Crating Bag Exclusivity is Unfair

TheValkyn · April 2016

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

TheValkyn wrote: »

Here's a tip. Create a guild and travel to the lowbie zones. Recruit new players that are most likely to drop the game immediately. Get sole permission to use the guild bank. I'm up to 1,500 slots now and I don't subscribe and I never will. This is not a game that can warrant a subscription by any means. A crafting bag doesn't hide the terrible performance (The absolute worst out of any MMORPG I play regularly), awful balance and bugs galore.

Even with that you still have to physically go to the bank to deposit your items. Crafting bag its automatic. Crafting bag is also unlimited. The dev guy used a word they will censor on here but basically means its unlimited storage.

Oh please... It takes near zero time to warp to your Cyrodiil campaign to bank from anywhere and it costs no gold. None.

Bossdonut · April 2016

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.

Xundiin · April 2016

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.

C0wrex · April 2016

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

Some_Guy · April 2016

Wanderinlost wrote: »

I am not saying that ESO+ should not get the bag, but why should us who have supported this game through buy to play be given the same option, to buy the crafting bag with crowns.

I think you're right, you should be able to buy the bag in store with crowns. You pay X amount of crowns to access the bag for 1 month, then you pay X amount for each month after. That way you'll get the same thing as ESO plus members.
EVERYBODY WINS!!!

kevlarto_ESO · April 2016

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.

NewBlacksmurf · April 2016

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

I'd be interested to see the sales numbers if they offered it as an option for all at a reasonable price (1500 crowns).
My guess is they'd make more than with subs tbh because even though I'd be clicking the purchase crowns button with gritted teeth and mumbling obscenities at having to purchase something that should be ingame anyway for free... I'd probably still buy it.

To be honest, they'd make more as a crown item on Xbox one. Set it as a crown item and allow size upgrades rather than a sub only. Our ESO seldom gives crowns like it suppose to or I'll get crowns and miss other features.
I definately won't sub again but I'd buy crown items reasonable priced.

Tommy1979AtWar · April 2016

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 · April 2016

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

I'd be interested to see the sales numbers if they offered it as an option for all at a reasonable price (1500 crowns).
My guess is they'd make more than with subs tbh because even though I'd be clicking the purchase crowns button with gritted teeth and mumbling obscenities at having to purchase something that should be ingame anyway for free... I'd probably still buy it.

To be honest, they'd make more as a crown item on Xbox one. Set it as a crown item and allow size upgrades rather than a sub only. Our ESO seldom gives crowns like it suppose to or I'll get crowns and miss other features.
I definately won't sub again but I'd buy crown items reasonable priced.

I have to agree tbh, it's awesome for those who sub but kinda stinks a bit for those who've been sold on the B2P model.

Xundiin · April 2016

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.

Tommy1979AtWar · April 2016

Not being snarky so don't take it as such but if it was doing so well just under sub and being completely exclusive then why do you personally believe the complete change of direction occurred?

I know a lot of content was already pretty much finished or being worked on and a lot of subs were PO at the console port etc but zos must have surely seen the long term financial benefit for the customers and themselves which must have been needed to an extent in order to do a 180 of such magnitude, upsetting a large portion of the player base and creating a whole new UI from the ground up doesn't sound like something a company does on a whim when they'd previously and categorically said they wouldn't.

wenchmore420b14_ESO · April 2016

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.

Nebthet78 · April 2016

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Not being snarky so don't take it as such but if it was doing so well just under sub and being completely exclusive then why do you personally believe the complete change of direction occurred?

I know a lot of content was already pretty much finished or being worked on and a lot of subs were PO at the console port etc but zos must have surely seen the long term financial benefit for the customers and themselves which must have been needed to an extent in order to do a 180 of such magnitude, upsetting a large portion of the player base and creating a whole new UI from the ground up doesn't sound like something a company does on a whim when they'd previously and categorically said they wouldn't.

From what I have understood of things as they occured; Ultimately, ZOS realized console players were not willing to pay for both a sub and Xbox Live or PS+ together and because Microsoft refused to budge on the Live requirement, to get as many players to buy ESO as they could, (due to Skyrim's popularity) they then decided to go to the hybrid Sub/B2P model, even though Sony had actually agreed to drop the PS+ Sub requirement. (Skyrim was much more popular on the XB360).

Now, Zos couldn't just release the console version of the games and say console players didn't have to sub to play. That wouldn't be fair to the PC players so B2P had to be across the board for everyone. This is why they made it a Hybrid model. So people had an option on how they wanted to pay to play the game.

For PC players who continued to sub, not much changed, with the exception of getting anooying pop ups to try to elicit Crown Store purchases. For more casual players on PC, they dropped the sub because it was not cost effective for them in the long run, and they decided to pay for Crown instead when they needed to. Many of these players also waited to see if there would be Crown sales before purchasing any, because why pay full price.

Interestingly enough, a few months after console release, I and many other PC players noticed a huge downturn in the amount of bugs that were being fixed and how quickly they were being done. Customer Service took a turn for the worse at this time as well and since then, we have seen a fairly steady decline all around.

I am rather sure a few people will be watching to see if any of this improves at all, if the Crafting Bag draws a bunch of players to start subbing again.

Gidorick · April 2016

wenchmore420b14_ESO wrote: »

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.

Someone who has never subscribed, never bought any DLC and picked up ESO on the cheap can subscribe and get the crafting bag.

They're not "Loyalty Rewards" they are "Subscription Incentives" .

WhimsyDragon · April 2016

I didn't read this entire thread, but I find the use of "unfair" problematic because it suggests something is owed to you and that you're not being treated properly when you've made the choice to not subscribe (in other words, to not have this perk). It's just not a great argument to insist that you should be able to have everything that another person who pays monthly has (or at least when we're talking bout bonuses that do not effect combat). ZOS wants to give people reasons to sub and if they make it a crown sale, then it's ineffective in achieving that goal. It's fine to say, 'But I'd love it if you'd put this in the store!' and maybe they will budge on that at some point, but calling it unfair? What would be a fair way to give ESO+ some legit perks then (aside from current bonuses)?

Xexpo · April 2016

If we cry more... everyone who participates in the BETA with get a pet monkey!
yaaassss

Wanderinlost · April 2016

Adoryn wrote: »

I didn't read this entire thread, but I find the use of "unfair" problematic because it suggests something is owed to you and that you're not being treated properly when you've made the choice to not subscribe (in other words, to not have this perk). It's just not a great argument to insist that you should be able to have everything that another person who pays monthly has (or at least when we're talking bout bonuses that do not effect combat). ZOS wants to give people reasons to sub and if they make it a crown sale, then it's ineffective in achieving that goal. It's fine to say, 'But I'd love it if you'd put this in the store!' and maybe they will budge on that at some point, but calling it unfair? What would be a fair way to give ESO+ some legit perks then (aside from current bonuses)?

Not claiming the crafting bag should be "owed" to us. The argument is we have 2 separate modes of payment and only one is getting this feature. Each monetization mode has unique drawbacks and advantages but both get the whole package given they pay for it, up until they launch this feature. It is the ESO+ crowd who are insisting that they are owed an exclusive feature for loyalty when it has nothing to do with loyalty. They have advertised and sold this game on the premise of no subscription, that we can choose with no consequence. B2P in the industry works on this principle, both sides pay, one pays to own and one pays to rent and it comes down to the customer's preference. Adding a game feature to ESO+ is removing that preference and going against what they have been selling this game as for the past year. You can't go back and unbuy all that DLC and go the renters route after a year of it being this way and we should not be put into a position where we feel it necessary just to access a single feature.

Features are suppose to be available for all. If ESO+ needs a bit more there are way to do it without restricting features. Not having to spend any crowns on crafting bags is certainly one of those ways. That is a clear incentive. ESO+ members are going so far as to say they are not only owed this feature but that nobody else should be able to buy it, which is ridiculous and petty.

Vangy · April 2016

Wanderinlost wrote: »

Adoryn wrote: »

I didn't read this entire thread, but I find the use of "unfair" problematic because it suggests something is owed to you and that you're not being treated properly when you've made the choice to not subscribe (in other words, to not have this perk). It's just not a great argument to insist that you should be able to have everything that another person who pays monthly has (or at least when we're talking bout bonuses that do not effect combat). ZOS wants to give people reasons to sub and if they make it a crown sale, then it's ineffective in achieving that goal. It's fine to say, 'But I'd love it if you'd put this in the store!' and maybe they will budge on that at some point, but calling it unfair? What would be a fair way to give ESO+ some legit perks then (aside from current bonuses)?

Not claiming the crafting bag should be "owed" to us. The argument is we have 2 separate modes of payment and only one is getting this feature. Each monetization mode has unique drawbacks and advantages but both get the whole package given they pay for it, up until they launch this feature. It is the ESO+ crowd who are insisting that they are owed an exclusive feature for loyalty when it has nothing to do with loyalty. They have advertised and sold this game on the premise of no subscription, that we can choose with no consequence. B2P in the industry works on this principle, both sides pay, one pays to own and one pays to rent and it comes down to the customer's preference. Adding a game feature to ESO+ is removing that preference and going against what they have been selling this game as for the past year. You can't go back and unbuy all that DLC and go the renters route after a year of it being this way and we should not be put into a position where we feel it necessary just to access a single feature.

Features are suppose to be available for all. If ESO+ needs a bit more there are way to do it without restricting features. Not having to spend any crowns on crafting bags is certainly one of those ways. That is a clear incentive. ESO+ members are going so far as to say they are not only owed this feature but that nobody else should be able to buy it, which is ridiculous and petty.

I wouldnt mind if it came to crown store as a rental. You pay 1000 crowns per month. Essentially that's what ESO+ begets. The rest of the perks are worthless. Sub still has to buy DLCs unless they fork out money every month. And a crown pack on store is worth about the same as the 1500 crowns they get every month. The 10% bonus to exp and gold is not worth the huge amount of $$ ESO+ costs compared to buying crowns as and when you need them. So if crafting bags came out in crown store as a per month rental, sure.

Xundiin · April 2016

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Not being snarky so don't take it as such but if it was doing so well just under sub and being completely exclusive then why do you personally believe the complete change of direction occurred?

I know a lot of content was already pretty much finished or being worked on and a lot of subs were PO at the console port etc but zos must have surely seen the long term financial benefit for the customers and themselves which must have been needed to an extent in order to do a 180 of such magnitude, upsetting a large portion of the player base and creating a whole new UI from the ground up doesn't sound like something a company does on a whim when they'd previously and categorically said they wouldn't.

Yes, but they didn't foresee consoles being up set over having to pay a sub. It's till after the release or shortly before that they officially came out and said that the consoles where going to be sub. When all the gaming sites starting blowing up with "consoles won't pay subs" type threads and posts. They more than likely went back to their financial team to figure out how they could get something they've already spent a ton of time doing to work. Which is when it was announced we'd go to B2P which was I think 6 months before it actually switched.

This is why I honestly don't think that the sub model wasn't working. It had more to do with that something they spent a ton of time doing and dumping tons of resources in to get it to be profitable. Only other thing they could have done was recant the console ports which would have made people mad as well, but they still would have wasted time and money.

The UI hasn't changed, all they really did was added more widgets.... I think that's what they are called in a GUI.

honestly, Nebthet78 said it better than I did.

Rylana · April 2016

This is like literally the least of my concerns regarding this game

Inventory space? Really? Fully or almost fully maxed out on every toon + bank + two dead guilds full of space

Think im good.

ADarklore · April 2016

I think ZOS will add Crafting Bags to the Crown Store, but they will not be 'unlimited'... I think that will remain exclusive to ESO+. I think they'll sell the Crafting Bags but players will have to buy 'upgrade' space for the crafting bags, just like we have to buy upgrade space for bank, character inventory and mount space. This will add extra capacity for B2P players and allow them to 'buy' the amount of space they want... while at the same time rewarding subscribers with unlimited Craft Bag as long as they continue their subscription. If they cancel ESO+, then they will only be able to 'add' mats to the bag in the amount of crafting space they would have to then purchase.

Tommy1979AtWar · April 2016

Xundiin wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Not being snarky so don't take it as such but if it was doing so well just under sub and being completely exclusive then why do you personally believe the complete change of direction occurred?

I know a lot of content was already pretty much finished or being worked on and a lot of subs were PO at the console port etc but zos must have surely seen the long term financial benefit for the customers and themselves which must have been needed to an extent in order to do a 180 of such magnitude, upsetting a large portion of the player base and creating a whole new UI from the ground up doesn't sound like something a company does on a whim when they'd previously and categorically said they wouldn't.

Yes, but they didn't foresee consoles being up set over having to pay a sub. It's till after the release or shortly before that they officially came out and said that the consoles where going to be sub. When all the gaming sites starting blowing up with "consoles won't pay subs" type threads and posts. They more than likely went back to their financial team to figure out how they could get something they've already spent a ton of time doing to work. Which is when it was announced we'd go to B2P which was I think 6 months before it actually switched.

This is why I honestly don't think that the sub model wasn't working. It had more to do with that something they spent a ton of time doing and dumping tons of resources in to get it to be profitable. Only other thing they could have done was recant the console ports which would have made people mad as well, but they still would have wasted time and money.

The UI hasn't changed, all they really did was added more widgets.... I think that's what they are called in a GUI.

honestly, Nebthet78 said it better than I did.

Let's agree to disagree, I understand what you're saying but my own personal opinion is that it was presented as a PC exclusive but the change was made because being subscription based and exclusive to PC severely limited their plans for future developement leading to the realisation that the B2P model would be the most widely accepted option by the console community.

Regarding the UI I should have clarified, I meant the creation of the console UI as it's very different to PC, not sure if you've seen it.

And given my opinion that people were sold on the B2P model it seems a little unfair to those who want the option of it and have actively supported the games development since.
Especially so when people who have never supported or invested anything into the game can sub for a month, fill it then unsub and still have access (albeit limited to removal of items only).
It should be free for subs just as I believe full access (guild bank and store etc) assistants should be but there should still be a limited access option in the crown store for those who were sold on the B2P model.
(I still think the limited access assistants are overpriced but that's a diffent story)

Averya_Teira · April 2016

Nebthet78 wrote: »

Tommy1979AtWar wrote: »

Not being snarky so don't take it as such but if it was doing so well just under sub and being completely exclusive then why do you personally believe the complete change of direction occurred?

I know a lot of content was already pretty much finished or being worked on and a lot of subs were PO at the console port etc but zos must have surely seen the long term financial benefit for the customers and themselves which must have been needed to an extent in order to do a 180 of such magnitude, upsetting a large portion of the player base and creating a whole new UI from the ground up doesn't sound like something a company does on a whim when they'd previously and categorically said they wouldn't.

From what I have understood of things as they occured; Ultimately, ZOS realized console players were not willing to pay for both a sub and Xbox Live or PS+ together and because Microsoft refused to budge on the Live requirement, to get as many players to buy ESO as they could, (due to Skyrim's popularity) they then decided to go to the hybrid Sub/B2P model, even though Sony had actually agreed to drop the PS+ Sub requirement. (Skyrim was much more popular on the XB360).

Except..... You do need PS+ to play ESO...

Luigi_Vampa · April 2016

None of this is about which customers are better or more loyal. High sub numbers make shareholders and moneymen happy, it is a fairly stable income projection. These bags will generate many more subs. This isn't about ZOS rewarding loyalty it is about ZOS running a buisness.

treborrealb14_ESO · April 2016

Wanderinlost wrote: »

Extremely disappointed they are making crafting bags sub only "perk". It's more than just a nice perk for crafters. It's the exact kind of feature that should not be implemented to sub only because then you are in a position where you feel a subscription is mandatory for your style of play and if you are subscribing then what do all the previous unlocks and DLC purchases amount to? It is a major feature that has been requested for a long damn time. Personally it frustrates me because the game itself is so loot heavy inventory management has been a constant issue since day one, and even with all the space you can currently buy/unlock you can still fill your inventory in 20 minutes of play.

Even if it was priced at $30-$50 it would be far better than this restriction to sub only. It is a buy to play game, and we all bought into that idea and supported the game through DLC and crown purchases, not to have something this important restricted at a later date in order to drive up sub numbers. Making the sub more attractive is fine and good sense but this is taking it too far. For some of us this has been a #1 requested feature for a long time(above content), and there have been many indications by the devs that it would be added sometime in the future. However by making this sub only feature you are putting all your buy to play customers in a extremely distasteful position.

If I am left in a position to sub in order to get this feature or not then I will probably never by any DLC, any crown packs and sub for a month or two per year at best. In the end it will be a lose-lose situation and a great disappointment for what was one of the better examples of MMO monetization. Currently ESO has great flexibility but this move is a major step backwards that nullifies the advantages of B2P and the crown store.

Edit:

ESO+ getting this feature is a great reward and incentive. However putting this feature on the crown store in no way diminishes the value of that feature. ESO+ is going to have the bag, although the rest of us are going to be left with no recourse to improve the dismal inventory management that has plagued us for years other than switching to ESO+, which after buying DLC for a year is a major loss.

Many have argued that this is going to be good for the game as it will increase income the game generates. I would argue the opposite. If it comes down to it, instead of spending over $100-$200 a year on DLC and cash shop purchases it will cost far less to sub a few months per year, not ever buy any crown packs and get the use of the feature at no additional cost. As a loyal player I would prefer not to do this but loyalty can easily turn to hostility when you are faced with the prospect of dealing with inventory woes every 20 minutes with no end in sight or having to abandon the principle Zenimax sold us the game on to get an important QoL feature.

Restriction and exclusivity were the principles F2P was founded on and there are still games today which embrace these qualities. ESO made a great move by going B2P and taking on the more modern approach of all carrot and no stick. While I could not compare ESO in any way to those early games this is an exclusive QoL feature and that exclusivity will not benefit ESO+ members or members. Sell it, please.

Its one "Nice Perk" That they have offered for subbers . Not to late for you and others to Sub now to at least support the game you all claim to love

seaef · April 2016

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.

You used the example of a gym around gamers? Are you serious?

kojou · April 2016

I didn't see anyone post this useful video related to the OP, so I thought I would express my deepest sympathy for the issue:

Video

clayandaudrey_ESO · April 2016

I don't really think the crafting bag will make sub numbers jump very high. It may get a slight bump but nothing substantial. That is of course my opinion.

That being said if sub numbers do not jump I fully expect them to be a crown store item. Like someone above said, this is a business. ZOS will do with these whatever they think will make them the most money.

Gedalya · April 2016

This is a mountain out of a mole-hill. @Wanderinlost, ZoS will almost certainly continue with the existing business model; which means they will offer some form of Crafting Bag option in the Crown Store so no subs can get it. This is completely consistent with their actions on similar "must-haves" such as Motifs offered through DLC (Ancient Orc comes to mind). Don't worry: you will likely have an opportunity to buy 5500 crowns at $39.99 to put towards Crafting Space in Crown Store.

Xsorus · April 2016

Nerouyn wrote: »

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.

Well there is a key difference.

Yes you do have the Storage Area for Crafting Goods in GW2....which is super nice..However you can buy upgrades to it via the Store..and you also have to buy actual BAG space via the store...granted you can swap gold to currency in that game its still so expensive that you're better off spending your time in RL then swapping the currency and just buying it.