How did WE fail as a SUB-Fee /MMO?

Spiritreaver_ESO · January 2015

Funkopotamus wrote: »

Honestly I am reading post after post on these forums as well as other forums everything from hate to love over the upcoming BTP/P2W system.

What I would like to know is exactly where we failed?
I understand as a SubFee MMO that there needs to be a steady number of subscribers for the game to stay alive. "EQ/AsheronsCalls player myself" Thing is I do not understand how a game that has the following like The Elder Scrolls fails and W0W is still rolling right along after all of these years.

I admit I was a console hold out until 13 days ago when I broke down and bought the PC version. I have a friend that works at GS and he told me ESO console release had been rolled back AGAIN till sometime NEXT YEAR. He told me they had just gotten an update about it and it was on the wall right there in front of me on the shelf release date 1/1/16 so I said hell with it and finally bought the PC version for $70.00 now 10 days after that..... this announcement comes along and I feel like I was robbed lol.

I was one of the people that WANTED the game to stay sub fee based even on the XBONE.

My question is this.. How did we the fans fail? Did the people holding the purse strings come to this decision because of the number of sub's are to low? Or was this the plan all along? To just get the game running and make the fans pay for a prolonged beta test and then drop everything to open a cash shop?

I just do not understand how a game with the reputation that TES has can not stay afloat when a game like W0W can stay Sub Fee based. ESO is going to have one competitor on the console _Neverwinter_ is being released before ESO so I wonder if that pushed them into rushing this out the door?

At the end of the day ZOS has to make money we all know that, but it just makes me sad to think there are not enough fans out there to keep this game SUB FEE based. Everyone knows what is going to happen when that Cash Shop door opens. There is no going back! You can say what you want about "It will only be cosmetics" but the fact is NO IT WILL NOT only be cosmetic. If there are exp bonus given to Premium players then there will be EXP potions in the cash shop. That will basically be advertisement for going premium.

So I ask for your thought's .. Was it we the fans fault for the game going BTP/P2W? Are we to blame because there are simply not enough of us. Was this the plan from the start and the fans paid for a beta test? I wanted ESO to be the game that stayed SUBFEE based and survive on the console.. Hell I played EQ Online Adventures on my PS2 for like 9 years lol. MMO'S can survive on the console.

Good OP imo, asks a very good question. Only thing is, i think the answer is quite obvious-the subscribers didn't fail anything.

Now before i even consider making a jump onto the 'ZoS betrayed us!!!' bandwagon, i personally feel that the real 'bad guys' should get a little credit. Of course it is all my opinion, but i really think the lion's share of culpability for the current state of affairs of TESO falls at the feet of Zenimax Media and ZoS's sister company Bethesda Game Studios. Again personally, i feel that Bethesda meddling(with consent from up-top a Zeni Media) has left an unique and unmistakably Bethesda air over this whole affair.

I've been actively paying attention to how Bethesda behaves as a business for years, but one need only take a look back as far as TES V: Skyrim and you can see the similarities. I could go so far as listing point after point after point ad nausea, as i have been acquainting myself to the current events of the free-to-play announcement, but i really only have to point to one thing: Pete Hines sitting in.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

Korah_Eaglecry · January 2015

spryler wrote: »

ZOS lacked the patience it requires to make money as a sub game. Had they stayed the course, they would have picked up subscribers over time and kept their loyal base.

They just didn't want to wait that long. Sad because they could have been another WoW (well maybe not that big, but a solid decades-long MMO).

LMAO....Youre hilarious.

Kilandros · January 2015

Darklord_Tiberius wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

Gavner wrote: »

Sindala wrote: »

The game was released before it was ready. Half a game means peeps moan about constant patches whilst they are paying rather than tweaks to the 'finished' product.

This.
The game was released in an unfinished state and that hurt it... a LOT. After all, first impressions are very important, and when most reviews came out like: "this is full of bugs", "this doesn't feel like an ES game" etc. the player base suffered down the road since only the real fans remained, I guess.

Those were the kind reviews. The more critical reviews were like, "This is just another generic, mediocre, theme park MMO that someone slapped TES title onto."

Kind of hard to expect people to fork over a monthly sub for a game that is basically just a buggier GW2.

LOL I played Guild Wars for 7 years and I played GW2 in beta and through launch for at least a year. Comparing ESO to GW2 is like comparing an apple to an orange. Just because they are both round, does not mean they are the same thing. Derp less brah.

You haven't even said how they're different. You've only said you played GW2 for almost a year. Great point. Well taken. GG.

Morrawind · January 2015

The game is just not worth the subscription fee. Even fishing was bugged and no fun at all. Needless to repeat the rest of the issues.

And if the product has issues, its all about the support. Well ...

ZOS has a long way to go.

Stravokov · January 2015

i agree with what mostly has already been said. it is a collaboration of reasons why the game failed (not us). game breaking bugs, poor balancing, extreme nerfs to fix simple problems, developers lying or remaining silent when their consumer base is questioning them what they are doing with our money etc. they made allot of "old" MMO mistakes in a brand new game.

when you add up everything at the end of the day, it does not paint a portrait of trust with the company. myself and 11 other friends quit the game mid last year. mostly because we lost faith in the developers. now i am the only one who resubbed a month or so ago, and i have burned through most of the content. all i have remaining is PVP and Group Content. PvP is fine, but it doesn't hold my attention for long. group content is still problematic because finding a group is more of a difficult chore. they haven't improved that much in any of their multilayer systems.

i for one am glad i wont have to pay a monthly subscription, becuase i feel at this point the game is not worth it (and i think they feel the same way going B2P). at least now previous customers can return to the game and check out the new update. im looking forward to Update 6, but i dont believe there is allot of content to it. the justice system and Champion system in my opinion is designed to add to already existing content to make the core content more enjoyable, but is by no means new content.

i hope the fixes and rebalancing really improves the overall experience. this game still requires much polishing )my Night blade Siphon visual effect still bugs out when i switch weapons... comon ZOS!). ive played many many MMO titles and this is by far one of the worst experiences i have had. however i am not a doomsayer and will say at least i think B2P is a step in the right direction. hopefully they are finially getting their act together.

asteldian · January 2015

Morrawind wrote: »

The game is just not worth the subscription fee. Even fishing was bugged and no fun at all.

Haha, sorry I just had to quote this. I am not sure even ZOS can be blamed for that. It's fishing....in a game...they can't work miracles.

wenchmore420b14_ESO · January 2015

Sallington wrote: »

One word: Consoles.

I used to be a ESO PC gamer, then I took a console to the knee....

jesusch · January 2015

Easy question:
ZOS failed because horrible marketing tactics. End of the history.

Gidorick · January 2015

My gut says nothing. B2P was planned from the start.

If the B2P decision was based on the lack of subscription numbers then every single subscriber that quit to "try again later" are the ones who failed.

But I really don't think that's the case.

LadyNerevar · January 2015

eisberg wrote: »

Free to Play Revenue has been shooting up, Subscription revenue has been going down for the whole Market. Even though total revenue for MMOs have been rising. Subscription revenue has been in decline, and in 2 years the subscription revenue is expected to drop by 40% compared to the 2013 revenue, while Free to Play is expected to increase by 48%. by 2017. it is expected that by 2017, Subscription based MMOs will make up 13% of the revenue for MMO revenue.

Currently Subscription MMOs make up 23% of the market, at 2.8 Billion in revenue, and 2.2 Billion of that revenue is held up by the top 10 MMOs, with Rift having 1% of the market at the bottom 10. Yes, of the top 10 MMOs for subscription MMO, 7 of them are actually MMOs that have subscription and Free to Play Model. The other 600 Million of that revenue is a bunch of little games that don't even have 1% of the revenue each.

This is an AAA MMO, with expectations by the parent company and investors, if it doesn't meet those expectations, something has to change, even if it is making a profit (Firefly TV series was making a profit, and see what happened to that show).

When they made themselves a subscription based game, they put themselves in a shrinking market, trying to gain customers who are already dedicated to their MMO of choice. They didn't create a game that people who do not want to pay a subscription would all of sudden decide they want to pay a subscription for.

I guess you can say it is the fans fault. I wanted to play this game, I am a big fan of Elder Scrolls. I played the beta. When I heard the news it was subscription model, I knew it would go free to play or Buy to play with in a year, and I saw no value in paying $15 a month for it, so I waited. I saw the news for Buy to Play, saw that I could buy the game for $12, so I bought it, though I won't subscribe when my first 30 days runs out, and will just wait till March 17th to play again.

http://www.superdataresearch.com/market-data/mmo-market/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/07/19/world-of-warcraft-still-a-1b-powerhouse-even-as-subscription-mmos-decline/

I'm going to quote this post because it's the only one that really matters. In the current market, it would practically take a miracle to make a wildly successful (in both the short and long term) subscription based MMO. Even if ESO had no bugs, even if they somehow got monthly updates out, even if they appease every whim of the (comparatively small) number of hardcore players... there is very little chance that they would have 1) achieved the sorts of numbers needed to rival WoW, and 2) sustained them.

ESO did good with a subscription, but not great. Especially not the sort of great that Zenimax Media wants to see to make up for 7 years of investment. A B2P model is pretty much guaranteed to double or even triple their revenue, and console sales are only going to multiply that.

What does more money for the company mean for us, the players? We'll keep getting to play the game, and receive updates for the game.

Timaios · January 2015

Gidorick wrote: »

My gut says nothing. B2P was planned from the start.

If the B2P decision was based on the lack of subscription numbers then every single subscriber that quit to "try again later" are the ones who failed.

But I really don't think that's the case.

I'm inclined to agree with you here since I just don't think the game performed that badly that the decision to go B2P was based upon lack of players or the game underperforming. I think it had everything to do with bringing this game to consoles. Probably had a lot to do with the results of ZOS's negotiations with Microsoft and Sony on how to go about having players pay and access the game with Microsoft and Sony's network fees on top of that.

Altair · January 2015

Kilandros wrote: »

Sindala wrote: »

The game was released before it was ready. Half a game means peeps moan about constant patches whilst they are paying rather than tweaks to the 'finished' product.

This is the only credited answer. Game launched before it was ready. Millions of people Beta tested ESO to see approximately 50% of all quests bugged--game launched with those same quests still bugged. People left. Developers had to spend months fixes bugs and performance that were unacceptable for a AAA title rather than delivering new content every 4-6 weeks. More people left. End-game PVP has always suffered from and continues to suffer from crippling performance issues. Many of the PVP left.

I have to agree with the launch issues... I reported tons of quest bugs during beta, and almost none of them had been addressed at launch.
It drove many people away from the game.

Also, many die-hard Elder Scroll fans just didn't like the look/feel of ESO... the elves are too pretty, for instance, and also orcs don't quite look authentic to the Elder Scrolls franchise.

ItsGlaive · January 2015

Honestly, I believe this game was probably doing perfectly well financially, a regular modest monthly income. My belief is that when they realised they couldn't avoid X-Box and PS fees for the console, they faced a choice of dropping console and enjoying the regular PC income, or foregoing the sub in favour of a massive short-term box sale windfall.

My guess is that the powers that be decided they'd go for the short term windfall, to hell with the long term.

RoCoL · January 2015

Sallington wrote: »

One word: Consoles.

I have to believe this is the case. Resources are limited. Console development imperative with Micro and Sony cracking the whip - console was delayed for a year? - B2P / F2P = they still make money, move ahead on console creation and who really cares about the beta testers and subs for the past year, cuz - Microsoft and Sony are the real money bags

Abr4hn · January 2015

The entire premise of the OP is wrong. Blaming customers for a change in the business model of a game? The stupid is strong with this one...

The_Great_Maldini · January 2015

The OP is bordering on Stockholm syndrome. I believe like others that this was planned a long time ago to match up with the payment model of consoles. I don't think it's anything the elder scrolls fans failed to do.

Seraphyel · January 2015

Dragath wrote: »

the consumers didnt fail, the product was lackluster from the beginning.

That's it. Unfortunately.

Gidorick · January 2015

Timaios wrote: »

Gidorick wrote: »

My gut says nothing. B2P was planned from the start.

If the B2P decision was based on the lack of subscription numbers then every single subscriber that quit to "try again later" are the ones who failed.

But I really don't think that's the case.

I'm inclined to agree with you here since I just don't think the game performed that badly that the decision to go B2P was based upon lack of players or the game underperforming. I think it had everything to do with bringing this game to consoles. Probably had a lot to do with the results of ZOS's negotiations with Microsoft and Sony on how to go about having players pay and access the game with Microsoft and Sony's network fees on top of that.

ZOS better hope this can never be proven. If it comes out that they outright knowing lied to consumers about their intentions.... whew.

Elsonso · January 2015

.

Gidorick wrote: »

My gut says nothing. B2P was planned from the start.

If the B2P decision was based on the lack of subscription numbers then every single subscriber that quit to "try again later" are the ones who failed.

But I really don't think that's the case.

I will see your nothing and raise you to the next level.

They can go B2P because they expect that they will easily recover their investment and there is no reason to put the subscription wall up anymore.

I will further conjecture that ZeniMax Media is in a rut when it comes to development. When they are done with a project, they start to move people to other projects. Skyrim development ended over the months following Skyrim release so that those people could go off an work on whatever BGS is working on now.

I think that ZOS is doing the same thing. They already have another online project on the drawing board and they are going to need to start moving resources over to that project. They will do this over the next 12-18 months and content updates will eventually end.

Faugaun · January 2015

Gidorick wrote: »

Timaios wrote: »

Gidorick wrote: »

My gut says nothing. B2P was planned from the start.

If the B2P decision was based on the lack of subscription numbers then every single subscriber that quit to "try again later" are the ones who failed.

But I really don't think that's the case.

I'm inclined to agree with you here since I just don't think the game performed that badly that the decision to go B2P was based upon lack of players or the game underperforming. I think it had everything to do with bringing this game to consoles. Probably had a lot to do with the results of ZOS's negotiations with Microsoft and Sony on how to go about having players pay and access the game with Microsoft and Sony's network fees on top of that.

ZOS better hope this can never be proven. If it comes out that they outright knowing lied to consumers about their intentions.... whew.

If it is because failed negotiations they didn't know in advance....sure they probably had a contingency plan if negotiation failed (it would be dumb not to). I'm sure if this is the case then their intent and desires may have been different (because why negotiate if you want the same thing) then what occurred. Then again if they did plan it from the start they would probably give the same story.

Korah_Eaglecry · January 2015

The_Great_Maldini wrote: »

The OP is bordering on Stockholm syndrome. I believe like others that this was planned a long time ago to match up with the payment model of consoles. I don't think it's anything the elder scrolls fans failed to do.

And youve got a bad case of paranoia.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO · January 2015

Sindala wrote: »

The game was released before it was ready. Half a game means peeps moan about constant patches whilst they are paying rather than tweaks to the 'finished' product.

/thread

Says it all, it should never have got out of beta in the state it was in, the beta testing was a joke, two days at a weekend and sometimes not every one at that.

Also the nightmare botting and spamming that went on for the best part of two months seriously pissed-off a good number of people, two I know stopped playing not solely because of the botting but they got totally depressed when out and about seeing the bot trains exploiting XP grinds and the like.

ZOS took far too long to bring that under control, by which time the damage is done.

Also, the lack of an AH IS an issue even though ZOS want to deny it and the 'fans' shout down anyone who raises it: again, it won't be the sole reason but again I know some folks for whom it was a major annoyance and one or two stopped in part at least because there was no sensible way to be part of the economy.

However, the bug-fest was the biggest player-loser: there were STILL critical game-breaking bugs in the 'patch notes' FIVE months after release, these were story-progression blockers and in some cases prevented players reaching Coldharbour, is it any wonder more than a few left when their game broke and ZOS abjectly failed to fix it in a timely manner?

Leeric · January 2015

Companies have these things called business plans....
So either this was always planned, or they simply wanted to increase profits. Wouldn't really matter how many Subs they had either way. So however way you spin it, it wasn't "our" fault. Thats just silly.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO · January 2015

Leeric wrote: »

Companies have these things called business plans....
So either this was always planned, or they simply wanted to increase profits.

There's a third reason, the one that applied to SW:TOR .. player numbers tanked and ZOS saw a collapse of revenue, far from 'icreasing' profits it may well be there weren't any to increase without a change in model.

It is possible it was planned all along, we'll never know because there's no way ZOS will ever tell us the truth, but IMO it's unlikely to have been planned like that .. of course, the disastrous failure to get a console version out until 15 months after release likely made a huge dent in their revenue plans and maybe caused a panic switch.

Again, no one here knows so any suggestion of cause (that's plausible) could be the correct one.

IceDread · January 2015

The fans did not fail. zenimax did. With version 1.6 they are redoing a lot, that's basically admitting that what was before with stamina/ magica and weapon / spell crit was really bad, like a lot of people pointed out. Now they are chaning it completely.

The game was like so many other games, published way to early. Stockholders / company management wanted to reap rewards on their investment no matter what. B2P is the next step to squeeze out as much cash as possible.

There is nothing wrong with earning cash but for the time till then subscribers has been paying for the development of the future expansions and now have to pay again for it with b2p.

Dagoth_Rac · January 2015

This game started development when? 8 years ago? MMO industry has undergone a seismic shift since then. I don't think ZOS wanted to believe that. I think they really felt they were a special snowflake and they could make subscription work. The game is really quite good, but they did not hit it out of the ballpark the way they needed to to justify a subscription game in 2014. Without some kind of runaway success on the PC, there was no way subscription could work on the console, where that model is much less common. So B2P was only way forward if they did not want a lackluster console release.

I don't think all hope is lost, though. The consoles add an interesting twist. Rock Band came out in 2007. The only console game I have ever played. The only reason I even own an XBox 360! They released DLC every Tuesday for about 5 years. There were weeks when the DLC cost $20 and I knew lots of people who bought every single song, every single week. Grown adults, too, not 13-year olds with Mom's credit card. Console players are not as fickle and cheap as PC players assume. They can be as dedicated and loyal as anyone.

You can make boatloads of money with just DLC on the consoles and no Pay-2-Win cash shops.

And, yes, Rock Band was not an MMO. But getting together a good group of 4 to attempt a Gold Star run of, say, "Hallowed Be Thy Name" by Iron Maiden or other high-difficulty songs was as much of a challenge as getting a good group together to tackle Vet City of Ash or other high-difficulty ESO content.

EsORising · January 2015

I think if they released the champion system 6 months ago then justice system this month they would of still been P2P. Actually if they didn't dissapoint their fans on release with the preorder fiasco they would still been ok. Play any race on any faction? Its like pay $20 more and well just ruin the story and the lore for everyone to show we care about where this game is headed.

Its like here is all this content to immerse you but the whole alliance story thing is jacked up now since anyone can play on any faction. It's like if i remade schindlers list the movie and casted jewish stars for the German officers. It doesn't make any sense and it hurts my eyes or if I remade annie frank and she was of german descent hiding from the german people. what?

Lets not forget about VR which was a grindfest to keep people around forever. People complained about 1yr ago about it and they said it would be gone 6 months ago but it's still around sucking up peoples souls.

Then they decided to take their time with the chinese gold farmers and obvious bots 24/7. To their credit they fixed but not till those problems killed half the community who went out to make hateful forums and youtube videos about the game. i.e. angry joe and that fat angry high blood pressure guy,. whats his name?

Now they have to market to the bottom feeders and trolls and combine them with the exisiting community. Actually thats when it goes F2P...lets hope it never comes to that.

Dave2836 · January 2015

Whats with the comparison to WoW? WoW is WoW. I don't want this game to be like WoW. I want it to be something different. There's plenty of WoW clones out there and WoW has plenty of things I could do without.

And as far as indicating the OP might have stock holm syndrome or insulting their intelligence... I'm not so sure thats even true. The expression of emotion shows he is a true fan of the game and wanted to express that support. Those of you putting him down might not believe in the same thing the OP does, but they are willing to express it openly. That speaks to volumes of the kind of character this game can invite. Maybe there's something to learn from that.

Buck · January 2015

EsORising wrote: »

Then they decided to take their time with the chinese gold farmers and obvious bots 24/7. To their credit they fixed but not till those problems killed half the community who went out to make hateful forums and youtube videos about the game. i.e. angry joe and that fat angry high blood pressure guy,. whats his name?
Now they have to market to the bottom feeders and trolls and combine them with the exisiting community. Actually thats when it goes F2P...lets hope it never comes to that.

If the bots/gold farmers already have a box, and so do the others you mention then they're all gonna be back if they want... and crowns to suck them into subbing. /facepalm

Kalman · January 2015

Duh everyone knows that SUB-Fee/MMO = B2P + $Shop