Paygate and ppl rant

Brasseurfb16_ESO

It seems there is a lot of confusion around the new economic model so I'm going to give some explanations to remedy to some of the nonesense running around those forums.

1) Model :
The game economic model goes from a P2P (Pay to play) model to a B2P (Buy to play) model which means you pay for the game box and you can play its original content forever/until server shutdown.

2) Exclusivity :
The game will include exclusive content unlockable through two options.
a) You pay a subscribtion to become an ESO+ member. While subscribed you get acces to all available content in the game and you get an instant 1500 Crown bonus (for each month you subscribe). So basicaly its the same model we currently have on LIVE but with the extra crowns to spend in the cash shop.

note : It will probably be possible to buy DLC content via the crown store so subscribers will eventualy get DLC content for "free".

b) You pay for DLC content, which allows you to unlock exclusive content to your account forever/until server shutdown.

3) Observations :
a) Current playerbase can still purchase a subscribtion to get acces to the entire content of the game and get exclusive items/content from the crown store for "free".

b) A second and fresh console playerbase will now be able to purchase the game, play for free and buy DLC content like they are used to on consoles.

c) A third playerbase will get acces to some of the content in the game after buying the box and will be able to play for free.

Conclusion :
Basicaly Tamriel unlimited will give more privilege to players that will keep their subscribtion, give alternative methods to acquiere content and allow people with lower income to jump in and out of the game after buying the game.

Tamriel unlimited also increases the playerbase and will ensure new content over time for one simple reason. Console players are going to become the new playerbase majority and console players are also more inclined to buy content through DLCs. If Zenimax Online wants to generate maximum revenue, they will have to work on new content to actualy get sales from new DLCs, content which ESO+ member will get for free if they stay subscribed long enough.

This is basicaly a Win/Win situation for everyone.

kevlarto_ESO

like I have said in the past as long as I feel there is still value with my sub I will stay subbed if the game holds true to what they're saying now I'll be okay with it and if there's something in the store I want beyond my sub I don't have a problem buying it just as long as they never put things in the store that I have to have to advance my character while I'm paying a sub if that happens then we have a problem and I would most likely be out of here

lathbury

With no new content till console players catch up and the crown store very sparse and the items there v.lacklustre IMO who will be continuing there sub for the next 6 months?

Tandor

Audigy wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Audigy wrote: »

So many insults already... makes the whole thread pointless imo.

I cant speak for others here, but for me a non F2P person paying money, but not receiving the good I pay for is weird and smells bad.

If I pay my sub at WOW, Ultima & Co. then I automatically buy the DLC´s. The companies release new content, be it a dungeon, BG, Story line or quests and I can always use it as I buy it by having a sub.

At ESO however and obviously other F2P games you only rent content with your sub and this is at least for me new and also weird.

Maybe this is how things are done among F2P games, I don't know... but at least in my books paying money, but only renting content sounds weird.

If at one point a player might not want to sub anymore, then he is stripped of everything he paid for, its a miracle to me that such a payment model actually seems to work, but todays generation is different than our old one I guess.

When you pay your sub at WoW, you can play the game including any additions you've paid for separately. When you suspend your sub you are locked out of the game, in its entirety. That is also the case currently with ESO. If you want to play any part of the game again you have to re-sub. You don't have any access to the game you've been paying for unless you continue to pay.

However, after the business model changes in ESO, when you pay your sub you will be able to play the game including any DLC which will be free as it is covered by the sub. When you suspend your sub you will still be able to play most of the game free of charge, you will not be locked out of it in its entirety, and you will be able to resume playing the DLC either by re-subbing or paying for it separately.

While what you say is correct, you forget some small detail.

WOW is a sub only game, so everyone pays and everyone plays. ESO however proclaims to be F2P if you end your sub, but it actually isn't if you lose everything you paid for in the past.

It demands that you either stay subbed forever (in a F2P game a silly demand) or you buy content twice to actually have it if you go F2P.

I haven't forgotten anything. With WoW you lose everything if you stop subbing, with the B2P model of ESO you will still get most of the game for free even if you stop subbing, and in order to continue with the DLC you can either pay a sub or use the crowns you will have got free in return for your sub to buy the DLC so you can still play it along with the free content while unsubbed.

It's difficult to see why so many people have difficulty understanding that the B2P model is, in this respect, so much better than the P2P sub-based model which locks you totally out of a game if you stop subbing whereas the B2P model only locks you out of a small part of the content while giving you the means to open it up for free.

ShadowDisciple

Joejudas wrote: »

Exp boosters will be in the cash shop and soul gems from the cash shop won't be bind on purchase so they can be farmed for gold. P2W is happening

so soul gems are in high demand right? preety funny...and they are bind to character...

Also in WoW...u buy the game, buy the DLC AND PAY SUB....in eso if u buy game and dlc you can still play normally....in wow if u dont pay sub....u dont play

Morshire

Slurg wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Where are people picking up all this "elitism" nonesense?

f2p/b2p games become bad, they have revenue losses and become p2w.
That's all there is. No one thinks they are better for paying a measly $15 a month.

Did you not see the thread yesterday from the guy who wanted separate instances for subscribers to stay separated from the free players, or the many posts over the last couple of weeks from people who want some visual indicators in game showing players' payment status so they could discriminate accordingly, or the guildmaster who asked for an indicator in the guild roster so he could kick non subscribers out? Those are just a few examples of elitism I've seen lately.

Now the quality of B2p/F2p games is a completely different issue and is a cause for concern if it's done like other companies have done it.

I am sorry to go back this, I see the thread discussion has changed, but this irks the crap out of me. So because some players want the above things from a game, they are "elitist" but the players that don't are what? This to me is a label used to justify someone else's view. And what the F*** is wrong with being an "elitist"? You say it like it is a bad thing.


adjective
1.(of a person or class of persons) considered superior by others or by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society:
"elitist country clubbers who have theirs and don't care about anybody else."
2.catering to or associated with an elitist class, its ideologies, or its institutions:
"Even at such a small, private college, Latin and Greek are under attack as too elitist."

noun
3.a person having, thought to have, or professing superior intellect or talent, power, wealth, or membership in the upper echelons of society:
"He lost a congressional race in Texas by being smeared as an Eastern elitist."
4.a person who believes in the superiority of an elitist class.

Seriously, no matter what view or opinion you throw out on this topic, you are, by definition, making yourself, and whoever agrees with you, an "elitist". Soooo...

This isn't a matter of title, or status, for me. I want what a sub based game offers, or what it doesn't. Others may want something else. Either camp, we are "elitist" in that we don't want the other "group". So someone please tell me, WTF is wrong with being an elitist?

ShadowDisciple

Morshire wrote: »

Slurg wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Where are people picking up all this "elitism" nonesense?

f2p/b2p games become bad, they have revenue losses and become p2w.
That's all there is. No one thinks they are better for paying a measly $15 a month.

Did you not see the thread yesterday from the guy who wanted separate instances for subscribers to stay separated from the free players, or the many posts over the last couple of weeks from people who want some visual indicators in game showing players' payment status so they could discriminate accordingly, or the guildmaster who asked for an indicator in the guild roster so he could kick non subscribers out? Those are just a few examples of elitism I've seen lately.

Now the quality of B2p/F2p games is a completely different issue and is a cause for concern if it's done like other companies have done it.

I am sorry to go back this, I see the thread discussion has changed, but this irks the crap out of me. So because some players want the above things from a game, they are "elitist" but the players that don't are what? This to me is a label used to justify someone else's view. And what the F*** is wrong with being an "elitist"? You say it like it is a bad thing.


adjective
1.(of a person or class of persons) considered superior by others or by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society:
"elitist country clubbers who have theirs and don't care about anybody else."
2.catering to or associated with an elitist class, its ideologies, or its institutions:
"Even at such a small, private college, Latin and Greek are under attack as too elitist."

noun
3.a person having, thought to have, or professing superior intellect or talent, power, wealth, or membership in the upper echelons of society:
"He lost a congressional race in Texas by being smeared as an Eastern elitist."
4.a person who believes in the superiority of an elitist class.

Seriously, no matter what view or opinion you throw out on this topic, you are, by definition, making yourself, and whoever agrees with you, an "elitist". Soooo...

This isn't a matter of title, or status, for me. I want what a sub based game offers, or what it doesn't. Others may want something else. Either camp, we are "elitist" in that we don't want the other "group". So someone please tell me, WTF is wrong with being an elitist?

The thing is you dont know what b2p system will bring us...also all these games ppl brought up have done different thing regarding to payment system...but gw2 still isnt pay to win...but noone mentions that....

And when i hear people explicitly saying that players who dont pllay sub dont know how to play...i consider them a negative person and a negative type elitist

Morshire

@ShadowDisciple - Okay, before this gets nasty, my point was not even discussing merits of what some other game has/has not done with any payment method. (Mainly as this point is so speculative it is pointless to me) Let's break down your point, specifically this:

ShadowDisciple wrote: »

And when i hear people explicitly saying that players who dont pllay sub dont know how to play...i consider them a negative person and a negative type elitist

What you "consider' negative is purely your opinion and does not make someone an "elitist". Because, if it did, then you are exactly what you are against. (Because I consider your opinion as a negative term) Is the "action" you refer to wrong....anyone can make up their own mind there, again it becomes an "opinion".

Throwing around the term "elitist" is the same as running around calling people "Nazis". Just cause you said it, doesn't make it true. What it does do, is dismiss the other persons opinion as "worthless" (In the speaker's/typer's opinion) because they don't agree with you. (And doesn't that make you worse than an "elitist"?)

People want to debate what is best for the game...have at it. I may even jump in. But this dismissal, by being "elitist", just stinks.

Mettaricana

i made a guild just for the up coming drop of subs rather than play hey look at me with LF guild in zone chat... im just gonna start with some new players and work from there and lately the servers are dead even before pts had 1.6

Morshire

Mettaricana wrote: »

i made a guild just for the up coming drop of subs rather than play hey look at me with LF guild in zone chat... im just gonna start with some new players and work from there and lately the servers are dead even before pts had 1.6

Hats off to you (not being sarcastic). You have your opinion about the change, you took steps to adjust, and I hope it works out for you. And who knows, your guild may have the leaderboards locked down at some point. I am on the fence right now about the new players. My experience has shown that the game goes downhill. The gaming community/player base may grow exponentially, but then you have to weigh quality v. quantity.

Having more players is always good for the longevity of a game. Having cash shops and "convenience" items is not. If one = the other, then you can probably see where I stand.

SIN-X

Wolfsspinne wrote: »

There are some people who feel like they are something better if they can show to the world that they are able to afford a monthly sub-fee.

Well this is just my thoughts but....If you cant afford the sub and your over 18 either 1. get a job 2.get a better job 3.skip a meal one or two days...
4. smoke less stop paying other subs and commit to the game
5. stop buying all that crap in other cash stores.....Really it comes down to just 1 thing. If you cant afford the sub you need to get off the games and reexamine
your priorities because you have much bigger issues than a game. If your under 18 then leave most players don't want you here.

ShadowDisciple

Morshire wrote: »

What you "consider' negative is purely your opinion

The same principle applies to racism....just because someone else is different doesent mean they are less worthy...and we all consider racism negative...

Grouping people to ones that pays sub and ones that doesent is a form of discrimination because it has no merits to the segregation..this is kinda like racism but OFC way less significant in scale, but the general rules apply...

Its like i say you are not worthy to post on this forum because your forum names starts with an "m"... and who are you to question my opinion...banal, yes...but again the same rules apply...

Negative elitism is a thing, and wether you like it or not, in gaming community it is considered as a negative term ussualy used by those classified as "casuals".... in other words, elitist are the loudest bunch of all and a minority that desperately wants the game catered to themselves..

Fact is b2p doesent affect you one bit, esspecially because you dont know what future brings, and as such it shouldnt even be negatively put into any context

eisberg

Audigy wrote: »

So many insults already... makes the whole thread pointless imo.

I cant speak for others here, but for me a non F2P person paying money, but not receiving the good I pay for is weird and smells bad.

If I pay my sub at WOW, Ultima & Co. then I automatically buy the DLC´s. The companies release new content, be it a dungeon, BG, Story line or quests and I can always use it as I buy it by having a sub.

At ESO however and obviously other F2P games you only rent content with your sub and this is at least for me new and also weird.

Maybe this is how things are done among F2P games, I don't know... but at least in my books paying money, but only renting content sounds weird.

If at one point a player might not want to sub anymore, then he is stripped of everything he paid for, its a miracle to me that such a payment model actually seems to work, but todays generation is different than our old one I guess.

you're renting content with a subscription game as well as soon as you get rid of your sub you no longer have access to any of the game. with a subscription only game you have to buy the game and keep paying a sub in or to keep playing what you have already bought. with eso you can buy the game and keep playing wgat you purchases even if you do not have a sub. the fact is you are actually renting more with a subscription only game then you are with this buy to play model.

ShadowDisciple

SIN-X wrote: »

If your under 18 then leave most players don't want you here.

Clap clap....you and i were both once 18, and i bet you played mmo's then...so this comment is not elitist, its just idiotic...right now you are showing a maturity level of a 12 year old..and i would rather play with a teen than you

Morshire

[snip]

Negative elitism is only negative if you think so. Elitism is a fact of life. RL or not. If you are casual (as I am), then we are not as good as "hardcore". FACT: so we acknowledge better players talents, so they become elitist because of that. Sounds more like jealousy, and not on their part.

B2P does effect me a lot. I am now subject to a cash shop. I am now faced with a financial decision about whether to buy DLC or stay subbed, or just not pay at all. I am subject, if I keep playing, to have to see your opinions on the forum. I mean we could go on and on here. (pointless, I see we disagree entirely on just about everything in life as a whole)

Here is a fact: I want one thing from a game, you want something else. So am I an elitist, or are you?

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Inappropriate Content]

Morshire

eisberg wrote: »

you're renting content with a subscription game as well as soon as you get rid of your sub you no longer have access to any of the game. with a subscription only game you have to buy the game and keep paying a sub in or to keep playing what you have already bought. with eso you can buy the game and keep playing wgat you purchases even if you do not have a sub. the fact is you are actually renting more with a subscription only game then you are with this buy to play model.

I can agree, that if you just looked at this fact, it does sound better. But now weigh how the devs respond as far as content goes. Or what the cash shop holds in store. Or the lack of fixes we may now expect/not expect. This isn't about whether anyone else can play, or whether I (trying to keep others out of this) want you/others to play. It is about what I want from a game and its developers. I do not, under any circumstances, want to be subject to a cash shop. So what is wrong with paying a sub to avoid that. It is wrong cause it excludes others. They don't care about ruining my game to get in, why should I care that they are out? I have played many MMO's. I thought that I could come here, and for a small fee, get a game that met some of my wants with potential to fill more. Now it is not. I am not liking it. Nothing anyone can say or do will change it. Does that make me X. Okay, now I am X. What is the next step then?

Abr4hn

ShadowDisciple wrote: »

Audigy wrote: »

If at one point a player might not want to sub anymore, then he is stripped of everything he paid for, its a miracle to me that such a payment model actually seems to work, but todays generation is different than our old one I guess.

U dont get how it is gonna be...u dont rent anything...once DLC hits out you get it automatically for life...i may be mistaken but thats how i got it

I was also confused at first. The best way to look at a subscription after March is that you are buying $15 worth of crowns (1500) each month. Realistically, this is the only way it can work - everything in the game has to be purchased with crowns. You go to the cash shop and buy something for crowns when you feel like it, or you subscribe and buy crowns on a regular basis... either way you end up paying crowns for the content and other stuff in the game. This actually makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

Now, if you are a nice steady customer (subscriber), ZOS rewards you for buying crowns on the "installment plan" by giving you some perks, including the ability to access all DLC without having to pay crowns for them first - but not permanently. You promise to buy crowns every month, and they promise to let you use the DLC every month (which lets you spend your crowns on other things). If you stop, they stop, after which you have to buy the DLC using your crowns just like everyone else if you want to own it permanently.

Elsonso

Slurg wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Where are people picking up all this "elitism" nonesense?

f2p/b2p games become bad, they have revenue losses and become p2w.
That's all there is. No one thinks they are better for paying a measly $15 a month.

Did you not see the thread yesterday from the guy who wanted separate instances for subscribers to stay separated from the free players, or the many posts over the last couple of weeks from people who want some visual indicators in game showing players' payment status so they could discriminate accordingly, or the guildmaster who asked for an indicator in the guild roster so he could kick non subscribers out? Those are just a few examples of elitism I've seen lately.

Now the quality of B2p/F2p games is a completely different issue and is a cause for concern if it's done like other companies have done it.

This is why we can't have nice things.

This is not elitism. This is just plain being vindictive towards innocent players who have nothing to do with the change to B2P. People don't like what ZOS did, but they take it out on the new players who do not subscribe.

I want a subscription pet or mount simply as advertising. If people see that others are subscribed to the game, they are more likely to do the same. A pet or mount is entirely optional, so it is only possible to say one is a subscriber, not that one is not.

Sadly, I think immaturity will win the day in this battle. The same people will just demand to see the pet or mount before allowing them into their club.

Morshire

@lordrichter - That was awesome. I was waiting for someone to come in and defend their words. I read that post, and you were pretty clear as to the why you wanted it. Most people tend to skip read and hone in on what they can flame about the most. Well played.

Slurg

Someone said "No one thinks they are better for paying a measly $15 a month."

I pointed out that in fact there are a whole bunch of people who do, in fact, because they are asking in other threads for features that will separate them from these supposedly inferior players. If you think you are by default better than someone else because you are part of a group that pays a subscription fee, you are being elitist. Now I see some of these people coming into this thread and personally attacking others who will choose not to pay a subscription for whatever reason and that's really a shame.

So sorry I hurt your feelings @Morshire‌ and company. I think being elitist in itself is neither good or bad, it all depends on what you do with it. If anyone wants to discriminate against others through segregation as part of an elite paying group that's their choice. Doesn't matter one bit to me but I sure don't feel a need to waste my time with exclusive people who feel the need to discriminate against others who are not in their exclusive club in order to feel good about themselves.

As has been stated before though, the move to B2P tends to lower overall quality of the game and people would be better off paying attention to that than worrying about how to separate themselves from non subscribers who they see as inferior.

Joejudas

You don't get it. In game I bought a soul gem on the crown store and sold it to a vendor to confirm it works. Therefore.....if I want to buy an in game item with cash and sell it for in game for gold I can....
which is bad.

Slurg

lordrichter wrote: »

Slurg wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Where are people picking up all this "elitism" nonesense?

f2p/b2p games become bad, they have revenue losses and become p2w.
That's all there is. No one thinks they are better for paying a measly $15 a month.

Did you not see the thread yesterday from the guy who wanted separate instances for subscribers to stay separated from the free players, or the many posts over the last couple of weeks from people who want some visual indicators in game showing players' payment status so they could discriminate accordingly, or the guildmaster who asked for an indicator in the guild roster so he could kick non subscribers out? Those are just a few examples of elitism I've seen lately.

Now the quality of B2p/F2p games is a completely different issue and is a cause for concern if it's done like other companies have done it.

This is why we can't have nice things.

This is not elitism. This is just plain being vindictive towards innocent players who have nothing to do with the change to B2P. People don't like what ZOS did, but they take it out on the new players who do not subscribe.

I want a subscription pet or mount simply as advertising. If people see that others are subscribed to the game, they are more likely to do the same. A pet or mount is entirely optional, so it is only possible to say one is a subscriber, not that one is not.

Sadly, I think immaturity will win the day in this battle. The same people will just demand to see the pet or mount before allowing them into their club.

Vindictiveness towards the new players who get to reap the benefits of a much improved game without having to pay is probably the motivation for some of this behavior from some people. But much of what I've seen points to an "I'm better than them" mentality.

But here is the thing - they will also be "taking it out" on people who have been here from the beginning who choose not to continue to subscribe. People who are good community members and talented players are suddenly going to be inferior overnight according to this bunch. Shame, that. Or maybe this is the "punishment" they deserve for not wanting to pay anymore.

Tandor

I don't think most people consider that there's any difference between people who pay to play through a subscription and those who pay to play through a cash shop, but they may think less of those who they consider to be "free-loaders", i.e.those who play a game long-term for nothing. They accept that quite happily as a fair basis for a short-term trial, but if someone ends up liking a game enough to play it long-term then most people would expect him/her to pay something for it (including beyond the box price in a B2P game with ongoing development and running costs).

The use of the term "elitism" is probably unnecessarily provocative, but the term "fairness" would most likely be considered valid by most people who contribute significantly to such costs when looking at those playing alongside them who choose to contribute nothing over the long-term.

I also suspect that a lot of the divisiveness being discussed here is less to do with P2P versus B2P and more to do with PC versus console. Unnecessarily, as it happens, because they will form separate communities on separate servers.

Morshire

@Slurg - Well now we have an interesting conversation. I am not sitting with hurt feeling. But thanks for the apology. Personally, I can agree with what you are saying. My point was what was stated by another:

Tandor wrote: »

The use of the term "elitism" is probably unnecessarily provocative, but the term "fairness" would most likely be considered valid by most people who contribute significantly to such costs when looking at those playing alongside them who choose to contribute nothing over the long-term.

That was my point. We can sling mud all day to no avail. The context of the term being used was what bothered me. Listen, I have bought, and continue to pay, subs for fellow gaming friends because I like their company. Whether they can afford it, or refuse to pay it, is irrelevant to me. (You can bet I would stop that in a minute if they were here advocating for B2P or F2P) I picked this game because of the sub, and what that model represents to me. (And how it was advertised) I want to keep that. Merely this. Not about how much money I have or how I spend it/don't spend it. And I know it is for not, but I figure if the devs hear enough of what we don't want, then when they are weighing the gravity of their decisions against making $$ or more $$$$$$$$$, this will be a factor.

The argument people are using when they throw the term "elitist" around is a two edged sword. They, technically speaking", are discriminating against us by advocating the removal of subs so they can play. This is what I was trying to get across in my posts. If we are just going to go and name call all day, then this forum is too far gone for my taste.

ShadowDisciple

Morshire wrote: »

Mor..im not trying to offend you, and i do feel the similar as you do, but maybe i havent showed it very well...

For example take a look up a few post and see what a players wrote. He said if you are under 18 you are not welcome. That type of behaviour bugs me.

Also we must consider the fact that this game is still B2P, and i believe a huge influx of cash will be thrown at ZOS esspecially since consoles are getting a huge mmo up their alley. Im just hpoing that will be enough to sustain this game and not turn it into something like Newerwinter aka p2w...

And the thing about community and intearcting with another players is that u can always chose the ones u are dealing with...

For example if u dont like me, you can just ignore me... same with the ingame players.

I agree on many points you state, but bigotry is something that bugs me alot and i get fired up a bit when something like that comes up. I apologise for my "outburst".

Morshire

Slurg wrote: »

Someone said "No one thinks they are better for paying a measly $15 a month."

I pointed out that in fact there are a whole bunch of people who do, in fact, because they are asking in other threads for features that will separate them from these supposedly inferior players. If you think you are by default better than someone else because you are part of a group that pays a subscription fee, you are being elitist. Now I see some of these people coming into this thread and personally attacking others who will choose not to pay a subscription for whatever reason and that's really a shame.

Sorry, wanted to go back to this the more I re-read it. Yes, I can see that some people feel that the $15 "entitles" them to certain things. But, is not our whole society just that? Want to stay away from X, buy a house in Y. Want "fine" dining versus fast food? Really, the part of this debate is no different. I am willing to pay $45 a month for something (honestly more). Should I not get what I want for the money I spend?

This, at least for me, has nothing to do with others or their views of what I get for my money. I am spending it for what I want. Period. And does spending this money give me a right to think a certain way? (Well I am arrogant as heck, so maybe) But I have been homeless. I didn't go to the rich neighborhood and demand they let me in or it was discrimination. I pay a sub at Cosco, does that give me the right to enjoy their "deals", yes. But it doesn't give me the "right" to buy the membership and then shop for free? To me, that is what the B2P represents, that mentality.

Devs deserve (arguably) a paycheck for their efforts. I would rather pay them every month for their efforts so they will (hopefully) develop a game that I want to keep paying for, not developing cash shop crap to wring money out of people who refuse to pay more than a box sale. Does that make them "bad", nope, just different. Should it be my choice, paying something different than they do, to expect something different.....Yes.

Cause you can be sure, if everyone played this game for "free" after a one time box sale, the game would die. The cash would stop coming and the servers would shut down. So, if my sub is what is "keeping the lights on long term" I believe that my experience should be different than some one who isn't. This does not change my opinion of them, as I don't rightly care either way about them personally. I do however care about what they represent in terms of the game that I am subbing to.

And if that is "elitist" mentality....thank the gods I finally made it.

Morshire

@ShadowDisciple - Thanks for that. I was busy typing the above. I have nothing against anyone "personally". In fact, I welcome the debate. I am not advocating bigotry, or racism, or hate for that matter. But I feel that we, as people, need to realize the impact of our words. I apologize for hitting the soft spot, not my intention. Honestly, when the conversation started, I thought you and I would be on a roll.

This matter, B2P, VR, CP, etc is hitting a lot of soft spots. What matters to me is the way they get "dealt" with. (Now listen to this old softy) I have come to appreciate the people here...well....and the conversations have taken me from laughter to blood boiling.

Obviously the common ground is we are all gamers. We are all passionate about our games. So that should at least count for some form of common decency.

Anyone else, in the spirit of apology, that may have been offended by my words, I apologize. I have not been here to inflame anyone. I enjoy debating, or arguing as my wife calls it, but mud slinging is counterproductive and it hurts my feelings. Thanks to those that can/have rose above that.

EDIT: After reading the above, I seem like a hypocrite. I am not saying that the behavior in other threads is right. I am not even saying I want any of those things. I am saying I see that point. I have seen the decline, and if taking that stance keeps me from that versus quitting this game....And no, no matter the money spent/not spent on this game does not give anyone IMO the right to treat others with disdain...No ya'll get that for just being how you are. (Not anyone particular, saying in general) If you come slinging mud, expect to get dirty.

Ysne58

Will we even notice the paygate before the first DLC comes out?

ShadowDisciple

Btw i agree on your post before this last one sometimes paying does entitle you to something special...in this case even more since some of the players felt like they were essentially beta testers....

Only thing where ESO is different from other games that converted from sub to f2p/b2p is that ESO is branching to consoles...(read the next sentence like the army men in movies are chanting) i dont know but ive been told, xbox one is full of goooold. Basically i heard aalot of kids are playing xbox and have been holding on to parents cred cards alot...so i guess to each their own..

I really love ESO (imo even with flaws is everything i want in an mmo) and i dont want it to go away that sonn or turn into something i despise in moderns gaming..

P.S. when i saw AC: Unity has a "cash shop" it blew my mind so hard that blood was coming out of my ears....i hate this relatively new trend of monefying gaming as a whole where even single player games includes cash shops and similar concepts...we are getting the same BS on our pc/consoles like we have on mobile games eg. candy crush and clash of clans etc.

ShadowDisciple

Ysne58 wrote: »

Will we even notice the paygate before the first DLC comes out?

Well not essentially...and even when it does come out, it will probably be alot cheaper then if we paid sub for a few months before it hits us....but i dont really see people being mad about need to pay dlc's... more the fear that this new Cash Shop will streamline production in ZOS and that everything will revolve around cash shop and not new content