You can sign up here. They gave me an Excellent chance of getting in, but then they might be saying that to all the potential testers. Hussies.
[MMO] Elder Scrolls Online: Beta Signup is open.
- Thread starter CynicismKills
- Start date
- Status
What's the general feeling on this? Last I heard people thought it was a TERRIBLE implementation of a good idea, or something. I kinda feel sad it probably means no new solo elder scrolls for a while, but it also intrigues me.
"Elder Scrolls Online" is a TERRIBLE name, though. MMOs need to stop adding "Online" to their titles, it's the 64-plague of the N64 days all over again.
"Elder Scrolls Online" is a TERRIBLE name, though. MMOs need to stop adding "Online" to their titles, it's the 64-plague of the N64 days all over again.
I could get right on that ... or just keep playing a good game called Skyrim.
I figure there's not enough info yet for me to judge one way or the other. I just enjoy beta testing, watching the game get built as I play.
It doesn't mean anything with regards to 'solo' TES games, as this is being developed by a separate studio, Zenimax Online, as opposed to Bethesda Softworks, even if they're both under the same producer - Zenimax.
As a huge TES fan, I've been cautiously reserved about this, but the more I see the more I get hyped for this game. I'm not going to sign up for the Beta and wait until it's actually released, because I'd rather have a complete game, but still. Everything I've seen/heard so far looks like it adds up to a fine game.
As a huge TES nut, I'm cautiously horrified by it. Any and all footage and info I've read sounds like it'll be a monstruous disaster. I hate MMO's in general with a passion, and I hate all of my beloved SP franchises being turned into MMo's, but I admit TES could conceivably be a good idea. However, the implementation so far seems horrible and oh, oh, so dated. It'll be F2P before it's out of beta.
Yes. Studios still seem to think the Global Gamer Overmind exists, and We all Love the same things, but, guess what? Not true.
There's "smaller" MMos like Eve, with a specific, dedicated target audience; there's the free(mium) model things throuh browsers (say, Grepolis, Imperial Conflict, what have you), which is great as a diversion and has plenty of people who like it. Those are successful.
You've got WoW, and WoW-clones, which seem to do reasonably well, as a genre - but, while I have no idea how it's called in English, they're communicating bodies (or something?) - a gain in subscribers of one is a loss of subscribers to another. WoW still holds most of those, and all other MMOs which insist on copying it get little pieces for a little while.
Then you've got odd new thing they're trying like Diablo III, which mostly seem to fail spectacularly because you're luring people in with false promises. Borderlands 2's another example like that, but more successful as it stays closer to regular multiplayer shooters.
Also, there's the Korean MMOs - also free(mium) or whatever, usually with barely any comprehesible story, mostly a sort of eSports. Successful in their own area and with some following outside it, they're relatively cheap.
The problem most high profile MMOs have these days, is that they
a) realize you can't fight WoW with 10 year's worth of updates by starting WoW as it was
b) realize they desperately want part of that WoW-goodness
b) realize starting WoW-with-10-years-of-updates takes 10 years, or a LOT of money
c) throw a lot of money at it
d) are surprised this doesn't actually work.
Eve or 2Moons or whatever can do fine with 500,000 subscribers. That's a very respectable amount of customers. Modern-day MMos can't (TOR "failed" because it didn't reach 2 million). Development costs are so absurd they have to gain immense followings right out of the gate.
Same is true for regular games - development costs keep rising exponentially, total sales increase in a linear fashion. Failure is more risky, and eventually you have developers afraid of making anything but Fifa/NHL 2014 or Call of Honour: Modern Warfield 1942 part 2 - the Wolfenstein.
There's "smaller" MMos like Eve, with a specific, dedicated target audience; there's the free(mium) model things throuh browsers (say, Grepolis, Imperial Conflict, what have you), which is great as a diversion and has plenty of people who like it. Those are successful.
You've got WoW, and WoW-clones, which seem to do reasonably well, as a genre - but, while I have no idea how it's called in English, they're communicating bodies (or something?) - a gain in subscribers of one is a loss of subscribers to another. WoW still holds most of those, and all other MMOs which insist on copying it get little pieces for a little while.
Then you've got odd new thing they're trying like Diablo III, which mostly seem to fail spectacularly because you're luring people in with false promises. Borderlands 2's another example like that, but more successful as it stays closer to regular multiplayer shooters.
Also, there's the Korean MMOs - also free(mium) or whatever, usually with barely any comprehesible story, mostly a sort of eSports. Successful in their own area and with some following outside it, they're relatively cheap.
The problem most high profile MMOs have these days, is that they
a) realize you can't fight WoW with 10 year's worth of updates by starting WoW as it was
b) realize they desperately want part of that WoW-goodness
b) realize starting WoW-with-10-years-of-updates takes 10 years, or a LOT of money
c) throw a lot of money at it
d) are surprised this doesn't actually work.
Eve or 2Moons or whatever can do fine with 500,000 subscribers. That's a very respectable amount of customers. Modern-day MMos can't (TOR "failed" because it didn't reach 2 million). Development costs are so absurd they have to gain immense followings right out of the gate.
Same is true for regular games - development costs keep rising exponentially, total sales increase in a linear fashion. Failure is more risky, and eventually you have developers afraid of making anything but Fifa/NHL 2014 or Call of Honour: Modern Warfield 1942 part 2 - the Wolfenstein.
Why did you include Diablo 3 and Borderlands 2 in that? Neither are mmo's, and both have always been multiplayer oriented games throughout their franchise.
Both of those games have also sold extremely well, and are hits, even if I don't like Diablo 3.
The other games you bring up are more victims of poor management (like EA) than indications that gamers don't like MMO's. You cite EVE as only having 500,000 subscribers (I don't know if this is accurate) but your perspective is wrong. That is a HUGE amount, and is in fact around the best mmo's can get. You lose perspective by comparing it to WoW, which is a statistical anomaly in the genre, not the standard. Publishers do the same thing, and this is why games like TOR fail, because, well, EA. 'nuff said.
Both of those games have also sold extremely well, and are hits, even if I don't like Diablo 3.
The other games you bring up are more victims of poor management (like EA) than indications that gamers don't like MMO's. You cite EVE as only having 500,000 subscribers (I don't know if this is accurate) but your perspective is wrong. That is a HUGE amount, and is in fact around the best mmo's can get. You lose perspective by comparing it to WoW, which is a statistical anomaly in the genre, not the standard. Publishers do the same thing, and this is why games like TOR fail, because, well, EA. 'nuff said.
That's my point. Modern high-profile (that's important! Not "most" or "the interesting ones", the HIGH-PROFILE ones, like Fallout MMO (which will hopefully never get made
), TOR, TESO,....) are made to combat WoW and have WoW-like subscription numbers. MMos aimed at numbers such as Eve are perfectly viable, and there are many of them. Hence, thse high-profile MMOs have all failed, because their targets were unrealistic.I'm not saying gamers don't like MMos, I'm saying not ALL gamers like MMOs - EA and other management seemed to be thinking that if 15 million people'll play WoW, there'll be another 15 million willing to pay the same to play WoW-in-space or WoW-but-looks-a-bit-different, which is horribly wrong.
While Borderlands is, well a borderline case, Blizzard has out-and-out stated that Diablo III was supposed to be "the next generation in on line gaming", with a non-persistent world but persistent persona and a persistent market. And if you think DIII was a success, you haven't been following the numbers. There was a huge amount of initial sales, yes. I bought it too, the hype was huge, everyone wanted a second DII. Considering over half the servers have been closed, the development team has been cut (and transferred to the expansions, yes), some of the biggest promised free additions and game modes still aren't there (arena), and revenue stream from the real money auction house is staying waaaayy below expectations....I can't see it as a success. Diablo III was supposed to be an MMO for people who didn't like MMOs; a different way of playing with other people. It failed on a number of levels. (for the record, I did like some parts of Diablo III).
On a whole other topic, I vehemently disagree with Diablo "always being multipalyer oriented". Yes, a large part of DII's allure was its longevity and multiplayer options, and yes, Diablo I was amongst the first easily played on line games. Both also had a great single player aspect and a good story.
Battle.net, the first online game service to be integrated directly with the game, was invented for Diablo 1. And this was modified further with Diablo 2, as the only way to play the full game (with all of the items) was to play online ladder.
If your complaint was that D3 didn't offer any offline play, that's valid, but it doesn't change that they were primarily multiplayer games.
If your complaint was that D3 didn't offer any offline play, that's valid, but it doesn't change that they were primarily multiplayer games.
I liked Diablo 3, but it does not have the longevity to survive in the same space as MMOs if you ask me.
D2 was good because it came at a time the MMO was still an infant, D3 came at a time where the genre is saturated and for the most part, much more fulfilling form of "shoot and loot". When it comes to my desire to play D3, I always just prefer going back to WoW, meaning in my case Blizzard themselves were their worst competitor.
I know Blizzard wanted money, but they would have done much better if they dropped a few things before release. Get LAN back in (it was already programmed into the game, Blizzard has to have the designers program it back out), lessen the focus on AHs, better tune the difficulty so it's not as much of a barrier, and prepare the servers better (come on guys you knew it was going to happen). Some of the updates over D2 were great, but became overshadowed by the little mistakes.
D2 was good because it came at a time the MMO was still an infant, D3 came at a time where the genre is saturated and for the most part, much more fulfilling form of "shoot and loot". When it comes to my desire to play D3, I always just prefer going back to WoW, meaning in my case Blizzard themselves were their worst competitor.
I know Blizzard wanted money, but they would have done much better if they dropped a few things before release. Get LAN back in (it was already programmed into the game, Blizzard has to have the designers program it back out), lessen the focus on AHs, better tune the difficulty so it's not as much of a barrier, and prepare the servers better (come on guys you knew it was going to happen). Some of the updates over D2 were great, but became overshadowed by the little mistakes.
TOR failed because BioWare didn't do anything the players asked for. Endgame was stale and easily stomped out in a night, PvP was terribly imbalanced and never really fixed, and various bugs/class-specific issues weren't fixed in any kind of timely manner.
The reason most MMO's have been failing to pull WoW's numbers, outside of the fact WoW's got nearly 10 years on anything new coming out, is they get released unfinished. Things WoW has made into staples of the MMO experience are either put in after release, or not implemented properly. Things like Looking for Raid/Group queues so you don't have to sit in major cities shouting for members is usually something MMO's don't add in that can really hurt. On top of that, WoW is by far the most newbie-friendly MMO out there. No other MMO I've played (and believe me, it's a lot) is as easy to get into and understand on a basic level. Even games like Rift or Guild Wars 2 have a much steeper learning curve and overall difficulty (especially if you're trying to learn the game solo at first).
Personally, I think any MMO released from this point forward needs to follow Guild Wars/Secret World's model of no monthly fee. Make the money off of microtransactions and the initial purchases instead. It's worked wonders for GW2, which has a fairly decent-sized playerbase.
The reason most MMO's have been failing to pull WoW's numbers, outside of the fact WoW's got nearly 10 years on anything new coming out, is they get released unfinished. Things WoW has made into staples of the MMO experience are either put in after release, or not implemented properly. Things like Looking for Raid/Group queues so you don't have to sit in major cities shouting for members is usually something MMO's don't add in that can really hurt. On top of that, WoW is by far the most newbie-friendly MMO out there. No other MMO I've played (and believe me, it's a lot) is as easy to get into and understand on a basic level. Even games like Rift or Guild Wars 2 have a much steeper learning curve and overall difficulty (especially if you're trying to learn the game solo at first).
Personally, I think any MMO released from this point forward needs to follow Guild Wars/Secret World's model of no monthly fee. Make the money off of microtransactions and the initial purchases instead. It's worked wonders for GW2, which has a fairly decent-sized playerbase.
GasBandit
Staff member
All I wanted was 2 player co-op in skyrim. I didn't ask for this.
But maybe that's just my experience.
I think the MMO paradigm has peaked and is on the down slope now, honestly. The inherent weakness in MMOs - your reliance on other people to shape your game experience there - has started to eclipse the technological novelty of participating in a world with thousands of other players.
But maybe that's just my experience.
The problem could also stem from the players themselves. If you've ever visited an MMO's official forums, you know what I mean. In WoW's case there's the hardcore/casual arguments, in TOR's case there's the people who consider BW infallible and shut down any points about how the game needs to be fixed. Obiovusly these people don't have any real control, but having these types of playerbases can be a deterrent for new players.
I find it's because the people who would be interested in it...
- Are playing WoW still (for some reason...)
- Were playing TOR when it released (like I was)
- Haven't heard of it/didn't know it's gone F2P
- Were waiting for it to go F2P (I sure as hell was) and only just now snatched it up
- Are waiting for the World of Darkness MMO (I'll probably switch myself)
- Don't play MMOs.
It's a shame and I hope this new pay model works for them, because I'm LOVING TSW.
WoW does well; the others burn brightly and briefly. Pattern seems to be that a "WoW-killer" is announced, lots of people get excited, it gets released, lots of subscribers for the first month, maybe two, and then people travel back to WoW and the WoW-killer gets WoW-killed.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. These studios have got to stop trying to make WoW-killers, and just concentrate on making a good game that's a lot of fun without destroying the lore of their universe (if it's an MMO version of an existing IP) or just really nail some fun dimension of gaming. At this point, the only people who are going to be able to kill WoW are Blizzard. Everyone else just has to wait for it to die off if they want to be the next world class heavyweight. It's not like WoW is everybody's cup of tea, there are plenty of people out there that don't like the game but do like online gaming.
TOR did an excellent job of this. Adding to the lore while not taking away. They did make the mechanics and UI a bit too WoW ish but then again, WoW stole alot of it's MMO components from Everquest and other previous MMOs. TSW has it's own world and lore and fuck it's amazing.
Basically, TSW would be a WoW killer if more people played it and it had more end-game content. Thankfully, they seem to be adding in new stuff monthly/bi-monthly.
I haven't been as enveloped in an MMO since UO/EQ/WoW as I am in TSW and I've played 95% of the commercially released MMOs that have seen state-side release.
I wish Rift had done better, because Trion is easily the best MMO dev I've ever dealt with in terms of getting new content out at a great pace. I don't know what kept it from really prospering, but if it ever goes to the GW2/TSW model I'd be back in it in a heartbeat.
Rift was really really good, but it's dungeon model (lack of LFG), lack of good speed movement options (in a huge land locked world), very obvious over powered specs and very obvious worthless specs, the lack of a customizable UI or allowing the public to make UI improvements, and a progressing storyline that leaves new players out of the story are what turned me off.
I loved Rift, I just had three problems with it. The first, and biggest problem, was that it nuked my computer. Just overheated it and slagged the CPU, and even before that the massive raids were a little too much for my video card, which doesn't have any issues with WoW (no surprise there, really) or with Skyrim. The second problem was how they handled launch day with people playing on the pre-release servers. Because they locked the pre-release servers down and kept release day players out, the pre-release servers dropped behind the others on population pretty severely. The third issue, which I'm sure they fixed eventually, was how few of the crystals or whatever they were dropped from mid-level range incursion events. I was never able to get any of the good gear from levels 15 or so through the upper 30s. I hope it does eventually go f2p with a good f2p model, because I'd happily go back, now that I have a more robust computer.
Yeah, the downside of the Soul system, as much as I liked it, was that it fell prey to the same issue WoW's old trees had. There were some really cool talents that just didn't cut it in the long run and were generally worthless. The LFG was introduced a few months after launch, and works pretty well. The main issue the game has now is there aren't many new players/alts, so it's still pretty alienating for new folks as you're mostly alone in lower level areas (which means you'll be skipping many zone events/rifts and thus losing out on the currency for gear). UI customization took awhile, but that's in too, along with mods.
Yeah, getting the crystals you need is easy with the Instant Adventure system, which drops you into a raid group in a zone around your level to do rifts and such, earning the crystals as you complete them (and getting you 5 or so of the epic quality gems for doing 7 IAs). The IAs are fairly short can you can drop out anytime with no consequence. Sadly, like I said above, the lower-level population is scarce and makes for lonely leveling. There's still the Mentor system for LFG, though, which allows high-levels to come in and help without soaking up XP.
Sadly in the end I think Rift just had the things it needed added too late for the rather impatient MMO crowd.
- Status