Artemis wrote: »

And that's what I'm saying. If it expires or if I want to stop it for some time - I don't have an option to renew it. Why? Because "no one buys them"? But I want to buy it. And some other people too.

But they are selling it and people are buying it. If it wasn't the case - no one would start complaining on forums! Don't you get it, really? All this discussion started and doesn't end because there are people that are not happy. Because, you know, we want to have this option!
But they are selling it and people are buying it. If it wasn't the case - no one would start complaining on forums! Don't you get it, really? All this discussion started and doesn't end because there are people that are not happy. Because, you know, we want to have this option!

No, YOU simply don't get it. You cannot read the writing on the wall. You and the minority of players who want this don't matter to the bigger picture. You are too small and insignificant a piece of the pie to warrant the continued open purchase of it. They can make more money offering larger subscriptions than they stand to if all of you quit. You are not a large enough portion to make the change a bad decision.
via Imgflip Pie Chart Maker
By the way, I'm in the same boat with Steam version access. (Only in that case, ZOS can actually lose money to spending.)

wrote:

And "If the game is doing well" part can't endure any critics because hey - if it's doing so well, money will come with more subs. Or they could add more stuff in the store (t-shirts, plush toys etc). ALso, if NO ONE is taking that discount that comes with 6-months subs, then deleting the option won't bring any money. It's pretty obvious. So then people do buy them? But ZOS wants more money? Is that what you're saying?

There is a reason to increase prices if you are doing really well: You can't meet demands. Imagine, for instance, you run an apple stand. Let's say business has been more or less stable for a few years. Now all of a sudden, Oprah has a doctor on her show that says apples prevent cancer. Suddenly, you have a huge surge in apple sales, which is great. But now you have a problem. You can't buy and sell enough apples to meet the demand and run the stand at the same time. You also don't have enough money to hire anyone else on a permanent basis to help yet. So, you hire someone to help on a temporary basis and increase the price of your apples to pay for his help. This way you can hire him immediately and get closer to meeting your customers' demand for apples. This solution isn't perfect, but it beats losing customers because you can't meet the demand for apples. --- In ZOS' case (a corporate finance case), if they don't have enough staff/bandwidth/customer service to meet demands, they will begin hiring temporary or permanent positions or purchase the needed service/equipment and raise prices to pay for it over time.
Deleting the option does bring more money IN THE LONG RUN because people ARE buying the more expensive subscriptions at a much higher rate. (And yes, now of course, they have to.) If (a ridiculous estimate of) 500,000 subscribers make the switch to the 3 month option, they make at least $500,000 more per month. If they buy the month to month, it's $1,000,000. The end user only pays an extra buck or two a month. The actual numbers we are looking at is probably in the >10% of total subscribers range, if this is indeed the reason. But that will still be a substantial boost to income.
And guess what? They are going to launch console versions soon. How many players are going to be added then? 100,000? More? By not offering the larger subscription, which a majority of the players aren't buying anyway according to them, they stand to make more money in the long run than they would by continuing to provide the discounted subscription on paper. And how many players would refuse to subscribe in the first place because they don't have 6 month options? Probably none of them. Because of this, they can provide higher income forecasting for project planning. Which is really what it boils down to. They are financed by their parent company and there's no telling what the situation is between ZOS and Zenimax Media. A move like this bolsters the numbers they present. It makes your position to ask for an increase in staff a lot more palatable to executives if you can show you have a profit increase. Even if it's on paper or mild.
It's blatant nickel and diming but that doesn't mean it's without reason.
And no, my scenarios aren't all based off of yours. I considered the possibility that they have new expenses many more times than the just that the market was shifting to f2p. Greed wasn't one of them.
And yes, the game can do well and still need more money. Big business has big needs and requires a HUGE amount of money to upgrade services. GRANTED, MMO production costs are mostly personnel related. Customer service is one of the biggest needs of MMO's and it's very expensive. But if an extra $12USD a year improves the game substantially, I'd say it's worth it.

But we still have no idea why the change actually occurred.

stewie_801 wrote: »

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.

LOL What is incorrect? I never said once throughout any of my replies that you need PS Plus to play ESO. In fact I stated the complete opposite...by saying that a a B2P (playing a game without a subscription) is more desireable for people than a pay to play.

The problem here is NOT that I'm incorrect. The problem here is that most of the people reading do not know the difference between free to play, buy to play, and pay to play.

I'd also like to add that the MASS MAJORITY of people who play games on XBOX One and PS4 (the consoles ESO is actually releasing on) already have a Playstation Plus or Xbox live subscription. I don't know a single friend of mine who doesn't have an xbox live or playstation plus subscription...and I'm not just talking about people I see daily...I mean friends in massive guilds I've played with for years online. Because without those subscriptions you are blocked from most online content in games.

Digiman wrote: »

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?

Here! Have another vanity pet to clog up your bank/bag spaces!

Digiman wrote: »

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.

Every time someone says the game will most likely be FREE TO PLAY...and the person saying that knows that ESO is about to release on XBOX One and PS4...I literally do a /face palm

Are you saying they will be handing out FREE COPIES OF ELDER SCROLLS ONLNE AT GAMESTOP? "Hi kids....here some free CD's!!!"

Oh you aren't saying that? Well then...you are probably referring to a BUY TO PLAY business model and not a FREE TO PLAY one

Spottswoode wrote: »

Artemis wrote: »

And that's what I'm saying. If it expires or if I want to stop it for some time - I don't have an option to renew it. Why? Because "no one buys them"? But I want to buy it. And some other people too.

But they are selling it and people are buying it. If it wasn't the case - no one would start complaining on forums! Don't you get it, really? All this discussion started and doesn't end because there are people that are not happy. Because, you know, we want to have this option!
But they are selling it and people are buying it. If it wasn't the case - no one would start complaining on forums! Don't you get it, really? All this discussion started and doesn't end because there are people that are not happy. Because, you know, we want to have this option!

No, YOU simply don't get it. You cannot read the writing on the wall. You and the minority of players who want this don't matter to the bigger picture. You are too small and insignificant a piece of the pie to warrant the continued open purchase of it. They can make more money offering larger subscriptions than they stand to if all of you quit. You are not a large enough portion to make the change a bad decision.
via Imgflip Pie Chart Maker
By the way, I'm in the same boat with Steam version access. (Only in that case, ZOS can actually lose money to spending.)

wrote:

And "If the game is doing well" part can't endure any critics because hey - if it's doing so well, money will come with more subs. Or they could add more stuff in the store (t-shirts, plush toys etc). ALso, if NO ONE is taking that discount that comes with 6-months subs, then deleting the option won't bring any money. It's pretty obvious. So then people do buy them? But ZOS wants more money? Is that what you're saying?

There is a reason to increase prices if you are doing really well: You can't meet demands. Imagine, for instance, you run an apple stand. Let's say business has been more or less stable for a few years. Now all of a sudden, Oprah has a doctor on her show that says apples prevent cancer. Suddenly, you have a huge surge in apple sales, which is great. But now you have a problem. You can't buy and sell enough apples to meet the demand and run the stand at the same time. You also don't have enough money to hire anyone else on a permanent basis to help yet. So, you hire someone to help on a temporary basis and increase the price of your apples to pay for his help. This way you can hire him immediately and get closer to meeting your customers' demand for apples. This solution isn't perfect, but it beats losing customers because you can't meet the demand for apples. --- In ZOS' case (a corporate finance case), if they don't have enough staff/bandwidth/customer service to meet demands, they will begin hiring temporary or permanent positions or purchase the needed service/equipment and raise prices to pay for it over time.
Deleting the option does bring more money IN THE LONG RUN because people ARE buying the more expensive subscriptions at a much higher rate. (And yes, now of course, they have to.) If (a ridiculous estimate of) 500,000 subscribers make the switch to the 3 month option, they make at least $500,000 more per month. If they buy the month to month, it's $1,000,000. The end user only pays an extra buck or two a month. The actual numbers we are looking at is probably in the >10% of total subscribers range, if this is indeed the reason. But that will still be a substantial boost to income.
And guess what? They are going to launch console versions soon. How many players are going to be added then? 100,000? More? By not offering the larger subscription, which a majority of the players aren't buying anyway according to them, they stand to make more money in the long run than they would by continuing to provide the discounted subscription on paper. And how many players would refuse to subscribe in the first place because they don't have 6 month options? Probably none of them. Because of this, they can provide higher income forecasting for project planning. Which is really what it boils down to. They are financed by their parent company and there's no telling what the situation is between ZOS and Zenimax Media. A move like this bolsters the numbers they present. It makes your position to ask for an increase in staff a lot more palatable to executives if you can show you have a profit increase. Even if it's on paper or mild.
It's blatant nickel and diming but that doesn't mean it's without reason.
And no, my scenarios aren't all based off of yours. I considered the possibility that they have new expenses many more times than the just that the market was shifting to f2p. Greed wasn't one of them.
And yes, the game can do well and still need more money. Big business has big needs and requires a HUGE amount of money to upgrade services. GRANTED, MMO production costs are mostly personnel related. Customer service is one of the biggest needs of MMO's and it's very expensive. But if an extra $12USD a year improves the game substantially, I'd say it's worth it.

But we still have no idea why the change actually occurred.

Yo bro....selling apples (a physical item) and offering an online service (not a physical item) by pressing a button ......is not exactly the same thing.

But I totally understand you running out of apples...and if we ran out of internet due to demand that would suck too. Like totally.

Kaide wrote: »

Yo bro....selling apples (a physical item) and offering an online service (not a physical item) by pressing a button ......is not exactly the same thing.

But I totally understand you running out of apples...and if we ran out of internet due to demand that would suck too. Like totally.

There is a physical amount of bandwidth. And people to answer customer service requests. And....well, you get the idea.

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?

The reasoning was that it was going to go b2p ip for the console release, as hippo early that's the only way to make a big splash in what is without a doubt that biggest elder scrolls market still. That's why they've been changing things up and trying to essentially relaunch the game, to attract people to the console version when it's released (still probably not going to happen, but whatever).

Regardless, the reasoning would was that it was timed rather coincidentally with the anticipated console release. So after the console version comes out people wouldn't still be on long term plans. Of course, they've still got the 3 month sub, so that kind of puts a hole in that idea. Doesn't mean it's not true, and if a month or two from now the 3 month sub suddenly disappears it will probably be a much better sign of where it's going.

miahq wrote: »

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?

The reasoning was that it was going to go b2p ip for the console release, as hippo early that's the only way to make a big splash in what is without a doubt that biggest elder scrolls market still. That's why they've been changing things up and trying to essentially relaunch the game, to attract people to the console version when it's released (still probably not going to happen, but whatever).

Regardless, the reasoning would was that it was timed rather coincidentally with the anticipated console release. So after the console version comes out people wouldn't still be on long term plans. Of course, they've still got the 3 month sub, so that kind of puts a hole in that idea. Doesn't mean it's not true, and if a month or two from now the 3 month sub suddenly disappears it will probably be a much better sign of where it's going.

Imagine if they remove the 3 month plan in 3 months time without announcing it.

I'd laugh and cry so hard at the same time.

Kaide wrote: »

Wizzo91 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

The guy in the video makes some really valid points.

There is a considerable high chance that the game will be b2p (I hope not - because I really like the game and I think it still has a great amount of potential) at console release. I will probably stick around for a couple of months and see how the community develops and what items will be added to the cashshop.

With high probability I will be gone though - unfortunately I have zero good experiences with f2p / b2p MMOs.

There is also NO single reason to remove the long time subscriptions plans but to make more money in a short period of time (..before b2p / f2p).

ZoS obviously does not see the future in their own title by removing it. (I hope it is a "just-in-case" decision and not finalised yet.)

Guild Wars 2 is doing AMAZINGLY well...and has been for years now. That is a Buy to Play model...and I've never experience any issues because of this. They offer items in their cash shops that are simply for vanity...these items don't make you more powerful than someone else. People love Guild Wars 2 so they buy a ton of items. Going Buy to Play is what EVERY game should do in my opinion.

People still play GW2? I thought it was f* terrible. Like I said - no good experiences with any b2p MMOs and I've played many MMOs..

Wizzo91 wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

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?

The reasoning was that it was going to go b2p ip for the console release, as hippo early that's the only way to make a big splash in what is without a doubt that biggest elder scrolls market still. That's why they've been changing things up and trying to essentially relaunch the game, to attract people to the console version when it's released (still probably not going to happen, but whatever).

Regardless, the reasoning would was that it was timed rather coincidentally with the anticipated console release. So after the console version comes out people wouldn't still be on long term plans. Of course, they've still got the 3 month sub, so that kind of puts a hole in that idea. Doesn't mean it's not true, and if a month or two from now the 3 month sub suddenly disappears it will probably be a much better sign of where it's going.

Imagine if they remove the 3 month plan in 3 months time without announcing it.

I'd laugh and cry so hard at the same time.

Kaide wrote: »

Wizzo91 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

The guy in the video makes some really valid points.

There is a considerable high chance that the game will be b2p (I hope not - because I really like the game and I think it still has a great amount of potential) at console release. I will probably stick around for a couple of months and see how the community develops and what items will be added to the cashshop.

With high probability I will be gone though - unfortunately I have zero good experiences with f2p / b2p MMOs.

There is also NO single reason to remove the long time subscriptions plans but to make more money in a short period of time (..before b2p / f2p).

ZoS obviously does not see the future in their own title by removing it. (I hope it is a "just-in-case" decision and not finalised yet.)

Guild Wars 2 is doing AMAZINGLY well...and has been for years now. That is a Buy to Play model...and I've never experience any issues because of this. They offer items in their cash shops that are simply for vanity...these items don't make you more powerful than someone else. People love Guild Wars 2 so they buy a ton of items. Going Buy to Play is what EVERY game should do in my opinion.

People still play GW2? I thought it was f* terrible. Like I said - no good experiences with any b2p MMOs and I've played many MMOs..

Do people still play Guild Wars 2? Uuuummmm....bro...Guild Wars 2 is one of the highest rated MMORPG's ever released....It's over 30% higher ranked than Elder Scrolls Online on Metacritic right now. Some sites even have it ranked a lot higher than that. Show me a site where Guild Wars 2 isn't the highest ranked MMORPG ever created? Go on now...run along

***WARNING WARNING****
This is the part where people will come back with "RATING SITES LIKE METACRITIC HAVE NO CREDIBILITY!!!" Because they know Im right and cannot prove otherwise.

Wizzo91 wrote: »

Kaide wrote: »

Wizzo91 wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

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?

The reasoning was that it was going to go b2p ip for the console release, as hippo early that's the only way to make a big splash in what is without a doubt that biggest elder scrolls market still. That's why they've been changing things up and trying to essentially relaunch the game, to attract people to the console version when it's released (still probably not going to happen, but whatever).

Regardless, the reasoning would was that it was timed rather coincidentally with the anticipated console release. So after the console version comes out people wouldn't still be on long term plans. Of course, they've still got the 3 month sub, so that kind of puts a hole in that idea. Doesn't mean it's not true, and if a month or two from now the 3 month sub suddenly disappears it will probably be a much better sign of where it's going.

Imagine if they remove the 3 month plan in 3 months time without announcing it.

I'd laugh and cry so hard at the same time.

Kaide wrote: »

Wizzo91 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

The guy in the video makes some really valid points.

There is a considerable high chance that the game will be b2p (I hope not - because I really like the game and I think it still has a great amount of potential) at console release. I will probably stick around for a couple of months and see how the community develops and what items will be added to the cashshop.

With high probability I will be gone though - unfortunately I have zero good experiences with f2p / b2p MMOs.

There is also NO single reason to remove the long time subscriptions plans but to make more money in a short period of time (..before b2p / f2p).

ZoS obviously does not see the future in their own title by removing it. (I hope it is a "just-in-case" decision and not finalised yet.)

Guild Wars 2 is doing AMAZINGLY well...and has been for years now. That is a Buy to Play model...and I've never experience any issues because of this. They offer items in their cash shops that are simply for vanity...these items don't make you more powerful than someone else. People love Guild Wars 2 so they buy a ton of items. Going Buy to Play is what EVERY game should do in my opinion.

People still play GW2? I thought it was f* terrible. Like I said - no good experiences with any b2p MMOs and I've played many MMOs..

Do people still play Guild Wars 2? Uuuummmm....bro...Guild Wars 2 is one of the highest rated MMORPG's ever released....It's over 30% higher ranked than Elder Scrolls Online on Metacritic right now. Some sites even have it ranked 50% higher than ESO.

I couldn't care less how reviewers rate games. I decide on my own (sometime I use them as an hint in what direction to go). All I remember was, leveling in GW2 was quite fun. BUT I hated the design, endgame and pvp were terrible. Also group PVE was bad. Ran two dungeons and got the famous "never again" feeling.

LOL OMG I so called his response in advance!!!! lol

Scroll up and look at the time of my edit and his response!!! LMAO

I so called that.

"I don't care I don't care"....Bro 2 seconds ago you were telling me how no one plays that horrible game anymore. Then after you did some research and realized I was right....your only response now is "I don't care". LOL. Too funny

Kaide wrote: »

And yet, Wildstar remains a subscription game as far as I can tell. Speculation that they are changing in 2015 remains speculation.

Kaide wrote: »

Wizzo91 wrote: »

Kaide wrote: »

Wizzo91 wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

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?

The reasoning was that it was going to go b2p ip for the console release, as hippo early that's the only way to make a big splash in what is without a doubt that biggest elder scrolls market still. That's why they've been changing things up and trying to essentially relaunch the game, to attract people to the console version when it's released (still probably not going to happen, but whatever).

Regardless, the reasoning would was that it was timed rather coincidentally with the anticipated console release. So after the console version comes out people wouldn't still be on long term plans. Of course, they've still got the 3 month sub, so that kind of puts a hole in that idea. Doesn't mean it's not true, and if a month or two from now the 3 month sub suddenly disappears it will probably be a much better sign of where it's going.

Imagine if they remove the 3 month plan in 3 months time without announcing it.

I'd laugh and cry so hard at the same time.

Kaide wrote: »

Wizzo91 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

The guy in the video makes some really valid points.

There is a considerable high chance that the game will be b2p (I hope not - because I really like the game and I think it still has a great amount of potential) at console release. I will probably stick around for a couple of months and see how the community develops and what items will be added to the cashshop.

With high probability I will be gone though - unfortunately I have zero good experiences with f2p / b2p MMOs.

There is also NO single reason to remove the long time subscriptions plans but to make more money in a short period of time (..before b2p / f2p).

ZoS obviously does not see the future in their own title by removing it. (I hope it is a "just-in-case" decision and not finalised yet.)

Guild Wars 2 is doing AMAZINGLY well...and has been for years now. That is a Buy to Play model...and I've never experience any issues because of this. They offer items in their cash shops that are simply for vanity...these items don't make you more powerful than someone else. People love Guild Wars 2 so they buy a ton of items. Going Buy to Play is what EVERY game should do in my opinion.

People still play GW2? I thought it was f* terrible. Like I said - no good experiences with any b2p MMOs and I've played many MMOs..

Do people still play Guild Wars 2? Uuuummmm....bro...Guild Wars 2 is one of the highest rated MMORPG's ever released....It's over 30% higher ranked than Elder Scrolls Online on Metacritic right now. Some sites even have it ranked 50% higher than ESO.

I couldn't care less how reviewers rate games. I decide on my own (sometime I use them as an hint in what direction to go). All I remember was, leveling in GW2 was quite fun. BUT I hated the design, endgame and pvp were terrible. Also group PVE was bad. Ran two dungeons and got the famous "never again" feeling.

LOL OMG I so called his response in advance!!!! lol

Scroll up and look at the time of my edit and his response!!! LMAO

I so called that.

"I don't care I don't care"....Bro 2 seconds ago you were telling me how no one plays that horrible game anymore. Then after you did some research and realized I was right....your only response now is "I don't care". LOL. Too funny

Reread my post. "People still play GW2" - this was an honest question.

And I also did not state this: "RATING SITES LIKE METACRITIC HAVE NO CREDIBILITY!!!"

They do have credibility to some degree but I prefer to make my own opinion. Especially in MMOs that change a lot and where community matters most (to me).

Kaide wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

Wizzo91 wrote: »

Imagine if they remove the 3 month plan in 3 months time without announcing it.

I'd laugh and cry so hard at the same time.

Lol, yeah if that happens it's hard to argue it's not going b2p for the console release. Frankly that would probably lead to my very last forum post, "screw it, I'm out." After that most of my time would probably be spent waiting for the next real elder scrolls game and discouraging anyone from wasting their money on the console. Also sage and firor would pretty much become poison for me, as in if I saw their names on another game I'd probably run the other way because the association in my mind would be 'train wreck.' ... That's assuming they don't do it with the champion system before that. So far the fact that they've been marketing it to us like crazy, but refusing to answer many questions at the same time, isn't very comforting. Not to mention that what they have shown us in trying to sell it as so great is just a stripped down version of the legacy system from swtor. Why should I be impressed by that?

And that's a sentiment that a lot of people seem to share it seems... not to put too much pressure on them.

As I stated in another reply above.....

I don't understand why people would leave the game if it goes Buy to Play when Buy to Play games have much higher scores on average from their players on voting sites like Metacritic. The games actually do BETTER...you are defending a game with one of the lowest MMORPG scores on all of the sites. Wake up man

Dude you are delusional. It is not always about doing better.

Just look at the top box office. So many bad reviewed movies make tons of money compared to really good ones. The same in the music industry. Your arguments are BS and reviews have nothing do to with "doing better" or "doing worse".

From my personal experience B2P games have a much worse community that's why I try to avoid them.

MMOs are very hard to rate. They change, grow, get worse / improve all the time.

Reviewers play the game for two weeks - it is impossible to review a MMO in a short period of time. Sure, for other games reviews can be a valid source.

Kaide wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

Wizzo91 wrote: »

Imagine if they remove the 3 month plan in 3 months time without announcing it.

I'd laugh and cry so hard at the same time.

Lol, yeah if that happens it's hard to argue it's not going b2p for the console release. Frankly that would probably lead to my very last forum post, "screw it, I'm out." After that most of my time would probably be spent waiting for the next real elder scrolls game and discouraging anyone from wasting their money on the console. Also sage and firor would pretty much become poison for me, as in if I saw their names on another game I'd probably run the other way because the association in my mind would be 'train wreck.' ... That's assuming they don't do it with the champion system before that. So far the fact that they've been marketing it to us like crazy, but refusing to answer many questions at the same time, isn't very comforting. Not to mention that what they have shown us in trying to sell it as so great is just a stripped down version of the legacy system from swtor. Why should I be impressed by that?

And that's a sentiment that a lot of people seem to share it seems... not to put too much pressure on them.

As I stated in another reply above.....

I don't understand why people would leave the game if it goes Buy to Play when Buy to Play games have much higher scores on average from their players on voting sites like Metacritic. The games actually do BETTER...you are defending a game with one of the lowest MMORPG scores on all of the sites. Wake up man

Yeah, it's not one of the lowest rated games because it's pay to play, and b2p won't be a magic fix either. It will just mean more reliance on a cash shop with the possibility of pay to win creep. It's one of the lowest rated games because 1) they moved too far away from the ES and too far towards the standard MMO format that a lot of ES/rpg fans hated it, and 2) the array of bugs, combined with broken mechanics, broken promises, poorly thrown together ideas, and terrible end of game content pissed off a lot of the MMO fans and others who stayed.

Going b2p won't fix that, it will just remove an extra barrier that would've keep even more console players from even trying it. But frankly the terrible reviews are probably going to do that for them. At least they're certainly afraid they are, that's why they're really pushing the marketing around the idea champion is a brand new launch, basically a brand new game!