Could we go back to a subscription model?

Jack-0

All this fuss over the crown store…I remember when ESO had a mandatory subscription to be able to play. Why can’t we go back to that, ditch the crown store and predatory methods of getting players to open their wallets, turn all the cosmetic stuff into in-game rewards, and everyone’s a winner?

How many people actually don’t subscribe for the craft bag, crowns and dlc access anyway? Would it upset that many people vs how many would be overjoyed to be able to earn good in game rewards? Can these micro transactions really be so successful compared to a standard sub?

Treeshka

If they go back to that majority of the people will just go away and never ever come back.

Lozeenge

despite all the benefits ESO+ is still an optional subscription. i can't imagine telling people who already bought the game up-front that they now need it to even log in would go down well no matter how many DLCs they throw in to sweeten the deal with.

XxCaLxX

Treeshka wrote: »

If they go back to that majority of the people will just go away and never ever come back.

Ppl that spend money on this game already sub so what ppl would go away wouldn't hurt ZoS anyway. I don't think making subscription mandatory is the answer but they were already losing ppl before and even more now with the crown debacle so I'd say now is the time to do something before it gets too late.

Nowa133

XxCaLxX wrote: »

Treeshka wrote: »

If they go back to that majority of the people will just go away and never ever come back.

Ppl that spend money on this game already sub so what ppl would go away wouldn't hurt ZoS anyway. I don't think making subscription mandatory is the answer but they were already losing ppl before and even more now with the crown debacle so I'd say now is the time to do something before it gets too late.

And those are not the most, since we have more non-spenders than otherwise (most likely, since the uproar). Until they regionalize the prices, its quite stupid to do that. ESO's sub is more expensive than wow, ffxiv, swtor, etc. If they do that, go back to sub only, i'll just play ffxiv.

Rohamad_Ali

Once you go down the dark patch of loot boxes and store items, forever will it dominate your mmo path.

Wish we never had a store and stayed a sub based mmo too.

Xandreia_

id uninstall so quick and never look back tbh

wilykcat

If this happens, I will continue playing.

thehilanderb14a_ESO

XxCaLxX wrote: »

Ppl that spend money on this game already sub so what ppl would go away wouldn't hurt ZoS anyway.

It’s not that simple. If too many people leave, and the population becomes TOO sparse, you start to lose paying subscribers as well because it gets too hard to find groups and such.

It’s a balancing act.

geonsocal

what the heck, are you like a shareholder or something...

you control what you buy...that should be a good thing...

TaSheen

I much prefer a solid sub model. I subbed multiple accounts in both WoW and RIFT, and find it silly that while you can sub here, there's this crown store thing going on....

Stamicka

I would love this as it has many benefits:

1. The developers are held accountable for bad decisions. When subscriptions are the sole source of income, when any type of player leaves, the company feels it, so it is best not to alienate your playerbase.

2. All players are seen as equals to the developers. With the current model, certain types of players are more valuable to the company. For example, players who tend to frequently buy crown crates or other expensive items from the crown store are more worthwhile to keep around for the developers. This means that the developers can afford to only cater to specific audiences and take focus away from the people who don't spend as much. Eventually the game will end up only catering to the whales. This doesn't happen with a subscription model and it is best to keep every type of player satisfied.

3. Better in game rewards. I think ESO would have much cooler rewards if the crown store wasn't such a big part of the game. Items in the crown store almost always look better than what can be earned.

4. It is less predatory and more transparent. Locking cosmetics behind RNG crates is so scummy, give us a straight forward way to get things.


Unfortunately, with ESO's current system, the gambling addicts and housing enthusiasts spend so much money on the game that many other players can play subscriptionless and without ever looking in the crown store. The company will still make excellent profits. Some people are completely opposed to paying anything else other than the price of the game. I really think things would improve with a subscription model though.

Anumaril

The revenue they get from the Crown Store far eclipses any revenue from subscriptions. This is highly unlikely to happen, although I would certainly support it.

SilverBride

If subscriptions were mandatory then crown prices could drop because they wouldn't rely on crown sales as much for revenue as they do now. And if crown prices dropped more players would purchase them. If more players purchased crowns they could actually bring in more revenue even at the lower price.

zaria

Lozeenge wrote: »

despite all the benefits ESO+ is still an optional subscription. i can't imagine telling people who already bought the game up-front that they now need it to even log in would go down well no matter how many DLCs they throw in to sweeten the deal with.

This, its lots of people who bought the game after sub was dropped, going back to sub would block them off, they would loose a lot of players and probably get legal issues.

Sub games now also has premium items at least WOW has same with EVE oline, I guess FF 14 to.
More fun some sub games like EVE online let you buy the sub from other players with "gold".
Imagine if you could buy one month of ESO+ and sell or gift to other players. This would not include the crowns you get with standard ESO+ as then you could use these crowns to buy the next month

kargen27

You defeat your own argument. Seems you are saying most people subscribe anyway so how many would it affect. If most subscribe anyway then your idea just takes away one source of revenue and doesn't add an alternative source of revenue.

jommerryrth

I have extra accounts as do many people that they don't sub eso+ on. if i can no longer play on those accounts because everyone needs a 15$ sub every month? yah buh bye. eso will surely be doa if that happens.

valenwood_vegan

This simply isn't going to happen, as there would be myriad legal issues with selling people the game no sub required, not to mention selling DLC with the specific purpose of providing access to that DLC without an ESO Plus sub, and then taking away their access and requiring a sub later. Cat's already out of the bag.

kah

valenwood_vegan wrote: »

This simply isn't going to happen, as there would be myriad legal issues with selling people the game no sub required, and then taking away their access and requiring a sub later. Cat's already out of the bag.

Yeah, it'd be one heck of a legal nightmare for them.

I'd be a little happier with the idea of paying for the game flat out and then paying for the sub if I didn't have to also pay for the new expansion every single year--and if everything vaguely cool or interesting or new wasn't gated in the crown store.

SilverBride

valenwood_vegan wrote: »

This simply isn't going to happen, as there would be myriad legal issues with selling people the game no sub required, and then taking away their access and requiring a sub later. Cat's already out of the bag.

I don't see how this would create any legal issues. Companies do things like this all the time.

I used to have free grocery delivery for subscribing with a service, but now there is a fee based on the price of the order. (The more spent the less the fee.) They didn't get in any legal trouble.

Freelancer_ESO

You would likely lose over half of the players overnight and the revenue from the remainder would plummet as you wouldn't be able to milk the whales as much.

The F2P model is successful because it allows you to milk players at varying rates to maximize the amount of resources you obtain.

LittlePinkDot

Jack-0 wrote: »

All this fuss over the crown store…I remember when ESO had a mandatory subscription to be able to play. Why can’t we go back to that, ditch the crown store and predatory methods of getting players to open their wallets, turn all the cosmetic stuff into in-game rewards, and everyone’s a winner?

How many people actually don’t subscribe for the craft bag, crowns and dlc access anyway? Would it upset that many people vs how many would be overjoyed to be able to earn good in game rewards? Can these micro transactions really be so successful compared to a standard sub?

No thanks. It's not as cheap in Canadian dollars and the government imposed a tax on digital content.

TaSheen

LittlePinkDot wrote: »

Jack-0 wrote: »

All this fuss over the crown store…I remember when ESO had a mandatory subscription to be able to play. Why can’t we go back to that, ditch the crown store and predatory methods of getting players to open their wallets, turn all the cosmetic stuff into in-game rewards, and everyone’s a winner?

How many people actually don’t subscribe for the craft bag, crowns and dlc access anyway? Would it upset that many people vs how many would be overjoyed to be able to earn good in game rewards? Can these micro transactions really be so successful compared to a standard sub?

No thanks. It's not as cheap in Canadian dollars and the government imposed a tax on digital content.

So did my state... and many others here in the US.

shadyjane62

No. I have a sub now. I have had a sub for 10 years. The last two years were iffy as to whether I would resub. But I am tired of crafting and alts.
I have more gold that I would need for 5 lifetimes. I still have the 20 k crowns they give me for year sub. There's nothing to buy.

Next year I will get all the challenge I need, living without the craft bag.

valenwood_vegan

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't see how this would create any legal issues. Companies do things like this all the time.

I used to have free grocery delivery for subscribing with a service, but now there is a fee based on the price of the order. (The more spent the less the fee.) They didn't get in any legal trouble.

You are sorta comparing apples to oranges. Pun intended. There is a substantial difference between adding new terms for future orders (ie: in eso terms... requiring a subscription to access future content such as next year's chapter) and selling people an item and then requiring a subscription after the fact (ie: in eso terms... selling people a $50 chapter with no subscription requirement, then taking away their access and demanding subscription fees).

If we wanna put it in your grocery terms though, I'm assuming the delivery service didn't show up and take away the groceries you previously purchased until you paid the new fee for those previous deliveries.

So would there be legal challenges if ZoS suddenly revokes access to previously sold "no sub required" content and demands sub fees? Yes.

fizl101

Console would have to pay 3 times to play, pay for the game, pay for online game access (ps plus and xbox equiv) and then the sub

shadyjane62

SilverBride wrote: »

If subscriptions were mandatory then crown prices could drop because they wouldn't rely on crown sales as much for revenue as they do now. And if crown prices dropped more players would purchase them. If more players purchased crowns they could actually bring in more revenue even at the lower price.

Could drop maybe. Would drop, not a chance in the hot place, would they ever charge less when people have proved they will pay.

My coffee went up 4 dollars because a co-vid. Knowing I will pay for this essential, they do NOT drop the price.

thehilanderb14a_ESO

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't see how this would create any legal issues. Companies do things like this all the time.

I used to have free grocery delivery for subscribing with a service, but now there is a fee based on the price of the order. (The more spent the less the fee.) They didn't get in any legal trouble.

The difference is that some people purchased the game BECAUSE it was buy-to-play. If they were to start charging a mandatory monthly fee now, people that spent money to purchase the game under those terms could have potential grounds for legal action.

Danikat

When the game was subscription-only it did so well the only new thing released was Craglorn (in 2 parts) and within a year they were having meetings about whether to shut it down entirely or try switching to buy-to-play. Maybe things would be different after 9 years of updates and improvements funded by the current payment model, but I doubt it'd last.

Also when it was subscription-only there weren't any more in-game rewards than we get now and if they went back to that I think it's highly unlikely they'd drop the crown store. As other people have said even subscription games have cash shops these days. They'd likely keep the current system where subscribers get a small amount of crowns per month and if you want more you can buy them. Afterall you're not some free-loader, you're a paying "premium" player, surely you're ok with paying for the things you want, right?

kaushad

Alternative idea: how about they double the subscription fees? How would that suit everyone? Or triple?

SilverBride

valenwood_vegan wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't see how this would create any legal issues. Companies do things like this all the time.

I used to have free grocery delivery for subscribing with a service, but now there is a fee based on the price of the order. (The more spent the less the fee.) They didn't get in any legal trouble.

You are sorta comparing apples to oranges. Pun intended. There is a substantial difference between adding new terms for future orders (ie: in eso terms... requiring a subscription to access future content such as next year's chapter) and selling people an item and then requiring a subscription after the fact (ie: in eso terms... selling people a $50 chapter with no subscription requirement, then taking away their access and demanding subscription fees).

If we wanna put it in your grocery terms though, I'm assuming the delivery service didn't show up and take away the groceries you previously purchased until you paid the new fee for those previous deliveries.

So would there be legal challenges if ZoS suddenly revokes access to previously sold "no sub required" content and demands sub fees? Yes.

Of course they didn't charge me for previous deliveries. How could they? A fee wasn't required when I purchased those.

ZoS couldn't go back and retroactively charge either. Any subscription fee would start at the time the new process went into effect.

But this does make me think about what would happen to ESO+ and would there be additional perks for paying a higher subcription fee? Or would it go away and everyone would get the current perks? I don't think they are going to just hand over free DLCs to everyone so if ESO+ is replaced with a mandatory subscription, that is another can of worms opened up.

Maybe I don't want them to require subscriptions after all.