Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OS X Elder Scrolls Online
- Thread starter Laucian Nailor
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
without breaking the NDA my feelings from the Beta thus far are this game is not as much fun as oblivon or skyrim, its very pretty (not quite skyrim on PC+highdef textures pretty, but certainly skyrim on consoles pretty).
It cant match the storylines from SW:TOR, in fact its very shallow late 90s MMO fair, Speak to NPC, run accross map, collect trinket, run back, repeat a million times.
so far i can compare TESO to skyrim its pretty, but shallow.. here is hoping they can address that quickly, before the evil of Free to Play, Buy To Win is forced upon them by money men keen to recoup the losses.. or worse still, before the whole thing is shutdown, its not like TESO is going to have all the Mods and sandbox playtools that keep me going back to morrowind, oblivion and skyrim years later, they will need something special to keep me paying monthly to play a game that is, in many ways, "less" than the single player experience i have been having from their franchise for over a decade
It cant match the storylines from SW:TOR, in fact its very shallow late 90s MMO fair, Speak to NPC, run accross map, collect trinket, run back, repeat a million times.
so far i can compare TESO to skyrim its pretty, but shallow.. here is hoping they can address that quickly, before the evil of Free to Play, Buy To Win is forced upon them by money men keen to recoup the losses.. or worse still, before the whole thing is shutdown, its not like TESO is going to have all the Mods and sandbox playtools that keep me going back to morrowind, oblivion and skyrim years later, they will need something special to keep me paying monthly to play a game that is, in many ways, "less" than the single player experience i have been having from their franchise for over a decade
What Windows installation? Not all of us run BootCamp or a VM solition.
It picked up speed finally, but is still downloading here...
By the way...updating...
Of course, if you didn't install the previous beta test which was only available for Windows, I don't know where you'd get it from ...
This suggestion is for those who already played the beta and want to play it on Mac now without having to re-download the whole thing, since it wasn't available for Mac before.
FYI The mac client has been avaliable since the previous stress test. I started downloading it on the 22nd of January, although we could not log in...
In the previous stress test I got an invitation for it wasn't available and said so on the website when trying to download it (this was for the 10-12th Jan test, so no idea afterwards).
This is the first stress test where I can download and use it, and since no one posted this info before, I am posting it now to help those in the same situation I am in and save them 10 or 20 hours of downloading. Obviously, it isn't for those who already downloaded it or those who never downloaded the Windows version, but you'd think that was obvious enough...
downloading the mac client now....its slow...
7%.......think it will be the weekend before I download this
7%.......think it will be the weekend before I download this
Ok, to answer my own question - it seems they certainly have made sure it's playable by a single-player.
Though, I'm not sure about paying a subscription for a single-player game. It'd be great if you could just pay a once-off cost for the game to play the single-player game, with the option of adding the subscription if you want to see/interact with/quest with other players.
I'm not sure if you are familiar with MMORPGs... This is a 100% multiplayer game in a persistent world. Playing "single player" as you describe is simply done by not grouping, or better known as playing "solo". This does not change the fact that the game you are playing is being hosted by a server(s). The subscription fee goes towards the up keep of the server(s) and equipment and also goes towards the support, updates, and new content for the game. Now it's possible that if the game does not do well that it could go F2P, but that usually has mixed results. Honestly, IMO the subscription model usually makes for a better game but only if the game is good to begin with.
I'd put it like this: imagine a repetitive single-player Skyrim with clunky gameplay, washed-out graphics, and lots of other annoying players getting in the way of your experience. So yes, you can play it alone. I wouldn't pay a monthly fee for it. Of course, all this is a pure speculation, its not like I have actually played the game or anything
Last edited:
How can you claim something like this in this day and age? There are only two successful subscription-based MMOs on the market right now: WoW (because its simply unparalleled at what it does) and EvE online (but here the game and expansions are free, you subscription is for the service). Every other game that tried to force a subscription on the user had to go F2P in order to remain profitable. I have nothing agains a subscription if its what it is - a service. However, I find it absolutely unacceptable beging forced to BUY the game AND then pay a subscription in order to be actually play the game. The microtransaction model is just as profitable as subscriptions is much more player friendly. Not to mention that ESO does not even in slightest offer content or quality that would justify a subscription. The publisher is just shamelessly trying to make money off the popularity of the TES series.
I "claim" it because it's my opinion (hence the IMO in my post). I know F2P has become more popular, but I also believe that it creates an environment for bad MMOs. Most of the good F2P MMO didn't start off that way, they started off as a subscription model and only went F2P when they couldn't maintain the level of subs they needed. I still consider these games as "subscription" based MMO since that's how they were built to begin with and if you compare these MMOs with ones that were created F2P from the start (i.e. Neverwinter, Drakensang), you can easily see a difference in quality. I'm not saying F2P is bad, but most of them are. MMOs are expensive games, and making them F2P means they have to get their money some how. This usually means corners were cut, quality is bad, and/or features are behind some paywall.
Most of your "AAA" MMOs will continue to start off as a subscription based MMO and they will either succeed, die, or go F2P. ESO and WildStar are the two big 2014 MMOs and both are starting off with a subscription model. I believe companies need to be prepared to go F2P if expectations aren't met, but I still personally would rather have subscription based MMOs if means quality and content do not suffer.
I think that the single example of GW2 proves that you are wrong. In the end, its about developer/publisher intentions. I don't think there is some inherent good/bad quality attributed with P2P or F2P models. Of course, subscription-based games might tend to get 'lazy' (aka. WoW) while mictotransaction-based games tend to get 'evil' (aka pay-2-win). In the end, its the honesty/ability of the publishing studio which determines the quality of the game. Unfortunately, in modern gaming business, people are usually just after your money. This is one of the main reasons why I dislike subscriptions. Another one is that they are not fair to players who play casually. I don't have much time or interest playing MMOs nowadays - but its quite nice to be able to log into GW2 once in few months and run some PvP. I can't do that with a subscription-based game.
Again, it's an opinion and there is no right or wrong. It either works or it doesn't and MOST (not all) AAA MMOs start off sub and go F2P if they can't sustain it. Guild Wars just went another route and lets be honest GW2 has not been nearly as successful as GW1, so it really isn't a good example. Path of Exile would have been a better example.
EDIT: I would love all MMOs to P2P (which is different than F2P) model like GW1, but MMOs are expensive with server maintenance and content updates, it just isn't practical.
Last edited:
P2P is what I mean - you buy the game, you play for free. The maintenance/etc. is financed through cosmetic microtransactions. It has been shown that games financed in this way have revenues comparable of those with subscriptions (at least, I remember reading some financial reports/analysis on that). I firmly believe that going this route is 'better' because the developer actually needs to thing about new feature/content to keep the player returning and also being interested in buying new things; while for a subscription-based game, the developer just needs to keep the player hooked (WoW with its repetitive progression is a very good example).
As to GW1/GW2 success comparison - GW1 sold 6.5 million game copies since the first release in 2005 (and 3 millions in first 2 years), GW2 sold 3.5 million game copies in first 1.5 years since its release in 2012. I don't really see how it can be called less successful. Both GW1 and GW2 use the exact same financing model.
I agree that P2P is a better model, especially for the gamer, but it just isn't used much in MMOs. Also, I think some people confuse P2P with F2P and they are definitely not the same. I would rather have a sub based MMO (as long as it's the quality worthy of a sub based) than a F2P MMO.
I don't know about the numbers for either GW, but it seems like GW1 was better at sustaining active players. I do like that GW2 has been updating the game regularly and has not been charging for the new content like GW1 did with the expansions.
GW1 expansions were REAL EXpansions! They were stand-alone playable and each added hundreds of hours of additional playtime. Charging for these is absolutely ok!
I did not progress all that far with GW2, I was surprised what little I was forced to buy at lower levels, in fact nothing....I remember wondering how were they going to make any money on this game? Ultimately I ran into a class story fight I was supposed to solo but could not win and it irritated me enough that I quit, no insinuation that I was a star player, just a regular joe and this should have been doable for me. Probably some key factor I was overlooking in the fight. Plus it felt very lonely as compared to FFXIV:ARR, but that too I have given up on. Please don't judge me.
Sorry to say, and I know I can't really say much, but this game has been very boring to me. I was really excited about it before I got into beta, but it isn't doing anything to make me want to keep playing. Is that how the other Elder Scroll games were? I come from a good 10 year run with Everquest and played a little bit of WOW and Rift. It is just missing something for me. The one good thing about it is I am able to run it perfectly with all the graphic settings turned up all the way.
