Elder Scrolls Online: Did They Commit Suicide?


Pathfinder Online

51 to 70 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Early on, The Seventh Veil decided it would be lots of fun to have special RP Dungeon Crawl Events. I really liked that idea, and still think it would be lots of fun.

This is one thing I will strive for. Always intended to scout out for 'dungeons' and then when found report back to T7V settlement and form a party to explore the discovered dungeon.

Goblin Squad Member

What happened that made MMOs $100 million dollar projects? EQ surely didn't spend that much and the only real difference is graphics. Is it just inflation?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
The transition from "solo" to "group required" is one of the triggers of the cliff. A lot of people want to play a solo experience in a multiplayer world and when the solo content ends, they quit.

I believe this to be true because players have been conditioned by crappy game implementations that PUNISH players who try to group in a MMO before the end game to go it solo until the end game.

By the same token, games that seek to combat this by punishing or making soloing impossible are just as bad because these games fail to realize that finding a group is more often then not a torturous exercise in futility (why do you think mmo's have group matchmaking tools now?) that simply drives people away.

I am hoping this isn't the case with PFO because games are meant to be played and standing around in a que, spamming chat for a group or simply waiting for random member xyz to get back from his nightly dog walk because you can't do anything in game without a group is NOT playing a game.

Goblin Squad Member

See, I have no problem with a monthly subscription. It pays for the game, maintenance on a server, pays the wages for the writers, the designers and the moderators.

Thing is, if the game starts to suck ... I'll stop paying. It's that simple. I'll ride out the rest of my subscription on the forums and the game, letting as many people as I know that the game I am hypothetically playing is good, but not worth the subscription. Go Free or Go Home with this puppy.

I think the 'Free-With-Pay-Options' method that Goblinworks is bringing to the table will work, because everyone's on the same level, power-wise, with or without money spent, but the money spent makes your characters have more utility, or bling, and so-forth.

I'm stating it now, I'll gladly subscribe to an MMO. But if it sucks ... that first month is all you're ever gonna get from me.

CEO, Goblinworks

@Rafkin - World of Warcraft cost $75 million. It nearly bankrupted Blizzard (it's the reason Blizzard agreed to the tie up with Vivendi).

To compete in the post-Warcraft world you needed a Warcraft budget. But Blizzard didn't stop investing in Warcraft. So you needed to invest what Blizzard had to develop Warcraft PLUS what Blizzard had invested since launch.

The cost of the graphics is a big driver. Warcraft has a 3rd gen engine (Ultima being 1st gen, EQ being 2nd). We're on 4th gen graphics now, and we'll go to 5th gen in a couple of years. Each generation roughly doubled the cost of the graphics in an MMO. The cost is a function of work hours and the more complex the graphics, the more work hours are needed to make them.

Localization is another big driver of costs. You launch a theme park MMO in ten languages (English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian, Korean, Portuguese, Japanese and Mandarin). WoW launched with five.

Inflation runs about 3% a year compounded. That's 27% since 2003.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Should note that the intent is not for a F2P model on PFO; it will be possible to play free (after the initial money down to get in world), but you'll likely need to accumulate a lot of in-game wealth to do so, and most players are going to pay a subscription to play. Myself personally, I'm going to keep subscribing regardless of whether my in-game wallet can support monthly Goblin Ball purchases (training time), because I like to 'vote with my wallet' and give money to people who make the things I like.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Peaked at 250,000 subscribers, plateaued, collapsed in 24 months. Team acquired by EA, built Warhammer Online with same realm v realm thesis. That game peaked at 800,000 subscribers, collapsed below 100,000 within 12 months.

I'm not sure if you are ignoring my point on purpose or i'm having difficulty expressing it because English is not my mother tongue.

Your original point was that when the game objective changes so dramatically like it seems in ESO players simply move to another game.

My point is that DAoC is an excellent example or the opposite. As players accepted the change after hitting maximum level as it was a welcome diversity. Warhammer Online didn't fail because of the objective change but due to it being a bad game and not being finished on release and lacking a major part of the promised content.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Team acquired by EA, built Warhammer Online with same realm v realm thesis. That game peaked at 800,000 subscribers, collapsed below 100,000 within 12 months.

To be fair, WAR just wasn't a very good game. The interface was sloppy, the mechanics a poor cousin to WoW. Oh, and they had GOA scare off the entire (I wish I was exaggerating) EU population within the first month.

Not exactly the recipe for success!

(The RvR was fantastic, and this is coming from a guy who loathes PvP with a fiery passion. It wouldn't have lasted two weeks if it only had RvR though.)

Goblin Squad Member

@Pap: Looks like Ryan is saying both games saw a big drop in numbers? I know Mythic we're working on Daoc2 and War then EA bought them and they focused on War as a replacement to Wow or even just 1m of the 8-10m Wow had. War was a let down for daoc vets as the combat was not as good, RvR 2-factions was not as good and in fact no staying power eg tagging BO's and keep and not defending, changing server when Order or Destro were winning. Levelling was faster and more fun and better gear in RvR than PQ's and scenarios sucked some of the population from RvR and balance was good in Tier 1 then got worse in higher Tiers. After initial rush, PQ's became barren and too distributed so eg Elf lands were deserts. Wow players returned to wow social networks and Daoc players went back to daoc or waiting for a 3-faction mmo. Interestingly Planetside was ahead of it's time yet I hear PS2 does not seem as fun to those players? Again GW2 which is B2P vs PS2's F2P seems fairly popular but suffers Zerg issues and again old daoc players I hear say it's not as fun as daoc for some reason. One thing Daoc did was link PvE with PvP didn't it? But only partially: Could that be a factor in it's success or at least relative longer-lasting appeal?

Goblin Squad Member

Papaver wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Peaked at 250,000 subscribers, plateaued, collapsed in 24 months. Team acquired by EA, built Warhammer Online with same realm v realm thesis. That game peaked at 800,000 subscribers, collapsed below 100,000 within 12 months.

I'm not sure if you are ignoring my point on purpose or i'm having difficulty expressing it because English is not my mother tongue.

Your original point was that when the game objective changes so dramatically like it seems in ESO players simply move to another game.

My point is that DAoC is an excellent example or the opposite. As players accepted the change after hitting maximum level as it was a welcome diversity. Warhammer Online didn't fail because of the objective change but due to it being a bad game and not being finished on release and lacking a major part of the promised content.

I think Ryan got your point and was pointing out that DAOC was not really a success because it "collapsed in 24 months". I think that's a fair indication that the player base really didn't accept - en masse - the raeical change at end game.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:
...give money to people who make the things I like.

Exactly this. I get that little frisson of pleasure when I spend money in a good gaming cause, and I have just enough to spare that I can afford it from time to time...my version of a mind-altering substance.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
I think Ryan got your point and was pointing out that DAOC was not really a success because it "collapsed in 24 months". I think that's a fair indication that the player base really didn't accept - en masse - the raeical change at end game.

Correlation does not imply causation. Otherwise saying that every MMO since WoW has failed because they had mouse and keyboard input would be a valid point.

Goblin Squad Member

Papaver wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation.

That's true, and you're right to point out that we can't necessarily blame the failure of DAOC on the change in game-play at end-game. However, that's not really what was happening. Rather, I think Ryan was simply saying that you didn't have good cause to use DAOC as an example of a successful change in game-play at end-game.

Goblin Squad Member

Papaver wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
I think Ryan got your point and was pointing out that DAOC was not really a success because it "collapsed in 24 months". I think that's a fair indication that the player base really didn't accept - en masse - the raeical change at end game.
Correlation does not imply causation. Otherwise saying that every MMO since WoW has failed because they had mouse and keyboard input would be a valid point.

No, but correlation + explanatory insight does. Really 101 science stuff here.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
but correlation + explanatory insight does.

Actually no, but Nihimon mabe his point. Though i find it questionable to call DAoC a failure in the pre WoW market.

Goblin Squad Member

Papaver wrote:
Mbando wrote:
but correlation + explanatory insight does.
Actually no, but Nihimon mabe his point. Though i find it questionable to call DAoC a failure in the pre WoW market.

I think what Papaver really means is he liked DAoC. That's cool. I'll admit it, WAR was my favorite MMO before server consolidation, for all of it's problems and incompleteness.

Goblin Squad Member

The numbers were comparatively good for daoc. But I think there were some issues with an some expansions. And I believe one of the guys working on ESO was responsible for one of the better/best expansions (Darkness Falls? or something like that). Irrespective I don't have many insights on daoc, but if I could guess, the problem of the themepark model running out of content is that side of that problem and the problem of the realm-v-realm model is of course imbalance and elite groups perhaps dominating too often too long and the "losers" retiring or not feeling like they can get back into the game to level things up? Or just a huge zerg wins and the pvp is not as interesting as team-pvp? I'm not sure but those are the general issues you (pl.) could think off the top of your head. Perhaps that sort of explains why LoL/dota has became so popular?

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

I think RvR will work as a platform. It requires a tremendous focus on balance. My time in the CCG world taught me how hard it is to understand the critical path to balanced game design. If they nail it, they'll have the MMO equivalent of LoL or a World of Tanks.

It will take someone like Jacobs, who has seen the pitfalls, to get it done, I think.

I don't get the sense that Zenimax has that DNA.

If Zenimax has one flaw, its a lack of testing, which is why they always fail to uncover terrible, awful, balance problems.

I'd also like to point out that your Golf > Football analogy is a poor one.

ESO is more like playing golf to warm up to LaCrosse, and every month or so you get a couple new golf courses, just in case you really aren't into being smacked around with a net on a stick.

AND knowing well ahead of time that it would work that way.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

IMO, the MMO market is saturated, despite a rapid growing player base with a change in social paradigm making gaming the norm and a expanding high speed internett access the mmo supply is exceeding demand. Seems there is 3-5 high profile theme park MMO released every year, most of which basicly lose 90% of its player base 2-3 months after release.

I can't even remember half of the hyped theme park mmo's that were released this year on steam.

A mmo model that I find interesting that has been able to keep itself growing with only pvp and almost devoid of social interaction is Mechwarrior Online. It's forums is filled with people who hate the developers for not fullfilling the promised faction warfare and other demands, but the game is competitive, gives players many customization options, got progression and got great gameplay. This is one reason I'm liking pathfinder, a game doesn't need to have everything ready at launch if the core gameplay is fun and competitive.

Goblin Squad Member

Metabaron wrote:
Seems there is 3-5 high profile theme park MMO released every year...

This may be coming to an end.

Ryan Dancey wrote:
After The Elder Scrolls Online, there's no known AAA Theme Park MMO in development.

He also mentioned not knowing what Blizzard was doing, but in the months since, we learned the fate of Titan.

51 to 70 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Elder Scrolls Online: Did They Commit Suicide? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online