So why is everyone so upset that TESO is not going to be F2P?

[Bosmeri-foxling]

I just don't get it. I've seen acceptance, to people who seem furious that Zenimax/Betheseda have done to (To the point of sending them a letter of complaint), to people who seem upset about it. I understand, it seems somewhat expensive, and on top of rent, food, bills, etc etc, it may not be affordable. But it doesn't need to be, and as harsh as the truth may be, things that are entertainment are priviliges that you can either afford or can't, and they're not essential. And $15 doesn't seem that unreasonable a price for an MMO.

I know that SWTOR and LOTRO have gone F2P. I've heard a lot of people expecting TESO to fail for the same reason SWTOR did and eventually, going F2P. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But the game going F2P will come with a price. And as Zenimax has said time over and time over, the sub free allows freedom within the world of the TESO. If there was not a sub fee, there would be a cash-shop, pay to unlock quests, pay to do this, pay to do that...and as it, a lot of F2P games are...well, rubbish. The constant advertising in the game puts me off. That, and they seem half done.

I'm really just looking for reasons though why people are upset, and I'd really like them to come up with a justifiable reason why the creators of this game don't have a right to make the game F2P, and to earn money for a game they created. In which some of that money will be going to pay the wages of the people who made the game, so that they can buy food, pay the rent, and pay for the petrol to get to work each day so that they can make more games like this. Zenimax/Betheseda fail, and they're out of job. Redundant. The people who make the game really are no similar from you.

Just...someone explain this to me?

 

[NachyoChez]

While I'm on the side that P2P is just fine, especially for this game, I'd like to just note that SWtOR did NOT flop because of P2P. At retail, it was wildly successful, indicating a LARGE portion of players were fine paying the fee. The game died because of GLARING design flaws, some of which could be classified as bugs were actually meant to be 'features' that made the player base miserable. Because of the rushed deadline by EA, they had to spent the first 3 months finishing the game and thus took nearly 6 months to correct the major issues. By that time most players had left and never returned.

 

[JoeReese]

If it was an unreasonable fee, I could see being upset, but neither Zenimax nor Bethesda are charities. Their sole purpose is not to entertain us. They're all in it to make a profit. That's why people leave the house in the mornings.

 

[JoeReese]

To touch on something Nachyo said, though, for the cost of the game and for that fee, I do tend to expect things to (quoth Dyson) "work properly."

 

[NachyoChez]

To touch on something Nachyo said, though, for the cost of the game and for that fee, I do tend to expect things to (quoth Dyson) "work properly."

Aside from the first month, I absolutely agree.

I work in multiplayer game design (small time company) and I can say with surety that NOTHING survives the initial launch event. No server known to man can handle the strain. But for a fee, they better get it running smooth quickly!

 

[JoeReese]

I was thinking in terms of bugs and such, like Skyrim. What I consider to be one of the greatest game concepts ever, and it freezes so much I can barely play it.

 

[Bosmeri-foxling]

I've played SWTOR, perphaps I didn't explain. A lot of people who play it will play the $15/12 Euro subscription fee. There's a lot of people on there who complain free to play is somehow too expensive. There just seems to be too many people in the world who expect something for nothing. As for why it failed...the way I understand it, the stories on SWTOR are REALLY GOOD, but once you've finished that, there isn't much to do, really. The "daily missions" seem to be repeats of old missions (Do this flashpoint, or do this warzone), and there doesn't ever seem to be much content released. `SWTOR lately ended up releasing the Hutt Cartel expansion free of charge to anyone who subscribed. So I now have that on account too. It is a pretty good game...but I just can't see myself paying for it if they don't release new content.

And of course, if the same happens with TESO, I'll simply unsubscribe.

If it was an unreasonable fee, I could see being upset, but neither Zenimax nor Bethesda are charities. Their sole purpose is not to entertain us. They're all in it to make a profit. That's why people leave the house in the mornings.

This is exactly my point. I don't see how $15 is unreasonable. A lot of MMO's charge that. SWTOR charges that, as does LOTRO, WOW. I'd be annoyed though if TESO expected me to pay more for certain things and decided to introduce a cash shop. I get about paying for expansions, I just don't get sub fee+buying the game+cash shop????

 

[Rimfaxe96]

In my case it's because nobody of my friend would pay that much. So I have no reason to join the game either. I don't want to play all alone when I have other games where we've build up our own stuff...

 

[Adventurer]

I am in favor of the subscription. F2P is the most expensive and always ends at pay to win.

 

[Tyer032392]

The Elder Scrolls Online is 59.99 USD just to buy the rights to play the game, and add on top of subscription fees that are at 15 USD makes the game over priced. When Zemenix decided to make the subscription fees, they should of made it to where the first four months are free as 15 multiplied by 4 is 60. So, by just buying the game it self with out the subscription, you are basically paying for four months.

 

[ShenziSixaxis]

No, what you're doing is buying the base game and license to play it. You're buying the game, just as you would any other game. Then you need to pay for the servers that you are going to play on. And you will also pay for content of expansions, and also the 15 USD a month to run the servers for that. Simple as that.

TESO is a massive, high quality game. Running the servers, and the internet connections for those, for it or ANY online game is not free. MAKING a game is not free.

When you buy it, you get the first month free. That's long enough for you to decide if you want to buy subscriptions. And if the money to buy the game is too much for you in case you don't care for it, well, then wait for it to drop in price or go on sale. Wanting the first four months being free is ludicrous.

 

[SaveVsBedWet]

No, what you're doing is buying the base game and license to play it. You're buying the game, just as you would any other game. Then you need to pay for the servers that you are going to play on. And you will also pay for content of expansions, and also the 15 USD a month to run the servers for that. Simple as that.

TESO is a massive, high quality game. Running the servers, and the internet connections for those, for it or ANY online game is not free. MAKING a game is not free.

When you buy it, you get the first month free. That's long enough for you to decide if you want to buy subscriptions. And if the money to buy the game is too much for you in case you don't care for it, well, then wait for it to drop in price or go on sale. Wanting the first four months being free is ludicrous.

Would you have expected that to have gone over well with the people playing Battlefield 4 right now, given the issues they've had, if they were paying $15/mo. for the privilege?

These excuses I hear on here that imply that being a "for profit" company is some sort of saving throw vs. customer satisfaction are what's ludicrous. At that rate, I'd be expecting to pay an airline for a seat on a plane and then extra to pay fuel costs by the mile to get where I'm going. No. The costs of fuel are already built into the price of my ticket.

But then people here appear to be going further and implying that these subscription fees still don't become null and void in the event of failures to launch and run smoothly. Sorry, but that would be roughly the same thing as paying for that airline ticket, plus a subsidized fuel cost, and then flying everywhere but to the airport I booked passage to. Or worse still, paying for a seat on a plane that I can never board because they never hook up the jetway corridor or never de-ice the wings. And then being told if I couldn't afford a plane ticket I shouldn't have bought one, because the airlines are in the business of making money not flying me places for free.

Did someone force these companies to make a game that requires server utilization? No, in fact in Bethesda's case, every dime they've made off TES has been based on a model that leaves servers neatly out of the equation, and there was practically NO customer base pressure to do anything differently. So then why can't customers adopt your same credo, that being if Bethesda can't afford to run servers for customers who have paid for their game, then why are they putting out games that require servers to run?

And, if someone (anyone) who disagrees with this analogy wants to say so? Provide reasons, because it doesn't become an "invalid" or "bad" analogy based entirely on the fact that you don't get it or don't want to.

 

[ShenziSixaxis]

I don't play BF4, so I'm not sure I know what you're trying to tell me. If it has free multiplayer, well... *shrugs* That's the developing company's choice. BF4 does have single player as well, though.
Also, the Xbox versions and PS4 version? You gotta pay for Xbox Live or premium PSN membership for multiplayer on those systems. So there's that.

Your plane ticket IS what pays for the fuel. And those little peanuts, and maybe a bottle of water, as well as baggage to a certain limit. Want food and extra luggage space and a fancy pillow? Pay extra.

Your analogies are... extremely strange and confusing.

if Bethesda can't afford to run servers for customers who have paid for their game, then why are they putting out games that require servers to run?

60 bucks will not last very long to cover server costs For Zenimax. Y'know the Skyrim Nexus? That site has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their whole network to better it. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's not even dealing with a game hosting server set up.

 

[Xizziano]

The Elder Scrolls Online is 59.99 USD just to buy the rights to play the game, and add on top of subscription fees that are at 15 USD makes the game over priced. When Zemenix decided to make the subscription fees, they should of made it to where the first four months are free as 15 multiplied by 4 is 60. So, by just buying the game it self with out the subscription, you are basically paying for four months.

Then how are they going to make money, in business people are about working to survive. How every business works is they sell a product/service for a price ($$$) and if someone wants to return it they can only offer 1/3 ($) because other wise the business cant sustain itself to continue providing products and services. The company isn't making a profit if they give you 4 mo. instead of 1, they have to hold on to 45 of that $60 to stay open, thats just how it is

Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk

 

[SaveVsBedWet]

I don't play BF4, so I'm not sure I know what you're trying to tell me. If it has free multiplayer, well... *shrugs* That's the developing company's choice. BF4 does have single player as well, though.
Also, the Xbox versions and PS4 version? You gotta pay for Xbox Live or premium PSN membership for multiplayer on those systems. So there's that.

Your plane ticket IS what pays for the fuel. And those little peanuts, and maybe a bottle of water, as well as baggage to a certain limit. Want food and extra luggage space and a fancy pillow? Pay extra.

Your analogies are... extremely strange and confusing.

if Bethesda can't afford to run servers for customers who have paid for their game, then why are they putting out games that require servers to run?

60 bucks will not last very long to cover server costs For Zenimax. Y'know the Skyrim Nexus? That site has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their whole network to better it. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's not even dealing with a game hosting server set up.

What I'm trying to tell you here is that:

• Your first sentence nails it right on the head. Free BF4 multiplayer is in fact the developer's choice. And in similar fashion, a subscription model for TESO is in fact, Bethesda's choice, meaning attempting to use server costs as an excuse is dubious at best. As I mentioned before, there was no pressing demand from the TES fanbase for an MMO version of the game that made failure to produce one a revenue threatening mistake. If the company could not make hosting servers for a game viable, then that should have had immediate bearing on whether or not to undertake a project that the consumer market judged largely unnecessary to maintain market position. They chose to go ahead anyway, so that should not be something the customers have to shell out extra to facilitate.

• Yes, BF4 does have single player. But it made its money off the multiplayer version's value primarily and the single player version for all intents and purposes might as well be an afterthought where customer retention is concerned. Completely the opposite of TES.

• The reason for bringing up BF4 is because the launch of the game was a technical and performance disaster that has not been rectified in any lasting way over a month in. BF is nowhere near as prone to performance failure as TES is by design and furthermore, has had three prior iterations in which to solve these problems and yet still has them. There could be no expectation of payment for such performance on a monthly basis so for Bethesda to be charging the fees they are for a game that in all probability will be more problematic than BF is...unwise, to say the least.

• Yes. My plane ticket is what pays for the fuel. That's what "fuel costs are built into the price of the ticket" meant. Peanuts, headphones, and blankets are not dependencies with any bearing on the passenger's ability to ride in an airplane, so they are rather irrelevant where this is concerned - certainly not in the category of fuel or other requirements of facilitating an airline's primary service to the passenger. Your example would work if I were inquiring about free tee shirts and coffee table coasters emblazoned with character likenesses but connectivity is not an "optional" component for an internet only game that is unplayable without server connection. The $60 is the airline ticket. The connection is the fuel. It should be built into the price of the ticket as a requirement of fulfilling the primary service being purchased. If $60 doesn't cover it, charge more in the initial price. If you can't reasonably do that without pricing yourself out of the market, then fly cargo - cargo doesn't have a cost to value expectation.

• No, I imagine $60 a user won't last very long, and yes, I do know Skyrim Nexus. I also know Second Life which has had a free model from inception, FAR more server and bandwidth requirement than TESO, and galaxies more implementation and maintenance issues. I also know that their users understood the model up front, facilitate operation through the premium accounts and percentages of the online stores and other Linden exchanging ventures within the ecosystem and that the company has done the gruntwork necessary to make that kind of thing not only work, but expandable and profitable. If they could not have done so, they would not have tried to do so. Clint Eastwood said it best. "A man's gotta know his limitations".

 

[Ivory]

What I'm trying to tell you here is that:

• Your first sentence nails it right on the head. Free BF4 multiplayer is in fact the developer's choice. And in similar fashion, a subscription model for TESO is in fact, Bethesda's choice, meaning attempting to use server costs as an excuse is dubious at best. As I mentioned before, there was no pressing demand from the TES fanbase for an MMO version of the game that made failure to produce one a revenue threatening mistake. If the company could not make hosting servers for a game viable, then that should have had immediate bearing on whether or not to undertake a project that the consumer market judged largely unnecessary to maintain market position. They chose to go ahead anyway, so that should not be something the customers have to shell out extra to facilitate.

A server for a fps that holds a small amount of players vs a MMO server which holds thousands at once in the same world environment are two rather... stretchy comparisons don't you think? These are people working to develop something we will want to play and stick with for a long time. I seriously doubt they are trying to steal away money from us, this is a long term game, where many of us will put a lot of money in for not only our right to play it and own the game, but to support future content to keep it going. Read lower for more opinion.

• Yes, BF4 does have single player. But it made its money off the multiplayer version's value primarily and the single player version for all intents and purposes might as well be an afterthought where customer retention is concerned. Completely the opposite of TES.

How is it the opposite when TESO is a massively Multiplayer game? In general yes ES is single player, but this is not.​

​

​

The reason for bringing up BF4 is because the launch of the game was a technical and performance disaster that has not been rectified in any lasting way over a month in. BF is nowhere near as prone to performance failure as TES is by design and furthermore, has had three prior iterations in which to solve these problems and yet still has them. There could be no expectation of payment for such performance on a monthly basis so for Bethesda to be charging the fees they are for a game that in all probability will be more problematic than BF is...unwise, to say the least.

The payments aren't to fix bugs or to resolve anything like that. It's to provide content, more content in the future and keep the servers stable. No company has an infinite amount of wealth to supply for running such vastly large servers.

• Yes. My plane ticket is what pays for the fuel. That's what "fuel costs are built into the price of the ticket" meant. Peanuts, headphones, and blankets are not dependencies with any bearing on the passenger's ability to ride in an airplane, so they are rather irrelevant where this is concerned - certainly not in the category of fuel or other requirements of facilitating an airline's primary service to the passenger. Your example would work if I were inquiring about free tee shirts and coffee table coasters emblazoned with character likenesses but connectivity is not an "optional" component for an internet only game that is unplayable without server connection. The $60 is the airline ticket. The connection is the fuel. It should be built into the price of the ticket as a requirement of fulfilling the primary service being purchased. If $60 doesn't cover it, charge more in the initial price. If you can't reasonably do that without pricing yourself out of the market, then fly cargo - cargo doesn't have a cost to value expectation.

This doesn't make sense though. You're paying 60$ for the game and a month's play, correct? Wouldn't that imply the game itself is 45$ while the server cost is already in there with the 15$? or am I missing something? Wouldn't that be like purchasing the plane yourself and buying the fuel for your own personal use however you wanted?

• 
  

  [*]No, I imagine $60 a user won't last very long, and yes, I do know Skyrim Nexus. I also know Second Life which has had a free model from inception, FAR more server and bandwidth requirement than TESO, and galaxies more implementation and maintenance issues. I also know that their users understood the model up front, facilitate operation through the premium accounts and percentages of the online stores and other Linden exchanging ventures within the ecosystem and that the company has done the gruntwork necessary to make that kind of thing not only work, but expandable and profitable. If they could not have done so, they would not have tried to do so. Clint Eastwood said it best. "A man's gotta know his limitations".

In the words of Savos Aren. "And How do you know of this?"

As far as I can tell, Zenimax or however you spell it has been very forward and upfront with their implementation of the 15$ subscription fee. They've explained why and what their plans are, so what's the problem exactly?

 

[ZeroDragon]

At the end of the day, there is a cost. People with either pay it or they will not play. Servers aren't free to run, having played the beta test this last weekend and seen the variety of countries taking part I can't imagine the running costs.

I can't see them being successful selling product placements - Budweiser don't do Mead, Glock don't do swords, and I would rather pay than get interrupted or have adverts on the screen.

 

[setsua]

You get a free month thou. MMO games of old always had this and in the end it works out for the better. I've played MMO games since 1997, qith the birth of the MMO games thay have always had had based games. This F2P stuff us only getting big becouse most company's are losing to WOW. WOW but a blight on such a young genre, leaving company's not knowing what to do. There are some company's that just want a certain group of gamers and will make there money and be happy qith it. MMO games were never meant for people.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I437 using Tapatalk