Maintenance for the week of October 20:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – October 20
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – October 20
NO MORE 6 MONTH SUBSCRIPTIONS?!? Buy to Play is on its way!
-
Kaide✭✭✭lordrichter wrote: »You know what I mean.
Doesn't matter if it's reviews, emptying guilds or a removed 6 month sub option. There's always some kind of supposed evidence being presented.
Laughing at the "F2P" comments and predictions has been almost a form of entertainment here in the forums for a very long time.
It has been this way long enough that people tend to jump right back into the laughing when it happens.
Sometimes people cry wolf when there is no wolf. Sometimes there is actually something out there in the dark and we can see the glowing eyes in the distance.
Is it wolves? Will they come into the camp? Do we need to be worried?
This is where we are today.
I have no idea whether they are going to go F2P or B2P, or if they are going to try some hybrid *2P-Subscription model. I don't know if there is even a change in the business model hiding behind Door #1. Honestly, if I did know, or even strongly suspected, they were changing plans, I would not be saying it in public here in the ZOS forum.
If you ever suspect a company is hiding something or not being completely upfront about an issue...then OF COURSE you should say it in public. SCREAM IT AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS! This isn't a communist/dictatorship society and I'm not going to sit around and watch a bunch of my fellow citizens be led blindly down a path they might not want to go down. If I ever see something wrong...OF COURSE I say something...that's the difference between someone who lives in a free society and someone who doesn't. And guess what happens if companies get caught doing something they shouldn't? They either fix it or a competitor comes along that can do it better. This is what makes capitalism so great! People defending companies who hide their agendas in the shadows scares me honestly. I guess that is what the masses are raised to believe now....if you see something wrong just stay quiet about it.
I've seen so many examples of this on the news....where people DEFEND staying ignorant and not having information about a subject because it "might" help a government or companies cause. I think its sad honestly. Knowledge is power...and without it you are weak and unable to make good decisions.
I'm NOT saying ESO is doing anything wrong. But it is OBVIOUS that we are not witnessing transparency.Edited by Kaide on December 31, 2014 2:58PM3 -
zaria✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Yes the explanation is just an lie to cover the dark truth.thomas.k.grayb14_ESO wrote: »ashleybhudsonb14_ESO wrote: »I have to wonder how many of the people who seem to care about this issue actually used the 6-month sub option in the first place.
I don't think it's so much about not being able to use the option(whether they used it or not isn't relevant), but rather the sudden unannounced removal of said option and the implications(based on past experiences) it brings.
They would come up with conspiracies even if it was well-explained.
More probably is it that fewer with an 6 month sub resub than players with 2 x 3 month. Payment is done automatically but more chance people don't have money or decide not to pay the larger amount.
It might also be an response to currency fluctuations.
It might simply be that too few use it as they claim.
Or they don't want the money from the box sale and subs for the console version. Yes that makes sense,Grinding just make you go in circles.
Asking ZoS for nerfs is as stupid as asking for close air support from the death star.3 -
Kaide✭✭✭
Yes the explanation is just an lie to cover the dark truth.thomas.k.grayb14_ESO wrote: »ashleybhudsonb14_ESO wrote: »I have to wonder how many of the people who seem to care about this issue actually used the 6-month sub option in the first place.
I don't think it's so much about not being able to use the option(whether they used it or not isn't relevant), but rather the sudden unannounced removal of said option and the implications(based on past experiences) it brings.
They would come up with conspiracies even if it was well-explained.
More probably is it that fewer with an 6 month sub resub than players with 2 x 3 month. Payment is done automatically but more chance people don't have money or decide not to pay the larger amount.
It might also be an response to currency fluctuations.
It might simply be that too few use it as they claim.
Or they don't want the money from the box sale and subs for the console version. Yes that makes sense,
Or.....................and I'm going out on a limb here....
It might be because XBOX and Playstation already charge users a subscription for their online services. So by removing the Elder Scrolls Online subscription they are able to sell more XBOX and Playstation units! And I hope no one responds with "Dude its just $15...". $15 per subscription....multiplied by how many games you play with subscriptions on top of XBOX and Playstation subscriptions...adds up.
Edited by Kaide on December 31, 2014 3:11PM1 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Yes it does. Why would they remove an OPTION of getting money from people?Whether a game has a 6 month subscription option or not has nothing to do with whether the game is going F2P or not.
Just look at SWTOR: it has gone the F2P route yet it is still offering a 6 month subscription.
I don't know why they removed it, but i do know why they did not remove it: they did not remove it so that ESO can go F2P.
Because, if SWTOR could go F2P without the removal of 6 month sub option, then so could TESO. There is no link between the removal of the 6m option and the supposed coming of F2P, except in OP's imagination.
Edited by Sharee on December 31, 2014 3:12PM3 -
Kaide✭✭✭
Yes it does. Why would they remove an OPTION of getting money from people?Whether a game has a 6 month subscription option or not has nothing to do with whether the game is going F2P or not.
Just look at SWTOR: it has gone the F2P route yet it is still offering a 6 month subscription.
I don't know why they removed it, but i do know why they did not remove it: they did not remove it so that ESO can go F2P.
Because, if SWTOR could go F2P without the removal of 6 month sub option, then so could TESO. There is no link between the removal of the 6m option and the supposed coming of F2P, except in your imagination.
In my original post and throughout several of my comments...I say over and over....Buy to Play and NOT Free to Play....HUGE difference.
They will NOT go free to play...because theyre about to release on XBOX and Playstation. However, Buy to Play is very likely.0 -
Elsonso✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭lordrichter wrote: »You know what I mean.
Doesn't matter if it's reviews, emptying guilds or a removed 6 month sub option. There's always some kind of supposed evidence being presented.
Laughing at the "F2P" comments and predictions has been almost a form of entertainment here in the forums for a very long time.
It has been this way long enough that people tend to jump right back into the laughing when it happens.
Sometimes people cry wolf when there is no wolf. Sometimes there is actually something out there in the dark and we can see the glowing eyes in the distance.
Is it wolves? Will they come into the camp? Do we need to be worried?
This is where we are today.
I have no idea whether they are going to go F2P or B2P, or if they are going to try some hybrid *2P-Subscription model. I don't know if there is even a change in the business model hiding behind Door #1. Honestly, if I did know, or even strongly suspected, they were changing plans, I would not be saying it in public here in the ZOS forum.
If you ever suspect a company is hiding something or not being completely upfront about an issue...then OF COURSE you should say it in public. SCREAM IT AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS! This isn't China and I'm not going to sit around and watch a bunch of my fellow citizens be led blindly down a path they might not want to go down. If I ever see something wrong...OF COURSE I say something...that's the difference between someone who lives in a free society and someone who doesn't. And guess what happens if companies get caught doing something they shouldn't? They either fix it or a competitor comes along that can do it better. This is what makes capitalism so great! People defending companies who hide their agendas in the shadows scares me honestly. I guess that is what the masses are raised to believe now....if you see something wrong just stay quiet about it.
There are reasons why I would never do that.
To put a fine point on it, your response is exactly why I would not tell you what I knew, or even strongly suspected.
However, in a gesture of peace, I will give you this. Is a F2P-like change in the works the only reason to remove the 180-day subscription? I will let Yoda answer:
"No. There is another. "
Edit: "F2P-Like" encompasses all possible "free-like" business models. It includes F2P, B2P, and hybrid models where a subscription is offered, but not required.Edited by Elsonso on December 31, 2014 3:31PMXBox EU/NA:@ElsonsoJannus
PC NA/EU: @Elsonso
PSN NA/EU: @ElsonsoJannus
Total in-game hours: 11321
X/Twitter: ElsonsoJannus0 -
Koensol✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
Except, SWTOR is not really F2P. It has a freemium system where people can stay subscribed, but also have the option to play free. This might not be the case for every game. Wether you like it or not, the removal of 6 month sub gives a valid hint towards B2P/F2P. It's not a fact, but the hint is there.
Yes it does. Why would they remove an OPTION of getting money from people?Whether a game has a 6 month subscription option or not has nothing to do with whether the game is going F2P or not.
Just look at SWTOR: it has gone the F2P route yet it is still offering a 6 month subscription.
I don't know why they removed it, but i do know why they did not remove it: they did not remove it so that ESO can go F2P.
Because, if SWTOR could go F2P without the removal of 6 month sub option, then so could TESO. There is no link between the removal of the 6m option and the supposed coming of F2P, except in OP's imagination.
This vid explains it some more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5seRthYuKO4
Edited by Koensol on December 31, 2014 3:19PM3 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Yes it does. Why would they remove an OPTION of getting money from people?Whether a game has a 6 month subscription option or not has nothing to do with whether the game is going F2P or not.
Just look at SWTOR: it has gone the F2P route yet it is still offering a 6 month subscription.
I don't know why they removed it, but i do know why they did not remove it: they did not remove it so that ESO can go F2P.
Because, if SWTOR could go F2P without the removal of 6 month sub option, then so could TESO. There is no link between the removal of the 6m option and the supposed coming of F2P, except in your imagination.
In my original post and throughout several of my comments...I say over and over....Buy to Play and NOT Free to Play....HUGE difference.
I don't see how it makes a huge difference relative to the removal of 6m sub option.
The removal of 6m sub option is unnecessary for TESO going either F2P or B2P. So my point still stands. The removal of the option, whatever the reason, is not related to any business model change. They have nothing to do with eachother.
0 -
Kaide✭✭✭lordrichter wrote: »lordrichter wrote: »You know what I mean.
Doesn't matter if it's reviews, emptying guilds or a removed 6 month sub option. There's always some kind of supposed evidence being presented.
Laughing at the "F2P" comments and predictions has been almost a form of entertainment here in the forums for a very long time.
It has been this way long enough that people tend to jump right back into the laughing when it happens.
Sometimes people cry wolf when there is no wolf. Sometimes there is actually something out there in the dark and we can see the glowing eyes in the distance.
Is it wolves? Will they come into the camp? Do we need to be worried?
This is where we are today.
I have no idea whether they are going to go F2P or B2P, or if they are going to try some hybrid *2P-Subscription model. I don't know if there is even a change in the business model hiding behind Door #1. Honestly, if I did know, or even strongly suspected, they were changing plans, I would not be saying it in public here in the ZOS forum.
If you ever suspect a company is hiding something or not being completely upfront about an issue...then OF COURSE you should say it in public. SCREAM IT AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS! This isn't China and I'm not going to sit around and watch a bunch of my fellow citizens be led blindly down a path they might not want to go down. If I ever see something wrong...OF COURSE I say something...that's the difference between someone who lives in a free society and someone who doesn't. And guess what happens if companies get caught doing something they shouldn't? They either fix it or a competitor comes along that can do it better. This is what makes capitalism so great! People defending companies who hide their agendas in the shadows scares me honestly. I guess that is what the masses are raised to believe now....if you see something wrong just stay quiet about it.
There are reasons why I would never do that.
To put a fine point on it, your response is exactly why I would not tell you what I knew, or even strongly suspected.
However, in a gesture of peace, I will give you this. Is a F2P-like change in the works the only reason to remove the 180-day subscription? I will let Yoda answer:
"No. There is another. "
I've never once said the game would go Free to Play even though people keep saying that.
I so strongly disagree with them going Free to Play that I went back and even added in my post the difference between free to play and buy to play so that no one is confused. I do NOT think they will go free to play.0 -
Bouvin✭✭✭✭✭
✭F2P with a Sub Option is not that bad. I played LoTRO from day one and they went to a F2P/Sub hybrid and it was great.
With a sub they gave you points for the cash shop each month that you could bank up and use to buy expansions, or if you quit subbing to buy zones of content...plus all of the other typical cash shop stuff.
The quality of the game didn't suffer. The population grew, but A LOT, and the people that started playing it were great people. Going F2P is probably the smartest thing LoTRO ever did. The only reason I still don't play is that after years and years of playing it I got bored with the game mechanics.
A good F2P model is just an extended trial... once you run out of the "free" content you can either buy content from the cash shop or pay a sub. For the super casual who might play through areas slowly, and play 2-3 alts through an area before advancing, the "buying content" as opposed to a sub can actually make more sense, and not hinder them at all.
Then there are other F2P games like Neverwinter who just want to suck your wallet dry by making you buy crap like Keys for Chests and Companions from the cash shop in order to advance. If ESO went that route I'd probably quit playing (Not that Neverwinter is bad, just not my thing).Edited by Bouvin on December 31, 2014 3:32PM2 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Except, SWTOR is not really F2P. It has a freemium system where people can stay subscribed, but also have the option to play free. This might not be the case for every game.
Yes it does. Why would they remove an OPTION of getting money from people?Whether a game has a 6 month subscription option or not has nothing to do with whether the game is going F2P or not.
Just look at SWTOR: it has gone the F2P route yet it is still offering a 6 month subscription.
I don't know why they removed it, but i do know why they did not remove it: they did not remove it so that ESO can go F2P.
Because, if SWTOR could go F2P without the removal of 6 month sub option, then so could TESO. There is no link between the removal of the 6m option and the supposed coming of F2P, except in OP's imagination.
It is the case for every game that switched from pure sub to something different that i am aware of.Wether you like it or not, the removal of 6 month sub gives a valid hint towards B2P/F2P. It's not a fact, but the hint is there.
This vid explains it some more:
The guy in the video makes only 2 points(but he takes 15(!) minutes to tell them):
1, "there is no reason why they would remove 6m option". - well, there also is no reason why they would need to do this just so that they can change business model.
2, "they need to do this because if people pay for sub in advance ZOS can't make game free" - they can, as long as they still offer value for the subscribers. Pretty much same as all other mixed-model MMO's out there.Edited by Sharee on December 31, 2014 3:50PM1 -
Koensol✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
Still, as shown in the video, the removal of the 6 month sub was the first step towards F2P in 5! well known MMO's. Seems there is a hint there after all.
Except, SWTOR is not really F2P. It has a freemium system where people can stay subscribed, but also have the option to play free. This might not be the case for every game.
Yes it does. Why would they remove an OPTION of getting money from people?Whether a game has a 6 month subscription option or not has nothing to do with whether the game is going F2P or not.
Just look at SWTOR: it has gone the F2P route yet it is still offering a 6 month subscription.
I don't know why they removed it, but i do know why they did not remove it: they did not remove it so that ESO can go F2P.
Because, if SWTOR could go F2P without the removal of 6 month sub option, then so could TESO. There is no link between the removal of the 6m option and the supposed coming of F2P, except in OP's imagination.
It is the case for every game that switched from pure sub to something different that i am aware of.Wether you like it or not, the removal of 6 month sub gives a valid hint towards B2P/F2P. It's not a fact, but the hint is there.
This vid explains it some more:
The guy in the video makes only 2 points(but he takes 15(!) minutes to tell them):
1, "there is no reason why they would remove 6m option". - well, there also is no reason why they would need to do this just so that they can change business model.
2, "they need to do this because if people pay for sub in advance ZOS can't make game free" - they can, as long as they still offer value for the subscribers. Pretty much same as all other mixed-model MMO's out there.
And NO, they cannot make it free after say.. three months if people payed for a 6 month sub. Not even if they return it in value, because what is value? It is a word that can be interpreted in multiple ways. If people payed, you cannot let other experience the SAME game and content for free, just because they chose a shorter sub. If a game like SWTOR has both sub and free options, the free option has to be limited in comparison to the sub, or the sub will be pointless and unatractive. I can only imagine the rage that would ensue if they did that.
Edited by Koensol on December 31, 2014 4:05PM1 -
Elsonso✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭lordrichter wrote: »lordrichter wrote: »You know what I mean.
Doesn't matter if it's reviews, emptying guilds or a removed 6 month sub option. There's always some kind of supposed evidence being presented.
Laughing at the "F2P" comments and predictions has been almost a form of entertainment here in the forums for a very long time.
It has been this way long enough that people tend to jump right back into the laughing when it happens.
Sometimes people cry wolf when there is no wolf. Sometimes there is actually something out there in the dark and we can see the glowing eyes in the distance.
Is it wolves? Will they come into the camp? Do we need to be worried?
This is where we are today.
I have no idea whether they are going to go F2P or B2P, or if they are going to try some hybrid *2P-Subscription model. I don't know if there is even a change in the business model hiding behind Door #1. Honestly, if I did know, or even strongly suspected, they were changing plans, I would not be saying it in public here in the ZOS forum.
If you ever suspect a company is hiding something or not being completely upfront about an issue...then OF COURSE you should say it in public. SCREAM IT AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS! This isn't China and I'm not going to sit around and watch a bunch of my fellow citizens be led blindly down a path they might not want to go down. If I ever see something wrong...OF COURSE I say something...that's the difference between someone who lives in a free society and someone who doesn't. And guess what happens if companies get caught doing something they shouldn't? They either fix it or a competitor comes along that can do it better. This is what makes capitalism so great! People defending companies who hide their agendas in the shadows scares me honestly. I guess that is what the masses are raised to believe now....if you see something wrong just stay quiet about it.
There are reasons why I would never do that.
To put a fine point on it, your response is exactly why I would not tell you what I knew, or even strongly suspected.
However, in a gesture of peace, I will give you this. Is a F2P-like change in the works the only reason to remove the 180-day subscription? I will let Yoda answer:
"No. There is another. "
I've never once said the game would go Free to Play even though people keep saying that.
I so strongly disagree with them going Free to Play that I went back and even added in my post the difference between free to play and buy to play so that no one is confused. I do NOT think they will go free to play.
Just to be clear, I see your edits. I am tired of typing all the acronyms and now I have to add the hybrid plans as well. I have decided to encompass them all under the umbrella of "F2P-like" and be done with it.
There was a reason why I changed the title of my thread (forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/143763/zos-when-does-the-6-month-subscription-return). In addition to it being more positive, and more likely to get a response from ZOS, it has come to reflect a change in the patterns, and their relative probabilities, that I see on this subject as I dig into it.
From that thread, around the time I changed the title:lordrichter wrote: »I am actually more interested in when they plan to offer this again, not why they got rid of it.
That should tell you what I am thinking about the certainty of them going "F2P-like" any time soon.
Sadly, my other statement in that other thread stands. Unless something happens quickly, I will not renew my game time any time soon. It has nothing to do with me thinking that they will become F2P-Like. It has nothing to do with Champion Points. It is entirely related to efficiently spending my MMO budget and the removal of the 180-day plan.XBox EU/NA:@ElsonsoJannus
PC NA/EU: @Elsonso
PSN NA/EU: @ElsonsoJannus
Total in-game hours: 11321
X/Twitter: ElsonsoJannus0 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
And NO, they cannot make it free after say.. three months if people payed for a 6 month sub. Not even if they return it in value, because what is value? It is a word that can be interpreted in multiple ways. If people payed, you cannot let other experience the SAME game and content for free, just because they chose a shorter sub.
SWTOR did just that. They switched to a f2p-with-optional-sub model with the vast majority of content freely available(basically all leveling experience 1-50) without first removing 6 month(or any other) sub option.If a game like SWTOR has both sub and free options, the free option has to be limited in comparison to the sub, or the sub will be pointless and unatractive. I can only imagine the rage that would ensue if they did that.
That is true of course. But what is stopping TESO (should it choose a different payment model) from doing the same(part of game free, part sub-only)? Nothing. Just like SWTOR, it could switch to a hybrid business model without first removing any sub options.
The removal of 6m sub is not a necessary step towards switching business models, therefore the removal does not necessarily mean ZOS plans to change the sub model.
(Just to make it clear: I am not saying ZOS absolutely won't change the sub model sometime in the future. Just that the mere removal of one sub option does not necessarily imply an imminent change, like the thread title suggests.)Edited by Sharee on December 31, 2014 4:54PM2 -
Koensol✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
Oh but did people like that in SWTOR? I can assure you they did not. But hey, its EA... what else to expect.
And NO, they cannot make it free after say.. three months if people payed for a 6 month sub. Not even if they return it in value, because what is value? It is a word that can be interpreted in multiple ways. If people payed, you cannot let other experience the SAME game and content for free, just because they chose a shorter sub.
SWTOR did just that. They switched to a f2p-with-optional-sub model with the vast majority of content freely available(basically all leveling experience 1-50) without first removing 6 month(or any other) sub option.If a game like SWTOR has both sub and free options, the free option has to be limited in comparison to the sub, or the sub will be pointless and unatractive. I can only imagine the rage that would ensue if they did that.
That is true of course. But what is stopping TESO (should it choose a different payment model) from doing the same(part of game free, part sub-only)? Nothing. Just like SWTOR, it could switch to a hybrid business model without first removing any sub options.
The removal of 6m sub is not a necessary step towards switching business models, therefore the removal does not necessarily mean ZOS plans to change the sub model.
(Just to make it clear: I am not saying ZOS absolutely won't change the sub model sometime in the future. Just that the mere removal of one sub option does not necessarily imply an imminent change, like the thread title suggests.)
If they will eventually change, I'd actually prefer a mixed system, so the game will see more players while still having sort of a steady income needed to plan future content. SWTOR has been doing fine with that, although the content they put out has been dreadful, which is why I quit 6 months ago.
At the end of the day we will just have to wait and see what happens. Just because of the fact those other games removing their 6 month sub soon later went f2p, ir doesn't sit right with me. It has to do with saving money and grabbing more money from us, which implies they need to get down to such a level to get enough cash to realize their plans. Which wouldn't be a good sign. Wherever that might lead or what signs this gives, we have different opinions on. Lets just keep it at that.
0 -
Tiitus✭✭✭✭
Except, SWTOR is not really F2P. It has a freemium system where people can stay subscribed, but also have the option to play free. This might not be the case for every game. Wether you like it or not, the removal of 6 month sub gives a valid hint towards B2P/F2P. It's not a fact, but the hint is there.
Yes it does. Why would they remove an OPTION of getting money from people?Whether a game has a 6 month subscription option or not has nothing to do with whether the game is going F2P or not.
Just look at SWTOR: it has gone the F2P route yet it is still offering a 6 month subscription.
I don't know why they removed it, but i do know why they did not remove it: they did not remove it so that ESO can go F2P.
Because, if SWTOR could go F2P without the removal of 6 month sub option, then so could TESO. There is no link between the removal of the 6m option and the supposed coming of F2P, except in OP's imagination.
This vid explains it some more:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5seRthYuKO4
i wouldnt trust that guys view on anything, he game hops like a maniac and never really informative, he just regurgitates information and puts it on his channel... just another conspiracy theorist like everyone else screaming doom on this matter.Edited by Tiitus on December 31, 2014 5:50PM2 -
Valencer✭✭✭✭✭
✭lordrichter wrote: »Laughing at the "F2P" comments and predictions has been almost a form of entertainment here in the forums for a very long time.
...
I have no idea whether they are going to go F2P or B2P, or if they are going to try some hybrid *2P-Subscription model. I don't know if there is even a change in the business model hiding behind Door #1. Honestly, if I did know, or even strongly suspected, they were changing plans, I would not be saying it in public here in the ZOS forum.
Agreed. I'm not going to pretend I know for certain what ZOS will or will not do.
All I'm pretty sure of is that @Kaide doesn't have the qualifications to know for sure either. There's been plenty of arguments for and against listed in this very thread and we're all free to believe whatever we want.
Edit: Not going to get too deeply involved in the discussion, but I think the game has been doing well as of late and I certainly wouldn't expect ZOS to change their strategy right now.
Edited by Valencer on December 31, 2014 5:59PM0 -
Kaide✭✭✭What I'd be 100% ok with....
If the game was FREE TO PLAY up to a certain level. Like level 10 or so....just enough to give a potential buyer a taste of what ESO has to offer.
This way you can also link the free accounts to the XBOX Live and PSN accounts...making it a pain for anyone who wants to create multiple free accounts.
On XBOX One, PS4, XBOX 360, and PS3...you could still sell the game as a CD or digital download. Then offer a DEMO up to level 10. That way you are providing a free game...but people are unable to reach the level cap unless they sub. And if its a GOOD GAME....then the demo should sell the game and the subscription to move past level 10.Edited by Kaide on December 31, 2014 9:02PM0 -
AngryNord✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭What I'd be 100% ok with....
If the game was FREE TO PLAY up to a certain level. Like level 10 or so....just enough to give a potential buyer a taste of what ESO has to offer.
AFAIK that's how WoW does it? (Although it is up to 20, I think). Doesn't FFXIV also have something similar?
Dark Age of Camelot and Ultima Online does it so that the client is freely downloadable, and you can set up a special two-week testing account to try out the game.0 -
ers101284b14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭What I'd be 100% ok with....
If the game was FREE TO PLAY up to a certain level. Like level 10 or so....just enough to give a potential buyer a taste of what ESO has to offer.
AFAIK that's how WoW does it? (Although it is up to 20, I think). Doesn't FFXIV also have something similar?
Dark Age of Camelot and Ultima Online does it so that the client is freely downloadable, and you can set up a special two-week testing account to try out the game.
Those aren't really F2P those are more trials. Which is what ZOS should be doing. FFXIV actually did it after 3 months. They lost so many subs from having a terrible launch (Yes 2.0 was a bad launch too) that they wanted to show their subscribers what changed after they got rid of all the errors and problems and slowed the bots down. They offered a free weekend after their first 2nd and 3rd update and then went straight to a 14 day trial.0 -
TheBull✭✭✭✭✭
✭edit -nvm
They've probably made close to 150 million this year. Think about it... 150 million. What idiot would kill that cash cow?
Edited by TheBull on December 31, 2014 11:20PMKilled by Sunshine 1vX How I see it.
Killed by Early Bright - Blood Flow - Magicka NB Build
Twitch - SunshineNB
Youtube - The Redguard0 -
Kyotee0071✭✭✭On a side note, in 15 years of playing MMORPGS, I have never chosen the 6 month sub option. You never know when you might quit, life changes, or the future brings to make you stop playing the game before 6 months are up.
I think people are reading waaaay to much into this, and fishing for Doom and Gloom to complain about.I didn't think my hangover was that bad this morning until I spent 10 minutes trying to log into my old Etch-A-Sketch2 -
Voodoo✭✭✭✭You know when I first heard of this I totally believed their explanation that it was due to a more popular 1 & 3 month sub.
After thinking on this I am tending to lean towards the B2P idea. I played The Secret World for a year. At the start they had a life time subscription plan for $200, Not sire if they still do but anyways after 10 months they too went b2p.
B2P model can still produce semi-monthly updates that of course can be made to be purchased to add more revenue so all though I still dont like b2p it can kind of keep the constant updates going if the game attracks enough people.
I agree with the OP this is looking like a B2P switch possibly with semi-monthly purchasable updates.
I hope not but it doesnt make sense to drop a longer subscription option ...if they truly wanted more ppl in the game then having longer options is better for player numbers.0 -
Iluvrien✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Merlin13KAGL wrote: »Anyone consider that it's temporarily disabled to make it less of a pain in the *** if people decide to swap over their sub to console versions?
Should be a painless procedure, in theory. Realistically, it may not be that simple.
Of course some people have considered it. I did, for one, a whole 3 posts above yours. Even having caught up with the more recent responses in the thread there is nothing that has been suggested that seems half as likely as the possibility that they are trying to make things easier on themselves...
... it makes even more sense if the number of console switchers is likely to be larger than the number of people using 6 month subscriptions in the first place.
1) They gain more money due to a lower disacount option.
2) They mildly inconvenience people wanting to select new 6 month subs (existing 6 month subs seem to be remaining in place)
3) They simplify console account switching.
As far as I can see the only real downside for them is that the F2P/B2P threads have re-emerged and since they seem to do that on a weekly basis anyway... what's there to lose?1 -
Xsorus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭They also didn't remove the 6th month option for players who already were on it. So that pretty much kills that whole f2p bshttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXpX7JMwRXtczc5GTrIYRIw
ESO and GW2 PvP videos1 -
Spottswoode✭✭✭✭✭This again? If this is the actual time we have anything close to confirmation that the game is going f2p, I'll have to recant most of the things I've said on this forum. I find my odds favorable. Given the number of times people have said the sky is falling, this is starting to go the way of the boy who cried wolf. Jumping at every change is irrational when you have no context to put it in.
You and I are thinking much along the same lines. I'll add that... it makes even more sense if the number of console switchers is likely to be larger than the number of people using 6 month subscriptions in the first place.
1) They gain more money due to a lower disacount option.
2) They mildly inconvenience people wanting to select new 6 month subs (existing 6 month subs seem to be remaining in place)
3) They simplify console account switching.
As far as I can see the only real downside for them is that the F2P/B2P threads have re-emerged and since they seem to do that on a weekly basis anyway... what's there to lose?
-If the number of renewed six month subscriptions is vastly outnumbered by the number of lower term subscriptions and time card users, it makes little sense for the company to offer new users a discount service when their peers overwhelmingly pay the higher price. They're offering a cheaper product pricing for which there is little to no demand other than to the users who currently have it. And the current six month subscribers still have access to it, so there isn't any money to be lost from them by allowing them to have it.
- If those six month renewal numbers are abysmally low, it will make little sense to expect console players (who are more finicky on average, in my opinion)to stick around for the same time if they can't provide a decent product or consumers detract from the product for basically any other reason that the previous six month subscribers did. (Which could be quite varied.) So in order to focus on short term development for the forseeable future and maximize income for the short term, they will change the subscriptions to lower investment payments.
Edited by Spottswoode on January 1, 2015 7:32AMProud Player of The Elder Bank Screen Online.
My khajiit loves his moon sugar.
Steam Profile
Libertas est periculosum. Liberum cogitandi est haeresis. Ergo, et ego terroristis.
Current main PC build:
i7 3770 (Not overclocking currently.)
MSI Gaming X GTX 1070
32gb RAM
Laptop:
i7-7700HQ
GTX 1060
16gb RAM
Secondary build:
i3 2330
GTX 660
8gb RAM0 -
Bloodfang✭✭✭✭✭ESO won't go F2P so stop speculating. The only model that might work is B2P with content behind a paygate.
So if they really go B2P expect something like:
- Zones 20€ each
- Guilds 10€ each
- Justice System toggle on for 20€ and so on..
- Also ton of vanity crap in the shop
I wouldn't really mind as I'd stay subbed and it wouldnt affect me in any way. However I'm pretty sure ESO won't even go B2P. Hell I'm pretty sure even consoles will be P2P.
1 -
phairdon✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Who knows. There has been speculation about this game going b2p of f2p for months now.
Only thing that concerns me is the emptiness of this game, population wise. This is my first time back after 4 months away & still the vet area's are dead. Might have seen 3 other players in Alik'r Desert today.
Found the starter zones & Stonefalls were reasonably quiet too. Although must take into account this is also a holiday period.
All of my contacts/friends have been gone for 5-7 months.
We will find out sooner or later.Your immersion is breaking my entitlement. Buff Sorc's. Darkshroud the cremator Death by furRubeus BlackFluffy knight BladesThe Fat PantherPsijic Fungal SausageFlesheater the VileCaspian Rafferty FernsbyArchfiend Warlock PiersThe Black BishopEvil Wizard Lizard (EU)Neberra Vestige Fajeon (EU)Salanis Deathstick (EU)Blood Mage Alchemist (EU)1 -
Artis✭✭✭✭✭
✭
It makes even less sense to delete it. The players pay the higher price, but there's an options for those who believe in game and pay more per 1 payment, too.Spottswoode wrote: »it makes little sense for the company to offer new users a discount service when their peers overwhelmingly pay the higher price. They're offering a cheaper product pricing for which there is little to no demand other than to the users who currently have it. And the current six month subscribers still have access to it, so there isn't any money to be lost from them by allowing them to have it.
Why not just keep it as is so that everybody is happy, huh?
Besides, no one cancelled the principle of least action and that everything in the Universe tends to the equillibrium (doing nothing).
So why do any actions trying to decrease entropy (entropy should be rising as you all know
) if the players ALREADY pay the higher price?
p.s. I only see 2 options. 1. - they don't have enough subscribers or just too greedy so they want us to pay more. 2. - they might change the payment model.Edited by Artis on January 1, 2015 8:29PM2 -
Gidorick✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
It might be because XBOX and Playstation already charge users a subscription for their online services. So by removing the Elder Scrolls Online subscription they are able to sell more XBOX and Playstation units! And I hope no one responds with "Dude its just $15...". $15 per subscription....multiplied by how many games you play with subscriptions on top of XBOX and Playstation subscriptions...adds up.
Sony has already said you will NOT need a PS+ subscription to play ESO.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/playstation-plus-not-required-to-play-elder-scrolls-online-on-ps4/
Of course... that was said almost a year ago now. lol
What ESO really needs is an Auction Horse.
That's right... Horse.
Click HERE to discuss.
Want more crazy ideas? Check out my Concept Repository!1
