Originally posted by CazNeerg Thinking that sentiments on this forum, positive or negative, are in any way representative of general public opinion would be a mistake. Backlash here does not necessarily indicate any kind of "substantial" backlash.
I've seen backlash everywhere and I go on a ton of different ESO sites and forums...
Replace "this forum" with "forums," and I still stand by the point. In the context of the millions of people who might buy this game, the ones hanging out on the internet talking about it two months before hand aren't even a drop in the bucket.
So you think internet forums are a representative sample of the gaming public?
Every time I see the word "backlash" in the context of this "issue," I remember the episode of Frasier where his fan club stages a public protest over his being fired. There were three of them, and they were all nuts.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Will it hurt them? Depends on what their goal is. If their goal is to just cash grab as much as possible, than this is the only way.
But I would not disregard us so easily. Us, the vocal minority. Gone are the days of old school marketing, where customers are lonely islands in the sea of market. Where they have no contact with each other and the seller's word is the only word they hear.
That's behind us, in some areas more than others. Today's customer is smarter, they have access to internet and with that they are exposed to many opinions. Us, the vocal minority, are actually trend setters, some more than others. Us, who speak up, help in shaping up general opinions.
Companies can no longer get away with things so easily. There are sits, blogs and VODs dedicated to helping consumer do the right thing. They are dedicated to protecting the consumer and forcing companies to do their very best. Places like Rock, Paper, Shotgun or TotalBiscuit for instance - I'll take their word over companies PR every day of the week. Why? Because there is no conflict of interest. RPS or TB will not get any richer if we buy ESO or not, but ESO's marketing department will.
Word of mouth, that's the strongest marketing. If you build and maintain good public image, you'll have easier time achieving your goals. And Zenimax is not doing itself any favours right now. And people are right when they say it all smells fishy.
They are asking a lot of money for a product we can't even see yet and more importantly, they are going against their own words. So will it hurt em? The way this is going, I still think this is the only way for them to make most money out of ESO. They are not trying to improve their public image, they are not trying to build relationship with dedicated gaming community. Those things would indicate that they have long term plans for the game. But their current actions are telling a different story, one that has become the norm in MMOs and gaming in general.
Grab as much money as you can and run for the hills.
Every time I read your post, I die a little inside...
Originally posted by Prod1702 the way they are doing the CE goes to show how much a money grab this game is going to be. They want to charge $79 for you be able to play a race that should be part of the game no matter what. Then they want to charge you $15 a month to be able to keep playing the game after 30 days. I am sure I will be called a troll for this, but man am I happy I am not buying this game. I could care less that the NDA is still up but for people that haven't played the beta yet and have yet to buy the game, do yourself a favor and wait to buy it. So far the beta blows big time.
I also wish there was a +1 button on these forums. I agree that it is incredibly obvious that this is a huge money grab, particularly because this is all being released before the NDA is even lifted. Potential buyers don't even have the proper avenues available to educate themselves on what they are purchasing.
is whether or not that choice, in your mind, is worth the backlash and hate that the game is receiving as a result?
What backlash? The people chucking a hissy fit on MMORPG won't even amount to 0.01% of the game population. I'd bet there's an order of magnitudes more people that have already bought the CE edition than those whining on these forums.
Originally posted by Vonatar "The cost of anything unaffordable is unfair in the eyes of the person who can't afford it."
And they feel as if an injustice has been dealt to them....Gotta love the entitlement generation.
And it's a false argument. Basically the straw man logical fallacy.
Most of the people that I see calling this out as a money grab are people that have purchased more expensive CEs in the past. Many of them are also supporters of the subscription model.
There is a very large difference between not being able to afford something and feeling like something is designed to take advantage of the consumer.
Originally posted by Vonatar "The cost of anything unaffordable is unfair in the eyes of the person who can't afford it."
And they feel as if an injustice has been dealt to them....Gotta love the entitlement generation.
And it's a false argument. Basically the straw man logical fallacy.
Most of the people that I see calling this out as a money grab are people that have purchased more expensive CEs in the past. Many of them are also supporters of the subscription model.
There is a very large difference between not being able to afford something and feeling like something is designed to take advantage of the consumer.
Take advantage of who? Both people who have been wanting to play as an Imperial all along?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Too bad .. just as the game started to look promising..
Let's not forget Dead Space 3 with their ingame microtransactions and the secret world with their P2P+costume shop. It wasn't just the backlash that caused them to flop, but it played a part in the weak sales.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Originally posted by Vonatar "The cost of anything unaffordable is unfair in the eyes of the person who can't afford it."
And they feel as if an injustice has been dealt to them....Gotta love the entitlement generation.
And it's a false argument. Basically the straw man logical fallacy.
Most of the people that I see calling this out as a money grab are people that have purchased more expensive CEs in the past. Many of them are also supporters of the subscription model.
There is a very large difference between not being able to afford something and feeling like something is designed to take advantage of the consumer.
Haha take advantage of its consumers oh man too funny! How does a video game take advantage of their consumer? You have a choice you buy it or you don't.
I bet most of you already had your eso release complaint form filled out months ago. All you had to do was insert whatever they were added to CE version.
The monetization methods of any product or service can be designed in a way to take advantage of the consumer. There are entire consumer advocacy groups designed to prevent this type of behavior and without them, things would be a lot worse for everyone. Why? Because a ton of people take the same stance that you are.
You are welcome to laugh about it all you want. However, laughing at something does not change it's validity.
Originally posted by Vonatar "The cost of anything unaffordable is unfair in the eyes of the person who can't afford it."
And they feel as if an injustice has been dealt to them....Gotta love the entitlement generation.
And it's a false argument. Basically the straw man logical fallacy.
Most of the people that I see calling this out as a money grab are people that have purchased more expensive CEs in the past. Many of them are also supporters of the subscription model.
There is a very large difference between not being able to afford something and feeling like something is designed to take advantage of the consumer.
Haha take advantage of its consumers oh man too funny! How does a video game take advantage of their consumer? You have a choice you buy it or you don't.
I bet most of you already had your eso release complaint form filled out months ago. All you had to do was insert whatever they were added to CE version.
The monetization methods of any product or service can be designed in a way to take advantage of the consumer. There are entire consumer advocacy groups designed to prevent this type of behavior and without them, things would be a lot worse for everyone. Why? Because a ton of people take the same stance that you are.
You are welcome to laugh about it all you want. However, laughing at something does not change it's validity.
All sales are designed to take advantage of the consumer. It's a question of degrees.
I still struggle to see how Zenimax are taking advantage of the consumer to a degree warranting complaint. They are exercising typical supply and demand principles in my view, by selling something people want to buy in order to realise an early return on investment.
Prior to pre-order we all presumed that (a) Imperial is not a playable race, and (b) races are faction locked. Now we discover that neither restriction is absolute, if you are prepared to pre-order and/or buy the Imperial Edition.
Does it make a difference to the consumer that some people will be Imperials, or that some people will play as Khajiit in the Daggerfall Covenant? I can't see how, other than coveting what someone else has.
Originally posted by Vonatar "The cost of anything unaffordable is unfair in the eyes of the person who can't afford it."
And they feel as if an injustice has been dealt to them....Gotta love the entitlement generation.
And it's a false argument. Basically the straw man logical fallacy.
Most of the people that I see calling this out as a money grab are people that have purchased more expensive CEs in the past. Many of them are also supporters of the subscription model.
There is a very large difference between not being able to afford something and feeling like something is designed to take advantage of the consumer.
Haha take advantage of its consumers oh man too funny! How does a video game take advantage of their consumer? You have a choice you buy it or you don't.
I bet most of you already had your eso release complaint form filled out months ago. All you had to do was insert whatever they were added to CE version.
The monetization methods of any product or service can be designed in a way to take advantage of the consumer. There are entire consumer advocacy groups designed to prevent this type of behavior and without them, things would be a lot worse for everyone. Why? Because a ton of people take the same stance that you are.
You are welcome to laugh about it all you want. However, laughing at something does not change it's validity.
All sales are designed to take advantage of the consumer. It's a question of degrees.
I still struggle to see how Zenimax are taking advantage of the consumer to a degree warranting complaint. They are exercising typical supply and demand principles in my view, by selling something people want to buy in order to realise an early return on investment.
Prior to pre-order we all presumed that (a) Imperial is not a playable race, and (b) races are faction locked. Now we discover that neither restriction is absolute, if you are prepared to pre-order and/or buy the Imperial Edition.
Does it make a difference to the consumer that some people will be Imperials, or that some people will play as Khajiit in the Daggerfall Covenant? I can't see how, other than coveting what someone else has.
The lead designer explicitly stated that a subscription model was the best fit for TESO so that content wouldn't be locked behind pay walls. Locking a full race behind a pay wall (the addition cost of the CE) is certainly locking content behind a pay wall despite the existence of the subscription. It represents a complete disconnect between what was said and the actions taken be Zenimax. That alone *should* be enough not to trust the company.
However, if you would like more. Zenimax is expressly forbidding anyone from talking about actual game play (NDA) while offering presales of the product. While I very much believe it is the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves prior to a purchase, Zenimax is actively attempting to prevent the consumer from educating themselves. Instead, they are attempting to provide only the marketing message they would like available and are asking consumers to make a buying decision based on that. Guess what? That marketing message is designed to make a potential buyer buy, not to educate them about the pros and cons of the product. This, more than anything else, is what warrants a complaint.
If Zenimax would simply drop the NDA, allow EVERYONE to talk about their experience with the game, allow video reviews to be posted to YouTube and run an open beta that allows potential consumers to try before buying, I would remove my complaints for the most part. I still believe the flat out lie about not gating content behind a pay wall as justification for subscription is an adequate reason to not purchase the game, but at least potential consumers can research that themselves.
The thing I find funny is that most of the people making a big deal about it were probably going to pre-order it anyways, or weren't going to play the game ever anyways. So what's it matter.
Why are people automatically assuming the worst? From my point of view, thinking that the Imperial race and "any alliance, any race" features won't be achievable by in-game means is illogical, you can't restrict things away from people who didn't choose to pre-order or buy xyz collector's edition. I'm sure a company with one of the most successful game franchises in history considered this well before armchair businessmen suddenly thought of it.
To me it seems quite clear, just like the horse, you will be able to achieve those things just fine; you'll just have to wait for them. What people here seem to be proposing is "no collectors? OK, no horse forever".
Wait and see what finishing all 3 alliance campaigns (new game+, new game++ as they're calling it) yields.
PS: What's with basically every thread degenerating into how F2P is a godsend to the industry? F2P games are mediocre at best. They went F2P because they made horrendous decisions in some areas, leading to that ultimate result. They did not go F2P because "no one wanted to pay a sub".
If I go to an Italian restaurant and it's crap, does that give me complete insight to say every Italian restaurant I go to from then on will be equally as bad? (Read: comparing upcoming games to a few select fails of the past)
Originally posted by Vonatar "The cost of anything unaffordable is unfair in the eyes of the person who can't afford it."
And they feel as if an injustice has been dealt to them....Gotta love the entitlement generation.
And it's a false argument. Basically the straw man logical fallacy.
Most of the people that I see calling this out as a money grab are people that have purchased more expensive CEs in the past. Many of them are also supporters of the subscription model.
There is a very large difference between not being able to afford something and feeling like something is designed to take advantage of the consumer.
Haha take advantage of its consumers oh man too funny! How does a video game take advantage of their consumer? You have a choice you buy it or you don't.
I bet most of you already had your eso release complaint form filled out months ago. All you had to do was insert whatever they were added to CE version.
The monetization methods of any product or service can be designed in a way to take advantage of the consumer. There are entire consumer advocacy groups designed to prevent this type of behavior and without them, things would be a lot worse for everyone. Why? Because a ton of people take the same stance that you are.
You are welcome to laugh about it all you want. However, laughing at something does not change it's validity.
All sales are designed to take advantage of the consumer. It's a question of degrees.
I still struggle to see how Zenimax are taking advantage of the consumer to a degree warranting complaint. They are exercising typical supply and demand principles in my view, by selling something people want to buy in order to realise an early return on investment.
Prior to pre-order we all presumed that (a) Imperial is not a playable race, and (b) races are faction locked. Now we discover that neither restriction is absolute, if you are prepared to pre-order and/or buy the Imperial Edition.
Does it make a difference to the consumer that some people will be Imperials, or that some people will play as Khajiit in the Daggerfall Covenant? I can't see how, other than coveting what someone else has.
The lead designer explicitly stated that a subscription model was the best fit for TESO so that content wouldn't be locked behind pay walls. Locking a full race behind a pay wall (the addition cost of the CE) is certainly locking content behind a pay wall despite the existence of the subscription. It represents a complete disconnect between what was said and the actions taken be Zenimax. That alone *should* be enough not to trust the company.
However, if you would like more. Zenimax is expressly forbidding anyone from talking about actual game play (NDA) while offering presales of the product. While I very much believe it is the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves prior to a purchase, Zenimax is actively attempting to prevent the consumer from educating themselves. Instead, they are attempting to provide only the marketing message they would like available and are asking consumers to make a buying decision based on that. Guess what? That marketing message is designed to make a potential buyer buy, not to educate them about the pros and cons of the product. This, more than anything else, is what warrants a complaint.
If Zenimax would simply drop the NDA, allow EVERYONE to talk about their experience with the game, allow video reviews to be posted to YouTube and run an open beta that allows potential consumers to try before buying, I would remove my complaints for the most part. I still believe the flat out lie about not gating content behind a pay wall as justification for subscription is an adequate reason to not purchase the game, but at least potential consumers can research that themselves.
Making a playable race only available to CE owners is not locking content behind a pay wall, in my opinion at least. It's almost entirely cosmetic, in pretty much the same way as giving people an exclusive mount.
As for initiating pre-orders while the game remains under NDA. I don't see the difference between that and the old days of gaming when you picked a box off the shelf, read the back, looked at the screenshots, and then took it home. Caveat emptor still applies, and if you're not satisfied with the information currently available then wait until you buy, or don't buy at all.
The lead designer explicitly stated that a subscription model was the best fit for TESO so that content wouldn't be locked behind pay walls. Locking a full race behind a pay wall (the addition cost of the CE) is certainly locking content behind a pay wall despite the existence of the subscription. It represents a complete disconnect between what was said and the actions taken be Zenimax. That alone *should* be enough not to trust the company.
However, if you would like more. Zenimax is expressly forbidding anyone from talking about actual game play (NDA) while offering presales of the product. While I very much believe it is the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves prior to a purchase, Zenimax is actively attempting to prevent the consumer from educating themselves. Instead, they are attempting to provide only the marketing message they would like available and are asking consumers to make a buying decision based on that. Guess what? That marketing message is designed to make a potential buyer buy, not to educate them about the pros and cons of the product. This, more than anything else, is what warrants a complaint.
If Zenimax would simply drop the NDA, allow EVERYONE to talk about their experience with the game, allow video reviews to be posted to YouTube and run an open beta that allows potential consumers to try before buying, I would remove my complaints for the most part. I still believe the flat out lie about not gating content behind a pay wall as justification for subscription is an adequate reason to not purchase the game, but at least potential consumers can research that themselves.
Making a playable race only available to CE owners is not locking content behind a pay wall, in my opinion at least. It's almost entirely cosmetic, in pretty much the same way as giving people an exclusive mount.
As for initiating pre-orders while the game remains under NDA. I don't see the difference between that and the old days of gaming when you picked a box off the shelf, read the back, looked at the screenshots, and then took it home. Caveat emptor still applies, and if you're not satisfied with the information currently available then wait until you buy, or don't buy at all.
In your opinion, making a race only available to CE owners is not locking content behind a pay wall. However, charging an additional $20 (or whatever the difference is) to access an entire race with unique racial attributes certainly IS locking content behind a pay wall, opinions aside. If any game adds an entirely new race, they will tout it as additional content. They will not say they added a minor cosmetic feature of an entirely new race. The fact that you have to pay more to access that content means it's locked behind a pay wall.
To address your second paragraph, the entire world has changed with the internet. Social media and instantaneous communication means companies have an opportunity to prove their products are good, particularly digital products. Hiding your product behind an NDA and offering presales is very close to the draconian practice of purchasing a game based on what you see on the back of the box. I agree that they are similar. However, I believe that technology and culture has changed enough to make previous practices undesirable.
The lead designer explicitly stated that a subscription model was the best fit for TESO so that content wouldn't be locked behind pay walls. Locking a full race behind a pay wall (the addition cost of the CE) is certainly locking content behind a pay wall despite the existence of the subscription. It represents a complete disconnect between what was said and the actions taken be Zenimax. That alone *should* be enough not to trust the company.
However, if you would like more. Zenimax is expressly forbidding anyone from talking about actual game play (NDA) while offering presales of the product. While I very much believe it is the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves prior to a purchase, Zenimax is actively attempting to prevent the consumer from educating themselves. Instead, they are attempting to provide only the marketing message they would like available and are asking consumers to make a buying decision based on that. Guess what? That marketing message is designed to make a potential buyer buy, not to educate them about the pros and cons of the product. This, more than anything else, is what warrants a complaint.
If Zenimax would simply drop the NDA, allow EVERYONE to talk about their experience with the game, allow video reviews to be posted to YouTube and run an open beta that allows potential consumers to try before buying, I would remove my complaints for the most part. I still believe the flat out lie about not gating content behind a pay wall as justification for subscription is an adequate reason to not purchase the game, but at least potential consumers can research that themselves.
Making a playable race only available to CE owners is not locking content behind a pay wall, in my opinion at least. It's almost entirely cosmetic, in pretty much the same way as giving people an exclusive mount.
As for initiating pre-orders while the game remains under NDA. I don't see the difference between that and the old days of gaming when you picked a box off the shelf, read the back, looked at the screenshots, and then took it home. Caveat emptor still applies, and if you're not satisfied with the information currently available then wait until you buy, or don't buy at all.
In your opinion, making a race only available to CE owners is not locking content behind a pay wall. However, charging an additional $20 (or whatever the difference is) to access an entire race with unique racial attributes certainly IS locking content behind a pay wall, opinions aside. If any game adds an entirely new race, they will tout it as additional content. They will not say they added a minor cosmetic feature of an entirely new race. The fact that you have to pay more to access that content means it's locked behind a pay wall.
To address your second paragraph, the entire world has changed with the internet. Social media and instantaneous communication means companies have an opportunity to prove their products are good, particularly digital products. Hiding your product behind an NDA and offering presales is very close to the draconian practice of purchasing a game based on what you see on the back of the box. I agree that they are similar. However, I believe that technology and culture has changed enough to make previous practices undesirable.
Rift CE locked "content":
Imperials are this games' version of the two-headed tartagon... boycott I say!
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Imperials are this games' version of the two-headed tartagon... boycott I say!
A mount that provides no advantage over any other mount obtained through in-game means is purely cosmetic. To a degree, it is locking content, but a few cosmetic perks are commonly accepted as 'ok' for CEs (particularly mounts and companion pets). That being said, it is significantly different than a playable race with unique racial traits. This is the incomplete comparison logical fallacy.
Imperials are this games' version of the two-headed tartagon... boycott I say!
A mount that provides no advantage over any other mount obtained through in-game means is purely cosmetic. To a degree, it is locking content, but a few cosmetic perks are commonly accepted as 'ok' for CEs (particularly mounts and companion pets). That being said, it is significantly different than a playable race with unique racial traits. This is the incomplete comparison logical fallacy.
A race that provides no advantage over any other race obtained through in game mean...
Or are you the last person in this forum who hasn't googled the skill lines or used the skill calculator that was linked here last week that shows just how mild the racial bonuses are?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
-1. You should know better.
So you think internet forums are a representative sample of the gaming public?
Every time I see the word "backlash" in the context of this "issue," I remember the episode of Frasier where his fan club stages a public protest over his being fired. There were three of them, and they were all nuts.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Will it hurt them? Depends on what their goal is. If their goal is to just cash grab as much as possible, than this is the only way.
But I would not disregard us so easily. Us, the vocal minority. Gone are the days of old school marketing, where customers are lonely islands in the sea of market. Where they have no contact with each other and the seller's word is the only word they hear.
That's behind us, in some areas more than others. Today's customer is smarter, they have access to internet and with that they are exposed to many opinions. Us, the vocal minority, are actually trend setters, some more than others. Us, who speak up, help in shaping up general opinions.
Companies can no longer get away with things so easily. There are sits, blogs and VODs dedicated to helping consumer do the right thing. They are dedicated to protecting the consumer and forcing companies to do their very best. Places like Rock, Paper, Shotgun or TotalBiscuit for instance - I'll take their word over companies PR every day of the week. Why? Because there is no conflict of interest. RPS or TB will not get any richer if we buy ESO or not, but ESO's marketing department will.
Word of mouth, that's the strongest marketing. If you build and maintain good public image, you'll have easier time achieving your goals. And Zenimax is not doing itself any favours right now. And people are right when they say it all smells fishy.
They are asking a lot of money for a product we can't even see yet and more importantly, they are going against their own words. So will it hurt em? The way this is going, I still think this is the only way for them to make most money out of ESO. They are not trying to improve their public image, they are not trying to build relationship with dedicated gaming community. Those things would indicate that they have long term plans for the game. But their current actions are telling a different story, one that has become the norm in MMOs and gaming in general.
Grab as much money as you can and run for the hills.
Originally posted by Vonatar
"The cost of anything unaffordable is unfair in the eyes of the person who can't afford it."
And they feel as if an injustice has been dealt to them....Gotta love the entitlement generation.
It has hurt Mass Effect3, it killed THQ publisher
It will definately hurt ESO
Too bad .. just as the game started to look promising..
I think I actually spent way more time reading and theorycrafting about MMOs than playing them
Ah .. I knew this situation seemed familiar! XD Mass effect 3 did this crap too. I remember it getting tons of backlash.
Hmmm ... you would think other companies would learn by now. Either that or maybe they did learn. They learned people will still buy it anyway.
I also wish there was a +1 button on these forums. I agree that it is incredibly obvious that this is a huge money grab, particularly because this is all being released before the NDA is even lifted. Potential buyers don't even have the proper avenues available to educate themselves on what they are purchasing.
What backlash? The people chucking a hissy fit on MMORPG won't even amount to 0.01% of the game population. I'd bet there's an order of magnitudes more people that have already bought the CE edition than those whining on these forums.
And it's a false argument. Basically the straw man logical fallacy.
Most of the people that I see calling this out as a money grab are people that have purchased more expensive CEs in the past. Many of them are also supporters of the subscription model.
There is a very large difference between not being able to afford something and feeling like something is designed to take advantage of the consumer.
Take advantage of who? Both people who have been wanting to play as an Imperial all along?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Let's not forget Dead Space 3 with their ingame microtransactions and the secret world with their P2P+costume shop. It wasn't just the backlash that caused them to flop, but it played a part in the weak sales.
The monetization methods of any product or service can be designed in a way to take advantage of the consumer. There are entire consumer advocacy groups designed to prevent this type of behavior and without them, things would be a lot worse for everyone. Why? Because a ton of people take the same stance that you are.
You are welcome to laugh about it all you want. However, laughing at something does not change it's validity.
All sales are designed to take advantage of the consumer. It's a question of degrees.
I still struggle to see how Zenimax are taking advantage of the consumer to a degree warranting complaint. They are exercising typical supply and demand principles in my view, by selling something people want to buy in order to realise an early return on investment.
Prior to pre-order we all presumed that (a) Imperial is not a playable race, and (b) races are faction locked. Now we discover that neither restriction is absolute, if you are prepared to pre-order and/or buy the Imperial Edition.
Does it make a difference to the consumer that some people will be Imperials, or that some people will play as Khajiit in the Daggerfall Covenant? I can't see how, other than coveting what someone else has.
The backlash of all those people preordering and buying the more expensive collector's editions? Yeah, I bet it was worth it.
**
It's current #15 in pc game sales on Amazon. The Imperial Edition is currently #2.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/software/1294221011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_sw_2_3_last
**
The Imperial Edition is #6 in the general "Video Games" category.
http://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-video-games/zgbs/videogames/ref=pd_dp_ts_vg_1
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The lead designer explicitly stated that a subscription model was the best fit for TESO so that content wouldn't be locked behind pay walls. Locking a full race behind a pay wall (the addition cost of the CE) is certainly locking content behind a pay wall despite the existence of the subscription. It represents a complete disconnect between what was said and the actions taken be Zenimax. That alone *should* be enough not to trust the company.
However, if you would like more. Zenimax is expressly forbidding anyone from talking about actual game play (NDA) while offering presales of the product. While I very much believe it is the consumer's responsibility to educate themselves prior to a purchase, Zenimax is actively attempting to prevent the consumer from educating themselves. Instead, they are attempting to provide only the marketing message they would like available and are asking consumers to make a buying decision based on that. Guess what? That marketing message is designed to make a potential buyer buy, not to educate them about the pros and cons of the product. This, more than anything else, is what warrants a complaint.
If Zenimax would simply drop the NDA, allow EVERYONE to talk about their experience with the game, allow video reviews to be posted to YouTube and run an open beta that allows potential consumers to try before buying, I would remove my complaints for the most part. I still believe the flat out lie about not gating content behind a pay wall as justification for subscription is an adequate reason to not purchase the game, but at least potential consumers can research that themselves.
Why are people automatically assuming the worst? From my point of view, thinking that the Imperial race and "any alliance, any race" features won't be achievable by in-game means is illogical, you can't restrict things away from people who didn't choose to pre-order or buy xyz collector's edition. I'm sure a company with one of the most successful game franchises in history considered this well before armchair businessmen suddenly thought of it.
To me it seems quite clear, just like the horse, you will be able to achieve those things just fine; you'll just have to wait for them. What people here seem to be proposing is "no collectors? OK, no horse forever".
Wait and see what finishing all 3 alliance campaigns (new game+, new game++ as they're calling it) yields.
PS: What's with basically every thread degenerating into how F2P is a godsend to the industry? F2P games are mediocre at best. They went F2P because they made horrendous decisions in some areas, leading to that ultimate result. They did not go F2P because "no one wanted to pay a sub".
If I go to an Italian restaurant and it's crap, does that give me complete insight to say every Italian restaurant I go to from then on will be equally as bad? (Read: comparing upcoming games to a few select fails of the past)
Making a playable race only available to CE owners is not locking content behind a pay wall, in my opinion at least. It's almost entirely cosmetic, in pretty much the same way as giving people an exclusive mount.
As for initiating pre-orders while the game remains under NDA. I don't see the difference between that and the old days of gaming when you picked a box off the shelf, read the back, looked at the screenshots, and then took it home. Caveat emptor still applies, and if you're not satisfied with the information currently available then wait until you buy, or don't buy at all.
For me it's a NO !
Imperial is only a cosmetic thing that you "buy" by taking the CE.
If you cannot afford or don't want it, then just move on !
No race/alliance/pve/pvp/dungeons etc. will be removed from the game if you don't choose the CE, so stop crying !
In your opinion, making a race only available to CE owners is not locking content behind a pay wall. However, charging an additional $20 (or whatever the difference is) to access an entire race with unique racial attributes certainly IS locking content behind a pay wall, opinions aside. If any game adds an entirely new race, they will tout it as additional content. They will not say they added a minor cosmetic feature of an entirely new race. The fact that you have to pay more to access that content means it's locked behind a pay wall.
To address your second paragraph, the entire world has changed with the internet. Social media and instantaneous communication means companies have an opportunity to prove their products are good, particularly digital products. Hiding your product behind an NDA and offering presales is very close to the draconian practice of purchasing a game based on what you see on the back of the box. I agree that they are similar. However, I believe that technology and culture has changed enough to make previous practices undesirable.
Rift CE locked "content":
Imperials are this games' version of the two-headed tartagon... boycott I say!
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
A mount that provides no advantage over any other mount obtained through in-game means is purely cosmetic. To a degree, it is locking content, but a few cosmetic perks are commonly accepted as 'ok' for CEs (particularly mounts and companion pets). That being said, it is significantly different than a playable race with unique racial traits. This is the incomplete comparison logical fallacy.
A race that provides no advantage over any other race obtained through in game mean...
Or are you the last person in this forum who hasn't googled the skill lines or used the skill calculator that was linked here last week that shows just how mild the racial bonuses are?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED