[Column] Elder Scrolls Online: ESO’s Risky Business

SBFord

Now that Elder Scrolls Online's revenue model has been released, it's time to begin discussing whether or not fans think this is a good idea. In our latest Elder Scrolls ONline column, we talk about the risks that are taken with a sub model and ask you to chime in with your thoughts in the comments.

For Elder Scrolls Online, Matt said the first 30 days will come with the box purchase and then there will be a subscription model which will have a few different pricing options. He explained that the game is very much a go-anywhere, do-anything style game in the vein of all Elder Scrolls titles and he did not want it hindered by always asking the player for money with a loud cash shop flashing away on screen. It wouldn’t fit the world they’re trying to build, the immersion level they’re aiming for.

Read more of Garrett Fuller's Elder Scrolls Online: ESO's Risky Business.

xpsync

They will get their box sales which will be high due to the IP, ride those subs for 3 months and we all know what happens at the 3 month mark, massive exodus of players, once the subs plummet the free to play will be announced and implemented.  This is guaranteed.

So yes i appreciate the monthly sub also but it's a pipe dream at best and what bothers me the most is so many will accept this to support it but once the casuals move on the F2P is their next cash cow option.

F2P started because the sub model was a dead end as every mmo used it, and people simply got tired of paying monthly, so games went F2P to survive.

BadSpock

Don't forget FFXIV:ARR is subscription too.

Resurgence of P2P MMOs? I sure hope so. Can't get a better deal that 15$ a month for unlimited gameplay.

 

The problem with MMOs in the past 10-11 years hasn't been the sub model, it's been the poor quality of games not being WORTH the price of subscription.

People go into a fine dining restaurant expecting to pay more for it - but get better food.

You don't give better food, of course people are going to look at much cheaper options for the same quality.

gr0und3d

I think players got tired of playing shitty games or games that they didn't feel connected to.  If TESO is good, people will pay for it.  Plain and simple.

wowclonez

Haha, love the image of the politician Garrett. "Rent is too damn high!". I say if they have enough content to give players a reason to sub after the initial free 30 days, then it will workout for them. If people are max level in 3 weeks with nothing to do, it will suffer the same fate TOR did and eventually go F2P. Also we have to  remember some companies do subscription intentionally to sell boxes, they may already have a plan to go F2P in he future once box sells dry up. Personally I don't sub mmos. Best approach is GW2 model IMO.

Yaevindusk

 

It's just hard to tell what audience they're aiming for.  They say that one of the main reasons they are pushing back their game is to making it more into an Elder Scrolls experience (and that we should now think of it as the next iteration of the series)... yet they alienate the majority of their franchise's fanbase by adopting a model pretty much only the MMO crowd would be willing to even contemplate playing (if they aren't caught up in F2P / B2P / Their own game as is).

 

Many console players don't like the idea of paying for a game and then renting it.  In fact, they just laugh at the notion; they have been trained in the recent generation to accept DLC and microtransactions (Elder Scrolls included with it's DLC packs).  Yet they make a model only appealing to (for the sake of argument, an even split between the three models) 1/3rd of the MMO community.  That one third is further broken down to the "if it's good enough for a sub, I might play it" or the "if they can draw me away from my current subscription" crowd.

 

Match that with the massive decrease in interest since those leaked footage videos, and the less than impressive demos they've had (for a lot of people), and then include that the ESO market is primarily from console players... and you could have a disaster.

 

Honestly, I think this Franchise had the power behind it to dominate the B2P industry, especially if it was to be released on the new consoles.  So it's up to them to really convince us that this game is one that is worth playing -- and why we should pay attention to it and not Wildstar (which has legal gold selling), WoW (their new expansions) and FFXIV (Which Square Self publishes) --  when there are so many other options out there, including ones that have different payment models that might be more popular at the moment.

 

This game isn't on my radar at all, but I'm willing wait until the general public had ample time to play it before deciding if it's for me or not (in terms of paying money to try it out).  But as a whole, I only allow myself one P2P game at a time.  I barely have enough time for that.  Many are the same way, so it will be a grand fight to get our attention between these games, especially if neither offers free trials at their start and just expects us to fork over $60 up front for a game that, odds are, we may not subscribe to if it's not better than our current games are or manages to draw us in.

 

That's all assuming this isn't just a front to try and milk the part of the P2P community willing to try the game out, and then switch to B2P and F2P once they squeezed enough money out of the first crowd to go to the next.

 

 

 

Sovrath

Originally posted by BadSpock

The problem with MMOs in the past 10-11 years hasn't been the sub model, it's been the poor quality of games not being WORTH the price of subscription.

People go into a fine dining restaurant expecting to pay more for it - but get better food.

You don't give better food, of course people are going to look at much cheaper options for the same quality.

Pretty much this.

people will always pay for things they think have value. They will always pay more for something that is perceived as being "top value".

Game companies had had an issue where they had players who ran through the content and then waited months, putting in their sub fees, without anything new to do.

So now game companies have painted themselves into a nice little corner because they have lost good will with their customers. They still need to make their money so they turn to f2p games which allow for players to spend more than they would have charged for a sub and to hopefully carry those players who have no intention of spending a dime.

wowclonez

Originally posted by BadSpock

The problem with MMOs in the past 10-11 years hasn't been the sub model, it's been the poor quality of games not being WORTH the price of subscription.

Translation, "Everyone trying to make a WOW killer" thus copying WOW. Past 10-11 years we've pretty much seen nothing but WOW clones. FF, TESO, Wildstar are nothing new from what we have been getting feed. More cutscenes, more linear story, more single player experience.

Distopia

Originally posted by BadSpock

Don't forget FFXIV:ARR is subscription too.

Resurgence of P2P MMOs? I sure hope so. Can't get a better deal that 15$ a month for unlimited gameplay.

 

The problem with MMOs in the past 10-11 years hasn't been the sub model, it's been the poor quality of games not being WORTH the price of subscription.

People go into a fine dining restaurant expecting to pay more for it - but get better food.

You don't give better food, of course people are going to look at much cheaper options for the same quality.

I disagree, LOTRO wasn't a poor game, neither was AOC or EQ2 IMO, yet what they suffered from was over-saturation, same could be said for TOR or Rift. There's just too many games of a similar style available. WHich in turn spreads players too thin across the genre. We're walking right back into that problem with TESO, FFXIV and WS all releasing over the next half a year. While all three are trying to get a monthly sub from their players. Considering they're content focused games, many will simply spend a few months in one and move on to the next, rinse/repeat, until they've finished the content in all.

These companies need to learn to spread themselves out a bit, find windows that are ideal to release in. Otherwise you have this problem.

xpsync

What i think would be a fair option is something along the lines of you buy 20 hours a month for say $15, that magic number for whatever reason.

 

If you play 60 hours that month no problem no extra charge, but lets say the next month kicks in you already paid but have lost the divine spark to play and only used say 5 hours. You now have 15 hours banked, you cancel your sub, a couple months go by and you have the divine spark to play again, simply log in you have 15 hours to decide.

 

It's that having to sub again which keeps peeps at bay and away form your game. One could also use the time to pop in to check things out, keep in touch with the game and changes during the time you don't feel like it or can't play. It keeps the game on your hard drive and not forgotten.

 

It remains accessible and people don't get that feeling of paying for something they are not using.

 

jbombard

$15 is fine as long as they provide $15 of value every month to the players.

 

They can talk to Bioware about what happens when you don't provide value for your subscription.

 

Honestly  I don't mind the price at all, seems pretty standard for a sub game, and if it is a good game that is continuously pumping out new content it's well worth the money.

Bahz

I like the GW2 (B2P) en Rift (F2P) models. ESO and Wildstar are too expensive and will not make it if they keep that model up.

Would be funny to see ArcheAge release F2P around the same time taking all their subscribers. Or even WoW turning F2P to make sure they do not loose their players to ESO & Wildstar.

Distopia

[mod edit]

 

 

I like games not payment models, I'm far more worried about the game I pick being able to support itself and keep moving forward, rather than changing course 6 months in because they're failing to make a decent profit.

NitemareMMO

Developer: Hey would you pay monthly sub for our game?

Player: No your game sucks!

Developer: OK! We are gonna go with F2P model then. That works for you?

Player: Umm WTF your game sucks not your subscription model!

Developer: I'm sorry I don't know what you are saying. Let me Google that.

Ryowulf

I have been thinking that ESO might go BTP even before launch.  With all the sub talk, how much positive press would TSO get if they held a press event and said "We have heard our fans. We think that asking consoles to pay a sub is asking to much. So as of today Skyrim online is free. No subs. Just buy the game and play it."

I want to bust a myth. "Recent sub games failed because they were bad games"

There is more to it.  In other words even a good game might fail if it is sub.

As proof the recent big games that were ptp and went some form of ftp are still around. Still have fans. If being bad = failure then ToR would be closed down.

Yortnudef

at minimum wage 2 hours can pay for your supscription . I don't see why sub based games are a problem. if you are fighting against the cost get a job. Go mow a lawn, shovel a walk, go temp labour for a day. any o e of these and more will take care of you.

Sovrath

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by BadSpock

Don't forget FFXIV:ARR is subscription too.

Resurgence of P2P MMOs? I sure hope so. Can't get a better deal that 15$ a month for unlimited gameplay.

 

The problem with MMOs in the past 10-11 years hasn't been the sub model, it's been the poor quality of games not being WORTH the price of subscription.

People go into a fine dining restaurant expecting to pay more for it - but get better food.

You don't give better food, of course people are going to look at much cheaper options for the same quality.

I disagree, LOTRO wasn't a poor game, neither was AOC or EQ2 IMO, yet what they suffered from was over-saturation, same could be said for TOR or Rift. There's just too many games of a similar style available. WHich in turn spreads players too thin across the genre. We're walking right back into that problem with TESO, FFXIV and WS all releasing over the next half a year. While all three are trying to get a monthly sub from their players. Considering they're content focused games, many will simply spend a few months in one and move on to the next, rinse/repeat, until they've finished the content in all.

These companies need to learn to spread themselves out a bit, find windows that are ideal to release in. Otherwise you have this problem.

Well, one can substitute "poor quality" with "not meeting player expectations and developer claims. AoC did have a lot of issues so that game does fall under the "poor quality" label.

 

Jadedangel1

Originally posted by Distopia

 

I disagree, LOTRO wasn't a poor game, neither was AOC or EQ2 IMO, yet what they suffered from was over-saturation, same could be said for TOR or Rift. There's just too many games of a similar style available. WHich in turn spreads players too thin across the genre. We're walking right back into that problem with TESO, FFXIV and WS all releasing over the next half a year. While all three are trying to get a monthly sub from their players. Considering they're content focused games, many will simply spend a few months in one and move on to the next, rinse/repeat, until they've finished the content in all.

These companies need to learn to spread themselves out a bit, find windows that are ideal to release in. Otherwise you have this problem.

This. There is just too many choices these days, with new things coming out all the time, so people don't feel the need to sit around waiting for things to be added in game.

The only one I think won't have too much of a problem right now with subs is FFXIV. It was fortunate for them that all the other games pushed back their release until 2014. They now stand alone with no other competition being released now to hinder them.

Precusor

Originally posted by wowclonez

[mod edit]

 

What an ignorant statement, if you'd bother to read you will see games that went  F2P revenue have went up 300% in some cases. But in every single case the revenue has almost doubled. So no point in a game having a subscription model, you get less players and make less money. So what you are saying  just doesn't make sense. As far a getting a job, I'm surprised someone who writes in all caps on the internet can retain one.

 

 

 

Iv yet to see any real evidence that F2P MMOs revenues is up by 300%,

Oberholzer

People that burn through content will never think there's enough to warrant a sub. Also there's so many options folks are constantly lured to other games as well. It is seeming the days of playing one game for years is dead. I kind of miss having a home if that makes any sense.

meddyck

This is the standard business model for several years now:

1. Release with a box price and a monthly sub.
2. Earn as much money as you can until server populations drop to dangerously low levels.
3. Convert to freemium/B2P/F2P.
4. Profit.

AOC, LOTRO, D&DO, TERA, SWTOR, STO, EQ2, Rift, TSW, etc. etc. Just wait a year or two and we will be able to add Wildstar and TESO to the list.

 

 

 

wowclonez

Originally posted by Oberholzer
People that burn through content will never think there's enough to warrant a sub. Also there's so many options folks are constantly lured to other games as well. It is seeming the days of playing one game for years is dead. I kind of miss having a home if that makes any sense.

"in some cases", read

SpottyGekko

I salute Zenimax for taking this risk !

 

At best, the game will be good enough to keep a sufficient number of subscribers hooked for quite a few years.

At worst, we'll have one more good quality F2P game in a year or so.

 

But success will not be a trivial matter in the current market. If ESO is a half-baked effort, it will lose subs in record time. It looks like 2014 is shaping up to be a helluva year for MMORPG's, lol

quseio

 sub scription is good but   more options is better, discounts for haveing adds or filling out  questionaires every day or so.

 

say we have a copper model axcess its free but your limited by time to say 1 hour every3 hours, limited bankspace ect ctera and charactor spaces

silver 10 dollars a month same limits as copper except  time limit is 4 hours every7 hours

gold unlimited time no restrictions 15 dollars a month

and a  20 dollar  platinum model which  allows you to access all adventure packs and expansions for free and you get some  station cash to buy some fluff on top of queue priority

Your friends if on copper/silver  can play as long as their grouped with you up to x2 times the models  time limit

now say they also offer 5 dollars off those models if you have to listen to adds when you login maybe 10 off if you also fill out some questionaires even more if you buy something from their partners

sounds great to me they get their cash, which supports good expansions and support

and we get options add in stuff like player studios and keep the cash shop limited to fluff asnd theyre rolling in cash and much more likely to do expensive things like more models more zones  and on and on

 

If you answer questionaires  and listen to adds you can play alot for free, now maybe listening to adds at  loging wouldnt be enough  so you have to listen to one every hour or so im not talking about a video suddenly popping up covering the screen but if you ignore the flashing add button for a time  not so nice things happen like i dk you med slower or heal slow and eventually it logs you out

LookingGlass

The subscription model is just win-win for players and developers. I do feel however that many players have a hard time seeing the benefit. Especially when a month or two may pass without much content while waiting for a huge one.

I think even straight subscription games could offer in-game points of some type every month the subscription continues. The points could be used for in-game items or character services. Much like a mandatory $15 in a cash shop a month, but without the immersion break of a true cash shop. Hell, give the players these points weekly so they're always reminded they're getting something for their sub.

I understand the value of my subscription so I'm fine without something like that. But I can't help but think many players would tolerate a subscription more easily for it.

kabitoshin

I don't get it Wildstar is praised for its p2p and ESO is frowned at it seems on this site. All I see in Wildstar is trying to recreate the glory days of WoW. I think both will do good but console players might not want to pay for a sub for ESO. Not too much of ESO has been shown, so hope they have content to justify a sub.