Game On #93 | Onward to Morrowind! a Podcasts at MMORPG.com

System · February 2017

Game On #93 | Onward to Morrowind! a Podcasts at MMORPG.com

This week on Game On, Chris and Rob get together to discuss the exciting announcement of The Elder Scrolls Online’s first expansion, Morrowind and all that will bring to the game. They also share their thoughts on Conan Exiles, Destiny 2’s path for a 2017 launch (on PC?!?), For Honor’s open beta weekend, and Activision’s earnings call - where record profits and layoffs take center stage.

Read the full story here

ScottB2J · February 2017

Looking forward to this game.. Cant wait to see it in action. Brings back memories

Grakulen · February 2017

FYI. I looked it up after the fact. ESO does provide a price break if you sub for multiple months.

Octagon7711 · February 2017

They will probably start talking about the wardens' skill set right before it comes out to build up the hype. I don't know if I can get into the bear as a spell and not a standard pet with it's own skills. I really hope the rest of the industry doesn't start doing this with their pet systems. Not really a pet just a summoned spirit. Like Necro pets in GW2 as opposed to Rangers pets. Great interview!

Shadanwolf · February 2017

Why should a subscriber have to pay 2x to get this expansion ? Isn't that what the word SUBSCRIBED is supposed to mean ? Subscribers paid the salaries of the developers using the paid subscription money. Then the developers think it is OK to charge those subscribers for the new content they were able to make ?
Companies need to have more respect for subscribers who support them. They should not hammer them for even more money on top of paying their subscription.

Octagon7711 · February 2017

I've always paid extra for expansions while paying a sub. I played SWG, bought a lot of expansions because of the extras they came with and subbed with multiple accounts. I rarely sub now because comparable games are F2P/B2P and offers just as much as the sub games.

Isarii · February 2017

Shadanwolf said:

Why should a subscriber have to pay 2x to get this expansion ? Isn't that what the word SUBSCRIBED is supposed to mean ? Subscribers paid the salaries of the developers using the paid subscription money. Then the developers think it is OK to charge those subscribers for the new content they were able to make ?

Companies need to have more respect for subscribers who support them. They should not hammer them for even more money on top of paying their subscription.

This is literally how every subscription game works.

Iselin · February 2017

Torval said:

Octagon7711 said:

I've always paid extra for expansions while paying a sub. I played SWG, bought a lot of expansions because of the extras they came with and subbed with multiple accounts. I rarely sub now because comparable games are F2P/B2P and offers just as much as the sub games.

To the best of my knowledge that was the first big shift in revenue model. When I first played Lineage I could download the client for free (over 56Kbps) or I could pay $10 and have them ship me a CD. The sub was $10 and whenever content came over from Korea we got it as soon as NCSoft felt like translating it, but it didn't cost extra.

Next games after that were Guild Wars, LotRO, and EQ2. GW obviously was box fee only, but LotRO and EQ2 had box fees and xpacs in addition to the sub. I didn't really care then like I don't really care now. The studio and publisher have a return expectation and they'll charge accordingly however it's broken down.

This is true. In the early days you bought the game, paid a sub and then bought expansions. That was the model that many companies in the industry adopted. It may not have been perfect but it was a known system that we all either bought into or we didn't play.

But things are much more flexible and fluid these F2P days and each company invents their own scheme and does with it what they will.

In ESO's case when they they changed to B2P they adopted a console game like models of box + paid DLCs on the surface but they still heavily encouraged the (now optional) sub with two hefty incentives:

1. Each month you subbed you got roughly the same number of crowns you would get if you just bought crowns directly as a bonus
2. You got access to all the DLC in their new model as long as you subbed.

There were a few additional game play perks but this were the two big benefits from subbing.

In a sense ESO's sub model was a kind of pay as you go quasi season pass. Not exactly of course but it is a kind of membership scheme not all that different from season passes and one console players would have been very familiar with. That the B2P change coincided with the ESO console release was no accident.

This latest change of now doing a yearly "chapter" that is excluded from the DLC is not a once in a while expansion like it is for those games that have that other business model. This will be a yearly thing going forward. This is also not a brand new game in the franchise. It's not "ESO 2." It is in fact nothing but creating a new type of DLC that is not part of that "season pass" every "season" (year.)

Can they do that? Of course they can. Like I already said MMORPGs are quite free to invent any and all types of business models now that the box + sub + expansion model is no longer the norm. But ESO here is inventing yet another new way of monetizing. One that although it may be a good thing for them, it's certainly not a better way for us. It's also their 3rd model in 3 years - who knows how long this one will last?

IDK about you but that old-fashioned box + sub + expansions model is looking pretty good to me right now if for no other reason than its predictability we can rely on.

perrin82 · February 2017

Too bad the both of you never played Morrowind when it came out. Beautiful game.

Chaserz · February 2017

I'm not an alt player. Once I've seen the main story content I can't go through it all over again. I've heard Morrowind will have it's own 0-50 content. I hope so.

sarielis · February 2017

The crafting bags alone is worth the sub without it inventory management is God aweful

Grakulen · February 2017

sarielis said:

The crafting bags alone is worth the sub without it inventory management is God aweful

Yeah but inventory management shouldn't be so bad that you are willing to spend $150 a year on it.

Grym · February 2017

Iselin is correct. I pay a monthly sub for 2 accounts. My problem with this business model is this... Not only do I spend $100 for 2 boxes, $30 a month for two accounts, and have to deal with a damned cash shop; now I have to deal with paying for DLC that should already be a part of my monthly sub.

Sure, older games always charged for box, sub, and DLC but that was before they went free to play. At this point, I would have to say players are better off simply buying each DLC as it comes out and forgoing any monthly sub. Right now I don't see any incentive to keep my accounts going.

Signed,
Pissed Off in Tamriel

Leiros · February 2017

Grakulen said:

sarielis said:

The crafting bags alone is worth the sub without it inventory management is God aweful

Yeah but inventory management shouldn't be so bad that you are willing to spend $150 a year on it.

For me it's the crafting bag plus all the other perks. XP boost, DLC's, crowns etc.. I don't mind paying for content as long as it is a quality product. The same applies for expansions or "chapters." This game has improved so much since launch I can't wait to see where they take it next!

sarielis · February 2017

Grakulen said:

sarielis said:

The crafting bags alone is worth the sub without it inventory management is God aweful

Yeah but inventory management shouldn't be so bad that you are willing to spend $150 a year on it.

A company had to make money or they go broke

Distopia · February 2017

Grym said:

Iselin is correct. I pay a monthly sub for 2 accounts. My problem with this business model is this... Not only do I spend $100 for 2 boxes, $30 a month for two accounts, and have to deal with a damned cash shop; now I have to deal with paying for DLC that should already be a part of my monthly sub.

Sure, older games always charged for box, sub, and DLC but that was before they went free to play. At this point, I would have to say players are better off simply buying each DLC as it comes out and forgoing any monthly sub. Right now I don't see any incentive to keep my accounts going.

Signed,
Pissed Off in Tamriel

I disagree, considering most dlc can most likely be completed in under a month, why pay more than 15 to play through it? There will still be three DLC a year that can be accessed through the sub, so I don't see why paying more than 15 to play through those is somehow a greater value. As you sill gain access to all the previous DLC and account perks as well. One DLC becoming a "chapter" and sold separately doesn't diminish the value of everything else you get with a sub IMO.

Iselin · February 2017

Distopia said:

Grym said:

Iselin is correct. I pay a monthly sub for 2 accounts. My problem with this business model is this... Not only do I spend $100 for 2 boxes, $30 a month for two accounts, and have to deal with a damned cash shop; now I have to deal with paying for DLC that should already be a part of my monthly sub.

Sure, older games always charged for box, sub, and DLC but that was before they went free to play. At this point, I would have to say players are better off simply buying each DLC as it comes out and forgoing any monthly sub. Right now I don't see any incentive to keep my accounts going.

Signed,
Pissed Off in Tamriel

I disagree, considering most dlc can most likely be completed in under a month, why pay more than 15 to play through it? There will still be three DLC a year that can be accessed through the sub, so I don't see why paying more than 15 to play through those is somehow a greater value. As you sill gain access to all the previous DLC and account perks as well. One DLC becoming a "chapter" and sold separately doesn't diminish the value of everything else you get with a sub IMO.

4 - 1 = 3 is not diminishing? Good to know.

And that is IF there are indeed 3 + the chapter. That certainly won't happen this year since all they have is the 3rd and 4th quarters to work with.

Maybe in 2018? Unless they change the model yet again of course.

Distopia · February 2017

Iselin said:

Distopia said:
I disagree, considering most dlc can most likely be completed in under a month, why pay more than 15 to play through it? There will still be three DLC a year that can be accessed through the sub, so I don't see why paying more than 15 to play through those is somehow a greater value. As you sill gain access to all the previous DLC and account perks as well. One DLC becoming a "chapter" and sold separately doesn't diminish the value of everything else you get with a sub IMO.

4 - 1 = 3 is not diminishing? Good to know.

And that is IF there are indeed 3 + the chapter. That certainly won't happen this year since all they have is the 3rd and 4th quarters to work with.

Maybe in 2018? Unless they change the model yet again of course.

I'm referring specifically toward paying the sub to play through DLC vs buying the DLC. In that sense I don't see it as diminished. Would any take longer than a month to play through (quest content and things like that)? I understand Thieves guild adds ongoing game-play, as does IC, so those may be different by a factor of extended value (that could also make it worth extending one's sub time).

With the caveats (Coins/storage) it seems worth it to me to just pay 15 bucks rather than the asking price for things like Orsinium or the other DLC. There's also the factor of Coins you receive that could be saved in order to purchase the DLC you want later.

What I wasn't referring to was an ongoing sub, in that sense it may be seen as diminished, yet I've never really seen the point in maintaining an ongoing sub anyway. I just sub when I want to play some of the DLC. Which really isn't that often TBH.

gervaise1 · February 2017

Grakulen said:

sarielis said:

The crafting bags alone is worth the sub without it inventory management is God aweful

Yeah but inventory management shouldn't be so bad that you are willing to spend $150 a year on it.

Agree. I would add however that once you have maxed out your crafters and added at least some bag expansion you don't need the bag. "We" managed without it after all - its just less messy.

Nor does it hold sets of course.

gervaise1 · February 2017

Iselin said:

Torval said:

Octagon7711 said:

I've always paid extra for expansions while paying a sub. I played SWG, bought a lot of expansions because of the extras they came with and subbed with multiple accounts. I rarely sub now because comparable games are F2P/B2P and offers just as much as the sub games.

To the best of my knowledge that was the first big shift in revenue model. When I first played Lineage I could download the client for free (over 56Kbps) or I could pay $10 and have them ship me a CD. The sub was $10 and whenever content came over from Korea we got it as soon as NCSoft felt like translating it, but it didn't cost extra.

Next games after that were Guild Wars, LotRO, and EQ2. GW obviously was box fee only, but LotRO and EQ2 had box fees and xpacs in addition to the sub. I didn't really care then like I don't really care now. The studio and publisher have a return expectation and they'll charge accordingly however it's broken down.

This is true. In the early days you bought the game, paid a sub and then bought expansions. That was the model that many companies in the industry adopted. It may not have been perfect but it was a known system that we all either bought into or we didn't play.

But things are much more flexible and fluid these F2P days and each company invents their own scheme and does with it what they will.

In ESO's case when they they changed to B2P they adopted a console game like models of box + paid DLCs on the surface but they still heavily encouraged the (now optional) sub with two hefty incentives:

1. Each month you subbed you got roughly the same number of crowns you would get if you just bought crowns directly as a bonus
2. You got access to all the DLC in their new model as long as you subbed.

There were a few additional game play perks but this were the two big benefits from subbing.

In a sense ESO's sub model was a kind of pay as you go quasi season pass. Not exactly of course but it is a kind of membership scheme not all that different from season passes and one console players would have been very familiar with. That the B2P change coincided with the ESO console release was no accident.

This latest change of now doing a yearly "chapter" that is excluded from the DLC is not a once in a while expansion like it is for those games that have that other business model. This will be a yearly thing going forward. This is also not a brand new game in the franchise. It's not "ESO 2." It is in fact nothing but creating a new type of DLC that is not part of that "season pass" every "season" (year.)

Can they do that? Of course they can. Like I already said MMORPGs are quite free to invent any and all types of business models now that the box + sub + expansion model is no longer the norm. But ESO here is inventing yet another new way of monetizing. One that although it may be a good thing for them, it's certainly not a better way for us. It's also their 3rd model in 3 years - who knows how long this one will last?

IDK about you but that old-fashioned box + sub + expansions model is looking pretty good to me right now if for no other reason than its predictability we can rely on.

Agree. The way I would characterise the "old way" however of box price for the base game, sub for the connection and paid added content is "you knew what you were getting". There was a link between price and what you were getting.

Applied today the sub would be "tiny" reflecting the fact that internet access is "cheap" whereas content .... depends on how many copies they sell of course. Direct selling also has the advantage of no retailer taking a % as well. So much resistance though to paying $25 for content but charge $50 for Santa's reindeer and ..... hardly a peep. Sad.

gervaise1 · February 2017

Iselin said:

Distopia said:

Grym said:

Iselin is correct. I pay a monthly sub for 2 accounts. My problem with this business model is this... Not only do I spend $100 for 2 boxes, $30 a month for two accounts, and have to deal with a damned cash shop; now I have to deal with paying for DLC that should already be a part of my monthly sub.

Sure, older games always charged for box, sub, and DLC but that was before they went free to play. At this point, I would have to say players are better off simply buying each DLC as it comes out and forgoing any monthly sub. Right now I don't see any incentive to keep my accounts going.

Signed,

Pissed Off in Tamriel

I disagree, considering most dlc can most likely be completed in under a month, why pay more than 15 to play through it? There will still be three DLC a year that can be accessed through the sub, so I don't see why paying more than 15 to play through those is somehow a greater value. As you sill gain access to all the previous DLC and account perks as well. One DLC becoming a "chapter" and sold separately doesn't diminish the value of everything else you get with a sub IMO.

4 - 1 = 3 is not diminishing? Good to know.

And that is IF there are indeed 3 + the chapter. That certainly won't happen this year since all they have is the 3rd and 4th quarters to work with.

Maybe in 2018? Unless they change the model yet again of course.

And that is before you factor in the fact that the "Gold Edition" came with 4 xpacs. The only content since last summer that someone who bought the Gold pack but hasn't subbed is Hist. Always assuming they didn't buy that for 1500 crowns. At whatever price they got the crowns for. Orsimium was also on sale in November at 750 crowns. And so on. And with Morrowind being a paid DLC the next content a subscriber would "benefit" from will be - maybe - the next dungeon expansion in Q3. And the chance of them not offering a dungeon multi-pack at a discount at some point is - well the end of the world is more likely I suggest.

Howdy, Stranger!

Game On #93 | Onward to Morrowind! a Podcasts at MMORPG.com

Comments

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Game On #93 | Onward to Morrowind! a Podcasts at MMORPG.com

Comments

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey