Sub fee and DLC

Asgari · February 2015

if I am going to continue and pay you $15 a month shouldn't I get any dlc included in that and OWN it. Not rent it like you are going to be doing for people who stay subbed. I understand having to purchase expansion packs that could potentially be complete revamps but a doc should be included in my sub fee and I should own the DLC.

You maintain a steady flow of income from subs and don't have to worry about slow months in the crown store or long periods of no dlc purchases.

Sallington · February 2015

Super agree. The idea of "renting" DLC with a subscription is asinine.

Danikat · February 2015

On the one hand I agree that paying a sub to rent DLC is a bad idea.

On the other hand this is how I see sub based games too. You buy a game, but unless you keep paying each and every month you're locked out of it. So you don't ever actually own the game, the base cost was essentially a fee you paid for permission to rent a game month by month.

My guess is they don't want to simply give the DLC to people who subscribe because it's highly unlikely they are going to release £10 of DLC every month, and if they don't people would just sub for the month when something is released, so they unlock it, and then cancel until the next release. If the DLC costs more than £10 then ZOS lose money, if it costs £10 they may as well skip the hassle of subs and just sell it and if it costs less....I guess the first month they get to laugh at everyone who subbed and after that very few people would bother.

Varicite · February 2015

I agree w/ @Princess_Asgari .

The only reason I can possibly think of to have it this way is to create a money sink for the "free" crowns that come w/ monthly subs.

BBSooner · February 2015

If the content is purchasable with crowns I don't see an issue with the current system. If it's confirmed that it isn't then I very much agree with the OP.

CheshireElk · February 2015

Well, that's an interesting point. But this is not the best variant for ZOS, in my opinion.

Let's take a look at WoW. Here you pay the same $15 and you get no DLCs for free at all.

In ESO, you have a choice: you can buy the DLCs without subscription to ESO Plus, you can "rent" or buy DLC with ESO Plus, or you can refrain from getting DLC either way.

If someone is already paying for subscription to get some in-game conveniences, the DLC renting is more of a good bonus for him. If player knows, that he won't cancel his subscription and continue playing, he can just continue paying monthly fee and get all the existing content he wants.

Also, don't forget, that with ESO+ you get 1.500 Crowns per month, and if you want to own specific DLC, you can save up some Crowns and buy it.

Seraphyel · February 2015

So now we only "rent" DLCs (remember, most of the upcoming DLCs were content that was supposed to be exclusive for SUBSCRIBERS before the B2P transition)and nothing more?

DLCs are just content patches and that's something everybody should get how is subscribing for a lifetime.

It's one thing that you milked the PC playerbase for 11 months now and delivered nothing of the promised content, but it's another thing to beg for double cash of those loyal players. Thumbs down.

cyqa · February 2015

I liked the idea of "rent to own"- or something like, after 3 months of elapsed sub time (for example) after a DLC is released, it becomes your property. However, I do understand the arguments posited in this thread. I'm probably just going to end up spending my free crowns from subbing on DLC.

CheshireElk · February 2015

cyqa wrote: »

I liked the idea of "rent to own"- or something like, after 3 months of elapsed sub time (for example) after a DLC is released, it becomes your property.

Actually, that would be pretty great. The period of time for DLC to become yours can be set based on a price - more expensive DLCs have longer "rent" period. That way ZOS can get enough money from the subscribers and be sure, that they've fully paid the price of DLC with their subscriptions.

Unfortunately, I don't think this is going to be implemented

Mettaricana · February 2015

CheshireElk wrote: »

cyqa wrote: »

I liked the idea of "rent to own"- or something like, after 3 months of elapsed sub time (for example) after a DLC is released, it becomes your property.

Actually, that would be pretty great. The period of time for DLC to become yours can be set based on a price - more expensive DLCs have longer "rent" period. That way ZOS can get enough money from the subscribers and be sure, that they've fully paid the price of DLC with their subscriptions.

Unfortunately, I don't think this is going to be implemented

this i like give me a reason to sub rather than a reason to fear lapsing. dc universe has so many dlc's at this point there's no way to catch up without taking a mortgage or subbing

Smaxx · February 2015

CheshireElk wrote: »

cyqa wrote: »

I liked the idea of "rent to own"- or something like, after 3 months of elapsed sub time (for example) after a DLC is released, it becomes your property.

Actually, that would be pretty great. The period of time for DLC to become yours can be set based on a price - more expensive DLCs have longer "rent" period. That way ZOS can get enough money from the subscribers and be sure, that they've fully paid the price of DLC with their subscriptions.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is going to be implemented

That's exactly what they're implementing with their 1,500 crowns per month stipend.

You subscribe for 1 month and you get 1,500 crowns. Subscribe for another month and you get another 1,500 crowns. You can then use those crowns to buy pets or costumes in the shop, but you might as well save them to buy DLC once it arrives.

Let's assume some DLC costs 4,500 crowns, then you're able to buy it as a reward for three months of subscribed time (which would net you 4,500 crowns).

BigM · February 2015

When it comes to subs I can see ZoS point. Many of the people that will sub (like me) will always sub. I sub for any online game LOTRO, hell even Rift. So for many of us I think it just won't matter. I like the game I support it with my money.

WebBull · February 2015

I agree with the OP.

I originally intended to continue my sub under ESO Plus but if DLC is just a rental then there is no reason for me to stay subbed. I will simple purchase DLC if I want it. I will have the option to pick and choose the DLC I want and since I mostly PvP, I probably wont want all of the DLC anyway. I could care less about vanity items with the monthly crowns or 10% XP for staying subbed.

Making DLC "rented" as long as your sub is valid is a terrible idea. No reason to sub.

BigM · February 2015

WebBull wrote: »

I agree with the OP.

I originally intended to continue my sub under ESO Plus but if DLC is just a rental then there is no reason for me to stay subbed. I will simple purchase DLC if I want it. I will have the option to pick and choose the DLC I want and since I mostly PvP, I probably wont want all of the DLC anyway. I could care less about vanity items with the monthly crowns or 10% XP for staying subbed.

Making DLC "rented" as long as your sub is valid is a terrible idea. No reason to sub.

But if you love the game isn't that a good enough reason to support them with a sub? So there is a reason!

WebBull · February 2015

BigM wrote: »

WebBull wrote: »

I agree with the OP.

I originally intended to continue my sub under ESO Plus but if DLC is just a rental then there is no reason for me to stay subbed. I will simple purchase DLC if I want it. I will have the option to pick and choose the DLC I want and since I mostly PvP, I probably wont want all of the DLC anyway. I could care less about vanity items with the monthly crowns or 10% XP for staying subbed.

Making DLC "rented" as long as your sub is valid is a terrible idea. No reason to sub.

But if you love the game isn't that a good enough reason to support them with a sub? So there is a reason!

I will support them as much as they have supported me....meaning....I will play for free until they pull the plug on the PC servers (and focus solely on console) which I predict will happen by Q1 next year. No reason to pay a sub when you don't need to.

BigM · February 2015

WebBull wrote: »

BigM wrote: »

WebBull wrote: »

I agree with the OP.

I originally intended to continue my sub under ESO Plus but if DLC is just a rental then there is no reason for me to stay subbed. I will simple purchase DLC if I want it. I will have the option to pick and choose the DLC I want and since I mostly PvP, I probably wont want all of the DLC anyway. I could care less about vanity items with the monthly crowns or 10% XP for staying subbed.

Making DLC "rented" as long as your sub is valid is a terrible idea. No reason to sub.

But if you love the game isn't that a good enough reason to support them with a sub? So there is a reason!

I will support them as much as they have supported me....meaning....I will play for free until they pull the plug on the PC servers (and focus solely on console) which I predict will happen by Q1 next year. No reason to pay a sub when you don't need to.

Yep so you do want the game to fail so I understand where you stand. Don't get me wrong am upset how they have treated us the loyal ones that have put up with so much. But the thing is I still love the game and want it to succeed. Sort of a catch 22.

Nestor · February 2015

Not letting subscribers own DLCs will just encourage people to not subscribe to the game. Sure, some might still subscribe, but I would imagine most would rather own the content if the game does not otherwise require a sub fee to play.

NewBlacksmurf · February 2015

The logic is buy DLC and buy crowns as needed. Pretty basic concept.

The sub is great if you want to try before you buy.

I think the change is best for all

WraithAzraiel · February 2015

I agree.

At the very least, allow us to own the DLC after a certain amount of time subscribing. If we're a steady source of income, give us a little more than a 10% boost to our time.

Let's say 2 months, if you continue subscribing for 2 months after the DLC is released, you're no longer "renting" that DLC, you OWN it.

That's at least $30 dollars worth of our money, that's pretty expensive for a DLC so that's my probably TOO generous suggestion.

Sure you can argue, "Well all you have to do to OWN the DLC is buy it with your stipend of Crowns!" Right. Sure, that's true. But I'm sure churning out new shinies to push onto the Crown Store to go after our hard-earned money has become THE TOP PRIORITY, so we'll see.

If the DLC's are spaced such that I can buy all the goodies I want off the Crown Store and still have enough Crowns to "buy" the DLC's when they drop - great. Don't change it.

But if you're churning out so much stuff, that we as players, just GOTTA have for our digital paper dolls, then please look into my suggestion of a Rent-To-Own type plan.

BigM · February 2015

But that depends how much crowns are. It could be cheaper to sub which in my opinion would be better to do. But also that depends how long between each DLC. Guess we will have to wait and see how it turns out.

WraithAzraiel · February 2015

It all really comes down to the cadence with which they release DLCs. If they're pumping out a DLC every other month, and putting new stuff in the Crown Store every other week. It might be advantageous for us to continue to subscribe.

We know next to nothing at this point. We don't even know how much actually money, Crowns are worth. I'm going to assume $1 = 100 crowns because the monthly stipend for a 30 day recurring sub is 1500 Crowns for $15 a month.

But they said they're going to be selling crowns in "packs" which I'm going to assume will work like buying Gems in GuildWars 2. There'll be a $20, $40, $80 and $100 purchase option, with the included illusion of a % of saving tacked onto the higher price bundles by offering more than the 1:1 conversion for dollar to Crown.

So this is all entirely depended on the cadence of release for both DLCs and other Crown Store goodies.

If they release new stuff in the Crown Store every month, and a new DLC every 2-4 months, we should be fine saving up our Crowns to buy the DLC's permanently. Then after X amount of time, we could cancel our subscription all together then piecemeal what we want out of the crown store. And continue on, Crown-fat and happy.

But at this juncture, we got nothing off which to go.

Dagoth_Rac · February 2015

I think the subscription model is iffy when there is no DLC. It'd be like subscribing to HBO if they had no Game of Thrones and no True Detective and no Sopranos and no Curb Your Enthusiasm, etc. In a year or two, if there are 7 or 8 DLC, getting temporary access to all of it for $15 will probably sound a lot more appealing than spending a couple hundred dollars to buy it outright.

And if you did "own" the DLC just for subscribing, how would that work? Do you own it if you are subscribed when it releases? People will just subscribe for 30 days covering the release, own it, then cancel. Do you own everything already released? So if there are 7 or 8 DLC, subscribe for 30 days, and you can download all of it and get hundreds of dollars worth of DLC for $15? Do you own it after being subscribed for a certain amount of time? Like 3 months? Well, what do you own? Just DLC released during those 3 months? All DLC? 1 DLC of your choice for every 3 months subscribed? What if some DLC is more expensive than others? Will everyone just take the most expensive DLC after 3 months?

Or you could just give subscribers some form of virtual currency every month. Call it "crowns". Let players spend it how they see fit. If owning DLC is important to them, use the crowns on DLC. If they care more about cosmetic items, let them spend the crowns on that. It simplifies a lot of things if you just give the player the virtual currency to do what they want with it.

Varicite · February 2015

Dagoth_Rac wrote: »

I think the subscription model is iffy when there is no DLC. It'd be like subscribing to HBO if they had no Game of Thrones and no True Detective and no Sopranos and no Curb Your Enthusiasm, etc. In a year or two, if there are 7 or 8 DLC, getting temporary access to all of it for $15 will probably sound a lot more appealing than spending a couple hundred dollars to buy it outright.

And if you did "own" the DLC just for subscribing, how would that work? Do you own it if you are subscribed when it releases? People will just subscribe for 30 days covering the release, own it, then cancel. Do you own everything already released? So if there are 7 or 8 DLC, subscribe for 30 days, and you can download all of it and get hundreds of dollars worth of DLC for $15? Do you own it after being subscribed for a certain amount of time? Like 3 months? Well, what do you own? Just DLC released during those 3 months? All DLC? 1 DLC of your choice for every 3 months subscribed? What if some DLC is more expensive than others? Will everyone just take the most expensive DLC after 3 months?

Or you could just give subscribers some form of virtual currency every month. Call it "crowns". Let players spend it how they see fit. If owning DLC is important to them, use the crowns on DLC. If they care more about cosmetic items, let them spend the crowns on that. It simplifies a lot of things if you just give the player the virtual currency to do what they want with it.

Hmm, this is a different way to look at it than I have been, I suppose.

I gave you an Insightful, but because I actually thought it was an insightful post. /nod

Asgari · February 2015

15$ a month is 1,500 crowns; I do not see any DLC costing 45$ as that is reaching expansion price territory. So with that said, i will have months and months of money i will be giving to support ZOS develop more products which is a steady month to month income and there would be no lapse. Why should i then have to spend crowns on the DLC to get it. Shouldn't the DLC just come with subbing if you sub?

Just add in a buffer that you had to be subbed the month prior in order to keep people from subbing just for that month to get a DLC + crowns. Give some real incentive to continue subbing, otherwise it is a scam and people will not subscribe for a little perk.

Exstazik · February 2015

Princess_Asgari wrote: »

15$ a month is 1,500 crowns; I do not see any DLC costing 45$ as that is reaching expansion price territory. So with that said, i will have months and months of money i will be giving to support ZOS develop more products which is a steady month to month income and there would be no lapse. Why should i then have to spend crowns on the DLC to get it. Shouldn't the DLC just come with subbing if you sub?

Just add in a buffer that you had to be subbed the month prior in order to keep people from subbing just for that month to get a DLC + crowns. Give some real incentive to continue subbing, otherwise it is a scam and people will not subscribe for a little perk.

you can unsub and buy separately DLC , crowns,potions.
Or you can stay subbing and copy Crowns for what you want.
So you can choose which variant for you is better.

arqe · February 2015

ZoS's new motto.

"Eso PLUS ! You are going to pay for everything just like everyone else BUT MORE !"

TicToc · February 2015

With the subscription you get crowns every month, and you can use that to pay for the DLC if you choose to stop paying a sub.

Having DLC made automatically owned by subscribers would just encourage people to sub for a month to get the content for free and then cancel. They can't have you automatically own it just for subbing, but you can take the crowns you get each month and by the DLC if you want to own it.

This should not be an issue for "loyal subscribers", who will be subbed long term and collecting lots of crowns.

However, this:

WraithAzraiel wrote: »

....Sure you can argue, "Well all you have to do to OWN the DLC is buy it with your stipend of Crowns!" Right. Sure, that's true. But I'm sure churning out new shinies to push onto the Crown Store to go after our hard-earned money has become THE TOP PRIORITY, so we'll see.

If the DLC's are spaced such that I can buy all the goodies I want off the Crown Store and still have enough Crowns to "buy" the DLC's when they drop - great. Don't change it.....

If, the crowns needed to purchase DLC content is designed to burn up all of your crowns on a monthly basis, then it needs to be reevaluated. They still can't make it own immediately on sub, but they can increase the amount of crowns you get, to compensate.

All of this is rather premature, though. We have no idea how it will actually play out.

And just for some perspective, everything you pay for in an MMO is a rental. When the game shuts down you have nothing to show for but memories and maybe some screenshots.

Nestor · February 2015

Dagoth_Rac wrote: »

So if there are 7 or 8 DLC, subscribe for 30 days, and you can download all of it and get hundreds of dollars worth of DLC for $15? Do you own it after being subscribed for a certain amount of time? Like 3 months? Well, what do you own? Just DLC released during those 3 months? All DLC? 1 DLC of your choice for every 3 months subscribed? What if some DLC is more expensive than others? Will everyone just take the most expensive DLC after 3 months?

The simple solution to this quandry is, you have to be subscribed during the month the DLC releases in order to qualify for ownership. Otherwise it is Rented after the fact for the sub fee, or it is bought somehow.

Audigy · February 2015

I am with you guys on this topic.

While I understand the reasoning behind the "rent only" idea, it puts a salty taste on my lips. So salty that I wont keep the sub up and then just buy a DLC if I want to. By doing so ZO will make a lot less money of me, as I wont buy DLC´s that are about Trials and those are probably not very few.

In my opinion we as a player should get a "sub x months and it becomes free" reward. Lets assume someone is subbed since EA, then this makes 10 months. Upon reaching 12 the first DLC would be free, upon reaching 15 the second etc. In theory if we assume new content is supplied every three months, a player that stays subbed will not gain or lose anything.

A new player however would have a goal to stay subbed, the goal to qualify for free DLC´s, DLC´s that he paid with his sub once and not twice with sub and later crowns.

I am not working for ZO, but I would love to hear their reasoning behind so many recent decisions. Just an hour and both sides might understand the other better.

Titansteele · February 2015

This gets a huge thumbs up from me!

The value of the sub is a little lacking without implementing something like the idea`s provided here.
Can we have someone from ZOS let us know if it will be fed into the powers that be for discussion please?

seancaputo_ESO · February 2015

It really does not matter until after we see the numbers generated by box sales from the consoles. If they are good, then we will get content around everything 3 months. If not, find another game. Their current model does not work, and they need to find ways to keep reusing the current content plus some minor changes. To keep creating fresh content each month for end gamers -- cost a lot. That is why you see grinding killed. The faster you get to VR14, the quick your complain for new content and with the new Champion System set to 3600 -- the average player has 1 to 2 years to get there and about 6 to 8 month to get the points needed before diminishing returns.

Renting or Owning does not matter. If the game closes, the server closes, and there is no content.