I don't need to research it to no that your statement is wrong because the model were used way before some company used it as a gimmick. The concept of pay as you go as to give other players who don't have much time to play the game another option to play the game as they see fit. You are basing on 1 game that uses it for gimmicks where as the model have been used for a very very long time before Rift even start production.

Not at all, did you miss the part where I said that not wanting more options in the pay-to-play model equates to wanting this game to fail?

Rift failed as a pay-to-play MMO, SWTOR failed as a pay-to-play MMO, countless others failed as pay-to-play MMO's. They refused to do what is necessary to compete with the 500 pound Gorilla in the room and because of that they failed.

If ESO goes down the same route then it too will fail. It's not different enough to compete via mechanics and it's not big enough to compete via content, if it is to succeed under the pay-to-play model then it needs to expand the options of the pay-to-play model.

SWTOR failed because its lack of content at later game and the time they took to fix stuff. Not because of its payment model.

Sorry if i wasn't too clear but that's actually the point I'm getting at. SWTOR couldn't compete via content, and to be quite honest it couldn't compete via mechanics as well, that was a similar situation to the one ESO will find itself in when it goes live. Bioware refused to try to compete by expanding the pay-to-play model, forcing it to go free-to-play.

you're not seeing the full equation. the age of that 500Lb gorilla. They have stepped so far beyond the original IP to keep rolling. No MMO that is just releasing can match the content of a 7 yr old title. But if they roll out content fast enough they can keep people interested. If ESO is going to stand and succeed it will do so on its merit not a payment model gimmick.

again think it through. It is a marketing tool. just like F2P the people using the payment model pay more for their game time than they would have with a subscription. what difference does it make if you're only paying for the time you play if it is more than the sub fee in the first place.

Next?

You just admitted that ESO simply cannot compete in terms of content, that's precisely what I'm saying.

Now I've heard their promises of content updates, they're not the only dev I've heard make those promises. SOE couldn't make good on its content update promises with DCUO which is now free-to-play, I don't expect ZOS to be able to either. Even if it somehow manages to make good on those updates it still can't compete.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong and see this game last it's entire lifetime under a pay-to-play model. But I've seen that model fail too many times to simply expect that to happen without changes made to that model.

no what I said was that no MMO freshly released can match the content of a title 7 years old. WoW and ESO have something in common, a very well established IP with millions of followers. WoW has exhausted the IP, ESO is just getting started. Right place right time if managed correctly. They don't have the match the quantity of content if they can surpass the quality.

It is an marketing tool but have nothing to do with 'crappy' F2P which you originally strongly associated it with. I never said it is not an marketing tools, all i said is that it have nothing to do with F2P and 'crappy' at all.

You're right, and I agree, so they need to compete where they are actually able to. SWTOR had the same thing in common, arguably Star Wars has an even bigger established fanbase than both other IPs combined, they even tried quality over quantity, yet it failed.

We've already seen in these forums alone that not everyone who is a fan of TES likes ESO. We've seen the complaints that ESO isn't TES enough, that it's too much of an MMO first, that it doesn't include this or that which was in previous TES games. Quality will mean different things to different people. Even if they do bring quality content in it won't please everyone in the fanbase.

It will come down to those who are willing to pay and those who are not. I don't see how enticing those who would otherwise pay NOTHING into at least paying SOMETHING could ever be bad for this game. I am forced to conclude that you want ESO to fail like all those before it. If you're so against these options then offer me some alternative, anything, PLEASE, that won't result in this game going free-to-play.

Seriously? It has more in common with a F2P model that Sub fee game. Do you honestly think the games that use the hourly model do so for your benefit? Or do you think they do it to line their pockets? Its a fallacy to think of it as anything but what it is, a gimmick to separate the unthinking from their money.

You are the one using fallacy here because you linked different type of payment model which are unrelated together, I also never said it is for our benefit, it is for their own benefit to do so, its simply makes people who might not buy the game consider it.

You are the one who linked the payment model together. I simply stated that F2P / P2P have nothing to do with it, its just another payment model.

I'm one of those that could careless about the TES series. I play ESO on its own merit.

I hardly want to see ESO fail, which it will if it adopts the system you want to see, even as an option of many. Its a gimmick designed to pull money from children, it is an alternate F2P model, a fallacy. I agree that it would work for people like you who can't or don't want to play enough to justify $15 per month, but that is not the payment models intended purpose. If ESO fails to the point of implementing pay as you go then there won't be enough players active to save it from F2P anyway.

what ever I laid it out as simply as I could for you, they are simply degrees of the same thing, socialism and communism, same thing deep down, different on the surface. Just requires a little thought process to get through the veneer.

its late and I'm done

Its a fallacy to link Pay as you go model to a failed payment model. It is just an alternative payment model.

I can and will be paying $15 a month. I'm perfectly fine with that, it's my preference.

I did so in LOTRO and it failed.

I did so in STO and it failed.

I did so in DCUO and it failed.

I did so in SWTOR and it failed.

You are offering me a system that fails again and again and again and again, a system that will end in free-to-play. A system that fails so often that it's the expected outcome for those unwilling to pay and simply wait.

do you know why those games failed?

They failed because of the success of WoW. It brought non gamers into my world. It gave them concession after concession until there was nothing left resembling what had gone before.

the predecessors were all successful with sub fees, hell DAoC launched with a staff of 27 people. Profit margins where higher due to limited expectations. There was nothing else to compare the games to, each stood on its own merit. development houses saw that success and decided to jump on the band wagon, until you have the mess we have today. The development time (budgets) have gone through the roof, making the cut off for success that much higher. Hopefully ESO will break that cycle time will tell.

And I'm not offering you anything. You have already accepted and stated a preference for the subscription model. I think a lot of others will make the same choice.

Actually, they failed because they are sub-standard. It have nothing to do with payment model. SWTOR have been F2P for a long time yet i don't see myself playing it again.

you are a very uncomplicated person with a limited field of view incapable of seeing nuances. You're saying they are sub-standard, meaning there was a standard to which they were judged, what pray-tell would that be? If anyone of those games came out before WoW hit its stride they would have been judged much less harshly, hell they might have actually been judged on their own merit.

They are sub-standard because the rushed the hands out with not much content as well as taking to long to fix bugs.

I think you are trying to related every failure game to the payment model when it has nothing to do with it. People are more forgiving for other payment model. However the payment model itself does not make a game good or bad.

Only other option I care about is lifetime sub, I hope this game will have one but I doubt it...

I regret not buying Lotro's lifetime because I have spent more in sub fees than the price of the lifetime sub

Agreed, and WoW continues to be successful, so what on earth makes you think ESO will end up any differently to those games?

Unlike DAoC this game didn't start with just 27 developers. Unlike DAoC expectations for this game are through the roof. Unlike DAoC this game is part of a series and whether you like it or not will stand more on it's place within that series than on it's own merits. Unlike DAoC this game has a large budget and will require far more to maintain it's success. ESO is a product of the very mess you describe.

You can hope all you want, unfortunately history doesn't inspire the same hope in me. I believe change is necessary, this payment model has stagnated, it needs to adapt and evolve or it will die, taking ESO along with it.

No. Sub based games thrive on people paying more than they play since they have no whales (nor should they) to keep them afloat.

Here's some ideas I came up with in another thread OP, that I *might* support.

1. Pay by allowing the game to access additional CPU resources while you play. Depending on how good your system is they can get a little extra computing power for cheaper then usual and you don't actually have to pay a direct fee (it'll be coming out of your electric bill later, though.)

2. Add *tons* of RARE vanity items to the in-game drop list and make an RMAH for just those vanity items. To boot ZOS can take a small tax out of every purchase.

3. Surveys and polls. I've seen a few F2P games try this and it usually ends up a spamfest but if conducted correctly I think letting players do a couple of surveys on the side if they opt into it and have this add credit to gametime every so often. It might not make the $15 all at once but over a few months you might make up enough to pay for an extra free month.

4. Optional client with advertisemants. The assets you generate from views and clicks would be displayed in your account info thing on the official site and however much you have left that you still need to pay would be deducted.

Yes, even though I'll never use it...

More options, more players... more players, longer game life... longer game life further away from a F2P model...