I think Multiplayer should be free roam. In fact, it should be exactly like Red Dead Redemption free roam. With like challenges and stuff. You have your own character online and on single player. There will be NPCs.

In fact, online multiplayer should just be a mode where you play with 7 other people in the world. Just like single player, but 7 other people can play in the same world as you. You can have the option to do quests together (an option with the NPCS say if you speak to them at the same time) Obviously you have the option to trade with them and voice chat. You would have a single player character, and an online character. Simple concept but sounds very fun.

But free roam in RDR was awful.

They should've called it "run around like headless chicken and kill each other for unlocks mode" not "free roam". :yucky:

Waste of development time.

I think Bethesda should hire like 100 more people to work on an Elder scrolls MMO set throughout Tamriel and on top of this for every next elder scrolls single player game after it is completed to their usual ultra high standards 50 more new people could start creating a 4 player co-op mode to released as free dlc and year or so after the game has been released with some arena mode and dungeon exploration mode too maybe a free roam as well with constant missions then when the MMO is done your co-op character could be integrated with the MMO maybe the single player character too. While all of this is happening Bethesda would still have the manpower and subscription money from the MMO to still make amazing elder scrolls rpgs.

Phew I had this idea for ages feels good to get it out there so tell me what you think and maybe Bethesda will consider it.

Money isn't free. :facepalm:

Bethesda are minted
:facepalm:

Why do so many people want Elder Scrolls to become an MMO? If they did release a MMO it would be nothing like morrowind or oblivion. It would be a different engine, game enviorment and fixed classes. My point is if they do make Elder Scrolls into a MMO it would not be the elder scrolls we all know and love.

Granted, it wouldn't be the free to do anything like game TES is but I think people just want a TES game to last basically forever, and a TES MMO could easily do that. I'm also not so sure about fixed classes, that could easily still make it customizable, which I don't think any other MMO has done? The game environment, if you're talking about the actual scenery, would possibly stay along with what Skyrim will be, having a mix of everything. Hell, a TES MMO that encompasses the whole of Tamriel would be by far the biggest MMO created(apart from the new Star Wars MMO and Bungie's new MMO I believe). I don't play many MMOs and if I do, it's only for a certain stretch of time before I quit but if TES was an MMO, I'd play it more then anything else.

Think of all the simple ways Bethesda could incorporate easy Online capability to TES:

Online Arenas - Simply create a lobby system where players can connect and duel in the Arena.
Arena Armory/ Tavern - A small place where your lobby can sit down, role play and chat in the game world between matches.
Cooperative Questing - Friends from the arena can use a portal to step into another player's realm and are restricted to within a certain radius of the main character (like Henchmen in Fable).
Instances - Harder dungeons can incorporate the above systems to create an instanced multiplayer experience.



As much as I would like Bethesda to focus on create an amazing singleplayer experence like in the past, I believe that adding a community feature would greatly benefit the series.

Tell me what you think and feel free to criticize my opinions as harshly as you see fit.

Fros7bite

I cannot even begin to stress this enough...

NO! to multiplayer in TES games.

Alright, let me use a very informative post, and apply it to TES.


Q. Why has there been no multi-player mode in an TES game to date(save battlespires buggy version)?
A. Ignore all technical arguments you see. Most of them have never been an issue, and some were only relevant years ago. Only a few present serious challenges and none of them are insurmountable with sufficient development from Bethesda. However, that brings us to the real reason there is no multi-player: because the time and money to undertake that development is limited and doesn't hold up compared to other feartures

Q. Why doesn't Bethesda just go out and make/get the time/money?
A. You don't really have much experience business financing, do you? Game publishing is a relatively risky business. You can't just go out and ask a bank for cash for a development project lasting two years or more without detailed market research that clearly shows the returns they are likely to get; they will laugh in your face. Market research and funding game development is what publishers do. publishers spend lots of time carefully assessing the market to find out what will sell and choose development of games accordingly. They also spread their risk across several developers to balance potential losses against potential profits. In order to make that system work,Publishers have to make decisions about what games to finance, and what features within those games, and it seems so far bethesda has decided that the relatively high cost of developing multi-player functionality for the TES series isn't something that would be sufficiently profitable to be worth financing. and as Todd/Pete stated, they don't want to put in multiplayer if thats an -expectation-, you know, going with the flow because everyone else is doing it.

Q. Surely it can't be that expensive: what about a "simple" LAN-based multi-player implementation?
A. Multi-player doesn't come cheap. There are degrees of complexity, of course, but there is no such thing as a "simple" multi-player implementation. If you think you've come up with a clever way of making the development cost cheaper then think again. The only suggestions I've seen that could genuinely achieve this would also result in a form of multi-player that most people would barely recognise as worthy of the name. And that LAN-based idea? It solves nothing; in fact it makes matters worse. MMOs mostly make their money from subscription charges, which over time can add up to many times higher than the cost of a single game box. The only way a LAN-based game would be likely to happen would be as a side-effect of the development of an MMO game, or as a stepping stone on the way to one. Why? Because profit from additional sales of a LAN-based game over and above the sales that would be made with just single-player functionality, couldn't possibly hope to pay back the cost of developing the multi-player element. You don't need to take my word for it: if it were a profitable model then you can be pretty sure there'd have been a TES game like Two worlds by now (single player AND multiplayer) and besides what would be the point of a "simple" multiplayer mode that was only there to allow you to fight your friends? 95% of the gameplay lies in actually getting into the world and experiencing it, pure combat is a small part of the game as a whole, and spending a lot of effort to produce a multiplayer game concentrating solely on that misses the point of the TES experience for most of its fans

Q. But what about all the people who would play the game if it were multi-player? Surely the extra sales would solve the problem?
A. I'm afraid a handful of your friends don't constitute market research. The reality is that the market for space trading/combat games is finite, and it's considerably smaller than that for FPSs. How big is that market? I don't know; I'm not a marketeer, but it shouldn't be too hard to Google for the relative active gamer base sizes for representative games in each genre. The same figures can also be used to further confirm what was said before about LAN-based games and the potential additional income they'd generate. Numerous polls on this forum have also shown that many existing fans would be put off by a multi-player element. You can argue all you like about how great you think multi-player would be, but these people disagree, which in turn cuts down the numbers.

Q. Why are these people so hostile to the idea?
A. You seem to be forgetting that time and money (actually they are effectively the same thing in business terms, but let's keep mentioning both so that people don't forget either of them) are finite. Time and money spent on one feature is time and money that can't be spent on something else. And "do both" isn't an option, because that puts up the overall cost of development meaning that you have to sell many, many more copies of the game to make any profit, here try this... first think of as many games that that you can which have Multiplayer and Singleplayer, now deduct all the ones where one feature isnt lackluster over the other (I.E well done, not resulting in a reduced content in SP or half assed MP) now deduct all the ones that aren't RPG's.....ok now deduct all the ones that aren't on the scale of TES, what do you get?. So all the people saying they don't want multi-player aren't missing the point or being churlish. What they are really saying is that they want that time and money to be spent on something else that will benefit them, the single-player fans.

Q. So will there ever be a multi-player TES game?
A. Maybe, maybe not, Todd has stated that they have held Multiplayer on the board for some time and shoring it up against other features, ultimately so far -other- features won out, will TES6 have it? Probably but personally I rather they not, because as stated previously, -I- rather bethesda spend their time and energy on singleplayer.

nope,never.

Not even fable style,breaking the fourth wall,SP features what needed MP...thats what i call BS
Demon door:"Do you have a LIVE friend?"
Me:speak roleplay please.