They could make a furniture slot an ESO + feature to help us unload our extra furnishings, and make houses hold max furnishings for all players. That way ESO+ doesn't lose anything, and people who don't sub can still buy furnishings off the Crown store to fill their homes.

Now you got me curious: What happens to furniture exceeding the limit after you cancel eso+ (I'm subbed permanently and can't test this myself.)?

FantasticFreddie wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Now you got me curious: What happens to furniture exceeding the limit after you cancel eso+ (I'm subbed permanently and can't test this myself.)?

Nothing. If you are at 700/700, they all stay put, but if you remove one you can't replace it until you are below 350

Thanks for the info.

On the other hand, ZOS needs a continuous flow of revenue. As someone who has spent thousands of dollars in this game over the years, I can also understand how much money it takes to keep the game afloat. People don't seem to grasp how much it actually takes to pay all the bills and yet also generate enough revenue to justify continued development on the game. As new MMOs and other games come out, it draws more players away... that and poor decisions by ZOS like U35 also drives people away.

So it's difficult for me to fault them for adding incentive for players to sub; not only with furnishing upgrades but there's also the crafting bag. Now if someone chooses to spent tons of money on the game and then decides they no longer want to support the game, as in canceling their sub, this is not contributing to the continued development of the game. In fact, it could be said that it's leading to the eventual demise of the game... and then where are your houses, mundus stones, mounts, combat pets?!? ALL GONE.

I agree; there are tons of other reasons to have ESO+

...and there is potential to replace the current system. For one, a lot of people would buy more slots for existing homes.

1. although they state the reason is mostly console limitations, the limits feel artificial. Like if I want to cram 700 furnishings into Sleek Creek (I really, really do, and my PC can handle it), that's no different from stuffing that many in a small, cobbled space in any of the Notable homes. In terms of poly counts and texture data, it's the same. (Unless there's something weird about data in smaller homes that we don't know.)

The main issue, I guess, would be complaints from players on older consoles, if slot upgrading was not available to them. If ZOS released it for everyone, there would definitely be tons of people who'd overload their houses past their own system specs. Dealing with that would be a nightmare for Support.

2. Speaking of data, this has been brought up before too, but there's a ton of actual, fully-textured, interactive geometry outside of the houses. It's great that we can place furnishings outside the house and I don't want to lost that ability, but also kind of insane how far it goes. There are videos of players clipping out way outside of the house, traveling to the next town. If it's a data load issue, why not make the zones smaller? Nobody should be able to get out there through normal means anyway, so can't it be replaced with a skybox past some point? - Probably, but this is surely near the bottom of the Dev priority list.

ADarklore wrote: »

On the other hand, ZOS needs a continuous flow of revenue. As someone who has spent thousands of dollars in this game over the years, I can also understand how much money it takes to keep the game afloat. People don't seem to grasp how much it actually takes to pay all the bills and yet also generate enough revenue to justify continued development on the game. As new MMOs and other games come out, it draws more players away... that and poor decisions by ZOS like U35 also drives people away.

So it's difficult for me to fault them for adding incentive for players to sub; not only with furnishing upgrades but there's also the crafting bag. Now if someone chooses to spent tons of money on the game and then decides they no longer want to support the game, as in canceling their sub, this is not contributing to the continued development of the game. In fact, it could be said that it's leading to the eventual demise of the game... and then where are your houses, mundus stones, mounts, combat pets?!? ALL GONE.

ESO is more monetized than many free-to-play MMOs.
- Every dungeon in the last few years is paid. Or accessed with subscription, but I'll get to that later.
- Every small dlc that complements the year's story since Elsweyr is paid, you literally can't finish the plot of a chapter you already paid real money for unless you also bought a dlc or ESO+. This year they finally changed it for Necrom, but it remains that way for previous chapters.
- Every single mount except for standard horses and rare limited-time event mounts is paid. And hooo boy is there a lot of those (literally hundreds, if you're curious). I struggle to think of any f2p MMO that would have so many ridiculous immersion-breaking mounts.
- All assistants cost about the same as the entire game, depending on your local crown prices. Want to be able to summon a banker anywhere - $40. A merchant - another $40. And if you want a merchant with a different appearance, you don't just buy a skin, no, it's another $40.
- Almost every crown-exclusive house literally costs more than the entire game. Think about it. A single house in a game costs more than that game's full price, often twice more.
- And in those houses for which you've paid so much you can only fill half of available furnishing slots unless you pay for subscription.

But what about that subscription? Well, here's how it works: when you subscribe, you get access to all those dungeons and dlcs, and then you lose that when your subscription ends.
In SWTOR, for example, when your subscription ends, you keep access to all dlcs that were accessible at the time you were subscribed, and you're only restricted from future dlcs.
Show these two sentences to someone who hasn't played either and ask them, which game do they think is f2p.

Okay, but you also get 1650 crowns per month, or 19800 per year, that's gotta compensate for something, right?
Not really.
Most of crown exclusive houses cost over 10k crowns. Quite a few cost 14k, and there's three for 15k, and we're talking unfurnished. That means that even if you subscribe for a whole year you'll probably be able to buy only one house, and unless you buy more crowns directly, you'll have to prioritize between buying some nice furniture, a mount, a couple of dlcs or an assistant.

I love this game, I truly do. But I swear it's the most f2p-like paid game I ever played.
And yeah, maintaining the game and making new content costs a lot of money, for sure, but there should be limits on what you can justify with this. The game is ridiculously monetized, and locking furniture slots in a house you already paid real money for behind a constant paywall is a little too greedy in my opinion.

P.S. On the subject of not supproting the game anymore when you stop your subscription... How about all support you've already given? If you bought the game on release and then bought every chapter, you've given ZOS hundreds of dollars by now even if you never subscribed, whereas a new player will get ALL chapters for $60. Who's more loyal here really? The game already heavily favors new players over old, there's no need to additionally fault old players for devs not getting more money.

It is and has been an ESO+ perk, If Zenimax raised the cap for non-ESO+ the would increase the cap for ESO+. It is really no different than the crafting bag.