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!

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

245

Comments

  • LookingGlassLookingGlass Indianapolis, INPosts: 5Member
    I can't help but wonder if giving players some kind of currency every month they maintain a subscription would cause more people to tolerate it. Give it to them weekly even.

    The currency would be used for maybe one piece of top-end gear a month or a mount or crafting supplies.

    I believe the subscription model is the best and I don't need this sort of thing to convince me. But I do wonder if it'd help quiet the anti-sub crowd. Though I may be forgetting they just want free content.
  • KazaraKazara merritt island, FLPosts: 1,075Member Uncommon

    TESO will eventually go freemium, as do all other theme parks games, when the subscriber numbers get low enough. How soon depends on the quality, depth and frequency of added content. Those that do not want to pay a subscription will just have to wait. Waiting costs F2P gamers nothing. Those who will be in game at launch will at least have some time to enjoy the game with out an intrusive cash shop.

    The initial box sales and subscriptions will allow the developers to recover a bulk of invested money and maybe even turn a profit before going freemium. This seems too be the most financially advantageous business path for theme park MMO's. When I hear reports that MMO's that have gone freemium doubled or tripled their income, I am relatively sure it is in comparison to the lowest population numbers in the game (just before going freemium).

    image

  • nuttobnuttob Plantation, FLPosts: 291Member
    All these posts about the sub model coming back are premature.  Let's see where these games are at in a year to determine if this is true.  Just because a couple of games announce they are sub does not mean subs are back.  In fact, subs seem to be dead at this point as the quality of the games have gone signifigantly up.
  • SkuallSkuall UnknowPosts: 1,286Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by 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.
     
     
     

    qft

  • CthulhuPuffsCthulhuPuffs Henderson, NVPosts: 363Member Common

    ESO aside, because Im not interested in playing another Themepark style MMO, Ive prefer the Subscription model. $15mo for unlimited access is a great deal. .50 a day to play any time I want. You got my Sub.

     

    F2P +Cash Shops Im not fond of because it usually turns into a B2W game, or at the very least a "Buy to even enjoy" game.

    The only way I would accept a CS game was if the items were only cosmetic/fluff and you werent slammed with Ads.

     

    What I really hate is Digital/Box Price for MMOs. Yeah sure you get "30 days Free" of gameplay, but so freaking what! If the game sucks you just blew $65 and the game becomes a brick because you cant do anything with it.

    If I go buy Skyrim I can play it 3 days, 30 days, 3 years or 30 years. I dont pay more unless I buy DLC/Expansions. And if I dont like it, I can trade it or sell it.

     

    I would like to see all MMOs at Release be- Free 7 Day Trial then Membership/Subscription for extended access.

    Bringer of Eternal Darkness and Despair, but also a Nutritious way to start your Morning.

    Games Played: Too Many

  • DestaiDestai Detroit, MIPosts: 574Member
    Originally posted by 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.

    Wildstar is praised for its subscription, because it is worth playing and has the level of content to demand a subscription. ESO hasn't exactly been well received and is using a single player IP. Console players aren't going to go for the subscription fee. They should have been smart enough to use the B2P model, considering how much they already borrowed from GW2. Time and time again Zenimax has shown outright ignorance regarding their target audience and what they're looking for. 

  • loltacololloltacolol buckeye, AZPosts: 25Member
    I have not seen a good F2P MMO yet, not a single one the only that have been decent were P2P before they went F2P.
  • SawlstoneSawlstone barrie, ONPosts: 301Member
    I'll never get tired of paying for something I want. People who think the sub model is doomed well they need to think again. This is coming from an mmorpg developers dream consumer that buys every major AAA release to try for themselves and sub's to more then one frequently.

    I do enjoy F2P games as well.
    But like I said I don't mind paying for something I like and I know there are millions of gamers out there like me!
  • SawlstoneSawlstone barrie, ONPosts: 301Member
    I'll never get tired of paying for something I want. People who think the sub model is doomed well they need to think again. This is coming from an mmorpg developers dream consumer that buys every major AAA release to try for themselves and sub's to more then one frequently.

    I do enjoy F2P games as well.
    But like I said I don't mind paying for something I like and I know there are millions of gamers out there like me!
  • antilegitantilegit bronx, NYPosts: 20Member Common
    i can understand a subscription model at 10-15 a month or 60 dollars for the game.  what i don't understand is $60 for the box + 10-15 every month after.  basically, if you don't like the game, you spent 60 dollars for a game you were let down on. let's face it, most mmorpgs these days are one disappointments after another.
  • Lord.BachusLord.Bachus Den HelderPosts: 9,065Member Uncommon
    Subscription models only work in these days if the game is clearly better then all those f2p games.. just shows the developers are confident.

    Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,221Member Uncommon

    Garrett, I'm sorry but this is just a really one-dimensional pandering article you wrote.  It almost feels like you guys, I read Mike Bs article as well, are hopping on the hipster bandwagon.

    You mention some really lackluster F2P models, and make your P2P pitch with them, but you didn't contrast them to more attractive sub-free models and games that WS and TESO will have to compete with.  I'll give FFXIV a pass because I think Squeenix actually does know its playerbase and can operate on niche sub revenues.  WS and TESO, no way.

    So you have Rift, Tera, and GW2 - all sub-free models of a similar vein in that you get access to all the content, the cash shops are entirely optional, and you can earn "cash shop" items or game time by playing the game.  WS and TESO will have to contend with those titles, not Neverwinter, or Ultima Forever (isn't that an iOS title).  That's like saying EQN should worry about Crystal Saga.

    You don't mention that while some F2P titles bring up payment, so do sub models.  If you go to one of their websites there is a basically a "pay first and pay now and keep paying" to continue to even look at the game.  Not only that but most every sub model has some sort of alternative revenue system - RMT for Gold (PLEX), cash shop, DLC fees (box fees, xpac fees), and DLC upgrades (pre-order bonus packs, digital collectors editions, etc).

    Also left out is the consideration why P2P got panned in the first place: the incredible advantage those with more time have, the time sinks and drop rates that keep us subbing longer, the slow update pace despite the "predictable" revenue stream, and the fact that most devs charge for content updates along with the sub.

    I think there is definitely a place for P2P, especially in niche titles like EVE or the upcoming CU.  But overall I think the article could have done the topic much more justice rather than glossing over some of the deeper aspects.

     

  • MikeBMikeB MMORPG.com Community Manager Queens, NYPosts: 5,724Administrator Uncommon
    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    Garrett, I'm sorry but this is just a really one-dimensional pandering article you wrote.  It almost feels like you guys, I read Mike Bs article as well, are hopping on the hipster bandwagon.

    What "hipster bandwagon" are you referring to? I must say, I'm quite curious!

    Michael "MikeB" Bitton
    Community Manager
    Twitter: @eMikeB

  • GruugGruug Chillicothe, ILPosts: 1,311Member Uncommon

    The quality of the content and game will be great as long as the sub payment model is in place. As with other titles and if f2p is ever implemented, the quality and quantity of content will taper off and then slowly end.

    Frankly, you are going to get what you PAY FOR.

    Let's party like it is 1863!

  • giggalgiggal ChesterfieldPosts: 116Member Uncommon

    I would like a Subscription based game which doesn't have all the content completed after 2 weeks of SOLID game play. OK so mmos don't seem to understand the power gamer or completionist mentality but they seem to run into a content drought normally 3 weeks in. Even playing the secret world with its amazingly difficult puzzles and compelling story ran out in about 2 months.

    That was 1 month sub and 1 month free then there was no point in continuing to play. new mmo's are all coming out with the same cut and paste mentality they went the wow route with "easy and faster levelling" and ended up shooting themselves in the foot.

    Who remembers when it took literally MONTHS to get to end game, when gear levelling up actually made a difference. New mmo's offer you the levelling gear but 99% of the time you just disregard it because 20 minutes or an hour later you will be long gone from that kit.

    The other issue is they invest a lot of time on the levels and environments but because levelling is so quick your in and out of the starting zones in next to no time. That's a lot of wasted content.

     

    O and for the love of god I pray they don't put in voice actors because its the biggest waste of money ever. TOR gave us voice acting and then they gave us the ability to space bar through it all, guess what 99% of players did. So all that voice work wasted. IM keeping an eye on elder scrolls but weather it will hold my interest past the first month we will have to see.

  • jdk201jdk201 Denver, COPosts: 4Member Uncommon
    I am fine with a sub model, but if you are going to charge $15 per month, you better have plenty of content and polish at launch to keep people busy until you get the next wave out.   Problem with most sub games is people never get their money's worth and end up quitting due to boredom.
  • EQBallzzEQBallzz Austin, TXPosts: 149Member Uncommon

    If they have realistic sales/sub goals and the game doesn't suck it will be fine. On the other hand if they spend 200 million dollars on development and *need* the game to sustain 2 million subs to be "successful" and then the game also sucks...well then it deserves to die a horrible F2P death like SWTOR.

    It's not a matter of F2P being better or inevitable..it's a matter of people eventually realizing that nothing is actually free. If you want a quality game into the future you have to pay for it. Either people spend a regimented 15 per month or they buy crap in a cash shop but if any sizable number of people actually played the game for "free" the game would fail miserably with that business model as well.

     

    The real question is whether the game is good or not. SWTOR didn't die because of P2P. It started as P2P and had 2 million subs so a large number of people are willing to pay for the game and a sub. If it doesn't pan out then no they aren't going to keep playing and the game will end up going F2P which is a function of a failing game not a failing pay model.

     
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Posts: 5,472Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by 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.

    This game just does not speak value to me and just seems more like the same crap we have gotten over the past 10 years. I will not pay for the box price and then sub unless I have time to find out the end game is worth sticking around for. This game is designed and marketed as a console game and should reflect it. Box price and GW2 cash shop. Done. Its not me its the game... currently subbing to FF14.

     


    =-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums. 


  • RemyVorenderRemyVorender Riverside, RIPosts: 3,266Member Uncommon
    R3t3 and Badspock both hit the nail on the head. Well said guys. That's a /thread.

    Played: AA, AC1, AC2, Aion, AO, AoC, CO, CoX, DAoC, DCUO, DN, EVE, EQ1, EQ2,
    ESO, FE, FFXI, FFXIV, FF, GW1, GW2, Istaria, L2, LoTRO, MO, MxO, NW, Rift, RoE,
    Ryzom, SB, SWG, SWTOR, TERA, TSW, WAR, WoW, WURM...

  • DrakephireDrakephire Fontana, CAPosts: 445Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by 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.

    Not about affording it. I can also afford cable, but I don't because I hate paying for crap that I don't want like A&E channel or Home Shopping Network. I can afford a subscription. I could afford 10 subscriptions. But I don't want to pay for content I'll never use like Raids or PvP. I want a f2p model that allows me to buy the content I want a la carte.  DDO is a good example of this. 

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member
    ESO will not be a purely sub-based MMO. It is yet another double-dip MMO where they have a sub AND cash shop.
  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORPosts: 5,565Member Uncommon


    There are stark differences as to why people play mmos. Cash shop style or P2P cater to those differences.

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,221Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MikeB
    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    Garrett, I'm sorry but this is just a really one-dimensional pandering article you wrote.  It almost feels like you guys, I read Mike Bs article as well, are hopping on the hipster bandwagon.

    What "hipster bandwagon" are you referring to? I must say, I'm quite curious!

    Geez Mike, do you have a pearl script running in the background that detects your name and any bait words? :p

    The P2P "resurgence" is the new hipster thing.  I'm poking at you a little, because it's only sensible that you would cover the news story of the business model announcement, but they all read like we've stumbled back on the realization that this could be the right thing and we all really like that model down deep and hate the sub-free model.  I felt that it really sort of pandered to what the pro-p2p crowd want to hear.

    Although you touched on the risk, no one is looking deeply at why the subscription model has foundered and how it has evolved into a double-dip gouge.  There has been no critical investigation into the flaws of the payment model and how that could affect these releases.  And I felt Garrett highlighted a couple of the worst f2p models without actually looking at good ones or scrutinizing bad p2p models.

    As TESO, WS, and FFXIV all tout that they're offering a better experience due to the payment model, no one is looking at how they could be misusing it like so many others have.  No one is asking really hard questions and putting these people to task.

    There is a lot more to question other than the risks involved in competing with sub-free game offerings.  So hopefully no offense is taken because none is intended.

  • DeanGreyDeanGrey Fresno, CAPosts: 154Member
    Originally posted by CthulhuPuffs

    ESO aside, because Im not interested in playing another Themepark style MMO, Ive prefer the Subscription model. $15mo for unlimited access is a great deal. .50 a day to play any time I want. You got my Sub.

     

    F2P +Cash Shops Im not fond of because it usually turns into a B2W game, or at the very least a "Buy to even enjoy" game.

    The only way I would accept a CS game was if the items were only cosmetic/fluff and you werent slammed with Ads.

     

    What I really hate is Digital/Box Price for MMOs. Yeah sure you get "30 days Free" of gameplay, but so freaking what! If the game sucks you just blew $65 and the game becomes a brick because you cant do anything with it.

    If I go buy Skyrim I can play it 3 days, 30 days, 3 years or 30 years. I dont pay more unless I buy DLC/Expansions. And if I dont like it, I can trade it or sell it.

     

    I would like to see all MMOs at Release be- Free 7 Day Trial then Membership/Subscription for extended access.

    I have always thought that box sales on P2P MMO's seem like shady business. If your game is of value to me then I will continue to pay monthly. Getting burned out of $50 for a game I don't like and can't exchange basically makes for a expensive paper weight. I have skipped numerous MMO's in recent years because I will not pay for a box unless I am certain that I enjoy the game. It would certainly help if trials were the norm and not some "free-weekend" or 6 months later (against declining populations) thing.

  • DrakephireDrakephire Fontana, CAPosts: 445Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by MikeB
    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    Garrett, I'm sorry but this is just a really one-dimensional pandering article you wrote.  It almost feels like you guys, I read Mike Bs article as well, are hopping on the hipster bandwagon.

    What "hipster bandwagon" are you referring to? I must say, I'm quite curious!

    Geez Mike, do you have a pearl script running in the background that detects your name and any bait words? :p

    The P2P "resurgence" is the new hipster thing.  I'm poking at you a little, because it's only sensible that you would cover the news story of the business model announcement, but they all read like we've stumbled back on the realization that this could be the right thing and we all really like that model down deep and hate the sub-free model.  I felt that it really sort of pandered to what the pro-p2p crowd want to hear.

    Although you touched on the risk, no one is looking deeply at why the subscription model has foundered and how it has evolved into a double-dip gouge.  There has been no critical investigation into the flaws of the payment model and how that could affect these releases.  And I felt Garrett highlighted a couple of the worst f2p models without actually looking at good ones or scrutinizing bad p2p models.

    As TESO, WS, and FFXIV all tout that they're offering a better experience due to the payment model, no one is looking at how they could be misusing it like so many others have.  No one is asking really hard questions and putting these people to task.

    There is a lot more to question other than the risks involved in competing with sub-free game offerings.  So hopefully no offense is taken because none is intended.

    You should be a game journalist. Good questions.

Sign In or Register to comment.