Maintenance for the week of April 6:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
Really debating whether I going to keep supporting ESO with my sub
-
kunquatb16_ESO✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?
You digitally signed an agreement that Zos may change their model at any time. It is very much a legal contract and certainly nothing immoral and clearly not unethical since it is stated in the aforementioned agreement you accepted.
Merely stating something is immoral does not make it so.0 -
kunquatb16_ESO✭✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?
You digitally signed an agreement that Zos may change their model at any time. It is very much a legal contract and certainly nothing immoral and clearly not unethical since it is stated in the aforementioned agreement you accepted.
Merely stating something is immoral does not make it so.
Ok, not "immoral", but wrong, shortsighted, harmful, exploitative, degrades ESO+ and Crowns.0 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
And where does it say that you can buy -all-
future content with crowns? I've certainly never seen that anywhere."As an online discussion of Tamrielic Lore grows longer, the probability of someone blaming a Dragon Break approaches 1." -- Sheds' Law
Have you seen the Twin Lamps?0 -
StormWylf✭✭✭✭Sub don't sub that's up to you.[
But I will say we seemed to have fallen down the rabbit hole with this silly talk about morality.
1 -
kunquatb16_ESO✭✭✭✭ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
And where does it say that you can buy -all-
future content with crowns? I've certainly never seen that anywhere.
The original promise of the crownstore was that all future content would be purchasable there. it is not.1 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?
You digitally signed an agreement that Zos may change their model at any time. It is very much a legal contract and certainly nothing immoral and clearly not unethical since it is stated in the aforementioned agreement you accepted.
Merely stating something is immoral does not make it so.
Ok, not "immoral", but wrong, shortsighted, harmful, exploitative, degrades ESO+ and Crowns.
The shortsighted aspect would mean the change is not successful and I know I do not have the information to even begin to say so. Have you seen the sales number so far or projected revenue for the next year, or two? That is what will determine if this change is short sighted. Not the emotions of some players concerning the change.
Harmful is another subjective term in the context of the game being a business. I would lump it with my response to shortsighted.
Exploitative - you agreed to this change when you digitally signed the agreement when you started playing this game.
Degrades ESO+ - maybe. It is clear Zos increased the value of ESO+ by other means and each of us is able to make a choice if that new added value is worth it given these changes. Crowns is lumped in with this and since many of us buy crowns on sale it may have helped lead to these changes.
I understand you are upset. I do not think any of us enjoy change, but it does happen. Heck, I did not like it when ESO went to the B2P model. I thought it was harmful to the game. But it seemed to make it just fine.
Edited by idk on June 8, 2017 4:52AM0 -
ShedsHisTail✭✭✭✭✭
✭kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »
That person is you. You're the one who brought both rights and morality into this conversation without realizing that one depends upon the other.
Either way, there's clearly no getting through to you and I've other things to do. You have a good evening."As an online discussion of Tamrielic Lore grows longer, the probability of someone blaming a Dragon Break approaches 1." -- Sheds' Law
Have you seen the Twin Lamps?0 -
kunquatb16_ESO✭✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?
You digitally signed an agreement that Zos may change their model at any time. It is very much a legal contract and certainly nothing immoral and clearly not unethical since it is stated in the aforementioned agreement you accepted.
Merely stating something is immoral does not make it so.
Ok, not "immoral", but wrong, shortsighted, harmful, exploitative, degrades ESO+ and Crowns.
The shortsighted aspect would mean the change is not successful and I know I do not have the information to even begin to say so. Have you seen the sales number so far or projected revenue for the next year, or two? That is what will determine if this change is short sighted. Not the emotions of some players concerning the change.
Harmful is another subjective term in the context of the game being a business. I would lump it with my response to shortsighted.
Exploitative - you agreed to this change when you digitally signed the agreement when you started playing this game.
Degrades ESO+ - maybe. It is clear Zos increased the value of ESO+ by other means and each of us is able to make a choice if that new added value is worth it given these changes. Crowns is lumped in with this and since many of us buy crowns on sale it may have helped lead to these changes.
Shortsighted: by your own reasoning, their poor planning and business decisions have forced this move.
Harmful, it has, and be reason, will continue to lose the subscribers.
Exploitative: Having the right to do something does mean you should.
Downgrades ESO+ and Crowns: You never know what they'll exclude these from next, what value do either really have?0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?
You digitally signed an agreement that Zos may change their model at any time. It is very much a legal contract and certainly nothing immoral and clearly not unethical since it is stated in the aforementioned agreement you accepted.
Merely stating something is immoral does not make it so.
Ok, not "immoral", but wrong, shortsighted, harmful, exploitative, degrades ESO+ and Crowns.
The shortsighted aspect would mean the change is not successful and I know I do not have the information to even begin to say so. Have you seen the sales number so far or projected revenue for the next year, or two? That is what will determine if this change is short sighted. Not the emotions of some players concerning the change.
Harmful is another subjective term in the context of the game being a business. I would lump it with my response to shortsighted.
Exploitative - you agreed to this change when you digitally signed the agreement when you started playing this game.
Degrades ESO+ - maybe. It is clear Zos increased the value of ESO+ by other means and each of us is able to make a choice if that new added value is worth it given these changes. Crowns is lumped in with this and since many of us buy crowns on sale it may have helped lead to these changes.
Shortsighted: by your own reasoning, their poor planning and business decisions have forced this move.
Harmful, it has, and be reason, will continue to lose the subscribers.
Exploitative: Having the right to do something does mean you should.
Downgrades ESO+ and Crowns: You never know what they'll exclude these from next, what value do either really have?
It is not poor planning if the old plan was fine but the new plan is considered better. My reasoning above does not in any way support your claim.
Their business models projected a loss of some subscribers so it would be harmful to the business if more players unsubbed that predicted. I so not have access to their numbers. Have you been able to see Zos books on this?
Considering we all have the option of discontinuing doing business with Zos there is nothing exploitative about this.
As for downgrades ESO+ and crowns I point to the sentence directly above.
We can go at this forever. However, while each of us are entitled to our opinions, that does not make statements that this change is shortsighted, harmful, exploitative accurate.
Edited by idk on June 8, 2017 5:14AM0 -
kunquatb16_ESO✭✭✭✭Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?
You digitally signed an agreement that Zos may change their model at any time. It is very much a legal contract and certainly nothing immoral and clearly not unethical since it is stated in the aforementioned agreement you accepted.
Merely stating something is immoral does not make it so.
Ok, not "immoral", but wrong, shortsighted, harmful, exploitative, degrades ESO+ and Crowns.
The shortsighted aspect would mean the change is not successful and I know I do not have the information to even begin to say so. Have you seen the sales number so far or projected revenue for the next year, or two? That is what will determine if this change is short sighted. Not the emotions of some players concerning the change.
Harmful is another subjective term in the context of the game being a business. I would lump it with my response to shortsighted.
Exploitative - you agreed to this change when you digitally signed the agreement when you started playing this game.
Degrades ESO+ - maybe. It is clear Zos increased the value of ESO+ by other means and each of us is able to make a choice if that new added value is worth it given these changes. Crowns is lumped in with this and since many of us buy crowns on sale it may have helped lead to these changes.
Shortsighted: by your own reasoning, their poor planning and business decisions have forced this move.
Harmful, it has, and be reason, will continue to lose the subscribers.
Exploitative: Having the right to do something does mean you should.
Downgrades ESO+ and Crowns: You never know what they'll exclude these from next, what value do either really have?
It is not poor planning if the old plan was fine but the new plan is considered better. My reasoning above does not in any way support your claim.
Their business models projected a loss of some subscribers so it would be harmful to the business if more players unsubbed that predicted. I so not have access to their numbers. Have you been able to see Zos books on this?
Considering we all have the option of discontinuing doing business with Zos there is nothing exploitative about this.
As for downgrades ESO+ and crowns I point to the sentence directly above.
By your reasoning, instead of excluding ESO+ from content, Zos raising the cost of subscription by $1000 the day before the highest number of subscription renewed wouldn't be exploitative, as the TOS states they have the right to change it without notice.
Note, pointing out that Zos raising the subscription cost that much would be silly, isn't an answer. Just as "they have the right, therefore it not exploitative" isn't an argument in defense of chapters.0 -
DaveMoeDee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭As others have said, talking about a sub as "support" is misguided. You are doing a business transaction. You are buying a service. Yes, ZOS clearly implied that if you maintained a sub, you would never have to worry about buying additional DLC content. But terms change all the time. And the terms are take it or leave it.
If you felt you got value from your sub for the months you subbed, then you made a good purchase. If you don't, why were you subbing? If you think you are getting sufficient value from the sub, continue it. If not, don't. Pretty simple.
Over the past 2 years, I have been annoyed a few times with people who think of a sub like charity, money given to show ZOS they appreciate what they are doing. If you pay $15 for a sub this month, it is for exactly what you receive this month. There are no promises for anything in the future. I counted the days until many of these people would regret such a naive approach.
And no one is "forced" to pay anything. The reality is that you can play this game for as long as the servers are up without paying an extra cent. If you chose to pay for ESO+, buyer beware. Many of us have long been pointing out that the value was not there and you were paying a premium for access to DLC. The only way the sub pre-bags had a chance of being worth it was if you would have bought crowns anyway for crown store stuff and you bought 6 months at a time. The sub would have been a better value if not for the 2+ times a year crown sales.
Also, everyone should do the math. For people on ESO+ for the last 2 years, there have been only 5 DLC. ZOS claims you will get 3 DLC for your sub per year going forward. That means the next 8 quarters should yield 6 DLC instead of just 5. Granted, 2 will be tiny DLC -- the dungeons -- and it is likely that we will never see a DLC the size of Orsinium again as they will be promoted to "chapter". But until we see confirmation that the DLC will be smaller going forward, ESO+ has considerable more value right now than it did a year ago.1 -
Betsararie✭✭✭✭✭
✭The problem with ESO plus is all of its benefits have to do with crafting, which itself is a worthless endeavour0 -
DaveMoeDee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭The problem with ESO plus is all of its benefits have to do with crafting, which itself is a worthless endeavour
They aren't necessarily about crafting. They are about inventory. The increased bank size doesn't necessarily have anything to do with crafting since your mats would be in the crafting bag. People can fill that for dropped gear. And even if you don't craft, you can always autoloot with crafting bags and you can just sell what you don't want.
And crafting is no more worthless than any other endeavor in the game. If it entertains you, do it. If it doesn't, don't. Same with everything else.0 -
ObsidianMichi✭✭✭They're only doing the expansions/chapters as one per year and they are separate from the DLC. They aren't switching from one to the other. They're doing both. So, we will still see another DLC in the next quarter. I'd hazard the reason they're doing "chapters" is to keep up the game's visibility the same way WOW does. By releasing new boxed copies to brick and mortar stores (and having another reason for it to pop up on Steam), they both attract new clientele and bring back old ones. That seems to be their business plan for ensuring the long term health of the game. This is a successful business model Bethesda has used with other titles, including the Elder Scrolls franchise.
If you no longer feel you are getting your money's worth from your sub, then you should unsubscribe. However, you should make sure that you're clear on what exactly you're entitled to (which is not the Morrowind expansion).0 -
kunquatb16_ESO✭✭✭✭DaveMoeDee wrote: »As others have said, talking about a sub as "support" is misguided. You are doing a business transaction. You are buying a service. Yes, ZOS clearly implied that if you maintained a sub, you would never have to worry about buying additional DLC content. But terms change all the time. And the terms are take it or leave it.
If you felt you got value from your sub for the months you subbed, then you made a good purchase. If you don't, why were you subbing? If you think you are getting sufficient value from the sub, continue it. If not, don't. Pretty simple.
Over the past 2 years, I have been annoyed a few times with people who think of a sub like charity, money given to show ZOS they appreciate what they are doing. If you pay $15 for a sub this month, it is for exactly what you receive this month. There are no promises for anything in the future. I counted the days until many of these people would regret such a naive approach.
And no one is "forced" to pay anything. The reality is that you can play this game for as long as the servers are up without paying an extra cent. If you chose to pay for ESO+, buyer beware. Many of us have long been pointing out that the value was not there and you were paying a premium for access to DLC. The only way the sub pre-bags had a chance of being worth it was if you would have bought crowns anyway for crown store stuff and you bought 6 months at a time. The sub would have been a better value if not for the 2+ times a year crown sales.
Also, everyone should do the math. For people on ESO+ for the last 2 years, there have been only 5 DLC. ZOS claims you will get 3 DLC for your sub per year going forward. That means the next 8 quarters should yield 6 DLC instead of just 5. Granted, 2 will be tiny DLC -- the dungeons -- and it is likely that we will never see a DLC the size of Orsinium again as they will be promoted to "chapter". But until we see confirmation that the DLC will be smaller going forward, ESO+ has considerable more value right now than it did a year ago.
If they can change anything, anytime, which they can, then what basis do you have to make any decisions on? Even the not having to pay to play can be changed. If they don't have to keep to anything they say, then on what basis are you saying people have to decided upon? How can that decision be informed?0 -
DaveMoeDee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »DaveMoeDee wrote: »As others have said, talking about a sub as "support" is misguided. You are doing a business transaction. You are buying a service. Yes, ZOS clearly implied that if you maintained a sub, you would never have to worry about buying additional DLC content. But terms change all the time. And the terms are take it or leave it.
If you felt you got value from your sub for the months you subbed, then you made a good purchase. If you don't, why were you subbing? If you think you are getting sufficient value from the sub, continue it. If not, don't. Pretty simple.
Over the past 2 years, I have been annoyed a few times with people who think of a sub like charity, money given to show ZOS they appreciate what they are doing. If you pay $15 for a sub this month, it is for exactly what you receive this month. There are no promises for anything in the future. I counted the days until many of these people would regret such a naive approach.
And no one is "forced" to pay anything. The reality is that you can play this game for as long as the servers are up without paying an extra cent. If you chose to pay for ESO+, buyer beware. Many of us have long been pointing out that the value was not there and you were paying a premium for access to DLC. The only way the sub pre-bags had a chance of being worth it was if you would have bought crowns anyway for crown store stuff and you bought 6 months at a time. The sub would have been a better value if not for the 2+ times a year crown sales.
Also, everyone should do the math. For people on ESO+ for the last 2 years, there have been only 5 DLC. ZOS claims you will get 3 DLC for your sub per year going forward. That means the next 8 quarters should yield 6 DLC instead of just 5. Granted, 2 will be tiny DLC -- the dungeons -- and it is likely that we will never see a DLC the size of Orsinium again as they will be promoted to "chapter". But until we see confirmation that the DLC will be smaller going forward, ESO+ has considerable more value right now than it did a year ago.
If they can change anything, anytime, which they can, then what basis do you have to make any decisions on? Even the not having to pay to play can be changed. If they don't have to keep to anything they say, then on what basis are you saying people have to decided upon? How can that decision be informed?
You know exactly what you will get this month for a sub. You know there is no new DLC announced. You knew that there would be no new DLC the last 2 quarters. Unless you sub 6 months at a time, you new at each renewal what you could expect because they announced it early enough.
The only difficult part of the decision is not knowing the $ value of the upcoming DLC since you can't figure out if you would be better off just buying the DLC with crowns bought during a crown sale instead of being locked in to the sub in order to access all the DLC you failed to buy due to the sub. But this problem is not new. The lock-in problem was discussed many time in this forum.
We can also expect that they will not change this month to month because that would turn away too many players. But periodic changes to the business model are not surprising since they had to abandon their original plan of a mandatory sub.0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
it does not matter how many folks think i do not have the right to live or that it is right to murder me when i have acted legally in the determination as to whether or not it is moral to kill me.
i think you are confusing popularity with morality.
And really not even true popularity but rather vocal loudest on forums.
look, if 200 million folks in america all decide Wonder Woman should be shown for free, are theaters charging folks to see it immoral? Are hackers stealing it and setting it to stream online for free suddenly moral and justified because enough people like getting it for free?
More often than not, the most moral choices are not the most popular ones - though that may be lost on some these days - well looking back at history - most days.
but the long and short of it is this:
i (and others) feel we have gotten our money's worth and more out of our ongoing business dealing with ESO/ZOS etc. I (and others) will continue to support that judgement by subbing or otherwise engaging in further financial dealings with them.
if you (and others) feel you have not gotten your money's worth, the no matter how i feel about it or how popular or unpopular it is, you also have the right and the opportunity to continue to support that judgement of your by changing whether or not or how you interact with ZOS in further business dealings.
You dont need to get a popular support for your claims of moral positioning... you can just show them you mean business (or not) as you move forward.
if instead or in addition to that you wish to also pursue popular public opinion seeking as the victim, that is fine. Just expect others to also come along who disagree and share their opinions too.
Sometimes playing the victim works, sometimes it doesn't. But it is certainly a viable tactic in modern day social media.
You might even be able to monetize your victimhood - start streaming your "years ago i was decieved by ESO" plight, hold a fake funeral for your subscription then follow-up with even more outlandish claims and see if your click rate goes up enough to make the money money money money!
Could work.
has for some.
After all, the victimhood end game meta is martyrdom (with the fake sub funeral in this case.)
I wish you luck..
Or I could just be trying to stop Zos ruining a brilliant game that deserves better than being destroyed. I could be trying to point out the harm of losing customers to bait and switch tactics could do long term. I could, as someone who has supported this game since before day one, be invested in trying to keep what is best about it. I could be trying to make things better.
Did you consider any of that before deciding to make you unjustified character attack against me?
If you want to live in paywall city, their are plenty of MMOs already doing that. ESO+ unique selling point was it's lack of paywalls. If it gives away that, it loses a huge amount of it potential. It has great graphics, but soon, another MMO with better graphics, combat, and paywalls will come, and ESO as ESO has paywalls too, will have no USP, and therefore find it harder to compete.
With paywalls, ESO is giving away one of it's major competitive edges, which can only be increasingly bad going forwards.
If you think it's wrong to point this out, explain precisely why.
Accusing someone of exercising their consumer rights as "playing the victim" and wanting to "monetize" that victimhood is disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
First, eso has had contentbehind paywalss since launch when you had to buy the game. There was no free content. Wasn't it sub then?
The model has changed now and again adding fee play for some content but requiring money/sub for others.
So I have never ever seen an eso time when you could play for free and not have any content behind catwalk.
There was never ever a lack of paywalls.
Second, I did not accuse you of monetizing your victimhood, just mentioned to you it was possible.
Now since you apparently have some altfact version of ESO where there was no content that cost money, then I confess to not knowing if that monetizing reference is helpful in such a world.Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."1 -
kunquatb16_ESO✭✭✭✭kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
it does not matter how many folks think i do not have the right to live or that it is right to murder me when i have acted legally in the determination as to whether or not it is moral to kill me.
i think you are confusing popularity with morality.
And really not even true popularity but rather vocal loudest on forums.
look, if 200 million folks in america all decide Wonder Woman should be shown for free, are theaters charging folks to see it immoral? Are hackers stealing it and setting it to stream online for free suddenly moral and justified because enough people like getting it for free?
More often than not, the most moral choices are not the most popular ones - though that may be lost on some these days - well looking back at history - most days.
but the long and short of it is this:
i (and others) feel we have gotten our money's worth and more out of our ongoing business dealing with ESO/ZOS etc. I (and others) will continue to support that judgement by subbing or otherwise engaging in further financial dealings with them.
if you (and others) feel you have not gotten your money's worth, the no matter how i feel about it or how popular or unpopular it is, you also have the right and the opportunity to continue to support that judgement of your by changing whether or not or how you interact with ZOS in further business dealings.
You dont need to get a popular support for your claims of moral positioning... you can just show them you mean business (or not) as you move forward.
if instead or in addition to that you wish to also pursue popular public opinion seeking as the victim, that is fine. Just expect others to also come along who disagree and share their opinions too.
Sometimes playing the victim works, sometimes it doesn't. But it is certainly a viable tactic in modern day social media.
You might even be able to monetize your victimhood - start streaming your "years ago i was decieved by ESO" plight, hold a fake funeral for your subscription then follow-up with even more outlandish claims and see if your click rate goes up enough to make the money money money money!
Could work.
has for some.
After all, the victimhood end game meta is martyrdom (with the fake sub funeral in this case.)
I wish you luck..
Or I could just be trying to stop Zos ruining a brilliant game that deserves better than being destroyed. I could be trying to point out the harm of losing customers to bait and switch tactics could do long term. I could, as someone who has supported this game since before day one, be invested in trying to keep what is best about it. I could be trying to make things better.
Did you consider any of that before deciding to make you unjustified character attack against me?
If you want to live in paywall city, their are plenty of MMOs already doing that. ESO+ unique selling point was it's lack of paywalls. If it gives away that, it loses a huge amount of it potential. It has great graphics, but soon, another MMO with better graphics, combat, and paywalls will come, and ESO as ESO has paywalls too, will have no USP, and therefore find it harder to compete.
With paywalls, ESO is giving away one of it's major competitive edges, which can only be increasingly bad going forwards.
If you think it's wrong to point this out, explain precisely why.
Accusing someone of exercising their consumer rights as "playing the victim" and wanting to "monetize" that victimhood is disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
First, eso has had contentbehind paywalss since launch when you had to buy the game. There was no free content. Wasn't it sub then?
The model has changed now and again adding fee play for some content but requiring money/sub for others.
So I have never ever seen an eso time when you could play for free and not have any content behind catwalk.
There was never ever a lack of paywalls.
Second, I did not accuse you of monetizing your victimhood, just mentioned to you it was possible.
Now since you apparently have some altfact version of ESO where there was no content that cost money, then I confess to not knowing if that monetizing reference is helpful in such a world.
Throughout our conversation, I have repeatedly shown that you have no genuine basis, beyond "they have the right to do this" on which to defend ESO+ and crown store purchasers being excluded from Morrowind.
So instead, you chose to attack my character, suggesting I was "playing the victim", and even inferring I may be doing so for personal gain. What basis did you have for making such suggestions?0 -
makerofthings✭✭✭How is this a thing? No one is forcing anyone to sub nor purchase crown crates or anything from the crown store. Play for free after the initial purchase of the game and we (the subscribers) will float the boat. I have no problem with that. If the money I place down for the game I enjoy and allows for ESO to proceed forward, then all is groovy.0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?
You digitally signed an agreement that Zos may change their model at any time. It is very much a legal contract and certainly nothing immoral and clearly not unethical since it is stated in the aforementioned agreement you accepted.
Merely stating something is immoral does not make it so.
Ok, not "immoral", but wrong, shortsighted, harmful, exploitative, degrades ESO+ and Crowns.
The shortsighted aspect would mean the change is not successful and I know I do not have the information to even begin to say so. Have you seen the sales number so far or projected revenue for the next year, or two? That is what will determine if this change is short sighted. Not the emotions of some players concerning the change.
Harmful is another subjective term in the context of the game being a business. I would lump it with my response to shortsighted.
Exploitative - you agreed to this change when you digitally signed the agreement when you started playing this game.
Degrades ESO+ - maybe. It is clear Zos increased the value of ESO+ by other means and each of us is able to make a choice if that new added value is worth it given these changes. Crowns is lumped in with this and since many of us buy crowns on sale it may have helped lead to these changes.
Shortsighted: by your own reasoning, their poor planning and business decisions have forced this move.
Harmful, it has, and be reason, will continue to lose the subscribers.
Exploitative: Having the right to do something does mean you should.
Downgrades ESO+ and Crowns: You never know what they'll exclude these from next, what value do either really have?
It is not poor planning if the old plan was fine but the new plan is considered better. My reasoning above does not in any way support your claim.
Their business models projected a loss of some subscribers so it would be harmful to the business if more players unsubbed that predicted. I so not have access to their numbers. Have you been able to see Zos books on this?
Considering we all have the option of discontinuing doing business with Zos there is nothing exploitative about this.
As for downgrades ESO+ and crowns I point to the sentence directly above.
By your reasoning, instead of excluding ESO+ from content, Zos raising the cost of subscription by $1000 the day before the highest number of subscription renewed wouldn't be exploitative, as the TOS states they have the right to change it without notice.
Note, pointing out that Zos raising the subscription cost that much would be silly, isn't an answer. Just as "they have the right, therefore it not exploitative" isn't an argument in defense of chapters.
But here in this case they gave about six months notice. They gave just shy of the longest possible sub to warn you of the change. This was NOT a last minute bait and switch.
That said, even in your example the only potential exploit would be if there were auto-renews and Zoe let thth and those could be protested back thru credit cards or other pay sources and likely reversed.
But that kind of abuse is not what this is.
While the "agreed to change" may not be an absolute exclusion for every case, it does certainly apply to "six month lead time."
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
kunquatb16_ESO✭✭✭✭kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?
You digitally signed an agreement that Zos may change their model at any time. It is very much a legal contract and certainly nothing immoral and clearly not unethical since it is stated in the aforementioned agreement you accepted.
Merely stating something is immoral does not make it so.
Ok, not "immoral", but wrong, shortsighted, harmful, exploitative, degrades ESO+ and Crowns.
The shortsighted aspect would mean the change is not successful and I know I do not have the information to even begin to say so. Have you seen the sales number so far or projected revenue for the next year, or two? That is what will determine if this change is short sighted. Not the emotions of some players concerning the change.
Harmful is another subjective term in the context of the game being a business. I would lump it with my response to shortsighted.
Exploitative - you agreed to this change when you digitally signed the agreement when you started playing this game.
Degrades ESO+ - maybe. It is clear Zos increased the value of ESO+ by other means and each of us is able to make a choice if that new added value is worth it given these changes. Crowns is lumped in with this and since many of us buy crowns on sale it may have helped lead to these changes.
Shortsighted: by your own reasoning, their poor planning and business decisions have forced this move.
Harmful, it has, and be reason, will continue to lose the subscribers.
Exploitative: Having the right to do something does mean you should.
Downgrades ESO+ and Crowns: You never know what they'll exclude these from next, what value do either really have?
It is not poor planning if the old plan was fine but the new plan is considered better. My reasoning above does not in any way support your claim.
Their business models projected a loss of some subscribers so it would be harmful to the business if more players unsubbed that predicted. I so not have access to their numbers. Have you been able to see Zos books on this?
Considering we all have the option of discontinuing doing business with Zos there is nothing exploitative about this.
As for downgrades ESO+ and crowns I point to the sentence directly above.
By your reasoning, instead of excluding ESO+ from content, Zos raising the cost of subscription by $1000 the day before the highest number of subscription renewed wouldn't be exploitative, as the TOS states they have the right to change it without notice.
Note, pointing out that Zos raising the subscription cost that much would be silly, isn't an answer. Just as "they have the right, therefore it not exploitative" isn't an argument in defense of chapters.
But here in this case they gave about six months notice. They gave just shy of the longest possible sub to warn you of the change. This was NOT a last minute bait and switch.
That said, even in your example the only potential exploit would be if there were auto-renews and Zoe let thth and those could be protested back thru credit cards or other pay sources and likely reversed.
But that kind of abuse is not what this is.
While the "agreed to change" may not be an absolute exclusion for every case, it does certainly apply to "six month lead time."
They may have talked about it more than 6 months before it came in, but did not make it widely publicly known. No news in launcher, till later, no Email to all subscribers, no refunds for Crown purchases, no announcement articles until later. Unless you were watching the right forum, at the right time, you didn't get 6 months warning. It wasn't a last minute bait and switch, but it was a bait and switch.
Both scenarios have the same justification, "they have the right to, TOS says so". If it's not a defense in both cases, it's not a defense in either.1 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?
You digitally signed an agreement that Zos may change their model at any time. It is very much a legal contract and certainly nothing immoral and clearly not unethical since it is stated in the aforementioned agreement you accepted.
Merely stating something is immoral does not make it so.
Ok, not "immoral", but wrong, shortsighted, harmful, exploitative, degrades ESO+ and Crowns.
The shortsighted aspect would mean the change is not successful and I know I do not have the information to even begin to say so. Have you seen the sales number so far or projected revenue for the next year, or two? That is what will determine if this change is short sighted. Not the emotions of some players concerning the change.
Harmful is another subjective term in the context of the game being a business. I would lump it with my response to shortsighted.
Exploitative - you agreed to this change when you digitally signed the agreement when you started playing this game.
Degrades ESO+ - maybe. It is clear Zos increased the value of ESO+ by other means and each of us is able to make a choice if that new added value is worth it given these changes. Crowns is lumped in with this and since many of us buy crowns on sale it may have helped lead to these changes.
Shortsighted: by your own reasoning, their poor planning and business decisions have forced this move.
Harmful, it has, and be reason, will continue to lose the subscribers.
Exploitative: Having the right to do something does mean you should.
Downgrades ESO+ and Crowns: You never know what they'll exclude these from next, what value do either really have?
It is not poor planning if the old plan was fine but the new plan is considered better. My reasoning above does not in any way support your claim.
Their business models projected a loss of some subscribers so it would be harmful to the business if more players unsubbed that predicted. I so not have access to their numbers. Have you been able to see Zos books on this?
Considering we all have the option of discontinuing doing business with Zos there is nothing exploitative about this.
As for downgrades ESO+ and crowns I point to the sentence directly above.
By your reasoning, instead of excluding ESO+ from content, Zos raising the cost of subscription by $1000 the day before the highest number of subscription renewed wouldn't be exploitative, as the TOS states they have the right to change it without notice.
Note, pointing out that Zos raising the subscription cost that much would be silly, isn't an answer. Just as "they have the right, therefore it not exploitative" isn't an argument in defense of chapters.
But here in this case they gave about six months notice. They gave just shy of the longest possible sub to warn you of the change. This was NOT a last minute bait and switch.
That said, even in your example the only potential exploit would be if there were auto-renews and Zoe let thth and those could be protested back thru credit cards or other pay sources and likely reversed.
But that kind of abuse is not what this is.
While the "agreed to change" may not be an absolute exclusion for every case, it does certainly apply to "six month lead time."
They may have talked about it more than 6 months before it came in, but did not make it widely publicly known. No news in launcher, till later, no Email to all subscribers, no refunds for Crown purchases, no announcement articles until later. Unless you were watching the right forum, at the right time, you didn't get 6 months warning. It wasn't a last minute bait and switch, but it was a bait and switch.
Both scenarios have the same justification, "they have the right to, TOS says so". If it's not a defense in both cases, it's not a defense in either.
So if I today say "it's raining in Austin tx" and tomorrow I say "its raining in Texas" either both are true or both are false?
If I shoot someone attacking me at home and claim self defense and later shoot someone who was just walking in a mall not doing anything to me... The self defense claim is either valid for both or not valid for either?
Two different scenarios can precisely have different elements that make a given claim true for one and not the other.
If you truly don't believe months vs day before has any bearing on business changes, there is no point in further discussion.
Have a great life.Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
kunquatb16_ESO✭✭✭✭kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?
You digitally signed an agreement that Zos may change their model at any time. It is very much a legal contract and certainly nothing immoral and clearly not unethical since it is stated in the aforementioned agreement you accepted.
Merely stating something is immoral does not make it so.
Ok, not "immoral", but wrong, shortsighted, harmful, exploitative, degrades ESO+ and Crowns.
The shortsighted aspect would mean the change is not successful and I know I do not have the information to even begin to say so. Have you seen the sales number so far or projected revenue for the next year, or two? That is what will determine if this change is short sighted. Not the emotions of some players concerning the change.
Harmful is another subjective term in the context of the game being a business. I would lump it with my response to shortsighted.
Exploitative - you agreed to this change when you digitally signed the agreement when you started playing this game.
Degrades ESO+ - maybe. It is clear Zos increased the value of ESO+ by other means and each of us is able to make a choice if that new added value is worth it given these changes. Crowns is lumped in with this and since many of us buy crowns on sale it may have helped lead to these changes.
Shortsighted: by your own reasoning, their poor planning and business decisions have forced this move.
Harmful, it has, and be reason, will continue to lose the subscribers.
Exploitative: Having the right to do something does mean you should.
Downgrades ESO+ and Crowns: You never know what they'll exclude these from next, what value do either really have?
It is not poor planning if the old plan was fine but the new plan is considered better. My reasoning above does not in any way support your claim.
Their business models projected a loss of some subscribers so it would be harmful to the business if more players unsubbed that predicted. I so not have access to their numbers. Have you been able to see Zos books on this?
Considering we all have the option of discontinuing doing business with Zos there is nothing exploitative about this.
As for downgrades ESO+ and crowns I point to the sentence directly above.
By your reasoning, instead of excluding ESO+ from content, Zos raising the cost of subscription by $1000 the day before the highest number of subscription renewed wouldn't be exploitative, as the TOS states they have the right to change it without notice.
Note, pointing out that Zos raising the subscription cost that much would be silly, isn't an answer. Just as "they have the right, therefore it not exploitative" isn't an argument in defense of chapters.
But here in this case they gave about six months notice. They gave just shy of the longest possible sub to warn you of the change. This was NOT a last minute bait and switch.
That said, even in your example the only potential exploit would be if there were auto-renews and Zoe let thth and those could be protested back thru credit cards or other pay sources and likely reversed.
But that kind of abuse is not what this is.
While the "agreed to change" may not be an absolute exclusion for every case, it does certainly apply to "six month lead time."
They may have talked about it more than 6 months before it came in, but did not make it widely publicly known. No news in launcher, till later, no Email to all subscribers, no refunds for Crown purchases, no announcement articles until later. Unless you were watching the right forum, at the right time, you didn't get 6 months warning. It wasn't a last minute bait and switch, but it was a bait and switch.
Both scenarios have the same justification, "they have the right to, TOS says so". If it's not a defense in both cases, it's not a defense in either.
So if I today say "it's raining in Austin tx" and tomorrow I say "its raining in Texas" either both are true or both are false?
If I shoot someone attacking me at home and claim self defense and later shoot someone who was just walking in a mall not doing anything to me... The self defense claim is either valid for both or not valid for either?
Two different scenarios can precisely have different elements that make a given claim true for one and not the other.
If you truly don't believe months vs day before has any bearing on business changes, there is no point in further discussion.
Have a great life.
The raining in Texas vs raining in Austin Tx doesn't equate to this conversation. here is why, it can be raining in Texas, but not Austin, or it could be raining in Austin and Texas, but it can't be raining in Austin, but not Texas. One can be true, while the other is false, or both can be true. In my argument, either both are true, or both are false.
Defending yourself is fundamentally different to attacking someone else for no reason, the two action do not have the same basis, or justification. Zos not including chapters in ESO+ or on the crownstore, and as an example, increasing subscription charges whenever and however they want, have exactly the same justification, TOS says they can. Your analogy doesn't hold.
The basis for you argument was "you got warning", well in both scenarios, everyone would have warning. In both scenarios, anyone can choose to opt out. In both scenarios anyone caught out just has to accept it, according to your arguments. According to my arguments, they don't. There is a difference in length of time between days and months, but in this case, not in outcome, both are unfair.0 -
DaveMoeDee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?
You digitally signed an agreement that Zos may change their model at any time. It is very much a legal contract and certainly nothing immoral and clearly not unethical since it is stated in the aforementioned agreement you accepted.
Merely stating something is immoral does not make it so.
Ok, not "immoral", but wrong, shortsighted, harmful, exploitative, degrades ESO+ and Crowns.
The shortsighted aspect would mean the change is not successful and I know I do not have the information to even begin to say so. Have you seen the sales number so far or projected revenue for the next year, or two? That is what will determine if this change is short sighted. Not the emotions of some players concerning the change.
Harmful is another subjective term in the context of the game being a business. I would lump it with my response to shortsighted.
Exploitative - you agreed to this change when you digitally signed the agreement when you started playing this game.
Degrades ESO+ - maybe. It is clear Zos increased the value of ESO+ by other means and each of us is able to make a choice if that new added value is worth it given these changes. Crowns is lumped in with this and since many of us buy crowns on sale it may have helped lead to these changes.
Shortsighted: by your own reasoning, their poor planning and business decisions have forced this move.
Harmful, it has, and be reason, will continue to lose the subscribers.
Exploitative: Having the right to do something does mean you should.
Downgrades ESO+ and Crowns: You never know what they'll exclude these from next, what value do either really have?
It is not poor planning if the old plan was fine but the new plan is considered better. My reasoning above does not in any way support your claim.
Their business models projected a loss of some subscribers so it would be harmful to the business if more players unsubbed that predicted. I so not have access to their numbers. Have you been able to see Zos books on this?
Considering we all have the option of discontinuing doing business with Zos there is nothing exploitative about this.
As for downgrades ESO+ and crowns I point to the sentence directly above.
By your reasoning, instead of excluding ESO+ from content, Zos raising the cost of subscription by $1000 the day before the highest number of subscription renewed wouldn't be exploitative, as the TOS states they have the right to change it without notice.
Note, pointing out that Zos raising the subscription cost that much would be silly, isn't an answer. Just as "they have the right, therefore it not exploitative" isn't an argument in defense of chapters.
But here in this case they gave about six months notice. They gave just shy of the longest possible sub to warn you of the change. This was NOT a last minute bait and switch.
That said, even in your example the only potential exploit would be if there were auto-renews and Zoe let thth and those could be protested back thru credit cards or other pay sources and likely reversed.
But that kind of abuse is not what this is.
While the "agreed to change" may not be an absolute exclusion for every case, it does certainly apply to "six month lead time."
They may have talked about it more than 6 months before it came in, but did not make it widely publicly known. No news in launcher, till later, no Email to all subscribers, no refunds for Crown purchases, no announcement articles until later. Unless you were watching the right forum, at the right time, you didn't get 6 months warning. It wasn't a last minute bait and switch, but it was a bait and switch.
Both scenarios have the same justification, "they have the right to, TOS says so". If it's not a defense in both cases, it's not a defense in either.
It is true that the announcement was missed by many. But anyone with a sub that isn't tracking DLC releases is suspect in my mind. If you subbed through Q1 and Q2 without a DLC, you aren't looking for value anymore.
I agree it was a bait and switch. We were led to believe that subbing would gain people access to a new DLC every quarter. Not only did ZOS leave many quarters without a new paid DLC, but they decided to add DLC that requires an additional payment. The problem with the bait and switch is the lock-in of those who want to still have access to the older DLC.
In the end, people who subbed paid more for DLC than those who bought outright but are left without DLC if they stop sub. Thing is, we knew this when ESO+ first launched.1 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?
You digitally signed an agreement that Zos may change their model at any time. It is very much a legal contract and certainly nothing immoral and clearly not unethical since it is stated in the aforementioned agreement you accepted.
Merely stating something is immoral does not make it so.
Ok, not "immoral", but wrong, shortsighted, harmful, exploitative, degrades ESO+ and Crowns.
The shortsighted aspect would mean the change is not successful and I know I do not have the information to even begin to say so. Have you seen the sales number so far or projected revenue for the next year, or two? That is what will determine if this change is short sighted. Not the emotions of some players concerning the change.
Harmful is another subjective term in the context of the game being a business. I would lump it with my response to shortsighted.
Exploitative - you agreed to this change when you digitally signed the agreement when you started playing this game.
Degrades ESO+ - maybe. It is clear Zos increased the value of ESO+ by other means and each of us is able to make a choice if that new added value is worth it given these changes. Crowns is lumped in with this and since many of us buy crowns on sale it may have helped lead to these changes.
Shortsighted: by your own reasoning, their poor planning and business decisions have forced this move.
Harmful, it has, and be reason, will continue to lose the subscribers.
Exploitative: Having the right to do something does mean you should.
Downgrades ESO+ and Crowns: You never know what they'll exclude these from next, what value do either really have?
It is not poor planning if the old plan was fine but the new plan is considered better. My reasoning above does not in any way support your claim.
Their business models projected a loss of some subscribers so it would be harmful to the business if more players unsubbed that predicted. I so not have access to their numbers. Have you been able to see Zos books on this?
Considering we all have the option of discontinuing doing business with Zos there is nothing exploitative about this.
As for downgrades ESO+ and crowns I point to the sentence directly above.
By your reasoning, instead of excluding ESO+ from content, Zos raising the cost of subscription by $1000 the day before the highest number of subscription renewed wouldn't be exploitative, as the TOS states they have the right to change it without notice.
Note, pointing out that Zos raising the subscription cost that much would be silly, isn't an answer. Just as "they have the right, therefore it not exploitative" isn't an argument in defense of chapters.
But here in this case they gave about six months notice. They gave just shy of the longest possible sub to warn you of the change. This was NOT a last minute bait and switch.
That said, even in your example the only potential exploit would be if there were auto-renews and Zoe let thth and those could be protested back thru credit cards or other pay sources and likely reversed.
But that kind of abuse is not what this is.
While the "agreed to change" may not be an absolute exclusion for every case, it does certainly apply to "six month lead time."
They may have talked about it more than 6 months before it came in, but did not make it widely publicly known. No news in launcher, till later, no Email to all subscribers, no refunds for Crown purchases, no announcement articles until later. Unless you were watching the right forum, at the right time, you didn't get 6 months warning. It wasn't a last minute bait and switch, but it was a bait and switch.
Both scenarios have the same justification, "they have the right to, TOS says so". If it's not a defense in both cases, it's not a defense in either.
So if I today say "it's raining in Austin tx" and tomorrow I say "its raining in Texas" either both are true or both are false?
If I shoot someone attacking me at home and claim self defense and later shoot someone who was just walking in a mall not doing anything to me... The self defense claim is either valid for both or not valid for either?
Two different scenarios can precisely have different elements that make a given claim true for one and not the other.
If you truly don't believe months vs day before has any bearing on business changes, there is no point in further discussion.
Have a great life.
The raining in Texas vs raining in Austin Tx doesn't equate to this conversation. here is why, it can be raining in Texas, but not Austin, or it could be raining in Austin and Texas, but it can't be raining in Austin, but not Texas. One can be true, while the other is false, or both can be true. In my argument, either both are true, or both are false.
Defending yourself is fundamentally different to attacking someone else for no reason, the two action do not have the same basis, or justification. Zos not including chapters in ESO+ or on the crownstore, and as an example, increasing subscription charges whenever and however they want, have exactly the same justification, TOS says they can. Your analogy doesn't hold.
The basis for you argument was "you got warning", well in both scenarios, everyone would have warning. In both scenarios, anyone can choose to opt out. In both scenarios anyone caught out just has to accept it, according to your arguments. According to my arguments, they don't. There is a difference in length of time between days and months, but in this case, not in outcome, both are unfair.
As noted above, day v months lead time and warning is huge in every sense of fairness. One allows you to prepare the other limits that AND when auto-pay setups come in the day v months is huge and many cases in many courts have affirmed this.
And NO the argument is not just about warning, its about sufficient warning plus prior agreement to changes and routine accepted business norms.
But yes I did forget to add Austin to the second case...
So...that was my bad.
But its obvious no amount of discussion can pry you from your victims, so keep wearing it. It may help keep you dry when its raining in Austin.
Then again, maybe not.
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
kunquatb16_ESO✭✭✭✭DaveMoeDee wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?
You digitally signed an agreement that Zos may change their model at any time. It is very much a legal contract and certainly nothing immoral and clearly not unethical since it is stated in the aforementioned agreement you accepted.
Merely stating something is immoral does not make it so.
Ok, not "immoral", but wrong, shortsighted, harmful, exploitative, degrades ESO+ and Crowns.
The shortsighted aspect would mean the change is not successful and I know I do not have the information to even begin to say so. Have you seen the sales number so far or projected revenue for the next year, or two? That is what will determine if this change is short sighted. Not the emotions of some players concerning the change.
Harmful is another subjective term in the context of the game being a business. I would lump it with my response to shortsighted.
Exploitative - you agreed to this change when you digitally signed the agreement when you started playing this game.
Degrades ESO+ - maybe. It is clear Zos increased the value of ESO+ by other means and each of us is able to make a choice if that new added value is worth it given these changes. Crowns is lumped in with this and since many of us buy crowns on sale it may have helped lead to these changes.
Shortsighted: by your own reasoning, their poor planning and business decisions have forced this move.
Harmful, it has, and be reason, will continue to lose the subscribers.
Exploitative: Having the right to do something does mean you should.
Downgrades ESO+ and Crowns: You never know what they'll exclude these from next, what value do either really have?
It is not poor planning if the old plan was fine but the new plan is considered better. My reasoning above does not in any way support your claim.
Their business models projected a loss of some subscribers so it would be harmful to the business if more players unsubbed that predicted. I so not have access to their numbers. Have you been able to see Zos books on this?
Considering we all have the option of discontinuing doing business with Zos there is nothing exploitative about this.
As for downgrades ESO+ and crowns I point to the sentence directly above.
By your reasoning, instead of excluding ESO+ from content, Zos raising the cost of subscription by $1000 the day before the highest number of subscription renewed wouldn't be exploitative, as the TOS states they have the right to change it without notice.
Note, pointing out that Zos raising the subscription cost that much would be silly, isn't an answer. Just as "they have the right, therefore it not exploitative" isn't an argument in defense of chapters.
But here in this case they gave about six months notice. They gave just shy of the longest possible sub to warn you of the change. This was NOT a last minute bait and switch.
That said, even in your example the only potential exploit would be if there were auto-renews and Zoe let thth and those could be protested back thru credit cards or other pay sources and likely reversed.
But that kind of abuse is not what this is.
While the "agreed to change" may not be an absolute exclusion for every case, it does certainly apply to "six month lead time."
They may have talked about it more than 6 months before it came in, but did not make it widely publicly known. No news in launcher, till later, no Email to all subscribers, no refunds for Crown purchases, no announcement articles until later. Unless you were watching the right forum, at the right time, you didn't get 6 months warning. It wasn't a last minute bait and switch, but it was a bait and switch.
Both scenarios have the same justification, "they have the right to, TOS says so". If it's not a defense in both cases, it's not a defense in either.
It is true that the announcement was missed by many. But anyone with a sub that isn't tracking DLC releases is suspect in my mind. If you subbed through Q1 and Q2 without a DLC, you aren't looking for value anymore.
I agree it was a bait and switch. We were led to believe that subbing would gain people access to a new DLC every quarter. Not only did ZOS leave many quarters without a new paid DLC, but they decided to add DLC that requires an additional payment. The problem with the bait and switch is the lock-in of those who want to still have access to the older DLC.
In the end, people who subbed paid more for DLC than those who bought outright but are left without DLC if they stop sub. Thing is, we knew this when ESO+ first launched.
That's why it doesn't make sense, why devalue the highest profit margin income stream?
Seen a lot of people claiming that ESO+ want stuff for free, when in truth, we choose to pay more for the same content.
In the end, although value for money counts, it's not about that, it's about fairness. Have they been, and are they being fair to ESO+ members?1 -
kunquatb16_ESO✭✭✭✭kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »ShedsHisTail wrote: »kunquatb16_ESO wrote: »Talon_Draconis wrote: »Is there a suck it up and pay option?
Jesus man its $40 for an EXPANSHUUUUN (yes expansions are really real....)NOT A DLC
Some of you need to get jobs so you can afford gaming. It's like you think they wave a magic wand that absorbes the cost of creating massive new content.
Like I said it's not the money
I should have gotten morrwind as part of my sub I paid for it
Or at least make it avalible in the crown store I have 9500 crowns and not much to do with them
I would more than willing to give 5000 for morrwind
That said I will prob break down and have to pay the cash it just really pisses me off that zmax is forcing me to do it when I support them with my sub
Re the bold - fake news altfacts...
morrowind was never ever included in any sub tho a slight argument could be made by those who subbed in the days between 12-6 and the announcement.and also chose 6 months for a one month free sub.
that you wish morrow had been included in any sub and that you keep saying it does not make it so.
As much as you wish to defend Zos on this, you can't. The reason is, despite them having the right to do this, it is widely viewed as immoral. Even those that accept this situation rarely defend it with any reasoning other than "that how it is". The effect this has on Subscription and crownstore purchases, long term, may well (or might not) outweigh the short term profits of Morrowind, the business argument cannot be made for this either way. Therefore, a business argument for Morrowind not being in ESO+ or on crownstore cannot be made.
Without a moral argument to explain why what Zos doing this is right, no argument for it has been made. They have the right, read the TOS, is not an argument.
What's the moral argument in favor of not having to pay $40 for it?
It's their product, a product of their time and money and effort, they can charge whatever they want and there is -no- moral argument against that. You gave up the moral high ground when you clicked "ACCEPT" on the Terms of Service. You don't get to complain about an agreement you agreed to.
Morality is not about what you can get away with.
You said they have the right.
Rights are the basis of morality. Rights are the reason we talk about morality. You can't be immoral by exercising your rights. They are your rights. They aren't "getting away with" anything. You gave them permission.
Having the right to do what they do, is not the same and what they are doing being right.
If enough people feel this to be unjust, and opt out of ESO+ and crowns, it is not right, even if they have the right.
It's bad morally, and it's bad business.
You're not even making sense.
Stop saying they're immoral.
Explain to me why you wanting it at no extra cost is moral.
Why do you have the moral right to set a price on their work?
Go.
Products are sold at a price customers will bare, therefore, customers dictate what price can be set. Called market forces.
No. customers get to choose what they're willing to pay. They don't get to set the price.
If the supplier cannot sell their product at the listed price, then they might choose to lower it, but it is still the supplier setting the price. That's how markets forces interact with one another. The customer doesn't get to set the price. Period. The customer can simply refuse to buy if the price is not acceptable to them.
That's your choice, buy or do not buy. You don't get to call ZOS immoral for setting a price.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
Its not setting a price that immoral, itsExcluding it from playing customers such as crown store purchasers and ESO+ that is
In what fashion is it immoral?
Who's rights have been violated?
Must I really be your moral compass for you? ok...
They have taken people money for crowns, promising those people they can use those crown to buy all future content. They cannot buy all content with those crowns. How is this not immoral?
You digitally signed an agreement that Zos may change their model at any time. It is very much a legal contract and certainly nothing immoral and clearly not unethical since it is stated in the aforementioned agreement you accepted.
Merely stating something is immoral does not make it so.
Ok, not "immoral", but wrong, shortsighted, harmful, exploitative, degrades ESO+ and Crowns.
The shortsighted aspect would mean the change is not successful and I know I do not have the information to even begin to say so. Have you seen the sales number so far or projected revenue for the next year, or two? That is what will determine if this change is short sighted. Not the emotions of some players concerning the change.
Harmful is another subjective term in the context of the game being a business. I would lump it with my response to shortsighted.
Exploitative - you agreed to this change when you digitally signed the agreement when you started playing this game.
Degrades ESO+ - maybe. It is clear Zos increased the value of ESO+ by other means and each of us is able to make a choice if that new added value is worth it given these changes. Crowns is lumped in with this and since many of us buy crowns on sale it may have helped lead to these changes.
Shortsighted: by your own reasoning, their poor planning and business decisions have forced this move.
Harmful, it has, and be reason, will continue to lose the subscribers.
Exploitative: Having the right to do something does mean you should.
Downgrades ESO+ and Crowns: You never know what they'll exclude these from next, what value do either really have?
It is not poor planning if the old plan was fine but the new plan is considered better. My reasoning above does not in any way support your claim.
Their business models projected a loss of some subscribers so it would be harmful to the business if more players unsubbed that predicted. I so not have access to their numbers. Have you been able to see Zos books on this?
Considering we all have the option of discontinuing doing business with Zos there is nothing exploitative about this.
As for downgrades ESO+ and crowns I point to the sentence directly above.
By your reasoning, instead of excluding ESO+ from content, Zos raising the cost of subscription by $1000 the day before the highest number of subscription renewed wouldn't be exploitative, as the TOS states they have the right to change it without notice.
Note, pointing out that Zos raising the subscription cost that much would be silly, isn't an answer. Just as "they have the right, therefore it not exploitative" isn't an argument in defense of chapters.
But here in this case they gave about six months notice. They gave just shy of the longest possible sub to warn you of the change. This was NOT a last minute bait and switch.
That said, even in your example the only potential exploit would be if there were auto-renews and Zoe let thth and those could be protested back thru credit cards or other pay sources and likely reversed.
But that kind of abuse is not what this is.
While the "agreed to change" may not be an absolute exclusion for every case, it does certainly apply to "six month lead time."
They may have talked about it more than 6 months before it came in, but did not make it widely publicly known. No news in launcher, till later, no Email to all subscribers, no refunds for Crown purchases, no announcement articles until later. Unless you were watching the right forum, at the right time, you didn't get 6 months warning. It wasn't a last minute bait and switch, but it was a bait and switch.
Both scenarios have the same justification, "they have the right to, TOS says so". If it's not a defense in both cases, it's not a defense in either.
So if I today say "it's raining in Austin tx" and tomorrow I say "its raining in Texas" either both are true or both are false?
If I shoot someone attacking me at home and claim self defense and later shoot someone who was just walking in a mall not doing anything to me... The self defense claim is either valid for both or not valid for either?
Two different scenarios can precisely have different elements that make a given claim true for one and not the other.
If you truly don't believe months vs day before has any bearing on business changes, there is no point in further discussion.
Have a great life.
The raining in Texas vs raining in Austin Tx doesn't equate to this conversation. here is why, it can be raining in Texas, but not Austin, or it could be raining in Austin and Texas, but it can't be raining in Austin, but not Texas. One can be true, while the other is false, or both can be true. In my argument, either both are true, or both are false.
Defending yourself is fundamentally different to attacking someone else for no reason, the two action do not have the same basis, or justification. Zos not including chapters in ESO+ or on the crownstore, and as an example, increasing subscription charges whenever and however they want, have exactly the same justification, TOS says they can. Your analogy doesn't hold.
The basis for you argument was "you got warning", well in both scenarios, everyone would have warning. In both scenarios, anyone can choose to opt out. In both scenarios anyone caught out just has to accept it, according to your arguments. According to my arguments, they don't. There is a difference in length of time between days and months, but in this case, not in outcome, both are unfair.
As noted above, day v months lead time and warning is huge in every sense of fairness. One allows you to prepare the other limits that AND when auto-pay setups come in the day v months is huge and many cases in many courts have affirmed this.
And NO the argument is not just about warning, its about sufficient warning plus prior agreement to changes and routine accepted business norms.
But yes I did forget to add Austin to the second case...
So...that was my bad.
But its obvious no amount of discussion can pry you from your victims, so keep wearing it. It may help keep you dry when its raining in Austin.
Then again, maybe not.
Now that all you arguments have been shown to be baseless. I would argue again those last ones, but you chose to go back to the personal attacks... I no longer want you to contact or quote me, unless to apologize, as you are unable to to remain civil.
Exercising my consumer right is not being a victim, it's being a consumer.0
