Maintenance for the week of February 16:
• ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – February 19, 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC) - 6:00PM EST (23:00 UTC)
• ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – February 19, 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC) - 6:00PM EST (23:00 UTC)
The cash shop will turn into Pay2Win and here's why
-
Ohioastro✭✭✭✭I agree it will devolve in to P2W, but not because people think "ZOS lies". It's just the path that the cash shop sets the game on. Removing sub requirements puts the weight of income on a combination of subs, Box sales, and cash shop. When box sales plateau, They have to put increased emphasis on the cash shop and make it more valuable - thus including items that go from "convenient" to "required".
Guild Wars 2, 28 months later, still nothing in there that is required, or pay to win. They average about $11 Milllion a month in revenue from Guild Wars 2, that is equivalent to about 733,000 subscribers paying $15 a month.
GW2 does not have (by design) any gear or anything that can be construed as P2W in the 1st place. The only "rewards" in the game *period* come from the cash shop. It's a trick and you were dumb enough to fall for it, even 2 years later when nothing has been added to the game you repeat this mantra.
Yes - and there has been virtually no content added to the game since release (except tons of cosmetics in the cash shop). This is the best case outcome for ESO.3 -
phairdon✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I agree it will devolve in to P2W, but not because people think "ZOS lies". It's just the path that the cash shop sets the game on. Removing sub requirements puts the weight of income on a combination of subs, Box sales, and cash shop. When box sales plateau, They have to put increased emphasis on the cash shop and make it more valuable - thus including items that go from "convenient" to "required".
Guild Wars 2, 28 months later, still nothing in there that is required, or pay to win. They average about $11 Milllion a month in revenue from Guild Wars 2, that is equivalent to about 733,000 subscribers paying $15 a month.
GW2 does not have (by design) any gear or anything that can be construed as P2W in the 1st place. The only "rewards" in the game *period* come from the cash shop. It's a trick and you were dumb enough to fall for it, even 2 years later when nothing has been added to the game you repeat this mantra.
Yes - and there has been virtually no content added to the game since release (except tons of cosmetics in the cash shop). This is the best case outcome for ESO.
Get the impression this is because they decided to run the living story model over creating expansions.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 -
knightblaster✭✭✭I agree it will devolve in to P2W, but not because people think "ZOS lies". It's just the path that the cash shop sets the game on. Removing sub requirements puts the weight of income on a combination of subs, Box sales, and cash shop. When box sales plateau, They have to put increased emphasis on the cash shop and make it more valuable - thus including items that go from "convenient" to "required".
Guild Wars 2, 28 months later, still nothing in there that is required, or pay to win. They average about $11 Milllion a month in revenue from Guild Wars 2, that is equivalent to about 733,000 subscribers paying $15 a month.
GW2 does not have (by design) any gear or anything that can be construed as P2W in the 1st place. The only "rewards" in the game *period* come from the cash shop. It's a trick and you were dumb enough to fall for it, even 2 years later when nothing has been added to the game you repeat this mantra.
Yes - and there has been virtually no content added to the game since release (except tons of cosmetics in the cash shop). This is the best case outcome for ESO.
Get the impression this is because they decided to run the living story model over creating expansions.
Right, which is very lightweight. It suits the game (it is designed to be hyper, hyper casual in every way). This one looks like it will go the way of LOTRO.
0 -
BlueIllyrian✭✭✭The cash shop by its nature has to go P2W, items have to offer a clear advantage or they will not sell and generate profit. The only question is when, not if. Current B2P is a training wheel until shop is fully stocked and running.4
-
Bouvin✭✭✭✭✭
✭I agree it will devolve in to P2W, but not because people think "ZOS lies". It's just the path that the cash shop sets the game on. Removing sub requirements puts the weight of income on a combination of subs, Box sales, and cash shop. When box sales plateau, They have to put increased emphasis on the cash shop and make it more valuable - thus including items that go from "convenient" to "required".
Guild Wars 2, 28 months later, still nothing in there that is required, or pay to win. They average about $11 Milllion a month in revenue from Guild Wars 2, that is equivalent to about 733,000 subscribers paying $15 a month.
Also a game that started as B2P and didn't lie to their player base for a year.
Here's a couple of quotes from ESO's producers:
Matt Firor, "Charging a flat monthly (or subscription) fee means that we will offer players the game we set out to make, and the one that fans want to play. Going with any other model meant that we would have to make sacrifices and changes we weren’t willing to make.”
“Our fans are our biggest inspiration, and we’ve listened to their feedback on the entertainment experience they want,” said Matt Firor
In order to be a lie, they needed to say that knowing they would be going Buy to Play in the future. That is what they wanted, but reality bit them in the bum and they had to make changes. Did you think that perhaps the subscription revenue they were getting was not enough to make the game game they set out to make, that they were going to have to start making even greater sacrifices if they stayed with the subscription model then they would have to go with this new mode?
They lied when they told us the 6-month subscription was only removed because it was unpopular.
Matt Frior lied when he told the fanbase prior to release that the game would only be P2P and they'd rather shut it down than stray from subscriptions.4 -
BlueIllyrian✭✭✭I agree it will devolve in to P2W, but not because people think "ZOS lies". It's just the path that the cash shop sets the game on. Removing sub requirements puts the weight of income on a combination of subs, Box sales, and cash shop. When box sales plateau, They have to put increased emphasis on the cash shop and make it more valuable - thus including items that go from "convenient" to "required".
Guild Wars 2, 28 months later, still nothing in there that is required, or pay to win. They average about $11 Milllion a month in revenue from Guild Wars 2, that is equivalent to about 733,000 subscribers paying $15 a month.
Also a game that started as B2P and didn't lie to their player base for a year.
Here's a couple of quotes from ESO's producers:
Matt Firor, "Charging a flat monthly (or subscription) fee means that we will offer players the game we set out to make, and the one that fans want to play. Going with any other model meant that we would have to make sacrifices and changes we weren’t willing to make.”
“Our fans are our biggest inspiration, and we’ve listened to their feedback on the entertainment experience they want,” said Matt Firor
In order to be a lie, they needed to say that knowing they would be going Buy to Play in the future. That is what they wanted, but reality bit them in the bum and they had to make changes. Did you think that perhaps the subscription revenue they were getting was not enough to make the game game they set out to make, that they were going to have to start making even greater sacrifices if they stayed with the subscription model then they would have to go with this new mode?
Oh please, it's a business and as such it doesn't "sacrifice" for anyone.0 -
BlueIllyrian✭✭✭
He also forgot to mention that many subs will be lost as a result of this exciting change.1 -
wiz12268b14_ESO✭✭✭Yea but what do you win? I never understood the whole "pay to win" mentality. If you pay to level faster or blow through content faster in a game like ESO youre actually losing, because 90% of this game is questing, story, and listening to Kate Beckinsale.
PvP in this game was never any good, and even if they did sell PvP crap would it matter? It might actually help PvP in this game and get more people doing it. Let the guys with the biggest wallets have their own private pay ground.
As far as "updates" pretty obvious if you watched the twitch they have a ton of stuff already done, my guess is at least 10 if not more DLC packs ready to go and they will release them in a timely manner (to simulate sub profits they were making) and continue to develop new DLC content going forward. I suspect a housing one (and that one should be major) with an expansion of the crown store and introduction of hundreds of housing items.
Mixed emotions, the game can be played for free or you can buy pieces of it going forward or you can sub and play through those places (pay to rent) and move on.
I suspect they will release DLCs staggered so that some with more replayability than others will be mixed in with ones not worth buying. So eventually it will be a hopping effect where a one time DLC comes out you sub for a month get your perks and do it on all your toons you want then when one comes out worth owning you buy that one and keep it and let your sub stay lapsed. Its a game within the game.
These DLCs look like all solo dungeon or map content anyway so I doubt even if you and a friend both own it you will be able to play together on them. They havent addresses that yet, but to keep the 'no pay wall' mantra theyre almost forced to make the DLC stuff solo only.0 -
pmn100b16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭BlueIllyrian wrote: »
Its he's new gif he's found today. He seems really pleased with it as its the 4th thread I've seen it in.3 -
PaulD✭✭✭You are ALL ignoring the elephant in the room. And it's a really big elephant. As income moves from sales and monthly subs to cash shop, the development team naturally is told to focus on the cash shop. That's time NOT spent on making the game better, getting rid of bugs, developing new content, etc. So instead of getting content every three months, it slips to four months, then six months, then yearly. And players leave. So even more focus goes towards making more money, which means the cash shop gets even more attention. It takes a great deal of willpower to keep from going down that road, and ZOS does not appear to have much of that quality to spare.
Not talking "doom", not saying the game will be destroyed overnight, not griping about sub fees. Just saying the focus will change, and that will mean the content will no longer be the developers focus.
Give it two years, you'll clearly see what I'm talking about. It's either focus on players and content, or focus on cash flow and cash shops. Very rarely a team can do both - and it's like walking a tightrope - one slip, and you are done.7 -
Bouvin✭✭✭✭✭
✭You are ALL ignoring the elephant in the room. And it's a really big elephant. As income moves from sales and monthly subs to cash shop, the development team naturally is told to focus on the cash shop. That's time NOT spent on making the game better, getting rid of bugs, developing new content, etc. So instead of getting content every three months, it slips to four months, then six months, then yearly. And players leave. So even more focus goes towards making more money, which means the cash shop gets even more attention. It takes a great deal of willpower to keep from going down that road, and ZOS does not appear to have much of that quality to spare.
Not talking "doom", not saying the game will be destroyed overnight, not griping about sub fees. Just saying the focus will change, and that will mean the content will no longer be the developers focus.
Give it two years, you'll clearly see what I'm talking about. It's either focus on players and content, or focus on cash flow and cash shops. Very rarely a team can do both - and it's like walking a tightrope - one slip, and you are done.
Just as we can make a reasonable assumption that 1.6 has been delayed because they needed to code in the cash shop.
Honestly, if they had just stuck to the sub model and not been spending time on the cash shop we'd probably have Champion System, Justice System, Imperial City already, with Dark Brotherhood and Theives guild on the horizon.
But instead, they've been taking our subscription dollars and using them to develop a cash shop instead of delivering on the 4-6 week content updates they sold us on when they were hyping the game.
Typical bait and switch at its best.4 -
wiz12268b14_ESO✭✭✭You are ALL ignoring the elephant in the room. And it's a really big elephant. As income moves from sales and monthly subs to cash shop, the development team naturally is told to focus on the cash shop. That's time NOT spent on making the game better, getting rid of bugs, developing new content, etc. So instead of getting content every three months, it slips to four months, then six months, then yearly. And players leave. So even more focus goes towards making more money, which means the cash shop gets even more attention. It takes a great deal of willpower to keep from going down that road, and ZOS does not appear to have much of that quality to spare.
Not talking "doom", not saying the game will be destroyed overnight, not griping about sub fees. Just saying the focus will change, and that will mean the content will no longer be the developers focus.
Give it two years, you'll clearly see what I'm talking about. It's either focus on players and content, or focus on cash flow and cash shops. Very rarely a team can do both - and it's like walking a tightrope - one slip, and you are done.
Not if they make more revenue from people buying DLCs. DLC WILL be the new content. Its a balancing act. It isnt cut and dry where they MUST sell crap in a store to make money. If a large portion buy the DLC (for 19.99)outright that takes a lot of pressure off selling 50 cent items.
Since theyre giving away 1500 credits for subbing we already know stuff in the store is going to be way over priced anyway, so the store is just going to be a little extra income, I suspect theyre looking to make the DLC sales the bulk of future revenue. if they sell X amount for 19.99 and that number exceeds what they would have made for x amount of players (now playing) @ 14.99 per month they are better off. Ten you add in the guys who stay subbed anyway and then any store sales above and beyond the free crowns they give away.
The cash shop is there for lazy people with more money than time, DLC packs will be their go to, and why I suspect they will do their best to push them out in a more than timely manner, as in at least 6 a year. @ 19.99 per thats 120 buck a year, not as much as subs were but if more people buy DLCs than subbed its a positive move.2 -
Bouvin✭✭✭✭✭
✭wiz12268b14_ESO wrote: »You are ALL ignoring the elephant in the room. And it's a really big elephant. As income moves from sales and monthly subs to cash shop, the development team naturally is told to focus on the cash shop. That's time NOT spent on making the game better, getting rid of bugs, developing new content, etc. So instead of getting content every three months, it slips to four months, then six months, then yearly. And players leave. So even more focus goes towards making more money, which means the cash shop gets even more attention. It takes a great deal of willpower to keep from going down that road, and ZOS does not appear to have much of that quality to spare.
Not talking "doom", not saying the game will be destroyed overnight, not griping about sub fees. Just saying the focus will change, and that will mean the content will no longer be the developers focus.
Give it two years, you'll clearly see what I'm talking about. It's either focus on players and content, or focus on cash flow and cash shops. Very rarely a team can do both - and it's like walking a tightrope - one slip, and you are done.
Not if they make more revenue from people buying DLCs. DLC WILL be the new content. Its a balancing act. It isnt cut and dry where they MUST sell crap in a store to make money. If a large portion buy the DLC (for 19.99)outright that takes a lot of pressure off selling 50 cent items.
Since theyre giving away 1500 credits for subbing we already know stuff in the store is going to be way over priced anyway, so the store is just going to be a little extra income, I suspect theyre looking to make the DLC sales the bulk of future revenue. if they sell X amount for 19.99 and that number exceeds what they would have made for x amount of players (now playing) @ 14.99 per month they are better off. Ten you add in the guys who stay subbed anyway and then any store sales above and beyond the free crowns they give away.
The cash shop is there for lazy people with more money than time, DLC packs will be their go to, and why I suspect they will do their best to push them out in a more than timely manner, as in at least 6 a year. @ 19.99 per thats 120 buck a year, not as much as subs were but if more people buy DLCs than subbed its a positive move.
This is how it initially began with LoTRO.
But then Turbine got greedy and started introducing more P2W items in the cash shop.. and eventually cash shop purchases were required to be viable.
Eventually content updates (DLC) slowed down and they solely focused on the cash shop.
Now they've announced they don't have plans for any more end-game raids.. just more quest zones to chug through while all the NPCs have "Buy Me" above their heads.1 -
Brittany_Joy✭✭✭✭/Sigh, I have to agree with OP as well. ZoS is like a cheating partner and those defending ZoS are the type of people who remain with an abusive partner. Loyalty is admirable but there is such a thing as exploitation and betrayal. ZoS needs to mend the wounds and build more trust.2 -
Korah_Eaglecry✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭SERIOUSLY WHAT AN OVERREACTION!
1. They are replacing P2P Model with a P2P/B2P Hybrid. Call it more like a B2P Trial if you want.
2. Cash Shop WON'T be P2W. If you are subscribed you will eventually buy everything for "FREE" with the crowns you will be getting monthly anyway.
3. Cash Shop WILL be more like a FEATURE than an ANNOYANCE. You will have all those awesome Costumes, Mounts and Pets there. Like I already said, if you stay subscribed you will be basically getting them for "FREE" anyway. It's addition to the game, and nothing annoying at all.
SUMMARY: Yes when I read the article first, I was really disappointed, however through some deep thought, I've found out that this Hybrid Model is way better than the P2P Model we used to have. It's possibly the best Payment Model ever created. Why:
- More Revenue for ZOS -> More Content for US
- NO P2W Cash Shop -> Just very good looking vanity stuff.
- A Buy to Play Trial for EVERYONE -> Playerbase is gonna increase by a lot.
- Buy To Play DLCs (Free for the subbed people) -> A great way to "force" people to sub anyway. I expect DLCs to be much more costly than a subscription.
What some of you don't understand:
- ESO wasn't doing bad, it would've kept the P2P Model on it's own just fine.
- Microsoft forced this on them, as they didn't want to drop the Xbox Live fee (Sony was prepared to drop it actually for the PS Net).
- Copies sold from Consoles will most likely jump from 200k -> 2mil+ just due to this change -> We are looking at 120+ mil revenue just from Console Sales.
PEOPLE NO NEED TO EXAGGERATE OR OVERREACT!
YOU WILL QUICKLY FIND OUT THAT UPDATES WILL STAY RIGHT ON SCHEDULE! HECK THEY'LL BE PROBABLY EVEN FASTER AND BIGGER. IT WAS A SMART BUSINESS MOVE!
The DLCs wont be more then 20 bucks at most. People will want to invest in the DLCs on Console but if they have to pay too much too often theyll forego the extra zones and linger in the areas already open to them.
Penniless Sellsword CompanyCaptain Paramount - Jorrhaq VhentKorith Eaglecry * Enrerion Aedihle * Laerinel Rhaev * Caius Berilius * Seylina Ithvala * H'Vak the GrimjawlTenarei Rhaev * Dazsh Ro Khar * Yynril Rothvani * Bathes-In-Coin * Anaelle Faerniil * Azjani Ma'LesAban Shahid Bakr * Kheshna gra-Gharbuk * Gallisten Bondurant * Etain Maquier * Atsu Kalame * Faulpia SeverinusWhat is better, to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort? - Paarthurnax0 -
Freyar✭✭Quality drops in non-subscription games simply because the incentive to do better isn't there anymore. The interest goes to retaining whales.4 -
wiz12268b14_ESO✭✭✭wiz12268b14_ESO wrote: »You are ALL ignoring the elephant in the room. And it's a really big elephant. As income moves from sales and monthly subs to cash shop, the development team naturally is told to focus on the cash shop. That's time NOT spent on making the game better, getting rid of bugs, developing new content, etc. So instead of getting content every three months, it slips to four months, then six months, then yearly. And players leave. So even more focus goes towards making more money, which means the cash shop gets even more attention. It takes a great deal of willpower to keep from going down that road, and ZOS does not appear to have much of that quality to spare.
Not talking "doom", not saying the game will be destroyed overnight, not griping about sub fees. Just saying the focus will change, and that will mean the content will no longer be the developers focus.
Give it two years, you'll clearly see what I'm talking about. It's either focus on players and content, or focus on cash flow and cash shops. Very rarely a team can do both - and it's like walking a tightrope - one slip, and you are done.
Not if they make more revenue from people buying DLCs. DLC WILL be the new content. Its a balancing act. It isnt cut and dry where they MUST sell crap in a store to make money. If a large portion buy the DLC (for 19.99)outright that takes a lot of pressure off selling 50 cent items.
Since theyre giving away 1500 credits for subbing we already know stuff in the store is going to be way over priced anyway, so the store is just going to be a little extra income, I suspect theyre looking to make the DLC sales the bulk of future revenue. if they sell X amount for 19.99 and that number exceeds what they would have made for x amount of players (now playing) @ 14.99 per month they are better off. Ten you add in the guys who stay subbed anyway and then any store sales above and beyond the free crowns they give away.
The cash shop is there for lazy people with more money than time, DLC packs will be their go to, and why I suspect they will do their best to push them out in a more than timely manner, as in at least 6 a year. @ 19.99 per thats 120 buck a year, not as much as subs were but if more people buy DLCs than subbed its a positive move.
This is how it initially began with LoTRO.
But then Turbine got greedy and started introducing more P2W items in the cash shop.. and eventually cash shop purchases were required to be viable.
Eventually content updates (DLC) slowed down and they solely focused on the cash shop.
Now they've announced they don't have plans for any more end-game raids.. just more quest zones to chug through while all the NPCs have "Buy Me" above their heads.
Lotro was in a bind with life time subscribers (I had two) they were way too generous with what they gave us and were eventually forced to do what they did. i still dont see anything in the store that is pay to win. Stat tomes are marginal at best, and are not necessary in the least to play that game, theyre over kill. So its semantics at best.
But I didnt buy Mirkwood when it came out so when they made their free to play move I had something like 16K turbine points on each account and bought It and all subsequent expansions, multiple bank upgrades, a few cosmetics, and quite abit of other stuff and still have almost 10K left over (since there wasnt a paid expansion this past year). So theyre giving me 60 bucks a year(not counting discounts in the store) per account just for owning the game.
ZoS has no such issue and the amount of points theyre giving past subscribers is minuscule compared ot what Turbine gave people.2 -
DDuke✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭SERIOUSLY WHAT AN OVERREACTION!
1. They are replacing P2P Model with a P2P/B2P Hybrid. Call it more like a B2P Trial if you want.
2. Cash Shop WON'T be P2W. If you are subscribed you will eventually buy everything for "FREE" with the crowns you will be getting monthly anyway.
3. Cash Shop WILL be more like a FEATURE than an ANNOYANCE. You will have all those awesome Costumes, Mounts and Pets there. Like I already said, if you stay subscribed you will be basically getting them for "FREE" anyway. It's addition to the game, and nothing annoying at all.
SUMMARY: Yes when I read the article first, I was really disappointed, however through some deep thought, I've found out that this Hybrid Model is way better than the P2P Model we used to have. It's possibly the best Payment Model ever created. Why:
- More Revenue for ZOS -> More Content for US
- NO P2W Cash Shop -> Just very good looking vanity stuff.
- A Buy to Play Trial for EVERYONE -> Playerbase is gonna increase by a lot.
- Buy To Play DLCs (Free for the subbed people) -> A great way to "force" people to sub anyway. I expect DLCs to be much more costly than a subscription.
What some of you don't understand:
- ESO wasn't doing bad, it would've kept the P2P Model on it's own just fine.
- Microsoft forced this on them, as they didn't want to drop the Xbox Live fee (Sony was prepared to drop it actually for the PS Net).
- Copies sold from Consoles will most likely jump from 200k -> 2mil+ just due to this change -> We are looking at 120+ mil revenue just from Console Sales.
PEOPLE NO NEED TO EXAGGERATE OR OVERREACT!
YOU WILL QUICKLY FIND OUT THAT UPDATES WILL STAY RIGHT ON SCHEDULE! HECK THEY'LL BE PROBABLY EVEN FASTER AND BIGGER. IT WAS A SMART BUSINESS MOVE!
What a load of...
I won't even address most of your points because they are simply not correct. Instead, I will explain basic concepts in such simple terms that a chimp could learn them.
Do you know what happens to B2P MMOs over time, when box sales start falling? Let me explain.
Aging games sell less than new games, quite obvious.
Less sales leads to less revenue, which leads to less content updates.
What happens next is, they will have to find this revenue elsewhere.
You already have a Cash Shop, how do you make people spend more money on it?
Easy, you make the items in it more enticing & powerful.
If you fail to make revenue anyhow, the pace of content updates will slow down.
So, while things might look fine for the first couple of months, you'll start seeing the glaring issues of this model after year or so, just like in every other B2P MMO out there.
For good example, take a look at GW2: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Gem_StoreEdited by DDuke on January 22, 2015 2:17AM1 -
Djem✭✭✭It is already pay to win. If you get ESO Plus membership you get:
10% bonus to experience point gain
10% bonus to crafting research
10% bonus to crafting inspiration gain
10% bonus to gold acquisition
This is not the store, but it obviously shows that they are okay with the logic of pay to win.Glarthir is crazy. Maybe harmless crazy, maybe not.
Dunmer Nightblade, Ebonheart Pact, EU PC Megaserver.0 -
Actually, there's a much simpler reason it will likely end up being pay to win: money. Cash shops generate significant revenue. There's a reason the majority of MMOs have started or ended up that way. Even companies that only handle F2P w/ cash shops like Nexon were making more money than Blizzard at the height of WoW. Once the shop is in place, it's only a matter of time before that cost-benefit analysis shows how much more they could make with a pay to win setup.
The reality is, in order to increase cash shop sales, you -have- to make the things in it enticing. When people are sick of getting new costumes every month, new mounts every two months and dye colors each week and want something new, they'll begin adding items. To keep people buying, they'll make the items stronger, or exclusive to the cash shop.
It also incentives placing paywalls and frustrating mechanics in place to drive sales. Imagine an ESO where 8 yellow upgrade mats only have a 50% chance of success, but they are just as desirable as they are now. Then boom, "super yellow upgade mats" hit the store - 10 pack for 10 bucks! You have 2 leftover, oh might as well buy another to make use of those.
Once people start buying that stuff and the people who don't find it harder to compete, or even play without getting frustrated, it will only drive people to the store or away from the game. Expect to see bank and inventory space get slashed with upgades added to the store, anything remotely RNG related getting slashed with better RNG items added to the store just to start.
It's business, for better or worse. ZOS is a for-profit company with investors that expect a return on investment. This means they have a fiduciary responsibility to be as profitable as possible and a pay to win cash shop is the most profitable model.1 -
PaulD✭✭✭Oh, come on. Look, it's ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS what the first "necessary" upgrade in the cash shop will be. Ten bank slots, ten US$. Really.0
-
BBSooner✭✭✭✭✭
✭I agree it will devolve in to P2W, but not because people think "ZOS lies". It's just the path that the cash shop sets the game on. Removing sub requirements puts the weight of income on a combination of subs, Box sales, and cash shop. When box sales plateau, They have to put increased emphasis on the cash shop and make it more valuable - thus including items that go from "convenient" to "required".
Guild Wars 2, 28 months later, still nothing in there that is required, or pay to win. They average about $11 Milllion a month in revenue from Guild Wars 2, that is equivalent to about 733,000 subscribers paying $15 a month.
GW2 does not have (by design) any gear or anything that can be construed as P2W in the 1st place. The only "rewards" in the game *period* come from the cash shop. It's a trick and you were dumb enough to fall for it, even 2 years later when nothing has been added to the game you repeat this mantra.
Yes - and there has been virtually no content added to the game since release (except tons of cosmetics in the cash shop). This is the best case outcome for ESO.
Get the impression this is because they decided to run the living story model over creating expansions.
So the option GW2 brings with its "success" is content stagnation over p2w content trivialization? I'll admit I quit GW2 shortly after level cap at release so I don't know how many new zones, instances, raids, progression content, brand new systems like justice or complete overhauls like champion that GW2 has put out, but I do know that I don't hear people comment on content positively.1 -
Blud✭✭✭✭✭The only honest and reasonable statement any of us can make is "we shall see," while keeping the following in mind:
$$$ > your opinionEdited by Blud on January 22, 2015 3:16AM1 -
1
-
Khivas_Carrick✭✭✭✭✭BlueIllyrian wrote: »The cash shop by its nature has to go P2W, items have to offer a clear advantage or they will not sell and generate profit. The only question is when, not if. Current B2P is a training wheel until shop is fully stocked and running.
I see a lot of these on the forums. You people seriously underestimate the human need to be vain. Really, really underestimate it.
You'd be surprised how many people really want to try this game but either canceled their pre-order when it was delayed, didn't get one because of a monthly fee, or simply have been waiting this whole time. With all those problems out the way, a million isn't so far fetched, and 2mil is almost feasible.
As true as it is, there really is no need to yell.KaneK899ub17_ESO wrote: »Actually, there's a much simpler reason it will likely end up being pay to win: money. Cash shops generate significant revenue. There's a reason the majority of MMOs have started or ended up that way. Even companies that only handle F2P w/ cash shops like Nexon were making more money than Blizzard at the height of WoW. Once the shop is in place, it's only a matter of time before that cost-benefit analysis shows how much more they could make with a pay to win setup.
The reality is, in order to increase cash shop sales, you -have- to make the things in it enticing. When people are sick of getting new costumes every month, new mounts every two months and dye colors each week and want something new, they'll begin adding items. To keep people buying, they'll make the items stronger, or exclusive to the cash shop.
It also incentives placing paywalls and frustrating mechanics in place to drive sales. Imagine an ESO where 8 yellow upgrade mats only have a 50% chance of success, but they are just as desirable as they are now. Then boom, "super yellow upgade mats" hit the store - 10 pack for 10 bucks! You have 2 leftover, oh might as well buy another to make use of those.
Once people start buying that stuff and the people who don't find it harder to compete, or even play without getting frustrated, it will only drive people to the store or away from the game. Expect to see bank and inventory space get slashed with upgades added to the store, anything remotely RNG related getting slashed with better RNG items added to the store just to start.
It's business, for better or worse. ZOS is a for-profit company with investors that expect a return on investment. This means they have a fiduciary responsibility to be as profitable as possible and a pay to win cash shop is the most profitable model.
Again, seriously vanity guys, you have no idea how strong that *** is. Again look at SWTOR. You'd be surprised how many of those players are the free people and not the subs, playing only to *** around and blow off some steam while occasionally purchasing a cool costume/outfit because hot damn I want to be so hot that a dragon ought to retire. And that's it, that's all it needs to whip ass, playing off of our need to be *** and look cool.
Not saying that the possibility to be horrendous and pay to win isn't there, because holy *** it is, but damn guys give it a chance first, after all it was Hope that crawled out of Pandora's Box last for a reason.It is already pay to win. If you get ESO Plus membership you get:
10% bonus to experience point gain
10% bonus to crafting research
10% bonus to crafting inspiration gain
10% bonus to gold acquisition
This is not the store, but it obviously shows that they are okay with the logic of pay to win.
No, it shows they are ok with the logic of incentives. Pay to win would be the *** move SWTOR does to Jedi Mind Trick people who want to raid into subbing, i.e halving EXP, credit capping, limited warzones, etc. Basically saying ***, you get half a game until you pay the eff up.
What we're seeing here is an incentive to sub. If we do not sub, everything that happens now will happen later, as nothing will change. If we do continue to sub, suddenly we will see minor (because 10% is not that much) increases and an incentive to keep up the subscription along with those lovely little Crowns (God I hate that name already, Should call them Septims but that *** doesn't exist yet) and what not. About it really, hardly Pay To Win. Not like they're allowing you to buy super legendary quality gear and items through Crowns.
Or at least they better not, or they might be unpleasantly surprised to find a bunch of bulls roaming their corporate offices shitting on everything.
I think that's it for now, goodnight my dear friends.
Do relax though, go have a drink, smoke something, bang a person or few, loosen the bolts and blow off the steam, then come back to this and make your decision once the anger has passed.Bobbity Boop, this game might become poop, but I'll still play because I'm just a pile of goop!1 -
Mortuum✭✭✭✭SERIOUSLY WHAT AN OVERREACTION!
1. They are replacing P2P Model with a P2P/B2P Hybrid. Call it more like a B2P Trial if you want.
2. Cash Shop WON'T be P2W. If you are subscribed you will eventually buy everything for "FREE" with the crowns you will be getting monthly anyway.
3. Cash Shop WILL be more like a FEATURE than an ANNOYANCE. You will have all those awesome Costumes, Mounts and Pets there. Like I already said, if you stay subscribed you will be basically getting them for "FREE" anyway. It's addition to the game, and nothing annoying at all.
SUMMARY: Yes when I read the article first, I was really disappointed, however through some deep thought, I've found out that this Hybrid Model is way better than the P2P Model we used to have. It's possibly the best Payment Model ever created. Why:
- More Revenue for ZOS -> More Content for US
- NO P2W Cash Shop -> Just very good looking vanity stuff.
- A Buy to Play Trial for EVERYONE -> Playerbase is gonna increase by a lot.
- Buy To Play DLCs (Free for the subbed people) -> A great way to "force" people to sub anyway. I expect DLCs to be much more costly than a subscription.
What some of you don't understand:
- ESO wasn't doing bad, it would've kept the P2P Model on it's own just fine.
- Microsoft forced this on them, as they didn't want to drop the Xbox Live fee (Sony was prepared to drop it actually for the PS Net).
- Copies sold from Consoles will most likely jump from 200k -> 2mil+ just due to this change -> We are looking at 120+ mil revenue just from Console Sales.
PEOPLE NO NEED TO EXAGGERATE OR OVERREACT!
YOU WILL QUICKLY FIND OUT THAT UPDATES WILL STAY RIGHT ON SCHEDULE! HECK THEY'LL BE PROBABLY EVEN FASTER AND BIGGER. IT WAS A SMART BUSINESS MOVE!
Could only click LOL once, so
+100 LOLs Sir, 90 for being so naive, 10 for all caps for you.
2 -
phairdon✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I agree it will devolve in to P2W, but not because people think "ZOS lies". It's just the path that the cash shop sets the game on. Removing sub requirements puts the weight of income on a combination of subs, Box sales, and cash shop. When box sales plateau, They have to put increased emphasis on the cash shop and make it more valuable - thus including items that go from "convenient" to "required".
Guild Wars 2, 28 months later, still nothing in there that is required, or pay to win. They average about $11 Milllion a month in revenue from Guild Wars 2, that is equivalent to about 733,000 subscribers paying $15 a month.
GW2 does not have (by design) any gear or anything that can be construed as P2W in the 1st place. The only "rewards" in the game *period* come from the cash shop. It's a trick and you were dumb enough to fall for it, even 2 years later when nothing has been added to the game you repeat this mantra.
Yes - and there has been virtually no content added to the game since release (except tons of cosmetics in the cash shop). This is the best case outcome for ESO.
Get the impression this is because they decided to run the living story model over creating expansions.
So the option GW2 brings with its "success" is content stagnation over p2w content trivialization? I'll admit I quit GW2 shortly after level cap at release so I don't know how many new zones, instances, raids, progression content, brand new systems like justice or complete overhauls like champion that GW2 has put out, but I do know that I don't hear people comment on content positively.
True enough. Not all are happy with gw2, like most games at a guess. This being said, the game still has a solid player base. Still playing myself, now in my 25th month. For me it represents good value.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)0
