We are currently investigating issues some players are having logging into the European PC/Mac megaserver. We will update as new information becomes available.
Can we get an honest post-mortem about why Markarth went live with so many serious bugs?
-
Calm_Fury✭✭✭✭✭colossalvoids wrote: »So much for communication issues @ZOS_GinaBruno has acknowledged each time, will do better next year, eh?
Don't think a HONEST reply from someone as @ZOS_RichLambert would require weeks of consulting with their marketing department etc. when backlash was not something surprising for anyone at that point, clearly seen from console release with same exact game breaking bugs, like it's completely normal thing.
I mean, the backlash already happened, right?
Basically every ESO streamer I've seen so far has made comments, sometimes several, about the bugs. Many YouTube videos are saying the same. Multiple raid groups have completely suspended the raids these last 2 weeks. The mood on the forums is not great. Even in zone chat and dungeons you can see people disappointed.
Just recognizing something that almost everyone has already seen is not that big of a deal.7 -
anitajoneb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭As I said in other posts, if the issue is resources, hire more or try to do less. I'm sure all the community would be completely understanding if we went to a 3-patch cycle to slow things down a little and increase the QA of new patches.
Nope. I wouldn't understand, I wouldn't accept.
Let alone the financial dept. 3-patch-cycle instead of 4 means 20-25% revenue loss. Do the math.
When are people finally stop talking "for everyone" ? Not everyone thinks like you, stop talking for everyone.
4 -
Calm_Fury✭✭✭✭✭anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »As I said in other posts, if the issue is resources, hire more or try to do less. I'm sure all the community would be completely understanding if we went to a 3-patch cycle to slow things down a little and increase the QA of new patches.
Nope. I wouldn't understand, I wouldn't accept.
Let alone the financial dept. 3-patch-cycle instead of 4 means 20-25% revenue loss. Do the math.
When are people finally stop talking "for everyone" ? Not everyone thinks like you, stop talking for everyone.
A little bit of an overreaction, but sure. Obviously I'm not elected president of all ESO community so I'm not talking for everyone.
Probably could've worded that sentence better but I'm sure nobody reading this post with a little bit of good faith will not think I actually meant 100% of the community.10 -
anitajoneb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »As I said in other posts, if the issue is resources, hire more or try to do less. I'm sure all the community would be completely understanding if we went to a 3-patch cycle to slow things down a little and increase the QA of new patches.
Nope. I wouldn't understand, I wouldn't accept.
Let alone the financial dept. 3-patch-cycle instead of 4 means 20-25% revenue loss. Do the math.
When are people finally stop talking "for everyone" ? Not everyone thinks like you, stop talking for everyone.
A little bit of an overreaction, but sure. Obviously I'm not elected president of all ESO community so I'm not talking for everyone.
Probably could've worded that sentence better but I'm sure nobody reading this post with a little bit of good faith will not think I actually meant 100% of the community.
Sure, but you seem :
- convinced to speak for a majority
- to ignore financial aspects.
- and to exagerate bugs and issues. This DLC isn't bug-free but it is very playable and enjoyable.
3 -
Calm_Fury✭✭✭✭✭anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »As I said in other posts, if the issue is resources, hire more or try to do less. I'm sure all the community would be completely understanding if we went to a 3-patch cycle to slow things down a little and increase the QA of new patches.
Nope. I wouldn't understand, I wouldn't accept.
Let alone the financial dept. 3-patch-cycle instead of 4 means 20-25% revenue loss. Do the math.
When are people finally stop talking "for everyone" ? Not everyone thinks like you, stop talking for everyone.
A little bit of an overreaction, but sure. Obviously I'm not elected president of all ESO community so I'm not talking for everyone.
Probably could've worded that sentence better but I'm sure nobody reading this post with a little bit of good faith will not think I actually meant 100% of the community.
Sure, but you seem :
- convinced to speak for a majority
- to ignore financial aspects.
- and to exagerate bugs and issues. This DLC isn't bug-free but it is very playable and enjoyable.
Fair enough. Can you present some counter points?
From what you posted, I assume you are ok with the bugs from the latest patches, specially Markarth. Which is totally valid. Do you play raids? Arenas and competitive content?
The financial aspect would be something to consider, yes. Unfortunately without more info from ZOS we can never be sure. Personally I don't think the dungeon DLCs will have that much of an impact in their revenue, but, again, can't say anything there without knowing the numbers, which we never will.
About exaggerating bugs and issues, well, I disagree with you here. Just look at all the sources I listed before. It is not just me.
Feel free to expand your thoughts about this. It is always healthy for a discussion to have both points of views.
I'm genuinely interested in seeing the arguments from people that think that what happened with this patch is ok.8 -
HappyElephant✭✭✭ZOS is Just Winging It and it Shows
The Markath bugs are a symptom of deep structural and process shortfalls at ZOS.
It is like you have measles and red dots are showing up on your chest. Just a few at first. Suddenly, you wake up one day and the red dots (think bugs) show up all-over-your-body. You are covered in it.
ZOS has quality control issues.
Also its strategy of Nerfing to Punish Players into Buying New Expansions/DLCs is an example of its half-cocked, hit-or-miss, unstudied approach to solving problems.
All those players who rage-quit or swore to stop spending money on the game represent lost revenues that one day ZOS will regret losing.
7 -
method__01✭✭✭✭✭yes there are bugs,on ps4 i got 2-3 bsod per day and a bit laggy even with my new hardwired fiber dsl line-during peak time
on pc i have to close game from task manager cause it sometimes it freezes and i cant do anything
BUT
the new content is a-ma-z-ing i was dreaming for years to return to Markarth,the underground section is awesome
in my book new DLC gets a 10 and its compared only with CWC-another 10-favorite place
bugs will be fixed,so enjoy the content and go dig these nice new antiquities (easy drop fro most of them btw)
PC EU/NA /// PS4 EU/NA
Vasanha
This one hears nothing. Sees nothing. This one only sweeps.
desperately need a survey assistant1 -
anitajoneb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Feel free to expand your thoughts about this. It is always healthy for a discussion to have both points of views.
I'm genuinely interested in seeing the arguments from people that think that what happened with this patch is ok.
I guess the difference between you and me lies within the question you asked a couple of lines before :Do you play raids? Arenas and competitive content?
Nope. Which for sure explains why the stuff some people complain about is less of a disturbance to me an to players like me than it is to you/them.
But that does NOT make me a lesser player nor a minority. And it does not give your claims more weight in terms of "representing people".I'm genuinely interested in seeing the arguments from people that think that what happened with this patch is ok.
I'm not saying this patch is ok. I'm saying this patch is OK FOR ME. When you quest, enjoy the sceneries and the stories, chat, trade, farm, collect, explore, things are quite fine.
BUT I'm saying that delaying/suppressing the rhythm of new content is definitely NOT a valid option for me and players like me because the benefit/inconvenience ratio of such an option would be much lower for me and players like me than it would be for you and players like you.
I don't deny you the right of being annoying nor to express it. But please don't say "most players would be ok with less content if it comes with less bugs". I'd be OK with less bugs (who wouldn't ?) , but not at the cost of less or less frequent content.4 -
Recapitated✭✭✭✭anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »As I said in other posts, if the issue is resources, hire more or try to do less. I'm sure all the community would be completely understanding if we went to a 3-patch cycle to slow things down a little and increase the QA of new patches.
Nope. I wouldn't understand, I wouldn't accept.
Let alone the financial dept. 3-patch-cycle instead of 4 means 20-25% revenue loss. Do the math. .
Then let's go with 5 patches, just push this to its logical conclusion and just churn them out as fast as the content team can make them.
No? Would it be too buggy?
Then why would 4 be *just* right?6 -
anitajoneb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Recapitated wrote: »anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »As I said in other posts, if the issue is resources, hire more or try to do less. I'm sure all the community would be completely understanding if we went to a 3-patch cycle to slow things down a little and increase the QA of new patches.
Nope. I wouldn't understand, I wouldn't accept.
Let alone the financial dept. 3-patch-cycle instead of 4 means 20-25% revenue loss. Do the math. .
Then let's go with 5 patches, just push this to its logical conclusion and just churn them out as fast as the content team can make them.
No? Would it be too buggy?
Then why would 4 be *just* right?
It's not for us to decide where the optimal point is in the equation cost/revenue/quality/frequency/customer satisfaction, etc. Not for you, not for me, not for anyone but ZOS.
Besides, they're the only ones with enough information to make an educate decision about it.
Sure, if the optimum was at 5 releases of new content a year and they decided to do so, I'd be happy.
1 -
Starlock✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I'm genuinely interested in seeing the arguments from people that think that what happened with this patch is ok.
While I don't think this patch is OK, now that it's dropped on console I do feel that some of the reactions to it are a bit on the overblown side. This kind of hyperbole par for the course and happens every single patch cycle. Customers speak about "game breaking" issues that are not, in fact, game breaking. Customers speak about something being "unplayable" when their issues do not, in fact, make the game unplayable. That's not to say there aren't real issues - there definitely are - but when hyperbole seems to be the rule, issues aren't being communicated accurately.
This patch did have some truly game breaking issues. Characters falling through the world and being unplayable and unretrievable except by customer service teams is straight up game breaking, no hyperbole there. That is a very, very serious issue and never should have made it to launch especially since there's evidence it was reported on PTS. Some of the other stuff being complained about? For many players, it's just a non-issue but the demographics of this forum aren't going to represent that well as they never have.Edited by Starlock on November 12, 2020 4:52PM5 -
Calm_Fury✭✭✭✭✭anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »Feel free to expand your thoughts about this. It is always healthy for a discussion to have both points of views.
I'm genuinely interested in seeing the arguments from people that think that what happened with this patch is ok.
I guess the difference between you and me lies within the question you asked a couple of lines before :Do you play raids? Arenas and competitive content?
Nope. Which for sure explains why the stuff some people complain about is less of a disturbance to me an to players like me than it is to you/them.
But that does NOT make me a lesser player nor a minority. And it does not give your claims more weight in terms of "representing people".I'm genuinely interested in seeing the arguments from people that think that what happened with this patch is ok.
I'm not saying this patch is ok. I'm saying this patch is OK FOR ME. When you quest, enjoy the sceneries and the stories, chat, trade, farm, collect, explore, things are quite fine.
BUT I'm saying that delaying/suppressing the rhythm of new content is definitely NOT a valid option for me and players like me because the benefit/inconvenience ratio of such an option would be much lower for me and players like me than it would be for you and players like you.
I don't deny you the right of being annoying nor to express it. But please don't say "most players would be ok with less content if it comes with less bugs". I'd be OK with less bugs (who wouldn't ?) , but not at the cost of less or less frequent content.
Good. That is why I asked you to expand. I don't do housing or RP or do overland achievements, so I'm sure those are still mostly fine.
What I like to do is trials and group content achievements. And this patch is barely playable for me to do those things.
I wanted to farm vDSA weapons. Can't, arena can't be finished. A lot of vDLC dungeons for pledges are almost impossible to do with all the bugs in instance content.
Playing ranged characters in any hard content now is a huge exercise in patience. I can't. It just annoys me so much that I 100% stopped trying. I wanted to go for vVH achievements, but it is just not pleasant to try that with how the animations / light attacks bugs right now (for me).
I didn't mean to "diminish" you by asking this. I asked precisely because I suspected that you play the game in other areas which weren't as affected by the bugs as the areas I do play. Which is 100% fine.
And I already said I could've worded that sentence on my original post better. I definitely don't think I'm speaking for everyone. I actually even said that "in my ESO bubble" in the post, meaning the players I know and interact with that, admittedly, enjoy the same things I do.
I'm sure if ZOS came up with major bugs that broke housing, overland quests or even trading (I'm not really trading a lot right now), I'd barely notice.
And by the way, my suggestion to decrease content would be mostly the DLC dungeons. It wouldn't be skipping a chapter or the small zone DLC.10 -
Calm_Fury✭✭✭✭✭I'm genuinely interested in seeing the arguments from people that think that what happened with this patch is ok.
While I don't think this patch is OK, now that it's dropped on console I do feel that some of the reactions to it are a bit on the overblown side. This kind of hyperbole par for the course and happens every single patch cycle. Customers speak about "game breaking" issues that are not, in fact, game breaking. Customers speak about something being "unplayable" when their issues do not, in fact, make the game unplayable. That's not to say there aren't real issues - there definitely are - but when hyperbole seems to be the rule, issues aren't being communicated accurately.
This patch did have some truly game breaking issues. Characters falling through the world and being unplayable and unretrievable except by customer service teams is straight up game breaking, no hyperbole there. That is a very, very serious issue and never should have made it to launch especially since there's evidence it was reported on PTS. Some of the other stuff being complained about? For many players, it's just a non-issue but the demographics of this forum aren't going to represent that well as they never have.
My favorite content in this game is vDSA. I just love that one. Right now it can't be completed and it has been broken for almost 2 weeks now.
My second favorite content is pugging the vDLC pledges to get some challenge. A LOT of dungeons cannot be completed on vet right now. Some can on normal because you can damage or some set procs will kill the bosses while you are locked. But on vet a lot of fights simply cannot be completed.
My third favorite content is doing trials. While those are still doable, they are just not enjoyable. I tried played ranged in some vet trials and it just feels completely awful (for me).
Obviously this is my experience. For me, this is not overblown. Most of the things I did frequently are undo-able or completely unemployable right now.
I know several raiding guilds are taking a break until next incremental as well.
This is my experience, of course. Other areas of the game might be working fine, but this patch affected basically every single thing I like to do. For me, there is nothing overblown about the complaints about the state of this patch. It broke too many things.7 -
HappyElephant✭✭✭Characters falling through the world and being unplayable and unretrievable except by customer service teams is straight up game breaking, no hyperbole there. That is a very, very serious issue and never should have made it to launch especially since there's evidence it was reported on PTS.
Wow! Looks like they really pushed their developer teams to deliver more than they had the capacity to do so this year - 3 DLCs and Chapter is a lot of work not to mention that whole Stadia thingy they had to do.
Hopefully they will be able to use MSFT's billions to hire more developers.0 -
Recapitated✭✭✭✭anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »Recapitated wrote: »anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »As I said in other posts, if the issue is resources, hire more or try to do less. I'm sure all the community would be completely understanding if we went to a 3-patch cycle to slow things down a little and increase the QA of new patches.
Nope. I wouldn't understand, I wouldn't accept.
Let alone the financial dept. 3-patch-cycle instead of 4 means 20-25% revenue loss. Do the math. .
Then let's go with 5 patches, just push this to its logical conclusion and just churn them out as fast as the content team can make them.
No? Would it be too buggy?
Then why would 4 be *just* right?
It's not for us to decide where the optimal point is in the equation cost/revenue/quality/frequency/customer satisfaction, etc. Not for you, not for me, not for anyone but ZOS.
Besides, they're the only ones with enough information to make an educate decision about it.
Sure, if the optimum was at 5 releases of new content a year and they decided to do so, I'd be happy.
Optimal according to what measure, ZOS's bottom line?
The whole point is that what they're prioritizing right now is unethical. Normal industries don't let you get away with selling your customers a broken product.13 -
anitajoneb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Recapitated wrote: »Optimal according to what measure, ZOS's bottom line?
The whole point is that what they're prioritizing right now is unethical. Normal industries don't let you get away with selling your customers a broken product.
Optimal for ZOS. They're a commercial company, which means that customer satisfaction is only a mean to their ultimate goal (profit).
What do you mean by "normal industries" ? Many industries and companies also get away with "broken" products and services... as long as enough customers buy them.
1 -
Jaraal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
From your post:
"So you're saying more broken things and new bugs....."
.....only three times a year versus four"
Wouldn't new bugs three times a year be better than new bugs four times a year? I would think so. Your chances of losing a foot decrease slightly if you only shoot it three times, rather than four.
Edited by Jaraal on November 12, 2020 6:41PM3 -
Calm_Fury✭✭✭✭✭
From your post:
"So you're saying more broken things and new bugs....."
.....only three times a year versus four"
Wouldn't new bugs three times a year be better than new bugs four times a year? I would think so. Your chances of losing a foot decrease slightly if you only shoot it three times, rather than four.
Yes. It was a misunderstanding of your post on my part. I get now what you were trying to say and it is exactly what I was trying to say as well.2 -
HappyElephant✭✭✭This patch did have some truly game breaking issues. Characters falling through the world and being unplayable and unretrievable except by customer service teams is straight up game breaking, no hyperbole there.
Wow! Looks like they really pushed their developer teams to deliver more than they had the capacity to do so this year - 3 DLCs and Chapter is a lot of work not to mention that whole Stadia thingy they had to do.
Hopefully they will be able to use MSFT's billions to hire more developers.0 -
anitajoneb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭And by the way, my suggestion to decrease content would be mostly the DLC dungeons. It wouldn't be skipping a chapter or the small zone DLC.
While that would not disturb me much given my playstyle, I would not necessarily agree with that either. I'd expect ZOS by principle to release content according to schedule AND in a reasonably bug-free manner. Quantity AND quality, not quality OR quantity.
This schedule is not new : they've been following that pattern for 4+ years now, so it's doable. So why the un-reasonable level of bugs this time ? Maybe the pandemic is part of the explanation (in which case we cannot blame ZOS, it's beyond their reach), but overall, it's their job to deliver stuff. Delivering less stuff for the same price isn't a real option, really.
Imagine you order and buy a Mercedes. And the seller gives you a Volkswagen for the same price. "See, Sir, if we had given you a Mercedes, it would have been half broken. We want to make sure that your car is 100% perfect so here's a Volkswagen"...
(as to the rest of our conversation, I think we've been through all aspects and agree with each other overall :-) )
1 -
Calm_Fury✭✭✭✭✭anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »And by the way, my suggestion to decrease content would be mostly the DLC dungeons. It wouldn't be skipping a chapter or the small zone DLC.
While that would not disturb me much given my playstyle, I would not necessarily agree with that either. I'd expect ZOS by principle to release content according to schedule AND in a reasonably bug-free manner. Quantity AND quality, not quality OR quantity.
This schedule is not new : they've been following that pattern for 4+ years now, so it's doable. So why the un-reasonable level of bugs this time ? Maybe the pandemic is part of the explanation (in which case we cannot blame ZOS, it's beyond their reach), but overall, it's their job to deliver stuff. Delivering less stuff for the same price isn't a real option, really.
Imagine you order and buy a Mercedes. And the seller gives you a Volkswagen for the same price. "See, Sir, if we had given you a Mercedes, it would have been half broken. We want to make sure that your car is 100% perfect so here's a Volkswagen"...
(as to the rest of our conversation, I think we've been through all aspects and agree with each other overall :-) )
Well, that is the best scenario.
IF they could do content that is bug-free, they can do 12 updates a year for me. I'd love that.
The whole discussion here is that it just appears that they can't. The last patches have been really buggy.
The suggestion is: if they can't keep the current pace and keep the contents bug-free or at least only small bugs, adjust the schedule.
I know this schedule has been this one for a long time. But it doesn't have to be that way. If it is clear that the pace is too much to keep the quality, adjust it.
The original schedule was a ZOS decision anyway. Nothing stops them from making another decision to change it so they can get a better balance between quantity and quality.
By the way, I don't love the idea of having less dungeons. It is one big part of my enjoyment of ESO. It is just that, right now, and since the last couple of patches, the bad quality has really outweighed my desire for new dungeons. Right now, I'd happily trade new dungeons for less buddy patches.7 -
Jaraal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭HappyElephant wrote: »ZOS is Just Winging It and it Shows
The Markath bugs are a symptom of deep structural and process shortfalls at ZOS.
It is like you have measles and red dots are showing up on your chest. Just a few at first. Suddenly, you wake up one day and the red dots (think bugs) show up all-over-your-body. You are covered in it.
ZOS has quality control issues.
Also its strategy of Nerfing to Punish Players into Buying New Expansions/DLCs is an example of its half-cocked, hit-or-miss, unstudied approach to solving problems.
All those players who rage-quit or swore to stop spending money on the game represent lost revenues that one day ZOS will regret losing.
I haven't noticed any 'our team is killing it' type announcements in quite some time. Regardless of how we feel, I wonder how they feel about the increasing amount of dysfunctional code that's getting released.6 -
colossalvoids✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭colossalvoids wrote: »So much for communication issues @ZOS_GinaBruno has acknowledged each time, will do better next year, eh?
Don't think a HONEST reply from someone as @ZOS_RichLambert would require weeks of consulting with their marketing department etc. when backlash was not something surprising for anyone at that point, clearly seen from console release with same exact game breaking bugs, like it's completely normal thing.
I mean, the backlash already happened, right?
Basically every ESO streamer I've seen so far has made comments, sometimes several, about the bugs. Many YouTube videos are saying the same. Multiple raid groups have completely suspended the raids these last 2 weeks. The mood on the forums is not great. Even in zone chat and dungeons you can see people disappointed.
Just recognizing something that almost everyone has already seen is not that big of a deal.
Not sure what your answer has to do with anything written but ok, lol. No one here "demands" acknowledgement (probably you missed acknowledging communication issues Gina is talking for years with just current patch issues?) but answers about why it's still same *** all over again and how they will proceed with future patches, if anything will change at all after failing every single patch for year now.3 -
Thoragaal✭✭✭✭✭We have a major updates every 3 months.
It takes more than 3 months, usually, to sort out the issues coming with it.
The playerbase is in a constant struggle with these problems to the point where issues from previous major update is overlapping with newly introduced ones.
Maybe it's time to slow down the process at which new content/updates are being released.
It's like doing a sport with broken bones; it's an ever increasing pain.The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"I've always wanted to kick a duck up the arse" -Karl Pilkington, on the question what he'd do if it was the last day on earth.11 -
virtus753✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »Recapitated wrote: »Optimal according to what measure, ZOS's bottom line?
The whole point is that what they're prioritizing right now is unethical. Normal industries don't let you get away with selling your customers a broken product.
Optimal for ZOS. They're a commercial company, which means that customer satisfaction is only a mean to their ultimate goal (profit).
What do you mean by "normal industries" ? Many industries and companies also get away with "broken" products and services... as long as enough customers buy them.
Other industries have been taken to court repeatedly, hence the establishment and enforcement of things like lemon law. Companies often try to get away with whatever they can until called to account, but with many other industries there are established legal standards that companies generally try to meet to avoid being sued. Those that don’t can end up paying quite a bit in the end, so there is a deterrent to offering subpar products and services.
Only now are the waters of gaming being tested. The commentary from Australia regarding how Fallout 76 had “major failures” that required retailers to refund customers if they had asked marks one of the first times (to the best of my knowledge) that modern video games, games as a service, and/or MMOs have been scrutinized legally in terms of performance. As that judgment shows, there is a point past which game performance can be considered legally unacceptable even if one can log into the game. The 76 decision was a major step towards recognizing that performance needs to meet certain standards beyond logging in, but we will need more such decisions in order to better establish those standards.6 -
DMuehlhausen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭The simple answer is No you can't get this answer. I know why people ask, but I don't get it.
What are you expecting the Devs to come on and be like yeah we F'd up.
The reason it went live with so many bugs is because they have time lines for content roll outs. They can't really delay that stuff if they want to stay on track with other content roll outs. It's about money, releasing Markarth will have had a direct monetary impact that would have been reported to shareholders.
If it doesn't launch when it said people don't buy it via crowns on the store etc. Which is also why as soon as there was an issue with the crown store that issue was fixed immediately. If it wasn't then the next day, week, month, quarter whatever shareholder call would have had lower than projected sales numbers.
A company is never going to post this or admit. They will say this or that about why and caring, but every decision made at these companies is 100% based on what the shareholders are wanting. This is what has and is killing gaming. Before it was this large and in the 90s really all the devs did what they wanted made the game they wanted and made sure stuff was working.
1. you couldn't just be like oh we'll roll out a patch later in a live service game. If stuff was flat broken it stayed that way.
2. Games weren't making literally billions for companies like they are now.1 -
Raideen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I remember the good ole days when you bought a game, it was done. You paid for it, you played it. There was no such thing as releasing a half baked product to market simply because the internet did not exist (not in todays form anyway).
Game companies use the luxury of online updating to push content out faster (to make more money) at the cost of a shoddy, buggy product. This is at the consumers expense. Honest people who purchase the product in good faith who only get abused over and over.
10 -
Starlight_Whisper✭✭✭✭✭
✭pink_panther wrote: »No excuses and No defending. Most Bugs were reported multiple times during PTS. This is also one of the top MMO's out there so they have the money.
The franchise is very popular as well. So again money should be there!
At this point it is just a scam. Too bad laws haven't caught up yet to the gaming industry. I really hope they will some day so that they have to think twice before selling broken DLCs/games.
Hopefully one day3 -
Mythreindeer✭✭✭✭✭anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »- and to exagerate bugs and issues. This DLC isn't bug-free but it is very playable and enjoyable.
Those who accept a poor product are going to continue to receive poor products.
12 -
anitajoneb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Mythreindeer wrote: »anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »- and to exagerate bugs and issues. This DLC isn't bug-free but it is very playable and enjoyable.
Those who accept a poor product are going to continue to receive poor products.
It's not poor in my view.
How about you ? Obviously you think it's very poor, too poor for you, yet you keep playing it and most likely still pay for it.
Do you think your complaints are more valuable to ZOS than your actual playtime, and, more than anything, your wallet... ?
2