@Wanderinlost

If there are more of you then why does the poll on the other thread show 129 votes from subs and only 89 votes from people like you?

JD2013 wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Aimora wrote: »

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

All I've gotten from this is that the OP is fundementally against subscriptions in general.

Why do I say that? Well the OP has stated many times how they support the game via crown store and dlc purchases, even to the point of claiming they spend equal if not more then a subscriber may in a month.

This makes me assume they simply do not feel the sub is worth it in general as there is nothing the sub offers to justify it. Well now there is, and if this player, who I'm going to assume has been playing for at least since the b2p transition, has been supporting the game and is willing to raise such a stink over it not being on the crown store, Im thinking it's pretty much a feature that would justify a sub to them.

Just ******* sub.

People seem to be making the argument of "what about non sub player A who has spent x amount of dollars since b2p launched? They are getting shafted!" Zos is not rewarding all players for playing and supporting the game, and thus how much a player has spent in game has nothing to do with this perk.

This perk is ZOS saying thank you to those that support the game is a concrete way, this is not some smug superiority stance, it's simply thst Zos prefers and values subscribers in that it's a much less volatile and much more reliable source of revenue and helps them plan what they can and can not do in the long run with updates and features.

ZoS wants people to sub, this is a fact, its also a fact that for alot of people (likely the OP as well) the incentive is simply not there. Adding it to the crown store will both undermine the subscription in a way as well as Zos shooting themselves in the foot. If they sell it for crowns as a one time buy, then months down the line players may once again not feel the need to subscribe since they have the perk already. This is common sense, and this is why the perk needs to be tied to the subscription.

The perk itslef is obviously not going to keep some one subscribed if they are bored of the game and want to take a break or quit, but if you are still enjoying the game entirely, the crafting bag is a nice QoL bonus that you may find you really do not want to play without, and in combination with the other bonuses just might tip would be subs to finally doing so.

It's is completely fair
It can not be a one time buy
You do NOT need it
If you like the game, just sub [snip] or get over it.

What a lot of nonsense. If subscriptions had been a "reliable" source of income, ESO would never have had to become B2P in the first place! The ability to purchase and own ESO and DLC content was a huge selling point of "Tamriel Unlimited" when it launched. Now, by hiding important game content behind a subscription, ZOS is reneging on the deal we were sold while limiting our so-called "Unlimited" experience.

Not necessarily true there was speculation at the time that due to issues with the consoles launch having a fixed subscription across the platforms wasn't viable, so no one really knows the real reason sub only was dropped, and B2P was implemented with an option to sub still. So until someone can categorically prove the reason it all speculation in the long run

Debatable yes but ultimitely speculatory... how much content was released before the B2P model was introduced?

Craglorn (in 2 parts) and some veteran dungeons.

(I think that was it? Can anyone add to that?)

wow really?
So in what... a little over a year that's all that was released?
Ok well I think from that it's safe to say the sub model wasn't quite as profitable as was first hoped.
Soooo B2P crown/DLC sales from non subs and console sales (most of which don't sub) have pretty much paid for all current and possibly future content with regards to securing investment yet they're not entitled to a few measly crafting bag slots?

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't look like much of an incentive to subs to me either tbh, afterall you've paid all that time waiting for them to throw you all a well deserved bone, you have supported the game just as much as everyone else and that's the best they can offer?

I'll stick to managing my inventory and mule when I need to, it's no harm no foul to me but it does feel like a slap in the face to pay as much and sometimes more to get no incentives at all in return I guess, I can see why subs are wanting to hold onto them being exclusive so tightly, you guys have been royally shafted too.
[edited to remove quote]

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

JD2013 wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Aimora wrote: »

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

All I've gotten from this is that the OP is fundementally against subscriptions in general.

Why do I say that? Well the OP has stated many times how they support the game via crown store and dlc purchases, even to the point of claiming they spend equal if not more then a subscriber may in a month.

This makes me assume they simply do not feel the sub is worth it in general as there is nothing the sub offers to justify it. Well now there is, and if this player, who I'm going to assume has been playing for at least since the b2p transition, has been supporting the game and is willing to raise such a stink over it not being on the crown store, Im thinking it's pretty much a feature that would justify a sub to them.

Just ******* sub.

People seem to be making the argument of "what about non sub player A who has spent x amount of dollars since b2p launched? They are getting shafted!" Zos is not rewarding all players for playing and supporting the game, and thus how much a player has spent in game has nothing to do with this perk.

This perk is ZOS saying thank you to those that support the game is a concrete way, this is not some smug superiority stance, it's simply thst Zos prefers and values subscribers in that it's a much less volatile and much more reliable source of revenue and helps them plan what they can and can not do in the long run with updates and features.

ZoS wants people to sub, this is a fact, its also a fact that for alot of people (likely the OP as well) the incentive is simply not there. Adding it to the crown store will both undermine the subscription in a way as well as Zos shooting themselves in the foot. If they sell it for crowns as a one time buy, then months down the line players may once again not feel the need to subscribe since they have the perk already. This is common sense, and this is why the perk needs to be tied to the subscription.

The perk itslef is obviously not going to keep some one subscribed if they are bored of the game and want to take a break or quit, but if you are still enjoying the game entirely, the crafting bag is a nice QoL bonus that you may find you really do not want to play without, and in combination with the other bonuses just might tip would be subs to finally doing so.

It's is completely fair
It can not be a one time buy
You do NOT need it
If you like the game, just sub [snip] or get over it.

What a lot of nonsense. If subscriptions had been a "reliable" source of income, ESO would never have had to become B2P in the first place! The ability to purchase and own ESO and DLC content was a huge selling point of "Tamriel Unlimited" when it launched. Now, by hiding important game content behind a subscription, ZOS is reneging on the deal we were sold while limiting our so-called "Unlimited" experience.

Not necessarily true there was speculation at the time that due to issues with the consoles launch having a fixed subscription across the platforms wasn't viable, so no one really knows the real reason sub only was dropped, and B2P was implemented with an option to sub still. So until someone can categorically prove the reason it all speculation in the long run

Debatable yes but ultimitely speculatory... how much content was released before the B2P model was introduced?

Craglorn (in 2 parts) and some veteran dungeons.

(I think that was it? Can anyone add to that?)

wow really?
So in what... a little over a year that's all that was released?
Ok well I think from that it's safe to say the sub model wasn't quite as profitable as was first hoped.
Soooo B2P crown/DLC sales from non subs and console sales (most of which don't sub) have pretty much paid for all current and possibly future content with regards to securing investment yet they're not entitled to a few measly crafting bag slots?

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't look like much of an incentive to subs to me either tbh, afterall you've paid all that time waiting for them to throw you all a well deserved bone, you have supported the game just as much as everyone else and that's the best they can offer?

I'll stick to managing my inventory and mule when I need to, it's no harm no foul to me but it does feel like a slap in the face to pay as much and sometimes more to get no incentives at all in return I guess, I can see why subs are wanting to hold onto them being exclusive so tightly, you guys have been royally shafted too.

How fast content was released has nothing to do with how well a business model for a game is. There are games that produce content once a year at most and they are very successful. Then you have games like ESO who tries to release some content 3-4 times a year. And are successful. Business model has nothing to do with this. on top of trying to release content they where trying to fix and revamp the game on top of getting the console release ready. Which was suppose to release 6 months after PC release.... So in reality, the studio was stretched thin to get content AND the console port finished. That's a lot of stuff to do for a medium to small studio.

No I don't know how large the studio was after launch, but all game companies usually downsize after a product release since they don't need as many game designers.

I also want to add they where working on both Imperial City and Wrothegar I believe... at least Imperial City. So yeah..... that's a lot of work for a so called failed business model.
[edited to remove quote]

Xundiin wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

JD2013 wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Aimora wrote: »

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

All I've gotten from this is that the OP is fundementally against subscriptions in general.

Why do I say that? Well the OP has stated many times how they support the game via crown store and dlc purchases, even to the point of claiming they spend equal if not more then a subscriber may in a month.

This makes me assume they simply do not feel the sub is worth it in general as there is nothing the sub offers to justify it. Well now there is, and if this player, who I'm going to assume has been playing for at least since the b2p transition, has been supporting the game and is willing to raise such a stink over it not being on the crown store, Im thinking it's pretty much a feature that would justify a sub to them.

Just ******* sub.

People seem to be making the argument of "what about non sub player A who has spent x amount of dollars since b2p launched? They are getting shafted!" Zos is not rewarding all players for playing and supporting the game, and thus how much a player has spent in game has nothing to do with this perk.

This perk is ZOS saying thank you to those that support the game is a concrete way, this is not some smug superiority stance, it's simply thst Zos prefers and values subscribers in that it's a much less volatile and much more reliable source of revenue and helps them plan what they can and can not do in the long run with updates and features.

ZoS wants people to sub, this is a fact, its also a fact that for alot of people (likely the OP as well) the incentive is simply not there. Adding it to the crown store will both undermine the subscription in a way as well as Zos shooting themselves in the foot. If they sell it for crowns as a one time buy, then months down the line players may once again not feel the need to subscribe since they have the perk already. This is common sense, and this is why the perk needs to be tied to the subscription.

The perk itslef is obviously not going to keep some one subscribed if they are bored of the game and want to take a break or quit, but if you are still enjoying the game entirely, the crafting bag is a nice QoL bonus that you may find you really do not want to play without, and in combination with the other bonuses just might tip would be subs to finally doing so.

It's is completely fair
It can not be a one time buy
You do NOT need it
If you like the game, just sub [snip] or get over it.

What a lot of nonsense. If subscriptions had been a "reliable" source of income, ESO would never have had to become B2P in the first place! The ability to purchase and own ESO and DLC content was a huge selling point of "Tamriel Unlimited" when it launched. Now, by hiding important game content behind a subscription, ZOS is reneging on the deal we were sold while limiting our so-called "Unlimited" experience.

Not necessarily true there was speculation at the time that due to issues with the consoles launch having a fixed subscription across the platforms wasn't viable, so no one really knows the real reason sub only was dropped, and B2P was implemented with an option to sub still. So until someone can categorically prove the reason it all speculation in the long run

Debatable yes but ultimitely speculatory... how much content was released before the B2P model was introduced?

Craglorn (in 2 parts) and some veteran dungeons.

(I think that was it? Can anyone add to that?)

wow really?
So in what... a little over a year that's all that was released?
Ok well I think from that it's safe to say the sub model wasn't quite as profitable as was first hoped.
Soooo B2P crown/DLC sales from non subs and console sales (most of which don't sub) have pretty much paid for all current and possibly future content with regards to securing investment yet they're not entitled to a few measly crafting bag slots?

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't look like much of an incentive to subs to me either tbh, afterall you've paid all that time waiting for them to throw you all a well deserved bone, you have supported the game just as much as everyone else and that's the best they can offer?

I'll stick to managing my inventory and mule when I need to, it's no harm no foul to me but it does feel like a slap in the face to pay as much and sometimes more to get no incentives at all in return I guess, I can see why subs are wanting to hold onto them being exclusive so tightly, you guys have been royally shafted too.

How fast content was released has nothing to do with how well a business model for a game is. There are games that produce content once a year at most and they are very successful. Then you have games like ESO who tries to release some content 3-4 times a year. And are successful. Business model has nothing to do with this. on top of trying to release content they where trying to fix and revamp the game on top of getting the console release ready. Which was suppose to release 6 months after PC release.... So in reality, the studio was stretched thin to get content AND the console port finished. That's a lot of stuff to do for a medium to small studio.

No I don't know how large the studio was after launch, but all game companies usually downsize after a product release since they don't need as many game designers.

Actually there were no plans to release on console at all, I remember it being branded a PC exclusive even before launch as I was tempted to build another gaming rig way back when just for ESO, it wasn't until around 6 months later when the sub model was first showing signs it wasn't coming close to their projected forecasts that the decision was made to port to console.

The business model has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Found an old IGN link, 50 PC exclusive games of 2013 if you care to check.
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/18/50-pc-exclusive-games-in-2013
[edited to remove quote]

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

JD2013 wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Aimora wrote: »

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

All I've gotten from this is that the OP is fundementally against subscriptions in general.

Why do I say that? Well the OP has stated many times how they support the game via crown store and dlc purchases, even to the point of claiming they spend equal if not more then a subscriber may in a month.

This makes me assume they simply do not feel the sub is worth it in general as there is nothing the sub offers to justify it. Well now there is, and if this player, who I'm going to assume has been playing for at least since the b2p transition, has been supporting the game and is willing to raise such a stink over it not being on the crown store, Im thinking it's pretty much a feature that would justify a sub to them.

Just ******* sub.

People seem to be making the argument of "what about non sub player A who has spent x amount of dollars since b2p launched? They are getting shafted!" Zos is not rewarding all players for playing and supporting the game, and thus how much a player has spent in game has nothing to do with this perk.

This perk is ZOS saying thank you to those that support the game is a concrete way, this is not some smug superiority stance, it's simply thst Zos prefers and values subscribers in that it's a much less volatile and much more reliable source of revenue and helps them plan what they can and can not do in the long run with updates and features.

ZoS wants people to sub, this is a fact, its also a fact that for alot of people (likely the OP as well) the incentive is simply not there. Adding it to the crown store will both undermine the subscription in a way as well as Zos shooting themselves in the foot. If they sell it for crowns as a one time buy, then months down the line players may once again not feel the need to subscribe since they have the perk already. This is common sense, and this is why the perk needs to be tied to the subscription.

The perk itslef is obviously not going to keep some one subscribed if they are bored of the game and want to take a break or quit, but if you are still enjoying the game entirely, the crafting bag is a nice QoL bonus that you may find you really do not want to play without, and in combination with the other bonuses just might tip would be subs to finally doing so.

It's is completely fair
It can not be a one time buy
You do NOT need it
If you like the game, just sub [snip] or get over it.

What a lot of nonsense. If subscriptions had been a "reliable" source of income, ESO would never have had to become B2P in the first place! The ability to purchase and own ESO and DLC content was a huge selling point of "Tamriel Unlimited" when it launched. Now, by hiding important game content behind a subscription, ZOS is reneging on the deal we were sold while limiting our so-called "Unlimited" experience.

Not necessarily true there was speculation at the time that due to issues with the consoles launch having a fixed subscription across the platforms wasn't viable, so no one really knows the real reason sub only was dropped, and B2P was implemented with an option to sub still. So until someone can categorically prove the reason it all speculation in the long run

Debatable yes but ultimitely speculatory... how much content was released before the B2P model was introduced?

Craglorn (in 2 parts) and some veteran dungeons.

(I think that was it? Can anyone add to that?)

wow really?
So in what... a little over a year that's all that was released?
Ok well I think from that it's safe to say the sub model wasn't quite as profitable as was first hoped.
Soooo B2P crown/DLC sales from non subs and console sales (most of which don't sub) have pretty much paid for all current and possibly future content with regards to securing investment yet they're not entitled to a few measly crafting bag slots?

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't look like much of an incentive to subs to me either tbh, afterall you've paid all that time waiting for them to throw you all a well deserved bone, you have supported the game just as much as everyone else and that's the best they can offer?

I'll stick to managing my inventory and mule when I need to, it's no harm no foul to me but it does feel like a slap in the face to pay as much and sometimes more to get no incentives at all in return I guess, I can see why subs are wanting to hold onto them being exclusive so tightly, you guys have been royally shafted too.

How fast content was released has nothing to do with how well a business model for a game is. There are games that produce content once a year at most and they are very successful. Then you have games like ESO who tries to release some content 3-4 times a year. And are successful. Business model has nothing to do with this. on top of trying to release content they where trying to fix and revamp the game on top of getting the console release ready. Which was suppose to release 6 months after PC release.... So in reality, the studio was stretched thin to get content AND the console port finished. That's a lot of stuff to do for a medium to small studio.

No I don't know how large the studio was after launch, but all game companies usually downsize after a product release since they don't need as many game designers.

Actually there were no plans to release on console at all, I remember it being branded a PC exclusive even before launch as I was tempted to build another gaming rig way back when just for ESO, it wasn't until around 6 months later when the sub model was first showing signs it wasn't coming close to their projected forecasts that the decision was made to port to console.

The business model has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Uh. no....

Proof
http://gameranx.com/updates/id/21796/article/rumor-did-zenimax-delay-eso-for-consoles-and-then-cover-it-up/

welcome to truth
[edited to remove quote]

Vulsahdaal wrote: »

Masstershake wrote: »

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

Masstershake wrote: »

Why do subs care if you can one time purchase the bag? If you get it as a eso+ perk how is it harming you in any way to allow someone else to 1 time purchase it?

Because what is the point of an ESO+ benefit if people who don't sub can make a one time purchase of it? Sure DLC is the same way but that is way different. People missing out on extra inventory space is not the same as people missing out on DLC. Crafting bags need to stay ESO+ exclusive. End of story.

Because it would still be a eso+ perk? Free vs having to spend crowns to one time unlock...there is an additional perk for subscribing...FREE crafting bag. End of story

It is not free. You do know subbers pay a monthly fee dont you? And over time, the cost of that bag will be much higher for subbers than a non-subber who pays just a one time fee. And the real kick is, the subber not only pays more for the bag, but if he stops paying, he loses full use of it. The non-subber pays a cheaper price, never makes another payment and keeps full use of the bag forever.
This is neither fair, nor a good incentive for people to sub now is it?
As far as equal opportunity goes, if non-subbers want a truly equal opportunity to get this same bag, let them rent the bag from the crown store and have monthly deductions automatically taken from their crown pile, and if decide not to buy any more crowns or cancel it, let them lose full use of the bag as subbers will. This would be equal opportunity in my opinion..oh, and almost forgot to add- End of story

this actually a good solution...

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

JD2013 wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Aimora wrote: »

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

All I've gotten from this is that the OP is fundementally against subscriptions in general.

Why do I say that? Well the OP has stated many times how they support the game via crown store and dlc purchases, even to the point of claiming they spend equal if not more then a subscriber may in a month.

This makes me assume they simply do not feel the sub is worth it in general as there is nothing the sub offers to justify it. Well now there is, and if this player, who I'm going to assume has been playing for at least since the b2p transition, has been supporting the game and is willing to raise such a stink over it not being on the crown store, Im thinking it's pretty much a feature that would justify a sub to them.

Just ******* sub.

People seem to be making the argument of "what about non sub player A who has spent x amount of dollars since b2p launched? They are getting shafted!" Zos is not rewarding all players for playing and supporting the game, and thus how much a player has spent in game has nothing to do with this perk.

This perk is ZOS saying thank you to those that support the game is a concrete way, this is not some smug superiority stance, it's simply thst Zos prefers and values subscribers in that it's a much less volatile and much more reliable source of revenue and helps them plan what they can and can not do in the long run with updates and features.

ZoS wants people to sub, this is a fact, its also a fact that for alot of people (likely the OP as well) the incentive is simply not there. Adding it to the crown store will both undermine the subscription in a way as well as Zos shooting themselves in the foot. If they sell it for crowns as a one time buy, then months down the line players may once again not feel the need to subscribe since they have the perk already. This is common sense, and this is why the perk needs to be tied to the subscription.

The perk itslef is obviously not going to keep some one subscribed if they are bored of the game and want to take a break or quit, but if you are still enjoying the game entirely, the crafting bag is a nice QoL bonus that you may find you really do not want to play without, and in combination with the other bonuses just might tip would be subs to finally doing so.

It's is completely fair
It can not be a one time buy
You do NOT need it
If you like the game, just sub [snip] or get over it.

What a lot of nonsense. If subscriptions had been a "reliable" source of income, ESO would never have had to become B2P in the first place! The ability to purchase and own ESO and DLC content was a huge selling point of "Tamriel Unlimited" when it launched. Now, by hiding important game content behind a subscription, ZOS is reneging on the deal we were sold while limiting our so-called "Unlimited" experience.

Not necessarily true there was speculation at the time that due to issues with the consoles launch having a fixed subscription across the platforms wasn't viable, so no one really knows the real reason sub only was dropped, and B2P was implemented with an option to sub still. So until someone can categorically prove the reason it all speculation in the long run

Debatable yes but ultimitely speculatory... how much content was released before the B2P model was introduced?

Craglorn (in 2 parts) and some veteran dungeons.

(I think that was it? Can anyone add to that?)

wow really?
So in what... a little over a year that's all that was released?
Ok well I think from that it's safe to say the sub model wasn't quite as profitable as was first hoped.
Soooo B2P crown/DLC sales from non subs and console sales (most of which don't sub) have pretty much paid for all current and possibly future content with regards to securing investment yet they're not entitled to a few measly crafting bag slots?

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't look like much of an incentive to subs to me either tbh, afterall you've paid all that time waiting for them to throw you all a well deserved bone, you have supported the game just as much as everyone else and that's the best they can offer?

I'll stick to managing my inventory and mule when I need to, it's no harm no foul to me but it does feel like a slap in the face to pay as much and sometimes more to get no incentives at all in return I guess, I can see why subs are wanting to hold onto them being exclusive so tightly, you guys have been royally shafted too.

How fast content was released has nothing to do with how well a business model for a game is. There are games that produce content once a year at most and they are very successful. Then you have games like ESO who tries to release some content 3-4 times a year. And are successful. Business model has nothing to do with this. on top of trying to release content they where trying to fix and revamp the game on top of getting the console release ready. Which was suppose to release 6 months after PC release.... So in reality, the studio was stretched thin to get content AND the console port finished. That's a lot of stuff to do for a medium to small studio.

No I don't know how large the studio was after launch, but all game companies usually downsize after a product release since they don't need as many game designers.

Actually there were no plans to release on console at all, I remember it being branded a PC exclusive even before launch as I was tempted to build another gaming rig way back when just for ESO, it wasn't until around 6 months later when the sub model was first showing signs it wasn't coming close to their projected forecasts that the decision was made to port to console.

The business model has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Uh. no....

Proof
http://gameranx.com/updates/id/21796/article/rumor-did-zenimax-delay-eso-for-consoles-and-then-cover-it-up/

welcome to truth

uh yeah... proof

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/18/50-pc-exclusive-games-in-2013

That's not proof. They came up with the Console port BEFORE even release. How can you contribute the port to failed business model when it was already being ported BEFORE release. The console release was suppose to release in June of 2014. They delayed to get the PC version right. Then continue porting to Console. If you actually took time to blow up that image of the OFFICIAL ESO SITE. You see they commented on the delay of the port and it was planned before release. Just because you linked a site that was from even a year before the actual release doesn't mean they changed their minds between that and Apr 04 2014.

./facepalm

A lot changes in gaming development in 2-3 months, let alone a year.

Though this is Wkipedia....

On June 2013, Sony announced that The Elder Scrolls Online would be available on PlayStation 4 at their E3 press conference. It was later clarified by Bethesda that it would also be available on Xbox One.[17] While players on PC and Mac play together, those on Xbox One and PlayStation 4 play only with others on the same platform.[18] In August 2013, at Gamescom, it was announced that The Elder Scrolls Online would have a monthly subscription fee upon release for all platforms.[19][20] Subscriptions can be purchased in 30-, 90-, and 180-day increments.[21] While it was announced in January 2014 that the game would not require a PlayStation Plus subscription to play online,[22] the Xbox One version will require an Xbox Live Gold subscription in addition to a The Elder Scrolls Online monthly subscription.[23] On May 8, 2014, Bethesda spoke about development of the console editions, announcing that the release date for the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions of the game would be delayed until the end of 2014, though it was revealed in December 2014 that the game's console debut was once again delayed into the Spring of 2015. ZeniMax Online Studios announced that players who purchase The Elder Scrolls Online before the end of June 2014 will have the opportunity to transfer their characters from Microsoft Windows or Mac OS to either console platform and receive a free 30-day subscription.[24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_Online


according to that they where going to port to consoles back in 2013.... so...... Yeah
[edited to remove quote]

Xundiin wrote: »

I find this all to be hilarious to be honest. The B2P players want the bag and feel it's unfair that they with hold that content from them. But in all actuality, being and ESO+ member offers far to little. Other games that use a similar Sub/F2P system offers way more in the way of perks to their subscribers. Truth be it, you should feel lucky that ZOS hasn't added a lot to the sub perks over the past year.

Honestly, just let the ESO+ players feel like they actually are getting a perk that makes a difference. +10% xp isn't a whole lot. 1500 crowns doesn't really get you much if any thing. And having access to DLC's with out purchasing them is only marginally better. Since if something happens and your sub ends, you lose your access to those. Which is different from other games that as long as you where subbed when they released you have access for as long as the servers are active. So in reality, ZOS has been extremely generous to the B2P community in this game compared to other titles.

This. ESO is the MMO that has the least benefits for subbing I've ever seen. Just a fact, not a bad or good thing, just how it is.

KanedaSyndrome wrote: »

Well I won't be subscribing for this, as I'm already invested in the "don't sub, but buy crowns and purchase what I need"-model. If I sub now I'll end up paying double the money for everything. A crafting bag is not worth that to me.

I'll stick with my "don't sub, but buy crowns and purchase what I need"-model, since if I did sub now, I'd basically be paying 180$ a year for a crafting bag, which is not a worth while investment in my opinion. However if they made it a 30$ as a crown item, I'd be more than happy enough to send some more cash their way.

They simply shouldn't have two ways to pay for the game if they don't see those groups as equals. I guess ZoS is turning their back on one of their customer groups, the one that I'm part of. It seems our way of paying for the game isn't good enough. I've already spent hundreds of dollars on the game, and yet, I'm not a good enough customer in the eyes of ZoS.

My main problem is that I'm pretty much locked out of getting a subscription now as I've committed myself to buying what I need, via crown packs, instead of subscribing. Going sub now would make no sense as I'd be paying mainly for stuff I've already purchased. Had I never bought DLCs/customes/mounts etc, I could've considered a subscription.

If you do the math, if they keep to 3-4 DLCs a year, buying ESO+ costs way less than not subbing + crown shop... Just a friendly reminder.

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

JD2013 wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Aimora wrote: »

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

All I've gotten from this is that the OP is fundementally against subscriptions in general.

Why do I say that? Well the OP has stated many times how they support the game via crown store and dlc purchases, even to the point of claiming they spend equal if not more then a subscriber may in a month.

This makes me assume they simply do not feel the sub is worth it in general as there is nothing the sub offers to justify it. Well now there is, and if this player, who I'm going to assume has been playing for at least since the b2p transition, has been supporting the game and is willing to raise such a stink over it not being on the crown store, Im thinking it's pretty much a feature that would justify a sub to them.

Just ******* sub.

People seem to be making the argument of "what about non sub player A who has spent x amount of dollars since b2p launched? They are getting shafted!" Zos is not rewarding all players for playing and supporting the game, and thus how much a player has spent in game has nothing to do with this perk.

This perk is ZOS saying thank you to those that support the game is a concrete way, this is not some smug superiority stance, it's simply thst Zos prefers and values subscribers in that it's a much less volatile and much more reliable source of revenue and helps them plan what they can and can not do in the long run with updates and features.

ZoS wants people to sub, this is a fact, its also a fact that for alot of people (likely the OP as well) the incentive is simply not there. Adding it to the crown store will both undermine the subscription in a way as well as Zos shooting themselves in the foot. If they sell it for crowns as a one time buy, then months down the line players may once again not feel the need to subscribe since they have the perk already. This is common sense, and this is why the perk needs to be tied to the subscription.

The perk itslef is obviously not going to keep some one subscribed if they are bored of the game and want to take a break or quit, but if you are still enjoying the game entirely, the crafting bag is a nice QoL bonus that you may find you really do not want to play without, and in combination with the other bonuses just might tip would be subs to finally doing so.

It's is completely fair
It can not be a one time buy
You do NOT need it
If you like the game, just sub [snip] or get over it.

What a lot of nonsense. If subscriptions had been a "reliable" source of income, ESO would never have had to become B2P in the first place! The ability to purchase and own ESO and DLC content was a huge selling point of "Tamriel Unlimited" when it launched. Now, by hiding important game content behind a subscription, ZOS is reneging on the deal we were sold while limiting our so-called "Unlimited" experience.

Not necessarily true there was speculation at the time that due to issues with the consoles launch having a fixed subscription across the platforms wasn't viable, so no one really knows the real reason sub only was dropped, and B2P was implemented with an option to sub still. So until someone can categorically prove the reason it all speculation in the long run

Debatable yes but ultimitely speculatory... how much content was released before the B2P model was introduced?

Craglorn (in 2 parts) and some veteran dungeons.

(I think that was it? Can anyone add to that?)

wow really?
So in what... a little over a year that's all that was released?
Ok well I think from that it's safe to say the sub model wasn't quite as profitable as was first hoped.
Soooo B2P crown/DLC sales from non subs and console sales (most of which don't sub) have pretty much paid for all current and possibly future content with regards to securing investment yet they're not entitled to a few measly crafting bag slots?

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't look like much of an incentive to subs to me either tbh, afterall you've paid all that time waiting for them to throw you all a well deserved bone, you have supported the game just as much as everyone else and that's the best they can offer?

I'll stick to managing my inventory and mule when I need to, it's no harm no foul to me but it does feel like a slap in the face to pay as much and sometimes more to get no incentives at all in return I guess, I can see why subs are wanting to hold onto them being exclusive so tightly, you guys have been royally shafted too.

How fast content was released has nothing to do with how well a business model for a game is. There are games that produce content once a year at most and they are very successful. Then you have games like ESO who tries to release some content 3-4 times a year. And are successful. Business model has nothing to do with this. on top of trying to release content they where trying to fix and revamp the game on top of getting the console release ready. Which was suppose to release 6 months after PC release.... So in reality, the studio was stretched thin to get content AND the console port finished. That's a lot of stuff to do for a medium to small studio.

No I don't know how large the studio was after launch, but all game companies usually downsize after a product release since they don't need as many game designers.

Actually there were no plans to release on console at all, I remember it being branded a PC exclusive even before launch as I was tempted to build another gaming rig way back when just for ESO, it wasn't until around 6 months later when the sub model was first showing signs it wasn't coming close to their projected forecasts that the decision was made to port to console.

The business model has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Uh. no....

Proof
http://gameranx.com/updates/id/21796/article/rumor-did-zenimax-delay-eso-for-consoles-and-then-cover-it-up/

welcome to truth

uh yeah... proof

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/18/50-pc-exclusive-games-in-2013

That's not proof. They came up with the Console port BEFORE even release. How can you contribute the port to failed business model when it was already being ported BEFORE release. The console release was suppose to release in June of 2014. They delayed to get the PC version right. Then continue porting to Console. If you actually took time to blow up that image of the OFFICIAL ESO SITE. You see they commented on the delay of the port and it was planned before release. Just because you linked a site that was from even a year before the actual release doesn't mean they changed their minds between that and Apr 04 2014.

./facepalm

A lot changes in gaming development in 2-3 months, let alone a year.

Where did I say they didn't? I said it "Actually there were no plans to release on console at all, I remember it being branded a PC exclusive even before launch as I was tempted to build another gaming rig way back when just for ESO, it wasn't until around 6 months later when the sub model was first showing signs it wasn't coming close to their projected forecasts that the decision was made to port to console."
This link http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/18/50-pc-exclusive-games-in-2013 proves it was going to be a PC exclusive therefor they had no plans to port to console until they realised the sub model wasn't going to cut it.

Though this is Wkipedia....

On June 2013, Sony announced that The Elder Scrolls Online would be available on PlayStation 4 at their E3 press conference. It was later clarified by Bethesda that it would also be available on Xbox One.[17] While players on PC and Mac play together, those on Xbox One and PlayStation 4 play only with others on the same platform.[18] In August 2013, at Gamescom, it was announced that The Elder Scrolls Online would have a monthly subscription fee upon release for all platforms.[19][20] Subscriptions can be purchased in 30-, 90-, and 180-day increments.[21] While it was announced in January 2014 that the game would not require a PlayStation Plus subscription to play online,[22] the Xbox One version will require an Xbox Live Gold subscription in addition to a The Elder Scrolls Online monthly subscription.[23] On May 8, 2014, Bethesda spoke about development of the console editions, announcing that the release date for the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions of the game would be delayed until the end of 2014, though it was revealed in December 2014 that the game's console debut was once again delayed into the Spring of 2015. ZeniMax Online Studios announced that players who purchase The Elder Scrolls Online before the end of June 2014 will have the opportunity to transfer their characters from Microsoft Windows or Mac OS to either console platform and receive a free 30-day subscription.[24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_Online


according to that they where going to port to consoles back in 2013.... so...... Yeah
[edited to remove quote]

Doncellius wrote: »

It's stupid. Give your "loyal" subs a mount/pet or something. Remember how this happened in the past and it was great? The Crafting Bag is an essential feature for anyone who saves their crafting materials and is sick of having multiple pack mule characters.

If you're placing DLC on the Crown Store, this should be purchaseable too.

So, IF someone has two preferences (want to keep lotsa mats AND does not like having mules) THEN the inventory maint becomes onerous enough to make infinite storage space an essential element that should be purchasable?

I am reminded of the old joke about the patient who says "when i raise my arm like this it hurts, doc." To which the doctor responds "then don't raise your arm like that."

Once you get down to "but i dont like doing the other thing" you lose the justification to call anything an ESSENTIAL element. You have placed yourself into "just my preferences" and out of "its functionally required.

Now, lets be clear here, if you did not have whatever your personal bias/prejudice/animosity/whatever against using alts as storage then ZOS IS giving you a potential solution or at least another option in DB. You will be able to buy new character slots with crowns.

How many slots can you buy? How much do they cost? Dont know that any more than we know all the particulars of the ESO+ craft bags or a theoretical crowns craft bag.

But except for "i have some pathos against using alts for storage" you would have an option to ameliorate your crafting storage issues with the upcoming "crowns for chars" purchases instead of a theoretical "crowns for bag" option.

Personally, I have 8 vet level chars, all serve as some part of my overall storage (each stores all of one-two types of "stuff" and that lets all 8 of them adventure and avoid inventory overages of any significantly troublesome nature. Since i bought my personal banker Stibbons with crowns, no inventory space storage has cost me more than a few seconds and none forced me to run back to city when i was out and about having a night cap.

But, with all the options you have now, including crowns for mobile banker, and will have going forward, crowns for more alts, I really cannot take this as any sign of an "essential must have" outside of "but i want it to be that way because thats what i want and i want what i want."
.

Averya_Teira wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

I find this all to be hilarious to be honest. The B2P players want the bag and feel it's unfair that they with hold that content from them. But in all actuality, being and ESO+ member offers far to little. Other games that use a similar Sub/F2P system offers way more in the way of perks to their subscribers. Truth be it, you should feel lucky that ZOS hasn't added a lot to the sub perks over the past year.

Honestly, just let the ESO+ players feel like they actually are getting a perk that makes a difference. +10% xp isn't a whole lot. 1500 crowns doesn't really get you much if any thing. And having access to DLC's with out purchasing them is only marginally better. Since if something happens and your sub ends, you lose your access to those. Which is different from other games that as long as you where subbed when they released you have access for as long as the servers are active. So in reality, ZOS has been extremely generous to the B2P community in this game compared to other titles.

This. ESO is the MMO that has the least benefits for subbing I've ever seen. Just a fact, not a bad or good thing, just how it is.

KanedaSyndrome wrote: »

Well I won't be subscribing for this, as I'm already invested in the "don't sub, but buy crowns and purchase what I need"-model. If I sub now I'll end up paying double the money for everything. A crafting bag is not worth that to me.

I'll stick with my "don't sub, but buy crowns and purchase what I need"-model, since if I did sub now, I'd basically be paying 180$ a year for a crafting bag, which is not a worth while investment in my opinion. However if they made it a 30$ as a crown item, I'd be more than happy enough to send some more cash their way.

They simply shouldn't have two ways to pay for the game if they don't see those groups as equals. I guess ZoS is turning their back on one of their customer groups, the one that I'm part of. It seems our way of paying for the game isn't good enough. I've already spent hundreds of dollars on the game, and yet, I'm not a good enough customer in the eyes of ZoS.

My main problem is that I'm pretty much locked out of getting a subscription now as I've committed myself to buying what I need, via crown packs, instead of subscribing. Going sub now would make no sense as I'd be paying mainly for stuff I've already purchased. Had I never bought DLCs/customes/mounts etc, I could've considered a subscription.

If you do the math, if they keep to 3-4 DLCs a year, buying ESO+ costs way less than not subbing + crown shop... Just a friendly reminder.

@Averya_Teira

Did you do the math though? A year of subbing for ESO+ is around $200 after tax. If you were to buy all the DLC that has been released so far you would spend roughly $65. If I am not mistaken $65 is less than $200. So subs pay far more to keep their DLC than non subs.

Acrolas wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

This link http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/18/50-pc-exclusive-games-in-2013 proves it was going to be a PC exclusive therefor they had no plans to port to console until they realised the sub model wasn't going to cut it.

If only there were something like a comments section that could correct incorrect articles.

Oh. Wait.

Nick Hunt SEP 17 2013 9PM
Also Elder scrolls online is not a PC exclusive >.< It's coming to consoles and being beta tested on consoles as we speak...Someone needs to go over this list again a lot of games on it aren't PC exclusives.



As for the rest of the thread... *** it, I'm gonna go get laid or something...

Awesome proving my point again, that quote is from sept 2013 waaaay after the PC exclusive decision was reversed, now find a quote relevent to the link ie: january 2013 or earlier.
If only there were one lol

Nothing unfair about it in my opinion. Crafting bags do not give players a quantifiable advantage over others. They are simply a convenience item, and I can function absolutely fine without them. I haven't had any trouble managing my inventory for the past two years. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Actually there were no plans to release on console at all, I remember it being branded a PC exclusive even before launch as I was tempted to build another gaming rig way back when just for ESO, it wasn't until around 6 months later when the sub model was first showing signs it wasn't coming close to their projected forecasts that the decision was made to port to console.

The business model has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Found an old IGN link, 50 PC exclusive games of 2013 if you care to check.
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/18/50-pc-exclusive-games-in-2013

You are clinging rather tenuously to that "6 months" but in fact, it does not matter. I think your cause and effect is backwards. It was not the failure of the subscription model that allowed the console, it was the decisions to port to the console in 2013 that ultimately lead to them deciding not to have the subscription on the console, and this was extended to the PC/Mac, but not until after the PC/Mac had been out for a year.

Vanhelm wrote: »

Just be glad this isn't SWTOR.

Yeah, they have the most insane lockouts I've seen. Want to hide your helmet? Have to pay/sub for that! Want more action bars on your screen? That'll cost ya.

Those are simply ridiculous. I would never suggest that game to anyone without subbing.