Reason for going B2P?

BigM · June 2015

OK the reason I was told they had to go B2P was because of M$ and Sony. Starting to really not understand that concept! The confusing part to me is because of the XBOX Live and Play Station Plus majority of people on console would never want to also pay for a subscription to a MMO online game.

Yet the more I think about it, if you want to go with that reason why would anyone on console want to also pay the money for the game and then have to also pay the console subscription buy any DLC from crown store? Doesn't that just about amount to the same darn thing?

Someone explain this to me because a DLC is going to run anywhere from 20 to 50 dollars depending how big it is!

One last question to the console players you do realize you will need to pay for all content to the crown store if you want to play it right?

Heromofo · June 2015

BigM wrote: »

OK the reason I was told they had to go B2P was because of M$ and Sony. Starting to really not understand that concept! The confusing part to me is because of the XBOX Live and Play Station Plus majority of people on console would never want to also pay for a subscription to a MMO online game.

Yet the more I think about it, if you want to go with that reason why would anyone on console want to also pay the money for the game and then have to also pay the console subscription buy any DLC from crown store? Doesn't that just about amount to the same darn thing?

Someone explain this to me because a DLC is going to run anywhere from 20 to 50 dollars depending how big it is!

One last question to the console players you do realize you will need to pay for all content to the crown store if you want to play it right?

I highly doubt Sony and Microsoft has anything to do with it as we have subscription based games on consoles.
Back when i was on pc it was a huge fuss to fans to pay for eso monthly when they could not live up to the new content every 6-8 weeks and with each patch breaking more things and the lag on that side pc players were not happy chaps.

Dwindling population + broken promises + lag = removal of subscription is my guess.

The console population seems very strong i just hope they dont make the same mistakes and we get to see ESO become all it can be and more.

Drazhar14 · June 2015

"Back when i was on pc it was a huge fuss to fans to pay for eso monthly when they could not live up to the new content every 6-8 weeks" This.

They were not releasing content within their promised window and the subscription did not feel worth it. Plus, Elder Scrolls fans are used to buying DLC as it comes out. I'd rather pay for DLC when it is ready than pay a subscription for months of nothing.

JamilaRaj · June 2015

Well, now ZOS sees console players not only are willing to fork out extra money on cash shop fluff and even subscription (!), but are doing so in large numbers, or at least unending gripes on forum about missing crowns and ESO+ not working give me that impression, they will revert to compulsory subs, even though they were not as sexy as P2W subs & cash shop.

RedTalon · June 2015

Money they where not making enough and unable to retain customers cause a lot dropped due to bugs, lack of content and so on

Also given the type of market consoles are and many console players having very few mmos under their belt, making plus subscriptions and crown store items was a good money making move on their part, don't be surpise if we see random drop boxes and so on for good items in the store too, that would increase profits more cause even some pc players would buy those, and consoles are a sure bet.

Just my two crowns, but its always about the money with these shifts

BigM · June 2015

The bugs, bots hurt the game, yep won't argue there. But they could of fixed it and asked people to come back for a 5 day free to test how the game fixed the bot problem. Bet it would have brought a lot of people back and they would of ended up activating their game time to keep playing. There was a lot of things they could have done to make the players come back without going B2P and the game would be sitting pretty right now.

After hearing a lot of the complaints from console players (minus the text chat) you watch what will happen when they see the prices for DLC's. Mark my words it isn't going to be pretty!

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · June 2015

Console players are exactly why the game went B2P. Microsoft wouldnt allow the use of the game outside of xbox live gold. So the only option they had was to make the game a one time purchase which doesnt require (in other words its optional) a monthly sub. Look at the sales on consoles compared to PC sales. They sold if I am not mistaken over 3 million copies between PS4 and Xbox One.

RedTalon · June 2015

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Console players are exactly why the game went B2P. Microsoft wouldnt allow the use of the game outside of xbox live gold. So the only option they had was to make the game a one time purchase which doesnt require (in other words its optional) a monthly sub. Look at the sales on consoles compared to PC sales. They sold if I am not mistaken over 3 million copies between PS4 and Xbox One.

And a lot are still buying the plus on xbox one to ironic isn't it? changing it from a subscription to a plus term made it sound better, always love have marketing people know how to word things

BigM · June 2015

JamilaRaj wrote: »

Well, now ZOS sees console players not only are willing to fork out extra money on cash shop fluff and even subscription (!), but are doing so in large numbers, or at least unending gripes on forum about missing crowns and ESO+ not working give me that impression, they will revert to compulsory subs, even though they were not as sexy as P2W subs & cash shop.

Could you provide a link to back that up or is that just a comment with no proof?

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Console players are exactly why the game went B2P. Microsoft wouldnt allow the use of the game outside of xbox live gold. So the only option they had was to make the game a one time purchase which doesnt require (in other words its optional) a monthly sub. Look at the sales on consoles compared to PC sales. They sold if I am not mistaken over 3 million copies between PS4 and Xbox One.

So you are saying there is no other MMO on consoles that require a sub to play along with the console Live or plus also? Think you are wrong here!

stefan.gustavsonb16_ESO · June 2015

Heromofo wrote: »

The console population seems very strong i just hope they dont make the same mistakes and we get to see ESO become all it can be and more.

Looking at the sticky thread about issues with the console release, it would appear that they are already making the same mistakes (like server lag and game-breaking bugs that take too long to fix) as well as some new ones (like forgetting how much and in what ways the add-ons saved their UI, or thinking that voice chat only is enough for interaction).
Hopefully, they can still turn it around. I think their first patch will be somewhat of a "make or break" moment.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · June 2015

BigM wrote: »

JamilaRaj wrote: »

Well, now ZOS sees console players not only are willing to fork out extra money on cash shop fluff and even subscription (!), but are doing so in large numbers, or at least unending gripes on forum about missing crowns and ESO+ not working give me that impression, they will revert to compulsory subs, even though they were not as sexy as P2W subs & cash shop.

Could you provide a link to back that up or is that just a comment with no proof?

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Console players are exactly why the game went B2P. Microsoft wouldnt allow the use of the game outside of xbox live gold. So the only option they had was to make the game a one time purchase which doesnt require (in other words its optional) a monthly sub. Look at the sales on consoles compared to PC sales. They sold if I am not mistaken over 3 million copies between PS4 and Xbox One.

So you are saying there is no other MMO on consoles that require a sub to play along with the console Live or plus also? Think you are wrong here!

No that is not what I said at all. What I said is THIS game Microsoft wouldnt allow it. I dont know abut other games I only play this one. That is the reason why they went b2p. How could they justify charging a sub on pc and ps4 but not on xbox one?

RedTalon · June 2015

stefan.gustavsonb16_ESO wrote: »

Heromofo wrote: »

The console population seems very strong i just hope they dont make the same mistakes and we get to see ESO become all it can be and more.

Looking at the sticky thread about issues with the console release, it would appear that they are already making the same mistakes (like server lag and game-breaking bugs that take too long to fix) as well as some new ones (like forgetting how much and in what ways the add-ons saved their UI, or thinking that voice chat only is enough for interaction).
Hopefully, they can still turn it around. I think their first patch will be somewhat of a "make or break" moment.

The Add-on thing for their ui will be the most tricky, has it would mean ZOS would have to change it and make sure the add ons are up to snuff to sony and mircosoft passing notes, or make them completely themselves and release has an update

Just my two crowns

JamilaRaj · June 2015

BigM wrote: »

JamilaRaj wrote: »

Well, now ZOS sees console players not only are willing to fork out extra money on cash shop fluff and even subscription (!), but are doing so in large numbers, or at least unending gripes on forum about missing crowns and ESO+ not working give me that impression, they will revert to compulsory subs, even though they were not as sexy as P2W subs & cash shop.

Could you provide a link to back that up or is that just a comment with no proof?

Nope. It's called irony (and bit of reductio ad absurdum). I could simply say ZOS wanted to milk the whales, but I find mods are remarkably sensitive to whales lately, so I use irony instead. Successfully I see, yay.

Arato · June 2015

BigM wrote: »

OK the reason I was told they had to go B2P was because of M$ and Sony. Starting to really not understand that concept! The confusing part to me is because of the XBOX Live and Play Station Plus majority of people on console would never want to also pay for a subscription to a MMO online game.

Yet the more I think about it, if you want to go with that reason why would anyone on console want to also pay the money for the game and then have to also pay the console subscription buy any DLC from crown store? Doesn't that just about amount to the same darn thing?

Someone explain this to me because a DLC is going to run anywhere from 20 to 50 dollars depending how big it is!

One last question to the console players you do realize you will need to pay for all content to the crown store if you want to play it right?

People on console are accustomed to paying for DLC while also paying for their online service, they also see it as "if I want this extra content, I buy it, if I don't want it, I just keep playing what I have"

Subscription is "I'm paying to play online, but I'm also paying to play one specific game online, while already paying for online service, they might give me new content, they might not, either way they get my money"

Most console MMO's fail hard because of that.

BigM · June 2015

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

BigM wrote: »

JamilaRaj wrote: »

Well, now ZOS sees console players not only are willing to fork out extra money on cash shop fluff and even subscription (!), but are doing so in large numbers, or at least unending gripes on forum about missing crowns and ESO+ not working give me that impression, they will revert to compulsory subs, even though they were not as sexy as P2W subs & cash shop.

Could you provide a link to back that up or is that just a comment with no proof?

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Console players are exactly why the game went B2P. Microsoft wouldnt allow the use of the game outside of xbox live gold. So the only option they had was to make the game a one time purchase which doesnt require (in other words its optional) a monthly sub. Look at the sales on consoles compared to PC sales. They sold if I am not mistaken over 3 million copies between PS4 and Xbox One.

So you are saying there is no other MMO on consoles that require a sub to play along with the console Live or plus also? Think you are wrong here!

No that is not what I said at all. What I said is THIS game Microsoft wouldnt allow it. I dont know abut other games I only play this one. That is the reason why they went b2p. How could they justify charging a sub on pc and ps4 but not on xbox one?

OK then explain to me why is there an ESO Plus subscription is M$ wouldn't allow it?

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · June 2015

BigM wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

BigM wrote: »

JamilaRaj wrote: »

Well, now ZOS sees console players not only are willing to fork out extra money on cash shop fluff and even subscription (!), but are doing so in large numbers, or at least unending gripes on forum about missing crowns and ESO+ not working give me that impression, they will revert to compulsory subs, even though they were not as sexy as P2W subs & cash shop.

Could you provide a link to back that up or is that just a comment with no proof?

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Console players are exactly why the game went B2P. Microsoft wouldnt allow the use of the game outside of xbox live gold. So the only option they had was to make the game a one time purchase which doesnt require (in other words its optional) a monthly sub. Look at the sales on consoles compared to PC sales. They sold if I am not mistaken over 3 million copies between PS4 and Xbox One.

So you are saying there is no other MMO on consoles that require a sub to play along with the console Live or plus also? Think you are wrong here!

No that is not what I said at all. What I said is THIS game Microsoft wouldnt allow it. I dont know abut other games I only play this one. That is the reason why they went b2p. How could they justify charging a sub on pc and ps4 but not on xbox one?

OK then explain to me why is there and ESO Plus subscription is M$ wouldn't allow it?

The sub is not required correct? Its just something optional. I never said microsoft wouldnt allow a sub. I said MS woudlnt allow a sub that bypasses the xbox live gold requirement. You have to actually read what people write. ZOS decided that people would not pay for both xbox live AND elder scrolls online. So they decided to switch to a b2p format with optional sub and purchasable DLC.

BigM · June 2015

@jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

I hear what you are saying but how can M$ say no to ESO plus subscription and yes to Final Fantasy subscription?

Explain please? On both XBOX Versions?

But if also what you say is true then why is there still a subscription in ESOTU on XBOX1?

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · June 2015

BigM wrote: »

@jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

I hear what you are saying but how can M$ say no to ESO plus subscription and yes to Final Fantasy subscription?

Explain please? On both XBOX Versions?

But if also what you say is true then why is there still a subscription in ESOTU on XBOX1?

I dont know they are two different games and I guess are handled differently. Thats between microsoft and ZOS. There is no guarantee because one is allowed to do so that all will be allowed to do so.

The entire point of making the game free was Microsoft said "hey you can charge whatever you want for your MMO but we are not waiving the xbox live gold requirement.". ZOS said "Man I worry that with having to pay for both xbox live gold AND a sub we might not have enough players willing to buy our game.". So then ZOS says to itself "Lets make the sub OPTIONAL! Then we can get money from the players who just like purchasing DLC AND the people who will gladly pay a sub!".

Is that clear enough? I dont know how I can explain it any clearer.

Elijah_Crow · June 2015

Doesn't everyone know that the game would still be sub based if it were not for Microsoft? Link below details some of the fight while it was going on:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/bethesda-pushing-microsoft-to-drop-xbl-gold-fee-for-elder-scrolls-online/1100-6413721/

Console revenue is too important for the game in the long term. It will generate more revenue than the PC platform and will allow the creation of a ton of new content and the funds to employ more developers. The problem is that Microsoft and the addition of another sub fee in addition to its xbox gold service and if it would make the game not affordable to play on the xbox for some.

Since it has to be buy to play on the consoles with DLC, they matched the payment model of PC to this. PC players get the game they love for less money. It's only a benefit for them. It also allows others who own the game to play which increases the population in AvA and everyone wins.

The Crown Store is clearly not pay2win and provides some cosmetic and convenience items to supplement the lost revenue. One only has to look to DCUO for proof that console players will make 2 to 3 times the purchases in a store as the PC players will and because of the much larger audience it makes perfect financial sense.

I'm glad they chose this path for the financial future of the game.

Below is a quote from Smedley discussing just this:

“The PS4 has been monetizing amazingly well -- between 3 and 3.5x the monetization rate of the PC,” said SOE president John Smedley in a recent phone interview with Gamasutra. “Seeing that kind of difference in pay rate between the PC and the PS4 is really astounding -- it shows there’s a real market there.”

"It's like the early days of social games -- it's that good."

A pale reflection of that market may still be available to developers on PlayStation 3, where Smedley says DC Universe Online players monetizing at roughly double the rate of players on PC.

If the choice doesn't make clear sense to you and you can't now understand why they changed direction with the payment model, no one can help you.

BigM · June 2015

@Elijah_Crow seen it read it and no has nothing to do with this discussion. What we see there is ZoS asking M$ to drop live when in fact there was no reason to drop it.

Also notice not one mention of FF and how that game is making money left and right on consoles with only a sub. That is all PR at least to me, for some reason I see Bethesda and ZoS making bad decisions. Still have to ask if they didn't want a sub why is there still one? So the obvious answer the sub has always been fine with M$ as long as they got their 5 a month!

RedTalon · June 2015

BigM wrote: »

@Elijah_Crow seen it read it and no has nothing to do with this discussion. What we see there is ZoS asking M$ to drop live when in fact there was no reason to drop it.

Also notice not one mention of FF and how that game is making money left and right on consoles with only a sub. That is all PR at least to me, for some reason I see Bethesda and ZoS making bad decisions. Still have to ask if they didn't want a sub why is there still one? So the obvious answer the sub has always been fine with M$ as long as they got their 5 a month!

The news article he also linked is almost a year old and that is basically right mircosoft was fine with it so long has they got money. Elder scroll title big money easy five dollars regardless of model

Thinking mircosoft are some sort of heros in this is diffently not the way to go with the thinking, mircosoft just wanted its money for gold if a third party put something on its system, its always simple and not complex when it comes to money and mircosoft, even there pr stunts are in the end way to make money by pulling costumers to them even if it seems noble.

JamilaRaj · June 2015

Elijah_Crow wrote: »

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/bethesda-pushing-microsoft-to-drop-xbl-gold-fee-for-elder-scrolls-online/1100-6413721/

Ah, Pete "pay pay" Hines. Sounds overworked.

Elijah_Crow · June 2015

Clearly you are confused. The sub has always been fine with Microsoft.

Game makers want access to their games to cost the same across all platforms. ZOS didn't want players on an xbox to have to pay the equivalent of $20 a month to access a game PC players play for $15 a month. This creates and barrier to entry and results in lower sales.

I believe if I'm not mistaken, that this is why FFXIV is only available on the PlayStation because of the extra xbox charges.

ZOS wanted to release on all platforms with the same payment model and this allows as many players possible access for the same minimum price.

*Edit* Just double checked to be sure I knew what the hell I was talking about. This is one of the key reasons FFXIV is not on the Xbox 1 currently. So yea..it's making lots of money with a sub on the PS4 and PC, but it would be more expensive on Xbox, hence the hesitance to invest in developing the compatibility.

BigM · June 2015

No one is saying anything about M$ being evil or a hero. Also why does it matter how old it is, in fact it is right at time it was all going on. FF has been around for years. So again confused by you're post?

Oh well I tried but seems you guys want to just say M$ wouldn't allow them when in fact they did allow it!

VincentBlanquin · June 2015

there were always strong plan go with b2p and if subscribers were not enough at second and third month, they already know they change to b2p

Elijah_Crow · June 2015

BigM wrote: »

No one is saying anything about M$ being evil or a hero. Also why does it matter how old it is, in fact it is right at time it was all going on. FF has been around for years. So again confused by you're post?

Oh well I tried but seems you guys want to just say M$ wouldn't allow them when in fact they did allow it!

They did allow it, in addition to many other restrictions such as no cross servers with other platforms and additional fees for every update which is pushed through their servers. The issue here was not creating a cost barrier.

If it had been me, I would have said "Screw it". $15 a month on PS4 and PC and let Xbox users pay $20 or go out and buy a PS4 instead. They probably made the better choice however.

Elijah_Crow · June 2015

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

there were always strong plan go with b2p and if subscribers were not enough at second and third month, they already know they change to b2p

Completely false information. Speculation not based on any fact. All signs point at this being false, such as the Crown Store. If this had been a plan for longer, the Crown Store itself would have been more developed instead of launching with next to nothing.

I'm sure PC subscription numbers did play into their final decision, but it's clear that this decision wasn't one made long before it was publicized.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · June 2015

BigM wrote: »

No one is saying anything about M$ being evil or a hero. Also why does it matter how old it is, in fact it is right at time it was all going on. FF has been around for years. So again confused by you're post?

Oh well I tried but seems you guys want to just say M$ wouldn't allow them when in fact they did allow it!

Noone ever said MS wouldnt allow a subscription only based game. They said they would not allow ZOS the option of bypassing xbox live gold. So players would have to pay for both. ZOS didnt think players would pay for both. So they dropped the sub and created the whole TU b2p thing.

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Rude and Insulting comments]

VincentBlanquin · June 2015

Elijah_Crow wrote: »

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

there were always strong plan go with b2p and if subscribers were not enough at second and third month, they already know they change to b2p

Completely false information. Speculation not based on any fact. All signs point at this being false, such as the Crown Store. If this had been a plan for longer, the Crown Store itself would have been more developed instead of launching with next to nothing.

no, you are wrong. basic structure for cash shop was prepared at launch days, i am sure others can confirm it was interviewed.

Elijah_Crow · June 2015

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

Elijah_Crow wrote: »

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

there were always strong plan go with b2p and if subscribers were not enough at second and third month, they already know they change to b2p

Completely false information. Speculation not based on any fact. All signs point at this being false, such as the Crown Store. If this had been a plan for longer, the Crown Store itself would have been more developed instead of launching with next to nothing.

no, you are wrong. basic structure for cash shop was prepared at launch days, i am sure others can confirm it was interviewed.

Be happy to read if you can provide any real info to support this. I'm pretty knowledgeable about the game and was following through development and have played since launch as a subscriber every month. I've read many articles about the development of the game, and I've never seen this.

BigM · June 2015

Elijah_Crow wrote: »

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

Elijah_Crow wrote: »

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

there were always strong plan go with b2p and if subscribers were not enough at second and third month, they already know they change to b2p

Completely false information. Speculation not based on any fact. All signs point at this being false, such as the Crown Store. If this had been a plan for longer, the Crown Store itself would have been more developed instead of launching with next to nothing.

no, you are wrong. basic structure for cash shop was prepared at launch days, i am sure others can confirm it was interviewed.

Be happy to read if you can provide any real info to support this. I'm pretty knowledgeable about the game and was following through development and have played since launch as a subscriber every month. I've read many articles about the development of the game, and I've never seen this.

Yep I would like to see that proof also been here from early development.