Board Thread:Online Discussion/@comment-5247041-20130821093041/@comment-17123011-20130903224437

PsijicThief wrote: Bethesda Softworks only has so much say. As the publishers they don't get full votes in the matter. Also, in all fairness, there are subsciption-based games that are very successful (EVE Online), the difference is the content model. EVE doesn't make you pay for the game or any addittional content, this is mostly because the addittional content comes from the players, primarily. So if ESO were going to be a sandbox title, they could make the monthly fee work so long as we didn't have to pay for the game up front, or the subsequent expansions.

However, it's a linear fantasy game. That means content must come from the developer and that means money. ZeniMax Online would have told Bethesda Softworks and ZeniMax Media how much money they should need to opperate, then Beth-Soft would have decided on multiple scenarios and models, and it all would have been presented to ZeniMax Media. Then the three of them (the big wigs, not the devs or the testers or the market research guys) would have come to a joint decision that felt like the lesser of the evils. So it isn't anything you can blame solely on Beth or Z.M Onine.

Not to mention saying that you won't buy an online game is one thing - as I'm saying it. However, to say that you aren't going to every buy another single-player game by these same companies is a bit far to go. Deciding on a business model for their first ever venture into the MMO genre isn't anything like making a single-player game. They aren't going to start charging you monthly to play TES: VI, don't worry. Thanks for clearing that up. Also, I am sure that no matter what happens with the MMO or whatever I say, I'm still going to get the next Fallout/TES game, but sometimes it feels good to complain :P