100 crowns for each prior month for subscribers. (WOW! 250+ AGREES!)

nerevarine1138

Gidorick wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Varicite wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Your fee paid for access to the servers for a given period of time. Any perception of it paying for future content was a misunderstanding on your part. If the game were staying subscription-based, and you stopped subscribing, you would not be entitled to future content, regardless of whether you believe you helped pay for it or not.

"We want to do the version that we think is the best game and the coolest experience. And that means putting a lot of people and a lot of content creators towards having stuff that comes our regularly; every four weeks, five weeks, six weeks. Big new stuff that you want to do."

That's what ZOS said our sub fee was going toward.

If there was a "misunderstanding", it was not on my part. It seems pretty clear that it was going toward content that "comes out regularly". That didn't happen.

Where did that content go that our sub fee was implicitly stated to be going toward?

That's right, the Crown store. There's no misunderstanding here.

That's what your money was used for, not what you paid for. If I pay a magazine for a subscription, it doesn't mean that I actually paid someone's salary. I paid for the magazine. If the magazine used my money to help pay a writer, then great. But I didn't pay the writer.

Wow.

I guess according to you, when you pay for a funeral, you pay to have the stiff buried and not for the gravedigger to dig the hole. When you pay for a taxi, you pay for the ride and not the maintenance of the vehicle. When you pay for a sandwich you're paying for the bread, meat and cheese and not the assembly of the bread, meat and cheese.

You have a VERY narrow view of the economics and functioning of industry.

No, I just have an understanding of how things work in the real world.

Your post comes across exactly like a customer who tells the cashier, "I pay your salary," because they didn't get what they wanted. Once you pay money for a subscription, it's no longer your money. You exchanged currency for services. What ZO does with their money (it's not yours anymore) is their business, but you aren't paying any of their employees.

Inco

Sorry.. it's just bad form on ZOS part.

10 months of subs is equal to $150 and 1,000 crowns.
ONE month sub if made today is $15 and worth 1,500 crowns. ($135 less and 500 more crowns)

That's pouring salt into the wound if you ask me.

nerevarine1138

Inco wrote: »

Sorry.. it's just bad form on ZOS part.

10 months of subs is equal to $150 and 1,000 crowns.
ONE month sub if made today is $15 and worth 1,500 crowns. ($135 less and 500 more crowns)

That's pouring salt into the wound if you ask me.

No.

10 months of subs is equal to 10 months of access to the servers under the subscription payment model.
1 month of ESO Plus membership is equal to 1 month of ESO Plus benefits under the new model plus free access to the servers.

You cannot compare month-to-month under radically different payment models.

Ysne58

ZOS was very sneaky in how they went about changing their model. I don't know if I would have bothered subscribing if I had known they were planning to go BtP. The fact is they stated more than once that the fees were allowing them to pay for content that is and in some cases has been ready to go for months. Instead of releasing it for testing and then live, they have created a cash shop through which they can sell it.

Yes the agreement limits itself to the service. but we paid for product and service and didn't even get service since there are still so many bugs left over from beta.

ZOS' behavior is unethical, possibly illegal. At the very least they owe us an apology for the sneaky way they went about all of this. And yes, I agree that 100 crown per month for past months is an insult, not a thank you.

nerevarine1138

Ysne58 wrote: »

ZOS was very sneaky in how they went about changing their model. I don't know if I would have bothered subscribing if I had known they were planning to go BtP. The fact is they stated more than once that the fees were allowing them to pay for content that is and in some cases has been ready to go for months. Instead of releasing it for testing and then live, they have created a cash shop through which they can sell it.

Yes the agreement limits itself to the service. but we paid for product and service and didn't even get service since there are still so many bugs left over from beta.

ZOS' behavior is unethical, possibly illegal. At the very least they owe us an apology for the sneaky way they went about all of this. And yes, I agree that 100 crown per month for past months is an insult, not a thank you.

1. The contract specified that things about the game (yes, including payment models) could change.
2. If you were unsatisfied with your subscription, you always had the option to cancel. The fact that you didn't tells me that you were satisfied with your experience.
3. You (and I, and all the players) have no idea what content is "ready to go," much less that it has been in that state for months. Unless you're on the development team, you're making a massive assumption.
4. The payment model change has not made content unavailable for you, and you'd be laughed out of any lawyer's office if you tried to claim it was illegal for them to suddenly offer you server access for free.

badmojo

nerevarine1138, why are you still repeating yourself? Your whole argument is silly because of the fact that ZOS themselves decided to give us a loyalty reward of 100 crowns. THEY feel we are owed something. None of us care about the whole "are we owed anything" argument you're trying to have with us, BECAUSE ZOS ALREADY DECIDED THAT!

Gidorick

I was never given the option to cancel my subscription. I have 2 months that will be "converted" to ESO:TU plus subscription. If they gave me the option to cancel and get my $24 back, I would... then I'd play for free!

Gidorick

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Gidorick wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Varicite wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Your fee paid for access to the servers for a given period of time. Any perception of it paying for future content was a misunderstanding on your part. If the game were staying subscription-based, and you stopped subscribing, you would not be entitled to future content, regardless of whether you believe you helped pay for it or not.

"We want to do the version that we think is the best game and the coolest experience. And that means putting a lot of people and a lot of content creators towards having stuff that comes our regularly; every four weeks, five weeks, six weeks. Big new stuff that you want to do."

That's what ZOS said our sub fee was going toward.

If there was a "misunderstanding", it was not on my part. It seems pretty clear that it was going toward content that "comes out regularly". That didn't happen.

Where did that content go that our sub fee was implicitly stated to be going toward?

That's right, the Crown store. There's no misunderstanding here.

That's what your money was used for, not what you paid for. If I pay a magazine for a subscription, it doesn't mean that I actually paid someone's salary. I paid for the magazine. If the magazine used my money to help pay a writer, then great. But I didn't pay the writer.

Wow.

I guess according to you, when you pay for a funeral, you pay to have the stiff buried and not for the gravedigger to dig the hole. When you pay for a taxi, you pay for the ride and not the maintenance of the vehicle. When you pay for a sandwich you're paying for the bread, meat and cheese and not the assembly of the bread, meat and cheese.

You have a VERY narrow view of the economics and functioning of industry.

No, I just have an understanding of how things work in the real world.

Your post comes across exactly like a customer who tells the cashier, "I pay your salary," because they didn't get what they wanted. Once you pay money for a subscription, it's no longer your money. You exchanged currency for services. What ZO does with their money (it's not yours anymore) is their business, but you aren't paying any of their employees.

I'm the customer that understands if I (along with others) buy all my goods online, my local cashier will be out of a job. Where do you think the money comes from to develop the new content for ESO exactly?

nerevarine1138

badmojo wrote: »

nerevarine1138, why are you still repeating yourself? Your whole argument is silly because of the fact that ZOS themselves decided to give us a loyalty reward of 100 crowns. THEY feel we are owed something. None of us care about the whole "are we owed anything" argument you're trying to have with us, BECAUSE ZOS ALREADY DECIDED THAT!

Yes, and now you're complaining that they aren't paying enough tribute. So clearly you believe you're owed more. Which is not the case.

Gidorick wrote: »

I'm the customer that understands if I (along with others) buy all my goods online, my local cashier will be out of a job. Where do you think the money comes from to develop the new content for ESO exactly?

And yet your money isn't paid directly the cashier. So you have no stake in the business. It's the difference between being a consumer and being an investor. You're a consumer.

BigM

Don't know why we even argue it any more. We feel they were/are wrong in how they treated us and they think they are being fair.

It is what it is. End of story.

Now lets hope they do make a better game in the long run. Personally I will support them with a sub unless the game just gets bad.

So now the ball is in their court.

Gidorick

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

nerevarine1138, why are you still repeating yourself? Your whole argument is silly because of the fact that ZOS themselves decided to give us a loyalty reward of 100 crowns. THEY feel we are owed something. None of us care about the whole "are we owed anything" argument you're trying to have with us, BECAUSE ZOS ALREADY DECIDED THAT!

Yes, and now you're complaining that they aren't paying enough tribute. So clearly you believe you're owed more. Which is not the case.

Gidorick wrote: »

I'm the customer that understands if I (along with others) buy all my goods online, my local cashier will be out of a job. Where do you think the money comes from to develop the new content for ESO exactly?

And yet your money isn't paid directly the cashier. So you have no stake in the business. It's the difference between being a consumer and being an investor. You're a consumer.

I have no delusions of being an investor.... only an insulted costumer.

Soulshine

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Varicite wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

I'll keep repeating this until people get it: you got what you paid for already. You already had a price put on your subscription: $15 for a month of access to the game..

And again, when asked what that 15 bucks a month was going toward, never was the answer "access to the game". You know what the answer was.

You act as though people are making things up here. ZOS told them a lot of things that simply turned out not to be true, and they have every right to be upset about that.

/shrug

Maybe you should re-read the contract you signed when you paid your subscription fee. Your fee paid for access to the servers for a given period of time. Any perception of it paying for future content was a misunderstanding on your part. If the game were staying subscription-based, and you stopped subscribing, you would not be entitled to future content, regardless of whether you believe you helped pay for it or not.

And to the poster who was asking about the long-term subscribers: only those with time remaining after 3/17 have a horse in that race, which is a very small group (only six-month subscribers didn't get enough warning to cancel/change their recurring plan). I'm sure that those who are truly upset could ask ZO for a partial refund, although, as you pointed out, you signed a contract that included a contingency clause. All that said, it doesn't matter if you perceived that subscription as an investment: it was simply your vote of confidence in your still wanting to play the game in six months.

I am well aware of what I signed, as I actually read.

This "poster" is one who of those who did sign up under 6 month payment options. Paying for goods and services ahead of delivery most definitely is an act of faith/vote of confidence, whatever you want to call it. Which by all accounts, says: "I am investing in this product/service because I believe in it's inherent value."

The inherent value of the subscription to the game has now officially been set by the company themselves with this move.

Having owned two different businesses in my life, I can assure you that if you alter anything initially presented in a contract by falling back on the clause of "subject to change at any time," you do not get out of the dog house with customers you have pi$$ed off. Legalese does not win you returning customers. Delivering on your word does. People have long memories when it comes to their money. When you change the inherent value of the product/service they pay for, you most definitely need to expect a change in consumer confidence and support - and THAT is what this entire issue is about.

Now, one can argue until blue in the face that paying for an MMO does not actually fund it, that nobody has any valid reason whatsoever to dislike this situation, etc.; it will not change the fact that we have already been impacted by the changes they have made since nearly everything about this game's development for the last several months has shifted focus to ZoS' next venture platform, and by ZoS' own disclosure until such time as they see fit to focus energies elsewhere, we can forget about anything except the status quo of 1.6, bugged and messy as that is... which is a whole other can of worms in of itself.

As is, that stats quo is a substantial departure from the various "Road Ahead" statements we were given all through last summer and fall - which was when I last resubbed. It is also a depature further muddied by these "gifts" and not what I consider worthy of my confidence today, since all they have proven is they have no clue how to avoid creating blatant discord. Even Turbine, who I have certainly grown to intensely dislike over the last 8 years, has provided better benefits to subscribers to their massively cash grabbing F2P game than what ZoS has done here.

If you feel the game merits your continued sub and support over this that you continue to defend them, cool. That doesn't mean the rest of us are fools because we do not agree with your estimation and are voicing our displeasure about it.

Enodoc

Ysne58 wrote: »

The fact is they stated more than once that the fees were allowing them to pay for content that is and in some cases has been ready to go for months. Instead of releasing it for testing and then live, they have created a cash shop through which they can sell it.

Do you have proof that any upcoming content is both
1) ready to go and
2) has been held back specifically to sell?

badmojo

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

nerevarine1138, why are you still repeating yourself? Your whole argument is silly because of the fact that ZOS themselves decided to give us a loyalty reward of 100 crowns. THEY feel we are owed something. None of us care about the whole "are we owed anything" argument you're trying to have with us, BECAUSE ZOS ALREADY DECIDED THAT!

Yes, and now you're complaining that they aren't paying enough tribute. So clearly you believe you're owed more. Which is not the case.

Not the case? Says who?

We obviously have different opinions about what we think the players are owed. That's fine, but don't act like you're automatically right, all you have is an opinion, at least have the decency to respect my right to have one too.

I don't think anyone wants to silence your opinion on the subject, so why are you trying so damn hard to silence us?

Varicite

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Inco wrote: »

Sorry.. it's just bad form on ZOS part.

10 months of subs is equal to $150 and 1,000 crowns.
ONE month sub if made today is $15 and worth 1,500 crowns. ($135 less and 500 more crowns)

That's pouring salt into the wound if you ask me.

No.

10 months of subs is equal to 10 months of access to the servers under the subscription payment model.
1 month of ESO Plus membership is equal to 1 month of ESO Plus benefits under the new model plus free access to the servers.

You cannot compare month-to-month under radically different payment models.

Look, you can continue to ignore the fact that ZOS constantly and consistently TOLD players exactly what their sub money was going toward, and you better believe that while access to the servers was assumed, it was never their answer when questioned about the matter.

You can also continue to completely ignore the fact that yes, our money was put toward the development of content that was largely finished in the past year and then held back for the release of the Crown store.

You can also continue to ignore the fact that this information was entirely withheld from subscribers for the entirety of that year (even though it's clear that this decision to convert was made long before the announcement), and they were constantly fed misinformation about what their money was going toward through sneak peeks and other contrivances.

Heck, you can even continue to ignore the fact that it's just plain bad form, pure and simple.

So yes, I suppose that if you ignore pretty much everything that we have been told for the past year about the game directly by the company who makes the game, then I shouldn't be upset.

Unfortunately, I'm not the type to simply forget things, and I know when I've been lied to.

No amount of ridiculous posturing is going to change the fact that ZOS has upset a lot of people w/ their handling of many situations this year, and if they are interested in trying to rectify that situation through compensation, then they should at least make a better effort.

Otherwise, it's just "Here's a buck, kid. Now go get lost." to me.

nerevarine1138

Varicite wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Inco wrote: »

Sorry.. it's just bad form on ZOS part.

10 months of subs is equal to $150 and 1,000 crowns.
ONE month sub if made today is $15 and worth 1,500 crowns. ($135 less and 500 more crowns)

That's pouring salt into the wound if you ask me.

No.

10 months of subs is equal to 10 months of access to the servers under the subscription payment model.
1 month of ESO Plus membership is equal to 1 month of ESO Plus benefits under the new model plus free access to the servers.

You cannot compare month-to-month under radically different payment models.

Look, you can continue to ignore the fact that ZOS constantly and consistently TOLD players exactly what their sub money was going toward, and you better believe that while access to the servers was assumed, it was never their answer when questioned about the matter.

You can also continue to completely ignore the fact that yes, our money was put toward the development of content that was largely finished in the past year and then held back for the release of the Crown store.

You can also continue to ignore the fact that this information was entirely withheld from subscribers for the entirety of that year (even though it's clear that this decision to convert was made long before the announcement), and they were constantly fed misinformation about what their money was going toward through sneak peeks and other contrivances.

Heck, you can even continue to ignore the fact that it's just plain bad form, pure and simple.

So yes, I suppose that if you ignore pretty much everything that we have been told for the past year about the game directly by the company who makes the game, then I shouldn't be upset.

Unfortunately, I'm not the type to simply forget things, and I know when I've been lied to.

No amount of ridiculous posturing is going to change the fact that ZOS has upset a lot of people w/ their handling of many situations this year, and if they are interested in trying to rectify that situation through compensation, then they should at least make a better effort.

Otherwise, it's just "Here's a buck, kid. Now go get lost." to me.

Are you dissatisfied with the game?

Cancel your subscription. Problem solved.

If your dissatisfaction would be cured by ZO offering you more money, then you aren't actually dissatisfied. You're just angling for more money.

badmojo wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

nerevarine1138, why are you still repeating yourself? Your whole argument is silly because of the fact that ZOS themselves decided to give us a loyalty reward of 100 crowns. THEY feel we are owed something. None of us care about the whole "are we owed anything" argument you're trying to have with us, BECAUSE ZOS ALREADY DECIDED THAT!

Yes, and now you're complaining that they aren't paying enough tribute. So clearly you believe you're owed more. Which is not the case.

Not the case? Says who?

We obviously have different opinions about what we think the players are owed. That's fine, but don't act like you're automatically right, all you have is an opinion, at least have the decency to respect my right to have one too.

I don't think anyone wants to silence your opinion on the subject, so why are you trying so damn hard to silence us?

I'm not trying to silence anyone. I'm only trying to bring a dose of reality to a thread that consists mainly of people supporting their own mistaken opinion that players are owed anything other than a game that they enjoy playing.

Soulshine

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

I'm not trying to silence anyone. I'm only trying to bring a dose of reality to a thread that consists mainly of people supporting their own mistaken opinion that players are owed anything other than a game that they enjoy playing.

If this is all you see in the array of opinions presented here, I'd say that "reality" in any dose is not currently something you are in a postion to bring to anyone.

Varicite

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Are you dissatisfied with the game?

Cancel your subscription. Problem solved.

I'm dissatisfied w/ the treatment of the player base by the makers of the game. And I actually did cancel my sub in November. They never revoked my forum priveleges, and I recently resubscribed this past week in order to test some things for 1.6.

I don't care about tiger mounts or jester outfits or any of that. I cared about doing my part to make this a better game for everybody, despite all of the bugs, broken quests, bad publicity, obtuse mechanics, etc.

It's not as cut and dry as "Do you like the game?". Do I feel the game has potential still? Yes, that's why I've been continuing to play it even in an unfinished state.

Do I feel the game that they have currently is fun? Sure, most of the time, but it could definitely be better.

Does that mean that because I enjoy the game itself, that I also enjoy being lied to by its makers? Nope. This seems to be where there is a disconnect between us.

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

If your dissatisfaction would be cured by ZO offering you more money, then you aren't actually dissatisfied. You're just angling for more money.

And you're blaming the victim.

What I'm doing here is expressing my dissatisfaction w/ how ZOS has treated its player base. Any more than that is simply you trying to put words in my mouth. I'd love to see you point to a single post where I asked for more. I can wait.

I don't even care about the money. 12 bucks is an insult. Might as well go ahead and keep that ZOS, you apparently need it more than I do.

I never said I wanted more cash; I said that the compensation they offered was very little for the loyalty that they asked for, considering their attitude toward those who were loyal. If that was their way of saying "Thank you", then it shows that they aren't actually all that thankful.

All I've maintained throughout this thread is simply this: Players are upset about the way they were treated, and they have every right to be.

My question to ZOS is this: Is this all you're going to do about that?

Nazon_Katts

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Varicite wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Inco wrote: »

Sorry.. it's just bad form on ZOS part.

10 months of subs is equal to $150 and 1,000 crowns.
ONE month sub if made today is $15 and worth 1,500 crowns. ($135 less and 500 more crowns)

That's pouring salt into the wound if you ask me.

No.

10 months of subs is equal to 10 months of access to the servers under the subscription payment model.
1 month of ESO Plus membership is equal to 1 month of ESO Plus benefits under the new model plus free access to the servers.

You cannot compare month-to-month under radically different payment models.

Look, you can continue to ignore the fact that ZOS constantly and consistently TOLD players exactly what their sub money was going toward, and you better believe that while access to the servers was assumed, it was never their answer when questioned about the matter.

You can also continue to completely ignore the fact that yes, our money was put toward the development of content that was largely finished in the past year and then held back for the release of the Crown store.

You can also continue to ignore the fact that this information was entirely withheld from subscribers for the entirety of that year (even though it's clear that this decision to convert was made long before the announcement), and they were constantly fed misinformation about what their money was going toward through sneak peeks and other contrivances.

Heck, you can even continue to ignore the fact that it's just plain bad form, pure and simple.

So yes, I suppose that if you ignore pretty much everything that we have been told for the past year about the game directly by the company who makes the game, then I shouldn't be upset.

Unfortunately, I'm not the type to simply forget things, and I know when I've been lied to.

No amount of ridiculous posturing is going to change the fact that ZOS has upset a lot of people w/ their handling of many situations this year, and if they are interested in trying to rectify that situation through compensation, then they should at least make a better effort.

Otherwise, it's just "Here's a buck, kid. Now go get lost." to me.

Are you dissatisfied with the game?

Cancel your subscription. Problem solved.

If your dissatisfaction would be cured by ZO offering you more money, then you aren't actually dissatisfied. You're just angling for more money.

badmojo wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

nerevarine1138, why are you still repeating yourself? Your whole argument is silly because of the fact that ZOS themselves decided to give us a loyalty reward of 100 crowns. THEY feel we are owed something. None of us care about the whole "are we owed anything" argument you're trying to have with us, BECAUSE ZOS ALREADY DECIDED THAT!

Yes, and now you're complaining that they aren't paying enough tribute. So clearly you believe you're owed more. Which is not the case.

Not the case? Says who?

We obviously have different opinions about what we think the players are owed. That's fine, but don't act like you're automatically right, all you have is an opinion, at least have the decency to respect my right to have one too.

I don't think anyone wants to silence your opinion on the subject, so why are you trying so damn hard to silence us?

I'm not trying to silence anyone. I'm only trying to bring a dose of reality to a thread that consists mainly of people supporting their own mistaken opinion that players are owed anything other than a game that they enjoy playing.

How nice of you.

Gidorick

you know. I've got to give @nerevarine1138 some credit. Not many people would stay so steady in their stance. Even though I disagree with his opinion, I respect his staying power!

Gidorick

Congratulations everyone! The original post has achieved 150 agrees! It's good to know that we're not alone in our feelings about the 100C.

Not that it matters, but it's good to know we're in like minded company.

charley222

eso always say they read and listen the community also have a ESO Live - Ask Us Anything!
but dont answer anything here i think this topic run for a long time and any answer , for me not answering all pepole who post here is a lack of credibility thank you

Valn

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

That's what your money was used for, not what you paid for. If I pay a magazine for a subscription, it doesn't mean that I actually paid someone's salary. I paid for the magazine. If the magazine used my money to help pay a writer, then great. But I didn't pay the writer.

When you pay for the magazine, that money goes to the writer. How is that difficult for you to understand?

Seraphyel

Inco wrote: »

Sorry.. it's just bad form on ZOS part.

10 months of subs is equal to $150 and 1,000 crowns.
ONE month sub if made today is $15 and worth 1,500 crowns. ($135 less and 500 more crowns)

That's pouring salt into the wound if you ask me.

This. Everyone who says that 100 Crowns per month are okay... no. No, no, no. Another slap in the face for loyal customers.

Egonieser

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

Whats insulting is people crying that theyre getting ANYTHING AT ALL.

How many MMOs have gone F2P/B2P in the past and gave you ANYTHING as far as a cash equivilent for your prior time in the game?

Ill wait.

LoTRO did. It awarded players quite generously and not just with lots of store points but other vanity items too.
That's the only game I've played that went f2p from a b2p+sub. I bet there are others.

Gidorick

Egonieser wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

Whats insulting is people crying that theyre getting ANYTHING AT ALL.

How many MMOs have gone F2P/B2P in the past and gave you ANYTHING as far as a cash equivilent for your prior time in the game?

Ill wait.

LoTRO did. It awarded players quite generously and not just with lots of store points but other vanity items too.
That's the only game I've played that went f2p from a b2p+sub. I bet there are others.

As I understand it, The Secret World was also generous with its subscribers.

Divad Zarn

agreed as well, 100 crowns per month for loyal players way too low

nerevarine1138

Valn wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

That's what your money was used for, not what you paid for. If I pay a magazine for a subscription, it doesn't mean that I actually paid someone's salary. I paid for the magazine. If the magazine used my money to help pay a writer, then great. But I didn't pay the writer.

When you pay for the magazine, that money goes to the writer. How is that difficult for you to understand?

My money goes to the magazine. At that point, it's no longer my money. If the magazine's leadership chooses to use their money to pay their writers, then it still wasn't my money paying them. It was their money. If they choose to spend the money on a new pony, it's no concern of mine, because I'm not an investor in the business.

People have this weird idea of money being permanently theirs. Once you spend money, it ceases to be your money. You no longer possess it, and you no longer have any say over what people do with it.

Nazon_Katts

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Valn wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

That's what your money was used for, not what you paid for. If I pay a magazine for a subscription, it doesn't mean that I actually paid someone's salary. I paid for the magazine. If the magazine used my money to help pay a writer, then great. But I didn't pay the writer.

When you pay for the magazine, that money goes to the writer. How is that difficult for you to understand?

My money goes to the magazine. At that point, it's no longer my money. If the magazine's leadership chooses to use their money to pay their writers, then it still wasn't my money paying them. It was their money. If they choose to spend the money on a new pony, it's no concern of mine, because I'm not an investor in the business.

People have this weird idea of money being permanently theirs. Once you spend money, it ceases to be your money. You no longer possess it, and you no longer have any say over what people do with it.

Yeah, but when said magazine brings only pony pictures ever after, people will wonder where their money went. Full circle again, feel free to keep spinning!

nerevarine1138

Nazon_Katts wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Valn wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

That's what your money was used for, not what you paid for. If I pay a magazine for a subscription, it doesn't mean that I actually paid someone's salary. I paid for the magazine. If the magazine used my money to help pay a writer, then great. But I didn't pay the writer.

When you pay for the magazine, that money goes to the writer. How is that difficult for you to understand?

My money goes to the magazine. At that point, it's no longer my money. If the magazine's leadership chooses to use their money to pay their writers, then it still wasn't my money paying them. It was their money. If they choose to spend the money on a new pony, it's no concern of mine, because I'm not an investor in the business.

People have this weird idea of money being permanently theirs. Once you spend money, it ceases to be your money. You no longer possess it, and you no longer have any say over what people do with it.

Yeah, but when said magazine brings only pony pictures ever after, people will wonder where their money went. Full circle again, feel free to keep spinning!

I'm sure they will. It doesn't give them any actual say over how the magazine conducts their business, but they are welcome to stop subscribing.