Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Comment from a Zenimax employee, about Elder Scrolls Online Free to Play.
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I somehow think you are going to eat those words.
In the current environment pretty much every MMO is going F2P eventually. Even the biggest franchise, Star Wars, had to go that way eventually.
LOL a great coup for ZoS would be to announce an expansion but only for people who already own the game. No new people can own it. That would make the internet explode. A double middle finger to all the people who were waiting for it to fail and go free topplay before they even bought it. Those same haters and trolls would be the biggest crybabies on the forum once they realized they could never own it (unless people sold their existing accounts)
I wouldnt put it past ZoS to do something radical like that either.
People might claim that is 'dumb' but nothing generates buzz and desire like exclusivity and inability to access.
Nothing screams exclusive more than "we are not going to sell any new copies of the original game but here is a look at the new expansion we will be releasing".
Then a month or so after the expansion ZoS drops a few copies on sites like Ebay and Amazon and charge all out doors for them.
Would seriously love to see it.
I have been feeling that way about all MMO's lately myself - it is not whether or not it is going F2P, but WHEN. The only games I feel completely confident on having subs for the next 5 years are the final fantasy games (squeenix just dont give up yo), eve, and wow.
ZOS it seems is still feeling their way through the payment model waters. I hope they end up deciding to stick with a sub, but they are getting pressure to drop it for xbone at least (will still require xbox live gold, ps4 version won't require ps+ is my understanding). Earlier ZOS have made statements expressing their desire to make a good game, not a money milking game (see this 10 month old, but inspiring interview http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/132857-Bethesda-Exec-Defends-Elder-Scrolls-Onlines-Subscription-Model).
With all that speculation, the only numbers we have so far have been good for ESO (see old subscriber numbers http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-07-18-elder-scrolls-online-has-775-000-subscribers-report). The last we heard, they had made $111m dollars over a 9 month period. That is certainly good enough to keep going, but we do not know how those numbers have changed since then. Though I think this is a perfectly profitable game if those numbers have been at all maintained, we do have to remember that it will inevitably be compared to skyrim's revenue, which is an incredible $1.3 billion.
We need to hope that ZOS sticks to making the game good, not insanely profitable. With the console release coming, they must be thinking of how consoles made up 86% of sales for skyrim... don't look at the dollar signs in the sky, ZOS, make the game good and they will come! ... Well some of them will, others are struggling to forgive the launch, the bugs, the duping... trust me, the game has recovered nicely!.
I can see it happening. Rather it didn't but wouldn't be surprised in the least.
IDK, taking out 14 levels of a game and making major do-overs is not what I would call a nice recovery, rather a recovery in progress. I hope they can get it together cause I did enjoy some parts of the game before I stopped playing. I'm gonna wait til after those updates to see how the dust settles cause I don't want to play another beta just yet.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
There is a reason why f2p is the final stage of mmo-cancer.
It's one last cash-grab before shutdown.
Fire 2/3 of your staff, have the rest making vanity items for the shop and hope enough 1-weekers spend a couple of coins in the game before they move on.
And the worst?
It's working so good, that most companies right now would rather make a couple of f2p, uninspired, copycat MMO per year than spend time and money into a gem, that will ultimately bring them less.
Metastasis.
And we are to blame.
Though I agree with everything you wrote, there is hope. Subscription revenue has been going up across MMORPGs as a whole, against all odds. Err at least I think that was from the latest mmo data report. Too tired to go link hunting atm >.<
To the person above the quote, I guess it really depends on what you define as recovery. If you mean the game is still not as good as it could be, then yes, both this and every other game are constantly recovering. If you mean the bugs that ruined the launch, the recovery is finished. If you mean the game that you ended up with is not what you hoped for from an elder scrolls mmo, then try again next patch.
In science, if you make a conclusion out a set of data and other people tell the data is not enough to make a conclusion yet, but in the end you are right, it doesn't mean you were right from the beginning, it just means you made a lucky guess.
So you are going to deny the fact that Bioware has been releasing regular content update and changing and evolving the game since F2P conversion? because that is what the guy i quoted was trying to claim that all F2P games does is focus on cash shop and don't care for game fixes or content updates.
Who can here really say that about SWTOR without sounding biased and dishonest?
I personally don't believe it's going B2P or F2P .. however, you can't rely on something like that nor is it considered proof.
Just because the FAQ was updated recently means absolutely nothing. They would not put something in there, they have yet to announce. That would make no sense. It could be updated tomorrow, or after tomorrow ... and it still wouldn't matter. No company changes their facts until AFTER they announce it.
As for the console FAQ? It all depends on when the FAQ was made. Again, if it was already made a while back, they would not take it down until after. Nor would they update it to say otherwise until it was announced.
Now if that FAQ is entirely new and was just released ... then and only then would you have a legit case for using it as proof.
Devs have learned to reiterate phrases like that because they never know when some clown is going to take a statement of theirs out of context and run rampant with it in some bizarre, alarmist babblepost. In that light, it's good to speak in as few absolutes as possible.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I must say I do think that converting to F2P drastically lowers the chance of bug fixes. I still run into bugs playing SWTOR. I do like that it has gone F2P because it lets me play it at my own pace, but I frequently become frustrated with the inefficiency of the engine, lag spikes, and occasional bugs that ruin my questing.
It is certainly all-over-all improved, but I really do think that they would have gone after those issues if they did not have to worry about pushing content that can make money. On the very bright side, they have decided to go for some pretty interesting things in that regard - two expansions, races, pod racer mount which I totally absolutely must have for science, etc. It also includes a laundry list of things I wish it would not, though.
The opposing side to this of course is that the game has also received major patches to fix the "no high res textures" problem and the games originally very poor shadows. Those patches do not really fit in with my feelings on how F2P works, but I still do consider SWTOR to be yet another cautionary tale of how the conversion can limit the potential of the game. Once again, on the opposing side, not having enough players to continue operating also limits the potential of the game... a great deal more than going F2P. It seems that EA made the right choice for the continued development of the game.
Bringing this back to ESO, I would have the same concerns for a F2P version of ESO. I do trust that ZOS would not make it F2P unless they needed to for continued development, but I am genuinely concerned about where Microsoft's refusal to waive XBox Live fees puts the game. If my understanding is correct, this would be the first MMORPG that required both an online service fee and the subscription fee (ESO on PlayStation will not require PS+, FFXIV does not require PS+, FFXI on XBox 360 worked without a gold subscription iirc).
This puts ZOS in a very awkward position. As far as I can see, they have three options.
1: Risk alienating their largest audience (on the XBox) by making them pay sub fees and XBox Live fees
2: Push out different payment options for the different versions of the game, surely upsetting the subscribers
3: Switch all versions to Buy 2 Play
They could also not release for XBox, but I do not think they consider that a real option. If ESO were in actual financial trouble, it would be obvious. It is apparent to everyone that this is not the case - it is a very active game with a dedicated fan base. Unless Microsoft stops playing hardball, though, we do not know exactly what ZOS will do until they tell us or release the XBox version.
ESO is currently standing on the success of its patches (as far as I can tell) making a huge improvement on the game. I do not think this could be continued without a subscription. Consider how long they have been working on 1.6 - surely they would need money at some point. How could they possibly monetize the patch? "Pay $1 to steal from this chest?" Unless this was included in some kind of purchasable expansion I do not think a non-sub game could ever give patches like this.
To sum up on all that rambling - I think there should be a real concern about the game going B2P, and we need more info about what is going on. Either Microsoft or ZOS needs to throw us some news about how things are playing out.
I feel bad for all the people "waiting" for a model to change before they purchase. The first crop of people have been waiting nearly a year now. Maybe those people might get a free trial weekend or something. They might be waiting awhile for that too.
ESO has sold 600k physical boxes, BOXES. We all know digital downloads are much higher than that. They have yet to release in the east. They made 111,000,000 in six months. They have not even offered a free weekend. They haven't extended a welcome back weekend.
Yet because they removed new 180 day sub purchases (those who had a 180 day can still renew it though) those same people who said f2p a year ago take it and run with it. This is the only factual event that has taken place. That's it. Not the intentionally poorly worded standard holiday excess "news" post. Not the guy in the video who was running a weekly wildstar show. Not the dude on this site who has "a friend". Non of this stuff is grounded in any type of factual event. It's all manufactured rumor. All of it.
That being said, who knows maybe Zenimax will allow all to play for free and bet on a cash shop. Maybe they will just let all their paying customers play for free and cancel all subs and special offers and raise the box cost and bet on new sales a year into the game. Anything is possible right? I'm betting against it though. I maybe wrong, but I highly doubt it.
Funniest thing is that before all the latest rumors started making the rounds, there were posts at many sites from people who had data mined some files and saw error messages with "Trial Account" in there such as "trial accounts can not use zone chat"... it was posted here as well a week or two ago but can't find it... maybe someone else remembers where it is.
Sorry to break it to you guys hoping for F2P: F2P games don't have "trial accounts" since it would be pointless.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Here's the post containing the info. Post #3.
Are you going to deny that prior to F2P as well as some while after it, content additions slowed down significantly? It was a serious dry spell for a number of months due to focus moving to the F2P model. It took some time to get back into the swing of expanding the game.
Lets also not forget prior to release Bioware themselves said they had a number of additions deep in development. How long before we started seeing it due to it's failure as a pay to play game?
Can you really talk about Bias though? I know I am am in favor of both TOR and ESO.. But you've been dogging this game since day one. Can you admit your own bias as you always tend to stand on the side of the negative in regard to ESO..No matter what that negative is.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I love the Elder Scrolls francise more than I love my own toesies but I wouldn't play this game again even if THEY paid me to play it. In a gaming genre where everyone seems dried up of new ideas and inspiration for at least the last 5 years, I have never been more surprised by how utterly bland and un-Elder Scrolls this travesty is, it truly is a gross insult to the name.
[Disclaimer: before I get a warning from the site mods for saying something negative about a heavily pushed corporate product this is of course imo]
This is almost as bad as the Revan rumors in Episode 7.
If you find Three Way PvP, fully voiced everything, first person combat and levelling by using the abilities bland... I think you may be jaded. On this site we screamed and clamored for 3 way pvp for ages just to finally get it in GW2 and ESO. First person view has been a feature long asked for in MMORPGs as it helps greatly with immersion. Fully voiced games have only come out for the past few MMO releases. Nearly every other MMO and RPG uses the same experience bar system. Bland implies more of the same, and that does not describe ESO.
Now if by bland you mean "another high fantasy MMORPG" then you got me. Good thing there are finally multiple non-fantasy options with SWTOR, EvE, Elite: Dangerous, TSW, etc. You not liking the setting is not really the games fault, though.
I do like your bit about a "heavily pushed corporate product," though, as I had recently been feeling exactly the opposite - that it was the fun trendy thing to hate on ESO for its continued successes. You just remind me what it looks like from the other side of the fence.
While on all these notes, I have been quite puzzled by the really inaccurate criticisms of this game. People like the above saying it is bland, ignoring just how unique it is among MMORPGs these days. I saw someone criticizing the phasing on these forums a day or two ago, when it is hands down the best use of phasing in any MMORPG to date (not that there is a lot of competition there, but really it is superb). I have seen people criticizing the story when it is the first time an elder scrolls story has been intense enough to keep me interested.
To venture away from picking on the thoughts of other members of this site, I want to look at this little ESO hate article from way back in 2012:
http://www.shadowlocked.com/201205082608/features/8-reasons-why-the-elder-scrolls-online-has-had-its-time.html
This person has quite a strong opinion for a game he hasn't played yet, lets go through his criticisms of the game - which he actually wrote out, rather than just saying that the game is bad and he hates it.
8: He feels the plot is a rehash of oblivion. I can see some of where the author is coming from here, at a cursory glance they have quite a bit in common. To me, though, it seems clear that ZOS went into ESO with the intention of making it possible to have three way PvP, and then wrote lore that enabled that to happen. Apart from the throne being vacant and tamriel being in danger though, where are the rest of the similarities?
7: He is upset that none of the molag bal stuff was mentioned in earlier games, as ESO is supposed to take place earlier. I do not have a lot of sympathy for this complaint, as it was a development necessity - Bethesda is working on the next Elder Scrolls game which will continue the timeline forward, this game had to take place in the past to not interfere with the other. He is asking for an absolutely impossible amount of foresight here, and I also find it extra amusing that he goes from complaining about the setting that was already part of the lore in point 8 to complaining about the setting that isn't already part of the lore in point 7. No pleasing this guy.
6: He points out that the characters that were already part of the lore have had their timelines messed with to work with the setting for this game. It is an observation I could never have made, having not played Elder Scrolls Arena, but props to him for noticing. I still do not have a lot of sympathy though, as a small developer working their way through making their first game could not possibly have known it would become one of the largest franchises in the gaming world, requiring more fleshed out and exciting lore to be used in an MMORPG in 2014. Like I said above, moving forward in time was clearly not an option with Bethesda still responsible for the next Elder Scrolls game, it had to be back in time.
5: He doesn't like the factions, because they should not get along. He is right, at first glance these are races with issues grouping up to fight. Fortunately the game does not at all shy away from addressing that, exploring the inner conflicts at every chance it gets. It actually makes the game far better than pushing some groups where everyone miraculously gets along. The groups are mostly split up based on geography, which once again, makes sense. Any situation that had races teaming up that did not share borders would show that alliance getting smooshed on by larger forces. The writers fortunately realized this, and took the time to write quests and dialogue to reflect both the conflict inside the alliances and between them.
4: He thinks the game is ugly and does not look like and Elder Scrolls game because it is on the hero engine. It is not on the hero engine. He is wrong. He is a dumdum.
3: He speculates on inaccurate gameplay information that the game doesn't sound fun. Let's ignore the things that he was wrong about and look at his argument as if it has merit. He clearly doesn't like the idea of classes as that does not at all fit in with Elder Scrolls type gameplay. He is right. Fortunately, the classes are an additional set of abilities, not a limit to your abilities. You can be a Dragon Knight and still decide you want to use a bow, or daggers, or a staff. He most certainly didn't realize that these classes are providing extra abilities to work with rather than forcing players into a "mage, rogue, or healer" as he puts it.
2: He is upset that Bethesda won't make any more single player Elder Scrolls games. He did not realize that ZOS is making the game, not bethesda, apparently. We all know this is not the case and that there will continue to be other Elder Scrolls games.
1: He doesn't like making the Elder Scrolls into an MMO because of how that will make the game incapable of telling a single player story. Got to give him a break here, there was no way he could have known how well ZOS would use phasing to make single player actions affect the world while still making it an MMO.
I wanted to look at his thoughts because he is one of the few that actually was able to write exactly what his specific criticisms of the game were, and they really circle around two things - he feels the game craps on the established history of Elder Scrolls, and he got some inaccurate info that made him upset. It is nice to finally see someone be able to express their displeasure with the game beyond undetailed insults, and with his write up I feel like maybe I can start to get an idea of where all the unfounded hate comes from.
The inaccurate info he was upset about continues to hound the game to this day as trolls continue to spew about it. I genuinely did not understand that the classes were able to use all armors and weapons until I played. I had been told otherwise too many times. I would have been upset if there were no more single player Elder Scrolls games, too. I would have been ticked if ESO had been unable to tell a real Elder Scrolls story because it was full of meaningless kill 10 squirrels quests rather than an epic single player story.
The lore issues he was upset about are a real concern for purists. I feel that it is fine for them to go back and flesh out this area of the lore like this, as it makes the lore and history as a whole more interesting. Of course, as I said, I never played Elder Scrolls Arena to get the early history of the game planted in my mind. The only thing to do here is to ask for a chance, the game doesn't use this as an opportunity to crap on the lore, but rather to grow it.
To sum up, this long waste of time was me trying to find exactly what all the trolls and haters actually dislike about the game, since their criticism makes no sense to me most of the time. Maybe it is a combination of the haters having bad info, and being really upset at the lore implications?
Don't see the inaccurate info. He played the game, he didn't find it ES like. That's his opinion - which is fine. Same goes for his view that there have been no new ideas in the last 5 years. Another opinion. You have a different opinion - which is also fine.
What "triggers" the ES feel in one player however will vary from player to player. They are opinions after all and not facts.
Zenimax however - presumably from feedback - is that they need to make the game "more ES like" before they release the game on console. (Based on the Dec. newsletter that they are going to complete the CS and Justice system prior to launch.)
And, as I said, there is nothing wrong with your opinion that the game is ES like.
I don't know if my post was confusingly written or if you didn't read it, but that statement was actually about the person from the article I linked to. He had not played the game yet as the game was not out yet, he did have inaccurate info as he misunderstood how classes worked, thought the game was made on the hero engine, and he thought that this game being made was preventing bethesda from working on single player games.
These are facts not opinions!
Edit: I really do like the article though, as it explains his exact issues in it. Some of the commentators do the same, which is also nice. Unfortunately, they are once again based on some inaccurate stuff... but at least they are specific about their issues. Example:
"Nothing about this game except for the names of places and races is even Elder Scrolls. Class-based system instead of the traditional mix-and-match skill-based system? Third person DIKU MMO instead of the first person FPS style that TES is known for? Plasticy cartoon graphics that look 100% like WoW if it had slightly better textures? And maybe the worst part: instance the entire thing and try to sell it as a "pvp" game?"
Now we have the game and we know that it is actually a mix and match skill system, with first person combat, standard non-cartoony elder scrolls graphics, and minimal instancing (lots of phasing, but thanks to megaserver there are always people in your phase).
It is like we can go back in time to see the misinfo gently nurturing ESO haters to grow up big strong and angry.
Gamer's should start the lameness that developers are,we should start calling it Season 1 of the Zeni trials.
Oh i agree 100% on taking time and that is IF they don't do a half ass job and rush into it.The problem i have is not with f2p gaming because it is usually rubbish gaming i could not care less about ,the problem is what happens if this f2p shows up in a month?
I guess i should ask ,what kind of time frame do you think a good solid competent plan would take?I would say a month just in talks and discussion,then at least 1-2 months to make changes to make it work.
Now if it shows up in say a month's time,would that not mean they were outright lying and had this in the works for some time now?It woudl also mean they were totally willing to take last minute money from naive gamer's knowing they would be totally ripping them off if going f2p a month later.
IMO it looks rather obvious,they kept the shorter plan in tack because they are not ready to go f2p yet,however i fully believe within the next 3 months they are going f2p and imo SHOULD be warning customers who are paying for subscriptions.
You know what really happens,everything is a secret,let's spend some time working on a speech that sounds politically correct "we did it for YOU the gamer because we love all the support ,yo uhave given us" you know the speech i am talking about.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Not sure why people continue to act like the game isn't a financial success.
We heard initially that the game had a $200 mil budget, that was the high end estimate, I am trying to get the exact number.
We last heard about their financials in October, about 6 months after release, and ESO had made $111 mil:
http://www.alistdaily.com/news/mapping-the-mmo-market
From when we last heard about subscribers, we know that ESO had 772,000 subscribers:
http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/20/5920815/list-of-mmos-by-revenue-warcraft-old-republic
Basically, from what available data we have, we can guess that they've already recouped the development investment and are rolling along with a healthy sub base that other MMOs do not come close to attaining. This is all pre-console release, and the last Elder Scrolls game made 86% of its sales from consoles:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/
So they are sitting REALLY pretty right now, likely are already in the green, and have the real payday just around the corner with the console release.
Can we stop acting like the game is in trouble? The only reason anyone is worried about B2P stuff is because Microsoft still hasn't waived the XBox Live Gold fee for playing ESO. Sony waived PS+ fees for it and for FFXIV. Microsoft waived XBox Live fees for FFXI. The only worry here is how Microsoft could affect the payment model - not that the game is doing poorly.
Sheesh.
Thats the only hold up on the console release. They gave statements that made it sound like they were worried about performance and getting the game in a better state (which has probably happened) but it wasnt the reason it was a result of them having to delay due to Microsoft.
So they have to figure out if they waive the fee for microsoft players (and possibly piss off Sony) or not release it on Xbox until they can figure out a fee resolution and release the Playstation version without the Xbox one being released. Which would obviously piss off Microsoft.
So its all about business right now.
But its amazing how the forum zealots can make anything and everything a reason why the game is going F2P.
When I was bashing the game I surely didnt just pull stuff out of my ass I used clear details and examples from the game. But the game is better, and doing better than one would have guessed last year at this time.