Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

F2P vs P2P. Why

jazz.bejazz.be Sint-NiklaasPosts: 820Member Uncommon

We've seen many people, and even reviewers, complain about the P2P model in ESO.

I have my own opinion on this as well. And I simply don't understand the people who really believes this game should not be P2P. I find this quite interesting for some reason, to me as far as I've seen this game is quite "complete".  There are different reasons possible so I've been wondering the following question and would like to hear people's opinions on this.

Why exactly should this game be F2P and not P2P, please state concrete arguments relevant to this game. If it's not relevant to this game but rather a general principle please also state it.

If it's because you simply do not like the game (for example action style combat, no tab targetting etc), which is an important detail, also state it. I think everyone can fall in this category. I mean if you don't like something that is an essential feature you obviously would want it to be free so you can still check it out without engagement.

People who don't feel this game should be P2P please also state what would change your mind. This is what I would find most interesting :-) 

 

If you do want this to be P2P, feel free to do the same.

«134

Comments

  • Stuka1000Stuka1000 Posts: 878Member Uncommon
    I'm happy that it's P2P and long may it stay so.  I'm tired of the F2P crowd that plague other MMO's.  It is no secret that there are no good MMO communities anymore and I feel that F2P games are a major contributing factor to that.  If you don't pay to play a game you have no real connection to it.
  • rminter48rminter48 Winni, MIPosts: 19Member Uncommon

    Zenimax is working hard on this game and will have to have some way to pay its employees and update the game, those two reasons alone are enough reason to ignore anyone who wants it f2p. Its the the idea of renting your game that most people are complaining don't like. They're too used to being able to spend the standard $60 and then the game is theirs,me being one of them. 

    I personally think that just by lowering the sub to maybe $10 would bring alot of people back and would still be enough money for Zenimax.

  • SatariousSatarious Kansas City, MOPosts: 1,075Member
    Originally posted by jazz.be

    We've seen many people, and even reviewers, complain about the P2P model in ESO.

    I have my own opinion on this as well. And I simply don't understand the people who really believes this game should not be P2P. I find this quite interesting for some reason, to me as far as I've seen this game is quite "complete".  There are different reasons possible so I've been wondering the following question and would like to hear people's opinions on this.

    Why exactly should this game be F2P and not P2P, please state concrete arguments relevant to this game. If it's not relevant to this game but rather a general principle please also state it.

    If it's because you simply do not like the game (for example action style combat, no tab targetting etc), which is an important detail, also state it. I think everyone can fall in this category. I mean if you don't like something that is an essential feature you obviously would want it to be free so you can still check it out without engagement.

    People who don't feel this game should be P2P please also state what would change your mind. This is what I would find most interesting :-) 

     

    If you do want this to be P2P, feel free to do the same.

    It's really quite simple why many prefer P2P over F2P:  Free to Play eventually devolves into Pay to Win as much as the company tries to skate around it.  The fact is, when all is said and done, a company is out to make a profit.  If you can't make a profit, you have to find other avenues.  It may be F2P at the start, but in order to stay relevant in the game, you will eventually have to dish out some serious cash (often more than you would on P2P) in those immersion breaking Cash shops.  On top of all this, companies behind F2P games tend to spend less money and time and effort on keeping the game fresh with new content and improvements than a P2P would.  This makes perfect sense since a P2P lives or dies on  subscriptions.  F2P, on the other hand, can keep a skeleton crew and float on what's already there since they don't have the constant fear of losing subs.

    F2P is like a used car.  It may start and seem fine before you buy it, but then it all falls apart about a week later when the chewing gum keeping it together falls off.

  • RusqueRusque Las Vegas, NVPosts: 2,229Member Uncommon

    I'm not always a fan of F2P.

    Because the volatility it presents to the developers means that they dedicate time to monetizing rather than adding/improving the game.

    Or you can be smart like ANET and use the cash shop as the driver for adding content. That's where the 2 week update came from. Instead of creating new cash shop items, they just update lock boxes with tokens that can be used to purchase items from the content. It's clever, it's successful, and it's not too invasive.

    BUT! It's only good for those who don't actually want to use the shop.

    That's the problem with F2P, it's only beneficial to users who aren't paying customers. The rest of us who choose to support the game are spending more than a sub costs. So it's more expensive for us.

    I'm not even a big spender, there's people who will easily drop $50-$100 a month in a F2P game whereas I might average $20-$30. It costs me more because I'm paying for someone else. So when given a choice, I'll take P2P because I'm going to pay anyway, I may as well pay less.

     

    If you're of the mind, "well just join the ranks of those who don't pay." Well, yeah I could, but that's just one fewer supporter of a game that we each theoretically enjoy playing. And if there isn't enough money coming in, then no more game or future updates. Someone HAS to pay for it.

  • DraemosDraemos Antartica, AKPosts: 1,469Member
    Gods to I hope this game stays P2P.  I'm so sick of F2P and B2P ruining communities and shifting content and development focus.  Plus the Megaserver means we just won't need extra bodies to fill up server instances.
  • RizelStarRizelStar Raleigh, NCPosts: 2,773Member
    Originally posted by Draemos
    Gods to I hope this game stays P2P.  I'm so sick of F2P and B2P ruining communities and shifting content and development focus.  Plus the Megaserver means we just won't need extra bodies to fill up server instances.

    *Sneezes* damn it my allergies again.

    I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.

    I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.

    P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)

    Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.

  • JHenryJHenry Downers Grove, ILPosts: 188Member

    It depends on the content delivery and the availability of items to buy in a cash shop F2P and even P2P if it's a pay to win.

    If QUALITY content is still delivered through F2P, it's all good. The only problem with F2P is it's not reliable in the long run.

    Guaranteed income is better in the perspective of the business. F2P could easily remove its support and dwell to another game if it's not profitable (but keep it open "just in case"). Shattered Galaxy, an MMRTS, is a F2P but pay to win is long dead but is still operating. Support was totally withdrawn except in events.

    SOLA - www.solaguild.com
    (christian guild. Being christian is not required for membership though)

  • aguardian76aguardian76 baardPosts: 1Member
    I feel that P2P is a good thing it will keep the people away with no real interest in the game whoa re just there to see it once and than bitch about it.
  • AvaglaorAvaglaor KoridalosPosts: 24Member Uncommon

    P2P for sure.

    F2P model sux, in more cases if you want to play seriously a mmo with F2P model you have to pay more than 15$ per month, while support and patching is much more slower.

  • someforumguysomeforumguy HomePosts: 3,542Member Uncommon
    P2P for sure. It comes with innovating trade features like tradechat diarrhea and shops in the hands of the dominating PVP guilds. And you get to pay extra for features and races. The community will also be better. A different P2P game called WoW clearly showed that. Your starting areas will be of way higher quality too. Yeah, I am sold.
  • obiiobii WienPosts: 779Member Uncommon

    My guess is that most P2P games these last years failed to keep P2P.

    Will be interesting to see if ESO can break the trend and what incentives they will provide to not only regain customers but continually gain the leaving customers.

    I would have thought ESO would be F2P as the entry barrier and possible customer base is larger, but then their business model probably is closer to wow and I would be really surprised if they don't have an extra item shop for visual goodies.

  • gervaise1gervaise1 .Posts: 2,084Member Uncommon

    There is another option.

    A sub is essentially renting. Television used to be expensive, people rented; now they buy. Server costs used to be expensive, hence the sub, now they are not. And when the sub started (UO, EQ1) you still bought new content.

    With a sub based game you get nothing; NO content. You get a membership and pay green fees to go around the course. 

    TV rental still exists - just. And sure ESO will sell millions - most of whom will then leave within 6 months.

    The game could sell tens of millions however if it was B2P. Not advocating F2P - B2P is alive and well and I believe ESO has the IP pulling power. Skyrim sold, GTA has passed 35M sales etc. And ESO is an ideal platform for proper DLC.

    If necessary Zenimax could cut zones and just sell a huge game and keep stuff back so that they have enough content from day 1 to sell several DLC packs. This will get them extra money. Lots of options as well e.g. premium memberships like BF.

    As it stands ESO will sell whatever. A percentage will sub but a chunk won't. Decline! Then in 3 month some will leave then in 6 months more will leave. Decline; decline. The story will be one of "decline". Even if ESO has done amazingly well the story will be decline. Because everything will be measured against the day 1 "subs".

    Alternative: B2P + DLC. ESO sells. And in the following 3 months more sales. And then more sales 3 months later still. A story of growth. And every month or two a new DLC pack. An expanding world, a story of growth. And expansions generate publicity = more sales. And in 12 months or so they could bundle all the DLC together with the original and sell a "Legendary" edition. More sales. A story of growth.

    So no entitlement minded subscription freeloaders! No XBox1 problem either. Zenimax focus on "proper" DLC content and with higher sales they will be more likely to keep a team(s) pushing out new content. The story will be of growth and a thriving game.

     

     

  • OriousOrious O''Fallon, ILPosts: 548Member
    I could care less as long as the experience is = to my beta experience, but increases since what I played was the beta build. I play the game on how fun/ how it satisfies my playstyle not on the costs when the costs are pretty minute.

    image

  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko RotterdamPosts: 3,845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Orious
    I could care less as long as the experience is = to my beta experience, but increases since what I played was the beta build. I play the game on how fun/ how it satisfies my playstyle not on the costs when the costs are pretty minute.

    Me too.

     

    Besides, I almost NEVER play more than 1 MMO simultaneously, so the miniscule cost of subbing is never an issue.

  • jazz.bejazz.be Sint-NiklaasPosts: 820Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by gervaise1

    There is another option.

    A sub is essentially renting. Television used to be expensive, people rented; now they buy. Server costs used to be expensive, hence the sub, now they are not. And when the sub started (UO, EQ1) you still bought new content.

    With a sub based game you get nothing; NO content. You get a membership and pay green fees to go around the course. 

    TV rental still exists - just. And sure ESO will sell millions - most of whom will then leave within 6 months.

    The game could sell tens of millions however if it was B2P. Doesn't need to be F2P B2P is alive and well. Skyrim sold, GTA has passed 35M sales etc. And ESO is an ideal platform for DLC (not micro-transaction cash shop stuff).

    Zenimax could cut zones and just sell a huge game and then sell the rest of what they have today as several DLC packs. That will get them the extra money. Offer premium memberships like BF series.

    As it stands ESO will sell, a % won't sub, but a decent chunk will for 3 or 6 months. The story will be one of "decline". Even if ESO has done well it will be one of "decline" because everything will be measured against the day 1 sales.

    Alternative: B2P + DLC. ESO sells and keeps selling. It will be able to aim for tens of millions of sales. And every month or whatever there can be a positive press release about how ESO keeps getting bigger and bigger. The story will be one of growth. And in a years time they can bundle the DLC packs together with the "core" and launch it as the "Legendary" edition. And get more sales. And maybe what they have today = the Legendary edition! They have options.

    So no entitlement minded subscription freeloaders! And you don't have the XBox1 problem either. And for us it will ensure that Zenimax focus on "proper" DLC content.

     

     

    With all due respect, I didn't ask for forecasts. Are you telling me you made your choice between B2P and P2P based on your own calculated business forecasts?

    What makes you think F2P and proper DLC content works better than P2P and just regular content updates anyway? In what way would it be better? Or is it all related to how Zenimax handles its budget and income? You actually believe you beat their financial experts in their mission to finance the progress in the game?

  • Brabbit1987Brabbit1987 Ontario, CanadaPosts: 729Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jazz.be
    Originally posted by gervaise1

    There is another option.

    A sub is essentially renting. Television used to be expensive, people rented; now they buy. Server costs used to be expensive, hence the sub, now they are not. And when the sub started (UO, EQ1) you still bought new content.

    With a sub based game you get nothing; NO content. You get a membership and pay green fees to go around the course. 

    TV rental still exists - just. And sure ESO will sell millions - most of whom will then leave within 6 months.

    The game could sell tens of millions however if it was B2P. Doesn't need to be F2P B2P is alive and well. Skyrim sold, GTA has passed 35M sales etc. And ESO is an ideal platform for DLC (not micro-transaction cash shop stuff).

    Zenimax could cut zones and just sell a huge game and then sell the rest of what they have today as several DLC packs. That will get them the extra money. Offer premium memberships like BF series.

    As it stands ESO will sell, a % won't sub, but a decent chunk will for 3 or 6 months. The story will be one of "decline". Even if ESO has done well it will be one of "decline" because everything will be measured against the day 1 sales.

    Alternative: B2P + DLC. ESO sells and keeps selling. It will be able to aim for tens of millions of sales. And every month or whatever there can be a positive press release about how ESO keeps getting bigger and bigger. The story will be one of growth. And in a years time they can bundle the DLC packs together with the "core" and launch it as the "Legendary" edition. And get more sales. And maybe what they have today = the Legendary edition! They have options.

    So no entitlement minded subscription freeloaders! And you don't have the XBox1 problem either. And for us it will ensure that Zenimax focus on "proper" DLC content.

     

     

    With all due respect, I didn't ask for forecasts. Are you telling me you made your choice between B2P and P2P based on your own calculated business forecasts?

    What makes you think F2P and proper DLC content works better than P2P and just regular content updates anyway? In what way would it be better? Or is it all related to how Zenimax handles its budget and income? You actually believe you beat their financial experts in their mission to finance the progress in the game?

    I actually find it funny how people say things like "financial experts". What makes those people experts compared to someone not part of the company? Many games that become super popular, do so out of no where.

    What makes someone think they can do better then the so called experts? Well simply because people have from time to time again. You should never write off who is right or wrong based on who is part of a company and who isn't. No one is perfect, and everyone makes mistakes. To think these experts know exactly what they are doing, you couldn't be more wrong.

    Every company has these so called experts. So how do you explain those who fail? I can explain it. Because they are human just as everyone else. They don't have some secret magic formula as you seem to think. Other wise no P2P game would ever fail ... yet they still do.

     

    I am also sick of people saying B2P is the same as F2P. It isn't, not even close. Those who say it is the same thing are thinking from a consumer perspective, rather then a business one. Those who think they are the same are very narrow minded. A company can make a whole lot less sacrifices in the cash shop if a game has an initial up front payment .. while a total F2P requires you to sell more in the cash shop. So you are more likely to put pay to win items in it.

    B2P has a paygate to get in the game, F2P does not. That is such a huge difference that i find it so stupid when people try and say they are the same thing. I do understand why one might think they are the same, because frankly fro ma consumer perspective they wouldn't look any different.

     

    As for B2P working better then P2P .. honestly .. no one knows. Because not many MMOs try and use that model. GW2 is the only mmo I know of who uses it as of recent years. Even if we look into past years, there are not many who have tried. There is not enough information to gather whether or not it can or can not be successful.

    Not even the "experts" know that. Information is important and no one wants to take the risks of going with out such information. What companies know is P2P has worked in the past and it worked really well for WoW. So well, that it caused a domino effect of copying for a very long time. Everyone wants a slice of that pie, and everyone is trying to recreate it.

    The only reason the P2P model is still alive today is because people are still after that slice. However, in my eyes, and in my opinion, there are only crumbs left of that pie.

    There is nothing wrong with coming up with different business models. I learned a long time ago, the community we hate has nothing to do with F2P .. it simply has to do with MMOs becoming more popular then they used to be. They attract more people then they did ever since WoW. WoW is the reason for the decline in the community and WoW is the reason why F2P came into the picture.

    It's hard competing against a game that already has a ridiculous amount of content. It's even harder moving to another game when you have spent so much time and money in another. Every new MMO has to jump high over a towering wall that no one seems to be able to reach and it only keeps increasing in height as more and more MMOs release.

    Do I think F2P is the answer? No? ... yes? Truth is I don't know. Do I think P2P is the answer? No ... I do not.

    Course only time will tell right?

    Who wants to make bets? I could very well be wrong, maybe the horse isn't dead?

  • Stuka1000Stuka1000 Posts: 878Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Brabbit1987
    Originally posted by jazz.be
    Originally posted by gervaise1

    There is another option.

    A sub is essentially renting. Television used to be expensive, people rented; now they buy. Server costs used to be expensive, hence the sub, now they are not. And when the sub started (UO, EQ1) you still bought new content.

    With a sub based game you get nothing; NO content. You get a membership and pay green fees to go around the course. 

    TV rental still exists - just. And sure ESO will sell millions - most of whom will then leave within 6 months.

    The game could sell tens of millions however if it was B2P. Doesn't need to be F2P B2P is alive and well. Skyrim sold, GTA has passed 35M sales etc. And ESO is an ideal platform for DLC (not micro-transaction cash shop stuff).

    Zenimax could cut zones and just sell a huge game and then sell the rest of what they have today as several DLC packs. That will get them the extra money. Offer premium memberships like BF series.

    As it stands ESO will sell, a % won't sub, but a decent chunk will for 3 or 6 months. The story will be one of "decline". Even if ESO has done well it will be one of "decline" because everything will be measured against the day 1 sales.

    Alternative: B2P + DLC. ESO sells and keeps selling. It will be able to aim for tens of millions of sales. And every month or whatever there can be a positive press release about how ESO keeps getting bigger and bigger. The story will be one of growth. And in a years time they can bundle the DLC packs together with the "core" and launch it as the "Legendary" edition. And get more sales. And maybe what they have today = the Legendary edition! They have options.

    So no entitlement minded subscription freeloaders! And you don't have the XBox1 problem either. And for us it will ensure that Zenimax focus on "proper" DLC content.

     

     

    With all due respect, I didn't ask for forecasts. Are you telling me you made your choice between B2P and P2P based on your own calculated business forecasts?

    What makes you think F2P and proper DLC content works better than P2P and just regular content updates anyway? In what way would it be better? Or is it all related to how Zenimax handles its budget and income? You actually believe you beat their financial experts in their mission to finance the progress in the game?

    I actually find it funny how people say things like "financial experts". What makes those people experts compared to someone not part of the company? 

    That would be because large companies hire people with lots of letters behind their names depicting a high level of expertise in either marketing or the financial services industry.  My younger brother has more letters behind his name than I care to count and heads up the marketing department of a large organisation here in the UK.  He gets paid a crap-load to guide the marketing direction of said organisation and is responsible for a budget in excess of £30 million a year.  Not a lot by some standards but enough.  Most people don't have that kind of expertise which is what the OP was hinting at I believe. 

  • Brabbit1987Brabbit1987 Ontario, CanadaPosts: 729Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by eric1000
    Originally posted by Brabbit1987
    Originally posted by jazz.be
    Originally posted by gervaise1

    There is another option.

    A sub is essentially renting. Television used to be expensive, people rented; now they buy. Server costs used to be expensive, hence the sub, now they are not. And when the sub started (UO, EQ1) you still bought new content.

    With a sub based game you get nothing; NO content. You get a membership and pay green fees to go around the course. 

    TV rental still exists - just. And sure ESO will sell millions - most of whom will then leave within 6 months.

    The game could sell tens of millions however if it was B2P. Doesn't need to be F2P B2P is alive and well. Skyrim sold, GTA has passed 35M sales etc. And ESO is an ideal platform for DLC (not micro-transaction cash shop stuff).

    Zenimax could cut zones and just sell a huge game and then sell the rest of what they have today as several DLC packs. That will get them the extra money. Offer premium memberships like BF series.

    As it stands ESO will sell, a % won't sub, but a decent chunk will for 3 or 6 months. The story will be one of "decline". Even if ESO has done well it will be one of "decline" because everything will be measured against the day 1 sales.

    Alternative: B2P + DLC. ESO sells and keeps selling. It will be able to aim for tens of millions of sales. And every month or whatever there can be a positive press release about how ESO keeps getting bigger and bigger. The story will be one of growth. And in a years time they can bundle the DLC packs together with the "core" and launch it as the "Legendary" edition. And get more sales. And maybe what they have today = the Legendary edition! They have options.

    So no entitlement minded subscription freeloaders! And you don't have the XBox1 problem either. And for us it will ensure that Zenimax focus on "proper" DLC content.

     

     

    With all due respect, I didn't ask for forecasts. Are you telling me you made your choice between B2P and P2P based on your own calculated business forecasts?

    What makes you think F2P and proper DLC content works better than P2P and just regular content updates anyway? In what way would it be better? Or is it all related to how Zenimax handles its budget and income? You actually believe you beat their financial experts in their mission to finance the progress in the game?

    I actually find it funny how people say things like "financial experts". What makes those people experts compared to someone not part of the company? 

    That would be because large companies hire people with lots of letters behind their names depicting a high level of expertise in either marketing or the financial services industry.  My younger brother has more letters behind his name than I care to count and heads up the marketing department of a large organisation here in the UK.  He gets paid a crap-load to guide the marketing direction of said organisation and is responsible for a budget in excess of £30 million a year.  Not a lot by some standards but enough.  Most people don't have that kind of expertise which is what the OP was hinting at I believe. 

    And what I am hinting at is that the expertise doesn't always mean the right decisions or success.

  • oldboygameroldboygamer NuneatonPosts: 139Member

    I find it amusing that the advocates of subs criticise f2p as buy to win or pay to play. ESO has already crossed that line with the CE and Imperial race. It has already started as a game with a pay gate, and I'm sure there will be many things to come that subbers don't get without paying more, so let's not hear any more rubbish that subs will keep ESO from being a pay to win game, it already is that.

     

    As for sub or f2p. Personally I've subbed to every game I've played all the way from UO, EQ, DAoC and on and on... So I have a lot of experience of subbing to games. Unfortunately the sub model doesn't work any more. It's not true to say it keeps away an anti-social element (look at WoW) and Lake of Ill Omen chat back in old EQ was troll heaven. It's also not true that f2p means a shoddy third rate game, look at LOTRO. I've played lotro since launch and I'm a lifer and the f2p model has made no difference to me at all in terms of the playability and quality of the game and lotro has gone from strength to strength.

     

    In my experience and opinion subscriptions do not guarantee a better game and a better game experience. So, after years of subbing I'm just no longer prepared to pay over £100 a year for a game, no matter how great that game may be. It's that simple.

     

    LOTRO is now my preferred model. VIP access, luckily I bought that lifetime sub six years ago, and a cash shop which means I can spend my money how I like when I like and as little or as much as I like. I'd rather control that monthly $10 a month or whatever than have it swallowed by the games company and not spent on any improvements in game. To be honest why would anyone sub to any game these days? If you want to throw your hard earned cash away I'll send you my paypal details.

     

    I'm sure all this academic any way because it will be a f2p game in a few months regardless.

  • PyatraPyatra Kansas City, KSPosts: 644Member
    Originally posted by oldboygamer

    I find it amusing that the advocates of subs criticise f2p as buy to win or pay to play. ESO has already crossed that line with the CE and Imperial race. It has already started as a game with a pay gate, and I'm sure there will be many things to come that subbers don't get without paying more, so let's not hear any more rubbish that subs will keep ESO from being a pay to win game, it already is that.

     

    As for sub or f2p. Personally I've subbed to every game I've played all the way from UO, EQ, DAoC and on and on... So I have a lot of experience of subbing to games. Unfortunately the sub model doesn't work any more. It's not true to say it keeps away an anti-social element (look at WoW) and Lake of Ill Omen chat back in old EQ was troll heaven. It's also not true that f2p means a shoddy third rate game, look at LOTRO. I've played lotro since launch and I'm a lifer and the f2p model has made no difference to me at all in terms of the playability and quality of the game and lotro has gone from strength to strength.

     

    In my experience and opinion subscriptions do not guarantee a better game and a better game experience. So, after years of subbing I'm just no longer prepared to pay over £100 a year for a game, no matter how great that game may be. It's that simple.

     

    LOTRO is now my preferred model. VIP access, luckily I bought that lifetime sub six years ago, and a cash shop which means I can spend my money how I like when I like and as little or as much as I like. I'd rather control that monthly $10 a month or whatever than have it swallowed by the games company and not spent on any improvements in game. To be honest why would anyone sub to any game these days? If you want to throw your hard earned cash away I'll send you my paypal details.

     

    I'm sure all this academic any way because it will be a f2p game in a few months regardless.

    What I read was personal experience from past choices wall of text and a passive aggressive finisher.  So I take it you've played the game or have you?

    jigsaw let's play

     

    I would also like to know from your experience playing ESO why you think it will go F2P in a few months?  If you haven't played it I presume you are intimatly familiar with the features of the actual game the would promote a F2P model or a Sub model?

  • MMOExposedMMOExposed lalal land, DCPosts: 6,258Member Uncommon

    Because the game isn't worth a sub for.  It's a low quality SCMORPG game.

     

    GW2 on the other hand was also not that big as it made it out to be, but was forgivable because of  payment model

    image

  • PyatraPyatra Kansas City, KSPosts: 644Member
    Originally posted by MMOExposed

    Because the game isn't worth a sub for.  It's a low quality SCMORPG game.

     

    GW2 on the other hand was also not that big as it made it out to be, but was forgivable because of  payment model

    Elaborate.  From your own personal experience with ESO, not other games.

  • mad-hattermad-hatter Posts: 236Member Uncommon
    I will always prefer P2P, not many games can do f2p the right way.  Don't really care for fluff, rather earn it in game, and by that I don't mean grinding and converting in game money for cash shop money, or buying cash shop items off an auction house with currency.  Gives devs more chance to focus on real content for their game instead of making new cash shop items every week/month.
  • MMOExposedMMOExposed lalal land, DCPosts: 6,258Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Pyatra
    Originally posted by MMOExposed

    Because the game isn't worth a sub for.  It's a low quality SCMORPG game.

     

    GW2 on the other hand was also not that big as it made it out to be, but was forgivable because of  payment model

    Elaborate.  From your own personal experience with ESO, not other games.

    Its very theme park like most other MMOs. Doesn't nothing unique in the theme park design either. Also the game uses traditional tabtarget system but with illusionary aim mechanics

    That dont really exist. Again nothing stands out about this game to make it different from the mass of others on the market.

    For many people, they are simply blinded by the IP hype. Replace the IP with a brand new indie IP and you would be able

    See why i am talking about. I like the singleplayer games of this series, but being MMOExposed , i dont easily get blinded by developers  who want to exploit fans of the IP to see another SCOMRPG like all the others in this inflated market.

    image

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,466Member Uncommon

    I do not want to see any cash shop games near my computer,so it is one thing Zenimax did right...or have they?

    it is still too early to determine if Zeni has a plan to just leech out sub money as much as it can get before changing over to cash shop,only time will tell.If they stick to sub fees then they have done a smart thing.

    BTW nothing would change my mind,i play every single game i play because i like it,trying to coerce me because it is tagged with a "FREE to play" label will NEVER do a thing to reel me in.

    I believe the original idea of TRIALS are the proper way to go,give players a free week or 10 days,more than enough time to get a feel for the game.What Zeni did NOT do right was adding in that CE,that alienates one subscriber from another,also the same reason i don't like cash shops,i like to know EVERY player in my game is on equal terms.


    Samoan Diamond

«134
Sign In or Register to comment.