The OP's premise is faulty. "Failing to maintain original business model" presumes b2p wasn't in the business model to begin with. Thus the whole argument of failing is baseless.
The business model very well could have been, from the beginning: Let's charge subscription until we've recouped our production costs, then switch to b2p with a subscription option.
Too many people here still harbor the false belief that b2p/f2p models are somehow inferior or desperate last gasps. Guild Wars proved b2p is a valid launch model.
Exactly.
The frequency of new content hitting ESO is going to plummet due to the need to be available as paid DLC. It's obvious that this was intended to be subscription based, through and through, It's always going to have a subscription option with how it's been designed.
There's no doubt in my mind, that they spoke about Sony and Microsoft's ability to remove the requirement for premium Xbox Live and PS+ membership. Because they couldn't achieve what they wanted, they went with likely, Plan A, maximise revenue by having mandatory subscription, depending on Console status, move subscription to optional status, charge for DLC, allow customers to pay for subscription, maximise box sales for console, maximise revenue by releasing X amount of content every year to be purchased whilst balancing the cost of subscription against non-subscription for those that only buy DLC, to give consumers the illusion that their subscription is great value for money whilst maximising revenue from non-subscribers.
It's a for-profit business, not sure what anyone was expecting. There was no way ESO was not going to go B2P with an "optional subscription" with Xbox Live not allowing Silver subscribers to play. I had friends play FFXI for years on Silver and maybe, my memory is terrible, Phantasy Star Universe on xbox 360 on silver too. That's one, possibly two console MMORPG's that were able to get the "mandatory" Xbox live gold membership requirement removed.
The OP's premise is faulty. "Failing to maintain original business model" presumes b2p wasn't in the business model to begin with. Thus the whole argument of failing is baseless.
The business model very well could have been, from the beginning: Let's charge subscription until we've recouped our production costs, then switch to b2p with a subscription option.
Too many people here still harbor the false belief that b2p/f2p models are somehow inferior or desperate last gasps. Guild Wars proved b2p is a valid launch model.
Exactly.
The frequency of new content hitting ESO is going to plummet due to the need to be available as paid DLC. It's obvious that this was intended to be subscription based, through and through, It's always going to have a subscription option with how it's been designed.
There's no doubt in my mind, that they spoke about Sony and Microsoft's ability to remove the requirement for premium Xbox Live and PS+ membership. Because they couldn't achieve what they wanted, they went with likely, Plan A, maximise revenue by having mandatory subscription, depending on Console status, move subscription to optional status, charge for DLC, allow customers to pay for subscription, maximise box sales for console, maximise revenue by releasing X amount of content every year to be purchased whilst balancing the cost of subscription against non-subscription for those that only buy DLC, to give consumers the illusion that their subscription is great value for money whilst maximising revenue from non-subscribers.
It's a for-profit business, not sure what anyone was expecting. There was no way ESO was not going to go B2P with an "optional subscription" with Xbox Live not allowing Silver subscribers to play. I had friends play FFXI for years on Silver and maybe, my memory is terrible, Phantasy Star Universe on xbox 360 on silver too. That's one, possibly two console MMORPG's that were able to get the "mandatory" Xbox live gold membership requirement removed.
A lot of people seem to be unaware of just how important the Xbox market is to the ES franchise - not the console market, the Xbox.
By now everyone knows that Skyrim on PCs was only 14% of the market (based on 20+ mil units by the end of 2013.) What they don't seem to realize is that PS3 Skyrim was only 27%. Xbox was 59%... more than PS4 + PC combined. http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/
More than a year ago, Sony agreed to not require PS+ for ESO, but MS never agreed to wave the Gold requirement.
But even if they had waved it and all you had was the ZOS sub on the consoies, selling a no sub game on the PS4 and XB1 will give ESO a chance to approach box sales in the ballpark of previous ES releases. With a sub, they would only ever have had a chance at a much smaller fraction of that.
"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
The only reason ESO struggled was because it could never shake off the negative stigma around it, at least not until the last couple of months. With such a big IP as ES it needed to get it right in beta, which we can agree it did not do. Furthermore, so many people expected it to be more like ES than an MMO so that caused further backlash even if launch had went smoothly.
It's still my mmo of choice but there's no question it's negative stigma hurt it big time. Most of it, in my opinion, was over blown.
The OP's premise is faulty. "Failing to maintain original business model" presumes b2p wasn't in the business model to begin with. Thus the whole argument of failing is baseless.
The business model very well could have been, from the beginning: Let's charge subscription until we've recouped our production costs, then switch to b2p with a subscription option.
Too many people here still harbor the false belief that b2p/f2p models are somehow inferior or desperate last gasps. Guild Wars proved b2p is a valid launch model.
Exactly.
The frequency of new content hitting ESO is going to plummet due to the need to be available as paid DLC. It's obvious that this was intended to be subscription based, through and through, It's always going to have a subscription option with how it's been designed.
There's no doubt in my mind, that they spoke about Sony and Microsoft's ability to remove the requirement for premium Xbox Live and PS+ membership. Because they couldn't achieve what they wanted, they went with likely, Plan A, maximise revenue by having mandatory subscription, depending on Console status, move subscription to optional status, charge for DLC, allow customers to pay for subscription, maximise box sales for console, maximise revenue by releasing X amount of content every year to be purchased whilst balancing the cost of subscription against non-subscription for those that only buy DLC, to give consumers the illusion that their subscription is great value for money whilst maximising revenue from non-subscribers.
It's a for-profit business, not sure what anyone was expecting. There was no way ESO was not going to go B2P with an "optional subscription" with Xbox Live not allowing Silver subscribers to play. I had friends play FFXI for years on Silver and maybe, my memory is terrible, Phantasy Star Universe on xbox 360 on silver too. That's one, possibly two console MMORPG's that were able to get the "mandatory" Xbox live gold membership requirement removed.
A lot of people seem to be unaware of just how important the Xbox market is to the ES franchise - not the console market, the Xbox.
By now everyone knows that Skyrim on PCs was only 14% of the market (based on 20+ mil units by the end of 2013.) What they don't seem to realize is that PS3 Skyrim was only 27%. Xbox was 59%... more than PS4 + PC combined. http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/
More than a year ago, Sony agreed to not require PS+ for ESO, but MS never agreed to wave the Gold requirement.
But even if they had waved it and all you had was the ZOS sub on the consoies, selling a no sub game on the PS4 and XB1 will give ESO a chance to approach box sales in the ballpark of previous ES releases. With a sub, they would only ever have had a chance at a much smaller fraction of that.
Excluding Japan, the 360 outsold the PS3 73 million to 62 million. Looking at the US alone, the 360 outsold the PS3 48 million to 28 million...which console would you expect it to sell better on? This generation is a completely different story, the PS4 is utterly kicking the xbox ones @$$ in sales. Look at COD for instance...that was more of a "xbox market" than Skyrim (or any other game for that matter), yet the PS4 version outsold the xbox one version by over 2 million..
Implying ESO is dependent on Microsoft because Elder Scrolls is an "xbox market", is yet another stretch.
The sub was removed simply because they want to maximize their console market.....releasing as B2P would sell easily tripple the amount of copies as if it had a sub on consoles, live fees or not...
The only reason they're switching is money. It's as simple as that. Almost all companies, except like Blizzard, would be happy with 1+ million subs. However, B2P/F2P just makes so much more money for companies. That's the ONLY reason why pretty much everything is B2P/F2P these days, money.
P2P I spend probably and average of $30 a month if they have a cash shop like WoW. B2P/F2P I spend easily $100 a month on content, cosmetics, etc. As long as they don't sell weapons and armor, I'm find with B2P/F2P. The only problem is that 99.9% of all B2P/F2P sell items that you can trade in-game for gold, thus making them all P2W. ZOS has specifically said that all items on the cash shop will be bound to your account. This is fine with me.
It's a brilliant business move by zenimax. This game would never have sold on console with a subscription, Now that it is b2p it will sell like hotcakes.
Doesn't Microsoft have a long standing contract with Beth/Zos from awhile back? I think that's why the B2P model and putting it on PS4 was just extra gravy.
Originally posted by nerovipus32 It's a brilliant business move by zenimax. This game would never have sold on console with a subscription, Now that it is b2p it will sell like hotcakes.
I really doubt it is going to sell like a 'hot cakes'. Console market is very different from pc when it comes to MMOS. And not so long ago you used to bash anyone who would suggest F2P orB2P change and now suddenly it is a brilliant business move? seriously.
..do you realise how many bogus conversations happen on the internet?...using "we discussed it to death" doesn't make it any less bogus.....do you know how many people discussed Obama being born in Kenya?
With that said, do you have any links to press releases or dev interviews that claim XBOX Live would or did influence ESO's subscription model?...cuz I can link you to 4 right now where the live fee is discussed, but as a "this is how we are launching it" (the link you gave even says that)....and never ever ever implying "it might influence our payment model"...
"Its clear as day", is again, some of the greatest white knighting I have ever seen...
You won't find that when two companies are doing business together. IN SE's case they weren't so they have no reason to hold back in offering an explanation, they have no reason to not throw MS under the bus. When they have an agreement, things certainly will play out differently. It would be basically saying "wanna hate on someone hate on MS"... They're not going to do that, even if they were the cause.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
What are the reasons ESO failed to maintain their original business model?
Or was it inevitable no matter what ZOS did or how good the game was?
Those reasons are so bad and amateurish.
If a kid was a ceo/decision maker for eso or an mmo in general, they would have better uniformity and vision.
The problem just from the list is that its not uniform. You can solo, but then you are forced to quest.
wasteful vr grind
boring seiging grind for end game for pvp
crafting not part of open world which is partly why pvp for end game was boring. they tried a thempark sand box in a sense but it was just a bad themepark with very little theme as well.
lots of progression without much content. why not put social aspects to the game? mini games, duel arenas, even gambling
player created content? music making, map making for duel arenas, create dungeons with traps etc depending on mmo but can work with anyting
have player housing for launch with trophy collecting. if they are going to do it later they hurt their pre existing player base by forcing them to redo the content.
ESO is really just long winded story with VO. decent crafting but not great. decent combat and not great for me at launch with bug issues. it had potential.
They did not develop the backstory of werewolf, human and vampire or generally npc guild system in the game. very hollow
among a bunch of other things... its a nice single player, but not worth more thant the first month
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
i agree..even tho i dont like the game for my own reasons its a good move on thier part to go b2p..it wouldnt sell AT ALL on console ..now it will sell double what they would with a required monthly fee on xbone n ps4
It's actually really simple, they realized that to play ESO console players would have to pay their ISP, the box fee, the console service sub like Live or PS Plus, and the sub for ESO. Seeing as many console players complain about having to pay for the Live or Plus servic, and PC players were stating that they liked ESO but "would enjoy it more without the sub". Well..... It makes sense.
Nobody in their right mind would pay all those fucking fees for an MMO.
--Custom Rig: Pyraxis--- NZXT Phantom 410 Case Intel Core i5-4690 Processor - Quad Core, 6MB Smart Cache, 3.5GHz Asus Sabertooth Z87 Motherboard Asus GeForce GTX 760 Video Card - 2GB GDDR5, PCI-Express 3.0 Kingston HyperX Fury Blue 16GB
Writing ESO obituaries became quite fashionable during last two-three years, especially after launch. It is therefore natural that obituarists are increasing their activities with new launch approaching.
The game is not even a year old and is already in deep trouble. Two-three years? It was released in April 2014!
I won't say that the game "failed" to be a successful Subscription game, as I happen to think it was a move made to transition better to the Consoles. However, I will express what personally disappointed me about the game.
1. It didn't feel like Elder Scrolls.
Now, what I am talking about here specifically has more to do with how questing worked. Basically... when I buy an Elder Scrolls game, I have one major thing on my mind: I can go just about anywhere and find something to do and explore. Everything is going to be a mystery, kind of. In ESO... the thing that really detracted from this was with how quests were dealt.
Now, I'm not talking about the quest markers. Even Oblivion had quest markers... so did Skyrim. Those weren't a big deal to me. No, what bothered me was something a little more vague. I'll explain:
You know how in Skyrim, you would get some random quest that told you to go out to some damn remote place out in the middle of nowhere on the other side of the map? That! That's what ESO didn't have. Instead of picking up a quest in Glenumbra that required me to make a trek out to Skyrim, and along the way fall into any number of other adventures that would send me off to other far reaching areas, thereby getting lost in the whole process... it simply just asked me to go down the road a ways and do this thing.
THIS is the biggest fault I had with the game, and frankly, is the biggest oversight in the whole thing. It was such a hugely missed opportunity that simply made no sense to me from a brand name perspective. It could have actually broken the Themepark mold by doing this, but instead of that... they just made it a cleverly disguised quest hub Themepark. I know there would have been a Mob Level issue, but... I've written articles in the past how to easily alleviate that. The short answer is... sometimes in games (especially in an Elder Scrolls game) you have to learn what you should and should not mess with in order to survive.
2. There were no consequences.
This has to do with the Justice system, that.... I'm still not even sure has been implemented. Basically... half the fun of an Edler Scrolls game was in fighting the temptation to do something you weren't supposed to do (if you were good) or not getting caught doing something you weren't supposed to be doing.
Sneaking into a castle and relieving the nobility of their sacred relics was a big deal in all the ES games.... largely because you didn't even need a quest to do it. You could just make it your own objective. Or... how about this perspective. Sneaking into a ruin and relieving a Storm Lord of his Lich Staff ran off the same justice system? They attacked you... because to THEM (the evil guys) you were breaking a law. Now THAT is Elder Scrolls.
I know, again, that is a rather hefty thing to program. But... I mean... that's kind of important if you're going to put an ES name on your game. There wasn't even a hint of this, and I doubt even if the Justice system they put in eventually will even mimic this.
3. The economy.
I don't understand how it works. It felt like a convoluted mess to me. I was all for not relying on Auction Houses... but... I didn't particularly enjoy not did I understand how just selling your crafted items to other players required you to be in a guild that participated heavily in PvP. That just doesn't make sense to me.
-------------
That's basically it. Those were my major gripes about this game. Essentially, I actually enjoyed almost everything else about it. But... with an ES game, I expect certain things. I don't need a fully fledged representation - but some semblance of an idea has to exist. Number one especially... there's no excuse. Number 2, I could have waited until they had it right. Number 3... should have been taken back to the drawing board.
I was able to explore with my lvl 11 to a level 35 area, just from discovery xp I gained about 2 lvls, hang out in that area until vampires spawned, which means I had to explore carefully for days cause (one shot from mobs and I was dead), and after I got bitten was able to complete that higher lvl quests with a bow and become a vampire. It was some of the most fun I've had in a game in ages. Even with players trying to kill all the spawns before you could become infected.
Yes it would have been nice to have an NPC tell me such adventures were possible, but I had to find out about them in the forums and how to kill high level mobs like that with the guides players had created. It did make leveling more fun when I returned to my lvl appropriate area, cause I had an extra set of skills to train. I wasn't alone doing that quest as there were even some lvl 8 players there. So off the path adventures were there, you just had to search for them.
So what?
I didn't say anything about exploration. I said that instead of giving me a quest to go down the road a ways, they should have given me a quest to go to the other side of the world map.
How does that have anything to do with me exploring on my own merit? I did plenty of that. I enjoyed it very much. Unfortunately, that is completely irrelevant to anything I wrote.
If I get a quest in an ES game... I expect to have to go to the other side of the world map in order to accomplish that quest - just like in every other ES game. I don't expect to just have to go down the road. Nothing about that has anything to do with skipping content or arbitrary exploration.
The only thing that kept FFXIV off of xbox was Microsoft not wanting cross platform play, NOT Xbox Live+subscription fees...Dust not coming to xbox was also for the exact same reason, nothing to do with fees. Cross platform play was never affecting ESO, so bringing up FFXIV or Dust 514 as examples of why ESO ditched its subscription, is lieing to yoursefl, plain and simple...
...you are mistaking cause for consequence.
Cause: Microsoft does not allow or only very limited, access to their XBox Live network.
Consequence: No cross platform gameplay for FFXIV and Dust, and very likely it also affects payment processing and billing - all micro-transactions, subscription and account information would need to be kept separate and exclusively on XBox Live network.
All in all, there is way more behind Microsoft limitations. Things are not as simple as you think they are.
This was my thought also. Microsoft needing to control their subscription platform; therefore, no cross platform play. Therefore, despite Yoshi's strongly worded quote, MS refusing to allow crossplatform play may be directly linked to their refusing to waive the fees. Subscription is not mentioned in the article directly, but Yoshi is a tactful guy. The lack of crossplatform play exactly as he stated probably was HIS reason. Doesn't mean that was the only factor.
Microsoft is known for putting the screws to all its business partners (far and wide beyond the gaming industry). It's pretty obvious that Zeni and MS were in negotiations all this time and that Zeni threw in the towel and caved to MS in order to get their game out on consoles. There will always be a hardcore "fail" contingency who will never believe anything but that ESO is a failed game. I think it's much more interesting to try to understand the real forces driving the gaming world and the decisions devs are making rather than just reach for the nearest "fail" assumption.
Writing ESO obituaries became quite fashionable during last two-three years, especially after launch. It is therefore natural that obituarists are increasing their activities with new launch approaching.
The game is not even a year old and is already in deep trouble. Two-three years? It was released in April 2014!
He is pointing out that people were bashing the game when all it had was a title, long before they learned anything about it.
If you think this change was because it was in deep trouble and not because of microsoft's keeping the live fees, then I assume you must think it will bomb terribly on consoles and sell under 3% of the copies skyrim moved. I personally think that is unlikely. Time will tell as the console release date nears.
What are the reasons ESO failed to maintain their original business model?
Or was it inevitable no matter what ZOS did or how good the game was?
To me the only reason is that times have changed. where 10+ years ago it was normal to have games in this genre to have subscriptions, today people find all sorts of excuses why they do not warrant a game a sub-fee.
Some of you people are naive, and some of you are just plain nuts.
They're switching to b2p because the pc version has clearly shown them that the game doesn't have good retention levels, but it did have good initial sales so they're banking on it doing the same for consoles. And frankly, if they truly believed the game was hitting their profit goals via subs currently they would keep that model and eat the network fees as the console market has a good chance to be larger for them.
As for why it doesn't have good sub retention, that's pretty obvious to anyone who's played it. It's not a good game.
It doesn't give the same gameplay experience as other Elder Scroll games, especially during the first 10 levels or so. The starter zones were a HORRIBLE idea, they should have incorporated the important faction story bits into the tutorial and then just let players go off the rails if they chose. What amounts to a 2 hour long tutorial before the game opening up finally is just plain stupid.
Out of control phasing disrupting small group play, this was repeatedly reported during the beta, but nothing was done about it. And from what I understand, nothing continues to be done about it. Friends are one of the biggest, if not the biggest, draw to continued playing of an MMO. Making it difficult to play with friends in an MMO is brain dead.
The game just doesn't look or play well. The animations are lousy for a AAA game, to the point that you wonder if you're playing a 5 year old f2p Chinese mmo at times. And the combat, for being action combat, is woefully dull and clunky.
I bet you're going to play the hell out of it after the sub drops.
I plan on playing the sh*t out of ESO when it goes F2P. No game, ever, will ever, none, zero, zilch, nada will ever be worth a subscription. Why pay good money for something when I could play something else for free. It's one thing games like PoE, D3, Hearthstone and Neverwinter taught me. F2P is the best!
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Well the business model worked for guild wars 2,but that model was present from the beginning. I think they made this move because of Microsoft,because they game was doing quite well from what I saw. Microsoft has always been tough on MMos,which is the reason FFXIV ARR is not on xbox. Sony is usually alot easier to work with. I feel bad for the PC players because they basically funded this transistion and paid for an extended beta with a monthly sub. If I was a pc player I would be upset,but I would blame Microsoft not Zenimax Online. I am hoping the game will be sucessful becuase I enjoy the game. I think it will succeed because there are people out there who cannot afford a pc that can run the game properly,which would make sense to make a console version because then graphics isnt such a big deal.
Because its not a good game. Does it gete simpler than that? It offers nothing new, nor does it capture spirit of Elder Scrolls in any way. Its a wow with new skin.
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
In this day and age of MMO Marketing, going B2P or F2P means the opposite of what many think. It generally means that they are doing well and their metrics suggest they'd do even better F2P. After-all, for example, would you rather have X-Amount of players spending $15.00 a month or X-Amount of players spending $5.00-30.00 a month on micro transactions? It's quite clear B2P and F2P models are working and are sustainable. Too many are hung up on old stigmas is all.
Originally posted by noodles6966 Well the business model worked for guild wars 2,but that model was present from the beginning. I think they made this move because of Microsoft,because they game was doing quite well from what I saw. Microsoft has always been tough on MMos,which is the reason FFXIV ARR is not on xbox. Sony is usually alot easier to work with. I feel bad for the PC players because they basically funded this transistion and paid for an extended beta with a monthly sub. If I was a pc player I would be upset,but I would blame Microsoft not Zenimax Online. I am hoping the game will be sucessful becuase I enjoy the game. I think it will succeed because there are people out there who cannot afford a pc that can run the game properly,which would make sense to make a console version because then graphics isnt such a big deal.
There was no requirement to change the PC business model.. except due to the fact that it was not working financially. No one changes their model because it is a success. They change to a better model, because the model that they were using is not working as planned.
P.S. They are not going F2P (to get new customers) they are going B2P in order to try to better monetize the customers that they already had (but have left). This shows that the customers that they had were not willing to pay a monthly fee, but that it is believed that they might pay for expansions.
Writing ESO obituaries became quite fashionable during last two-three years, especially after launch. It is therefore natural that obituarists are increasing their activities with new launch approaching.
The game is not even a year old and is already in deep trouble. Two-three years? It was released in April 2014!
He is pointing out that people were bashing the game when all it had was a title, long before they learned anything about it.
If you think this change was because it was in deep trouble and not because of microsoft's keeping the live fees, then I assume you must think it will bomb terribly on consoles and sell under 3% of the copies skyrim moved. I personally think that is unlikely. Time will tell as the console release date nears.
People were bashing the game for various reasons, not just the racial faction locking that they introduced into a Elder Scrolls game, but also the limited exploration due to the 'factional' region locking, none of these things was ever really addressed except in a most superficial way, that only really aggravated those grievances than allay them.
That ESO did not achieve sustainability is now practically a certainty, the correlation between ESO and SW;TOR's launch is extremely high,even down to the timing, that their going with much the same business model in order to try and save the game, is extremely telling, though whether retaining the box price achieves anything remains to be seen, chances are they are just hoping that existing owners of the game will return once the game goes F2P, and the game is going F2P, calling the game B2P is disingenuous, its a F2P/P2P hybrid game, it will have a cash shop, just like SW;TOR has, and probably will have gated content, just like SW;TOR does, and if it works for them, we'll probably see the box price disappear, so that new players are encouraged.
What i would like to see happen, is for Zenimax to enable the PS4 players to be able to play on the PC servers, it might just encourage Microsoft to get realistic over the whole cross platform server issues they have such a problem with, FFXIV;ARR proves that cross platform not only works, but is extremely viable, even better you don't have to own PS+ in order to play the game, its time Microsoft got with the program instead of behaving in such a protectionist way over their console, it might even encourage more people to own one of the things.
Comments
Exactly.
The frequency of new content hitting ESO is going to plummet due to the need to be available as paid DLC. It's obvious that this was intended to be subscription based, through and through, It's always going to have a subscription option with how it's been designed.
There's no doubt in my mind, that they spoke about Sony and Microsoft's ability to remove the requirement for premium Xbox Live and PS+ membership. Because they couldn't achieve what they wanted, they went with likely, Plan A, maximise revenue by having mandatory subscription, depending on Console status, move subscription to optional status, charge for DLC, allow customers to pay for subscription, maximise box sales for console, maximise revenue by releasing X amount of content every year to be purchased whilst balancing the cost of subscription against non-subscription for those that only buy DLC, to give consumers the illusion that their subscription is great value for money whilst maximising revenue from non-subscribers.
It's a for-profit business, not sure what anyone was expecting. There was no way ESO was not going to go B2P with an "optional subscription" with Xbox Live not allowing Silver subscribers to play. I had friends play FFXI for years on Silver and maybe, my memory is terrible, Phantasy Star Universe on xbox 360 on silver too. That's one, possibly two console MMORPG's that were able to get the "mandatory" Xbox live gold membership requirement removed.
A lot of people seem to be unaware of just how important the Xbox market is to the ES franchise - not the console market, the Xbox.
By now everyone knows that Skyrim on PCs was only 14% of the market (based on 20+ mil units by the end of 2013.) What they don't seem to realize is that PS3 Skyrim was only 27%. Xbox was 59%... more than PS4 + PC combined. http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/
If you go back one ES game to Oblivion, the Xbox version didn't outsell the PS version by quite as much but it was still #1 (XB: 57%, PS: 40%, PC: 3%) http://www.vgchartz.com/game/636/the-elder-scrolls-iv-oblivion/
More than a year ago, Sony agreed to not require PS+ for ESO, but MS never agreed to wave the Gold requirement.
But even if they had waved it and all you had was the ZOS sub on the consoies, selling a no sub game on the PS4 and XB1 will give ESO a chance to approach box sales in the ballpark of previous ES releases. With a sub, they would only ever have had a chance at a much smaller fraction of that.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
The only reason ESO struggled was because it could never shake off the negative stigma around it, at least not until the last couple of months. With such a big IP as ES it needed to get it right in beta, which we can agree it did not do. Furthermore, so many people expected it to be more like ES than an MMO so that caused further backlash even if launch had went smoothly.
It's still my mmo of choice but there's no question it's negative stigma hurt it big time. Most of it, in my opinion, was over blown.
Excluding Japan, the 360 outsold the PS3 73 million to 62 million. Looking at the US alone, the 360 outsold the PS3 48 million to 28 million...which console would you expect it to sell better on? This generation is a completely different story, the PS4 is utterly kicking the xbox ones @$$ in sales. Look at COD for instance...that was more of a "xbox market" than Skyrim (or any other game for that matter), yet the PS4 version outsold the xbox one version by over 2 million..
Implying ESO is dependent on Microsoft because Elder Scrolls is an "xbox market", is yet another stretch.
The sub was removed simply because they want to maximize their console market.....releasing as B2P would sell easily tripple the amount of copies as if it had a sub on consoles, live fees or not...
The only reason they're switching is money. It's as simple as that. Almost all companies, except like Blizzard, would be happy with 1+ million subs. However, B2P/F2P just makes so much more money for companies. That's the ONLY reason why pretty much everything is B2P/F2P these days, money.
P2P I spend probably and average of $30 a month if they have a cash shop like WoW. B2P/F2P I spend easily $100 a month on content, cosmetics, etc. As long as they don't sell weapons and armor, I'm find with B2P/F2P. The only problem is that 99.9% of all B2P/F2P sell items that you can trade in-game for gold, thus making them all P2W. ZOS has specifically said that all items on the cash shop will be bound to your account. This is fine with me.
I really doubt it is going to sell like a 'hot cakes'. Console market is very different from pc when it comes to MMOS. And not so long ago you used to bash anyone who would suggest F2P orB2P change and now suddenly it is a brilliant business move? seriously.
You won't find that when two companies are doing business together. IN SE's case they weren't so they have no reason to hold back in offering an explanation, they have no reason to not throw MS under the bus. When they have an agreement, things certainly will play out differently. It would be basically saying "wanna hate on someone hate on MS"... They're not going to do that, even if they were the cause.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Those reasons are so bad and amateurish.
If a kid was a ceo/decision maker for eso or an mmo in general, they would have better uniformity and vision.
The problem just from the list is that its not uniform. You can solo, but then you are forced to quest.
wasteful vr grind
boring seiging grind for end game for pvp
crafting not part of open world which is partly why pvp for end game was boring. they tried a thempark sand box in a sense but it was just a bad themepark with very little theme as well.
lots of progression without much content. why not put social aspects to the game? mini games, duel arenas, even gambling
player created content? music making, map making for duel arenas, create dungeons with traps etc depending on mmo but can work with anyting
have player housing for launch with trophy collecting. if they are going to do it later they hurt their pre existing player base by forcing them to redo the content.
ESO is really just long winded story with VO. decent crafting but not great. decent combat and not great for me at launch with bug issues. it had potential.
They did not develop the backstory of werewolf, human and vampire or generally npc guild system in the game. very hollow
among a bunch of other things... its a nice single player, but not worth more thant the first month
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
i agree..even tho i dont like the game for my own reasons its a good move on thier part to go b2p..it wouldnt sell AT ALL on console ..now it will sell double what they would with a required monthly fee on xbone n ps4
Nobody in their right mind would pay all those fucking fees for an MMO.
--Custom Rig: Pyraxis---
NZXT Phantom 410 Case
Intel Core i5-4690 Processor - Quad Core, 6MB Smart Cache, 3.5GHz
Asus Sabertooth Z87 Motherboard
Asus GeForce GTX 760 Video Card - 2GB GDDR5, PCI-Express 3.0
Kingston HyperX Fury Blue 16GB
The game is not even a year old and is already in deep trouble. Two-three years? It was released in April 2014!
So what?
I didn't say anything about exploration. I said that instead of giving me a quest to go down the road a ways, they should have given me a quest to go to the other side of the world map.
How does that have anything to do with me exploring on my own merit? I did plenty of that. I enjoyed it very much. Unfortunately, that is completely irrelevant to anything I wrote.
If I get a quest in an ES game... I expect to have to go to the other side of the world map in order to accomplish that quest - just like in every other ES game. I don't expect to just have to go down the road. Nothing about that has anything to do with skipping content or arbitrary exploration.
This was my thought also. Microsoft needing to control their subscription platform; therefore, no cross platform play. Therefore, despite Yoshi's strongly worded quote, MS refusing to allow crossplatform play may be directly linked to their refusing to waive the fees. Subscription is not mentioned in the article directly, but Yoshi is a tactful guy. The lack of crossplatform play exactly as he stated probably was HIS reason. Doesn't mean that was the only factor.
Microsoft is known for putting the screws to all its business partners (far and wide beyond the gaming industry). It's pretty obvious that Zeni and MS were in negotiations all this time and that Zeni threw in the towel and caved to MS in order to get their game out on consoles. There will always be a hardcore "fail" contingency who will never believe anything but that ESO is a failed game. I think it's much more interesting to try to understand the real forces driving the gaming world and the decisions devs are making rather than just reach for the nearest "fail" assumption.
He is pointing out that people were bashing the game when all it had was a title, long before they learned anything about it.
If you think this change was because it was in deep trouble and not because of microsoft's keeping the live fees, then I assume you must think it will bomb terribly on consoles and sell under 3% of the copies skyrim moved. I personally think that is unlikely. Time will tell as the console release date nears.
To me the only reason is that times have changed. where 10+ years ago it was normal to have games in this genre to have subscriptions, today people find all sorts of excuses why they do not warrant a game a sub-fee.
I plan on playing the sh*t out of ESO when it goes F2P. No game, ever, will ever, none, zero, zilch, nada will ever be worth a subscription. Why pay good money for something when I could play something else for free. It's one thing games like PoE, D3, Hearthstone and Neverwinter taught me. F2P is the best!
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
In this day and age of MMO Marketing, going B2P or F2P means the opposite of what many think. It generally means that they are doing well and their metrics suggest they'd do even better F2P. After-all, for example, would you rather have X-Amount of players spending $15.00 a month or X-Amount of players spending $5.00-30.00 a month on micro transactions? It's quite clear B2P and F2P models are working and are sustainable. Too many are hung up on old stigmas is all.
X is subjective.
[ PWE Community Moderator (Official Forums) | Foundry: The Dweomerkeepers | My Twitter | @zebular ]
There was no requirement to change the PC business model.. except due to the fact that it was not working financially. No one changes their model because it is a success. They change to a better model, because the model that they were using is not working as planned.
P.S. They are not going F2P (to get new customers) they are going B2P in order to try to better monetize the customers that they already had (but have left). This shows that the customers that they had were not willing to pay a monthly fee, but that it is believed that they might pay for expansions.
My top reason why I didn't resub after first month: No EU servers.
People were bashing the game for various reasons, not just the racial faction locking that they introduced into a Elder Scrolls game, but also the limited exploration due to the 'factional' region locking, none of these things was ever really addressed except in a most superficial way, that only really aggravated those grievances than allay them.
That ESO did not achieve sustainability is now practically a certainty, the correlation between ESO and SW;TOR's launch is extremely high,even down to the timing, that their going with much the same business model in order to try and save the game, is extremely telling, though whether retaining the box price achieves anything remains to be seen, chances are they are just hoping that existing owners of the game will return once the game goes F2P, and the game is going F2P, calling the game B2P is disingenuous, its a F2P/P2P hybrid game, it will have a cash shop, just like SW;TOR has, and probably will have gated content, just like SW;TOR does, and if it works for them, we'll probably see the box price disappear, so that new players are encouraged.
What i would like to see happen, is for Zenimax to enable the PS4 players to be able to play on the PC servers, it might just encourage Microsoft to get realistic over the whole cross platform server issues they have such a problem with, FFXIV;ARR proves that cross platform not only works, but is extremely viable, even better you don't have to own PS+ in order to play the game, its time Microsoft got with the program instead of behaving in such a protectionist way over their console, it might even encourage more people to own one of the things.