Crating Bag Exclusivity is Unfair

rotaugen454 · April 2016

They need some way to keep people subbing. In 2 years, I have put in $360. I got 36,000 crowns. I could get that buying about 6.5 of the 5500 crown packages. If that is bought when they have the sales, I can get those crowns for about $150. The extra $210 was just for extra XP and crafting boost. My characters are all pretty much maxed, so the XP doesn't mean much and my crafter has it maxed. I could have used the crowns to buy all the DLC. Without some sort of exclusive bonus, they are going to have all the subscribers hit the point I did where there is no benefit to subbing that justifies $15 every month, and they would like to get more subs for a steady income stream. I see why they are doing this.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · April 2016

TheValkyn wrote: »

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.

I never said anything about gold and it takes far mre time to port to a bank then it does to instantly have all your crafting mats go into a bag correct?

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · April 2016

Typhoios wrote: »

laksikus wrote: »

@Nerouyn read up again, who owns whom.
its not Bethesda that ownes ZOS, and its not ZOS who was making those single player games.
Its the other way around

Zenimax actually owns Zenimax Online Studios and Bethesda. Technically they are three different companies.

Wrong. ZOS and Bethesda are divisions of Zenimax Media. Its all the same company.

Xjcon · April 2016

Can't be bothered to read this many posts but I will say one thing( may have been said already)

This is a bonus for people who have had a sub since they started to play. If others pick up a sub simply for this great. Who us stopping people from subscribing? The unfair police?

GreenGhostMan · April 2016

Ra'Shtar wrote: »

How is it unfair? I pay to play and you just want everything for free without supporting the game you are playing, like developing things doesn't take time and effort. I should be rewarded for being loyal to the development of the game not completely ignored even when i'm paying for basically nothing because buying crown packs is better you save tons of money.

How do you know he didn't purchase DLC, upgrades, mounts or costumes with crowns? Pretty sure money spent in the crown store is worth the same as money spent on subs. You make it sound like the only paying customers are subscribers. Couldn't be further from the truth.

IcyDeadPeople · April 2016

It's a very appealing reason to subscribe, and it doesn't impact PVP balance at all. Seems like a wise move.

ADarklore · April 2016

GreenGhostMan wrote: »

Ra'Shtar wrote: »

How is it unfair? I pay to play and you just want everything for free without supporting the game you are playing, like developing things doesn't take time and effort. I should be rewarded for being loyal to the development of the game not completely ignored even when i'm paying for basically nothing because buying crown packs is better you save tons of money.

How do you know he didn't purchase DLC, upgrades, mounts or costumes with crowns? Pretty sure money spent in the crown store is worth the same as money spent on subs. You make it sound like the only paying customers are subscribers. Couldn't be further from the truth.

While this is true, this is still 'unpredictable' income for ZOS. They know a subscription can be counted on for continuous income until it is canceled... so for any business, being able to plan for continuous income is better than living on unpredictable income. Thus, if ZOS can generate more money they can technically 'count on', it helps them better plan the budgets for the future. Even though a subscription can be cancelled, enticing more people to subscribe is better for ZOS in the long run.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · April 2016

GreenGhostMan wrote: »

Ra'Shtar wrote: »

How is it unfair? I pay to play and you just want everything for free without supporting the game you are playing, like developing things doesn't take time and effort. I should be rewarded for being loyal to the development of the game not completely ignored even when i'm paying for basically nothing because buying crown packs is better you save tons of money.

How do you know he didn't purchase DLC, upgrades, mounts or costumes with crowns? Pretty sure money spent in the crown store is worth the same as money spent on subs. You make it sound like the only paying customers are subscribers. Couldn't be further from the truth.

Your buddy there yes he bought all that stuff lets assume. How is his game any different after may 31st than before as far as inventory? He still has everything he paid for same as now. If you want a subscriber perk tho you kinda have to subscribe.

dimensional · April 2016

ADarklore wrote: »

[
While this is true, this is still 'unpredictable' income for ZOS. They know a subscription can be counted on for continuous income until it is canceled... so for any business, being able to plan for continuous income is better than living on unpredictable income. Thus, if ZOS can generate more money they can technically 'count on', it helps them better plan the budgets for the future. Even though a subscription can be cancelled, enticing more people to subscribe is better for ZOS in the long run.

And the ongoing status of a subscription is just as unpredictable as anything else, so this doesn't really hold up.

anitajoneb17_ESO · April 2016

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

laksikus wrote: »

@Nerouyn read up again, who owns whom.
its not Bethesda that ownes ZOS, and its not ZOS who was making those single player games.
Its the other way around

Zenimax actually owns Zenimax Online Studios and Bethesda. Technically they are three different companies.

Wrong. ZOS and Bethesda are divisions of Zenimax Media. Its all the same company.

NO. Technically, they are three different companies (and NOT divisions of the same company).

If your point is that they all finally depend on the same decision makers, then you're right, but technically, you're wrong. They are three companies with 1 of them owning the two other who are technically sister companies.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · April 2016

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

laksikus wrote: »

@Nerouyn read up again, who owns whom.
its not Bethesda that ownes ZOS, and its not ZOS who was making those single player games.
Its the other way around

Zenimax actually owns Zenimax Online Studios and Bethesda. Technically they are three different companies.

Wrong. ZOS and Bethesda are divisions of Zenimax Media. Its all the same company.

NO. Technically, they are three different companies (and NOT divisions of the same company).

If your point is that they all finally depend on the same decision makers, then you're right, but technically, you're wrong. They are three companies with 1 of them owning the two other who are technically sister companies.

Not true. They are divisions not separate companies.

http://www.gamesas.com/zenimax-media-bethesda-softworks-bethesda-game-studios-and-t271397.html

You keep going on about what they "technically are" I am telling what they actually are.

anitajoneb17_ESO · April 2016

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

laksikus wrote: »

@Nerouyn read up again, who owns whom.
its not Bethesda that ownes ZOS, and its not ZOS who was making those single player games.
Its the other way around

Zenimax actually owns Zenimax Online Studios and Bethesda. Technically they are three different companies.

Wrong. ZOS and Bethesda are divisions of Zenimax Media. Its all the same company.

NO. Technically, they are three different companies (and NOT divisions of the same company).

If your point is that they all finally depend on the same decision makers, then you're right, but technically, you're wrong. They are three companies with 1 of them owning the two other who are technically sister companies.

Not true. They are divisions not separate companies.

http://www.gamesas.com/zenimax-media-bethesda-softworks-bethesda-game-studios-and-t271397.html

You keep going on about what they "technically are" I am telling what they actually are.

Now read carefully :

They.are.three.different.companies. One.of.them.owns.the.two.other. But.they.are.three.different.companies.

That stands black on white everywhere including in the article you linked.

Not that it matters but you're simply saying wrong things (and hope to back them up with right things).

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · April 2016

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

laksikus wrote: »

@Nerouyn read up again, who owns whom.
its not Bethesda that ownes ZOS, and its not ZOS who was making those single player games.
Its the other way around

Zenimax actually owns Zenimax Online Studios and Bethesda. Technically they are three different companies.

Wrong. ZOS and Bethesda are divisions of Zenimax Media. Its all the same company.

NO. Technically, they are three different companies (and NOT divisions of the same company).

If your point is that they all finally depend on the same decision makers, then you're right, but technically, you're wrong. They are three companies with 1 of them owning the two other who are technically sister companies.

Not true. They are divisions not separate companies.

http://www.gamesas.com/zenimax-media-bethesda-softworks-bethesda-game-studios-and-t271397.html

You keep going on about what they "technically are" I am telling what they actually are.

Now read carefully :

They.are.three.different.companies. One.of.them.owns.the.two.other. But.they.are.three.different.companies.

That stands black on white everywhere including in the article you linked.

Not that it matters but you're simply saying wrong things (and hope to back them up with right things).

Now read carefully. Please google what a division is. They are all the same company.

From zenimax's corporate website:

"ZeniMax creates and publishes original interactive entertainment content for consoles, the PC, and handheld/wireless devices. Its Bethesda Softworks division, founded in 1986 in the early days of the industry, has a long history of success as a publisher of award-winning video games. In addition, the ZeniMax group includes some of the most acclaimed development studios in the world."

Note they call it a division of zenimax not a separate company.

ADarklore · April 2016

dimensional wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

[
While this is true, this is still 'unpredictable' income for ZOS. They know a subscription can be counted on for continuous income until it is canceled... so for any business, being able to plan for continuous income is better than living on unpredictable income. Thus, if ZOS can generate more money they can technically 'count on', it helps them better plan the budgets for the future. Even though a subscription can be cancelled, enticing more people to subscribe is better for ZOS in the long run.

And the ongoing status of a subscription is just as unpredictable as anything else, so this doesn't really hold up.

Yes and no. People that bother to subscribe typically don't just subscribe and cancel on a whim, so there is some predictability about it, as well as extended subscriptions are instant money in ZOS' pocket for the duration. So while subscriptions are unpredictable, they also tend to be much more of a stable source of income for ZOS. Besides that, they have the game data so they know who is buying what, who is subscribing, etc... so only they would know what makes the most economic sense.

Regardless, like I said before, I fully expect them to add 'limited' crafting bags to the Crown Store, but the unlimited versions will remain solely for ESO+ subscribers.

Tommy1979AtWar · April 2016

Zos and Bethesda are subsidiaries, subsidiaries are companies controlled by a holding company which in their case would be Zenimax.

dimensional · April 2016

I bet there's some level of predictability to the people who purchase crowns, as well.

anitajoneb17_ESO · April 2016

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

laksikus wrote: »

@Nerouyn read up again, who owns whom.
its not Bethesda that ownes ZOS, and its not ZOS who was making those single player games.
Its the other way around

Zenimax actually owns Zenimax Online Studios and Bethesda. Technically they are three different companies.

Wrong. ZOS and Bethesda are divisions of Zenimax Media. Its all the same company.

NO. Technically, they are three different companies (and NOT divisions of the same company).

If your point is that they all finally depend on the same decision makers, then you're right, but technically, you're wrong. They are three companies with 1 of them owning the two other who are technically sister companies.

Not true. They are divisions not separate companies.

http://www.gamesas.com/zenimax-media-bethesda-softworks-bethesda-game-studios-and-t271397.html

You keep going on about what they "technically are" I am telling what they actually are.

Now read carefully :

They.are.three.different.companies. One.of.them.owns.the.two.other. But.they.are.three.different.companies.

That stands black on white everywhere including in the article you linked.

Not that it matters but you're simply saying wrong things (and hope to back them up with right things).

Now read carefully. Please google what a division is. They are all the same company.

From zenimax's corporate website:

"ZeniMax creates and publishes original interactive entertainment content for consoles, the PC, and handheld/wireless devices. Its Bethesda Softworks division, founded in 1986 in the early days of the industry, has a long history of success as a publisher of award-winning video games. In addition, the ZeniMax group includes some of the most acclaimed development studios in the world."

Note they call it a division of zenimax not a separate company.

I don't care what Google calls them. They're separate companies, that's a fact. It's not a matter of vocabulary, it's a matter of legal definition. "company" is a legal term, "division" isn't.

"
© 2016 BETHESDA SOFTWORKS LLC, A ZENIMAX MEDIA COMPANY.
(From BGS website)

Now if I have to explain you *everything*, a separate company has a separate capital, separate management, separate accounts, distinct legal status and existence. Which Bethesda Softworks has, even if it is owned by Zenimax Media. Same applies to ZOS. "Owned" meaning that Zenimax Media owns over 50% of the capital of each daughter company.

Makkir · April 2016

If you love the game and want it to survive in the years to come, then make a sacrifice and support the game for 15 bucks a month...

FLuFFyxMuFFiN · April 2016

You would think this thread would have died by now. I guess people can't stop arguing the same points over and over again. Crafting bags are for subs. You don't sub you don't get the bag. Plain and simple. Don't make it complicated. ZOS stated that the bags were going to be for subs when they first announced them and now people choose to be upset? Keeping them as sub only is a great decision and I stand by it. Bring on the bags!

Kungfu · 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.

Not even gonna read past the first few sentences.

You underestimate how much money GOOD developers cost.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · April 2016

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

laksikus wrote: »

@Nerouyn read up again, who owns whom.
its not Bethesda that ownes ZOS, and its not ZOS who was making those single player games.
Its the other way around

Zenimax actually owns Zenimax Online Studios and Bethesda. Technically they are three different companies.

Wrong. ZOS and Bethesda are divisions of Zenimax Media. Its all the same company.

NO. Technically, they are three different companies (and NOT divisions of the same company).

If your point is that they all finally depend on the same decision makers, then you're right, but technically, you're wrong. They are three companies with 1 of them owning the two other who are technically sister companies.

Not true. They are divisions not separate companies.

http://www.gamesas.com/zenimax-media-bethesda-softworks-bethesda-game-studios-and-t271397.html

You keep going on about what they "technically are" I am telling what they actually are.

Now read carefully :

They.are.three.different.companies. One.of.them.owns.the.two.other. But.they.are.three.different.companies.

That stands black on white everywhere including in the article you linked.

Not that it matters but you're simply saying wrong things (and hope to back them up with right things).

Now read carefully. Please google what a division is. They are all the same company.

From zenimax's corporate website:

"ZeniMax creates and publishes original interactive entertainment content for consoles, the PC, and handheld/wireless devices. Its Bethesda Softworks division, founded in 1986 in the early days of the industry, has a long history of success as a publisher of award-winning video games. In addition, the ZeniMax group includes some of the most acclaimed development studios in the world."

Note they call it a division of zenimax not a separate company.

I don't care what Google calls them. They're separate companies, that's a fact. It's not a matter of vocabulary, it's a matter of legal definition. "company" is a legal term, "division" isn't.

"
© 2016 BETHESDA SOFTWORKS LLC, A ZENIMAX MEDIA COMPANY.
(From BGS website)

Now if I have to explain you *everything*, a separate company has a separate capital, separate management, separate accounts, distinct legal status and existence. Which Bethesda Softworks has, even if it is owned by Zenimax Media. Same applies to ZOS. "Owned" meaning that Zenimax Media owns over 50% of the capital of each daughter company.

lol its a "zenimax media company" a division of Zenimax Media. [snip]Anyways since you seem convinced Im done it really is irrelevant to the thread anyways. Just see a lot of people like you making that mistake.

[edit for baiting]

anitajoneb17_ESO · April 2016

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

lol its a "zenimax media company" a division of Zenimax Media. Wow you are thick lol. Anyways since you seem convinced Im done it really is irrelevant to the thread anyways. Just see a lot of people like you making that mistake.

You're the one doing the mistake. You're just a noob in those matters. But hey... up to you.

Buffler · April 2016

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

lol its a "zenimax media company" a division of Zenimax Media. Wow you are thick lol. Anyways since you seem convinced Im done it really is irrelevant to the thread anyways. Just see a lot of people like you making that mistake.

You're the one doing the mistake. You're just a noob in those matters. But hey... up to you.

Just to clear it up for you pair.

https://www.zenimax.com/legal_information

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · April 2016

Buffler wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

lol its a "zenimax media company" a division of Zenimax Media. Wow you are thick lol. Anyways since you seem convinced Im done it really is irrelevant to the thread anyways. Just see a lot of people like you making that mistake.

You're the one doing the mistake. You're just a noob in those matters. But hey... up to you.

Just to clear it up for you pair.

https://www.zenimax.com/legal_information

Thank you but lets just let it go. Its irrelevant to the thread I wish now I hadnt even mentioned it.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · April 2016

Well I mean very clearly it shows bethesda zos and zenimax are all the same company lol.

Regardless have him on ignore now.

Oh and for those who wonder what a division is:

Division Meaning

Particularly when businesses produce more than one product or offer more than one service, they often divide into divisions. When a business is structured as a collection of divisions, each division focuses on a different section of the business plan and works toward a separate goal. For example, in a business dealing with home repairs, one division may focus on roofing, while another specializes in HVAC-related repairs. Because individuals within these divisions are all employed by the same overarching company, they can move back and forth between the divisions as needed.

In zenimax's case one makes single player games and one makes online games. One is the publishing division. Its all the same company tho.

iNSiPiD1 · April 2016

I agree with the OP. I don't think this is the type of feature that should be locked behind a subscription. It should have the ability to be unlocked for 5-10k crowns and that's it.

These types of features in games are why I am having a hard time investing in games like ESO on a more consistent basis. It's why I keep going back to Project 99. Simple is better. Find better ways to get money from your player base, instead of monetizing a part of the game that you guys created to be a problem (horrible inventory management system).

ArvenAldmeri wrote: »

I love non-subs complaining about not getting something that subs do. You dont support the game, we do, sub or manage you inventory the better way.

I also think the ignorance in the above quote needs to be addressed. Everyone playing this game has purchased it at some cost. Furthermore, due to the existence of the Crown Store, it is more than possible that a regular non-subbed player can purchase more coins per month, and contribute more money per month than a sub player.

In other words, just because you sub it doesn't make you superior to all the other players.

Callous2208 · April 2016

I'm in agreement with everyone in this rediculously long thread. Craft bags are gonna be frickin sweet, can't wait. Good job ZOS, you'll have my continued sub. Gonna have sooo many empty bank and inventory spaces when DB drops. Ah, great times all around friends.

Buffler · April 2016

iNSiPiD1 wrote: »

I agree with the OP. I don't think this is the type of feature that should be locked behind a subscription. It should have the ability to be unlocked for 5-10k crowns and that's it.

These types of features in games are why I am having a hard time investing in games like ESO on a more consistent basis. It's why I keep going back to Project 99. Simple is better. Find better ways to get money from your player base, instead of monetizing a part of the game that you guys created to be a problem (horrible inventory management system).

ArvenAldmeri wrote: »

I love non-subs complaining about not getting something that subs do. You dont support the game, we do, sub or manage you inventory the better way.

I also think the ignorance in the above quote needs to be addressed. Everyone playing this game has purchased it at some cost. Furthermore, due to the existence of the Crown Store, it is more than possible that a regular non-subbed player can purchase more coins per month, and contribute more money per month than a sub player.

In other words, just because you sub it doesn't make you superior to all the other players.

I would say the opposite. Every subbed player i speak with also buy crowns every month anyway

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · April 2016

iNSiPiD1 wrote: »

I agree with the OP. I don't think this is the type of feature that should be locked behind a subscription. It should have the ability to be unlocked for 5-10k crowns and that's it.

These types of features in games are why I am having a hard time investing in games like ESO on a more consistent basis. It's why I keep going back to Project 99. Simple is better. Find better ways to get money from your player base, instead of monetizing a part of the game that you guys created to be a problem (horrible inventory management system).

ArvenAldmeri wrote: »

I love non-subs complaining about not getting something that subs do. You dont support the game, we do, sub or manage you inventory the better way.

I also think the ignorance in the above quote needs to be addressed. Everyone playing this game has purchased it at some cost. Furthermore, due to the existence of the Crown Store, it is more than possible that a regular non-subbed player can purchase more coins per month, and contribute more money per month than a sub player.

In other words, just because you sub it doesn't make you superior to all the other players.

I dont know about like morally superior but it does make you superior in the game. It gives you bonuses non subs dont get like 10% xp etc. Free access to all DLC. Im not saying I am somehow a better human than you tho hehe. Just saying being a sub does give you benefits you wouldnt otherwise get with the base game purchase.

FLuFFyxMuFFiN · April 2016

iNSiPiD1 wrote: »

I agree with the OP. I don't think this is the type of feature that should be locked behind a subscription. It should have the ability to be unlocked for 5-10k crowns and that's it.

These types of features in games are why I am having a hard time investing in games like ESO on a more consistent basis. It's why I keep going back to Project 99. Simple is better. Find better ways to get money from your player base, instead of monetizing a part of the game that you guys created to be a problem (horrible inventory management system).

ArvenAldmeri wrote: »

I love non-subs complaining about not getting something that subs do. You dont support the game, we do, sub or manage you inventory the better way.

I also think the ignorance in the above quote needs to be addressed. Everyone playing this game has purchased it at some cost. Furthermore, due to the existence of the Crown Store, it is more than possible that a regular non-subbed player can purchase more coins per month, and contribute more money per month than a sub player.

In other words, just because you sub it doesn't make you superior to all the other players.

I will fix the quote for Arven. Non-subs generally don't support the game as much as subs. I say generally because I am sure there are a few non-subs who spend a ton of money on crowns. A sub pays $200 a year to keep all the DLC while a non-sub only has to pay roughly half of that. That is an extra $100 a year from the subs. Subs also buy crowns like non-subs. So for the most part subs pay more per year than non-subs.