Beta and beyond!

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

Seraphyel wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Ill ask again when did ZOS lie to you? Can you even name one instance where they lied to you?

You are funny.

Matt Firor on ESO before launch: *snipped to save space*

Nowhere in there did they say 100% for sure the game out never change. He said "they would like to" and "our plans right now are". They never said flat out "This will never be a b2p game. We will close first!" like some said.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

Brandalf wrote: »

Seraphyel wrote: »

Brandalf wrote: »

Seraphyel wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Ill ask again when did ZOS lie to you? Can you even name one instance where they lied to you?

You are funny.

Matt Firor on ESO before launch:

The Elder Scrolls games are all about allowing the player to go where they want, be who they want, and do what they want. We feel that putting pay gates between the player and content at any point in game ruins that feeling of freedom, and just having one small monthly fee for 100% access to the game fits the IP and the game much better than a system where you have to pay for features and access as you play. The Elder Scrolls Online was designed and developed to be a premium experience: hundreds of hours of gameplay, tons of depth and features, professional customer support - and a commitment to have ongoing content at regular intervals after launch. This type of experience is best paired with a one-time fee per month, as opposed to many smaller payments that would probably add up to more than $14.99/month any way.

And it's important to state that our decision to go with subscriptions is not a referendum on online game revenue models. F2P, B2P, etc. are valid, proven business models - but subscription is the one that fits ESO the best, given our commitment to freedom of gameplay, quality and long-term content delivery. Plus, players will appreciate not having to worry about being "monetized" in the middle of playing the game, which is definitely a problem that is cropping up more and more in online gaming these days. The fact that the word "monetized" exists points to the heart of the issue for us: We don't want the player to worry about which parts of the game to pay for - with our system, they get it all.

Source: http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/the-elder-scrolls-online/artikel/the_elder_scrolls_online,44578,3026853.html

Pete Hines on ESO before launch:

"We feel pretty strongly about the support we're going to have for the game and what you're going to get for those dollars," he said when asked why The Elder Scrolls Online was not pursuing a free-to-play model. "We're also very confident in our ability to support it with content. And not content of the magnitude of, it's a new month, here's a new sword or here's a funny hat--but content that is real and significant and it feels like regular and consistent DLC releases."

You want more lies?

Get serious. Zenimax lied to us in MANY ways - that's a fact. So stop questioning it, I can give you a dozen other quotes.

Claiming ZOS lied about the above points paints it as malicious, which it obviously isn't. Sometimes things change and you can't realistically expect anyone to have the foresight to see the types of things that lead to a conversion like this months in advance. I still maintain that this conversion is 100% to blame on Microsoft and their refusal to waive the XBL fees for ESO subscribers. From my perspective ESO has always had a healthy and active community.

If you still enjoy the game or support ZOS then continue to play the game and support them. If you don't then what are you doing here anymore? You have the free will to leave at any point if you don't agree with the direction the game or it's payment model are going.

Yes, yes, yes.

Blame Microsoft because of ESOs failure on the PC and Zenimax misleaded expectations. Get real and stop being delusional. ESO was everything but a huge success in its first year.

Those quotes were just examples, there are many others made after the release about similar topics.

I enjoy ESO, as I said, but I totally judge Zenimax for making just a mediocre ES-MMORPG.

I have never seen ESO as a failure, it's a nice game and won't compete with WoW numbers, but it doesn't have to. B2P came as a massive shock to me and my guildmates. Largely because we didn't give much thought to the console release. Once we looked at everything we all came to the same conclusion: Microsft's refusal to waive XBL fees forced Bethesda Softworks and ZOS' hands. If you don't come to the same conclusions we do, that's your prerogative. That however doesn't give the right to belittle others outlook on the situation, no matter how much you may disagree.

Do you realize how contradictory your bolded statement is? You must not enjoy the game much if you think it's just mediocre.

I agree it was consoles that forced this change. That and some management missteps but hind sight is 20-20 as they say. At some point someone had to make some decisions. A few of those decisions it turns out werent the right ones. Thats water under the bridge now we need to move forward.

BigM

Yep all Microsoft's fault. What a crock.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

Well I believe the whole mmo subscription thing is not a proven money maker on consoles. As far as I know there are only a small handful of titles that charge some kind of monthly fee. They sold alot more skyrim copies for the console market. So in my humble opinion (and thats all it is) they decided to change the revenue model based on feedback from the console community.

Seraphyel

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Seraphyel wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Ill ask again when did ZOS lie to you? Can you even name one instance where they lied to you?

You are funny.

Matt Firor on ESO before launch: *snipped to save space*

Nowhere in there did they say 100% for sure the game out never change. He said "they would like to" and "our plans right now are". They never said flat out "This will never be a b2p game. We will close first!" like some said.

As I said, it was just an example of their lie-catalogue. Doesn't matter now, it has been done, they only can improve.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

Seraphyel wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Seraphyel wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Ill ask again when did ZOS lie to you? Can you even name one instance where they lied to you?

You are funny.

Matt Firor on ESO before launch: *snipped to save space*

Nowhere in there did they say 100% for sure the game out never change. He said "they would like to" and "our plans right now are". They never said flat out "This will never be a b2p game. We will close first!" like some said.

As I said, it was just an example of their lie-catalogue. Doesn't matter now, it has been done, they only can improve.

It was not a lie at the time. Things changed in business its like that. I personally have never worked from a development end but I have worked from a profit and loss end. Just like writing code sometimes what you want and what is possible are two different things.

Drazhar14

OP, what are you going to do with a free lifetime sub if the game shuts down due to no income?

badmojo

@jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

The overall message from ZOS was that a subscription plan is the best way to go in order to make ESO the best game it can be. He talked about how putting content behind paygates is something they didn't want to do. They say being free to play any content with one monthly fee fits the game better than the alternatives. They even mention how non-subscription payment model will end up costing the player more than $15 a month anyway.

They might not have outright lied in those statements. But, they are doing exactly what they said is bad for the game. The only conclusion the player has now is that ZOS cares not about making the game the best it can be, but rather they want to squeeze out money from the playerbase, no matter how much it hurts the game experience.

It gets even worse when you factor in the wording of the B2P announcements, clearly they know microtransactions are not a good thing for the game, but that's not at all how they presented it. They tried to emphasize the good points while totally ignoring all the bad points that they went out of their way to inform us about earlier in this games life.

They're free to do whatever they want to the game, it's theirs after all. But, don't throw me under a bus and tell me how comfortable the asphalt is. That's just insulting.

BigM

Drazhar14 wrote: »

OP, what are you going to do with a free lifetime sub if the game shuts down due to no income?

Yep that will close them down. Believe me there really aren't many of us. Funny the one's screaming about wanting F2P from beta to present would say they need to go F2P to get more people in game. Now we will hear they would go out of biz for the few that get lifetime subs. You can't have it both ways.

Not saying you are one that yelled for F2P just so you don't have to respond to that.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

badmojo wrote: »

@jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

The overall message from ZOS was that a subscription plan is the best way to go in order to make ESO the best game it can be. He talked about how putting content behind paygates is something they didn't want to do. They say being free to play any content with one monthly fee fits the game better than the alternatives. They even mention how non-subscription payment model will end up costing the player more than $15 a month anyway.

They might not have outright lied in those statements. But, they are doing exactly what they said is bad for the game. The only conclusion the player has now is that ZOS cares not about making the game the best it can be, but rather they want to squeeze out money from the playerbase, no matter how much it hurts the game experience.

It gets even worse when you factor in the wording of the B2P announcements, clearly they know microtransactions are not a good thing for the game, but that's not at all how they presented it. They tried to emphasize the good points while totally ignoring all the bad points that they went out of their way to inform us about earlier in this games life.

They're free to do whatever they want to the game, it's theirs after all. But, don't throw me under a bus and tell me how comfortable the asphalt is. That's just insulting.

So you admit they never lied to you. Also you still have access to everything if you pay the monthly sub just like before. The only diff you get basically $15 a month back in crowns and a perm 10% xp boost. So really I think when they spoke of pay gates etc they meant a f2p model not a b2p model.

BigM

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

@jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

The overall message from ZOS was that a subscription plan is the best way to go in order to make ESO the best game it can be. He talked about how putting content behind paygates is something they didn't want to do. They say being free to play any content with one monthly fee fits the game better than the alternatives. They even mention how non-subscription payment model will end up costing the player more than $15 a month anyway.

They might not have outright lied in those statements. But, they are doing exactly what they said is bad for the game. The only conclusion the player has now is that ZOS cares not about making the game the best it can be, but rather they want to squeeze out money from the playerbase, no matter how much it hurts the game experience.

It gets even worse when you factor in the wording of the B2P announcements, clearly they know microtransactions are not a good thing for the game, but that's not at all how they presented it. They tried to emphasize the good points while totally ignoring all the bad points that they went out of their way to inform us about earlier in this games life.

They're free to do whatever they want to the game, it's theirs after all. But, don't throw me under a bus and tell me how comfortable the asphalt is. That's just insulting.

So you admit they never lied to you. Also you still have access to everything if you pay the monthly sub just like before. The only diff you get basically $15 a month back in crowns and a perm 10% xp boost. So really I think when they spoke of pay gates etc they meant a f2p model not a b2p model.

Yep just forget what we all went through for them during beta and after. For all the times the game was almost unplayable because of lag but the worse part was the bots. Bots went right through beta to live and got even worse. Then all the bugs they had to work out so they could release the consoles. Or you going to say they had to delay the consoles because of Microsoft (funny how people tend to always blame Microsoft). Yeah mount crowns aren't enough. As far as the bonus stats I can only pray now they don't end up making it like LOTRO. People buy Stone of Tortoise to just stop getting xp in that game now.

You guys do know they didn't need to release the game on xbox if they wanted to keep the sub. PS4 was fine with it.

badmojo

Sure, they lied to me, plenty of times. I was just informing you why that quote was used, why it's a good example of their shadiness.

Even if we found actual lies that weren't subjective like this, you would just defend ZOS or try to trivialize the nature of the lie. "Oh, well some one made a mistake, we're all human." It's really not worth it, and the lies aren't exactly the root of the problem, just a symptom of it.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

BigM wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

@jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

The overall message from ZOS was that a subscription plan is the best way to go in order to make ESO the best game it can be. He talked about how putting content behind paygates is something they didn't want to do. They say being free to play any content with one monthly fee fits the game better than the alternatives. They even mention how non-subscription payment model will end up costing the player more than $15 a month anyway.

They might not have outright lied in those statements. But, they are doing exactly what they said is bad for the game. The only conclusion the player has now is that ZOS cares not about making the game the best it can be, but rather they want to squeeze out money from the playerbase, no matter how much it hurts the game experience.

It gets even worse when you factor in the wording of the B2P announcements, clearly they know microtransactions are not a good thing for the game, but that's not at all how they presented it. They tried to emphasize the good points while totally ignoring all the bad points that they went out of their way to inform us about earlier in this games life.

They're free to do whatever they want to the game, it's theirs after all. But, don't throw me under a bus and tell me how comfortable the asphalt is. That's just insulting.

So you admit they never lied to you. Also you still have access to everything if you pay the monthly sub just like before. The only diff you get basically $15 a month back in crowns and a perm 10% xp boost. So really I think when they spoke of pay gates etc they meant a f2p model not a b2p model.

Yep just forget what we all went through for them during beta and after. For all the times the game was almost unplayable because of lag but the worse part was the bots. Bots went right through beta to live and got even worse. Then all the bugs they had to work out so they could release the consoles. Or you going to say they had to delay the consoles because of Microsoft (funny how people tend to always blame Microsoft). Yeah mount crowns aren't enough. As far as the bonus stats I can only pray now they don't end up making it like LOTRO. People buy Stone of Tortoise to just stop getting xp in that game now.

You guys do know they didn't need to release the game on xbox if they wanted to keep the sub. PS4 was fine with it.

Bots and lag arent lies.

BigM

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

BigM wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

@jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

The overall message from ZOS was that a subscription plan is the best way to go in order to make ESO the best game it can be. He talked about how putting content behind paygates is something they didn't want to do. They say being free to play any content with one monthly fee fits the game better than the alternatives. They even mention how non-subscription payment model will end up costing the player more than $15 a month anyway.

They might not have outright lied in those statements. But, they are doing exactly what they said is bad for the game. The only conclusion the player has now is that ZOS cares not about making the game the best it can be, but rather they want to squeeze out money from the playerbase, no matter how much it hurts the game experience.

It gets even worse when you factor in the wording of the B2P announcements, clearly they know microtransactions are not a good thing for the game, but that's not at all how they presented it. They tried to emphasize the good points while totally ignoring all the bad points that they went out of their way to inform us about earlier in this games life.

They're free to do whatever they want to the game, it's theirs after all. But, don't throw me under a bus and tell me how comfortable the asphalt is. That's just insulting.

So you admit they never lied to you. Also you still have access to everything if you pay the monthly sub just like before. The only diff you get basically $15 a month back in crowns and a perm 10% xp boost. So really I think when they spoke of pay gates etc they meant a f2p model not a b2p model.

Yep just forget what we all went through for them during beta and after. For all the times the game was almost unplayable because of lag but the worse part was the bots. Bots went right through beta to live and got even worse. Then all the bugs they had to work out so they could release the consoles. Or you going to say they had to delay the consoles because of Microsoft (funny how people tend to always blame Microsoft). Yeah mount crowns aren't enough. As far as the bonus stats I can only pray now they don't end up making it like LOTRO. People buy Stone of Tortoise to just stop getting xp in that game now.

You guys do know they didn't need to release the game on xbox if they wanted to keep the sub. PS4 was fine with it.

Bots and lag arent lies.

LOL never said it was and can't believe you don't understand what I meant.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

BigM wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

BigM wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

@jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

The overall message from ZOS was that a subscription plan is the best way to go in order to make ESO the best game it can be. He talked about how putting content behind paygates is something they didn't want to do. They say being free to play any content with one monthly fee fits the game better than the alternatives. They even mention how non-subscription payment model will end up costing the player more than $15 a month anyway.

They might not have outright lied in those statements. But, they are doing exactly what they said is bad for the game. The only conclusion the player has now is that ZOS cares not about making the game the best it can be, but rather they want to squeeze out money from the playerbase, no matter how much it hurts the game experience.

It gets even worse when you factor in the wording of the B2P announcements, clearly they know microtransactions are not a good thing for the game, but that's not at all how they presented it. They tried to emphasize the good points while totally ignoring all the bad points that they went out of their way to inform us about earlier in this games life.

They're free to do whatever they want to the game, it's theirs after all. But, don't throw me under a bus and tell me how comfortable the asphalt is. That's just insulting.

So you admit they never lied to you. Also you still have access to everything if you pay the monthly sub just like before. The only diff you get basically $15 a month back in crowns and a perm 10% xp boost. So really I think when they spoke of pay gates etc they meant a f2p model not a b2p model.

Yep just forget what we all went through for them during beta and after. For all the times the game was almost unplayable because of lag but the worse part was the bots. Bots went right through beta to live and got even worse. Then all the bugs they had to work out so they could release the consoles. Or you going to say they had to delay the consoles because of Microsoft (funny how people tend to always blame Microsoft). Yeah mount crowns aren't enough. As far as the bonus stats I can only pray now they don't end up making it like LOTRO. People buy Stone of Tortoise to just stop getting xp in that game now.

You guys do know they didn't need to release the game on xbox if they wanted to keep the sub. PS4 was fine with it.

Bots and lag arent lies.

LOL never said it was and can't believe you don't understand what I meant.

Im still trying to figure out when they lied to us about anything. You keep changing the subject.

GreySix

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Bots and lag arent lies.

Thankfully, it's been a long time since I've seen either.

badmojo

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

BigM wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

BigM wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

@jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

The overall message from ZOS was that a subscription plan is the best way to go in order to make ESO the best game it can be. He talked about how putting content behind paygates is something they didn't want to do. They say being free to play any content with one monthly fee fits the game better than the alternatives. They even mention how non-subscription payment model will end up costing the player more than $15 a month anyway.

They might not have outright lied in those statements. But, they are doing exactly what they said is bad for the game. The only conclusion the player has now is that ZOS cares not about making the game the best it can be, but rather they want to squeeze out money from the playerbase, no matter how much it hurts the game experience.

It gets even worse when you factor in the wording of the B2P announcements, clearly they know microtransactions are not a good thing for the game, but that's not at all how they presented it. They tried to emphasize the good points while totally ignoring all the bad points that they went out of their way to inform us about earlier in this games life.

They're free to do whatever they want to the game, it's theirs after all. But, don't throw me under a bus and tell me how comfortable the asphalt is. That's just insulting.

So you admit they never lied to you. Also you still have access to everything if you pay the monthly sub just like before. The only diff you get basically $15 a month back in crowns and a perm 10% xp boost. So really I think when they spoke of pay gates etc they meant a f2p model not a b2p model.

Yep just forget what we all went through for them during beta and after. For all the times the game was almost unplayable because of lag but the worse part was the bots. Bots went right through beta to live and got even worse. Then all the bugs they had to work out so they could release the consoles. Or you going to say they had to delay the consoles because of Microsoft (funny how people tend to always blame Microsoft). Yeah mount crowns aren't enough. As far as the bonus stats I can only pray now they don't end up making it like LOTRO. People buy Stone of Tortoise to just stop getting xp in that game now.

You guys do know they didn't need to release the game on xbox if they wanted to keep the sub. PS4 was fine with it.

Bots and lag arent lies.

LOL never said it was and can't believe you don't understand what I meant.

Im still trying to figure out when they lied to us about anything. You keep changing the subject.

Just stop trying, if you haven't figured it out yet, you never will.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

badmojo wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

BigM wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

BigM wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

@jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

The overall message from ZOS was that a subscription plan is the best way to go in order to make ESO the best game it can be. He talked about how putting content behind paygates is something they didn't want to do. They say being free to play any content with one monthly fee fits the game better than the alternatives. They even mention how non-subscription payment model will end up costing the player more than $15 a month anyway.

They might not have outright lied in those statements. But, they are doing exactly what they said is bad for the game. The only conclusion the player has now is that ZOS cares not about making the game the best it can be, but rather they want to squeeze out money from the playerbase, no matter how much it hurts the game experience.

It gets even worse when you factor in the wording of the B2P announcements, clearly they know microtransactions are not a good thing for the game, but that's not at all how they presented it. They tried to emphasize the good points while totally ignoring all the bad points that they went out of their way to inform us about earlier in this games life.

They're free to do whatever they want to the game, it's theirs after all. But, don't throw me under a bus and tell me how comfortable the asphalt is. That's just insulting.

So you admit they never lied to you. Also you still have access to everything if you pay the monthly sub just like before. The only diff you get basically $15 a month back in crowns and a perm 10% xp boost. So really I think when they spoke of pay gates etc they meant a f2p model not a b2p model.

Yep just forget what we all went through for them during beta and after. For all the times the game was almost unplayable because of lag but the worse part was the bots. Bots went right through beta to live and got even worse. Then all the bugs they had to work out so they could release the consoles. Or you going to say they had to delay the consoles because of Microsoft (funny how people tend to always blame Microsoft). Yeah mount crowns aren't enough. As far as the bonus stats I can only pray now they don't end up making it like LOTRO. People buy Stone of Tortoise to just stop getting xp in that game now.

You guys do know they didn't need to release the game on xbox if they wanted to keep the sub. PS4 was fine with it.

Bots and lag arent lies.

LOL never said it was and can't believe you don't understand what I meant.

Im still trying to figure out when they lied to us about anything. You keep changing the subject.

Just stop trying, if you haven't figured it out yet, you never will.

I have figured it out. They never lied about anything. Thats why you guys put up this smoke screen of everything but the topic at hand. We were never lied to.

badmojo

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

BigM wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

BigM wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

@jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

The overall message from ZOS was that a subscription plan is the best way to go in order to make ESO the best game it can be. He talked about how putting content behind paygates is something they didn't want to do. They say being free to play any content with one monthly fee fits the game better than the alternatives. They even mention how non-subscription payment model will end up costing the player more than $15 a month anyway.

They might not have outright lied in those statements. But, they are doing exactly what they said is bad for the game. The only conclusion the player has now is that ZOS cares not about making the game the best it can be, but rather they want to squeeze out money from the playerbase, no matter how much it hurts the game experience.

It gets even worse when you factor in the wording of the B2P announcements, clearly they know microtransactions are not a good thing for the game, but that's not at all how they presented it. They tried to emphasize the good points while totally ignoring all the bad points that they went out of their way to inform us about earlier in this games life.

They're free to do whatever they want to the game, it's theirs after all. But, don't throw me under a bus and tell me how comfortable the asphalt is. That's just insulting.

So you admit they never lied to you. Also you still have access to everything if you pay the monthly sub just like before. The only diff you get basically $15 a month back in crowns and a perm 10% xp boost. So really I think when they spoke of pay gates etc they meant a f2p model not a b2p model.

Yep just forget what we all went through for them during beta and after. For all the times the game was almost unplayable because of lag but the worse part was the bots. Bots went right through beta to live and got even worse. Then all the bugs they had to work out so they could release the consoles. Or you going to say they had to delay the consoles because of Microsoft (funny how people tend to always blame Microsoft). Yeah mount crowns aren't enough. As far as the bonus stats I can only pray now they don't end up making it like LOTRO. People buy Stone of Tortoise to just stop getting xp in that game now.

You guys do know they didn't need to release the game on xbox if they wanted to keep the sub. PS4 was fine with it.

Bots and lag arent lies.

LOL never said it was and can't believe you don't understand what I meant.

Im still trying to figure out when they lied to us about anything. You keep changing the subject.

Just stop trying, if you haven't figured it out yet, you never will.

I have figured it out. They never lied about anything. Thats why you guys put up this smoke screen of everything but the topic at hand. We were never lied to.

No, it's more like you saw 1 person say ZOS lied and now you're under the assumption that everyone needs to prove these lies beyond a shadow of a doubt in order for their words to have any merit.

It's pointless to even humor you with examples at this point, because you're so sure they never lied you'll just make excuses for anything.

This thread is about ZOS giving us something worth while to show their appreciation for our loyalty, it's not about their lies. Please stop trying to derail it because you think you can /thread the whole thing, you can't.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

I think you guys are confused on what a lie is. He says the whole point of the thread and asking for the lifetime sub is because they lied. Yet you guys cannot even point to one instance where they fabricated anything.

Plans change. Business models change. They never promised you they would always remain a sub only game. They only said what their plans were. Plans changed.

badmojo

Okay, let's go over it again.

Fact, game was sold as subscription.
Fact, game is dropping subscription.

How is that not a lie? They told us it was going to be subscription, then suddenly it's going b2p.

Being honest is about sticking to what you've said. You can't just change your mind and maintain your integrity as being honest.

It's not like ZOS even covered all their bases when they first started talking about the payment plan. They could have worded it generally, saying stuff like "for now this is how the game will be.." or "We don't foresee it changing anytime soon, but you never know..." no, none of that at all, it was actually the opposite, them stating how much the game would benefit from it being sub plan instead of the alternatives.

Like I said before, you're just going to make excuses for their dishonesty. Better get at that...

Attorneyatlawl

ArconSeptim wrote: »

I think beta testing was whole 2014. year till now

No, beta testing was the beginning of 2013 through early 2014. The earliest tests were in ~Jan/Feb 2013, with a very minute number of people, followed by some larger weekend-only tests beginning in ~July (which is when I got in, if you look at my profile registration date of July 2013 ), and finally a small couple-of-hundred people test handpicked in October 2013, which ran up until around the beginning of March 2014 and added a larger and larger number of randomly invited people over time starting around mid-December (but still never a very large number in absolute terms).

As I said before... good luck with getting a free lifetime subscription for simply buying the game at launch. Not only does it not make any sense logically to do so, let alone financially for ZOS, but the precedent is that even on a thing that costs them nothing for people who actually did beta test and spend many hundreds of hours (in some cases, well over a thousand *cough*cough*) running through the same content over and over and over and over with character wipes and extreme numbers of bugs that needed to be reported, tested, found, and feedback given on the game (very time-consuming) they gave nothing .

A lot of people asked for an in-game or forum title as an easy-and-cheap-to-create "thank you" which we'd enjoy having in the live game to signify that you had been a closed beta tester (examples of this happening with other mmo testing was my favorite from a beta game, "The World Shaper", which was given out by Warhammer Online and got people asking what it came from literally YEARS after launch... it was very cool!), but we never received even a response or mention to the concept except one lone, sarcastic comment in regards to a completely different topic laughing at the idea.

The only thing ever handed out was a monkey vanity pet which was given to everyone that logged in pre-launch including the mass-invite test days where hundreds of thousands of people were able to play for a night or two on the beginning areas of the game.

LtCrunch

badmojo wrote: »

Okay, let's go over it again.

Fact, game was sold as subscription.
Fact, game is dropping subscription.

How is that not a lie? They told us it was going to be subscription, then suddenly it's going b2p.

Being honest is about sticking to what you've said. You can't just change your mind and maintain your integrity as being honest.

It's not like ZOS even covered all their bases when they first started talking about the payment plan. They could have worded it generally, saying stuff like "for now this is how the game will be.." or "We don't foresee it changing anytime soon, but you never know..." no, none of that at all, it was actually the opposite, them stating how much the game would benefit from it being sub plan instead of the alternatives.

Like I said before, you're just going to make excuses for their dishonesty. Better get at that...

Say you tell a friend you're going to be at their house in one hour, but somewhere along the way you get in a wreck. Does that make you a liar? I don't think so.

badmojo

Brandalf wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

Okay, let's go over it again.

Fact, game was sold as subscription.
Fact, game is dropping subscription.

How is that not a lie? They told us it was going to be subscription, then suddenly it's going b2p.

Being honest is about sticking to what you've said. You can't just change your mind and maintain your integrity as being honest.

It's not like ZOS even covered all their bases when they first started talking about the payment plan. They could have worded it generally, saying stuff like "for now this is how the game will be.." or "We don't foresee it changing anytime soon, but you never know..." no, none of that at all, it was actually the opposite, them stating how much the game would benefit from it being sub plan instead of the alternatives.

Like I said before, you're just going to make excuses for their dishonesty. Better get at that...

Say you tell a friend you're going to be at their house in one hour, but somewhere along the way you get in a wreck. Does that make you a liar? I don't think so.

It does until I find out my friend was in a wreck.

What ZOS did was more like a friend telling me they'll be at my house in an hour then they call back an hour and a half later telling me how much fun I'll have without them, because they changed their mind and aren't coming over after all.

LtCrunch

badmojo wrote: »

Brandalf wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

Okay, let's go over it again.

Fact, game was sold as subscription.
Fact, game is dropping subscription.

How is that not a lie? They told us it was going to be subscription, then suddenly it's going b2p.

Being honest is about sticking to what you've said. You can't just change your mind and maintain your integrity as being honest.

It's not like ZOS even covered all their bases when they first started talking about the payment plan. They could have worded it generally, saying stuff like "for now this is how the game will be.." or "We don't foresee it changing anytime soon, but you never know..." no, none of that at all, it was actually the opposite, them stating how much the game would benefit from it being sub plan instead of the alternatives.

Like I said before, you're just going to make excuses for their dishonesty. Better get at that...

Say you tell a friend you're going to be at their house in one hour, but somewhere along the way you get in a wreck. Does that make you a liar? I don't think so.

It does until I find out my friend was in a wreck.

What ZOS did was more like a friend telling me they'll be at my house in an hour then they call back an hour and a half later telling me how much fun I'll have without them, because they changed their mind and aren't coming over after all.

Nope, my example is more apt simply because a wreck is an unforseen variable just like the things that force a conversion like this. Your example assumes malicious intent of some type. The difference between a cynic and a realist.

badmojo

What unforseen variable? ZOS has done nothing but paint this conversion as a benefit for the players. They're just doing us a favor of making subs optional....isn't that the way they played it?

I'm well aware that this is probably because of xbox not wanting to remove the live fee, but they haven't said that, it's all speculation. I'm just going by what ZOS have said, and nowhere did they mention any unforseen variables causing them to "wreck".

badmojo

Brandalf wrote: »

Your example assumes malicious intent of some type. The difference between a cynic and a realist.

Since you edited...

No, my example is perfect because it implies short sightedness, a disregard towards the customer, and indecisiveness, all the things that I feel like ZOS has displayed.

LtCrunch

badmojo wrote: »

Brandalf wrote: »

Your example assumes malicious intent of some type. The difference between a cynic and a realist.

Since you edited...

No, my example is perfect because it implies short sightedness, a disregard towards the customer, and indecisiveness, all the things that I feel like ZOS has displayed.

Your example comes from a cynical POV.

LtCrunch

badmojo wrote: »

What unforseen variable? ZOS has done nothing but paint this conversion as a benefit for the players. They're just doing us a favor of making subs optional....isn't that the way they played it?

I'm well aware that this is probably because of xbox not wanting to remove the live fee, but they haven't said that, it's all speculation. I'm just going by what ZOS have said, and nowhere did they mention any unforseen variables causing them to "wreck".

It's PR, of course they're not going to come out and say anything like that. If you expect them to openly throw Microsoft under the bus or admit to a failed launch then you're gonna be waiting forever.

badmojo

Brandalf wrote: »

badmojo wrote: »

Brandalf wrote: »

Your example assumes malicious intent of some type. The difference between a cynic and a realist.

Since you edited...

No, my example is perfect because it implies short sightedness, a disregard towards the customer, and indecisiveness, all the things that I feel like ZOS has displayed.

Your example comes from a cynical POV.

I'm cynical, so what?

Your example came from a sympathetic point of view. When you say a person didn't make it due to a wreck, that paints a picture of the person being a helpless victim of unforseen variables beyond their control.

What exactly happened to poor little Zenimax that prevented them from doing what they told us was best for us and the game? They certainly haven't made any announcements that indicate they were involved in a wreck of any kind. As far as I can tell, they simply changed their mind, due to whatever secret reason.