Forget unfair. It's damned stupid. Easily one of the most stupid decisions made in relation to this game. I laughed when I read about it.

One of ESO's biggest competitors, GW2, has this feature for free. And ESO wants to charge $15 a month for it? Hah!

Not to mention crafting bags are a fix ESO's famously bad inventory experience. But you have to pay $15 a month just not to be so annoyed by opening your inventory that you want to smash your face against a wall. Hahahaha!

I suppose this is the downside to being owned by a company which has made so much money from their single-player games that this game doesn't have to be fiscally responsible.

For my part, I may come back to check out spellcrafting if it's ever released but I dunno. Every decision like this one makes other games look that much more attractive.

Averya_Teira wrote: »

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

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.

But you also get 1500 crowns X 12 with ESO +. You have to substract that cost from crown shop. How much is 18 000 crown lol ?

Also, the DLCs together were about 7500 crowns I think ? That's 7500 crowns from my 18 000 In a year I can spend on something else than the DLC.

I think alot of people forget about the 1500 crowns per month with ESO +. About 5 monthsof ESO + = the 3 DLCs cost. That's 75$, 10$ more than you bought your DLCs for and I had the 10% bonus during 5 months... Not that I really care about 10% .

The subs are still paying more. The subs are paying $75 and people who just buy the DLC are paying $65. So your statement about ESO+ subs paying way less is still false.

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

Averya_Teira wrote: »

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

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.

But you also get 1500 crowns X 12 with ESO +. You have to substract that cost from crown shop. How much is 18 000 crown lol ?

Also, the DLCs together were about 7500 crowns I think ? That's 7500 crowns from my 18 000 In a year I can spend on something else than the DLC.

I think alot of people forget about the 1500 crowns per month with ESO +. About 5 monthsof ESO + = the 3 DLCs cost. That's 75$, 10$ more than you bought your DLCs for and I had the 10% bonus during 5 months... Not that I really care about 10% .

The subs are still paying more. The subs are paying $75 and people who just buy the DLC are paying $65. So your statement about ESO+ subs paying way less is still false.

Well I see it as more valuable to sub. But yeah, subning will cost you 10$ more I guess. 10 dollars for 5 months of 10% bonus and now crafting bag and eho knows what they will add next is still more valuable to me than simply buyomg DLCs.

Also I don't think people only buy the DLCs. Subbing for a year gives me 18 000 crowns to spend on what I want, not DLCs. That means more motifs, more mount increases,etc. But I know a lot of people will only buy DLCs so not Subbing is more beneficial to them.

Averya_Teira wrote: »

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

Averya_Teira wrote: »

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

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.

But you also get 1500 crowns X 12 with ESO +. You have to substract that cost from crown shop. How much is 18 000 crown lol ?

Also, the DLCs together were about 7500 crowns I think ? That's 7500 crowns from my 18 000 In a year I can spend on something else than the DLC.

I think alot of people forget about the 1500 crowns per month with ESO +. About 5 monthsof ESO + = the 3 DLCs cost. That's 75$, 10$ more than you bought your DLCs for and I had the 10% bonus during 5 months... Not that I really care about 10% .

The subs are still paying more. The subs are paying $75 and people who just buy the DLC are paying $65. So your statement about ESO+ subs paying way less is still false.

Well I see it as more valuable to sub. But yeah, subning will cost you 10$ more I guess. 10 dollars for 5 months of 10% bonus and now crafting bag and eho knows what they will add next is still more valuable to me than simply buyomg DLCs.

Also I don't think people only buy the DLCs. Subbing for a year gives me 18 000 crowns to spend on what I want, not DLCs. That means more motifs, more mount increases,etc. But I know a lot of people will only buy DLCs so not Subbing is more beneficial to them.

Yes and subs also buy crowns. What I meant by the $200 is that it costs a sub that much per year to be able to keep the DLC while only $65 for a non sub to keep the DLC

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

Averya_Teira wrote: »

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

Averya_Teira wrote: »

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

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.

But you also get 1500 crowns X 12 with ESO +. You have to substract that cost from crown shop. How much is 18 000 crown lol ?

Also, the DLCs together were about 7500 crowns I think ? That's 7500 crowns from my 18 000 In a year I can spend on something else than the DLC.

I think alot of people forget about the 1500 crowns per month with ESO +. About 5 monthsof ESO + = the 3 DLCs cost. That's 75$, 10$ more than you bought your DLCs for and I had the 10% bonus during 5 months... Not that I really care about 10% .

The subs are still paying more. The subs are paying $75 and people who just buy the DLC are paying $65. So your statement about ESO+ subs paying way less is still false.

Well I see it as more valuable to sub. But yeah, subning will cost you 10$ more I guess. 10 dollars for 5 months of 10% bonus and now crafting bag and eho knows what they will add next is still more valuable to me than simply buyomg DLCs.

Also I don't think people only buy the DLCs. Subbing for a year gives me 18 000 crowns to spend on what I want, not DLCs. That means more motifs, more mount increases,etc. But I know a lot of people will only buy DLCs so not Subbing is more beneficial to them.

Yes and subs also buy crowns. What I meant by the $200 is that it costs a sub that much per year to be able to keep the DLC while only $65 for a non sub to keep the DLC

Though with 18 000 crowns per year, I personally do not buy more crowns, SO...

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

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.

Well the dates do kinda matter as they're incorrect in believing it wasn't first branded a PC exclusive therefor the model didn't account for changes.
I agree completely with you that the decisions to port to the console in 2013 ultimately lead to them deciding not to have the subscription on that platform because I remember the uproar regarding console users paying both psn or live fees on top of a sub.
You have in effect echoed my sentiment that the projected income from sub fees weren't going to cut it.
I still don't believe that the sub fees alone would cut it today so the B2P model along with console sales in 2015 have no doubt generated more income which has allowed further and possibly faster development.

Should it be a sub only exclusive? I think subs should definitely have exclusives and I think they should have more of them as it's a guaranteed projection towards investment but tbh I don't think crafting bags was the way to go, It's created yet another divide in the community as extra inventory capacity has been a much sought after by all since the very beginning.
I can understand why B2P players feel kinda put out because many have bought into, spent just as much and in some cases more supporting the model sold to them by zos.

Neither side are wrong in my eyes but as the majority of comments have proven it's created another us and them mentality.

You are missing the point. Subs didn't fail. It's a valid business model that DOES work. If it didn't work WoW would have changed LOOOOOOOOONG ago. Along with EQ, EQ2 (Not the legacy server), DAoC, And UO. If the Sub model didn't work, ESO, Aion, Trion World Games (Rift, ArcheAge, ect.), and LOTRO would not have the option to have subs. The bottom line is that for this game subs didn't fail. It was the port to consoles that change the business model. If consoles didn't cry over the fact it was going to require a sub. Chances are that it would STILL be a sub.

Also, I never said that it wasn't branded exclusively as a PC game at first. I said that they planned to port to console before it released on PC. So saying that "they decided to port to console because of the sub model failing" is incorrect. Yes I paraphrased what you said.

If any thing, what the company did between release and switching to B2P, tells us that the sub model was working and working rather well. We had Craglorn Upper and lower added, new dungeons, trials where added, pledges where add (iirc though that's kinda stretching it), Imperial City was almost completely done if not finished already, Wrothgar was at least started and maybe halfway done, They where able to revamp and fix a majority of issues people complained about the game, and with all that some how was able to port to not only 1 console but 2 (assuming that the Xbox and PS uses different architect).

So really..... that failed business model sure did a lot.

Ok since you're "paraphrasing"
At no point did I say subs failed, Just to clarify, I said...

"I think from that it's safe to say the sub model wasn't quite as profitable as was first hoped"
"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"
"they realised the sub model wasn't going to cut it"
"You have in effect echoed my sentiment that the projected income from sub fees weren't going to cut it.
I still don't believe that the sub fees alone would cut it today so the B2P model along with console sales in 2015 have no doubt generated more income which has allowed further and possibly faster development."

And I stand by those statements, I don't believe the subscription alone would have gotten the game anywhere near where it is today, it needed further investment.

Lets go over what my take on what happened was, some supposition within I admit but so is yours....

Release was advertised as PC exclusive with subscription, no plans to release on console at all in the beginning, it's advertised as PC exclusive supported by the subscription, they told you all newp no cash shop/crown store at all, sub only based on their projections of earning potential, they were somewhat correct in their beliefs as ES has a huge following and we all looked forward to it, gotta prove it to the investors though.

A few months later they realise that they don't have the amount of subs needed to do everything they wanted and numbers were falling dramatically through a multitude of issues, bots and broken content etc etc etc.
Investors were getting a little cranky.
They saw that being sub based locked to one platform with falling numbers was going to hold up content, possibly the whole gameplan so they decided to open it up to a port to console.

Good plan, we'll secure extra investment, we can get the content out, all is well with the world, it's late but the players know we've been dealing with a lot of crap, some are rightfully PO that they've only had craglorn and a few dungeons so far but extra investment with the promise of console sales means all is well with the world... but wait... console players already pay for online access they won't like paying twice when other games offer online access for free (a little market research probably proved this point)... new plan.

Ok we'll open a crown store, go B2P, console players are used to that and we can still offer subs, customers can support the game with either or both... AWESOME!


Can you honestly say that the sub fee from PC players alone was contributing anywhere near what zos needed to develop content on the scale promised to both customers and investors AND deal with everything else such as bots, broken content and absolutely EVERYTHING else wrong with this game right after launch?... AND keep both investors and customers happy in the process?
Surely if they could then you'd have seen more than craglorn and a few trials which were probably already finished products anyway even before the games release.

They planned to port to console AFTER release, show me anywhere that says differently and I'll happily retract that point but I've looked and I can't see anything, it's also not how I remember it happening at all, a lot does happen in a short space of time as you stated earlier but I'm pretty sure I'd have remembered as I was looking for that same piece of news at the time too.

You're completely correct in that they didn't switch to B2P because the sub model was failing, they switched because they weren't seeing the needed return they'd forcast so had to port to console which in turn wouldn't support the sub model.

Less "paraphrasing" (better known as just plucking nonsense from thin air and completely misquoting me) and closer inspection of what's written might serve you better in future.

I just want to know where the magical time machine is coming from. Because no one.... and I do mean NO ONE could predict how many subs the game was going to have at launch. yet some how you are making an argument that they decided to port to console for the sole purpose that subs wasn't going to be enough. Forget that the investors could have forced it because they thought to themselves "why not."

Game was announced in 2012 to the public. June of 2013 console was announced. Apr of 2014 the game is released...... How in the *** could you know how many subs you where going to have to make a decision to port to console solely on that. It's impossible. There is no way of knowing if you're going to have 1 mil subs, or 10 mil. So using that as a corner stone in your argument has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

Lets mathematically break this down shall we? Lets say the game cost 200k a month to run. That's for every thing except development of new content. That means you'd need 13,334 subs at 15 each Any thing over that goes into hiring, development, and profit. Now since at best we can guess that ESO was holding around 1 mil subs from launch to B2P. This is still successful and more than you'd need as a game company to develop more content. So the above figures ESO would bring in 15 mil a month

Now lets look at it from a B2P point of view. according to this site http://gamerant.com/free-to-play-games-profits-statistics/ only 2.2% of players pay any thing (obviously for this game they had to buy at least the box). Now if we take the above numbers from the Sub portion that means that only 22,000 people pay any thing. So that means that for the B2P model to make as much money as a sub model those 22,000 people would have to spend 681 a month. I would find it hard to believe that anyone would pay 681 a month for a game.

As you can see the sub model isn't as fail as you want to believe. If any thing the subs are more likely carrying this game on a monthly bases. Though I do believe that more than 2.2% of the non-subs buy at least something, but then you have to ask "do they pay at least 15 dollars". So you can see how the F2P/B2P model is not a desired business model at all for a company. They might make enough money to put away for those times when they don't even make operating costs. There is no guarantee that you will make any money in a month on this model.

So with that in mind the decision to port console was either to get more money for investors/company or just to share a created product with more people. I know the gaming industry is a business, but people in the industry do like to make games just because they enjoy it and want as many people to share in their creation.

I have never once said they didn't plan to release to consoles after the PC release. But that has little to no impact on decisions made 9+ months before even the PC released. What I'm saying is you can not use the decision to port to consoles as proof that the sub model wasn't going to work for what they needed. it was impossible to judge. They had well over 5 mil people sign up for beta. And even if you account for 50% of those never buying or playing the game. You'd still be in the very successful range of a sub model.

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

"I think from that it's safe to say the sub model wasn't quite as profitable as was first hoped"
"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"
"they realised the sub model wasn't going to cut it"
"You have in effect echoed my sentiment that the projected income from sub fees weren't going to cut it.
I still don't believe that the sub fees alone would cut it today so the B2P model along with console sales in 2015 have no doubt generated more income which has allowed further and possibly faster development."


Less "paraphrasing" (better known as just plucking nonsense from thin air and completely misquoting me) and closer inspection of what's written might serve you better in future.

This is the most funniest *** I've ever heard. Maybe you should read what you are writing. It's obvious that I understand what you are writing better than you are. All you are showing is your hatred towards the sub model. In every thing you just wrote it's all basically some sort of magical guess work of some how they could tell teh future which drove their decisions. How are you not reading your own argument and going 'What the *** am I talking about." Also, my "paraphrasing" was spot on. Every thing I have quoted is basically "Sub model fails before game releases. Decision to port to consoles made to compensate poor numbers.... before game releases."

But since you don't know what paraphrasing is....

par·a·phrase
ˈperəˌfrāz/
verb
gerund or present participle: paraphrasing

express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.
"you can either quote or paraphrase literary texts"
synonyms: reword, rephrase, put/express in other words, rewrite, gloss
"the reporter was not quoting directly but paraphrasing her remarks"

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

"I think from that it's safe to say the sub model wasn't quite as profitable as was first hoped"
"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"
"they realised the sub model wasn't going to cut it"
"You have in effect echoed my sentiment that the projected income from sub fees weren't going to cut it.
I still don't believe that the sub fees alone would cut it today so the B2P model along with console sales in 2015 have no doubt generated more income which has allowed further and possibly faster development."


Less "paraphrasing" (better known as just plucking nonsense from thin air and completely misquoting me) and closer inspection of what's written might serve you better in future.

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

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.

Well the dates do kinda matter as they're incorrect in believing it wasn't first branded a PC exclusive therefor the model didn't account for changes.
I agree completely with you that the decisions to port to the console in 2013 ultimately lead to them deciding not to have the subscription on that platform because I remember the uproar regarding console users paying both psn or live fees on top of a sub.
You have in effect echoed my sentiment that the projected income from sub fees weren't going to cut it.
I still don't believe that the sub fees alone would cut it today so the B2P model along with console sales in 2015 have no doubt generated more income which has allowed further and possibly faster development.

Should it be a sub only exclusive? I think subs should definitely have exclusives and I think they should have more of them as it's a guaranteed projection towards investment but tbh I don't think crafting bags was the way to go, It's created yet another divide in the community as extra inventory capacity has been a much sought after by all since the very beginning.
I can understand why B2P players feel kinda put out because many have bought into, spent just as much and in some cases more supporting the model sold to them by zos.

Neither side are wrong in my eyes but as the majority of comments have proven it's created another us and them mentality.

You are missing the point. Subs didn't fail. It's a valid business model that DOES work. If it didn't work WoW would have changed LOOOOOOOOONG ago. Along with EQ, EQ2 (Not the legacy server), DAoC, And UO. If the Sub model didn't work, ESO, Aion, Trion World Games (Rift, ArcheAge, ect.), and LOTRO would not have the option to have subs. The bottom line is that for this game subs didn't fail. It was the port to consoles that change the business model. If consoles didn't cry over the fact it was going to require a sub. Chances are that it would STILL be a sub.

Also, I never said that it wasn't branded exclusively as a PC game at first. I said that they planned to port to console before it released on PC. So saying that "they decided to port to console because of the sub model failing" is incorrect. Yes I paraphrased what you said.

If any thing, what the company did between release and switching to B2P, tells us that the sub model was working and working rather well. We had Craglorn Upper and lower added, new dungeons, trials where added, pledges where add (iirc though that's kinda stretching it), Imperial City was almost completely done if not finished already, Wrothgar was at least started and maybe halfway done, They where able to revamp and fix a majority of issues people complained about the game, and with all that some how was able to port to not only 1 console but 2 (assuming that the Xbox and PS uses different architect).

So really..... that failed business model sure did a lot.

Ok since you're "paraphrasing"
At no point did I say subs failed, Just to clarify, I said...

"I think from that it's safe to say the sub model wasn't quite as profitable as was first hoped"
"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"
"they realised the sub model wasn't going to cut it"
"You have in effect echoed my sentiment that the projected income from sub fees weren't going to cut it.
I still don't believe that the sub fees alone would cut it today so the B2P model along with console sales in 2015 have no doubt generated more income which has allowed further and possibly faster development."

And I stand by those statements, I don't believe the subscription alone would have gotten the game anywhere near where it is today, it needed further investment.

Lets go over what my take on what happened was, some supposition within I admit but so is yours....

Release was advertised as PC exclusive with subscription, no plans to release on console at all in the beginning, it's advertised as PC exclusive supported by the subscription, they told you all newp no cash shop/crown store at all, sub only based on their projections of earning potential, they were somewhat correct in their beliefs as ES has a huge following and we all looked forward to it, gotta prove it to the investors though.

A few months later they realise that they don't have the amount of subs needed to do everything they wanted and numbers were falling dramatically through a multitude of issues, bots and broken content etc etc etc.
Investors were getting a little cranky.
They saw that being sub based locked to one platform with falling numbers was going to hold up content, possibly the whole gameplan so they decided to open it up to a port to console.

Good plan, we'll secure extra investment, we can get the content out, all is well with the world, it's late but the players know we've been dealing with a lot of crap, some are rightfully PO that they've only had craglorn and a few dungeons so far but extra investment with the promise of console sales means all is well with the world... but wait... console players already pay for online access they won't like paying twice when other games offer online access for free (a little market research probably proved this point)... new plan.

Ok we'll open a crown store, go B2P, console players are used to that and we can still offer subs, customers can support the game with either or both... AWESOME!


Can you honestly say that the sub fee from PC players alone was contributing anywhere near what zos needed to develop content on the scale promised to both customers and investors AND deal with everything else such as bots, broken content and absolutely EVERYTHING else wrong with this game right after launch?... AND keep both investors and customers happy in the process?
Surely if they could then you'd have seen more than craglorn and a few trials which were probably already finished products anyway even before the games release.

They planned to port to console AFTER release, show me anywhere that says differently and I'll happily retract that point but I've looked and I can't see anything, it's also not how I remember it happening at all, a lot does happen in a short space of time as you stated earlier but I'm pretty sure I'd have remembered as I was looking for that same piece of news at the time too.

You're completely correct in that they didn't switch to B2P because the sub model was failing, they switched because they weren't seeing the needed return they'd forcast so had to port to console which in turn wouldn't support the sub model.

Less "paraphrasing" (better known as just plucking nonsense from thin air and completely misquoting me) and closer inspection of what's written might serve you better in future.

I just want to know where the magical time machine is coming from. Because no one.... and I do mean NO ONE could predict how many subs the game was going to have at launch. yet some how you are making an argument that they decided to port to console for the sole purpose that subs wasn't going to be enough. Forget that the investors could have forced it because they thought to themselves "why not."

Game was announced in 2012 to the public. June of 2013 console was announced. Apr of 2014 the game is released...... How in the *** could you know how many subs you where going to have to make a decision to port to console solely on that. It's impossible. There is no way of knowing if you're going to have 1 mil subs, or 10 mil. So using that as a corner stone in your argument has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

Lets mathematically break this down shall we? Lets say the game cost 200k a month to run. That's for every thing except development of new content. That means you'd need 13,334 subs at 15 each Any thing over that goes into hiring, development, and profit. Now since at best we can guess that ESO was holding around 1 mil subs from launch to B2P. This is still successful and more than you'd need as a game company to develop more content. So the above figures ESO would bring in 15 mil a month

Now lets look at it from a B2P point of view. according to this site http://gamerant.com/free-to-play-games-profits-statistics/ only 2.2% of players pay any thing (obviously for this game they had to buy at least the box). Now if we take the above numbers from the Sub portion that means that only 22,000 people pay any thing. So that means that for the B2P model to make as much money as a sub model those 22,000 people would have to spend 681 a month. I would find it hard to believe that anyone would pay 681 a month for a game.

As you can see the sub model isn't as fail as you want to believe. If any thing the subs are more likely carrying this game on a monthly bases. Though I do believe that more than 2.2% of the non-subs buy at least something, but then you have to ask "do they pay at least 15 dollars". So you can see how the F2P/B2P model is not a desired business model at all for a company. They might make enough money to put away for those times when they don't even make operating costs. There is no guarantee that you will make any money in a month on this model.

So with that in mind the decision to port console was either to get more money for investors/company or just to share a created product with more people. I know the gaming industry is a business, but people in the industry do like to make games just because they enjoy it and want as many people to share in their creation.

Soooo you state "Because no one.... and I do mean NO ONE could predict how many subs the game was going to have at launch"
(It's called projected earnings growth or projected earnings statement btw, all companies do it, investors require it in pretty much every case, especially big ones like zenimax when asking their subsidiaries like zos how well they predict their first, second and third years will be)
and then you proceed to basically give me a projected earnings rundown of their possible earnings.....

I'm quite honestly facepalming you right now buddy.

Except there is no way to accurately do this for a video game.... seriously. What number are they going to use to project this. the 5 mil beta sign ups they had? Well *** I guess that means they would be as successful as WoW is. I understand how they would try and project their earnings. But they had no hard evidence of numbers to even come close that would warrant a decision to port console as a failed sub model 9+ months before actual release. Every number I could find that they where praising about would suggest that the decision to port to console was not for a failed business model, but the success of one.

Except... I wasn't projecting their earnings. I was trying to show how the sub model was more than likely successful and bringing in more than enough with numbers I could go and pull up AFTER the game released. The sub model is more then likely still carrying the game. But you are refusing to see anything but your vitriol for sub models.

And I've been /facepalming you this whole thread you point being?

Xundiin wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

"I think from that it's safe to say the sub model wasn't quite as profitable as was first hoped"
"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"
"they realised the sub model wasn't going to cut it"
"You have in effect echoed my sentiment that the projected income from sub fees weren't going to cut it.
I still don't believe that the sub fees alone would cut it today so the B2P model along with console sales in 2015 have no doubt generated more income which has allowed further and possibly faster development."


Less "paraphrasing" (better known as just plucking nonsense from thin air and completely misquoting me) and closer inspection of what's written might serve you better in future.

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

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.

Well the dates do kinda matter as they're incorrect in believing it wasn't first branded a PC exclusive therefor the model didn't account for changes.
I agree completely with you that the decisions to port to the console in 2013 ultimately lead to them deciding not to have the subscription on that platform because I remember the uproar regarding console users paying both psn or live fees on top of a sub.
You have in effect echoed my sentiment that the projected income from sub fees weren't going to cut it.
I still don't believe that the sub fees alone would cut it today so the B2P model along with console sales in 2015 have no doubt generated more income which has allowed further and possibly faster development.

Should it be a sub only exclusive? I think subs should definitely have exclusives and I think they should have more of them as it's a guaranteed projection towards investment but tbh I don't think crafting bags was the way to go, It's created yet another divide in the community as extra inventory capacity has been a much sought after by all since the very beginning.
I can understand why B2P players feel kinda put out because many have bought into, spent just as much and in some cases more supporting the model sold to them by zos.

Neither side are wrong in my eyes but as the majority of comments have proven it's created another us and them mentality.

You are missing the point. Subs didn't fail. It's a valid business model that DOES work. If it didn't work WoW would have changed LOOOOOOOOONG ago. Along with EQ, EQ2 (Not the legacy server), DAoC, And UO. If the Sub model didn't work, ESO, Aion, Trion World Games (Rift, ArcheAge, ect.), and LOTRO would not have the option to have subs. The bottom line is that for this game subs didn't fail. It was the port to consoles that change the business model. If consoles didn't cry over the fact it was going to require a sub. Chances are that it would STILL be a sub.

Also, I never said that it wasn't branded exclusively as a PC game at first. I said that they planned to port to console before it released on PC. So saying that "they decided to port to console because of the sub model failing" is incorrect. Yes I paraphrased what you said.

If any thing, what the company did between release and switching to B2P, tells us that the sub model was working and working rather well. We had Craglorn Upper and lower added, new dungeons, trials where added, pledges where add (iirc though that's kinda stretching it), Imperial City was almost completely done if not finished already, Wrothgar was at least started and maybe halfway done, They where able to revamp and fix a majority of issues people complained about the game, and with all that some how was able to port to not only 1 console but 2 (assuming that the Xbox and PS uses different architect).

So really..... that failed business model sure did a lot.

Ok since you're "paraphrasing"
At no point did I say subs failed, Just to clarify, I said...

"I think from that it's safe to say the sub model wasn't quite as profitable as was first hoped"
"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"
"they realised the sub model wasn't going to cut it"
"You have in effect echoed my sentiment that the projected income from sub fees weren't going to cut it.
I still don't believe that the sub fees alone would cut it today so the B2P model along with console sales in 2015 have no doubt generated more income which has allowed further and possibly faster development."

And I stand by those statements, I don't believe the subscription alone would have gotten the game anywhere near where it is today, it needed further investment.

Lets go over what my take on what happened was, some supposition within I admit but so is yours....

Release was advertised as PC exclusive with subscription, no plans to release on console at all in the beginning, it's advertised as PC exclusive supported by the subscription, they told you all newp no cash shop/crown store at all, sub only based on their projections of earning potential, they were somewhat correct in their beliefs as ES has a huge following and we all looked forward to it, gotta prove it to the investors though.

A few months later they realise that they don't have the amount of subs needed to do everything they wanted and numbers were falling dramatically through a multitude of issues, bots and broken content etc etc etc.
Investors were getting a little cranky.
They saw that being sub based locked to one platform with falling numbers was going to hold up content, possibly the whole gameplan so they decided to open it up to a port to console.

Good plan, we'll secure extra investment, we can get the content out, all is well with the world, it's late but the players know we've been dealing with a lot of crap, some are rightfully PO that they've only had craglorn and a few dungeons so far but extra investment with the promise of console sales means all is well with the world... but wait... console players already pay for online access they won't like paying twice when other games offer online access for free (a little market research probably proved this point)... new plan.

Ok we'll open a crown store, go B2P, console players are used to that and we can still offer subs, customers can support the game with either or both... AWESOME!


Can you honestly say that the sub fee from PC players alone was contributing anywhere near what zos needed to develop content on the scale promised to both customers and investors AND deal with everything else such as bots, broken content and absolutely EVERYTHING else wrong with this game right after launch?... AND keep both investors and customers happy in the process?
Surely if they could then you'd have seen more than craglorn and a few trials which were probably already finished products anyway even before the games release.

They planned to port to console AFTER release, show me anywhere that says differently and I'll happily retract that point but I've looked and I can't see anything, it's also not how I remember it happening at all, a lot does happen in a short space of time as you stated earlier but I'm pretty sure I'd have remembered as I was looking for that same piece of news at the time too.

You're completely correct in that they didn't switch to B2P because the sub model was failing, they switched because they weren't seeing the needed return they'd forcast so had to port to console which in turn wouldn't support the sub model.

Less "paraphrasing" (better known as just plucking nonsense from thin air and completely misquoting me) and closer inspection of what's written might serve you better in future.

I just want to know where the magical time machine is coming from. Because no one.... and I do mean NO ONE could predict how many subs the game was going to have at launch. yet some how you are making an argument that they decided to port to console for the sole purpose that subs wasn't going to be enough. Forget that the investors could have forced it because they thought to themselves "why not."

Game was announced in 2012 to the public. June of 2013 console was announced. Apr of 2014 the game is released...... How in the *** could you know how many subs you where going to have to make a decision to port to console solely on that. It's impossible. There is no way of knowing if you're going to have 1 mil subs, or 10 mil. So using that as a corner stone in your argument has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

Lets mathematically break this down shall we? Lets say the game cost 200k a month to run. That's for every thing except development of new content. That means you'd need 13,334 subs at 15 each Any thing over that goes into hiring, development, and profit. Now since at best we can guess that ESO was holding around 1 mil subs from launch to B2P. This is still successful and more than you'd need as a game company to develop more content. So the above figures ESO would bring in 15 mil a month

Now lets look at it from a B2P point of view. according to this site http://gamerant.com/free-to-play-games-profits-statistics/ only 2.2% of players pay any thing (obviously for this game they had to buy at least the box). Now if we take the above numbers from the Sub portion that means that only 22,000 people pay any thing. So that means that for the B2P model to make as much money as a sub model those 22,000 people would have to spend 681 a month. I would find it hard to believe that anyone would pay 681 a month for a game.

As you can see the sub model isn't as fail as you want to believe. If any thing the subs are more likely carrying this game on a monthly bases. Though I do believe that more than 2.2% of the non-subs buy at least something, but then you have to ask "do they pay at least 15 dollars". So you can see how the F2P/B2P model is not a desired business model at all for a company. They might make enough money to put away for those times when they don't even make operating costs. There is no guarantee that you will make any money in a month on this model.

So with that in mind the decision to port console was either to get more money for investors/company or just to share a created product with more people. I know the gaming industry is a business, but people in the industry do like to make games just because they enjoy it and want as many people to share in their creation.

Soooo you state "Because no one.... and I do mean NO ONE could predict how many subs the game was going to have at launch"
(It's called projected earnings growth or projected earnings statement btw, all companies do it, investors require it in pretty much every case, especially big ones like zenimax when asking their subsidiaries like zos how well they predict their first, second and third years will be)
and then you proceed to basically give me a projected earnings rundown of their possible earnings.....

I'm quite honestly facepalming you right now buddy.

Except there is no way to accurately do this for a video game.... seriously. What number are they going to use to project this. the 5 mil beta sign ups they had? Well *** I guess that means they would be as successful as WoW is. I understand how they would try and project their earnings. But they had no hard evidence of numbers to even come close that would warrant a decision to port console as a failed sub model 9+ months before actual release. Every number I could find that they where praising about would suggest that the decision to port to console was not for a failed business model, but the success of one.

And I've been /facepalming you this whole thread you point being?

I would imagine they might make use of an independent investment research company with experience in investments within the area of game development, perhaps they have their own analysts.

You could ask Providence Equity Partners, they invested $150,000,000 in Zenimax in 2010 and $300,000,000 in 2007 to fund additional growth through increased game development, expanded publishing operations, and strategic acquisitions.

I'm sure they had a look at the books first lol

Epona222 wrote: »

So... people who pay a sub and help provide the game with regular income shouldn't get anything good or useful because it's 'unfair' on those who don't. Try that approach at your local membership-only gym and see how far it gets you... smh.

They get to view my pale gangly body for free.

I'm fine with the exclusivity. Gives subscribing and supporting the game an incentive

Sub a month cram the bag full, they did say you would be able to take things from it if you unsubbed, just not put new things back in so a few times a year sub and cram..

I see nothing wrong with it being a perk, had they never made the sub and option, and kept the sub this would have not been an issue.

Xundiin wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

Except there is no way to accurately do this for a video game.... seriously. What number are they going to use to project this. the 5 mil beta sign ups they had? Well *** I guess that means they would be as successful as WoW is. I understand how they would try and project their earnings. But they had no hard evidence of numbers to even come close that would warrant a decision to port console as a failed sub model 9+ months before actual release. Every number I could find that they where praising about would suggest that the decision to port to console was not for a failed business model, but the success of one.

And I've been /facepalming you this whole thread you point being?

I would imagine they might make use of an independent investment research company with experience in investments within the area of game development, perhaps they have their own analysts.

You could ask Providence Equity Partners, they invested $150,000,000 in Zenimax in 2010 and $300,000,000 in 2007 to fund additional growth through increased game development, expanded publishing operations, and strategic acquisitions.

I'm sure they had a look at the books first lol

Ok after looking it up I understand how they could come up with the numbers. But by any standard the numbers I came up with still wouldn't support a failed or below expected outcome with out the game actually releasing. So the decision to port ESO to consoles before the release on PC still doesn't support your theory.

BTW I'm saying they made the decision before the release of PC, not that the console version would release before PC. I say this because I went back to reread stuff you wrote and you are making it sound like the decision to port was made after PC release. Especially with this line "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" and "they realized the sub model wasn't going to cut it." There was no way for subs to decline before the decision to make console ports.

"I still don't believe that the sub fees alone would cut it today so the B2P model along with console sales in 2015 have no doubt generated more income which has allowed further and possibly faster development." Also, this line doesn't exactly make sense since I told you how much work was done before going B2P. Both Wrothgar and Imperial City where showcased before B2P model was even announced. So I know these two projects where being worked on or at least close to being finished. If they didn't hold off imperial City for the console release then PC would have seen it at least 3 months earlier. Also during the first year they where more worried about the performance and game systems and trying to fix/improve/revamp them to make the game better. Which I suspect ate a lot of development time as well. So in reality, there has been more done to the game in the first year off the sub model than has been done since they went to the B2P model. Which would suggest that the model isn't working out as planned. At least going by how you are judging the success of the sub model.

But if it wasn't a decision made after PC release then doesn't that mean a lot of PC subs were mis-sold under the pretence of it always being not only PC exclusive but also subscription based and not B2P?

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Xundiin wrote: »

Except there is no way to accurately do this for a video game.... seriously. What number are they going to use to project this. the 5 mil beta sign ups they had? Well *** I guess that means they would be as successful as WoW is. I understand how they would try and project their earnings. But they had no hard evidence of numbers to even come close that would warrant a decision to port console as a failed sub model 9+ months before actual release. Every number I could find that they where praising about would suggest that the decision to port to console was not for a failed business model, but the success of one.

And I've been /facepalming you this whole thread you point being?

I would imagine they might make use of an independent investment research company with experience in investments within the area of game development, perhaps they have their own analysts.

You could ask Providence Equity Partners, they invested $150,000,000 in Zenimax in 2010 and $300,000,000 in 2007 to fund additional growth through increased game development, expanded publishing operations, and strategic acquisitions.

I'm sure they had a look at the books first lol

Ok after looking it up I understand how they could come up with the numbers. But by any standard the numbers I came up with still wouldn't support a failed or below expected outcome with out the game actually releasing. So the decision to port ESO to consoles before the release on PC still doesn't support your theory.

BTW I'm saying they made the decision before the release of PC, not that the console version would release before PC. I say this because I went back to reread stuff you wrote and you are making it sound like the decision to port was made after PC release. Especially with this line "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" and "they realized the sub model wasn't going to cut it." There was no way for subs to decline before the decision to make console ports.

"I still don't believe that the sub fees alone would cut it today so the B2P model along with console sales in 2015 have no doubt generated more income which has allowed further and possibly faster development." Also, this line doesn't exactly make sense since I told you how much work was done before going B2P. Both Wrothgar and Imperial City where showcased before B2P model was even announced. So I know these two projects where being worked on or at least close to being finished. If they didn't hold off imperial City for the console release then PC would have seen it at least 3 months earlier. Also during the first year they where more worried about the performance and game systems and trying to fix/improve/revamp them to make the game better. Which I suspect ate a lot of development time as well. So in reality, there has been more done to the game in the first year off the sub model than has been done since they went to the B2P model. Which would suggest that the model isn't working out as planned. At least going by how you are judging the success of the sub model.

But if it wasn't a decision made after PC release then doesn't that mean a lot of PC subs were mis-sold under the pretence of it always being not only PC exclusive but also subscription based and not B2P?

Not really, the only thing PC players should be upset about is that it went to a B2P model. Though it's by far better than having it a F2P which pretty much every sub was against (I remember those threads vividly). We knew about the console port almost a year before the game even released. The console port, we thought, wouldn't really affect us since the consoles and PC wouldn't be on the same server. But looking back our subs where used to port to consoles and make that version of the game possible. Yes they did do a lot of work on every thing up to TG while under the sub model, but consoles where really supported by people that would more than likely not play on that version. Yeah a few went over, but most stayed on PC.

But I can see why they went to B2P since console wasn't going to stand for a sub. I wish it really hadn't since it was doing quite well under the sub model.

As far as the OP, I say, NO. It is perfectly fair.
I have subbed since release, April 2014. I have every month since.
When they went B2P, (because of console sub fees and not because it wasn't working), I still subbed.
Crafting Bags are Loyalty Rewards. No more than that. I think it's great Zos is showing the "long term"
sub supporters some love. Don't want to sub, don't. But don't rain on those of us who choose to.