Are subscribers mistreated? really?

Raash

I wouldnt know, I cancelled sub 8-9 month ago so please explain in what way subscribers is being mistreated.

Thank you in advance.

(Wrote this as a post in a thread that was locked so no one had the chance to answer and i think it would be an interesting discussion. Feel free to share your view of the topic )

Sylveria_Relden

I don't believe subscribers are mistreated (I happen to be one) however, the lack of content provision for subscribers is a little concerning. As it stands, non-subscribers access the same amount of content as subscribers and there's very little reason (above 10% exp etc rewards) to really continue to subscribe.

I don't consider the "crowns" you get to be a major offering- as there's really not a lot of choice in the Crown Store at current anyway. There's very little I'm interested in buying in the store- so how does this provide me with more content?

SHADOW2KK

Yes I would say so, compared to something like the Premium system on Battlefield3/4, the ESO Plus system is ...well...underwhelming to say the least...

Some crowns every month is good, but minimal bonuses, 10% extra gold/xp is good too but not really wow omg.

I think Zeni should make the ESO Plus sub system a lot more attractive, as well, tbh, I or others do not need to continue paying now.

Even a little thing like priority queuing into PvP over non subs would be good, like the Premium system on BF, plus they done packs for Premium members and other goodies, different genre but the rewards should be the same.

If Zeni wants more Plus people, then make it way better than it is, I would have thought it should be done anyway.

We pay you money when we do not have too, so make rewards more juicy, is standard business sense to me..

When current month runs out, I am not paying for Plus, I don`t see the point, bar crowns and a couple of bonuses I can live without, there really is nothing special about it, there is no new content, so I can still play stock game anyways.

Just my opinion.

Raash

Sylveria_Relden wrote: »

I don't believe subscribers are mistreated (I happen to be one) however, the lack of content provision for subscribers is a little concerning. As it stands, non-subscribers access the same amount of content as subscribers and there's very little reason (above 10% exp etc rewards) to really continue to subscribe.

I don't consider the "crowns" you get to be a major offering- as there's really not a lot of choice in the Crown Store at current anyway. There's very little I'm interested in buying in the store- so how does this provide me with more content?

Ok, I can only agree on all that. There is no reason (and havnt been for a long time) to be subbed unless you want to support the company, as I see it anyway.
Why I was wondering about the mistreatment thing is that I noticed that many wants ZoS to "treat them better" (as some kind of a punchline in their posts) wich made me starting to wonder in what way people feeling mistreated.
Perhaps its just a dramatical thing to say and nothing else

Audigy

Sylveria_Relden wrote: »

I don't believe subscribers are mistreated (I happen to be one) however, the lack of content provision for subscribers is a little concerning. As it stands, non-subscribers access the same amount of content as subscribers and there's very little reason (above 10% exp etc rewards) to really continue to subscribe.

I don't consider the "crowns" you get to be a major offering- as there's really not a lot of choice in the Crown Store at current anyway. There's very little I'm interested in buying in the store- so how does this provide me with more content?

A good F2P game will always offer non subs the same content as subs. I know SWTOR and a few others do it different, but to see what a good F2P game is check out HOTS. Its not an MMO, but you have access to everything that those have who pay. Its just that they get more gold, xp.

I am not a fan of F2P games where not investing money puts you into a serious disadvantage as you can not use the best items, mounts, dungeons or pvp zones, housing, professions, actions bars, bank slots, inventory slots ... These games have poisoned the market lately and I hope ZOS will never follow their bad example.

Sylveria_Relden

Audigy wrote: »

Sylveria_Relden wrote: »

I don't believe subscribers are mistreated (I happen to be one) however, the lack of content provision for subscribers is a little concerning. As it stands, non-subscribers access the same amount of content as subscribers and there's very little reason (above 10% exp etc rewards) to really continue to subscribe.

I don't consider the "crowns" you get to be a major offering- as there's really not a lot of choice in the Crown Store at current anyway. There's very little I'm interested in buying in the store- so how does this provide me with more content?

A good F2P game will always offer non subs the same content as subs. I know SWTOR and a few others do it different, but to see what a good F2P game is check out HOTS. Its not an MMO, but you have access to everything that those have who pay. Its just that they get more gold, xp.

I am not a fan of F2P games where not investing money puts you into a serious disadvantage as you can not use the best items, mounts, dungeons or pvp zones, housing, professions, actions bars, bank slots, inventory slots ... These games have poisoned the market lately and I hope ZOS will never follow their bad example.

It's not the F2P method's fault that the items are locked out- it's the choice of the provider (AKA developer/publisher) to lock those things out. There are many ways you can implement this- and different providers do it differently.

F2P = Free To Play, as in you get access to everything- but if you want 'extra' you pay 'extra' for it.
B2P = Buy to Play, as in you pay an initial base price- and you *may* choose to pay for DLC on top of this, or not

Both are your choice- but neither equate to "Pay To Win" because if you put two drivers in exactly the same cars- it doesn't guarantee a win for either one. If you upgrade one of the cars to make it better than the other (more performance, etc.) then you *may* be giving an advantage- but then again, you're still not guaranteeing a win. The race could still go either way.

The point I'm making here- is that there's a lot of hyperbole going about as to sales methods- but people must first understand the inherencies of the methods before they can generate opinions. By all means- voice your opinion- but make sure it's an informed opinion, and not based on half-truths.

glak

For the most part, the old subscribers want new content over anything else.
The faster CP gain is nice. Once the XP pots come out in the store, then we'll see even faster CP gain. Earning extra gold from mobs is OK. The other perks, faster crafting levels and research, won't really help until new crafting lines come out.

For subscribers new to the game however, all of those perks help quite a bit.

So the complaints seem to be coming from those who have been subscribed for over ~4 months.

Deheart

Honestly, I wish they wold have never gone Buy to play, at least for PC. There would be a lot less complaints if everyone had to pay the same $15 us fee. I think that if they had just added the crown store everyone would have been happier and they still would be having the extra income the crown store gives.

Although I really don't know if that would work for console, considering that everyone has to have a live/plus account to play ESO for some reason.

Raash

SHADOW2KK wrote: »

Yes I would say so, compared to something like the Premium system on Battlefield3/4, the ESO Plus system is ...well...underwhelming to say the least...

Some crowns every month is good, but minimal bonuses, 10% extra gold/xp is good too but not really wow omg.

I think Zeni should make the ESO Plus sub system a lot more attractive, as well, tbh, I or others do not need to continue paying now.

Even a little thing like priority queuing into PvP over non subs would be good, like the Premium system on BF, plus they done packs for Premium members and other goodies, different genre but the rewards should be the same.

If Zeni wants more Plus people, then make it way better than it is, I would have thought it should be done anyway.

We pay you money when we do not have too, so make rewards more juicy, is standard business sense to me..

When current month runs out, I am not paying for Plus, I don`t see the point, bar crowns and a couple of bonuses I can live without, there really is nothing special about it, there is no new content, so I can still play stock game anyways.

Just my opinion.

I used to play a game called DCUO and they had this system with lots of DLC´s with locked content (powers & gear etc) for people playing for free unless you paid for them by subbing (unlocked everything for a month at a time or something) or buying the individual DLC´s that you wanted access to.
They had limitations on ingame-cash for people not subbed, like a limit with 1500 or something that was usuable while rest was saved in a sort of cache(called escrow) and only available if subbed or if you bought escrow tokens.
i think it worked pretty well in that game actually (since it was so annoying to be limited in almost all ways I ended up paying the sub fee to have full access.)
Is this the kind of thing you would prefer over what ESO has now?