The pre-orders you mention which I suppose you are taking from vgchartz since you didn't drop a link to your source were sales made BEFORE this cash shop introduction. You are reinforcing my standpoint. I believe that many people purchased the game partly because of the payment model and that includes the lack of a cash shop. That's all different now. You could only count pre-orders after this to know if the cash shop had any effect. Selling out again only backs me up more. Can you prove that they sold one box because they were having a cash shop? You can't, I can show evidence that they said there was not going to be a cash shop for horses unless you consider horses "services".
You saw me use a number and you discounted it while taking another number for yourself. That number you took was when people thought the game had no cash shop. It's invalid for your stance.
I didn't make that poll and I didn't ask anyone to respond to it. I simply noticed it as a point of information.
You need to drop links to your sources of information. I'm not going to debate things without all the pieces of the puzzle or just your word. ARPPU btw is for the people that paid it's not for everyone. Everyone is usually much lower in those games. Dollars or less monthly most of the time. If you re-read your source it will probably show you that if it's being upfront.
Don't even get me started on LOTRO. They recently lost 400,000 players. You are talking to someone who has left the game when it went free to play even with a lifetime account in place and I wasn't the only one.
My argument about cash shop remains what it's always been - it's in the hands of the players not the devs what gets purchased. That's not something to "give up", that's fact.
I'm not aware of a better source, so yes, anytime I refer to pre-order numbers I am using vgchartz. I generally don't clutter posts with links to information that can be found via google in under a minute. I'm really not sure why you think this is going to be a huge deal to a large enough number of people to make a noticeable impact on sales. I have seen plenty of anecdotal evidence that there are a lot of people who dislike cash shops and microtransactions. I can't recall seeing any evidence, of any kind, that the number of people who dislike them *enough* to make them refuse to play a game is large enough to outweigh the increased revenue per player that tends to flow from including them. And that is one of the problems with the poll you cited, it asked an irrelevant question. It doesn't matter whether 70% of the respondents disliked the decision, even if the poll were representative of the market. It only matters what percentage dislike it enough to refuse to play the game, and if the loss of that percentage of players would be too great to offset with increased revenue per player.
And the $12.00 in your chart is from Italy. Not even the whole EU, just Italy; add the European nations together and we're probably still above $15.00/month considering what the other countries' numbers were. That same chart lists the US at $31.00. Let's compare like to like, shall we?
As for LotRO, it may have lost 400,000 players now, but it's been a long time since they converted their model, and with the shape the game was in prior to the conversion, if they hadn't done it they probably would have shut down entirely years ago, and nobody would be playing.
Obviously you are correct that if players, as a whole, were to reject a given monetization method it would get changed. But there is no reason to believe that is going to ever categorically happen with cash shops. Every bit of information we have on the issue seems to indicate that, while extremely vocal, the group of people who care enough about the perceived negative impacts of cash shops to refuse to play games because of their presence just isn't large enough to be relevant. I hate to say it, but again, look to WoW; it has more subscribers than every other subscription game combined, it has a cash shop, and neither the adding of the shops or expansions to it's content seem to have caused any mass exodus of players.
ESO would be the wrong game for the experiment, given it's megaserver setup, but I would be extremely interested to see a game with a traditional server setup add a "No-cash shop" server, and see what it's population numbers look like relative to the normal servers. Obviously we won't know until/unless somebody actually does it, but my suspicion is that such a server would see an initial surge of players trying to prove a point, followed by emptying out fairly quickly and then getting shut down for being too inactive.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
People don't want subs, they don't want cash shops but they want MMOs to play. They want new and plentiful content but they don't seem to understand that new content needs to be paid for. If you don't want to use the cash shop then don't use it. Who cares? They aren't selling anything that's going to help someone get ahead in the game. People need to stop whining about every little thing developers do, it's a business. They have an obligation to shareholders to make money, That is how business works. If a company sees WoW selling shiny ponies for 25 bucks a pop and make millions it would be irresponsible business-wise not to try and implement something similar. They offer a product, if you aren't happy with it - then don't buy it.
Maintain low tones... I don't Google btw I Ixquick so put your minute skills to use and drop the link you are quoting.
I'm not going to debate someone who takes all the data I dump and their sources and refutes it by dumping none of their own. That's not debating, that's preaching and sans evidence.
The only data you brought in that last post was a chart, which I responded to using your own chart, and an (unlinked) reference to how many players LotRO lost recently, with no reason to attribute that loss to the cash shop.
I appreciate that you are presenting an actual argument that tries to address the question in the OP, you appear to be the only one making any real effort to do so. But as far as I can tell, your argument boils down to two points; a lot of people don't like cash shops in subscription games, and if all of the people who feel that dislike refused to play them, that would be enough to get companies to change. Even if, for the sake of argument, I grant both of those things as true, you are still missing any evidence that a substantial number of those people do refuse, or are willing to refuse, to play games that they would otherwise enjoy just because a cash shop is present. Dislike is only relevant when it is strong enough to lead to action.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
People don't want subs, they don't want cash shops but they want MMOs to play. They want new and plentiful content but they don't seem to understand that new content needs to be paid for. If you don't want to use the cash shop then don't use it. Who cares? They aren't selling anything that's going to help someone get ahead in the game. People need to stop whining about every little thing developers do, it's a business. They have an obligation to shareholders to make money, That is how business works. If a company sees WoW selling shiny ponies for 25 bucks a pop and make millions it would be irresponsible business-wise not to try and implement something similar. They offer a product, if you aren't happy with it - then don't buy it.
Yup, if they don't offer something for free, one of the competitors will. You have no reason to ever spend money again if you don't want to.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Maintain low tones... I don't Google btw I Ixquick so put your minute skills to use and drop the link you are quoting.
I'm not going to debate someone who takes all the data I dump and their sources and refutes it by dumping none of their own. That's not debating, that's preaching and sans evidence.
The only data you brought in that last post was a chart, which I responded to using your own chart, and an (unlinked) reference to how many players LotRO lost recently, with no reason to attribute that loss to the cash shop.
I appreciate that you are presenting an actual argument that tries to address the question in the OP, you appear to be the only one making any real effort to do so. But as far as I can tell, your argument boils down to two points; a lot of people don't like cash shops in subscription games, and if all of the people who feel that dislike refused to play them, that would be enough to get companies to change. Even if, for the sake of argument, I grant both of those things as true, you are still missing any evidence that a substantial number of those people do refuse, or are willing to refuse, to play games that they would otherwise enjoy just because a cash shop is present. Dislike is only relevant when it is strong enough to lead to action.
Funcom ceo made some comments.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
The only compelling argument I need to make is this.
If you are going to charge me a subscription fee AND also include a pay wall cash shop, you lose me as a customer.
That was easy.
That is not compelling for the devs. You are not the only customer.
Exactly. A compelling argument would be one that gives us reason to believe they would lose enough $15/month customers that they couldn't get a high enough average spend per player who stays to compensate for the loss. I'm not aware of any available information which implies that is anywhere close to being the case in the industry.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
The only compelling argument I need to make is this.
If you are going to charge me a subscription fee AND also include a pay wall cash shop, you lose me as a customer.
That was easy.
That is not compelling for the devs. You are not the only customer.
And clearly I am the only customer that thinks this.
Clearly they did not add the first person perspective due to customer outrage.
Clearly they did not add a way around the race/faction locks for the customer.
Clearly, as by several articles written on this very site, they haven't made any changes at all from customer feedback or did they?
is it that they don't care, or you don't want them to care because you don't agree. I think they do care, they care about getting as many ES fans and MMO players to buy and play the game as possible otherwise they wouldn't have used the IPs name.
I'm not aware of any available information which implies that is anywhere close to being the case in the industry.
There is NO sub based only game on the market with a cash shop with a pay wall so there is no information to back what you are saying. There are however plenty of opinions stating that F2P games are horrible because of P2W cash shops and others stating they play only Sub based games because they want complete access to the game and not be nickel and dimed.
There aren't really any good business reasons to not have microtransactions in general. Player perceptions of the developer trying to coerce the players into spending more money, or starting a P2W scenario are reasons why certain microtransactions may impact a game's longevity, but even there it's iffy to say that type of thing actually is having an impact over game play.
Microtransactions will absolutely have an impact, but relative to the game play, the only real impact they seem to have is the developer making more money.
But today is not forever. IS it normal for companies who make free to play games to have each new release make more than previous releases?
Do you think the item shop in ES will make more than a multiplayer mode people asked for? Or is the IP dead?
Why are you asking me these questions? If you don't know the answers, why would you expect me to know the answers? If you've already answered the questions to your own satisfaction, why not just state what you want to say?
Of course today isn't forever. Neither is tomorrow, or the next day, the day after that or the next ten years. Some games make more money with each successive release and some don't. That's not an aspect of F2P, that's an aspect of video games.
Since the item shop generates money, it's probably a safe bet that it will generate more money than something that doesn't directly generate money. Since it looks like ESO is going to sell a bazillion copies, then I'd say it's a good bet that the game will make more money than a multiplayer mode add on for Skyrim.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
And clearly I am the only customer that thinks this.
Clearly you have no compelling evidence that there are enough players who think like you.
What is enough? Do you have some insider information on what the company believes is too much? And how are you basing who thinks what? I am not the only person in this very thread that has voice opposition and its not limited to this site. And don't act like this is the only issue.
If the subscription keeps 5% of ES players away from the game. that's just for that. You have to take each thing and add them together. You clearly have no business sense.
And I recall hearing this same attitude back when information was just coming out about the game and people complained about the lack of 1st person yet they heard, and added it. Just one of many things that led to articles being written on this site about how Zenimax is one of the greatest MMO companies for having listened to the community so much and enacted the changes wanted.
There aren't really any good business reasons to not have microtransactions in general. Player perceptions of the developer trying to coerce the players into spending more money, or starting a P2W scenario are reasons why certain microtransactions may impact a game's longevity, but even there it's iffy to say that type of thing actually is having an impact over game play.
Microtransactions will absolutely have an impact, but relative to the game play, the only real impact they seem to have is the developer making more money.
But today is not forever. IS it normal for companies who make free to play games to have each new release make more than previous releases?
Do you think the item shop in ES will make more than a multiplayer mode people asked for? Or is the IP dead?
Why are you asking me these questions? If you don't know the answers, why would you expect me to know the answers? If you've already answered the questions to your own satisfaction, why not just state what you want to say?
Of course today isn't forever. Neither is tomorrow, or the next day, the day after that or the next ten years. Some games make more money with each successive release and some don't. That's not an aspect of F2P, that's an aspect of video games.
Since the item shop generates money, it's probably a safe bet that it will generate more money than something that doesn't directly generate money. Since it looks like ESO is going to sell a bazillion copies, then I'd say it's a good bet that the game will make more money than a multiplayer mode add on for Skyrim.
Ok. We'll see with the next ES title. Last one sold over 10 million right? People begged for multiplayer but they refused. I think GTA releasing a generic mmo to generic fans would have prevented the success it has now. Opinion. You disagree?
Anyway,
I can't answer the rest because there are no free to play companies that open their books. You accept their claims. I wonder if it hurts their brands and their ability to monetize people each new title, or does each title do better than the last?
You see no correlation between f2p and peoples expectations?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
There aren't really any good business reasons to not have microtransactions in general. Player perceptions of the developer trying to coerce the players into spending more money, or starting a P2W scenario are reasons why certain microtransactions may impact a game's longevity, but even there it's iffy to say that type of thing actually is having an impact over game play.
Microtransactions will absolutely have an impact, but relative to the game play, the only real impact they seem to have is the developer making more money.
But today is not forever. IS it normal for companies who make free to play games to have each new release make more than previous releases?
Do you think the item shop in ES will make more than a multiplayer mode people asked for? Or is the IP dead?
Why are you asking me these questions? If you don't know the answers, why would you expect me to know the answers? If you've already answered the questions to your own satisfaction, why not just state what you want to say?
Of course today isn't forever. Neither is tomorrow, or the next day, the day after that or the next ten years. Some games make more money with each successive release and some don't. That's not an aspect of F2P, that's an aspect of video games.
Since the item shop generates money, it's probably a safe bet that it will generate more money than something that doesn't directly generate money. Since it looks like ESO is going to sell a bazillion copies, then I'd say it's a good bet that the game will make more money than a multiplayer mode add on for Skyrim.
Ok. We'll see with the next ES title. Last one sold over 10 million right? People begged for multiplayer but they refused. I think GTA releasing a generic mmo to generic fans would have prevented the success it has now. Opinion. You disagree?
Anyway,
I can't answer the rest because there are no free to play companies that open their books. You accept their claims. I wonder if it hurts their brands and their ability to monetize people each new title, or does each title do better than the last?
You see no correlation between f2p and peoples expectations?
You're asking questions that just can't be answered with the information we have available. Do I believe a company if they say game X is making money? Yes. Especially if the company is talking about a game that is transitioning from P2P to F2P. Do I believe that F2P in general is raking in money like crazy? You betcha. It is. A company like EA isn't going to make any effort to get behind something if it doesn't make money.
Of course players have expectations regarding monetization systems. Players have expectations about particular developers, particular styles of games, and whether or not their friends are playing the games. That can be a good thing or a bad thing. I know people who like the F2P model, and not because they can play games for free. I don't like it myself. I haven't liked many F2P games and my best game experiences have been in B2P/P2P games. But that doesn't mean I've had zero enjoyment out of F2P games. The thing is, it's the game's mechanics that matter the most.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
And clearly I am the only customer that thinks this.
Clearly you have no compelling evidence that there are enough players who think like you.
What is enough? Do you have some insider information on what the company believes is too much? And how are you basing who thinks what? I am not the only person in this very thread that has voice opposition and its not limited to this site. And don't act like this is the only issue.
I didn't say i have information.
I just say you have no compelling evidence .. and clearly you don't. All you have is that you know what you like .. and you have no idea how many are out there, or how much they will spend.
Saying there are some others who think like you is not compelling evidence for devs to act. You have no numbers, no financial projection .... nothing but that you like certain kind of games.
And why do you ask me questions? I just claim that you have no compelling evidence .. i didn't claim that i have anything.
I just say you have no compelling evidence .. and clearly you don't.
The fact that I will not be buying the game due to the pay wall in the cash shop (a race) is compelling evidence because it lost them a customer. Does not matter if its just me or if its everyone BUT YOU. Its enough. It lost them my money and that is all the reason a business needs to know as per the title of this thread.
Because the customer has a need, we have a job to do.
Because the customer has a choice, we must be the better choice.
Because the customer has sensibilities, we must be considerate.
Because the customer has an urgency, we must be quick.
Because the customer is unique, we must be flexible.
Because the customer has high expectations, we must excel.
Because the customer has influence, we have the hope of more customers.
Because of the customer, we exist!
This is the credo of business. To drive a customer away, is bad business 100% of the time, something a few companies like MS is learning the hard way thinking that consumers are just going to bend over and accept their piss poor view of the future weather we like it or not...and look at them back peddle and their "views".
Just because a company makes a decision, doesn't make it a good one and its our job as consumers to hold them to it.
None. Well built F2P/microtransaction games are the future while P2P "level playing fields" (do note the quotation marks) games which never really were level to begin with (more time spent in the game = more power, funnily enough the most liked games were the grindiest P2P games ever , I wonder why ) are slowly going the way of the dodo with good reasons ( not enough of a public, limited access to newer players, less incentive to play them when compared to free games, etc) which ends up with games double dipping with a P2P model and microtrans before fully going F2P instead of just being F2P to start.
I just say you have no compelling evidence .. and clearly you don't.
The fact that I will not be buying the game due to the pay wall in the cash shop (a race) is compelling evidence because it lost them a customer. Does not matter if its just me or if its everyone BUT YOU. Its enough. It lost them my money and that is all the reason a business needs to know as per the title of this thread.
"Lost one customer" is not a compelling reason for changing a business practice. Their business depends on masses of customers.
They wouldn't care less about your $15 .. you have to show millions is at stake .. and right now, you cannot.
The fact that I will not be buying the game due to the pay wall in the cash shop (a race) is compelling evidence because it lost them a customer. Does not matter if its just me or if its everyone BUT YOU. Its enough. It lost them my money and that is all the reason a business needs to know as per the title of this thread.
"Lost one customer" is not a compelling reason for changing a business practice. Their business depends on masses of customers.
They wouldn't care less about your $15 .. you have to show millions is at stake .. and right now, you cannot.
Logical fallacy.
You reply to a person giving answer to a question by now injecting a different criteria than those proposed, one that you yourself cannot prove either way as being true or false.
Now at 31.5% stating they intended to buy but will not due to the cash shop additions. Math states that this indicates a good sample of the player base and can be used as a staple across all aspects of the gaming sphere since its a topic also on other gaming forums. Especially when added to the fact that ES fan sites have already been outspoken against the subscription model, its another pay wall their target will not like.
There aren't really any good business reasons to not have microtransactions in general. Player perceptions of the developer trying to coerce the players into spending more money, or starting a P2W scenario are reasons why certain microtransactions may impact a game's longevity, but even there it's iffy to say that type of thing actually is having an impact over game play.
Microtransactions will absolutely have an impact, but relative to the game play, the only real impact they seem to have is the developer making more money.
But today is not forever. IS it normal for companies who make free to play games to have each new release make more than previous releases?
Do you think the item shop in ES will make more than a multiplayer mode people asked for? Or is the IP dead?
Why are you asking me these questions? If you don't know the answers, why would you expect me to know the answers? If you've already answered the questions to your own satisfaction, why not just state what you want to say?
Of course today isn't forever. Neither is tomorrow, or the next day, the day after that or the next ten years. Some games make more money with each successive release and some don't. That's not an aspect of F2P, that's an aspect of video games.
Since the item shop generates money, it's probably a safe bet that it will generate more money than something that doesn't directly generate money. Since it looks like ESO is going to sell a bazillion copies, then I'd say it's a good bet that the game will make more money than a multiplayer mode add on for Skyrim.
Ok. We'll see with the next ES title. Last one sold over 10 million right? People begged for multiplayer but they refused. I think GTA releasing a generic mmo to generic fans would have prevented the success it has now. Opinion. You disagree?
Anyway,
I can't answer the rest because there are no free to play companies that open their books. You accept their claims. I wonder if it hurts their brands and their ability to monetize people each new title, or does each title do better than the last?
You see no correlation between f2p and peoples expectations?
You're asking questions that just can't be answered with the information we have available. Do I believe a company if they say game X is making money? Yes. Especially if the company is talking about a game that is transitioning from P2P to F2P. Do I believe that F2P in general is raking in money like crazy? You betcha. It is. A company like EA isn't going to make any effort to get behind something if it doesn't make money.
Of course players have expectations regarding monetization systems. Players have expectations about particular developers, particular styles of games, and whether or not their friends are playing the games. That can be a good thing or a bad thing. I know people who like the F2P model, and not because they can play games for free. I don't like it myself. I haven't liked many F2P games and my best game experiences have been in B2P/P2P games. But that doesn't mean I've had zero enjoyment out of F2P games. The thing is, it's the game's mechanics that matter the most.
Does your past experiences and others experiences influence or affect the way you approach new f2p titles? Does that at all influence your ability to get into the game or how much of chance you give it?
You believe and ES mmo will turn out to be a better investment than a multiplayer option with an ES game?
Those should be more answerable , sorry.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Comments
I'm not aware of a better source, so yes, anytime I refer to pre-order numbers I am using vgchartz. I generally don't clutter posts with links to information that can be found via google in under a minute. I'm really not sure why you think this is going to be a huge deal to a large enough number of people to make a noticeable impact on sales. I have seen plenty of anecdotal evidence that there are a lot of people who dislike cash shops and microtransactions. I can't recall seeing any evidence, of any kind, that the number of people who dislike them *enough* to make them refuse to play a game is large enough to outweigh the increased revenue per player that tends to flow from including them. And that is one of the problems with the poll you cited, it asked an irrelevant question. It doesn't matter whether 70% of the respondents disliked the decision, even if the poll were representative of the market. It only matters what percentage dislike it enough to refuse to play the game, and if the loss of that percentage of players would be too great to offset with increased revenue per player.
And the $12.00 in your chart is from Italy. Not even the whole EU, just Italy; add the European nations together and we're probably still above $15.00/month considering what the other countries' numbers were. That same chart lists the US at $31.00. Let's compare like to like, shall we?
As for LotRO, it may have lost 400,000 players now, but it's been a long time since they converted their model, and with the shape the game was in prior to the conversion, if they hadn't done it they probably would have shut down entirely years ago, and nobody would be playing.
Obviously you are correct that if players, as a whole, were to reject a given monetization method it would get changed. But there is no reason to believe that is going to ever categorically happen with cash shops. Every bit of information we have on the issue seems to indicate that, while extremely vocal, the group of people who care enough about the perceived negative impacts of cash shops to refuse to play games because of their presence just isn't large enough to be relevant. I hate to say it, but again, look to WoW; it has more subscribers than every other subscription game combined, it has a cash shop, and neither the adding of the shops or expansions to it's content seem to have caused any mass exodus of players.
ESO would be the wrong game for the experiment, given it's megaserver setup, but I would be extremely interested to see a game with a traditional server setup add a "No-cash shop" server, and see what it's population numbers look like relative to the normal servers. Obviously we won't know until/unless somebody actually does it, but my suspicion is that such a server would see an initial surge of players trying to prove a point, followed by emptying out fairly quickly and then getting shut down for being too inactive.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
People don't want subs, they don't want cash shops but they want MMOs to play. They want new and plentiful content but they don't seem to understand that new content needs to be paid for. If you don't want to use the cash shop then don't use it. Who cares? They aren't selling anything that's going to help someone get ahead in the game. People need to stop whining about every little thing developers do, it's a business. They have an obligation to shareholders to make money, That is how business works. If a company sees WoW selling shiny ponies for 25 bucks a pop and make millions it would be irresponsible business-wise not to try and implement something similar. They offer a product, if you aren't happy with it - then don't buy it.
The only data you brought in that last post was a chart, which I responded to using your own chart, and an (unlinked) reference to how many players LotRO lost recently, with no reason to attribute that loss to the cash shop.
I appreciate that you are presenting an actual argument that tries to address the question in the OP, you appear to be the only one making any real effort to do so. But as far as I can tell, your argument boils down to two points; a lot of people don't like cash shops in subscription games, and if all of the people who feel that dislike refused to play them, that would be enough to get companies to change. Even if, for the sake of argument, I grant both of those things as true, you are still missing any evidence that a substantial number of those people do refuse, or are willing to refuse, to play games that they would otherwise enjoy just because a cash shop is present. Dislike is only relevant when it is strong enough to lead to action.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Yup, if they don't offer something for free, one of the competitors will. You have no reason to ever spend money again if you don't want to.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Funcom ceo made some comments.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
So what if it is not forever. There are business cycles, and nothing is forever.
The only compelling argument I need to make is this.
If you are going to charge me a subscription fee AND also include a pay wall cash shop, you lose me as a customer.
That was easy.
That is not compelling for the devs. You are not the only customer.
Exactly. A compelling argument would be one that gives us reason to believe they would lose enough $15/month customers that they couldn't get a high enough average spend per player who stays to compensate for the loss. I'm not aware of any available information which implies that is anywhere close to being the case in the industry.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
And clearly I am the only customer that thinks this.
Clearly they did not add the first person perspective due to customer outrage.
Clearly they did not add a way around the race/faction locks for the customer.
Clearly, as by several articles written on this very site, they haven't made any changes at all from customer feedback or did they?
is it that they don't care, or you don't want them to care because you don't agree. I think they do care, they care about getting as many ES fans and MMO players to buy and play the game as possible otherwise they wouldn't have used the IPs name.
There is NO sub based only game on the market with a cash shop with a pay wall so there is no information to back what you are saying. There are however plenty of opinions stating that F2P games are horrible because of P2W cash shops and others stating they play only Sub based games because they want complete access to the game and not be nickel and dimed.
Right, but that's not what I asked. usually you give extremely direct answers.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Clearly you have no compelling evidence that there are enough players who think like you.
It is not compelling if there are more than 1.
Why are you asking me these questions? If you don't know the answers, why would you expect me to know the answers? If you've already answered the questions to your own satisfaction, why not just state what you want to say?
Of course today isn't forever. Neither is tomorrow, or the next day, the day after that or the next ten years. Some games make more money with each successive release and some don't. That's not an aspect of F2P, that's an aspect of video games.
Since the item shop generates money, it's probably a safe bet that it will generate more money than something that doesn't directly generate money. Since it looks like ESO is going to sell a bazillion copies, then I'd say it's a good bet that the game will make more money than a multiplayer mode add on for Skyrim.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
What is enough? Do you have some insider information on what the company believes is too much? And how are you basing who thinks what? I am not the only person in this very thread that has voice opposition and its not limited to this site. And don't act like this is the only issue.
If the subscription keeps 5% of ES players away from the game. that's just for that. You have to take each thing and add them together. You clearly have no business sense.
And I recall hearing this same attitude back when information was just coming out about the game and people complained about the lack of 1st person yet they heard, and added it. Just one of many things that led to articles being written on this site about how Zenimax is one of the greatest MMO companies for having listened to the community so much and enacted the changes wanted.
Ok. We'll see with the next ES title. Last one sold over 10 million right? People begged for multiplayer but they refused. I think GTA releasing a generic mmo to generic fans would have prevented the success it has now. Opinion. You disagree?
Anyway,
I can't answer the rest because there are no free to play companies that open their books. You accept their claims. I wonder if it hurts their brands and their ability to monetize people each new title, or does each title do better than the last?
You see no correlation between f2p and peoples expectations?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
You're asking questions that just can't be answered with the information we have available. Do I believe a company if they say game X is making money? Yes. Especially if the company is talking about a game that is transitioning from P2P to F2P. Do I believe that F2P in general is raking in money like crazy? You betcha. It is. A company like EA isn't going to make any effort to get behind something if it doesn't make money.
Of course players have expectations regarding monetization systems. Players have expectations about particular developers, particular styles of games, and whether or not their friends are playing the games. That can be a good thing or a bad thing. I know people who like the F2P model, and not because they can play games for free. I don't like it myself. I haven't liked many F2P games and my best game experiences have been in B2P/P2P games. But that doesn't mean I've had zero enjoyment out of F2P games. The thing is, it's the game's mechanics that matter the most.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I didn't say i have information.
I just say you have no compelling evidence .. and clearly you don't. All you have is that you know what you like .. and you have no idea how many are out there, or how much they will spend.
Saying there are some others who think like you is not compelling evidence for devs to act. You have no numbers, no financial projection .... nothing but that you like certain kind of games.
And why do you ask me questions? I just claim that you have no compelling evidence .. i didn't claim that i have anything.
The fact that I will not be buying the game due to the pay wall in the cash shop (a race) is compelling evidence because it lost them a customer. Does not matter if its just me or if its everyone BUT YOU. Its enough. It lost them my money and that is all the reason a business needs to know as per the title of this thread.
Because the customer has a need, we have a job to do.
Because the customer has a choice, we must be the better choice.
Because the customer has sensibilities, we must be considerate.
Because the customer has an urgency, we must be quick.
Because the customer is unique, we must be flexible.
Because the customer has high expectations, we must excel.
Because the customer has influence, we have the hope of more customers.
Because of the customer, we exist!
This is the credo of business. To drive a customer away, is bad business 100% of the time, something a few companies like MS is learning the hard way thinking that consumers are just going to bend over and accept their piss poor view of the future weather we like it or not...and look at them back peddle and their "views".
Just because a company makes a decision, doesn't make it a good one and its our job as consumers to hold them to it.
Probably loss of players.
If you go too far on milking players, they'll leave.
Pretty simple cost vs demand.
"Lost one customer" is not a compelling reason for changing a business practice. Their business depends on masses of customers.
They wouldn't care less about your $15 .. you have to show millions is at stake .. and right now, you cannot.
Logical fallacy.
You reply to a person giving answer to a question by now injecting a different criteria than those proposed, one that you yourself cannot prove either way as being true or false.
Also,
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/407704/page/1
Now at 31.5% stating they intended to buy but will not due to the cash shop additions. Math states that this indicates a good sample of the player base and can be used as a staple across all aspects of the gaming sphere since its a topic also on other gaming forums. Especially when added to the fact that ES fan sites have already been outspoken against the subscription model, its another pay wall their target will not like.
Does your past experiences and others experiences influence or affect the way you approach new f2p titles? Does that at all influence your ability to get into the game or how much of chance you give it?
You believe and ES mmo will turn out to be a better investment than a multiplayer option with an ES game?
Those should be more answerable , sorry.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"