People don't seem to understand this....
The other side is I'm not sure people understand the game as in how it works


The article does specifically allow anyone to set who can visit or who can decorate so technically speaking two people can exclusively share a house

Not sure what more people are tryin to ask for.

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

The article does specifically allow anyone to set who can visit or who can decorate so technically speaking two people can exclusively share a house

Always them people wanting more and more.

But who gets the furniture in the divorce?

There doesn't seem to be an option thus far to have two players with the same privileges for a house (i.e. be able to both add and remove as well as move items) Hopefully this will change in future. It will make things so much easier in the long run.

Not just for couples but for anyone that wants anyone else to decorate their house for them. And going from past experiences in other mmos; if ESO Homestead ends up producing a relatively robust housing system there will definitely be a market for skilled decorators, if the mechanisms are in place for them to easily help another whom wants it.

Fingers crossed it's something that will be looked at (if it hasn't already been).

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

Additionally, what if two actually share a house, then decide to part ways in a less than amicable manner? See the issue there since both have equal permissions that neither can revoke, and this would be the biggest reason to now have house sharing.

If this happens the husband or the wife "deletes" the house, they buy homes separately and that's it (they lost the furniture and stuff bought/made to the house, not their collectibles, achievements, and so).

Or, there could be an option in the game menu for when you get divorced, where the husband or the wife, or both, can enable it in the game options and the house gets removed in, let's say, 10 days. Then, again, they need to buy houses separately (they lost the furniture and stuff bought/made to the house, not their collectibles, achievements, and so).

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

CarbonX wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

People don't seem to understand this....
The other side is I'm not sure people understand the game as in how it works


The article does specifically allow anyone to set who can visit or who can decorate so technically speaking two people can exclusively share a house

Not sure what more people are tryin to ask for.

@NewBlacksmurf Can your wife place her pets, mounts, etc. in the house? Nope. So that's what is being asked. A house for two, not a house where your wife has a "friend" status to only move furniture around.

If she wants to display her pets, mounts, etc. she MUST buy another house. Why? If you are husband and wife, even in the game.

@CarbonX
You can't share mounts, pets, or any ownership of items now. This whole request is rediculous in context to what this game has always presented in the specific manner which it works.

This isn't even viable for the customer let alone ZOS. Basically you're asking for one person's efforts and work to be open to anyone else. So people's real money and benefits should be open to others cause of real life relationships....no!!!

That's like expecting to have the same allowances at your spouses job without being employed.

I understand completely what you're asking for but it's against the terms of agreement for managing an account. It's pretty clear so while in people's minds we all come up with desires, in this case none of those ideas align with the rules set forth and changing the rules opens the game up to exploits and security issues.

I didn't say "share", I said "place" and "display".

How do you split the house in the event of a divorce?

FENGRUSH wrote: »

How do you split the house in the event of a divorce?

ZOS suspends both accounts until counseling and a written agreement is made.

CarbonX wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

CarbonX wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

CarbonX wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

People don't seem to understand this....
The other side is I'm not sure people understand the game as in how it works


The article does specifically allow anyone to set who can visit or who can decorate so technically speaking two people can exclusively share a house

Not sure what more people are tryin to ask for.

@NewBlacksmurf Can your wife place her pets, mounts, etc. in the house? Nope. So that's what is being asked. A house for two, not a house where your wife has a "friend" status to only move furniture around.

If she wants to display her pets, mounts, etc. she MUST buy another house. Why? If you are husband and wife, even in the game.

@CarbonX
You can't share mounts, pets, or any ownership of items now. This whole request is rediculous in context to what this game has always presented in the specific manner which it works.

This isn't even viable for the customer let alone ZOS. Basically you're asking for one person's efforts and work to be open to anyone else. So people's real money and benefits should be open to others cause of real life relationships....no!!!

That's like expecting to have the same allowances at your spouses job without being employed.

I understand completely what you're asking for but it's against the terms of agreement for managing an account. It's pretty clear so while in people's minds we all come up with desires, in this case none of those ideas align with the rules set forth and changing the rules opens the game up to exploits and security issues.

I didn't say "share", I said "place" and "display".

You did use the word "place" but your discussion is asking to "share" because the design of the game is set by account ownership and account permissions.

The items you're discussing belong to the account holder and are either purchased in real money in most cases or in some earned through quest progression or in game gold.

A real life relationship or not ....what You desire requires "account sharing".

Housing is accessed by the account holders housing decisions. Two different account holders wouldn't be able to own a house simultaneously.

They did offer decorations permissions which is plenty. Other items bound to accounts aren't logical because they cannot be "shared" so why create confusion in housing by doing this.


Similar to buying a house in real life.
Two people can qualify to own a home together but 100% of the time two different people have different ideas about how the home should be changed and such.

Some relationships handle things better than others but why in the world would you desire for a game to place that type of situation on two people.

Let's look at the ring of Mara and how awesome (sarcasm) that worked out.

Clearly you haven't played other games where housing privileges are FULLY shared between two players (and more) and they work perfectly, even with all this ridiculous "obstacles" some people are trying to find here.

Always there is someone trying to say that it's not possible when other games have been using housing system for years now, account shared, with full privileges for multiple members, with no issues at all. Still, people here say it's not possible. Big LOL!!!

I've problably played just as many as you if you've been gaming online since the early 1990's

But what other games do or have done doesn't matter. This game is first and foremost on PC and consoles so the content designs this company makes intends to align to be as similar if not identical on all platforms. They have a cash shop so that will drive design decisions specifically for account based logic.

You can't share real money on all three platforms and this game since closed beta was designed with all three platforms in mind.

I'm focusing on account permissions because that is exactly what this boils down to.

Hm...
Maybe if they could make a system where the furniture would belong to whoever had them in their inventory when they were first put down. Trophies and collectibles wouldn't be an issue since they are bound to an account, so it would be just a display (like, you wouldn't be able to take your partner's mount just because they put it on display on the house).
Then, if you changed permissions in your house to exclude your partner from it, every piece of furniture and trophy that was put down by your partner would be mailed back to them, and their collectibles would disappear from your house.

I don't know, it sounds like a lot of work to make sure everything would go smoothly. I don't think it is impossible, just that it would have to be done very well to work.

CarbonX wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

CarbonX wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

CarbonX wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

CarbonX wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

People don't seem to understand this....
The other side is I'm not sure people understand the game as in how it works


The article does specifically allow anyone to set who can visit or who can decorate so technically speaking two people can exclusively share a house

Not sure what more people are tryin to ask for.

@NewBlacksmurf Can your wife place her pets, mounts, etc. in the house? Nope. So that's what is being asked. A house for two, not a house where your wife has a "friend" status to only move furniture around.

If she wants to display her pets, mounts, etc. she MUST buy another house. Why? If you are husband and wife, even in the game.

@CarbonX
You can't share mounts, pets, or any ownership of items now. This whole request is rediculous in context to what this game has always presented in the specific manner which it works.

This isn't even viable for the customer let alone ZOS. Basically you're asking for one person's efforts and work to be open to anyone else. So people's real money and benefits should be open to others cause of real life relationships....no!!!

That's like expecting to have the same allowances at your spouses job without being employed.

I understand completely what you're asking for but it's against the terms of agreement for managing an account. It's pretty clear so while in people's minds we all come up with desires, in this case none of those ideas align with the rules set forth and changing the rules opens the game up to exploits and security issues.

I didn't say "share", I said "place" and "display".

You did use the word "place" but your discussion is asking to "share" because the design of the game is set by account ownership and account permissions.

The items you're discussing belong to the account holder and are either purchased in real money in most cases or in some earned through quest progression or in game gold.

A real life relationship or not ....what You desire requires "account sharing".

Housing is accessed by the account holders housing decisions. Two different account holders wouldn't be able to own a house simultaneously.

They did offer decorations permissions which is plenty. Other items bound to accounts aren't logical because they cannot be "shared" so why create confusion in housing by doing this.


Similar to buying a house in real life.
Two people can qualify to own a home together but 100% of the time two different people have different ideas about how the home should be changed and such.

Some relationships handle things better than others but why in the world would you desire for a game to place that type of situation on two people.

Let's look at the ring of Mara and how awesome (sarcasm) that worked out.

Clearly you haven't played other games where housing privileges are FULLY shared between two players (and more) and they work perfectly, even with all this ridiculous "obstacles" some people are trying to find here.

Always there is someone trying to say that it's not possible when other games have been using housing system for years now, account shared, with full privileges for multiple members, with no issues at all. Still, people here say it's not possible. Big LOL!!!

I've problably played just as many as you if you've been gaming online since the early 1990's

But what other games do or have done doesn't matter. This game is first and foremost on PC and consoles so the content designs this company makes intends to align to be as similar if not identical on all platforms. They have a cash shop so that will drive design decisions specifically for account based logic.

You can't share real money on all three platforms and this game since closed beta was designed with all three platforms in mind.

I'm focusing on account permissions because that is exactly what this boils down to.

Say whatever you want, put all excuses you want with TESO being first, middle, last, whatever. This can work perfectly.

In gaming world everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is possible. Everything.

During the last 20 years as a gamer, in forums I've seen a looooot of people assuring something is not possible. I've seen the typical comment: "That will never happen because blah, blah, blah... Days later, weeks later, months later or so, PUM! Implemented by Devs. And so they ate their words...

@CarbonX

You're putting words into my comments or making inaccurate interpretations from my comments.

I'm not saying your idea cannot be developed.
I am saying the development design as it is currently prevents your desire because as written, the homes that will come to ESO are homes that an account sets up. It's instances and not a server wide accessed and seen home or zone. The house really doesn't exist otherwise unlike mounts and such unless permissions opens up a visitor or decorator.

The ownership is aligned under either a ZOS account, a PSN account or an Xbox Live account.

While the ZOS account design is completely up to ZOS, PSN and Xbox alive are 100% not up to ZOS. The game decisions from the ZOS devs seeks to add content across all platforms as close to the same experiences for all.

For your idea to work, it's possible that the ZOS devs change on PC how real money items are utilized, this isn't as simple as a development programming change on consoles.

The point is your idea is asking that real money and other account based items be "shared" on a game server for housing.

That's also going to touch sharing outside of housing so the only way to offer what you want is to completely redesign the account stipulations which would mean you want to open up account sharing in terms of the items, progress and real money items.

To me that's not even a logical or worth while thing. But to use other games as examples....literally there are no games on Xbox live or PSN where an item, dlc or such which was purchased via real money is accessible to another account.

The whole point of real money transactions is to make content and features so others buy those items while those who don't can't access those same items. Housing or any other content updates would never give cause to "share" someone else actual purchased content.

Also, the company literally has given permissions to allow visiting and decorating. If you and a real life person who are in a relationship wanted to "share" things and were not already playing on the same account then that's really the full extent of sharing.

Even tho it's against most companies ideals, you can share your account so to speak within your own household but it opens your account up to adverse possibilities. On consoles (specific to Xbox one) it's highly suggested not to even share profiles and for each human to have their own.

In my house others play ESO but they do so on their own Xbox live profiles between two systems.

Even as such, I don't expect them to have access to my crowns, mounts, pets, bank, Mail, dlc or progress....in context to what you write, and in understanding how this game handles content, items and features within each account, you're asking for some of the things not shared to be accessible just because of housing.

That just doesn't make sense. It's all or nothing but on MMO servers, specific to housing in games on a MMO server the best housing example I can think of are Dark age of Camelot.

In this game the home is not tied to a game account it's accessible via a player or guilds.

No real money.

Because ZOS decided to add a cash shop to housing, mounts, dlc, pets, character specific progress items.....it drastically limits what's possible in terms of set rules and limitations across different platforms.

All this talk of it being against the ToS and this and that about account sharing and stuff is nonsense... No one is saying that because my wife places her soul shriven horse in my stable that I should or will be allowed to ride it. Nor can she use my nightmare courser...

It wouldn't be hard to implement this at all, they already have permissions set up for friends and decorators... All it would have to be is a co-owner access level where the owner can allow someone to place and remove items in your house or your spouse's house.

Think of our current guild system. A guild leader can give their vice leader access to every function the guild leader has with the exception of removing said guild leader from the guild. Just like the co-owner would not be able to take complete possession of the true owners house.

Why can't our houses be ran like our guilds? Why can't our houses be guild halls even?

In the event that the couple seperates.... well that's on them. If you trust someone enough to place your items in their house, then you're at fault should they remove you from their list and you lose your items. Same for the owner. If you trust someone enough with full access to your house and they steal all of your things, that's your fault for trusting someone with that kind of access...

There are no downsides to this system and people are merely trying to create some because there always has to be naysayers in the world that go against even the most logical of ideas.