Are cash only "chapters" bait and switch?

Mephisto939 · June 2017

Before you fanboys type a knee-jerk response please read the following definitions:

In retail sales[edit]
First, customers are "baited" by merchants's advertising products or services at a low price, but when customers visit the store, they discover that the advertised goods either are not available or are not as good as expected, or the customers are pressured by sales people to consider similar, but higher-priced, items ("switching").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch

Definition of bait and switch
1
: a sales tactic in which a customer is attracted by the advertisement of a low-priced item but is then encouraged to buy a higher-priced one
2
: the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (such as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bait and switch

People have already posted comments by ZOS saying that ESO+ Subs would get free quarterly DLCs, and that subs would never need to pay for additional content. Calling Morrowind an "expansion" or "chapter" is an absolute marketing ploy in a sad attempt to get around their commitments. Kind of like advertising doughnuts for 50 cents and then charging you 2$ by claiming it's not a doughnut: it's a fried pastry with a hole in it.

Talon_Draconis · June 2017

Mephisto939 wrote: »

Before you fanboys type a knee-jerk response please read the following definitions:

In retail sales[edit]
First, customers are "baited" by merchants's advertising products or services at a low price, but when customers visit the store, they discover that the advertised goods either are not available or are not as good as expected, or the customers are pressured by sales people to consider similar, but higher-priced, items ("switching").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch

Definition of bait and switch
1
: a sales tactic in which a customer is attracted by the advertisement of a low-priced item but is then encouraged to buy a higher-priced one
2
: the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (such as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bait and switch

People have already posted comments by ZOS saying that ESO+ Subs would get free quarterly DLCs, and that subs would never need to pay for additional content. Calling Morrowind an "expansion" or "chapter" is an absolute marketing ploy in a sad attempt to get around their commitments. Kind of like advertising doughnuts for 50 cents and then charging you 2$ by claiming it's not a doughnut: it's a fried pastry with a hole in it.

That's is exactly it!

Skcarkden · June 2017

Of course it is, just as as crates are. They told us they would never do anything like RNG crates at the start just as they told us subscriptions would get all content, hell they made subbing optional because it would be a "buy once" thing. They lied on both accounts telling people "no, we won't do this, we will do that" knowing full well people will get into the game because of what they specifically promise. and then they go around and change their minds.

I'm just waiting for the moment to hear someone takes this further.

tonemd · June 2017

You give them the right to do this every time you accept the EULA. Perhaps the Europeans can take them to task.

Mephisto939 · June 2017

Skcarkden wrote: »

Of course it is, just as as crates are. They told us they would never do anything like RNG crates at the start just as they told us subscriptions would get all content, hell they made subbing optional because it would be a "buy once" thing. They lied on both accounts telling people "no, we won't do this, we will do that" knowing full well people will get into the game because of what they specifically promise. and then they go around and change their minds.

I'm just waiting for the moment to hear someone takes this further.

I wouldn't say crown crates are bait and switch.

ShedsHisTail · June 2017

There's three ways I feel like you can look at this:

1. It was a bait and switch. ZOS said all DLC was going to be available for purchase with Crowns, and Morrowind was simply a DLC renamed in order to justify it.

2. Morrowind was something different from a standard DLC (since it included a whole new character class and PvP formats) so it justified being distributed differently, but it was simply too small to be called a proper expansion and the price is a higher than it should be.

or

3. Everything is fine.

Personally I lean toward #2. I don't feel like it was a "bait and switch" because it offered types of content we've never seen in DLC before. Types of content which one could have legitimately called "pay to win" if Wardens had turned out to be over-powered in PvP. ZOS has never included content which crossed that line before; that's new. That's a new thing. In addition, it basically rebooted the whole story, gave us a new starting point. It was legitimately a bigger thing than a standard DLC Game Pack and I've no qualms with them labeling it differently.

I think Morrowind is great, I don't feel like it was a "bait and switch" because, like I said, it offered content never before offered in a DLC. But I do think the price point was a little high for what we got out of it.

Sharee · June 2017

"Definition of bait and switch
1
: a sales tactic in which a customer is attracted by the advertisement of a low-priced item but is then encouraged to buy a higher-priced one"

Is it still bait and switch when there is a time difference of several years between the advertisement of a low-priced item and the encouragement to buy a high-priced one?

I don't think so.

Yes, ZOS said eso plus will give you all content without having to buy it separately. And it was true, for years. You can not realistically expect a company to never change a set policy, until the End of Days.

Coggage · June 2017

I couldn't care less, purely on a personal basis. I do sub to the game but then again I subbed to Everquest which came out with about 14 paid expansions before I got bored and moved on to other games.

Rhoric · June 2017

Mephisto939 wrote: »

Before you fanboys type a knee-jerk response please read the following definitions:

In retail sales[edit]
First, customers are "baited" by merchants's advertising products or services at a low price, but when customers visit the store, they discover that the advertised goods either are not available or are not as good as expected, or the customers are pressured by sales people to consider similar, but higher-priced, items ("switching").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch

Definition of bait and switch
1
: a sales tactic in which a customer is attracted by the advertisement of a low-priced item but is then encouraged to buy a higher-priced one
2
: the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (such as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bait and switch

People have already posted comments by ZOS saying that ESO+ Subs would get free quarterly DLCs, and that subs would never need to pay for additional content. Calling Morrowind an "expansion" or "chapter" is an absolute marketing ploy in a sad attempt to get around their commitments. Kind of like advertising doughnuts for 50 cents and then charging you 2$ by claiming it's not a doughnut: it's a fried pastry with a hole in it.

How wrong you are. In any MMO where there is a new class it is in an expansion. We got the Warden class with this EXPANSION. No bait and switch. No nothing. And just so you know, I am a ESO+ subscriber.

Talon_Draconis · June 2017

tonemd wrote: »

You give them the right to do this every time you accept the EULA. Perhaps the Europeans can take them to task.

Yeah but if you want to play the game you have to accept what ever agreement they post.
If you don't they just keep the perches price and say fine we got your money whether you accept or not.
In fact they probably hope you don't accept because they don't even have to give service and still get the money

Korah_Eaglecry · June 2017

Sharee wrote: »

"Definition of bait and switch
1
: a sales tactic in which a customer is attracted by the advertisement of a low-priced item but is then encouraged to buy a higher-priced one"

Is it still bait and switch when there is a time difference of several years between the advertisement of a low-priced item and the encouragement to buy a high-priced one?

I don't think so.

Yes, ZOS said eso plus will give you all content without having to buy it separately. And it was true, for years. You can not realistically expect a company to never change a set policy, until the End of Days.

Its not years of difference. The advertisement was up all the way up til they announced Chapters. Suddenly the advertisement changed in its wording.

Merlin13KAGL · June 2017

Does it matter?

You're either going to buy them, or you're not...

Coggage · June 2017

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Does it matter?

You're either going to buy them, or you're not...

Exactly so. It's a game we play for entertainment, not a matter of any real importance. Play it, don't play it.

Mephisto939 · June 2017

tonemd wrote: »

You give them the right to do this every time you accept the EULA. Perhaps the Europeans can take them to task.

I think they would be on a pretty slippery legal slope in terms of contract law. You can't hide behind a loose EULA where you grant yourself the privilege of changing the TOS at a whim.

Agobi · June 2017

Short answer; no

NewBlacksmurf · June 2017

Technically people have been paying real money for all dlc if they used crowns to pay for it.

It's not bait and switch for those. It can only apply to anyone who believed in ESO Plus access.

Considering crowns will constantly loose their real monetary value, someone intelligent enough to realize it, made the chapter change and added new crown items at these 5k and up prices as well as decreasing the frequency of crown sales.

They have to....

Technically it would be a legal battle if they removed too much but......those subscribers keep saying they're supporting the company

Skcarkden · June 2017

tonemd wrote: »

You give them the right to do this every time you accept the EULA. Perhaps the Europeans can take them to task.

EULA is such a weak argument by people who always think it is ironclad and trumps everything else. Imagine buying one game, that promises this and that and everything inbetween, but before you can start playing, it has some pop up EULA to agree to, you 'agree' and lo and behold. it's entirely NOT what was advertised. it's not even the same genre or theme it mentioned. "But but... you agreed to their EULA, which says they are allowed to change their product!" No, if they tell you one thing and then change their minds it doesn't matter. EULA's do not have final say.

Mephisto939 wrote: »

Skcarkden wrote: »

Of course it is, just as as crates are. They told us they would never do anything like RNG crates at the start just as they told us subscriptions would get all content, hell they made subbing optional because it would be a "buy once" thing. They lied on both accounts telling people "no, we won't do this, we will do that" knowing full well people will get into the game because of what they specifically promise. and then they go around and change their minds.

I'm just waiting for the moment to hear someone takes this further.

I wouldn't say crown crates are bait and switch.

Maybe not exactly, but they did still claim they'd never go down that route, knowing because people feel strongly about gambling being brought into a game when they could just sell it all directly.

Autolycus · June 2017

I believe 100% that it is indeed a "bait and switch." I strongly disliked the idea when it was announced and I still strongly disagree with the way it was executed.

However, I have since come to believe that I got my money's worth in content. I'll believe that more when it all works properly (looking at you, Battlegrounds). If they want us to continue subscribing to this product, though, they'd better continue to add benefits to doing so. The fact that our subscription is advertised as all-inclusive and then changed 3 years later to exclude the largest and most desirable content releases is by definition a bait and switch, especially since real cash money (via crowns) were explicitly excluded as a viable purchase option.

All in all, the new model makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways. The execution of changing this model was a disaster and the backlash persists still. I don't expect ZOS to be perfect, but damn guys, would a little transparency (at least) kill you? I think not. If your director of finance believes a change in model is appropriate then just tell us that the model needs to change. Don't advertise and adhere to a strategy for a time and then change it out of nowhere.

Megabear · June 2017

No, but the "expansion" is overpriced. I have seen a poll or two and majority agrees.

Sharee · June 2017

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

"Definition of bait and switch
1
: a sales tactic in which a customer is attracted by the advertisement of a low-priced item but is then encouraged to buy a higher-priced one"

Is it still bait and switch when there is a time difference of several years between the advertisement of a low-priced item and the encouragement to buy a high-priced one?

I don't think so.

Yes, ZOS said eso plus will give you all content without having to buy it separately. And it was true, for years. You can not realistically expect a company to never change a set policy, until the End of Days.

Its not years of difference. The advertisement was up all the way up til they announced Chapters. Suddenly the advertisement changed in its wording.

At no point of time was ZOS claiming eso plus gives you access to all content while this was not true.

The only thing you could theoretically hold against them was their change in policy, but that policy was set years ago, not shortly before announcement of chapters.

Skcarkden · June 2017

Rhoric wrote: »

How wrong you are. In any MMO where there is a new class it is in an expansion. We got the Warden class with this EXPANSION. No bait and switch. No nothing. And just so you know, I am a ESO+ subscriber.

1. Get rid of this "if other MMO's do it this way then every MMO should!" it's absolute nonsense, and i doubt those MMO's promised "if you subscribe you always get access to all content" like ESO did. Also, i'm curious, are you for or against having an AH in ESO? i'm guessing you're selectively against it, while selective about what all MMO's have to do based on what other MMO's do.

2. Where on earth does this "new class = expansion" logic comes from? So if an MMO just sells a "New class, nothing else" pack, is it an expansion then? Should we take every single player game in known existence to court for mis-using the term expansion when they offer no 'new class'? I don't think Fallout 3 had a class system, but it has expansions!

Warden was cut content to begin with. it's hardly new when they held onto it for later...

Mephisto939 · June 2017

Skcarkden wrote: »

tonemd wrote: »

You give them the right to do this every time you accept the EULA. Perhaps the Europeans can take them to task.

EULA is such a weak argument by people who always think it is ironclad and trumps everything else. Imagine buying one game, that promises this and that and everything inbetween, but before you can start playing, it has some pop up EULA to agree to, you 'agree' and lo and behold. it's entirely NOT what was advertised. it's not even the same genre or theme it mentioned. "But but... you agreed to their EULA, which says they are allowed to change their product!" No, if they tell you one thing and then change their minds it doesn't matter. EULA's do not have final say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ23kosLFec

DMuehlhausen · June 2017

Skcarkden wrote: »

Of course it is, just as as crates are. They told us they would never do anything like RNG crates at the start just as they told us subscriptions would get all content, hell they made subbing optional because it would be a "buy once" thing. They lied on both accounts telling people "no, we won't do this, we will do that" knowing full well people will get into the game because of what they specifically promise. and then they go around and change their minds.

I'm just waiting for the moment to hear someone takes this further.

Well guess it's a good thing in the ToS it says they can make changes at any time...

DaveMoeDee · June 2017

tonemd wrote: »

You give them the right to do this every time you accept the EULA. Perhaps the Europeans can take them to task.

"Right" is irrelevant. People aren't complaining that they broke the law. We can say a company does something unethical, even if it is legal. Amazon has the right to tell you to shut up and stop whining when you call customer service. Is that the standard?

Personally, I do not hold it against ZOS much because that is the nature of business. All tech companies say they will support products or do X and then the numbers roll in and they have to pivot. This is to be expected. Pivoting can be a tough decision because companies know many customers will not be happy.

While pivoting is not itself unethical, I consider it unethical if your directly contradict how you marketed a service and do not provide remediation to your customers. The biggest issue is not the pivot. It is the manipulative marketing -- the bait and switch. To be fair to ZOS, they probably did not intend this outcome 2 years ago. If they did, it was definitely a bait and switch. If they didn't, perhaps I wouldn't even call it a bait and switch, but they are clearly choosing to sacrifice some customers for the sake of the long term health of the business.

We see similar in the news regarding loan forgiveness. People worked in lower paying jobs for a decade as part of a load forgiveness program. When the 10 year commitment is about to end, the government decides it wants to change the program. I read about something similar happening in a forgiveness program for lawyers where a bunch were going to get stiffed after foregoing higher incomes for years. Lucky for them, they are lawyers and they were able to block the change. The people who create the forgiveness programs had no intention to not pay out. It was successors who decided their books would look better if they reneged.

Many people decided to sub because ZOS marketed it as being the only thing they would need to access future added DLC that would be arrive quarterly. It was an overpriced way to get DLC, but I suppose it was convenient. Now ZOS decided only 3/4 quarters, with the not-included quarter being the largest.

I can't wait until one of the DLC quarters they don't provide a DLC, but instead a base game revenue generator like housing or a tweak to basic gameplay like One Tamriel.

Talon_Draconis · June 2017

Skcarkden wrote: »

Rhoric wrote: »

How wrong you are. In any MMO where there is a new class it is in an expansion. We got the Warden class with this EXPANSION. No bait and switch. No nothing. And just so you know, I am a ESO+ subscriber.

1. Get rid of this "if other MMO's do it this way then every MMO should!" it's absolute nonsense, and i doubt those MMO's promised "if you subscribe you always get access to all content" like ESO did. Also, i'm curious, are you for or against having an AH in ESO? i'm guessing you're selectively against it, while selective about what all MMO's have to do based on what other MMO's do.

2. Where on earth does this "new class = expansion" logic comes from? So if an MMO just sells a "New class, nothing else" pack, is it an expansion then? Should we take every single player game in known existence to court for mis-using the term expansion when they offer no 'new class'? I don't think Fallout 3 had a class system, but it has expansions!

Warden was cut content to begin with. it's hardly new when they held onto it for later...[/quot

Guild wars 2 all content additions are included in the base price they don't even have subs
The only reason I am not playing it is can't really get into the story and lore of the game

Skcarkden · June 2017

DMuehlhausen wrote: »

Skcarkden wrote: »

Of course it is, just as as crates are. They told us they would never do anything like RNG crates at the start just as they told us subscriptions would get all content, hell they made subbing optional because it would be a "buy once" thing. They lied on both accounts telling people "no, we won't do this, we will do that" knowing full well people will get into the game because of what they specifically promise. and then they go around and change their minds.

I'm just waiting for the moment to hear someone takes this further.

Well guess it's a good thing in the ToS it says they can make changes at any time...

I guess it's a good thing they can change the ToS to say you now owe them $10,000 at any time.

Perhaps i should just start a business tricking fools into agree to a ToS. threaten to take em to court if they don't pay since it seems like virtually everyone believes EULAs/ToS's are ironclad and absolutely 100% fully protected and enforced by the legal system.

CaineCarver · June 2017

To me, the expansion vs "DLC" argument is sort of moot at this point since its a done deal. The real question is will any of the future DLC updates only be accessible if you have Morrowind? Of course, I have Morrowind (and love it - worth every penny) and I do the ESO PLUS subscription (Plus buy the DLC just to support new content)...so it won't matter to me but putting normal DLC content behind the Morrowind paywall would be a violation of trust in my opinion.

Roovin · June 2017

The actually content in Morrowind is pretty damn good.

The Warden and the introduction of BG(even if they are buggy atm) is why it's an expansion.

DaveMoeDee · June 2017

Sharee wrote: »

Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

"Definition of bait and switch
1
: a sales tactic in which a customer is attracted by the advertisement of a low-priced item but is then encouraged to buy a higher-priced one"

Is it still bait and switch when there is a time difference of several years between the advertisement of a low-priced item and the encouragement to buy a high-priced one?

I don't think so.

Yes, ZOS said eso plus will give you all content without having to buy it separately. And it was true, for years. You can not realistically expect a company to never change a set policy, until the End of Days.

Its not years of difference. The advertisement was up all the way up til they announced Chapters. Suddenly the advertisement changed in its wording.

At no point of time was ZOS claiming eso plus gives you access to all content while this was not true.

The only thing you could theoretically hold against them was their change in policy, but that policy was set years ago, not shortly before announcement of chapters.

Yes they did. They marketed ESO+ as all you would need to access future content. Only when they announced Morrowind did they change it to only "Crown Store" downloadable content.

ShedsHisTail · June 2017

Talon_Draconis wrote: »

Skcarkden wrote: »

Rhoric wrote: »

How wrong you are. In any MMO where there is a new class it is in an expansion. We got the Warden class with this EXPANSION. No bait and switch. No nothing. And just so you know, I am a ESO+ subscriber.

1. Get rid of this "if other MMO's do it this way then every MMO should!" it's absolute nonsense, and i doubt those MMO's promised "if you subscribe you always get access to all content" like ESO did. Also, i'm curious, are you for or against having an AH in ESO? i'm guessing you're selectively against it, while selective about what all MMO's have to do based on what other MMO's do.

2. Where on earth does this "new class = expansion" logic comes from? So if an MMO just sells a "New class, nothing else" pack, is it an expansion then? Should we take every single player game in known existence to court for mis-using the term expansion when they offer no 'new class'? I don't think Fallout 3 had a class system, but it has expansions!

Warden was cut content to begin with. it's hardly new when they held onto it for later...

Guild wars 2 all content additions are included in the base price they don't even have subs
The only reason I am not playing it is can't really get into the story and lore of the game

*cough*
http://buy.guildwars2.com/store/gw2/en_US/html/pbPage.heartofthorns

Surak73 · June 2017

Well, it has been a bait and switch for those who bought an annual subscription in January, just before they announced their change of policy. I know that in some cases this may be true, and very annoying; but in most cases, players have had some months to evaluate the new model and make their decision about it. Now it's not a bait and switch: you know that with subscription you don't get chapters, if you agree you sub otherwise you don't. Personally, I think that subscription is no worth anymore, so I cancelled my sub.