Update 41 is now available for testing on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/categories/pts
Maintenance for the week of February 26:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – February 26

Forget *moving* accounts between platforms. Think: *shared* progress.

dk_dunkirk
dk_dunkirk
✭✭✭
Lots of people on here have asked for the ability to move their account between platforms. Think bigger. We should be able to have shared progress across ALL supported platforms.

I know, I know.

Mods. Bethesda can do mods on consoles. They've done it for Skyrim and Fallout 4. Sure, Sony is a stickler. Bethesda is now Microsoft; they have the means to make it worth Sony's while.

Economy. Fix the mod situation, and you'll "fix" the economy. At least, it will eventually balance out.

Controls. Non issue. There's no definitive advantage of M/K over controller in this game. I use a controller on PC.

I think the thing holding either moving or sharing progress between platforms is logging. I'm sure ZOS is logging every single interaction with EVERYTHING. I'm not saying this would be easy to combine, but it's also not beyond the wit of man.

Imagine being able to play the game with your different friend groups who just happen to be on another platform.

Then, once this is implemented... SINGLE INSTANCE FOR EVERYONE.

You're welcome.
  • lillybit
    lillybit
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    So you share progress between servers and suddenly people are just using PC to sell things and bringing the millions more than they could make on console back here. Pretty soon console economy is trashed and it's impossible for people without a PC to buy anything because everything's taken there where it's worth more
    PS4 EU
  • Danikat
    Danikat
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    In principle I think it would be a good idea, but I think there's a lot of other considerations besides the ones you mentioned.

    Character names are a big one, at the moment they have to be unique within your server, if progress was shared across all servers they'd need to be unique across the whole game, or ZOS would have to design and implement a way to allow them to be duplicated. I know that can be done (usually adding a different unique identifier), but I don't think it's easy to do retroactively, especially because it needs to be something players can then use for mail, party invites and all the other places they currently use character names.

    If they don't allow duplicates they'd need a solution for all the existing duplicates. I have two different characters with the same name, one on PC EU and one on PC NA and even in that situation I wouldn't be happy with having to pick just 1 to keep the name and re-naming the other. If I was asked to give up a character name because someone else I didn't know had the same one I definitely wouldn't. (I think it would be pointless to ask, ZOS would probably make the decision on who gets to keep it and take the name away from the other player, which would cause a lot of resentment.)
    PC EU player | She/her/hers | PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!

    "Remember in this game we call life that no one said it's fair"
  • dk_dunkirk
    dk_dunkirk
    ✭✭✭
    lillybit wrote: »
    So you share progress between servers and suddenly people are just using PC to sell things and bringing the millions more than they could make on console back here. Pretty soon console economy is trashed and it's impossible for people without a PC to buy anything because everything's taken there where it's worth more

    Asked and answered.
  • TaSheen
    TaSheen
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ugh. No thank you. Especially not a "single instance for everyone".
    ______________________________________________________

    But even in books, the heroes make mistakes, and there isn't always a happy ending.

    PC NA, PC EU (non steam)- three accounts, many alts....
  • SilverBride
    SilverBride
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..

    I do support transfer of accounts though.
    PCNA
  • dk_dunkirk
    dk_dunkirk
    ✭✭✭
    PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..

    I do support transfer of accounts though.

    "Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.
  • SilverBride
    SilverBride
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..

    I do support transfer of accounts though.

    "Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.

    And do they have addons for PC and not for consoles?
    PCNA
  • kargen27
    kargen27
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..

    I do support transfer of accounts though.

    "Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.

    Completely different game designed for cross play. Also doesn't have mega servers instead limiting players to instances that may go away after battle is finished.
    and then the parrot said, "must be the water mines green too."
  • dk_dunkirk
    dk_dunkirk
    ✭✭✭
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..

    I do support transfer of accounts though.

    "Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.

    And do they have addons for PC and not for consoles?

    Asked and answered in the original post. The whole idea assumes making mods available on console, where, again, other titles show they can do it.
  • dk_dunkirk
    dk_dunkirk
    ✭✭✭
    kargen27 wrote: »
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..

    I do support transfer of accounts though.

    "Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.

    Completely different game designed for cross play. Also doesn't have mega servers instead limiting players to instances that may go away after battle is finished.

    As I tried to imply by "others," there are several cross-play MMO's.
  • SilverBride
    SilverBride
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..

    I do support transfer of accounts though.

    "Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.

    And do they have addons for PC and not for consoles?

    Asked and answered in the original post. The whole idea assumes making mods available on console, where, again, other titles show they can do it.

    ZoS has no control over that. It's the consoles that won't allow it. And I can guarantee that if they removed access to add-ons on PC they would lose most of their playerbase.
    PCNA
  • Pixiepumpkin
    Pixiepumpkin
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..

    I do support transfer of accounts though.

    "Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.

    And do they have addons for PC and not for consoles?

    Asked and answered in the original post. The whole idea assumes making mods available on console, where, again, other titles show they can do it.

    ZoS has no control over that. It's the consoles that won't allow it. And I can guarantee that if they removed access to add-ons on PC they would lose most of their playerbase.

    So...sony? Because MS owns ZOS.

    Addons can be baked into the game.

    As far as "they would lose most of their playerbase", that is not even remotly true. Lose some? Sure, but not most.

    And I would argue IF that was the case, that addons are so necessary to enjoy the game that their functionality should be baked in.
    "𝕰𝖛𝖊𝖓 𝕲𝖔𝖉𝖘 𝖉𝖎𝖘𝖑𝖎𝖐𝖊 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖆𝖇𝖘𝖔𝖑𝖚𝖙𝖊, 𝖋𝖔𝖗 𝖎𝖙 𝖘𝖙𝖎𝖓𝖐𝖘 𝖔𝖋 𝖘𝖔𝖒𝖊𝖙𝖍𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝖑𝖆𝖗𝖌𝖊𝖗 𝖙𝖍𝖆𝖓 𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖒𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖛𝖊𝖘." ― Sotha Sil
    PC/NA
  • ComboBreaker88
    ComboBreaker88
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Think only works if thr inventory and craft bags remain separate. Progress, sure. Items and gold? No way.
  • Tandor
    Tandor
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..

    I do support transfer of accounts though.

    "Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.

    Do they have exactly the same coding as ESO?
  • dk_dunkirk
    dk_dunkirk
    ✭✭✭
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..

    I do support transfer of accounts though.

    "Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.

    And do they have addons for PC and not for consoles?

    Asked and answered in the original post. The whole idea assumes making mods available on console, where, again, other titles show they can do it.

    ZoS has no control over that. It's the consoles that won't allow it. And I can guarantee that if they removed access to add-ons on PC they would lose most of their playerbase.

    Also asked and answered. As I'm saying for the third time now, Bethesda HAS ALREADY DONE THIS for Skyrim and Fallout 4. Whatever it is people think they need to do, or the console people need to do, everyone involved has already shown it can be done. Twice already.
    Edited by dk_dunkirk on February 4, 2024 1:53PM
  • Ph1p
    Ph1p
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    Also asked and answered. As I'm saying for the third time now, Bethesda HAS ALREADY DONE THIS for Skyrim and Fallout 76. Whatever it is people think they need to do, or the console people need to do, everyone involved has already shown it can be done. Twice already.

    It’s of course technically feasible, but you’re still talking different games, development studios, and underlying technologies
  • dk_dunkirk
    dk_dunkirk
    ✭✭✭
    Ph1p wrote: »
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    Also asked and answered. As I'm saying for the third time now, Bethesda HAS ALREADY DONE THIS for Skyrim and Fallout 76. Whatever it is people think they need to do, or the console people need to do, everyone involved has already shown it can be done. Twice already.

    It’s of course technically feasible, but you’re still talking different games, development studios, and underlying technologies

    For the third time, I've given 2 examples of the same company doing this on different "games" and "underlying technologies," and for the 4th time, someone just throws up their hands and claims it's somehow impossible. You win. I give up.
  • SilverBride
    SilverBride
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ZoS has no control over that. It's the consoles that won't allow it. And I can guarantee that if they removed access to add-ons on PC they would lose most of their playerbase.

    So...sony? Because MS owns ZOS.

    Addons can be baked into the game.

    As far as "they would lose most of their playerbase", that is not even remotly true. Lose some? Sure, but not most.

    And I would argue IF that was the case, that addons are so necessary to enjoy the game that their functionality should be baked in.

    We've had the use of add-ons for 10 years. Taking those away now would be comparable to trading in our washer and dryer to beat our clothes on rocks to clean them. Players aren't going to adapt well to that.

    I agree that a lot of the features we get from add-ons should be in game, but that is a different topic.
    PCNA
  • Pixiepumpkin
    Pixiepumpkin
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ZoS has no control over that. It's the consoles that won't allow it. And I can guarantee that if they removed access to add-ons on PC they would lose most of their playerbase.

    So...sony? Because MS owns ZOS.

    Addons can be baked into the game.

    As far as "they would lose most of their playerbase", that is not even remotly true. Lose some? Sure, but not most.

    And I would argue IF that was the case, that addons are so necessary to enjoy the game that their functionality should be baked in.

    We've had the use of add-ons for 10 years. Taking those away now would be comparable to trading in our washer and dryer to beat our clothes on rocks to clean them. Players aren't going to adapt well to that.

    I agree that a lot of the features we get from add-ons should be in game, but that is a different topic.

    I would venture to say most people do not use addons or very few. But the core of the conversation is about shared server stuff (not that I agree with it), but addons are not a factor in this debate becasue they can be baked into the game if they are deemed necessary.

    Edited by Pixiepumpkin on February 4, 2024 4:40PM
    "𝕰𝖛𝖊𝖓 𝕲𝖔𝖉𝖘 𝖉𝖎𝖘𝖑𝖎𝖐𝖊 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖆𝖇𝖘𝖔𝖑𝖚𝖙𝖊, 𝖋𝖔𝖗 𝖎𝖙 𝖘𝖙𝖎𝖓𝖐𝖘 𝖔𝖋 𝖘𝖔𝖒𝖊𝖙𝖍𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝖑𝖆𝖗𝖌𝖊𝖗 𝖙𝖍𝖆𝖓 𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖒𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖛𝖊𝖘." ― Sotha Sil
    PC/NA
  • SilverBride
    SilverBride
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ZoS has no control over that. It's the consoles that won't allow it. And I can guarantee that if they removed access to add-ons on PC they would lose most of their playerbase.

    So...sony? Because MS owns ZOS.

    Addons can be baked into the game.

    As far as "they would lose most of their playerbase", that is not even remotly true. Lose some? Sure, but not most.

    And I would argue IF that was the case, that addons are so necessary to enjoy the game that their functionality should be baked in.

    We've had the use of add-ons for 10 years. Taking those away now would be comparable to trading in our washer and dryer to beat our clothes on rocks to clean them. Players aren't going to adapt well to that.

    I agree that a lot of the features we get from add-ons should be in game, but that is a different topic.

    I would venture to say most people do not use addons or very few. But the core of the conversation is about shared server stuff (not that I agree with it), but addons are not a factor in this debate becasue they can be baked into the game if they are deemed necessary.

    Almost everyone on PC uses add-ons. Just go to any crafting area and see how fast players move from station to station doing their writs. That is only possible due to an add-on.

    This is a big factor in whether or not to combine PC and Console players. I don't see ZoS making all these quality of life features part of the game to combine the platforms, which they may have no desire to do.
    Edited by SilverBride on February 4, 2024 4:49PM
    PCNA
  • Ph1p
    Ph1p
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    For the third time, I've given 2 examples of the same company doing this on different "games" and "underlying technologies," and for the 4th time, someone just throws up their hands and claims it's somehow impossible. You win. I give up.

    I literally said that "it's of course technically feasible", which you completely ignored for some reason. You also keep ignoring that Bethesda Game Studios and ZOS are the same company only in the same way that the makers of WoW and Candy Crush Saga are the same company...
  • Pixiepumpkin
    Pixiepumpkin
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ZoS has no control over that. It's the consoles that won't allow it. And I can guarantee that if they removed access to add-ons on PC they would lose most of their playerbase.

    So...sony? Because MS owns ZOS.

    Addons can be baked into the game.

    As far as "they would lose most of their playerbase", that is not even remotly true. Lose some? Sure, but not most.

    And I would argue IF that was the case, that addons are so necessary to enjoy the game that their functionality should be baked in.

    We've had the use of add-ons for 10 years. Taking those away now would be comparable to trading in our washer and dryer to beat our clothes on rocks to clean them. Players aren't going to adapt well to that.

    I agree that a lot of the features we get from add-ons should be in game, but that is a different topic.

    I would venture to say most people do not use addons or very few. But the core of the conversation is about shared server stuff (not that I agree with it), but addons are not a factor in this debate becasue they can be baked into the game if they are deemed necessary.

    Almost everyone on PC uses add-ons. Just go to any crafting area and see how fast players move from station to station doing their writs. That is only possible due to an add-on.

    This is a big factor in whether or not to combine PC and Console players. I don't see ZoS making all these quality of life features part of the game to combine the platforms, which they may have no desire to do.

    I disagree. I would argue that most players do not use addons. I rarely use any myself (and I dont use any crafting addons). But AGAIN, this is not about crafting, its about the OP suggesting that different platforums be merged, which if they were addons could easily be baked into the core game, so they are not part of the discussion.
    "𝕰𝖛𝖊𝖓 𝕲𝖔𝖉𝖘 𝖉𝖎𝖘𝖑𝖎𝖐𝖊 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖆𝖇𝖘𝖔𝖑𝖚𝖙𝖊, 𝖋𝖔𝖗 𝖎𝖙 𝖘𝖙𝖎𝖓𝖐𝖘 𝖔𝖋 𝖘𝖔𝖒𝖊𝖙𝖍𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝖑𝖆𝖗𝖌𝖊𝖗 𝖙𝖍𝖆𝖓 𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖒𝖘𝖊𝖑𝖛𝖊𝖘." ― Sotha Sil
    PC/NA
  • lillybit
    lillybit
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..

    I do support transfer of accounts though.

    "Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.

    And do they have addons for PC and not for consoles?

    Asked and answered in the original post. The whole idea assumes making mods available on console, where, again, other titles show they can do it.

    ZoS has no control over that. It's the consoles that won't allow it. And I can guarantee that if they removed access to add-ons on PC they would lose most of their playerbase.

    Also asked and answered. As I'm saying for the third time now, Bethesda HAS ALREADY DONE THIS for Skyrim and Fallout 4. Whatever it is people think they need to do, or the console people need to do, everyone involved has already shown it can be done. Twice already.

    Skyrim and Fallout have extremely limited add-ons that don't in any way compare with what PC has. Even if they were suddenly allowed in ESO they would still only be a shadow of those available to PC
    PS4 EU
  • dk_dunkirk
    dk_dunkirk
    ✭✭✭
    Ph1p wrote: »
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    For the third time, I've given 2 examples of the same company doing this on different "games" and "underlying technologies," and for the 4th time, someone just throws up their hands and claims it's somehow impossible. You win. I give up.

    I literally said that "it's of course technically feasible", which you completely ignored for some reason. You also keep ignoring that Bethesda Game Studios and ZOS are the same company only in the same way that the makers of WoW and Candy Crush Saga are the same company...

    I’m not ignoring anything. ZOS, Bethesda, Blizzard, Activision? Skyrim, Fallout, ESO, AND WoW. It’s all Microsoft now, baby. The Xbox fanboys got what they wanted, and now we all have to live with the fact that Microsoft is going to make them all march to the same beat, wherever tempo that winds up being.
  • Ph1p
    Ph1p
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    lillybit wrote: »
    Skyrim and Fallout have extremely limited add-ons that don't in any way compare with what PC has. Even if they were suddenly allowed in ESO they would still only be a shadow of those available to PC

    Both are also single-player games where it doesn't matter if someone has an add-on and another player doesn't. However, if you merge console and PC servers, ZOS would have to actively curate add-ons and make sure everybody can get the same. But who ports the existing add-ons to consoles? Will they only accept new add-ons if they are made for all platforms? How would they even enforce this? How much time and effort will this waste that could otherwise be put into new content for everybody?
  • Tandor
    Tandor
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    Ph1p wrote: »
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    For the third time, I've given 2 examples of the same company doing this on different "games" and "underlying technologies," and for the 4th time, someone just throws up their hands and claims it's somehow impossible. You win. I give up.

    I literally said that "it's of course technically feasible", which you completely ignored for some reason. You also keep ignoring that Bethesda Game Studios and ZOS are the same company only in the same way that the makers of WoW and Candy Crush Saga are the same company...

    I’m not ignoring anything. ZOS, Bethesda, Blizzard, Activision? Skyrim, Fallout, ESO, AND WoW. It’s all Microsoft now, baby. The Xbox fanboys got what they wanted, and now we all have to live with the fact that Microsoft is going to make them all march to the same beat, wherever tempo that winds up being.

    I've seen no statement by Microsoft to that effect, nor have I seen any evidence of those games being adapted to fit with the others. What have I missed? Companies often take over others in order to broaden their base and market share, not so as to make them all produce the same identikit products.
    Edited by Tandor on February 4, 2024 5:29PM
  • Maitsukas
    Maitsukas
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    From UESP regarding Skyrim Mods on PlayStation: https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:PlayStation#Third_Party_Mods
    Unlike on Xbox One, Special Edition only has limited mod support on PlayStation. Only assets already included within the game may be used. Any mod that adds textures, meshes, animations, sounds, and/or scripts will not be PlayStation-compatible. Note that trophies are disabled when playing with mods. These restrictions extend to Verified Creations, resulting in only a limited subset of these Creations being available on PlayStation.

    As I understand, Sony doesn't want anything malicious to sneak into their consoles, which is why anything third party must be using the game's original assets.
    Edited by Maitsukas on February 4, 2024 9:42PM
    Call me Mait
  • dk_dunkirk
    dk_dunkirk
    ✭✭✭
    Tandor wrote: »
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    Ph1p wrote: »
    dk_dunkirk wrote: »
    For the third time, I've given 2 examples of the same company doing this on different "games" and "underlying technologies," and for the 4th time, someone just throws up their hands and claims it's somehow impossible. You win. I give up.

    I literally said that "it's of course technically feasible", which you completely ignored for some reason. You also keep ignoring that Bethesda Game Studios and ZOS are the same company only in the same way that the makers of WoW and Candy Crush Saga are the same company...

    I’m not ignoring anything. ZOS, Bethesda, Blizzard, Activision? Skyrim, Fallout, ESO, AND WoW. It’s all Microsoft now, baby. The Xbox fanboys got what they wanted, and now we all have to live with the fact that Microsoft is going to make them all march to the same beat, wherever tempo that winds up being.

    I've seen no statement by Microsoft to that effect, nor have I seen any evidence of those games being adapted to fit with the others. What have I missed? Companies often take over others in order to broaden their base and market share, not so as to make them all produce the same identikit products.

    Tell me you haven't lived through a Fortune 250 merger, without telling me...

    We're way off in the weeds here now, but no company has ever bought another company, and not stuck its nose DEEP into the acquired company's operations.

    Why do you think Activision just had an 8% layoff, after record profits? You think they just felt like doing it? No, Microsoft told them to do it, and they did. Eight percent is a big layoff, by corporate standards. Why didn't they say anything about that prior to the merger? They surely had it planned. Why do you expect a company to telegraph unpopular moves? This will be the tip of an iceberg. Whole games will be shuttered to line up to Microsoft's master plan. You can say, nah, they would never, but literally every corporate merger winds up doing this. It's the whole point of doing mergers and acquisitions. The "synergies," by which they mean extracting more profit by reducing consumer choices to go elsewhere.

    Forget combining platforms now. The question we should fear Microsoft asking is: Why are we paying for the development of ESO when WoW has MORE THAN TEN TIMES the player base, and a large portion of the ESO players would probably move over if we cancel it? How can we roll these things together, and then fire another tranche of fungible video game developers? That's the question SOMEONE inside Microsoft is asking right now.
Sign In or Register to comment.