The reason we sub or buy DLCs is for the content. The cash shop subsidizes running the game and returning a profit.

So the answer for all of us is yes because we already do.

If the real purpose of this it to look at reducing the reliance on the cash shop, then the question should be, are we willing to pay 3 or 4 times as much as we do now to have less effort put into the cash shop? We are paying what subscriptions cost over a decade ago and inflation has wreaked havoc since then. But that comes down to a business decision where Zenimax already knows we are not willing to pay that much.

Edit after I started watching the video.

I started watching the video but stopped after it was clear the person did not know what they were talking about and are probably just drumming up controversy to bring in viewers and money. Their example of using ESO is from the launch, the first year, but it is assumed ESO experienced a near-fatal loss then, but they are just assuming.

Considering the only information we have access to that shows what is happening is Steam Charts and that information shows Zenimax has been growing year over year after removing the two years of boost and subsequent decline related to Covid. While Steam info is limited, it is unbiased and shows that the person in the video does not know what is happening. Heck, FF is probably the only game they are correct about.

I'm already subscribed, but I suspect if ESO+ was made a requirement, fewer people would play it. I think we have a good balance now. The crown store is there for people who enjoy shiny things, but there's really nothing in there that people need.

So this isn't me defending ZOS, but rather challenging that content creator's representation of data & how he is pushing his own agenda, likely for reasons Amottica stated.

I won't attempt to insult the credibility of his data that he posts in the beginning, but he is lacking a lot of perspective when it comes to what people type into search engines.. and the conclusions he draws are wild. I challenge any of you to find people who type in The Elder Scrolls Online Video Game Guide for Dragon Knight Builds for Player Versus Player Scenarios in The Imperial City, The Elder Scroll Online Best Oakensoul Build For Damage Per Second Sorcerors in Player Versus Environment, or The Elder Scrolls Online Trial Guide for Veteran Sunspire.

here is his same range for data as it pertains to google search results (the same resource he uses) with ESO vs The Elder Scrolls Online (as used in a search engine) - feel free to compare it against his video






you can do the same thing with bdo vs black desert online and get wildly different results (mostly in amplitude), for most games you'll notice the amplitude being wildly different in using abbreviated form vs their long form. In the case of ESO vs The Elder Scrolls Online, the trends only slightly overlap, but amplitude/amount is extremely different, with ESO showing ~75% on feb 12, 2016 ~70% in 10/12/2022, with many ups and downs (this was edited, if you do another more recent data pull it will show a higher difference, but it's not as bad as the 50% gap the video would have you believe)

The video creator limited his data for ESO, either intentionally or unintentionally, and he did so in a serious manner. His data would have people believing the game is dying when that is not a logical conclusion that someone could use to support the case with the data presented as it should be.

We are unlikely to get any actual numbers, people try to glean "interest in ESO" out of steam metrics but that's just a representative sample from an audience who bought it through, or transferred to steam, but it's all anyone really has access to (though it may be inaccurate in describing big picture scenarios)

Yes, it's also important to say that other things share the ESO acronym, but ESO is mostly used to refer to The Elder Scrolls Online video game- the same way people may look up stock price of Wild Open West as WOW, more people are using WOW to look up world of warcraft.

He could stick with facts, but he used the format to share his point about what he thinks all games should be doing better.

Fact - The pandemic caused a spike in "interest" in MMO games, many of which have less players now than a couple years ago
Fact - ESO is no longer top 20 played on steam, it's in 67th (at the time of this post)
Fact - ESO wasn't nominated for any rewards at the People's Gaming Award ceremony, FF14 did (to be fair, this was awarded a month after the video upload)
Fact - Less people are streaming ESO on twitch and yt than before U35, which (opinion? fact? you decide) does lead to less free advertising for the game and less new players through these platforms

Instead of using these points, he pulled statistics off of google trends and shared them the manner he did to try and prove a trend between different games/gaming companies, while not bringing this data up again throughout the video and comparing each MMO in generalizable terms to FF14. That combined with his advertisement in the description of his video makes me wonder a few things.

Dr_Con wrote: »

So this isn't me defending ZOS, but rather challenging that content creator's representation of data & how he is pushing his own agenda, likely for reasons Amottica stated.

I won't attempt to insult the credibility of his data, but he is lacking a lot of perspective when it comes to what people type into search engines. I challenge any of you to find people who type in The Elder Scrolls Online Video Game Guide for Dragon Knight Builds for Player Versus Player Scenarios in The Imperial City, The Elder Scroll Online Best Oakensoul Build For Damage Per Second Sorcerors in Player Versus Environment, or The Elder Scrolls Online Trial Guide for Veteran Sunspire.

here is his same range for data as it pertains to google search results (the same resource he uses) with ESO vs The Elder Scrolls Online (as used in a search engine) - feel free to compare it against his video






you can do the same thing with bdo vs black desert online and get wildly different results (mostly in amplitude), for most games you'll notice the amplitude being wildly different in using abbreviated form vs their long form. In the case of ESO vs The Elder Scrolls Online, the trends only slightly overlap, but amplitude/amount is extremely different, with ESO showing ~75% on feb 12, 2016 ~70% in 10/12/2022, with many ups and downs (this was edited, if you do another more recent data pull it will show a higher difference, but it's not as bad as the 50% gap the video would have you believe)

The video creator limited his data for ESO, either intentionally or unintentionally, and he did so in a serious manner. His data would have people believing the game is dying when that is not a logical conclusion that someone could use to support the case with the data presented as it should be

Wow. It looks like you delved deep. It is important to use comparable data.

Elsonso wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I started watching the video but stopped after it was clear the person did not know what they were talking about and are probably just drumming up controversy to bring in viewers and money. Their example of using ESO is from the launch, the first year, but it is assumed ESO experienced a near-fatal loss then, but they are just assuming.

Considering the only information we have access to that shows what is happening is Steam Charts and that information shows Zenimax has been growing year over year after removing the two years of boost and subsequent decline related to Covid. While Steam info is limited, it is unbiased and shows that the person in the video does not know what is happening. Heck, FF is probably the only game they are correct about.

Hmm. Well, the video was made by an ESO Stream Team member. (edit: not a Stream Team Partner) He streams ESO and WoW.

As for the graphs, I would take all that with a grain of salt. That includes the stuff posted above. Relative to the entire game population, all of it is an estimate.

I do not see how being an ESO Stream Team member has anything to do with it. It does not give them more insight into ESO than the rest of us. Their opinions are equal to ours, and pieces like this are intended to drum up interest.

Even then, there is other data more connected to the game than what that streamer uses that shows a much different trend with ESO since 2015, which suggests that it should be taken with a large grain of salt.

I think the search trends approach can be somewhat inaccurate as it can reflect other things such as press coverage rather than the amount of people actually playing.

Personally, I tried ESO's beta and I decided to pass on getting the game because I didn't like the design approach enough to be worth paying the sub.

I don't think my position has really changed.

ESO is enough fun I'll dump $40-$60 if I like the expansion or spend $40-60 every few years to catch up but, it's not spend $100+ per year. (Realistically, the price would likely need to go up because getting a few more subs may not cover the reduction in whale spending if you did cuts to the crown store.)

For many parts of the game, ESO's design and what I wish the game was clash pretty dramatically so that simply having better quality isn't really going to make it that great for me.

I'm subbed because I like the game and want the additional perks of the subscription. It doesn't matter to me what is in the crown store, I'll remain subbed as long as I still play/ can afford to be subbed.

Also at this point it would be incredibly unfair of those who maybe can't afford a subscription/ are unwilling to pay one to essentially not let them play anymore all in the name of "better content ".

Elsonso wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I started watching the video but stopped after it was clear the person did not know what they were talking about and are probably just drumming up controversy to bring in viewers and money. Their example of using ESO is from the launch, the first year, but it is assumed ESO experienced a near-fatal loss then, but they are just assuming.

Considering the only information we have access to that shows what is happening is Steam Charts and that information shows Zenimax has been growing year over year after removing the two years of boost and subsequent decline related to Covid. While Steam info is limited, it is unbiased and shows that the person in the video does not know what is happening. Heck, FF is probably the only game they are correct about.

Hmm. Well, the video was made by an ESO Stream Team member. (edit: not a Stream Team Partner) He streams ESO and WoW.

As for the graphs, I would take all that with a grain of salt. That includes the stuff posted above. Relative to the entire game population, all of it is an estimate.

I do not see how being an ESO Stream Team member has anything to do with it. It does not give them more insight into ESO than the rest of us. Their opinions are equal to ours, and pieces like this are intended to drum up interest.

Even then, there is other data more connected to the game than what that streamer uses that shows a much different trend with ESO since 2015, which suggests that it should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Your comment sort of suggested that you were thinking along the lines that the person who made the video was unfamiliar with ESO. My comment was to address that without putting words in your mouth that might have been incorrect.

And you are. They play ESO so they are familiar, but they lack real numbers and are using other information to infer things but do not know if they correlate. One of the posters here, via doing their own research using the same tools as the streamer, pointed out that the data the streamer used is questionable due to slight differences in searches bringing different results. Note, I am not saying that the streamer purposely massaged the data.

Further, that streamer is ignoring other effects. Zenimax announced the change to their monetization about the same time they announced a year-long drought of new meaningful content so they could prepare for the console releases. The streamer does not take this into account and assumes the change in monetization is due to a drop in players rather than the drop in players is due to players knowing they would not receive any new content for a year. They have no basis of actually knowing what they are suggesting or they would have likely noted it.

Of course, the other inference, which I started to note above,m that could be made concerning the changes, and is more likely the case, is very few games have been able to generate enough revenue via a pay-to-play model (subscription required) and opted for the mixed B2P/P2P model we have today. While at the same time, going a year without any meaningful content, it makes sense that many players would leave the game. This, coupled with every new game I have played, sees a drop in players in the early months as many are just checking it out.

Of course, I am hypothesizing in this last paragraph here and readily admit it Unlike the streamer, I am taking the full picture into account.

Anyhow, I am sure we are all full of opinions to which I have clearly stated mine with historical reference. I expect we can debate this all week long but will avoid that pitfall. Have a good day.

Speaking from myself, no, I wouldn’t play game with required subscription as it puts additional obligations and feeling of lost value of money in case you aren’t playing enough. For that reason I would never give ff14 a go, as I would prefer to log in at least occasionally on busier months without committing a sub.

Even if ESO would adapt sub based model like was mentioned where all the cosmetics released over the years would go? You can’t just give them away as others payed for them nor you can’t just make them completely unobtainable and if they stay the way they are nothing would change. I am also not so sure it would result in better quality of content.

I’m not sure this would work well at all tbh. It would be more logical conclusion if video presented an MMO who went from b2p to sub to play and thrive, but are there any examples of something like that? Because it might be just as likely to put a thriving game in grave by paywalling existing population and failing to attract the new audience.

Non-subscribers still pay for new releases, if you're not subscribing you have to pay for new DLC to be able to play it, and of course everyone has to pay for chapters. If ZOS are not making enough money from that to be able to fund the releases they want to make then it's up to them to correct the prices, or make more appealing DLC.

I would be willing to pay more than I currently do. I'm not interested enough in dungeons to buy them, so in recent years I've only been getting the chapters and story DLC and lately they've been giving away the story DLC, so I'm down to just buying 1 chapter a year (plus crowns for other things, but that's a seperate discussion).

But like any product I want to know what I'm buying before I pay for it. If ZOS make a DLC that's more than a couple of dungeon paths and sell it in the crown store I'll buy it. But I'm not going to start giving them money every month because I imagine that they'll then change their entire development plan to start making the kind of DLC I want to play. More likely they'd take it as a sign that what they're already doing is working and they should stick to it. (Most likely they wouldn't notice 1 additional subscription at all.)

I'd continue to sub regardless, because I don't have any issues in relation to the content or Crown Store in the way mentioned by the OP. However, I do now only subscribe to one account opened last year rather than the original two accounts I ran from launch because I abandoned those as a result of the characters' development and progress being totally messed up through the achievement changes.

I'm not sure I understand the premise. People already subscribe to ESO plus. Why would subscribing suddenly change the nature of the game.

On a compulsory subscription model, it is unlikely the game would attract more players, not least because the way the game is at the moment the new player experience is very offputting and does not immediately scream "pay me monthly forever more". The very opposite, in fact.

karthrag_inak wrote: »

ooo, is this another "ESO is doomed - I saw it on yubtub!" thread? Goody! Let khajiit get his galoshes.

What it is supposed to be is a I want to see ESO thrive and conquer ... it didn't go over like I was hoping.

Amottica wrote: »

Further, that streamer is ignoring other effects. Zenimax announced the change to their monetization about the same time they announced a year-long drought of new meaningful content so they could prepare for the console releases. The streamer does not take this into account and assumes the change in monetization is due to a drop in players rather than the drop in players is due to players knowing they would not receive any new content for a year. They have no basis of actually knowing what they are suggesting or they would have likely noted it.

Possibly. There is old information about the early days of ESO that has been relayed from developers. This came up when Robert Altman died and we found out that ESO was apparently at the junction of "bail now" or "give them a chance" and Altman decided to give the game a chance.

ZOS never tells us the whole story. They tell us what they want us to know and we have to assemble the rest. We now have an idea of how much trouble ESO was in before the first year even ended. We now know that they had major things in mind that would take many months to complete. We did not know this back in early 2015 and into 2016. We lacked the perspective to understand what was happening, so whatever ZOS said was good enough.

While the drought of content included console release, we now know that it was not all about console release. As important as console might have been, it clearly wasn't the only important thing they had going on during that time. They had a second lease on life, and an MMO to save, and that was at least as important as console release.

They did a decent job. Took that string that Altman handed them and ran with it. Sadly, in doing so, they started the slow transition from game with cash shop to cash shop with game.