It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
No should be sub based... and no cash shop..
Originally posted by Caldrin No should be sub based... and no cash shop..
So I guess your prepared for the almost inevitable free to play conversion within a year or two and the cash shop that goes with it then ? Very few modern games can charge a sub and have any kind of success .
You gave me a start, I very much forgot about this game.
Buy to play, definetly.
Don't want to hate or troll, but I don't think that it will be very good, based on what we've seen.
Especially since they're taking a franchise with such a strong fanbase as Elder Scrolls and giving it the theme park treatment.
EA CEO John Riccitiello's on future microtransactions: "When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you're really not very price sensitive at that point in time...We're not gouging, but we're charging."
Originally posted by OG_Zorvan I think it should be scrapped and Zenimax should apologize for letting a collective brainfart actually make it into the development phase.
Add that option and let me revote.
I vote this option. You have to wonder how nervous they are after watching the disaster that is SWTOR.
Originally posted by SuperDonk Originally posted by OG_Zorvan I think it should be scrapped and Zenimax should apologize for letting a collective brainfart actually make it into the development phase.
Yes, let's vote to shut down and cease development on all games that we don't like simply because they're not what we wanted them to be. /sarcasm
I don't get it. You guys aren't paying for it to be developed, this game isn't being developed in place of the next SP title, and even if Zenimax shut down right now Bethesda (or whoever owns the IP) wouldn't sign off on a new, different elder scrolls multiplayer. This is the game they want on the maket. If it sucks, market forces will ensure it dies.
But you guys with your posts like this... It's not the toy you asked your parents to buy you, so you rant like impetulent children, stomp your feet, cross your arms and cry to whoever will listen. Grow up.
Originally posted by rygard49 Originally posted by SuperDonk Originally posted by OG_Zorvan I think it should be scrapped and Zenimax should apologize for letting a collective brainfart actually make it into the development phase.
I'll just leave this here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6187-Why-Boycotts-Fail-Where-Whining-Tantrums-Win
You realize you are whining about people whining.
Originally posted by TalulaRose No, too many freeloaders in the genre.
So by that logic everyone that plays a single player game like Medal of Honor is a freeloader . Every one thats paid a box price for Guild Wars 2 is a freeloader .
A freeloader would be someone who wants to pay nothing for a game . When you pay a boxed price your not a freeloader .
Its best to think before you post something or it makes you look stupid .
Originally posted by Entinerint Originally posted by rygard49 Originally posted by SuperDonk Originally posted by OG_Zorvan I think it should be scrapped and Zenimax should apologize for letting a collective brainfart actually make it into the development phase.
By the logic in the video you posted, then me whining about them whining is the right thing to do.
But seriously the video had nothing to do with what's going on here. This was a video about showing angst against publishers while not hurting the developers. And that's where he says whining becomes a key weapon over boycotting, which developers won't interpret in the correct form.
What's going on here is that people dislike a game that's going to be made regardless of their tantrums, and are making ludicrous statements to show their displeasure. In this case, the displeasure is focused at the developer, and not the publisher. In this case, the problem presented in that video you linked does not apply even in the slightest. In this case, boycotting the game is the clear action they'd want to take over posting stupid bullshit on the forums.
Think it's because you're misinterpreting what the Elder Scrolls community largely wanted out of this whole thing.
I know, it's a fallacy to speak for the many. But fact is people wanted an elder scrolls type game, but multiplayer. Elder scrolls type gameplay, but online. It's not supposed to replace the single player titles, it's supposed to stand alongside them.
It's the core reason games like Darkfall and Mortal even had traction with lots of people. Medieval/fantasy multiplayer in the same vein as titles like Elder Scrolls and Mount&Blade. And sure, Elder Scrolls gameplay is not exactly a stellar example of good gameplay, but when they lack competitors that try to give you a similar experience it's hard not to be looked to as a 'we want more of that' type deal.
People are unhappy because they are getting a game that is ostensibly Elder Scrolls because of lore, but not gameplay. Certainly people like the lore. It's half of why things like the uesp wiki exist. But for most the lore is likely not as important as the concept behind the gameplay was.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Originally posted by roo67 Originally posted by Caldrin No should be sub based... and no cash shop..
Except that very few modern games could continually update enough content or included enough emergent content to keep enough players playing.
The issue is not a subscription. If people are willing to go to the movies and pay extra for 3d glasses for a novel experience that doesn't really add too much to the movie but still think it's worth it then they will have no problem paying a measley $15 per month for a game that they think is worth it.
Subscriptions start being an issue when it's not clear what you are getting for your money.
So to answer your initial question "that depends on whether or not they can supply a game that players think is worth a subscription.
Camelot Unchained BackerDAOC [retired]: R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R5 Healer
I miss "depend what kind of game it is".
But since from this scarce info we have we know that TESO will be themepark & "online rpg" and not mmorpg like Zenimax said themself.
Then yes it should be b2p.
IF Zenimax would be doing what TES games are (and Zenimax do not) : full sandbox then sub and no cash shop would be best choice. But in current situation it is not.
P2P was a good option in times long time ago where players would stick with MMO for a long time. Right now the mentality is to jump from one MMO to another as soon as people reach max level and do some end game.
So there is no way that any MMO will be able to survive in the future on only subscriptions alone. B2P, Freemiums, F2P are all good options. And all game developers will have to have it ready to go even if initially they will start with P2P.
Sith Warrior - Story of Hate and Love http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxKrlwXt7AoImperial Agent - Rise of Cipher Nine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBBj3eJWBvU&feature=youtu.beImperial Agent - Hunt for the Eagle Part 1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQqjYYU128E
Originally posted by Sevenstar61 P2P was a good option in times long time ago where players would stick with MMO for a long time. Right now the mentality is to jump from one MMO to another as soon as people reach max level and do some end game. So there is no way that any MMO will be able to survive in the future on only subscriptions alone. B2P, Freemiums, F2P are all good options. And all game developers will have to have it ready to go even if initially they will start with P2P.
Pretty much. Sure games back in the day (released 1997-2004) could stay P2P for years or even up to a decade, or longer. There wasn't as much competition, and a few of them were able to establish a "Legacy" and release anywhere from half a dozen to over a dozen mini/major expansions. I've pointed this out time and time again. Look at all the MMORPGs released from 2006 till now.
Only about 6-7 of those released in that time period still operate under a strictly P2P business model. All the others (in that same time period) have either shut down or gone F2P with severe server merges. There are about 600 online games out there right now. Also take notice that the majority of the games released post 2005 pretty much either tried to copy previous games with maybe adding 1 new thing to the MMO table. And of those 6, the only one doing "decent" is RIFT. That’s it.
That isn't enough these days with so many options given to the players. The Elders doesn't look like they are going to release anything that is different than from what we already have. Maybe. The risk of going P2P is that usually mass exodus ensues within 3-6 months. Then companies go into panic mode and take their sweet time before they do the "dreaded" server merge. By the time they do, it usually means a reduction of 80%-90% of their initial servers... with the eventual announcement of F2P... or worst case scenario P2W down the line.
Let’s look at recent or upcoming games with some sort of hype or major hype:
Guild Wars 2: B2P
TERA: High risk of going F2P (it isn’t a question of if but when with their recent announcement)
The Secret World: High risk of going F2P (it isn’t a question of if but when with their recent announcement)
Phantasy Star Online 2: While the initial stages had a possibility of going P2P, SEGA ultimately decided to go F2P.
Blade & Soul: Open to which model they will be using. They acknowledged that all of their titles have either closed down or have gone F2P with severe server merges in the West (article posted this year from Massively). There is a chance they may follow suite with Guild Wars 2 model.
ArcheAge: One of the few titles that may go B2P or P2P.
World of Darkness: CCP might use the B2P or P2P model.
FFXIV 2.0: Even Yoshida said in an interview this year that he would welcome it and is currently looking into the F2P model. 2 questions were centralized around the F2P model.
EXTREMELY SHORT VERSION: Of those games listed I could see World of Darkness and ArcheAge going P2P. FFXIV is heavily dependent on how 2.0 is going to be received. But besides those 2… from now till 2014… I really can’t see any other MMORPG using the P2P business model for the long-term, without having the high risk of having the mass exodus ensue.
They charge a sub fee. Then if the game does not do as well as needed, they will make a change to cash shop and free to play. In the meantime, they will make enough money to pay their employees and make an expansion. The game is going to sell based off it's name. And ultimately, very few MMO's stay sub based these days. So what is the big deal?
You act as if it's such a horrible thing.
Darkfall continues to charge a sub, with a dead playerbase and a game that is so riddled with bugs that they have had to literally scrap the game and create a new one. If they can do it off of what little they made, I'm sure TESO will do just fine.
I voted yes since it will more than likely already have a cash shop in place. It seems cash shops are here to stay.
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by wonderwise "Games are better because we pay subs" I lol at this mentality these day.
"Free games are Free" I lol at this mentality these days.