Enough of Us

Jitterbug · January 2015

Basically, that's what it comes down to...

Fact: There was not enough of us.
Had there been ESO had not gone B2P.

No reason to blame ZOS, it comes down to either "shut down servers" or "try B2P".
No reason to blame each other, we all just want a good game.
No reason to cry treason, MMO economics are do or die.

Yes, there will be P2W for some, not P2W for others.
Awesome mounts you can't afford.
Glowing swords you have to have and don't want to buy.
It's a cash shop.
Spend cash or deal.

It feels like all the disappointed people (all absolutely entitled to their opinions) need to make up their minds on whether they want to go or stay.

Because when it comes down to it, in reality...

There just weren't enough of us.

LionheartRichard · January 2015

This is strangely written. It would have more impact if you went back and edited it.

Jitterbug · January 2015

LionheartRichard wrote: »

This is strangely written. It would have more impact if you went back and edited it.

Feels proper Hai *** to me

Jitterbug · January 2015

Jitterbug wrote: »

LionheartRichard wrote: »

This is strangely written. It would have more impact if you went back and edited it.

Feels proper Hai Koo to me

No idea why K.U gets ***'ed out

Aett_Thorn · January 2015

Honestly, because they never posted numbers of subscribers/active players, we will never know if this was true or not. There may have been plenty of subscribers to keep going for years. If the bean counters thought that they would make more money going B2P, though, then management can tell them that is the direction they are going.

Making 10 million a month for 8 years might not seem as much as making 15 million a month for 2 years to the bean counters. Short-term profits versus long-term.

bosmern_ESO · January 2015

I feel like it would've gone B2P no matter the amount of players.

This is mainly because the consoles. When ESO comes out on consoles it would of had to do either 2 things.
1. Console players pay 2 subscriptions, which would be XBL/PS+ and ESO's sub
2. Console players only pay for XBL/PS+ while PC players have to pay $10 more and we'd never hear the end of it.

Jitterbug · January 2015

It makes sense, but in any business I believe it goes "if it ain't broken don't fix it", and if we actually were enough players active and paying they wouldn't have to consider B2P.
Also, one third of the posts on this forum wouldn't be from Asgari, Hova, Ers917401080934_ESO, Subtomik, and all the vids on YouTube wouldn't be from Sypher and Deltia.
Not trying to put any of those guys down, just saying...

Lynx7386 · January 2015

From what I've seen, there are more than enough current subscribers to keep them going. The change to b2p has nothing to do with not having enough subscribers to fund the game, it has everything to do with getting more money out of the gaming market. What so many people fail to realize is that cash shops -always- end up making the company more money than subscriptions would, especially if you can work it to get your players to both stay subscribed as well as make additional cash shop purchases.

Elsonso · January 2015

Jitterbug wrote: »

Basically, that's what it comes down to...

Fact: There was not enough of us.
Had there been ESO had not gone B2P.

No reason to blame ZOS, it comes down to either "shut down servers" or "try B2P".
No reason to blame each other, we all just want a good game.
No reason to cry treason, MMO economics are do or die.

Yes, there will be P2W for some, not P2W for others.
Awesome mounts you can't afford.
Glowing swords you have to have and don't want to buy.
It's a cash shop.
Spend cash or deal.

It feels like all the disappointed people (all absolutely entitled to their opinions) need to make up their minds on whether they want to go or stay.

Because when it comes down to it, in reality...

There just weren't enough of us.

I am as sad as anyone about this. It was a game that I had grown to love and I could follow it and be part of. I am not sure where it is going, but I am going to stick around and find out. In what capacity I do this, I still need to decide. Changes will need to be made, but I have time to decide what those changes will be.

We do not know if the reason was that there were not enough of us, or that there could not be enough of us. We don't know whether the decision was a do or die or if this is just a recalculation of the business model.

DDuke · January 2015

Oh, this was in the making a long, long time...

You do realize they spent over half a year (Imperial City was first shown last July I think it was) using our subscriptions creating Cash Shop content & DLCs for console peasants?

What was supposed to be a subscription MMO for dedicated Elder Scrolls fans, turns into B2P crapfest for ultra-casuals and the more dedicated player base gets thrown under the bus.

All this has been, is an elaborate scam.

Too bad we can't sue them.

Naivefanboi · January 2015

Lynx7386 wrote: »

From what I've seen, there are more than enough current subscribers to keep them going. The change to b2p has nothing to do with not having enough subscribers to fund the game, it has everything to do with getting more money out of the gaming market. What so many people fail to realize is that cash shops -always- end up making the company more money than subscriptions would, especially if you can work it to get your players to both stay subscribed as well as make additional cash shop purchases.

this

Bars · January 2015

I am sorry but this has 2 stop (No reason to blame ZOS ) they made an mmo that the main quests were solo and the rest of it u could not play with friends .
like who in there right mind would think that was a good idea , lol I am pissed (drunk) and I still cant get my head around it

FallenProphet · January 2015

Yea if there were enough players to begin with all of my ESO apps on my phone would get updates once in a while and everytime I tried to google something ESO related the top10 hits wouldn't be from pre-release.

JamilaRaj · January 2015

Jitterbug wrote: »

It makes sense....

No, it does not. If there were not enough, it would be a) because players played but left, b) players did not even start. Now P2W is not going to help a), because players left for other reasons than subscription (they would not start if they did not like it), such as not liking design, not liking bugs, having attention span of 1-2 month etc. More importantly, it's not going to help b), because you still have to buy the box to start playing. If they needed new players really really badly and fast, they would instead offer free download & X-day trial to remove barriers for entry and pontentially hook any player with even slightest interest in the game.
So, I am more inclined to blame it on greed, if not outright evil masterplan

Lord_Kreegan · January 2015

The naivete' of some players who have never worked in this kind of industry...

FACT: The business plan was put together BEFORE they ever received a nickel of investment money. That's a long time ago.

FACT: The business plan almost CERTAINLY had EVERY INTENT of going B2P.

FACT: You can't believe a damn thing out of the marketing department's mouth. Their job is to sell you a pig in a poke. "Public Relations" is another way of saying "Liars Poker".

FACT: The marketing department did a good job; you bought a pig in a poke.

FACT: It is no accident that ESO is going B2P. If you believed that they were only going to be P2P because they said so, then you were hopelessly naive.

Caveat Emptor... which can be translated to "businessmen are primarily big liars".

Learn a lesson from this. Companies exist to make a profit. There is no such thing as a good deal. If you think you are getting a good deal, then you are about to get screwed.

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Demands and Threats.

Elsonso · January 2015

You have a definition of "fact" that I am unfamiliar with...

Gidorick · January 2015

I disagree. No matter HOW many players we had this would have happened. If ZOS actually came out and said how many players they had and how many they would have needed to stay subscription then I might believe this. As it is I believe the people making the financial decision saw what other MMOs were doing and decided to try a different model.

I kind of touched on this back in early January:

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/145482/how-ffxiv-dcuo-might-be-influencing-eso#latest

Dave2836 · January 2015

Jitterbug wrote: »

Basically, that's what it comes down to...

Fact: There was not enough of us.
Had there been ESO had not gone B2P.

No reason to blame ZOS, it comes down to either "shut down servers" or "try B2P".
No reason to blame each other, we all just want a good game.
No reason to cry treason, MMO economics are do or die.

Yes, there will be P2W for some, not P2W for others.
Awesome mounts you can't afford.
Glowing swords you have to have and don't want to buy.
It's a cash shop.
Spend cash or deal.

It feels like all the disappointed people (all absolutely entitled to their opinions) need to make up their minds on whether they want to go or stay.

Because when it comes down to it, in reality...

There just weren't enough of us.

Well, depends on "us" refers to.

There certainly were enough reviewers panning this game.

There certainly were enough game journalism (and after massively's nothing game of the year nutsack article, i use journalism lightly) magazines emphasizing the flaws and none of the perfections of this game.

There were certainly enough players who felt this game wasn't worth their sub money in beta and all the way through early access into May 9th.

There certainly were enough influence on m$ side to filibuster this game into console development hell due to the above factors.

And now there are enough of us who are screaming to high heaven about the horrid transition that has not even happened yet.

If anything I would suggest that there aren't enough of us who are not able to view this as an opportunity to revive this game into a controlling household brand. People are upset that they payed to play a beta for 9 months so others can have it for b2p in March. They don't see that the changes in the game were through our continued input and the game itself was evolving because we were a part of it. You know the last game I played that was not a beta? Baldur's gate 2:throne of baal. Back in early 2000's. That was the only finished game I played. Diablo1/2, EQ2, DCUO, hell even the console games like injustice, gods amongst us are still just betas. You can tell with the periodic updates.

If the game had support from its player base, objective reviews, credible journalism, and critical mass population since day one, m$ would have gladly agreed to ZOS' terms.

starkerealm · January 2015

Lynx7386 wrote: »

From what I've seen, there are more than enough current subscribers to keep them going. The change to b2p has nothing to do with not having enough subscribers to fund the game, it has everything to do with getting more money out of the gaming market. What so many people fail to realize is that cash shops -always- end up making the company more money than subscriptions would, especially if you can work it to get your players to both stay subscribed as well as make additional cash shop purchases.

Swing and a miss. Let's try that again.

Lynx7386 wrote: »

From what I've seen, there are more than enough current subscribers to keep them going. The change to b2p has nothing to do with not having enough subscribers to fund the game,

Probably true.

Lynx7386 wrote: »

it has everything to do with getting more money out of the gaming market.

And, that's what we call a face plant.

So, it can't be about getting as much money as possible. The reason is really simple, if you're going to bleed a game, you do as much as you can to monetize everything.

When you look at a game that really is all about the bottom line, really is about getting more money out of the gaming market, you see a very different result.

Systems get monetized to hell and back. If crowns were an in game currency, that you needed for doing things like... cracking locks on chests in the wilderness. Upgrading gear. Bypassing the research timers. Then I'd say, yes, this was about getting more money. Trading long term viability for short term gains. But, so far, that's not what we've seen.

Lynx7386 wrote: »

What so many people fail to realize is that cash shops -always- end up making the company more money than subscriptions would, especially if you can work it to get your players to both stay subscribed as well as make additional cash shop purchases.

This is basically true. But, I don't think that's what's going on here.

It's this: http://www.joystiq.com/2014/01/28/the-elder-scrolls-online-wont-require-ps-plus-will-require-xbo/

Bloodfang · January 2015

Don't be naive, they've had B2P plan before they game even launched..

ESO was doing for the past 2 months the best ever since launch, huge amount of players were returning, many new ones etc..

If ESO wouldn't have enough players, they'd go straight to F2P, not Hybrid P2P/B2P..

Roechacca · January 2015

It was planned and had nothing to do with subscriber numbers .

Aevric · January 2015

Jitterbug wrote: »

LionheartRichard wrote: »

This is strangely written. It would have more impact if you went back and edited it.

Feels proper Horse @#$% to me

Fixed that for you.

Wreuntzylla · January 2015

DDuke wrote: »

Oh, this was in the making a long, long time...

You do realize they spent over half a year (Imperial City was first shown last July I think it was) using our subscriptions creating Cash Shop content & DLCs for console peasants?

What was supposed to be a subscription MMO for dedicated Elder Scrolls fans, turns into B2P crapfest for ultra-casuals and the more dedicated player base gets thrown under the bus.

All this has been, is an elaborate scam.

Too bad we can't sue them.

Of course you can. Assuming your in the U.S. anyway. What makes you think you can't?

Auricle · January 2015

... This is why we millenials get called entitled.

Vis · January 2015

Auricle wrote: »

... This is why we millenials get called entitled.

Actually, if we go off the average age of gamers...you likely may not be arguing with a millennial.

AlayneStone · January 2015

If people were to cheap to buy the sub I doubt they will spend much, if any money if the cash shop.

Gyudan · January 2015

Jitterbug wrote: »

No reason to blame ZOS, it comes down to either "shut down servers" or "try B2P".

They failed the franchise, we didn't.
The bugs at launch led to many awful reviews and by the time they got fixed it was already too late. I tried helping by writing positive ones and recommending the game around me but it was just not enough.

Now ESO enters a phase of stagnation for its loyal subscribers and the new free players get to experience what we helped stabilize through thousands of bug reports and feedbacks.

Leeric · January 2015

You don't know that, could be a cash grab, companies want to increase profits no matter what.

Kind of sad you assumed that...

Brittany_Joy · January 2015

Gyudan wrote: »

Jitterbug wrote: »

No reason to blame ZOS, it comes down to either "shut down servers" or "try B2P".

They failed the franchise, we didn't.
The bugs at launch led to many awful reviews and by the time they got fixed it was already too late. I tried helping by writing positive ones and recommending the game around me but it was just not enough.

Now ESO enters a phase of stagnation for its loyal subscribers and the new free players get to experience what we helped stabilize through thousands of bug reports and feedbacks.

Writing positive reviews on your own is never enough when the game does not offer a trial. Recruit-A-Friend program should also be in the game. ZOS is expecting some miracle to gain popularity without actually putting effort to making it popular themselves.

Dave2836 · January 2015

Gyudan wrote: »

Jitterbug wrote: »

No reason to blame ZOS, it comes down to either "shut down servers" or "try B2P".

They failed the franchise, we didn't.
The bugs at launch led to many awful reviews and by the time they got fixed it was already too late. I tried helping by writing positive ones and recommending the game around me but it was just not enough.

Now ESO enters a phase of stagnation for its loyal subscribers and the new free players get to experience what we helped stabilize through thousands of bug reports and feedbacks.

In some circles this is known as Paying It Forward.

I_killed_Vivec · January 2015

Reading the "proper" game reviewers' reactions to the B2P news one thing that was interesting, once you got past all the self-congratulatory "It was obvious six months ago that this would happen" comments, was the idea that ZoS must have known six months ago. At least.

The most cynical view would be that it was always their intention to use the paying early adopters to subsidize the development of the more lucrative console version - and they could test the system as they played! So B2P was always planned.

Assuming that that was not their original intention, I wonder what the straw was that finally broke the camel's back... when someone first said "We have to go B2P".