The Elder Scrolls Online

[sbr]

On one hand I hope so, on the hand that doesn't want to pay $15 a month I hope not.

[katmai]

Another test this Friday. I skipped out on my last invite so maybe I'll try it again. Surely has to be a bit more evolved since September, right?

I'm dl'ding the client for this weekend as well. I wasn't able to do the September or November test so this will be first time. And I would hope more evolved as the release is 3 months away.

[Bluebook]

Ive downloaded the client aswell. But cannot get in the game. Frustrating. I guess they open the doors on friday

[garbon]

Ive downloaded the client aswell. But cannot get in the game. Frustrating. I guess they open the doors on friday

Yes. The game only is available during that window on Friday.

[Bluebook]

Gah...and after Sunday, you are kicked out again? That is very cruel

[PRC]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/01/02/predicting-the-biggest-disaster-of-2014-the-elder-scrolls-online/

Predicting The Biggest Video Game Disaster Of 2014: The Elder Scrolls Online

As we head into 2014, it's an exciting year for gaming with a number of huge, potentially fantastic titles on the horizon from Titanfall to Destiny to Watch Dogs to The Division and many, many more.

But I have a bad feeling about one upcoming title, one that's never really made sense to me from the start: The Elder Scrolls Online.

Yesterday, Kotaku's Superannuation took to Twitter to say that he'd just heard The Elder Scrolls Online's budget was $200M.

The tweet was hastily deleted, and there's no way to confirm if it's true, as Bethesda and ZeniMax certainly won't admit to it, but even if the budget was half that, I think TESO is headed for a rocky debut. Here's why:

The Lessons of The Old Republic

Once upon a time, way back in 2011, there was another MMO that swore it could compete with World of Warcraft and still charge a monthly subscription thanks to its rabid and devoted fanbase. Star Wars: The Old Republic also boasted a $200M budget, and was based on most beloved series in pop culture history as an added bonus.

But even Star Wars wasn't enough to convince The Old Republic players that the game was worth a monthly fee. The MMO didn't bring much new to the table, and soon the game started leaking players. Eventually, it was forced to admit defeat and go free-to-play. The game still exists in that state today, but instead of being the blockbuster EA needed it to be, it's a cautionary tale of overestimating your brand.

And that seems to be exactly what's happening with The Elder Scrolls Online.

Though the Elder Scrolls is certainly a beloved series, and we all have our own fond memories of Skyrim, Oblivion, Morrowind and so on, it's certainly no Star Wars, and an MMO version of the game isn't something that deserves anywhere remotely near a $200M  budget.

There are some who are saying that by being cross-platform, an MMO that functions on PC, PS4 and Xbox One, that the game will have an expanded reach that SWTOR, and most other MMOs, don't.

Yes, that's true, in theory. I certainly would give TESO a shot on my One or PS4, even though I'm not normally a big PC MMO guy. But then I, and all other console players like me, will slam into the iron gate that's the game's $15 monthly subscription fee.

No thanks.

Console players, and hell, most PC players these days that aren't die hard WoW or EVE Online devotees, have no patience for the increasingly outdated monthly subscription model. It's something almost never seen across console titles especially, and while TESO might have put up Skyrim-ish sales numbers with fee-less release, that $15 charge is going to severely limit their cross-platform audience ADNC +0.26% to only the series' most devoted fans.

I'm not sure if it's arrogance, the idea that people love the Elder Scrolls so much they'll pay $60 for a box copy and $180 a year to play TESO, but it's bad business sense at the very least. It's not only subscription fees that are becoming out of fashion, but the very concept of huge budget, AAA MMOs in general. I thought SWTOR was the final object lesson any other studio would need to scale back whatever future plans they had for their own expensive MMO attempts, but it appears that lesson didn't sink in for TESO, and they may end up paying the price for it.

Know Your Audience

This goes back to a fundamental question that I asked when The Elder Scrolls Online was first announced. Who ever even asked for an Elder Scrolls MMO? While there were plenty of people clamoring for a better version of Star Wars Galaxies, or even a few wondering what a multiplayer version of KOTOR would look like before The Old Republic came out, I can't say the same is true for The Elder Scrolls. The series has first and foremost always been the quintessential single player game. You, the hero, explore a vast countryside, taking on quests and saving the day. I don't think many players ever stopped and thought "This would be so much better with 50 other versions of me running around with names above their heads."

In short, Bethesda and Zenimax spend an ungodly amount of money developing a game for an audience that may not even exist.

But this is no longer just idle speculation at this point. The game is in beta, and people have been playing it for a while now.

While obviously any game is going to produce a wide array of opinions, the general feeling I've read across countless message boards and forums is that the experience is simply average. While it does feel like a traditional Elder Scrolls game, there's little benefit to the actual MMO aspect of it. Most of the game is played in single player mode anyway, but because it is an MMO, it looks visually worse than its predecessor, Skyrim, in many ways.

There are debates about whether or not it's better than The Old Republic, but that's not exactly a metric for success. The overriding thought is that it does little to add anything significant to either the MMO genre, or the Elder Scrolls series. In short, it's not a game that's worth $15 a month. Though to be fair, almost no games are these days.

A further complication is that Bethesda isn't exactly famous for releasing bug free single player games, so when they make the jump to an MMO, longtime fans are incredibly wary from the start, wondering if the game will even work at launch. We've seen a number of high profile online launch disasters recently, and The Elder Scrolls Online seems like a prime candidate for a similar meltdown.

The Gold Rush is Over

MMOs as a genre may not be dead yet, but the monthly subscription model certainly is for new entries, and Bethesday/ZeniMax were foolish not to have the foresight to realize this. While it's entirely possible TESO is released and it blows everyone's expectations away, that's seeming increasingly unlikely as players have already spent a lot of time with the game and many are coming away less than impressed. It was a strange decision to jump genres from a famed single player series to an MMO, and even stranger to expect fans to pay $15 a month for the privilege.

Whether the budget is $200M or not, I can't say. If it isn't, the game seems like a relatively risky idea at its core nonetheless. If it is, the game seems like a truly insane endeavor that could easily turn into the biggest bomb of the year.

We'll find out in April, I suppose. I've reached out to ZeniMax to see if they have any comment before then.

Update: ZeniMax responded and pointed me toward this satirical explanation from game director Matt Firor about the $200M budget.

Officially, ZeniMax told me to "keep looking in the upcoming days for an official statement about that, if it will ever come out." Between these two items, I suspect my leg may be being pulled a bit, but good on them for having a sense of humor.

As for the subscription fee, I was sent to this actual interview with Matt Firor:

    "And it's important to state that our decision to go with subscriptions is not a referendum on online game revenue models. F2P, B2P, etc. are valid, proven business models – but subscription is the one that fits ESO the best, given our commitment to freedom of gameplay, quality and long-term content delivery. Plus, players will appreciate not having to worry about being "monetized" in the middle of playing the game, which is definitely a problem that is cropping up more and more in online gaming these days. The fact that the word "monetized" exists points to the heart of the issue for us: We don't want the player to worry about which parts of the game to pay for – with our system, they get it all."

The idea is that yes, the game is worth $15 a month and will have lots of value added because of that model. We shall see.

[Bluebook]

Meh, I think pay to play is an excellent way to rid a game of 13-yrolds.

[The Brain]

Will I be more entertained than if I spend $15/month on hookers and blow?

[sbr]

Gah...and after Sunday, you are kicked out again? That is very cruel

It is s beta test, not an early release.

[garbon]

Will I be more entertained than if I spend $15/month on hookers and blow?

Probably not given that $15 will get you very subpar versions of the latter.

[The Brain]

Will I be more entertained than if I spend $15/month on hookers and blow?

Probably not given that $15 will get you very subpar versions of the latter.

[Bluebook]

Will I be more entertained than if I spend $15/month on hookers and blow?

Probably not given that $15 will get you very subpar versions of the latter.

What if he saves his money and only does it twice a year?

[garbon]

Will I be more entertained than if I spend $15/month on hookers and blow?

Probably not given that $15 will get you very subpar versions of the latter.

Oops, I misread the question. Yes, you will probably be more entertained by ESO.

[frunk]

Meh, I think pay to play is an excellent way to rid a game of 13-yrolds.

Judging by WoW I question that statement.  Further I hate pay to play, so it's not just getting rid of 13 year olds.

[Caliga]

It'll bomb.