You pay a subscription for minor content updates. You buy and expansion for major content updates.That's a perfectly fair working model.
What ESO have done is the equivalent of what NeverWinter did, who were selling items in their cash shop before launch. Here ESO is selling content at extra cost at launch. Both are bad practice.
But as I said before there is no such thing as bad practise in MMOs now, they just charge and do what they like.
I am one person that does not react well to "stick" style marketing tactics i.e race unlock with a collectors. If pressure tactics are used in selling a product my face turns to something akin like they took a dump on the floor and I walk away.
If this was a free to play game and they sold a race type in a shop then okay. Subscription games should include all playable content within that context.
Its not bothering me, I have chosen not to pre-purchase a game thats released in 60 days with an NDA still up. I will still comment in threads that crop up though and Im sure they will die down after launch and move onto the next hot-topic.
For me, it went from a strong buy, to a wait and see, to a "meh, idk". For me, it's more the principal than the actual cost. I have no problems paying into a game that I'm excited about. I love lore, I love the journey. I had actually planned on purchasing this one out of the gates. I played in the beta and it seemed to perform relatively well for me. Then it was only a debate about PC or console. Then this whole thing popped up and I was like, meh, I don't know if I want to spend double the price, really. I mean I have no issue with someone monetizing me for a free game. Bought races in EQ2, bought races in SWTOR, but I also got to play those before I put any money into it. I think I'd double my chances at getting a good game if I were to take my money and pre-order two regularly-priced games. Actually, I think that in recent days I've been swayed to The Repopulation a little bit. Then for my console fix, maybe I drop some cash onto The Witcher 3 and bide my time until EQN comes out. Maybe Wildstar?
"Let me start by saying that F2P games have the right to put pay barriers on pretty much whatever they want if they're not charging anything to play the basic game."
Why is any different for a B2P or a sub-only game? It is their game. They have the right to sell content anyway they want to.
If you don't like the class, don't buy it. If you don't like the game, don't buy it. If you don't like them selling classes, don't buy the game.
In fact, given the fierce competition from f2p, i doubt a sub + selling classes will fly. But at the end of the day, i support their right to sell their stuff as they see fit.
^this. They can choose to charge for whatever they want. I'm not saying i agree that it's right to charge for box+sub+classes, etc, but since it's their game, they have the right to do so. Let them dig their own graves (or not, depending on how well it turns out)
"Let me start by saying that F2P games have the right to put pay barriers on pretty much whatever they want if they're not charging anything to play the basic game."
Why is any different for a B2P or a sub-only game? It is their game. They have the right to sell content anyway they want to.
If you don't like the class, don't buy it. If you don't like the game, don't buy it. If you don't like them selling classes, don't buy the game.
In fact, given the fierce competition from f2p, i doubt a sub + selling classes will fly. But at the end of the day, i support their right to sell their stuff as they see fit.
^this. They can choose to charge for whatever they want. I'm not saying i agree that it's right to charge for box+sub+classes, etc, but since it's their game, they have the right to do so. Let them dig their own graves (or not, depending on how well it turns out)
I agree too.
If a company misjudges the market and chooses a payment model that people won't accept, the company will pay for it. With lost revenue.
In this case, they surely did some market research before deciding and have anticipated there will be some backlash. Seems they think it's worth it none the less. Their choice. Or maybe the backlash is just some free publicity?
We used to have a MMO market that was built on what was fair to charge players, now we have one where the ethos is get away with whatever you can and hope the market does not damn you.
If the price for the standard edition was increased by $15, would it be any different? The only difference is you would no longer have a choice.
At the end of the day, they're giving you a choice to invest in more. The things being offered by Bethesda are things that took time to develop, time to balance, time to make sure it fits in with the world. It cost them money to include it. Thus they want to make a return on that money they spent out.
It's a race, one which is in no way provides any real benefit beyond cosmetics.
MMOs have been selling cosmetic goods for over a decade now, why is this any different? I don't exactly think the sky is falling when a company decides to engage in a practice that has been going on for a long time.
I think people take stuff like this way too far out of proportion because a few bad eggs in the industry decided to create the P2W models. Now people naturally assume they're ALL like that.. If people choose to buy mounts, skins, costumes, pets and the like, who really cares? Does it affect you in any way at all?
It's only when cash shops and paywalls start to directly affect you that it's time to question if you can enjoy the game under those terms.
We used to have a MMO market that was built on what iwas fair to charge players, now we have one where the ethos is get away with whatever you can and hope the market does not damn you.
Thank you cash shops, we owe you so much.
nah .. it is always about what they can get away with.
And again, you can always choose not to buy/play video games.
We used to have a MMO market that was built on what iwas fair to charge players, now we have one where the ethos is get away with whatever you can and hope the market does not damn you.
We used to have a MMO market that was built on what iwas fair to charge players, now we have one where the ethos is get away with whatever you can and hope the market does not damn you.
Thank you cash shops, we owe you so much.
Ah yes but fair is quite subjective
I would also say "fair" is what we are used to.
Before UO/EQ, online games like Kingdom of Drakkar, and Gemstone 3 charged by the hours (like $2 per hour). It would seem totally a cash grab now, but it was deemed totally fair then.
I would argue it is the same thing .. once players get used to "no sub" .. a sub fee will be viewed as unfair, and excessive.
"Let me start by saying that F2P games have the right to put pay barriers on pretty much whatever they want if they're not charging anything to play the basic game."
Why is any different for a B2P or a sub-only game? It is their game. They have the right to sell content anyway they want to.
If you don't like the class, don't buy it. If you don't like the game, don't buy it. If you don't like them selling classes, don't buy the game.
In fact, given the fierce competition from f2p, i doubt a sub + selling classes will fly. But at the end of the day, i support their right to sell their stuff as they see fit.
^this. They can choose to charge for whatever they want. I'm not saying i agree that it's right to charge for box+sub+classes, etc, but since it's their game, they have the right to do so. Let them dig their own graves (or not, depending on how well it turns out)
I agree too.
If a company misjudges the market and chooses a payment model that people won't accept, the company will pay for it. With lost revenue.
Of course.
But at the same time, saying "this is fine, it's their business, free market rules" comes across as an argument that we don't have a reason to not accept it. That we have the freedom to reject it, but we're wrong for actually using it.
"Let me start by saying that F2P games have the right to put pay barriers on pretty much whatever they want if they're not charging anything to play the basic game."
Why is any different for a B2P or a sub-only game? It is their game. They have the right to sell content anyway they want to.
If you don't like the class, don't buy it. If you don't like the game, don't buy it. If you don't like them selling classes, don't buy the game.
In fact, given the fierce competition from f2p, i doubt a sub + selling classes will fly. But at the end of the day, i support their right to sell their stuff as they see fit.
^this. They can choose to charge for whatever they want. I'm not saying i agree that it's right to charge for box+sub+classes, etc, but since it's their game, they have the right to do so. Let them dig their own graves (or not, depending on how well it turns out)
I agree too.
If a company misjudges the market and chooses a payment model that people won't accept, the company will pay for it. With lost revenue.
Of course.
But at the same time, saying "this is fine, it's their business, free market rules" comes across as an argument that we don't have a reason to not accept it. That we have the freedom to reject it, but we're wrong for actually using it.
There is no right or wrong. Just preferences.
It is up to the market accept or reject it .. just like the market is rejecting P2P.
And why is it "wrong" to use it? If you don't like it, it is your problem .. others have no obligation to do what you prefer. And so what if you think they are "wrong". It is not like you are changing their minds.
But at the same time, saying "this is fine, it's their business, free market rules" comes across as an argument that we don't have a reason to not accept it. That we have the freedom to reject it, but we're wrong for actually using it.
There is no right or wrong. Just preferences.
It is up to the market accept or reject it .. just like the market is rejecting P2P.
And why is it "wrong" to use it? If you don't like it, it is your problem .. others have no obligation to do what you prefer. And so what if you think they are "wrong". It is not like you are changing their minds.
I think his point was that there is actually nothing wrong with expressing that you reject what they are offering. Of course others don't have any obligation to listen to anything anyone says about anything on internet gaming forums. But there is nothing wrong with expressing a subjective opinion and using reasoning to help support your position.
No one is actually arguing with you that there is anything morally or ethically wrong with it. The poster you quoted wasn't accusing anyone of being wrong. It was actually the compete opposite. He was saying that people are accusing people that reject the business practice of being wrong. They are using false equivalency to try and argue that purchasing a race in a cash shop is equal to purchasing an expansion in a sub game.
Would people be upset if Blizzard sold Mists of Pandaria for $40 and then said that you couldn't actually play and the Pandaran race unless you forked over an additional $20? The forums would melt instantly. There is something fundamentally different about what they are doing with this games release and people either accept it or reject it. I am just one of those that rejects it. There seem to be a lot of people on these forums that reject it. Box + Sub + Cash shop just doesn't fly for me.
There is nothing wrong with them granting access to all factions or a special race by purchasing an upgraded edition or allowing a purchase in an item shop. That is assuming of course they allow us to unlock in game, like a betrayal quest or something.
We don't know what ESO has planned. They haven't said anything. Right now, we're assuming and whining on a public chat forum.
Raquelis in various games Played: Everything Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6 Wants: The World Anticipating:Everquest NextCrowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
But at the same time, saying "this is fine, it's their business, free market rules" comes across as an argument that we don't have a reason to not accept it. That we have the freedom to reject it, but we're wrong for actually using it.
There is no right or wrong. Just preferences.
It is up to the market accept or reject it .. just like the market is rejecting P2P.
And why is it "wrong" to use it? If you don't like it, it is your problem .. others have no obligation to do what you prefer. And so what if you think they are "wrong". It is not like you are changing their minds.
I think his point was that there is actually nothing wrong with expressing that you reject what they are offering. Of course others don't have any obligation to listen to anything anyone says about anything on internet gaming forums. But there is nothing wrong with expressing a subjective opinion and using reasoning to help support your position.
Oh, in that case, he does not make it very clear.
If, in fact, he is just saying "there is nothing wrong expressing that you reject what they are offering" .. then i have no argument with that.
Of course it is ok expressing opinions in either direction. And better yet, the free market does not compel anyone to buy/participate in stuff they do not like.
Comments
You pay a subscription for minor content updates. You buy and expansion for major content updates.That's a perfectly fair working model.
What ESO have done is the equivalent of what NeverWinter did, who were selling items in their cash shop before launch. Here ESO is selling content at extra cost at launch. Both are bad practice.
But as I said before there is no such thing as bad practise in MMOs now, they just charge and do what they like.
I am one person that does not react well to "stick" style marketing tactics i.e race unlock with a collectors. If pressure tactics are used in selling a product my face turns to something akin like they took a dump on the floor and I walk away.
If this was a free to play game and they sold a race type in a shop then okay. Subscription games should include all playable content within that context.
Its not bothering me, I have chosen not to pre-purchase a game thats released in 60 days with an NDA still up. I will still comment in threads that crop up though and Im sure they will die down after launch and move onto the next hot-topic.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
^this. They can choose to charge for whatever they want. I'm not saying i agree that it's right to charge for box+sub+classes, etc, but since it's their game, they have the right to do so. Let them dig their own graves (or not, depending on how well it turns out)
I agree too.
If a company misjudges the market and chooses a payment model that people won't accept, the company will pay for it. With lost revenue.
In this case, they surely did some market research before deciding and have anticipated there will be some backlash. Seems they think it's worth it none the less. Their choice. Or maybe the backlash is just some free publicity?
We used to have a MMO market that was built on what was fair to charge players, now we have one where the ethos is get away with whatever you can and hope the market does not damn you.
Thank you cash shops, we owe you so much.
If the price for the standard edition was increased by $15, would it be any different? The only difference is you would no longer have a choice.
At the end of the day, they're giving you a choice to invest in more. The things being offered by Bethesda are things that took time to develop, time to balance, time to make sure it fits in with the world. It cost them money to include it. Thus they want to make a return on that money they spent out.
It's a race, one which is in no way provides any real benefit beyond cosmetics.
MMOs have been selling cosmetic goods for over a decade now, why is this any different? I don't exactly think the sky is falling when a company decides to engage in a practice that has been going on for a long time.
I think people take stuff like this way too far out of proportion because a few bad eggs in the industry decided to create the P2W models. Now people naturally assume they're ALL like that.. If people choose to buy mounts, skins, costumes, pets and the like, who really cares? Does it affect you in any way at all?
It's only when cash shops and paywalls start to directly affect you that it's time to question if you can enjoy the game under those terms.
nah .. it is always about what they can get away with.
And again, you can always choose not to buy/play video games.
Ah yes but fair is quite subjective
Main Game: Eldevin (Plat0nic)
2nd Game: Path of Exile (Platonic Hate)
I would also say "fair" is what we are used to.
Before UO/EQ, online games like Kingdom of Drakkar, and Gemstone 3 charged by the hours (like $2 per hour). It would seem totally a cash grab now, but it was deemed totally fair then.
I would argue it is the same thing .. once players get used to "no sub" .. a sub fee will be viewed as unfair, and excessive.
Of course.
But at the same time, saying "this is fine, it's their business, free market rules" comes across as an argument that we don't have a reason to not accept it. That we have the freedom to reject it, but we're wrong for actually using it.
There is no right or wrong. Just preferences.
It is up to the market accept or reject it .. just like the market is rejecting P2P.
And why is it "wrong" to use it? If you don't like it, it is your problem .. others have no obligation to do what you prefer. And so what if you think they are "wrong". It is not like you are changing their minds.
I think his point was that there is actually nothing wrong with expressing that you reject what they are offering. Of course others don't have any obligation to listen to anything anyone says about anything on internet gaming forums. But there is nothing wrong with expressing a subjective opinion and using reasoning to help support your position.
No one is actually arguing with you that there is anything morally or ethically wrong with it. The poster you quoted wasn't accusing anyone of being wrong. It was actually the compete opposite. He was saying that people are accusing people that reject the business practice of being wrong. They are using false equivalency to try and argue that purchasing a race in a cash shop is equal to purchasing an expansion in a sub game.
Would people be upset if Blizzard sold Mists of Pandaria for $40 and then said that you couldn't actually play and the Pandaran race unless you forked over an additional $20? The forums would melt instantly. There is something fundamentally different about what they are doing with this games release and people either accept it or reject it. I am just one of those that rejects it. There seem to be a lot of people on these forums that reject it. Box + Sub + Cash shop just doesn't fly for me.
There is nothing wrong with them granting access to all factions or a special race by purchasing an upgraded edition or allowing a purchase in an item shop. That is assuming of course they allow us to unlock in game, like a betrayal quest or something.
We don't know what ESO has planned. They haven't said anything. Right now, we're assuming and whining on a public chat forum.
Raquelis in various games
Played: Everything
Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6
Wants: The World
Anticipating: Everquest Next Crowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
Oh, in that case, he does not make it very clear.
If, in fact, he is just saying "there is nothing wrong expressing that you reject what they are offering" .. then i have no argument with that.
Of course it is ok expressing opinions in either direction. And better yet, the free market does not compel anyone to buy/participate in stuff they do not like.