Generally speaking, a sub only mmo usually has better quality of life assuming the community is healthy enough for group content to thrive. You dont have to deal with invasive microtrans or features tied to cash vs in game. Basically under a sub model you generallu get the full experience with no nonsense for a set fee every month. Subscriptions are the preffered method of revenue for mmo devs in that it allows them to plan content production based on foreseeable static revenue vs non sub cash shop methods wich is far more volatile and harder to plan long term for.

That all being said, no i do not wish it would return to sub only simply because this game can not support itself around that anymore. I often joke about this but in mmow with f2p/b2p + subscription options, i always say that the non subscribers / f2pers ARE the content for subscribing players.

Its irrefutable that the game would have a smaller player base being sub only and that is unfortunate.

Huyen wrote: »

Blizzard-entertainment still manages fine with their sub model. I dont see why ESO cant do the same, and get rid of the horrible lootboxes. They just have to up their game a bit with better stability and quality dlc's.

Blizzard are worse my friend. They sell in game currency for real dollars. You can use that in game currency to purchase items that makes your toon in the top 10% of players. Use that currency to pay people to run you through high end content. You can also exchange in game currency for subscription time to feed this beast. Now the price is around 25 dollars a token which pays for a month. It’s basically inserting micro purchases into the game but at 25 dollars it isn’t really micro

Bryong9ub17_ESO wrote: »

MilwaukeeScott wrote: »

Back?

ESO on PS4 has never been a sub only game.

The game existed before it came to PS4...

Doesn't invalidate what they said, though.

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 was fun, but im going back to multiplayer shooters, fifa, madden, and stuff like civilization after i can cure this addiction.

LOTS of potential here, but i fear lack of vision strong leadership is leaving it "aimless".

Iccotak wrote: »

ESO was fun, but im going back to multiplayer shooters, fifa, madden, and stuff like civilization after i can cure this addiction.

LOTS of potential here, but i fear lack of vision strong leadership is leaving it "aimless".

Lack of vision? They have a plan. That is what all the DLCs are doing. They are stories building up a war between Daedric Princes.
Hardly "aimless".

I will repeat what I said earlier: The reason they stopped subscription was because it was not a financially appealing option for console players who already had to pay $15/mo for using internet services.
Going back to subscription would lose them alot of players. Period.

WoW is purely PC so they can do required subs

Makes me want to praise console players for existing for this, otherwise I would not be able to play.

ArchMikem wrote: »

Oh sure, just up and cause thousands of people to stop playing cause they don't like having access to a video game they paid $60 for suddenly dangle on a string being held together by a monthly bill.

This, you can not change back, as it would lock out lots of players

Going to a subscription-only model would be a game-killing horrible thing for them to do -- and it would NOT mean the end of Crown Crates.

In fact, they'd need them all the more to make up for all the players (like me) that they would lose by making this move. I spend real money in this game; and they'd lose that by forcing me to subscribe. Because I won't.

Don't even suggest it. It's stupid. There's a reason why folks like me won't play World of Warcraft... and a required monthly fee is the reason.

Some pretty soft thinking behind this post....

ProfesseurFreder wrote: »

Going to a subscription-only model would be a game-killing horrible thing for them to do -- and it would NOT mean the end of Crown Crates.

In fact, they'd need them all the more to make up for all the players (like me) that they would lose by making this move. I spend real money in this game; and they'd lose that by forcing me to subscribe. Because I won't.

Don't even suggest it. It's stupid. There's a reason why folks like me won't play World of Warcraft... and a required monthly fee is the reason.

Some pretty soft thinking behind this post....

There is a way if you made enough gold for the month you can buy WoW tokens to fund your monthly play time costs

ESO is owned by ZOS which is owned by Zenimax Media which is beholden to its investors. What that means, in real terms, is that the driving force behind ESO isn't artistic, this isn't about making the best possible game based on vision and narrative. This is about dairy farming, to borrow an analogy from the late great Terry Pratchett:

“(This), gentlemen, is very much like dairy farming. The task is to extract the maximum amount of milk with the minimum amount of moo.”

As long as the investors get a reasonable return on their investment (or even for as long as that return increases) then ESO remains online. When we start costing money rather than making it? Gone. Plug pulled.

This makes ZOS no better or worse than any other major MMO studio out there.

This is the reason why lootboxes aren't going anywhere, it is also the reason why most of the money made from them will not go back into development of this game. It is the reason why we will continue to see regularly released but shallow content and no fixes for niggling bugs. Quite simply, there is no financial incentive to do otherwise.

I would estimate that the greater proportion of the bugs that players encounter either aren't game-breaking or occur in niche contexts (endgame PvE and PvP I am looking at you). These fixes cannot be monetised and are unlikely to drive people away immediately. Player churn actually works to ZOS' financial advantage in this case, two players who buy the same content bring in more profit than one retained player that they have to make twice as much content for. With regards to engagement under the B2P model, and going back to my earlier analogy, does the dairy farmer care if the cow wanders away after milking as long as it comes back ready for the next one?

Under the B2P model the only time that ZOS really wants you on its servers is when you are paying for things, whether that is the release of a new season of Crown Crates or a DLC etc.. The rest of the time? It is probably easier for them if you aren't here because their servers have less load (although it probably makes the marketing department a little less happy as they can't say "X million concurrent players!" at the top of their voices.

The sub was dropped for consoles (ESOTU March 2015, Console Beta April 2015, Console release June 2015). The investors saw a new field of cows and wanted in.

Am I certain that the quality of ESO would have been better if the subs have stayed? Don't know. Nobody does. It is a fatuous question that has no logical answer. It is an impossible extrapolation based on no evidence whatsoever.

I want to think it would have been better. I'd like to think that if the focus was on keeping players from month to month, as opposed to instantaneous transactions, then we might see more fixes and deeper, more involving content. Am I certain of that? Dear Azura no, but I really would like to see ZOS give it a try on PC.

The subscription model is dead. Even if loot boxes were to ever be banned, they would just be replaced by straight microstransactions. Loot boxes aren't necessary to sustain a game. They're just extra profit due to their addictive nature. Regular microtransactions are more than enough to sustain a game.

Iluvrien wrote: »

xbobx wrote: »

makes me wonder if people remember that the game failed as a subscription only model.

Prove it. And while you're at it... define "failed" in concrete numerical terms.

It had less than 1000 concurrent players on Steam, dropping to as low as 500 in November 2014.

Servers would have been shut down after one year if the game didn't go B2P.

Iccotak wrote: »

ESO was fun, but im going back to multiplayer shooters, fifa, madden, and stuff like civilization after i can cure this addiction.

LOTS of potential here, but i fear lack of vision strong leadership is leaving it "aimless".

Lack of vision? They have a plan. That is what all the DLCs are doing. They are stories building up a war between Daedric Princes.
Hardly "aimless".

I will repeat what I said earlier: The reason they stopped subscription was because it was not a financially appealing option for console players who already had to pay $15/mo for using internet services.
Going back to subscription would lose them alot of players. Period.

WoW is purely PC so they can do required subs

That is how ESO started out; pc only. Sony wanted it on ps4, and ZOS gave in.

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Iluvrien wrote: »

xbobx wrote: »

makes me wonder if people remember that the game failed as a subscription only model.

Prove it. And while you're at it... define "failed" in concrete numerical terms.

It had less than 1000 concurrent players on Steam, dropping to as low as 500 in November 2014.

Servers would have been shut down after one year if the game didn't go B2P.

ESO was not even available on Steam till end of July 2014.So Nov 2014 was only 3 months after available. Most players interested in ESO were already playing for 4 months and Steam represents a small percentage of the population.
As someone who was here, watching ESO-Live every two weeks, keeping up with dev interviews, news articles & up-dates since fall of 2012, I wish to reiterate what MANY have stated......
ESO STOPPED SUBS FOR CONSOLES! Not because it was dying!! ZoS had 5 million applications just for Beta Keys.
Yes, it had a rocky start. Who played WoW in 2004? It had TONS of issues at launch too!
But sadly no, subs can never come back.... FYI. Consoles were a after thought for ESO. Development for ESO started BEFORE Skyrim was even launched! No MMO's on consoles then...
Just my 2 drakes....:)

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Iluvrien wrote: »

xbobx wrote: »

makes me wonder if people remember that the game failed as a subscription only model.

Prove it. And while you're at it... define "failed" in concrete numerical terms.

It had less than 1000 concurrent players on Steam, dropping to as low as 500 in November 2014.

Servers would have been shut down after one year if the game didn't go B2P.

ESO was not even available on Steam till end of July 2014.So Nov 2014 was only 3 months after available. As someone who was here, watching ESO-Live every two weeks, keeping up with dev interviews, news articles & up-dates since fall of 2012, I wish to reiterate what MANY have stated......
ESO STOPPED SUBS FOR CONSOLES! Not because it was dying!! ZoS had 5 million applications just for Beta Keys.
Yes, it had a rocky start. Who played WoW in 2004? It had TONS of issues at launch too!
But sadly no, subs can never come back.... FYI. Consoles were a after thought for ESO. Development for ESO started BEFORE Skyrim was even launched! No MMO's on consoles then...
Just my 2 drakes....:)

The only reason they expanded to consoles was because the game was bleeding money on PC. 500 concurrent players on Steam is insanely low for such a popular IP (and the population was dropping every month from launch).

Console release and B2P model are the only reasons this game still exists.

That's an impressive move by ZOS...

I mean after all, if console release was due to them bleeding subs... and they announced console release before ESO launched on the PC (announcement from 6th October 2013) then they must have known that they were going to bleed subs before anyone had even subbed.

The proof is in, @MLGProPlayer has demonstrably proven that ZOS can see the future!

Or... maybe just maybe... ZOS had planned to release on Consoles but couldn't get MS and Sony to waive the double dipping on sub fees and so killed the sub. For consoles.