ESO Plus Subscription Alternatives

Kalifas

Why buy to play is the best model

With key features being tied to ESO plus.I am referring to the recently announced Infinite Crafting bags and Dye systems. This could be the start of more and more being locked behind the subscription. With the way the majority of gamers approach the subscription model nowadays. Which is subscribe and play when something new you like releases, then unsubscribe and not play when the content is devoured. There is no mmo game to date that I know of that creates content fast enough or high quality enough to keep players entertained and sustained and subscribed month after month over the course of an mmo's lifetime.

This could be a detriment to ZoS.

If the game is "advertised" as a buy to play game. But the "reality" is that you cannot get the high quality full experience without being subscribed.

Rather than state my distaste or others for the direction of development when it comes to monetization over and over. And whether the developer changes things or doesn't. There will be this constant debate over what should be in the subscription package and what shouldn't. Regardless of who is right or wrong. This will cast a negative light on Elder Scrolls Online and cause a divide between the haves(subscribers) and the have nots(DLC buyers without subscribing).

The fact of the matter is that no matter what ZoS does. There will always be different opinions on whether something is right or wrong, good or bad, unfair or fair. For this reason, they should take into account what is really being argued here. What is really being argued is.

What is this game worth in terms of quality,depth, and breadth and how much money should I spend on it.

• If a subscriber stays subscribed for long periods of time the answer is that the entire game is worth every penny and provides reasons to invest long periods of time.
• If a person subscribes in short spurts usually at expansion releases and unsubscribes. They probably like what they see but don't see particular reasons to invest alot of time into.
• If a person never subscribes, then they either don't see value in a subscription model or they prefer to buy things once and not worry succeeding payments.

People say 15 dollars is too much to pay for 12 months over a year, that's 180 dollars. People say that 15 dollars is nothing to pay for 12 months over a year, that's 180 dollars. Obviously, people have different incomes and different amounts they can spend on luxuries. People have varying amounts of bills that are necessity or luxury. Assuming no one is dirt poor here and 15 dollars on it's own is not a big deal if ESO was the only luxury that existed. It would be no big deal to invest 15 dollars a month. But ESO is not the only essential or luxury bill people have. Steve might like ESO alot but he also likes FFXIV, Netflix, Sirius Radio, going to the movies or he might just have so many bills that it eats into his luxury spending money.So investing 15 dollars monthly over the course of a year into ESO is not viable for him.

You might say that is Steve's problem, he needs to prioritize what luxury he wants to have. You might say that Steve needs to go and get his financial issues fixed so he doesn't have to choose. You might say that whether Steve can afford it or not is not Zenimax's responsibility. There is truth in that if you say that. However, the reality is that regardless of what Steve should do. More often than not, there will be a tear between what Steve wants and what Steve does. And while it is not Zenimax's responsibility. What Steve decides could bring them more money or not bring them more money. When Steve has to choose is the point where ZoS gains or loses money.

So what is a high caliber mmo company to do?

Proposed Revision Of ESO Plus:

I propose giving players more options in how they subscribe. Because how much money and how long a player can invest into a game varies by person.

ESO plus

• 1 week= $3.75 + 375 crowns
• 2 weeks=$7.50 + 750 crowns
• 3 weeks=$11.25 + 1125 crowns
• 1 month=$15.00 + 1500 crowns
• 3 months=$41.97 + 4500 crowns
• 6 months=$77.94 + 9000 crowns

When subscribing whether it's a week or more, a player will get all current subscription perks and future upcoming subscription perks for the time they are subscribed.

With this adaptive ESO plus:

• Players get a wider variety of options to access the full featured high quality game
• Allows the players to purchase on what their appropriate barrier of entry is
• Removes confusion on what is accessible or not
• Could increase subscriber base, any amount of steady money is better than no money
• Makes it easier for players to come and go without placing a difficult choice on what luxuries they prefer
• Places less burden on players wallets if they don't want to invest in a full month or longer
• If Daddy wants to play ESO with his 4 boys and 3 daughters and wife he can do so without having to subscribe his whole family for a month

CherryCake

Great, constructive post OP!!!
I would also like to add that many people will say paying one week of subscription doesnt do ZOS any favor, but it might be the opposite: There arent only fully responsible adults playing this game, there are also teenagers, and this might be something they can afford., instead of paying nothing at all.

This all sounds like a great idea, however I doubt ZOS will ever include this in their subscription plan, and this thread might turn out just like the ones before, with people arguing and judging those that dont subscribe regardless of their circumstances.

czar

i don't want to subscribe. period. i don't like how zos handle things, and locking exclusive features behind a subscription doesn't exactly make me want to throw more money at them. i'm fine with purchasing crowns because then i know what i'm getting, but a subscription is an investment and i just don't have enough faith in zos to give them that.

i'm not gonna cry about it but the only way i'm ever getting a crafting bag or dye system for costumes is if they put it up on the crown store for a reasonable price, not by reinventing the subscription model.

Kalifas

schip wrote: »

i don't want to subscribe. period. i don't like how zos handle things, and locking exclusive features behind a subscription doesn't exactly make me want to throw more money at them. i'm fine with purchasing crowns because then i know what i'm getting, but a subscription is an investment and i just don't have enough faith in zos to give them that.

i'm not gonna cry about it but the only way i'm ever getting a crafting bag or dye system for costumes is if they put it up on the crown store for a reasonable price, not by reinventing the subscription model.

I don't like the idea of locking things behind a subscription either. The game is buy to play. Not subscription only. I have no issues with offering + whatever over a non subscriber but infinite or exclusive is a no no. The game should go back to subscription only if things are locked behind it.

They might never add the infinite bags or dyes to the crown store or monthly subscribers could throw a hissy fit.

I am willing to subscribe but not for a month or twelve months a year. One the content is too light and two is I enjoy doing other things. If I subscribed that long I would feel strained in that I have to make my playtime worth it. This is why I am proposing an alternate subscription path.

Hempyre

Ya, I guess all those people should work for free, and keep making an awesome game for free, and let you play for free.

This is how it works. If you want a quality product someone has to make it. I assume you want someone good at their job to do that?
Chances are, they want to be paid. It helps with things like eating, and paying rent and stuff.

Do you work for free? Does your company give away its product for free?

The fact that you can play any part of this game for just the initial cost -which was around 30bux on steam a little while ago- is pretty cool. There's a lot of up front costs and a high rate of failure on these types of games so there has to be some type of return...

The sense of entitlement is amazing.

You like the game? You want to keep playing it?

Then pay for it.

Kalifas

Dred76 wrote: »

Ya, I guess all those people should work for free, and keep making an awesome game for free, and let you play for free.

This is how it works. If you want a quality product someone has to make it. I assume you want someone good at their job to do that?
Chances are, they want to be paid. It helps with things like eating, and paying rent and stuff.

Do you work for free? Does your company give away its product for free?

The fact that you can play any part of this game for just the initial cost -which was around 30bux on steam a little while ago- is pretty cool. There's a lot of up front costs and a high rate of failure on these types of games so there has to be some type of return...

The sense of entitlement is amazing.

You like the game? You want to keep playing it?

Then pay for it.

Get your free comments stuff out of here. Money is money, under this system if a player subbed 2 weeks a month out of every month for a year that is 90 steady dollars ZoS would not have in the first place.

No, it works that a company makes money when they first put a game out or are the single player games making their games for free? Make an awesome dlc and charge 30 bucks for it. If it's awesome you might sell 7 million copies and that is 210 million dollars. That more than pays for upkeep and salaries on an mmo over four years. If your dlc sucks which I am not saying ESO dlc does. Then it won't sell as good and it shouldn't have it's own game to begin with.

Obviously this game is doing well even before they started locking things behind the subscription right? Does Mr.Firor look like he is starving or depressed to you? He looks happy and motivated.

Entitlement is if I expected to play the game with zero cost. There is a cost by buying dlc and I am willing to pay a subscription but not anywhere near what ZoS would like. Which is 12 months a year for 10 years.

You don't like people having payment options? What if a mortgage was a huge X amount regardless of how much you put down. If you have nothing positive to add to this thread. Please stay out of it and post your own thread.

Niastissa

The model I would like to see is as follows:

Ful subscription:

Just like ESO + right now. You get everything as long as you are subscribed.

Crown Store DLC Purchases:

Just like it is now. You get content but no perks.

Perks only subscription:

Costs less then ESO+
No access to content through this subscription.
All other ESO+ perks provided.
Have it be 50% of the cost of the ESO+ subscription through each payment duration option.
50% of the crowns of ESO+ (6 months gets 4500 crowns not 9000)

NewBlacksmurf

Great post

Kalifas

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Great post

Thanks NewBlacksmurf!

Hempyre

I bought the game and I pay the sub, and I have no problem with that. Just like every MMO I've played since UO.

Why should they change to some convoluted payment model? I think they offer a significantly better set of payment options than most games.

Comparing your game sub to a mortgage is ludicrous at best...

As far as your other statments, I'll make whatever comments I see fit regardless of whether you think they're positive or not. I can, and do disagree with your post.

Don't tell me what to do.

Kalifas

Dred76 wrote: »

I bought the game and I pay the sub, and I have no problem with that. Just like every MMO I've played since UO.

Why should they change to some convoluted payment model? I think they offer a significantly better set of payment options than most games.

Comparing your game sub to a mortgage is ludicrous at best...

As far as your other statments, I'll make whatever comments I see fit regardless of whether you think they're positive or not. I can, and do disagree with your post.

Don't tell me what to do.

Then you don't tell me what to do or what I am like as a person.
And convoluted definition:
(especially of an argument, story, or sentence) extremely complex and difficult to follow.

There is nothing complicated about a tiered subscription model. Many other games do it. What is convoluted is making players navigate through multiple selections in a crown store not completely sure what is or isn't accessible unless they have a subscription. Not only is it convoluted, it is more of an inconvenience sifting through a hundred options than actually going and purchasing the convenience stuff offered in the crown store one click and it's yours indefinitely.

Edited to remove insult

Alurria

While it is a fantastic idea and I appreciate you writing it up. I don't think it's feasible it's a lot of payment models to keep track of.

I will say this don't take it as a insult, but not everyone gets what they want. There are choices, if you don't like mc Donald's there is always burger King. Instead of trying to change a companies business practice try changing how you look at it.

Don't think for a minute these ideas have never be thought of. Personally I think it should be sub only with micro transactions. I also saw another poster thought the reason they did away with the sub model is because of Microsoft and Xbox. I don't know if that is true or not I dont remember after beta.

Nice well thought out idea! Who knows maybe they will like it.

Hallothiel

Interesting ideas!

But (as have posted elsewhere) to those who continually insist that subbing is the only way to support the game - money is money is money. Subs can easily be cancelled. The financial health of a company should be based on multiple income streams.

Neirymn

Right now, we don't even have the 90 and 180 days options on consoles... If I had those, I'd be paying for 180 days to get a discounted price, but I can't. If your idea was to become a real thing, that might not change anything for us, consoles players, as we're already stuck with only one option that is 30 days of membership.

Besides, that's not my job to worry about the well being of a company, they got men dedicated to the task. I want a lot of things, but I can't afford them all, so I must choose. I love ESO, I want all the perks, I subscribe. Before that I loved ESO too but was not interested in the perks, so I bought crowns packs on sale to get the DLC's.

That being said I am all for more membership options if console players can have them too, which is not the case as for now.

Hallothiel

@senhavran

Yep, would like the 3 or 6 month option on the console too.

VodkaVixen1979

Niastissa wrote: »

The model I would like to see is as follows:

Ful subscription:

Just like ESO + right now. You get everything as long as you are subscribed.

Crown Store DLC Purchases:

Just like it is now. You get content but no perks.

Perks only subscription:

Costs less then ESO+
No access to content through this subscription.
All other ESO+ perks provided.
Have it be 50% of the cost of the ESO+ subscription through each payment duration option.
50% of the crowns of ESO+ (6 months gets 4500 crowns not 9000)

OMG I would love a perk only subscription. No DLC access, just the perks (not crowns, but the in game stuff). There are many MANY people on this game who B2P that would sign up for this....Myself included.

Niastissa

VodkaVixen1979 wrote: »

Niastissa wrote: »

The model I would like to see is as follows:

Ful subscription:

Just like ESO + right now. You get everything as long as you are subscribed.

Crown Store DLC Purchases:

Just like it is now. You get content but no perks.

Perks only subscription:

Costs less then ESO+
No access to content through this subscription.
All other ESO+ perks provided.
Have it be 50% of the cost of the ESO+ subscription through each payment duration option.
50% of the crowns of ESO+ (6 months gets 4500 crowns not 9000)

OMG I would love a perk only subscription. No DLC access, just the perks (not crowns, but the in game stuff). There are many MANY people on this game who B2P that would sign up for this....Myself included.

I feel like it would accomplish the goal of getting subscribers and not alienate a large segment of the players.

VodkaVixen1979

Dred76 wrote: »

Ya, I guess all those people should work for free, and keep making an awesome game for free, and let you play for free.

This is how it works. If you want a quality product someone has to make it. I assume you want someone good at their job to do that?
Chances are, they want to be paid. It helps with things like eating, and paying rent and stuff.

Do you work for free? Does your company give away its product for free?

The fact that you can play any part of this game for just the initial cost -which was around 30bux on steam a little while ago- is pretty cool. There's a lot of up front costs and a high rate of failure on these types of games so there has to be some type of return...

The sense of entitlement is amazing.

You like the game? You want to keep playing it?

Then pay for it.

You really think all the DLC people buy was free? Oh yes, every release ZOS just magically drops the content into my game for nothing. I didn't use real actual currency to buy it, or all the crowns I have spent on mounts, pets, and costumes. They were just handed over for nothing! Rolls eyes so far back in my head I can see my brain...

Edited to remove insulting language

Neirymn

@Hallothiel

That's why I didn't subscribe to ESO Plus from the console launch, as I subscribe to Playstation Plus only to be able to play one game online which is ESO, I could have used the 180 days discounted price. ^^

I made a poll about that in the Crown Store section: Are you interested in a 90 and 180 days option for ESO Plus subscription on consoles?

Malmai

Buy to Play is best model because they failed with Subscription model and after Buy to Play fails they will go to Free to Play and that will be soon.

Neirymn

Malmai wrote: »

Buy to Play is best model because they failed with Subscription model and after Buy to Play fails they will go to Free to Play and that will be soon.

Can you tell me my good fortune too, Mrs Irma?

jircris11

Nice post OP, though to those who claim things are locked behind a sub. name ONE THING other then the crafting bag. if you cant the you have no argument. DLC are buy-able via crown. mounts as well, hell everything other then a crap 10% xp boost and the crafting bag can be bought with crowns. They need to make ESO+ worth getting seeing how those who buy eso plus also tend to spend money on crowns thus increasing their total revenue. It is basic business honestly. It is not like other games (SWTOR for example) that went free to play but in reality you are locked out of 60% if not more of the game.

llSRRll

Im fine with the way it is, I didnt need the crafting bag but find it a nice perk for subscribing. I had a great system setup over several characters where bank space was never an issue for me. I subscribe not for silly stuff like that but do it for the good of the game. I plan on playing this game for quit a long time and by subscribing I hope that it gives ZOS the revenue to make it a better game.

Hempyre

@Kalifas

I didn't mean you specifically and I didn't intend it as a jab. No harm, no foul my friend.

I've read a fair number of posts regarding the paywall and few are as well put together as yours.

@VodkaVixen1979

You make me sigh...

Where to begin? Hmm, well I will counter your question on my cerebral fortitude by pulling out my package of crayons (< this is a jab) and drawing you an easy to follow picture of how software sales and services work.

You buy all games outright. This is the norm.

You buy upgrades and additions to those games outright. Also usually the norm.

They arent free to you, as you so elequently put, because they weren't free to make either.

If the game has some persistant online aspect that requires server hardware, maintenance, updates, large bandwidth, staff, CSR, coders, etc... you pay a sub, or network access fee such as Xbox Live. This is the norm.

There are of course exceptions, such as PlayStation subscribers enjoy and of course the majority of shooters, or non persistent onlines, however they (shooters and non persistent onlines) don't require the same resources as an MMO as in fact they are often hosted at various server farms by the player base or some other entity, or in some cases right on a players machine.

In my personal experience, and I'm dating myself here considerably, I have never once played an MMO that didn't have a sub. And I have played a vast number of them dating back to Ultima Online. I could rattle off a dozen and still be forgetting twice that.

I think this game has an acceptable range of payment options and levels of access based on those options that makes their system more progressive than most, I also think it's a neccessary evil that they do it in this fashion as there is such a glut of half assed MMO's on the market now as to muddy the waters sufficiently enough to make the choice a difficult one for the consumer. And of course they want to sell you more, more features and more services. Not an original concept but at least you have the choice.

Think of it as similar to buying a car. Should you get all the options for the base list price? Maybe that's what you want, but no, of course you shouldn't and the OP wasnt suggesting that either, it's a different tiered structure, bur a tiered structure all the same, as is the existing system.

Now if you choose vanity purchases, that's on you and the company is not responsible to give you anything more than what you purchased.

I would agree, you would likely have to roll your eyes very far back indeed.

Kalifas

Dred76 wrote: »

@Kalifas

I didn't mean you specifically and I didn't intend it as a jab. No harm, no foul my friend.

I've read a fair number of posts regarding the paywall and few are as well put together as yours.

@VodkaVixen1979

You make me sigh...

Where to begin? Hmm, well I will counter your question on my cerebral fortitude by pulling out my package of crayons (< this is a jab) and drawing you an easy to follow picture of how software sales and services work.

You buy all games outright. This is the norm.

You buy upgrades and additions to those games outright. Also usually the norm.

They arent free to you, as you so elequently put, because they weren't free to make either.

If the game has some persistant online aspect that requires server hardware, maintenance, updates, large bandwidth, staff, CSR, coders, etc... you pay a sub, or network access fee such as Xbox Live. This is the norm.

There are of course exceptions, such as PlayStation subscribers enjoy and of course the majority of shooters, or non persistent onlines, however they (shooters and non persistent onlines) don't require the same resources as an MMO as in fact they are often hosted at various server farms by the player base or some other entity, or in some cases right on a players machine.

In my personal experience, and I'm dating myself here considerably, I have never once played an MMO that didn't have a sub. And I have played a vast number of them dating back to Ultima Online. I could rattle off a dozen and still be forgetting twice that.

I think this game has an acceptable range of payment options and levels of access based on those options that makes their system more progressive than most, I also think it's a neccessary evil that they do it in this fashion as there is such a glut of half assed MMO's on the market now as to muddy the waters sufficiently enough to make the choice a difficult one for the consumer. And of course they want to sell you more, more features and more services. Not an original concept but at least you have the choice.

Think of it as similar to buying a car. Should you get all the options for the base list price? Maybe that's what you want, but no, of course you shouldn't and the OP wasnt suggesting that either, it's a different tiered structure, bur a tiered structure all the same, as is the existing system.

Now if you choose vanity purchases, that's on you and the company is not responsible to give you anything more than what you purchased.

I would agree, you would likely have to roll your eyes very far back indeed.

I don't want to go back and forth because I think our views differ. I do think the game has an acceptable range of payment as well, that is before things start to get locked behind the sub. The top subscription only mmorpgs are WoW and FFXIV. And even they have the sharp rise and declines in subscriptions as you saw WoW go from 12 million to 5 million if you read the news. That is due to that necessary evil to want to separate themselves from the hundreds of free to play mmos. The user is tasked with a very difficult choice when choosing those games.

• Do I neglect all my other gaming ventures and place all my loyalty in this one or two subscription brands which may or not become the mmo I think it is?
• Or do I subscribe sporadically only when this sweet mmo puts something forth I can get behind but leave when content gets sour or low?
• Or do I play all the different mmo games I can within the buy to play and free to play boundaries and not have additional monthly bills?

The majority of players choose the second or third choice even with the premiere subscription mmos. And If ZoS starts locking premiere major features even if they are convenience or cosmetic. They might as well go full blown subscription because that is the way the masses will view them.

For the car analogy. It would be more like buying the standard car(base game) gets you a feature low purchase. For extra one time fees, you can add features like Sunroof(dlc), premium tires(dlc), 4 wheel drive(dlc), and leather seats(convenience dlc).
Now if the company you bought the car from offered a free tuning every month or free paint job which cost you a monthly(subscription), then that would be something like you are getting at.

It's simple economics. Just look at the new VR that is coming out with Oculus Rift and HTC Vive. They cost more than the general public is willing to spend. Most consumers will buy into the Playstation VR or Samsung VR for the lower cost of entry. There will be a market for the more expensive brands but it will pale in comparison to the amount of users that purchase the lower cost of entry VR.

That is the choice the sub forces the user to make.
Sub only= Smaller Market audience
B2P with sub option= Relatively smaller market audience
B2P or F2P= Huge booming market audience

It did work for WoW for a good while but that was because there was less good choices when WoW launched and now there is a crap load of good games to compete with. That is why every game that has tried to mimic the WoW formula has failed, some more miserably than the others.

acw37162

Not a bad run at a alternative system although not something I think any game would consider until the projected end of life cycle and your price points are way off on the low end.

One week would end up being something like 6.00 with two weeks being 9.00 to make he months purchase more attractive.

ESO plus offers 10% experience, gold, and research boosts.

A crafting bag; and will offer

The ability to dye costumes which you will still be able to via al carte purchases from the crown store.

ESO plus is not required to experience the full suite of options the game has to offer and offers plenty of buy as you what purchases.

They use this model because it works well and is proven profitable I wouldn't be expecting a switch anytime soon.

Sylveria_Relden

IMO, they should have never dropped mandatory subs to begin with, but I do understand their wanting to get more customers to purchase the game.

Helps them keep the bills paid while they develop new content all of us can enjoy- even if the subscribers get more perks for doing so.

VodkaVixen1979

@Dred76

Your reply only solidifies my initial assessment of your cerebral capabilities. The overly purposeful use of five dollar words in your reply makes me also add the term "***" to the mix. The problem here is with you throwing the word free around. The payment method of subs vs. non-subs is six one way, half a dozen the other, but you seem unable to tell the difference. (Hint: there is none...money is money genius).

Hempyre

@VodkaVixen1979

Actually that's incorrect. I know in its most simplistic form one such as yourself may see it as "money is money" but in actuality that's not the case.

There are two basic pricing models in place, and each has specific purposes and drawbacks.

(The money has a job darling.)

The primary model in its fundamental form, is a cost plus model. This allows for a faster ROI, and quicker capitalisation. At the cost of a lack of future predictability in profits, and in the case of inclusive services over time, an erosion of profit, and often a suppression of demand as a result of higher initial costs to the consumer.

The second model, again in its fundamental form, is the subscrition model, often referred to as Software as a Service. This model does the opposite. It provides future predictability and stability, and a better ROI over time, while feeding data into the development cycle, thus allowing an improvement to the product and customer experience. (typically), the drawbacks being a longer cost recovery cycle and a reduction in initial working capital. Etc... etc...

again this is a very basic explanation of how this works, it is in actuality a fairly complex system that is tricky to get right. Which is why I'm impressed that we have as many options as we do currently.

In a nutshell, the initial product price pays back the cost of production and fills the company coffers, the second stabilizes the company and allows for future planning and development and a more secure platform to draw investment and financing.

And that is why you pay an initial cost plus price AND a subscription when you play an MMO, otherwise the company is constantly "racing the clock" to stay profitable. (That's bad, mmmkay)

I didn't use five dollar words to impress you darling, I could have done that with a shiny new penny.

disintegr8

Sylveria_Relden wrote: »

IMO, they should have never dropped mandatory subs to begin with, but I do understand their wanting to get more customers to purchase the game.

Helps them keep the bills paid while they develop new content all of us can enjoy- even if the subscribers get more perks for doing so.

I actually held off on getting the game (and my PS4) until they dropped the mandatory subscription. Never having played an MMO before I didn't see why you would buy the game and pay a sub. That was how MMO's work and I just did not agree at the time, I presume there were a lot of others who felt the same way.

I have since taken out a sub and am happy to be doing so.

ZOS_DaryaK

We've removed several posts that were not contributing to this discussion. Please avoid personal attacks and keep your comments constructive.