Bethesda Exec Defends Elder Scrolls Online's Subscription Model

[Sanunes]

While the subscription is too high and I don't agree with cash shops the sub model is the only way forward in games like these, I don't understand while people moan, you actually have something you can hurt them with if they don't fix/make content. The F2P model is killing gaming it focuses everything on what they can sell you and the fact is the F2P model is actually more profitable for them.

Years ago we happy playing games like Everquest, World of Warcraft and Dark Ages of Camelot for example paying a subscription fee but I feel people have been breastfed this entitlement to free games and access, if you don't want to pay don't pay.

The F2P model is also a total con if you really like a game you want to experience it all which means you have to pay and people normally end up paying a lot more than $14.99 a month to do so if they admit or not. People can shout from their ivory towers about never spending a cent on a F2P and well done you didn't fall into the exploitative trap that F2P is but people do, a lot more people who ever admit to it and that's why it's a multi billion dollar industry on mobile platforms and I don't want it's cancer near mainstream gaming.

For me I don't dislike the pay to play model, the problem I have is with how they are doing it with having a subscription and a marketplace. If they decided to remove the marketplace (The Imperials and probably other things) would be available to everyone I wouldn't have a problem, but when they lock a feature like The Imperials behind a storefront and then want me to pay $15 a month as well its when I get annoyed. I have the same problem with World of Warcraft and their mounts and pet from a store as well.

The other problem I have that isn't exclusive to Elder Scrolls Online is I didn't like the game so even if they were to go free-to-play I probably wouldn't want to spend the bandwidth again.

 

[Pigeon_Grenade]

i always liked the idea of optional subscriptions that add certain benefits and have always been againsted subscription models themselves, for me its Either the way Guild wars 2 did, or Free to play, with Either optional Subscription or just a shop

 

[prpshrt]

The exec should take quick peek at what Guild Wars 2 has been doing. Granted about 50% of the living world before january was kinda boring, the more recent patches have been awesome and all that WITHOUT a sub fee. Not to mention GW2 is a ton more fun. I really tried to get into the game when I played the beta. I really did (because of my blind maniacal love for the elder scrolls franchise starting with morrowind) but I got so damn bored.

 

[Seracen]

Played the beta. It's a very competent, pretty, and enjoyable game. However, I cannot justify paying monthly. Too much factors in here.

Firstly, there are other draws on entertainment, including other games, movies, books, etc. At a monthly fee, ESO will be competing against all things at all times. This is opposed to a "buy once" model, for standard non-MMO's or MMO's like Guild Wars. Here, you only have to convince me of purchase ONCE, not every freaking month.

Secondly, I already have 2 MMO's that don't require monthly fees, and they are adequate for whenever I don't feel like my consoles.

Thirdly, I am cheap, and do not have the time to make such an investment worth my time. At that point, ESO would be cutting into time allotted for school or work.

Fourthly, part of the fun of the Elder Scrolls, for me, had been mod content and customization. I probably spent more time sifting through mods than actually playing the damn game! Necessarily, that experience will be lost in an MMO setting.

On the other hand, I would be willing to pay...say...$100 a year, much like I once paid $50 for XBOX Live (don't play MP anymore). I know $180/year isn't much worse, but it's still more than I am willing to pay, especially for a game I cannot keep and add to my library on the shelf.

 

[Dragonbums]

Eh, even if they fully planned to go free to play, it still makes sense to start off with a subscription. Not starting off that way would be throwing away money.

However, if it actually gets popular enough for subscriptions to sustain it then they'll stay that way and happily so. Having played the Beta I can say that this is actually possible. I loved the beta and have purchased the game already. But we'll see if I continue to subscribe.

The issue isn't so much the subscription itself, but the heavily additional costs as well.

Someone like me would not be willing or really able to throw in that kind of cash into an MMO that hasn't really proved itself.

It's not very bright to see that you pay $60.00 upfront for the actual game, with a $15.00 a month subscription charge a month, and on top of that they add in game transactions and block additional content like race behind a paywall.(according to previous users) No thank you. I'll just wait for Bethesda's next big hit (please be in Elsewyr)

You just buy the game at $60 assuming the reception is good (don't buy early in that case) and then play it for a month. If the game hasn't earned your business then no additional cost would be incured since the first month is free.

Then how would it be any different from a game you purchased that you got tired of? If you really like it then you continue paying for it and are no worse off.

There are precious few games that I've played more than a month. Several of those few games have been elder scrolls games.

I still don't want to expend that kind of effort. When it comes to buying games sans for a couple of franchises that have proven time and again that they are worth the first buy I always wait a week or so for what other people have said about the game.

On that note yes it is very different. The latter is me wasting my time and money buying a $60.00 game I didn't give two shits about after day 1. The other is me spending fuck ton of time playing the game and ultimately feeling like I got my $60.00 and more on the purchase.

 

[IamGamer41]

Most if not all Free to Play MMOS are shit. There is nothing wrong with a monthly fee. Never has been and never will be.

 

[Ambitiousmould]

I was looking forward to Elder Scrolls with other players. Elder Scrolls Combat, Elder Scrolls, leveling, Elder Scrolls skills and everything. I would happily have paid EITHER a tenner-£15 a month OR A £45-£50 one time payment for that. Now we are being told that it has the backwards-arse MMO combat and everything (which defeats the whole point in this game) and that it is $60 + $15 a month (whatever that is in GBP) Why anyone at all would pay for this is completely beyond me.

Off Topic: And since when were Bethesda such dicks? I have a theory where all the big game developers get together and have to draw straws, and the shortest straw has to be an anti-consumer dick. Usually EA lose, but this time they didn't, and Bethesda did. Or something.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Seems no one has learned from Hellgate: London, Warhammer Online, The Old Republic, etc...

Don't waste your money, especially when they already have F2P elements already crammed into the game. This ship is headed straight for docking at Port Obvious.

 

[Itchi_da_killa]

Bethesda are masters of content, and they are very dedicated to their games... but they can not seem to grasp real time combat. If it contains the same janky, silly combat then count me out all together.

 

[GoGoFrenzy]

Well I play GW2 and while I'm a fan I no longer see the free to play model as the only option for mmos because of GW2. What I hate about GW2 is they purposely build in gold sinks each update so you spend your game income on a new back piece or whatever each new update. And let's not even act like the bank space you have is even remotely adequate. You HAVE to buy space to make rooms for all the drops that don't stack well despite being for crafting. (And of course all the new stuff you have to grind for every new patch.) Then there is the miserably low ratio of quality drops as well. So a lot of times you just want to buy gems to convert to gold and buy the good gear and be done with it.

Basically, I have come to resent the not so subtle money grabbing elements built into GW2 and would prefer to pay a monthly fee and be done with the bs. $15 is less than I spend going to the movies one night. And I will get a ton more hours of enjoyment for my money. And no I don't have 8 hours a day to grind in a game anymore now that I'm an adult and work and study my ass off.

So I'm giving ESO a try. Already preordered and the first month is included with the game price. If their end game is better than GW2 (that would not be difficult at all since GW2 doesn't even have raids) and the pvp is as good as I've been hearing I will definitely be sticking around.

So do you get a free month with your full price game or are you being charged straight away day one? Thing is charging you full price for a game that you then have to pay more money again for is stupid. Why not charge $30 for the game and then people might then buy 2 months subs for another $30 - total paid $60 and you can play it for 2 months.

From what i gather Guildwars 2 is f2p and supposed to be amazing from what i saw from the Angry Joe review.

1 month free is industry standard and part of the initial buy price of ESO too.

Guild wars 2 is not free to play but Buy to play. You buy the game and then can log onto their servers whenever you want without having to pay for that "service"

The game finances itselfe through an ingame store that mostly sells stuff like additional character slots (wich you wont need if youre not a compulsive twink maniac that needs over 6 characters) Boost items to level faster, costumes, shiny mounts and vanity pets and some other stuff you dont really NEED to enjoy the game to its fullest.

Did i mention you can buy their premium currency with ingame money? The exchange is expensive as hell but its still possible to access the real money stuff simply by playing the game... if you have the time and patience that is.

Most if not all Free to Play MMOS are shit. There is nothing wrong with a monthly fee. Never has been and never will be.

Well said!! Most people that actually play those mmos agree with you! Too many people debating this topic don't do that and do not realize the kind of experience a free to play pay structure brings.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I will be paying for the subscription and I rarely buy games.

 

[Snotnarok]

Subscriptions only make sense in MMOs on the company's side.
A monthly fee on a game who's gameplay is extended, dragged out excessively where it takes a long time to get anywhere makes sense. It's not fun but has an addictive quality about it that makes people stick around ...and keep paying the fee.
It's why I never understood MMOs, people give FPS players a lot of flack but at least the game is a game with no massive padding- well, with CoD and it's gun unlock model sure but still it's different than paying a fee on top of a game purchase on top of grindy quests.

 

[Amir Kondori]

I've been playing the beta and I'm just not into this game. Of course I don't like MMORPG's so maybe people who do will like it and want to pay the money, but I wouldn't pay $60 for it let alone a monthly subscription.

 

[Isra]

I'd pay the subscription if I actually liked the game. But this is the same stuff I've been playing for years.

I'm just not going to play a hotbar MMO anymore. I'm tired of the static environments, the lame spoonfeeding of quests, the content queues, the nonsensical & random skills and abilities, the bad animations and weightless models, bad mob pathing and rubber banding, the endless out of thin air respawns, and all the little things in these MMOs that break the atmosphere and immersion. I'm tired of the general vacuousness of the experience. I've been doing it for over a decade and you're just polishing an antique at this point. I feel like I bought a lifetime access card to six flags but I'm fucking sick of the rides.

If you're going to try something different, just please, try something different. Almost every other genre has advanced in leaps and bounds, but MMO players are still playing the same game. We're long overdue for some innovation. It's not about the content. By all means, keep piling on the content. It doesn't solve the inherent problem of these games - they're outdated and boring at the mechanical level.

 

[Brockyman]

You can justify subscription model only if you have a service to provide. It this case, service is the potential content that will come in the future. So here's the question: why would I want to pay for something that is not yet ready? Not even that; why would I want to pay for something that I know nothing about? Cable is a service, right? Or interner. I pay monthly for it and I know what I get every single time. What am I getting from this service? A DLC-ish type of content? Okay, what if I dont like it? Or what if I dont care for it? What then? I am certain no one will refund me. I mean there is no way that every single "content update" will appeal to everyone. And yet I have to pay for it. I dont have to pay for my neighbor's cable? Or his car insurance. Or his electric bills. Honestly, I just dont understand this model.

However they try to justify it, the subscription model is, has been, and always will be solely about greed. It doesn't matter how good the game is either, it could be the best video game that ever has or ever will be made and it still would not be worth a subscription. The simple fact is, I paid money to buy this game, it is my possession, and it is the publisher's responsibility to ensure that it works in full now and in the foreseeable future, doesn't matter if it's an MMO or a single player game. The subscription model is the most blatantly obvious ripoff in the entire industry and no other industry could get away with selling their customers a product in full and then taking it away after a month or 2 unless you paid more.

Wow, while I have agreed and disagreed with many post, this one is probably the most down right, stupid, idiotic argument I've seen about ESO...and I've read a lot of arguments.

You are right as far as buying a single player game. It should work as advertised, and I don't think anyone would disagree. However, if the developer puts time and money into EXTRA content (maps, new missions, skins) that doesn't affect the gameplay (pay to win), then that can, and it's great! Bethesda is already awesome with this with good to great Elder Scrolls and Fallout DLC (horse armor was kinda dumb, but hell, it's your money)

Subscriptions are a viable plan, if people want to play it. It's not "greedy" to ask people to pay for the upkeep of servers, new content, ect, especially if they aren't going to charge for expansions like WOW does.

I can't tell if you feel the developers owe you support after the game is released, but as far as just making sure the features work, they don't owe you a damn thing past that.

Also, they aren't "taking something away" They ADVERTISE that it's a subscription based game with an initial purchase price. It's not like buying COD or Dark Souls and the game just not work after 2 months. It's also like Titanfall, Evolve and Plants v Zombies GW that ONLINE IS REQUIRED. If a customer is too damn stupid to read the box, than my sympathy goes out the window

 

[immortalfrieza]

Wow, while I have agreed and disagreed with many post, this one is probably the most down right, stupid, idiotic argument I've seen about ESO...and I've read a lot of arguments.

You are right as far as buying a single player game. It should work as advertised, and I don't think anyone would disagree. However, if the developer puts time and money into EXTRA content (maps, new missions, skins) that doesn't affect the gameplay (pay to win), then that can, and it's great! Bethesda is already awesome with this with good to great Elder Scrolls and Fallout DLC (horse armor was kinda dumb, but hell, it's your money)

Subscriptions are a viable plan, if people want to play it. It's not "greedy" to ask people to pay for the upkeep of servers, new content, ect, especially if they aren't going to charge for expansions like WOW does.

I can't tell if you feel the developers owe you support after the game is released, but as far as just making sure the features work, they don't owe you a damn thing past that.

Also, they aren't "taking something away" They ADVERTISE that it's a subscription based game with an initial purchase price. It's not like buying COD or Dark Souls and the game just not work after 2 months. It's also like Titanfall, Evolve and Plants v Zombies GW that ONLINE IS REQUIRED. If a customer is too damn stupid to read the box, than my sympathy goes out the window

They ARE taking something away. If I or anyone else buy a product I expect it to work for as long as that product is in a reasonable enough shape to expect it to, and if it doesn't it is the maker's responsibility to ensure that it does, it doesn't matter what that product is. The maker definitely doesn't have the right to take that product away if I stop paying them more money than the initial purchase price, which is precisely what a subscription MMO does. They stop it from functioning if you don't pay them more money, that's taking it away. The fact that they advertise the game as a subscription MMO is not an excuse for this behavior, it just means that nobody cares enough to call these people out of their scam so it's somehow "okay". No it is not okay! MMO, single player, whatever, if I buy it I should be able to play it for as long as the disk still works, this applies to all games without exception.

All that extra stuff they're making? It's nice to have it but the player should not be obligated to take that, in fact there's something comparable for single player games to that, it's called DLC, some new stuff the developers make after release that are OPTIONAL to buy, while the new content for subscription MMOs are forced on everybody whether they want it or not and the people who don't want it have to pay so that the people who do can have it. How is that fair? How is that not a ripoff?

As for the servers and patches they are an expense necessary for the developers to fulfill an responsibility to their customers, THE PRODUCT WORKING, it is not the customer's responsibility to pay for any of that, it is theirs, and besides, they can just as well remove the online functionality and still let their customers play the game for everybody who isn't willing to shell out more money. Hell, you just mentioned Dark Souls, an MMO that does just that and doesn't have any problems whatsoever letting it's playerbase play for nothing more than the initial purchase price. You and others are trying to defend something that can't be defended because otherwise you would have to admit that you got ripped off without even noticing, and it's because of people like you that they are allowed to get away with this, it's like some sort of mass Stockholm Syndrome. If what I've said is idiotic just for being able to recognize that I'm being ripped off and not being willing to take it in the rear end, I don't want to see what's considered "smart".

 

[Brockyman]

Wow, while I have agreed and disagreed with many post, this one is probably the most down right, stupid, idiotic argument I've seen about ESO...and I've read a lot of arguments.

You are right as far as buying a single player game. It should work as advertised, and I don't think anyone would disagree. However, if the developer puts time and money into EXTRA content (maps, new missions, skins) that doesn't affect the gameplay (pay to win), then that can, and it's great! Bethesda is already awesome with this with good to great Elder Scrolls and Fallout DLC (horse armor was kinda dumb, but hell, it's your money)

Subscriptions are a viable plan, if people want to play it. It's not "greedy" to ask people to pay for the upkeep of servers, new content, ect, especially if they aren't going to charge for expansions like WOW does.

I can't tell if you feel the developers owe you support after the game is released, but as far as just making sure the features work, they don't owe you a damn thing past that.

Also, they aren't "taking something away" They ADVERTISE that it's a subscription based game with an initial purchase price. It's not like buying COD or Dark Souls and the game just not work after 2 months. It's also like Titanfall, Evolve and Plants v Zombies GW that ONLINE IS REQUIRED. If a customer is too damn stupid to read the box, than my sympathy goes out the window

They ARE taking something away. If I or anyone else buy a product I expect it to work for as long as that product is in a reasonable enough shape to expect it to, and if it doesn't it is the maker's responsibility to ensure that it does, it doesn't matter what that product is. The maker definitely doesn't have the right to take that product away if I stop paying them more money than the initial purchase price, which is precisely what a subscription MMO does. They stop it from functioning if you don't pay them more money, that's taking it away. The fact that they advertise the game as a subscription MMO is not an excuse for this behavior, it just means that nobody cares enough to call these people out of their scam so it's somehow "okay". No it is not okay! MMO, single player, whatever, if I buy it I should be able to play it for as long as the disk still works, this applies to all games without exception.

All that extra stuff they're making? It's nice to have it but the player should not be obligated to take that, in fact there's something comparable for single player games to that, it's called DLC, some new stuff the developers make after release that are OPTIONAL to buy, while the new content for subscription MMOs are forced on everybody whether they want it or not and the people who don't want it have to pay so that the people who do can have it. How is that fair? How is that not a ripoff?

As for the servers and patches they are an expense necessary for the developers to fulfill an responsibility to their customers, THE PRODUCT WORKING, it is not the customer's responsibility to pay for any of that, it is theirs, and besides, they can just as well remove the online functionality and still let their customers play the game for everybody who isn't willing to shell out more money. Hell, you just mentioned Dark Souls, an MMO that does just that and doesn't have any problems whatsoever letting it's playerbase play for nothing more than the initial purchase price. You and others are trying to defend something that can't be defended because otherwise you would have to admit that you got ripped off without even noticing, and it's because of people like you that they are allowed to get away with this, it's like some sort of mass Stockholm Syndrome. If what I've said is idiotic just for being able to recognize that I'm being ripped off and not being willing to take it in the rear end, I don't want to see what's considered "smart".

You're missing the point, .... But at least you seem more reasonable than the people who don't believe in DLC for games.

For example, if I buy Watch Dogs, which is marketed primarily as a single player experience (I forget if there is MP or not) for $60, it would be wrong of them to ask me to pay more money for that same game (with no extras) in a month or a year, that would be WRONG... we agree on that. However, in 4 or 5 years if the MP doesn't have anyone on the servers, I do think they have a right to shut them down then keep the expense of having a game no one plays online.

However, if you purchase a game like WOW or ESO then you KNOW GOING IN what to expect. It's not a "rip off" if they tell you from day one of development what to expect. I don't know too much about WOW, but I just looked at their website and their newest expansion is $50 and consts $15 a month (they had multi month plans for cheaper, but still). From what Bethesda is apparently saying, you won't have to buy the new content.

I am skeptical of the game for sure. I've heard good and bad and we will see in April (June for me, I'm not a member of the Glorious PC Master Race), but its intellectually dishonest to say that something is a rip off when they are open and clear about their policies.

I honestly think they should give people that purchase the game 2 months subscription free in order to really test out the game and make the risk a bit less.

Find some common ground here?

 

[Carnagath]

Not going anywhere near a game that locks an entire race behind collector's edition. I hope they fail and shut it down within a year, devs/pubs need to learn not to be cunts.

 

[Lightknight]

I still don't want to expend that kind of effort. When it comes to buying games sans for a couple of franchises that have proven time and again that they are worth the first buy I always wait a week or so for what other people have said about the game.

Well, I can generally vouch for Bethesda but this technically isn't them. Still, having played the Beta this is a very rich game.

On that note yes it is very different. The latter is me wasting my time and money buying a $60.00 game I didn't give two shits about after day 1. The other is me spending fuck ton of time playing the game and ultimately feeling like I got my $60.00 and more on the purchase.

I've got to repeat, what is the difference between this and buying any other $60 game that you end up not liking? Your conclusions don't seem to different from that feeling. What's more is that if you like this game, you stand to spend significantly more time enjoying this purchase than other games.

 

[immortalfrieza]

You're missing the point, .... But at least you seem more reasonable than the people who don't believe in DLC for games.

For example, if I buy Watch Dogs, which is marketed primarily as a single player experience (I forget if there is MP or not) for $60, it would be wrong of them to ask me to pay more money for that same game (with no extras) in a month or a year, that would be WRONG... we agree on that. However, in 4 or 5 years if the MP doesn't have anyone on the servers, I do think they have a right to shut them down then keep the expense of having a game no one plays online.

However, if you purchase a game like WOW or ESO then you KNOW GOING IN what to expect. It's not a "rip off" if they tell you from day one of development what to expect. I don't know too much about WOW, but I just looked at their website and their newest expansion is $50 and consts $15 a month (they had multi month plans for cheaper, but still). From what Bethesda is apparently saying, you won't have to buy the new content.

I am skeptical of the game for sure. I've heard good and bad and we will see in April (June for me, I'm not a member of the Glorious PC Master Race), but its intellectually dishonest to say that something is a rip off when they are open and clear about their policies.

I honestly think they should give people that purchase the game 2 months subscription free in order to really test out the game and make the risk a bit less.

Find some common ground here?

Honestly, I doubt common ground can be had. I just do not buy the idea that because it's an MMO or that they tell you that you have to pay a subscription fee and/or Pay to Win on the box somehow makes those fees not a ripoff. A ripoff that most people don't care about I grant you, but a ripoff nonetheless. Just because people are willing to live with a ripoff doesn't make it not a ripoff, and it's not as though people who want to play these MMOs have another option to still play the game if they don't want to be ripped off anyway. It's either pay this fee every month and/or buy these things necessary to play the game or you get nothing. The free months only allow the customer to decide if they want to continue playing, and whether they do or not they are unable to play more unless they pay up. The free months are designed to get players hopelessly hooked so they feel like they have to anyway, it's not for the player's benefit. If they could get away with it they'd probably charge for the first month or 2 as well. With a single player game or even many multiplayer ones you can pick it up, play it for a week and then drop it for a few months and then pick it up and play it again, with a subscription MMO if you don't shell out money you can never play that game again, or a severely stripped down version at the most. That's if you're lucky and they haven't decided to shut down the servers, so you have to find a private server if you want to play, if one exists or is even allowed to exist. Private servers are another thing that makes the whole concept that they need you to pay to play B.S. BTW, if it were true private servers wouldn't be possible.

For the record, I also hate how DLC is implemented in most cases, which is as something that's taken out of the game and sold to the customer piecemeal to suck all the money out of their customer's wallet they possibly can, on disk DLC and day 1 DLC mostly. DLC made by the developers to add to the game a few months after release I support, but not most other forms DLC takes. Ironically, how the Elder Scrolls/Fallout Bethesda does DLC is how the entire industry should do it, but greed removes sense.