There CANNOT be access gates to the Imperial City paid DLC

Artis

Sharee wrote: »

Yes, the result is the same, but in these examples it is not ZOS who is denying you content access, and as such they are not relevant to this discussion. Let's stick to the relevant ones, shall we.

If you claim that all players who paid for content have the right to said content for no other reason than the fact they have paid, then you also have to support the claim of a very bad PvE player who never gets any better that he should be granted PvE boss loot without having to defeat the boss first. (or granted access to a final boss before defeating the prior required steps first, if you want).

You can not tell him to get better. He does not want to get better. And he shouldn't have to get better before getting the rewards, according to the popular logic - after all, he already paid for them.

Right?

Are you like giving this account to different people that post here and seem not to remember the thread?

No, rewards and content are 2 different things. PvErs have to be good to get loot, but they have access to dungeons/raids they paid for. They can wipe on the first boss forever - but they are already doing content. If you want an analogy with IC so bad - it would be players who go inside IC and get killed by other players all the time, can't kill anyone and get 0 telvar stones. That would be a similar thing. However, notice, that those abstract players are dying and not getting rewards ALREADY INSIDE THE CITY!!!!!

Is that clear or not?? They still won't get loot if they are bad, but they will have access to content... how hard can this concept be? If you're comparing pve and pvp, compare loot to loot, rewards to rewards, access to access. Don't compare access to loot. That just makes no sense.

Sharee

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

olemanwinter wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

For all that difference, the end result is the same - some players will never see the content they paid for.

Right, and if someone breaks into your house and steals your computer, the end result is the same.

And if someone burns your house down with your computer in it, the end result is the same.

And if we all get killed by an asteroid tonight, the end result is the same.


So I guess none of those things are really different.

*face/palm*

Yes, the result is the same, but in these examples it is not ZOS who is denying you content access, and as such they are not relevant to this discussion. Let's stick to the relevant ones, shall we.

If you claim that all players who paid for content have the right to said content for no other reason than the fact they have paid, then you also have to support the claim of a very bad PvE player who never gets any better that he should be granted PvE boss loot without having to defeat the boss first. (or granted access to a final boss before defeating the prior required steps first, if you want).

You can not tell him to get better. He does not want to get better. And he shouldn't have to get better before getting the rewards, according to the popular logic - after all, he already paid for them.

Right?

They paid for access to the content in the form of being allowed into the new area(s), not for any of the items contained within. This means just as anyone with the IC DLC can play the two new dungeons, they should also be allowed to enter IC in some manner regardless of the factors outside of their control. Nowhere has anyone made claims that they should be given TV stones, vr16 mats, new set items, etc. without having to earn them. The only thing the paid DLC should guarantee is access to the new area(s), or in this case, being able to enter the IC sewers in at least one campaign whenever that player logs in. It really is that simple. Why you keep mentioning being entitled to drops is beyond me as you are the only one making such a claim.

In the post you quoted, i also mentioned a PvE reward in the form of access as well, in case someone has a problem with the "IC access=boss loot" analogy: "...or granted access to a final boss before defeating the prior required steps first, if you want"

In a PvE DLC, a player who bought the DLC does not even have access to the final boss room until he manages to complete the prerequisite tasks. If he fails to complete them, he will never enter the room or see the boss, despite having paid for both.

Having to complete a task(as opposed to just having paid) before even getting access to certain parts of a DLC is a long-standing and accepted practice in MMO's. So the argument "i should have access to IC just because i paid" should be dropped.

Sharee

Once we get past the 'i paid' part, there is another issue, and that is expected availability(as in, how likely is it for the average player to fulfill the requirements for entry).

It is ZOS's job to ensure the availability is good enough. In the case of a PvE boss encounter, they need to tune it so that the majority of players are capable of defeating the boss. In the case of IC access, they need to ensure the campaigns are balanced enough so that a faction does not stay locked out of IC despite putting in a reasonable effort to unlock it.

I agree that currently campaign balance leaves a lot to be desired, especially outside of primetime hours. I have repeatedly asked for measures like dynamic population caps since last year. There also are other ways they could support the underdog if necessary (like lowering the number of keeps needed for example).

But the game should not be shaped around broken balance. Instead, the balance should be fixed. We should not remove IC access rules because EP dominates a map due to outnumbering opposition, we should instead ensure that EP does not outnumber anyone.

Sharee

Artemis wrote: »

They can wipe on the first boss forever - but they are already doing content.

If i understand you right, you are okay with access to certain DLC areas to be locked until you finish a prerequisite task first, as long as the task itself also is part of the DLC.

On this point, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think giving a new meaning to a task already existing prior to the DLC also has it's merits, especially if the task makes sense in the context of the DLC (IC is in the middle of cyrodiil, after all), and is something recurring that people do all the time anyway (like capturing a keep).

Iselin

I hate the everyone all the time option. people have to get away from this "I bought it so I'm entitled" mindset and think about which ruleset would be most interesting from a gameplay perspective.

The IC is after all in Cyrodiil so it should also reinforce and enhance the PVP there not just ignore it. I'm an old DAoC vet so I remember how access to Darkness Falls felt special as a real and meaningful community PVP reward.

Also, once inside, an entry ownership change should create a special circumstance in IC itself when things get more dangerous. If you die when your alliance doesn't have control that should create a forced re-spawn outside the IC unless you get resurrected by an ally. But if you're in there you should be able to log off and start your next game session still where you logged off regardless of who controls it.

I'm much more in favor of a mechanic that gives access one alliance at a time than any scheme that allows all 3 to have access at the same time... just my 2 gold's worth.

byrom101b16_ESO

Sharee wrote: »

olemanwinter wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

For all that difference, the end result is the same - some players will never see the content they paid for.

Right, and if someone breaks into your house and steals your computer, the end result is the same.

And if someone burns your house down with your computer in it, the end result is the same.

And if we all get killed by an asteroid tonight, the end result is the same.


So I guess none of those things are really different.

*face/palm*

Yes, the result is the same, but in these examples it is not ZOS who is denying you content access, and as such they are not relevant to this discussion. Let's stick to the relevant ones, shall we.

If you claim that all players who paid for content have the right to said content for no other reason than the fact they have paid, then you also have to support the claim of a very bad PvE player who never gets any better that he should be granted PvE boss loot without having to defeat the boss first. (or granted access to a final boss before defeating the prior required steps first, if you want).

You can not tell him to get better. He does not want to get better. And he shouldn't have to get better before getting the rewards, according to the popular logic - after all, he already paid for them.

Right?

You couldn't make this up...

... someone actually arguing that paying for something doesn't give you the right to use it, and that it's perfectly ok for groups of other users to actively PREVENT you from using it NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO as an individual!!??

Sharee, how is it that you cannot seem to understand that individuals not groups pay for this entertainment?

How can you not see that a payment model where other users (by there being too many of them, or by their collective actions) can deny you access to the entire package of entertainment you bought as a discrete purchase is indefensible under consumer rights?

Combine this with the fact that that as IC will share population cap with Cyrodiil, that thousands of players will not be able to access the dlc at any one time, and it should be clear to anyone how unfair this is.

But you keep saying it's ok, despite also claiming to understand the issue. Either you don't understand, in which case you should think about it some more until the penny drops, or you do understand, and you are defending it because you gain something from it.

Hard to say which... but I don't really care about that - I care that you are confusing the few people here still asking questions about how it's the same as other MMOs. You've managed to muddy the water a little, so some people skimming this thread might be taken in I guess, but no-one taking the time to apply reason.

Hell, Zenimax should be paying you for your seemingly inexhaustible and utterly illogical defence of their inadequately thought our decision making process.

byrom101b16_ESO

Sharee wrote: »

It is ZOS's job to ensure the availability is good enough. .

Then you need to stop misrepresenting the situation until you have successfully explained how leaving an individuals access to paid content to opposing players is "good enough".

Good luck trying to dance on the end of that pinhead...

When taken as a holistic whole, the situation with this DLC is unique in MMO history, and it makes a complete nonsense of most of what you are arguing.

Sharee

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

How can you not see that a payment model where other users (by there being too many of them, or by their collective actions) can deny you access to the entire package of entertainment you bought as a discrete purchase is indefensible under consumer rights?

ZOS only provides the playfield that allows players to compete for IC access.

As long as the playfield is balanced, all competing sides have equal opportunity to win, and all involved parties bought the DLC with the full knowledge of how IC access works, i do not see any court ruling that ZOS is responsible for you not winning the access.

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

When taken as a holistic whole, the situation with this DLC is unique in MMO history, and it makes a complete nonsense of most of what you are arguing.

DAoC darkness falls denied players access to it unless they competed successfully in PvP fights first.
It may not have been bought separately, but it was paid-for content.

---

(And by the way, it is not the entire package that has it's access controlled by PvP. You can queue for the PvE IC dungeons without ever setting a foot inside IC.)

evedgebah

I am 100% against Keep-centered access to the imperial city. If we get to the entrance, we should be allowed in.

All it takes is one 24 man raid group at a single keep to keep an entire 3-bar server's worth of enemy players form accessing the imperial city. Defending is MUCH easier than capturing a keep, and a well coordinated defense team can do that without an emperor, let alone with a dedicated emperor .

Casdha

Rather than reply with a bunch of opinions on individual posts, I'll just state how I feel, this is how I feel not saying anyone else should be the same.

1. If you want to bring me to your side of thinking then don't compare this to other said game, this is not other said game, it is ESO.

2. If you feel an open access campaign would draw a large majority of the population to it and leave the competitive campaigns at to low of a population to have fun then you have made the other persons argument for them that an access block is a bad idea because the majority does not want it.

3. Don't assume how someone else likes to play. Liking to play a certain way and always having time to play a certain way are two different things.

4. IMHO This is an Elder Scrolls Franchise game first and foremost. Sticking access to IC behind some kind of a gate to an Elder Scrolls fan is like sticking a steak inside of a plexiglass box with air holes in front of a hungry dog,,, its just cruel.

5. My and only my Opinion on ZOS at this point, If you wanted to bait players into a game by getting a great franchise then block folks from going where they want, you should have chosen a different franchise. Elder Scrolls is synonymous with exploration, you should have bought made and marketed something like Star Ship Troopers Online then folks would have expected nothing but fighting and you could access gate all you want with no backlash.

As I've stated before I have no interest in playing IC in its present form. That is not a dig at anyone who does. ZOS is a company that has to make a profit and I understand that and I bare them no ill will for doing so. If they feel the numbers are on the PvP competition side for this franchise then they are doing the right thing. I would also caution them that if not, the other games they are trying to fashion this game after are dead and gone (for the most part) for a reason, While folks are still begging for more Elder Scrolls experiences.

Also My opinion, I think the Launch game had the right mix of play before Craglorn came out. I personally think each DLC should always contain a mix and never block access or require multiple players to complete main storyline content.

edit: clarification on opening sentence and some spelling

Artis

Sharee wrote: »

If i understand you right, you are okay with access to certain DLC areas to be locked until you finish a prerequisite task first, as long as the task itself also is part of the DLC.

On this point, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think giving a new meaning to a task already existing prior to the DLC also has it's merits, especially if the task makes sense in the context of the DLC (IC is in the middle of cyrodiil, after all), and is something recurring that people do all the time anyway (like capturing a keep).

Yes, I'm okay with that. Say, I still can go to some districts of IC and pvp and fight for TV stones or whatever, but can't get to some districts that are controlled by other factions. But the thing is, if I pay for it - I would want to experience it.

Hiero_Glyph

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

olemanwinter wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

For all that difference, the end result is the same - some players will never see the content they paid for.

Right, and if someone breaks into your house and steals your computer, the end result is the same.

And if someone burns your house down with your computer in it, the end result is the same.

And if we all get killed by an asteroid tonight, the end result is the same.


So I guess none of those things are really different.

*face/palm*

Yes, the result is the same, but in these examples it is not ZOS who is denying you content access, and as such they are not relevant to this discussion. Let's stick to the relevant ones, shall we.

If you claim that all players who paid for content have the right to said content for no other reason than the fact they have paid, then you also have to support the claim of a very bad PvE player who never gets any better that he should be granted PvE boss loot without having to defeat the boss first. (or granted access to a final boss before defeating the prior required steps first, if you want).

You can not tell him to get better. He does not want to get better. And he shouldn't have to get better before getting the rewards, according to the popular logic - after all, he already paid for them.

Right?

They paid for access to the content in the form of being allowed into the new area(s), not for any of the items contained within. This means just as anyone with the IC DLC can play the two new dungeons, they should also be allowed to enter IC in some manner regardless of the factors outside of their control. Nowhere has anyone made claims that they should be given TV stones, vr16 mats, new set items, etc. without having to earn them. The only thing the paid DLC should guarantee is access to the new area(s), or in this case, being able to enter the IC sewers in at least one campaign whenever that player logs in. It really is that simple. Why you keep mentioning being entitled to drops is beyond me as you are the only one making such a claim.

In the post you quoted, i also mentioned a PvE reward in the form of access as well, in case someone has a problem with the "IC access=boss loot" analogy: "...or granted access to a final boss before defeating the prior required steps first, if you want"

In a PvE DLC, a player who bought the DLC does not even have access to the final boss room until he manages to complete the prerequisite tasks. If he fails to complete them, he will never enter the room or see the boss, despite having paid for both.

Having to complete a task(as opposed to just having paid) before even getting access to certain parts of a DLC is a long-standing and accepted practice in MMO's. So the argument "i should have access to IC just because i paid" should be dropped.

You continue to equate gated access with unlocking access and these two things are very different. Also, paid PvE content entitles the customer to actually play the content they purchased, how far they get is irrelevant if they can always attempt the content that was purchased. Again, the only thing that purchasing IC should guarantee is being able to enter IC in at least one campaign regardless of when they play or what alliance they selected, nothing more.

Hiero_Glyph

Sharee wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

How can you not see that a payment model where other users (by there being too many of them, or by their collective actions) can deny you access to the entire package of entertainment you bought as a discrete purchase is indefensible under consumer rights?

ZOS only provides the playfield that allows players to compete for IC access.

As long as the playfield is balanced, all competing sides have equal opportunity to win, and all involved parties bought the DLC with the full knowledge of how IC access works, i do not see any court ruling that ZOS is responsible for you not winning the access.

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

When taken as a holistic whole, the situation with this DLC is unique in MMO history, and it makes a complete nonsense of most of what you are arguing.

DAoC darkness falls denied players access to it unless they competed successfully in PvP fights first.
It may not have been bought separately, but it was paid-for content.

---

(And by the way, it is not the entire package that has it's access controlled by PvP. You can queue for the PvE IC dungeons without ever setting a foot inside IC.)

DAoC's Darkness Falls was not paid DLC, it was free content included with an active subscription. If ESO required an active subscription then this would be a different discussion and would be comparable to DAoC, but ESO went B2P so it's no longer the same thing.

TheBull

It's a game. Games have rules.

Nebthet78

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

How can you not see that a payment model where other users (by there being too many of them, or by their collective actions) can deny you access to the entire package of entertainment you bought as a discrete purchase is indefensible under consumer rights?

ZOS only provides the playfield that allows players to compete for IC access.

As long as the playfield is balanced, all competing sides have equal opportunity to win, and all involved parties bought the DLC with the full knowledge of how IC access works, i do not see any court ruling that ZOS is responsible for you not winning the access.

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

When taken as a holistic whole, the situation with this DLC is unique in MMO history, and it makes a complete nonsense of most of what you are arguing.

DAoC darkness falls denied players access to it unless they competed successfully in PvP fights first.
It may not have been bought separately, but it was paid-for content.

---

(And by the way, it is not the entire package that has it's access controlled by PvP. You can queue for the PvE IC dungeons without ever setting a foot inside IC.)

DAoC's Darkness Falls was not paid DLC, it was free content included with an active subscription. If ESO required an active subscription then this would be a different discussion and would be comparable to DAoC, but ESO went B2P so it's no longer the same thing.

Except you end up paying way less for IC under B2P(2500 Crowns - less than 2 mos sub), than you would have to pay for access with a continued Active Sub requirement.

Additionally, you get free access to IC with an Active Sub.

Hiero_Glyph

Nebthet78 wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

How can you not see that a payment model where other users (by there being too many of them, or by their collective actions) can deny you access to the entire package of entertainment you bought as a discrete purchase is indefensible under consumer rights?

ZOS only provides the playfield that allows players to compete for IC access.

As long as the playfield is balanced, all competing sides have equal opportunity to win, and all involved parties bought the DLC with the full knowledge of how IC access works, i do not see any court ruling that ZOS is responsible for you not winning the access.

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

When taken as a holistic whole, the situation with this DLC is unique in MMO history, and it makes a complete nonsense of most of what you are arguing.

DAoC darkness falls denied players access to it unless they competed successfully in PvP fights first.
It may not have been bought separately, but it was paid-for content.

---

(And by the way, it is not the entire package that has it's access controlled by PvP. You can queue for the PvE IC dungeons without ever setting a foot inside IC.)

DAoC's Darkness Falls was not paid DLC, it was free content included with an active subscription. If ESO required an active subscription then this would be a different discussion and would be comparable to DAoC, but ESO went B2P so it's no longer the same thing.

Except you end up paying way less for IC under B2P(2500 Crowns - less than 2 mos sub), than you would have to pay for access with a continued Active Sub requirement.

Additionally, you get free access to IC with an Active Sub.

While true, it does not change the fact that Darkness Falls is a free update for any player with an active sub in DAoC, while IC is paid DLC for any player that has purchased ESO. The difference is that you cannot play DAoC without an active sub so its cost is not connected to Darkness Falls while ESO's IC DLC is paid DLC so players are directly purchasing digital goods not included in the base game. ESO+ is a separate purchase, and while cost efffective, is not required to play IC.

Sharee

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

While true, it does not change the fact that Darkness Falls is a free update for any player with an active sub in DAoC, while IC is paid DLC for any player that has purchased ESO. The difference is that you cannot play DAoC without an active sub so its cost is not connected to Darkness Falls while ESO's IC DLC is paid DLC so players are directly purchasing digital goods not included in the base game. ESO+ is a separate purchase, and while cost efffective, is not required to play IC.

If you have to pay before you can play it, it's not free.

If content is provided at no additional cost as a part of a paid-for service, it is still paid-for content, one whose cost is covered by your monthly payment.

Hiero_Glyph

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

While true, it does not change the fact that Darkness Falls is a free update for any player with an active sub in DAoC, while IC is paid DLC for any player that has purchased ESO. The difference is that you cannot play DAoC without an active sub so its cost is not connected to Darkness Falls while ESO's IC DLC is paid DLC so players are directly purchasing digital goods not included in the base game. ESO+ is a separate purchase, and while cost efffective, is not required to play IC.

If you have to pay before you can play it, it's not free.

If content is provided at no additional cost as a part of a paid-for service, it is still paid-for content, one whose cost is covered by your monthly payment.

An expansion like Warlords of Draenor or Heavensward is something that requires paying for content before it can be played. A free update to a game, such as Darkness Falls or Craglorn is not paid content despite requiring an active sub to access. This is MMO 101 here and anyone with experience playing MMOs understands the difference between a free update and paid content regardless of having to pay for a mandatory subscription. If a game requires an active subscription to play it is not included in the cost of the expansion, although some paid content does include a free month. By your logic, please tell me how much Heavensward costs players?

Sharee

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

While true, it does not change the fact that Darkness Falls is a free update for any player with an active sub in DAoC, while IC is paid DLC for any player that has purchased ESO. The difference is that you cannot play DAoC without an active sub so its cost is not connected to Darkness Falls while ESO's IC DLC is paid DLC so players are directly purchasing digital goods not included in the base game. ESO+ is a separate purchase, and while cost efffective, is not required to play IC.

If you have to pay before you can play it, it's not free.

If content is provided at no additional cost as a part of a paid-for service, it is still paid-for content, one whose cost is covered by your monthly payment.

An expansion like Warlords of Draenor or Heavensward is something that requires paying for content before it can be played. A free update to a game, such as Darkness Falls or Craglorn is not paid content despite requiring an active sub to access. This is MMO 101 here

This is economy 101, or common sense 101 here. If you have to spend any amount of money in any form before you can access some content, then that content has been paid for.

If you buy an open ticket for an amusement park that allows you to take any ride for a month, then once you are inside, you can take any ride 'for free' - but it has in fact been paid for(by buying the ticket). If the amusement park adds another ride while you own the ticket, and your ticket entitles you to take that one as well, it still has been paid for, because you wouldn't be able to ride it without that ticket.

The new ride is provided to you at no additional cost, but that does not mean it is not paid content.

---

I apologize for bringing an analogy into the debate, because those rarely are 100% accurate(as someone will be quick to point out, i'm sure), but i'm at a loss how to explain this better without one.

Hiero_Glyph

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

While true, it does not change the fact that Darkness Falls is a free update for any player with an active sub in DAoC, while IC is paid DLC for any player that has purchased ESO. The difference is that you cannot play DAoC without an active sub so its cost is not connected to Darkness Falls while ESO's IC DLC is paid DLC so players are directly purchasing digital goods not included in the base game. ESO+ is a separate purchase, and while cost efffective, is not required to play IC.

If you have to pay before you can play it, it's not free.

If content is provided at no additional cost as a part of a paid-for service, it is still paid-for content, one whose cost is covered by your monthly payment.

An expansion like Warlords of Draenor or Heavensward is something that requires paying for content before it can be played. A free update to a game, such as Darkness Falls or Craglorn is not paid content despite requiring an active sub to access. This is MMO 101 here

This is economy 101, or common sense 101 here. If you have to spend any amount of money in any form before you can access some content, then that content has been paid for.

If you buy an open ticket for an amusement park that allows you to take any ride for a month, then once you are inside, you can take any ride 'for free' - but it has in fact been paid for(by buying the ticket). If the amusement park adds another ride while you own the ticket, and your ticket entitles you to take that one as well, it still has been paid for, because you wouldn't be able to ride it without that ticket.

And when a new water park is added it is not included in the cost of the monthly pass and requires a separate purchase, except the entrance is inside the amusement park so you still need a monthly pass to even use it. That's what paid DLC is, content that requires an additional invesment beyond the monthly pass. Regardless of what you do, you need a monthly pass to enter the amusement park except you do not have to pay anything beyond that fee. All of the rides are included even if they open a new ride while you are already inside of the park, except for the water park of course. Please note that ESO waves the monthly pass fee but charges you for each new ride so that is why it is not the same thing.

Also, nice dodge on the Heavensward cost.

Sharee

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

While true, it does not change the fact that Darkness Falls is a free update for any player with an active sub in DAoC, while IC is paid DLC for any player that has purchased ESO. The difference is that you cannot play DAoC without an active sub so its cost is not connected to Darkness Falls while ESO's IC DLC is paid DLC so players are directly purchasing digital goods not included in the base game. ESO+ is a separate purchase, and while cost efffective, is not required to play IC.

If you have to pay before you can play it, it's not free.

If content is provided at no additional cost as a part of a paid-for service, it is still paid-for content, one whose cost is covered by your monthly payment.

An expansion like Warlords of Draenor or Heavensward is something that requires paying for content before it can be played. A free update to a game, such as Darkness Falls or Craglorn is not paid content despite requiring an active sub to access. This is MMO 101 here

This is economy 101, or common sense 101 here. If you have to spend any amount of money in any form before you can access some content, then that content has been paid for.

If you buy an open ticket for an amusement park that allows you to take any ride for a month, then once you are inside, you can take any ride 'for free' - but it has in fact been paid for(by buying the ticket). If the amusement park adds another ride while you own the ticket, and your ticket entitles you to take that one as well, it still has been paid for, because you wouldn't be able to ride it without that ticket.

And when a new water park is added it is not included in the cost of the monthly pass and requires a separate purchase, except the entrance is inside the amusement park so you still need a monthly pass to even use it. That's what paid DLC is, content that requires an additional invesment beyond the monthly pass. Regardless of what you do, you need a monthly pass to enter the amusement park except you do not have to pay anything beyond that fee. All of the rides are included even if they open a new ride while you are already inside of the park, except for the water park of course. Please note that ESO waves the monthly pass fee but charges you for each new ride so that is why it is not the same thing.

The fact that the park can make additional ride that is even more expensive because your ticket does not cover it doesn't make the other rides "not paid for". They are still paid for, just cheaper than the additional one.

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Also, nice dodge on the Heavensward cost.

I was not dodging it, i just did not understand why you asked me to tell you a cost anyone can google up in 3 seconds.

skillastat

I'd be okay with 3 home keeps to get access.

6 is a little too much.

Sharee

skillastatb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd be okay with 3 home keeps to get access.

6 is a little too much.

It would make sense for ZOS to eventually implement dynamic changes to the amount of keeps needed for access, tied to the same mechanic that gives the underdog score bonus.

Hiero_Glyph

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

While true, it does not change the fact that Darkness Falls is a free update for any player with an active sub in DAoC, while IC is paid DLC for any player that has purchased ESO. The difference is that you cannot play DAoC without an active sub so its cost is not connected to Darkness Falls while ESO's IC DLC is paid DLC so players are directly purchasing digital goods not included in the base game. ESO+ is a separate purchase, and while cost efffective, is not required to play IC.

If you have to pay before you can play it, it's not free.

If content is provided at no additional cost as a part of a paid-for service, it is still paid-for content, one whose cost is covered by your monthly payment.

An expansion like Warlords of Draenor or Heavensward is something that requires paying for content before it can be played. A free update to a game, such as Darkness Falls or Craglorn is not paid content despite requiring an active sub to access. This is MMO 101 here

This is economy 101, or common sense 101 here. If you have to spend any amount of money in any form before you can access some content, then that content has been paid for.

If you buy an open ticket for an amusement park that allows you to take any ride for a month, then once you are inside, you can take any ride 'for free' - but it has in fact been paid for(by buying the ticket). If the amusement park adds another ride while you own the ticket, and your ticket entitles you to take that one as well, it still has been paid for, because you wouldn't be able to ride it without that ticket.

And when a new water park is added it is not included in the cost of the monthly pass and requires a separate purchase, except the entrance is inside the amusement park so you still need a monthly pass to even use it. That's what paid DLC is, content that requires an additional invesment beyond the monthly pass. Regardless of what you do, you need a monthly pass to enter the amusement park except you do not have to pay anything beyond that fee. All of the rides are included even if they open a new ride while you are already inside of the park, except for the water park of course. Please note that ESO waves the monthly pass fee but charges you for each new ride so that is why it is not the same thing.

The fact that the park can make additional ride that is even more expensive because your ticket does not cover it doesn't make the other rides "not paid for". They are still paid for, just cheaper than the additional one.

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Also, nice dodge on the Heavensward cost.

I was not dodging it, i just did not understand why you asked me to tell you a cost anyone can google up in 3 seconds.

Good, so I guess we are in agreement that Darkness Falls is included with a monthly pass and therefore not paid DLC like Heavensward, Warlords of Draenor, or Imperial City.

Nebthet78

Whether or not you pay via an Active Sub or with Crowns, you are still paying for the content you want. You are not getting it for free. Only the base game is now free and we all payed for that with subs for the first year on PC, with only Craglorn added.

Since ESO uses a hybrid system, people who choose to sub will have your so called "free access". Those who choose not to sub have the option to then purchase the IC with Crowns instead for access. All you have to do is choose the option that is most cost effective for you. But, either way, you are paying.

So to someone like me, it is not different than any other game that requires a sub to be able to play the game, I just have a cheaper option if I want to take it and I don't feel I am entitled to anything. I am more than fine with having to play within the rules they have designed for that DLC. If I wasn't ok with it, then I wouldn't sub or buy it with Crowns.

Sharee

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

While true, it does not change the fact that Darkness Falls is a free update for any player with an active sub in DAoC, while IC is paid DLC for any player that has purchased ESO. The difference is that you cannot play DAoC without an active sub so its cost is not connected to Darkness Falls while ESO's IC DLC is paid DLC so players are directly purchasing digital goods not included in the base game. ESO+ is a separate purchase, and while cost efffective, is not required to play IC.

If you have to pay before you can play it, it's not free.

If content is provided at no additional cost as a part of a paid-for service, it is still paid-for content, one whose cost is covered by your monthly payment.

An expansion like Warlords of Draenor or Heavensward is something that requires paying for content before it can be played. A free update to a game, such as Darkness Falls or Craglorn is not paid content despite requiring an active sub to access. This is MMO 101 here

This is economy 101, or common sense 101 here. If you have to spend any amount of money in any form before you can access some content, then that content has been paid for.

If you buy an open ticket for an amusement park that allows you to take any ride for a month, then once you are inside, you can take any ride 'for free' - but it has in fact been paid for(by buying the ticket). If the amusement park adds another ride while you own the ticket, and your ticket entitles you to take that one as well, it still has been paid for, because you wouldn't be able to ride it without that ticket.

And when a new water park is added it is not included in the cost of the monthly pass and requires a separate purchase, except the entrance is inside the amusement park so you still need a monthly pass to even use it. That's what paid DLC is, content that requires an additional invesment beyond the monthly pass. Regardless of what you do, you need a monthly pass to enter the amusement park except you do not have to pay anything beyond that fee. All of the rides are included even if they open a new ride while you are already inside of the park, except for the water park of course. Please note that ESO waves the monthly pass fee but charges you for each new ride so that is why it is not the same thing.

The fact that the park can make additional ride that is even more expensive because your ticket does not cover it doesn't make the other rides "not paid for". They are still paid for, just cheaper than the additional one.

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Also, nice dodge on the Heavensward cost.

I was not dodging it, i just did not understand why you asked me to tell you a cost anyone can google up in 3 seconds.

Good, so I guess we are in agreement that Darkness Falls is included with a monthly pass and therefore not paid DLC like Heavensward, Warlords of Draenor, or Imperial City.

Darkness falls is paid-for content. Not free content like you have been suggesting.

My point is that the situation where players cannot access content they paid for unless they successfully complete in PvP first is not unique or new.

What specific form that payment took (one-time or subscription) is irrelevant.

Hiero_Glyph

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

While true, it does not change the fact that Darkness Falls is a free update for any player with an active sub in DAoC, while IC is paid DLC for any player that has purchased ESO. The difference is that you cannot play DAoC without an active sub so its cost is not connected to Darkness Falls while ESO's IC DLC is paid DLC so players are directly purchasing digital goods not included in the base game. ESO+ is a separate purchase, and while cost efffective, is not required to play IC.

If you have to pay before you can play it, it's not free.

If content is provided at no additional cost as a part of a paid-for service, it is still paid-for content, one whose cost is covered by your monthly payment.

An expansion like Warlords of Draenor or Heavensward is something that requires paying for content before it can be played. A free update to a game, such as Darkness Falls or Craglorn is not paid content despite requiring an active sub to access. This is MMO 101 here

This is economy 101, or common sense 101 here. If you have to spend any amount of money in any form before you can access some content, then that content has been paid for.

If you buy an open ticket for an amusement park that allows you to take any ride for a month, then once you are inside, you can take any ride 'for free' - but it has in fact been paid for(by buying the ticket). If the amusement park adds another ride while you own the ticket, and your ticket entitles you to take that one as well, it still has been paid for, because you wouldn't be able to ride it without that ticket.

And when a new water park is added it is not included in the cost of the monthly pass and requires a separate purchase, except the entrance is inside the amusement park so you still need a monthly pass to even use it. That's what paid DLC is, content that requires an additional invesment beyond the monthly pass. Regardless of what you do, you need a monthly pass to enter the amusement park except you do not have to pay anything beyond that fee. All of the rides are included even if they open a new ride while you are already inside of the park, except for the water park of course. Please note that ESO waves the monthly pass fee but charges you for each new ride so that is why it is not the same thing.

The fact that the park can make additional ride that is even more expensive because your ticket does not cover it doesn't make the other rides "not paid for". They are still paid for, just cheaper than the additional one.

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Also, nice dodge on the Heavensward cost.

I was not dodging it, i just did not understand why you asked me to tell you a cost anyone can google up in 3 seconds.

Good, so I guess we are in agreement that Darkness Falls is included with a monthly pass and therefore not paid DLC like Heavensward, Warlords of Draenor, or Imperial City.

Darkness falls is paid-for content. Not free content like you have been suggesting.

My point is that the situation where players cannot access content they paid for unless they successfully complete in PvP first is not unique or new.

What specific form that payment took (one-time or subscription) is irrelevant.

The previous problem was my use of the word free instead of included; I have remedied that issue and clarified my point. As such this demonstrates the major difference between DF and IC as one is inlcuded for all active players and the other requires paid DLC. This gates the population a second time in the form of requiring an additional purchase.

You may not see this as significant but it will affect the campaign populations since only a portion of the current allaince's players will be fighting for IC access (only those that purchased IC). If you are in an underpopulated alliance then IC access will be more difficult to gain as many of your current alliance's players are not concerned with the gated access mechanics while in DAoC every player is affected by DF access equally. If ESO had IC-only campaigns then they would be much more similar. As PTS does not, nor have any plans of adding them, the gating issue is only compounded. The actual price is irrelevent but the population gating it creates is not.

Sharee

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

You may not see this as significant but it will affect the campaign populations since only a portion of the current allaince's players will be fighting for IC access (only those that purchased IC).

Only a portion of the population will be motivated by having IC access as a reward, but they will all fight for it (it's not like a keep captured by non-IC owners won't count towards IC access)

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

If you are in an underpopulated alliance then IC access will be more difficult to gain as many of your current alliance's players are not concerned with the gated access mechanics

They may not be concerned with gated mechanics, but they will cap keeps regardless, for the same reason they did it before IC was released. But yes, underpopulated alliances will have more difficult time unlocking IC simply because they are underpopulated. It is up to ZOS to address the underpopulation issues (and not just because of IC, the game as a whole suffers from population imbalances)

Hiero_Glyph

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

You may not see this as significant but it will affect the campaign populations since only a portion of the current allaince's players will be fighting for IC access (only those that purchased IC).

Only a portion of the population will be motivated by having IC access as a reward, but they will all fight for it (it's not like a keep captured by non-IC owners won't count towards IC access)

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

If you are in an underpopulated alliance then IC access will be more difficult to gain as many of your current alliance's players are not concerned with the gated access mechanics

They may not be concerned with gated mechanics, but they will cap keeps regardless, for the same reason they did it before IC was released. But yes, underpopulated alliances will have more difficult time unlocking IC simply because they are underpopulated. It is up to ZOS to address the underpopulation issues (and not just because of IC, the game as a whole suffers from population imbalances)

You do realize that there are campaigns where specific alliances are unable to maintain control of keeps even with a unified effort, right? I agree that the population imbalance is the main hindrance at this point but so far ZoS has not made any statements regarding how they will improve it. So again, further separating the populations via paid DLC will not help the population imbalance or further unify the alliance's effort in the slightest. Depending on the IC's access requirements it may actually work against the efforts of the IC players since the non-IC players will want to take away access from other alliances to force more players out, not capture keeps that guarantee access. See how these two things are not mutually beneficial?

Sharee

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

You may not see this as significant but it will affect the campaign populations since only a portion of the current allaince's players will be fighting for IC access (only those that purchased IC).

Only a portion of the population will be motivated by having IC access as a reward, but they will all fight for it (it's not like a keep captured by non-IC owners won't count towards IC access)

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

If you are in an underpopulated alliance then IC access will be more difficult to gain as many of your current alliance's players are not concerned with the gated access mechanics

They may not be concerned with gated mechanics, but they will cap keeps regardless, for the same reason they did it before IC was released. But yes, underpopulated alliances will have more difficult time unlocking IC simply because they are underpopulated. It is up to ZOS to address the underpopulation issues (and not just because of IC, the game as a whole suffers from population imbalances)

You do realize that there are campaigns where specific alliances are unable to maintain control of keeps even with a unified effort, right?

Imperial city isn't out yet. The stronger side isn't weakened yet by part of it's population being inside IC, instead of fighting for overland cyrodiil control. For this reason, I do not think you can use the current situation to accurately predict how it will be in the future.

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

non-IC players will want to take away access from other alliances to force more players out, not capture keeps that guarantee access.

There are reasons for wanting to control home keeps other than IC control. And taking away access for the other alliance will not have the immediate effect of 'forcing them out' (someone who is already in won't get instantly kicked out), it's more of a long-term effect.