Originally posted by DMKano I love it. ESO was actually going to be a B2p game from the start but it was over ruled by a handful of upper execs at Zenimax. The vast majority of ZoS devs wanted it to be B2P at launch.
I am hoping their plan is to make the most money from DLCs and expansions and not have a full blown cash shop with a million different things going on. Their engine doesnt seem to support switching things around (like Lotro) and it will be a one time replacement. Unless of course they have a 'wardrobe' type set up already. Possible but not probable.
Regardless ZoS has shown some big balls in some ways and been semi decent in other ways in terms of 'value' or paying for items many people might think you should get for free.
Now that its full on sell crap in game with cash currencies (whether theyre transferable or not) might open up the flood gates a little bit on the greed meter.
As a PvP game it is probably dead if they start selling stuff that makes you better, but that might be better anyway. Since this has always been an RPG series and PvP focus was the main bait they dangled in front of the MMO crowd to sucker them into buying it. The whole "it has RvRvR system like Camelot" was the biggest joke ever but it sold them a few dozen thousand copies I am sure.
Having just recently resubbed and finally gotten my sorc to level cap, I unsubbed only due to the fact that I felt alone and a lot of the group content I wanted to tackle wasn't being done or had no one in the zone to do it with. This conversion to B2P alone will help with the population immensely, giving me reason to come back and enjoy what I think is a very good game now and will be even better when 1.6 hits.
Bottom line: it just needs more players and this will tackle that issue. Now if only Wildstar would do the same.
I for one LOVE this type of business model too, giving the option to still sub and get xp bonuses and lots of other goodies like mounts, so much better than stupid SWTOR and EQ2s shoddy F2P cash shop system.
Originally posted by DMKano I love it. ESO was actually going to be a B2p game from the start but it was over ruled by a handful of upper execs at Zenimax. The vast majority of ZoS devs wanted it to be B2P at launch.
good call last week Kano
Yeah, but didn't he cop hell from some of the fanboys. I even saw his name being bandied about on the official forums, pilloried as an example of ignorance and pure evil, of course.
To their eternal credit, after today's announcement many had the courage and decency to admit they were wrong (though some others who were wrong simply went into denial/backpedal mode, showing the opposite of courage).
But my reaction to the switch is twofold:
1) This relates to, and supports my comments in anther thread about how MMOs are businesses, not your buddies.
It's quite certain ZOS planned this change in payment model for some time. For example, the cash shop and other B2P components are contained in release 1.6, which hits the PTS shortly, and of course in the March 17 release. They were clearly working on this for some time, yet they kept their subscribers in the dark about it. This was a business decision, to retain the subs they would have otherwise lost over the past few months. $ over transparency.
Some people may feel (understandably) played by ZOS for this (also because release and maintenance delays were occurring, but the real reason for this - cash shop and B2P development - was kept hidden from the playerbase) but that's business and the goal of a business is to make a profit.
Note that lack of communication or transparency is not new behaviour from ZOS either, so shouldn't be terribly surprising - eg the announcement to delay consoles last year was made days before the advertised release date - again, ZOS must have known far in advance that they weren't going to be ready then, but kept quiet until the last minute so as to not negatively affect their income stream.
Upshot: MMO companies are businesses, not charities, and not your pals. Their goal is to make money.
2) A balance issue.
I'm wondering how they will find a balance between B2P and subs, in terms of DLCs.
A: If DLCs are too expensive (i.e. cost more than the base sub - eg if DLC is relased every 4 months and costs $70) then subbers will benefit from this, but most non-subbers will not buy it (in addition, the DLC zones will be rather dead).
B: Conversely, if DLCs are more reasonably priced (say $30 every 4 months), non-subbers will buy it but paying a sub will not be value for money as it will be cheaper to just buy the DLCs than sub. In this scenario subs will drop to a very small core of dedicated fans and there will be little incentive for ZOS to cater to them (business, remember).
I think B is more likely, as DLCs in scenario A will be too expensive, and ZOS has already found that the sub model is not working for them, else they wouldn't be making these sub model changes. Which means that they most likely must focus on non-subbers, and I think we know where that path leads.
* I am aware that there are more benefits to subbing, inc 10% more XP gain, etc. But while this will be an enticement for some, it still won't net enough subs. Basically they will by necessity have to focus on one or the other - sub or non-sub - and as such one or the other will be disadvantaged. And for the reasons above (and others) I'd bet the focus will turn out to be on non-subbers.
Or dont sub at all and dont buy any DLC content until they release 3 or 4 of them. THEN subscribe, play them and see if you want to buy them. If they are worth doing more than a few times then buy them, if you get loot from them that sucks or the content is lacking then dont buy them. They look to be sol o anyway so even if you and your friends own all the same DLCs I am not sure you can play together, that hasnt been addressed anywhere that I see. So it looks like DLC makes the game more solo than MMO. Now that may change or it might already be the case, but to counter act the easter egg hunting they will have to have DLCs that are grooup oriented or at least ones where anyone that wons it will be with other people who own it as well.
Sort of negates their whole 'pay wall' comments from last year but they cant survive on solo DLCs in an MMO for too long before people figure out the musical chairs way of doing them all on the cheap.
I went with cautious "wait and see" but what (pleasantly) surprises me is the amount of positive reactions both here, on Tamriel Foundry and ESO Reddit. That includes quite optimistic results of this little poll.
Looks like sub to sub/BTP switch was planned well in advance, after some payed beta and almost a year of sub-milking That is, picture of failed game that was forced to go FTP (triumphantly projected by many these days, especially "told ya so!" folks) seems to be quite inaccurate.
Depending on number of players that will stick to it on consoles by either subbing or paying for DLC or two - and we are talking about potential millions of players - ESO development pace could even be accelerated in some variations!? At least it is far from obvious to me that things will go, say, GW2 way.
The game was much of the same old same old no risk vs reward. Quest after godforsaken quest. However I threw $60 at it and it had a few ok features (gfx, sorta the combat, character building). Hopefully I will be able to find some interesting solo PvE challenges that don't involve being ordered around by an NPC.
I think B2P is probably the best model for most MMO's at this point. Unless they offer something that almost nothing else offers (darkfall and some of the old school MMO's).
Or dont sub at all and dont buy any DLC content until they release 3 or 4 of them. THEN subscribe, play them and see if you want to buy them. If they are worth doing more than a few times then buy them, if you get loot from them that sucks or the content is lacking then dont buy them. They look to be sol o anyway so even if you and your friends own all the same DLCs I am not sure you can play together, that hasnt been addressed anywhere that I see. So it looks like DLC makes the game more solo than MMO. Now that may change or it might already be the case, but to counter act the easter egg hunting they will have to have DLCs that are grooup oriented or at least ones where anyone that wons it will be with other people who own it as well.
Sort of negates their whole 'pay wall' comments from last year but they cant survive on solo DLCs in an MMO for too long before people figure out the musical chairs way of doing them all on the cheap.
A large number of gamers will pay for the 'latest DLC / release' and not wait.
Most MMOs folds their previous expansion packs into the sub while keeping the latest one up for sale; WoW / SWTOR etc.
Doesn't stop WoW from making millions/billions from the sale of their latest expansion.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
I love the pure taste of victory. So many saying it will never go B2P or F2P. XD
Now we just have to wait for the next new P2P game where everyone shouts it will never switch. Cause some people never learn.
Anyway, I think this is overall a good move for ESO, and I think it's what they should have done to begin with. I might actually decide to buy it now. Keeping in mind, I never hated the game, I just never felt it was worth the monthly fee. A single box price though .. I can live with.
So you aren't really interested in future potential and expanded gameplay like the justice system? With a ftp cash shop you will see less resources dedicated to the entertainment and more trying to drain your wallet. I'm glad that you never "hated" the game you are considering spending signifigant time in. Think about that. Maybe even if you think it's unimpressive you should save your time and stay away. Idk about you but I'd like to spend my free time doing things I actually enjoy. I don't waste time in games because they are free and a trivial amount of money can't keep me away from something I enjoy.
The quoted attitude is why games don't ever realize their potential. You accept mediocre and aren't willing to invest in something that you might get some joy from.
Originally posted by grimal I really wish they would allow cross platforms to play together. From my understanding, the console and PC players will be segregated, correct?
Correct - Sony and Microsoft would never agree to their players being on the same servers.
Sony seems more lenient on cross platform in the MMO space; FF14 lets you play with PC / PS3 / PS4 users.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
The quoted attitude is why games don't ever realize their potential. You accept mediocre and aren't willing to invest in something that you might get some joy from.
Uhh... How can a payment model be 'mediocre'?
By this logic, Team Fortress 2 must be an awful game.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
The quoted attitude is why games don't ever realize their potential. You accept mediocre and aren't willing to invest in something that you might get some joy from.
Uhh... How can a payment model be 'mediocre'?
By this logic, Team Fortress 2 must be an awful game.
You are misunderstanding what I said. No where did I say a payment model was mediocre. What I said was you lose resources that would go towards development of the game with cash shop mechanics, which in turn results in a less than excellent product. More importantly the focus of the devs switches from trying to create new systems which are fun over to figuring out ways to sell gimmicky junk piecemeal.
By this logic, Team Fortress 2 must be an awful game.
You are misunderstanding what I said. No where did I say a payment model was mediocre. What I said was you lose resources that would go towards development of the game with cash shop mechanics, which in turn results in a less than excellent product. More importantly the focus of the devs switches from trying to create new systems which are fun over to figuring out ways to sell gimmicky junk piecemeal.
And you know ESO is going to become like this... how?
Like my original example of TF2; it is F2P and the devs are awesome. Same with DOTA2. All hail our saviour GabeN!
A payment model is a payment model. If the devs were going to scam its playerbase, a payment model ain't going to stop that.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
I think it's a good move, but, I suspect the plan was set before the PC release and the best part is they aren't finished yet...
1. Release PC version with box price + sub i.e. milk subs for a given period...
2. Announce B2P prior to console release to milk box price on console sales for a given period...
3. Announce F2P for both PC and console to attract more new accounts and continue to gain from F2P/Cash shop revenue model...
It's all about the money, product longevity and repaying the investment. Don't be fooled by anything else.
Now, why do I like the move. I bought the PC version but only played the free 30 days. So now I get to play all the content that everyone else has been subbing to play since launch. That's cool, I feel like my investment was worth it.
Secondly, when the console version is released they promised discount for PC game owners, if they fulfil that promise I will buy the next gen version for less than £20.
I won't ever spend on micro-transactions or cash shop items as I have limited play time due to work/real life commitments so this move falls right into my hands.
I doubt the cash shop will be P2W from launch. But I also doubt it will not be P2W by a year after that. So enjoy the game while you can, once you think it has turned into a P2W casino you leave.
"PC was a paid beta" comments popping up all over today are just drama.
Not really. The game should have stayed in development for another year. They pushed out a PC version simply because they needed $.
Console version forced the new payment model ( MS would not budge on waiving subscription fee of their own ). So this moved makes sense but Zenimax Online knew this before PC release which means more then likely a b2p or f2p was in the works from almost the start.
So feel free to belittle how others feel writing it off as just drama.For some though it isn't drama. It just simply highlights a company that has shady business practices.
You guys really don't get it? here I'll write in nanfoodle colors.
NO ONE HAD TO PLAY - IT WAS NOT COMPULSORY. IF YOU PLAYED IT, IT WAS BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO AND UNLESS YOU'RE A MASOCHIST, YOU ENJOYED IT.
So, yes really, it's just drama.
No.
Let us work through this.
Steam sells games in beta they say 'Early Access'. You know when you buy the game that it will be buggy and not finished.
ESO was sold as a finished game. It wasn't. The past year was equivalent to early access.
And you had this revelation only after the announcement that ESO is going B2P?
Originally posted by grimal Wow. Very interesting news. I'll probably still sub to the game (I'm guessing the points awarded will work something like SWTOR's cartel coins). But if this gives the game a broader audience, I'm all for it. It's a great game and the more people that can enjoy it, the better.
Very well said and I agree, the more people playing the game the better. Someone with a positive opinion and not a "I told you so" statement.
On a side note: 1000 posts and it only took me 10 years and 4 months lol.
It is not 'i told you so' when people stated the obvious from beginning that ESO won't survive as a sub based MMO. Too much competition in MMO market and ESO offers nothing special for a sub fee.
Honestly, I feel a bit down about it. I'm not sure why, exactly. It could be nothing and blow over in a day or two and I'll be playing as usual.
It could be that NA Thornblade is just totally dominated by EP right now and it's hard to find any good fights without 10-20 EP showing up to zerg us down. They must be bored as well. I just logged out and I don't feel like logging back in again for a while.
I don't feel ripped off, or cheated, or lied to, exactly, but I also don't feel good about ZOS either, for some reason, in spite of the beautiful game they created with what I thought had amazing potential.
I'm starting to feel like checking into GW2 to see how my old guildies there are doing. I'm thinking about playing some WarThunder to get my pvp on. I can almost always get good fights there.
I wanted to try the game again after beta, when 1.6 implemented, but now i bought it and the same will do many of my friends. This is the reason why i prefer b2p mmo's, despite i pain subs for wow & ffxiv,. Its not about the money, its about playing with friends and when a mmo is b2p you can easily ask them to join you, or for you to join them in their game. You cant change sub mmo's every day or pay for many at the same time.
Anyway i hope it will continue to improve even as b2p.
All Time Favorites: EQ1, WoW, EvE, GW1 Playing Now: WoW, ESO, GW2
Originally posted by Datastar The minute I saw the official post I unsubscribed and uninstalled no thanks I dont ride the F2P/B2P P2W train.
You realize the game isnt changing right? You can still sub and get the same content PLUS the DLC for the same 14.99 while continuing to support ESO and its future major content updates.
The Crown Store brings DLC ( that is included if you sub ) , Cosmetic skins etc. Nothing is being added that breaks anything.
You realise that the cosmetic skins etc will 100% replace any new armor models for the core game...they wont waste thier time developing more. And like swtor the free "crowns" you are given are going to be aimed at a minimum wage type level.... you might be able to by 1 or 2 things a month but you will overall end up paying more for the full experience.
I think you are right. If you get free currency it's only there to make you spend.
First hit is free. May we give you some coins so that you see how simple our payment system is and how integrated it works. Go ahead make a purchase, get used to making purchases. We'll give you some fun money monthly to get into a habit - we're cool like that in this game.
Second hit costs 64 coins and you have 100 coins so that you'll be left with 36 coins ... but 36 coins doesn't purchase anything... but you'll stare at those pitiful 36 coins each and every day on your user interface - to remind you each and every day that each and every day more coins are for sale. Look at you with around enough for a half of an item. Hmm you think, it's halfway mine... maybe I should buy some coins... just to get rid of these extras, of course... so you... buy 100 coins or 5,000 coins just to stock up and stop doing math altogether! And imagine that, I already had around half the coins so I got a 50% discount! I am killing this cash shop.
You talk yourself into it and that's what they are counting on, you not wanting to lose 36 so bad that you'll buy more and repeat the cycle. I guarantee you that if they give you 100 credits - nothing in that store will be 100 credits even. That's not how it works. It has to leave you some extra to stare at constantly looking wasted and unused... how shameful something you got for free just going bad.. better fix that problem - cha ching!
That one is a psychological tactic to produce sales. It works well for gift cards too. Very often people don't return to a store just to spend to 38 cents or 5.38 that is left on a gift card - guess who gets that back free when the card expires. The store so they love to sell you a gift card because ppl may never even touch the balance but are very likely to leave small amts on it... you might call it interest lol It's like banking 3.0.
Yes. And the first hit may be Imperial City - to get people signed up and into the habit of spending coins.
What could be worse is that - if they are giving "subscribers" crowns every month is the devs feeling the need to put something in the cash shop every month. Which will probably be fluff.
What are the benefits of ESO Plus membership?<span zos_col1"="">
ESO Plus offers members exclusive in-game bonuses, a reoccurring allotment of crowns and access to all downloadable content (DLC) game packs for the duration of membership:
30-day Membership:
1500 crowns at the start of each 30-day membership period
Access to all downloadable content for the duration of membership
Exclusive character progression bonuses for the duration of membership
10% bonus to experience point gain
10% bonus to crafting research
10% bonus to crafting inspiration gain
10% bonus to gold acquisition
Doesn't read like there is any benefit to doing a 30 vs 90 or 180.
The benefit to doing a 90 day sub over a 30 will be a discount - in the same way that a 90 day sub is cheaper today. Same with the 180 sub (you know the one the company loses money on) it will be cheaper.
What are the benefits of simply buying the downloadable content:
Access to the downloadable content you have bought for ever.
Of course you won't get the 10% bonuses - does anyone really need them? Honestly? OK there will doubtless be pots available in the cash shop (that TESO was never, never, ever going to have) so some may argue that there is now a P2W element. Which I suppose would make the sub P2W as well!
What I hope is that they recognise the need to release major content packs downstream - as, we believe GW2 has - in order to "re-launch" the game periodically.
I don't really feel anything about it. I was just waiting for it to happen, because i knew it was inevitable. I called that it was going to be F2P a long time ago, but not B2P. I guess it was sort of right, but the question remains about their new monetization schemes.
Originally posted by Timesplit I don't really feel anything about it. I was just waiting for it to happen, because i knew it was inevitable. I called that it was going to be F2P a long time ago, but not B2P. I guess it was sort of right, but the question remains about their new monetization schemes.
And sort of wrong... don't forget that part
This type of B2P, which is similar to TSW's not GW2's, is a lot closer to the sub model than F2P.
If you ever see lockboxes, XP potions, a Crown:Gold exchange and inventory/bank slots in the cash shop that will mean it's "gone GW2" (i.e. F2P with an entry fee.) We can revisit your powers of prognostication at that time.
"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
Comments
good call last week Kano
I am hoping their plan is to make the most money from DLCs and expansions and not have a full blown cash shop with a million different things going on. Their engine doesnt seem to support switching things around (like Lotro) and it will be a one time replacement. Unless of course they have a 'wardrobe' type set up already. Possible but not probable.
Regardless ZoS has shown some big balls in some ways and been semi decent in other ways in terms of 'value' or paying for items many people might think you should get for free.
Now that its full on sell crap in game with cash currencies (whether theyre transferable or not) might open up the flood gates a little bit on the greed meter.
As a PvP game it is probably dead if they start selling stuff that makes you better, but that might be better anyway. Since this has always been an RPG series and PvP focus was the main bait they dangled in front of the MMO crowd to sucker them into buying it. The whole "it has RvRvR system like Camelot" was the biggest joke ever but it sold them a few dozen thousand copies I am sure.
Having just recently resubbed and finally gotten my sorc to level cap, I unsubbed only due to the fact that I felt alone and a lot of the group content I wanted to tackle wasn't being done or had no one in the zone to do it with. This conversion to B2P alone will help with the population immensely, giving me reason to come back and enjoy what I think is a very good game now and will be even better when 1.6 hits.
Bottom line: it just needs more players and this will tackle that issue. Now if only Wildstar would do the same.
I for one LOVE this type of business model too, giving the option to still sub and get xp bonuses and lots of other goodies like mounts, so much better than stupid SWTOR and EQ2s shoddy F2P cash shop system.
Yeah, but didn't he cop hell from some of the fanboys. I even saw his name being bandied about on the official forums, pilloried as an example of ignorance and pure evil, of course.
To their eternal credit, after today's announcement many had the courage and decency to admit they were wrong (though some others who were wrong simply went into denial/backpedal mode, showing the opposite of courage).
But my reaction to the switch is twofold:
1) This relates to, and supports my comments in anther thread about how MMOs are businesses, not your buddies.
It's quite certain ZOS planned this change in payment model for some time. For example, the cash shop and other B2P components are contained in release 1.6, which hits the PTS shortly, and of course in the March 17 release. They were clearly working on this for some time, yet they kept their subscribers in the dark about it. This was a business decision, to retain the subs they would have otherwise lost over the past few months. $ over transparency.
Some people may feel (understandably) played by ZOS for this (also because release and maintenance delays were occurring, but the real reason for this - cash shop and B2P development - was kept hidden from the playerbase) but that's business and the goal of a business is to make a profit.
Note that lack of communication or transparency is not new behaviour from ZOS either, so shouldn't be terribly surprising - eg the announcement to delay consoles last year was made days before the advertised release date - again, ZOS must have known far in advance that they weren't going to be ready then, but kept quiet until the last minute so as to not negatively affect their income stream.
Upshot: MMO companies are businesses, not charities, and not your pals. Their goal is to make money.
2) A balance issue.
I'm wondering how they will find a balance between B2P and subs, in terms of DLCs.
A: If DLCs are too expensive (i.e. cost more than the base sub - eg if DLC is relased every 4 months and costs $70) then subbers will benefit from this, but most non-subbers will not buy it (in addition, the DLC zones will be rather dead).
B: Conversely, if DLCs are more reasonably priced (say $30 every 4 months), non-subbers will buy it but paying a sub will not be value for money as it will be cheaper to just buy the DLCs than sub. In this scenario subs will drop to a very small core of dedicated fans and there will be little incentive for ZOS to cater to them (business, remember).
I think B is more likely, as DLCs in scenario A will be too expensive, and ZOS has already found that the sub model is not working for them, else they wouldn't be making these sub model changes. Which means that they most likely must focus on non-subbers, and I think we know where that path leads.
* I am aware that there are more benefits to subbing, inc 10% more XP gain, etc. But while this will be an enticement for some, it still won't net enough subs. Basically they will by necessity have to focus on one or the other - sub or non-sub - and as such one or the other will be disadvantaged. And for the reasons above (and others) I'd bet the focus will turn out to be on non-subbers.
Not going to quote the above post but ....
Or dont sub at all and dont buy any DLC content until they release 3 or 4 of them. THEN subscribe, play them and see if you want to buy them. If they are worth doing more than a few times then buy them, if you get loot from them that sucks or the content is lacking then dont buy them. They look to be sol o anyway so even if you and your friends own all the same DLCs I am not sure you can play together, that hasnt been addressed anywhere that I see. So it looks like DLC makes the game more solo than MMO. Now that may change or it might already be the case, but to counter act the easter egg hunting they will have to have DLCs that are grooup oriented or at least ones where anyone that wons it will be with other people who own it as well.
Sort of negates their whole 'pay wall' comments from last year but they cant survive on solo DLCs in an MMO for too long before people figure out the musical chairs way of doing them all on the cheap.
I went with cautious "wait and see" but what (pleasantly) surprises me is the amount of positive reactions both here, on Tamriel Foundry and ESO Reddit. That includes quite optimistic results of this little poll.
Looks like sub to sub/BTP switch was planned well in advance, after some payed beta and almost a year of sub-milking
That is, picture of failed game that was forced to go FTP (triumphantly projected by many these days, especially "told ya so!" folks) seems to be quite inaccurate.
Depending on number of players that will stick to it on consoles by either subbing or paying for DLC or two - and we are talking about potential millions of players - ESO development pace could even be accelerated in some variations!? At least it is far from obvious to me that things will go, say, GW2 way.
The game was much of the same old same old no risk vs reward. Quest after godforsaken quest. However I threw $60 at it and it had a few ok features (gfx, sorta the combat, character building). Hopefully I will be able to find some interesting solo PvE challenges that don't involve being ordered around by an NPC.
I think B2P is probably the best model for most MMO's at this point. Unless they offer something that almost nothing else offers (darkfall and some of the old school MMO's).
A large number of gamers will pay for the 'latest DLC / release' and not wait.
Most MMOs folds their previous expansion packs into the sub while keeping the latest one up for sale; WoW / SWTOR etc.
Doesn't stop WoW from making millions/billions from the sale of their latest expansion.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
So you aren't really interested in future potential and expanded gameplay like the justice system? With a ftp cash shop you will see less resources dedicated to the entertainment and more trying to drain your wallet. I'm glad that you never "hated" the game you are considering spending signifigant time in. Think about that. Maybe even if you think it's unimpressive you should save your time and stay away. Idk about you but I'd like to spend my free time doing things I actually enjoy. I don't waste time in games because they are free and a trivial amount of money can't keep me away from something I enjoy.
The quoted attitude is why games don't ever realize their potential. You accept mediocre and aren't willing to invest in something that you might get some joy from.
Sony seems more lenient on cross platform in the MMO space; FF14 lets you play with PC / PS3 / PS4 users.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
Uhh... How can a payment model be 'mediocre'?
By this logic, Team Fortress 2 must be an awful game.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
You are misunderstanding what I said. No where did I say a payment model was mediocre. What I said was you lose resources that would go towards development of the game with cash shop mechanics, which in turn results in a less than excellent product. More importantly the focus of the devs switches from trying to create new systems which are fun over to figuring out ways to sell gimmicky junk piecemeal.
And you know ESO is going to become like this... how?
Like my original example of TF2; it is F2P and the devs are awesome. Same with DOTA2. All hail our saviour GabeN!
A payment model is a payment model. If the devs were going to scam its playerbase, a payment model ain't going to stop that.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
I think it's a good move, but, I suspect the plan was set before the PC release and the best part is they aren't finished yet...
1. Release PC version with box price + sub i.e. milk subs for a given period...
2. Announce B2P prior to console release to milk box price on console sales for a given period...
3. Announce F2P for both PC and console to attract more new accounts and continue to gain from F2P/Cash shop revenue model...
It's all about the money, product longevity and repaying the investment. Don't be fooled by anything else.
Now, why do I like the move. I bought the PC version but only played the free 30 days. So now I get to play all the content that everyone else has been subbing to play since launch. That's cool, I feel like my investment was worth it.
Secondly, when the console version is released they promised discount for PC game owners, if they fulfil that promise I will buy the next gen version for less than £20.
I won't ever spend on micro-transactions or cash shop items as I have limited play time due to work/real life commitments so this move falls right into my hands.
All good.
I doubt the cash shop will be P2W from launch. But I also doubt it will not be P2W by a year after that. So enjoy the game while you can, once you think it has turned into a P2W casino you leave.
And you had this revelation only after the announcement that ESO is going B2P?
It is not 'i told you so' when people stated the obvious from beginning that ESO won't survive as a sub based MMO. Too much competition in MMO market and ESO offers nothing special for a sub fee.
Honestly, I feel a bit down about it. I'm not sure why, exactly. It could be nothing and blow over in a day or two and I'll be playing as usual.
It could be that NA Thornblade is just totally dominated by EP right now and it's hard to find any good fights without 10-20 EP showing up to zerg us down. They must be bored as well. I just logged out and I don't feel like logging back in again for a while.
I don't feel ripped off, or cheated, or lied to, exactly, but I also don't feel good about ZOS either, for some reason, in spite of the beautiful game they created with what I thought had amazing potential.
I'm starting to feel like checking into GW2 to see how my old guildies there are doing. I'm thinking about playing some WarThunder to get my pvp on. I can almost always get good fights there.
I wanted to try the game again after beta, when 1.6 implemented, but now i bought it and the same will do many of my friends. This is the reason why i prefer b2p mmo's, despite i pain subs for wow & ffxiv,. Its not about the money, its about playing with friends and when a mmo is b2p you can easily ask them to join you, or for you to join them in their game. You cant change sub mmo's every day or pay for many at the same time.
Anyway i hope it will continue to improve even as b2p.
All Time Favorites: EQ1, WoW, EvE, GW1
Playing Now: WoW, ESO, GW2
Yes. And the first hit may be Imperial City - to get people signed up and into the habit of spending coins.
What could be worse is that - if they are giving "subscribers" crowns every month is the devs feeling the need to put something in the cash shop every month. Which will probably be fluff.
The benefit to doing a 90 day sub over a 30 will be a discount - in the same way that a 90 day sub is cheaper today. Same with the 180 sub (you know the one the company loses money on) it will be cheaper.
What are the benefits of simply buying the downloadable content:
And sort of wrong... don't forget that part
This type of B2P, which is similar to TSW's not GW2's, is a lot closer to the sub model than F2P.
If you ever see lockboxes, XP potions, a Crown:Gold exchange and inventory/bank slots in the cash shop that will mean it's "gone GW2" (i.e. F2P with an entry fee.) We can revisit your powers of prognostication at that time.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED