Your reasons for continuing your sub after March 17?

Jaxsun · January 2015

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »

Micanet wrote: »

[After I read the article, I cant stop wondering, do they seriously believe that 1.6 gives us so much more game time, that we wont need another update untill september?

The practicality is they have now TIME to do it before that kind of period.

They can't possibly plan to deploy Update 7 (assuming that's what it'll be called) until August at the very, very earliest, given the console launch some time in June. Even an August time for U7 would be optimistic given the huge numbers of core bugs we can fully expect to be infesting the console games (based on the many bug-fests that have come with each Update so far).

I go along with the 'September at the earliest' view at the moment, and even then it's totally unclear just what a U7 will contain.

They better be releasing update 7 well before September, there is currently no reason to level a character beyond VR1 if you're already capped CP's for 1.6. It's literally wasting time leveling that character. The state of limbo they've put us in with the VR ranks is *** ***. They should grow a pair and tell us when 1.7 will come out so we can unsub until then if we're so inclined.

Funkopotamus · January 2015

EsORising wrote: »

themizario wrote: »

Set a reminder to cancel 03/17. I hope they watch all their money dissappear and then go"MY GOD! WHAT HAVE WE DONE!"

This is giong to be a big change for ESO's image and sales, as well as, console gaming. Pure Console players have not yet met the addiction of MMO's its going to be like selling crack to children. This is a revolutionary change for console gaming but a lot of people don't see it yet. This is a new market for Consoles, which never had a community in a real MMO.

Not really... EQOA was on the ps2 for 9 years and was great..

Also ESO announced the June console release one week after Neverwinter announced the release on console..

Neverwinter will be out BEFORE ESO on console. They will both be P2W though so I do not look for either one to last long.

Naivefanboi · January 2015

Funkopotamus wrote: »

EsORising wrote: »

themizario wrote: »

Set a reminder to cancel 03/17. I hope they watch all their money dissappear and then go"MY GOD! WHAT HAVE WE DONE!"

This is giong to be a big change for ESO's image and sales, as well as, console gaming. Pure Console players have not yet met the addiction of MMO's its going to be like selling crack to children. This is a revolutionary change for console gaming but a lot of people don't see it yet. This is a new market for Consoles, which never had a community in a real MMO.

Not really... EQOA was on the ps2 for 9 years and was great..

Also ESO announced the June console release one week after Neverwinter announced the release on console..

Neverwinter will be out BEFORE ESO on console. They will both be P2W though so I do not look for either one to last long.

lmao neverwinter is prolly one of the most p2w games out there. it even makes swtor feel like a fair approach to f2p.
one major fact people seem to forget.
ESO IS NOT F2P, its B2P. just like GW2, that game has over 21mill box sales....
GW2 had some dumb issues i couldnt tolerate. i bought that game on an impulse because i assumed all mmos had raiding back then. lol had i known that would have never given it a try. overall game was pretty fun. people claim the shop was p2w, but aside from some boosters. only things being sold were vanity items. on top of that people could trade currency, somthing i like myself but understand how it equates to p2w. so i dont mind not having that in the crown store.

now imagine if GW2 had launched on console. id say about 60-70% of that games player base is pvp only whether its AvAvA or their poor attempt at esport matches. theres alot of people that just play that side of the game.

point being eso does everything GW2 did but better. with better gfx and bigger worlds.neverwinter coming to console is nothing but good for ESO, its like putting a burgerking and mcdonalds at walmart both of them win from competition.

Also paying a subscription GAURANTEES NOTHING! has anyone seen the recent update preview for WoW? they have a sub, and a cash shop.. the newest feature they are adding is a damn selfie camera..............seriously?
they make a new expansion box to buy+sub+cash shop vanity item exclusives. all while removing flgiht in expansion along with "Scenarios" quick little fun mini dungeons focused on story.....
and their idea of content is a freaking selfie camera???????

i too was pissed about b2p, especially after seeing how destiny did their customers. but then i look at wow and blizz visions garbage ideas of content and cant help but feel grateful to have ESO.

for the TLDR crowd. get some perspective on f2p vs b2p and realize subscriptions guarantee nothing.

tengri · January 2015

There is no reason.
For me personally there is not one thing in this new subscription "package" worth anything at all. Not one thing.

Now I am paying for access to the servers, fair and square. And absolute acceptable.
But after March I would be paying for... well, nothing.

And it's not really about the 15 per month; that's a neglectable amount I don't even notice but to be frank it still bothers me. Probably more than it should.

It bothers me that after sticking around and supporting the game for a year and pretty much playing the (unwilling) Beta-tester for a LOT of new stuff now the game is in a pretty much ok state - and suddenly everyone (else) gets it for free.
And I should continue to pay a subscription? Come on, really.
No, thinking about it this not only bothers me. This even makes me angry.

cravnbeer · January 2015

There is no point. Especially with the slow down with content.

wiz12268b14_ESO · January 2015

zward887_ESO wrote: »

wiz12268b14_ESO wrote: »

So a DLC price (I figure 3 tiers of DLC, 'smalls' for 9.99, mediums for 14.99 and large for 19.99-24.99)

I hate to say it but I think DLC prices will be about double what you're expecting there.

I doubt you'll find anything in the Cash shop for less than $20 thats not a consumable. DLCs will definitely start at $20 for small additions and will easily go up to $40-50 for 'large' DLC packs. A new zone, like Orsinium/Wrothgar for instance will easily be in the $40+ range.

I would expect a zone like Craglorn in this new model would be about $40.

Way too high. The game only cost 60 and it has what 27 zones? With a TON of (questing) content. NO way they can charge 75% of that for a map or even a complete zone with 4-6 maps and a few quest chains.

The more I think about it the more I think theyre going ot have to sell DLCS exclusively for crowns. And make subscriber crowns the best 'value'. Assuming they want people to sub (and thus have a predictable income/revenue stream).

That way there is no way to tell what a 'true' cash price is because it wont sell for cash at all. It will sell for XXX amount of crowns. For subscribers the 'cash' equivalent might be 20-30 bux like I say but those crowns are basically free' with your subscription, and if the store doesnt offer a lot for crowns most people will hoard them and just buy DLCS with them. But for cash bought crowns the price might edge towards that 45-50 dollar price tag youre claiming.

I said it similarly before but I am now thinking they might not offer DLCS for cash at all and will just risk the backlash of seemingly overcharging for them (in crown prices) which dont have a concrete 'value'. Because subscribers will value them differently than people who buy them outright. But that also brings in the whole 'whale' argument. But generally speaking 'whales' have zero concept of 'value' anyway and just spend money in the hopes of turning their goods into more of something else. Or in the hopes of being better than someone who doesnt spend money. So its a little lost on this game.

RinaldoGandolphi · January 2015

Im still subbed for now, but thats subject to change. They made some real doozies of decisons in 1.6 like say..the Disoreint from Streak being unblockable as just one of many examples...i think that nonsense as a Sorc who uses Streak.

im not going to make any final determinations yet, its still early, but i hope most of my gripes such as how they scales stats, crazy TTK in pvp, etc are the result of bugs they will iron out...because how the PTS stands right now, i doubt i'd play it....

wiz12268b14_ESO · January 2015

zward887_ESO wrote: »

Maverick827 wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

Got a question for all you over-analytical types that need a list of reasons to play or not play a game.

If you're not going to stay subbed to ESO, what will you subscribe to?

zward887_ESO wrote: »

wiz12268b14_ESO wrote: »

So a DLC price (I figure 3 tiers of DLC, 'smalls' for 9.99, mediums for 14.99 and large for 19.99-24.99)

I hate to say it but I think DLC prices will be about double what you're expecting there.

I doubt you'll find anything in the Cash shop for less than $20 thats not a consumable. DLCs will definitely start at $20 for small additions and will easily go up to $40-50 for 'large' DLC packs. A new zone, like Orsinium/Wrothgar for instance will easily be in the $40+ range.

I would expect a zone like Craglorn in this new model would be about $40.

That seems too high.

Of course its too high. This is the price we pay when the subscription is removed.

Almost everything in a subscription-less game is priced too high. That's why people are so outraged by the move to B2P in the first place.

I would be amazed if its any cheaper. If I can get away with dropping my sub, ignoring cash shop cosmetics, and then only spending say 30-50 bucks a year on DLC content, is this game really going to make a sustainable amount of money from that model? Also, where is the value in the subscription then? If a DLC pack that comes out every 3-4 months is worth only a single month's subscription fee, what non-emotional reason is there to bother with subbing at all?

Its all about volume. If they sold 1.5 million PC versions (total guess) but now only 200K people are currently subbed (another total guess) whats their revenue? On subs at least.

Now if they sell DLCs for 9.99-29.99 and more people are laying the game and more people are buying DLCS they make more money. If 200K people spend 180 bucks a year (less actually if they use long term deals. I would say average is around 150 per year per player/subscriber) Thats 30 million. At 19.99 (what I think the average DLC will cost, they only need to sell a combined 1.5 million unites to equal a sub base of 200K players. They could possibly do that with PC players alone, especially if they released 3 DLCs a year because with 2-3 million box owners (maybe more since its B2P and some guys will have multiple boxes) thats basically 9-10 million "chances' for them to sell a DLC, so they only need a 15% sale to ownership ration , thats just for PC owners. How much do you think consoles will increase that? I would say at least triple it. I estimate between 10-12 million in console version sales, so thats 30-35 million 'chances' to sell a DLC pack.

So lets say theyre bringing in 50 million a year right now with subscribers of the PC version. We dont know but a round number and that might actually be a little high. They add more users (because the game is free to access once you buy it) for the PC version automatically, then they add console users on top of that. Then they add DLC content which even at 19.99 (my guess) is going to sell way more than enough copies to eclipse 50 million. Not to mention they will still remain a lot of subs, and might even gain more if they market a good price schedule and those subscribers will still be spending their free' crowns to buy the DLCs.

So they really dont have to over charge to make a lot more money because as a B2P game theyre automatically increasing their playerbase multiple times.

But I still think they might opt out of offering DLCs for cash and get just a little bit more money out of the deal and also make having a sub a better value because the bonus perks they give are all but useless but if they make the crowns 'better' then that is the tipping point.

Lord_Draevan · January 2015

My reasons for continuing?
1) I love me some Elder Scrolls.
2) I find ESO to be a very good game despite its flaws.
3) I believe that 15$ a month or not is a minor difference, the lack or requirement of a sub fee is irrelevant to my decision to keep playing.

It's how the cash shop is handled that could cause me to quit playing. If they start selling items/gear/cosumables that give you a big advantage over other players in PvP, then I'll consider quitting. I really hope they'll stick to cosmetic/convenience stuff.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · January 2015

If you think there are only 200k people playing this you are nuts. In October Superfetch estimated 1.2 million. Now they could be off but not by a million subs. Bound to have had more added around christmas too.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO · January 2015

jjf42001_ESO wrote: »

for the TLDR crowd. get some perspective on f2p vs b2p and realize subscriptions guarantee nothing.

I think it's you that needs to get some perspective if you seriously think B2P is materially any different from F2P, as GW2's revenue figures clearly show, the one-time fee doesn't sustain the game which is why Anet are beavering away on an expansion to give them another injection of revenue .. and keep in mind ANet were ADAMANT that GW2 would not have expansions like GW1 did, the DLC model of GW2 was going to be all they needed.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO · January 2015

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

If you think there are only 200k people playing this you are nuts. In October Superfetch estimated 1.2 million. .

Who the hell are 'Superfetch', all Google found for me using that was a Windows Vista tech. subsystem.

Maverick827 · January 2015

PvE people who are staying, what do you actually do in game?

Like, you're at school or work and you're sitting there thinking about going home and doing what, exactly, in ESO?

Is it dungeons to get gear? Imagine you've already have all of the best gear.

Is it dungeons for the story? Imagine you've already done every dungeon more than enough to absorb the story.

Is it to level alts? Imagine you have a max-level character of every class.

There are obviously a few other things to do in game, but they start to get into the realm of niche. I think it's understandable that chasing achievements and role playing is not worth $15/month to a lot of people.

Is it not understandable that many players have been finished with all of the main PvE content this game has to offer for quite some time, are still waiting for patch 1.6 (I quit the game months ago and even then I was waiting for patch 1.6), and will then still have to wait 6+ months for any new content? That's reaching a year of no new content for a lot of people.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · January 2015

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

If you think there are only 200k people playing this you are nuts. In October Superfetch estimated 1.2 million. .

Who the hell are 'Superfetch', all Google found for me using that was a Windows Vista tech. subsystem.

Sorry its superdata. Doing some database work I guess fetch is in my brain this morning.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO · January 2015

Q:
What type of data do we have and where do we get it?
A:

Every month we collect the spending data of millions of unique paying online gamers directly from publishers and developers, totaling 50+ publishers and 450+ game titles.

So you're suggesting ZOS give these clowns detailed information about revenues that they don't give to anyone else?

Really?

And these clowns' analyses are entirely accurate and credible?

Really?

Okay.

Saturn · January 2015

I will continue my subscription. Firstly because of the added benefits it brings, secondly because the amount I pay versus the amount I play (currently anyway) is more than worth it and lastly because I want to support the game.

I don't know what the game will be like after TU is released, but if it continues to be as it has been since launch then I'd be content enough. If not, well then there are a lot more sensible things I could probably invest my time in.

wiz12268b14_ESO · January 2015

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

If you think there are only 200k people playing this you are nuts. In October Superfetch estimated 1.2 million. Now they could be off but not by a million subs. Bound to have had more added around christmas too.

Regardless even if there are a million people paying for a sub and theyre bringing in 150 million a year (VERY unlikely) how many DLCS is that @ 20 bucks? (or an equivalent of 20 bucks)

The ratio of ownership to sales is also effected greatly if there are already that many people subbing. But since estimates I have seen said they sold less than 2 million copies since release having a sub base of 1.2 million (60% retention rate) in October is highly unlikely. But even if it is then those people will also more than likely continue to sub even if free loaders and cheapskates dont think it is 'worth' it.

I am pretty sure what you think was subscribers was simply units sold (and even that was a guess based on known physical sales protracted at a 4-1 ratio to guess the number of digital sales)

Since there were no press releases or special live streams bragging about their sales numbers we can assume they werent great. They point every little positive thing out they can spin since they couldnt spin that then it safe to say the numbers werent good.

But like I said if at the end of this year 15 million copies of the game (PC and console) have been bought that GREATLY increases the volume of owners and greatly diminishes the sales units of DLC needed to make more money than they could staying a sub game.

They only need to sell 10 million DLC copies a year @ 20 bucks per to bring in 200 million. If they release just 3 DLCs and 1% of the people who own the game buy all 3, theyre already at close to half a million units sold. So they just need the other 99% of people who own the game to buy 9.5 million copies. Which again doesnt include people who will stay subbed as well as random cash shop sales.

technohic · January 2015

I was expecting to and now I am not sure. Not because I don't like some of the changes; I do like most of them. I'm just looking at the benefits and am not seeing it. The DLC you get is only for so long as you have a subscription and TBH I never really partake in group PvE stuff. DLC that would have PvP content or solo PvE or something else other than higher end group content, I can just get ala carte and I am not so sure I need 10% more gold or XP.

Maybe the crafting research and inspiration but if I am just self sustaining, maybe I need that all of once?

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · January 2015

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »

Q:
What type of data do we have and where do we get it?
A:

Every month we collect the spending data of millions of unique paying online gamers directly from publishers and developers, totaling 50+ publishers and 450+ game titles.

So you're suggesting ZOS give these clowns detailed information about revenues that they don't give to anyone else?

Really?

And these clowns' analyses are entirely accurate and credible?

Really?

Okay.

lol ok well I can take you seriously since you call companies whos entire business it is to study analytics "clowns" lol. Fact is ESO made $111 million dollars. Thats a LOT of money for a company with only 200k subs eh?

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · January 2015

wiz12268b14_ESO wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

If you think there are only 200k people playing this you are nuts. In October Superfetch estimated 1.2 million. Now they could be off but not by a million subs. Bound to have had more added around christmas too.

Regardless even if there are a million people paying for a sub and theyre bringing in 150 million a year (VERY unlikely) how many DLCS is that @ 20 bucks? (or an equivalent of 20 bucks)

The ratio of ownership to sales is also effected greatly if there are already that many people subbing. But since estimates I have seen said they sold less than 2 million copies since release having a sub base of 1.2 million (60% retention rate) in October is highly unlikely. But even if it is then those people will also more than likely continue to sub even if free loaders and cheapskates dont think it is 'worth' it.

I am pretty sure what you think was subscribers was simply units sold (and even that was a guess based on known physical sales protracted at a 4-1 ratio to guess the number of digital sales)

Since there were no press releases or special live streams bragging about their sales numbers we can assume they werent great. They point every little positive thing out they can spin since they couldnt spin that then it safe to say the numbers werent good.

But like I said if at the end of this year 15 million copies of the game (PC and console) have been bought that GREATLY increases the volume of owners and greatly diminishes the sales units of DLC needed to make more money than they could staying a sub game.

They only need to sell 10 million DLC copies a year @ 20 bucks per to bring in 200 million. If they release just 3 DLCs and 1% of the people who own the game buy all 3, theyre already at close to half a million units sold. So they just need the other 99% of people who own the game to buy 9.5 million copies. Which again doesnt include people who will stay subbed as well as random cash shop sales.

Zenimax doesnt release digital "box" sales so how they got that number I have no idea. We do know Zenimax made $111 million dollars in 6 months. Thats not too shabby and if you divide that by the sub cost it equals out roughly to 1.2 million subs. Since zenimax doesnt release any of this data its a best guess by a company whos entire existence is based on educated guesses.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO · January 2015

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

lol ok well I can take you seriously since you call companies whos entire business it is to study analytics "clowns" lol. Fact is ESO made $111 million dollars. Thats a LOT of money for a company with only 200k subs eh?

Their market is the advertising industry .. there's a whole lot of credibility there, too.

You quote the only 'fact' we know, coming up with sub. numbers based on that is in-credible .. which is my point.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · January 2015

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

lol ok well I can take you seriously since you call companies whos entire business it is to study analytics "clowns" lol. Fact is ESO made $111 million dollars. Thats a LOT of money for a company with only 200k subs eh?

Their market is the advertising industry .. there's a whole lot of credibility there, too.

You quote the only 'fact' we know, coming up with sub. numbers based on that is in-credible .. which is my point.

Please google what analytics companies do.

McDoogs · January 2015

I wont be after playing 1.6 for a while on PTS, I just don't care for many of the changes and you guys will be shocked at how nerfed we all got and how steep the CP grind is. Also, there is little to no reason to do so unless DLC is released at a rate greater than $15/month, which judging by up to this date, will not be happening.

Naivefanboi · January 2015

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »

jjf42001_ESO wrote: »

for the TLDR crowd. get some perspective on f2p vs b2p and realize subscriptions guarantee nothing.

I think it's you that needs to get some perspective if you seriously think B2P is materially any different from F2P, as GW2's revenue figures clearly show, the one-time fee doesn't sustain the game which is why Anet are beavering away on an expansion to give them another injection of revenue .. and keep in mind ANet were ADAMANT that GW2 would not have expansions like GW1 did, the DLC model of GW2 was going to be all they needed.

lol try reading the whole thing if you wanna debate it.