NO MORE 6 MONTH SUBSCRIPTIONS?!? Buy to Play is on its way!

Gidorick · January 2015

Spottswoode wrote: »

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.

Iluvrien wrote: »

... 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?

You and I are thinking much along the same lines. I'll add that
-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.

Seems reasonable... not allowing people to subscribe for six months could avoid HOURS of customer service calls with people wanting to cancel their subscription prior to the six months and are looking to get some money back.

I hope this is all it is. ESO going B2P or F2P would be very disappointing, to say the least.

Flynch · January 2015

What's more likely?

They don't need the added hassle of administrating a billing account setup that no-one uses as well as getting a small spike in cash or...

They jumped the shark and are going F2P after the game has been getting stronger and stronger.

Gidorick · January 2015

Tiitus wrote: »

Koensol wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Koensol wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

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.

Yes it does. Why would they remove an OPTION of getting money from people?

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.

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.

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.

and he doesn't understand air quotes. I actually never heard of this ZIZ guy.

Winnower · January 2015

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/144694/pcgamer-comments-on-removal-of-6-month-subscriptions#latest

Just to keep the the threads coherent.

Kaide · January 2015

Gidorick wrote: »

Kaide wrote: »

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

Whether XBOX or PS charges a subscription for ESO is irrelevant...and you are missing the point entirely.

The point is that people who own a XBOX or PS are ALREADY PAYING THOSE SUBSCRIPTIONS to play other games anyway. People MOST LIKELY will not be buying a console just to play ESO. So yes....by ESO charging a subscription these people will be paying two subscriptions....one on XBOX or PS and the other to ESO....and God only knows what subscriptions for other games on PS and XBOX. By XBOX and PS saying they won't charge a subscription to play ESO....is laughable.

Kaide · January 2015

Does anyone else find it interesting that this is the only post with thousands of views and multiple pages that ESO staff does not respond to?

Wouldn't a simple explanation put this to rest? Like "We discontinued 6 month subs because they were not popular and it has nothing to do with the game going buy to play." Instead we receive silence...which is normally what corporations do when major changes are coming.

Why would they not respond with "We took away the 6 month option because the game is going Buy to Play"? Because that would be like throwing a lit match into a dry forest. People responding to my post do not even know the difference between Buy to Play and Free to Play....I can only imagine what the average players thought process would be if they said the game was going Buy to Play. I wouldn't even be shocked honestly. BUT I bet most people would be like "OMG I NEVER SAW THIS COMING!!!! OMG THE GAME IS GOING FREE TO PLAY!!! TIME TO CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION!!!"

Beowulf_McCallum · January 2015

They already started the reason for the removal.

Kaide · January 2015

Beowulf_McCallum wrote: »

They already started the reason for the removal.

Are you talking about when they said "It's just not popular" ....like this is some kind of high school prom queen contest.

Flynch · January 2015

Kaide wrote: »

Beowulf_McCallum wrote: »

They already started the reason for the removal.

Are you talking about when they said "It's just not popular" ....like this is some kind of high school prom queen contest.

You think that internet forums are somehow removed from the general level of maturity shown by high school prom queens?

All I have seen since this 6 month debacle are the antics of high school prom queens - so I reckon they've certainly got the audience figured out.

edit: for clarity - this is predominantly a tongue-in-cheek post.

Gidorick · January 2015

Kaide wrote: »

Gidorick wrote: »

Kaide wrote: »

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

Whether XBOX or PS charges a subscription for ESO is irrelevant...and you are missing the point entirely.

The point is that people who own a XBOX or PS are ALREADY PAYING THOSE SUBSCRIPTIONS to play other games anyway. People MOST LIKELY will not be buying a console just to play ESO. So yes....by ESO charging a subscription these people will be paying two subscriptions....one on XBOX or PS and the other to ESO....and God only knows what subscriptions for other games on PS and XBOX. By XBOX and PS saying they won't charge a subscription to play ESO....is laughable.

I dunno... FFXIV seems to be doing well and it's a subscription based MMO. While people won't be buying consoles to play ESO people who already own consoles will buy ESO. The whole "pay-to-play-online" thing seems foreign to PC players but to console players it's no big deal. We don't really view it as a subscription because it's something we pay once a year.

I would argue that the result of going free to play would be the same on console and PC... many people who would otherwise not play this game would then play this game. I think the decision of going f2p/b2p is larger than the console release... but I may be wrong! It's been known to happen from time to time.

Rivan12 · January 2015

Bouvin wrote: »

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.

Sorry, as a looooog time LoTRO player/subscriber the F2P change was the beginning of the end of my time in Middle Earth...

and I am still sad about that.

So much time invested in characters and a world I just love so much. All come to ruin over time through the cancer that is F2P. Granted, at first it wasn't that bad. I always kept my sub, after I tried it free and saw all the gated content I was so used to having available to me.

After F2P came Isengard, Steeds and Warbands. All were extremely nice additions to the game. The future still looked good, I might actually see the game make it to Mt. Doom...then the scary truth showed..

After time, something like a year and a half...the game just basically stopped updating/adding content. Stagnant cess pool of a F2P game is what it has become. NO significant/decent content since Isengard.

I was forced to find a new game as my old game was no longer good enough to waste my free time on...I took my time...played some single player games I had missed while playing the MMO. Replayed Fallout 3, hit me some Mass Effect 3, got Simcity and played the hell out of it.... (part of the reason I love MMO's is the large amount of cash I save by not needing other games to play)

Eventually I set my target MMO as ESO. The P2P business model and promise of significant and quick content updates as well as my love of Tamriel/ES titles...I made a very sound choice. I like ESO more than I ever liked LoTRO, I almost like ESO as much as I LOVED Ultima Online.

In fact if the new systems(Champion/Justice/Imperial City/Brotherhood/ECT) shake out like I see them it might well rival my love of UO in time, the game is in my honest opinion that good. I am having a absolute blast in ESO. Loving giving ZOS my not so hard to come by 15$ a month...

IF it were to go B2P/F2P/*2P it would literally break my heart. I have high hopes for this game for many years to come. If either of those options come to pass I will be looking for a new game instead...

*there were some rather interesting single player titles released recently*

Spottswoode · January 2015

Artemis wrote: »

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.
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 (that should be rising as you all know ) if the players ALREADY pay the higher price?

They deleted it because no one new is buying it. People aren't buying the discounted bulk service. If there is insignificant demand for your bulk discounted price, you might as well sell the higher price in lower quantities. Basic economics. If you can sell an item for a higher price, and the market will bear it, you probably should. More income means more possibility for expansion and longer continuation of business.
---GRANTED--- they would make more money upfront from the bulk purchases, but if the demand isn't high enough to meet your needs you need to sell higher. Current six month subscribers can continue to purchase it (as of this moment, should that change in the future we will have more clarity as to the reason) and will most likely continue as long as they maintain interest in the game.

wrote:

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.

That's funny. I see about 15 different scenarios that can change pretty drastically depending on what the current financial situation is with the company. Since neither you nor I know anything about the actual income numbers, it's a pretty broad speculation in any case you might conceive. But I'll address your points, nontheless.

1. The number of subscribers could be lower than anticipated. This may be why they cancelled future six month subscriptions. Calling them greedy if this is not the case is,......well.....you're honestly just busting their chops for asking for an extra USD or two a month. Last I heard, the subscription prices were very comparable to most other MMO's. Calling it greedy is kind of trite when you have little to no inside knowledge of the company.
2. The drop of six month subscriptions could be an indicator of a great number of things, which might include they are going to change to F2P. But let's assume that's the case: Why drop the six month subscriptions if they are eventually going to move to a F2P or hybrid model? LOTRO runs a hybrid model that includes quite lengthy subscriptions at pretty good discounts because they also have a micro transaction store to rake in extra income. It doesn't really makes sense to drop the biggest subscription package when you can use it as a loss leader for your in-game store. Unless you are calling the company stupidly greedy.

stewie_801 · January 2015

Kaide wrote: »

When the game releases on consoles those people will already be paying for XBOX LIVE and Playstation Plus....not to mention any other subs for MMORPG's on top of those console subscriptions. If ESO goes B2P that will make ESO much more desirable in terms of an MMORPG as opposed to one they might currently be paying to play.

Not sure if it has been mentioned yet as I am on page 2 of this thread and still reading, but before I forget I wanted to post this.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2014/01/28/the-elder-scrolls-online-on-ps4-your-questions-answered/

That's incorrect for PS4. You will not have to have PS Plus to play ESO.

Edit: Now that I read through the rest I see that Gidorik had already mentioned this. And to the OP, majority of the people I know that play the MMO style games on PS3/PS4 do not have PS Plus so I do think it's relevant.

And for those who have PS Plus, you do get two games a month for free, so it's not like you are paying $50 for absolutely nothing. 24 games for $50 if you only have a PS4. If you are like me, I have my PS4, PS3, and Vita so for that same $50 I get 2 ps4 games, 1 ps3 and 1 Vita game a month for free. So 48 games for that $50. Not sure what Xbox gets.

I personally agree with Sharee and don't think this is a lead up to ESO going B2P or F2P, but it can always happen. Only time will tell.

Gedalya · January 2015

Per the article on Joystiq, the response on the French forums from an employee was that the 6 month option was not what players wanted. I personally question this rational as whether a payment option is popular or not reasonably wouldn't dictate removing it altogether (more options is generally perceived as better for the community. Further I am a 6 month subscriber. I want an official response from ZOS on this matter; the baiting from naysayers alone is frustrating enough without silence from the ZOS.

Artis · January 2015

Spottswoode wrote: »

They deleted it because no one new is buying it. People aren't buying the discounted bulk service. If there is insignificant demand for your bulk discounted price, you might as well sell the higher price in lower quantities. Basic economics. If you can sell an item for a higher price, and the market will bear it, you probably should. More income means more possibility for expansion and longer continuation of business.

Basic economics in which Universe? You are not talking about actual items which you need to produce and the more you produced, the more you spent and therefore the more you need to sell. They don't produce subscriptions. They have no actual value. You can't say that supplying one type of subscriptions is more expensive than the other one.
They ALREADY paid a web-designer to create that one button. It was there already. They SPEND nothing maintaining that option.

Spottswoode wrote: »

Current six month subscribers can continue to purchase it (as of this moment, should that change in the future we will have more clarity as to the reason) and will most likely continue as long as they maintain interest in the game.

No, it's not that simple. Current 6 months subscribers might travel somewhere for a month or two or five. Why would they pay for 6 months, 5 of which they would spend, say, climbing mountains? SO it would make sense for them to stop paying for this month and then they would want to renew the sub. That's my problem, for example. I'm traveling, I didn't stop my sub and didn't switch to a combination of 3-month and 1-month payments between the moment my sub expired and the moment I travel, because if I did - I wouldn't be able to renew my 6-months sub.

Spottswoode wrote: »

That's funny. I see about 15 different scenarios that can change pretty drastically depending on what the current financial situation is with the company. Since neither you nor I know anything about the actual income numbers, it's a pretty broad speculation in any case you might conceive. But I'll address your points, nontheless.

1. The number of subscribers could be lower than anticipated. This may be why they cancelled future six month subscriptions. Calling them greedy if this is not the case is,......well.....you're honestly just busting their chops for asking for an extra USD or two a month. Last I heard, the subscription prices were very comparable to most other MMO's. Calling it greedy is kind of trite when you have little to no inside knowledge of the company.
2. The drop of six month subscriptions could be an indicator of a great number of things, which might include they are going to change to F2P. But let's assume that's the case: Why drop the six month subscriptions if they are eventually going to move to a F2P or hybrid model? LOTRO runs a hybrid model that includes quite lengthy subscriptions at pretty good discounts because they also have a micro transaction store to rake in extra income. It doesn't really makes sense to drop the biggest subscription package when you can use it as a loss leader for your in-game store. Unless you are calling the company stupidly greedy.

SO where are your scenarios? Share, let's see if they make sense.
Also.
1. In WoW no one deleted a 6 months sub, even though it's less popular than other 2. However, if this is the case that the number of subscribers decreased, then most likely it's all coming to F2P.
2. Why drop them? Because people will be less unhappy since they will lose less. Imagine, you pay 6 months and then they announce it goes F2P in 2 weeks. What about the players who just won't play F2P. They would drop the game once it's announced to go F2P, but it's 2 different things - to lose 2 weeks of paid time and to lose 5,5 months. In the latter case I'd say they will start complaining a lot, also, it would be in the news and ZOS would lose whatever's left of their reputation after punishing players with Undaunted skill line patch and the announcement of Champion System (not to mention the paid race).
I would drop any package if I knew that now somebody can buy items that I spent 100 hours getting. Also, yeah, they might be just stupidly greedy. I don't see why not and that's one of my points.

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Holy Stendarr.

This thread is a perfect example of why I've been steering clear of the forums lately. Completely fanatical and irrational posters defending a non-existent point by saying that no one can disprove a conspiracy theory.

They got rid of a subscription option. Claiming that this is a precursor to F2P is just as ridiculous as every other incorrect claim about the game going F2P. It isn't. Just stop it with the useless threads.

JKorr · January 2015

Kaide wrote: »

Does anyone else find it interesting that this is the only post with thousands of views and multiple pages that ESO staff does not respond to?

Wouldn't a simple explanation put this to rest? Like "We discontinued 6 month subs because they were not popular and it has nothing to do with the game going buy to play." Instead we receive silence...which is normally what corporations do when major changes are coming.

Why would they not respond with "We took away the 6 month option because the game is going Buy to Play"? Because that would be like throwing a lit match into a dry forest. People responding to my post do not even know the difference between Buy to Play and Free to Play....I can only imagine what the average players thought process would be if they said the game was going Buy to Play. I wouldn't even be shocked honestly. BUT I bet most people would be like "OMG I NEVER SAW THIS COMING!!!! OMG THE GAME IS GOING FREE TO PLAY!!! TIME TO CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION!!!"

New Year's Day.

Besides the mods, I seriously doubt any dev is actually at work. Now, tomorrow someone might reply; today, no.

Given what happens every time someone even marginally official replies to a thread though, they'd probably be better off if they didn't answer.

Beowulf_McCallum · January 2015

regarding the 'issue' with having a subscription based game on a console....

There is SOME validity to the fear/apprehension of purchasing ESO for example
simply because you'd HAVE to have an active Live account to play.

I have, at times, let my Live account slip for various reasons. I can understand the knee-jerk response then....that will always sit in the back of a console gamer's mind. 'I don't want to be paying a subscription for a game I can't even play right now because I don't have Gold this month'

is it a likely scenario for many gamers to find themselves in? Probably not. But the hesitation and apprehension is nonetheless valid, and the reason ZOS has addressed it with Sony.

TheBull · January 2015

Wildstar is still p2p. Are you guys nuts?

Etharian · January 2015

Delete thread MODs, this is the 100th same whining post.

Xsorus · January 2015

Kaide wrote: »

Gidorick wrote: »

Kaide wrote: »

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

Whether XBOX or PS charges a subscription for ESO is irrelevant...and you are missing the point entirely.

The point is that people who own a XBOX or PS are ALREADY PAYING THOSE SUBSCRIPTIONS to play other games anyway. People MOST LIKELY will not be buying a console just to play ESO. So yes....by ESO charging a subscription these people will be paying two subscriptions....one on XBOX or PS and the other to ESO....and God only knows what subscriptions for other games on PS and XBOX. By XBOX and PS saying they won't charge a subscription to play ESO....is laughable.

You realize one of the most popular apps on Xbox and ps is Netflix, something that at least on the Xbox requires you to not only have xbox hold
But also a subscription. If people want to play ESO, they'll pay the subscription...because $15 a month only bothers people who work at McDonald's.. Everyone else has bought fast that's costed more then that

timidobserver · January 2015

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Kaide wrote: »

Gidorick wrote: »

Kaide wrote: »

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

Whether XBOX or PS charges a subscription for ESO is irrelevant...and you are missing the point entirely.

The point is that people who own a XBOX or PS are ALREADY PAYING THOSE SUBSCRIPTIONS to play other games anyway. People MOST LIKELY will not be buying a console just to play ESO. So yes....by ESO charging a subscription these people will be paying two subscriptions....one on XBOX or PS and the other to ESO....and God only knows what subscriptions for other games on PS and XBOX. By XBOX and PS saying they won't charge a subscription to play ESO....is laughable.

You realize one of the most popular apps on Xbox and ps is Netflix, something that at least on the Xbox requires you to not only have xbox hold
But also a subscription. If people want to play ESO, they'll pay the subscription...because $15 a month only bothers people who work at McDonald's.. Everyone else has bought fast that's costed more then that

Eh, the middle man XBOX Live is to much. Having to pay for ESO and Xbox live is more than I'd be willing to pay. I'll just stick with the PC version.

Beowulf_McCallum · January 2015

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Kaide wrote: »

Gidorick wrote: »

Kaide wrote: »

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

Whether XBOX or PS charges a subscription for ESO is irrelevant...and you are missing the point entirely.

The point is that people who own a XBOX or PS are ALREADY PAYING THOSE SUBSCRIPTIONS to play other games anyway. People MOST LIKELY will not be buying a console just to play ESO. So yes....by ESO charging a subscription these people will be paying two subscriptions....one on XBOX or PS and the other to ESO....and God only knows what subscriptions for other games on PS and XBOX. By XBOX and PS saying they won't charge a subscription to play ESO....is laughable.

You realize one of the most popular apps on Xbox and ps is Netflix, something that at least on the Xbox requires you to not only have xbox hold
But also a subscription. If people want to play ESO, they'll pay the subscription...because $15 a month only bothers people who work at McDonald's.. Everyone else has bought fast that's costed more then that

That's actually changed recently. You no longer need an active gold membership to use Netflix

Spottswoode · January 2015

Artemis wrote: »

Basic economics in which Universe? You are not talking about actual items which you need to produce and the more you produced, the more you spent and therefore the more you need to sell. They don't produce subscriptions. They have no actual value. You can't say that supplying one type of subscriptions is more expensive than the other one.
They ALREADY paid a web-designer to create that one button. It was there already. They SPEND nothing maintaining that option.

I can say it has value because it does. It's priced differently and therefore has different value. If people aren't buying the six month subscriptions, it's because the value of time investment of six months, and therefore the subscription, isn't worth it. Time always has value no matter how you slice it.
And they spend a great deal of money to produce the game, and it's always a constant and increasing expense. People get raises, rent needs paying, electric bills increase, insurance prices increase, data breaches occur, disasters happen, employees damage the company, bandwidth needs increasing, equipment needs replacing, and office space needs maintenance. The game also has to be patched and maintained as well as marketed. It's really d@mn expensive to maintain MMO's. Increasing profits will always be a better decision if your market can handle it. More money means you can spend more on developing your product and services as opposed to upkeep. (By the way, we haven't even BEGUN to get into taxation. That's a whole other ballgame as far as profit needs are concerned.)

wrote:

No, it's not that simple. Current 6 months subscribers might travel somewhere for a month or two or five. Why would they pay for 6 months, 5 of which they would spend, say, climbing mountains? SO it would make sense for them to stop paying for this month and then they would want to renew the sub. That's my problem, for example. I'm traveling, I didn't stop my sub and didn't switch to a combination of 3-month and 1-month payments between the moment my sub expired and the moment I travel, because if I did - I wouldn't be able to renew my 6-months sub.

What? $:\$ You'd have a recurring subscription. It's a moot discussion. Unless you want to cancel it for financial reasons you really have no need to cancel the subscription. Even if you don't use the majority of the access, it's better to leave the subscription intact if you are still going to want it when you return. It really is that simple. Unless you just don't want to pay for time you aren't going to use. And that's an entirely different discussion.
If you cancelled it, it ended while you were away, and couldn't get it back after you returned, you have a slight point. But even in that case, it's more than easy enough to prepare for it.

wrote:

1. In WoW no one deleted a 6 months sub, even though it's less popular than other 2. However, if this is the case that the number of subscribers decreased, then most likely it's all coming to F2P.

WoW has experienced a significant decrease in subscription numbers and still manages to maintain the highest subscription count in the world. They have not gotten rid of the longer subscriptions because they can sell them. They could probably sell lifetime subscriptions for crying out loud. They also already have a hybrid f2p system. It's an apples to oranges discussion.
ESO may have difficulty selling longer subscriptions because people don't want to invest that much into the game. Many people might also operate under tighter budgets where they can wiggle the lower subscription costs and can't throw out the money for the more expensive subscriptions. There are a whole host of reasons why ESO has trouble selling long subscriptions but if people are buying the shorter term investments at a higher price and much higher rate it makes sense to sell them and discontinue the sale of the lower price long time subscriptions. If the numbers are divergent enough, the decision makes sense.

wrote:

2. Why drop them? Because people will be less unhappy since they will lose less. Imagine, you pay 6 months and then they announce it goes F2P in 2 weeks. What about the players who just won't play F2P. They would drop the game once it's announced to go F2P, but it's 2 different things - to lose 2 weeks of paid time and to lose 5,5 months. In the latter case I'd say they will start complaining a lot, also, it would be in the news and ZOS would lose whatever's left of their reputation after punishing players with Undaunted skill line patch and the announcement of Champion System (not to mention the paid race).
I would drop any package if I knew that now somebody can buy items that I spent 100 hours getting.

They drop them because no one is buying them. They aren't selling it. They are providing a discount that no one wants. People are buying the lower time subscriptions and they make more money off of them. We've covered this numerous times already. Even if the game IS going f2p, there's still reason to keep them around.
Even if players consider the subscription money they spent wasted when the f2p change comes, there would be a now much larger potential market for subscriptions. There is little question that making the game f2p would increase the number of players. Whether or not anyone would buy the 6 months subscriptions is another matter entirely. There is a pretty large sales opportunity in having larger subscriptions for f2p service, for reasons I've already mentioned. They may be following the f2p changes of some of their competitors, but the most successful f2p games offer lengthy subscriptions and use them as a loss leader for their store. Again, it doesn't make much sense for them to drop them because they are going f2p. Unless you are going to claim they will bring them back after they go f2p.

wrote:

Also, yeah, they might be just stupidly greedy. I don't see why not and that's one of my points.

Thank you for admitting your position.

wrote:

SO where are your scenarios? Share, let's see if they make sense.

I'll indulge you.

The subscription increase may have occurred
I. If the game is doing bad
1. Assuming that the change is occurring because of financial needs
A. Due to need for increased bandwidth
(1.) Because of the new console releases
(2.) Because of a pending F2P/hybrid market shift
B.Due to increased expenses
C. Due to failure to meet quota set by parent company
D. Due to poor sales
2. Assuming that the change is coming because of need for expansion for increased future revenue.
A. Needing increased bandwidth
B. Increased expenses
C. Needing new or better equipment
D. Needing more equipment
E. Needing more staff in the future
3. Assuming that the change occurred for marketing reasons
A. Because the sales of the long term subscriptions were vastly outnumbered by the lower subscriptions
B. Because the need for marketing costs for the next year was substantially higher
(1.) Due to the new console release
(2.) Due to new material currently under development
C. Because the target demographic has shifted
(1.) Due to new analysis of subscription customers
(2.) Because the game is going f2p
(3.) Due to demographic changes in the market.
II. If the game is doing well
1. Assuming that the change is occurring because of financial needs
A. Due to need for increased bandwidth
B. Due to need for increased expenditure
C. Due to a new office space or data center upkeep/planning
2. Assuming that the change is coming to increase income to cover higher demand
A. Due to need for newer or better equipment
B. Due to need for more staff
C. Due to need for larger/more office space/datacenters.

I could go on and on, but without any real indication of what's actually going on inside the company it's just speculation.
I don't know if the company is going to take the game f2p or not. But this is hardly what I'd call strong indicators.

One final note, ZOS probably does not have any power to determine pricing. That is all more than likely set by their parent company.

Beowulf_McCallum wrote: »

That's actually changed recently. You no longer need an active gold membership to use Netflix

Destiny doesn't require gold for online play. (They do require it for matchmaking.) I'd say that trend is disappearing to be more competitive. It's not beyond possibility that ESO and many future games won't require gold subscriptions.

Mjollnir_NL · January 2015

I do not get the fuzz. Even if there is a f2p option why is that so bad? Ofcourse it depends on how it is implement.

I you should have 2 options: a subscription (all the content, just like it is today)
and f2p and you have to buy new maps to progress futher.

I know people who would love to play it but can not afford a monthly discription. In this model they could save money for a map and play it.

As long as it is not play 2 win or microtransaction crap i don't mind.

Vikestart · January 2015

Mjollnir_NL wrote: »

(...) As long as it is not play 2 win (...).

I'd say that's exactly what it should be

Faulgor · January 2015

I'm a bit confused. Why would they remove the 6 month subscription in preparation for F2P? What's the rationale here?

Do you think they do it so nobody has a running subscription when they go F2P? That's impossible. Why would they continue to sell game time cards, then?
If they were to change to a payment model without any subscription whatsoever, they would have to refund people no matter how long their subscription runs. If they change to a payment model that still offers subscriptions alongside F2P, there is no reason to remove any current subscription option in preparation for the change.

Am I being an idiot here? Where's the connection?

Mjollnir_NL · January 2015

Vikestart wrote: »

Mjollnir_NL wrote: »

(...) As long as it is not play 2 win (...).

I'd say that's exactly what it should be

oops

Digiman · January 2015

I am thinking this is simply an oversight by the web developers and six month options will be open for PC version only. But if this was intentional I doubt this would be a buy to play, at most it would be F2P like SWTOR did, as it seems to be sitting pretty where it is.

Obviously the reason why an MMO would go F2P is because of the population issues, right now we have issue with LFG tools that I don't any coding can fix as they simply lack the numbers to fill it.

What worries me more is how they plan to thank the loyal subs who helped pay them to this point in the development of the game? So far we have been busy watching them play catch up with bugs and problems that should of been dealt with at launch.

Bloodystab · January 2015

Faulgor wrote: »

I'm a bit confused. Why would they remove the 6 month subscription in preparation for F2P? What's the rationale here?

Do you think they do it so nobody has a running subscription when they go F2P? That's impossible. Why would they continue to sell game time cards, then?
If they were to change to a payment model without any subscription whatsoever, they would have to refund people no matter how long their subscription runs. If they change to a payment model that still offers subscriptions alongside F2P, there is no reason to remove any current subscription option in preparation for the change.

Am I being an idiot here? Where's the connection?

Good point with the Pre-Paid cards, maybe they are just still in stock in shops and will not be refilled again?

Things like Prepaid card can be easy changed into 1000 Elder Tokens that You can use in the Elder Market

but i can be wrong here - You know law issues etc.