A Better Incentive for ESO+

Kvothe · January 2015

After hearing and reading about the transition to B2P and ESO+ I felt influenced to make a post addressing my main concern and a possible solution.

What is the incentive to maintain an ESO+ account if a subscriber stands to lose all non-purchased DLC upon canceling the subscription? It would seem that this would put a subscriber in a position where he would need to pay twice for the DLC (by subscription and Crowns) if he thought that he might want to cancel his subscription later should it become apparent that the cost of the subscription outweighed it's benefit.

My personal preference would be to continue paying a subscription (via ESO+) and supporting the development of this game on a monthly basis simply because I enjoy playing it. However, not being able to keep the non-cosmetic DLC if I let my subscription lapse after a year, would be more of an incentive not to subscribe to ESO+. This seems peculiar since a higher subscription rate would be the most beneficial to further developing and maintaining the game. But, I think I have a solution.

The reasoning behind the current plan is to avoid people picking up a one month subscription every time new DLC is going to be released, effectively allowing them to get it at a reduced cost. I would argue that a more incentivizing solution would be: Allow ESO+ subscribers to keep the DLC, but, when new DLC is going to be released suspend the option for new one month subscriptions. This would insure that ZOS would receive at least $30.00 from anyone signing up for a subscription just to get the DLC. You could easily extrapolate this out for larger or more highly anticipated DLC releases. It is my opinion that using this method while allowing subscribers to retain their DLC is a better incentive for more current subscribers to keep their subscriptions when combined with the other planned ESO+ bonuses. It would also be a better incentive for new players to sign up for ESO+.

Tamanous · January 2015

ZOS wants a completely different option. Some customers simply prefer to pay a sub without ANY hassle and simply play the game. They also want a reason for continued subs. It is a separate method of entry to play the game. They don't actually want to combine B2P with it.

Muizer · January 2015

It's also a somewhat sneaky way of introducing the boosters before they reach the cash-shop.

Kvothe · January 2015

Tamanous, I am not suggesting combing subscriptions with B2P, rather, an incentive for people to opt for ESO+

It is evident that the reason ZOS does not want to allow subscribers to keep DLC if they cancel their subscription is because they do not want people getting subscriptions just to get discounted DLC and then canceling. Unfortunately, not being able to keep the DLC that has been paid for by the subscription cost is the very reason many current subscribers are talking about canceling their subscription after March 17.

What I am suggesting is adding incentive to choose (or keep) ESO+ rather than an incentive to cancel your subscription.

Tamanous · January 2015

Muizer wrote: »

It's also a somewhat sneaky way of introducing the boosters before they reach the cash-shop.

ZOS has already said they are adding boosters. No sneaking needed.

Izzban · January 2015

All I know is if after this transition I don't have enough points to buy all the content I have been paying for and playing for the last year, there will be high sadness.

xKyrio · January 2015

So wait, people who sub dont get to keep the DLC after they stop subbing? Cant they make it so that if you have been subscribed for moore then 3 months before the release of the DLC you still get to keep it atleast?

JoffyToffy69 · January 2015

Do we keep the vanity items such as mounts, pets, wedding dresses etc?
Does ESO+ even have access to them?

Aevric · January 2015

JoffyToffy69 wrote: »

Do we keep the vanity items such as mounts, pets, wedding dresses etc?
Does ESO+ even have access to them?

According to the new FAQ:

Do I lose all items and rewards earned from DLC if my ESO Plus membership ends?
No. You will lose access to the DLC areas and quests should your membership lapse (unless you purchase the DLC separately in the Crown Store), but you will keep all items and rewards earned through the content.

So, yes, you get to keep any shop purchases. If you stop your subscription you lose access to ALL DLC, until you buy it.
You'll be effectively buying the DLC twice, if you ever stop your Plus subscription but want to continue playing with access to the DLC... once with your subscription dollars, then again with Crowns in the shop.
If the monthly allotment of Crowns you'll receive for a Plus subscription is a lot more than the DLC cost in the shop, save your Crowns and buy the DLC you want to keep. If they start cranking out more DLC than the monthly allotment covers, you'll be out of luck if you eventually stop your subscription.

jaibierwb17_ESO · January 2015

You are getting 1500 crowns per month. That should be more than enough to pay for each DLC pack if you want it, with crowns to spare as I highly doubt there will be a new DLC available more than every couple of months.

Gidorick · January 2015

jaibierwb17_ESO wrote: »

You are getting 1500 crowns per month. That should be more than enough to pay for each DLC pack if you want it, with crowns to spare as I highly doubt there will be a new DLC available more than every couple of months.

that depends on how much dc will cost.

BoloBoffin · January 2015

I'm getting 4500 crowns at the transition. The box 500, 10 previous months, two left on my subscription when TU hits.

I don't see more than two DLC areas happening between now and the end of the year. Those crowns should be enough to buy those two DLC areas. So I have no incentive to keep a subscription. I can play the full extent of the game for about a year for no additional cost.

Zenimax has to know this. It's why we're only getting 100 per previous month. At 1500 per month, I'd have 18,500 crowns at transition. I'd never have to buy DLC again. I have to think they're good with giving us a free year of DLC. Because they are, if we can keep the crowns.

jimshrum3b14_ESO · January 2015

So if a new DLC comes out every 6 months and costs around $30.00 why would someone pay $15.00 a month - $180.00 a year for the DLC plus a little reward. I think they need to sweeten the pot for the ESO + subs.

Ysne58 · January 2015

I don't think they care about the people who may or may not sub. If they did the pot would already be sweeter and that loyalty reward the plan would have more leeway.

Kvothe · January 2015

So if a new DLC comes out every 6 months and costs around $30.00 why would someone pay $15.00 a month - $180.00 a year for the DLC plus a little reward. I think they need to sweeten the pot for the ESO + subs.

This is almost exactly the reason for my post. In the current model there is more incentive not to subscribe unless new (non-cosmetic) content is released every two or three months. Which would be a tall order.

Given the choice between paying $180.00/yr for the subscription to effectively lease what ever new content comes out, or not subscribing, purchasing the new content as it becomes available, and being able to access it indefinitely. The more cost effective choice seems obvious since it is unlikely that any new meaningful DLC will cost much more than $30.00 (unless it's something massive).

It would greatly improve the value of the subscription if you were able to access all the DLC that became available while you were subscribing even after canceling your subscription. If this were the case it would only be a matter of whether or not the perceived value of the new DLC equaled the cost of the subscription plus the bonuses.

timidobserver · January 2015

Better Idea: If you buy ESO+ you do 90% increased damage to DKs in Cyrodil. Vampires that entire your line of sight die instantly.

TheLaw · January 2015

Are you simply leasing DLC if you are a sub, or are you effectively purchasing it with a sub. So many issues either way.

murmur · January 2015

BoloBoffin wrote: »

I'm getting 4500 crowns at the transition. The box 500, 10 previous months, two left on my subscription when TU hits.

I don't see more than two DLC areas happening between now and the end of the year. Those crowns should be enough to buy those two DLC areas. So I have no incentive to keep a subscription. I can play the full extent of the game for about a year for no additional cost.

Zenimax has to know this. It's why we're only getting 100 per previous month. At 1500 per month, I'd have 18,500 crowns at transition. I'd never have to buy DLC again. I have to think they're good with giving us a free year of DLC. Because they are, if we can keep the crowns.

But one DLC could cost 5000 to 10000 crowns or even more, we don't know yet what the value of crown is. I don't believe that 1500 crowns equals 15$ like most are assuming,

alainjbrennanb16_ESO · January 2015

why have the sub if it means you lose your dlc's, if you have b2p you get everything a subbed player does with system tweaks etc, and you keep the dlc when you get it, so there is no real benifit to being subbed

ashlee17 · January 2015

I would like to see zos scrap xp and gold bonuses- instead just give us free access to all items in the crown shop for the duration of our subscription.

That way new players without subs can close the zos/gold gap,and make purchases if they like and original player still have acess to ALL the games content.

Bloodfang · January 2015

jaibierwb17_ESO wrote: »

You are getting 1500 crowns per month. That should be more than enough to pay for each DLC pack if you want it, with crowns to spare as I highly doubt there will be a new DLC available more than every couple of months.

I expect DLCs to be more costly than that..probably around 4-5k..

Dave2836 · January 2015

jimshrum3b14_ESO wrote: »

So if a new DLC comes out every 6 months and costs around $30.00 why would someone pay $15.00 a month - $180.00 a year for the DLC plus a little reward. I think they need to sweeten the pot for the ESO + subs.

Ysne58 wrote: »

I don't think they care about the people who may or may not sub. If they did the pot would already be sweeter and that loyalty reward the plan would have more leeway.

What if, and this is a far out rhetorical situation here, they actually trust the player base to actually be able to pay the amount of value they think the game is worth? Sure, it's not a $70 monocle, but they have indeed presented a platform to us to be able to force them to reassess their bottom line.

I do think they care about the subs, which is why the option is still present. There is something more here than the tangible pet that follows you or a new guar mount. Maybe something more like being a part of an evolutionary product model with a Franchise brand under a non-publicly traded company. They are going to put their faith in the quality of their creations and the faith in us as consumers to be able to ingest these creations.

Put it another way, if Frank Miller didn't have enough faith in his audience to believe his book "The Dark Knight Returns" would be good, then the campy Adam West Batman would be the only archetype we would refer to and all those jokes about Ace and Gary would be more prevalent today than ever. I don't see any other franchise name being put out there on this type of proposition. Even Final Fantasy with it's large fanbase and history of epic game making would rather see their creation burn than gamble on the freedom of their fans to have this much power.