tried the game if it had always been a subscription only game. Even though I log on every day I wouldn't pay to play it.

It isn't that I couldn't afford it.

ESO+ is optional and that's fine for people who like to subscribe when they feel the need or have enough spare cash.

We'd miss all the casual players who make the game alive.

I played Guild Wars 2 and Wow but didn't play for long because I knew I would never subscribe so I could only play half a game.

shadyjane62

No. In fact things are so poor here I am dropping sub for first time in 10 years.

No incentive for me as most of the side fluff that passes for content doesn't interest me.

ArchMikem

If the game had always been Sub required I'd have never bought it in the first place, and I'd have no idea what the last 8 years would've been like. It's been that integral to my journey post Cancer.

Nowadays I pay for ESO+ by choice, not because I'm forced to.

ProudMary

I'd only pay again if ZOS brings back some of the former glory that was once Cyrodiil PvP. Until then, no more money from me.

CrashTest

No.

The game is already expensive enough as it is.

Ph1p

I would continue for now, as it makes little difference to my current way of playing. BUT if ESO was subscription-only...

• I probably wouldn't have started playing in the first place, because I initially got into ESO for the story and quests and I refuse to pay a subscription for a "solo game".
• I would probably stop playing earlier, because there'd be no way to ramp down without sacrificing most of my favorite content. Today, I can play without ESO+ and still do all (DLC) trials, dungeons, and events, which would keep me in the game longer.

merpins

Mesite wrote: »

I never would have tried the game if it had always been a subscription only game. Even though I log on every day I wouldn't pay to play it.

It isn't that I couldn't afford it.

ESO+ is optional and that's fine for people who like to subscribe when they feel the need or have enough spare cash.

We'd miss all the casual players who make the game alive.

I played Guild Wars 2 and Wow but didn't play for long because I knew I would never subscribe so I could only play half a game.

I mean... As I suggested, free to level 50 and a 15 dollar subscription after that is less than buying the game and the latest expansion; you can get a character to 50 and then do the sub for 3 months before it equals what buying the game + main expansion is now. I do not think we'd miss out on the casual players.

The perception is different, sure. But it's still a live service game. You might "own" the expansions of ESO, but you don't really own them. But it feels different to own it, and owning the base game (which is 20 bucks, still more than my suggested subscribed cost) gives you access to a lot. But then again, it's minimum 5 dollars per expansion, 20 to 40 for each major DLC. You're looking at a couple hundred dollars for everything, or a 13 dollar a month optional sub service to get everything but the newest DLC (which you have to buy if you wanna play it).

Dunno, just feels to me like the game would do better with the suggested model instead of the current one. Perception maybe looks worse but I think performance would end up being much better.

Enemy-of-Coldharbour

Absolutely, YES.

ADarklore

merpins wrote: »

Mesite wrote: »

I never would have tried the game if it had always been a subscription only game. Even though I log on every day I wouldn't pay to play it.

It isn't that I couldn't afford it.

ESO+ is optional and that's fine for people who like to subscribe when they feel the need or have enough spare cash.

We'd miss all the casual players who make the game alive.

I played Guild Wars 2 and Wow but didn't play for long because I knew I would never subscribe so I could only play half a game.

I mean... As I suggested, free to level 50 and a 15 dollar subscription after that is less than buying the game and the latest expansion; you can get a character to 50 and then do the sub for 3 months before it equals what buying the game + main expansion is now. I do not think we'd miss out on the casual players.

The perception is different, sure. But it's still a live service game. You might "own" the expansions of ESO, but you don't really own them. But it feels different to own it, and owning the base game (which is 20 bucks, still more than my suggested subscribed cost) gives you access to a lot. But then again, it's minimum 5 dollars per expansion, 20 to 40 for each major DLC. You're looking at a couple hundred dollars for everything, or a 13 dollar a month optional sub service to get everything but the newest DLC (which you have to buy if you wanna play it).

Dunno, just feels to me like the game would do better with the suggested model instead of the current one. Perception maybe looks worse but I think performance would end up being much better.

You never "own" anything, they can close the servers down at any time and any money you spent in it will be lost.

I also disagree with your comparison of MMOs... first and foremost, let's get one point out of the way... over the past 10 years SEVERAL MMOs have come out- causing players to leave their current MMO for something 'shiny and new'- it is not necessarily due to the 'live service' structure. Almost all MMOs anymore have an online store, including FFXIV. Further, Elder Scrolls never had the same draw that FFXIV has had worldwide, and it took how many years for even FFXIV to compete with WOW?? Also keep in mind that ESOs jump in popularity came during COVID lockdowns, and people left when lockdowns were lifted and people were able to get a life again. So again, if you're trying to make an correlation that it has to do with the sub vs live service model over that time period, reality is, it has nothing to do with that and everything to do with 'life during covid'.

Let's also remember that ESO 'was' a subscription model when it launched, but then it switched to buy-to-play because the subscription model FAILED.

All of your arguments OP have no basis on any actual facts but are based on assumptions. To be based on facts, you'd have to have internal ZOS documentations showing them losing money- which they aren't- quite they opposite I'd wager. You assume that losing players mean losing money, but DCUO is Daybreak's biggest profit generating game- and they have roughly 3500 active players. So it just goes to show that an MMO can still generate big money even with a small population.

Freelancer_ESO

merpins wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

No.

I tried ESO in Beta and passed on it because I didn't feel I liked it enough to justify paying for the sub and the box.

I got the game with a group of friends after the game left the sub model. All of them ended up quitting a few months later and most never came back.

To get me to sub to a game for any extended period of time, you need to have either a steady stream of content that I enjoy, highly re-playable content, or content where I have a good experience interacting with other players.

ESO's content for me is really hit or miss and releases rarely keep me busy for more than a few weeks.

Most of ESO's content doesn't really have the level of replay-ability of the other games in the series for me.

While the players in ESO are nicer on average than in many of the other games I've played the experience in PvP and Group PvE frequently is rather bad.

My suggestion is getting rid of the box price. It'd be free to level 50 (with some restrictions on inventory and guild creation to prevent cheesing the game with infinite inventory space), and then the 15/month would be basically what ESO+ is, but mandatory to get CP, restrictions lifted, and the DLC game content.

Many of the cons of the game that you mentioned here are manufactured, and it's mainly due to its current model. The current model, with an optional sub that gives crowns, makes it so Zos would be stupid not to put a majority of the dev time to the stuff you buy and not to the content in game, since paying players get the cash shop currency. But a sub model would require the content to be good, otherwise players won't sub.

I think you are seriously overrating the amount of developer time that goes into cosmetic assets in game stores.

You'll find that some companies even outsource much of the work. Overwatch for example uses Airborn Studios.

https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Ode_to_Clockwork_Body_Art happened for a reason.

ESO and SWTOR shifted off the sub model for a reason. Both games bet that they'd get a multiplayer slanted player base and both games failed to get that. To avoid failing totally both swapped models to pull in more casual players that like the IP but don't really like the design. Both managed to make it for years longer than they otherwise would have thanks to bringing in more casual players.

Selling cosmetics also brings in boatloads of money. Many games swapped from P2W to P2C because it brings in more $.

If ESO wanted to go back to a sub model, they would need to be putting awesome content out for casual players frequently at least to start with or they would fail because the game simply doesn't have enough people in the competitive audience to pay the bills on a sub only basis.

You would also hit the question if your staffing choices would need to shift with the change in purpose.

Enemoriana

merpins wrote: »

I mean... As I suggested, free to level 50 and a 15 dollar subscription after that is less than buying the game and the latest expansion; you can get a character to 50 and then do the sub for 3 months before it equals what buying the game + main expansion is now. I do not think we'd miss out on the casual players.

The perception is different, sure. But it's still a live service game. You might "own" the expansions of ESO, but you don't really own them. But it feels different to own it, and owning the base game (which is 20 bucks, still more than my suggested subscribed cost) gives you access to a lot. But then again, it's minimum 5 dollars per expansion, 20 to 40 for each major DLC. You're looking at a couple hundred dollars for everything, or a 13 dollar a month optional sub service to get everything but the newest DLC (which you have to buy if you wanna play it).

Dunno, just feels to me like the game would do better with the suggested model instead of the current one. Perception maybe looks worse but I think performance would end up being much better.

It isn't less.
If you want to play for 3 months - sub can be more profitable, yes. Same as ESO+.
But if you are playing for 10 years? 15*12*10=1800$, and you still have nothing except base if you stop to pay.
And will you pay, if you can play only few hours on weekends? Most people won't. And will you play, when after all your efforts, after hundreds or even thousands of hours played you are stucked with strictly limited game, because that 1800 dollars wasn't enough to buy game? And when those who pay are much stronger just because they pay? When you loose in pvp, when nobody wants you in vet content, because you don't pay? It's a slap in face.

I started to play in last days of beta, in good old 2014. It was only sub after release. I played for two months a lot, hours almost each day, then decided to take a break for month or two not to spend money when I don't want to play so intense... I returned only two years later.
And I never had such long breaks after, because I knew I can go to game even if it will be one hour in whole month, and it doesn't matter if I have money or not.
From november 2017 to cursed february 2022 I payed for ESO+. Already two years I can't do it (though I still have ways to buy new chapters). Not because I decided to stop - because of reasons that are not connected to me and that I can't chage. And main reason why I'm still playing - is that I have all story dlc (not interested in dungeons). Because I bought them before or somebody gifted them to me.
And because I know: if there will be new dlc in crown store, I'll be able to get it, even if I can't buy crowns myself. (And music boxes. I love music boxes. Who would do so many without crown store?)
I may have more problems with inventory management without craft bag, but I have full game!

If it would be sub-or-stub? I'd never came back to game where I spent thousands of hours and at least thousand of dollars. To game that have best community I've ever seen, community giving support and relief in darkest hours - not only for me.
Because of... what? Somebody annoyed with cosmetic items they can't get for "free"? Go earn some gold and use it, it's not forbidden. Or believing cosmetic items are greatest evil that prevents from making Greatest Game Ever? Yeah, everybody knows - there is only one person, creating quests, balancing pvp, writing code and modelling new dress, and that damned dress gets all his time!

fizzylu

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

I think you are seriously overrating the amount of developer time that goes into cosmetic assets in game stores.

You'll find that some companies even outsource much of the work. Overwatch for example uses Airborn Studios.

If this is the case with Zenimax then I'd say the game has even bigger problems and we should all be concerned about where, or should I say how little, they are possibly putting time and resources into ESO.

Reginald_leBlem

Whenever people complain that there aren't unlockable cosmetics I feel like I'm being gaslit.

Antiquities-- so many cool furnishings, motifs, body markings, etc via the scrying system

Achievement furnishings-- there are SO many, and some are VERY hard to get.

A millions dyes-- maybe not a million, but a lot. And again, some of these are hard to get.

Mounts-- every trial since vSS has had a mount, Necrom has a mount via completing content, stablemasters sell you mounts for gold, pretty sure there'sa mount for completing some achievements in infinite archive.

Pets-- DLC public dungeons have collectable items to combine into a pet, there are pets you get just from going to certain areas or completing specific dungeons

Titles-- literally ALL titles are earned in game, 0 are available in the crown store

Houses-- yes houses can be bought for crowns, but there are some that are only available to buy in game after you complete quests, and there's been a house available via event ticket morphing now too.

katanagirl1

Reginald_leBlem wrote: »

Whenever people complain that there aren't unlockable cosmetics I feel like I'm being gaslit.

Antiquities-- so many cool furnishings, motifs, body markings, etc via the scrying system

Achievement furnishings-- there are SO many, and some are VERY hard to get.

A millions dyes-- maybe not a million, but a lot. And again, some of these are hard to get.

Mounts-- every trial since vSS has had a mount, Necrom has a mount via completing content, stablemasters sell you mounts for gold, pretty sure there'sa mount for completing some achievements in infinite archive.

Pets-- DLC public dungeons have collectable items to combine into a pet, there are pets you get just from going to certain areas or completing specific dungeons

Titles-- literally ALL titles are earned in game, 0 are available in the crown store

Houses-- yes houses can be bought for crowns, but there are some that are only available to buy in game after you complete quests, and there's been a house available via event ticket morphing now too.

You have some good points, and I agree with you somewhat.

However as far as most mounts go, you have to complete the most difficult-game content to get them. I’ve been in a trials team for well over a year now, working our way up from normal trials to get gear and learn to work together as a team. We have yet to get to the more recent trials that have mounts and it will be a while before we get there. Sure I could pay for a carry and get them now but I want to earn them. So these rewards are available to a very small percentage of the player base.

The stablemasters offer only a handful of very basic mounts, I think 3 of them, all of which are horses. No zone specific mounts like senche or guar can be purchased in game with gold.

Reginald_leBlem

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Reginald_leBlem wrote: »

Whenever people complain that there aren't unlockable cosmetics I feel like I'm being gaslit.

Antiquities-- so many cool furnishings, motifs, body markings, etc via the scrying system

Achievement furnishings-- there are SO many, and some are VERY hard to get.

A millions dyes-- maybe not a million, but a lot. And again, some of these are hard to get.

Mounts-- every trial since vSS has had a mount, Necrom has a mount via completing content, stablemasters sell you mounts for gold, pretty sure there'sa mount for completing some achievements in infinite archive.

Pets-- DLC public dungeons have collectable items to combine into a pet, there are pets you get just from going to certain areas or completing specific dungeons

Titles-- literally ALL titles are earned in game, 0 are available in the crown store

Houses-- yes houses can be bought for crowns, but there are some that are only available to buy in game after you complete quests, and there's been a house available via event ticket morphing now too.

You have some good points, and I agree with you somewhat.

However as far as most mounts go, you have to complete the most difficult-game content to get them. I’ve been in a trials team for well over a year now, working our way up from normal trials to get gear and learn to work together as a team. We have yet to get to the more recent trials that have mounts and it will be a while before we get there. Sure I could pay for a carry and get them now but I want to earn them. So these rewards are available to a very small percentage of the player base.

The stablemasters offer only a handful of very basic mounts, I think 3 of them, all of which are horses. No zone specific mounts like senche or guar can be purchased in game with gold.

There's an indrik of every color, and some other mounts available via event tickets.

I'm.... actually very happy with my free level 10 sorrel mare, 5 of my characters use that. So I don't have a lot of the event stuff, but I know they are there.

And regarding trial mounts being hard to get: isn't the point of earning it in game to earn it?

Keep up the good work with trials and you'll get the mounts. It took me just over 3 years from when Sunspire dropped to me getting my gorgeous fire and ice mount, but it wouldn't be the same as buying it in the crown store.

peacenote

I would play, as I subscribe now. I am unsure if it would be a good change for ESO overall; I think they have a good thing going on with both models, to keep the community as populated as possible. I would be happy to see the end of the craft bag debates, though.

Reginald_leBlem wrote: »

Whenever people complain that there aren't unlockable cosmetics I feel like I'm being gaslit.

Antiquities-- so many cool furnishings, motifs, body markings, etc via the scrying system

Achievement furnishings-- there are SO many, and some are VERY hard to get.

A millions dyes-- maybe not a million, but a lot. And again, some of these are hard to get.

Mounts-- every trial since vSS has had a mount, Necrom has a mount via completing content, stablemasters sell you mounts for gold, pretty sure there'sa mount for completing some achievements in infinite archive.

Pets-- DLC public dungeons have collectable items to combine into a pet, there are pets you get just from going to certain areas or completing specific dungeons

Titles-- literally ALL titles are earned in game, 0 are available in the crown store

Houses-- yes houses can be bought for crowns, but there are some that are only available to buy in game after you complete quests, and there's been a house available via event ticket morphing now too.

I often feel like this as well. Especially since the events tend to have a skin, mount, or both each year.... I sure did love earning my indriks! That said, if you are a long time player, you definitely have had more opportunities over the years to earn in game cosmetics than you have as a new player, because of how the events rotate. If they removed the ticket cap and were better about ensuring all past content can be unlocked with those grab bags, then I would say there's plenty of cosmetics. But it's not quite as true if you are just getting started because a lot of the in-game cosmetics were limited time and players can't know if they will be back or save up to unlock them when they come back around.