The other P2P discussion thread has reached/is reaching the limit so I want to open a discussion on what exactly are we getting with a P2P model and why is it different from a F2P. (I also feel that's a different enough issue that it warrants its own discussion).

Sadly, it appears that many people in the forums believe that if ESO was F2P/B2P they would get the EXACT SAME GAME that they will now be getting with a Subscription, only for free!. Although that sounds great, it just misinformation and misplaced perception. A P2P ESO is MUCH DIFFERENT that an F2P/B2P ESO. You just don't get the same thing for free.

A huge part of the fault for this misconception lies with ZOS because they did a terrible job at explaining the difference of what ESO would be like if it was F2P/B2P. ZOS basically said that "Going with any other model meant that we would have to make sacrifices and changes that we didn't want to make". Wtf does that mean? lol. Well lets look at what the difference between an P2P and F2P/B2P ESO is:

1) First of all there is a big difference new content releases. B2P/F2P games just don't have the stead income flow to maintain the massive development team necessary for beefy and frequent content updates. WoW for example releases 3 or 4 games worth of new content every year. There is no F2P/B2P MMORPG that releases anywhere near that level of content (Yes, B2P/F2P MMOs do release new content - think GW2 - but to compare the level of new content you get in WoW is almost funny and an insult to anyone's intelligence.). There is a very interesting interview with Yoshi-P, the Director of A Realm Reborn (FF XIV) that discusses the difference in content between P2P and F2P/B2P. http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/17/final-fantasy-online-director-defends-monthly-subscriptions-in-the-golden-age-of-free-to-play-exclusive/

2) Second B2P/F2P games need to keep costs to a minimum. This generally means that the game is very homogeneous because balancing is time consuming and expensive. Think of GW2 where all classes do pretty much the same role, DPS with off-heals. That got old fast with most people. Even EQ Next which will also be F2P said that they will not include healers or tanks (i.e. homogeneous roles for classes). For those of use that have played all MMORPGs including all F2P/B2P games, I think we can agree that F2P/B2P game-worlds and gameplay are pretty bland and kinda of boring. That's not really an accident, its about keeping costs down.

3) Finally I want to talk about B2P with DLCs (downloadable content). DLCs are a great idea in single player games but terrible for MMOs because you get a gameworld were different people have access to different content. You cant really play with your friends (unless you all get the same DLCs) and overall it will be hard for people to play with each other. It just a terrible idea for an MMO.

I am not even going to mention cash-shops, P2W mentalities, bug fixes and customer service because that just too obvious and everyone knows about that already. I just wanted to address the popular misconception that ESO as a F2P/B2P game would be exactly the same as ESO as a P2P game. I hate to be cliché, but ultimately you get what you pay for. Don't be in denial because that's not cool. Personally I am looking forward to ESO as a P2P MMO.

Came in here with the flamethrower locked and loaded. Pleasantly surprised to see it wasn't needed.

LOL

+1

Nice post

edit. nvm

Great post in support of P2P, but I think people on the whole agree with P2P, but would prefer a cheaper P2P subscription fee than announced.

if zenimax decided to make a turn for the worst and charge $199.99 for monthly subscription then what would we see happen?

1) no one would buy.

2) these forums and pretty much all media outlets for ESO would no longer be used.

3) people would just drop the game like a hot potato and go back to w/e they were playing and consider ESO a joke

none of these things happened by ESO's announcement because $14.99 a month is not asking a lot .. infact, I think it looks normal and fits the scene properly.

if this was a huge issue, it would be widespread displeasemant and obvious. it's not, and so far, all we have seen is about 75 - 100 people out of (approximately) 2 million that are making comments and saying their not gonna play with ESO.

There is if you sub for a long period of time. If they do year long subscriptions it'll be as low as $9.99 a month.

People can praise the traditional subscription model all they want - it doesn't change the fact that it's unpopular with gamers and not sustainable.

The fact that Zenimax looked at WoW and still went with the subscription model either means one of two things:

1. They're not in it for the long run

2. They're going to milk players for the first 6 months and go free2play

When you have a subscription model, expectations go through the roof. People expect fast, always-on, lag-free servers. They expect fresh and interesting content. They expect all this and then some - delivered NOW. You're telling me these devs are going to do all this with a fraction of WoW's budget? Haha... some of you guys are living on a freakin cloud.

The only thing I want to point out is that #1 is demonstrably false. GW2 releases massive content updates every 2 weeks and they actually add to the story. They've got voiced cut scenes and everything.

Stopped here, as its untrue. Check the polls that are going around not just here but elsewhere.

Vocal minority is vocal.

ZOS's budget for this game is much larger than what WoW launched with.

And ZOS doesn't have a track record at all. Sure they might not be able to be able to pump out all this new content once a month like they said. Or, just maybe, they actually can keep adding new and great content every month and actually keep their playerbase happy.

Sorry, dude, but you don't have a crystal ball. You don't know how this game is going to end.

Do explain, how is subscription not sustainable from an economic pov?

Depends what your definition of massive are I guess. Adding a dungeon or a quest line isn't really what most would consider "massive". Adding whole new continents, several dungeons and raids, adding more lvl, tons more quests ie a wholes new games worth of content, in a yearly or so expansion those are "massive" and not really possible in B2P games because of the mentioned budget constraints.

1) That may be so, however charging ￡10 a month, 1/4 of the launch price of the game, implies that you will provide 1/4 of the base game content per month. Since no game will ever achieve WoW's sub numbers, and even WoW is slowly going F2P, they will not match this. Therefore - it is not value for money and the majority of people, especially those they were initially appealing to from the SP/RPG and console market, won't pay it and hence they will get a severely reduced revenue stream. A sub with WoW's 2005 numbers may have worked once, but it will not work again, not in this day and age. I imagine it will follow SWTOR's route.

2) The classes of GW2 are not an inherit problem with the B2P model, but with the development team. ZOS has already proven that any class can fill any role, so this lack of diversity isn't a problem. It isn't as if a developer sits at his desk and watches a pile of money d tease as he works away - his salary is fixed - the cost comes in when making his content public domain. P2P affects speed, but developer talent effects quality.

3) This is where I agree with you - however it can be used as a compromise point. I would have no problem subscribing if I was allowed to access the base game on a B2P basis, and sub to access these 4-week content drops. They would be locked whilst you don't sub. This would solve the problem of fragmenting the community - it would just be split in half, those who sub and those who don't. Works very effectively for RuneScape.

B2P and F2P are totally different.

Beefy expansion in a P2P game? Why did WOW release a new expansion, the Kung Fu Panda one, and charge $60 for it? If the argument that you get large amounts of content by P2P then Blizzard should have gave the expansion for free for subscribers only charging new customers for that expansion. So explain this?

Well...you can't really add "whole new continents" in TESO. This game is bound by lore (PRAISE BE TO AKATOSH AND ALL THE DIVINES), so perhaps they could release an Akavir expansion, but little else. Don't see he this can't be footed by B2P.

There will be space available though to add more content which was the main point of the example I gave. and also not a lore guy at all but pretty sure there are other continents/landmasses on Nirn they could add.

Hey but didn't you here lore means nothing. Hint Hint....Civil War in Skyrim.

P2P is fine but the subscription is expensive, if they'd drop it to 5-10$ it would all be sunshine and rainbows.

So the games that are 9-10 or more years old and still run on only subscriptions proves that it's not a sustainable payment model? Really?

Final Fantasy 11 is ten years old, subscription based (still getting expansion packs too) and Square-Enix recently announced that it's the most profitable game in the series.

As for WoW's budget. It was originally made for $63 million, released in 2004. Despite being in decline, it still has at least one more expansion pack in the works.

Guild Wars was developed for around $30 million, released in 2005, and all content development for it was cancelled last year when Guild Wars 2 launched.

As far as costs go--It's a fact, plain and simple, that the bigger the game is in terms of users, the more it costs to maintain that game--Bandwidth charges to the company are based on their usage, and more users automatically means a greater need for customer support.

Box sales go a long ways toward recouping development costs.

There's more than Akavir--Atmora. The remains of Yokuda (which sunk into the sea).

Tamriel/Akavir/Atmora

That's three right there. I'm sure there are more, but I don't know the lore that much.

So, I must ask, have YOU ever played an Elder Scrolls game before?

I suppose. With the B2P model, as with P2P, those really massive updates (adding new continents) tend to cost additional money. But that's not an advantage of P2P, its a wash.

In WoW I have to buy Mists of Panderia. In Guild Wars 1 you had to buy Canthia, ect. But in GW1 it felt like you were paying fairly for something because you were getting something.

I was talking more about the types of updates we can expect every "four to six weeks." Like adding dungeons, new class lines, new Guilds, ect. A lot of MMO updates are less substantial than what GW2 gives you. And my favorite thing about GW2 is that the events are story driven and player driven. Its not just new content to grind. There is a long ranging story arc. And player feedback helps develop the story, such as when players got to vote for who would be the next Council Member in Lions Arch.

People have differing opinions on GW2 and that's fine. Personally I think its a really fun game. There are a lot of other people who feel the same way (many servers are full or at least "high population" and they have not reduced the number of servers.) Other people seem to dislike it with a passion.

But I do think its a fair example that proves, at the bare minimum, B2P with cash shop can sustain updates, customer service, server up keep, and the like.

Have you? Because actually it is four so we are both wrong.

http://www.shoddycast.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Elder-Scrolls-continent-map.png

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=+continents+the+elder+scrolls&id=5BE5C703239E96DF9F3C0848D7B4E234FB04D3ED&FORM=IQFRBA#view=detail&id=CDC18C4A20A07704DB75B0F0BC1426C6E5BC3F53&selectedIndex=4

and do what with Atmora and yokuda, by going exploring there would possibly kill the lore surrounding them (same with akavir) and that is the last thing they would want to do