$15 is trivial - so why not $30, $50, $100. At the point you say "to much" I can say to you get a better job etc. And yes I can afford $100 or more a month. Being able to afford a sub doesn't make it "good value".
Better quality of player? How many times has WoW been slated? And if the sub is trivial .....
New content? No. The presence or absence of a sub doesn't guarantee new content. TESO is already behind its 4-6 week schedule. WAR had none in the last 2-3 years, DAoC ... yes. Look at WoW. Morrowind / Oblivion / Skyrim however all generated xpacs / follow ons; GW1 had xpacs, Civ5 etc. etc. It is revenue that generates new content not a sub.
To pay for the servers .. part of the box price. If they want they could give themselves the option of e.g. an annual charge - especially if they had an optional sub. Back in the day search engines cost money - they had servers, staff, updates ... would you pay for a search engine today?
B2P + DLC does not mean there has to be a cash shop. Might be but I don't think that is what the OP was suggesting.
Bug fixes? No - shouldn't be any but that is what the box price is for.
Customer service. No. All games have CS - good or bad. And a sub doesn't guarantee good CS.
Subs were seen to have "value" when they were first introduced. Hardware, software, ISPs were expensive - and were recognised as costs over and above the box price. The sub paid for these. It didn't pay for content - that was extra! People started to grumble back in 2004 ... rather than reducing the sub companies actually increased it but promised new content. Good sleight of hand imo.
With that said it is - probably - to late for TESO to change to B2P. I said pre-launch that I didn't see it changing and still don't. Launching with a sub means that sales are so much lower. Having taken the paid of lower sales removing the sub would throw away the gain. (And yes I know TSW changed.)
Just maybe they still could. Re-launch the PC version with no sub on the back of the now much later console version. Or keep the sub on PC and provide the xpacs for "free" but scrap the sub on consoles and charge for the xpacs. Or - better imo- opt for the optional sub model that EA are using for some of their games.
Like I said I don't think they will - but if PC sales/subs are below what they have planned for ..... anything is possible.
I find it funny that everyone always says it's not worth the sub fee of $15, but when a game goes F2P they love the game and play it and spend more than $15 a month for upgrades and cosmetic items...Is this Bizzaro World?
It would be bizarre... but that's not actually representative of how it works in practice. If you Google around, you'll find that most F2P games don't go above 5% of their userbase as paying customers. I saw a figure of 1% for Farmville, but take it with a grain of salt. So the reality is that most players "freeload" on F2P games.
However, why it works is that there are indeed people who pay more than a sub. And by "more", I mean "a lot more". The reference I found stated that the ARPPU (avg revenue per paying user) for a game with a loyal niche audience can be around $50/month. Mind you, that's the *average*.
I've said it before, I am neither a fan of F2P or sub models anymore. F2P is either P2W (though to be honest, I am beginning to think that paying off time with money, to a certain extent, is OK, frankly), or more commonly in the West, limited to cosmetic items. Well, if your game's revenue is mostly driven by how nice your clothes and pets look, what do you think the company will invest in?
On the other hand, the problems with box fees and subs is that they create a pretty high bar to entry. To commit to TESO costs a minimum of $60 (or did at launch, it's been on sale at some outlets since). You know, it's been years since I paid full-price for a game. I admit I am a Steam-sales junkie, buying up interesting games years after release for less than $10. So, choosing to pay full-price is rare. And on top of that, the sub fee is probably 2-3x what I pay for 3 Steam games on sale. And we're talking here about $156 for a year at the cheapest price. It's not a question of affording it or not, it's a question of value. And here is where there is no right answer. Some people obviously love the hell out of TESO, others hate it--and really, for these camps, it doesn't matter. The lovers will pay whatever, the haters won't play even for free. But the question is the middle. Just how much fun does something have to be to be happy to pay the $13-15/month? And it's "happy to pay", because... it's a game. If you're not happy to pay that money, then it's not doing its job.
F2P: Focus on adding more content that can be monetized.
Subs: Focus on adding more content to satisfy the players.
I personally hate GW2 model, for so long I spent my time playing hardcore WvW only to get disappointed when every new patch is all about living sotry and new items on the gem store, after such a long time whats the big updates to WvW? Seasons and Edge of the Mists, the biggest jokes they made to the WvW community, one is an unbalanced and unfun mess which only the server with more population and coverage wins and the second is a huge beautiful and useless map that noone wants to play except to farm karma. If you are not part of the group that actively spends money on the cash shop don't ever expect the devs to give your group some love.
ESO is in a bad situation right now, but if they stick to subs, in the long run the game will prosper much more than if they went F2P.
Theres nothing wrong with the subs model, whats wrong is how the companies make their games.
I find it funny that everyone always says it's not worth the sub fee of $15, but when a game goes F2P they love the game and play it and spend more than $15 a month for upgrades and cosmetic items...Is this Bizzaro World?
It would be bizarre... but that's not actually representative of how it works in practice. If you Google around, you'll find that most F2P games don't go above 5% of their userbase as paying customers. I saw a figure of 1% for Farmville, but take it with a grain of salt. So the reality is that most players "freeload" on F2P games.
However, why it works is that there are indeed people who pay more than a sub. And by "more", I mean "a lot more". The reference I found stated that the ARPPU (avg revenue per paying user) for a game with a loyal niche audience can be around $50/month. Mind you, that's the *average*.
I've said it before, I am neither a fan of F2P or sub models anymore. F2P is either P2W (though to be honest, I am beginning to think that paying off time with money, to a certain extent, is OK, frankly), or more commonly in the West, limited to cosmetic items. Well, if your game's revenue is mostly driven by how nice your clothes and pets look, what do you think the company will invest in?
On the other hand, the problems with box fees and subs is that they create a pretty high bar to entry. To commit to TESO costs a minimum of $60 (or did at launch, it's been on sale at some outlets since). You know, it's been years since I paid full-price for a game. I admit I am a Steam-sales junkie, buying up interesting games years after release for less than $10. So, choosing to pay full-price is rare. And on top of that, the sub fee is probably 2-3x what I pay for 3 Steam games on sale. And we're talking here about $156 for a year at the cheapest price. It's not a question of affording it or not, it's a question of value. And here is where there is no right answer. Some people obviously love the hell out of TESO, others hate it--and really, for these camps, it doesn't matter. The lovers will pay whatever, the haters won't play even for free. But the question is the middle. Just how much fun does something have to be to be happy to pay the $13-15/month? And it's "happy to pay", because... it's a game. If you're not happy to pay that money, then it's not doing its job.
Thats the point they dot see the forest from the tree.
And all those "if its not P2P i wont play it".....well....every F2P/B2P has a way to spend money so just put 15$ in the game and voila....you have your P2P 15/month game lol I dont really see the problem here.
Ah, yes, somehow there are myths that P2P games have "higher quality people" and "more updates"...well dudes...those myths were BUSTED loooooong looooooong time ago
Or its somehow if you pay 15/month you feel some leetness as its some "exlusivness" about it. Well, it isnt, 15/month is pittance, and those games are full of kids whose parents pay/or kids use their parents CCs for these games.
The other reason that some F2P games are successful, besides "big spending" whales, is the huge number of players: tens of millions of daily users is not unusual. And a small % of a very big number is typically more than most sub based games have subscribers.
And numbers is the advantage that a B2P + DLC game has over a simple sub based game.
Zenimax have "played a numbers game" - we can as well, we get to pick the numbers that go in the <<< >>>>.
TESO + sub eventually sells <<< 5M >>>. 40% sub for 3 months (so 2M) and then <<< 20% >>> forever after. In the first year that would be 15M months of sub revenue and then <<< 12M >>> $15s in the following years.
Compare to TESO with no sub eventually sells <<< 20M >>> and those 20M buy <<< 1 >>> DLC pack a year (at $15 say) then that is <<< 20M >>> $15s a year .
Zenimax's model will have had lots more detail and a whole range of numbers giving a range of answers - but the very simple version above will suffice. Zenimax played the numbers game and opted to go with a sub ... but the pre-launch reports suggest they weren't sure; going with no sub would have been the safe option.
And to drive home the point there is NO CASH SHOP at all involved in either of the two financial models.
Originally posted by Kyleran Levels and subs don't bother me, but the never ending VR grind now that's a serious deal breaker and why I won't be returning.
Ah come on. Making VR levels isn't that much of a difficulty or long story. I only have got 2-4 hours per day to play and at many days I can't log-in due to RL activities. Though, I managed to become VR5.
I'm happy that ESO has the traditional slow paced approach when it comes to advancing in the game. But that's of course not at everyones likes.
Get rid of the levels, to make the game seem like it has more freedom.
Use the current ingame skill advancement system as a replacement for the main form of progression. More skills, and more skill branches. All discovered in the world, or bought from NPC faction trainers.
As for the payment model.
make the game B2P. Gain massive amount of money off the Box sells. People are much more forgiving of flaws in game design when they dont have to pay a punishing sub fee to play something they already bought. So this would be a good push for both the population in the game, as well as more sells.
Horrible, horrible idea. Its a themepark mmo that has an incredible amount of freedom for one. I dont know why you people want to see it fail.
Any graphical, audio, or gameplay restrictions not seen in other mmos but found in FFXIV can be blamed on one thing. PS3
Originally posted by MrG8 Hm... no.. go get a job so you can afford a subscription MMO.
[mod edit] I'm a web developer, I make 60k+/year yet I'm still reluctant to try this game because of the box sale + sub. In fact, I just spent $150 on ArcheAge alpha, yet I'm not convinced I want to get ESO. If it were B2P, then I'd get it.
Originally posted by MrG8 Hm... no.. go get a job so you can afford a subscription MMO.
[mod edit]. I'm a web developer, I make 60k+/year yet I'm still reluctant to try this game because of the box sale + sub. In fact, I just spent $150 on ArcheAge alpha, yet I'm not convinced I want to get ESO. If it were B2P, then I'd get it.
I hear ya. I own a restaurant, successful enough to earn a very good living, and I wouldn t put a cent down on this game because of it s sub.
I think the game needs to settle into it's foundation before anything changes. It is still way to early to change anything at this point so drastically. I do like the B2P idea like GW2, but I would give it a while longer. /shrug
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Originally posted by MrG8 Hm... no.. go get a job so you can afford a subscription MMO.
[mod edit] I'm a web developer, I make 60k+/year yet I'm still reluctant to try this game because of the box sale + sub. In fact, I just spent $150 on ArcheAge alpha, yet I'm not convinced I want to get ESO. If it were B2P, then I'd get it.
[mod edit]
Or maybe, he/she just doesn't think ESO is GOOD ENOUGH to warrant paying a sub?
Originally posted by MrG8 Hm... no.. go get a job so you can afford a subscription MMO.
[mod edit]I'm a web developer, I make 60k+/year yet I'm still reluctant to try this game because of the box sale + sub. In fact, I just spent $150 on ArcheAge alpha, yet I'm not convinced I want to get ESO. If it were B2P, then I'd get it.
[mod edit]
Or maybe, he/she just doesn't think ESO is GOOD ENOUGH to warrant paying a sub?
This concept seems lost on you.
Yet many do like me. He just wants it for cheaper than what everyone else is more than happy to play. That is being a cheapskate. That concept is lost on you.
Any graphical, audio, or gameplay restrictions not seen in other mmos but found in FFXIV can be blamed on one thing. PS3
Originally posted by MrG8 Hm... no.. go get a job so you can afford a subscription MMO.
[mod edit] I'm a web developer, I make 60k+/year yet I'm still reluctant to try this game because of the box sale + sub. In fact, I just spent $150 on ArcheAge alpha, yet I'm not convinced I want to get ESO. If it were B2P, then I'd get it.
[mod edit]
Or maybe, he/she just doesn't think ESO is GOOD ENOUGH to warrant paying a sub?
This concept seems lost on you.
Yet many do like me. He just wants it for cheaper than what everyone else is more than happy to play. That is being a cheapskate. That concept is lost on you.
No.
He/she just does not think the game is good enough to justify a monthly sub. The huge amounts of people that have cancelled and/or let their sub lapse after month 1 would seem to agree.
He/she stated if the game was B2P and mirrored the pay model of GW2 for example then he might buy it. I feel the same.
That does not make either of us "cheapskates" or "freeloaders" it simply means the game is not good enough to part us from a monthly sub. If the game WAS any good people like me and that poster would be playing and paying for it.
Rather than accept the opinion for what it is, you instead went for personal attacks to justify the fact he/she refuses to pay for the game, rather than simply acknowledging they dont think the game is good enough to pay for.
Originally posted by Kyleran Punishing sub fee, go figure.
what I mean by that, is being forced to pay a sub fee for a product which doesnt have a quality that deserving of that fee. So its punishing.
Simple question...
Do you enjoy the experience of playing ESO, enough that you would like to continue playing it? Yes or No answer.
If your answer is "No", then you stop playing the game and walk away. Problem solved.
If it's "Yes", then you pay the sub fee and continue playing and enjoying it. Again, problem solved.
All I'm seeing in your post is, "I want to keep playing the game, but I don't want to pay for it".
Using terms like "punishing", or "being forced", are just cheap and manipulative attempts to appeal to people's emotions, as in, "people don't like being forced to do things, and they don't like being punished, so characterizing the voluntary payment of a sub, for a product they presumably enjoy enough to want to play in the first place, is a good way to try and make my argument seem stronger than it really is..."
I'm sure that sounds real convincing in your mind, and maybe even when you type it. The problem is, you inevitably hit this brick wall, in the form of many who simply disagree with you.
How about you just re-state your opinions like so.. "I want to play ESO, but I don't really want to pay a sub fee. I think they should do away with levels and make it B2P instead. That would work better for me". You'd be saying exactly the same thing, but in more honest terms and without attempting to appeal to people's emotions.
Originally posted by MrG8 Hm... no.. go get a job so you can afford a subscription MMO.
People who use this argument are completely fucking retarded. I'm a web developer, I make 60k+/year yet I'm still reluctant to try this game because of the box sale + sub. In fact, I just spent $150 on ArcheAge alpha, yet I'm not convinced I want to get ESO. If it were B2P, then I'd get it.
I hear ya. I own a restaurant, successful enough to earn a very good living, and I wouldn t put a cent down on this game because of it s sub.
Then why are you here? In fact I ask the same question to those that do not own the game. Why are you here?
Originally posted by MrG8 Hm... no.. go get a job so you can afford a subscription MMO.
People who use this argument are completely fucking retarded. I'm a web developer, I make 60k+/year yet I'm still reluctant to try this game because of the box sale + sub. In fact, I just spent $150 on ArcheAge alpha, yet I'm not convinced I want to get ESO. If it were B2P, then I'd get it.
So you are just a cheapskate that doesnt want to really pay for something you dont want to play anyways. Why pay 150 dollars for an mmo thats already failed and f2p in korea?
ROFL. You re a cheapskate, lol, not paying for something you really don t want to play makes you a cheapskate. Ok, that makes no sense at all. They re just stating if it had no sub they would get it, BECAUSE IT S NOT WORTH A SUB TO THEM, not being a cheapskate.
So why are you camping ESO forums then if this game is so bad for you? Honestly, I personally despise most MMOs listed on this site but I just ignore them. In my opinion ESO has many problems to start with horrible guild system making everyone anonymous, but it's payment model is what it is. Some like sub, some don't. So, why are you hating ESO with such a passion again (in many threads)?
Remove sub is at least a possibility. remove levels will never happen at this point unless they do a FFXIV. I like the game just fine as is so I answered no to your poll.
Originally posted by MrG8 Hm... no.. go get a job so you can afford a subscription MMO.
[mod edit][ I'm a web developer, I make 60k+/year yet I'm still reluctant to try this game because of the box sale + sub. In fact, I just spent $150 on ArcheAge alpha, yet I'm not convinced I want to get ESO. If it were B2P, then I'd get it.
So let me see if I understand this correctly, You're willing to pay $150 to get into ArchAge Alpha to try it out.
Yet to you think its shitty of ZOS to demand $50 + a subscription free to play their live game?
[mod edit]
Oh and by the way...next time you want to try a game out, maybe pickup one of those million beta keys they handed out instead of demanding a game fit your budget.
Originally posted by MrG8 Hm... no.. go get a job so you can afford a subscription MMO.
[mod edit]. I'm a web developer, I make 60k+/year yet I'm still reluctant to try this game because of the box sale + sub. In fact, I just spent $150 on ArcheAge alpha, yet I'm not convinced I want to get ESO. If it were B2P, then I'd get it.
So let me see if I understand this correctly, You're willing to pay $150 to get into ArchAge Alpha to try it out.
Yet to you think its shitty of ZOS to demand $50 + a subscription free to play their live game?
[mod edit]
Oh and by the way...next time you want to try a game out, maybe pickup one of those million beta keys they handed out instead of demanding a game fit your budget.
It has nothing to do with budget, and I didn't demand anything. I simply stated that if it were buy to play or perhaps like Eve Online where you basically pay the sub price to get started then I wouldn't hesitate.
For the other guy who mentioned me being a cheapskate for buying the alpha package to ArcheAge but not getting TSO, AA has a LOT more to offer than what TSO has AND what you get with that package is actually worth the cost.
On that note, if TSO was Sub to play w/o purchase and had the option to pay $60 (like you do now) and get some extra stuff then I would try it out. If I liked it, I would pay the money.
The only reason I even mentioned ANYTHING was because some douchebag was trying to claim people were poor if they even suggested Buy to play or anything other than purchase + sub. It's completely false. In fact, you probably work at Pizza Hut.
Edit:
It's a product, and like most products you should be able to either try it out before you buy or return if you aren't completely satisfied.
Why does everyone keep saying it's $60? you've been able to buy it for about $35 or less since before it was released just by using a cd key site, sure you wouldn't get the imperial edition but you'd still get the explorer's pack.
So Any Race, Any Faction .. you'd just miss out on the horse and Imp.
Now you can get it for $28
Still fun to play, apparently I was on for a few minutes under 8 hours before nature called, back on soonish lol
Originally posted by MrG8 Hm... no.. go get a job so you can afford a subscription MMO.
[mod edit][ I'm a web developer, I make 60k+/year yet I'm still reluctant to try this game because of the box sale + sub. In fact, I just spent $150 on ArcheAge alpha, yet I'm not convinced I want to get ESO. If it were B2P, then I'd get it.
So let me see if I understand this correctly, You're willing to pay $150 to get into ArchAge Alpha to try it out.
Yet to you think its shitty of ZOS to demand $50 + a subscription free to play their live game?
[mod edit]
Oh and by the way...next time you want to try a game out, maybe pickup one of those million beta keys they handed out instead of demanding a game fit your budget.
Aside from the fact that he probably flips burgers for a living, by this stage you should have realized that people 'hating' on TESO aren't exactly between the most rational and balanced people around...
Why does everyone keep saying it's $60? you've been able to buy it for about $35 or less since before it was released just by using a cd key site, sure you wouldn't get the imperial edition but you'd still get the explorer's pack.
So Any Race, Any Faction .. you'd just miss out on the horse and Imp.
Now you can get it for $28
Still fun to play, apparently I was on for a few minutes under 8 hours before nature called, back on soonish lol
You can still get the Explorer Pack online for about 32 euro.
People who whine on TESO never even played a beta, so don't be surprised of stuff like this.
Originally posted by MrG8 Hm... no.. go get a job so you can afford a subscription MMO.
[mod edit]. I'm a web developer, I make 60k+/year yet I'm still reluctant to try this game because of the box sale + sub. In fact, I just spent $150 on ArcheAge alpha, yet I'm not convinced I want to get ESO. If it were B2P, then I'd get it.
I hear ya. I own a restaurant, successful enough to earn a very good living, and I wouldn t put a cent down on this game because of it s sub.
I totally agree-
I am Sy Sperling. President of the Hair Club For Men (and also a client)... I make millions of dollars a year selling a fine , quality product... I wont pay a sub for this.
Comments
Subs .... sigh:
It would be bizarre... but that's not actually representative of how it works in practice. If you Google around, you'll find that most F2P games don't go above 5% of their userbase as paying customers. I saw a figure of 1% for Farmville, but take it with a grain of salt. So the reality is that most players "freeload" on F2P games.
However, why it works is that there are indeed people who pay more than a sub. And by "more", I mean "a lot more". The reference I found stated that the ARPPU (avg revenue per paying user) for a game with a loyal niche audience can be around $50/month. Mind you, that's the *average*.
I've said it before, I am neither a fan of F2P or sub models anymore. F2P is either P2W (though to be honest, I am beginning to think that paying off time with money, to a certain extent, is OK, frankly), or more commonly in the West, limited to cosmetic items. Well, if your game's revenue is mostly driven by how nice your clothes and pets look, what do you think the company will invest in?
On the other hand, the problems with box fees and subs is that they create a pretty high bar to entry. To commit to TESO costs a minimum of $60 (or did at launch, it's been on sale at some outlets since). You know, it's been years since I paid full-price for a game. I admit I am a Steam-sales junkie, buying up interesting games years after release for less than $10. So, choosing to pay full-price is rare. And on top of that, the sub fee is probably 2-3x what I pay for 3 Steam games on sale. And we're talking here about $156 for a year at the cheapest price. It's not a question of affording it or not, it's a question of value. And here is where there is no right answer. Some people obviously love the hell out of TESO, others hate it--and really, for these camps, it doesn't matter. The lovers will pay whatever, the haters won't play even for free. But the question is the middle. Just how much fun does something have to be to be happy to pay the $13-15/month? And it's "happy to pay", because... it's a game. If you're not happy to pay that money, then it's not doing its job.
Subs>F2P. What makes subs so good for a game? Stability, subs are a way more stable source of income than cash shops.
Read this
F2P: Focus on adding more content that can be monetized.
Subs: Focus on adding more content to satisfy the players.
I personally hate GW2 model, for so long I spent my time playing hardcore WvW only to get disappointed when every new patch is all about living sotry and new items on the gem store, after such a long time whats the big updates to WvW? Seasons and Edge of the Mists, the biggest jokes they made to the WvW community, one is an unbalanced and unfun mess which only the server with more population and coverage wins and the second is a huge beautiful and useless map that noone wants to play except to farm karma. If you are not part of the group that actively spends money on the cash shop don't ever expect the devs to give your group some love.
ESO is in a bad situation right now, but if they stick to subs, in the long run the game will prosper much more than if they went F2P.
Theres nothing wrong with the subs model, whats wrong is how the companies make their games.
Thats the point they dot see the forest from the tree.
And all those "if its not P2P i wont play it".....well....every F2P/B2P has a way to spend money so just put 15$ in the game and voila....you have your P2P 15/month game lol I dont really see the problem here.
Ah, yes, somehow there are myths that P2P games have "higher quality people" and "more updates"...well dudes...those myths were BUSTED loooooong looooooong time ago
Or its somehow if you pay 15/month you feel some leetness as its some "exlusivness" about it. Well, it isnt, 15/month is pittance, and those games are full of kids whose parents pay/or kids use their parents CCs for these games.
^^^^^^^ Zhiroc's post
Agree, comes down to value.
The other reason that some F2P games are successful, besides "big spending" whales, is the huge number of players: tens of millions of daily users is not unusual. And a small % of a very big number is typically more than most sub based games have subscribers.
And numbers is the advantage that a B2P + DLC game has over a simple sub based game.
Zenimax have "played a numbers game" - we can as well, we get to pick the numbers that go in the <<< >>>>.
Ah come on. Making VR levels isn't that much of a difficulty or long story. I only have got 2-4 hours per day to play and at many days I can't log-in due to RL activities. Though, I managed to become VR5.
I'm happy that ESO has the traditional slow paced approach when it comes to advancing in the game. But that's of course not at everyones likes.
Horrible, horrible idea. Its a themepark mmo that has an incredible amount of freedom for one. I dont know why you people want to see it fail.
Any graphical, audio, or gameplay restrictions not seen in other mmos but found in FFXIV can be blamed on one thing.
PS3
[mod edit] I'm a web developer, I make 60k+/year yet I'm still reluctant to try this game because of the box sale + sub. In fact, I just spent $150 on ArcheAge alpha, yet I'm not convinced I want to get ESO. If it were B2P, then I'd get it.
I hear ya. I own a restaurant, successful enough to earn a very good living, and I wouldn t put a cent down on this game because of it s sub.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Or maybe, he/she just doesn't think ESO is GOOD ENOUGH to warrant paying a sub?
This concept seems lost on you.
Yet many do like me. He just wants it for cheaper than what everyone else is more than happy to play. That is being a cheapskate. That concept is lost on you.
Any graphical, audio, or gameplay restrictions not seen in other mmos but found in FFXIV can be blamed on one thing.
PS3
No.
He/she just does not think the game is good enough to justify a monthly sub. The huge amounts of people that have cancelled and/or let their sub lapse after month 1 would seem to agree.
He/she stated if the game was B2P and mirrored the pay model of GW2 for example then he might buy it. I feel the same.
That does not make either of us "cheapskates" or "freeloaders" it simply means the game is not good enough to part us from a monthly sub. If the game WAS any good people like me and that poster would be playing and paying for it.
Rather than accept the opinion for what it is, you instead went for personal attacks to justify the fact he/she refuses to pay for the game, rather than simply acknowledging they dont think the game is good enough to pay for.
Simple question...
Do you enjoy the experience of playing ESO, enough that you would like to continue playing it? Yes or No answer.
If your answer is "No", then you stop playing the game and walk away. Problem solved.
If it's "Yes", then you pay the sub fee and continue playing and enjoying it. Again, problem solved.
All I'm seeing in your post is, "I want to keep playing the game, but I don't want to pay for it".
Using terms like "punishing", or "being forced", are just cheap and manipulative attempts to appeal to people's emotions, as in, "people don't like being forced to do things, and they don't like being punished, so characterizing the voluntary payment of a sub, for a product they presumably enjoy enough to want to play in the first place, is a good way to try and make my argument seem stronger than it really is..."
I'm sure that sounds real convincing in your mind, and maybe even when you type it. The problem is, you inevitably hit this brick wall, in the form of many who simply disagree with you.
How about you just re-state your opinions like so.. "I want to play ESO, but I don't really want to pay a sub fee. I think they should do away with levels and make it B2P instead. That would work better for me". You'd be saying exactly the same thing, but in more honest terms and without attempting to appeal to people's emotions.
Then why are you here? In fact I ask the same question to those that do not own the game. Why are you here?
So why are you camping ESO forums then if this game is so bad for you? Honestly, I personally despise most MMOs listed on this site but I just ignore them. In my opinion ESO has many problems to start with horrible guild system making everyone anonymous, but it's payment model is what it is. Some like sub, some don't. So, why are you hating ESO with such a passion again (in many threads)?
Steam: Neph
So let me see if I understand this correctly, You're willing to pay $150 to get into ArchAge Alpha to try it out.
Yet to you think its shitty of ZOS to demand $50 + a subscription free to play their live game?
[mod edit]
Oh and by the way...next time you want to try a game out, maybe pickup one of those million beta keys they handed out instead of demanding a game fit your budget.
It has nothing to do with budget, and I didn't demand anything. I simply stated that if it were buy to play or perhaps like Eve Online where you basically pay the sub price to get started then I wouldn't hesitate.
For the other guy who mentioned me being a cheapskate for buying the alpha package to ArcheAge but not getting TSO, AA has a LOT more to offer than what TSO has AND what you get with that package is actually worth the cost.
On that note, if TSO was Sub to play w/o purchase and had the option to pay $60 (like you do now) and get some extra stuff then I would try it out. If I liked it, I would pay the money.
The only reason I even mentioned ANYTHING was because some douchebag was trying to claim people were poor if they even suggested Buy to play or anything other than purchase + sub. It's completely false. In fact, you probably work at Pizza Hut.
Edit:
It's a product, and like most products you should be able to either try it out before you buy or return if you aren't completely satisfied.
But I rather pay a subscription than have to deal with an ingame Cash Shop, so no thanks.
Why does everyone keep saying it's $60? you've been able to buy it for about $35 or less since before it was released just by using a cd key site, sure you wouldn't get the imperial edition but you'd still get the explorer's pack.
So Any Race, Any Faction .. you'd just miss out on the horse and Imp.
Now you can get it for $28
Still fun to play, apparently I was on for a few minutes under 8 hours before nature called, back on soonish lol
Aside from the fact that he probably flips burgers for a living, by this stage you should have realized that people 'hating' on TESO aren't exactly between the most rational and balanced people around...
You can still get the Explorer Pack online for about 32 euro.
People who whine on TESO never even played a beta, so don't be surprised of stuff like this.
I totally agree-
I am Sy Sperling. President of the Hair Club For Men (and also a client)... I make millions of dollars a year selling a fine , quality product... I wont pay a sub for this.