Silver/Gold is so lazy and boring, why not just give us unique faction questing instead of shortcuts

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO · July 2016

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

nobody is trolling you, we just think your hilarious for saying content you pay through a sub is free. Guess what, you could just sub as if it never went btp and everything they put out is the base game, as far as your concerned. its just really funny that you cant connect them creating revenue to produce product with them developing content.
just because you write on some forum in caps that your right dosent make you right. anothor irl lesson for ya.

they cant add the content to the base game, "for free" as you like to call it, now that its a buy to play model.

either get it for free with your sub or buy the dlc. thems the breaks

You did not pay for craglorn in during your pay-to-play era, craglorn was not withheld from non-ESOplus members. It was given out as part of the vanilla game, when it debuted everybody was paying a sub fee. Craglorn was never at any point, not free/vanilla.

If you want to argue Bethesda is too poor to developed a MMO, so they used Sub fees during the first year of console to pay for craglorn then that's fine. But that does not mean craglorn was ever at any point required additional payment outside of the vanilla game.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you didn't read my posts. I'm done discussing whether or not craglorn is vanilla, you're just wrong.

no im not arguing for the sake of arguing. you have a misguided premises. arguing wether its vanilla or not is what is irrelevant, its a company and has to have a model in which they pay for the enterprise and profit from it.

when it was sub only, the only option was to add it to the base game, nothing else would make any sense.
that system is gone with eso+ people dont HAVE to pay anymore. if they added content for free, I woulnnt pay them; then how is it they make money? can you at least explain the business model you have in mind where they add new content without selling it and still make money? you want them to lower quality even more and focus on ftp style cash shop ***? where will revenue come from?

Smasherx74 · July 2016

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

nobody is trolling you, we just think your hilarious for saying content you pay through a sub is free. Guess what, you could just sub as if it never went btp and everything they put out is the base game, as far as your concerned. its just really funny that you cant connect them creating revenue to produce product with them developing content.
just because you write on some forum in caps that your right dosent make you right. anothor irl lesson for ya.

they cant add the content to the base game, "for free" as you like to call it, now that its a buy to play model.

either get it for free with your sub or buy the dlc. thems the breaks

You did not pay for craglorn in during your pay-to-play era, craglorn was not withheld from non-ESOplus members. It was given out as part of the vanilla game, when it debuted everybody was paying a sub fee. Craglorn was never at any point, not free/vanilla.

If you want to argue Bethesda is too poor to developed a MMO, so they used Sub fees during the first year of console to pay for craglorn then that's fine. But that does not mean craglorn was ever at any point required additional payment outside of the vanilla game.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you didn't read my posts. I'm done discussing whether or not craglorn is vanilla, you're just wrong.

no im not arguing for the sake of arguing. you have a misguided premises. arguing wether its vanilla or not is what is irrelevant, its a company and has to have a model in which they pay for the enterprise and profit from it.

when it was sub only, the only option was to add it to the base game, nothing else would make any sense.
that system is gone with eso+ people dont HAVE to pay anymore. if they added content for free, I woulnnt pay them; then how is it they make money? can you at least explain the business model you have in mind where they add new content without selling it and still make money? you want them to lower quality even more and focus on ftp style cash shop ***? where will revenue come from?

No, what's irrelevant is your conclusion. The financial situation at ZOS is irrelevant, we're talking about what is and what isn't paid for content. You do not pay for craglorn, you never have. If ZOS used the sub fees for craglorn that means their profits paid for it, craglorn was intended for the vanilla game, thus it was never given any price tag. It is not a DLC, it is not a paid for content, it is a free-vanilla content that is intended to be apart of end game. Which is the whole point of this thread, to get further emphasis on solo end game quests outside of the generic faction quests.

fyi, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You just want to be right, hens why you used a logical fallacy to prove a point that I addressed. Please refrain from posting on my threads in the future.

DaveMoeDee · July 2016

Smasherx74 wrote: »

ZOS doesn't want to spend money on voice acting unique faction questing, instead we magically play through alternate faction quests as if we were apart of the alliance to begin with.

Why can't we just get a Craglorn expansion, meaning end game solo content that isn't paid for. I'm highly disappointed with the end game, it's just grinding literally. At least with WoW you had unique quest factors and lands where you had to keep playing the game. ESO is just lazy in terms of gameplay, it's extremely repetitive even for a MMO.

You are complaining about content when you don't want to play 2/3 of the original base game content?

Sometimes you have to make the best of reality instead of complaining because things aren't what you consider optimal.

Smileybones · July 2016

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

ZOS doesn't want to spend money on voice acting unique faction questing, instead we magically play through alternate faction quests as if we were apart of the alliance to begin with.

Why can't we just get a Craglorn expansion, meaning end game solo content that isn't paid for. I'm highly disappointed with the end game, it's just grinding literally. At least with WoW you had unique quest factors and lands where you had to keep playing the game. ESO is just lazy in terms of gameplay, it's extremely repetitive even for a MMO.

You are complaining about content when you don't want to play 2/3 of the original base game content?

Sometimes you have to make the best of reality instead of complaining because things aren't what you consider optimal.

You know reality checks are so 90's, nowadays it's GIMMEGIMMEGIMME.

Smasherx74 · July 2016

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

ZOS doesn't want to spend money on voice acting unique faction questing, instead we magically play through alternate faction quests as if we were apart of the alliance to begin with.

Why can't we just get a Craglorn expansion, meaning end game solo content that isn't paid for. I'm highly disappointed with the end game, it's just grinding literally. At least with WoW you had unique quest factors and lands where you had to keep playing the game. ESO is just lazy in terms of gameplay, it's extremely repetitive even for a MMO.

You are complaining about content when you don't want to play 2/3 of the original base game content?

Sometimes you have to make the best of reality instead of complaining because things aren't what you consider optimal.

As I've said 3 times in this thread, I've played all the faction quests during beta and launch. I never replayed them all over again because I have experienced that content, and at the time I felt it was unrealistic to go to the other faction zones, let alone do all the quests with little to no player interaction. The experience of doing the faction quests with the correlating faction is why I did them all non-vet.

Enodoc · July 2016

More content would always be good. Just remember that the point of Cadwell's was to allow you to experience the whole game with one character. If you start making things faction-specific, that purpose is lost.

ArchMikem · July 2016

Smasherx74 wrote: »

Smileybones wrote: »

So basically you want to pay once and get free updates forever ? Things don't work like that in the real world outside.

Who said anythibng about that? I want end game solo content. DB and Thieves guild combined aren't even close to as much content is in the factions. We need a REAL end game, maybe open up oblivion or a new continent idk but we need something in the future. This concept of going back and playing generic faction quests is beyond lazy.

You want a second game on top of the base game. This is an MMO similar title, if WoW is any example, Zenimax is going to be pumping out downloadable content for as long as they can, giving us more and more Solo Quest content. They may not be as chunky as you wish it to be individually, but over time they will add up.

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO · July 2016

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

nobody is trolling you, we just think your hilarious for saying content you pay through a sub is free. Guess what, you could just sub as if it never went btp and everything they put out is the base game, as far as your concerned. its just really funny that you cant connect them creating revenue to produce product with them developing content.
just because you write on some forum in caps that your right dosent make you right. anothor irl lesson for ya.

they cant add the content to the base game, "for free" as you like to call it, now that its a buy to play model.

either get it for free with your sub or buy the dlc. thems the breaks

You did not pay for craglorn in during your pay-to-play era, craglorn was not withheld from non-ESOplus members. It was given out as part of the vanilla game, when it debuted everybody was paying a sub fee. Craglorn was never at any point, not free/vanilla.

If you want to argue Bethesda is too poor to developed a MMO, so they used Sub fees during the first year of console to pay for craglorn then that's fine. But that does not mean craglorn was ever at any point required additional payment outside of the vanilla game.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you didn't read my posts. I'm done discussing whether or not craglorn is vanilla, you're just wrong.

no im not arguing for the sake of arguing. you have a misguided premises. arguing wether its vanilla or not is what is irrelevant, its a company and has to have a model in which they pay for the enterprise and profit from it.

when it was sub only, the only option was to add it to the base game, nothing else would make any sense.
that system is gone with eso+ people dont HAVE to pay anymore. if they added content for free, I woulnnt pay them; then how is it they make money? can you at least explain the business model you have in mind where they add new content without selling it and still make money? you want them to lower quality even more and focus on ftp style cash shop ***? where will revenue come from?

No, what's irrelevant is your conclusion. The financial situation at ZOS is irrelevant, we're talking about what is and what isn't paid for content. You do not pay for craglorn, you never have. If ZOS used the sub fees for craglorn that means their profits paid for it, craglorn was intended for the vanilla game, thus it was never given any price tag. It is not a DLC, it is not a paid for content, it is a free-vanilla content that is intended to be apart of end game. Which is the whole point of this thread, to get further emphasis on solo end game quests outside of the generic faction quests.

fyi, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You just want to be right, hens why you used a logical fallacy to prove a point that I addressed. Please refrain from posting on my threads in the future.

ok i give up. you seem to have absolutely no clue about rudimentary business and economic principles, are you a little kid who has never even had a job before? im at a loss as to why you cant understand what im saying. the fact that you think that zos financial situation is irrelevant is absolutely jaw dropping. Good luck in life mate your going to need it.

Smasherx74 · July 2016

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

nobody is trolling you, we just think your hilarious for saying content you pay through a sub is free. Guess what, you could just sub as if it never went btp and everything they put out is the base game, as far as your concerned. its just really funny that you cant connect them creating revenue to produce product with them developing content.
just because you write on some forum in caps that your right dosent make you right. anothor irl lesson for ya.

they cant add the content to the base game, "for free" as you like to call it, now that its a buy to play model.

either get it for free with your sub or buy the dlc. thems the breaks

You did not pay for craglorn in during your pay-to-play era, craglorn was not withheld from non-ESOplus members. It was given out as part of the vanilla game, when it debuted everybody was paying a sub fee. Craglorn was never at any point, not free/vanilla.

If you want to argue Bethesda is too poor to developed a MMO, so they used Sub fees during the first year of console to pay for craglorn then that's fine. But that does not mean craglorn was ever at any point required additional payment outside of the vanilla game.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you didn't read my posts. I'm done discussing whether or not craglorn is vanilla, you're just wrong.

no im not arguing for the sake of arguing. you have a misguided premises. arguing wether its vanilla or not is what is irrelevant, its a company and has to have a model in which they pay for the enterprise and profit from it.

when it was sub only, the only option was to add it to the base game, nothing else would make any sense.
that system is gone with eso+ people dont HAVE to pay anymore. if they added content for free, I woulnnt pay them; then how is it they make money? can you at least explain the business model you have in mind where they add new content without selling it and still make money? you want them to lower quality even more and focus on ftp style cash shop ***? where will revenue come from?

No, what's irrelevant is your conclusion. The financial situation at ZOS is irrelevant, we're talking about what is and what isn't paid for content. You do not pay for craglorn, you never have. If ZOS used the sub fees for craglorn that means their profits paid for it, craglorn was intended for the vanilla game, thus it was never given any price tag. It is not a DLC, it is not a paid for content, it is a free-vanilla content that is intended to be apart of end game. Which is the whole point of this thread, to get further emphasis on solo end game quests outside of the generic faction quests.

fyi, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You just want to be right, hens why you used a logical fallacy to prove a point that I addressed. Please refrain from posting on my threads in the future.

ok i give up. you seem to have absolutely no clue about rudimentary business and economic principles, are you a little kid who has never even had a job before? im at a loss as to why you cant understand what im saying. the fact that you think that zos financial situation is irrelevant is absolutely jaw dropping. Good luck in life mate your going to need it.

There is no need to be upset. I've said it multiple times, the logic "I payed subscription fee when it was manditory so I paid for the Craglorn content" is not sound, that is ZOS' problem not yours. You didn't directly pay for access to the content, everybody at that time including many other things went towards getting that content made. It was intended for the game vanilla, it was never intended as a pay for content, which it has never been. You are simply making a logical fallacy, a false conclusion. What seems to upset you is you cannot grasp I do not care nor is it relevant that those sub fees went towards paying voice actors, programmers, etc... to get hat content done. Craglorn is a free extension of the end game content, this is not a disputable fact.

You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

Smasherx74 · July 2016

ArchMikem wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

Smileybones wrote: »

So basically you want to pay once and get free updates forever ? Things don't work like that in the real world outside.

Who said anythibng about that? I want end game solo content. DB and Thieves guild combined aren't even close to as much content is in the factions. We need a REAL end game, maybe open up oblivion or a new continent idk but we need something in the future. This concept of going back and playing generic faction quests is beyond lazy.

You want a second game on top of the base game. This is an MMO similar title, if WoW is any example, Zenimax is going to be pumping out downloadable content for as long as they can, giving us more and more Solo Quest content. They may not be as chunky as you wish it to be individually, but over time they will add up.

Yep, I want a second game ontop of this game sometime in the future. I want some of the solo content to obviously be free, there needs to be end game level zones for whenever they raise the level caps from 50 to 100, and CP 160 to whatever. WoW consistently added new end game content during each expansion, the difference here is we get very small dlcs with very little actual content to play compared to the rest of the game.

As a beta player, and someone who has been with this game since day one. I do not feel this game has ever truly been completed. I want to experience more content, more plot, outside that of the original main story. This game is one of those MMOs with very little actual content, on par with DCUO which is the most basic MMO i've ever played. I understand why, due to the ES nature of the game. But we can't have casual dlc after dlc of one zone content with little to no plot, not content directly aimed at end game.

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO · July 2016

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

nobody is trolling you, we just think your hilarious for saying content you pay through a sub is free. Guess what, you could just sub as if it never went btp and everything they put out is the base game, as far as your concerned. its just really funny that you cant connect them creating revenue to produce product with them developing content.
just because you write on some forum in caps that your right dosent make you right. anothor irl lesson for ya.

they cant add the content to the base game, "for free" as you like to call it, now that its a buy to play model.

either get it for free with your sub or buy the dlc. thems the breaks

You did not pay for craglorn in during your pay-to-play era, craglorn was not withheld from non-ESOplus members. It was given out as part of the vanilla game, when it debuted everybody was paying a sub fee. Craglorn was never at any point, not free/vanilla.

If you want to argue Bethesda is too poor to developed a MMO, so they used Sub fees during the first year of console to pay for craglorn then that's fine. But that does not mean craglorn was ever at any point required additional payment outside of the vanilla game.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you didn't read my posts. I'm done discussing whether or not craglorn is vanilla, you're just wrong.

no im not arguing for the sake of arguing. you have a misguided premises. arguing wether its vanilla or not is what is irrelevant, its a company and has to have a model in which they pay for the enterprise and profit from it.

when it was sub only, the only option was to add it to the base game, nothing else would make any sense.
that system is gone with eso+ people dont HAVE to pay anymore. if they added content for free, I woulnnt pay them; then how is it they make money? can you at least explain the business model you have in mind where they add new content without selling it and still make money? you want them to lower quality even more and focus on ftp style cash shop ***? where will revenue come from?

No, what's irrelevant is your conclusion. The financial situation at ZOS is irrelevant, we're talking about what is and what isn't paid for content. You do not pay for craglorn, you never have. If ZOS used the sub fees for craglorn that means their profits paid for it, craglorn was intended for the vanilla game, thus it was never given any price tag. It is not a DLC, it is not a paid for content, it is a free-vanilla content that is intended to be apart of end game. Which is the whole point of this thread, to get further emphasis on solo end game quests outside of the generic faction quests.

fyi, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You just want to be right, hens why you used a logical fallacy to prove a point that I addressed. Please refrain from posting on my threads in the future.

ok i give up. you seem to have absolutely no clue about rudimentary business and economic principles, are you a little kid who has never even had a job before? im at a loss as to why you cant understand what im saying. the fact that you think that zos financial situation is irrelevant is absolutely jaw dropping. Good luck in life mate your going to need it.

There is no need to be upset. I've said it multiple times, the logic "I payed subscription fee when it was manditory so I paid for the Craglorn content" is not sound, that is ZOS' problem not yours. You didn't directly pay for access to the content, everybody at that time including many other things went towards getting that content made. It was intended for the game vanilla, it was never intended as a pay for content, which it has never been. You are simply making a logical fallacy, a false conclusion. What seems to upset you is you cannot grasp I do not care nor is it relevant that those sub fees went towards paying voice actors, programmers, etc... to get hat content done. Craglorn is a free extension of the end game content, this is not a disputable fact.

You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard. you can talk about logic all you want, your just throwing the word around. its not a false conclusion. they used money from subs to produce craiglorn and its subsequent expansions, that is a fact.your sub paid for the enterprise of eso. fact. nothing was or ever has been free becuse you had to give them money in one form or another. fact

ps if you want to know what a false conclusing is here is on for you
You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

Smasherx74 · July 2016

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

nobody is trolling you, we just think your hilarious for saying content you pay through a sub is free. Guess what, you could just sub as if it never went btp and everything they put out is the base game, as far as your concerned. its just really funny that you cant connect them creating revenue to produce product with them developing content.
just because you write on some forum in caps that your right dosent make you right. anothor irl lesson for ya.

they cant add the content to the base game, "for free" as you like to call it, now that its a buy to play model.

either get it for free with your sub or buy the dlc. thems the breaks

You did not pay for craglorn in during your pay-to-play era, craglorn was not withheld from non-ESOplus members. It was given out as part of the vanilla game, when it debuted everybody was paying a sub fee. Craglorn was never at any point, not free/vanilla.

If you want to argue Bethesda is too poor to developed a MMO, so they used Sub fees during the first year of console to pay for craglorn then that's fine. But that does not mean craglorn was ever at any point required additional payment outside of the vanilla game.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you didn't read my posts. I'm done discussing whether or not craglorn is vanilla, you're just wrong.

no im not arguing for the sake of arguing. you have a misguided premises. arguing wether its vanilla or not is what is irrelevant, its a company and has to have a model in which they pay for the enterprise and profit from it.

when it was sub only, the only option was to add it to the base game, nothing else would make any sense.
that system is gone with eso+ people dont HAVE to pay anymore. if they added content for free, I woulnnt pay them; then how is it they make money? can you at least explain the business model you have in mind where they add new content without selling it and still make money? you want them to lower quality even more and focus on ftp style cash shop ***? where will revenue come from?

No, what's irrelevant is your conclusion. The financial situation at ZOS is irrelevant, we're talking about what is and what isn't paid for content. You do not pay for craglorn, you never have. If ZOS used the sub fees for craglorn that means their profits paid for it, craglorn was intended for the vanilla game, thus it was never given any price tag. It is not a DLC, it is not a paid for content, it is a free-vanilla content that is intended to be apart of end game. Which is the whole point of this thread, to get further emphasis on solo end game quests outside of the generic faction quests.

fyi, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You just want to be right, hens why you used a logical fallacy to prove a point that I addressed. Please refrain from posting on my threads in the future.

ok i give up. you seem to have absolutely no clue about rudimentary business and economic principles, are you a little kid who has never even had a job before? im at a loss as to why you cant understand what im saying. the fact that you think that zos financial situation is irrelevant is absolutely jaw dropping. Good luck in life mate your going to need it.

There is no need to be upset. I've said it multiple times, the logic "I payed subscription fee when it was manditory so I paid for the Craglorn content" is not sound, that is ZOS' problem not yours. You didn't directly pay for access to the content, everybody at that time including many other things went towards getting that content made. It was intended for the game vanilla, it was never intended as a pay for content, which it has never been. You are simply making a logical fallacy, a false conclusion. What seems to upset you is you cannot grasp I do not care nor is it relevant that those sub fees went towards paying voice actors, programmers, etc... to get hat content done. Craglorn is a free extension of the end game content, this is not a disputable fact.

You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard. you can talk about logic all you want, your just throwing the word around. its not a false conclusion. they used money from subs to produce craiglorn and its subsequent expansions, that is a fact.your sub paid for the enterprise of eso. fact. nothing was or ever has been free becuse you had to give them money in one form or another. fact

ps if you want to know what a false conclusing is here is on for you
You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

You don't understand. ZOS is a business and they sell a product. ESO is a product, apart of the ESO product contains craglorn. At no point did you ever pay outside of your original base game and sub fee for craglorn. What ZOS did with their profits is irrelevant, if they had the finance to create new content is irrelevant. What is relevant is craglorn was never released as paid-for content. Hens why it was automatically apart of the game when subscription fees dropped.

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO · July 2016

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

nobody is trolling you, we just think your hilarious for saying content you pay through a sub is free. Guess what, you could just sub as if it never went btp and everything they put out is the base game, as far as your concerned. its just really funny that you cant connect them creating revenue to produce product with them developing content.
just because you write on some forum in caps that your right dosent make you right. anothor irl lesson for ya.

they cant add the content to the base game, "for free" as you like to call it, now that its a buy to play model.

either get it for free with your sub or buy the dlc. thems the breaks

You did not pay for craglorn in during your pay-to-play era, craglorn was not withheld from non-ESOplus members. It was given out as part of the vanilla game, when it debuted everybody was paying a sub fee. Craglorn was never at any point, not free/vanilla.

If you want to argue Bethesda is too poor to developed a MMO, so they used Sub fees during the first year of console to pay for craglorn then that's fine. But that does not mean craglorn was ever at any point required additional payment outside of the vanilla game.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you didn't read my posts. I'm done discussing whether or not craglorn is vanilla, you're just wrong.

no im not arguing for the sake of arguing. you have a misguided premises. arguing wether its vanilla or not is what is irrelevant, its a company and has to have a model in which they pay for the enterprise and profit from it.

when it was sub only, the only option was to add it to the base game, nothing else would make any sense.
that system is gone with eso+ people dont HAVE to pay anymore. if they added content for free, I woulnnt pay them; then how is it they make money? can you at least explain the business model you have in mind where they add new content without selling it and still make money? you want them to lower quality even more and focus on ftp style cash shop ***? where will revenue come from?

No, what's irrelevant is your conclusion. The financial situation at ZOS is irrelevant, we're talking about what is and what isn't paid for content. You do not pay for craglorn, you never have. If ZOS used the sub fees for craglorn that means their profits paid for it, craglorn was intended for the vanilla game, thus it was never given any price tag. It is not a DLC, it is not a paid for content, it is a free-vanilla content that is intended to be apart of end game. Which is the whole point of this thread, to get further emphasis on solo end game quests outside of the generic faction quests.

fyi, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You just want to be right, hens why you used a logical fallacy to prove a point that I addressed. Please refrain from posting on my threads in the future.

ok i give up. you seem to have absolutely no clue about rudimentary business and economic principles, are you a little kid who has never even had a job before? im at a loss as to why you cant understand what im saying. the fact that you think that zos financial situation is irrelevant is absolutely jaw dropping. Good luck in life mate your going to need it.

There is no need to be upset. I've said it multiple times, the logic "I payed subscription fee when it was manditory so I paid for the Craglorn content" is not sound, that is ZOS' problem not yours. You didn't directly pay for access to the content, everybody at that time including many other things went towards getting that content made. It was intended for the game vanilla, it was never intended as a pay for content, which it has never been. You are simply making a logical fallacy, a false conclusion. What seems to upset you is you cannot grasp I do not care nor is it relevant that those sub fees went towards paying voice actors, programmers, etc... to get hat content done. Craglorn is a free extension of the end game content, this is not a disputable fact.

You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard. you can talk about logic all you want, your just throwing the word around. its not a false conclusion. they used money from subs to produce craiglorn and its subsequent expansions, that is a fact.your sub paid for the enterprise of eso. fact. nothing was or ever has been free becuse you had to give them money in one form or another. fact

ps if you want to know what a false conclusing is here is on for you
You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

You don't understand. ZOS is a business and they sell a product. ESO is a product, apart of the ESO product contains craglorn. At no point did you ever pay outside of your original base game and sub fee for craglorn. What ZOS did with their profits is irrelevant, if they had the finance to create new content is irrelevant. What is relevant is craglorn was never released as paid-for content. Hens why it was automatically apart of the game when subscription fees dropped.

you just dont understand the difference between how things work on different payment models. whatever the model is they need to get paid for their work, with craiglorn it was mandatory sub which guaranteed they made the money for content developed in that timeframe, now its optional so they sell it becuae they dont have guaranteed revenue. its simple as that, they have to sell it with the btp model. your idea is a pipedream, they will never make "free" expansions unless they go back to sub model where you always pay to log on.

bebynnag · July 2016

Karthos wrote: »

I

I do wish mobs would scaled a bit higher - the first zone of Silver seems to have mobs that are CP 40, which seems low. Would also like end game mobs to scale higher than CP 160 in the far reaches of the current content. I'm assuming they don't.

.

before DB came out they were vet 1 (CR1-10) so it is an improvment

Sausage · July 2016

Journey definitely isnt ESO's strongest points, I think Silver/Gold was great idea at launch as their tripled their content but totally unnecessary now, I actually believe Silver/Gold reduces this game's overall quality, but choice has been made.

Smasherx74 · July 2016

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

nobody is trolling you, we just think your hilarious for saying content you pay through a sub is free. Guess what, you could just sub as if it never went btp and everything they put out is the base game, as far as your concerned. its just really funny that you cant connect them creating revenue to produce product with them developing content.
just because you write on some forum in caps that your right dosent make you right. anothor irl lesson for ya.

they cant add the content to the base game, "for free" as you like to call it, now that its a buy to play model.

either get it for free with your sub or buy the dlc. thems the breaks

You did not pay for craglorn in during your pay-to-play era, craglorn was not withheld from non-ESOplus members. It was given out as part of the vanilla game, when it debuted everybody was paying a sub fee. Craglorn was never at any point, not free/vanilla.

If you want to argue Bethesda is too poor to developed a MMO, so they used Sub fees during the first year of console to pay for craglorn then that's fine. But that does not mean craglorn was ever at any point required additional payment outside of the vanilla game.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you didn't read my posts. I'm done discussing whether or not craglorn is vanilla, you're just wrong.

no im not arguing for the sake of arguing. you have a misguided premises. arguing wether its vanilla or not is what is irrelevant, its a company and has to have a model in which they pay for the enterprise and profit from it.

when it was sub only, the only option was to add it to the base game, nothing else would make any sense.
that system is gone with eso+ people dont HAVE to pay anymore. if they added content for free, I woulnnt pay them; then how is it they make money? can you at least explain the business model you have in mind where they add new content without selling it and still make money? you want them to lower quality even more and focus on ftp style cash shop ***? where will revenue come from?

No, what's irrelevant is your conclusion. The financial situation at ZOS is irrelevant, we're talking about what is and what isn't paid for content. You do not pay for craglorn, you never have. If ZOS used the sub fees for craglorn that means their profits paid for it, craglorn was intended for the vanilla game, thus it was never given any price tag. It is not a DLC, it is not a paid for content, it is a free-vanilla content that is intended to be apart of end game. Which is the whole point of this thread, to get further emphasis on solo end game quests outside of the generic faction quests.

fyi, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You just want to be right, hens why you used a logical fallacy to prove a point that I addressed. Please refrain from posting on my threads in the future.

ok i give up. you seem to have absolutely no clue about rudimentary business and economic principles, are you a little kid who has never even had a job before? im at a loss as to why you cant understand what im saying. the fact that you think that zos financial situation is irrelevant is absolutely jaw dropping. Good luck in life mate your going to need it.

There is no need to be upset. I've said it multiple times, the logic "I payed subscription fee when it was manditory so I paid for the Craglorn content" is not sound, that is ZOS' problem not yours. You didn't directly pay for access to the content, everybody at that time including many other things went towards getting that content made. It was intended for the game vanilla, it was never intended as a pay for content, which it has never been. You are simply making a logical fallacy, a false conclusion. What seems to upset you is you cannot grasp I do not care nor is it relevant that those sub fees went towards paying voice actors, programmers, etc... to get hat content done. Craglorn is a free extension of the end game content, this is not a disputable fact.

You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard. you can talk about logic all you want, your just throwing the word around. its not a false conclusion. they used money from subs to produce craiglorn and its subsequent expansions, that is a fact.your sub paid for the enterprise of eso. fact. nothing was or ever has been free becuse you had to give them money in one form or another. fact

ps if you want to know what a false conclusing is here is on for you
You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

You don't understand. ZOS is a business and they sell a product. ESO is a product, apart of the ESO product contains craglorn. At no point did you ever pay outside of your original base game and sub fee for craglorn. What ZOS did with their profits is irrelevant, if they had the finance to create new content is irrelevant. What is relevant is craglorn was never released as paid-for content. Hens why it was automatically apart of the game when subscription fees dropped.

you just dont understand the difference between how things work on different payment models. whatever the model is they need to get paid for their work, with craiglorn it was mandatory sub which guaranteed they made the money for content developed in that timeframe, now its optional so they sell it becuae they dont have guaranteed revenue. its simple as that, they have to sell it with the btp model. your idea is a pipedream, they will never make "free" expansions unless they go back to sub model where you always pay to log on.

This isn't about zos' financial position as I've stated for the umpteenth time. It's about the content and what it's intended for, craglorn was intended to be apart of the original game, that is all that matters here. I want more end-game content, just like craglorn which was added to the vanilla game for "free", just like cyrodill and the justice system. Whether you can grasp that concept that you don't pay an external fee for this product or not isnnt and shouldn't be my problem. As I stated originally, what you've done here is made an irrelevant conclusion which is a logical fallacy, for the simple sake of arguing you are making this claim after I've refuted it over and over. Go away now please.

We need new end game solo content, simple as that.

Smileybones · July 2016

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

nobody is trolling you, we just think your hilarious for saying content you pay through a sub is free. Guess what, you could just sub as if it never went btp and everything they put out is the base game, as far as your concerned. its just really funny that you cant connect them creating revenue to produce product with them developing content.
just because you write on some forum in caps that your right dosent make you right. anothor irl lesson for ya.

they cant add the content to the base game, "for free" as you like to call it, now that its a buy to play model.

either get it for free with your sub or buy the dlc. thems the breaks

You did not pay for craglorn in during your pay-to-play era, craglorn was not withheld from non-ESOplus members. It was given out as part of the vanilla game, when it debuted everybody was paying a sub fee. Craglorn was never at any point, not free/vanilla.

If you want to argue Bethesda is too poor to developed a MMO, so they used Sub fees during the first year of console to pay for craglorn then that's fine. But that does not mean craglorn was ever at any point required additional payment outside of the vanilla game.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you didn't read my posts. I'm done discussing whether or not craglorn is vanilla, you're just wrong.

no im not arguing for the sake of arguing. you have a misguided premises. arguing wether its vanilla or not is what is irrelevant, its a company and has to have a model in which they pay for the enterprise and profit from it.

when it was sub only, the only option was to add it to the base game, nothing else would make any sense.
that system is gone with eso+ people dont HAVE to pay anymore. if they added content for free, I woulnnt pay them; then how is it they make money? can you at least explain the business model you have in mind where they add new content without selling it and still make money? you want them to lower quality even more and focus on ftp style cash shop ***? where will revenue come from?

No, what's irrelevant is your conclusion. The financial situation at ZOS is irrelevant, we're talking about what is and what isn't paid for content. You do not pay for craglorn, you never have. If ZOS used the sub fees for craglorn that means their profits paid for it, craglorn was intended for the vanilla game, thus it was never given any price tag. It is not a DLC, it is not a paid for content, it is a free-vanilla content that is intended to be apart of end game. Which is the whole point of this thread, to get further emphasis on solo end game quests outside of the generic faction quests.

fyi, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You just want to be right, hens why you used a logical fallacy to prove a point that I addressed. Please refrain from posting on my threads in the future.

ok i give up. you seem to have absolutely no clue about rudimentary business and economic principles, are you a little kid who has never even had a job before? im at a loss as to why you cant understand what im saying. the fact that you think that zos financial situation is irrelevant is absolutely jaw dropping. Good luck in life mate your going to need it.

There is no need to be upset. I've said it multiple times, the logic "I payed subscription fee when it was manditory so I paid for the Craglorn content" is not sound, that is ZOS' problem not yours. You didn't directly pay for access to the content, everybody at that time including many other things went towards getting that content made. It was intended for the game vanilla, it was never intended as a pay for content, which it has never been. You are simply making a logical fallacy, a false conclusion. What seems to upset you is you cannot grasp I do not care nor is it relevant that those sub fees went towards paying voice actors, programmers, etc... to get hat content done. Craglorn is a free extension of the end game content, this is not a disputable fact.

You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard. you can talk about logic all you want, your just throwing the word around. its not a false conclusion. they used money from subs to produce craiglorn and its subsequent expansions, that is a fact.your sub paid for the enterprise of eso. fact. nothing was or ever has been free becuse you had to give them money in one form or another. fact

ps if you want to know what a false conclusing is here is on for you
You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

You don't understand. ZOS is a business and they sell a product. ESO is a product, apart of the ESO product contains craglorn. At no point did you ever pay outside of your original base game and sub fee for craglorn. What ZOS did with their profits is irrelevant, if they had the finance to create new content is irrelevant. What is relevant is craglorn was never released as paid-for content. Hens why it was automatically apart of the game when subscription fees dropped.

you just dont understand the difference between how things work on different payment models. whatever the model is they need to get paid for their work, with craiglorn it was mandatory sub which guaranteed they made the money for content developed in that timeframe, now its optional so they sell it becuae they dont have guaranteed revenue. its simple as that, they have to sell it with the btp model. your idea is a pipedream, they will never make "free" expansions unless they go back to sub model where you always pay to log on.

We need new end game solo content, simple as that.

Until you realize that the game isn't P2P anymore and there won't be anymore endgame content, is that so hard to understand ?

BlackEar · July 2016

You are debating the wrong thing.

Back to the main point: we won't get more free end game content because we moved on from that model. All content will now be through DLC so there is no chance for you getting "free" endgame content.

/thread

Smasherx74 · July 2016

Smileybones wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

nobody is trolling you, we just think your hilarious for saying content you pay through a sub is free. Guess what, you could just sub as if it never went btp and everything they put out is the base game, as far as your concerned. its just really funny that you cant connect them creating revenue to produce product with them developing content.
just because you write on some forum in caps that your right dosent make you right. anothor irl lesson for ya.

they cant add the content to the base game, "for free" as you like to call it, now that its a buy to play model.

either get it for free with your sub or buy the dlc. thems the breaks

You did not pay for craglorn in during your pay-to-play era, craglorn was not withheld from non-ESOplus members. It was given out as part of the vanilla game, when it debuted everybody was paying a sub fee. Craglorn was never at any point, not free/vanilla.

If you want to argue Bethesda is too poor to developed a MMO, so they used Sub fees during the first year of console to pay for craglorn then that's fine. But that does not mean craglorn was ever at any point required additional payment outside of the vanilla game.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you didn't read my posts. I'm done discussing whether or not craglorn is vanilla, you're just wrong.

no im not arguing for the sake of arguing. you have a misguided premises. arguing wether its vanilla or not is what is irrelevant, its a company and has to have a model in which they pay for the enterprise and profit from it.

when it was sub only, the only option was to add it to the base game, nothing else would make any sense.
that system is gone with eso+ people dont HAVE to pay anymore. if they added content for free, I woulnnt pay them; then how is it they make money? can you at least explain the business model you have in mind where they add new content without selling it and still make money? you want them to lower quality even more and focus on ftp style cash shop ***? where will revenue come from?

No, what's irrelevant is your conclusion. The financial situation at ZOS is irrelevant, we're talking about what is and what isn't paid for content. You do not pay for craglorn, you never have. If ZOS used the sub fees for craglorn that means their profits paid for it, craglorn was intended for the vanilla game, thus it was never given any price tag. It is not a DLC, it is not a paid for content, it is a free-vanilla content that is intended to be apart of end game. Which is the whole point of this thread, to get further emphasis on solo end game quests outside of the generic faction quests.

fyi, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You just want to be right, hens why you used a logical fallacy to prove a point that I addressed. Please refrain from posting on my threads in the future.

ok i give up. you seem to have absolutely no clue about rudimentary business and economic principles, are you a little kid who has never even had a job before? im at a loss as to why you cant understand what im saying. the fact that you think that zos financial situation is irrelevant is absolutely jaw dropping. Good luck in life mate your going to need it.

There is no need to be upset. I've said it multiple times, the logic "I payed subscription fee when it was manditory so I paid for the Craglorn content" is not sound, that is ZOS' problem not yours. You didn't directly pay for access to the content, everybody at that time including many other things went towards getting that content made. It was intended for the game vanilla, it was never intended as a pay for content, which it has never been. You are simply making a logical fallacy, a false conclusion. What seems to upset you is you cannot grasp I do not care nor is it relevant that those sub fees went towards paying voice actors, programmers, etc... to get hat content done. Craglorn is a free extension of the end game content, this is not a disputable fact.

You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard. you can talk about logic all you want, your just throwing the word around. its not a false conclusion. they used money from subs to produce craiglorn and its subsequent expansions, that is a fact.your sub paid for the enterprise of eso. fact. nothing was or ever has been free becuse you had to give them money in one form or another. fact

ps if you want to know what a false conclusing is here is on for you
You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

You don't understand. ZOS is a business and they sell a product. ESO is a product, apart of the ESO product contains craglorn. At no point did you ever pay outside of your original base game and sub fee for craglorn. What ZOS did with their profits is irrelevant, if they had the finance to create new content is irrelevant. What is relevant is craglorn was never released as paid-for content. Hens why it was automatically apart of the game when subscription fees dropped.

you just dont understand the difference between how things work on different payment models. whatever the model is they need to get paid for their work, with craiglorn it was mandatory sub which guaranteed they made the money for content developed in that timeframe, now its optional so they sell it becuae they dont have guaranteed revenue. its simple as that, they have to sell it with the btp model. your idea is a pipedream, they will never make "free" expansions unless they go back to sub model where you always pay to log on.

We need new end game solo content, simple as that.

Until you realize that the game isn't P2P anymore and there won't be anymore endgame content, is that so hard to understand ?

That's still an irrelevant conclusion, I highly doublt ZOS cannot fund their own game at this point when we have console players and PC players not to mention all the paid for content. We also still have a large ESO plus subscription base, so I don't' see why ZOS wouldn't be capable of expanding their own game.

BlackEar wrote: »

You are debating the wrong thing.

Back to the main point: we won't get more free end game content because we moved on from that model. All content will now be through DLC so there is no chance for you getting "free" endgame content.

/thread

So you honestly don't think in the future we aren't going to get a vanilla expansion? Should all of tamriel be single zone dlcs with about 15-20 quests?

Kalifas · July 2016

Smasherx74 wrote: »

Smileybones wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

nobody is trolling you, we just think your hilarious for saying content you pay through a sub is free. Guess what, you could just sub as if it never went btp and everything they put out is the base game, as far as your concerned. its just really funny that you cant connect them creating revenue to produce product with them developing content.
just because you write on some forum in caps that your right dosent make you right. anothor irl lesson for ya.

they cant add the content to the base game, "for free" as you like to call it, now that its a buy to play model.

either get it for free with your sub or buy the dlc. thems the breaks

You did not pay for craglorn in during your pay-to-play era, craglorn was not withheld from non-ESOplus members. It was given out as part of the vanilla game, when it debuted everybody was paying a sub fee. Craglorn was never at any point, not free/vanilla.

If you want to argue Bethesda is too poor to developed a MMO, so they used Sub fees during the first year of console to pay for craglorn then that's fine. But that does not mean craglorn was ever at any point required additional payment outside of the vanilla game.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you didn't read my posts. I'm done discussing whether or not craglorn is vanilla, you're just wrong.

no im not arguing for the sake of arguing. you have a misguided premises. arguing wether its vanilla or not is what is irrelevant, its a company and has to have a model in which they pay for the enterprise and profit from it.

when it was sub only, the only option was to add it to the base game, nothing else would make any sense.
that system is gone with eso+ people dont HAVE to pay anymore. if they added content for free, I woulnnt pay them; then how is it they make money? can you at least explain the business model you have in mind where they add new content without selling it and still make money? you want them to lower quality even more and focus on ftp style cash shop ***? where will revenue come from?

No, what's irrelevant is your conclusion. The financial situation at ZOS is irrelevant, we're talking about what is and what isn't paid for content. You do not pay for craglorn, you never have. If ZOS used the sub fees for craglorn that means their profits paid for it, craglorn was intended for the vanilla game, thus it was never given any price tag. It is not a DLC, it is not a paid for content, it is a free-vanilla content that is intended to be apart of end game. Which is the whole point of this thread, to get further emphasis on solo end game quests outside of the generic faction quests.

fyi, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You just want to be right, hens why you used a logical fallacy to prove a point that I addressed. Please refrain from posting on my threads in the future.

ok i give up. you seem to have absolutely no clue about rudimentary business and economic principles, are you a little kid who has never even had a job before? im at a loss as to why you cant understand what im saying. the fact that you think that zos financial situation is irrelevant is absolutely jaw dropping. Good luck in life mate your going to need it.

There is no need to be upset. I've said it multiple times, the logic "I payed subscription fee when it was manditory so I paid for the Craglorn content" is not sound, that is ZOS' problem not yours. You didn't directly pay for access to the content, everybody at that time including many other things went towards getting that content made. It was intended for the game vanilla, it was never intended as a pay for content, which it has never been. You are simply making a logical fallacy, a false conclusion. What seems to upset you is you cannot grasp I do not care nor is it relevant that those sub fees went towards paying voice actors, programmers, etc... to get hat content done. Craglorn is a free extension of the end game content, this is not a disputable fact.

You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard. you can talk about logic all you want, your just throwing the word around. its not a false conclusion. they used money from subs to produce craiglorn and its subsequent expansions, that is a fact.your sub paid for the enterprise of eso. fact. nothing was or ever has been free becuse you had to give them money in one form or another. fact

ps if you want to know what a false conclusing is here is on for you
You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

You don't understand. ZOS is a business and they sell a product. ESO is a product, apart of the ESO product contains craglorn. At no point did you ever pay outside of your original base game and sub fee for craglorn. What ZOS did with their profits is irrelevant, if they had the finance to create new content is irrelevant. What is relevant is craglorn was never released as paid-for content. Hens why it was automatically apart of the game when subscription fees dropped.

you just dont understand the difference between how things work on different payment models. whatever the model is they need to get paid for their work, with craiglorn it was mandatory sub which guaranteed they made the money for content developed in that timeframe, now its optional so they sell it becuae they dont have guaranteed revenue. its simple as that, they have to sell it with the btp model. your idea is a pipedream, they will never make "free" expansions unless they go back to sub model where you always pay to log on.

We need new end game solo content, simple as that.

Until you realize that the game isn't P2P anymore and there won't be anymore endgame content, is that so hard to understand ?

That's still an irrelevant conclusion, I highly doublt ZOS cannot fund their own game at this point when we have console players and PC players not to mention all the paid for content. We also still have a large ESO plus subscription base, so I don't' see why ZOS wouldn't be capable of expanding their own game.

BlackEar wrote: »

You are debating the wrong thing.

Back to the main point: we won't get more free end game content because we moved on from that model. All content will now be through DLC so there is no chance for you getting "free" endgame content.

/thread

So you honestly don't think in the future we aren't going to get a vanilla expansion? Should all of tamriel be single zone dlcs with about 15-20 quests?

I don't think an expansion of vanilla would ever happen. But ZoS could add some more gameplay features overtime to the vanilla game. It is after all what is designed to pull players into the game at first. So improving that is like dressing the game with a new coat of paint and signs on the front of the shop.

An F2P just added a whole free expansion:

1 group dungeon
2 solo dungeons
10 vs 10 battleground
Flying to all zones including old ones
72 slot wardrobe system with subscribers getting additional
Class balance changes
Crafting improvements
Quality of Life improvements

And the patch before those were free and offered free classes.

Not improving the base game or adding new features is like telling people Cyrodil will never be improved or have features added. And they just added town sieges. If the first impression is just ok and not spectacular in the eyes of some players, why would they stick around and see the elder game?

AlnilamE · July 2016

Smasherx74 wrote: »

Smileybones wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

nobody is trolling you, we just think your hilarious for saying content you pay through a sub is free. Guess what, you could just sub as if it never went btp and everything they put out is the base game, as far as your concerned. its just really funny that you cant connect them creating revenue to produce product with them developing content.
just because you write on some forum in caps that your right dosent make you right. anothor irl lesson for ya.

they cant add the content to the base game, "for free" as you like to call it, now that its a buy to play model.

either get it for free with your sub or buy the dlc. thems the breaks

You did not pay for craglorn in during your pay-to-play era, craglorn was not withheld from non-ESOplus members. It was given out as part of the vanilla game, when it debuted everybody was paying a sub fee. Craglorn was never at any point, not free/vanilla.

If you want to argue Bethesda is too poor to developed a MMO, so they used Sub fees during the first year of console to pay for craglorn then that's fine. But that does not mean craglorn was ever at any point required additional payment outside of the vanilla game.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you didn't read my posts. I'm done discussing whether or not craglorn is vanilla, you're just wrong.

no im not arguing for the sake of arguing. you have a misguided premises. arguing wether its vanilla or not is what is irrelevant, its a company and has to have a model in which they pay for the enterprise and profit from it.

when it was sub only, the only option was to add it to the base game, nothing else would make any sense.
that system is gone with eso+ people dont HAVE to pay anymore. if they added content for free, I woulnnt pay them; then how is it they make money? can you at least explain the business model you have in mind where they add new content without selling it and still make money? you want them to lower quality even more and focus on ftp style cash shop ***? where will revenue come from?

No, what's irrelevant is your conclusion. The financial situation at ZOS is irrelevant, we're talking about what is and what isn't paid for content. You do not pay for craglorn, you never have. If ZOS used the sub fees for craglorn that means their profits paid for it, craglorn was intended for the vanilla game, thus it was never given any price tag. It is not a DLC, it is not a paid for content, it is a free-vanilla content that is intended to be apart of end game. Which is the whole point of this thread, to get further emphasis on solo end game quests outside of the generic faction quests.

fyi, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You just want to be right, hens why you used a logical fallacy to prove a point that I addressed. Please refrain from posting on my threads in the future.

ok i give up. you seem to have absolutely no clue about rudimentary business and economic principles, are you a little kid who has never even had a job before? im at a loss as to why you cant understand what im saying. the fact that you think that zos financial situation is irrelevant is absolutely jaw dropping. Good luck in life mate your going to need it.

There is no need to be upset. I've said it multiple times, the logic "I payed subscription fee when it was manditory so I paid for the Craglorn content" is not sound, that is ZOS' problem not yours. You didn't directly pay for access to the content, everybody at that time including many other things went towards getting that content made. It was intended for the game vanilla, it was never intended as a pay for content, which it has never been. You are simply making a logical fallacy, a false conclusion. What seems to upset you is you cannot grasp I do not care nor is it relevant that those sub fees went towards paying voice actors, programmers, etc... to get hat content done. Craglorn is a free extension of the end game content, this is not a disputable fact.

You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard. you can talk about logic all you want, your just throwing the word around. its not a false conclusion. they used money from subs to produce craiglorn and its subsequent expansions, that is a fact.your sub paid for the enterprise of eso. fact. nothing was or ever has been free becuse you had to give them money in one form or another. fact

ps if you want to know what a false conclusing is here is on for you
You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

You don't understand. ZOS is a business and they sell a product. ESO is a product, apart of the ESO product contains craglorn. At no point did you ever pay outside of your original base game and sub fee for craglorn. What ZOS did with their profits is irrelevant, if they had the finance to create new content is irrelevant. What is relevant is craglorn was never released as paid-for content. Hens why it was automatically apart of the game when subscription fees dropped.

you just dont understand the difference between how things work on different payment models. whatever the model is they need to get paid for their work, with craiglorn it was mandatory sub which guaranteed they made the money for content developed in that timeframe, now its optional so they sell it becuae they dont have guaranteed revenue. its simple as that, they have to sell it with the btp model. your idea is a pipedream, they will never make "free" expansions unless they go back to sub model where you always pay to log on.

We need new end game solo content, simple as that.

Until you realize that the game isn't P2P anymore and there won't be anymore endgame content, is that so hard to understand ?

That's still an irrelevant conclusion, I highly doublt ZOS cannot fund their own game at this point when we have console players and PC players not to mention all the paid for content. We also still have a large ESO plus subscription base, so I don't' see why ZOS wouldn't be capable of expanding their own game.

BlackEar wrote: »

You are debating the wrong thing.

Back to the main point: we won't get more free end game content because we moved on from that model. All content will now be through DLC so there is no chance for you getting "free" endgame content.

/thread

So you honestly don't think in the future we aren't going to get a vanilla expansion? Should all of tamriel be single zone dlcs with about 15-20 quests?

Probably not, but they are having a "special edition" come out that is base game +DLCs (in the fall, I believe) and people have data mined a DLC package deal as well.

My guess is, sometime after the 1-year mark of each DLC (and remember that IC hasn't actually been out for a year yet), they will just add a DLC to the "base game". I could be wrong, though.

SickDuck · July 2016

Craglorn was free as long as you were paying for your sub. Same as all DLCs are free as long as you have your ESO+ up and running.

The silver/gold replayability... Would you go in a restaurant and pay for a meal, then once consumed demand for another one free since you already bought a meal? Of course something different since you had enough of the previous already.

josefcifkaeb17_ESO · July 2016

Smasherx74 wrote: »

Smileybones wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

nobody is trolling you, we just think your hilarious for saying content you pay through a sub is free. Guess what, you could just sub as if it never went btp and everything they put out is the base game, as far as your concerned. its just really funny that you cant connect them creating revenue to produce product with them developing content.
just because you write on some forum in caps that your right dosent make you right. anothor irl lesson for ya.

they cant add the content to the base game, "for free" as you like to call it, now that its a buy to play model.

either get it for free with your sub or buy the dlc. thems the breaks

You did not pay for craglorn in during your pay-to-play era, craglorn was not withheld from non-ESOplus members. It was given out as part of the vanilla game, when it debuted everybody was paying a sub fee. Craglorn was never at any point, not free/vanilla.

If you want to argue Bethesda is too poor to developed a MMO, so they used Sub fees during the first year of console to pay for craglorn then that's fine. But that does not mean craglorn was ever at any point required additional payment outside of the vanilla game.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you didn't read my posts. I'm done discussing whether or not craglorn is vanilla, you're just wrong.

no im not arguing for the sake of arguing. you have a misguided premises. arguing wether its vanilla or not is what is irrelevant, its a company and has to have a model in which they pay for the enterprise and profit from it.

when it was sub only, the only option was to add it to the base game, nothing else would make any sense.
that system is gone with eso+ people dont HAVE to pay anymore. if they added content for free, I woulnnt pay them; then how is it they make money? can you at least explain the business model you have in mind where they add new content without selling it and still make money? you want them to lower quality even more and focus on ftp style cash shop ***? where will revenue come from?

No, what's irrelevant is your conclusion. The financial situation at ZOS is irrelevant, we're talking about what is and what isn't paid for content. You do not pay for craglorn, you never have. If ZOS used the sub fees for craglorn that means their profits paid for it, craglorn was intended for the vanilla game, thus it was never given any price tag. It is not a DLC, it is not a paid for content, it is a free-vanilla content that is intended to be apart of end game. Which is the whole point of this thread, to get further emphasis on solo end game quests outside of the generic faction quests.

fyi, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You just want to be right, hens why you used a logical fallacy to prove a point that I addressed. Please refrain from posting on my threads in the future.

ok i give up. you seem to have absolutely no clue about rudimentary business and economic principles, are you a little kid who has never even had a job before? im at a loss as to why you cant understand what im saying. the fact that you think that zos financial situation is irrelevant is absolutely jaw dropping. Good luck in life mate your going to need it.

There is no need to be upset. I've said it multiple times, the logic "I payed subscription fee when it was manditory so I paid for the Craglorn content" is not sound, that is ZOS' problem not yours. You didn't directly pay for access to the content, everybody at that time including many other things went towards getting that content made. It was intended for the game vanilla, it was never intended as a pay for content, which it has never been. You are simply making a logical fallacy, a false conclusion. What seems to upset you is you cannot grasp I do not care nor is it relevant that those sub fees went towards paying voice actors, programmers, etc... to get hat content done. Craglorn is a free extension of the end game content, this is not a disputable fact.

You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard. you can talk about logic all you want, your just throwing the word around. its not a false conclusion. they used money from subs to produce craiglorn and its subsequent expansions, that is a fact.your sub paid for the enterprise of eso. fact. nothing was or ever has been free becuse you had to give them money in one form or another. fact

ps if you want to know what a false conclusing is here is on for you
You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

You don't understand. ZOS is a business and they sell a product. ESO is a product, apart of the ESO product contains craglorn. At no point did you ever pay outside of your original base game and sub fee for craglorn. What ZOS did with their profits is irrelevant, if they had the finance to create new content is irrelevant. What is relevant is craglorn was never released as paid-for content. Hens why it was automatically apart of the game when subscription fees dropped.

you just dont understand the difference between how things work on different payment models. whatever the model is they need to get paid for their work, with craiglorn it was mandatory sub which guaranteed they made the money for content developed in that timeframe, now its optional so they sell it becuae they dont have guaranteed revenue. its simple as that, they have to sell it with the btp model. your idea is a pipedream, they will never make "free" expansions unless they go back to sub model where you always pay to log on.

We need new end game solo content, simple as that.

Until you realize that the game isn't P2P anymore and there won't be anymore endgame content, is that so hard to understand ?

That's still an irrelevant conclusion, I highly doublt ZOS cannot fund their own game at this point when we have console players and PC players not to mention all the paid for content. We also still have a large ESO plus subscription base, so I don't' see why ZOS wouldn't be capable of expanding their own game.

BlackEar wrote: »

You are debating the wrong thing.

Back to the main point: we won't get more free end game content because we moved on from that model. All content will now be through DLC so there is no chance for you getting "free" endgame content.

/thread

So you honestly don't think in the future we aren't going to get a vanilla expansion? Should all of tamriel be single zone dlcs with about 15-20 quests?

You're spouting complete and utter nonesense. You are comparing subscribtion games to ESO's B2P model.

Every time a subscription based game is released, there's leveling up content and then a bit of end game content that is expanded as time goes by untill there's a new expansion.

You call this expanded content End Game content and you're saying it's free since you didn't have to pay for it... yet you did by paying a monthly sub.

ESO works exactly like that and all the expanded content you could get in other sub based games is what DLC's are in ESO as long as you are a ESO + member.

If you are not an ESO+ member then you obviously have to pay for every content extension. ESO's DLC's are not the same thing as WoW expansions for example, ESO's DLC's are pretty much the same thing as WoW's patches.

Smasherx74 · July 2016

SickDuck wrote: »

Craglorn was free as long as you were paying for your sub. Same as all DLCs are free as long as you have your ESO+ up and running.

The silver/gold replayability... Would you go in a restaurant and pay for a meal, then once consumed demand for another one free since you already bought a meal? Of course something different since you had enough of the previous already.

At the time subs were mandatory to play the game, craglorn was released Free with vanilla content after subs dropped and "ESO plus" became a thing.

Smasherx74 · July 2016

josefcifkaeb17_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

Smileybones wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

nobody is trolling you, we just think your hilarious for saying content you pay through a sub is free. Guess what, you could just sub as if it never went btp and everything they put out is the base game, as far as your concerned. its just really funny that you cant connect them creating revenue to produce product with them developing content.
just because you write on some forum in caps that your right dosent make you right. anothor irl lesson for ya.

they cant add the content to the base game, "for free" as you like to call it, now that its a buy to play model.

either get it for free with your sub or buy the dlc. thems the breaks

You did not pay for craglorn in during your pay-to-play era, craglorn was not withheld from non-ESOplus members. It was given out as part of the vanilla game, when it debuted everybody was paying a sub fee. Craglorn was never at any point, not free/vanilla.

If you want to argue Bethesda is too poor to developed a MMO, so they used Sub fees during the first year of console to pay for craglorn then that's fine. But that does not mean craglorn was ever at any point required additional payment outside of the vanilla game.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you didn't read my posts. I'm done discussing whether or not craglorn is vanilla, you're just wrong.

no im not arguing for the sake of arguing. you have a misguided premises. arguing wether its vanilla or not is what is irrelevant, its a company and has to have a model in which they pay for the enterprise and profit from it.

when it was sub only, the only option was to add it to the base game, nothing else would make any sense.
that system is gone with eso+ people dont HAVE to pay anymore. if they added content for free, I woulnnt pay them; then how is it they make money? can you at least explain the business model you have in mind where they add new content without selling it and still make money? you want them to lower quality even more and focus on ftp style cash shop ***? where will revenue come from?

No, what's irrelevant is your conclusion. The financial situation at ZOS is irrelevant, we're talking about what is and what isn't paid for content. You do not pay for craglorn, you never have. If ZOS used the sub fees for craglorn that means their profits paid for it, craglorn was intended for the vanilla game, thus it was never given any price tag. It is not a DLC, it is not a paid for content, it is a free-vanilla content that is intended to be apart of end game. Which is the whole point of this thread, to get further emphasis on solo end game quests outside of the generic faction quests.

fyi, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You just want to be right, hens why you used a logical fallacy to prove a point that I addressed. Please refrain from posting on my threads in the future.

ok i give up. you seem to have absolutely no clue about rudimentary business and economic principles, are you a little kid who has never even had a job before? im at a loss as to why you cant understand what im saying. the fact that you think that zos financial situation is irrelevant is absolutely jaw dropping. Good luck in life mate your going to need it.

There is no need to be upset. I've said it multiple times, the logic "I payed subscription fee when it was manditory so I paid for the Craglorn content" is not sound, that is ZOS' problem not yours. You didn't directly pay for access to the content, everybody at that time including many other things went towards getting that content made. It was intended for the game vanilla, it was never intended as a pay for content, which it has never been. You are simply making a logical fallacy, a false conclusion. What seems to upset you is you cannot grasp I do not care nor is it relevant that those sub fees went towards paying voice actors, programmers, etc... to get hat content done. Craglorn is a free extension of the end game content, this is not a disputable fact.

You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard. you can talk about logic all you want, your just throwing the word around. its not a false conclusion. they used money from subs to produce craiglorn and its subsequent expansions, that is a fact.your sub paid for the enterprise of eso. fact. nothing was or ever has been free becuse you had to give them money in one form or another. fact

ps if you want to know what a false conclusing is here is on for you
You didn't pay for craglorn. (Paying for the game, does not equal paying for content individually. IF that were true then only those who had Subscriptions for more than 1 month would got Craglorn and everyone else would of bought it)

You don't understand. ZOS is a business and they sell a product. ESO is a product, apart of the ESO product contains craglorn. At no point did you ever pay outside of your original base game and sub fee for craglorn. What ZOS did with their profits is irrelevant, if they had the finance to create new content is irrelevant. What is relevant is craglorn was never released as paid-for content. Hens why it was automatically apart of the game when subscription fees dropped.

you just dont understand the difference between how things work on different payment models. whatever the model is they need to get paid for their work, with craiglorn it was mandatory sub which guaranteed they made the money for content developed in that timeframe, now its optional so they sell it becuae they dont have guaranteed revenue. its simple as that, they have to sell it with the btp model. your idea is a pipedream, they will never make "free" expansions unless they go back to sub model where you always pay to log on.

We need new end game solo content, simple as that.

Until you realize that the game isn't P2P anymore and there won't be anymore endgame content, is that so hard to understand ?

That's still an irrelevant conclusion, I highly doublt ZOS cannot fund their own game at this point when we have console players and PC players not to mention all the paid for content. We also still have a large ESO plus subscription base, so I don't' see why ZOS wouldn't be capable of expanding their own game.

BlackEar wrote: »

You are debating the wrong thing.

Back to the main point: we won't get more free end game content because we moved on from that model. All content will now be through DLC so there is no chance for you getting "free" endgame content.

/thread

So you honestly don't think in the future we aren't going to get a vanilla expansion? Should all of tamriel be single zone dlcs with about 15-20 quests?

You're spouting complete and utter nonesense. You are comparing subscribtion games to ESO's B2P model.

Every time a subscription based game is released, there's leveling up content and then a bit of end game content that is expanded as time goes by untill there's a new expansion.

You call this expanded content End Game content and you're saying it's free since you didn't have to pay for it... yet you did by paying a monthly sub.

ESO works exactly like that and all the expanded content you could get in other sub based games is what DLC's are in ESO as long as you are a ESO + member.

If you are not an ESO+ member then you obviously have to pay for every content extension. ESO's DLC's are not the same thing as WoW expansions for example, ESO's DLC's are pretty much the same thing as WoW's patches.

Financial reasoning is beyond the subject here, I've stated this 7 times already, so long as craglorn was free-to-play aside from the initial payment for theg ame, which includes pre-craglorn when you had a sub fee, it is literally apart of the vanilla game and not paid for content. Whether or not you understand the consumer did not pay for this content is up to your own interpretation, I'm simply stating we need more end game content, and using craglorn as justification for it.

but go ahead, be a walking logical fallacy and ruin the chance of us ever getting more end game solo content. I don't really care either way, I just thought I'd bring this up for all the players who do want more solo content and these small DLCs are not enough for us even with being an extra content paying costumer.....

Christ...

josefcifkaeb17_ESO · July 2016

Sure, everyone is crazy... only you're the aeroplane

ADarklore · July 2016

Sausage wrote: »

Journey definitely isnt ESO's strongest points, I think Silver/Gold was great idea at launch as their tripled their content but totally unnecessary now, I actually believe Silver/Gold reduces this game's overall quality, but choice has been made.

I disagree. Because, as stated, it allows players to play ALL the content, ALL the quests with just ONE character... without Cadwell's, the only way to experience the entirety of the games quests was to create a new character in another alliance... and most players- including myself- have no desire to create characters in other alliances. Cadwell's adds a LOT for players who enjoys questing, and adds weeks to months of content if one doesn't rush through it. Thus, Cadwell's is completely necessary as it gives players OPTIONS on how they want to play.

To the OP... they will NEVER EVER add new 'free' content to the game... NEVER. This is a B2P business model and they are not going to create content that they will never receive a financial return on; FREE doesn't help them pay the bills and keep the doors open. So if you're sitting around waiting for something free to come to ESO, you'll have a long and ultimately disappointed wait. You mentioned DCUO before, and this is EXACTLY the kind of model ESO is following- including their recent switch to "small DLC packs"- which follows DCUO almost to a 'T'. Thankfully though, ESO is geared more towards SOLO players, whereas DCUO feels that solo players in an MMO are an 'anomaly'- yes, the former Game Director actually did say that in a forum comment... and the Community Manager 'liked' my comment when I said that DCUO didn't even want solo content in the game. So for solo players, ESO offers a lot from an MMO compared to others that still cling to the "MMOs should be group content only" mentality.