Non eso+ members should be able to buy the same furniture limit eso+ members get

Nelphy · February 2021

ThorianB wrote: »

Nelphy wrote: »

I agree that the slot limit should be increased to the same as ESO+ members. I am all for having a sub scription fee where you get premium currency and cosmetic extras but hampering players who do not pay with half the housing slots and very limited bag space is just toxic. Talk about "here at Zeni we put profit before player creativity and expression"

[snip] There is nothing toxic about players who support the game bonuses that are do not give them any advantages over other players.

[Edited to remove Baiting]

I am not calling the players toxic. I am calling the system toxic. It is very much pay to win certainly where the games crafting system, housing and storage are concerned. The shear insane number of crafting materials this game has are easily enough to fill a 500 slot guild bank that is entirely for your personal use. Let’s not even mention how absolutely tiny the bank space is for a normal account. O and upgrading your account bank to full size costs 768,500 gold, cheap right? haha. To me paying for infinite materials space is just another way of saying you okay with a system that gives you far too little space and then charges you for more of it. Had nobody stopped to think that it was rigged by design?

I also cannot believe people comparing this game to free to play. It is not free to play in the least as you have to pay for the base game and any expansions you want to play not to mention the crazy expensive in game shop that I am sure could keep the company in the black on its own.

ESO+ clearly gives strong game altering advantages, it’s 100% payed advantage even if it is not directly effecting combat it is still effecting most other aspects of the game. This is a bad game ethos from the ground up if you ask me as it genuinely hampers players who just want to be creative with their house and to store their items at their leisure and not be forced into constant storage space micromanagement just to play.

So what should ESO+ members get? I think premium currency for the shop, access to all DLC as it comes out and that they should keep the DLC even after that premium expires if they have paid for at least 5 months of premium beyond the date the DLC was released. As it is at the moment loosing access to all the DLC you were paying to play is just mean.

bluebird · February 2021

SilverBride wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

It's easy to prefer one over the other when you artificially create a hypothetical duality where only those 2 options exist.

Right now the only two options that do exist are that you play for free, or you subscribe and receive perks for doing so.

[snip] There is no need to over analyze when it can be summed up in one sentence: The OP wants an ESO+ perk but doesn't want to subscribe to get it.

I say no.

[Edited to remove Baiting]

The thread is about how the system 'should' work, not how it works right now. Just because there are only 2 options now doesn't mean that those are the only possible options, or that they should be the only 2 options. The thread's whole purpose is to examine that premise.

Saying that 'The OP wants an ESO+ perk but doesn't want to subscribe to get it' is a summary of the present, not a justification for why it should stay so. I hope that makes sense and is not perceived as rude. So it's better to examine a system by thinking it through rationally, to see whether something about it could be improved, or whether the restrictions are necessary at all in the first place, and whether there could be a way that benefits everyone.

And if people take a moment to read the title and OP's post, they clearly said 'buy' and 'add to the Crown Store'. Not 'give away for free'. Nonsubs can already directly buy access to DLCs, even though free DLC access is an ESO+ perk. So the ability to directly buy housing slot upgrades wouldn't be any different from that. So really, most concerns in this thread are unfounded because there is already existing precedent ingame.

Additionally, most people against the change wouldn't even notice if all nonsubs upgraded their houses, because it wouldn't affect them in the slightest. When you hang around in Murkmire (and that's a shared zone to boot) it also doesn't affect you whether someone's there because they have ESO+, or because they directly bought the DLC, or because they got it for free as a login reward in 2018. None of the other people's acquisitions reduced your acquisitions.

SilverBride · February 2021

bluebird wrote: »

The thread is about how the system 'should' work, not how it works right now.

There is nothing wrong with how it works right now. If you want this ESO+ perk, subscribe.

Dangerjoe1982 · February 2021

I think they should remove the furniture restriction for non ESO subs - when you look at all other parts of ESO there is no core feature thats is cut in ½ just because you are not a sub.

Instead i think they should add a convenience feature for ESO+ subs in the same way that we have the craft bag, ESO+ Subs should have a furniture bag that could hold X amout of items. This way people like me that sub still get a convenience feature, but players that chose not to sub arent getting arent gettin their housing core gameplay cut in ½.

bluebird · February 2021

SilverBride wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

The thread is about how the system 'should' work, not how it works right now.

There is nothing wrong with how it works right now. If you want this ESO+ perk, subscribe.

That's an opinion. You personally have no problem with the current system.
(And that's great, people can have opinions, nobody's trying to take that away. 👍 )

But that isn't evidence for the system having nothing wrong with it. Nor is it an argument for why others don't have valid issues with the system. Nor is it a justification for why the system shouldn't be changed, or why such a change would be so terrible. So far, on the one hand this thread has brought out some anxieties expressed against the change; on the other hand the viewpoint arguing for the change has been supported by factual ingame precedents.

Already existing examples of ESO+ perks being individually purchasable:

DLC access is included with ESO+, but everyone can buy DLCs directly
Crowns are included with ESO+, but everyone can buy Crowns directly
Costume dying is included with ESO+, but everyone can buy Dye Stamps directly.

---> The ability for everyone to buy housing slot upgrades directly would be no different. In fact, it would be less noticeable since people's houses are private instances that affect others in no way whatsoever.

Precedents for previously-paid-for perks being pulled out and given away:

BGs from Morrowing were removed from a paid Chapter feature straight to the base game
IC was given away for free for everyone, despite being a directly paid DLC and an ESO+ DLC prior to that
Every year Chapters go from an individual 40$ purchase to being included in a 15$ bundle.

---> Taking one perk from that 15$ bundle and making it directly purchasable would be far less of a leap than any of the above, since ZOS has already demonstrated a willingness to give away content, let alone add a way to buy it (which is what's being discussed by OP: an option to buy housing slots).

Some evidence-based issues that support having very valid concerns regarding the current system:

slots are generally acknowledged as too little even with an ESO+ slot/size limit, creating barriers of entry and limits on potential which reduce the appeal and sales of houses (doubly so for nonsubs). If the more appealing system would entice just one more nonsub to buy a 700-slot house, it would earn ZOS more than half a year of subscription.
nonsub limits were never the baseline, they are a punitive restriction (so ESO+ isn't a happy little bonus, even it barely hits the functional size/slot ratio - see evidence in my previous #22 post.)
housing is already far more monetized than any other form of gameplay, and the slot restrictions are an exploitative double-dipping tactic rarely seen in ESO or other games: For 40$, nonsubs get the same Chapter that subs get for 40$, but for 120$ nonsubs get a 350 slot house while subs get a 700 slot house.
furnishing slots are an essential function of housing gameplay, and the nonsub restriction cripples that functionality unreasonably more than the impact of the restrictions on the functionality of other gameplay (pve, pvp, crafting, trading, cosmetics, etc.)

---> We might have a different discussion if nonsub limits were 400, 600, 700, and ESO+ limits were 800, 1200, 1400. But as it is right now, the points above hold true. Alternative opportunity to buy slot upgrades increases the appeal of housing and removes divisive barriers that need not exist in the first place, and would bring it in line with other precedents. And it's even possible that ZOS would earn more money by adding the option (just as the option of direct DLC sales earn them more money than getting DLCs through subbing).

The list is not exhaustive of course, and people are free to add to it!

But as it stands, there is far more evidence to support the change than to oppose it.

Giraffon · February 2021

Dangerjoe1982 wrote: »

I think they should remove the furniture restriction for non ESO subs - when you look at all other parts of ESO there is no core feature thats is cut in ½ just because you are not a sub.

Instead i think they should add a convenience feature for ESO+ subs in the same way that we have the craft bag, ESO+ Subs should have a furniture bag that could hold X amout of items. This way people like me that sub still get a convenience feature, but players that chose not to sub arent getting arent gettin their housing core gameplay cut in ½.

This is brilliant. It stops punishing people that don't sub while enhancing value to those that do.

ZOS should take a serious look at this idea.

SilverBride · February 2021

bluebird wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

If you want this ESO+ perk, subscribe.

That's an opinion.

That is my opinion and it's not going to change. All we can do now is agree to disagree.

ThorianB · February 2021

Nelphy wrote: »

I am not calling the players toxic. I am calling the system toxic. It is very much pay to win certainly where the games crafting system, housing and storage are concerned.

That is not what pay to win means. The housing system cannot be pay to win because it doesn't give you a competitive advantage against other players. Pay to win is gear, upgrades, or bonuses that give players who pay a competitive advantage over players who don't in a B2P or F2P system. The sub in ESO has no pay 2 features and pretty much everything in the crown store can be bought with crown:gold exchanges so its not pay to win either...not that there is anything in the store that would be considered pay to win.

The furnishing limit increase is a perk for supporting the upkeep of the game every month. ESO plus members pay to keep the lights turned on. Double furnishings is one of the rewards for doing that.

bluebird · February 2021

ThorianB wrote: »

The furnishing limit increase is a perk for supporting the upkeep of the game every month. ESO plus members pay to keep the lights turned on. Double furnishings is one of the rewards for doing that.

The question isn't 'Would [free housing slots] result in less profit than [if they aren't free].' See the title and OP's post.
The question is 'Would [having an extra option to buy housing slots] result in less profit than [just the current option]'*
(* and profitability is just one aspect of the discussion, so it's not even one decisive question just part of the larger picture)

Do ESO+ members pay to keep the lights turned on? Let's look at the facts:
- How much does it costs to buy DLCs directly? Over 34,000 Crowns, which is more than 16 months of subcription.
- How many Crowns does ESO+ get you? 1650, which is more than the 1500 Crowns that 15$ gets everyone else.
- What about how much a 700 slot houses cost each? More than 6 months of subscription.
- And how much do individual Furnishing Packs cost? Around 1.5 months of subscription.
- Mounts, pets, costumes and other cosmetics on avg cost around 1 month of subscription. Each. Individually.
- A 5k pack of Crown Crates costs around 2.5 months of subscription.
- Chapters cost 40$ for everyone every year, which is 2.5 months of subscription.

Are ESO+ subs really the people who hold the line between ZOS and financial ruin? As you see, the value of not having a subscription but just selling things (like the DLCs) only directly would be more cost-efficient for ZOS. The Crowns alone more than make up for the price tag of the sub. There is a reason the community recommends subbing - it's more beneficial to the player and less profitable for ZOS to sub than to buy things directly. And with the monetisation model of ESO (the majority of which relies on microtransactions), the 15$ that ESO+ subs pay doesn't weigh nearly as much in ZOS's bottom line than other, more highly monetized sources of income.

So opposing the suggestion that there should be 2 ways to buy housing slots instead of 1 on the grounds that it would impair ZOS's profit margins in any noticeable or significant way is a largely misplaced (or at the very least, exaggerated) concern. It just veils the real, far more insidious undercurrent that is about keeping arbitrary divisions between the community based on whether they bought slots with a sub OR if they bought slots directly - because let's not forget that this thread is about adding an alternative option of buy slots. ZOS find it perfectly acceptable to have the option to buy DLCs, Dye Stamps and Crowns directly, so there is no indication that housing slots would be any worse for the game than that.

Some additional points that counter the 'what about ZOS's profit though' concerns:

1. The % of ESO+ who subscribe only for housing is questionable (Zyphearan is admittedly one of them

but even amongst Housing fans that's no guarantee, and the Housing community is much smaller than general ESO players). So the sudden ability to buy housing slots directly as well as with a sub wouldn't reduce the number of subscribers nearly as much as implied by these worries. Even Housing fans may find it preferable to keep their ESO+ and keep their slots that way, than to drop all other benefits to buy slots directly.

2. Furthermore, people talk about [keeping max housing slots only available to ESO+ rather than being available as direct purchase as well] as somehow essential to the survival and continued functioning of the game and ZOS, rather than looking at it as part of a company's excess profit. Naturally, it has a very different effect if people frame it as 'helping to keep the lights on' versus 'to what extent would it contribute to/detract from ZOS's multimillion dollar profit to keep max housing slots exclusive to an ESO+ sub than to make them directly purchasable as well?' (The question whether it would have a negative or positive impact, and to what extent that impact would be even noticeable has been raised earlier.)

3. That's in addition to the fact that 'how much money ZOS makes' isn't the only criteria by which decisions should be evaluated. As evidenced by ZOS giving away stuff for free. Keeping IC paid would have made them more money, yet they found it profitable or otherwise beneficial to give it away. Keeping BGs a DLC-only game type would have made them more money than giving it away for free, and they still did it. So ZOS is perfectly happy to provide alternative options to monetize things, and even to give away things entirely when it suits their cost/benefit analysis.

tl;dr: So far, there isn't really any evidence to support that adding the option to buy max housing slots directly in addition to the sub option would be noticeably or at all worse for the game than to keep it sub-exclusive (worse for ZOS's profits, worse for the community, or anything really).

Goren · February 2021

I didn't specify in my post how exactly this purchase would work, so I wanted to explain it a bit further: It's not like you buy this furniture increase and it covers all your purchased houses and all the houses you might buy in the future. It applies only to the one house you want to buy it for. For example, I own Autumns Gate, Blackvine Villa and Antiquarians Alpine Gallery. Let's say I wanted to increase the limit of Antiquarians Alpine Gallery, that would cost me something like $20 but it wouldn't increase the limit for Autumns Gate and Blackvine Villa. If I wanted to increase the limit for my other houses as well, that would cost me $20 again for each house. This option is of course worse than the benefit eso+ gets, but at least it is an option.

Mix · February 2021

I am not sure it would be worth ZoS's money to develop a system for non-subs to pay for extra furniture slots for a house (because it definitely wouldn't be for ALL houses in one purchase). I barely know any players into housing that aren't subscribed (can't even think of any off the top of my head), so the prospective customer base might be too small to be profitable.

Now, someone mentioned buying a $120 house + $20 (or w/e)t to double the furniture slots to the ESO+ max.

ESO+ for a year sub is $CAD 172.99 and for 12 months you would get 19,800 crowns. Enough to buy one of the expensive crown-only manors per year plus some other stuff (or keep savings for another house).

I've never really seen value in not being subscribed and buying the DLC separately (because even though I am not a huge fan of double dungeon dlc I still run them and like being able to whenever I like or whenever a guildie needs). I remember before the craft bag and bank space doubling, inventory management took me at least an hour a day and I had to stop looting prov mats and style items and trait gems when I got over a stack because of lack of space. It is hard to put a value on the time and frustration of inventory management that I no longer have to deal with (mostly, I do hoard furniture). Saying that DLC is average $20 each you are already at $60 for just that and if you plan on buying one manor a year anyways or any amount of crowns to purchase other things you are already approaching the investment of a year-long sub.

I understand budgets and maybe your income isn't very predictable and a year all at once is a lot of money. I used to have to do monthly sub only because I just didn't have the leeway to pay more in a month than that (but cheap investment compared to a lot of other entertainment!) I have only bought manors with sub crowns I've saved.

TL:DR I am not against ZoS adding a way for non-subs to purchase double slots for a house with crowns, but I am not sure it would be worth their time investment to add that feature for what is probably a small customer base.

edit: it was mentioned that furniture limits are not Pay to Win with ESO+. That actually isn't true if the non-sub wants to compete against other players in housing contests as having half the available slots is a definite disadvantage.

ThorianB · February 2021

Mix wrote: »

edit: it was mentioned that furniture limits are not Pay to Win with ESO+. That actually isn't true if the non-sub wants to compete against other players in housing contests as having half the available slots is a definite disadvantage.

That is a really imaginative stretch of P2W. Housing contests are not P2W.

On a different note, why not just make the sub available as a gift? That way everyone wins.

wolfbone · February 2021

no. it would remove the benefits of subscribing to eso plus

kargen27 · February 2021

hexentb16_ESO wrote: »

PrimusNephilim wrote: »

If you take away the benefits of ESO+, there's no benefit to have ESO+

[snip]
This is just one thing that would be made available to non-eso+ members. ESO+ would still have loads of reasons to buy it.

But lets not forget, ESO+ doesn't need to exist. ZOS makes more money than they'll ever need just off the game's gamble boxes.

[Edited to remove Baiting]

There is no way you can know that unless you are a part of their accounting department.

kargen27 · February 2021

bluebird wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

The furnishing limit increase is a perk for supporting the upkeep of the game every month. ESO plus members pay to keep the lights turned on. Double furnishings is one of the rewards for doing that.

The question isn't 'Would [free housing slots] result in less profit than [if they aren't free].' See the title and OP's post.
The question is 'Would [having an extra option to buy housing slots] result in less profit than [just the current option]'*
(* and profitability is just one aspect of the discussion, so it's not even one decisive question just part of the larger picture)

Do ESO+ members pay to keep the lights turned on? Let's look at the facts:
- How much does it costs to buy DLCs directly? Over 34,000 Crowns, which is more than 16 months of subcription.
- How many Crowns does ESO+ get you? 1650, which is more than the 1500 Crowns that 15$ gets everyone else.
- What about how much a 700 slot houses cost each? More than 6 months of subscription.
- And how much do individual Furnishing Packs cost? Around 1.5 months of subscription.
- Mounts, pets, costumes and other cosmetics on avg cost around 1 month of subscription. Each. Individually.
- A 5k pack of Crown Crates costs around 2.5 months of subscription.
- Chapters cost 40$ for everyone every year, which is 2.5 months of subscription.

Are ESO+ subs really the people who hold the line between ZOS and financial ruin? As you see, the value of not having a subscription but just selling things (like the DLCs) only directly would be more cost-efficient for ZOS. The Crowns alone more than make up for the price tag of the sub. There is a reason the community recommends subbing - it's more beneficial to the player and less profitable for ZOS to sub than to buy things directly. And with the monetisation model of ESO (the majority of which relies on microtransactions), the 15$ that ESO+ subs pay doesn't weigh nearly as much in ZOS's bottom line than other, more highly monetized sources of income.

So opposing the suggestion that there should be 2 ways to buy housing slots instead of 1 on the grounds that it would impair ZOS's profit margins in any noticeable or significant way is a largely misplaced (or at the very least, exaggerated) concern. It just veils the real, far more insidious undercurrent that is about keeping arbitrary divisions between the community based on whether they bought slots with a sub OR if they bought slots directly - because let's not forget that this thread is about adding an alternative option of buy slots. ZOS find it perfectly acceptable to have the option to buy DLCs, Dye Stamps and Crowns directly, so there is no indication that housing slots would be any worse for the game than that.

Some additional points that counter the 'what about ZOS's profit though' concerns:

1. The % of ESO+ who subscribe only for housing is questionable (Zyphearan is admittedly one of them but even amongst Housing fans that's no guarantee, and the Housing community is much smaller than general ESO players). So the sudden ability to buy housing slots directly as well as with a sub wouldn't reduce the number of subscribers nearly as much as implied by these worries. Even Housing fans may find it preferable to keep their ESO+ and keep their slots that way, than to drop all other benefits to buy slots directly.

2. Furthermore, people talk about [keeping max housing slots only available to ESO+ rather than being available as direct purchase as well] as somehow essential to the survival and continued functioning of the game and ZOS, rather than looking at it as part of a company's excess profit. Naturally, it has a very different effect if people frame it as 'helping to keep the lights on' versus 'to what extent would it contribute to/detract from ZOS's multimillion dollar profit to keep max housing slots exclusive to an ESO+ sub than to make them directly purchasable as well?' (The question whether it would have a negative or positive impact, and to what extent that impact would be even noticeable has been raised earlier.)

3. That's in addition to the fact that 'how much money ZOS makes' isn't the only criteria by which decisions should be evaluated. As evidenced by ZOS giving away stuff for free. Keeping IC paid would have made them more money, yet they found it profitable or otherwise beneficial to give it away. Keeping BGs a DLC-only game type would have made them more money than giving it away for free, and they still did it. So ZOS is perfectly happy to provide alternative options to monetize things, and even to give away things entirely when it suits their cost/benefit analysis.

tl;dr: So far, there isn't really any evidence to support that adding the option to buy max housing slots directly in addition to the sub option would be noticeably or at all worse for the game than to keep it sub-exclusive (worse for ZOS's profits, worse for the community, or anything really).

The problem with your facts is you are failing to differentiate in known income and projected income. The two can't be compared dollar to dollar in a financial analysis. I don't really care if furnishing slots could be purchased for non subscribers I subscribe to support the game and will continue to do so. Arguing the financial aspect makes no sense though because none of us have any data to refer to. A good marketing team will weigh increases and decreases in revenue any changes may have. They can see the actual numbers and can look back at past trends.

Maybe you could argue the change would make more players happy than upset but even that is a guess based on a very small percentage of the player population opinions.

Arguing reward or punishment for bag space and bank space compared to housing limits also isn't a very good argument. History tells us ESO+ doubles such things. Simple as that. You subscribe you get double the space. When they decided to go the subscription route they easily could have figured what they wanted/needed the max bank space to be and cut it in half for non subscribers. They give non subscribers half the bank space just like they give them half the housing space.

The argument that DLCs, dyes and other things that ESO+ enjoys is available in the crown store so furnishing slots should be also I think is your best argument and makes sense. I think it would need to be slots for individual homes though. Not just one time deal that turns all the 200 slot homes into 400 slot homes for instance. Maybe you purchase ten slots at a time and then assign them to a home permanently.

Path · February 2021

I am, and have always been, ESO +

Don't take my Kodachrome away!

bluebird · February 2021

kargen27 wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

ThorianB wrote: »

The furnishing limit increase is a perk for supporting the upkeep of the game every month. ESO plus members pay to keep the lights turned on. Double furnishings is one of the rewards for doing that.

The question isn't 'Would [free housing slots] result in less profit than [if they aren't free].' See the title and OP's post.
The question is 'Would [having an extra option to buy housing slots] result in less profit than [just the current option]'*
(* and profitability is just one aspect of the discussion, so it's not even one decisive question just part of the larger picture)

Do ESO+ members pay to keep the lights turned on? Let's look at the facts:
- How much does it costs to buy DLCs directly? Over 34,000 Crowns, which is more than 16 months of subcription.
- How many Crowns does ESO+ get you? 1650, which is more than the 1500 Crowns that 15$ gets everyone else.
- What about how much a 700 slot houses cost each? More than 6 months of subscription.
- And how much do individual Furnishing Packs cost? Around 1.5 months of subscription.
- Mounts, pets, costumes and other cosmetics on avg cost around 1 month of subscription. Each. Individually.
- A 5k pack of Crown Crates costs around 2.5 months of subscription.
- Chapters cost 40$ for everyone every year, which is 2.5 months of subscription.

Are ESO+ subs really the people who hold the line between ZOS and financial ruin? As you see, the value of not having a subscription but just selling things (like the DLCs) only directly would be more cost-efficient for ZOS. The Crowns alone more than make up for the price tag of the sub. There is a reason the community recommends subbing - it's more beneficial to the player and less profitable for ZOS to sub than to buy things directly. And with the monetisation model of ESO (the majority of which relies on microtransactions), the 15$ that ESO+ subs pay doesn't weigh nearly as much in ZOS's bottom line than other, more highly monetized sources of income.

So opposing the suggestion that there should be 2 ways to buy housing slots instead of 1 on the grounds that it would impair ZOS's profit margins in any noticeable or significant way is a largely misplaced (or at the very least, exaggerated) concern. It just veils the real, far more insidious undercurrent that is about keeping arbitrary divisions between the community based on whether they bought slots with a sub OR if they bought slots directly - because let's not forget that this thread is about adding an alternative option of buy slots. ZOS find it perfectly acceptable to have the option to buy DLCs, Dye Stamps and Crowns directly, so there is no indication that housing slots would be any worse for the game than that.

Some additional points that counter the 'what about ZOS's profit though' concerns:

1. The % of ESO+ who subscribe only for housing is questionable (Zyphearan is admittedly one of them but even amongst Housing fans that's no guarantee, and the Housing community is much smaller than general ESO players). So the sudden ability to buy housing slots directly as well as with a sub wouldn't reduce the number of subscribers nearly as much as implied by these worries. Even Housing fans may find it preferable to keep their ESO+ and keep their slots that way, than to drop all other benefits to buy slots directly.

2. Furthermore, people talk about [keeping max housing slots only available to ESO+ rather than being available as direct purchase as well] as somehow essential to the survival and continued functioning of the game and ZOS, rather than looking at it as part of a company's excess profit. Naturally, it has a very different effect if people frame it as 'helping to keep the lights on' versus 'to what extent would it contribute to/detract from ZOS's multimillion dollar profit to keep max housing slots exclusive to an ESO+ sub than to make them directly purchasable as well?' (The question whether it would have a negative or positive impact, and to what extent that impact would be even noticeable has been raised earlier.)

3. That's in addition to the fact that 'how much money ZOS makes' isn't the only criteria by which decisions should be evaluated. As evidenced by ZOS giving away stuff for free. Keeping IC paid would have made them more money, yet they found it profitable or otherwise beneficial to give it away. Keeping BGs a DLC-only game type would have made them more money than giving it away for free, and they still did it. So ZOS is perfectly happy to provide alternative options to monetize things, and even to give away things entirely when it suits their cost/benefit analysis.

tl;dr: So far, there isn't really any evidence to support that adding the option to buy max housing slots directly in addition to the sub option would be noticeably or at all worse for the game than to keep it sub-exclusive (worse for ZOS's profits, worse for the community, or anything really).

Arguing the financial aspect makes no sense though because none of us have any data to refer to. A good marketing team will weigh increases and decreases in revenue any changes may have. They can see the actual numbers and can look back at past trends.

Maybe you could argue the change would make more players happy than upset but even that is a guess based on a very small percentage of the player population opinions.

Arguing reward or punishment for bag space and bank space compared to housing limits also isn't a very good argument. History tells us ESO+ doubles such things. Simple as that. You subscribe you get double the space. When they decided to go the subscription route they easily could have figured what they wanted/needed the max bank space to be and cut it in half for non subscribers. They give non subscribers half the bank space just like they give them half the housing space.

The argument that DLCs, dyes and other things that ESO+ enjoys is available in the crown store so furnishing slots should be also I think is your best argument and makes sense. I think it would need to be slots for individual homes though. Not just one time deal that turns all the 200 slot homes into 400 slot homes for instance. Maybe you purchase ten slots at a time and then assign them to a home permanently.

I wasn't the one who brought up the financial argument so if it makes no sense to you, we agree. It was simply in response to the worries that claimed ESO+ subscribers are keeping the lights on at ZOS and that their perks mustn't be touched. All my points did was to highlight how ESO's monetisation system is far more complex than that (e.g. microtransactions), and that ZOS already made many moves that removed or transferred previously-paid-for perks. So subs don't need shut down other players to gatekeep ZOS's profit margins, when the sub price isn't even that major contribution compared to the other more monetized systems, and when ZOS can take care of that themselves and often find even giving away content for free advantageous - let alone giving people the option to buy things, which is what's being discussed here.

The half limits aren't as simple as you make it out to be though. What is 'simple as that' is that sub limits are twice as much as nonsub limits - but that doesn't tell us whether the baseline limit is doubled for subs or whether the baseline limit is halved for nonsubs. One of those is clearly more punitive than the other. Regarding the former, everyone had the functional bank limits for years, and when ESO+ was introduced, everyone got access to those functional bank limits, while subs got it doubled. Regarding the latter, the functional furnishing limit was clearly intended to be the sub value (or even higher than the sub value), while nonsubs got it halved for no other reason than to inconvenience nonsubs.

Furnishing slots for Housing are an essential functional part, just as equipment slots are a functional part of combat. So the furnishing limit has a disproportionately punitive crippling limit on housing gameplay, which is already disproportionately more monetized than other types of gameplay (nonsub PvPers do Cyro, IC, BGs for free and still get all equipment slots; housing fans get half the furnishing slots even though they are charged the same 120 bucks for each manor). The ethical consideration of that double-dipping, and the concern for bringing housing fans to the same standard as fans of other game modes (rather than excessively stigmatised) should be already enough to question why it would be so bad if they had the option to at least buy slot upgrades.

And yes, the proposed system would already work as you suggest - to allow nonsubs to upgrade housing slots up to the functional limit - which, if the system was implemented, could even benefit subs too, allowing us to upgrade all houses up to the 700 technical limit. I write all of this as a sub who thinks that nonsubs shouldn't be treated unfairly based on arbitrary crippling restrictions, and also as a sub who thinks that the ability to buy housing slot upgrades would be welcomed by the whole community (I know I would buy housing slot upgrades for my smaller houses immediately). And even if it would be technically harder to implement the upgrade system beyond the current sub limits, that's no reason to hold off on implementing the ability for nonsubs to buy upgrades up to the current sub limit.

SilverBride · February 2021

bluebird wrote: »

What is 'simple as that' is that sub limits are twice as much as nonsub limits - but that doesn't tell us whether the baseline limit is doubled for subs or whether the baseline limit is halved for nonsubs.

Yes it does. Free to play is the base game. It's what everyone gets. ESO+ is the base game with added perks to make it desirable for players to subscribe.

They didn't start with ESO+ then make cuts to make the base game.

bluebird · February 2021

SilverBride wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

What is 'simple as that' is that sub limits are twice as much as nonsub limits - but that doesn't tell us whether the baseline limit is doubled for subs or whether the baseline limit is halved for nonsubs.

Yes it does. Free to play is the base game. It's what everyone gets. ESO+ is the base game with added perks to make it desirable for players to subscribe.

They didn't start with ESO+ then make cuts to make the base game.

I already disproved this. Three times.

The game used to be subs only. Bank slots were a certain amount baseline, for everyone. Then, when the game got rid of the sub and added ESO+, all players got that baseline, and people who continued to sub got it doubled.

Housing was added while ESO+ was already existing, and they added the sub slots and nonsub slots at that time. Nobody who takes even one look at the early houses (such as inn room loading screens) or the current size/slot limits (where even 700 is too few for manors) could argue that the nonsub limits were the baseline, with sub limits being just a happy little bonus. It's the other way around. Sub limits are barely functional, let alone nonsub limits.

You may not perceive the difference, or may not care about it, but I assure it's there. Taking an established system that has a baseline and then doubling that for subs is a bonus; making a system with barely functional limits and then halving that for nonsubs is a restriction. Just as there are clear difference between having an established price for an item and then discounting it, or adding a new item to a store that pretends to be a 50% discount (when in fact that's its normal price). If anybody can honestly stand here and argue that the nonsub limits are the intended baseline slot for housing (i.e. that 350 slots is the 'normal' limit for 120 buck manors of the size that even ESO+ can't decorate), feel free to do so. 👍

ThorianB · February 2021

bluebird wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

What is 'simple as that' is that sub limits are twice as much as nonsub limits - but that doesn't tell us whether the baseline limit is doubled for subs or whether the baseline limit is halved for nonsubs.

Yes it does. Free to play is the base game. It's what everyone gets. ESO+ is the base game with added perks to make it desirable for players to subscribe.

They didn't start with ESO+ then make cuts to make the base game.

I already disproved this. Three times.

The game used to be subs only. Bank slots were a certain amount baseline, for everyone. Then, when the game got rid of the sub and added ESO+, all players got that baseline, and people who continued to sub got it doubled.

Housing was added while ESO+ was already existing, and they added the sub slots and nonsub slots at that time. Nobody who takes even one look at the early houses (such as inn room loading screens) or the current size/slot limits (where even 700 is too few for manors) could argue that the nonsub limits were the baseline, with sub limits being just a happy little bonus. It's the other way around. Sub limits are barely functional, let alone nonsub limits.

You may not perceive the difference, or may not care about it, but I assure it's there. Taking an established system that has a baseline and then doubling that for subs is a bonus; making a system with barely functional limits and then halving that for nonsubs is a restriction. Just as there are clear difference between having an established price for an item and then discounting it, or adding a new item to a store that pretends to be a 50% discount (when in fact that's its normal price). If anybody can honestly stand here and argue that the nonsub limits are the intended baseline slot for housing (i.e. that 350 slots is the 'normal' limit for 120 buck manors of the size that even ESO+ can't decorate), feel free to do so. 👍

You actually disproved your own argument, twice. But all of this is irrelevant. If you sub you get certain perks. The more perks you take away from subbing, the fewer people who will sub.

bluebird · February 2021

ThorianB wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

What is 'simple as that' is that sub limits are twice as much as nonsub limits - but that doesn't tell us whether the baseline limit is doubled for subs or whether the baseline limit is halved for nonsubs.

Yes it does. Free to play is the base game. It's what everyone gets. ESO+ is the base game with added perks to make it desirable for players to subscribe.

They didn't start with ESO+ then make cuts to make the base game.

I already disproved this. Three times.

The game used to be subs only. Bank slots were a certain amount baseline, for everyone. Then, when the game got rid of the sub and added ESO+, all players got that baseline, and people who continued to sub got it doubled.

Housing was added while ESO+ was already existing, and they added the sub slots and nonsub slots at that time. Nobody who takes even one look at the early houses (such as inn room loading screens) or the current size/slot limits (where even 700 is too few for manors) could argue that the nonsub limits were the baseline, with sub limits being just a happy little bonus. It's the other way around. Sub limits are barely functional, let alone nonsub limits.

You may not perceive the difference, or may not care about it, but I assure it's there. Taking an established system that has a baseline and then doubling that for subs is a bonus; making a system with barely functional limits and then halving that for nonsubs is a restriction. Just as there are clear difference between having an established price for an item and then discounting it, or adding a new item to a store that pretends to be a 50% discount (when in fact that's its normal price). If anybody can honestly stand here and argue that the nonsub limits are the intended baseline slot for housing (i.e. that 350 slots is the 'normal' limit for 120 buck manors of the size that even ESO+ can't decorate), feel free to do so. 👍

You actually disproved your own argument, twice. But all of this is irrelevant. If you sub you get certain perks. The more perks you take away from subbing, the fewer people who will sub.

Well, no.

I'm regularly bringing up evidence to evaluate whether the assertions that are being made actually hold up. I'm happy to consider counterarguments, or some evidence I may have overlooked, but until then addressing claims is all I can do - and no personal offense intended, your opinion is entirely independent from assertions.

The sentence for example 'The more perks you take away from subbing, the fewer people who will sub' is once again a disingenuous mis-framing of the situation. The thread isn't discussing taking away perks from subs. Subs would still have their 700 slots for free. Nothing is 'taken away' from subs. It's just that nonsubs would also have the option to buy something that subs get for free - just like nonsubs can also buy DLCs, Dyes, Crowns while subs get it free.

So that particular argument that has been made several times in this thread is somewhat irrelevant to the suggestion, and has an antagonistic tone e.g. 'they are trying to take away something from us' surely everyone can see the unnecessary divide this kind of framing suggests. Do ESO+ subs 'take away' content from people who bought 40$ Chapters directly when they get those Chapters at no extra cost (unlike this thread which suggests that nonsubs would buy, not get slots for free)? Do people who buy DLCs 'take away' free access to all DLCs from ESO+ subs?

SilverBride wrote: »

bluebird wrote: »

Housing was added while ESO+ was already existing, and they added the sub slots and nonsub slots at that time. Nobody who takes even one look at the early houses (such as inn room loading screens) or the current size/slot limits (where even 700 is too few for manors) could argue that the nonsub limits were the baseline, with sub limits being just a happy little bonus. It's the other way around. Sub limits are barely functional, let alone nonsub limits

First of all, I have 5 houses decorated so far. All of them are fully finished and I have only used approximately half the slots allowed as an ESO+ member. I can't imagine how crowded and unusable the houses would be if I had twice the furnishings placed.

But yes, the baseline and ESO+ slots were established at the same time. And the logical way to do this is to start with a base then add to it. It makes no sense whatsoever to start with the perks then take away from that to establish the baseline. That is completely backward thinking.

You are only speculating what you think they did. Logic shows that to be unlikely.

Actually, evidence shows that exactly what I wrote happened.
- ZOS's early inn loading screens go well beyond the achievable limit even with ESO+,
- their larger houses have also an unachievable item/space ratio without barring sections of the houses off,
- and their ingame nonhousing spaces also make use of a much more dense furnishing environment.
What's your basis for thinking that housing was created with 15-slot inn rooms and 350-slot manors in mind?

Because 'It would be logical' isn't proof to the contrary. The 'logical way' to do 50% discounts is to take the normal price of the item and reduce it by 50%. But often, the price will be artificially inflated before the sale and then reduced to 50% (making it a 25% reduction in reality or something), or even introducing an entirely new item and pretending that the 50% price is a discount, when in fact that was the intended limit in the first place. There is a clear difference between adding a bonus to an existing limit, and implementing a new limit which is barely functional as it is, and then having it halved. Everyone notices the difference, and Fallout even got in trouble with its fake discounts - that is not to say I'm suggesting that ZOS's furnishing limits are illegal, I'm just highlighting that 'it would be logical' isn't proof of how companies do things, especially when money is involved.

It's great for you if you don't think you need more than half the slots to furnishing your houses. Nobody is saying you have to have a problem with it personally. But your personal preference doesn't address the issue that is negatively impacting others; and 'it doesn't bother me' is not an argument for why the system shouldn't be changed.

There are equally as many (or even more) posts by ESO+ subs regularly pointing out that the slot limit is really limiting; and even ZOS acknowledges that the limit exists due to technical reasons, not because they intended housing to go up to 700 slots only and only 350 at baseline.

TwinLamps · February 2021

Give ESO+ members more real stash space and give everybody max housing slots.
With max slots more will be interested in housing, possibly buy your 50+ euros houses
With more stash space more would be interested in ESO+
These changes would most likely result in more cash for zos

Goren · February 2021

[Removed quote]

"Why not subscribe?"Because I play eso on and off, so the subscription model doesn't suit me. I'm the kind of person who buys dlcs directly. If I wanted to decorate my house with the furniture limit eso+ members get, I would need to subscribe. Let's say I do that for a month and decorate Antiquarians Alpine Gallery with up to 600 items. Great. Time passes, I stop playing again and my subscription runs out. Now the Q4 dlc launches and features a wooden staircase that would perfectly fit into my Antiquarians Alpine Gallery. But I can't replace any Item in my house without removing 301 items, so I'm left with no other choices than buying eso+ again. Do you see how ridiculous that is?

Eso+ is great for people like you who have a lot of houses, because your furniture limit is increased across the whole board. But there are people like me who furnish one house only and thus the eso+ benefit isn't really that profitable if we had the option to buy a limit increase only for our desired home.

SilverBride · February 2021

Goren wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Nor has anyone proven why anyone who wants additional housing slots shouldn't just subscribe. What would it hurt them to just subscribe?

The slots are there for the taking now. Nothing has to be changed to make them available now.

So why not just SUBSCRIBE?

"Why not subscribe?"Because I play eso on and off, so the subscription model doesn't suit me.

Why should the game change and give someone a perk for a lot less than others are paying just because they have inconsistent play habits?

Goren · February 2021

SilverBride wrote: »

Why should the game change and give someone a perk for a lot less than others are paying just because they have inconsistent play habits?

Where did you get this idea? I explained that I envisioned this option for $20, that's more money than what you pay for one month of eso+ and it affects one house only.

SilverBride · February 2021

Goren wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Why should the game change and give someone a perk for a lot less than others are paying just because they have inconsistent play habits?

Where did you get this idea? I explained that I envisioned this option for $20, that's more money than what you pay for one month of eso+ and it affects one house only.

And I pay month after month. Add it up.

Smith4HirePmMe2Order · February 2021

Tbh i don't sub much anymore precisely because the ESO housing community gets pooped on so much, and the keep releasing stupid crap we didnt want or ask for like NPC pathing and porting to outside your house..... WE NEEDED WAYSHRINES SO WE COULD LEAVE WHEN WE WERE DONE DOING W/E it was we went to our house to do. And frankly their are OTHER THINGS that were even more critically needed then that..... (see my bio for a list)

also that Zos excuse of "Hurr we cant up the housing limit cuz the ancient crappy consoles would be bad.." Is a super lame ass excuse..
Bruh, Zos, My dudes... IDK how else to say this but anyone playing ESO on a console is a fool. That's not PC elitism, its just reality. This game is UNPLAYABLE without a serious suite of add-ons (craft store, mini map, potion maker, port to friends house, Homestead OCD, the list goes on) and consoles don't have ANY of those addons. + the limited power of the machines makes the game feel bad ontop of all that. This game should NOT be a console game, or atleast it should be upgraded to Next gen consoles like the PS12/Xbox 1337 (or what ever) with more power to handle the game.
i couldn't stand trying to play this on xbox, and noone i know could either. So stop gimping your PC players because of the Console tards.. My pc is made with parts from 2009 and i STILL run this game fine ish. If they cant run the game then that speaks volumes about them and their trash hardware. stop catering to them!!!

ThorianB · February 2021

bluebird wrote: »

Well, no. I'm regularly bringing up evidence to evaluate whether the assertions that are being made actually hold up. I'm happy to consider counterarguments, or some evidence I may have overlooked, but until then addressing claims is all I can do - and no personal offense intended, your opinion is entirely independent from assertions.

The sentence for example 'The more perks you take away from subbing, the fewer people who will sub' is once again a disingenuous mis-framing of the situation. The thread isn't discussing taking away perks from subs. Subs would still have their 700 slots for free. Nothing is 'taken away' from subs. It's just that nonsubs would also have the option to buy something that subs get for free - just like nonsubs can also buy DLCs, Dyes, Crowns while subs get it free.

By giving multiple options to purchase it takes away the exclusivity, which is taking it away. If i can just buy the slots permanently with crowns or gold then that is one less reason i have to purchase. It is one reason why DLC access doesn't make the top of the perk list. The perk list typically goes: craft bag, bank space, furnishing limit, crowns, DLCs, everything else. The first 4 i mentioned are exclusive to a sub as you only get 1500 crowns normally for that price. The more you make not exclusive to the sub the less value the sub has. So allowing people to buy furnishing slots permanently but not allowing sub players to have the same increase devalues the sub. So if you raise the furnishing limit 100 items for a non ESO+ player then you would have to raise it 100( X2) for a ESO+ member in order for the sub to keep its current value.

SilverBride · February 2021

@ThorianB Well said!

katanagirl1 · February 2021

Smith4HirePmMe2Order wrote: »

Tbh i don't sub much anymore precisely because the ESO housing community gets pooped on so much, and the keep releasing stupid crap we didnt want or ask for like NPC pathing and porting to outside your house..... WE NEEDED WAYSHRINES SO WE COULD LEAVE WHEN WE WERE DONE DOING W/E it was we went to our house to do. And frankly their are OTHER THINGS that were even more critically needed then that..... (see my bio for a list)

also that Zos excuse of "Hurr we cant up the housing limit cuz the ancient crappy consoles would be bad.." Is a super lame ass excuse..
Bruh, Zos, My dudes... IDK how else to say this but anyone playing ESO on a console is a fool. That's not PC elitism, its just reality. This game is UNPLAYABLE without a serious suite of add-ons (craft store, mini map, potion maker, port to friends house, Homestead OCD, the list goes on) and consoles don't have ANY of those addons. + the limited power of the machines makes the game feel bad ontop of all that. This game should NOT be a console game, or atleast it should be upgraded to Next gen consoles like the PS12/Xbox 1337 (or what ever) with more power to handle the game.
i couldn't stand trying to play this on xbox, and noone i know could either. So stop gimping your PC players because of the Console tards.. My pc is made with parts from 2009 and i STILL run this game fine ish. If they cant run the game then that speaks volumes about them and their trash hardware. stop catering to them!!!

Wow. Just...wow.