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.
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.
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)?
Wanderinlost 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
@Wanderinlost, have you considered changing your thread title? The title seems to have attracted some into the thread who only read headlines and assume you are asking for free things. You have some interesting points, and some of the respondents have interesting counter points, and it's a shame that these discussions are buried.
Averya_Teira 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...