I miss required subscriptions

Elsonso · October 2017

Delte wrote: »

So when anyone says they didn't have enough subs on release I say their information is wrong and they need to take another look at other less popular mmos which still have a subscription.

The big reason they went B2P is because of the release on PS4 and Xbox, yet Final Fantasy Realm Reborn is a subscription paid mmo even with the PSN fees. So all Zenimax are doing is going for the cash grab, and with the advent of the Creation Club for Skyrim this just expounds this point even more. They put content behind a pay wall and random loot in loot crates on a timed offer, which means if you want one of those items you Have to buy the loot crates and hope to find the item you are after within. This in itself is a way to generate huge amounts of cash from the players.

I bet that those who buy things from the cash shop and loot crates actually spend more money on the game each month than they would do if it was a paid subscription. Or near equal to it.

With no way to earn in game crowns or the loot crystals (like other you can in some other B2P and F2P mmos) you have to spend real cash to get those items.

Also if it wasn't for a bunch of freeloaders who demanded a F2P model this game could of survived on its subscription numbers.

I think this game would have survived on subscription, but it would not have returned the revenue at the rate that they wanted it to. They would have had to invest more into the game than they are now in order to maintain that. As it is now, the real revenue comes from optional extras like the Crown Store, Crates, and ESO Plus. That is where they need to maintain investment. If they have money left over, and the idea strikes their fancy, they can introduce game content. All they need to do is keep just enough content coming to maintain the attention needed to fuel the Crown and ESO Plus spending. This is the basis for the DLC plan, and for at least one trip around the block, the Chapter plan.

JamilaRaj · October 2017

CromulentForumID wrote: »

Phage wrote: »

Thestephenmcraeub17_ESO wrote: »

I know that from a business perspective, their goal is to make as much money as possible. That's the goal of every for-profit business.

Honestly, the goal of every video game developer should be to make as great a game as possible. This idea that ZOS is some business-oriented establishment is just wrong - they are video game developers, and that should be their priority. Unfortunately, big daddy Zenimax Media gets in the way with their shoddy business sense and forces ZOS to make some questionable business decisions.

I also miss the days of subscriptions. Maybe if TESO had gotten rave reviews from the beta and full release, it could have sustained the subscription model. Things didn't go that way (for many reasons) and the players didn't come in droves like ZOS had hoped. Things had to be changed for the game to survive. I've made my peace with that.

I firmly do not believe any game of this size could survive on a sub-only model. In general, the current gaming population is not one that wants to pay to buy the game, then keep paying each month. There are too many other games to play, and we've gotten pretty used to getting our entertainment for free, at least when it comes to online entertainment.

(Greater) size only makes a game benefit from economies of scale, because, given that only some costs increase with number of players and even those that do not necessarily proportionally, average cost per player decreases. In other words, for a large game it is actually easier to survive on subs alone without extra money from microtransactions than for a small one.
For example, if it cost you 1M dollars to develop (i.e. programming) a game for 50,000 players, the cost would not increase to 2M if you added extra 50,000 or even 500,000 players.

CromulentForumID · October 2017

JamilaRaj wrote: »

CromulentForumID wrote: »

Phage wrote: »

Thestephenmcraeub17_ESO wrote: »

I know that from a business perspective, their goal is to make as much money as possible. That's the goal of every for-profit business.

Honestly, the goal of every video game developer should be to make as great a game as possible. This idea that ZOS is some business-oriented establishment is just wrong - they are video game developers, and that should be their priority. Unfortunately, big daddy Zenimax Media gets in the way with their shoddy business sense and forces ZOS to make some questionable business decisions.

I also miss the days of subscriptions. Maybe if TESO had gotten rave reviews from the beta and full release, it could have sustained the subscription model. Things didn't go that way (for many reasons) and the players didn't come in droves like ZOS had hoped. Things had to be changed for the game to survive. I've made my peace with that.

I firmly do not believe any game of this size could survive on a sub-only model. In general, the current gaming population is not one that wants to pay to buy the game, then keep paying each month. There are too many other games to play, and we've gotten pretty used to getting our entertainment for free, at least when it comes to online entertainment.

(Greater) size only makes a game benefit from economies of scale, because, given that only some costs increase with number of players and even those that do not necessarily proportionally, average cost per player decreases. In other words, for a large game it is actually easier to survive on subs alone without extra money from microtransactions than for a small one.
For example, if it cost you 1M dollars to develop (i.e. programming) a game for 50,000 players, the cost would not increase to 2M if you added extra 50,000 or even 500,000 players.

I don't disagree. By "size" I meant a large studio game, or one with the game's current expenditures. This game's monthly costs are going to be a lot more than, say, City of Heroes cost when it was running.

JamilaRaj wrote: »

CromulentForumID wrote: »

Phage wrote: »

Thestephenmcraeub17_ESO wrote: »

I know that from a business perspective, their goal is to make as much money as possible. That's the goal of every for-profit business.

Honestly, the goal of every video game developer should be to make as great a game as possible. This idea that ZOS is some business-oriented establishment is just wrong - they are video game developers, and that should be their priority. Unfortunately, big daddy Zenimax Media gets in the way with their shoddy business sense and forces ZOS to make some questionable business decisions.

I also miss the days of subscriptions. Maybe if TESO had gotten rave reviews from the beta and full release, it could have sustained the subscription model. Things didn't go that way (for many reasons) and the players didn't come in droves like ZOS had hoped. Things had to be changed for the game to survive. I've made my peace with that.

I firmly do not believe any game of this size could survive on a sub-only model. In general, the current gaming population is not one that wants to pay to buy the game, then keep paying each month. There are too many other games to play, and we've gotten pretty used to getting our entertainment for free, at least when it comes to online entertainment.

(Greater) size only makes a game benefit from economies of scale, because, given that only some costs increase with number of players and even those that do not necessarily proportionally, average cost per player decreases. In other words, for a large game it is actually easier to survive on subs alone without extra money from microtransactions than for a small one.
For example, if it cost you 1M dollars to develop (i.e. programming) a game for 50,000 players, the cost would not increase to 2M if you added extra 50,000 or even 500,000 players.

I don't disagree. I was more talking about the size of the studio / cost of the game to maintain when I mentioned size. City of Heroes ran with about 15 employees for a while. That isn't this game.

Could ZOS fund this game with only subs at its current size?

Ratzkifal · October 2017

Back when I played the beta I said to myself "this is a great game, but it is not worth the 13€ per month". I did not buy it until they dropped the subscription. Today the game improved a lot. Even ESO+ is now something I consider that is "worth it" to get every now and then, but monthly subscription is still a no-go for me and I would stop playing the game immediately.
No amount of outrageous sales in the crown store can make me want that old system back. You might say that a third of the DLCs are just dungeons, but I see two thirds that aren't and Vvardenfell as well as Orsinium were just a great additions - in parts even better than most of the quest from the single-player games.

JamilaRaj · October 2017

CromulentForumID wrote: »

JamilaRaj wrote: »

CromulentForumID wrote: »

Phage wrote: »

Thestephenmcraeub17_ESO wrote: »

I know that from a business perspective, their goal is to make as much money as possible. That's the goal of every for-profit business.

Honestly, the goal of every video game developer should be to make as great a game as possible. This idea that ZOS is some business-oriented establishment is just wrong - they are video game developers, and that should be their priority. Unfortunately, big daddy Zenimax Media gets in the way with their shoddy business sense and forces ZOS to make some questionable business decisions.

I also miss the days of subscriptions. Maybe if TESO had gotten rave reviews from the beta and full release, it could have sustained the subscription model. Things didn't go that way (for many reasons) and the players didn't come in droves like ZOS had hoped. Things had to be changed for the game to survive. I've made my peace with that.

I firmly do not believe any game of this size could survive on a sub-only model. In general, the current gaming population is not one that wants to pay to buy the game, then keep paying each month. There are too many other games to play, and we've gotten pretty used to getting our entertainment for free, at least when it comes to online entertainment.

(Greater) size only makes a game benefit from economies of scale, because, given that only some costs increase with number of players and even those that do not necessarily proportionally, average cost per player decreases. In other words, for a large game it is actually easier to survive on subs alone without extra money from microtransactions than for a small one.
For example, if it cost you 1M dollars to develop (i.e. programming) a game for 50,000 players, the cost would not increase to 2M if you added extra 50,000 or even 500,000 players.

I don't disagree. By "size" I meant a large studio game, or one with the game's current expenditures. This game's monthly costs are going to be a lot more than, say, City of Heroes cost when it was running.

JamilaRaj wrote: »

CromulentForumID wrote: »

Phage wrote: »

Thestephenmcraeub17_ESO wrote: »

I know that from a business perspective, their goal is to make as much money as possible. That's the goal of every for-profit business.

Honestly, the goal of every video game developer should be to make as great a game as possible. This idea that ZOS is some business-oriented establishment is just wrong - they are video game developers, and that should be their priority. Unfortunately, big daddy Zenimax Media gets in the way with their shoddy business sense and forces ZOS to make some questionable business decisions.

I also miss the days of subscriptions. Maybe if TESO had gotten rave reviews from the beta and full release, it could have sustained the subscription model. Things didn't go that way (for many reasons) and the players didn't come in droves like ZOS had hoped. Things had to be changed for the game to survive. I've made my peace with that.

I firmly do not believe any game of this size could survive on a sub-only model. In general, the current gaming population is not one that wants to pay to buy the game, then keep paying each month. There are too many other games to play, and we've gotten pretty used to getting our entertainment for free, at least when it comes to online entertainment.

(Greater) size only makes a game benefit from economies of scale, because, given that only some costs increase with number of players and even those that do not necessarily proportionally, average cost per player decreases. In other words, for a large game it is actually easier to survive on subs alone without extra money from microtransactions than for a small one.
For example, if it cost you 1M dollars to develop (i.e. programming) a game for 50,000 players, the cost would not increase to 2M if you added extra 50,000 or even 500,000 players.

I don't disagree. I was more talking about the size of the studio / cost of the game to maintain when I mentioned size. City of Heroes ran with about 15 employees for a while. That isn't this game. Could ZOS fund this game with only subs at its current size?

And what do you think the size is, hm?

I find it highly improbable that for any arbitrary somewhat successful game there would be no such value of subscription X that number of players (willing to pay X) times X would not exceed the point at which it would at least break even.

Coincidentally, I read an interview with Victor Kislyi (CEO of Wargaming) recently, where he said that WoT players pay $6 per month on average and that 75% of players never pay. Therefore, 25% of players pay $24 per month on average (for their "free" entertainment). He did not divulge what their margin was, though it is likely to be high, so to survive on subs alone they would not necessarily need to earn as much as they earn with P2W, and for now let's say they would need to earn 75% of that. Then, to survie on subs, they would need to convince 30% of their player base to pay $15. Or 22% to pay $20. And so on. That does not strike me as P2W or bust scenario (even if it was, I would say be it bust then).

Mancombe_Nosehair · October 2017

This Is the first mmorg game I have played since Never winter nights. I would never have bought eso if it was a subscription based game, hence why I only bought it six months ago. If they wanted to attract previous elder scroll games players like me, it had to be subscription free.

Shardan4968 · October 2017

It would be funny If ZOS actually told me I can't play anymore in game I bought with all DLCs, because they just changed they mind like some kind of undecided princess. ESO would propably die, they didn't changed it to pay2play without reason. When I was looking for other people's opinions about ESO I found mostly bad reviews from 2014 and haters who floods youtube comment section. I don't think that many people would pay 13€ a month for game, which is hated like that.

devilfunk · October 2017