ESO - Elder Scrolls Online

Yeah, I can see that.

It would work well for anyone on the front end of the gold curve. Since it's players selling CREDD to other players, the cost is going to inflate. I play way too casually to keep up (not to mention spend too much on alts), so when a big portion of the player base is at max level and "oozing with golds", I'll be just sliding into max level and looking to outfit my characters.

The only way I'd be able to play the game is as a regular sub game, and I have a hard time justifying that when some weeks I might not be able to log on at all.

I also wonder how much CREDD players will funnel into the market. With GW2, where you don't pay a sub, you can always throw 10 bucks at it for 800 gems to get an extra 20gold. Wildstar's system, however, is relying on people being willing to pay their sub of $15.99 a month, and still spend additional money on CREDD to sell to other players for in-game gold. Then again, gold-selling thrives in sub-based games, so I guess there are plenty of people who are willing.

It'll be interesting to see if their model holds up. People keep saying subscription is a thing of the past, but MMOs keep launching with them.
 
Last edited:
Enok said:
It'll be interesting to see if their model holds up. People keep saying subscription is a thing of the past, but MMOs keep launching with them.
Click to expand...

Yah, all that crap from the TESO devs about needing to go sub in order to be a 'premium experience'...I wish someone would just throw a copy of GW2 in their face and say "WHAT NOW?" The way they described why they need a subscription model makes it seem like the game is like..an elite thing for the higher up players only lol. Meh..I am not the 1%.
 
Engris said:
Yah, all that crap from the TESO devs about needing to go sub in order to be a 'premium experience'...I wish someone would just throw a copy of GW2 in their face and say "WHAT NOW?" The way they described why they need a subscription model makes it seem like the game is like..an elite thing for the higher up players only lol. Meh..I am not the 1%.
Click to expand...

Actually, the ESO devs have looked very intently at GW2 (among other well-received MMOs). And quite honestly, ESO is shaping up to be, in many ways, a potentially better game. Its still in beta, so there is much to still polish. But right now, its not designed for the casual MMO player, but for the one seeking a more hardcore, immersive experience. GW2 focuses on being more lighthearted and casual (hence the Super Adventure Box and 'immersion-breaking' temporary content). ESO is going for a more 'realistic' or true-to-life type of fantasy world.

And yes, the old adage is still true - 'you get what you pay for.' I have been part of both "Buy to Play" and "Subscription-based" MMO games. And I can testify from personal experience, subscription games have ALWAYS had superior quality. Why? Probably because in a subscription-based game, the developers are financially encouraged to focus on the game play experience. The game has to be fun and engaging otherwise the subscriber cancels the subscription (and developers take pay cuts or worse, position cuts). So the subscription-based developer is financially motivated to continually work on the game after release (not just new content), but game balance, bug fixes, and how the game plays from start to finish. The "Buy to Play" is financially focused on additives (cash shop items, for example, or an expansion of content). With "Buy to Play" they do game balance and bug fixes, too, but its not their primary goal. It can be "good enough" and focus more on getting items available for players to purchase so they have an income. The two models drive developers in different directions (though arguably there is some overlap).

You asked "What Now?" Well, quite honestly, you are making the case for ESO rather than against their proposed model. GW2 has not met its promise to its fan-base. ESO is launching with a LFG dungeon tool from the start. GW2, after a year, still hasn't included one. ESO is launching with a first-person view ability. GW2 still doesn't have one. ESO is launching on four platforms (PC, Mac, PS4, and Xbox One). GW2 still doesn't have a working version for Mac (though there is a workaround) and nothing for consoles. Both have multiple races, multiple "professions", multiple crafting options, PvE, PvP, and World vs World combat. Both have story lines, quests, and a vast explorable world. Yet, where is GW2 spending its time, energy, and resources? Super Adventure Box 8-bit instances? Temporary content? Achievement point grinding? Cash shop items? And here we are a year later and they still haven't got the professions balanced.

Now, before folks reading this post get all sensitive, let me point out that ESO and GW2 are two very different games. They are not trying to be like one another. So its really like comparing apples and oranges. They both might be fruit, but there are inherent differences that a comparison just doesn't do justice. That said, ESO is still in beta. But I suspect (predict) in my humble opinion, that come spring of 2014, ESO will succeed GW2 because it will appeal to the crowd that GW2 is not reaching. And in the case of trying to reach the "hardcore" (take this game seriously) Elder Scrolls fan-base, they can probably get away with a viable subscription model which is going to focus developers on game play instead of cash shops.
 
I wouldn't mind a more "serious" game with a consistent world, but I don't even have consistent time to do regular dungeons, much less raiding. Guess I fall into some crack between casual and hardcore. Probably leaning toward the casual, though.
 
Taran that might have been the most intelligent and well written response and game comparison I've ever read. I suppose I didn't know a whole lot about ESO. My only experience with subscription based games is basically WoW...and we all know where that game went lol...so it kind of threw off my opinion of sub based games being truly viable anymore after GW2 was released and took a good chunk out of it.
I'm now considering TESO again...thank you Taran.
 
Personally, I just couldn't see a game being so good that it deserved bill status. Maybe if it was literally everything I was looking for in a game. idk

I have several friends who have been playing WoW since release and that game has cost them what? Over $1500 each for the game? Something like that. Add in the wife and kids and that's a chunk of change for me but then again I suppose they may not be marketing it to me.

ESO does look amazing and if/when they go F2P I'll be giving it a shot. A more serious game seems really cool.
 
Taran said:
And I can testify from personal experience, subscription games have ALWAYS had superior quality.
Click to expand...

What kind of games are you thinking of?

The reason I ask is because there aren't a lot of sub games to compare any more. Rift launched with a sub, and looked (I haven't paid attention to it for a while) about equivalent to GW2. SW:toR was a sub game, and is far inferior in quality to GW2. The first incarnation of FFXIV was terribly broken, so hard to compare that. The Secret World was also inferior in quality (some might argue equal in quality) to GW2 and launched with a sub. Of course, all of these games, with the exception of FFXIV, quickly went F2P, so you could say they just weren't up to subscription quality.

So that leaves Eve and WoW, to compare, right? I've never played either.

I just wonder if "sub means higher quality" was true, but is becoming less so.

Why? Probably because in a subscription-based game, the developers are financially encouraged to focus on the game play experience. The game has to be fun and engaging otherwise the subscriber cancels the subscription (and developers take pay cuts or worse, position cuts). So the subscription-based developer is financially motivated to continually work on the game after release (not just new content), but game balance, bug fixes, and how the game plays from start to finish. The "Buy to Play" is financially focused on additives (cash shop items, for example, or an expansion of content). With "Buy to Play" they do game balance and bug fixes, too, but its not their primary goal. It can be "good enough" and focus more on getting items available for players to purchase so they have an income. The two models drive developers in different directions (though arguably there is some overlap).
Click to expand...

On paper, this makes complete sense. Yet I've heard just as compelling of an argument for the complete opposite. Prior to GW2 launch, it went something like, "B2P encourages development, because devs can't rely on people playing just to keep playing the game. Once the box has been purchased, there's no further income for the developers unless they come out with more content that the players are willing to buy."

Of course, we can see what that actually looks like in GW2. So far it's town clothes, RNG boxes, and removing inconveniences (inventory space, character limitations) that we are being offered. But with a sub, you also get the reality that developers can choose to keep dropping new carrots into the game rather than working to improve the gameplay experience. And then there's subscription games who triple dip, requiring box price, subscription, and selling stuff in a cash shop.

I've always been skeptical of the argument that somehow subscriptions mean developers have a greater need to keep people playing than F2P. F2P games still need to keep an active player base, or else their game is deemed "dead" which causes even fewer people to keep playing. And people who aren't playing aren't going to be spending money in the cash shop. Both models need to do everything they can to keep people playing.

If the last couple of years are any indication, it's that the MMORPG market is very hard to predict right now. I'll be very interested to see how Wildstar and ESO fare.
 
Last edited:
I would predict that Wildstar will go F2P soon after launch (within a year). ESO already has an established fan-base, so it could sustain a subscription (unless they mess up their game). Of the two, I would say ESO is poised to retain subscriptions even after the first year. But yes, the MMO market is becoming less viable to sustain subscriptions. To keep such a model, the game has to be really good and have a very loyal fan-base. Morrowind and Oblivion did much to help, but it was Skyrim that did much to secure that loyalty in its fan-base in the minds of players. And that is an advantage most new MMOs don't have (ie. Wildstar).
 
The big challenge with TESO and subs is the console factor. Consoles already charge you to play online. Including a sub on top of that might be too much for some. Either it needs to be that access to the XBOX Live and whatever Playstation uses need to not be a necessity to play, or sub is waived for console games. The latter will lead to complaints from PC players then...

I was reading something on Massively today which made note of the TESO devs referring to the game as a multiplayer not a MMO (I'm curious to know what they meant by that).

I really like the B2P of GW2. I still need to spend money on it so there is some bit of commitment. Unlike SWTOR, I don't get a broken game for not subbing or paying. I get a fully flushed out game. Personally, I would not be spending as much on GW2 as I would on a sub, but I can definitely see myself putting some cash in (already did, bought GW Plat Ed for Heritage skins, and $35 of gems). I like the options it gives.

I think Wildstar's hybrid model is an experiment. IT might hold up but I too could see the game shifting to B2P as well, in this market. The reason being is the market is saturated. With B2P you get that initial windfall and the players are more likely to come back because the price is right.
 
Last edited:
Taran said:
To keep such a model, the game has to be really good and have a very loyal fan-base. Morrowind and Oblivion did much to help, but it was Skyrim that did much to secure that loyalty in its fan-base in the minds of players.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is that possibility, though we've seen two games die just recently that were supposed to have a die-hard fan base to keep them from failing. Star Wars fanaticism didn't help SW:tOR, and FFXIV also tanked in spite of a history of very popular RPGs and a devoted fan base. After trying SW:tOR and playing in the beta for FFXIV, it was easy to see why. They were both pretty terrible games.

ESO will have a tricky path to walk, relying on its fan base. By it's very nature, as an MMO, it's going to have to do some things different than in the IPs single player games, but it will need to stick close enough to still feel like an Elder Scrolls game. It'll be interesting to see if they pull off that tightrope walk of creating a very different kind of game that still feels like everything the fans love about the old ones.
 
Taran said:
You asked "What Now?" Well, quite honestly, you are making the case for ESO rather than against their proposed model. GW2 has not met its promise to its fan-base. ESO is launching with a LFG dungeon tool from the start. GW2, after a year, still hasn't included one. ESO is launching with a first-person view ability. GW2 still doesn't have one. ESO is launching on four platforms (PC, Mac, PS4, and Xbox One). GW2 still doesn't have a working version for Mac (though there is a workaround) and nothing for consoles. Both have multiple races, multiple "professions", multiple crafting options, PvE, PvP, and World vs World combat. Both have story lines, quests, and a vast explorable world. Yet, where is GW2 spending its time, energy, and resources? Super Adventure Box 8-bit instances? Temporary content? Achievement point grinding? Cash shop items? And here we are a year later and they still haven't got the professions balanced.
Click to expand...

I must say that I've enjoyed GW2 (~10 months now). I haven't been hooked like this since DAoC. But, I feel like I've gotten to the end and need a serious expansion ($). Taran pretty much touches most of my frustrations.

When are we going to get an expansion or a game worth playing? That is my question. I applaud Anet for keeping the GW2 rating and mature content (minus a few outfits) at a minimum. Good on them! We just need that expansion and some end-game content. As for ESO and a few others on the horizon, totally expect a MATURE rating. I'm a Christian, a husband and a father...I don't need M. I can deal with swearing and blood. It is the crude/vulgar/sexual content that I would struggle supporting. Put on the blinders and play through Skyrim, fine. Take off the blinders and read all that is available and you wouldn't talk about it on these forums.

ESO looks great, I just don't think I want immersed in it.
 
At present, I have not seen anything in ESO that would disqualify it from a T (Teen) rating. Its not gory, sensual, or any of that other garbage (at least, not yet). If the game stays like it is, it should have the same rating as GW2 (use of alcohol and fantasy violence, but that's it).
 
Typically what makes or breaks an MMO comes down to initial launch quality and end game. While WoW has certainly had its share of launch bugs it was still a very solid launch (the industry was also much newer and forgiving than now), but where WoW pulled ahead was its endgame, Blizzard found a near perfect balance between hardcore and casual and that sustained it for over 8 years now. If ESO can do those two things it will have a successful game and will sustain a subscription base. There are many factors why the various MMos mentioned went ftp. I would say Rift went tthat way cause it was too much like WoW and why leave an established community to go to a new one with just a new paint job. Others like Secret World it was a quality issue. In SWTORs case it was some launch issues but the big killer was the end game which was bad and got old real fast. GW2 also suffers in the end game and I suspect will start seeing a population decline if it doesnt improve. I can say with alot of certainty that if GW2 had come out a subscription based with its current content (at the one year mark) it would have gone under and been forced to drop to a ftp model within 6 months. It is rare that you will get fan base that is willing to pay a regular fee for very casual and temporary content. City of heroes was one of the few exceptions to that as it maintained a consistant base despite its end game flaws. Part of that was it was the only game to fill the superhero niche in the mmo genre.

As for the amount of money that a subscription based mmo demands ($180/yr) that actually relative. If an MMO can hold your attention that you are only playing it and not other games than you are actually saving money. Most single player games you will finish in 1-3 weeks and cost $60. If an MMO isnt keeping your attention (and you are trying other games) or arent playing MMOs then you are more likely to go out and buy other games and it will only take buying 3 games to equal a years subscription. Also depending on how much you get into some of the ftp games getting stuff from the cash shop will quickly add up and can very easily match your $180 investment in WoW (or other sub games). So the cash factor is not a big factor with MMOs in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Dragonhawk said:
Typically what makes or breaks an MMO comes down to initial launch quality and end game. While WoW has certainly had its share of launch bugs it was still a very solid launch (the industry was also much newer and forgiving than now), but where WoW pulled ahead was its endgame, Blizzard found a near perfect balance between hardcore and casual and that sustained it for over 8 years now.
Click to expand...

Many people forget this, but WoW started off just as bad as most MMOs since. Like you said though, players were more forgiving back then, probably because they didn't know what a good MMO looked like. They also did not have the last MMO they were playing to go back to that had all there friends still playing, which I think is one of the biggest reason WoW still is around. Well that and Skinners Box. Also, WoW brought so many new people to MMOs that were just fans of Blizzard. They did have an end game, but you had to wait a lot longer to get the people you needed to even attempt it, and that Raid took so long to complete.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. WoW came in when the market was far less saturated. The only other new MMO was EQ2 which kinda disappointed EQ fans if I recall. SWG, EQ, AC, DAoC were the other kids in the playground. Nowadays, there are so many options that subscription cost is now a huge detriment. I will only pay a box and sub price if one of two things occur:

1. I know the company and IP well and have not been disappointed.
2. I have had a chance to play a free trial.

Now my first condition has been corrupted by more recent offerings. SWTOR was a bit of a disappointment (as a MMO, loved it from a single player story perspective). I loved Star Wars and BioWare. FFXIV is another example. Love FF, but did not enjoy their first MMO (FFXI?). The thought of having to pay for the game (albeit inexpensive at $30) just to try it out doesn't interest me. I'm definitely in the F2P camp, possibly even B2P.

I think if MMO companies want to continue to push subs, they need to launch free trials early on, if not at launch. Whats the harm in giving someone a limited taste of the game?
 
direpath said:
I think if MMO companies want to continue to push subs, they need to launch free trials early on, if not at launch. Whats the harm in giving someone a limited taste of the game?
Click to expand...

With the current state of every new MMO having login issues, full servers with queues and the paid players not being able to play, I think a free trial at launch would be a bad decision. Well after launch dust has settled down and server population is stable would be a good time for trials.
 
Here's a great article critiquing the payment model of ESO.

http://i.massively.joystiq.com/2013/09/10/the-soapbox-the-case-against-the-elder-scrolls-onlines-subscri/

Has several good points, but the article mistakenly compares MMOs to single-player gaming on a 1:1 ratio. A bit unrealistic expectation, but still has some good points in it. One of the funniest parts is when the author acknowledges the cost of servers, bandwidth, customer account support and all the other additional online costs that go with an MMO and then just ignores it. But still, you all might find the article entertaining in its rant nevertheless.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top