Separation instance for subscribers

Xjcon

So many threads that want the game changed to suit there wants. The game is what it is, learn to adapt to it and play it.

Betahkiin

Xjcon wrote: »

So many threads that want the game changed to suit there wants. The game is what it is, learn to adapt to it and play it.

The game is what it is, but it is also true that the game change and also changed once can change many more.

Any suggestions or proposals may suggest changes, which do not depend on individual taste of a particular user.

The last word has it ZOS.

That's why it makes no sense to try to silence users who think differently.

The idea is dialogue, provide different points of view and let ZOS make the final decision.

I'm not against those who think differently.

I am against those who believe that to think differently have the right to silence or censor my opinion.

Fox Hunter

So you're proposing the continuity of the PtP format with a BtP trial. Looks promising.

Have you at least imagined the impact of such move? LOL

Ysne58

I don't see how they could possibly go back to PtP now that they have switched to BtP. I'm opposed to separating out the subscribers from the non subscribers because it would give me fewer opportunities to meet new players, find groups etc. A number of my friends came back when the switch was made.

Since using crowns also falls under BtP and I have a feeling it would be an absolute headache to separate out crown purchases from non crown purchases this concept leaves out a number of people who are also buying to play, but just not as subscribers.

Betahkiin

Fox Hunter wrote: »

So you're proposing the continuity of the PtP format with a BtP trial. Looks promising.

Have you at least imagined the impact of such move? LOL

There are currently implemented in other games and works. I'm not the one who has to analyze the impact is ZOS, I just make a proposition, that's what many do not understand, does not depend on me, one suggestion is just that, depends on ZOS find it economically profitable, If they find it economically profitable, they will implement no matter that some are in favor or against the idea.

LameoveR

Well.
Peter and John got separately appartments in one building.
Peter got 50mbit internet channel for 20$ and John got 100mbit internet channel for 40$.
They use same ISP hardware settled at basement(or whereever it is). Then let's imagine that this hardware come out of order.
Peter and John now experiencing some troubles with his internet connection. Peter calls to ISP and asks for help.
He was told that troubleshooting will take one day.
John calls to ISP and asks for help. He was told that troubleshooting will take 1 hour.

So, let's be clear, is it what you call "quality of service", hm?

Sorry for my english=)

cyqa

Betahkiin wrote: »

Fox Hunter wrote: »

Betahkiin wrote: »

Instance 1: Designated subscribers only (guaranteeing priority access, priority maintenance and upgrades, server stability and priority customer service assistance in game).

Instance 2: Designated to non-subscribers (considering you do not pay for the service, good luck).

Is there a way to play it for free? I thought we would have to BUY the game in order to play it. How funny... I even thought that they would charge us for the future releases in the form of DLCs.

Well, thx for the news!

Paid for a copy of the game, such as the single player ...

You did not pay for the service online or by future updates

If you did not pay for the service online and're playing, you're doing for free and informed that eventually you will not have access to DLC unless you pay.

One thing is the cost of a copy of the game.

Another thing is the monthly payment for the right to play online and get updates.

In fact, the original model does not contemplate the possibility of playing without the monthly payment.

But your entire premise here is absolutely flawed.

When people pay for the box, they are not paying for a single player experience, you're wrong.This is an MMO. They are paying for the online service. This isn't some single player game with some optional co-op included. They did not just pay for a copy of the game.

When you say, "one thing is the cost of a copy of the game, another thing is the monthly payment for the right to play online and get updates"- that's your own model, that you're making up. That's not the reality of this game.

Again, I reiterate from my last post (which you ignored), they are not "free users" as they paid for the base game, they deserve the same quality that people who subscribe do.

Obscure

Betahkiin wrote: »

Obscure wrote: »

This is not a matter of "I deserve better because I pay more money", that's an obviously loaded analysis.

This is a matter of the reason for a hybrid model, which is designed to BOOST population and BOOST revenue. There's more than enough player division throughout the game, I can run across entire veteran zones and never see another player. Adding more player division will INCREASE this, and that is a terrible proposition for both population and revenue.

This is a " value added " proposition for subscriptions, but it would negatively impact the game, resulting in poor experiences for players on the fence with regard to ESO+, and actively dismissing product quality expressly to monetise said quality. The word for that is "ANTI-CONSUMER", and those tactics are poison in the veins of the industry.

I think what poisons is the current refusal of users to pay for a service and expect to have everything for free and with high quality standards.

This concept can be applied in basic and necessary services where failure to pay can affect the quality of life of a person.

The private world of entertainment is a plus, a non-basic service, not necessary and whose access should be paid according to the quality of what is expected in return.

What is destroying the gaming industry are massive users seeking access to entertainment 24 hours a day with very high quality standards and not have to pay for it.

Such people poisoned the quality of products in the entertainment industry.

You clearly have no idea how this business model works. Paying subscribers and non paying players are symbiotic, they mutually benefit one another. Subscribing players help fund a predictable revenue stream for the business model, a la carte players help fund revenue spikes to fund the business model, and retail purchase only players keep the game populated to keep those subscribing and micro transaction customers playing and paying. With a hybrid model, ZOS uses subscribing and micro transactions to facilitate a revenue stream that is consistent with ESO's business needs and supliments retail sales figures to allow further growth and development.

To EVER deliberately sacrifice the quality of their product, and literally charge for quality as if it were a premium service customers who purchased a product at retail do not deserve, is ***ing insulting, and flagrantly anti-consumer. That's straight up bull***. That is ***ing poison.

Nestor

Betahkiin wrote: »

For a better quality of service?

Of course the idea is to be together, I'm not against it as long as not to affect the quality of service for which I am paying.

But if it is technologically not possible to guarantee the stability or quality of servers to handle all online users, the suggestion was to manage the resources available to guarantee to those who pay monthly.

I am not seeing all these problems you are describing, so I don't see any technical reason to separate the population.

If you want to play TES by yourself, then you can play Skyrim or Oblivion or Morrowind or Daggerfall or Arena or Redguard

cyqa

Obscure wrote: »

Betahkiin wrote: »

Obscure wrote: »

This is not a matter of "I deserve better because I pay more money", that's an obviously loaded analysis.

This is a matter of the reason for a hybrid model, which is designed to BOOST population and BOOST revenue. There's more than enough player division throughout the game, I can run across entire veteran zones and never see another player. Adding more player division will INCREASE this, and that is a terrible proposition for both population and revenue.

This is a " value added " proposition for subscriptions, but it would negatively impact the game, resulting in poor experiences for players on the fence with regard to ESO+, and actively dismissing product quality expressly to monetise said quality. The word for that is "ANTI-CONSUMER", and those tactics are poison in the veins of the industry.

I think what poisons is the current refusal of users to pay for a service and expect to have everything for free and with high quality standards.

This concept can be applied in basic and necessary services where failure to pay can affect the quality of life of a person.

The private world of entertainment is a plus, a non-basic service, not necessary and whose access should be paid according to the quality of what is expected in return.

What is destroying the gaming industry are massive users seeking access to entertainment 24 hours a day with very high quality standards and not have to pay for it.

Such people poisoned the quality of products in the entertainment industry.

You clearly have no idea how this business model works. Paying subscribers and non paying players are symbiotic, they mutually benefit one another. Subscribing players help fund a predictable revenue stream for the business model, a la carte players help fund revenue spikes to fund the business model, and retail purchase only players keep the game populated to keep those subscribing and micro transaction customers playing and paying. With a hybrid model, ZOS uses subscribing and micro transactions to facilitate a revenue stream that is consistent with ESO's business needs and supliments retail sales figures to allow further growth and development.

To EVER deliberately sacrifice the quality of their product, and literally charge for quality as if it were a premium service customers who purchased a product at retail do not deserve, is ***ing insulting, and flagrantly anti-consumer. That's straight up bull***. That is ***ing poison.

Yes, this! Thank you for articulating that.

Betahkiin

LameoveR wrote: »

Well.
Peter and John got separately appartments in one building.
Peter got 50mbit internet channel for 20$ and John got 100mbit internet channel for 40$.
They use same ISP hardware settled at basement(or whereever it is). Then let's imagine that this hardware come out of order.
Peter and John now experiencing some troubles with his internet connection. Peter calls to ISP and asks for help.
He was told that troubleshooting will take one day.
John calls to ISP and asks for help. He was told that troubleshooting will take 1 hour.

So, let's be clear, is it what you call "quality of service", hm?

Sorry for my english=)

A reality in the world of private services, pay more, get more and better.

If TESO has 2 game options, free and subscription, it is not illogical to expect that those who choose to be subscribers get a guaranteed quality of service versus those who simply do not pay or pay for convenience.

And you do not to ask forgiveness, my English is a mess too!

YourNameHere

Betahkiin wrote: »

Fox Hunter wrote: »

Betahkiin wrote: »

Instance 1: Designated subscribers only (guaranteeing priority access, priority maintenance and upgrades, server stability and priority customer service assistance in game).

Instance 2: Designated to non-subscribers (considering you do not pay for the service, good luck).

Is there a way to play it for free? I thought we would have to BUY the game in order to play it. How funny... I even thought that they would charge us for the future releases in the form of DLCs.

Well, thx for the news!

Paid for a copy of the game, such as the single player ...

You did not pay for the service online or by future updates

If you did not pay for the service online and're playing, you're doing for free and informed that eventually you will not have access to DLC unless you pay.

One thing is the cost of a copy of the game.

Another thing is the monthly payment for the right to play online and get updates.

In fact, the original model does not contemplate the possibility of playing without the monthly payment.

... wait what?

When you pay for the game, you are paying for online service, because there is no single player, offline experience.

elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/2015/03/17/welcome-to-tamriel-unlimited

The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited has arrived for PC and Mac! For the first time ever, you can adventure in ESO without paying a game subscription. The entire original game and all six major content updates since launch (including the new Justice and Champion Systems) are just waiting for you to log in and enjoy. Rally your most trusted allies, take up your sword, and get ready to experience everything Tamriel has to offer with no restrictions!

Seems to me they gave six major content updates for FREE when you bought the game. There is no base game then B2P has to pay 14.99$ for each 6 updates.

And if you're currently subscribed, you've automatically become a member of ESO Plus, our new premium membership! As a member, you're going to get some great in-game bonuses (like additional experience gain) and a monthly allotment of crowns—virtual currency you can spend in the new Crown Store on great cosmetic and convenience items.

Now looking in the Faq: https://help.elderscrollsonline.com/app/tamrielunlimitedfaq there is this ...

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

And for non subscribers there is this ...

How can I get downloadable content?
DLC will be available for purchase in the Crown Store on an a la carte basis. DLC purchased on an a la carte basis will be available to you for as long as The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited is available. Members of ESO Plus will receive complimentary access to all DLC game packs for the duration of their membership.

So yes, there is a difference there from subbed and non-subbed.

Yet if a non subbed person wants the DLC after the main game bought, then they ARE helping ZoS and the game by BUYING crowns to pay for the DLC, as they will be purchased through the Crown Store.

So ... I see no reason to separate the two groups as they both give money to ZoS and the game itself. I think you are getting confused between a F2P model and B2P.

SW:ToR is a good example. It has a F2P model with no way to use technical support like those with subs can do. If you want assistance through tickets made in the game, you need to sub to SW:ToR.

In that case, there is no game to buy. You just DL the client and make an account, and you're ready to play.

Jroc

Betahkiin wrote: »

LameoveR wrote: »

Well.
Peter and John got separately appartments in one building.
Peter got 50mbit internet channel for 20$ and John got 100mbit internet channel for 40$.
They use same ISP hardware settled at basement(or whereever it is). Then let's imagine that this hardware come out of order.
Peter and John now experiencing some troubles with his internet connection. Peter calls to ISP and asks for help.
He was told that troubleshooting will take one day.
John calls to ISP and asks for help. He was told that troubleshooting will take 1 hour.

So, let's be clear, is it what you call "quality of service", hm?

Sorry for my english=)

A reality in the world of private services, pay more, get more and better.

If TESO has 2 game options, free and subscription, it is not illogical to expect that those who choose to be subscribers get a guaranteed quality of service versus those who simply do not pay or pay for convenience.

And you do not to ask forgiveness, my English is a mess too!

You get the bonuses of 1500 allotted crowns and increased rate of XP gains, that's your quality of life service, that's what ZOS values your additional $15 dollars at they don't value it as worthy of a separate server.

Also this really doesn't make much sense anyway given the Mega-Server technology. Once the server reaches a threshold it creates another bubble to put players in, so unless the number of subscribers is extremely small then creating a separate realm for subscribers would achieve nothing at all.

Betahkiin

Obscure wrote: »

Betahkiin wrote: »

Obscure wrote: »

This is not a matter of "I deserve better because I pay more money", that's an obviously loaded analysis.

This is a matter of the reason for a hybrid model, which is designed to BOOST population and BOOST revenue. There's more than enough player division throughout the game, I can run across entire veteran zones and never see another player. Adding more player division will INCREASE this, and that is a terrible proposition for both population and revenue.

This is a " value added " proposition for subscriptions, but it would negatively impact the game, resulting in poor experiences for players on the fence with regard to ESO+, and actively dismissing product quality expressly to monetise said quality. The word for that is "ANTI-CONSUMER", and those tactics are poison in the veins of the industry.

I think what poisons is the current refusal of users to pay for a service and expect to have everything for free and with high quality standards.

This concept can be applied in basic and necessary services where failure to pay can affect the quality of life of a person.

The private world of entertainment is a plus, a non-basic service, not necessary and whose access should be paid according to the quality of what is expected in return.

What is destroying the gaming industry are massive users seeking access to entertainment 24 hours a day with very high quality standards and not have to pay for it.

Such people poisoned the quality of products in the entertainment industry.

You clearly have no idea how this business model works. Paying subscribers and non paying players are symbiotic, they mutually benefit one another. Subscribing players help fund a predictable revenue stream for the business model, a la carte players help fund revenue spikes to fund the business model, and retail purchase only players keep the game populated to keep those subscribing and micro transaction customers playing and paying. With a hybrid model, ZOS uses subscribing and micro transactions to facilitate a revenue stream that is consistent with ESO's business needs and supliments retail sales figures to allow further growth and development.

To EVER deliberately sacrifice the quality of their product, and literally charge for quality as if it were a premium service customers who purchased a product at retail do not deserve, is ***ing insulting, and flagrantly anti-consumer. That's straight up bull***. That is ***ing poison.

Any long-term development of content is done on knowledge of expected earnings based on the investment and what is expected to raise.

No company will provide quality content continuously if not sure I could recover the investment.

Recurring subscriptions for 3, 6 or 12 months are the model that allows a fixed predictable revenue base.

The month-to-month subscriptions and sporadic Store purchases may vary month to month, do not guarantee any kind of long-term investment can go months without users invest money in the store.

Free players do not represent any kind of profit, only play the role of filling the servers.

The cornerstone of business is based on recurring subscriptions, reinforced by sporadic purchases and all garnished with servers full of free players.

Of course there is in this model a symbiosis, which has different categories in order of importance.

The pattern of recurring subscriptions can exist without the need for the other two and with a high quality of service, the problem is the attitude of people who want everything for free and campaigns to sabotage this model.

The model shopping store can survive (there are many who do) but the quality is extremely low, delivering poor content and no attention to customer exists because of the attitude of people who want to have fun with the ongoing work of others at the expense of sporadic payments for convenience.

The model playing for nothing, simply does not exist or exists but with very low quality.

I am asking that the symbiosis components are removed?

No, I'm asking you to give each one of them the place they deserve.

Guaranteed quality for those who guarantee fixed incomes.

Provide quality random to random payments users.


He who does not understand how it works maybe be you.

ZOS_BradL

While we encourage constructive discussion and feedback, this thread has taken a non-constuctive turn and will be closed.

We understand that sometimes tempers rise, but it is never acceptable to resort to rude comments and insults.

In order to maintain a fun, welcoming and safe environment for all players, we encourage everyone to keep our forum Code of Conduct in mind when posting.