Read the article and it's pretty bang on accurate to be honest.

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

You post nothing more than a link and expect meaningful responses?

Let me summarize for everyone else:

"So what’s really missing? Truth be told, its an intangible that separates the online game from the previous titles."

Roughly translates to: "So what's really missing? I don't know."

You posted an article that complains of content not yet released and the fact that it's different from the standalones...

Very helpful.

Honestly, if I had to tell the average person who hasn't played ESO why it isn't succesful it wouldn't be a simple answer, either.

There's also this...

It’s bigger than Skyrim, and has a more expansive weapon and armor library. It has amazing graphics, better than 90% of the competition. The only game that matches up is Destiny.

...

Generally speaking, the game is enjoyable, extremely so. The storytelling is well done and draws you in. Each faction’s main story is really interesting. The writing is well thought out. The environments are beautiful. It’s a great game. The only time it feels like an MMO is when other players steal kill. Though, you can’t really complain about that, because sometimes you need a random person’s help to kill a bad guy. It’s a situation of give and take. If you’re an MMO person, then you need to own this game.

Hence this conclusion:

So is it the fact that key elements of the Elder Scrolls franchise are missing from the game, or the absolutely atrocious job the marketing department did that caused ESO: Tamriel Unlimited to sell so poorly out of the gate? Or is it both? When does the game get a serious push, when everything is ready for the actual Elder Scrolls experience? If that’s the case, why wasn’t the game just released when everything was ready? Something tells me the console market would be willing to wait. By the early launch sales, no one noticed it was out for a while anyway. Who’s falling down on the job of making this game a success?

I honestly hope that the PR and marketing departments pick up the pace, because this is a game that MMO, fantasy, and RPG gamers should be picking up. Fortunately, word of mouth seems to be doing its job, and sales are climbing. I’m sure someone thought that after the boom of Skyrim, they wouldn’t need to give a major push to ESO, that word of mouth would carry it all the way. It shouldn’t be left solely to that. Not such a well-selling franchise. If Bethesda and ZeniMax hope to compete with the over 12 million sales Destiny has racked up, they need to pick up the pace.

P3ZZL3 wrote: »

........... and as previously posted in the other thread about this review, he also says the game "Has no PVP".

Do slideshows count though?

Here is my take... first, this game is not a Skyrim sequel, and that is what the author of this article continuously seems to imply. Several times he makes a reference to how the game should be more like Skyrim, when obviously this being an MMO, cannot be like a single-player game.

Further, he didn't seem to grasp that the delay of the console wasn't part of the original plan, it was delayed because the PC launch was a disaster, and many console players were quite aware of this and have been WAITING to see how the game debuts on console. It also shouldn't surprise people that many console players are waiting until after the initial release so all the bugs and server overload can be worked out first... I know when I had been talking about getting the console version at launch many friends told me to wait at least a month or so for to allow the launch pains to go away.

In addition, I'm sure the marketing budget on ESO was quite limited due to the fact of how far the game ran over budget because of the delays and issues that needed to be fixed. Delaying the game over a year, along with the addition expense that went into 'fixing' the PC version and continuous re-development for the consoles had to put further strain on an already ballooning budget.

I also had to laugh at his 'Destiny' comparison... because everyone I know that played Destiny no longer plays it and said they stopped because it became unbearably awful at end-game. So not really a game that ESO should strive to emulate.

In conclusion, most of this article's complaints were that it wasn't "Skyrim 2.0", without realizing that this game is NOT part of the "Elder Scrolls series" but simply shares the title "Elder Scrolls" and takes place in Tamriel, hundreds of years before the Elder Scrolls series even takes place.

Finally, here is a quote dated JULY 9, 2015, I just happened to come across when I was trying to locate better information on actual ESO sales. "The US version of the PlayStation Blog has revealed that last month The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited managed to outsell Batman: Arkham Knight and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt on the PlayStation Store."

Honestly, it is 80-90% accurate. Not a lot of the clear bias you might find in an mmorpg.com article.

Sigh. When I get my $53.99 back then you can call it F2P. Also I love how he says on page 2 that it rarely feels like an mmo yet thinks mmo players should be flocking to it. Guys I'm going to buy Battlefield 4 even though I only play racing games because you drive a truck in the first mission of battlefield. I'm also convinced this person doesn't know the difference between Zenimax Media Inc, ZOS and Bethesda.

This is what happens when people who have never played an mmo load up eso expecting it to be skyrim online.

Only thing I agree with in this article is that the Pr for the game is lax. Only reason I bought it at launch was because I had been looking for an mmo as well as a game to keep me busy until Arkham Knight. This satisfied those needs.

A lot of the first page of the article is about how this should be open world because I want Skyrim talk and much of it is really outdated information...in which the article was published yesterday.

"Here’s what I see is the major downfall of this game. Bethesda’s PR department. Whoever was responsible for letting the world know this game was out, dropped the ball in one of the most epic ways possible"

hit is on the head. I remember thinking to myself a week before console launch that I haven't seen *** for this game, on the internet, tv, nothing. There was no HYPE to the console launch at all. Do you guys/gals remember certiain times where all you would see is WoW commericals on TV AND the internet? I do. It was annoying but highly effective in getting their message to the masses. Something I saw from day one, that didn't happen for ESO.

"Which brings me back to the major problem. No one knows its a really good game. It was one of the least talked about games coming out of E3." another great point on the lack of knowledge about this

"ESO should be competing with, should be beating the pants off, games like Destiny." SO MUCH THIS

"So is it the fact that key elements of the Elder Scrolls franchise are missing from the game, or the absolutely atrocious job the marketing department did that caused ESO: Tamriel Unlimited to sell so poorly out of the gate? Or is it both? When does the game get a serious push, when everything is ready for the actual Elder Scrolls experience? If that’s the case, why wasn’t the game just released when everything was ready? Something tells me the console market would be willing to wait. By the early launch sales, no one noticed it was out for a while anyway. Who’s falling down on the job of making this game a success?

I honestly hope that the PR and marketing departments pick up the pace, because this is a game that MMO, fantasy, and RPG gamers should be picking up. Fortunately, word of mouth seems to be doing its job, and sales are climbing. I’m sure someone thought that after the boom of Skyrim, they wouldn’t need to give a major push to ESO, that word of mouth would carry it all the way. It shouldn’t be left solely to that. Not such a well-selling franchise. If Bethesda and ZeniMax hope to compete with the over 12 million sales Destiny has racked up, they need to pick up the pace."

out of the dumb talk in the start of the article, these last two paragraphs seem to sum up the turd pile pretty well.

A review of marketing.
Well, that's different I guess.

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Let's go back to the OP, here. OP, What was your intention with this post?

Apparently just to drop this in the middle of the forum and walk away.

Sausage wrote: »

This is second ESO Forbes article, so is next EA MMO already so close.

i dunno what you are trying to say lol

Sales on console have been sluggish because of the bad reviews the PC game got at launch and because they blew their ad budget on the PC release and didn't have anything left for the console release. Second page of the article notes its now sold 800K copies on PS4 and 600K copies on XB1, so I'm not sure that qualifies as a "resounding whimper" unless you're using Skyrim as the comparison. Based on all the complaining, sometimes justified, PC users did the game had a lot to fight through and wasn't going to sell fast, but it looks like momentum is picking up as console players get to play the game.

KerinKor wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Roughly translates to: "So what's really missing? I don't know."

I guess that's one way to spin it, typical of politicians and civil servants, however, the writer makes some very specific comments on what's lacking:

Though, for all its upgrades and shiny new options, there is a lot missing from ESO. For starters, the Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood are so far missing. The Dark Brotherhood is on the horizon, but no word yet on the Thieves Guild. For those players with sticky fingers, this is a major issue. At least the nefarious-minded get an outlet when the Dark Brotherhood gets uploaded. Additionally, the freedom of choice that made Skyrim a favorite in the eyes of reviewers is also gone. It’s understandable and not very surprising that an MMO would want to lock players into five specific roles. Yet, the absence of choice feels more like a step backwards than anything, especially for a game in the Elder Scrolls franchise.

All points are dead on. "Yes it is understandable that a MMO would want to lock in 5 specific roles, yet the absence of choice is a step backwards". the step backwards is not the roles, its the lack of roles in ESO. there is one role in ESO it is DPS with a taunt or DPS with a couple heals. CC and actual utility is not evident in ESO in any way and forget about buffing and debuffing all are after effects of a DPS ability and not really needed for any group content aside from a few encounters.

They had a great opportunity here to do something grand and missed the mark in over simplification of group combat. making everything an exercise in situational awareness while maintaining DPS. This crowd or so called crowd of people that screamed for the death of the trinity for last two AAA mmo titles GW2, ESO. Look how it has panned out for them, same for the F2P screamers. Look at the retention of these games compared to the titles that birthed the genre. Retention is no where near the level of those games. Sure they sold copies and retained thirty percent of the players 6 months in. that's horrid, games prior to 2008 would sell almost as many copies but retain 80 % player bases for 9 to 15 months. Developers are making games for Investors now not the players ESO is no different.

Wifeaggro13 wrote: »

KerinKor wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Roughly translates to: "So what's really missing? I don't know."

I guess that's one way to spin it, typical of politicians and civil servants, however, the writer makes some very specific comments on what's lacking:

Though, for all its upgrades and shiny new options, there is a lot missing from ESO. For starters, the Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood are so far missing. The Dark Brotherhood is on the horizon, but no word yet on the Thieves Guild. For those players with sticky fingers, this is a major issue. At least the nefarious-minded get an outlet when the Dark Brotherhood gets uploaded. Additionally, the freedom of choice that made Skyrim a favorite in the eyes of reviewers is also gone. It’s understandable and not very surprising that an MMO would want to lock players into five specific roles. Yet, the absence of choice feels more like a step backwards than anything, especially for a game in the Elder Scrolls franchise.

They had a great opportunity here to do something grand and missed the mark in over simplification of group combat. making everything an exercise in situational awareness while maintaining DPS. This crowd or so called crowd of people that screamed for the death of the trinity for last two AAA mmo titles GW2, ESO. Look how it has panned out for them, same for the F2P screamers. Look at the retention of these games compared to the titles that birthed the genre. Retention is no where near the level of those games. Sure they sold copies and retained thirty percent of the players 6 months in. that's horrid, games prior to 2008 would sell almost as many copies but retain 80 % player bases for 9 to 15 months. Developers are making games for Investors now not the players ESO is no different.

I would much rather have combat where every person in the group has to pay attention because the tank can't hold aggro on everything than throw in a "crowd control" role and eliminate all challenge for the rest of the group. Lack of roles != simplier, less engaging combat.

Forbes must have it out for Zenimax.... They seem to hate ESO.

Eso has problems for sure.

But this reviewer clearly just wants it to be Skyrim Online or Skyrim 2. Which it isn't.

Plus Forbes did a lot of negative press towards this game before it was even released. True story.