rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

And as a few others have retorted, anyone that would be interested in an MMO is already a multiplayer kind of gamer. The vast majority already have a susbcription to play COD or whatever with their friends.
Playing ESO would only make it even more worth the money.

So no, that's not two subscriptions to play ESO. Unless you consider you're paying three susbcriptions now?
After all, to play ESO we need an internet subscription and electricity.

You can debate it as much as you want, simple fact is it won't change anything.

Obviously ZOS feel like the subscription model isn't worth keeping and they are the ones with access to the financials.

I'd rather trust the plans of those that want the game to make money and continue so they can keep their jobs over the forum rabble that have no idea about the finances or sub numbers and have nothing to lose financially.

And yes, they would already have that subscription to play other multiplayer games with their friend. So why, oh why, would they pay another one on top of that?

No matter what you say it is still 2 subscriptions. They are still paying for Xbox Live and Playstation Plus. Keeping ESO's subscription model would not bring in as many people as you think or those with the knowledge of the finances would keep it.

Long story short, you don't know better than the people running the business. If you did, you'd be the one making the decisions and running the business.

I just answered to you about the "knowing better" part in another thread so I won't delve on it here.
In short: Yes, they know what they are doing ,they just don't care about the long term gains and focus on the short term ones.
There is enough data out there to understand that. And no one with even a bit of time to google things can deny the fact that the subscription model is the superior one on the long run.

Here I'll say more about the 2 susbcription notion.
If they already pay it for other things, they are not getting it for ESO. They are not paying two subscriptions for ESO.
To play ESO is actually getting them a better bang for their buck on that Xbox live they took for COD/Halo/whatever games they wanted to play online.

I pay internet for work and television. At no point would I think that to play ESO I have to pay 2 susbcription.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

And as a few others have retorted, anyone that would be interested in an MMO is already a multiplayer kind of gamer. The vast majority already have a susbcription to play COD or whatever with their friends.
Playing ESO would only make it even more worth the money.

So no, that's not two subscriptions to play ESO. Unless you consider you're paying three susbcriptions now?
After all, to play ESO we need an internet subscription and electricity.

You can debate it as much as you want, simple fact is it won't change anything.

Obviously ZOS feel like the subscription model isn't worth keeping and they are the ones with access to the financials.

I'd rather trust the plans of those that want the game to make money and continue so they can keep their jobs over the forum rabble that have no idea about the finances or sub numbers and have nothing to lose financially.

And yes, they would already have that subscription to play other multiplayer games with their friend. So why, oh why, would they pay another one on top of that?

No matter what you say it is still 2 subscriptions. They are still paying for Xbox Live and Playstation Plus. Keeping ESO's subscription model would not bring in as many people as you think or those with the knowledge of the finances would keep it.

Long story short, you don't know better than the people running the business. If you did, you'd be the one making the decisions and running the business.

I just answered to you about the "knowing better" part in another thread so I won't delve on it here.
In short: Yes, they know what they are doing ,they just don't care about the long term gains and focus on the short term ones.
There is enough data out there to understand that. And no one with even a bit of time to google things can deny the fact that the subscription model is the superior one on the long run.

Here I'll say more about the 2 susbcription notion.
If they already pay it for other things, they are not getting it for ESO. They are not paying two subscriptions for ESO.
To play ESO is actually getting them a better bang for their buck on that Xbox live they took for COD/Halo/whatever games they wanted to play online.

I pay internet for work and television. At no point would I think that to play ESO I have to pay 2 susbcription.

If the subscription model is king, why is it decreasing in revenue every year, while Free to Play MMO revenue is increasing? Projection show that in 2017, Subscription MMO revenue will drop from 2.8 Billion in 2013 to 1.7 Billion in 2017, while Free to play will go from 7.5 Billion in 2013 to 11 Billion in 2017. They are probably thinking that in 2017, WoW will accont for 1 Billion of that 1.7 billion, and that Lineage 1 will account for ~300 Million, and the other 400 Million going to be shared by mostly MMOs that have a subscription and a Free to play Model, with the subscription only MMOs be a very small insignificant part of that 400 Million.

You are right, the information is there, and that information shows that Free to Play is king, that Free to play is the better way to go for long term and the short term. Despite not making as much as it did shortly after going free to play, SWTOR it still making more money now then it did as subscription, had they stayed as subscription no doubt that game would either be closed or in maintenance mode with no new content at best. Last numbers shown in October show that SWTOR was making the equivalent of over 1 million subs in revenue, and they stated they needed 500K at the minimum, and they went way below that prior to going free to play.

Lets be fair, I don't think I've seen a single 'complete' MMO go to market yet. Wildstar looked like it was complete at start, but from what I understand from friends who played it, they caved to some forum-pressure and essentially ruined pvp for that game. (I was never going to actually play Wildstar, after the NCSOFT CoH debacle). I half expected Zenimax was going to turn the game into a B2P/F2P type of business model even when it was in beta. The competition for MMO's is fierce. Even with high production values, a lot of great games are struggling to maintain player base simply because there are so many options in the marketplace. I personally wouldn't want to invest in videogame development (but I'm very glad there are people who do). I would argue that the only reason WoW can continue with its subscription model is that it has a die-hard fanbase that is clinging to the good old days. They have been hemorrhaging subscriptions for years, and I suspect they will continue to do so. While I agree that there are a lot of things bad about the f2p model in many games (particularly the gamble-to-play lockbox nonsense that exists), I do like the notion of modular purchases, that allow someone who plays at a more slow pace to get equal entertainment value for their dollar.

The free to play model could potentially be very positive, as long as they avoid some of the dirtier tricks that many game companies have gone down (pretty much every Chinese/Korean free to play game). When gameplay begins to feel less like a fun pastime and a challenging game, and more like a pull of the slot machine, the magic is gone. This is the problem with many F2P games. They have so many 'necessary' items that are acquired purely through the wasting of huge sums of money. The gear is only useful for a few months, and when you have it the game is no longer challenging and therefore no longer fun. (As a side note, I'm the type of player that things gear is a pointless exercise. A game should be fun on its own merits.)

Keihndeth wrote: »

There wasn't any 'fail' related to this game, otherwise the servers would have closed down. It's pretty obvious to most that this B2P model has been planned a long time out and to coincide with console release.

Uh, they did cut the number of active PvP campaigns pretty substantially, along with drastically adjusting down the population caps. Frankly if your definition of failed is completely shut down and non-existent, that's a pretty useless definition. Even the worst games by that definition wouldn't be failures.

After the nerfs to the already PvE bottom of food chain class, it's not even worth playing F2P.

Goldenjaguar_ESO wrote: »

"We" didn't fail, there is no we here. This mess is on the developers.

Feedback, suggestions, bug reports were all given, but many of the reports weren't acted upon. The game is still missing some fairly basic features. (Such as a /who feature)

And an in game /clock feature that i just find silly beyond belief almost.

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Here I'll say more about the 2 susbcription notion.
If they already pay it for other things, they are not getting it for ESO. They are not paying two subscriptions for ESO.
To play ESO is actually getting them a better bang for their buck on that Xbox live they took for COD/Halo/whatever games they wanted to play online.

I pay internet for work and television. At no point would I think that to play ESO I have to pay 2 susbcription.

I already explained it but if you missed it i'll go again.

Take Xbox live.

People pay £5.99 a month for that. With that they can play any multiplayer game they choose.

If they picked ESO up with a sub they would also have to pay £8.99 a month.

So they would be paying £14.99 a month.

They will be paying both subscriptions compared to the single £8.99 a month payment I make on my PC version.

It's unfair to ask them to pay that unless they put PC subs up to £14.99 too and equal it out.

This has nothing to do with internet payments just the online subscription they have to play to use their console online and the games subscription. That would make 2 monthly payments to play one game. They aren't getting "more bang" they would be paying more.

It's exactly the same principle than internet subscription, or even your rent.

That xbox live account is already something they pay for, independetly from playing ESO or not. It is a flat cost in their lives, just like internet or their rent.

To play ESO, they will just have to pay ESO's sub.

Here's another real life example: When you go to the cinema and buy pop corn, that pop corn didn't cost you the price of the movie ticket + it's own cost, it just cost you the pop corn price as whether you bought pop corn or not, you still had to pay your movie ticket.

Maybe there will be some people that will be interested in ESO that do not have an xbox live account yet, effectively those people will have to pay two subscription.
But my intitial argument was that these will be a negligible minority. That assessement is something you can discuss and disagree with, not that people already paying xbox live will be paying 2 subs.

Varicite wrote: »

Why are we even discussing this, they aren't paying 2 subs now anyway.

Completely moot point.

We're discussing it because some people are under the impression that the xbox live / PSN subs were an issue to release the game on consoles as a susbcription only MMO.

It wasn't and the b2p switch is senseless aside for faster ROI for investors.

This whole thing wouldn't be an issue if they hadn't been so vocal before launch about remaining a susbcription only game with no cash shop.
I personally would not have bought the game had it not been for that marketing push. Now I'm left with a game I won't be playing much after the switch.

b2p is a bad move business wise and gameplay wise, we'll all suffer from it.

I actually told a friend that was interested in the game yesterday about the change, he said "cool I'll get it". Then I explained what was planned to be in the cash shop and he immediately lost interest and changed his mind.

The content as DLC approach is a big turnoff when the direct competitor doesn't do it and just releases new content for free.

I don't even know if this is an old OP, but here's my two cents......

Myself and four others were glad to pay the subscription fee per month because we loved the game. The bugs didn't even bother us much and we don't PvP, so there was only one thing that stopped us from playing.

The game wasn't instanced.

We loved the large world, but when it came time to run a dungeon quest, you could literally run from start to finish and barely swing your sword or cast a spell because so many other people were in the same dungeon as you, most of the creatures were dead, as you ran by passing groups of people killing. This was repeated over and over. This was absolutely no fun. To us, this is were you failed. We'd even come back if at least the main story line dungeons were instanced. When you play games like this, you want adventure. You want exploration in a dungeon (Alone with your party). It makes you feel like you are a part of the game, but when you have other people running around, it's just not the same. Playing with others in the vast areas of the outside world was no problem, just dungeons.

Q

No MMO is ever complete at launch. ESO definatly was launched to early, but on the other side, how much more could they have just done with beta? The game is so big and was being developed for so long. I think eveutally you have to open the gates and let everyone in and make your adjustments post launch.

ESO is getting a lot better. Its shame the console delay has kept the game more stagnant then it needed to be probably the last few months, but hopefully now crap will be in order we can get new content, vet levels fixed, rest of the justice system and other good stuff.

nutz176ub17_ESO wrote: »

I don't even know if this is an old OP

The part of the OP that says "January 26" would have been a good spot to start looking for clues. ; )