Describe your prefered payment method in detail, if ZOS changed their subscription model

EJRose83 · January 2015

It cracks me up when people on this thread (and others) exclaim, "I'm not paying for DLC! Screw that!" and yet they're more than willing to offer up $15 a month for future content and continued access to the game. Go figure =/

EJRose83 · January 2015

Nestor wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

What's so bad about that?

Because these DLCs almost always contain something that gives an advantage to a player, even if it's just more levels, so that they are no longer optional to anyone who wants to stay competitive.

Probably won't matter to those who PvE, but not to those who PvP or run Trials.

@Nestor‌
Okay, well how is purchasing a $15 DLC pack of your choice every few months in order to remain competitive different than paying for a monthly subscription? Or are you now simply complaining about having to pay anything, period?

Zorrashi · January 2015

Ok first off, let me say that I support the current payment model. But if I they had to ditch it....

I would suggest a model where you pay the for the box and then pay 25 to 5 cents for every hour you play.(A semi-P2P?)

It is a very very very far cry from the profit seen from the current model, but even that is better than the cash-shop reliance F2P usually gives.

No content is barred. The cash shop is only used for pure convenience and not in-game boosts (i.e get the horse for 42,000g or for 5$ in the cash shop) and vanity pets.

SirKeka · January 2015

I like it the way it is now, but I think the best way to go at it would be with B2P and yearly expansions. People who hate sub fees would buy the game and we would see a huge influx of new players and we'd be getting a ton of new content every year, I know a lot of my friends would buy the game if it went B2P.

I can just imagine myself counting down the days each year whilst waiting for the expac to drop.

The WORST way they could go about it though, would be F2P. Just... no, I don't see myself playing the game for long if that were to happen.

Nestor · January 2015

EJRose83 wrote: »

Okay, well how is purchasing a $15 DLC pack of your choice every few months in order to remain competitive different than paying for a monthly subscription? Or are you now simply complaining about having to pay anything, period?

Where are you coming from? I pay my subscription to this game and don't want that model changed. Which obviously means I pay for the game. I have never stated otherwise.

Show me one post where I complained about paying for the game. Just one. I will tell you right now you will be wasting your time as I have never said it. But go ahead and look for it if you want.

What I do complain about are people creatively trying to get out of paying for the game they are playing. An example of which is offering up "optional" DLCs to fund the games operation so that others don't have to pay for it. You can look for those posts, I have made a bunch of those. You can also find the posts where I say that if this game goes to any other model but subscription based I would quit playing it.

Now, I will even restate my position so there is no misunderstanding. This way when you put words in my mouth, they will be the ones I am saying:

The only model for an MMO I would ever consider being involved with is a Subscription based model. In other words, if I don't have to pay for the game, I don't want to play it because that game experience would suck.

EJRose83 · January 2015

Zorrashi wrote: »

No content is barred. The cash shop is only used for pure convenience and not in-game boosts (i.e get the horse for 42,000g or for 5$ in the cash shop) and vanity pets.

Agreed, no in-game boosts. I would also stress that items bought in the cash shop should not be re-sellable in the auction house, so as to not screw up the economy.

Like I said before, the only DLC this game should offer (if it goes B2P) are substantial content packs, such as new adventure zones, pve areas, guild quest lines and new game systems such as spellcrafting. A small vanity item store wouldn't hurt either, though to be honest I would ideally not have one.

Crafting motifs and things such as that should not be purchasable in-game as well. I certainly do not want to be nickeled and dimed for meager aspects of the game and by buying things such as that instead of earning them, you are only cheating yourself. If ESO goes B2P and ZOS would like to increase their revenue, then they should put out more quality content in my opinion.

EJRose83 · January 2015

Nestor wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

Okay, well how is purchasing a $15 DLC pack of your choice every few months in order to remain competitive different than paying for a monthly subscription? Or are you now simply complaining about having to pay anything, period?

Where are you coming from? I pay my subscription to this game and don't want that model changed. Which obviously means I pay for the game. I have never stated otherwise.

Show me one post where I complained about paying for the game. Just one. I will tell you right now you will be wasting your time as I have never said it. But go ahead and look for it if you want.

What I do complain about are people creatively trying to get out of paying for the game they are playing. An example of which is offering up "optional" DLCs to fund the games operation so that others don't have to pay for it. You can look for those posts, I have made a bunch of those. You can also find the posts where I say that if this game goes to any other model but subscription based I would quit playing it.

Now, I will even restate my position so there is no misunderstanding. This way when you put words in my mouth, they will be the ones I am saying:

The only model for an MMO I would ever consider being involved with is a Subscription based model. In other words, if I don't have to pay for the game, I don't want to play it because that game experience would suck.

@Nestor This isn't a discussion about whether or not ESO should go B2P or F2P, but rather what business model would you ideally prefer if a subscription was no longer optional.

You expressed a dislike of DLC earlier because it gives players who purchase it a competitive edge over those who don't, which can be taken as a complaint about having to paying for DLC in general if the game were to go B2P. If you're not complaining about having to hypothetically pay for DLC, then what is it you're ultimately complaining about?

Nestor · January 2015

Because if they go to "optional" DLC to fund the game, then that is not really an option. I have yet to see an RPG or Action game DLC (and I have bought plenty of them for single player games) not offer better weapons, more levels, more experience or skills or something else to grow and progress a character. So, those who buy the DLCs will be at a competitive advantage to those who don't.

Now there might be a way to offer up a DLC that does not give advantage to a player, but I can't think of one that would be marketable enough. Other than possible vanity items or a house or something like that. But that is just another form of a cash shop. Something else I would not participate in.

ItsGlaive · January 2015

Not a fan of any kind of microtransaction model at all. I'll pay for a full-on expansion, but that'll be about it

EJRose83 · January 2015

Nestor wrote: »

Because if they go to "optional" DLC to fund the game, then that is not really an option. I have yet to see a DLC (and I have bought plenty of them for single player games) not offer better weapons, more levels, more experience or skills or something else to grow and progress a character. So, those who buy the DLCs will be at a competitive advantage to those who don't.

Now there might be a way to offer up a DLC that does not give advantage to a player, but I can't think of one that would be marketable enough. Other than possible vanity items or a house or something like that. But that is just another form of a cash shop. Something else I would not participate in.

@nestor

lol So you're complaining about having to pay for DLC then? In all seriousness, the DLC would be optional because you wouldn't have to purchase it to keep playing the game. If you felt as though it wasn't optional for your particular needs and/or desires, then by all means you could purchase it.

Nestor · January 2015

As an alternative to a Subscription model you can bet your bottom dollar I am complaining about buying DLCs to support a game subscription. Because it is just F2P with a different wrapper on it.

If am paying a monthly subscription then they better not offer content as a DLC for purchase because why else I am paying for my subscription then?

Sallington · January 2015

EJRose83 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Outside of a subscription, I would never pay $ for anything. Cheap money-grubbing tactics like that make me leave games.

So you never purchase DLC for games like Call of Duty or anything? I mean, if you buy the game outright in it's current state, then any additional content that becomes available in the future could be considered optional DLC. What's so bad about that?

Exactly. I don't support paid DLC, at all. It's a cancer to the gaming industry.

EJRose83 · January 2015

Nestor wrote: »

As an alternative to a Subscription model you can bet your bottom dollar I am complaining about buying DLCs to support a game subscription. Because it is just F2P with a different wrapper on it.

If am paying a monthly subscription then they better not offer content as a DLC for purchase because why else I am paying for my subscription then?

@Nestor lol This isn't about DLC for a game you subscribe to. It's about using DLC as a possible business model in lieu of a subscription.

Sallington · January 2015

EJRose83 wrote: »

Nestor wrote: »

As an alternative to a Subscription model you can bet your bottom dollar I am complaining about buying DLCs to support a game subscription. Because it is just F2P with a different wrapper on it.

If am paying a monthly subscription then they better not offer content as a DLC for purchase because why else I am paying for my subscription then?

@Nestor lol This isn't about DLC for a game you subscribe to. It's about using DLC as a possible business model in lieu of a subscription.

I think what he's trying to say is that the idea is terrible.

EJRose83 · January 2015

Sallington wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Outside of a subscription, I would never pay $ for anything. Cheap money-grubbing tactics like that make me leave games.

So you never purchase DLC for games like Call of Duty or anything? I mean, if you buy the game outright in it's current state, then any additional content that becomes available in the future could be considered optional DLC. What's so bad about that?

Exactly. I don't support paid DLC, at all. It's a cancer to the gaming industry.

Why do you consider it a cancer to the gaming industry? I absolutely love DLC as long as it's developed as additional content after the game goes gold. In most cases it's just extra content you wouldn't normally get otherwise.

EJRose83 · January 2015

Sallington wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

Nestor wrote: »

As an alternative to a Subscription model you can bet your bottom dollar I am complaining about buying DLCs to support a game subscription. Because it is just F2P with a different wrapper on it.

If am paying a monthly subscription then they better not offer content as a DLC for purchase because why else I am paying for my subscription then?

@Nestor lol This isn't about DLC for a game you subscribe to. It's about using DLC as a possible business model in lieu of a subscription.

I think what he's trying to say is that the idea is terrible.

@Sallington

lol I understand what he's trying to say. What he's actually saying though is different and it's making me laugh :P

Sallington · January 2015

EJRose83 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Outside of a subscription, I would never pay $ for anything. Cheap money-grubbing tactics like that make me leave games.

So you never purchase DLC for games like Call of Duty or anything? I mean, if you buy the game outright in it's current state, then any additional content that becomes available in the future could be considered optional DLC. What's so bad about that?

Exactly. I don't support paid DLC, at all. It's a cancer to the gaming industry.

Why do you consider it a cancer to the gaming industry? I absolutely love DLC as long as it's developed as additional content after the game goes gold. In most cases it's just extra content you wouldn't normally get otherwise.

That's just it. It USED to be content we got for free, and then some devs/publishers started charging for it. Everyone bought it up without issue, and now look at the industry. You pay twice as much for DLC as you do for the actually game in some cases.

Day 1 DLC has got to be the most infuriating thing I've ever heard of in my entire life, but people buy it up. Not to start a war, but I personally blame consoles.

I've never played an MMO without a subscription model that was close to worth anyone's time.

Nestor · January 2015

No it's not, I am stating why I think DLC in lieu of a subscription model is a dumb idea. I have been consistent with that.

EJRose83 · January 2015

Sallington wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Outside of a subscription, I would never pay $ for anything. Cheap money-grubbing tactics like that make me leave games.

So you never purchase DLC for games like Call of Duty or anything? I mean, if you buy the game outright in it's current state, then any additional content that becomes available in the future could be considered optional DLC. What's so bad about that?

Exactly. I don't support paid DLC, at all. It's a cancer to the gaming industry.

Why do you consider it a cancer to the gaming industry? I absolutely love DLC as long as it's developed as additional content after the game goes gold. In most cases it's just extra content you wouldn't normally get otherwise.

That's just it. It USED to be content we got for free, and then some devs/publishers started charging for it. Everyone bought it up without issue, and now look at the industry. You pay twice as much for DLC as you do for the actually game in some cases.

Day 1 DLC has got to be the most infuriating thing I've ever heard of in my entire life, but people buy it up.

I've never played an MMO without a subscription model that was close to worth anyone's time.

Yes, day one DLC is horrible. No argument there.

However, take for example Assassin's Creed: Unity and it's Dead Kings DLC. That is additional content that would not have been included in the game if it had been developed prior to the advent of the whole DLC fad.

Sallington · January 2015

EJRose83 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Outside of a subscription, I would never pay $ for anything. Cheap money-grubbing tactics like that make me leave games.

So you never purchase DLC for games like Call of Duty or anything? I mean, if you buy the game outright in it's current state, then any additional content that becomes available in the future could be considered optional DLC. What's so bad about that?

Exactly. I don't support paid DLC, at all. It's a cancer to the gaming industry.

Why do you consider it a cancer to the gaming industry? I absolutely love DLC as long as it's developed as additional content after the game goes gold. In most cases it's just extra content you wouldn't normally get otherwise.

That's just it. It USED to be content we got for free, and then some devs/publishers started charging for it. Everyone bought it up without issue, and now look at the industry. You pay twice as much for DLC as you do for the actually game in some cases.

Day 1 DLC has got to be the most infuriating thing I've ever heard of in my entire life, but people buy it up.

I've never played an MMO without a subscription model that was close to worth anyone's time.

Yes, day one DLC is horrible. No argument there.

However, take for example Assassin's Creed: Unity and it's Dead Kings DLC. That is additional content that would not have been included in the game if it had been developed prior to the advent of the whole DLC fad.

Infamous-No-Face-Bug-in-Assassin-s-Creed-Unity-Should-Be-Fixed-Now-465480-2.jpg

EJRose83 · January 2015

Nestor wrote: »

No it's not, I am stating why I think DLC in lieu of a subscription model is a dumb idea. I have been consistent with that.

@Nestor You did state why you thought DLC in lieu of a sub is a dumb idea, by inadvertently saying you were unhappy about paying for DLC. Once again though this isn't a conversation about whether or not this game should go B2P or F2P, but rather what alternative business model do we think is best for the game and our own personal interests if the subscription model were to be abandoned by ZOS. Taken in that context, you are complaining about paying for optional DLC in a game that is otherwise free, baring the initial purchase of it if it were B2P.

I completely understand that you don't want this game to go F2P or B2P. I do, I get that. I also get that you fail to understand what this thread is actually discussing though as well :P

We're all having a discussion here about the virtues of a vegan diet and you're like, "Hey guys, lets ride bikes!"

EJRose83 · January 2015

Sallington wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

Sallington wrote: »

Outside of a subscription, I would never pay $ for anything. Cheap money-grubbing tactics like that make me leave games.

So you never purchase DLC for games like Call of Duty or anything? I mean, if you buy the game outright in it's current state, then any additional content that becomes available in the future could be considered optional DLC. What's so bad about that?

Exactly. I don't support paid DLC, at all. It's a cancer to the gaming industry.

Why do you consider it a cancer to the gaming industry? I absolutely love DLC as long as it's developed as additional content after the game goes gold. In most cases it's just extra content you wouldn't normally get otherwise.

That's just it. It USED to be content we got for free, and then some devs/publishers started charging for it. Everyone bought it up without issue, and now look at the industry. You pay twice as much for DLC as you do for the actually game in some cases.

Day 1 DLC has got to be the most infuriating thing I've ever heard of in my entire life, but people buy it up.

I've never played an MMO without a subscription model that was close to worth anyone's time.

Yes, day one DLC is horrible. No argument there.

However, take for example Assassin's Creed: Unity and it's Dead Kings DLC. That is additional content that would not have been included in the game if it had been developed prior to the advent of the whole DLC fad.

I would totally pay for this :P

Elsonso · January 2015

EJRose83 wrote: »

Once again though this isn't a conversation about whether or not this game should go B2P or F2P, but rather what alternative business model do we think is best for the game and our own personal interests if the subscription model were to be abandoned by ZOS.

While this might annoying you, I really do think that subscription model is the best for ESO. Asking what is second best is not really productive.

EJRose83 · January 2015

lordrichter wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

Once again though this isn't a conversation about whether or not this game should go B2P or F2P, but rather what alternative business model do we think is best for the game and our own personal interests if the subscription model were to be abandoned by ZOS.

While this might annoying you, I really do think that subscription model is the best for ESO. Asking what is second best is not really productive.

No, I completely agree that a sub model is for the best. I think you have to come to the realization though that eventually sub numbers will die down and ZOS will turn to alternative business models in an effort to increase the products profitability. In light of that, this discussion does hold some relevance.

Elsonso · January 2015

EJRose83 wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

Once again though this isn't a conversation about whether or not this game should go B2P or F2P, but rather what alternative business model do we think is best for the game and our own personal interests if the subscription model were to be abandoned by ZOS.

While this might annoying you, I really do think that subscription model is the best for ESO. Asking what is second best is not really productive.

No, I completely agree that a sub model is for the best. I think you have to come to the realization though that eventually sub numbers will die down and ZOS will turn to alternative business models in an effort to increase the products profitability. In light of that, this discussion does hold some relevance.

Yeah, but it is likely that the game will be very different by that time. I expect that the first expansion pack is probably already on the drawing board. A lot more areas in Tamriel will probably be available for exploration..

DDuke · January 2015

Preferred payment method: refund.

Yasha · January 2015

EJRose83 wrote: »

Okay, well how is purchasing a $15 DLC pack of your choice every few months in order to remain competitive different than paying for a monthly subscription?

Although this question was directed to someone else, it is a good question and since the person you asked just got defensive, I will have a crack at it.

Purchasing DLC over some kind of reasonable time frame (like 6 months or a year; I am not talking about buying OP weapons or something in a cash shop every week) in order to keep up is mainly different to a sub because:

1) players can choose not to buy it and continue playing the base game without a monthly game tax

2) it would probably cheaper for most players, especially casual players

3) it would probably attract a lot of new players, especially when launched on consoles, because I would hazard to guess that the majority of people who play games do not want to pay a sub, but are quite happy to pay box price and pay for DLC.

Psychobunni · January 2015

Layenem wrote: »

Having a successful business model has nothing to do with having a successful game. EQ1, for instance, its just too old. It needs a complete overhaul (Pantheon anyone?) and that's not even made by SOE.

Don't mix successful business model up with successful games. Some of the older games are actually alive BECAUSE they have a successful business model that brought in new traffic that have picked up subs because they enjoy the game as a whole. Even if it is old as dirt.

which is why I said "and continuing to keep the game fresh and exciting". Sure, its a great business plan to offer something cheaper *if* you can maintain it. But if you are only getting enough money to keep the game "alive" for bored gamers inbetween waits for preferred games, you aren't actually being successful, just keeping your head above water.

Yasha · January 2015

Psychobunni wrote: »

Layenem wrote: »

Having a successful business model has nothing to do with having a successful game. EQ1, for instance, its just too old. It needs a complete overhaul (Pantheon anyone?) and that's not even made by SOE.

Don't mix successful business model up with successful games. Some of the older games are actually alive BECAUSE they have a successful business model that brought in new traffic that have picked up subs because they enjoy the game as a whole. Even if it is old as dirt.

which is why I said "and continuing to keep the game fresh and exciting". Sure, its a great business plan to offer something cheaper *if* you can maintain it. But if you are only getting enough money to keep the game "alive" for bored gamers inbetween waits for preferred games, you aren't actually being successful, just keeping your head above water.

ESO is one of the few, perhaps the only, mmo I have played that really seems to use the sub money to improve the game. Most of the time what you describe is exactly what most sub-based games are like - some even decide to charge you $60 or so for any quality updates on top of a sub.

Definitely if the business model were to change, it would be preferable to have one that enabled and incentivized new quality content. It would be bad to go from the strong focus on development and quality we have now to just "treading water".

EJRose83 · January 2015

Yasha wrote: »

EJRose83 wrote: »

Okay, well how is purchasing a $15 DLC pack of your choice every few months in order to remain competitive different than paying for a monthly subscription?

Although this question was directed to someone else, it is a good question and since the person you asked just got defensive, I will have a crack at it.

Purchasing DLC over some kind of reasonable time frame (like 6 months or a year; I am not talking about buying OP weapons or something in a cash shop every week) in order to keep up is mainly different to a sub because:

1) players can choose not to buy it and continue playing the base game without a monthly game tax

2) it would probably cheaper for most players, especially casual players

3) it would probably attract a lot of new players, especially when launched on consoles, because I would hazard to guess that the majority of people who play games do not want to pay a sub, but are quite happy to pay box price and pay for DLC.

Well said