@ZOS, Why do you create DLC's with expectations that only part of your player base will buy it?

Robbmrp · March 2016

I get that @ZOS is in business to make money and that's what drives most of the decisions about DLC's. So based on that, WHY make a DLC that only PART of your players will buy??? I asked this same thing last year when Imperial City was coming out and didn't get a reply so I'm asking it again.

From a business perspective, when someone makes a product, they want it to be something that everyone wants/needs, not only a part of the population. So why from that perspective are you creating DLC's that way? Imperial City was a PVP DLC, Orsinium and Thieves Guild are strictly PVE. Look at how unsuccessful Imperial City sales were, I'm sure you had average sales on it but no one that was straight PVE bought it. And with the little it actually brought to the game for PVP, hardly anyone uses it currently. For me it got old a month after it came out as you can only wander the sewer so many times....

Your marketing department really needs to take a look at how they are designing these DLC's and what should be included in them because your losing out on A LOT of revenue. With packaging new additions(Not balancing, skill change or pvp adjustments) that cater to every style of player, your ensuring that the MAJORITY of your player base will buy the DLC, not part of it. Your also keeping your entire player base happy with new additions.

A lot of people are really upset right now with the state of the game for this very reason. PVPer's are really upset that TG had 0 updates for them. Sure, you removed CP from a campaign, some of which(Non Vet) should have never included CP in the first place. And while your PVP lag fixes may have worked a little bit, it didn't help with the massive move of players to the CP Campaigns so they are dealing with lag that's worse than ever. IF you would have added in some type of arena or other small form of PVP for them this wouldn't have happened.

The longer that you create DLC's that apply to only part of your player base, the greater loss of future revenue for @ZOS.....

Taryf · March 2016

Look at how unsuccessful Imperial City sales were

You got any details or this is a guess?

starlizard70ub17_ESO · March 2016

^ As @Taryf said, they tried to be everything to everyone in IC, and only ended up being hated by or disappointing nearly everyone. PvPers hated it because of the PvE quests, PvE'er hated it because of PvP in it. I think it's highly unlikely we'll see another PvP/PvE mixed DLC again.

Robbmrp · March 2016

I'm not referring to a new zone with both PVE and PVP like Imperial City was. They could have easily added in Arena's or other small form of battlegrounds with the two new PVE DLC's.

WalkingLegacy · March 2016

starlizard70ub17_ESO wrote: »

^ As @Taryf said, they tried to be everything to everyone in IC, and only ended up being hated by or disappointing nearly everyone. PvPers hated it because of the PvE quests, PvE'er hated it because of PvP in it. I think it's highly unlikely we'll see another PvP/PvE mixed DLC again.

To be fair, the PvP in IC is abysmal because it is for gankers only, and while I love PvP, encouraging this type of PvP is the worst idea ever.

IC would make an awesome dynamic PvE quest hub but it could have also been a badasss PvP battleground.

MaxwellC · March 2016

When they made IC there literally was no incentive to playing it other than getting v16 materials (from a PvP perspective). There weren't any new AvA sets that only dropped from IC bosses/mobs, there was no area to duel (they had arena but you know what PvE BAM!).

They should've added more incentives to IC for PvP, I hardly go there and if I do it's to get more tel var to sell stuff and or make armor that's it. When it first came out and it was populated it was fun for PvP but just like everyone caught on I did too; it just sucked and wasn't what any PvP player expected.

Robbmrp · March 2016

WalkingLegacy wrote: »

starlizard70ub17_ESO wrote: »

^ As @Taryf said, they tried to be everything to everyone in IC, and only ended up being hated by or disappointing nearly everyone. PvPers hated it because of the PvE quests, PvE'er hated it because of PvP in it. I think it's highly unlikely we'll see another PvP/PvE mixed DLC again.

To be fair, the PvP in IC is abysmal because it is for gankers only, and while I love PvP, encouraging this type of PvP is the worst idea ever.

IC would make an awesome dynamic PvE quest hub but it could have also been a badasss PvP battleground.

Exactly.

Didgerion · March 2016

Lol, there is no such product that everyone wants.

PVE and PVP communities have different requirements from the game...creating separate DLC for each community is a good approach.

Robbmrp · March 2016

Didgerion wrote: »

Lol, there is no such product that everyone wants.

PVE and PVP communities have different requirements from the game...creating separate DLC for each community is a good approach.

I disagree. Why limit a product to only a partial customer base.

failkiwib16_ESO · March 2016

IC DLC is the most important "DLC" for hardcore pve'ers who never wish to enter pvp, because of White Gold Tower sets. Now it's equal with TG DLC due to the new trial.

Xendyn · March 2016

I think it's possible that this is because most of the DLCs we are getting right now were originally intended to be released (and development started on them) when the game was subscription based.

IC should have been and was originally supposed to be with gated access and District capture but was watered down to appeal more to a broader base as a paid dlc.

Orsinium had some leftovers on PTS that would have included a vet rank increase.

TG is a small zone, kind of like the 2 halves of Craglorn were and I'm guessing that DB will be, too.

Maybe there will be a shift when content actually developed with the B2P model starts coming, but unless ZOS talks to us, it's all just guessing I suppose.

babylon · March 2016

What might be a nice idea would be create two different phases of each zone (much the same way quest phasing works), where one is a PVE version of the map, and the other is a PVP version of the map. Could then have a PVE Cyrodiil and a PVE Imperial City, as well as PVP in all zones, if you wish.

Could then have a setting in options that allows you to automatically choose either PVE or PVP as your preference each time you zone, or to ask each time before changing zones if you wanted the PVE version of map or PVP version of map (so three options).

That way all DLC would appeal to all players of the game.

yodased · March 2016

You are looking at a piece of a whole.

When you judge a gaming experience by a subset of it, or any experience, really, it is easy to find major flaws and faults.

The key concept to remember in my opinion is that there is an overarching plan that we don't know. The developers/lead designers/people in charge have a "end goal" for the game that we just don't know, so in creating small DLC that seem to only cater to one small subset, they may very well be laying the foundation for much larger things.

Now, the base game patch that isn't part of the DLC is something that a lot of people don't mention, but they balance pass and bug fix the base game too.

This DLC very well just be the framework and foundation for the larger Dark Brotherhood pass, but because they have shareholders and gamers that want new content immediately, they have to deliver what they can, when they can.

I am a front-end web developer and I know the frustrations of being forced to push something that works 90% of the time and fix the 10% on live because the suits promised a date, something there is nothing I can do. If it's not done, its done.

Just saying, don't grab this small slice of the pie and judge the whole meal on it.

Callous2208 · March 2016

Robbmrp wrote: »

Didgerion wrote: »

Lol, there is no such product that everyone wants.

PVE and PVP communities have different requirements from the game...creating separate DLC for each community is a good approach.

I disagree. Why limit a product to only a partial customer base.

Because again, as he stated, there exists no product that everyone wants. Same reason the local ice cream shop serves more flavors than just vanilla.

Robbmrp · March 2016

yodased wrote: »

You are looking at a piece of a whole.

When you judge a gaming experience by a subset of it, or any experience, really, it is easy to find major flaws and faults.

The key concept to remember in my opinion is that there is an overarching plan that we don't know. The developers/lead designers/people in charge have a "end goal" for the game that we just don't know, so in creating small DLC that seem to only cater to one small subset, they may very well be laying the foundation for much larger things.

Now, the base game patch that isn't part of the DLC is something that a lot of people don't mention, but they balance pass and bug fix the base game too.

This DLC very well just be the framework and foundation for the larger Dark Brotherhood pass, but because they have shareholders and gamers that want new content immediately, they have to deliver what they can, when they can.

I am a front-end web developer and I know the frustrations of being forced to push something that works 90% of the time and fix the 10% on live because the suits promised a date, something there is nothing I can do. If it's not done, its done.

Just saying, don't grab this small slice of the pie and judge the whole meal on it.

If @ZOS can't deliver a DLC that appeals to everyone at the same time, they should then look at another approach to it and alternate DLC's. So PVE gets TG now and the next DLC should be PVP, that's not being done as they've planned on Dark Brotherhood. Since we don't know exactly what that's going to bring to the game other than the obvious we can hope that they will have PVP in there but it's kind of doubtful they will based on previous DLC released.

Robbmrp · March 2016

Callous2208 wrote: »

Robbmrp wrote: »

Didgerion wrote: »

Lol, there is no such product that everyone wants.

PVE and PVP communities have different requirements from the game...creating separate DLC for each community is a good approach.

I disagree. Why limit a product to only a partial customer base.

Because again, as he stated, there exists no product that everyone wants. Same reason the local ice cream shop serves more flavors than just vanilla.

Yet vanilla is exactly what they release in the DLC's. Eat it and like it or go someplace else where you can get what you want which is what's happening right now. The more games that come out, the greater chance of losing players since they can't deliver content for both sides within an acceptable time frame.

Toxic_Hemlock · March 2016

I bought crowns during the recent sale and bought Orsinium and TG. I have no interest in getting ganked while doing quests so I didn't bother with IC. If they were to make a quest only area within IC where pk was not allowed then I would have bought it too, but unfortunately that is not the case.

I think it is good that they have separate DLC's for the different play styles, but the odds of me purchasing a DLC with open PK, even if they make it a quest hub, is never going to happen. That is not to say that many PvP players should not get areanas ect, so long as they are happy doing their thing I will continue to do mine; and I die enough to my own stupidity as it is.

Reverb · March 2016

Robbmrp wrote: »

Look at how unsuccessful Imperial City sales were

Cite your sources

Robbmrp wrote: »

but no one that was straight PVE bought it

Many straight pve'ers bought the IC DLC. Both for access to the ICP and WGT dungeons (exclusively pve content, those), and to farm for telvar stones and new gear. The first few weeks, the sewers and districts were crawling with self-declared pvp haters, who opened thread upon thread complaining that other players could kill them in IC, and begging for a pve only version. But they bought it, even knowing what it was.

Your being so far off reality in your first paragraph has made me summarily reject the rest of your opinion on the matter.

Tandor · March 2016

starlizard70ub17_ESO wrote: »

^ As @Taryf said, they tried to be everything to everyone in IC, and only ended up being hated by or disappointing nearly everyone. PvPers hated it because of the PvE quests, PvE'er hated it because of PvP in it. I think it's highly unlikely we'll see another PvP/PvE mixed DLC again.

If they made separate PvP and PvE instances of IC I would buy it like a shot, as it is I have absolutely no interest in doing so.

I argued at the time that aiming each DLC at both PvE and PvP was the most sensible approach, even with 90% for one and 10% for the other (alternating), that way everyone buys them all and sales revenue is maximised. For IC to work on that basis it needed the PvE content not to be locked behind PvP, and for Orsinium to work it merely needed a PvP arena to be included. The Thieves Guild could also have catered for both playstyles but with the PvP and PvE content kept separate unlike in the original Justice System (or the numerous subsequent proposals for it). The crucial thing is to provide both PvP and PvE content but keep them apart otherwise neither works particularly well.

Robbmrp · March 2016

Tandor wrote: »

starlizard70ub17_ESO wrote: »

^ As @Taryf said, they tried to be everything to everyone in IC, and only ended up being hated by or disappointing nearly everyone. PvPers hated it because of the PvE quests, PvE'er hated it because of PvP in it. I think it's highly unlikely we'll see another PvP/PvE mixed DLC again.

If they made separate PvP and PvE instances of IC I would buy it like a shot, as it is I have absolutely no interest in doing so.

I argued at the time that aiming each DLC at both PvE and PvP was the most sensible approach, even with 90% for one and 10% for the other (alternating), that way everyone buys them all and sales revenue is maximised. For IC to work on that basis it needed the PvE content not to be locked behind PvP, and for Orsinium to work it merely needed a PvP arena to be included. The Thieves Guild could also have catered for both playstyles but with the PvP and PvE content kept separate unlike in the original Justice System (or the numerous subsequent proposals for it). The crucial thing is to provide both PvP and PvE content but keep them apart otherwise neither works particularly well.

Exactly. I'm not saying that they need to include whole new zones to PVP in. Just include actual new content for both sides in each DLC to maximize sales. This satisfies everyone at the same time and everyone wins. This could be something as simple as adding in new objectives to Cyrodil maybe taking towns or things like that. The updates don't have to be very big, just include something other than a skill revamp.

Recremen · March 2016

Thieve's Guild content is an Elder Scrolls classic, I would be very surprised if huge numbers of fans of the series weren't interested in the DLC. Sure, a few here and there, but it's a disservice to say that it's not a hugely popular DLC.

Kaliki · March 2016

OP is right.
For the PvP community there should have been PvP thieving in Cyrodiil.

Katahdin · March 2016

Kaliki wrote: »

OP is right.
For the PvP community there should have been PvP thieving in Cyrodiil.

If by this you mean loot player corpses....no. looting TV stones is enough.

They've done 3 DLCs. 2 were pve, 1 was pvp with some pve in it. The next one is pve I guess.
They are working on arenas and battlegrounds for pvp.

Thieves guild did make changes to pvp that some people asked for (CP removal in some campaigns).

They need to continue to fix the issues with lag in Cyro before any additional pvp content is added.

bountyspiter · March 2016

Robbmrp wrote: »

IF you would have added in some type of arena or other small form of PVP for them this wouldn't have happened.

Ahhhhh....
So this is what all this nonsense is about then...
Another butthurt kid who want arena...

Robbmrp · March 2016

Katahdin wrote: »

Kaliki wrote: »

OP is right.
For the PvP community there should have been PvP thieving in Cyrodiil.

If by this you mean loot player corpses....no. looting TV stones is enough.

They've done 3 DLCs. 2 were pve, 1 was pvp with some pve in it. The next one is pve I guess.
They are working on arenas and battlegrounds for pvp.

Thieves guild did make changes to pvp that some people asked for (CP removal in some campaigns).

They need to continue to fix the issues with lag in Cyro before any additional pvp content is added.

If they would add battlegrounds/arena's that would help with the Cyrodil lag as they should be instanced and separate from Cyro. It would move players into those and lower the lag. These are the kinds of things they should do with PVE DLC's so at least PVPer's get something that helps keep them here enjoying the game.

Conquistador · March 2016

People STILL do IC sewers.

Robbmrp · March 2016

bountyspiter wrote: »

Robbmrp wrote: »

IF you would have added in some type of arena or other small form of PVP for them this wouldn't have happened.

Ahhhhh....
So this is what all this nonsense is about then...
Another butthurt kid who want arena...

Try reading the op....

Didgerion · March 2016

Robbmrp wrote: »

Didgerion wrote: »

Lol, there is no such product that everyone wants.

PVE and PVP communities have different requirements from the game...creating separate DLC for each community is a good approach.

I disagree. Why limit a product to only a partial customer base.

There is no such product that both PVE and PVP community wants. Balance , performance and bug fixing is not a DLC.

DaveMoeDee · March 2016

Robbmrp wrote: »

I'm not referring to a new zone with both PVE and PVP like Imperial City was. They could have easily added in Arena's or other small form of battlegrounds with the two new PVE DLC's.

What is the connection between the Thieves Guild and arenas?

What they did makes sense. Release DLC that adds more of what the game is. Play to your strengths.

I think adding arenas is a good thing, but hardly a priority. If that is what people came to ESO for, they made a wrong turn somewhere, because that isn't this game.

Katahdin · March 2016

Robbmrp wrote: »

Katahdin wrote: »

Kaliki wrote: »

OP is right.
For the PvP community there should have been PvP thieving in Cyrodiil.

If by this you mean loot player corpses....no. looting TV stones is enough.

They've done 3 DLCs. 2 were pve, 1 was pvp with some pve in it. The next one is pve I guess.
They are working on arenas and battlegrounds for pvp.

Thieves guild did make changes to pvp that some people asked for (CP removal in some campaigns).

They need to continue to fix the issues with lag in Cyro before any additional pvp content is added.

If they would add battlegrounds/arena's that would help with the Cyrodil lag as they should be instanced and separate from Cyro. It would move players into those and lower the lag. These are the kinds of things they should do with PVE DLC's so at least PVPer's get something that helps keep them here enjoying the game.

I think the idea is to make then separate. I don't believe in the philosophy that if pve gets something in every dlc, pvp should get something in every dlc. I'm fine with pvp or pve getting their own stuff when it's ready.

Thavie · March 2016

So based on that, WHY make a DLC that only PART of your players will buy???

So you know how to create DLC that EVERYONE will buy, right?