B2P - let's do some basic maths

trimsic_ESO · January 2015

Can B2P drain more cash than the subscription model?

I'm a PVP player. Do I need to subscribe? No. There is no much room for a DLC in cyrodiil, with the exception of the imperial city and a few other things.

I'm a PVE player. Do I need to subscribe? No. If I want to access a new zone, I will buy the corresponding DLC. It will cost me about 30$. So unless ZOS releases a new DLC every 2 months, which I strongly doubt, the subscription model is more expansive for me than the B2P model.

So the main resource of money will be the cash shop. And we all know what it means at the end...

ZOS has made a terrible decision. I'm so sad...

martinhpb16_ESO · January 2015

There's the nub of it.

Cash shop.

Commodity over quality has begun.

knightblaster · January 2015

It all depends on the cost and frequency of the DLCs as compared to the sub, and whether you care about not having access to them if you drop the sub.

Ackwalan · January 2015

It is the cash shops that get you. Sure those 10% speed potions are only 50 cents each and last an hour, but how many do you use a week and what about that regen and armor potions. These kind of items always find their way into cash shops, and you will be gimped when not using them.

eisberg · January 2015

Never under estimate the amount of money people are will to pay for cosmetic stuff. Even after 28 months, Guild Wars 2 is still relying on the GEM shop, and there is nothing in there that is pay to win. They have been averaging about $11 Million a month in revenue, that is equivalent to 733,000 subscribers paying $15 a month.

If ESO can do that without going pay to win, then they will be making more money than they did with subscription. I highly doubt ESO has 700,000+ subscribers currently.

clocksstoppe · January 2015

Only in your case. The f2p model relies on a bunch of rich and/or stupid people who buy $500 worth of crowns every month. They pay for you.

Dreamo84 · January 2015

I think the subscription option tends to be more for the players who are against microtransactions so as to not interrupt their experience at all. It's sort of like "here you just keep paying your sub and we won't change your experience at all".

It is also useful for new players years later when there is 8 DLCs and buying them all seems overwhelming to a new player. Subscribing and unlocking every DLC sounds a little less intimidating than coughing up $100.

Vikestart · January 2015

I think people should stop screaming doomsday and making useless threads like this.

Instead, you should just continue to play the game.

If something even remotely close to P2W is introduced, you can just bail. But until then, these doomsday prophecies won't serve any purpose....

knightblaster · January 2015

eisberg wrote: »

Never under estimate the amount of money people are will to pay for cosmetic stuff. Even after 28 months, Guild Wars 2 is still relying on the GEM shop, and there is nothing in there that is pay to win. They have been averaging about $11 Million a month in revenue, that is equivalent to 733,000 subscribers paying $15 a month.

If ESO can do that without going pay to win, then they will be making more money than they did with subscription. I highly doubt ESO has 700,000+ subscribers currently.

GW2 makes a ton of money from selling gems that people then convert into gold to get endgame gear on the AH. It definitely is P2W. The only reason is gets away with it is that GW2 was designed to be hyper casual from the beginning -- not a competitive game. The PvP has standardized gear and so on. It was set up from the beginning to be a casual game that would have limited appeal to competitive gamers, unlike this one.

eisberg · January 2015

clocksstoppe wrote: »

Only in your case. The f2p model relies on a bunch of rich and/or stupid people who buy $500 worth of crowns every month. They pay for you.

Having a hard time finding the article, but an MMO developer stated of the people who do use cash for the game, 75% of them spend $5-7 a month, with only about 5% spending more than $15 a month.

These models work because of sheer volume, and not from the big spenders.

clocksstoppe · January 2015

eisberg wrote: »

clocksstoppe wrote: »

Only in your case. The f2p model relies on a bunch of rich and/or stupid people who buy $500 worth of crowns every month. They pay for you.

Having a hard time finding the article, but an MMO developer stated of the people who do use cash for the game, 75% of them spend $5-7 a month, with only about 5% spending more than $15 a month.

These models work because of sheer volume, and not from the big spenders.

Well clearly that's not the case genius, otherwise they wouldn't downgrade from a 15 usd per month sub to a 5 usd per month sub like the average you said there describes. They didn't release more info because they don't want you to know how ridiculous their income is from the "whales"

danno8 · January 2015

knightblaster wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

Never under estimate the amount of money people are will to pay for cosmetic stuff. Even after 28 months, Guild Wars 2 is still relying on the GEM shop, and there is nothing in there that is pay to win. They have been averaging about $11 Million a month in revenue, that is equivalent to 733,000 subscribers paying $15 a month.

If ESO can do that without going pay to win, then they will be making more money than they did with subscription. I highly doubt ESO has 700,000+ subscribers currently.

GW2 makes a ton of money from selling gems that people then convert into gold to get endgame gear on the AH. It definitely is P2W. The only reason is gets away with it is that GW2 was designed to be hyper casual from the beginning -- not a competitive game. The PvP has standardized gear and so on. It was set up from the beginning to be a casual game that would have limited appeal to competitive gamers, unlike this one.

GW2 is also not gear dependent so much. The difference between Exotic--> Ascended is about 5% effectiveness and not necessary at all. So no one cares at all if someone wants to blow hundreds of dollars to get some gear on the AH.

In the 2 years I have been playing on and off I have only spent $30 bucks in the store for 3 extra character slots. I Have several exotic sets for all my characters and have never felt left out of any groups or under powered in WvW.

TBH if ESO ends up with a GW2 type results in the B2P realm I would consider it a huge success.

eisberg · January 2015

clocksstoppe wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

clocksstoppe wrote: »

Only in your case. The f2p model relies on a bunch of rich and/or stupid people who buy $500 worth of crowns every month. They pay for you.

Having a hard time finding the article, but an MMO developer stated of the people who do use cash for the game, 75% of them spend $5-7 a month, with only about 5% spending more than $15 a month.

These models work because of sheer volume, and not from the big spenders.

Well clearly that's not the case genius, otherwise they wouldn't downgrade from a 15 usd per month sub to a 5 usd per month sub like the average you said there describes. They didn't release more info because they don't want you to know how ridiculous their income is from the "whales"

Actually they stated that 75% that was spending $5-$7 a month was something like 85-90% of their revenue.

So yeah, sheer volume is what gets them their revenue. This is what ZOS is planning on with ESO, that they'll get more money in revenue then what they get now because of sheer volume, even though they will make less per person, they'll have more people paying than before. They even specifically stated that "whales" (though they used a different wording) were not even close to being the big revenue and if they were to leave it wouldn't matter all that much.

Edit: still trying to find that article. Having a hard time remember who the developers were that were interviewed, and who the interview was done by. It was about 3 or 4 years ago when it was posted.