It's not MY fault they chose to release for console.


It appears broken to me due to the fact that:

They developed a game requiring a subscription on console, knowing that console gamers are not into that whole thing.

That it will cost extra to play their game on console, unless they work out some magical deal.

Am I REALLY the only one here who expects a game developer who chooses to release a game on console to adapt to the environment that console is in? really? Do I go to another state and demand that they change their laws to suit my needs? Why should ESO get any special treatment?

Like someone said before,they are negotiating with console devs to find some middle ground. And primary platform for MMo-s (more specifically for this mmo) is PC, Mac. It started with those 2 platforms in mind and only after have they decided to include next gen consoles.

do they really need to sell 10 million copies in order to be called successful?

Not seeing how MMO's being developed origionally for PC matters as far as consoles go.

They put an MMO out for consoles, they have to pander to the console market, not the other way around. They are betting that the console market will bite the bait and pay the extra fee/go the extra mile to play. Will work for PC gamers, will not work on consoles.

Welcome to the console jungle. We have fun and games.

How much will it cost? Is there any definite information out about the cost? I'm serious. If there has been an announcement about it, I could have missed it.

It is still up to the individual as to whether or not the game is worth it.

As far as I can remember, the game developers have made their games, and the publishers have released their games for a platform. It works, or it doesn't. There isn't a lot of adapting to do. The player has a choice to adapt or not, but the hardware doesn't really. As to whether or not Sony or Microsoft will adapt their services to the mmo type of game remains to be seen. Of course, Sony or Microsoft could say "We don't want to do this; everything needs to be the same. We won't allow your game on our platform."

Maybe the OP is right and ESO is loosing "sales", but most People don t get it that it does not matter.

Loosing "money" would be a different subject, but with me playing six month with P2P they can afford to "loose" 4 other People!!

You have to realise that buying a game for 50$ is NOT giving 50$ to the company...they get 8-10 out of every Box-Sale, the rest is lost on the way!

So do your math, becourse paying subcription is actually direct money to the devs and1 monthly-sub is worth more then 1 Box-Sale, anyone still thinking they can threating Zenimax becourse "they are loosing half of their potential customers"?

With so many people interested in ESO and the Elder Scrolls Franchise, it would be a catastrophic busines decision NOT to start with a subcription, whether you like it or not.

Vote with you wallet if ESO is not worth a sub for you...ist the only way that will work.

So console players might get to play for cheaper than PC gamers do? Lol if that happens it's yet another nail in the coffin. PC gamers will rage.

And I like the way everyone is saying that they're negotiating, but nobody has links or proof....sounds made up to me.

Then they'll lose the console players. Welcome to the jungle, indeed. And if the loss of the console players matters, the game will fail, and Zenimax will learn an expensive lesson.

You're absolutely right. Too bad that more people won't find it worth it and either not play, or leave after a month or two since there's a sub and TONS of other B2P/F2P options on the market. P2P means population goes down faster, means publishers lower funding faster, means game dies faster.

And that is baaaaad.

What if a guy buys the console game, because, heck, he can affdord it, only to....have an empty mega server.

Now, I KNOW some ESO fans will just say something along the lines of "So what? that just means it will be a closer, more tight knit community!"

Maybe I can pretend it's just like the world of Fallout. The world is a sparsely populated wasteland where only the toughest struggle to survive. You see another PC wander around and have to wonder..are they friend, or foe?

I would be a tad irritated, won't lie about that. They chose console over pc, so they get a better rate for the same game? Yeah, that wouldn't be total [censored]... >.>

You've basically disproved your own point with this statement. If he doesn't buy it - chances are many others won't buy it - and hence ZOS will lose customers even at launch, where they need huge sales.

To me, there are two ways people look at sub fees to justify them:

1) Pay for Enjoyment : This is the minority group and seems to be the mindset of the pro-P2P players. They think that paying ￡9.00 a month is worth it for the enjoyment they get to have whilst playing the game.

2) Pay for value for money: This is the majority mindset amongst the Core/casual market, including the masses of SPers looking at the TES title and considering making TESO their first MMO. To these people, if you sell the inital game at ￡36.00, and it is a game which includes 3 Skyrim's worth of content, then for the monthly fee you'd expect to get 3/4 of a Skyrim sized content pack per month. This is not achievable by any means. To these players, if you can't keep your company afloat without ripping people off - not providing value for money in content terms - then they shouldn't pay. These people are not a charity - since this is buisness it is not their responsibility to prop up a company for little in return.

Since most of the interest in this game came from #2, this game will hemorage subs after the first few months, because regardless of how big the content drops seem to seasoned MMO players, it will never be anywhere near what is considered value for money.

In this circumstance, a one off box fee of ￡120 would be acceptable.

Which leads us to quality. Time is more valuable to me than money and i will rather invest my time into quality entertainment, regardless of cost (within reason ofc), rather than bump into pay walls,restrictions or elongated grinds in order to have some fun.

This is the reason I never played EVE or World of Warcraft. The idea of paying for a game is perfectly understandable. I would even pay more money than usual for an extensive multiplayer game like what we see here, given that there will be regular updates and ongoing support. However, I cannot understand how people can justify paying, say, ￡10 per month, or ￡120 per year for, I dunno, 5 years? How on earth is any game worth ￡600?

I was looking forward to TESO. I'm quite disappointed that I'll never get to play it.

http://venturebeat.com/2013/08/21/bethesda-talking-to-sony-microsoft-addressing-goldplus-requirement-for-the-elder-scrolls-online-on-xbox-one-playstation-4/

How reliable, I have no idea.

You want pc players to subsidize your subscription. How about working for it yourself.

This is redundant anyway, the XBL is paid in a one-off yearly fee, and console players by nature want to play more than one game online, so they'll have already topped up online before this game came out (I know I have). They're not going to avoid buying XBL and play only Elder Scrolls Online on their ￡400 console.

Who said anything about having pay walls? They should have done GW2's payment model. Check out the link in my sig. If they can do that and be that successful on a B2P game, anyone can. It's a much better choice than turning off so many potential players with a sub.

Thing for me is that, [and I'm talking about solo play here] after I finish my faction, which seems to be the content of a normal game, I can access the content of another faction, even if I don't want to make a new character. That is another $60 game. Then I can access the content of the third faction, which is supposed to be another $60 game. So $60 and $60 and $60 so far; I'm coming out ahead at this point. Now they are supposed to be adding new content on a regular basis, but they aren't charging $60 each time. I can deal with that long enough to see whether or not it is worth the subscription. If it is, I'll continue. If it isn't, I won't. But I can't see where I've been cheated.

This. Very much this, for those that believe they're getting shafted.

Yes I appreciate that - I was just making the point that whatever they set the box price to is what they're saying X amount of content is worth, and if they can't match that with a sub fee at 1/4 of the box price per month then it's a bit contradictory.

That's why I said ￡120 box price, and a reduced sub fee, would be much more honest and people would be more inclined to pay - they see the sub fee as a much smaller fraction of the box price and hence worth the lower amounts of content.

I love how many MBA's we have on the forum who have studied the MMO market in great detail and have absolute knowledge of what the best payment plans are. They carefully compiled and examined the revenue streams of all the MMOs. They studied games like Asheron's Call which has been P2P for the last 13 years. They looked at the B2P and F2P that have been around that long and compared revenue streams not just for the first year but also for 5 or 10 years down the line. They sat down with spreadhseets and ran the numbers for different.

I am sure it is all completely objective and in no way is influenced by their own personal preferences.

The bottom line is none of us know how this turns out as much as people seem to think they do. A coin flip with heads being P2P and tails being B2P is as scientifically valid as the predictions of any of us on either side of of the argument.

You dont need to be a scientist to see where the MMO mainstream is headed.

See Rift, WOW. Hellgate.

You dont need to be a genius to see what people want

See: Every non forum website with posts regarding the p2p model, ever.

It does take a willful act of blindness to ignore it though.

I plan on paying my sub, I have no issues, I have been paying for mmo subs since the 90's, it's part of my entertainment budget, since it is my hobby, I am gamer I love all kinds of games and most hobbies require you to spend money from time to time.. I have tried playng f2p games, most of them to me were not even worth playing for free, I have played b2p games, they never felt like a AAA mmo to me, they were always missing fetaures I found in only P2P games..

It's your choice to play or not, if ESO is a quality product and is indeed a premium service game people will pay to play, you need don't millions of players to have a very profitable game, in fact I have read from more that one company 300k subs is a VERY profitable game, just subs alone that is 4,497,000.00 per-month, that does not include any sales from the vanity store or t-shirts, coffee mugs, art work, all the things they may market.

Time will tell...

Exactly, if GW2 is gold standard of so called "F2P" games, Im glad ESO will not be one of them.

I will gladly pay subscription for sustained content updates, even if it means loosing the advantage of cash shop with sunglasses and pilot uniforms