We were told that access to Hunter's Glade was a perk of the Wolfhunter DLC.

pocketdefender

TL;DR: Hunter's Glade was advertised as a perk of buying Wolfhunter, but right now it's on a limited time sale exclusively for crowns. In fact, it still is being advertised as a perk of buying Wolfhunter - the tooltip I screenshotted is still there if anyone wants to check it out for themselves.

This thread is from Reddit, where it gained significant traction.

Hunter's Glade is in the Crown Store right now for a "limited time".

Originally I thought the Glade would be like Hakkvild's High Hall - purchasable unfurnished with gold after completing a difficult achievement in the new DLC, or for crowns without it. I was given that impression because when you mouse over the hat icon in the Wolfhunter DLC in the Crown Store, you see this:



"Gain access to new [...] Housing locations, including the weird Hunter's Glade in Oblivion itself."

Obviously, that hasn't panned out, since we're a month on from the release of Wolfhunter (and HHH was released at the same time as the DLC its achievement came from).
So today I thought, okay, maybe by "access" they mean you can only buy the house with Crowns if you have the DLC. Seems like kind of a counterproductive move for ZOS, but whatever. I got my friend who has neither Wolfhunter nor ESO+ to check. Nope, she was still given the option to buy the house.

So unless I'm completely missing something, these are the options here:

1. The Glade will be made available for gold for Wolfhunter owners at a later date. (Oh my god, if this is the case, the people who bought it with crowns are going to be PISSED. That would be a terrible PR move.)
2. The "limited time" only applies to people who don't have the DLC, and people with the DLC will be able to pick it up for crowns at any time. Seems unlikely.
3. ZOS lied.

What I actually suspect happened is that the Glade was supposed to be released with Wolfhunter originally, and then when they came up with the plan to give the Villa away for free during Summerfall, the money people panicked at the idea of giving up revenue from TWO giant houses that they were previously selling for like $150 each. So they changed it, but forgot to alter the tooltip. I don't know. Again, this is just speculation.

Also note that the text also advertises housing locations, plural, and so far we've only seen one. So more houses connected to Wolfhunter should be coming at some point. But Hunter's Glade was mentioned specifically. And right now, people without the DLC have the exact same "access" to the Hunter's Glade as the people who have it, halfway into the next quarter.

I don't want people to take this as bashing ZOS. I enjoyed the Summerfall event and am grateful for the Villa, and in general I'm pretty pleased with the direction they're taking with notable houses (for example, the Glade is a little over half the price that members of my housing guild were speculating it would be, due to ZOS's new focus on selling furniture packs instead). I'm actually not even super interested in this house. But this isn't okay. If you paid for Wolfhunter, part of what you paid for was access to the Glade. Right now it's plain false advertising.

edit: Added link to reddit thread

redspecter23

ZOS would be wise to fix something about this as soon as they can. If I had to guess, it's like you suggest and that perhaps it was intended to be an unlockable for Wolfhunter owners at some point during the development process, but they went back on that idea (which is fine if done before release) but left in the tooltip in the picture (which absolutely is not ok).

Acrolas

Reddit, where everybody is an expert but nobody has ever bothered reading the TOS.

You've already agreed that any Service or Content can be added, changed, or discontinued without notice to you and for no specific or explicit reason.

Hunter's Glade was never advertised as being exclusive to this DLC Game Pack. Access was never fully defined. It was spun off into its own thing most likely to let werewolf players outright purchase the housing for its persistent werewolf form rather than forcing them into content where they have to kill werewolves.

But again, there doesn't have to be a reason for the change. It's a right they reserve.

redspecter23

Acrolas wrote: »

Reddit, where everybody is an expert but nobody has ever bothered reading the TOS.

You've already agreed that any Service or Content can be added, changed, or discontinued without notice to you and for no specific or explicit reason.

Hunter's Glade was never advertised as being exclusive to this DLC Game Pack. Access was never fully defined. It was spun off into its own thing most likely to let werewolf players outright purchase the housing for its persistent werewolf form rather than forcing them into content where they have to kill werewolves.

But again, there doesn't have to be a reason for the change. It's a right they reserve.

They also have the right to ban 5000 random players tomorrow if they want. They can turn the servers off for 15 days straight if they want to. They can change the in game value of all items to 1 gold. They can disband all guilds and erase all friends lists. Yes, they can do whatever they want really. It all comes down to how people react to any given change. From a purely legal standpoint, they are very likely not in any sort of trouble for the situation described above. I personally, still think that at minimum, it the tooltip should be changed to clarify that owning the DLC has nothing to do with having access to the Hunter's Glade. It's not something they are legally required to do, but it would still be a good thing to take the 30 seconds out of their day to change that tiny bit of text.

Danikat

I'm not sure about other places but in Europe false advertising is illegal, and like most laws a company can't simply create terms and conditions which over-rule that. And this looks like a pretty clear case of false advertising - the description on the DLC says if you buy it you gain access to Hunter's Glade, but it's actually an entirely separate purchase. That would be like buying a phone which says a charger is included, then you discover there is no charger in the box and you have to buy it separately.

It probably is just an oversight - maybe Hunter's Glade was supposed to be unlocked through Wolfhunter, or the person writing the description knew it was coming out and misunderstood. But it really should be fixed.

weedgenius

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom

weedgenius

Danikat wrote: »

I'm not sure about other places but in Europe false advertising is illegal, and like most laws a company can't simply create terms and conditions which over-rule that. And this looks like a pretty clear case of false advertising - the description on the DLC says if you buy it you gain access to Hunter's Glade, but it's actually an entirely separate purchase. That would be like buying a phone which says a charger is included, then you discover there is no charger in the box and you have to buy it separately.

Someone who purchased the Wolfhunter DLC specifically because of the language implying that it would give them access to the house (which it turns out is actually accessible to everyone) would definitely have a case.

Fischblut

I haven't noticed it before... Having this house as a reward for completing veteran versions of Wolfhunter dungeons would be really great. Just like we have free manor in Craglorn for completing veteran Horns of Reach dungeons.

If I had to guess, it's like you suggest and that perhaps it was intended to be an unlockable for Wolfhunter owners at some point during the development process, but they went back on that idea

Probably cause they give away Psijic Villa (which was really unexpected great move) So it looks like they decided "If we won't sell the villa in store, we will have to sell the house which was meant to be DLC reward". Reminds me of Bloodforged skin as store exclusive, which - by the look, by the name, by description - was meant to be reward for Bloodroot Forge challenger

Andreakos

Solved

pocketdefender

Acrolas wrote: »

Reddit, where everybody is an expert but nobody has ever bothered reading the TOS.

You've already agreed that any Service or Content can be added, changed, or discontinued without notice to you and for no specific or explicit reason.

Hunter's Glade was never advertised as being exclusive to this DLC Game Pack. Access was never fully defined.

That's true, and maybe I shouldn't have used the actual legal term "false advertising". However, you're failing to account for a couple of things:

1. They didn't change the tooltip, so they're still advertising something that is, at best, misleading.
2. The phrase "gain access to" is still completely meaningless, because buying the DLC still doesn't afford any sort of access players don't already have without it.

Acrolas wrote: »

It was spun off into its own thing most likely to let werewolf players outright purchase the housing for its persistent werewolf form rather than forcing them into content where they have to kill werewolves.

There are more alternatives than "completely bar players without the DLC from buying the house", which I don't think was ever the intention. My best guess remains that it was originally planned to be in the vein of Hakkvild's, where DLC owners could unlock the ability to buy the house with gold by getting a difficult achievement tied to the content, but everyone had the ability to buy it with crowns regardless of whether or not they had the DLC.

Personally I'm just kind of worried about the direction ZOS is going with its advertising. I'm also very uncomfortable with them selling vamp/WW cures in the Crown Store without mentioning that they can be bought in-game for gold. I feel like that's misleading and predatory advertising that preys upon new players who may not know better, and I would like to discourage them from continuing down that path.

SydneyGrey

I had never heard that it was supposed to be included with Wolfhunter, so perhaps it was something they'd planned originally, then changed their plans for it, as someone else said.

Danikat

SydneyGrey wrote: »

I had never heard that it was supposed to be included with Wolfhunter, so perhaps it was something they'd planned originally, then changed their plans for it, as someone else said.

If that's the case then they need to change the text on the crown store entry for Wolfhunter so it doesn't claim that you get the house as part of the DLC.

pocketdefender

ZOS, I just want an answer on what "gain access to" means for Wolfhunter owners. What did you guys intend for it to mean?

Numerikuu

Hardly surprised. This isn't the first time they've done this with crown store item descriptions.

johnbonne

I'm not knowledgeable enough about ZOS' track record to say if this is an oversight or if it's intended to be wishy-washy, and as the old phrase goes, "do not attribute to malice which could just as easily be attributed to incompetence". But either way, legal or no, it's still a bad move and I would hope the stink you/we've raised will help get some clarification. Also, the more widespread the clarification (as in seeing this in-game, be it small print or highlighted in bold, or a News section post), the better. I'd rather not come from World of Warcraft's woeful communication only to see ESO has the same problem.

If there isn't any clarification I'd recommend contacting the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to give it a look in. It doesn't require many people talking about the same issue for them to investigate. Say what you will about them or my suggestion to contact them, but it's just an idea. ^^

Andele

Acrolas wrote: »

Reddit, where everybody is an expert but nobody has ever bothered reading the TOS.

You've already agreed that any Service or Content can be added, changed, or discontinued without notice to you and for no specific or explicit reason.

Video games dont have contracts or TOS, what they do have are word salads which are not legally binding or request the impossible.

Promotional information about the sale of something that is not true however is recognized as various levels of scummy to illegal depending on location (however this was probably just oversight between design crew and crown store peeps that put it as its own item in the end).

pocketdefender

johnbonne wrote: »

I'm not knowledgeable enough about ZOS' track record to say if this is an oversight or if it's intended to be wishy-washy, and as the old phrase goes, "do not attribute to malice which could just as easily be attributed to incompetence". But either way, legal or no, it's still a bad move and I would hope the stink you/we've raised will help get some clarification. Also, the more widespread the clarification (as in seeing this in-game, be it small print or highlighted in bold, or a News section post), the better. I'd rather not come from World of Warcraft's woeful communication only to see ESO has the same problem.

If there isn't any clarification I'd recommend contacting the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to give it a look in. It doesn't require many people talking about the same issue for them to investigate. Say what you will about them or my suggestion to contact them, but it's just an idea. ^^

I'll look into that, thanks. Technically consumers are buying the content with fake money (crowns), though, and I'm not sure the law recognizes predatory behavior with that, even if it's currency that can only be purchased with real-world money and therefore has real-world value. I come from a family of lawyers, so I might ask one of them for advice.

Regardless, @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom I'm going to keep at this till I get a satisfactory answer. And no, just removing the claim from the store and playing dumb won't be good enough, I mean an actual explanation.

ak_pvp

The thread is in crownstore and ESO+ purgatory. If its in general more chance of people seeing it, but it could just fade away like the mystery boxes.

pocketdefender

ak_pvp wrote: »

The thread is in crownstore and ESO+ purgatory. If its in general more chance of people seeing it, but it could just fade away like the mystery boxes.

That's true, but I feel like it would be really rude of me to post my own topic again onto a different subforum. If someone else wants to, though, go for it!

yodased

My opinion is this is quite clear to understand.

Access to does not mean free or not free; nor ensures you get anything.

It is similar to alcohol. When you are 20, you do not have, at least legally, acess to alcohol.

After a period of time you turn 21 and now have access to alcohol. This doesnt mean anyone owes you alcohol or you deserve it because the word access can be ambigious.

Read it again, nowhere does it say you get anything, you simply have access to it, while people who purchase the dlc and or eso+ do.

Acrolas

Andele wrote: »

Video games dont have contracts or TOS, what they do have are word salads

The word you're looking for is clickwrap, which differs from a browsewrap in that a clickwrap gives you both a clear notice of the terms and an opportunity to review them prior to agreeing.

Browsewraps are more of an internal knowledge, not particularly fair to users and not particularly enforceable.
But there is precedent of clickwraps being evaluated as binding contracts, the most prominent probably being Feldman v Google.

pocketdefender

yodased wrote: »

My opinion is this is quite clear to understand.

Access to does not mean free or not free; nor ensures you get anything.

It is similar to alcohol. When you are 20, you do not have, at least legally, acess to alcohol.

After a period of time you turn 21 and now have access to alcohol. This doesnt mean anyone owes you alcohol or you deserve it because the word access can be ambigious.

Read it again, nowhere does it say you get anything, you simply have access to it, while people who purchase the dlc and or eso+ do.

The problem is, it says that buy purchasing Wolfhunter, you gain access to it. But Wolfhunter owners have the exact same access to the Glade as non-Wolfhunter owners. No sort of access to Hunter's Glade is granted by purchasing Wolfhunter, even though it's advertised as a perk of the DLC. DLC owners and non-owners have access to the same location with the same setup at the same price for the same amount of time. So then what, pray tell, is the "access" Wolfhunter owners paid to gain?

I'm getting a little tired of explaining this over and over when I dedicated the vast majority of my original post to it and what situations are still possible that would make the claim true. I definitely don't expect it to be free and I am not looking for that at all.

arkansas_ESO

yodased wrote: »

My opinion is this is quite clear to understand.

Access to does not mean free or not free; nor ensures you get anything.

It is similar to alcohol. When you are 20, you do not have, at least legally, acess to alcohol.

After a period of time you turn 21 and now have access to alcohol. This doesnt mean anyone owes you alcohol or you deserve it because the word access can be ambigious.

Read it again, nowhere does it say you get anything, you simply have access to it, while people who purchase the dlc and or eso+ do.

It says "Gain access to" which would imply that purchase of the Hunter's Glade was exclusive to those that own the Wolfhunter DLC; the OP has shown that isn't the case as others without the DLC were still able to purchase it. The tooltip is misleading.

Andele

Acrolas wrote: »

The word you're looking for is clickwrap, which differs from a browsewrap in that a clickwrap gives you both a clear notice of the terms and an opportunity to review them prior to agreeing.

Browsewraps are more of an internal knowledge, not particularly fair to users and not particularly enforceable.
But there is precedent of clickwraps being evaluated as binding contracts, the most prominent probably being Feldman v Google.

True, but any mish mash of words that is either: telling you that by accepting one party is immune to the law/you must ignore stuff like trade acts that protect both the seller and consumer, cannot be negotiated, allows one party but not the other exclusive rights, cause one party but not the other to suffer damages or be penalized due to breaching or ending it, allows one party but not the other to at will alter the terms and benefits, in case of monetary transactions happens AFTER the money changed hands, does not have a identifying signature and last but most important, has no specified time periods for duration/renewal requirement, etc... flat out doesnt qualify the requirements of a binding contract.


As for clickwrap id love to see a court case where one party just debugger/edited it out.

code65536

The reminds me of the Reach dungeons. The original text referred to earning the Bloodforged skin, but they made that a Crown exclusive instead of an achievement reward.

In that case, though, people noticed the discrepancy early during the PTS, made a stink about it, and ZOS fixed the wording.

I'm pretty sure that they originally intended to reward people with a gold purchase if they beat the dungeons, like what they did with the HotR house, but changed their mind pretty early on (there was no gold option even during the first week of PTS) and just forgot to update every last bit of text. And because almost nobody pays attention to that text, nobody noticed or reported it until now.

Girl_Number8

yodased wrote: »

My opinion is this is quite clear to understand.

Access to does not mean free or not free; nor ensures you get anything.

It is similar to alcohol. When you are 20, you do not have, at least legally, acess to alcohol.

After a period of time you turn 21 and now have access to alcohol. This doesnt mean anyone owes you alcohol or you deserve it because the word access can be ambigious.

Read it again, nowhere does it say you get anything, you simply have access to it, while people who purchase the dlc and or eso+ do.

You can drink alcohol legally before 21. You didn't state what country you would be drinking in, just like they didn't state you will have access to buy. They have been misleading on many of their advertisements but they did give us a free house, and to assume that this the new home would be for free is just sort of naive.

The other issue of the cure being sold for crowns, when it is such a small amount of gold in-game is rather disturbing news. It really does seem to take advantage of new players, or players that are not aware of the fact that you can get cured in game for gold.

At the very least they should adjust the wording in the advertisement.

Feanor

The real fun thing is it costs 8,000+ Crowns for the only advantage of being a wolf permanently.

Jake1576

Zos apparently thought it would be a great idea to sell it separately to make money off of it doesn't surprise me they changed their minds if it was suppose to be an unlockable house maybe they changed their minds about it being unlockable because they was already giving the pshijic Villa away around the same time hunters Glade was suppose to come out and they couldn't sell the Villa for a good price so they decided to sell hunters Glade for cash to make up for them giving us the Villa for free

Reistr_the_Unbroken

Feanor wrote: »

The real fun thing is it costs 8,000+ Crowns for the only advantage of being a wolf permanently.

8,000+ crowns just for a small tower and an open field?

Jayne_Doe

I agree that the tooltip text needs to be updated. I'm pretty sure it was a complete oversight, as Hunter's Glade was NEVER mentioned in any PTS patch notes that it would be a reward like Hakkvild's. I specifically remember looking for mention of this, but it was never mentioned in the patch notes. And it certainly wasn't mentioned in the live patch notes.

Hence, I believe it was a decision made quite a while ago, but nobody at ZOS really noticed the tooltip in order to fix it. It should be fixed. Of course, you could also interpret it as the DLC gives you access to the Hunter's Glade, which is a realm of Oblivion, which also happens to be a housing location. Of course, that interpretation is convoluted and presumably not at all what they meant, but players who play the DLC content do enter Hunter's Glade, do they not? (I'm making an assumption here, as I don't do dungeons.)

Also, I'm not at all surprised by the price of Hunter's Glade. I don't think it has anything to do with a new direction of reducing the price on CS homes in order to sell furnishing packs. A lot of people seem to forget that Tel Galen was also 8,000/10,000 crowns. Hunter's Glade really isn't much bigger than the size of Tel Galen. Actually, I was surprised with how small the glade really is, and I think the price point reflects that.

code65536

Jayne_Doe wrote: »

Of course, you could also interpret it as the DLC gives you access to the Hunter's Glade, which is a realm of Oblivion, which also happens to be a housing location. Of course, that interpretation is convoluted and presumably not at all what they meant, but players who play the DLC content do enter Hunter's Glade, do they not? (I'm making an assumption here, as I don't do dungeons.)

Hircine's realm is the Hunting Grounds. The March of Sacrifices (the dungeon) is a part of the Hunting Grounds, and likewise, the Hunter's Glade (the house) is another, different part of the Hunting Grounds. Now, if the tooltip said that the DLC gave you access to the Hunting Grounds, then, sure, it would be technically correct. But the actual text, "Housing locations, including the weird Hunter's Glade", is most certainly incorrect and in need of correction, as you don't need the DLC to buy the house, nor does the DLC does not grant access to the house.