More Transparency About the Developer's Vision for ESO

Stamicka · September 2022

I think it would be helpful to hear from the developers about their vision for the game. Currently, many parts of the community are very happy with the state of the game, and other parts are very unhappy. ESO itself is in a sort of limbo between the game it used to be and the game it is now. This fuels the need for some transparency about where the developers will take the game next.

Some Background
In the earlier years of the game, ESO had strong MMORPG roots. Your alliance choice changed your whole experience, zones had specific level ranges, overland was more difficult, the game's design encouraged grouping, and PvP was in the center of the game. Despite the games design encouraging group play, the early game presented some massive barriers to playing the game with friends. This was probably early ESO's biggest flaw, which the developers fixed with the One Tamriel update. One Tamriel is really the beginning of the ESO we know now, but many of ESO's MMORPG roots remained. Fast forward to now, and ESO is a very different game compared to it's previous self. Some people even argue that modern ESO is not an MMORPG at all. The introduction of housing, the increase in player power, and the ease of overland have made ESO a very solo friendly game. Outside of veteran content, there is no real reason to group up or play with others at all. Many current players (maybe even the majority of players) play ESO as a solo exploration game. ESO's chapter and DLC releases have reflected this shift, and most of ESO's current content is released as solo friendly as possible.

Why is the transparency needed?
This post is not to say that ESO should change. The current game is probably much more successful than the previous game ever was. However, the stark difference between early ESO and current ESO has led to some friction within the community. There is a night and day difference between some of the groups of people that play the game. Many long time players fell in love with an older version of the game. The lack of transparency has caused these players to be in a perpetual state of disappointment as they wait for updates that appeal to them. Many players are sticking around solely because they think things will change. If the desires of these players do not fit the developer's vision for the future of the game, they truly have no need to stick around. It is not fair to keep them in the dark.

Some Pending Questions
Below are some questions for the developers that I would like to see clear and honest answers to. I think they would help the community understand where the game is headed.

1. What are some of the biggest goals for future ESO? How do you envision the game?
2. What specific types of players do you want the game to appeal to?
3. How do you feel about ESO's status as an MMORPG? How important is the multiplayer aspect vs the single player aspect?
4. How do you feel about difficulty? Should ESO be more or less difficult?
5. Is PvP in the future vision for the game? Are there plans for new PvP content?
6. How do you feel about competitive raiding? Is it in the future vision for the game?

Answers to these questions could settle a lot of the unrest within the clashing communities. It is totally ok if the developers want ESO to be a relaxing solo PvE exploration game with optional multiplayer. Just make the intentions clear so that certain players don't stick around waiting for something that there are no plans for.

I_killed_Vivec · September 2022

I don't accept your background, because of comments like this "This was probably early ESO's biggest flaw, which the developers fixed with the One Tamriel update", because you then complain that overland was made too easy... it was One Tamriel that made it so easy!

Also you glossed over the whole switch from Vet to CP, and the ensuing enfeeblement of Craglorn. And made the bold statement that the game is centred on PvP, when for many (most?) it isn't and never has been.

And I don't believe that the introduction of housing made content more solo friendly...

There's another consideration that I think many on the forum fail to make - people posting here are an almost insignificant number of players compared to the total player base. Now we don't know, but I imagine that ZoS do know very well, what most people actually do. I also imagine that they do enough market research to know what people want - it might not suit you or me, but they are interested in the majority. They will know that if they can't keep up player interest then receipts will fall and eventually the game will be up. Assuming that they don't actually want to accelerate this, one can assume that they are trying to meet market requirements. Not necessarily yours, or mine, or any individual's, but the market's.

As for players sticking around in the hope that they get something that they want... well there's more money in keeping them in the dark (and sticking around) than in confirming their worst fears and have them leave immediately

Stamicka · September 2022

I_killed_Vivec wrote: »

I don't accept your background, because of comments like this "This was probably early ESO's biggest flaw, which the developers fixed with the One Tamriel update", because you then complain that overland was made too easy... it was One Tamriel that made it so easy!

This is a weird reason to reject the background. Ease of playing with friends and overland difficulty are separate things. One Tamriel made it easier to play with friends regardless of level and alliance. Easier overland was a side effect of this, yes, but it didn't have to be. My opinion on whether or not the game is too easy isn't important in this post. That is an entirely different discussion. I was just giving context as to why I think there is such a divide in the community.

I_killed_Vivec wrote: »

Also you glossed over the whole switch from Vet to CP, and the ensuing enfeeblement of Craglorn. And made the bold statement that the game is centred on PvP, when for many (most?) it isn't and never has been.

The game WAS centered on PvP. Many balance changes were made with PvP in mind. The entire Alliance system existed with PvP in mind, and PvP was heavily emphasized in advertisement during the early days of the game. There are lead developers at Zenimax that came from Dark Age of Camelot and some of that game's ideas can be seen in ESO's design. This is not a bold statement, early ESO really was centered around PvP.

I_killed_Vivec wrote: »

And I don't believe that the introduction of housing made content more solo friendly...

Of course housing didn't make other content solo friendly, that's not even an argument. Housing is content itself. I know many purely solo players that only play this game for housing. The housing system in this game can provide hours of solo entertainment, making the game more solo friendly by providing a time consuming activity that doesn't require other players.

I_killed_Vivec wrote: »

There's another consideration that I think many on the forum fail to make - people posting here are an almost insignificant number of players compared to the total player base. Now we don't know, but I imagine that ZoS do know very well, what most people actually do. I also imagine that they do enough market research to know what people want - it might not suit you or me, but they are interested in the majority. They will know that if they can't keep up player interest then receipts will fall and eventually the game will be up. Assuming that they don't actually want to accelerate this, one can assume that they are trying to meet market requirements. Not necessarily yours, or mine, or any individual's, but the market's.

As for players sticking around in the hope that they get something that they want... well there's more money in keeping them in the dark (and sticking around) than in confirming their worst fears and have them leave immediately

Sure it may be more profitable to keep players in the dark. Doesn't mean you should do it. Regardless, reputation is also important when it comes to profitability. You can keep unhappy players around and try to milk them for money, but they will definitely bad mouth the game and the company which is also not good for profits.

kargen27 · September 2022

"The game WAS centered on PvP. Many balance changes were made with PvP in mind. The entire Alliance system existed with PvP in mind, and PvP was heavily emphasized in advertisement during the early days of the game."

last time this was brought up I went back and watched the first trailers and game play dumps. PvE got much more attention than did PvP.
The biggest changes in the game was because of PvE.

My opinion is developers should stick to developing and spokespeople should interact with players. Let each do the jobs they are best suited for. I think they do okay in sharing the general direction they want the game to go.

Four of your six questions if answered could alienate part of the player base. For some reason a lot of people in these forums seem to think ZoS can do only one thing at a time. That is why we get threads suggesting ZoS stop working on new content to fix bugs. We act as if they can't do both.
So if ZoS said we will be concentrating on bringing new trials into the game players that don't participate in trials will complain that what they want to do isn't getting attention. Even if what they do gets the same attention it always has the general feeling will be that they were slighted.

"Many players are sticking around solely because they think things will change. If the desires of these players do not fit the developer's vision for the future of the game, they truly have no need to stick around."

There would be no cost to take a break from the game and then come back if/when things change to your liking. Many players have taken a break. SOme returned, some didn't. We do get a generalization of up coming projects and those give us a decent idea of what direction they are taking the game.

Iselin · September 2022

Vision for ESO:

New dev doesn't get why something is the way it is so they change it. Rinse and repeat.

Carcamongus · September 2022

ESO has been solo-friendly from the beginning, though back then zone levels meant there was a limit to what sort of content a character could handle.

I can't say no to transparency, though I'd add coherence to the list: if devs state they have a goal, their subsequent actions should be consistent with it.

Amottica · September 2022

While it would be nice to hear more about the plans Zenimax has for the games the reasoning does not seem to hold true.

The game has strong MMORPG roots and removing the barriers to grouping merely make that better. I am glad I don’t have to worry about which alliance I am in to road or do a dungeon with guildies. That doesn’t seem to hurt the game at all.

Stamicka · September 2022

kargen27 wrote: »

Four of your six questions if answered could alienate part of the player base. For some reason a lot of people in these forums seem to think ZoS can do only one thing at a time. That is why we get threads suggesting ZoS stop working on new content to fix bugs. We act as if they can't do both.
So if ZoS said we will be concentrating on bringing new trials into the game players that don't participate in trials will complain that what they want to do isn't getting attention. Even if what they do gets the same attention it always has the general feeling will be that they were slighted.

"Many players are sticking around solely because they think things will change. If the desires of these players do not fit the developer's vision for the future of the game, they truly have no need to stick around."

There would be no cost to take a break from the game and then come back if/when things change to your liking. Many players have taken a break. SOme returned, some didn't. We do get a generalization of up coming projects and those give us a decent idea of what direction they are taking the game.

Of course taking a break is an option, that doesn't dismiss the need for transparency. The current way that ZOS is handling the huge divide in the playerbase is very confusing. I genuinely have no idea what their goal is. The fact that I often ask "why are they doing this?" is part of the problem. I am only left with the option to assume what their goals are. At best, ZOS' choices give me mixed signals. Some patches it seems like they want to continue to support PvP and competitive PvE. Other patches it seems like they want those things out of the game. I never know, but I would like to. If their vision for the game sounds like a game I am interested in, I will stick through the growing pains. If not, I can choose not to waste my time. As of now, I feel like I'm being taken on a wild ride.

kargen27 · September 2022

"Of course taking a break is an option, that doesn't dismiss the need for transparency."

which is why I also addressed that. They do state their goals and long term objectives. Patches are often reactive so not possible to give advanced notice on those. Major changes usually are announced well in advance and then put on the PTS.

I've never seen a change that made me think they were trying to remove PvP or competitive PvE from the game. I've seen unpopular changes that were made to try and bring the game back to where the developers envisioned. The changes were not surprises though. We saw them coming and had plenty of time to object. We can be upset they didn't change their minds but we did know what was about to happen.

Amottica · September 2022

kargen27 wrote: »

"The game WAS centered on PvP. Many balance changes were made with PvP in mind. The entire Alliance system existed with PvP in mind, and PvP was heavily emphasized in advertisement during the early days of the game.".

Yes, PvP was, and still is, the center of this game. Cyrodiil is smack dab in the middle of the map. Beyond that PvE was the main focus. One merely has to look at the cost of developing this game to see where the real focus is. Cyrodiil and the PvP system were cheap compared to the cost of developing the majority of the map (PvE), story development (PvE), and then we have voice acting.

Zenimax would not have gone full voice acting let alone bring in the amazing talent as they did with Cleese and more if they intended this game to be PvP-focused. That would have been a colossal business blunder if they actually intended PvP to be the main focus or center of this game.

As such this has always been intended and has always been a PvE-focused game with PvP as one of the activities available and never anything else. The sheer investment made into PvE says it all.

Beilin_Balreis_Colcan · September 2022

Iselin wrote: »

Vision for ESO:

New dev doesn't get why something is the way it is so they change it. Rinse and repeat.

Unfortunately, that's not limited to ZOS, just about any software company (gaming or other) has had that problem. The good companies ensure their design and specification documents are kept up to date, and that new developers are given an appropriate induction into these when joining a development team.

Iselin · September 2022

vsrs_au wrote: »

Iselin wrote: »

Vision for ESO:

New dev doesn't get why something is the way it is so they change it. Rinse and repeat.

Unfortunately, that's not limited to ZOS, just about any software company (gaming or other) has had that problem. The good companies ensure their design and specification documents are kept up to date, and that new developers are given an appropriate induction into these when joining a development team.

Well, this is the one I play and I wish they would make up their mind about whether animation canceling is a good thing or a bad thing, what the role of light and heavy attacks is and the role of DOTs and HOTs. These constant changes about what's what and how it should work are tiresome.

kargen27 · September 2022

Amottica wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

"The game WAS centered on PvP. Many balance changes were made with PvP in mind. The entire Alliance system existed with PvP in mind, and PvP was heavily emphasized in advertisement during the early days of the game.".

Yes, PvP was, and still is, the center of this game. Cyrodiil is smack dab in the middle of the map. Beyond that PvE was the main focus. One merely has to look at the cost of developing this game to see where the real focus is. Cyrodiil and the PvP system were cheap compared to the cost of developing the majority of the map (PvE), story development (PvE), and then we have voice acting.

Zenimax would not have gone full voice acting let alone bring in the amazing talent as they did with Cleese and more if they intended this game to be PvP-focused. That would have been a colossal business blunder if they actually intended PvP to be the main focus or center of this game.

As such this has always been intended and has always been a PvE-focused game with PvP as one of the activities available and never anything else. The sheer investment made into PvE says it all.

You quoted me quoting someone else. I agree that PvE was and is the main focus.

zombniac · September 2022

I wish ZeniMax would just outright say what they're going to do with the game. Like upcoming chapters, DLC and other content.

Amottica · September 2022

kargen27 wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

"The game WAS centered on PvP. Many balance changes were made with PvP in mind. The entire Alliance system existed with PvP in mind, and PvP was heavily emphasized in advertisement during the early days of the game.".

Yes, PvP was, and still is, the center of this game. Cyrodiil is smack dab in the middle of the map. Beyond that PvE was the main focus. One merely has to look at the cost of developing this game to see where the real focus is. Cyrodiil and the PvP system were cheap compared to the cost of developing the majority of the map (PvE), story development (PvE), and then we have voice acting.

Zenimax would not have gone full voice acting let alone bring in the amazing talent as they did with Cleese and more if they intended this game to be PvP-focused. That would have been a colossal business blunder if they actually intended PvP to be the main focus or center of this game.

As such this has always been intended and has always been a PvE-focused game with PvP as one of the activities available and never anything else. The sheer investment made into PvE says it all.

You quoted me quoting someone else. I agree that PvE was and is the main focus.

Ahh. Thx for pointing that out.

Troodon80 · September 2022

The biggest issue with asking for a vision is that it infers that a vision can never change or changes infrequently. We already get Combat Preview posts, which is probably as much as we can expect to get in terms of "vision." If they state what their vision is now and they decide to change it an update or two down the road, people will immediately start shouting about how their vision is constantly changing. Any vision they give details on would have to be extremely broad and... broadly useless to the people asking for it.

Personally, I would like some sort of an annual roadmap to indicate where they want to go with a given update over the entire year, but it has the same issues. It would mean they need to settle on a year-long plan which will invariably change as they see the numbers over the first few months. Numbers which we, as players, do not have access to. If you have a roadmap which is constantly changing and never really showing a solid foundation for what each update will have ahead of time, what's the point of a roadmap? For example, if the roadmap just says Q1 dungeon DLC, Q2 chapter expansion, Q3 dungeon DLC, and Q4 overland DLC, it doesn't tell anyone more than they already know to be ZOS's release schedule.

They could do a broad post for the year ahead "This year we would like to focus on accessibility, and with that in mind we envision the following: X, Y, Z." However, again, if something changes in the first couple months, e.g. around the time of the Q1 DLC or Q2 chapter, then that post means little and the players who want to always find fault will point to this as further proof that ZOS doesn't know where they want to go. Thus, staying silent is the best option when nothing you say is deemed right.

vsrs_au wrote: »

Iselin wrote: »

Vision for ESO:

New dev doesn't get why something is the way it is so they change it. Rinse and repeat.

Unfortunately, that's not limited to ZOS, just about any software company (gaming or other) has had that problem. The good companies ensure their design and specification documents are kept up to date, and that new developers are given an appropriate induction into these when joining a development team.

I would find it hard to believe that, with the scope of ESO, there are no design documents or that a person is coming in as new developers and changing things -- especially considering their job applications remark about Jira (created by Atlassian, who also made HipChat, what was a popular developer communication tool comparable to Discord, in a way, before it moved to Slack integration; it's not hard to imagine they also use tools like Confluence, Slack, etc. as a way to maintain design documents), as well as maintaining design documents. Bear in mind that changes would first need to go through a team lead and be signed off by a project lead/director. Team leads generally change very infrequently. So even if a new developer came in without understanding the entire design of ESO, a significant change to the combat, encounters, art, etc. wouldn't happen without being signed off by at least a team lead, which would mean the team lead is just as responsible.

Eiregirl · September 2022

Stamicka wrote: »

The game WAS centered on PvP. Many balance changes were made with PvP in mind. The entire Alliance system existed with PvP in mind, and PvP was heavily emphasized in advertisement during the early days of the game. There are lead developers at Zenimax that came from Dark Age of Camelot and some of that game's ideas can be seen in ESO's design. This is not a bold statement, early ESO really was centered around PvP.

While the PVP side of the game was a large part of the early days of ESO. ESO was NEVER centered around PVP but I will agree there have been many changes in the game especially concerning damage balancing that have been made due to PVP.

As to some of your other points such as the early game design encouraging group play. I have played since the game launched and the only things in the game that have ever encouraged group play have been the buff for grouping with one other player, dungeons, trials and the Craglorn zone when it was first added to the game in update 4. Craglorn was originally designed as a group play zone from the main story quest to the trials and caused a large exodus from the game.

I do believe One Tamriel was good for the game in that it allowed friends who picked different factions to play in could play together.

Everyone who plays any game will have their own opinions about the games they play. They will have opinions about what will make the game better or worse from their perspective and as you can see if you browse the forums some will agree with that opinion, and others will not.

newtinmpls · September 2022

Hmm.. I disagree with many of the premises (premi?)

Stamicka wrote: »

In the earlier years of the game, ESO had strong MMORPG roots.

I disagree. Early on the Dev's vision had strong MMO roots and many of the players had strong RPG and/or "love of the TES worlds" (even now many still play ESO waiting for TES IV).

Stamicka wrote: »

Your alliance choice changed your whole experience

This I do agree with and miss. Early on you couldn't get "Covenant recipes" unless you were there, or bought them at a trader. It was one of the many things that gave each alliance flavor, and I miss it (and I miss some of the recipes to be honest).

Stamicka wrote: »

zones had specific level ranges, overland was more difficult

In order - yes and NO

If you played the game and did the side quests, usually you had out-leveled the situation by zone 3 if not 2; so while overland was potentially more difficult in that if you went to a zone "too soon" you were smushed, the leveling process was problematic in terms of what you faced if you followed most of the quests you found.

Stamicka wrote: »

the game's design encouraged grouping

The fact that this was and still is the ONLY TES game where you can "play with friends" it inherently encourages grouping, especially early on when we were all still exploring with an eye to "does that really look like it did in [insert previous TES game]?

Stamicka wrote: »

and PvP was in the center of the game.

It's pretty clear that the devs HOPED that PVP would be the center of the game, but much of the player base was here for the world and the lore, not the PVP. Remember how we were "never" going to get housing, blah blah blah.

Stamicka wrote: »

Many long time players fell in love with an older version of the game. The lack of transparency has caused these players to be in a perpetual state of disappointment as they wait for updates that appeal to them. Many players are sticking around solely because they think things will change.

It is inherent to an MMO (and thus an MMORPG) that things will change. Partly this is marketing (new zone, nerf the old stuff) and partly this is to address perceived flaws ('no one is using X skill? Maybe we should tweak it?).

Stamicka wrote: »

If the desires of these players do not fit the developer's vision for the future of the game, they truly have no need to stick around. It is not fair to keep them in the dark.

I desired housing, multiple mounts, more ability to communicate and share with others ingame. The earliest Devs did NOT share my personal vision, but I stuck around and got some of what I wanted. This iteration of devs/leadership cannot answer for what will happen in the future.

I really do not think it's a useful question.

Stamicka · September 2022

newtinmpls wrote: »

It is inherent to an MMO (and thus an MMORPG) that things will change. Partly this is marketing (new zone, nerf the old stuff) and partly this is to address perceived flaws ('no one is using X skill? Maybe we should tweak it?).

Yes, the game is changing, but what is it changing into? To me it feels like it is changing into a very casual solo exploration game with optional multiplayer (as I stated). I don't know if this is actually what the developers are aiming for, because they don't really tell us what they are aiming for. That is the point of this whole post. I want to know what the developers want ESO to be.

To a player like me, the change feels alienating because I much preferred the older ESO. I don't want easy/ soloable content. I want to play this game like an MMORPG where there is a reason for me to play with friends. PvP content, a threatening overland, new arenas, support for BGs, any of those things would make me happy. The thing is, each update just adds a new mini game and maybe more content that will appeal to solo questers. So do the developers plan to support players like me in the future? I have no idea, but I don't want to play this game if the answer is no.

Troodon80 · September 2022

Stamicka wrote: »

To me it feels like it is changing into a very casual solo exploration game with optional multiplayer (as I stated).

Technically, it has always been like that, in much the same way that most other MMOs are. Which isn't necessarily a good or bad thing.

FFXIV, for example, being another game I play at times when I want a break from ESO, most if not all the quests are designed to be done solo, same as ESO, and many quests throw you into a solo instance to gather or fight something and force you out of a group if you were grouped, something ESO doesn't do. Especially annoying when the solo instance comes directly after a long cutscene, which then forces you to re-watch the cutscene after dropping from the group because you didn't realise it was a solo thing prior to interacting.

While ZOS advertises "Explore with your friends!" exploring is about the only thing you can do (skyshards, mages guild books, world bosses (but not world boss daily quests because they can potentially bug out if you are grouped)). In other words, nothing which actually needs players to be in a group to do, as opposed to a bunch of people all just turning up and not grouping. Unlike FFXIV as my example above, all of the group-baesd content -- dungeons, trials, and arenas -- in ESO is purely optional, while FFXIV has a number of dungeons, trials, and raids which are part of the main story meaning group play is a requirement if you want to advance the main story. With this in mind, it's easy to see that ESO has been designed from the ground up not to require being grouped for... well... anything outside of the aforementioned purely optional group activities. It is a solo game with optional multiplayer.

Take questing in ESO as an example, as the vast majority of ESO is an overland experience:

You and your friends end up cancelling dialogue if one person picks a dialogue option before you're read/listened to everything, especially annoying in dungeons
Bugging lorebooks if someone picks up the lore books and it disappears, but it doesn't count as read and doesn't go into your quest inventory... while still ticking off as a shared objective
Soft-locking quests until you leave group, like the wind barrier not dropping in the Born of Grief quest (was bugged, don't know if it still is)
In a few cases, completely bugging quests and forcing you to drop the quest and restart (these tend to be where you need to pick items up, but someone picks up a quest item before you're in range and it doesn't count, but still removes the item from the quest instance)
In other cases, logging out for ~5 minutes is enough to perform a soft-refresh

Rule of thumb, even pre-One Tamriel, if you want to do stuff with friends (not including dungeons and trials): don't do stuff while grouped. The game has never been particularly group-friendly outside of Cyrodiil, dungeons (as long as you don't care about the quests), and trials. The game has always been like this and I would imagine will continue to be like this. People might see it as becoming more of a solo experience, but in reality it has always been the case all the way from beta.

In terms of grouping, ZOS isn't doing away with grouping. They release two dungeon DLC packs (four group dungeons) and a trial every year. Outside of questing, grouping up is still there and people of low levels and less experience are still encouraged to group up if they need help. It's only once you've reached adequate player power that you can solo stuff and then you no longer feel like you need a group. The introduction of CP 160 scaling across the board with One Tamriel killed overland progression. Which equal numbers could argue was good or bad. However, the general content design since that point hasn't really changed much, if at all, compared to base game content over the years, players have simply gotten more powerful.

boi_anachronism_ · September 2022

kargen27 wrote: »

"The game WAS centered on PvP. Many balance changes were made with PvP in mind. The entire Alliance system existed with PvP in mind, and PvP was heavily emphasized in advertisement during the early days of the game."

last time this was brought up I went back and watched the first trailers and game play dumps. PvE got much more attention than did PvP.
The biggest changes in the game was because of PvE.

My opinion is developers should stick to developing and spokespeople should interact with players. Let each do the jobs they are best suited for. I think they do okay in sharing the general direction they want the game to go.

Four of your six questions if answered could alienate part of the player base. For some reason a lot of people in these forums seem to think ZoS can do only one thing at a time. That is why we get threads suggesting ZoS stop working on new content to fix bugs. We act as if they can't do both.
So if ZoS said we will be concentrating on bringing new trials into the game players that don't participate in trials will complain that what they want to do isn't getting attention. Even if what they do gets the same attention it always has the general feeling will be that they were slighted.

"Many players are sticking around solely because they think things will change. If the desires of these players do not fit the developer's vision for the future of the game, they truly have no need to stick around."

There would be no cost to take a break from the game and then come back if/when things change to your liking. Many players have taken a break. SOme returned, some didn't. We do get a generalization of up coming projects and those give us a decent idea of what direction they are taking the game.

Well the reason people have suggested toning down content release with more focus on fixing bugs is because there are so many that it is a huge undertaking to fix, especially with, as the developers have commented, old coding being much more intensive to fix. That doesn't mean they can't or won't make any new content. It isn't mutually exclusive but focusing on these issues with the time required would mean less content. I personally think that would be prudent with issues like in game controls not working across all platforms, players being kicked out of content mysteriously and so on.