To have games like Rift, FF and GW2 rated above ESO in the "released" section, when ESO is second behind the failing AA in the most popular section, something is just wrong with this websites rating system.
In my humble opinion, ESO is the best game since DAoC.
Apparently your humble opinion is only shared by few.
In my humble opinion the best MMO ever (not even since DAOC/EQ or whatever) is WoW. Apparently my humble opinion is shared by more than 50% of the subscription based MMO market
shrinking sub market is still a minority
Is it shrinking in reality though DM? How many games in the West are released without a sub option?
Pretty much every game is a hybrid payment model really, and that means sub as much as freeb.
The impression seems to be misleading I think because hybrid games are sold and counted as 'F2P', because that looks better on an advert, where the truth is really that even in those titles the sub model is very strong.
Hybrid model is a F2P model though, if you can play the game without any fees even with some limitations - it's still F2P.
Sub model is = 100% subscription only (like ESO, FF14ARR and WoW) - and that market is shrinking every year in terms of playerbase
Yeah, I get that's they are the accepted designations, but I guess what I am saying is that the accepted designations are misleading and give far too little credit to the enduring market hold of the sub.
Because the usual argument is F2P versus the sub, when we both know that F2P includes the sub. People use F2P numbers to try and prove that the sub is 'dead', while ignoring those number include massive amounts of subbers.
I would be interested in seeing real unbiased (as in not being provided by the F2P industry or anyone linked to it) numbers of how many people sub across the board in games these days as compared to, say, 4 years ago. Not just the number of titles that call themselves F2P, but hard numbers on the number of people that actually sub across all titles.
While this obviously will never happen, I do think it would need to if we wanted to have a real conversation about this. I see a lot of folks just repeating industry spin and received wisdom in these kinds of exchanges (in general, I mean).
The key feature of a subscription game is that if you don't pay the sub you can't play.
Hybrid models don't have a subscription. They may have something called a "subscription" but in reality this is just a bundle of features that you can choose to buy or not. You can still play. The same with BF4 say which offers an "optional sub" - basically advance purchase of DLC for which people get a discount.
And this is why advertising standards (in the EU anyway) decided that EA couldn't call their mobile version of Dungeon Keeper "f2p"; meaningful play requires payment(s). Essentially a sub!
The number of games that require "payment" to play has never been large but it has shrunk. WoW's subs are also (overall trend) in decline. So whilst we don't "know" I think we can say that the subscription market has and continues to shrink. Until WoW closes however ....
And I thought "Last Action Hero" was one of Ah-nuld's best movies.
But the fact that Rotten Tomatoes gave it a bad rating doesn't lead me to believe there's something wrong with the site.
It's perfectly fine to have an unpopular opinion, just recognize that it being unpopular doesn't require some form of conspiracy among the masses.
If you truly were humble in your opinion, you wouldn't be implying that there's some invisible hand of bias on this website, simply because a game you don't like gets more attention than a game you do like.
It wouldn't be your opinion if everyone shared it. At that point, it would be come a "Fact".
That is the wonderful thing about opinions, we all have one, and even though it may not be shared with a single person; it is still our opinion, which is neither wrong nor right.
I think all of the game listed in the top rated released games are not as good as rated. That is my opinion.
Raquelis in various games Played: Everything Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6 Wants: The World Anticipating:Everquest NextCrowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
If the OP had said - ESO is one of the best MMOs to come out since DAOC - that's closer to the mark. I would put ESO in my top ten MMOs and GW2 is not even on that list.
Part of it may be that 3 times more people rated GW2 than rated ESO.
The number of ratings ESO gets does not change and the score rarely changes, however, you'll see it move up and down the list seemingly at random. So I think something other than just the final score is at work here when determining where games fall on the list.
The ratings on here doesn't mean a whole lot. Take WoW for example. It's way down on the list and yet it has the highest number of subs out of all the games. Which makes you wonder why so many people play a game they apparently don't even like that much.
To have games like Rift, FF and GW2 rated above ESO in the "released" section, when ESO is second behind the failing AA in the most popular section, something is just wrong with this websites rating system.
In my humble opinion, ESO is the best game since DAoC.
Although I agree MMORPG.com ratings are about as useful as a promise ring on Paris Hilton I just can't get past the irony of a fanboi calling them out. TESO is an MMO abomination and that's not even considering the huge name it has to live up to. You can't even use this game in the same sentence as Skyrim.
I hated GW2/FF and TESO doesn't even compare to either of those games. It's one of the driest MMO's I've ever played. The stats don't help you either since the game is bleeding thousands of subscriptions a week and will be F2P in a year guaranteed.
To have games like Rift, FF and GW2 rated above ESO in the "released" section, when ESO is second behind the failing AA in the most popular section, something is just wrong with this websites rating system.
In my humble opinion, ESO is the best game since DAoC.
Although I agree MMORPG.com ratings are about as useful as a promise ring on Paris Hilton I just can't get past the irony of a fanboi calling them out. TESO is an MMO abomination and that's not even considering the huge name it has to live up to. You can't even use this game in the same sentence as Skyrim.
I hated GW2/FF and TESO doesn't even compare to either of those games. It's one of the driest MMO's I've ever played. The stats don't help you either since the game is bleeding thousands of subscriptions a week and will be F2P in a year guaranteed.
lol ESO is certainly not an 'abomination' its a pretty good game that is getting better with every expansion, with a dev team that is responding to feedback. It also dared to be different rather than copying WOW so well done to them for that. GW2 and FF are also really good games in their own right. Whats not right is people spouting 'hate' about games, Hating publishers for putting profit before gameplay certainly - but hating a game? A fan saying their game is no 1 is perfectly natural (note fan not 'fanboi' aka hater trash talk)
Better to be a fan of something than being a miserable hater.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
It also dared to be different rather than copying WOW so well done to them for that.
They did though, that is exactly what they did. ESO has so much potential to be something more and I think it still could. I will, without a doubt, return to the game if something is done about the linear leveling experience and they add a PvP sandbox oriented endgame element that is more than Trials, Craglorn Zerg PvP, and Crafting.
Now Playing: Bless / Summoners War Looking forward to: Crowfall / Lost Ark / Black Desert Mobile
To have games like Rift, FF and GW2 rated above ESO in the "released" section, when ESO is second behind the failing AA in the most popular section, something is just wrong with this websites rating system.
In my humble opinion, ESO is the best game since DAoC.
I have given up expecting consistency from reviewers over time. What was a 8-8.5 a few years ago is now a 6.5-7.0. Any review that is more than about a year and half old just subtract a point and half to two points or so from and you get what it would get in today's system.
It's probably not a bad thing mind you to have a decent game score more around the 7's to 8's rather than 9's it just makes some of these older games look on paper like they where much better games at launch than anything that has launched more recently.
ESO has horrible pve grouping to level to cap. The game forces you to solo most of the time as you need to get skill pts from solo quests. That's the part I hated that I couldn't just group up to xp for level, game forced me to do small basically solo quests to get the skill pts. The dungeons are short and provide a one-time xp gain the first go around and are not meant for xp.
ESO was clearly designed with a console player in mind and why they delayed the console release to get it right (where the real profit is expected to be made). ESO is hoping for a Diablo 3 turnaround. Diablo 3 sucked on PC release but after a year of development they fixed the game and now it's awesome. But Diablo 3 had fixable problems imo.
To have games like Rift, FF and GW2 rated above ESO in the "released" section, when ESO is second behind the failing AA in the most popular section, something is just wrong with this websites rating system.
In my humble opinion, ESO is the best game since DAoC.
I have given up expecting consistency from reviewers over time. What was a 8-8.5 a few years ago is now a 6.5-7.0. Any review that is more than about a year and half old just subtract a point and half to two points or so from and you get what it would get in today's system.
It's probably not a bad thing mind you to have a decent game score more around the 7's to 8's rather than 9's it just makes some of these older games look on paper like they where much better games at launch than anything that has launched more recently.
That's quite true and not just for MMOs. It seems reviewers are tending to go with the user/youtuber flow these days... and it's a nasty "seen it all, done it all" cynical flow... "more of the same!..."another ___-clone!" "worst launch in the history of the universe!"
Someone seems to have forgotten that youtube follows the standard media formula of "if it ain't controversial, or you can't make it controversial, then it ain't worth watching."
You see the same phenomenon in Steam and around here with the habitual cynical negative nancys that flock to every new game's discussions to give us all their "wisdom."
It has indeed affected the scores that official reviewers are attaching to the games they review. Take a look at the Metacritic all-time PC game scores. Other than the occasional blip here and there (e.g., Bioshock Infinite) you just won't see many PC games from the past couple of years over 90. And the only 2 MMOs ever to get Metacritic 90+ scores are WOW and GW2.
If it isn't an outstanding indy offering that no one saw coming you just won't see any 9+ reviews any longer.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Yeah, I get that's they are the accepted designations, but I guess what I am saying is that the accepted designations are misleading and give far too little credit to the enduring market hold of the sub.
Because the usual argument is F2P versus the sub, when we both know that F2P includes the sub. People use F2P numbers to try and prove that the sub is 'dead', while ignoring those number include massive amounts of subbers.
I would be interested in seeing real unbiased (as in not being provided by the F2P industry or anyone linked to it) numbers of how many people sub across the board in games these days as compared to, say, 4 years ago. Not just the number of titles that call themselves F2P, but hard numbers on the number of people that actually sub across all titles.
While this obviously will never happen, I do think it would need to if we wanted to have a real conversation about this. I see a lot of folks just repeating industry spin and received wisdom in these kinds of exchanges (in general, I mean).
The key feature of a subscription game is that if you don't pay the sub you can't play.
Hybrid models don't have a subscription. They may have something called a "subscription" but in reality this is just a bundle of features that you can choose to buy or not. You can still play. The same with BF4 say which offers an "optional sub" - basically advance purchase of DLC for which people get a discount.
And this is why advertising standards (in the EU anyway) decided that EA couldn't call their mobile version of Dungeon Keeper "f2p"; meaningful play requires payment(s). Essentially a sub!
The number of games that require "payment" to play has never been large but it has shrunk. WoW's subs are also (overall trend) in decline. So whilst we don't "know" I think we can say that the subscription market has and continues to shrink. Until WoW closes however ....
And I thought "Last Action Hero" was one of Ah-nuld's best movies.
But the fact that Rotten Tomatoes gave it a bad rating doesn't lead me to believe there's something wrong with the site.
It's perfectly fine to have an unpopular opinion, just recognize that it being unpopular doesn't require some form of conspiracy among the masses.
If you truly were humble in your opinion, you wouldn't be implying that there's some invisible hand of bias on this website, simply because a game you don't like gets more attention than a game you do like.
It wouldn't be your opinion if everyone shared it. At that point, it would be come a "Fact".
That is the wonderful thing about opinions, we all have one, and even though it may not be shared with a single person; it is still our opinion, which is neither wrong nor right.
I think all of the game listed in the top rated released games are not as good as rated. That is my opinion.
Raquelis in various games
Played: Everything
Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6
Wants: The World
Anticipating: Everquest Next Crowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
No it wouldn't. The only way the majorities opinion would be fact, is if it's actually based on fact.
Part of it may be that 3 times more people rated GW2 than rated ESO.
The number of ratings ESO gets does not change and the score rarely changes, however, you'll see it move up and down the list seemingly at random. So I think something other than just the final score is at work here when determining where games fall on the list.
The ratings on here doesn't mean a whole lot. Take WoW for example. It's way down on the list and yet it has the highest number of subs out of all the games. Which makes you wonder why so many people play a game they apparently don't even like that much.
Although I agree MMORPG.com ratings are about as useful as a promise ring on Paris Hilton I just can't get past the irony of a fanboi calling them out. TESO is an MMO abomination and that's not even considering the huge name it has to live up to. You can't even use this game in the same sentence as Skyrim.
I hated GW2/FF and TESO doesn't even compare to either of those games. It's one of the driest MMO's I've ever played. The stats don't help you either since the game is bleeding thousands of subscriptions a week and will be F2P in a year guaranteed.
Source or stop trolling.
lol ESO is certainly not an 'abomination' its a pretty good game that is getting better with every expansion, with a dev team that is responding to feedback. It also dared to be different rather than copying WOW so well done to them for that. GW2 and FF are also really good games in their own right. Whats not right is people spouting 'hate' about games, Hating publishers for putting profit before gameplay certainly - but hating a game? A fan saying their game is no 1 is perfectly natural (note fan not 'fanboi' aka hater trash talk)
Better to be a fan of something than being a miserable hater.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Really, as has been pointed out, speculation about a game's health will always be just that to all but a few.
I personally believe that TESO will do better and better as time goes on because I appreciate the foundation the devs have to work with.
I do not see the same stable platform in games such as WS or AA, so I believe in the long run they will fare more poorly.
But more on point, who gives a fuck what I think?
They did though, that is exactly what they did. ESO has so much potential to be something more and I think it still could. I will, without a doubt, return to the game if something is done about the linear leveling experience and they add a PvP sandbox oriented endgame element that is more than Trials, Craglorn Zerg PvP, and Crafting.
Looking forward to: Crowfall / Lost Ark / Black Desert Mobile
I have given up expecting consistency from reviewers over time. What was a 8-8.5 a few years ago is now a 6.5-7.0. Any review that is more than about a year and half old just subtract a point and half to two points or so from and you get what it would get in today's system.
It's probably not a bad thing mind you to have a decent game score more around the 7's to 8's rather than 9's it just makes some of these older games look on paper like they where much better games at launch than anything that has launched more recently.
ESO has horrible pve grouping to level to cap. The game forces you to solo most of the time as you need to get skill pts from solo quests. That's the part I hated that I couldn't just group up to xp for level, game forced me to do small basically solo quests to get the skill pts. The dungeons are short and provide a one-time xp gain the first go around and are not meant for xp.
ESO was clearly designed with a console player in mind and why they delayed the console release to get it right (where the real profit is expected to be made). ESO is hoping for a Diablo 3 turnaround. Diablo 3 sucked on PC release but after a year of development they fixed the game and now it's awesome. But Diablo 3 had fixable problems imo.
That's quite true and not just for MMOs. It seems reviewers are tending to go with the user/youtuber flow these days... and it's a nasty "seen it all, done it all" cynical flow... "more of the same!..."another ___-clone!" "worst launch in the history of the universe!"
Someone seems to have forgotten that youtube follows the standard media formula of "if it ain't controversial, or you can't make it controversial, then it ain't worth watching."
You see the same phenomenon in Steam and around here with the habitual cynical negative nancys that flock to every new game's discussions to give us all their "wisdom."
It has indeed affected the scores that official reviewers are attaching to the games they review. Take a look at the Metacritic all-time PC game scores. Other than the occasional blip here and there (e.g., Bioshock Infinite) you just won't see many PC games from the past couple of years over 90. And the only 2 MMOs ever to get Metacritic 90+ scores are WOW and GW2.
If it isn't an outstanding indy offering that no one saw coming you just won't see any 9+ reviews any longer.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Mmos that i enjoy playing are not even in top 20 on mmorpg.com
Who cares? really op.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다