[Megathread] Elder Scrolls Online

[Bigtimmy]

I'm not following this thread religiously -- did I miss something? Did they release a list of their proposed cash shop and the items on it? Do they have items for sale that imbalance the game? Because that is the only reason why anyone should be freaking out about a cash shop. If it's just vanity shit, grow up. You should never not expect a cash shop with vanity items anymore.

This is 2013, not 2004, be realistic.

The issue for me (and probably some others) is that I essentially don't care what is on the cash shop. The very existence of it means they are trying for a triple-dip business model of box price + sub fee + micro-transactions. You can have certain combinations of 2, but not all 3. (Please don't even try to compare it to WoW, either, because WoW is an anomaly in a lot of ways, and its current triple dip is one of them).

B2P and F2P are both perfectly reasonable business models these days. For a new game, P2P is far less realistic just all by itself. When you launch with the triple dip model, though, you look at best tone-deaf and at worst a shallow cash-grabbing asshole (i.e. you only ever expect the subscriptions to last for about a year, after which time your pre-conceived f2p transition takes place).

[mmotroof]

Wth are you talking about?

Aion was horrible from the start and had no real future (was obvious)

Rift didnt went F2P because it couldnt sustain itself but because they changed the Director of central department or however they call it and implanted some other dude who made radical changes to the game and F2P model was one of them (old dude was pro subscription model, new dude is F2P with micros)

SWTOR failed mostly because of Bioware developers having WoW syndrome (listening to vocal casual majority) and ruining the game patch by patch

ESO will do just fine with subscription model unless they pull off Tortanic like Bioware did and ruin the game with horrible patches in early months

aion peaked as the 2nd largest p2p mmo in history at over 4,000,000

- - - Updated - - -

The issue for me (and probably some others) is that I essentially don't care what is on the cash shop. The very existence of it means they are trying for a triple-dip business model of box price + sub fee + micro-transactions. You can have certain combinations of 2, but not all 3. (Please don't even try to compare it to WoW, either, because WoW is an anomaly in a lot of ways, and its current triple dip is one of them).

B2P and F2P are both perfectly reasonable business models these days. For a new game, P2P is far less realistic just all by itself. When you launch with the triple dip model, though, you look at best tone-deaf and at worst a shallow cash-grabbing asshole (i.e. you only ever expect the subscriptions to last for about a year, after which time your pre-conceived f2p transition takes place).

you're mad about something they haven't even mentioned though.

here is what's happening, wow addicts are looking for something to make them forget about wow but at the same time, they want to find fault in it so they can make an excuse to go back to wow

it's human nature. it's transparent as fuck too

[Edge-]

Megaserver technology

Not new, this exists within multiple games already (Champions Online and The Secret World, to name a few).

fully supported first-person view

There are hands! I hardly consider this "innovative" as it's doing nothing more than taking an animation from the single player version of the game and porting it to the MMO version. First person view has been around since EQ1.

It's nothing groundbreaking or revolutionary, but no other MMO coming in 2014 AFAIK is bringing anything eye-popping either.

Subjective. But if you dig it, that's totally cool. To each their own.

Also, if GW2's model is so successful or acclaimed. Why aren't more MMOs rushing out and copying this model? I mostly see either F2P or P2P.

TSW uses a similar model (but sells DLC). It's a difficult model to work right, as you still have the initial barrier of the box purchase. Honestly though, I'd love to see more variety amongst business models, specifically with B2P.

I agree on the insanely base product part but i dont agree with rapid content updates, SWTOR tried that and failed because devs were putting out content patches every few months while they were ignoring bugs and needed fixes that would adress PvP/PvE balance

This had far more to do with the fact that they were hemorrhaging subscribers from launch and had team cuts than anything else. SWTOR tried and failed because they weren't delivering content for max level players, and because they were fighting a losing battle from the get-go.

Compare that to both SWTOR and GW2 nowadays and you see the opposite. Both games have upped their content release schedule (GW2 at 2 weeks with smaller patches, SWTOR at 8 weeks with more meaty patches) and are finding success with those models compared to their previous content release schedules (which were slower).

But for reals, if ESO can deliver a solid base game and follow it up with some decent content patches pretty quickly, they stand to maintain a good chunk of their initial playerbase.

[Bigtimmy]

you're mad about something they haven't even mentioned though.

here is what's happening, wow addicts are looking for something to make them forget about wow but at the same time, they want to find fault in it so they can make an excuse to go back to wow

it's human nature. it's transparent as fuck too

This reads like transference to me. I don't give a crap about WoW. I don't hate it, either. I am just indifferent. I played it for a long time, but have not done so in roughly 9 months. I took breaks before, and MoP was my last (3 concurrent months) hurrah before I realized I was just bored with the same formula. I would like to find a new mmo to play (currently looking at EQN), but I have enough going on in my life that I can very easily fill the gaps in the absence of an all-encompassing game.

Also, please go back and read the part where I said I'm less concerned about what is actually on the cash shop than I am about their business model as a whole. I have no problem with cash shops in principle.

[Deleted]

Matt Firor (or Matt Führer, according to the interviewer) states in the following interview, that cashshop-related transactions won't happen ingame:



he also talks about "premium services" etc. - so I guess (warning, speculation ahead) we'll see a blizzard'ish shop with renames, transfers and pets/mounts ...


tl;dr : no obnoxious ingame cash shop

[Edge-]

tl;dr : no obnoxious ingame cash shop

I still don't get what's "obnoxious" about an additional button on your menu bar.

[Loaf Lord]

I still don't get what's "obnoxious" about an additional button on your menu bar.

People probably think it'll spam you with messages or a pop up. *shrugs*

[Deleted]

I still don't get what's "obnoxious" about an additional button on your menu bar.

For example the LOTRO Ui is obnoxious with the huge store button on your hotbar and the constant pop-ups and reminders everywhere
You can ignore them, but they're still everywhere.

[vizzle]

The issue for me (and probably some others) is that I essentially don't care what is on the cash shop. The very existence of it means they are trying for a triple-dip business model of box price + sub fee + micro-transactions. You can have certain combinations of 2, but not all 3. (Please don't even try to compare it to WoW, either, because WoW is an anomaly in a lot of ways, and its current triple dip is one of them).

B2P and F2P are both perfectly reasonable business models these days. For a new game, P2P is far less realistic just all by itself. When you launch with the triple dip model, though, you look at best tone-deaf and at worst a shallow cash-grabbing asshole (i.e. you only ever expect the subscriptions to last for about a year, after which time your pre-conceived f2p transition takes place).

I don't understand why we're not allowed to mention the most successful game in the genre. Clearly, the "triple-dipping" isn't hurting WoW. WoW has had the cash shop for years now, and their sub decline can hardly be blamed on the cash shop. So yea, if 8 million players (or 4 million if we don't include Asia) are fine with WoW having all three, why aren't people allowed to be fine with TESO having it?

Personally, I wasn't expecting the sub fee for this game, and I don't think a sub fee will be best for it, but I don't think a sub fee + a cash shop is any different from a sub fee + nothing, as long as the cash shop doesn't include powerups and other imbalancing items.

Edit: I really can't fathom what people's problem with this is other than the usual hatred against companies that are trying to make money. So what if they dedicate a few people to creating stupid god damn hats for the people who want to buy stupid god damn hats? How does this change your experience?

[Vespian]

hat are trying to make money. So what if they dedicate a few people to creating stupid god damn hats for the people who want to buy stupid god damn hats? How does this change your experience?

Every company tries to make money, but there's a whole range of options that seem greedy and a whole range of options that seem appropriate. With triple-dipping, it does seem a tad in the greedy direction, but really, we can't say until all numbers have been released.

[Gsara]

If you dont want it, or cant afford it, then dont buy it. It really is that simple.

[Deleted]

If you dont want it, or cant afford it, then dont buy it. It really is that simple.

It's not that simple, at least for someone like me who wants to get the best bang for my buck. A subscription to ESO will cost you about 180$ a year (or something less if you buy subs that last longer then a month). For the same money you can get 10+ very high quality games during some online promotions like for example a Steam summer/winter sale. Not only that but you have to shell out for an initial box price too and every possible useful service (like name changes they mentioned in some interviews) except the right to log into the game has to be payed for separately. I'm not even counting mounts and vanity items from the shop as I don't have any interest in those so they are not part of my equation.

Now if you have 200-300$ available to spend on games in the next year, personally I find it much better to spend them on 10-15 games which I will be able to play whenever I want, rather then play ESO for a year and then be completely locked out of the game if I don't want to pay anymore.

To use the same kind of logic you used:
I want it, I can afford it, but I think I can get much better value for my money by spending it elsewhere. It really is that simple.

[corebit]

It's not that simple, at least for someone like me who wants to get the best bang for my buck. A subscription to ESO will cost you about 180$ a year (or something less if you buy subs that last longer then a month). For the same money you can get 10+ very high quality games during some online promotions like for example a Steam summer/winter sale. Not only that but you have to shell out for an initial box price too and every possible useful service (like name changes they mentioned in some interviews) except the right to log into the game has to be payed for separately. I'm not even counting mounts and vanity items from the shop as I don't have any interest in those so they are not part of my equation.

Now if you have 200-300$ available to spend on games in the next year, personally I find it much better to spend them on 10-15 games which I will be able to play whenever I want, rather then play ESO for a year and then be completely locked out of the game if I don't want to pay anymore.

To use the same kind of logic you used:
I want it, I can afford it, but I think I can get much better value for my money by spending it elsewhere. It really is that simple.

Your complaint seems to be about subscription games in general, not ESO in particular.

But then if money is your main concern, wouldn't F2P MMOs be much more costly? The average F2P player spends much much more money on the game than a subscription one.

[Kashii]

...Now if you have 200-300$ available to spend on games in the next year, personally I find it much better to spend them on 10-15 games which I will be able to play whenever I want, rather then play ESO for a year and then be completely locked out of the game if I don't want to pay anymore.
...

What types of games are making up your 10-15 game quote there? MMO's? I don't mind paying a sub b/c I want MMO developers to continue to add content over a year (and beyond). I weigh the value of a game based on continued development and (hopefully) assurance of longevity plus the community I play with.

Are you talking console games?

[waddlez]

Your complaint seems to be about subscription games in general, not ESO in particular.

But then if money is your main concern, wouldn't F2P MMOs be much more costly? The average F2P player spends much much more money on the game than a subscription one.

Depends on the cash shop. WoW is $180 a year if you do per month, if you ignore everything that isn't bag slots and bank slots (which are more needed than boosts and cosmetics and permanent gathering tools) GW2 will cost you...

$15 dollars per character you want full bag slots (8) on
$10 per extra character slot (I believe infinite?) after 5.
$52 for a full bank (account bank so 1 purchase per 30 slots (7.50 each))
$1.56 per key to open the chests (like in TF2) so however much you want to spend on random gem store items.


meaning you could have a full bank (52), 2 characters with full slots (30), and about 98 more dollars to spend on whatever else you want before you get to the WoW subscription fee per year... hmm, maybe all my hate on the anti-subscription people in the W* thread is unfounded... sorry?

[Deleted]

Your complaint seems to be about subscription games in general, not ESO in particular.

But then if money is your main concern, wouldn't F2P MMOs be much more costly? The average F2P player spends much much more money on the game than a subscription one.

Indeed, my statement is more general. I'm not against subscriptions as a payment model, but I think 10 years ago when the only options was to buy games at 50-60$ a 15$ sub was acceptable, but today you can get so much more value for that money if you pay attention to promotions. In this contest a 15$ sub is not justified. If for example a new sub based MMO offered a 5$ sub with other services at 1-2$ each that would be much more inline with what the rest of the computer games market has to offer.

I don't know if a F2P player on average spends more then someone who plays a game with a sub. I think it's very much the case that when a game is F2P a lot more people try it out, which leads to considerably more people spending money too, resulting in the company earning more money overall. Personally I have played quite a few F2P games over the years and I spent probably 20-30$ altogether (and mostly because I was feeling sorry for exploiting the hard work of the developers without giving them anything in return).

What types of games are making up your 10-15 game quote there? MMO's? I don't mind paying a sub b/c I want MMO developers to continue to add content over a year (and beyond). I weigh the value of a game based on continued development and (hopefully) assurance of longevity plus the community I play with.

Are you talking console games?

Just what I got on the last Steam summer sale for example: Witcher 2, Fallout New Vegas with all DLCs, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, SimCity 4 (just my way to express that it's still better then the crappy new SimCity). This is all together less then a monthly sub to a MMO (EDIT: just checked the facts, it's actually just shy of 15 euros, it's about 2 euros more then a monthy fee, my apologies). I understand that a MMO offers constant content updates, an online community etc and it should cost more then a normal single player game, but as I have shown in the examples above the current costs of playing a sub based MMO aren't reasonable compared to the rest of the industry, especially if there are additional optional costs other then the subscription.

If I was in Zenimax's shoes and needed some solid initial money to cover the costs I would go with B2P. This is a model fans of the Elder scrolls franchise are used to from the single player games and will probably be ok with, while trying to make a constant revenue stream with things like optional cosmetic stuff which I'm sure would be extremely successful among the typical Elder scrolls playerbase. Just take a look at the available mods for Skyrim, probably half of them are fancy armors and pretty hairstyles. Also I think they missed a great opportunity with player housing as a source of revenue (virtual IKEA style) which was always a popular feature in the Elder scrolls games (albeit only with mods before Oblivion).

[Bigtimmy]

I don't understand why we're not allowed to mention the most successful game in the genre. Clearly, the "triple-dipping" isn't hurting WoW. WoW has had the cash shop for years now, and their sub decline can hardly be blamed on the cash shop. So yea, if 8 million players (or 4 million if we don't include Asia) are fine with WoW having all three, why aren't people allowed to be fine with TESO having it?

Mentioning WoW when discussing other mmos is inevitable, but the fact is WoW gets away with a lot of things other games can't just because it is already so big and has been around for so long. It has a massive player-base because it was lightning in a bottle, and Blizzard itself itself will be hard-pressed to replicate that success in future games. Many WoW players have been playing it for the better part of a decade and feel a sense of personal investment in what they have in the game.

A brand new game is a completely different set of circumstances, and it is going to be judged differently. When/if ESO fails at having a subscription model (and odds are it will, probably within a year), it will come across as a calculated "cash grab phase" before flipping the switch to F2P. It has happened too many times. They're in business to make money, ok, but I'm not going to support that type of business decision.

[vizzle]

Mentioning WoW when discussing other mmos is inevitable, but the fact is WoW gets away with a lot of things other games can't just because it is already so big and has been around for so long. It has a massive player-base because it was lightning in a bottle, and Blizzard itself itself will be hard-pressed to replicate that success in future games. Many WoW players have been playing it for the better part of a decade and feel a sense of personal investment in what they have in the game.

A brand new game is a completely different set of circumstances, and it is going to be judged differently. When/if ESO fails at having a subscription model (and odds are it will, probably within a year), it will come across as a calculated "cash grab phase" before flipping the switch to F2P. It has happened too many times. They're in business to make money, ok, but I'm not going to support that type of business decision.

As I said before, I don't agree with ESO having a subscription fee. I feel they would grow better without one.

But my posts are towards people who are complaining about the cash shop specifically. That does not make sense to me -- a subscription fee + a cash shop is no different from a subscription fee + no cash shop, assuming the cash shop does not offer powerups and simply offers vanity. People call it greed, but nobody is being hurt here. I don't complain when I go to McDonald's or wherever else where you can pay a bit more to have a toy with your kid's meal. If people want to buy that shit, that's no skin off my back. Is that counted as "being greedy"? I don't think so, and I would like someone to explain why. They are offering vanity items to people who want to buy vanity items. I am going to assume that the game itself will have vanity items that you can achieve, which means you aren't restricted to buying things if you want to look flashy.

And this "cash grab" phase is assumption. There is no evidence that there is any truth to it. You're unfairly judging the company based on your own wild speculation. God forbid they actually believe in their game and believe they might be able to turn a profit with sub fees? And do you think it's just a good business idea to make that transition? We all saw what happened with TOR -- it's embarrassing as fuck to go from P2P to F2P. The game gets a heavy shadow after that that takes a long time to go away. This "cash grab" nonsense is nonsense.

[Bigtimmy]

And this "cash grab" phase is assumption. There is no evidence that there is any truth to it. You're unfairly judging the company based on your own wild speculation. God forbid they actually believe in their game and believe they might be able to turn a profit with sub fees? And do you think it's just a good business idea to make that transition? We all saw what happened with TOR -- it's embarrassing as fuck to go from P2P to F2P. The game gets a heavy shadow after that that takes a long time to go away. This "cash grab" nonsense is nonsense.

A large initial influx of cash from your most fervent supporters happens with this business model. It's not nonsense and it's not speculation. You're giving them the benefit of the doubt, which is fine and you're perfectly welcome to think that way.

You're right that I'm judging them, but I don't think it's "unfair" as you put it. The people I'm judging aren't the game's developers, but the business people making these business decisions who don't always even care about whether their product is qualitatively "good" so long as it is profitable. I don't give any mmo the benefit of the doubt anymore, really. There is way too much evidence in the form of previous games failing with this business model for me to think that idea has never occurred to anyone to launch with P2P just to get an initial return on their investment without really caring if it is actually sustainable.

[zito]

Depends on the cash shop. WoW is $180 a year if you do per month, if you ignore everything that isn't bag slots and bank slots (which are more needed than boosts and cosmetics and permanent gathering tools) GW2 will cost you...

$15 dollars per character you want full bag slots (8) on
$10 per extra character slot (I believe infinite?) after 5.
$52 for a full bank (account bank so 1 purchase per 30 slots (7.50 each))
$1.56 per key to open the chests (like in TF2) so however much you want to spend on random gem store items.


meaning you could have a full bank (52), 2 characters with full slots (30), and about 98 more dollars to spend on whatever else you want before you get to the WoW subscription fee per year... hmm, maybe all my hate on the anti-subscription people in the W* thread is unfounded... sorry?

Logic and Math is not allowed here! BEGONE