Account Bound DLC is Completely Unacceptable on Consoles.

SG-17

I'm talking about big stuff like the Imperial City, Imperial Upgrade, and the forthcoming Dark Brotherhood and Thieves' Guild and not consumables, vanity, or items with in-game equivalents.

On consoles multiple people use the same console with their own accounts. For as long as DLC has been a thing on consoles if it is purchased and downloaded by the master account then everyone who uses that system can use that DLC. The same goes for games. You buy one copy and everyone can use it on the same system.

But now ESO comes along and brings with it this god forsaken Crown Store and sells its DLC through there instead of the actual system stores (PS Store/Xbox Marketplace) so it binds DLC to the account that purchases it. This effectively forces people to buy the same thing multiple times if more than one person wants to use it. That is incredibly scummy and moneygrubbing nonsense.

I didn't have to buy the game for each account that wants to use it on the same system, why should I have to buy the actual DLC multiple times? Instead of making a guaranteed DLC sale from me, you will make none.

newtinmpls

Okay wait ... you managed to use a game for multiple accounts when the rules seem to state each person is supposed to buy the game to play the game.

So now that you can't do this same thing twice it's not fair?

SG-17

newtinmpls wrote: »

Okay wait ... you managed to use a game for multiple accounts when the rules seem to state each person is supposed to buy the game to play the game.

So now that you can't do this same thing twice it's not fair?

I'm talking about the consoles. PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. You buy the game disc or the game digitally and everyone who uses that console can play the game. You don't need to buy it multiple times for everyone. Think about it being an nonrestrictive version of Steam Family Sharing.

Emma_Overload

LOL @ OP calling ZoS "scummy and moneygrubbing" when Sony and Microsoft's INSANE GREED is the #1 reason ESO went B2P and got a "Crown Store" in the first place. How so? The console cartel REFUSED to budge on the double subscription issue, which would have smothered ESO in the crib if spoiled, cheapskate console kiddies were asked to pay for Xbox Live AND an MMO sub at the same time. Thanks to the crooked console economy, ESO had to go B2P and will now suffer all the evils that go with it: cash shop, horse armor DLC, Pay-to-Win, etc.

newtinmpls

newtinmpls wrote: »

Okay wait ... you managed to use a game for multiple accounts when the rules seem to state each person is supposed to buy the game to play the game.

So now that you can't do this same thing twice it's not fair?

SG-17 wrote: »

I'm talking about the consoles. PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. You buy the game disc or the game digitally and everyone who uses that console can play the game. You don't need to buy it multiple times for everyone. Think about it being an nonrestrictive version of Steam Family Sharing.

So let me get this straight. When my spouse and I want to play on PC, we each have to buy a game - even if we are using the same account. You don't have to do that. But you are upset that now each person has to actually pay for the DLC.

I'm really finding it hard to be sympathetic.

SG-17

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

LOL @ OP calling ZoS "scummy and moneygrubbing" when Sony and Microsoft's INSANE GREED is the #1 reason ESO went B2P and got a "Crown Store" in the first place. How so? The console cartel REFUSED to budge on the double subscription issue, which would have smothered ESO in the crib if spoiled, cheapskate console kiddies were asked to pay for Xbox Live AND an MMO sub at the same time. Thanks to the crooked console economy, ESO had to go B2P and will now suffer all the evils that go with it: cash shop, horse armor DLC, Pay-to-Win, etc.

Actually Sony has a policy that if a game has a subscription it does not require PlayStation Plus to play. It was entirely up to Zenimax to go B2P.

But that is not the point of this thread. Don't derail it please with your nonsensical PC elitism.

SG-17

newtinmpls wrote: »

newtinmpls wrote: »

Okay wait ... you managed to use a game for multiple accounts when the rules seem to state each person is supposed to buy the game to play the game.

So now that you can't do this same thing twice it's not fair?

SG-17 wrote: »

I'm talking about the consoles. PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. You buy the game disc or the game digitally and everyone who uses that console can play the game. You don't need to buy it multiple times for everyone. Think about it being an nonrestrictive version of Steam Family Sharing.

So let me get this straight. When my spouse and I want to play on PC, we each have to buy a game - even if we are using the same account. You don't have to do that. But you are upset that now each person has to actually pay for the DLC.

I'm really finding it hard to be sympathetic.

That is an issue with PC gaming and Zenimax themselves. If I remember correctly Steam has Family Sharing now so you don't need to rebuy games. If ESO is even stricter on PC then Zenimax is to blame here.

I'm upset that Zenimax is doing the opposite of what every other developer/publisher has done in the history of DLC on console. If my wife and I wanted to play at the same time, sure. We'd need to buy a second PS4, a second copy of the game, and a second copy of the DLC. But buying it multiple times for use on the same PS4 is ridiculous.

Vylaer

I mean, everyone who using PC has to pay for DLC per account too. Not sure why console should be treated better.

Also, heaven forbid the multiple people playing this game for what is probably many many hours actually supports the developers.

SG-17

We paid $60 for the game, that's all the support that should be required. It's not like we are playing at the same time on one copy, so the extra server load argument is bunk.


And ffs, it's not about being treated better it's about being treated the same as every other developer does.

Vylaer

SG-17 wrote: »

We paid $60 for the game, that's all the support that should be required. It's not like we are playing at the same time on one copy, so the extra server load argument is bunk.


And ffs, it's not about being treated better it's about being treated the same as every other developer does.

So your argument is that Zenimax should treat console players better because there examples of other developers treating console players better? I honestly respect that Zenimax is not doing that then. For a game that took 5 years to develop and is in a continuous development, if everyone only spent $60 and then 1 in 3 (assuming you have 3 people playing your console) actually paid for DLC then the game wouldn't last very long. You are on this forum, so I'm sure you and your friends/family really want to play this game and its DLC. So why is it so hard to just PAY FOR THE PRODUCT YOU ARE ENJOYING?!?!

SG-17

Because I've already *** paid for it. What don't you get? This isn't something that "some" publishers did, this is how evert single piece of non-microstransaction DLC has worked for every single game for the past ~10 years.

I don't have to buy a new disc every time someone else in my family wants to play on my PS4, why should I need to buy DLC over and over again?

You PC players, honestly. You've had it rough I get that, but just because your experience is gimped doesn't mean everyone's should be.

Vylaer

I understand you paid for it. But the other people playing didn't. Just because I don't agree that people in your house should be able to play for free doesn't mean I'm "gimping" your experience. I just don't have a skewed sense of entitlement, like you do.

BackFreckle

As a console player, who DID game share this game with a friend, this is perfectly acceptable and understandable. Most mmos actually do this, even on console. This is not COD or some normal console game. You are expected to continually keep supporting the game past launch, that's how mmos make their money. If half the ppl paid for the dlc cuz they game shared, they'd be losing out on a lot of money which they need to keep the game going.

Please stop making us console players seem like whinny little kids. You want to see real "money grubbing" companies? Go look at SOE/DBG and see why their mmo is failing.

And yes there are two mmos on console which currently don't require double sub (Xbox live n ps plus) so don't blame sony. Why we have to do it is a mystery to me

SG-17

Gamesharing as it was last gen doesn't exist anymore. It's solely a single console thing. Why shouldn't my wife have access to the DLC I paid for on her account on the SAME PS4?


As for supporting the devs, I've abstained from purchasing anything from the Crown Store because of this. If this wasn't an issue I'd have probably bought a mount and a cat. But as it stands they've lost four potential purchase because of this policy (ImpCity/ImpUp). Not to mention anything my wife would've bought.

So what's the difference? If there are 3 people who don't buy anything from the crown store for everyone 1 person who does, what does it matter if the major DLC isn't account bound? There is one purchase right there they wouldn't get otherwise. Instead they get none.

MasterFUNG_ESO

SG-17 wrote: »

Gamesharing as it was last gen doesn't exist anymore. It's solely a single console thing. Why shouldn't my wife have access to the DLC I paid for on her account on the SAME PS4?


As for supporting the devs, I've abstained from purchasing anything from the Crown Store because of this. If this wasn't an issue I'd have probably bought a mount and a cat. But as it stands they've lost four potential purchase because of this policy (ImpCity/ImpUp). Not to mention anything my wife would've bought.

So what's the difference? If there are 3 people who don't buy anything from the crown store for everyone 1 person who does, what does it matter if the major DLC isn't account bound? There is one purchase right there they wouldn't get otherwise. Instead they get none.

Why didn't you just both play on the same account then your problem is solved? As far as you demanding single purchase for multiple accounts, sorry not gonna happen. If this keeps you from spending any more money im sure ZoS will get over it.

Enodoc

SG-17 wrote: »

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

LOL @ OP calling ZoS "scummy and moneygrubbing" when Sony and Microsoft's INSANE GREED is the #1 reason ESO went B2P and got a "Crown Store" in the first place. How so? The console cartel REFUSED to budge on the double subscription issue, which would have smothered ESO in the crib if spoiled, cheapskate console kiddies were asked to pay for Xbox Live AND an MMO sub at the same time. Thanks to the crooked console economy, ESO had to go B2P and will now suffer all the evils that go with it: cash shop, horse armor DLC, Pay-to-Win, etc.

Actually Sony has a policy that if a game has a subscription it does not require PlayStation Plus to play. It was entirely up to Zenimax to go B2P.

Microsoft were the issue, not Sony. Sony had already agreed no PS Plus for ESO if ESO kept its sub, but Microsoft refused to waive XBL Gold, so the ESO sub was dropped.

BackFreckle wrote: »

As a console player, who DID game share this game with a friend, this is perfectly acceptable and understandable. Most mmos actually do this, even on console.

I was actually wondering about that. Comparing DLC practices with any console RPG isn't a good comparison here; it needs to be compared to console MMOs. If other console MMOs charge per account for DLC, then ZOS is doing nothing unacceptable.

FancyTuna8

Enodoc wrote: »

Microsoft were the issue, not Sony. Sony had already agreed no PS Plus for ESO if ESO kept its sub, but Microsoft refused to waive XBL Gold, so the ESO sub was dropped.

That's a shame, although I can't see why it is an issue. Xbox gold costs 3-4 a month, that really isn't much. I guess I should say that while I would pay a sub for the game now, before having played it I viewed it as a non-starter. So I suppose that Microsoft's policy had the unintended consequence of an additional player purchasing the game plus $40 worth of crowns.
Oh, and it does sound like a real shame that two people in a household can't play on one purchase of the game if they are only alternating when they play. Feel bad for PC if that is truly the case.
What I don't like about the store is that account-bound content, such as my Imperial Upgrade, is server-specific. My Explorer's pack works on both servers, I believe. I could never justify a mount purchase, unless it was for very little, unless it worked on both servers. If content such as Imperial City or ESO+ are server-specific, I'm going to have to think on that before I spend anymore on this game.

bazantik

Account Bound DLC is Completely Unacceptable on Consoles.

No, it is completely acceptable and OK. If you want to play the DLC, you have to pay for it. If your mate wants to play the same DLC under his/her own account, he/she has to pay for it too. Think about it this way - you aren't buying the game, you bought the game account and that's why you can play this game. You can download the game for free (on PC), but you need the game account to be allowed to play.

Surragard

How about Steam not being able to have Dragon Age II because of the fight with EA over how DLC should be handled. Steam lists DLC as separate items from the game for purchase and EA wants them to be in-game purchases worked into the game. They couldn't reach an agreement and DA2 and Dragon Age: Inquisition are not available on Steam. Oh and by the way this happened in 2011 if my memory serves me right.

I bring this example up to show that this isn't a new issue. Everyone wants to have a say in how digital content is distributed and everyone thinks that their way is the golden path. I understand the OP's frustration but this is a WAY bigger issue than ZoS v Microsoft or ZoS v Sony.

NewBlacksmurf

DLC is account specific even on consoles
More than likely you're basing the idea of sharing off disc based DLC.

There are always exceptions but from a digital only perspective this game is no different than any other. Don't forget that if the buyer is logged in than that's usually how some sharing exceptions work for others but in this game the buyer and another account cannot be logged in at the same time as its a single player game that requires both a console login and a game server login.

The game server is where the doc lies not the console itself as the DLC is not available offline for this game.

That's maybe what's throwing you off

SG-17

They aren't streaming the textures of Imperials, or the city, etc to your console. You download that content, whether in just a patch or not. Its on your hard drive. Nothing is "throwing me off", I know exactly what I am talking about. If account buys content on the PlayStation 4 and has that PS4 set as their home system anyone else who uses that same PS4 should have access to that content. If DLC is account bound it forces you to repurchase it for every single account on the same PS4. This is a *** practice and I won't support this by buying anything from the Crown Store ever.

Ninjury

Edit: tl;dr: Consoles and PC = Equal

bazantik wrote: »

Account Bound DLC is Completely Unacceptable on Consoles.

No, it is completely acceptable and OK. If you want to play the DLC, you have to pay for it. If your mate wants to play the same DLC under his/her own account, he/she has to pay for it too. Think about it this way - you aren't buying the game, you bought the game account and that's why you can play this game. You can download the game for free (on PC), but you need the game account to be allowed to play.

Following this reply towards the OP.

You don't even own your ESO account. Same goes for all the A-list MMOs out there. You're subscribing to entertainment, except that ESO went for a full retail price to be able to keep its legs in the long run.

You were obliged to have an account in your name, with your details bound to your characters to get the game going, and everything that you experience is bound to that particular account. Every purchase from the Crown Store, every DLC, ESO Plus membership, etc. It's in your name, not anyone elses.

SG-17 wrote: »

They aren't streaming the textures of Imperials, or the city, etc to your console. You download that content, whether in just a patch or not. Its on your hard drive. Nothing is "throwing me off", I know exactly what I am talking about.

So you think this should work different for PS4 gamers compared to PC gamers? I know several couples playing together on PC MMOs with each their individual accounts. They both had to buy retail price for the DLCs to access it together, and that's how it has always been, and when consoles are adapting to MMOs - it'd still be the same.

When thinking about it, its kinda like sharing browser history (God forbid) with someone else.