Are there better ways to get people to subscribe?

kargen27 · May 2017

Megabear wrote: »

Kyle1983b14_ESO wrote: »

They're already adding extra bank space ontop of everything else in the update I think that's enough to intice people to sub

That's exactly the negative reinforcement approach I was referring to, unless you mean that they are extra bank space to all players, not just subscribers.

No that is positive. You do something you get a reward. Negative would be taking something away from you. Something like subscribe or you don't get a bank.

Megabear · May 2017

I agree

CountEdmondDantes wrote: »

The fact that you want bag space so bad that you posted this thread is proof to me that their subscription model is working.

I wish it was working, but I don't think it is. I'm getting the feeling that the devs are slowly losing money. I really like the game, and I want to support the game, but I don't support shady practices so I have not and will not subscribe. I did buy 30K crown though so it's my way of supporting the game, just not the subscription model.

Megabear · May 2017

I agree

kargen27 wrote: »

Megabear wrote: »

Kyle1983b14_ESO wrote: »

They're already adding extra bank space ontop of everything else in the update I think that's enough to intice people to sub

That's exactly the negative reinforcement approach I was referring to, unless you mean that they are extra bank space to all players, not just subscribers.

No that is positive. You do something you get a reward. Negative would be taking something away from you. Something like subscribe or you don't get a bank.

Actually you're right, let me edit the post.

Queo · May 2017

Tandor wrote: »

Megabear wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Megabear wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

There are way too many people moaning on this forum about things that are entirely down to free choice.

In my opinion It's a gray area. ZOS wants to give us an illusion of choice, in the background they are herding us along.

Really? So you're being herded into buying crown crates, for example? I don't think so, they're entirely optional.

Every decision I've taken about e.g. subscriptions (held on one account, not on the other account), DLCs (some bought, some not), crown crates (spent a few sub crowns on a couple of crates when they launched to see what the fuss was about, not touched them since), crown store purchases (hardly any), Morrowind (pre-ordered on one account, will wait and see on the other account), housing (totally free choice as to whether to buy any and if so which, and whether to pay in gold or crowns)... All these decisions I made on the basis of free choice, I wasn't herded into any of them.

I think you're straying a bit there buddy.

In what way? I was responding to the comment quoted, with points relating to the issue of choice over subscribing - my response included reference to subscriptions and the things that come with them - DLCs, crowns to purchase housing crates, crown store items etc. It seems pretty on-topic to me.

your straying in the fact you have a good argument that he has no real counter argument, other then the ** In Rocket's voice** "BUT i really want it, you dont understand"

FriedEggSandwich · May 2017

I recently stopped my sub for the 1st time in 3 years. The reason is I'm tired of dealing with complete overhauls every few months. I want some consitency and am willing to pay for it, but I'm not getting it. I'm prepeared to share the vision of the devs if only I could work out what the vision was.

F7sus4 · May 2017

I agree

It's like underpaid job. You're worth more but you go for it because you simply have no better choice. Same in ESO. You still switch between that 10 empty slots in your bank and your 6 banking characters but loading screens make part-time job out of it already? And then there is your sub with crafting bag and improved bank space (soon)...

Danikat · May 2017

Either both agree/disagree (parts) or have no opinion

I don't mind their current approach, but I also don't subscribe so it's obviously not working for me, which means I can't like it enough to actually do it.

The trouble is even I'm not sure what would get me to subscribe. The main thing that puts me off is time. My free time is very unpredictable - I had a whole list of things I wanted to do before Morrowind came out, but I've barely logged in for the past week for no other reason than other things kept coming up. So I don't want to subscribe because I could easily end up paying for time I never get to use.

I think the best solution to that would be a 'pay as you go' subscription where you buy a number of hours of sub time and it only runs down while you're actually logged in, rather than buying days which run down whether you play or not. For example lets say most people play for 2 hours a day on average - $15 could buy you either 30 days, in which you can play as much as you like, or 60 hours, which you could use up in 6 days or 60 days or 300 days...however long it took you. (And obviously if you think you're likely to play more than 2 hours a day you'd pick the 30 day option because it's better value.)

But even then I doubt I'd subscribe all the time. I'd probably alternate subscription periods with time spend unsubscribed. Maybe I should just accept that the subscription model does not work for me and be happy that I don't feel I have to subscribe to play (because if I did I'd most likely go the other way and quit).

Queo · May 2017

Megabear wrote: »

CountEdmondDantes wrote: »

The fact that you want bag space so bad that you posted this thread is proof to me that their subscription model is working.

I wish it was working, but I don't think it is. I'm getting the feeling that the devs are slowly losing money. I really like the game, and I want to support the game, but I don't support shady practices so I have not and will not subscribe. I did buy 30K crown though so it's my way of supporting the game, just not the subscription model.

that is a downside to a private company vs a pub. traded. It be easy to see its stock performance and take a measured guess if thats true. However with all the DLC and content being produced in this game, I have to disagree. My experience when a MMO starts dieing, you dont see all this newness... you see the top 5 CS items constantly going on sell to milk every penny they can. little to no care or game management.

Megabear · May 2017

I agree

Danikat wrote: »

I don't mind their current approach, but I also don't subscribe so it's obviously not working for me, which means I can't like it enough to actually do it.

The trouble is even I'm not sure what would get me to subscribe. The main thing that puts me off is time. My free time is very unpredictable - I had a whole list of things I wanted to do before Morrowind came out, but I've barely logged in for the past week for no other reason than other things kept coming up. So I don't want to subscribe because I could easily end up paying for time I never get to use.

I think the best solution to that would be a 'pay as you go' subscription where you buy a number of hours of sub time and it only runs down while you're actually logged in, rather than buying days which run down whether you play or not. For example lets say most people play for 2 hours a day on average - $15 could buy you either 30 days, in which you can play as much as you like, or 60 hours, which you could use up in 6 days or 60 days or 300 days...however long it took you. (And obviously if you think you're likely to play more than 2 hours a day you'd pick the 30 day option because it's better value.)

But even then I doubt I'd subscribe all the time. I'd probably alternate subscription periods with time spend unsubscribed. Maybe I should just accept that the subscription model does not work for me and be happy that I don't feel I have to subscribe to play (because if I did I'd most likely go the other way and quit).

Actually I share your opinion on this, except I think using inventory toward subscription model is a shady practice. Part of the reason why I chose ESO over FF14 is because I don't have a lot of time to play, so being forced to subscribe would not be cost effective. 'Pay as you go' subscription I think is a good idea too.

IcyDeadPeople · May 2017

I think this is pretty much the best way. Crafting bag alone for me was enough to start subscribing after not subbing for a year or so, and I was glad to hear about double bank space.

Megabear · May 2017

I agree

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

I think this is pretty much the best way. Crafting bag alone for me was enough to start subscribing after not subbing for a year or so, and I was glad to hear about double bank space.

I appreciate your honest opinion.

Malamar1229 · May 2017

I agree

OP the inventory limitation has been in place since launch and that was back when we all HAD TO pay a subscription fee, so I don't think it was a ploy to get people to sub....

With that said, sure I think there is always room for improvement.

I would offer a discount to the crown store for one.
I would also like coupons or occasional discounts to the Bethesda store.

I think the vanity awards for being subscribed were also neat.

Denyiir · May 2017

Megabear wrote: »

Kyle1983b14_ESO wrote: »

Megabear wrote: »

Kyle1983b14_ESO wrote: »

They're already adding extra bank space ontop of everything else in the update I think that's enough to intice people to sub

That's exactly the negative reinforcement approach I was referring to, unless you mean that they are extra bank space to all players, not just subscribers.

Negative reinforcement would mean they would start taking away from ESO sub perks not add to them btw.

What I mean is that they would continue to starve us of inventory space and instead sell us these spaces through a subscription. They now want to expand on this strategy with added bank space, only if we subscribe.

I think you're right they limit non sub inventory space on purpose but in the same time I'm kinda glad they do it that way instead of simply adding some "p2w" bonuses to eso+ or pulling some ridiculous limits if you won't sub like pretty much all of the other MMOs do.

Megabear · May 2017

I agree

Malamar1229 wrote: »

OP the inventory limitation has been in place since launch and that was back when we all HAD TO pay a subscription fee, so I don't think it was a ploy to get people to sub....

With that said, sure I think there is always room for improvement.

I would offer a discount to the crown store for one.
I would also like coupons or occasional discounts to the Bethesda store.

I think the vanity awards for being subscribed were also neat.

Thank you, I did not know that inventory limitation was already in place before they got rid of the subscription model. I'll edit the post accordingly. This does allow me to look at it with much more positive lens. But as you said there's always room for an improvement, and this area I think can and should be improved.

Discounts are a good idea, one that The Secret World already practice actually.

Megabear · May 2017

I agree

KennyFknPowers wrote: »

Megabear wrote: »

Kyle1983b14_ESO wrote: »

Megabear wrote: »

Kyle1983b14_ESO wrote: »

They're already adding extra bank space ontop of everything else in the update I think that's enough to intice people to sub

That's exactly the negative reinforcement approach I was referring to, unless you mean that they are extra bank space to all players, not just subscribers.

Negative reinforcement would mean they would start taking away from ESO sub perks not add to them btw.

What I mean is that they would continue to starve us of inventory space and instead sell us these spaces through a subscription. They now want to expand on this strategy with added bank space, only if we subscribe.

I think you're right they limit non sub inventory space on purpose but in the same time I'm kinda glad they do it that way instead of simply adding some "p2w" bonuses to eso+ or pulling some ridiculous limits if you won't sub like pretty much all of the other MMOs do.

This is true and I agree. I wouldn't be playing this game, which I think is excellent, if it turned p2w.