ESO+ sub and Free trial issue

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

Eliahnus wrote: »

oddbasket wrote: »

I find it amusing that some are mentioning the trial as an absolute loss ($12) to them. It's not, it is perceiving someone else's gain as their loss. A perceived loss, not an actual loss.

From a mathematical point of view : absolutely speaking it is indeed not a loss, relatively speaking it IS a loss.

That you find it to be amusing, it is because you do not (or better : do not want) to understand.
Paying for what others get for free, can never be justified.

(Edited because of typo.)

So it can never be justified to pay for a car, if people can go on a game show and win the car? It can never be justified to pay for a meal in a restaurant, if somebody can get a free meal there as part of some prize or through a gift certificate that they received? It can never be justified to pay for a movie ticket or Blu-ray disc if people can see the same movie on broadcast TV? It can never be justified to pay for a music album if people can turn on the radio and hear the same songs for free?

Bingo. Don't go buy your friend a birthdat dinner either, because it means you'll have to go to your local grocery store and buy meals for your entire town. Otherwise you are greedy person because they had to walk around this town knowing that Tim got a free meal and they didn't.

that is what is called a strawman statement - it makes no sense in the context, but sounds reasonable

maciopa

I support the OP's idea here as I am also playing this game from the country with waay lower monthly salaries than the rest of EU ( roughly 1/4 of EU's average).
I paid for my ESO+ 's MONTH a day or two before they announced the free Eso+ week. If I knew about that in advance - I wouldn't pay at that day and would just wait till the free week passed receiving in total 37 days of ESO+ instead of 30 for the same price.
Now I feel as if I received 21 days ESO+ for a price of 30. I wish they extended my ESO+ by those 7 days and I do not expect them giving me 1/4th monthly equivalent of Crowns for that nor an access to their "free" statues I do not use. I have over 20000 crowns unused as I buy just character slots and some services with that "currency". ESO+ for me is a craft bag for storing materials/ingredient (even tough I do not craft anything but I always loot everything I see in the game) and additional bank space. Just it. So from my perspective a free ESO+ week is enough to satisfy my needs.

[snip]
It is certainly discouraging people in my situation from paying for ESO+ any further.

Are you subscribed for a year? Good for you. but I hope you see the point now.

[edited for bashing]

Hallothiel

I pay monthly but I still don’t begrudge others having a taste!

Ishtarknows

hafgood wrote: »

OK, so you can state Zos should extend your sub by 7 days each time they do one of these trials?

Thats fine, but in that extra week you get no crowns, no subbed freebies such as the statues and no discount on things for sale in the crown store.

So in other words you get the equivalent of the free trial. Are you OK with that?

So be warned and hope that your three free weeks (assuming there are 3 trials in the year) do not fully overlap with a 14 day discount on that expensive item in the crown store you have been craving for a long time, because if it does you ain't getting that discount and have to pay full price.

And I'm sure you are not OK with that?

I'm OK with all of that

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

Eliahnus wrote: »

oddbasket wrote: »

I find it amusing that some are mentioning the trial as an absolute loss ($12) to them. It's not, it is perceiving someone else's gain as their loss. A perceived loss, not an actual loss.

From a mathematical point of view : absolutely speaking it is indeed not a loss, relatively speaking it IS a loss.

That you find it to be amusing, it is because you do not (or better : do not want) to understand.
Paying for what others get for free, can never be justified.

(Edited because of typo.)

So it can never be justified to pay for a car, if people can go on a game show and win the car? It can never be justified to pay for a meal in a restaurant, if somebody can get a free meal there as part of some prize or through a gift certificate that they received? It can never be justified to pay for a movie ticket or Blu-ray disc if people can see the same movie on broadcast TV? It can never be justified to pay for a music album if people can turn on the radio and hear the same songs for free?

Bingo. Don't go buy your friend a birthdat dinner either, because it means you'll have to go to your local grocery store and buy meals for your entire town. Otherwise you are greedy person because they had to walk around this town knowing that Tim got a free meal and they didn't.

that is what is called a strawman statement - it makes no sense in the context, but sounds reasonable

Nope. It's a metaphor for your argument. A strawman is when someone makes an argument different than the one you made, and argues against that as if it's your argument.

The general argument is it's unfair that ZOS gave something nice to non-subscribers while subscribers received nothing. So it is completely valid to apply that same logic to a different situation to see if it still makes sense.

It doesn't because it's a bad argument that it's unfair that subscribers received nothing while nonsubcribers got something.

BlueRaven

Sheezabeast wrote: »

What if laws regarding loot crates and gambling practices are what made ZOS unable to give them out?

OR, zos could have picked out any costume, recolored it, called it “Subscribers Appreciation Suit” (or something) and gave that out to current subscribers.

Like seriously, any nod would have been fine. Right now coming so close on the whole “deadlands giveaway” that left a lot of subscribers cold, any sign of subscriber appreciation would have been nice.

Sheezabeast

I really think all the problems would be solved if ZOS embraced a tiered subscription model. Adding more features would increase the base price, and we don't want that. If they kept what is offered at the price it is, then added another level of subbing that did offer furniture bag, or more outfit slots, or I dunno, more layout slot thingies we're getting soon, those kind of boons that are luxuries you can most def. live without but some would be willing to pay more for. That way, you can pay for what you feel you get the most for your money with. People can keep getting what they're happy with. And no one loses out.

wolfie1.0.

maciopa wrote: »

I support the OP's idea here as I am also playing this game from the country with waay lower monthly salaries than the rest of EU ( roughly 1/4 of EU's average).
I paid for my ESO+ 's MONTH a day or two before they announced the free Eso+ week. If I knew about that in advance - I wouldn't pay at that day and would just wait till the free week passed receiving in total 37 days of ESO+ instead of 30 for the same price.
Now I feel as if I received 21 days ESO+ for a price of 30. I wish they extended my ESO+ by those 7 days and I do not expect them giving me 1/4th monthly equivalent of Crowns for that nor an access to their "free" statues I do not use. I have over 20000 crowns unused as I buy just character slots and some services with that "currency". ESO+ for me is a craft bag for storing materials/ingredient (even tough I do not craft anything but I always loot everything I see in the game) and additional bank space. Just it. So from my perspective a free ESO+ week is enough to satisfy my needs.

[snip]
It is certainly discouraging people in my situation from paying for ESO+ any further.

Are you subscribed for a year? Good for you. but I hope you see the point now.

If you go look at previous offerings of ESO+ you can pretty much tell in advance when a free trial should come into play. they do like to mix things up, but it averages out to about once a quarter more or less.

As for knowing it in advance, ZOS isn't going to tell you in advance more than they feel necessary. That's a marketing/business choice. Its like going into a store and buying a product today, and then finding out in a week the same product you paid full price for is now on sale.

As for the type of sub to get, TBH its a matter of IRL stuff. but the annual sub is cheaper per month than a monthly sub. Though much of that is wrapped around how much you plan on playing ESO throughout the year. So whether to Sub monthly yearly, or just wait for a free trial is a personal decision.

[edited to remove quote]

wolfie1.0.

Sheezabeast wrote: »

I really think all the problems would be solved if ZOS embraced a tiered subscription model. Adding more features would increase the base price, and we don't want that. If they kept what is offered at the price it is, then added another level of subbing that did offer furniture bag, or more outfit slots, or I dunno, more layout slot thingies we're getting soon, those kind of boons that are luxuries you can most def. live without but some would be willing to pay more for. That way, you can pay for what you feel you get the most for your money with. People can keep getting what they're happy with. And no one loses out.

they sort of already do with the different sub options. Its cheaper over time to go with the longer options, at a high up front cost.

i do see what you mean. The problem is that the something like this would be hard to tier out. you would have to make in such a way that you dont lose revenues in the process. If you make a lower tier too good then you will lose people that pay for the higher one, and if you make a higher tier that is more $$$ but doesn't have enough benefits to justify it then people wont buy into it. Its a balancing thing.

barney2525

Lysette wrote: »

oddbasket wrote: »

Why would it? it's not for those already subscribed to ESO+.

Because being generous with this would buy ZOS a great deal of goodwill from their subscriber base - it doesn't even cost them something extra, because most subscribers are likely to stay subscribed for as long as they are actively playing.

I don't follow the logic. Subscribers already like the game enough to spend $15 every month. They are not the target audience. This is a promotion with a specific purpose - which is to show the players who Don't subscribe that it really is worth it to subscribe. These are the players who will use the free weekend.

They are not 'adding on extra days of subscription' . If I buy a subscription today, You don't get extra days added to your subscription.

If you are that worried about it, you should stay alert and get your subscription canceled before the free weekend. Then use the free weekend. And then re-sub.

problem solved.

Sheezabeast

wtlonewolf20 wrote: »

Sheezabeast wrote: »

I really think all the problems would be solved if ZOS embraced a tiered subscription model. Adding more features would increase the base price, and we don't want that. If they kept what is offered at the price it is, then added another level of subbing that did offer furniture bag, or more outfit slots, or I dunno, more layout slot thingies we're getting soon, those kind of boons that are luxuries you can most def. live without but some would be willing to pay more for. That way, you can pay for what you feel you get the most for your money with. People can keep getting what they're happy with. And no one loses out.

they sort of already do with the different sub options. Its cheaper over time to go with the longer options, at a high up front cost.

i do see what you mean. The problem is that the something like this would be hard to tier out. you would have to make in such a way that you dont lose revenues in the process. If you make a lower tier too good then you will lose people that pay for the higher one, and if you make a higher tier that is more $$$ but doesn't have enough benefits to justify it then people wont buy into it. Its a balancing thing.

You make fair points. I could see how in fairness to balance, they may take features from the base sub and add them to the next level of sub. And that would just upset people who have subbed forever and don't want to pay more for things they don't want in order to keep what they had been getting at the same price.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

Eliahnus wrote: »

oddbasket wrote: »

I find it amusing that some are mentioning the trial as an absolute loss ($12) to them. It's not, it is perceiving someone else's gain as their loss. A perceived loss, not an actual loss.

From a mathematical point of view : absolutely speaking it is indeed not a loss, relatively speaking it IS a loss.

That you find it to be amusing, it is because you do not (or better : do not want) to understand.
Paying for what others get for free, can never be justified.

(Edited because of typo.)

So it can never be justified to pay for a car, if people can go on a game show and win the car? It can never be justified to pay for a meal in a restaurant, if somebody can get a free meal there as part of some prize or through a gift certificate that they received? It can never be justified to pay for a movie ticket or Blu-ray disc if people can see the same movie on broadcast TV? It can never be justified to pay for a music album if people can turn on the radio and hear the same songs for free?

Bingo. Don't go buy your friend a birthdat dinner either, because it means you'll have to go to your local grocery store and buy meals for your entire town. Otherwise you are greedy person because they had to walk around this town knowing that Tim got a free meal and they didn't.

that is what is called a strawman statement - it makes no sense in the context, but sounds reasonable

Nope. It's a metaphor for your argument. A strawman is when someone makes an argument different than the one you made, and argues against that as if it's your argument.

The general argument is it's unfair that ZOS gave something nice to non-subscribers while subscribers received nothing. So it is completely valid to apply that same logic to a different situation to see if it still makes sense.

It doesn't because it's a bad argument that it's unfair that subscribers received nothing while nonsubcribers got something.

your argument is flawed because the starting conditions are not the same - think about it.

you compared a group which can be rightfully entitled, because they are paying customers, to a completely unrelated group, which has no such reason to be entitled, because there is no customer-provider relation on one side of the comparison - and that is a strawman argument, if conditions are assumed to be there and be used as base for comparisons, whereas they are in fact not valid ones.

anyway I don't want to further argue about it - we won't come to an agreement other than eventually agreeing to disagree an the matter.

Mira_Steintor

By sheer coincidence, the free trial was of benefit to me yesterday.

My eso+ sub failed to renew yesterday, due to lack of funds (I don't keep much in my account at any one time). Vecause I was just going to be on my phone, and not my laptop, and even then, only playing a half hour yesterday, I didn't bother to renew.

Instead, I just grabbed the free trial when I logged in. It was easier, as I was tight for time. However, today, when I hop in game today, I will be fully renewing my sub.

I don't usually care about the free eso+ weeks. I'm happy to pay my sub instead. It just worked out for me yesterday that the wee bit of free time was available.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

Eliahnus wrote: »

oddbasket wrote: »

I find it amusing that some are mentioning the trial as an absolute loss ($12) to them. It's not, it is perceiving someone else's gain as their loss. A perceived loss, not an actual loss.

From a mathematical point of view : absolutely speaking it is indeed not a loss, relatively speaking it IS a loss.

That you find it to be amusing, it is because you do not (or better : do not want) to understand.
Paying for what others get for free, can never be justified.

(Edited because of typo.)

So it can never be justified to pay for a car, if people can go on a game show and win the car? It can never be justified to pay for a meal in a restaurant, if somebody can get a free meal there as part of some prize or through a gift certificate that they received? It can never be justified to pay for a movie ticket or Blu-ray disc if people can see the same movie on broadcast TV? It can never be justified to pay for a music album if people can turn on the radio and hear the same songs for free?

Bingo. Don't go buy your friend a birthdat dinner either, because it means you'll have to go to your local grocery store and buy meals for your entire town. Otherwise you are greedy person because they had to walk around this town knowing that Tim got a free meal and they didn't.

that is what is called a strawman statement - it makes no sense in the context, but sounds reasonable

Nope. It's a metaphor for your argument. A strawman is when someone makes an argument different than the one you made, and argues against that as if it's your argument.

The general argument is it's unfair that ZOS gave something nice to non-subscribers while subscribers received nothing. So it is completely valid to apply that same logic to a different situation to see if it still makes sense.

It doesn't because it's a bad argument that it's unfair that subscribers received nothing while nonsubcribers got something.

your argument is flawed because the starting conditions are not the same - think about it.

you compared a group which can be rightfully entitled, because they are paying customers, to a completely unrelated group, which has no such reason to be entitled, because there is no customer-provider relation on one side of the comparison - and that is a strawman argument, if conditions are assumed to be there and be used as base for comparisons, whereas they are in fact not valid ones.

anyway I don't want to further argue about it - we won't come to an agreement other than eventually agreeing to disagree an the matter.

But they aren't rightfully entitled, if that were the case it would be wrong for them to help literally anyone else.

Subs aren't different than the towns people because ZOS doesn't owe them anything beyond the goods purchased. It's good to give back to your community (town). It's good to give subs nice things. But neither are rightfully entitled to anything, and it is not immoral to give something nice to someone else instead. Subs are just customers who got what they paid for, there is no debt from ZOS or entitlement of the customer for anything beyond that.

Sarannah

ZOS should offer discounts on ESO+ memberships during a free trial. This way everyone wins, even ZOS, as more players would probably buy subscription time.

Mesite

I was trying to think of ways the free trial could be improved. I think they could give a weeks free crowns away with the free trial too to give more incentive to pay for ESO+ regularly. People have the DLC and can manage the crafting materials using a few dedicated crafting alts. Its the crowns that the people using the trial need.

_adhyffbjjjf12

Sarannah wrote: »

ZOS should offer discounts on ESO+ memberships during a free trial. This way everyone wins, even ZOS, as more players would probably buy subscription time.

I pay the following through monthly contracts:

Phone
TV package
House insurance
Pet insurance
Kids music clubs

No-one expects to get a discount every time any of those providers offer a free trial/special offer to get new customers interested, why is a game different?

Magio_

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

No-one expects to get a discount every time any of those providers offer a free trial/special offer to get new customers interested, why is a game different?

[snip] These are probably the same people that complain about the Deadlands DLC being free if you own Blackwood from the recent event. As if having access to Deadlands was the ONLY reason to be subbed.

[edited for baiting]

Nanfoodle

Vindold wrote: »

ESO+ Free trial time should be added to ESO+ sub. time, should be fair don't you think?

Free players dont get the perks of ESO +, its not the same value. But I would like Zeni to add a family pass. 2 subs or more on the same credit card, should get a discount.

_adhyffbjjjf12

Nanfoodle wrote: »

Vindold wrote: »

ESO+ Free trial time should be added to ESO+ sub. time, should be fair don't you think?

Free players dont get the perks of ESO +, its not the same value. But I would like Zeni to add a family pass. 2 subs or more on the same credit card, should get a discount.

that's a great idea