Originally posted by nerovipus32 I'm done with subscription mmo's, i've so many of them collecting dust on my shelf and don't want to have more games that i can't play unless i pay more money.
this.
The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off , why should I. Light up the darkness Bob Marley
I suggest that all the elitist know-it-alls who are pretending to be telepathic prophets of doom, decrying that ESO will be F2P in a year, to bookmark this thread.
Assuming I am correct that the game will still be P4P after 1 year, you'll save me the effort of waving this thread in your faces.
For me its not about sub vs. F2P but about "smart justifiable pricing" vs. an "outmoded" method of pricing that has failed multiple games of late.
I feel sure that if it launches as a sub based game it could continue as a sub based game. WAR launched as a sub game and will close as a sub based game at the end of the year. Not saying that WAR failed because it had a sub simply that a game doesn't have to go F2P even if it "fails to meet expectations". And that a sub doesn't mean that the game will continue to have content developed for it.
Originally posted by Swids2010 Its not a case of IF elder scrolls will have a subscription as the developers have said numerous times that the game will never be able to run on a free to play option.
That is a blatant lie that one would expect from a major corporation. The dozens of F2P games (whether good or bad, doesnt matter) and B2P games just prove that.
It might be a bad example but also look at games like CoD or Battlefield 4, you buy them and you play the game, mostly ONLINE with no added fees. Most servers are not player hosted, so there are those server ran by the developers, which should cost shitton of money according to Zenimax right? Wrong!
P.S: Please do bookmark this statement for when the game goes F2P or B2P (like TSW did) so you can wave it at their faces when the time comes
Open world b2p games haven't proven anything yet.
If anything, they have proven that they still need a cash shop.
And games that need a cash shop are reliant upon an unknown amount of income every month.
And as you have pointed pointed out, costs for players to connect are lower.
but what you and other always avoid is that after the development and release "how much money does it take to continue to actually run the company and continue active development.
And it's not really hard to figure out, just time consuming.
pick a city, figure out how much it costs for commercial real estate, figure out the insurance costs, taxes, etc. Then look at how many people are employeed, what their jobs are and find out the median salary. I believe about 60k and probably a lot more for someone with experience. Just basically take all the parts of a game development team and start plugging in salaries. Of course then you are going to have to figure out health benefits, training, 401k etc.
Now, what about licenses and tools? essentially these games are costing many millions of dollars and once that game is released it's going to cost many millions of dollars to maintain the longevity of the company add content and hopefully an expansion at some point.
And what if the company just about breaks even or doesn't quite make up their development costs? What use is a game that isn't going to be around for a long time?
Most of the cash shop games rely upon whales. I think if I owned a company it would make me very nervous to have a small segment of my customer base paying the lion's share of my income, especially as gamers are fickle and always looking for the next big thing.
Every mmo has a cash shop these days so that excuse just doesn't fly anymore.
Originally posted by Swids2010 Its not a case of IF elder scrolls will have a subscription as the developers have said numerous times that the game will never be able to run on a free to play option.
That is a blatant lie that one would expect from a major corporation. The dozens of F2P games (whether good or bad, doesnt matter) and B2P games just prove that.
It might be a bad example but also look at games like CoD or Battlefield 4, you buy them and you play the game, mostly ONLINE with no added fees. Most servers are not player hosted, so there are those server ran by the developers, which should cost shitton of money according to Zenimax right? Wrong!
P.S: Please do bookmark this statement for when the game goes F2P or B2P (like TSW did) so you can wave it at their faces when the time comes
Open world b2p games haven't proven anything yet.
If anything, they have proven that they still need a cash shop.
And games that need a cash shop are reliant upon an unknown amount of income every month.
And as you have pointed pointed out, costs for players to connect are lower.
but what you and other always avoid is that after the development and release "how much money does it take to continue to actually run the company and continue active development.
And it's not really hard to figure out, just time consuming.
pick a city, figure out how much it costs for commercial real estate, figure out the insurance costs, taxes, etc. Then look at how many people are employeed, what their jobs are and find out the median salary. I believe about 60k and probably a lot more for someone with experience. Just basically take all the parts of a game development team and start plugging in salaries. Of course then you are going to have to figure out health benefits, training, 401k etc.
Now, what about licenses and tools? essentially these games are costing many millions of dollars and once that game is released it's going to cost many millions of dollars to maintain the longevity of the company add content and hopefully an expansion at some point.
And what if the company just about breaks even or doesn't quite make up their development costs? What use is a game that isn't going to be around for a long time?
Most of the cash shop games rely upon whales. I think if I owned a company it would make me very nervous to have a small segment of my customer base paying the lion's share of my income, especially as gamers are fickle and always looking for the next big thing.
Every mmo has a cash shop these days so that excuse just doesn't fly anymore.
Or we could look at it as the money that is coming in isn't enough, period.
If there were still "only" subs then they would have to raise the sub prices as well as boxed prices.
But the outrage to that would be immense, even though sub prices have been practically the same for years.
So development costs have risen, the cost of running a business has risen but the income with a standard sub price has remained the same.
honestly, you'd run a business like that.
Companies want the sub money because at least it's stable which is why a lot of sub games make it so that players seriously consider the sub.
All F2P games do is try to capitalize even more on the cash shop because that is their sole bit of income.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by Swids2010 Its not a case of IF elder scrolls will have a subscription as the developers have said numerous times that the game will never be able to run on a free to play option.
That is a blatant lie that one would expect from a major corporation. The dozens of F2P games (whether good or bad, doesnt matter) and B2P games just prove that.
It might be a bad example but also look at games like CoD or Battlefield 4, you buy them and you play the game, mostly ONLINE with no added fees. Most servers are not player hosted, so there are those server ran by the developers, which should cost shitton of money according to Zenimax right? Wrong!
P.S: Please do bookmark this statement for when the game goes F2P or B2P (like TSW did) so you can wave it at their faces when the time comes
Open world b2p games haven't proven anything yet.
If anything, they have proven that they still need a cash shop.
And games that need a cash shop are reliant upon an unknown amount of income every month.
And as you have pointed pointed out, costs for players to connect are lower.
but what you and other always avoid is that after the development and release "how much money does it take to continue to actually run the company and continue active development.
And it's not really hard to figure out, just time consuming.
pick a city, figure out how much it costs for commercial real estate, figure out the insurance costs, taxes, etc. Then look at how many people are employeed, what their jobs are and find out the median salary. I believe about 60k and probably a lot more for someone with experience. Just basically take all the parts of a game development team and start plugging in salaries. Of course then you are going to have to figure out health benefits, training, 401k etc.
Now, what about licenses and tools? essentially these games are costing many millions of dollars and once that game is released it's going to cost many millions of dollars to maintain the longevity of the company add content and hopefully an expansion at some point.
And what if the company just about breaks even or doesn't quite make up their development costs? What use is a game that isn't going to be around for a long time?
Most of the cash shop games rely upon whales. I think if I owned a company it would make me very nervous to have a small segment of my customer base paying the lion's share of my income, especially as gamers are fickle and always looking for the next big thing.
Every mmo has a cash shop these days so that excuse just doesn't fly anymore.
Or we could look at it as the money that is coming in isn't enough, period.
If there were still "only" subs then they would have to raise the sub prices as well as boxed prices.
But the outrage to that would be immense, even though sub prices have been practically the same for years.
So development costs have risen, the cost of running a business has risen but the income with a standard sub price has remained the same.
honestly, you'd run a business like that.
Companies want the sub money because at least it's stable which is why a lot of sub games make it so that players seriously consider the sub.
All F2P games do is try to capitalize even more on the cash shop because that is their sole bit of income.
All mmo's are about capitalizing financially, that's why the whole premise of mmo's is a carrot on a stick. If they keep chasing they'll keep paying. I don't see how f2p is any worse than p2p. At least with f2p games you can play without any investment.
All mmo's are about capitalizing financially, that's why the whole premise of mmo's is a carrot on a stick. If they keep chasing they'll keep paying. I don't see how f2p is any worse than p2p. At least with f2p games you can play without any investment.
I think they are worse from a business standpoint.
And I also think some of that can be bad for the player as well.
If you, as a business owner or manager, have no real idea what you can budget for each month, year, etc then how do you plan accordingly?
Oh sure there are going to be numbers where one can ball park what one will be getting. But with a sub game, let's say they open up a beta/preview and they get x amount of people playing. They have their estimation that x percent of those players will at least buy, play for the first month and then it will go down after that. A certain percentage will stay with the game for 6 months, etc.
Obviously these are going to be ball park numbers. But, with those numbers they can estimate what their income is going to be and what hey can count on for further development, running the business, etc.
But with a f2p, even though there are going to be similiar numbers as far as players, the spread for how much they are going to make is not only going to vary more wildly but, as I mentioned above, a smaller amount of people are going to be making up the majority of that. So if that small amount of people decided to leave you suddenly get a huge drop in cash flow.
How is this bad for the player? It's hard to know what you can and can't do with your game, expansions, services, etc.
Probably smaller updates where they at least know they can deliver,. And hopefully the game is good enough that the "whales" stick around long enough.
I remember seeing a few discussions about the asian f2p games where it was said that their sole purpose was to make money, make money fast and then move on to the next game.
It's my fear that f2p games are great in the short term but not a lot of longevity. For some players that might not be a big deal but there are players who like the idea of a long standing mmo.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
If anything, they have proven that they still need a cash shop.
And games that need a cash shop are reliant upon an unknown amount of income every month.
And as you have pointed pointed out, costs for players to connect are lower.
but what you and other always avoid is that after the development and release "how much money does it take to continue to actually run the company and continue active development.
And it's not really hard to figure out, just time consuming.
pick a city, figure out how much it costs for commercial real estate, figure out the insurance costs, taxes, etc. Then look at how many people are employeed, what their jobs are and find out the median salary. I believe about 60k and probably a lot more for someone with experience. Just basically take all the parts of a game development team and start plugging in salaries. Of course then you are going to have to figure out health benefits, training, 401k etc.
Now, what about licenses and tools? essentially these games are costing many millions of dollars and once that game is released it's going to cost many millions of dollars to maintain the longevity of the company add content and hopefully an expansion at some point.
And what if the company just about breaks even or doesn't quite make up their development costs? What use is a game that isn't going to be around for a long time?
Most of the cash shop games rely upon whales. I think if I owned a company it would make me very nervous to have a small segment of my customer base paying the lion's share of my income, especially as gamers are fickle and always looking for the next big thing.
I certainly agree that if I owned a company I wouldn't want to be reliant on a few whales. Nor would I want to be reliant on retaining a given number of subscribers though unless that number was (relatively) very low. I would want a flexible system.
Totally agree and understand your statement about being able to estimate your cost base. That doesn't mean a game should have a subscription however. Or that it should be f2p. It simply informs the decisions a company makes regarding their revenue model. How to recover their development costs, make lots of profit allowing further development leading to more profit.
One could infer from GW that b2p games need a cash shop. But you could also infer that sub based games need a cash shop.
It is crucial to recognise that markets change. The list of things that have happened in the last 5 years say is huge and the markets continue to change rapidly. And for that reason I would want a flexible revenue model from day 1. Look at other games - and in the case of older games ponder how they might have done today. e.g. GW1 - more content delivered electronically = more money to the developer. WoW - how successful would it be today. And so on.
The answer doesn't have to be f2p. It doesn't have to be sub either. And I would be inclined to steer away from the high number of "failed" sub games.
Point of the matter is, lets face it, Gw2 is quite successful, trumping many P2P MMOs along the way. It has a decent, not P2W cash shop (its kinda WoW's cash shop, without the mounts and subscriptions) the game is netting 1 year post launch with no expansion whatsoever. None even announced. The world is polished, bugs are quickly squashed, class balance is tweaked weekly assuring that there is no OP class. Living story updates every 2 weeks. Now some of you might say that living story is crap, but you have no idea how much that thing costs to make, and that every 2 weeks. Its just crazy the amount of work they put. The cinematic for the Tower of Nightmares was outsourced to another company AFAIK, because they just didn't have the time to do it themselves, and it was a great introduction video. One that surely didn't come free. And all that for a single box price, and ANet is still making money, rather than losing as many of you hope so. Yes there is a cash shop but there is also currency exchange. You can virtually buy anything with ingame gold. Last time I checked 100 gems were less than 10g. That's like 3 dungeon runs per day
Im enjoying the beta and i would pay a sub, i think its a well made game(for what ive played).
Originally posted by laokoko "if you want to be a game designer, you should sell your house and fund your game. Since if you won't even fund your own game, no one will".
From what I hear it is going to be Pay 2 Play, I will actually buy the game if they provide housing, & Freedom to customize character whenever you like as well a the ability to learn all crafts in the game sand-box based I will buy the game/subscribe.
Otherwise I likely will skip over it I am waiting for official news on the Q&A to find these out as I sent in my questions ot them in email but no answer yet on the Q&A Releases.
If you like themepark MMOs and jump from game to game you'll like ESO. If you were expecting a sandbox, then no its not for you. Its really that simple as there doesn't appear to be anything fundementally different from this game compared to the other themepark games on the market.
I still plan on playing it because I play all major titles and I feel it could be fun if I play the PvE side largely solo for the story (which is decent)
Doesn't have to be sandboxy to have depth you know. Most people who played WoW for any significant time spent atleast 4 years on it. WoW wasn't a sandbox.
Originally posted by asrlohz Doesn't have to be sandboxy to have depth you know. Most people who played WoW for any significant time spent atleast 4 years on it. WoW wasn't a sandbox.
That's because the majority of people see MMOs as a way to kill mobs with friends, not engaging experiences. They are casual players and feel accomplished when completing raids.
WoW is the reason why MMOs haven't evolved and are nothing more than PvE co-op with gear grind treadmills games with tacked on PvP. WoW is garbage. Its nothing but regurgetated crap every expansion.
Originally posted by asrlohz Doesn't have to be sandboxy to have depth you know. Most people who played WoW for any significant time spent atleast 4 years on it. WoW wasn't a sandbox.
That's because the majority of people see MMOs as a way to kill mobs with friends, not engaging experiences. They are casual players and feel accomplished when completing raids.
WoW is the reason why MMOs haven't evolved and are nothing more than PvE co-op with gear grind treadmills games with tacked on PvP. WoW is garbage. Its nothing but regurgetated crap every expansion.
People keep playing the garbage which would make it subjectively not garbage to them and garbage to you.
A sub price will not effect my decision to purchase or not. I actually prefer a sub model for most games. Maybe because I have paid them on MMOs for many years.
I voted Maybe. My decision will probably come a week or two after release.
Indeed, I do not believe this game will be anything other than another boring themepark that wont last more than a few months though. Who knows, time will tell.
Comments
this.
The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off , why should I. Light up the darkness Bob Marley
For me its not about sub vs. F2P but about "smart justifiable pricing" vs. an "outmoded" method of pricing that has failed multiple games of late.
I feel sure that if it launches as a sub based game it could continue as a sub based game. WAR launched as a sub game and will close as a sub based game at the end of the year. Not saying that WAR failed because it had a sub simply that a game doesn't have to go F2P even if it "fails to meet expectations". And that a sub doesn't mean that the game will continue to have content developed for it.
Every mmo has a cash shop these days so that excuse just doesn't fly anymore.
Or we could look at it as the money that is coming in isn't enough, period.
If there were still "only" subs then they would have to raise the sub prices as well as boxed prices.
But the outrage to that would be immense, even though sub prices have been practically the same for years.
So development costs have risen, the cost of running a business has risen but the income with a standard sub price has remained the same.
honestly, you'd run a business like that.
Companies want the sub money because at least it's stable which is why a lot of sub games make it so that players seriously consider the sub.
All F2P games do is try to capitalize even more on the cash shop because that is their sole bit of income.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
This.
Time will tell. But as of now, this game isn't worth a sub to me.
All mmo's are about capitalizing financially, that's why the whole premise of mmo's is a carrot on a stick. If they keep chasing they'll keep paying. I don't see how f2p is any worse than p2p. At least with f2p games you can play without any investment.
I think they are worse from a business standpoint.
And I also think some of that can be bad for the player as well.
If you, as a business owner or manager, have no real idea what you can budget for each month, year, etc then how do you plan accordingly?
Oh sure there are going to be numbers where one can ball park what one will be getting. But with a sub game, let's say they open up a beta/preview and they get x amount of people playing. They have their estimation that x percent of those players will at least buy, play for the first month and then it will go down after that. A certain percentage will stay with the game for 6 months, etc.
Obviously these are going to be ball park numbers. But, with those numbers they can estimate what their income is going to be and what hey can count on for further development, running the business, etc.
But with a f2p, even though there are going to be similiar numbers as far as players, the spread for how much they are going to make is not only going to vary more wildly but, as I mentioned above, a smaller amount of people are going to be making up the majority of that. So if that small amount of people decided to leave you suddenly get a huge drop in cash flow.
How is this bad for the player? It's hard to know what you can and can't do with your game, expansions, services, etc.
Probably smaller updates where they at least know they can deliver,. And hopefully the game is good enough that the "whales" stick around long enough.
I remember seeing a few discussions about the asian f2p games where it was said that their sole purpose was to make money, make money fast and then move on to the next game.
It's my fear that f2p games are great in the short term but not a lot of longevity. For some players that might not be a big deal but there are players who like the idea of a long standing mmo.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I certainly agree that if I owned a company I wouldn't want to be reliant on a few whales. Nor would I want to be reliant on retaining a given number of subscribers though unless that number was (relatively) very low. I would want a flexible system.
Totally agree and understand your statement about being able to estimate your cost base. That doesn't mean a game should have a subscription however. Or that it should be f2p. It simply informs the decisions a company makes regarding their revenue model. How to recover their development costs, make lots of profit allowing further development leading to more profit.
One could infer from GW that b2p games need a cash shop. But you could also infer that sub based games need a cash shop.
It is crucial to recognise that markets change. The list of things that have happened in the last 5 years say is huge and the markets continue to change rapidly. And for that reason I would want a flexible revenue model from day 1. Look at other games - and in the case of older games ponder how they might have done today. e.g. GW1 - more content delivered electronically = more money to the developer. WoW - how successful would it be today. And so on.
The answer doesn't have to be f2p. It doesn't have to be sub either. And I would be inclined to steer away from the high number of "failed" sub games.
I usually throw money at any game coming out regardless of P2P, F2P or Hybrid. (Prefer subs which IMO minimizes the 'kiddie chat')
Sometimes I enjoy myself for a while and sometimes I quickly find the game going stale.
I've loved the ES line but for some reason I don't see this game as sustaining itself as box+sub+cash shop.
Too many players are inclined to F2P these days (or at least to being cost conscious).
If ESO was box +CS or sub+CS (free download) I think I would play. As it stands I am heavily leaning towards not playing.
I wouldn't make an absolute statement that the game IS going to go F2P in short order but based on past experiences I would say that I THINK it will.
same
No way will I pay for this. Actually I won't play it if they paid me.
I am really disappointed in this game. This could have been something special, but it turns out its just a boring turd.
Originally posted by laokoko
"if you want to be a game designer, you should sell your house and fund your game. Since if you won't even fund your own game, no one will".
http://elderscrollsonline.info/news/free-to-play-or-subscription
From what I hear it is going to be Pay 2 Play, I will actually buy the game if they provide housing, & Freedom to customize character whenever you like as well a the ability to learn all crafts in the game sand-box based I will buy the game/subscribe.
Otherwise I likely will skip over it I am waiting for official news on the Q&A to find these out as I sent in my questions ot them in email but no answer yet on the Q&A Releases.
If you like themepark MMOs and jump from game to game you'll like ESO. If you were expecting a sandbox, then no its not for you. Its really that simple as there doesn't appear to be anything fundementally different from this game compared to the other themepark games on the market.
I still plan on playing it because I play all major titles and I feel it could be fun if I play the PvE side largely solo for the story (which is decent)
Games:
Currently playing:Nothing
Will play: Darkfall: Unholy Wars
Past games:
Guild Wars 2 - Xpiher Duminous
Xpiher's GW2
GW 1 - Xpiher Duminous
Darkfall - Xpiher Duminous (NA) retired
AoC - Xpiher (Tyranny) retired
Warhammer - Xpiher
That's because the majority of people see MMOs as a way to kill mobs with friends, not engaging experiences. They are casual players and feel accomplished when completing raids.
WoW is the reason why MMOs haven't evolved and are nothing more than PvE co-op with gear grind treadmills games with tacked on PvP. WoW is garbage. Its nothing but regurgetated crap every expansion.
Games:
Currently playing:Nothing
Will play: Darkfall: Unholy Wars
Past games:
Guild Wars 2 - Xpiher Duminous
Xpiher's GW2
GW 1 - Xpiher Duminous
Darkfall - Xpiher Duminous (NA) retired
AoC - Xpiher (Tyranny) retired
Warhammer - Xpiher
People keep playing the garbage which would make it subjectively not garbage to them and garbage to you.
Indeed, I do not believe this game will be anything other than another boring themepark that wont last more than a few months though. Who knows, time will tell.