Whoever they got that community feedback from, he's not talking.

On a related topic, be very afraid of that "what would you like to see in the cash shop?" thread.

Sallington wrote: »

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).

The $60 isn't the Problem. Most gamers pay $60 regularly for a game. It's the recurring monthly payment that turned many gamers off.

Honestly if they were just honest and came out and said:

" We realize that since launch we have made some bad decisions, which have affected our ability to finance the game, in such we need a new revenue system which will allow us to get back on track, and start bringing you the content you deserve, and the content we promised you from the beginning, we hope that despite our mistakes in the past you will give us one more chance to show you we can make this work".

Or

"We decided to change the system because the current one was not netting enough revenue to support itself".

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.

Agree here. They should be bit more specific what community they mean as in many cases it seems that the community feedback truly is not from the community of people who actually play the game.

eisberg wrote: »

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.

Except that swtor didn't pull a swtor.

Even lotro has one of those, something like "7 times more revenue!" but we haven't heard anything since then.
It's just as meaningless than all those "we have x more people playing" articles.
Those posts are just PR to keep the game afloat a bit longer.

If you check EA public financial numbers, swtor, despite not doing as bad as most f2p games, is losing revenue fast.
They had a short term surge, as they got a new locust wave coming in, but they've broken their entire game for what is barely equivalent to before, and losing revenue.
I mean, it is Star Wars, one of the largest IP out there, it is for free and they can barely make it to 1.2M actives?
Do you think ESO, as a b2p and with a smaller IP, can make it?

f2p doesn't work medium term, it's just a scam to make a second launch and then move on to other projects while the game stays in maintenance mode.

Csub wrote: »

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+.

True, and so would have ESO. But that's beside the point.

There is xbox live, but as the DCUO example I gave proves it, players are willing to pay $30 a month for a console MMO.
And as I said, if someone is into MMOs, they like multiplayer, they most likely already have xbox live.

The point was that consoles are not the excuse.
It was a short term business plan for faster ROI, nothing more, nothing less.

Syntse wrote: »

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.

Agree here. They should be bit more specific what community they mean as in many cases it seems that the community feedback truly is not from the community of people who actually play the game.

My theory is that it is no one.
The community they listened to was their investors.

Sure, there is the solo TES forums, players leaving the game, reddit, facebook and all the circle jerk of "journalists" without a clue bashing the subscription model.
But listening to whiners is never a good business move, especially when it damages your company on the long term.


Make a good game, and players will pay for it.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Xbox live gold is only $60 a year. Everyone I know with a xbox one has xbox live gold. Not all console gamers are cheap.

Exactly. Anyone interested in ESO can be assumed to be someone enjoying multiplayer. It makes little sense to believe that a majority of the potential ESO buyers did not already have an xbox live subscription.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

My theory is that it is no one.
The community they listened to was their investors.

Sure, there is the solo TES forums, players leaving the game, reddit, facebook and all the circle jerk of "journalists" without a clue bashing the subscription model.
But listening to whiners is never a good business move, especially when it damages your company on the long term.


Make a good game, and players will pay for it.

That is utterly inane. I am sorry but the investors were probably looking at the ESO community and then saw reviews on top the active subscribers and began pulling out on mass.

Right now ZoS had two options, either get ready to unplug the game or change their model to the fall back one. B2P isn't going to kill ESO and despite your assumptions on SWTOR failing 1.2 million active accounts is better then none. Also it would also be very easy for game news sites to pull those announcements and the numbers and make a story about the developers lying to its customers and stating the truth and that those announcements are clear PR crap, which obviously for any business you don't really want to risk being tagged as a dishonest company especially if you aren't floating well already.

Besides the only difference between this game and DCUO and SWTOR is that ESO isn't putting their restrictions like the others did when they went F2P. They probably realized that doing this would make their game more run of the mill and opted to do something similar to GW2 to make them separate from the rest.

I can assure you by doing this even people playing WoW may take a glance in ZoS direction and give this game a go if it means they don't have to pay $15 a month on top of $60 expansions every 2 years.

Gidorick wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

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).

The $60 isn't the Problem. Most gamers pay $60 regularly for a game. It's the recurring monthly payment that turned many gamers off.

Yet somehow that lot will be OK with ponying up for DCLs and cash shop?

They are most likely better served just by waiting for this wonder to go F2P.

Digiman wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

My theory is that it is no one.
The community they listened to was their investors.

Sure, there is the solo TES forums, players leaving the game, reddit, facebook and all the circle jerk of "journalists" without a clue bashing the subscription model.
But listening to whiners is never a good business move, especially when it damages your company on the long term.


Make a good game, and players will pay for it.

That is utterly inane. I am sorry but the investors were probably looking at the ESO community and then saw reviews on top the active subscribers and began pulling out on mass.

Right now ZoS had two options, either get ready to unplug the game or change their model to the fall back one. B2P isn't going to kill ESO and despite your assumptions on SWTOR failing 1.2 million active accounts is better then none. Also it would also be very easy for game news sites to pull those announcements and the numbers and make a story about the developers lying to its customers and stating the truth and that those announcements are clear PR crap, which obviously for any business you don't really want to risk being tagged as a dishonest company especially if you aren't floating well already.

Besides the only difference between this game and DCUO and SWTOR is that ESO isn't putting their restrictions like the others did when they went F2P. They probably realized that doing this would make their game more run of the mill and opted to do something similar to GW2 to make them separate from the rest.

I can assure you by doing this even people playing WoW may take a glance in ZoS direction and give this game a go if it means they don't have to pay $15 a month on top of $60 expansions every 2 years.

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

facemace wrote: »

This won't attract new pc players... Ask swtor.

You do know SWTOR is making a hell of a lot of profit since it went free to play, right?

1.2 active players. In average, only 2.2% of f2p players pay anything.
It is higher for swtor, thankfully for them, but they are still losing 20-30% revenue every single year despite adding as many reasons to pay up they can.
The same stats apply to TSW and GW2.

The first anouncements about increased revenue or active players are always true.
The locust are coming and for a couple months, things are indeed better.

But on the long term, you hear nothing else. No congratulary pat on the back after 1 year of the change. What you do hear about are layoffs or how companies are happy that their revenue is falling but they still are making positive cash flow so it could be worse.
The b2p/f2p model is not sustainable and does not improve the revenue of games.

Going b2p is not going to make WoW players look at ESO either.
There is a reason why they pay twice for their content, both the subscription and the expansions, and in addition pay for cosmetic items in the cash shop. That reason is because WoW is what they enjoy and love and they find value in it.

ESO isn't WoW, it doesn't have the same raiding mechanics and it will actually lose any tiered progression with the new b2p change. it also doesn't have 10 years of content added to it.
ESO is of virtually zero interest to WoW players.
And it is the same for most other games that manage to keep a susbcription base. Player that pay are happy players, they aren't looking elsewhere.

What ESO has is the TES lore, a decent combat system, a great character building system and AvA. What it will have also is almost no competition on XBOX. All those things are things that can't be found in any other MMOs and it has value.

Proof is, many people bought the game at release and were willing to pay a subscription for the concept they were sold. And that's despite ESO's beta not going well PR wise.
However, ESO was not up to par and people stoped paying the subscription. But that doesn't mean they weren't ready to pay for a good ESO.

The game has objectively improved over the course of the past months. 1.6 would have officially made the game better than what it should have been at release. Even before its release, you could see posts here and there of people coming back and being satisfied with the game now, and new players trying out the game and not understanding the hate they could read elsewhere.
The more the game improves, the more people will be willing to pay a subscription for it.

Even if the game was at 100k subs, it was still making some profit.
It was at 772k in July, and is most likely around 300k now. it can only go up.
The most recent example is FFXIV that managed to turn around its failed launch and in under a year gathered 1M subs.
ESO can do it too.

From what I have read, there is more money in F2P models as people who play MMOs are compulsive and will spend large amounts of money in the cash shop on any item that will give them some sort of advantage (crafting mats from boxes, xp boosts, etc). Others are compelled by a gambling addiction and will purchase a large amount of keys to open boxes.

stevepdodson_ESO888 wrote: »

Joejudas wrote: »

If I was a Zeni employee and my boss walked in and said " I need you to design a wedding dress costume for the new in game cash shop to support the B2P model we are about to suprise our paying customers with " I would honest to god light up a ciggarette at my desk and start drinking whiskey. Lol.

I remember the days when you used to be able to do that in work at any time...

We're you a 1920's cop?