OP- I like your ideas and a willingness to try to find a value in it, but none of those would make me re-sub. Tbh, I don't believe I will ever re-sub, only buy crowns as needed. As of now I have bought nothing and will personally only buy content if/when it comes and is not over priced like some of the current offerings.

Further, this idea that subscribing is "supporting the company" may be what some need to tell themselves, but for me it is simply an issue of cost effectiveness of a product at this point.

If the content we were promised prior to B2P announcement was here and delivery of further content was on the schedule ZOS stated to us, and pc players weren't kicked to the side to "focus on consoles".... then I would be able to overlook other transgressions (at least the ones I feel are) and subscribe. But it is simply not the case.

c.p.garrett1993_ESO wrote: »

@Psychobunni
It appears you are not the only one.
In fact, I think this topic shows exactly how people are thinking.

We are left with three types of people:
- Those who hate the subscription model, and no change is enough to fix what has been done.
- Those who are not interested in subscriptions, and never will be.
- Those who are perfectly fine with the current model, generally justifying it as "support" and do not want changes.

It appears that like-minded individuals have given up on any changes, or quit entirely.
Nobody thus far, except @Heromofo has really supported the idea. Others have agreed on the concept but found the implementation of such a system impractical.

It doesn't appear there is any method of "fixing" subscriptions to make everybody happy.

Aaah it comes down to People want everything for free. I can understand the want and yes id love bug fixes and and dlc like no tomorrow for free. But i dont think peole understand that there is a very large upkeep to this mmo and it is a business not a charity. The reason why they have most staff on the console version and why content has been delayed is because of the lack of cash comming from pc. If console was to fail lets say it flops big time it then i promise ya eso will die within a year or two. It happens all the time so when i noticed your idea it spun me out because it could dam well work for the console players like myself.

@c.p.garrett1993_ESO

Bouvin wrote: »

People need to stop comparing Skyrim sales on Console to ESO.

Skyrim is not a MMO.

MMOs cater to a different market than single player games.

ESO seems to be more geared towards ES fans over MMO fans. Especially the console version.
The console releases are at least as important as the PC version. Maybe more.
Regardless, the topic at hand is about the subscription model, not a PC v Console debate. While I thank you for your commend I request that this discussion stay on topic.

Hey garret have you made the poll for it yet?

jcodbf2b14_ESO wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

jcodbf2b14_ESO wrote: »

No. People who choose to pay should not be treated like second class citizens because of the tier they chose.

One model and one model only.

Is that how you feel if you buy a £20 shirt rather than a £50 shirt? Personally I get what seems like the best buy for me, and don't feel inferior because someone else chooses a more expensive one.

By offering a range of subscription options you are catering for variety of preferences and budgets, which seems a good idea to me.

Well I used to play a game that decided to implement a tier subscription system. It killed the game. Only a handful remained playing because people felt like were being pushed to subscribe and the higher tiers had better perks which made others feel like they had to sub to those or miss out. In the end those 2 groups left the game leaving just those with a really bad addiction ( those that would run 5-15 accounts at once because there werent enough players to actually group ).

I dont want to see that happen to ESO. There is no need at all for a tiered subscription system. Cant do 15 a month? Just buy crowns when you are able. No trouble with 15 a month? More power to you.

What if the subscription model were revised so that perks were the same?
The only difference would be crowns, or, crowns could be removed entirely at a lower price and only one model?

Heromofo wrote: »

c.p.garrett1993_ESO wrote: »

jcodbf2b14_ESO wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

jcodbf2b14_ESO wrote: »

No. People who choose to pay should not be treated like second class citizens because of the tier they chose.

One model and one model only.

Is that how you feel if you buy a £20 shirt rather than a £50 shirt? Personally I get what seems like the best buy for me, and don't feel inferior because someone else chooses a more expensive one.

By offering a range of subscription options you are catering for variety of preferences and budgets, which seems a good idea to me.

Well I used to play a game that decided to implement a tier subscription system. It killed the game. Only a handful remained playing because people felt like were being pushed to subscribe and the higher tiers had better perks which made others feel like they had to sub to those or miss out. In the end those 2 groups left the game leaving just those with a really bad addiction ( those that would run 5-15 accounts at once because there werent enough players to actually group ).

I dont want to see that happen to ESO. There is no need at all for a tiered subscription system. Cant do 15 a month? Just buy crowns when you are able. No trouble with 15 a month? More power to you.

What if the subscription model were revised so that perks were the same?
The only difference would be crowns, or, crowns could be removed entirely at a lower price and only one model?

Crowns probably should not be apart of a subscription system because if say i wanted something from the store then i would pay for it lol.

So, if crowns were removed, would a loyalty program need to replace it? Or are the current perks and DLC more than enough? I'm thinking the latter, but I would like to get more feedback on it before revising or starting a poll.

Heromofo wrote: »

c.p.garrett1993_ESO wrote: »

Heromofo wrote: »

c.p.garrett1993_ESO wrote: »

jcodbf2b14_ESO wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

jcodbf2b14_ESO wrote: »

No. People who choose to pay should not be treated like second class citizens because of the tier they chose.

One model and one model only.

Is that how you feel if you buy a £20 shirt rather than a £50 shirt? Personally I get what seems like the best buy for me, and don't feel inferior because someone else chooses a more expensive one.

By offering a range of subscription options you are catering for variety of preferences and budgets, which seems a good idea to me.

Well I used to play a game that decided to implement a tier subscription system. It killed the game. Only a handful remained playing because people felt like were being pushed to subscribe and the higher tiers had better perks which made others feel like they had to sub to those or miss out. In the end those 2 groups left the game leaving just those with a really bad addiction ( those that would run 5-15 accounts at once because there werent enough players to actually group ).

I dont want to see that happen to ESO. There is no need at all for a tiered subscription system. Cant do 15 a month? Just buy crowns when you are able. No trouble with 15 a month? More power to you.

What if the subscription model were revised so that perks were the same?
The only difference would be crowns, or, crowns could be removed entirely at a lower price and only one model?

Crowns probably should not be apart of a subscription system because if say i wanted something from the store then i would pay for it lol.

So, if crowns were removed, would a loyalty program need to replace it? Or are the current perks and DLC more than enough? I'm thinking the latter, but I would like to get more feedback on it before revising or starting a poll.

I would use the latter as well and build on them to match the price.
I think of the subscription service of eso unlimited like a loyalty card.

So ditch the tier model, remove the crowns, and set one model at about $9.99?
This would provide full access to DLC and all of the perks, but remove crowns entirely.

I would definitely like to get some other opinions on this, and then I'll make the poll.

c.p.garrett1993_ESO wrote: »

@Psychobunni
It appears you are not the only one.
In fact, I think this topic shows exactly how people are thinking.

We are left with three types of people:
- Those who hate the subscription model, and no change is enough to fix what has been done.
- Those who are not interested in subscriptions, and never will be.
- Those who are perfectly fine with the current model, generally justifying it as "support" and do not want changes.

It appears that like-minded individuals have given up on any changes, or quit entirely.
Nobody thus far, except @Heromofo has really supported the idea. Others have agreed on the concept but found the implementation of such a system impractical.

It doesn't appear there is any method of "fixing" subscriptions to make everybody happy.

I think you have a really great idea here. The people who hate the subscription model or aren't interested in subscriptions can't be swayed either way, so why worry about them? As a subscriber, I'm displeased with the benefits right now and I see plenty of threads discussing the same. The current benefits aren't what I want, and I think a change is necessary if I will keep my sub. I want to continue to pay and support the game, but I won't do it forever unless my subscription is worth it to me too.

I think a tiered system is a nice idea because you cater to a lot of varying degrees of interest in the game. If you don't subscribe now, you still won't have to. If you want to contribute a little bit and get some perks from that, you can. I don't think the tiers are confusing either. If somebody is new to the game, they don't have to subscribe at all. Once they understand the tier system better, they can choose to subscribe later if they want - so I don't think that point is relevant. Maybe keep one tier with the current benefits for people who are happy with the current system though?

Tiers may not be the answer exactly as proposed in this post, but I want to thank c.p.garrett for bringing up the discussion and hopefully providing some food for thought for ZOS. Whether tiered options for subscriptions are the solution or not, I believe ESO+ needs to be revamped for many of us to continue paying for it. I think a lot of the options outlined in the original post should be a part of the solution no matter how it is implemented. PvP priority queueing is a big one for me. I've paid for this game monthly since it came out. I didn't ask for subscriptions to be removed, because I like to support a game to keep it alive and growing. I think that support, though, should have it's just rewards and ZOS really needs to consider some new options to keep players subscribing. It shouldn't be too much of a challenge to for ZOS to listen to it's loyal customers who want to pay for their product.