kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Talon_Draconis wrote: »

a1i3nz wrote: »

Is there a suck it up and pay option?

Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC

Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.

Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub

Re the bold - fake news altfacts...

morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.

that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.

As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.

Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.

What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?

It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.

Morality is not about what you can get away with.

You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.

Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.

If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.

It's bad morally, and it's bad business.

You're not even making sense.

Stop saying they're immoral.

Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?

Go.

Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.

No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.

That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.

The rest of your post is nonsense.

Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is

In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?

Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...

They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?

You digitally signed an agreement that Zos may change their model at any time. It is very much a legal contract and certainly nothing immoral and clearly not unethical since it is stated in the aforementioned agreement you accepted.

Merely stating something is immoral does not make it so.

Ok, not "immoral", but wrong, shortsighted, harmful, exploitative, degrades ESO+ and Crowns.

The shortsighted aspect would mean the change is not successful and I know I do not have the information to even begin to say so. Have you seen the sales number so far or projected revenue for the next year, or two? That is what will determine if this change is short sighted. Not the emotions of some players concerning the change.

Harmful is another subjective term in the context of the game being a business. I would lump it with my response to shortsighted.

Exploitative - you agreed to this change when you digitally signed the agreement when you started playing this game.

Degrades ESO+ - maybe. It is clear Zos increased the value of ESO+ by other means and each of us is able to make a choice if that new added value is worth it given these changes. Crowns is lumped in with this and since many of us buy crowns on sale it may have helped lead to these changes.

Shortsighted: by your own reasoning, their poor planning and business decisions have forced this move.

Harmful, it has, and be reason, will continue to lose the subscribers.

Exploitative: Having the right to do something does mean you should.

Downgrades ESO+ and Crowns: You never know what they'll exclude these from next, what value do either really have?

It is not poor planning if the old plan was fine but the new plan is considered better. My reasoning above does not in any way support your claim.

Their business models projected a loss of some subscribers so it would be harmful to the business if more players unsubbed that predicted. I so not have access to their numbers. Have you been able to see Zos books on this?

Considering we all have the option of discontinuing doing business with Zos there is nothing exploitative about this.

As for downgrades ESO+ and crowns I point to the sentence directly above.

By your reasoning, instead of excluding ESO+ from content, Zos raising the cost of subscription by $1000 the day before the highest number of subscription renewed wouldn't be exploitative, as the TOS states they have the right to change it without notice.

Note, pointing out that Zos raising the subscription cost that much would be silly, isn't an answer. Just as "they have the right, therefore it not exploitative" isn't an argument in defense of chapters.

But here in this case they gave about six months notice. They gave just shy of the longest possible sub to warn you of the change. This was NOT a last minute bait and switch.

That said, even in your example the only potential exploit would be if there were auto-renews and Zoe let thth and those could be protested back thru credit cards or other pay sources and likely reversed.

But that kind of abuse is not what this is.

While the "agreed to change" may not be an absolute exclusion for every case, it does certainly apply to "six month lead time."

They may have talked about it more than 6 months before it came in, but did not make it widely publicly known. No news in launcher, till later, no Email to all subscribers, no refunds for Crown purchases, no announcement articles until later. Unless you were watching the right forum, at the right time, you didn't get 6 months warning. It wasn't a last minute bait and switch, but it was a bait and switch.

Both scenarios have the same justification, "they have the right to, TOS says so". If it's not a defense in both cases, it's not a defense in either.

It is true that the announcement was missed by many. But anyone with a sub that isn't tracking DLC releases is suspect in my mind. If you subbed through Q1 and Q2 without a DLC, you aren't looking for value anymore.

I agree it was a bait and switch. We were led to believe that subbing would gain people access to a new DLC every quarter. Not only did ZOS leave many quarters without a new paid DLC, but they decided to add DLC that requires an additional payment. The problem with the bait and switch is the lock-in of those who want to still have access to the older DLC.

In the end, people who subbed paid more for DLC than those who bought outright but are left without DLC if they stop sub. Thing is, we knew this when ESO+ first launched.

That's why it doesn't make sense, why devalue the highest profit margin income stream?

Seen a lot of people claiming that ESO+ want stuff for free, when in truth, we choose to pay more for the same content.

In the end, although value for money counts, it's not about that, it's about fairness. Have they been, and are they being fair to ESO+ members?

As a subber since launch my answer is unequivocally yes.

colig wrote: »

@Yolokin_Swagonborn best summarised the disgruntlement over ESO+ in this post: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/3985124#Comment_3985124

Great article, clear, well written, worth reading.

Kalante wrote: »

I would had subbed if morrowind came with eso plus but not even 15 dollars will get from me now. They are smart. Made it $35+ dollars to make up for losses. Obvious cash grab is obvious.

Based on less than 3 months subscription. Getting people to start subscribing is harder than keeping them subscribing.

They'll likely make less money of you this way.

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Talon_Draconis wrote: »

a1i3nz wrote: »

Is there a suck it up and pay option?

Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC

Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.

Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub

Re the bold - fake news altfacts...

morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.

that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.

As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.

Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.

What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?

It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.

Morality is not about what you can get away with.

You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.

Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.

If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.

It's bad morally, and it's bad business.

You're not even making sense.

Stop saying they're immoral.

Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?

Go.

Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.

No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.

That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.

The rest of your post is nonsense.

Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is

In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?

Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...

They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?

You digitally signed an agreement that Zos may change their model at any time. It is very much a legal contract and certainly nothing immoral and clearly not unethical since it is stated in the aforementioned agreement you accepted.

Merely stating something is immoral does not make it so.

The problem with this if you want to play the game you have to agree....no choice and the make the agreement after you paid for the game.
It would not be so bad if you say no to the agreement they refund your perches price

I will admit that morrowind is a 20 dollar expansion, but im so sick of gamers whining about companies making money to keep a game going and paying employees. I realize we have a generation and some old hippies who live in a magic fantasy world where socialism is a good thing, but come back to reality some time.
And it's "whether". Just wow.

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

It is true that the announcement was missed by many. But anyone with a sub that isn't tracking DLC releases is suspect in my mind. If you subbed through Q1 and Q2 without a DLC, you aren't looking for value anymore.

I agree it was a bait and switch. We were led to believe that subbing would gain people access to a new DLC every quarter. Not only did ZOS leave many quarters without a new paid DLC, but they decided to add DLC that requires an additional payment. The problem with the bait and switch is the lock-in of those who want to still have access to the older DLC.

In the end, people who subbed paid more for DLC than those who bought outright but are left without DLC if they stop sub. Thing is, we knew this when ESO+ first launched.

Although I mostly agree with you, with regard to the point that I bolded I should point out that I, for one, did not envision a time coming where they would so drastically U-turn on their promise that ESO+ would provide access to all DLC. For that reason, I paid 6 months in advance, and so for those two quarters with no DLC last year I was locked in. As soon as they made the announcement of the Morrowind ... pricing structure ... I cancelled my subscription. Particularly as there was no DLC in the first quarter of this year either.

Personally, although I like the craft bag and being able to dye costumes, these were not the primary reason I subbed. I subbed for the convenience of "never having to" have the hassle of paying for DLCs before I could play them; basically, I felt that continuing to sub after ESO+ launched was a reasonable way to access the content when it was 4 DLCs per year, with the additional perks thrown in. Last year, we got 2 DLC, and this year, there will also only be two. That means that the cost of subscription is massively greater than the cost of these DLCs, and the cost-to-benefit ratio is no longer there for me. I never subbed for the craft bag, and I couldn't care less about it. And I never subbed to "support the game" as many people seem to argue, because ZOS is not a charity - they are a company making a product that they want to sell. As much as I'm a fan of the ES franchise, I'm not giving them money for nothing. If they have money to fritter away on Superbowl ads instead of hiring developers so that they can finish their "chapter" properly ... instead of selling us something unfinished for far more than it's worth...well, as I've said before, they are obviously not struggling to "keep the lights on and the servers going". They are a making a decision to prioritise advertising over development, and that's on them.

Whilst many people seem to want to justify this by arguing that "if you don't have money you shouldn't be gaming", I would counter that by saying basically what you said previous, "I do have the money but I'm not going to *** it up the wall". A product needs to provide good value, or I'm simply not going to buy it. If they want to treat their subscriber base like idiots, that's on them. There are plenty of other games that I have that I could be playing instead that will offer just as much entertainment.

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

Vicarra wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

It is true that the announcement was missed by many. But anyone with a sub that isn't tracking DLC releases is suspect in my mind. If you subbed through Q1 and Q2 without a DLC, you aren't looking for value anymore.

I agree it was a bait and switch. We were led to believe that subbing would gain people access to a new DLC every quarter. Not only did ZOS leave many quarters without a new paid DLC, but they decided to add DLC that requires an additional payment. The problem with the bait and switch is the lock-in of those who want to still have access to the older DLC.

In the end, people who subbed paid more for DLC than those who bought outright but are left without DLC if they stop sub. Thing is, we knew this when ESO+ first launched.

Although I mostly agree with you, with regard to the point that I bolded I should point out that I, for one, did not envision a time coming where they would so drastically U-turn on their promise that ESO+ would provide access to all DLC. For that reason, I paid 6 months in advance, and so for those two quarters with no DLC last year I was locked in. As soon as they made the announcement of the Morrowind ... pricing structure ... I cancelled my subscription. Particularly as there was no DLC in the first quarter of this year either.

Personally, although I like the craft bag and being able to dye costumes, these were not the primary reason I subbed. I subbed for the convenience of "never having to" have the hassle of paying for DLCs before I could play them; basically, I felt that continuing to sub after ESO+ launched was a reasonable way to access the content when it was 4 DLCs per year, with the additional perks thrown in. Last year, we got 2 DLC, and this year, there will also only be two. That means that the cost of subscription is massively greater than the cost of these DLCs, and the cost-to-benefit ratio is no longer there for me. I never subbed for the craft bag, and I couldn't care less about it. And I never subbed to "support the game" as many people seem to argue, because ZOS is not a charity - they are a company making a product that they want to sell. As much as I'm a fan of the ES franchise, I'm not giving them money for nothing. If they have money to fritter away on Superbowl ads instead of hiring developers so that they can finish their "chapter" properly ... instead of selling us something unfinished for far more than it's worth...well, as I've said before, they are obviously not struggling to "keep the lights on and the servers going". They are a making a decision to prioritise advertising over development, and that's on them.

Whilst many people seem to want to justify this by arguing that "if you don't have money you shouldn't be gaming", I would counter that by saying basically what you said previous, "I do have the money but I'm not going to *** it up the wall". A product needs to provide good value, or I'm simply not going to buy it. If they want to treat their subscriber base like idiots, that's on them. There are plenty of other games that I have that I could be playing instead that will offer just as much entertainment.

I think more an more will take your view, I viewed my sub as an endorsement of the game.
I'm waiting to see what they do next before deciding whether to resub, buy crowns, or just cut my losses. Hopefully they'll decide to stand by the promises regarding content access made for ESO+.

I feel that zmax screwed people who subbed if they want to sell morrowind for $50 bucks fine!
Call it a chapter so you don't have to included in ESO + peeved but can live with it
Breaks a promise they made and motivates me to cancel my sub
BUT FORCING US TO BUY WITH CASH instead of $50 worth of crowns makes my crowns only useful cosmetic items
and makes me feel cheated because crowns i paid for with my sub is now useless,

Talon_Draconis wrote: »

kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »

Vicarra wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

It is true that the announcement was missed by many. But anyone with a sub that isn't tracking DLC releases is suspect in my mind. If you subbed through Q1 and Q2 without a DLC, you aren't looking for value anymore.

I agree it was a bait and switch. We were led to believe that subbing would gain people access to a new DLC every quarter. Not only did ZOS leave many quarters without a new paid DLC, but they decided to add DLC that requires an additional payment. The problem with the bait and switch is the lock-in of those who want to still have access to the older DLC.

In the end, people who subbed paid more for DLC than those who bought outright but are left without DLC if they stop sub. Thing is, we knew this when ESO+ first launched.

Although I mostly agree with you, with regard to the point that I bolded I should point out that I, for one, did not envision a time coming where they would so drastically U-turn on their promise that ESO+ would provide access to all DLC. For that reason, I paid 6 months in advance, and so for those two quarters with no DLC last year I was locked in. As soon as they made the announcement of the Morrowind ... pricing structure ... I cancelled my subscription. Particularly as there was no DLC in the first quarter of this year either.

Personally, although I like the craft bag and being able to dye costumes, these were not the primary reason I subbed. I subbed for the convenience of "never having to" have the hassle of paying for DLCs before I could play them; basically, I felt that continuing to sub after ESO+ launched was a reasonable way to access the content when it was 4 DLCs per year, with the additional perks thrown in. Last year, we got 2 DLC, and this year, there will also only be two. That means that the cost of subscription is massively greater than the cost of these DLCs, and the cost-to-benefit ratio is no longer there for me. I never subbed for the craft bag, and I couldn't care less about it. And I never subbed to "support the game" as many people seem to argue, because ZOS is not a charity - they are a company making a product that they want to sell. As much as I'm a fan of the ES franchise, I'm not giving them money for nothing. If they have money to fritter away on Superbowl ads instead of hiring developers so that they can finish their "chapter" properly ... instead of selling us something unfinished for far more than it's worth...well, as I've said before, they are obviously not struggling to "keep the lights on and the servers going". They are a making a decision to prioritise advertising over development, and that's on them.

Whilst many people seem to want to justify this by arguing that "if you don't have money you shouldn't be gaming", I would counter that by saying basically what you said previous, "I do have the money but I'm not going to *** it up the wall". A product needs to provide good value, or I'm simply not going to buy it. If they want to treat their subscriber base like idiots, that's on them. There are plenty of other games that I have that I could be playing instead that will offer just as much entertainment.

I think more an more will take your view, I viewed my sub as an endorsement of the game.
I'm waiting to see what they do next before deciding whether to resub, buy crowns, or just cut my losses. Hopefully they'll decide to stand by the promises regarding content access made for ESO+.

I feel that zmax screwed people who subbed if they want to sell morrowind for $50 bucks fine!
Call it a chapter so you don't have to included in ESO + peeved but can live with it
Breaks a promise they made and motivates me to cancel my sub
BUT FORCING US TO BUY WITH CASH instead of $50 worth of crowns makes my crowns only useful cosmetic items
and makes me feel cheated because crowns i paid for with my sub is now useless,

How are they useless? Because you can't get morrowind? Then you choose to make them useless. Purchase mimic stones and convert to whatever style that sells good and make gold. Buy the new crafting scrolls and sell them. Who know but just because you're not getting your way doesn't make thing useless. Sound more like a child that takes his toys and moves to another sandbox.