After having played ESO this weekend, I could see myself play it after it launches, however...
What I don't like is that to get it I have to pay $80, and a bit over $18 each month afterwards to be allowed to continue to play the game I already purchased.
I know there are other games that does the same (none of which I play either), but having to pay for something, then having to continue to pay afterwards to continue to use that just makes me feel sick.
A game I recently decided to take a break from is EVE Online, there I have paid for the time I spend in the game, no "sign up" cost which I find just fine.
Anyone else having some thoughts on this? Purchasing a product, then having to pay for subscription to that makes me feel trapped. Stop using it and the money paid is wasted, continue to play and you will spend even more...
Price of ESO discussion
-
Ashardis
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:31 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
First of all - I would rather play a good Subscription (sub) based game than a F2P game where the main incentive for designers is to make mechanics that extract monies from your pockets.
In EVE you still activate PLEX for a month, not X hours of gameplay, so any time NOT spent playing that month after activating your PLEX is, by your definition, "lost".
In ESO you will be able to buy gametime cards (60 days account extension) if you don't want to sub as such. You can also pay subscription for 1 month, then cancel the sub, thus making paying only for 1 month.
So yeah.. same possibilities.. apart from the way to pay for gametime extensions using in-game currency.. like you can in EVE (and WildStar!)..
What really makes me unhappy is when you have games that have sub AND the game then ALSO allows for cash shop items.. and if these real $$ items are far superior as well.. /tableflip.
So I don't mind the "BuyToPlay + Sub" model - it makes the game free of cash/premium items if the designers are smart.. and you don't have the frustrating knowledge that you COULD skip all the grind IF you just bought it with real$$.. which is a negative reinforcement for ME.. I know others don't think of it in this way, but that's atleast my opinion.
In EVE you still activate PLEX for a month, not X hours of gameplay, so any time NOT spent playing that month after activating your PLEX is, by your definition, "lost".
In ESO you will be able to buy gametime cards (60 days account extension) if you don't want to sub as such. You can also pay subscription for 1 month, then cancel the sub, thus making paying only for 1 month.
So yeah.. same possibilities.. apart from the way to pay for gametime extensions using in-game currency.. like you can in EVE (and WildStar!)..
What really makes me unhappy is when you have games that have sub AND the game then ALSO allows for cash shop items.. and if these real $$ items are far superior as well.. /tableflip.
So I don't mind the "BuyToPlay + Sub" model - it makes the game free of cash/premium items if the designers are smart.. and you don't have the frustrating knowledge that you COULD skip all the grind IF you just bought it with real$$.. which is a negative reinforcement for ME.. I know others don't think of it in this way, but that's atleast my opinion.
-
MikeyDK
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:04 pm
- Contact:
Yes, you activate a plex that will last one month, up to you to use it or not (skill training will run the entire time even when not logged in). But you did not pay anything to start playing the game.
With ESO you would have spend $80 to just get allowed to play it, followed by having to continue to pay to play what you already bought. So if you find out it isn't something for you anyways after the first month, $80 would be mostly wasted, but maybe you later find out that it could be fun to give it a chance again, and then you have to pay for it once again...
I don't like games where you have to do all those small payments to get through it easier or get items you would not be able to get any other way either. In my opinion they have to either chose to charge for the game, or charge for the time people want to spend in it.
With ESO you would have spend $80 to just get allowed to play it, followed by having to continue to pay to play what you already bought. So if you find out it isn't something for you anyways after the first month, $80 would be mostly wasted, but maybe you later find out that it could be fun to give it a chance again, and then you have to pay for it once again...
I don't like games where you have to do all those small payments to get through it easier or get items you would not be able to get any other way either. In my opinion they have to either chose to charge for the game, or charge for the time people want to spend in it.
-
Xorboro
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:01 pm
- Location: England
- Contact:
MikeyDK I can understand why you dont like the idea of having to pay for the game and then a monthly sub but if you think it from a business/industry point of view, is the money from pure games sales going to be able to cover the cost of server maintenance, content development etc. its the only reason why large mmo's that are good and successful have a monthly sub because they have to cover those costs.
-
MikeyDK
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:04 pm
- Contact:
Yes, and that I have no problem with. I totally understand there is a constant cost in maintaining the servers and such, so monthly subscription totally makes sense. If I could buy the game and just decide to not play online, I could also understand why it would cost something to get in the first place, but it is only online, so to be able to do anything with it, you also have to continue to pay for it.
-
Ashardis
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:31 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
True, EVE is not BuyToPlay, only sub-based, since you pay per month - either via real$$ or ingame monies (if you earn enough to buy a PLEX!).
Let's talk a second on how the economy of making games work - atleast for big titles like ESO.
First there's the actual studio - the ppl who program the game - this is where the devs are. Sometimes studios subcontract work out to other studios (just like when building IRL properties).
Then there's the Publisher - This is where all the marketing/money is!
The regular way of making a game is that a studio will develop a proof-of-concept, paying wages out of their own pockets, that they will shop around to one or more publishers to see whether they pick up the game. If a publisher does, the game is greenlit - the publisher pays the studio a BIG advance/chunk of cash to use for hiring in talent, getting motion capture work done, voice acting and all the things that are staple of a high-end game production.
Once the game is done (or the marketing people have worked themselves into a corner by setting a too-early final release date) it gets released!
The publisher gets all the monies to cover marketing budgets and their initial advance to the studio - and once those costs are covered, they share the incoming profits in a pre-determined split - depending on who services the servers n whatnot.
If the publisher can't rely on getting a BIG cash in-flow on release day from game purchases, they have to start adding in more cash-shop options or tie people to 3-6 months of sub.. and possibly raise the price of subscription - all of which makes the game less attractive.
The reason why EVE doesn't cost anything is that they're their OWN publisher.. that they started as an independent studio and they've been growing strong and the "initial development costs" have long since been paid of by people buying ISK for PLEX's - and these days the number of EVE players are more than enough to make sure CCP games can have devs working on new content while maintaining their servers.
Another good example is Star Citizen, where Chris Roberts decided to fund the proof-of-concept himself (and a small group of initial investors who believed in him) and when the fans quickly made SC the biggest kickstart campaign and then largest crowdfunded game.. then largest crowdfunded ANYTHING.. he decided to opt out of having a publisher and just do it all from within Cloud Imperium Games - so he could keep FULL creative control as well as manage release without interference.
Examples of how things can go wrong in the publisher/studio : Eg. a bunch of studio execs calling the shots, forcing too early publishing based on holidays/marketing/other non-gaming reason - in order to capitalize the maximum initial buys to secure the advance or simply to EARN BIG BUCKS in the short term, while sacrificing studio credibility/long term gains because the game is released before it's 100% ready and bad reviews ensue.. SWTOR, anyone? Big big numbers of games sold, game not 100% done at release - some functionalities were simply not done right and as a result the game suffered bad reviews in the long term and dwindling sub numbers.. but the publisher (EA) had gotten their advance and a LOT of $$ from the game sales.. and BioWare got shafted since SWTOR meant they lost a lot of people and credibility.
So yeah.. for big titles, a B2P + sub is how it's done - in the best case.. Worst case, you have B2P + premium cash shop + sub..
You just need to accept this is how it is in the big leagues.. or only play smaller independent titles from studios who are small enough to not need publishers or eschew them on principle (like SC)
Let's talk a second on how the economy of making games work - atleast for big titles like ESO.
First there's the actual studio - the ppl who program the game - this is where the devs are. Sometimes studios subcontract work out to other studios (just like when building IRL properties).
Then there's the Publisher - This is where all the marketing/money is!
The regular way of making a game is that a studio will develop a proof-of-concept, paying wages out of their own pockets, that they will shop around to one or more publishers to see whether they pick up the game. If a publisher does, the game is greenlit - the publisher pays the studio a BIG advance/chunk of cash to use for hiring in talent, getting motion capture work done, voice acting and all the things that are staple of a high-end game production.
Once the game is done (or the marketing people have worked themselves into a corner by setting a too-early final release date) it gets released!
The publisher gets all the monies to cover marketing budgets and their initial advance to the studio - and once those costs are covered, they share the incoming profits in a pre-determined split - depending on who services the servers n whatnot.
If the publisher can't rely on getting a BIG cash in-flow on release day from game purchases, they have to start adding in more cash-shop options or tie people to 3-6 months of sub.. and possibly raise the price of subscription - all of which makes the game less attractive.
The reason why EVE doesn't cost anything is that they're their OWN publisher.. that they started as an independent studio and they've been growing strong and the "initial development costs" have long since been paid of by people buying ISK for PLEX's - and these days the number of EVE players are more than enough to make sure CCP games can have devs working on new content while maintaining their servers.
Another good example is Star Citizen, where Chris Roberts decided to fund the proof-of-concept himself (and a small group of initial investors who believed in him) and when the fans quickly made SC the biggest kickstart campaign and then largest crowdfunded game.. then largest crowdfunded ANYTHING.. he decided to opt out of having a publisher and just do it all from within Cloud Imperium Games - so he could keep FULL creative control as well as manage release without interference.
Examples of how things can go wrong in the publisher/studio : Eg. a bunch of studio execs calling the shots, forcing too early publishing based on holidays/marketing/other non-gaming reason - in order to capitalize the maximum initial buys to secure the advance or simply to EARN BIG BUCKS in the short term, while sacrificing studio credibility/long term gains because the game is released before it's 100% ready and bad reviews ensue.. SWTOR, anyone? Big big numbers of games sold, game not 100% done at release - some functionalities were simply not done right and as a result the game suffered bad reviews in the long term and dwindling sub numbers.. but the publisher (EA) had gotten their advance and a LOT of $$ from the game sales.. and BioWare got shafted since SWTOR meant they lost a lot of people and credibility.
So yeah.. for big titles, a B2P + sub is how it's done - in the best case.. Worst case, you have B2P + premium cash shop + sub..
You just need to accept this is how it is in the big leagues.. or only play smaller independent titles from studios who are small enough to not need publishers or eschew them on principle (like SC)
-
MikeyDK
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:04 pm
- Contact:
I know how it works, but it still does not change that what they do is to make people pay the money back they invested as fast as possible, while also paying for running costs.
Where I work we deal with such things daily, we might not make any money on what we make right now, but if we can see we will within an acceptable time, we do things too cheap the first time without really making any money on it.
We could just charge enough so we would be sure to get everything covered and have the profit we want, but it would then be almost 100% sure we would not get that order. Right now I am even making something where we might lose money on it, because we had to buy special tools to make the product. But it is a thing we will have to make multiple times during the next year, so we will get the money in again and turn it to profit instead.
I don't care much about how "things are done" because to me there isn't only one way to do something, but if everyone do things the same way it often gets accepted as the way to do it.
This topic isn't about me needing to accept/stop crying about it, it is only about how they want money for a product, and also want money if people want to use that product. As I said before, if it could be played offline it would in my mind qualify for the initial purchase of it, but without the online subscription it can't be used for anything, that is where the problem for me is.
Where I work we deal with such things daily, we might not make any money on what we make right now, but if we can see we will within an acceptable time, we do things too cheap the first time without really making any money on it.
We could just charge enough so we would be sure to get everything covered and have the profit we want, but it would then be almost 100% sure we would not get that order. Right now I am even making something where we might lose money on it, because we had to buy special tools to make the product. But it is a thing we will have to make multiple times during the next year, so we will get the money in again and turn it to profit instead.
I don't care much about how "things are done" because to me there isn't only one way to do something, but if everyone do things the same way it often gets accepted as the way to do it.
This topic isn't about me needing to accept/stop crying about it, it is only about how they want money for a product, and also want money if people want to use that product. As I said before, if it could be played offline it would in my mind qualify for the initial purchase of it, but without the online subscription it can't be used for anything, that is where the problem for me is.
-
Ashardis
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:31 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
Well.. This IS exactly the core
Publishers want ALL the money NOW.. and forever after!..
Good studios know that if they charge reasonable amounts of monies for their games and services, they can build a stronger customer relationship that looks beyond the next fiscal quarter!
Also - the scale of things matter - ESO has a development cost in the 100+ million $ and this is TOO big an advance for the financial "geniuses" at publishers to dare leave hanging by NOT charging for initial game download/purchase and letting the sub costs cover their advance
If you're an independent studio, where game budgets are a LOT smaller, the $0 pricetag + sub might be a lot more viable - especially if you have previous games with subs that finance running costs/some wage costs.
So - Huge $$figures mean you need to consider covering your fiscal behind.. while smaller studios might have an easier time with it being more "loose"
Publishers want ALL the money NOW.. and forever after!..
Good studios know that if they charge reasonable amounts of monies for their games and services, they can build a stronger customer relationship that looks beyond the next fiscal quarter!
Also - the scale of things matter - ESO has a development cost in the 100+ million $ and this is TOO big an advance for the financial "geniuses" at publishers to dare leave hanging by NOT charging for initial game download/purchase and letting the sub costs cover their advance
EVENTUALLY.
It's simple fiscal responsibility, because bad reviews will damage longer term sub numbers, while a LOT of people will buy the game initially, almost regardless of reviews - and a lot of times, they open for pre-orders while "handling the media" in more or less obfuscated ways.. all for the purpose of getting more pre-orders/initial buys.If you're an independent studio, where game budgets are a LOT smaller, the $0 pricetag + sub might be a lot more viable - especially if you have previous games with subs that finance running costs/some wage costs.
So - Huge $$figures mean you need to consider covering your fiscal behind.. while smaller studios might have an easier time with it being more "loose"
-
dakracs
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:12 pm
- Location: Belgium
First off, I'm ok with buy2play and a sub formula. The only thing, in my opinion, what ESO is doing wrong is the cost of the base game. It's 60 bucks (80 is for the imperial edition) and then the sub cost. If you look at the currently only successfull (in all honesty) MMORPG (with a B2P formula), World of Warcraft, 60 bucks for their game is a collector's edition (if I remember right that's what I paid for my DCE (digital collectors edition) when I still played). Lower the cost of the game purchase, keep the same sub cost they have in mind now and I'd have a lot less issues with ESO as a whole. From what I've seen so far, they're not bringing enough 'new and fresh' things to the people to warrant the high up front cost when there is a sub fee attached.
I can follow MikeyDK in the cost being too high for an online only game, even if you know in advance that is what you are getting, there are cheaper competitors (WoW, GW2) out there.
edit: Oh and don't get me started about putting a whole playable race behind a paywall (the CE) while that race, if you look at the racials, is going to probably be the best race to be a tank in the game. Please, make your content available for everyone and keep CE things to cosmetic things (like WoW does) instead of milking those extra 20 bucks out the 'hardcore' people who get so into a game that min/maxing is important and thus they can't 'not have' this race.
I can follow MikeyDK in the cost being too high for an online only game, even if you know in advance that is what you are getting, there are cheaper competitors (WoW, GW2) out there.
edit: Oh and don't get me started about putting a whole playable race behind a paywall (the CE) while that race, if you look at the racials, is going to probably be the best race to be a tank in the game. Please, make your content available for everyone and keep CE things to cosmetic things (like WoW does) instead of milking those extra 20 bucks out the 'hardcore' people who get so into a game that min/maxing is important and thus they can't 'not have' this race.
-
Ashardis
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:31 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
dakracs - What amount of $$ would you set as purchase price? Also remember that ESO is technically a NEW MMO IP, so they don't have the money secured by previous expansions (like WoW does.. and which is why Blizzard under EA are moneygrubbing b@st@rds)..
And about the "not bringing in something new".. it still needs to be produced and so it costs monies.. even it's kindda the same as <insert other MMO>..
The fact that ESO brings Skyrim/Oblivion lore to the MMO table, alongside little improved GW2 PVP, many skills and lots of small crannies n nooks to discover.. might both be discouraging ppl from buying.. and making them MORE likely to buy it..
And about the P2W tactic for Imp.Package.. see above for small rants vs. moneygrubbing B.'s
And about the "not bringing in something new".. it still needs to be produced and so it costs monies.. even it's kindda the same as <insert other MMO>..
The fact that ESO brings Skyrim/Oblivion lore to the MMO table, alongside little improved GW2 PVP, many skills and lots of small crannies n nooks to discover.. might both be discouraging ppl from buying.. and making them MORE likely to buy it..
And about the P2W tactic for Imp.Package.. see above for small rants vs. moneygrubbing B.'s
-
dakracs
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:12 pm
- Location: Belgium
I actually just realised the price I've been hearing/talking about is the dollar price. I just went ahead and looked up the prices in Euro. Take note that I generally dislike the whole 1USD=1EURO. Saying this because there is no difference in USD and EURO price for the imp. edition.
If we take the 80 USD cost and convert it to euro (xe.com) we get 58 euro, a price I would! pay for a CE edition, especially since you get things that cannot be gotten by getting the standard edition.
Standard edition in USD is 60 bucks, EURO it's 54,99. If we convert the USD price we get 43,5 euro. Now I'll admit, that is probably too low for a game in this day and age, even for an MMO with a sub.
So all in all, the prices aren't too far from what I am used to (and have come to accept/expect) from other games/MMOs. The problem was me thinking in EURO and not USD, because the prices as they are right now in USD I find too much in EURO, so the problem persists with the Imp. Edition since they simply did 1USD=1EURO (this is so not ok btw). If we look at the actual price for the Imp. Edition after proper conversion I'd say bump that up to 59,99 (it's a marketing thing, it works apparently) and the standard edition to 49,99. Keep in mind, these prices are in EURO!
Then we have the sub at 14,99 (or a round 15) EURO, which is standard, going lower is just not an option I believe because while it could have people going 'Oh, that's less than WoW let me look at this game.' it could also be 'Wait, why is it less? Is the game not worth it?' with others.
So my conclusion? If the prices would be as I put above I'd have a lot less issues with every edition of ESO that can be purchased, even with the sub cost each month on top of it.
Also Ashardis, if I read it correctly you also don't agree with the P2W of the Imp. Edition right? I did reread (I read the whole topic yesterday) but might not have read it focussed enough as I'm replying from work (this reply took me about an hour to complete).
edit for: typos
If we take the 80 USD cost and convert it to euro (xe.com) we get 58 euro, a price I would! pay for a CE edition, especially since you get things that cannot be gotten by getting the standard edition.
Standard edition in USD is 60 bucks, EURO it's 54,99. If we convert the USD price we get 43,5 euro. Now I'll admit, that is probably too low for a game in this day and age, even for an MMO with a sub.
So all in all, the prices aren't too far from what I am used to (and have come to accept/expect) from other games/MMOs. The problem was me thinking in EURO and not USD, because the prices as they are right now in USD I find too much in EURO, so the problem persists with the Imp. Edition since they simply did 1USD=1EURO (this is so not ok btw). If we look at the actual price for the Imp. Edition after proper conversion I'd say bump that up to 59,99 (it's a marketing thing, it works apparently) and the standard edition to 49,99. Keep in mind, these prices are in EURO!
Then we have the sub at 14,99 (or a round 15) EURO, which is standard, going lower is just not an option I believe because while it could have people going 'Oh, that's less than WoW let me look at this game.' it could also be 'Wait, why is it less? Is the game not worth it?' with others.
So my conclusion? If the prices would be as I put above I'd have a lot less issues with every edition of ESO that can be purchased, even with the sub cost each month on top of it.
Also Ashardis, if I read it correctly you also don't agree with the P2W of the Imp. Edition right? I did reread (I read the whole topic yesterday) but might not have read it focussed enough as I'm replying from work (this reply took me about an hour to complete).
edit for: typos
-
Ashardis
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:31 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
Well, the whole $1 => €1 pricehike is yet another way the publishers try to make a buck, BUT there are some valid regional things to take into consideration - like VAT/Taxation n whatnot. Also the general income level of the region & payment plans means something when setting a price. You can't expect the same price in eg. EU and Russia - The russians would simply not want to pay that price since it would represent a significantly higher % of a monthly wage.
Some of the price-setting is downright strange - an ESO Sub costs $14.99/€12.99/£8.99 - and while I am no math genius, €13 is a LOT more than £9 ($17.96 vs. $15.05) - and I have no idea why there is THIS price difference, since it basically means the rest of EU pays $3 more/month than UK.. there might be some VAT/Tax thing that I'm not aware of, but to me it's odd.
And - I do NOT agree with P2W cashshops, when it's implemented as an unlimited "insert $$, get in-game power" or eg. World of Tanks "Gold Ammo" - where the $$items have significantly better in-game stats. ESO making Imperial race playable only to people who buy the more expensive option AND giving Imperials some really decent unique gamestats, available to no other - makes them taste a little like WoT "Gold Ammo".. and yeah - that sucks.
Some of the price-setting is downright strange - an ESO Sub costs $14.99/€12.99/£8.99 - and while I am no math genius, €13 is a LOT more than £9 ($17.96 vs. $15.05) - and I have no idea why there is THIS price difference, since it basically means the rest of EU pays $3 more/month than UK.. there might be some VAT/Tax thing that I'm not aware of, but to me it's odd.
And - I do NOT agree with P2W cashshops, when it's implemented as an unlimited "insert $$, get in-game power" or eg. World of Tanks "Gold Ammo" - where the $$items have significantly better in-game stats. ESO making Imperial race playable only to people who buy the more expensive option AND giving Imperials some really decent unique gamestats, available to no other - makes them taste a little like WoT "Gold Ammo".. and yeah - that sucks.
-
MikeyDK
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:04 pm
- Contact:
Imperial version is $110 (converted from dkk), standard is $80 (also converted from dkk).
To compare other games Assassins Creed IV is €49.99 ($68), Thief is also €49.99 ($68). They are not MMO's though, but Assassins Creed IV got some kind of multiplayer in I haven't tried yet.
To compare other games Assassins Creed IV is €49.99 ($68), Thief is also €49.99 ($68). They are not MMO's though, but Assassins Creed IV got some kind of multiplayer in I haven't tried yet.
-
Ashardis
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:31 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
Again, sign of raising prices in "higher income countries" where retail and national online stores need larger profit margins because of larger costs.
And since all the price hikes are %-based, it all really adds up.. makes me want to VPN to Steam and buy @ russian/mexican prices - coz it IS a tad ridic..
And since all the price hikes are %-based, it all really adds up.. makes me want to VPN to Steam and buy @ russian/mexican prices - coz it IS a tad ridic..
-
lothodan
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:19 pm
I'm ok with spending money on the game and paying a subscription to play.
However I really hope ESO does not follow the WoW expansion plan, and charge full retail price for future expansions as well.
When I spend $60-$80, and then pay to play with the additional $15 a month, new content released through future expansions should be part of the deal, free of charge. I'm all for it if they want to sell an Elite edition of the expansion w/ vanity items like pets or mounts or cosmetic effects, as long as new game content doesn't require more than the sub fee I already pay. Basically I hate when companies use content expansions to gate access to new parts of the game. That's where the money from the subscription fee should be going, maintaining the game and develop new content. Don't try to double dip into my pockets and charge me again for future content.
However I really hope ESO does not follow the WoW expansion plan, and charge full retail price for future expansions as well.
When I spend $60-$80, and then pay to play with the additional $15 a month, new content released through future expansions should be part of the deal, free of charge. I'm all for it if they want to sell an Elite edition of the expansion w/ vanity items like pets or mounts or cosmetic effects, as long as new game content doesn't require more than the sub fee I already pay. Basically I hate when companies use content expansions to gate access to new parts of the game. That's where the money from the subscription fee should be going, maintaining the game and develop new content. Don't try to double dip into my pockets and charge me again for future content.
-
absolutezero03
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:01 pm
I had ESO on pre-order after the first beta weekend i was able to attend. Second weekend i attended i just couldnt seem to get back into it for some reason i dont know why. I wanted to get into it and love it but just couldnt seem to do it.
I also thought about the $15 dollar sub fee and thought hard about it. I then decided to just cancel my pre-order as much as i hated to. I justified it by knowing that i didnt really want to pay a sub fee to play it. Maybe in the future i will pick it up but i dont think i'll have the time to sit there and play it all the time like one should for paying a sub fee.
Have fun and good luck to everyone that is def going to get the game and play it. I did have fun playing it in the beta even if there were some hiccups along the way.
I also thought about the $15 dollar sub fee and thought hard about it. I then decided to just cancel my pre-order as much as i hated to. I justified it by knowing that i didnt really want to pay a sub fee to play it. Maybe in the future i will pick it up but i dont think i'll have the time to sit there and play it all the time like one should for paying a sub fee.
Have fun and good luck to everyone that is def going to get the game and play it. I did have fun playing it in the beta even if there were some hiccups along the way.
-
theCtrlAltGeek
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:58 pm
Like I said in Cohh's chat is ESO a $60 and free to play good? yes! Is it free and $15 month good?? Yes! Is it $60 and $15/month good ??? NOOOOOOO!!!!
-
ValorousReaper
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:48 pm
- Contact:
They are only trying to make this system work to get the money from their large ES fanbase. Personally (and I've seen these feelings from many other players), the game is not worth the price-tag. It feels like an MMO that's trying to be a singleplayer game when it just can't do that. PvP is very...spam and run...and the overall story gets too deluded for me to really get into it. So I obviously won't buy it. BUT, I feel that the game will keep this system for a while but then transition to lowering the game price (not the P2P price) and then, depending on how strong the community keeps going, they may turn to F2P. I understand why people dislike F2P games but going F2P does draw in more publicity and more players which is the main reason anyone plays an MMO (to play with lots of people).
-
theCtrlAltGeek
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:58 pm
Like i also said in Cohh's chat I am willing to put money on it that this game will be free to play within a year
-
Callumdk
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:15 pm
- Contact:
Yea i kinda regret buying ESO Imperial Edition, i mean i have pre-purchased from GMG, one copy went into the giveaway, was gonna keep the other for my self, but after last weekend, it just feels to much like Skyrim online and i wasnt no fan of skyrim and i aint no fan of zone based pvp, i want a open world ffa pvp system where i can kill anyone i like, just like Eve and just like Lineage I and II.
And yes regarding sub costs, Blizzard charges is it 14.99$ but then also 12.99€ and is it 10.99£ , so they keep the cost fair and equal for everyone, but yes with Eve online , there they just frack you over litterally and charges you 14.99€ while poor murican's only get charged 14.99$ , so basicly im supposed to pay 5$ a month, but luckily im a trillionaire in Eve and havent spent a dime on the game the last 5+ years.
Also the whole reason why i won't play ESO or give them a fracking dime, charging me more than a muricano is just unacceptable to me.
And yes regarding sub costs, Blizzard charges is it 14.99$ but then also 12.99€ and is it 10.99£ , so they keep the cost fair and equal for everyone, but yes with Eve online , there they just frack you over litterally and charges you 14.99€ while poor murican's only get charged 14.99$ , so basicly im supposed to pay 5$ a month, but luckily im a trillionaire in Eve and havent spent a dime on the game the last 5+ years.
Also the whole reason why i won't play ESO or give them a fracking dime, charging me more than a muricano is just unacceptable to me.
