What you get with P2P and what you get with B2P

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:23 pm

I wasn't wrong, you were the one who is wrong. I said that's at least 3 and said that there are possibly more. You straight out said that there were only 2.

User avatar
Elizabeth Lysons
 
Posts: 3474
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:16 am

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 3:44 am

Mmmkay....Continents:

Tamriel

Akavir

Atmora

Pyandonea

Thras

Yokuda
Aldmeris

Off topic but they could totally expand there if they want to. Irrelevant since they still have plenty of Tamriel to fill out.

User avatar
Isabella X
 
Posts: 3373
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:44 am

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:07 am

There are pros to both models.

With buy to play I get a shiny new game on my computer to play as I see fit.

With pay to play I get about 20 gigs of free space on my hard drive and a fatter wallet.

Either way, I'm good.

User avatar
FITTAS
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:53 pm

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 5:14 am

1) I do agree that the subscription could/should be less. I would be a huge supporter of a payment model where 1 year of subscription would be $9.99 per month. Also, to keep the subscription price down, I believe that ZOS should adopt what EQ Next is doing with the release of EQ Landfall: Allowing players to create some game content (i.e. few zones, dungeons etc.). Minecraft has proven that players can create amazing locations. ZOS should take advantage of that to keep costs down and use it to reduce the subscription.

2) I completely disagree that ESO class roles will be the same as GW2. They will not. We already know that ESO will have dedicated healers and tanks - in other words - that gameplay will not be homogeneous.

3) If adding DLC is comprise, I personally still think it is a bad idea for a mainstream MMORPG. Also, if only some people are getting DLCs it means that DLCs cannot have a fundamental impact on the game - in other words, DLCs are generally just fluff and not real way of game evolution. I want ESO to be ever-evolving, I don't want ESO to be a static game.

User avatar
katsomaya Sanchez
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:03 am

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:12 am

I'm sorry, but this alone proves you don't understand the complexities of the situation. The COMPANY is the one paying his salary, so the cost comes when they have to cut his paycheck. They get paid back when his work generates income for the company.

You are entitled to your opinion, but as far as I am concerned, it's not worth my time.

User avatar
Connie Thomas
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:58 am

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:02 pm


Akavir - Owned by incredibly warlike species, very difficult to access form Tamriel

Atmora - Frozen over, looks like the south pole. Not very interesting.

Yokuda - Sunk beneath the sea. Can't really swim for an entire DLC

Other than there's a Maomer settlement they could use. Take it from a lore guy - there are no other land masses. Tamriel has a sort of gravity to it that makes races prefer it .
User avatar
Daddy Cool!
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:34 pm

Post » Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:33 pm


1) This is a very fair suggestion - and a good compromise. I highly doubt we'll see sandbox elements in TESO though.

2) I didn't say it was - I said the opposite. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

3) I suppose that's personal taste - however allowing people to access the base game freely removes the concern that ZOS is denying people the right to the license to play they already purchased.
User avatar
Da Missz
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:42 pm

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:35 am

That doesn't in any way contradict what I've said. The publisher pays his salary - if he is a permeant employee then his salary is in their budget and the amount of content he developers per year - lots or very little - had no additional bearing on their budget aside from lighting his booth and paying his electricity bill. The additional expense for releasing content that they use to justify a sub fee comes in when they have to allow people the use of their servers to download the product, in advertising etc. Hence, that developer's talent effects quality - it just so happens that not docking his wages is a good motivator to do well. If the game isn't P2P and he develops quality content, enough people will eventually buy to keep his salary constant.

Sub fee is inversely proportional to number of players. If the sub fee is dropped, the number of players buying the box ought to go up to compensate if the game is good. Unfortunately, people's definition of good nowadays is the release on an unsustainable amount of content. Nobody gives a good alternate play through or an RP thought anymore.
User avatar
XPidgex Jefferson
 
Posts: 3398
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:39 pm

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:24 am

It does indeed contradict what you are saying. Where do you think the money comes from to pay for the budget? Just because they plan for a expense, doesn't mean they don't have to have income to balance it out.....

As to increasing buyers by dropping the sub follow this example.

100 buyers with sub. That's $5,000 in sales with $0/month in subs. (first month free)

200 buyers with no sub. That's $10,000 in sales with no sub.

Better right? Well sure for the first month. But next month you get either $1,500 in subs or $0. 3rd month the same. 4th month you are up to 6K in sub fees. That's 11K vs 10K.

What happens a year out? I'll let you do the math.

Lastly, in a MMO I occasionally consider an alternate playthrough, but unless there is sufficient content to level up without overly duping content, not much difference in leveling a tank vs leveling a DPS. Now I do consider RP, or would if others were around to RP with.

User avatar
Rodney C
 
Posts: 3520
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:54 am

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:18 am

most of us who will be staying for the long haul with eso have grown up with ES SP. not adding RP community items, and staying true to the lore will come to haunt them if they don't pay attention.

User avatar
Cash n Class
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:01 am

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:16 pm

Was already answered by a Lore guy I trust, should read the thread more.

Anyways that wasn't even the point, it was that like past premium MMO's, ESO can and will have expansions that contain a full games worth of content whether it be new continents, or land masses within the already playable game space.

User avatar
Kayla Keizer
 
Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:31 pm

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:53 am


That is the point of expansion packs? The revenue that they generate with initial box sales ought to be used to fund the next expansion which then should logically be sold with a profit?

I understand that MMOs can't survive on their initial box price - but that's exactly the problem I have with sub fees - it's not my fault they're operating on an unsustainable budget aiming (and often missing) to provide an unsustainable amount of content - and so if they can't give me value for my £9.00, namely 1/4 of the initial game per month by the fact that the sub fee is 1/4 of the box-price, then it's unfair to ask my to sub. I would happily pay an elevated box price with a lower sub fee, because then the sub fee I pay more closely matches what they produce in content terms, but it isn't my responsibility to act as an investor to prop them up - just pay them to a profit for my enjoyment of the game.
User avatar
Hope Greenhaw
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:44 pm

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:15 am


I think you misunderstood my last sentence. I was saying that this voracious need people have for an unsustainable amount of content is illogical because players never seem to give a thought to the RP side of things. I myself like to RP. And for the record, I was 8 when Morrowind came out and I played it, I think I've grown up with it a good bit too.
User avatar
Rude Gurl
 
Posts: 3425
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:17 am

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:21 am

"P2P games get more content"

All pay to play games, or just the monster that is WoW? Be honest here.

User avatar
Vicki Gunn
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:59 am

Post » Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:36 pm


Well - ask NordJitsu what the state of Atmora and Yokuda are - his answer will corroborate mine. As to the others, Aldmeris isn't an actual place, and I must admit I've never heard of Thras. I think it's something to do with the Sload.
User avatar
Vicky Keeler
 
Posts: 3427
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:03 am

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:03 pm

1. The game will provide value for money and people will continue to pay each month for continued enjoyment

2. The game will not provide value for money and people will unsub and leave. The developer will then need to evaluate their pricing model or game content to continue revenue.

Given these 2 outcomes for ESO, is it that some people are presuming the game will not give value for money and thus are assuming the game will fail (bearing in mind only beta testers actually know what the game is like and that's only a fraction of the actual launch content), or is it that simply budgets are so tight that they want to play the game for a lot less (free even) but want the same level of commitment to their game as a P2P would have?

User avatar
Lucy
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:55 am

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:50 am

First, I disagree with you on the content angle. The content isn't simply everything "in the box", it's the experience as well. So simply saying 1/4 of the content etc, missed the point. It also doesn't allow for server costs, customer service etc.

Now if they were asking for a sub for a SP game, then I could see your argument.

As to expansion packs vs subs, this goes back to steady revenue streams. Not all active players will buy the expansion pack. Especially casual players who are still working on the initial content.

Lastly, your comment about "it's not my fault" implies you think they are punishing you or forcing you to pay for their "mistakes". You do realize this is a game and thus you have choice as to whether you buy it or not? Not like they are the government and are shoving a unpopular, wasteful, and horribly expensive project down your throat.

User avatar
Kelvin
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:22 am

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:48 am


I'm aware - I just think it's bad business to expect people to pay of this premise.
User avatar
Samantha hulme
 
Posts: 3373
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:22 pm

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 5:31 am

Please don't spam off-topic replies. It doesn't contribute to the discussion about an mmo to say wait until the single player game made by a different company comes out.

User avatar
Richard Thompson
 
Posts: 3302
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:49 am

Post » Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:51 am

It may indeed be, business models evolve like everything else as the public mood evolves. I suspect though that this IP has the potential to hold subs for a long time.

User avatar
Rachel Hall
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:41 pm

Post » Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:46 pm

then I envy you .. and yes your right I misunderstood

I envy you because I was 29 when morrowind came out .. I wish I had been raised with it as much as you were, and from other comments you've made about the lore I believe you have a better grasp of it then a lot of people. I about threw up when i saw the lack of understanding of lore in the dragonborn expansion .. scares me what we will find when we go to morrowind in ESO and see what they did with skyrim as well ..

User avatar
Nana Samboy
 
Posts: 3424
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:29 pm

Previous

Return to Othor Games