Transairion wrote: »

There is a forum poll that says otherwise

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/274601/with-new-perks-being-added-to-eso-plus-members-how-many-of-us-have-subscribed-and-why/p1

Sorry if I take a forum poll less than a day old and that only takes in account general discussion posters with a grain of salt.


The majority of the playerbase don't even visit the forum, let alone general discussion, they're sitting in the game. With ESO's "forum code" system where you can't even sign up on your own, I'd wager participation is even less than most MMO's forum.


But yeah, sure, ESO went Buy to Play because it had enough subs to keep existing as sub-only. Whatever helps you sleep at night...

I'll be sleeping like a baby knowing that I have those sweet sweet crafting bags and now I will soon have free range to customize my costumes however I want. Meanwhile people like you will still be here crying about it on the forums.

I feel like this is nothing more than a troll thread.

It just has that child screaming "na na na" feeling to it.

Have any official numbers been published showing where ZOS actually makes more money from, and what percentage of the playerbase actually subs? Or are people on both sides of the argument making numbers up based on their perception?

So they will have a huge increase in subscriptions due to this change of their minds.

Generally speaking, including stuff like Crafting Bags sure ESO subs will go up.

If people sub they sure aren't doing so for stuff like Costume Dyeing though... that's just a bonus they'll get. They'll (hopefully) be doing it for stuff that actually benefits them in a meaningful way, like bonus experience... all access to DLC... crafting bags allowing near-limitness storage.

Not to change the wedding dress from white to hot pink...

Lysette wrote: »

Transairion wrote: »

Khenarthi wrote: »

Have any official numbers been published showing where ZOS actually makes more money from, and what percentage of the playerbase actually subs? Or are people on both sides of the argument making numbers up based on their perception?

Don't think there's anything concrete outside the "7 million subs" that was thrown around, but I don't think that was ever confirmed to be current or just total from-launch-till-now so I'd take it with a grain of salt.

ESO dropping it's sub-only model after only a single year of existence to introduce the crown store, that's cold hard fact. At the time I found it kind of hilariously sad, but since I'd already bought and played (for like, half a month, got bored and quit) it meant I was actually able to play in the here and now without dropping more cash and I love it. Buying DLC individually will end up cheaper than a sub in the long run as well, so I planned on doing just that when I run out of base-game content.

They said 7 million players, not 7 million subscribers. And those 7 million include as well those, who are not actually playing anymore as well, because they still have an account, even they are not using it.

Ah, they're counting me twice then: I have an account where I sub (my main one) and another one where I don't. What can I say, I'm an altoholic...

ADarklore wrote: »

Transairion wrote: »

DannyLV702 wrote: »

Transairion wrote: »

Funny line of thinking, when it was the whole concept of a Subscriber-only ESO that had to be scrapped for ESO to survive at all and the introduction of the Crown Store.

Don't kid yourself, subscriber payment probably makes up only 25% of ESO's revenue if even that. Crown Store is where almost all the money comes from since it's introduction.

If your boss told you he was cutting your pay by 25% starting tomorrow, how would you react?

You're going to have to break it down for me, since I can't find the leap of logic you took to link entitled payment for services rendered to "I am a sub and I therefore pay for everything, whorship me!".


Better analogy is if the boss fires 25% of workers, the company probably won't collapse. That's called a minority.

Subscribers aren't the majority by leaps and bounds.

And therein lies the dilemma for ZOS... they WANT more subscribers... so to get more, they are increasing the incentives for subscribing. When a company does a budget every year, they have to estimate what their future revenue is... and with subscribers, they have a more solid foundation to plan for the future... and yes, the bean counters take into consideration the ebb and flow of subscriptions. However, they cannot do a very good job of creating a budget based upon complete speculation, which is what they have to do with non-subscribers. Thus, it is a better for ZOS to have more subscribers, not less... and if people want to leave the game because they don't get these incentives, then so be it; however, I, and I'm sure ZOS as well, expect a lot more people will subscribe then leave.

There is no dilemma. There would be no 7 million players and growing if the game was sub only. They tried that song and dance and failed. Start locking more and more things behind the subscription and unless this game starts getting oodles of content, not 10 hour DLC with passives, and way more stability, well the dilemma could resurface. They expected people to subscribe the first time and that didn't pan out.

I am sure people aren't asking for a free meal here. They just want to be able to buy major features as a convenience pack 20-40 bucks and have infinite access to those features. Not this vending machine that gives one time bonuses and poof, disappear. The crafting bags and infinite dyes are not minor features even though they are cosmetic or convenience. The infinite part makes them a major feature. A small perk would be 10-20 more slots for crafting or 10-20 more slots for dyes.

Lysette wrote: »

Lightninvash wrote: »

This is what I believe the OP means about sub based makes more revenue. After running through the numbers(not exact but very close) I have come up with this. For the subscription based if you just did that bought no crowns you would spend around $105.00 USD (before taxes) if you spent the 6.3 aka 7 months required to sub to gain all of the dlcs and only buying the dlc. Now if you purchase the 5500 crown pack(correct me if I am wrong) last time I bought one it was $44.99(but I will just incase round it up to $50) to buy 2 sets of crown packs at $50 you will spend $100 USD and earn 11,000 crowns.

All the dlc Imperial city=2500 crowns, orisinium=3000 crowns, thieves guild=2000 crowns, and DB=2000 crowns total up to 9500 crowns. when you buy the 5500 crown pack 2x you will spend $100 USD to get all the dlc you will have 1100 crowns and have a spare 1500 crowns to use on whatever you like. When you buy a sub for 7 months(provided you don't buy anything with crowns except dlc) you will earn 10500 crowns and have a spare 1000 crowns. The sub makes you pay a little more and you get less crowns than buying the dlc outright. It also takes time.

So in that aspect yes subbing makes more money than buying the dlc outright. However, some people who buy the dlc via crowns wait for deals/sales on the crown packs. Then there are the other people who like myself want more than just the dlc and buy the crowns for them. it is all speculation as to who spends more the subscribers or the people who buy the dlc outright.

I think this is what the OP meant by eso+ members keep the game going. But then again maybe I am the only one who would actually go and calculate it all and put this together.

That calculation is wrong - a subscriber has no need to buy the DLCs - so if you compare it, you have to add that, what a non-subscriber has to pay for DLCs again because to be equal to a subscriber, he needs that same amount of crowns, which he spent on DLC to spend on other content, which the subscriber has - and it will not be cheaper then.

A non-subscriber needs actually:

9500 crowns to get the DLCs
9000 crowns to have the same spent on other things like a subscriber

so you have to compare 18500 crowns to 66€ for a 6-month sub - in a sale with 40% off those crowns would cost 70.63€ - on a sale that is - it is more even then and it does not give the non-subscriber the same, because all the exclusive extras are subscription only.

While a subscriber might have no need to buy the DLCs, it's clear from previous discussions that a lot do so - myself included. Subscribers also buy sundry other things.

Where the real value of subscriptions kicks in for developers, however, is in the fixed nature of them. When talking to investors, banks and parent companies etc they are able to point to a steady income stream based on the number of subscribers. Cash shops make useful contributions to overall revenue, sometimes greatly so, but they are completely random and unreliable as well as being tied very largely to key events like DLC releases a few times per year, whereas subscription revenues arise every month regardless and provide a dependable base for covering fixed monthly outgoings.

Lysette wrote: »

Kalifas wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

Transairion wrote: »

DannyLV702 wrote: »

Transairion wrote: »

Funny line of thinking, when it was the whole concept of a Subscriber-only ESO that had to be scrapped for ESO to survive at all and the introduction of the Crown Store.

Don't kid yourself, subscriber payment probably makes up only 25% of ESO's revenue if even that. Crown Store is where almost all the money comes from since it's introduction.

If your boss told you he was cutting your pay by 25% starting tomorrow, how would you react?

You're going to have to break it down for me, since I can't find the leap of logic you took to link entitled payment for services rendered to "I am a sub and I therefore pay for everything, whorship me!".


Better analogy is if the boss fires 25% of workers, the company probably won't collapse. That's called a minority.

Subscribers aren't the majority by leaps and bounds.

And therein lies the dilemma for ZOS... they WANT more subscribers... so to get more, they are increasing the incentives for subscribing. When a company does a budget every year, they have to estimate what their future revenue is... and with subscribers, they have a more solid foundation to plan for the future... and yes, the bean counters take into consideration the ebb and flow of subscriptions. However, they cannot do a very good job of creating a budget based upon complete speculation, which is what they have to do with non-subscribers. Thus, it is a better for ZOS to have more subscribers, not less... and if people want to leave the game because they don't get these incentives, then so be it; however, I, and I'm sure ZOS as well, expect a lot more people will subscribe then leave.

There is no dilemma. There would be no 7 million players and growing if the game was sub only. They tried that song and dance and failed. Start locking more and more things behind the subscription and unless this game starts getting oodles of content, not 10 hour DLC with passives, and way more stability, well the dilemma could resurface. They expected people to subscribe the first time and that didn't pan out.

I am sure people aren't asking for a free meal here. They just want to be able to buy major features as a convenience pack 20-40 bucks and have infinite access to those features. Not this vending machine that gives one time bonuses and poof, disappear. The crafting bags and infinite dyes are not minor features even though they are cosmetic or convenience. The infinite part makes them a major feature. A small perk would be 10-20 more slots for crafting or 10-20 more slots for dyes.

it is an exclusive premium feature - for those "flying first class" - to compare it with airlines - those not flying first class, will not get this service - it is that simple.

First class gets special small perks and prioritized seating. Not their own plane with exclusive goods and infinite carry on space. And common passengers on another airplane going to a different destination with no access to exclusive goods for a premium.

My husband and I started playing during the Xbox Free Weekend back in January. We liked the game, and it was on sale digitally that weekend, so he bought it.

He subscribed first, because he was really enjoying the game. He was going to buy all the DLC instead (he had already bought the Imperial upgrade for the race and horse) and I pointed out he could try them out and only buy what he wanted using the crowns you get every month. He liked that idea, and subscribed.

I resisted for a while (too many things felt like a money grab), but two months later asked him to get me one, too, for the research boost. By the time my research would be done, I would have enough saved up to get all the DLC, so I would still come out ahead.

I have a few months left for my research. I have purchased the Imperial Edition upgrade and splurged on the Nightmare Coursair while it was 50% off, but have been saving the rest of my Crowns. And now the Crafting Bags are out.

I am going to stay a subscriber as long as I play this game now. I did not have incentive to subscribe after my crafter learned everything, but now I have a strong reason to stay subscribed again. The costume dye is fluff. But the crafting bags?

Zenimax is trying to entice more people to get and keep ESO+ and they are marketing it for people like me. And it's working. I love my character and I love my guild. Because of the additions to ESO+ I will be subscribing as long as I am playing, and the only thing right now that would make me quit would be a failure on ZOS' part to fix the problems Xbox is experiencing right now. As long as they fix those sorts of things before they overcome my sense of fun with the game, I will keep playing, and therefore subscribing.

That's why these new things are ESO+.

daemonios wrote: »

EstelioVeleth wrote: »

daemonios wrote: »

EstelioVeleth wrote: »

Hey ESO plus subscribers, the rest of us pays for things too ....... maybe even more than you do, yet in your eyes we are still everything that is wrong with the game and dont deserve ***

Yes. In my eyes you are. ZOS have to make money to keep the game running - that's a given. You choose to validate a model that is essentially a monopolistic market of pixels and fluff, episodic content doled out slowly and in tiny doses and that has no connection whatsoever with the cost of developing and maintaining the game. It's a bottomless pit and you can be sure they're going to try and milk every single penny they can out of you with "timed exclusives" and "collector's edition DLC".

I would much rather have a mandatory fixed subscription model where you know exactly how much you're paying for the game and everyone who plays (and therefore pays) gets access to all the content, be it a zone, a dungeon, a trial or just cosmetic stuff.

How...how do you even think? If you pay lets say 200 dollars per year, and I pay 200 too, how are YOUR money spent more valid than mine? You can also unsub at any time, just like I can stop buying crowns at any time, why is your money more valuable? Maybe you subs have to get off your high horses and think that you are the only ones keeping the game up.

For each person spending $200/year in crowns, how many freeloaders are there who just play the base game and spend nothing? So if you and I are spending that much, how much of it is subsidising other players? Guess what, mandatory subs would get no freeloaders.

In addition, microtransaction-based games invariably shift the focus of development towards filling the store with as much fluff as possible. In the case of ESO, it shows. Compare Craglorn/IC (development was underway before the switch to the store model) with TG/DB (developed after said switch).

I'm not saying your money is less valid or that you're less supportive of the game. I'm saying you're validating a model that all things considered hurt the game rather than help it.

That is correct. It's like putting microtransactions into any kind of game. The game base has to be flawed, so that the player feels the need to buy anything at all. In really bad cases of greed even "game time" called stamina in most of the cases. Or you have to pay to get past a timer.

This design choices are pure poison for any type of game, Because one day they will cross the line of what we think is acceptable. That is as sure as "Amen" in the church. I've seen that in many MMO'S so far.

They all crossed the line in my case,selling core gameplay elements as adds..