I'd like to raise a point about future subscriptions.

P3ZZL3

To make it clear from the off set, I signed up on the 3rd Jan and have 42 days left of subscription.

I will renew it and continue paying it as, I for one, do enjoy the game. I'm not a "big hitter" or DPS mainliner. I ENJOY playing the game.

That being said, there is one element of the announcement I would like to be addressed by the powers that be.

If we are subscribing and paying for the "Plus" service, why is it that we can not keep the DLC or access into the game environments that are new? I know we can keep the kit and the gear, but it you are releasing the DLC say every 3 mths, and you are taking my £27 for it, surely that's just as good as me buying the content for a one off price?

This is really the only issue I have with the changes and I hope it's something that the Devs will take into account.

If I'm showing my loyalty and continued investment into the game, the environment and the development of the game that is effectively F2P after the initial purchase, I don't see why I dont get to keep the DLC?

Maybe even stagegate it if you are concerned people will cancel their subscription and then renew to get the DLC. 2 mths after the DLC is opened up, and you are still subscribing, let me keep the DLC.

That would be far more preferable than getting 4500 "crowns" (terrible currency term btw) and having to buy a pink horse and 13 Cooking Aprons with the "money".

Also, can you please name and shame the person who asked for Aprons for cooking? I mean really? ....... *shrugs*

Anyhows....loving the game, will continue playing and subscribing, but please consider my thoughts on the DLC.

Oh yeah, and one more thing. With regards to the horses and different modes of transport, can you make it only for Sorcerers where they can have no "travel companion" but actually levitate and move at those speeds

Bouvin

You'll also get 1,500 crown points per month.

Which if you choose to subscribe, I suggest you bank and not blow on fluff.

Because a year from not the cash shop will be pay2win and you'll be able to use those banked points for either DLC or Pay2Win items.

As I learned from LoTRO, it's much cheaper in the long-run to just by the DLC and ignore the cash shop as long as possible. But when they start putting Pay2Win items in the cash shop, you unfortunately get stuck buying them or not being viable anymore.

That's about the point LoTRO lost the 3 subs we had in our house. None of us have played it for years....although we had all played it since release and even after the subscription model change. It wasn't until they made the cash shop pay2win that we lost interest.

karmamule

It wasn't me, but I kinda like the idea of aprons for cooking... <.<

NotSo

I asked for aprons
Not literally
Just, I needed a blacksmithing costume.

UrQuan

P3ZZL3 wrote: »

If we are subscribing and paying for the "Plus" service, why is it that we can not keep the DLC or access into the game environments that are new? I know we can keep the kit and the gear, but it you are releasing the DLC say every 3 mths, and you are taking my £27 for it, surely that's just as good as me buying the content for a one off price?

The reason they do it this way instead of making it so that subscribers have effectively bought the content is because the cost of a single DLC will be more than the cost of a single month's subscription. If they allowed subscribers to own all DLC, then when new DLC comes out people would buy 1 month subs to get it, and then own it forever, and nobody would buy it at the non-subscriber price.

P3ZZL3 wrote: »

Maybe even stagegate it if you are concerned people will cancel their subscription and then renew to get the DLC. 2 mths after the DLC is opened up, and you are still subscribing, let me keep the DLC.

Something like this could work, but it would be problematic to administer as time went on and more and more DLC is added. If there are 5 different DLCs available, and as a subscriber you have access to all of them, how long do you have to subscribe in order to own them all? Do you own some of them before others? Of course, they could implement a loyalty program, where after X months of subscription you get a special credit to permanently purchase 1 DLC. Keep it separate from the number of crowns you get each month, and make it a reward for continual subscription in order to build loyalty (ie. subscribe for 3 months in a row to get it, rather than subscribe for a total of 3 months).

P3ZZL3 wrote: »

Oh yeah, and one more thing. With regards to the horses and different modes of transport, can you make it only for Sorcerers where they can have no "travel companion" but actually levitate and move at those speeds

Only if the sorcerer has 2 coconut halves that they use to make horsey noises as they do it.

phairdon

Gives the perfect opportunity to sell the dlc in the cash shop. Good way to make money. 2 sets of pricing. One for non subscribers. One for people paying the subsciption.

I'd be more than happy to pay for dlc, just as we did with Oblivion & Skyrim.

someuser

@P3ZZL3 Yes that would be the FAIR thing for them to do (allow your monthly sub to also pay, perhaps over the course of each quarter, for DLCs) but that is not what will make them more money... And this whole change is about what? Mo money.

The way it looks like it will work is:

- Buy month to month but own nothing (DLC wise)

- Upfront cash investment for DLC that might work out cheaper over 12+ months but would only work out for you if you played the game long-term (which will still on average benefit Zenimax as they will statistically assume long term player will also be enticed to buy atleast some cash shop fluff as well).

This is an old marketing scheme that, if you ever did sales, is very familiar.

Dagoth_Rac

P3ZZL3 wrote: »

If we are subscribing and paying for the "Plus" service, why is it that we can not keep the DLC or access into the game environments that are new? I know we can keep the kit and the gear, but it you are releasing the DLC say every 3 mths, and you are taking my £27 for it, surely that's just as good as me buying the content for a one off price?

I subscribe to HBO. Why can't I get the latest season of Game of Thrones on DVD for free if I let my subscription lapse? Surely the $48 I spent on my HBO subscription the past 3 months is just as good as me buying the DVD set at a one off price?

Wargaard

Dagoth_Rac wrote: »

I subscribe to HBO. Why can't I get the latest season of Game of Thrones on DVD for free if I let my subscription lapse? Surely the $48 I spent on my HBO subscription the past 3 months is just as good as me buying the DVD set at a one off price?

I get the point you're trying to make, but it's a different ball game. We've already, essentially paid for those DVD's in the form of previous subs and price of the initial game.

We're also meant to be getting a "premium" service for subscription fees.

I agree with the OP in that there should be an option to own it - the sub fees equaling the amount of the DLC should be a way to own it. More like the rent-a-buy option than a cable subscription.

BoloBoffin

Actually I want a two handed rolling pin so I can wade into Cyrodiil in my chef costume.

Bloodfang

SERIOUSLY WHAT AN OVERREACTION!

1. They are replacing P2P Model with a P2P/B2P Hybrid. Call it more like a B2P Trial if you want.

2. Cash Shop WON'T be P2W. If you are subscribed you will eventually buy everything for "FREE" with the crowns you will be getting monthly anyway.

3. Cash Shop WILL be more like a FEATURE than an ANNOYANCE. You will have all those awesome Costumes, Mounts and Pets there. Like I already said, if you stay subscribed you will be basically getting them for "FREE" anyway. It's addition to the game, and nothing annoying at all.


SUMMARY: Yes when I read the article first, I was really disappointed, however through some deep thought, I've found out that this Hybrid Model is way better than the P2P Model we used to have. It's possibly the best Payment Model ever created. Why:

- More Revenue for ZOS -> More Content for US

- NO P2W Cash Shop -> Just very good looking vanity stuff.

- A Buy to Play Trial for EVERYONE -> Playerbase is gonna increase by a lot.

- Buy To Play DLCs (Free for the subbed people) -> A great way to "force" people to sub anyway. I expect DLCs to be much more costly than a subscription.

What some of you don't understand:

- ESO wasn't doing bad, it would've kept the P2P Model on it's own just fine.

- Microsoft forced this on them, as they didn't want to drop the Xbox Live fee (Sony was prepared to drop it actually for the PS Net).

- Copies sold from Consoles will most likely jump from 200k -> 2mil+ just due to this change -> We are looking at 120+ mil revenue just from Console Sales.

PEOPLE NO NEED TO EXAGGERATE OR OVERREACT!
YOU WILL QUICKLY FIND OUT THAT UPDATES WILL STAY RIGHT ON SCHEDULE! HECK THEY'LL BE PROBABLY EVEN FASTER AND BIGGER. IT WAS A SMART BUSINESS MOVE!

Morshire

Bloodfang wrote: »

SERIOUSLY WHAT AN OVERREACTION!

1. They are replacing P2P Model with a P2P/B2P Hybrid. Call it more like a B2P Trial if you want.

2. Cash Shop WON'T be P2W. If you are subscribed you will eventually buy everything for "FREE" with the crowns you will be getting monthly anyway.

3. Cash Shop WILL be more like a FEATURE than an ANNOYANCE. You will have all those awesome Costumes, Mounts and Pets there. Like I already said, if you stay subscribed you will be basically getting them for "FREE" anyway. It's addition to the game, and nothing annoying at all.


SUMMARY: Yes when I read the article first, I was really disappointed, however through some deep thought, I've found out that this Hybrid Model is way better than the P2P Model we used to have. It's possibly the best Payment Model ever created. Why:

- More Revenue for ZOS -> More Content for US

- NO P2W Cash Shop -> Just very good looking vanity stuff.

- A Buy to Play Trial for EVERYONE -> Playerbase is gonna increase by a lot.

- Buy To Play DLCs (Free for the subbed people) -> A great way to "force" people to sub anyway. I expect DLCs to be much more costly than a subscription.

What some of you don't understand:

- ESO wasn't doing bad, it would've kept the P2P Model on it's own just fine.

- Microsoft forced this on them, as they didn't want to drop the Xbox Live fee (Sony was prepared to drop it actually for the PS Net).

- Copies sold from Consoles will most likely jump from 200k -> 2mil+ just due to this change -> We are looking at 120+ mil revenue just from Console Sales.

PEOPLE NO NEED TO EXAGGERATE OR OVERREACT!
YOU WILL QUICKLY FIND OUT THAT UPDATES WILL STAY RIGHT ON SCHEDULE! HECK THEY'LL BE PROBABLY EVEN FASTER AND BIGGER. IT WAS A SMART BUSINESS MOVE!

I bet if I went through all the forum posts from way back on A LOT of the other games, I could find the post that looks almost exactly like this before they went.....

Valencer

Bloodfang wrote: »

SERIOUSLY WHAT AN OVERREACTION!

...

PEOPLE NO NEED TO EXAGGERATE OR OVERREACT!
YOU WILL QUICKLY FIND OUT THAT UPDATES WILL STAY RIGHT ON SCHEDULE! HECK THEY'LL BE PROBABLY EVEN FASTER AND BIGGER. IT WAS A SMART BUSINESS MOVE!

Something tells me you aren't able to back up most (or any) of this.

Psychobunni

Bloodfang wrote: »

SERIOUSLY WHAT AN OVERREACTION!

1. They are replacing P2P Model with a P2P/B2P Hybrid. Call it more like a B2P Trial if you want.

2. Cash Shop WON'T be P2W. If you are subscribed you will eventually buy everything for "FREE" with the crowns you will be getting monthly anyway.

3. Cash Shop WILL be more like a FEATURE than an ANNOYANCE. You will have all those awesome Costumes, Mounts and Pets there. Like I already said, if you stay subscribed you will be basically getting them for "FREE" anyway. It's addition to the game, and nothing annoying at all.


SUMMARY: Yes when I read the article first, I was really disappointed, however through some deep thought, I've found out that this Hybrid Model is way better than the P2P Model we used to have. It's possibly the best Payment Model ever created. Why:

- More Revenue for ZOS -> More Content for US

- NO P2W Cash Shop -> Just very good looking vanity stuff.

- A Buy to Play Trial for EVERYONE -> Playerbase is gonna increase by a lot.

- Buy To Play DLCs (Free for the subbed people) -> A great way to "force" people to sub anyway. I expect DLCs to be much more costly than a subscription.

What some of you don't understand:

- ESO wasn't doing bad, it would've kept the P2P Model on it's own just fine.

- Microsoft forced this on them, as they didn't want to drop the Xbox Live fee (Sony was prepared to drop it actually for the PS Net).

- Copies sold from Consoles will most likely jump from 200k -> 2mil+ just due to this change -> We are looking at 120+ mil revenue just from Console Sales.

PEOPLE NO NEED TO EXAGGERATE OR OVERREACT!
YOU WILL QUICKLY FIND OUT THAT UPDATES WILL STAY RIGHT ON SCHEDULE! HECK THEY'LL BE PROBABLY EVEN FASTER AND BIGGER. IT WAS A SMART BUSINESS MOVE!

Then that is what ZOS should have said, but no they came with "we listened to our community" bs.

*IF* this was because of a console release problem, then they should have been up front and honest with the community that has supported them thus far. You can not expect people to not be angry when they are lied to. Once that simple trust is broken, nothing is believable. No matter what promises are made.

Edit: I'm on team wait and see (just for where I stands sake)

UrQuan

Bloodfang wrote: »

SERIOUSLY WHAT AN OVERREACTION!

1. They are replacing P2P Model with a P2P/B2P Hybrid. Call it more like a B2P Trial if you want.

2. Cash Shop WON'T be P2W. If you are subscribed you will eventually buy everything for "FREE" with the crowns you will be getting monthly anyway.

3. Cash Shop WILL be more like a FEATURE than an ANNOYANCE. You will have all those awesome Costumes, Mounts and Pets there. Like I already said, if you stay subscribed you will be basically getting them for "FREE" anyway. It's addition to the game, and nothing annoying at all.


SUMMARY: Yes when I read the article first, I was really disappointed, however through some deep thought, I've found out that this Hybrid Model is way better than the P2P Model we used to have. It's possibly the best Payment Model ever created. Why:

- More Revenue for ZOS -> More Content for US

- NO P2W Cash Shop -> Just very good looking vanity stuff.

- A Buy to Play Trial for EVERYONE -> Playerbase is gonna increase by a lot.

- Buy To Play DLCs (Free for the subbed people) -> A great way to "force" people to sub anyway. I expect DLCs to be much more costly than a subscription.

What some of you don't understand:

- ESO wasn't doing bad, it would've kept the P2P Model on it's own just fine.

- Microsoft forced this on them, as they didn't want to drop the Xbox Live fee (Sony was prepared to drop it actually for the PS Net).

- Copies sold from Consoles will most likely jump from 200k -> 2mil+ just due to this change -> We are looking at 120+ mil revenue just from Console Sales.

PEOPLE NO NEED TO EXAGGERATE OR OVERREACT!
YOU WILL QUICKLY FIND OUT THAT UPDATES WILL STAY RIGHT ON SCHEDULE! HECK THEY'LL BE PROBABLY EVEN FASTER AND BIGGER. IT WAS A SMART BUSINESS MOVE!

Um, are you sure you replied to the thread you meant to reply to? There are a load of other threads on the forums right now where I could totally understand you posting this, but this thread really isn't about the stuff you're talking about in this post... It's really just about subscribers "renting" DLC vs "owning" DLC.

kewl

Bloodfang wrote: »

SERIOUSLY WHAT AN OVERREACTION!

1. They are replacing P2P Model with a P2P/B2P Hybrid. Call it more like a B2P Trial if you want.

2. Cash Shop WON'T be P2W. If you are subscribed you will eventually buy everything for "FREE" with the crowns you will be getting monthly anyway.

3. Cash Shop WILL be more like a FEATURE than an ANNOYANCE. You will have all those awesome Costumes, Mounts and Pets there. Like I already said, if you stay subscribed you will be basically getting them for "FREE" anyway. It's addition to the game, and nothing annoying at all.


SUMMARY: Yes when I read the article first, I was really disappointed, however through some deep thought, I've found out that this Hybrid Model is way better than the P2P Model we used to have. It's possibly the best Payment Model ever created. Why:

- More Revenue for ZOS -> More Content for US

- NO P2W Cash Shop -> Just very good looking vanity stuff.

- A Buy to Play Trial for EVERYONE -> Playerbase is gonna increase by a lot.

- Buy To Play DLCs (Free for the subbed people) -> A great way to "force" people to sub anyway. I expect DLCs to be much more costly than a subscription.

What some of you don't understand:

- ESO wasn't doing bad, it would've kept the P2P Model on it's own just fine.

- Microsoft forced this on them, as they didn't want to drop the Xbox Live fee (Sony was prepared to drop it actually for the PS Net).

- Copies sold from Consoles will most likely jump from 200k -> 2mil+ just due to this change -> We are looking at 120+ mil revenue just from Console Sales.

PEOPLE NO NEED TO EXAGGERATE OR OVERREACT!
YOU WILL QUICKLY FIND OUT THAT UPDATES WILL STAY RIGHT ON SCHEDULE! HECK THEY'LL BE PROBABLY EVEN FASTER AND BIGGER. IT WAS A SMART BUSINESS MOVE!

Didn’t we see this kind of denial over B2P or F2P rumors? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice…..

Morshire

Bloodfang wrote: »

SERIOUSLY WHAT AN OVERREACTION!

1. They are replacing P2P Model with a P2P/B2P Hybrid. Call it more like a B2P Trial if you want.

2. Cash Shop WON'T be P2W. If you are subscribed you will eventually buy everything for "FREE" with the crowns you will be getting monthly anyway.

3. Cash Shop WILL be more like a FEATURE than an ANNOYANCE. You will have all those awesome Costumes, Mounts and Pets there. Like I already said, if you stay subscribed you will be basically getting them for "FREE" anyway. It's addition to the game, and nothing annoying at all.


SUMMARY: Yes when I read the article first, I was really disappointed, however through some deep thought, I've found out that this Hybrid Model is way better than the P2P Model we used to have. It's possibly the best Payment Model ever created. Why:

- More Revenue for ZOS -> More Content for US

- NO P2W Cash Shop -> Just very good looking vanity stuff.

- A Buy to Play Trial for EVERYONE -> Playerbase is gonna increase by a lot.

- Buy To Play DLCs (Free for the subbed people) -> A great way to "force" people to sub anyway. I expect DLCs to be much more costly than a subscription.

What some of you don't understand:

- ESO wasn't doing bad, it would've kept the P2P Model on it's own just fine.

- Microsoft forced this on them, as they didn't want to drop the Xbox Live fee (Sony was prepared to drop it actually for the PS Net).

- Copies sold from Consoles will most likely jump from 200k -> 2mil+ just due to this change -> We are looking at 120+ mil revenue just from Console Sales.

So you will be able to "rent" this game forever, but if you ever miss a month, you will not be able to access said DLC because no matter what you pay monthly, you will never own it. Period.

There I fixed it for them.

Bloodfang wrote: »

PEOPLE NO NEED TO EXAGGERATE OR OVERREACT!
YOU WILL QUICKLY FIND OUT THAT UPDATES WILL STAY RIGHT ON SCHEDULE! HECK THEY'LL BE PROBABLY EVEN FASTER AND BIGGER. IT WAS A SMART BUSINESS MOVE!

Darkintellect

Dagoth_Rac wrote: »

P3ZZL3 wrote: »

If we are subscribing and paying for the "Plus" service, why is it that we can not keep the DLC or access into the game environments that are new? I know we can keep the kit and the gear, but it you are releasing the DLC say every 3 mths, and you are taking my £27 for it, surely that's just as good as me buying the content for a one off price?

I subscribe to HBO. Why can't I get the latest season of Game of Thrones on DVD for free if I let my subscription lapse? Surely the $48 I spent on my HBO subscription the past 3 months is just as good as me buying the DVD set at a one off price?

I have access to HBO GO with my subscription and can download any show on my computer via a program. Yeah, I can use a torrent site, but with regard to this, once my subscription ends, I still have previous content I had access too.

It should be like this. Say, month 1 and month 2 costs 15 dollars a month, your normal subscription plan. DLC's come out every 2 months.

Now, let's say each DLC costs 20 dollars and you as a subscriber get that plus all your normal subscriber content.

You have to essentially subscribe for at least two months to have the current DLC but if you haven't subscribed before that point, you have to pay for the previous DLC's.

Once you have two months subscribed, you essentially have that current DLC unlocked.

This is how it should be and any other way makes it so a subscription or the Plus variant just isn't feasible or smart.

Gidorick

How about we only get to keep the DLC if we subscribe for 90 or 180 days? 30 day subs don't "keep" the DLC.

Dagoth_Rac

Morshire wrote: »

So you will be able to "rent" this game forever, but if you ever miss a month, you will not be able to access said DLC because no matter what you pay monthly, you will never own it. Period.

You mean, exactly how the game works right now!?

wiz12268b14_ESO

I suspect most DLCs wont be worth owning forever anyway, and will more than likely cost more than a month sub would. So you stay unsubbed for awhile then when they have had a few decent DLc hit you sub, burn through them and get the gear and then forget about them.

There is no 'perfect' solution for ZoS here. Players will be able to pick and choose still. Just because you get free DLC content doenst mean you have to stay subbed for X amount of time. You just have to sub when you want to play a DLC. so unless they release a DLC every month there is no need to stay subbed concurrently unless you like the 'free' crowns and bonuses.

I am sure they have accountants and math guys on the clock right now with price points and sub charts trying to figure out the optimal DLC release rate along with how much to charge and at what strategic point in sub renewals to release them.

While some people might think buying all the DLCs as they come out might be cheaper, it might be, but if you play through them for a total of 4 hours on 8 toons are they really 'worth' it? if you get them for free for 15 bucks you rent them (and any other DLCs you dont buy) do them and move on.

Hopefully people dont just buy everything and think that is better. But thats the name of the game with MMOs anything 'new' is worth a premium, even if 6 months down the road you could get it all for 1 third of the price.

Ysne58

Devs already said pace on new content is going to slow down.

VileIntent

Ysne58 wrote: »

Devs already said pace on new content is going to slow down.

That is the worst part about this whole thing.

Gidorick wrote: »

How about we only get to keep the DLC if we subscribe for 90 or 180 days? 30 day subs don't "keep" the DLC.

Honestly we will need to see what they charge for the dlc. how much is that in comparison to crowns. for 1500 per month, if the dlc is 3000 crowns its pretty much on par with what everyone is saying.
But, if you choose to waste your crowns on chef costumes... its on you. Save the crowns for dlc and just buy extra crowns for neat crap like mounts, etc...


I will more than likely use mine on bank space, mounts and xp potions until I hit max champion points.

The_Great_Maldini

I'm okay with not buying the DLC with the subscription crowns. if the day comes in which I unsubscribe from the game, then I will no longer be logging into the game period. I would rather spend all those crowns on the fluff stuff like mounts and pets. I am on the fence with costumes...mainly because of the fun customization of armor with the dye system.

lathbury

[

SUMMARY: Yes when I read the article first, I was really disappointed, however through some deep thought, I've found out that this Hybrid Model is way better than the P2P Model we used to have. It's possibly the best Payment Model ever created. Why:

- More Revenue for ZOS -> More Content for US

- NO P2W Cash Shop -> Just very good looking vanity stuff.

- A Buy to Play Trial for EVERYONE -> Playerbase is gonna increase by a lot.

- Buy To Play DLCs (Free for the subbed people) -> A great way to "force" people to sub anyway. I expect DLCs to be much more costly than a subscription.

What some of you don't understand:

- ESO wasn't doing bad, it would've kept the P2P Model on it's own just fine.

- Microsoft forced this on them, as they didn't want to drop the Xbox Live fee (Sony was prepared to drop it actually for the PS Net).

- Copies sold from Consoles will most likely jump from 200k -> 2mil+ just due to this change -> We are looking at 120+ mil revenue just from Console Sales.[/quote]



So you will be able to "rent" this game forever, but if you ever miss a month, you will not be able to access said DLC because no matter what you pay monthly, you will never own it. Period.

There I fixed it for them.

Bloodfang wrote: »

PEOPLE NO NEED TO EXAGGERATE OR OVERREACT!
YOU WILL QUICKLY FIND OUT THAT UPDATES WILL STAY RIGHT ON SCHEDULE! HECK THEY'LL BE PROBABLY EVEN FASTER AND BIGGER. IT WAS A SMART BUSINESS MOVE!

[/quote]

erm no as stated above the devs had said updates are gonna be less frequent. if this wasnt a cash grab they could have told x box this would be ps and pc/mac exclusive. x box is already down compared to ps.
more players yeah for 6 months tops the b2p f2p crowd will more than likely move on to the next f2p game and eso will have lost its now disenfranchised loyal playerbase.

BlueIllyrian

Bloodfang wrote: »

SERIOUSLY WHAT AN OVERREACTION!

1. They are replacing P2P Model with a P2P/B2P Hybrid. Call it more like a B2P Trial if you want.

2. Cash Shop WON'T be P2W. If you are subscribed you will eventually buy everything for "FREE" with the crowns you will be getting monthly anyway.

3. Cash Shop WILL be more like a FEATURE than an ANNOYANCE. You will have all those awesome Costumes, Mounts and Pets there. Like I already said, if you stay subscribed you will be basically getting them for "FREE" anyway. It's addition to the game, and nothing annoying at all.


SUMMARY: Yes when I read the article first, I was really disappointed, however through some deep thought, I've found out that this Hybrid Model is way better than the P2P Model we used to have. It's possibly the best Payment Model ever created. Why:

- More Revenue for ZOS -> More Content for US

- NO P2W Cash Shop -> Just very good looking vanity stuff.

- A Buy to Play Trial for EVERYONE -> Playerbase is gonna increase by a lot.

- Buy To Play DLCs (Free for the subbed people) -> A great way to "force" people to sub anyway. I expect DLCs to be much more costly than a subscription.

What some of you don't understand:

- ESO wasn't doing bad, it would've kept the P2P Model on it's own just fine.

- Microsoft forced this on them, as they didn't want to drop the Xbox Live fee (Sony was prepared to drop it actually for the PS Net).

- Copies sold from Consoles will most likely jump from 200k -> 2mil+ just due to this change -> We are looking at 120+ mil revenue just from Console Sales.

PEOPLE NO NEED TO EXAGGERATE OR OVERREACT!
YOU WILL QUICKLY FIND OUT THAT UPDATES WILL STAY RIGHT ON SCHEDULE! HECK THEY'LL BE PROBABLY EVEN FASTER AND BIGGER. IT WAS A SMART BUSINESS MOVE!

They already stated the updates will be slow to come.

Also the point of the cash shop is to do as little possible for as much money as possible.

Why would they waste time on new zones when they can sell and resell "Sword of Awsome Pwnage + 5"?

Kindly also understand that more money for ZOS doesn't mean more stuff for you.

jeevin

Back on topic. I agree with Op here there should be some kind of sub to buy with the dlc because it may just be cheaper to unsub. If updates only come every few months it would be half the price just to buy dlc. Who gives a *** about crowns to spend in the cash shop?

phairdon

Right. So if we miss a month of payment, no access to the DLC. Do players regain access to the DLC if they start subbing again after missing a period of time?

jeevin

phairdon wrote: »

Right. So if we miss a month of payment, no access to the DLC. Do players regain access to the DLC if they start subbing again after missing a period of time?

Yes.

Wolfshead

Again people dont care about read all info about new subscribe system if you are not so damn lazy and go and read FAQ it say clearly :

What are the benefits of ESO Plus membership?

ESO Plus offers members exclusive in-game bonuses, a reoccurring allotment of crowns and access to all downloadable content (DLC) game packs for the duration of membership:

30-day Membership:

1500 crowns at the start of each 30-day membership period
Access to all downloadable content for the duration of membership
Exclusive character progression bonuses for the duration of membership
10% bonus to experience point gain
10% bonus to crafting research
10% bonus to crafting inspiration gain
10% bonus to gold acquisition



90-day Membership:

4500 crowns at the start of each 90-day membership period
Access to all downloadable content for the duration of membership
Exclusive character progression bonuses for the duration of membership
10% bonus to experience point gain
10% bonus to crafting research
10% bonus to crafting inspiration gain
10% bonus to gold acquisition



180-day Membership:

9000 crowns at the start of each 180-day membership period
Access to all downloadable content for the duration of membership
Exclusive character progression bonuses for the duration of membership
10% bonus to experience point gain
10% bonus to crafting research
10% bonus to crafting inspiration gain
10% bonus to gold acquisition

That is high light mean that as long you have a subscribe running you dont have pay any extra to get DLC.

Honest people how about you start read thing before you start post thing that the have answer already it start to get really tried to basically read samething over and over again.

Here is link to there FAQ

phairdon

jeevin wrote: »

phairdon wrote: »

Right. So if we miss a month of payment, no access to the DLC. Do players regain access to the DLC if they start subbing again after missing a period of time?

Yes.

Thank goodness. Be nice if players could purchase any future DLC, as we do for the single player games. Then again, assume we can only rent to make sure people are paying subscriptions.