ThatNeonZebraAgain wrote: »

Agreed. While we don't have access to any numbers, it definitely felt like the game was turning around since 1.5/the holidays, and picking up many new and returning players. 1.6 has loads of promise as well, they themselves called it ESO2.0, which was poised to bring in even more people and possibly prompt some new professional reviews of the game.

You are correct about this.
We do have some numbers though. The steam active player stats, though limited, have been more than double for the 30 days before the anouncement of the b2p switch.

If it is indicative of a general trend in the ESO population, it means that the hype of 1.6 alone could make people subscribe.

Bouvin wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

No, the game will not be the same, even if you continue paying a sub.

From what we know from the Reddit AUA, there will be a cash shop with P2W items like skill lines and boosters.
Content will be slowed down and there will be less updates, and the few that there will be will be DLC content.
There will be player segregation, make a friend, want to go in a new zone, he can't because he hasn't paid.

From what we can safely assume from past games, the game will progressively be broken in order to promote the cash shop items, the content will either slow down or PvE DLCs will increase in frequency but will lower in quality.
The community will partly become more toxic and finally, p2w will be increasingly insidious.

The sub won't protect you from all that.

And it will remain exactly the same after 1.6 for a very long time.

They've already announced that content updates will be slower in 2015 than 2014.

They've already announced no new updated between 1.7 and Tamriel Unlimited.

So ya, it'll be the same. But the problem with that is people were happy to HAND ZOS $15 a month subscriptions as long as it meant new content on a regular basis.

Now people won't be handing ZOS $15 a month, and will eventually get bored and leave. That's the problem.

The cash shop is launching with p2w items, just that means it won't be the same.

And we also know that the lack of content is due to them wanting to wait before releasing all DLCs at the same time.
Had the game remained sub only we'd have some of those already completed and in the game, or they would just have released them when done rather than waiting out to add them.
So that too is different because of the change.

And finally, if there are no updates until 1.7, that means that the sub is just not worth it unless you want to use its p2w features.
That's a change too.

As you say in the end. Zos is losing in this change, a LOT.

And it is highly doubtful that the lack of subscription will attract much more console sales than if they had launched it with a sub.
There has been people excited about the prospect of playing ESO on their consoles for years. Even when they thought they would have to pay a sub.

It's the most disgusting name they could come up with, I know that!

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Belidos‌


So by going b2p/f2p, ESO is forefeiting growth and long term revenue.

Not at all, if they do it right.

TSW may look low on numbers to you, but what you are ignoring is the fact that TSW is a niche market, not being a known IP, their numbers would always be low. The drop from launch to the Q4 figures is mostly the drop off of sales due to how niche it is, as well as the usual drop off all games get after a certain period after release, if you factor that in then they're really in a stable position.

It's still a positive income for them and therefore a success, they haven't dropped in quality of content, in fact much of their content quality has improved, and they're doing this on a far lower amount of users than ESO has.

ESO has a larger user base because of the well known IP, it attracts far more people than TSW ever could, so ESO has a broader base to work from, if FC can turn a profit on a low user base and still provide a quality product using a B2P system, I'm fairly confident ESO with a higher user base can do the same or better.

@Belidos‌
The numbers mentionned in the article I linked show three years of losses. The initial launch of TSW increased the revenue, then the next year they were down 31.5%, and the year after by 20% again.

You seem to feel like TSW is doing some good things and "doing it right".
Yet they are still losing revenue, and what is a positive cash flow today may not be next year when another 20% revenue have been lost.

And this 30% -20% number is almost the same than the last two years of GW2. They are losing revenue in the same way despite them too, seemingly "doing it right".

The thing is, turning a profit is not enough.
Subscription model games that "do it right" usually increase in subscriber for at least 4 years. Some have increased for a decade. (Eve Online)

it is also much easier to "do it right" in the subscription model because you don't have to walk around a minefield with your cash shop. Things like a slightly too obviously p2w item can drive away a lot of customers, and that's a risk you don't have to take to survive in a subscription model. just build it and they will come.

So in ESO's case, I believe that up to now they were doing it mostly right with their sub model. We had plenty of updates and the only large hiatus we've seen is 1.6, but it is understandable as such a revamp is hard to fragment.
Also, had they not planned this transition, we would not have had 6 zones worked on in parrallel to become DLCs but we would have had the zones shown mostly completed at Quakecon finished and in the game already.
And finaly, as you said, ESO has a large following, and had some very vocaly supportive fans.
There is no doubt the game would have grown.

And that's another issue with f2p games. They can grow in users, that doesn't imediately corelate with an increase in revenue. With the subscription model, increase your playerbase is a direct improvement of revenue.

mbmcdaniel42_ESO wrote: »

So many of you have dissected the new business model that ZoS had announced for their game. Do you realize that the game is the EXACT same as it was before if you stay subscribed? The elder scrolls online that we know and love despite the issues is getting better. We'll have more choices for mounts, costumes, and maybe even a pet or two. In theory, many more players will join, and I can't see how more people playing this game can make it work. I may be in the minority here, but I was one mad at ZoS for doing this too. However, I believe that more players and growing the game as a good thing. I believe ZoS will keep the cash shop from going p2w. I might be the only one who believes this is a great change for a game that needs to grow. I hope that the reason for such delays on new content is from the console release and business model change. I look forward to the road ahead in the coming year. Sure, there are bad things that come with being B2P. Howeverthat like to point out that being subscription only isn't all cherries and whipped cream either. There are some messed up people in this world, and I can assure you the business model doesn't affect that.

/rantover

I can agree with that. To me this was inevitable for ZoS to go... well I thought they would go the SWTOR route. Honestly this should of been the launch business model and the gaming community wouldn't have been so overly critical especially with the bugs and failure to launch that happened with this game.

I do argue that 100 coins for a month of subscription is insulting and gauging the 1500 coins you get for a month I can assume most items will sell for 500 at the least.

But right now I am much more chilled and relaxed that ZoS is going this way now. Without a huge pressure to keep subscription to continue the game some of their faults will be less scrutinized now by the community.

I will look forward to some of my family coming back along with new and returning players.

@Belidos‌
I badly worded it, I meant that it shows 3 years of progress.

What you say could be true and TSW could be doing profit. However, I think they would have put that forward. That would have been great PR for them and TSW.

For instance, a similar article about NC Soft said that they had 3% increase in profit, that GW2 was losing 20-30% revenue but that Lineage 1 was compensating for it.

Devs usually like to state their successes. in this case, Funcom is pointing out that they still are making a positive cash flow.

I read your comment to someone else about not paying a subscription to any game, and I understand your point of view.
After ESO, I'm probably never going to buy an AAA MMO at launch and will join the crowd of people waiting for the inevitable f2p switch. I do not regret my tme spent in ESO, but I don't want to get scammed again.
Big studios will run the industry to the ground with their short term strategies and I do'nt want to make them earn money while they are doing it.

On another hand, I will buy and pay subscription at the launch of indie MMOs. I feel those guys trying different things still deserve to be supported for their efforts. One game I do not play anymore but am happy I paid for is Xsyon. Those guys are really working hard to make a great game and even added a trial/f2p mode to entice people to subscribe.

Something I feel ESO would have gained by doing. Restricted f2p until lvl 30, then pay sub if you want to go higher. Dofus did something similar and it became very succesful thanks to it. Even WoW does it I believe.

Digiman wrote: »

Without a huge pressure to keep subscription to continue the game some of their faults will be less scrutinized now by the community.

This is the scariest thing I've read since the anouncement of going b2p.

Devs should be scared to death of not improving the game fast enough. To have them in a position where they can relax and say "we're doing this for free, be grateful" is an horrifying perspective.

My problem isn't with the game turning btp. It's whether or not continuing to subscribe is really worth it. Being someone who doesn't spend money on cash shops. What is there really for me as a subscriber..

Sure you can play dlc for free and get bonuses to xp and such, but, If as they say, real dlc content is going to release slower than the current release system (depending on dlc pricing), I need a real reason it would be more beneficial for me to subscribe to the game than their current announced plan. If say DLC releases every 6 months and a price of $15-25 (which is probably about the standard for DLC). Then what is the value of a sub. The 1500 crowns (also depending on how much stuff costs in the shop) just won't seem worth it if that's the case.