Hell No!!!

I'd love to invite some people over to at least try ESO, but I don't want to force them to pay for it, if they know they're not going to like it. On the other hand, I paid for it when it came out two years ago, and couldn't play, because of the monthly fees. If it becomes F2P, I'd have wasted good money.

Shortly put: For me, it may become F2P, BUT players who paid for the game should get some crowns in return. Even if it's just a 500 crowns "thanks for financially supporting ESO".

I WOULD NOT, COULD NOT IN THE RAIN.
NOT IN THE DARK. NOT ON A TRAIN.
NOT IN A CAR. NOT IN A TREE.
I DO NOT LIKE F2P, @attackjet , YOU SEE.
NOT IN A HOUSE. NOT IN A BOX.
NOT WITH A MOUSE. NOT WITH A FOX.
I WILL NOT PLAY F2P HERE OR THERE.
I DO NOT LIKE F2P ANYWHERE!

(Courtesy of Doctor Seuss)

I'd love it to go back to be pay to play.

I'd love to have developers working on playable content not crown store gimmicks.

I'd love to get unique mounts for hard achievements not for gambling.

I am very sad that game was out prematurely and with kind of wrong concept. I believe that in current state ESO would be able to stay P2P but, alas, it is too late now...

Divad Zarn wrote: »

It was already clear, that game which went B2P year ago, slapped it's customers for whole year of supporting and paying for nothing into face, it will go sooner or later to F2P model, it's also clear with their crown store.

P.S. Also it's only way game will remain alive to go to F2P model, sad that their servers located on calculators to hold many players.

It should be noted... The only reason it went B2P was because of the consoles and the fact that Microsoft wouldnt wave their sub fees, so Zos had to drop it as console players would have had to pay 2 subs.
It was no slight on subbers by Zos. Just Micro & Sony can't play well with others...:)

wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »

Divad Zarn wrote: »

It was already clear, that game which went B2P year ago, slapped it's customers for whole year of supporting and paying for nothing into face, it will go sooner or later to F2P model, it's also clear with their crown store.

P.S. Also it's only way game will remain alive to go to F2P model, sad that their servers located on calculators to hold many players.

It should be noted... The only reason it went B2P was because of the consoles and the fact that Microsoft wouldnt wave their sub fees, so Zos had to drop it as console players would have had to pay 2 subs.
It was no slight on subbers by Zos. Just Micro & Sony can't play well with others...:)

That is the theory, but my feeling is that there is more to it than that. This was not just a "Microsoft would not cave on XBL" problem. There was a reason that Microsoft did not cave, and it was more than just company policy. My feeling is that ESO sales and subscriptions were not strong enough for Bethesda/ZOS to use it as leverage to convince Microsoft.

Expansion should be tried before F2P, imho. If they do it right they might be able to pull it off. Ive a feeling most devs are going to survival online genre, at least Funcom is with Conan Exiles, so Zen still have a chance with this. Theres no big MMORPG coming in next 2 or 3 year at least. Its almost stupid to give up now. Amazon Game Studio's New World is probably the next big thing and even it is survival online type of game with a MMO-twist.

Endgame streamlining, sea-battles, one more class, thats the start for expansion. Throw in flying mounts and you might have it.

I feel as if, it shouldn't become free-to-play, but it should make things a little less expensive.

driosketch wrote: »

Danikat wrote: »

I'm confused by all the people saying the game was so much better when it was subscription only.

As I remember it there was only 1 new release that year (Cranlorn) and people were forever complaining about lag and bugs.

Content wise, Craglorn was released in two parts, as well as some new vet dungeons being added. More importantly, updates themselves were on a six week schedule, which they kept pace with through about 5 updates. So while most of these were feature updates, it also meant balancing tweaks and major fixes came sooner. Today we need to wait twice as long for balance updates and even seemingly minor fixes like dyeable crown festival hats. That's my take at least.

To be fair, some of this has to do with the game being on consoles now. Any updates need to be passed through Microsoft and Sony Certification. Additionally issues need to be fixed for (up to) three different platforms at any time. Which does increase the workload.

game right now costs so little, that its already pretty much f2p

Not really, but it is so close now will make much of a difference ?

Isn't this one of the trolling threads created by the bloke who blew a fuse and was banned on Christmas day?

Not feeding dead trolls.

ThePonzzz wrote: »

The game is less than $20 now. If you can't scrape together $20 you have no business on the internet.

It's indeed not that much for a great game like ESO, but I wouldn't have bought it if I never played Skyrim in the first place. Many dissappointing games made me lose a lot of money. It'd be nice if people could download a demo, where they can choose a class, race and customize a character, and only be able to play on the first island they arrive on (like Bleackrock in EP).

Demo's are the perfect way to convince me and others if a game is really worth buying it. €9.99 isn't much money, but still, if someone is not sure whether he or she will like this game, then it's still wasted money, money that could've been spent on snacks, or another cheap game that are guaranteed to like.

Nonononono
And i dont like crown store too, if im a subscriber i dont want to pay more hrrrrr