Home › Game Forums › WildStar
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
WS v. ESO - Which one Failed Less/ Succeeded More?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Fair enouph seeing thinks that way, but in other hand there was alot of Elder Scrools fans that get a huge disappointment with ESO for some reasons.
WS is launched as a new IP, didnt had the back cover like ESO.
Theres are at least 2 type of players that stay in ESO after 1st month:
- The ES fans that ended accept ESO waiting for better days
- Those who really like the game for what it is independing hes IP.
Is not fair imo compare this 2 launches, a know IP agaisnt a new one and the hype created around this 2 games befor launch had a huge diference.
So, if we look to the ammount of hype befor launch and the ammount of disappointment after launch, dont know wich one was worse on this point.
About pool, i didnt vote, dont make sense to me really, both games can have a shiny future ahead.
Well, yes. Everyone has their own ideas right or wrong. It is and always will be damn near impossible to take a well known single player RPG and turn it into a successful MMO.
No matter what they would have done, it was going to be wrong. Make the raiders happy and the ES fans freak because there was none of that in the ES games. Make a true sandbox and the ES fans are now happy, but what is a true sandbox? Ask 10 people and you will get at least 8 different answers. Some think that means PvP everywhere, but that would drive a lot of folks away. Some think it means few or no quests. That definitely isn't keeping with the ES universe. You didn't have to do many of them, but they were there. Plus the MMO fans here cry for sandboxes but, they really don't want them. If they did, sandboxes would be the biggest games around, not a game that is so easy a brain dead monkey could lead successful raids.
AA will be a good test bed for my thoughts on sandboxes. If it is a major hit in the west then I'm wrong and will admit it, but mark my words, it will not be a major success 6 months from now. It will be another title on the long list of games that failed to meet expectations only the sandbox crowd will make excuses like they always do and will refuse to admit that the real issue is people really don't want to play in a sandbox. The sand gets into places it shouldn't and causes chaffing.
The two games have different transparency. One has to declare their financial situation and you can tell how many units sold what they made and so on and the other just can hide everything. One can be lying and no one can say otherwise.
This coupled with the fact that Wildstar is a game that requires people to play with a great deal of comittment and skill . So any failure is not an indication of a themepark game failing but rather a game with such a high bar to overcome that most give up at attunement.
One has megaservers so even the server population is not indicative while the others show low population on their servers. Cannot really compare these two games with any real accuracy.
Some very interesting answers, thanks to all of you who have taken the time to answer.
I intentionally left out criteria for 'success'. While finances are certainly the lifeblood of any commercial enterprise, I wanted to see how others defined it.
And for whatever it is worth, I hope both games find solid footing and prosper. They certainly seem to attract different types of players, which is a good thing in my book.
As to why I chose these two games, it's purely because they both were super hyped and there seemed to be a real rivalry between their respective fans.
Well we need some form of measure to really decide which we just don't have. ZOS will never publish their numbers (yes we know it's because they are a private company). ZOS will also keep quiet on third party sites publishing their numbers as well. Then we get news that Carbine lost one of its top execs and is switching to a megaserver. Something tells me that ZOS would have had to do the same thing if they released with static servers. Now we also read that ZOS has laid off a large number of its staff.
Both games have their fun things about them that distinguishes itself from each other. However both also have some questionable design choices that keeps people baffled or away from their games in the first place. Lastly, both developers were arrogant to think that their particular MMO was worth a monthly sub even though pretty much every other western MMO that started as a sub went f2p, except WoW and EvE of course.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
I still really want to play this game. However, with box prices still $60 - I will just keep waiting until they do the sensible thing and drop the box price like ESO did.
Unless someone here has an account they want to give me!
They are the same price. $59.99
ESO Digital Standard Edition
WS Standard Edition
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
You state this like its a fact, but do you have any facts regarding the loss of subscriptions for wildstar and elder scrolls online to make a comparison between the two?
WS had a 9 year development cycle and went through a number of iterations, they also developed their own engine. I know it looks like a 2 year development game (and fuck knows what they were doing for 9 years), but in terms of cost I would not be surprised if it was in fact more than ESO's.
As for subscriptions I don't think any data has been released by either company.
Agree 100%
Even though i like WS more than ESO, i wouldn't play it if i was to pay a sub (i m paying my sub with ingame gold until now). Not because i don't like it, but because in its current state i don't think it has many more things to offer from mmo's that are F2P/B2P in order to justify the sub. Same goes for ESO. If it was B2P i would give it a second chance, but not as P2P.
Right now i m playing WS & EvE using CREDD / PLEX. I m also waiting for AA, GW2 Feature Pack and Rift-SWTOR Expansions. So why messing with subs?
My next buy will be Dragon Age Inquisition btw and i hope it will be much better than DA2.
All Time Favorites: EQ1, WoW, EvE, GW1
Playing Now: WoW, ESO, GW2
And do you have these facts?
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
To me both were hugely flawed and disappoining games. But ESO seem to be working on more game fixes.
But they have different flaws. WS was unplayable due to horrible performance and optimization (and being too generic) while ESO was unplayable due to awful game design decisions and bugs. With that said, ESO is less generic. Therefore, more enjoyable/interesting. But WS is prettier. lol
This thread is obviously about opinions so, yeah. This is mine.
Ws is doing bad.
/facts
In a panel discussing how MMOs can innovate and make game play different then in the past WS reps answer was 'we will do combat differently'.
That was a fail at the word go.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
They should have gone with making every other generic part of the game different instead. If the combat had been TPS I might have enjoyed it, I think it would have suited the game and got rid of those fugly and repetitive telegraphs everywhere.
If I never see a telegraph again it will be too soon.
I agree with the lolz part because ArcheAge was the most boring mmo I have ever played.
Wildstar was fun for a while but the novelty wears off quick.
ESO has kept me entertained since release through multiple characters and I love the pvp.
Tbh i think i ll agree with you.
All Time Favorites: EQ1, WoW, EvE, GW1
Playing Now: WoW, ESO, GW2
Opinion, not facts.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Very well said; ^this pretty much sums it up for me, I couldn't agree more.
that said, this type of thread is definitely 'fail'.