Absolutely. I prefer a "real sub" model. I subbed 7 accounts in WoW from early 2006 until early 2013, and 5 accounts in RIFT from mid 2013 until late 2016. I would love to have a return to the subscription model here.

Emphatic yes. Add in active GMs and actual on demand support.

Sadly it's become obvious in recent years across the entire industry which model generates the most revenue with the least risk.

ssewallb14_ESO wrote: »

Emphatic yes. Add in active GMs and actual on demand support.

Sadly it's become obvious in recent years across the entire industry which model generates the most revenue with the least risk.

What can GM and on demand support do?

merpins wrote: »

ssewallb14_ESO wrote: »

Emphatic yes. Add in active GMs and actual on demand support.

Sadly it's become obvious in recent years across the entire industry which model generates the most revenue with the least risk.

True, but it's not long term sustainable. Games like ESO have been bleeding players for years, with only final fantasy 14 and Old School Runescape. Both of which follow the sub model, and still increase in players rather than decrease over time.

I might be wrong because I'm permasubbed to XIV but I'm pretty sure it's free up until Stormblood which is a lot of content. And it doesn't inflict a manufactured issue on players and offer a paid solution for it. I tried to lure plenty of people into playing ESO as well but almost all of them were discouraged by the whole ESO+ or have fun without a crafting bag - same goes with housing enthusiasts who were happy to have instanced houses at first (the lack of housing slots was an issue in XIV at the time) but were turned off by the "ESO+ or half the furnishing" thing, on top of the nightmare that is crafting furnishing without the crafting bag.
That being said I have ESO+ and I'm subbed to XIV so I don't really have a preference for myself because it doesn't affect me. From an overall perspective though XIV's model is better, retention is higher even after the free content is exhausted and there are no artificial problems with a solution for sale.

i already pay for eso plus so i would probably keep playing.

but i would not like it if eso returned to subscribe to play, because i know lots of people can't afford to also subscribe to eso plus.

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I would not have started ESO if had to sub. I have subbed for many years after joining, though.

I propose a 30-90 day period where you try ESO and if you like it, you then have to sub after the window closes.

Not a bad idea.

If they switched back to a subscription model, I wouldn't play ESO...
...because there would be no legal way to pay for sub for me. Same as I can't buy ESO+ for almost two years, because all direct ways are closed for country where I live. And any "grey" ways are not only expensive (with prices itself already high), but it's also always a risk to be banned.

No.

I tried ESO in Beta and passed on it because I didn't feel I liked it enough to justify paying for the sub and the box.

I got the game with a group of friends after the game left the sub model. All of them ended up quitting a few months later and most never came back.

To get me to sub to a game for any extended period of time, you need to have either a steady stream of content that I enjoy, highly re-playable content, or content where I have a good experience interacting with other players.

ESO's content for me is really hit or miss and releases rarely keep me busy for more than a few weeks.

Most of ESO's content doesn't really have the level of replay-ability of the other games in the series for me.

While the players in ESO are nicer on average than in many of the other games I've played the experience in PvP and Group PvE frequently is rather bad.

I mean, if it was like how you say and I'd still be able to play my characters, then perhaps, but I feel at this point I'd just see about playing the 'free' version anyways, depending. I've already long since stopped my ESO+ for many reasons, but I can see where people are coming from though that it'd (should) mean that focus would be on the game as a whole, not how to make the most money off the crown store while doing completely shoddy work everywhere else. That said though, I wouldn't like losing acsess to what I'd have already paid for, which is all the DLCs and expansions (minus Gold Road), for any reason at all, not even if they doubled my sub time for free per the cost and time I'd have got normally

But if they changed to sub but kept up what they are doing now, not a hope in hell.

I understand where you're coming from, but here's the thing about the ESO cash shop.

"There's nothing in it."

Really, you get a mount you like, a nice outfit or style, a house, a handful of cosmetics, and then what the heck do you buy? Are you just spending endless crowns on endless cosmetics? Why? I also do not understand crown crates. 99% of them are chaff. The radiant apex mounts all look awful and out of place. Endeavours can get you a nice hairstyle our 3600k level mount which usually look the best anyway, then what?

By the third six month subscription I just started buying DLCs when they were on sale cause there is nothing in the crown store.

If someone wants to support the game by spending thousands on crown crates, go for it. By this is one of the few MMOs that has a cash shop that can be completely ignored at all times.

If a game is using the "buy-&-have-a-mandatory-subscription-to-play" format, then it is not something that I'm interested in.

This would also be problematic for many console players, since they already have to have an ongoing subscription (PlayStation Plus, XBOX Game Pass) to play online games.

merpins wrote: »

They switched back to a subscription model. Let's go over specifics:
Base game is free to level 50, no CP (capped at 50 with restrictions on making guilds and trading in some way to prevent free storage alt accounts). Base game classes come unlocked.
15 a month unlocks the cp and guild making restrictions, includes eso plus, and the newest DLC areas.

Extra classes are bought from the cash shop. If you bought DLC within the last 2 or 3 years, you're compensated in some way (crown gems, or a number of months of sub service possibly through a useable coupon, plus some kind of cosmetic reward like the dwarven sphere pet). If you stop paying, it locks you out of DLC areas, but doesn't lock you from playing characters above level 50 (just from accumulating exp on them and gaining the benefits of CP other than gear. or increase the level cap to 60 or 70 before CP, and those levels are what is locked, not CP you already have. Something like that).
Along with this, they'd remove the majority of cosmetics from the cash shop (including the crown crates), and incorporate them into the game, both retrospectively into old content and into new content.
I'm not sure if it would be legal to do it, what with owning DLC already being a precedent in game. But it it was legal. Hypothetically.
I'd imagine a lot of people will say "no." But I would, totally.

1) 15 what per month? I assume since you didn't bother to specify you mean American dollars, but when you're talking to an international audience it's important to be specific. £15 is 19 USD, 15$ Canadian is 11USD, 15$ Australian is 8USD etc. so "15 a month" could be a much better or much worse deal than the current subscription prices depending on who you're talking to. (FYI ZOS does do regional pricing, for some regions, because of this.)

2) That sounds like a worse arrangement than subscribers have now. Why would anyone want to switch to that when they currently get access to everything except the latest chapter and crowns to spend on extra stuff from the store?

Especially when the 'compensation' you're proposing is for people who bought DLC - so non-subscribers would get compensated and most regular subscribers (who have no reason to buy DLC because they've already got it as part of their subscription) get nothing. (Personally I'd argue the 'compensation' for having already bought DLC should be getting to keep it, otherwise it's changing the terms of the sale after the fact which is pretty much a scam.)

I know you said you would do it, but I really don't understand how any part of that is supposed to be appealing to players.

merpins wrote: »

ssewallb14_ESO wrote: »

merpins wrote: »

ssewallb14_ESO wrote: »

Emphatic yes. Add in active GMs and actual on demand support.

Sadly it's become obvious in recent years across the entire industry which model generates the most revenue with the least risk.

True, but it's not long term sustainable. Games like ESO have been bleeding players for years, with only final fantasy 14 and Old School Runescape not bleeding players. Both of which follow the sub model, and still increase in players rather than decrease over time. With a sub service, you're buying access to the game and constantly giving revenue to the company, and if the cash shop isn't the main factor for revenue, then they have to deliver good content to keep players. This is why FFIV is still successful and gaining players, unlike other MMOs that don't use this method. ESO's optional sub service gives crowns, which incentivizes Zos to put all good cosmetics in the cash shop for their paying players, and not in the game since even non-paying players would be able to access it. If the entire model is a sub service, then making it available in the game incentivizes players to play more, and thus keep subbing, possibly for even longer if it takes time to earn the cosmetics.

I understand. The thing is there's a risk factor here. Something like U35 could've tanked ZoS with a sub model. In fact I doubt they would've survived the 2014-2016 period where the game was a mess and no one had any idea what they were doing. Cash shop games don't have to be great, just good enough. That's why it's a popular model.

Is it sustainable, idk. I'm not seeing many sub games right now though, so apparently the companies think it's profitable.

It is profitable in the short term. Relying on whales has proven to be a very sound business model, but it only lasts while there are whales to spend money on the game. Which has also proved to not be forever. but for long term, the graphs and charts do not lie. Not being able to earn cosmetics in game, and not having a way to try the game before buying, is proving to be a slow burn that causes players to quit over time, while the sub model is also proving to be a slow burn... But with constant increase rather than decrease. Of course the sample size isn't huge. And it may well have died during its initial period if it stayed a sub service. But in its current state, I think a sub service would be better for the longevity of the game.

What's your definition of short term and long term here?

ESO started off as subscription only with no cash shop or paid expansions - the deal was you pay your subscription and that gets you access to everything in the game. It lasted less than a year before they had to come up with something else, or close the game down. Now we're coming up on the 10th anniversary - roughly 11 months subscription only and 109 months buy-to-play with an optional subscription.

For another example there's Guild Wars 2 which has never had even an optional subscription, it's purely run on buy-to-play and cash shop, and that's been going for over 11 years now, with regular updates and 4 expansions.

According to Wikipedia's list of MMORPGs (which you can sort by release year) many of the oldest games still online are either free-to-play or use some sort of mixed payment model. If you have other data I'd love to see it, especially those graphs and charts you mentioned because this is something I find very interesting.