Should ESO go back to a subscription only game?

kendellking_chaosb14_ESO · November 2017

lagrue wrote: »

Even as a console player: Yes. I would rather see quality pumped back into this game through mandatory subs, than everybody accuse ZOS of doing cashgrabs with lootboxes.

I think alot of people fail to realize that their initial $60 purchase nearly 3-4 years ago wouldn't be enough to keep the game healthy forever. They see anything with a pricetag higher than what they're willing to pay and *** their pants. I understand their fears - but I also know why it happens. You can't maintain an MMO tier game successfully on initial purchases alone.

I already subscribe to ESO plus of my own free will - but I also know people who choose not to, and then moan and groan they can't play DLC and the likes - because they outright refuse to put more money into the game, but expect everything handed back to them for free.

Subs would be a great way to (hopefully) encourage ZOS to price things in the Crown Store more modestly, would allow for a continuous revenue steam - and would ultimately do things I would personally like, like filter out the casuals. Of all the people irl I've known to play this game, I'm the only one who ever even made it to level 50... people pick up the game and then leave. They'd be alot less likely to do so if they had to pay a sub to play... that alone is an issue to me because these same friends beg me to carry them through stuff when they are on, but refuse to actually commit to the game. It waters up the playerbase with people who don't care, people who post 90990 Gold Green Recipes out of stupidity, and encourages people to be lax in a game which endgame requires people to actually be knowledgeable about things.

ESO problem is and has always been quality. The game was released not when it was ready but to meet a deadline. Say what you will about investors if you tell them rushing the product will lose them money they WILL back down. It’s hard to fix a MMO once it’s live.

Players don’t want the servers offline but want the problem fixed. Subper classes, whole skill lines, races and zones are bad from the Health of any MMO and ESO launched will all of the above. If they made every race and class worth playing it would get more to resub. If they added better rewards in zones that would help new players stay. If the game with 10 races and 5 classes don’t have a handful of real endgame builds it would hold people much longer.

Case and point ask yourself, can I name 10 useless powers or passives from any class line the answer is a sad yes. Now think of a tank, it was a Dragon Knight right? Healer? Templar maybe a Warden?
What about DPS surely every class can kill maybe with a different flavor DoT, burst, delayed, AoE and Single target. Surely everyone can hit the same marks just in different ways right? Wrong Sorcerer and Nightblade are your DPS classes.

They say play your way while balancing content against min/max builds. Play your way but this boss really was balanced against a DK. Play your way but this is a DPS burn so your Nord mDK will not do here, that High Elven Stamden has to go. When the quality, bugs, copy and paste zone and all skills lines are made useful in there own way a monthly subscription is madness.

mb10 · November 2017

Its funny that people think subs will = better game and quality of the game

As if ZOS' reasons for the game not being at its peak are because they dont have the money for it.

Zorvan · November 2017

Davor wrote: »

I still don't get it. Why do games need subscriptions? After all if Skyrim can make over twenty million dollars and Bethesda makes a TES game ever five years plus why do games need a monthly subscription then?

If a company knows how to make a game they wouldn't need a subscription. It just goes to show you that Zenimax Online Studios or the marketing team, don't know how to make a great playable game where people will buy it.

If Bethesda can do it, I can't understand why Zenimax can't either. After all Elder Scrolls Online is mostly a single player game now with a bit of MMO thrown in it. So why not just make it a single player game and only have internet connection when people want to multiplayer on it.

Davor

Screw Bethesda. Look at Take 2 with GTA V. Singleplayer game with separate online multiplayer that rakes in millions a month. Guarantee Take 2 is making a lot more money off GTA V than ZOS is off ESO and GTA V came out before ESO.

Doctordarkspawn · November 2017

If the game goes back to a sub game, I will immediately drop it. I didn't do sub then, I dont do sub now. Sorry.

Dismantling classes, however, yes.

mirta000b16_ESO · November 2017

zaria wrote: »

]I still don't get it. Why do games need subscriptions? After all if Skyrim can make over twenty million dollars and Bethesda makes a TES game ever five years plus why do games need a monthly subscription then?

If a company knows how to make a game they wouldn't need a subscription. It just goes to show you that Zenimax Online Studios or the marketing team, don't know how to make a great playable game where people will buy it.

If Bethesda can do it, I can't understand why Zenimax can't either. After all Elder Scrolls Online is mostly a single player game now with a bit of MMO thrown in it. So why not just make it a single player game and only have internet connection when people want to multiplayer on it.

Davor

Because you need server upkeep and dev team upkeep for constant flow of content, which you don't need for a single player game. MMO infrastructure is really costly and if they earned only from box copies, they would need to sell steady millions of box copies each year to still be able to operate, which is not realistic.

Slick_007 · November 2017

Davor wrote: »

I still don't get it. Why do games need subscriptions? After all if Skyrim can make over twenty million dollars and Bethesda makes a TES game ever five years plus why do games need a monthly subscription then?

skyrim? you mean the thing that requires them to maintain how much hardware? how many servers? how much bandwidth? how much customer service dealing with people complaining about connections to it?

If a company knows how to make a game they wouldn't need a subscription. It just goes to show you that Zenimax Online Studios or the marketing team, don't know how to make a great playable game where people will buy it.

you did buy it. everyone who is playing bought it, or someone bought it for them.

If Bethesda can do it, I can't understand why Zenimax can't either. After all Elder Scrolls Online is mostly a single player game now with a bit of MMO thrown in it. So why not just make it a single player game and only have internet connection when people want to multiplayer on it.

Davor

a bit of mmo thrown in? are you even playing the same game that we're talking about?

Doctordarkspawn · November 2017

mirta000b16_ESO wrote: »

zaria wrote: »

]I still don't get it. Why do games need subscriptions? After all if Skyrim can make over twenty million dollars and Bethesda makes a TES game ever five years plus why do games need a monthly subscription then?

If a company knows how to make a game they wouldn't need a subscription. It just goes to show you that Zenimax Online Studios or the marketing team, don't know how to make a great playable game where people will buy it.

If Bethesda can do it, I can't understand why Zenimax can't either. After all Elder Scrolls Online is mostly a single player game now with a bit of MMO thrown in it. So why not just make it a single player game and only have internet connection when people want to multiplayer on it.

Davor

Because you need server upkeep and dev team upkeep for constant flow of content, which you don't need for a single player game. MMO infrastructure is really costly and if they earned only from box copies, they would need to sell steady millions of box copies each year to still be able to operate, which is not realistic.

And yet, given the intensity of monitary crates, I dont think cash is the problem. Or rather, I think it is. Not in the way you think it is.

Money has consumed development time. The development of content was never fast, but it wasn't exactly slow, either. Nowadays, the lion share has gone into crown crates. Community outreach has taken a backseat -to- crowncrates.

ZOS got greedy. A sub model will only clear out customers, it's not gonna fix the problems you think it will.

BrightOblivion · November 2017

If the game went back to sub-to-play, I'd be gone. Like others, I buy the dlc and chapter, and play them at my leisure, which is often. And I can, without feeling like I'm not getting my money's worth or wasting my money. I also feel like I actually own the game.

I have no problems paying for additional content, be it DLC or chapter. It's just like DLC in other games. You want to play it? Awesome. You buy it, you own it, play it at your leisure. Not enough time to play as much this month? Not enough money? It's all good. New stuff comes out, buy it if you want it, and play on.

With a sub model, especially one where you have to shell out money for the base game, none of that is true. You don't own it. You're renting. Yeah, you bought the game, but you have to pay extra to play it, even if we didn't do anything to change it this month. Not enough time to play? Looks like you just wasted your sub fee. Not enough money, or maybe you had something else you wanted to do with that $15? Too bad. No game time for you. New stuff comes out that you don't care for? Too bad. You want to play even part of the game, you pay for all of it.

I don't like the model, regardless of the IP. I don't approve of it, or support it financially. It's one of the major reasons I refused to even give the game a glance for a very long time. If they implement it again, it'll be the reason I drop everything and leave. Don't get me wrong. I love the people I've met and the experiences I've had. But none of that's worth a $15/month ransom of my playtime and enjoyment of content I already freaking paid for.

But it's ZOS's move. They didn't have enough people willing to subscribe the first time to pull it off. Do they think they have enough now? Are they willing to potentially risk it all if it fails? They'd better think it through beforehand, because this isn't a light switch they can turn on and off. The players they lose with either switch may not come back, even if they switch it back. But it's their choice.

Just like it's mine and every other other player's to leave if they do so.

Wifeaggro13 · November 2017

CaineCarver wrote: »

With all the controversy lately surrounding loot boxes in the news and all the players who think they are "evil" Gambling devices I find myself looking at how games are funding themselves and the future of games. With the current free play models, there are several problems that I fear hurt the future of MMOs in particular. With players demanding free to play (even complaining about buy to play products like ESO / Morrowind) game companies find themselves needing to provide hosting for players that may or may not buy content to support needed hardware. One need only experience the holiday server overloads to realize companies are trying to balance huge numbers of extra casual players with costs (this is true in all games buy much more so in free to play products).

In addition to the costs of supporting the extra hardware for free players, companies are forced to race new content to market as they depend on DLC and cosmetic sales for income (some even fall to the temptation of pay to win items). This means they can not afford staff and resources to fix bugs and improve current systems the way they did in the older subscription game days. Overall the free play games are having a hard time keeping quality to the standards of the past.

With all of these struggles, many game studios are hesitant to take on new MMOs. The number of potential games out there in various stages of "go fund me" has skyrocketed in the last few years. Yes, we have more titles to choose from but most of them are just "reskins" over the same engines with only cosmetic and theme changes. Companies try to squeeze more and more out of the work by simply tossing another free to play version on the market. The current marketing play models realize the current gamers as a whole are hopping from one free to play product to the next. Players are spending months instead of years in a game as they chase the easy "high" of learning and leveling "fun" instead of the "grind" needed to max and master end game content. The hope is to catch more casual players that might spend some money on DLCs or cosmetics. Making long-term investments and development a gamble for even the best studios. As a whole, the one and done stand alone and online version box games are much safer investments than MMO persistent games.

In my opinion, the future of MMOs is not looking stellar unless we convince the player base there is no such thing as a free lunch and the game companies start standing their ground on subscriptions. What do you think?

eso could have survived and been very profitable had it stayed subscription. but it was far easier and proftiable to play the B2P margin and develop a cash store. the subscription model would have kept a smaller community playing longer. this design was make Bullcrap content for a churn base population that does not stick around for more then 2 months at a time. charge out the eyes for items that you cannot actually obtain in game by hiding them in RNG loot crates. the sheep will spend a couple hundred bucks a month until they abondon this single player drivel that was easy as pie to design.

luen79rwb17_ESO · November 2017

B2P model brought the largest ammount of players to ESO for the longest time so I doubt they're switching back to sub based model.

Besides requiring a sub would de-facto wipe a % of your current player base. It's bold to assume those players will sub and I doubt the switch to sub would bring such a large ammount of new players to compensate that loss AND keep a positive growth % of players active.

LittlePinkDot · November 2017

AzraelKrieg wrote: »

MilwaukeeScott wrote: »

Back?

ESO on PS4 has never been a sub only game.

Consoles are the reason why it's not a sub only game right now. When it launched on PC in 2014 it was sub only until March because MS and Sony kicked up a fuss.

The game is better on console. No hackers, and no garbage mouse and keyboard to cause carpel tunnel syndrome

Linaleah · November 2017

even though I myself am a subscriber and likely remain one as long as I keep playing - making this game subscription only is a BAD idea. contrary to some people's opinion, non subscribers are still very much needed for the health of the game and there are a lot more of them than you think. ever complained about waiting in queue? with subscription only model - it would get much MUCH worse. mmo's live and die on their player numbers. going subscription only will initially reduce those numbers by all the non subscribers that will move on and soon after - subscribers that have don't have people to play with.

the reason why WoW gets away with it is 1. they have the momentum and had it for years. 2. they have a f2p option now... after a fashion. you can buy and sell subscription tokens.

mirta000b16_ESO · November 2017

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

And yet, given the intensity of monitary crates, I dont think cash is the problem. Or rather, I think it is. Not in the way you think it is.

Money has consumed development time. The development of content was never fast, but it wasn't exactly slow, either. Nowadays, the lion share has gone into crown crates. Community outreach has taken a backseat -to- crowncrates.

ZOS got greedy. A sub model will only clear out customers, it's not gonna fix the problems you think it will.

I'm not advocating that in my response to that poster, but simply explaining why MMOs need to have subscriptions/ micro-transactions, rather than just running like Skyrim does. No MMO could survive solely off box sales, so it's picking your devil - you either go the forced sub route, or you oversaturate the store.

LittlePinkDot wrote: »

The game is better on console. No hackers, and no garbage mouse and keyboard to cause carpel tunnel syndrome

Been using a keyboard and mouse for over 20 years, yet to get carpel tunnel. Do you type with a gamepad in your workplace too?

Graydon · November 2017

Gosh I sure hope for Thanksgiving ZOS is grateful for all your expert input and highly experienced game company insight from all you knowledgeable professionals.

Don’t know how they have lasted this long without such leadership.

xenowarrior92eb17_ESO · November 2017

What I want: YES!
What will happen: NO!
why? ez... cuz consoles.

Malic · November 2017

Graydon wrote: »

Gosh I sure hope for Thanksgiving ZOS is grateful for all your expert input and highly experienced game company insight from all you knowledgeable professionals.

Don’t know how they have lasted this long without such leadership.

okay shipoopi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klY_a-bQrEA

LittlePinkDot · November 2017

mirta000b16_ESO wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

And yet, given the intensity of monitary crates, I dont think cash is the problem. Or rather, I think it is. Not in the way you think it is.

Money has consumed development time. The development of content was never fast, but it wasn't exactly slow, either. Nowadays, the lion share has gone into crown crates. Community outreach has taken a backseat -to- crowncrates.

ZOS got greedy. A sub model will only clear out customers, it's not gonna fix the problems you think it will.

I'm not advocating that in my response to that poster, but simply explaining why MMOs need to have subscriptions/ micro-transactions, rather than just running like Skyrim does. No MMO could survive solely off box sales, so it's picking your devil - you either go the forced sub route, or you oversaturate the store.

LittlePinkDot wrote: »

The game is better on console. No hackers, and no garbage mouse and keyboard to cause carpel tunnel syndrome

Been using a keyboard and mouse for over 20 years, yet to get carpel tunnel. Do you type with a gamepad in your workplace too?

No I work in a hospital doing reprocessing of surgical instrumentation, I stand, walk and lift all day. I use my hands alot for doing repetative motions like syringing endoscopes all day. And hackers are still the bane of pc gaming.

No I dont think mandatory subscriptions should return, I buy my DLC's and dont always have time to play as much as I would like. Forcing subscriptions on people because you think theyre casual players wont make them play more. There is this thing called life and commitments outside of the game, alot of people dont play as much as they would like simply because they cant.
I dont see what the big deal is about crown crates, nobody is forcing you to buy them, I dont buy them.

OutLaw_Nynx · November 2017

Astrid_V wrote: »

I wish ESO could go back to required subscription model.

What was the price for that? @Astrid_V

DeadlyRecluse · November 2017

That ship has sailed.

Xundiin · November 2017

I wish it would, but unless Microsoft is willing to wave the online fee of their service for the sub model, there is no way it would happen.

Tan9oSuccka · November 2017

It would probably solve the bot/gold seller Plague.

I’m game.

wenchmore420b14_ESO · November 2017

OutLaw_Nynx wrote: »

Astrid_V wrote: »

I wish ESO could go back to required subscription model.

What was the price for that? @Astrid_V

It was the same price as the ESO Plus is now.... $14.99 month (or 12.99 for 6 mo).
I have "subbed" since day 1. (March 30th, 2014).
Wouldn't bother me if they went back, but yes the truth of the matter is they would lose many players.
It cost's me 43 cents a day to play. I lose more than that in the seats of my car. lol...

Why did "Subs" work for WoW? WoW launched in 2004. It was new and massive and There Was No Competition! VERY few MMO's then and none of that scale. Fast forward to 2017.. FtP Mobil Games out the wahzoo.....Tons of "MMO's" out there for every genres. WoW has 14 years under it's belt. ESO is only 3 1/2 years old.

Why did ESO drop the mandatory subs? Yes it was because of consoles. Period. Not because it was dying.
Crown Crates give ZoS extra income to make up for that. Originally ESO was never going to go BtP, but to release consoles they had to. Crown Store and Crown Crates like features are the trend now in MMO's and ZoS is just following suit.
I personally don't like Crown Crates, but if they help pay for a designer or writers salary and they keep putting out a game I love, then so be it...

Acrolas · November 2017

I'd be for it.

Not only do the ESO+ perks remove a lot of micromanagement from the game, a subscription would help reduce the number of cheaters and bots. It's easy to be a turd when the game's marked down to $10. People tend to think twice when there's a recurring monthly fee involved.

And a mandatory sub wouldn't necessary have to eliminate all microtransactions. Let's say there's a sub, and to comp everyone, you get X gems for every DLC you own. Your current crown balance is converted to gems. Everything in the crown store goes to gems only, and you can earn gems in-game doing anything.

They can still sell gem packs if you want to buy more cosmetic items faster. They can still have one or two monthly premium cosmetics in a cash store. There will still be roughly the same number of people outright buying gems so they can buy all the new hats and mounts rather than having to monitor a gem balance.

But here's the kicker... they can do both systems. Leave things mostly how they are on consoles, and make PC the mandatory subscription. I don't expect console players to have to double-dip on access fees, but they'll still want access to cosmetics. The ESO+ perks can be broken down and sold individually to them in a cash store. Making consoles more casual and at-your-pace servers, and PC the more all-in, long-haul servers gives each one its own distinct culture, which will help as the game continues to age.

But like PVE vs PVP balance, ZOS seems really, really nervous about managing different systems differently. To which I say, try it out and in the meantime just put a $300 unicorn in the cash shop as a hedge against risk. Crunching some hypothetical numbers, there's really nothing to lose during short-term experiment.

sadownik · November 2017

You people are so silly. Game went b2p for a reason and it will stay b2p for the same reason - not enough people blindly in love with this game to pay monthly fee for it.

idk · November 2017

I do not see a controversy about loot boxes that will have any affect on ESO anytime in the near future.

A preliminary statement of what an organization in another country has no affect anywhere, not even in Belgium.

Granted, Zos will have their legal team pondering this but in the years until this would have any affect on the game Zos will find something new to keep revenues going, every game will.

Oddly, this could have a bigger effect on F2P games and bring back required subscriptions to MMOs. I think that might be good thing. Those who do not want to pay a subscription would still have single player games as they always have.

coop500 · November 2017

What you guys are saying would prevent me from playing the game, flat out... But nothing I will say could change your mind, just know I'd likely would not be the only honest player that will be forced to leave.

O_LYKOS · November 2017

I would still pay.

However, I feel the playerbase would drop dramatically.

Alaztor91 · November 2017

Did ZOS seriously expected 6 million concurrent players when they were making the game? With all the problems the 2014 launch had it's no wonder they had to drop the mandatory sub.

Like seriously the game has sold like only 12 million copies between all 3 platforms and that's after 3+ years, there is simply no way that they would have maintained that amount of concurrent players in the first year. Who even thought that was a reasonable number?

And tbh the mandatory sub for mmos just doesn't work these days, if games with Star Wars in their name can't make it work then there isn't much hope for other even lesser known franchises.

duendology · November 2017

I somewhat doubt ZOS would suddenly remove crown crates from crown store if they came back to B2P model.
I really, really doubt. I think it's naive to think so.

JKorr · November 2017

I've been subbed since the beginning. $14.99 for a month's worth of entertainment [plus the cost of my internet, which I use for more than just ESO] is the cheapest hobby I've ever had, really.

I do wonder how much they would be able to do if the game was pc only. How much effort/time/dev time goes to the other platforms? Would the bugfixes/patches be faster if pc was the only platform they had to deal with? What new content could they put out, if they had a stable subscription income and didn't have to deal with Sony and Microsoft requirements for the consoles?