» Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:26 am Since certain individuals on this forum like to play the "report people you disagree with" game - I will be reporting anyone that trolls, insults, flames, or is otherwise abusive in this thread. Thanks.
1. Zenimax is a TINY studio compared to Blizzard, and even Blizzard (the subscription-based MMO everyone points to as a pillar of success) is losing subscribers left and right. What makes you think Zenimax will have the resources or employees to keep pace with the demands of a ravenous subscriber base. Blizzard can't - I find it hard to believe that a much smaller studio can do what Blizzard can't.
2. Subscription fees push away casual players. As much as the MMO elitists would love to revel in glee at this fact - these are horrible business practices. It's like opening a hotdog stand and putting up paywalls for 50% of your consumer base. MMOs are no different than any other product in a capitalist system - it succeeds by appealing to the largest group possible. You NEED casual players to make this work. Zenimax wants AS MANY CUSTOMERS AS POSSIBLE. Not just the self-proclaimed "Elite" - World of Warcraft is also not indicative of future results either. They were the first on the scene, in many ways, and tapped into the upswing of a craze that has reached its peak. Nobody is ever going to get WoW numbers again - there are too many MMOs, too many free options, and the populations are too disbursed. As stated before, it's already been established that WoW is losing subscribers with each quarter.
3. Subscription-based MMOs are not sustainable, players are basically looking for reasons to cancel their subscriptions when the content dries up. If Zenimax doesn't offer compelling and COPIOUS amounts of content every month (and every month is a minimum) players will soon finish the main questline and cancel their subscriptions. Unless you're Mit Romney or Donald Trump, you're not going to stay subscribed unless you feel like you're getting your money's worth. As much as people (particularly on this forum) would love to demonize people's efforts to save money - EVERYBODY WANTS TO SAVE MONEY. Everybody does. Nobody goes out of their way to pay EXTRA money.
4. Subscriptions hold your characters hostage: By requiring a subscription to play ESO - you are essentially "renting" your characters. You don't own them, and as soon as you cancel your subscription you've lost access to those characters. For a buy2play game, such as Guild Wars 1, I can still fire that game up and roll around the world if I want to - almost 10 years later. For all intents and purposes, I own that character and progress. It will not be taken away from me if I fail to pay a monthly fee.
5. Subscription fees and cash shops *should* be mutually exclusive business models. Yeah that's right, if I am paying a monthly subscription fee - I'm not interested in seeing, hearing from, or participating in a cash shop. That's the reason why people play subscription-based MMOs in the first place! So they don't have to deal with the drama and sleaze of a cash shop in their face. For ESO to be announcing both a subscription fee, cash shop, and probably having an initial cost of 60 dollars, it's mind blowing. It's a level of arrogance and greed that I haven't seen in a game company in a long time. This is beyond even Blizzard level greed. This is up there with EA level greed, and that's a freakin' boat load of greed folks. Even if the cash shop is entirely optional and whatever, it's still a paywall between you and content that should be provided to you via your subscription fee. It's also disrespectful to consumers and, frankly, pretty sleazy. It's about as absurd as paying a monthly subscription fee for cable TV, only to be bombarded with commercials every 60 seconds.
6. Subscription fees are the anthithesis of choice: In a traditional buy2play model, you pay for the game upfront and you own that copy of the game. You can play through all the content you wish, after which the developers may release ADDITIONAL content in the form of an expansion pack or DLC. If this content is something that the customer WANTS, he or she may purchase it. If not, there is no forced participation, there is no obligation to pay - the customer merely continues with the 60 dollars worth of content they already purchased. This model works because it gives customers the choice to purchase content that they want, and avoid content that they don't. In most cases, people will always buy the expansion packs. It's a given. The studio wins because they're making money via box sales (a model that GW2 has done very well with, by the way) and the consumer wins by having a choice in the matter.
7. Subscription fees, in the eyes of consumers, equal content NOT server costs: This is a huge disconnect between consumers and MMO providers these days. People assume that their subscription fees every month entitle them to brand new fresh content, when in fact those subscription fees are probably just being used to pay for bandwidth and server fees. Frankly, server costs should be an anticpated expense on the part of Zenimax - and not pushed onto the consumer. Back in 2004 when servers were much more expensive and bandwdith was a much more finite commodity, it would seem understandable that you'd have to charge people for bandwidth and server access - nowadays in 2013, we've seen plenty of MMOs and buy2play games that offer very robust and lag-free multiplayer servers for zero cost to the consumer. What makes Zenimax servers so special exactly? HINT: The answer is 'nothing'
8. Subscription fees must be constantly and frequently "justified" to your consumer base: This is a huge drawback of the subscription fee, and expands upon a point I made earlier. As a company, you have to constantly justify that subscription cost (in the form of content) or people will leave. Netflix had a great initial run. Everybody remembers Netflix right? They had a huge selection, people were watching entire seasons of shows left and right. Then the selection dried up. Netflix jacked the prices up, cut features that we were originally getting for free, and people began to reconsider the "value" of that subscription. Zenimax will be no different. They may be able to keep people for several months, or a year, with planned content - but the model is not sustainable. There will occur a time when people will not feel that 15.00 is worth the expense of the content they are being provided. Why would Zenimax put this kind of pressure and scrutiny on themselves when this is their first MMO game and they've got so much invested in this? To me, it's setting yourself up for failure. We've seen it so many times.
9. A lack of subscription fees does NOT equal pay2win: This is a false equivalency. You can always tell when someone is being manipulative with an argument when they present things as the difference between two extremes. It's like saying: If I can't get the Fortune 500 job I want, I'm gonna go be a drug-addicted stripper to make money instead. Nothing in life is ever the decision between two extremes. Opting for a buy2play or free2play model doesn't mean your game has to be pay2win. It doesn't mean that you have to have a sleazy cash shop that degrades and violates your consumer's sensibilities. It's a ridiculous argument to assume that it has to be one way or another. We've seen with such games as Guild Wars 2 that a company can be very profitable via box sales while still avoiding the traditional free2play cash shop sleaze.
10. Public opinion of subscriptions is fairly negative: Nevermind the fact that subscription fees among console players who are already paying fees to access the Playstation Network or Xbox Live are almost going to be universally negative, most people view subscription fees in a negative way. The public perception about this choice by Zenimax is almost entirely negative, with only a select bubble on this forum acting as supporters. If you talk with average people (The people that Zenimax NEEDS to make their game successful) they do not believe that subscription fees are a value for MMO games in this day and age. The concept almost feels antiquated at this point. We've seen that the buy2play models for gaming are more popular and attract more people. We've seen that free2play (with a few exceptions) has been a very popular system for many MMO games. Not only does it remove the pressure off the developer to constantly crank out content, but it removes the financial pressure off consumers. It's a win-win for everybody involved. Also note that, as I said in #9, there is NO law that says because you're a free2play or buy2play game that you have to svck or be pay2win. There absolutely no law that says that. If a game is free2play and is pay2win, it's because the developers CHOSE to make it that way. The model itself is not inherently biased either way. It is the sole responsibility of the developer to implement their systems in a fair and enjoyable way. That's a simple fundamental truth about any game development system.
