Maintenance for the week of April 6:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
Should ESO bring back a subscription model instead of using ESO crates as a funding mechanism?
-
Minno✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Neither (explain)They do use both with an added bonus. Crown crates push cosmetics and ESO plus is basically subscription. What's different is you buy each chapter
Minno - DC - Forum-plar Extraordinaire
- Guild-lead for MV
- Filthy Casual0 -
srfrogg23✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Subscription instead of cratesJust my personal preference, but I'd rather see crate items as ingame rewards for playing the game.1 -
Elsonso✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Subscription instead of cratesIt is no secret, at least to anyone paying attention, that I lack the fervent motivation to buy or consume Crown Crates. Thus, I almost felt it was not necessary to weigh in on on this poll. Since this poll is more about financials, I decided to jump into this tired and worn out topic.
I am a subscriber, and a person who buys Chapters. As a consumer, I feel that the best way for a company to earn money is by selling the product that the company produces. This aligns the reward the company gets (revenue) with the product and services that I buy.
Associated cosmetic and consumable merchandise is OK, but it is not really what a game company is producing. They are one step removed from the game. Crown Store items are bling, and I feel no obligation to buy anything in the Crown Store. I do, from time to time, buy things in the Crown Store, but that is not why I am here. I am playing the game to play the game.
Crown Crates are boxes of associated virtual merchandise, and so they are one step more removed from the game. I have even less reason to be interested in them. To me, they are a source of distraction for the studio, on top of the general distraction that comes from feeding the cash shop.
I want a better game, one that is fair and not pay-to-win, so I buy things that reflect a game that does that. If I wanted better Crown Crates, I would buy Crown Crates.
So, yes, because everyone should fall in line with what I believe
, they should drop Crown Crates. They can optionally bring back forced subscriptions, but really, any source of funding that derives from making a better game should work.
XBox EU/NA:@ElsonsoJannus
PC NA/EU: @Elsonso
PSN NA/EU: @ElsonsoJannus
Total in-game hours: 11321
X/Twitter: ElsonsoJannus2 -
Easily_Lost✭✭✭✭✭OtherI like it the way its.PC - NA - AD
started April 2015
PVE & Solo only
Meet the LOST family: CP 1250+
Easily Lost Crafter - lvl 50 - Sorcerer Orc ( knows all traits and most styles )
Easily Lost-W - lvl 50 - Warden Imperial
Forever Lost - lvl 50 Sorcerer
CROWN CRATES: It doesn't affect gameplay, it's not mandatory, it's cosmetic only. If it helps to support the game and ZOS, I support it! Say YES to crown crates.0 -
coop500✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Neither (explain)If they went to mandatory sub I would have to stop playing... Which means they would have robbed me of everything I bought, all the DLCs, the game originally, everything.Hoping for more playable races3 -
Narvuntien✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Neither (explain)Neither.
Optional Subscription with benefits and crown store.
Crates are manipulative gambling shouldn't be used
You should be able to just buy something you think looks cool and that's fine as long as there are still sweet achievement based appearances available such as the skins.
I am obviously perfectly fine with the yearly expansion packs particularly when I have enjoyed them all.
The problem with the gaming industry is that they just don't seem satisfied just making money they have to make more and more money just get a nice level of revenue that more than covers your costs and don't try to constantly top that every year.Edited by Narvuntien on February 24, 2019 2:10PM0 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I'm not. The game became worse for this. The grind is much worse, for one. Motif pages/fragments? Unheard of until right before they got rid of subs. Horses used to come with pre-leveled stats and you could level different ones independently, as opposed to right now a new character needing 6 months to get their riding skill maxed. Content updates are much smaller than during the first year (vet dungeons, lower & upper craglorn, orsinium). But rest assured that there's always some time-limited special offer in the crown store... *sigh*
Let's pick this apart.
Orsinium released in fall of 2015, over a year after Craglorn released.
The Dwemer motif was added in November 2014. So, that puts it a month after the release of Upper Craglorn.
The horse changes were based around the Crown store. But, do you honestly remember how horses worked back then? It was per mount. If you screwed up, and put a point someplace you didn't want, you needed to buy another mount, and back then 17k gold was not a trivial amount of cash. Combine that with the part where mounts had a level cap, and you couldn't spend more than 50 points on them total.
Also, thinking back to the first year of content updates, we got upper and lower craglorn. We got Crypt of Hearts 2, and City of Ash 2... and, that was pretty much it.
Compare that to last year, where we got four dungeons, one zone that was at least on the scale of Craglorn, and an extra zone on top of that.
So, yes, tell me again, how wonderful it was back in the halcyon days of having to grind each character to v14 sepereately.2 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Use bothI'm happy with the present arrangements. Although I choose not to buy crown crates (because I have no interest in the contents rather than on a point of principle), I have no problem with those who choose to buy them being able to do. The way they're structured is very different to many other games. Those who don't want them need to say how much extra they're comfortable with on the level of subscription cost or crown store prices in order to make up the lost revenue.0 -
MLGProPlayer✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Crates instead of subscriptionMLGProPlayer wrote: »MLGProPlayer wrote: »
It did fail. The player base was on the verge of collapse. You had like 500 people online through Steam.
Link to source of player numbers and ZOS financial records please.
I've been here since early access, or more accurately since the last few open betas. I was in guilds and happily playing away when ESO lost its mandatory sub. I didn't see the player base on the verge of collapse, but if you can prove otherwise please do so.
https://steamcharts.com/app/306130
Steam is no where even close to an accurate count.
There were WAY more non steam players than steam players by a very large margin.
There probably still are way more non steam accounts
Of course, but low population numbers through Steam are indicative of low population numbers through the launcher too.2 -
daemonios✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Subscription instead of cratesstarkerealm wrote: »I'm not. The game became worse for this. The grind is much worse, for one. Motif pages/fragments? Unheard of until right before they got rid of subs. Horses used to come with pre-leveled stats and you could level different ones independently, as opposed to right now a new character needing 6 months to get their riding skill maxed. Content updates are much smaller than during the first year (vet dungeons, lower & upper craglorn, orsinium). But rest assured that there's always some time-limited special offer in the crown store... *sigh*
Let's pick this apart.
Orsinium released in fall of 2015, over a year after Craglorn released.
The Dwemer motif was added in November 2014. So, that puts it a month after the release of Upper Craglorn.
The horse changes were based around the Crown store. But, do you honestly remember how horses worked back then? It was per mount. If you screwed up, and put a point someplace you didn't want, you needed to buy another mount, and back then 17k gold was not a trivial amount of cash. Combine that with the part where mounts had a level cap, and you couldn't spend more than 50 points on them total.
Also, thinking back to the first year of content updates, we got upper and lower craglorn. We got Crypt of Hearts 2, and City of Ash 2... and, that was pretty much it.
Compare that to last year, where we got four dungeons, one zone that was at least on the scale of Craglorn, and an extra zone on top of that.
So, yes, tell me again, how wonderful it was back in the halcyon days of having to grind each character to v14 sepereately.
I loved the grind to VR14. Did it on 8 characters. Now you see people make a new toon, hop to Alik'r, follow a bloody anchor-farming train and become max-leveled, cp-capped in 2 hours, then complain that they don't have enough skill points, that mages and fighters guild, as well as undaunted, should be account wide, and that dlc dungeons are too hard.0 -
MLGProPlayer✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Crates instead of subscriptionRagnarock41 wrote: »MLGProPlayer wrote: »
It did fail. The player base was on the verge of collapse. You had like 500 people online through Steam.
Link to source of player numbers and ZOS financial records please.
I've been here since early access, or more accurately since the last few open betas. I was in guilds and happily playing away when ESO lost its mandatory sub. I didn't see the player base on the verge of collapse, but if you can prove otherwise please do so.
https://steamcharts.com/app/306130 Here is your ''proof''. The charts do tell what you need to know about how successful sub model was.
Look, you may be satisfied by those Steam numbers. To me they say next to nothing. They represent a fraction of the player base and there is no financial information attached. The numbers certainly are lower in 2014 than now, but I don't see a steep decline as someone claimed earlier as the reason for dropping mandatory subscriptions. And in the end the game will have to be paid somehow. I believe a sub is much more transparent and fair than microtransactions, which are predatory and have a negative impact on gameplay (which they demonstrably have had).
What impact have microtransactions had on gameplay?0 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭starkerealm wrote: »I'm not. The game became worse for this. The grind is much worse, for one. Motif pages/fragments? Unheard of until right before they got rid of subs. Horses used to come with pre-leveled stats and you could level different ones independently, as opposed to right now a new character needing 6 months to get their riding skill maxed. Content updates are much smaller than during the first year (vet dungeons, lower & upper craglorn, orsinium). But rest assured that there's always some time-limited special offer in the crown store... *sigh*
Let's pick this apart.
Orsinium released in fall of 2015, over a year after Craglorn released.
The Dwemer motif was added in November 2014. So, that puts it a month after the release of Upper Craglorn.
The horse changes were based around the Crown store. But, do you honestly remember how horses worked back then? It was per mount. If you screwed up, and put a point someplace you didn't want, you needed to buy another mount, and back then 17k gold was not a trivial amount of cash. Combine that with the part where mounts had a level cap, and you couldn't spend more than 50 points on them total.
Also, thinking back to the first year of content updates, we got upper and lower craglorn. We got Crypt of Hearts 2, and City of Ash 2... and, that was pretty much it.
Compare that to last year, where we got four dungeons, one zone that was at least on the scale of Craglorn, and an extra zone on top of that.
So, yes, tell me again, how wonderful it was back in the halcyon days of having to grind each character to v14 sepereately.
I loved the grind to VR14. Did it on 8 characters. Now you see people make a new toon, hop to Alik'r, follow a bloody anchor-farming train and become max-leveled, cp-capped in 2 hours, then complain that they don't have enough skill points, that mages and fighters guild, as well as undaunted, should be account wide, and that dlc dungeons are too hard.
To be fair, those players existed in 2014, they were just doing the scorpion grind instead.2 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Ragnarock41 wrote: »MLGProPlayer wrote: »
It did fail. The player base was on the verge of collapse. You had like 500 people online through Steam.
Link to source of player numbers and ZOS financial records please.
I've been here since early access, or more accurately since the last few open betas. I was in guilds and happily playing away when ESO lost its mandatory sub. I didn't see the player base on the verge of collapse, but if you can prove otherwise please do so.
https://steamcharts.com/app/306130 Here is your ''proof''. The charts do tell what you need to know about how successful sub model was.
Relevant factor: ESO was in much worse shape overall back in 2014/2015. I wouldn't cite Tamriel Unlimited as the turning point, but it looks like the release of Orsinium (or, possibly a Steam Sale in October 2015) drove attention on that platform.0 -
RedTalon✭✭✭✭✭
✭Use bothI'm happy with how things are now, gives more options to people and them with funding then just one or the other.0 -
RedTalon✭✭✭✭✭
✭Use both
Also not everyone uses steam to play ESO on pc so who knows the real numbers besides ZOSstarkerealm wrote: »Ragnarock41 wrote: »MLGProPlayer wrote: »
It did fail. The player base was on the verge of collapse. You had like 500 people online through Steam.
Link to source of player numbers and ZOS financial records please.
I've been here since early access, or more accurately since the last few open betas. I was in guilds and happily playing away when ESO lost its mandatory sub. I didn't see the player base on the verge of collapse, but if you can prove otherwise please do so.
https://steamcharts.com/app/306130 Here is your ''proof''. The charts do tell what you need to know about how successful sub model was.
Relevant factor: ESO was in much worse shape overall back in 2014/2015. I wouldn't cite Tamriel Unlimited as the turning point, but it looks like the release of Orsinium (or, possibly a Steam Sale in October 2015) drove attention on that platform.
0 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭MLGProPlayer wrote: »Ragnarock41 wrote: »MLGProPlayer wrote: »
It did fail. The player base was on the verge of collapse. You had like 500 people online through Steam.
Link to source of player numbers and ZOS financial records please.
I've been here since early access, or more accurately since the last few open betas. I was in guilds and happily playing away when ESO lost its mandatory sub. I didn't see the player base on the verge of collapse, but if you can prove otherwise please do so.
https://steamcharts.com/app/306130 Here is your ''proof''. The charts do tell what you need to know about how successful sub model was.
Look, you may be satisfied by those Steam numbers. To me they say next to nothing. They represent a fraction of the player base and there is no financial information attached. The numbers certainly are lower in 2014 than now, but I don't see a steep decline as someone claimed earlier as the reason for dropping mandatory subscriptions. And in the end the game will have to be paid somehow. I believe a sub is much more transparent and fair than microtransactions, which are predatory and have a negative impact on gameplay (which they demonstrably have had).
What impact have microtransactions had on gameplay?
Minimal. At least in comparison to other MMOs that underwent similar business model changes.
One major change that was a result of microtransactions, was the change for horses, from a per mount system, to a character wide system. (Specifically, to facilitate easier use of newly purchased crown store mounts.)
Microtransaction consumables are marginally relevant, but trail behind the ones that are available via normal content.
Costumes did drive a change to disguises and the Sorc's bound armor ability. Though that was later expanded to include all costumes and disguises.0 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Also not everyone uses steam to play ESO on pc so who knows the real numbers besides ZOSstarkerealm wrote: »Ragnarock41 wrote: »MLGProPlayer wrote: »
It did fail. The player base was on the verge of collapse. You had like 500 people online through Steam.
Link to source of player numbers and ZOS financial records please.
I've been here since early access, or more accurately since the last few open betas. I was in guilds and happily playing away when ESO lost its mandatory sub. I didn't see the player base on the verge of collapse, but if you can prove otherwise please do so.
https://steamcharts.com/app/306130 Here is your ''proof''. The charts do tell what you need to know about how successful sub model was.
Relevant factor: ESO was in much worse shape overall back in 2014/2015. I wouldn't cite Tamriel Unlimited as the turning point, but it looks like the release of Orsinium (or, possibly a Steam Sale in October 2015) drove attention on that platform.
Historically, I used to say Steam was useful for generating trending patterns over time (though, you can't extrapolate the total population size.) However, with the login issues, and users migrating off of Steam (and I assume others abandoning the game on Steam entirely), I suspect that the numbers there no longer provide a good correlation to the game's population as a whole.0 -
daemonios✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Subscription instead of cratesMLGProPlayer wrote: »Ragnarock41 wrote: »MLGProPlayer wrote: »
It did fail. The player base was on the verge of collapse. You had like 500 people online through Steam.
Link to source of player numbers and ZOS financial records please.
I've been here since early access, or more accurately since the last few open betas. I was in guilds and happily playing away when ESO lost its mandatory sub. I didn't see the player base on the verge of collapse, but if you can prove otherwise please do so.
https://steamcharts.com/app/306130 Here is your ''proof''. The charts do tell what you need to know about how successful sub model was.
Look, you may be satisfied by those Steam numbers. To me they say next to nothing. They represent a fraction of the player base and there is no financial information attached. The numbers certainly are lower in 2014 than now, but I don't see a steep decline as someone claimed earlier as the reason for dropping mandatory subscriptions. And in the end the game will have to be paid somehow. I believe a sub is much more transparent and fair than microtransactions, which are predatory and have a negative impact on gameplay (which they demonstrably have had).
What impact have microtransactions had on gameplay?
Mount training changes mean a 6-month grind (with riding lessons conveniently available in the store).
Motifs went from books to pages to RNG fragments (with some conveniently available in the store).
Content updates have been consistently worse in size and quality.
Crown store content seems to have no shortage of developer resources, while long-standing issues are allowed to go on unaddressed (general lag, in-combat bug, heavy attack bug, weapon swap bug, cheating and exploiting...).
I'm not saying ESO is the worst example of microtransactions. But I remain convinced that they are predatory, unfair and harmful to the game as a whole.1 -
notimetocare✭✭✭✭✭
✭Nemesis7884 wrote: »Your choices are kinda unclear - what do you consider eso plus? I assume subs. For you means mandatory only....i like the current balance that eso strikes
I would consider ESO+ a sub. I see ESO as both right now.
Sub models are like WoW. A sub is required to play. ESO+ is optional bonuses0 -
Rainchaser✭✭Crates instead of subscriptionI’ll be honest and say I really don’t like Crown Crates - I don’t like the gambling aspect, and feel personally that if I really want an item in the cash shop, I should just be able to purchase it outright. That being said, I feel that going back to a subscription-only model may deter people from trying the game and would force some people to stop playing altogether. Right now the game is getting revenue from both sources, though I think a mandatory subscription would do more harm than good financially and for the long-term health of the game. Just my opinion, though.0 -
ezio45✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Crates instead of subscriptionCurrently not spending anything on eso, haven't since murkimire dropped. So at least in my case going bad to a sub model would just push me out of playing at all. Until they unnerf shields at least0 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Use bothMLGProPlayer wrote: »MLGProPlayer wrote: »MLGProPlayer wrote: »
It did fail. The player base was on the verge of collapse. You had like 500 people online through Steam.
Link to source of player numbers and ZOS financial records please.
I've been here since early access, or more accurately since the last few open betas. I was in guilds and happily playing away when ESO lost its mandatory sub. I didn't see the player base on the verge of collapse, but if you can prove otherwise please do so.
https://steamcharts.com/app/306130
Steam is no where even close to an accurate count.
There were WAY more non steam players than steam players by a very large margin.
There probably still are way more non steam accounts
Of course, but low population numbers through Steam are indicative of low population numbers through the launcher too.
Not really, because a lot of Steam players have opted out of using Steam for ESO due to its many problems. Plus Steam only relates to PC players who only accounted for a third of the playerbase when it was last discussed by ZOS. I'm not speculating on the game's current level of popularity either way, just suggesting that Steam is pretty much an irrelevance where assessing that is concerned.0 -
DaveMoeDee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭OtherFlyingSwan wrote: »The reason the ESO sub failed is because the game does not have the quality we expect from subscription games. Upon release, ZOS were charging a premium price for a mandatory sub and yet the game was in many way more broken than it even is today, support was awful and content releases were lethargic. So people just stuck two fingers up to ESO and left en masse for 'proper' sub games, I went to FFXIV for example, which is a superbly run game for which I am happy to pay a mandatory sub.
ZOS seem to have found ways to fund the game, it's a shame that cash shop gouging for tat is one of them, but if people buy it, it obviously works. It's just a shame ZOS are not using this revenue to overhaul the game in any meaningful way.
As someone who played at launch, I hove no expectations of sub games because I don't play sub games. I play TES games and many other games. But never before a game with any kind of sub model. I subbed for 3 months post launch, finished the game, and happily stopped playing until Tamriel Unlimited. I did not miss the game during that period because Craglorn didn't appeal to me and there was no new content otherwise for me to care about. I wasn't going to continue to pay to play the same content over and over again.
As a hoarder, I sub when new content comes out because I want the crafting bag. I might also sub for certain events, like the Jubilee. If they went to mandatory sub, that would mean a hard vacation between subs, making me far lest tempted to sub during content lulls since I can't just poke my head in now and then and then get sucked in.0 -
TelvanniWizard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Neither (explain)No subscription required, and instead of scam crates a normal store where all cosmetics are always offered.0