ESO+ VS Free user

Davor · June 2016

schip wrote: »

They gave us the opportunity not to subscribe, and now they're trying to lure us back in by restricting our game experience if we don't.

Here is a question. Why did they do this? Did they do it because Microsoft and Sony wouldn't give them a free pass and you would have to sub and still bet have to get Xbox Live Gold or Sony+ to play so basically paying twice? So basically the PC players get to play the game for free when before they had to pay.

So if you had to sub before then what is the big deal of subbing now? I don't get what you are trying to say.

FLuFFyxMuFFiN · June 2016

schip wrote: »

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

If you don't think ESO is worth the subscription then don't complain when people get benefits for subbing

i would subscribe if that was the only way to play the game, but it's not. that was zos' decision and now they're either rewarding or punishing us for using the options they've given us.

They aren't punishing anyone. You are punishing yourself for choosing to not be rewarded. Nothing about the sub gives an advantage over a non-sub.

Pomaikai · June 2016

L2S <--- Learn2Subscribe!

idk · June 2016

schip wrote: »

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

If you don't think ESO is worth the subscription then don't complain when people get benefits for subbing

i would subscribe if that was the only way to play the game, but it's not. that was zos' decision and now they're either rewarding or punishing us for using the options they've given us.

Zos is rewarding those who choose to by DLC instead of having a sub by permitting them to save $$$$.

Zos is rewarding those who are subscribers with some in game perks.

RandalMarrs · June 2016

Wow another thread that turns into the same argument. Enough has been said elsewhere.

GrumpStump · June 2016

I choose to do it all- pay for a sub, buy the dlc, and buy crowns. I want this game to go on for a looong time. It's more than worth it to me.

Abeille · June 2016

schip wrote: »

Pomaikai wrote: »

No, you PAID for those things. One time only. I pay monthly. There is a difference. Especially to banks when they go to them for more money. What's YOUR point?

there's a good chance subscribers/non-subscribers have spent the same amount of money on the game but we still get different game experiences

eso isn't worth a subscription when zos can't fund their game on them alone

A good chance? I would say the chance is pretty slim.

If someone is spending as much money by buying Crowns than a subscriber would over the same period, and the sub perks are oh so essential, then why wouldn't they subscribe instead? Instead of buying crowns, buy subscription months.

But Crown Purchasers do not do that. Why? Because it is cheaper for them to just buy the Crowns when the want to get a DLC. They are not putting as much money, neither they are doing that as regularly, as a subscriber is. Because if they were, they would just subscribe instead. This is just logical.

Save, of course, for the occasional oddball that buys tons of Crowns every month and doesn't realize this is a possibility, or for the people who are having trouble with their subs over xbox.

leshpar · June 2016

ESO Plus needs incentives to subscribe. Otherwise why do it? The crafting bag is a huge plus to me and I am glad to subscribe for it. The game is not pay to win and most likely never will be. If player housing was ESO Plus only as well I'd be all for it. Its a lot cheaper to sub than it is to buy all the DLC packs anyway.

Refuse2GrowUp · June 2016

None of the perks being offered to ESO+ provide any in-game combat advantage. The perks do not give you an edge in PvP, they do not help you clear dungeons, and they will not help you beat content you were previously unable. So, if none of the perks give you an advantage, then how are they Pay-to-Win?

I get that you do not like things being behind a pay wall. Such is life tho. It is very hard to offer perks that do not cross that P2W line, and ZOS is doing a decent job at finally offering some incentives to maintain your subscription. So, really it is as simple as...
* if you value the incentives then subscribe
* if you don't care enough about the incentives and are frugal, then do not subscribe
* if you want the perks but are too cheap or too broke to subscribe, then welcome to life, a wall of text on the forums will not change anything

BlackSparrow · June 2016

Abeille wrote: »

If someone is spending as much money by buying Crowns than a subscriber would over the same period, and the sub perks are oh so essential, then why wouldn't they subscribe instead? Instead of buying crowns, buy subscription months.

Two words: Sunk cost.

A lot of people who buy Crowns instead of subscribe don't expect to use so many Crowns... but by the time many do, they've purchased all the DLC with Crowns, which is something subscribers get as a perk. A lot of people don't want to get for free something they've already paid for, so they stick to buying Crowns as needed instead of subscribing, even if it's pretty much a wash in the end.

Not saying it's logical nor that it's as common as people who just subscribe... but it's definitely a thing that happens.

RandalMarrs · June 2016

These threads are turning ESO+ and free users against eachother. So the title is perfect.

Hellbender27 · June 2016

I just think people need to stop using PAY TO WIN for every anything revolving around a Subscription bonus of sorts.
P2W is when you buy Spells, Gear, weapons that are POWERFUL and are instant end game Ultimate BIS. Or items that SPEED up Weapon or gear Quality i.e example would be Tempering Alloy on crown shop which it is not ..... please stop using an over used term that has lost it's Definition

exeeter702 · June 2016

hellbender27b14_ESO wrote: »

I just think people need to stop using PAY TO WIN for every anything revolving around a Subscription bonus of sorts.
P2W is when you buy Spells, Gear, weapons that are POWERFUL and are instant end game Ultimate BIS. Or items that SPEED up Weapon or gear Quality i.e example would be Tempering Alloy on crown shop which it is not ..... please stop using an over used term that has lost it's Definition

Well if you really want to get technical, based on the original definition when the term p2w existed initially, when f2p wasn't even a thought outside of the Asian pc bang market. Buying tempering alloys etc will still not be p2w as there is a way in game without spending cash to aquire it. Yes it would be an absolutely scum bag thing to do but p2w once upon a time literally meant you were able to spend real cash.to gain a statistical advantage over players that does not spend cash, and there is no in game method in any way to match send advantage.

That is literally it. Period. No obtuse self appointed definition of what "wining" is. Expediting or circumventing a grind was never p2w and QoL convenience perks were never p2w. Someone along the years when f2p became popular and the younger generation of gamers came in, the definition of the term morphed and mutated into a jumbled incoherent mess filled with semantics.

Troneon · June 2016

It is pretty funny they are locking normal features in any other MMO behind a pay wall subscription.....

I mean stuff that should of been in the game anyway since the start with the main game launch....lol

ZOS$$$$$$$$$

MuddledMuppet · June 2016

New ESO+ perk: ability to use line break in forum posts.

ADarklore · June 2016

People that say ESO when B2P because subscription was failing... I'd like to know WHERE they got there information? They went B2P a couple months before console launch... perhaps it had something to do with Microsoft or Sony policies? Or perhaps because of the dismal reviews of PC launch, they were afraid that console players wouldn't take a risk to sub to a game with a poor history. Or, perhaps it was due to technical glitches with subscriptions on console. Who knows... but the fact remains, ZOS needs to make money and offering OPTIONS to players is better than FORCED sub or no. With subscriptions they can create a reliable annual budget which allows them to decide who to keep employed, what projects can move forward, etc. They cannot rely on DLC purchases because they are so, well, unpredictable. Thus, they would PREFER to have subscribers and are finally offering more and more 'rewards' for subscribing... which is awesome. Therefore players have options... buy DLCs and pay/play only what you want or subscribe and 'rent' all the DLCs while also receive nice rewards for giving ZOS a more reliable source of income.

Sylveria_Relden · June 2016

New ESO+ perk: ability to moderate posts of non-ESO+ posters

ADarklore wrote: »

People that say ESO when B2P because subscription was failing... I'd like to know WHERE they got there information?

^ This. I see a ton of speculation, but no credible source of information whenever people say it.

For all they know, Zenimax could have chosen Buy to Play as an alternative method of getting MORE revenue rather than through only a fixed stream (subscriptions) which only improves their chances at making more money.

People can offer supposition and theory all they want, but the fact of the matter is they did NOT drop subscriptions in favor of DLC purchases- they still offer subscriptions to this day.

bareheiny · June 2016

Rosveen wrote: »

Vangy wrote: »

AzraelKrieg wrote: »

Vangy wrote: »

Wait....

It is my understanding that everyone can dye costumes. Just that ESO+ can do it for free while the rest have to pay?
Or am I mistaken and this feature is only available to ESO+ and even they have to pay?

You're understanding is correct. ESO+ members get all dying options available to them with the sub. Non-ESO+ members need to pay for dye stamps

Ah phew. I would hate to pay for costume dyes even though im ESO+. So OP has nothing to worry about. You can dye costumes too OP. Just need to pay some crowns is all.

Not quite. The crown store will offer dye stamps with preset color schemes, rotated every now and then. So you can't choose your own scheme or even use dyes you unlocked through achievements, you have to hope ZOS will offer a combination that fits your style. It's unnecessarily limiting.

Really? Awwww.

That takes the shine of costume dying

Vangy · June 2016

I dont get it.

1. Dyes were clearly only for gear. No indication was ever given to us that costumes could be dyed. We earned these dyes and as a result, can dye our gear any colour we like.

2. We bought costumes which had a preview fully knowing that no dyeing option was around. Infact, costume dyeing was something Zenimax announced recently. I bought costumes knowing full and well that dyeing might never ever come out and that Id be stuck with that costume colour.

So now, that ZOS is OFFERING people the choice to buy dyes, and giving it out to ESO+ for free, people arent happy? You earned dyes for gear. They were never supposed to be usable for costumes. You paid for the costume u have. You didnt pay for any color changes?

This is insanity..... You already have what you paid for and what you earned. This new feature of dyeing costumes is just that. A new feature. Why do you think you should be auto entitled to these features?

Even the "dye station" help screen in ESO clearly lists that dye stations are for applying dyes "to your armour". Not for anything else. That is what you unlocked in game. Not the ability to dye whatever you want anything you like. Ya'll should be thankful that ZOS lets us dye our shields and weapons (in the future) without paying crowns lol.

Tekyn · June 2016

1. Release buy-to-play game with subscription requirement. No riff-raff here.
2. Drop subscription requirement, but keep buy-to-play requirement to keep out the free-to-play elements.
3. Make subscriptions good enough to be considered mandatory to most players.

And then you have the best of both worlds. A game sale brings in an influx of new players (like the recent one on PC), who can try the game out in trial mode (non-subscription) for as long as they want, and can even buy into as much or little of the content as they want. Options for everyone that all encourage money coming in, all while keeping out a large chunk of the unwanted elements that unlimited free-to-play accounts bring in.

So far none of the subscription bonuses equate to a subscription character having a combat advantage over a free player. If it stays that way I think the fuss will be small enough that it will work.

Sylveria_Relden · June 2016

The problem with them changing the model as it stands is the Khajit is already out of the bag, so to speak.

If they were to introduce mandatory subscriptions now, all those who've bought the game at full price for access (without even considering DLC purchases) would be in an uproar- and restricting those who've purchased access to DLC would likewise.

The only way for them to introduce mandatory subs at this point is if they offered content NOT available for DLC purchase in the Crown Store, only to subscribers- say a new landmass, etc.

They (Zenimax) made the decision, for whatever reason to open the game to non-subscribers and in so doing have also opened a can of worms in the process. I do agree, however, that mandatory subs ARE the best way to keep riff-raff out of the game, as most would be unlikely to sink a ton of invested money into it on a continuous basis if they're likely to get their accounts banned.

I really don't know what the "answer" is here- only hope that they continue to make subscriptions more enticing and content exclusive to subscribers- things that aren't offered in the Crown Store as an "alternative" to subscriptions.

bareheiny · June 2016

Man, so much hate for non-subscribers

Free to play got me to try my first MMO....I quickly brought some DLC, then became a subscriber for the better part of the last four years or so. If that game didn't have a f2p option, I wouldn't have tried it....and I'd probably have a bit more cash.

If ESO was subscription only, I probably wouldn't be playing (and subscribing) now.

If you want to get more folk playing the game, give them options that don't require an initial outlay and then regular payments...if you want to encourage subscriptions, provide incentives (such as the dying and crafting bags).

To keep the forumites happy, maybe add a function (possibly free to subscribers, but also available for Crowns) that will automagically filter the endless cries of "unfair", "booo", "I want XYZ because I paid for the game, but don't want to subscribe" from the unwashed masses.

Tekyn · June 2016

bareheiny wrote: »

Man, so much hate for non-subscribers

Just to clarify, the comments in my post about free-to-play elements are directed at how people behave when given free throw-away accounts on the fly, and the gold-selling market invading in numbers.

Free-to-play games have easy access, but that cuts both ways. There are some games where half your screen is gold-seller spam 24/7. At release it was pretty bad even here due to people buying gold and getting their accounts hacked in return. I don't miss it.

bareheiny · June 2016

Tekyn wrote: »

bareheiny wrote: »

Man, so much hate for non-subscribers

Just to clarify, the comments in my post about free-to-play elements are directed at how people behave when given free throw-away accounts on the fly, and the gold-selling market invading in numbers.

Free-to-play games have easy access, but that cuts both ways. There are some games where half your screen is gold-seller spam 24/7. At release it was pretty bad even here due to people buying gold and getting their accounts hacked in return. I don't miss it.

Something...something...master race...something

Account hacking and gold sellers isn't something that I've struck all that often, but then I'm not playing on PC. But I have seen some unbelievable chat-text in another game (again, on console).

It may be an argument for restricting text chat (I'm assuming it doesn't happen over voice channels), but I'm not sure that it's an argument against f2p type accounts.

Emma_Overload · June 2016

ADarklore wrote: »

I love how people post comments and then ask people not to reply if they don't agree... which is how I take the, "if you have nothing nice to say please don't say anything at all" comment.

First off, this has been discussed in NUMEROUS ongoing threads already, there was no need to start another one other than seemingly to draw attention to the OP. Furthermore, apparently the OP thinks that people should sub and expect to receive practically NOTHING in return for their investment... other than renting the DLCs (which if that was the only reason to sub it would be cheaper to buy them individually)... which is what many were doing. FINALLY ZOS realized that it needed to make ESO+ more attractive since they would gain more money in the long run from subs, so they began adding more incentives to increase subs, which has worked. Funny how people can expect a game to continue updates, additions, fixes, etc... without any ongoing source of steady income- which is what ESO+ generates... steady, reliable, income that they can better create an annual budget based upon- which isn't something they can do based upon whether or not someone is going to buy a DLC or not.

So yes, OP... ZOS will continue to increase the value of ESO+ to increase their reliable income... if you want those perks that come with ESO+, then all you have to do is sub.

Your memory is apparently very short. ZOS already had a great incentive to sub when the game launched in 2014... subbing was the ONLY way you could play the game! ZOS themselves were the ones who decided to offer an alternative payment option in the form of DLC, so they have NO ONE TO BLAME BUT THEMSELVES if they don't think their income from DLC is "steady" enough.

And NO, I'm not going to sub, because that would mean renting content that I've already bought and paid for. Why is it so hard for you guys to understand that DLC purchasers don't want to pay twice for the same stuff?

Emma_Overload · June 2016

Refuse2GrowUp wrote: »

None of the perks being offered to ESO+ provide any in-game combat advantage. The perks do not give you an edge in PvP, they do not help you clear dungeons, and they will not help you beat content you were previously unable. So, if none of the perks give you an advantage, then how are they Pay-to-Win?

I get that you do not like things being behind a pay wall. Such is life tho. It is very hard to offer perks that do not cross that P2W line, and ZOS is doing a decent job at finally offering some incentives to maintain your subscription. So, really it is as simple as...
* if you value the incentives then subscribe
* if you don't care enough about the incentives and are frugal, then do not subscribe
* if you want the perks but are too cheap or too broke to subscribe, then welcome to life, a wall of text on the forums will not change anything

In an MMO, time is power. I have 703 CP (as of today) that I spent hundreds of hours grinding, and those CP give me an enormous advantage over players who can't (or won't) spend as much time grinding.

The crafting bag is a massive time saver, pure and simple. All the time previously spent shuffling inventories of mats between mules can now be spent doing other things... like grinding for gold or CP or powerful gear. You know, stuff that helps you WIN.

Therefore, the crafting bag IS pay-to-win, because it saves you time you could be using to make your characters more powerful.

Korah_Eaglecry · June 2016

Vangy wrote: »

Wait....

It is my understanding that everyone can dye costumes. Just that ESO+ can do it for free while the rest have to pay?
Or am I mistaken and this feature is only available to ESO+ and even they have to pay?

Is it free if theyre paying a monthly sub to do so?

Transairion wrote: »

AmberLaTerra wrote: »

Cry us a river, maybe you can find a way to bottle the tears and sell them to pay for sub.

Seriously no sub income = no game. Them adding perks to ESO+ both helps keep the game alive for everyone, and gives a valid reason to sub.

This always comes up for different MMO's, but it just isn't true. If subs added so much money, all these MMO's wouldn't go F2P or Buy 2 Play instead of just staying a sub only model like the developers intended.

Subs alone don't make enough money, simple as that. Sure, you want to have subs, but relying on subs only is stupid since they can't support your game. ESO itself only managed to last a single year on a sub-only model, which was hilariously sad.

Im going to assume you werent here before console launch because it was pretty obvious then that the reason they were doing this was because of Consoles paying a sub for their access to online modes for their games with Microsoft and Sony. Thats why this game went B2P.

Burning_Talons · June 2016

Pomaikai wrote: »

schip wrote: »

Pomaikai wrote: »

No we're not just "twiddling our thumbs", we're being rewarded like every other membership perk program offered by businesses in the world, for being subscribers and giving them extra money. We're PAYING for our perks. You want the perks? Then pay for it like we do!

i am paying for the game and giving them extra money for dlc's and crowns, what's your point

No, you PAID for those things. One time only. I pay monthly. There is a difference. Especially to banks when they go to them for more money. What's YOUR point?

You pay for crowns!!! Thats it so whats the difference to you buying $15 crowns a month then my buying $60 worth of crowns bi-monthly? Nothing get that elitism act out of here. You know not everyone is old enough for a CC or their parents dont approve right? Subbing does nothing more than a full time crown buyer. I cancelled mine for a reason. ESO+ players are just getting annoying now. Feeling entitled and special asking for insane amount of unfair excuses to name a few. Queue priority,Motifs, Crafting sets at any station. Just play the game. You guys just think of yourselves not thinking in others shoes sho want to play the game and still have to worry about the $60 yearly fee for their online playing (Consoles), their family or mortgage and play eso for fun but gets screwed over from featues that should have been in from the start. You wouldn't know about this though huh?

/Rant @Pomaikai

I know not all eso+ players are like this just didnt feel like typing it every sentence

Vangy · June 2016

Burning_Talons wrote: »

Pomaikai wrote: »

schip wrote: »

Pomaikai wrote: »

No we're not just "twiddling our thumbs", we're being rewarded like every other membership perk program offered by businesses in the world, for being subscribers and giving them extra money. We're PAYING for our perks. You want the perks? Then pay for it like we do!

i am paying for the game and giving them extra money for dlc's and crowns, what's your point

No, you PAID for those things. One time only. I pay monthly. There is a difference. Especially to banks when they go to them for more money. What's YOUR point?

You pay for crowns!!! Thats it so whats the difference to you buying $15 crowns a month then my buying $60 worth of crowns bi-monthly? Nothing get that elitism act out of here. You know not everyone is old enough for a CC or their parents dont approve right? Subbing does nothing more than a full time crown buyer. I cancelled mine for a reason. ESO+ players are just getting annoying now. Feeling entitled and special asking for insane amount of unfair excuses to name a few. Queue priority,Motifs, Crafting sets at any station. Just play the game. You guys just think of yourselves not thinking in others shoes sho want to play the game and still have to worry about the $60 yearly fee for their online playing (Consoles), their family or mortgage and play eso for fun but gets screwed over from featues that should have been in from the start. You wouldn't know about this though huh?

/Rant @Pomaikai

I know not all eso+ players are like this just didnt feel like typing it every sentence

@Burning_Talons
? Wait im an ESO+ subscriber and your telling me im paying 15 bucks for 1500 crowns? Until crafting bags came out, I always thought ESO+ was one of the worlds biggest ripoffs. Crown sales offer 5500 crowns at 20 bucks. Even for non-sale 5500 crowns is like 39.99..... The 10% bonus to jack-all is kinda worth nothing..... Id save 50% money or more by just stocking up on crown sales and getting DLC's + a mount or costume every now and then while still having crowns to spare. And I'd own all the DLC's too.

I will say some of the subscribers have insane demands like you pointed out. But so far, craft bags and dyeing of costumes, im fine with it being only for ESO+. There needs to be some benefit to being shafted for *** tons more money every month for that wee little bit of crowns.

petraeus1 · June 2016

Vangy wrote: »

I dont get it.

1. Dyes were clearly only for gear. No indication was ever given to us that costumes could be dyed. We earned these dyes and as a result, can dye our gear any colour we like.

2. We bought costumes which had a preview fully knowing that no dyeing option was around. Infact, costume dyeing was something Zenimax announced recently. I bought costumes knowing full and well that dyeing might never ever come out and that Id be stuck with that costume colour.

So now, that ZOS is OFFERING people the choice to buy dyes, and giving it out to ESO+ for free, people arent happy? You earned dyes for gear. They were never supposed to be usable for costumes. You paid for the costume u have. You didnt pay for any color changes?

This is insanity..... You already have what you paid for and what you earned. This new feature of dyeing costumes is just that. A new feature. Why do you think you should be auto entitled to these features?

Even the "dye station" help screen in ESO clearly lists that dye stations are for applying dyes "to your armour". Not for anything else. That is what you unlocked in game. Not the ability to dye whatever you want anything you like. Ya'll should be thankful that ZOS lets us dye our shields and weapons (in the future) without paying crowns lol.

I agree, but I do see the downsides. I perceived costume dyeing as a system to encourage people to buy more costumes. I held off on buying costumes to see this system first. I am a B2P player. Now that I know that to dye my bought costumes I'll have to double dip in to my wallet, I won't buy any costumes. Costumes are already quite expensive at 700 up to a 1000 Crowns.

I don't think it was unreasonable to assume that the current dye system would be extended to incorporate costumes. That is what they did with shields after all. I also think there will be casual players who will reasonably assume so only to find out dyeing costumes requires extra payment, after they already bought their new costumes.

I don't feel like I deserve free costume dyeing, but I don't think this is the best way for ZOS to go around it either.

My solution: when buying a costume from the Crown Store, give players a one-time use only token to change the colours of a costume. Keep the rest as is. ESO+ keep their new perk of dyeing whenever whatever, the rest have to buy stamps if they wanna dye it again. I think that would encourage much more players to buy costumes and sooth the unhappiness.

Edit: I also disagree with the general sentiment that players should be happy with ZOS developing anything at all and not charging Crowns for it. While I agree with battleing entitlement, I surely wouldn't want to encourage ZOS to monetize every inch of continued development this game receives, nor do I see why anyone else would want that. Nor do I understand why anyone here is concerned with ZOS' income. ZOS is doing fine financially, I'm sure. I don't understand why pleas to make cosmetic options more widely available are a bad thing.

One could argue the B2P crowd is entitled for wanting access to this feature without subbing, but the same could be said of the P2P crowd who wants this feature to remain an ESO+ perk (which they didn't know it would be 5 days ago), simply because their spending habits in terms of ESO are regular and monthly. Silliest discussion ever.