Big patches such as Imperial City are for free?

Xendyn · June 2015

AngryNord wrote: »

Xendyn wrote: »

daemonios wrote: »

I loooove the smell of schadenfreude in the morning.

So, the same community who allegedly "begged" ZOS to make the game F2P (or B2P, if you care about the distinction) is now begging for free content. Priceless.

P.S. If it were up to me, the game would still be subscription only and all content would be free.

Yeh we never could figure out exactly who that "community" was. Sure wasn't us here.

Elder Scrolls Online's FB page. Ever since launch, pretty much every official post there had multiple comments about "Free to play, please!" "You MUST make this Free NOW!" etc etc etc

As i said, it wasn't us here.

Gidorick · June 2015

Carde wrote: »

Gidorick wrote: »

Carde wrote: »

When Firor compares what Elder Scrolls will offer its premium players to free offerings, he brings up issues that F2P titles once had in abundance, yet are not as prevelant now. "Elder Scrolls is about being in a giant world, where you’re exploring, and you go to a dungeon, and you don’t get a paygate in front of you saying you don’t have this dungeon," Firor says. "Which means, to us, you need to monetise it outside of the game." While paygates are increasingly less common, some barriers still persist. Certainly, the penny-pinching tactics found in The Old Republic are not desirable.

And there's something to be said about not being confronted with extra costs while in the game itself. "You go outside the game, you pay your month, you go in the game, and when you’re in the game, you’re in the game," Firor clarifies. "There’s no real world stuff reaching in to grab you." Few things break immersion quicker than a game telling you that you can spend cash to unlock chests or get special gear.

Source?

http://www.pcgamesn.com/elderscrolls/matt-firor-justifies-elder-scrolls-subscriptions-we-re-not-worried-about-getting-people-door

Thanks... but man, that's from when they were pushing Subscription. You can't take ANY of that anymore. Yea he said it. Yea ESO went B2P. Yea foots are in mouths.

We're bitter, but we moved on.

Spottswoode · June 2015

KingRebz wrote: »

Title says it all.

Carde · June 2015

Gidorick wrote: »

Carde wrote: »

Gidorick wrote: »

Carde wrote: »

When Firor compares what Elder Scrolls will offer its premium players to free offerings, he brings up issues that F2P titles once had in abundance, yet are not as prevelant now. "Elder Scrolls is about being in a giant world, where you’re exploring, and you go to a dungeon, and you don’t get a paygate in front of you saying you don’t have this dungeon," Firor says. "Which means, to us, you need to monetise it outside of the game." While paygates are increasingly less common, some barriers still persist. Certainly, the penny-pinching tactics found in The Old Republic are not desirable.

And there's something to be said about not being confronted with extra costs while in the game itself. "You go outside the game, you pay your month, you go in the game, and when you’re in the game, you’re in the game," Firor clarifies. "There’s no real world stuff reaching in to grab you." Few things break immersion quicker than a game telling you that you can spend cash to unlock chests or get special gear.

Source?

http://www.pcgamesn.com/elderscrolls/matt-firor-justifies-elder-scrolls-subscriptions-we-re-not-worried-about-getting-people-door

Thanks... but man, that's from when they were pushing Subscription. You can't take ANY of that anymore. Yea he said it. Yea ESO went B2P. Yea foots are in mouths.

We're bitter, but we moved on.

Yeah, the quote just really felt appropriate here. People wondering where the paygates are going to start raising and remembering it made me laugh.

ElricFrancis · June 2015

Xendyn wrote: »

daemonios wrote: »

I loooove the smell of schadenfreude in the morning.

So, the same community who allegedly "begged" ZOS to make the game F2P (or B2P, if you care about the distinction) is now begging for free content. Priceless.

P.S. If it were up to me, the game would still be subscription only and all content would be free.

Yeh we never could figure out exactly who that "community" was. Sure wasn't us here.

Gidorick wrote: »

You SHOULD sub @ElricFrancis. Sometimes.

My plan:
1: Sub for 1 month when DLC is released
2: Play DLC for 1 month (likely finish DLC)
3: If I want that DLC for keeps, put 1500 Crowns toward purchase
4: Repeat whenever DLC is released.
5: Buy 5500 Crown packs for $40 otherwise
6: Profit

This. Since you're just renting with a sub anyway, I'll play it for a month and see if it is actually Worth buying.
Which for me, won't be unless there is actually some necessary or interesting replayability factor involved.

If we had a LFG system in place from the mid 2K and on we'd have more real content.

Enodoc · June 2015

Lava_Croft wrote: »

The biggest 'screw you' that ZOS could give the PvP community is by making the Imperial City a paid DLC.

I don't disagree with that. Also, as I've said in a few other places, I don't think Imperial City would fit in with their vision for DLC anyway. They want DLC to be available to all as soon as it is purchased, and that's not possible with Imperial City due to the keep-control access requirements.

To the original question, updates that are DLC will not be free - we already know that Wrothgar/Orsinium, the Thieves Guild, and the Dark Brotherhood will be DLC. Updates that are to "gameplay" will be free - this would include Justice PvP. Spellcrafting, Jewellery Crafting and Horse Racing, if any of those things ever exist.

Things that are on the will they/won't they line are those pieces of new content that have in-game access restrictions, including Imperial City (which has a keep control requirement) and Murkmire (which was advertised as an adventure zone, and therefore would be Veteran-only content).