This bothers me a little.

BigBragg

With houses that you buy from the Crown Store, you don't get full access to the content unless you also have ESO+. This is just a straight up double dip into players wallets. Some of these home cost over $100. Why should we be required to spend more to enjoy said content? Sure make the subscription benefit home that are purchased with gold in-game, but I think Crown Stores homes should be open to the cap regardless. Am I alone in the train of thought?

ixie

This is a very good point and something that I hadn't thought about, you are absolutely right.

I have 3 crown store houses, Tel Galen, Erstwhile, and Grand Topal, why should I lose full access to these houses if my ESO+ lapses.

Cave_Canem

I'd like to start the usual rant of 'just pay your subscription', but your idea seems to fall well within the realm of fairness!

Imza

I'm pretty sure you can still access your home without ESO+

VaranisArano

You know how this woukd work out, right?

ZOS: Because these houses are so freaking expensive, we're going to include the full amount of housing slots in their purchase. Enjoy your 700 housing slots!

Players: Yay!

That Guy: Excuse me? I'm paying subscription fees to get double housing slots and now you are giving them away? I'm getting douple dipped -for nothing! I should get 1400 slots on that house or something!

The rest of the housing community: Yeah, ZOS, why are we limited to such a measely amount. 700 slots isnt enough to fill this gigantic house...


Basically, as long as ZOS does not want to increase the total amount of items AND wants to keep ESO+ special, this isnt going to change.

And keeping ESO+ special and desireable is a lot more important to their revenue stream than making some expensive homebuyers really happy.

Imperial_Voice

Imza wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you can still access your home without ESO+

You lose a lot of item slots

BigBragg

VaranisArano wrote: »

You know how this woukd work out, right?

ZOS: Because these houses are so freaking expensive, we're going to include the full amount of housing slots in their purchase. Enjoy your 700 housing slots!

Players: Yay!

That Guy: Excuse me? I'm paying subscription fees to get double housing slots and now you are giving them away? I'm getting douple dipped -for nothing! I should get 1400 slots on that house or something!

The rest of the housing community: Yeah, ZOS, why are we limited to such a measely amount. 700 slots isnt enough to fill this gigantic house...


Basically, as long as ZOS does not want to increase the total amount of items AND wants to keep ESO+ special, this isnt going to change.

And keeping ESO+ special and desireable is a lot more important to their revenue stream than making some expensive homebuyers really happy.

Sure there may be a few outliers that would go that route, but with an added description in the Crown Store and patch notes it would be easy enough to inform everyone capable of reading.

Do you really thing that additional housing space on premium homes is a big selling point for ESO+? I always saw it as a bit of a bonus. The real value is the Crowns, Craft Bag, and access to DLC. Not entirely sure this would devalue it to subscribing members in the slightest, as it wouldn't take anything away from them.

Hippie4927

The cost of the crown store houses are the same for everyone regardless of whether you have ESO+ or not. We, that have ESO+, pay for the extra housing slots. You do not so why should you get the slots for free?

Kittytravel

BigBragg wrote: »

With houses that you buy from the Crown Store, you don't get full access to the content unless you also have ESO+. This is just a straight up double dip into players wallets. Some of these home cost over $100. Why should we be required to spend more to enjoy said content? Sure make the subscription benefit home that are purchased with gold in-game, but I think Crown Stores homes should be open to the cap regardless. Am I alone in the train of thought?

The crown store prices do not change if you have ESO+. So the fact that the price isn't correlated with how many slots you have means ESO+ has nothing to do with it and is not a double dip.

Now if house was 15,000 crowns without ESO+ and then 17,500 with ESO+ then it'd be double dipping.

BigBragg

I get what you guys are saying but disagree with it. After the last ESO Live when they said they won't be increasing the volume in houses and the reasoning behind it is so that player with less than optimal machines can have the same experience (paraphrased). To me that speaks of separating it out as a way to create artificial value. Again, I am fine with that on houses bough with gold. But I stand by the double dip on houses bought with Crowns. You shouldn't need to pay twice to get the full experience.

bluebird

Hippie4927 wrote: »

The cost of the crown store houses are the same for everyone regardless of whether you have ESO+ or not. We, that have ESO+, pay for the extra housing slots. You do not so why should you get the slots for free?

There are no 'extra housing slots'. You're looking at this completely the wrong way. Houses are priced and sized for a certain housing item number, say Princely Dawnlight Palace is a manor-sized house with 700 slots and a huge pricetag. ESO+subs aren't paying for extra housing slots, they're getting the bare minimum housing slots that the house was clearly designed for (even 700 isn't enough), while non-ESO+subs are being punished for not being a subscriber by getting that furniture allowance halfed, but with the same pricetag.

This isn't a case like the double bank space where you pay for bank slots, and get extra slots if you're a ESO+sub. ESO+ furniture slots are clearly the baseline not a reward, and the non-ESO+sub half limit is a punishment to push people into ESO+subs. Inn rooms are 30 slots for ESO+ which is the bare minimum, 15 for non-ESO+ is an arbitrary punishment number made up to push people to sub. The Rosy Lion has 40 items on its loading srceen that doesn't even show the whole room (lol) which makes it abundantly clear what it's designed for.

Which is why I agree with OP. I am an ESO+ sub but I can actually see that asking access to regular furnishing limits isn't like demanding double bank slots or a crafting bag, it's simply to have access to the baseline utility of a feature that they are paying for.

Kittytravel wrote: »

BigBragg wrote: »

With houses that you buy from the Crown Store, you don't get full access to the content unless you also have ESO+. This is just a straight up double dip into players wallets. Some of these home cost over $100. Why should we be required to spend more to enjoy said content? Sure make the subscription benefit home that are purchased with gold in-game, but I think Crown Stores homes should be open to the cap regardless. Am I alone in the train of thought?

The crown store prices do not change if you have ESO+. So the fact that the price isn't correlated with how many slots you have means ESO+ has nothing to do with it and is not a double dip.

Now if house was 15,000 crowns without ESO+ and then 17,500 with ESO+ then it'd be double dipping.

If you read the above, it's clear that it is a money-grab. They design a house that's clearly meant for a certain number of slots (as evidenced by their loading screens that regularly use more items than this limit), but then require people to be a premium user to access that number of slots. So they are selling a 700-size house for a 700-sized price tag, but only allow you to access 350 of those if you pay an extra 10 bucks every month.

OP even made concessions (that he shouldn't do in my opinion, since this whole exploitative limit should be removed), such as allowing gold-purchased house furnishing slots to be halfed, and only asking for the full value on crown-purchased houses, so that non-ESO+subs aren't punished by having to pay a 700-sized price tag for a 350-sized house. It's absolutely reasonable, and to be honest should have been this way since forever. After all, why not half buff durations for non-ESO+subs or why not make their mounts go slower too, if we're looking for shady ways to impair their access to features that were clearly intented to be baseline.

peacenote

BigBragg wrote: »

Do you really thing that additional housing space on premium homes is a big selling point for ESO+? I always saw it as a bit of a bonus. The real value is the Crowns, Craft Bag, and access to DLC. Not entirely sure this would devalue it to subscribing members in the slightest, as it wouldn't take anything away from them.

Value is in the eye of the beholder.

In all seriousness and full disclosure: I am an ESO+ subscriber, I have purchased a few of the houses mentioned, and it would not bother me in the slightest if the increased furniture cap was given to everyone.

That said, I don't think there is any correlation to the load screens and what the house is "intended to hold." The load screen was probably supposed to make the house seem appealing and maybe give you design ideas. I would argue that in many cases the load screens cannot be replicated with either furniture cap.

I think the additional furniture slots were intended to be a small bonus for subscribers, but that home size had way more to do with matching equivalent spaces when base areas were copied from other spaces in the game. I don't think they are designing homes thinking "no one will like this without ESO+ but we'll let everyone buy it anyway.... mwhahahahahaha."

I believe it's been mentioned that the furniture cap is a technical issue. ZOS has nothing to gain by limiting this and many people don't purchase the large mansions because they feel that they can't possibly fill them up, regardless of ESO subscriber status.

My guess is that when housing was added as a base game feature, the idea to give more slots to subscribers was conceived to address the comments that value isn't often added to the subscription. It is a sound theory -- give the community a new feature for free with an additional bonus to subscribers. When you consider the fact that one or two LARGE furniture pieces could conceivably fill up those small apartments and 40 little gears on the floor means the apartment looks just as empty as 20 gears... I just don't think the spaces are designed for a specific capacity.

The only thing I would say (and I haven't personally looked into this) is that if houses are being sold FULLY FURNISHED with more furniture pieces than non-ESO subscribers can have, then clearly that's a problem. But if the "fully furnished" large mansions have, say, 300 pieces in them... [shrug].

Personally I prefer the business model of adding something to base game and enhancing it with subs as opposed to the separate chapter model where a portion of the playerbase can't access the content at all whether they sub or not unless they fork over more money. But, again, I would 100% be in favor of this whole idea being revisited. Especially since there are so many furniture pieces out there now, and furniture is handed out via events, achievements, etc. Maybe the furniture cap should be raised to maximum for everyone, and instead going forward subscribers get a small discount when they buy houses with crowns (since they've already introduced this idea in other ways).

BigBragg

peacenote wrote: »

BigBragg wrote: »

Do you really thing that additional housing space on premium homes is a big selling point for ESO+? I always saw it as a bit of a bonus. The real value is the Crowns, Craft Bag, and access to DLC. Not entirely sure this would devalue it to subscribing members in the slightest, as it wouldn't take anything away from them.

Maybe the furniture cap should be raised to maximum for everyone, and instead going forward subscribers get a small discount when they buy houses with crowns (since they've already introduced this idea in other ways).

They when over this on the last ESO Live. They won't be raising the cap in the foreseeable future. The reasoning behind this is a technical issue as you eluded to, but it is on the client side. They want all players to be able to have the same experience when going into a home regales off their hardware performance. Something I am guessing is governed greatly by our console brethren.

If I recall correctly, when I bought the furnished Earthtear Cavern, it was around 300 pieces that it came with. However that never left me with the notion that it was fully furnished, or intended to be. Just a nice place to start.

bluebird

peacenote wrote: »

That said, I don't think there is any correlation to the load screens and what the house is "intended to hold." The load screen was probably supposed to make the house seem appealing and maybe give you design ideas. I would argue that in many cases the load screens cannot be replicated with either furniture cap.

Yes, that's what I was trying to highlight, when I pointed out that the load screen of inns has over 40 items on it while subs get a 30 limit and non-subs get a 15 limit. There is no way anybody could believe that that inn room was designed with 15 items as the baseline with the subscriber 'bonus slots' being an extra thing. The 'bonus' slots are the baseline, and the non-sub limit is just a punishment. This is even worse in larger homes, where non-subs pay the same amount of crowns for a measly 350 slots.

As for why the non-sub-limit was added, it's clearly to strong-arm people into subbing. ESO+ has been in the game since March 2015, with nothing more than free DLC access, an xp bonus, and a monthly crown stipend. In May 2016 ESO+ got the crafting bag, which is an extra new bonus feature. In August 2016, they added the ability to dye costumes, which is again a new feature on top of the normal game. When Homestead launched in February 2017, they decided that non-ESO+subs won't be able access the maximum capacity of their homes, but instead will be penalized with a halfed furnishing limit while ESO+subs are limited to the technical item cap. In May and October 2017, they added double bank slots and transmutation crystal cap, once again, not halfing the baseline for non-subs, simply granting subs a bonus on top of the regular max. They tried to increase the value of the sub for years (even though it only launched with 3 things so the 'but it's a part of subscription' folks are technically wrong since ESO+ doesn't have to be anything other than DLC access and some monthly crowns), but clearly the furniture limit halfing is punitive and restrictive, rather than a bonus novelty perk like the others.

peacenote wrote: »

Personally I prefer the business model of adding something to base game and enhancing it with subs as opposed to the separate chapter model where a portion of the playerbase can't access the content at all whether they sub or not unless they fork over more money. But, again, I would 100% be in favor of this whole idea being revisited. Especially since there are so many furniture pieces out there now, and furniture is handed out via events, achievements, etc. Maybe the furniture cap should be raised to maximum for everyone, and instead going forward subscribers get a small discount when they buy houses with crowns (since they've already introduced this idea in other ways).

The problem is that sub-based games give access to the content (e.g. WoW, the SWTOR sub, etc), but in ESO even subs have to pay gigantic piles of crowns for the houses that they add. Non-subs have to pay the same money for the same content, but then are penalized by having the utility/value/potential of that same purchase halfed... if people pay for things, let them use the things, seriously, ZOS. Your suggestion of allowing the max furniture cap for both subs/non-subs while reducing the price for subs in line with other crown-store discounts they started doing would be the only reasonable solution at this point tbh.

Tigerseye

bluebird wrote: »

Hippie4927 wrote: »

The cost of the crown store houses are the same for everyone regardless of whether you have ESO+ or not. We, that have ESO+, pay for the extra housing slots. You do not so why should you get the slots for free?

There are no 'extra housing slots'. You're looking at this completely the wrong way. Houses are priced and sized for a certain housing item number, say Princely Dawnlight Palace is a manor-sized house with 700 slots and a huge pricetag. ESO+subs aren't paying for extra housing slots, they're getting the bare minimum housing slots that the house was clearly designed for (even 700 isn't enough), while non-ESO+subs are being punished for not being a subscriber by getting that furniture allowance halfed, but with the same pricetag.

This isn't a case like the double bank space where you pay for bank slots, and get extra slots if you're a ESO+sub. ESO+ furniture slots are clearly the baseline not a reward, and the non-ESO+sub half limit is a punishment to push people into ESO+subs. Inn rooms are 30 slots for ESO+ which is the bare minimum, 15 for non-ESO+ is an arbitrary punishment number made up to push people to sub. The Rosy Lion has 40 items on its loading srceen that doesn't even show the whole room (lol) which makes it abundantly clear what it's designed for.

Which is why I agree with OP. I am an ESO+ sub but I can actually see that asking access to regular furnishing limits isn't like demanding double bank slots or a crafting bag, it's simply to have access to the baseline utility of a feature that they are paying for.

Kittytravel wrote: »

BigBragg wrote: »

With houses that you buy from the Crown Store, you don't get full access to the content unless you also have ESO+. This is just a straight up double dip into players wallets. Some of these home cost over $100. Why should we be required to spend more to enjoy said content? Sure make the subscription benefit home that are purchased with gold in-game, but I think Crown Stores homes should be open to the cap regardless. Am I alone in the train of thought?

The crown store prices do not change if you have ESO+. So the fact that the price isn't correlated with how many slots you have means ESO+ has nothing to do with it and is not a double dip.

Now if house was 15,000 crowns without ESO+ and then 17,500 with ESO+ then it'd be double dipping.

If you read the above, it's clear that it is a money-grab. They design a house that's clearly meant for a certain number of slots (as evidenced by their loading screens that regularly use more items than this limit), but then require people to be a premium user to access that number of slots. So they are selling a 700-size house for a 700-sized price tag, but only allow you to access 350 of those if you pay an extra 10 bucks every month.

OP even made concessions (that he shouldn't do in my opinion, since this whole exploitative limit should be removed), such as allowing gold-purchased house furnishing slots to be halfed, and only asking for the full value on crown-purchased houses, so that non-ESO+subs aren't punished by having to pay a 700-sized price tag for a 350-sized house. It's absolutely reasonable, and to be honest should have been this way since forever. After all, why not half buff durations for non-ESO+subs or why not make their mounts go slower too, if we're looking for shady ways to impair their access to features that were clearly intented to be baseline.

Yeah, having furnished the palace, I can confirm that there is absolutely no way you could furnish that place, to any acceptable standard, with 350 slots.

It's so (intentionally?!) dark, you can easily use more than that just to light it.

Assuming you want it to look warm, authentic and beautiful and don't want to have to resort to using a an incongruous-looking Clockwork light, or cold blue and/or harsh yellow, artificial-light Culanda and/or Varla Stones, or whatever.

Of course, part of the problem is they could produce giant Redguard (as well as other styles) chandeliers, with long chains and at least 8 or 9 flames on them, but they just don't, for some reason.

So, given the current lighting limitations, the place needs about 800 slots, minimum; even if you don't build anything.

To feel like I was getting "extra slots" (i.e. more than I really needed), in that place, I would need to get over 1000, frankly.

Similar problem with Hunding's, on a slightly smaller scale - it's always felt like it should have had at least 700, but it only has 600.

Again, there is no way you could decorate that place properly on 300 slots.

lientier

if it wasnt a technical problem. I would suspect the one who decided on limits would be a marie kondo minimalism fan

ghastley

Imperial_Voice wrote: »

Imza wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you can still access your home without ESO+

You lose a lot of item slots

Nothing you place while having ESO+ will disappear. You just can't place more until you re-subscribe. It's like the crafting bag. You can remove, but not add.

Jayne_Doe

Housing isn't the only area where the game is "gimped" for non-subs. Bank slots ARE gimped. We get double with ESO+, but with all the new sets, mats, etc. being added to the game constantly, the double bank space is getting to be more of a necessity and without it, and the craft bag, a non-sub is gimped unless they use alts strictly for storage, which is also a nightmare in itself.

Housing slots isn't the exception in that regard. That said, I'm certainly not averse to double slots for all, but it would have to be replaced with something (and not a measly 10% discount on furniture items/houses, since I don't buy that much from the housing editor or that many CS only homes).

Making CS-only homes an exception DOES mean that ESO+ members would be paying more for the same benefit as non-subs. It would be removing a benefit from ESO+ members, even if it remains for gold-purchased homes.

Double housing slots IS an important benefit to me and is one of the reasons I continue to sub, along with the crafting bag and double bank space. Crowns are nice, but I can get them cheaper by purchasing the larger packs, especially when they're on sale. And as for DLC, I don't do dungeons, so there's only 1 new DLC for me each year. I have to buy the other story DLC because it's bundled in a chapter, or else wait an entire year until it's part of ESO+.

Players sub for varying reasons, but arguing that ESO+ members don't see double housing slots as a benefit is not true. It's obviously a benefit, as the OP and others here are arguing to have that same benefit without paying for it.

The reality is that ZOS has made double-slots part of ESO+. They aren't going to give that benefit to non-subs simply because they bought the house with Crowns. That would lessen the benefit of ESO+ and reduce the incentive to get players to sub. You want double slots, you sub. Players don't want to pay for ESO+, and I get that, but I'm getting tired of them then asking for benefits of the sub to be removed and given to them for free.

bluebird

Jayne_Doe wrote: »

Housing slots isn't the exception in that regard. That said, I'm certainly not averse to double slots for all, but it would have to be replaced with something (and not a measly 10% discount on furniture items/houses, since I don't buy that much from the housing editor or that many CS only homes).

Making CS-only homes an exception DOES mean that ESO+ members would be paying more for the same benefit as non-subs. It would be removing a benefit from ESO+ members, even if it remains for gold-purchased homes.

Double housing slots IS an important benefit to me and is one of the reasons I continue to sub, along with the crafting bag and double bank space. Crowns are nice, but I can get them cheaper by purchasing the larger packs, especially when they're on sale. And as for DLC, I don't do dungeons, so there's only 1 new DLC for me each year. I have to buy the other story DLC because it's bundled in a chapter, or else wait an entire year until it's part of ESO+.

Players sub for varying reasons, but arguing that ESO+ members don't see double housing slots as a benefit is not true. It's obviously a benefit, as the OP and others here are arguing to have that same benefit without paying for it.

The reality is that ZOS has made double-slots part of ESO+. They aren't going to give that benefit to non-subs simply because they bought the house with Crowns. That would lessen the benefit of ESO+ and reduce the incentive to get players to sub. You want double slots, you sub. Players don't want to pay for ESO+, and I get that, but I'm getting tired of them then asking for benefits of the sub to be removed and given to them for free.

First of all, no, it wouldn't have to be replaced with anything, and the suggested crown discount is already a pretty good replacement and in line with other ESO+ sub perks (here's this item normally for 5k crowns, you can get it for 4k because you're a subscriber, AND that's on top of the crowns you already get with the sub). Just because you personally don't buy that much from the CS doesn't mean that it wouldn't be an ESO+ perk; after all, we could scrap double furnishings right now because many ESO+ subs don't use housing and consider it a useless bonus.

Second, allowing non-subs to use 700 slots in 700-slot crown store homes they purchase doesn't mean 'ESO+ members would be paying more for the same benefit as non-subs' at all. As an ESO+ sub people pay 18k crowns for 700 slots, and if a non-sub would pay 18k crowns, they should also get 700 slots. You wouldn't be paying more, you'd be paying the same and getting the same that you already got, except now non-subs wouldn't be paying the same and getting less. Which is what this whole thread is about.

Third, you literally admit that double housing slots are one of the reasons you're forced to purchase an ESO+ (and clearly that it's working is the reason they keep doing exploitative things like this, because anybody who's even remotely serious about housing has to be a sub because 50% less furniture is ridiculous when even 100% furniture limits aren't enough for most manors). So you shouldn't be advocating for this limit because 'hey, I'm forced to purchase it because of this limit and I want to keep this limit exclusive' but rather 'If I pay several thousand crowns for a house, I can enjoy it without having to buy a sub, wow, that saves me money because I found ESO+ generally useless anyway'.

And the 'omg they're trying to take things away from me and giving it away to others for free' tone of your entire post is just wrong. Since we're talking about crown houses specifically, they absolutely did pay for it, and shouldn't be penalized. And yes... getting rid of punishing limitations that make it impossible to engage in an entire aspect of the game (housing) without being blocked by a paywall (ESO+ sub for furnishing slots because the limits are already lower than they baseline should be) would indeed 'reduce the incentive to get players to sub'... that's the point. Because it's a surefire way to exploit housing ethusiasts twice, first by making them pay 18k crowns for a house, then by having to be a sub if they want to furnish it. And that you're defending it just seems like an argument based on nothing more than a twisted case of Stockholm Syndrome. 'Universal suffrage shouldn't be a thing because the people in power told me I had to cut off my arm to vote, and I did, so it's a good system and it would be unfair if people didn't have to cut off their body parts for basic rights in the future.'

Tigerseye wrote: »

Yeah, having furnished the palace, I can confirm that there is absolutely no way you could furnish that place, to any acceptable standard, with 350 slots.

It's so (intentionally?!) dark, you can easily use more than that just to light it.

Assuming you want it to look warm, authentic and beautiful and don't want to have to resort to using a an incongruous-looking Clockwork light, or cold blue and/or harsh yellow, artificial-light Culanda and/or Varla Stones, or whatever.

Totally agree, same. I actually did furnish it with the ugly out-of-place Clockwork lights, and it's still dark. About 120 furnishings are lighting alone, and the garden still looks like a dark desert because you simply can't spend more slots on lightposts to illuminate all the areas (nevermind the domes or the ramparts too, lol). I'm maxed out at 700 and my dining table has 4 items on it, my kitchen has 4 pieces of supplies and 2 kegs, and areas in the house general still look unfinished. The 700 max limit in itself is another issue, for sure, but the fact that they're charging the same 18k crowns for 350 slots is just beyond the pale.

Katahdin

bluebird wrote: »

Second, allowing non-subs to use 700 slots in 700-slot crown store homes they purchase doesn't mean 'ESO+ members would be paying more for the same benefit as non-subs' at all. As an ESO+ sub people pay 18k crowns for 700 slots, and if a non-sub would pay 18k crowns, they should also get 700 slots. You wouldn't be paying more, you'd be paying the same and getting the same that you already got, except now non-subs wouldn't be paying the same and getting less. Which is what this whole thread is about.

Whether you sub or not, you are paying 18K crowns for a house and 350 slots.

If you want 700 slots, you pay the sub. That is the whole point of having double slots for the sub.

Your suggestion effectively removes the extra housing slot benefit of the sub.
It will deincentivise purchasing the sub.

Aurie

Katahdin wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

Second, allowing non-subs to use 700 slots in 700-slot crown store homes they purchase doesn't mean 'ESO+ members would be paying more for the same benefit as non-subs' at all. As an ESO+ sub people pay 18k crowns for 700 slots, and if a non-sub would pay 18k crowns, they should also get 700 slots. You wouldn't be paying more, you'd be paying the same and getting the same that you already got, except now non-subs wouldn't be paying the same and getting less. Which is what this whole thread is about.

Whether you sub or not, you are paying 18K crowns for a house and 350 slots.

If you want 700 slots, you pay the sub. That is the whole point of having double slots for the sub.

Your suggestion effectively removes the extra housing slot benefit of the sub.
It will deincentivise purchasing the sub.

I agree with you, Katahdin. (Don't get excited)

As subscribers we pay ESO+ for the perks or benefits the sub brings. Subscribing or not is a choice.

Allowing non ESO+ players to enjoy double housing slots because they have bought the actual house at the same price, but without paying a sub, would simply devalue ESO+ and subsequently create very bad feeling....not to mention many people un-subbing.

ZOS know this, and we hope are unlikely to change it.

reoskit

Subbed since day one and I wholeheartedly agree with you, OP.

bluebird

Katahdin wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

Second, allowing non-subs to use 700 slots in 700-slot crown store homes they purchase doesn't mean 'ESO+ members would be paying more for the same benefit as non-subs' at all. As an ESO+ sub people pay 18k crowns for 700 slots, and if a non-sub would pay 18k crowns, they should also get 700 slots. You wouldn't be paying more, you'd be paying the same and getting the same that you already got, except now non-subs wouldn't be paying the same and getting less. Which is what this whole thread is about.

Whether you sub or not, you are paying 18K crowns for a house and 350 slots.

If you want 700 slots, you pay the sub. That is the whole point of having double slots for the sub.

Your suggestion effectively removes the extra housing slot benefit of the sub.
It will deincentivise purchasing the sub.

A sub was literally just DLC access and monthly crowns. That's it. Every single addition since was trying to find ways to force people into subbing, and the housing limit is just one of those ways. When housing came out, they decided that non-subs shouldn't have access to their houses' full capacity. Compare that to bank slots, they already had a bank slot cap ingame and they later (much later, 2 years after the sub and 3 years after the base game) doubled that cap for subs. That's a bonus. The housing limit is a punishment to make sure they hide housing behind a paywall and milk housing people twice.

None of you have made a single argument as to why it should be that way other than 'they created an explotative system and if it wouldn't exist, people wouldn't sign up to being exploited so it needs to be this way'. Seriously look up Stockholm Syndrome please and take a look at the arguments people bring up for this limitation, because all of your points are made from the perspective of a company that wants to milk players, not from the perspective of actual players, nor any consideraton as to why this limit should exist in the first place.

Why not cap the amount of loot non-subs can get (max three dungeons per week) like other MMOs like SWTOR do? After all, that would incentivise people to sub, and that way, non-subs don't just get the same thing as subs! That's what you all keep repeating after all and it could apply to any variety of things. Dragon WBs get added in Elsweyr as a new feature? Well, even if a non-sub pays full price for the Chapter (like they pay full price for crown houses) they should only have access to one dragon kill per week. It's fair right? It incentivizes subs and that way non-subs get less for the same feature that they pay the same price for!

As for your 'it would devalue subs' argument, consider how much the inability to furnish houses properly devalues housing and loses out on (much higher) incomes for 100$ crown houses. If people had access to the houses they purhcase, they might justify that purchase, but right now the majority of non-subs probably wouldn't ever buy a manor for 100$ with 350 slots. Add that to the fact that most people buy the ESO+sub not because of the housing but the other perks (e.g. crafting bag) and you can see that the game loses out on far more than it gains.

reoskit wrote: »

Subbed since day one and I wholeheartedly agree with you, OP.

Same. Just to make clear that I'm not 'just a non-sub' demanding access to what blessed ESO+ privileged people (wrongly) feel entitled to I've been subbed for years, and I did purchase several crown store houses (which I still couldn't fill out properly because some need far more than 700 slots). So the reason I keep arguing for OP's idea isn't envy but simple common sense because you really can't justify this restriction neither logically nor in good conscience.