Matt Firor described ESO as a Virtual world/shaded Meta

spartaxoxo · April 12

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/a-decade-in-tamriel-takeaways-as-elder-scrolls-online-turns-ten

They view ESO as a virtual world moreso than a MMO. And try to have variety for different types of players using play data. What do you think?

ArchangelIsraphel · April 12

In all honesty, I agree with him.

During the height of the "metaverse" discussions, I followed several creators who criticized various metaverse developers and the flaws in their game designs. Mostly out of amusement (To laugh at them), but also to avoid scams, because the actions of many of those developers and how they treated their community were quite reprehensible.

The funniest thing, to me, was how these developers thought they were making something that was somehow new, or groundbreaking, when it wasn't. They made grand promises of things like "the entire earth, in RDR2 style graphics!" When what they were really making was a platform to advertise products to players so that companies could plug into them and sell virtual (or sometimes even physical) goods. They promised exploration- when the reality was that many of them wanted you shell out cash to buy not-yet-existing land to build on, when no systems to build or even play the game had been created yet.

And then they promised you could live a virtual life, going to a virtual job, to buy virtual goods- such fun. /s

There are quite a few other metaverse models out there that were less ambitious, but equally ignorant as to what makes people want to stay in a virtual space.

No, ESO doesn't put the entire globe at your fingertips- but I do feel that it provides a virtual world, and that it does it extremely well. What it has, that the various metaverse models don't seem to have (at least none of the ones I've seen) is that it caters to the fantasy RPG crowd, who are using their own imaginations to enhance the gameplay mechanics with their own creativity. It already has much of what these metaverses supposedly promise- housing, furniture, exclusive items, clothing, land to build on- with the benefit of having established combat systems, mounts, and a backstory to build a character who lives in that world.

Most importantly...ESO actually exists, where as many metaverses sell you the promise of potentially existing, if only you'd give them enough cash to develop their game. And in that way, it is definitely WAY ahead of so many of them.

(Although I'd gently jibe him that you all cooooould do a lot more to listen to your community during the PTS cycle....they have made a successful, established virtual world which can function as an MMO, and many other things as well.)

Desiato · April 12

ZOS started distancing ESO from the term "MMO" many years ago. At least since 2016:

Matt Firor wrote:

MF: Again, we’re not really a traditional MMO, we are much more of a hybrid, kind of like an ‘online RPG’. The term MMO is freighted with a lot of pre-conceived notions, most of which are outdated and obsolete.

https://metro.co.uk/2016/03/03/the-elder-scrolls-online-interview-making-games-of-this-type-is-really-really-hard-5730186/

ESO was designed to be the ultimate sub-based MMORPG. It targeted what used to be the most profitable gaming consumer, the "core gamer", but they were forced to go in a different direction as that approach didn't work.

It's important to note that when ESO began development in 2007, WoW was the revenue king of gaming with it's sub based model and Skyrim hadn't started development.

In the time between 2007 and 2014, the sub model started to fail in the MMO industry and Skyrim happened. Skyrim sold more than the rest of the TES series combined by a large margin and brought the franchise to the mainstream. Those players wanted nothing to do with a traditional MMO and balked at the state of ESO at launch. They wanted Skyrim Online.

So they started refactoring the game from an MMO to the online rpg that we play today.

LukosCreyden · April 12

Yeah it works. ESO is quite far from what you could call a typical modern MMO, and it is much better for it.
There are still things it could do better to further that virtual world idea, but they are, fortunately, making progress towards that.

Araneae6537 · April 12

I like the idea and I could write a looong post of all the things I’d love to see that would enhance that virtual world feel to me. Certainly I have appreciated a lot that has been done and added, although not agreed with everything. Ironically, perhaps, that is my main beef with ToT, that I don’t feel that it makes sense as a game within the world of ESO — think of the CCGs that exist in our world, their subject, and how they work. I feel like if a CCG existed within ESO, it would be more likely to be based on either a fictional lore to them or on a distinct aspect of TES (and High Isle in particular since that is where the game was introduced) like knights or court intrigue. What I know of ToT sounds to me like it could potentially have worked better as game introduced by the Dremora, some way of making a game of the mortal world!

TX12001rwb17_ESO · April 12

I have always viewed ESO as more of a virtual world then a game, a lot of players including myself will log in to just hang out.

colossalvoids · April 12

Looks like a misuse of words, as always with such stuff. They also see it as RPG, an elder Scrolls Game etc. but it matters little with the actual product and how it's developed.

ssewallb14_ESO · April 12

Honestly I never liked "MMOs." I played other genres during WOW's heyday and avoided them like the plague. I like ESO because it deviates substantially from the genre, more into RPG territory.

carthalis · April 12

Desiato wrote: »

ZOS started distancing ESO from the term "MMO" many years ago. At least since 2016:

Matt Firor wrote:

In the time between 2007 and 2014, the sub model started to fail in the MMO industry and Skyrim happened. .

I remember that shift from subscription model to what we have today in a lot of mmo's and I wonder if that shift was somewhat influenced by the arrival of eastern mmo's into western culture that used a cash shop model instead of the monthly subscription, and then development of new mmo's seemed to crash with quite a few sunsetted.

BretonMage · April 12

TES has always been a great virtual fantasy world to wander around or quest in, and ESO feels very similar. Just as in TES V, I love the freedom to just be in ESO, doing whatever I feel like doing that day, fighting as little or as much as I want, or just chilling, picking flowers and playing dress up.

ghastley · April 12

BretonMage wrote: »

TES has always been a great virtual fantasy world to wander around or quest in, and ESO feels very similar. Just as in TES V, I love the freedom to just be in ESO, doing whatever I feel like doing that day, fighting as little or as much as I want, or just chilling, picking flowers and playing dress up.

Don’t pick the flowers! The Bosmer don’t like that.

Desiato · April 12

carthalis wrote: »

I remember that shift from subscription model to what we have today in a lot of mmo's and I wonder if that shift was somewhat influenced by the arrival of eastern mmo's into western culture that used a cash shop model instead of the monthly subscription, and then development of new mmo's seemed to crash with quite a few sunsetted.

That was definitely a factor. The rise of F2P and the B2P model that ESO switched to was extremely disruptive.

But IMO, the main thing was just the evolution of the gaming audience from gaming enthusiasts to the mainstream.

As the 2000s progressed, single player games became easier and easier until most of them reached the point it was basically impossible to lose playing in normal difficulty. There were some mainstream games that resisted like GTA IV, but by GTA V players could skip challenging missions.

Eventually PVE online games followed suit. The hardcore and core gaming audiences tended to enjoy challenges, but the average consumer seems to view games more as interactive entertainment.

IMO, my generation of gamer usually hated cash shops and P2W elements, but the average consumer enjoys being able to buy those things.

Culturally, we saw gaming communities like the old FoH/rerolled forums go from being extremely influential to completely irrelevant. The mainstream gamer didn't care, and, IMO, looked down on or resented hardcore gamers.

And then, of course, there are the whales....

AcadianPaladin · April 12

'Virtual World' works for me.

Destai · April 12

I think it's a fair description. I've been treating it like a second life for years now, so it functions as a virtual world to me.

TaSheen · April 12

AcadianPaladin wrote: »

'Virtual World' works for me.

Me too!

Stamicka · April 12

I guess the words mean different things to different people, but I don't understand the distinction personally. ESO is still an MMO, it is a massively multiplayer online game because there's a persistent world and if there are other players in your instance you'll see them whether you want to or not. It is also a virtual world at the same time, with many different systems and activities to engage in.

Both descriptions fit ESO. I definitely think ESO is becoming more story focused, casual, solo oriented, and cozy. It differs from other big MMORPGs because of this, but it's still an MMO.

Danikat · April 12

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

The funniest thing, to me, was how these developers thought they were making something that was somehow new, or groundbreaking, when it wasn't. They made grand promises of things like "the entire earth, in RDR2 style graphics!" When what they were really making was a platform to advertise products to players so that companies could plug into them and sell virtual (or sometimes even physical) goods. They promised exploration- when the reality was that many of them wanted you shell out cash to buy not-yet-existing land to build on, when no systems to build or even play the game had been created yet.

And then they promised you could live a virtual life, going to a virtual job, to buy virtual goods- such fun. /s

There are quite a few other metaverse models out there that were less ambitious, but equally ignorant as to what makes people want to stay in a virtual space.

That's what frustrated me about the whole metaverse discussion too. People kept talking about how it would give you a virtual world for your avatar to live in, and I kept asking what you could do there, besides shop and attend meetings and being told I just didn't understand, I couldn't imagine the potential of a virtual world.

They didn't like it when I told them I think I have a fairly good idea because I've spent quite a bit of time in shared online virtual worlds over the past few decades. They really don't like any reminder that what they were proposing wasn't actually new, even though most of the 'metaverse' designs hyped up last year were almost exactly Second Life.

The annoying part for me is I genuinely wasn't trying to troll them or kill the conversation, I was genuinely curious because I like the idea of virtual worlds (I've been playing 2 MMOs for almost a decade now and played a few others before then). But it seemed like no one could give me a straight answer and they'd rather not deal with questions at all. We were all just supposed to clap and tell them how smart and cool they were and then get in line to buy whatever they eventually had to sell.

The upshot is I decided I'd stick with ESO for the foreseeable future and avoid "the metaverse" until there was actually a reason to visit besides spending money.

Desiato wrote: »

But IMO, the main thing was just the evolution of the gaming audience from gaming enthusiasts to the mainstream.

As the 2000s progressed, single player games became easier and easier until most of them reached the point it was basically impossible to lose playing in normal difficulty. There were some mainstream games that resisted like GTA IV, but by GTA V players could skip challenging missions.

Eventually PVE online games followed suit. The hardcore and core gaming audiences tended to enjoy challenges, but the average consumer seems to view games more as interactive entertainment.

I suspect it started a lot earlier than that. I was reading this article earlier about Ultima Online attempting to balance player freedom with preventing gankers and trolls and among other things it mentioned that in 1999 they were losing a lot of players to EverQuest and a big reason was it had a PvP flag which prevented you from getting killed unless you wanted to fight. This was back when MMORPGs were still very much a niche within a niche (around the time the total global population of potential MMO players was estimated to be 100,000 at most) and even then it seems more casual-friendly games were more appealing.

I don't have any sources for it but I think the same was true with MUDs too, that more casual friendly, relaxed games tended to be more popular than the serious, hardcore ones. I suspect there's always been a significant audience who just want to poke around a virtual world and have some fun and aren't interested in beating super-hard challenges or proving they're better than other players, but video games started with a "microtransaction" model where every time you died you had to put a coin in the arcade machine to try again and they couldn't make them very long or complicated so they had to make them hard to keep people paying for repeat attempts, which created the impression that's what video games are all about.

Stamicka wrote: »

I guess the words mean different things to different people, but I don't understand the distinction personally. ESO is still an MMO, it is a massively multiplayer online game because there's a persistent world and if there are other players in your instance you'll see them whether you want to or not. It is also a virtual world at the same time, with many different systems and activities to engage in.

Both descriptions fit ESO. I definitely think ESO is becoming more story focused, casual, solo oriented, and cozy. It differs from other big MMORPGs because of this, but it's still an MMO.

I think he's saying people tend to associate things with the term MMO beyond the literal meaning of the words and they want to break away from that. Guild Wars 2 did a similar thing, being marketed as "an MMO for people who hate MMOs".

I think for a lot of people MMO implies a combat-focused time-sink where you'll spend much of that time grinding levels and/or items to compete (directly or indirectly) with other players, or struggling just to keep up. Whereas virtual world implies something with more freedom - the game gives you a setting and it's up to you what you do within it.

Stamicka · April 12

Danikat wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

I guess the words mean different things to different people, but I don't understand the distinction personally. ESO is still an MMO, it is a massively multiplayer online game because there's a persistent world and if there are other players in your instance you'll see them whether you want to or not. It is also a virtual world at the same time, with many different systems and activities to engage in.

Both descriptions fit ESO. I definitely think ESO is becoming more story focused, casual, solo oriented, and cozy. It differs from other big MMORPGs because of this, but it's still an MMO.

I think he's saying people tend to associate things with the term MMO beyond the literal meaning of the words and they want to break away from that. Guild Wars 2 did a similar thing, being marketed as "an MMO for people who hate MMOs".

I think for a lot of people MMO implies a combat-focused time-sink where you'll spend much of that time grinding levels and/or items to compete (directly or indirectly) with other players, or struggling just to keep up. Whereas virtual world implies something with more freedom - the game gives you a setting and it's up to you what you do within it.

Thank you, I think this is an interesting way to look at it. To me, with the freedom to play how I want, I just end up playing the game like an MMO since there's so many MMO elements there. For me, ESO is all about the combat. I'll grind for mythics and gear if I have to, and I prefer group based Veteran PvE and PvP.

It's definitely telling that Matt Firor doesn't consider the game to be an MMO. It definitely explains the direction of the game over the past 5 years or so. This makes the addition of something like Tales of Tribute make a lot more sense.

As it currently stands however, ESO still offers the typical MMO experience if you want to play it that way. I don't really like that the developers seem to do whatever they can to distance themselves from this reality. I guess the people who actually like the MMO playstyle of ESO are in the minority though.

SkaiFaith · April 12

Destai wrote: »

I think it's a fair description. I've been treating it like a second life for years now, so it functions as a virtual world to me.

"Second Life"? What are you talking about? It's clearly my first life, and one where I can respawn at a Wayshrine luckily.

My second life is the bad one from which I can't logout somehow, but TESO? Definitely number one, ask my wife Isobel.

NoTimeToWait · April 12

spartaxoxo wrote: »

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/a-decade-in-tamriel-takeaways-as-elder-scrolls-online-turns-ten

They view ESO as a virtual world moreso than a MMO. And try to have variety for different types of players using play data. What do you think?

I would agree in terms that ESO has a lot of venues to enjoy the game, which makes it a virtual world. It doesn't really change the fact that it is still an MMO, with all the upsides and downsides.

If anything, I would say most MMOs are online virtual worlds, because social part is a very important part for the success of an MMO. And social part is the most important part of any online virtual world.

Danikat wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

But IMO, the main thing was just the evolution of the gaming audience from gaming enthusiasts to the mainstream.

As the 2000s progressed, single player games became easier and easier until most of them reached the point it was basically impossible to lose playing in normal difficulty. There were some mainstream games that resisted like GTA IV, but by GTA V players could skip challenging missions.

Eventually PVE online games followed suit. The hardcore and core gaming audiences tended to enjoy challenges, but the average consumer seems to view games more as interactive entertainment.

I suspect it started a lot earlier than that. I was reading this article earlier about Ultima Online attempting to balance player freedom with preventing gankers and trolls and among other things it mentioned that in 1999 they were losing a lot of players to EverQuest and a big reason was it had a PvP flag which prevented you from getting killed unless you wanted to fight. This was back when MMORPGs were still very much a niche within a niche (around the time the total global population of potential MMO players was estimated to be 100,000 at most) and even then it seems more casual-friendly games were more appealing.

I don't have any sources for it but I think the same was true with MUDs too, that more casual friendly, relaxed games tended to be more popular than the serious, hardcore ones. I suspect there's always been a significant audience who just want to poke around a virtual world and have some fun and aren't interested in beating super-hard challenges or proving they're better than other players, but video games started with a "microtransaction" model where every time you died you had to put a coin in the arcade machine to try again and they couldn't make them very long or complicated so they had to make them hard to keep people paying for repeat attempts, which created the impression that's what video games are all about.

I played both Ultima Online and EverQuest, and while I still think that UO was the greatest online game ever made, it was really brutal and I went to EverQuest and never returned. The problem was that players really made it into a bad experience (though the great parts were also thanks to players). PK was so rampant and problematic, that it became a meme with players killing Richard Garriot's (game director) character during his in-game speech.

The problem with us, humans, is that we tend to exploit whatever is exploitable. And often it means ruining others' fun too for the sake of our personal enjoyment (which is a sad, but unavoidable thing, since virtual worlds still need to maintain features of a zero-sum game to keep players engaged).

Desiato · April 12

Danikat wrote: »

I suspect it started a lot earlier than that. I was reading this article earlier about Ultima Online attempting to balance player freedom with preventing gankers and trolls and among other things it mentioned that in 1999 they were losing a lot of players to EverQuest and a big reason was it had a PvP flag which prevented you from getting killed unless you wanted to fight. This was back when MMORPGs were still very much a niche within a niche (around the time the total global population of potential MMO players was estimated to be 100,000 at most) and even then it seems more casual-friendly games were more appealing.

I don't have any sources for it but I think the same was true with MUDs too, that more casual friendly, relaxed games tended to be more popular than the serious, hardcore ones. I suspect there's always been a significant audience who just want to poke around a virtual world and have some fun and aren't interested in beating super-hard challenges or proving they're better than other players, but video games started with a "microtransaction" model where every time you died you had to put a coin in the arcade machine to try again and they couldn't make them very long or complicated so they had to make them hard to keep people paying for repeat attempts, which created the impression that's what video games are all about.

Well, UO and EQ were apples and oranges, really. The hardcore aspect of UO stemmed from the fact that it had not only player killing, but player theft. Other players could break into your home and steal your things. They could even pickpocket you.

Everquest was basically a 3D Dikumud. Its creators were inspired after running a popular Diku. As a PVE game, it was much more hardcore than UO and the gameplay was completely different as EQ was 3D and UO was isometric 2D; it later added some 3D aspects, but it was never like EQ.

EQ PVE was extremely hardcore. Most players couldn't even reach the end game within an update cycle. The devs created encounters they thought would be impossible for the players to complete, but we always found a way. My first plane raid took 14 hours to complete!! I was a young man at the time and could go days without sleep....

When one died in EQ, their corpse stayed at that location with all their items until it was recovered! If it wasn't recovered, it would eventually decay and the items would be permanently lost. Though, eventually more tools were added to assist in corpse recovery at a high cost. That's just the tip of the iceberg. I could write a book about how crazy it was by today's standards.

But it was awesome too. It enabled opportunities for true heroism.

There was a time when I was part of the top guild (In Virtue) on my server (Vazaelle) and a more casual guild was attempting to 'break' the Plane of Fear for the first time. They failed. In trying to recover their corpses, they died several times and actually de-levelled as a result of the exp penalty from death. They were at risk of not being able to get back into the Plane because it had a minimum level of 46 and some of their members were now 47! Plus it was past midnight and they had to log off soon.

So my guild took the time to break it for them so they could get in and recover their corpses. Breaking is the term we used for entering the zone and getting established by fighting the initial mobs at the entrance point. I still recall the visceral emotions from them. True fear and worry, followed by true relief and gratitude. Had their corpses decayed, they would have lost months of progress.

This was a common part of the EQ experience. Players who died deep in difficult dungeons would usually need help to recover corpses. This resulted in interdependence and created an amazing community unlike anything else I have experienced.

WoW was basically EQ-lite and successful because of it.

Muds were a different story. They had far more variety than the commercial MMOs. There were very hardcore muds with pvp and full loot, but most were PVE ***. MOOs, MUSEs, and MUSHes were more advanced conceptually and had some incredibly innovative gameplay. They tended to be more social and where actual roleplaying would take place.

The most nerdy mud I played was called TrekMUSE. I see it is still around, but I played it only in the early 90s so I have no idea how it developed. It actually had a text based 3D space sim. I don't mean text based as in it render graphics in text. There was none of that. To move one's starship to a specific point in space, they had to calculate the correct trajectory.

To play it properly, you needed a player at each of the stations on the bridge, in addition to a captain. It was crazy and amazing. I was reprimanded by the admins for going to the quarters of an Admiral and stealing her baby object from the crib object. It was out of ignorance, not malice. It was a hardcore roleplaying game and players had to stay in character constantly or face being banned!

Mods, please don't take this as an advertisement. I guarantee you won't lose any players. I'll throw it out there that it's possible to play Classic EQ via "Project 1999" which uses a server emulator and is allowed to operate by the EQ devs. It extremely difficult to play by today's standards, however. You're probably better off finding a P99 streamer on Twitch if interested.

jaekobcaed · April 13

I have to agree entirely. MMORPG is a loaded term and has been for quite some time, even before ESO released. When people think of an MMO, they think of a game where they grind for top-level gear and take part in raids or PVP. ESO was never about that, it was always meant to be a TES game that you play with other people. While it undoubtedly has a majority of the common traits that are in the MMO genre, it's also significantly different. It's a true RPG first and foremost (most MMOs really couldn't be considered as such), its focus is on world building and story even within typical MMO content, it encourages the player to play socially but doesn't require them to. It also doesn't require you to grind after every chapter release to stay in the game; if you take a break, you can jump back in whenever you want and just play as if you never left.

To be fair, GW2 has a similar approach but in my opinion, ESO is so much better. It has stronger focus on story and world exploration and the social systems feel so naturally integrated into the game. Much like Fallout 76, when I play ESO, I don't feel like I'm playing an MMO. I feel like I'm playing a single-player RPG that I can enjoy alongside other people simultaneously. It feels to me like it's more of a very populated, shared world RPG more than what you'd traditionally find in an MMO. It's a big part of why ESO and 76 are currently the only online games that I actively play.

Anifaas · April 13

Goalposts: Moved.

zaria · April 13

Danikat wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

The funniest thing, to me, was how these developers thought they were making something that was somehow new, or groundbreaking, when it wasn't. They made grand promises of things like "the entire earth, in RDR2 style graphics!" When what they were really making was a platform to advertise products to players so that companies could plug into them and sell virtual (or sometimes even physical) goods. They promised exploration- when the reality was that many of them wanted you shell out cash to buy not-yet-existing land to build on, when no systems to build or even play the game had been created yet.

And then they promised you could live a virtual life, going to a virtual job, to buy virtual goods- such fun. /s

There are quite a few other metaverse models out there that were less ambitious, but equally ignorant as to what makes people want to stay in a virtual space.

That's what frustrated me about the whole metaverse discussion too. People kept talking about how it would give you a virtual world for your avatar to live in, and I kept asking what you could do there, besides shop and attend meetings and being told I just didn't understand, I couldn't imagine the potential of a virtual world.

They didn't like it when I told them I think I have a fairly good idea because I've spent quite a bit of time in shared online virtual worlds over the past few decades. They really don't like any reminder that what they were proposing wasn't actually new, even though most of the 'metaverse' designs hyped up last year were almost exactly Second Life.

The annoying part for me is I genuinely wasn't trying to troll them or kill the conversation, I was genuinely curious because I like the idea of virtual worlds (I've been playing 2 MMOs for almost a decade now and played a few others before then). But it seemed like no one could give me a straight answer and they'd rather not deal with questions at all. We were all just supposed to clap and tell them how smart and cool they were and then get in line to buy whatever they eventually had to sell.

The upshot is I decided I'd stick with ESO for the foreseeable future and avoid "the metaverse" until there was actually a reason to visit besides spending money.

Yes, all decent MMO has been virtual worlds with lots of stuff to do unlike Meta. Second world is another previous version with the that to do issue. So it now mostly an fetish / furry graphical chat room I have the impression of, nothing wrong with it but hardly the designed outcome they wanted but it keep the servers running.
Also avatars had legs in second life, from the start

Now ESO is fun but its not immersive like Skyrim with mods can be as its an multiplayer game so you have to balance it and yoy have distractions around.

Finedaible · April 13

I mean this is coming from a guy who has claimed in the past that he does not consider ESO to be an MMO based on a few technical differences in combat even if ESO is, for all intents and purposes, an MMO. Back then they were trying to draw in the fans of the single-player games from TES 5: Skyrim, so that's what they were marketing it as. ESO also seems to actively avoid doing anything at all similar to what other franchises have done, even if it is to a fault sometimes.

ESO has been running off Skyrim's steam since launch but it's not going to last forever. With the poor reception of Starfield, I've noticed a lot less interest from previous Elder Scrolls fans so it could be they are reaching out to other demographics from here on out.