jimredtalon wrote: »scruffycavetroll wrote: »well, it's new. MMO's are always paltry on content in the beginning...it's not like wow had a plethora of stuff in the beginning either. took a long time for it to get to where it is.
MMO's need TIME, that's the problem, time and money. it's a delicate dance they're playing, but it does need to get its act together though and start fixing quests and bug fixes too.
i'm pretty much at the point there I don't think i'm going to let my sub kick in.
You, me, and many other players friend. Yes WoW did start off similarly, but WoW didn't have anywhere near the competition, or expectations. Which is the reason no MMO released today can even dream of WoW's success.
It's much more cutthroat in the MMO market now than it was in 2004. They spent too much money on advertising and cinematics, and not enough on making the game good for the long run.
Um, your wrong, WOW release 2004, EverQuest 1999, EverQuest 2 2004, Ultima Online 97, Final Fantasy XI 2004, and many many more.
Oh and lets not forget WOW's marketing campaign that was not what I would call cheap.
youtu.be/mT8maUTzE48
scruffycavetroll wrote: »BUT ESO does have something going for it which is ELDER SCROLLS.
This mindset didn't work for STAR WARS. Freaking STAR WARS, which is many times more popular than TES. Saying it'll survive cause it's TES is a massively disproven argument.
It's not even a good tes game imo. Way too linear and theme park.
Aett_Thorn wrote: »I play this game because of what it is, not because it doesn't have features that Game X had. If I wanted all of the features of Game X, I'd play game X. Instead, I like the features that TESO has, so I am here, and will likely be here for some time to come.
xshadowclawzz12 wrote: »"They will will be doing the same thing every other MMO does once it actually does come out, just keep scaling up numbers to make adventure zones "harder."
What makes you say that? From what i've seen so far, instead of increasing the numbers they instead increase a single monsters strenght, defence, health, etc.
jimredtalon wrote: »scruffycavetroll wrote: »well, it's new. MMO's are always paltry on content in the beginning...it's not like wow had a plethora of stuff in the beginning either. took a long time for it to get to where it is.
MMO's need TIME, that's the problem, time and money. it's a delicate dance they're playing, but it does need to get its act together though and start fixing quests and bug fixes too.
i'm pretty much at the point there I don't think i'm going to let my sub kick in.
You, me, and many other players friend. Yes WoW did start off similarly, but WoW didn't have anywhere near the competition, or expectations. Which is the reason no MMO released today can even dream of WoW's success.
It's much more cutthroat in the MMO market now than it was in 2004. They spent too much money on advertising and cinematics, and not enough on making the game good for the long run.
Um, your wrong, WOW release 2004, EverQuest 1999, EverQuest 2 2004, Ultima Online 97, Final Fantasy XI 2004, and many many more.
Oh and lets not forget WOW's marketing campaign that was not what I would call cheap.
youtu.be/mT8maUTzE48
*sigh* I'm tired of people trying to compare today's MMO market to the MMO market a decade ago. They need to take an economics class before they post things like this.
Aett_Thorn wrote: »I play this game because of what it is, not because it doesn't have features that Game X had. If I wanted all of the features of Game X, I'd play game X. Instead, I like the features that TESO has, so I am here, and will likely be here for some time to come.
Well said. I think that TESO is more different than MMOs that will remain nameless than is initially apparent. If you're looking for a game that plays like another game, play it. If you're looking for a slightly different experience, ESO may be for you.
jimredtalon wrote: »So the millions Blizzard spent are some how different than the millions Zenimax spent.
Aett_Thorn wrote: »I play this game because of what it is, not because it doesn't have features that Game X had. If I wanted all of the features of Game X, I'd play game X. Instead, I like the features that TESO has, so I am here, and will likely be here for some time to come.
Well said. I think that TESO is more different than MMOs that will remain nameless than is initially apparent. If you're looking for a game that plays like another game, play it. If you're looking for a slightly different experience, ESO may be for you.
It's not different. It's the same theme park style as WoW only more linear and far more restrictive with the removal of exp in group content.
Voice acting is cool and everything, but I was hoping for more elder scrolls and less WoW. I liked WoW fine, but if I wanted theme park, I'd play that. It does it a lot better.
jimredtalon wrote: »So the millions Blizzard spent are some how different than the millions Zenimax spent.
These games are literally a decade apart. Did they not teach you about market trends in your school? I would ask for your money back, your ignorance is showing.
Duckfather wrote: »That $200M figure was debunked by Zenimax during beta :-
http://www.p4rgaming.com/zenimax-debunks-elder-scrolls-online-200m-budget-rumor-we-couldnt-have-wasted-that-much-money/
There are still no reliable indicators (that I have found) of how much it has cost, although I think it's pretty safe to say ' a lot'
feniks31_ESO wrote: »