Bethesda gets honest about Elder Scrolls

[dragoonblade]

In what I thought was a pretty great and revealing interview Bethesda talks more about Elder Scrolls Online and the future of subscription based MMOs. I mean let's face it free-to-play is the wave of the future as some of the most popular MMOs are free with the option to pay to buy things. They talk about a lot, the decision to go subscription, DLC, console based play. It's pretty interesting.

Bethesda talks Elder Scrolls

 

[hellsing006]

That's a pretty good read actually though I do wish that they had talked more about the future of the subscription based MMO. Let's face it, WOW isn't getting the numbers that they used to, subscriptions are going down more and more. A lot of people are all in with the free-to-plays so in some ways this was a pretty brave decision on their parts.

 

[Tomba]

I believe they have it planned to eventually go F2P with caps. I just don't see any company doing an MMO of this magnitude and with this visual appeal and just going "F2P out the gate." They could've either scrapped that and started working on Fallout 4 or kept the lore and gameplay and made it look like DCUO or Morrowind quality (great for it's time and still captured the Elder Scrolls spirit, but would come off dated on PS4).

 

[daimashin]

I'd rather it be subscription based than a badly made free to play. We all have met our fair share of free to play but pay to win games where if we have the money we can just buy the strongest gears to plough through everything while those that don't are stuck with crappy things. Subscription may not be too bad if they can do everything they claimed in the article.

 

[Derri]

I'm sorry but I just can't justify paying for the game which will be around £60 and then paying a subscription to play that game that I've bought. I'm sorry but if it was Free to Play and then you could have option of micro transactions to get stuff earlier to avoid the grind then I'd support the game or if the game was free but you had to pay £15 or whatever each month to play the game then I could support it but I cannot support a game that costs so much. I mean yeah its a cool game but too expensive.

 

[WarriorSoldier]

Video games are already over priced, then again, the quality of the product will attest to the value of it. If a game is huge, has great graphics, has over 50-100 hours of gameplay and more, then it's worth the 60 bucks. If it's just an 8 hour game, then what the hell? Then again, if you go see a movie it's about 10 bucks for 2 hours. So an 8 hour game might as well be 80 bucks. wtf do I know though >:/

 

[RobDaCool]

I'm not an MMO fan, they're all the same Fashion show game. WoW does decent and every company wants an MMO it seems.

 

[Oakster]

They are making a big gamble with their decision to go subscription based, since most MMO's nowadays are Free-to-play they are only harming themselves in the face of the competition.
The game will need to be much better than it's competition in order to be successful. Hopefully it will, since it means we get to play a great game

 

[Mike]

I would honestly rather pay a subscription then a pay to win game where most the game is off limits unless I pay hundreds of dollars. I will try it and if I spend a lot of time on it I will pay for it monthly.

How much is the subscription?

 

[dragoonblade]

Yeah. They are taking a major risk by going subscription based but the sub based games aren't necessarily dying. I mean FFXIV is still subscription base, and I guess that their doing well enough to stay that way. The same with WOW. Although I do think that sub based games are slowly going away and this game won't be that way forever.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I think the subscription is $15. Really didn't seem like much at the time, but I can understand it building up if you're paying for other stuff on PS4 in addition to PS+ to play online. I still agree that there should be a subscription as opposed to F2P which will lead to P2W.

 

[Stuck_X_Button]

I agree with a subscription. People complain that there is a subscription, if it was F2P and graphics and so on were kneecapped people would complain. Meh.

 

[Ghost_of_Crash]

I'd prefer there was no subscription. I'd accept a subscription if it was free to pick up through PSN, but having to pay $60 and then $15, I don't know, man. I mean I'm getting it, but still.

 

[NuclearDragon]

Free-to-play would've been real nice for this, but I can understand a subscription. It won't even be around that long (the subscription), maybe 2 years max before it hits free-to-play. If it was released on PSN and had a subscription I think it would be softer to run with.

 

[Tomba]

Free-to-play would've been real nice for this, but I can understand a subscription. It won't even be around that long (the subscription), maybe 2 years max before it hits free-to-play. If it was released on PSN and had a subscription I think it would be softer to run with.

Personally I don't think there would've been much "Boooo Bethesda, we don't want subscriptions," if the subscriptions were lower and players didn't have to pay for other stuff (some of which is on them for paying monthly for like PS+, Netflix subscriptions, etc. Not mandatory at all, but eh).

 

[Stuck_X_Button]

I believe there would've been the same amount of "Boooo Bethesda, this is baaaad. Booooo..." F2P only actually works when there's some method to generate money and like SpaceTiger said, it would fall into P2W territory quickly. Then the group who plays without buying extra stuff would be upset...even though they got their F2P format.

 

[GTK1634]

I actually have no problem paying for a monthly fee. I won't be paying for any other games.

 

[NuclearDragon]

This is a good point. I can understand if people purchase like 5-15 games a month, have other subscriptions, and so on. I forgot who mentioned it, but ESO's subscription for one month is like one game. Two games and a half would be a year of ESO.