Separation instance for subscribers

theweakminded

This thread is in need of closing imo. Simply one person thinking he is better than others resulting in no other option but to tell him he is wrong and becoming 'personal attacks'.

Lynnessa

The connotation of the word "segregation" is one of prejudice and racism. But in casual use, such as in this thread, "segregation" implies nothing more than separation.

Although there is no MORAL reason that players paying fees should have separate servers from players who don't, I don't think the OPs suggestion is a good one. If players are separated, that limits the amount of people available for any given person to group with or just socialize with, and I don't think that's ever a good idea in a "massively multiplayer" game.

Soulshine

Betahkiin wrote: »

Soulshine wrote: »

There have already been several threads about this months ago, so I am not sure for how long you have subbed but if you have been around for any length of time let alone actually used a search feature, you would know throwing out this topic again just creates a lot of negativity on the forums.

It means that the forum is only for those who think in a specific way and anyone who thinks differently should shut up?

Why not take it as an opinion and express itself?

Something like, do not think so thanks.

The attack on me and the constant incitement to not talk about this subject is nothing but an act of segregation.

If I do not think like you, I have no right to speak ...

Ironic.

The key is to take it as a place to exchange opinions and disagree manifest without aggression or attempts to silence.

You are clearly not understanding the point being made.

Betahkiin

Ysne58 wrote: »

I agree with both @AlienSlof and @soulshine. @Betahkin it really doesn't matter where segregation happens whether it's public property or private property when you are separating two or more groups of people it is segregation. It does lead to lots of negativity.

When you go to a store and there are two buyers with different ability to pay, if the store does not offer the same quality of product, this segregating?

When you buy a car and got half of money that customer who is next, this bad the car takes twice as expensive than yours?

If you traveling by plane and only pay for a normal seat, this evil that who paid for a seat in first class is treats better than you?

Are being inconsistent regarding how the world of business and private services work.

Sighlynce

I think the benefits we get for being subscribers is fine. We get free access to the new DLCs, non-subscribers have to pay to play, 1500 crowns a month and 10% bonuses on xp, reasearch times, and crafting insp. .. I mean thats not a bad deal for $15 .

JamilaRaj

Soulshine wrote: »

There have already been several threads about this months ago, so I am not sure for how long you have subbed but if you have been around for any length of time let alone actually used a search feature, you would know throwing out this topic again just creates a lot of negativity on the forums.

Yes, because it has been poorly communicated. He asked for free additional advantage where there was originally none. If he instead asked, e.g., would you pay X crowns to skip queue to Thorn (like here), it would be another matter. Not to mention if it was implemented; even people that would say no to question would not say no actual offer.

Ysne58

I think a special 'queue to blackthorn' is something different than segregating out players for the whole game.

These examples in real life don't make any logical sense, with the possible exception of the first class section in planes and that is segregation between 1st class and regular.

Obscure

This is not a matter of "I deserve better because I pay more money", that's an obviously loaded analysis.

This is a matter of the reason for a hybrid model, which is designed to BOOST population and BOOST revenue. There's more than enough player division throughout the game, I can run across entire veteran zones and never see another player. Adding more player division will INCREASE this, and that is a terrible proposition for both population and revenue.

This is a " value added " proposition for subscriptions, but it would negatively impact the game, resulting in poor experiences for players on the fence with regard to ESO+, and actively dismissing product quality expressly to monetise said quality. The word for that is "ANTI-CONSUMER", and those tactics are poison in the veins of the industry.

Betahkiin

Ysne58 wrote: »

I think a special 'queue to blackthorn' is something different than segregating out players for the whole game.

These examples in real life don't make any logical sense, with the possible exception of the first class section in planes and that is segregation between 1st class and regular.

No separate them from the whole game, still have access to all content all free users together.

This mean that give better treatment or benefits for being a subscriber is applying segregation?

So according to you ZOS is segregating users to provide benefits at the account level for those who are subscribers?

Increasing experience.

Increased gold acquired.

1500 crowns a month.

Free DLC.

This is separate users who do not pay for the opportunity to acquire these benefits and new content.

Then, ZOS segregated users?

All you are inconsistent in the way they judge.

YourNameHere

No thank you. I like playing with new people and non subscribers.

theweakminded

Betahkiin wrote: »

Ysne58 wrote: »

I agree with both @AlienSlof and @soulshine. @Betahkin it really doesn't matter where segregation happens whether it's public property or private property when you are separating two or more groups of people it is segregation. It does lead to lots of negativity.

When you go to a store and there are two buyers with different ability to pay, if the store does not offer the same quality of product, this segregating?

When you buy a car and got half of money that customer who is next, this bad the car takes twice as expensive than yours?

If you traveling by plane and only pay for a normal seat, this evil that who paid for a seat in first class is treats better than you?

Are being inconsistent regarding how the world of business and private services work.

Dangerously close to a false analogy. Using your plane example, the standard seat and the B2P box is the base game. Everything required to access the game as equals is a must. For example, the first class and standard flight arrive att he same time, both get temperature/air quality regulation, just as all ESO players have the same server/server performance. Like with the difference for first class, sub players get perks. First class is more comfortable with better leg room or drinks, while eco plus gets the full 15$ worth of crowns in addition to gold/xp bonus.

What you are suggesting is that the base experience be given to subbers and non-sub be given a lesser priority.

theweakminded

Betahkiin wrote: »

Ysne58 wrote: »

I think a special 'queue to blackthorn' is something different than segregating out players for the whole game.

These examples in real life don't make any logical sense, with the possible exception of the first class section in planes and that is segregation between 1st class and regular.

No separate them from the whole game, still have access to all content all free users together.

This mean that give better treatment or benefits for being a subscriber is applying segregation?

So according to you ZOS is segregating users to provide benefits at the account level for those who are subscribers?

Increasing experience.

Increased gold acquired.

1500 crowns a month.

Free DLC.

This is separate users who do not pay for the opportunity to acquire these benefits and new content.

Then, ZOS segregated users?

All you are inconsistent in the way they judge.

No, ZOS is giving the base game to all players, they are offering incentive to sub. Learn the difference.

Betahkiin

Obscure wrote: »

This is not a matter of "I deserve better because I pay more money", that's an obviously loaded analysis.

This is a matter of the reason for a hybrid model, which is designed to BOOST population and BOOST revenue. There's more than enough player division throughout the game, I can run across entire veteran zones and never see another player. Adding more player division will INCREASE this, and that is a terrible proposition for both population and revenue.

This is a " value added " proposition for subscriptions, but it would negatively impact the game, resulting in poor experiences for players on the fence with regard to ESO+, and actively dismissing product quality expressly to monetise said quality. The word for that is "ANTI-CONSUMER", and those tactics are poison in the veins of the industry.

I think what poisons is the current refusal of users to pay for a service and expect to have everything for free and with high quality standards.

This concept can be applied in basic and necessary services where failure to pay can affect the quality of life of a person.

The private world of entertainment is a plus, a non-basic service, not necessary and whose access should be paid according to the quality of what is expected in return.

What is destroying the gaming industry are massive users seeking access to entertainment 24 hours a day with very high quality standards and not have to pay for it.

Such people poisoned the quality of products in the entertainment industry.

Betahkiin

theweakminded wrote: »

Betahkiin wrote: »

Ysne58 wrote: »

I think a special 'queue to blackthorn' is something different than segregating out players for the whole game.

These examples in real life don't make any logical sense, with the possible exception of the first class section in planes and that is segregation between 1st class and regular.

No separate them from the whole game, still have access to all content all free users together.

This mean that give better treatment or benefits for being a subscriber is applying segregation?

So according to you ZOS is segregating users to provide benefits at the account level for those who are subscribers?

Increasing experience.

Increased gold acquired.

1500 crowns a month.

Free DLC.

This is separate users who do not pay for the opportunity to acquire these benefits and new content.

Then, ZOS segregated users?

All you are inconsistent in the way they judge.

No, ZOS is giving the base game to all players, they are offering incentive to sub. Learn the difference.

No.

ZOS is segregatin free user for future content acces (DLC).

Only suscribers can play new content, free players dont.

To play new content free players need to invest money, so, money is a factor of influence and segregation.

When the next update stay online (DLC) users who can not afford going to be segregated from the rest of the subscribers ...

Then I am the villain of the movie and ZOS not?

I segregated users and ZOS not?

I say this because the same people who attack me defend the current model which is a hypocrisy.

darthbelanb14_ESO

Betahkiin wrote: »

theweakminded wrote: »

Betahkiin wrote: »

Ysne58 wrote: »

I think a special 'queue to blackthorn' is something different than segregating out players for the whole game.

These examples in real life don't make any logical sense, with the possible exception of the first class section in planes and that is segregation between 1st class and regular.

No separate them from the whole game, still have access to all content all free users together.

This mean that give better treatment or benefits for being a subscriber is applying segregation?

So according to you ZOS is segregating users to provide benefits at the account level for those who are subscribers?

Increasing experience.

Increased gold acquired.

1500 crowns a month.

Free DLC.

This is separate users who do not pay for the opportunity to acquire these benefits and new content.

Then, ZOS segregated users?

All you are inconsistent in the way they judge.

No, ZOS is giving the base game to all players, they are offering incentive to sub. Learn the difference.

No.

ZOS is segregatin free user for future content acces (DLC).

Only suscribers can play new content, free players dont.

To play new content free players need to invest money, so, money is a factor of influence and segregation.

When the next update stay online (DLC) users who can not afford going to be segregated from the rest of the subscribers ...

Then I am the villain of the movie and ZOS not?

I segregated users and ZOS not?

I say this because the same people who attack me defend the current model which is a hypocrisy.

Free users have the option to buy said DLC, so they are not segregated. Just stop, you've made your point and pretty much everyone who has replied has disagreed with you. The horse is dead now.

Betahkiin

darthbelanb14_ESO wrote: »

Betahkiin wrote: »

theweakminded wrote: »

Betahkiin wrote: »

Ysne58 wrote: »

I think a special 'queue to blackthorn' is something different than segregating out players for the whole game.

These examples in real life don't make any logical sense, with the possible exception of the first class section in planes and that is segregation between 1st class and regular.

No separate them from the whole game, still have access to all content all free users together.

This mean that give better treatment or benefits for being a subscriber is applying segregation?

So according to you ZOS is segregating users to provide benefits at the account level for those who are subscribers?

Increasing experience.

Increased gold acquired.

1500 crowns a month.

Free DLC.

This is separate users who do not pay for the opportunity to acquire these benefits and new content.

Then, ZOS segregated users?

All you are inconsistent in the way they judge.

No, ZOS is giving the base game to all players, they are offering incentive to sub. Learn the difference.

No.

ZOS is segregatin free user for future content acces (DLC).

Only suscribers can play new content, free players dont.

To play new content free players need to invest money, so, money is a factor of influence and segregation.

When the next update stay online (DLC) users who can not afford going to be segregated from the rest of the subscribers ...

Then I am the villain of the movie and ZOS not?

I segregated users and ZOS not?

I say this because the same people who attack me defend the current model which is a hypocrisy.

Free users have the option to buy said DLC, so they are not segregated. Just stop, you've made your point and pretty much everyone who has replied has disagreed with you. The horse is dead now.

And the free users who can not afford it?

They would not be segregated?

In your comment only thing you care about is knowing that free users who can pay will not be segregated, but those who can not pay?

LameoveR

Is it some sort of demagogy or trolling?
Give me personal server for my 15$ please, hm?
Separation-shmeparation, playing on words.
I think OP is drunk.

darthbelanb14_ESO

Look come June this community will be divided by Xbox users, PS4 users, and PC/Mac users. Now you want to divide it by subs and free. Then when that happens you'll be back on here complaining that there aren't enough players on to quest with.

Chuggernaut

Yeah, this is the second "Back of the Bus" thread created today, wtf?

cyqa

Absolutely, categorically NO. I do not want to be separated from non-subscribers.

They're not "free users"- they paid for the base game. It's not segregation when people who haven't purchased DLC don't have access to it. It's not at all the same as what you are suggesting.

You are suggesting that people who have PAID for the game should be separated from people who also pay a monthly subscription, despite how the former group could be spending more $$$ per month in the crown shop. So what, should there be ANOTHER separate instance for people who spend more than $15 per month in the crown store, since they're investing even more?

They paid for the game just like we did, they deserve the same quality that we do.

Betahkiin

LameoveR wrote: »

Is it some sort of demagogy or trolling?
Give me personal server for my 15$ please, hm?
Separation-shmeparation, playing on words.
I think OP is drunk.

When the next DLC is available and some free users can not afford it, where they'll be?

Playing in the same content that subscribers and who could buy the expansion, or separated playing old content?

The current model determines the eventual separation of those unable to pay for dlc.

The irony is that covertly all those who criticize me are in favor of a model that eventually will segregate those unable to pay for the new content added.

You know what they do not care?

Probably because the free model suits them and know that they will be able to pay for the new content, but forget those who perhaps can not afford it and remain isolated in old playing content, segregated from the rest.

Not recognizing the existence of division based on the money invested in the game is to be hypocrites.

Miszou

LameoveR

Betahkiin wrote: »

When the next DLC is available and some free users can not afford it, where they'll be?

Playing in the same content that subscribers and who could buy the expansion, or separated playing old content?

The current model determines the eventual separation of those unable to pay for dlc.

The irony is that covertly all those who criticize me are in favor of a model that eventually will segregate those unable to pay for the new content added.

You know what they do not care?

Probably because the free model suits them and know that they will be able to pay for the new content, but forget those who perhaps can not afford it and remain isolated in old playing content, segregated from the rest.

Not recognizing the existence of division based on the money invested in the game is to be hypocrites.

It's not an airbus with business class and econom class places, you know?
Furthermore you've got your 10% xp bonus and crowns.
What you offer is just ridiculous , i'm not even talking about shmeparation.

Fox Hunter

Betahkiin wrote: »

Instance 1: Designated subscribers only (guaranteeing priority access, priority maintenance and upgrades, server stability and priority customer service assistance in game).

Instance 2: Designated to non-subscribers (considering you do not pay for the service, good luck).

Is there a way to play it for free? I thought we would have to BUY the game in order to play it. How funny... I even thought that they would charge us for the future releases in the form of DLCs.

Well, thx for the news!

Betahkiin

LameoveR wrote: »

Betahkiin wrote: »

When the next DLC is available and some free users can not afford it, where they'll be?

Playing in the same content that subscribers and who could buy the expansion, or separated playing old content?

The current model determines the eventual separation of those unable to pay for dlc.

The irony is that covertly all those who criticize me are in favor of a model that eventually will segregate those unable to pay for the new content added.

You know what they do not care?

Probably because the free model suits them and know that they will be able to pay for the new content, but forget those who perhaps can not afford it and remain isolated in old playing content, segregated from the rest.

Not recognizing the existence of division based on the money invested in the game is to be hypocrites.

It's not an airbus with business class and econom class places, you know?
Furthermore you've got your 10% xp bonus and crowns.
What you offer is just ridiculous , i'm not even talking about shmeparation.

No, is a game with subscriber and free player, you know?

If i have 10% xp bonus, crowns (and free dlc), why i cant propose have a best service?

Is just a propose, not a fact, dont fear.

My offer is ridiculous for you, not for me sorry.

Atreyu

As a subcriber, this is the most hilarious thing I've read today on the internet.

Thank you for the laugh.

Betahkiin

Fox Hunter wrote: »

Betahkiin wrote: »

Instance 1: Designated subscribers only (guaranteeing priority access, priority maintenance and upgrades, server stability and priority customer service assistance in game).

Instance 2: Designated to non-subscribers (considering you do not pay for the service, good luck).

Is there a way to play it for free? I thought we would have to BUY the game in order to play it. How funny... I even thought that they would charge us for the future releases in the form of DLCs.

Well, thx for the news!

Paid for a copy of the game, such as the single player ...

You did not pay for the service online or by future updates

If you did not pay for the service online and're playing, you're doing for free and informed that eventually you will not have access to DLC unless you pay.

One thing is the cost of a copy of the game.

Another thing is the monthly payment for the right to play online and get updates.

In fact, the original model does not contemplate the possibility of playing without the monthly payment.

Betahkiin

Atreyu wrote: »

As a subcriber, this is the most hilarious thing I've read today on the internet.

Thank you for the laugh.

Ty for you post

Nestor

I like a lively game world, why would I want to limit that?

Betahkiin

Nestor wrote: »

I like a lively game world, why would I want to limit that?

For a better quality of service?

Of course the idea is to be together, I'm not against it as long as not to affect the quality of service for which I am paying.

But if it is technologically not possible to guarantee the stability or quality of servers to handle all online users, the suggestion was to manage the resources available to guarantee to those who pay monthly.