ESO 3.0… This is Depressing

SummersetCitizen · January 8

kevkj wrote: »

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

The criticism isn’t that ZOS should hoard content or avoid adapting… adjusting monetization is expected in any live service.

The point is that these changes reveal whose incentives are being prioritized: they reduce risk and stabilize revenue for ZOS, often at the expense of long-term growth or player leverage.

They opened the stream by talking about balancing player expectations with the realities of running the studio. I can appreciate that, but it’s also fair to critique those realities… especially a studio that seems to have squandered so much goodwill and past success.

And this was what I've been asking the whole time, how do these 3 changes in particular impact long term growth? Don't just say that it will, explain yourself.

Recycling legacy content is only bad for player growth if it's not matched by the addition of new content. I'll admit, what we have been shown so far seems a bit bare but therein the problem is lack of new content rather than legacy content being dusted off now and then.

If anything, you could argue that by homogenizing with the rest of the industry and adopting the Battlepass model that it's one of the ways they are seeking to attract players that were at odds with their previous model. They are reducing friction in onboarding new players at the expense of portions of the existing players who will reject this change. That's a risk that is directly antithetical to the idea they are focused on staying comfortable with what they have rather than growth. I'm personally indifferent, so I'm not arguing this from a position of loving the battlepass model.

Removing predatory real money purchase options is also incompatible with the idea that it's part of a shrinking vision for the game. We have decades of dying online games as proof that predatory sales tend to get added to games in death throes rather than be removed. As an aside, I'm very much in the camp that ESO's active population has been in decline so it's not because I'm in denial of that reality.

The concern isn’t recycling legacy content itself… it’s that the limited new content shown so far suggests growth isn’t the primary focus. Homogenizing to a Battle Pass may help onboard some new players, but it primarily shifts monetization toward predictable revenue rather than expanding the player base. Removing predatory RMT doesn’t automatically signal growth either; it’s more consistent with stabilizing revenue and reducing friction for retention, not driving expansion. The long-term effect is that ESO looks structured around maintaining a loyal, shrinking audience rather than actively pursuing growth.

Seraphayel · January 8

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

This does not look like "maintenance mode".

I strongly disagree. Most of what you’ve highlighted isn’t new permanent content.

These are small chunks, limited events, or temporary updates that may or may not come back, and any new additions are largely just quests added to existing zones.

Overland difficulty is a massive new addition that changes how content is experienced in a drastic way.

A new trial is a new trial.

A feature system is a new system.

New stories and quests are also here to stay.

The events might be temporary, but not even that is for sure from what we know yet.

SummersetCitizen · January 8

Seraphayel wrote: »

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

This does not look like "maintenance mode".

I strongly disagree. Most of what you’ve highlighted isn’t new permanent content.

These are small chunks, limited events, or temporary updates that may or may not come back, and any new additions are largely just quests added to existing zones.

Overland difficulty is a massive new addition that changes how content is experienced in a drastic way.

A new trial is a new trial.

A feature system is a new system.

New stories and quests are also here to stay.

The events might be temporary, but not even that is for sure from what we know yet.

All of that is still a fraction of what a chapter would have contained.

No dungeons to speak of. No new companion. Not that I like ToT, but there was no mention of a new deck or anything. I can go on with what wasn’t included.

They are transitioning into far less permanent content, but the price to fully experience the game with all rewards is going up.

kevkj · January 8

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

The concern isn’t recycling legacy content itself… it’s that the limited new content shown so far suggests growth isn’t the primary focus. Homogenizing to a Battle Pass may help onboard some new players, but it primarily shifts monetization toward predictable revenue rather than expanding the player base. Removing predatory RMT doesn’t automatically signal growth either; it’s more consistent with stabilizing revenue and reducing friction for retention, not driving expansion. The long-term effect is that ESO looks structured around maintaining a loyal, shrinking audience rather than actively pursuing growth.

This is like saying because I didn't fully invest all my cash and put some of it into low interest savings that I'm not interested in growing my wealth. Are these risk reduction strategies? Absolutely. Are these necessarily harbingers of a closed outlook for the game? Wild conclusion to draw.

Gabriel_H · January 8

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

The long-term effect is that ESO looks structured around maintaining a loyal, shrinking audience rather than actively pursuing growth.

Sorry but you keep coming back to this, and it's a deeply flawed premise.

The base game on sale sells for about $5. That will include soon everything up to Greymoor. Any new content that comes out will then be free.

That draws in new players. Those players are then upsold on the benefits of ESO+: the craft bag, housing, dungeons etc. That the creates the consistent revenue stream, while growing the audience. Those people see the cosmetics, maybe throw some cash at crowns or tomes which then becomes another predicatable revenue stream while growing the audience.

It's the exact same business model they use now. They have just shifted the Chapter cost over, and spread it over 12 months, which itself is likely to get more people buying, as it's not a giant one off payment.

SummersetCitizen · January 8

kevkj wrote: »

This is like saying because I didn't fully invest all my cash and put some of it into low interest savings that I'm not interested in growing my wealth. Are these risk reduction strategies? Absolutely. Are these necessarily harbingers of a closed outlook for the game? Wild conclusion to draw.

I see your point, but the analogy misses the key difference: we aren’t talking about balancing risk versus reward in a portfolio we control… we’re talking about a live service where the company controls both the content and the monetization.

Risk-reduction strategies make sense, but when the signals are a slowdown in new, permanent content and a shift to monetization that favors stability over expansion, it’s reasonable to interpret that as prioritizing retention over growth.

It’s not a wild conclusion… it’s reading the incentives and design choices as they stand.

Tonturri · January 8

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

Tonturri wrote: »

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Splitting the monetization off of content and making it more as a standalone cosmetic unlock IMO is better.

I can see your point, but it seems to be done out of necessity and not player benefit.

They are giving out new content for free because it is too thin (and recently bug-filled) to expect people to pay for moving forward.

This choice astounds me. Maybe they'll still have player hour spent in XYZ zone to go off of, but I'm a lil bamboozled as to how not asking for payment for stuff that takes the most effort is going to work out, and getting that money instead from stuff that takes the least effort (cosmetics)? Maybe they think players are more likely to pay more and more often for shinies instead of content, and the free stuff will bring in enough people who also buy the cosmetic shinies.

Heck...I don't think ZOS is the type to try and play 5D chess, but if this also means they no longer feel pressured to add power crept proc sets and mythics to new content...

Genuinely curious to see how this works out (or doesn't) for ZOS.

Its probably in the data. I dont know how zos gets its revenue but I csn guess and heres my speculation:

- Chapters and dlc are their lowest source of revenue.
- ESO+ makes up a decent percentage of stable revenue source.
- most of the revenue comes from crown store.

If you consider the above, and the time spent in game. Most causual players that buy a dlc or chapter spend 30 to 40 hours doing thar content and then leave till the next one.
There are an increasing number of players that just sub and are willing to wait a year for the new content to open up to them via plus.

Most of the complaints about new zones are things that are issues with quality, like writing, inconsistent quests, lacking in visuals, etc. Things impacted by crunch goals and hard deadlines.

By releasing itself feom those rigid timelines it should allow zos to release content when its ready and in theory better quality.

In the process the seasonal tome monetization should allow them to keep the lights on.

Is it likely going to be a light year on content. Yes, but what content we DO get will be free to anyone that owns the game.

So I guess its a matter of preference here.

Would you rather have a repeat of last years content at a higher price or this new set up?

Personally, it isn't so much the content we're getting (or not getting) that I have beef with but the monetization. And, in the end, it doesn't impact me toooo much because I think sparkleponies look fugly - only rarely is there something I'm even mildly interested in that's available from crown crates, and there's usually a way to get it eventually if I absolutely must have it (except for the mfing shiny sweetroll, insofar as I know, I don't give a heck about the mounts but I want a glowie sweetroll housing item).

Battle pass leaves a sour taste in my mouth - my first impression here is....Bad, but not atrocious. I'm hoping that it's just the stream being a little (imo) rushed and things not being fully explained, or I'm misunderstanding stuff, and I'll reserve full judgement until I get to see what the first battle pass actually entails.

I'm actually quite thrilled we're getting QoL and class reworks, though. If ZOS emailed me asking for a full fledged design document on every single class, I'd probably spend a week writing up some monstrosity. I'm really hoping they fix some beefs I've had with class design that have been around since day 1 (generic skills, lack of actual class mechanics). I'm not actively playing the game anyway - I can keep busy with WoW and GW2 - so it's not like a year of light content will impact me much. I am one of those people who dip in and out over the course of a year.

Overall I'm cautiously optimistic about some things, but certain aspects of the info we've gotten so far have given me an overall slightly negative impression. I'm also dubious about the whole class stuff - I'm really hopeful, and I'll look forward to getting more details, but ZOS does not have a good track record with class design and that makes me worried for the end result.

kevkj · January 8

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

I see your point, but the analogy misses the key difference: we aren’t talking about balancing risk versus reward in a portfolio we control… we’re talking about a live service where the company controls both the content and the monetization.

Risk-reduction strategies make sense, but when the signals are a slowdown in new, permanent content and a shift to monetization that favors stability over expansion, it’s reasonable to interpret that as prioritizing retention over growth.

It’s not a wild conclusion… it’s reading the incentives and design choices as they stand.

And my point this whole time is that these 3 changes are things that would and should be made regardless of the present status of ESO nor their future plans. It's strategy agnostic.

You've said it yourself, the bleak outlook you see is indicated by the lack of new content. And I'm even in partial agreement here! The roadmap looks a little bare at the moment or at least lacking in anything concrete.

But you've chosen to pad out your stance with weaker supporting arguments and the downright ridiculous like the following.

re-enabling content already in the game
trying to normalize revenue into 3-4 small bumps over the year rather than one big mid year bump (It's quite literally what every business on earth tries to do)
deleting an entry in the cash shop that probably generates a rounding error's worth of revenue for them

WhiteCoatSyndrome · January 8

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Nothing has been rolled back. They are adding QoL improvements that players have been asking for.

Battlegrounds and Guild Traders would like a word. Those aren’t new improvements, those are ‘we made this change and people hated it so we’re changing it back.’ Which is to say, rollbacks. And they admitted that was the reason during the stream.

Seraphayel · January 8

WhiteCoatSyndrome wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Nothing has been rolled back. They are adding QoL improvements that players have been asking for.

Battlegrounds and Guild Traders would like a word. Those aren’t new improvements, those are ‘we made this change and people hated it so we’re changing it back.’ Which is to say, rollbacks. And they admitted that was the reason during the stream.

There seems to be some misunderstanding: they are not "rolling back" battlegrounds. We will get 3-faction battlegrounds again as some type of temporary additional options for PvP, like an event or specific PvP weekend. They never said they're reverting back battlegrounds. They said it might become permanent if the reception is good.

wolfie1.0. · January 8

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

This does not look like "maintenance mode".

I strongly disagree. Most of what you’ve highlighted isn’t new permanent content.

These are small chunks, limited events, or temporary updates that may or may not come back, and any new additions are largely just quests added to existing zones.

Overland difficulty is a massive new addition that changes how content is experienced in a drastic way.

A new trial is a new trial.

A feature system is a new system.

New stories and quests are also here to stay.

The events might be temporary, but not even that is for sure from what we know yet.

All of that is still a fraction of what a chapter would have contained.

No dungeons to speak of. No new companion. Not that I like ToT, but there was no mention of a new deck or anything. I can go on with what wasn’t included.

They are transitioning into far less permanent content, but the price to fully experience the game with all rewards is going up.

You are correct that it is a not what would be a full chapter. But then again when we do get that content, and it will be free. Even if its released piece by piece.

Basically, I think zos did the math and I feel that zos realized that new chapter content isnt what drives NEW players into the game. And that the portion of the playerbase that would pay for a new chapter are leaving due to other issues with the game.

Do I want a new chapter? Sure. Would i pay for one after what happend last year? Maybe. Do I think a major change needed to happen? Yes.

lillybit · January 8

I've been quite critical of the game for a while. Tbh the only real reason I've kept playing is the people I've met and I've played Skyrim enough! The chapter model (dungeons, chaper, dungeons, zone, repeat) has got incredibly repetitive and quite dull the longer it's gone on, as well as being increasingly disappointing. I've felt compelled to pay the inflated cost of shrinking chapters just for the new craftable sets to keep my houses up to date. I've definitely been on maintenance mode for a while tho!

By this point I'm pretty much expecting to be disappointed again, but here's the thing. The live stream announced a lot of things that have been requested for a loooong time. They listened to things we didn't like and are reverting them. They're taking out some of the monetisation. For me, that earms them just a little bit of the benefit of the doubt. They at least get a "wait until we see how it's done" pass.

But at the end of the day, I won't now have to buy content that doesn’t excite me just for one small part. If I don't spend all I miss out on is yet another mount or costume. If I decide I want them, I'm paying less for them than I would if they were from the crown store, with unlimited time to unlock them. Sure, it'll be annoying to pay and work for them, but that's my decision too and won't impact gameplay if I skip it. It at least doesn't expire so I can go as fast or slow as I want. Plus we're getting new and interesting types of content, not more of the same old same old.

That's sounding a lot like a win for me.

Gabriel_H · January 8

WhiteCoatSyndrome wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Nothing has been rolled back. They are adding QoL improvements that players have been asking for.

Battlegrounds and Guild Traders would like a word. Those aren’t new improvements, those are ‘we made this change and people hated it so we’re changing it back.’ Which is to say, rollbacks. And they admitted that was the reason during the stream.

I do love people who decide to ignore wider context to make semantic arguements. If are going for semantics - that isn't what rollback means. So, all the other QoL changes, are you just ignoring those?

wrrn519_ESO · January 8

I see all the comments and thoughts about the going forth's and coming ins and I will be optimistic. I believe they are trying to fix the problems they see are causing a decline in play time and continuation in this game. I will give it a chance. If Season Zero is a bust, they will know. It will pick-up then dramatically decline if it stinks. Let's give it a chance folks. If it sucks, then all of you who thought it was a stupid and pointless venture will be right and if it is a success or at least heading in the right direction that it improves things, then we will all have a game worth playing. Either way someone will win!!!

Morvan · January 8

I'm really sad to see that some people can't understand the vision ZOS has for this year, you guys are used to getting the same thing every year and now that you're getting something different you think it's less, you guys barely have any details on all the new things announced and immediately assumed it's less content.

Give them a chance, this time they're not even charging you for it.

freespirit · January 8

Gabriel_H wrote: »

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

Folding expansions into the base game signals that new expansions no longer function as the primary, growth-driving premium product, regardless of how legacy content is marketed.

It doesn't. It represents an industry standard. Your view is too narrow.

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

QoL improvements are best understood as churn-reduction measures that consolidate monetization into fewer, higher-conversion systems.

Or as the company listening to their customers. Your view is too one sided.

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

These aren’t due to player feedback. Many of these new “features” could have been easily added long ago, but were still making money at that point.

They could not have. Any company has limited resouces.

Under old management those resources were put into massive one-year expansions (and their/his failed pet project).

New management appear to be addressing some of the larger pain points that players have expressed over the years. They have a choice with their limited resources - only work on new stuff, only work on QoL, or mix both - the chose the latter.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit..... the "old management" versus "new management" part.

I seem to remember it being discussed what the actual "lead time" is for the developement of new content and it wasn't a short period.

I feel that I/we need to support the team, they have had a very hard time of it in the last year, they could well be doing their upmost to deliver the best they can, whilst only having diminished reources and content to work with.

I've been a bit negative about yesterday's reveal but am now wondering if I am being unfair?

If I'm honest I actually still have loads of stuff to do in game, so I've decided to wait until everything starts to unfold, it may well be better than my initial expectations!!

SummersetCitizen · January 8

freespirit wrote: »

I've been thinking about this quite a bit..... the "old management" versus "new management" part.

I seem to remember it being discussed what the actual "lead time" is for the developement of new content and it wasn't a short period.

I feel that I/we need to support the team, they have had a very hard time of it in the last year, they could well be doing their upmost to deliver the best they can, whilst only having diminished reources and content to work with.

It’s worth remembering that the current management team was largely promoted from within the studio…they’re not an outside group suddenly taking over. These are highly compensated professionals running a business, not our peers or friends.

While it’s fine to appreciate the challenges they face, we also have to keep in mind that their role is to deliver a service that maximizes revenue, not to cater to sentiment or goodwill. Supporting the studio doesn’t mean suspending critical thinking about the incentives and decisions guiding the game.

freespirit · January 8

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

freespirit wrote: »

I've been thinking about this quite a bit..... the "old management" versus "new management" part.

I seem to remember it being discussed what the actual "lead time" is for the developement of new content and it wasn't a short period.

I feel that I/we need to support the team, they have had a very hard time of it in the last year, they could well be doing their upmost to deliver the best they can, whilst only having diminished reources and content to work with.

It’s worth remembering that the current management team was largely promoted from within the studio…they’re not an outside group suddenly taking over. These are highly compensated professionals running a business, not our peers or friends.

While it’s fine to appreciate the challenges they face, we also have to keep in mind that their role is to deliver a service that maximizes revenue, not to cater to sentiment or goodwill. Supporting the studio doesn’t mean suspending critical thinking about the incentives and decisions guiding the game.

Indeed that is true but they were not the person making the final decisions until July last year, 6 months is not that long to try and rescue something passable from what might not, after the debacle that was Writhing Wall, on paper been much better.

Desiato · January 8

I'm not happy with the upcoming changes, but I'm over them. Just like I refused to buy Crown Crates, I have decided I will also not buy any Battle Passes.

ZOS is being greedy IMO and I'm not going to support that. I would have continued to sub, but I'm not subbing and buying battle passes to replay fundamentally the same old content I've already played way too many times.

What will likely determine my continued interest in ESO will be Dragonknight refresh on PTS. I expect them to butcher what has become my favorite class.

It's fine though. All good things must come to an end and for ESO that was when they announced the 2025 content pass. It's been downhill since. I'm glad I returned when I did to experience the last couple of years of ESO in its prime.

Juju_beans · January 8

Morvan wrote: »

I'm really sad to see that some people can't understand the vision ZOS has for this year, you guys are used to getting the same thing every year and now that you're getting something different you think it's less, you guys barely have any details on all the new things announced and immediately assumed it's less content.

Give them a chance, this time they're not even charging you for it.

I didn't like what they did in 2025 but I'm looking forward to what they plan to do for 2026.

wolfie1.0. · January 8

Morvan wrote: »

I'm really sad to see that some people can't understand the vision ZOS has for this year, you guys are used to getting the same thing every year and now that you're getting something different you think it's less, you guys barely have any details on all the new things announced and immediately assumed it's less content.

Give them a chance, this time they're not even charging you for it.

A lot of it is years of promises and let downs. Its hard to look positive if yoy keep getting beat down.

As for myself, im a cautious optimist.

Soarora · January 8

Something had to give or the game was going to keep sinking before our very eyes. We could not have kept going with the chapter model— ZOS said the teams were getting very rushed, which means worse content for us, which makes us unhappy. We’re at the point now that ZOS has to generate a lot of goodwill to draw people back instead of throwing more slop at us until most of us leave. The cadence of content wasn’t sustainable, of course we’re going to get less content! ZOS isn’t even going to make us pay the same price for less content, which is the situation we were getting into with the chapter model. Other games have less updates that are bigger and well thought out, ESO will live by giving their teams flexibility and throwing things at us that will make us happy.

SneaK · January 8

OP Assessment is correct’ish.

They are clearly pushing towards monetary goals above all else. But,, that’s how the gaming industry works nowadays. Big brother probably had a lot of emphasis on the business strategy.

It’s not complete gloom and doom though, deep diving into complex monetary systems that have been a major pain point for the community is a great place to start. If you go read game reviews on the Xbox store, 95% of them are low stars based on too many paid transactions in order to progress through the game. Making content free (there’s already a lot of content) is a big factor in accessibility for new/returning players. If they can get the systems (money) right, and balance the gameplay, IT WILL ADD more players. Because, the game will be more enjoyable without spending real money.

I do think they are missing the mark in some spots:
• Crowns should be the currency for Tomes.
• They need a marketing team that showcases more than cinematics, more focus on the community having FUN with gameplay.
• More streamer marketing, better drops etc.

Those three things would increase players more than what they are doing.

Also, balance PvP, not Vengeance

virtus753 · January 8

Gabriel_H wrote: »

The base game on sale sells for about $5. That will include soon everything up to Greymoor. Any new content that comes out will then be free.

Asking for clarity here because I am still trying to get caught up on what will be free and/or base game when.

From the roadmap graphic, it seems that only five DLC are slated to become base game this year.

Have they mentioned a timetable for making the intervening DLC free or base game? There are five more paid zone DLC (one of which governs access to a crafting line) and two paid classes.

This is my current understanding of the status of DLC (excluding pure dungeon packs) up through Greymoor, in order of release:

2015-2016
Imperial City/Orsinium/Thieves Guild/Dark Brotherhood: base game as of Season Zero

2017
Morrowind: Vvardenfell zone already free and forced on all accounts (but still classified as DLC), BGs already base game, Warden still paid

Clockwork City: still paid

2018
Summerset (including jewelrycrafting access): still paid

Murkmire: still paid

2019
Elsweyr: Northern Elsweyr zone DLC and Necro both still paid

Dragonhold: still paid

2020
Greymoor (including antiquities access): base game as of Season Two

Is this correct, or do we have info on when CWC through Dragonhold will be made free or base game?

Sluggy · January 8

Desiato wrote: »

I'm not happy with the upcoming changes, but I'm over them. Just like I refused to buy Crown Crates, I have decided I will also not buy any Battle Passes.

ZOS is being greedy IMO and I'm not going to support that. I would have continued to sub, but I'm not subbing and buying battle passes to replay fundamentally the same old content I've already played way too many times.

What will likely determine my continued interest in ESO will be Dragonknight refresh on PTS. I expect them to butcher what has become my favorite class.

It's fine though. All good things must come to an end and for ESO that was when they announced the 2025 content pass. It's been downhill since. I'm glad I returned when I did to experience the last couple of years of ESO in its prime.

Dunno that it's entirely a case of greed on ZoS's part. They are owned by Microsoft now and Microsoft has made their expectations very clear. Make no mistake, if they miss those expectations for more than a single quater, the axe will soon follow. They don't mess around when it comes to opportunity costs. ESO might be an exceptionally profitable product in the gaming world but compared to Microsoft's yearly income.... "drop in the bucket" would be a massive exaggeration.

Avran_Sylt · January 8

Abandoning Expansions
Folding DLCs into the base game represents a concession strategy, not a growth strategy. Expansion sales no longer justify their production and marketing costs.

Maybe not for you, but this seems to try to help grow the player base by providing ease of access to content for new players without a wall of additional payments that may otherwise scare them off.

Increased Reliance on Legacy Content
Recycling legacy rewards is not an act of player-friendly generosity; it is asset amortization—extracting additional value from previously developed content.

I missed out on the Zweihander weapon style because I wasn't playing at the time. I'm willing to pay for it but oh well, they don't want my money because it isn't even available. If it's added as an unlockable, that will get me back in the game with a goal.

Battle Pass as Revenue Smoothing
The removal of daily logins and Endeavors is particularly revealing. These systems existed to inflate daily active users. Replacing them with a Battle Pass signals that raw daily user metrics are no longer sufficient; ZOS now requires monetized engagement density rather than mere presence.

Daily logins are a chore, boring, and disrespectful of a players time, IMO.

Pivot from New Content to System Reworks
Development focus has shifted away from large-scale content additions toward reworking existing systems, a hallmark of late-stage live service maintenance.

Please make the systems I use nice and shiny, I care not for your new systems, and would like my old ones brought up to snuff.

Quality-of-Life Monetization Rollback
This rollback is not altruistic. It is a churn-reduction tactic designed to remove friction for existing players while consolidating monetization into fewer, higher-conversion channels—primarily the Battle Pass and ESO+.

Not too sure what the QOL is, so no comment.

Eventization and FOMO Compression
Time-limited, cyclical events increase short-term engagement intensity but reduce the amount of permanent content, compressing player activity into predictable monetization windows.

Said compression makes the game feel more lively during said windows. And I play MMO's to play with people, dead zones I find boring and desolate.

Steam Charts as Corroborating Evidence
Steam Charts are not the primary metric, but they do corroborate the trend: a long-term decline in average and peak concurrent players, with no sustained population recovery even following major updates.

Right, they need to change tactics.

ESO is no longer structured as a game pursuing growth. It is structured as a product optimized for revenue stability from a shrinking but loyal player base.

If ESO's population has been steadily declining, was its old business model pursuing growth?

SummersetCitizen · January 9

Another depressing aspect of the new sales model is that “zones” like the Night Market are not permanent. If you enjoy new content, you’re given only a limited window to experience it, with no real justification beyond forcing participation during time-gated periods.

Is it technically part of the base game? Yes… but it’s deliberately presented in a way that pressures players to engage on ZOS’s timeline, not their own. I would much rather pay for content and know I can experience it when I’m ready, or return to it later if life gets in the way.

katanagirl1 · January 10

More justifications that chapters were formulaic, stale, whatever to justify this new system that will no longer give us chapter content. That is what has got us here to this point after years of hearing that. Let’s just settle for less instead of what we had because it is different. I concede that the team can probably no longer generate that content because the team is now smaller. That is not my fault. I have supported them with chapter purchases and a continuous sub for many years. We have to move on regardless.

I am actually surprised that they say we will have a new trial. The endgame community in PvE has been pushed away now for years almost as much as the PvP community. Everything I have read so far indicates that long time players are not the focus anymore, in fact they are not even a side note. Yes, endgame players purchase a lot of cosmetics, which is now the main focus of the game, but they need new content in order to justify those purchases. I can’t see much of that here. I can only see the focus on new players who haven’t done all of the content that is already here, who buy shinies from the crown store, and who stand in the same spot with their character on a flashy mount for an hour while I do daily crafting writs with all of my characters, probably just blaring their music in voice chat for others to hear. There is more money to be made from these players than from those of us who have paid the way for years to keep the lights on for this game. It is now too costly to keep us entertained with new content. I cannot help but be very sad right now.

YandereGirlfriend · January 10

This feels like much more of a doom and gloom post than is warranted by events. We clearly see where the previous Chapter model had lead the game... nowhere particularly good. The relentless push to always be delivering content, no matter its substance or polish, was, IMO, not the way. And I think that the Steam charts reflect that.

The game has enough stuff in it. What it lacks is balance, follow-through on completing existing systems, and a consistent direction. Concerns about quality and balance were shrugged-off for years to satisfy the voices that simply wanted more stuff but I think that we can see that there is no future in maintaining that direction.

Focusing on improving what is already here is a wise choice. Perhaps, after all of that is ironed-out, the time might come to add new things again. But in the meantime, there is tons of work yet to do.

Tonturri wrote: »

SummersetCitizen wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Splitting the monetization off of content and making it more as a standalone cosmetic unlock IMO is better.

I can see your point, but it seems to be done out of necessity and not player benefit.

They are giving out new content for free because it is too thin (and recently bug-filled) to expect people to pay for moving forward.

This choice astounds me. Maybe they'll still have player hour spent in XYZ zone to go off of, but I'm a lil bamboozled as to how not asking for payment for stuff that takes the most effort is going to work out, and getting that money instead from stuff that takes the least effort (cosmetics)? Maybe they think players are more likely to pay more and more often for shinies instead of content, and the free stuff will bring in enough people who also buy the cosmetic shinies.

Heck...I don't think ZOS is the type to try and play 5D chess, but if this also means they no longer feel pressured to add power crept proc sets and mythics to new content...

Genuinely curious to see how this works out (or doesn't) for ZOS.

A certain subset of players definitely will drop the metaphorical bag on chasing the cosmetic shinies. FAR in excess of what an old Chapter, etc. used to cost. And honestly, if that isn't like a dangerous use of money for the person doing it, then I'm pretty fine with reserving judgment about how they choose to interact with the game. Their choices to do so doesn't impact any of us who choose not to.

IMO, that is a much better approach to monetization than some of the reckless pay to win schemes that you can find in other games, where someone's credit card is directly driving their in-game performance. We have been lucky to not have much of that in ESO but that most certainly IS a direction that they could have gone in. But they chose not to. So credit where it is due.

Sturmfaenger · January 10

Years before: "This year epic XY!" You can look forward to it! Zone, explore, exotic, immerse yourself! Wow!
2026: Look here, puzzle piece, bam, next puzzle piece, bam, next puzzle piece…!
A little teaser to whet your appetite for the bit of quest that's coming (sheo, brotherhood… whatever) would have been great. --> Why don’t you USE that?! Isn't that what advertising is for?

As it was, it all sounded… so, so boring. I like ESO for the sense of wonder, that comes with going there.
The "Big Reveal" with people sitting in a circle and showing the occasional roadmap had none of that. Its not the fights or the classes that keep me in ESO, its that. That seems to missing completely this year.

I liked that they were open about the little things that will be coming scattered. And some of that sounded good (+housing slots). I don't know. Sigh.