*** Official Elder Scrolls MMO Thread ***

Its like Ford bringing out a new car with no wheels and someone saying 'But its launch! Give it a few months and they might add wheels, they will probably add doors too!'.

A better analogy would be comparing it to the PS4, doesn't have 3D blu ray capacity at launch even though it was a feature.

Probably an extreme example given but why the hell should you give a company who have apparently spent around $200 mil to make a game an excuse for it being sub-par?

I agree here, 200m is a ludicrous amount of money to spend, but considering SWTOR rumoured costs is £300m and this is £200m, sadly to try and compete in a worth while manor you need to spend big it seems.

At this stage in development SWTOR was FAR superior and we all know how that went.

Completely subjective with no evidence or facts. At least explain.

SWTOR on launch was great, don't get me wrong. Hell i bought the collectors edition!!

But you have to accept that there are a lot of people saying 'meh' about ESO.

On here yes, in game people are mostly positive and on other forums too. So not everyone is against it.
 
Even if it was 200m, that's only double the price of a CoD title with 3x the development time. Never see them being criticized as an abhorrent waste of a developers money. :rolleyes:

Well I would be definitely one of the people in that camp. CoD is a complete waste of crap.

But what you have said is an example of why the MMO market is so toxic. £200m on CoD is fine, £200m on a MMO is like crazy. (apparently)
 
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.

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.
 
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)

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.
 
Exactly my point, there are none.

The gamers have moved away from that model, the only games which are still successful today with that model, are the ones which have that loyal fan base and don't want to lose what they've earned over the years (EVE and WoW). There are plenty of WoW clones which are successful, but use a F2P model or B2P model with micro transactions. Gaming trends change over time, and P2P is a trend which is fading, companies need to realise and follow suit with what gamers want, else risk losing out.

Complete and utter rubbish.

Your saying Sub's failed because the game failed, can you not see how completely flawed that thought process is?

SWTOR failed as a sub, because the GAME failed.

AoC failed as a sub, because the GAME failed.

RIFT failed as a sub, because the GAME failed.

WoW succeeds as a sub, because the GAME succeeded.

See where I'm going. Sub's are perfectly fine, the GAME is the problem.
 
And your logic is flawed if you don't believe that the payment model doesn't have any relevance into whether a game will be successful.

Every game that was sub based and went F2P, failed due to gameplay problems that meant a sub was not worth the money. Nothing to do with the sub model being wrong or outdated.

There are lots of sub par games which are a success, why? Because they're not reliant on monthly subs to get money and have an active playerbase who purchase freemium items to give the developers money.

And you are further proving my point, if it was better then sub par then it would be able to charge a sub, because it was below par, it can't get away with it.

Free games will have a higher turn over rate and generally a higher population too,

Higher pop, sure its bloody free. But a higher turn over rate, EAware mentioned in a investors call that most of there cartel items where being purchased by sub players, then the free to play player base.

which translates to a more active community, which leads to more people wanting to try the game and the community growing.

I guess GW2 is a great example of this......oh wait its really not. :rolleyes:

If i remember correctly Immortals guilds had something like 200 players in the first week or so and after the first month ended up with around 50, now i don't have a clue on there numbers.

LoL a completely free game with a cash shop, has the most toxic and aggressive community ever created. Its horrible.

If at release your game isn't up to scratch and is P2P then your community will dwindle and the players who leave will snowball from any mention of the games flaws.

I completely agree.

Those games you mentioned would have probably been a success of they launched as F2P, because they're were by no means bad games, just games which people wouldn't want to pay monthly for.

Because the GAME was below par as you put it, if the game was above par then the sub would have been fine.

You need to separate this delusion you have with a failing game and a sub payment model. A game fails because its crap, not because of the sub. The sub is generally a sign of a high quality product and if its not, it fails. But that is not the fault of the sub model, its the fault of the game.
 
There's a very good reason why combat is off in this game - it uses the same base engine as SWTOR, the Hero Engine. It's a well known fact that this engine has real timing issues with GCD's and combat animations.

If anyone is hoping for a patch to this, they will be waiting a long time.

Pretty sure it doesn't use the Hero engine, they only used it a couple of years ago apparently.

But if I'm wrong, please show me!
 
I tried the first beta and gave up after an hour thought it was so bland. Completely uninspiring, dull & terrible combat system as usual imo for Bethesda games. Cannot believe the price for this game either, incredible that they think £50 for this is some how worth it on top of your then monthly sub. That business model is so old and doesn't seem to work any more so why they think they can get away with it in a game that adds nothing new to a genre that has been done and done again is baffling.

Complete rubbish.

Sub based gaming is perfectly fine if the games quality is up to the monthly price tag.

HBO charge you for high quality TV shows using a monthly sub, i'd like to see you speak to them and suggest going free for everyone, just charge them per show and each episode plays -0.5x speed per 10mins until you buy a +1 speed boost.

Seriously, free to play gaming is a horrible invention that is ruining gaming. I made this call years ago and its just getting worse.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/pe...ngeon-keeper-this-is-ridiculous/1100-6417611/

And BF4 Pay more, Be More motto. Just 2 examples.
 
LoL is F2P and it's great. World of Tanks isn't bad either. Planetside? Team Fortress? Plenty of other smaller titles are decent; the industry is growing nicely, in fact.

LoL which isn't a MMO has the single worst gaming community thats ever existed, Its just horrific. You could quite easily attest that to the free to play aspect of the game since its pick up and play when you feel like it and troll with throwaway accounts.

Never played world of tanks.

Planetside, while free to play, most people i speak to about it wish it was sub based. Considering all the 'cool' things are on the cash shop. Again, give the community the bare boring basics and put the awesome stuff on the shop, almost forcing you to buy from it.

Team Fortress, I've never played. If you want to buy hats, well its your money to waste :D

F2P has its place, but its generally regarded as short term cash grabs and extremely detrimental to the community of the games.
 
Back
Top Bottom