Official ESO Payment thread #3
This thread is for the discussion of the payment plan being used for the Elderscrolls Online, so that we can keep all discussion in one series of threads.

All other F2P, B2P, payment, subscription, etc, threads will be locked and directed here. Including polls.

Everyone has different opinions on this payment plan and how it will affect the game, and everyone has a right to express their opinion here. This means some of you are going to disagree with each other on some things. Accept that and be polite, or don't bother posting.

Discussions dwelling on Guild Wars 2, WoW, Blizzard games, or any other MMOs are considered off topic. Points can be mentioned, but do not debate the games on their own. If anyone wants to discuss the payment systems for other games in detail, it belongs in the Community Discussion forum, not ESO.

These threads will be moderated closely.
Do your part to report any problems that arise, instead of adding to the problem in the thread.

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1473102-official-eso-payment-thread-2/

So what if tou aren't leveling anymore. The mobs are tougher meaning it'll take longer to do quests.

and Technically you are still lvling. Just because your lvl number is 50 doesn't mean you're "done" with progression. You'll still need to earn skill points to continue to build your character the way you want.

Also even if you can do quest out of order and they are the same ones the other faction does, that still doesn't mean its going to be quicker. Because again the whole zone, the quests, the mobs will be tuned for 50+ and 50++.

So yeah bottom line and to pull it back on topic, the amount of content available at launch IMO will be well worth the $60 as well as the $15 starting after the first free Month. Pretty much three games worth of PvE content is lot more than most of these games at launch.

In the previous thread I posted the following:

post limit in that thread was reached shortly after, and since no response had been made to it, I thought it would be useful to reference it here. Thoughts?

Locking content behind pay walls is not at all a better solution then everyone paying the same flat fee and everyone getting access to all the same content.

Thats what SWTOR is doing, if you don't sub all content big and small is locked behind paywalls. Doesn't seem like its working very well does it?

We agree on this point so I don't want to harp on the point. The reason I originally brought it up is to counter the claim that the game has "6x more content" than Skyrim. That might be true if you include PvP, but I don't think it is without it. 3x? Maybe.

My problem with SWTOR (and I guess WoW) is that not only do they charge a sub-fee, they charge additional money for expansions. I thought the purpose of my sub was to pay for new content? How you charge more for expansion packs?

I am not positive,as I am not into MMOs, but I believe expansions are not just additional content, but like new lands... " ESO: Akvari" expansion

Right. Which ought to come as part of the subscription price IMO. Skyrim expansions were around $20. I'll be paying that almost every month. So expansions ought to be covered.

You can charge more for expansions because they are substantially more content than the regular patches that are developed in between expansions. There is no doubt whatsoever that "Mists of Panderia" is (even at launch) vastly more content created than all of the update patches in "Cataclysm," and that expansion at launch was vastly more at launch than all the update patches in "Wrath of the Lich King," and so on. This was why a lot of people had a big problem with Bioware charging subscribers for the "Rise of the Hutt Cartel" so-called expansion. There was nothing about that which was in any way significantly more than a regular patch, so charging subscribers for it (no matter how much of a supposed discount they gave) rubbed them the wrong way.

I wrote it before, but it was buried towards the end: I just want to mention that FF XIV: ARR just launched as a P2P game that people cant throw money fast enough at Square-Enix. All their servers flooded to the point that SE had to put a freeze on selling new game copies because the servers could not handle the crazy amount of people who are willing to play for a good P2P game.

With that said FF XIV is a very traditional MMORPG, not nearly as good or innovative as ESO and it also has a bad reputation from its initial failed launch. Just imagine what it will happen once ESO launches. I predict it will get at least 5 million subscribers at launch, but probably a lot more.

People who say that the era of P2P MMORPGs is over, are deluding themselves. Gamers will always be willing to pay a small monthly fee for a real quality MMO that deserves it.

Fair enough. There was no way I was willing to buy "Rise of the Hutt Cartel" but I suppose I'd be willing to pay for an expansion of ESO if it included about as much new content as the original game.

Saw this posted on Facebook havent seen it here yet short read with a nice graph.

http://www.1up.com/news/90s-game-price-comparison-charticle

What is the difference between a company serious about reaching its monthly content deployment goals and charging $15 per content upgrade. and a company serious about reaching its monthly content deployment goals and charging $15 per month?

If both actually achieve those deployment goals, then there is no difference. What if it was just one company offering both approaches as an either/or option for their players?

Now I could drop the notion of paying for game mechanic tier advancement, but then why subscribe at all, except maybe for the convenience of not having to manually purchase content?

The illusion with subscription-based games is that there are no pay walls. The truth is that it is nothing but a pay wall. Having to buy things piecemeal may seem annoying, but even with those pay walls in place, nothing stops ANYONE from exploring the game and playing. Too many F2P MMOs put too many ridiculous restrictions on players who are getting started, by locking basic functions behind pay gates. The ability to sprint, or have enough inventory space to participate in content without having to run back to a hub area every few minutes to unload the vendor junk. But if you lock advancement tiers in gameplay mechanics, but always leave the introductory tier open, you give everyone the ability to experience everything. And when those who are enjoying the game who come in on the F2P side consider advancing tiers in gameplay mechanics, they will likely realize that subscribing is the more cost effective approach. Here's why:

Say I get to play a LOT. I can advance my tier 4 times in a month in a particular mechanic. If it costs $5 to advance by one Tier, then I would have spent $20. However, if I was a subscriber, then one monthly payment of $15 not only lets me advance all four tiers, but also grants me access to all content. So there's the incentive to subscribe right there for progression. With content releases tied to a microtransaction for non-subbers and part of the package for subbers, then there still remains a reason for either subbing or continue with microtransacting.