dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Asked a different way: If you had 2 stock market investments, and one was making $1M a year, and another was making $20M, would you keep the $1M stock, or sell it off, and roll that money into the $20M stock?

Desiato wrote: »

How general consumers use AI to meme isn't how creative professionals will. Just because AI can code, doesn't mean engineering expertise becomes irrelevant. However software engineers who can adapt to vibe coding will have an advantage compared to those who don't. The same goes for artists of all kinds. It is a new frontier.

Just like it was in the late 80s when new professionals used the power of adobe illustrator to make dinosaurs of the extremely talented and well trained professionals who used traditional methods.

Zodiarkslayer wrote: »

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Asked a different way: If you had 2 stock market investments, and one was making $1M a year, and another was making $20M, would you keep the $1M stock, or sell it off, and roll that money into the $20M stock?

That's the wrong way of thinking about it. The pivotal impact is always what you need to put into the system and what you can get out of it comparatively.
If I can make 1m by investing 250k and 20m by investing 5m, they are both equally profitable. ☝️

Anyway ...

Personally, I do not think that investment theory is the point here, though. It is rather target costing. Short termed effect chasing getting prioritized before long term strategical positioning. And that has a completly different purpose.
In a post capitalist economy you have to be "sexy" in order to get the best interest rates on loans. Because with enough borrowed money you can force success, rather than gamble on it in the classical capitalist way. Think Amazon.
To "get sexy" Microsoft has to show how it can enforce its will on any and all subsidiaries it acquires. It is litterally a power play, where corporate central publicly shows it controls its recent acquisitions. It creates trust into the leadership.

In modern day economy these type of public power plays are more important than quarterly reports.

Well, at least that's my read. 🤷‍♂️

Zodiarkslayer wrote: »

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

To force success, and by your own analogy, you have to have (near) monopoly presence in the market. We have almost nothing like a free market in much of anything in America any more, but the gaming market is still competitive. People still have lots of options for their entertainment dollar. Neither Bethesda nor Microsoft can force the success of a bad game. There are far too many other places to turn. (Again, Starfield proves the point.)

You think to narrow. To focused on the gaming industry. Because last I heard, Microsoft owns a little bit more than just Gaming Studios and is active on more than just the Gaming market. Right?
Or did that change and only I didn't get the memo?

Like I said. Post Capitalist!
Those lay offs might not even have to do anything with the game developers or project Blackbird at all.

Chrisilis wrote: »

Why pay 100 people for ten years to develop a new IP when AI can do it in a year? Or six months? For a fraction of a fraction of the cost? The future of gaming is AI and what we're seeing here is the beginning of that. Heck, the future is AI period. Look at GTA6, ten years in development, 1-2 billion spent, and now that it might be close to release new technology has probably rendered parts of it obsolete before it even hits the market.

What remains to be seen in this context is whether or not the adoption of smart generative technology will be a net positive for us as consumers of ESO content or the death knell of a ten year old game with wonky unreliable servers. It could mean the beginning of a new era of content or it could mean bare bones maintenance mode as we limp towards the finish line. Only time will tell.

Elsonso wrote: »

LikiLoki wrote: »

well. time passes and everything changes. I hope that if the worst option is implemented, Microsoft will join the "Stop Killing Games" initiative and leave us a working version.

I am not expecting any large studio or publisher to join the "Stop Killing Games" initiative.

Dock01 wrote: »

Here it is-- the reality of this situation. I don't want this game to go away, because most of us bought everything, but it's not looking good, no matter how many times it's being twisted, and I don't think they're listening to us at all. It feels hopeless, they dismiss a lot of it, and if it continues to be like this, then might as well find another game, my exit is Elder Scrolls 6 but thats a long way to go so im just coasting eso a bit

I just wish they would sell off the studios rather than closing them or slashing them to the bone.

Desiato wrote: »

I've been a pretty huge ZOS critic, and one of my biggest criticisms over the years was the degree to which they have changed the game based on player feedback versus what they had originally marketed -- turning the game from one designed for the audience I am part of -- core gamer -- to one appealing to ultra-casual single player TES fans, especially those who started with Skyrim (which represents the vast majority of TES fans).

Desiato wrote: »

Only in the ESO forums is TES possibly a valuable IP!

And AI is the future of content creation, period. There is nothing stopping this train outside of global conflict. It is completely misunderstood by most people. It will not replace human creativity and ingenuity, it will enhance it.

This kind of misunderstanding exists for every new technological paradigm. There were people who believed the ballista would result in the end of human civilization.

It's not even inherently dangerous. Do you know what is actually dangerous? Humans. WE are the only thing that makes AI potentially dangerous. But the same goes for a knife or a car or pretty much every technological advancement. I mean, read the news. It's violent and ignorant humans with malicious and selfish intent we should be scared about, regardless of which tools they use.

Resist technological advancement at your own peril, like the stone chipper who didn't adapt to bronze.

ImmortalCX wrote: »

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

Any notion that ESO is somehow made redundant by the existence of WoW is completely unfounded. They are very different games with different audiences.

Yes, Warcraft is a significant IP, but TES is also a juggernaut. Neither product is going away.

Ironically, ZOS has given us signals they are pivoting ESO back to more of an MMO after being a vehicle for TES single player quest content delivered through chapters the previous 7-8 years. But even still, the existing library of chapters will be highly appealing to single player TES fans for many years.

The Elder Scrolls is still possibly a valuable IP, but if Bethesda fumbles with TES VI as badly as they did with Starfield, then they'll kill the golden goose. I'd love a proper successor to Skyrim, but I'm worried now. I pre-ordered the digital deluxe version of Starfield to get it early, thinking it was going to be Skyrim in space, and refunded it before the official release. And, sure, someone is going to say that they loved Starfield, and still play it 12 hours a day, but the Steam chart numbers don't lie. That game has been a dud. Oblivion Remastered bought the franchise some time, but they'd better have in-game footage of TES VI next year, or I won't believe it will ever see the light of day either.

Everyone is worried. In fact, I think its almost a forgone conclusion that they will fumble it. Like Starfield, the game will look and play like a ten year old game on release.

If the majority of development happened before AI, and with the lack of credible information, it points to the game not being on a good path.

What I would love to see for TES VI, is a completely solo open world like Skyrim, but with group dungeons and ladder competitions as a side game.

Chrisilis wrote: »

Why pay 100 people for ten years to develop a new IP when AI can do it in a year? Or six months? For a fraction of a fraction of the cost? The future of gaming is AI and what we're seeing here is the beginning of that. Heck, the future is AI period. Look at GTA6, ten years in development, 1-2 billion spent, and now that it might be close to release new technology has probably rendered parts of it obsolete before it even hits the market.

What remains to be seen in this context is whether or not the adoption of smart generative technology will be a net positive for us as consumers of ESO content or the death knell of a ten year old game with wonky unreliable servers. It could mean the beginning of a new era of content or it could mean bare bones maintenance mode as we limp towards the finish line. Only time will tell.

It doesn't work quite like that. I imagine that many of the tools they have been using to develop content have become more automated.

In old days there would be a map designer and they would place every tree and shrub by hand. And the artists would develop each art asset by hand.

They could have AI modify and generate new art assests. Have it auto generate a map and pre populate it. Use text prompts to make changes instead of having to do it by hand. Have AI provide all the voices, etc etc etc.

The point is that the more the tools become automated, the less human resources it will take, and they can spend on more important areas.

I am excited about AI and the ability for it to automatically model NPC behaviour based on what a PC has done. (All ESO does is occasionally an NPC will say "weren't you the hero who did________"?) I think when they get this trick sorted, old MMOs will seem like static garbage.

This is a difficult time to deliver any role playing game, knowing that within the next 1-3 years this new technology will enable things that render games released in the 2025-26 timeframe obsolete. IOW, they already see the writing on the wall and know a game that does not leverage AI is a waste of time.

LadyGP wrote: »

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

nathamarath wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

Blackbird was an internal ZOS pet project that only started to make progress recently, after ESO was set on its new path. This has been leaked previously and we can deduce the decision to end chapters had to happen last year because the content pass lacks new art assets. It is probably why the anniversary tour was cut short.

They would have made the decision to end chapters independent of outside considerations.

It was cut short because MS has no sense of flair for the history, tradition and being of the companies incorporated. For the same reason seasons was introduced. It is MS' distribution habit including naming to unify it with their own flavour.

I'd argue seasons were introduced because they knew they were phasing down on content (and their resources and personel were shifting to other projects), they knew they were slowly transitioning to a more maintenance mode approach, and they knew they had a ton of technical debt built up over the years (how many posts are there where people say stop adding new things and fix the bugs/balance, etc etc).

Moving to seasons gives them a second to take a breath and do just that. I don't think seasons really had anything to do with Microsoft. Why would it? They make lamost all their money from ESO+ and then the big content drops that they sell for (too much money IMO).

ESO+, crowns, and crown crates are how ESO is so dang profitable. Everything else is just penies on the bottomline.

Again with this "ESO is profitable" business, and not just profitable, but "dang" profitable. To my knowledge, all that's ever been said about the company financials is Rich's "$2B" statement, but that was revenue, not profit. We actually have no idea how profitable the game is. It could be losing money, for all we know, and recent cut backs in the scope of content may be a reflection of that. Am I nuts? I've googled this several times. The only comments about how "successful" this game is stem from that single statement, and a back-calculation that it has averaged $15M/mo in revenue since the start. I don't know about you, but $15M/mo doesn't sound like a lot of income for a company the size of ZOS to me. Does anyone have an actual source about actual profits?

And where do you get your notion that they "make almost all of" their money from ESO+? Where have they ever said that, either? MMO population says ESO has about 65K daily players. If half of them have Plus, that's 33K subscribers for, say, $13/mo, which is roughly $450,000/mo. That's 3 or 4 FTE's. That's covering almost nothing. I would argue that Crown store sales are the bulk of revenue. It certainly feels that way to me, in the way it's promoted.

Expanding the estimation about full-time employee costs, if there were 600 people at the studio pre-layoffs, averaging, oh, I don't know, $150K burden -- which is probably way too low -- that's $90M/12 =$7.5M per month in salaries alone. There's the building, and legal, and travel, and everything else to consider as well. So now you see my problem with considering that a back-calculated $15M/mo to be significant in terms of profitability.

Valid point that $2B number is revenue, not straight profit. But from everything I've pieced together, it doesn't look like the game's hemorrhaging cash at all. If anything, the signs scream that it's been a solid moneymaker for years, even with the recent bumps. Why keep pumping out updates for 11 years if it's a money pit? That revenue averages out to about $180-200M a year, or yeah, around $15M a month like you calculated. And it's helped push Microsoft's gaming side to some record highs in 2023 and 2024. The cutbacks, like ditching big chapters for seasons, seem more like Microsoft tweaking things for efficiency than a desperate move to stop losses.

On the $15M/month not seeming like enough—fair point, it doesn't scream blockbuster at first glance. But MMOs like ESO aren't like cranking out a new Call of Duty every year; they've got lower ongoing costs with stuff like reusable assets and cloud tech keeping things cheap, especially since Microsoft and Azure. That still leaves a decent chunk for profit, and costs have probably dropped even more with those brutal July layoffs—hit up to a third of the team, hundreds gone, including the whole crew of BB. Staff's likely way under 600-700 now, which trims the bills further.

As for where the money's coming from, I think ESO+ gets shortchanged in your take. That 65K daily players stat is kinda outdated; recent numbers put dailies anywhere from 81K to over 876K, with monthly actives topping 3M and total accounts at 25M+, even hitting 26M back in April 2025. If 30-50% of those daily actives are subbed (pretty standard for MMOs with perks like the crafting bag and free DLC access), you're talking 100K-400K+ subs at ~$13 a pop, raking in $1.3M to $5M+ a month—not just pocket change for a handful of employees. Devs have mentioned revenue flows from subs and the store, probably 30-40% from ESO+ and 50-60% from crowns/crates—it's all linked, not one overshadowing the other. DLCs and chapters spike things, but they're not the everyday breadwinner.

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

Chrisilis wrote: »

Hopefully once they figure it out they'll let us know. We shall see.

They already did. They told us at around the beginning of the year how ESO is changing. They ended the chapter model. We can see the result in the game right now.

I keep repeating myself because I'm amazed that people can't see what's right in front of them. They didn't just change the name of the annual update for no reason. ESO has entered a new phase.

It's an 11 year old game, so this kind of thing is to be expected.

Let's not forget that some people in these forums had been complaining for years about how the annual chapter releases had become formulaic in structure-- every year, there was a new dungeon DLC in Q1, a chapter in Q2, another dungeon DLC in Q3, and a zone DLC concluding the year-long story in Q4. To be sure, there were also people who defended that formula and said they liked the year-long stories. But if I remember correctly, there were even some people posting polls about this topic.

ZOS responded by announcing that the year-long story formula was going to be changed up by making story arcs spanning multiple years. Naturally, some people reacted negatively to that announcement.

Also, there had been people complaining for years that there were too few bug fixes. Again, some people suggested dropping one of the quarterly DLCs each year for a release of bug fixes, and even posted polls in these forums about that topic.

ZOS responded by announcing that the Q3 and Q4 DLCs would focus more on fixing bugs and adding new game systems. It may have been part of the decision to do away with year-long story arcs and do more story arcs that span multiple years-- I'm hazy on the specifics-- but my point is, it was more or less something that people had been suggesting in these forums, and of course some people reacted negatively to it.

I could go on.

The card game that a vocal percentage of the playerbase loves to hate on and has said ZOS needs to delete from the game? A response to people in these forums asking ZOS to incorporate Legends into ESO (which I don't think would have worked) or add some kind of "tavern game."

The first version of the Vengeance test where we had very limited templates of skills and sets to reduce the calculations the server needs to deal with? A response to people in these forums voicing their opinions about how unbalanced PvP is, how ZOS needs to balance PvE and PvP separately, praising other MMOs where PvP and PvE have separate gear sets, etc.

And etc. (Destructible bridges.) And etc. (Update old zones with new graphics.) And etc. (You get the idea.)

It seems to me that ZOS has been bending over backwards for years listening to the playerbase and trying to give the people some workable version of what have they been asking for. And whenever ZOS has announced some change that's essentially a response to suggestions or complaints in these forums, somebody starts yelling about "maintenance mode."

It seems to me like it's tiime for the players to go look in their bathroom mirrors for answers.

TL;DR - Players will ALWAYS move the goal post - then blame the studio for not listening.

Desiato wrote: »

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

ESO had been making enough money to support making a second MMO, and now it's not. And not only have they cut the other team entirely, but they've also made cuts to the ESO team as well.

This isn't an accurate way of looking at it because ZOS has always been a subsidiary of a larger entity. First Zenimax Media, and now Microsoft Gaming. ESO's profits are Microsoft profits, not ZOS profits.

So the development of a new project entirely rests on its merits, and has nothing to do with ESO itself outside of the track record of the studio -- in this case, mainly the management. Ultimately, the funding would have come from the parent company.

My understanding is that Blackbird was mostly staffed by ex-Arkane developers who had joined ZOS to help with Gold Road. Arkane was a Zenimax studio that was shut down in 2024 which was probably the ultimate consequence of Redfall's poor performance.

So the premise that Blackbird was cancelled because ESO wasn't earning enough money would almost definitely be false.

As an aside, I also want to add that Dishonored is a legendary game among gamers and is truly special at every level. It's really interesting in that its challenges can be completed in a variety of ways with a variety of outcomes. I recall it being an incredible experience.