Paying a premium for this game.

Alcast · May 2017

Fingolfinn01 wrote: »

And opening up a casino store in game is a reflection on lost revenue. It should be a department store. Limited availability increasing significant demand is a myth. Most people will just do without, they won't go and spend money on crates where they may or may not get the item they are looking for.

Incorrect, that is not how the human works, sure there is exceptions.

WhitePawPrints · May 2017

DoShazarr wrote: »

WhitePawPrints wrote: »

DoShazarr wrote: »

Entitled people just don't realize that by quitting their subs they're not fixing anything. But rather causing more damage and possibly getting people fired.

People choosing where they spend their money is... entitlement? What are you smoking?

I don't care if people lose their jobs, if they provide a service that I am not satisfied with then I will no longer pay for that service.

People shut their subs and ask for better service at the same time, that's my problem. Just quit if you don't like it but don't *** about it like a 16 year old that got the wrong phone for Christmas.

Do you know... ANYTHING about business or customer service?

If I go to a fine-dining restaurant, and find their food sub-par then I will no longer go back there. I will leave feedback because that is the only way a business will improve. If they think everything is great because no one says anything then it will never improve. And if I believe my feedback will change things then I'll keep an eye on that restaurant and give it another try if I start hearing how things have changed and improved.

If I purchase a game called Elder Scrolls Online, two collector's editions pre-ordered, and have to pay additional fees to play the game, and find another game more fun, am I obligated to continue paying for the right to play a game that I am no longer playing?

Entitlement is thinking other people should pay for a service that they dislike, to improve said service for yourself.

WhitePawPrints · May 2017

@DoShazarr

Look, I don't mean to be a donkey about all this but what you're saying is fundamentally wrong. (Well, I did intentionally be an ass at some times to make a point.) I renewed my subscription six months ago because I am now satisfied with the improvements made to the game. I hear a lot of forum users say that all these doomsayer posts were never legit because of how the game has improved now, but that is negligent to the fact that these doomsayer posts likely have a good helping hand in improving the game. A business should care a LOT more about the negative things said about their product or service, than the good things.

Hawkblade · May 2017

A subscription model works with a great game and a loyal fan-base. It will never be as profitable as a decent game riddled with cash shops, gamble boxes, DLC and paid unlocks. Even though it ruins the game and spits in the face of loyal fans, it generates revenue and that's more important to them than bleeding hearts.

The turn-over rate is high for these type of games, people come and people go just as quickly. Their intent is to milk more than $15 from them on a curve that's higher than what they would have made with just subscriptions. So if that curve is $15 for every 10th player that uninstalls the game and moves on, then it's better than having a 10th of that as loyal fans, because the potential for revenue is higher than a lower static revenue that's still going to decline over time.

This is what happens when people with business degrees make game decisions. An art becomes an elastic economical model and the game becomes a 'product'.

As much as I hate it. I still believe ESO is one of the better AAA 'products' currently available.

brimstone74 · May 2017

Synfaer wrote: »

brimstone74 wrote: »

Gorthax wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

Fingolfinn01 wrote: »

AoDD33pfri3d wrote: »

Fingolfinn01 wrote: »

my mistake, I should of said when they removed the subscription from this game it was a mistake.

Wait they are removing eso +

Mandatory sub, not a good day for me on the forums.

However they are improving eso+ so in a way they are removing eso+ and replacing it with eso++

How do you figure they're improving ESO+ when they're locking Morrowind beind a paywall?

did you buy any of the other dlc? Those were a paywall too apparently. Or did you buy the gold edition? Or did you use monthly crowns from a sub to buy the dlc, which was a paywall as well.....

I really hate when people say paywall when they come out with content as if the developers owe it to you to let you play what they created. It is a new story arc "chapter"/expansion. You have every right to pay/dont pay for it. You dont want too, then you dont get to play it.

P.S.

Dont read that in a angry/snarky tone as I am actually not trying to be offensive or rude. Just pointing that little tidbit out

Have a great day.

Oh one more thing, damn mcdonalds putting that double cheese burger behind a paywall >_>

Um no....

You get all the other DLC's with a sub. You never have to buy them. For Subs...MW is behind a paywall. The poster you quoted is using the term correctly as the payment model changed for subs with Morrowind, which they coyly title a Chapter, not a DLC, not an Expansion, a Chapter...

...it's a DLC....

So, umm can you please post the generically acceptable definition of DLC and the definition of an Expansion so I can compare them? Also the definition of a Chapter while your digging through the dictionary, wikipedia or thesaurus etc.

Oo.....

The ENTIRE reason it is called a Chapter and not an Expansion is because it lacks the scope of the Expansions of competitor products. This also plays to the DLC scope, as calling it a Chapter implies it is not DLC and is of alternate scope (implied greater) than a DLC.

It's marketing weasel speak. No way around it.

Balamoor · May 2017

The only mistake ESO made was not having it B2P at launch with the optional sub.

Drachenfier · May 2017

When I play any MMO, I always sub. 30 days of entertainment for the cost of one trip to the movies? MMO sub prices are one of the most cost efficient forms of entertainment in the world. Why people throw fits over sub costs baffles me to no end.

Elsonso · May 2017

brimstone74 wrote: »

The ENTIRE reason it is called a Chapter and not an Expansion is because it lacks the scope of the Expansions of competitor products. This also plays to the DLC scope, as calling it a Chapter implies it is not DLC and is of alternate scope (implied greater) than a DLC.

It's marketing weasel speak. No way around it.

Might be marketing weaseling, and certainly they only tell us what they want us to hear. The official reason for Chapter instead of Expansion is that their idea of a traditional MMO expansion includes a level boost. So, for example, from Level 50 to Level 60.

That is, as far as I have seen, the official the reason.

Nyladreas · May 2017

I guess I'm just tired of reading constant complaints flooding the front page. Idk. I used to work as a customer service representative. Very successful while it lasted. I just feel like zos deserves a better treatment than what I'm reading lately. It's not even feedback that people leave it's just very negative thrashing and swearing. I should've went into more detail about it.

JamilaRaj · May 2017

geonsocal wrote: »

good thoughts...read a bunch of posts today regarding the precipitous drop off in players post imperial city release...

any idea why?

did the IC release coincide with the removal of a required sub...

why is a required sub beneficial to the health of an mmo?

No, it did not coincide, mandatory subs had been dropped before IC launched.

Mandatory subs are beneficial in that revenue is not directly proportional to how much a game is NOT fun.
Imagine a flowchart. In a subs-based game, it would represent all paths a player could take through the game and designers would be compelled to design them in such way that, when a player would arrive to a point with a question "want some more?", he would answer yes, pay for another month and his path would form a loop of fun and profit. Now "wanting some more" does not necessarily or entirely overlaps with "the game was fun", designers could use some underhanded methods, but, yeah, to a degree overlaps and designers can work in that overlapping area.
In a game based on microtransactions, it would likewise represent all paths, but designers would be compelled to drive a player to points where he would have to decide to either pay to skip/speed up/enable feature (simply: win) or suffer punishment. From one such point to another, until he is scammed of all available money. Anything in the game that would not lead a player there would be a dangerous distraction directly harming revenue.