An Open Letter to Zenimax Online Studios

Neizir · February 2015

While on MMORPG.com, I saw this article by Ryan Getchell:

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/feature/9389/An-Open-Letter-to-Zenimax.html/page/1

I read the through the whole thing, and it was just impossible to disagree with. He hit the nail right on the head with PvP in particular. You CANNOT deny that PvP, a huge aspect of the game that was touted as ESO's big thing, has been shoved to the side in favor of paid DLC and items in the Crown Store. Shoving PvP under the rug is detrimental to the game's longevity - PvP provides a ton of longevity to the game, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be kicked to the curb. Where is Imperial City? And where is Justice PvP? And please don't give us your general excuse of "We don't think it's ready yet!" I understand about Justice PvP, but Imperial City was showable at Quakecon and nearly all of its mechanics were explained in full detail at the Guild Summit in October. Back then, it sounded like a solid idea, perhaps even ready for release! So why on Earth did you have to completely reboot an otherwise great-sounding addition? Surely something that had an in-depth showcase nearly a year ago couldn't take over a year afterwards to actually release and for it to be completely different than described solely because ZOS wanted to delay it for seemingly no reason at all? My guess is that ZOS wants to make a profit out of it, because what game company doesn't love milking its players dry by putting a paywall behind an integral part of gameplay when they explicitly said they weren't going to do something like that?

His points about updates and content were spot-on, too. I and pretty much ESO's entire community are really looking forward to Update 6 coming in a couple of weeks, but getting CP, getting our new recipes and committing crimes isn't worth 6 months of content. ZOS has managed to push out 5 updates within 6 weeks of each other already, so there is absolutely no excuse for a content update to take 6 whole months to release! I can get that ZOS is allocating most of its resources to the console launch in order for it to be as polished as possible, but isn't 4 months worth of bugfixing a tad excessive? You could easily fit in a 7th or even an 8th content update between now and console launch - it doesn't have to contain the removal of Veteran Ranks, or Spellcrafting, or Justice PvP, just some new content! Heck, even a few new dungeons would be satisfying!

ZOS, let me ask you this - What will you do once the console players realize that they've been handed an unfinished game just like on PC? What will you do when Round 2 of the bad reviews come in simply because launch was rushed out the door before the important systems were fully implemented, just like on PC? What will you do when console launch fails to sell those many millions you were hoping for because of the bad reviews, just like on PC? I can tell you right now that if you keep going at what you're doing now, console launch will turn out EXACTLY like PC launch.

Look, I love ESO. It is undoubtedly one of my most favorite games of all time, and that's saying something. I've endlessly defended the game and have stuck with it through thick and thin, including beta, launch, all 5 updates and the B2P announcement (Which I have absolutely no problem with, by the way). But I'm really concerned about what direction the game is going in - and it isn't a great one.

Sphinx2318 · February 2015

P.S. Please Buff DK's

Berinima · February 2015

My guess is simple. Imperial City (and maybe even Wrothgar) is more or less ready but if they released it now they would run out of content for at least a year. Because that's how long it takes to develop content like that. That's not even a bad thing, that's simply how long it takes. So what are they doing instead? They are releasing an update with one single purpose only: To stretch the already existing content to eternity. I mean people, seriously... Whether you like the Champion System or not... But it's designed to be a massive timesink, nothing else. The "real" content will be distributed over the course of the year instead.

ShadowDisciple · February 2015

i dare you to find an mmo that has perfect PVP and other content does not hinder pvp development...its just how it is in almost every mmo that comes to mind...

Try giving it some times until b2p gies live so they can orient on other things..if this fashion persist ill be the first to bash skulls along your side

AshySamurai · February 2015

ZOS, let me ask you this - What will you do once the console players realize that they've been handed an unfinished game just like on PC? What will you do when Round 2 of the bad reviews come in simply because launch was rushed out the door before the important systems were fully implemented, just like on PC? What will you do when console launch fails to sell those many millions you were hoping for because of the bad reviews, just like on PC? I

Noone cares. ZOS will get a lot of money from boxes and this is the only thing that matters (lol, remembered Nothing Else Matters now). Anyway, I think most console players will buy the game before all angry reviews.

Roechacca · February 2015

I think what everyone is experiencing is an enormous amount of down time do to a system revamp that will effect every portion of the game . Instead of more failed updates to fix problems the direction went with revamping . Probably at the worst time possible , during a pay model change . The frustration was already swelling and now it's begining to burst . You see it in all forums and every where there is news about the game . Management took a huge gamble . Even if the revamp is good , a lot of the community back lash is irreversible .

TheBull · February 2015

I love Cyrodiil, but too much of anything spoils it. We need variety.

Satiar · February 2015

Sphinx2318 wrote: »

P.S. Please Buff DK's

If you stack on crown, you get buffs much easier!

Sphinx2318 · February 2015

Satiar wrote: »

Sphinx2318 wrote: »

P.S. Please Buff DK's

If you stack on crown, you get buffs much easier!

OMG! You found me!! XD

Xjcon · February 2015

This game is stale. Once the weather warms up I'm moving on. I don't think playing the same content over and over again to get a few more champion points is going to keep me interested.

Nacario · February 2015

Good article. But as was mentioned developing stuff takes time, and this game was problably released to early, and that has affected development a year after release with fixes and updates

Bloodfang · February 2015

Honestly I think we can all agree that Imperial City was ready more than 6 months ago..Only recently we found out why they are holding everything back..DLCs..Sad but True..

I don't believe anything they say anymore..They are holding back more content than we got in all these months since launch..And guess what,they'll keep stockpiling it until Console release..

Don't try to think even once that they slowed down their development..We could easily get Updates regularly as it was, per 4-6 weeks..Sadly they'll rather save it after Consoles get released and milk us some more to Beta test the systems..

PS: The game is going the same way it was always planned -> To satisfy their primary playerbase -> Consoles. We on PC are just puppies, we could never compete with the Consoles, not as long as this is a TES game.
I believe most of us wouldn't be that mad if ZOS admitted that before / after ESO launched. Rather they said nothing, but their actions proved just that. They really treated us badly. I have no doubt ESO will do just fine, I just wish they treated us better, I wish they treated us as a costumer.

Also if their directors would've had some Vision, ESO could in time overtake the MMO market on the PC completely. Let's hope it's not too late for that. (At this point I doubt it..But never say never..)

LonePirate · February 2015

There is absolutely no reason why the Imperial City and Orsinium/Wrothgar could not both be released during the March 17 - June 9 window. The console release - which is just a code conversion along with a new UI and maybe voice chat - should not be this time-sucking behemoth that ZOS wants us to believe it is. The game is not changing radically for consoles and players do most of the real QA for the game anyway even if it were to change. ZOS has no excuses for screwing over their loyal PC players for several months due to the console release. We deserve better than this crap.

Neizir · February 2015

TheBull wrote: »

I love Cyrodiil, but too much of anything spoils it. We need variety.

Agreed. Some more types of keeps would be great, instead of the same-y ones we have now.

Naivefanboi · February 2015

TheBull wrote: »

I love Cyrodiil, but too much of anything spoils it. We need variety.

shoot DC needs some players in thorn lol

Lord Xanhorn · February 2015

I think console centric view is a gigantic mistake. I mean MMOs have always been a PC platform specialty. Sure there are a few MMOs on there but the most successful ones always have a PC core audience. To essentially ignore the PC players in order to put so much into a console launch is a HUGE gamble and one I am not sure will pay off. Even the single player Oblivion and Skyrim were much more successful as PC games than console games. I am just concerned by them putting so much effort into consoles, if its not a homerun (and lets be honest does anyone actually think it will be), this is gonna be a huge setback for a game already teetering on the cliff.

dodgehopper_ESO · February 2015

I am concerned that consoles will be a major limiting factor on what they are able to do. That being said DCUO is a great game and is multiplatform.

wraith808 · February 2015

Bloodfang wrote: »

Honestly I think we can all agree that Imperial City was ready more than 6 months ago..Only recently we found out why they are holding everything back..DLCs..Sad but True..

An interjection- being code complete is not the same as being release ready. Even if it were complete re coding, I'm sure there are tweaks, especially with the systems changes, and bug fixing and testing to be done.

Just keeping it real.

Elsonso · February 2015

Berinima wrote: »

My guess is simple. Imperial City (and maybe even Wrothgar) is more or less ready but if they released it now they would run out of content for at least a year. Because that's how long it takes to develop content like that. That's not even a bad thing, that's simply how long it takes. So what are they doing instead? They are releasing an update with one single purpose only: To stretch the already existing content to eternity. I mean people, seriously... Whether you like the Champion System or not... But it's designed to be a massive timesink, nothing else. The "real" content will be distributed over the course of the year instead.

Right idea, wrong reason.

They are largely done with the content, but to release it now would pull resources from the console, particularly in the QA department. It would also add to the QA demand for the console because more content would have to be tested.

@LonePirate‌ , this applies to your last statement, too.

LonePirate · February 2015

lordrichter wrote: »

Berinima wrote: »

My guess is simple. Imperial City (and maybe even Wrothgar) is more or less ready but if they released it now they would run out of content for at least a year. Because that's how long it takes to develop content like that. That's not even a bad thing, that's simply how long it takes. So what are they doing instead? They are releasing an update with one single purpose only: To stretch the already existing content to eternity. I mean people, seriously... Whether you like the Champion System or not... But it's designed to be a massive timesink, nothing else. The "real" content will be distributed over the course of the year instead.

Right idea, wrong reason.

They are largely done with the content, but to release it now would pull resources from the console, particularly in the QA department. It would also add to the QA demand for the console because more content would have to be tested.

@LonePirate‌ , this applies to your last statement, too.

I have long believed ZOS employs more people to moderate these forums than to perform QA on the game. There may even be more forum moderators than developers.

Regardless of that, a lack of paid internal QA employee is still no reason for ZOS to shaft its PC customers and player base. Once 1.6 is released, ZOS should place Beta versions of both the Imperial City and Orsinium/Wrothgar on the PTS. Let the handful of internal QA staff test the console releases alongside a willing army of console Beta testers. Let the PC players Beta test this new content on the PTS - especially since only subscribers will have access to the PTS on March 17.

The players will test that content from top to bottom and will be able to test it far more extensively than ZOS ever could. Once ZOS resolves the mountain of player issues, let the internal team take a couple of days to look at it and fix any of those issues. ZOS can then remove the Beta moniker from it and prep it for a regular PTS release or even a paid DLC release.

PC players would finally receive new content. ZOS resources wouldn't be more inefficiently used than they currently are. Revenue generating products would hit the market faster which translates to a better bottom line for ZOS. Everybody wins in this scenario. It is insane that ZOS is not doing this.

wraith808 · February 2015

LonePirate wrote: »

I have long believed ZOS employs more people to moderate these forums than to perform QA on the game. There may even be more forum moderators than developers.

Regardless of that, a lack of paid internal QA employee is still no reason for ZOS to shaft its PC customers and player base. Once 1.6 is released, ZOS should place Beta versions of both the Imperial City and Orsinium/Wrothgar on the PTS. Let the handful of internal QA staff test the console releases alongside a willing army of console Beta testers. Let the PC players Beta test this new content on the PTS - especially since only subscribers will have access to the PTS on March 17.

The players will test that content from top to bottom and will be able to test it far more extensively than ZOS ever could. Once ZOS resolves the mountain of player issues, let the internal team take a couple of days to look at it and fix any of those issues. ZOS can then remove the Beta moniker from it and prep it for a regular PTS release or even a paid DLC release.

PC players would finally receive new content. ZOS resources wouldn't be more inefficiently used than they currently are. Revenue generating products would hit the market faster which translates to a better bottom line for ZOS. Everybody wins in this scenario. It is insane that ZOS is not doing this.

Let me point you to the Mythical Man Month to demolish your argument. Especially based on supposition, and no hard facts on workload, capacity, and ability.

LonePirate · February 2015

wraith808 wrote: »

LonePirate wrote: »

I have long believed ZOS employs more people to moderate these forums than to perform QA on the game. There may even be more forum moderators than developers.

Regardless of that, a lack of paid internal QA employee is still no reason for ZOS to shaft its PC customers and player base. Once 1.6 is released, ZOS should place Beta versions of both the Imperial City and Orsinium/Wrothgar on the PTS. Let the handful of internal QA staff test the console releases alongside a willing army of console Beta testers. Let the PC players Beta test this new content on the PTS - especially since only subscribers will have access to the PTS on March 17.

The players will test that content from top to bottom and will be able to test it far more extensively than ZOS ever could. Once ZOS resolves the mountain of player issues, let the internal team take a couple of days to look at it and fix any of those issues. ZOS can then remove the Beta moniker from it and prep it for a regular PTS release or even a paid DLC release.

PC players would finally receive new content. ZOS resources wouldn't be more inefficiently used than they currently are. Revenue generating products would hit the market faster which translates to a better bottom line for ZOS. Everybody wins in this scenario. It is insane that ZOS is not doing this.

Let me point you to the Mythical Man Month to demolish your argument. Especially based on supposition, and no hard facts on workload, capacity, and ability.

Brooks' Law doesn't truly apply to my suggestion because I am not advocating more developers. I am not dividing a static development workload among more developers which is the basis of the book you linked. Rather, I am advocating the utilization of knowledgeable manpower on a related task which is gathering dust due to inactivity. ZOS is focused only on 1.6, the cash shop and consoles at present. They have pretty much confirmed this via all of their actions and statements. New content for PC players is not a priority for ZOS at present.

My suggestion effectively alters the project schedule and gives new content to the PC subscribers in about a month instead of 5-6 months down the road. Are you against such a change because of a 40 year old book on software development?

KiriX · February 2015

I too think about repost this article to forum, use search and found that it's already done. Thx you!
Agree with author.

wraith808 · February 2015

LonePirate wrote: »

wraith808 wrote: »

LonePirate wrote: »

I have long believed ZOS employs more people to moderate these forums than to perform QA on the game. There may even be more forum moderators than developers.

Regardless of that, a lack of paid internal QA employee is still no reason for ZOS to shaft its PC customers and player base. Once 1.6 is released, ZOS should place Beta versions of both the Imperial City and Orsinium/Wrothgar on the PTS. Let the handful of internal QA staff test the console releases alongside a willing army of console Beta testers. Let the PC players Beta test this new content on the PTS - especially since only subscribers will have access to the PTS on March 17.

The players will test that content from top to bottom and will be able to test it far more extensively than ZOS ever could. Once ZOS resolves the mountain of player issues, let the internal team take a couple of days to look at it and fix any of those issues. ZOS can then remove the Beta moniker from it and prep it for a regular PTS release or even a paid DLC release.

PC players would finally receive new content. ZOS resources wouldn't be more inefficiently used than they currently are. Revenue generating products would hit the market faster which translates to a better bottom line for ZOS. Everybody wins in this scenario. It is insane that ZOS is not doing this.

Let me point you to the Mythical Man Month to demolish your argument. Especially based on supposition, and no hard facts on workload, capacity, and ability.

Brooks' Law doesn't truly apply to my suggestion because I am not advocating more developers. I am not dividing a static development workload among more developers which is the basis of the book you linked. Rather, I am advocating the utilization of knowledgeable manpower on a related task which is gathering dust due to inactivity. ZOS is focused only on 1.6, the cash shop and consoles at present. They have pretty much confirmed this via all of their actions and statements. New content for PC players is not a priority for ZOS at present.

My suggestion effectively alters the project schedule and gives new content to the PC subscribers in about a month instead of 5-6 months down the road. Are you against such a change because of a 40 year old book on software development?

That 40 year old book on software development does apply today, and does apply to this instance- which would be one of the reasons that this 40 year old book is still currently in print and in use, when others have fallen out of print and are not even referenced anymore. Your lack of understanding on that point sort of undergirds the original statement. The book and the ideas and practices are based on people, not technology. And people haven't changed that much in 40 years, as shown by the fact that we address the same problems today that we did when the book was written.

I'm... skeptical if any amount of explanation would get that across to you, but I will attempt in any case.

The principle is communicated in terms of developers, but development resources follow the same pattern. Just because we're talking about QA, doesn't exempt them from the fact that there is knowledge used and spin-up and spin-down time in the ramping up of projects. We don't know the project variables and such, nor the depth of knowledge on the team, therefore blindly advocating your statements as a fact is indeed a fallacy. This is not to say that it might not be possible. But the corollary is not true because of that admission.

And to call someone's practices insane when the true picture isn't known? That itself is the height of hubris.

patrykplawskib16_ESO · February 2015

jjf42001_ESO wrote: »

TheBull wrote: »

I love Cyrodiil, but too much of anything spoils it. We need variety.

shoot DC needs some players in thorn lol

Most of us DC don't care for thornblade but only a few go there for pvp action but our main is chillrend.

LonePirate · February 2015

wraith808 wrote: »

LonePirate wrote: »

wraith808 wrote: »

LonePirate wrote: »

I have long believed ZOS employs more people to moderate these forums than to perform QA on the game. There may even be more forum moderators than developers.

Regardless of that, a lack of paid internal QA employee is still no reason for ZOS to shaft its PC customers and player base. Once 1.6 is released, ZOS should place Beta versions of both the Imperial City and Orsinium/Wrothgar on the PTS. Let the handful of internal QA staff test the console releases alongside a willing army of console Beta testers. Let the PC players Beta test this new content on the PTS - especially since only subscribers will have access to the PTS on March 17.

The players will test that content from top to bottom and will be able to test it far more extensively than ZOS ever could. Once ZOS resolves the mountain of player issues, let the internal team take a couple of days to look at it and fix any of those issues. ZOS can then remove the Beta moniker from it and prep it for a regular PTS release or even a paid DLC release.

PC players would finally receive new content. ZOS resources wouldn't be more inefficiently used than they currently are. Revenue generating products would hit the market faster which translates to a better bottom line for ZOS. Everybody wins in this scenario. It is insane that ZOS is not doing this.

Let me point you to the Mythical Man Month to demolish your argument. Especially based on supposition, and no hard facts on workload, capacity, and ability.

Brooks' Law doesn't truly apply to my suggestion because I am not advocating more developers. I am not dividing a static development workload among more developers which is the basis of the book you linked. Rather, I am advocating the utilization of knowledgeable manpower on a related task which is gathering dust due to inactivity. ZOS is focused only on 1.6, the cash shop and consoles at present. They have pretty much confirmed this via all of their actions and statements. New content for PC players is not a priority for ZOS at present.

My suggestion effectively alters the project schedule and gives new content to the PC subscribers in about a month instead of 5-6 months down the road. Are you against such a change because of a 40 year old book on software development?

That 40 year old book on software development does apply today, and does apply to this instance- which would be one of the reasons that this 40 year old book is still currently in print and in use, when others have fallen out of print and are not even referenced anymore. Your lack of understanding on that point sort of undergirds the original statement. The book and the ideas and practices are based on people, not technology. And people haven't changed that much in 40 years, as shown by the fact that we address the same problems today that we did when the book was written.

I'm... skeptical if any amount of explanation would get that across to you, but I will attempt in any case.

The principle is communicated in terms of developers, but development resources follow the same pattern. Just because we're talking about QA, doesn't exempt them from the fact that there is knowledge used and spin-up and spin-down time in the ramping up of projects. We don't know the project variables and such, nor the depth of knowledge on the team, therefore blindly advocating your statements as a fact is indeed a fallacy. This is not to say that it might not be possible. But the corollary is not true because of that admission.

And to call someone's practices insane when the true picture isn't known? That itself is the height of hubris.

I understand the concept of the book. In layman's terms, two people don't bake a normal sized cake faster than one person can bake it. My argument - which is supported by everything we can observe and have been told - is that the cake is not being baked. I want someone to start baking that cake while you seem to think someone is already doing that because you are essentially espousing the position that more cooks should not be brought into the kitchen. That's the philosophical difference we have here.

Also, there is no ramp-up time for the activities I propose apart from creating a build package for the PTS, deploying it and composing a couple of sentences in patch notes or their equivalent. The players on the PTS don't typically need more than that as they are already knowledgeable with the game's mechanics and they would be tackling content that is much more intuitive and simplistic than the skills overhaul and Champion System.

And if hubris is the term you wish to use to describe a recommendation that increases satisfaction of both customers and the business owners, then I am guilty as charged! From a PC player's perspective, the decision is an easy one when it comes to accessing content in one month or in five months - content that was demoed seven months ago.

At the rate ZOS is going, they might as well play the video of the 2014 Quakecon presentation at the 2015 Quakecon event because the game will be largely the same with regard to what's to come.

wraith808 · February 2015

LonePirate wrote: »

I understand the concept of the book. In layman's terms, two people don't bake a normal sized cake faster than one person can bake it. My argument - which is supported by everything we can observe and have been told - is that the cake is not being baked. I want someone to start baking that cake while you seem to think someone is already doing that because you are essentially espousing the position that more cooks should not be brought into the kitchen. That's the philosophical difference we have here.

The thing that you are missing about the content of the book is that two resoruces- of separate skillsets and knowledge, and are not plug-in freely exchangeable parts. And that's just one thing that an interpretation from a wikipedia article and blurbs on the book will not reveal.

Your analogy of baking a cake again shows a lack of knowledge of the subject matter of the book. Because that's just one aspect, and if that was the only thing covered by the book, then it wouldn't be held in such high regard.

To bring it back to software development and systems and things that *are* known... you wouldn't expect Brian Wheeler to pull in someone on Nick Konkle's team to make up for a lack (whether due to turnover, sickness, or something else), and expect the same level of productivity. The same with all other development resources.

LonePirate wrote: »

Also, there is no ramp-up time for the activities I propose apart from creating a build package for the PTS, deploying it and composing a couple of sentences in patch notes or their equivalent. The players on the PTS don't typically need more than that as they are already knowledgeable with the game's mechanics and they would be tackling content that is much more intuitive and simplistic than the skills overhaul and Champion System.

This shows such a lack of understanding of the basic concepts required that I realize I shouldn't have even started this conversation. Even the creation of the patch notes is an undertaking- as shown by the time that it takes them to do it every time they release a patch.

LonePirate wrote: »

And if hubris is the term you wish to use to describe a recommendation that increases satisfaction of both customers and the business owners, then I am guilty as charged! From a PC player's perspective, the decision is an easy one when it comes to accessing content in one month or in five months - content that was demoed seven months ago.

I realize that everyone always wants more... especially when more has been demoed. I can tell you from personal experience, a demo is called a dog and pony show for a reason. We don't know what state things are in behind the scenes, and how close to release ready they are.

We don't have intimate knowledge of what has been done and what can be done is all that I'm saying at its root. And if you can see that certain things being released would help with perceptions and such- do you think that you're the only one that would see such things? And so... there might be other things that you *don't* see? That's the hubris that I'm talking about... the belief that because this is the way that I see things, that it must be true and they must be blind. Even though they have the full picture and I don't.

LonePirate · February 2015

wraith808 wrote: »

LonePirate wrote: »

I understand the concept of the book. In layman's terms, two people don't bake a normal sized cake faster than one person can bake it. My argument - which is supported by everything we can observe and have been told - is that the cake is not being baked. I want someone to start baking that cake while you seem to think someone is already doing that because you are essentially espousing the position that more cooks should not be brought into the kitchen. That's the philosophical difference we have here.

The thing that you are missing about the content of the book is that two resoruces- of separate skillsets and knowledge, and are not plug-in freely exchangeable parts. And that's just one thing that an interpretation from a wikipedia article and blurbs on the book will not reveal.

Your analogy of baking a cake again shows a lack of knowledge of the subject matter of the book. Because that's just one aspect, and if that was the only thing covered by the book, then it wouldn't be held in such high regard.

To bring it back to software development and systems and things that *are* known... you wouldn't expect Brian Wheeler to pull in someone on Nick Konkle's team to make up for a lack (whether due to turnover, sickness, or something else), and expect the same level of productivity. The same with all other development resources.

LonePirate wrote: »

Also, there is no ramp-up time for the activities I propose apart from creating a build package for the PTS, deploying it and composing a couple of sentences in patch notes or their equivalent. The players on the PTS don't typically need more than that as they are already knowledgeable with the game's mechanics and they would be tackling content that is much more intuitive and simplistic than the skills overhaul and Champion System.

This shows such a lack of understanding of the basic concepts required that I realize I shouldn't have even started this conversation. Even the creation of the patch notes is an undertaking- as shown by the time that it takes them to do it every time they release a patch.

LonePirate wrote: »

And if hubris is the term you wish to use to describe a recommendation that increases satisfaction of both customers and the business owners, then I am guilty as charged! From a PC player's perspective, the decision is an easy one when it comes to accessing content in one month or in five months - content that was demoed seven months ago.

I realize that everyone always wants more... especially when more has been demoed. I can tell you from personal experience, a demo is called a dog and pony show for a reason. We don't know what state things are in behind the scenes, and how close to release ready they are.

We don't have intimate knowledge of what has been done and what can be done is all that I'm saying at its root. And if you can see that certain things being released would help with perceptions and such- do you think that you're the only one that would see such things? And so... there might be other things that you *don't* see? That's the hubris that I'm talking about... the belief that because this is the way that I see things, that it must be true and they must be blind. Even though they have the full picture and I don't.

I am not sure why you seem intent on bringing up code development at every turn when my original points were related to a lack of QA resources (which are not the same as development resources) and a lack of (access to) content by PC players. Having seen countless bugs in release after release in addition to my own professionally employed experience for several years in software QA, I confidently believe the average PTS tester is as good as the average ZOS tester.

There is no skill advantage or disadvantage at play here, apart from the PTS testers not having access to internal design documentation and such. You can swap out the resources with no discernible impact on the game's quality or lack thereof. As such, there is no reason not to push IC and/or Orisnium to the PTS on March 17 or shortly thereafter. We know both exist. Brian Wheeler commented in the Alliance War forum about the IC's quality not being there yet despite it being shown off extensively at the guild summit at the beginning of October. ZOS has strongly hinted Orsinium will be the first DLC - a claim they wouldn't make if it wasn't already under development and approaching release.

We know from past experience ZOS can generate build patches relatively quickly based on past twice-a-week releases and the occasional hot fix and client update. They are likely using a code repository and build tool like TFS to help streamline this process. Taking code we know exists, packaging it up and deploying it to the PTS as a Beta or even an Alpha is not a demanding task for them. And since it is a Beta (or Alpha) here's your patch notes in one sentence: We have released Beta versions of the Imperial City and Orisinum to the PTS.

I have been a subscriber since day one and a Beta tester of this game for months before that. I refuse to sit quietly and make excuses for ZOS not delivering content to PC players while they devote all of their efforts to the vanity cash shop and to console players. Maybe you are tolerant of how ZOS is shafting us PC players. I am not. Go ahead and make any excuses for them which you want. I am not going to coddle them or give them a free pass for ripping us off. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for ZOS not to release one or both of these items to the PTS on or after March 17. Their likely refusal to do so should tell you what they truly think of their PC player base, cool Senche mounts notwithstanding.

wraith808 · February 2015

LonePirate wrote: »

I am not sure why you seem intent on bringing up code development at every turn when my original points were related to a lack of QA resources (which are not the same as development resources) and a lack of (access to) content by PC players. Having seen countless bugs in release after release in addition to my own professionally employed experience for several years in software QA, I confidently believe the average PTS tester is as good as the average ZOS tester.

QA is not development, no. But it is development resources, requiring a different skillset, but yes... a skillset that is development resource.

Really... QA is not development resources? You actually just said that...?