Reason for going B2P?
-
Elijah_Crow✭✭✭✭✭
✭jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »Elijah_Crow wrote: »jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »The plan BEFORE b2p was to charge a monthly fee AND to charge for DLC. This only changed when they switched to b2p in March 2015. Almost a YEAR after release. The ONLY DLC we got was craglorn and by then the b2p switch was already being done in the background unknown to us other than rumors that turned out to be true.
Your statement is a bit misleading. Before B2P, there was no "DLC". There were just standard updates like all subscriptions games have. Craglorn wasn't "DLC" it was an addition to the subscription game..a new area added.
There was never a plan to charge anything above a subscription, until the payment model changed. At that time it changed so that if you wanted to own the game and buy each piece of content and never pay a subscription you could. OR you can continue to play the old way where you subscribe monthly and you always have the full game which will continue to grow.
Dude Ive been here since day one. I know exactly what they had planned. Its not like they hid it. The game was going to cost so much per month and the expansions (which is what PC people call DLC) would cost extra. Craglorn was only free because by then the b2p switch was already decided behind the scenes.
I give up. This just isn't true. It's wrong on so many levels that I'm not even going to waste any more time. I could go back and pull lots of quotes and interviews, etc but it's just not worth it. Short story is this guy has no clue what he is talking about.1 -
Elijah_Crow✭✭✭✭✭
✭First I ever heard about a DLC not costing us money is when they went B2P and brought up the sub. Before that I was always under the assumption we would have to pay for it, other than Imperial City which was already promised to us. Maybe that is where you are getting confused.
As I said, an expansion to a sub MMO which happens very infrequently would be the exception (Like FFXIV's first expansion which launched yesterday). Expansions are usually very large. DLC's are very small. ESO never ...NEVER talked about possibilities of future expansions.0 -
jamesharv2005ub17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Elijah_Crow wrote: »jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »Elijah_Crow wrote: »jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »The plan BEFORE b2p was to charge a monthly fee AND to charge for DLC. This only changed when they switched to b2p in March 2015. Almost a YEAR after release. The ONLY DLC we got was craglorn and by then the b2p switch was already being done in the background unknown to us other than rumors that turned out to be true.
Your statement is a bit misleading. Before B2P, there was no "DLC". There were just standard updates like all subscriptions games have. Craglorn wasn't "DLC" it was an addition to the subscription game..a new area added.
There was never a plan to charge anything above a subscription, until the payment model changed. At that time it changed so that if you wanted to own the game and buy each piece of content and never pay a subscription you could. OR you can continue to play the old way where you subscribe monthly and you always have the full game which will continue to grow.
Dude Ive been here since day one. I know exactly what they had planned. Its not like they hid it. The game was going to cost so much per month and the expansions (which is what PC people call DLC) would cost extra. Craglorn was only free because by then the b2p switch was already decided behind the scenes.
I give up. This just isn't true. It's wrong on so many levels that I'm not even going to waste any more time. I could go back and pull lots of quotes and interviews, etc but it's just not worth it. Short story is this guy has no clue what he is talking about.
Please read the article from 2012 which clearly says they plan on charging for expansions. That was the plan right up until MS crapped on their idea of bypassing xbox live gold. I know you are new here and dont know what it was like before. I haven proven my point.0 -
VincentBlanquin✭✭✭crow is right, there were only subs before Tu and nothing moreIrwen Vincinter - Nord - Dragonknight
Irw´en - Bosmer - Nightblade0 -
jamesharv2005ub17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Again please read the article which clearly disproves what you are saying. Also we are talking about what the original plan was and not what ended up happening or what is happening now.
Also another article from 2013 which says they plan on charging for the box, a mandatory sub and expansions would cost extra.
http://windows.appstorm.net/general/the-elder-scrolls-online-can-bethesda-break-the-mmo-stalemate/Edited by jamesharv2005ub17_ESO on June 21, 2015 12:40AM0 -
Elijah_Crow✭✭✭✭✭
✭I know you are new here and dont know what it was like before. I haven proven my point.
Lol. Check my profile. Been here every bit as long as you and probably longer. Not only that I know the difference between an Subscription MMO expansion and and console DLC. Think i'm doing just fine peanut.0 -
BigM✭✭✭✭✭
✭Elijah_Crow wrote: »I know you are new here and dont know what it was like before. I haven proven my point.
Lol. Check my profile. Been here every bit as long as you and probably longer. Not only that I know the difference between an Subscription MMO expansion and and console DLC. Think i'm doing just fine peanut.
OK now I do believe you are attempting to get thread locked, if you been here from start you know the rules right?“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
― Stephen Hawking0 -
Egonieser✭✭✭✭✭
✭They went B2P+cash shop cuz they lost players and subscription alone would not sustain the game.
If they fixed their damn game such a step would not be necessary in the first place. They just use the MS/Sony membership BS as a excuse so it doesn't hurt the image of the company. We all know and they know that subscription model is always the thing to aim for as it is regular, sustained income, but incompetence and bad decision making ruined it. Simple as that.Sometimes, I dream about...cheese...
Dermont - v16 Pompous Altmer Sorcerer (With a very arrogant face!)
Egonieser - v16 Nord Stamina Dragonborn Wannabe
Endoly - v16 Tiny Redguard Sharpened MaceBlade
Egosalina - v16 Breton Cheesus Beam Specialist
Egowen - v16 Dunmer Whipping Expert (Riding crops eluded her)
(Yes, I had to grind all these to v16)
Akamanakh - lvl 22 Khajiit GankBlade (Inspired by Top Cat)
Targos Icewind - lvl 34 Imperial (Future) Jabplar
(CP 830+)
PC - EU2 -
jamesharv2005ub17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Elijah_Crow wrote: »I know you are new here and dont know what it was like before. I haven proven my point.
Lol. Check my profile. Been here every bit as long as you and probably longer. Not only that I know the difference between an Subscription MMO expansion and and console DLC. Think i'm doing just fine peanut.
You obviously do not because DLC would be free while the expansions would cost money. DLC is not a console only thing.0 -
jamesharv2005ub17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭They went B2P+cash shop cuz they lost players and subscription alone would not sustain the game.
If they fixed their damn game such a step would not be necessary in the first place. They just use the MS/Sony membership BS as a excuse so it doesn't hurt the image of the company. We all know and they know that subscription model is always the thing to aim for as it is regular, sustained income, but incompetence and bad decision making ruined it. Simple as that.
You have any facts to back up your claim? Didnt think so because thats not what happened.1 -
Egonieser✭✭✭✭✭
✭jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »They went B2P+cash shop cuz they lost players and subscription alone would not sustain the game.
If they fixed their damn game such a step would not be necessary in the first place. They just use the MS/Sony membership BS as a excuse so it doesn't hurt the image of the company. We all know and they know that subscription model is always the thing to aim for as it is regular, sustained income, but incompetence and bad decision making ruined it. Simple as that.
You have any facts to back up your claim? Didnt think so because thats not what happened.
You can white-knight them all you want. Unless you work for them, you don't know any facts neither. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out basic shifts in payment models and reasons behind them. If you played the game actively, you would know that the playerbase dwindled horribly. And the only reason companies shift to a unreliable and situational income method is if all else fails. ESO is not the first nor the last company that does it and if you need solid and hard evidence for such things, either you are... ok, no namecalling... or just haven't been around in the gaming world for very long.Sometimes, I dream about...cheese...
Dermont - v16 Pompous Altmer Sorcerer (With a very arrogant face!)
Egonieser - v16 Nord Stamina Dragonborn Wannabe
Endoly - v16 Tiny Redguard Sharpened MaceBlade
Egosalina - v16 Breton Cheesus Beam Specialist
Egowen - v16 Dunmer Whipping Expert (Riding crops eluded her)
(Yes, I had to grind all these to v16)
Akamanakh - lvl 22 Khajiit GankBlade (Inspired by Top Cat)
Targos Icewind - lvl 34 Imperial (Future) Jabplar
(CP 830+)
PC - EU0 -
jamesharv2005ub17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »They went B2P+cash shop cuz they lost players and subscription alone would not sustain the game.
If they fixed their damn game such a step would not be necessary in the first place. They just use the MS/Sony membership BS as a excuse so it doesn't hurt the image of the company. We all know and they know that subscription model is always the thing to aim for as it is regular, sustained income, but incompetence and bad decision making ruined it. Simple as that.
You have any facts to back up your claim? Didnt think so because thats not what happened.
You can white-knight them all you want. Unless you work for them, you don't know any facts neither. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out basic shifts in payment models and reasons behind them. If you played the game actively, you would know that the playerbase dwindled horribly. And the only reason companies shift to a unreliable and situational income method is if all else fails. ESO is not the first nor the last company that does it and if you need solid and hard evidence for such things, either you are... ok, no namecalling... or just haven't been around in the gaming world for very long.
Wrong I do know facts. Fact: the game was going to be sub only right up until microsoft said they wouldnt waive the xbox live gold requirement for ESO. Then and only then was the decision made to go b2p. You have absolutely no facts to backup anything you say. Its all simply conjecture with nothing behind it. Meanwhile I have linked many articles proving my point. You cannot even link one showing subs dropped drastically and thats why.1 -
BigM✭✭✭✭✭
✭LOL so you are saying what they told us was never said? It IS what we were TOLD the whole time they were secretly working on console and B2P telling us we should be getting the expansion along with Imperial City.
I don't know I seem to remember it like yesterday!“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
― Stephen Hawking0 -
jamesharv2005ub17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭LOL so you are saying what they told us was never said? It IS what we were TOLD the whole time they were secretly working on console and B2P telling us we should be getting the expansion along with Imperial City.
I don't know I seem to remember it like yesterday!
How I remember it is they said there would be like smaller zones etc we wouldnt have to pay for. Big expansions with things like level cap increases etc we would have to pay for. LOTRO was the same before they went f2p. You paid a sub and for example evendim was a zone we got free. Moria cost me $80 for the box. All MMOs used to be like this. None of them used to give you everything simply for the monthly fee back before all this f2p/b2p stuff happened with the cash shops.
Me Id have preferred they left it like they originally planned. If not for the console release flubbing it all up most likely we would still be paying for a sub or not playing. They did lie to us tho. They knew obviously for months that the game would need to go sub optional in order to succeed on the console. At least thats what they thought. Personally I think most xbox gamers already pay for xbox live gold so it would have been no added expense.0 -
BigM✭✭✭✭✭
✭jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »LOL so you are saying what they told us was never said? It IS what we were TOLD the whole time they were secretly working on console and B2P telling us we should be getting the expansion along with Imperial City.
I don't know I seem to remember it like yesterday!
How I remember it is they said there would be like smaller zones etc we wouldnt have to pay for. Big expansions with things like level cap increases etc we would have to pay for. LOTRO was the same before they went f2p. You paid a sub and for example evendim was a zone we got free. Moria cost me $80 for the box. All MMOs used to be like this. None of them used to give you everything simply for the monthly fee back before all this f2p/b2p stuff happened with the cash shops.
Me Id have preferred they left it like they originally planned. If not for the console release flubbing it all up most likely we would still be paying for a sub or not playing. They did lie to us tho. They knew obviously for months that the game would need to go sub optional in order to succeed on the console. At least thats what they thought. Personally I think most xbox gamers already pay for xbox live gold so it would have been no added expense.
Well the smaller zones and Imperial City would be for all the problems at launch we encountered. Turned out that was what made a lot of us stay. Then we found out, nope they were working on console and not really fixing anything on our end which shows with all bugs in game today.
At least that is how i remember it but like I told you guys before I take 14 pills a day and am old so I could be making mistakes but I know for sure what we were lead to believe. If I knew they were going B2P and gave us what they did for supporting them thru the year that I wouldn't have subbed like I did.
Edited by BigM on June 21, 2015 2:01AM“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
― Stephen Hawking1 -
Yasha✭✭✭✭✭OK the reason I was told they had to go B2P was because of M$ 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 guess now that you believe the b2p system amounts to "the same darn thing" as you put it, we won't be seeing any more of your threads about the game going b2p?
[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Rude and Insulting comments]
Edited by ZOS_MatM on June 21, 2015 3:58AM1 -
BigM✭✭✭✭✭
✭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 guess now that you believe the b2p system amounts to "the same darn thing" as you put it, we won't be seeing any more of your threads about the game going b2p?
Was that an attack? Yes I do believe it was so unfortunately I have to ignore you.
[Moderator Note: Edited quote to match moderated version]
Edited by ZOS_Racheal on June 21, 2015 12:48PM“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
― Stephen Hawking0 -
Parrotbrain✭✭✭Like a ship with a large hole in it, the crew has to find a way to keep it from sinking in order to salvage at least some of the goods. Perhaps they may even find a way to patch the boat up while doing so. This is what I think the b2p switching amounts to.0 -
Sausage✭✭✭✭✭
✭I think console was the reason to go B2P. Btw the deal is we pay ES+ and we get access to all content and they give 1500 Crowns too, what you can use boosters for example. Its still sub game, not B2P + DLCs.Edited by Sausage on June 21, 2015 4:26AM0 -
AngryNord✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »The plan BEFORE b2p was to charge a monthly fee AND to charge for DLC.
No it wasn't1 -
Yasha✭✭✭✭✭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 guess now that you believe the b2p system amounts to "the same darn thing" as you put it, we won't be seeing any more of your whine threads about the game going b2p?
Was that an attack? Yes I do believe it was so unfortunately I have to ignore you.
No, its just that I think every one of your threads I have read has been about b2p, so I was hoping now that you have come to the conclusion that it is "the same darn thing" you will move onto a new topic to talk about?
[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Rude and Insulting comments]Edited by ZOS_Racheal on June 21, 2015 12:49PM1 -
jamesharv2005ub17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »The plan BEFORE b2p was to charge a monthly fee AND to charge for DLC.
No it wasn't
If you read the links it clearly was. You yelling "NUH UH!" doesnt change the fact expansions were to be paid for along with the sub.0 -
Sausage✭✭✭✭✭
✭I know we have spoken about ES value, what if they give some boosters on the deal too when you sub.0 -
Wolfshead✭✭✭✭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.
There is where you are wrong Microsoft would let go off there own subscribe fee the have on xbox but as Sony would allow ZoS have there own subscribe fee and let the Sony own subscribe fee be wrong on PS4 to allow ZoS subscribe fee.
But thank to Microsoft ESO went BoP otherwise it would not been release consoles at all.
Bethesda "pushing" Microsoft to drop XBL Gold fee for Elder Scrolls Online
Elder Scrolls Online Dev Doesn't Want You to Pay Two Subscription Fees
So yes Hermomfo Microsoft have very much do to with fact ESO went B2P just so the cna have there own Xbox Live subscription fee.If you find yourself alone, riding in green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled; for you are in Elysium, and you're already deadWhat we do in life, echoes in eternity0 -
AngryNord✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »The plan BEFORE b2p was to charge a monthly fee AND to charge for DLC.
No it wasn't
If you read the links it clearly was. You yelling "NUH UH!" doesnt change the fact expansions were to be paid for along with the sub.
The first site you linked to was an obvious ESO hater website, I wouldn't trust too much of their info. In the second link I saw nothing at all about any sort of paying for add-on content, just a questionable claim that 80% of Tamriel would be available from the start (stretching things quite a bit, IMO, it is perhaps 2/3, at most)...0 -
Burnemdown✭✭✭http://issuu.com/gaiscioch/docs/gaiscioch-magazine-issue-2
Specifically , check out Scott Hartsmans interview.
The more you know.0 -
parpin✭✭✭dude..whether you want to believe it or not..cash shop make so much profit..even more than sub..thanks to whales...if eso remained as sub game..then the cash shop had to be way less aggressive meaning no xp potion or at least not in the form it is today..also it is just beginning..they are just warming up with xp potion..wait some time you will see..cash shop is very profitable.Edited by parpin on June 21, 2015 6:26AM0 -
this game simply isnt worth a subscription and with license tranfers on console you can spilt the cost with a friend good game but not 15 a month good lol1
