Did ZOS officially state WHY they decided to go B2P?

Mukuro · January 2015

You guys do know that originally this game was suppose to be a buy to play game... Then they switched to sub and everyone cried... Now they switched back and everyone cries again...

technohic · January 2015

BBSooner wrote: »

Joejudas wrote: »

I keep hearing PS waived the fee for PS Plus and Microsoft didn't and that's part of the reason. Pure speculation though

Iirc, this is the official explanation Yoshida (Director of FF XIV) gave for why Xbox won't be receiving FF XIV. I would safely apply that reasoning to ESO.

I imagine ZOS backed down on doing that because a lot of their Skyrim Sales were with XBox.

Khivas_Carrick · January 2015

Mukuro wrote: »

You guys do know that originally this game was suppose to be a buy to play game... Then they switched to sub and everyone cried... Now they switched back and everyone cries again...

For serious? Legit curiosity here.

SantieClaws · January 2015

That doesn't tie in with the quotes from the early days that the sub model was the only payment model that would allow them to make the kind of game they wanted to.

c0rp · January 2015

1) $
2) Consoles
3) Goto 1)

Merlin13KAGL · January 2015

BBSooner wrote: »

Joejudas wrote: »

I keep hearing PS waived the fee for PS Plus and Microsoft didn't and that's part of the reason. Pure speculation though

Iirc, this is the official explanation Yoshida (Director of FF XIV) gave for why Xbox won't be receiving FF XIV. I would safely apply that reasoning to ESO.

Exactly, don't release it for Xbox. Enough Xbox players wanting that option and willing to sub would put pressure on MS to change their policy.

This, vice hosing everyone else.

Mukuro · January 2015

Khivas_Carrick wrote: »

Mukuro wrote: »

You guys do know that originally this game was suppose to be a buy to play game... Then they switched to sub and everyone cried... Now they switched back and everyone cries again...

For serious? Legit curiosity here.

In the first video they made when they first announced the game.. they mentioned it would be a buy to play... in 2012 i think before the betas or first person veiw and such... then they changed that to sub so they can better fund new content... or some thing like that.. but i do remember it was buy to play at first word...

Sallington · January 2015

Spottswoode wrote: »

The only reason that matters at the end of the day.

Iago wrote: »

I want to know what community they got their feedback from? I think it's the community is sitting in the boardroom.

Pretty much everybody else but us wanted it go to F2P or B2P. Just check the Facebook feedback.

Everyone that didn't play the game wanted F2P. Everyone that did play it wanted it to stay subscription.

The F2P transition is going to bring in a bunch of people that didn't even want to play it in the first place.

Mordria · January 2015

Wolfsspinne wrote: »

RSram wrote: »

did ZOS officially state why they decided to go B2P?

Why should they?
I mean it's not like we are their business partners, we are just their customers.

Just their customers? Some of us have been ES fans for 20 years. The ones doing things like donating to their paycheck, boosting viral advertising and making fan art. Sorry, but you just can't treat fans the same way you would treat customers buying tires or plywood.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/01/22/why-elder-scrolls-online-may-be-a-hit-on-consoles/

I think this article explains why they did it pretty well and had Zeni been open and upfront about their intentions from the beginning none of this would even be an issue. Sure, we would have moaned and bitched about it some in the beginning, but you wouldn't see the mass disappointment we're now seeing. I think their PR department needs to take a serious look at how they communicate with their fan base.

Exstazik · January 2015

Lesson 1: Make Virtual Currency Core to the Game Itself
Lesson 2: Carefully Balance the Economy.Ideally, Buy + Earn = Spend. If Buy + Earn > Spend, users will reduce the amount of currency they Buy, and you will make less money.
Lesson 3: Monetize 100 Percent of Your User Base
Lesson 4: Build Discovery Into All You Do
Lesson 5: Include Advertising Offers As an Alternative Payment Method
Lesson 6: Frequently Release New Content

Sindala · January 2015

Brandalf wrote: »

Blame Microsoft is me and my guild's official stance.

Actually it's more like, Blame Sony.
If you have seen the new Windows 10 clips then you will also know that it will allow you to play Xbox One (possibly 360) games on a PC, thus removing the Xbox Gold requirement.
Only Sony is the one never gonna give up on their paywall.

Sallington · January 2015

Sindala wrote: »

Brandalf wrote: »

Blame Microsoft is me and my guild's official stance.

Actually it's more like, Blame Sony.
If you have seen the new Windows 10 clips then you will also know that it will allow you to play Xbox One (possibly 360) games on a PC, thus removing the Xbox Gold requirement.
Only Sony is the one never gonna give up on their paywall.

It's only going to allow you to stream from your Xbox to your PC (lolwut?). You'll still need Xbox Live Gold Premium Unlimited Plus.

The_Great_Maldini · January 2015

RSram wrote: »

I'd been reading all the discussions on the B2P change, and maybe a missed a post on this, but did ZOS officially state why they decided to go B2P?

If this was already posted, I apologize, so just post a link. I couldn't find any information on this with the search engine.

@RSram

From my opinion they likely planned this a loooong time ago when they planned to release for consoles. The reason for this is likely that those playing on a console version would likely not enjoy having to pay a separate subscription fee which was mandatory on top of the console access fees. However, if they did not charge the console players a subscription fee but charged PC players one, then would have a big uproar over that. To keep the separate systems fair and in-line with one another, this B2P model makes the post sense. This model is the basis of other console games and Bethesda games - eg Skyrim with its DLC like Dawnguard.

The ESO Plus addition is just fluff and likely an addition to generate additional income.

Syntse · January 2015

burningcrow wrote: »

I bet the big reason is not striking a deal with XBox and PS4 over the subscription plan. So there is no way console players are going to pay their internet subscription plans on top of an ESO plan. I bet that is the main reason.

Yet still there are people who pay internet, xbox live and netflix subs.

ashlee17 · January 2015

"Listening to community" was the only official excuse I heard for the b2p conversion.

Questionable meat sack anyone?

SantieClaws · January 2015

I don't know which community they think they were listening to but certainly not the one that stumped up the dough and supported them for the last year. The first six pages of this forum on the day of the announcement showed that clearly.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · January 2015

ashlee17 wrote: »

"Listening to community" was the only official excuse I heard.

Questionable meat sack anyone? /vomit

Yup, that's all we've heard.

I doubt it is due to any Xbox live issues. Most people interested in an MMO would have no problem paying a sub over that as they probably have other games they pay xbox live for.

DCUO has players paying a $30 sub in a free game on console and FFXIV have players paying a sub on console.

No consoles aren't the excuse.
The excuse is to milk early adopters ready to pay both a collector edition and months of subscription while the game is less than optimal.
Then switch to b2p to start milking the players willing to pay $60 just to try out a game but not pay a sub afterwards if they like it.
And finally, they'll switch to full on f2p some months after console release to get money from those not willing to pey neither sub nor box but a few DLCs here and there.

It's just a short term strategy to get a faster ROI rathern than waiting for long term increased profit.

HeroOfNone · January 2015

Companies say a lot of things are per community feedback, it's generalized enough you can't blame anyone. We can come up with other theories about the console negotiations and how ZOS is some Bond villian after all our money, but there's really no chance on getting them to admit that. Unless one of you want to volunteer to get yourself captured and to let yourself be submitted to a death trap or two.

As for this being a community request, which community? The people here, the people that left, the people not playing yet, or everyone? If you consider the folks not paying, that would definitely give them the majority number to justify it.

Gidorick · January 2015

Sallington wrote: »

Spottswoode wrote: »

The only reason that matters at the end of the day.

Iago wrote: »

I want to know what community they got their feedback from? I think it's the community is sitting in the boardroom.

Pretty much everybody else but us wanted it go to F2P or B2P. Just check the Facebook feedback.

Everyone that didn't play the game wanted F2P. Everyone that did play it wanted it to stay subscription.

The F2P transition is going to bring in a bunch of people that didn't even want to play it in the first place.

and that WILL bring in a slew of new players that MIGHT spend money on the game.

Sallington · January 2015

Gidorick wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Spottswoode wrote: »

The only reason that matters at the end of the day.

Iago wrote: »

I want to know what community they got their feedback from? I think it's the community is sitting in the boardroom.

Pretty much everybody else but us wanted it go to F2P or B2P. Just check the Facebook feedback.

Everyone that didn't play the game wanted F2P. Everyone that did play it wanted it to stay subscription.

The F2P transition is going to bring in a bunch of people that didn't even want to play it in the first place.

and that WILL bring in a slew of new players that MIGHT spend money on the game.

If you weren't willing to spend $15 a month, I don't know why you'd all of a sudden want to drop $60 (plus more on DLC/costumes).

Arandear · January 2015

Blame Cadwell this was his doing.

Sindala · January 2015

wenxue2222b16_ESO wrote: »

I don't know which community they think they were listening to but certainly not the one that stumped up the dough and supported them for the last year. The first six pages of this forum on the day of the announcement showed that clearly.

Reddit forums community, where all the F2P'ers live.

MornaBaine · January 2015

Nope. We're just told it's "Great News!" and that it's what we, the players, wanted. I call BS. Until they tell us HOW they arrived at that conclusion, I'm not buying it in the slightest.

eisberg · January 2015

facemace wrote: »

This won't attract new pc players... Ask swtor. It is for the consoles. And it could very possibly do what it has done to every single other mmo to ever go this route.

Ask SWTOR? Ok

Monthly average revenue for Star Wars: The Old Republic, BioWare's massively multiplayer online role-playing game, has more than doubled and subscriptions have increased since adopting the free-to-play model last year...

...
Since it was induced in November, we've added more than 1.7 million new players on the free model to the service," Gibeau said. "And the number of subscriptions has stabilized at just under half a million.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/5/7/4309866/star-wars-the-old-republic-revenue-doubled-free-to-play

SWTOR never went to the consoles. There are MMOs on the Console that have a monthly fee. This has to do with them not making enough profit, and them knowing they can make a whole lot more profit then just staying as subscription, if they can pull a SWTOR.

eisberg · January 2015

Syntse wrote: »

Valencer wrote: »

In ESO Live, Matt said they wanted to change their revenue model because of community feedback.

And this is total BS, they seem to misuse the 'community feedback' a lot to justify their actions. It's like they try to say we(community) asked for it what ever they did that time based on "community feedback" and also try to say "we listen".

Any poll on this forum that touches b2p or f2p will tell that majority of community did not want this model.

Forum polls mean nothing. ZOS is going to have better feedback from people who quit the game, and through other research/feedback. Forums are not the only feedback they get.

SantieClaws · January 2015

I suppose if you want more people in your restaurant you ask people who eat elsewhere why they don't eat at your place.

However if those people said they were only willing to eat food given to them for free or wanted a "pay once - all you can eat forever" situation then I would laugh in their faces and go back to cleaning out the fryer.

MornaBaine · January 2015

eisberg wrote: »

Syntse wrote: »

Valencer wrote: »

In ESO Live, Matt said they wanted to change their revenue model because of community feedback.

And this is total BS, they seem to misuse the 'community feedback' a lot to justify their actions. It's like they try to say we(community) asked for it what ever they did that time based on "community feedback" and also try to say "we listen".

Any poll on this forum that touches b2p or f2p will tell that majority of community did not want this model.

Forum polls mean nothing. ZOS is going to have better feedback from people who quit the game, and through other research/feedback. Forums are not the only feedback they get.

IF that is indeed the case, they need to state it. Sure, we have no way to know if they're lying about it, but they DO need to tell us HOW they arrived at the conclusion that "community feedback" indicated that this was what the majority wanted.

eisberg · January 2015

MornaBaine wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

Syntse wrote: »

Valencer wrote: »

In ESO Live, Matt said they wanted to change their revenue model because of community feedback.

And this is total BS, they seem to misuse the 'community feedback' a lot to justify their actions. It's like they try to say we(community) asked for it what ever they did that time based on "community feedback" and also try to say "we listen".

Any poll on this forum that touches b2p or f2p will tell that majority of community did not want this model.

Forum polls mean nothing. ZOS is going to have better feedback from people who quit the game, and through other research/feedback. Forums are not the only feedback they get.

IF that is indeed the case, they need to state it. Sure, we have no way to know if they're lying about it, but they DO need to tell us HOW they arrived at the conclusion that "community feedback" indicated that this was what the majority wanted.

Well, we have posts on Facebook asking for free to play, posts on Elder Scrolls single player games offical forums talking about this game and wanting free to play. Then they probably have the exit survey from the people who canceled. But a forum poll on a forum who have to be a subscriber for in the first place is far from being accurate, and why it means nothing.

Jennifur_Vultee · January 2015

I think the official announcement went something like this...

Csub · January 2015

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

ashlee17 wrote: »

"Listening to community" was the only official excuse I heard.

Questionable meat sack anyone? /vomit

Yup, that's all we've heard.

I doubt it is due to any Xbox live issues. Most people interested in an MMO would have no problem paying a sub over that as they probably have other games they pay xbox live for.

DCUO has players paying a $30 sub in a free game on console and FFXIV have players paying a sub on console.

No consoles aren't the excuse.
The excuse is to milk early adopters ready to pay both a collector edition and months of subscription while the game is less than optimal.
Then switch to b2p to start milking the players willing to pay $60 just to try out a game but not pay a sub afterwards if they like it.
And finally, they'll switch to full on f2p some months after console release to get money from those not willing to pey neither sub nor box but a few DLCs here and there.

It's just a short term strategy to get a faster ROI rathern than waiting for long term increased profit.

AFAIK, FF doesn't require you to have ps+.