Would you be less p***** off if...

mamericus · January 2015

Hey guys! This thread is meant ONLY to satisfy my own curiosity about a hypothetical scenario for people who, like me, are pretty upset about the recent B2P/F2P/CASH SHOP announcement. If you do not empathise or do not care about this particular subject, please omit your vote so that you do not taint the results. That being said, everyone is welcome to comment as these are the forums and that is what forums are for. As far as trolls go, I know you cannot be reasoned with, so troll away. Thanks!

IF rather than that awkwardly painful twitch livestream in which Matt Firor and Paul Sage seemed to have to pretend that they were on board with this all along and Pete Hines seemingly had to come down from Bethesda to coach them through the show, where I thought I could see Paul Sage trying to hide a rather displeased expression (please correct me if I'm wrong @ZoS_PaulSage‌), OR that deceitfully short, ingeniously worded message on the launcher that felt like a punch to the gut and made it seem as if this B2P change was the release of some sort of new expansion and carefully avoided to use the words "B2P" or "in-game store" or any additional costs to the game without so much as sending subscribers a heads up email first,

IF INSTEAD Matt Firor or Paul Sage or anyone on the Bethesda or ZoS staff would have come out on the forums or livestream or website or reddit and said something loosely along the lines of "Hey guys, here's this new direction we are taking, we are going to release all these cool new things but we are changing the model because we had to; we are sorry that a lot of our current subscribers may not be thrilled about this, we know it sucks for some of you, but we absolutely had to do this and we hope for your understanding/continued support and you have our promise we will try and make it up to you as best we can. For those of you looking forward to these changes, we are thrilled to have you onboard and ..."

WOULD that sort of message have made you less upset/disappointed/outraged/sad (or any other uneasy feeling you are having)?

mamericus · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

Here's that message by the way, if you need a refresher

LtCrunch · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

The stream was definitely painfully awkward due to having Pete Hines there, it's like having a parental supervisor at a party when you're a teenager. If I'm pissed at anyone it's Microsoft for refusing to allow ESO subscribers to bypass XBL like Sony promised with PS+ and Bethsda(the publisher) for bending over and taking it from MS.

I think the game would still be 100% subscription based if MS agreed to let ESO subscribers bypass XBL costs or Bethesda would have given MS a big "[snip] you" and refuse to release on Xbone if MS didn't agree to that. Of course that never would have happened, so this is what we get. I'm not upset, I'm just kinda disappointed considering how good of a place the game is in at the moment.

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Cursing & Profanity]

starkerealm · January 2015

mamericus wrote: »

IF rather than that awkwardly painful twitch livestream in which Matt Firor and Paul Sage seemed to have to pretend that they were on board with this all along and Pete Hines seemingly had to come down from Bethesda to coach them through the show, where I thought I could see Paul Sage trying to hide a rather displeased expression (please correct me if I'm wrong @ZoS_PaulSage‌), OR that deceitfully short, ingeniously worded message on the launcher that felt like a punch to the gut and made it seem as if this B2P change was the release of some sort of new expansion and carefully avoided to use the words "B2P" or "in-game store" or any additional costs to the game without so much as sending subscribers a heads up email first,

That is reading a lot into that livestream.

Also... sometimes, when you're writing a paragraph, you might want to use a period or two, to break up the sentence, so it isn't all one endless line of text without an end in sight, like this.

You might want to occasionally end your paragraphs with periods too, for that matter.

Destai · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

Yeah, all they had to do was be honest about it. There were some early hints that this was always on their mind, but they should have been honest about what was driving it. I'm happy it's b2p, I'm not happy that this simmering for a while and went unspoken. It's perfectly acceptable to say, "This business need creates the need for this change, let's work together to make sure it's still a good deal.". They would have saved so much more face than trying to mask it and repackage it. I would like to think that most customers could accept the market can change the business model and that honest communication would be inoffensive.

kimboh · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

I'm not PO'd at all but, yes, I would have preferred a more mature and less patronising approach to the announcement.
It was pretty cringe worthy.

starkerealm · January 2015

Brandalf wrote: »

The stream was definitely painfully awkward due to having Pete Hines there, it's like having a parental supervisor at a party when you're a teenager. If I'm pissed at anyone it's Microsoft for refusing to allow ESO subscribers to bypass XBL like Sony promised with PS+ and Bethsda(the publisher) for bending over and taking it from MS.

Yeah, that's where I'm at.

Brandalf wrote: »

I think the game would still be 100% subscription based if MS agreed to let ESO subscribers bypass XBL costs or Bethesda would have given MS a big "f*ck you" and refuse to release on Xbone if MS didn't agree to that. Of course that never would have happened, so this is what we get. I'm not upset, I'm just kinda disappointed considering how good of a place the game is in at the moment.

I get how they ended up in this situation though. They couldn't afford to ignore the XBone... and Microsoft was, reportedly, demanding a piece of the subs above and beyond their live sub. Still, sad.

BBSooner · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

Sure. But it is what it is.

mamericus · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

starkerealm wrote: »

That is reading a lot into that livestream.

Also... sometimes, when you're writing a paragraph, you might want to use a period or two, to break up the sentence, so it isn't all one endless line of text without an end in sight, like this.

You might want to occasionally end your paragraphs with periods too, for that matter.

I like to analyse things meticulously, whether my conclusions are correct or not, and I always appreciate rectifications.

As far as my grammar goes, I am not a native English speaker, so again, I thank you for your pointers.

Samadhi · January 2015

mamericus wrote: »

Here's that message by the way, if you need a refresher

Had never seen this pop up before, but find it pretty hilarious that it is worded to avoid any mention of free to play or buy to play, while instead making it sound like players are simply receiving additional features with no other changes.
Good way to "inform" the portion of the playerbase that is not normally inclined to check the website for updates -- this way they are not inclined to get upset until significantly later on; break up the rage on the forums to more manageable amounts. Quality community management.

starkerealm · January 2015

Samadhi wrote: »

mamericus wrote: »

Here's that message by the way, if you need a refresher

Had never seen this pop up before, but find it pretty hilarious that it is worded to avoid any mention of free to play or buy to play, while instead making it sound like players are simply receiving additional features with no other changes.
Good way to "inform" the portion of the playerbase that is not normally inclined to check the website for updates -- this way they are not inclined to get upset until significantly later on; break up the rage on the forums to more manageable amounts. Quality community management.

Yeah, it started showing up on the launcher about an hour after the live stream wrapped.

Psychobunni · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

Some transparency, a little honesty would have gone a long way.

They are going to do whatever is best for their bottom line, most businesses do and most people take that as a given. But they still choose how they come across to their customers.

Maybe there were a million teenage boys or foreigners that can't sub, wanting to play for free and screaming about it on FB. But there was also a solid base of people who waited and waited for this game, stayed sub'ed from pre-launch, put up with the bugs, the changes, the lags, w/e....and were still here, still supporting this game and quite vocally against this. Some reasoning beyond "we listened to our community" would have been nice.

Korah_Eaglecry · January 2015

Poll does not have the option that I would respond with. And that is Im not mad and I dont think they needed to do anything different in the way they approached this.

This is the reality of the gaming industry. It can be quite cut-throat and almost always means people go back on their word or convictions to stay in business. Unfortunately for Zenimax they pushed a product out the door that many in the Gaming Community felt was underwhelming (not a surprise as a nostalgic memory of WoW has convinced many MMO players that WoW is the pinnacle of MMOs because they fail to remember how empty and lackluster WoWs first year was) and not worth a sub.

Had this game launched in the same year, or near to the launch of WoW things may have been different for this game. Unfortunately the market has shifted and many, regardless of their gaming background, believe MMOs should be F2P/B2P. Some people cant be reasoned with or convinced of the truths that are F2P. That content is even slower under the F2P/B2P model and that almost always the Cash Shop becomes the focus (Not saying that will happen here, I think Zenimax deserves a shot at it before we make up our minds). These same people praising the F2P/B2P model will be the ones throwing a temper tantrum the moment Zenimax decides to get greedy. Its kind of hilarious to watch people get overly excited about a pay model with the word Free in it. That word seems to make people do all sorts of stupid things, including believing that things are actually free and that there isnt a stipulation there. Only to pour even more money into the game, sometimes upwards of hundreds of dollars a month, then they had under the sub model. And when these game companies pool their data on consumer/customer buying habits and tweak the game to milk the consumers more efficiently (not that they needed too, people seem to LOVE to pour money into a Free Game under the guise of 'helping it stay afloat') suddenly are shocked and horrified at the companies actions. As if they the consumer didnt have a part in the moral and ethical breakdown of the company.

Personally Im not a fan of F2P/B2P. Id much rather the game stay a Sub model. But I cant fault Zenimax for doing everything in their power to keep this game going and not find themselves under a mountain of debt. I dont hold it against them that they said they didnt want to go F2P/B2P ever and then turned around and did so. Its not as if they were in complete control of the sub pay model working out. Sub based pay models are completely dependent on the consumer/customer. Theres also the fact we have no clue if Microsoft or Sony or both had a part in this change. Its possible they didnt want to budge on the issue and forced Zenimaxs hand. Of course Zenimax wont come out and say anything if its true because they have a working relationship with Microsoft and Sony now.

I understand for some this was there first MMO and this is their first time experiencing a drastic change for a game like this. So theres going to be anger and misguided outbursts. But this is now the norm for the MMO Gaming Community. Any company making the choice to go with a sub post 2004 is wasting their time and effort. F2P/B2P is for the forseeable future the way MMOs will make their money. Its not okay, but unfortunately theres a horde of no brain MMO players out there that think they know better. And they dont.

starkerealm · January 2015

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

Poll does not have the option that I would respond with. And that is Im not mad and I dont think they needed to do anything different in the way they approached this.

Mamericus is conflating "anyone who doesn't agree with him" and "trolls." And, he's not above using straw man arguments to get there. $:\$

EDIT: Incidentally:

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

But I cant fault Zenimax for doing everything in their power to keep this game going and not find themselves under a mountain of debt.

That's not what this is about. I'll cite Brandalf instead of one of my posts for... reasons.

Brandalf wrote: »

I think the game would still be 100% subscription based if MS agreed to let ESO subscribers bypass XBL costs or Bethesda would have given MS a big "[snip] you" and refuse to release on Xbone if MS didn't agree to that. Of course that never would have happened, so this is what we get. I'm not upset, I'm just kinda disappointed considering how good of a place the game is in at the moment.

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Cursing & Profanity]

There's been bits of this floating around in business reports and games media on the subject for a couple months. Though, ZoS has never stepped forward and said, "yep, MS screwed us," for, rather obvious reasons.

mamericus · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

Poll does not have the option that I would respond with. And that is Im not mad and I dont think they needed to do anything different in the way they approached this.

This is the reality of the gaming industry. It can be quite cut-throat and almost always means people go back on their word or convictions to stay in business. Unfortunately for Zenimax they pushed a product out the door that many in the Gaming Community felt was underwhelming (not a surprise as a nostalgic memory of WoW has convinced many MMO players that WoW is the pinnacle of MMOs because they fail to remember how empty and lackluster WoWs first year was) and not worth a sub.

Had this game launched in the same year, or near to the launch of WoW things may have been different for this game. Unfortunately the market has shifted and many, regardless of their gaming background, believe MMOs should be F2P/B2P. Some people cant be reasoned with or convinced of the truths that are F2P. That content is even slower under the F2P/B2P model and that almost always the Cash Shop becomes the focus (Not saying that will happen here, I think Zenimax deserves a shot at it before we make up our minds). These same people praising the F2P/B2P model will be the ones throwing a temper tantrum the moment Zenimax decides to get greedy. Its kind of hilarious to watch people get overly excited about a pay model with the word Free in it. That word seems to make people do all sorts of stupid things, including believing that things are actually free and that there isnt a stipulation there. Only to pour even more money into the game, sometimes upwards of hundreds of dollars a month, then they had under the sub model. And when these game companies pool their data on consumer/customer buying habits and tweak the game to milk the consumers more efficiently (not that they needed too, people seem to LOVE to pour money into a Free Game under the guise of 'helping it stay afloat') suddenly are shocked and horrified at the companies actions. As if they the consumer didnt have a part in the moral and ethical breakdown of the company.

Personally Im not a fan of F2P/B2P. Id much rather the game stay a Sub model. But I cant fault Zenimax for doing everything in their power to keep this game going and not find themselves under a mountain of debt. I dont hold it against them that they said they didnt want to go F2P/B2P ever and then turned around and did so. Its not as if they were in complete control of the sub pay model working out. Sub based pay models are completely dependent on the consumer/customer. Theres also the fact we have no clue if Microsoft or Sony or both had a part in this change. Its possible they didnt want to budge on the issue and forced Zenimaxs hand. Of course Zenimax wont come out and say anything if its true because they have a working relationship with Microsoft and Sony now.

I understand for some this was there first MMO and this is their first time experiencing a drastic change for a game like this. So theres going to be anger and misguided outbursts. But this is now the norm for the MMO Gaming Community. Any company making the choice to go with a sub post 2004 is wasting their time and effort. F2P/B2P is for the forseeable future the way MMOs will make their money. Its not okay, but unfortunately theres a horde of no brain MMO players out there that think they know better. And they dont.

Please reread intro to thread. Thank you for your thoughts.

Vis · January 2015

No, I'd still be pretty mad.

They would have had to follow their apology with:

"We understand not all of you will be on-board with these changes. Or many of you want to take a "wait and see approach." For those who cancel their subscriptions from now until release of ESOU, we will refund your subscription fee at a pro-rate (relative to the remaining days you have left on the subscription). We do so in good faith, and in our belief you will re-subscribe once you have seen these changes."

Instead we got:

"You're going to love this! We are so super sure you will love this! No, we will not refund you, because we are positive you will not come back ... er, I mean ... you will love this!"

mamericus · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

starkerealm wrote: »

Mamericus is conflating "anyone who doesn't agree with him" and "trolls." And, he's not above using straw man arguments to get there. $:\$

Hardly. And the reason I do not give arguments in the poll is, as stated clearly in the intro, I made this thread specifically addressing the people on these forums that do agree with me.

EDIT: fixed quote.

b92303008rwb17_ESO · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

I guess, in short, we need nothing more than a /pat. Is it really that hard

mamericus · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

b92303008rwb17_ESO wrote: »

I guess, in short, we need nothing more than a /pat. Is it really that hard

That or a simple "sorry" will do.

Miszou · January 2015

Honestly, I really don't care about the payment model (blatant pay-2-win aside).

It makes no difference to me whether I pay a subscription, or buy cosmetics and swag from the cash shop.

If a game is good, I'll play it. If it isn't, I'll move on. It's really that simple.

b92303008rwb17_ESO · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

Miszou wrote: »

Honestly, I really don't care about the payment model (blatant pay-2-win aside).

It makes no difference to me whether I pay a subscription, or buy cosmetics and swag from the cash shop.

If a game is good, I'll play it. If it isn't, I'll move on. It's really that simple.

Thing is, the payment model has a lot to do with if there is going to be constantly new and good game content. It does makes a difference and ZOS failed to explain the relations.

Vizier · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

Things are what they are and a business model is going to do what it has to do to survive...BUT... These cats have been hiding this for the longest time AND spoke to US about it ENSURING us ESO wasn't moving in this direction. The monumental ego it must take to show such a lack of respect to the fan base that bent over backwards to support this game AND paid hundreds of dollars in the process subbing is appalling. It says all I need to know about ZOS/ESO leadership. They get no loyalty points from me. Once there's an equal or better option for me to spend my time I'll unsub and move on. There will be no more leeway because it's a TES title or the devs said "they are going to make it better."

Miszou · January 2015

b92303008rwb17_ESO wrote: »

Miszou wrote: »

Honestly, I really don't care about the payment model (blatant pay-2-win aside).

It makes no difference to me whether I pay a subscription, or buy cosmetics and swag from the cash shop.

If a game is good, I'll play it. If it isn't, I'll move on. It's really that simple.

Thing is, the payment model has a lot to do with if there is going to be constantly new and good game content. It does makes a difference and ZOS failed to explain the relations.

That seems more like speculation than anything else. Plenty of F2P games have pushed out updates. In fact, I can't think of one that hasn't...

Korah_Eaglecry · January 2015

starkerealm wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

Poll does not have the option that I would respond with. And that is Im not mad and I dont think they needed to do anything different in the way they approached this.

Mamericus is conflating "anyone who doesn't agree with him" and "trolls." And, he's not above using straw man arguments to get there. $:\$

EDIT: Incidentally:

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

But I cant fault Zenimax for doing everything in their power to keep this game going and not find themselves under a mountain of debt.

That's not what this is about. I'll cite Brandalf instead of one of my posts for... reasons.

Brandalf wrote: »

I think the game would still be 100% subscription based if MS agreed to let ESO subscribers bypass XBL costs or Bethesda would have given MS a big "[snip] you" and refuse to release on Xbone if MS didn't agree to that. Of course that never would have happened, so this is what we get. I'm not upset, I'm just kinda disappointed considering how good of a place the game is in at the moment.

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Cursing & Profanity]

There's been bits of this floating around in business reports and games media on the subject for a couple months. Though, ZoS has never stepped forward and said, "yep, MS screwed us," for, rather obvious reasons.

Had you read down farther. Youd have noticed I actually mentioned the possibility that MS or Sony had a huge part in the choice to go B2P.

mamericus wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

snip

Please reread intro to thread. Thank you for your thoughts.

I read it the first time. Did not require a second.

Nocturnalis · January 2015

Nothing they could have said or done would make this any better.

mamericus wrote: »

IF INSTEAD Matt Firor or Paul Sage or anyone on the Bethesda or ZoS staff would have come out on the forums or livestream or website or reddit and said something loosely along the lines of "Hey guys, here's this new direction we are taking, we are going to release all these cool new things but we are changing the model because we had to; we are sorry that a lot of our current subscribers may not be thrilled about this, we know it sucks for some of you, but we absolutely had to do this and we hope for your understanding/continued support and you have our promise we will try and make it up to you as best we can. For those of you looking forward to these changes, we are thrilled to have you onboard and ..."

WOULD that sort of message have made you less upset/disappointed/outraged/sad (or any other uneasy feeling you are having)?

I don't think it would made a big difference if they where apologetic about the b2p change. It might soothe/ satisfy a small amount of people. But on the other hand an apology would be equally picked apart, or simply called "just another lie".

I think from here on out ZOS's actions are much more important. What they deliver/ do with the cash shop is more important than saying they are sorry or what they may assure. Because, let's be honest, ZOS haven't been best with their communication.

So if the DLC is great and worth the money I will stay, that is valuable to me than ZOS employees running around with their tail between their legs.

The proof is in the pudding.

grimjim398 · January 2015

Nothing they could have said or done would make this any better.

ZOS didn't just choose to begin with a subscription model, they sang hymns about it and used it to position themselves as the second coming of MMOs. So no, there's nothing they could have done that would make my reaction any different. A bit of honesty now might give them more credibility moving forward, but when you read what they themselves said about the subscription model, there's nothing to feel for this current rhetoric except contempt.

Kraven · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

Vizier wrote: »

These cats have been hiding this for the longest time AND spoke to US about it ENSURING us ESO wasn't moving in this direction. The monumental ego it must take to show such a lack of respect to the fan base that bent over backwards to support this game AND paid hundreds of dollars in the process subbing is appalling. It says all I need to know about ZOS/ESO leadership. They get no loyalty points from me.

This. Since before Christmas the story was "In an effort to be more open with out players." That canned response crap was all over. You think this decision was made this month? When Guar mount was announced when? Sep. or Oct.? It's so hard to code a mount that it took this long to be one of the very first items on the cash shop? Including several other mounts.

So, this was known last year. They're a *** company with *** practices who've ruined their own name as a company on their very first game. If this studio can't make any other titles because they've completely ruined their own name, how long before ESO = CoH? At least paragon had a core fan base that supported them. While ZOS keeps preventing itself from having a similar fan base due to poor business decisions.

Plantagenet · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

I am only mad because they purposefully lied and have been willfully dishonest since they made the decision. It has taken A LOT of Dev time to move this change forward, which means months of work, in the mean time they have lied to their customers.

Im not sure what planet they live on that says that lying to your customers is a good idea.

They should have come out, said hey we are changing directions and here is why.

Instead they act like its some great thing to be happy about and to celebrate the fact that they have lied to our face for at least 6 months.

I hate being lied to, I hate dishonest companies.

ZOS might as well never talk to their players again, who knows if what they are saying is the truth anymore.

Plantagenet · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

I'll keep playing for now, but I am no longer a 'fan' nor will I recommend this game or any other ZOS game to anyone I know.

Dishonesty isn't a business tactic I wish to promote in the industry.

Kaizxen · January 2015

Yes, that would have been more sensible.

Please also add a toggle to permanently remove that pop-up in the launcher. I'd really rather not have to see it every time I log in between now and March. Reading it once was enough.

starkerealm · January 2015

Miszou wrote: »

b92303008rwb17_ESO wrote: »

Miszou wrote: »

Honestly, I really don't care about the payment model (blatant pay-2-win aside).

It makes no difference to me whether I pay a subscription, or buy cosmetics and swag from the cash shop.

If a game is good, I'll play it. If it isn't, I'll move on. It's really that simple.

Thing is, the payment model has a lot to do with if there is going to be constantly new and good game content. It does makes a difference and ZOS failed to explain the relations.

That seems more like speculation than anything else. Plenty of F2P games have pushed out updates. In fact, I can't think of one that hasn't...

Champions Online has had some long ass content droughts, and Secret World spent a long time pretending last year's seasonal events constituted new content.

The Elder Scrolls Online

Would you be less p***** off if...

Would you be less p***** off if... 121 votes