Maintenance for the week of April 13:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 13
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 13
Would you be less p***** off if...
-
Kraven✭✭✭✭✭Yes, that would have been more sensible.b92303008rwb17_ESO wrote: »Honestly, I really don't care about the payment model (blatant pay-2-win aside).
It makes no difference to me whether I pay a subscription, or buy cosmetics and swag from the cash shop.
If a game is good, I'll play it. If it isn't, I'll move on. It's really that simple.
Thing is, the payment model has a lot to do with if there is going to be constantly new and good game content. It does makes a difference and ZOS failed to explain the relations.
That seems more like speculation than anything else. Plenty of F2P games have pushed out updates. In fact, I can't think of one that hasn't...
Such as? I'm sure many of them have them. How many, how often and containing how much quality content? No B2P/F2P game on the market can remotely touch the number of expansions and amount of additional content added to a sub game.V14 - IMPERIAL NIGHTBLADE - DPS/TANK
V13 - BRETON SORCERER - HEALS/DPS
V2 - REDGUARD DRAGONKNIGHT - MELEE DPS
V1 - BRETON TEMPLAR - TANK/DPS
to be continued... Nevermind, no longer "to be continued"2 -
b92303008rwb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭Yes, that would have been more sensible.b92303008rwb17_ESO wrote: »Honestly, I really don't care about the payment model (blatant pay-2-win aside).
It makes no difference to me whether I pay a subscription, or buy cosmetics and swag from the cash shop.
If a game is good, I'll play it. If it isn't, I'll move on. It's really that simple.
Thing is, the payment model has a lot to do with if there is going to be constantly new and good game content. It does makes a difference and ZOS failed to explain the relations.
That seems more like speculation than anything else. Plenty of F2P games have pushed out updates. In fact, I can't think of one that hasn't...
I am not saying F2P or B2P will lead to less updates than the original model or vice versa. My point is ZOS failed to explain how, how much and based on what do they think B2P may financially or whatever help this game improve. I am not asking for all the business details but all Matt Firor said yesterday is "I think it's time". That is not very convincing.0 -
Miszou✭✭✭✭✭
✭b92303008rwb17_ESO wrote: »Honestly, I really don't care about the payment model (blatant pay-2-win aside).
It makes no difference to me whether I pay a subscription, or buy cosmetics and swag from the cash shop.
If a game is good, I'll play it. If it isn't, I'll move on. It's really that simple.
Thing is, the payment model has a lot to do with if there is going to be constantly new and good game content. It does makes a difference and ZOS failed to explain the relations.
That seems more like speculation than anything else. Plenty of F2P games have pushed out updates. In fact, I can't think of one that hasn't...
Such as? I'm sure many of them have them. How many, how often and containing how much quality content? No B2P/F2P game on the market can remotely touch the number of expansions and amount of additional content added to a sub game.
Maybe. But I've played subscription games that were slow to put out updates too.
Cherry-picking a handful of games that fit your narrative doesn't necessarily mean that you've found a cause-and-effect relationship between payment model and quality/quantity of updates.1 -
Emma_Overload✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭All ZoS had to do was say something like...
"Look guys, we tried our best to get Microsoft to drop the Live Gold requirement for the Xbox launch, but we couldn't work out a deal, so we thought the most fair thing to do was make the ESO subscription optional across all platforms blah blah blah"
... heck, that's probably even TRUE. But what did the ZoS guys do instead? They nervously recited their canned shpiel while the PR/Marketing guy gave them the continuous stink-eye to make sure they stayed "on message".
I'm sure the reason they did it this way was so scummy gaming websites like IGN and PCGamer don't have any "negative" sounding quotes they can use as proof for their ESO-is-Dying meme, but still... the presentation sucked.#CAREBEARMASTERRACE1 -
seanvwolf✭✭✭✭Yes, that would have been more sensible.My wife and I were discussing how pertinent it was that the wicked looking rogue that drew many of us into the Beta and eventually to sub from launch was finally killed off at the time B2P model was announced. Like the purple sash, the Breton (die-hard TES+MMO subbers) only have the dream of what (a sub-only) Tamriel could have been, incapacitated by the Nord (Skyrim crowd) and finished off by the High Elf (MMO crowd). Just analogy guys... I love you all. Just something to think about. Maybe they knew they were going this route back when they started the storyboarding for the latest cinematic.Edited by seanvwolf on January 23, 2015 7:06PM6 -
LtCrunch✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yes, that would have been more sensible.starkerealm wrote: »Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »Poll does not have the option that I would respond with. And that is Im not mad and I dont think they needed to do anything different in the way they approached this.
Mamericus is conflating "anyone who doesn't agree with him" and "trolls." And, he's not above using straw man arguments to get there.![:\](https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
EDIT: Incidentally:Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »But I cant fault Zenimax for doing everything in their power to keep this game going and not find themselves under a mountain of debt.
That's not what this is about. I'll cite Brandalf instead of one of my posts for... reasons.I think the game would still be 100% subscription based if MS agreed to let ESO subscribers bypass XBL costs or Bethesda would have given MS a big "[snip] you" and refuse to release on Xbone if MS didn't agree to that. Of course that never would have happened, so this is what we get. I'm not upset, I'm just kinda disappointed considering how good of a place the game is in at the moment.
[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Cursing & Profanity]
There's been bits of this floating around in business reports and games media on the subject for a couple months. Though, ZoS has never stepped forward and said, "yep, MS screwed us," for, rather obvious reasons.
It was pretty much indirectly said by the fact that ZOS and Sony confirmed PS+ was not going to be required for ESO, now that ESO is not sub based that's been retracted obviously.
NerdSauce GamingLaughs-At-Wounds - Sap tanking since 03/30/14ßrandalf - Light armor tanking since 03/03/15Brandalf Beer-Belly - Tanking drunk since 12/30/160 -
Rosveen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Yes, that would have been more sensible.I'm not pissed off. But still, I would've taken it better if they didn't try to feed me *** along the lines of "it's the best news ever! Nothing really changes, it just gets bigger and better!" Thanks, but I'm not 10 years old.
I get why they didn't come out with it openly months ago when the decision was made, but I am so very disappointed by their open lie about 6 month subs. That was low.2 -
mamericus✭✭✭Yes, that would have been more sensible.Nocturnalis wrote: »
I don't think it would made a big difference if they where apologetic about the b2p change. It might soothe/ satisfy a small amount of people. But on the other hand an apology would be equally picked apart, or simply called "just another lie".
I think from here on out ZOS's actions are much more important. What they deliver/ do with the cash shop is more important than saying they are sorry or what they may assure. Because, let's be honest, ZOS haven't been best with their communication.
So if the DLC is great and worth the money I will stay, that is valuable to me than ZOS employees running around with their tail between their legs.
The proof is in the pudding.
According to this poll, it would have soothed/satisfied over 70% of people. But we say that now, of course, we will never really know if being upfront would have made for a smoother transition because they weren't upfront.
ZoS's actions much more important now for those taking the wait and see approach. Their actions were never more important than at the time of the announcement for those that have lost all credibility in them. I've yet to go read what they said today on Reddit. I'm half hoping they have redeemed themselves but I highly doubt it.
I'm still torn between staying for enjoyment or leaving out of principle, but you are right in that now is the time to look towards the future rather than sulk in what is lost.
I still think the future would taste sweeter with a small apology/explanation though.
0 -
mamericus✭✭✭Yes, that would have been more sensible.This. Since before Christmas the story was "In an effort to be more open with out players." That canned response crap was all over. You think this decision was made this month? When Guar mount was announced when? Sep. or Oct.? It's so hard to code a mount that it took this long to be one of the very first items on the cash shop? Including several other mounts.
So, this was known last year. They're a *** company with *** practices who've ruined their own name as a company on their very first game. If this studio can't make any other titles because they've completely ruined their own name, how long before ESO = CoH? At least paragon had a core fan base that supported them. While ZOS keeps preventing itself from having a similar fan base due to poor business decisions.
I'm on the same team as you here, but you talk about ZoS as if it were a newcomer that just sprang up suddenly. Just for clarification: Zenimax Online Studios may be relatively new but Zenimax Media itself has been around for a while; Bethesda Softworks is actually a division of it and Bethesda Game Studios and ZoS are its subsidiaries. So every ES title made from 1999 until now, along with every Fallout title from 2004 on, and any id software (also a Zenimax subsidiary now) title since 2009 like Rage or the lastest iteration of Wolfenstein can all be attributed to them. I'd say they have a pretty huge fanbase. They may not make as much money as Blizzard-Activision but they have more titles under their belt and own a ton more of IP now.0 -
Feidam✭✭✭Honestly, ZOS was screwed no matter how they announced the change over. Just look at these forums for example. So many tantrums that those who are upset but try to have rational discussion get buried under hyperbole and what ifs.
Furthermore, the level of entitlement shown by some players further cements in mind that barring ZOS doing exactly what the players wanted this reaction would have happened. The poll does need more options as right now it mainly set options that further the OP's opinion.1 -
olemanwinter✭✭✭✭✭Yes, that would have been more sensible.I answered yes, but:
You've already been lied to. Does it make it better if someone says "I'm sorry" and that's just another lie?2 -
stefan.gustavsonb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yes, that would have been more sensible.There were some very strong tells in the body language and facial expressions in that live stream, and I felt sorry for the developers while watching it. It had the distinct feeling of rehearsed dishonesty, a crafted lie being told by two people who felt utterly ashamed for doing so but were strong-armed to say exactly what the clueless marketing people thought might not upset their customers quite as much as telling the truth.
They are not making enough money, and the game has made such a bad reputation for itself over the past year that people won't pay for both the box and the subscription to play it on the PS and XBox platforms. This is the only thing they can do that makes any sense in the current situation, so why try to hide their reasons? It's like pretending the house is not on fire when everyone can see the flames in the background. It only makes them look silly, adding to the bad reputation of the developers, the company and the game.
Their choice of business model is only natural given the circumstances. Their communication about it, however, is a string of calculated but bad lies that anyone with half a brain can see through. Feeling lied to and cheated is not a good mood in which to try to enjoy a game. It takes all the fun out of it for me.
1 -
BlueIllyrian✭✭✭Yes, that would have been more sensible.Yes, because I would feel like I got an honest explanation instead of PR BS. I would not like it but I would respect it and wouldn't consider leaving for good.2
-
BlueIllyrian✭✭✭Yes, that would have been more sensible.Honestly, ZOS was screwed no matter how they announced the change over. Just look at these forums for example. So many tantrums that those who are upset but try to have rational discussion get buried under hyperbole and what ifs.
Furthermore, the level of entitlement shown by some players further cements in mind that barring ZOS doing exactly what the players wanted this reaction would have happened. The poll does need more options as right now it mainly set options that further the OP's opinion.
Yes, we are not all cheering at your Precious so you might as well dismiss common courtesy. Then again you matter exactly as much as us, that is to say not at all.0 -
Rodario✭✭✭✭✭Yes, that would have been more sensible.Here's that message by the way, if you need a refresher
The "Great News!" part immediately reminded me of professor Farnsworth and I couldn't keep myself from reading the rest of the announcement in his voice.
Which is very fitting, if you think about it.Victoria Lux - Templar Tank
{EU/DC}1 -
MornaBaine✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Yes, that would have been more sensible.Here's that message by the way, if you need a refresher
EVERY time I see this I want to hurl my monitor out the window...and hope it lands on the head of whoever originally composed this message.PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!1 -
Rodario✭✭✭✭✭Yes, that would have been more sensible.MornaBaine wrote: »
A sentiment that had more of an impact back in the days of CRTs.Victoria Lux - Templar Tank
{EU/DC}1 -
wafcatb14_ESO✭✭✭I`m not going to play it anymore , I hate being lied to, but they really had no choice the game has such a bad rep as being a bad game , and they were bleeding subs.
A sub based game can not make any money when it keeps losing more players than it brings in . my guild for example at release we had 1300 guild members , after 6 months we were down to 500 guild members . now as are down to 220 guild members , so in less than a year over 1k of my guildes have quit.
They are still in my guild just not playing ESO anymore .
I wish them the best but i`ll not buy a game made by them again . waiting on Camelot Unchained now.0 -
Nothing they could have said or done would make this any better.Nothing they could have done or said would have made it better.
I'm not mad though, just disapointed. This is a game I enjoy and it is going to stop improving and have a cash shop driven development focus from now on.
This is not what I was sold during pre launch PR and marketing.
The worst is that this is an idiotic move business wise. If f2p/b2p was a succesful model for mmorpgs, it would be known by now.
This is just a quick cash grap for a faster ROI. This way investors can go elsewhere and invest in another short term endeavor, blissfully ignorant they just threw away an opportunity to have a cash cow.
1