Do you suspect ESO Direct will make content unpurchaseable?

ImmortalCX

Or could they gate access to the game behind direct or plus?

I suspect when they go to direct, that chapters and expansions will no longer be purchaseable. If you dont have it prior to direct, you will need to sub to get it.

This means that there is an advantage to buying expansions and dlc prior to direct, so that you can continue to play them.

Of course, eventually zos will release a new system that you need (like gemming gear for xtra stats), and unless you sub you will be left in the dust.

I think Direct is their move to 100% sub model.

They havent told us anything, so its important to speculate. Should we buy unowned content now, or forever lose them behind a subscription?

sleepy_worm

I think ESO Direct is just the name of the stream where they reveal content every year.

I think ESO+ and the Seasonal Content will be separate purchases. I'm guessing it's like the chapter model, but putting more content with the chapter (like dungeons with the chapter purchase), so it will likely go to ESO+ the following year.

Renato90085

nope

colossalvoids

This exact dungeon pack I'd expect to be a crown purchasable after direct, because of backlash. But future system is absolutely ESO plus or a hard cash year pass, imo.

That is making the game for me a year delayed (region that isn't eligible to buy or sub anymore), basically and I'm not sure about continuing with my dungeon team after the switch because I doubt they'll wait an entire year for that. Have crowns/gold probably to supply me for years so not super mad about it. Just unfortunate that it's probably won't be my "main game", that's all.

Two_Ears

To be fair, with the super limited knowledge and speculation i have on this. It sounds like ZOS will focus on cleaning up their game. no major expansions on the horizon. So you are good with zones and such.

Jestir

ZOS had used the new style of content releases as "seasons" and in most games that means a "battle pass". Those generally have a free and paid version so I would think if they are using the term in the video game industry standard, something will still be directly purchasable

This dungeon pack looks to be an awkward in-between the model transition and I'm guess next month it will be included in whatever the new model is

Maitsukas

Jestir wrote: »

ZOS had used the new style of content releases as "seasons" and in most games that means a "battle pass". Those generally have a free and paid version so I would think if they are using the term in the video game industry standard, something will still be directly purchasable

This dungeon pack looks to be an awkward in-between the model transition and I'm guess next month it will be included in whatever the new model is

Battle Passes are something you grind for rewards, with a one time purchase to get the rewards locked to the "premium" side of the BP.

Example from Fortnite:



Season pass is something you pay for once and get the content attached to that pass once it releases.

Example from Assassin's Creed Valhalla:

tomofhyrule

I do think the DLC only be available with the sub is a preview of things to come.

Without Chapters, ESO will need some way to make up for the loss of revenue. I know a lot of people are against the concept of a "season pass," but that seems the most likely so far. That, and I think ESO's goal is to get more people to sub, so it's likely going to be that a non-sub account will end up pretty limited in what they have.

I do have a suspicion that the basegame will be going free-to-play soon, and the updates to the starter areas are designed to make the game more attractive to new players. But that goes with the idea that a free account is using the servers without paying, so I'm expecting that they really want to push ESO+ as something players need to play. You can't put the cat back in the bag and go back to a sub-only model, but they can definitely try to make the sub really attractive by making it so one-time purchases of the DLCs are a thing of the past.

Orbital78

No

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Or could they gate access to the game behind direct or plus?

I suspect when they go to direct, that chapters and expansions will no longer be purchaseable. If you dont have it prior to direct, you will need to sub to get it.

This means that there is an advantage to buying expansions and dlc prior to direct, so that you can continue to play them.

Of course, eventually zos will release a new system that you need (like gemming gear for xtra stats), and unless you sub you will be left in the dust.

I think Direct is their move to 100% sub model.

They havent told us anything, so its important to speculate. Should we buy unowned content now, or forever lose them behind a subscription?

My guess would be that old content will be unaffected but newer content will move to a season/battle pass type model.
This seems to be the way that most games are going these days (for example New World). It takes away the need to develop a large amount of content with a 'chapter' system and just allows them to push a smaller flow of content out as it's ready.

Based on ZOS's recruitment page the work is still ongoing on the new mmo (and has been for a while) so it's likely that the announcement for that game is getting closer since it's been in development for quite a few years at this point. So moving to a system where they need less dev time would make sense for them even if its potentially worse for customers.

As a note, its actually potentially a good thing too, for example do we really need a 'new zone' at this point instead of just more / reworked content. There's plenty of land already in the game that could be updated and added to, sticking to the 'chapter' system was potentially holding them back in terms of the chapter 'requiring' certain unneeded content.

As for purchasing old content now - I don't think you will need to do this. I'd save the money and spend it on the future content if that's what you wish to do.

ImmortalCX

tomofhyrule wrote: »

I do think the DLC only be available with the sub is a preview of things to come.

Without Chapters, ESO will need some way to make up for the loss of revenue. I know a lot of people are against the concept of a "season pass," but that seems the most likely so far. That, and I think ESO's goal is to get more people to sub, so it's likely going to be that a non-sub account will end up pretty limited in what they have.

I do have a suspicion that the basegame will be going free-to-play soon, and the updates to the starter areas are designed to make the game more attractive to new players. But that goes with the idea that a free account is using the servers without paying, so I'm expecting that they really want to push ESO+ as something players need to play. You can't put the cat back in the bag and go back to a sub-only model, but they can definitely try to make the sub really attractive by making it so one-time purchases of the DLCs are a thing of the past.

This is my concern.

I could buy several years of dlc i dont own, so that i can enjoy them at my leisure, BUT they will probably introduce a new system that makes a sub necessary anyway, so buying them now is a huge waste of money.

As long as content is purchaseable and owned, and there arent any p2w systems like scribing, itvshould be ok.

Getting new players will really require alot of polish.

Grizzbeorn

sleepy_worm wrote: »

I think ESO Direct is just the name of the stream where they reveal content every year.

Correct.

sans-culottes

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Or could they gate access to the game behind direct or plus?

I suspect when they go to direct, that chapters and expansions will no longer be purchaseable. If you dont have it prior to direct, you will need to sub to get it.

This means that there is an advantage to buying expansions and dlc prior to direct, so that you can continue to play them.

Of course, eventually zos will release a new system that you need (like gemming gear for xtra stats), and unless you sub you will be left in the dust.

I think Direct is their move to 100% sub model.

They havent told us anything, so it’s important to speculate. Should we buy unowned content now, or forever lose them behind a subscription?

Sorry, but that’s not what they meant. Instead of it being “important to speculate,” what’s important is to instead bracket your assumptions.

ImmortalCX

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Or could they gate access to the game behind direct or plus?

I suspect when they go to direct, that chapters and expansions will no longer be purchaseable. If you dont have it prior to direct, you will need to sub to get it.

This means that there is an advantage to buying expansions and dlc prior to direct, so that you can continue to play them.

Of course, eventually zos will release a new system that you need (like gemming gear for xtra stats), and unless you sub you will be left in the dust.

I think Direct is their move to 100% sub model.

They havent told us anything, so its important to speculate. Should we buy unowned content now, or forever lose them behind a subscription?

As a note, its actually potentially a good thing too, for example do we really need a 'new zone' at this point instead of just more / reworked content. There's plenty of land already in the game that could be updated and added to, sticking to the 'chapter' system was potentially holding them back in terms of the chapter 'requiring' certain unneeded content.

The way I have always played ESO, is buying the new expansion and playing through the new zone story as if it were a single player game.

Then when the story is done, I start collecting motifs, working on my build, doing verteran and DLC dungeons. Farming to collect gold to buy said DLCs.

I think alot of people are like me and play it like a SP elder scrolls game.

So perhaps now there will be new stories, but instead be wrapped in DLC like Markarth or Murkmire.

As a casual long-term eso player, I'm interested to see what they do. The game has an incredible volume of content, but the systems don't work well for pvp. I think it has become mostly a PvE game so maintaining a steady flow of content is important.

I have taken this all to mean that they are entering a new "maintenance" phase, and are shrinking the team further for the inevitable fade out.

LadyGP

No - I do not.

They have already said that they aren't going to do "Seasons" like other games nor make content unobtainable after a certain point (like Destiny).

I think they went with "Seasons" as a way to help explain to the non developer that they are moving to agile methodology (kind of abstract concept to understand if you're not a developer or familiar with it).

IMO people have been burned by seasons in other games and have fear when ZoS used that word. I think people are just overthinking what Seasons will be in this game.

ImmortalCX

LadyGP wrote: »

No - I do not.

They have already said that they aren't going to do "Seasons" like other games nor make content unobtainable after a certain point (like Destiny).

I think they went with "Seasons" as a way to help explain to the non developer that they are moving to agile methodology (kind of abstract concept to understand if you're not a developer or familiar with it).

IMO people have been burned by seasons in other games and have fear when ZoS used that word. I think people are just overthinking what Seasons will be in this game.

You can use Agile method and still deliver to a schedule. I don't want to go off on a swdev tangent, but the change more likely represents a reorganization and smaller teams.

Agile is not a difficult concept to understand, even for non sw people.

LadyGP

ImmortalCX wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

No - I do not.

They have already said that they aren't going to do "Seasons" like other games nor make content unobtainable after a certain point (like Destiny).

I think they went with "Seasons" as a way to help explain to the non developer that they are moving to agile methodology (kind of abstract concept to understand if you're not a developer or familiar with it).

IMO people have been burned by seasons in other games and have fear when ZoS used that word. I think people are just overthinking what Seasons will be in this game.

You can use Agile method and still deliver to a schedule. I don't want to go off on a swdev tangent, but the change more likely represents a reorganization and smaller teams.

Agile is not a difficult concept to understand, even for non sw people.

There is a reason why companies pay $1,000's per team member to put them through agile training. Yes, of course you deliver on a schedule while being agile - that isn't changing. During their end of year letter they openly talked about how their 2-ish year lead time on content schedule kept them from being agile and moving to a smaller more "seasons" approach would allow them to be more agile and react faster.

AKA - seasons is their way of delivering content but having the ability to course correct quicker if needed. Imagine if they still had their old content schedule - now with the pain points thread @ZOS_Kevin started it would take them ages to be able to get that thrown into the release window.

Now with the new seasons they add it to the backlog and boom in a few months they can start fixing those things (they can do it sooner than that.. just giving them wiggle room here).

ImmortalCX

LadyGP wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

No - I do not.

They have already said that they aren't going to do "Seasons" like other games nor make content unobtainable after a certain point (like Destiny).

I think they went with "Seasons" as a way to help explain to the non developer that they are moving to agile methodology (kind of abstract concept to understand if you're not a developer or familiar with it).

IMO people have been burned by seasons in other games and have fear when ZoS used that word. I think people are just overthinking what Seasons will be in this game.

You can use Agile method and still deliver to a schedule. I don't want to go off on a swdev tangent, but the change more likely represents a reorganization and smaller teams.

Agile is not a difficult concept to understand, even for non sw people.

There is a reason why companies pay $1,000's per team member to put them through agile training. Yes, of course you deliver on a schedule while being agile - that isn't changing. During their end of year letter they openly talked about how their 2-ish year lead time on content schedule kept them from being agile and moving to a smaller more "seasons" approach would allow them to be more agile and react faster.

AKA - seasons is their way of delivering content but having the ability to course correct quicker if needed. Imagine if they still had their old content schedule - now with the pain points thread @ZOS_Kevin started it would take them ages to be able to get that thrown into the release window.

Now with the new seasons they add it to the backlog and boom in a few months they can start fixing those things (they can do it sooner than that.. just giving them wiggle room here).

I'm not disagreeing that they changed their roadmap and approach, but it has nothing to do with Agile. I mean, it *may*, but it doesn't have to.

LadyGP

ImmortalCX wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

No - I do not.

They have already said that they aren't going to do "Seasons" like other games nor make content unobtainable after a certain point (like Destiny).

I think they went with "Seasons" as a way to help explain to the non developer that they are moving to agile methodology (kind of abstract concept to understand if you're not a developer or familiar with it).

IMO people have been burned by seasons in other games and have fear when ZoS used that word. I think people are just overthinking what Seasons will be in this game.

You can use Agile method and still deliver to a schedule. I don't want to go off on a swdev tangent, but the change more likely represents a reorganization and smaller teams.

Agile is not a difficult concept to understand, even for non sw people.

There is a reason why companies pay $1,000's per team member to put them through agile training. Yes, of course you deliver on a schedule while being agile - that isn't changing. During their end of year letter they openly talked about how their 2-ish year lead time on content schedule kept them from being agile and moving to a smaller more "seasons" approach would allow them to be more agile and react faster.

AKA - seasons is their way of delivering content but having the ability to course correct quicker if needed. Imagine if they still had their old content schedule - now with the pain points thread @ZOS_Kevin started it would take them ages to be able to get that thrown into the release window.

Now with the new seasons they add it to the backlog and boom in a few months they can start fixing those things (they can do it sooner than that.. just giving them wiggle room here).

I'm not disagreeing that they changed their roadmap and approach, but it has nothing to do with Agile. I mean, it *may*, but it doesn't have to.

In their letter they literally said it does.

ImmortalCX

LadyGP wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

LadyGP wrote: »

No - I do not.

They have already said that they aren't going to do "Seasons" like other games nor make content unobtainable after a certain point (like Destiny).

I think they went with "Seasons" as a way to help explain to the non developer that they are moving to agile methodology (kind of abstract concept to understand if you're not a developer or familiar with it).

IMO people have been burned by seasons in other games and have fear when ZoS used that word. I think people are just overthinking what Seasons will be in this game.

You can use Agile method and still deliver to a schedule. I don't want to go off on a swdev tangent, but the change more likely represents a reorganization and smaller teams.

Agile is not a difficult concept to understand, even for non sw people.

There is a reason why companies pay $1,000's per team member to put them through agile training. Yes, of course you deliver on a schedule while being agile - that isn't changing. During their end of year letter they openly talked about how their 2-ish year lead time on content schedule kept them from being agile and moving to a smaller more "seasons" approach would allow them to be more agile and react faster.

AKA - seasons is their way of delivering content but having the ability to course correct quicker if needed. Imagine if they still had their old content schedule - now with the pain points thread @ZOS_Kevin started it would take them ages to be able to get that thrown into the release window.

Now with the new seasons they add it to the backlog and boom in a few months they can start fixing those things (they can do it sooner than that.. just giving them wiggle room here).

I'm not disagreeing that they changed their roadmap and approach, but it has nothing to do with Agile. I mean, it *may*, but it doesn't have to.

In their letter they literally said it does.

The Agile brochure looks amazing. Adopting Agile is just one step along the path to rejecting Agile. But it is an exciting concept for inexperienced PMs.

What really matters is throughput. Did they shrink their teams? Of course their letter would not mention that. Reading between the lines, they have shrunk their teams and don't have the bandwidth for ambitious chapters.

Danikat

I know a few people have mentioned this already but I think it's important to note that 'ESO Direct' is just the name of the livestream and tells us absolutely nothing about the new business model.

It's weird to think we've reached a point where people don't know this, but there's almost zero chance ESO is going to switch back to a subscription only model. That's how the game started out and less than a year in they were faced with the choice between switching to their current model of buy-to-play with an optional subscription or shutting the game down entirely. The mandatory subscription wasn't the only problem with the game at launch, but ZOS said it was a big problem for them, and the game has been far more successful since they changed.

If they switch back they not only lose a significant source of income and a lot of good will among players but also make it much harder to get even existing players to take a chance on the game in future because it's a much bigger committment.

I've never heard of an MMO changing to a subscription model after launch, and it would be very strange for a game which already made that mistake once.

ImmortalCX

Danikat wrote: »

I know a few people have mentioned this already but I think it's important to note that 'ESO Direct' is just the name of the livestream and tells us absolutely nothing about the new business model.

It's weird to think we've reached a point where people don't know this, but there's almost zero chance ESO is going to switch back to a subscription only model. That's how the game started out and less than a year in they were faced with the choice between switching to their current model of buy-to-play with an optional subscription or shutting the game down entirely. The mandatory subscription wasn't the only problem with the game at launch, but ZOS said it was a big problem for them, and the game has been far more successful since they changed.

If they switch back they not only lose a significant source of income and a lot of good will among players but also make it much harder to get even existing players to take a chance on the game in future because it's a much bigger committment.

I've never heard of an MMO changing to a subscription model after launch, and it would be very strange for a game which already made that mistake once.

I am not disagreeing; a sub-only model I would not play.

Previous content has been released in two varieties:

1) Cash purchase chapters (steam), which bundle all past chapters
2) In game crown DLC purchases, which do not bundle other DLC.

If they no longer have chapters, then on the surface that appears that individual DLC will be in-game purchaseable and non-bundled.

I am in the category of players who bought chapter updates every couple years, play them for a few months, buy some crown stuff (with farmed gold) and then quit til the next major.



Lets assum no sub model. Lets hypothesize that all the major chapters become FREE. (After all, they can no longer bundle past chapters with the latest, because there is no latest.)

That is a TON of content for free, and many people would come to the game, play it all and enjoy it all for FREE, without need to make any crown purchases. Because of the horizontal nature of progression, if a person just has access to the main chapters, that is years of material. You don't need DLC dungeons to really enjoy the game, and if they can be purchased with in-game gold, many people could play indefinitely without paying.

That means, they have to come up with something else to entice people to buy. My guess is that DLC zones will add new systems that players need. For instance replacing gear enchants with gemming that is more effective.

OTH, they could go to a subscription model, where ESO+ gives everything. What failed ten years ago might work better today.

tldr; If they don't go to an exclusive sub model and give away the base game for free, they need to come up with systems that "force" players to buy DLC.

spartaxoxo

I think Tanlorin and Zerith were a test for what the model will look like in the future.

Danikat

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Danikat wrote: »

I know a few people have mentioned this already but I think it's important to note that 'ESO Direct' is just the name of the livestream and tells us absolutely nothing about the new business model.

It's weird to think we've reached a point where people don't know this, but there's almost zero chance ESO is going to switch back to a subscription only model. That's how the game started out and less than a year in they were faced with the choice between switching to their current model of buy-to-play with an optional subscription or shutting the game down entirely. The mandatory subscription wasn't the only problem with the game at launch, but ZOS said it was a big problem for them, and the game has been far more successful since they changed.

If they switch back they not only lose a significant source of income and a lot of good will among players but also make it much harder to get even existing players to take a chance on the game in future because it's a much bigger committment.

I've never heard of an MMO changing to a subscription model after launch, and it would be very strange for a game which already made that mistake once.

I am not disagreeing; a sub-only model I would not play.

Previous content has been released in two varieties:

1) Cash purchase chapters (steam), which bundle all past chapters
2) In game crown DLC purchases, which do not bundle other DLC.

If they no longer have chapters, then on the surface that appears that individual DLC will be in-game purchaseable and non-bundled.

I am in the category of players who bought chapter updates every couple years, play them for a few months, buy some crown stuff (with farmed gold) and then quit til the next major.



Lets assum no sub model. Lets hypothesize that all the major chapters become FREE. (After all, they can no longer bundle past chapters with the latest, because there is no latest.)

That is a TON of content for free, and many people would come to the game, play it all and enjoy it all for FREE, without need to make any crown purchases. Because of the horizontal nature of progression, if a person just has access to the main chapters, that is years of material. You don't need DLC dungeons to really enjoy the game, and if they can be purchased with in-game gold, many people could play indefinitely without paying.

That means, they have to come up with something else to entice people to buy. My guess is that DLC zones will add new systems that players need. For instance replacing gear enchants with gemming that is more effective.

OTH, they could go to a subscription model, where ESO+ gives everything. What failed ten years ago might work better today.

tldr; If they don't go to an exclusive sub model and give away the base game for free, they need to come up with systems that "force" players to buy DLC.

I'm not sure why you think those are the only options for selling DLC.

Every chapter has always been available as a stand-alone 'upgrade' which does not include the past chapters. I realise you won't choose to buy that version if you're only playing for a bit every few years, but it has always been there.

Also they sold DLC through the crown store before there were any chapters, so there's no reason to think it has to be free just because they're not calling 1 DLC per year a chapter.

We don't know what they are going to do, and won't until the livestream happens, but it's a huge jump to assume they won't be able to sell bundles including the older chapters and so will 'have to' give it all away for free.

sarahthes

I suspect they are moving to a model where you can pre-pay for a year worth of content at once. As the new dungeons will be included in this year's package deal, they won't allow buying them individually until the package is also available.

Future years you will be able to buy ahead of time. So the current issue with dungeons not being available for crowns on release is likely a one off.

Rungar

i imagine they are just going to tell you they are going to finally focus on the pvp game now that the chapters are dead which makes sense for a sunsetting game with reduced content generation as it doesnt require nearly the effort of the pve game.

so their version of trying new things is really just a test bed for their new game. Not that that is a bad thing.

ImmortalCX

Rungar wrote: »

i imagine they are just going to tell you they are going to finally focus on the pvp game now that the chapters are dead which makes sense for a sunsetting game with reduced content generation as it doesnt require nearly the effort of the pve game.

so their version of trying new things is really just a test bed for their new game. Not that that is a bad thing.

The thing is, ESO still has a relatively healthy pop compared to others on steam. New T&L has 35K avg 5mo after launch. ESO around 15-20K. Same as FF14, and ahead of a handful of newer MMO. New world has fallen considerably.

I am not a PvPer, although I have enjoyed it in the past. I felt there was alot of potential there when I was running event quests in IC, but the system wasso janky and punishing that I focused on SP and dungeons.

I get what you are saying about "saying" they will fix pvp, but my feeling is does it even matter at this point? There are better pure pvp games like New World. Why even play MMO pvp, wouldnt they be happier playing fps like Apex of COD?

ESO has an exceptional amount of good voice acted quests and content which sets it apart. It is 98% a PvE game. I hope they can continue to manage it in a sensible way. I don't see any other studio developing this degree of lore/content/systems. If they deliver two "Murkmire" sized DLC a year that would probably be enough from a content perspective.

If they could build a sense of progression into it, that would extend its shelf life. I need to have a feeling of "why" I am playing this. It used to be to make gold to buy DLC. Now? I have done all the vet dungeons and the DLC dungeons I own. Trials don't give anything except some sets that are marginally better and only used to secure raid spots.

If trials had something I couldn't get in the cash shop, I'd have done them. The problem is they can't build much vertical progression because the most exceptional rewards are always in the cash shop.

I think what ESO really needs is endgame progression. Let the sweats migrate to Apex Legends or New World.

Even if they are just recycling, each season they could offer new difficulty levels of modified trials and people could collect some kind of rare currency that gets something amazing.

If DLC and trials get progressively more difficult, that would incentivize people to keep upgrading gear.

Rungar

id wager vet dlc dungeons and trials are and have been out of reach for most players for the last 7 years or so simply because the weaving requirement isnt met by most players.

sarahthes

Rungar wrote: »

id wager vet dlc dungeons and trials are and have been out of reach for most players for the last 7 years or so simply because the weaving requirement isnt met by most players.

Who needs to weave when you can just wear velothi and light attack once every 9 seconds to proc your ulti gen?

blktauna

ImmortalCX wrote: »

I think what ESO really needs is endgame progression.

agreed. So many people are maxed, it would be beneficial to have activities that make use of all that.

ImmortalCX wrote: »

Let the sweats migrate to Apex Legends or New World.

Those games suck, why would I want to switch my pvp to those?
Same as Ashes. Boring and awful.

I'm hoping at least the buffer issues and lag get improved.

Koshka

Rungar wrote: »

id wager vet dlc dungeons and trials are and have been out of reach for most players for the last 7 years or so simply because the weaving requirement isnt met by most players.

No, it's not because of weaving. You can do them just fine by using a heavy attack build or that Velothi mythic.
The problem is that people often just try to bruteforce bosses like they do with overland quests, and don't want to learn mechanics. Or, in case of trials, they expect others to do said mechanics. That's why you see groups where everyone has achievements, but nobody knows how to do portals/domes/whatever or wants to volunteer for these mechs.