Maintenance for the week of October 21:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – October 21, 3:00AM EDT (07:00 UTC) - 11:00AM EDT (15:00 UTC)
• Xbox One: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – October 23, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®4: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – October 23, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)

Monthly subscribers

linoge63
linoge63
✭✭✭
If you are a monthly fee / game supporter, a feedback / idea forum should be considered for creation to take ideas from those that are
supporting the game both in playing/ giving log-in stats and of course financially.

If you arent a subscriber, sure give your ideas and feedback in the general run of the mill forum and quite likely they are filled with insight and intell; and if thats true, then youll have the same insight and intell to support the game in addition to offering log in stats by playing so that your ideas are heard by those that listen to those that have an invested interest to further the game's development. Without the financial invested interest, many ideas that emanate from non paying players are designed to corrupt the game --- think...competing MMO's means to weaken the competition.

If you are a paying subscriber, and want to infect the game via tthis route youll be somewhat neutralized by the mere fact you are paying warm appreciated cash to do so.

  • Betahkiin
    Betahkiin
    ✭✭✭✭
    Slurg wrote: »
    Wait what? That was kind of rambly but I think you're trying to say that ideas that come from someone brand new but subscribed to the game are somehow inherently better than ideas from someone with more experience with the game but who dropped their subscription (even if they spend more a month on the crown shop that the subscriber does).

    That is wrong.


    What they mean is that ideas or preferences of those who do not pay should not affect the general consensus of those who fund the game monthly and uninterruptedly.

    Moreover it has no logic monthly spend more money in the store without being a subscriber because that way you must pay extra DLC.

    If someone is going to spend in the store a monthly sum exceeding one month of play and will do so constant and uninterrupted, you should be a subscriber and buy extra crowns.
  • Soulshine
    Soulshine
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Slurg wrote: »
    Wait what? That was kind of rambly but I think you're trying to say that ideas that come from someone brand new but subscribed to the game are somehow inherently better than ideas from someone with more experience with the game but who dropped their subscription (even if they spend more a month on the crown shop that the subscriber does).

    That is wrong.

    ^^^^^^^^^ Yep.
  • Betahkiin
    Betahkiin
    ✭✭✭✭
    Slurg wrote: »
    Betahkiin wrote: »
    Slurg wrote: »
    Wait what? That was kind of rambly but I think you're trying to say that ideas that come from someone brand new but subscribed to the game are somehow inherently better than ideas from someone with more experience with the game but who dropped their subscription (even if they spend more a month on the crown shop that the subscriber does).

    That is wrong.


    What they mean is that ideas or preferences of those who do not pay should not affect the general consensus of those who fund the game monthly and uninterruptedly.

    Moreover it has no logic monthly spend more money in the store without being a subscriber because that way you must pay extra DLC.

    If someone is going to spend in the store a monthly sum exceeding one month of play and will do so constant and uninterrupted, you should be a subscriber and buy extra crowns.
    No one is going to tell me how and when to pay for what I want in the game. I see now this is yet another one of these "punish the non-subscribers because they are inferior" threads though and I don't believe in being petty like that so I will be taking my leave now.

    You are wrong ...

    If your ability to pay is to your advantage not guarantee a minimum income necessary because in your will you can decide not to pay for months.

    If you do not pay monthly subscription, your ability to think and take weight on the most important changes would have to see reduced.

    Politically it is something that companies try to avoid a matter of diplomacy (to please everyone) but the reality is undeniable.
  • Danikat
    Danikat
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    Betahkiin wrote: »
    Slurg wrote: »
    Wait what? That was kind of rambly but I think you're trying to say that ideas that come from someone brand new but subscribed to the game are somehow inherently better than ideas from someone with more experience with the game but who dropped their subscription (even if they spend more a month on the crown shop that the subscriber does).

    That is wrong.


    What they mean is that ideas or preferences of those who do not pay should not affect the general consensus of those who fund the game monthly and uninterruptedly.

    Moreover it has no logic monthly spend more money in the store without being a subscriber because that way you must pay extra DLC.

    If someone is going to spend in the store a monthly sum exceeding one month of play and will do so constant and uninterrupted, you should be a subscriber and buy extra crowns.

    What about the fact that crowns are cheaper when bought in bulk? You'll save money in the long run by buying the 5,500 crown pack over the 1,500 pack or a subscription. If you're not interested in the 10% boosts from a sub it's probably a better deal to buy the bigger crown packs and then buy the DLC directly.

    But I also don't think paying a subscription (or buying crowns) automatically means someone has a better understanding of the game or better ideas. Just go back a few pages in this forum, to before the switch over. There were absolutely terrible ideas being posted, and supported, even when everyone was paying a subscription.

    It's also kind of insulting to ZOS to suggest that they're incapable of judging for themselves what is and is not a good idea for the game they created and need those suggestions filtered via a paywall first.
    PC EU player. | PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!

    "Remember in this game we call life that no one said it's fair"
  • Betahkiin
    Betahkiin
    ✭✭✭✭
    Danikat wrote: »
    Betahkiin wrote: »
    Slurg wrote: »
    Wait what? That was kind of rambly but I think you're trying to say that ideas that come from someone brand new but subscribed to the game are somehow inherently better than ideas from someone with more experience with the game but who dropped their subscription (even if they spend more a month on the crown shop that the subscriber does).

    That is wrong.


    What they mean is that ideas or preferences of those who do not pay should not affect the general consensus of those who fund the game monthly and uninterruptedly.

    Moreover it has no logic monthly spend more money in the store without being a subscriber because that way you must pay extra DLC.

    If someone is going to spend in the store a monthly sum exceeding one month of play and will do so constant and uninterrupted, you should be a subscriber and buy extra crowns.

    What about the fact that crowns are cheaper when bought in bulk? You'll save money in the long run by buying the 5,500 crown pack over the 1,500 pack or a subscription. If you're not interested in the 10% boosts from a sub it's probably a better deal to buy the bigger crown packs and then buy the DLC directly.

    But I also don't think paying a subscription (or buying crowns) automatically means someone has a better understanding of the game or better ideas. Just go back a few pages in this forum, to before the switch over. There were absolutely terrible ideas being posted, and supported, even when everyone was paying a subscription.

    It's also kind of insulting to ZOS to suggest that they're incapable of judging for themselves what is and is not a good idea for the game they created and need those suggestions filtered via a paywall first.

    The difference you can win by buying crowns you spend paying the DLC.

    As a subscriber, you have crowns and got free access to the DLC.

    It is always more profitable to be a subscriber.

    Benefits, stack crowns and free DLC at the best cost / benefit relationship.

    Pay constantly does not make you a better person, is a misconception.

    Are prejudging.

    It's not about being a better person, suscriptors it is the main source of income so that these users directly deserve preferential treatment.

    Nor is saying that the best ideas come from those who paid subscription.

    It is saying who are at greater right to speak because they are the ones highest monthly economic investment and sustained are doing.

    If you're part of a society in which your investment is zero, minimum or sporadic and unpredictable, your ability to make decisions is reduced compared to those who invest as much money, this is so in any business and is not subject to discussion.
  • Betahkiin
    Betahkiin
    ✭✭✭✭
    Kragorn wrote: »
    linoge63 wrote: »
    If you are a monthly fee / game supporter, a feedback / idea forum should be considered for creation to take ideas from those that are
    supporting the game both in playing/ giving log-in stats and of course financially.

    If you arent a subscriber, sure give your ideas and feedback in the general run of the mill forum and quite likely they are filled with insight and intell; and if thats true, then youll have the same insight and intell to support the game in addition to offering log in stats by playing so that your ideas are heard by those that listen to those that have an invested interest to further the game's development. Without the financial invested interest, many ideas that emanate from non paying players are designed to corrupt the game --- think...competing MMO's means to weaken the competition.

    If you are a paying subscriber, and want to infect the game via tthis route youll be somewhat neutralized by the mere fact you are paying warm appreciated cash to do so.
    This is so full of failed logic and arrogance ("I pay therefore I'm more intelligent than you") I wouldn't know where to start rebutting it all .. so I'll not bother, the post doesn't deserve one.

    It is an undeniable truth that many free users, including users with affinity with competitors entering different games to destroy the community from the forums and even chat channel in game itself.

    Generally the masses who pay monthly subscription tend to protect your investment and do not respond to third party interests.

    Furthermore, and to stop prejudging, who pays is not smarter or better person, it's just who invests money and at such deserves priority in participating and review because any change directly affects its investment made while Users who pay nothing have little to lose.
  • Betahkiin
    Betahkiin
    ✭✭✭✭
    BigM wrote: »
    OMG NO they aren't really free players they bought the game and have a right to post. But I say we limit it to the smartest group so I say we have a Polish only forums. :wink:
    lihentian wrote: »
    i think everyone who can visit the forum paid 60$ at least to do so...isn't that enough?


    This purchase is the same in any single player game.

    Does not include monthly maintenance service which should ensure quality.

    Those purchases give access to copy the content, not the monthly online access servers and the associated maintenance.

    Who paid monthly finance online service, so no, they should not have the same right to influence a service that depends on the payment of others.
  • Soulshine
    Soulshine
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Betahkiin wrote: »
    Danikat wrote: »
    Betahkiin wrote: »
    Slurg wrote: »
    Wait what? That was kind of rambly but I think you're trying to say that ideas that come from someone brand new but subscribed to the game are somehow inherently better than ideas from someone with more experience with the game but who dropped their subscription (even if they spend more a month on the crown shop that the subscriber does).

    That is wrong.


    What they mean is that ideas or preferences of those who do not pay should not affect the general consensus of those who fund the game monthly and uninterruptedly.

    Moreover it has no logic monthly spend more money in the store without being a subscriber because that way you must pay extra DLC.

    If someone is going to spend in the store a monthly sum exceeding one month of play and will do so constant and uninterrupted, you should be a subscriber and buy extra crowns.

    What about the fact that crowns are cheaper when bought in bulk? You'll save money in the long run by buying the 5,500 crown pack over the 1,500 pack or a subscription. If you're not interested in the 10% boosts from a sub it's probably a better deal to buy the bigger crown packs and then buy the DLC directly.

    But I also don't think paying a subscription (or buying crowns) automatically means someone has a better understanding of the game or better ideas. Just go back a few pages in this forum, to before the switch over. There were absolutely terrible ideas being posted, and supported, even when everyone was paying a subscription.

    It's also kind of insulting to ZOS to suggest that they're incapable of judging for themselves what is and is not a good idea for the game they created and need those suggestions filtered via a paywall first.

    The difference you can win by buying crowns you spend paying the DLC.

    As a subscriber, you have crowns and got free access to the DLC.

    It is always more profitable to be a subscriber.

    Benefits, stack crowns and free DLC at the best cost / benefit relationship.

    Pay constantly does not make you a better person, is a misconception.

    Are prejudging.

    It's not about being a better person, suscriptors it is the main source of income so that these users directly deserve preferential treatment.

    Nor is saying that the best ideas come from those who paid subscription.

    It is saying who are at greater right to speak because they are the ones highest monthly economic investment and sustained are doing.

    If you're part of a society in which your investment is zero, minimum or sporadic and unpredictable, your ability to make decisions is reduced compared to those who invest as much money, this is so in any business and is not subject to discussion.

    First off, please get a better translator. Some of your sentences are embarrasing to read.

    Your statement that this topic "is not subject to discussion" is also presumptuous. There are any number of business models possible in the gaming world which do not follow the beaten path of other industries.

    As is, stating that susbcribers are the main source of income in this game is at best inaccurate and only a guess, since you will NEVER know that is true with any accuracy, short of ZoS disclosing that is the case.

    You can also argue until you are blue in the face that subscribers deserve their own everything, and demand that they be separated from non subscribers all you like. The solution to that is go find another game which is subscriber only -- as like it or not, you are no longer playing a subscriber only game.

    All players here have a voice and should be respected.
  • Grapdjan
    Grapdjan
    ✭✭✭✭
    All they needed to do was make it reply-only for non subs, but with one sub-free forum that they could start threads on.
    Edited by Grapdjan on March 24, 2015 5:19PM
  • RainfeatherUK
    RainfeatherUK
    ✭✭✭✭
    I think the majority of people should shut up and let ZoS make the decisions based upon the actual majority - those that play the game happily and find little fault with it beyond what they submit as bug reports.

    By all means add constructive criticism, but there are far too many people with an over elevated level of self importance trying to back seat drive the game.

    As for a seperate area. This is sort of the same as that 'subscriber tavern' discussion we had before. What is actually going to be discussed there? People always segregate anyways, so theres no harm in people having an area like it - because they could just as easily set up a website for it themselves.

    Just realise that there isnt much added worth in the opinions of people who pay. Just in whether or not they talk sense and benefit the life of the game. Which if I had to guess, they could do anywhere.

    Bottom line if you have something to say, get some balls and mouth off publically about it :p
    Edited by RainfeatherUK on March 25, 2015 12:52AM
  • Vandril
    Vandril
    ✭✭✭✭
    AlnilamE wrote: »
    This subscriber says no.

    This subscriber also says no.
    Vandril wrote: »
    Crippled to be barely useful in PVE due to fighting with exploits in PVP:

    Oh, okay. Let's see what you've liste-
    Lore

    o.O
  • Shadesofkin
    Shadesofkin
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Obscure wrote: »
    Yes, subscribers should have their own sub-forum (that's it, just a sub-forum subscribers can access that others can't). Yes, subscribers should get exclusive monthly Q&A with the dev team (subscribers submit questions, devs pick the top 10 and they answer them in a You Tube video for all to see). Yes, subscribers should get an exclusive monthly e-pub filled with artwork, game lore, and development news (let them share it via community videos, podcasts, blogs, etc). Yes, subscribers should be made to feel like they are a part of something special, not to be confused with the thing that is special.

    But no, subscriber feedback should not be considered anything other than "player feedback". Anything otherwise would be inappropriate. Every voice in the community should be made to feel like it is heard, be they subbed and buying thousands of dollars of crowns, or just a kid in a dorm who bought the game at retail cause he got a good deal and it fit into his ramen noodles and canned tuna budget.

    Discard your ego centric world view. We are not special because we are ESO subscribers. ESO is special because we are it's subscribers. We should be made to feel it is the game that is special, and that being a subscriber is to be a part of that. If ZOS were more open with its community, more receptive to feedback, more capable of saying " yeah we ***ed up", the respect they'd get from me personally would be beyond a price tag. Being straight with a community this day on age is proven effective. Besides @ZOS, you're privately owned, who are you worried about upsetting by being community centric? You don't have investors.

    My first reply was short because I was cooking and didn't get into it, but yeah, this hits it on the head.
    @shadesofkin -NA Server.
    Tier 2 Player.
    If you run in Trials and you wonder why you're not doing the sorts of damage you see on youtube videos and on forums, but you reject advice based on extensive testing, claiming "I don't agree" you're the toxic one.
  • Shadesofkin
    Shadesofkin
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm against separate instances, all I ask for is a sub forum and some exclusive news letters.
    @shadesofkin -NA Server.
    Tier 2 Player.
    If you run in Trials and you wonder why you're not doing the sorts of damage you see on youtube videos and on forums, but you reject advice based on extensive testing, claiming "I don't agree" you're the toxic one.
  • minnisville
    minnisville
    ✭✭
    If you want your own forums, then start a websit
    I'm against separate instances, all I ask for is a sub forum and some exclusive news letters.

    Someone has been subbing for Star Citizen too much......lol

  • LawfulEvil
    LawfulEvil
    ✭✭
    IRL if I pay more I expect better. If i drop more money on a house or car should I not have a nicer one then someone who pays less for less? Is it entitlement you bet because I earned it and can afford it.
  • Thymos
    Thymos
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    As a long term subscriber, and will be so in the future, I do not like this idea. It creates exclusion, when we should be coming together as a community to make this place better, not build walls.
    The Older Gamers Recruitment Thread
    Always accepting new members for NA and EU server. PvP PvE RP all welcome. Must be 25+ yo to join.
    http://www.theoldergamers.com/
  • izenkim_ESO
    izenkim_ESO
    ✭✭✭
    As a current subscriber I say no. I think it's a bad business practice to give a different voice to those who do subscribe over those you want to subscribe.
  • LameoveR
    LameoveR
    ✭✭✭✭
    LawfulEvil wrote: »
    IRL if I pay more I expect better. If i drop more money on a house or car should I not have a nicer one then someone who pays less for less? Is it entitlement you bet because I earned it and can afford it.
    You've got your 1500crown per 30day of sub, +10%xp and gold. Don't you think it worth sub?


  • Shadesofkin
    Shadesofkin
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    If you want your own forums, then start a websit
    I'm against separate instances, all I ask for is a sub forum and some exclusive news letters.

    Someone has been subbing for Star Citizen too much......lol

    There's no denying that I'm used to something of the sort with other games. I don't think anyone should be treated as less for being a non-sub.
    @shadesofkin -NA Server.
    Tier 2 Player.
    If you run in Trials and you wonder why you're not doing the sorts of damage you see on youtube videos and on forums, but you reject advice based on extensive testing, claiming "I don't agree" you're the toxic one.
  • Haqikah
    Haqikah
    ✭✭✭
    OP seems to have the assumption that subscription members spend more money on TESO then non-subscription members that solely use the coinshop to get stuff. From my personal experience I can tell that is not valid assumption.

    If you want elevate players that spend more money then others, take into account ALL money spend - not solely the subscription.

    Personally I believe elevating one player above others *only* because they spend more money is not needed neither desired. If someone spends huge amounts of money they will have all the visual goodies to show their fortune already, so no need to further elevate them.
Sign In or Register to comment.