Would ESO have made more money initially if it had originally been announced as B2P instead of P2P?

LameoveR · April 2015

King Bozo wrote: »

There are a lot of console players that have been playing pc because launch was pushed back. There are also lots of console players that would probably pay 100 bucks for this game on launch if it was required. Console players will make ESO crown store a lot of profit.

No, it's not.

Iluvrien · April 2015

If this had been B2P on release then I wouldn't have bought it or played it, no matter how much of a TES fan I am.

King Bozo · April 2015

LameoveR wrote: »

King Bozo wrote: »

There are a lot of console players that have been playing pc because launch was pushed back. There are also lots of console players that would probably pay 100 bucks for this game on launch if it was required. Console players will make ESO crown store a lot of profit.

No, it's not.

I don't understand your statement sorry made no sense.

winterscrolls229prerb18_ESO · April 2015

I don't think anyone was fooled at launch (apart from fanboys) about ESO transitioning to b2p, especially for the console release.

That's why the assertive statements from the dev's regarding its intention to be a sub only game raised a few eyebrows.

What did happen makes complete logical sense, launch as a sub, recover development costs, continue to fund the last stages of development needed for console launch, and then go b2p for consoles. If you don't take offense at being in a glorified kickstarter for the first year then this sequence of events sounds absolutely reasonable.

Again the only issue is the developer's making public statements about how the subscription model was a core element of what they were doing. Well.. there's nothing else they could have said.. i guess.

Kalifas · April 2015

ChampionSheWolf wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

ChampionSheWolf wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that the game would have sold more copies if they had branded it as a B2P game from the very beginning, a la Guild Wars 2.

Doubtful. Cash shop is the key to B2P being lucrative. They clearly didn't have that developed at launch. B2P is always the #2 business model of a halfway decent game. F2P being the weakest.

This is such a flawed and provably false argument, there is just nothing to really say at all about it.

Prove it as false. If your going to say it's false and provable dish it out instead of just a lame drive by comment.

The weak comment me laugh.

So let's see, TSW, GW2, Neverwinter, Star Trek Online, Rift, TERA, SWTOR. Need more? I am sure you could find it if you actually took the blinders off.

Oh and on the opposite end of the spectrum, for P2P, WoW takes 6 months to a year to produce new content for their game, and this is with millions of subscribers. So the subscription gets more content argument doesn't exactly pan out.

In short, there was nothing to prove, other than the fact that people still laughably defend P2P model as if it guarantees anything. It guarantees nothing except you are flushing money down the toilet for something on a whim, and they still institute cash shops. All subscriptions are now are just walls for entry, that have passed their time and proven that they are 100% ineffectual at keeping out undesirables, as the launch of TESO, WAR and many other MMOs that use the tired and outdated P2P system in recent history have proven.

Hell, if P2P proves anything is that it sends MMOs to an early grave in this day and age. AKA WildStar, WAR and others says hello.

I am not championing P2P or another mmo. I believe all models can be successful. I play ARR off and on.

But ARR is P2P and it has a patch every month, most patches are as big as most games expansions. So to say imply that P2P is the worst is not true either. It only has about 500k subs and 4 million registered acounts.

http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/special/patchnote_log/

fromtesonlineb16_ESO · April 2015

Shunravi wrote: »

It was the community who asked for the sub and promised we would support the game.

Sorry, either that's untrue or Firor was simply flat-out lying when he produced all those oft-quoted reasons FOR it being subscription based. I never saw ZOS say it was going to be B2P, ever, until player numbers fell off the cliff late last summer.

Merlin13KAGL · April 2015

Danikat wrote: »

I think it would definitely have sold more copies initially, simply because it's a much lower barrier to entry. Many people who weren't completely sold on the game would have taken a chance on it if the only cost to them was the box price. If you get 50 hours of enjoyable gameplay out of it then you're on a par with most single-player games and therefore getting your money's worth.

Whether it would have been more profitable is hard to say.

With the 10th anniversary of Guild Wars 1 coming up I think it's safe to say buy-to-play games can survive. But as far as I know it's difficult or impossible to get detailed information on the profits of any MMO without working for the company (and then you're not allowed to say) and without that it's hard to get a real idea of how profitable they are.

I disagree.

For every two copies of B2P that may have gotten sold for $20 each, there would have been at least one $60+ copy that didn't.

This game required a commitment from the start - the purchase price was not low and people knew there would be additional fees in the form of a sub.

Furthermore, has it been B2P in the first place, I'm pretty sure there would have been less expectation that all of the 'exclusives' that came with certain versions (Time in game (Sench), Imperial Edition perks (Mara, Mount), Exploration Pack) would have been expected to be less-than-exclusive as they've turned out to be.

The people that came here initially, a lot of them, did so based on TES's background, not ESO's. Knowing full-well that there would be methods for others to buy advantage (there is, and it will only grow, no matter how minor it may be) would have been counter to what TES fans had interest in.

There is also the community. Shelling out that kind of $ also comes with the understanding that most trolls aren't going to commit to it right away. The trolling per dollar return value isn't as high. For an arguably lower startup fee, it does open it up to a completely new group (type) of individual, and unfortunately, that's not always a good thing.

Faugaun · April 2015

Danikat wrote: »

But as far as I know it's difficult or impossible to get detailed information on the profits of any MMO without working for the company (and then you're not allowed to say) and without that it's hard to get a real idea of how profitable they are.

Actually if it is a publically traded company then the information is fairly easy to acquire , FYI.

Pallmor · April 2015

LameoveR wrote: »

King Bozo wrote: »

There are a lot of console players that have been playing pc because launch was pushed back. There are also lots of console players that would probably pay 100 bucks for this game on launch if it was required. Console players will make ESO crown store a lot of profit.

No, it's not.

Yes, she is!

Jaxom · April 2015

I think in the end, they would have netted a larger profit if it was B2P from the start. Having personalty played in most of the closed betas through launch and into the end of last year, I would have continued playing if they removed the sub fee. I could not reason any longer why I should continue to pay ZOS $15 a month for a buggy, broken mess. There were skills broken for over a year, going back to CB. Also, with every patch, they would fix 1 thing, and break 4 others. I understand there are always growing pains but with how it was handled during betas and launch, it left a really bad taste in my mouth.

The PvP was excellent when people weren't exploiting but that was few and far between. They would have kept me longer knowing I didnt have to pay during the time when the game needed some love. Having been gone 6 months now, I've looked through the patch notes and am finally seeing broken skills being fixed nearly 1.5 years later. I'm coming back, not only because they are finally fixing the glaring issues, but that there is no pressure to pay a sub fee any longer. I have given them plenty of money and will continue to support them if I see fit. So my opinion is yes, I feel they would have netting more profit going B2P as they would have retained more users after the first few months.

Aett_Thorn · April 2015

Going B2P from the start would have done one other thing: it would have brought in the community that likes B2P games over P2P, and this community would have come in knowing their expectations from previous B2P games.

Me? I prefer P2P games because I think that the community is better overall, as long as the developers keep up their end of that arrangement. Having played a P2P that went "Freemium" (allowed for subscription or F2P with restrictions) as well as a true F2P game, I can honestly say that I had much more fun with the people in the P2P game. As such, when I heard that ESO was going to be a sub-based model, I took an interest in the game that I likely wouldn't have if it had been announced as either B2P or F2P, and I am sure that I am not alone in that.

When a game draws in a certain crowd, and then makes a switch in the payment model, you are going to lose some players, and you likely aren't going to pick up as many as you would have had you just started out with that new payment model, mostly because the B2P crowd may have found another game in the meantime.

So would ESO have been more profitable if it had announced as B2P from the start? Most likely, yes. But it also could have been more profitable as a sub-based model if the game had been more stable, balanced, and bug-free from the start so that the Devs could have focused on creating new content.

Alphashado · April 2015

Shunravi wrote: »

Honestly, to me it seems as if their original intent was B2P. It was the community who asked for the sub and promised we would support the game.

I still don't think they switched to B2P for lack of revenue. Supposedly it was never about making the max amount of money they could make, but more about staying in line with the ES franchise w/o the intrusion of a cash store.

Matt Firor.

"And it's important to state that our decision to go with subscriptions is not a referendum on online game revenue models. F2P, B2P, etc. are valid, proven business models - but subscription is the one that fits ESO the best, given our commitment to freedom of gameplay, quality and long-term content delivery. Plus, players will appreciate not having to worry about being "monetized" in the middle of playing the game, which is definitely a problem that is cropping up more and more in online gaming these days. The fact that the word "monetized" exists points to the heart of the issue for us: We don't want the player to worry about which parts of the game to pay for - with our system, they get it all."

I don't think it was money. There were still alot of people playing this game and alot of people returning once the CS was announced. I am convinced it was due to failed negotiations with one or both of the consoles in regards to charging a sub.

I still get peeved every time I read that statement.

qsnoopyjr · April 2015

GW2 does good because it focuses on the right stuff in the gem store. Like better looking armors. One thing that is underrated is how appealing your character and everyone else is. If you keep pushing out unappealing stuff, than your gameplay better be on point. Thing about GW2 is, it actually has TOO much stuff people want to buy, and only those rich people can buy it while everyone else tries to farm gold to convert to gems. Like some people spend thousands of $$$ just trying to get lucky with black lion stuff and other RNG stuff in the store.. That game is pretty much RNG based, like getting precursor for legendary. People waste a lot of $$$ off of RNG stuff.

This game is wayy to buggy to have the gameplay on point.
This game lacks minigames, like horse races, arena, you get the point.

I played GW2 like a month or 2 after launch and it was pretty good.
I just started this game, and I feel like I'm in beta for real. This game has so many bugs , it bugs me (random crash bug, objects not showing(woodworking station), npcs not showing (banker), inside of a building showing up buggy like it hasnt finished loading, funky zone load, probably more I havent got to yet). I'm still trucking through it though, trying to beat this game, we'll see if it happens or not!
If this game went B2P at launch I think they would've made less than subscriber way because it doesn't feel finished, still feels buggy. The thing about B2P is people will come back and check it out.

GW2 model is easy way to rank 80. Everyone is equal.
TESO model is rough way to highest level. Everyone is not equal (traditional MMORPG style, EQ, WoW, other traditional MMORPG's run this model).

In B2P games, you dont want to go the "rough way to highest level, everyone is not equal"
In B2P games, you want people to easily get back into the game, that's where GW2 is successful at.

What I do think would've made a difference is, how much they spent on voice acting, and if this game was less voice acted and better programmed and more time spent on other stuff, I think this game would be a lot better. If you look at a Francis youtube video on the elder scrolls online, he notes this game spent 100 million on voice acting, he probably exaggerating but thats A LOT of money on voice acting.

If you look at another game, which I feel this game followed... SWTOR, 100% voice acted, spent LOTS and LOTS of $$$ on voice acting... You know what happened to that game.
GW2 btw, is not 100% voice acted.

Shunravi · April 2015

Alphashado wrote: »

Shunravi wrote: »

Honestly, to me it seems as if their original intent was B2P. It was the community who asked for the sub and promised we would support the game.

I still don't think they switched to B2P for lack of revenue. Supposedly it was never about making the max amount of money they could make, but more about staying in line with the ES franchise w/o the intrusion of a cash store.

Matt Firor.

"And it's important to state that our decision to go with subscriptions is not a referendum on online game revenue models. F2P, B2P, etc. are valid, proven business models - but subscription is the one that fits ESO the best, given our commitment to freedom of gameplay, quality and long-term content delivery. Plus, players will appreciate not having to worry about being "monetized" in the middle of playing the game, which is definitely a problem that is cropping up more and more in online gaming these days. The fact that the word "monetized" exists points to the heart of the issue for us: We don't want the player to worry about which parts of the game to pay for - with our system, they get it all."

I don't think it was money. There were still alot of people playing this game and alot of people returning once the CS was announced. I am convinced it was due to failed negotiations with one or both of the consoles in regards to charging a sub.

I still get peeved every time I read that statement.

I don't think it was money either to be honest... I actually felt it was kinda strange that they went with a sub with the consoles being in the plans. So for me it was no real supprise when they went B2P, as I never really believed the consoles would play nice.

Now, I could be remembering wrong, but there was a time when the business model was not solid yet, where a lot of big names in the fandom said that the model should be a sub. And they gave many of the same reasons that Matt Frior did in that statement. I may try to track down sources...

As to the OP, whether or not they would have made more money, I have no idea.