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

ZOS_Volpe

Greetings,

After removing some unnecessary back and forth from this thread, we would like everyone to keep posts on the subject at hand, civil, and constructive. If there may be any questions in regards to the rules, please feel free to review them here.

wolfbone

Goren wrote: »

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.

I dont agree. eso + provides you benefits for subscribing to it. makign it so those same benefits can just be straight up brought doesnt seem very fair to people who are subscribing for eso plus

bluebird

SilverBride wrote: »

Goren wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Why should the game change and give someone a perk for a lot less than others are paying just because they have inconsistent play habits?

Where did you get this idea? I explained that I envisioned this option for $20, that's more money than what you pay for one month of eso+ and it affects one house only.

And I pay month after month. Add it up.

Let's add it up. As a community, let's go ahead together and add it up. Genuinely.

ESO+ subscription includes for 15$ per month:
- 1650 Crowns per month (already more than the price since 15$ gets everyone else only 1500 Crowns)
- access to all DLCs (over 260$ value)
- unlimited Dying (Dye Stamps are 50-75-100 Crowns each)
- double furnishing slots (which are a technical limits, not the intended baseline limit for reasonable functionality)
- double transmute stone storage
- double bank storage
- +10% xp, crafting inspiration and research
- Craft Bag

As you see there isn't a single point in time after which buying ESO+ is less worth than buying things directly. Nor any point in time in which directly purchasing housing upgrades would be 'a LOT less' than the benefits of all the subscription.

So yes, let's add it up and consider the facts on which this is based. Because the concerns and arguments against the change are wrong - without any personal subjectivity - the math simply doesn't add up.
- OP suggests the optional slot upgrades should cost 20$ and apply for one house only.
- If you sub for 1 month, you pay 15$ and get full slots in all houses and you get over 15$ worth of Crowns.
- The 1st purchase, OP pays 20$ and gets 1 house upgraded.
- The 1st purchase, subs pay 15$ and have full slots in all houses and get 1650 Crowns.
- The 3rd purchase, OP has paid 60$ and got 3 houses upgraded.
- The 3rd purchase, subs have paid 45$ and have full slots in all houses and have 4950 Crowns.
- The 10th purchase, OP has paid 200$ and got 10 houses upgraded.
- The 10th purchase, subs have paid 150$ and have full slots in all houses and have 16500 Crowns.

And so on and so forth. So subs paid 50$ less than OP would, got full slots in just as many or exponentially more houses than OP, have enough Crowns to buy direct slot upgrades in 8 additional homes if they want to stop subbing further, and that's in addition to the many other benefits they got. How is that 'a LOT less'?

ThorianB wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

Well, no. I'm regularly bringing up evidence to evaluate whether the assertions that are being made actually hold up. I'm happy to consider counterarguments, or some evidence I may have overlooked, but until then addressing claims is all I can do - and no personal offense intended, your opinion is entirely independent from assertions.
The sentence for example 'The more perks you take away from subbing, the fewer people who will sub' is once again a disingenuous mis-framing of the situation. The thread isn't discussing taking away perks from subs. Subs would still have their 700 slots for free. Nothing is 'taken away' from subs. It's just that nonsubs would also have the option to buy something that subs get for free - just like nonsubs can also buy DLCs, Dyes, Crowns while subs get it free.

By giving multiple options to purchase it takes away the exclusivity, which is taking it away. If i can just buy the slots permanently with crowns or gold then that is one less reason i have to purchase. It is one reason why DLC access doesn't make the top of the perk list. The perk list typically goes: craft bag, bank space, furnishing limit, crowns, DLCs, everything else. The first 4 i mentioned are exclusive to a sub as you only get 1500 crowns normally for that price. The more you make not exclusive to the sub the less value the sub has. So allowing people to buy furnishing slots permanently but not allowing sub players to have the same increase devalues the sub. So if you raise the furnishing limit 100 items for a non ESO+ player then you would have to raise it 100( X2) for a ESO+ member in order for the sub to keep its current value.

Taking away 'exclusivity' isn't actually taking anything away.
When they expanded voting rights, the previously exclusive elite didn't lose their voting rights.

Having 4 ESO+ benefits directly purchasable instead of the current 3 wouldn't make it 'lose value'. Your money and ESO+ would have the same value as before, and it would still be worth more than anything else. Your 120$s would still buy you a 700 house while everyone else's 120$ would buy them a 350 house (and OP's suggestion of extra 20$ would only bring them on par with that 1 house of yours, while your 15$ got you all houses maxed and everything else with a cherry on top).

If 'you have less reason to purchase', why is that a bad thing? No, please, I'm asking genuinely. How is that bad?

• If your demand for ESO+ was only based on its exclusivity, you will no longer have to pay for it. You save 15$ bucks per month, where's the tragedy? But if you were paying for ESO+ because what you get is worth the price to you as I suspect is the case (i.e. you would continue paying 15$ for the perks you had and would continue to have because you want them for that price) then you lose nothing. People who bought Chapters lose nothing when it's included in ESO+, and OP's change would even cost more than the initial option unlike that regular Chapter precedent which always costs less.
• We already established that ESO+ is the the most economic bundle for players, and that ZOS would earn more if they milked everything directly. So ESO+ would continue to have more value even if they made all other options purchasable.
• And if you would consider the new option more benefitial to you in a manner that undercuts your subjective perceived value for ESO+ (say, maybe you ignore all other perks of ESO+ because they add no value to your playstyle personally) then you'd simply have another option available that may suit you better.
• People who didn't have acceptable options before (some people can't sub monthly with a bank card, and there are no 'gametime cards' or tokens or anything else like that in ESO) now would have actually acceptable options; if people find their older options less beneficial than the new options they can now also have other options which are better for them; and people who still prefer the value or ESO+ will still have everything from ESO+.

A purchase entitles people to receive everything agreed upon in that purchase (and even that is subject to change over time).
It doesn't entitle people to be the sole beneficiary of the things agreed upon in that purchase forever (e.g. IC and BGs were bought but then given away to everyone), nor does it entitle people for that purchase to be the most efficient purchase (e.g. 40$ Chapters are regularly discounted and then included in a 15$ sub that already has value in the dollar-hundreds), nor does it entitle people to prevent the game from introducing alternative monetisations at extra cost to others (i.e. that is what's being discussed here, as the new option wouldn't even be more efficient than the old).

tl;dr: So really, in light of it all, why is it bad? Most concerns raised so far are clearly unfounded, and there hasn't been any argument for why we should keep a section of the playerbase excluded from making use of the functions of a highly monetized gamemode even when they are willing to pay more for less. All OP's change would do is introduce alternatives for everyone and bring Housing up to par with other game modes and already existing monetisation precedents.

Faylestar

Honestly the Craft bag, double bank space, and 1650 gems a month for ESO+ already more than cover the value of ESO+, the rest is just gravy.

As in, theres 0 way i can ever justify playing without having eso+ because the bank space I would instantly not have any of would be basically impossible to deal with.


I cant imagine being in to housing as a non-sub, because theres few houses that feel complete even with the eso+ limits.

Look at the Psijic villa. Furnished, it comes with 200 items and looks incredibly sparse.

My Antequarian gallery (and every cheap or free inn room and a couple other houses) is basically just house storage for my functional house (thanks, Gardner house, for being 15 feet from the master writ turnin) and my "I had too much gold so i guess ill show off" house, because it cannot physically display all the things I wanted it to (every undaunted bust and all my antiques + statues), and because this game is about as bad as 14 is for providing adequate storage FOR those housing items.

I still dont understand how the industry leader in inventory space is Everquest, a game to this day designed around inventory management being a minigame. I can make an alt there and store 1360 stacks of items + 240 shared slots (or make one on a completely free to play account and have it at 1088 stacks + 128 shared slots).

SilverBride

Faylestar wrote: »

Honestly the Craft bag, double bank space, and 1650 gems a month for ESO+ already more than cover the value of ESO+, the rest is just gravy.

The true value of ESO+ is the entire package. It's true that some players may subscribe just for the craft bag for example. Others may subscribe just for the increased furnishing limits, or the additional bank space. But it's not an ala carte commodity that you can pick and choose from, or assign individual values to. If you subscribe you get the whole package. It's then up to you how and if you use them.

Faylestar

SilverBride wrote: »

Faylestar wrote: »

Honestly the Craft bag, double bank space, and 1650 gems a month for ESO+ already more than cover the value of ESO+, the rest is just gravy.

But it's not an ala carte commodity that you can pick and choose from, or assign individual values to.

Except, of course, for the parts that are.

Like DLC access.

SilverBride

Faylestar wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Faylestar wrote: »

Honestly the Craft bag, double bank space, and 1650 gems a month for ESO+ already more than cover the value of ESO+, the rest is just gravy.

But it's not an ala carte commodity that you can pick and choose from, or assign individual values to.

Except, of course, for the parts that are.

Like DLC access.

There is a cost for purchasing a DLC if you aren't a subscriber, and it's been that way all along. That hasn't changed nor does it change what ESO+ is.

The perks of ESO+ are a set bundle. There is no picking or choosing. You either subscribe and get them all or you don't subscribe and get none.

B0SSzombie

Smith4HirePmMe2Order wrote: »

also that Zos excuse of "Hurr we cant up the housing limit cuz the ancient crappy consoles would be bad.." Is a super lame ass excuse..
Bruh, Zos, My dudes... IDK how else to say this but anyone playing ESO on a console is a fool. That's not PC elitism, its just reality. This game is UNPLAYABLE without a serious suite of add-ons (craft store, mini map, potion maker, port to friends house, Homestead OCD, the list goes on) and consoles don't have ANY of those addons. + the limited power of the machines makes the game feel bad ontop of all that. This game should NOT be a console game, or atleast it should be upgraded to Next gen consoles like the PS12/Xbox 1337 (or what ever) with more power to handle the game.
i couldn't stand trying to play this on xbox, and noone i know could either. So stop gimping your PC players because of the Console tards.. My pc is made with parts from 2009 and i STILL run this game fine ish. If they cant run the game then that speaks volumes about them and their trash hardware. stop catering to them!!!

That's not PC elitism

bluebird

If the discussion was 'What IS ESO+?' Then your comment would make sense and more people would agree. But the thread isn't discussing things as they are right now; it's evaluating the pros and cons of potential changes. And the current state of the system has no bearing on the best potential state of the system.

Also, as it has been pointed out, several items included in ESO+ are already purchasable directly (DLCs, Dyes, Crowns). So component parts of a bundle can and do have individual values. This can be done even after the fact, and ESO regularly does this:
- When Morrowind was sold directly, it cost 40$ and included Vvardenfell, BGs and Wardens. When Summerset came out, Vvardenfell was included in ESO+ (which costs 15$ and already includes $hundreds of DLC content plus Crowns plus the other bonuses), Wardens were sold individually with an assigned cost (1500 Crowns), and BGs were made free for everyone.
- The same thing with the 40$ Elsweyr Chapter (zone + Necro) being separated into ESO+-included-DLC and direct Necromancer Class purchase (1500 Crowns).

So even the 'this is how things are right now' angle doesn't hold up, because ESO has demonstrated that their bundles are already subject to change and individual purchases. And note that these removed the initial purchase method and added one that's more beneficial deal for ESO+ players; while OP's suggestion wouldn't remove the already existing bundle and would simply add a less-efficient purchase.

[edited quoted post to avoid confusion]

Leogon

When you buy ESO, you also buy the housing feature but the problem is that you might as well not use that feature if you don't have ESO+. It's as if housing was only a demo for non-ESO+ players and I'm not ok with that because they bought the game with a complete housing feature included, not a demo of it. A lot of ESO+ members(myself included) want even more slots so imagine using the housing feature without ESO+(e.g. 300 slots instead of 600 for large properties). I think they should give everyone the same amount of furniture slots and come up with something new for ESO+ members like another quality of life perk(e.g. crafting bag).

wolfbone

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Smith4HirePmMe2Order wrote: »

Tbh i don't sub much anymore precisely because the ESO housing community gets pooped on so much, and the keep releasing stupid crap we didnt want or ask for like NPC pathing and porting to outside your house..... WE NEEDED WAYSHRINES SO WE COULD LEAVE WHEN WE WERE DONE DOING W/E it was we went to our house to do. And frankly their are OTHER THINGS that were even more critically needed then that..... (see my bio for a list)

also that Zos excuse of "Hurr we cant up the housing limit cuz the ancient crappy consoles would be bad.." Is a super lame ass excuse..
Bruh, Zos, My dudes... IDK how else to say this but anyone playing ESO on a console is a fool. That's not PC elitism, its just reality. This game is UNPLAYABLE without a serious suite of add-ons (craft store, mini map, potion maker, port to friends house, Homestead OCD, the list goes on) and consoles don't have ANY of those addons. + the limited power of the machines makes the game feel bad ontop of all that. This game should NOT be a console game, or atleast it should be upgraded to Next gen consoles like the PS12/Xbox 1337 (or what ever) with more power to handle the game.
i couldn't stand trying to play this on xbox, and noone i know could either. So stop gimping your PC players because of the Console tards.. My pc is made with parts from 2009 and i STILL run this game fine ish. If they cant run the game then that speaks volumes about them and their trash hardware. stop catering to them!!!

Wow. Just...wow.

I know, right? and that's why I dont want to play on pc when there's that kind of toxicity over what platform you play on. it's truly disgusting.

SilverBride

wolfbone wrote: »

I know, right? and that's why I dont want to play on pc when there's that kind of toxicity over what platform you play on. it's truly disgusting.

That was one person. It is far from the norm.

wolfbone

That was one person. It is far from the norm.[/quote]

I'm not saying it is the norm, I'm just saying that it's off putting when the majority of interactions I get with pc players as a console player are vulgar insults. at the end of the day, we all play video games, so I don't get why some pc players go out of their way to insult or bully someone for not playing on pc.

SilverBride

wolfbone wrote: »

I'm not saying it is the norm, I'm just saying that it's off putting when the majority of interactions I get with pc players as a console player are vulgar insults. at the end of the day, we all play video games, so I don't get why some pc players go out of their way to insult or bully someone for not playing on pc.

How are you interacting with PC players when you are playing on a console? If you are talking about the forums, vulgar insults would normally be snipped and the perpetrator warned or banned.

Although for some reason, the rude post you were referring to was allowed to remain.

katanagirl1

SilverBride wrote: »

wolfbone wrote: »

I'm not saying it is the norm, I'm just saying that it's off putting when the majority of interactions I get with pc players as a console player are vulgar insults. at the end of the day, we all play video games, so I don't get why some pc players go out of their way to insult or bully someone for not playing on pc.

How are you interacting with PC players when you are playing on a console? If you are talking about the forums, vulgar insults would normally be snipped and the perpetrator warned or banned.

Although for some reason, the rude post you were referring to was allowed to remain.

I think they mean the interactions they get here from PC players. I have seen this quite a few times myself.

It’s apparently not enough to make fun of the hardware, but it goes further and insults the player with names like that.

That is why you don’t see more console players here.

I actually am in favor of raising the PC slots to an absurdly high number now so the console players can stop getting blamed for everything. Go ahead and let them put so many furnishings in that they are unable to port into their houses anymore.

ThorianB

katanagirl1 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

wolfbone wrote: »

I'm not saying it is the norm, I'm just saying that it's off putting when the majority of interactions I get with pc players as a console player are vulgar insults. at the end of the day, we all play video games, so I don't get why some pc players go out of their way to insult or bully someone for not playing on pc.

How are you interacting with PC players when you are playing on a console? If you are talking about the forums, vulgar insults would normally be snipped and the perpetrator warned or banned.

Although for some reason, the rude post you were referring to was allowed to remain.

I think they mean the interactions they get here from PC players. I have seen this quite a few times myself.

It’s apparently not enough to make fun of the hardware, but it goes further and insults the player with names like that.

That is why you don’t see more console players here.

I actually am in favor of raising the PC slots to an absurdly high number now so the console players can stop getting blamed for everything. Go ahead and let them put so many furnishings in that they are unable to port into their houses anymore.

ZOS could have fixed this for everyone by doing multiple instances in housing. You could have an outdoor instance and an indoor instance in many houses which would double your limit if you treated them as two separate instances. It would increase the load time between outdoor and indoor but its a load screen anyway...what is 5 more seconds for double furnishings?

I thought they were going to do that with the hall of lunar champion. I think many people were surprised all wings of that counted as a single home rather than each having their own. We know you can travel from home instance to home instance directly because you can travel directly between your homes. So the tech is already there.

hexnotic

i am subbed, and always forget that the higher housing limits are even a thing.. i feel sad that non subs have to pay the same price for the house and get half the space.

SilverBride

hexnotic wrote: »

i feel sad that non subs have to pay the same price for the house and get half the space.

I don't, because non subs have the same opportunity to subscribe as anyone. If they choose not to, knowing the perks they are missing out on, well that's on them.

bluebird

hexnotic wrote: »

i feel sad that non subs have to pay the same price for the house and get half the space.

SilverBride wrote: »

hexnotic wrote: »

i feel sad that non subs have to pay the same price for the house and get half the space.

I don't, because non subs have the same opportunity to subscribe as anyone. If they choose not to, knowing the perks they are missing out on, well that's on them.

Personally, I'm sympathetic towards people who have to put up with an excessively unfair system (especially when it's for no good reason), and I'm glad to see that there are a few other players out here who try to support their community!

Without wanting to comment on what people personally feel towards their fellow players [snip], there are luckily also some objectively untenable qualities of the furnishing limit (and I don't think the points below have been raised yet) that show that the limit is unreasonable compared to all other ingame precedents. Nonsubs and subs have far less gap between them in all other game modes, which all cost less than housing.

• double transmutation crystal limit: subs and nonsubs receive transmute stones at the same rate; they spend them at the same rate; and they can store and save them up in geodes if they want. Recently, ZOS has vastly increased the limit for everyone, so there is even less to worry about. And the gameplay of transmutation is getting and spending them not storing them; while the gameplay for housing is putting furnishings in housing. So the storage limit for stones and the slot limit for housing are drastically different, with the latter being exponentially crippling.
• double bank limit: Bank slots don't require any real currency, all of them can be bought with gold (unlike the majority of houses they release). Even if someone bought the gold with Crowns to get max bank slots, it would set them back by around 2,000 Crowns (1,5 month of sub money), while getting max slot houses costs far, far more than that.
• Craft Bag: the function of materials is to gather, sell, or use them. Not to store them. Storing unlimited materials is a great convenience, but it's not an essential, functional part of the gameplay. Furniture slots in housing are an essential functional part of housing gameplay. So if we wanted a comparable equivalent, ESO+ subs should get a Furniture Storage Bag; but ZOS should not cut nonsub slot limits by half, especially when they pay the same price of the same house.

Because we're talking about significant amounts of real money here. Nonsubs paying 120$ for 350 slots in one house (which is two-thirds of a whole year of precious subscription money) and subs pay 135$ for 700 slots (in all houses; plus 1650 Crowns, 260$-worth of DLCs, and half a dozen other perks on top of that) and thinking that this is even remotely proportionate or justified is entirely unreasonable, regardless of feelings.

And trying to campaign against them having the option to pay 140$ for 700 slots (so, more money for less) is even more bizarre and detrimental both for players and ZOS alike. It's just trying to maintain an anti-social vicious cycle in which subs allegedly deserve obscenely more for paying slightly more; but the only reason they pay more is because subs don't want to give nonsubs the option to pay more for less, lol (as in this thread).

[Edited to remove Baiting]

PrimusNephilim

ThorianB wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

Well, no. I'm regularly bringing up evidence to evaluate whether the assertions that are being made actually hold up. I'm happy to consider counterarguments, or some evidence I may have overlooked, but until then addressing claims is all I can do - and no personal offense intended, your opinion is entirely independent from assertions.

The sentence for example 'The more perks you take away from subbing, the fewer people who will sub' is once again a disingenuous mis-framing of the situation. The thread isn't discussing taking away perks from subs. Subs would still have their 700 slots for free. Nothing is 'taken away' from subs. It's just that nonsubs would also have the option to buy something that subs get for free - just like nonsubs can also buy DLCs, Dyes, Crowns while subs get it free.

By giving multiple options to purchase it takes away the exclusivity, which is taking it away. If i can just buy the slots permanently with crowns or gold then that is one less reason i have to purchase. It is one reason why DLC access doesn't make the top of the perk list. The perk list typically goes: craft bag, bank space, furnishing limit, crowns, DLCs, everything else. The first 4 i mentioned are exclusive to a sub as you only get 1500 crowns normally for that price. The more you make not exclusive to the sub the less value the sub has. So allowing people to buy furnishing slots permanently but not allowing sub players to have the same increase devalues the sub. So if you raise the furnishing limit 100 items for a non ESO+ player then you would have to raise it 100( X2) for a ESO+ member in order for the sub to keep its current value.

Bravo

bluebird

PrimusNephilim wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

Well, no. I'm regularly bringing up evidence to evaluate whether the assertions that are being made actually hold up. I'm happy to consider counterarguments, or some evidence I may have overlooked, but until then addressing claims is all I can do - and no personal offense intended, your opinion is entirely independent from assertions.

The sentence for example 'The more perks you take away from subbing, the fewer people who will sub' is once again a disingenuous mis-framing of the situation. The thread isn't discussing taking away perks from subs. Subs would still have their 700 slots for free. Nothing is 'taken away' from subs. It's just that nonsubs would also have the option to buy something that subs get for free - just like nonsubs can also buy DLCs, Dyes, Crowns while subs get it free.

By giving multiple options to purchase it takes away the exclusivity, which is taking it away. If i can just buy the slots permanently with crowns or gold then that is one less reason i have to purchase. It is one reason why DLC access doesn't make the top of the perk list. The perk list typically goes: craft bag, bank space, furnishing limit, crowns, DLCs, everything else. The first 4 i mentioned are exclusive to a sub as you only get 1500 crowns normally for that price. The more you make not exclusive to the sub the less value the sub has. So allowing people to buy furnishing slots permanently but not allowing sub players to have the same increase devalues the sub. So if you raise the furnishing limit 100 items for a non ESO+ player then you would have to raise it 100( X2) for a ESO+ member in order for the sub to keep its current value.

Bravo

Except...it's not really true. The argument that subs would have anything 'taken away' isn't supported by reality by any reckoning. I hope that doesn't come across as rude, but concerns like 'they're taking away our stuff' and 'they are getting stuff for a lot less' are clearly based on us-versus-them rhetoric and fear - and specifically a fear from a hypothetical situation that doesn't actually reflect what would happen in the situation we're discussing.

"Value is:
- the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
- the material or monetary worth of something.
- the worth of something compared to the price paid or asked for it."

If you bought a 7-bedroom house for 135,000$, and your neighbour bought an identical 7-bedroom house for 140,000$ next to you, your house wouldn't lose value. Actually, the fact that others are willing to pay more for the same thing means that you have made a better bargain, since you obtained something valued higher for less due to your discount club membership. Trying to keep others from paying more for less disadvantages both the seller and the buyer, the whole community and the market. Can you imagine that? People standing outside real estate sales and demanding that 'others aren't allowed to pay more for it directly than what I paid through my club membership!!!' It would be absurd right? There is clearly a demand for more housing slots (form subs and nonsubs alike), and nonsubs are willing to pay more than what subs pay - so the only logical option by ZOS would be to enable that demand to turn into a successful sale, just as they regularly do with DLCs, Crowns, Dyes, Chapters, etc.

All these concerns about 'taking away value' and 'losing exclusivity' do, is prove that the current system isn't the most beneficial system. If you only paid for ESO+ because of the exclusivity, but wouldn't consider the many bundled things you get 'worth it' for that price; then you don't actually value those things. There are people who value those things (individual things) so much that they are willing to pay more than you for only a fraction of what you got. So clearly enabling the 2nd group is more sensible than sabotaging and undermining them. And if you suddenly found that the direct purchase is more 'worth it' than your ESO+ sub, then you'd have an option that suits you better too. 👍 Nothing of value is taken away; only new options are added.

RedSwallow

Well, anyway, why not to give some slots in addition to the ones ESO+ has which both subs and non-subs could purchase?

They did it with backpack upgrades already, and I doubt an increase of 5 or 10 or even 20 slots will make a difference in terms of data storage issue. Besides, those slots can be made in a way that they are purchased uniquely for each house, so it won't be like everyone suddenly has all of their homes with doubled limit.

As for me, in smaller houses I often find myself lacking just about a few slots to put some knick-nacks here and there and I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't own big houses at all to care about hundreds of slots and would be happy to expand for just those few available.

wolfbone

SilverBride wrote: »

wolfbone wrote: »

I'm not saying it is the norm, I'm just saying that it's off putting when the majority of interactions I get with pc players as a console player are vulgar insults. at the end of the day, we all play video games, so I don't get why some pc players go out of their way to insult or bully someone for not playing on pc.

How are you interacting with PC players when you are playing on a console? If you are talking about the forums, vulgar insults would normally be snipped and the perpetrator warned or banned.

Although for some reason, the rude post you were referring to was allowed to remain.

there's crossplay in certain games, that you cant turn off, plus there's online where you'll get some pc players who'll go out of their way to start being toxic about what platform you play on

FrumpyCourage

Goren wrote: »

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.

[snip]
There are countless reasons why the system is the way it is and worked well for so long: COSTS!

Do you think with the one-off payment you cover the cost just to store all your stuff in every one of the 65+ houses you are able to buy? Or the upkeep and modernisation of the servers? How about staff costs? Electricity? Insurance? Taxes? Development? etc, etc...

This is the only MMO of its kind that offers you free-to-play, do you realise that? It caters for 20 million players on five different platforms from all over the world. You have lots of possibilities to play this game and it gets new content added constantly. You are not forced to pay for anything here (we are not talking about them tempting you to buy things by making some content unavailable or unplayable)!

And where do you get the idea from that ZoS won't increase the limit? They have said on numerous occasions that this is something they will look at once the major bughs are ironed out, memory has improved, and they have their servers updated. Yes, it's not a guarantee, but certainly not a statement of no intent.

I understand that some people struggle to pay extra for something they want to have (I want to have many of the things I see in the store) but that is life. And I would agree if you said that ZoS is taking the mickey by bringing out items for a limited time only that add up to a fortune and that the loot-box system needs to be disbanded. But just because your neighbour has a station wagon and you only a saloon doesn't mean that you can go to the dealership and demand an upgrade for nothing. And to be fair, not only is Plus not that much but it offers you all sorts of perks that it pays for itself more than twice over...

[snip]

[Edited to remove Baiting]

bluebird

RedSwallow wrote: »

They did it with backpack upgrades already, and I doubt an increase of 5 or 10 or even 20 slots will make a difference in terms of data storage issue. Besides, those slots can be made in a way that they are purchased uniquely for each house, so it won't be like everyone suddenly has all of their homes with doubled limit.

As for me, in smaller houses I often find myself lacking just about a few slots to put some knick-nacks here and there and I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't own big houses at all to care about hundreds of slots and would be happy to expand for just those few available.

That's actually a great point! The inventory expansion pets are a great example from the game for already buyable upgrades that would benefit subs and nonsubs alike! I'm glad we have more people in this thread, as the diversity of perspective clearly comes up with stuff that others have missed!

And yes, even though they are technical limits in place, it would be nice to be able to purchase slot upgrades up to that limit. Like, at this point, I'd rather pay extra Crowns to increase the slots in my Ald Velothi from 400 to 700, than to buy a whole new 700 slot house. Same with Hunding's from 600 to 700, Velothi Reverie, Alinor Crest, Twin Arches, etc... basically almost all houses.

FrumpyCourage wrote: »

Goren wrote: »

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.

[snip]
There are countless reasons why the system is the way it is and worked well for so long: COSTS!

Do you think with the one-off payment you cover the cost just to store all your stuff in every one of the 65+ houses you are able to buy? Or the upkeep and modernisation of the servers? How about staff costs? Electricity? Insurance? Taxes? Development? etc, etc...
[...]
I understand that some people struggle to pay extra for something they want to have (I want to have many of the things I see in the store) but that is life.

You may not have read the details in the thread, so just to clear it up (sorry if you already knew this, but just in case): they do want to pay extra for something they want to have. So it isn't entitled. Entitled is to feel like someone deserves some kind of treatment by default. This thread is only expressing a desire for alternatives, with a willingness to pay for it.

Also, do you think a one-off payment of 3000 Crowns covers the cost of producing Orsinium (with making the zone, all the encounters in Maelstrom Arena, questlines, paying for voiceovers, implementing gear sets, motifs, collectibles and other rewards) and having it permanently accessible by the player (including running the servers for the content and MA runs for all eternity)? Just to put things into perspective, a single Frost Mare mount costs 3000 Crowns. So by comparison, do you think that 16,5000 Crowns (120$) paid by a nonsub for a house isn't enough to make that house 700 slots if they want to pay a 10-20-whatever-$ to upgrade it on top of that? Does the base game cost of 20$ or less cover the cost of running Cyrodiil and IC campaigns, and Battleground servers for all eternity? Because PvPers aren't charged a dime unlike housing fans, and nonsub and sub PvPers still have no such crippling divisions between them.

SilverBride

@FrumpyCourage I don't know what the snipped parts were, but I sure as heck agree with the rest of it. Well said.

FrumpyCourage

[snip]

Whatever you try to suggest is not something that would be accepted by any bank as a business plan. If you run a business you want to make a profit - end of story. ESO is in the first instance a product made by a business. Ergo, they want to make a profit.

And the membership is not that expensive - anybody can budget for it or get a paper round...

[Edited to remove Inappropriate Content]

SilverBride

FrumpyCourage wrote: »

You want extra, you pay for it.

Some things just bear repeating.

newtinmpls

I appreciate the wide ranging discussion, but I am curious about the accuracy and origin of some of the statements.

bluebird wrote: »

• double transmutation crystal limit: subs and nonsubs receive transmute stones at the same rate; they spend them at the same rate
• double bank limit: Bank slots don't require any real currency, all of them can be bought with gold
• Craft Bag: the function of materials is to gather, sell, or use them. Not to store them. Furniture slots in housing are an essential functional part of housing gameplay.

To address your points:

1-Transmute crystals - I have no idea if subs and non-subs tend to participate in crystal-gaining activities at the same rate, or spend them at the same rate. Where is your source or what is your logic for this?

2-Bank limit. Yes, slots can be purchased, but "double total bank slots" means that subs will have double the space. So this is huge.

3-Craft bag; if you somehow think that storing materials is NOT an essential part of "crafting gameplay"...well then I question your logic and reasoning.

newtinmpls

bluebird wrote: »

just to clear it up (sorry if you already knew this, but just in case): they do want to pay extra for something they want to have.

Unfinished sentence. Let me finish it for you:

"Something they want to have that is not for sale".

And to be clear, IF you were very organized about your furniture prep and choices, you could just get everything ready, pay for one month of ESO+, arrange to your hearts content and then let that 1-month sub go. Bingo, you have double furniture even though you are not "still" paying for a sub.

Same with dying costumes and so forth.