idk wrote: »

Define a non-wolfhunter owner.

A non-subscriber who didn't purchase the Wolfhunter DLC.

Before I posted this thread, I checked on my non-subscriber, non-Wolfhunter-owner roommate's account to make sure that she had the same ability to purchase Hunter's Glade as I, an ESO+ subscriber, did. If you read my original post, you would have known this. I legitimately went through EVERY possible interpretation of the wording I could think of in that post to be as charitable to ZOS as possible. There was only one interpretation of the wording that wouldn't have made the statement false: If "access" had meant that Wolfhunter owners would have the ability to purchase the house outside of the "limited time only" offer in the Crown Store that everyone has access to. Well, that turned out not to be the case, and now they've removed the wording from the DLC without giving an explanation or even acknowledging these concerns. I seriously can't believe you don't have a problem with a company doing this.

idk wrote: »

Wow, this sounds like a travesty, now that it is all clear.

Seriously though, I do not see how this is a big deal to begin with, how someone would feel injured because the home was not as exclusive as they thought it might be. I certainly do not think it is something Zos needs to speak to either. Really seems like a small issue blown up due to some baseless assumptions.

Because truth in advertising matters, that's why.

And really, you keep accusing me of making "baseless assumptions", but you haven't explained why you think their wording wasn't dishonest. What do you think "access" means that keeps the advertising honest? Please tell me, I'd love to know.

@idk I really don't see why you are being adamant on shooting down the OP here. It seems very obvious that OP was correct in pointing out misleading advertising. If it wasn't misleading, it would not have been changed. Various country advertising regulatory bodies take this far more seriously than this thread, so in that context i think the OP has made a very modest assertion against what was, at best, misleading advertising. Perhaps you don't view this as a matter that should be highlighted, and that is your prerogative, but in certain regions this matter is taken very seriously. In that context, I think it is unreasonable to try shout down the OP for highlighting this issue and persisting to have it resolved.
@pocketdefender I suspect the reason ZOS won't comment on this is because they don't want more attention drawn to the matter. A 'Z' symbol beside a thread attracts readers. Sure there are people out there unconcerned with advertising standards but ZOS would be keenly aware that there are many that would take this issue very seriously. I for one, would have reported this to my regional advertising regulatory body had it not been rectified before I read this forum. Well done for highlighting this issue.

The way it was originally worded might have led people to reasonably assume that in order to buy the house, they need to own the DLC, so if they wanted the house but didn't really care for the DLC content, they still would have to get the DLC. Therefore, it very much is misleading advertising at best, and the fact that it was altered covertly without any justification, doesn't make the whole thing seem any better. It was good of the OP to bring this to light, a company should not get away with marketing shenanigans like this.