Scaled / Paid DLC is a bad mix and future prediction

krseb17_ESO

> Renting content is the worst idea and doomed to fail.

World of warcraft and several other large MMOs use the rent to play payment and they seem to go well, So does netflix and hundreds of other streaming services.

some people prefer a monthly charge over the hassle with buying patches.

lihentian

totally agree, that is my point exactly. they are milking us too hard.. i mean buy to pay + monthly sub + cash shop.. what are they thinking at release...

Seraphyel

lihentian wrote: »

totally agree, that is my point exactly. they are milking us too hard.. i mean buy to pay + monthly sub + cash shop.. what are they thinking at release...

"We think our game is worth the subscription fee."

mcurley

So you are complaining about ZOS making good business decisions...? That's a real head scratcher.

Their buisness decisions directly correlate to you playing their game. If you don't like the decisions that they make then don't play their game. No company in existance has ever created a product that 100% of their customer base has thought was perfect.

It's not very hard to understand that ZOS didn't make this game for fun and they definitely didn't make this game for you.

They made this game for profit. Just like every other game on the market, the point of this game is to make the developing company money so that they can in turn put more money into the game and/or develope new games. If gaming companies didn't "cater to casual players" they would never make enough money to keep their games running.

Maybe one day you can talk some excentric b/millionaire into developing the perfect game for you, but until then you will have to just play the games that are available to you.

lihentian

Seraphyel wrote: »

lihentian wrote: »

totally agree, that is my point exactly. they are milking us too hard.. i mean buy to pay + monthly sub + cash shop.. what are they thinking at release...

"We think our game is worth the subscription fee."

i do agree that this is a good game that worth the sub, but i doubt any game worth sub + cash shop plus buy to play

Elron87

mcurley wrote: »

So you are complaining about ZOS making good business decisions...? That's a real head scratcher.

Their buisness decisions directly correlate to you playing their game. If you don't like the decisions that they make then don't play their game. No company in existance has ever created a product that 100% of their customer base has thought was perfect.

It's not very hard to understand that ZOS didn't make this game for fun and they definitely didn't make this game for you.

They made this game for profit. Just like every other game on the market, the point of this game is to make the developing company money so that they can in turn put more money into the game and/or develope new games. If gaming companies didn't "cater to casual players" they would never make enough money to keep their games running.

Maybe one day you can talk some excentric b/millionaire into developing the perfect game for you, but until then you will have to just play the games that are available to you.

Here I thought you were hating on the points I made during my discussion but I couldn't agree more with what your saying, you have backed up what I am saying. Lets not be delusional though and assume Zenimax are immune from losing their player base, cannot suffer any significant financial loss, and can do as they please without any concern for player feedback.

RainfeatherUK

DDuke wrote: »

So, claiming level scaling is "at the heart of Elder Scrolls series" is not only entirely false, but actually disrespectful towards the best part of the series.

Lol if you keep posting Duke im never going to have to type again. Agree'd with you completely but a thousand times this^

Most of the time, for me personally, i'd like much harder content in this game. Still, I accept skill varies and this is mostly why I want content for both sides - the easier and the challenging.

Scaling up is notorious for being another term for cakewalk in this genre. I'd prefer to see continued progression in difficulty, rather than random disjointed zones filled with people yet to even do the main story.

Its my opinion that since that main story is progressional; with your character slowly gaining in power; having DLC's accessable from the start, they'll need to be set for the lowest common denominator. Thats hardly endgame, or rather 'good enough' for people very experienced in the game already.

So either give us something more substantial for those looking for challenges and progression, or I agree. The scaling will be a disaster.

infraction2008b16_ESO

Seraphyel wrote: »

Scaled DLCs are a horrible idea. You know why? ESO needs endcontent. Scalable content is no endcontent.

ESO has a lot of content from 1-50, the content after 50 is missing.

With scaled content they want to cater to every player out there so that they increase their sales on those DLCs but in the end it's just another bad design decision.

Yes there is a lot of content 1-50 (or 1-VR10 rather), but 99% of it was a bland rail road levelling experience that was the first thing for reviewers and critics to pick up on.

Scaled content would change that and give the player more choices on what he/she wants to do with their time in the game.

Naor_Sarethi

Minimum level for the new zones 50+ is a good idea.
1-49 are enjoyable and there aren't that many issues with it.
Veteran levels on the other hand are the toughest issue this game has in terms of keeping their playerbase.
If i didn't love the ES lore so much and didn't have any loyalty to the franchise i would have quitted a good while ago.

The scaling is a thing i can live with... to some degree.
Being v4 i don't have a hard time killing v11 mob groups, so questing should work out fine... i suppose.

The only obstacle should be as it is between normal and veteran dungeons.
One is doable with people of normal skill and gear (greens and blues) and the other has a far higher difficulty and requires gear, experience and invested CP (again not just very easy and very hard) but in stages.

Buying the DLC as long as they have a reasonable pricetag isn't the issue i think.
The Crownstore atm is well priced imo, so they aren't using it as a milking cow exclusively.

I just hope when those DLC are released the devs will take the numerous complains about their content into consideration.
(See topics / polls - mature content & cadwells silver& gold reviews)

Arreyanne

Aimora wrote: »

For me the main thing is give people an incentive to subscribe, the 10% bonuses aren't enough, maybe make the DLC's permanent after a period of subscription - ie 3 or 6 months after continued subbing they become yours, that way it encourages people to remain subbed and remain loyal to the game.

So ESO isn't following the route of DCUO with subscribers and DLC'S?

DCUO if you're a sub when the DLC is released you have access to that DLC even if you cancel your sub.

Cause if they think I'm willing to pay a sub for X months a DLC come out and for whatever reason I have to cancel my sub and then I have to shell out cash for the DLC to continue it when I return they are very mistaken about me subscribing

Elron87

[quote="DCUO if you're a sub when the DLC is released you have access to that DLC even if you cancel your sub.[/quote]

As it stands now you gain all DLC whilst subbed, and lose it all when your sub ends.

NewBlacksmurf

IF the paid scaled DLC comes with the removal of VR levels then it offers a alternative to silver and gold quests. Which would be good other than the shards and skills.

Gidorick

I thought you were going to complain how the zones will be leveled, thereby removing the need to actually progress.

I think the idea is fine. If they limit it to end-gamers then many people will never buy the DLC.

Elron87

True but I would like to see them remove the silver and gold quests.

Enodoc

Elron87 wrote: »

True but I would like to see them remove the silver and gold quests.

They don't need to remove Silver and Gold quests themselves, they just need to remove VRs so that you aren't forced into doing Silver and Gold. Leave them as an option, remove them as a requirement for being viable.

Vahrokh

EsORising wrote: »

Seems like they are shooting themselves in the foot when people who buy DLC's get to keep it and subbers do not. So... were renting the DLC and it's gone if we don't have a lifetime subsciption? Doesn't that make it better to just not sub and buy the DLC?

Exactly. Obviously they will discover how this implementation is absurd when it'll be too late and most shall have unsubbed. Penalizing those bringing in dependable and constant income is just dumb, of course ZoS are going to do it at ONCE!

Who in his right would pay forever and earn NO rights, whereas F2P-ers get to keep the DLCs as their own property, forever?

Vahrokh

krseb17_ESO wrote: »

> Renting content is the worst idea and doomed to fail.

World of warcraft and several other large MMOs use the rent to play payment and they seem to go well, So does netflix and hundreds of other streaming services.

some people prefer a monthly charge over the hassle with buying patches.

I recall having purchased expansions, I couldn't just go in and enter TBC or whatever areas without buying it first.

starkerealm

Seraphyel wrote: »

Scaled DLCs are a horrible idea. You know why? ESO needs endcontent. Scalable content is no endcontent.

ESO has a lot of content from 1-50, the content after 50 is missing.

With scaled content they want to cater to every player out there so that they increase their sales on those DLCs but in the end it's just another bad design decision.

The alternate situation would be what The Secret World ended up with. They had a bunch of DLC out, but only endgame players could run it. Meaning, if you hadn't hit QL10 yet there was no content to buy. If you wanted to run it on an alt, you needed to get them all the way up to QL10... then there was the Tokyo stuff that required you'd actually finished all of the zones in the released game.

Arreyanne wrote: »

So ESO isn't following the route of DCUO with subscribers and DLC'S?

DCUO if you're a sub when the DLC is released you have access to that DLC even if you cancel your sub.

Cause if they think I'm willing to pay a sub for X months a DLC come out and for whatever reason I have to cancel my sub and then I have to shell out cash for the DLC to continue it when I return they are very mistaken about me subscribing

No, ESO is exactly following DCUO's model for subscriptions. You get access to all of them while subscribed and loose all of them while unsubscribed.

I'm just glad ESO isn't following DCUO's system where non-subbed players are limited to $2000 in carried currency (that won't cover your repair bills at endgame), nerfing your inventory, or, you know, actually being Free to Play instead of Buy to Play. But... *shrug*

wrlifeboil

Most of you are missing the point. All you need to know is the DLC model works on consoles and that's where ZOS is hoping to get their next wave of new players.

Seraphyel

lihentian wrote: »

Seraphyel wrote: »

lihentian wrote: »

totally agree, that is my point exactly. they are milking us too hard.. i mean buy to pay + monthly sub + cash shop.. what are they thinking at release...

"We think our game is worth the subscription fee."

i do agree that this is a good game that worth the sub, but i doubt any game worth sub + cash shop plus buy to play

No, it's not worth the sub.

It wasn't worth the sub the last 11 months although Zenimax clearly stated that they think it's worth $13 a month. And after 10 months, they announce the B2P model and totally negate their statement that they thank it's worth the fee... you see the issue here?

infraction2008b16_ESO wrote: »

Seraphyel wrote: »

Scaled DLCs are a horrible idea. You know why? ESO needs endcontent. Scalable content is no endcontent.

ESO has a lot of content from 1-50, the content after 50 is missing.

With scaled content they want to cater to every player out there so that they increase their sales on those DLCs but in the end it's just another bad design decision.

Yes there is a lot of content 1-50 (or 1-VR10 rather), but 99% of it was a bland rail road levelling experience that was the first thing for reviewers and critics to pick up on.

Scaled content would change that and give the player more choices on what he/she wants to do with their time in the game.

You are right but there is still the endcontent missing. Endcontent is EVERYTHING nowadays in MMORPG and ESO has none. Scalable content won't be endcontent and furthermore won't solve the problem.