I don't know how you think GW2 could compete with TESO. TESO has professional customer support.TheComfyChair said:
How do you compete with that.
The Elder Scrolls Online Will Have Subscription Fees
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
Recommended Videos
How do you compete with that.
I imagine this will be just another "mediocre at best" MMO. Like TOR it'll probably start with a pretty big opening fanbase just because of the popularity of TES but begin bleeding subscriptions profusely after the first few weeks. But that's only for the PC gamers, I predict that for the next-gen console gamers it's going to be an absolute flop. They'll already be paying their subscriptions to MS and Sony and aren't likely going to want to pony up for another subscription on top of that one.
To be honest though, I never had high hopes for this game even when it was announced. Other than the names of places and races, I doubt it'll have much grip on the TES setting/world as it needs in order to remain viable. More likely it'll basically just be a generic medieval-fantasy MMO slapped onto a TES template. To me TES was, is, and always will be best served as single player.
To be honest though, I never had high hopes for this game even when it was announced. Other than the names of places and races, I doubt it'll have much grip on the TES setting/world as it needs in order to remain viable. More likely it'll basically just be a generic medieval-fantasy MMO slapped onto a TES template. To me TES was, is, and always will be best served as single player.
At best I only had a mild interest in this game. I loved Oblivion and felt Skyrim was dated and boring since it really didn't push the genre (much like how Borderland 1 & 2 are essentially identical).
Making it a subscription model completely eliminates any chance of my trying the game. I hate feeling 'forced' to play a game to justify the monthly subscription. I'd much rather there be a 'playtime' subscription model. $15.00 buys you 150 hours of gameplay for example. This way I can play around my schedule rather than theirs.
Making it a subscription model completely eliminates any chance of my trying the game. I hate feeling 'forced' to play a game to justify the monthly subscription. I'd much rather there be a 'playtime' subscription model. $15.00 buys you 150 hours of gameplay for example. This way I can play around my schedule rather than theirs.
I was interested in this game. Key word on was. Honestly all I wanted out of something like this was merely co-op play in a TES (or Fallout for that matter) game. Good thing I've already scrounged up enough money for GTA5 instead as my co-op type game with my friends. Oh well, just gotta hope the rest of the games I am looking forwards to don't look to screw up towards the end. Simply put, I can get enough money to buy a game every few months, not support micro-transactions on a monthly basis.
Thinking about it some more, that model basically is saying it wants me to pay for the equivalent of a whole new game every 4 months. I usually do buy a new game every 4 months. Thing is, I doubt they'll add even 1/4 a whole game's worth of content in 4 months. Not exactly worth the money in my eyes.
Thinking about it some more, that model basically is saying it wants me to pay for the equivalent of a whole new game every 4 months. I usually do buy a new game every 4 months. Thing is, I doubt they'll add even 1/4 a whole game's worth of content in 4 months. Not exactly worth the money in my eyes.
I was thinking the same exact thing.OCAdam said:
Odds are this game wouldn't be anywhere close to equal in value with buying a new game every four months.
I'm going to wait for a sale where I can get it for $45 or cheaper and maybe pay for a second month of play time, and then just stop. That way I'd still only pay $60.
I already pay $15 for WoW, which I have quickly lost interest in. The only reason I still pay is because I have not found a game with a similar sense of community. Sure F2P games have guilds, group content, and whatnot, but none have the server population to support those features. I for one fully expected ESO to have a monthly fee, after EQN announced it would be F2P. I also expect EQN to be monetized similarly to LOTRO, in which I had to pay to increase bag space, add skill slots, break the 2g monetary cap, level past 30... you get the idea. When ESO is released it will be my one P2P option with EQN being another F2P. Which one will I play more? I do not know, but I will at least finally break away from WoW. Not all good things are free, sad I know. But if I'm playing for 20 hours or more a month I consider that a great value for the cash I put in.
Well, I WAS sort of interested in this game. That's gone right out of the window. I am not willing to pay subscription fees, it doesn't matter what the game is or even if its a great game, I don't have the money and even if I did I don't want to pay a subscription.
TheComfyChair said:
Not sure by what accounts GW2 is doing well, because the servers are basically ghost towns. Yeah, it sold well, but nobody is playing that thing any more. Also it's updates might be frequent.. but they are fairly minor.
Personally I prefer subscriptions in my big, AAA MMOs. I don't mind paying a steady, monthly sub, knowing that it gives me unlimited access to ALL of the game features, without having to worry about buying power, not getting the next bit of content because it might be going over my budget, over-priced content, and so on.
That being said, TESO really didn't grab my interest. Regardless of monetization system, I doubt I'll be playing it.
He knows that no one really wanted an Elder Scrolls MMO, all any real TES fans wanted was CO OP, 2 to 4 players, playing in the same game world. That is all we ever wanted, but the big wigs decided that wouldn't make enough money and decided to make a big triple A MMO. It's gonna flop and it's gonna be spectacular when it does. I just hope it doesn't destroy the franchise in the process.Pandaman1911 said:Jesus Shittington Christ, are you serious? Did this man seriously say that? God damn, as if the Warp in the West wasn't bad enough. Lore in TES games (and how do you say that, anyway? The The Elder Scrolls games? Or The Elder Scrolls Games? Because it's not Elder Scrolls, it's THE Elder Scrolls. Shit, whatever.) is a good chunk of the game, and is really what makes the world feel somewhat alive. I'd listen to the Hlaalu recruiter talk about the history of the houses for ages, listen to Garothmuk gro-Muzgub in Suran talk about the different kinds and styles of armor and weapons, from designs to materials they were made from... and I distinctly remember sitting around in the Balmora bookseller for hours on end, reading all the books there were available. And this man wants to tell me that all I experienced was just a "fanciful portrayal"? Just because everyone's not all scowling and serious, and because everything in the world isn't a sordid and grim affair, doesn't mean it's "fanciful" or a "fable". Gritty does not equal realistic, god damn it. But, hey. The majority of the players think I'm in the wrong, I guess. S'wits.bringer of illumination said:Look at this picture:
Do those sound like the words of a man that has any respect what so ever for the franchise he is working with?
These people have nothing to do with the original franchise and they have the fucking balls to say that what they are making is the "real" version.
I could list the near endless betrayals of the story and lore that this game does, and I could spend hours explaining how all these changes are only being made because the people making the game are lazy and have no creative spirit and because a generic boring fantasy world is easier to market to the drooling masses.
But it's all moot, the only thing that matters is that these people don't respect or care about the franchise they're working with.
Sorry to go all fanboy on you here, but it just annoys me a tiny little bit when something I really care about is handed to a bunch of hacks that clearly don't.
If its £10 a month without an initial purchase cost then I could live with that... I'd likely play the game for about 3-4 months, making it roughly the same cost as to buy a standard game off the shelf.
If its £10+£30/£40.. no thanks. Ill pass, or wait till the inevitable turn to F2P.
If its £10+£30/£40.. no thanks. Ill pass, or wait till the inevitable turn to F2P.
I don't really get why everyone is so gung-ho against the very idea of subscriptions. Sure, the price for this partiicular subscription might be a bit steep, that's a legitimate concern, but to complain about the entire financial model is weird to me. Subscription services are a legitimate alternative and offer plenty of benefits that other MMO monetization methods do not. As long as companies don't "Mix and match" payment methods and throw in Buy to Play and microtransactions, subscriptions are nice because they guarantee that you can access all of the content available in the game without worrying about being nickel and dimed or subjected to pay walls to access content. It also avoids having the ever floating temptation in "f2p" games of being able to just drop money to win the game for you or buy super rare items for a few dollars. It provides some level of balance because all players are on the same footing.
A common argument is that some people dont have time to play it as much as they'd like and feel like that subscription is wasted on them. If you predict that you won't be able to play much for a certain period in extreme circumstances you could just temporarily drop the subscription until you have more time. And even if you regularly only have a few hours a week to play, $15 a month still isn't THAT expensive. That's less than the price to see two movies (minus any snacks or food), which combined would only amount to at most 5 hours of entertainment, yet I'm sure many people still go to see movies at that price. Even if you only get to play it for 10 hours a month (~2.5 hours a week) I still think that $15 is a reasonable value for your time. I pay more than $15 a week just to buy lunches at work and they don't provide me with a months worth of unlimited enjoyment whenever I feel like it (or have time to)
Is it because a lot of us (especially PC gamers and myself included) have become spoiled with how cheap games are with steam and humble bundles and all of these other platforms of great sales, that we don't appreciate how much value we get for our money anymore? I just don't really get it. Sure, the game is more expensive in the long run (read: more than four months of play) than a new AAA release game unless they give discounts for pre-purchasing longer subscriptions. But this game (if it's good... if it's bad then it'll fail subscription or not) will likely provide tons more content and enjoyment opportunities than most AAA games will over those 4 months.
If you don't like subscription games, then that's fine I guess, nobody is forcing you to play it. I just don't understand why its such a turn-off to so many people and why so many people are already declaring this game dead in the water before it even launches purely because the game is subscription based. If the game is really good, people will pay to play it and it will succeed. If it's not good enough then people won't and they'll either have to adjust their business model or take the game down. I don't think the subscription itself is a death sentence though...
I'd like to hear other peoples' opinions on this matter.
A common argument is that some people dont have time to play it as much as they'd like and feel like that subscription is wasted on them. If you predict that you won't be able to play much for a certain period in extreme circumstances you could just temporarily drop the subscription until you have more time. And even if you regularly only have a few hours a week to play, $15 a month still isn't THAT expensive. That's less than the price to see two movies (minus any snacks or food), which combined would only amount to at most 5 hours of entertainment, yet I'm sure many people still go to see movies at that price. Even if you only get to play it for 10 hours a month (~2.5 hours a week) I still think that $15 is a reasonable value for your time. I pay more than $15 a week just to buy lunches at work and they don't provide me with a months worth of unlimited enjoyment whenever I feel like it (or have time to)
Is it because a lot of us (especially PC gamers and myself included) have become spoiled with how cheap games are with steam and humble bundles and all of these other platforms of great sales, that we don't appreciate how much value we get for our money anymore? I just don't really get it. Sure, the game is more expensive in the long run (read: more than four months of play) than a new AAA release game unless they give discounts for pre-purchasing longer subscriptions. But this game (if it's good... if it's bad then it'll fail subscription or not) will likely provide tons more content and enjoyment opportunities than most AAA games will over those 4 months.
If you don't like subscription games, then that's fine I guess, nobody is forcing you to play it. I just don't understand why its such a turn-off to so many people and why so many people are already declaring this game dead in the water before it even launches purely because the game is subscription based. If the game is really good, people will pay to play it and it will succeed. If it's not good enough then people won't and they'll either have to adjust their business model or take the game down. I don't think the subscription itself is a death sentence though...
I'd like to hear other peoples' opinions on this matter.
I can see what he is saying, The Nerevarine & Dovakhiin along with the Champion of Cyrodiil and Unknown Champion where extraordinary Heroes. They are legendary figures whose actions shattered empires, killed Gods and became Gods and took part in the key moments of history.Pandaman1911 said:Jesus Shittington Christ, are you serious? Did this man seriously say that? God damn, as if the Warp in the West wasn't bad enough. Lore in TES games (and how do you say that, anyway? The The Elder Scrolls games? Or The Elder Scrolls Games? Because it's not Elder Scrolls, it's THE Elder Scrolls. Shit, whatever.) is a good chunk of the game, and is really what makes the world feel somewhat alive. I'd listen to the Hlaalu recruiter talk about the history of the houses for ages, listen to Garothmuk gro-Muzgub in Suran talk about the different kinds and styles of armor and weapons, from designs to materials they were made from... and I distinctly remember sitting around in the Balmora bookseller for hours on end, reading all the books there were available. And this man wants to tell me that all I experienced was just a "fanciful portrayal"? Just because everyone's not all scowling and serious, and because everything in the world isn't a sordid and grim affair, doesn't mean it's "fanciful" or a "fable". Gritty does not equal realistic, god damn it. But, hey. The majority of the players think I'm in the wrong, I guess. S'wits.bringer of illumination said:Look at this picture:
Do those sound like the words of a man that has any respect what so ever for the franchise he is working with?
These people have nothing to do with the original franchise and they have the fucking balls to say that what they are making is the "real" version.
I could list the near endless betrayals of the story and lore that this game does, and I could spend hours explaining how all these changes are only being made because the people making the game are lazy and have no creative spirit and because a generic boring fantasy world is easier to market to the drooling masses.
But it's all moot, the only thing that matters is that these people don't respect or care about the franchise they're working with.
Sorry to go all fanboy on you here, but it just annoys me a tiny little bit when something I really care about is handed to a bunch of hacks that clearly don't.
In the Elder Scrolls online the characters are more mundane, more day to day. That's why he described the previous stories as "more fanciful.
The reason I don't like it, is because ArenaNet launched Guild Wars 2 as a buy 2 play game. One-off purchase cost of £30 (more than I'd usually spend on a game). After a rocky start they've managed to get to the point where they are pushing out bi-weekly new content. Without subscription fees. This makes me feel TESO doesn't NEED subscription fees for all this "content" they want to put out, and just want money.Sight Unseen said:
My server is pretty crowded. Always a queue for WvW, giant zergs of players rushing around to do big events, if you ping a map for help with a champion someone will almost certainly show up.VladG said:
If I'm not mistaken though, doesn't GW2 also have an in-game store with microtransactions? If that's the case then it's probably not really the one time purchase that's keeping the servers online but the microtransactions. Even if GW2's microtransactions are less Pay to win oriented, aren't there still moments where they try to tempt you with purchases or offer certain perks if you pay a bit extra? I've never played GW2 so please forgive me if I'm wrong about that, but if I'm not terribly misinformed, then I think I'd rather just pay a constant subscription than be constantly enticed or guilted into paying micro-transactions.endtherapture said:
I don't really have an intrinsic problem with microtransactions, unless they are pay to win, in which case I hate them; but a game that's supposed to be about immersion and building your own story and adventures like TES:O would be really immersion breaking to me if I'm constantly being reminded that I can pay $5 for this or that. I also play Dota 2 a lot and even though those microtransactions are entirely optional and merely cosmetic, I probably get suckered into buying way more in microtransactions than I would have if it had like a $5 a month subscription or a $60 flat price.
You know, the whole subscription thing? I'm okay with that. I assumed that the game was going to be subscription based anyway.bringer of illumination said:Look at this picture:
But this? This shit right here? This I cannot accept... I hate it. This one picture has made me hate this game so much. I hate this game and everyone involved with it now, but especially this guy, this Billy Connolly looking sonuva...
Saying something along the lines of, maybe, "We're gonna justify some of the inconsistencies in the lore in this game by saying that the events of this game happened centuries before the earlier installments" is fine. I could deal with that. But saying that your game is the "real world" of this already established game universe?! And the other games were "fanciful portrayals?!"
This game can die in a fire for all I care.
I like J Tyran's explanation of that quote. Also I'd like to see that quote in the full context of the interview he said it in, because idk if that was taken out of context somehow or not.AbsoluteVirtue18 said:You know, the whole subscription thing? I'm okay with that. I assumed that the game was going to be subscription based anyway.bringer of illumination said:Look at this picture:
But this? This shit right here? This I cannot accept... I hate it. This one picture has made me hate this game so much. I hate this game and everyone involved with it now, but especially this guy, this Billy Connolly looking sonuva...
Saying something along the lines of, maybe, "We're gonna justify some of the inconsistencies in the lore in this game by saying that the events of this game happened centuries before the earlier installments" is fine. I could deal with that. But saying that your game is the "real world" of this already established game universe?! And the other games were "fanciful portrayals?!"
This game can die in a fire for all I care.
Also, your avatar is oddly appropriate for your comment.
Well for a game that lacks any actual look or feel that differentiates itself from any other MMO, I'd say they're relying a little too heavily on brand name alone. And from the sounds of it, even that won't be enough to keep the amount of interest necessary for it to actually thrive. Sorry ESO, you've lost my buy.