Would you support ArenaNet if they implemented an optional subscription? — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Would you support ArenaNet if they implemented an optional subscription?

Helbjorne.9368Helbjorne.9368 Member ✭✭✭
edited September 16, 2017 in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

How would you feel about an optional subscription to support the company and the further development and improvement of Guild Wars 2?

With talks of upgrading the engine, graphics, and other features in another thread, one of the issues that was consistently brought up was funding. Outside of the Gem Store, ArenaNet has no income to continuously develop Guild Wars 2. That isn't to say that they haven't done a fantastic job thus far, however I think that if there was consistent, reliable funding then the figurative table would be much larger, and a lot more of the issues brought up by the community would be able to be addressed.

I know that being subscription based something that traditionally ArenaNet has been against, but I would really like to see some improvements in terms of engine development and graphics rendering (I'm looking at you, DirectX9), overall QoL features, bug fixes, and profession balancing. Other games have implemented optional subscriptions successfully by rewarding subscribers with little bonuses. For Guild Wars 2, this could take the form of an additional bank tab, bag slot, a monthly gem stipend, etc. If done correctly I think this business model could benefit both the playerbase and ArenaNet, and I'm interested to see how others feel about it.

Edit: Thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion, there were a lot of great back-and-forth conversations with some fantastic community members, and after much debate we ultimately concluded that an optional subscription would not benefit the game nor the playerbase due the cause of the issues listed above and within the thread not being a lack of funding, but rather ArenaNet's priorities. It was also determined that the Gem store provides a lot more funding than initially thought, with a lot of the playerbase purchasing far more Gems monthly than they would ever conceivably pay for a subscription.

Would you support ArenaNet if they implemented an optional subscription? 376 votes

Yes, I support the idea of an optional subscription, regardless of whether or not I would purchase one
27% 104 votes
No, I do not support the idea of an optional subscription
64% 242 votes
I am indifferent
7% 30 votes
<134

Comments

  • bOTEB.1573bOTEB.1573 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 14, 2017

    Yes, I will support them, doesn't matter for me. I like the game and I think subscription plan will be a better overall option. Just my opinion. If they implement optional subscription for example, instead of buying future expansions and lets say u get monthly gems, I will subscribe for sure.

    Wishlist:
    Everything that kills me should be nerfed
    Remove all time gates - I play more than some people yet I receive the same rewards per day/week (PvP/WvW tickets etc)
    ANET developments/events and everything else should be in a schedule with the time I play

  • Helbjorne.9368Helbjorne.9368 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 14, 2017

    @Shirlias.8104 said:
    I don't think a subscription will lead us to "class balance" or "bug fixes".
    Gw2, imho, is ok as it is now:

    1. 30€ expansion every 2 years.
    2. No subscription.
    3. Also ( not related but i'd like to underline this too ) No Equipment improvement ( you can stop to play today and resume next year, and you will be lvl and equipment capped ).

    The best way to support em, if you can/want, is to buy gems with cash and maybe buy a superior tier of the incoming expansion.

    And if you think about:

    1. A bank Tab is worth 600 gems
    2. 800 gems are worth 10€

    I am not sure that a standard sub, let's say between 10-13 €, could give you what you expect.

    When I mention profession balance I'm referring more or less to the amount of outdated and irrelevant skills and traits. If we look at each profession, the overwhelming majority of them have an obvious BiS for traits, which shouldn't happen, as it should be about choices and build paths. Obviously there will always be some that are better than others, but there's a lot of traits and skills that are simply never used, and have been that way for years. Increased funding would allow ArenaNet to allocate more personnel to identifying and addressing these issues.

    I already do my part in purchasing far more Gems monthly than a subscription would cost, and I'm not trying to suggest changing anything regarding gearing up, nor making a subscription mandatory or "P2W" (although we can already purchase gold directly, so that point is moot), but I believe that with reliable and consistent funding we'd be able to see improvements across the board in-game, assuming they were properly allocating said funding.

    Guild Wars 2 is more than capable of going another 10 years in terms of lore and map expansions, but the engine and graphics are 5 years old, and still rendering on DirectX9. Sure, great gameplay and story and all that jazz are going to appeal to new players, but if the game looks outdated it's going to push away potential newcomers, not to mention quite a few veterans would appreciate better graphics I'm sure. Things such as that are massive undertakings that would require substantial funding, but would significantly improve the longevity of the game imo.

  • @Danikat.8537 said:
    Have a look at Elder Scrolls Online. They have an optional subscription (having converted from having a mandatory one) and it doesn't seem to achieve any of the things on your list. Don't get me wrong, I like the game overall (although I prefer GW2) but it's still a prime example of how a subscription (optional or otherwise) is not a magic wand to make sure all the issues you don't like are fixed.

    What it definitely does lead to is lots of features which would normally be available to everyone (paid or otherwise) being locked behind the subscription fee. Want more bank space? Subscribe. Want the equivalent of material storage? Only if you subscribe. Want to actually decorate your house? You'll need to subscribe to place enough items. And so on.

    It also creates a clear division between players and a lot of negativity or resentment. According to some people if you don't subscribe then no matter how much money you spend on the game otherwise or what else you do to support the game and community you are a selfish freeloader who does not care about anything except getting as much as you can for yourself without helping anyone else in any way. And conversely some people believe subscribers are arrogant elitists with no financial sense who think throwing their money away for trivial bonuses makes them a better person and everyone must treat them as the superior being they clearly are.

    Overall I think this game is better off without it. And if you want to give a fixed amount of money to Anet on a regular basis you already have that option - buy whatever amount of gems you think best matches a subscription fee and then use them to buy whatever 'bonuses' you'd like to have. Or convert them to gold. Or if you just want to give the money and don't care what you get in return use the gems to gift stuff to other players.

    That's why I stated if it was implemented properly; I don't think that anything should be locked behind a subscription nor should there be a substantial benefit to subscribing; just a little thank you. I know plenty of people that spend $100s in Gems monthly but would still pay a subscription fee as that's a measurable amount of money that ArenaNet could use in their budget.

    Sadly, ESO falls flat in many areas, but that's due to poor developers, not funding. I'm not saying that a subscription would be a magic wand to fix these issues, but if funding was the limiting factor as to what was and wasn't being addressed, and if those funds would allow these issues to be addressed, then I believe it would be something worth investing in.

    Either way, it's a lot of 'what-ifs'. I just wanted to get a feel for how the community felt about it, and bring it to the attention of ArenaNet if reliable, consistent funding was a concern.

  • Orpheal.8263Orpheal.8263 Member ✭✭✭

    Yes, I would continue to support them, eventualy i'd be even willing to change self over to an optional sub, if it is made well enough to convince me that it is worth it


    Cassandra Lancaster - Achievement Hunter - 28,9k AP currently - Server: Drakkar Lake/EU - Mastery Rank of 254
    I'm the proud Origin of the Elite Specializations Concept (Sub Classes) through the last made CDI Project.


  • Jaken.6801Jaken.6801 Member ✭✭✭

    It depends on what we get in return.
    I wouldn't mind doing an opional subscription if the price is right and the benefits are actually not as high.
    For example they give you five BLC-Keys per month. With my luck they won't even make any minus here :tongue:
    Or maybe some gems.

  • Rauderi.8706Rauderi.8706 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jaken.6801 said:
    It depends on what we get in return.
    I wouldn't mind doing an opional subscription if the price is right and the benefits are actually not as high.
    For example they give you five BLC-Keys per month. With my luck they won't even make any minus here :tongue:
    Or maybe some gems.

    That's kind of my thought on it. (Bonus +1 on that BLC-Keys...)

    We might not even need a subscription so much as an extra reward for buying gems with cash. Perhaps a "reward track" with some non-unique bonuses? Something like keys or random items that would normally come in the boxes (thanks for your $10 and here's an Wardrobe Unlock!).
    The value added could encourage sales.

    Many alts! Handle it!

    "A condescending answer might as well not be an answer at all."
    -Eloc Freidon.5692

  • I would support the idea of an optional subscription but only if it doesn't grant huge benefits which non-subscribed users can't access.
    Titles or a small amount of gems would be a nice little feature but supporting the game is enough reward for me personally.

    The Black Lion Trade Company/Gem Store is one of the better cash shops in MMOs so I don't see a reason why a subscription would be needed, a lot of players already spend a cheeky buck or two in their GW2 career :p

  • Menadena.7482Menadena.7482 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It all depends on the exact proposal however one of my major reasons for coming here was because there was NOT a subscription. I can go idle any time I want and do not have to worry about wasting money.

    New to the game? Feel free to give a yell if you need PVE help.

  • @jokke.6239 said:
    But you do have an "optional sub fee". Just purchase 10-20$ worth of gems every month.

    Which a lot of people already do, myself included, but as I mentioned in the OP and in a few replies, it's about providing reliable and consistent funding that ArenaNet is able to budget with. That isn't to say that they don't incorporate projected Gem sales into their budget, as I'm sure they do, but with more consistent funding we could see the issues listed in the OP addressed.

    @Menadena.7482 said:
    It all depends on the exact proposal however one of my major reasons for coming here was because there was NOT a subscription. I can go idle any time I want and do not have to worry about wasting money.

    And I wouldn't want that to be changed at all. People shouldn't feel forced or obligated to purchase anything that's optional, and an optional subscription should give a few little bonuses to thank those that purchased it for their support, and nothing more.

  • Palador.2170Palador.2170 Member ✭✭✭✭

    There are games where that's a good idea, and games where it's not. I'm really not sure which way it would play here, so I voted Indifferent.

    If it did happen, I'd be willing to consider it, but I'm not going to say yes or no for sure without having details.

    Lip synching is just mime karaoke.

  • Neural.1824Neural.1824 Member ✭✭✭✭

    No. Not without seeing first some financial data from Anet (that they would never release). For as many players as this game supposedly has, I have wondered many times where all the money is going.

    Soul-binding needs to be allowed to die gracefully. It has expired. It is long past it's time to become a footnote in the history of gaming.

  • Haishao.6851Haishao.6851 Member ✭✭✭

    @Helbjorne.9368 said:

    It wouldn't affect you as a consumer if you didn't subscribe as you would be in the exact same position you're in now, however the increased funding would allow ArenaNet to address these aforementioned issues, we would see an increase in content, and a decrease in the time in which these things are handled/presented.

    This is false. You're only in the same position if no other position come take its place. Adding an higher position make the one you're currently in become lower.
    Therefor you're not in the same position as before.

    There's no way to tell they would make more money with a subscription on top of the gem store. The only way to assume they would is if everyone who already buy gems would also subscribe. Or if people who never buy gems would suddenly subscribe. Gemstore is already an optional subscription model. There's no reason to have a second one on top of it. If you are in the opinion that arenanet doesn't make enough money, buy more gems. Or even more game "boxes" or physical goods from their store.

    Also money doesn't fix everything. This forum is a very good proof of it. They trashed 5 years of posts to upgrade the forum engine. Fixing the engine could lead into them having to trash all characters or progress. Would you want that? I certainly wouldn't. I'd prefer they make another game than potentially destroy this one.

  • Shirlias.8104Shirlias.8104 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Let's take an example:
    A player will subscribe for 2 years ( 10€ month x 24 months = 240€ ), since the beginning of this expansion, till the end of it.
    What could have more than the other players which have just bought the expansion?

    1. 500 gems/month
    2. personal golem banker ( until the subscription is active )
    3. 10 % extra Karma, golds, reward tracks
    4. Esclusive Title/Avatar on forum

    What about something like this.
    Would you buy this instead 300 more gems?

  • If it were for a stipend of gems rather than anything exclusive (maybe a free item but nothing super spectacular?) it'd be fine. The "cash shop" of this game is pretty good, I think some people would find this method paying off as a lot of players wait for items to pop on sale before buying gems. This way there'd be a steady gem flow for them and they'd feel better about those impulse purchases being already paid for.

  • Malediktus.9250Malediktus.9250 Member ✭✭✭✭

    If the entire profit of the subscription was used for engine improvements and new ingame contents, I would support having one.

  • Shaaba.5672Shaaba.5672 Member ✭✭✭

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:
    There's no other form of an optional subscription that won't have a huge impact on the game no matter how it's implemented. People will be livid, for starters, accusing ANet of going back on their business philosophy

    Yeah, it's gonna be a lot of bad press if they were to choose to do this. You can step down to an optional subscription, but not step up to one with ease.

  • Shirlias.8104Shirlias.8104 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Malediktus.9250 said:
    If the entire profit of the subscription was used for engine improvements and new ingame contents, I would support having one.

    Better start a kickstarter, just to be sure.

  • I would definitely subscribe to help the game. However, I understand that most need an incentive to subscribe. I also understand that subscriptions cannot create divide between subscribers and non-subscribers.

    If anything, I'd subscribe if ArenaNet made all current outfits, armor skins and gliders available for free with the subscription, but once the subscription ended, those items are revoked, unless purchased with actual money.

    Or maybe the ability to change how my character looked, any time, without having to buy a makeover kit every time.

  • Greyraven.4258Greyraven.4258 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 14, 2017

    No it goes against what Arenanet promised us in the Original GW and the GW2 MMO manifesto, they have (unlike so many other developers) kept their promise of no monthly fee, and I have zero problem buying the expansion as quick as they come out and regularly buying Gems.

  • @OriOri.8724 said:
    Optional subscriptions always eventually end up with lots of features hidden behind that paywall that should be in the base game, otherwise people have no incentive to buy the subscription.

    Plus, GW2 has a gem store...... I've never understood why some players are so eager to hop onto a subscription model but are reluctant to spend their money on gems . If you want to support the game you have ways to do that, and if you have no need for gems then either give gifts away or convert htem to gold.

    As players we already have the ability to support Anet on a monthly (or more/less often) basis via buying gems. If you think this game is worth a $10/month subscription, then buy 800 gems each month for money, not gold. Otherwise your suggestion falls a bit flat

    You have perfectly valid points, however, some of us just like the idea of a subscription model where it feels rewarding to donate 10$-15$, or whatever it would be.

  • Haishao.6851Haishao.6851 Member ✭✭✭

    @Lucas.2974 said:

    You have perfectly valid points, however, some of us just like the idea of a subscription model where it feels rewarding to donate 10$-15$, or whatever it would be.

    You're already rewarded 800 gems for paying 10$

  • Helbjorne.9368Helbjorne.9368 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 14, 2017

    @Haishao.6851 said:

    @Helbjorne.9368 said:

    It wouldn't affect you as a consumer if you didn't subscribe as you would be in the exact same position you're in now, however the increased funding would allow ArenaNet to address these aforementioned issues, we would see an increase in content, and a decrease in the time in which these things are handled/presented.

    This is false. You're only in the same position if no other position come take its place. Adding an higher position make the one you're currently in become lower.
    Therefor you're not in the same position as before.

    There's no way to tell they would make more money with a subscription on top of the gem store. The only way to assume they would is if everyone who already buy gems would also subscribe. Or if people who never buy gems would suddenly subscribe. Gemstore is already an optional subscription model. There's no reason to have a second one on top of it. If you are in the opinion that arenanet doesn't make enough money, buy more gems. Or even more game "boxes" or physical goods from their store.

    Also money doesn't fix everything. This forum is a very good proof of it. They trashed 5 years of posts to upgrade the forum engine. Fixing the engine could lead into them having to trash all characters or progress. Would you want that? I certainly wouldn't. I'd prefer they make another game than potentially destroy this one.

    No, money certainly doesn't fix everything, although I don't think the forum change is a good example. I had plenty of posts on the old one, and the migration doesn't bother me in the least; posts older than a week rarely see the light of day again anyways. A better example would be @Danikat.8537's comparison to The Elder Scrolls Online business model, in which they have multiple features gated behind an 'optional' subscription, yet continue to make poor decisions regarding the development of the game.

    Engine improvements and a graphics overhaul wouldn't involve losing any characters or progress either, plenty of games have improved their engines/graphics over time and it didn't affect anything negatively. That isn't to say that it can't negatively affect anything, but rather that it likely won't (or at the very least they wouldn't implement it until it wouldn't).

    That all being said, I understand that a lot of people wouldn't like this, especially seeing as this hasn't been ArenaNet's traditional business model, but as I mentioned in the OP, this poll was made in response to another discussion, seen here, and is meant to just gauge the community's opinion on the idea.

    The better question I would have, and the one I should have asked, is how can we, as the playerbase, get these changes listed in the OP (engine/graphics overhaul, additional QoL features (cough build templates cough), profession optimization (ie. outdated traits, unused skills, etc.)) implemented?

  • I'm personally opposed to a business model that couples a subscription (optional or not) with microtransactions. I'm good with either one, but both feels like double dipping to me, taking advantage of people with addictive personalities.

    Ordo Dominican [ZEAL]
    Sea of Sorrows

  • I voted no because I don’t want the hassle of subbing and unsubbing if I decide to take a break. I buy gems when I play and I feel that is an easier way to support the game.

  • JVJD.4912JVJD.4912 Member ✭✭✭

    Just keep your majority occupied playing the game. Thats all the company needs needs to do to attract $$

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I did vote yes since I can afford and am not opposed to a subsciption model.

    The major flaw I see here though is that eventually people who pay a subscription will demand something in return for their money. Also GW2 would lose one of its major draws: being buy to play.

    Personally I think the way it is right now works too. If you want to support arenanet monthly, just buy some gems each month and put it down as you monthly subscription. Done.

  • Menadena.7482Menadena.7482 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Helbjorne.9368 said:

    @Menadena.7482 said:
    It all depends on the exact proposal however one of my major reasons for coming here was because there was NOT a subscription. I can go idle any time I want and do not have to worry about wasting money.

    And I wouldn't want that to be changed at all. People shouldn't feel forced or obligated to purchase anything that's optional, and an optional subscription should give a few little bonuses to thank those that purchased it for their support, and nothing more.

    Which is why the exact proposal would matter. For example, paying an 'optional' sub fee for material storage (who in the world would do that) is not something I would consider an option.

    New to the game? Feel free to give a yell if you need PVE help.

  • Rhanoa.3960Rhanoa.3960 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 14, 2017

    Standard Sub

    • $14.99 x 60 months (5yrs) Valued at $899.40

    My Gem Purchase (can substitute as a Subscription)

    • $18.17 x 60 months (5yrs) Totally at $1090.20 Spending an extra $38.16 a year so far out of 50 purchases.

    I can log into the game when I want and spend what I want. I'm a very satisfied happy customer.

  • A subscription would never be successful without offering benefits for subscribing.

    I'm very happy to support ANet through gem purchases (and spend about £50 a month minimum on gems), but to add a subscription would mean offering in-game benefits for that subscription, going directly against ANet's philosophy of no Pay to Win. (and a subscription providing benefits is, at it's very core, paying money for advantage over other players).

    If you want to support ANet, simply buy gems like I do.

    Rapthorne Deathbane: Scourge of the Northern Shiverpeaks.
    Always happy to lend a hand, pm me here or in game with questions

  • Ashen.2907Ashen.2907 Member ✭✭✭✭

    There is already an option to spend money on the game every month.

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @Helbjorne.9368 said:
    How would you feel about an optional subscription to support the company and the further development and improvement of Guild Wars 2?

    A-Net is not a charity organization that needs our financial support to make the world a better place. It is a company that sells a game/game-service to its customers.
    If the game/product is good enough to attract a lot of customers and they want to pay for the product, the company makes a lot of money.

    We as customers can decide, if we want to spent money for the game but we can not decide how the money is spent by A-Net and its shareholders.

    It would be an illusion if we would think that we just have to give the company more money and they will work on the features that we want but did not have yet.

    So, if there would be an optional subscription (in Rift it is called "patron") in GW2 I would ask what I would get for my money what I would otherwise not get in the GEM-store before I make the buy/not-buy decision.

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • They really need to implement a way for us to edit posts longer than 15 minutes, as a lot of people are replying to the OP without reading the thread.

  • The Revenant.4970The Revenant.4970 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 14, 2017

    I won't pay a subscription for a game ever again. That's why I invested in GW2 to begin with...

    and when has there ever been a successful transition from Buy to Play...to Subscription? Stop trying to poison the well.

  • Quoting myself here:

    @Helbjorne.9368 said:
    That all being said, I understand that a lot of people wouldn't like this, especially seeing as this hasn't been ArenaNet's traditional business model, but as I mentioned in the OP, this poll was made in response to another discussion, seen here, and is meant to just gauge the community's opinion on the idea.

    The better question I would have, and the one I should have asked, is how can we, as the playerbase, get these changes listed in the OP (engine/graphics overhaul, additional QoL features (cough build templates cough), profession optimization (ie. outdated traits, unused skills, etc.)) implemented?

  • Although I actually said yes, sub away and all that, it's because I have a horrid habit of spending rather too much on gems, rather than to assist with any kind of game development. I couldn't possibly discuss that, since I don't know the in-depth financials and where cash gets distributed, or what the development cycles are at Anet. I can only, therefore, talk about what I think would be best for me (and me alone).

    So in some ways, I'd rather a straight-up subscription and no gem shop, and all the gem shop stuff available to acquire with in-game currencies. That said, even with a sub if there was a gem shop, I'd probably still buy gems, but would hope to see some kind of discount, or veteran points scheme. Mostly I shouldn't spend so much and a sub only and no in-game shop would likely help with that - well, I would hope, anyway.

    On the other hand, I always liked the buy-to-play of GW2 - it's what kept me playing when I didn't have the cash to spend regularly on games (let alone gems). I'm also no muppet, and know those days could come again sooner than I'd like. If/when they do, I'll be grateful I don't have to sub, and hopefully able to grind enough gold to buy anything I fancy that pops up on the gem shop (unlikely for those short-term sales, but that's a different discussion).

    On the other hand, the base game is already free-to-play, with restrictions. People who bought the game don't have the restrictions. Just how different is that (hypothetically) to someone who subs vs. someone who doesn't? (that last one's rhetorical.)

    "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Steve R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."

  • Nikal.4921Nikal.4921 Member ✭✭✭

    There would have to be some incentive for players to purchase subscriptions. Usually that means non-subscribers get locked out of something. Sooner or later have some advantage over non-subscribers. You get into Have & Have-not territory. I would not like to see that. I pour enough money into the gem store that I would feel pretty bitter about that.

  • @Helbjorne.9368 said:
    How would you feel about an optional subscription to support the company and the further development and improvement of Guild Wars 2?

    With talks of upgrading the engine, graphics, and other features in another thread, one of the issues that was consistently brought up was funding. Outside of the Gem Store, ArenaNet has no income to continuously develop Guild Wars 2. That isn't to say that they haven't done a fantastic job thus far, however I think that if there was consistent, reliable funding then the figurative table would be much larger, and a lot more of the issues brought up by the community would be able to be addressed.

    I know that being subscription based something that traditionally ArenaNet has been against, but I would really like to see some improvements in terms of engine development and graphics rendering (I'm looking at you, DirectX9), overall QoL features, bug fixes, and profession balancing. Other games have implemented optional subscriptions successfully by rewarding subscribers with little bonuses. For Guild Wars 2, this could take the form of an additional bank tab, bag slot, a monthly gem stipend, etc. If done correctly I think this business model could benefit both the playerbase and ArenaNet, and I'm interested to see how others feel about it.

    Edit: For those that don't agree with an optional subscription, would you mind elaborating why? It wouldn't affect you as a consumer if you didn't subscribe as you would be in the exact same position you're in now, however the increased funding would allow ArenaNet to address these aforementioned issues, we would see an increase in content, and a decrease in the time in which these things are handled/presented.

    if any1 loves the game and wants to support anet more they can buy gems and stuff from arenanet , idk what would any1 wants from optional subscription ? u can buy all from gemshop , mybe a passive xp booster or free acces to Captain's Airship Pass and such or a combat booster ,,,, well u already can get them from gemstore and have them on all the time :)

  • OriOri.8724OriOri.8724 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lucas.2974 said:

    @OriOri.8724 said:
    Optional subscriptions always eventually end up with lots of features hidden behind that paywall that should be in the base game, otherwise people have no incentive to buy the subscription.

    Plus, GW2 has a gem store...... I've never understood why some players are so eager to hop onto a subscription model but are reluctant to spend their money on gems . If you want to support the game you have ways to do that, and if you have no need for gems then either give gifts away or convert htem to gold.

    As players we already have the ability to support Anet on a monthly (or more/less often) basis via buying gems. If you think this game is worth a $10/month subscription, then buy 800 gems each month for money, not gold. Otherwise your suggestion falls a bit flat

    You have perfectly valid points, however, some of us just like the idea of a subscription model where it feels rewarding to donate 10$-15$, or whatever it would be.

    How is it any different then just buying $10-15 worth of gems each month? With a subscription model you will have 3 options

    A - The subscription gives you stuff worth less than the $10-15 of gems you could buy wth the money, so its abandoned rather quickly
    B - The subscription gives you the gems (or items equivalent in value to that amount of gems)
    C - The subscription gives you more than this much in worth each month, at which point it no longer is an optional thing, but slowly starts to become a mandatory thing, and GW2 will start to look more and more like runescape

    Optional subscriptions are bad. If there is to be a supscription then make it mandatory (not that I support this decision either)

    Eyyyy I unlocked signatures

  • Donari.5237Donari.5237 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Helbjorne.9368 said:
    They really need to implement a way for us to edit posts longer than 15 minutes, as a lot of people are replying to the OP without reading the thread.

    Good news, they're going to do that. Check page 13 of the Forums Feedback thread for Gaile's post on it (I assume the page numbers are the same for everyone regardless of their screen size). Iirc anyone who has at least five posts on the forums and has been registered at least 3 days will get unlimited edits (so the first batch of people able to do that will get the ability tomorrow), and new "recruits" will get the 4 hour limit.

    OT: Danikat nailed it, as did others replying in the negative. We do have optional contribution via gem purchases. If the "optional" sub gets incentives akin to ESO's, it's no longer optional. I know that I could not be bothered to play ESO again without the crafting bag, which is essentially infinite mats storage you can put stuff in for as long as you keep paying. You think GW2 inventory management is difficult, go try the much more restricted space in ESO >< On top of that, you have to be a subscriber to use dyes on costumes (their "outfits). I feel like there it's not exactly pay to win but it is pay to enjoy.

    I've spent a great deal on this game, all of it voluntary and most of it back when I had income. I'm not interested in a paywall between me and QoL, or in feeling that I'd have to pay more from my dwindling reserves than I choose to on a case by case basis. And if this "optional sub" gives no benefits that non-subbers cannot get, then how on earth do you expect anyone to be willing to toss extra money at the game they weren't already willing to spend on individual transactions?

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.