I'm not glad, other than WOW and EVE, every single major AAA mmo that started out with subscription model have dwindled in numbers to the point where the game was about to die. Then went F2P and sparked life back into it. I don't want to see that happen to TESO as it did to SWTOR, Aion, RIFT, Conan, LOTRO, Vanguard, Tera, DDO, DC Universe. If they do stay subscirption it may be the next Warhammer.
A lot of people are glad about that. The question is: are enough people going to sub up month 2? If not, then F2P in 6 months. Is this game going to be able to hold onto enough subs considering that it isn't planning any raids and is mostly focused around GW2 style WvW PvP with 4 man dungeons at endgame?
I can't wait to see what happens with this one. To me though, it doesn't look like it's planning to offer enough for long term subscribers. But then there could be some unannounced stuff that no one knows about.
This is my guess on how things unfold. Launch P2P to grab all the fans and make the most money on that new MMO smell everyone looks for. 6-12 months later when all the hype dies out and you have a stable game and ready for more players. F2P model system with a P2P option that unlocks more game features and like SWToR and SoE games may even give you credits for subbing each month you can spend in the cash shop. May even have features you can pay to unlock if you are a free player like SoE, LotR and SWToR does. Pay X RL cash to be able to raid for a week or upgrade bank or bag space to paid player size. That kinda junk. This plan of switching to some type of hybrid P2P with F2P option has done very well for many games and almost to be expected if you have watched the path of many MMOs over the years.
Subscription does not mean no cash shop, people should realize this by now. All they have done is made you waste $15 a month to get what you can get for free elsewhere and make you spend $15 to try the game again after you take a break.
F2P doesn't mean Free to Play. People should realize this by now. One way or another, you are paying for the game. Personally, I prefer games that let me know the cost upfront rather than nickel and diming me to death.
Originally posted by ElRenmazuo Because not only will it be an insult to the series and make it seem cheap if it was either f2p or b2p with cash shop, it would personally kill the kind of immersion I get from playing an elder scrolls title. Just imagine logging in and the first thing that pops up is a window saying deals of the day lol. Or zoning to a new area only to be stopped and reminded I need to buy this area to go on further. Or seeing people with hair styles that werent available in character creation. I think even the console fans would have been like WTF is this.
Mate there will be more problems with this game than the subscription. More or less forsed pvp,, where do you think that will lead? Most players will leav the game within weeks from release.
Originally posted by ElRenmazuo Because not only will it be an insult to the series and make it seem cheap if it was either f2p or b2p with cash shop, it would personally kill the kind of immersion I get from playing an elder scrolls title. Just imagine logging in and the first thing that pops up is a window saying deals of the day lol. Or zoning to a new area only to be stopped and reminded I need to buy this area to go on further. Or seeing people with hair styles that werent available in character creation. I think even the console fans would have been like WTF is this.
well, it is true that this would break immersion. But it's also true that the sub prices are kind of overpriced by the amount of new content we usually get in sub mmorpgs.
It's not that I wouldn't pay for a sub, but lately I just don't see it being worth the money of a sub price of 15$ (or more in europe, usually). Tho I must say that I haven't seen any of mentioned just yet in mmorpgs I played (or it was but nothing that I'd remember that was intrusive or game breaking).
A game can be a huge success with B2P if the cash shop is done right. Also, I think subs are a huge wall and they shatter the games population this days.
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
Originally posted by ElRenmazuo Because not only will it be an insult to the series and make it seem cheap if it was either f2p or b2p with cash shop, it would personally kill the kind of immersion I get from playing an elder scrolls title. Just imagine logging in and the first thing that pops up is a window saying deals of the day lol. Or zoning to a new area only to be stopped and reminded I need to buy this area to go on further. Or seeing people with hair styles that werent available in character creation. I think even the console fans would have been like WTF is this.
Mate there will be more problems with this game than the subscription. More or less forsed pvp,, where do you think that will lead? Most players will leav the game within weeks from release.
Where are people getting that there is forced PVP? I haven't seen anything to indicate that is true. My understanding is that you can PVE your way to level 50, then completely continuing PVEing to the other two factions.
Originally posted by ElRenmazuo Just imagine logging in and the first thing that pops up is a window saying deals of the day lol. Or zoning to a new area only to be stopped and reminded I need to buy this area to go on further.
Yes, because ES games have never let you buy armor for your horse or buy a new area to explore or buy a housing system expansion. Oh, wait...
This is my guess on how things unfold. Launch P2P to grab all the fans and make the most money on that new MMO smell everyone looks for. 6-12 months later when all the hype dies out and you have a stable game and ready for more players. F2P model system with a P2P option that unlocks more game features and like SWToR and SoE games may even give you credits for subbing each month you can spend in the cash shop. May even have features you can pay to unlock if you are a free player like SoE, LotR and SWToR does. Pay X RL cash to be able to raid for a week or upgrade bank or bag space to paid player size. That kinda junk. This plan of switching to some type of hybrid P2P with F2P option has done very well for many games and almost to be expected if you have watched the path of many MMOs over the years.
This is how it has went down with pretty much every triple A mmo in the past five years. Not sure what is going to make TESO different or even Wildstar. Can't say IP, Star Wars IP couldn't even make it off monthly subs. And TESO, based on the feedback from beta around the web, TESO isn't anything light years ahead of SWTOR. Some may say final fantasy or darkfall is a good example of subscription, but both of those games shutdown on a subscription based attempt haha, both had to reboot. It's exactly what Nanfoodle said, with a question of the actually time it will take for them to embrace F2P. They can choose to wait till it's too late like Rift and have to fire half their staff right before their new expansion pack, if they want. Or they can ride the subscription to the grave like Warhammer. Their call, I am already sure there is a plan B to go F2P once there subs decline to (enter amount here) anyway. I prefer to wait till it goes free, we had to wait, what, a year for TOR?
Subscription models aren't the problem, it's making a game worth paying for that is. If Neverwinter was subscription based it would have closed the doors shortly after launch.
Originally posted by ElRenmazuo Because not only will it be an insult to the series and make it seem cheap if it was either f2p or b2p with cash shop, it would personally kill the kind of immersion I get from playing an elder scrolls title. Just imagine logging in and the first thing that pops up is a window saying deals of the day lol. Or zoning to a new area only to be stopped and reminded I need to buy this area to go on further. Or seeing people with hair styles that werent available in character creation. I think even the console fans would have been like WTF is this.
all those past Skyrim games were not monthly sub MMO's. Just one shot purchases,..maybe DLC.
Fanbase is one thing,..but when more money is involved and IF the game isn't living up to the hype,..well,...
I have no reason to expect this MMO will not follow the path of TSW RIFT,..LOTRO,..etc,..and eventually , sooner or later,..most likely sooner at this rate,..switch to f2p.
Originally posted by ElRenmazuo Because not only will it be an insult to the series and make it seem cheap if it was either f2p or b2p with cash shop, it would personally kill the kind of immersion I get from playing an elder scrolls title. Just imagine logging in and the first thing that pops up is a window saying deals of the day lol. Or zoning to a new area only to be stopped and reminded I need to buy this area to go on further. Or seeing people with hair styles that werent available in character creation. I think even the console fans would have been like WTF is this.
Seeing hair which was not avaible in character creation made me laugh very hard.
You guys evidentally have no idea of how popular the elder scrolls series is, here is a brief sampling of skyrim.
A lot of us have played Beta, it's no Skyrim. The reviews will come out and the flamers will emerge shortly after launch. Just because Skyrim had those numbers does not mean TESO will unfortunately. Two whole different baskets of fruit.
The numbers quoted above are taken way out of context. Even if they did sell 3.5 million PC versions of the game that is still BUY TO PLAY. Which is a far cry from P2P. Now if it were buy to play then sure maybe they sell 1.5-2 million copies. PsP they might sell 500K, because people will buy it for the free month. After that free month i suspect they lose 70-75% of the player base. Unless they have a collectors edition or s special edition that gives 90 days. And trust me this aint Skyrim online.
Theyre doing this by design. It will be Buy to play for as long as they can squeeze a few bux out of subscribers then it will switch to F2P. It is being released with a cash shop so it isnt like they dont have one in place. If that cash shop were ready to go at release it would be buy to play like it was originally scheduled to be. Sub people might even get a couple updates out of it before it switches.
So as it is its going to be SUB based AND a cash shop. Theyre getting both sides of the forbidden fruit.
Their problem is more new games are coming out and theyre going to be buy to play at 'worst'. EQ Next definitely free, Archeage more than likely free or buy to pay, Star citizen some sort of EVE type sub I am sure, Wildstar looks like theyre sticking to a sub model. That doesnt count the dozens of others already out that are free or buy to play.
ESO has fallen a ton in the hype meter, there are reasons and it goes beyond them saying they were going to charge a sub.
People can rail all they want to about free to play games but other than WoW theyre ALL free to play. And ironically WoW is the game that gets bashed the most for being 'kiddie land'.
In the end the guys defending the sub model will be the guys bashing the game after it goes free to play and wonder why it did it. Because its 'their' game and 'they' supported it. While everyone who says it should just start out free or buy to play will be there doing the content (for free) that those guys paid for. History has repeated itself far too often to not think this is not only likely but a guarantee.
Zenimax owns Bethesda. So not sure what the point is with that.
Game used to look like WoW with WoW minimap and no first person.
This isn't NDA information. They came out and said it at Quake Con. The Alpha leak back in the day is why the 'hype meter' dropped. This is why NDAs are important. It's also why people whom like the game don't say anything and those that don't do say stuff. Let's face it. Everyone knows what's going on and the majority of the noise out their is cluttered experience with vast differences of opinions of what they want from a MMO vs. ES IP vs. Casual vs. Hardcore vs. PvE vs. PvP. All these factors people are either inexperienced in or are extrapolating on from their limited exposure. Judging anything about this game from supposed Beta leaks at this point is pure idiocy.
The consoles are supporting this game heavily. Both Xbox One and PS4 are putting TESO front and center in their coming up game features. PS4 in particular has one that features TESO off the front in a TV advert, while an online one featuring the PS4 and what it can do has TESO as the first game featured. This is before Killzone, Assassins Creed, and Destiny.
I think the sub model might become an optional feature in the future with a B2P + DLC. I don't see this game ever going F2P. I would look for it to transition to a TSW model, if the pure P2P model doesn't pan out.
Zenimax owns Bethesda. So not sure what the point is with that.
Game used to look like WoW with WoW minimap and no first person.
This isn't NDA information. They came out and said it at Quake Con. The Alpha leak back in the day is why the 'hype meter' dropped. This is why NDAs are important. It's also why people whom like the game don't say anything and those that don't do say stuff. Let's face it. Everyone knows what's going on and the majority of the noise out their is cluttered experience with vast differences of opinions of what they want from a MMO vs. ES IP vs. Casual vs. Hardcore vs. PvE vs. PvP. All these factors people are either inexperienced in or are extrapolating on from their limited exposure. Judging anything about this game from supposed Beta leaks at this point is pure idiocy.
The consoles are supporting this game heavily. Both Xbox One and PS4 are putting TESO front and center in their coming up game features. PS4 in particular has one that features TESO off the front in a TV advert, while an online one featuring the PS4 and what it can do has TESO as the first game featured. This is before Killzone, Assassins Creed, and Destiny.
I think the sub model might become an optional feature in the future with a B2P + DLC. I don't see this game ever going F2P. I would look for it to transition to a TSW model, if the pure P2P model doesn't pan out.
The first statement is wrong and the whole post gets more wrong as it goes.
Zenimax owns Bethesda. So not sure what the point is with that.
Game used to look like WoW with WoW minimap and no first person.
This isn't NDA information. They came out and said it at Quake Con. The Alpha leak back in the day is why the 'hype meter' dropped. This is why NDAs are important. It's also why people whom like the game don't say anything and those that don't do say stuff. Let's face it. Everyone knows what's going on and the majority of the noise out their is cluttered experience with vast differences of opinions of what they want from a MMO vs. ES IP vs. Casual vs. Hardcore vs. PvE vs. PvP. All these factors people are either inexperienced in or are extrapolating on from their limited exposure. Judging anything about this game from supposed Beta leaks at this point is pure idiocy.
The consoles are supporting this game heavily. Both Xbox One and PS4 are putting TESO front and center in their coming up game features. PS4 in particular has one that features TESO off the front in a TV advert, while an online one featuring the PS4 and what it can do has TESO as the first game featured. This is before Killzone, Assassins Creed, and Destiny.
I think the sub model might become an optional feature in the future with a B2P + DLC. I don't see this game ever going F2P. I would look for it to transition to a TSW model, if the pure P2P model doesn't pan out.
Activision owns Blizzard and EA owns Bioware/Mythic ownership has nothing to do with it under that logic you think EA games can do as good a job as Mythic did making DAOC because they own them now, ridiculous. Consoles are far from a sure thing in mmorpgs just as they are not for RTS games.
Zenimax owns Bethesda. So not sure what the point is with that.
Game used to look like WoW with WoW minimap and no first person.
This isn't NDA information. They came out and said it at Quake Con. The Alpha leak back in the day is why the 'hype meter' dropped. This is why NDAs are important. It's also why people whom like the game don't say anything and those that don't do say stuff. Let's face it. Everyone knows what's going on and the majority of the noise out their is cluttered experience with vast differences of opinions of what they want from a MMO vs. ES IP vs. Casual vs. Hardcore vs. PvE vs. PvP. All these factors people are either inexperienced in or are extrapolating on from their limited exposure. Judging anything about this game from supposed Beta leaks at this point is pure idiocy.
The consoles are supporting this game heavily. Both Xbox One and PS4 are putting TESO front and center in their coming up game features. PS4 in particular has one that features TESO off the front in a TV advert, while an online one featuring the PS4 and what it can do has TESO as the first game featured. This is before Killzone, Assassins Creed, and Destiny.
I think the sub model might become an optional feature in the future with a B2P + DLC. I don't see this game ever going F2P. I would look for it to transition to a TSW model, if the pure P2P model doesn't pan out.
The first statement is wrong and the whole post gets more wrong as it goes.
It's okay. Just because a post doesn't go along with your F2P narrative, doesn't make things 'wrong.'
Activision owns Blizzard and EA owns Bioware/Mythic ownership has nothing to do with it under that logic you think EA games can do as good a job as Mythic did making DAOC because they own them now, ridiculous. Consoles are far from a sure thing in mmorpgs just as they are not for RTS games.
Who said anything about a sure thing? Having the makers of the shiny new systems both feature ESO is a good sign however. It shows confidence to back a project and that project will be of valued interest. Meaning they think advertising ESO on their system will be beneficial. That's a good thing for the game and will undoubtedly increase sales.
You were making a comment about how Zenimax was making the game and not Bethesda, as if that mattered. That was my point. Bioware made SWTOR and how did that turn out? The company that makes the game doesn't matter. What matters is the people making it. But I bet you didn't look into that did you? Cause you used DAoC as an example in your comparison which I think is hilarious. Stop extrapolating on what people say and building a straw man to knock down. Doesn't really help your case that much.
Activision owns Blizzard and EA owns Bioware/Mythic ownership has nothing to do with it under that logic you think EA games can do as good a job as Mythic did making DAOC because they own them now, ridiculous. Consoles are far from a sure thing in mmorpgs just as they are not for RTS games.
Who said anything about a sure thing? Having the makers of the shiny new systems both feature ESO is a good sign however. It shows confidence to back a project and that project will be of valued interest. Meaning they think advertising ESO on their system will be beneficial. That's a good thing for the game and will undoubtedly increase sales.
You were making a comment about how Zenimax was making the game and not Bethesda, as if that mattered. That was my point. Bioware made SWTOR and how did that turn out? The company that makes the game doesn't matter. What matters is the people making it. But I bet you didn't look into that did you? Cause you used DAoC as an example in your comparison which I think is hilarious. Stop extrapolating on what people say and building a straw man to knock down. Doesn't really help your case that much.
Right and the people making ESO are not Bethesda merely the parent company. So who is making ESO in this case very much does matter because it certainly isn't Bethesda. Its not a straw man argument Bethesda has nothing to do with this game at all. It is Zenimax Online Studios and as of yet they have never even developed a game until now.
You are also obsessing over initial box sales based on IP, again this won't matter at all with an mmorpg unless they can retain long term subs since they are using the sub fee model else they will simply follow Tortanic and crash and burn.
Activision owns Blizzard and EA owns Bioware/Mythic ownership has nothing to do with it under that logic you think EA games can do as good a job as Mythic did making DAOC because they own them now, ridiculous. Consoles are far from a sure thing in mmorpgs just as they are not for RTS games.
Who said anything about a sure thing? Having the makers of the shiny new systems both feature ESO is a good sign however. It shows confidence to back a project and that project will be of valued interest. Meaning they think advertising ESO on their system will be beneficial. That's a good thing for the game and will undoubtedly increase sales.
You were making a comment about how Zenimax was making the game and not Bethesda, as if that mattered. That was my point. Bioware made SWTOR and how did that turn out? The company that makes the game doesn't matter. What matters is the people making it. But I bet you didn't look into that did you? Cause you used DAoC as an example in your comparison which I think is hilarious. Stop extrapolating on what people say and building a straw man to knock down. Doesn't really help your case that much.
Right and the people making ESO are not Bethesda merely the parent company. So who is making ESO in this case very much does matter because it certainly isn't Bethesda. Its not a straw man argument Bethesda has nothing to do with this game at all. It is Zenimax Online Studios and as of yet they have never even developed a game until now.
You are also obsessing over initial box sales based on IP, again this won't matter at all with an mmorpg unless they can retain long term subs since they are using the sub fee model else they will simply follow Tortanic and crash and burn.
That was another poster talking about box sales. I'm saying that it bodes well for the game to have Microsoft and Sony supporting it.
Zenimax Online Studios is a new company. The people making it that work for Zenimax Online Studios have prior experience. I think you should look that up.
Comments
Some simple facts about me...
Every FtP game I have ever tried, I quit within hours of starting.
Every BtP game I have ever tried, I quit within a few months.
Every sub game I have ever tried, I played for more than a year.
I am all for sub games and hope with every fiber of my being the industry goes back to it.
This is my guess on how things unfold. Launch P2P to grab all the fans and make the most money on that new MMO smell everyone looks for. 6-12 months later when all the hype dies out and you have a stable game and ready for more players. F2P model system with a P2P option that unlocks more game features and like SWToR and SoE games may even give you credits for subbing each month you can spend in the cash shop. May even have features you can pay to unlock if you are a free player like SoE, LotR and SWToR does. Pay X RL cash to be able to raid for a week or upgrade bank or bag space to paid player size. That kinda junk. This plan of switching to some type of hybrid P2P with F2P option has done very well for many games and almost to be expected if you have watched the path of many MMOs over the years.
F2P doesn't mean Free to Play. People should realize this by now. One way or another, you are paying for the game. Personally, I prefer games that let me know the cost upfront rather than nickel and diming me to death.
Mate there will be more problems with this game than the subscription. More or less forsed pvp,, where do you think that will lead? Most players will leav the game within weeks from release.
well, it is true that this would break immersion. But it's also true that the sub prices are kind of overpriced by the amount of new content we usually get in sub mmorpgs.
It's not that I wouldn't pay for a sub, but lately I just don't see it being worth the money of a sub price of 15$ (or more in europe, usually). Tho I must say that I haven't seen any of mentioned just yet in mmorpgs I played (or it was but nothing that I'd remember that was intrusive or game breaking).
A game can be a huge success with B2P if the cash shop is done right. Also, I think subs are a huge wall and they shatter the games population this days.
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
Where are people getting that there is forced PVP? I haven't seen anything to indicate that is true. My understanding is that you can PVE your way to level 50, then completely continuing PVEing to the other two factions.
There Is Always Hope!
Yes, because ES games have never let you buy armor for your horse or buy a new area to explore or buy a housing system expansion. Oh, wait...
This is how it has went down with pretty much every triple A mmo in the past five years. Not sure what is going to make TESO different or even Wildstar. Can't say IP, Star Wars IP couldn't even make it off monthly subs. And TESO, based on the feedback from beta around the web, TESO isn't anything light years ahead of SWTOR. Some may say final fantasy or darkfall is a good example of subscription, but both of those games shutdown on a subscription based attempt haha, both had to reboot. It's exactly what Nanfoodle said, with a question of the actually time it will take for them to embrace F2P. They can choose to wait till it's too late like Rift and have to fire half their staff right before their new expansion pack, if they want. Or they can ride the subscription to the grave like Warhammer. Their call, I am already sure there is a plan B to go F2P once there subs decline to (enter amount here) anyway. I prefer to wait till it goes free, we had to wait, what, a year for TOR?
You guys evidentally have no idea of how popular the elder scrolls series is, here is a brief sampling of skyrim
over 20 years of mmorpg's and counting...
I agree!
all those past Skyrim games were not monthly sub MMO's. Just one shot purchases,..maybe DLC.
Fanbase is one thing,..but when more money is involved and IF the game isn't living up to the hype,..well,...
I have no reason to expect this MMO will not follow the path of TSW RIFT,..LOTRO,..etc,..and eventually , sooner or later,..most likely sooner at this rate,..switch to f2p.
but we'll see. I will play it and find out.
Seeing hair which was not avaible in character creation made me laugh very hard.
Good one!
7.5 million copys sold alone on xbox
5million sold on ps3
3.5million sold on pc
thats 16million copys sold
A lot of us have played Beta, it's no Skyrim. The reviews will come out and the flamers will emerge shortly after launch. Just because Skyrim had those numbers does not mean TESO will unfortunately. Two whole different baskets of fruit.
The numbers quoted above are taken way out of context. Even if they did sell 3.5 million PC versions of the game that is still BUY TO PLAY. Which is a far cry from P2P. Now if it were buy to play then sure maybe they sell 1.5-2 million copies. PsP they might sell 500K, because people will buy it for the free month. After that free month i suspect they lose 70-75% of the player base. Unless they have a collectors edition or s special edition that gives 90 days. And trust me this aint Skyrim online.
Theyre doing this by design. It will be Buy to play for as long as they can squeeze a few bux out of subscribers then it will switch to F2P. It is being released with a cash shop so it isnt like they dont have one in place. If that cash shop were ready to go at release it would be buy to play like it was originally scheduled to be. Sub people might even get a couple updates out of it before it switches.
So as it is its going to be SUB based AND a cash shop. Theyre getting both sides of the forbidden fruit.
Their problem is more new games are coming out and theyre going to be buy to play at 'worst'. EQ Next definitely free, Archeage more than likely free or buy to pay, Star citizen some sort of EVE type sub I am sure, Wildstar looks like theyre sticking to a sub model. That doesnt count the dozens of others already out that are free or buy to play.
ESO has fallen a ton in the hype meter, there are reasons and it goes beyond them saying they were going to charge a sub.
People can rail all they want to about free to play games but other than WoW theyre ALL free to play. And ironically WoW is the game that gets bashed the most for being 'kiddie land'.
In the end the guys defending the sub model will be the guys bashing the game after it goes free to play and wonder why it did it. Because its 'their' game and 'they' supported it. While everyone who says it should just start out free or buy to play will be there doing the content (for free) that those guys paid for. History has repeated itself far too often to not think this is not only likely but a guarantee.
Meaningless first of all Skyrim is a single player rpg made by Bethesda, this is a GW2 clone made by Zenimax.
Second of all IP means nothing to an mmorpg and neither does box sales for an mmorpg based on a sub model.
SWTOR is a good example.
Amount of money made by The Empire Strikes Back on its worldwide theatrical release. 538,000,000 rounded down, Budget about 18 million.
Amount of money made by SWTOR , Whatever pennies they scrape off the ground from cash shop sales.
Amount of money Spent by SWTOR, over 400 million.
So in that case the source of the IP made millions and the game based on the IP only spent millions.
Zenimax owns Bethesda. So not sure what the point is with that.
Game used to look like WoW with WoW minimap and no first person.
This isn't NDA information. They came out and said it at Quake Con. The Alpha leak back in the day is why the 'hype meter' dropped. This is why NDAs are important. It's also why people whom like the game don't say anything and those that don't do say stuff. Let's face it. Everyone knows what's going on and the majority of the noise out their is cluttered experience with vast differences of opinions of what they want from a MMO vs. ES IP vs. Casual vs. Hardcore vs. PvE vs. PvP. All these factors people are either inexperienced in or are extrapolating on from their limited exposure. Judging anything about this game from supposed Beta leaks at this point is pure idiocy.
The consoles are supporting this game heavily. Both Xbox One and PS4 are putting TESO front and center in their coming up game features. PS4 in particular has one that features TESO off the front in a TV advert, while an online one featuring the PS4 and what it can do has TESO as the first game featured. This is before Killzone, Assassins Creed, and Destiny.
I think the sub model might become an optional feature in the future with a B2P + DLC. I don't see this game ever going F2P. I would look for it to transition to a TSW model, if the pure P2P model doesn't pan out.
The first statement is wrong and the whole post gets more wrong as it goes.
Activision owns Blizzard and EA owns Bioware/Mythic ownership has nothing to do with it under that logic you think EA games can do as good a job as Mythic did making DAOC because they own them now, ridiculous. Consoles are far from a sure thing in mmorpgs just as they are not for RTS games.
It's okay. Just because a post doesn't go along with your F2P narrative, doesn't make things 'wrong.'
Who said anything about a sure thing? Having the makers of the shiny new systems both feature ESO is a good sign however. It shows confidence to back a project and that project will be of valued interest. Meaning they think advertising ESO on their system will be beneficial. That's a good thing for the game and will undoubtedly increase sales.
You were making a comment about how Zenimax was making the game and not Bethesda, as if that mattered. That was my point. Bioware made SWTOR and how did that turn out? The company that makes the game doesn't matter. What matters is the people making it. But I bet you didn't look into that did you? Cause you used DAoC as an example in your comparison which I think is hilarious. Stop extrapolating on what people say and building a straw man to knock down. Doesn't really help your case that much.
Right and the people making ESO are not Bethesda merely the parent company. So who is making ESO in this case very much does matter because it certainly isn't Bethesda. Its not a straw man argument Bethesda has nothing to do with this game at all. It is Zenimax Online Studios and as of yet they have never even developed a game until now.
You are also obsessing over initial box sales based on IP, again this won't matter at all with an mmorpg unless they can retain long term subs since they are using the sub fee model else they will simply follow Tortanic and crash and burn.
That was another poster talking about box sales. I'm saying that it bodes well for the game to have Microsoft and Sony supporting it.
Zenimax Online Studios is a new company. The people making it that work for Zenimax Online Studios have prior experience. I think you should look that up.