Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Comment from a Zenimax employee, about Elder Scrolls Online Free to Play.
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I'm confused here; did you not just agree with his original point? What are you arguing with him about? He was saying that games that are/go F2P/B2P and allocate a portion of their probably even more limited staff to a cash shop will likely have negative implications for the rest of the game (and I'm personally inclined to agree.) He then used GW2 as an example, which seems fairly apt to me. Your last post seemed to reinforce what he was saying.
Also, on the "GW2 doesn't have any paid expansions? Interesting!!!!!" part of your other post, I'd have to wonder why that is. Is it such a stretch to believe that they haven't released any expansions yet because they're hard-pressed to afford it, given their model? I could believe that. That's the benefit of a successful sub model -- constant and predictable revenue flows. It's for that reason that I'm always saddened to see a promising mmorpg fall into the depths of F2P mediocrity, and even more saddened that there are actually people that seem to think it's an improvement, no less.The people that seem to think it's an improvement are the company execs and their financial advisers. Players/Customers aren't the deciding factor on whether an MMO goes F2P or not unless you count how those players/customers are voting with their wallets and not providing enough subscribers to keep the game as profitable as the company wants.
You might hate f2p games, but companies love money more. The only game ever to show steady growth in subs is EVE which is what, slowly creeping up at around the 500K mark? Every other MMO that has charged subs, loses subs at a faster rate than gaining new ones. I'm pretty sure that's fact, but if it's not I wouldn't mind someone showing me evidence to the contrary. So that means dealing with a financial plan that inherently is going to trickle to less and less. Anyone who invests money will tell you that is bad. Thus these companies look for other means to monetize their games.
Seriously think about it. A company isn't going to switch finance models unless it's seeking to gain or increase its profits. Simple.
As far as ESO going f2p/b2p,..who knows? However, if they do, don't blame the players/customers. Blame ZOS for looking for alternative means to make money. Which is their right to do so anyways.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
Are people poor or something. What does it matter if you have to pay 9bucks a month or have a f2p money grab. The game is good or it isn't.
But reading these forums you would think people are all poor manual labour workers.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Eve doesnt count because you can buy subscriptions with in game gold, I want to know how many UNIQUE users that game has now. I suspect it is not much more than what it used ot have. But everyone I know that still plays has multiple accounts bought and paid for with Plex. I have I dont know how many Plex (close to 50 if memory serves) but I still havent played for almost 2 years. So I dont really count in the numbers but I could easily go back and within an hour account for as many "subscriptions" as I had PLEX to pay for.
Another thing about EVE is its not all that westernized and bitchy little kids dont play it because its too hard for them. (or they dont like math and spreadsheets) But that goes tot he first point it has its niche fanbase and they are more than willing to spend money or buy CCCP seeded PLEX to play the game for free.
The key word is successful.
And if you want an example of an unsuccessful sub based game take WAR; 5 years, never abandoned the sub model, after an initial flurry of content - and some of that charged - nothing.
Not does success = new content. Spotlight on WoW's recent content holiday please
And when we talk about success in this content we are talking financial success not sales numbers or subs; return on investment (profit) in particular. And financial success is tricky to measure even when there is "a lot" of data available because it can be complicated (enough said).
Even if a game is successful however it doesn't follow that there will be further content. Investment decisions are always under review and ja company may decide that whilst the initial game paid for itself and then some it wasn't "spectacular" enough to merit follow-on stuff, follow-on sales typically being lower than initial sales. (Not always). This is actually easier to see in the film industry but it applies equally to games.
When talking about GW2 though - actually slightly interesting - since it never launched as a B2P + DLC game. But as B2P + cash shop. Obviously this is what NCSoft projected would make them the most money rather than opting for an "expansion" c. every 6 months as they did with GW1. Possibly because GW1's xpacs were - mostly - retail and retail = lower profit for developers.
As far as games that have changed business model - when they do it shortly after launch we have to assume that that is because initial sales / revenue etc. were "not as good as projected". And remember we are talking financial success in this instance. And this lack of success will inevitably be a millstone for the future. Whether it is SWTOR or TSW both of which abandoned their initial model and both of which have only released "limited" updates since.
It is a trade off though: was it "better" for Tablua Rosa and others to close or would it have been better to change model. And is that better for players of whatever game or the company?
And when it comes to TESO management will look at what have happened to date; make a new assessment and go with that. They may stick with a sub or they may change. Either way they will make a review and decide based on that review.
Thanks for stating the obvious. I'm not arguing that companies should care more about their player-base than their profits; they're a business after all so clearly they want to make as much money as possible. I'm also not arguing that F2P models with aggressive cash shops aren't potentially more profitable for some of these titles, which is obvious by the shift towards that model in genre. I'm just arguing that it typically comes at the expense of integrity of the game, and that it's sad that many people on this very forum seem to actually advocate F2P as being the superior choice for not only the company, but the playerbase as well. I just don't understand that thought process.
Yes...... You might be right. I think I definitely may have muddied the water there. I think I might have been distracted with the whole apples to oranges comparison of pricing models.
As far as GW2 content goes, the link I was giving was simply meant to illustrate the work that has been done over a 2-year period, without any steady, predictable revenue stream, like subscription. There may be "stuff" in there that people want to see that hasn't made it in there, but sometimes that's just the way the cookie crumbles. I also don't feel like GW2 is mediocre by any sense. Even if it died today, it's been running for a long time as far as MMORPGs are concerned. Why do you feel that GW2 is mediocre? Compared to what?
Also, the idea that a company can't release a paid expansion because they don't have money is ridiculous. The original Guild Wars was NOT subscription-based and it released a bunch of expansions. I do believe that GW2 made a mistake committing to the "Living World" because it sort of implies that it'll go on forever.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Well, in fairness, I wasn't referring to GW2 (or any game, in particular) when I said "mediocre." I was referring to the F2P/B2P/CS model themselves and the way they typically operate -- with lackluster content releases and an emphasis on fluff rather than substance.
I also wasn't implying that an expansion is impossible without subscription (I know that's not true). I was just speculating that it might take longer for such large content releases to come to fruition because of it.
Except that part of what spurred on Guild Wars 2 was that it was getting increasingly expensive for arena net to keep making these expansions as they were constantly changing things in order to accommodate the next expansion and it was becoming prohibitively expensive.
When they were talking about "the next" Guild Wars expansion they ended up agreeing that what they really wanted was a new game and one that could be sustained in a more affordable way.
I remember reading this in an interview when Guild Wars 2 was announced.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Yeah i agree with this. The only thing i want to know is why they pulled the game from stores. And they are smart enough to know not to say the game is going F2P or B2P before it does. All sub players would threaten to quit because F2P or B2P means the game will suck and become cheap. Or so they say.
You see, I don't think there are as many f2p advocates as there might appear to be. I'm not sayin there aren't any just It's more like people stating that they feel this particular game isn't worth the sub. Sure some do, but obviously many others don't. I admit to being one of those who believes that ESO in it's current state isn't worth the sub. I have also said that if they add some talked about features that I would sub again in the future and I know I'm not the only one who has said that. The thing I'm saying is, just because people talk about ESO going, or if it should go, f2p it doesn't mean they are f2p advocates. That is the feeling I get from the forum posters. The reason you don't hear about to many "advocating" for EVE or WoW to go f2p is because they are doing something right, apparently. One has at any given time at least 6-9 million subs and the other is always showing growth with subs and whether they are multiple accounts from the same person is irrelevant since they are still paid to CCP. The rest of the Western developed MMOs have pretty much gone f2p. Why would ESO be any different? If it had millions of subs or showed growth then I think we would all be singing a different tune.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
What will suck is them having to start developing things for the cashshop rather than to be earned in game, take additions like the dye system, in a F2p that would be implemented completely different than it is now as achievement rewards, instead it would be cashshop items... F2P doesn't ruin games, it ruins the finer points of a game that binds players to the world, and gives them extra incentives to see and do it all.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I have to agree with what you said here. The amount of actual F2P advocates is seemingly enhanced by the amount of people who don't feel X game is worth a sub in particular. I would also agree that the majority of mmos aren't worth a sub, but I willingly pay a sub to WoW every month until I get bored and cancel. The reason why I don't mind paying WoW a sub is because I see the value in said product. Other games, not so much. I wouldn't have played GW2 as much if I had to pay a sub, but I did spend around $60 or so in the gem store for the 18 months I was heavily involved with the game.
I would split my time among more mmos if they were B2P as long as the cash shop wasn't overbearing. In the market of today I don't feel many companies can really get away with pure sub options anymore. The potential market is so large, but you hamper yourself if you go P2P since many can't find value in it anymore. If you make a new mmo, release it as B2P add in an incentive program to sub (one that doesn't limit gameplay, but rather adds value to the game) I feel you might wind up with more potential for people to try your game and pay money for awhile.
That "enhancement" happens because to many gamers the concept of "sub worthiness" is pretty weird and nonsensical since we think of games as worth our play time or not.
I won't eat haggis... free or not.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
So it sounds like it's a definite maybe that ESO may or may not go F2P. Awesome; thanks for sharing.
I haven't tried ESO, but one day I hope to play it.
I didn't purchase it originally because I just wouldn't have the time to devote to another MMO.
I'm a huge fan of Bethesda's Elder Scrolls series over the years though & have enjoyed them.
I still have my: Daggerfall, Battlespire, Morrowind, Oblivion, & Skyrim which I'm still playing thanks to all the clever modding.
I wish I knew how to mod using that Creation Kit better!
I hope ESO goes with a buy & play system.
Similar to the Guild Wars & other games so I can buy the game then play it with optional subscribing.
Some sort of tiered player recognition allowing tiered perks for the game, more for the subscribing but doable still for the free players, but that type of balancing of too restrictive or too rewarding would be a juggling act.
Other buy to play games & even free to play games are pretty successful then others are not with this approach.
I agree with many others that if ESO went free to play it would be too disruptive probably.
Here's to hoping for a successful year for ESO & hoping I might play it sometime.
If ESO goes f2p instead of going b2p or staying p2p then I could see them having the first 2 or 3 zones for free and then selling access to each of the other zones.
I hope not.
I think they should make only Cyrodiil F2P and cap them at level 49... which would help the rest of us with leveling just in Cyrodiil
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
http://www.mcvpacific.com/news/read/elder-scrolls-stock-removal-just-part-of-normal-stock-recall/0143646
Good news on that front at least. A bit of relief from me. I have yet to play an MMO that I don't think would be better with a subscription and the kind of work that lets the devs do.
Ok maybe firefall and global agenda, but do those really count?
Sorry buddy. ESO isn't out of the woods yet.
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2015/01/eb-games-is-removing-all-copies-of-elder-scrolls-online-from-stores/
Update: EB Games has stated on its Facebook page this removal is part of a normal stock recall — a recall that includes numerous video games. EB Games said similar things to MCV Pacific. Our source has stated that other titles mentioned in this list are excess stock, whereas the Elder Scrolls Online removal includes all units of the game, including the pre-paid cards. I’ve personally seen the stock list — which includes games such as Destiny and The Evil Within — but these games are being kept in the store. Absolutely everything Elder Scrolls Online related will be gone by January 14.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
Agreed. I don't consider 15 dollars a month as being any kind of investment worth noting, so it really has no bearing on whether I'll play something or not. A game would have to be beyond horrible for me to be unable to get 15 dollars worth of value out of it, and ESO is not one of those games -- not even close. Even including the box price I found it enjoyable enough to merit the cost, easily. I can safely say the same for the plethora of other sub-based games I've played over the years.