Free To play or Subscription?

By: Ambuaz in: ESO News and Updates

*UPDATE: Elder Scrolls Online becomes Buy to Play (B2P)

Elder Scrolls Online is one of the most talked about games now. Yet we know neither the release date nor any other information, but, there are a lot of rumors about the game. An unknown source has told us that the game may be Free to Play (F2P). Well, let’s discuss this question.

Some information about the so-called Free to Play model
Free to Play means that all players can play the game for free, without paying a regular subscription fee. But F2P MMORPGs are not absolutely free. You must understand that at the end of the day a game is made in order to make the developers a profit. It is a business and if the game exists it must generate revenue. That’s why high level F2P games aren't absolutely free. For example players will have to buy updates with new content. Many F2P games tend to rewards those with the biggest wallets rather than the most skill. Now you know that the so-called “Free to Play” model is not absolutely free. FTP and Subscription-based games both require money. They just use different ways of getting it.

Can Elder Scrolls Online be free to play?

Now this is a serious question. If we assume that TES MMORPG will be a huge and long term project the answer is “No”. Elder Scrolls Online will hardly use F2P model. There are several reasons:

Subscription-based games generate more revenue in the long term, but to justify this such projects must also be extensive and progressive. Only an interesting game can stimulate players to pay a regular fee and players have to feel that it's worth paying. Elder Scrolls Online will be a huge long term project. There is no doubt that the game will also be innovative. From these two points alone it's unlikely that it will be F2P.

The F2P model is often used because it is easier to attract new players and for obvious financial reasons is a more attractive option for some people. But we do not think that TES Online will have problems with new subscribers. TES is a popular franchise and many people around the world are eagerly awaiting its release. Popularity is another one of the main reasons for using a Subscription model in ESO.

If Elder Scrolls Online uses a subscription-based model ZeniMax will guarantee further game developments, meaning, we will see quality updates and interesting content post release. Developers will be able to create high quality updates because subscription-based games generate more revenue. More revenue means better content and updates. The MMO leader, World of Warcraft, is not free to play. That’s why new WOW updates are usually great.

Final overview Elder Scrolls will most likely use a Subscription method because it generates more revenue and allows them to maintain and develop high quality game. But Bethesda and ZeniMax will have to do their best to stimulate players to pay a regular fee. What is your opinion?

If you are looking for THE FASTEST WAY to reach the level cap with any class within a week, this ESO Leveling Guide by Killer Guides is a definite must have. It comes with step-by-step leveling guide, proven class builds, dungeon walkthroughs, crafting and gold making strategies and more.

← Will TES Online be a new WOW clone? Background of Future Success →

Comments ()

Joop de Brieder 14 march 2013, 15:34 # ↓ 0

Maybe the EVE online model is a nice model. Try it out for a month fully with all the options and then decide if you want to pay a monthly fee like 15 dollar / 10 euro or so. Include options that at a certain point you don't have to pay this fee any more, as a bonus for the die-hards. Make sure the updates are worthwhile like WoW and hope for the best..!

In between there are many small options available, but don't overdo it I would say…
Joshua Reed 15 march 2013, 14:37 # ↓ 0

I have VOWED to stay away from subscription based games. However, your popularity discussion hits the nail on the head. I will be making an exception for this game when it first comes out. I doubt though that I will be a long term customer since I am a casual gamer and it wont be worth it in the end seeing as I wont play it often enough to be worth the monthly fee. FTP formats give me that flexibility, such as Star Trek Online, I love not having to log in for a month and know I can pick up where I left off without spending any money.
Michał Gardzilewicz 15 march 2013, 18:05 # ↓ 0

Depends. If You plan many updates, events and had no shop items its OK, but not too high. Best it be 10-15€. Updates for free. Last but not least real auction house (broker) like Diablo III has. Its great idea and You got extra money. Otherwise F2P with limitations.
Jay Volpini 19 march 2013, 15:20 # ↓ 0

how about this model:

charge me for how long I played the game, not a monthly fee per se. Use the heaviest user's as the model for the pricing.

Normally a monthly fee is $14.95, lets say. And everyone pays that whether they play or not, and some don't because they don't want to pay for when they don't play.

So lets say a heave user plays 100 hours in a month. He pays $14.95.

Now lets say someone only plays 10 hours a month. Instead of charging him the full fee, only charge him $4.95, or some such.

up to 10 hrs — $4.95.
up to 20 hrs — $7.95
up to 30 hrs — $9.95
unlimited — $14.95

there's a way to track how long someone is logged in to play, so finding out the time spent playing is easy. so you're billing me at the end of the cycle, not making me pay up front for services I haven't/don't/won't use.

I bet you'd get a lot more players with that pricing model.
1. Ken Hayward 24 march 2013, 17:17 # ↑ ↓ 0
  
  Thumbs-up to this model:)
2. Tomas Lyons 24 march 2013, 17:50 # ↑ ↓ -1
  
  No offense but the problem with this model is that you still won't be able to play freely without worrying about pricing. You may be able to afford 40 or 50 hours a month of play time but you end up selling yourself short on enjoyment when you have to limit yourself from exceeding your limit on payment. It would only be a matter of time before you get your bill at the end of the month and find out you played 20 hours or whatever figure over your budget. Upfront payment would still ensure that you don't end up paying more than you intend to play or what you can afford to play. I back logged time entirely but this model will bury the average customer. What MMORPG have you played and not want to immerse yourself into? Whether you like that or not people will end up compromising their budget eventually when they start saying things like, «I can play another two hours today.» Or maybe, «I think I can afford another 10 hours this week.» Soon enough people would be requesting an upfront payment so they don't have to compromise their monthly budget.
  1. Jeremy Reese 25 march 2013, 14:33 # ↑ ↓ 0
    
    I don't think the point that Jay is trying to make is that people cant afford the $15 a month. The concern around paying to play comes from not playing as much some months as others. I was just talking to a friend and she said she doesn't play Pay to Play games because she feels like she's wasting money if she doesn't play. So say in a 6 month time period she's able to play 3 of the months all the time and the other 3 months she's only able to play a little. She doesn't want to spend $15 a month for 6 months of play when she's really only played a little over 3. I think Jay's model is a great idea. $15 a month is about the most you see any MMO's charging so i think that's a decent cap. Then they could figure out other hourly increments. This wouldn't change the amount of money they get from the majority of players who play all the time but it could bring in some of the people who avoid playing Pay to Play games by limiting the cost if they don't have time to play as much month to month.
    1. Tomas Lyons 25 march 2013, 20:48 # ↑ ↓ 0
      
      I understand not being able to play as much from week to week or month to month. I personally can't say I could do that consistently. But my case covers the issues with this plan and the general pay to play plans. Regarding Jay's plan here there are a few things that concern me: every individual plays at a unique and varied pace from other players so Bethesda/Zenimax is not going to want to develop dozens of payment plans based on the individual player's play pace. Another issue is the inconvenience for the customer to switch their subscription plan up every month (your friend for example would probably have to change her subscription month after month then if your description of her case is true). And again as I mentioned above, any MMORPG player, regardless of being able to afford P2P subscriptions or not, can easily lose track of time while playing. I'm sure if I were to ask you if you were okay with paying for more than you originally intended to play per month when you played over your budget. I'm sure you would have a problem with that if you have other financial priorities to deal with every month. That's the problem with Jay's plan considering his paying afterthe cycle. The refinement of this plan which resembles my suggestion involves a few things. First and foremost, the best basis for an MMORPG subscription plan(s) is using logged time rather than activation like other MMOs use. Another important factor believe it or not is paying upfront, this way no customer has to possible and most likely compromise their financial integrity. Another is basing a subscription plan or plans on the developer's presets. If you use Jay's method Bethesda/Zenimax will have to develop at least dozens worth of separate plans for the individual's unique gaming pace. If you use something like Xbox 360's Gold subscription plans. Microsoft set its own 1-month, 3-month, and 12-month presets rather than basing subscriptions on the individual player's use of Gold membership services. This stays convenient for both the customer and developer. Practically, Bethesda/Zenimax could make two or three prepaid time cards that use their preset increments of logged time. Maybe a 100 hour, 500 hour, and 1000 hour. Not saying that it needs to be those actual intervals but surely you get my point. The upside is being able to play at your own individual pace without needing to play 24/7 to get your money's worth. A preset subscription doesn't demand to play outside your budget, and you can use your pool of logged game time as you wish. Your 100 hour can last you over a month if you want. The time cards also don't need to be renewed if you don't want to renew the next month. Remember both the consumer and developer need to win here. Practicality and simplicity are key as well as being able to develop a payment plan that puts them ahead of the current MMORPG designers. Critics won't compare a brand new MMO to when WoW was only a year old but comparing them to the WoW we see today. So one of the best crippling moves a new MMO can make against WoW or other MMOs is to win over the average MMO gamer with a better subscription offer. Looking these models over logically, and considering the pros and cons of each, I know the only model that beats my suggestion is free to play.
Tomas Lyons 20 march 2013, 12:39 # ↓ 0

If Zenimax decides to have an upfront subscription payment then they should seriously consider making it a logged time subscription. One of the biggest issues with an MMO is the money. Both sides have to profit from this in order to be successful. The designers need to make revenue but the players also need to enjoy the game and have the ability to continuously enjoy it. For most of the fanbase, or potential fanbase if you will, cannot afford the subscription cost say World of Warcraft offers. Say we are looking at a $15 subscription cost for one month of play time. The $15 is not so bad for most but when you only play maybe 100 hours out of a 7200 hour month, the players are arguably being ripped off for that money they spent. If you are putting the money into a 7200 hour month shouldn't you get your money's worth? So many people try to play as much as possible to make their money's worth but that demands that you literally play all day. Even if you played from the time you woke up to the time you went to sleep you still wouldn't come close to the 7200 hours of play time you paid for. I haven't once paid for a time card or subscription because of this. But I believe that if the developers made the subscription payment for logged time other than the typical subscription you see in WoW or SWTOR then you will see even more people willing to pay for the subscription costs and other MMO players jump on TESO simply because of that subscription. In doing so the players can get their money's worth, resubscribe without worrying about needing so many hours of game time, and they can play at their own pace. And on the designers' side of things, they get a more consistent flow of revenue coming in rather than bursts of money; since every player plays at his/her own pace they may play eight hours a day or maybe only two hours. The subscription time they paid for will end at different times due to their comfortable pace but regardless because of this system the fans will be more willing to resubscribe instead of being only a one-time-comer. On a competitive aspect this will also make TESO a dangerous competitor in the MMORPG business. If people see that TESO offers a logged time subscription they will jump on board with it, widening its fanbase which in turn will widen the developers' income and help jump them ahead of current MMOs today. Everyone's a winner in this case. I sincerely believe that Bethesda/Zenimax can be the team to defeat Blizzard's title as the best MMORPG developers. I think TESO can beat WoW if they are smart about subscription costs. The only people that will stay on board with WoW or SWTOR are die hard fans but the larger portion of MMO players will not be able to resist the better subscription offer.
Marcel Attar 12 april 2013, 15:33 # ↓ 0

Love this game!!!!11!!! Can't wait :)))
Al Brow 12 april 2013, 18:42 # ↓ 0

they should do it like LOTORO did it before going F2P have a monthly subscription then a lets say $200 lifetime subscription
Luke Parkins 21 april 2013, 06:36 # ↓ 0

I'll pay once for a game, because I believe that's all I should be paying, I mean when you buy a iPhone you pay just the $800 (or whatever) for the phone and that's it, apple doesn't charge on going monthly subscription bullshit for updates. Subscription cost are a thing of the past, old, outdated, people have woken up to rip offs. Imagine where everyone would be if every product charged subscriptions in a bid to make maximum profits.

I'm with all the people who won't be buying it if its not a one off payment.
Jan Kenneth Bulan 29 april 2013, 05:06 # ↓ 0

If you think that because TES is popular, that ESO would surely be a hit and the gamers would just eat everything you hand to them, I do not think so. The only reason video games get very popular is of two reasons, 1) Its a great game and 2) you pay for it once, and any purchases in the future are optional and not mandatory. I know that the developers have to make money, but prices greater than free would surely decrease the number of would-be players. I don't even want to express myself anymore, Ive said what I want to say. If ESO ends up subscription-based, I'll just wait for the next TES title, or another game, maybe LoL.
Martin Sedlmeier 29 april 2013, 08:17 # ↓ 0

what about a prepaid model like for mobile phones? load up your account and then play till it's empty.
and then different flatrate options to select and deselect monthly.
Jacob Royle-Evatt 05 may 2013, 16:55 # ↓ 0

Instead of subscription, have a single payment, and then have bunch of added features that people would pay for. Subscriptions are a thing of the past, and many people just don't have the money to buy this, mainly because it would cost £180 to play it for a year at your current price of £15 a month. Having subscriptions won't give you more money, because a lot of people will just not buy it. In my case, it wouldn't matter how many expansions you add or how many features you have, I would never buy it if you had subscriptions. And a majority of your fan base probably agree with me…
Sawyer Clark 05 may 2013, 18:47 # ↓ 0

Hey what about Guild Wars 2?????? It has been acclaimed as one of the most ambitious mmorpg's out there and was expertly executed and the company refused to use the p2p model. WoW just cornered the market and made everyone think that p2p was the only way to have a properly functioning and engaging mmorpg. GW2 shattered such misconceptions by being bigger, better, and by far the most engaging game I've played in this genre of gaming. Free to play is the future, and that's the way it should have always been.
1. Ryan Jensen 16 may 2013, 14:06 # ↑ ↓ 0
  
  Guild Wars 2 is hardly ambitious, it is actually pretty generic especially end game, which is extremely lacking. And please don't lie, it is no where near bigger than WoW. It really sounds like by reading your post Guild Wars 2 is the only big mmorpg title you have played. And your ignorance is shining throughout your post.
  1. Sawyer Clark 18 may 2013, 14:57 # ↑ ↓ 0
    
    Haha alright dude surf the web and try to find a negative review by any proffesional reviewers. And don't say that Arena Net payed them off or anything because ArenaNet has no where near the cash flow that Blizzard gets. And having played both Guild Wars 1, Guild Wars 2 and WoW and tons of free mmorpg's for prolonged amounts of time I can personnaly and whole heartedly say that Guild Wars 2 has far more interesting mechanics and features to offer than what is offered in the current market. WoW was a great idea that was executed extremely well for the time but was never taken any further than what it was. After they added flying mounts the game became flat and didn't take itself anywhere. I can't specifically say how large WoW or guild wars 2 in terms of actual size is but in terms of trying new things and going out of the comfort zone of whata good mmo should be, I'd definitely say Guild Wars 2 is much bigger. And in terms of the cities like Lion's Arch and Divinity's Reach, it's huge! And in terms of end game I'd agree that they haven't done much with that, but there's WvWvW which is massive and brilliantly executed unlike warhammer 40k. I'm sorry, but there's nothing you could possibly say to change my mind on this, and you can call me a newb and be the insecure elitist you are calling me ingorant, (if having much experience with mmo games is ignorant) but I have more than enough support on my end agreeing with me. But to each his own…
  2. Sawyer Clark 18 may 2013, 15:05 # ↑ ↓ 0
    
    My apologies *warhammer online (not 40k, was spacing out)
Valeria DelCastillo 08 may 2013, 14:35 # ↓ 0

Dude, come on.
That's just lame.
Sure, the developers want the money, but monthly fee is an old model, and now you can be sure that it's not the only one.
I think it should be like Guild Wars 2, you pay for the game and then play all you want. Would you deny it's success? It's good updates? It's immersive gameplay? There is no way you could deny those, and all without that stupid monthly fee crap. And I'm pretty sure they make a lot of money, not only with the subscriptions, but also with how much people buy from the gem store, which btw, is not a pay to win system.
I just hope ESO doesn't repeat the same stupid shit WOW did to MMOs all these years :/ Sure, money is important, but if people are not happy with certain decisions, how do you expect to get the money?
That model in which you pay only once is the future, and doing your stupid subscription fee crap is going back by many years.
Mitchel Baran 09 may 2013, 09:54 # ↓ 0

I totally agree with the 'pay once for the game, and that's it' suggestion.
But I do want you guys to have a look at the F2P mmorpg 'Runes of Magic'.
It might be not the most popular game but it's system works.
Here I talk about the system of an in game item shop. The items you recieve won't give you
the only chance there is to become a highly rated character, but it can certainly give you
some extra's. And only because it's the only way to buy a permanent mount for example, lots of people will pay that one time extra fee. And when they've done it once and they feel comfortable about it, they will do it twice and so on…
And over all the game still has some big updates with lots to keep the players happy.
Ryan Jensen 16 may 2013, 14:14 # ↓ 0

I notice that the only people commenting on these types of threads are the people who are all butthurt about the pay to play model. Saying «it's a rip off» and «it's so outdated.» Well I will be among the few to say I am all for, and honestly much in favor of, a pay to play model for TESO. That way I have access to everything the game has to offer, which will be a lot more than any f2p mmo, and will be helping Zenimax Online continue to release patches and updates, and fund massive expansions for the future of the game. All of this for the price of going to see one or two movies a month, or going out for dinner at a dine in restaurant. To me, that sounds like an incredible deal. I think all the people whining and crying about it are just incapable of putting things into perspective and automatically throw a fit when the concept of spending more money is thrown in. Here is a thought for those types of people: If you can afford a modern-ish gaming computer to run it on, an internet subscription, and are able to buy video games in the first place, then you obviously aren't hurting for money. So maybe instead of whine and cry about subscription fees on a game that looks this amazing, and will very possibly be the best mmo on the market (or at least in the top 3), then maybe you shouldn't be looking at this game anyway, because you obviously are to ignorant to understand that 15 a month really isn't that bad at all. Thank you.
1. Sawyer Clark 18 may 2013, 15:01 # ↑ ↓ 0
  
  But it's shitty and limits the market because monthly fees are expensive, let alone the $60 price you have to pay to get the game. Not everyone has that sort of cash so a lot of people would be left out of experiencing a great game because of money. That really sucks to me and I feel that it's rather oppressive.
2. CricketNelson 23 january 2015, 10:18 # ↑ ↓ 0
  
  Ok here is what I figure the price of the game to be to play… game itself 59.99, plus xbox live 10.00/month (120.00), plus subscription 14.95/month (179.40) = 359.39 just for the first year then it's 299.40 every year after the first. In my opinion I would rather go to a movie once a week or out to dinner. Then again I have a life and though he loves playing games as much as I do, he would rather spend money for us to do other things than play a game.
Hellwick Mohren 21 may 2013, 10:01 # ↓ 0

Meh, maybe GW2 is smaller than WoW, but how long exist? I love ES very much, but its a true «F2P is future of MMO»… i going to work, sometimes i have time sometimes not… Who from you, can know how many hours you spend to this game in next month? If i'll buy «credit» for 10 hours is it NOTHING, if i'll buy unlimited, its very expensive, because i dont know, how many time i'll have. Personally i prefer F2P because you can give money, when you have, can, want, need… :P If ESO be with month fee i'll prefer real life with no fees :D that's simple…
(sorry for my english if you find something wrong i am Czech)
Thanks for discuss
Hellwick
Matos Sisko 23 may 2013, 05:41 # ↓ 0

how i can play eso where to start and what i need to download
1. Mitchel Baran 23 may 2013, 07:03 # ↑ ↓ 0
  
  ESO is still in closed Beta, and only playable if u are personaly contacted by the game developers with a login code… u can still sign up for the closed Beta at the official site.
Stephen Bane 31 may 2013, 15:11 # ↓ 0

Okay, I'm really tired of people flooding about how FtP games are the future, people are in a business for one purpose to make money not to make you people Happy they have kids to feed so eventually your «FtP » games get swarmed with micro buys end the game turns into a buy to win game which is a competition for who had the bigger wallet, every gamer myself included should honestly agree that a PtP game model is the best most efficient way to ensure both parties are happy of you only want to play 10 hours a month then you shouldn't be playing an mmo anyways go play FarmVille or viva piñata
Stephen Bane 31 may 2013, 15:20 # ↓ 0

Another side not PtP also allows for a more mature player base, 12 yr old dont have access to a visa
1. Michael Lombardi 22 june 2013, 20:03 # ↑ ↓ 0
  
  Their parents do…
  1. Hunter Stout 05 july 2013, 17:39 # ↑ ↓ 0
    
    and what if their parents don't have $180 to throw around every year for their child's entertainment?
George Respect 03 june 2013, 17:13 # ↓ 0

My opinion is to make it buy to play and later make it free to play and add online market items (ONLY) for visual effect. I don't want to sound bad or cheap but games with online market are selling more right now, because if the game is free to play players can play it and become «addicted» and when someone is «addicted» will use the market even for only visual effect items like clothes weapons and mounts for appearance not stats.
Michael Lombardi 22 june 2013, 20:01 # ↓ 0

I think that ESO should be free to play and have extras that players wont need but buy because it just looks cool. Some of the extras would be a cool horse, a cool non-combat pet that follows you around or some powerful armor that isn't the best in the game but close to being the best, thing that will make people put money into.
1. Michael Lombardi 23 june 2013, 16:29 # ↑ ↓ 0
  
  Not F2P, B2P
Duje Gunjaca 23 june 2013, 18:29 # ↓ 0

I think it should be buy to play you pay once let's say about 40€
And you can play it when ever you want and how much
Because I'm a 14 year old I don't have a visa and what if my parents don't want to pay every month 10€ ,with my way if I got some cash saved up I can buy it and play when ever
Hunter Stout 05 july 2013, 17:37 # ↓ 0

This game will make the most money if it is a one-time pay $60, and then play for as long as you wish. If it is a free to play game, then there will a be those annoying pay to update things, which most people will not pay. If you make it subscription based, then your sales will go down tremendously, because no one has $180 a year to throw around on a video game that will be outdated in 3 years. I already know about 15 people just within my group of friends who play games like skyrim and love it, that have already told me if ESO is subscription-based, they will not be getting it. I feel that a good marketing decision for the ESO developement team to make, is for their game to be Buy to Play.
1. Dos Woods 02 august 2013, 01:31 # ↑ ↓ 0
  
  Agreed.
Jordan Fenwick 01 august 2013, 14:00 # ↓ 0

if they want to have a subscription based game then the $60 will have to come down some not a lot but why do you need that price tag if you will have a steady income
Dos Woods 02 august 2013, 01:15 # ↓ 0

I have been addicted to the Elder Scrolls family for well… ever… and have spent more money on it than any other game. I can honestly say that playing these games for short periods of time gets you nowhere… ive spent hours walking around in a single ruin in awe of its depth and beauty… and luting it of course… so I dont think theres much point in buying 10 hours or whatever a month. I will on the other hand say that if its p2p at all I wont be buying this Elder Scrolls installment. I feel like if I buy the game… its mine and I should be able to play it whenever I choose for as long as I choose. I will gladly buy any and all dlc and expansions just as I have for years… but thats because once I pay for them they are mine. I fully understand that there needs to be money generated… but hell… arent we talking about multi million dollar corporations here? I work my but off to afford what few luxuries in life I have. I bought my car… when I want or need… I drive it. I bought my house… I walk in and out of the door whenever I want without having to pay someone for the privilege. I absolutely refuse to BUY a game, to play on a system that I BOUGHT, just to have to turn around and PAY someone for the ability to play it no matter how much I love the series. And im pretty sure from looking at all these posts that im not the only one who feels this way.
Nick Hoeksema 05 august 2013, 14:18 # ↓ 0

I dont want to sound like an asshole or something but im realy against a monthly fee it will always end up with alot of people who are going for the private servers. And second bringing the MMO to the consoles is a great idea but yeahh the ps4 and the xbox one are going to have monthly fee, so you need to pay that fee first before you can play elder scrolls online and than you have to pay another fee. If I already pay to play online I am not going to pay another time. I dont remember a famous title like guild wars going bad for a one time payment. Call me what ever you want this way I will stick with the private servers.
sorry members of the ESO…
Maybe raising the price a bit to €80 for a game like this and no monthly fee no one will moarn.
1. Kalim Moore 14 august 2013, 05:15 # ↑ ↓ 0
  
  You are right. I'm paying around £45 or $60 a year for live anyways, so buck that idea for any subscription based PTP. The one time payment is a great idea and they will make plenty of money from any add-ons. Bethesda has been doing a great job of creating a level playing ground for all players and it wouldn't make sense if they gave those who cannot PTP an advantage. They aren't a typical MMO and would not come out as such.
Dan Allan 14 august 2013, 15:40 # ↓ 0

ESO HAS TO BE BTP SERIOSLY ZENIMAX your fans will not take nope for a damn answer
Mitchell Bishop 16 august 2013, 01:21 # ↓ 0

if they are going to do a P2P model for this their is 1 easy solution to get new gamers and regular games, Make it a free digital download then offer subscriptions of say monthly at somewhere between $10 — $15 or 6 monthly at $50 — $60 or yearly at $80 — $90, cause people then mite try it for say a couple of months the love it then keep playing, or you could get people who mite of wanted to try it but didn't want to pay full retail for a game they mite not of liked
Dos Woods 21 august 2013, 17:22 # ↓ 0

Every game… every download… every add on… since the beginning, bought… but not anymore.
1. Dos Woods 21 august 2013, 17:28 # ↑ ↓ 0
  
  I have bought every Elder Scrolls title since the beginning. Every add on… all dlc… bought. But not this time… I'm not paying for a game… then paying xbox live fees… then paying another fee to play the game… it just isn't going to happen. (Insert emoticon for «pissed the f#%k off» here.)
Jacob Mathews 24 august 2013, 21:22 # ↓ 0

I don't really see how it can be pay to play since it will be on consoles too. PS4 fans aren't going to want to pay monthly subscriptions. That's why they didn't get Xbox. Xbox fans won't want to pay an extra fee either. So ZeniMax would just be losing customers.
Lewis Hart 30 august 2013, 17:59 # ↓ 0

No way is anyone going to be stupid enough to pay to play that game month after month when there's things like, titanfall, the division, watch dogs, dead rising 3, battlefield 4, gta 5!, ryse son of Rome, FIFA 14,killzone ,destiny and loads more, as you can see there a lot more games out there, I won't be loosing sleep over not buying this one :L they have killed off there console market in one stupid money grabbing move, they will make so much money off there game, micro transactions and the eventual DLC.
1. Nickolus Cunningham 18 october 2013, 16:05 # ↑ ↓ 0
  
  People will pay to play… Just because you don't doesn't mean no one else will. People are still signing up for EVE online and WoW every day. TES has a huge following and this game is very highly anticipated. Whatever pricing model they choose, the players will pay, I assure you.
  
  The only way this game will not be successful is if the content/gameplay are lousy. The pricing model is secondary.
Венијамин Тодоров 01 september 2013, 09:49 # ↓ 0

How about making it f2p but also make like membership like
1 month:5,00$
3 month:10,00$
6 month:20,00
12 month:50,00
unlimited:150,000
1. Antos 04 december 2013, 15:58 # ↑ ↓ 0
  
  I don't think they'd do unlimited
Jo-jo M En-diol A 05 september 2013, 22:26 # ↓ 0

Your oblivion and skyrim was so great. those dynamic events and dragons and nice interpreted gameplay. I really want to play more of you. sad to say this method force me to give up. thit method is far greater thing to consider against your gameplay and dynamic events. this game only follows what gameplay Guild Wars 2 offered, dynamic events? Already done that, World vs World? GW2 also done that. dodge? dynamic battle? dragon nest, gw2, Tera, diablo II, diablo III and a lot games did that too. whats new? whats new to your game that make me feel to pay my hard earned cash monthly? is it only popularity?

why not use this method.
1. buy the game then play,
2. You said this is a long term project, then use membership fee for die hard fans that willing to pay to play.
membership will have bonus like,:
— Create a party that can enter special dungeons not available for non member.
— Purchase a Guild Castle or strong hold or what so ever.
— Make use of fast travels
— Craft Legendary weapon
— and other cool stuff.
3. Non member will not be restricted to play the game and will found out that they need to be a member or needs to buy in game Item to support the game because its too awesome.
4. I'm tired if typing already, I will play Guild Wars 2 now, and later Dota 2 and Bioshock Infinite
Zexa Black 07 september 2013, 02:35 # ↓ 0

Will The beta tessters get a free game?
1. Duelist 07 september 2013, 12:08 # ↑ ↓ 0
  
  There is no information about the rewards. My personal opinion: it is possible but I do not think that it will happen. There are 3 million beta sign-ups and tens of thousands will be involved into the test. Too many free game copies. ESO team may reward the most active testers and give them the game.
Drew Colpurs 07 september 2013, 15:23 # ↓ 0

I'm sorry, I was gonna read all the comments to better develop an understanding of what the general consensus is and people's opinions and arguments as well as what has already been said, but Jesus you guys like to right essays on the subject. So I'll keep this short by just saying that Guild Wars 2 is not subscription based and is the most frequently updated MMORPG right now (and they're generally pretty big). They clearly have methods of making enough money to fund consistent teams for frequent updates.

Also, I own 100+ games on Steam alone, I have no reason to keep putting money into a single game when I have so many options already.

In the end, I think that the subscription model will get them TONS of money and players for the first couple months, probably at least to the end of the year. They're releasing with the biggest open demographic I've seen thanks to the company's games building up to this, especially Skyrim. But like Skyrim the popularity will eventually die down a bit, and people will stop providing that continuous fee.
1. Drew Colpurs 07 september 2013, 15:59 # ↑ ↓ 0
  
  That was a lot longer than I intended, kind of the opposite of my intention. I'm a hypocrite, sue me.
Lynette Moyo 17 september 2013, 01:55 # ↓ 0

I honestly don't think I'm going to buy this game because it seems to steer away from what I brought the previous games for. I feel that they are moving away from those interesting storylines that kept you hooked and wanting to do more. I really wish they could add a co-op or campaign for those who don't want the game for multiplayer. Insteed they have produced a game which is more like WoW you will still get that open world feel but not that well thought out storyline of skyrim along with the other side quests. I am quiet disappointed, cause I know if I buy the game it won't like it because they have totally drove away from what I brought the game for in the first place.
Andrew Declark 24 september 2013, 12:36 # ↓ 0

I really thought Bethesda was smarter than that. The hardcore people will play the fee but they are going to lose at least half of their cult following simply because of this dumb decisions.
Nickolus Cunningham 18 october 2013, 16:00 # ↓ 0

I think 2k games/gearbox got it right with borderlands 2.

HIGHLY anticipated RPG (granted not mmo). Pay up front for the game, with the option to pay extra for the first installment of DLC, then buy new additional content as it is released.

I would say their huge success in their initial release is an example of how well this pricing model works. You get exactly what you pay for. There's no argument or debate, no one feels like they're getting ripped off.
Scott Hughes 27 october 2013, 18:26 # ↓ 0

okay a sub Is a good idea for people on pc they should have to pay, but people on xbox and playstation are already paying a sub to play their games online especially on next gen they shouldn't have to pay for that right twice E.G £15 for gold then yet another £15 for any mmo that's releases on console format that's stupid your battlefield or c.o.d don't do this in fact I think only 2 games have done this and they failed because of this very reason. people on console aren't going to pay to play because they want to buy more games and play those online as well so they won't pay for 1 month when their playing shooters for the other 28 days of the month.
Sean Russ 11 november 2013, 10:17 # ↓ 0

I play Xbox and I'm getting the Xbox one and if i have to pay a fee each month just to play a game I'm not going to get the game but if i have to pay i would only pay up to 5$ a month or talk Xbox into increasing how much a subscription is so that Xbox and the company that made the game can make a profit.
Corbin Holmes 21 november 2013, 01:31 # ↓ 0

I've read a comment a while back about a module for subscriptions. If there is a way to track down exactly how long you've been playing for every single account, then the answer is really simple. Do a subscription deals like WoW, Planetside 2, and other games that allow you to be able to pay for the game. BUT when you do pay, have something like Steam has towards your account of how much time you've spent playing the game. This way, if you've payed for a $15 a month, you will be able to play a month's worth from what you've payed including weeks, days, hours, minutes, and seconds. Not like Pay to Play, but Pay for Time to Play (P4T2P sounds like a Starwars android btw'z). Sure they won't be able to get revenue as fast as the normal P2P method, but I guarantee you that if you were to subscribe someone $15 a month to play that full month's worth of gaming, you would get a lot of customers. It's like the difference between spending like $50-75$ a month just to leave the electronics on 24/7 as apposed to finding out your WE energies bill went up $240 for that month of turning electronics on and off.
Steffani Crummett 23 november 2013, 10:03 # ↓ 0

this is what we got at are house i would like to join one of you. in this game please!
Megan Michele 01 december 2013, 03:53 # ↓ 0

i swear I thought they said online playing would be free… but Umm do they realize we have to pay for online access too so thats 180 plus 60 dollars plus the 60 dollars for the game???? thats a lot of money just to play a game. i wouldn't have a problem with it if I didn't have to pay for the internet subscription and if it was a little cheaper… looks like I'm canceling my preorder…
Antos 04 december 2013, 15:54 # ↓ 0

If it's going to be like that, I think it should be 10$ cheaper($5). Every year 180$ is to much for a lot of us, so do the math. More people paying little, or less people paying tons? It'd add up,
Salvatore Anziano 07 december 2013, 06:02 # ↓ 0

Ok really now. It all comes down to simple common sense. It's not complicated at all. I've been playing video games since 5 years old starting on sega genisis. If there is any definition of a no life, I'm your damn poster child. Even at 19 years old my life consists of gaming. That's 98% of it. It's people like me who should be making the decision. The people who grew up on, live for, and will most likely die in front of the controller. All you casual players need to stay on the sidelines. Yes I understand you like games but you haven't basically set your room up around your screen have you?

My point being, a subscription is a slap in the face to the most loyal gamers who live for this. Skyrim is what is on my screen as we speak and I swear if my TV had intelligence it would have commited suicide by now. It's common sense- low payment fees= more fan base= higher revenue. High costs= lower fan base= a handful of short bursts of I come and that's it.

It's sad how a 19 year old can dominate simple thinking better than huge companies. Sometimes I feel like they found a new use for monkeys. Logic is going out the window as years pass and I retain my intelligence simply because I'm not caught up in the worlds drama. Think people. Use that damn lump of cells between your ears.
Joseph Santos 12 december 2013, 23:01 # ↓ 0

Well I try to stay away from p2p games but this would be an exception for me with a reasonable price. $5 would be ok with me even mabye $10 but $15 will prevent me from buying the game. I know everyone has been asking for an online elderscrolls game all these years and they are thinking this is the best way to maintenance the servers with update and countiued cost but $15 is simply asking too much. In my opinion they could set a high price on game release, use microtransactions for cosmetics only like poe, and then make money on expansons.
1. Joseph Santos 12 december 2013, 23:10 # ↑ ↓ 0
  
  Thinking about it even $10 a month
  is too much.
Rudy Concepcion 15 december 2013, 19:01 # ↓ 0

Um guys anyone here heard of Guild Wars 2? That game is buy-to-play (meaning you buy the game once and have access to it forever). The game itself is powered by micro-transactions which are either cosmetic (my character has a cool looking sword) or are useful but optional (like temporary XP boosters or extra character slots). Every MMO with the exception of WoW has moved to a system similar to this (most games that go free to play don't charge for the software). Honestly I'm not even going to bother with Elder Scrolls Online until it goes free to play or buy to play. Let's stop kidding ourselves, this game will last at most 1-2 years before it goes down that route. And that's not to say that F2P/B2P games are shitty, it's just how the market has changed. Bethesda May make legendary games but I highly doubt that even they can make something that will sustain the pay to play model. And before you start laughing and calling me a troll, look at Bioware and Star Wars The Old Republic. That game had a $400 million dollar budget and even it didn't last long before going free to play.
Chris Edwards 17 december 2013, 15:27 # ↓ 0

DC Universe went F2P and has a bunch of players but lets look at the negatives. A majority of the endgame content is unavailable unless you PAY for the top tier account (I have a middle tier account that is free from Sony for having an original account). The game has been out for 2? years, and still has numerous glitches. Now, the revenue from subscriptions is lower than what it started as, so good luck getting many bug fixes. I personally agree with a subscription; it has the potential to filter unwanted players. It also usually means less bugs, more frequent updates, and server stability.

$15 a month is nothing, and although $5-10 would be better if you can't afford $15 per month then you either have 1)no monetary sense/waste too much money or 2)need to get a job.
Joseph Santos 22 december 2013, 14:29 # ↓ 0

No one said they can't afford $15 a month, people just don't want to over pay for somthing they shouldnt have too. If you like to waist money thats your choice.
Benny Cruz 23 december 2013, 13:20 # ↓ 0

i dont mind the subscriptions i grew up with it on all MMOS, but for the ppl that are going to be playing on the xbox one,PS4 they should be able to play for free because,
A. there already paying for internet service
B. they also have to pay for xbox live and your PSN (70$ a yr or u could be paying monthly thats 20$ plus i have to pay 15 a month to play the game) just to much money that we have to invest just to play a game. and dont come at me now for wanting f2p understand its for are benefit because we pay for the bugs and for the team to come out with new content so im stuck
(Maybe should make it 15$ for to months start a new trend)
Sam Marsden 27 december 2013, 21:06 # ↓ 0

I myself, lacking a PC/Mac to run this game, will likely be running it on a console, and speaking on behalf of myself and many people I know, if ESO does indeed cost a monthly fee then it should be done in either of these ways (I don't normally do MMO's so I'm unsure whether or not this is the norm')
1)Monthly Subscription: You get access to the game and its full online features for a month, for the previously mentioned price (around 15 USD from what I've read). When the time is about to expire, you are prompted with a warning of this and upon its expiry, you cannot access until you've purchased another subscription.
2)Quarterly Subscription: Same as above but with 3 months access and for slightly less cost in the long run (e.g. Quarterly Subscription cost 40 USD)
3)Yearly Subscription: Same as before but for a year and for a long term discount (e.g. 160 USD)
Sounds steep, and by all means, to some it is, but this will likely be the best way to sell the idea of a monthly subscription… and I know, there are issues with this as a pricing model, this was just a thought, but never the less, I would like to hear some community feedback to this as an idea, would this as a pricing model work since it has been made clear that ESO will NOT be F2P...?
1. Vitoldas Vilkoicas 05 january 2014, 13:37 # ↑ ↓ 0
  
  You are not very familiar with MMOs, are you? The model you are talking about has been out since the dawn of time.
  
  On the topic:
  Today pay-to-play could only work for renown titles (wow, swtor, teso) given that the game is well designed. If design is flawed it will end up going free-to-play+microtransactions and eventually shutting down (warhammer online).
  Even if TESO appears to be bad, there will still be diehard fans who will give their organs instead of 15$ if needed. As we see from comments, even some diehard fans are repulsed by subscription fee, so what about general public who never played or even heard of TES series?
  Subscription based model forces commitment to the game and becoming hardcore player, otherwise you're just wasting money. The majority are casual players who want diversity and versatility — play different games at different times without being bound by subscriptions or others means.
  Pay-to-play era is over, you have to adapt to the market and buy-to-play is the way to go. Telling that subscription fee will guarantee the quality is plain stupid. If game designers suck and the game is fundamentally flawed, even a 50$ subscription won't fix it.
  Those afraid of pay-to-win situation are mistaken by an enormous amount of freemium games. Bear in mind that freemium (F2P) is not B2P. In freemium you get the limited game for free with the option to buy additional content or significant advantage over other players. In B2P you pay once for all the features with the option to buy cosmetics which have no impact on game balance. Guild Wars 2 is the perfect example.
Pedro Cantarero Guerrero 08 january 2014, 09:34 # ↓ 0

payment mode 1st day… after de OVER FAIL free to play in 3-2-1…
Tony Yang 31 january 2014, 02:34 # ↓ 0

will i hope they cancel the subscription sooner or later because i aint paying sht lol
Joel Chehda 31 january 2014, 14:17 # ↓ 0

It is very simple...DO NOT BUY this game, I am so disappointed at Bethesda/ZeniMax, I mean, I´ve been waiting for this game for a loooong time and when I´m ready to preorder it, I realized it comes with an old model monthly subscription fee!!! wtf!!! why don´t you make it pay once play forever (of course pay for expansions and dlcs), or f2p with optional subscription and all good stuff you can offer. Crap I am so pissed, I am from Argentina, I bought all the elder scrolls saga, with mods and expansions, economy here sucks, a monthly fee for a game that I bought just doesn´t make it. I hope NOBODY BUYS this game, so that goes f2p or pay once play forever. Thank you elderscrollsonline you ruined my desire to play. When WoW came out there was no competition, but now, there are so many MMORPG to play, that the user will choose a f2p game. Time is what we need, time is what we don´t have. How many fans are out there of Star wars that «would pay» to be a jedi or a sith?? How many fans are out there that «would pay» to be a super heroe like superman or batman?? check out what happened to SWTOR or DC Universe = f2p…
you said in conclusion "Elder Scrolls will most likely use a Subscription method because it generates more revenue and allows them to maintain and develop high quality game." you can provide excelent service and high quality development and updates without a monthly fee to all users, as I said before, players would gladly pay for expansions! Can´t you see this is not what players want?? Another case: what if I can play beacause I have the money, but I want to play with my friend which they can´t cause they don´t have the money to pay a monthly fee, now THAT SUCKS!
Now this excuse enraged me: "The F2P model is often used because it is easier to attract new players and for obvious financial reasons is a more attractive option for some people. But we do not think that TES Online will have problems with new subscribers. TES is a popular franchise and many people around the world are eagerly awaiting its release. Popularity is another one of the main reasons for using a Subscription model in ESO." You just confirmed that some people find this attractive (duuh yeah, the CEO, CFO, CMO, and maybe a couple project leaders) and you also confirm that you use the popularity of the game to suck the blood of the players… I still don´t understand what YOU are thinking, it´s just absurd! You gave cheap excuses of why you are charging a monthly fee!!! The only thing I can think of is that you are just a millionare blood sucker company that does not care what the player wants, but what you want!
ONE simple thing: DO NOT BUY THIS GAME.
Kevin Edu 04 february 2014, 05:33 # ↓ 0

Many F2P games tend to rewards those with the biggest wallets rather than the most skill
that quote is not 100% wrong, but i can say that not all f2p game is unbalanced by the micro transaction.
for example is Dragon Nest, they have a micro transaction for costumes and give stats, but for some people who can't pay the costumes with real money, they can pay it with in game money they earn from auction house. And for the sake of the example, Dragon Nest game is concerned about the skill of the player. Because if u noob and get a very good cash item and don't the «skill» u will still be lose.That's just one of the example and i think it's pretty fair enough, and if TESO want to have more revenue why don't TESO adapted steam market system? people can sell all the item in the market with 15% of transaction fee.
sorry for my bad english
Bartek Sibiak 08 february 2014, 17:08 # ↓ 0

F*** it, no one will be able to afford this game, I hope that no one buys this and, SOMEONE WILL JUST CRACK IT. You Greedy Mother*******.
Joshua Wedg 11 february 2014, 06:52 # ↓ 0

I Would say That 12.99 Euros is too much, I mean this has been a long expected game, so heaps of people will buy it, so that means even if you made it say 6.00 Euros a month you would be looking at like 1,000 Euros at minimum, and at most, say 100,000 Euros a month. And you will already get like 5,000 at least out of people buying it. I mean look at PlanetSide 2, free to play, and they make money out of there other products not just that one, but they also get money from people buying station cash, which they can use to get upgrades that don't make you awesome and invincible, but give the player benefits that their whole team can benefit, again not amazingly unbeatably awesome but they benefit from it, and everyone on PlanetSide 2 can get good action, if they look for it.
Kevin Watson 14 february 2014, 00:30 # ↓ 0

i love people that bitch about a 14.99 month. F2P is not free!!! F2P is like going to a private school unless you have the bank of daddy backing you you don't get anything but the shit kicked out of you. and you don't have to put the time in to working for the armor you just pay for it. F2P your friend played for 50 hrs gets a bad ass weapon. you log on and steel daddy's master card and pay $10 for it but the sad thing is you have no clue how to play your toon
Samuel Rivard 26 february 2014, 05:33 # ↓ 0

For myself i was a non mmorpg player… i found totally crasy to pay subcription for game like WoW ect...then i discover star wars galaxie just 6 month before they close the server and they allows to try the game in demo mode until lvl 15...and (has a stars wars fan) i totally get intoit and love it but could not buy it because they where closing the server for good in 6 month and they where releasing SWTOR…

when swtor was out and become more affordable (20$ for the dx edition) i bought it and subcribe for a years...had lots of fun in the beginning but after a certain time i was getting a bit bored (so repetitive) and when it turn F2P i i change to F2P too but i was really dissapointed with the limitation: i could not use half of my gears because of it quality (artefact) and if i want to unlock for all my character i had to spend again 20$-30$ to remove some limitation…

the worse is that all my character in my account did not had the same limitation… :S
and we have to remember that it was still a new mmo compare to WoW or LOTRO, SWG… so there was not really new content (the world is huge but feel empty...you can't get a home… and i did not mentions the gold farmer plague) finally ive play less and less...and was not interress in put money again in it…

THEN i've discover LOTRO… it is older but much more complete i and i was not entusiant to be a sub player soo i've played one month in F2P mode and i really love it (the crafting is so much better and logic compare to SWTOR) i finally i've bought all extention and got a sub for mostly a years...when financely i could not afford anymore to be sub...i was still playing occasionaly and recently i finally got my finance on the feet again and got subcribe again and got the Helm Deep extention…

one thing to mentions is that LOTRO is not base only on the movies but mostly on the book with some link of course to the movies (visually at least)...that why when i've begin to read the silmarillions and the lotr and the hobbits books i just want to play again LOTRO to explore the word create by tolkien (as you probably see here that i'm totally a fan of J. R. R. Tolkien lol)

of course i play other MMO ( F2P and no F2P) game like Warthunder (one of the best if you like airplane of the ww2)… Defiance...Rift ...AGE of CONAN… planetary annihilation…
(i play neverwinter onligne but get bored of it a bit)
i'll probably get back one day in swtor...maybe...depend how it evolved…

so with all this said
my advice is this:
Subcribed or not The game MUST BE GOOD and WELL MADE (and optimized too) with a SOLID BACKGROUND and the DEVELOPPERS MUST LISTEN too there Gaming community so even if the game is F2P the player will spend money IF the game IS GOOD…

so my own question is this: did The Dev or the editor of The elder Scrolls onligne are not enouph confident about ther game to not risk it to be a free to play? that make me doubt myself if i want to put money in theres game…
Daniel Haug-Ingebrethsen 28 february 2014, 17:50 # ↓ 0

..Aaand you just lost a player. Im NOT going to fall for the WoW-system. Horrible decision, i loved Skyrim because i could play when i wanted to. With this, you'll feel forced to play as to not waste the money you spent each month. And this was looking so promising… Goodbye, hopes for the elder scrolls series. It was nice seeing you, for a little while.
Justin Mascareno 07 march 2014, 09:24 # ↓ 0

they should contact Arena Net and ask them how they are able to produce high quality updates with a free to play system, without limitations or stupid pay to win gimmicks that some free to play games use. They can do it, it's not possible and WOW's outdated they should try comparing their business practices with updated MMO's including MMO's soon to be coming out using the same free to play system as GW2. I know Bethesda is new to the MMO business but they are looking to far back, looking into an MMO that came out at least 7 years ago. If they try making an MMO that is competing with a 7 year old MMO they are going to just be left behind.
Nick Nick 03 april 2014, 10:30 # ↓ 0

I feel if you're going to pay for a game--especially one that has a based price of $60--you should be able to play the goddamn game without having the game company exploiting their customers for more money. I was going to prepurchase it, but after seeing this post, it's clear that Bethseda are greedy fucks like Blizzard--probably even more greedier since their based price is higher. Why the fuck would anyone pay for a game that you're going to end up paying thousands of dollars for in the long run. Fuck greed and fuck Bethseda. I can't believe they even entertained this model.
Dion Aljure 10 june 2014, 23:02 # ↓ 0

I, myself, am a little disappointed that the game is subscription based. I get the idea that subscriptions make more money for the developers, but its a hinderance for those who want to get their money's worth. As many people said before, no one wants to subscribe a set amount each month for a game that they aren't even sure they'll play consistently. I think WoW's model of subscription with the time cards is good, but would be more effective if it only measured the time you were actually playing the game. I am not a professional coder or anything, but I do not think that it is too difficult to gather information on how long each user is playing for and then using that information to bill each player. Not to mention that you already mandated a $80 down payment for PC. So not only are you asking for a subscription, but you are also asking us to make a separate initial purchase too. Granted, TES is popular. Heck, I still like Skyrim. However, you may find that ESO will not be nearly as profitable as it could be if you keep the payment method you have. I'd say a single down payment or time cards would be your best bet to maintain a steady influx of new and willing players, but monthly subscriptions in addition to a initial payment is not appealing at all.
Ethan 27 july 2014, 13:18 # ↓ +1

This system really turned off my opinion on elder scrolls games. Elder scrolls had a ton of loving players that would buy extras (like me) even if they costed real money. I was soooooo excited with this games release until I was told about subscription. Now I'm not even going to buy the game. Your losing a lot of fans by doing this for only a portion more money. I know the whole point of making new games is to get money but it should also be a sense of pride to have made a game that 100s of thousands of people play. I think this is a bad move but I would be more then happy to buy the game (and extras) if u removed this system and made it f2p.
Will 02 august 2014, 21:02 # ↓ 0

1st possibility: I would say to make the Elder Scrolls online F2P but have some limits and then have a subscription base and then in the long run the revenue would increase due to the fact that some players might beat the content of the F2P and then want to continue. OR you could make it so that there is a free trial of lets say, 10 days for people to make their decision if they like the game or not and then they could purchase the game and be more content with it.
Pros of 1st: People would want to try the game for themselves instead of walking into a dark room without knowing what's ahead.
Cons of 1st: Some people might not like the game and leave it without you getting any extra revenue.
Pros of 2nd: People will get a glimpse into the game and know whether they like it.
Cons of 2nd: Some cheap people might make more accounts and abuse the freedom of time.
Post any other pros and cons of each as a response.