Well, it sounds to me like this 'C.R.E.D.D.' is the game's in-game currency. So you're buying currency with real money. Which, as you define it, is your biggest problem with microtrans.

I don't have a problem with this system if C.R.E.D.D. is just for a sub, but when they start talking about making 'more things for players to sink money into' I get really nervous. Yeah, you're spending in-game currency to pay for it, but you can buy that in-game currency with real money. That's a huge problem for me. It's just a cleverly disguised cash shop.

You know, the only thing I can never understand about the F2P and B2P models, is this misconception that the people who use these systems are lore-unfriendly players and the micro-transaction stores have to have lore-unfriendly items to make it successful. Not all of us are high class citizens making $60 - 70 000+ a year, that doesn't mean OUR standards are LOWER because of that.

I do not like this option because I can see a huge error in the logic of that system. I'll play the game and make, say 600 gold (using ES currency), and the play time transaction price is at 3000, so only those high end pay to play players who decide they are not going to pay that month can get it. I'd also prefer not having to pay $225 a year (using the standard subscription model) to play A SINGLE game with maybe 300+ hours of story content. I could spend that much on two single player RPG's, plus expansions and get well over double that. Yes, I can play with people online, role-play, have fun, etc. but ESO is not the only game out there that I can do that on. Yes, I'd prefer to do it on ESO, but I am not prepared to shell out $225 a year to do that. I'll buy the game, I'll buy the expansions, and if I like the in game stores LORE FRIENDLY NON-STATUS EFFECTING ITEMS, I'll buy some of that too.

Yeah, I like this model they're going with. This or a pure P2P model + buying the game for ESO would make me happy.

@15$ a month that would only be 180$ a year most p2p MMOs are usually 15$ a month .

And that's only if you pay per month. Most MMOs give you discounts if you pay longer. Some that did one year subscriptions would go as low as $9.99/month. So it would come out at $120 a year.

did you count the cost of the game itself in, and maybe future expansions.

We aren't sure how expensive the initial game will cost. FF XIV is going with $30 for the initial game. ESO could cost that much but I think they will go at least $45. But expansions are most of the time cheaper than the original game. And expansions aren't going to be coming out every year also

$15 a month, plus the box would be $60, and assuming you get a MINIMUM of 30 days with the box purchase, is goes to $225 not including taxes for the box purchase. Thats for the FIRST YEAR.

Its $180 every year after. Also, as stated, I am a CASUAL gamer. I like being able to walk away for a week and come back at my leisure. As I do not make tremendous amounts of cash, I feel an obligation to play the game as often as I can to get my money's worth. Which IS NOT a pleasurable game experience to me, and not an experience I'd wish to INVEST in.

This option is B.S.

They are just selling gold. The economy will go to crap.

GW2 style is what they are offering.

Why would ESO go through all the trouble of making the GAH system and then sell gold? It would ruin the game.

If you believe that, I got a tree that grows money for leaves I want to sell you.

$15/month comes out to about 50 cents a day. Name me one entertaining thing out in real life where you can spend 50 cents for at least 24 hours of fun.

MMO subscription fees are one of the cheapest forms out entertainment we got in this world. How much playing time needed to determine if the worth of that money is different from person to person. I find that even if I only played 15 hours in one month it was still worth my money. That was $1/hour. Again name me something that costs a $1/hour.

I spend more money going to see a two hour movie that I may or may not enjoy than I would paying a subscription fee.

/agree 100%

I do agree Subs are cheap if you have a job and are actually getting paid,....

on the other hand, Pokemon is about $35 per game, and each one is fun for a lifetime IMO. Also, B2P or F2P games are also really fun and cost less as well.

Well fun for a kid, until he turns 12.

That is really abusing the word fun, IMHO.

There are world wide tournaments each year for people ranging from 10 years old to advlts. I Still play it a lot, and even prefer it over elder scrolls. It is definitely opinion about what price is worth it for fun.

Should MMOs cater to the people without jobs then? They are trying to make money. They aren't looking for people who aren't willing to give them money so they cant get paid. This is a business, businesses care about making profits. Its better to cater to people who have money compared to those that don't. Because people who have money give them money and they get paid.

Sure, I still play Super Smash Bros on my N64 all the time. I've easily have put 1000s of hours into that game. But majority of games are short 15 hour games that I'll play once and may dust it off in a few years to play again.

I don't play MMOs like that. I don't play for a few hours and never play it again for months/years. I play them for years and usually don't quit them unless I know I'll be busy for some time.

If anything people should be mad at these developers that charge them $60 for a game that doesn't last longer than 15 hours.

never said they should be completely free, or get no profit,. That is why i mentioned LOL earlier. They have a lot less resources and is completely free to play. LOL also is far, far more successful than most AAA MMO's. if they made ESO B2P, possibly F2P though IMO I would prefer B2P, and then added a cash shop that had stuff that was not P2W, like gear from the other elder scrolls games, etc, it could be a very good system.

B2P would be the best, but even though there are flaws, this would be better than just P2P.
It is likely that TESO will however be simply P2P.

and it would not be P2P for very long. not a single well-known MMO has lasted P2P for more than 2-3 years lately. The only "successful", well-known MMO that are still P2P are Eve and WOW. Both of which were some of the best MMO's on the market at the time when there were few to no F2P games.

LoL should not be compared to a AAA MMO. AAA MMOs require WAY more money than LoL does.

Rift was doing just fine as a P2P MMO, but Defiance was hemorrhaging money from Trion and they needed to recoup that money back. So they switched to F2P because its easy to get money back for a company when you make people have to use the Cash Shop in a game.

and yet is way more successful than said AAA MMOS'. what does it say about most AAA games, when a game with the resources of LOL are far more successful, and is not only "Balanced", but has a community (which might be horrible) but is not dropping like a rock every month

Rift STILL went F2P though. does not matter how or why, but it did. What is stopping Zenimax from doing the same.

Because MOBAs attract a different type of playerbase than an MMO does.

MOBAs attract the e-sport crowd which is much larger than the MMO crowd. MMos don't try to get into the e-Sport world because they know they aren't as popular as RTSs, MOBAs, and FPS (CoD).

Want to know what helps Zenimax not go F2P? They dont have a publisher breathing down their necks about this game. They are building this game on pure house money. The whole 300 million they got for ZOS is house money. They sold off 1/4 if their company to get it. So they aren't going to be pressured to a big publishing company (EA/Activison) to make them money now.

FF XIV is doing the same thing. Square used house money to rebuild FF XIV so they aren't pressured to make that money back so quickly.

LOL is not a true MMORPG.

It's comparing apples to oranges.

It's not even an MMO, it's a MOBA and it's a completely different genre of gaming. You might as well compare MMOs to FPS then, it's basically trying to compare the same things.