Dear ZOS, don't let double bank for subber happen

SickDuck · April 2017

AndyTGD wrote: »

Don't mind us loyal non-subs, ZOS. We'll just sit with our meagre ration of storage spaces as you increase the number of in-world items ten fold. I would pay a reasonable price for 10-20 additional spaces if you offered a Crown Storage Chest for housing, but nope - subscription option only. You could make housing actually functional with such options and keep everyone happy.

Loyal "non-sub", wth? Guess it's a nicer term than "persistent leech". I don't get it, a cheap subscription fee that gives plenty QoL perks is a no-no, but if some of those perks sold in the generally overpriced CS then it's fine?

seaef · April 2017

Rosveen wrote: »

postlarval wrote: »

Graydon wrote: »

Lyserus wrote: »

You know that when you are obviously trying hard, it will actually make the negative effect?

Few days ago you guys says “Oh Most of the people don't upgrade their bank so no need for storage in housing!” and now you are like “so to increase the value of subscription we are giving subbers——more storage! You guys sure love it!”

This is not how it works.

You could give subbers all kinds of benefit that make ppl want to sub （like double speed for trait research and mount training while online, or free pvp items Every week, hell even a pvp item bag is welcome), but no you have to give the burden to storage alone.
And that will lead to, when people are forced to find a way （mule, mailing each other, second account etc） to solve the storage provlem, the decline of subscription.

I will Seriously consider quit the sub （not the game, and i will buy things in crown store to Support ZOS, but I probably won't sub anymore because I don't like the way this is going）, and I know I am not the only one.

So ZOS, if you really want to make more people sub, give us something else except for storage

Wait...what?

Such an informative and useful post.

I think I've learned:

1. You are subbing not subbing but subbing.

2. Extra storage sucks.

3. You think threatening ZOS will be taken seriously.

4. You are important.

Rate the OP 4 stars if I could!

He's not subbed. Probably another freeloader who wants the same things as a person who pays.

Ever heard of the crown store? Newsflash: non-subs use it too. And we all paid for the base game.

Yes, yes, I know. Newsflash: We ALL paid for the base game.

I highly doubt the OP uses the Crown Store, in addition to my claim he doesn't sub.

He probably looked at the Digital Edition and the Gold Edition and then tried to buy the Millennial Edition. That's the edition that gives you an ESO+ sub, unlimited crowns, immediately raises you to 50/600, makes you invincible in PvP, plays the game for you, and constantly flashes the words "you are special and important" across the screen -- all for the box price.

[SNIp]

Kids. Ugh.

[Edited for Insult]

Elsonso · April 2017

AndyTGD wrote: »

Don't mind us loyal non-subs, ZOS. We'll just sit with our meagre ration of storage spaces as you increase the number of in-world items ten fold. I would pay a reasonable price for 10-20 additional spaces if you offered a Crown Storage Chest for housing, but nope - subscription option only. You could make housing actually functional with such options and keep everyone happy.

You know, they might tweak this to say that ESO Plus gets double bank space, up to 480 slots, and allow everyone else, including ESO Plus members, to pay Crowns to get to 480. They might even consider letting people pay gold.

AndyTGD · April 2017

SickDuck wrote: »

AndyTGD wrote: »

Don't mind us loyal non-subs, ZOS. We'll just sit with our meagre ration of storage spaces as you increase the number of in-world items ten fold. I would pay a reasonable price for 10-20 additional spaces if you offered a Crown Storage Chest for housing, but nope - subscription option only. You could make housing actually functional with such options and keep everyone happy.

Loyal "non-sub", wth? Guess it's a nicer term than "persistent leech". I don't get it, a cheap subscription fee that gives plenty QoL perks is a no-no, but if some of those perks sold in the generally overpriced CS then it's fine?

Some of us can't afford a subscription and invest what little money we have into one-off Crown purchases, rather than a yearly set subscription. It is more affordable for me and doesn't make me any less loyal a customer - I've stuck with this game through all its glitchy awfulness and invested my time and money in it, so do please get off your bourgeois subscription high-horse.

SickDuck · April 2017

AndyTGD wrote: »

SickDuck wrote: »

AndyTGD wrote: »

Don't mind us loyal non-subs, ZOS. We'll just sit with our meagre ration of storage spaces as you increase the number of in-world items ten fold. I would pay a reasonable price for 10-20 additional spaces if you offered a Crown Storage Chest for housing, but nope - subscription option only. You could make housing actually functional with such options and keep everyone happy.

Loyal "non-sub", wth? Guess it's a nicer term than "persistent leech". I don't get it, a cheap subscription fee that gives plenty QoL perks is a no-no, but if some of those perks sold in the generally overpriced CS then it's fine?

Some of us can't afford a subscription and invest what little money we have into one-off Crown purchases, rather than a yearly set subscription. It is more affordable for me and doesn't make me any less loyal a customer - I've stuck with this game through all its glitchy awfulness and invested my time and money in it, so do please get off your bourgeois subscription high-horse.

Last time I've checked 6 months sub cost less than two 5k crown packs and contained almost the same amount of crowns too. That high horse of mine needs massive high heels just to sniff the a$$ of a pony.

I get that people don't want to or can't afford to spend on this game. But the thing is ESO+ is the best purchase in the whole game by far, so it boggles me if anyone saying buying CS items is better than subs.

And again, maybe... maybe... if people would have been vocal on things like bank(/inventory) space and not contradicting threads on the topic by the masses then maybe ZOS would have considered adding it in the base game. For gold. But all threads went into "noob hoarders" and "l2p" arguments so that's what you get as a result. Especially when ZOS' own statistics suggesting there's no general need for such thing.

Double bank is perfect ESO+ perk. It gives something meaningful and useful (vs. non-combat pets or costumes). It is highly sought after by a group of people while others do not care about it. It is not a necessity but a nice QoL addition. Absolutely hits the spot.

idk · April 2017

AndyTGD wrote: »

SickDuck wrote: »

AndyTGD wrote: »

Don't mind us loyal non-subs, ZOS. We'll just sit with our meagre ration of storage spaces as you increase the number of in-world items ten fold. I would pay a reasonable price for 10-20 additional spaces if you offered a Crown Storage Chest for housing, but nope - subscription option only. You could make housing actually functional with such options and keep everyone happy.

Loyal "non-sub", wth? Guess it's a nicer term than "persistent leech". I don't get it, a cheap subscription fee that gives plenty QoL perks is a no-no, but if some of those perks sold in the generally overpriced CS then it's fine?

Some of us can't afford a subscription and invest what little money we have into one-off Crown purchases, rather than a yearly set subscription. It is more affordable for me and doesn't make me any less loyal a customer - I've stuck with this game through all its glitchy awfulness and invested my time and money in it, so do please get off your bourgeois subscription high-horse.

I would suggest this is not a punishment for those that do not sub. Just look at SWTOR to see the major hindrance placed on those that do not sub as a great example of what I am saying.

This is more ESO attempting to make the subscription have more value to entice more to sign up for it. While all revenue is desired, the regular payments of subs does cost more than just buying DLCs and more so with the new model Zos recently announced. More value for the subscription is warranted.

bg22 · April 2017

Wait... wtf?

Adding storage to something you're already paying for is going to make you quit, and the number of subscribers is going to drop?

Wut?

.... Wut?

SlayerSyrena · April 2017

More storage. Yes, please!

Bouldercleave · April 2017

Acrolas wrote: »

The perks aren't really the problem though.

The problem is that every year there's some sort of major revision that suggests a lack of a long-term written plan. And so long as it feels like they're being whimsical and unpredictable on their end, one can't help but feel at least a little bit wary about what next year's revisions will be.

Because we've all probably seen at least one company and one game/site where that next revision was a GAME OVER. And beforehand the ownership was either, "Everything's fine" or completely silent. Even though the constant restructuring and weird monetization said otherwise.

We've all probably seen the small business guy who said, "So long as just one person is interested, I'm going to keep doing this," and then he stops doing it the next year because he found something he likes better.

It's not 1995. We see the rise and fall of something in real time every single week. I'm okay with the ESO+ perks as they are right now. The perk I want for everybody is that this team will speak up early if there's ever a problem, not wait until the train full of ships is crashing and burning and sinking before saying, look we need to have a serious discussion about the future.

THAT is what keeps us playing the long game. Not bank space. Not expansions. But a two-way circuit of trust between the community and the developers. Because people can only take so much shuffling and change before they said *** this. ZOS has through Morrowind to enjoy this TES3 anniversary campaign. But starting in July, a little more insight on why past schedules did not work, and a little more empirical assurance that this new schedule is both reasonable for them and sustainable for us all.

And then keep talking to us regularly. They should know by now that we don't like silence. Nobody does, really. But even a programmer or art team article shows that somebody is willing to share some new information, even if it won't appeal to every person playing the game.

... what was this thread about again?

I don't even know where to begin...

No company on this PLANET would be willing to tell their customer base that there is "problem" and that "they need to have a serious discussion about the future". (your words)

Frankly, unless you are a shareholder it is none of your business. You are asking for WAY more than any company is obligated to divulge.

There is a lot of "shuffle and change" because this industry in this time is a very fluid and ever changing landscape. They try things, and if they work - great. If not, time to shuffle. The company that is NOT willing to adjust and shuffle is the one that fails (anyone remember Kodak?).

You are not entitled to the information that you are requesting.

AndyTGD · April 2017

SickDuck wrote: »

AndyTGD wrote: »

SickDuck wrote: »

AndyTGD wrote: »

Don't mind us loyal non-subs, ZOS. We'll just sit with our meagre ration of storage spaces as you increase the number of in-world items ten fold. I would pay a reasonable price for 10-20 additional spaces if you offered a Crown Storage Chest for housing, but nope - subscription option only. You could make housing actually functional with such options and keep everyone happy.

Loyal "non-sub", wth? Guess it's a nicer term than "persistent leech". I don't get it, a cheap subscription fee that gives plenty QoL perks is a no-no, but if some of those perks sold in the generally overpriced CS then it's fine?

Some of us can't afford a subscription and invest what little money we have into one-off Crown purchases, rather than a yearly set subscription. It is more affordable for me and doesn't make me any less loyal a customer - I've stuck with this game through all its glitchy awfulness and invested my time and money in it, so do please get off your bourgeois subscription high-horse.

Last time I've checked 6 months sub cost less than two 5k crown packs and contained almost the same amount of crowns too. That high horse of mine needs massive high heels just to sniff the a$$ of a pony.

I get that people don't want to or can't afford to spend on this game. But the thing is ESO+ is the best purchase in the whole game by far, so it boggles me if anyone saying buying CS items is better than subs.

And again, maybe... maybe... if people would have been vocal on things like bank(/inventory) space and not contradicting threads on the topic by the masses then maybe ZOS would have considered adding it in the base game. For gold. But all threads went into "noob hoarders" and "l2p" arguments so that's what you get as a result. Especially when ZOS' own statistics suggesting there's no general need for such thing.

Double bank is perfect ESO+ perk. It gives something meaningful and useful (vs. non-combat pets or costumes). It is highly sought after by a group of people while others do not care about it. It is not a necessity but a nice QoL addition. Absolutely hits the spot.

Relative to how much money I have to invest in the game, people like yourself invest much more - and that's cool, its your money to spend as you see fit. I don't have enough to invest in two 5k crown packs. The point being, I and others like me are not 'persistent leeches' (rather than loyal customers) for investing what we can into the game. You might think that the sub is good value for money, relative to your coffers, but it isn't relative to what I have to spend. For me, on my restrictive budget, individual and selective Crown Store purchases make much more sense.

I've got to say, I think that lordrichter's solution is a great compromise and hope that ZOS will consider a model along these lines. I have no problem with the sub service being buffed with perks like extra inventory spaces (honestly, it needs more like this to make it a tempting option for people), but things are starting to get uncomfortably restrictive in the storage department for folks who don't have the crafting bags etc. and Morrowind's (no doubt copious) content hasn't even landed yet. ZOS is a business and can do as it wishes, but I for one would appreciate the choice of a sensible non-sub option.

Wrecking_Blow_Spam · April 2017

So much troll subbers in this thread, if any of you read the OP you can clearly see what's being said....
the non subbers are getting shafted and it leaves, shall we say a bad taste in the mouth.

They need the extra storage, any "subber" who says otherwise is a bitter troll.

ADarklore · April 2017

AndyTGD wrote: »

SickDuck wrote: »

AndyTGD wrote: »

SickDuck wrote: »

AndyTGD wrote: »

Don't mind us loyal non-subs, ZOS. We'll just sit with our meagre ration of storage spaces as you increase the number of in-world items ten fold. I would pay a reasonable price for 10-20 additional spaces if you offered a Crown Storage Chest for housing, but nope - subscription option only. You could make housing actually functional with such options and keep everyone happy.

Loyal "non-sub", wth? Guess it's a nicer term than "persistent leech". I don't get it, a cheap subscription fee that gives plenty QoL perks is a no-no, but if some of those perks sold in the generally overpriced CS then it's fine?

Some of us can't afford a subscription and invest what little money we have into one-off Crown purchases, rather than a yearly set subscription. It is more affordable for me and doesn't make me any less loyal a customer - I've stuck with this game through all its glitchy awfulness and invested my time and money in it, so do please get off your bourgeois subscription high-horse.

Last time I've checked 6 months sub cost less than two 5k crown packs and contained almost the same amount of crowns too. That high horse of mine needs massive high heels just to sniff the a$$ of a pony.

I get that people don't want to or can't afford to spend on this game. But the thing is ESO+ is the best purchase in the whole game by far, so it boggles me if anyone saying buying CS items is better than subs.

And again, maybe... maybe... if people would have been vocal on things like bank(/inventory) space and not contradicting threads on the topic by the masses then maybe ZOS would have considered adding it in the base game. For gold. But all threads went into "noob hoarders" and "l2p" arguments so that's what you get as a result. Especially when ZOS' own statistics suggesting there's no general need for such thing.

Double bank is perfect ESO+ perk. It gives something meaningful and useful (vs. non-combat pets or costumes). It is highly sought after by a group of people while others do not care about it. It is not a necessity but a nice QoL addition. Absolutely hits the spot.

Relative to how much money I have to invest in the game, people like yourself invest much more - and that's cool, its your money to spend as you see fit. I don't have enough to invest in two 5k crown packs. The point being, I and others like me are not 'persistent leeches' (rather than loyal customers) for investing what we can into the game. You might think that the sub is good value for money, relative to your coffers, but it isn't relative to what I have to spend. For me, on my restrictive budget, individual and selective Crown Store purchases make much more sense.

I've got to say, I think that lordrichter's solution is a great compromise and hope that ZOS will consider a model along these lines. I have no problem with the sub service being buffed with perks like extra inventory spaces (honestly, it needs more like this to make it a tempting option for people), but things are starting to get uncomfortably restrictive in the storage department for folks who don't have the crafting bags etc. and Morrowind's (no doubt copious) content hasn't even landed yet. ZOS is a business and can do as it wishes, but I for one would appreciate the choice of a sensible non-sub option.

Here is the problem... 'for you' your restrictive budge makes more sense, but for ZOS, which is a 'for profit' company, it does not. Thus, it is incentivizing ESO+ to gain more subscribers, while at the same time offering little to those who cannot afford or do not wish to afford to support the game beyond purchase and occasional Crown Store purchases. People may not like to hear it, but beyond the initial purchase, those who do not contribute financially continuously to the company are more of a drain on resources than an asset. It sucks that people are in financial situations that aren't good, BUT, they also shouldn't expect the world to be offered for little or nothing either. You can still play the game, still receive updates, etc... but additional perks that go towards attracting more subscribers you should not be entitled to.

O_LYKOS · April 2017

I'm sure eso + subscribers won't be complaining. I certainly won't be lol a lot of us need it. I also imagine the mojority of subs are long term players who do have full slot upgrades etc

Fodore · April 2017

Can garuntee you won't unsub. If you do you'll resub as soon as you can when you realise how much you miss everything

FuriousFridge · April 2017

Lyserus wrote: »

You know that when you are obviously trying hard, it will actually make the negative effect?

Few days ago you guys says “Oh Most of the people don't upgrade their bank so no need for storage in housing!” and now you are like “so to increase the value of subscription we are giving subbers——more storage! You guys sure love it!”

This is not how it works.

You could give subbers all kinds of benefit that make ppl want to sub （like double speed for trait research and mount training while online, or free pvp items Every week, hell even a pvp item bag is welcome), but no you have to give the burden to storage alone.
And that will lead to, when people are forced to find a way （mule, mailing each other, second account etc） to solve the storage provlem, the decline of subscription.

I will Seriously consider quit the sub （not the game, and i will buy things in crown store to Support ZOS, but I probably won't sub anymore because I don't like the way this is going）, and I know I am not the only one.

So ZOS, if you really want to make more people sub, give us something else except for storage

FuriousFridge · April 2017

Lol you make me sick

JKorr · April 2017

Wrecking_Blow_Spam wrote: »

BigBragg wrote: »

aliyavana wrote: »

Lyserus wrote: »

You know that when you are obviously trying hard, it will actually make the negative effect?

Few days ago you guys says “Oh Most of the people don't upgrade their bank so no need for storage in housing!” and now you are like “so to increase the value of subscription we are giving subbers——more storage! You guys sure love it!”

This is not how it works.

You could give subbers all kinds of benefit that make ppl want to sub （like double speed for trait research and mount training while online, or free pvp items Every week, hell even a pvp item bag is welcome), but no you have to give the burden to storage alone.
And that will lead to, when people are forced to find a way （mule, mailing each other, second account etc） to solve the storage provlem, the decline of subscription.

I will Seriously consider quit the sub （not the game, and i will buy things in crown store to Support ZOS, but I probably won't sub anymore because I don't like the way this is going）, and I know I am not the only one.

So ZOS, if you really want to make more people sub, give us something else except for storage

People complaining about free stuff? Nothing new here

Please, teach me how to sub for free!

So much this ^^^

I'm ok with subscribers having crafting bag but come on, seriously Zo$?
Giving them actual bank space and non subscribers get jack crap? That's some bullcrap.

Non subs NEED extra bank space too.

..snip...

I don't and won't sub out of principle, inventory is a massive headache.
I've got my own guild bank which helps but all these BoP items are a pain to manage.

[Edited for Bashing]

Yep. ZOS should totally give extra benefits to the people who aren't supporting the game with a sub. Yep. Makes complete sense. [/sarcasm] Not.

You don't and won't sub, but you are admitting to gaming the system to get a 500 slot guild bank to yourself. So you have your normal bank space, plus the 500 guild bank slots available. AND you're complaining that subbers are going to get more bank space. Double the normal bank space that still isn't equal to the normal space + 500 slots..... Akatosh, hypocrite much?

JKorr · April 2017

OrphanHelgen wrote: »

wiz12268b14_ESO wrote: »

OrphanHelgen wrote: »

Speed and items would be pay to win. Bank space doesn't affect new players who want to see if they like the game or not. Double bank space are spot on in my opinion.

Pick ANY other MMO with a sub optional approach...RIFT, LOTRO, Swotor, Wildstar, and probably a few more. If they offered "double bank space'' as an incentive for subbing would anyone actually care, let alone be a major selling point for subscribing?

Like I said the ONLY reason people care in this game is because the biggest monetized portion of this game is inventory.

Still pay 2 win

Uh huh. Getting more bank space will instantly make everyone who subs Emperor/Empress, give them all the monster helms/shoulders, and ALL the sharpened maelstrom weapons so they can "WIN"!

Can't wait to get my new title, weapons, and gear. Cause, like, I'm subbed, so cool.

Rosveen · April 2017

JKorr wrote: »

OrphanHelgen wrote: »

wiz12268b14_ESO wrote: »

OrphanHelgen wrote: »

Speed and items would be pay to win. Bank space doesn't affect new players who want to see if they like the game or not. Double bank space are spot on in my opinion.

Pick ANY other MMO with a sub optional approach...RIFT, LOTRO, Swotor, Wildstar, and probably a few more. If they offered "double bank space'' as an incentive for subbing would anyone actually care, let alone be a major selling point for subscribing?

Like I said the ONLY reason people care in this game is because the biggest monetized portion of this game is inventory.

Still pay 2 win

Uh huh. Getting more bank space will instantly make everyone who subs Emperor/Empress, give them all the monster helms/shoulders, and ALL the sharpened maelstrom weapons so they can "WIN"!

Can't wait to get my new title, weapons, and gear. Cause, like, I'm subbed, so cool.

These things constitute winning if you're a competitive PvPer or PvEer. However, if you're a dedicated crafter or trader, you have different win conditions and the crafting bag is immensely helpful in bringing you closer to achieving them.

Tandor · April 2017

O_LYKOS wrote: »

I'm sure eso + subscribers won't be complaining. I certainly won't be lol a lot of us need it. I also imagine the mojority of subs are long term players who do have full slot upgrades etc

Long-term player yes, not with full slot upgrades however. I've subbed continuously since launch, never seen a reason not to although at one point I switched my sub from my main account to my second account and then back again. I appreciate the thought behind the extra bank storage although I haven't needed it since getting the crafting bag.

The only problem I have with subbing is the xp boost which I don't really want.

xeNNNNN · April 2017

Bouldercleave wrote: »

Acrolas wrote: »

The perks aren't really the problem though.

The problem is that every year there's some sort of major revision that suggests a lack of a long-term written plan. And so long as it feels like they're being whimsical and unpredictable on their end, one can't help but feel at least a little bit wary about what next year's revisions will be.

Because we've all probably seen at least one company and one game/site where that next revision was a GAME OVER. And beforehand the ownership was either, "Everything's fine" or completely silent. Even though the constant restructuring and weird monetization said otherwise.

We've all probably seen the small business guy who said, "So long as just one person is interested, I'm going to keep doing this," and then he stops doing it the next year because he found something he likes better.

It's not 1995. We see the rise and fall of something in real time every single week. I'm okay with the ESO+ perks as they are right now. The perk I want for everybody is that this team will speak up early if there's ever a problem, not wait until the train full of ships is crashing and burning and sinking before saying, look we need to have a serious discussion about the future.

THAT is what keeps us playing the long game. Not bank space. Not expansions. But a two-way circuit of trust between the community and the developers. Because people can only take so much shuffling and change before they said *** this. ZOS has through Morrowind to enjoy this TES3 anniversary campaign. But starting in July, a little more insight on why past schedules did not work, and a little more empirical assurance that this new schedule is both reasonable for them and sustainable for us all.

And then keep talking to us regularly. They should know by now that we don't like silence. Nobody does, really. But even a programmer or art team article shows that somebody is willing to share some new information, even if it won't appeal to every person playing the game.

... what was this thread about again?

I don't even know where to begin...

No company on this PLANET would be willing to tell their customer base that there is "problem" and that "they need to have a serious discussion about the future". (your words)

Frankly, unless you are a shareholder it is none of your business. You are asking for WAY more than any company is obligated to divulge.

There is a lot of "shuffle and change" because this industry in this time is a very fluid and ever changing landscape. They try things, and if they work - great. If not, time to shuffle. The company that is NOT willing to adjust and shuffle is the one that fails (anyone remember Kodak?).

You are not entitled to the information that you are requesting.

The ignorance of some people who are posting here is incredible. Same goes for anyone asking what he wants.

Like, I honestly wonder....if half the people here started a business with their business mentality how many would be successful?

Probably around 2%.

If a company actually even bothered to divulge that kind of information they would actually shoot themselves in the foot so yes you are correct, that guy and others with that thought process are in no way entitled to that kind of information nor should a company even remotely go down that path unless they actually want to get beaten by competitors or face closer.

As for the actual topic: Subs lost 2 quaters worth of DLC they should of had access to which decentivises subbing, So while meager, the doubling of bagspace is welcomed.

Acrolas · April 2017

Bouldercleave wrote: »

There is a lot of "shuffle and change" because this industry in this time is a very fluid and ever changing landscape. They try things, and if they work - great. If not, time to shuffle. The company that is NOT willing to adjust and shuffle is the one that fails (anyone remember Kodak?).

Maybe if you want somebody to argue with you, use a case study you're more familiar with. Kodak is more than just a camera company. The EKTRA phone is going to tank, but Kodak is going to keep generating revenue and stronger profits from B2B commercial printing instead of consumer products. Not a dead brand.

Bouldercleave wrote: »

I don't even know where to begin...

Obviously. You didn't even say anything.

Gargath · April 2017

JasonSilverSpring wrote: »

I think the problem would be what happens if you stop you sub? Do you immediately lose access to some characters? Not sure how other MMOs handle that. So far ZOS has kept ESO+ perks so that one is not severely hampered if they cancel.

Why it would be any problem. Different amount of characters should be a main advantage of being a subscriber, it just seems logic. As an exaple see SWTOR or GuildWars2. I remember, when I was quitting subscriber status in SWTOR after about a year, I had a total of 16 characters shared between 3 servers. I had to manually choose on which server I need to relocate my characters to keep them all active, since preferred status limited amount of alts per server. Still I could keep them all with all the features I managed to unlock during my subscriber status.

In ESO, basically the only visible difference between sub and non-sub is the craft bag and the free crowns for which we can buy better mounts or costumes.
I was a non-sub for over 1,5 years, starting the game as non-sub, advancing to vet as non-sub, then during that time became sub for 1 month just to get guar mount. Now I subbed again for 3 months. Still the only real advantage I see is the craft bag and mounts. I can easily quit subscriber status because I have all 8 characters maxed out in inventory, champion points, crafting, with a bank space also maxed out - all this reached when I was non-sub.
So the difference of being sub and non-sub is not big. I know it, I see it on my own example. When my 3 months sub expires, I'll keep playing as non-sub, with crown mounts and bags full of mats.
Let's be honest, subscriber's account need to be reworked, should offer much more features than it does now.

Majic · April 2017

Sub double... double subble... hubble bubble...

*sigh*

Just give us more bank space, please.

Thanks.

Gargath · April 2017

Majic wrote: »

Just give us more bank space, please.

Yes, more bank space and double the amount of free character slots

.

AndyTGD · April 2017

ADarklore wrote: »

AndyTGD wrote: »

SickDuck wrote: »

AndyTGD wrote: »

SickDuck wrote: »

AndyTGD wrote: »

Don't mind us loyal non-subs, ZOS. We'll just sit with our meagre ration of storage spaces as you increase the number of in-world items ten fold. I would pay a reasonable price for 10-20 additional spaces if you offered a Crown Storage Chest for housing, but nope - subscription option only. You could make housing actually functional with such options and keep everyone happy.

Loyal "non-sub", wth? Guess it's a nicer term than "persistent leech". I don't get it, a cheap subscription fee that gives plenty QoL perks is a no-no, but if some of those perks sold in the generally overpriced CS then it's fine?

Some of us can't afford a subscription and invest what little money we have into one-off Crown purchases, rather than a yearly set subscription. It is more affordable for me and doesn't make me any less loyal a customer - I've stuck with this game through all its glitchy awfulness and invested my time and money in it, so do please get off your bourgeois subscription high-horse.

Last time I've checked 6 months sub cost less than two 5k crown packs and contained almost the same amount of crowns too. That high horse of mine needs massive high heels just to sniff the a$$ of a pony.

I get that people don't want to or can't afford to spend on this game. But the thing is ESO+ is the best purchase in the whole game by far, so it boggles me if anyone saying buying CS items is better than subs.

And again, maybe... maybe... if people would have been vocal on things like bank(/inventory) space and not contradicting threads on the topic by the masses then maybe ZOS would have considered adding it in the base game. For gold. But all threads went into "noob hoarders" and "l2p" arguments so that's what you get as a result. Especially when ZOS' own statistics suggesting there's no general need for such thing.

Double bank is perfect ESO+ perk. It gives something meaningful and useful (vs. non-combat pets or costumes). It is highly sought after by a group of people while others do not care about it. It is not a necessity but a nice QoL addition. Absolutely hits the spot.

Relative to how much money I have to invest in the game, people like yourself invest much more - and that's cool, its your money to spend as you see fit. I don't have enough to invest in two 5k crown packs. The point being, I and others like me are not 'persistent leeches' (rather than loyal customers) for investing what we can into the game. You might think that the sub is good value for money, relative to your coffers, but it isn't relative to what I have to spend. For me, on my restrictive budget, individual and selective Crown Store purchases make much more sense.

I've got to say, I think that lordrichter's solution is a great compromise and hope that ZOS will consider a model along these lines. I have no problem with the sub service being buffed with perks like extra inventory spaces (honestly, it needs more like this to make it a tempting option for people), but things are starting to get uncomfortably restrictive in the storage department for folks who don't have the crafting bags etc. and Morrowind's (no doubt copious) content hasn't even landed yet. ZOS is a business and can do as it wishes, but I for one would appreciate the choice of a sensible non-sub option.

Here is the problem... 'for you' your restrictive budge makes more sense, but for ZOS, which is a 'for profit' company, it does not. Thus, it is incentivizing ESO+ to gain more subscribers, while at the same time offering little to those who cannot afford or do not wish to afford to support the game beyond purchase and occasional Crown Store purchases. People may not like to hear it, but beyond the initial purchase, those who do not contribute financially continuously to the company are more of a drain on resources than an asset. It sucks that people are in financial situations that aren't good, BUT, they also shouldn't expect the world to be offered for little or nothing either. You can still play the game, still receive updates, etc... but additional perks that go towards attracting more subscribers you should not be entitled to.

Indeed, I know how business works and recognize ZOS' right to set their prices to make the product financially viable (if you actually read the entirety of my comment, you would see that I addressed that). My primary point was that it would be sensible to offer extra bank space via the cash shop for those of us who are willing to pay the one-off cost - whether that is actually viable or desirable is up to them. It doesn't even have to be the same amount of storage as the subscription folks, but some increase would be greatly welcomed given the massive increase in in-game items and crafting mats.

However, this particular comment was not addressed to ZOS for the most part, but to the self-righteous snobs who think that paying a subscription to Zenimax makes them some kind of elite class of übermensch, and entitles them to look down on the rest of us non-subs as glorified parasites. Seriously, the farcical arrogance is quite something to behold. If it wasn't for buy-to-play players ESO would have folded years ago. How successful was the sub-only game? Before Tamriel Unlimited landed with all those free-loading Crown Store parasites? So well that ZOS had to radically alter their business model and tear down the pay wall before it tanked. We all contribute towards the game's sustainability, buy stuff from the Crown Store and keep the game populated. I am personally tired of hearing smug, condescending nonsense from the subscription master race.

alexkdd99 · April 2017

Wrecking_Blow_Spam wrote: »

So much troll subbers in this thread, if any of you read the OP you can clearly see what's being said....
the non subbers are getting shafted and it leaves, shall we say a bad taste in the mouth.

They need the extra storage, any "subber" who says otherwise is a bitter troll.

Then go sub, the only bitter trolls I see are the ones complaining.

You either can afford to sub or you can't. If you can afford it and choose not to that is your choice.

Either way don't cry and complain because you don't receive the same benefits as someone who does pay for a monthly sub.

You pay and you get extra stuff, it has been this way for most all games.

Just going to reiterate the only bitterness I see is op and those who are complaining. After all what do the people who sub and are glad about subbers getting more space have to be bitter about.

Arthmoor · April 2017

Considering everyone I know is already up against bank limits and housing has no additional storage giving everyone more bank space seems only fair to me. Subs can then get even more than that if there's still a need.

Morrowind and any DLCs for it are almost certain to cause serious problems with this going forward.

alexkdd99 · April 2017

AndyTGD wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

AndyTGD wrote: »

SickDuck wrote: »

AndyTGD wrote: »

SickDuck wrote: »

AndyTGD wrote: »

Don't mind us loyal non-subs, ZOS. We'll just sit with our meagre ration of storage spaces as you increase the number of in-world items ten fold. I would pay a reasonable price for 10-20 additional spaces if you offered a Crown Storage Chest for housing, but nope - subscription option only. You could make housing actually functional with such options and keep everyone happy.

Loyal "non-sub", wth? Guess it's a nicer term than "persistent leech". I don't get it, a cheap subscription fee that gives plenty QoL perks is a no-no, but if some of those perks sold in the generally overpriced CS then it's fine?

Some of us can't afford a subscription and invest what little money we have into one-off Crown purchases, rather than a yearly set subscription. It is more affordable for me and doesn't make me any less loyal a customer - I've stuck with this game through all its glitchy awfulness and invested my time and money in it, so do please get off your bourgeois subscription high-horse.

Last time I've checked 6 months sub cost less than two 5k crown packs and contained almost the same amount of crowns too. That high horse of mine needs massive high heels just to sniff the a$$ of a pony.

I get that people don't want to or can't afford to spend on this game. But the thing is ESO+ is the best purchase in the whole game by far, so it boggles me if anyone saying buying CS items is better than subs.

And again, maybe... maybe... if people would have been vocal on things like bank(/inventory) space and not contradicting threads on the topic by the masses then maybe ZOS would have considered adding it in the base game. For gold. But all threads went into "noob hoarders" and "l2p" arguments so that's what you get as a result. Especially when ZOS' own statistics suggesting there's no general need for such thing.

Double bank is perfect ESO+ perk. It gives something meaningful and useful (vs. non-combat pets or costumes). It is highly sought after by a group of people while others do not care about it. It is not a necessity but a nice QoL addition. Absolutely hits the spot.

Relative to how much money I have to invest in the game, people like yourself invest much more - and that's cool, its your money to spend as you see fit. I don't have enough to invest in two 5k crown packs. The point being, I and others like me are not 'persistent leeches' (rather than loyal customers) for investing what we can into the game. You might think that the sub is good value for money, relative to your coffers, but it isn't relative to what I have to spend. For me, on my restrictive budget, individual and selective Crown Store purchases make much more sense.

I've got to say, I think that lordrichter's solution is a great compromise and hope that ZOS will consider a model along these lines. I have no problem with the sub service being buffed with perks like extra inventory spaces (honestly, it needs more like this to make it a tempting option for people), but things are starting to get uncomfortably restrictive in the storage department for folks who don't have the crafting bags etc. and Morrowind's (no doubt copious) content hasn't even landed yet. ZOS is a business and can do as it wishes, but I for one would appreciate the choice of a sensible non-sub option.

Here is the problem... 'for you' your restrictive budge makes more sense, but for ZOS, which is a 'for profit' company, it does not. Thus, it is incentivizing ESO+ to gain more subscribers, while at the same time offering little to those who cannot afford or do not wish to afford to support the game beyond purchase and occasional Crown Store purchases. People may not like to hear it, but beyond the initial purchase, those who do not contribute financially continuously to the company are more of a drain on resources than an asset. It sucks that people are in financial situations that aren't good, BUT, they also shouldn't expect the world to be offered for little or nothing either. You can still play the game, still receive updates, etc... but additional perks that go towards attracting more subscribers you should not be entitled to.

Indeed, I know how business works and recognize ZOS' right to set their prices to make the product financially viable (if you actually read the entirety of my comment, you would see that I addressed that). My primary point was that it would be sensible to offer extra bank space via the cash shop for those of us who are willing to pay the one-off cost - whether that is actually viable or desirable is up to them. It doesn't even have to be the same amount of storage as the subscription folks, but some increase would be greatly welcomed given the massive increase in in-game items and crafting mats.

However, this particular comment was not addressed to ZOS for the most part, but to the self-righteous snobs who think that paying a subscription to Zenimax makes them some kind of elite class of übermensch, and entitles them to look down on the rest of us non-subs as glorified parasites. Seriously, the farcical arrogance is quite something to behold. If it wasn't for buy-to-play players ESO would have folded years ago. How successful was the sub-only game? Before Tamriel Unlimited landed with all those free-loading Crown Store parasites? So well that ZOS had to radically alter their business model and tear down the pay wall before it tanked. We all contribute towards the game's sustainability, buy stuff from the Crown Store and keep the game populated. I am personally tired of hearing smug, condescending nonsense from the subscription master race.

No it wouldn't be sensible to add it as a1 time purchase. Just like it wasn't sensible for them to add the craft bag as a 1 time purchase.

Also those who are paying a sub also purchased the game.

Those who pay a sub deserve more benefits, that is the bottom line. Saying that someone who subs supports the game more than someone who doesn't and who rarely buys anything from the crown style is a perfectly fine statement that is true. It is not arrogant or being a snob, it is a basic fact.

Just because someone can not or will not pay a sub doesn't mean they should get the same benefits as someone who does pay. Also I fail to see what them changing to b2p has to do with any of this. I bought the game as well and I still sub. It is perfectly fine to have a b2p game and a sub.

Also I think them taking eso to console played a major role in them going b2p. Since console already pays a monthly fee just to access the game to start with and they would be getting hit twice just to play. Obviously not everyone can or would sub but those who do deserve extra benefits.

Saying those who pay more deserve more is not arrogant, condescending, or being a snob. It is a general fact throughout life and is the case for almost any for profit business.

JKorr · April 2017

Rosveen wrote: »

JKorr wrote: »

OrphanHelgen wrote: »

wiz12268b14_ESO wrote: »

OrphanHelgen wrote: »

Speed and items would be pay to win. Bank space doesn't affect new players who want to see if they like the game or not. Double bank space are spot on in my opinion.

Pick ANY other MMO with a sub optional approach...RIFT, LOTRO, Swotor, Wildstar, and probably a few more. If they offered "double bank space'' as an incentive for subbing would anyone actually care, let alone be a major selling point for subscribing?

Like I said the ONLY reason people care in this game is because the biggest monetized portion of this game is inventory.

Still pay 2 win

Uh huh. Getting more bank space will instantly make everyone who subs Emperor/Empress, give them all the monster helms/shoulders, and ALL the sharpened maelstrom weapons so they can "WIN"!

Can't wait to get my new title, weapons, and gear. Cause, like, I'm subbed, so cool.

These things constitute winning if you're a competitive PvPer or PvEer. However, if you're a dedicated crafter or trader, you have different win conditions and the crafting bag is immensely helpful in bringing you closer to achieving them.

A crafting bag and more bank space will make a crafter/trader's life easier. However I still don't see how that equals "pay to win". Is there some special achievement for trading a billion gold worth of items? Crafting a hundred million sets of gear? I guess what I don't see is the "win" aspect.

Crafting and trading can be done without the crafting bag. All of us spent at least 2 years without it. Not the best time juggling inventory, especially before you manage to get all of your characters' inventory maxed out, and max the bank space, but doable. Now that Morrowind is coming, there are two additional character slots that can be purchased [not a sub perk], so effectively more inventory space. If someone doesn't want to sub, then they'll have to do the inventory shuffle like all of us did before the crafting bag.