First I have to point out you didn't really debunk me. I am not talking about the game doing bad, I am talking about basic math.
Skyrim sold somewhere around 9 - 12 million copies of the game. I don't have a source but that's why I chose 9 -12 because I am sure we can all agree it is somewhere around there. The IP alone may have allowed it to get somewhere around that many copies assuming it is the same price, and it's a B2P model.
That is $540,000,000 - $720,000,000 simply by using a B2P model.
Now since they decided to go P2P isntead, they essentially need a player to spend money on an extra 4 months for every player they lose due to this decision. This assumes they do not have a discount on the monthly fee, other wise it will be 5 -6 months instead.
Now let's say they manage to at least get 1/2 of those 9 - 12 million players to sub. Keep in mind that is actually being pretty generous in my opinion. They will initially make $270,000,000 - $360,000,000. Now let us assume they keep all those subs and all of them are paying the full $15 a month. They will need to keep subs for at least 4 months, but again they mentioned discounts and such so it will be more along the lines of 5 - 6 months.
If they manage to get even less then 1/2, they are going to need to keep all those subs for a year or so.
This means if they want to make even more then going B2P, they are going to have to HOPE they achieve higher then 6 million players and subs. Keeping them for over a year.
Now I am sorry, but even a good game will have a hard time doing that. As for sources, who the heck needs sources when the math is right in front of you, and the numbers and amount of games going F2P are staggering? Ya sure you where able to point out a couple games, but you failed to prove me wrong. You only proved that I "could" be wrong, which isn't really proving much.
Edit: I have to point out if you do not make as much money as you could have made by going B2P, I consider that a failure.
So what you're saying is that you have no idea how mathematics works?
Skyrim is a singleplayer game, of which you forgot to include how much it made on its DLCs/Expansions. And your argument requires you to know how much it costs to develope an MMO and keep it running. Provide me with those numbers and I will rest my case.
However, regarding your idea of "failure"; that relies on that the game fail. Yes, TES:O could probably make more the first 6 months if it was B2P. But after that their playerbase would decline and so would their income. MMO's are meant to be long lasting products. If TES:O turns out to be a hit for the next three years, it will make more in subscriptions than it would in the initial purchase and the fraction of people whom might utilize their cashshop.
WTF? Where the heck is my math wrong? Please do so to enlighten me where the hell I messed up since you think I don't know how math works.
It cost more to make an MMO since the price of servers are extra, which means you have to make even MORE money then a single player game. I didn't count the DLCs because there have been no DLCs announced for ESO. The only difference it makes for cost of server is they need to keep subs even LONGER then what I stated. Meaning they need to do even BETTER then what I just stated. Which is even HARDER.
I really don't know what the heck your trying to prove here. Are you trying to prove my math correct? Or are you just trolling because you don't want to agree with me even though my math is perfectly fine? I mean it really doesn't take a genius to calculate this. A P2P model is much harder to stick with and succeed with. If you can't see that, then you are blind.
Mate. Either accept and admit that you are wrong or bring me the numbers of how much it costs to develope TES:O. Also, I mentioned DLCs because you said "Skyrim".
You are playing with imaginary numbers. You math relies on numbers that you've just made up on the fly. You need to source this if you want to be taken seriously.
Those numbers are not made up, they just don't include the costs of development. Including the costs will not change the actual amount made. You can change those number to anything and every single time, you would be better off going B2P unless you retain the same amount of customers you would have had with B2P. You keep saying I am wrong, but freaken prove me wrong!
Let's see you do your own math and come up with a different result then me. Heck, I will even allow you to look up exact numbers and use those. I bet you, you will come up to the same conclusion. It doesn't take a genious to know that for every customer you lose, you have to get another customer to pay for an extra 4 months. At $15 x 4 .. = $60. Unless you really think they will not lose many customers by going P2P?
This is what I feel personally the reason games that require purchase of in game gem or some other currency to sustain their model repels me. I do not mind grinding for faction to get into an area or dungeon and gated content but the minute you make me grind money for gems to buy a slot for a bag or a bank , character or class you have lost me. I sincerely wonder how many people are like me and this being one of the reasons we prefer P2P.
There is another fallacy in your argument that they will lose initial players by going P2P. B2P and P2P requires the initial box purchase so why can't people buy in either case and quit after the first month. Your whole argument is based on an erroneous belief that more people would buy the box if it goes B2P. I think a game does only as well as what its customer base is willing to spend whether it is B2P or P2P and that is entirely dependent on its quality after you start playing.
Originally posted by cheyane This is what I feel personally the reason games that require purchase of in game gem or some other currency to sustain their model repels me. I do not mind grinding for faction to get into an area or dungeon and gated content but the minute you make me grind money for gems to buy a slot for a bag or a bank , character or class you have lost me. I sincerely wonder how many people are like me and this being one of the reasons we prefer P2P.
See, this doesn't make sense in my opinion because essentially you are running away to a model you know doesn't work well. Then after some time passes, it turns into a free to play because of the model you liked so much doesn't work well. It's counter productive.
I am not running away from anything the best games I played were all P2P and the only B2P game I played I stayed for 3 weeks. So your scenario does not exist in my reality yet.
There is another fallacy in your argument that they will lose initial players by going P2P. B2P and P2P requires the initial box purchase so why can't people buy in either case and quit after the first month. Your whole argument is based on an erroneous belief that more people would buy the box if it goes B2P. I think a game does only as well as what its customer base is willing to spend whether it is B2P or P2P and that is entirely dependent on its quality after you start playing.
That makes no sense. Why would someone buy a game for $60. Then not pay the sub fee after the first month? You can't play the game unless you pay that sub fee. So YES it makes a very very huge difference because it means you could waste a lot of money for something you CAN'T play.
Such as myself. I would BUY the game if it was B2P ... but now I will not. What is the point of buying it, if I can't pay the sub?
Not only do you have to believe it is worth it, but you also have to be able to afford it. So ya ... my argument is very valid .. it's common sense. Less people will buy it initially because they know they will not be able to afford the monthly fee. Either that or they will not WANT to pay for a monthly fee.
There is another fallacy in your argument that they will lose initial players by going P2P. B2P and P2P requires the initial box purchase so why can't people buy in either case and quit after the first month. Your whole argument is based on an erroneous belief that more people would buy the box if it goes B2P. I think a game does only as well as what its customer base is willing to spend whether it is B2P or P2P and that is entirely dependent on its quality after you start playing.
That makes no sense. Why would someone buy a game for $60. Then not pay the sub fee after the first month? You can't play the game unless you pay that sub fee. So YES it makes a very very huge difference because it means you could waste a lot of money for something you CAN'T play.
Such as myself. I would BUY the game if it was B2P ... but now I will not. What is the point of buying it, if I can't pay the sub?
Not only do you have to believe it is worth it, but you also have to be able to afford it. So ya ... my argument is very valid .. it's common sense. Less people will buy it initially because they know they will not be able to afford the monthly fee. Either that or they will not WANT to pay for a monthly fee.
No my point was you based your argument on it being a significant difference when what I am saying is that it is not a very big difference. The real difference of the number of people who might have picked up the game is only between P2P and F2P since in B2P you still pay the box price and F2P you do not. So that is where your argument that huge sums of money are lost is a fallacy.
It doesn't recieve flack alone Wildstar did as well from the usual loud crowd minority. Build a great game and the players will come and be happy to play a sub! Look at how wow did it. It might be harder now with the competition, but the premise is the same, make a great game, and make that your first priority! All those games that started out P2P and went F2P were neither good nor worth the sub in the long run.
Hopefully we are starting to see the end of this wretched F2P/Cash Shop experiment. I applaud the ESO team for going with a model that treats and rewards all of it's players equally.
Originally posted by NightBandit Originally posted by morbuskabisThe P2P model will work for PC (maybe) but for consoles there is no way ppl will pay 14.99$ per month. They allready have to pay for their mmo services so they can play with their friends online...ESO will be crawling on their knees, begging the PC crowd to forgive them and to save them...
IMO that's a pretty poor argument, however if that's is the case, then its the console model which needs to change not the PC model. If there are that many console gamers they need to revolt against the likes of Sony and Microsoft that's the only way to change things. As long as the console player allows them selves to be ripped off, then them giants will carry on with the status Quo.
IMO the giants are making console players pay to play online as the MMO model is to PC gamers, so it's up to the console gamers to force a change they have the numbers to do it just not the will.
The way I see it is the console gamers have to choose if they want to play ESO then cancel your payment to Microsoft or Sony and sub to ESO quite simple imo. If you want both the get your hand in your wallet and pay like the rest of us have too. If you don't have the funds, then tuff, go earn them like I have too to play my hobbies.
Oh don't get me wrong here. Im a total fan of P2P model. I hate F2P. I just doubt that they will have lots of success on the console market with this payment model.
And im not impressed with the way they treated the PC MMORPG crowd.
There is another fallacy in your argument that they will lose initial players by going P2P. B2P and P2P requires the initial box purchase so why can't people buy in either case and quit after the first month. Your whole argument is based on an erroneous belief that more people would buy the box if it goes B2P. I think a game does only as well as what its customer base is willing to spend whether it is B2P or P2P and that is entirely dependent on its quality after you start playing.
That makes no sense. Why would someone buy a game for $60. Then not pay the sub fee after the first month? You can't play the game unless you pay that sub fee. So YES it makes a very very huge difference because it means you could waste a lot of money for something you CAN'T play.
Such as myself. I would BUY the game if it was B2P ... but now I will not. What is the point of buying it, if I can't pay the sub?
Not only do you have to believe it is worth it, but you also have to be able to afford it. So ya ... my argument is very valid .. it's common sense. Less people will buy it initially because they know they will not be able to afford the monthly fee. Either that or they will not WANT to pay for a monthly fee.
No my point was you based your argument on it being a significant difference when what I am saying is that it is not a very big difference. The real difference of the number of people who might have picked up the game is only between P2P and F2P since in B2P you still pay the box price and F2P you do not. So that is where your argument that huge sums of money are lost is a fallacy.
I am not even comparing to F2P. I didn't base any of the number on F2P. Think you misunderstood something somewhere. Even if you still pay for the box in B2P and P2P .. what makes the difference is the sub fee.
Many people are unwilling to even try a game if it is sub based. They don't want to pay the $60, and the $15 just to find out they do not like the game. A lot of people are unwilling to even buy a sub game because they don't like the idea that they can't play the game they purchased if they can't pay that month. People don't like the feeling of HAVING to play in order to get their moneys worth. People don't like the idea of having to pay an extra $15 and possibly really not get anything in return.
In other words, you lose a lot more customers then you think simply by including a sub fee in your game.
Our guild will probably skip this then and go straight to Camelot Unchained from GW2.
We were looking to move on from GW2 WvW, and ESO AvA seemed very promising. But the problems with GW2 WvW aren't bad enough to justify the $200 a year for ESO AvA.
CU is going to be sub, but I understand it will have tiers. This would probably make it possible for our whole guild to play, as people always have varying budgets and time/interest for the main game we are playing.
And though I'm personally disappointed, best of luck to ZOS. I think they are making a mistake though.
Rithwis, Righteous Golem of Camelot | Skritha, Orc Archer of Tamriel | Bloodwod, Sawbones of Auraxis | Thrumdi, Blue Norn of Tyria | Gwidwod, Spider of the Ettenmoors | Gideon Slack, Hunter of Alsius
I am not even comparing to F2P. I didn't base any of the number on F2P. Think you misunderstood something somewhere. Even if you still pay for the box in B2P and P2P .. what makes the difference is the sub fee.
Many people are unwilling to even try a game if it is sub based. They don't want to pay the $60, and the $15 just to find out they do not like the game. A lot of people are unwilling to even buy a sub game because they don't like the idea that they can't play the game they purchased if they can't pay that month. People don't like the feeling of HAVING to play in order to get their moneys worth. People don't like the idea of having to pay an extra $15 and possibly really not get anything in return.
In other words, you lose a lot more customers then you think simply by including a sub fee in your game.
Except that those are customers you never really had anyway, so it's not actually a loss. Even if you did kind of have them, you still can't design a game budget that has to factor in long term costs and sustainability around them; that base budget would still have to be designed around the people that you would be reasonably certain of sticking around and paying consistently over time. Yes, a lot of people don't like subs, but there are just as many that do if they feel they are getting a higher quality product because of it, and if you start with the idea that the latter is your target audience, with anything you get from the former being a nice bonus, it's not a loss when the rest of the former choose to ignore your product because you never expected them to do anything less in the first place. What the recent announcements tell me is that at least some developers are waking up to the fact that MMOs are not quick profit generators and therefore the B2P and F2P crowd, while not unimportant, is not the target audience they need to be looking at for their core audience if they want to achieve sustainability. That doesn't mean that either of those two models will ever go away, just that sub based games will continue to have a place beside them, and that all of them will do best if they target their specific audience without worrying about the audience they *might* have had in theory had they chosen one of the other models.
Those numbers are not made up, they just don't include the costs of development. Including the costs will not change the actual amount made. You can change those number to anything and every single time, you would be better off going B2P unless you retain the same amount of customers you would have had with B2P. You keep saying I am wrong, but freaken prove me wrong!
Let's see you do your own math and come up with a different result then me. Heck, I will even allow you to look up exact numbers and use those. I bet you, you will come up to the same conclusion. It doesn't take a genious to know that for every customer you lose, you have to get another customer to pay for an extra 4 months. At $15 x 4 .. = $60. Unless you really think they will not lose many customers by going P2P?
We cannot do the math since we do not have the numbers required. Anyhow Mr. Gaming Industry man, you obviously don't read a lot about it considering that you cannot source it.
And yes, maybe you are correct about for every customer you lose you will have to make one pay for 4 months. But those people would have left anyway. You will still get the same amount of money from the initial purchase as if it was a B2P.
So let's make up some numbers that are easy to work with:
If TES:O before it was revealed to be P2P had 100 people who would undoubtfully purchase it. The game would cost $100 + $25/month.
And when they announced it they lost 30% of the initial purchase (Let's be honest, most people whom have followed it closely enough to notice this announcement will just rage about it for awhile and then buy it, so 30% is a generous number) so they would be left with 70 people who would purchase it.
If out of those 70 people every single one purchased it, granting ZOS $7.000 from initial purchases. Assuming that another 20% out of the initial 100 leaves we will end up with 50 subscribers. 13 (first month's free) months later they would have made (25x12 = 300. 300 x 50 = 15.000) $15.000, more than twice the amount of the initial purchase.
Let's say that only 25 had continued to sub, then ZOS would have made $7.500 + $7.500 from the initial purchase. Assuming that no other players joined.
Now let's say that TES:O was B2P:
If the whole 100 people purchased the game they would have made 10.000 instantly. 10% (which is a generous number as well) spent $100 (the price of the original game) additionally on the game they would have made an additional $1.000 netting them $11.000.
All of these numbers are in the favour of your argument. Even if 1/4 of the potential players bought and subbed for a single year it would still make (25x100= 2.500. 2.500 + (initial purchase) 7.500 = 10.000) only $1.000 less than B2P. And that is assuming that only 25% of the initial interested even bought it. And I'm sure they didn't lose 75% of their customers through one announcement.
Of course, these numbers doesn't mean that the game will survive, only that even if they lost half their playerbase through that announcement, they would still make more within a year than B2P would. And if TES:O is any good, it will stay for atleast 3-5 years and completely ransack the initial amount they would have made through B2P.
After all, MMO's are made to last.
EDIT: As you can see, I took the liberty and added the calculations which you neglected to do. Anyhow, remember that these numbers merely show you a hypothetical amount.
What do you guys think? Is it a dealbreaker for you, are you happy there will be no cash shop?
Sure it will be P2P for a while...maybe a year, maybe less...then they will switch to F2P or some cash shop/hybrid system. Something similar to Aion, Rift, etc. I'm far too jaded to actually give these people money anymore. At least not before playing it for a while and seeing if it's more than just the same-old-same-old MMO with updated graphics and "new" ways to throw a fireball, swing an axe, or bandage a player.
Those numbers are not made up, they just don't include the costs of development. Including the costs will not change the actual amount made. You can change those number to anything and every single time, you would be better off going B2P unless you retain the same amount of customers you would have had with B2P. You keep saying I am wrong, but freaken prove me wrong!
Let's see you do your own math and come up with a different result then me. Heck, I will even allow you to look up exact numbers and use those. I bet you, you will come up to the same conclusion. It doesn't take a genious to know that for every customer you lose, you have to get another customer to pay for an extra 4 months. At $15 x 4 .. = $60. Unless you really think they will not lose many customers by going P2P?
We cannot do the math since we do not have the numbers required. Anyhow Mr. Gaming Industry man, you obviously don't read a lot about it considering that you cannot source it.
And yes, maybe you are correct about for every customer you lose you will have to make one pay for 4 months. But those people would have left anyway. You will still get the same amount of money from the initial purchase as if it was a B2P.
So let's make up some numbers that are easy to work with:
If TES:O before it was revealed to be P2P had 100 people who would undoubtfully purchase it. The game would cost $100 + $25/month.
And when they announced it they lost 30% of the initial purchase (Let's be honest, most people whom have followed it closely enough to notice this announcement will just rage about it for awhile and then buy it, so 30% is a generous number) so they would be left with 70 people who would purchase it.
If out of those 70 people every single one purchased it, granting ZOS $7.000 from initial purchases. Assuming that another 20% out of the initial 100 leaves we will end up with 50 subscribers. 13 (first month's free) months later they would have made (25x12 = 300. 300 x 50 = 15.000) $15.000, more than twice the amount of the initial purchase.
Let's say that only 25 had continued to sub, then ZOS would have made $7.500 + $7.500 from the initial purchase. Assuming that no other players joined.
Now let's say that TES:O was B2P:
If the whole 100 people purchased the game they would have made 10.000 instantly. 10% (which is a generous number as well) spent $100 (the price of the original game) additionally on the game they would have made an additional $1.000 netting them $11.000.
All of these numbers are in the favour of your argument. Even if 1/4 of the potential players bought and subbed for a single year it would still make (25x100= 2.500. 2.500 + (initial purchase) 7.500 = 10.000) only $1.000 less than B2P. And that is assuming that only 25% of the initial interested even bought it. And I'm sure they didn't lose 75% of their customers through one announcement.
Of course, these numbers doesn't mean that the game will survive, only that even if they lost half their playerbase through that announcement, they would still make more within a year than B2P would. And if TES:O is any good, it will stay for atleast 3-5 years and completely ransack the initial amount they would have made through B2P.
After all, MMO's are made to last.
EDIT: As you can see, I took the liberty and added the calculations which you neglected to do. Anyhow, remember that these numbers merely show you a hypothetical amount.
But as you can see, P2P is a gamble either way. You have to assume all these number will match up, if they do not, you can potentially lose a lot more money in comparison to having gone B2P right away.
I am not saying this WILL happen, I am saying if it plays out like most of all P2P games before it, chances are high. You assume many people will still buy the game even with it being P2P, I assume this will not be the case. Again, go take a look around the net and read the comments. I see a lot of people deciding to skip this game because of this move. A lot of people saying the same thing as me.
As for me not reading about the industry. PLEASE, I read it everyday >.>
The industry news is littered with these type of articles all the time.
I am not a fan of F2P. I think B2P, with a cash shop for aesthetics is the best model. Then you release a DLC once in a while to keep it going. It's not a model used a lot, but it did work with GW and GW2. Actually it worked really really well. A heck of a lot better then most P2P games.
If there are 5 doors, and the second door only had 2 people go in it, and the other doors all had 100 people go in it, but in each case besides the second door, the people never returned .. which door would you choose? Ya .. only 2 people tried the second door, but it has the less risk because the other doors have been tried so many times before it .. we already know what happens.
I won't play any mmorpg that is P2P. They don't interest me at all.
Hopefully both TESO and Wildstar will go B2P a few months after release like all other mmorpgs that release with a subscription model. Neverwinter will most likely be B2P from release, they're not stupid at SOE.
But as you can see, P2P is a gamble either way. You have to assume all these number will match up, if they do not, you can potentially lose a lot more money in comparison to having gone B2P right away.
I am not saying this WILL happen, I am saying if it plays out like most of all P2P games before it, chances are high. You assume many people will still buy the game even with it being P2P, I assume this will not be the case. Again, go take a look around the net and read the comments. I see a lot of people deciding to skip this game because of this move. A lot of people saying the same thing as me.
As for me not reading about the industry. PLEASE, I read it everyday >.>
The industry news is littered with these type of articles all the time.
I am not a fan of F2P. I think B2P, with a cash shop for aesthetics is the best model. Then you release a DLC once in a while to keep it going. It's not a model used a lot, but it did work with GW and GW2. Actually it worked really really well. A heck of a lot better then most P2P games.
If there are 5 doors, and the second door only had 2 people go in it, and the other doors all had 100 people go in it, but in each case besides the second door, the people never returned .. which door would you choose? Ya .. only 2 people tried the second door, but it has the less risk because the other doors have been tried so many times before it .. we already know what happens.
That's not the industry, mate. That's media. You're not in the industry and the numbers you and I made up are pointless since we have no idea how long the game will last.
Comments
Those numbers are not made up, they just don't include the costs of development. Including the costs will not change the actual amount made. You can change those number to anything and every single time, you would be better off going B2P unless you retain the same amount of customers you would have had with B2P. You keep saying I am wrong, but freaken prove me wrong!
Let's see you do your own math and come up with a different result then me. Heck, I will even allow you to look up exact numbers and use those. I bet you, you will come up to the same conclusion. It doesn't take a genious to know that for every customer you lose, you have to get another customer to pay for an extra 4 months. At $15 x 4 .. = $60. Unless you really think they will not lose many customers by going P2P?
This is what I feel personally the reason games that require purchase of in game gem or some other currency to sustain their model repels me. I do not mind grinding for faction to get into an area or dungeon and gated content but the minute you make me grind money for gems to buy a slot for a bag or a bank , character or class you have lost me. I sincerely wonder how many people are like me and this being one of the reasons we prefer P2P.
There is another fallacy in your argument that they will lose initial players by going P2P. B2P and P2P requires the initial box purchase so why can't people buy in either case and quit after the first month. Your whole argument is based on an erroneous belief that more people would buy the box if it goes B2P. I think a game does only as well as what its customer base is willing to spend whether it is B2P or P2P and that is entirely dependent on its quality after you start playing.
Reality is setting in. F2P =/= free money
Developers are going to have to start making decent MMOs to make a living now.
Players are going to have to start realizing that decent game cost money to play.
See, this doesn't make sense in my opinion because essentially you are running away to a model you know doesn't work well. Then after some time passes, it turns into a free to play because of the model you liked so much doesn't work well. It's counter productive.
Soo why does ESO catch hell being p2p and wildstar doesnt?
That makes no sense. Why would someone buy a game for $60. Then not pay the sub fee after the first month? You can't play the game unless you pay that sub fee. So YES it makes a very very huge difference because it means you could waste a lot of money for something you CAN'T play.
Such as myself. I would BUY the game if it was B2P ... but now I will not. What is the point of buying it, if I can't pay the sub?
Not only do you have to believe it is worth it, but you also have to be able to afford it. So ya ... my argument is very valid .. it's common sense. Less people will buy it initially because they know they will not be able to afford the monthly fee. Either that or they will not WANT to pay for a monthly fee.
Wild Star caught hell.
But not just because it's P2P, but because it has a $60 B2P boxed fee, a AAA $15/mo fee and an option to convert real money to game currency.
Well I am not interested in wild star so it doesn't matter to me if they make a poor decision.
No my point was you based your argument on it being a significant difference when what I am saying is that it is not a very big difference. The real difference of the number of people who might have picked up the game is only between P2P and F2P since in B2P you still pay the box price and F2P you do not. So that is where your argument that huge sums of money are lost is a fallacy.
IMO the giants are making console players pay to play online as the MMO model is to PC gamers, so it's up to the console gamers to force a change they have the numbers to do it just not the will.
The way I see it is the console gamers have to choose if they want to play ESO then cancel your payment to Microsoft or Sony and sub to ESO quite simple imo. If you want both the get your hand in your wallet and pay like the rest of us have too. If you don't have the funds, then tuff, go earn them like I have too to play my hobbies.
Oh don't get me wrong here. Im a total fan of P2P model. I hate F2P. I just doubt that they will have lots of success on the console market with this payment model.
And im not impressed with the way they treated the PC MMORPG crowd.
I am not even comparing to F2P. I didn't base any of the number on F2P. Think you misunderstood something somewhere. Even if you still pay for the box in B2P and P2P .. what makes the difference is the sub fee.
Many people are unwilling to even try a game if it is sub based. They don't want to pay the $60, and the $15 just to find out they do not like the game. A lot of people are unwilling to even buy a sub game because they don't like the idea that they can't play the game they purchased if they can't pay that month. People don't like the feeling of HAVING to play in order to get their moneys worth. People don't like the idea of having to pay an extra $15 and possibly really not get anything in return.
In other words, you lose a lot more customers then you think simply by including a sub fee in your game.
Our guild will probably skip this then and go straight to Camelot Unchained from GW2.
We were looking to move on from GW2 WvW, and ESO AvA seemed very promising. But the problems with GW2 WvW aren't bad enough to justify the $200 a year for ESO AvA.
CU is going to be sub, but I understand it will have tiers. This would probably make it possible for our whole guild to play, as people always have varying budgets and time/interest for the main game we are playing.
And though I'm personally disappointed, best of luck to ZOS. I think they are making a mistake though.
Rithwis, Righteous Golem of Camelot | Skritha, Orc Archer of Tamriel | Bloodwod, Sawbones of Auraxis | Thrumdi, Blue Norn of Tyria | Gwidwod, Spider of the Ettenmoors | Gideon Slack, Hunter of Alsius
Except that those are customers you never really had anyway, so it's not actually a loss. Even if you did kind of have them, you still can't design a game budget that has to factor in long term costs and sustainability around them; that base budget would still have to be designed around the people that you would be reasonably certain of sticking around and paying consistently over time. Yes, a lot of people don't like subs, but there are just as many that do if they feel they are getting a higher quality product because of it, and if you start with the idea that the latter is your target audience, with anything you get from the former being a nice bonus, it's not a loss when the rest of the former choose to ignore your product because you never expected them to do anything less in the first place. What the recent announcements tell me is that at least some developers are waking up to the fact that MMOs are not quick profit generators and therefore the B2P and F2P crowd, while not unimportant, is not the target audience they need to be looking at for their core audience if they want to achieve sustainability. That doesn't mean that either of those two models will ever go away, just that sub based games will continue to have a place beside them, and that all of them will do best if they target their specific audience without worrying about the audience they *might* have had in theory had they chosen one of the other models.
We cannot do the math since we do not have the numbers required. Anyhow Mr. Gaming Industry man, you obviously don't read a lot about it considering that you cannot source it.
And yes, maybe you are correct about for every customer you lose you will have to make one pay for 4 months. But those people would have left anyway. You will still get the same amount of money from the initial purchase as if it was a B2P.
So let's make up some numbers that are easy to work with:
If TES:O before it was revealed to be P2P had 100 people who would undoubtfully purchase it. The game would cost $100 + $25/month.
And when they announced it they lost 30% of the initial purchase (Let's be honest, most people whom have followed it closely enough to notice this announcement will just rage about it for awhile and then buy it, so 30% is a generous number) so they would be left with 70 people who would purchase it.
If out of those 70 people every single one purchased it, granting ZOS $7.000 from initial purchases. Assuming that another 20% out of the initial 100 leaves we will end up with 50 subscribers. 13 (first month's free) months later they would have made (25x12 = 300. 300 x 50 = 15.000) $15.000, more than twice the amount of the initial purchase.
Let's say that only 25 had continued to sub, then ZOS would have made $7.500 + $7.500 from the initial purchase. Assuming that no other players joined.
Now let's say that TES:O was B2P:
If the whole 100 people purchased the game they would have made 10.000 instantly. 10% (which is a generous number as well) spent $100 (the price of the original game) additionally on the game they would have made an additional $1.000 netting them $11.000.
All of these numbers are in the favour of your argument. Even if 1/4 of the potential players bought and subbed for a single year it would still make (25x100= 2.500. 2.500 + (initial purchase) 7.500 = 10.000) only $1.000 less than B2P. And that is assuming that only 25% of the initial interested even bought it. And I'm sure they didn't lose 75% of their customers through one announcement.
Of course, these numbers doesn't mean that the game will survive, only that even if they lost half their playerbase through that announcement, they would still make more within a year than B2P would. And if TES:O is any good, it will stay for atleast 3-5 years and completely ransack the initial amount they would have made through B2P.
After all, MMO's are made to last.
EDIT: As you can see, I took the liberty and added the calculations which you neglected to do. Anyhow, remember that these numbers merely show you a hypothetical amount.
Sure it will be P2P for a while...maybe a year, maybe less...then they will switch to F2P or some cash shop/hybrid system. Something similar to Aion, Rift, etc. I'm far too jaded to actually give these people money anymore. At least not before playing it for a while and seeing if it's more than just the same-old-same-old MMO with updated graphics and "new" ways to throw a fireball, swing an axe, or bandage a player.
But as you can see, P2P is a gamble either way. You have to assume all these number will match up, if they do not, you can potentially lose a lot more money in comparison to having gone B2P right away.
I am not saying this WILL happen, I am saying if it plays out like most of all P2P games before it, chances are high. You assume many people will still buy the game even with it being P2P, I assume this will not be the case. Again, go take a look around the net and read the comments. I see a lot of people deciding to skip this game because of this move. A lot of people saying the same thing as me.
As for me not reading about the industry. PLEASE, I read it everyday >.>
The industry news is littered with these type of articles all the time.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-08-20-trion-rift-sales-went-up-with-switch-to-free-to-play
I am not a fan of F2P. I think B2P, with a cash shop for aesthetics is the best model. Then you release a DLC once in a while to keep it going. It's not a model used a lot, but it did work with GW and GW2. Actually it worked really really well. A heck of a lot better then most P2P games.
If there are 5 doors, and the second door only had 2 people go in it, and the other doors all had 100 people go in it, but in each case besides the second door, the people never returned .. which door would you choose? Ya .. only 2 people tried the second door, but it has the less risk because the other doors have been tried so many times before it .. we already know what happens.
I won't play any mmorpg that is P2P. They don't interest me at all.
Hopefully both TESO and Wildstar will go B2P a few months after release like all other mmorpgs that release with a subscription model. Neverwinter will most likely be B2P from release, they're not stupid at SOE.
That's not the industry, mate. That's media. You're not in the industry and the numbers you and I made up are pointless since we have no idea how long the game will last.
This is awesome news!
I was on the fence with ESO, and the F2P was the reason why.
But now I am ready to buy ESO and pay the monthly fee, this decision sold me!