Crating Bag Exclusivity is Unfair

FLuFFyxMuFFiN

Averya_Teira wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

I find this all to be hilarious to be honest. The B2P players want the bag and feel it's unfair that they with hold that content from them. But in all actuality, being and ESO+ member offers far to little. Other games that use a similar Sub/F2P system offers way more in the way of perks to their subscribers. Truth be it, you should feel lucky that ZOS hasn't added a lot to the sub perks over the past year.

Honestly, just let the ESO+ players feel like they actually are getting a perk that makes a difference. +10% xp isn't a whole lot. 1500 crowns doesn't really get you much if any thing. And having access to DLC's with out purchasing them is only marginally better. Since if something happens and your sub ends, you lose your access to those. Which is different from other games that as long as you where subbed when they released you have access for as long as the servers are active. So in reality, ZOS has been extremely generous to the B2P community in this game compared to other titles.

This. ESO is the MMO that has the least benefits for subbing I've ever seen. Just a fact, not a bad or good thing, just how it is.

KanedaSyndrome wrote: »

Well I won't be subscribing for this, as I'm already invested in the "don't sub, but buy crowns and purchase what I need"-model. If I sub now I'll end up paying double the money for everything. A crafting bag is not worth that to me.

I'll stick with my "don't sub, but buy crowns and purchase what I need"-model, since if I did sub now, I'd basically be paying 180$ a year for a crafting bag, which is not a worth while investment in my opinion. However if they made it a 30$ as a crown item, I'd be more than happy enough to send some more cash their way.

They simply shouldn't have two ways to pay for the game if they don't see those groups as equals. I guess ZoS is turning their back on one of their customer groups, the one that I'm part of. It seems our way of paying for the game isn't good enough. I've already spent hundreds of dollars on the game, and yet, I'm not a good enough customer in the eyes of ZoS.

My main problem is that I'm pretty much locked out of getting a subscription now as I've committed myself to buying what I need, via crown packs, instead of subscribing. Going sub now would make no sense as I'd be paying mainly for stuff I've already purchased. Had I never bought DLCs/customes/mounts etc, I could've considered a subscription.

If you do the math, if they keep to 3-4 DLCs a year, buying ESO+ costs way less than not subbing + crown shop... Just a friendly reminder.

@Averya_Teira

Did you do the math though? A year of subbing for ESO+ is around $200 after tax. If you were to buy all the DLC that has been released so far you would spend roughly $65. If I am not mistaken $65 is less than $200. So subs pay far more to keep their DLC than non subs.

Danikat

I can understand that they want ESO+ to actually be appealing to players. I've seen a lot of posts on this forum where people said they buy things from the crown story they may not actually want/need simply because they have more "free" crowns than they know what to do with as a result of subscribing. Which makes me thing ZOS gets far more money from subscribers than from the majority of people who buy crown packs as and when they need them.

And in one sense the anger over this makes it seem as if they've got the right idea - clearly this feature is a big deal for a lot of people, so in theory it should lead to a big increase in subscriptions.

But I also suspect (maybe affected by my own view) that those people would be less angry if they were going to 'give in' and subscribe to get the crafting bag. And if they don't it simply means ZOS is losing money they would other have gotten if it was available as a direct sale.

As for myself I'm surprisingly indifferent. I'd like a crafting bag because at the moment the vast majority of my gold goes on bank and bag space and the vast majority of that space is used for crafting materials. But I also understand why they'd want to make it ESO+ exclusive and I completely agree that the sub really needs something to make it more appealing. But for me this is not it. As useful as it would be a crafting bag isn't worth £9 a month for me and I have zero interest in the other benefits of a sub. So I simply won't get it and will carry on with the system I have now.

Tommy1979AtWar

Acrolas wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

This link http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/18/50-pc-exclusive-games-in-2013 proves it was going to be a PC exclusive therefor they had no plans to port to console until they realised the sub model wasn't going to cut it.

If only there were something like a comments section that could correct incorrect articles.

Oh. Wait.

Nick Hunt SEP 17 2013 9PM
Also Elder scrolls online is not a PC exclusive >.< It's coming to consoles and being beta tested on consoles as we speak...Someone needs to go over this list again a lot of games on it aren't PC exclusives.



As for the rest of the thread... *** it, I'm gonna go get laid or something...

Awesome proving my point again, that quote is from sept 2013 waaaay after the PC exclusive decision was reversed, now find a quote relevent to the link ie: january 2013 or earlier.
If only there were one lol

IrishGirlGamer

Xundiin wrote: »

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

All I've gotten from this is that the OP is fundementally against subscriptions in general.

Why do I say that? Well the OP has stated many times how they support the game via crown store and dlc purchases, even to the point of claiming they spend equal if not more then a subscriber may in a month.

This makes me assume they simply do not feel the sub is worth it in general as there is nothing the sub offers to justify it. Well now there is, and if this player, who I'm going to assume has been playing for at least since the b2p transition, has been supporting the game and is willing to raise such a stink over it not being on the crown store, Im thinking it's pretty much a feature that would justify a sub to them.

Just ******* sub.

People seem to be making the argument of "what about non sub player A who has spent x amount of dollars since b2p launched? They are getting shafted!" Zos is not rewarding all players for playing and supporting the game, and thus how much a player has spent in game has nothing to do with this perk.

This perk is ZOS saying thank you to those that support the game is a concrete way, this is not some smug superiority stance, it's simply thst Zos prefers and values subscribers in that it's a much less volatile and much more reliable source of revenue and helps them plan what they can and can not do in the long run with updates and features.

ZoS wants people to sub, this is a fact, its also a fact that for alot of people (likely the OP as well) the incentive is simply not there. Adding it to the crown store will both undermine the subscription in a way as well as Zos shooting themselves in the foot. If they sell it for crowns as a one time buy, then months down the line players may once again not feel the need to subscribe since they have the perk already. This is common sense, and this is why the perk needs to be tied to the subscription.

The perk itslef is obviously not going to keep some one subscribed if they are bored of the game and want to take a break or quit, but if you are still enjoying the game entirely, the crafting bag is a nice QoL bonus that you may find you really do not want to play without, and in combination with the other bonuses just might tip would be subs to finally doing so.

It's is completely fair
It can not be a one time buy
You do NOT need it
If you like the game, just sub ffs or get over it.

What a lot of nonsense. If subscriptions had been a "reliable" source of income, ESO would never have had to become B2P in the first place! The ability to purchase and own ESO and DLC content was a huge selling point of "Tamriel Unlimited" when it launched. Now, by hiding important game content behind a subscription, ZOS is reneging on the deal we were sold while limiting our so-called "Unlimited" experience.

clocksstoppe wrote: »

I don't think you understand. ESO+ is a microtransaction. You buy it, if you want, and you get some boosts, some crowns, and DLC access. Even though it's called subscription in reality it's just a consumable item from the microtransaction store. It's not an actual subscription because they can't guarantee that you buy it. So in reality, subscription model failed, it's no longer used, except its name, perhaps to make the buyers of ESO+ feel like they are some sort of important group when in fact they just buy the same consumable item every month.

And this is the whole argument of the crafting bag. People who don't sub and don't like consumables want a one time fee for it. It's natural, because if they liked consumables they would just be "subbed".

What a load of ***, they went B2P not because subs failed, because they wanted do well on the consoles. They read the gaming sites as well as sites like reddit. It was almost unanimous that people who prefer console play would not pay for a sub on top of their monthly PS/Xbox fees. THAT'S why ESO went B2P. To make more money for their investors, and be a viable online game that people who play consoles would consider playing.

Thanks for saying this. I don't play console so I wouldn't have considered the cost of console fees. That's an interesting element I haven't considered.

But - and I'm asking this sincerely - aren't there other games that make console players pay a monthly fee? And if so, what do they get for that fee?

Morbash

Nothing unfair about it in my opinion. Crafting bags do not give players a quantifiable advantage over others. They are simply a convenience item, and I can function absolutely fine without them. I haven't had any trouble managing my inventory for the past two years. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Gidorick

lordrichter wrote: »

Gidorick wrote: »

Players no longer have to live within the limits of the current inventory, but they must be ESO+ subscribers to do so.

Well, like I said earlier, if you think that ZOS is going to keep this exclusive to ESO Plus, I think you are talking about a different ZOS. There is little about ESO Plus that is exclusive, which is one of the problems with ESO Plus. I don't think they are going to change this. I fully expect crafting bags to be in the Crown Store. I cannot say when, but I can't see why it would not happen.

They will have the bare bones feature available for ESO Plus, but offer a version and a bundled version in the store. I definitely think this will be sold as a bundle. The bundled version will come with mimic stones, or bag space increase, or something along those lines so that the ESO Plus membership is not necessary, and so that the ESO Plus people will want to buy the bundle. This will probably be in addition to the bag-only purchase buried in some back category.

My impression is that ZOS does not want ESO Plus to be mandatory, or even preferred.

The only thing that I have trouble predicting is prices. No matter what I think, my price is always low. I am thinking 5000 Crowns for this, but it might go as high as 7500 to 10000 just because I always seem to be low.

I hope this is the case @lordrichter ...

Elsonso

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Actually there were no plans to release on console at all, I remember it being branded a PC exclusive even before launch as I was tempted to build another gaming rig way back when just for ESO, it wasn't until around 6 months later when the sub model was first showing signs it wasn't coming close to their projected forecasts that the decision was made to port to console.

The business model has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Found an old IGN link, 50 PC exclusive games of 2013 if you care to check.
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/18/50-pc-exclusive-games-in-2013

You are clinging rather tenuously to that "6 months" but in fact, it does not matter. I think your cause and effect is backwards. It was not the failure of the subscription model that allowed the console, it was the decisions to port to the console in 2013 that ultimately lead to them deciding not to have the subscription on the console, and this was extended to the PC/Mac, but not until after the PC/Mac had been out for a year.

Thybrinena

Just be glad this isn't SWTOR.

Seraseth

Vanhelm wrote: »

Just be glad this isn't SWTOR.

Yeah, they have the most insane lockouts I've seen. Want to hide your helmet? Have to pay/sub for that! Want more action bars on your screen? That'll cost ya.

Those are simply ridiculous. I would never suggest that game to anyone without subbing.

Tommy1979AtWar

lordrichter wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Actually there were no plans to release on console at all, I remember it being branded a PC exclusive even before launch as I was tempted to build another gaming rig way back when just for ESO, it wasn't until around 6 months later when the sub model was first showing signs it wasn't coming close to their projected forecasts that the decision was made to port to console.

The business model has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Found an old IGN link, 50 PC exclusive games of 2013 if you care to check.
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/18/50-pc-exclusive-games-in-2013

You are clinging rather tenuously to that "6 months" but in fact, it does not matter. I think your cause and effect is backwards. It was not the failure of the subscription model that allowed the console, it was the decisions to port to the console in 2013 that ultimately lead to them deciding not to have the subscription on the console, and this was extended to the PC/Mac, but not until after the PC/Mac had been out for a year.

Well the dates do kinda matter as they're incorrect in believing it wasn't first branded a PC exclusive therefor the model didn't account for changes.
I agree completely with you that the decisions to port to the console in 2013 ultimately lead to them deciding not to have the subscription on that platform because I remember the uproar regarding console users paying both psn or live fees on top of a sub.
You have in effect echoed my sentiment that the projected income from sub fees weren't going to cut it.
I still don't believe that the sub fees alone would cut it today so the B2P model along with console sales in 2015 have no doubt generated more income which has allowed further and possibly faster development.

Should it be a sub only exclusive? I think subs should definitely have exclusives and I think they should have more of them as it's a guaranteed projection towards investment but tbh I don't think crafting bags was the way to go, It's created yet another divide in the community as extra inventory capacity has been a much sought after by all since the very beginning.
I can understand why B2P players feel kinda put out because many have bought into, spent just as much and in some cases more supporting the model sold to them by zos.

Neither side are wrong in my eyes but as the majority of comments have proven it's created another us and them mentality.

Septimus_Magna

It would be nice if there was an option to further increase bank space without having to sub, maybe 100k gold for 10 slots up to a maximum of 300 bank slots.

Asherons_Call

Not unfair. Support the game, get perks. Play for free, get what you get and don't throw a fit.

Hallothiel

Asherons_Call wrote: »

Not unfair. Support the game, get perks. Play for free, get what you get and don't throw a fit.

But the game is not really free to play - had to buy it & then pay for dlcs etc.

And no-one is really suggesting that the bags should be free.

Xsorus

I don't know

I've survived this long without the Crafting Bag.....

However i will stay subscribed cause the crafting bag..because $15 is worth the less annoyance of inventory management

babylon

So happy they made these bags for subscribers A Crafting Bag is just the sort of thing that will make people want to sub!

Seraseth

Hallothiel wrote: »

And no-one is really suggesting that the bags should be free.

Not free, just cost far far less than with a sub. Cause honestly, there's no crown price you could put them at to be equal to the continued cost of a sub.

darkstar2084

There needs to be cool incentives to be subscribed other than out of loyalty, the current perks aren't enough. opinion of non subscriber

Wanderinlost

exeeter702 wrote: »

All I've gotten from this is that the OP is fundementally against subscriptions in general.

Why do I say that? Well the OP has stated many times how they support the game via crown store and dlc purchases, even to the point of claiming they spend equal if not more then a subscriber may in a month.

This makes me assume they simply do not feel the sub is worth it in general as there is nothing the sub offers to justify it. Well now there is, and if this player, who I'm going to assume has been playing for at least since the b2p transition, has been supporting the game and is willing to raise such a stink over it not being on the crown store, Im thinking it's pretty much a feature that would justify a sub to them.

Just ******* sub.

People seem to be making the argument of "what about non sub player A who has spent x amount of dollars since b2p launched? They are getting shafted!" Zos is not rewarding all players for playing and supporting the game, and thus how much a player has spent in game has nothing to do with this perk.

This perk is ZOS saying thank you to those that support the game is a concrete way, this is not some smug superiority stance, it's simply thst Zos prefers and values subscribers in that it's a much less volatile and much more reliable source of revenue and helps them plan what they can and can not do in the long run with updates and features.

ZoS wants people to sub, this is a fact, its also a fact that for alot of people (likely the OP as well) the incentive is simply not there. Adding it to the crown store will both undermine the subscription in a way as well as Zos shooting themselves in the foot. If they sell it for crowns as a one time buy, then months down the line players may once again not feel the need to subscribe since they have the perk already. This is common sense, and this is why the perk needs to be tied to the subscription.

The perk itslef is obviously not going to keep some one subscribed if they are bored of the game and want to take a break or quit, but if you are still enjoying the game entirely, the crafting bag is a nice QoL bonus that you may find you really do not want to play without, and in combination with the other bonuses just might tip would be subs to finally doing so.

It's is completely fair
It can not be a one time buy
You do NOT need it
If you like the game, just sub ffs or get over it.

I have spent 12 months subscribed to this game 6 before B2P and 6 after. I have subbed to many games. Although in general I am against a mandatory sub because I play many different games. I prefer and choose B2P games because of the flexibility the payment method offers. ZOS made an alternate payment method for this game and marketed it to the masses and it is what convinced me(and others) to put my continued support and time into playing this game. It is why I have spent money and continue to buy crowns. This feature is the one which I have been waiting for since the game launched, more than content or anything else. Why? Inventory is the first thing I buy in any game, I have spent $1000's on upgrading inventories across many different games. I have no problem paying a premium for less hassle. Still this is an important feature in a game with 2 well defined payment models, and the feature is only being offered to one.

I saw value in a subscription already without the crafting bags because of the upfront credits you get. 6 months you get 9000 credit which is not so much less than the 11,000 you would get for a slightly higher price. So please all you people who sub stop trying to make it sound like all you get is a measly 10% bonus. You get real value already with the sub, you don't have to spend your crowns on DLC and you are going to get the crafting bag included with your continued subscription.

To offer this feature to only one group of customers and completely deny it to another is a bad step. You say it undermines sub, well that is even more true for B2P. The microtransaction model is one many people have chosen across many games including this one. There is an perhaps unspoken understanding that at the very least you will be able to buy the same features and content as anyone else albeit at a fair and comparable price to the subscription. It's not that subscriptions are bad or that companies should not try to incentivise players to switch, but it should not be done through restriction and exclusivity. It's a bad way of doing business, and the earliest F2P games which did this have suffered for it, eg.) SWTOR, AoC and a few others.

This is also not a loyalty reward or really a thank you. A new player who has never spent a dollar on this game can get it right away, and with an addition like this they are pressuring people into choosing the P2P model over B2P. It is wrong to do this when you have made a previous choice to cater to two separate groups of customers equally. Now they are favoring one over the other. It does not benefit the playerbase to change course, and start pushing P2P on people now when a large portion of the people playing this game are only here because it is Tamreil "UNLIMITED". Exclusivity doesn't benefit a subscriber the bag itself is the benefit. Others buying this feature on the cash shop does not somehow make it any less of a perk. People who do not pay will not get to use it.


edit: I would also like to add this. I am not against subscribing if I expect my playtime will warrant it. As I said I see value in the subscription because of the bonuses and upfront crowns. The point is it is an option and I can go super casual any time I want and not feel like I need to keep a sub open just to play for 5 hours a month. I usually have a few subscriptions in various B2P games at any given time depending on what I am playing, and it is because they are optional and provide reasonable benefits that I continue to do so. This exclusivity goes against that ideal and the flexibility B2P is suppose to support. It goes against what ZOS sold us on when this game converted from a P2P game.

Masstershake

Vulsahdaal wrote: »

Masstershake wrote: »

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

Masstershake wrote: »

Why do subs care if you can one time purchase the bag? If you get it as a eso+ perk how is it harming you in any way to allow someone else to 1 time purchase it?

Because what is the point of an ESO+ benefit if people who don't sub can make a one time purchase of it? Sure DLC is the same way but that is way different. People missing out on extra inventory space is not the same as people missing out on DLC. Crafting bags need to stay ESO+ exclusive. End of story.

Because it would still be a eso+ perk? Free vs having to spend crowns to one time unlock...there is an additional perk for subscribing...FREE crafting bag. End of story

It is not free. You do know subbers pay a monthly fee dont you? And over time, the cost of that bag will be much higher for subbers than a non-subber who pays just a one time fee. And the real kick is, the subber not only pays more for the bag, but if he stops paying, he loses full use of it. The non-subber pays a cheaper price, never makes another payment and keeps full use of the bag forever.
This is neither fair, nor a good incentive for people to sub now is it?
As far as equal opportunity goes, if non-subbers want a truly equal opportunity to get this same bag, let them rent the bag from the crown store and have monthly deductions automatically taken from their crown pile, and if decide not to buy any more crowns or cancel it, let them lose full use of the bag as subbers will. This would be equal opportunity in my opinion..oh, and almost forgot to add- End of story

With that thinking how much more do u pay for the dlc than a 1 time buyer? Should they do the same to dlc purchased?

See the thing is eso already went with the 1 time purchase method. And i see not why having the bag with both options same as dlc is bad for anyone.

I do think the assistants should b an eso+ perk as well

Destruent

Masstershake wrote: »

Vulsahdaal wrote: »

Masstershake wrote: »

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

Masstershake wrote: »

Why do subs care if you can one time purchase the bag? If you get it as a eso+ perk how is it harming you in any way to allow someone else to 1 time purchase it?

Because what is the point of an ESO+ benefit if people who don't sub can make a one time purchase of it? Sure DLC is the same way but that is way different. People missing out on extra inventory space is not the same as people missing out on DLC. Crafting bags need to stay ESO+ exclusive. End of story.

Because it would still be a eso+ perk? Free vs having to spend crowns to one time unlock...there is an additional perk for subscribing...FREE crafting bag. End of story

It is not free. You do know subbers pay a monthly fee dont you? And over time, the cost of that bag will be much higher for subbers than a non-subber who pays just a one time fee. And the real kick is, the subber not only pays more for the bag, but if he stops paying, he loses full use of it. The non-subber pays a cheaper price, never makes another payment and keeps full use of the bag forever.
This is neither fair, nor a good incentive for people to sub now is it?
As far as equal opportunity goes, if non-subbers want a truly equal opportunity to get this same bag, let them rent the bag from the crown store and have monthly deductions automatically taken from their crown pile, and if decide not to buy any more crowns or cancel it, let them lose full use of the bag as subbers will. This would be equal opportunity in my opinion..oh, and almost forgot to add- End of story

With that thinking how much more do u pay for the dlc than a 1 time buyer? Should they do the same to dlc purchased?

See the thing is eso already went with the 1 time purchase method. And i see not why having the bag with both options same as dlc is bad for anyone.

I do think the assistants should b an eso+ perk as well

I think ZOS wants more subscribers and it seems like they found something interesting to get people subscribed. Well done ZOS. So it's only bad for ZOS bc there is and will be no reason to subscribe. Not that hard to get imo...but some just don't get it...

exeeter702

Wanderinlost wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

All I've gotten from this is that the OP is fundementally against subscriptions in general.

Why do I say that? Well the OP has stated many times how they support the game via crown store and dlc purchases, even to the point of claiming they spend equal if not more then a subscriber may in a month.

This makes me assume they simply do not feel the sub is worth it in general as there is nothing the sub offers to justify it. Well now there is, and if this player, who I'm going to assume has been playing for at least since the b2p transition, has been supporting the game and is willing to raise such a stink over it not being on the crown store, Im thinking it's pretty much a feature that would justify a sub to them.

Just ******* sub.

People seem to be making the argument of "what about non sub player A who has spent x amount of dollars since b2p launched? They are getting shafted!" Zos is not rewarding all players for playing and supporting the game, and thus how much a player has spent in game has nothing to do with this perk.

This perk is ZOS saying thank you to those that support the game is a concrete way, this is not some smug superiority stance, it's simply thst Zos prefers and values subscribers in that it's a much less volatile and much more reliable source of revenue and helps them plan what they can and can not do in the long run with updates and features.

ZoS wants people to sub, this is a fact, its also a fact that for alot of people (likely the OP as well) the incentive is simply not there. Adding it to the crown store will both undermine the subscription in a way as well as Zos shooting themselves in the foot. If they sell it for crowns as a one time buy, then months down the line players may once again not feel the need to subscribe since they have the perk already. This is common sense, and this is why the perk needs to be tied to the subscription.

The perk itslef is obviously not going to keep some one subscribed if they are bored of the game and want to take a break or quit, but if you are still enjoying the game entirely, the crafting bag is a nice QoL bonus that you may find you really do not want to play without, and in combination with the other bonuses just might tip would be subs to finally doing so.

It's is completely fair
It can not be a one time buy
You do NOT need it
If you like the game, just sub ffs or get over it.

I have spent 12 months subscribed to this game 6 before B2P and 6 after. I have subbed to many games. Although in general I am against a mandatory sub because I play many different games. I prefer and choose B2P games because of the flexibility the payment method offers. ZOS made an alternate payment method for this game and marketed it to the masses and it is what convinced me(and others) to put my continued support and time into playing this game. It is why I have spent money and continue to buy crowns. This feature is the one which I have been waiting for since the game launched, more than content or anything else. Why? Inventory is the first thing I buy in any game, I have spent $1000's on upgrading inventories across many different games. I have no problem paying a premium for less hassle. Still this is an important feature in a game with 2 well defined payment models, and the feature is only being offered to one.

I saw value in a subscription already without the crafting bags because of the upfront credits you get. 6 months you get 9000 credit which is not so much less than the 11,000 you would get for a slightly higher price. So please all you people who sub stop trying to make it sound like all you get is a measly 10% bonus. You get real value already with the sub, you don't have to spend your crowns on DLC and you are going to get the crafting bag included with your continued subscription.

To offer this feature to only one group of customers and completely deny it to another is a bad step. You say it undermines sub, well that is even more true for B2P. The microtransaction model is one many people have chosen across many games including this one. There is an perhaps unspoken understanding that at the very least you will be able to buy the same features and content as anyone else albeit at a fair and comparable price to the subscription. It's not that subscriptions are bad or that companies should not try to incentivise players to switch, but it should not be done through restriction and exclusivity. It's a bad way of doing business, and the earliest F2P games which did this have suffered for it, eg.) SWTOR, AoC and a few others.

This is also not a loyalty reward or really a thank you. A new player who has never spent a dollar on this game can get it right away, and with an addition like this they are pressuring people into choosing the P2P model over B2P. It is wrong to do this when you have made a previous choice to cater to two separate groups of customers equally. Now they are favoring one over the other. It does not benefit the playerbase to change course, and start pushing P2P on people now when a large portion of the people playing this game are only here because it is Tamreil "UNLIMITED". Exclusivity doesn't benefit a subscriber the bag itself is the benefit. Others buying this feature on the cash shop does not somehow make it any less of a perk. People who do not pay will not get to use it.


edit: I would also like to add this. I am not against subscribing if I expect my playtime will warrant it. As I said I see value in the subscription because of the bonuses and upfront crowns. The point is it is an option and I can go super casual any time I want and not feel like I need to keep a sub open just to play for 5 hours a month. I usually have a few subscriptions in various B2P games at any given time depending on what I am playing, and it is because they are optional and provide reasonable benefits that I continue to do so. This exclusivity goes against that ideal and the flexibility B2P is suppose to support. It goes against what ZOS sold us on when this game converted from a P2P game.

At this point, this is entirely a personal issue regarding the value you place in inventory management in your mmos. Personally I think you are being sensational. Thank you for correcting my assumption but it was not a stretch for me to make the one I did about your stance on subscriptions.

You have convinced yourself that subscriber perks should absolutely not be exclusive and that they should be purchasable in some form. ZoS in its current stance does not agree with you. Or is it this perk specifically where you draw the line? And at what point did you assume they ever stopped favoring the subscription model?

You are grandstanding because you
1) chose not to subscribe
2) have longed for this feature since launch

Honestly at this point I'm being to feel incredibly petty just debating this.

ZoM_Head

Buffler wrote: »

Its absolutely fair. ESO + subscribers dont really get any worthwhile perks. We just pay a sub out of blind loyalty. Its about time we got something useful

ESO+ members still do not get better gear, drop rates, dps, heals, armour or any sort of real in game advantages in PvP or PvE.

So....as a subscriber since day 1 it seems fair that we pay months for no real advanatges (10% xp, gold and inspiration is hardly noticable end game realistically).

FLuFFyxMuFFiN

I have one question for those of you who have been waiting for these since launch. You paid a sub for a little over a year. You clearly didn't mind paying to play back then. You cancelled your subscription as soon as it became optional and yet you still say you support the game as much as a subscriber. So my question to you is why is it so hard for you to resub when you didn't mind the sub during the first year of the game?

Wanderinlost

exeeter702 wrote: »

Wanderinlost wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

All I've gotten from this is that the OP is fundementally against subscriptions in general.

Why do I say that? Well the OP has stated many times how they support the game via crown store and dlc purchases, even to the point of claiming they spend equal if not more then a subscriber may in a month.

This makes me assume they simply do not feel the sub is worth it in general as there is nothing the sub offers to justify it. Well now there is, and if this player, who I'm going to assume has been playing for at least since the b2p transition, has been supporting the game and is willing to raise such a stink over it not being on the crown store, Im thinking it's pretty much a feature that would justify a sub to them.

Just ******* sub.

People seem to be making the argument of "what about non sub player A who has spent x amount of dollars since b2p launched? They are getting shafted!" Zos is not rewarding all players for playing and supporting the game, and thus how much a player has spent in game has nothing to do with this perk.

This perk is ZOS saying thank you to those that support the game is a concrete way, this is not some smug superiority stance, it's simply thst Zos prefers and values subscribers in that it's a much less volatile and much more reliable source of revenue and helps them plan what they can and can not do in the long run with updates and features.

ZoS wants people to sub, this is a fact, its also a fact that for alot of people (likely the OP as well) the incentive is simply not there. Adding it to the crown store will both undermine the subscription in a way as well as Zos shooting themselves in the foot. If they sell it for crowns as a one time buy, then months down the line players may once again not feel the need to subscribe since they have the perk already. This is common sense, and this is why the perk needs to be tied to the subscription.

The perk itslef is obviously not going to keep some one subscribed if they are bored of the game and want to take a break or quit, but if you are still enjoying the game entirely, the crafting bag is a nice QoL bonus that you may find you really do not want to play without, and in combination with the other bonuses just might tip would be subs to finally doing so.

It's is completely fair
It can not be a one time buy
You do NOT need it
If you like the game, just sub ffs or get over it.

I have spent 12 months subscribed to this game 6 before B2P and 6 after. I have subbed to many games. Although in general I am against a mandatory sub because I play many different games. I prefer and choose B2P games because of the flexibility the payment method offers. ZOS made an alternate payment method for this game and marketed it to the masses and it is what convinced me(and others) to put my continued support and time into playing this game. It is why I have spent money and continue to buy crowns. This feature is the one which I have been waiting for since the game launched, more than content or anything else. Why? Inventory is the first thing I buy in any game, I have spent $1000's on upgrading inventories across many different games. I have no problem paying a premium for less hassle. Still this is an important feature in a game with 2 well defined payment models, and the feature is only being offered to one.

I saw value in a subscription already without the crafting bags because of the upfront credits you get. 6 months you get 9000 credit which is not so much less than the 11,000 you would get for a slightly higher price. So please all you people who sub stop trying to make it sound like all you get is a measly 10% bonus. You get real value already with the sub, you don't have to spend your crowns on DLC and you are going to get the crafting bag included with your continued subscription.

To offer this feature to only one group of customers and completely deny it to another is a bad step. You say it undermines sub, well that is even more true for B2P. The microtransaction model is one many people have chosen across many games including this one. There is an perhaps unspoken understanding that at the very least you will be able to buy the same features and content as anyone else albeit at a fair and comparable price to the subscription. It's not that subscriptions are bad or that companies should not try to incentivise players to switch, but it should not be done through restriction and exclusivity. It's a bad way of doing business, and the earliest F2P games which did this have suffered for it, eg.) SWTOR, AoC and a few others.

This is also not a loyalty reward or really a thank you. A new player who has never spent a dollar on this game can get it right away, and with an addition like this they are pressuring people into choosing the P2P model over B2P. It is wrong to do this when you have made a previous choice to cater to two separate groups of customers equally. Now they are favoring one over the other. It does not benefit the playerbase to change course, and start pushing P2P on people now when a large portion of the people playing this game are only here because it is Tamreil "UNLIMITED". Exclusivity doesn't benefit a subscriber the bag itself is the benefit. Others buying this feature on the cash shop does not somehow make it any less of a perk. People who do not pay will not get to use it.


edit: I would also like to add this. I am not against subscribing if I expect my playtime will warrant it. As I said I see value in the subscription because of the bonuses and upfront crowns. The point is it is an option and I can go super casual any time I want and not feel like I need to keep a sub open just to play for 5 hours a month. I usually have a few subscriptions in various B2P games at any given time depending on what I am playing, and it is because they are optional and provide reasonable benefits that I continue to do so. This exclusivity goes against that ideal and the flexibility B2P is suppose to support. It goes against what ZOS sold us on when this game converted from a P2P game.

At this point, this is entirely a personal issue regarding the value you place in inventory management in your mmos. Personally I think you are being sensational. Thank you for correcting my assumption but it was not a stretch for me to make the one I did about your stance on subscriptions.

You have convinced yourself that subscriber perks should absolutely not be exclusive and that they should be purchasable in some form. ZoS in its current stance does not agree with you. Or is it this perk specifically where you draw the line? And at what point did you assume they ever stopped favoring the subscription model?

You are grandstanding because you
1) chose not to subscribe
2) have longed for this feature since launch

Honestly at this point I'm being to feel incredibly petty just debating this.

MY issue is that ZoS is backpeddling here. They stopped favoring subscriptions the moment they went B2P. Now they are changing their stance back towards P2P. This is not an assumption it is plain as day. They do not get to have it both ways, not without legitimate opposition to a bad move. The only pettiness is the mentality here of "why can't we have something that you can't?". Well the answer is that we are all customers and should rightly expect to have access to the same features in a game with "NO SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED". Fine give ESO+ perks and incentives, that is good, but do not give them features the rest of us do not even get the option of buying.

About This Game
The award-winning fantasy role-playing series, The Elder Scrolls goes online – no game subscription required. Experience this multiplayer role-playing game on your own or together with your friends, guild mates, and thousands of alliance members. Explore dangerous caves and dungeons in Skyrim, or craft quality goods to sell in the city of Daggerfall. Embark upon adventurous quests across Tamriel and engage in massive player versus player battles, or spend your days at the nearest fishing hole or reading one of many books of lore. The choices are yours in the persistent world of The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited.
Key Features:
NO SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED
Purchase the game and enjoy your adventures without a monthly fee.

THE FIGHT FOR TAMRIEL BEGINS!
Three alliances vie for control of the Empire. As these powers battle for supremacy, darker forces move to destroy the world.

PLAY THE WAY YOU LIKE
Battle, craft, fish, steal, siege, or explore. The choice is yours to make in a persistent Elder Scrolls world.

A MULTIPLAYER RPG
Adventure alone, quest with friends, or join an army of thousands in epic PVP battles.

TELL YOUR OWN STORY
Discover the secrets of Tamriel as you quest to regain your lost soul and save the world from Oblivion.

Xundiin

IrishGirlGamer wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

All I've gotten from this is that the OP is fundementally against subscriptions in general.

Why do I say that? Well the OP has stated many times how they support the game via crown store and dlc purchases, even to the point of claiming they spend equal if not more then a subscriber may in a month.

This makes me assume they simply do not feel the sub is worth it in general as there is nothing the sub offers to justify it. Well now there is, and if this player, who I'm going to assume has been playing for at least since the b2p transition, has been supporting the game and is willing to raise such a stink over it not being on the crown store, Im thinking it's pretty much a feature that would justify a sub to them.

Just ******* sub.

People seem to be making the argument of "what about non sub player A who has spent x amount of dollars since b2p launched? They are getting shafted!" Zos is not rewarding all players for playing and supporting the game, and thus how much a player has spent in game has nothing to do with this perk.

This perk is ZOS saying thank you to those that support the game is a concrete way, this is not some smug superiority stance, it's simply thst Zos prefers and values subscribers in that it's a much less volatile and much more reliable source of revenue and helps them plan what they can and can not do in the long run with updates and features.

ZoS wants people to sub, this is a fact, its also a fact that for alot of people (likely the OP as well) the incentive is simply not there. Adding it to the crown store will both undermine the subscription in a way as well as Zos shooting themselves in the foot. If they sell it for crowns as a one time buy, then months down the line players may once again not feel the need to subscribe since they have the perk already. This is common sense, and this is why the perk needs to be tied to the subscription.

The perk itslef is obviously not going to keep some one subscribed if they are bored of the game and want to take a break or quit, but if you are still enjoying the game entirely, the crafting bag is a nice QoL bonus that you may find you really do not want to play without, and in combination with the other bonuses just might tip would be subs to finally doing so.

It's is completely fair
It can not be a one time buy
You do NOT need it
If you like the game, just sub ffs or get over it.

What a lot of nonsense. If subscriptions had been a "reliable" source of income, ESO would never have had to become B2P in the first place! The ability to purchase and own ESO and DLC content was a huge selling point of "Tamriel Unlimited" when it launched. Now, by hiding important game content behind a subscription, ZOS is reneging on the deal we were sold while limiting our so-called "Unlimited" experience.

clocksstoppe wrote: »

I don't think you understand. ESO+ is a microtransaction. You buy it, if you want, and you get some boosts, some crowns, and DLC access. Even though it's called subscription in reality it's just a consumable item from the microtransaction store. It's not an actual subscription because they can't guarantee that you buy it. So in reality, subscription model failed, it's no longer used, except its name, perhaps to make the buyers of ESO+ feel like they are some sort of important group when in fact they just buy the same consumable item every month.

And this is the whole argument of the crafting bag. People who don't sub and don't like consumables want a one time fee for it. It's natural, because if they liked consumables they would just be "subbed".

What a load of ***, they went B2P not because subs failed, because they wanted do well on the consoles. They read the gaming sites as well as sites like reddit. It was almost unanimous that people who prefer console play would not pay for a sub on top of their monthly PS/Xbox fees. THAT'S why ESO went B2P. To make more money for their investors, and be a viable online game that people who play consoles would consider playing.

Thanks for saying this. I don't play console so I wouldn't have considered the cost of console fees. That's an interesting element I haven't considered.

But - and I'm asking this sincerely - aren't there other games that make console players pay a monthly fee? And if so, what do they get for that fee?

Only game I think that does is FF 14 oh and FF 11, but I don't think they are required to pay a PSN fee for it. If they play other games then yeah, but just for FF 14 & 11 I don't think so. And I don't think there are any MMO's on Xbox. I could be wrong with this since the last consoles I bought where an Xbox (original) and PS 2.

Wanderinlost

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

I have one question for those of you who have been waiting for these since launch. You paid a sub for a little over a year. You clearly didn't mind paying to play back then. You cancelled your subscription as soon as it became optional and yet you still say you support the game as much as a subscriber. So my question to you is why is it so hard for you to resub when you didn't mind the sub during the first year of the game?

Just as much of my sub time was after B2P as before it. IF the game would not have gone B2P and modernized its business they never would have gotten anything else from me. No sub, now crown purchases ever again. But they made the wise move of switching to B2P and convinced those who left to come back, becasue we were sold on the superior and more flexible business model. Still that does not mean in any way that they will never get a sub from me again, but using feature exclusion to extract a sub is the exact thing that undermines B2P. Add perks, and incentives, even features, just do not make them exclusive because then it is an unwelcome choice between subbing for features or going without.

Elsonso

Wanderinlost wrote: »

MY issue is that ZoS is backpeddling here. They stopped favoring subscriptions the moment they went B2P. Now they are changing their stance back towards P2P. This is not an assumption it is plain as day.

You do not need to have a crafting bag in order to play. You can play your game for YEARS without needing a crafting bag.

But, I think people are freaking out over nothing. They might start out with the crafting bag being only for ESO Plus, but I think that anyone that stops to think about this, including ZOS, is going to realize that it will be in the Crown Store, eventually.

And, I am fine with that. I am under no illusion that this bag is going to be forever exclusive to ESO Plus.

It will either be in the store full time, or they will run periodic "limited time only" events, and if it is in the store, it will be bundled with mimic stones and all manner of goodies to try to get you to buy it.

FLuFFyxMuFFiN

Wanderinlost wrote: »

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

I have one question for those of you who have been waiting for these since launch. You paid a sub for a little over a year. You clearly didn't mind paying to play back then. You cancelled your subscription as soon as it became optional and yet you still say you support the game as much as a subscriber. So my question to you is why is it so hard for you to resub when you didn't mind the sub during the first year of the game?

Just as much of my sub time was after B2P as before it. IF the game would not have gone B2P and modernized its business they never would have gotten anything else from me. No sub, now crown purchases ever again. But they made the wise move of switching to B2P and convinced those who left to come back, becasue we were sold on the superior and more flexible business model. Still that does not mean in any way that they will never get a sub from me again, but using feature exclusion to extract a sub is the exact thing that undermines B2P. Add perks, and incentives, even features, just do not make them exclusive because then it is an unwelcome choice between subbing for features or going without.

People can do just fine without these incentives. Plenty of people have their inventory management under control and don't even need the bags. I have been doing fine with my inventory. The bags are just gonna help me out even more but I still don't need them to enjoy the game. ZOS is going to see a huge increase in subs and in reality all this profit they are going to make is going to be very good for the game.

mlstevens42_ESO

I am not really going to comment on the exclusive craft bag for the plus people I can agree that there needed to be some perks for plus but they already have a few. I would have liked to have seen some of Gidorick's rather then this one to be honest. Inventory problems have been an issue even before the game was released and so some have waited a long time for relief. As a sub thing.....meh.

What I am going to address is this obnoxious idea that some how the non subs are second class citizens. Many could sub and don't for a variety of reasons. It is not just about being poor or wanting something for nothing as many suggest. Many folks just do not have a lot of time to play so they invest their cash differently. Some have other interests and since the buy as you go approach was taken they took this route.

I know I stopped my sub due to my disagreement with the way they were doing things not because I could not pay. One of my issues in fact was how payments could be done. I do not want a monthly charge on my card every month. I was willing to purchase several months in advance but the option that was my preferred was removed. I did not like the way they handled the champion system and so on. So now I purchase when I want something rather then a sub.

This mistaken notion that non subs do not pay anything only applies if they never purchase a dlc clothing pets mounts or any of the others things from the store. So they pay.....how much is up to them.

Xundiin

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Actually there were no plans to release on console at all, I remember it being branded a PC exclusive even before launch as I was tempted to build another gaming rig way back when just for ESO, it wasn't until around 6 months later when the sub model was first showing signs it wasn't coming close to their projected forecasts that the decision was made to port to console.

The business model has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Found an old IGN link, 50 PC exclusive games of 2013 if you care to check.
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/18/50-pc-exclusive-games-in-2013

You are clinging rather tenuously to that "6 months" but in fact, it does not matter. I think your cause and effect is backwards. It was not the failure of the subscription model that allowed the console, it was the decisions to port to the console in 2013 that ultimately lead to them deciding not to have the subscription on the console, and this was extended to the PC/Mac, but not until after the PC/Mac had been out for a year.

Well the dates do kinda matter as they're incorrect in believing it wasn't first branded a PC exclusive therefor the model didn't account for changes.
I agree completely with you that the decisions to port to the console in 2013 ultimately lead to them deciding not to have the subscription on that platform because I remember the uproar regarding console users paying both psn or live fees on top of a sub.
You have in effect echoed my sentiment that the projected income from sub fees weren't going to cut it.
I still don't believe that the sub fees alone would cut it today so the B2P model along with console sales in 2015 have no doubt generated more income which has allowed further and possibly faster development.

Should it be a sub only exclusive? I think subs should definitely have exclusives and I think they should have more of them as it's a guaranteed projection towards investment but tbh I don't think crafting bags was the way to go, It's created yet another divide in the community as extra inventory capacity has been a much sought after by all since the very beginning.
I can understand why B2P players feel kinda put out because many have bought into, spent just as much and in some cases more supporting the model sold to them by zos.

Neither side are wrong in my eyes but as the majority of comments have proven it's created another us and them mentality.

You are missing the point. Subs didn't fail. It's a valid business model that DOES work. If it didn't work WoW would have changed LOOOOOOOOONG ago. Along with EQ, EQ2 (Not the legacy server), DAoC, And UO. If the Sub model didn't work, ESO, Aion, Trion World Games (Rift, ArcheAge, ect.), and LOTRO would not have the option to have subs. The bottom line is that for this game subs didn't fail. It was the port to consoles that change the business model. If consoles didn't cry over the fact it was going to require a sub. Chances are that it would STILL be a sub.

Also, I never said that it wasn't branded exclusively as a PC game at first. I said that they planned to port to console before it released on PC. So saying that "they decided to port to console because of the sub model failing" is incorrect. Yes I paraphrased what you said.

If any thing, what the company did between release and switching to B2P, tells us that the sub model was working and working rather well. We had Craglorn Upper and lower added, new dungeons, trials where added, pledges where add (iirc though that's kinda stretching it), Imperial City was almost completely done if not finished already, Wrothgar was at least started and maybe halfway done, They where able to revamp and fix a majority of issues people complained about the game, and with all that some how was able to port to not only 1 console but 2 (assuming that the Xbox and PS uses different architect).

So really..... that failed business model sure did a lot.