Elder Scrolls Online - Will Require A Subscription

Couchpotato

Part-Time News-bot
Joined
October 1, 2010
Messages
36,185
Location
Spudlandia
GameStar has a new interview with Matt Firor. The interesting part is were he answers the game will require a subscription.

GameStar: A few days ago we had a poll on our website, asking our readers what upcoming MMO they crave the most. The vast majority (over 54 percent) voted for The Elder Scrolls Online. We bet that people are also eager to learn what payment model they can expect. Now would be a perfect time to disclose the details.

Matt Firor : We're thrilled that gamers are looking forward to diving into The Elder Scrolls Online and we've been working hard to deliver the game that fans want - one that's worthy of the Elder Scrolls name. Choosing the right business model is part of that. We are going with the subscription model for ESO.

We're building a game with the freedom to play - alone or with your friends - as much as you want. A game with meaningful and consistent content - one packed with hundreds of hours of gameplay that can be experienced right away and one that will be supported with premium customer support. Charging a flat monthly (or subscription) fee means that we will offer players the game we set out to make, and the one that fans want to play. Going with any other model meant that we would have to make sacrifices and changes we weren't willing to make.

The Elder Scrolls Online offers unlimited play for the first 30 days with the purchase of the game. The choice is yours to play as much as you want; hundreds of hours of content, PvP, etc - is all there for you to experience with the base purchase of the game. If you want to continue playing for hundreds of hours more after that first month you'll pay a flat fee for continued, unlimited access to the game.

We'll talk about further discounts, etc. later, but for now, we are very happy to finally announce our model. It's very simple - you pay once per month after the first 30 days and the entire game is available to you.

Wow, that's a brave step. Why do you stick to the traditional model? Aren't you afraid that a subscription model won't be able to compete with free-to-play games, especially considering what happened to Star Wars: The Old Republic?

The Elder Scrolls games are all about allowing the player to go where they want, be who they want, and do what they want. We feel that putting pay gates between the player and content at any point in game ruins that feeling of freedom, and just having one small monthly fee for 100% access to the game fits the IP and the game much better than a system where you have to pay for features and access as you play. The Elder Scrolls Online was designed and developed to be a premium experience: hundreds of hours of gameplay, tons of depth and features, professional customer support - and a commitment to have ongoing content at regular intervals after launch. This type of experience is best paired with a one-time fee per month, as opposed to many smaller payments that would probably add up to more than $14.99/month any way.

And it's important to state that our decision to go with subscriptions is not a referendum on online game revenue models. F2P, B2P, etc. are valid, proven business models - but subscription is the one that fits ESO the best, given our commitment to freedom of gameplay, quality and long-term content delivery. Plus, players will appreciate not having to worry about being "monetized" in the middle of playing the game, which is definitely a problem that is cropping up more and more in online gaming these days. The fact that the word "monetized" exists points to the heart of the issue for us: We don't want the player to worry about which parts of the game to pay for - with our system, they get it all.
More information.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,185
Location
Spudlandia
Thank god! I am SO sick of these 'free to play' games where every 5 steps ytou see an advertisement for the store, every window has a link to go buy things for real money, areas are gates for real money, the mobs are harder if you don't pay money, etc...

Once you get anywhere near the endgame in most F2P MMOs you'll either be paying more per month than a sub based game or you'll be severely gimped. I've fallen for it too many times. Never again. SOO glad this game is sub-based.
 
Joined
Dec 14, 2010
Messages
69
I think it's a good move. I don't mind paying $15 a month for unlimited access to all content. It's nice to have access to everything and not have to worry about "did I purchase this quest pack? Do I have enough currency to afford my next 10 levels?" etc.
 
I think it's a good move. I don't mind paying $15 a month for unlimited access to all content. It's nice to have access to everything and not have to worry about "did I purchase this quest pack? Do I have enough currency to afford my next 10 levels?" etc.

I will have to agree also. At first I thought F2P was a good idea for some MMO's, but now I can't stand how it's implemented.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,185
Location
Spudlandia
If you run this through google translate from "english" to "cut the crap" it reads something like

"Yeah, full subby! We're going for the cash cow! Mooooo!! Besides, games that start with subscription then go free2play later appear more valuable and consequentially fare better than games that begin as free.

We'll announce the Item Mall, where you can buy the ORIGINAL Oblivion Horse Armor, and other great DLC that you'd expect/demand from a retail AAA singleplayer game, at a later date; an effort to stay true to our singleplayer RPG roots.

For the first expansion pack, we…."
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
2,976
Location
Australia
I largely prefer the subscription model - but I doubt they'll be able to maintain enough people to make it viable.

The mainstream audience has quickly accepted F2P as THE way to try games - and I don't know if that'll ever change again.

ESO looks ok - but I don't think it looks unique or special enough to be a game changer.
 
I hate the culture of "free" and much prefer to pay for stuff and services. Perhaps not surprisingly, the publisher is getting a lot of flak on mainstream gaming sites for not offering Elder Scrolls Online for "free". People don't seem to understand that "free" always means you get screwed somehow. Even if you avoid the monetising schemes, what you get is an inferior gaming experience. Unless you are a charity, charging money is the honest way to go.

While I don't play MMO games myself, I hope Elder Scrolls Online succeeds, because a honest business model should be a viable option.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2011
Messages
170
While I agree, a lot of games are using horrible F2P models, not all of them are bad. PoE gives 100% of all content for free, they only sell cosmetic items. LoL supplies the option to earn every hero in game blocking only cosmetic items from F2P players. Granted, both of these games probably had a small fraction of the development costs of an MMO, but I refuse to believe that the only way to implement the model in the genre is by blocking content.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
831
Location
North Carolina, US
While I agree, a lot of games are using horrible F2P models, not all of them are bad. PoE gives 100% of all content for free, they only sell cosmetic items. LoL supplies the option to earn every hero in game blocking only cosmetic items from F2P players. Granted, both of these games probably had a small fraction of the development costs of an MMO, but I refuse to believe that the only way to implement the model in the genre is by blocking content.

Sure, but imagine LoL as a subscription game.

Ok, that might be hard to imagine - as it's not as evolving as the average MMO.

But let's say it was a cheap subscription game - and ALL heroes were available instead of you having to grind towards them.

You see, that's what I don't see that's so great even in the most generous F2P titles.

If I want to play a specific Hero - I have to work towards unlocking him or I can pay. Then, when I want to try another Hero - I need to pay or work again.

That makes the whole experience about weighing the potential advantage of paying now or simply grinding.

I think that's an awful way to play a game. I don't want to have to think about whether I should work or pay to play a game.

I want to play the game and nothing more.

A subscription model takes away that choice - as you pay for the entire game until you're sick of it, and then you stop paying.

I don't really care about the money - but about the hassle of grinding to play the way I want - or having to constantly decide what I should spend my money on. It makes me feel exploited and I can't easily control how much money I spend on something - at least not without feeling held back.

Basically, I just don't like the F2P model at all - no matter how generous it is.
 
Have any MMOs tried a 'pay for time' model? One of the many reasons I never subscribed to a MMO was that I generally play relatively little, so a monthly fee that amounts to the price of a full SP game every few months always seemed to be a bad deal to me. And I generally don't like the F2P model exactly for the reasons that D'Artagnan outlines. But if I would only pay for the actual time I spend in the game, I would be far mor willing to try one.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,508
Have any MMOs tried a 'pay for time' model? One of the many reasons I never subscribed to a MMO was that I generally play relatively little, so a monthly fee that amounts to the price of a full SP game every few months always seemed to be a bad deal to me. And I generally don't like the F2P model exactly for the reasons that D'Artagnan outlines. But if I would only pay for the actual time I spend in the game, I would be far mor willing to try one.

AFAIK, no one has done that. At least not any of the established western MMOs.

Such a model would annoy me in a similar way. Because then I'd have to constantly evaluate how "fun" the game is. Is it fun enough to try another hour? another day?

That'd be even worse than paying to unlock something - because it'd be a constant thing.

Essentially - it's "choice" that I hate. I really don't enjoy having to make decisions that have nothing to do with the actual game - when I'm playing a game.

The advantage of the monthly subscription is that you pay once - and then you don't have to worry about it for a month.

Sure, if money is tight - it can be an issue. But otherwise, you just deal with it and you can relax and play for an entire month.

Afterall - how much alternate entertainment can you get for 10-15$? We're talking about a month of playing a game that you enjoy playing (whether for 5-10 hours or 200 hours) - and you're paying because you want content to be developed that enhances that game.

I can understand people who don't enjoy the social element in an MMO staying away - because then an MMO is just a weak singleplayer game.

MMOs are all about the world evolving with other people around you. That's how I see it, at least.
 
I understand what you are saying - but you are a hardcore gamer in terms of the amount of time you spend playing (I think) while I am not. For me it is reversed: I would feel constantly pressured to play a little more. "I paid my $15 this month, I should play tonight to make the fee worthwhile, even though I'd rather have a BBQ, or play a session of Skyrim". Wouldn't happen with a time based model. But I can see how it would be problematic for the core crowd. Maybe it could work as an additional payment option, where the monthly fee becomes the better deal when you game more than, say 10 hours a month (just as an example) - could even automatically switch you over: you pay per hour until you hit the monthly fee, and than it's flat?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,508
I understand what you are saying - but you are a hardcore gamer in terms of the amount of time you spend playing (I think) while I am not. For me it is reversed: I would feel constantly pressured to play a little more. "I paid my $15 this month, I should play tonight to make the fee worthwhile, even though I'd rather have a BBQ, or play a session of Skyrim". Wouldn't happen with a time based model. But I can see how it would be problematic for the core crowd. Maybe it could work as an additional payment option, where the monthly fee becomes the better deal when you game more than, say 10 hours a month (just as an example) - could even automatically switch you over: you pay per hour until you hit the monthly fee, and than it's flat?

I'm probably hardcore compared to you - but I don't really play that much.

Unless I'm REALLY hooked - which is very rare.

I play perhaps 5-10 hours pr. week on average when I have a shiny new MMO. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

But the money isn't my issue - as I don't really care as long as I can afford it.

I can afford 10-15$ pr. month without issue - so once that's paid, I don't care if it's 1 hour or hundreds of hours. I'd never feel obligated to play - as I've made my peace with that choice.

But if I constantly had to make the choice - it'd be much harder to make peace with it.

That said, I can see where you're coming from - we just differ in that way.
 
I understand the attraction of paying for all content at once over grinding it. I personally, dislike the pay model due to the overall costs greatly exceeding entertainment value for me, which is obviously subjective. Paying $60 for the game and then $15 a month playing the same content (we go through it faster than they can make it) doesn't appeal to me. Even the on and off subscription approach quickly adds up and the "new content" is really not all that different than what you've been doing anyway (avoid mechanic, kill boss, hope for good loot drops). Don't get me wrong, I spent tons of time and money on WoW, but the model just doesn't appeal to me anymore. Rather buy the game and play whenever I want like GW 2 or totally support a game through completely optional purchases.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
831
Location
North Carolina, US
I understand the attraction of paying for all content at once over grinding it. I personally, dislike the pay model due to the overall costs greatly exceeding entertainment value for me, which is obviously subjective. Paying $60 for the game and then $15 a month playing the same content (we go through it faster than they can make it) doesn't appeal to me. Even the on and off subscription approach quickly adds up and the "new content" is really not all that different than what you've been doing anyway (avoid mechanic, kill boss, hope for good loot drops). Don't get me wrong, I spent tons of time and money on WoW, but the model just doesn't appeal to me anymore. Rather buy the game and play whenever I want like GW 2 or totally support a game through completely optional purchases.

That's subjective, certainly :)

While I'd say that a proper MMO will have months of fresh content - there will always come a time when it's exhausted.

But I don't pay a subscription because of content alone - I pay because I want a living world that dynamically evolves with thousands of other people.

Obviously, they're making money on MMOs - but it's not trivial to establish a server infrastructure and support structure - and it's not trivial trying to keep up with other MMOs in terms of new mechanics and content.

So, I tend to think of an MMO subscription as an EXTREMELY good deal - because when I'm hooked - I play enough each month to represent several normal games worth of entertainment. Obviously, this is only true for an MMO that you actually enjoy playing - and it's getting harder and harder to find such a game.

Beyond that, I get to share that experience with my friends - which is much, much more entertaining than any singleplayer game.

I simply stop playing when fresh content stops coming - but that can take many, many months. I'd never pay a subscription for a game with one month of content and that was it - as that'd be silly.

But that's me.
 
Can't argue with that. When I was hooked on WoW, I was easily spending 40+ hours a week in it. But, once I got sick of the never ending gear treadmill, the amount of time I'm willing to devote to the genre just doesn't let me justify an additional $15 a mo.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
831
Location
North Carolina, US
As for the GW2 model - that's a very, very admirable model - but unfortunately the game is supremely shallow.

I admire them for sticking to their guns and adding new content every 2 weeks. Since I bought the game, I keep coming back just to check it out - but I get more and more disappointed in their idea of "content".

I swear - it's like bits and pieces of pointless ever more shallow content - and it's like one silly mini-game after the other.

I'm not seeing anything like what I'd imagine an actual living world would be. It's more like a gigantic toy shop with no goals or purpose to anything you do.
 
Can't argue with that. When I was hooked on WoW, I was easily spending 40+ hours a week in it. But, once I got sick of the never ending gear treadmill, the amount of time I'm willing to devote to the genre just doesn't let me justify an additional $15 a mo.

I agree with that ;)

I spent the best part of 3 years on that game.... Lots of fun - but boy what a lot of wasted time and money as well.
 
I would like a "pay once and play forever" option.

Like GhanBuriGhan my time is limited and I like to play more than one game in a time range.

So let's say I pay 100$ for an MMO and I can play as much as I like.
I would pay extra for new content in this model.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
19,818
Location
Germany
Back
Top Bottom