BigM wrote: »

LOL I couldn't vote because everyone just seems dumb to pick. So my pick would be NO!

Why not just click the first one thing lol

I think 10% of non-subber's gold should be divied-up and sent to us

@HeromofoI hope you realize that because there are more non-subscribers, the poll results will inaccurately be reflected.

It goes without saying that non-subscribers will vote against anything "extra" subscribers will get- they feel like they're "entitled" to things for free- regardless that subscribers are paying "extra" on top of the purchase price of the game.

Heromofo wrote: »

Sylveria_Relden wrote: »

@HeromofoI hope you realize that because there are more non-subscribers, the poll results will inaccurately be reflected.

It goes without saying that non-subscribers will vote against anything "extra" subscribers will get- they feel like they're "entitled" to things for free- regardless that subscribers are paying "extra" on top of the purchase price of the game.

Lol aaah well they should know nothing is free. Also if you want the game to survive you need subscribers so i hope they take that into consideration lol.

While I agree with what you state here, I also know from experience that "common sense" really isn't that common. Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large quantities. Just look at "mob rules" if you're having trouble figuring out what I mean by this. (i.e., "Majority rules" isn't always the "right" thing, as it's oftentimes influenced by charisma and not intelligence)

We do need subscribers, not necessarily so that the game "survives", but rather so ZOS can continue to contribute additional content in the future beyond "paying the bills" with the initial game price. I do sometimes question exactly what this means even being a subscriber- as we've had a lack of substantial content other than DLC in the form of the Crown Store lately, but I'm holding out hope that ZOS hasn't forgotten who's actually providing them with paychecks.

In my books, a sub should always grant things faster - but that's all the benefits that someone should have. Besides that, a sub should get all DLC´s for free, not like ESO has planned with just renting them.

I am not a fan of F2P games where someone who subs gets more zones, access to dungeons or better & more professions. Those games are always pay 2 win and I hope we wont see this at ESO.

Subscribers have enough benefits, except there should be advertizing opt out

Haqikah wrote: »

I hope the option to sub will be removed; because if a subscription model worked TESO had not become B2P at all.

However, as the sub is here now (I am subbed myself) I had expected the sub to work slightly differently: a sub should not get automatic access to all DLC, however when subbing the player should get enough crowns to buy the DLC. This way one system exists for the complete community instead of breaking down the community between people who rent access to DLC and people who buy it.

Why does this mean the sub option should be removed? If you don't want to sub- it's simple, don't sub. Removing the option for others, however, I disagree with.

Just because the majority of people don't want to pay for a sub, doesn't mean it should be removed as an option. It's like saying just because you don't believe in non-profits no one else should be able to donate to United Way or anywhere else.

The crowns per month is alright I guess, though you can just buy those on their own.

The other benefits are mediocre.
-10% experience is good.
-10% inspiration...I maxxed out most of my crafts in like a month or two of playing.
-10% trait research...make this something like 50% then we'll talk.
-10% more gold...meaningless.

Unmentioned is subscribers get access to the Public Test Server, while I don't think non-subs do.
So that's a nice bonus if accurate, but not universally appealing for everyone.

Overall I don't think there's a ton of reason to sub.

I may be biased as I am a Sub, but I do believe Subscribers should get more each month.
Just my opinion though.

Dumb choices. Subscrbers should have something little more to make it really desirable. At the moment no exclusive content make subsciption simply useless...

Haqikah wrote: »

Sylveria_Relden wrote: »

Haqikah wrote: »

I hope the option to sub will be removed; because if a subscription model worked TESO had not become B2P at all.

However, as the sub is here now (I am subbed myself) I had expected the sub to work slightly differently: a sub should not get automatic access to all DLC, however when subbing the player should get enough crowns to buy the DLC. This way one system exists for the complete community instead of breaking down the community between people who rent access to DLC and people who buy it.

Why does this mean the sub option should be removed? If you don't want to sub- it's simple, don't sub. Removing the option for others, however, I disagree with.

Just because the majority of people don't want to pay for a sub, doesn't mean it should be removed as an option. It's like saying just because you don't believe in non-profits no one else should be able to donate to United Way or anywhere else.

I explained the 'why' in my previous post (the one you commented on, repeated it here in the comments - specially for you). Did your read the entire post at all?

I did read the entire post- and I still disagree with your statement about how subs should be removed.

How exactly does this translate to a "lack of reading comprehension"? (with your last comment, that's what you're insinuating, after all)

They already receive benefits. They get 10% bonus gold, xp, inspiration, and APs.

That's why I didn't vote.

By the way, is that comic hand-made?

Raash wrote: »

There really should be something to sweaten the deal for subscribers - if ZoS will keep using subs in their game that is.

Perhaps limitations in content for non subs is a must somehow but that could backfire aswell.
I think ZoS is in between a rock and a hard place with this. Add stuff to the dwindling numbers of subscribers or cater to non subbers to make them stay and pay for stuff. Squeze or cater too much on either one and its a pure loss since subs cant carry the game any more (so it seems anyway) and they cant really scare away the potential wallets either.

Eh, I disagree with restrictions to non-subscribers. The initial base price of the game alone should indeed give you access to everything included with that purchase. I don't want to see this turn into a stripped-down version of the game just because people don't choose to sub (I'm a subscriber, btw)

I do agree that they need to add more to sweeten the deal.

I personally feel satisfied with what I get now for subscribing. The only change I would make is to implement a "rent to own" model with subscriptions.

Haqikah wrote: »

Sylveria_Relden wrote: »

Haqikah wrote: »

Sylveria_Relden wrote: »

Haqikah wrote: »

I hope the option to sub will be removed; because if a subscription model worked TESO had not become B2P at all.

However, as the sub is here now (I am subbed myself) I had expected the sub to work slightly differently: a sub should not get automatic access to all DLC, however when subbing the player should get enough crowns to buy the DLC. This way one system exists for the complete community instead of breaking down the community between people who rent access to DLC and people who buy it.

Why does this mean the sub option should be removed? If you don't want to sub- it's simple, don't sub. Removing the option for others, however, I disagree with.

Just because the majority of people don't want to pay for a sub, doesn't mean it should be removed as an option. It's like saying just because you don't believe in non-profits no one else should be able to donate to United Way or anywhere else.

I explained the 'why' in my previous post (the one you commented on, repeated it here in the comments - specially for you). Did your read the entire post at all?

I did read the entire post- and I still disagree with your statement about how subs should be removed.

How exactly does this translate to a "lack of reading comprehension"? (with your last comment, that's what you're insinuating, after all)

Ah, as you asked for reasons for my statement, whereby you did not mention the reasons I have given. I figured (incorrectly it seems) you had not read my entire post. As it seems you actually had read it. When discussing I am used people try to point to the faults of my reasoning, instead of asking for more or other reasons. It seems we are simply used to discuss in different ways.

No harm done though!

Let me elaborate a bit to explain my reasoning a bit more.
Many players wanted to keep TESO P2P, however ZoS decided that B2P would be better for the future of the game. ZoS *could* have opted to keep the PC P2P and use a different model for the console, but ZoS choose not to.
I think ZoS only added a subscription for the current B2P model to appease the masses who were used on having a sub for TESO (myself included I must admit). However I feel going B2P is far better served without any subscription model attached to it.

The reasons are two fold:
1) community: I just fear the sub-model will divide the community of players into two side: subs and non-subs. Looking at some threads on this forum, I am getting the feeling some subs have a superiority complex to non-subs. Which I feel will not benefit the community at all.

2) force ZoS to release DLC: while subs give ZoS significant revenu I fear they lack incentive to release meaning full DLC. When no-one is subscribed or when no sub exists, the only way for ZoS to get revenu is via the cash shop. Then ZoS has the opportunity to show its true colors: they can go pay-to-win or (and I fully hope they choose the following scenario) start releasing DLC players want (PvP and PvE).

Thanks for your clarification- and no, I don't "poke holes" in peoples' reasoning- but I definitely call out BS when I see it.

I'll address your points here-

#1) I agree, that there's seemingly a "divide" in the community based on subs and non-subs, however, I also understand *why* that exists- partially because there's very little difference at present with the offering to subs versus non-subs, and there are quite a few unhappy customers because of this (I know because I'm one of them).

#2) I'm not really sure how removing subs would "force" ZOS to release DLC- they're either going to, or won't. I fail to understand how simply removing a residual revenue stream is going to accomplish this. I see the strategy you outline - but it really doesn't make a practical difference as I've also seen a lot of F2P games do this (DCUO for example) and it doesn't affect the timeline the the publisher decides to release content. (speculatively, it also explains why there's a lack of people interested in the game, but that's a diversion I really don't want to get into debating with people)

I think you're on track with the idea- but the actual implementation needs to be hammered out. Subscriptions only help to add to incentive for publishers- it's "bread and butter" when it comes to paying bills on a residual basis. Think "wages or salary" in terms of modern day incentives for employees and employers. If you're not paying people on a regular basis- or the amount is meager- what real incentive do they have to work for you or do a good job? Accumulation of "wealth" or material possession can be seen a little differently- once someone has acquired something, there's very little reason to be incentivized to acquire more, no?