What could've been done differently?
Relyk04
✭✭✭
In the wake of console release, what other options did ZOS have with their business model? More precisely, how could they establish a model that would satisfy the p2p model preferred by PC users and the b2p model preferred by console users? Logically speaking, the only way to level the field for both demographics is to appeal to both demographics. What other system would you have implemented that would satisfy both users? (I dare say the new model they've announced.)
While the mechanics and dynamics of said system has yet to reveal itself to its entirety, what could ZOS do differently? The way I see it, it's be absurd to let the current system remain intact and allow console users to pay for a console membership plus a game membership. Equally so, it'd be absurd to abandon the current system entirely with the PC p2p model that is so heavily treasured and detrimental to how we go about procuring and experiencing the game's offerings.
That being said, I know it's not just the system itself that has created pure pandemonium, but also how the system will fairly accommodate existing players, new players, returning players, PC players, and console players. Make no mistake, that is not my real question. The system is in its infancy (more like a fetus really) and many elements can be altered and change prior to integration. Hence, why ZOS has requested player feedback. My question is: what other model could have been proposed other than the "hybrid" model they've presented that would satisfy PC users without alienating or disregarding console users, or vice versa?
Bottom line: something had to change
Thoughts?
While the mechanics and dynamics of said system has yet to reveal itself to its entirety, what could ZOS do differently? The way I see it, it's be absurd to let the current system remain intact and allow console users to pay for a console membership plus a game membership. Equally so, it'd be absurd to abandon the current system entirely with the PC p2p model that is so heavily treasured and detrimental to how we go about procuring and experiencing the game's offerings.
That being said, I know it's not just the system itself that has created pure pandemonium, but also how the system will fairly accommodate existing players, new players, returning players, PC players, and console players. Make no mistake, that is not my real question. The system is in its infancy (more like a fetus really) and many elements can be altered and change prior to integration. Hence, why ZOS has requested player feedback. My question is: what other model could have been proposed other than the "hybrid" model they've presented that would satisfy PC users without alienating or disregarding console users, or vice versa?
Bottom line: something had to change
Thoughts?
0