Bethesda "didn't mandate" Elder Scrolls Online subscription; "It was a mutual decision" - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Elspin;44427088]The community [i]has[/i] voiced their opinions numerous times and have gotten tonnes of stuff changed that others devs would have just kept and told their customers to fuck off. Literally the entire art style changed since the early alphas and a massive number of other things have been added too, most recently player collision with npcs and optionally skipping the starter areas. The thing is a lot of us are willing to pay that much for an MMO. WoW still charges a subscription fee which could easily cover their server costs and expansions but they still charge for those, yet there's no complaint about that. Not to mention when WoW was released it was the same deal - pay for the game, $15 subscription fee. You're entitled to your opinion but I feel like you guys are just hopping on the band wagon without actually thinking about it[/QUOTE] wow released in 2004. eso is being released in 2014. subscription model worked for wow because it was the standard back then. subscription model now? not very standard for mmo's. look at what happened to rift, swtor, lotro, the secret world, star trek online, etc.? the only way a subscription model would work (with a dumb cash shop) is if the community has interst in the mmo, and from what i've seen, a lot of franchise fans aren't looking forward to eso.

[QUOTE=Elspin;44427088]The community [i]has[/i] voiced their opinions numerous times and have gotten tonnes of stuff changed that others devs would have just kept and told their customers to fuck off. Literally the entire art style changed since the early alphas and a massive number of other things have been added too, most recently player collision with npcs and optionally skipping the starter areas. The thing is a lot of us are willing to pay that much for an MMO. WoW still charges a subscription fee which could easily cover their server costs and expansions but they still charge for those, yet there's no complaint about that. Not to mention when WoW was released it was the same deal - pay for the game, $15 subscription fee. You're entitled to your opinion but I feel like you guys are just hopping on the band wagon without actually thinking about it[/QUOTE] I'm hardly hopping on a bandwagon and I've thought a lot about it. While you and I may be able to shell out the $15 a month I don't think it's fair to a lot of people who are interested in our genre, but see the sub-fee for so many games as a barrier to entree. It reinforces the idea that those games are made only for the elite. I want it to be a thriving genre and I definitely think it is moving towards that direction, but it requires work not just from the companies, but also from communities. You also have to consider the fact that while graphics technology on the clientside of MMOs has gotten a lot better, the actual server-side architecture doesn't change much. That combined with server hardware getting insanely fast compared to the EQ1 days means that upkeep is much cheaper for producers, but somehow consumers end up paying the same fee for 10+ years? I don't think that's fair.

[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;44427130]wow released in 2004. eso is being released in 2014. subscription model worked for wow because it was the standard back then. subscription model now? not very standard for mmo's. look at what happened to rift, swtor, lotro, the secret world, star trek online, etc.? the only way a subscription model would work (with a dumb cash shop) is if the community has interst in the mmo, and from what i've seen, a lot of franchise fans aren't looking forward to eso.[/QUOTE] Even if only a tenth of the people who bought skyrim played ESO for six months and then suddenly everyone stopped it would be financially successful, but aside from that people who don't even play elder scrolls games are trying it too. It's impossible to know how well it sold right now because no figures have been released aside from a few minor stores, but the player reaction in game has been pretty good. I've noticed some of the people who were totally against it are now playing it (me included, I was originally on the ESO is shit bandwagon myself). It's totally possible it will go F2P eventually but there's no way to know for sure [editline]2nd April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=DeandreT;44427154]I'm hardly hopping on a bandwagon and I've thought a lot about it. While you and I may be able to shell out the $15 a month I don't think it's fair to a lot of people who are interested in our genre, but see the sub-fee for so many games as a barrier to entree. It reinforces the idea that those games are made only for the elite. I want it to be a thriving genre and I definitely think it is moving towards that direction, but it requires work not just from the companies, but also from communities. You also have to consider the fact that while graphics technology on the clientside of MMOs has gotten a lot better, the actual server-side architecture doesn't change much. That combined with server hardware getting insanely fast compared to the EQ1 days means that upkeep is much cheaper for producers, but somehow consumers end up paying the same fee for 10+ years? I don't think that's fair.[/QUOTE] I'm not really seeing a lot of backing for the claims you're making, to be honest it kinda seems like you're assuming these things. Server-side architecture for a game like ESO is likely very different from a game like WoW or EQ1, given the more active nature of the combat in ESO to a hotkey based style in older MMOs that requires better reaction time from the game. Do you have any sources whatsoever to support the claim that architecture for ESO is similar to a 10 year old game?

I'm sure it's already been said, but they could just go the Secret World route and just have the only major payment be for just the game, and further payments through cosmetics or some shit.

Rift is an example of an MMO which has no subscription yet it seems to be going fine.

[QUOTE=Elspin;44427199]Even if only a tenth of the people who bought skyrim played ESO for six months and then suddenly everyone stopped it would be financially successful, but aside from that people who don't even play elder scrolls games are trying it too. It's impossible to know how well it sold right now because no figures have been released aside from a few minor stores, but the player reaction in game has been pretty good. I've noticed some of the people who were totally against it are now playing it (me included, I was originally on the ESO is shit bandwagon myself). It's totally possible it will go F2P eventually but there's no way to know for sure [editline]2nd April 2014[/editline] I'm not really seeing a lot of backing for the claims you're making, to be honest it kinda seems like you're assuming these things. Server-side architecture for a game like ESO is likely very different from a game like WoW or EQ1, given the more active nature of the combat in ESO to a hotkey based style in older MMOs that requires better reaction time from the game. Do you have any sources whatsoever to support the claim that architecture for ESO is similar to a 10 year old game?[/QUOTE] I don't know how the ESO megaserver stuff compares to WoW, but back in 2005 [URL="http://ark.intel.com/products/27202/Intel-Xeon-Processor-2_80-GHz-4M-Cache-800-MHz-FSB"]this[/URL] was a top of the line server CPU. If you compare that to [URL="http://ark.intel.com/products/65734"]2012[/URL] hardware then there's a decent increase in speed. That doesn't take into account how much cheaper storage is or even how much faster RAM has gotten. All of this basically means that the servers can take input, calculate results, and send it back to the player faster than ever. The major limiting factor now is bandwidth and power costs. Unless servers are using expensive hardware from 2004-2005 there's no way that it can cost them enough to warrant a subscription fee. Guild Wars 2 has active combat as well. Having active combat doesn't make your server bill suddenly cost a billion dollars. It just means you need to know where the player hitbox is more often than you would in WoW.

[QUOTE=Elspin;44426747]Oh boy can't wait for more unfounded nonsense from uninformed FP members[/QUOTE] Oh boy can't wait for the one-man ESO Defense Force to tell us about [del]buyers remorse[/del] how wrong we are about video games. [QUOTE=Elspin;44426747]Not likely to happen, almost all of the feedback in global chat has been overwhelmingly positive, I doubt the majority of the user base will abandon ship in the 2nd month although what happens in the coming month is uncertain.[/QUOTE] Every MMO is like this the first month. I played SWTOR. People were ecstatic about the game. Two months later they had lost hundreds of thousands of players because no one wanted to resub.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;44428804] Every MMO is like this the first month. I played SWTOR. People were ecstatic about the game. Two months later they had lost hundreds of thousands of players because no one wanted to resub.[/QUOTE] To be fair, if it wasn't for SWTOR disastrous launch, people would be praising TESO. Until launch, that is.

I tried the beta. It was [I]okay[/I], and let me stress that. It might be a game that I would play if it were buy, or free to play, but to buy [I]and[/I] subscribe? Definitely not. I played the last beta test they had, and it about made me fall asleep.

[QUOTE=Sanjuaro;44429307]I tried the beta. It was [I]okay[/I], and let me stress that. It might be a game that I would play if it were buy, or free to play, but to buy [I]and[/I] subscribe? Definitely not. I played the last beta test they had, and it about made me fall asleep.[/QUOTE] If it were free to play or [I]at most[/I] buy once for $30 I could get some decent time out of it. $60 box price plus $15 a month is a joke though.

Am I the only one who would rather have a single player Elder Scrolls game with co-op capabilities instead of an MMO? My cousin loves playing Skyrim and it would be really cool to play together, but not at a monthly cost :/

[QUOTE=slayer20;44430076]Am I the only one who would rather have a single player Elder Scrolls game with co-op capabilities instead of an MMO? My cousin loves playing Skyrim and it would be really cool to play together, but not at a monthly cost :/[/QUOTE] DaggerXL may support multiplayer as the engine is going to play multiplayer games.

[QUOTE=DeandreT;44427487]I don't know how the ESO megaserver stuff compares to WoW, but back in 2005 [URL="http://ark.intel.com/products/27202/Intel-Xeon-Processor-2_80-GHz-4M-Cache-800-MHz-FSB"]this[/URL] was a top of the line server CPU. If you compare that to [URL="http://ark.intel.com/products/65734"]2012[/URL] hardware then there's a decent increase in speed. That doesn't take into account how much cheaper storage is or even how much faster RAM has gotten. All of this basically means that the servers can take input, calculate results, and send it back to the player faster than ever. The major limiting factor now is bandwidth and power costs. Unless servers are using expensive hardware from 2004-2005 there's no way that it can cost them enough to warrant a subscription fee. Guild Wars 2 has active combat as well. Having active combat doesn't make your server bill suddenly cost a billion dollars. It just means you need to know where the player hitbox is more often than you would in WoW.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying it suddenly cost them a billion dollars, but they'd need quite a bit of subscribers to make a billion dollars even with this subscription model. All I'm saying is their production costs might make the fee more reasonable than you think it is. They sunk a massive amount of money into the game to get it started and produced a huge amount of content, if they keep doing that with the subscription fee then I'll be fine paying it, and if they don't I'll unsub, that's as simple as it is for me. [QUOTE=Raidyr;44428804]Oh boy can't wait for the one-man ESO Defense Force to tell us about [del]buyers remorse[/del] how wrong we are about video games. [/QUOTE] Totally makes sense because I'm enjoying the game. I'm not really hurt though with that coming from blizzard's biggest apologist. There's a fair amount of other ESO players on FP they just don't talk about it because of the massive baby bandwagon going "hur dur anyone who played ESO is dumb". [QUOTE=Raidyr;44428804]Every MMO is like this the first month. I played SWTOR. People were ecstatic about the game. Two months later they had lost hundreds of thousands of players because no one wanted to resub.[/QUOTE] It's really not, I've tried out plenty of MMOs at launch and seen tonnes of people complaining, the future may be uncertain but it's looking positive at least. I played SWTOR too and most people I was talking to about it had an entirely opposite reaction, the combat looked like a mess and it was dragging the retarded attitude of the prequel's around where the jedi do little flips for no reason other than to look fancy.

[QUOTE=Elspin;44427199]Even if only a tenth of the people who bought skyrim played ESO for six months and then suddenly everyone stopped it would be financially successful, but aside from that people who don't even play elder scrolls games are trying it too. It's impossible to know how well it sold right now because no figures have been released aside from a few minor stores, but the player reaction in game has been pretty good. I've noticed some of the people who were totally against it are now playing it (me included, I was originally on the ESO is shit bandwagon myself). It's totally possible it will go F2P eventually but there's no way to know for sure[/QUOTE] TES isn't for everyone that bought Skyrim. Even if Skyrim was able to reach a wider audience, TES players are the ones that keep playing Skyrim today. And they're not interested in the MMO. They're interested into Single Player games they can mod to their leisure. MMO players aren't interested either because it is lacking in many aspects, like end game. [QUOTE=Elspin;44427199] I'm not really seeing a lot of backing for the claims you're making, to be honest it kinda seems like you're assuming these things. Server-side architecture for a game like ESO is likely very different from a game like WoW or EQ1, given the more active nature of the combat in ESO to a hotkey based style in older MMOs that requires better reaction time from the game. Do you have any sources whatsoever to support the claim that architecture for ESO is similar to a 10 year old game?[/QUOTE] Now you're just being dumb on purpose. Even if he doesn't know the architecture of the game, all you have to do is look up how much a blade costs today and what are it's specs, and how much a blade costed in 2004 and what were the costs.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44431765]Now you're just being dumb on purpose. Even if he doesn't know the architecture of the game, all you have to do is look up how much a blade costs today and what are it's specs, and how much a blade costed in 2004 and what were the costs.[/QUOTE] Yes, and computer costs have largely remained the same with similar performance on the CPU side. The forward advancements have recently been in storage, where SSDs are more expensive than a traditional platter drive per gigabyte, and graphics cards, where the newest flagship card is still astronomically expensive. (And running a MMO server isn't hugely I/O or graphically intensive, so that's negligible.) Besides, there's more than just the server at stake here. Data centers pull a lot of electricity between fuckloads of servers and HVAC, you're going to want redundancy, and you have to pay the people to maintain them. Oh, and you have to pay the developers for continually working on the game. I don't know why subscriptions aren't palatable for people - a simple cost/benefit analysis shows that if you play a MMO with any regularity, even 30 minutes a day, you get more entertainment for your money than a single $60 purchase.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44431765]TES isn't for everyone that bought Skyrim. Even if Skyrim was able to reach a wider audience, TES players are the ones that keep playing Skyrim today. And they're not interested in the MMO. They're interested into Single Player games they can mod to their leisure. MMO players aren't interested either because it is lacking in many aspects, like end game.[/QUOTE] The only part of this that made sense was the last sentence at least so let's go with that, how exactly is the end game lacking? I only know of a few privileged beta testers and people who glitched the game a bit to get to the max level, how would they know if the end game content is bad? [QUOTE=Ragekipz;44431765]Now you're just being dumb on purpose. Even if he doesn't know the architecture of the game, all you have to do is look up how much a blade costs today and what are it's specs, and how much a blade costed in 2004 and what were the costs.[/QUOTE] Comparing an old server's price from then and now doesn't really account for everything, but thanks for calling me dumb despite not really having credible sources yourself either. Kinda proving my point there, but in any case I've already said I would be happy with other pay models or a lowered subscription fee as long as they could keep making content the way they are now. I'm just saying that I find the game worth the fee it has, or I wouldn't have paid it.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;44431830]n't palatable for people - a simple cost/benefit analysis shows that if you play a MMO with any regularity, even 30 minutes a day, you get more entertainment for your money than a single $60 purchase.[/QUOTE] In the case of ESO, you are paying the subscription on top of a $60 price tag.

[QUOTE=Durrsly;44431955]In the case of ESO, you are paying the subscription on top of a $60 price tag.[/QUOTE] And this is somehow worse than WoW's ~$90 upfront cost to own the game and all expansions? [editline]2nd April 2014[/editline] Also you're a fool if you ever pay full price for something anyway, I was able to grab ESO for a whopping $48.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;44431830]Yes, and computer costs have largely remained the same with similar performance on the CPU side. The forward advancements have recently been in storage, where SSDs are more expensive than a traditional platter drive per gigabyte, and graphics cards, where the newest flagship card is still astronomically expensive. (And running a MMO server isn't hugely I/O or graphically intensive, so that's negligible.) Besides, there's more than just the server at stake here. Data centers pull a lot of electricity between fuckloads of servers and HVAC, you're going to want redundancy, and you have to pay the people to maintain them. Oh, and you have to pay the developers for continually working on the game. I don't know why subscriptions aren't palatable for people - a simple cost/benefit analysis shows that if you play a MMO with any regularity, even 30 minutes a day, you get more entertainment for your money than a single $60 purchase.[/QUOTE] Are you serious? In 2008 Blizzard declared that WoW upkeep has costed TO THAT POINT(that's 4 years in WoW) 200mil dollars. And that covers EVERYTHING including developers, hardware, costumer support and everything else. And in 2008 they had 8~9mil subs that's more than 120million dollars a MONTH. And that's fucking 6 YEARS ago. If you think a 100$/month blade nowadays delivers the same amount of processing than a 100$/month blade from 2004 you're wrong. Same goes for the data storage servers, they'll have more disk space for the same price.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;44432033]the price for wow in its current state is pretty worth it considering its almost 2 decades of content on the world's most popular mmo also saving 10 on eso isnt exactly the deal of the century, you're still paying 15 per month after the first as well as the microtransactions for things that should be purchasable w/ ingame money[/QUOTE] WoW has "microtransactions" too that include shitty ass mounts and account services which are basically the same shit that ESO does. I have dumped hundreds of dollars into WoW, and I want to try something new. The $50 to get ESO is worth it to me, and I'm already accustomed to a subscription.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;44432033]the price for wow in its current state is pretty worth it considering its almost 2 decades of content on the world's most popular mmo[/QUOTE] It's also extremely dated with hotkey combat and terrible gameplay until at minimum you're at the vanilla max level? I wouldn't even be interested in playing WoW for free [QUOTE=RichyZ;44432033]also saving 10 on eso isnt exactly the deal of the century, you're still paying 15 per month after the first as well as the microtransactions for things that should be purchasable w/ ingame money[/QUOTE] Which cash shop is this exactly, the one that doesn't exist or some other one? There's no microtransactions in game or on their website so although it might rear it's ugly head eventually it doesn't exist yet. In any case the only thing they announced a microtransaction for was a horse which IS purchasable in game so yes, you can buy things with in game money. [editline]2nd April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Ragekipz;44432143]Are you serious? In 2008 Blizzard declared that WoW upkeep has costed TO THAT POINT(that's 4 years in WoW) 200mil dollars. And that covers EVERYTHING including developers, hardware, costumer support and everything else. And in 2008 they had 8~9mil subs that's more than 120million dollars a MONTH. And that's fucking 6 YEARS ago. If you think a 100$/month blade nowadays delivers the same amount of processing than a 100$/month blade from 2004 you're wrong. Same goes for the data storage servers, they'll have more disk space for the same price.[/QUOTE] Sorry are you intentionally destroying your argument or what? 200 million dollars of upkeep over 4 years is 50 million a year, that means you'd need quite a bit of subscribers yearly to afford the upkeep not to mention paying hundreds of professionals to continually develop content. Did you forget how much 50 million dollars is??

[QUOTE=Elspin;44432163] Sorry are you intentionally destroying your argument or what? 200 million dollars of upkeep over 4 years is 50 million a year, that means you'd need quite a bit of subscribers yearly to afford the upkeep not to mention paying hundreds of professionals to continually develop content. Did you forget how much 50 million dollars is??[/QUOTE] Did you skip the part where they're making 120million dollars a month? And they have to make infrastructure for 9 million people accross 4 continents? I guess you did.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44432222]Did you skip the part where they're making 120million dollars a month? And they have to make infrastructure for 9 million people accross 4 continents? I guess you did.[/QUOTE] What uh... what point are you trying to make? That if you have less players you don't have to pay as much upkeep? Yeah, and you make less money to pay that upkeep, and once again the costs are not just upkeep but paying your employees making content for the game

[QUOTE=Elspin;44432254]What uh... what point are you trying to make? That if you have less players you don't have to pay as much upkeep? Yeah, and you make less money to pay that upkeep, and once again the costs are not just upkeep but paying your employees making content for the game[/QUOTE] In that upkeep blizzard also includes all their staff related to WoW. If have less players, your upkeep is also smaller. My point is that you make many times the game upkeep to every month.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;44432621]In that upkeep blizzard also includes all their staff related to WoW. If have less players, your upkeep is also smaller. My point is that you make many times the game upkeep to every month.[/QUOTE] It's necessary to make more than the game's upkeep to make a profit, as well as make up the initial investment (which was $200 million for ESO) during which time you were making no money at all. Just like WoW I'm sure it'll become cheaper eventually, they actually asked people during the beta what a good price point would be for the game and a lot of people answered within the $15 dollar range, I answered around $10 myself