Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
ESO will be P2P
Rhazmuz
Member UncommonPosts: 208
What do you guys think? Is it a dealbreaker for you, are you happy there will be no cash shop?
Comments
Actually yes, that is a major deal breaker, I couldn't afford it even if I wanted to at this time. I would have happily purchased the game as a B2P game, but paying a monthly fee of $15 is crazy. I really don't even understand how they can expect their console players to pay a monthly fee for console and a game on top of that. They are going to be losing a lot of customers with this model I think.
To those who can afford it, awesome! Hope you all enjoy the game. I will not waste my money, because i know they will end up switching models eventually anyway.
Lol well there goes any chance they had left.
Seriously, that's like asking people to pay monthly for guild wars 2. No justification.
Played-Everything
Playing-LoL
BTP is the only model i would accept for ESO....oh well i´ll stick to my beloved GW2.
Still having a blast there anyway.
No, all their other games where BUY to play smart person. Pay to play means monthly fees. Skyrim was a one time fee, not monthly. >.>
those were "buy to play". there was no "pay to play" monthly sub.
It is probably going to be a shock to most, but eventually it will be just taken for granted that if you want to play an MMO whatever platform you are using, you will have to pay a fee of some sort along the way, whether its F2P or not. If people want these games then their just going to have to accept that at some point, you actually have to pay for them. Personally i think the payment model for this game is the least of its problems.
I think its going to be a really hard sell to the consolers..
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
What do you mean? That you had to pay for DLC or?
Skyrim and previous ES games where B2P, big difference to P2P where you pay a monthly fee to keep the ability to play them game.
Personally I would have preferred a B2P system similar to that of TSW, with a cash shop with more or less only cosmetic items.
I will prob get the game, and depending on how the first month pans out will evaluate if I will keep the sub. At least it isnt a flat 15 dollars/euros/pounds but adaptive to the strength of the currency.
It is a dealbreaker. And I have to ask wtf is going on?!
More and more games are essentially offering the same things as standard AAA MMOs, for a fraction of the cost (no sub). The most recent example being GW2, but it's hardly the only one.
When I saw that FFXIV was going sub, I had to laugh, but I understood that they may not have had a choice, given how much money they've already lost on the game. Then WildStar came out with a sub model (albeit they're trying to pad that by allowing players to pay for it w/ ingame gold, which could work if implemented well). Now we have ESO also being P2P.
I wouldn't be surprised if the producers for these games think that a sub will make them retain players (and revenue) better. History shows the exact opposite to be true. Having 3 major games out at around the same time is going to hurt ALL 3 games to varying degrees. People have too many games nowadays, and few are willing to spend 45$ a month to play all 3. It's just not going to happen.
R.I.P. and I hope they change their mind.
It will be interesting to see how the console crowd reacts to this. I wonder how big a playerbase from consoles Zenimax has projected/calculated with, and what kind of research they have done to get this number.
Another? Yeash....
WOOT! I am so glad the games aren't biting immediately on to the cheap "B2P with milking cash shop" deal that GW2 seemed to start. Granted its not to hard to tell, most are likely expecting to swap to F2P after some time being released as an extra 'reinvigorating' move that a lot of games have done already.
So long as there is ample 'trial' I really feel F2P isn't a required option. As soon as you get a cash shop, it becomes about nickel and diming the hardcore player to such a great extent, or exploiting people's gambling habits to play your game. While there are games that did a pretty good job on F2P (Aion or Tera, granted both have that moderate 'gambling' thing mixed in which makes me annoyed... but none the less) I just don't see it being refined enough to really eliminate the cash shop 'advantage' which they feel needing to get people to play, while B2P is unfortunately around with Cash shops as bad as many completely F2P ones, just with the added box cost on top.
Added to the Wildstar P2P announcement, I'm kind of stunned, considering the apparent trend to go FTP. I prefer P2P, for a number of reasons, so this news is good to me. But I'm wondering whether it is a mistake not to include some level of free access, even if severely limited.
I do believe, however, that Carbine and Zenimax are well aware of the potential for their sub model to fail in significant retention of players; that they have a fallback plan in place; and that that plan is not necessarily a worst case scenario but rather another opportunity to 'relaunch' their game for further profits and stronger long-term viability. Regardless of the possibility of transitioning to FTP or not, the initial influx of revenue from game sales and subs is, at least in the publishers' and developers' views, probably a no-brainer.
well yeah:) dlc as sub almost same. but i think P2P is best choice. game is after all open world pvp, we dont want cash shop here to pay to win or players look like clowns in world with cosmetic gear.
well yeah:) dlc as sub almost same.
no its not! lol
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
If the game turns out to be good then this will be an awesome thing
but i cant see it being any good so it wont matter either way..
Sub games are the future..
Final Fantasy, Wildstar, and now Elder Scrolls, all going to be P2P. I'm glad to see we'll finally be getting some quality MMO games and not the cash shop garbage F2P MMO #283 cranked out this month.
Very happy major MMO's are going back to subscription/quality model.
P2P is the model to go with, no doubt. But it has to justify it with replay value that your paying for. ESO will need to whip something out of no where, because as of now people have no clue what they're paying for. There is no end game tier content, the best gear is gotten through crafting. So whatever replay value people are paying for is still unknown, and if it stays unknown this game will not last long P2P.
Played-Everything
Playing-LoL
You cannot compare a sinple player game to a MMORPG.. of course single player games dont have subs.. but your right that guy was wrong..
An mmorpg should be sub based without any silly cash shops.. access to all the content without paying extra.. then every now and then you get a nice big exp pack that you pay for.. the old ways always worked well and produced a lot of good games.. since the advent of this f2p junk we have hardly had 1 good mmorpg,,
Not saying ESO will be good we ahve to wait and see..
This. Of course to maximize revenues almost any AAA MMO is going to follow the above pattern, they get the best of all worlds, initial influx of box sales, steady but decreasing income for a period of time, at least 6 months and perhaps several years. Then they can flip the model and try to extract revenue from the whales and finally the nickel and dime F2P market.Sure, there's a few outliers such as GW2 or EQN but those titles are somewhat cripplewear because of this and lacking in features commonly expected of AAA MMOs, (such as including meaningful character progression) and I realize its all conjecture with EQN, but then again, when was the last time SOE did anything right in the MMO space?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I hate P2P models. Unless a game offers something extremely good and different, I don't feel it's worth it. As it stands, a subscription to console would be about $60 per year. Chances are the game itself will cost at least $50. That equals $110. Then add on the sub fee of $180 with out discount that is $290, just to play the game one year for console players.
The best gear coming from crafting does not necessarily mean there is no end game content.