Monthly subscribers

fluffycannibalb16_ESO

wrlifeboil wrote: »

Requiring a monthly sub to play a DLC just doesn't make sense from a console point of view. I doubt that the pricing will be different for consoles and PCs.

The DLC model is buy it once and own it or more specifically, own the right to play it forever. That model for PC mmos already exists in GW2.

Can't imagine ZOS would try to muck it up the pricing. Keep it simple and charge $19.99, $29.99, or $39.99 for DLCs depending on the amount of new content and forget about the Rube Goldberg pricing schemes.

It will be possible to buy DLCs separately through the Crown Store, but the sub will allow you to access it without actually buying it. You won't actually have to have a sub to play it.

Theosis

my decision to pay for a little bit more has no effect on my thoughts on how to improve the game

my subscription only means I think at this time that they are still worthy enough to get 15 bucks form me on a monthly basis

Turelus

Personally I am against splitting the community between and upper and lower class.

There have been plenty of MMO games where the non-subbed players are doing the most for the community. What would we do if known players like Deltia, Dulfy etc. suddenly couldn't speak on the forums because they're not giving ZOS monthly fee's.

Additionally if you had a subscriber only forums what are you going to talk about in there outside of the regular forums. All the threads and topic where people are posting ideas, builds, PVP videos will still be within the relevant sections. It would be a forum with little content.

vkayne_ESO

Sounds a bit like politics in the US. Someone contributes hundreds of thousands of dollars to an elected officials campaign so they have that elected officials ear for the next 4-8 years (or more for congress/senate) so they can push their agenda. Screw the populace...

BlackEar

Betahkiin wrote: »

show previous quotes

BlackEar wrote: »

What madness is this?

Is that how you constitute democracy in your country?
The "rich peoples'" opinion somehow has more weight?

I, as a paid subscriber, think this is a horrible idea.

Democracy?

This is a business where the product owner sets the rules of use.

There is no place for democracy and consensus, the final word belongs to the company.

Yes, in the business world, people with more money rules, is not new.

Quite the contrary, listening to customers is essential to the product's survivability. Furthermore, ZOS have proved they are listening to the feedback.

Non-subs still have a huge influence through further exposition and buying crowns.
Subs =/= those with money.

Given the arguments provided above, I think you will find that:
The decision ultimately lies with the company.
The players - paying or not - all have a say and influence.
Paying subscribers does not have more influence. This is not stocks where investors have x votes based on x numer of stocks.

Vyle_Byte

Paying customers are in no way shape or form better than non paying customers. Besides, you have no idea how much money the non subscriber is gonna fork out in the crown store, they could possibly be paying more than you per month thus supporting the game more than the guy paying $15/month.

So....

No.