Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Forbes Predicting Biggest Disaster of 2014

179111213

Comments

  • SuperXero89SuperXero89 Amory, MSPosts: 2,544Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DocBrody

    It will be a lot better than SWTOR for sure, that can be seen easily from gameplay footage already, so it won´t fail as hard as SWTOR.

     

    No one can beat the level of fail that SWTOR was, not even TESO. But it will switch to buy to play and paid DLCs soon after launch, probably similiar to TSW which is running great now and has lots of players.

    Oh you mean like SW:TOR?

     

    The level of objectivity on this board always amazes me.

  • Pratt2112Pratt2112 Mt marion, NYPosts: 1,535Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DamonVile
     

    I think a more appropriate famous quot for the forum going mmo genre is...

    If I asked them what they wanted, they would of said faster horses.

    That's a wonderfully appropriate quote for the MMO community.

  • JJ82JJ82 Chicago, ILPosts: 1,177Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Drakynn

    The Forbes "article" is not a analysis of any kind and only a opinion piece offering no real empirical data to back it up,the only thing close is the author's own opinion on what happened with SW:TOR,which is the author's only real argument and a dubious one at that.

    Pure horse manure. Age of Conan, another famous IP that failed to target its audience. Lord of the Rings online, another famous IP that failed to target its audience. And neither of them attempted to target console players. Look at the sales of FF14, more copies on the PC sold than on the console (digital sales being highest) and it isn't even close to FF11 back when subscriptions were cool. Everything points to TESO being a disappointment.

    Do I hope it is? Hell yes, the genre needs as many corporate led failures as possible to get their hands off the genre so game makers can make the games they want, not the games corporations want made in a way to bring in as much money as possible.

    Games need to be the focus again, not profits. A game made with creating something new in mind will bring the profits. Corporations only see green, not the product.

    "People who tell you you’re awesome are useless. No, dangerous.

    They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
    http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/

  • PurutzilPurutzil East Stroudsburg, PAPosts: 2,924Member Uncommon
    Honestly, i think the hype fro ESO has been diminished greatly as it is that ESO when it comes out likely in a 'disapointing' state, it won't be nearly as bad as say SWTOR that had just vastly more hype around it. I think expectations have been lowered enough that people will be far less disapointed in the game. While Is till feel it will be 'meh' and not have that big of numbers, I just don't see it being the big train wreck deal SWTOR was. So perhaps a big 'disaster' so to speak in 2014, but I doubt anywhere near what it was for SWTOR.
  • Pratt2112Pratt2112 Mt marion, NYPosts: 1,535Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Purutzil
    Honestly, i think the hype fro ESO has been diminished greatly as it is that ESO when it comes out likely in a 'disapointing' state, it won't be nearly as bad as say SWTOR that had just vastly more hype around it. I think expectations have been lowered enough that people will be far less disapointed in the game. While Is till feel it will be 'meh' and not have that big of numbers, I just don't see it being the big train wreck deal SWTOR was. So perhaps a big 'disaster' so to speak in 2014, but I doubt anywhere near what it was for SWTOR.

    What didn't help with TOR, either, is the unfettered arrogance of Bioware/EA in promoting/marketing it. It was obnoxious. EA/Bioware telling people, essentially, you don't know what you want... we do. 

    The more you hype something up, the greater the expectations of it, the bigger the disappointment when they're not met. Bioware/EA set the bar far too high for that game before it even came out. The raving fans around it only made it worse. I remember it was particularly obnoxious around here, where it seemed everyone was in on the love-fest.

    "It will change the way MMOs are designed forever"  -  Remember that claim? Yeah. Didn't happen.

     

  • Kasp3rKasp3r LondonPosts: 67Member
    Forbes came to the conclusion that teso will be a failure mainly because of the monthly sub? Coz that's all I got out of that article
  • HowryHowry springfield, ORPosts: 93Member Common
    Hard to argue.
  • MukeMuke BredaPosts: 2,170Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by coretex666

    Does this make any sense to you?

    If SWTOR does not meet its expectations but will close with a good profit for the investors, noone from that side will complain.

     

    "going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"

  • NephelaiNephelai SydneyPosts: 182Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by TerminalDeity
    We NEED these corporate cash-grab MMOs to fail. Once they become poison to investors, they will stop being made, and the genre will flourish and see true innovation. 

    You can only squeeze so much innovation into free or a $3.75 per week sub. What we need is someone ballsy enough to innovate and then charge us a fair value price. It's very risky because the internet hyena's that want everything for free would likely band together and tear it down.

  • sketocafesketocafe StoupaPosts: 801Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by JJ82
    Originally posted by DamonVile

    That isn't the definition of madness. It's just a quote from a very famous person taking a shot at some researchers.

    And most of you seem to say making the same pile of crap using old ideas is why the genre is dying, what they really need to do is make a game with even older ideas and that's what people want.

    You mean Albert Einstein..............

    And your idea is to go back to making games like they were before the vast majority of players started playing MMOs, because that's what they want. No, its what YOU want because you have rose colored glasses on. Prove it, go back to playing DaoC, UO, EQ1 or AC1 and see how long you can stomach it. They are all still going. Go on, your style of game is still going. And also, TESO is not doing that. They are making a typical MMORPG the like of which has been done a dozen times already, the kind YOU stopped playing because its the same old tried thing.

    Yup Albert Einstein /golfclap. Everything else...well..see the comma ? it's not me saying I want it. Keep reading and it might make more sense.

    That quote has also been attributed to Ben Franklin and Mark Twain. It actually first appeared in a 1981 Narcanon test.

  • JJ82JJ82 Chicago, ILPosts: 1,177Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by TangentPoint

    What didn't help with TOR, either, is the unfettered arrogance of Bioware/EA in promoting/marketing it. It was obnoxious. EA/Bioware telling people, essentially, you don't know what you want... we do. 

     Basically what the makers of TESO did with their having to make realms to create our pride for us......because apparently we are too stupid to be able to form attachments and loyalties on our own. I sure didn't have any pride issues in SWG or even Anarchy Online. In fact, I enjoyed killing every Omni-Tek player I came across for being the corporate slaves they were!

    Also loved hearing how they had to separate the races by those realms because we are too stupid to know who the enemy is if they didn't.

    "People who tell you you’re awesome are useless. No, dangerous.

    They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
    http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/

  • JJ82JJ82 Chicago, ILPosts: 1,177Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sketocafe

    That quote has also been attributed to Ben Franklin and Mark Twain. It actually first appeared in a 1981 Narcanon test.

     No, it actually first appeared as a Chinese proverb. "Insanity is doing the same thing in the same way and
    expecting a different outcome", hence the attribute to Einstein because he so often used them in modern language. I wouldn't doubt its been in more than a few books.

    "People who tell you you’re awesome are useless. No, dangerous.

    They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
    http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/

  • Jerek_Jerek_ tulsa, OKPosts: 409Member
    blah blah blah I don't like subs is basically the article.  Using swtor as proof that people wont play sub games is stupid.  Obviously people will buy and play games even with subs, swtor actually does show that.  what they wont do is play a shitty game for long, much less pay a sub to do it.  Elder scrolls success or failure doesn't hinge on subs fees- what matters is, is it a good mmo?
  • JomsvikingJomsviking Livermore, CAPosts: 32Member

    Forbes is a financial magazine and everything in it is from a pure finance point of view.

    When they say 'successful' what they mean is did the investors get their money back with a profit. In the case of a game this means did it sell enough to recover the development costs as well as pay for retail margins, distribution, marketing/advertising ect.

    Most of the money from sales goes to people other than the developers. If the developer gets 30% of the sales price they are doing well. So if a game sells for $60.00 probably less that $20.00 of that goes towards covering the development costs.

    So a game with a development cost of $80 million would need over 4 million in sales at $60.00 a copy  to recover those costs. A game with a development cost of $100 million will need 5 million copies sold at $60.00 and a game with development costs of $200 million would need 10 million copies sold.

    The writer of the Forbes article is saying that IF TESO's budget is $200 million, it will not sell 10 million copies and so will not be a success from an investor's point of view.

  • RylahRylah Tribal VillagePosts: 193Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jomsviking

    The writer of the Forbes article is saying that IF TESO's budget is $200 million, it will not sell 10 million copies and so will not be a success from an investor's point of view.

    It doesn't need to sell 10 mio copies even in your example. 2 mio copies + 6 months retention is fine, since devs get, depending on their publishers organisation a larger share of subscription fees than on box sales. Also box sales are indeed as bad in revenue as you say, but the digital download editions you buy from the developer/publisher themselves are near 100% revenue.

    I don't have data about how big the physical box share is compared to that of the digital editions but I would guess that the latter are on the rise. And then there are the extra expensive and revenue generating collectors editions of course.

    So with 2-3 mio copies sold in a mix and average retention rates they should at least cover the cost.

    It will only be problematic when retention is horrible like it was in SWTOR.

  • JJ82JJ82 Chicago, ILPosts: 1,177Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Rylah
    Originally posted by Jomsviking

    The writer of the Forbes article is saying that IF TESO's budget is $200 million, it will not sell 10 million copies and so will not be a success from an investor's point of view.

    It doesn't need to sell 10 mio copies even in your example. 2 mio copies + 6 months retention is fine, since devs get, depending on their publishers organisation a larger share of subscription fees than on box sales. Also box sales are indeed as bad in revenue as you say, but the digital download editions you buy from the developer/publisher themselves are near 100% revenue.

    I don't have data about how big the physical box share is compared to that of the digital editions but I would guess that the latter are on the rise. And then there are the extra expensive and revenue generating collectors editions of course.

    So with 2-3 mio copies sold in a mix and average retention rates they should at least cover the cost.

    It will only be problematic when retention is horrible like it was in SWTOR.

     And then when you suddenly remember that once a game leaves beta and goes live you have massive server and bandwidth costs and then that 6 months to break even, becomes 12....which becomes 18 because of ongoing development and maintenance.

    World of Warcraft took just over a year to break even and start making a profit and it didn't cost what modern MMOs are costing to make.

    "People who tell you you’re awesome are useless. No, dangerous.

    They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
    http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/

  • killahhkillahh calgary, ABPosts: 437Member
    Originally posted by JJ82

    Originally posted by Rylah
    Originally posted by Jomsviking
    The writer of the Forbes article is saying that IF TESO's budget is $200 million, it will not sell 10 million copies and so will not be a success from an investor's point of view.

    It doesn't need to sell 10 mio copies even in your example. 2 mio copies + 6 months retention is fine, since devs get, depending on their publishers organisation a larger share of subscription fees than on box sales. Also box sales are indeed as bad in revenue as you say, but the digital download editions you buy from the developer/publisher themselves are near 100% revenue.

    I don't have data about how big the physical box share is compared to that of the digital editions but I would guess that the latter are on the rise. And then there are the extra expensive and revenue generating collectors editions of course.

    So with 2-3 mio copies sold in a mix and average retention rates they should at least cover the cost.

    It will only be problematic when retention is horrible like it was in SWTOR.

     And then when you suddenly remember that once a game leaves beta and goes live you have massive server and bandwidth costs and then that 6 months to break even, becomes 12....which becomes 18 because of ongoing development and maintenance.

    World of Warcraft took just over a year to break even and start making a profit and it didn't cost what modern MMOs are costing to make.

     

    Of course not, they ripped off the best ideas of the time, stylized graphics are cheaper to produce, longer lasting, used a wildly popular IP, and the rest was history.

    Gonada Dahung,over 20 years of mmorpg's and counting....Please Lord, let someone make a game that had all the awesomeness of UO, EQ and EVE...

  • JJ82JJ82 Chicago, ILPosts: 1,177Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by killahh
    Originally posted by JJ82

     And then when you suddenly remember that once a game leaves beta and goes live you have massive server and bandwidth costs and then that 6 months to break even, becomes 12....which becomes 18 because of ongoing development and maintenance.

    World of Warcraft took just over a year to break even and start making a profit and it didn't cost what modern MMOs are costing to make.

    Of course not, they ripped off the best ideas of the time, stylized graphics are cheaper to produce, longer lasting, used a wildly popular IP, and the rest was history.

     Correct, and TESO is ripping off barely popular ideas, graphics that are neither stylized nor compares to the wildly popular IPs and history wont care when it turns out to be another average MMO that struggles to survive due to its over abundance of mediocrity.

    "People who tell you you’re awesome are useless. No, dangerous.

    They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
    http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/

  • DrakynnDrakynn The Pas, MBPosts: 2,030Member
    Originally posted by JJ82
    Originally posted by Drakynn

    The Forbes "article" is not a analysis of any kind and only a opinion piece offering no real empirical data to back it up,the only thing close is the author's own opinion on what happened with SW:TOR,which is the author's only real argument and a dubious one at that.

    Pure horse manure. Age of Conan, another famous IP that failed to target its audience. Lord of the Rings online, another famous IP that failed to target its audience. And neither of them attempted to target console players. Look at the sales of FF14, more copies on the PC sold than on the console (digital sales being highest) and it isn't even close to FF11 back when subscriptions were cool. Everything points to TESO being a disappointment.

    Do I hope it is? Hell yes, the genre needs as many corporate led failures as possible to get their hands off the genre so game makers can make the games they want, not the games corporations want made in a way to bring in as much money as possible.

    Games need to be the focus again, not profits. A game made with creating something new in mind will bring the profits. Corporations only see green, not the product.

    Just because you may agree with the opinion of the article doesn't lend it any factual weight nor does your personal dislike of TESO.AoC failed for reasons other than being subscription as did SW:TOR .LoTRO despite what you say did find it's audience and was profitable even to the end of it's  subscription service which by the way coincided with Turbine being bought out by Warner Bros who made the call.

    There is no empirical evidence as of yet to support the "no one wants a subscription service" argument put forth in fact the initial sales of all the games you mention support a large segment of gamers that do want said subscription service but haven't found a game that has long term staying power to keep paying a sub fee.

    Now TESO and WIldstar may indeed provide data that the subscription MMO is dead if the games turn out good and  initial sales are poor as is the first few months retention  but until then it's just opinion and guessing.

  • JJ82JJ82 Chicago, ILPosts: 1,177Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Drakynn

    Just because you may agree with the opinion of the article doesn't lend it any factual weight nor does your personal dislike of TESO.AoC failed for reasons other than being subscription as did SW:TOR .LoTRO despite what you say did find it's audience and was profitable even to the end of it's  subscription service which by the way coincided with Turbine being bought out by Warner Bros who made the call.

    There is no empirical evidence as of yet to support the "no one wants a subscription service" argument put forth in fact the initial sales of all the games you mention support a large segment of gamers that do want said subscription service but haven't found a game that has long term staying power to keep paying a sub fee.

    Now TESO and WIldstar may indeed provide data that the subscription MMO is dead if the games turn out good and  initial sales are poor as is the first few months retention  but until then it's just opinion and guessing.

     Oh the lulz.......that post has twice the daily recommended iron requirement.

    GW2 with no sub sold over 3 million copies and Neverwinter has over 3 million accounts.

    GW2, more sales than the last 3 sub based games combined. in fact, if you total GW2 and Neverwinter, they had more players than every subscription based game combined after WoW. So much for lack of empirical evidence.

    "People who tell you you’re awesome are useless. No, dangerous.

    They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
    http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,609Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by JJ82
    Originally posted by Drakynn

    Just because you may agree with the opinion of the article doesn't lend it any factual weight nor does your personal dislike of TESO.AoC failed for reasons other than being subscription as did SW:TOR .LoTRO despite what you say did find it's audience and was profitable even to the end of it's  subscription service which by the way coincided with Turbine being bought out by Warner Bros who made the call.

    There is no empirical evidence as of yet to support the "no one wants a subscription service" argument put forth in fact the initial sales of all the games you mention support a large segment of gamers that do want said subscription service but haven't found a game that has long term staying power to keep paying a sub fee.

    Now TESO and WIldstar may indeed provide data that the subscription MMO is dead if the games turn out good and  initial sales are poor as is the first few months retention  but until then it's just opinion and guessing.

     Oh the lulz.......that post has twice the daily recommended iron requirement.

    GW2 with no sub sold over 3 million copies and Neverwinter has over 3 million accounts.

    GW2, more sales than the last 3 sub based games combined. in fact, if you total GW2 and Neverwinter, they had more players than every subscription based game combined after WoW. So much for lack of empirical evidence.

    GW2 is actually a damn good MMO and stands alone as the only B2P + cash shop game so far. The 3 million box sales is actually a good reflection of its quality.

     

    But I can't believe you're bringing Neverwinter into this and trying to make some point based on it. It takes no money or commitment of any sort to create a Neverwinter account and the only effort required is downloading it and installing it.

     

    Given that and the fact that in the US alone there are an estimated 50 Million MMO players (400 Million and growing worldwide,) 3 million accounts is pretty piss poor market penetration for something that is free to download and free (sort of) to play... don't you think? It'd be more accurate to say that except for a small blip of 0.75% of MMO players, Neverwinter can't be give away for free... how's that for lulz?

     

     http://www.newzoo.com/infographics/the-global-mmo-market-sizing-and-seizing-opportunities/

     

  • ThomasN7ThomasN7 87.18.7.148 1, NJPosts: 6,690Member
    When I saw there was pvp in the game that immediately turned me off about the game.  Been playing ES games for years and not once have I ever wanted to pvp in an ES game, ever... 
    30
  • greenreengreenreen Punchoo, AKPosts: 2,101Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by JJ82
    Originally posted by Drakynn

    Just because you may agree with the opinion of the article doesn't lend it any factual weight nor does your personal dislike of TESO.AoC failed for reasons other than being subscription as did SW:TOR .LoTRO despite what you say did find it's audience and was profitable even to the end of it's  subscription service which by the way coincided with Turbine being bought out by Warner Bros who made the call.

    There is no empirical evidence as of yet to support the "no one wants a subscription service" argument put forth in fact the initial sales of all the games you mention support a large segment of gamers that do want said subscription service but haven't found a game that has long term staying power to keep paying a sub fee.

    Now TESO and WIldstar may indeed provide data that the subscription MMO is dead if the games turn out good and  initial sales are poor as is the first few months retention  but until then it's just opinion and guessing.

     Oh the lulz.......that post has twice the daily recommended iron requirement.

    GW2 with no sub sold over 3 million copies and Neverwinter has over 3 million accounts.

    GW2, more sales than the last 3 sub based games combined. in fact, if you total GW2 and Neverwinter, they had more players than every subscription based game combined after WoW. So much for lack of empirical evidence.

    Is your theory that because Chinese people like rice, rice is the best food on the planet because rice is the most consumed food on the planet. You didn't name the "last 3 sub based games combined" and show their numbers.

    It couldn't be SWTOR in that list and it couldn't be Rift together because they together had 3 million on their side too. Which 3 sub based games combined weren't living up to GW2's sales standards - you forgot to mention those?

    These are some early quotes on sales for those games.

    "Perhaps most interestingly to players, however, is the fact that EA has reported sales of more than 2 million units of The Old Republic with about 1.7 million subscribers."

    "We are on the verge of selling our 1 millionth unit of Rift," he said in a phone interview. He stressed that the figure represents units sold to consumers, not shipped to retailers. Each sale includes a 30-day subscription to the game. "These [numbers represent] real people who have bought the client, installed it, paid for it and played the game," he said.

    ***************************

    Again, you'll have to backup that every subscription based game "after WOW" you have their numbers on subscribers and the addition of them to come up with less than 6 million. Which is curious that YOU are making the decision to say that WOW doesn't count. That's because it doesn't suit you amirite - cut out the largest known subscriber game then say - see, free games are better. So now that I will re-include WOW, your 6 million players are covered, let's go over a little more about the rest of the free player versus sub player existence because you don't even have 6 million there so I'm being generous.

    ***************************

    I think you get away with too much when you talk about a free game and how many accounts they have had. You don't know that the same people aren't being counted twice especially if the entry price of a game is not a barrier for playing multiple games. I have news for you about GW2, it doesn't have 3m players now, only in its wettest dreams. You prove to me they have 3 million active players and I'll agree with you but there is no way they kept 100% of their base or replaced it all, I'm sure of that just by the views in their forums. In your second statement you even assumed that every box sold was still a player. That's just bad math and bad logic. You must know that.

    You are stacking the deck in your favor because subscription numbers are closely guarded while free player numbers are screamed from the rafters though you don't hear GW2 shouting out their numbers any longer. If you hear about accounts, Runescape will tell you that they have had 200 million accounts made - their subs which are around 500k right now count as those account that you would call free if you were to remark on the game the way you are using numbers because to you - if one person doesn't pay, no-one paid. That doesn't keep a company afloat and you know it isn't true or happening.

    You also slyly forget to mention that a game having a freemium monthly payment possible that give the player enough perks that it play like a sub game are part of what is supporting some of these "free" games.

    You essentially call players who are paying a sub fee rate or more "free players" because they are in the same game where other players are playing for free.

    When it suits you - you are lumping together free and paying players while calling them all free players and worse saying that people have no interest in paying for games when they are already doing it  while the only reason free players exist in the free games is because someone else is paying more money essentially  subsidizing their ability to be inside the game completely. Biting the hand that feeds you and claiming it doesn't exist, naughty naughty.

    This doesn't even factor in lifetime subscriptions where people pay around a years worth of gameplay time upfront. LOTRO and  Secret World both had lifetime subs and both are now free. Look at the shock and surprise on my little face.

    The biggest problem with all the things your surmise on this thread is that the bottom line is - you don't like this game - you've posted before you don't want a PVP end-game and specifically stated that that's why you won't be playing Elder Scrolls Online. but you are so unhappy about it not being the game for you that you keep trying to come back to this thread and spoil everyone elses enjoyment whether it's apathetic monochrome interest or genuine interest. If someone isn't saying this game is going into dumpsters day 2 because YOU don't want to play it, you keep coming back making up things to try to accuse their interest of being fanbois when I have seen many people in support of this game also reply with things they were concerned about. No one has painted a bed of roses yet that's what I think you believe is going on and that's why you are railing so hard. 

    You know what is the one thing that would scare people away from a sub model game? Dishonest companies who have abused it previously and they all proudly wear their free moniker now. This game will have to take the bullet for their money grabbing tactics and THAT is the real shame here because they talk like they really care about this game.

     

  • MiklosanMiklosan turkuPosts: 176Member

    Forget about it folks.. if a game turns out to have 1, yes one!! paying customer some crazy folks here on this site would consider it a sucess! (swtor a sucess?)

     

    Now, will ESO be a disaster or not...? We just gonna have to wait and see... I hope it will do just fine!

  • DoogiehowserDoogiehowser ParisPosts: 1,873Member
    Originally posted by Burntvet
    Originally posted by Doogiehowser
    Originally posted by Burntvet

    I agree with the article.

    They spent too much money making another average theme-park game, and thus it will be hard to recoup the investment.

    And it has nothing to do with which business model they chose, instead they depend on the IP to sell boxes instead of creating deep gameplay mechanics and innovative systems. (Plus it is the company of "That's too hard....")

    That is the problem.

     

    Did you even read the article? ofcourse you didn't. They are just basing their predictions on viability of sub model in todays market.

    It being an average themepark is your own opinion. 

    Yes I did read the article, and to me it comes down to the fact that it is not that people won't pay for a sub, it is that they won't pay for a sub, in the current market for the same game, again, for the Nth time.  Because they can play plenty of average games for "free". As such, it will be hard to recoup what they spent on it.

    Were ESO some great, groundbreaking, super game, it would make back plenty of money and then some, regardless of the revenue model. But the isn't great or groundbreaking in any way, it is simply set in the ES world.

    And that is not enough.

     

    As for being average, I tried the beta, and the game is average. Most other people, if they are honest about it, will say the same thing.

    I have heard that million times over on these forums and yet when a different MMO comes along people still refuse the support the game on pure sub model.

    Sorry been here long enough to smell the BS from far away.

    "The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
    -Jesse Schell

    "Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
    -Luke McKinney

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.