Maybe ZOS Doesn't Want Our Subs - Serious Post

pugyourself · April 2015

I've thought a little bit about the recent cross-screen advertisements from ZOS and I am left wondering...is it possible that ZOS does not actually want subscribers anymore?

Let me preface this by saying that I am currently subbed and have been since launch. I've defended every excruciatingly poor taste marketing move from the last year to everyone who will listen.

After the pet day fiasco, I watched the community outcry and thought, "Well at least that will never happen again." Until yesterday when it did.

That told me that someone at ZOS really doesn't care at all what the players think...or more specifically what subbed players think.

So I'm left wondering about a possibility...perhaps ZOS doesn't actually want subscribers.

After all, subscribers are vocal...we've paid money each month on top of what is required to play the game and we expect something of commensurate value in return. It adds a whole layer of accountability to the devs and marketers to be "just" and responsible, at least towards a segment of the player base. A layer of accountability that simply may not be wanted.

It would be far easier to justify early-1990's in-game spam marketing, horrendous lag across game (which has gotten somewhat better in all honesty), bugged quests, and a near-total lack of new content (although there never seems to be much delay in pushing out Crown Store content) if the game didn't have any subs.

As of this writing, I am still subbed. I am begging you ZOS. Please treat us better. Or tell us that you don't want our subs so that we can stop kidding ourselves.

Edited for spelling

Talrenos · April 2015

Oh they want our Subs; just wont get them now.

PKMN12 · April 2015

they do not care about you, or anyone else, they want your money, that is it. This was obvious the moment they released the "imperial edition" despite them saying they would never put anything but major DLC behind a paywall.

Danikat · April 2015

Obviously they do want people to sub.

I think it's more likely that whoever decided use the in-game notification system to advertise the crown store genuinely didn't expect it to make this many people this angry and the message that it has is taking time to filter through and be acted on.

I don't know what their company structure is like but if it's anything like the place I work it wouldn't surprise me if the person or people who decided to run the message don't read the forum themselves, so one of the people who do has to report back on the reaction it got. Then there will probably be some debate over whether the reaction was really as bad as people on the forum claim (it is the internet after all, hyperbole is fairly common), whether players will get used to it or keep complaining and whether the estimated boost in sales (if any) is worth it.

It's also possible that at the end of all that they'll decide they're better off angering some players by running these messages than stopping them and potentially losing sales because people don't know what's on offer. I consider that highly unlikely, I'd be very surprised if the messages made that much difference, but it's possible.

Kupoking · April 2015

I feel like they want to transition into a full micro transactions Only type of business mode.

pugyourself · April 2015

Danikat wrote: »

Obviously they do want people to sub.

I think it's more likely that whoever decided use the in-game notification system to advertise the crown store genuinely didn't expect it to make this many people this angry and the message that it has is taking time to filter through and be acted on.

I don't know what their company structure is like but if it's anything like the place I work it wouldn't surprise me if the person or people who decided to run the message don't read the forum themselves, so one of the people who do has to report back on the reaction it got. Then there will probably be some debate over whether the reaction was really as bad as people on the forum claim (it is the internet after all, hyperbole is fairly common), whether players will get used to it or keep complaining and whether the estimated boost in sales (if any) is worth it.

It's also possible that at the end of all that they'll decide they're better off angering some players by running these messages than stopping them and potentially losing sales because people don't know what's on offer. I consider that highly unlikely, I'd be very surprised if the messages made that much difference, but it's possible.

I'd be inclined to agree with you if this was the first ill-received message. However, there was Pet Day. The negative reaction to that was nearly universal. I'm honestly contemplating the possibility that they really don't want subs. Without subs, they only have to focus on one player segment and can really do almost anything they want in terms of marketing with very little accountability.

PKMN12 · April 2015

houimetub17_ESO wrote: »

I feel like they want to transition into a full micro transactions Only type of business mode.

kind of, i think they want to see how far they can go with the B2P, while still abusing microtransaction. only when that stops working and they have milked as many sales of the game as they can, will they go completely F2P.

pugyourself · April 2015

houimetub17_ESO wrote: »

I feel like they want to transition into a full micro transactions Only type of business mode.

^^ This is what I'm getting at. With that system, all bets are off with trash marketing, lag, bugs, etc. There is no implied accountability. With a sub, there is. Maybe they really don't mind pissing off subs because in reality the subs are not wanted.

p_tsakirisb16_ESO · April 2015

What I read here is just a handful of people QQ while the significant majority of THOUSANDS do not give a toss about the ingame ads.

pugyourself · April 2015

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

What I read here is just a handful of people QQ while the significant majority of THOUSANDS do not give a toss about the ingame ads.

Stats to back that up? Do you know any subs who don't mind? How many?

Danikat · April 2015

pugyourself wrote: »

Danikat wrote: »

Obviously they do want people to sub.

I think it's more likely that whoever decided use the in-game notification system to advertise the crown store genuinely didn't expect it to make this many people this angry and the message that it has is taking time to filter through and be acted on.

I don't know what their company structure is like but if it's anything like the place I work it wouldn't surprise me if the person or people who decided to run the message don't read the forum themselves, so one of the people who do has to report back on the reaction it got. Then there will probably be some debate over whether the reaction was really as bad as people on the forum claim (it is the internet after all, hyperbole is fairly common), whether players will get used to it or keep complaining and whether the estimated boost in sales (if any) is worth it.

It's also possible that at the end of all that they'll decide they're better off angering some players by running these messages than stopping them and potentially losing sales because people don't know what's on offer. I consider that highly unlikely, I'd be very surprised if the messages made that much difference, but it's possible.

I'd be inclined to agree with you if this was the first ill-received message. However, there was Pet Day. The negative reaction to that was nearly universal. I'm honestly contemplating the possibility that they really don't want subs. Without subs, they only have to focus on one player segment and can really do almost anything they want in terms of marketing with very little accountability.

That's what I mean.

They ran the pet day message and it got a very bad reaction, but before that could be fed back to the relevant people or acted on they ran the second one, because that's the plan they had agreed on.

It happens a lot in my job. Someone comes up with a plan that looks good on paper and is terrible in practice. The issues become obvious early on but because even seemingly simple and logical changes take time to be approved we have to keep going with the original for a while anyway. Sometimes we can even predict what's going to go wrong in advance, but we have to "wait and see" and then wait for someone to discuss and approve the fixes we told them they'd need before they even started.

Not that I'm projecting my own frustrations onto ZOS or anything. And on a Saturday too.

In this case though I actually hope that's the case. The alternative is that they still think this is a good idea and plan to keep doing it.

Sinthrax · April 2015

I am not subbed because I seen this coming soon as they announced B2P, At this point blame yourself.

Danikat · April 2015

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

What I read here is just a handful of people QQ while the significant majority of THOUSANDS do not give a toss about the ingame ads.

How do you know what that majority thinks?

I suspect you're assuming that because they didn't come to the forum to complain they're ok with it. Because I can't imagine how you could possibly know what people who haven't expressed their opinion think.

But that on it's own doesn't mean anything. I've talked to people who were complaining about this in-game who didn't even know there was an official forum to come to. We have no idea how many people used the /feedback function in-game to complain, or grumbled about it to themselves but didn't say anything to ZOS or other players. The only people whose opinions we can gauge are those who gave them on the forum, and the majority of those are negative.

dietlime · April 2015

The dearth of content hasn't been the bad, most establishing MMO's have an early period where their core systems are still ind development and new content isn't being added. The games you're comparing to have been system-complete for years.

ZoS, the in-game banned text ads are unprofessional, and when I saw them I didn't even see the English banner; on the North American server for a game hosted in North America published by a company that originated here. It makes you look bad.

Moderator note: Edited per our rules on rude and insulting comments.

pugyourself · April 2015

dietlime wrote: »

This thread is the unintelligent rhetoric of an ignorant person, I'm sorry. It is what it is.

The dearth of content hasn't been the bad, most establishing MMO's have an early period where their core systems are still ind development and new content isn't being added. The games you're comparing to have been system-complete for years.

ZoS, the in-game banned text ads are unprofessional, and when I saw them I didn't even see the English banner; on the North American server for a game hosted in North America published by a company that originated here. It makes you look bad.

What games did I compare this one to? If you wish to see an "unintelligent" person, go look in the mirror.

golfer.dub17_ESO · April 2015

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

What I read here is just a handful of people QQ while the significant majority of THOUSANDS do not give a toss about the ingame ads.

You can toss around the vocal minority argument all you want, but even in-game I saw lots of people groaning about it when it happened.

Is it really such a big deal for them to refrain from spamming it in-game? We can already see it in the launcher.

Hell if they're really desperate they could put ads at the login screen itself, but no reason to shove it in our face with broadcasts that pretty much demand we buy their product.

Heromofo · April 2015

Agree especially with subs srsly zos show some consideration to your subbers especially when the consoles come out.

Subbers
Exp bonuses
Crowns
The ability to opt out of the crown spam and advertising all together
Preferred status i.e put ahead of non subbers etc in lines and lfg etc you get the idea

Kupoking · April 2015

Well, riot games does good money only selling skins n stuff. Only difference is, they only focus into a pvp game

Raash · April 2015

pugyourself wrote: »

I've thought a little bit about the recent cross-screen advertisements from ZOS and I am left wondering...is it possible that ZOS does not actually want subscribers anymore?

Let me preface this by saying that I am currently subbed and have been since launch. I've defended every excruciatingly poor taste marketing move from the last year to everyone who will listen.

After the pet day fiasco, I watched the community outcry and thought, "Well at least that will never happen again." Until yesterday when it did.

That told me that someone at ZOS really doesn't care at all what the players think...or more specifically what subbed players think.

So I'm left wondering about a possibility...perhaps ZOS doesn't actually want subscribers.

After all, subscribers are vocal...we've paid money each month on top of what is required to pay the game and we expect something of commensurate value in return. It adds a whole layer of accountability to the devs and marketers to be "just" and responsible, at least towards a segment of the player base. A layer of accountability that simply may not be wanted.

It would be far easier to justify early-1990's in-game spam marketing, horrendous lag across game (which has gotten somewhat better in all honesty), bugged quests, and a near-total lack of new content (although there never seems to be much delay in pushing out Crown Store content) if the game didn't have any subs.

As of this writing, I am still subbed. I am begging you ZOS. Please treat us better. Or tell us that you don't want our subs so that we can stop kidding ourselves.

I kind of doubt they made the game thinking "it doesnt matter if we make money or not if atleast some people enjoy it, its all for entertainment after all."
They are working guys & girls wanting salary. They will do what they think will earn them the most.

People should let their wallets speak when stuff aint right instead of making excuses covering for them, its a language all buissness knows.

eliisra · April 2015

I dont give a toss about in-game adds. Some yellow text blinking, than gone. Big deal. But I do feel like Zos doesn't want my subscription.

There's literally nothing in there that benefits me. Store is bore and filled with junk I can get for a few coins in the nearest guild kiosk. All my chars but one is VR14, so exp is already non existent. Also why I cancelled as soon as I saw the mediocre Plus Member deal.

I other games you get loads of perks by paying monthly, like craft, exp- and token/currency boosters and weekly gifts. Actual boosters that is, on top of store currency and passives. Getting 10% more ***-poor CP exp makes little difference at level cap. Like paying to get 10% more of nothing.

I want to support the game, but I'm not just going to give away my money.

Still believe subbing will be worth it in the future when you get DLC content sparkling the deal. I will most likely re-sub at one point. Guess the b2p thing is so new, they're probably just beta-testing as per usual and also why it sucks. Seeing how far down they can push a *** deal, before everyone cancels.

pugyourself · April 2015

eliisra wrote: »

Seeing how far down they can push a *** deal, before everyone cancels.

This part made me LOL. Thank you for that!

Elijah_Crow · April 2015

The Sky is not falling because of a few simple system messages.

People have become so accustomed to ZOS listening to feedback some think they can come to the forums and dictate to them exactly how they can and cannot market.

If you don't like the messaging, great...give that feedback but do it in a constructive way. ZOS is changing business models. They need to produce a good revenue stream and there are many things which should be tested for marketing.

Look at the items in the cash shop. They are not Pay2win or over priced and a few system messages during a special weekend is not unexpected. They are making this business model change with class and trying to adhere to standards.

pugyourself · April 2015

Elijah_Crow wrote: »

The Sky is not falling because of a few simple system messages.

People have become so accustomed to ZOS listening to feedback some think they can come to the forums and dictate to them exactly how they can and cannot market.

If you don't like the messaging, great...give that feedback but do it in a constructive way. ZOS is changing business models. They need to produce a good revenue stream and there are many things which should be tested for marketing.

Look at the items in the cash shop. They are not Pay2win or over priced and a few system messages during a special weekend is not unexpected. They are making this business model change with class and trying to adhere to standards.

I agree, which is why I am seriously wondering if subs are no longer wanted (i.e. ZOS would like to focus only on Crown Store sales for their revenue). This is fine if they are honest about it. But when you solicit subscriptions, you are accepting implied accountability to those subscribers in terms of game quality and appropriate solicitation of further purchases. People paying subscriptions do not expect to be spammed to make additional purchases.

That is why my question was serious. Perhaps subscribers are no longer wanted because they are more trouble to ZOS than they are worth to them. If that's the case, tell us so we can cancel and use our money in the Crown Store if/when the urge hits instead. And we can accept cross-screen spam because we aren't paying a sub.There is no implied accountability to a player who isn't paying.

ZOS_TristanK · April 2015

Hey, @pugyourself. Since you've already made a poll expressing this same sentiment, we're closing this thread. You're welcome to continue your discussion over there. Thank you.