ESO: “Nobody believes that The Elder Scroll Online would be hurt by its business model if it had a Free2Play model with a subscription option.”

Totally dude.

ESO would be just as good a game with cash shop ad loading screens, devs spending time coming up with ways to get you to buy yet another hat/wing/item (eventually of questionable power), seeing said items on people around town (nothing says ES like neon wings or a baseball cap), and finally we would get the awesome immersion effect of the guards telling us to visit the cash shop rather than about that arrow in the knee.

What a huge loss for the game that it’s sub only. Total killer.

16 Responses to ESO: “Nobody believes that The Elder Scroll Online would be hurt by its business model if it had a Free2Play model with a subscription option.”

  1. qyte says:

    How can you take a guy seriously when he strongly believes that a f2p sub option is EQUAL with the sub only option.
    As if by magic it takes away all that is wrong with the f2p game design!!

    I firmly believe that if sub only goes away everyone will be begging for it’s return but it will probably be too damn late.

  2. “Immersion is for pussies.” said the analyst who doesn’t actually like or play video games.

  3. Jenks says:

    In its current form, “Sub optional” and “hybrid” just mean cash shop, plain and simple. There’s no difference, the sub is just another layer of cash shop transactions. None of the major benefits of a subscription game (immersion, meritocracy, magic circle, take your pick) are present in a “hybrid” game. It’s a disingenuous label.

    Want to get me interested? Make a “hybrid” game where you segregate sub and F2P players. I pay my sub, get to play on a server with other people who sub, and no one on that server has access to anything in the cash shop. Let all the F2P players stay in their ad laden ghetto, unable to contact me in any way.

    Of course, this will never happen. The way F2P games are monetized is by whales. Giving players “the whole game” for $15 a month is idiotic when you can get hundreds or thousands of dollars a month from the stupidest of them.

    Plus, there’s the 10000% disingenuous bullshit of “f2p players provide content for the paying players!” No. Fuck you. You throw everyone together to make free players envious of the paying players, to convert them to paying players. The entire model disgusts me.

    • Didn’t one game… Allods maybe… go from the cash shop model and roll up a subscription only server?

      I agree with your idea at a high level. It would be nice to be on a “no ads” subscribers-only server for some games. But that comes with its own set of problems. SOE tried exactly that when they added EverQuest II Extended in parallel to EverQuest II.

      In addition to the “maintain two parallel code bases” issue, which gets no love from the developer side of things, they ended up with a system where all new players were funneled into the F2P server, which became well populated and lively, while the subscription servers stagnated to the point that guilds were moving to F2P.

      So there are problems to be solved with the parallel model.

    • spacepilot says:

      This happened with EQ2. When SOE first caved to F2P, they created a separate server for F2P (Freeport, har har) and left the original servers alone.

      It lasted about a year iirc.

      Then again, the sub-only servers already had the double-dipping Station Cash stuff prior to F2P anyhow.

  4. […] ESO: “Nobody believes that The Elder Scroll Online would be hurt by its business model if it h… […]

  5. anon says:

    Giving the history of how buggy eso games are my real question is if the creation engine is ready for mmo style play. but hopefully eso is just a big beta test for fallout online even tho Bethesda lacks the balls to make fallout true to its roots

  6. […] ESO: “Nobody believes that The Elder Scroll Online would be hurt by its business model if it h… […]

  7. C. T. Murphy says:

    The medium is the message. Likewise, the way you pay for the game is the gameplay.

    I won’t definitely say one is better than the other, but the monetization of the game needs to match the game’s intent. I believe TESO wants to be a feature-rich, meritocratic game that people will fully commit to.

    If it wanted to be a pick up and play, commit as much as you want game, it would’ve gone Free-to-Play.

    As Free to Play matures and more games are designed with it in mind, rather than retroactively fitted to it like most major games to shift, I believe we’ll see the two models separate even further.

    Hell, I’m already willing to call them different genres of games.

  8. j3w3l says:

    i could imagine all those chests you find in the world nedding a cash shop item to unlock as well… *shudder*

  9. Anti-Stupidity League says:

    “What a huge loss for the game that it’s sub only. Total killer.” You mean like what happened to Warhammer? Let’s see how long TESO lasts. Does it go f2p or shut down its servers before that, what do you think?

  10. lothirieth says:

    The problem is, there are games out there like Rift who are making it work in a non-horrendous way. Or other games like GW2 who are buy-to-play. Maybe if ESO was an extraordinary game and outdoing the competition then it would be worth that sub. But right now in my opinion it’s not. It would be like paying more for getting what I could get elsewhere for less money.

    That’s what’s causing these statements imo.

  11. This name requires DLC to be seen. We apologize. says:

    I couldn’t care less about eso, but i swear to god if it does affect TES VI like it did with ‘fetcher-quester V: not-paid-reviewers-at-all’, beth will have a special place alongside ea, ubisoft and bioware in my black list of greed.

    Always bring your black list when buying games, it really works! For safety reasons of course, your humour the following weeks will depend on it after all.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 168 other followers

%d bloggers like this: