I am a big fan of P2P, always have been and always will.
Thing is, Zeni has already gone back on what they've stated in the past with "core" values so I am thinking if they have no problem doing that and also pay gating a race then why wouldn't they think of doing F2P after they start bleeding subs. This is inevitable for most themeparks post-WoW it seems.
They will sell a lot of boxes because people think they are getting a fresh MMO, after all the dust settles the bleeding will start. After that, depending on the numbers, it can keep P2P but if it's not lucrative as initially thought then here comes F2P with a chance to sub where you get monthly "Tamriel Coins" to spend in the cash shop.
About the race thing. I just don't get the problem with it.
People seem to GLADLY pay WoW $25 a pop for a mount or $10 for a pet that you CANNOT get in game...yet you rarely hear that it's bad...AND WOW IS STILL A SUB model. I know, WoW is normally the exception to the rules, but I do feel the argument is relevant here. TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS FOR A MOUNT...AND THAT'S ALL YOU GET.
Now THAT is absurd to me.
Collector's edition that has a human looking race with no major benefits over the other races...not a huge fan, but also not a huge deal in the context of what games like WoW do.
Dunno. People don't whine and complain that the latest Call of Duty isn't free. They don't demand a month free trial to test it first to make sure it's decent before dropping money on it (and yet most P2P MMOs happily provide this.) People seem to want a game that will keep them occupied longer than Call of Duty, and provide constant content updates and included expansions (that a single player game will not,) but for some silly reason are unwilling to actually pay the same price they would for that single player FPS (or whatever other game we're referring to.) Obviously that $15 is going to continued development as well, so it's not like it's not going to the game you play and expanding it.
Excellent point!
"I don't give a sh*t what other people say. I play what I like and I'll pay to do it too!" - SerialMMOist
I am a big fan of P2P, always have been and always will.
Thing is, Zeni has already gone back on what they've stated in the past with "core" values so I am thinking if they have no problem doing that and also pay gating a race then why wouldn't they think of doing F2P after they start bleeding subs. This is inevitable for most themeparks post-WoW it seems.
They will sell a lot of boxes because people think they are getting a fresh MMO, after all the dust settles the bleeding will start. After that, depending on the numbers, it can keep P2P but if it's not lucrative as initially thought then here comes F2P with a chance to sub where you get monthly "Tamriel Coins" to spend in the cash shop.
this is my big worry right now as well, to be honest i kinda didnt like the races being restrained by faction to begin with. but the fat that they put so much focus into it and told us time and agian that this had a purpose, and then threw the whole thing out the window leaves me hesitant.
it make me wonder alot whether or not they planned it that way or they did it due to fans complaining about it.
ether way im very much on the fence and unless most of my friends actully decide to get the game pre ordered i prob will wait several months after launch to see what is happening befor i join in if even then
I have nothing to back this up, but I'd guess it was the publisher/marketing that forced the change.
I only hope they make the general races unlocked after post-launch players get a character to X level or complete X requirements. I don't think everyone after launch should be locked on what race they can play based on their alliance since they are allowing pre-order players the freedom of choice in that regard.
Originally posted by Otakun Donno why people who are P2P enthusiasts keep posting P2P vs F2P arguments here on MMORPG.com. It's been proven many times that this site's community prefers P2P and that any logical pro-F2P argument will get run over by anti-F2P lies and opinion. If you want an actual discussion on the topic then you should go to a site forum that has a more F2P stance but that's not what you want, is it? You just want people to boast your already fragile opinion on the topic.
If you have something to contribute to this topic please do, if not well that's regrettable but your opinion is noted I guess.
We've seen many people, and even reviewers, complain about the P2P model in ESO.
I have my own opinion on this as well. And I simply don't understand the people who really believes this game should not be P2P. I find this quite interesting for some reason, to me as far as I've seen this game is quite "complete". There are different reasons possible so I've been wondering the following question and would like to hear people's opinions on this.
Why exactly should this game be F2P and not P2P, please state concrete arguments relevant to this game. If it's not relevant to this game but rather a general principle please also state it.
If it's because you simply do not like the game (for example action style combat, no tab targetting etc), which is an important detail, also state it. I think everyone can fall in this category. I mean if you don't like something that is an essential feature you obviously would want it to be free so you can still check it out without engagement.
People who don't feel this game should be P2P please also state what would change your mind. This is what I would find most interesting :-)
If you do want this to be P2P, feel free to do the same.
I hope it stays P2P. F2P games bring an annoying crowd and kills the game for me.
I am a big fan of P2P, always have been and always will.
Thing is, Zeni has already gone back on what they've stated in the past with "core" values so I am thinking if they have no problem doing that and also pay gating a race then why wouldn't they think of doing F2P after they start bleeding subs. This is inevitable for most themeparks post-WoW it seems.
They will sell a lot of boxes because people think they are getting a fresh MMO, after all the dust settles the bleeding will start. After that, depending on the numbers, it can keep P2P but if it's not lucrative as initially thought then here comes F2P with a chance to sub where you get monthly "Tamriel Coins" to spend in the cash shop.
this is my big worry right now as well, to be honest i kinda didnt like the races being restrained by faction to begin with. but the fat that they put so much focus into it and told us time and agian that this had a purpose, and then threw the whole thing out the window leaves me hesitant.
it make me wonder alot whether or not they planned it that way or they did it due to fans complaining about it.
ether way im very much on the fence and unless most of my friends actully decide to get the game pre ordered i prob will wait several months after launch to see what is happening befor i join in if even then
I have nothing to back this up, but I'd guess it was the publisher/marketing that forced the change.
I only hope they make the general races unlocked after post-launch players get a character to X level or complete X requirements. I don't think everyone after launch should be locked on what race they can play based on their alliance since they are allowing pre-order players the freedom of choice in that regard.
You should read some answers on ESO site. They stated firmly, it is not going to happen.
I have nothing to back this up, but I'd guess it was the publisher/marketing that forced the change.
I only hope they make the general races unlocked after post-launch players get a character to X level or complete X requirements. I don't think everyone after launch should be locked on what race they can play based on their alliance since they are allowing pre-order players the freedom of choice in that regard.
You should read some answers on ESO site. They stated firmly, it is not going to happen.
Oh well, sucks to be those that don't pre-order then?
Not the end of the world. Most games have race/faction locks. I'd prefer it to be open, but meh.
None the less, can you link this? I haven't seen it mentioned that they will never allow players after launch to choose race/faction freely.
Originally posted by eric1000 I'm happy that it's P2P and long may it stay so. I'm tired of the F2P crowd that plague other MMO's. It is no secret that there are no good MMO communities anymore and I feel that F2P games are a major contributing factor to that. If you don't pay to play a game you have no real connection to it.
How does paying a monthly fee make someone a morally nicer person? I fail to see that logic, it's just more propaganda spewed out by the "P2P nazi's". I don't see how paying for a game keeps me connected to it, I've paid subs for a few games that I've only dipped my head in once or twice before deciding a particular game is not for me... it's the game that has to keep me engaged not the money I pay for it.
As for F2P genuine pro's, here's a few:
1/ Larger ingame population, a natural deathbed for P2P games is the lack/decline in population. F2P games don't suffer this issue and can keep a game populated for years.
2/ Greater earning potential, recent earnings reports show the F2P market is strong and continuing to climb while subscription and other digital markets are falling.
3/ Flexibility for the player, pay for what you want/what you think the developers deserve. You aren't paying $15 a month to do say PvE content when all the development is being pushed to PvP or vice versa.In most cases you can literally vote with your wallet without giving the game up entirely.
4/ Easier for friends to get into the game/ get involved. You can literally just chuck someone a link and say check this game out instead of having to rely on friends to have enough cash in order to play a video game together.
5/ Times are tough, people seem to forget the state of the world's economy and that excuses like "it's only the cost of a pizza" are rather lame. I'm sure most people would end up pretty broke if they approached life with that metaphor. Companies actually need to realize that most people are probably already getting gouged to their eyeballs with other bills and a more flexible payment model like F2P would probably suit them better than a static sub.
I never believed TESO should be F2P. I believe it still should be a P2P game.
One of the problems is that that that give too much advantage to the Collector Edition which feels like a severe Handicap to those who only buy the regular edition. The price of the monthly also seems to high for what else is currently on the market.
I do not believe TESO is worth the $80 + $15/month. Even if they fixed the collector edition issues I still would not consider it worth $60 + 15/m.
I do consider this a GOOD enough game that if they gave regular version everything the collector is currently getting then it would make a Great $60 + $10/m game. Then they could fluff up the collectors addition with purely cosmetic perks for the extra money.
1/ Larger ingame population, a natural deathbed for P2P games is the lack/decline in population. F2P games don't suffer this issue and can keep a game populated for years.
2/ Greater earning potential, recent earnings reports show the F2P market is strong and continuing to climb while subscription and other digital markets are falling.
3/ Flexibility for the player, pay for what you want/what you think the developers deserve. You aren't paying $15 a month to do say PvE content when all the development is being pushed to PvP or vice versa.In most cases you can literally vote with your wallet without giving the game up entirely.
4/ Easier for friends to get into the game/ get involved. You can literally just chuck someone a link and say check this game out instead of having to rely on friends to have enough cash in order to play a video game together.
5/ Times are tough, people seem to forget the state of the world's economy and that excuses like "it's only the cost of a pizza" are rather lame. I'm sure most people would end up pretty broke if they approached life with that metaphor. Companies actually need to realize that most people are probably already getting gouged to their eyeballs with other bills and a more flexible payment model like F2P would probably suit them better than a static sub.
OK these these are clear answers. I may not agree with most of them but that's just my opinion.
Just to complete your answer, this is in no way related to the game and appears to be more of a general principle.
I want it to be F2P because I am already paying for FFXIV:ARR. I can afford to pay for 2 games but splitting my time will make me feel I am not getting my moneys worth of time/fun out of both of them.
Originally posted by eric1000 I'm happy that it's P2P and long may it stay so. I'm tired of the F2P crowd that plague other MMO's. It is no secret that there are no good MMO communities anymore and I feel that F2P games are a major contributing factor to that. If you don't pay to play a game you have no real connection to it.
How does paying a monthly fee make someone a morally nicer person? I fail to see that logic, it's just more propaganda spewed out by the "P2P nazi's". I don't see how paying for a game keeps me connected to it, I've paid subs for a few games that I've only dipped my head in once or twice before deciding a particular game is not for me... it's the game that has to keep me engaged not the money I pay for it.
As for F2P genuine pro's, here's a few:
1/ Larger ingame population, a natural deathbed for P2P games is the lack/decline in population. F2P games don't suffer this issue and can keep a game populated for years.
2/ Greater earning potential, recent earnings reports show the F2P market is strong and continuing to climb while subscription and other digital markets are falling.
3/ Flexibility for the player, pay for what you want/what you think the developers deserve. You aren't paying $15 a month to do say PvE content when all the development is being pushed to PvP or vice versa.In most cases you can literally vote with your wallet without giving the game up entirely.
4/ Easier for friends to get into the game/ get involved. You can literally just chuck someone a link and say check this game out instead of having to rely on friends to have enough cash in order to play a video game together.
5/ Times are tough, people seem to forget the state of the world's economy and that excuses like "it's only the cost of a pizza" are rather lame. I'm sure most people would end up pretty broke if they approached life with that metaphor. Companies actually need to realize that most people are probably already getting gouged to their eyeballs with other bills and a more flexible payment model like F2P would probably suit them better than a static sub.
Fist of all , words are cheap. I will not believe you on 2/. Those are unsupported words.
And I will not ask you to believe me without prove either.
5/ has nothing to do with the question. It is you whining in the bar about your life.
4/ It is again you and your friends. Why is it even matter in this discussion? It is not about you. It is about what payment model is better for games. What model makes game crappy.
I believe subscription model will allow company to make a more or less reliable plans of maintenance and further development, besides job securities, which are also important for above mentioned plans.
I believe subscription model will attract players who want to stay with game for a long time.
In free to play models of all sorts incoming money could be predicted only statistically at best.
No reliable plans, or job securities could be provided for serious consideration.
Besides, because there will be quite a large crowd of paying nothing players, who still require and will be exhausting hardware resources (additional servers cost, maintenance cost), efficiency of that model might not be able to compete with subscription model in general case. However free to play models besides attracting players who will never pay, also attract people who do not have either playing time planned, or do not have specific interest to play game, and they do that for pure relaxation/entertaining purposes and very occasionally. They do not like subscription, because it requires steady interest and planning of activities.
There is however some positive impute of players who will never pay. They provide population for game which would have only a few paying players in opposite case. They also provide an environment in which paying players can bloom by buying all that stuff in cash shops.
F2P games have less reliable players base. Getting into F2P actually kills the game. Some say that adopting F2P model has nothing to do with game financial degradation (not failure, because game still could receive a lot of money). And transition from P2P to F2P is not a matter of financial necessity.
Free to play models in its any configurations can never be more efficient than subscription models, just because subscription models can always include any option free to play models have, if players would still pay for them. All thing that are implemented in F2P model can be implemented in P2P model + specific things like subscription price and box price. There is no legal restriction on that. Another thing will it be still fair money for the product, or not? This is another question, and company has all rights to set their own price. You as a consumer, have all rights to buy it or not. You cannot dictate company what price product should have. Don’t like it, move on to another product.
It is a market, and F2P is reasonable only when P2P is too much to ask.
Of course, it all depends on player’s interest to the game.
Originally posted by eric1000 I'm happy that it's P2P and long may it stay so. I'm tired of the F2P crowd that plague other MMO's. It is no secret that there are no good MMO communities anymore and I feel that F2P games are a major contributing factor to that. If you don't pay to play a game you have no real connection to it.
How does paying a monthly fee make someone a morally nicer person? I fail to see that logic, it's just more propaganda spewed out by the "P2P nazi's". I don't see how paying for a game keeps me connected to it, I've paid subs for a few games that I've only dipped my head in once or twice before deciding a particular game is not for me... it's the game that has to keep me engaged not the money I pay for it.
As for F2P genuine pro's, here's a few:
1/ Larger ingame population, a natural deathbed for P2P games is the lack/decline in population. F2P games don't suffer this issue and can keep a game populated for years.
The decline in population is, was, and always will be because of lack of quality and lack of endgame content. I think that WoW has proven quite thoroughly that an MMO can be a roaring success and have a subscription model. And WoW has been THE MOST populated MMO for about 10 years now. Hard to argue against that.
2/ Greater earning potential, recent earnings reports show the F2P market is strong and continuing to climb while subscription and other digital markets are falling.
BS. Even more recent reports say that WoW's subscription numbers are growing again. Most of those "falling subs" are from subpar MMOs that deserve to be put out of commission.
3/ Flexibility for the player, pay for what you want/what you think the developers deserve. You aren't paying $15 a month to do say PvE content when all the development is being pushed to PvP or vice versa.In most cases you can literally vote with your wallet without giving the game up entirely.
Yeah, let's binge on STUFF with $100 a month instead of that evil, greedy $15 a month subscription. On the bright side for those who binge, they do have an advantage in game over those who don't. No thanks.
4/ Easier for friends to get into the game/ get involved. You can literally just chuck someone a link and say check this game out instead of having to rely on friends to have enough cash in order to play a video game together.
Those who refuse to pay $15 a month are casuals who wouldn't contribute much to the game anyway. Who needs em? I'd much rather play alongside 100 individuals passionate about the game than thousands of deadbeats just passing the time until they can do what they really want to do.
5/ Times are tough, people seem to forget the state of the world's economy and that excuses like "it's only the cost of a pizza" are rather lame. I'm sure most people would end up pretty broke if they approached life with that metaphor. Companies actually need to realize that most people are probably already getting gouged to their eyeballs with other bills and a more flexible payment model like F2P would probably suit them better than a static sub.
If you can't afford $15 a month, you either live in a cardboard box or you're a kid with stingy parents. People who bring up the economy are laughable and just grasping for straws, as far as I'm concerned. If you do just barely make it by (like if you work at McDonald's and live on your own), it's called MAKING SACRIFICES. So instead of going to the movies every week, maybe skip out for a couple of weeks so you can afford the $15 a month? This is such a lame point made by the F2P crowd.
We've seen many people, and even reviewers, complain about the P2P model in ESO.
I have my own opinion on this as well. And I simply don't understand the people who really believes this game should not be P2P. I find this quite interesting for some reason, to me as far as I've seen this game is quite "complete". There are different reasons possible so I've been wondering the following question and would like to hear people's opinions on this.
Why exactly should this game be F2P and not P2P, please state concrete arguments relevant to this game. If it's not relevant to this game but rather a general principle please also state it.
If it's because you simply do not like the game (for example action style combat, no tab targetting etc), which is an important detail, also state it. I think everyone can fall in this category. I mean if you don't like something that is an essential feature you obviously would want it to be free so you can still check it out without engagement.
People who don't feel this game should be P2P please also state what would change your mind. This is what I would find most interesting :-)
If you do want this to be P2P, feel free to do the same.
p2p ,ftp with shop are just cash games.i spend more on the f2p than p2p games.
We've seen many people, and even reviewers, complain about the P2P model in ESO.
I have my own opinion on this as well. And I simply don't understand the people who really believes this game should not be P2P. I find this quite interesting for some reason, to me as far as I've seen this game is quite "complete". There are different reasons possible so I've been wondering the following question and would like to hear people's opinions on this.
Why exactly should this game be F2P and not P2P, please state concrete arguments relevant to this game.
Everything you said, can be said about those thinking this game should be P2P. The same things said about every single other P2P game that went F2P in a short amount of time.
its a tired argument, one that I am sure will continue to take place after TESO and Wildstar end up going F2P in 6 months to 1 1/2 years from now, and will happen again when the next subscription based AAA game is close to release, and after that goes F2P. And the cycle will continue, just as it has for some 2 years now.
Perhaps, perhaps, some diehard subbers will start to come to their senses, but there should be enough that don't learn to continue the fight as long as corporations continue for their cash grab before going with the model they know they will end up using once the realization sets in that their game is not the next WoW, and is just another clone with no innovation that cant hold a lot of people for a long period of time.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
We've seen many people, and even reviewers, complain about the P2P model in ESO.
I have my own opinion on this as well. And I simply don't understand the people who really believes this game should not be P2P. I find this quite interesting for some reason, to me as far as I've seen this game is quite "complete". There are different reasons possible so I've been wondering the following question and would like to hear people's opinions on this.
If you do want this to be P2P, feel free to do the same.
Most of the negativity isn't coming from people who object to a subscription, it's from those of us who object to Zenimax deciding to charge for the retail box *AND* a subscription *AND* still have a cash shop that locks some features away behind paywalls.
Over the years, I've played dozens of MMO's, all the way back to text muds. Of the commercial ones, the models I found most enjoyable were a normal subscription (with or without the retail box purchase), and a "buy-to-play" model like Guild Wars 2 uses (buy the game, play whenever you want). In both of those cases, any cash shop has been limited to things that you can easily get in-game, or totally cosmetic things like mounts or appearance-only outfits.
I have no objection to a company selling stuff like XP potions, extra character slots, extra inventory slots (if it's not crazy-limited), etc. I don't even object to being able to buy weapons or armor IFF you can also craft it in-game. What I do object to is the cash-grab mechanic of making you buy the game, pay a subscription, and then still lock some things away as DLC. That's just pure greed. It makes me feel that the company can't be trusted, and when the next "expansion" appears, we'll get half of it with the purchase and still have to buy the rest as bits and pieces of DLC.
We've seen many people, and even reviewers, complain about the P2P model in ESO.
I have my own opinion on this as well. And I simply don't understand the people who really believes this game should not be P2P. I find this quite interesting for some reason, to me as far as I've seen this game is quite "complete". There are different reasons possible so I've been wondering the following question and would like to hear people's opinions on this.
Why exactly should this game be F2P and not P2P, please state concrete arguments relevant to this game. If it's not relevant to this game but rather a general principle please also state it.
If it's because you simply do not like the game (for example action style combat, no tab targetting etc), which is an important detail, also state it. I think everyone can fall in this category. I mean if you don't like something that is an essential feature you obviously would want it to be free so you can still check it out without engagement.
People who don't feel this game should be P2P please also state what would change your mind. This is what I would find most interesting :-)
If you do want this to be P2P, feel free to do the same.
p2p ,ftp with shop are just cash games.i spend more on the f2p than p2p games.
Originally posted by eric1000 I'm happy that it's P2P and long may it stay so. I'm tired of the F2P crowd that plague other MMO's. It is no secret that there are no good MMO communities anymore and I feel that F2P games are a major contributing factor to that. If you don't pay to play a game you have no real connection to it.
How does paying a monthly fee make someone a morally nicer person? I fail to see that logic, it's just more propaganda spewed out by the "P2P nazi's". I don't see how paying for a game keeps me connected to it, I've paid subs for a few games that I've only dipped my head in once or twice before deciding a particular game is not for me... it's the game that has to keep me engaged not the money I pay for it.
As for F2P genuine pro's, here's a few:
1/ Larger ingame population, a natural deathbed for P2P games is the lack/decline in population. F2P games don't suffer this issue and can keep a game populated for years.
The decline in population is, was, and always will be because of lack of quality and lack of endgame content. I think that WoW has proven quite thoroughly that an MMO can be a roaring success and have a subscription model. And WoW has been THE MOST populated MMO for about 10 years now. Hard to argue against that.
2/ Greater earning potential, recent earnings reports show the F2P market is strong and continuing to climb while subscription and other digital markets are falling.
BS. Even more recent reports say that WoW's subscription numbers are growing again. Most of those "falling subs" are from subpar MMOs that deserve to be put out of commission.
3/ Flexibility for the player, pay for what you want/what you think the developers deserve. You aren't paying $15 a month to do say PvE content when all the development is being pushed to PvP or vice versa.In most cases you can literally vote with your wallet without giving the game up entirely.
Yeah, let's binge on STUFF with $100 a month instead of that evil, greedy $15 a month subscription. On the bright side for those who binge, they do have an advantage in game over those who don't. No thanks.
4/ Easier for friends to get into the game/ get involved. You can literally just chuck someone a link and say check this game out instead of having to rely on friends to have enough cash in order to play a video game together.
Those who refuse to pay $15 a month are casuals who wouldn't contribute much to the game anyway. Who needs em? I'd much rather play alongside 100 individuals passionate about the game than thousands of deadbeats just passing the time until they can do what they really want to do.
5/ Times are tough, people seem to forget the state of the world's economy and that excuses like "it's only the cost of a pizza" are rather lame. I'm sure most people would end up pretty broke if they approached life with that metaphor. Companies actually need to realize that most people are probably already getting gouged to their eyeballs with other bills and a more flexible payment model like F2P would probably suit them better than a static sub.
If you can't afford $15 a month, you either live in a cardboard box or you're a kid with stingy parents. People who bring up the economy are laughable and just grasping for straws, as far as I'm concerned. If you do just barely make it by (like if you work at McDonald's and live on your own), it's called MAKING SACRIFICES. So instead of going to the movies every week, maybe skip out for a couple of weeks so you can afford the $15 a month? This is such a lame point made by the F2P crowd.
yep ftp was a nice shiny bauble,oh you can play and NOT pay .oh look they have a NEW mount,oh its stats are a lot better than the state of the mount i bought last week.oh look you can buy this crafting tool so your crafts do not fail.and on and on,its a business it has to make money SOMEHOW.but p2p i KNOW how much i will spend each month.
(so we don't have 10 of these threads posted every week or derail a lot of other threads into the P2P vs. F2P vs. B2P debate)
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
We've seen many people, and even reviewers, complain about the P2P model in ESO.
I have my own opinion on this as well. And I simply don't understand the people who really believes this game should not be P2P. I find this quite interesting for some reason, to me as far as I've seen this game is quite "complete". There are different reasons possible so I've been wondering the following question and would like to hear people's opinions on this.
If you do want this to be P2P, feel free to do the same.
Most of the negativity isn't coming from people who object to a subscription, it's from those of us who object to Zenimax deciding to charge for the retail box *AND* a subscription *AND* still have a cash shop that locks some features away behind paywalls.
Over the years, I've played dozens of MMO's, all the way back to text muds. Of the commercial ones, the models I found most enjoyable were a normal subscription (with or without the retail box purchase), and a "buy-to-play" model like Guild Wars 2 uses (buy the game, play whenever you want). In both of those cases, any cash shop has been limited to things that you can easily get in-game, or totally cosmetic things like mounts or appearance-only outfits.
I have no objection to a company selling stuff like XP potions, extra character slots, extra inventory slots (if it's not crazy-limited), etc. I don't even object to being able to buy weapons or armor IFF you can also craft it in-game. What I do object to is the cash-grab mechanic of making you buy the game, pay a subscription, and then still lock some things away as DLC. That's just pure greed. It makes me feel that the company can't be trusted, and when the next "expansion" appears, we'll get half of it with the purchase and still have to buy the rest as bits and pieces of DLC.
I could have sworn there was a dev who stated in no uncertain terms recently that there is no cash shop. I can't find it, maybe someone else can?
In the mean time, why do you think there will be? Furthermore, why do you think it will be a paywall cash shop (thinking SWTOR)?
Really not sure what DLC you're talking about. Haven't seen any mention of DLC that you'll have to purchase later. FUD?
I am a big fan of P2P, always have been and always will.
Thing is, Zeni has already gone back on what they've stated in the past with "core" values so I am thinking if they have no problem doing that and also pay gating a race then why wouldn't they think of doing F2P after they start bleeding subs. This is inevitable for most themeparks post-WoW it seems.
They will sell a lot of boxes because people think they are getting a fresh MMO, after all the dust settles the bleeding will start. After that, depending on the numbers, it can keep P2P but if it's not lucrative as initially thought then here comes F2P with a chance to sub where you get monthly "Tamriel Coins" to spend in the cash shop.
About the race thing. I just don't get the problem with it.
People seem to GLADLY pay WoW $25 a pop for a mount or $10 for a pet that you CANNOT get in game...yet you rarely hear that it's bad...AND WOW IS STILL A SUB model. I know, WoW is normally the exception to the rules, but I do feel the argument is relevant here. TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS FOR A MOUNT...AND THAT'S ALL YOU GET.
Now THAT is absurd to me.
Collector's edition that has a human looking race with no major benefits over the other races...not a huge fan, but also not a huge deal in the context of what games like WoW do.
I can see both sides of the spectrum on how the race thing can be "good" and "bad". WoW is definitely the exception but their microtransactions came out at a later time (no doubt to cash grab but as a business, it makes money so why not) so I undoubtly agree with you on that stand point it is just absurd.
I am just curious why they had to offer a race for a collectors edition box? Just seems like a slap in the face for the community more than a $25 mount. Now if this race becomes available to the community easily through the game then it renders this argument void but until then I just find it a shady idea to just push Collectors Edition sales out the door.
I think the main, usually unspoken, issue that people have with ESO launching with a sub is that there is an expectation that the game will go F2P sometime in the near future. If that's the case, all the current trumpeting from its devs about how the game needs to be sub-based will seem like nothing more than marketing speak. If the game can be translated into F2P so easily, why launch as P2P, except to try to grab as much initial cash as possible.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with either approach. If the game is good today, I'll pay and play right now. Thinking about where the game is going to be three or six or twelve months from now is pointless in the context of me enjoying what's available at the moment.
I think the main, usually unspoken, issue that people have with ESO launching with a sub is that there is an expectation that the game will go F2P sometime in the near future. If that's the case, all the current trumpeting from its devs about how the game needs to be sub-based will seem like nothing more than marketing speak. If the game can be translated into F2P so easily, why launch as P2P, except to try to grab as much initial cash as possible.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with either approach. If the game is good today, I'll pay and play right now. Thinking about where the game is going to be three or six or twelve months from now is pointless in the context of me enjoying what's available at the moment.
An MMO that starts out as P2P and then goes F2P is the MMO industry's version of going into bankruptcy. It's only when the company begins to see a nose-dive in subscriptions that they freak out and go F2P in order to keep the game on life support. IF that does happen with this game, it will be at least a year away judging by what happened with past MMO debacles (SWTOR, etc.). I will happily quit the game when that happens since there will be plenty of other sub games to take its' place. Camelot Unchained is just around the corner in 2015, after all.
Originally posted by eric1000 I'm happy that it's P2P and long may it stay so. I'm tired of the F2P crowd that plague other MMO's. It is no secret that there are no good MMO communities anymore and I feel that F2P games are a major contributing factor to that. If you don't pay to play a game you have no real connection to it.
How does paying a monthly fee make someone a morally nicer person? I fail to see that logic, it's just more propaganda spewed out by the "P2P nazi's". I don't see how paying for a game keeps me connected to it, I've paid subs for a few games that I've only dipped my head in once or twice before deciding a particular game is not for me... it's the game that has to keep me engaged not the money I pay for it.
As for F2P genuine pro's, here's a few:
1/ Larger ingame population, a natural deathbed for P2P games is the lack/decline in population. F2P games don't suffer this issue and can keep a game populated for years.
The decline in population is, was, and always will be because of lack of quality and lack of endgame content. I think that WoW has proven quite thoroughly that an MMO can be a roaring success and have a subscription model. And WoW has been THE MOST populated MMO for about 10 years now. Hard to argue against that.
2/ Greater earning potential, recent earnings reports show the F2P market is strong and continuing to climb while subscription and other digital markets are falling.
BS. Even more recent reports say that WoW's subscription numbers are growing again. Most of those "falling subs" are from subpar MMOs that deserve to be put out of commission.
3/ Flexibility for the player, pay for what you want/what you think the developers deserve. You aren't paying $15 a month to do say PvE content when all the development is being pushed to PvP or vice versa.In most cases you can literally vote with your wallet without giving the game up entirely.
Yeah, let's binge on STUFF with $100 a month instead of that evil, greedy $15 a month subscription. On the bright side for those who binge, they do have an advantage in game over those who don't. No thanks.
4/ Easier for friends to get into the game/ get involved. You can literally just chuck someone a link and say check this game out instead of having to rely on friends to have enough cash in order to play a video game together.
Those who refuse to pay $15 a month are casuals who wouldn't contribute much to the game anyway. Who needs em? I'd much rather play alongside 100 individuals passionate about the game than thousands of deadbeats just passing the time until they can do what they really want to do.
5/ Times are tough, people seem to forget the state of the world's economy and that excuses like "it's only the cost of a pizza" are rather lame. I'm sure most people would end up pretty broke if they approached life with that metaphor. Companies actually need to realize that most people are probably already getting gouged to their eyeballs with other bills and a more flexible payment model like F2P would probably suit them better than a static sub.
If you can't afford $15 a month, you either live in a cardboard box or you're a kid with stingy parents. People who bring up the economy are laughable and just grasping for straws, as far as I'm concerned. If you do just barely make it by (like if you work at McDonald's and live on your own), it's called MAKING SACRIFICES. So instead of going to the movies every week, maybe skip out for a couple of weeks so you can afford the $15 a month? This is such a lame point made by the F2P crowd.
1/ You're mentioning a game that launched a decade ago just under just the right time and conditions to grab a niche market, the success that happened to WoW was basically a fluke.. you'll never see another subscription only based game be that successful again.
2/ The earning reports can be found on http://www.superdataresearch.com/ as well as tons of news articles on various sites. It's no half assed rumour chucked on a forum, these are real figures from businesses.
As for WoW it might of picked up a little lately but that's no cause for celebration considering how many subs have been lost in the last two years.
3/ The only P2W free to play game I've come across so far is planetside 2, that's because having it so you can pay real money for weapon unlocks is kind of lame. For RPG's though most cash shops just have vanity items or the odd xp boost and nothing that will affect your stats in any form. Show me an MMORPG that is P2W where by going into the cash shop you can make your character more powerful? I bet you can't because you're just spewing out the same tripe as the rest of the P2P army without actually thinking about and researching it.
4/ Your fourth comment is what a games companies market research team should pin on the board of what NOT to follow. But they probably do end up listening to idiots like yourself when trying to find the right demographic audience which is probably the reason why the big giant MMO's of last few years like Tera, Rift, SWTOR have all ended up F2P. Truth is there are a lot more casual gamers than hardcore ones, any new game company would be utterly foolish to ignore the casual audience over a small hardcore following especially with an IP such as elder scrolls which will draw in casuals from everywhere.
5/ Unlike you I live in the real world where I have to pay all my own bills to keep fed, warm and a roof over my head instead of like you living off your parents credit card without even giving the slightest consideration to what it takes the average person to earn that money themselves and trying to be a smug git in front of your computer screen. My point however was a generalization how times are tough for everyone and I wasn't counting my own financial ability to pay a subscription for a game, but more an example on how people are generally getting gouged to the eyeballs from everywhere so any games company that brings out a new game and doesn't gouge for cash as much is considered a blessing.
I think the main, usually unspoken, issue that people have with ESO launching with a sub is that there is an expectation that the game will go F2P sometime in the near future. If that's the case, all the current trumpeting from its devs about how the game needs to be sub-based will seem like nothing more than marketing speak. If the game can be translated into F2P so easily, why launch as P2P, except to try to grab as much initial cash as possible.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with either approach. If the game is good today, I'll pay and play right now. Thinking about where the game is going to be three or six or twelve months from now is pointless in the context of me enjoying what's available at the moment.
An MMO that starts out as P2P and then goes F2P is the MMO industry's version of going into bankruptcy. It's only when the company begins to see a nose-dive in subscriptions that they freak out and go F2P in order to keep the game on life support. IF that does happen with this game, it will be at least a year away judging by what happened with past MMO debacles (SWTOR, etc.). I will happily quit the game when that happens since there will be plenty of other sub games to take its' place. Camelot Unchained is just around the corner in 2015, after all.
I can completely understand not liking the F2P model and having that be a reason to quit the game. However, to say it's the same as going bankrupt is far from the mark. The perception that converting to F2P means a languishing game on life support is no longer true. SWTOR is the prototypical example of a game that has flourished under the new model. Steady content releases, more subscribers, more income, a brighter future-- all as a result of shifting away from a P2P model that wasn't working for their game. It's not the only one. STO is a far better game now than it was at launch and F2P is the only saving grace that allowed the game time to improve is its F2P model.
And there are other examples as well. It's not a magic bullet and it doesn't directly address weaknesses present in any title. Nor, though, is it some sign of failure. If anything, devs and publishers have caught onto the fact that they can possibly have their cake and eat it too. Launch box with sub, reap the benefits of all that steady income at the front end, then convert to F2P and watch the game grow to its full earning potential.
Comments
About the race thing. I just don't get the problem with it.
People seem to GLADLY pay WoW $25 a pop for a mount or $10 for a pet that you CANNOT get in game...yet you rarely hear that it's bad...AND WOW IS STILL A SUB model. I know, WoW is normally the exception to the rules, but I do feel the argument is relevant here. TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS FOR A MOUNT...AND THAT'S ALL YOU GET.
Now THAT is absurd to me.
Collector's edition that has a human looking race with no major benefits over the other races...not a huge fan, but also not a huge deal in the context of what games like WoW do.
Excellent point!
"I don't give a sh*t what other people say. I play what I like and I'll pay to do it too!" - SerialMMOist
I have nothing to back this up, but I'd guess it was the publisher/marketing that forced the change.
I only hope they make the general races unlocked after post-launch players get a character to X level or complete X requirements. I don't think everyone after launch should be locked on what race they can play based on their alliance since they are allowing pre-order players the freedom of choice in that regard.
If you have something to contribute to this topic please do, if not well that's regrettable but your opinion is noted I guess.
I hope it stays P2P. F2P games bring an annoying crowd and kills the game for me.
You should read some answers on ESO site. They stated firmly, it is not going to happen.
Oh well, sucks to be those that don't pre-order then?
Not the end of the world. Most games have race/faction locks. I'd prefer it to be open, but meh.
None the less, can you link this? I haven't seen it mentioned that they will never allow players after launch to choose race/faction freely.
How does paying a monthly fee make someone a morally nicer person? I fail to see that logic, it's just more propaganda spewed out by the "P2P nazi's". I don't see how paying for a game keeps me connected to it, I've paid subs for a few games that I've only dipped my head in once or twice before deciding a particular game is not for me... it's the game that has to keep me engaged not the money I pay for it.
As for F2P genuine pro's, here's a few:
1/ Larger ingame population, a natural deathbed for P2P games is the lack/decline in population. F2P games don't suffer this issue and can keep a game populated for years.
2/ Greater earning potential, recent earnings reports show the F2P market is strong and continuing to climb while subscription and other digital markets are falling.
3/ Flexibility for the player, pay for what you want/what you think the developers deserve. You aren't paying $15 a month to do say PvE content when all the development is being pushed to PvP or vice versa.In most cases you can literally vote with your wallet without giving the game up entirely.
4/ Easier for friends to get into the game/ get involved. You can literally just chuck someone a link and say check this game out instead of having to rely on friends to have enough cash in order to play a video game together.
5/ Times are tough, people seem to forget the state of the world's economy and that excuses like "it's only the cost of a pizza" are rather lame. I'm sure most people would end up pretty broke if they approached life with that metaphor. Companies actually need to realize that most people are probably already getting gouged to their eyeballs with other bills and a more flexible payment model like F2P would probably suit them better than a static sub.
I never believed TESO should be F2P. I believe it still should be a P2P game.
One of the problems is that that that give too much advantage to the Collector Edition which feels like a severe Handicap to those who only buy the regular edition. The price of the monthly also seems to high for what else is currently on the market.
I do not believe TESO is worth the $80 + $15/month. Even if they fixed the collector edition issues I still would not consider it worth $60 + 15/m.
I do consider this a GOOD enough game that if they gave regular version everything the collector is currently getting then it would make a Great $60 + $10/m game. Then they could fluff up the collectors addition with purely cosmetic perks for the extra money.
OK these these are clear answers. I may not agree with most of them but that's just my opinion.
Just to complete your answer, this is in no way related to the game and appears to be more of a general principle.
Fist of all , words are cheap. I will not believe you on 2/. Those are unsupported words.
And I will not ask you to believe me without prove either.
5/ has nothing to do with the question. It is you whining in the bar about your life.
4/ It is again you and your friends. Why is it even matter in this discussion? It is not about you. It is about what payment model is better for games. What model makes game crappy.
I believe subscription model will allow company to make a more or less reliable plans of maintenance and further development, besides job securities, which are also important for above mentioned plans.
I believe subscription model will attract players who want to stay with game for a long time.
In free to play models of all sorts incoming money could be predicted only statistically at best.
No reliable plans, or job securities could be provided for serious consideration.
Besides, because there will be quite a large crowd of paying nothing players, who still require and will be exhausting hardware resources (additional servers cost, maintenance cost), efficiency of that model might not be able to compete with subscription model in general case. However free to play models besides attracting players who will never pay, also attract people who do not have either playing time planned, or do not have specific interest to play game, and they do that for pure relaxation/entertaining purposes and very occasionally. They do not like subscription, because it requires steady interest and planning of activities.
There is however some positive impute of players who will never pay. They provide population for game which would have only a few paying players in opposite case. They also provide an environment in which paying players can bloom by buying all that stuff in cash shops.
F2P games have less reliable players base. Getting into F2P actually kills the game. Some say that adopting F2P model has nothing to do with game financial degradation (not failure, because game still could receive a lot of money). And transition from P2P to F2P is not a matter of financial necessity.
Free to play models in its any configurations can never be more efficient than subscription models, just because subscription models can always include any option free to play models have, if players would still pay for them. All thing that are implemented in F2P model can be implemented in P2P model + specific things like subscription price and box price. There is no legal restriction on that. Another thing will it be still fair money for the product, or not? This is another question, and company has all rights to set their own price. You as a consumer, have all rights to buy it or not. You cannot dictate company what price product should have. Don’t like it, move on to another product.
It is a market, and F2P is reasonable only when P2P is too much to ask.
Of course, it all depends on player’s interest to the game.
p2p ,ftp with shop are just cash games.i spend more on the f2p than p2p games.
Everything you said, can be said about those thinking this game should be P2P. The same things said about every single other P2P game that went F2P in a short amount of time.
its a tired argument, one that I am sure will continue to take place after TESO and Wildstar end up going F2P in 6 months to 1 1/2 years from now, and will happen again when the next subscription based AAA game is close to release, and after that goes F2P. And the cycle will continue, just as it has for some 2 years now.
Perhaps, perhaps, some diehard subbers will start to come to their senses, but there should be enough that don't learn to continue the fight as long as corporations continue for their cash grab before going with the model they know they will end up using once the realization sets in that their game is not the next WoW, and is just another clone with no innovation that cant hold a lot of people for a long period of time.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Most of the negativity isn't coming from people who object to a subscription, it's from those of us who object to Zenimax deciding to charge for the retail box *AND* a subscription *AND* still have a cash shop that locks some features away behind paywalls.
Over the years, I've played dozens of MMO's, all the way back to text muds. Of the commercial ones, the models I found most enjoyable were a normal subscription (with or without the retail box purchase), and a "buy-to-play" model like Guild Wars 2 uses (buy the game, play whenever you want). In both of those cases, any cash shop has been limited to things that you can easily get in-game, or totally cosmetic things like mounts or appearance-only outfits.
I have no objection to a company selling stuff like XP potions, extra character slots, extra inventory slots (if it's not crazy-limited), etc. I don't even object to being able to buy weapons or armor IFF you can also craft it in-game. What I do object to is the cash-grab mechanic of making you buy the game, pay a subscription, and then still lock some things away as DLC. That's just pure greed. It makes me feel that the company can't be trusted, and when the next "expansion" appears, we'll get half of it with the purchase and still have to buy the rest as bits and pieces of DLC.
What is your point?
yep ftp was a nice shiny bauble,oh you can play and NOT pay .oh look they have a NEW mount,oh its stats are a lot better than the state of the mount i bought last week.oh look you can buy this crafting tool so your crafts do not fail.and on and on,its a business it has to make money SOMEHOW.but p2p i KNOW how much i will spend each month.
Sticky!
(so we don't have 10 of these threads posted every week or derail a lot of other threads into the P2P vs. F2P vs. B2P debate)
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I could have sworn there was a dev who stated in no uncertain terms recently that there is no cash shop. I can't find it, maybe someone else can?
In the mean time, why do you think there will be? Furthermore, why do you think it will be a paywall cash shop (thinking SWTOR)?
Really not sure what DLC you're talking about. Haven't seen any mention of DLC that you'll have to purchase later. FUD?
I can see both sides of the spectrum on how the race thing can be "good" and "bad". WoW is definitely the exception but their microtransactions came out at a later time (no doubt to cash grab but as a business, it makes money so why not) so I undoubtly agree with you on that stand point it is just absurd.
I am just curious why they had to offer a race for a collectors edition box? Just seems like a slap in the face for the community more than a $25 mount. Now if this race becomes available to the community easily through the game then it renders this argument void but until then I just find it a shady idea to just push Collectors Edition sales out the door.
I think the main, usually unspoken, issue that people have with ESO launching with a sub is that there is an expectation that the game will go F2P sometime in the near future. If that's the case, all the current trumpeting from its devs about how the game needs to be sub-based will seem like nothing more than marketing speak. If the game can be translated into F2P so easily, why launch as P2P, except to try to grab as much initial cash as possible.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with either approach. If the game is good today, I'll pay and play right now. Thinking about where the game is going to be three or six or twelve months from now is pointless in the context of me enjoying what's available at the moment.
An MMO that starts out as P2P and then goes F2P is the MMO industry's version of going into bankruptcy. It's only when the company begins to see a nose-dive in subscriptions that they freak out and go F2P in order to keep the game on life support. IF that does happen with this game, it will be at least a year away judging by what happened with past MMO debacles (SWTOR, etc.). I will happily quit the game when that happens since there will be plenty of other sub games to take its' place. Camelot Unchained is just around the corner in 2015, after all.
1/ You're mentioning a game that launched a decade ago just under just the right time and conditions to grab a niche market, the success that happened to WoW was basically a fluke.. you'll never see another subscription only based game be that successful again.
2/ The earning reports can be found on http://www.superdataresearch.com/ as well as tons of news articles on various sites. It's no half assed rumour chucked on a forum, these are real figures from businesses.
As for WoW it might of picked up a little lately but that's no cause for celebration considering how many subs have been lost in the last two years.
3/ The only P2W free to play game I've come across so far is planetside 2, that's because having it so you can pay real money for weapon unlocks is kind of lame. For RPG's though most cash shops just have vanity items or the odd xp boost and nothing that will affect your stats in any form. Show me an MMORPG that is P2W where by going into the cash shop you can make your character more powerful? I bet you can't because you're just spewing out the same tripe as the rest of the P2P army without actually thinking about and researching it.
4/ Your fourth comment is what a games companies market research team should pin on the board of what NOT to follow. But they probably do end up listening to idiots like yourself when trying to find the right demographic audience which is probably the reason why the big giant MMO's of last few years like Tera, Rift, SWTOR have all ended up F2P. Truth is there are a lot more casual gamers than hardcore ones, any new game company would be utterly foolish to ignore the casual audience over a small hardcore following especially with an IP such as elder scrolls which will draw in casuals from everywhere.
5/ Unlike you I live in the real world where I have to pay all my own bills to keep fed, warm and a roof over my head instead of like you living off your parents credit card without even giving the slightest consideration to what it takes the average person to earn that money themselves and trying to be a smug git in front of your computer screen. My point however was a generalization how times are tough for everyone and I wasn't counting my own financial ability to pay a subscription for a game, but more an example on how people are generally getting gouged to the eyeballs from everywhere so any games company that brings out a new game and doesn't gouge for cash as much is considered a blessing.
I can completely understand not liking the F2P model and having that be a reason to quit the game. However, to say it's the same as going bankrupt is far from the mark. The perception that converting to F2P means a languishing game on life support is no longer true. SWTOR is the prototypical example of a game that has flourished under the new model. Steady content releases, more subscribers, more income, a brighter future-- all as a result of shifting away from a P2P model that wasn't working for their game. It's not the only one. STO is a far better game now than it was at launch and F2P is the only saving grace that allowed the game time to improve is its F2P model.
And there are other examples as well. It's not a magic bullet and it doesn't directly address weaknesses present in any title. Nor, though, is it some sign of failure. If anything, devs and publishers have caught onto the fact that they can possibly have their cake and eat it too. Launch box with sub, reap the benefits of all that steady income at the front end, then convert to F2P and watch the game grow to its full earning potential.