Will the new dungeons be available for purchase IMMEDIATELY after the release of the update on 10.03

licenturion

ImmortalCX wrote: »

I think their goal is to get a larger% of players on eso+. If they shed players because of this, it could be seen as a good thing for their bottom line.

If the 1-month delay is not having the desired affect, they could make the delay longer (a year or more) or exclusive to eso+. Since there are no major chapters anymore (I just learned this), it means that everything will be DLC, and they will need to gate its access to free players. Think about it: A player who burns their server resources farming to buy crowns to play everything for free, and who doesn't spend $60 yearly, is net negative on the game.

This is the only logical outcome, given they aren't selling $60 expansions anymore. They can't have players like me running around for free if we aren't spending $60 yearly to play.

You forget about players like me.

I know a lot of people who binge content on streaming services. I would do the same with ESO if they go that route. If stuff is timegated behind ESO+, I just shift to other games and come back after a year, subscribe for month, binge all the new content when there aren't much other games releasing and move on until the next year.

In the end they get way way less from people like me who used to pre order the deluxe chapters and bought the dungeons on release day. I will get everything for 14 euros instead of 100 and my engagement would be way less. And I have patience. I play ESO daily and did all the events/pursuits the past year. Yet I didn't sub for the dungeons, even if I loooooove playing dungeons because I shall not be railroaded into a subscription.

I don't think personally they will drop the 'buy to play' people, because ESO has a lot of people who are playing this game and not another one, because of the good business model they had for a decade.

sans-culottes

Ph1p wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

However, I think where we differ is in how we perceive the value of Crowns under this system. You describe the delay as devaluing Crown purchases, but I’d argue that the exchange-value of Crowns hasn’t actually changed—1,500 Crowns still buys the same DLC. What’s shifted is its use-value relative to ESO+, because now, the immediate access ESO+ provides makes it comparatively more desirable. In other words, the utility of Crowns in accessing content has changed in relation to the new system, but the fundamental purchasing power of Crowns remains the same.

You're making a fundamental mistake by tying the purchasing power of Crowns to the nominal exchange value instead of the utility value. If the price of a chocolate bar stays the same but its size decreased by 10%, you can't argue it's all fine just because the exchange value hasn't budged. If the next Crown Crate costs the same as the last one, but has lower legendary and epic drop rates, nobody will care about the price being the same. If the price of Crown packs stays the same but everything in the Crown Store costs more Crowns, ... well I hope you get the point

@Ph1p, your response makes an interesting comparison, but it misapplies the concept of exchange-value versus use-value in a way that distorts the argument.

Your chocolate bar analogy assumes a direct reduction in what is being purchased for the same price. That is not what is happening here. The amount of Crowns required to purchase a DLC has not increased, nor has the DLC itself been altered in scope or content. The transaction remains identical: 1,500 Crowns still buys the same permanent access to the DLC as before. What has changed is the timing of availability, which is a shift in convenience rather than a devaluation in purchasing power.

Your second analogy—about Crown Crates having worse drop rates—also doesn’t map onto the situation. In that case, the product itself is objectively delivering less value for the same price. But in this case, nothing has been removed from the DLC purchase itself—there’s just a waiting period attached. A more accurate comparison would be a sale item with a delayed shipping date: you still receive the same product at the same price, just not immediately.

The only legitimate comparison would be if ZOS had increased the Crown cost of DLCs while keeping ESO+ the same price, thereby shifting the purchasing power of Crowns downward. That would be a clear devaluation. But that isn’t what has happened. Instead, the delay makes ESO+ a relatively more attractive option, which is a distinct issue from the absolute purchasing power of Crowns.

Your argument hinges on equating delayed access with reduced value, but that is not necessarily the case. The use-value of Crowns has changed in comparison to ESO+, yes—but the exchange-value remains untouched. Whether that change is frustrating is a fair discussion, but it is not equivalent to devaluation in the way you describe.

Ph1p

sans-culottes wrote: »

Your chocolate bar analogy assumes a direct reduction in what is being purchased for the same price. That is not what is happening here. The amount of Crowns required to purchase a DLC has not increased, nor has the DLC itself been altered in scope or content. The transaction remains identical: 1,500 Crowns still buys the same permanent access to the DLC as before. What has changed is the timing of availability, which is a shift in convenience rather than a devaluation in purchasing power.

This situation absolutely represents "a direct reduction in what is being purchased". The product I'm paying for isn't just the lines of code in the DLC, but also the experience of playing this MMO group content and the entertainment value that provides. A delay means fewer friends to play with and a very different dungeon experience, which directly reduces the utility value of the product. And if I have to pay the same amount of Crowns for less utility, my Crowns are comparatively worth less than before, even if the sticker price doesn't change.

sans-culottes wrote: »

Your second analogy—about Crown Crates having worse drop rates—also doesn’t map onto the situation. In that case, the product itself is objectively delivering less value for the same price. But in this case, nothing has been removed from the DLC purchase itself—there’s just a waiting period attached. A more accurate comparison would be a sale item with a delayed shipping date: you still receive the same product at the same price, just not immediately.

I'm afraid you're operating under the false premise that waiting doesn't diminish the value *. I could kind of get behind that argument, if this was about a new storyline or a solo arena. Even if I only get it a month later, the playing experience itself doesn't differ compared to immediate access. This however, is more like a movie night with friends vs. going to the cinema a month later by myself. While it might cost the same and nothing gets removed from the movie itself, it's objectively not the same experience and most people would agree I'm not getting the same money's worth in both cases. But I'm sure you'll find a nit to pick in this analogy as well

sans-culottes wrote: »

The only legitimate comparison would be if ZOS had increased the Crown cost of DLCs while keeping ESO+ the same price, thereby shifting the purchasing power of Crowns downward. That would be a clear devaluation. But that isn’t what has happened. Instead, the delay makes ESO+ a relatively more attractive option, which is a distinct issue from the absolute purchasing power of Crowns.

Devaluation can come in two forms. Higher price but same product or worse/less product but same price. So kindly explain how a reduction in the use-value of Crowns doesn't represent a devaluation of Crowns?

* By the way, I'm not claiming universal validity regarding the impact of delays on utility. If someone only does PUGs or doesn't play group content at all, of course there is much less or no devaluation.

sarahthes

I suspect these dungeons are a one off that falls between two pricing models.

My suspicion is that we move to a season pass that includes all content for the year, or ESO+. A la carte purchases may be delayed, or may not be once the season pass system is in place. They just don't want to sell the current dungeons a la carte right now because they're going to be included in the 2025 season pass - which isn't yet buyable.

For 2026 onward, you'll be able to buy the pass ahead of dungeon release and so it becomes a non issue and a la carte sales would be less restricted.

ZOS_Icy

Greetings,

We have recently removed some unnecessary back and forth from this thread. This is a reminder to keep the discussion civil and constructive. Please keep our Community Rules in mind moving forward.

The Elder Scrolls Online Team

sans-culottes

@Ph1p, I appreciate that you’re engaging with the concept of value here, but I think there’s still a misalignment in how we’re defining “devaluation.”

The issue is not whether a delay changes the experience of consuming the content—it obviously does. If a person highly values playing with friends at launch, then yes, the delay might affect their personal enjoyment. But enjoyment, social experience, and personal preference do not equate to economic devaluation in any formal sense.

Your concert analogy introduces a subjective framing of value rather than a structural change in the product’s worth. A more accurate analogy would be buying a ticket for a concert that you can attend at any time, but fan club members get in a month earlier. The concert itself remains unchanged—same setlist, same length, same artist—but the timing has been altered. You might personally value seeing it earlier, but the ticket itself has not changed in price or contents.

You ask how a reduction in the use-value of Crowns does not constitute devaluation. The answer is that use-value is inherently subjective. The purchasing power of Crowns remains the same—they still buy the same DLC for the same price. What has changed is relative desirability between the two monetization models (ESO+ vs. Crown purchases), which is a distinct issue from absolute devaluation.

If the concern is that ESO+ now seems more attractive in comparison, then that is a strategic monetization shift, not an inherent reduction in the value of Crowns. A true devaluation would require either:
1. Increasing the Crown cost of DLCs (which has not happened), or
2. Reducing the amount of content provided per Crown purchase (which also has not happened).

You may find the delay frustrating, but framing it as economic devaluation conflates market positioning with an actual loss in purchasing power.

That distinction is important if we want to critique ZOS’s strategy accurately rather than simply expressing dissatisfaction.