If it shortcuts some time, it can get considered. If it makes you look cool, it will get considered!

Mortuum · January 2015

Carina wrote: »

Sindala wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Having it be considered is a long way from having it in the store. Although they very clearly are including an XP boost as part of the ESO Plus membership.

But they flat-out said that they won't put actual gear on the store. So please stop with the sky falling and all that.

They "Flat out" said the game would never go F2P........

F2P is different from B2P... The game is not going F2P. They kept their word.

So naive that it is actually cute

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Razzak wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Aside from the legal matter about false advertising and consumer rights, there is a core notion you all seem to forget:

The subscription fee for MMOs is mainly for future development.

It always was the deal for every MMO before, and especially ESO since that is what they advertised. Maintenance barely costs a few cents per player, however devs, artists and designers cost a lot. The tacit contract is that the game company anounces its plans and you chose to subscribe to see those plans realised. What already exists is paid by the box price when you first join.

A subscriber isn't technicaly an investor, but is paying in order to see the game improved and increase the value proposition of its subscription.

I don't know why this is such a tough concept to grasp.

My subscription fee may be used for anything ZO likes, but all I paid it for was to have access to the servers. That is the beginning and end of my contract with ZO. You don't pay a magazine subscription in order to have influence over what kind of articles they write.

@Sylvyr‌
You're spouting management philosophy, but it has no bearing on reality. While a company may want to view their customers as stakeholders, that doesn't change the fact that customers aren't stakeholders in said company. People who buy products on the Google Play Store don't actually have any financial stake in the company, and as such, they have no say over how Google conducts business.

You can always have a broader philosophy that treats your customers as shareholders in the company, but the reality is that you wouldn't include them in a board/shareholders meeting, because you know full well that they aren't actually investors.

Investment is not only measured in money. Anyone saying that subscribers are not investers, is only right as long she/he is talking about a currency value of such investment. We are not shareholders or anything similar that can be expressed in a numerical value and thus many of you have a valid point when trying to bring that point across.

What you are forgeting is that MMO subscription service is unlike almost any other service. Meaning, we can't make a proper comparisons or analogies with just about any type of service out there.
And the key point of that is the core reason of investment in a MMO. It's the reason that is not taught in business schools, so no matter how many degrees one might have, it's not only enough that you have an MBA in economy, stock exchange or anything related to that. One first class MBA is more likely to be the worst person to evaluate the real core of MMO investment.

Care.

We and devs invest in care. Simple as that.
We pay our subs not so we could invest in their salaries, new hardware, their time or anything related to that. We pay our subs because we are investing into their care. Their care for us and by that for their game. Their care for the future of their own game and the possibility to make a game that will have long and prosperous future. A future where players are the biggest defendants of this game not only so they could play longer, but because they believe in what "their" game represents.
We are investing our sub so we and devs together could make a game that transcends a mere few hours of play time/ week. Is it impossible to have a game that is more than numbers on the screen? To me, it's not. But in order to achieve that, there has to be care, passion. The real ones, not just PR equivalents with proper wording and punctuations.
Devs invest their time, knowledge and all they are as professionals into developing our care. Our care for the game, so we would be playing it for a larger purpose than to spend few hours playing ... something, anything. They invest what they know, so our care of the game would be so great that we would become their biggest PR practitioners. Our care and passion for their game it's biggest driving force.

It's obvious you and others that think like you, do have care and passion for playing. If it was not so, you would not be spending so much time "playing" the forum, like I and the rest like me, do.
But, do you have this care and passion only for playing a game, or is it reserved only, or at least largely, for playing the game, ESO?
My care and passion in the past year, has been focused solely into ESO. That's why I am so opposed to the way devs have handled the game and us. Our care.

Care is very nice, but it's not an actual investment in the company, and you do not have a say in the business practices of the company. Want a say? Invest money.

Sylvyr · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Aside from the legal matter about false advertising and consumer rights, there is a core notion you all seem to forget:

The subscription fee for MMOs is mainly for future development.

It always was the deal for every MMO before, and especially ESO since that is what they advertised. Maintenance barely costs a few cents per player, however devs, artists and designers cost a lot. The tacit contract is that the game company anounces its plans and you chose to subscribe to see those plans realised. What already exists is paid by the box price when you first join.

A subscriber isn't technicaly an investor, but is paying in order to see the game improved and increase the value proposition of its subscription.

I don't know why this is such a tough concept to grasp.

My subscription fee may be used for anything ZO likes, but all I paid it for was to have access to the servers. That is the beginning and end of my contract with ZO. You don't pay a magazine subscription in order to have influence over what kind of articles they write.

@Sylvyr‌
You're spouting management philosophy, but it has no bearing on reality. While a company may want to view their customers as stakeholders, that doesn't change the fact that customers aren't stakeholders in said company. People who buy products on the Google Play Store don't actually have any financial stake in the company, and as such, they have no say over how Google conducts business.

You can always have a broader philosophy that treats your customers as shareholders in the company, but the reality is that you wouldn't include them in a board/shareholders meeting, because you know full well that they aren't actually investors.

Eh Wot?

Corporate Stakeholder

Organisation Stakeholders

And tons more sources that may provide some clarification.

Some immediate corrections:
Customers are indeed stakeholders, this is reality and why it has so much widespread acknowledgement. I think you are getting really confused on what a stakeholder is.

A corporate stakeholder can affect or be affected by the actions of a business as a whole.

It is important to distinguish between a STAKEHOLDER and a SHAREHOLDER. They sound the same – but the difference is crucial!

Shareholders hold shares in the company – that is they own part of it.

Stakeholders have an interest in the company but do not own it (unless they are shareholders).

Often the aims and objectives of the stakeholders are not the same as shareholders and they come into conflict.

A company can choose to ignore customers as stakeholders, sure, some probably do. It isn't common to have customers come to board meetings although I have heard of companies that do that from time time. It's more common to bring in customer interests into corporate governance and decision making, usually in terms of satisfaction ratings of sorts, or other representative data or summaries. If a company decides to ONLY include financial investors or financial investor concerns in board meetings, they can, but they would only be seeing and acting on business decisions in a very narrow perspective, ignoring other crucial factors from all the other entities that have interest and interactions with the company (stakeholders).

You are correct about one thing. Customers don't generally have a DIRECT hand in making decisions in a private company's operations. In terms of your magazine subscription example, If you buy a Surfing magazine subscription you don't directly dictate what articles they put in, sure. But you are giving them money with some degree of expectation. You might expect that they don't reduce the size of the magazine in half, or start featuring cooking articles, or take out all the pictures, etc etc. And if they deviate from the customer's interest they can expect various impacts of that. A company can realize ANY STAKEHOLDERS interests before or after a decision or choose to ignore their interests altogether, in any case of what avenue is taken, there are REAL repercussions and impacts from making decisions that please or displease any stakeholder. Not just shareholders and financial backers.

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

Sylvyr wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Aside from the legal matter about false advertising and consumer rights, there is a core notion you all seem to forget:

The subscription fee for MMOs is mainly for future development.

It always was the deal for every MMO before, and especially ESO since that is what they advertised. Maintenance barely costs a few cents per player, however devs, artists and designers cost a lot. The tacit contract is that the game company anounces its plans and you chose to subscribe to see those plans realised. What already exists is paid by the box price when you first join.

A subscriber isn't technicaly an investor, but is paying in order to see the game improved and increase the value proposition of its subscription.

I don't know why this is such a tough concept to grasp.

My subscription fee may be used for anything ZO likes, but all I paid it for was to have access to the servers. That is the beginning and end of my contract with ZO. You don't pay a magazine subscription in order to have influence over what kind of articles they write.

@Sylvyr‌
You're spouting management philosophy, but it has no bearing on reality. While a company may want to view their customers as stakeholders, that doesn't change the fact that customers aren't stakeholders in said company. People who buy products on the Google Play Store don't actually have any financial stake in the company, and as such, they have no say over how Google conducts business.

You can always have a broader philosophy that treats your customers as shareholders in the company, but the reality is that you wouldn't include them in a board/shareholders meeting, because you know full well that they aren't actually investors.

Eh Wot?

Corporate Stakeholder

Organisation Stakeholders

And tons more sources that may provide some clarification.

Some immediate corrections:
Customers are indeed stakeholders, this is reality and why it has so much widespread acknowledgement. I think you are getting really confused on what a stakeholder is.

A corporate stakeholder can affect or be affected by the actions of a business as a whole.

It is important to distinguish between a STAKEHOLDER and a SHAREHOLDER. They sound the same – but the difference is crucial!

Shareholders hold shares in the company – that is they own part of it.

Stakeholders have an interest in the company but do not own it (unless they are shareholders).

Often the aims and objectives of the stakeholders are not the same as shareholders and they come into conflict.

A company can choose to ignore customers as stakeholders, sure, some probably do. It isn't common to have customers come to board meetings although I have heard of companies that do that from time time. It's more common to bring in customer interests into corporate governance and decision making, usually in terms of satisfaction ratings of sorts, or other representative data or summaries. If a company decides to ONLY include financial investors or financial investor concerns in board meetings, they can, but they would only be seeing and acting on business decisions in a very narrow perspective, ignoring other crucial factors from all the other entities that have interest and interactions with the company (stakeholders).

You are correct about one thing. Customers don't generally have a DIRECT hand in making decisions in a private company's operations. In terms of your magazine subscription example, If you buy a Surfing magazine subscription you don't directly dictate what articles they put in, sure. But you are giving them money with some degree of expectation. You might expect that they don't reduce the size of the magazine in half, or start featuring cooking articles, or take out all the pictures, etc etc. And if they deviate from the customer's interest they can expect various impacts of that. A company can realize ANY STAKEHOLDERS interests before or after a decision or choose to ignore their interests altogether, in any case of what avenue is taken, there are REAL repercussions and impacts from making decisions that please or displease any stakeholder. Not just shareholders and financial backers.

Of course there are repercussions: customers stop paying money for services/goods. But it doesn't mean that the customers have stopped investing in the business. Our money was never given with the expectation that we would have a direct influence on larger business plans for the company (or if it was, then the people giving the money were woefully misinformed about how capitalism works).

DDuke · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Sylvyr wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Aside from the legal matter about false advertising and consumer rights, there is a core notion you all seem to forget:

The subscription fee for MMOs is mainly for future development.

It always was the deal for every MMO before, and especially ESO since that is what they advertised. Maintenance barely costs a few cents per player, however devs, artists and designers cost a lot. The tacit contract is that the game company anounces its plans and you chose to subscribe to see those plans realised. What already exists is paid by the box price when you first join.

A subscriber isn't technicaly an investor, but is paying in order to see the game improved and increase the value proposition of its subscription.

I don't know why this is such a tough concept to grasp.

My subscription fee may be used for anything ZO likes, but all I paid it for was to have access to the servers. That is the beginning and end of my contract with ZO. You don't pay a magazine subscription in order to have influence over what kind of articles they write.

@Sylvyr‌
You're spouting management philosophy, but it has no bearing on reality. While a company may want to view their customers as stakeholders, that doesn't change the fact that customers aren't stakeholders in said company. People who buy products on the Google Play Store don't actually have any financial stake in the company, and as such, they have no say over how Google conducts business.

You can always have a broader philosophy that treats your customers as shareholders in the company, but the reality is that you wouldn't include them in a board/shareholders meeting, because you know full well that they aren't actually investors.

Eh Wot?

Corporate Stakeholder

Organisation Stakeholders

And tons more sources that may provide some clarification.

Some immediate corrections:
Customers are indeed stakeholders, this is reality and why it has so much widespread acknowledgement. I think you are getting really confused on what a stakeholder is.

A corporate stakeholder can affect or be affected by the actions of a business as a whole.

It is important to distinguish between a STAKEHOLDER and a SHAREHOLDER. They sound the same – but the difference is crucial!

Shareholders hold shares in the company – that is they own part of it.

Stakeholders have an interest in the company but do not own it (unless they are shareholders).

Often the aims and objectives of the stakeholders are not the same as shareholders and they come into conflict.

A company can choose to ignore customers as stakeholders, sure, some probably do. It isn't common to have customers come to board meetings although I have heard of companies that do that from time time. It's more common to bring in customer interests into corporate governance and decision making, usually in terms of satisfaction ratings of sorts, or other representative data or summaries. If a company decides to ONLY include financial investors or financial investor concerns in board meetings, they can, but they would only be seeing and acting on business decisions in a very narrow perspective, ignoring other crucial factors from all the other entities that have interest and interactions with the company (stakeholders).

You are correct about one thing. Customers don't generally have a DIRECT hand in making decisions in a private company's operations. In terms of your magazine subscription example, If you buy a Surfing magazine subscription you don't directly dictate what articles they put in, sure. But you are giving them money with some degree of expectation. You might expect that they don't reduce the size of the magazine in half, or start featuring cooking articles, or take out all the pictures, etc etc. And if they deviate from the customer's interest they can expect various impacts of that. A company can realize ANY STAKEHOLDERS interests before or after a decision or choose to ignore their interests altogether, in any case of what avenue is taken, there are REAL repercussions and impacts from making decisions that please or displease any stakeholder. Not just shareholders and financial backers.

Of course there are repercussions: customers stop paying money for services/goods. But it doesn't mean that the customers have stopped investing in the business. Our money was never given with the expectation that we would have a direct influence on larger business plans for the company (or if it was, then the people giving the money were woefully misinformed about how capitalism works).

A simple "I was wrong" would've been easier than that paragraph pinning dishonesty on "capitalism".

Just saying.

Sylvyr · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Sylvyr wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Aside from the legal matter about false advertising and consumer rights, there is a core notion you all seem to forget:

The subscription fee for MMOs is mainly for future development.

It always was the deal for every MMO before, and especially ESO since that is what they advertised. Maintenance barely costs a few cents per player, however devs, artists and designers cost a lot. The tacit contract is that the game company anounces its plans and you chose to subscribe to see those plans realised. What already exists is paid by the box price when you first join.

A subscriber isn't technicaly an investor, but is paying in order to see the game improved and increase the value proposition of its subscription.

I don't know why this is such a tough concept to grasp.

My subscription fee may be used for anything ZO likes, but all I paid it for was to have access to the servers. That is the beginning and end of my contract with ZO. You don't pay a magazine subscription in order to have influence over what kind of articles they write.

@Sylvyr‌
You're spouting management philosophy, but it has no bearing on reality. While a company may want to view their customers as stakeholders, that doesn't change the fact that customers aren't stakeholders in said company. People who buy products on the Google Play Store don't actually have any financial stake in the company, and as such, they have no say over how Google conducts business.

You can always have a broader philosophy that treats your customers as shareholders in the company, but the reality is that you wouldn't include them in a board/shareholders meeting, because you know full well that they aren't actually investors.

Eh Wot?

Corporate Stakeholder

Organisation Stakeholders

And tons more sources that may provide some clarification.

Some immediate corrections:
Customers are indeed stakeholders, this is reality and why it has so much widespread acknowledgement. I think you are getting really confused on what a stakeholder is.

A corporate stakeholder can affect or be affected by the actions of a business as a whole.

It is important to distinguish between a STAKEHOLDER and a SHAREHOLDER. They sound the same – but the difference is crucial!

Shareholders hold shares in the company – that is they own part of it.

Stakeholders have an interest in the company but do not own it (unless they are shareholders).

Often the aims and objectives of the stakeholders are not the same as shareholders and they come into conflict.

A company can choose to ignore customers as stakeholders, sure, some probably do. It isn't common to have customers come to board meetings although I have heard of companies that do that from time time. It's more common to bring in customer interests into corporate governance and decision making, usually in terms of satisfaction ratings of sorts, or other representative data or summaries. If a company decides to ONLY include financial investors or financial investor concerns in board meetings, they can, but they would only be seeing and acting on business decisions in a very narrow perspective, ignoring other crucial factors from all the other entities that have interest and interactions with the company (stakeholders).

You are correct about one thing. Customers don't generally have a DIRECT hand in making decisions in a private company's operations. In terms of your magazine subscription example, If you buy a Surfing magazine subscription you don't directly dictate what articles they put in, sure. But you are giving them money with some degree of expectation. You might expect that they don't reduce the size of the magazine in half, or start featuring cooking articles, or take out all the pictures, etc etc. And if they deviate from the customer's interest they can expect various impacts of that. A company can realize ANY STAKEHOLDERS interests before or after a decision or choose to ignore their interests altogether, in any case of what avenue is taken, there are REAL repercussions and impacts from making decisions that please or displease any stakeholder. Not just shareholders and financial backers.

Of course there are repercussions: customers stop paying money for services/goods. But it doesn't mean that the customers have stopped investing in the business. Our money was never given with the expectation that we would have a direct influence on larger business plans for the company (or if it was, then the people giving the money were woefully misinformed about how capitalism works).

Eh?

I don't recall anyone saying they expected to have direct influence. Your responses have been that customers are not stakeholders and have NO say in partaking in the shaping and/or decisions of a company or the shaping of the product of a company (your magazine example).

They definitely can.

It might not be in the board room, and some companies can choose to ignore customers stake, but there are expectations from all stakeholders, including customers, whether real or perceived, and meeting them or not and how the stakeholders react most certainly can influence a companies plan and product. Again, a company could ignore that, but with that comes with varying degrees of cost, whether the company can afford that cost is something else.

The only misinformation about capitalism going on here is the lack of a good picture of the customer-company stakeholder connection and role and options of consumer power.

Carina · January 2015

Mortuum wrote: »

Carina wrote: »

Sindala wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Having it be considered is a long way from having it in the store. Although they very clearly are including an XP boost as part of the ESO Plus membership.

But they flat-out said that they won't put actual gear on the store. So please stop with the sky falling and all that.

They "Flat out" said the game would never go F2P........

F2P is different from B2P... The game is not going F2P. They kept their word.

So naive that it is actually cute

It's not naive. I know how businesses work. I've subbed to multiple MMO's before throughout the years. I know how this all works. They are changing their business model to adapt to changing needs and are going B2P (with an optional subscription), not F2P, so technically that is correct. I've never really been a fan of full-blown F2P games and avoid them. You can be paranoid all you want. The facts still remain.

Carina · January 2015

duplicate post

eisberg · January 2015

DDuke wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Gyudan wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Having it be considered is a long way from having it in the store. Although they very clearly are including an XP boost as part of the ESO Plus membership.

But they flat-out said that they won't put actual gear on the store. So please stop with the sky falling and all that.

@nerevarine1138: could you please point out for everyone where you read/heard that? I cannot find it anywhere. They don't seem to ever use the word "gear" in their answers, so feel free to enlighten me.

Straight from the horse's mouth (if Matt Firor were a horse):

"We have no plans to sell armor or armor pieces in the Crown Store, just costumes that look like them."

You believe anything at all they still have to say?

I feel sorry for you.

Yes, if a company EVER changes it's plans, it is completely untrustworthy for the rest of human existence.

/rollseyes

If a company ever uses subscriber money to...

Stop right there. What a company uses THEIR money for is none of your business. It is not subscriber money. It stopped being subscriber money the second the deal - "we allow you into our game, you give us money" - was done.

Your only right regarding to what they use the money for is to stop giving them any more if you are unhappy about the way they spent it. That is all.

You don't care at all what happens with the money you spend, is that what I should gather from your post?

If so, then I feel sorry for you too.

No, they just understand what their money was spent for.

Your subscription fees were for access to the game for the months you bought. You received that access. How the company uses their various sources of funding is not your concern unless you're an investor.

And do you think these companies would exist without our money?

We (the subscribers) funded their existence & kept them afloat. We had certain expectations for the game.

How much did the console audience contribute to the game's existence?
Mostly just by negative reviews & "ESO sux" comments.

In fact, Zenimax's complete disregard & disrespect of their paying customers and their wishes is a borderline scam.

What happened to "customer is always right". What happened to ethics & morals?

Maybe none of this was the case in the first place.

The whole experience has been like eating in a restaurant, and having the chef spit on your food every time before it's brought on your table.

Zenimax Media Inc, welcome to my list of garbage:

EA
Ubisoft
Activision
Trion
Zenimax Media Inc

Customer's Always Right mantra is a bad mantra and should actually be gone for good. It is actually bad for both the customer and for the business.
Do a google research about how "The customer is always right" is actually a bad thing.

Obviously the expectation for this game was not being meet. In a business, they would get rid or change something to get to those expectations. Obviously staying subscription only was not the way to go, so they went with this other route. they could have shut down the game entirely, but that would be a stupid move if they can get the revenue they are expecting with another route.

You do not listen to and do what your customers says at the detriment to your bottom line.

I work for a satellite tv provider. No customer is ever happy with a price increase, are we supposed to never increase prices because the "customer is always right"?

DDuke · January 2015

eisberg wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Gyudan wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Having it be considered is a long way from having it in the store. Although they very clearly are including an XP boost as part of the ESO Plus membership.

But they flat-out said that they won't put actual gear on the store. So please stop with the sky falling and all that.

@nerevarine1138: could you please point out for everyone where you read/heard that? I cannot find it anywhere. They don't seem to ever use the word "gear" in their answers, so feel free to enlighten me.

Straight from the horse's mouth (if Matt Firor were a horse):

"We have no plans to sell armor or armor pieces in the Crown Store, just costumes that look like them."

You believe anything at all they still have to say?

I feel sorry for you.

Yes, if a company EVER changes it's plans, it is completely untrustworthy for the rest of human existence.

/rollseyes

If a company ever uses subscriber money to...

Stop right there. What a company uses THEIR money for is none of your business. It is not subscriber money. It stopped being subscriber money the second the deal - "we allow you into our game, you give us money" - was done.

Your only right regarding to what they use the money for is to stop giving them any more if you are unhappy about the way they spent it. That is all.

You don't care at all what happens with the money you spend, is that what I should gather from your post?

If so, then I feel sorry for you too.

No, they just understand what their money was spent for.

Your subscription fees were for access to the game for the months you bought. You received that access. How the company uses their various sources of funding is not your concern unless you're an investor.

And do you think these companies would exist without our money?

We (the subscribers) funded their existence & kept them afloat. We had certain expectations for the game.

How much did the console audience contribute to the game's existence?
Mostly just by negative reviews & "ESO sux" comments.

In fact, Zenimax's complete disregard & disrespect of their paying customers and their wishes is a borderline scam.

What happened to "customer is always right". What happened to ethics & morals?

Maybe none of this was the case in the first place.

The whole experience has been like eating in a restaurant, and having the chef spit on your food every time before it's brought on your table.

Zenimax Media Inc, welcome to my list of garbage:

EA
Ubisoft
Activision
Trion
Zenimax Media Inc

Customer's Always Right mantra is a bad mantra and should actually be gone for good. It is actually bad for both the customer and for the business.
Do a google research about how "The customer is always right" is actually a bad thing.

Obviously the expectation for this game was not being meet. In a business, they would get rid or change something to get to those expectations. Obviously staying subscription only was not the way to go, so they went with this other route. they could have shut down the game entirely, but that would be a stupid move if they can get the revenue they are expecting with another route.

You do not listen to and do what your customers says at the detriment to your bottom line.

I work for a satellite tv provider. No customer is ever happy with a price increase, are we supposed to never increase prices because the "customer is always right"?

It all depends on how you're interpreting it.

What you're supposed to do is respect the customer & try to fulfill they wishes as best as possible, not lie to them & mislead them in hopes of vain profit.

If you try to claim that going B2P was something they "had to do", you're fooling yourself. They planned this for a looong time (Orsinium & Imperial City were shown almost completed last summer).
Why they're doing it is to suck as many wallets dry as possible, not to stay afloat or make a better game (content update frequency & quality is already confirmed to drop).

eisberg · January 2015

DDuke wrote: »

eisberg wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Gyudan wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Having it be considered is a long way from having it in the store. Although they very clearly are including an XP boost as part of the ESO Plus membership.

But they flat-out said that they won't put actual gear on the store. So please stop with the sky falling and all that.

@nerevarine1138: could you please point out for everyone where you read/heard that? I cannot find it anywhere. They don't seem to ever use the word "gear" in their answers, so feel free to enlighten me.

Straight from the horse's mouth (if Matt Firor were a horse):

"We have no plans to sell armor or armor pieces in the Crown Store, just costumes that look like them."

You believe anything at all they still have to say?

I feel sorry for you.

Yes, if a company EVER changes it's plans, it is completely untrustworthy for the rest of human existence.

/rollseyes

If a company ever uses subscriber money to...

Stop right there. What a company uses THEIR money for is none of your business. It is not subscriber money. It stopped being subscriber money the second the deal - "we allow you into our game, you give us money" - was done.

Your only right regarding to what they use the money for is to stop giving them any more if you are unhappy about the way they spent it. That is all.

You don't care at all what happens with the money you spend, is that what I should gather from your post?

If so, then I feel sorry for you too.

No, they just understand what their money was spent for.

Your subscription fees were for access to the game for the months you bought. You received that access. How the company uses their various sources of funding is not your concern unless you're an investor.

And do you think these companies would exist without our money?

We (the subscribers) funded their existence & kept them afloat. We had certain expectations for the game.

How much did the console audience contribute to the game's existence?
Mostly just by negative reviews & "ESO sux" comments.

In fact, Zenimax's complete disregard & disrespect of their paying customers and their wishes is a borderline scam.

What happened to "customer is always right". What happened to ethics & morals?

Maybe none of this was the case in the first place.

The whole experience has been like eating in a restaurant, and having the chef spit on your food every time before it's brought on your table.

Zenimax Media Inc, welcome to my list of garbage:

EA
Ubisoft
Activision
Trion
Zenimax Media Inc

Customer's Always Right mantra is a bad mantra and should actually be gone for good. It is actually bad for both the customer and for the business.
Do a google research about how "The customer is always right" is actually a bad thing.

Obviously the expectation for this game was not being meet. In a business, they would get rid or change something to get to those expectations. Obviously staying subscription only was not the way to go, so they went with this other route. they could have shut down the game entirely, but that would be a stupid move if they can get the revenue they are expecting with another route.

You do not listen to and do what your customers says at the detriment to your bottom line.

I work for a satellite tv provider. No customer is ever happy with a price increase, are we supposed to never increase prices because the "customer is always right"?

It all depends on how you're interpreting it.

What you're supposed to do is respect the customer & try to fulfill they wishes as best as possible, not lie to them & mislead them in hopes of vain profit.

If you try to claim that going B2P was something they "had to do", you're fooling yourself. They planned this for a looong time (Orsinium & Imperial City were shown almost completed last summer).
Why they're doing it is to suck as many wallets dry as possible, not to stay afloat or make a better game (content update frequency & quality is already confirmed to drop).

You are making assumptions with no proof. I mean granted it takes more than a few weeks to make plans like this, but to assume they have been planning this since even before summer seems like a stretch.

Exstazik · January 2015

Better to give as a gift (for loyality) all what they already showed to us to prevent people go out from the game.
Who knows maybe we will pay for 1 year and then ZOS cancel the subscription and we will have to buy all DLC (nice easy money:p2p+b2p(with premium)+DLC(if you do not want to lose what you already have)

DDuke · January 2015

eisberg wrote: »

You are making assumptions with no proof. I mean granted it takes more than a few weeks to make plans like this, but to assume they have been planning this since even before summer seems like a stretch.

Well, I know Imperial City was shown pretty much ready last summer (even NPCs were placed already), I know Wrothgar was also shown quite ready, I know how they talked about Thieves Guild/Dark Brotherhood to be released 2 months after launch (apparently it was decided to be saved for Cash Shop) and I know we've got no updates past 3 months, and we wont get updates until after console launch (once their main audience, console players, finish leveling)

Question:

Did the fact that you were going B2P slow down the release of new content? Is that why there has been so little since the summer?

Answer:

Anything we add to the game does cost dev time, so the answer is "yes." That said, 1.6 has a huge number of changes, and all of those changes, Champion, Balance Changes and Justice had far more to do with it than our Crown Store. This is a big update!

Oh, and we'll be getting even less frequent content updates in the future also (after the 9-months wait for 1.7):

1) It has less to do with a change in model and more to do with the fact that development on four platforms is more complicated than two. We fully expect a longer time between updates. But remember, there will be some updates which are free and some which are DLC. This will impact the schedule because it is a different delivery plan than our current model.

And then there's this:

Third: Our goal with the Crown store is to offer convenience and cosmetic items. Convenience will allow people to save themselves time. It will not allow people to get the best items or become more powerful in the game than another player could achieve. I will say openly that some people feel 'time-saving' items are buy-to-win such as being able to gain experience faster. But our perspective is that removing time barriers is something players want, without providing an unfair advantage in power.

Typical B2P scam about to happen.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Aside from the legal matter about false advertising and consumer rights, there is a core notion you all seem to forget:

The subscription fee for MMOs is mainly for future development.

It always was the deal for every MMO before, and especially ESO since that is what they advertised. Maintenance barely costs a few cents per player, however devs, artists and designers cost a lot. The tacit contract is that the game company anounces its plans and you chose to subscribe to see those plans realised. What already exists is paid by the box price when you first join.

A subscriber isn't technicaly an investor, but is paying in order to see the game improved and increase the value proposition of its subscription.

I don't know why this is such a tough concept to grasp.

My subscription fee may be used for anything ZO likes, but all I paid it for was to have access to the servers. That is the beginning and end of my contract with ZO. You don't pay a magazine subscription in order to have influence over what kind of articles they write.

Others have explained it better and in other words, but I wanted to add to it as you directly quoted me.

While magazines are a bad example to represent how MMO subs should be and are handled, I'll use it to illustrate a point:
Would you not expect a cooking magazine to remain a cooking magazine after you bought a 12 issues membership?
What would happen if after 4 issues, it started being about sport cars?
You've been lead to expect that you were buying a certain type of magazine and it changed. Whle they never outright said they'd never become about sport cars, you'd still be in your right to ask for a refund and feel outraged.

A variation of this example that is closer to our situation here.
You bought your 12 issues membership and after 4 issues, they switch to a free magazine. They make a "gesture" that your issues are delivered home and that's an advantage over non paying customers.
The thing is, you did not pay for a delivery service but for magazine issues. The value of your purchase has decreased by a very large margin.
And not only does the value change, but what is delivered changes as well. Now that the magazine is free, it has to find ways to support itself and they include advertizing in what was before an advertizing free magazine.
The quality of the product has also dropped.
The result is the same, you deserve a refund.

Of course, our case against ZOS is stronger they did advertize never changing the formula. And of course there is the whole advertised and expected purpose of the subscription money issue.

Even if you were to not know that mmo subscription are designed to support future content and is a vote of confidence in anounced plans, ESO devs did come out and say that this was the model they intended to use.

Carina wrote: »

Sindala wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Having it be considered is a long way from having it in the store. Although they very clearly are including an XP boost as part of the ESO Plus membership.

But they flat-out said that they won't put actual gear on the store. So please stop with the sky falling and all that.

They "Flat out" said the game would never go F2P........

F2P is different from B2P... The game is not going F2P. It's going to be B2P with an optional subscription. Big difference. They kept their word.

As a reminder, these are the results of a quick google search, there are more like those:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/elder-scrolls-online-defends-subscription-fee-with-regular-significant-content/1100-6418221/
http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/21/4643856/elder-scrolls-online-monthly-subscription

First, they said they'd remain subscription only without the constraints of a cash shop because it forces to make sacrifices.

Second, b2p is f2p with the small difference that you pay to have the right to access the shop. There is no "big difference", the cash shop is king.

Third, even if what they said was "we won't go f2p" rather than what I showed above, this is playing so hard on words that there is no doubt it is dishonesty.
How much of an apologist are you?
If I were to go "When we started the date I told her I wouldn't drown her, I just choked her, big difference! I kept my word." would you help me hide the body too?

eisberg wrote: »

Obviously the expectation for this game was not being meet. In a business, they would get rid or change something to get to those expectations. Obviously staying subscription only was not the way to go, so they went with this other route. they could have shut down the game entirely, but that would be a stupid move if they can get the revenue they are expecting with another route.

You do not listen to and do what your customers says at the detriment to your bottom line.

Except this is pretty much wrong in ESO's case. It was not a survival move and this is not what will net them the most money.
There are no justifiable reasons for breaking their word and doing the switch.

What it does, though, is give them a quick cash grab for their investors to move on to something else at the cost of crippling the game's medium to long term potential.
You could argue that this could be the company's bottom line, however shortsighted and idiotic it is, but it does not justify the false advertising.

Razzak · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Razzak wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Aside from the legal matter about false advertising and consumer rights, there is a core notion you all seem to forget:

The subscription fee for MMOs is mainly for future development.

It always was the deal for every MMO before, and especially ESO since that is what they advertised. Maintenance barely costs a few cents per player, however devs, artists and designers cost a lot. The tacit contract is that the game company anounces its plans and you chose to subscribe to see those plans realised. What already exists is paid by the box price when you first join.

A subscriber isn't technicaly an investor, but is paying in order to see the game improved and increase the value proposition of its subscription.

I don't know why this is such a tough concept to grasp.

My subscription fee may be used for anything ZO likes, but all I paid it for was to have access to the servers. That is the beginning and end of my contract with ZO. You don't pay a magazine subscription in order to have influence over what kind of articles they write.

@Sylvyr‌
You're spouting management philosophy, but it has no bearing on reality. While a company may want to view their customers as stakeholders, that doesn't change the fact that customers aren't stakeholders in said company. People who buy products on the Google Play Store don't actually have any financial stake in the company, and as such, they have no say over how Google conducts business.

You can always have a broader philosophy that treats your customers as shareholders in the company, but the reality is that you wouldn't include them in a board/shareholders meeting, because you know full well that they aren't actually investors.

Investment is not only measured in money. Anyone saying that subscribers are not investers, is only right as long she/he is talking about a currency value of such investment. We are not shareholders or anything similar that can be expressed in a numerical value and thus many of you have a valid point when trying to bring that point across.

What you are forgeting is that MMO subscription service is unlike almost any other service. Meaning, we can't make a proper comparisons or analogies with just about any type of service out there.
And the key point of that is the core reason of investment in a MMO. It's the reason that is not taught in business schools, so no matter how many degrees one might have, it's not only enough that you have an MBA in economy, stock exchange or anything related to that. One first class MBA is more likely to be the worst person to evaluate the real core of MMO investment.

Care.

We and devs invest in care. Simple as that.
We pay our subs not so we could invest in their salaries, new hardware, their time or anything related to that. We pay our subs because we are investing into their care. Their care for us and by that for their game. Their care for the future of their own game and the possibility to make a game that will have long and prosperous future. A future where players are the biggest defendants of this game not only so they could play longer, but because they believe in what "their" game represents.
We are investing our sub so we and devs together could make a game that transcends a mere few hours of play time/ week. Is it impossible to have a game that is more than numbers on the screen? To me, it's not. But in order to achieve that, there has to be care, passion. The real ones, not just PR equivalents with proper wording and punctuations.
Devs invest their time, knowledge and all they are as professionals into developing our care. Our care for the game, so we would be playing it for a larger purpose than to spend few hours playing ... something, anything. They invest what they know, so our care of the game would be so great that we would become their biggest PR practitioners. Our care and passion for their game it's biggest driving force.

It's obvious you and others that think like you, do have care and passion for playing. If it was not so, you would not be spending so much time "playing" the forum, like I and the rest like me, do.
But, do you have this care and passion only for playing a game, or is it reserved only, or at least largely, for playing the game, ESO?
My care and passion in the past year, has been focused solely into ESO. That's why I am so opposed to the way devs have handled the game and us. Our care.

Care is very nice, but it's not an actual investment in the company, and you do not have a say in the business practices of the company. Want a say? Invest money.

I think it's clear we are not going to see eye to eye on this and one of the reasons is your black and white view of the world. If you can't identify anything else in customer/dev relationship besides monetary pay/gain, you will never understand anything I, or others like me, would say about this.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO · January 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

But they flat-out said that they won't put actual gear on the store. So please stop with the sky falling and all that.

Tell me, as one of ZOS great supporters, what argument is there against a boost to VR14 being in the Store? The character could be naked on initial loading so that would cover your "no gear" stipulation.

Using entirely objective reasoning (and no any "don't be silly" assertion of personal view) why is a VR14 boost not acceptable on ZOS' stated convenience and time saving grounds?

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Aside from the legal matter about false advertising and consumer rights, there is a core notion you all seem to forget:

The subscription fee for MMOs is mainly for future development.

It always was the deal for every MMO before, and especially ESO since that is what they advertised. Maintenance barely costs a few cents per player, however devs, artists and designers cost a lot. The tacit contract is that the game company anounces its plans and you chose to subscribe to see those plans realised. What already exists is paid by the box price when you first join.

A subscriber isn't technicaly an investor, but is paying in order to see the game improved and increase the value proposition of its subscription.

I don't know why this is such a tough concept to grasp.

My subscription fee may be used for anything ZO likes, but all I paid it for was to have access to the servers. That is the beginning and end of my contract with ZO. You don't pay a magazine subscription in order to have influence over what kind of articles they write.

Others have explained it better and in other words, but I wanted to add to it as you directly quoted me.

While magazines are a bad example to represent how MMO subs should be and are handled, I'll use it to illustrate a point:
Would you not expect a cooking magazine to remain a cooking magazine after you bought a 12 issues membership?
What would happen if after 4 issues, it started being about sport cars?
You've been lead to expect that you were buying a certain type of magazine and it changed. Whle they never outright said they'd never become about sport cars, you'd still be in your right to ask for a refund and feel outraged.

A variation of this example that is closer to our situation here.
You bought your 12 issues membership and after 4 issues, they switch to a free magazine. They make a "gesture" that your issues are delivered home and that's an advantage over non paying customers.
The thing is, you did not pay for a delivery service but for magazine issues. The value of your purchase has decreased by a very large margin.
And not only does the value change, but what is delivered changes as well. Now that the magazine is free, it has to find ways to support itself and they include advertizing in what was before an advertizing free magazine.
The quality of the product has also dropped.
The result is the same, you deserve a refund.

Of course, our case against ZOS is stronger they did advertize never changing the formula. And of course there is the whole advertised and expected purpose of the subscription money issue.

Even if you were to not know that mmo subscription are designed to support future content and is a vote of confidence in anounced plans, ESO devs did come out and say that this was the model they intended to use.

Not exactly right. Actually, horrifically wrong.

1. In this analogy, your magazine subscription can be cancelled at any time. So if you find out the magazine is changing formats, you can simply unsubscribe at no penalty. Notice how I was nice and completely ignored the ridiculous assertion that a change in the payment format drastically alters gameplay mechanics.
2. You can't objectively claim the quality of the product has dropped, since the exact same product you've been happy to pay for is now being offered to you for free. If anything, an outside observer would see that you're getting a better deal.
3. ZO did not advertise never changing the formula. In interviews, developers stated that they wanted to stay with the subscription model. There is an ocean of difference between these two things.
4. MMO subscription fees may be used by the company for whatever they like. But they pay for your subscription. Once people get this very simple concept, they will stop feeling like they are entitled to direct business plans for the company.

Razzak wrote: »

I think it's clear we are not going to see eye to eye on this and one of the reasons is your black and white view of the world. If you can't identify anything else in customer/dev relationship besides monetary pay/gain, you will never understand anything I, or others like me, would say about this.

I can absolutely identify more things in that relationship, but none of them add up to a financial stake in the company. You haven't invested money with the expectation of a future return. You paid for a product/service, and that product/service was delivered as promised. All the care in the world won't change that.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

But they flat-out said that they won't put actual gear on the store. So please stop with the sky falling and all that.

Tell me, as one of ZOS great supporters, what argument is there against a boost to VR14 being in the Store? The character could be naked on initial loading so that would cover your "no gear" stipulation.

Using entirely objective reasoning (and no any "don't be silly" assertion of personal view) why is a VR14 boost not acceptable on ZOS' stated convenience and time saving grounds?

Because an instant VR14 boost goes beyond "saving time" and enters the category of simply paying to skip the whole game.

And, as everyone is so keen to point out, might they change their mind and start adding content you and I don't like to the Crown Store in the future? Sure. But the glorious thing about capitalism is that if I don't like that, I don't pay them more money. I don't throw a hissy fit in the forums. I don't complain that I should have a say at board meetings. I take my money elsewhere and let them know the reason in direct feedback, like a mature adult.

SantieClaws · January 2015

The difference between a magazine and a game is that if you choose to buy extras with a magazine then it does not affect someone else's magazine.

If someone in ESO chooses to buy a pink unicorn from the store then it does affect my game because I get to see pink unicorns every time I log in.

If someone pays to gain items which help them level faster then it does affect my game because that person gets to access higher content and gear and to do new things before I do - just because they paid to do so. If they get access to higher level crafting mats, more in demand gear they can sell etc then that gives them the chance to make more in game gold than I can. That is pay to profit and pretty much pay to win (as there is no ultimate win in an MMO - only the current wealth and status of your character).

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

wenxue2222b16_ESO wrote: »

The difference between a magazine and a game is that if you choose to buy extras with a magazine then it does not affect someone else's magazine.

If someone in ESO chooses to buy a pink unicorn from the store then it does affect my game because I get to see pink unicorns every time I log in.

If someone pays to gain items which help them level faster then it does affect my game because that person gets to access higher content and gear and to do new things before I do - just because they paid to do so. If they get access to higher level crafting mats, more in demand gear they can sell etc then that gives them the chance to make more in game gold than I can. That is pay to profit and pretty much pay to win (as there is no ultimate win in an MMO - only the current wealth and status of your character).

OK, so don't pay money anymore. "Problem" solved.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · January 2015

@nerevarine1138‌

1. Except that the subscription can only be changed in retrospect, once it is too late. All throughout the life cycle of an MMO, future changes are being anounced and advertised to you so that you can decide to stop subscribing or not in advance. If a change is sprung on you, it is already too late, you've paid for it unknowingly by being subscribed when the patch hits.
This is why I used the "bought x issues", because that represents buying 6 months of subscription in one go. Or simply buying the box on launch day. The people that did that bought in advance a product the devs advertised to them and then changed/didn't deliver.

A change of the business model is a pretty big change to be sprung on. Especialy since, if we were to believe the PR of the game, it was unsuspected.
No one could base their decision on something unthinkable.

And it is not just a change of payment format but a change of business model: the way that revenue is generated. It is 2015, if you still believe this doesn't impact drastically gameplay mechanics, you've been living under an enormous rock.

2. You're confusing quality and value. A product of bad quality offered for free is still of bad quality. You may be getting a better deal, but that's another notion entirely.

In our case, the quality of the game is reduced by the presence of a cash shop and the p2w items in it. I is not the exact same product anymore. And as time, its quality will lower even more as there will be player segregation with DLCs, additional p2w features and whether you are aware of not, a change of focus of the developing team impacting what gets into the game, when and how.

In our magazine example, you can't debate that there is a loss of quality between an ads free magazine and the same magazine with ads integrated in between the articles.

3. Advertisement, and I quote, "is anything that draws good attention towards these things. It is usually designed by an identified sponsor, and performed through a variety of media."

Them professing their intent to remain with the subscription model in every interview that asked the question, and the fact it drew a lot of good attention towards their product, ESO, means they advertised this selling point.

As a selling point, it was expected of them to not change that core aspect of their product. Seeing how adamant they were about their stance and how vocaly they bashed the concept of cash shops, there was no sign in their discourse that the change of formula was on the table. Even less the possibility for a cash shop. There was no need for them to state the exact words "we won't change the model" for the audience to understand they meant that.

And their marketing push worked out for them.People based their purchases and ongoing subscription on what was advertised to them as an important aspect of the game.

Yet another sily example. If we were to be roomates and you had bought yoghourt and placed it in the comon fridge. If I were to say things like "I do not like the taste of yoghourt, I know it will give me gaz and I find it revulsing to eat rotten body secretion from a farm animal." Wouldn't you be surprised that I ate your yoghourt under the cover that "I did not say I wouldn't eat your yoghourt."?

4. You're the one failing to grasp a simple concept here.
They may in effect use the money for whatever they want, however by the advertisement of their future plans, they commit to make their best attempt at executing the laid out plans. And that's the service MMOs provide, a form of constant pre-order of maintenance/content/modifications to a product.
If you, as a customer, do not care for their plans, you can unsubscribe whenever you want in advance.

As one of ESO's selling point was to be subscription only and to avoid a cash shop, a portion of the subscription was spent to maintain that aspect of the game.

To change such a core aspect of the product means that what was paid for has not been delivered. And the way it was anounced robed us of our "capitalistic" choice of not paying for a product we do not care for.

nerevarine1138 · January 2015

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@nerevarine1138‌

1. Except that the subscription can only be changed in retrospect, once it is too late. All throughout the life cycle of an MMO, future changes are being anounced and advertised to you so that you can decide to stop subscribing or not in advance. If a change is sprung on you, it is already too late, you've paid for it unknowingly by being subscribed when the patch hits.
This is why I used the "bought x issues", because that represents buying 6 months of subscription in one go. Or simply buying the box on launch day. The people that did that bought in advance a product the devs advertised to them and then changed/didn't deliver.

A change of the business model is a pretty big change to be sprung on. Especialy since, if we were to believe the PR of the game, it was unsuspected.
No one could base their decision on something unthinkable.

And it is not just a change of payment format but a change of business model: the way that revenue is generated. It is 2015, if you still believe this doesn't impact drastically gameplay mechanics, you've been living under an enormous rock.

2. You're confusing quality and value. A product of bad quality offered for free is still of bad quality. You may be getting a better deal, but that's another notion entirely.

In our case, the quality of the game is reduced by the presence of a cash shop and the p2w items in it. I is not the exact same product anymore. And as time, its quality will lower even more as there will be player segregation with DLCs, additional p2w features and whether you are aware of not, a change of focus of the developing team impacting what gets into the game, when and how.

In our magazine example, you can't debate that there is a loss of quality between an ads free magazine and the same magazine with ads integrated in between the articles.

3. Advertisement, and I quote, "is anything that draws good attention towards these things. It is usually designed by an identified sponsor, and performed through a variety of media."

Them professing their intent to remain with the subscription model in every interview that asked the question, and the fact it drew a lot of good attention towards their product, ESO, means they advertised this selling point.

As a selling point, it was expected of them to not change that core aspect of their product. Seeing how adamant they were about their stance and how vocaly they bashed the concept of cash shops, there was no sign in their discourse that the change of formula was on the table. Even less the possibility for a cash shop. There was no need for them to state the exact words "we won't change the model" for the audience to understand they meant that.

And their marketing push worked out for them.People based their purchases and ongoing subscription on what was advertised to them as an important aspect of the game.

Yet another sily example. If we were to be roomates and you had bought yoghourt and placed it in the comon fridge. If I were to say things like "I do not like the taste of yoghourt, I know it will give me gaz and I find it revulsing to eat rotten body secretion from a farm animal." Wouldn't you be surprised that I ate your yoghourt under the cover that "I did not say I wouldn't eat your yoghourt."?

4. You're the one failing to grasp a simple concept here.
They may in effect use the money for whatever they want, however by the advertisement of their future plans, they commit to make their best attempt at executing the laid out plans. And that's the service MMOs provide, a form of constant pre-order of maintenance/content/modifications to a product.
If you, as a customer, do not care for their plans, you can unsubscribe whenever you want in advance.

As one of ESO's selling point was to be subscription only and to avoid a cash shop, a portion of the subscription was spent to maintain that aspect of the game.

To change such a core aspect of the product means that what was paid for has not been delivered. And the way it was anounced robed us of our "capitalistic" choice of not paying for a product we do not care for.

1. Wrong. ZO (as laid out in the ToS) provides ample notice ahead of major game alterations, as they have in this case. You can change your payment plan well before the game changes, if that's what you'd like to do.

Speaking of the ToS, they also lay out that the nature of an online game is that it can change. The gameplay elements made available by purchasing the game are not altered by the change in payment model. The only thing it changes is the availability of future content (or rather, how customers access that content), which was never part of the box price.

2. Quality is subjective. One man's trash is another's treasure, etc.

You may not like the changes, but you cannot claim that they are objectively bad for the game. Many players will hold an alternative opinion, and in either case, ZO is looking to do the most business with the most people. They're going to go with the payment model that is best for them as a business, and that model will always involve getting more people playing the game.

3. The subscription model may have been a selling point for you. It certainly isn't something that actually affects in-game mechanics (beyond, as mentioned, the way in which new content is made available). And again, none of the interviews (which still aren't advertisements, no matter how you spin it) claimed that they were never, ever, ever going to not be subscription-based. They used indefinite language because the developers quoted knew that the higher-ups could change the payment model in the future. And as pointed out above, you have been given more than enough time to take your money elsewhere if you truly believe that the change in payment model is going to affect the quality of the game.

Regardless, you are about to be getting everything you currently pay for for free, so you're going to be hard-pressed to find an outside observer who would agree that you're suffering.

4. You are fundamentally misunderstanding the agreement you entered with ZO every time you subscribed to the game. When you subscribed, you paid for a month (or more) of access to the servers. ZO provided that. That's the beginning and end of your contract with ZO, as it pertains to the subscription fee.

Now, ZO may use that money to develop future content. Or they could use it to pay for lunch. Or they might give the janitor a raise. You don't know what they do with the money, and it doesn't matter, because you aren't an investor in this company.

And you haven't been robbed of a single choice. Do you not like the direction the game is headed? Great. Cancel your subscription (if you haven't already) and stop playing. Do you like it? Great. Cancel your subscription or don't. Continue playing.

Digiman · January 2015

Jennifur_Vultee wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Having it be considered is a long way from having it in the store. Although they very clearly are including an XP boost as part of the ESO Plus membership.

But they flat-out said that they won't put actual gear on the store. So please stop with the sky falling and all that.

Yeah well they also said the subscription model was the way to make the game they set out to make and the game they believed we wanted to play.

Well obviously there was a huge difference in subscription numbers after they said it and when they decided to change it.

I don't see many jumping to this game if its pay $15 to get this god mode DPS weapon. At most I think they might add buyable quests where you could progress through a long epic line to finally get a daedric artifact like Daedric shrine quests in ES games.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · January 2015

@nerevarine1138‌
1. It is effectively too late to change my subscription based on what they are changing. Had they not advertised the game as remaining subscription only and cash shop free, I would agree with you that 2 months is enough warning.

However, they did anounce concrete plans of not changing. That's the product I bought and was paying to see maintained.
However, it is not getting delivered, so I paid for something I will never get.

Had they anounced it ahead of launch, I would not have bought the game, even less paid a subscription.

The TOS is irrelevant to this debate. It covers how there are patches and how features within the game can change. It does not cover the business relationship changing nor advertised features not being in the game.
In this case, a TOS is bypassed entirely by "truth in advertising" laws.

2. Sure quality is somewhat subjective in the sense that many people confuse their tastes with what is actual quality.
But there are some objective ways of measuring quality, and it goes the same for game design.
Objectively speaking, game design in a game that needs a cash shop to gain revenue is usualy geared not toward engaging gameplay but towards directing players to the shop. The developers themselves came out pre launch stating those facts, which means they are aware of it and not doing these change "by mistake".
It is technicaly possible that a f2p game gains quality over time, but that would be at the cost of its revenue.

You're downright wrong however if you think that the goal of a business is to do business with the most people. The goal of a business is to have the most profit.
This usually implies increasing revenue, not player counts.
Whether you do $1M with 200k or 2M players doesn't matter.

And the proven best business model to increase revenue on the long term is the susbcription model. The f2p model is a great cash influx in the first few months, but as time passes, it is losing revenue and is a net loss of money compared to a subscription product.

3. It impacted which aspect of gameplay was focused on and fixed/improved. We already know that gameplay is going to take a backseat in favor of content and that there will be gameplay altering items in the shop. (boosters, skill lines, etc) We already know it impacted the game even before it got released by delaying content to become DLCs.
This is not the same service anymore, free or not.

The service went from "accessing the game and see come to reality the advertised plans to improve the game." to "have an advantage over other players.".

Not only that, but I am never going to get what I was paying for. It's like if they cut AvA from the game, or voice acted quests, or even changed the universe in which the game takes place.
Those are the advertised selling points of the game. It is a reasonable expectation that they will remain constant throughout the life of the product.

And you are being either naive or stubborn. Interviews pre launch are the main form of advertisement available to developers. It is the equivalent of actors promoting their movies by going on talk shows during the marketing campaign of their latest role.

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/advertisement
"any public notice, as a printed display in a newspaper, short film on television, announcement on radio, etc, designed to sell goods, publicize an event, etc"

4. You are contradicting yourself here. While you refuse to admit that the subscription money is about future development, you suggest that if I dislike where the game is headed I should un subscribe.

Yet this is the core of what the subscription model is about. You not only pay for acces to the game but for what the developers anounce they are working on.
The main service a subscription grants you is the development of gameplay you'll be able to enjoy in the future.
If the advertised plans are not to your liking, or you do not trust the company to deliver, then you unsubscribe.

This is the same kind of relationship you enter with a company that provides a business tool and sells an evolutive maintenance subscription. You're not the only customer, you can't tell them exactly how to do things, but you're entitled to expect the developers to add the features they promised would come when they got you to pay them and keep the current features you are using.

I have been robbed of the choice to not buy the game, and for over 8 months, I've been robbed of the choice not to subscribe because the product I was paying to be developped will never be delivered.

And I'm not an unreasonable person. Had they given a valid reason why it was no longer possible for them to maintain the subscription model, they would not have lost my support. Just like when a promised feature is delayed or canceled with a proper explanation. I'm primarily a PvP player yet I've been very tolerant of their complete lack of progress on the AvA implementation. I understand that bugs, PvE and rebalancing abilities affects more players and are of higher priority.
I would also accept the implementation of a cosmetics only cash shop to generate extra revenue. I would probably even buy a thing or two on it.
All of this is covered by the notion of "best effort" to provide the service.

But as far as we can guess, ZOS was not in financial trouble and was most likely making profit.They definitely didn't use that as an excuse despite being an easy one to come up with.
Unless they release believable numbers that prove they can't continue to provide a subscription model, they have no valid excuse to not uphold their promises.

And no "We're doing this for the community, consider this a favor" is not a valid excuse.