Howdy, Stranger!

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

ESO should take the route of FFXIV for consoles

marcmymarcmy Member UncommonPosts: 95

Figured I'd start a new thread because I want to separate this from the whole "ESO going B2P/F2P" topic. 

 

I think it makes more sense for ESO to go the route of FFXIV with consoles, as in release on PS4 and ditch Xbox One. That way they won't have to deal with Microsoft's restrictions as far as console versions not being able to play with the PC version. Aside from that, they'd be able to keep the sub (which they may do either way) since PSN's fees will be waived for ESO. I think this would be a much smarter idea because a lot less people play MMOs on consoles to begin with, so that way console players won't be stuck playing by themselves. Also, since the game is already made with consoles in mind, I don't think PC users will have any advantage over console users and should have no problems playing together. I love the idea of being able to sit back in my couch and play the game on a PS4 with my controller as well on my PC and not be separated from my characters, guild, friends, etc. What do you think? 

 

 

Currently playing: Elder Scrolls Online, Elite: Dangerous | Recently played: FFXIV, Rift, LoTRO, Diablo 3, Path of Exile, Guild Wars 2 | Single player RPGs: Dragon Age Inquisition, Skyrim

«1

Comments

  • FoomerangFoomerang Member UncommonPosts: 5,619

    I think it makes sense. Works well with ffxiv

  • MikehaMikeha Member EpicPosts: 8,999
    If that was the case then why not just make the PS4 version able to play with the PC version.
  • TheGoblinKingTheGoblinKing Member UncommonPosts: 208

    If Kano is right (and so far he's wrong) and it does goe B2P its going to turn into another GW2. A game that never gets content, just festivals to promote hats and dresses in the cash shop to keep the game afloat.

     

    A sub is the only thing that can save this game. If it keeps its sub model it will thrive like FF14, if it doesn't  its going to turn into another Fashion Wars 2

  • BaitnessBaitness Member UncommonPosts: 656
    ZOS is certainly in a tough position here.  I would prefer them to ditch the XBone until Microsoft lets them go without XBox Gold fees, but that is giving up on a lot of up front potential revenue.  A shame such an important decision in the game is being pushed by Microsoft being greedy idiots.
  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 6,491

    Why can't they just ignore Xbox until Microsoft relents. Go with just PS 4.

     

    image
  • BorlucBorluc Member UncommonPosts: 254
    Originally posted by TheGoblinKing

    If Kano is right (and so far he's wrong) and it does goe B2P its going to turn into another GW2. A game that never gets content, just festivals to promote hats and dresses in the cash shop to keep the game afloat.

     

    A sub is the only thing that can save this game. If it keeps its sub model it will thrive like FF14, if it doesn't  its going to turn into another Fashion Wars 2

    This. Gw2 added content but it never innovated or changed major game systems like ESo is doing.  They have their eyes on the potential money from x box sales but zeni needs to realize that mmo elder scrolls won't appeal as much as the single P games.  In any case if it sells on ps4 Microsoft will relent to get in on sales. 

  • marcmymarcmy Member UncommonPosts: 95
    Originally posted by VastoHorde
    If that was the case then why not just make the PS4 version able to play with the PC version.

    Probably because Microsoft would hit them with all kinds of lawsuits claiming they made the PS4 version better than the Xbox One version.

    Currently playing: Elder Scrolls Online, Elite: Dangerous | Recently played: FFXIV, Rift, LoTRO, Diablo 3, Path of Exile, Guild Wars 2 | Single player RPGs: Dragon Age Inquisition, Skyrim

  • bbethelbbethel Member UncommonPosts: 201
    If the ps4 is the same as the pc playing on the same servers. Then it would be Xbox that got a game made for them and them only. So I dont think they would be able to really go any were if they tried to sue ESO for makeing a better product when it just a port from the PC playing on the ps4.
  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 10,212

    Whether they drop the sub or not for the console release i am waiting for the PS4 version to play again even though i might not sub if i have to pay for PS+ and also subscribe to play ESO.

     

    PC version doesnt have any advantages over the console version control wise, its an action adventure game so gamepad its actually a pretty good choice even on PC (even if it needs xpadder). Its not a shooter.

     

    With that said, i totally agree with OP. If Microsoft doesnt want to share servers then ZoS should stick to PC and PS4 and follow FFXIV steps. It would do the game much better and also keep the community together at all times on a single cross-platform megaserver.

     

    I highly doubt MS can sue ZoS for making the PS4 version cross server with the PC version. Its not their problem. MS either accept shared servers, get a game with less players, or not get the game at all, their choice.





  • dreamsfadedreamsfade Member UncommonPosts: 339
    I'm pretty sure ESO is coming to PS4 in 2015.

    image
  • marcmymarcmy Member UncommonPosts: 95
    Originally posted by rojoArcueid

    I highly doubt MS can sue ZoS for making the PS4 version cross server with the PC version. Its not their problem. MS either accept shared servers, get a game with less players, or not get the game at all, their choice.

    The problem is that it would make the Xbox One version look inferior in almost every way. Not only will Xbox One owners have to pay extra for both Xbox Live Plus and the sub for ESO, the PS4 version would have a much larger community as it can play with PC. This in turn makes Xbox look like an inferior product all around. I don't think Microsoft would let Zenimax get away with that easily.

    Currently playing: Elder Scrolls Online, Elite: Dangerous | Recently played: FFXIV, Rift, LoTRO, Diablo 3, Path of Exile, Guild Wars 2 | Single player RPGs: Dragon Age Inquisition, Skyrim

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 10,212
    Originally posted by marcmy
    Originally posted by rojoArcueid

    I highly doubt MS can sue ZoS for making the PS4 version cross server with the PC version. Its not their problem. MS either accept shared servers, get a game with less players, or not get the game at all, their choice.

    The problem is that it would make the Xbox One version look inferior in almost every way. Not only will Xbox One owners have to pay extra for both Xbox Live Plus and the sub for ESO, the PS4 version would have a much larger community as it can play with PC. This in turn makes Xbox look like an inferior product all around. I don't think Microsoft would let Zenimax get away with that easily.

    it is indeed a problem, but it is a problem that would fall on Microsoft's head if that happens and ESO console fans consider buying a PS4 instead of an XBOX1. The game itself will be exactly the same, but if MS keeps being narrow minded then their version will suffer and its their own fault. Just my opinion. I wish all platforms were cross-platform. Only blind fanbois waste time with console wars while actual gamers are busy playing on any platform. So yeah, if MS wants to play the lone wolf then its their loss.





  • ZeddakisZeddakis Member UncommonPosts: 156
    Originally posted by marcmy
    Originally posted by VastoHorde
    If that was the case then why not just make the PS4 version able to play with the PC version.

    Probably because Microsoft would hit them with all kinds of lawsuits claiming they made the PS4 version better than the Xbox One version.

    Microsoft can't sue them just because they made a better version for the PS4. Espcially if Microsoft is the one who put the restrictions in place that caused it. What grounds could Microsoft sue on?

  • BattlerockBattlerock Member CommonPosts: 1,393
    Eso should just be buy to play.
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Originally posted by Battlerock
    Eso should just be buy to play.

    Why so updates turn into nothing more than living story types of affairs and/or new cash shop items? Rather than getting justice systems, NPC's with schedules, player bounty systems, redoing end-game to be acceptable, etc? If that's what my sub is bringing me, I'm more than happy to pay it.

     

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • vadio123vadio123 Member UncommonPosts: 593

    I guess same B2P , and i feel very positive on it

     

    Not stupid cash shop / freeplay / pay2win

    and money to keep develop game (slow) but live another option shutdown servers 

  • Colt47Colt47 Member UncommonPosts: 549
    I'm not sure that taking the path of an over rated nostalgia trip and fan service game is the best idea for ESO, given the Elder Scrolls games have a much stronger pc following than console following.  FFXIV ARR was bound to do well on consoles because of the demographic Square Enix targeted.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,261
    Originally posted by Colt47
    I'm not sure that taking the path of an over rated nostalgia trip and fan service game is the best idea for ESO, given the Elder Scrolls games have a much stronger pc following than console following.  FFXIV ARR was bound to do well on consoles because of the demographic Square Enix targeted.

    You're joking right? 86% of Skyrim sales were console

     

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • DeniZgDeniZg Member UncommonPosts: 697

    ESO has PVP, while FF14 doesn't. So allowing PC and PS4 cross server play would put PS4 players in inferior position, where low lvl PS4 players would struggle against high lvl PC players in already established PVP zones and guilds.

    I agree that GW2 updates are below expectations, but sub fee does not warrant regular substantial updates either. Just look at WoW.

    B2P with paid DLC (like Destiny) is the way to go IMHO. 

     

  • YaevinduskYaevindusk Member RarePosts: 2,092

    Originally posted by Iselin

    Originally posted by Colt47
    I'm not sure that taking the path of an over rated nostalgia trip and fan service game is the best idea for ESO, given the Elder Scrolls games have a much stronger pc following than console following.  FFXIV ARR was bound to do well on consoles because of the demographic Square Enix targeted.

    You're joking right? 86% of Skyrim sales were console

     

    This is the biggest deciding factor in decision making.  Also consider that some 20,000,000+ copies were moved.  In addition, there is no precedence for Elder Scrolls having online features, especially not ones where you basically have to rent the game every month to play it (as seen by most console players that don't understand why PC gamers pay monthly).  Console players as a whole have been trained to eat up DLCs and marketplace items / cash shops last generation.  FFXIV has a decent playerbase on consoles (though I hear it's much, much higher on PC still), but that's with the precedence of FFXI and people coming over from it to the new game (and many people not touching it who don't like paying monthly fees; if you remember all the hate FFXIV got before it was release in 2010 and the massive media disappointment that it said "Online".  Ensuring that it is still somewhat resembling a single player experience -- from the purchasing behavior to the gameplay itself -- is important and one reason why it may have been held back.  More feedback had to be given by the crowd that would be willing to pay to play the game and make it better for the 90% market that will come (for that franchise).  Popular though Final Fantasy may be, it is not a western game.  It is a JRPG, and only moves a few million copies most of the time.  In fact, they're only just starting to realize they can make a lot of money with remakes and selling PC copies on steam.

    Originally posted by DeniZg

    ESO has PVP, while FF14 doesn't. So allowing PC and PS4 cross server play would put PS4 players in inferior position, where low lvl PS4 players would struggle against high lvl PC players in already established PVP zones and guilds.

    I agree that GW2 updates are below expectations, but sub fee does not warrant regular substantial updates either. Just look at WoW.

    B2P with paid DLC (like Destiny) is the way to go IMHO. 

     

    FFXIV has PvP.  5vs5 Arena and 16x16x16 I think (or 24x24x24...32x32x32... I haven't tried it, so I forget).

     

    It's not really competitive though, it's there just for fun.

     

    It's a good point to mention WoW.  We still get 14 months of no content at the end of expansions.  I'd even go as far as to say that GW2 gives more content as a whole.  That statement alone -- given that I have a history of disliking GW2 and enjoying WoW on this site -- should say something.  At least, it does for me and as far as I'm concerned.

    When GW2 starts with more regular expansion content to be sold, it will run laps around WoW (if it plans such) in terms of available content.

     

    The DLC and expansions will have to come yearly or even every six months.  Plus cosmetic stuff to tide it over.  That will ensure a lot of content and money, in my opinion.  Especially considering the context of the franchise and it's situation.

     

     

    Though pretty much should just pressure Xbox to play nice and not try to rip off their customer base or be against gamers wanting to play with each other as a whole.

    Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing).  German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century.  Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now).  I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things).  In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while.  If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.

    Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this.  If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own.  Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis.  Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
  • TheAmazingDwarfTheAmazingDwarf Member UncommonPosts: 234
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Battlerock
    Eso should just be buy to play.

    Why so updates turn into nothing more than living story types of affairs and/or new cash shop items? Rather than getting justice systems, NPC's with schedules, player bounty systems, redoing end-game to be acceptable, etc? If that's what my sub is bringing me, I'm more than happy to pay it.

     

    My thoughts exactly! I'm happy with this sub or with FXXIV ARR one.

    People have to cut the whining about subscription already! Putting it in perspective, it's less expensive to have 2 subscriptions running than to buy 2 pc games at launch! 

    My FFXIV ARR referral code for new EU accounts: 5JPF7ZQ3
    Step into the amazing world of Eorzea! Use this reference code on a new account and we'll both get goodies for it!

  • marcmymarcmy Member UncommonPosts: 95
    Originally posted by DeniZg

    ESO has PVP, while FF14 doesn't. So allowing PC and PS4 cross server play would put PS4 players in inferior position, where low lvl PS4 players would struggle against high lvl PC players in already established PVP zones and guilds.

    I agree that GW2 updates are below expectations, but sub fee does not warrant regular substantial updates either. Just look at WoW.

    B2P with paid DLC (like Destiny) is the way to go IMHO. 

     

    It would put them at no more a disadvantage than every other player just starting the game, so I see no problem with it, considering new people are playing and new characters are being made all the time. Also, it isn't an FPS like CoD. TESO does not require precise aiming, the hitbox is HUGE, all you have to do is press tab to see how big it is. Aim in the general vicinity of something and you'll hit it. That's why I say the game, including the PC version, was made with consoles in mind. FF14 does have PvP btw. 

     

    And what about WoW? I don't play the game but I've always heard it has frequent content updates. IMO a sub does indeed give the developer a stable income to be able to bring such updates. Whether or not they choose to do that is up to them, but it is in fact more frequently seen in sub games vs. non-sub games.

    Currently playing: Elder Scrolls Online, Elite: Dangerous | Recently played: FFXIV, Rift, LoTRO, Diablo 3, Path of Exile, Guild Wars 2 | Single player RPGs: Dragon Age Inquisition, Skyrim

  • MikehaMikeha Member EpicPosts: 8,999
    Buy To Play is the worst model of them all. ESO needs to remain a sub game.
  • DeniZgDeniZg Member UncommonPosts: 697
    Originally posted by marcmy

     

    And what about WoW? I don't play the game but I've always heard it has frequent content updates. IMO a sub does indeed give the developer a stable income to be able to bring such updates. Whether or not they choose to do that is up to them, but it is in fact more frequently seen in sub games vs. non-sub games.

    WoW, the most popular P2P game did not have any updates for 14 months, prior to latest expansion.

    At the same time, F2P games such as SWTOR, Neverwiner Online and STO are getting digital expansions every year. Path of Exile is getting content even more often.

    GW2, B2P game gets Living Story updates every 2 weeks and Destiny, B2P game is getting it's second DLC 3 months after launch.

    My point is, that, no, you don't see more frequent updates in P2P games, compared to games with F2P and B2P business model. On the contrary.

  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Originally posted by VastoHorde
    Buy To Play is the worst model of them all. ESO needs to remain a sub game.

    Tend to agree, though i could see the game using the SW;TOR method, a F2P/P2P hybrid, same one thats also used in Archeage.

      One thing for sure though, if they do end up segregating the players by platform, it will be an unmitigated disaster with very unequal game play, it probably won't even be all that viable financially, it would not be wrong to say that FFXIV;ARR has done as well as it has, because it doesn't matter which platform you use, your on the same server as everyone else, so friends aren't separated by platform choices, and the community as a whole benefits from the inclusion, rather than exclusion that segregation engenders. image

Sign In or Register to comment.