Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Reasons ESO failed to maintain original business model
d_20
Member RarePosts: 1,878
Among the specific reasons:
Buggy launch
Inability for friends to complete quests together
Lag: in Cryodiil and dungeons
Cadwell's Veteran Grind
Forced group zone to progress (Craglorn)
Difficulty of veteran pledges for casual players
etc.
Also, see: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/view/forums/thread/411967/page/1
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?
Comments
I'm waiting for people to come in here saying that nothing is wrong with the game, and that B2P is only happening because of the consoles...
Reality is hard to swallow for white knights...
I was pretty late to the party, because people were calling this in beta and I didn't want to believe it.
How many times do we have to show you the math that the game was doing well? Everyone knows this was because Microsoft refused to waive xbox live fees. They got Sony to to agree to waive PS+ but Microsoft wasn't having it. I really don't see how you could get confused on that front.
Barring the fact that we have enough numbers on the game to know it was doing sustainable + some financially, if it was a problem with not enough players they would have gone through the standard steps - free trial, free comeback weekend, a big in game event as an excuse to send spam emails inviting everyone, etc. You really have to try hard to look at this and think they are desperate for money.
On top of it all the console launch is everything, its where the main fanbase is. There are 6 times as many Skyrim players on consoles as PCs. Unfortunately that means Microsoft decisions screw the PC ESO players over. It does make sense for me that this is best for the consoles, and it makes sense to me that they feel a need to cater to them, but I still think this means updates are going to start sucking.
It could still end up having great content updates, but I think they are going to make it feel more like the Skyrim/Oblivion DLC on purpose. Sure there were some awesome things in there - Shivering Isles - but there was also crap like horse armor and hearthfire.
Destiny has the same model, and it seems to be doing well enough with updates from an outside perspective. My friends that play are loving it, and the updates haven't been too far apart for them. Maybe this model can work with a real MMORPG. I hope it works, but I will be surprised if it does.
One of the things they describe that I wouldn't like is the idea that their new raid was DLC. You buy it so you can go in and get the best gear. If you do not buy it, you are behind the gear curve. That does not seem like a very good model to me, but for some reason it is infinitely more appealing to my console friends than a sub fee.
I find these two reasons of yours ironic.
Inability for friends to complete quests together
Forced group zone to progress (Craglorn)
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
This is why you don't present a definitive interpretation from estimated data. Neither side in these debates have factual knowledge when they're arguing back and forth about this day in and day out. It's the same for defining the reasoning of what has happened as you just did...IE fitting the narrative into your own biased opinion.
AS for Something being wrong with the game.. Define "something being wrong with the game"?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Indeed, it is quite possible that they simply planned their "fail" in advance.
If you think about it a little and are familiar with ESO, it's not ironic because people wanted to play with a friend or two from RL when they were excited and leveling. Like one other person. Like with a spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend. (See Angry Joe freak out about this).
Craglorn is an entire different concept that forces grouping on people in order to develop their characters to max level and at the time probably would have required more than two casual players just gadding about the world together. It's a different situation.
If you think Microsoft was a brick wall and would not have budged no matter how much they negotiated, thus making ZOS change their (in your words) perfectly viable subscription only model, then FFXI on Xbox 360 wants to have a word with you...
I guess it never ends....every bit of not so favorable news needs to get blamed on something thats not the game itself....
Well, due to DMKano's enhanced credibility based on the leakiness of his connections at ZOS, I would think this is quite possible.
To be fair, I think they planned (or rather, hopped), that subscriptions would stay viable. FFXI and XIV already showed that subscription based console MMOs can work, and FFXI on the 360 showed that Microsoft is willing to wave the xbox live fee for subscription based MMOs with the right amount of negotiating.
Yeah I don't think it has anything to do with the quality of the game. They were planning it ever since they wanted to port it to Xbox. Literally. No MMO not even WoW does well until it's been up and running for a year at least. So maximize profits then and then reboot once the bugs are fixed.
well the reason that i didn't buy it was:
1. couldn't do quests with my friend in beta unless we were both in same phase or w/e
2. the PVE felt like a limited Skyrim so didn't want to pay subscription for that.
3. but even then i was willing to just buy the game and play for a month until the pre-order bonus or w/e announced. that made me alarmed about the publisher's intentions and after that i decided to wait for it to go b2p or f2p.
but looking for reasons for a game's failure can be pointless, cause sometimes factors like timing and luck can change things drastically.
my top MMOs: UO,DAOC,WoW,GW2
most of my posts are just my opinions they are not facts,it is the same for you too.
1. Agreed. A big problem.
2. The PvE IMO was better than anything Skyrim offered.
3. You didnt buy the game because of the Imperial Edition? Seems odd as every game has preorder bonuses and the ones offered werent a big deal.
Anyway. IMO I think it came down to wanting the most possible sales on consoles. Skyrim sold many more copies on console than it did on PC so it makes sense to remove a barrier to get more initial sales and more players that will buy the DLC. If ESO were PC only I do not see them changing their payment model.
interesting. it felt limited to me. although most if it's limitation were unavoidable and out of their hand. as for pre-order stuff well i don't remember any of the recent games to have a Race locked or class combo locked or something like that but then again i don't really do research for these stuff. still it made me cautious.
i think if their p2p model was profitable enough they would release it with p2p model on console as well so they were just testing waters. FF14: ARR is p2p on consoles as well if i am not mistaken but FF's case can be different. times changed and staying p2p is hard. sometimes a caring publisher can also change stuff with enduring.
my top MMOs: UO,DAOC,WoW,GW2
most of my posts are just my opinions they are not facts,it is the same for you too.
Although I would have preferred NO cash shop, the btp model has been proven again and again to generate more revenue than ptp. I'm not going into why; it's well documented. So, failure to maintain is just incorrect. They chose to do so to make more money, not because the current system was not generating enough. Really the haters and trolls who try to will other people into their dark reality are very sad individuals. Why waste energy on something you don't enjoy? To delight in what you perceive as other people's failures?
I say this as a person who may not return to ESo because of the cash shop. I was going to sub this week again, but I don't like rl to invade my fantasies. Does that mean I go on a hate crusade against Zenimax? No. I'll make a personal decision and move on.
It didnt fail. At least the PC version. They milked 10 months (maybe more for people who will have sub time left after transition) so they got what they could out of the PC version.
I suspect they also wanted that out of the console version, but they couldnt get both console companies to drop their personal sub fees.
ZOS worked on that as long as they could and I think they realized they werent going to get it. Although as a caveat I think there might have been talk it was going to happen pretty recently and thats why the transition announcement was delayed and the box prices were at bargain basement prices. But the side backed out and they went back to the back up plan of switching to buy to play.
I also think (due to the outcry recently) they are switching the PC version to buy to play earlier than they wanted to as well. Dont think they had to, but I think they are trying to build up a little good will again.
They know MMOers are fickle, and crazy, but also have short memories and most when presented with a perceived 'value' cant resist it. Especially if some benevolent act preceded said offering.
So IMO its going as almost planned. I think the only 'failure' they has was the inability to get both console companies to drop the sub price, if that had happened ESO console version would have released and would have been sub based. They also might have delayed (depending on timing) the Buy to play transition. And tried to milk a little bit more from console players AND PC players on the subscription front.
We all knew it was going to change eventually. It lasted longer than I thought it would actually by a month. But due to some of the things that have happened in the past few weeks I thought theyre were going to try and hold out (at least the PC version) for another few months.
The game is good. Its almost worth the 59.99 right now as a buy to play. Especially if you like questing and walking around a fairly large world. It wasnt worth a sustained 15 bux a month though. But as always 'worth' is a personal thing.
But for the 19.89 I paid for it and the free month I got (and the free crowns I am going to get) I feel pretty good about it. If I had bought an Imperial Edition and spent money on 12 months worth of subs I might not feel so good. But then again thats the point I knew better back then. But that is also a personal observation, because I think there are plenty of people in the game right now who thoght they were getting everything they paid for and were happy about it.
Whoever was following the news prior to game launch noticed that Zenimax was not clear in their communication about their business model, up until the very end. Moreover, a tone of their communication was along the lines of B2P model, and to me personally, P2P announcement was a surprise.
Regardless of game's quality, there are clear numbers which show that Elder Scrolls sales on console is way bigger than the one on PC. Why would they put the whole console sales project at risk (by adding sub to console version), just to keep PC sub running? It makes no sense.
Certain huge console box sales (with no sub) vs. sub fee from low-ish number of subscribers (both PC and console). It's no brainer.
I think it is also a huge win for the general gaming community. Its a pretty amazing mmo and this will open the game up to a vastly larger group of players, while also probably being able to avoid some of the unpleasant side effects that can come with a f2p model.
Square Enix accomplished that with FF 14.
"failed to maintain their original business model" statement is just all silly and wrong.
You do not maintain your business, it constantly changes, adapt and evolve...or it dies. It would be a fail if they haven't changed their revenue to something more profitable.
With as fierce competition as we see on the maket today, entry barriers in form of box fees and subscriptions are viable for new releases but with time, it becomes an obstackle.
I personally think the game was intended to be B2P from the get go, just as it was intended to launch both PC/Console at the same time. As DMKano said most of the developers wanted the game to start as B2P, as most of TES fans. However high ranking execs figured that the game has costed them a lot already and they wanted to get some quick return on investment.
Update 6 is how TESO should've launched originally. The change of the model IMO has nothing to do with what the game did or did not bring to the table. Also the game must be a lot more profitable than DFUW (which still retains sub).
After that neither of the console manufacturers budge to drop the Internet fee (PSN/XBL) they were imposing on their users and suddenly TESO got it hands crossed.
The whole P2P fiasco was nothing short of IP milking until they fix the game up.
Kuddos to those masochistic individuals who "Kickstarted" the game for the rest of us
At least you didn't have to buy virtual ships for few thousand bucks to make it happen.
P.S: Now that i think about it, TESO isn't much different than AA. All active players payed ~$150 for early access :O
At least you get to keep your gear/progress ^_^
We understand the question though.
Simple answer they changed because they believe they can do better with this model than with the original model. As Gdemami says.
How much better? We have no idea - despite what some above say - TESO ma be doing great or it may be a total flop. The megaservers mean the only idea of population we have are a) campaign numbers - only a few thousand participating, is PvP really that unpopular? b) Steam numbers - really bad.
A more "complete" answer to the OPs question is that we buy things based on some key factors.
The one that d_20 talks about is "is it a good product". All the issues that d_20 talks about come under this heading: bugs, bots, security flaws, server downtime. All of them degraded the product. And we tend to shy away from buying damaged products. Unless:
The price is "low". Price is relative so its not about how many cups of coffee you could buy for a sub its about how it stacks up to WoW, or Eve, or Assassin's Creed, or Skyrim, Plants vs. Zombies and so on. And when you do that TESO - with a sub - becomes a product with a "high" price. High prices put us off anyway; a high price for a damaged product.
A big advertising campaign - lots of posters in shops or a 50% off deal on Steam - can make us thing again but if the game gets enough "less than stellar" praise on day 1 that can be hard to overcome. And here againthe type of stuff d_20 talks about hurt the game. When will developers learn we wonder.
With the launch of the console version Zenimax - sort of - get a second bite of the cherry. This will also have been a factor in why they changed.
Will the change work? They obviously believe so. How well though - tough. Not enough is known about what will be in the cash shop yet - but it looks like pots are going to be in there. Will console players go with that? Or just stick to buying "map packs" i.e. new dungeons / zones.