ZOS: When does the 6 month subscription return?

Elsonso

I can accept the suggestion that they dumped the 6-month subscription due to comments in here that suggested that people purchase time in a manner that is beneficial due to currency exchange. I can accept the currency exchange rate as a reason all day long, for any possible use of currency exchange.

I can accept the official reason that they dropped the 6-month subscription due to the fact that it was not popular.

However, I believe that while both of these may actually be a justification, neither of them is The Reason.

Rosveen

.

AshySamurai wrote: »

zaria wrote: »

wenxue2222b16_ESO wrote: »

Random thought time - maybe it is to do with currency fluctations?

Rouble falling at an incredible rate for example. Maybe they don't want people buying large chucks of game time when they will make more money out of them as certain currencies devalue more over the next few months?

Yes, might be the reason, not so many Russian players however other can also buy gametime and reducing time to 3 months will reduce the problem to the half.
Also long term trends look like the dollar is getting stronger compared to euro and other major currencies. This will reduce income.

Nope. Not because of Russians. It's because the rest of players. Only not russians can get a benefit. The price is fixed and Russian players pay the same amount in April, in August and in December. But all other players can convert dollars/euro into roubles and buy game time at lower price.

I might be missing something, but we never had 6 month game time cards. Besides, you can still stock up on Russian cards if you want to. This decision affects recurring subs paid with a credit card and they default to your country's currency. There's no easy way of changing your country, or at least I don't see this option on my account page.

Guppet

lordrichter wrote: »

I can accept the suggestion that they dumped the 6-month subscription due to comments in here that suggested that people purchase time in a manner that is beneficial due to currency exchange. I can accept the currency exchange rate as a reason all day long, for any possible use of currency exchange.

I can accept the official reason that they dropped the 6-month subscription due to the fact that it was not popular.

However, I believe that while both of these may actually be a justification, neither of them is The Reason.

No one will know why, unless they tell us why. They don't really need to do that though.

Here's another idea. Maybe they have removed it as they are about to increase the subscription charges in the next few months.

Slurg

Did they take the advice of the guy who started a thread about wanting to pay five bucks more a month for faster bug fixes and a price increase is coming?

Honestly this could mean just about anything or nothing at all.

Rosveen

Guppet wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

I can accept the suggestion that they dumped the 6-month subscription due to comments in here that suggested that people purchase time in a manner that is beneficial due to currency exchange. I can accept the currency exchange rate as a reason all day long, for any possible use of currency exchange.

I can accept the official reason that they dropped the 6-month subscription due to the fact that it was not popular.

However, I believe that while both of these may actually be a justification, neither of them is The Reason.

No one will know why, unless they tell us why. They don't really need to do that though.

Here's another idea. Maybe they have removed it as they are about to increase the subscription charges in the next few months.

That would also be a terrible decision, so if this is the answer, I don't feel very reassured.

Guppet

Rosveen wrote: »

Guppet wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

I can accept the suggestion that they dumped the 6-month subscription due to comments in here that suggested that people purchase time in a manner that is beneficial due to currency exchange. I can accept the currency exchange rate as a reason all day long, for any possible use of currency exchange.

I can accept the official reason that they dropped the 6-month subscription due to the fact that it was not popular.

However, I believe that while both of these may actually be a justification, neither of them is The Reason.

No one will know why, unless they tell us why. They don't really need to do that though.

Here's another idea. Maybe they have removed it as they are about to increase the subscription charges in the next few months.

That would also be a terrible decision, so if this is the answer, I don't feel very reassured.

Why would it be terrible? There is no law that a game has to cost £8.99 a month. In fact I have been paying that for over a decade to various games, maybe its about time they added inflation to that.

There's quite a lot of people that desperately don't want a free to play game and they would probably be willing to pay a bit more to never have to consider that option.

Heck I would happily go up to about £30.00 a month for a sub to the right game, I used to pay about that much in Planetside 2, which was free to play!.

The polls that have been ran here to find out the average age of the forum goers, has given us an indication that the average age is in the early to mid thirties, so most of us are not poor students. This is a fairly mature crowd in here, so if we can pay a bit more for a better experience, im sure that's an avenue worth exploring.

AshySamurai

Rosveen wrote: »

.

AshySamurai wrote: »

zaria wrote: »

wenxue2222b16_ESO wrote: »

Random thought time - maybe it is to do with currency fluctations?

Rouble falling at an incredible rate for example. Maybe they don't want people buying large chucks of game time when they will make more money out of them as certain currencies devalue more over the next few months?

Yes, might be the reason, not so many Russian players however other can also buy gametime and reducing time to 3 months will reduce the problem to the half.
Also long term trends look like the dollar is getting stronger compared to euro and other major currencies. This will reduce income.

Nope. Not because of Russians. It's because the rest of players. Only not russians can get a benefit. The price is fixed and Russian players pay the same amount in April, in August and in December. But all other players can convert dollars/euro into roubles and buy game time at lower price.

I might be missing something, but we never had 6 month game time cards. Besides, you can still stock up on Russian cards if you want to. This decision affects recurring subs paid with a credit card and they default to your country's currency. There's no easy way of changing your country, or at least I don't see this option on my account page.

TBH you're missing my idea. You can open virtual card and select Russia as your country. Now, you can change 10 bucks into 500 roubles. So, you'll get one month for only 10 bucks. Well, I don't know exact exchange rate, but I hope now you see how you can exploit system.

Guppet

AshySamurai wrote: »

Rosveen wrote: »

.

AshySamurai wrote: »

zaria wrote: »

wenxue2222b16_ESO wrote: »

Random thought time - maybe it is to do with currency fluctations?

Rouble falling at an incredible rate for example. Maybe they don't want people buying large chucks of game time when they will make more money out of them as certain currencies devalue more over the next few months?

Yes, might be the reason, not so many Russian players however other can also buy gametime and reducing time to 3 months will reduce the problem to the half.
Also long term trends look like the dollar is getting stronger compared to euro and other major currencies. This will reduce income.

Nope. Not because of Russians. It's because the rest of players. Only not russians can get a benefit. The price is fixed and Russian players pay the same amount in April, in August and in December. But all other players can convert dollars/euro into roubles and buy game time at lower price.

I might be missing something, but we never had 6 month game time cards. Besides, you can still stock up on Russian cards if you want to. This decision affects recurring subs paid with a credit card and they default to your country's currency. There's no easy way of changing your country, or at least I don't see this option on my account page.

TBH you're missing my idea. You can open virtual card and select Russia as your country. Now, you can change 10 bucks into 500 roubles. So, you'll get one month for only 10 bucks. Well, I don't know exact exchange rate, but I hope now you see how you can exploit system.

Quite a few other forums I have visited have said how to do that too, for other games also, so its probably something the industry is now very much aware of.

AshySamurai

Guppet wrote: »

AshySamurai wrote: »

Rosveen wrote: »

.

AshySamurai wrote: »

zaria wrote: »

wenxue2222b16_ESO wrote: »

Random thought time - maybe it is to do with currency fluctations?

Rouble falling at an incredible rate for example. Maybe they don't want people buying large chucks of game time when they will make more money out of them as certain currencies devalue more over the next few months?

Yes, might be the reason, not so many Russian players however other can also buy gametime and reducing time to 3 months will reduce the problem to the half.
Also long term trends look like the dollar is getting stronger compared to euro and other major currencies. This will reduce income.

Nope. Not because of Russians. It's because the rest of players. Only not russians can get a benefit. The price is fixed and Russian players pay the same amount in April, in August and in December. But all other players can convert dollars/euro into roubles and buy game time at lower price.

I might be missing something, but we never had 6 month game time cards. Besides, you can still stock up on Russian cards if you want to. This decision affects recurring subs paid with a credit card and they default to your country's currency. There's no easy way of changing your country, or at least I don't see this option on my account page.

TBH you're missing my idea. You can open virtual card and select Russia as your country. Now, you can change 10 bucks into 500 roubles. So, you'll get one month for only 10 bucks. Well, I don't know exact exchange rate, but I hope now you see how you can exploit system.

Quite a few other forums I have visited have said how to do that too, for other games also, so its probably something the industry is now very much aware of.

Yep. I don't visit other games forums, so I can't say something about it. But it's pretty simple scheme and you don't need to be Molag Bal to figure it out.

So, I think ZOS did what they did only to prevent massive exploits.

Rosveen

Guppet wrote: »

Rosveen wrote: »

Guppet wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

I can accept the suggestion that they dumped the 6-month subscription due to comments in here that suggested that people purchase time in a manner that is beneficial due to currency exchange. I can accept the currency exchange rate as a reason all day long, for any possible use of currency exchange.

I can accept the official reason that they dropped the 6-month subscription due to the fact that it was not popular.

However, I believe that while both of these may actually be a justification, neither of them is The Reason.

No one will know why, unless they tell us why. They don't really need to do that though.

Here's another idea. Maybe they have removed it as they are about to increase the subscription charges in the next few months.

That would also be a terrible decision, so if this is the answer, I don't feel very reassured.

In fact I have been paying that for over a decade to various games

This is why. It's a price people expect and are used to. If a company asks for more, they have to offer a much better experience than the competitors. Unfortunately, ZOS doesn't. You might be willing to pay extra, but you must have noticed the wavering faith this community has in ZOS. PvP issues, always one reason or another making people upset (right now the VP->CP conversion). Even if everything works out excellently after 1.6/1.7, I don't believe people will agree to pay a higher price for anything less than flawless service - which they haven't been getting so far.

You bring up the age polls here; if you want to use the forum as an indicator, there was a poll not so long ago asking this very question. Would we be willing to pay more? The answer was a resounding no. If only I could find that thread.

As a side note, it would be a terrible decision for me because unlike you, I am a poor student.

Razzak

AshySamurai wrote: »

Guppet wrote: »

AshySamurai wrote: »

Rosveen wrote: »

.

AshySamurai wrote: »

zaria wrote: »

wenxue2222b16_ESO wrote: »

Random thought time - maybe it is to do with currency fluctations?

Rouble falling at an incredible rate for example. Maybe they don't want people buying large chucks of game time when they will make more money out of them as certain currencies devalue more over the next few months?

Yes, might be the reason, not so many Russian players however other can also buy gametime and reducing time to 3 months will reduce the problem to the half.
Also long term trends look like the dollar is getting stronger compared to euro and other major currencies. This will reduce income.

Nope. Not because of Russians. It's because the rest of players. Only not russians can get a benefit. The price is fixed and Russian players pay the same amount in April, in August and in December. But all other players can convert dollars/euro into roubles and buy game time at lower price.

I might be missing something, but we never had 6 month game time cards. Besides, you can still stock up on Russian cards if you want to. This decision affects recurring subs paid with a credit card and they default to your country's currency. There's no easy way of changing your country, or at least I don't see this option on my account page.

TBH you're missing my idea. You can open virtual card and select Russia as your country. Now, you can change 10 bucks into 500 roubles. So, you'll get one month for only 10 bucks. Well, I don't know exact exchange rate, but I hope now you see how you can exploit system.

Quite a few other forums I have visited have said how to do that too, for other games also, so its probably something the industry is now very much aware of.

Yep. I don't visit other games forums, so I can't say something about it. But it's pretty simple scheme and you don't need to be Molag Bal to figure it out.

So, I think ZOS did what they did only to prevent massive exploits.

Exploit? It's a case of currency exchange values, not an exploit.

Guppet

Rosveen wrote: »

Guppet wrote: »

Rosveen wrote: »

Guppet wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

I can accept the suggestion that they dumped the 6-month subscription due to comments in here that suggested that people purchase time in a manner that is beneficial due to currency exchange. I can accept the currency exchange rate as a reason all day long, for any possible use of currency exchange.

I can accept the official reason that they dropped the 6-month subscription due to the fact that it was not popular.

However, I believe that while both of these may actually be a justification, neither of them is The Reason.

No one will know why, unless they tell us why. They don't really need to do that though.

Here's another idea. Maybe they have removed it as they are about to increase the subscription charges in the next few months.

That would also be a terrible decision, so if this is the answer, I don't feel very reassured.

In fact I have been paying that for over a decade to various games

This is why. It's a price people expect and are used to. If a company asks for more, they have to offer a much better experience than the competitors. Unfortunately, ZOS doesn't. You might be willing to pay extra, but you must have noticed the wavering faith this community has in ZOS. PvP issues, always one reason or another making people upset (right now the VP->CP conversion). Even if everything works out excellently after 1.6/1.7, I don't believe people will agree to pay a higher price for anything less than flawless service - which they haven't been getting so far.

You bring up the age polls here; if you want to use the forum as an indicator, there was a poll not so long ago asking this very question. Would we be willing to pay more? The answer was a resounding no. If only I could find that thread.

As a side note, it would be a terrible decision for me because unlike you, I am a poor student.

Every last MMO would love to be the one to be able to increase that £8.99 charge. Its just a case of that first company having the testicular fortitude to do it. Once the first does it, they all will. I just think ZOS are a brave company, scrapping VR was pretty brave, potentially not awarding earnt XP is very brave.

Sooner or later someone will test the water with a higher charge. Even if its just increasing it to £9.99, its a huge percentage mark up for them.

Rosveen

Guppet wrote: »

Rosveen wrote: »

Guppet wrote: »

Rosveen wrote: »

Guppet wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

I can accept the suggestion that they dumped the 6-month subscription due to comments in here that suggested that people purchase time in a manner that is beneficial due to currency exchange. I can accept the currency exchange rate as a reason all day long, for any possible use of currency exchange.

I can accept the official reason that they dropped the 6-month subscription due to the fact that it was not popular.

However, I believe that while both of these may actually be a justification, neither of them is The Reason.

No one will know why, unless they tell us why. They don't really need to do that though.

Here's another idea. Maybe they have removed it as they are about to increase the subscription charges in the next few months.

That would also be a terrible decision, so if this is the answer, I don't feel very reassured.

In fact I have been paying that for over a decade to various games

This is why. It's a price people expect and are used to. If a company asks for more, they have to offer a much better experience than the competitors. Unfortunately, ZOS doesn't. You might be willing to pay extra, but you must have noticed the wavering faith this community has in ZOS. PvP issues, always one reason or another making people upset (right now the VP->CP conversion). Even if everything works out excellently after 1.6/1.7, I don't believe people will agree to pay a higher price for anything less than flawless service - which they haven't been getting so far.

You bring up the age polls here; if you want to use the forum as an indicator, there was a poll not so long ago asking this very question. Would we be willing to pay more? The answer was a resounding no. If only I could find that thread.

As a side note, it would be a terrible decision for me because unlike you, I am a poor student.

Every last MMO would love to be the one to be able to increase that £8.99 charge. Its just a case of that first company having the testicular fortitude to do it. Once the first does it, they all will. I just think ZOS are a brave company, scrapping VR was pretty brave, potentially not awarding earnt XP is very brave.

Sooner or later someone will test the water with a higher charge. Even if its just increasing it to £9.99, its a huge percentage mark up for them.

Testing the waters carries a high risk of being eaten by slaughterfish.

driosketch

It's fascinating how people twist one thing over and over till it fits a worst case scenario. You know the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

ZOS is a business, and businesses like to make money. The six month plan discount was almost a full month's sub off each time. Now if you noticed players prefered your full price or single discount model over the double discount, especially when double discount subscribers were already willing to pay more up front and commit long term to the game, why wouldn't you make the change that earned more money over the long run?

Guppet

Rosveen wrote: »

Guppet wrote: »

Rosveen wrote: »

Guppet wrote: »

Rosveen wrote: »

Guppet wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

I can accept the suggestion that they dumped the 6-month subscription due to comments in here that suggested that people purchase time in a manner that is beneficial due to currency exchange. I can accept the currency exchange rate as a reason all day long, for any possible use of currency exchange.

I can accept the official reason that they dropped the 6-month subscription due to the fact that it was not popular.

However, I believe that while both of these may actually be a justification, neither of them is The Reason.

No one will know why, unless they tell us why. They don't really need to do that though.

Here's another idea. Maybe they have removed it as they are about to increase the subscription charges in the next few months.

That would also be a terrible decision, so if this is the answer, I don't feel very reassured.

In fact I have been paying that for over a decade to various games

This is why. It's a price people expect and are used to. If a company asks for more, they have to offer a much better experience than the competitors. Unfortunately, ZOS doesn't. You might be willing to pay extra, but you must have noticed the wavering faith this community has in ZOS. PvP issues, always one reason or another making people upset (right now the VP->CP conversion). Even if everything works out excellently after 1.6/1.7, I don't believe people will agree to pay a higher price for anything less than flawless service - which they haven't been getting so far.

You bring up the age polls here; if you want to use the forum as an indicator, there was a poll not so long ago asking this very question. Would we be willing to pay more? The answer was a resounding no. If only I could find that thread.

As a side note, it would be a terrible decision for me because unlike you, I am a poor student.

Every last MMO would love to be the one to be able to increase that £8.99 charge. Its just a case of that first company having the testicular fortitude to do it. Once the first does it, they all will. I just think ZOS are a brave company, scrapping VR was pretty brave, potentially not awarding earnt XP is very brave.

Sooner or later someone will test the water with a higher charge. Even if its just increasing it to £9.99, its a huge percentage mark up for them.

Testing the waters carries a high risk of being eaten by slaughterfish.

That it does, but it also offers the chance at the biggest pay offs. Calculated risks are how fortunes and careers are made. Failure to be brave is accepting mediocrity, its a pity that schools no longer encourage ambition (not aimed at anyone on particular):(

SantieClaws

The possible increase in profit needs to be carefully weighed up against the possibility of really ticking off your customer base though - no customers means no profit.

aisriyth_ESO

DDuke wrote: »

kevlarto_ESO wrote: »

maybe just as simple as the 6 month plans were not popular, so they removed them /shrug

And how does having more choices hurt them (or us)?

Still makes absolutely no sense.

Simple really, if they aren't that common, then it forces the few players that do use it to end up paying more for 3 month plan instead.

DDuke

driosketch wrote: »

It's fascinating how people twist one thing over and over till it fits a worst case scenario. You know the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

ZOS is a business, and businesses like to make money. The six month plan discount was almost a full month's sub off each time. Now if you noticed players prefered your full price or single discount model over the double discount, especially when double discount subscribers were already willing to pay more up front and commit long term to the game, why wouldn't you make the change that earned more money over the long run?

Yes, why give your subscribers more options, right?

The fault with your logic is that when you purchase 6 months worth of subscription, they're guaranteed all that money, where as if someone bought only one or three months and then found out he didn't like the game would only bring them one or three months worth of subscription.

This is exactly why I personally avoid 6 month plans, you can't know whether you'll even like the game after playing it for a while.

Still, many people do that thinking they'll save money and wind up quitting 2 months in, with many months still in their subscription. Because of this, it makes absolutely no sense from business perspective they'd remove the 6-month subscription.

To add, 10x bigger games such as WoW have never (afaik) removed their 6-month subscription.

Merrak

kevlarto_ESO wrote: »

maybe just as simple as the 6 month plans were not popular, so they removed them /shrug

Good for you not being another Chicken Little! I like you!

nine9six

Stupid...

aisriyth_ESO

DDuke wrote: »

driosketch wrote: »

It's fascinating how people twist one thing over and over till it fits a worst case scenario. You know the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

ZOS is a business, and businesses like to make money. The six month plan discount was almost a full month's sub off each time. Now if you noticed players prefered your full price or single discount model over the double discount, especially when double discount subscribers were already willing to pay more up front and commit long term to the game, why wouldn't you make the change that earned more money over the long run?

Yes, why give your subscribers more options, right?

The fault with your logic is that when you purchase 6 months worth of subscription, they're guaranteed all that money, where as if someone bought only one or three months and then found out he didn't like the game would only bring them one or three months worth of subscription.

This is exactly why I personally avoid 6 month plans, you can't know whether you'll even like the game after playing it for a while.

Still, many people do that thinking they'll save money and because of this, it makes absolutely no sense from business perspective they'd remove the 6-month subscription.

True, but it stands to reason outside of the F2P debate that they may have internal stuff that indicates the removal of the 6 month sub time may actually be a net gain. I suppose we will have to wait and see.

I really hope it is just a weird thing and nothing to do with F2P. Back when I was working I wouldn't of minded as much, but now that I am going back to school the thought of micro transaction for stupid ass loot boxes that requires a key horrifies me.

Grileenor

driosketch wrote: »

ZOS is a business, and businesses like to make money. The six month plan discount was almost a full month's sub off each time. Now if you noticed players prefered your full price or single discount model over the double discount, especially when double discount subscribers were already willing to pay more up front and commit long term to the game, why wouldn't you make the change that earned more money over the long run?

It is more than a mere discount. With a six month sub you only have to think twice a year about wanting to continue or not. There are ups and downs about my motivation to play. If low motivation comes up, when I have to resub a quarter, I might stop it, cancelling the game. I am convinced, when the 6 month sub is missing, it won't up their revenues because of this behaviour.

Someone might have stopped two months ago, waiting for the championsystem to come out. He didn' because he subbed for six months (and because they said, all veteran XP will be calculated, when he get his champion points, but this does not belong in this thread)

You have to sub quite some 6-month periods to save for those two missed months... And finally, it never hurts to have some options. Killing options is killing interest from possible customers.

rotaugen454

Given their reversal on the "keep grinding your VR14 and you will continue to accumulate CPs", this makes me a bit nervous. Maybe they just wanted to take away the 10% discount for buying in 6 month blocks like I have been doing, but only time will tell.

Soulshine

From what my account page looks like, I do not see anything has been removed. It clearly stated my last billing, and also states that I will be billed again in May for the exact same amount which I paid for the previous 6 months.

So I suspect that anyone already on the 6 month billing sub will just continue on that, unless they choose to change it themselves manually. I chose that option to save a couple bucks over the other options and so as to not have to think about it, until and if such time as I cancelled. Come May, I will have to see if they boot me down to a lower tier of billing - at slightly higher cost or not...

rotaugen454

Soulshine wrote: »

From what my account page looks like, I do not see anything has been removed. It clearly stated my last billing, and also states that I will be billed again in May for the exact same amount which I paid for the previous 6 months.

So I suspect that anyone already on the 6 month billing sub will just continue on that, unless they choose to change it themselves manually. I chose that option to save a couple bucks over the other options and so as to not have to think about it, until and if such time as I cancelled. Come May, I will have to see if they boot me down to a lower tier of billing - at slightly higher cost or not...

That would be nice, kind of like how Apple used to have unlimited data plans for the iPad, then stopped them but people who already had them could keep them going.

SantieClaws

It would just be nice to have some clarification what this means for those who have existing six months subs - even if they won't give us an full explaination as to why they are doing it. I don't think it makes sense to give your customers less payment options unless it benefits you significantly to do so.

ers101284b14_ESO

driosketch

DDuke wrote: »

driosketch wrote: »

It's fascinating how people twist one thing over and over till it fits a worst case scenario. You know the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

ZOS is a business, and businesses like to make money. The six month plan discount was almost a full month's sub off each time. Now if you noticed players prefered your full price or single discount model over the double discount, especially when double discount subscribers were already willing to pay more up front and commit long term to the game, why wouldn't you make the change that earned more money over the long run?

Yes, why give your subscribers more options, right?

The fault with your logic is that when you purchase 6 months worth of subscription, they're guaranteed all that money, where as if someone bought only one or three months and then found out he didn't like the game would only bring them one or three months worth of subscription.

This is exactly why I personally avoid 6 month plans, you can't know whether you'll even like the game after playing it for a while.

Still, many people do that thinking they'll save money and wind up quitting 2 months in, with many months still in their subscription. Because of this, it makes absolutely no sense from business perspective they'd remove the 6-month subscription.

To add, 10x bigger games such as WoW have never (afaik) removed their 6-month subscription.

Your "fault" with my logic makes two large assumptions. One, that there isn't a net gain in player subscriptions due to retention or a steady stream of replacement players such that guaranteeing 6 months from any one is needed. And two, that there are enough players quitting early with 6 month subs that keeping them means more profit than players now buying a second 90 day sub.

I don't have the numbers, but ZOS does. I imagine they would go with the more profit option.

On a side note, my second 6 month sub has full time and the the renewal schedule still has the 6 month price. I wonder if we are grandfathered in.

Grunim

driosketch wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

driosketch wrote: »

It's fascinating how people twist one thing over and over till it fits a worst case scenario. You know the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

ZOS is a business, and businesses like to make money. The six month plan discount was almost a full month's sub off each time. Now if you noticed players prefered your full price or single discount model over the double discount, especially when double discount subscribers were already willing to pay more up front and commit long term to the game, why wouldn't you make the change that earned more money over the long run?

Yes, why give your subscribers more options, right?

The fault with your logic is that when you purchase 6 months worth of subscription, they're guaranteed all that money, where as if someone bought only one or three months and then found out he didn't like the game would only bring them one or three months worth of subscription.

This is exactly why I personally avoid 6 month plans, you can't know whether you'll even like the game after playing it for a while.

Still, many people do that thinking they'll save money and wind up quitting 2 months in, with many months still in their subscription. Because of this, it makes absolutely no sense from business perspective they'd remove the 6-month subscription.

To add, 10x bigger games such as WoW have never (afaik) removed their 6-month subscription.

Your "fault" with my logic makes two large assumptions. One, that there isn't a net gain in player subscriptions due to retention or a steady stream of replacement players such that guaranteeing 6 months from any one is needed. And two, that there are enough players quitting early with 6 month subs that keeping them means more profit than players now buying a second 90 day sub.

I don't have the numbers, but ZOS does. I imagine they would go with the more profit option.

On a side note, my second 6 month sub has full time and the the renewal schedule still has the 6 month price. I wonder if we are grandfathered in.

I would love to know if we 6 month subscribers are grandfathered in as well.

MrGhosty

maybe it's a fiscal responsibility thing, if they offer the six month sub they're on the line for some back end stuff that they don't feel comfortable offering anymore or they were advised by their legal team to not go with it. ZOS is a company and their functionality is rarely easy to relay to a layman. Not saying the speculation is wrong it could be that too, but it could also just be a case of corporate.