Would you still play if ESO went Monthly Subscription

Minyassa

Yes

I mean, I'm already paying $15 a month so this is only added benefits for me.

Sanctum74

No

I’d gladly sub again if they provided a working product, but there is no way I’d be forced to pay for a broken product that I technically already payed for.

morrowjen

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

UGotBenched91 wrote: »

Would you stick around if ESO went for a monthly subscription (let’s say $15.00) fee. By doing so crown store was removed and items were able to be earned in-game.

I have a sub now and have been happy to pay it but if the New Moon Acolyte changes go live I may stop my sub. I spent a lot of gold making that set and golding it out (I even golded one piece of jewelry bc I liked the set so much) and was happy to do so because it allowed me to stop using relequen and other proc sets that have never worked as well for me in certain trials and dungeons. The new patch looks to be proc-set-centric and I don't know if I want to pay for that. I will still play ESO but it took me a long time to find something other than Rele (which I honestly don't care for despite it being more powerful) that I could run in trials and dungeons as well as solo and I don't want to pay for that option to go away. Also, the new trial was a disapppointment to say the least (we got a 12 man dungeon instead of a trial).

casparian

Yes

Heck, I’d pay a weekly subscription if Cyrodiil performance went back to 2016-18 levels and BGs got some intelligent updates. I’m ready to throw money at this game as soon as it works.

Alinhbo_Tyaka

No

I had that option after the beta and decided then that the game had too many problems to not be worth my $15/mo. A few years ago the game was in a better place and I started playing progressing to ESO+ as short time after that. for the past year the game is largely back to the types of problems ESO had at the end of beta and much like then ZOS was unable or unwilling to resolve them. I cancelled my ESO+ subscription and moved on to other company's games as like my first experience with the ESO the game isn't worth my $15/mo.

Linaleah

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

Davor wrote: »

I am curious to the people who say they will pay a sub. If I am reading this correctly, if you pay the sub, you loose your craft bag, you loose all "DLC" ability, you loose the 1650 crowns, and all the other extras we get.

So why would you be willing to pay and loose what we are paying for now? I don't get it.

you are misunderstanding.

in this hypothetical idea the only thing that changes is existence of ability to play WITHOUT subscription. DLC's being included, craft bag, etc - that all stays. you just HAVE to pay subscription in order to play, no more playing without.

of course they think that in this hypothetical situation crown store would no longer exist, thus rendering monthly crowns pointless, cause everything will be in game ... but.. that's not ever happening.

you also misunderstood the point about single player games. single player game is released and MAYBE you get a paid DLC or 2. but there are no servers to maintain, no content to continuously release, etc. its one and done, so it having no subscription - makes sense. MMO's need continuous support, regardless of the pacing of DLC's. ESO incidentally is having issues with that continuous support. but those weekly maintenances? that's part of it.

idk

Yes

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

Linaleah wrote: »

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

PizzaCat82 wrote: »

A large portion of people already pay for ESO plus. What makes you think they'd change that model when the crown store makes them so much?

Entire countries banning clown crates?

which doesn't do anything about direct purchases. crown crates are a fraction of what is sold on a cash shop. should they be banned, all the contents of crates will be sold directly. some - at much higher prices than you'd hope.

I disagree.

Firstly, that "crown crates are a fraction of what is sold on the cash shop." This is demonstrably not true.

@WhyMustItBe

I would suggest no one who actually knows if it is true or not will be commenting in this thread.

BTW, anything that is part of the whole is by definition a fraction of the whole. So, in fact, crown crates are a fraction of what is sold in the crown store regardless of how significant, or not, those sales are. So it demonstrably true. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do, but that would require actual financial information from Zos related to this.

As someone who started playing this game at launch, when a subscription was the only way, my answer is obviously yes. But as I stated earlier, the statement in the OP and the question does not even try to take in the economics of the game and as such does not present meaningful information to Zos.

Cryptor

Yes

I it went sub right now I would have to stop playing just because I am a sole income earner in our household due to effects of COVID. Otherwise I would always prefer to subscribe, whether there is a free option or not.

FlopsyPrince

UGotBenched91 wrote: »

So a lot of comments are saying isn’t that ESO plus?

No, ESO plus is optional. Having a monthly subscription means you have to pay monthly to play the game but by doing so the cash shop doesn’t exist and all items within it would be earn able in game.

No cash shop with monthly sub? Have you looked at World of Warcraft at all? Your premise is flawed!

FlopsyPrince

DarcyMardin wrote: »

Yes and no. Yes: I already subscribe on 2 accounts and I recently bought a third account, which is not currently subscribed (and I’m finding it almost impossible to play without a crafting bag). I’ve been here since the start, when there was no free-to-play option, so I’ve always had at least 1 subscription. The game is worth it.

Regarding my “no” — I like the crown store and don’t want it gone. I never buy crates because I’m not into gambling, but I have bought plenty of other stuff. I have no desire to see the current model replaced with something else. For me, it’s fine the way it is.

How do you play on more than one account? I "only " have 11-12 characters on each server (US, EU) and I find that even just playing those is too much at times, doing the crafting dailies.

Eiregirl

Yes

UGotBenched91 wrote: »

So a lot of comments are saying isn’t that ESO plus?

No, ESO plus is optional. Having a monthly subscription means you have to pay monthly to play the game but by doing so the cash shop doesn’t exist and all items within it would be earn able in game.

The cash shop would still exist to sell pretty much everything it currently sells except maybe the DLC's
Mounts, pets, costumes, crates, furnishing and tokens etc would all still be there and selling.

There would likely be a drop off in the amount spent on the crown store but it would still be there raking in cash for pixels.

Casterial

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

Those that unsub can't play....Too many benefits. So, yes. But performance right now makes it a solid no.

ArcVelarian

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

If ESO went subscription only and removed Crown Crates.

SosRuvaak

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

i think you need to first question, "would things work better if it was a sub to play game?"

and the answer to both questions lies in the following thoughts to that.

Glurin

No

Nope. In fact IMO the pay to play model in general needs to go. It's arguably even more of a scam than EA's trademark p2w lootboxes.

And no, monthly subs are not a magic spell that will make all the problems go away. The only thing it might have an effect on is reducing lag, and that is only because you'll chase away half the playerbase. Which will naturally just create a whole slew of other problems.

The idea that the cash shop would just go away is wishful thinking at best.

Galwylin

Yes

I am currently subscribed to three games at $15 each counting ESO+ (one of which I don't think I've played in the last three months) so yes and I would adore if the game had rewards within the confines of the game. But I've come to terms that ZOS is too concerned with monetizing this game than making it rewarding. This last chapter release is pretty clear that more than just rewards are endangered with Zenimax. But, hey, its their foot if they want to shoot it or not.

DMuehlhausen

Yes

These questions are always so funny. They seem to forget that for the first year + it was a monthly sub.

UGotBenched91

Yes

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

UGotBenched91 wrote: »

So a lot of comments are saying isn’t that ESO plus?

No, ESO plus is optional. Having a monthly subscription means you have to pay monthly to play the game but by doing so the cash shop doesn’t exist and all items within it would be earn able in game.

No cash shop with monthly sub? Have you looked at World of Warcraft at all? Your premise is flawed!

My premise for a hypothetical situation?

This is the most nit picky forum population I’ve ever seen.

Sheridan

Yes

Yes. I payed the monthly subscription for the first year, after all. And I pay for ESO+ since then. Nothing new for me.

Dojohoda

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

I subscribe but if the game becomes a ghost town then I would not stay. Parts of the game needs a lot of players. Cyrodill already suffers.

Iluvrien

Yes

idk wrote: »

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

Linaleah wrote: »

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

PizzaCat82 wrote: »

A large portion of people already pay for ESO plus. What makes you think they'd change that model when the crown store makes them so much?

Entire countries banning clown crates?

which doesn't do anything about direct purchases. crown crates are a fraction of what is sold on a cash shop. should they be banned, all the contents of crates will be sold directly. some - at much higher prices than you'd hope.

I disagree.

Firstly, that "crown crates are a fraction of what is sold on the cash shop." This is demonstrably not true.

@WhyMustItBe

I would suggest no one who actually knows if it is true or not will be commenting in this thread.

BTW, anything that is part of the whole is by definition a fraction of the whole. So, in fact, crown crates are a fraction of what is sold in the crown store regardless of how significant, or not, those sales are. So it demonstrably true. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do, but that would require actual financial information from Zos related to this.

As someone who started playing this game at launch, when a subscription was the only way, my answer is obviously yes. But as I stated earlier, the statement in the OP and the question does not even try to take in the economics of the game and as such does not present meaningful information to Zos.

What nature of economic argument would you like to see? If we take your point that the OP doesn't have access to ZOS's financial information at face value, what kind of economic argument would you expect them to present?

To the contrary of the point @idk was making about meaningful information. The OP's poll speaks to intention without introducing factors upon which players cannot be expected to make accurate judgments. That the poll lacks any attempt to address all possible factors, and is based in those firmly in control of the respondent suggests greater meaning. Not less. If this kind of data wasn't meaningful, then why did the multi-national companies that the market research agency I used to work for (repeatedly) ask for it?

Now, whether ZOS has any desire to listen to it, or any mechanism by which it could be considered, is another question. The answer to which does not reflect on any meaning inherent to the data set itself.

fred4

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

UGotBenched91 wrote: »

Would you stick around if ESO went for a monthly subscription (let’s say $15.00) fee. By doing so crown store was removed and items were able to be earned in-game.

If Cyrodiil lag was fixed good and proper, without destroying half the combat system in the process, then basically yes. At this point it's been so long I might not care anymore, though.

They can keep the crown store. What you're talking about is basically what we already have. It's called ESO+. I didn't mind supporting ESO above and beyond that from time to time.

If the question is would I resubscribe with Cyrodiil in the state that it's in, the answer is no.

idk

Yes

Iluvrien wrote: »

idk wrote: »

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

Linaleah wrote: »

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

PizzaCat82 wrote: »

A large portion of people already pay for ESO plus. What makes you think they'd change that model when the crown store makes them so much?

Entire countries banning clown crates?

which doesn't do anything about direct purchases. crown crates are a fraction of what is sold on a cash shop. should they be banned, all the contents of crates will be sold directly. some - at much higher prices than you'd hope.

I disagree.

Firstly, that "crown crates are a fraction of what is sold on the cash shop." This is demonstrably not true.

@WhyMustItBe

I would suggest no one who actually knows if it is true or not will be commenting in this thread.

BTW, anything that is part of the whole is by definition a fraction of the whole. So, in fact, crown crates are a fraction of what is sold in the crown store regardless of how significant, or not, those sales are. So it demonstrably true. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do, but that would require actual financial information from Zos related to this.

As someone who started playing this game at launch, when a subscription was the only way, my answer is obviously yes. But as I stated earlier, the statement in the OP and the question does not even try to take in the economics of the game and as such does not present meaningful information to Zos.

What nature of economic argument would you like to see? If we take your point that the OP doesn't have access to ZOS's financial information at face value, what kind of economic argument would you expect them to present?

To the contrary of the point @idk was making about meaningful information. The OP's poll speaks to intention without introducing factors upon which players cannot be expected to make accurate judgments. That the poll lacks any attempt to address all possible factors, and is based in those firmly in control of the respondent suggests greater meaning. Not less. If this kind of data wasn't meaningful, then why did the multi-national companies that the market research agency I used to work for (repeatedly) ask for it?

Now, whether ZOS has any desire to listen to it, or any mechanism by which it could be considered, is another question. The answer to which does not reflect on any meaning inherent to the data set itself.

au contraire

I never said we need to see Zos' financials to discuss what OP has put forward here. We do not need to see Zos' financials to know that they derive a significant ammount of revenue from the crown store outside of selling DLCs and this should be fairly obvious. Additionally, DLCs would not be sold separately as they are now if a subscription was required. Seriously, Zos would not bother creating all those cosmetics and homes if they did not generate a significant ammount of revenue. So yes, it is not meaningful to discuss this in such a vacuum, especially considering the low monthly price of 15 USD.

@Iluvrien Name one major MMORPG that has a sole revenue source of 15 USD/month/account after the original purchase of the game. I am thinking that the number is zero.

Further, if we want Zos to listen we do need to take into account the required essentials of the subject. This not only takes into account a realistic revenue generation but also what Zos is to do with all those customers that only purchase DLCs. Even the annual subscription rate is higher than the purchase of 4 DLCs per year before taking into account buying crowns on sale.

Zenimax Online Studios is a business after all and these are the realistic points that they would need to consider.

Rungar

No

Other than being greedy whats wrong with the current model? Seems like a win for everyone.

Sounds to me like there are people you dont want to play.

spartaxoxo

No

You do know that "other" would include people who wouldn't outright quit but who would very drastically less, right? Or who would only play during free trials.

Anyway, no, I wouldn't. I am already paying for ESO+ atm so it's not like I am opposed to spending money. I am opposed to being required to spend money, however. I have never paid for a forced to play game and never will. Soon as my year long subscription that I'm currently under lapsed, I would be gone. I dont like losing access to my characters entirely if I'm not subscribed but dont mind if I lose access to perks.

RDMyers65b14_ESO

Yes

Er, I haven't stopped subscribing since release.

Iluvrien

Yes

idk wrote: »

Iluvrien wrote: »

idk wrote: »

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

Linaleah wrote: »

WhyMustItBe wrote: »

PizzaCat82 wrote: »

A large portion of people already pay for ESO plus. What makes you think they'd change that model when the crown store makes them so much?

Entire countries banning clown crates?

which doesn't do anything about direct purchases. crown crates are a fraction of what is sold on a cash shop. should they be banned, all the contents of crates will be sold directly. some - at much higher prices than you'd hope.

I disagree.

Firstly, that "crown crates are a fraction of what is sold on the cash shop." This is demonstrably not true.

@WhyMustItBe

I would suggest no one who actually knows if it is true or not will be commenting in this thread.

BTW, anything that is part of the whole is by definition a fraction of the whole. So, in fact, crown crates are a fraction of what is sold in the crown store regardless of how significant, or not, those sales are. So it demonstrably true. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do, but that would require actual financial information from Zos related to this.

As someone who started playing this game at launch, when a subscription was the only way, my answer is obviously yes. But as I stated earlier, the statement in the OP and the question does not even try to take in the economics of the game and as such does not present meaningful information to Zos.

What nature of economic argument would you like to see? If we take your point that the OP doesn't have access to ZOS's financial information at face value, what kind of economic argument would you expect them to present?

To the contrary of the point @idk was making about meaningful information. The OP's poll speaks to intention without introducing factors upon which players cannot be expected to make accurate judgments. That the poll lacks any attempt to address all possible factors, and is based in those firmly in control of the respondent suggests greater meaning. Not less. If this kind of data wasn't meaningful, then why did the multi-national companies that the market research agency I used to work for (repeatedly) ask for it?

Now, whether ZOS has any desire to listen to it, or any mechanism by which it could be considered, is another question. The answer to which does not reflect on any meaning inherent to the data set itself.

au contraire

I never said we need to see Zos' financials to discuss what OP has put forward here. We do not need to see Zos' financials to know that they derive a significant ammount of revenue from the crown store outside of selling DLCs and this should be fairly obvious. Additionally, DLCs would not be sold separately as they are now if a subscription was required. Seriously, Zos would not bother creating all those cosmetics and homes if they did not generate a significant ammount of revenue. So yes, it is not meaningful to discuss this in such a vacuum, especially considering the low monthly price of 15 USD.

Your desired response from the OP does require knowledge of ZOS's financials.

To know the impact of any of the items listed (crown store, DLCs, cosmetics, homes) against the subscription cost of 15 USD/month absolutely requires knowledge of income/profit/costs etc. before any of these things can be considered in anything more than the hand-wavy fashion you have done.

Again. Without the possibility of accurate analysis, any data collected in a poll based on their interpretation of these factors would muddy the data due to biases/inaccuracies introduced through the framing of each question(s)/response(s).

idk wrote: »

@Iluvrien Name one major MMORPG that has a sole revenue source of 15 USD/month/account after the original purchase of the game. I am thinking that the number is zero.

Is it zero? Are you sure?

The problem is that the question is inexact. Which are the major ones? For how long and under what circumstances should that revenue source be maintained? How long did it have to last to fit the criteria? Does it have to be global or local? Does it matter if it was closed by the studio to move onto the next project or does it have to be proven to have failed purely due to finances?

As it stands, how could anyone except an industry analyst expect to answer it? You are usually so careful with logical construction, syntax and semantics (c.f. definition of "fraction"). This seems out of character.

idk wrote: »

Further, if we want Zos to listen we do need to take into account the required essentials of the subject. This not only takes into account a realistic revenue generation but also what Zos is to do with all those customers that only purchase DLCs. Even the annual subscription rate is higher than the purchase of 4 DLCs per year before taking into account buying crowns on sale.

Zenimax Online Studios is a business after all and these are the realistic points that they would need to consider.

ZOS has to consider these points. We, the customers, don't. That is where their feedback mechanisms come in. Not at the point of polls like this.

That was the point made in my penultimate paragraph. I wasn't asking what business like ZOS look for in customer responses. I was telling you what my actual experience of working with companies like them was. I started on the phones asking the questions, then I moved to head office as an analyst and worked on the mechanics of which customers were asked, what they were asked, and what information the businesses wanted derived from those responses. I did this for two years.

We were told time and again that a customer cannot be expected to make informed decisions about how a business should fundamentally restructure itself. Any suggested change to the work we did that was focused around any customer input that was not directly linked to either motivation/intention ("would will/would they do...?") or experience ("Service sucked that day!") was shot down.

This poll speaks to pure intention, with the OP continuously reminding us of this fact. It pleases ex-market research analyst me very greatly indeed.

zaria

Yes

Could not play without ESO+ so don't matter for me.

But it would be an bad move.
Note that WOW has an cash shop even if sub.
Now it could be an way to solve Cyrodil performance issues however an way better idea than AOE cooldowns.
Pretty much any ideas are better.

DaveMoeDee

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

Iluvrien wrote: »

...

idk wrote: »

@Iluvrien Name one major MMORPG that has a sole revenue source of 15 USD/month/account after the original purchase of the game. I am thinking that the number is zero.

Is it zero? Are you sure?

The problem is that the question is inexact. Which are the major ones? For how long and under what circumstances should that revenue source be maintained? How long did it have to last to fit the criteria? Does it have to be global or local? Does it matter if it was closed by the studio to move onto the next project or does it have to be proven to have failed purely due to finances?

As it stands, how could anyone except an industry analyst expect to answer it? You are usually so careful with logical construction, syntax and semantics (c.f. definition of "fraction"). This seems out of character.

...

Why the pure devil's advocate response? Why not name even a single MMORPG as an example? Even if it isn't major. They offered an assertion. Respond to the claim with an example and work from there. You seem to be avoiding engaging in the hopes of a stalemate of generalities and non-engagement of data.

DaveMoeDee

Other (no reason for this but it seems to upset people not to include other because....reasons) :)

I think one thing to keep in mind is that no company is trying to find ways to decrease revenue and lower margins. This thread is asking about a situation where ZOS increases risk while lowering revenue. What exactly would be the motivation for that?

I am not saying the hypothetical isn't interesting to discuss. It is. But we are talking about a bad business decision that isn't going to happen, regardless of how interesting it is to discuss whether we would sub.