Maintenance for the week of February 23:
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
· [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
· [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
If the sub was $9.99 or $7.99 , $4.99monthly, weekly?'s
NewBlacksmurf
✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
I just read an IGN article about Free-to-play vs. Sub based MMO's
http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/18/should-the-elder-scrolls-online-go-free-to-play
Different ideas are in this but it's come to suggest there is a balance. A lot of game companies are using an all or nothing concepts. People aren't all round or square. There are triangles, rectangles, etc.
Can the company not lower the access requirements to create a greater revenue stream? The game approach was set so that millions of PC specs would fit but oddly the pricing seems not to follow the same approach.
The PC gamer is use to a $14.99 sub but as the market place changes $14.99 no longer seems normal. It's perceived as expensive. Personally I throw away $15 on lunch at least 3 times a week but this isn't about me. It's about bringing millions of customers to a product on a long term basis.
Monthly, weekly, daily options should exist. A console game would sale for $59.99 and people will think nothing to buy an add-on for $14.99 or a season pass for $60-$80. Asking a customer to pay $60+$180 tends to fall out of competition.
Yeah. Yeah I know...get a job, stop throwing away money and even, this is not even expensive. Let's say you're right. But does that suggest there isn't a better system to retain customers, attract new customers all while supporting the expenses.
Now PC games are following a buy once with online play model.
There are some good and decent MMORPGs out there today.
$14.99 is the typical amount sub based games choose.
$9.99 is a little less but not enough to be game changing.
$4.99-$7.99 still provides an the predictability of income and active players but what about other options.
-It's suggested that this game will never go free-to-play
-it argued that the sub model won't last.
It's 2014 and the $14.99 is still a business plan for these games.
-How many would care less if their annual sub was $60 ($4.99 sub over 12 months)
-How many would choose monthly vs weekly? (If the price stays $14.99, often -people will pay $5 for a week vs a months worth of access)
-Is the resistance for the subscription model or is it the price point?
-$7.99 sub cuts Zenimax in half BUT does it allow more customers to participate?
Just putting this out there. People like this game and ppl have issues with this game.
Conclusion...
The forums are blowing up because this game has opportunity as it's different than other MMORPGs but the pricing models are exactly like all those MMORPGs that succeeded and later die.
Even cable TV and cell phones offer options.
Edited by NewBlacksmurf on July 19, 2014 2:04AM http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/18/should-the-elder-scrolls-online-go-free-to-play
Different ideas are in this but it's come to suggest there is a balance. A lot of game companies are using an all or nothing concepts. People aren't all round or square. There are triangles, rectangles, etc.
Can the company not lower the access requirements to create a greater revenue stream? The game approach was set so that millions of PC specs would fit but oddly the pricing seems not to follow the same approach.
The PC gamer is use to a $14.99 sub but as the market place changes $14.99 no longer seems normal. It's perceived as expensive. Personally I throw away $15 on lunch at least 3 times a week but this isn't about me. It's about bringing millions of customers to a product on a long term basis.
Monthly, weekly, daily options should exist. A console game would sale for $59.99 and people will think nothing to buy an add-on for $14.99 or a season pass for $60-$80. Asking a customer to pay $60+$180 tends to fall out of competition.
Yeah. Yeah I know...get a job, stop throwing away money and even, this is not even expensive. Let's say you're right. But does that suggest there isn't a better system to retain customers, attract new customers all while supporting the expenses.
Now PC games are following a buy once with online play model.
There are some good and decent MMORPGs out there today.
$14.99 is the typical amount sub based games choose.
$9.99 is a little less but not enough to be game changing.
$4.99-$7.99 still provides an the predictability of income and active players but what about other options.
-It's suggested that this game will never go free-to-play
-it argued that the sub model won't last.
It's 2014 and the $14.99 is still a business plan for these games.
-How many would care less if their annual sub was $60 ($4.99 sub over 12 months)
-How many would choose monthly vs weekly? (If the price stays $14.99, often -people will pay $5 for a week vs a months worth of access)
-Is the resistance for the subscription model or is it the price point?
-$7.99 sub cuts Zenimax in half BUT does it allow more customers to participate?
Just putting this out there. People like this game and ppl have issues with this game.
Conclusion...
The forums are blowing up because this game has opportunity as it's different than other MMORPGs but the pricing models are exactly like all those MMORPGs that succeeded and later die.
Even cable TV and cell phones offer options.
-PC (PTS)/Xbox One: NewBlacksmurf
~<{[50]}>~ looks better than *501
~<{[50]}>~ looks better than *501
1
-
ErykGrimm✭✭✭Cutting the sub fee in half would not necessarily double the number of subs. The people at ign are not market analysts they are "writers". You give them entirely too much credit.Edited by ErykGrimm on July 19, 2014 2:20AM2 -
NewBlacksmurf✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Cutting the sub fee in half would not necessarily double the number of subs. The people at ign are not market analysts they are "writers". You give them entirely too much credit.
Perhaps you agree that Netflix is a lot more business savy with subscription models with no ads?
$7.99-PC (PTS)/Xbox One: NewBlacksmurf
~<{[50]}>~ looks better than *5010 -
Vandermeer✭✭✭I think $14.99 is fair for a month. I spend $10 a day on lunch at work. It's nothing. Even seeing a movie runs you close to $30 a person when you get snacks. If you can afford a smart phone and internet at home, you can afford the reasonable $14.99. It's unlimited play. Same price as a Friday night movie ticket.Now in Technicolor!1 -
ErykGrimm✭✭✭NewBlacksmurf wrote: »Cutting the sub fee in half would not necessarily double the number of subs. The people at ign are not market analysts they are "writers". You give them entirely too much credit.
Perhaps you agree that Netflix is a lot more business savy with subscription models with no ads?
$7.99
Because netflix and ESO are comparable. They both have a subscription and that's where any comparison ends. Apples and llamas are comparable because both can be a food source. Think for a moment, you are smarter than this.1 -
Mr.Turtlesworth✭✭✭✭I don't even care about the sub. It supports the game.. Allowing then to do great updates. The dog on the other hand...I r robot
hear me roar2 -
NewBlacksmurf✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
I agree these are options. Again it's not about the options other games have used that were unable to sustain a customer base and retention.ers101284b14_ESO wrote: »14.99 1 month 13.99 3 months 12.99 6 months. That's 3 options.
These price points seem to rely on the frequency of content.
But people don't cancel a $5-$8 subscription for lack of content but $13-$15 they do.
If you have something like Netflix, do you even think about cancelling it EVEN if you don't watch anything for a month?
Does the same mindset apply to this game?
Ask yourself why...
-PC (PTS)/Xbox One: NewBlacksmurf
~<{[50]}>~ looks better than *5010 -
UPrime✭✭✭✭Even at $7 or $5 a month there's the human perception is that you're spending money, so the price doesn't matter. Same thing happens with the $0.99 Mobile games. The devs were promised thousands and thousands of sales because who wouldn't throw down a buck for a game. But must people don't.
But anyways, from that IGN article, you should look at the part where they give you the benefits of a sub, and that is what sub based games are after.0 -
NewBlacksmurf✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Guys, I'm in support of the sub system. I'm only suggesting there are opportunities to adjust the barrier of $14.99 to bring in more revenue and more subscriber retention.
Spending $ isn't the issue. People buy 3-4 games a year. The barrier is so high that most people do not spend $180 on one game each year. $60/year creates an opportunity for more people to play and less of a concern for the developers where customers may choose one sub over another.
It's math and logic. $5 will be thrown away with no thought but $15 is not considered throw away money.
When you launch a product that is not superior to other competing companies who have a similar product it only makes sense to market and create retention.
Just suggesting the bull headed approach continues to cause good sub games to die. Insanity. Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. The games that last have great gameplay not a lot of new content.-PC (PTS)/Xbox One: NewBlacksmurf
~<{[50]}>~ looks better than *5010
