Your reasons for continuing your sub after March 17?

Lynnessa · January 2015

Ahdora wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

Ahdora wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

Wow, that Loot Crate thing seems like a winner! I am definitely going to be giving that a shot.

I've actually been dying to try it out, but couldn't really justify more than one completely unessential monthly payment, with two gamers in the house and only one working at the moment. Plus two kids.

So now I can get over my bitterness at the loss of ESO with some cute little figurines. ^_^

It's because I have a kid that I want to try it! Might save me the trouble of shopping for toys.

In that case, you might want to check out Nerd Block as well. They have a similar set up, but they also offer "Nerd Block Jr." boxes for kids

How did I not know of these things before?! Thanks

Ahdora · January 2015

Lynnessa wrote: »

Ahdora wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

Ahdora wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

Wow, that Loot Crate thing seems like a winner! I am definitely going to be giving that a shot.

I've actually been dying to try it out, but couldn't really justify more than one completely unessential monthly payment, with two gamers in the house and only one working at the moment. Plus two kids.

So now I can get over my bitterness at the loss of ESO with some cute little figurines. ^_^

It's because I have a kid that I want to try it! Might save me the trouble of shopping for toys.

In that case, you might want to check out Nerd Block as well. They have a similar set up, but they also offer "Nerd Block Jr." boxes for kids

How did I not know of these things before?! Thanks

You're not a REAL nerd!

/shun

Xjcon · January 2015

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

SatchmoJones wrote: »

They had to make the payment model change for consoles, no one wants to pay Microsoft and or Sony and a sub on top of it....I just wish it wasn't on console. The same people that bought skyrim are not gonna be happy with an elder scrolls MMO anyway. Blame the suits, not the devs.

I know quite a few people with consoles. I dont know even a single person who has a xbox one or ps4 who doesnt already pay for ps+ or xbox live gold. This whole thing about console people not paying is hogwash.

Actually, it's not. If you read what he says... he's saying that console owners aren't going to want to pay for Xbox Live / PS Plus AND another $15 on top...

l2r

That was my point genius. Console gamers would have paid for both. Considering they already pay for xbox live gold or ps+ it wouldnt be any more money. Again its hogwash console gamers are cheap and wont spend money on a monthly sub.

You say console gamers are cheap. Maybe! But they buy their games at 60$ a pop only to play them for a month or two, then the next best game comes along and they do it again. This is why I quit buying consoles.

SteveCampsOut · January 2015

Lynnessa wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

Got a question for all you over-analytical types that need a list of reasons to play or not play a game.

If you're not going to stay subbed to ESO, what will you subscribe to?

You assume I need to have a subscription to make my life worth living.

Actually, I was just curious. Wanna fight about it?

Yeah, I'll meet you out back by the sandbox after school! If I'm not there when you get there, feel free to start without me and punch yourself a few times...

wiz12268b14_ESO · January 2015

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

wiz12268b14_ESO wrote: »

Bottomline is there is zero reason (other than the tiny perks) to stay subbed past the 17th, unless they offer a DLC at that time or have implemented a known cumulative (or consecutive for people have never unsubbed) loyalty program. I suppose getting 1500 crowns a month might be some perk too but unless DLCs are outrageously priced you an probably get enough to buy a DLC when the DLC is released. But if you are subbed you dont need to buy the DLC then unless you want to replay it after a current sub is lapsed.

Without more incentives I dont see a reason to sub when there isnt any DLC available to access(IMO the main reason to sub in the first place).

An incentive? Like another useless pet? Uh no, i'll keep my $15, I never wanted a stupid ice wraith, or a useless dwarven automaton to begin with.

Only option then is to make Crowns extremely 'valuable'. As in they cost more to buy with real cash than their subscription equivalent. So if a 15 dollar a month sub (or whatever a 12 month sub might end up costing, I am assuming/expecting 99 bucks for the first 'transition special') then price crowns for cash at something like 20 or even 25 bux for the same 1500 crowns. But of course then people will *** and moan the other way. But they unless they think DLC sales (both console and PC) are enough to make them money (subsidized with the few people who stay subbed) then they might be worried about over all subscription numbers. Thats why their price for crowns and DLCs will have to be balanced.

Most people I am sure will not sub, that automatically 'forces' them to charge more for DLCs when they come out. Because they need to recoup that lost revenue somewhere, especially since console sales are a one shot deal, a lucrative one but still no long term income from them.

So a DLC price (I figure 3 tiers of DLC, 'smalls' for 9.99, mediums for 14.99 and large for 19.99-24.99) Or maybe they just have one size and charge whatever probably 19.99. So then people will figure that will run 2000 crowns. So a guy who subs for a year will have 18000 crowns, so that enough to pay for 9 DLCs @ 2K per. ZoS cant make money that way. Nor can they release content that fast. So I figure theyll be 4-5K for a 19.99 type DLC. Which for subscribers isnt a big deal. Thats 3 a year for 'free' and some left over. But I also cant see them selling 4-5K crowns for 19.99 cash because then people wouldnt sub they would obviously buy the Crowns or DLCs outright with cash.

But like I said they can incentivise (sic) whatever angle they want. If they want people to subscribe they will over charge one way and make subbing the offer with the most 'value'. If they just want to sell DLCS and figure that will work along with the subs that they keep theyll just make DLCs reasonably priced both with crowns as well as cash (which might not even be an option, they might not offer 3 ways to get DLCs they might just offer one..crowns, and how you get crowns will vary)

Regardless of what they do some segment of the gaming world will cry about it. They just want to make that segment the smallest one.

starlizard70ub17_ESO · January 2015

ebuntsb14_ESO wrote: »

I am dropping my sub when 1.6 goes tlive. The vanity pets we already have is and has been in storage.

As for the dlc I rather pay the $15 or $20 every 4 to 6 months than the $60 to $90 for a worthless subscription. And by purchasing the dlc I get to keep and play it any time where if you pay the subscription you lose the dlc if you stop the subscription.

This ^^^ right here. Since I already have a VR14 DK crafter, the +10% xp/gold isn't going to make alot of difference in leveling up my 3 other alts from VR1 to 14VR. There's no reason to pay $90+ for 6 or so months until more content is released, when I can pay $30-40 when it actually is released. My current sub goes until sometime in June, so I'll get all bonuses for being subbed since game launch.

liquid_wolf · January 2015

This is why I have taken the stance of playing "Catch-Up" in MMORPGs.

That announcement gives all those end-game players the shudders, but for me... well... I'm still not capped on levels and content. Barely in the second area of Cadwell's Silver.

I'm somewhat disappointed they actually say they are slowing things down... not something I like to hear.

zward887_ESO · January 2015

wiz12268b14_ESO wrote: »

So a DLC price (I figure 3 tiers of DLC, 'smalls' for 9.99, mediums for 14.99 and large for 19.99-24.99)

I hate to say it but I think DLC prices will be about double what you're expecting there.

I doubt you'll find anything in the Cash shop for less than $20 thats not a consumable. DLCs will definitely start at $20 for small additions and will easily go up to $40-50 for 'large' DLC packs. A new zone, like Orsinium/Wrothgar for instance will easily be in the $40+ range.

I would expect a zone like Craglorn in this new model would be about $40.

Lynnessa · January 2015

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

Got a question for all you over-analytical types that need a list of reasons to play or not play a game.

If you're not going to stay subbed to ESO, what will you subscribe to?

You assume I need to have a subscription to make my life worth living.

Actually, I was just curious. Wanna fight about it?

Yeah, I'll meet you out back by the sandbox after school! If I'm not there when you get there, feel free to start without me and punch yourself a few times...

I will pummel your fists with my face!

Maverick827 · January 2015

Lynnessa wrote: »

Got a question for all you over-analytical types that need a list of reasons to play or not play a game.

If you're not going to stay subbed to ESO, what will you subscribe to?

zward887_ESO wrote: »

wiz12268b14_ESO wrote: »

So a DLC price (I figure 3 tiers of DLC, 'smalls' for 9.99, mediums for 14.99 and large for 19.99-24.99)

I hate to say it but I think DLC prices will be about double what you're expecting there.

I doubt you'll find anything in the Cash shop for less than $20 thats not a consumable. DLCs will definitely start at $20 for small additions and will easily go up to $40-50 for 'large' DLC packs. A new zone, like Orsinium/Wrothgar for instance will easily be in the $40+ range.

I would expect a zone like Craglorn in this new model would be about $40.

That seems too high.

twev · January 2015

SatchmoJones wrote: »

They had to make the payment model change for consoles, no one wants to pay Microsoft and or Sony and a sub on top of it....I just wish it wasn't on console. The same people that bought skyrim are not gonna be happy with an elder scrolls MMO anyway. Blame the suits, not the devs.

I have no trouble blaming the suits for this.

I withhold my ire at the devs for the bugs they implement.

Ahdora · January 2015

Maverick827 wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

Got a question for all you over-analytical types that need a list of reasons to play or not play a game.

If you're not going to stay subbed to ESO, what will you subscribe to?

zward887_ESO wrote: »

wiz12268b14_ESO wrote: »

So a DLC price (I figure 3 tiers of DLC, 'smalls' for 9.99, mediums for 14.99 and large for 19.99-24.99)

I hate to say it but I think DLC prices will be about double what you're expecting there.

I doubt you'll find anything in the Cash shop for less than $20 thats not a consumable. DLCs will definitely start at $20 for small additions and will easily go up to $40-50 for 'large' DLC packs. A new zone, like Orsinium/Wrothgar for instance will easily be in the $40+ range.

I would expect a zone like Craglorn in this new model would be about $40.

That seems too high.

Yeah, if they actually hold to what they said in the last AUA (big if, as always), their DLC prices will be on par with DLC pricing in other games. $40+ is closer to expansion prices, not DLC prices.

zward887_ESO · January 2015

Maverick827 wrote: »

Lynnessa wrote: »

Got a question for all you over-analytical types that need a list of reasons to play or not play a game.

If you're not going to stay subbed to ESO, what will you subscribe to?

zward887_ESO wrote: »

wiz12268b14_ESO wrote: »

So a DLC price (I figure 3 tiers of DLC, 'smalls' for 9.99, mediums for 14.99 and large for 19.99-24.99)

I hate to say it but I think DLC prices will be about double what you're expecting there.

I doubt you'll find anything in the Cash shop for less than $20 thats not a consumable. DLCs will definitely start at $20 for small additions and will easily go up to $40-50 for 'large' DLC packs. A new zone, like Orsinium/Wrothgar for instance will easily be in the $40+ range.

I would expect a zone like Craglorn in this new model would be about $40.

That seems too high.

Of course its too high. This is the price we pay when the subscription is removed.

Almost everything in a subscription-less game is priced too high. That's why people are so outraged by the move to B2P in the first place.

I would be amazed if its any cheaper. If I can get away with dropping my sub, ignoring cash shop cosmetics, and then only spending say 30-50 bucks a year on DLC content, is this game really going to make a sustainable amount of money from that model? Also, where is the value in the subscription then? If a DLC pack that comes out every 3-4 months is worth only a single month's subscription fee, what non-emotional reason is there to bother with subbing at all?

Varicite · January 2015

Rosveen wrote: »

I'm not subbing until the first DLC is released. After that we'll see.

This exactly for moi.

Grim13 · January 2015

amasuriel wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

SatchmoJones wrote: »

They had to make the payment model change for consoles, no one wants to pay Microsoft and or Sony and a sub on top of it....I just wish it wasn't on console. The same people that bought skyrim are not gonna be happy with an elder scrolls MMO anyway. Blame the suits, not the devs.

I know quite a few people with consoles. I dont know even a single person who has a xbox one or ps4 who doesnt already pay for ps+ or xbox live gold. This whole thing about console people not paying is hogwash.

Actually, it's not. If you read what he says... he's saying that console owners aren't going to want to pay for Xbox Live / PS Plus AND another $15 on top...

l2r

Yes, and the person you quoted was saying that its not "on top" because most people already have ps+ or xbox gold. Just like the price of my pc or console is "on top" of the cost to play ESO.

Perhaps you are the individual with trouble reading.

Only it is on top. They're already paying a sub fee for xbl and ps+... and an ESO sub would be on top of that. Paying for access to multiplayer and then paying again for access to a specific multiplayer would turn off many potential consumers.

How hard is that to understand?

And the rest of your comment is utter nonsense.

Learn to comprehend.

cote-bmsb16_ESO · January 2015

I want to keep supporting the development of ESO content, so I think I'll keep subbing for now. I've been on the PTS as well, and I'd like to see them tweak the CP system so it isn't such a grind to earn Champion Points. The CP grind is annoying. I don't have time to play this game for 10 years to max out my character. I am also a gamer, and within a few years 50 more games that I want to play will be out. Hell, GTAV is guna be out soon.

Grim13 · January 2015

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

SatchmoJones wrote: »

They had to make the payment model change for consoles, no one wants to pay Microsoft and or Sony and a sub on top of it....I just wish it wasn't on console. The same people that bought skyrim are not gonna be happy with an elder scrolls MMO anyway. Blame the suits, not the devs.

I know quite a few people with consoles. I dont know even a single person who has a xbox one or ps4 who doesnt already pay for ps+ or xbox live gold. This whole thing about console people not paying is hogwash.

Actually, it's not. If you read what he says... he's saying that console owners aren't going to want to pay for Xbox Live / PS Plus AND another $15 on top...

l2r

That was my point genius. Console gamers would have paid for both. Considering they already pay for xbox live gold or ps+ it wouldnt be any more money. Again its hogwash console gamers are cheap and wont spend money on a monthly sub.

lol

That's wasn't your point. Our points are different. If you cannot see that, go back and read what you initially wrote.

Also, you seem to be having a difficult time forming a cogent point, at all, period.

Considering they already pay for xbox live gold or ps+ it wouldnt be any more money.

This is flat out wrong. If there had been a sub fee attached to ESO they would have had to pay more. Which is what the person you originally responded to was saying.

Your disagreement with him should have been whether or not Console Users would have been willing to pay the fee on top of xbl and ps+... not whether or not it would have been a sub on top of a sub. That it surely would have been.

And as for:

Again its hogwash console gamers are cheap and wont spend money on a monthly sub.

Some would, yes... but many more wouldn't. Regardless, it's speculation on both our parts based on our personal preferences.

rawne1980b16_ESO · January 2015

Lynnessa wrote: »

If you're not going to stay subbed to ESO, what will you subscribe to?

I'm currently subbed to SOE's All Access for DCUO and Planetside 2, Rift and Final Fantasy 14. I also play a lot of Warframe and Repopulation as well as other games.

I played this at launch for a month and came back for this month.

There isn't a single good reason for me to bother subbing again once it goes free.

Eternal Crusade is out some time this year, i've been waiting for that one and then The Division is going to be out some time after that.

You ask that question like ESO is the only game available. A lot of us play many different games. There is nowhere near enough here to keep some of us playing long term. I have a short attention span with games, if it doesn't keep me hooked then I switch off and move on.

Plus it's still missing a hell of a lot of content and I said during beta I can't see this being a main game of mine until they devs pull their thumbs out their backsides and give us Dark Brotherhood, Thieves Guild and housing.

Unlike some people i'm not content to pay for half an Elder Scrolls game long term.

Kurimugann · January 2015

Only time will REALLY tell. I want a Guar mount, that much I know.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · January 2015

Grim13 wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

SatchmoJones wrote: »

They had to make the payment model change for consoles, no one wants to pay Microsoft and or Sony and a sub on top of it....I just wish it wasn't on console. The same people that bought skyrim are not gonna be happy with an elder scrolls MMO anyway. Blame the suits, not the devs.

I know quite a few people with consoles. I dont know even a single person who has a xbox one or ps4 who doesnt already pay for ps+ or xbox live gold. This whole thing about console people not paying is hogwash.

Actually, it's not. If you read what he says... he's saying that console owners aren't going to want to pay for Xbox Live / PS Plus AND another $15 on top...

l2r

That was my point genius. Console gamers would have paid for both. Considering they already pay for xbox live gold or ps+ it wouldnt be any more money. Again its hogwash console gamers are cheap and wont spend money on a monthly sub.

lol

That's wasn't your point. Our points are different. If you cannot see that, go back and read what you initially wrote.

Also, you seem to be having a difficult time forming a cogent point, at all, period.

Considering they already pay for xbox live gold or ps+ it wouldnt be any more money.

This is flat out wrong. If there had been a sub fee attached to ESO they would have had to pay more. Which is what the person you originally responded to was saying.

Your disagreement with him should have been whether or not Console Users would have been willing to pay the fee on top of xbl and ps+... not whether or not it would have been a sub on top of a sub. That it surely would have been.

And as for:

Again its hogwash console gamers are cheap and wont spend money on a monthly sub.

Some would, yes... but many more wouldn't. Regardless, it's speculation on both our parts based on our personal preferences.

Wow lol. I meant anymore money than WE pay. Since they ALREADY pay for it.

Funkopotamus · January 2015

Xjcon wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Grim13 wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

SatchmoJones wrote: »

They had to make the payment model change for consoles, no one wants to pay Microsoft and or Sony and a sub on top of it....I just wish it wasn't on console. The same people that bought skyrim are not gonna be happy with an elder scrolls MMO anyway. Blame the suits, not the devs.

I know quite a few people with consoles. I dont know even a single person who has a xbox one or ps4 who doesnt already pay for ps+ or xbox live gold. This whole thing about console people not paying is hogwash.

Actually, it's not. If you read what he says... he's saying that console owners aren't going to want to pay for Xbox Live / PS Plus AND another $15 on top...

l2r

That was my point genius. Console gamers would have paid for both. Considering they already pay for xbox live gold or ps+ it wouldnt be any more money. Again its hogwash console gamers are cheap and wont spend money on a monthly sub.

You say console gamers are cheap. Maybe! But they buy their games at 60$ a pop only to play them for a month or two, then the next best game comes along and they do it again. This is why I quit buying consoles.

I have been waiting for ESO on console since last year. I was willing to pay the SUB also..

There is no reason why the game should not stay SUB based for console. People buy console games and then drop an extra 40-70 dollars for a season pass to get the dlc. Also Everquest online adventures for the PS2 was sub fee based and lasted over 9 years.

I am sad that ESO caved in like this. I really had high hopes that I would be playing ESO on the console for many years to come just like EQOA but I doubt I will even buy it for console now that it is going P2W..

Kesstryl · January 2015

For me it's the free crowns. If the cost of the crowns equals the amount I'm paying to sub, plus the bonuses and free access to new content, then totally worth it.

Varicite · January 2015

Kesstryl wrote: »

For me it's the free crowns. If the cost of the crowns equals the amount I'm paying to sub, plus the bonuses and free access to new content, then totally worth it.

If you unsub, you lose access to that content though.

Is it confirmed that you can save up the 1500 crowns you get per month as a subscriber and then just buy the DLC outright?

Paying money for something I can't call mostly mine is a dealbreaker, tbh.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · January 2015

Varicite wrote: »

Kesstryl wrote: »

For me it's the free crowns. If the cost of the crowns equals the amount I'm paying to sub, plus the bonuses and free access to new content, then totally worth it.

If you unsub, you lose access to that content though.

Is it confirmed that you can save up the 1500 crowns you get per month as a subscriber and then just buy the DLC outright?

Paying money for something I can't call mostly mine is a dealbreaker, tbh.

Yes you can save them up. While there will be DLC content available in the store it is also likely they will have preorders for cash only with incentives.

Bouvin · January 2015

onlinegamer1 wrote: »

Because $15/mo is irrelevant to me.

It's pretty irrelevant to me as well.

But I don't like supporting companies who make bad decisions with my $$.

After testing 1.6, I'm really on the fence as to whether or not I want to continue playing, let alone paying a sub.

Bouvin · January 2015

Grim13 wrote: »

olemanwinter wrote: »

Actually, after experiencing the PTS, not only will I not be subbing after March 17th, I think I'm going to unsub between now and then.

$15 is irrelevant to me too (like one guy said) but it's not to Zos, so I refuse to support what has been a series of bad decisions, each one worst than the last.

I completely agree.

What ZOS failed to let anyone in on in regards to 1.6 was that we'd all be taking a nerf to our classes so we could build them back up again with Champion's Points.

No @#$%! thank you.

Exactly. Anyone who has actually testing 1.6 sees that there are big nerfs all around that require you to grind Champion Points to get back to where you were.

Undoubtedly, they'll be offering lots of options to speed this up in the cash shop.

The rate at gaining CP is also no where near 1 hour while enlightened. It's more like 6-8 hours, 3-4 if you grind Craglorn.

Bouvin · January 2015

olemanwinter wrote: »

Actually, after experiencing the PTS, not only will I not be subbing after March 17th, I think I'm going to unsub between now and then.

$15 is irrelevant to me too (like one guy said) but it's not to Zos, so I refuse to support what has been a series of bad decisions, each one worst than the last.

^^Exactly.

1.6 is trash. The people testing it can see it's pretty obvious that they are just setting up for cash shop.

All of the "balancing" in 1.6 stinks. Game isn't fun any more.

EsORising · January 2015

Why not pay for the boost. I figure if i spend any % less time with the boost for something i was already paying for last month I minus well resub. What's more important your time or $15 bucks? I guess that meaning changes considering if you have a job or not.

EsORising · January 2015

themizario wrote: »

Set a reminder to cancel 03/17. I hope they watch all their money dissappear and then go"MY GOD! WHAT HAVE WE DONE!"

It will be replaced with all the curious people that wanted to play ESO but didn't want to sub as well as the purchases from the console market that is starving for a new game in a thin market. Not to mention ESO is going to be the first real MMO ever released on console worth playing. Hell, those people think destiny is a MMO and they love that subpar game that maybe lets you see 2 or 3 random people on the same map that they don't even talk too, while they play the same maps over and over. Imagine ESO coming to console. If destiny is an MMO then ESO is a first person shooter.

This is giong to be a big change for ESO's image and sales, as well as, console gaming. Pure Console players have not yet met the addiction of MMO's its going to be like selling crack to children. This is a revolutionary change for console gaming but a lot of people don't see it yet. This is a new market for Consoles, which never had a community in a real MMO.

Joejudas · January 2015

lets all go play Dying Light.....just saying