ZOS: When does the 6 month subscription return?

  • bellanca6561n
    bellanca6561n
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Weberda wrote: »
    I thought Zenimax and Bethsoft were private companies and didn't have to answer to shareholders in the same way? Sure I recall someone saying that.

    It is a private holding but they have investors that need to see a ROI which makes them akin to shareholders in a public company.

    In some senses, but the levels of required disclosure under law are QUITE different....as in much many fewer ;)

    The fuss here is simply another case of their needing to learn the communication needs of this genre and this medium...as in there being MANY more than in single player games.

    I believe they are learning. It's an earnest group of people, particularly in development, support and community management. Changes like this, though, get handed down from elsewhere to front line folks, often with no explanation at all.

    Hence they often lack the tools they need to communicate with us, and still look professional to their employers.
    Edited by bellanca6561n on December 24, 2014 1:32PM
  • Artis
    Artis
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sounds like they just want more money. The excuse about "players choosing 1 and 3 months subs" is ridiculous.

    One of two.
    1. There're not many players left and they are trying to raise sub (that's what they do basically) in order to keep the game afloat longer and not go F2P. That is probable because come on is there anyone in your faction leaderboard who you haven't seen? They were promising us a megaserver and mirrors.. And if the player base was at least 10k players, what are the chances that all the players that are on the leaderboard are on my mirror? And I've seen or even ran with every single one of them! How would that be possible if we had 1 million players? I don't know how things are on EU servers and in NA AD, EP, but NA DC seems to be very low-populated and have only one "mirror".
    2. They just want more money. As simple as that.
  • zaria
    zaria
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ethona wrote: »
    Folks, I highly doubt this game would go Free to Play. However, It may go Buy to Play, which is a fair and widely used model for consoles. B2P still would mean a great game, that just so happens to be fair to consoles, and a bit more enticing to new players, while bringing in a good profit. I don't own any consoles, and I'm OK with paying a sub, and I'm also OK with B2P option as well. If the game gains a B2P option than you'd probably see a 20 dollar price tag every 4 months for a new ZONE + the dungeons, trials, and content that would come with it. I do not trust a thing ZOS say anymore, but sure there's a little side of me that would like a B2P option. Anyways, we all will know in 2 or 3 months.
    B2P dont make sense on an mmo, only one who use it is GW2 who has few updates and moving towards F2P

    F2P don't make sense in current setting before console release.

    Alternative explanation is that resubs from 6 month is far lower than 3.
    Remember its an recurring payment who runs if you have money and dont cancel. The 6 month might be above an its expensive threshold for more

    Grinding just make you go in circles.
    Asking ZoS for nerfs is as stupid as asking for close air support from the death star.
  • criscal
    criscal
    ✭✭
    The scenario I expect now is that the console start is less than 3-4 months away. Any f2p announcement before selling the console version would be bad news, so it is postponed to 2-3 months after console start. So the plan might look like that: cancel the 6 months subscription for more flexibility on business model, bring out the console version and cash in the development costs at least. The hardware is probably not going to be stocked up for console to hedge the investment. The Resources I.e.phases and helpdesk will be allocated mostly to console players. Pc players won't be able to tell anyway whether the lag is due to less resources or more players using the resources. The next step in the scenario depend on the player numbers after the first month of sales of the console version. If the numbers are unexpectedly high, there won't be f2p. If the numbers are low, the game will be f2p and more pets and hats will be sold.
  • criscal
    criscal
    ✭✭
    criscal wrote: »
    Well, nothing new to add. Just stating that only a very high ranking company representative's statement would stop the f2p rumours now. Everybody not wanting f2p should quit now and only subscribe again after 6+ months or said statement. I like the game currently and will continue playing it as long as I like it.

    Yes, because the one thing that will teach them that they should stick with the subscription model is for everyone to drop their subscriptions.

    Sheesh.

    I haven't cancelled my subscription here yet, but I expect like with 99% of the online services, that you can submit a reason for cancelling and that would be the teaching part, you flamer. Something like "I don't want to waste my time with a game that it going f2p soon anyway"
  • AshySamurai
    AshySamurai
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Gidorick wrote: »
    Gidorick wrote: »
    The 6 month subscription offered a discount of like 2 bucks per month. They're doing to it get that extra 6 bucks. I want to know if I'm signed up for 6 months, can I continue paying my $70 for 6 months?

    12 bucks. (2×6=12 :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: )

    LOL. yea... I wasn't quite clear. I thought someone might think my math was janky. Let me clarify:

    We get $1 off per month for paying in 3 month chunks... $2 off per month for paying in $6 months chunks... so if I pay one time for 6 months (12X6) it's $72. If I pay in two 3 month chunks for those 6 months (13X6) it's $78.

    $78-$72 = $6.

    it's an extra $6 over the maximum discount we can get now paying 3 months at a time.

    Oh, now I get it. My bad ^^
  • LtCrunch
    LtCrunch
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    \
    Sindala wrote: »
    Guppet wrote: »
    RazielSR wrote: »
    What if it have to do with console release in 6 months more or less and the game going to be by obligation f2p to be released in consoles?

    Why does it have to be free to play on consoles? Modern console players that play online already understand about pay subscriptions.

    You would effectively have to pay 3 times to play the game.
    Once for your Internet provider,
    once to sony/xbox for their internet connection and
    one to Zenimax to play the game.

    Would you really do that for a game a year old that your probably at VR14 on the PC anyway??
    Plus they are trying to grab console players who normally only buy the game once then play it thru.
    This type of MMO is pretty new to consoles (don't quote ff14 as that's not a western MMO) and to entice people things have to be free not come with a $15 per month price tag (just a guess).

    Except Sony said long ago that a PS+ subscription would not be required to play ESO. So for those on Playstation it won't be any different than what we already pay on PC.

    Edited by LtCrunch on December 24, 2014 12:15PM
    NerdSauce Gaming
    Laughs-At-Wounds - Sap tanking since 03/30/14
    ßrandalf - Light armor tanking since 03/03/15
    Brandalf Beer-Belly - Tanking drunk since 12/30/16


  • Sindala
    Sindala
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Brandalf wrote: »
    \
    Sindala wrote: »
    Guppet wrote: »
    RazielSR wrote: »
    What if it have to do with console release in 6 months more or less and the game going to be by obligation f2p to be released in consoles?

    Why does it have to be free to play on consoles? Modern console players that play online already understand about pay subscriptions.

    You would effectively have to pay 3 times to play the game.
    Once for your Internet provider,
    once to sony/xbox for their internet connection and
    one to Zenimax to play the game.

    Would you really do that for a game a year old that your probably at VR14 on the PC anyway??
    Plus they are trying to grab console players who normally only buy the game once then play it thru.
    This type of MMO is pretty new to consoles (don't quote ff14 as that's not a western MMO) and to entice people things have to be free not come with a $15 per month price tag (just a guess).

    Except Sony said long ago that a PS+ subscription would not be required to play ESO. So for those on Playstation it won't be any different than what we already pay on PC.
    I'd like to see that quote.....Sony giving stuff for free??? what's next, good customer service from EA?? lol :)
    Being First is not the prize, it just mean's everyone can stab you in the back.
  • Nazon_Katts
    Nazon_Katts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    criscal wrote: »
    The scenario I expect now is that the console start is less than 3-4 months away. Any f2p announcement before selling the console version would be bad news, so it is postponed to 2-3 months after console start. So the plan might look like that: cancel the 6 months subscription for more flexibility on business model, bring out the console version and cash in the development costs at least. The hardware is probably not going to be stocked up for console to hedge the investment. The Resources I.e.phases and helpdesk will be allocated mostly to console players. Pc players won't be able to tell anyway whether the lag is due to less resources or more players using the resources. The next step in the scenario depend on the player numbers after the first month of sales of the console version. If the numbers are unexpectedly high, there won't be f2p. If the numbers are low, the game will be f2p and more pets and hats will be sold.

    Thinking of it, this would just explain nicely why we're continuously experiencing more lag with less players. PS4 and XBone are already running on "our" data centers and won't get their own.

    Same as with their phasing system; a fantastic idea in theory, but apparently not that easy to implement in practice.
    "You've probably figured that out by now. Let's hope so. Or we're in real trouble... and out come the intestines. And I skip rope with them!"
  • ers101284b14_ESO
    ers101284b14_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭


    Sindala wrote: »
    Brandalf wrote: »
    \
    Sindala wrote: »
    Guppet wrote: »
    RazielSR wrote: »
    What if it have to do with console release in 6 months more or less and the game going to be by obligation f2p to be released in consoles?

    Why does it have to be free to play on consoles? Modern console players that play online already understand about pay subscriptions.

    You would effectively have to pay 3 times to play the game.
    Once for your Internet provider,
    once to sony/xbox for their internet connection and
    one to Zenimax to play the game.

    Would you really do that for a game a year old that your probably at VR14 on the PC anyway??
    Plus they are trying to grab console players who normally only buy the game once then play it thru.
    This type of MMO is pretty new to consoles (don't quote ff14 as that's not a western MMO) and to entice people things have to be free not come with a $15 per month price tag (just a guess).

    Except Sony said long ago that a PS+ subscription would not be required to play ESO. So for those on Playstation it won't be any different than what we already pay on PC.
    I'd like to see that quote.....Sony giving stuff for free??? what's next, good customer service from EA?? lol :)

    http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2014/01/28/the-elder-scrolls-online-on-ps4-your-questions-answered/

    Will playing online with The Elder Scrolls Online have a separate subscription compared to PlayStation Plus?
    A PlayStation Plus membership is not required to play The Elder Scrolls Online. PS4 players will only be required to pay the same monthly subscription associated with The Elder Scrolls Online that PC and Mac users will pay — nothing more.

    http://www.ausgamers.com/news/read/3406991/the-elder-scrolls-online-drops-playstation-plus-fee-xbox-live-gold-required

    http://kotaku.com/you-wont-need-playstation-plus-for-the-elder-scrolls-o-1510650456

  • Winnower
    Winnower
    ✭✭✭
    I believe the term you may be looking for is:

    "free to pay to play"

    Like the SW:TOR Cartel Market Game, where all the interesting looks and gear are only available from the cash shop.

    Like the LoTRO "MORDOR SALE! GOING OUT OF BUSINESS! BUY NOW!" cash shop,

    and others.
    VR14 Templar, VR14 DK, VR8 DK, VR7 NB, VR1 Sorcerer;
    All 3 Alliances;
    2 Pre-order Imperial Accounts, yes that means 16 characters on NA alone
  • Neizir
    Neizir
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I really, really hope that this is not an indication of F2P. The only model that ESO deserves is P2P.

    If it really does come to the worst and ZOS has to drop the subscription fee then I'd prefer it'd go B2P rather than F2P. F2P would completely ruin the game.
    Neizir Stormstrider

    EU Megaserver

    UK
    ▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬
    I have a fancy signature.
    ▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬
  • bellanca6561n
    bellanca6561n
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    zaria wrote: »
    Ethona wrote: »
    Folks, I highly doubt this game would go Free to Play. However, It may go Buy to Play, which is a fair and widely used model for consoles. B2P still would mean a great game, that just so happens to be fair to consoles, and a bit more enticing to new players, while bringing in a good profit. I don't own any consoles, and I'm OK with paying a sub, and I'm also OK with B2P option as well. If the game gains a B2P option than you'd probably see a 20 dollar price tag every 4 months for a new ZONE + the dungeons, trials, and content that would come with it. I do not trust a thing ZOS say anymore, but sure there's a little side of me that would like a B2P option. Anyways, we all will know in 2 or 3 months.
    B2P dont make sense on an mmo, only one who use it is GW2 who has few updates and moving towards F2P

    F2P don't make sense in current setting before console release.

    Alternative explanation is that resubs from 6 month is far lower than 3.
    Remember its an recurring payment who runs if you have money and dont cancel. The 6 month might be above an its expensive threshold for more

    F2P actually makes a lot more sense for the console given the difficulty of charging a subscription on top of the monthly or quarterly fees for the online service for Xbox and Sony.

    It doesn't matter what those early press releases say. Live and whatever Sony's thing is are vending machine businesses based on DLCs.
    Edited by bellanca6561n on December 24, 2014 1:39PM
  • Esha76
    Esha76
    ✭✭✭✭
    My sub just re-subbed. My account page says: BILLING DATE
    You will be billed on June 15, 2015 for $77.94 (plus applicable taxes)

    Doesn't prove or disprove anything. Just throwing it out there.

    As usual, clarification from ZOS would be decent, let alone necessary. I'm starting to believe they are entertained by the endless speculations and arguments on these forums over important things they neglect to keep the community informed of. They really need to vastly improve their communication to their player base.
    "There is no moisture in your angry stares." - Laughs-at-All
    "I don't know why I bother guarding you horrible people." - Orama Sadas
    "Scales here is about to have a really bad day..." - Valeric
    "Break those rocks! Dig those ditches! Why??? Because I want you to!!!" - Ifriz the Unraveller
    "There are worse masters than I. Far worse." - Molag Bal
    "I'm not finding you very pleasant!" - Adla the Brewer
    "Too many Argonians about these days..." - Davon's Watch Guard
  • Ethona
    Ethona
    ✭✭✭
    zaria wrote: »
    Ethona wrote: »
    Folks, I highly doubt this game would go Free to Play. However, It may go Buy to Play, which is a fair and widely used model for consoles. B2P still would mean a great game, that just so happens to be fair to consoles, and a bit more enticing to new players, while bringing in a good profit. I don't own any consoles, and I'm OK with paying a sub, and I'm also OK with B2P option as well. If the game gains a B2P option than you'd probably see a 20 dollar price tag every 4 months for a new ZONE + the dungeons, trials, and content that would come with it. I do not trust a thing ZOS say anymore, but sure there's a little side of me that would like a B2P option. Anyways, we all will know in 2 or 3 months.
    B2P dont make sense on an mmo, only one who use it is GW2 who has few updates and moving towards F2P

    F2P don't make sense in current setting before console release.

    Alternative explanation is that resubs from 6 month is far lower than 3.
    Remember its an recurring payment who runs if you have money and dont cancel. The 6 month might be above an its expensive threshold for more

    Look, I don't care so long as ESO continues to be offer as a game that I and great many others can play! Sub, B2P, F2P, in the end so long I can access this game for 15 dollars a month or less I'm 100% happy. However, don't kid your self with your 'Alternative Explanation' in which you gave. Historic facts speaks for themselves and what ZOS did is outside of the norm! I think there's too many players that put far too much faith in ZOS, even though we'll all find out it's always something different with ZOS. You'll see, everyone will see, time is all we need to prove this is something more.
    Edited by Ethona on December 24, 2014 1:50PM
  • lordrichter
    lordrichter
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Neizir wrote: »
    I really, really hope that this is not an indication of F2P. The only model that ESO deserves is P2P.

    If it really does come to the worst and ZOS has to drop the subscription fee then I'd prefer it'd go B2P rather than F2P. F2P would completely ruin the game.

    They may be happy to hear people say that, to be honest with you.

    However, buy to play requires a vibrant cash shop or paid updates in order to keep cash moving inwards. If they go B2P, then updates, like we have seen this year, may be restricted to additional purchases. The combination of new sales and cash shop revenue might not be enough to finance updates.

    I suppose they could always throw a Pepsi or Ford logo in the corner of the screen.

    In the end, before they try something like F2P or B2P, I would have to suggest that they offer more than 30 days of free play or offer a trial that gets you to Level 9.9999999 and sets limits on what you can do and where you can go without a paid subscription.

    Anyway, if it is to the point where B2P is looking sweet to them, to say nothing of F2P, then the game I signed up for may already be dead.




    PC North America since March 2014
    PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) Founding Member - Say No to Crown Crates!
    I collect free, unopened, virgin Crown Crates! 21, so far!
    This is where I go to get answers about the forum and game: Support Knowledge Base, Common Answers Thread, and the UESP Wiki.


  • Heruthema
    Heruthema
    ✭✭✭✭
    You guys are crazy. Just because they remove one kind of payment plan you go crazy screaming all these paranoid rants. The game is not going f2p. It wont be f2p on consoles either. Relax.

    Also for those demanding ZOS come in and make some kind of statement... Its Christmas eve guys. Calm down go spend some time with family.

    I agree. Every little change that happens brings out the 'End of the World Crowd'. Relax everyone and enjoy the game.
  • criscal
    criscal
    ✭✭
    Well, as for myself I can say that I never made a demand that ZOS has to explain itself. I am just stating that only clear and authorized statements will stop any rumours. And killing the 6 months option is not a nicety - it's about avoiding a costly rollback of transactions in case it goes f2p. ZOS started the rumour mill by never publishing official player numbers. All the friends that didn't start playing yet stated that they are waiting for a year until it is f2p anyway in their opinion. And that was in April after the first reviews. Anyway, I will keep my subscription for now, as I still like this game a lot. The champion system might be even better than now, who knows.
  • jamesharv2005ub17_ESO
    jamesharv2005ub17_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    criscal wrote: »
    Well, as for myself I can say that I never made a demand that ZOS has to explain itself. I am just stating that only clear and authorized statements will stop any rumours. And killing the 6 months option is not a nicety - it's about avoiding a costly rollback of transactions in case it goes f2p. ZOS started the rumour mill by never publishing official player numbers. All the friends that didn't start playing yet stated that they are waiting for a year until it is f2p anyway in their opinion. And that was in April after the first reviews. Anyway, I will keep my subscription for now, as I still like this game a lot. The champion system might be even better than now, who knows.

    Explain to me how there would be any rollback? LOTRO and all the other f2p games have a subscription option. So there would be no costly rollback. No refunding anything. You arent even making sense.
  • criscal
    criscal
    ✭✭
    criscal wrote: »
    Well, as for myself I can say that I never made a demand that ZOS has to explain itself. I am just stating that only clear and authorized statements will stop any rumours. And killing the 6 months option is not a nicety - it's about avoiding a costly rollback of transactions in case it goes f2p. ZOS started the rumour mill by never publishing official player numbers. All the friends that didn't start playing yet stated that they are waiting for a year until it is f2p anyway in their opinion. And that was in April after the first reviews. Anyway, I will keep my subscription for now, as I still like this game a lot. The champion system might be even better than now, who knows.

    Explain to me how there would be any rollback? LOTRO and all the other f2p games have a subscription option. So there would be no costly rollback. No refunding anything. You arent even making sense.

    Ok, my thinking here was that f2p would not come together with a subscription, but with buying in-game stuff instead. In the case of not offering a subscription anymore, you would have to refund people for the rest of the time that they could not use the subscription for. I was not aware of that some f2p games still offered a subscription, which is counter-intuitive to me.
    I am not a lawyer, but another thing is that changing the service to f2p might qualify for a special cancellation right in one or more countries that the service was sold in as well. This as well would trigger refunds.
    Anyway, no comfortable explanation for the removal of that 6-months option has been offered yet. What's your best try? Being a less popular choice can't be the real explanation, as there is no extra overhead for that choice in the IT systems.

  • criscal
    criscal
    ✭✭
    sorry, I got the last comment doubled by accident. no deletion option available I guess.
    Edited by criscal on December 24, 2014 8:32PM
  • sirston
    sirston
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    criscal wrote: »
    Well, as for myself I can say that I never made a demand that ZOS has to explain itself. I am just stating that only clear and authorized statements will stop any rumours. And killing the 6 months option is not a nicety - it's about avoiding a costly rollback of transactions in case it goes f2p. ZOS started the rumor mill by never publishing official player numbers. All the friends that didn't start playing yet stated that they are waiting for a year until it is f2p anyway in their opinion. And that was in April after the first reviews. Anyway, I will keep my subscription for now, as I still like this game a lot. The champion system might be even better than now, who knows.

    Explain to me how there would be any rollback? LOTRO and all the other f2p games have a subscription option. So there would be no costly rollback. No refunding anything. You arent even making sense.

    you demand a refund for making something free, that you paid for... or people claim they didn't pay the 6 month option to there bank. Then the bank takes back the money (False Claim For Getting Money Back)
    Sirston
    Magickia Dragonknight

    Pride Of The Pact
    Vehemence
    The Crimson Order

    Eh I quit the game again but ill always will love tormenting the forums.
  • NotSo
    NotSo
    ✭✭✭✭
    Well if it's going F2P then you will be able to tell in 3 months when the 90 day sub disappears.
    Gar'Sol the Wanderer VR14 Khajiit Sorcerer Spellblade
  • Wolfshead
    Wolfshead
    ✭✭✭✭
    Well it can also mean that if you remove the 6 month sub that you get your money fast if you only have 30 days and 90 days for with 6 month you have wait like 180 days until you get pay next time and if you have like 80 % of playerbase use 6 month options that mean basically that your financial hurt more for at the end of day you want to make money of your product.

    Btw it say on my subscribe details that im still on 6 month subscribe this can also mean that new member cant start up a new 6 month subscribe but if you still are on 6 month you will continue on your current 6 month cycle you already have.
    Edited by Wolfshead on December 25, 2014 7:44AM
    If you find yourself alone, riding in green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled; for you are in Elysium, and you're already dead
    What we do in life, echoes in eternity
Sign In or Register to comment.