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!

[Editorial] Elder Scrolls Online: Thoughts on the Collector's Edition Controversy

1678911

Comments

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,865Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Kevyne-ShandrisI believe gamers should fight, because where gaming looks to be going isn't a pleasant sight.

    I assume then in your twisted logic making money isn't a pleasant sight for your business because there is more and more money thrown on online entertainment every year so yeah, they(devs) do something right apparently.

    Not your cup of tea? No problem, no one is obliged to satisfy you.

  • rguilbertrguilbert Key West, FLPosts: 107Member

    They've changed what they claimed was their core vision for the game at the last minute, in order to beef up box sales.  This game will be very similar to every other large MMO now. 

     

    Just once I'd like to see a AAA company try to make something a little different than what everyone is used to, but it will never happen.  Earning a lot of money quickly (from the masses playing the newest version of the same MMO for a few months) is better (for the company) than a small, steady stream of income over many years (from a smaller, more devoted fan-base).  Only indie developers have the  motivation to stick to a vision, and they never have the assets to make a polished MMO. 

  • CalkrowCalkrow WokinghamPosts: 79Member Uncommon

    Yes it's an older game but how is this any different to what SOE do with EQ2 at the moment.

    If you subscribe you get access to all the content bar the latest expansion (https://www.everquest2.com/membership) if you want the latest expansion you have to purchase that (https://www.everquest2.com/expansion-content) and after that you'd still need to pay for the Freeblood race or the Beastlord class if you want to play those (see notes 3 & 4 on the membership page).

  • CazNeergCazNeerg Puyallup, WAPosts: 2,198Member
    Originally posted by jbombard

    It is cost benefit analysis plain and simple.  You can't only look at improved sales numbers with F2P from cherry picked games and then also completely ignore the increased cost of doing business with F2P.   More players means bigger more expensive hardware, which is fine when everyone is paying you $15 a month but when you have to buy that hardware for a large number of players who aren't paying you anything it can be costly.  Not to mention support costs.  It isn't an easy no brains decision by any means.  Sub is by far the better model if you have the players to support it.  Sub allows the devs to focus costs on services and content for their paying customers, F2P means they have to spend a lot on people who will never generate revenue for them.  Sales numbers don't tell us much, if you want to see how well the games/companies are actually doing you need gross profit numbers.

    Remember, while it doesn't have a comprehensive free option, even WoW has a cash shop.  It isn't a question of sub or cash shop.  The answer is sub + cash shop.  Clearly it is possible to have the cash shop without adding a free option as well, but most companies who have already gone to the expense to implement a cash shop aren't going to want to forego the revenue from people who don't want to sub when they already have the infrastructure in place to get their money too.

    You say that remaining sub only is a better model if you have the players to support it.  I see people say that a lot.  But how many is enough?  At what number of subscribers does it become a good idea not to let free players in?  Even WoW has twenty free levels, and they have what, 3-4 million western subscribers?  Is that how many it would take?  Is there any reason to believe another game could even hit that level?

    The theory that a subscription only model works better for players in the long run is only relevant if the nature of the present day MMO market is such that it is possible for a game to get and keep the necessary amount of subs to justify not adding a free option.  I honestly think the market has changed too much since WoW launched for that to be the case.  There are too many high quality games, both out now and in the pipeline, for any one game to have a significant chance of getting and keeping the necessary number of subscribers.  The audience (of people theoretically willing to pay a monthly sub) just doesn't seem to be large enough to support two games with WoW numbers, not with the number of quality games it is getting split between.

    Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
    Through passion, I gain strength.
    Through strength, I gain power.
    Through power, I gain victory.
    Through victory, my chains are broken.
    The Force shall free me.

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,865Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by rguilbertEarning a lot of money quickly

    Quickly? MMO development takes +5 years, that is what you call "making money quickly"?


    There is plenty of games that are made on much smaller budgets, but I guess you do not want to play those since they are lacking in quality - graphics, polish, content, etc...

    Small revenue won't pay huge development costs.

  • rguilbertrguilbert Key West, FLPosts: 107Member
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by rguilbert

     

    Earning a lot of money quickly


     

    Quickly? MMO development takes +5 years, that is what you call "making money quickly"?


    There is plenty of games that are made on much smaller budgets, but I guess you do not want to play those since they are lacking in quality - graphics, polish, content, etc...

    Small revenue won't pay huge development costs.

     

    Of course, quick is a relative term.  We are talking MMOs, so no one is making truly "quick" money.  Investors want a return on their investment, as soon as possible.  When a game is close to release, pressure has been building for a while to create a large initial profit.  That's totally normal.   I wasn't saying anything is wrong with this - I was pointing out that this is they way it will always work. 

    I have played a number of smaller budget games, but they are usually lacking in so many areas that their longevity is also impacted. 

    I would still like some company to think outside of the box, but that's a risky thing to do.  Big companies don't take risks for love of an idea or genre. 

    When MMOs were first coming out, we saw more diversity in the few large games that were initially released.  Now the industry has found a safe, sweet-spot recipe for guaranteed return on investment.  Sadly, that means no matter how much we talk about features here on the forums, we will always get the same watered-down game with minor tweaks and a new veneer.

     

  • KaosProphetKaosProphet Edmonton, ABPosts: 379Member
    Originally posted by SlyLoK
    Originally posted by JJ82

    " If anything they have provided a laurel leaf to the Elder Scrolls players that were upset about faction locks. Does this seem counter intuitive to the stance they took on faction locks originally? A little"

    No. What it did was prove that everything they said about why they used the base game design was a complete and total lie.

    Most TES fans that got upset about the game was WHY ISNT IT OPEN WORLD like TES games? We were told they HAD TO make it this way for realm pride and because MMOs require sacrifices.

    It was all BS, like most people said and they PROVED it. Its not a laurel, its a carrot on a stick to lead us away from the real issue, a poor game design that was just shown to be worthless made by people with no intention of making a TES game, just a DaoC remake.

    No. It just means they heard what some people said and their dislike of the faction lock. And with a simple preorder they can now do what they wanted. The faction lock was originally there to keep one faction from being vastly more populated than the others.


    I was one of those who disliked the faction lock.  But It was defended as being essential to the integrity of the AvAvA conflict model;  and while I disagreed with the arguments in it's favor, I had come to accept it as immutable.

    Yet they threw it away, without even a word as to why they're no longer worried that such a move will damage the things they were once concerned about.  Had they given such a word, it would mean exactly what you claim it means. 

    But without it, something entirely different is implied instead:  that 'integrity of the game' is now a secondary concern at best. 

  • Kevyne-ShandrisKevyne-Shandris Hephzibah, GAPosts: 1,946Member
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Kevyne-Shandris

     

    I believe gamers should fight, because where gaming looks to be going isn't a pleasant sight.


     

    I assume then in your twisted logic making money isn't a pleasant sight for your business because there is more and more money thrown on online entertainment every year so yeah, they(devs) do something right apparently.

    Not your cup of tea? No problem, no one is obliged to satisfy you.

    Yes, they are obliged to satisfy their customers...because if they don't, there's a long list of closed, dead and buried games that IP can join.

     

    If they don't want to make a profit -- which is treating customers well -- hey, it's their doom. I can always bring "free" flowers later. :)

     

    HINT: IT should never man the customer service counters, they'd kill the business.

  • PigozzPigozz CPosts: 842Member
    Originally posted by killion81

    So basically, be a good little consumer and buy what you're told to buy.  Don't question things like honesty or integrity, those are "big issues", so they don't matter.  You're only going to harm your personal potential to be entertained if you focus on things you don't agree with, so just overlook them.  Right... 

    This actually IS a big deal.  These large companies set industry wide precedents on what type of behavior is ok.  This will affect the people that choose not to buy TESO, if TESO is considered a success within the industry.  It's these sort of decisions that end up causing significant harm to a hobby I enjoy and it the end have serious potential to degrade my future enjoyment.  A lot of people already acknowledge the garbage cash grab releases that are becoming prevalent due to past "successes".

    Exactly

    MMOs played chronologically:
    Runescape,Lineage II, WoW,Tabula Rasa, AoC,Eve Online,Guild Wars, Rift(beta only),SWTOR(beta only),Star Trek Online
    Most fun: Tabula Rasa
    image

  • KaosProphetKaosProphet Edmonton, ABPosts: 379Member
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Kevyne-Shandris

     

    I believe gamers should fight, because where gaming looks to be going isn't a pleasant sight.


     

    I assume then in your twisted logic making money isn't a pleasant sight for your business because there is more and more money thrown on online entertainment every year so yeah, they(devs) do something right apparently.

    Not your cup of tea? No problem, no one is obliged to satisfy you.

     

    But that's exactly what this is.  ZOS is outright caving to satisfy a vocal minority, for a couple of extra short-term bucks.  That it's a minority I'm part of doesn't make me feel any better about it.

  • LuposDavalteLuposDavalte AdelaidePosts: 48Member Uncommon

    You know if a game is of a high enough quality I would gladly pay $50 a month for a premium MMO experience.  What I've seen so far indicates that this game is treading very close to that ideal and given that higher sub fees are a clear barrier to purchase I don't see  a problem with Zenimax's decision.  This isn't Pay 2 win content and I've gladly ponied up the cash for the.... pony...

    If the game is absolutely packed with high quality engaging content with a story that keeps me wanting more I could easily justify this cost.  It appears that ESO may tick this box.

    If the game has meaningful PvP that keeps me coming back for more with a highly competitive and tactical feel then I'd suggest that this is another tick in the box.

    We're finally getting a game that allows us to explore Tamriel, to revisit Daggerfall, Morrowind, Skyrim and Cyrodil.  Sure it isn't the sandbox open world that people are crying for but this is such a rich IP with a team that is utterly dedicated to delivering us the lore we've come to know and love that I'm also prepared to pay.

    But the price is what $15 a month? Sign me up for a pre-order, get me my mudcrab and imperial romanesque manskirt.  Even if this game lasts me 3 months I've still spent less on it than the cable bill alone.

    Sub fees and box prices for games have barely shifted in the last decade and I see no problem if ZOS delivers us a premium experience worthy of the coin spent.

    Some of you are tighter than a fishes arsehole...

  • goemoegoemoe HannoverPosts: 183Member Uncommon

    "I’m just one voice in the crowd though. What about you? After 48 hours are you less enraged by this commercial injustice? Do you think the whole thing has been blown out of proportion and just a tad bit silly."

    Everythings fine. I can't understand all this complaining, but after all, I am no TES worshipper, I just like to play good games. ESO does not shine as bright, as I would like to see it, but it is certainly worth buying it for me and most of my guild. This is not about a religion, it is about busines. If we would not have been allowed to play what we want, where we it, I am not sure if i had ordered the game at all. Imperials? I don't care about them. And like you, I don't work for free, so I don't mind paying for other peoples work too.

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,865Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by rguilbert

    I would still like some company to think outside of the box, but that's a risky thing to do.  Big companies don't take risks for love of an idea or genre. 
     

    That isn't thinking outside of the box, that is plain stupidity. No one sane is going to going to gamble +100M investment.

    No one is taking risks for the "love of an idea or genre", no one. There are only people who have to risk something and those who don't.

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,865Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Kevyne-Shandris

    Yes, they are obliged to satisfy their customers...

    They are satisfying their target group, their customers. You are just not one of them and apparently can't deal with it.

    They do not need to cater to you personally. They are not obliged to obey to your whims. There are others whom they cater and try to please and it apparently works very well for them.

    You are not a center of the universe.

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,865Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by KaosProphet

    ZOS is outright caving to satisfy a vocal minority, for a couple of extra short-term bucks. 

    Market growth implies that it isn't short-term profit, it works in long term, making it a trend.

  • UnleadedRevUnleadedRev Boston, MAPosts: 387Member Uncommon

    $99 for a crab to run after me like a puppy dog?

    lol! They can keep the CE for all I care. The game is just not different or good enough to warrant a regular purchase.

    Can you guess how I know this?

  • moguy2moguy2 Saint Peters, MOPosts: 337Member
    On a good note... All of yall will be buying it regardless of this debacle. 
  • handlewithcarehandlewithcare hartenbosPosts: 322Member

    I am not going to buy the imperial addition its overpriced and there is no way ill buy anything in the cash shop,wish I could say screw the subscription fee.

    instead of buying the imperial addition ill buy diablo 3 reaper of souls makes more sense.

    ill be playing diablo 3 and still be able to play ESO when it releases and I think we that are going to roll with normal caracters should try and be better than the pay to be better imperial snobs.

  • DiamnonddustDiamnonddust Almere, QCPosts: 10Member
    I kinda got surprised in a good way them removing the locks on races. I think it was a good decision and also mentioned it in the feedback I gave to them. The exclusive race is a mixed feeling but hey this seems to become popular to do more and more mmo's seem to us expensive packages to sell an exclusive race. Most recent was neverwinter (i know f2p) with their 900 dollar worth exclusive.
  • gunmanvladgunmanvlad BucharestPosts: 249Member Uncommon

    I have to say I'm on the negative side of the wall on this one.

     

    If you're gonna charge a box price AND a subscription, you should unlock the entire game. Or at the very least have NO game-play affecting elements outside of it. Any cash-shop item or "pack" (or CE exclusive!) that offers a different gameplay experience from someone who did not pay the $$$ is simply unfair. 

     

    They can sell 999999 minis for all I care, or 999999 armor skins, but as long as you make people pay to get races or pay to unlock features (cross alliance races), over and above everything they need to pay anyway, then you are simply being greedy. Lucky for them there are tons of underpaid people in the world who enjoy wasting money they don't really have. It does not make it right tho.

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid hell, NJPosts: 6,778Member Uncommon

    This must have caught EA by surprise. Not even them have thought of this...

    image
  • KaronethKaroneth Toms River, NJPosts: 12Member

    Until release, ZOS can change the game as much as they like, as it is not even finished yet.  So talk about what they told us a year ago, is just that, talk before they had finalized the design.  Anyone preordering is of course taking the small risk that it could change prior to their receipt of the game.

    I am thrilled that the Standard and CE editions both come with a generous pre-purchase package.  In addition, the boxed CE is a good 50% cheaper than Skyrim's was for similar content.  Would I have liked a soundtrack?  Yes, but Skyrim's soundtrack was also an additional purchase.  I fail to see how ZOS is ripping us off when they have added more to the packages than most anyone anticipated, and the prices are either exactly what was expected, or actually lower in the case of the CE versions.

    DDO had a Limited Edition that also offered small in-game perks so a CE for an MMO with such is not unprecedented.  It also had a Preorder Bonus which differed by vendor so some bought copies from 2 stores to have both benefits on their account.  Thankfully ZOS is giving us all the bonuses no matter where we purchase from.

    As far as the racial unlocks, well, I have a lot to say about that, so mush it should be another post, and fully support that decision although I agree that it would have been best to simply have designed ESO like that from the start.  The next best time to do that was as soon as possible and out of my friends and guild mates, two are on the fence and dozens of others are very pleased with the unlock. 

     

     

    image

    Guildmaster, Brotherhood of Redemption
    http://www.borguild.com/
  • blazzen67blazzen67 Virginia Beach, VAPosts: 65Member
    i was reading this tread till i came across one person complaining about the sub fee ont top of everything else..and i went off...i apologize, i was tired yesterday and was on many website filled with people complaining about the sub fee and i had enough of it at that time :)
  • KuinnKuinn MestaPosts: 2,093Member
    Originally posted by JJ82
    Originally posted by Kuinn
    Originally posted by JJ82
    Originally posted by Kuinn
    Originally posted by someforumguy

    This. The free faction choice for a price makes their lore for this particilar game a joke. Just so they can sell a few extra pre orders?

    Not to mention that this is day 1 DLC for a SUBBASED game. That is one step beyond day 1 DLC for a boxpriced game.  

    You do realize that all sub games add extra races in expansion packs that cost money ON TOP OF the sub?

    So Expansions are now the same as pre-orders. As I have pointed out before, people will excuse anything no matter what with the craziest excuses imaginable.

    Wut? I dont even know how you managed to mix pre-orders to expansions with what I said. Ease on the hate a bit so you dont see things that are not there pal.

    Right, you replied to someone pointing out that the CE is allowing faction choice as a pre-order with "sub games add extra races"  and after being pointed out that you are flat out wrong in your comparison you want to pretend you didn't do it. The quotes are right there^

    Extra races in expansions have nothing to do with an extra race in a pre-order. One is an exclusive, the other comes with every purchase because its what the game is based off of, the expansion race, area and quests. Not even apples to oranges, more like apples to pizza.

    Yes the quotes are indeed there, you get the Imperial race with CE. It has nothing to do with pre-orders, the game does not give you extra races of anykind by pre-ordering. Even if it did you can always cancel the pre-order if you dont like.

     

    Edit; Oh and let me clarify before you go bonkers over something that is not there again: Free faction choise is not a DLC since it does not cost anything (pre-ordering does not cost anything), however the Imperial can be perceived as such since it costs money and actually adds something to the game (just like expansions and their new races).

  • KuinnKuinn MestaPosts: 2,093Member
    Originally posted by JJ82

    You just don't like the fact that not everyone kisses up to developers every idiotic idea.

     

    No, I simply disagree with your opinion. You have a huge problem here, I dont. To me this "bigger than life controversy" just seems silly since I barely see it.

Sign In or Register to comment.