BlueIllyrian wrote: »What makes you think that increased revenues for ZOS equal more content for players?
grimjim398 wrote: »Another poll where the bias of the pollster is very clear. Makes no difference. I won't play the game under this model, no matter how reasonable people claim this change is. I came to this game because I like the subscription model; if I want B2P or F2P there are a lot of other options.
BlueIllyrian wrote: »What makes you think that increased revenues for ZOS equal more content for players?
Because more investment = more content. That's the way it's been for every product out there.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll be working night and day making creating engaging and innovative content from here on out. They definitely won't have the entire dev team working exclusively on mounts, pets, and costumes that they can create in a few hours and sell for $20 each. Why would they ever do that? Who likes making a quick buck for minimal investment?
Because pissing off your customers and not giving them anything for their money doesn't seem like a very good method of obtaining long term revenue.BlueIllyrian wrote: »What makes you think that increased revenues for ZOS equal more content for players?
Because pissing off your customers and not giving them anything for their money doesn't seem like a very good method of obtaining long term revenue.BlueIllyrian wrote: »What makes you think that increased revenues for ZOS equal more content for players?
If they just wanted people to hit it and quit it they would have made a single player game.
BlueIllyrian wrote: »Wrong, as STO amply showed, pissed off customers leave and new one come to try F2P ...
BlueIllyrian wrote: »What makes you think that increased revenues for ZOS equal more content for players?
Because more investment = more content. That's the way it's been for every product out there.