Crunching the Numbers (ESO+ vs. WoW)

ShedsHisTail

Okay, I keep seeing this comparison being made between the Morrowind Chapter and World of Warcraft's first Expansion, Burning Crusade. Obviously Morrowind is much smaller, but what keeps getting neglected in these discussions is all the things we've gotten between ESOs launch and Morrowind. So what I've done below, through some research, is tally up a list of what I consider significant changes/additions to both games between the release of the Vanilla Game an including the features of the first Xpac/Chapter. Then I've totalled up the cost for a subscriber to each game.

I'm presenting these as simply a list of features and a set of numbers. There is no judgment attached from me as value is relative to the purchaser. Yes, I'm aware that not all of these features are congruous between games, but that too is a value judgement and up to the observer. I simply want to attempt to objectively portray what we've gotten for our money.

Also, I'm including only features -added- to the game. This does not include features available at release, nor does it include the content later patched into WoW's burning Crusade expansion (as we've yet to see what this Chapter has in store and so cannot compare)

So, without further ado.


WORLD OF WARCRAFT + BURNING CRUSADE EXPANSION
Zones:
11 new zones

Dungeons:
16 New 5- Man Dungeons
14 New Heroic 5- Man Dungeons

Raids:
2 New 10-Man Raid (Kara, AQ10)
3 New 25-Man Raids (Gruul’s/Mag’s, SSC, TK)
3 New 40-man Raids (BWL, AQ40, Nax)

World Bosses:
10 World Bosses

PVP:
4 Battle Grounds
Arena System w/ 3 Maps
Open World PvP Objectives

Other:
2 New Races
Increased Level Cap (60-70)
1 New Profession (Jewel Crafting)

Total Cost after initial purchase:
$429.73 (26 Months sub + $39.99 Xpac)
$506.79 (adjusted for inflation by request.)




ELDER SCROLLS ONLINE + MORROWIND CHAPTER
Zones:
5-6 Zones (Vvardenfell, Gold Coast, Hews Bane, Wrothgar, Upper/Lower Crag)

Dungeons:
4 New Public Dungeons
8 “New” Normal Dungeons (reworked unique Vets)
14 “New” Veteran Dungeons (reworked existing Normals)
4 New Normal Dungeons (CoS, RoM, WGT, ICS)
6 New Veteran Dungeons (CoS, RoM, WGT, ICS, CoH, CoA)
Maelstrom Arena

Raids:
5 New Trials (MoL, Sanctum, Hel Ra, Aether, HoF)
3 New Modes for existing Trails (Hel Ra, Aether, Sanctum)
Dragonstar Arena

World Bosses:
10 World bosses

PVP:
5 Battle Grounds/PvP Zones
Dueling

Other:
1 New Class
2 New factions/skill lines (DB, TG)
Player Housing
One Tamriel
2 Crafting Expansions (Poison Making, Furniture)
Craft Bags
Justice System
Champion System
Tens of thousands of Crowns to spend as you please.

Total Cost after initial Purchase for ESO+ Subscribers:
$609.61 (38 months sub + $39.99 Xpac.



There you go, let me know if there's anything I missed.
Commence arguing.

Smmokkee

Burning Crusade was epic..

Voxicity

ignore me im stupid lalalalaaaaaa

ZirconJunkie

Charging more and more for less and less content is a very disappointing trend in the gaming industry.

Morrowind content IS good. But not $40 good. For the amount of content we got it should be priced more in the $15-$20 range.

dainswulf

It's easier to make content for a game like WoW that is dated, and even when it was new has always looked like garbage.

I think things like the One Tamriel patch are more important features to attracting and keeping new players, as opposed to other MMO's that put in a shortcut of "Start a character at level 90! Skip all our years of previous content!".

ShedsHisTail

dainswulf wrote: »

It's easier to make content for a game like WoW that is dated, and even when it was new has always looked like garbage.

I think things like the One Tamriel patch are more important features to attracting and keeping new players, as opposed to other MMO's that put in a shortcut of "Start a character at level 90! Skip all our years of previous content!".

Keep in mind that when Burning Crusade was released, WoW was still pretty much a top of the line MMO.

Tasear

Morrowind is an chapter not dlc. So you need to exclude all dlc from comparison or other way around since said eso plus.

Craglorn trials are base game

Elder scrolls is great game, but if we compare a gaint like wow. It comes out small. That's okay though, I only been here a year and feel like there's significant progress. On other hand I stayed in wow for a day. So know this what has been done here is more than special. The only thing they really need maybe add content to Morrowind on top (not dlc) for these comparisons to stop. Also do better job next time and making it seem like a vaulable deal. But these wouldn't be so bad if there was better commucation. Not finte details, but help people believe in the game's vision @ZOS_GinaBruno

I look forward to the years to come.

idk

Comparing an MMO expansion from a decade ago to today doesn't say much of anything. So much has changed in how MMOs do things since then. Besides that, zones really don't compare. Each of those wow zones were much smaller, especially with accessible area. Heck, even with newer MMOs like SWTOR they add multiple zones but they're mostly small.

Pathemavan

I miss my druid - had soooo many mounts

Cpt_Teemo

ZirconJunkie wrote: »

Charging more and more for less and less content is a very disappointing trend in the gaming industry.

Morrowind content IS good. But not $40 good. For the amount of content we got it should be priced more in the $15-$20 range.

I kind of agreed to an extent that 40$ was a bit much but compared to a 35$ mount I would have taken this anyday over 1 mount.

ShedsHisTail

Tasear wrote: »

Morrowind is an chapter not dlc. So you need to exclude all dlc from comparison or other way around since said eso plus.

Craglorn trials are base game

I made no exceptions for labels. I included "meaningful additions."
That means, every significant addition that wasn't there at launch, whether it be DLC, Xpacs, Chapters, base game, whatever (for both games).

Dantaria

Erm...

I do feel myself a bit riped-off with Morrowind, but I have to say - you're not being fair here.

You're not being fair, because a) graphics; b) ESO is fully voiced. And b) is huge, guys, - full professional VO actually costs s**t-ton. As is a). When it comes to production, "1 square metre" of ESO probably costs ~"5 square metres" of WoW, so to speak.

ZirconJunkie wrote: »

Charging more and more for less and less content is a very disappointing trend in the gaming industry.

Morrowind content IS good. But not $40 good. For the amount of content we got it should be priced more in the $15-$20 range.

Yeah, but did you also notice that while there are less content in term of duration nowadays, the content present has HD textures and is fully-voiced?

The technology just isn't on the level where there would be no trade-off. It's either, for now - only either. You do graphics and content, but no voice - and get a s**tstorm from critics for text. You do content and voice, but no graphics - and get a s**tstorm from critics for too few polygons. Or... yeah. You do voice and graphics - but the content will be lacklaster in comparison with previous two variants.

So... we are where we are. WoW has more instances - ESO is beautiful and fully-voiced. Choose your destiny

ShedsHisTail

Dantaria wrote: »

Erm...

I do feel myself a bit riped-off with Morrowind, but I have to say - you're not being fair here.

You're not being fair, because a) graphics; b) ESO is fully voiced. And b) is huge, guys, - full professional VO actually costs s**t-ton. As is a). When it comes to production, "1 square metre" of ESO probably costs ~"5 square metres" of WoW, so to speak.

I just ran the numbers, aesthetics are a value judgement.
You're probably right as far as dev costs go, but that's not something I could verify or properly account for.

And as far as game play goes, looking good is sort of a foregone conclusion these days. And, again, WoW was pretty top of the line in it's day.

Linaleah

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

Dantaria wrote: »

Erm...

I do feel myself a bit riped-off with Morrowind, but I have to say - you're not being fair here.

You're not being fair, because a) graphics; b) ESO is fully voiced. And b) is huge, guys, - full professional VO actually costs s**t-ton. As is a). When it comes to production, "1 square metre" of ESO probably costs ~"5 square metres" of WoW, so to speak.

I just ran the numbers, aesthetics are a value judgement.
You're probably right as far as dev costs go, but that's not something I could verify or properly account for.

And as far as game play goes, looking good is sort of a foregone conclusion these days. And, again, WoW was pretty top of the line in it's day.

in terms of looks, it was not - it was actualy criticized for graphically being behind times compared to its contemporaries (but it could run on a potato, so there's that?). also - hyjal and BT wasn't accessible till patch 2.1 - months after release. and there is a matter of adjusting for inflation and the fact that ESO is subscription optional (moreover if you look at WoW expansions nowadays, they are smaller then BC, and yet - cost more)

ZirconJunkie

Dantaria wrote: »

Yeah, but did you also notice that while there are less content in term of duration nowadays, the content present has HD textures and is fully-voiced?

Voice acting does cost a lot. I'd suspect it was a good chunk of the budget, which resulted in having less money available for more content.

The textures in ESO are nowhere near HD. Go into first person and put your face right up against a mountain or a wall. Now load up Skyrim and do the same thing. Skyrim textures from 2011 are higher quality than what ESO has.

MLGProPlayer

ZirconJunkie wrote: »

Charging more and more for less and less content is a very disappointing trend in the gaming industry.

Morrowind content IS good. But not $40 good. For the amount of content we got it should be priced more in the $15-$20 range.

To be fair, it's actually very good content if it were a single player game. But this isn't a single player game. We pay for micro-transactions. We pay optional subs. The amount of resources MMO devs have to work with on an expansion are far greater than single player devs (who only have revenue from box sales to fund the development of DLC/expansions).

Dantaria

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

And as far as game play goes, looking good is sort of a foregone conclusion these days. And, again, WoW was pretty top of the line in it's day.

No, looking good isn't "a foregone conclusion". Check Warcraft movie expenses

As I said, technology just isn't there. Yet at least. To make good graphics something easily achievable. It's not and it still costs huge ton.

Also. WoW Burning Crusade (2007):



Bioshock (2007):



Jade Empire (2007):


Two worlds (2007):


WoW was not top of the line in terms of graphics. Never ever.

And yes, I do understand that I compare MMO to single-player. But still. WoW graphics were and are abysmal and they did save money on them, because there actually were opportunities to make things look better at a time.

Ghost-Shot

If you are counting Vanilla and TBC you are missing lots of raids, I can check all when I get home but off the top of my head Vanilla is missing Molten Core and Naxxramus, TBC is missing Black Temple and Sunwell Plateau.

ShedsHisTail

Linaleah wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

Dantaria wrote: »

Erm...

I do feel myself a bit riped-off with Morrowind, but I have to say - you're not being fair here.

You're not being fair, because a) graphics; b) ESO is fully voiced. And b) is huge, guys, - full professional VO actually costs s**t-ton. As is a). When it comes to production, "1 square metre" of ESO probably costs ~"5 square metres" of WoW, so to speak.

I just ran the numbers, aesthetics are a value judgement.
You're probably right as far as dev costs go, but that's not something I could verify or properly account for.

And as far as game play goes, looking good is sort of a foregone conclusion these days. And, again, WoW was pretty top of the line in it's day.

in terms of looks, it was not - it was actualy criticized for graphically being behind times compared to its contemporaries (but it could run on a potato, so there's that?). also - hyjal and BT wasn't accessible till patch 2.1 - months after release. and there is a matter of adjusting for inflation and the fact that ESO is subscription optional (moreover if you look at WoW expansions nowadays, they are smaller then BC, and yet - cost more)

Source I'm using doesn't show Hyjal as patch 2.1 and Black Temple isn't on my list. If you've a better source, please let me know and I'll update it.

.

You seem to think I'm intending to be critical here, I'm not. My personal opinion is the ESO+ is fine, I've no complaints and have argued at length in it's defense. This is simply a comparison of content to numbers. I used a constant subscriber to ESO+ as a comparison because it's the closest comparison I could get to WoW's subscription required model. Yes, an ESO+ subscriber could get a better value by not subbing periodically, but that's not the purpose of this comparison.

Izay

You can't compare ESO to other games there are so many factors, a big one is that this game is fully voiced and Legion, WoW's current expansion had added more VO but it pales in comparison to ESO. Another thing is that the sub is OPTIONAL in ESO, you literally don't need it if you simply buy the DLC's or you can sub for 1 month, do all the DLC content and then not pay for sub for the remainder of the year. How do you guys compare games yet ignore so many important points?

MLGProPlayer

Izay wrote: »

You can't compare ESO to other games there are so many factors, a big one is that this game is fully voiced and Legion, WoW's current expansion had added more VO but it pales in comparison to ESO. Another thing is that the sub is OPTIONAL in ESO, you literally don't need it if you simply buy the DLC's or you can sub for 1 month, do all the DLC content and then not pay for sub for the remainder of the year. How do you guys compare games yet ignore so many important points?

Micro-transactions provide just as much revenue if not more than a subscription.

ShedsHisTail

Dantaria wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

And as far as game play goes, looking good is sort of a foregone conclusion these days. And, again, WoW was pretty top of the line in it's day.

No, looking good isn't "a foregone conclusion". Check Warcraft movie expenses

The movie had game play?
Maybe I should see it after all.

Ghost-Shot

dainswulf wrote: »

It's easier to make content for a game like WoW that is dated, and even when it was new has always looked like garbage.

I think things like the One Tamriel patch are more important features to attracting and keeping new players, as opposed to other MMO's that put in a shortcut of "Start a character at level 90! Skip all our years of previous content!".

WoW actually added an zone scaling mechanic before ESO, though it doesn't apply to the entire game. In Legion you quest through the leveling zones in whatever order you want and they all scale to 110 when you cap.

Megabear

ZirconJunkie wrote: »

Charging more and more for less and less content is a very disappointing trend in the gaming industry.

Morrowind content IS good. But not $40 good. For the amount of content we got it should be priced more in the $15-$20 range.

This.

ShedsHisTail

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

If you are counting Vanilla and TBC you are missing lots of raids, I can check all when I get home but off the top of my head Vanilla is missing Molten Core and Naxxramus, TBC is missing Black Temple and Sunwell Plateau.

Molten Core was available at release and was not an addition. Black Temple and Sunwell were not included in the release of TBC but came later and so did not make the list.

I thought I had Nax on there though, if not I'll add it. Good catch.

Dantaria

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

The movie had game play?
Maybe I should see it after all.

It has graphics Awesome graphics, which costed... I usually don't think in such numbers Not entirely fair to compare movie to game, yes, but the point still stands - beauty costs.

Also, if you like Warcraft world and are somehow serious about it... I would probably suggest against watching the movie. It's beautiful, truly is, but they butchered lore, butchered characters, butchered logic... Duh Though that is only my opinion and an offtop, sorry

Izay

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Izay wrote: »

You can't compare ESO to other games there are so many factors, a big one is that this game is fully voiced and Legion, WoW's current expansion had added more VO but it pales in comparison to ESO. Another thing is that the sub is OPTIONAL in ESO, you literally don't need it if you simply buy the DLC's or you can sub for 1 month, do all the DLC content and then not pay for sub for the remainder of the year. How do you guys compare games yet ignore so many important points?

Mcro-transactions provide just as much revenue if not more than a subscription.

WoW has micro transactions as well so again, I don't understand how people can compare 2 different games when they're vastly different and there are so many factors to take into account.

ShedsHisTail

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

dainswulf wrote: »

It's easier to make content for a game like WoW that is dated, and even when it was new has always looked like garbage.

I think things like the One Tamriel patch are more important features to attracting and keeping new players, as opposed to other MMO's that put in a shortcut of "Start a character at level 90! Skip all our years of previous content!".

WoW actually added an zone scaling mechanic before ESO, though it doesn't apply to the entire game. In Legion you quest through the leveling zones in whatever order you want and they all scale to 110 when you cap.

The goal of this comparison was to gauge what additions occurred in each game up to and including the first expansion release. While WoW may have developed zone scaling before ESO did chronologically, it did not occur before the release of TBC and thus was not on the list.

Inarre

I would count furniture for homestead a crafting expansion as well.

ShedsHisTail

Inarre wrote: »

I would count furniture for homestead a crafting expansion as well.

Good call.

Linaleah

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

Linaleah wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

Dantaria wrote: »

Erm...

I do feel myself a bit riped-off with Morrowind, but I have to say - you're not being fair here.

You're not being fair, because a) graphics; b) ESO is fully voiced. And b) is huge, guys, - full professional VO actually costs s**t-ton. As is a). When it comes to production, "1 square metre" of ESO probably costs ~"5 square metres" of WoW, so to speak.

I just ran the numbers, aesthetics are a value judgement.
You're probably right as far as dev costs go, but that's not something I could verify or properly account for.

And as far as game play goes, looking good is sort of a foregone conclusion these days. And, again, WoW was pretty top of the line in it's day.

in terms of looks, it was not - it was actualy criticized for graphically being behind times compared to its contemporaries (but it could run on a potato, so there's that?). also - hyjal and BT wasn't accessible till patch 2.1 - months after release. and there is a matter of adjusting for inflation and the fact that ESO is subscription optional (moreover if you look at WoW expansions nowadays, they are smaller then BC, and yet - cost more)

Source I'm using doesn't show Hyjal as patch 2.1 and Black Temple isn't on my list. If you've a better source, please let me know and I'll update it.

And, I'm not adjusting for inflation.

You seem to think I'm intending to be critical here, I'm not. My personal opinion is the ESO+ is fine, I've no complaints and have argued at length in it's defense. This is simply a comparison of content to numbers. I used a constant subscriber to ESO+ as a comparison because it's the closest comparison I could get to WoW's subscription required model. Yes, an ESO+ subscriber could get a better value by not subbing periodically, but that's not the purpose of this comparison.

Hyjal was technically in game, but due to Kaelthas being required to acess it and the fight was overtuned and buggy (and that's not to mention Lady Vashj having her own set of issues) no one stepped foot into Hyjal until BT patch, as Kael and Vashj kills were required for attunement. mentioning BT was my bad though, for some reason I misread TK as BT. incidentally Ghruul and Magtheridon are one boss raid with some minor trash. on a flip side, there are almost no world bosses to speak of in WoW at that time. http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/646517-when-was-the-hyjal-raid-open

interesting thing about Vanilla is that at launch it didn't have enough quests to hit max level, so grinding was basically required. actual grinding, like what people in ESO do by choice - dolmens, Skyreach. in Vanilla - you HAD to grind as you had no other options, slower or otherwise. now my memory may not be 100% but I would say.. there is overall more quest content in ESO comparably then there was in WoW.

as for being critical - subtext.

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

dainswulf wrote: »

It's easier to make content for a game like WoW that is dated, and even when it was new has always looked like garbage.

I think things like the One Tamriel patch are more important features to attracting and keeping new players, as opposed to other MMO's that put in a shortcut of "Start a character at level 90! Skip all our years of previous content!".

WoW actually added an zone scaling mechanic before ESO, though it doesn't apply to the entire game. In Legion you quest through the leveling zones in whatever order you want and they all scale to 110 when you cap.

by a single month.