Elder Scrolls Online Removes Six-Month Subs, F2P Rumors Arise

Saviordd1

New member
Jan 2, 2011
2,455
0
0
Hm. I'll give it another go if it's F2P. I found the entire Cyrodill idea awesome, but never got there because I couldn't stand the PvE.

Though if a developer wanted to create a Planetside 2esque MMO but with medieval combat I would totally be behind that.
 

BoogieManFL

New member
Apr 14, 2008
1,284
0
0
I wonder if there are still swarms of warriors running around with staffs because it was vastly better than doing their warrior stuff...

I might check it out if it goes F2P. Not worth a sub, IMHO. Provided they don't heavily gimp F2P players as much like The Old Republic.
 

Sight Unseen

The North Remembers
Nov 18, 2009
1,064
0
0
GAunderrated said:
Sight Unseen said:
GAunderrated said:
iseko said:
The day eso goes free to play is the day I quit. Which is sad because Im having fun as second in command of a pretty big pvp guild on the EU server
So when you no longer have to pay to enjoy a game you are currently enjoying and paying for is the time you need to quit? Are you only invested in the game because you are paying money for it?

Don't get me wrong there are lots of people who are quick to say they will never join ESO unless its F2P but you are no better than them. In fact you are the same extreme on the opposite side.
Games going f2p has a proven track record of destroying the community with trolls and people that are less fun to play with. The inevitable cash shop would also make it so that you'd be pressured to pay more real money to get the best items (cosmetic or not), and exp boost selling will make the game unfair for the people who just want to play the game properly. Not to mention the possibility of locking content such as dungeons or bank space behind paywalls. I agree with the person you quoted, if ESO goes F2P then it will very likely make the game objectively worse as a result, and I would likely lose interest in it as well.
Wow this is such a well reasoned and polite response that I am in shock. It is such a rarity to have someone calmly explain a situation without attacking personally. I can now see your reasoning behind wanting to keep it a sub based community and why you are worried about F2P model. There are many F2P models that are very exploitative and halt the progression to make you want to pay in game money. If ESO does go F2P I really hope they do not adopt that particular model.

I feel sad that anytime a good idea for gaming is born (free to play, DLC, crowdfunding) it is abused and perverted so heavily that the once great idea becomes a disease of the gaming community.
Thanks for the reply :)

It's easier to convince people of your opinion when you're not rubbing their face in how wrong they are and attacking them and threatening them for being wrong :). I really wish that certain gaming movements and counter-movements which shall go unnamed would realize this.

I really enjoy ESO and I'm one of the only defenders of the game on these forums. It would really hurt the game if it went f2p and all of these people who are saying that they'll play the game "when" it goes f2p slightly baffle me. They're basically saying that they will play this game when the game has to announce its failure as an MMO to maintain a sufficient playerbase, but will happily ignore the game if it succeeds and is able to maintain a subscriber base (which implies some level of quality to be able to keep so many people paying $15/mo.) It seems like a weird basis of logic to me, and I've been trying to fight back against this logic and convince people that this game is worth trying at the very least. The game is on Steam, and has been put into Steam sales, and I've seen it as low as $20, and it comes with a free month of subscription. For that price you could easily get many, many hours worth of enjoyment from the game (assuming you like it) in your first month, and resub if you feel like it's worthwhile. It shouldn't be hard to get $20 worth of enjoyment from the game in a month.

I also see a lot of people saying that the game should be Buy To Play, as if Guild Wars 2 is the greatest example of an MMO ever. The problem with this is that ESO is already out and can easily be found for much cheaper than its retail price (and it's on Steam so it goes on sale there fairly often.) This would make it almost impossible to keep the game afloat now that the game is already out there and cheap. Buy to Play I think only really works if you plan for it at launch, and have a way to keep the price of the game somewhat stable so that latecomers still contribute meaningfully to your funds. The only other way is to have a cash shop which IMO makes B2P worse than F2P because it has all of the disadvantages of F2P but it costs more to buy into. It becomes the same as those AAA games with microtransactions that everyone seems to hate, but nobody seems to hate when it happens in an MMO for some reason.

Another thing that I didn't mention in my previous post to you, but have mentioned in this thread earlier is that ESO has a very active update schedule that is much more active than most other MMOs that I've seen. The game has released significant free updates every 5-7 weeks since launch, which is what a large portion of the subscription fee must be going towards. Since releasing in April the game has had 5 official updates, with update 6 coming sometime in January (and will be by far the biggest update yet).The updates have varied in size and content but most at the least add one or two major pieces of additional content, as well as new dungeons to run, PVP updates and balances, quality of life improvements etc. They've also heard player criticism that their "delves" (basically mini-dungeons) were too similar ( they were all basically a square of corridors that loops back to the entrance) and has committed to revamping them to make them longer and more challenging and unique. Each update they release new and improved delves for 3 zones (1 for each faction) with the goal of eventually fixing them all. I fear that if the game shifts to an f2p model that the quality and frequency of these updates will decrease since there is a less reliable money source funding them.

BoogieManFL said:
I wonder if there are still swarms of warriors running around with staffs because it was vastly better than doing their warrior stuff...

I might check it out if it goes F2P. Not worth a sub, IMHO. Provided they don't heavily gimp F2P players as much like The Old Republic.
They've apparently rebalanced stamina builds to be more viable, but I haven't been able to see for myself how that's shifted the meta (if it has)
 

KoudelkaMorgan

New member
Jul 31, 2009
1,365
0
0
I don't know how well my pc could run it, but I'm continually surprised at how competently it runs new things as it is.

Whether or not I will even care to try, probably not. Just like with Wildstar, I have pretty much all but forgotten that these games exist as the only things I hear on them are negative and only every 6 months or so at that.

I already play Path of Exile (not often anymore) and PWI (new classes) so I'm already good on the mmo front. When I begin hearing ANYTHING positive about ESO then I might check it out..
 

Remus

Reprogrammed Spambot
Nov 24, 2012
1,698
0
0
KoudelkaMorgan said:
I don't know how well my pc could run it, but I'm continually surprised at how competently it runs new things as it is.

Whether or not I will even care to try, probably not. Just like with Wildstar, I have pretty much all but forgotten that these games exist as the only things I hear on them are negative and only every 6 months or so at that.

I already play Path of Exile (not often anymore) and PWI (new classes) so I'm already good on the mmo front. When I begin hearing ANYTHING positive about ESO then I might check it out..
Well, look around because you won't hear it on these forums apparently. Everyone here except me and Sight Unseen is waiting for it to fail, which is sad because it really is an excellent game that's only getting better.
 

Sight Unseen

The North Remembers
Nov 18, 2009
1,064
0
0
KoudelkaMorgan said:
I don't know how well my pc could run it, but I'm continually surprised at how competently it runs new things as it is.

Whether or not I will even care to try, probably not. Just like with Wildstar, I have pretty much all but forgotten that these games exist as the only things I hear on them are negative and only every 6 months or so at that.

I already play Path of Exile (not often anymore) and PWI (new classes) so I'm already good on the mmo front. When I begin hearing ANYTHING positive about ESO then I might check it out..
ESO is extremely flexible with PC specs. you can run it on extremely crappy hardware and it should still run smoothly if you scale the graphics back. The downside of this is that, well, you're scaling the graphics back. ESO is an extremely pretty game at mid-high specs, but the low specs can be downright ugly. But hey, it'll be playable

I was able to run it on a 4-5 year old laptop that wasnt meant for gaming when I was out of town for a while. It wasn't a great experience to be honest, but you can still play it.

This video goes through the range of some of the graphics effects if you'd like to see how it scales:
EDIT: Also in somewhat related news, ESO was just voted as MMO of the year by the mmorpg.com community, beating out LOTRO (who beat out MMO titans like WoW, EVE, and Everquest) , The Secret World, Destiny, Planetside 2, and Wildstar on its own.
 

Grace_Omega

New member
Dec 7, 2013
120
0
0
I haven't played this precisely because I don't want to pay a subscription for it. If it goes free to play I'll probably check it out.
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
I may be being dim here, but I'm missing the connection between removal of the 6 month subscription and an "inevitable" move toward F2P. I can't see that it means anything. TBH, removing it doesn't serve much purpose even if current subscribers didn't like it. Some inevitably would and it makes no difference to anyone else that the option exists.
 

Someone Depressing

New member
Jan 16, 2011
2,417
0
0
I understand BtP, but not an additional subscription cost on top of that.

Yep, I'd say that it looks like Bestheda is finally tired of being really shit in every conceivable way. Even if you didn't play the game, you could tell that it had glaring, huge problems that put you off the entire "experience".

I don't actively want it to go down, but I will laugh when it does, which I don't think will be too far away. It was just a horrible artistic, marketing, technological decision, form start to finish.
 

Sight Unseen

The North Remembers
Nov 18, 2009
1,064
0
0
Someone Depressing said:
I understand BtP, but not an additional subscription cost on top of that.

Yep, I'd say that it looks like Bestheda is finally tired of being really shit in every conceivable way. Even if you didn't play the game, you could tell that it had glaring, huge problems that put you off the entire "experience".

I don't actively want it to go down, but I will laugh when it does, which I don't think will be too far away. It was just a horrible artistic, marketing, technological decision, form start to finish.

Umm... are you talking about the same game as everyone else? Because it really sounds like you aren't.
 

Uhuru N'Uru

New member
Oct 8, 2014
69
0
0
AS a TES fan I will never play this game because it's an MMO, I don't like MMO's and never will. TES online should be much more than a MMO clone. MMO's are a specific online genre oversaturated and dominated by WOW, they take so much time and effort to get to endgame that stealing players from other MMO's rarely persists beyond once End Game is reached, most go back to the core community for such content. Often racing through the Storyline at breakneck speed within a months subscription then leaving to raid in theiurt fully specced core game, usually WoW, where Blizzard Time New content to spoil the new guys pulling power.
Basically though theirs always a turnover of New replacing failed old, the market is full and all who want to play an MMO stick to one for endgaming, even if they try another for some new story content.

The only way for real online multi-player growth is to not to be a MMO at all, MOBA's did this and have now become like MMO's a saturated market dominated by 1 main game. TES fans who were MMO fans played WoW or another MMO, Some have stayed with their existing community and some have switched to TESO, the only thing Zenimax cares about now is Console MMO Dominance. They are using the PC to perfect the game before the console release, it may work but MMO on console is just as likely to never be big. Those wanting it already play on PC.

The vast majority of TES fans not already playing a MMO, consist in part of those who never play multi-player, they never will. There is another group who want what is crudely decribed as Skyrim with friends or Co-Op, that isn't the entire picture at all. People like me consider all MMO's as a Single Player experiences, with many others having the exact same Single Player experience. Essentially that's my definition of an MMO. A single player game, with bolt-on multi-player. It's what I and other non-MMO players mean when we say "WoW Clone", in reality WoW is also a clone of the first MMO to do this, EverQuest, but few know that and "Everquest Clone" became "WoW Clone".
It's become an emotive label, that means many different things to MMO players, to Non MMO players it simply means, just "Another MMO".

Essentially every player is the same hero, doing the exact same missions, they all play this single player campaign and when it's over, the "Endgame" starts.

TES Online should be something entirely different, No one Heroes Journey for all, you just start as a nobody, a commoner who can never aspire to become part of the "Nobility", with random spawn points about the world, NPC Quest Givers are the Nobles and they give a quest out once to a single Player/Group as Very special Rewards, most or all commoner NPC's can be replaced by players, until all are in fact players.
The Cities and Roads are civilised and Safe enviroments where crimes are punishable and difficult to accomplish. The further away from these civilised areas one goes the less civilised the area until the Wilds are reached, which are lawless most of the time, though patrols and Quest Expeditions, make even that uncertain.
Apart from the Quests the size of a Group is limited, not by strict limits, but by becoming a bigger they risk attracting the attention of the Nobility, increasing the bounty for their removal. They can take over any area by force in the Wilds, but if they become to large, they will become a Quest Target and decimated. While in civilised areas other more subtle means are required to gain influence.
The key thing is content isn't provided on a plate, you must work for it and mostly it's created purely by player interactions. Death is permanent and loss of kit too, even successful characters grow old and die, they can raise children or train their new character, too give them a start, but training only goes so far and real world experience must be gained. Even following the exact same path as before will be entirely different years later.

Basically make a Online World and set it going. There isn't any Endgame, because time never ends, life does. This is just a bare bones taste of the principles of this new style Online experience.
Star Citizen is aiming for this sort of thing, more player created content, it has a single player story. That's also a single player experience. The Online game isn't a MMO, it's a persistant universe.

Whether TESO is a good or bad MMO is irrelevant to me, if it's what you want that's fine. It potentially, could and should have been so much more. A true RPG Online experience, we've yet to see anywhere. It failed to appeal to Non MMO playing TES fans, the moment they made it a MMO.
It's just another MMO, nothing more and I want so much more than just another MMO.
 

SamTheNewb

New member
Apr 16, 2013
53
0
0
KingsGambit said:
I may be being dim here, but I'm missing the connection between removal of the 6 month subscription and an "inevitable" move toward F2P. I can't see that it means anything. TBH, removing it doesn't serve much purpose even if current subscribers didn't like it. Some inevitably would and it makes no difference to anyone else that the option exists.
Has to do with billing cycle. When they sell somebody 6 months of play time via a subscription, they are promising the purchaser that the subscription and play time will provide the same valuable service over the subscription period. If these subscriptions are made obsolete by a future change, they need to either wait for peoples people's subscription to run it's course before any changes, refund, or otherwise compensate people for any changes in the value of their subscription. Dropping the 6 month max prepayment to 3 months gives the publishers more flexibility in how quickly they can change billing strategies without having to compensate for prepaid months that become obsolete by a change in business model. They don't want to owe people > 3 months of play time, so that is the new maximum prepayment. It shows that they may be considering changes to the payment or subscription model, and they are trying to avoid issues of compensating longer term subscriptions that become obsolete.

TBH, removing it doesn't serve much purpose
The 6 month subscription does make a difference if someone is considering changing the business model such that the 6 month subscriptions becomes obsolete or greatly devalued. Otherwise, you are correct, the change in policy wouldn't serve much purpose. That is why the removal of it is cause for speculation.

If we see the removal of 3 month subscriptions, then they will have either, already announced changes, or there will be even more cause to believe changes are forthcoming.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
I tried ESO and like I say all too often, it had potential if they developed it the right way, they did not, and a a result I let my sub slide and stopped playing. Like many MMOs they pretty much did what they wanted to do, ignoring beta testers who had any major complaints, pushed it out the door, and then sat back waiting for the money to come rolling in eternally, which it did not do because they did not want to fix the game, never mind expand it, and they couldn't even deal with people having bots in crowds whacking dungeon bosses on a script to it was difficult to finish some quests by getting a tap in fast enough.

Something people, especially developers, need to understand is that to compete with WoW you need to do it with what WoW is now, not what it launched as. WoW has a truly huge endgame and keeps adding new elements to it, basically there is a lot you can do so you don't get burned out on one thing. Most MMOS fail to realize that long term play requires something to invest the players in the endgame so they keep playing, a simple, boring, grind doesn't generally work, especially if it takes a long time to get anything worthwhile. WoW dealt with this by having various grinds with worthwhile rewards at various plateaus along them. Basically you need a depth of content, not to simply dumb a couple of endgame dungeons, and some kind of point store for PVP participation and call that an end game, it takes work. Right now an odd bit to consider is that WoW's recent gimmick where you get your own personal war camp is actually an old idea, players had been clamouring for something like that involving player housing for a while, Wow's "idea" being to collect a lot of things from various other games. Basically they listened to what was going on, and wound up making a new form of endgaming in addition to the regular ones. Had someone done this on the same level as WoW beforehand they probably would have met with a larger degree of success. Right now other MMOs might do it, but they will be late to the table yet again because WoW already did it and got players invested. What's more it represents yet another feature WoW has that upcoming MMOs likely won't, which of course means people will compare them to WoW unfavorably and/or keep playing WoW.

ESO was good at hyping itself as being new and innovative, but at the end of the day it struck me as being like most other MMOS, with a fairly typical amount of starting content, especially when you look at what the endgame offered. The world was big, but there wasn't much profit to exploring it especially not once you did it all the first time (assuming you were interested) the depth from the single player games was also not present.


It's possible ESO will go free to play, but I don't think that will solve their problems unless they have a lot of content ready for release that they can pay gate, and if they had that, they would likely just release it to get subscribers back. temporary boosts aren't going to be a big deal unless they wreck the advancement economy since advancing didn't strike me as being particularly difficult. Cosmetic items require there being a game that excites people enough to want to spend money pimping their character.

It might be best of Bethesda to put a bullet in the head of the game so they could focus on single player games entirely. Either that or do so and take it back to the development stage, and using what they have learned see if they can expand the game for a re-launch.

For those comparing it to WAR it should be noted that WAR was simply a mess from the day it launched. It was a PVP-centric game which should require major effort to balance things out. Right from the beginning when they did "Road to WAR" it was obvious that they had a major problem given how many "Destruction" players there were going to be. Probably because they simply made the "bad guys" too cool, and gave them all kinds of advantages and more style to boot. While players could argue in a textbook sense they were balanced, in practice they were not, and when you were heading out into open world PVP as a big part of the game and your outnumbered as much as 3 to 1 it gets to the point where the lesser side doesn't show up or stops playing after a while. No matter how it looked on paper the bad guys also wound up being a lot more effective, some friends and I sat around whacking each other and playing around with both sides to see how "equivalent" abilities worked, and the bottom line was that everything else being even Destruction got more bang for it's buck. We suspected this went as far as the game scripts favoring them (similar things have been said about The Horde in WoW) the scripts being the sequence of numbers that determine the variables. Basically if you have an attack that does say 1 to 100 points of damage Destruction would always seem to wind up on the high end where Order winds up consistently lower on the spread, ditto for resistances and such. People who play might even remember this scandal (I tested it a little to confirm what others were saying).

I suspect the reason why GW pulled the license (or so I've heard, and was mentioned here) is that they can have ridiculously high standards as odd as that sounds, and especially with the dwindling player base there was no reason to keep it around. As the old "joke" goes WAR and WoW were probably developed so some developers could login and live out their vainglorious dark lord fantasies, but WAR wasn't as subtle about it and got caught red handed, it going from "open secret" to "pretty obvious" to the people at the top of the food chain who in this case gave a crap.
 

karkashan

Corrin Married Xander
May 4, 2009
147
0
0
I really enjoyed this game for a couple months, but then my hatred of WSAD one out and I went back to the one true gaming master race.

I played my SNES.
 

Uhuru N'Uru

New member
Oct 8, 2014
69
0
0
Therumancer said:
...

It might be best of Bethesda to put a bullet in the head of the game so they could focus on single player games entirely. Either that or do so and take it back to the development stage, and using what they have learned see if they can expand the game for a re-launch.
...
Zenimax are the decision makers in this setup, they use Bethesda Softworks (Publisher) and even Bethesda Software (Developer of Single Player TES and Fallout) as shields to deflect critisism. Before Zenimax bought them, Bethesda Softworks (Publisher) also used the Bethesda name and the Developers good reputation as a protective layer.

Zenimax now have a double shield, to defend themselves from critisism, they make all the decisions, whatever shield is used. Fan boys stamp on critisism of Bethesda, even when the publisher is the target and not the Developer.

You make the same sort of mistake here, Bethesda Software (Developer of Single Player TES and Fallout) is nothing to do with TESO at all, TESO's Developer is Zenimax Online, they are responsible for everything involved with TESO.

Bethesda Software are concentrating on single player games and have been making Fallout 4, ever since they announced the end of Skyrim DLC. Part of the hype machine is saying nothing and letting the fans do the work, this is standard procedure for them. These games take many years developement. They only start their own hype, in the last year or two before release and this time a new 64-bit Engine must also be made for the new consoles, Skyrim was 32-bit.

They will only start TES VI, after Fallout 4 is released and the entire team will only start, after all DLC for Fallout 4 is done.
Fallout 4 may come out before christmas 2015, but 2016 is more likely.
TES VI will be another two years at least if not longer, the Engine will be the same as Fallout 4, updated and bugfixed but the same. Skyrim's Engine is the Oblivion Engine, updated and bugfixed, Fallout 3 and New Vegas used it as well.
 

GabeZhul

New member
Mar 8, 2012
699
0
0
Sanunes said:
Laggyteabag said:
Doom972 said:
TESO doesn't have the depth of an Elder Scrolls game.
HA! "Depth".

OT: Damn. I thought that the game was going to go F2P by the end of the year, but I guess I was wrong. Oh well, my next best guess will probably be around April-June this year.

I played the beta, and that pretty much just killed any hype that I previously had for the game. In my eyes, the game was just not fun enough to justify a subscription. The only games that can really justify having a subscription now are WoW and EVE Online, anything else is just being unrealistic in their predicted success. If you make an MMO now, you make it B2P or you make it F2P, not even BioWare with SWTOR could beat this curse.

Would I play it if it did go F2P? Probably not. There are just better games and MMOs out there.
Personally I thought BioWare making a MMO wasn't going to end well, at least them going F2P made it successful from what I understand. I just wish I didn't feel like I was being punished for wanting to play it as a F2P game.
SWTOR being "free to play" is quite questionable. I am an active player at the moment (got an account just before the holidays), and let me tell you: as much as they tout that "The storyline is 100% completable in FTP mode", in reality it's not, or at least not in a way that you would actually, you know, enjoy it.

In fact, if you are playing FTP, you would probably have to spend about five(!) times as much money on the game to unlock even some of the most basic things, like the ability to wear anything better than blue quality items! That, combined with reduced XP gains and piles of other restrictions means that the FTP in the game is more of a glorified demo designed to frustrate you into paying for a subscription fee than anything else... and on top of THAT they have the gall to ask for ridiculous amounts of money from even subscribers via microtransactions for "convenience" features that should have been in the game on the first place.

Sure, the game is making money to EA, but only because of the aforementioned "features" forcing the players to either subscribe or pay even more in order to not get hamstrung by the game. Don't take me wrong, it is a fun game and the storylines and the mechanics are solid, it's just the business practices that are appalling. Of course I don't say you can draw parallels between TOR's model and other "FTP" MMO models, but I believe in the old adage concerning the existence of free lunches...
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,741
0
0
Eh, still won't get into the game either way on account of all the lies and money-grabbing surrounding launch.

As for it going F2P. I'd wait for a Zenimax announcement, if they promise they won't go F2P then it's just a few months off.
 

Remus

Reprogrammed Spambot
Nov 24, 2012
1,698
0
0
Hagi said:
if they promise they won't go F2P then it's just a few months off.
The same could be said of WoW or EVE, or Wildstar, or any of 100 other MMOs that haven't gone F2P. The devs saying something doesn't automatically equate to "They must be lying". This is how rumors about Half Life 3 start. How do people even make these leaps of illogic?
 

Nemu

In my hand I hold a key...
Oct 14, 2009
1,278
0
0
Figures that they charged my CC for another 6 months right before this happened. Out of the two of us, my gf is the only one still playing ESO, and of course I forgot to remove -my- cc. @_@

Stopped playing ages ago, due to a frustration with the bugs and boredom, but I would be surprised if it went F2P this soon. It's still got stuff rolling out and my gf's guilds are always pretty active, so I assume that plenty of folks still play.