This. Of course to maximize revenues almost any AAA MMO is going to follow the above pattern, they get the best of all worlds, initial influx of box sales, steady but decreasing income for a period of time, at least 6 months and perhaps several years. Then they can flip the model and try to extract revenue from the whales and finally the nickel and dime F2P market.
Sure, there's a few outliers such as GW2 or EQN but those titles are somewhat cripplewear because of this and lacking in features commonly expected of AAA MMOs, (such as including meaningful character progression) and I realize its all conjecture with EQN, but then again, when was the last time SOE did anything right in the MMO space?
It depends I guess..
Sure if the game turns out to be pretty bad and starts loosing people over the months then yes they will have to switch to f2p.. but even if they do the game will still be bad.
If they have made a good game then numbers will be pretty stable and they will never have to change to a f2p model.. tho of course it will always be an option if needed.
As for SOE doing stuff right MMO wise.. well you have PS2 as the most recent example for somthing really good coming out of SOE.. ALso EQ2 was a pretty good game for its time.. yes it was not EQ but its was a decent game in its own right.
Well, I wonder how do they plan to justify the monthly sub, while having end game content similar to GW2 (WvW and dungeons with no raids)? Also, they are planning to charge sub fee to console players?
Well, good luck to Zenimax, because they're going to need it.
So who's taking bets on when these games will go FTP? :P
P2P worked back in the day of WoW and Eve, as the competition was significantly less and people didn't know of the alternatives.
B2P is my personal choice, but I wish them luck with P2P. The odds are stacked against them. Likely they know so too and just want to get a bit of a cash bump before they make the switch.
This ^.
B2P just makes sense. And games have shown you don't need horrible models like SWTOR's to pull off a cash shop. Either way, it'll definitely be interesting to see how things develope over the next year or so. Some gamers (at least on this site) are doing a complete 180, now claiming that the same games they've been complaining about for years are now magically awesome again. Furthermore, I see a lot of people re-questioning problems with the current status quo of MMOs we've been talking about (and agreeing on) for close to a decade.
We've all seen what doing the same exact thing that's been done for the past 10 years gets us. Yet here we are, ready to bite the same chocolate, and hopeful it will be 'different this time'. I'll be following these games up to launch, but it looks like I won't be playing all of them anymore. And that's the problem I think a lot of people are forgetting. Subscriptions force people to choose between a game and everything else. In most cases, the game loses. People have lives, other games they want to try out, jobs, bills. Most people can do 1 subscription, maybe 2, but they aren't willing to sub to multiple games at the same time. The only reason people stayed subbed to WoW for so long, was because it was (for many people) their first MMO, and their first subscription game. Many people simply forgot they were still subbed, lol. That isn't the case anymore.
Originally posted by Kyleran This. Of course to maximize revenues almost any AAA MMO is going to follow the above pattern, they get the best of all worlds, initial influx of box sales, steady but decreasing income for a period of time, at least 6 months and perhaps several years. Then they can flip the model and try to extract revenue from the whales and finally the nickel and dime F2P market.
Sure, there's a few outliers such as GW2 or EQN but those titles are somewhat cripplewear because of this and lacking in features commonly expected of AAA MMOs, (such as including meaningful character progression) and I realize its all conjecture with EQN, but then again, when was the last time SOE did anything right in the MMO space?
It depends I guess..
Sure if the game turns out to be pretty bad and starts loosing people over the months then yes they will have to switch to f2p.. but even if they do the game will still be bad.
If they have made a good game then numbers will be pretty stable and they will never have to change to a f2p model.. tho of course it will always be an option if needed.
As for SOE doing stuff right MMO wise.. well you have PS2 as the most recent example for somthing really good coming out of SOE.. ALso EQ2 was a pretty good game for its time.. yes it was not EQ but its was a decent game in its own right.
This is one of those things that sounds good on paper, but actually doesn't play out as expected in reality. Subscriptions (and this has been shown across multiple games since WoW), force people to choose between your game & others. Unlike traditional games, most people just can't try out every game, if they're all demanding an additional monthly fee. Furthermore, when you actually look at the data, you aren't really getting anything extra for that subscription fee. You're just giving them more money with the hopes it will be worth it. And thusly, most people try and convince themselves it IS worth it, because they've already paid.
However, people have also shown that they won't support a game just because it's good. In fact, many people will support a terrible game with a familiar name / IP, than they will a great game that's hardly known. People have also shown that they are no longer willing to stick out a new game, and give it time to develop into something amazing. People expect games to be released, already including content previous games took years to add into the mix. Because of this, combined with the fact that new (shinier) MMOs are being released every year, people will always leave to go chase the new shiny. And thanks to a subscription model, the chances of them re-subbing is less likely when this happens. It's a barrier to entry.
I agree on PS2 being a good example. However, if you followed EQ2 since it's launch, the game did poorly because of SOE trying to do the whole sub -> cash shop double-dipping model. People generally can't stand being nickel & dimed like that. It was a great game for it's time, but it was one of the first to be ruined by a bad business decision.
An Elder Scrolls game with a sub???? HAHAHAHA... (Do notice the article before ES )
Don't Troll me please! This was basically screaming b2p, but NOOO! The dev "brilliance" strikes again. They intend to charge subs to consoles and to use totally outdated paying mechanic that worked when you had 10, maybe 20 MMOs TEN years ago. The model's failing even WoW, let alone other games.
They totally ruined my interest in this game now. I thought that people would learn from GW 1 and GW 2. I thought wrong. Some people are adamant on repeating the same mistake AD nauseum, instead of the same right move. That's...not very wise is it now?
I mean I could subscribe, but it's 240$ in the first year. For that amount of money I can buy four other games, play countless f2ps and for some change more I can buy quite a few games on Steam sale as well. So basically, TEN games or ONE? Lol what a non brainer(that right there is basically an IQ test)!
GG Zenimax. Just GG!
Ya I am sort of in shock about this myself. I was so sure they where going to use a B2P model since it would fit well with Elder Scrolls Games and the console crowd. Not to mention, despite what people say about P2P being better, that is clearly untrue. They will keep telling that to themselves until it no longer exists at all. They keep blaming F2P games, but F2P is a factor of P2P not working well enough.
People seem to like to touch an electric fence 1000 times before they learn it will shock you every time.
Assuming this is indeed the model then I think they will struggle going forward. At first I am sure it will be OK but 2to early to tell2 but going forward I cannot see it making headway. A subscription based game will put many people off. It might sell 2M but I can't see it selling 10M+. That's a loss of revenue right away.
They need more money? That's fine but they need to look at new ways. They need to offer a product for a cost rather than a simple give us the money and trust that you will get extra content etc..
B2P unlocks maybe for additional content. Built in and ready to go. The type of thing that EA have had some stick for but new areas, above a certain skill level - whatever. So much per new dungeon would be the obvious one but - whatever.
B2P + an annual sub of X to play on the servers. This would mean its not F2P but the cost will simply cover the servers and be well below 13 x $15.
Strip the monthly sub back to its components and offer the components.
Personally i think its a mistake, because there are to many good mmos that are "free to play" .. Box prices are steep, and will withold people from buying the game. Espescially if people realise they be spening $250 over the first year.
On top of that subscriptions prevent people from returning to games...
While from a gameplay perspective subs with no cash shops is the best option, i think from a buiseness standpoint its not wise. GW2 has made more money in the first year then any subbed based mmo post WoW release..
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)
Oh man, lol this is getting a little crazy now that both ESO and Wildstar are going the sub route, did the date change to 2005 while we weren't looking? I have never had a problem with a subscription model myself, my problems have always been with the games quality or lack there of. If the game sucks then yes I probably will not continue playing past the first month. If the game is great then I will be more then willing to spend the $15 to continue playing because to me that is chump change in comparison to the amount of enjoyment I will get for the money.
I never really planned on playing ESO from the get go mostly because it was rumored to have a F2P model. Now that the game is going sub based, my interest level has immediately risen because the chances of a ridiculous cash shop ruining it are much lower then it most certainly would have been with F2P. With Wildstar coming out around the same time its going to be tough deciding on which to play, I haven't been excited for MMOs in a long time but with the sub announcement for both Wild and ESO I am actually once again excited to see how they turn out.
If a game decides to go P2P and only 1/5 of their fans decide that is ok, it would take them roughly 16 months to make the same amount they would have made by going Buy to play to begin with. That means they would have to hold their subs for 16 months with out decrease.
If 1/2 decide to still pay a sub, they would need to hold that sub for 9 months with out decrease to make the same amount.
This is all assuming your entire sub base is paying the full $15 a month. Also assuming there is a $60 price tag to purchase the game.
Basically, they really are being very very brave here. This choice could mean a very very large loss. You have to make a lot of assumptions. It's a pretty big gamble.
Edit: I suppose I should point out this is based on if they where able to get 10 million players interested initially. They would be in a worse spot if it's lower.
Personally, I enjoy the sub model. If the game is good enough to stand on its own it will work out for them. Although, I would love to see the monthly subscription break away from the "WoW-Standard" of €12.99 /month model. Surely €5.99 - €7.99 would be enough? After all, it would give them somewhat of an advantage over other subscription based titles.
Free to play MMOs are often played only because they are free. And if you are not prepared to commit to them, you will probably get bored somewhat soon.
Buy to play MMOs might be good but since you feel like your not wasting your money by not playing it, chances are that you'll never get around to. And if you do, you might easily "take a break" and then just procrastinate it. (Unless you've found a social circle in it)
Both of those payment models are great. But as Pavlov showed us in his behaviour psychology we can safely say that by making a ritual of subbing to a game and feeling compelled to play the game since otherwise you are letting your subscription go to waste often equals more loyal playerbases. Sure, if the game is terrible most people will just stop playing and not resubscribe. But if the game is terrific; the former rule applies.
Thing is, if the game is good it will most likely gain a (substantial) loyal playerbase, especially if it is pay to play. So either it is good and I settle with it and play it on and off for 10 years (only to start whining about how good it was in vanilla and how they have simplified the game) or it goes much like SW:TOR and I blast through the storyline only to get bored of it and leave it in the far end of my harddrive. Either way, I'm looking forward to TES:O
I am reserving my thoughts on this until I can get some gameplay time on this title. If a game is worth it I would gladly pay a sub over a cash shop, assuming content was added on a regular basis. I had no issues subbing to WoW for years back in the day because it gave me world with plenty to do (the same for SWG, Shadowbane, DAoC, etc...). I have yet to play a F2P game that didn't try to force me to grind myself to boredom or nickel and dime me for every little thing to enjoy the game. I do enjoy GW2, on occasion (once a week), but I would like a game that pulls me in and personally gw2 hasn't done that.
It reminds me of the two arcades in my town. One is 8 bucks and play as long and much as you want, the other is $.25-$1 standard per game session. Guess which one gives me the better deal (and lets me bring my own booze and drink)?
Cheers!
MMO Vet since AOL Neverwinter Nights circa 1992. My MMO beat up your MMO. =S
The P2P model will work for PC (maybe) but for consoles there is no way ppl will pay 14.99$ per month. They allready have to pay for their mmo services so they can play with their friends online...
ESO will be crawling on their knees, begging the PC crowd to forgive them and to save them...
I think it was a safer bet for Wildstar, but I'm happy TESO is going P2P, too. In all probability I'll sub to both games. If I get 10 hours a month from each, that's good entertainment money to me.
I know some people compare this to cable TV and the like, but for me it's not even close, probably because I just hate TV, haha. Anyway, if you see an MMO as "killing some time" and not good entertainment, then yeah, a monthly sub is probably going to look pretty pointless. I see it the other way, so to me it makes sense.
Final Fantasy, Wildstar, and now Elder Scrolls, all going to be P2P. I'm glad to see we'll finally be getting some quality MMO games and not the cash shop garbage F2P MMO #283 cranked out this month.
Very happy major MMO's are going back to subscription/quality model.
+1 could not agree more ever since the introduction of F2P model the quality of gamers have gone down the pan and the community has also suffered IMO. This type of model gets commitment from players so once you buy the box you stick with the game unless there are major problems then you move on.
I spent 9 years playing EQI and 10 in Eve which I have 6 accounts and both of these were sub models and Eve is growing from strength to strength so it must being doing something right.
What makes me laugh about this announcement is the amount of whining this is causing, but if you ask the people who are crying and kicking up a fuss about the pricing model if they would work for free then I bet you all know the response from that, so how can you expect companies to spend millions to give it away for free it just does not make sense.
So gamers have to decide, do they want F2P and have crap games forever or do they want to start contributing and have quality games? Look at the like of kickstarters games, the fans have put their money where their mouth is to support their dream game. They have paid far more than a years monthly fees in some cases as they are passionate about what they want. Go on their boards and see how fantastic they are and how the boards feel the sense of community/force is strong in this one LUKE!
Look at Wow and while I'm no fan of this game at all they have had sub for so long and have made millions and still do so it proves if you get the right formula then people will moan but will pay to play if it's game what they want in a game.
As for the console players well this had me giggling I have to say because they feel they have a god given right to all their way in games. If the console player wants the same as the PC gamer has then they too have to open their fat wallets to contribute and damn right too.
IMO MMOs are not big on consoles and I hope it stays that way as using funds to cross platform can detract from the initial game design. When I heard that ESO was delaying it due to the transfer to cross platform the game confirms what I've said. However that said if they have to pay to play like I do then I'm cool about them getting to play as well now. Still not make me buy one of them under the TV boxes at any cost.
When I fly over to Germany tomorrow I will visit the guys at ESO and shake their hands and support their pricing model and any other MMO companies who are planning of hitting the market in the close future too.
I think it was a safer bet for Wildstar, but I'm happy TESO is going P2P, too. In all probability I'll sub to both games. If I get 10 hours a month from each, that's good entertainment money to me.
I know some people compare this to cable TV and the like, but for me it's not even close, probably because I just hate TV, haha. Anyway, if you see an MMO as "killing some time" and not good entertainment, then yeah, a monthly sub is probably going to look pretty pointless. I see it the other way, so to me it makes sense.
I don't think anyone who is able to calculate basic math problems should be happy a game goes P2P. Sure it has it's benefits for the players to some extent, however, if the game doesn't hold enough subs it loses a lot more money in comparison to if they started as a B2P game.
A game that starts as B2P tends to remain B2P. More customers are likely to buy it. P2P lowers your player base which requires you to hold onto subs for long periods of time to make the same amount. Again if it fails, it has to go F2P, which makes a game another victim and repeats the cycle all over again of why people complain about crappy MMOs.
It amazes me to no end, and yes I am using this analogy again, how many times it takes people to learn not to touch an electric fence.
Some people think $15 a month is too steep, when in reality it could very well not be enough. People underestimate the amount you can get simply buy increasing the amount of players itself using a B2P model.
If P2P lowers your player base down to 1/5 or even 1/2 of what it was, your pretty much screwed. All the P2P players that are happy end up being screwed over in the end as well, by the very thing they wanted. -.-
Where does this "folk tale" of P2P being "outdated" actually come from ? Is it simply a case of too many people repeating the same lie so many times that they think it's the new truth ?
How many full-featured AAA MMORPG's have launched as F2P so far in history ?
NONE
ZERO
ZIP
In fact, EQ:Next will probably be the first one EVER !
Yes, many full-featured AAA MMORPG's have converted from subscription-based to F2P (mostly freemium) payment models. But they only made the conversion because their player numbers had dwindled to the point where they were in danger of no longer being profitable.
People don't rush to play "old" MMO's, they want to play the latest and greatest. So those older MMO's find it increasingly difficult to replace lost players. Why pay a sub for an old game if you can pay the same to play a shiny "modern" one ?
So F2P becomes an attractive option for the legacy MMO's. The same thing happens to SPG's that are $60 at release and $10 a year later on Steam sales. Any gamer knows this pattern. Yet millions of them still pre-order the full-price new release EVERY TIME because they want the game NAO !
The P2P model will work for PC (maybe) but for consoles there is no way ppl will pay 14.99$ per month. They allready have to pay for their mmo services so they can play with their friends online...
ESO will be crawling on their knees, begging the PC crowd to forgive them and to save them...
IMO that's a pretty poor argument, however if that's is the case, then its the console model which needs to change not the PC model. If there are that many console gamers they need to revolt against the likes of Sony and Microsoft that's the only way to change things. As long as the console player allows them selves to be ripped off, then them giants will carry on with the status Quo.
IMO the giants are making console players pay to play online as the MMO model is to PC gamers, so it's up to the console gamers to force a change they have the numbers to do it just not the will.
The way I see it is the console gamers have to choose if they want to play ESO then cancel your payment to Microsoft or Sony and sub to ESO quite simple imo. If you want both the get your hand in your wallet and pay like the rest of us have too. If you don't have the funds, then tuff, go earn them like I have too to play my hobbies.
Where does this "folk tale" of P2P being "outdated" actually come from ? Is it simply a case of too many people repeating the same lie so many times that they think it's the new truth ?
How many full-featured AAA MMORPG's have launched as F2P so far in history ?
NONE
ZERO
ZIP
In fact, EQ:Next will probably be the first one EVER !
Yes, many full-featured AAA MMORPG's have converted from subscription-based to F2P (mostly freemium) payment models. But they only made the conversion because their player numbers had dwindled to the point where they were in danger of no longer being profitable.
People don't rush to play "old" MMO's, they want to play the latest and greatest. So those older MMO's find it increasingly difficult to replace lost players. Why pay a sub for an old game if you can pay the same to play a shiny "modern" one ?
So F2P becomes an attractive option for the legacy MMO's. The same thing happens to SPG's that are $60 at release and $10 a year later on Steam sales. Any gamer knows this pattern. Yet millions of them still pre-order the full-price new release EVERY TIME because they want the game NAO !
The problem is what is considered AAA? Neverwinter claims (as did many media sites) that it was the first Western AAA F2P mmo to launch, and thus far is claiming success. Not to mention the numerous Asian AAA F2P titles that have released for the past couple of years. EQN will not be the first mate.
I agree with your core argument that P2P is not a "old" payment model, and personally prefer it, if the game warrants it to me.
Cheers!
MMO Vet since AOL Neverwinter Nights circa 1992. My MMO beat up your MMO. =S
I'm quite happy to see it going subscription based. I have played games with various payment formats before. For me it is the game play, graphics and content that matter most. If all of those are good I'm willing to pay.
There have been some games in the past that will hook you with the free to play model but then you end up spending more per month just to get the latest item or keys for some chest.
I would not be keen to be out exploring and come across a chest and then have to go to the game store to buy a lock pick because I broke the last one only to get useless loot at the end.
Comments
It depends I guess..
Sure if the game turns out to be pretty bad and starts loosing people over the months then yes they will have to switch to f2p.. but even if they do the game will still be bad.
If they have made a good game then numbers will be pretty stable and they will never have to change to a f2p model.. tho of course it will always be an option if needed.
As for SOE doing stuff right MMO wise.. well you have PS2 as the most recent example for somthing really good coming out of SOE.. ALso EQ2 was a pretty good game for its time.. yes it was not EQ but its was a decent game in its own right.
Well, I wonder how do they plan to justify the monthly sub, while having end game content similar to GW2 (WvW and dungeons with no raids)? Also, they are planning to charge sub fee to console players?
Well, good luck to Zenimax, because they're going to need it.
This ^.
B2P just makes sense. And games have shown you don't need horrible models like SWTOR's to pull off a cash shop. Either way, it'll definitely be interesting to see how things develope over the next year or so. Some gamers (at least on this site) are doing a complete 180, now claiming that the same games they've been complaining about for years are now magically awesome again. Furthermore, I see a lot of people re-questioning problems with the current status quo of MMOs we've been talking about (and agreeing on) for close to a decade.
We've all seen what doing the same exact thing that's been done for the past 10 years gets us. Yet here we are, ready to bite the same chocolate, and hopeful it will be 'different this time'. I'll be following these games up to launch, but it looks like I won't be playing all of them anymore. And that's the problem I think a lot of people are forgetting. Subscriptions force people to choose between a game and everything else. In most cases, the game loses. People have lives, other games they want to try out, jobs, bills. Most people can do 1 subscription, maybe 2, but they aren't willing to sub to multiple games at the same time. The only reason people stayed subbed to WoW for so long, was because it was (for many people) their first MMO, and their first subscription game. Many people simply forgot they were still subbed, lol. That isn't the case anymore.
This is one of those things that sounds good on paper, but actually doesn't play out as expected in reality. Subscriptions (and this has been shown across multiple games since WoW), force people to choose between your game & others. Unlike traditional games, most people just can't try out every game, if they're all demanding an additional monthly fee. Furthermore, when you actually look at the data, you aren't really getting anything extra for that subscription fee. You're just giving them more money with the hopes it will be worth it. And thusly, most people try and convince themselves it IS worth it, because they've already paid.
However, people have also shown that they won't support a game just because it's good. In fact, many people will support a terrible game with a familiar name / IP, than they will a great game that's hardly known. People have also shown that they are no longer willing to stick out a new game, and give it time to develop into something amazing. People expect games to be released, already including content previous games took years to add into the mix. Because of this, combined with the fact that new (shinier) MMOs are being released every year, people will always leave to go chase the new shiny. And thanks to a subscription model, the chances of them re-subbing is less likely when this happens. It's a barrier to entry.
I agree on PS2 being a good example. However, if you followed EQ2 since it's launch, the game did poorly because of SOE trying to do the whole sub -> cash shop double-dipping model. People generally can't stand being nickel & dimed like that. It was a great game for it's time, but it was one of the first to be ruined by a bad business decision.
Ya I am sort of in shock about this myself. I was so sure they where going to use a B2P model since it would fit well with Elder Scrolls Games and the console crowd. Not to mention, despite what people say about P2P being better, that is clearly untrue. They will keep telling that to themselves until it no longer exists at all. They keep blaming F2P games, but F2P is a factor of P2P not working well enough.
People seem to like to touch an electric fence 1000 times before they learn it will shock you every time.
Assuming this is indeed the model then I think they will struggle going forward. At first I am sure it will be OK but 2to early to tell2 but going forward I cannot see it making headway. A subscription based game will put many people off. It might sell 2M but I can't see it selling 10M+. That's a loss of revenue right away.
They need more money? That's fine but they need to look at new ways. They need to offer a product for a cost rather than a simple give us the money and trust that you will get extra content etc..
B2P unlocks maybe for additional content. Built in and ready to go. The type of thing that EA have had some stick for but new areas, above a certain skill level - whatever. So much per new dungeon would be the obvious one but - whatever.
B2P + an annual sub of X to play on the servers. This would mean its not F2P but the cost will simply cover the servers and be well below 13 x $15.
Strip the monthly sub back to its components and offer the components.
Personally i think its a mistake, because there are to many good mmos that are "free to play" .. Box prices are steep, and will withold people from buying the game. Espescially if people realise they be spening $250 over the first year.
On top of that subscriptions prevent people from returning to games...
While from a gameplay perspective subs with no cash shops is the best option, i think from a buiseness standpoint its not wise. GW2 has made more money in the first year then any subbed based mmo post WoW release..
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)
How can i say this nicely...
I don't think the game is worthy of P2P, FTP, or B2P.
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
Oh man, lol this is getting a little crazy now that both ESO and Wildstar are going the sub route, did the date change to 2005 while we weren't looking? I have never had a problem with a subscription model myself, my problems have always been with the games quality or lack there of. If the game sucks then yes I probably will not continue playing past the first month. If the game is great then I will be more then willing to spend the $15 to continue playing because to me that is chump change in comparison to the amount of enjoyment I will get for the money.
I never really planned on playing ESO from the get go mostly because it was rumored to have a F2P model. Now that the game is going sub based, my interest level has immediately risen because the chances of a ridiculous cash shop ruining it are much lower then it most certainly would have been with F2P. With Wildstar coming out around the same time its going to be tough deciding on which to play, I haven't been excited for MMOs in a long time but with the sub announcement for both Wild and ESO I am actually once again excited to see how they turn out.
HEAVEN OR HELL
Duel 1
Lets ROCK!
A little math for you all.
If a game decides to go P2P and only 1/5 of their fans decide that is ok, it would take them roughly 16 months to make the same amount they would have made by going Buy to play to begin with. That means they would have to hold their subs for 16 months with out decrease.
If 1/2 decide to still pay a sub, they would need to hold that sub for 9 months with out decrease to make the same amount.
This is all assuming your entire sub base is paying the full $15 a month. Also assuming there is a $60 price tag to purchase the game.
Basically, they really are being very very brave here. This choice could mean a very very large loss. You have to make a lot of assumptions. It's a pretty big gamble.
Edit: I suppose I should point out this is based on if they where able to get 10 million players interested initially. They would be in a worse spot if it's lower.
Personally, I enjoy the sub model. If the game is good enough to stand on its own it will work out for them. Although, I would love to see the monthly subscription break away from the "WoW-Standard" of €12.99 /month model. Surely €5.99 - €7.99 would be enough? After all, it would give them somewhat of an advantage over other subscription based titles.
Free to play MMOs are often played only because they are free. And if you are not prepared to commit to them, you will probably get bored somewhat soon.
Buy to play MMOs might be good but since you feel like your not wasting your money by not playing it, chances are that you'll never get around to. And if you do, you might easily "take a break" and then just procrastinate it. (Unless you've found a social circle in it)
Both of those payment models are great. But as Pavlov showed us in his behaviour psychology we can safely say that by making a ritual of subbing to a game and feeling compelled to play the game since otherwise you are letting your subscription go to waste often equals more loyal playerbases. Sure, if the game is terrible most people will just stop playing and not resubscribe. But if the game is terrific; the former rule applies.
Thing is, if the game is good it will most likely gain a (substantial) loyal playerbase, especially if it is pay to play. So either it is good and I settle with it and play it on and off for 10 years (only to start whining about how good it was in vanilla and how they have simplified the game) or it goes much like SW:TOR and I blast through the storyline only to get bored of it and leave it in the far end of my harddrive. Either way, I'm looking forward to TES:O
I am reserving my thoughts on this until I can get some gameplay time on this title. If a game is worth it I would gladly pay a sub over a cash shop, assuming content was added on a regular basis. I had no issues subbing to WoW for years back in the day because it gave me world with plenty to do (the same for SWG, Shadowbane, DAoC, etc...). I have yet to play a F2P game that didn't try to force me to grind myself to boredom or nickel and dime me for every little thing to enjoy the game. I do enjoy GW2, on occasion (once a week), but I would like a game that pulls me in and personally gw2 hasn't done that.
It reminds me of the two arcades in my town. One is 8 bucks and play as long and much as you want, the other is $.25-$1 standard per game session. Guess which one gives me the better deal (and lets me bring my own booze and drink)?
Cheers!
MMO Vet since AOL Neverwinter Nights circa 1992. My MMO beat up your MMO. =S
The P2P model will work for PC (maybe) but for consoles there is no way ppl will pay 14.99$ per month. They allready have to pay for their mmo services so they can play with their friends online...
ESO will be crawling on their knees, begging the PC crowd to forgive them and to save them...
I think it was a safer bet for Wildstar, but I'm happy TESO is going P2P, too. In all probability I'll sub to both games. If I get 10 hours a month from each, that's good entertainment money to me.
I know some people compare this to cable TV and the like, but for me it's not even close, probably because I just hate TV, haha. Anyway, if you see an MMO as "killing some time" and not good entertainment, then yeah, a monthly sub is probably going to look pretty pointless. I see it the other way, so to me it makes sense.
+1 could not agree more ever since the introduction of F2P model the quality of gamers have gone down the pan and the community has also suffered IMO. This type of model gets commitment from players so once you buy the box you stick with the game unless there are major problems then you move on.
I spent 9 years playing EQI and 10 in Eve which I have 6 accounts and both of these were sub models and Eve is growing from strength to strength so it must being doing something right.
What makes me laugh about this announcement is the amount of whining this is causing, but if you ask the people who are crying and kicking up a fuss about the pricing model if they would work for free then I bet you all know the response from that, so how can you expect companies to spend millions to give it away for free it just does not make sense.
So gamers have to decide, do they want F2P and have crap games forever or do they want to start contributing and have quality games? Look at the like of kickstarters games, the fans have put their money where their mouth is to support their dream game. They have paid far more than a years monthly fees in some cases as they are passionate about what they want. Go on their boards and see how fantastic they are and how the boards feel the sense of community/force is strong in this one LUKE!
Look at Wow and while I'm no fan of this game at all they have had sub for so long and have made millions and still do so it proves if you get the right formula then people will moan but will pay to play if it's game what they want in a game.
As for the console players well this had me giggling I have to say because they feel they have a god given right to all their way in games. If the console player wants the same as the PC gamer has then they too have to open their fat wallets to contribute and damn right too.
IMO MMOs are not big on consoles and I hope it stays that way as using funds to cross platform can detract from the initial game design. When I heard that ESO was delaying it due to the transfer to cross platform the game confirms what I've said. However that said if they have to pay to play like I do then I'm cool about them getting to play as well now. Still not make me buy one of them under the TV boxes at any cost.
When I fly over to Germany tomorrow I will visit the guys at ESO and shake their hands and support their pricing model and any other MMO companies who are planning of hitting the market in the close future too.
Asbo
I don't think anyone who is able to calculate basic math problems should be happy a game goes P2P. Sure it has it's benefits for the players to some extent, however, if the game doesn't hold enough subs it loses a lot more money in comparison to if they started as a B2P game.
A game that starts as B2P tends to remain B2P. More customers are likely to buy it. P2P lowers your player base which requires you to hold onto subs for long periods of time to make the same amount. Again if it fails, it has to go F2P, which makes a game another victim and repeats the cycle all over again of why people complain about crappy MMOs.
It amazes me to no end, and yes I am using this analogy again, how many times it takes people to learn not to touch an electric fence.
Some people think $15 a month is too steep, when in reality it could very well not be enough. People underestimate the amount you can get simply buy increasing the amount of players itself using a B2P model.
If P2P lowers your player base down to 1/5 or even 1/2 of what it was, your pretty much screwed. All the P2P players that are happy end up being screwed over in the end as well, by the very thing they wanted. -.-
Where does this "folk tale" of P2P being "outdated" actually come from ? Is it simply a case of too many people repeating the same lie so many times that they think it's the new truth ?
How many full-featured AAA MMORPG's have launched as F2P so far in history ?
NONE
ZERO
ZIP
In fact, EQ:Next will probably be the first one EVER !
Yes, many full-featured AAA MMORPG's have converted from subscription-based to F2P (mostly freemium) payment models. But they only made the conversion because their player numbers had dwindled to the point where they were in danger of no longer being profitable.
People don't rush to play "old" MMO's, they want to play the latest and greatest. So those older MMO's find it increasingly difficult to replace lost players. Why pay a sub for an old game if you can pay the same to play a shiny "modern" one ?
So F2P becomes an attractive option for the legacy MMO's. The same thing happens to SPG's that are $60 at release and $10 a year later on Steam sales. Any gamer knows this pattern. Yet millions of them still pre-order the full-price new release EVERY TIME because they want the game NAO !
IMO that's a pretty poor argument, however if that's is the case, then its the console model which needs to change not the PC model. If there are that many console gamers they need to revolt against the likes of Sony and Microsoft that's the only way to change things. As long as the console player allows them selves to be ripped off, then them giants will carry on with the status Quo.
IMO the giants are making console players pay to play online as the MMO model is to PC gamers, so it's up to the console gamers to force a change they have the numbers to do it just not the will.
The way I see it is the console gamers have to choose if they want to play ESO then cancel your payment to Microsoft or Sony and sub to ESO quite simple imo. If you want both the get your hand in your wallet and pay like the rest of us have too. If you don't have the funds, then tuff, go earn them like I have too to play my hobbies.
Asbo
The problem is what is considered AAA? Neverwinter claims (as did many media sites) that it was the first Western AAA F2P mmo to launch, and thus far is claiming success. Not to mention the numerous Asian AAA F2P titles that have released for the past couple of years. EQN will not be the first mate.
I agree with your core argument that P2P is not a "old" payment model, and personally prefer it, if the game warrants it to me.
Cheers!
MMO Vet since AOL Neverwinter Nights circa 1992. My MMO beat up your MMO. =S
I'm just glad everyone was mature about ZOS decision to go P2P and did not act like little bitches and whined about 14 dollars a month.
Good for you guys.
I'm quite happy to see it going subscription based. I have played games with various payment formats before. For me it is the game play, graphics and content that matter most. If all of those are good I'm willing to pay.
There have been some games in the past that will hook you with the free to play model but then you end up spending more per month just to get the latest item or keys for some chest.
I would not be keen to be out exploring and come across a chest and then have to go to the game store to buy a lock pick because I broke the last one only to get useless loot at the end.