isn't the more prevalent question how many will be playing once released based on their beta experience?
*** Official Elder Scrolls MMO Thread ***
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
isn't the more prevalent question how many will be playing once released based on their beta experience?
Soldato
I got in the beta back in june or around that time, havent bothered with the last 2 beta tests, since i couldnt be arsed DLing gig and gigs of a game i felt wasnt worth the effort.
I was in the alpha for prime ( dominion ) and even though it died due to money running out it felt a better game.
Soldato
Back then, MMO popularity wasn't as big as it was now, nor were population sizes, while I've also played single instance and server MMOs some just can't neatly hide the fact it can't support everyone in one place.
It was bad enough in ESO with around 10 people in the same area, let alone wanting every single person on one instance. There's a reason for it, there are just too many people to slam into isngle starter areas on release, amongst other things.
Have any better ideas? I'm sincere.
Its does, not too sure what point your trying to bait me with?
Soldato
For who? there is only one with it working out for them in a sustainable and even they're haemorrhaging subscribers (Eve is P2P to, but I don't really count it in the same space as fantasy RPGs) - Plus it isn't 2-3 years ago where a whole bunch of P2P WoW clones are coming out trying to take some of it's 12 million sub pie ... it's very different now, those previous WoW clones for the most part have since converted into the F2P model, on top of those that have launched as F2P... so trying to launch your MMO as P2P today is you not only competing with WoW's shrinking market, but also trying to tempt the vast amount of F2Pers back to paying a monthly fee - can it happen? yes. But your game would have to be downright ****ing amazing for that 'yes' to occur, which ESO isn't anywhere close to being thought of as.
Last edited:
One way to avoid the starter area situation is to spread the player base out, have each race have their own areas. Too many MMOs these days just have 1 linear set of zones, so 1 starter zone, which everything bundles into. Although MMO popularity has increased I'm not sure (without seeing some figures) if the same is true of the actual simultaneous capacity of MMOs, for example, Daoc used to have around 4000 players logged in at a time on a server, back in 2003. I might be wrong, but I think that many MMOs since then have had similar numbers that are logged into a server at a time (many more servers, but similar numbers logged in per server). The difference is that a lot of newer MMOs make things so linear, say 1 or 2 starting areas and then a linear progression where you go from zone x at level 10, to zone y at level 15, then zone z at level 20. In effect, pushing everyone along the same route at the same times, causing congestion.
Zoneless open world MMOs avoid this issue somewhat (ie UO), by having a gameworld where people can go anywhere at anytime, thus spreading out the player base. Another way of course, as I say, is to design a game with far more areas, larger worlds, with differing choices for levelling in zones (ie. Daoc, where each race had different starting areas, thereby spreading the initial rush of players around rather than cramming them all into one starting area)
Last edited:
Game is going to be dead before it even launches, and F2P within 6 months.
Right, but that doesn't prove sub MMO's are bad. You can't seriously think that?
Are you seriously wishing upon the gaming world, a market of F2P MMO's where people have no connection to games, they hop between them and drop them just as quick, where companies deliberately lower xp gain, skill gain, gold gain and then sell you packs to increase it to 'higher' levels which are in fact the original levels?
Are you really asking for that? Because you can find loads of streamers, youtubers and millions of other players who are getting completely fed up with free to play and its destruction of the gaming market through their season passes and £40 dlc for 2 hours of content.
I know ESO won't do well, i know it'll probably end up F2P, but i would not wish F2P upon a community of players ever. Its horrible.
All very true. Also - do away with quest hubs altogether. They are not needed if your world is engaging enough, players will explore and spread out naturally, especially if you don't give them obvious paths of do-this-to-win. Killing mobs should be the bulk of xp/loot/reward, not questing. Ironically given its name, EverQuest had very few quests of note - most players only really doing faction/craft/epic quests and that was it.
Agree with this, begs the question why do developers always seem to avoid making sandboxes? Surely its cheaper to make, you have much less things to develop.
Associate
Having played this for the first time over the weekend stress test, I can't say I was blown away graphics and performance where pretty good but it just did not draw me in and I found the ranged combat to be lackluster to the point I switched from bow to dual wield.
Give me daoc 2 and i'd be a happy man, maybe Camelot unchained can deliver on that but still a couple of years away yet
Give me daoc 2 and i'd be a happy man, maybe Camelot unchained can deliver on that but still a couple of years away yet
Soldato
While all this is very valid, I think publishers and developers need to lose the €15 a month mentality. In a world where game prices have crashed through the floor, the mmo pricing structure from 15 years ago is still being pushed on people who don't have the time to justify it anymore. Halve the sub, or at least experiment with it, and see what kind of reaction you get, but psychologically I think that €15 figure just puts people off before they even try it now.
This is riddled with assumptions, culminating in a strawman on both the part of what I apparently want and what developers will do with their F2P games now and forever. But to clarify my post was merely suggesting the direction of the market working against ESO's chosen model - but to add my position to that, I do genuinely think it would be far more successful as a F2P/B2P game than their current push to make it a P2P one.
Last edited:
Soldato
I do wonder how a £5 a month sub, with a few optional cosmetic items for real cash MMO system would work.
Or even, a fully F2P mmo - but with an extensive cosmetic system, I mean league of legends does pretty well with a 100% cosmetic system & has the full game open to people who don't pay a penny.
I do agree with the points regarding sandbox games, in reality the only real MMO (in a true sense) currently out in the market today is EvE online.
Or even, a fully F2P mmo - but with an extensive cosmetic system, I mean league of legends does pretty well with a 100% cosmetic system & has the full game open to people who don't pay a penny.
I do agree with the points regarding sandbox games, in reality the only real MMO (in a true sense) currently out in the market today is EvE online.
Don't forget UO! 17 years old this September! The original sandbox MMO of any note.
Soldato
Right, but that doesn't prove sub MMO's are bad. You can't seriously think that?
Then name all the successful ones which are still sub based now, which have launched within the past 5 years.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
Guild Wars 2 was essentially a free to play MMO, yeah you bought the game for a one off fee, but that was then it, the rest of money made was through cosmetic items.
The same applies to Path of Exile, while not an MMO as such it is massive and it is multiplayer with ~3 million active accounts, this game relies entirely on the sale of cosmetic items and quality of life purchases like stash tabs and character slots.
So a 100% free to play model for an MMO with cosmetic sales only can work.
Are there any??