Maintenance for the week of December 15:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – December 15, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
Forget *moving* accounts between platforms. Think: *shared* progress.
Elowen_Starveil
✭✭✭✭✭
Lots of people on here have asked for the ability to move their account between platforms. Think bigger. We should be able to have shared progress across ALL supported platforms.
I know, I know.
Mods. Bethesda can do mods on consoles. They've done it for Skyrim and Fallout 4. Sure, Sony is a stickler. Bethesda is now Microsoft; they have the means to make it worth Sony's while.
Economy. Fix the mod situation, and you'll "fix" the economy. At least, it will eventually balance out.
Controls. Non issue. There's no definitive advantage of M/K over controller in this game. I use a controller on PC.
I think the thing holding either moving or sharing progress between platforms is logging. I'm sure ZOS is logging every single interaction with EVERYTHING. I'm not saying this would be easy to combine, but it's also not beyond the wit of man.
Imagine being able to play the game with your different friend groups who just happen to be on another platform.
Then, once this is implemented... SINGLE INSTANCE FOR EVERYONE.
You're welcome.
I know, I know.
Mods. Bethesda can do mods on consoles. They've done it for Skyrim and Fallout 4. Sure, Sony is a stickler. Bethesda is now Microsoft; they have the means to make it worth Sony's while.
Economy. Fix the mod situation, and you'll "fix" the economy. At least, it will eventually balance out.
Controls. Non issue. There's no definitive advantage of M/K over controller in this game. I use a controller on PC.
I think the thing holding either moving or sharing progress between platforms is logging. I'm sure ZOS is logging every single interaction with EVERYTHING. I'm not saying this would be easy to combine, but it's also not beyond the wit of man.
Imagine being able to play the game with your different friend groups who just happen to be on another platform.
Then, once this is implemented... SINGLE INSTANCE FOR EVERYONE.
You're welcome.
8
-
Pixiepumpkin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭10000% agree.
The amount of money, limited time offerings, etc ensure a customer who enjoys this game can not do so on another platform or even server.
I don't necessarily think servers should be linked, but being able to transfer ones account to a different platform should have been a thing years ago."Class identity isn’t just about power or efficiency. It’s about symbolic clarity, mechanical cohesion, and a shared visual and tactical language between players." - sans-culottes7 -
lillybit✭✭✭✭✭
✭So you share progress between servers and suddenly people are just using PC to sell things and bringing the millions more than they could make on console back here. Pretty soon console economy is trashed and it's impossible for people without a PC to buy anything because everything's taken there where it's worth morePS4 EU3 -
Danikat✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭In principle I think it would be a good idea, but I think there's a lot of other considerations besides the ones you mentioned.
Character names are a big one, at the moment they have to be unique within your server, if progress was shared across all servers they'd need to be unique across the whole game, or ZOS would have to design and implement a way to allow them to be duplicated. I know that can be done (usually adding a different unique identifier), but I don't think it's easy to do retroactively, especially because it needs to be something players can then use for mail, party invites and all the other places they currently use character names.
If they don't allow duplicates they'd need a solution for all the existing duplicates. I have two different characters with the same name, one on PC EU and one on PC NA and even in that situation I wouldn't be happy with having to pick just 1 to keep the name and re-naming the other. If I was asked to give up a character name because someone else I didn't know had the same one I definitely wouldn't. (I think it would be pointless to ask, ZOS would probably make the decision on who gets to keep it and take the name away from the other player, which would cause a lot of resentment.)PC EU player | She/her/hers | PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!
"Remember in this game we call life that no one said it's fair"1 -
Elowen_Starveil✭✭✭✭✭So you share progress between servers and suddenly people are just using PC to sell things and bringing the millions more than they could make on console back here. Pretty soon console economy is trashed and it's impossible for people without a PC to buy anything because everything's taken there where it's worth more
Asked and answered.1 -
TaSheen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Ugh. No thank you. Especially not a "single instance for everyone".______________________________________________________
"But even in books, the heroes make mistakes, and there isn't always a happy ending." Mercedes Lackey, Into the West
PC NA, PC EU (non steam)- four accounts, many alts....3 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..
I do support transfer of accounts though.PCNA3 -
Elowen_Starveil✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..
I do support transfer of accounts though.
"Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.2 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭dk_dunkirk wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..
I do support transfer of accounts though.
"Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.
And do they have addons for PC and not for consoles?PCNA0 -
kargen27✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭dk_dunkirk wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..
I do support transfer of accounts though.
"Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.
Completely different game designed for cross play. Also doesn't have mega servers instead limiting players to instances that may go away after battle is finished.and then the parrot said, "must be the water mines green too."2 -
Elowen_Starveil✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »dk_dunkirk wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..
I do support transfer of accounts though.
"Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.
And do they have addons for PC and not for consoles?
Asked and answered in the original post. The whole idea assumes making mods available on console, where, again, other titles show they can do it.2 -
Elowen_Starveil✭✭✭✭✭dk_dunkirk wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..
I do support transfer of accounts though.
"Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.
Completely different game designed for cross play. Also doesn't have mega servers instead limiting players to instances that may go away after battle is finished.
As I tried to imply by "others," there are several cross-play MMO's.2 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭dk_dunkirk wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »dk_dunkirk wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..
I do support transfer of accounts though.
"Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.
And do they have addons for PC and not for consoles?
Asked and answered in the original post. The whole idea assumes making mods available on console, where, again, other titles show they can do it.
ZoS has no control over that. It's the consoles that won't allow it. And I can guarantee that if they removed access to add-ons on PC they would lose most of their playerbase.PCNA2 -
Pixiepumpkin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »dk_dunkirk wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »dk_dunkirk wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..
I do support transfer of accounts though.
"Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.
And do they have addons for PC and not for consoles?
Asked and answered in the original post. The whole idea assumes making mods available on console, where, again, other titles show they can do it.
ZoS has no control over that. It's the consoles that won't allow it. And I can guarantee that if they removed access to add-ons on PC they would lose most of their playerbase.
So...sony? Because MS owns ZOS.
Addons can be baked into the game.
As far as "they would lose most of their playerbase", that is not even remotly true. Lose some? Sure, but not most.
And I would argue IF that was the case, that addons are so necessary to enjoy the game that their functionality should be baked in."Class identity isn’t just about power or efficiency. It’s about symbolic clarity, mechanical cohesion, and a shared visual and tactical language between players." - sans-culottes3 -
ComboBreaker88✭✭✭✭✭
✭Think only works if thr inventory and craft bags remain separate. Progress, sure. Items and gold? No way.0 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭dk_dunkirk wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..
I do support transfer of accounts though.
"Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.
Do they have exactly the same coding as ESO?1 -
Elowen_Starveil✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »dk_dunkirk wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »dk_dunkirk wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..
I do support transfer of accounts though.
"Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.
And do they have addons for PC and not for consoles?
Asked and answered in the original post. The whole idea assumes making mods available on console, where, again, other titles show they can do it.
ZoS has no control over that. It's the consoles that won't allow it. And I can guarantee that if they removed access to add-ons on PC they would lose most of their playerbase.
Also asked and answered. As I'm saying for the third time now, Bethesda HAS ALREADY DONE THIS for Skyrim and Fallout 4. Whatever it is people think they need to do, or the console people need to do, everyone involved has already shown it can be done. Twice already.Edited by Elowen_Starveil on February 4, 2024 1:53PM1 -
Ph1p✭✭✭✭✭
✭dk_dunkirk wrote: »Also asked and answered. As I'm saying for the third time now, Bethesda HAS ALREADY DONE THIS for Skyrim and Fallout 76. Whatever it is people think they need to do, or the console people need to do, everyone involved has already shown it can be done. Twice already.
It’s of course technically feasible, but you’re still talking different games, development studios, and underlying technologies1 -
Elowen_Starveil✭✭✭✭✭dk_dunkirk wrote: »Also asked and answered. As I'm saying for the third time now, Bethesda HAS ALREADY DONE THIS for Skyrim and Fallout 76. Whatever it is people think they need to do, or the console people need to do, everyone involved has already shown it can be done. Twice already.
It’s of course technically feasible, but you’re still talking different games, development studios, and underlying technologies
For the third time, I've given 2 examples of the same company doing this on different "games" and "underlying technologies," and for the 4th time, someone just throws up their hands and claims it's somehow impossible. You win. I give up.3 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Pixiepumpkin wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »ZoS has no control over that. It's the consoles that won't allow it. And I can guarantee that if they removed access to add-ons on PC they would lose most of their playerbase.
So...sony? Because MS owns ZOS.
Addons can be baked into the game.
As far as "they would lose most of their playerbase", that is not even remotly true. Lose some? Sure, but not most.
And I would argue IF that was the case, that addons are so necessary to enjoy the game that their functionality should be baked in.
We've had the use of add-ons for 10 years. Taking those away now would be comparable to trading in our washer and dryer to beat our clothes on rocks to clean them. Players aren't going to adapt well to that.
I agree that a lot of the features we get from add-ons should be in game, but that is a different topic.PCNA0 -
Pixiepumpkin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »Pixiepumpkin wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »ZoS has no control over that. It's the consoles that won't allow it. And I can guarantee that if they removed access to add-ons on PC they would lose most of their playerbase.
So...sony? Because MS owns ZOS.
Addons can be baked into the game.
As far as "they would lose most of their playerbase", that is not even remotly true. Lose some? Sure, but not most.
And I would argue IF that was the case, that addons are so necessary to enjoy the game that their functionality should be baked in.
We've had the use of add-ons for 10 years. Taking those away now would be comparable to trading in our washer and dryer to beat our clothes on rocks to clean them. Players aren't going to adapt well to that.
I agree that a lot of the features we get from add-ons should be in game, but that is a different topic.
I would venture to say most people do not use addons or very few. But the core of the conversation is about shared server stuff (not that I agree with it), but addons are not a factor in this debate becasue they can be baked into the game if they are deemed necessary.
Edited by Pixiepumpkin on February 4, 2024 4:40PM"Class identity isn’t just about power or efficiency. It’s about symbolic clarity, mechanical cohesion, and a shared visual and tactical language between players." - sans-culottes0 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Pixiepumpkin wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »Pixiepumpkin wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »ZoS has no control over that. It's the consoles that won't allow it. And I can guarantee that if they removed access to add-ons on PC they would lose most of their playerbase.
So...sony? Because MS owns ZOS.
Addons can be baked into the game.
As far as "they would lose most of their playerbase", that is not even remotly true. Lose some? Sure, but not most.
And I would argue IF that was the case, that addons are so necessary to enjoy the game that their functionality should be baked in.
We've had the use of add-ons for 10 years. Taking those away now would be comparable to trading in our washer and dryer to beat our clothes on rocks to clean them. Players aren't going to adapt well to that.
I agree that a lot of the features we get from add-ons should be in game, but that is a different topic.
I would venture to say most people do not use addons or very few. But the core of the conversation is about shared server stuff (not that I agree with it), but addons are not a factor in this debate becasue they can be baked into the game if they are deemed necessary.
Almost everyone on PC uses add-ons. Just go to any crafting area and see how fast players move from station to station doing their writs. That is only possible due to an add-on.
This is a big factor in whether or not to combine PC and Console players. I don't see ZoS making all these quality of life features part of the game to combine the platforms, which they may have no desire to do.Edited by SilverBride on February 4, 2024 4:49PMPCNA0 -
Ph1p✭✭✭✭✭
✭dk_dunkirk wrote: »For the third time, I've given 2 examples of the same company doing this on different "games" and "underlying technologies," and for the 4th time, someone just throws up their hands and claims it's somehow impossible. You win. I give up.
I literally said that "it's of course technically feasible", which you completely ignored for some reason. You also keep ignoring that Bethesda Game Studios and ZOS are the same company only in the same way that the makers of WoW and Candy Crush Saga are the same company...0 -
Pixiepumpkin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »Pixiepumpkin wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »Pixiepumpkin wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »ZoS has no control over that. It's the consoles that won't allow it. And I can guarantee that if they removed access to add-ons on PC they would lose most of their playerbase.
So...sony? Because MS owns ZOS.
Addons can be baked into the game.
As far as "they would lose most of their playerbase", that is not even remotly true. Lose some? Sure, but not most.
And I would argue IF that was the case, that addons are so necessary to enjoy the game that their functionality should be baked in.
We've had the use of add-ons for 10 years. Taking those away now would be comparable to trading in our washer and dryer to beat our clothes on rocks to clean them. Players aren't going to adapt well to that.
I agree that a lot of the features we get from add-ons should be in game, but that is a different topic.
I would venture to say most people do not use addons or very few. But the core of the conversation is about shared server stuff (not that I agree with it), but addons are not a factor in this debate becasue they can be baked into the game if they are deemed necessary.
Almost everyone on PC uses add-ons. Just go to any crafting area and see how fast players move from station to station doing their writs. That is only possible due to an add-on.
This is a big factor in whether or not to combine PC and Console players. I don't see ZoS making all these quality of life features part of the game to combine the platforms, which they may have no desire to do.
I disagree. I would argue that most players do not use addons. I rarely use any myself (and I dont use any crafting addons). But AGAIN, this is not about crafting, its about the OP suggesting that different platforums be merged, which if they were addons could easily be baked into the core game, so they are not part of the discussion."Class identity isn’t just about power or efficiency. It’s about symbolic clarity, mechanical cohesion, and a shared visual and tactical language between players." - sans-culottes1 -
lillybit✭✭✭✭✭
✭dk_dunkirk wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »dk_dunkirk wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »dk_dunkirk wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »PC and Console do not mix. We can't be on the same server because of the differences, i.e. add-ons, voice chat in zone, etc..
I do support transfer of accounts though.
"Can't" isn't strictly true. At least, not from a technical point of view. Battlefield 2042 does it. There are others that do, now, too.
And do they have addons for PC and not for consoles?
Asked and answered in the original post. The whole idea assumes making mods available on console, where, again, other titles show they can do it.
ZoS has no control over that. It's the consoles that won't allow it. And I can guarantee that if they removed access to add-ons on PC they would lose most of their playerbase.
Also asked and answered. As I'm saying for the third time now, Bethesda HAS ALREADY DONE THIS for Skyrim and Fallout 4. Whatever it is people think they need to do, or the console people need to do, everyone involved has already shown it can be done. Twice already.
Skyrim and Fallout have extremely limited add-ons that don't in any way compare with what PC has. Even if they were suddenly allowed in ESO they would still only be a shadow of those available to PCPS4 EU1 -
Elowen_Starveil✭✭✭✭✭dk_dunkirk wrote: »For the third time, I've given 2 examples of the same company doing this on different "games" and "underlying technologies," and for the 4th time, someone just throws up their hands and claims it's somehow impossible. You win. I give up.
I literally said that "it's of course technically feasible", which you completely ignored for some reason. You also keep ignoring that Bethesda Game Studios and ZOS are the same company only in the same way that the makers of WoW and Candy Crush Saga are the same company...
I’m not ignoring anything. ZOS, Bethesda, Blizzard, Activision? Skyrim, Fallout, ESO, AND WoW. It’s all Microsoft now, baby. The Xbox fanboys got what they wanted, and now we all have to live with the fact that Microsoft is going to make them all march to the same beat, wherever tempo that winds up being.2 -
Ph1p✭✭✭✭✭
✭Skyrim and Fallout have extremely limited add-ons that don't in any way compare with what PC has. Even if they were suddenly allowed in ESO they would still only be a shadow of those available to PC
Both are also single-player games where it doesn't matter if someone has an add-on and another player doesn't. However, if you merge console and PC servers, ZOS would have to actively curate add-ons and make sure everybody can get the same. But who ports the existing add-ons to consoles? Will they only accept new add-ons if they are made for all platforms? How would they even enforce this? How much time and effort will this waste that could otherwise be put into new content for everybody?3 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭dk_dunkirk wrote: »dk_dunkirk wrote: »For the third time, I've given 2 examples of the same company doing this on different "games" and "underlying technologies," and for the 4th time, someone just throws up their hands and claims it's somehow impossible. You win. I give up.
I literally said that "it's of course technically feasible", which you completely ignored for some reason. You also keep ignoring that Bethesda Game Studios and ZOS are the same company only in the same way that the makers of WoW and Candy Crush Saga are the same company...
I’m not ignoring anything. ZOS, Bethesda, Blizzard, Activision? Skyrim, Fallout, ESO, AND WoW. It’s all Microsoft now, baby. The Xbox fanboys got what they wanted, and now we all have to live with the fact that Microsoft is going to make them all march to the same beat, wherever tempo that winds up being.
I've seen no statement by Microsoft to that effect, nor have I seen any evidence of those games being adapted to fit with the others. What have I missed? Companies often take over others in order to broaden their base and market share, not so as to make them all produce the same identikit products.Edited by Tandor on February 4, 2024 5:29PM0 -
Maitsukas✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭From UESP regarding Skyrim Mods on PlayStation: https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:PlayStation#Third_Party_ModsUnlike on Xbox One, Special Edition only has limited mod support on PlayStation. Only assets already included within the game may be used. Any mod that adds textures, meshes, animations, sounds, and/or scripts will not be PlayStation-compatible. Note that trophies are disabled when playing with mods. These restrictions extend to Verified Creations, resulting in only a limited subset of these Creations being available on PlayStation.
As I understand, Sony doesn't want anything malicious to sneak into their consoles, which is why anything third party must be using the game's original assets.Edited by Maitsukas on February 4, 2024 9:42PMPC-EU @maitsukas
Posting the Infinite Archive and Imperial City Weekly Vendor updates.
Also trying out new Main Quests, Companions, ToT decks, Events and Styles on PTS.3 -
Elowen_Starveil✭✭✭✭✭dk_dunkirk wrote: »dk_dunkirk wrote: »For the third time, I've given 2 examples of the same company doing this on different "games" and "underlying technologies," and for the 4th time, someone just throws up their hands and claims it's somehow impossible. You win. I give up.
I literally said that "it's of course technically feasible", which you completely ignored for some reason. You also keep ignoring that Bethesda Game Studios and ZOS are the same company only in the same way that the makers of WoW and Candy Crush Saga are the same company...
I’m not ignoring anything. ZOS, Bethesda, Blizzard, Activision? Skyrim, Fallout, ESO, AND WoW. It’s all Microsoft now, baby. The Xbox fanboys got what they wanted, and now we all have to live with the fact that Microsoft is going to make them all march to the same beat, wherever tempo that winds up being.
I've seen no statement by Microsoft to that effect, nor have I seen any evidence of those games being adapted to fit with the others. What have I missed? Companies often take over others in order to broaden their base and market share, not so as to make them all produce the same identikit products.
Tell me you haven't lived through a Fortune 250 merger, without telling me...
We're way off in the weeds here now, but no company has ever bought another company, and not stuck its nose DEEP into the acquired company's operations.
Why do you think Activision just had an 8% layoff, after record profits? You think they just felt like doing it? No, Microsoft told them to do it, and they did. Eight percent is a big layoff, by corporate standards. Why didn't they say anything about that prior to the merger? They surely had it planned. Why do you expect a company to telegraph unpopular moves? This will be the tip of an iceberg. Whole games will be shuttered to line up to Microsoft's master plan. You can say, nah, they would never, but literally every corporate merger winds up doing this. It's the whole point of doing mergers and acquisitions. The "synergies," by which they mean extracting more profit by reducing consumer choices to go elsewhere.
Forget combining platforms now. The question we should fear Microsoft asking is: Why are we paying for the development of ESO when WoW has MORE THAN TEN TIMES the player base, and a large portion of the ESO players would probably move over if we cancel it? How can we roll these things together, and then fire another tranche of fungible video game developers? That's the question SOMEONE inside Microsoft is asking right now.
0