Let's clear the air on why people are angry

bellatrixed · February 2017

I don't get the rage, and I've been super critical of ESO's crown pricing lately, so I'm not just mindlessly supporting their decisions.

Nobody was lied to in terms of what they got with their sub. They got access to ALL existing downloadable content. 100% fact.

Just because the sub won't cover something upcoming doesn't mean you somehow lost out on something. Who subs month after month just to get future content? Doesn't seem very cost effective.

Subbing is more than worth it to me for the craft bag and xp/gold boost alone.

I'll happy buy the DLC for $40. Housing/furniture prices on the other hand are obscene.

Bobby_V_Rockit · February 2017

I'll just buy the expansion, what do I care if its not included in ESO+.

Whats to be angry about?

UrQuan · February 2017

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Sigtric wrote: »

I'm a sub, I don't feel out to dry. I've been saying for a while to my friends in ESO that it needs a proper large paid expansion and I'm happy they are releasing one.

This is more or less how I feel about it too (personally I'm satisfied to keep getting smaller DLCs, but a large paid expansion is much more likely to bring new blood and returning players to the game).

Mind you, I understand why a portion of the subscribers are upset about it, and they have some valid points. I can understand it and respect their opinion on the matter without feeling that way myself though.

Of course, in another thread I've been accused of stomping my feet and holding my breath trying to get ZOS to release Morrowind for free, despite the fact that I'm not trying to get them to do any such thing (and I'm actively trying to find where I can preorder the physical collectors edition from in Canada - as in I'm trying to figure out how to get ZOS to take over $100 from me), so I also know exactly why OP started this thread. To clear up some of the BS strawman arguments being spewed by certain unscrupulous individuals on the forums...

You were very cool in that thread UrQuan and I respect everyone that thinks this billing is valid . If you guys see eye to eye with ZoS and think it is a bargain great . I never expect anyone to jump on a crusade together against lol "corporate evil" and the forces of Molag Bank ... I just would like people to understand that I don't personally like the effect on my subscription and respect that I would like to give my feedback why without being drilled for not being on the hype wagon or mocked as a buzzkill . Like they work for ZoS and I just toilet papered the lobby . It's silly and a bit disrespectful especially when some of these people discouraged are helpful players in their communities .

See and all of that makes perfect sense to me, which is exactly why I haven't been bagging on any of the people who feel the way you do. I see it as a wholly reasonable position to take (because it is a wholly reasonable position to take, even if it's not the position I'm taking). I also have to admit that part of the reason why I'm OK with paying for the expansion even though I'm a subscriber* is because I know that one way or another I'd be buying that physical collectors edition anyway. I got the physical collectors edition of the base game and I'm happy I did because it came with some great stuff. So I'd be shelling out the money anyway.

*Actually while my sub is still active I cancelled my renewal shortly before Crown Crates came out. Since they changed the model to allow you to turn in all of the consumables for gems I no longer have the moral concerns with them that I did before, though, so while I still think they're a ripoff I no longer feel obligated to stop giving ZOS any money and I'm likely to switch the renewal back on.

BlueViolet · February 2017

SanTii.92 wrote: »

So you are saying that what it bothers you is that they are backtracking their one line statement made about two years ago and not this particular change by itself? Ok then, appologize.

You know, for me, If Zenimax had opened a thread perhaps saying something like "look, we're going to release this very large expansive content bundle / whatever, and although we know subscribers are billed to get all upcoming content included in their subs, we really feel that this content is worthy of being called an expansion not just a DLC pack, so, we were planning on pricing it at $X amount of dollars for everybody . We've backtracked a little from our original spiel in regard to sub content, but we really think you will find it worthwhile - Discuss."

I would have been fine with that. They would have acknowledged that they were reneging on their earlier decision, and they would have been open about it.
Instead, they just went about changing the wording on their subscription ad page & going back on something they had stressed prior, without saying anything to the players and customers that they profess to care about. To me that's just sly and sneaky and underhanded and I take exception to that kind of thing.

Some people say they don't owe us anything. And they probably don't "owe" anything. Everyone knows that as a business, they must make money to keep ESO going. But I don't see why they can't be open about these things, rather than just appearing to go about it underhandedly.

edit to add quote.

Rohamad_Ali · February 2017

UrQuan wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Sigtric wrote: »

I'm a sub, I don't feel out to dry. I've been saying for a while to my friends in ESO that it needs a proper large paid expansion and I'm happy they are releasing one.

This is more or less how I feel about it too (personally I'm satisfied to keep getting smaller DLCs, but a large paid expansion is much more likely to bring new blood and returning players to the game).

Mind you, I understand why a portion of the subscribers are upset about it, and they have some valid points. I can understand it and respect their opinion on the matter without feeling that way myself though.

Of course, in another thread I've been accused of stomping my feet and holding my breath trying to get ZOS to release Morrowind for free, despite the fact that I'm not trying to get them to do any such thing (and I'm actively trying to find where I can preorder the physical collectors edition from in Canada - as in I'm trying to figure out how to get ZOS to take over $100 from me), so I also know exactly why OP started this thread. To clear up some of the BS strawman arguments being spewed by certain unscrupulous individuals on the forums...

You were very cool in that thread UrQuan and I respect everyone that thinks this billing is valid . If you guys see eye to eye with ZoS and think it is a bargain great . I never expect anyone to jump on a crusade together against lol "corporate evil" and the forces of Molag Bank ... I just would like people to understand that I don't personally like the effect on my subscription and respect that I would like to give my feedback why without being drilled for not being on the hype wagon or mocked as a buzzkill . Like they work for ZoS and I just toilet papered the lobby . It's silly and a bit disrespectful especially when some of these people discouraged are helpful players in their communities .

See and all of that makes perfect sense to me, which is exactly why I haven't been bagging on any of the people who feel the way you do. I see it as a wholly reasonable position to take (because it is a wholly reasonable position to take, even if it's not the position I'm taking). I also have to admit that part of the reason why I'm OK with paying for the expansion even though I'm a subscriber* is because I know that one way or another I'd be buying that physical collectors edition anyway. I got the physical collectors edition of the base game and I'm happy I did because it came with some great stuff. So I'd be shelling out the money anyway.

*Actually while my sub is still active I cancelled my renewal shortly before Crown Crates came out. Since they changed the model to allow you to turn in all of the consumables for gems I no longer have the moral concerns with them that I did before, though, so while I still think they're a ripoff I no longer feel obligated to stop giving ZOS any money and I'm likely to switch the renewal back on.

I'll eventually end up with Marrowind . It looks like a great CGI trailer . I have no idea how game play or story will be but that's why I wait . I bought Orsinium on sale for half what everyone else paid because I was patient . Same with Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherehood . I am so much happier with my purchases when I don't buy them because of hype .

Everyone said Imperial City was a must have for PVP . I didn't buy it . I waited and tested it and it stinks to me . Glad I didn't jump on the hype . This change in name of DLC for pricing just gives me more incentive to be frugal .

UrQuan · February 2017

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

How can a customer be shady and deceptive? A customer isn't selling anything to the billion dollar corporation.

I'm not weighing in on one side or the other of that particular discussion, but if you're asking the question above I'm guessing you've never worked in a retail environment... I can tell you I've seen plenty of shady and deceptive customers, some of whom I've had to call the cops on (OK, that only actually happened twice, but internal security incidents were a lot more common than that), and some of whom the cops or taxman came to us with warrants to get info on them.

MLGProPlayer · February 2017

BlueViolet wrote: »

SanTii.92 wrote: »

So you are saying that what it bothers you is that they are backtracking their one line statement made about two years ago and not this particular change by itself? Ok then, appologize.

You know, for me, If Zenimax had opened a thread perhaps saying something like "look, we're going to release this very large expansive content bundle / whatever, and although we know subscribers are billed to get all upcoming content included in their subs, we really feel that this content is worthy of being called an expansion not just a DLC pack, so, we were planning on pricing it at $X amount of dollars for everybody . We've backtracked a little from our original spiel in regard to sub content, but we really think you will find it worthwhile - Discuss."

I would have been fine with that. They would have acknowledged that they were reneging on their earlier decision, and they would have been open about it.
Instead, they just went about changing the wording on their subscription ad page & going back on something they had stressed prior, without saying anything to the players and customers that they profess to care about. To me that's just sly and sneaky and underhanded and I take exception to that kind of thing.

Some people say they don't owe us anything. And they probably don't "owe" anything. Everyone knows that as a business, they must make money to keep ESO going. But I don't see why they can't be open about these things, rather than just appearing to go about it underhandedly.

edit to add quote.

If the outcome was the same, but they were just more transparent about everything, they wouldn't have received half the backlash they are receiving now.

SaRuZ · February 2017

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Sigtric wrote: »

sevomd69 wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

sevomd69 wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

sevomd69 wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

I see a lot of strawman arguments being made. Nobody seems to understand why some people are angry.

People don't care about the price of the DLC. $40 is not a lot of money.

People are angry because ZOS has changed their revenue model AGAIN, leaving subscribers out to dry. The most loyal fans of the game feel betrayed because they felt they were paying for something, at a rate of $180 a year, that they will not receive now.

Had ZOS been clear from the start on what constitutes a DLC and what constitutes an expansion (two interchangeable terms), this whole mess could have been avoided. People who subbed for access to all future content, might not have subbed if they knew expansions would not be included in that rate.

These are players who have contributed many times the value of the DLC through their subscription, yet they are not getting any recognition for that now.

The worst part is that these players cannot even use the crowns they have accumulated to by this latest expansion. These are real dollars that were paid to ZOS.

This is why some people are angry.

I understand where you're coming from, but.... I am a subscriber... and I have never interchanged the terms DLC and expansion... but that may be biased by the fact that I have previously played many MMO's...

The terms are interchangeable in the gaming industry. Here is an article from Gamespot, announcing the Orsinium DLC as a new expansion (and calling it both terms in the actual article).

No that is an article by Gamespot... not the whole gaming industry... I have been playing MMO's for a long time now and I think if you ask people with extensive MMO experience, a good majority would not interchange the terms DLC and Expansion...

They are interchangeable in the gaming industry, as a whole. You cannot assume that everyone who plays ESO is an MMO vet.

Says who? All I saw was one article...

It seems pretty common to me, among most games, smaller content drops are DLC and larger ones are expansions.

Since they are similar in nature it is easy to spin things to help validate the entitlement

Blood & Wine was a DLC for the Witcher 3. It is the same size or bigger than Morrowind.

There are no industry-wide definitions for the terms. Every developer uses their own standard.

Umm are we talking about the same Witcher 3? This is what's on the back of my game case

sadownik · February 2017

sevomd69 wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

sevomd69 wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

I see a lot of strawman arguments being made. Nobody seems to understand why some people are angry.

People don't care about the price of the DLC. $40 is not a lot of money.

People are angry because ZOS has changed their revenue model AGAIN, leaving subscribers out to dry. The most loyal fans of the game feel betrayed because they felt they were paying for something, at a rate of $180 a year, that they will not receive now.

Had ZOS been clear from the start on what constitutes a DLC and what constitutes an expansion (two interchangeable terms), this whole mess could have been avoided. People who subbed for access to all future content, might not have subbed if they knew expansions would not be included in that rate.

These are players who have contributed many times the value of the DLC through their subscription, yet they are not getting any recognition for that now.

The worst part is that these players cannot even use the crowns they have accumulated to by this latest expansion. These are real dollars that were paid to ZOS.

This is why some people are angry.

I understand where you're coming from, but.... I am a subscriber... and I have never interchanged the terms DLC and expansion... but that may be biased by the fact that I have previously played many MMO's...

The terms are interchangeable in the gaming industry. Here is an article from Gamespot, announcing the Orsinium DLC as a new expansion (and calling it both terms in the actual article).

No that is an article by Gamespot... not the whole gaming industry... I have been playing MMO's for a long time now and I think if you ask people with extensive MMO experience, a good majority would not interchange the terms DLC and Expansion...

So how you define DLC and expansion? Just asking, because for the last 18 years i have been playing MMOs and still dont know. Please help!

Messy1 wrote: »

Once again folks we are assuming that ZOS is inventing all these MMO business models, but hey they are not reinventing the wheel. Get used to it. Even IF the game were still SUB based they would still charge for expansions, even if DLC was included in your sub. ESO Morrowind seems sufficiently EPIC enough to me to be an expansion.

I guess people forget the days] of Vanilla WoW and the Burning Crusade EXPANSION that cost you extra money to buy along with still having to pay a sub, the same for WoLK and Cataclysm . . . etc . . .

http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-gb/news/post/2015/01/21/your-guide-to-eso-plus-premium-membership - tell me where do you see that here?

And in spirit of the thread lets clear a few things here:

1. WoW started and still is p2p game which from the start got the model of paid expansion. Absolute most of the players know that and accept that. ESO started as p2p game and at that time nobody i know expected to get everything for the price of sub, but ofc expected smaller but regular dlc included in it untill the devs will release a bigger dlc (cal it as you will) that will be charged for.
2. ESO went b2p but still offered a sub, this time quite clearly promising that with sub you have access to all downloadable content in present and in future. Now this has changed - there is content that is suddenly not included.

Zos wants to eat cake and have it too, and they seem to manage this.

Sigma957 · February 2017

Isn't it in the terms and conditions that ZOS can change anything without notice? Can't be bothered looking it up as I have said before in other posts I sub and don't feel cheated or betrayed in anyway. Clockwork city will be the dlc to Morrowind so expect that to be free to play if you sub. Already got my preorder in, can't wait to see whats new.

RedTalon · February 2017

I'm not upset and expected this, unlike most knew that dlc term is different from chapters/expansion

Depending on point of view its a grey early, so no one should be shocked by this. We can hope it will be bigger then past expansions and think it will be they will most likely break the new area up into zones Given battlefields and soo on seems likely.

But anyone who is shocked by a corp using the term dlc and expansion has different things is naive imho

But we got so use to thinking dlc means the same thing over the years some probably forget its wider and narrowing depending but such is life

But just my two crowns

Yolokin_Swagonborn · February 2017

Downloadable content (DLC) is additional content created for a released video game. It is distributed through the Internet by the game's official publisher. Downloadable content can be of several types, ranging from aesthetic outfit changes to a new, extensive storyline, similar to an expansion pack. As such, DLC may add new game modes, objects, levels, challenges or other features to a complete, already released game.

Vvardenfell IS DLC

Full access to DLC was promised to subscribers in perpetuity.

End of story.

SunfireKnight86 · February 2017

esotoon wrote: »

Sigtric wrote: »

I'm a sub, I don't feel out to dry. I've been saying for a while to my friends in ESO that it needs a proper large paid expansion and I'm happy they are releasing one.

I think this is the problem. What one defines as a "large expansion". To many, this seems to offer only a little extra content compared to previous DLCs (especially when considering subscribers have received no DLCs for 2 Quarters). So why is it considered an Expansion and worthy of a separate payment?

Other MMOs have Expansion Packs for sure, but they seem to offer changes that affect the whole of the game, and add playable content far more in excess than what is being offered here.

Really? Wow just added a new xpac with a new system, a new class, and a new zone for the same price point. Sounds about right to me!

esotoon · February 2017

UrQuan wrote: »

I also have to admit that part of the reason why I'm OK with paying for the expansion even though I'm a subscriber* is because I know that one way or another I'd be buying that physical collectors edition anyway. I got the physical collectors edition of the base game and I'm happy I did because it came with some great stuff. So I'd be shelling out the money anyway.

Daft thing is, I was going to buy the collectors edition too, even though I subscribe. But now I won't be, because, in my opinion, this is not an Expansion, it's just the 3 missing DLCs from my subscription rolled into one. So I no longer feel inclined to go over the top with supporting a game that's willing do something so (in my opinion) shady.

The same as I would gladly have bought the majority of "Crown Crate" exclusives to support the game, had they just been sold in the Crown Store as per usual.

That's why I feel so frustrated, I love this game, but ZOS (through their business shenanigans) make it damned hard to support the hard work of their developers with a glad heart.

UrQuan · February 2017

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

BlueViolet wrote: »

SanTii.92 wrote: »

So you are saying that what it bothers you is that they are backtracking their one line statement made about two years ago and not this particular change by itself? Ok then, appologize.

You know, for me, If Zenimax had opened a thread perhaps saying something like "look, we're going to release this very large expansive content bundle / whatever, and although we know subscribers are billed to get all upcoming content included in their subs, we really feel that this content is worthy of being called an expansion not just a DLC pack, so, we were planning on pricing it at $X amount of dollars for everybody . We've backtracked a little from our original spiel in regard to sub content, but we really think you will find it worthwhile - Discuss."

I would have been fine with that. They would have acknowledged that they were reneging on their earlier decision, and they would have been open about it.
Instead, they just went about changing the wording on their subscription ad page & going back on something they had stressed prior, without saying anything to the players and customers that they profess to care about. To me that's just sly and sneaky and underhanded and I take exception to that kind of thing.

Some people say they don't owe us anything. And they probably don't "owe" anything. Everyone knows that as a business, they must make money to keep ESO going. But I don't see why they can't be open about these things, rather than just appearing to go about it underhandedly.

edit to add quote.

If the outcome was the same, but they were just more transparent about everything, they wouldn't have received half the backlash they are receiving now.

At one point I may have agreed with that statement. If there's one thing I've seen on the forums over the last (almost) 3 years, though, it's that no matter what they get a backlash. If they're transparent they get a backlash. If they stay quiet they get a backlash. If they make literally any changes they get a backlash. If they don't make enough changes they get a backlash.

The only thing that ever changes is the amount of backlash and whether there's any legitimate reason for it. Would they be seeing less backlash now if they had been more transparent about this? It's possible, but honestly I doubt it. Of course, I always prefer more transparency to less, but whether it would actually mean less backlash is up for debate.

Jimbullbee85 · February 2017

I'm a pretty loyal consumer but it is the first company that i have a contract with where i feel completely *** on. It's a disgrace that ZOS Is going to pay for very soon. I've not seen a single decent argument in favour of ZOS' skulking greedy actions and if they dont do something to appease subs they're going to lose alot of them.

MLGProPlayer · February 2017

SaRuZ wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Sigtric wrote: »

sevomd69 wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

sevomd69 wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

sevomd69 wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

I see a lot of strawman arguments being made. Nobody seems to understand why some people are angry.

People don't care about the price of the DLC. $40 is not a lot of money.

People are angry because ZOS has changed their revenue model AGAIN, leaving subscribers out to dry. The most loyal fans of the game feel betrayed because they felt they were paying for something, at a rate of $180 a year, that they will not receive now.

Had ZOS been clear from the start on what constitutes a DLC and what constitutes an expansion (two interchangeable terms), this whole mess could have been avoided. People who subbed for access to all future content, might not have subbed if they knew expansions would not be included in that rate.

These are players who have contributed many times the value of the DLC through their subscription, yet they are not getting any recognition for that now.

The worst part is that these players cannot even use the crowns they have accumulated to by this latest expansion. These are real dollars that were paid to ZOS.

This is why some people are angry.

I understand where you're coming from, but.... I am a subscriber... and I have never interchanged the terms DLC and expansion... but that may be biased by the fact that I have previously played many MMO's...

The terms are interchangeable in the gaming industry. Here is an article from Gamespot, announcing the Orsinium DLC as a new expansion (and calling it both terms in the actual article).

No that is an article by Gamespot... not the whole gaming industry... I have been playing MMO's for a long time now and I think if you ask people with extensive MMO experience, a good majority would not interchange the terms DLC and Expansion...

They are interchangeable in the gaming industry, as a whole. You cannot assume that everyone who plays ESO is an MMO vet.

Says who? All I saw was one article...

It seems pretty common to me, among most games, smaller content drops are DLC and larger ones are expansions.

Since they are similar in nature it is easy to spin things to help validate the entitlement

Blood & Wine was a DLC for the Witcher 3. It is the same size or bigger than Morrowind.

There are no industry-wide definitions for the terms. Every developer uses their own standard.

Umm are we talking about the same Witcher 3? This is what's on the back of my game case

I have the digital edition. It was listed as a DLC on Steam (and still is). Looks like, as I mentioned earlier, different developers, retailers, and journalists use their own terminology. Once again, here is a mainstream video game journal calling it a DLC (just like another mainstream journal called Orsinium an expansion). There is no standard definition for what constitutes a DLC and what constitutes an expansion.

The line is further blurred in this game when you consider that one of the DLCs (Orsinium) has almost the same amount of content as this expansion.

ZOS even went ahead and changed the wording on their ESO+ page. If the definitions are so clear, couldn't they have just left the old wording?

potentatewags · February 2017

As a subscriber from the start, I do feel slighted myself. I don't even post on the forums, but feel it necessary to speak up here. I mostly share the same sentiment as other subscribers upset by the deception on ZOS's part, but I also am typically fine with actually buying legitimate expansions. However, as no actual dlc content has been released lately, as has been promised us, I feel what they should have done as consolation to loyal subscribers is this (and it seems so simple to me):

All ESO+ subscribers should be getting the expansion for $40. Yes, I'm aware they can get that, but here's the catch. All that extra bonus stuff for the more expensive pre-orders and upgrades? The horse, the emotes, the grey warbear, etc...that should all come with the $40 upgrade for subscribers. Non-subscribers should have to pay the full $80 price tag, because what all those little bonuses really add up to in the end is dlc. Had they done that, I'd be fine with it, I'd be fine swallowing $40 to get all the dlc they want to charge extra in conjunction with an expansion that's only, by their own admission in its time content, 10% of the base game.

UrQuan · February 2017

esotoon wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

I also have to admit that part of the reason why I'm OK with paying for the expansion even though I'm a subscriber* is because I know that one way or another I'd be buying that physical collectors edition anyway. I got the physical collectors edition of the base game and I'm happy I did because it came with some great stuff. So I'd be shelling out the money anyway.

Daft thing is, I was going to buy the collectors edition too, even though I subscribe. But now I won't be, because, in my opinion, this is not an Expansion, it's just the 3 missing DLCs from my subscription rolled into one. So I no longer feel inclined to go over the top with supporting a game that's willing do something so (in my opinion) shady.

The same as I would gladly have bought the majority of "Crown Crate" exclusives to support the game, had they just been sold in the Crown Store as per usual.

That's why I feel so frustrated, I love this game, but ZOS (through their business shenanigans) make it damned hard to support the hard work of their developers with a glad heart.

I'm right there with you on the Crown Crate exclusives. I definitely would have bought a bunch of them outright if they had been offered directly in the store, but I will never ever buy a Crown Crate. So I can totally understand why something like this would make someone change their mind about buying the collectors edition.

Nefaras · February 2017

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

There is also a strong message that ZOS is taking people with subs for granted. ZOS quietly took their sub money in 2016 Q4 but didn't drop any new DLC in the crown store. The same happened in 2017 Q1. Then, surprise! Despite waiting and paying for 6 months, you won't be getting anything for another 3, but we will take more of your money for what we were working on while we received your sub.

Who knows. Maybe they will also drop an amazing DLC alongside Morrowind in Q2. That would at least give some value to those who sub. Of course, the backlash among would be pretty bad for day-1 DLC.

This.

And to be fair , a competetiv pvp game mode (like battlegrounds or arena) should be in the base game ...not limited behind a paywall.

so and what disturbs me the most is that they said in the stream that they will continue tp develope the base game. does that mean that i am as a eso+ member will only get bae game dlcs , because i am a sub to the base game?

they shoul give subs a 25% discount and we would all be a little more happy..

SunfireKnight86 · February 2017

Nefaras wrote: »

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

There is also a strong message that ZOS is taking people with subs for granted. ZOS quietly took their sub money in 2016 Q4 but didn't drop any new DLC in the crown store. The same happened in 2017 Q1. Then, surprise! Despite waiting and paying for 6 months, you won't be getting anything for another 3, but we will take more of your money for what we were working on while we received your sub.

Who knows. Maybe they will also drop an amazing DLC alongside Morrowind in Q2. That would at least give some value to those who sub. Of course, the backlash among would be pretty bad for day-1 DLC.

This.

And to be fair , a competetiv pvp game mode (like battlegrounds or arena) should be in the base game ...not limited behind a paywall.

so and what disturbs me the most is that they said in the stream that they will continue tp develope the base game. does that mean that i am as a eso+ member will only get bae game dlcs , because i am a sub to the base game?

they shoul give subs a 25% discount and we would all be a little more happy..

Except the total revamp of the whole game, the crowns they got, the extra XP, the continued access to the DLC that had already been released, and housing.

They never said they'd add a new zone every four months, they said they'd add content, which they have.

Jesus, you people would say the sky was green if you thought it would get you free content.

esotoon · February 2017

SunfireKnight86 wrote: »

Except the total revamp of the whole game, the crowns they got, the extra XP, the continued access to the DLC that had already been released, and housing.

They never said they'd add a new zone every four months, they said they'd add content, which they have.

Could you tell me where to download the DLC for 2016 Q4 and 2017 Q1 please? Even though I'm a subscriber I didn't seem to get it.

SunfireKnight86 · February 2017

You people, however, have set up plenty of strawman arguments.

[*] You probably don't pay a sub
[*] A DLC is the same thing as an expansion pack
[*] People use the terms interchangeably
[*] It isn't about the money.
[*] It's not worth the cost

EDIT: *** lists.

Just stick to the one thing for ***'s sake: We're mad we have to pay for this. That is valid all its own.

Pops_ND_Irish · February 2017

ZoS is terrible !
Before you leave angry, see this post:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/317553/for-those-who-say-they-will-stop-sub-playing-everytime-a-patch-news-come-out-donate-here#latest

SunfireKnight86 · February 2017

esotoon wrote: »

SunfireKnight86 wrote: »

Except the total revamp of the whole game, the crowns they got, the extra XP, the continued access to the DLC that had already been released, and housing.

They never said they'd add a new zone every four months, they said they'd add content, which they have.

Could you tell me where to download the DLC for 2016 Q4 and 2017 Q1 please? Even though I'm a subscriber I didn't seem to get it.

It's called One Tamriel. You probably heard of it. Or are you mad that it isn't exclusive to subscribers? You know you don't actually have to pay that, right?

greylox · February 2017

It better be a lot bigger than wrothgar then. I'll buy it, but considering the amount I spend on eso plus a year.....Well a little annoyed probably covers it. It'd be nice if eso plus users got a unique gift when entering morrowind.

UrbanMonk · February 2017

SanTii.92 wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

People who subbed for access to all future content, might not have subbed if they knew expansions would not be included in that rate.

This is where a lot of you get it completly wrong, and i'm sorry, but to me is beyond idiotic.

You've subbed for the content Zenimax delivered and you were playing all this time, to think that it would entiltle you to any future devolopment, regardless of scope or whatever makes no sense at all.

They are telling you in advance how Morrowind is gonna be monetized, you can do now whatever the hell you want with your sub.

@SanTii.92 - I think this where you get it wrong if you are saying that we were thinking that sub will entitle us to future content. If you go back a bit, you'll see that it did. We did got 4 future content, Orsinium/DOB/TS/SOTH. But what you fail to see and understand in your tiny brain is that Calling another future content a Expansion does not make it any different than the 4 content released before.
So Take you idiotic argument and shove it .................

esotoon · February 2017

SunfireKnight86 wrote: »

esotoon wrote: »

It's called One Tamriel. You probably heard of it. Or are you mad that it isn't exclusive to subscribers? You know you don't actually have to pay that, right?

One Tamriel was a change to the base game. Not a DLC. Or do you consider every patch DLC? And you are right, I don't have to subscribe. I want to subscribe. But I would also like to receive the promised content in exchange for that subscription.

SunfireKnight86 · February 2017

Yes, I'm probably a lot less mature than the other adults arguing about what constitutes DLC on a forum at 3am on a weekday.

sadownik · February 2017

SunfireKnight86 wrote: »

Yes, I'm probably a lot less mature than the other adults arguing about what constitutes DLC on a forum at 3am on a weekday.

Well its 9 am here and i have a work from home day, but thanks for consideration.