Free To play or Subscription?

By: Admin

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

Some information about so-called Free to Play model
Free to Play model means that all players can play the game for free without paying regular fee. But F2P MMORPGs are not absolutely free. You must understand that any game is made just because developers want to make some money. It is business and if the game exists it must generate revenue. That’s why high level F2P games can not be absolutely free. For example players will have to buy updates with new content. Now you know that so-called “Free to Play” model is not absolutely free. FTP and Subscription-based games both require money. They just use different ways of doing it.

Can Elder Scrolls Online be free to play?

It 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 can generate more revenue in long term but such projects must also be huge and interesting. Only interesting game can stimulate players to pay regular fee. Players have to feel that it worth paying. Elder Scrolls Online will be a huge long term project. There is no doubt that the game will also be interesting. If it is true the game will not be F2P.

F2P model is often used because it is easier to attract new players using F2P. It is obvious that FTP model is a little bit more attractive for players. But we do not think that TES Online will have problems with new subscribers. TES is popular and many people around the world will buy a subscription. Popularity is one of the main reasons for using Subscription model in TES MMO.

If Elder Scrolls Online uses subscription-based model we will see quality updates and interesting content. 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 Subscription method because it generates more revenue and allows to maintain and develop high quality game. But Bethesda and ZeniMax will have to do all their best to stimulate players to pay regular fee. What is your opinion?

Share the information with your friends

Free To play or Subscription? was reviewed by Elderscrollsonline.info and earned a /10 rating.

Comments (23)

Joop de Brieder 14 march 2013, 15:34 #

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 #

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 #

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 #

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 #
  
  Thumbs-up to this model:)
2. Tomas Lyons 24 march 2013, 17:50 #
  
  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 #
    
    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 #
      
      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 #

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 #

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

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 #

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 #

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 #

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 #

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 #

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 #
  
  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 #
    
    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 #
    
    My apologies *warhammer online (not 40k, was spacing out)
Valeria DelCastillo 08 may 2013, 14:35 #

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 #

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 #

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 #
  
  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.