Directly Confirmed DLC?
Should we add sections for DLC before the page on the official site is up? We already list speculatory DLC on the Crown Store page, but Thieves Guild has been directly confirmed as the next DLC name. —Legoless (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Could do, I guess. Not sure if there would be any point though, as we don't really have any information on it. --Enodoc (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- These aren't add-ons, nor even really DLC. ESO's "DLC" are content updates with a paywall. It would be more appropriate to link to the Crown Store, but personally I'm opposed to that as well since the content still appears in your game even if you buy nothing. If we want to start taking ZOS's product branding at face value, then we might as well consider ESO:TU to be a separate game. —Legoless (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree the Crown Store shouldn't be linked, especially due to it being a lengthy page, but I was asking if we should link to this page because this page lists the major "DLC"/pieces of content a player has to pay for/whatever you want to call it (currently IE and Orsinium, I assume Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood will be here too in the future). In fact, going by your comment, one could argue that the Dawnguard DLC is a content update blocked by a paywall when it was released with Patch 1.6 --Rezalon (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the major difference between Dawnguard and IC/Wrothgar is that for the latter, all necessary files are on your computer (if you have an up-to-date eso, that is^^), the game doesn't allow you to access that content. For Dawnguard, if you have the latest Skyrim patch but not the DLC, you're missing the complete .esm (including quest data, item stats, ect.), all resources specific to DG, and so on. This is more of a technical difference, both content cannot effectively be played unless you have bought it. I think, an inclusion of these page in the menu bar would be in order. Maybe we should bring it to the Community Portal -- SarthesArai Talk 20:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- We could probably get away with putting that here too. Even though it's not a "DLC" (as in, it's free and immediately available), it's still a named content update, so I think that would fit with the purpose of this page. --Enodoc (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah that could work too. I guess it also partly depends on whether we want to specifically identify components of Homestead using Mod Header or not. It would be unnecessary if the purpose is solely to indicate base game features versus otherwise, yet it could also be useful for identifying which particular features are considered part of that Content Update versus features that are independent of housing but still appear with U13, if there are any. --Enodoc (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing. Marking all content according to update seems like a slippery slope to me. Considering we don't mark content added in maintenance patches, nor content locked behind non-Crown promos/editions, nor free content added by major updates, I don't see why Homestead should be any different. I think we should stick to only marking content locked behind the Crown Store/ESO Plus, since that's where our little icon system came from. With that said, I think that firmly places Homestead in the same category as TU, OT, and Updates 1 through 6.
- I recently threw together a rough draft of what a potential ON:Updates article could look like, separate from the technical stuff at ON:Patch. That way we aren't dependent on this DLC page to document major updates going forward, creating a hub for pages like OT (and potentially Homestead). I'm not yet outright opposed to listing Homestead here, but I think there's an argument to be made for treating it the same as the previous major updates. —Legoless (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- The difference with Homestead is that it's the first titled new, free content since TU, meaning it's unprecedented. Those other new things just appeared without titles as "New Features". But I am inclined to agree that we should only be marking locked content with the Mod Header. I definitely agree that Homestead is in the same category as Updates 1 to 6. Particularly 6, as I can see a parallel with Homestead and Justice in terms of new systems. That Updates page looks like it could be quite useful; are you planning on adding any details, or will it just be links to patch notes and other articles? I could see the "New Features" of each update being listed here at least, but then for consistency we might need to go so far as to indicate other "New Features", like those you mentioned above, which didn't come with a Major Update. Perhaps the end result will be to have Homestead on the DLC page and elsewhere; again, we'd have to wait to see how ZOS market it—whether there's a Promo Info image, for example. --Enodoc (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Since DLCs can also be accessed with an ESO Plus membership, should we include the ESO Plus mod header on every DLC-related page alongside the Crown Store one? Alternatively, since you are able to get DLCs from sources outside of the Crown Store (ie, Gold Edition, and potentially other future retail sources), would it be better to remove the Crown Store mod header from all DLC pages, since the Crown Store is only one of the three possible ways to gain access to DLCs? (For every other use of the Crown Store mod header, the Crown Store is the only source for that content.) --Enodoc (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- What about joint pages like Online:DLC Loyalty Rewards? —Legoless (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Expand DLC list into an overview table?
To me as a comparatively new player, the content and relationships of all the DLC is not at all clear. Would it be acceptable and desirable to expand the current simple listing of DLC into a table with some minimal additional information, in an attempt at a better overview?
My feeling is that the main differences to show at first glance in such an overview are whether something is a Story Zone or Group Dungeon DLC, and whether there are notable general mechanics that require this DLC (such as factions or antiquities). A possible addition could be the main story arcs. Draft example of such a table:
|DLC||Story zone||Group content||Also featuring|
|Imperial City||Imperial City||Dungeon: White-Gold Tower|
|Dungeon: Imperial City Prison|
|Thieves Guild||Hew's Bane||Trial||Faction: Thieves' Guild|
|(Original table trimmed for space, see new draft below.)|
- This seems like it would be a great addition to the page. A clear overview without much clutter. --Ilaro (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for supporting the idea :). Complete version in terms of content below.
- Layout is a compromise: Having each dungeon on an individual row would be more 'correct', but would make the table needlessly long (see the lower draft in my Sandbox). But applying the same to Zones would lead to "Western Skyrim, Blackreach: Greymoor Caverns" on one line, making the table needlessly wide.
- If there are no opposing comments by tomorrow this time, I'll attempt to place this on the main page.
- If anyone feels like improving the appearance or the terminology by then, that's fine of course. Welcomed, in fact :).
- -- JeroenB (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Inconsistent date format
Currently, the release dates in the DLC table are inconsistent in their format and the most wide-spread format (Month-abbreviation date, year) does not allow meaningful sorting by date.
I propose changing the date representation to follow the ISO 8601 specification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601). By that I mean YYYY-MM-DD (i.e. 2016-03-27).
The reason for this proposal instead of simply making the change is that I'm not familiar with how UESP does things and don't know if there's any other standard for formatting dates on this wiki.
- I am always in support of ISO 8601, sounds like a good solution. —Legoless (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)