Originally posted by Ehllfhire ZOS being a private company has said it would close down the game rather than switch to f2p. That said the game is doing rather well.
so if the game doesnt do ¨well¨ in Zenimax´s eyes they shut down the game and everyone lose their money. Thats enough reason not to resubscribe. Maybe they think the TES ip would make them hold the mmo crown? if thats the case then they can shut it down now because that will never happen. Hopefully they have a similar thinking of Squanix with FFXIV that they dont need wow numbers in order to do well.
Has there been any talk/rumors about ESO going f2p or major sub drops (other than the typical first-month influx and drop-off once sub fee's kick in?)
No, it's been the opposite. 800,000k subs was the number pre-steam release. It could be around 900k-1,000,000 (guess) now.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for f2p on this one.
SWTOR had over double that amount and it still went F2P. You do realize that every single game from 2005-present that started out exclusively using the P2P business model eventually changed... with the exception of 4 games. And of those 4 only 2 have been operating for a year or more. The "I wouldn't hold my breath" comment has been used for every single of those MMORPGs and look how it turned out. It isn't just the trend of games going F2P but the pace as well. I'm sure you are well aware of this.
I like how these people talk out of theirs assholes and can predict the future. That must be a real nice talent to have, especially talking out of one's asshole.
Originally posted by Ehllfhire ZOS being a private company has said it would close down the game rather than switch to f2p. That said the game is doing rather well.
so if the game doesnt do ¨well¨ in Zenimax´s eyes they shut down the game and everyone lose their money. Thats enough reason not to resubscribe. Maybe they think the TES ip would make them hold the mmo crown? if thats the case then they can shut it down now because that will never happen. Hopefully they have a similar thinking of Squanix with FFXIV that they dont need wow numbers in order to do well.
I don't recall them ever saying anything like that. In the videos they said they wanted to make a great game, and that they believed a subscription model best matched what they wanted to go for. (And hinted that they thought F2P models were for "lesser" games)
But I've never seen them say that they'd rather close the whole thing down rather than go F2P.
I've seen players claim the same thing about SE in regards to FFXIV, "SE said that they'd rather shut it down than ever going F2P! And they are a Japanese company, so you can bet they don't say this lightly!"
Yet look at one of the latest video interviews with SE about FFXIV on this very site, the guy actually talks about F2P and says that currently a sub model makes more sense for their game, but if the market ever shifted they would definitely consider F2P.
So I highly doubt either company ever said something about shutting the game down rather than going F2P. It's far more likely it's a player that hates F2P games that's claiming the devs have said these things.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
I'm curious. I was in a couple beta weekends and enjoyed the game for what it was...didn't go too far (restrictions and in case I wanted to buy it) But I'm interested in possibly getting into it finally.....
As title though..I'm curious about the subs and population (I know it's only observed opinions, etc, not real numbers)....reason I ask is I played SW:TOR and it has been overtaken by the micro-shop and I'm not a fan of f2p...my opinion, not looking to start a debate on that here...So I was "burned" by SW:TOR going f2p (which I still played for a bit but finally stopped)
Has there been any talk/rumors about ESO going f2p or major sub drops (other than the typical first-month influx and drop-off once sub fee's kick in?)
Bio talked about f2p not being in the foreseeable future not months before it was announced and the entire DRAW of that game (the story) fell to the waist-side.
I ask because (and I know no-one can give definites) I'm not sure I want to get into ESO if it does end up going f2p any time soon if it can be avoided..but otherwise really interested in playing.
thanks..just looking for observations and opinions, not flaming or debates before I make my decision.
As i'm one that play ESO active and i'm very active in there forum the are no talk there about the game F2P and after QuakeCon where talk alot about the future plan and the even add ESO to Steam which look like it was success for we got some more people in to the game so i don't think ESO so go F2P anytime soon but if you not sure go to ESO news page and read up and make up your mind you do get 30 free game play and if you don't like you can stop after 30 day so no harm of try it if want to
Don't think this game will ever go F2P. Think they are betting all on that the console launch turns it around. If that doesn't happen, which I personally think it won't. Then they will just run the game on life support instead and get whatever money they can from it. Just my gut feeling.
If you wait for FTP then I guess it will be a long wait. I think there will first be console release then an expansion then prior to expansion 2 maybe they will make lvl 1-50 ftp. Lots of ppl seem to have come back after update3 and the worst bugs are fixed and Its a very solid game atm.
If by F2P the OP means "free-to-buy" and "no subscription" then no I don't believe it will.
You also have to think about whether a game is suitable for e.g. f2p - with a cash shop obviously.
I could see how B2P + paid DLC for the content drops would work and with a "fresh launch" on console maybe they can overcome the PC launch "label". A cash shop looks messy to me though.
And by "label" I am talking about e.g.:
TSW still suffering from the "is this game worth a sub" stigma / mentality over a year ago since it went b2p.
SWTOR getting fewer sign ups in the 6 months post f2p than it sold at full price in its first 6 months.
Launch has an impact. If TESO had already launched on console my expectation would be "never".
We have no idea of how many subs TESO had or has. The Superdata article missed a couple of big headlines: the (big) 800k drop in WoW's subs and Zynga's profit warning. So why should they have gotten TESO's numbers spot on? Nothing wrong with looking at the guess, or XFire, or Raptr - whatever. But treat them for what they are: guesses.
Even when a company talks about their games you have to be careful. If you went by Activision's glowing comments about WoW you would be forgiven for thinking that WoW had added subs in Q2 rather than lost having lost over 10% of its subs. (The 800k).
The only actual number we have is the one on Steam. And its abysmal. Just over 1k usually. And that is in the 30 days included period.
Yes I could be wrong and ZoS may be planning a f2p launch. Just because it doesn't make sense to me doesn't mean it won't happen.
This is a tender subject for people who pay/play the game. The dev studio has yet to release official sub numbers so no one knows how many actual subs it has. Heck, we don't even know how many boxes it sold. Your concern, however is valid. That being said, if you can't wait and just have to try the game you can always find it pretty cheap. I hear you can get it for $10 USD at a couple of places such as Walmart or Amazon.
People who say the game wont go free to pay are just as clairvoyant as those who say it will. Only ZOS knows the answer and when a dev studio stays tight lipped about sales and sub numbers that usually (not always of course, but usually) isn't a good sign for the health of the game. That's why there is so much speculation on their future sub plans.
So for the price of a couple of happy meals you will get an idea for yourself.
You disregard numbers that every gaming website cites, including this one you are typing on, then go with "you hear you can get it for 10$" as you basis for speculation? Come on man. Let it go. You are not doing OP or yourself any favors. There came a point were I had to let my GW2 hate go too. Like me then, it's just starting to look bad.
I'm not sure what your hate with GW2 has to do with me. I never said I hated ESO. In fact you know I own a copy. I don't buy games that I hate or think I will hate. I will, however, discuss MMOs on these forums just like everyone else. If what I write bugs you so much you could always block me. /shrug
It's going to go f2p some time after console launch.
People said the same thing about SW:TOR, and SW:TOR was more successful than ESO initially. "They have a healthy base, it won't go anytime soon, blablabla." SW:TOR has been making truckloads of money on f2p as well. ESO is bleeding subs and the hype is dead, the population before I quit was pretty questionable for a megaserver.
ESO is going to go F2P. However, no one knows how long it will take them to make the conversion. If the conversion from P2P to F2P is truly a serious concern, then just wait. The game is only going to improve over time, and when they do go F2P there will be a resurgance of players, so it will be a good time to start.
It's going to go f2p some time after console launch.
People said the same thing about SW:TOR, and SW:TOR was more successful than ESO initially. "They have a healthy base, it won't go anytime soon, blablabla." SW:TOR has been making truckloads of money on f2p as well. ESO is bleeding subs and the hype is dead, the population before I quit was pretty questionable for a megaserver.
As I said maybe ZoS have a plan for f2p - I don't think so but that means nothing.
F2P because of SWTOR however? The Superdata report suggesting SWTOR made $200M perhaps? If so then you have to accept that TESO has just under 800k subs. Which would suggest no f2p.
Bottomline. We don't know TESO's subs; we don't know how much SWTOR is bringing in for EA.
When it comes to reporting companies say what they do for either a) marketing purposes or b) because they have to in order to meet financial reporting regulations. EA report about FIFA, BF, The Sims etc. $100M+ titles whose performance - or lack of - could impact EA's earnings. On SWTOR they are basically silent.
The little they have said means nothing. Consider Activision's comments this week: "Our better than expected results were driven by strong digital sales from Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft". That's the marketing element. Subs are down 800k. That's the financial compliance element. Lesson: don't read to much into what EA (or Activision) say. If SWTOR was making truckloads EA would be at risk of being financially negligent for not saying more.
I believe EA got caught up in the f2p hype. A gravy train that fuelled Zynga's stock launch. EA's other titles never went f2p however. Zynga have just warned of reduced profits. F2P is clearly a viable business model but companies today are more realistic. Another reason I believe TESO won't go f2p.
But as I said above maybe it will go f2p - I don't believe it will but c'est la vie.
You're forgetting the fact that ESO uses Megaservers, of which there was really only one at launch, the one in Dallas that was split into two "shards" - one for NA and one for EU. The EU server has since been moved to Frankfurt, but the fact remains that 100% of the game's population was being hosted in a single server farm at launch. Let's assume their peak concurrency was 15% of their supposed subscriber base a few months after launch of 800k.
That's 120,000 players effectively occupying a single server farm, and approximately 60,000 in a single "server". I was aiming low with 15% concurrency, too. 2,000 players can occupy the same instance of Cyrodiil simultaneously, and there are always at least two full campaigns for several hours of every day on both megaservers. So if you're going to be negative, at least do your research first.
Originally posted by TankYou88 I think they are holding out for console release but with the backlash they will be getting from the sub price for console users they will probably go B2P at least for the console, then after they do that either players will migrate to console or ZOS will have to make PC B2P as well.
FFXIV hasn't had any backlash from the sub on console so I don't see why ESO would. Be nice if it was B2P but I don't think it will be at first unless they make the change on PC.
FFXIV is constantly on sale on a bi-monthly basis for the price of a sub....so yeah....
FFXI even had a sub, so I don't get where people think that console players won't play because of a subscription. I'll take a subscription over DLC and things being locked behind paygates anyday.
Not going to say one way or the other about F2P, who knows, it looks healthy in game, but it's a megaserver. It will always appear that way.
I just hope it doesn't go F2P, I'd gladly pay 15 for what's there, it's nice knowing whatever I see I can get in game, with nothing more than effort spent inside the game.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It won't go F2P until some time after console release, anyone who believes it will sooner is fooling themselves.
It will eventually go F2P, anyone saying it never will is fooling themselves.
It won't be going F2P until some time after the console release and sales have dwindled, so not any time soon. If you are interested you may as well try it.
And do you base your info on would please share that with us.
As long as ESO make profit why would the company make F2P and do you really think that game will make less money when go on console the you are bigger fooling them you think for true is as long as company is happy with sub number and profit the no point for them to make F2P and ZOS is private company own which mean the don't have any invest breath down neck to make big profit on game.
Wouldn't expect this until the game has aged a fair while (years, not months.).
People seem to think games go F2P because "they suck" or "they're only good if they're F2P" - it couldn't be further from the truth.
SWTOR being the example in everyone's mind - it was enjoying a fairly reasonable playerbase of around 600k subscribers. They could have continued on with this and enjoyed some reasonable cash OR.. do what they did and switch to a freemium model and rake it in. Same story for LOTRO.
Above couldn't be further from the truth.
SWTOR was at least profitable, even with 600k subscribers. But that had fallen a lot (and was continuing to fall) prior to switching to f2p. They were above 1.5 million for a while?
LOTRO is an entirely different story. Pre launch they boasted they'd get more than 1 million subscribers, they had enough servers for that many players at launch and the best info we have available is their subscriber peak was only about a quarter of that. We do know that Turbine never paid any dividends to investors. Everything points to their never having made a profit.
So yeah, we'll all stick with f2p = fail.
I can't see it being an issue for ESO though. Skyrim made stupid amounts of money and I'm sure the next single player ES game will too. So even if ESO's profits aren't stellar, it would likely be in the company's best interest to stick with a sub if only to maintain the appearance of success for the sake of the Elder Scrolls IP.
FFXI even had a sub, so I don't get where people think that console players won't play because of a subscription.
It's likely because of the Xbox.
Xbox owners have to pay a subscription to access a bunch of Microsoft services (eg. you can't even use the browser on the xbox one without subscribing) and often and loudly express reluctance to pay further subscriptions on top of that for eg. MMOs.
So players will subscribe for the Xbox, but if they have a PC are to cheap to subscribe to a MMO. Bearing in mind that an Xbox is just a poor spec PC that shows how out of whack peoples thinking can be about pricing in gaming.
Comments
Even if ESO only has 500,000 subs that's 750,000 a month. That's not chump change....
And that's just subs. That's not counting new sales on steam and the (possible) upcoming console release sales.
edit for bad math. slightly intoxicated tonight
so if the game doesnt do ¨well¨ in Zenimax´s eyes they shut down the game and everyone lose their money. Thats enough reason not to resubscribe. Maybe they think the TES ip would make them hold the mmo crown? if thats the case then they can shut it down now because that will never happen. Hopefully they have a similar thinking of Squanix with FFXIV that they dont need wow numbers in order to do well.
lol....yeah.You friggin kidding me?
naw...bet you arent
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
SWTOR had over double that amount and it still went F2P. You do realize that every single game from 2005-present that started out exclusively using the P2P business model eventually changed... with the exception of 4 games. And of those 4 only 2 have been operating for a year or more. The "I wouldn't hold my breath" comment has been used for every single of those MMORPGs and look how it turned out. It isn't just the trend of games going F2P but the pace as well. I'm sure you are well aware of this.
I don't recall them ever saying anything like that. In the videos they said they wanted to make a great game, and that they believed a subscription model best matched what they wanted to go for. (And hinted that they thought F2P models were for "lesser" games)
But I've never seen them say that they'd rather close the whole thing down rather than go F2P.
I've seen players claim the same thing about SE in regards to FFXIV, "SE said that they'd rather shut it down than ever going F2P! And they are a Japanese company, so you can bet they don't say this lightly!"
Yet look at one of the latest video interviews with SE about FFXIV on this very site, the guy actually talks about F2P and says that currently a sub model makes more sense for their game, but if the market ever shifted they would definitely consider F2P.
So I highly doubt either company ever said something about shutting the game down rather than going F2P. It's far more likely it's a player that hates F2P games that's claiming the devs have said these things.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
As i'm one that play ESO active and i'm very active in there forum the are no talk there about the game F2P and after QuakeCon where talk alot about the future plan and the even add ESO to Steam which look like it was success for we got some more people in to the game so i don't think ESO so go F2P anytime soon but if you not sure go to ESO news page and read up and make up your mind you do get 30 free game play and if you don't like you can stop after 30 day so no harm of try it if want to
http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news?page=1
It is highly likely those numbers are just flat out wrong.
ex. LOTRO
104 mil / $180 per year ~ 700,000 / 31 worlds ~ 22,580 subs / server
We know for a fact that MMO servers don't hold that many max. players per server. The limit is generally closer to 10k - 15k players per server.
If by F2P the OP means "free-to-buy" and "no subscription" then no I don't believe it will.
You also have to think about whether a game is suitable for e.g. f2p - with a cash shop obviously.
I could see how B2P + paid DLC for the content drops would work and with a "fresh launch" on console maybe they can overcome the PC launch "label". A cash shop looks messy to me though.
And by "label" I am talking about e.g.:
We have no idea of how many subs TESO had or has. The Superdata article missed a couple of big headlines: the (big) 800k drop in WoW's subs and Zynga's profit warning. So why should they have gotten TESO's numbers spot on? Nothing wrong with looking at the guess, or XFire, or Raptr - whatever. But treat them for what they are: guesses.
Even when a company talks about their games you have to be careful. If you went by Activision's glowing comments about WoW you would be forgiven for thinking that WoW had added subs in Q2 rather than lost having lost over 10% of its subs. (The 800k).
The only actual number we have is the one on Steam. And its abysmal. Just over 1k usually. And that is in the 30 days included period.
Yes I could be wrong and ZoS may be planning a f2p launch. Just because it doesn't make sense to me doesn't mean it won't happen.
I'm not sure what your hate with GW2 has to do with me. I never said I hated ESO. In fact you know I own a copy. I don't buy games that I hate or think I will hate. I will, however, discuss MMOs on these forums just like everyone else. If what I write bugs you so much you could always block me. /shrug
@OP
Like I said, it's a tender subject.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
It's going to go f2p some time after console launch.
People said the same thing about SW:TOR, and SW:TOR was more successful than ESO initially. "They have a healthy base, it won't go anytime soon, blablabla." SW:TOR has been making truckloads of money on f2p as well. ESO is bleeding subs and the hype is dead, the population before I quit was pretty questionable for a megaserver.
To OP
I think it is probably premature to talk about ESO and F2P yet. Zenimax is trying to fix their broken game. Let us see if they can do it in time.
As I said maybe ZoS have a plan for f2p - I don't think so but that means nothing.
F2P because of SWTOR however? The Superdata report suggesting SWTOR made $200M perhaps? If so then you have to accept that TESO has just under 800k subs. Which would suggest no f2p.
Bottomline. We don't know TESO's subs; we don't know how much SWTOR is bringing in for EA.
When it comes to reporting companies say what they do for either a) marketing purposes or b) because they have to in order to meet financial reporting regulations. EA report about FIFA, BF, The Sims etc. $100M+ titles whose performance - or lack of - could impact EA's earnings. On SWTOR they are basically silent.
The little they have said means nothing. Consider Activision's comments this week: "Our better than expected results were driven by strong digital sales from Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft". That's the marketing element. Subs are down 800k. That's the financial compliance element. Lesson: don't read to much into what EA (or Activision) say. If SWTOR was making truckloads EA would be at risk of being financially negligent for not saying more.
I believe EA got caught up in the f2p hype. A gravy train that fuelled Zynga's stock launch. EA's other titles never went f2p however. Zynga have just warned of reduced profits. F2P is clearly a viable business model but companies today are more realistic. Another reason I believe TESO won't go f2p.
But as I said above maybe it will go f2p - I don't believe it will but c'est la vie.
You're forgetting the fact that ESO uses Megaservers, of which there was really only one at launch, the one in Dallas that was split into two "shards" - one for NA and one for EU. The EU server has since been moved to Frankfurt, but the fact remains that 100% of the game's population was being hosted in a single server farm at launch. Let's assume their peak concurrency was 15% of their supposed subscriber base a few months after launch of 800k.
That's 120,000 players effectively occupying a single server farm, and approximately 60,000 in a single "server". I was aiming low with 15% concurrency, too. 2,000 players can occupy the same instance of Cyrodiil simultaneously, and there are always at least two full campaigns for several hours of every day on both megaservers. So if you're going to be negative, at least do your research first.
FFXI even had a sub, so I don't get where people think that console players won't play because of a subscription. I'll take a subscription over DLC and things being locked behind paygates anyday.
Not going to say one way or the other about F2P, who knows, it looks healthy in game, but it's a megaserver. It will always appear that way.
I just hope it doesn't go F2P, I'd gladly pay 15 for what's there, it's nice knowing whatever I see I can get in game, with nothing more than effort spent inside the game.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
And do you base your info on would please share that with us.
As long as ESO make profit why would the company make F2P and do you really think that game will make less money when go on console the you are bigger fooling them you think for true is as long as company is happy with sub number and profit the no point for them to make F2P and ZOS is private company own which mean the don't have any invest breath down neck to make big profit on game.
Above couldn't be further from the truth.
SWTOR was at least profitable, even with 600k subscribers. But that had fallen a lot (and was continuing to fall) prior to switching to f2p. They were above 1.5 million for a while?
LOTRO is an entirely different story. Pre launch they boasted they'd get more than 1 million subscribers, they had enough servers for that many players at launch and the best info we have available is their subscriber peak was only about a quarter of that. We do know that Turbine never paid any dividends to investors. Everything points to their never having made a profit.
So yeah, we'll all stick with f2p = fail.
I can't see it being an issue for ESO though. Skyrim made stupid amounts of money and I'm sure the next single player ES game will too. So even if ESO's profits aren't stellar, it would likely be in the company's best interest to stick with a sub if only to maintain the appearance of success for the sake of the Elder Scrolls IP.
It's likely because of the Xbox.
Xbox owners have to pay a subscription to access a bunch of Microsoft services (eg. you can't even use the browser on the xbox one without subscribing) and often and loudly express reluctance to pay further subscriptions on top of that for eg. MMOs.