13 replies to this topic

[David]

Do you prefer a subscription, a one-time fee like most console games, or a combination of both? 

 

The fact that it's going to come out on the next-gen consoles offers a bit of hope for a one-time fee, because I don't know how console players would feel about a subscription on top of what they're already going to be paying for Live/PSN.

 

With that said, I don't expect to see this and am more than happy to pay a monthly subscription if it means years of new content. However, if there's a $60 initial price and an additional $15/month it would really cause me to hesitate... I'm a poor college student, after all, and probably shouldn't be playing such time-consuming games as it is.

[Saucy]

I wouldn't mind one or the other, but like you said both is just a little much. Although I would probably still buy it anyways.

 

A one time fee of $60 would be perfectly acceptable for me but I feel like they wouldn't be pumping out much content, and the content that is released would probably have to be purchased separately.

 

If it were a monthly subscription $15 is comfortable but anything higher I start to hesitate as well. At $15 a month you are already giving them $180 a year so if it were anything higher I would have very high expectations for Bethesda.

 

This also brings into the question if there will be a free/premium system where you gain more benefits for paying more.

[David]

They are going to have a pay-to-win system..which is sad, but whatever.

 

Source? I haven't heard that myself.

 

I know some analysts expect it to go free-to-play eventually, which may have some sort of "Premium" service being the regular subscription, but that's just complete speculation on their part.

[Fergal]

I want to flat price of €50/€60. I don't want to pay a subscription on top of that, lol, or even if it was on its own.

 

And tbh, €15 a month is a bit much unless you played non-stop all day - don't want this to turn into RS with a shitty F2P system, which even then is only like €7/month for P2P.

[Falkner]

All they've done so far was confirm that there would be a cash shop in one of their interviews- I can't for the life of me remember which one to source, but I'll throw it up here in an edit if I find it again. However, I'm pretty sure they specified that it would contain only cosmetic items and the like - [the following is speculation] probably things like horse skins, armor, character slots, bag space, etc. So it won't be pay to win like f2p games are.

 

As for the ring partners, as I understood it you paid for those +xp rings with in game gold... they never specified one way or another, though, that's just the impression I got. I could be wrong.

 

The cash shop though, combined with the fact that TES fanbase is used to the one-time-payment of TES games with additional purchases for things like expansions/DLCs, and also the fact that TESO will be on consoles makes me think (hope?!) that it might be a B2P at $60 or so + nonessential cash shop game. With, of course, needing to pay for expansions that come out. 

 

My only solid comparisons are GW2 and WoW, though. GW2, whether you like the game or not, continues to pour out new content pretty regularly. New storylines, areas, minigames, armor, even dungeons are churned out at a reliable rate. GW2's model is that B2P + cash shop, and appears to be doing alright.

 

WoW, on the other hand, puts out content less frequently (or it did the last time I played) and new content is far less noticeable most of the time. Even with a subscription of $15 a month I never felt like I was actually getting $15 worth of new content every month, which seems to be what a subscription model is supposed to do. Granted, this payment system works super well for them- it just hasn't been a sustainable system for most other P2P games. WoW is more or less a wildly successful fluke.

 

It's TES. Around, what, 12 million copies of Skyrim have been sold? That's a lot of fans. Combine that with a fair amount of MMO players who have never touched a TES game, and even if a couple million don't play, they'll probably break even pretty fast, and then make a nice profit. And a lot of those players will want numerous alts, so that's + plenty of $$ for that. Bag space too, don't forget. Pretty mount colors and extra customization, yes please, more $$ there.

 

/endramble

 

Anyway, I'm hoping for the flat price of $60, and will gladly pay out the butt for character slots and bag space and pretty horses if it means no subscription. I have several friends who will only be able to play if there's no sub. :<

[Drexill]

My bet, and my hope, is a $50 base cost with a free month included, and $15/month on top of that after your first month.

 

I've yet to see an MMO that was Free-to-Play, or Buy-to-Play not suck tremendously, and I am a firm believer in "you get what you pay for". I want this game to last for years for me, like DAoC and WoW did... and those games, I paid for and do not regret a cent.

[Eric the Bard]

GW2 was quite good even without subscription, although I did get bored of it quite fast for some reason. Not really sure why.

[Musclemagic]

My opinion:

Buy to play + pay for vanities = the most fun.

[KenanJabr]

Though I would be completely fine with, and maybe even supportive of, a Pay to Play model, my best guess is that it will be Buy to Play since it would be a huge slap in the face and a dent in our wallets with both models in effect. Buying the game for Xbox One would be a death sentence at this point.  Using the most cost effective subscription, Xbox players would be poor in one year because they'd have to buy the following:

 

1) Buy two 6 month subscriptions to ESO ($140?)

2) Buy the game ($60?)

3) Maintain a 12 month xbox live gold subscription ($50).  

 

That would be a grand total of $250 for Xbox players and $200 for the rest of us.  Buy to play would definitely be much more reasonable, but if it means the game being abused in maintenance and updates, I wouldn't want it.  

 

Only time will tell, I suppose.  I'm pretty hopeful for this game, though.  I'm optimistically thinking they'll make the right decisions. 

[Brad]

I'm predicting it will be One-time with a shitty gem store for cosmetics and the like tbh

 

GW2 pulled it off, and its said a lot of other game developers will head down this route.

[Benja11]

Free 2 play would suck.. I've tried some good f2p games and everything would be great exept being advertised to at every screen.. buy this buy that.. they make you stress over shit like bag slots and you have to buy that stuff. Worst model ever.. rift, neverwinter and terra all feel like browser games with the f2p model.

[Drexill]

Considering GW2 is fairly crap, I doubt they'll shoot for that. Why does everyone always say "I enjoyed GW2! I only played it for 2 weeks, but it was fun!", and then not draw lines...