I'm Confused by Resistance to Subscription/Expansion Costs

Yolokin_Swagonborn

Rhoric wrote: »

You should go learn the difference between expansion and dlc first.

DLC literally means downloadable content.

If it's downloadable and content, its DLC. But I think these are the definitions you are looking for.

DLC: An expansion to the game that ZOS allows you to access while subscribed to ESO plus
Expansion: A DLC retroactively renamed to a "chapter" so that ZOS can sell it separately and avoid any legal or moral liability for previous promises.

Hope that clears it up for you

SnubbS wrote: »

Can we get a #YouKnowYouDontHaveToBeHereRight?

Can we get a #YouKnowYouDontHaveToStructureYourGameLikeAFreemiumMobileApp

QuebraRegra

Lythandra wrote: »

I don't mind paying a subscription fee if the game is working well and is also well balanced.

I don't find the game to be working well in end game and it is badly balanced there as well.

They want it all. You buy the game, then subscription fee and then micro/macro transactions.

with this and all the CROWN STORE crate shenanigans, I ask again in this thread, and others.... "WHERE IS ALL THE MONEY GOING"?
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/18/18b9b55f0335b3008aec2311285b872b7bdd69559a668fb6ffb295ece7435968.jpg

Danikat

The two aren't necessarily related. I have no problem paying for games, and for additional content in those games. In fact I prefer to pay for a game rather than getting it free because I think its usually a sign that what you're getting is better quality. (And more player friendly - well made free to play games focus almost entirely on mechanics that get you hooked and pressure you to keep spending money, not on fun gameplay. Paid games have to at least appear fun to get you to buy.)

Although I do also get annoyed when developers release a game with very little content in the base release and lots of day 1 (or quickly churned out) DLC. Sims 4 for example where they actually took out features that had been part of the core game for the previous 3 titles, then included them in expansions as if it was something brand new and exciting players should be happy to pay extra for.

But I'm not convinced that a subscription has been necessary to maintain servers since the early days of MMOs. When Ultima Online started up that was probably the case, these days there are plenty of examples which show it's not. World of Warcraft was famously reported as earning enough in 2 months in 2008 to pay for the entire running costs for the first 4 years of the game's life: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/18/world_of_warcraft_upkeep_200m/
(tl;dr version: officially reported running costs, including staff, support etc. for 2004 - 2008 was $200 million. Profits for 2 months in 2008 estimated, based on the officially reported number of players, at $225 million.)

More importantly though a subscription model does not suit me. My life is not that predictable. Between a job with very varied hours, living away from my family (meaning I have to travel to see them), my other hobbies and simply life happening - like today when I'm going to be spending my evening repairing the freezer I can easily end up paying for time I will never use.

If there was a "pay as you go" subscription option for ESO where you buy a number of hours of sub time and only use it up when you're actually logged in I'd go for it. But I'm not willing to pay for time I can't use. A subscription is often compared to buying a cup of (very overpriced IMO) coffee on your way to work. For me it'd be like buying the coffee, taking a few sips and then leaving it in the shop while you go to work.

Back in the day when subscription MMOs were the only choice I resigned myself to the idea that they weren't for me (yes my life has been this crazy for that long, no I wouldn't have it any other way). But ever since subscription free MMOs have become available which weren't terrible I've taken them up on the offer to pay for the game in other ways.

Espica

The main difference is the new Warden class. That's exactly what makes it different from the other DLCs.
That's why Im OK paying for it.

On the other hand, maybe I could access the new zone but not play as a Warden if I have ESO+

Let's see how often they will start to release the next Chapters, if they do every 16 or 24 months it'll be fine IMO, but if they do it once a year...

Yolokin_Swagonborn

Espica wrote: »

The main difference is the new Warden class. That's exactly what makes it different from the other DLCs.
That's why Im OK paying for it.

On the other hand, maybe I could access the new zone but not play as a Warden if I have ESO+

Let's see how often they will start to release the next Chapters, if they do every 16 or 24 months it'll be fine IMO, but if they do it once a year...

Guys should we tell him?

zaria

Yolokin_Swagonborn wrote: »

Rhoric wrote: »

You should go learn the difference between expansion and dlc first.

DLC literally means downloadable content.

If it's downloadable and content, its DLC. But I think these are the definitions you are looking for.

DLC: An expansion to the game that ZOS allows you to access while subscribed to ESO plus
Expansion: A DLC retroactively renamed to a "chapter" so that ZOS can sell it separately and avoid any legal or moral liability for previous promises.

Hope that clears it up for you

Yes on one hand they follow the expansion tradition from other MMO
Check: New area, on disc, new class, new pvp mode.
However Morrowind looks a bit small in content I agree here.

However I think the real reason is twofold: First they know most eso+ players will buy Morrowind anyway, yes it will cost some eso+ subscribers but they can add other perks to compensate.
Second many who play eso on and off will simply buy one month eso+, play trough morrowind and be done with it.
Raising an question that would happen if they have an warden.

MasterSpatula

Your confusion comes from your mis-application of the word "free." Agree or disagree, but people consider themselves to be paying for what you're thinking they want for free.

DMuehlhausen

Leandor wrote: »

Actually, OP has it perfectly right.

I am sick and tired of the constant crying for free stuff.

If you don't want to or are not able to fork out the cash, then don't. And then quietly leave. Don't bother those who can and want with inane arguments on why XY must be free or else.

In the end, this game is a paid-for service. The service provider sets pricing and decides on availability of services.

As a customer, your choice is to accept it or not. Same as any other service provided in any other business anywhere in the world. Deal with it.

Except soviet russia. There, service provide you.

Honestly I'm at the point where if you feel it's not fair to charge for a full expansion, or even the 15$/monthly, you probably aren't making enough to warrant playing the game anyway. You think paying 60$ is to much for an expansion? That's debatable. To make it easier though go to Gamestop, receive it, and pay like 5$/week till it's paid off.

Yolokin_Swagonborn

zaria wrote: »

Yolokin_Swagonborn wrote: »

Rhoric wrote: »

You should go learn the difference between expansion and dlc first.

DLC literally means downloadable content.

If it's downloadable and content, its DLC. But I think these are the definitions you are looking for.

DLC: An expansion to the game that ZOS allows you to access while subscribed to ESO plus
Expansion: A DLC retroactively renamed to a "chapter" so that ZOS can sell it separately and avoid any legal or moral liability for previous promises.

Hope that clears it up for you

Yes on one hand they follow the expansion tradition from other MMO
Check: New area, on disc, new class, new pvp mode.
However Morrowind looks a bit small in content I agree here.

However I think the real reason is twofold: First they know most eso+ players will buy Morrowind anyway, yes it will cost some eso+ subscribers but they can add other perks to compensate.
Second many who play eso on and off will simply buy one month eso+, play trough morrowind and be done with it.
Raising an question that would happen if they have an warden.

No one is arguing that this isnt a good business decision. Just that it is immoral and unethical in the way it was done. If those two things count for anything. But I guess if you are making money, you don't need morality right? Overbook your plane? Thats ok. Money. Beat up a paying customer. That's fine, as long as you are making money you have no obligations or need to keep your promises.

DMuehlhausen

Alchemical wrote: »

Subscribing is not a big deal to me. Buying an expansion pack in addition to subscribing isn't that big a deal either. But I'm the kinda psycho who spent a decade playing WoW and invested thousands of dollars in my account.

To me the big debate seems to be about semantics. Because expansion packs are DLC despite what anyone tries to say. Personally it seems obvious major expansions would be excluded from the sub system, since it includes multiple new areas and a swathe of new content (including an entire class) as opposed to a singular zone and skill line as with previous DLCs, which would be prohibitively expensive to distribute for free. But it does go against the most literal interpretation of the ESO+ subscription, which grants access to 'all' DLC.

I do find Morrowind's starting price of $60 extremely offensive. Expansion packs usually do not cost the same as a brand new game, since they depend on another game to function. Maybe if they gave subscribers a $15 discount on expansions, as a sign of good faith for their ongoing support, people would be a little less miffed. I know I'm sure as heck not paying full brand new video game retail for DLC.

I mean yeah I guess 60$ is a lot for an expansion. but like you said you spent thousands on WoW. All of WoW's expansions were the same price as the original game. I think even EQ2 expansions were the same. The older games seemed to always knock 10-15$ off the original game cost since it wasn't a full size game, but oh well.

Personally I always get the CE editions so to me the 99$ price tag is worth the statue alone so I am getting the game free in my mind lol

Balamoor

It's like some folks think that ZoS made some weird suicide pact with them that everything would be free forever. :-/

Honestly I'm a big proponent of more things being gated.

Don't subscribe? Well you can't post on all of the forums, you can't do Trials, and you are limited to two characters.

Zenimax left a lot of Revenue on the ground with this one.

DMuehlhausen

Wreuntzylla wrote: »

This has nothing to do with undeserved entitlement. The story went something like this:

Concert Promoter: Pay us $50/mos and you can get into concerts without any other charge. You also get concessions without charge..
Consumer: Any concert? Any concessions sold?
Concert Promoter: Yes.
<time passes>
Consumer: Hey Concert Promoter, I can't get tickets for your upcoming "show" which is described just like a concert. Your ticket issuers say I have to pay.more money. What's going on?
Concert Promoter: Of course you can't, it's a show and not a concert. If it was a concert, you wouldn't have to pay more.
Consumer: Wtf you talking about, it's the same thing we got before under a different name.
Concert Promoter: No it's not, we are giving out t-shirts in addition to the concert-like show and concessions. It's different.

This isn't the first time consumers were given false information that they relied on to their detriment. There was a time when we were told that the game would stay subscription and not go B2P or F2P or any of those things.

Yeah, in your scenario I would expect to pay for the T-Shirt cause it's an addition onto the original concert that I would have been paying for.

This whole situation isn't hard to understand. There is nothing to complain about. This isn't just a simple Add on of a new dye colors or a new dungeon. This is a full fledged expansion pack. Is 60$ to much for the content...yeah I think a more appropiate would be something maybe around 30 or 40$ for this size expansion.

MadLarkin

Balamoor wrote: »

It's like some folks think that ZoS made some weird suicide pact with them that everything would be free forever. :-/

Honestly I'm a big proponent of more things being gated.

Don't subscribe? Well you can't post on all of the forums, you can't do Trials, and you are limited to two characters.

Zenimax left a lot of Revenue on the ground with this one.

After the base cost, subs, DLC, chapters, crown crates, and the often ludicrous store, I think they don't need to push it any further.

MisterBigglesworth

Yolokin_Swagonborn wrote: »

It's especially an ironic comparison to make, since in both cases, nobody is asking for "free" anything: one would be paid for by taxes, the other would be paid for by already-accrued crowns (the original deal)

Oompuh

The base game is like $7, a subscription service is normal for a mmo.


As for morrowind, the problem with having it with ESO Plus it Warden. What happens if you lose ESO Plus, will you be able to play the Warden or will your character be locked until you get ESO Plus again?

Secondly, It seems that ZOS wants "new money" from Morrowind like most companies do with expansions. ESO Plus gets 3 DLC a year and has to buy 1 Expansion a year, im fine with that

DaveMoeDee

QuebraRegra wrote: »

Lythandra wrote: »

I don't mind paying a subscription fee if the game is working well and is also well balanced.

I don't find the game to be working well in end game and it is badly balanced there as well.

They want it all. You buy the game, then subscription fee and then micro/macro transactions.

with this and all the CROWN STORE crate shenanigans, I ask again in this thread, and others.... "WHERE IS ALL THE MONEY GOING"?
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/18/18b9b55f0335b3008aec2311285b872b7bdd69559a668fb6ffb295ece7435968.jpg

I take issue with that question. While I do feel ZOS was deceptive with the "chapter" bait and switch, it is nonsensical to ask "where is the money going". You aren't paying taxes to the government where they are accountable to citizens for every cent. This is a company that chooses projects to have a sufficient profit margin to give a return to investors. They also need to make enough money off of successes to pay for failures. They need to pay good salaries to top talent in design, development, and operations. This is all very expensive even without discussing very expensive data center hardware.

Some people here are bothered when they see someone buying $300 in crowns. That isn't even a day's salary for a mediocre software engineer.

Sn1per0

Quick question, if I download a game from the Xbox store does that not make it DLC since it is ''technically'' downloadable content?

In turn would that make all games that are downloadable DLC?

NewBlacksmurf

Sn1per0 wrote: »

Quick question, if I download a game from the Xbox store does that not make it DLC since it is ''technically'' downloadable content?

In turn would that make all games that are downloadable DLC?

Technically yes but by use and context nothing for eso is DLC as it's all in the game updates. Access to the files already in the game are just gated.

raglau

I will reserve judgement until release. But assessing against all other DLC/content apart from Orsinium, it's going to be a half-assed, bug-filled, lightweight mess of a thing that makes moot the point of sub-inclusive/exclusive.

peak99

I've subbed since xb1 launch.

I was told I will get DLC access as part of my ESO+

Then morrowind comes out...lolol.
I don't care what they call it. Expansion is a DLC and that's what I was promised with my ESO+

So far this year no new content has been added that is DLC and requires purchase or ESO+ sub.

The next DLC requires purchase and is not accessible via ESO+?

there may be other benefits of ESO+ but when I subbed first month of XB1 release it was the fact that I would never have to buy DLCs.

I got lied to.

BigBragg

Oompuh wrote: »

The base game is like $7, a subscription service is normal for a mmo.


As for morrowind, the problem with having it with ESO Plus it Warden. What happens if you lose ESO Plus, will you be able to play the Warden or will your character be locked until you get ESO Plus again?

Secondly, It seems that ZOS wants "new money" from Morrowind like most companies do with expansions. ESO Plus gets 3 DLC a year and has to buy 1 Expansion a year, im fine with that

It will only be two DLC per year. New yearly model will be one base game patch like One Tamriel and Homestead, one chapter, one DLC zone, and then two DLC dungeons.

Balamoor

MadLarkin wrote: »

Balamoor wrote: »

It's like some folks think that ZoS made some weird suicide pact with them that everything would be free forever. :-/

Honestly I'm a big proponent of more things being gated.

Don't subscribe? Well you can't post on all of the forums, you can't do Trials, and you are limited to two characters.

Zenimax left a lot of Revenue on the ground with this one.

After the base cost, subs, DLC, chapters, crown crates, and the often ludicrous store, I think they don't need to push it any further.

MadLarkin wrote: »

Balamoor wrote: »

It's like some folks think that ZoS made some weird suicide pact with them that everything would be free forever. :-/

Honestly I'm a big proponent of more things being gated.

Don't subscribe? Well you can't post on all of the forums, you can't do Trials, and you are limited to two characters.

Zenimax left a lot of Revenue on the ground with this one.

After the base cost, subs, DLC, chapters, crown crates, and the often ludicrous store, I think they don't need to push it any further.

Most of that is negated by a monthly Sub, they could have actually used my suggestions out of the gate with a B2P model/optional sub and just and no more would be complaining than already are.

Malamar1229

OP- You are also missing that the pool of games from the time of UO/EverQuest is not the same pool of gamers we have today. Today is largely comprised of an instant gratification/entitled group of players.

Sn1per0

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Sn1per0 wrote: »

Quick question, if I download a game from the Xbox store does that not make it DLC since it is ''technically'' downloadable content?

In turn would that make all games that are downloadable DLC?

Technically yes but by use and context nothing for eso is DLC as it's all in the game updates. Access to the files already in the game are just gated.

Awesome vote for the response to a sarcastic post

Mainly a post for people screaming Morrowind is a DLC because you download it lol

You sir made my day

Elsonso

Yolokin_Swagonborn wrote: »

Just remember that ESO subscription money helped fund the Morrowind DLC.

You never hear anyone saying that Bethesda Store ESO merchandise helped fund the Morrowind chapter. You never hear about how Crown sales helped fund the Morrowind chapter. You never hear about how purchases of the original game, Tamriel Unlimited, and Gold Edition helped fund the Morrowind chapter. Funny that, eh? It is the latter one that should really be steaming people, but people are really focused on this subscription thing.

I have been paying attention for the last two years. I have been expecting a new "expansion" to the game, a paid expansion, since 2015. I have been expecting them to roll out a new version of the game in the form of an expansion, in the same vein as what Blizzard has been doing with WoW. At one point, I figured that they would do this about every 18 months.

Morrowind is only a DLC to someone who views these things narrowly. If you are looking at this and saying that Morrowind is just a big Wrothgar, and they screwed us by charging for it, you are looking at this very narrowly. The big change that I see is not that they are rolling out a DLC disguised as an expansion that is not covered by the subscription, and making people pay for it. The big change is that the Warden class and Battlegrounds were moved from what would have normally been a free base game addition into a paid expansion.

I mean, just look at the last 6 months. One Tamriel. Big base game change. Free. Homestead. Big base game change. Also free. Warden and Battlegrounds. Big base game change. Pony up some cash, or go home.

This is what it means to be an expansion, or a Chapter, and not a DLC. This is why Morrowind is not a DLC. It is a lot more than Vvardenfell.

HatchetHaro

ADarklore wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

It's not about the money.

It's about the lies.

I think you take things far too seriously... there were no 'promises' or 'guarantees' and businesses are free to change their business model and businesses practices at any point in time, you agreed to it when you agreed to the TOS- did you not read it before agreeing?

You are confusing "business practice" with "ethics". Having free speech does not entitle you to freely insult anyone you want.

Same thing here. They may be allowed to change their business practice, but the way they did it is blatantly dishonest. I can go on for hours about this, but there have been plenty of points raised by many people who are irked by this.

That is you OPINION that it was 'dishonest'... it isn't a fact, because I have a different opinion and believe what they did was fully acceptable and within their rights and TOS to do. Also, I think you just proved my point about taking things too seriously by feeling like I insulted you by making an interpretation of your statement.

I never said you insulted me. I simply made an analogy as an example. If you choose to make it as if it targets you, then you are the one taking this way too seriously, not me.

Secondly, that may be my opinion, but it's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of plenty of other people. Same way that your opinion is also not fact. The question of ethics and morality is also based on opinions on what constitutes as "ethical" and "moral", and people will have different views on those based from their own experiences. Does this make their views less valid? No. Just because something is in the ToS doesn't mean that it is "right" to some people. I view it as dishonest due to their past promises and increasing trend of blatant cash grabs. Other people will view it as honest or dishonest for different reasons.

In the end, this is just an argument of ethics versus business, to which there is no real right answer to. So why are you taking this so seriously?

MLGProPlayer

It's because ZOS changed the definition of "DLC".

They suddenly replaced the term "DLC" with "expansion". The expansion is also similar in length to previous DLC (30 hours of content + trial in Morrowind vs. 20 hours of content + solo trial in Orsinium).

It's also the first explorable zone to be released in a full calendar year. Some folks were subbing with the expectation of receiving multiple (proper) DLCs per year. Not only did they not receive any DLC, but the new DLC coming out won't be covered by their sub.

It's not the price of the DLC that has people angry. Or even the fact that it is being sold separately. It's the lack of transparency. ZOS was not transparent with the player base. Had they come out last year and said that they would not release any new DLC for the next 12 months and that their next big DLC would not be free for subscribers, people wouldn't be in uproar right now. The news came out of nowhere. ZOS didn't share this information because they knew they would lose subs, which makes it an underhanded business practice.

Eshelmen

Corporations can change up their structure as much as they please. It's getting everyone on board with their new policies that's the issue.

Nothing lasts forever.

DaveMoeDee

lordrichter wrote: »

Yolokin_Swagonborn wrote: »

Just remember that ESO subscription money helped fund the Morrowind DLC.

You never hear anyone saying that Bethesda Store ESO merchandise helped fund the Morrowind chapter. You never hear about how Crown sales helped fund the Morrowind chapter. You never hear about how purchases of the original game, Tamriel Unlimited, and Gold Edition helped fund the Morrowind chapter. Funny that, eh? It is the latter one that should really be steaming people, but people are really focused on this subscription thing.
...

The difference is that ZOS set expectations that the sub would get you access to 4 DLC a year. Instead, they inflated this one a little extra and called it a "chapter" so that the $45 in subs for that quarter would not help gain access to a new DLC. Instead, the subber would have to spend $40 more. They are using a shorthand when they talk about funding. The sub was already a very expensive way to buy DLC, equivalent to paying $45 per quarter (less if you are someone who would buy crowns otherwise to grab things in the crown store if you didn't have a sub). Crafting bags added a lot of value, but then we started seeing quarters with no paid DLC. After loyally subbing through one quarter with no paid DLC drop (the one with One Tamriel) and knowing that the next quarter would also not bring value to their sub, they heard that after being stiffed 2 quarters on the marketed access to quarterly DLC, the 3rd quarter would require an additional payment for them to access the DLC because they are calling it a "chapter".

For people who viewed access to DLC a primary benefit of ESO+, they figured they would continue to sub through the dry quarters if that revenue stream helped them provide future DLC, even if they were struggling at present to meet the expectations they themselves set.

It is clear what people who bought the original game bought access to. It is also clear what people who bought the gold edition bought access to. What did people who maintained their sub buy access to if not the additional paid content to be released quarterly?

Korah_Eaglecry

ADarklore wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

It's not about the money.

It's about the lies.

I think you take things far too seriously... there were no 'promises' or 'guarantees' and businesses are free to change their business model and businesses practices at any point in time, you agreed to it when you agreed to the TOS- did you not read it before agreeing?

You are confusing "business practice" with "ethics". Having free speech does not entitle you to freely insult anyone you want.

Same thing here. They may be allowed to change their business practice, but the way they did it is blatantly dishonest. I can go on for hours about this, but there have been plenty of points raised by many people who are irked by this.

That is you OPINION that it was 'dishonest'... it isn't a fact, because I have a different opinion and believe what they did was fully acceptable and within their rights and TOS to do. Also, I think you just proved my point about taking things too seriously by feeling like I insulted you by making an interpretation of your statement.

Thats not how facts work..."Things arent facts unless my opinion says it is....".....Are you serious right now?