*** Official Elder Scrolls MMO Thread ***

[LateX'Dog]

Lots of information in this video and lots of First Person perspective combat.

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/mzrc2w/the-elder-scrolls-online-bringing-the-scrolls-to-mmo

First Person looks great!

 

[LateX'Dog]

Seriously!?

32p a day, £2.20 a week?

Some of you will spend more then that a during a night down the pub.

Crazy people who think they deserve free games with unlimited content.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Over a year that's well over £100 quid including the price of the game as well

Unless you're one of these people who hammer MMO's 8 hours a day it isn't worth that.

Lets say once a week on a Friday you go down the pub and buy 3 pints.

3 x £2.50 = £7.50

So in 1 night you spend the same as monthly subscription.

You do this every Friday for a year.

That means you'd spend £360 a year on beer every Friday, once a week.

I'm sorry but for what you get from a MMO subscription, its well worth the money.

 

[LateX'Dog]

You're mixing real life with the virtual world, not everyone goes down the pub either or drinks. I'd still rather spend my money socialising than spend £150 on a game for only 1 year.

I'm in a guild with 35 other people who i know.

At most there is 10+ players online who i know very well.

I wouldn't get that if i went down the pub.

Either way you get so much for your money its not even up for debate.

Milk is £1.90 for a 4 pinter, the average household gets through 8 pints a week, that's more then the game sub.

 

[LateX'Dog]

It is up for debate though as many people don't agree with subscription based games. I don't care if you spoke to 100 people online, socialising in person is 100% better than speaking through a mic...

Your milk analogy is pointless by the way.

People pay £50 a month for Sky, you wouldn't request Sky to give you there subscription service for free?

My analogies are fine, I'm pointing out the complete insignificance of the subscription price.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Again another pointless Sky analogy, not the same at all.

The price is significant when there will be better games out this year where you only pay a one off fee, I bet GW2 has had far more content added in it's first year than this will and it has no fee.

£150 gets you 5 AAA titles.

And the amount of hours people will put into ESO will easily make up 5 AAA titles, constant content updates and fixes.

Again your really not making a valid point at all.

The Sky subscription is an entertainment based sub, just like ESO. The analogy is fine.

 

[LateX'Dog]

How do you know about these constant updates already and fixes? Have you even played Skyrim? Yes they throw a lot of DLC at it but most of it is extremely short and fixes hahaha don't make me laugh, Skyrim still has some very annoying simple to fix bugs that are still there years after release, people had to make unofficial patches for the base game and all DLC's to fix many of them.

First off Skyrim is made by another company.

Zenimax have stated they will be providing constant content updates and bug fixes.

If they didn't, i'm pretty sure, regardless of payment options, the game would fail.

Sky subscription differs as it isn't the same form of entertainment, costs a lot more and you can chose how much you pay a month depending on packages

Its an entertainment subscription that provides entertainment. Just like a game.

You can choose how much you pay, but the less you pay, the less you get. Either way, the Sky analogy is fine.

 

[LateX'Dog]

I've heard companies promise the earth before release many a time, I'll believe it when I see it.

I've already explained how the Sky analogy is different yet you still try and defend it. Paying for TV is not the same as paying a monthly sub for a game, Sky offers far more than 1 title.

Your pigeon holing the game into a 1 dimensional object.

MMO's have multiple different layers, PvP, End Game PvE, Social, Alts, Multiple Classes and races, Multiple areas, crafting, events and soon.

I'm not going to try and explain to you how a MMO is massive in scale and is easily comparable to 3-5 single player titles.

The analogy with Sky was to show that an entertainment product with a subscription is fine, Sky is an entertainment subscription that not only charges more, but provides arguably less worthwhile content. With a MMO, you get content catered to you.

It blows my mind that people still think that getting a game for free is good in anyway for the developers or the community as a whole.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Who said anything about getting the game for free? All people want is a one off payment, sub based games are horrible, it creates this must play as much as possible scene and anyone who can't hammer it for hours falls behind. That's what I and many others like about one off payments, you don't feel like you have to play it all the time to get your monies worth.

What planet do you live on?

No MMO to date forces you to play 8 hours a day and is subscription based.

ALL MMO's with a sub i know of, have means to get to the same level as other players by doing less hours a day.

 

[LateX'Dog]

I didn't say it forces you, but you do fall behind unless you sink hours of your time into it. Unless you don't mind being owned by people with the best gear.

But isnt that exactly the same for like BF3 where someone who spends more time then you playing the game is better then you? And thats free?

 

[LateX'Dog]

Everyone complaining about the $15 per month subscription fee needs to look at the cost per hour(CPH) of entertainment, and realize that, based on average consumption, Netflix viewing has a CPH of $0.25. In order to achieve the same CPH with this subscription, you would only need to play 60 hours per month, or 2 hours per day, on average.

Even if you kept your playing time to 30 hours per month, your CPH would be only $0.50, which is less than just about every form of entertainment out there.

I rest my case.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Benefits culture spread deeper then real life i guess.

 

[LateX'Dog]

There is no point arguing with you people, you want something for nothing and expect it to be profitable and supported.

Subscriptions fees are cheap, supporting and the most beneficial for a game.

 

[LateX'Dog]

it's an additional outgoing to what you already have outgoing each month, and people will see it as such.

I'm sorry but if you can't afford a premium product, then you should move along. You wouldn't walk into your neighbours house and run a wire from there Sky service, because you feel your entitled to it. Gaming is a luxury.

Free to Play MMO's harbour an incredibly horrible community, a pick up and drop mentality and it ultimately hurts the MMO genre.

Forcing a sub (from my 10+ years of MMO gaming) creates commitment and less negativity, because people want to play and want to help improve the game.

I've been gaming with a friend for 8 years, he's a serial F2P player and he just drifts from 1 F2P to the next without spending a single penny. So tell me, how is he not stealing entertainment?

Suarez7, the Sky analogy is fine, you keep saying its flawed, but i actually think your grasp on analogies is flawed. Sky is a premium entertainment service along with sub based MMO's.

F2P creates monetization of fundamental basic features of MMO's to generate revenue, this negatively effects game play. But because your getting it for free, you don't care and as such, this reflects in the players attitude in game.

Free too Play is a blight upon MMO's and it's sad to see people claiming its the "only" route MMO's should take.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Every AAA MMO released since WoW, up until GW2 had a sub and yet they all counter your argument. You're going to have to try harder to justify a sub I''m afraid.

Not at all, as explain above, if the game fails to provide the content, then you loose your subscribers.

Thats the reason why most AAA MMO's have failed, not because of the sub model.

And actually Lineage 1 generates more turnover then GW2 and it was released in 1998 and is sub based.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Well then you continue to play your premium MMOs alone, while the rest of us enjoy whatever we can get for free to sample, and then to pay for expansions/contributions.

You pay £30 for the game and you get a month to try it. I'm sorry but that is your "free sample". If you need longer then a month, then you need to pay or move on.

It may not be 'premium' in your eyes, but I find LOTRo great fun, and have done since its release, where I bought the founder prepay, and haven't paid for anything but expansions since. It moved to F2P and the income the company generated tripled. Their expansions are now faster and their content higher. The 'blight' saved that MMo.
I can still dabble from time to time now also, without having to worry about being a hardcore dedicated must play x hours a month to make my sub worth it style player.

WoW is a sub based MMO with extremely fast content turn around, I'd argue they produce better quality content faster then any other F2P MMO.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Wasn't one of your arguments that a sub based game provides the content because they are able to spend more?

People decide in a month if a MMO is worth there time or not. In a month i'd be very surprised if ANY company could provide content off the back of launching a product.

What about the bad community aspect, negativity and commitment issues? All the sub MMO's 'Ive tried have had these in spades. Once again, WoW, a sub based game has one of the worst communites in the genre.

WoW has 8million players, you need to take into account proportions, what % of WoW players a morons and what % of F2P players are morons. It'll never happen, but i'd wager you'd have a larger concentration on the F2P then in WoW.

This has been one of the biggest excuses for sub fluctuation in WoW given by the devs.

Yeah they unsub, play the crappy F2P MMO, realise its nothing on WoW and go back.

I'm sure once GW2 launches in the Asian market it will blow everything out the water.

Now your letting your bias rule here.

You're joking right? the pace of content release has been one of the biggest criticisms of WoW prior to MoP, and since they upped the pace the content delivered has been very poor.

I stopped playing WoW in Wrath, but 1 and a half year expansion turn arounds with new raids and dungeons thrown in and constant class tweaks.

Lets look at WoW launch:

7 November 2004 is launch

18 December 2004 1.2 patch with 1 dungeon and 2 events and bug fixes

7 March 2005 1.3 patch with 1 dungeon and 2 raid bosses with bug fixes

8th April 2005 1.4 patch with PvP system introduced with bug fixes

7 June 2005 1.5 patch with battlegrounds introduced

12 July 2005 1.6 patch with 1 raid, new event and 2 class revamps

13 September 2005 1.7 patch with 1 raid, 1 dungeon, 1 event and 1 new battleground with hunter class revamp.

10 October 2005 1.8 patch with 4 raid bosses, completely revamped zone and druid revamp.

So in the space of a year, WoW added:

3 Dungeons
8 Raids
3 Events
PvP system
Battlegrounds
4 Class revamps
1 Zone revamp

I'm sorry but WoW's content has very rarely been lacking. And this is just skimming.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Any mmo worth their salt will provide numerous class balancing fixes, additional instances/dungeons, raid encounters etc in their 1st year to 18 months. ToR for example provided just as many 'deep' patches, so did Rift, GW2 etc. Since vanilla WoW has settled down into 4 'major' patches every expac cycle. That isn't a huge amount by anyone's standards, so what additional content do u get for your money over a FTP title? None

We are arguing semantics here, my point being, Blizzard provided lots of content to warrant a sub.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Blizzard are ******* terrible with patches and content. Just look at D3.

D3 isn't a MMO.

I'm not saying they make bad games but don't try and say paying a sub gets you more as it doesn't. GW2 has had loads of content added within the 1st year and I don't even think it sold that well tbh.

A lot of GW2 content patches have been to add cash shop items. Depends on if you classify that as actual content without a cost.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Except they don't. 4 content patches per 2 years, with at least one of those patches giving you the content that was promised when they sold you the expansion box.

I'm sorry, i thought i just linked to Blizzards progression from launch up to 1 year after, showing 7 content patches?

Maybe you missed it here:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24833989&postcount=218