I really wish people would stop making these BS posts about ESO and how it should go F2P/ B2P.....
ITS OBVIOUS THAT THIS MEANS YOU ARE INTERESTED IN CHECKING IT OUT, stop trolling and just buy the game plus the .50$ a day it costs to play and STFU already.
So sick of this generation ( and I'm only 29) wanting everything for free, and when they get it they want all the access and rewards handed to them on a silver platter.
I'm sorry to post in this thread specifically because I don't feel like the OP hates the game, but for f**ks sake this has got to be the one millionth post about how people want to check out ESO but don't want to pay for it.
"Guess what, I want to live in your mansion and have someone wait on me all day and use the Aston Martin in the garage... Can I just try that out for a few months at one of your guys' house and then make my decision ... also is it cool if I sleep with your wife?"
And don't forget that there will be future single-player ES games. Each time one of those releases, it gives ESO a potential player boost. It also opens new opportunities for cross-marketing (free ESO goodies as a bonus if you pre-order the next ES SPG, etc.).
I'm not so sure about that one. Will people really play a single player ES and say " now I want to play an online version with less to do and a huge grind" ? The game has its moments, sure. I played it again for a bit after the patch on a friends account and the pvp is really fun. But the grind to max VR which then gets increased and you have to kind of grind again..and again... you get the point I guess.
I agree with the cross-marketing aspect which I guess can work really well but I just kind of doubt people will join ESO after the next ESoffline game which of course has to be better than its predecessor. So I guess I stick with the "improve the game" crowd and if they do that then maybe people will get into it and stay in the game.
@ .50 a day, and still people decide not to play the game. Basicly some people had to decide between "should I play ESO for 10+ months or buy a game(+goodies) in alpha which wipes all my progress" and they went with the alpha.
I kind of like the game and like most games I wish it to succed because creating a game is a lot of work but the griiiind
And don't forget that there will be future single-player ES games. Each time one of those releases, it gives ESO a potential player boost. It also opens new opportunities for cross-marketing (free ESO goodies as a bonus if you pre-order the next ES SPG, etc.).
I'm not so sure about that one. Will people really play a single player ES and say " now I want to play an online version with less to do and a huge grind" ? The game has its moments, sure. I played it again for a bit after the patch on a friends account and the pvp is really fun. But the grind to max VR which then gets increased and you have to kind of grind again..and again... you get the point I guess.
Yeh it's hard to tell, but a new Elder Scrolls game could possibly help give an injection into ESO. As long as the next Elder Scrolls game isn't rushed for that sole purpose. However, like I said earlier I think we are going to have to wait at least another year before we hear anything from Todd Howard's team considering their typical development cycle and that nothing was hinted at during E3.
I really wish people would stop making these BS posts about ESO and how it should go F2P/ B2P.....
ITS OBVIOUS THAT THIS MEANS YOU ARE INTERESTED IN CHECKING IT OUT, stop trolling and just buy the game plus the .50$ a day it costs to play and STFU already.
So sick of this generation ( and I'm only 29) wanting everything for free, and when they get it they want all the access and rewards handed to them on a silver platter.
I'm sorry to post in this thread specifically because I don't feel like the OP hates the game, but for f**ks sake this has got to be the one millionth post about how people want to check out ESO but don't want to pay for it.
"Guess what, I want to live in your mansion and have someone wait on me all day and use the Aston Martin in the garage... Can I just try that out for a few months at one of your guys' house and then make my decision ... also is it cool if I sleep with your wife?"
$.50 a day people ...
FIFTY CENTS!!!!!!
I really wish people like you would stop saying things like this.
First of all, just because someone likes F2P doesn't mean they want the game "free." So please stop assuming that.
Second, B2P isn't free at all.
As for the 50 cents a day bull crap. Sorry, your right .. it is 50 cents a day. A DAY ... everyday. As long as a person wants to play the game they have to pay 50 cents. Of course it sounds cheap when you put it that way. You know .. if I play a few years it's ONLY $600+ for 1 game.
I hate when people try and make something sound cheap by doing that. You can pretty much apply that tactic to anything that is expensive. Just take whatever it costs per month, and change it to per day and it will sound cheaper. It's like the whole 99 cent tactic shops use. Price it at $5.99 so it looks like 5 but is really 6.
Just because you reduce the time to per day, doesn't change the over all price in the long run.
Your mansion example doesn't work, because it isn't a service not a business model. F2P is a business model where a company makes money off of customers who play the game. It's essentially turning their game into a shopping mall. Your mansion example is terrible because it's not even similar in the least bit. F2P isn't free entirely, as not everyone plays it for free.
If we where to take the mansion and make it free to live in, but it cost money to use any of the utilities in the mansion, and it cost money to wait on you, and it cost money to drive that Aston Martin per hour. THAT would be closer to what F2P is. You begin to realize it isn't really free at all if you want to experience it all.
If a game tanks because it can't keep players interested or isn't fun enough making it F2P is just putting a band-aid on the problem. Most of us have limited time and while we might try out a F2P game it still needs to be fun to keep us interested.
As I see it, ESO have serious issues it needs to fix. Making the game F2P could give the devs a second chance but they still need to fix those issues. Phasing, bots and really lame dungeons is a disaster no matter what payment model you use.
If I were Zenimax I would worry about getting the game better, once that is done you can talk about if changing payment model is a good idea or not.
I'd normally agree with this but F2P is a strong incentive to keep players around longer then they normally would under a subscription plan or bring in new players who never gave a subscription a chance. History proves this to be true.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
B2P involves payment before you play, F2P does not. I am struggling to remember any poster who has given me the impression he wanted a game to be F2P so he could put money into it. In the gaming community there is a horde of players who want gaming to be free, they have no interest in supporting the games they get 'fun' from.
That's why you get so few calls for B2P, but F2P they go on about that all the time.
I really wish people would stop making these BS posts about ESO and how it should go F2P/ B2P.....
ITS OBVIOUS THAT THIS MEANS YOU ARE INTERESTED IN CHECKING IT OUT, stop trolling and just buy the game plus the .50$ a day it costs to play and STFU already.
So sick of this generation ( and I'm only 29) wanting everything for free, and when they get it they want all the access and rewards handed to them on a silver platter.
I'm sorry to post in this thread specifically because I don't feel like the OP hates the game, but for f**ks sake this has got to be the one millionth post about how people want to check out ESO but don't want to pay for it.
"Guess what, I want to live in your mansion and have someone wait on me all day and use the Aston Martin in the garage... Can I just try that out for a few months at one of your guys' house and then make my decision ... also is it cool if I sleep with your wife?"
$.50 a day people ...
FIFTY CENTS!!!!!!
I really wish people like you would stop saying things like this.
First of all, just because someone likes F2P doesn't mean they want the game "free." So please stop assuming that.
Second, B2P isn't free at all.
As for the 50 cents a day bull crap. Sorry, your right .. it is 50 cents a day. A DAY ... everyday. As long as a person wants to play the game they have to pay 50 cents. Of course it sounds cheap when you put it that way. You know .. if I play a few years it's ONLY $600+ for 1 game.
I hate when people try and make something sound cheap by doing that. You can pretty much apply that tactic to anything that is expensive. Just take whatever it costs per month, and change it to per day and it will sound cheaper. It's like the whole 99 cent tactic shops use. Price it at $5.99 so it looks like 5 but is really 6.
Just because you reduce the time to per day, doesn't change the over all price in the long run.
Your mansion example doesn't work, because it isn't a service not a business model. F2P is a business model where a company makes money off of customers who play the game. It's essentially turning their game into a shopping mall. Your mansion example is terrible because it's not even similar in the least bit. F2P isn't free entirely, as not everyone plays it for free.
If we where to take the mansion and make it free to live in, but it cost money to use any of the utilities in the mansion, and it cost money to wait on you, and it cost money to drive that Aston Martin per hour. THAT would be closer to what F2P is. You begin to realize it isn't really free at all if you want to experience it all.
Why do you think every freaking marketing has "cost per day" instead total costs:
"buy new car. Only 10$ per day!"
"new fridge only 35 cents per day!"
Its box cost+ 180$ a year +whatever expansion/cash shop has. For 1 game.
So its 260$ for ESO (180+80 box). Lets put it into perspective. Thats 5-6 completely new games or steam library full of games on sales.
Its 3 TV internet services (Netflix/Hulu/AmazonPrime) for a YEAR (or 1 for 3 years)
Its 1 week on the seaside during season/2 outside of season. In a hotel.
At one point Zenimax needs to cut the dead weight and swallow the pain that they failed to make a mark in the mmo market. Console players are not realy into the mmo scene and if they are they have some solid choices that are comming out. Destiny / The Devision / Final Fantasy ARR
I think not many do want to play ESO and keep a montly sub for that and their PSN / Live network + their ISP cost. Console gamers are a totaly diffrent breed of gamers that just want to chill out and game cheap, otherwise they would have bought a PC and play tons of more games on a decent rig.
That doesnt mean all console gamers are like that, but there is only a small playerbase from consoles that want to lay down all that cash. And with the revieuws ESO had most are not even going to bother picking this one up.
Zenimax will wait with free to play untill the console version is released, if it does as bad as the pc version then free to play is comming real fast. Unless Zenimax just want to keep throwing their own money into a bottemless pit.
Console players are going to have TONS of choice in 2015 when it comes to gaming. I suspect tons dont give a penny worth on buying an mmo that received mostly negative revieuws and does extremely poor on the pc market.
Hell i almost bought a damn playstation due to Destiny myself and i hate playing on consoles -_- ESO in my opinion and from our gaming community has done a realy bad job at almost every asset and angle in ESO. We left the game 3 weeks in.....a new record as we stayed in Warhammer for 6 months.
Zenimax did a horrible job and "raped" a name of a great IP and delivered a half done mmo that needs years of patching before it becomes even close to what a great mmo should be.
The console market is alot harder to conquer as it has even less mmo players. Goodluck to Zenimax, But i have seen this kind of mmo's sink before.
Was hoping for an mmo that could blow us away, but it just failed on every level to please us as a big gaming community. And looking around us we are not the only ones thinking this way.
I just don't and won't like VR levels and VR as a concept at all. My adventures in ESO, which I liked as a sorcerer btw, just stopped there. I don't mind grind and actually prefer slow leveling but I cannot cope with VR crap in ESO. Payment model doesn't matter at all here. Reading comments in forums I know that I'm not the only one.
As I said a couple of months ago when ESO was released, I'll try this game in christmas. When it's free to play.
My opinion is my own. I respect all other opinions and views equally, but keep in mind that my opinion will always be the best for me. That's why it's my opinion.
Lessons learned? IKR? It's not just from SWTOR either. Seems like these guys tripped over almost every stumbling block that has affected every single triple A in the last 10 years. There is simply no excuse. It's actually quite amazing to think about it. The only answer I can think of is the level of arrogance and/or ignorance these developers had was staggering. Remember their 1st "damage control" press release when they were talking about how they didn't expect the level of bots and spammers? (among many ridiculously ignorant statements) My jaw just dropped whenever I read that. I still can't fathom how they were the only ones in the world who didn't see that coming.
This game needs more than fixes. What it really needs is to be "FFXIV"ed.
I just laugh over such things. One person says it's 600+ dollars for playing a p2p for several years. Then you can play a f2p where it's 600+ dollars in a day/week/month. People have been brainwashed pretty hard. Sure you can play without spending a cent, but good luck being on even footing with spenders in a majority of f2p games. P2p gets a lot of hate. I'm starting to think it's from f2p companies trying to get a bigger slice of the pie than they already have.
The entire problem with TESO is perception vs Reality. The Elder Scrolls Online sounds like I would get an Elder Scrolls game that is played online. Instead Zenimax delivered a mediocre MMO experience, with a couple cool tweaks, wearing an Elder Scrolls skin.
People were expecting Skyrim online, not Rift: Tamriel Edition.
I really wish people would stop making these BS posts about ESO and how it should go F2P/ B2P.....
ITS OBVIOUS THAT THIS MEANS YOU ARE INTERESTED IN CHECKING IT OUT, stop trolling and just buy the game plus the .50$ a day it costs to play and STFU already.
So sick of this generation ( and I'm only 29) wanting everything for free, and when they get it they want all the access and rewards handed to them on a silver platter.
I'm sorry to post in this thread specifically because I don't feel like the OP hates the game, but for f**ks sake this has got to be the one millionth post about how people want to check out ESO but don't want to pay for it.
"Guess what, I want to live in your mansion and have someone wait on me all day and use the Aston Martin in the garage... Can I just try that out for a few months at one of your guys' house and then make my decision ... also is it cool if I sleep with your wife?"
Quote from article, "It is by definition, the personal, self-centered desire not to expend capital at all. Or to put a more modern take on it, rapid advances in technology have so lowered our perceptions of what things should cost, that ultimately many goods and services have become devalued far below what people are willing to pay for them.".
~
Please Note: I'm done arguing with unreasonable people with an agenda and/or those that fail to see logic.
Argue if you must, discount my post with anti-logic and/or Hyperbole. I won't be responding any longer.
I really wish people would stop making these BS posts about ESO and how it should go F2P/ B2P.....
ITS OBVIOUS THAT THIS MEANS YOU ARE INTERESTED IN CHECKING IT OUT, stop trolling and just buy the game plus the .50$ a day it costs to play and STFU already.
So sick of this generation ( and I'm only 29) wanting everything for free, and when they get it they want all the access and rewards handed to them on a silver platter.
I'm sorry to post in this thread specifically because I don't feel like the OP hates the game, but for f**ks sake this has got to be the one millionth post about how people want to check out ESO but don't want to pay for it.
"Guess what, I want to live in your mansion and have someone wait on me all day and use the Aston Martin in the garage... Can I just try that out for a few months at one of your guys' house and then make my decision ... also is it cool if I sleep with your wife?"
Quote from article, "It is by definition, the personal, self-centered desire not to expend capital at all. Or to put a more modern take on it, rapid advances in technology have so lowered our perceptions of what things should cost, that ultimately many goods and services have become devalued far below what people are willing to pay for them.".
~
It doesn't really address one of the root causes....OK, so I only skimmed the article and mayu have missed it, but still.
Software companies have been exploiting, abusing, monetizing and generally, over promising and under delivering for years. Consumers are tired of it.
Have you ever actually read one of their ELUAs? They are convoluted and intentionally complex, but the gist of them is to basically tell the consumer, they have purchased access to something they don't own, The publisher still retains rights over the purchase. In other words, you spend money but have no rights.
If a game tanks because it can't keep players interested or isn't fun enough making it F2P is just putting a band-aid on the problem. Most of us have limited time and while we might try out a F2P game it still needs to be fun to keep us interested.
As I see it, ESO have serious issues it needs to fix. Making the game F2P could give the devs a second chance but they still need to fix those issues. Phasing, bots and really lame dungeons is a disaster no matter what payment model you use.
If I were Zenimax I would worry about getting the game better, once that is done you can talk about if changing payment model is a good idea or not.
That's the thing though. Obviously there are people who the feel the game is fine and just want bug fixes. Those are the people who are most likely still subbed. However, obviously there are people who think the game still needs a lot of work to be worth the box price + subscription. Some of those are still subbed but probably most who feel that way are not. So the question is, which group of people is larger? The current paying customers or their previous customers who canceled their sub, and would it be economically feasible to favor one group over another? It seems like their are obvious warnings signs that ZOS refuses to see.
MMO's, rather being sub based or f2p, need players to make money obviously. So I wonder (not the same as wishing or hoping) if a payment model change would bring more players in and give them more potential income quicker to work with to add those systems that they talk about such as their justice system, dark brotherhood, thieves guild and housing much sooner.
Zenimax is not EA. Zeni are privately owned, so they are not compelled to wash their dirty laundry in public (no quarterly investor calls).
We have no idea what exactly their expectations are for ESO. We don't know if they need a quick return on the investment or whether they are taking a long view on the franchise.
Nobody knows how the game will be received in the console market.
And don't forget that there will be future single-player ES games. Each time one of those releases, it gives ESO a potential player boost. It also opens new opportunities for cross-marketing (free ESO goodies as a bonus if you pre-order the next ES SPG, etc.).
Privately owned doesn't mean what people think it means. If by private you mean that there's a board of directors who control shares of the company though privately traded stock but aren't listed as a publicly traded company, that still requires capital investment, then sure zenimax is a "privately owned company".
However, people keep using that to say that they aren't required to repay development costs, and are able to just pull 200+ million out of a personal bank account to make a niche game that doesn't meet expectations to such an extent that they need to delay the console release of that game. Or that the board of directors is happy to make a game that doesn't appeal the majority of the fans of the single player series who they hoped it would appeal to, or even MMO gamers for that matter.
Both EA and zenimax media have a board of directors that have financial goals that their respective studios are obligated to meet.
The only difference between the two companies is that EA sells its stock publicly and zenimax sells its stock privately. Just because its privately traded doesn't mean that the stock doesn't suffer from poor performance, or that the stock holders will cut some slack.
Who do you think is going to be more forgiving? Some dude that buys a few thousand worth of EA stock, or the limited number of guys who invested millions each into zenimax stock?
Zenimax does indeed have quarterly investor calls, it's all done privately though.
Privately owned doesn't mean what people think it means. If by private you mean that there's a board of directors who control shares of the company though privately traded stock but aren't listed as a publicly traded company, that still requires capital investment, then sure zenimax is a "privately owned company".
However, people keep using that to say that they aren't required to repay development costs, and are able to just pull 200+ million out of a personal bank account to make a niche game that doesn't meet expectations to such an extent that they need to delay the console release of that game. Or that the board of directors is happy to make a game that doesn't appeal the majority of the fans of the single player series who they hoped it would appeal to, or even MMO gamers for that matter.
Both EA and zenimax media have a board of directors that have financial goals that their respective studios are obligated to meet.
The only difference between the two companies is that EA sells its stock publicly and zenimax sells its stock privately. Just because its privately traded doesn't mean that the stock doesn't suffer from poor performance, or that the stock holders will cut some slack.
Who do you think is going to be more forgiving? Some dude that buys a few thousand worth of EA stock, or the limited number of guys who invested millions each into zenimax stock?
Zenimax does indeed have quarterly investor calls, it's all done privately though.
This is an excellent post. Thank you for that. I mean it.
edit: at least as far as acknowledging that many Privately held companies still need to be accountable.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
If a game tanks because it can't keep players interested or isn't fun enough making it F2P is just putting a band-aid on the problem. Most of us have limited time and while we might try out a F2P game it still needs to be fun to keep us interested.
As I see it, ESO have serious issues it needs to fix. Making the game F2P could give the devs a second chance but they still need to fix those issues. Phasing, bots and really lame dungeons is a disaster no matter what payment model you use.
If I were Zenimax I would worry about getting the game better, once that is done you can talk about if changing payment model is a good idea or not.
That's the thing though. Obviously there are people who the feel the game is fine and just want bug fixes. Those are the people who are most likely still subbed. However, obviously there are people who think the game still needs a lot of work to be worth the box price + subscription. Some of those are still subbed but probably most who feel that way are not. So the question is, which group of people is larger? The current paying customers or their previous customers who canceled their sub, and would it be economically feasible to favor one group over another? It seems like their are obvious warnings signs that ZOS refuses to see.
MMO's, rather being sub based or f2p, need players to make money obviously. So I wonder (not the same as wishing or hoping) if a payment model change would bring more players in and give them more potential income quicker to work with to add those systems that they talk about such as their justice system, dark brotherhood, thieves guild and housing much sooner.
Zenimax is not EA. Zeni are privately owned, so they are not compelled to wash their dirty laundry in public (no quarterly investor calls).
We have no idea what exactly their expectations are for ESO. We don't know if they need a quick return on the investment or whether they are taking a long view on the franchise.
Nobody knows how the game will be received in the console market.
And don't forget that there will be future single-player ES games. Each time one of those releases, it gives ESO a potential player boost. It also opens new opportunities for cross-marketing (free ESO goodies as a bonus if you pre-order the next ES SPG, etc.).
Nobody knows how the game will be received in the console market? Really now? I know exactly how the game will be received if it keeps the P2P model, with rocks being thrown at it.
Also you seem to forget or don't know anything about Diablo 3 on how badly it failed at launch and how it failed again to attract a decent amount of people with the expansion. Even if new Elder Scrolls games are released, TESO just sent out red flags to every type of Elder Scroll fan around the globe, including myself.
My only hope from here on forward, is that Bethesda doesn't become like Ubisoft and releasing Elder Scrolls yearly like Ubisoft's washed out Assassin's Creed. They can start getting their respect and credibility back by actually releasing a Skyrim Expansion with multi player functions. Until then, Elder Scrolls can kiss my fat rear end.
Also you seem to forget or don't know anything about Diablo 3 on how badly it failed at launch and how it failed again to attract a decent amount of people with the expansion. Even if new Elder Scrolls games are released, TESO just sent out red flags to every type of Elder Scroll fan around the globe, including myself.
My only hope from here on forward, is that Bethesda doesn't become like Ubisoft and releasing Elder Scrolls yearly like Ubisoft's washed out Assassin's Creed. They can start getting their respect and credibility back by actually releasing a Skyrim Expansion with multi player functions. Until then, Elder Scrolls can kiss my fat rear end.
How did Diablo III fail at launch? It sold millions of copies within the first few days. The expansion sold 2.7 million copies in the first week.
You not liking it (or other players) doesn't "= fail"
TESO did not send out red flags to every type of elder scrolls fan. Me being one of the largest.
TESO is Zenimax and they made an mmo set in the Elder Scrolls universe. Not really what I wanted but there it is.
The elder scrolls single player games are Bethesda and I bet dollars to donuts that their next offering is going to fly off the shelves because of Skyrim's success.
The only issue here is whether or not TESO can keep enough players so that Zenimax keeps their sub.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Privately owned doesn't mean what people think it means. If by private you mean that there's a board of directors who control shares of the company though privately traded stock but aren't listed as a publicly traded company, that still requires capital investment, then sure zenimax is a "privately owned company".
However, people keep using that to say that they aren't required to repay development costs, and are able to just pull 200+ million out of a personal bank account to make a niche game that doesn't meet expectations to such an extent that they need to delay the console release of that game. Or that the board of directors is happy to make a game that doesn't appeal the majority of the fans of the single player series who they hoped it would appeal to, or even MMO gamers for that matter.
Both EA and zenimax media have a board of directors that have financial goals that their respective studios are obligated to meet.
The only difference between the two companies is that EA sells its stock publicly and zenimax sells its stock privately. Just because its privately traded doesn't mean that the stock doesn't suffer from poor performance, or that the stock holders will cut some slack.
Who do you think is going to be more forgiving? Some dude that buys a few thousand worth of EA stock, or the limited number of guys who invested millions each into zenimax stock?
Zenimax does indeed have quarterly investor calls, it's all done privately though.
This is key right here. Rather people realize it or not, Zenimax indeed has people who are financially invested into the company and would most likely want a return in their investment. If it means changing the sub model and their market research shows it will draw more money by doing so, well then guess what is going to happen...
So again, what can ZOS do to prevent this? Some will say just stay the course as the way things are now. If they don't change their sub model is it because of arrogance or do the devs know something about the MMO market that the rest of us players don't?
Originally posted by LordZeik I just laugh over such things. One person says it's 600+ dollars for playing a p2p for several years. Then you can play a f2p where it's 600+ dollars in a day/week/month. People have been brainwashed pretty hard. Sure you can play without spending a cent, but good luck being on even footing with spenders in a majority of f2p games. P2p gets a lot of hate. I'm starting to think it's from f2p companies trying to get a bigger slice of the pie than they already have.
Difference is a P2P is $600+ for a few years to play no matter what. B2P usually only has a up front price and a small cash shop. Let's say $60. You don't have to spend a cent in the cash shop and it is entirely up to you. If you end up spending $600 in a day .. that is your fault entirely.
As for F2P, you act like it requires you to spend that much cash, when it really doesn't. Again, it's entry is FREE. Do you have any idea what that means? It mean you don't pay ANYTHING at all to enter the game. If you somehow spend $600 in a day/week/month ... it's because you WANTED to. It's not something your obligated to do.
Now, don't get me wrong here. I don't find anything wrong with P2P. I have played my fair share of P2P games. The issue here is worth. How much is a game worth. Not every game is considered equal. It isn't just all black and white, good or bad.
A game that is a cut above the rest, and really surpasses all expectations, and is legitimately fun, I wouldn't mind spending a premium on.
However, a game that is just slightly above average than most F2P games, and is considered somewhat average among all current P2P games isn't something I feel is worth that amount of cash. That doesn't mean I am saying the game is bad, it just means it's not there at that mark where I feel I am getting my moneys worth.
I thought the article points were pretty meh. I see ESO as being in a similar situation in terms of expectations vs success although the games are superficially different. The mistakes were also superficially different:
SWOTOR
- Banked too heavily on cut scenes
- Undervalued the appeal of space battles
- Undervalued open world pvp as an end game activity
ESO
- Undervalued pvp incentives
- Undervalued game play alternatives to VR grinding
- Lacked any team pride to inspire pvp
Which all boils down to one mistake:developers telling players to play the game their way not how the player wants to. I wont elaborate or it will go off on a sand box tangent.
Comparisons to WOW are always moot to me because you could do that with any mmo, and then get some grouch derailing the thread by banging on about EQ.
For starters, anyone who took my "mansion" analogy seriously is a complete moron...
Secondly the $.50 argument IS 100% valid because if you cant afford that then you should EITHER:
A: Go play a currently F2P game ( because you dragging down everyone who is gladly paying for it by wanting it for free is just pissing off the people who think it IS worth the sub fee.)
B: Earn some more money and have a hobby you don't mind putting money towards so that it can constantly get better.
C: Realize that you cant afford this game whatever your financial restrictions, and hope that someone is cool enough to help you out. (friends, family, internet pals... it happens, but certainly NOT when you are being a dick and trashing the game out of spite.)
C: OR wait for the updates to roll in, and content to be expanded upon; then once the game meets your "My shit doesn't stink" levels of acceptance... purchase the game and sub with your money that is clearly better then mine.
In the traditional gaming world, there is no repeat customer, as in say... a grocery store. Therefore in MMO's where content is constantly created and expanded on they have to generate revenue to improve there product and keep their business running somehow.
Subscription based models have in the past proven to be the most stable to consistent updates for ALL players in the game, and one that isn't restricted to only those who paid for it in some form of micro transaction store.
Another reason people don't want F2P in ESO, because..... Guild wars 2 cash shop... that's why!
I can tell you that I for one don't want a huge chunk of development resources going to content/gear/costumes/skill lines and shit along those lines that will ONLY be accessible to players who pay for it in a shop if the game WAS F2P. That time should be spent on content seen and accessed by all players at some point in the game in my opinion.
I relate my ESO experience to another game I used to play a ton. Everquest 2 sucked balls until approximately 11 months in, after that I played it for 5 years. Sometimes its good to get your foot in the door and learn the class mechanics, then when everything gets expanded on you can be there at the top of the hill.
I am still playing ESO, this patch was a huge step forward, it did introduce a couple new bugs... but that's OK, shit happens. They are being hot-fixed, and plenty of new things are on the horizon. Hate all you want on the game and myself, but for those of us who are digging it, keep on keepin' on.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(marketing)
its not about being cheap its about product value and how much the costumer think it worth.
I'm not so sure about that one. Will people really play a single player ES and say " now I want to play an online version with less to do and a huge grind" ? The game has its moments, sure. I played it again for a bit after the patch on a friends account and the pvp is really fun. But the grind to max VR which then gets increased and you have to kind of grind again..and again... you get the point I guess.
I agree with the cross-marketing aspect which I guess can work really well but I just kind of doubt people will join ESO after the next ESoffline game which of course has to be better than its predecessor. So I guess I stick with the "improve the game" crowd and if they do that then maybe people will get into it and stay in the game.
@ .50 a day, and still people decide not to play the game. Basicly some people had to decide between "should I play ESO for 10+ months or buy a game(+goodies) in alpha which wipes all my progress" and they went with the alpha.
I kind of like the game and like most games I wish it to succed because creating a game is a lot of work but the griiiind
Yeh it's hard to tell, but a new Elder Scrolls game could possibly help give an injection into ESO. As long as the next Elder Scrolls game isn't rushed for that sole purpose. However, like I said earlier I think we are going to have to wait at least another year before we hear anything from Todd Howard's team considering their typical development cycle and that nothing was hinted at during E3.
<span id="yui_3_9_1_1_1403728421041_970" yom-fig-left"="">
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
I really wish people like you would stop saying things like this.
First of all, just because someone likes F2P doesn't mean they want the game "free." So please stop assuming that.
Second, B2P isn't free at all.
As for the 50 cents a day bull crap. Sorry, your right .. it is 50 cents a day. A DAY ... everyday. As long as a person wants to play the game they have to pay 50 cents. Of course it sounds cheap when you put it that way. You know .. if I play a few years it's ONLY $600+ for 1 game.
I hate when people try and make something sound cheap by doing that. You can pretty much apply that tactic to anything that is expensive. Just take whatever it costs per month, and change it to per day and it will sound cheaper. It's like the whole 99 cent tactic shops use. Price it at $5.99 so it looks like 5 but is really 6.
Just because you reduce the time to per day, doesn't change the over all price in the long run.
Your mansion example doesn't work, because it isn't a service not a business model. F2P is a business model where a company makes money off of customers who play the game. It's essentially turning their game into a shopping mall. Your mansion example is terrible because it's not even similar in the least bit. F2P isn't free entirely, as not everyone plays it for free.
If we where to take the mansion and make it free to live in, but it cost money to use any of the utilities in the mansion, and it cost money to wait on you, and it cost money to drive that Aston Martin per hour. THAT would be closer to what F2P is. You begin to realize it isn't really free at all if you want to experience it all.
I'd normally agree with this but F2P is a strong incentive to keep players around longer then they normally would under a subscription plan or bring in new players who never gave a subscription a chance. History proves this to be true.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
B2P involves payment before you play, F2P does not. I am struggling to remember any poster who has given me the impression he wanted a game to be F2P so he could put money into it. In the gaming community there is a horde of players who want gaming to be free, they have no interest in supporting the games they get 'fun' from.
That's why you get so few calls for B2P, but F2P they go on about that all the time.
Why do you think every freaking marketing has "cost per day" instead total costs:
"buy new car. Only 10$ per day!"
"new fridge only 35 cents per day!"
Its box cost+ 180$ a year +whatever expansion/cash shop has. For 1 game.
So its 260$ for ESO (180+80 box). Lets put it into perspective. Thats 5-6 completely new games or steam library full of games on sales.
Its 3 TV internet services (Netflix/Hulu/AmazonPrime) for a YEAR (or 1 for 3 years)
Its 1 week on the seaside during season/2 outside of season. In a hotel.
At one point Zenimax needs to cut the dead weight and swallow the pain that they failed to make a mark in the mmo market.
Console players are not realy into the mmo scene and if they are they have some solid choices that are comming out.
Destiny / The Devision / Final Fantasy ARR
I think not many do want to play ESO and keep a montly sub for that and their PSN / Live network + their ISP cost.
Console gamers are a totaly diffrent breed of gamers that just want to chill out and game cheap, otherwise they would have bought a PC and play tons of more games on a decent rig.
That doesnt mean all console gamers are like that, but there is only a small playerbase from consoles that want to lay down all that cash.
And with the revieuws ESO had most are not even going to bother picking this one up.
Zenimax will wait with free to play untill the console version is released, if it does as bad as the pc version then free to play is comming real fast.
Unless Zenimax just want to keep throwing their own money into a bottemless pit.
Console players are going to have TONS of choice in 2015 when it comes to gaming.
I suspect tons dont give a penny worth on buying an mmo that received mostly negative revieuws and does extremely poor on the pc market.
Hell i almost bought a damn playstation due to Destiny myself and i hate playing on consoles -_-
ESO in my opinion and from our gaming community has done a realy bad job at almost every asset and angle in ESO.
We left the game 3 weeks in.....a new record as we stayed in Warhammer for 6 months.
Zenimax did a horrible job and "raped" a name of a great IP and delivered a half done mmo that needs years of patching before it becomes even close to what a great mmo should be.
The console market is alot harder to conquer as it has even less mmo players.
Goodluck to Zenimax, But i have seen this kind of mmo's sink before.
Was hoping for an mmo that could blow us away, but it just failed on every level to please us as a big gaming community.
And looking around us we are not the only ones thinking this way.
My opinion is my own. I respect all other opinions and views equally, but keep in mind that my opinion will always be the best for me. That's why it's my opinion.
You can put that on your wish list for Santa but you may find its CoD.
Lessons learned? IKR? It's not just from SWTOR either. Seems like these guys tripped over almost every stumbling block that has affected every single triple A in the last 10 years. There is simply no excuse. It's actually quite amazing to think about it. The only answer I can think of is the level of arrogance and/or ignorance these developers had was staggering. Remember their 1st "damage control" press release when they were talking about how they didn't expect the level of bots and spammers? (among many ridiculously ignorant statements) My jaw just dropped whenever I read that. I still can't fathom how they were the only ones in the world who didn't see that coming.
This game needs more than fixes. What it really needs is to be "FFXIV"ed.
The entire problem with TESO is perception vs Reality. The Elder Scrolls Online sounds like I would get an Elder Scrolls game that is played online. Instead Zenimax delivered a mediocre MMO experience, with a couple cool tweaks, wearing an Elder Scrolls skin.
People were expecting Skyrim online, not Rift: Tamriel Edition.
SWTOR Referral Link
Free Goodies for new or returning players.
See what it gets you Here
This! FFS This.
On a related note: http://www.zdnet.com/hell-no-we-wont-pay-how-technology-transformed-our-perception-of-value-7000030676/?s_cid=e539&ttag=e539&ftag=TRE17cfd61
Quote from article, "It is by definition, the personal, self-centered desire not to expend capital at all. Or to put a more modern take on it, rapid advances in technology have so lowered our perceptions of what things should cost, that ultimately many goods and services have become devalued far below what people are willing to pay for them.".
~
Please Note: I'm done arguing with unreasonable people with an agenda and/or those that fail to see logic.
Argue if you must, discount my post with anti-logic and/or Hyperbole. I won't be responding any longer.
It doesn't really address one of the root causes....OK, so I only skimmed the article and mayu have missed it, but still.
Software companies have been exploiting, abusing, monetizing and generally, over promising and under delivering for years. Consumers are tired of it.
Have you ever actually read one of their ELUAs? They are convoluted and intentionally complex, but the gist of them is to basically tell the consumer, they have purchased access to something they don't own, The publisher still retains rights over the purchase. In other words, you spend money but have no rights.
Privately owned doesn't mean what people think it means. If by private you mean that there's a board of directors who control shares of the company though privately traded stock but aren't listed as a publicly traded company, that still requires capital investment, then sure zenimax is a "privately owned company".
However, people keep using that to say that they aren't required to repay development costs, and are able to just pull 200+ million out of a personal bank account to make a niche game that doesn't meet expectations to such an extent that they need to delay the console release of that game. Or that the board of directors is happy to make a game that doesn't appeal the majority of the fans of the single player series who they hoped it would appeal to, or even MMO gamers for that matter.
Both EA and zenimax media have a board of directors that have financial goals that their respective studios are obligated to meet.
The only difference between the two companies is that EA sells its stock publicly and zenimax sells its stock privately. Just because its privately traded doesn't mean that the stock doesn't suffer from poor performance, or that the stock holders will cut some slack.
Who do you think is going to be more forgiving? Some dude that buys a few thousand worth of EA stock, or the limited number of guys who invested millions each into zenimax stock?
Zenimax does indeed have quarterly investor calls, it's all done privately though.
This is an excellent post. Thank you for that. I mean it.
edit: at least as far as acknowledging that many Privately held companies still need to be accountable.
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
Nobody knows how the game will be received in the console market? Really now? I know exactly how the game will be received if it keeps the P2P model, with rocks being thrown at it.
Also you seem to forget or don't know anything about Diablo 3 on how badly it failed at launch and how it failed again to attract a decent amount of people with the expansion. Even if new Elder Scrolls games are released, TESO just sent out red flags to every type of Elder Scroll fan around the globe, including myself.
My only hope from here on forward, is that Bethesda doesn't become like Ubisoft and releasing Elder Scrolls yearly like Ubisoft's washed out Assassin's Creed. They can start getting their respect and credibility back by actually releasing a Skyrim Expansion with multi player functions. Until then, Elder Scrolls can kiss my fat rear end.
How did Diablo III fail at launch? It sold millions of copies within the first few days. The expansion sold 2.7 million copies in the first week.
You not liking it (or other players) doesn't "= fail"
TESO did not send out red flags to every type of elder scrolls fan. Me being one of the largest.
TESO is Zenimax and they made an mmo set in the Elder Scrolls universe. Not really what I wanted but there it is.
The elder scrolls single player games are Bethesda and I bet dollars to donuts that their next offering is going to fly off the shelves because of Skyrim's success.
The only issue here is whether or not TESO can keep enough players so that Zenimax keeps their sub.
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 is key right here. Rather people realize it or not, Zenimax indeed has people who are financially invested into the company and would most likely want a return in their investment. If it means changing the sub model and their market research shows it will draw more money by doing so, well then guess what is going to happen...
So again, what can ZOS do to prevent this? Some will say just stay the course as the way things are now. If they don't change their sub model is it because of arrogance or do the devs know something about the MMO market that the rest of us players don't?
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
Difference is a P2P is $600+ for a few years to play no matter what. B2P usually only has a up front price and a small cash shop. Let's say $60. You don't have to spend a cent in the cash shop and it is entirely up to you. If you end up spending $600 in a day .. that is your fault entirely.
As for F2P, you act like it requires you to spend that much cash, when it really doesn't. Again, it's entry is FREE. Do you have any idea what that means? It mean you don't pay ANYTHING at all to enter the game. If you somehow spend $600 in a day/week/month ... it's because you WANTED to. It's not something your obligated to do.
Now, don't get me wrong here. I don't find anything wrong with P2P. I have played my fair share of P2P games. The issue here is worth. How much is a game worth. Not every game is considered equal. It isn't just all black and white, good or bad.
A game that is a cut above the rest, and really surpasses all expectations, and is legitimately fun, I wouldn't mind spending a premium on.
However, a game that is just slightly above average than most F2P games, and is considered somewhat average among all current P2P games isn't something I feel is worth that amount of cash. That doesn't mean I am saying the game is bad, it just means it's not there at that mark where I feel I am getting my moneys worth.
I thought the article points were pretty meh. I see ESO as being in a similar situation in terms of expectations vs success although the games are superficially different. The mistakes were also superficially different:
SWOTOR
- Banked too heavily on cut scenes
- Undervalued the appeal of space battles
- Undervalued open world pvp as an end game activity
ESO
- Undervalued pvp incentives
- Undervalued game play alternatives to VR grinding
- Lacked any team pride to inspire pvp
Which all boils down to one mistake: developers telling players to play the game their way not how the player wants to. I wont elaborate or it will go off on a sand box tangent.
Comparisons to WOW are always moot to me because you could do that with any mmo, and then get some grouch derailing the thread by banging on about EQ.
For starters, anyone who took my "mansion" analogy seriously is a complete moron...
Secondly the $.50 argument IS 100% valid because if you cant afford that then you should EITHER:
A: Go play a currently F2P game ( because you dragging down everyone who is gladly paying for it by wanting it for free is just pissing off the people who think it IS worth the sub fee.)
B: Earn some more money and have a hobby you don't mind putting money towards so that it can constantly get better.
C: Realize that you cant afford this game whatever your financial restrictions, and hope that someone is cool enough to help you out. (friends, family, internet pals... it happens, but certainly NOT when you are being a dick and trashing the game out of spite.)
C: OR wait for the updates to roll in, and content to be expanded upon; then once the game meets your "My shit doesn't stink" levels of acceptance... purchase the game and sub with your money that is clearly better then mine.
In the traditional gaming world, there is no repeat customer, as in say... a grocery store. Therefore in MMO's where content is constantly created and expanded on they have to generate revenue to improve there product and keep their business running somehow.
Subscription based models have in the past proven to be the most stable to consistent updates for ALL players in the game, and one that isn't restricted to only those who paid for it in some form of micro transaction store.
Another reason people don't want F2P in ESO, because..... Guild wars 2 cash shop... that's why!
I can tell you that I for one don't want a huge chunk of development resources going to content/gear/costumes/skill lines and shit along those lines that will ONLY be accessible to players who pay for it in a shop if the game WAS F2P. That time should be spent on content seen and accessed by all players at some point in the game in my opinion.
I relate my ESO experience to another game I used to play a ton. Everquest 2 sucked balls until approximately 11 months in, after that I played it for 5 years. Sometimes its good to get your foot in the door and learn the class mechanics, then when everything gets expanded on you can be there at the top of the hill.
I am still playing ESO, this patch was a huge step forward, it did introduce a couple new bugs... but that's OK, shit happens. They are being hot-fixed, and plenty of new things are on the horizon. Hate all you want on the game and myself, but for those of us who are digging it, keep on keepin' on.
That is all.