[Megathread] Elder Scrolls Online

[zaxlor]

A sub takes your money and then gives you what they THINK you wanted.
A bunch of quest pack DLC lets you CHOOSE what you want to do.

I like choice

It also segregates the comunity into the haves and have nots. Every person that dosn't buy raid 2, is one less person to be raiding it with. I'd prefer that every player gets access to raid 2, but if you want to see optional boss z who drops optional trinket y, then you pay for it. It'll make raid 3 easier, but isn't required.

[RoninaThorstone]

It also segregates the comunity into the haves and have nots. Every person that dosn't buy raid 2, is one less person to be raiding it with. I'd prefer that every player gets access to raid 2, but if you want to see optional boss z who drops optional trinket y, then you pay for it. It'll make raid 3 easier, but isn't required.

If someone isn't willing to buy the raid, then they probably wouldn't raid it if they were paying a subscription.

IE: ToC, I wouldn't buy it... And, for the most part, I didn't run it. (Same with RS10)

[zaxlor]

If someone isn't willing to buy the raid, then they probably wouldn't raid it if they were paying a subscription.

IE: ToC, I wouldn't buy it... And, for the most part, I didn't run it. (Same with RS10)

What's easier to convince someone into running content though? Your friends who want you to play with them, or a £10 barrier put up by developers?

Anyways, less money talk 'cos there isn't a right or wrong answer to my question and more talk about Dwemer :P

[RoninaThorstone]

What's easier to convince someone into running content though? Your friends who want you to play with them, or a £10 barrier put up by developers?

Anyways, less money talk 'cos there isn't a right or wrong answer to my question and more talk about Dwemer :P

Alright but... Let's not forget the 15 dollar barrier to log on... and the promise of quality content that tends to fall short more often than not.

But anyways, Dwemer.

[Edge-]

Sub pays for all future content packs/patches. As opposed to having to pay for 19 quest packs.

In theory, yes. Also, most F2P games don't charge for content patches. And those that do, generally provide all those content patches for free for subscribers (if they have a subscription option still).

[Deleted]

Not sure what to make of this game honestly... it looks very.. generic? I don't know, there's something about the screens and videos they've officially released that don't sit right with me when I'm thinking in terms of the single player game series. Of course I will try it because I love TES. I just hope they don't take a shit on the IP they've been privileged enough to handle.

I sorta hope they don't streamline it too much more for an MMO; Skyrim was already too "convenient" a game with a lot of dumbing down of systems. I wish they'd go back to the Morrowind era where you just get plopped off on a dock and are told "go find this guy if you feel like it" and just have to discover everything yourself. Skyrim was too hand-hold-y (though still good, don't get me wrong) and didn't have that same sense of wonder and majesty that Morrowind had. I think some of that is to do with the environments too though. Oblivion and Skyrim didn't really have much variety of terrain.

I'm clueless about the actual features of this though, haven't read into it very much and this post is basically my first impression from the visual media out there.

[Tackhisis]

GW2 has had numerous free weekends

To clarify: "numerous" means "two" here; the first one taking place on November 2012.

[Deleted]

It's not about the amount of money, it's about paying for something. Sub fees don't get you anything so you kinda pay for nothing.

In my very own opinion, I think sub fees put a lot more pressure on the company side because you're paying ahead so they need to keep doing a good job to justify you keep paying. For us, the consumers, I think that's a good thing and tends to lead to higher quality standards in a product.

Also, sub fees by concept gets you one important thing: an equal playing ground for everyone playing. What you get and what you have is a product of what you worked for and earned because of that. Everyone pays the same and has the same things available to them as everyone else. You just need to decide if you want to dedicate yourself to getting them or not. F2P/B2P models dangerous tendency to fall into P2W is always a dark cloud looming in the horizon when you're playing one of those games. For me, those games take away a bit of the sense of accomplishment or "prestige" you get when you achieve something you worked for. And for me personally that feeling is indeed important and necessary when playing an MMORPG.

But once again, just my very own 2 cents

[Blueobelisk]

Why have I not been invited to the Beta yet?

[Deleted]

On the subject of subscription fees...

When we're talking about a game that was developed by a company using their own money, not via a kickstarter or similar, then obviously the company has to make that money back. Not only do they want their money back, but they also want to make at least a small profit.

There seems to be this prevailing mindset among young gamers today that things should be free to play. No price to buy the game, no monthly subscription. And to go alongside there's this mentality that free to play games should be almost fully available to those who don't pay a single cent, and the micro payment side shouldn't interfere with the game in any way, bar for perhaps some cosmetic things; although even those cosmetic things, mounts and such, cause a lot of crying when they're implemented.

When they're addressed as far as this issue goes, those gamers always invoke the "well there are plenty of free to play games out there who make it work" -argument. OK, fair enough. However, someone will be paying for your game. That's the point people would rather sweep under the rug. The people who actually spend their own hard earned real life money to buy bits in a game are the people financing your playing time.

So, in the ladder of "who gets the first say how the game should be developed", it's not you, the "bum", as the highest rung. It's the people who finance the game. You're just along for the free ride, a kind of gaming welfare. You do get that, right? The people who pay for those rainbow ponies have a more of a right to decide and determine the future of the game than you, the "gaming welfare bum" on a "free gaming scholarship", do.

This also reaches down to whining and bitching about the game. It's those people who buy those kittens and puppies in the game who decide whether the game is worthy if whine. Not you, who paid zero cents for it. You don't get to whine about something you put zero cents in. That's not how things work.

Yet, of course you, they, will. As irrational as it is, they will still whine and bitch about a game they haven't in the past, aren't currently, and in the future will not be paying a cent for.

That was a bit off-topic and came out of nowhere, but felt like saying it anyway.

[Spaceshaman]

None of us really know where our subscription money goes that is paid into WoW. None of us.

I know. Lemme help you:

[RoninaThorstone]

On the subject of subscription fees...

When we're talking about a game that was developed by a company using their own money, not via a kickstarter or similar, then obviously the company has to make that money back. Not only do they want their money back, but they also want to make at least a small profit.

There seems to be this prevailing mindset among young gamers today that things should be free to play. No price to buy the game, no monthly subscription. And to go alongside there's this mentality that free to play games should be almost fully available to those who don't pay a single cent, and the micro payment side shouldn't interfere with the game in any way, bar for perhaps some cosmetic things; although even those cosmetic things, mounts and such, cause a lot of crying when they're implemented.

When they're addressed as far as this issue goes, those gamers always invoke the "well there are plenty of free to play games out there who make it work" -argument. OK, fair enough. However, someone will be paying for your game. That's the point people would rather sweep under the rug. The people who actually spend their own hard earned real life money to buy bits in a game are the people financing your playing time.

So, in the ladder of "who gets the first say how the game should be developed", it's not you, the "bum", as the highest rung. It's the people who finance the game. You're just along for the free ride, a kind of gaming welfare. You do get that, right? The people who pay for those rainbow ponies have a more of a right to decide and determine the future of the game than you, the "gaming welfare bum" on a "free gaming scholarship", do.

This also reaches down to whining and bitching about the game. It's those people who buy those kittens and puppies in the game who decide whether the game is worthy if whine. Not you, who paid zero cents for it. You don't get to whine about something you put zero cents in. That's not how things work.

Yet, of course you, they, will. As irrational as it is, they will still whine and bitch about a game they haven't in the past, aren't currently, and in the future will not be paying a cent for.

That was a bit off-topic and came out of nowhere, but felt like saying it anyway.

Proponents of launching TESO as b2p/f2p know that the best way for zenimax to make it's money back is to launch as B2P.
Here is some supporting evidence.
The subscription model has resulted in many an awkward F2P transition (IE: EQ2, Swtor, Lotro, Aion, ect). The transition phase from P2P to F2P always pisses off the players who were subscribers before the transition. These people were willing to pay money to play your game but feel screwed by the paltry benefits they receive after paying 15/mo for a whole year. That's the wrong crowd to piss off.
The major subscription only MMOs that remain are
Eve : 2003
WoW: 2004
FF14: 2010 (Which then imploded and they went back into beta and now are redoing the game entirely)
Everything else has gone B2P or F2P because those models are more successful.

Also, you say it's younger gamers who prefer f2p and then offer no proof. My wife and I prefer F2P / B2P games because it gives us a choice over what we pay for. Subscription models do not. Subscription games take your money and then develop content they think you would like rather than f2p/b2p which make content and then giving you a choice of buying it or not. When you go to the movies, you don't had the cashier a twenty and tell them to guess what you want to see. One of my friends does real estate in NYC, he owns several buildings. He doesn't have time to grind everything. So for him, F2P games are fantastic because he doesn't have enough time to make a subscription worth while and can spend a few bucks to catch up with exp boosts or starter gear or whatever.
I can flip your assumption around, people who dislike f2p are younger gamers who lack the credit card and income to take advantage of the cash shop and then cry "P2W" constantly. It sounds plausible, but it's not backed up by anything.
And why shouldn't those who spend more have a larger say over the direction of the game? They are the ones who are most invested in it. It's like shares of a company. F2P is the most capitalistic of the payment models and you bring up welfare? Really? People who invest less, get less. That doesn't sound like welfare to me. Usually, F2P/B2P models offer a way for people who can't pay with credit cards to pay with time. IE: Currency exchanges in NWO, Gw2, and Rift. Or the GTN in Swtor. Or the turbine coins from certain grinds in Lotro. Currency exchanges are the best idea because they allow everyone to benefit. The company makes money off people who invest in cash currency, people who invest in cash currency can get in game currency without grinding, and the people who can grind can get cash currency without spending money.
And people will complain about anything. Welcome to the internet.

(Note: Many of the people on these boards complain about F2P models not being as good as they could be, as in not as profitable. IE: NWO charging 40 dollars for a mount. They could sell far more of them, and thus make more money off them, if they had sold them for 20 dollars. The sticker shock of 40 dollars cost them money.)

[Deleted]

My money is that it is going to be B2P with DLC/Expansions. It doesn't feel right with a subscription, they've been going on about how it is Elder Scrolls with your friends but you're not forced to play with your friends, you can just play on your own fine and complete the story line and quests just like you would in any Elder Scrolls game.

[wombinator04]

I could care less if TESO goes B2P. As long as the cash shop only has convenience items, cosmetic items, and services(like character re customization, name change)
No lottery boxes that have shitty drop chances.

[Gsara]

It will be BTP because it makes no sense at all to be a ftp game or a sub game. I say BTP because it is a hot title that a lot of people are planning to play. Sub based games are finished and any dev house that releases a game as a sub is either very naive or is looking to be a niche game, TESO will not be a niche game(CU) on release. As far as FTP goes, they would be stupid to release it as FTP with this kind of hype behind the game.

[sergel02]

My money is that it is going to be B2P with DLC/Expansions. It doesn't feel right with a subscription, they've been going on about how it is Elder Scrolls with your friends but you're not forced to play with your friends, you can just play on your own fine and complete the story line and quests just like you would in any Elder Scrolls game.

I'd say something like this. Like Bardarian has stated, really only Eve and WoW still have a sub fee, and both games have been around a long time. I highly doubt Titan would have one this day and age. For me, i don't mind paying my sub for Wow since i only sub for a few months out of the year since that's only when i can play.

I think Buy 2 play is a good middle ground option. Wouldn't mind it myself. I just worry about the cash shop in regards to bag and bank space. Gw2 is kinda okay with it, but still not my preferred cup of tea. I guess i'm spoiled when it comes to bag space.

I wonder, what about a cheaper sub? Both WoW and Eve have around a $15/month fee. Why is it never cheaper for games?

In any case, as someone who played and enjoyed Oblivion and Skyrim, I'm excited about this. I do wish Cyrodiil was not a PvP area, since I loved that area in TES4.

[Flaks]

It's worth it for Zenimax to release the game as a sub model just to test the waters and then switching later on if the need arises.

[Valeron]

they should have the same payment model as their single player games

[Edge-]

It's worth it for Zenimax to release the game as a sub model just to test the waters and then switching later on if the need arises.

Not really. A business model transition is fucking expensive and takes quite a bit of time. It's not just flipping a switch and tossing some items in a cash shop. There's a ton of work that goes into it.

Not to mention, there's still the negative stigma that people associate with changing business models. If you changed business models, it's because you "failed", and that creates a negative perception for the game.

[sergel02]

I'm curious about the classes, and how playstyle will work as. As along as I can play a heavily armored mage I'd probably be happy.

Not to mention, there's still the negative stigma that people associate with changing business models. If you changed business models, it's because you "failed", and that creates a negative perception for the game.

This is true. It's smarter to stick with one model, rather than switch. It does have that stigma attached to it, and the transition can be messy.
Btw, is that Sooyoung?