Non eso+ members should be able to buy the same furniture limit eso+ members get

Goren

Since ZOS has no intention of increasing the furniture limit, non eso+ members should have the option to get the same furniture limit as eso+ members do. The problem that I see with eso+, when it comes to housing, is the following: Let's say you wanted to replace one simple furniture in your fully decorated house while you no longer have eso+, you would have to pick up half of your furniture +1 to do so. That means if you ever wanted to replace a picture or a chair without getting rid of half of your furniture, you would have to buy eso+ again. That's insane.
I have seen people with eso+ complain about how low the furniture limit is, imagine if you had only half of it. If you could just add a furniture limit increase for non eso+ members in the crown store, that would be great!

Edit:

Goren wrote: »

I didn't specify in my post how exactly this purchase would work, so I wanted to explain it a bit further: It's not like you buy this furniture increase and it covers all your purchased houses and all the houses you might buy in the future. It applies only to the one house you want to buy it for. For example, I own Autumns Gate, Blackvine Villa and Antiquarians Alpine Gallery. Let's say I wanted to increase the limit of Antiquarians Alpine Gallery, that would cost me something like $20 but it wouldn't increase the limit for Autumns Gate and Blackvine Villa. If I wanted to increase the limit for my other houses as well, that would cost me $20 again for each house. This option is of course worse than the benefit eso+ gets, but at least it is an option.

PrimusNephilim

If you take away the benefits of ESO+, there's no benefit to have ESO+

phaneub17_ESO

Just wait for the free trial weeks to plan out what you want to do to your house; that's what I do. I sub once a year during the anniversary event to get all my crap in order. Of course it does depend on how patient you are as a person, I'm not at all bothered if I have to wait to get something done, it will come eventually.

hafgood

No, you want the benefits of ESO+ then pay for ESO+

katanagirl1

Something like that would have to be an enormous amount of crowns to make up for the lost eso plus membership income, way more than anyone would want to pay.

Zypheran

This and the craft bag are the ONLY reason many people have ESO+
I'm not saying I'm against your idea. On the contrary, it would be great. I could instantly stop subscribing. I just don't see ZOS making this perk available without a subscription for that reason.

carly

I don't think people understand how much money it costs to run a game like ESO. Operating costs, salaries, hardware costs, maintenance and license fees, etc. They have to make money somehow to pay for those costs and monthly subscriptions are guaranteed income that you can plan around. Things like crown crates are not because you don't know from one month to the next how many you might sell. YOu can estimate the revenue from those but you can't make concrete plans around it since it will vary from month to month. I don't mind paying the subscription fees as long as I get perks for it so I'm a 'no' on your request.

Zorgon_The_Revenged

How about 40 crown gems for a 1 day increase?

ThorianB

No. If you want the perks of ESO + pay for ESO +. Don't diminish my investment in the game because you don't want to or can't invest.

bluebird

Agreed, OP. All people should be able to upgrade their housing slots to the technical limit.

We're being told that slot limits exist for technical reasons; but there is no reasons to not allow all houses to reach that technical limit if people pay for it. For example, Tel Galen comes with 350/700 slots for 8,000 Crowns. Ald Velothi Harbor House comes with 200/400 slots for 4,000 Crowns. People should be able to upgrade their house to 350/700 slots for 4,000 Crowns or something (price tbd).

This would revive interest in smaller houses, as I know many of us don't like buying houses that are bigger than the item limit that we think would be appropriate for that size. And it would give non-Plus-subs a reason to spend more money on the game For example it's likely that few people would spend ~120$ on a giant mansion that they can only put 350 slots in, when that mansion looks empty even with 700. But 120$ for the house plus say 20$ for the slot upgrade is already more than what they would earn from 9 months of subscription.

ThorianB wrote: »

No. If you want the perks of ESO + pay for ESO +. Don't diminish my investment in the game because you don't want to or can't invest.

That's a pretty unhealthy opinion to have towards your fellow community. Especially since the housing limits are punitive rather than rewarding.

Before ESO+, the cost per slot of inventory and bank slots was already fixed. So when ESO+ was added, subs got a bonus on top of the normal values. But when Housing got added after ESO+, subscribers got the 'norm' limits and non-sub limits were halved. Nobody could argue that the non-sub limit is the baseline intended size when Inn rooms' loading screens regularly show as much as 40 items (physically impossible for anyone). Houses are clearly sized for ESO+ limits, and even then the slots are often not enough.

And ironic too, since you celebrate noob players getting increased power and high-CP players getting relative reduced power, despite the fact that they invested more in the game and you didn't. So, pretty funny of you to be so negative towards players in housing (that doesn't affect any group content) when their gain wouldn't make you lose anything.

ThorianB

bluebird wrote: »

And ironic too, since you celebrate noob players getting increased power and high-CP players getting relative reduced power, despite the fact that they invested more in the game and you didn't.

I am only responding to this one sentence from you to clear something up. I am not a new player to video games, MMOs or ESO. I have been playing ESO for a few years and hit the 810 cap probably nearly two years ago. I also have thousands of hours in ESO so i would say i have quite a bit of time invested in it.

bluebird

ThorianB wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

And ironic too, since you celebrate noob players getting increased power and high-CP players getting relative reduced power, despite the fact that they invested more in the game and you didn't.

I am only responding to this one sentence from you to clear something up. I am not a new player to video games, MMOs or ESO. I have been playing ESO for a few years and hit the 810 cap probably nearly two years ago. I also have thousands of hours in ESO so i would say i have quite a bit of time invested in it.

Good! Then you can see how other people's fun in their private houses wouldn't affect you at all! And you can surely appreciate the irony of your two conflicting opinions regarding removing boundaries and closing the gap in power in CP (which you approve of), and removing boundaries and closing the gap in housing (which you don't approve of).

If people were ESO+ subs only because the housing limits forced them to be, then they wouldn't have to be forced any longer if the game introduced other options to upgrade our houses (SWTOR for example has a modular housing upgrade system that's independent of its sub perks). And if people want to continue being subbed, they can of course still keep the same benefits; it's just that others will have other options to get the most out of their houses.

If non-subs had the option to buy ESO Statuettes for 1k Crowns every month for example, that wouldn't take the benefit of ESO+ away. Non-subs can get xp bonuses too if they buy items for them, and they can buy Crown Store items without the ESO+ discount, and they can buy 1650 Crowns every month if they want to, it just costs them more (xp bonus, Crown Store discounts and monthly Crown stipend are some of the perks of ESO+).

So the same could happen with housing slots. What ESO+ subs get for free, nonsubs could buy with additional money. And if a system would be implemented, it could be expanded to all players and all houses for everyone's benefit. Allowing us to upgrade large houses from 350 nonsub to 700, or medium houses form 400 sub to 700 sub.

katanagirl1

$20 for a slot upgrade on a house when the sub is $15 a month? That won’t fly.

Somehow you are adding in the cost of the house in your math when ZOS is going to get that anyway.

bluebird

katanagirl1 wrote: »

$20 for a slot upgrade on a house when the sub is $15 a month? That won’t fly.

It already flies. Why are DLCs 10-15-20$ EACH when the sub is 15$ a month and it includes all of them?
Because direct purchases are upgrades forever. And there are people who directly buy DLCs in the current system already.
The same could apply for house slot upgrades.

The exact price would be up for negotiation of course, I simply used that estimate based on how much more 350/700 houses cost than 200/400 houses cost, to find some relative price tag for slot expansions.

Somehow you are adding in the cost of the house in your math when ZOS is going to get that anyway.

No, they won't, that's why I'm including it. The limitation of housing slots is a deterrent barrier of entry for players. Even many of our general housing community (who do have ESO+) regularly say that they just can't justify buying certain houses because the slot limits are too low for the size. That is doubly so for non-subs. So ZOS is losing out on house purchases because of the limit.

I'm aware of the technical limits that we were told, so unfortunately of course we wouldn't be able to go above 700, but why not allow us to go up to 700 if people would pay for it? Remember Lucky Cat Landing? When it was on PTS Elara and Zypheran (I think) and many of us said that it would be better for the appeal of the house if it had more slots (than 200/400). So if they keep making gigantic houses with 'large-ish' limits and small houses with small limits it's not what the community was asking for: smaller houses with larger limits. However, knowing that we could make any house 700 slots would widen the creative potential and appeal of those houses. I know I would happily pay for a 100-200 extra slots in my Velothi Reverie or Blackvine Villa or Cyrodillic Jungle House, etc. Even for my inn rooms. And that's already with ESO+. So they could get extra income even from people who already sub.

Now, one limitation I do see is the effort it would take to implement the system. The Housing team has been experimenting with new things lately (i.e. Pathing function) so maybe they could try to do this too. But I think it would be far easier for them to allow nonsubs to reach up to sub limits than to allow everyone to go over the sub limits. So probably creating a direct upgrade purchase that sets a 200/400 house to 400 forever for nonsubs and subs alike is easier (since the sub status already does that switch from 200 to 400), than it would be to try making a 400 house into a 600 house when it was coded as max 400 from the start. But I don't know how hard that would be - and surely they are thinking about raising the item limit cap in the future now with newgen consoles out (which they told us was one reason for the technical limit).

Ideally, the system would allow:

• nonsubs to buy direct upgrades that give 200/400 houses 400 slots permanently without needing an active subscription (just like DLC purchases unlock them forever while subs get all of it for free)
• people to buy direct upgrades that make 400 houses into 600-700 houses

So nobody loses anything they had; nothing is given away or taken away for free; and everybody nonsub and sub alike gets a chance to benefit if the technical possibility of slot-expansion is implemented into the game.

hexentb16_ESO

PrimusNephilim wrote: »

If you take away the benefits of ESO+, there's no benefit to have ESO+

[snip]
This is just one thing that would be made available to non-eso+ members. ESO+ would still have loads of reasons to buy it.

But lets not forget, ESO+ doesn't need to exist. ZOS makes more money than they'll ever need just off the game's gamble boxes.

[Edited to remove Baiting]

ThorianB

hexentb16_ESO wrote: »

PrimusNephilim wrote: »

If you take away the benefits of ESO+, there's no benefit to have ESO+

[snip]
This is just one thing that would be made available to non-eso+ members. ESO+ would still have loads of reasons to buy it.

But lets not forget, ESO+ doesn't need to exist. ZOS makes more money than they'll ever need just off the game's gamble boxes.

It is one less reason for me to have ESO plus. The fewer the reasons i have to have ESO plus, the less likely i am going to keep it. Also:
1. You don't know how much ZOS makes off crown crates.A small portion of the population buys crown crates and an even smaller number buys them in large quantities and/or regularly.
2. You don't know how much it costs to run 6 megaservers. The electricity and bandwidth costs for just the servers will be in the millions per year.

SilverBride

No.

If you want the same perks subscribers enjoy... then open your wallet and subscribe.

Nelphy

I agree that the slot limit should be increased to the same as ESO+ members. I am all for having a sub scription fee where you get premium currency and cosmetic extras but hampering players who do not pay with half the housing slots and very limited bag space is just toxic. Talk about "here at Zeni we put profit before player creativity and expression"

B0SSzombie

Nelphy wrote: »

I agree that the slot limit should be increased to the same as ESO+ members. I am all for having a sub scription fee where you get premium currency and cosmetic extras but hampering players who do not pay with half the housing slots and very limited bag space is just toxic. Talk about "here at Zeni we put profit before player creativity and expression"

It's not giving players that don't have a premium service Half of the Housing Slots, it's giving players that support the game financially more. Nothing Toxic About it.

ThorianB

Nelphy wrote: »

I agree that the slot limit should be increased to the same as ESO+ members. I am all for having a sub scription fee where you get premium currency and cosmetic extras but hampering players who do not pay with half the housing slots and very limited bag space is just toxic. Talk about "here at Zeni we put profit before player creativity and expression"

[snip] There is nothing toxic about players who support the game bonuses that are do not give them any advantages over other players.

[Edited to remove Baiting]

katanagirl1

Nelphy wrote: »

I agree that the slot limit should be increased to the same as ESO+ members. I am all for having a sub scription fee where you get premium currency and cosmetic extras but hampering players who do not pay with half the housing slots and very limited bag space is just toxic. Talk about "here at Zeni we put profit before player creativity and expression"

If a subscription only gets me cosmetic stuff then that is the day I will stop paying, because I don’t care about vanity items.

bluebird

B0SSzombie wrote: »

Nelphy wrote: »

I agree that the slot limit should be increased to the same as ESO+ members. I am all for having a sub scription fee where you get premium currency and cosmetic extras but hampering players who do not pay with half the housing slots and very limited bag space is just toxic. Talk about "here at Zeni we put profit before player creativity and expression"

It's not giving players that don't have a premium service Half of the Housing Slots, it's giving players that support the game financially more. Nothing Toxic About it.

ThorianB wrote: »

Nelphy wrote: »

I agree that the slot limit should be increased to the same as ESO+ members. I am all for having a sub scription fee where you get premium currency and cosmetic extras but hampering players who do not pay with half the housing slots and very limited bag space is just toxic. Talk about "here at Zeni we put profit before player creativity and expression"

I don't think you understand what toxic means. There is nothing toxic about players who support the game bonuses that are do not give them any advantages over other players.

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Nelphy wrote: »

I agree that the slot limit should be increased to the same as ESO+ members. I am all for having a sub scription fee where you get premium currency and cosmetic extras but hampering players who do not pay with half the housing slots and very limited bag space is just toxic. Talk about "here at Zeni we put profit before player creativity and expression"

If a subscription only gets me cosmetic stuff then that is the day I will stop paying, because I don’t care about vanity items.

I wouldn't agree with calling it 'toxic' either, but it certainly is irrational and unnecessarily antagonistic.
People are acting as if it was such a tragedy if a game didn't paywall functions, and instead was fully free-to-play.
It's really confusing how opposed people are to not being forced to pay 15$ while still keeping the same benefits.

Let's look at the facts, shall we:

• every year people are forced to buy Chapters, even on top of a subscription, yet a year later all subs get them without having to pay anything extra.
• BGs were a paid-for-feature of Morrowind, but they were made part of the basegame (don't even need ESO+).
• IC was a paid-DLC for the longest time (that ESO+ subs got included), but now it's free for everyone.

If ZOS is happy to waive a 40$ fee for Chapters after 1 year and include it in the 15$ sub package, then waiving the 15$ fee for housing limits (less than 15$ in reality since the sub package includes many other perks while the Chapter price tag is the for the Chapter alone) after 4 years (Homestead launched in 2017) is far less of an leap. Add that to the fact that Housing is already monetized into Oblivion compared to other game modes (buying only 1 700-slot house costs more than 6 months of subscription from other players).

So due to all of the precedents above of once-paid-for features not longer having to be paid for, OP's desire to see the furnishing limit removed is already not that outlandish. Even if I'm more in favor of a paid-model, that could be extended to subs too (similar to SWTOR where both subs and nonsubs can pay to expand their houses up to the technical limit). But neither the prospect of removing the slot restriction for free, nor the prospect of paid upgrades should threaten anybody.

---

ESO+ sub currently includes:

• temporary access to all DLCs (which nonsubs can buy permanently)
• Increased gold, xp, and crafting research/inspiration gain (10%)
• 1650 Crowns every month (which already covers the benefit of 15$ since 1500 Crowns cost 15$, but which nonsubs can also buy if they have money)
• Access to Craft Bag
• Costume-dying (which nonsubs can do too with Dye stamps)
• Exclusive Statuettes (a big plus for subs who aren't into housing, I'm sure)
• Crown Store discounts
• Double bank space (added AFTER baseline values already existed, so it was clearly a bonus rather than a punishment)
• Double transmute stone and furniture slots (added as a new system with restrictions in place arbitrarily)

Originally only the first 3 were benefits of ESO+ so we already had a time where those 3 perks were all the benefit that ESO+ gave people.Everything else was added later by ZOS as additional incentive to pressure people into subscribing. (Even though the Crowns - which used to be exactly 1500 until they got increased - and DLC access alone more than make up for the price of the sub). And as you can see, nonsubs already have a way to buy a lot of included-in-sub content directly, so giving them a way to buy housing slots directly wouldn't take away anything else from you.

---

That's in addition to the fact that nonsub slot limits are an arbitrary punitive restriction, with sub limits being the reasonable baseline (often even sub limits are less than workable). So they didn't design a functional system and then went one step ahead to think 'all right what bonus could we give for subs', they designed a baseline system and then took a step back and said 'all right, what restriction can we put on nonsubs'. If anybody thinks that nonsub limits are the intended baseline slots and sub limits are just a happy little bonus (when even sub limits are woefully little in many houses) they don't know housing very well. Take a look at the first houses they added when they devised Homestead:

Inn rooms are particularly telling - firstly because these were one of the first designed homes in the system which reflect their initial vision, secondly because they are only 1 room which is fully visible from the screenshot to give a full picture while other houses don't. Inn room loading screens regularly feature more items than what is possible even with ESO+ limits, so it indicates that the system was never envisioned with 15 slots as baseline. The size/slot ratio of 700 houses that cost 120$ each is even worse at 350, as even 700 is poor.

The situation would likely be different if nonsubs could put 50 slots in all their inn rooms and subs 100, or if 700slot homes were 700 for nonsubs and 1400 for subs. But as is, even sub limits are restrictive, and nonsub limits even more obviously so. Furniture slots are an essential functional aspect of housing gameplay, and crippling that so unreasonably reduces functionality. Why not reduce the number of items nonsubs can equip then, which would similarly reduce their functionality in combat gameplay (which to top it off is free while houses are not). [I brought up that example because SWTOR's sub system doesn't allow nonsubs to equip items with purple quality or above. And such punitive limits are similar in spirit to the punitive limits that nonsub housing fans have to endure in ESO]

---

Also, there is no reason to defend an arbitrary system of restrictions just because it's been set up that way (and as I mentioned earlier, ESO+ was even set up with nothing but 3 perks to start with, so returning to that wouldn't be unimaginable). But let's take all those anxieties about protecting sub privileges or whatever to the extreme, and presume that ESO+ would not just diminish with the removal of furnishing limits, but let's presume that all sub perks would have to be removed. What's that terrible change exactly?

• Subs continue to have everything they did (except now they get to keep extra 15$ per month),
• Everyone gets all functional bonuses on a completely free-to-play basis (GW2 for example has no sub, DLCs are free for ALL active players, and the microtransaction shop is only for cosmetics or a shortcut for convenience options that you can get ingame too).
• And people who are concerned about ZOS's income can still pay them for cosmetic rewards, or support them through the microtransaction shop, without being forced to do so by functional restrictions.

---

tl;dr: considering the heavily monetised housing system, and already existing precedents about once-paid-for content becoming more widely available, even a completely free removal of housing slots limits wouldn't be extreme or detracting in any way. But at the very least adding direct ways to unlock full slots for housing - just as there are direct ways to unlock DLCs - would be preferable to the current pointlessly punitive restrictions in place. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

bluebird

PrimusNephilim wrote: »

hexentb16_ESO wrote: »

PrimusNephilim wrote: »

If you take away the benefits of ESO+, there's no benefit to have ESO+

[snip]

[Quoted post was removed]

I assume they were referring to the fact that your statement is either hyperbole or a non sequitur.

'If you take away the benefits of ESO+, there's no benefit to have ESO+' is either irrelevant to the discussion (i.e. 'take away THE BENEFITS of ESO+' implies taking away ALL benefits of ESO+ which is not what's being discussed here at all), or it's trying to exaggerate the impact of what's being discussed (i.e. the removal of ONE benefit of ESO+ would result in having 'NO benefit of ESO+).

They wrote 'This is just one thing that would be made available to non-eso+ members. ESO+ would still have loads of reasons to buy it' in their comment right after the part you quoted, so that makes it clear what they meant (and their logic does check out).

SilverBride

bluebird wrote: »

'If you take away the benefits of ESO+, there's no benefit to have ESO+' is either irrelevant to the discussion (i.e. 'take away THE BENEFITS of ESO+' implies taking away ALL benefits of ESO+ which is not what's being discussed here at all), or it's trying to exaggerate the impact of what's being discussed (i.e. the removal of ONE benefit of ESO+ would result in having 'NO benefit of ESO+).

This is how it starts... with one thing. First take the housing benefit, then move on to the increased bank storage. One by one you will get all the benefits of being ESO+ without having to pay for it! And that is what's this is really all about.

Sorry, but if you want any of the ESO+ benefits then you need to subscribe. We aren't going to pull perks out and hand them to you just because you don't want to pay a monthly fee.

bluebird

SilverBride wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

'If you take away the benefits of ESO+, there's no benefit to have ESO+' is either irrelevant to the discussion (i.e. 'take away THE BENEFITS of ESO+' implies taking away ALL benefits of ESO+ which is not what's being discussed here at all), or it's trying to exaggerate the impact of what's being discussed (i.e. the removal of ONE benefit of ESO+ would result in having 'NO benefit of ESO+).

This is how it starts... with one thing. First take the housing benefit, then move on to the increased bank storage. One by one you will get all the benefits of being ESO+ without having to pay for it! And that is what's this is really all about.

Sorry, but if you want any of the ESO+ benefits then you need to subscribe. We aren't going to pull perks out and hand them to you just because you don't want to pay a monthly fee.

What you're saying is just another fallacy. The 'that's how it starts...' is a common 'slippery slope' fallacy.

And I already disproved all your concerns as unnecessarily antagonistic divisiveness. All your arguments boil down to 'I'd rather pay for something that I could get for free; than see everyone get it for free', about restrictions that are entirely arbitrary and unnecessary. And they already pulled out perks and handed them to people, so again, you're wrong.

Read my post, especially the part:

But let's take all those anxieties about protecting sub privileges or whatever to the extreme, and presume that ESO+ would not just diminish with the removal of furnishing limits, but let's presume that all sub perks would have to be removed. What's that terrible change exactly?

• Subs continue to have everything they did (except now they get to keep extra 15$ per month),
• Everyone gets all functional bonuses on a completely free-to-play basis (GW2 for example has no sub, DLCs are free for ALL active players, and the microtransaction shop is only for cosmetics or a shortcut for convenience options that you can get ingame too).
• And people who are concerned about ZOS's income can still pay them for cosmetic rewards, or support them through the microtransaction shop, without being forced to do so by functional restrictions.

People are acting as if it was such a tragedy if a game didn't paywall functions, and instead was fully free-to-play.
It's really confusing how opposed people are to not being forced to pay 15$ while still keeping the same benefits.

Edit: PS: I say this as an ESO+ sub with over 30 fully furnished houses, so it's not an 'us and them' defend our rights division or whatever you think it is; it's simply a common sense suggestion based on existing precedents in the game.

SilverBride

bluebird wrote: »

All your arguments boil down to 'I'd rather pay for something that I could get for free; than see everyone get it for free', about restrictions that are entirely arbitrary and unnecessary.

I don't think the game should have gone free to play in the first place. ZoS has to make money somehow or they will just go under. I much prefer to pay a monthly sub over being nickel and dimed for everything.

bluebird wrote: »

People are acting as if it was such a tragedy if a game didn't paywall functions, and instead was fully free-to-play. It's really confusing how opposed people are to not being forced to pay 15$ while still keeping the same benefits.

It's not confusing at all. No one is being forced to subscribe. But we have the option to pay a monthly subscription to help maintain the game and get some really nice perks for our contribution. What I am opposed to is people who think they are entitled to everything without having to pay for it.

bluebird

SilverBride wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

All your arguments boil down to 'I'd rather pay for something that I could get for free; than see everyone get it for free', about restrictions that are entirely arbitrary and unnecessary.

I don't think the game should have gone free to play in the first place. ZoS has to make money somehow or they will just go under. I much prefer to pay a monthly sub over being nickel and dimed for everything.

That's a false dichotomy. You're thinking of only two options that support you, rather than considering other options.
A) ESO has a sub, which paywalls certain functions behind it
B ) ESO doesn't have a sub, and will charge people tons of money individually for everything

It's easy to prefer one over the other when you artificially create a hypothetical duality where only those 2 options exist. In order to remove the false dichotomy, we need to consider other options too, such as:
C) ESO has a sub which includes all previous perks, but housing limits are made baseline
Which is a possible option (and what OP is suggesting, despite people's attempts to misrepresent or hyperbolize it). Or:
D) ESO has a sub which includes Crowns and DLC access, all other perks are baseline
E) ESO doesn't have a sub, sub perks are free for everyone. DLCs are free for everyone, and ZOS still makes a profit.
Like GW2 doesn't have a sub, and all perks are equal for all active players, money is generated in the cosmetic store and with Chapter sales only, and everyone gets DLCs free not just subs. And it's still profitable, after 9 years.

And if you're concerned about ZOS's income, let that be ZOS's concern. They decided they happily pull out features from Chapters and hand it out to people (BGs), and happily pull out DLCs from the ESO+ perks and hand them out to all people (IC) so if they could remove item slot limits, that'd be up to them. You don't need to gatekeep it for them. If you are only willing to pay money to ZOS if you get exclusive privileges for it, it isn't about supporting the game (i.e. you're paying ZOS because you want the things they are selling to you), it's about maintaining your privilege through artificial divisions (even if what you want and currently pay for could be free for everyone including you). It's not the fault of our fellow players that ZOS's sub is so abysmal in value that removing item slots from it would be a disaster to you and others.

Also note that OP's post is only about removing housing slot restrictions not everything, so it's not even as drastic as all our hyperboles and extreme arguments make it out to be (it's certainly closer to a C option where they would be free for everyone, than your B nightmare dichotomy of everything being charged extra). And my suggestion of direct slot upgrade options would at most be an A scenario with an alternative source added, just as DLCs have an alternative source in direct purchases or in ESO+. So you know, really not all that unusual or dramatic.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm tearing into your posts (nothing personal I assure you) I just want to pick apart the arguments that are thrown around in this thread to highlight where they are wrong.

SilverBride

bluebird wrote: »

It's easy to prefer one over the other when you artificially create a hypothetical duality where only those 2 options exist.

Right now the only two options that do exist are that you play for free, or you subscribe and receive perks for doing so.

[snip] There is no need to over analyze when it can be summed up in one sentence: The OP wants an ESO+ perk but doesn't want to subscribe to get it.

I say no.

[Edited to remove Baiting]

ZOS_ConnorG

Greetings all,

After review we have had to edit or remove several posts for rule violations, mostly Baiting. Ensure when engaging in a discussion that you keep said discussion civil, constructive, and within the rules. If you see a post that is baiting in nature do not engage it with further hostility and instead report it for the moderators to review.

You are welcome to review the Community Rules here.

SilverBride

The OP wants an ESO+ perk but doesn't want to subscribe to get it.

I say no, and stand by my opinion.

Alinhbo_Tyaka

Buy to play will not support the game servers neither will one time purchases of what are currently ESO+ perks. For the most part they would only pay for development of content. While the subscription model has its benefits and is something I prefer ESO+ is a reasonable compromise. It provides monthly financial support for the server infrastructure while increasing the player base by having a free alternative to the monthly sub. By making the enhancements available to all decreases the value of having an ESO+ subscription and will decrease the revenue stream that keeps the game up and running. I can safely say I would not subscribe to a lesser version of ESO+ and I'm sure I'm not alone.

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is the possibility of an a la carte system for ESO+. I don't know if it would be economically feasible but something along the line of a monthly sub for each item and a lower price for bundling multiple items. It would not do anything for those players that adamant that everything should be free but might help those players that only want one or two items.