Introduction
Oh, the memories of Midgard, where war simultaneously waged against the realms of oppressive Albion and the sneaky weirdos of Hibernia. I haven’t played Dark Age of Camelot in over 8 years, but I still harbor animosity toward the rival realms. Especially those filthy, Camelot-loving Albs.
DaoC’s three faction warfare remains an unmatched pillar of what the player-versus-player experience should be in a massively multiplayer online role-player. But get this: the game came out in 2001. There are literally children conceived during battle-lulls attending middle schools. Something better should have come along in the last 13 years, but all potential titles have been disappointments.
The next-great-hope to exceed the quality of DaoC is Elder Scrolls Online. Whether or not ESO can succeed in this monumental task, it has a chance to do something greater: popularize the console MMO.
To become the one true emperor of the console MMO, ESO needs to maintain a player-base large enough to support its decision to isolate console servers. How can developer Zenimax Online accomplish this? Learning from history.
In Defense of Subscriptions
But first, the controversial issue of subscription fees must be addressed.
*deep breath in preparation*
I love subscription fees. There, I said it. Subscription-based games have several advantages over their microtransaction-funded counterparts. Although WoW players have plenty of evidence to the contrary, I have found subscribers to be overwhelmingly more friendly than free players. The reasoning is simple: why pay a toll to troll? Monthly payment also creates a small sense of obligation to play, which results in community-improving consistency and dedication to an account. Neither of these justify the money.
Being part of an immersive, evolving world is a beautiful thing. It is utterly destroyed by a system constantly advertising and begging for money in-game. I don’t play games to be pepper-sprayed by unfair advantages and petty conveniences.
So long as content updates reflect the fee, $15 a month for an MMO is completely reasonable. For example, my subscription to Final Fantasy XIV costs $12.99 monthly. If I play a meager 13 hours in a month, I would be at $1.00 per hour. In juxtaposition, the fabulous Left Behind story to The Last of Us equaled 2 hours of play for $15. While the comparison isn’t quite fair, it demonstrates subscriptions are not de facto bad value.
The MMO: A Brief History
The MMO, almost entirely, is a creature of the PC. While most cite Ultima Online as a proper origin point, I look at the dual success of Everquest and DaoC. These PC-only games were released in 1999 and 2001, respectively. The numbers are difficult to track now as original reports are no longer online, but DaoC’s subscriber-base reached a relatively massive 250k players — only perhaps half of EQ’s peak numbers. Each still exist.
EQ and DaoC transcended what a computer game could be. Questing with friends online was THE FUTURE. In retrospect, both games had clunky interfaces and tedious tasks. DaoC hit 21 races and 45 classes, which is awesome but lead to imbalances unacceptable today. Can you imagine waiting for 30 minutes while group members run across the map to your dungeon? Maybe another group would show up and ninja the final boss. Such inconveniences faded as the genre grew.
What happened to these games? Several things: EQ found its players split when Everquest 2 was released in 2004. DaoC caused major damage to its Realm vs Realm battles after releasing a PvE-focused expansion with rewards of game-breakingly powerful items.
There was something else that truly ended the dual supremacy of EQ and DaoC. It was November 2004, and winter and was coming.
World of Warcraft (and beyond)
Blizzard’s World of Warcraft needs no introduction. You either loved it, hated it, or a mix of both and subscribed anyway. Maybe you still do. Much attention is given to recent drop-offs, but WoW still hovers near 8 million subscribers. EQ and DaoC likely didn’t combine to exceed 10% of the active players of today’s past-prime WoW. Its success cannot be denied.
While some of WoW’s boom is thanks to timing of faster internet speeds and cheaper gaming-capable computers, it proved existence of the market and brought the genre to the mainstream. Soon, we were drowning in MMO options.
Guild Wars, a subscription-less pseudo-MMO, was released in 2005. Its stand-alone expansions were a neat idea, but made the game uneven. Dungeons and Dragons Online and Lord of the Rings Online debuted over the next two years, but both took to transaction models after subscribers dropped. Age of Conan looked like a big hit in 2008, but hindsight is 20/20. That same year, Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning failed to deliver on early promises and was doomed by laggy servers.
Literally hundreds of MMO and MMO-ish games have been released on PC, including Star Wars: The Old Republic, Rift, and DC Universe Online. Although many of these games sport plenty of players, none have become what publishers hoped. Many were disasters.
Guild Wars 2′s “living world” emerged as the cream of the subscription-free crop in 2012. The game is gorgeous, but horribly front-loaded as far as character development goes. Still, it raises expectations of subscription content — putting more pressure on ESO.
The Major Failing
Star Wars: The Old Republic was supposed to be THE ONE in 2012. The game practically sold itself. Not only did SWTOR have the epic IP of Star Wars, it was developed by much-loved Bioware and returned to The Old Republic setting.
SWTOR shared a major failing with most every other MMO: there wasn’t enough endgame content. After playing through an enjoyable campaign, players scratched their collective heads and wondered what they were paying monthly fees to do. So they quit, and SWTOR became another MMO to turn to micro transactions.
Here is where GW2 is at an advantage. It never could hang its head in defeat and drop subscriptions. It was built from the ground up for transactions. I can’t stand the persistent advertising, but the truth is the endgame of GW2 isn’t good enough (more on that later) to justify a monthly payment. Content updates frequently, but it feels frivolous and insubstantial to the endgame PvP content.
A key counter-example to these mistakes is EVE Online, which thrives on a gameplay revolving around a player-controlled economy.
All of these games face two challenges WoW did not:
WoW exists and now has nearly 10 years of content.
All of these other games exist and compete for players, resulting in constant wars of attrition (and cannibalism of innovations).
One area remains relatively uninhibited by competition: the console.
The Rise of the Console MMO
There have been many console MMOs released, including Phantasy Star Online, Everquest Online Adventures, and DC Universe Online. One name shines bright above the others, for now.
Final Fantasy
I hope you didn’t think I forgot Final Fantasy XI. FFXI was released in 2003 in the states, and was the first major console MMO, available on PlayStation 2 and later Xbox 360. FFXI predates WoW.
Unfortunately, existence on a console isn’t enough. FFXI required the purchase of an HDD (remember memory cards!?). The PlayOnline software install was awful. Its control scheme was clearly designed for PC. Additionally, it might be the most team-focused MMO of all-time: this could be a good thing, but it was intimidating for console newcomers.
Nonetheless, FFXI was a critical success and still boasts surprising subscriber numbers. The ability to play such a game on the PS2 is mind-boggling.
Thus, imagine the excitement when Final Fantasy XIV was announced for PC and PlayStation 3. FFXIV, poised for release in 2010, pulsed with more pulchritude than any MMO to date, and boasted a unique weapon system allowing one character to be multiple classes.
As release for FFXIV neared, there was a problem. It looked boring. By all accounts, it was terrible. The PS3 version never happened; the game was effectively murdered.
But something amazing happened. The developers were given the go-ahead to rebuild, and the result is perhaps the most moving apology in gaming history. Relying heavily on feedback from dedicated players, FFXIV: A Realm Reborn is perhaps the most ‘Final Fantasy’ game since Final Fantasy IX. Although still new (it released on PC and PS3 last August), it has been far more popular than anyone expected. Digital sales were halted because demand was so much higher than predicted, and servers couldn’t handle the traffic.
I play FFXIV on PS3 and love it. The control scheme is much better than anticipated, but the PC-focus of the game rears its monstrous head when navigating menus – which is often. The game hits PS4 in April, and some of the features (like using the touchpad as a mouse for tool-tips) just might make this the console MMO to beat.
Enter: Elder Scrolls Online.
A Golden (Septim) Opportunity
If ESO fails, it will forever be compared to SWTOR. Here is another big budget game, set in a popular (at least among gamers) world. What’s more, many players have been clamoring for an online Elder Scrolls game for years. Even skeptics are likely to try the game, if only to wander around and absorb the world. ESO needs to hook them.
ESO will not be the first MMO on PS4, but it will be the first one to arrive near its original launch date. With little competition in the horizon, ESO will be the only thing in the way of its own success.
A True Console MMO
I’ve been in the ESO beta and it is the only time I’ve played an MMO and yearned for a gamepad. While combat isn’t quite as physical as a single-player Elder Scrolls game, it is works well from a first-person view. ESO, unlike FFXIV, limits you to six active skills, which translates nicely to a controller. It isn’t completely clear how menus will be handled, but they appear more friendly than Skyrim, so the translation seems simple.
ESO is also doing something else unique, servers are separate depending on platform: you can only play with other PS4 players if you are on PS4. I understand complaints about what initially sounds like a step backwards, but it offers serious benefits.
Namely, players can take advantage of the PlayStation Network (on PS4, obvs). This will make voice communication simple (maybe too simple). Furthermore, you should be able to easily add friends, then let them know if something awesome is happening if they are playing another PS4 game. This will increase player connectedness without total sacrifice of privacy, which will help maintain subscribers.
This increased connectivity is great for ESO, but even better for future games as it is a built-in trans-game network.
Recipe for Success
ESO needs to do three things to become champion of the console MMO arena:
It needs to be an Elder Scrolls Game.
It needs to bridge the gap for MMO newcomers.
The endgame must kill.
Hooking Elder Scrolls Players
Is ESO an Elder Scrolls game? Well, yes, but it isn’t that simple. The game is set in the familiar world, includes past locations like Cyrodiil and Morrowind, and is dripping with lore — readable books still exist throughout the game.
Simultaneously, it doesn’t quite feel like Elder Scrolls. Much of this is due to lofty ceilings of houses and dungeons, with massively larger spaces in order to accommodate groups and the 3rd person camera. I can’t overstate the difference, and it requires an adjustment if you’ve played a previous Elder Scrolls game recently. This is a necessary evil, as third-peson cameras may be vital for spatial awareness in Alliance vs Alliance combat.
The art is a slight departure from the series, but is meticulous and fantastic. One touch is flourishes to high quality crafted armor. This level of attention to detail is a perfect example of what they are doing right.
Not surprisingly, you won’t become the most powerful being in Tamriel (although a player can become Emperor). This simply wouldn’t work in an MMO. The good news is player progression is full of choices, and at least until power players perfect builds, you feel like you could be anything. Enemy AI is much more interesting than traditional MMOs, though frequent respawns and short ranges will be a shock to newcomers.
Bridging the Gap
ESO has to acclimate former single-players into the MMO environment without alienating MMO vets by delivering a linear experience. Thankfully, the Elder Scrolls series is known for openness.
The tutorial quest is completely linear, but concise. Starter zones vary based on what faction you choose. I chose Daggerfall Covenant, and was whisked to a desert island. The quests here are as open as you want them to be. The island is a bit limiting, but eases the player into exploration. Things really open up after you leave your starter zone.
This is due to the skill and leveling system as much as the broadening of the map. It is a perfect bridge between what many MMOs offer and a traditional Elder Scrolls experience. Skills and abilities increase based on how much they are used, and there are tons of options for customization depending on class, specialization, and weapon types.
What I have not experienced are challenges forcing players to work together, which is the next step in easing console players into an MMO. While requiring a group can be an impediment to progress, these are the situations where an MMO should shine.
One feature sure to upset many MMO players is quest phasing. Currently, it is basically impossible to help a friend unless you are in the exact same stage of a quest. This is a huge problem and needs to be addressed. Grouping can be difficult enough without unnecessary hinderances.
ESO doesn’t cling so tightly to the classic MMO party makeup of tank / healer / dps, though it would be folly to assert complete avoidance. Discovering your own characters abilities is fun, but exploring possible group dynamics is exponentially more rewarding. Forcing players into these experiences early will make them better prepared to battle with and against alliances. This is especially true of a game attracting many first-time MMO players.
Epic Endgame
I have no question ESO will be worth $60 for a month of play, but what about afterward? The required subscription must be justified. ESO is promising, but it needs learn from mistakes of the past and avoid distractions.
DaoC is a clear inspiration to the AvA endgame of ESO, and I couldn’t be more excited. DaoC featured three distinct realms, each with their own maps, races, and classes. One massive zone was shared and fought over. The differences between the realms, tangible results for success (including control of the best dungeon), brokenly deep character rewards, and evolving friendships and rivalries all lead to an experience that made you care to keep playing.
It is also the most fun I’ve had playing a game, ever. Battling over keeps, using siege weapons, guarding bridges. It offers a mix of strategy, skill, and unpredictability the PvE experience can’t offer.
This is where ESO learns from the best. Realm diversity isn’t quite so severe due to balancing, but the sides are not only separated by servers. ESO will use three faction system helps to counteract population imbalances, as losing alliances can team up. This method isn’t perfect, and needs to be monitored and incentivized, but serves as a built-in check for fairness. It also helps keep things interesting.
ESO won’t be alone in 3 faction warfare. Guild Wars 2 does the same thing, but has some serious issues ESO must avoid. GW2, for all of its beauty and innovations, feels like three separate games. There are PvP arenas, PvE content such as dungeons, and three faction (server-based) keep-battles as described above. Developer ArenaNet went through such great lengths to separate the three, it became difficult to care about any of them. Add this to frequent wipes of the somewhat disjointed open world PvP, and the whole effort feels totally pointless.
This is where ESO shows the most promise. Instead of channeling small groups of players into separate battle arenas, they have segmented the battlefield of Cyrodiil so there are objectives perfect for different group sizes. Solo players can perform scouting quests, and still contribute to the war effort.
The important part is balancing the difficulty of taking keeps in AvA. The most similar endgames to DaoC are GW2 and WaR, and both of these constantly evolved into rotating zerg groups, where players often avoid each other and continually flip keeps. ESO looks to avoid this by making the act of taking a keep a bit more difficult, and forcing players to repair any damage done in order to effectively prepare a keep for defense.
Developers promise ESO will have enough endgame content to satisfy those who don’t like AvA. This is fine, so long as rewards don’t make dungeon grinds an essential precursor. On the flip side, it is possible to level your character almost completely by fighting other players. It will be interesting to see how this plays out once the game is live in April (June for consoles).
Conclusion: Age of the Console MMO
ESO has the opportunity to prove the market and sustainability of a console MMO. This issue is much larger and easier to determine than whether one game can prove or disprove the need for subscriptions. This is what competitors will be monitoring closely.
By easing new players into the MMO experience and focusing heavily on endgame content, ESO can give players a reason to stick around and perhaps even be passionate about it. Based on early impressions, I am confident they will avoid common pitfalls and easily support console-specific servers.
The next step will be to see how ESO evolves as competition (including Everquest Next and the eventual WoW successor from Blizzard) follows in its footsteps. There will never be another WoW, but someone will prove the console MMO to be well worth development. It is going to happen sooner rather than later.
The emperor approaches.