I wasn't wrong, you were the one who is wrong. I said that's at least 3 and said that there are possibly more. You straight out said that there were only 2.
I wasn't wrong, you were the one who is wrong. I said that's at least 3 and said that there are possibly more. You straight out said that there were only 2.
Mmmkay....Continents:
Tamriel
Akavir
Atmora
Pyandonea
Thras
Yokuda
Aldmeris
Off topic but they could totally expand there if they want to. Irrelevant since they still have plenty of Tamriel to fill out.
There are pros to both models.
With buy to play I get a shiny new game on my computer to play as I see fit.
With pay to play I get about 20 gigs of free space on my hard drive and a fatter wallet.
Either way, I'm good.
1) I do agree that the subscription could/should be less. I would be a huge supporter of a payment model where 1 year of subscription would be $9.99 per month. Also, to keep the subscription price down, I believe that ZOS should adopt what EQ Next is doing with the release of EQ Landfall: Allowing players to create some game content (i.e. few zones, dungeons etc.). Minecraft has proven that players can create amazing locations. ZOS should take advantage of that to keep costs down and use it to reduce the subscription.
2) I completely disagree that ESO class roles will be the same as GW2. They will not. We already know that ESO will have dedicated healers and tanks - in other words - that gameplay will not be homogeneous.
3) If adding DLC is comprise, I personally still think it is a bad idea for a mainstream MMORPG. Also, if only some people are getting DLCs it means that DLCs cannot have a fundamental impact on the game - in other words, DLCs are generally just fluff and not real way of game evolution. I want ESO to be ever-evolving, I don't want ESO to be a static game.
I'm sorry, but this alone proves you don't understand the complexities of the situation. The COMPANY is the one paying his salary, so the cost comes when they have to cut his paycheck. They get paid back when his work generates income for the company.
You are entitled to your opinion, but as far as I am concerned, it's not worth my time.
It does indeed contradict what you are saying. Where do you think the money comes from to pay for the budget? Just because they plan for a expense, doesn't mean they don't have to have income to balance it out.....
As to increasing buyers by dropping the sub follow this example.
100 buyers with sub. That's $5,000 in sales with $0/month in subs. (first month free)
200 buyers with no sub. That's $10,000 in sales with no sub.
Better right? Well sure for the first month. But next month you get either $1,500 in subs or $0. 3rd month the same. 4th month you are up to 6K in sub fees. That's 11K vs 10K.
What happens a year out? I'll let you do the math.
Lastly, in a MMO I occasionally consider an alternate playthrough, but unless there is sufficient content to level up without overly duping content, not much difference in leveling a tank vs leveling a DPS. Now I do consider RP, or would if others were around to RP with.
most of us who will be staying for the long haul with eso have grown up with ES SP. not adding RP community items, and staying true to the lore will come to haunt them if they don't pay attention.
Was already answered by a Lore guy I trust, should read the thread more.
Anyways that wasn't even the point, it was that like past premium MMO's, ESO can and will have expansions that contain a full games worth of content whether it be new continents, or land masses within the already playable game space.
"P2P games get more content"
All pay to play games, or just the monster that is WoW? Be honest here.
1. The game will provide value for money and people will continue to pay each month for continued enjoyment
2. The game will not provide value for money and people will unsub and leave. The developer will then need to evaluate their pricing model or game content to continue revenue.
Given these 2 outcomes for ESO, is it that some people are presuming the game will not give value for money and thus are assuming the game will fail (bearing in mind only beta testers actually know what the game is like and that's only a fraction of the actual launch content), or is it that simply budgets are so tight that they want to play the game for a lot less (free even) but want the same level of commitment to their game as a P2P would have?
First, I disagree with you on the content angle. The content isn't simply everything "in the box", it's the experience as well. So simply saying 1/4 of the content etc, missed the point. It also doesn't allow for server costs, customer service etc.
Now if they were asking for a sub for a SP game, then I could see your argument.
As to expansion packs vs subs, this goes back to steady revenue streams. Not all active players will buy the expansion pack. Especially casual players who are still working on the initial content.
Lastly, your comment about "it's not my fault" implies you think they are punishing you or forcing you to pay for their "mistakes". You do realize this is a game and thus you have choice as to whether you buy it or not? Not like they are the government and are shoving a unpopular, wasteful, and horribly expensive project down your throat.
Please don't spam off-topic replies. It doesn't contribute to the discussion about an mmo to say wait until the single player game made by a different company comes out.
It may indeed be, business models evolve like everything else as the public mood evolves. I suspect though that this IP has the potential to hold subs for a long time.
then I envy you .. and yes your right I misunderstood
I envy you because I was 29 when morrowind came out .. I wish I had been raised with it as much as you were, and from other comments you've made about the lore I believe you have a better grasp of it then a lot of people. I about threw up when i saw the lack of understanding of lore in the dragonborn expansion .. scares me what we will find when we go to morrowind in ESO and see what they did with skyrim as well ..