Would you support ArenaNet if they implemented an optional subscription? - Page 3 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Would you support ArenaNet if they implemented an optional subscription?

13

Comments

  • Shaaba.5672Shaaba.5672 Member ✭✭✭

    @Helbjorne.9368 said:

    @Shaaba.5672 said:

    @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 outdated traits, unused skills, etc.))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?

    I think the answer is, we can't. We can make suggestions, but this isn't our game. We get the privileged of playing someone else's hard work. Yeah, we pay for that privileged, but that's only fair. It doesn't give us the right to make demands. If you're unhappy, simple, don't give them anymore money. If enough people do that, they'll get the message.

    I'm guessing Anet has looked at some of those changes you want, weighed the pros and cons and made some decisions based on things we can't see and have no way of knowing about. I think it's a mistake to equate money with getting your demands heard. As a playerbase we've made some progress just using our voice and having a discussion. It's also kind of clear that no amount of shouting is going to change other things.

    No one here is shouting, nor is anyone making any demands. I looked at the issues constantly being brought up on both the forums and Reddit, and given that funding was a consistent suspected factor as to why things aren't being addressed, proposed a solution. Everyone in this thread has made strong cases on both sides, and I believe that implementing an optional subscription this late into the game's development would be detrimental based on both the poll and the arguments presented by those that oppose the idea of an optional subscription.

    Not here, no. Other issues have become quite heated and if we all felt entitled to have our personal top priorities addressed because we were subscribers, I can't imagine it becoming less heated or less fractured. You may be paying for a build template, but I've decided to pay because I want to play Tengu. I'm going to be disappointed if templates come out, you're going to be disappointed if Tengu comes out, and more likely, we're both going to be disappointed when neither come out.

  • @Ashantara.8731 said:
    I would consider the idea if I was guaranteed content improvement. And by content I don't mean silly new travel mechanics or new strange futuristic skins, but better writing, more personalized content (based on race, profession, and personality choice at character creation), more love in the design department (Go back to the roots, guys! As an example, take a look at the pirate captain's cave in Lion's Arch <3), more focus on what really makes a game engaging, exciting and entertaining (atmospheric places, excellent writing, mini games, more RPG quality content, etc.).

    I just watched this video, and many of the things the game is dearly missing are listed in it:

    I think the fact that the most popular and demamnded items/events are ls s1 era tells you something. new game is garbage go back to old game.

  • Just the fact that people would rather sell teir kidneys at the chance to GLIMPSE old content instead of playing your new content says it all.

    I refer of course to southsun, marionette, la war, and queena jubejubes

  • Lambent.6375Lambent.6375 Member ✭✭✭

    The could do a GW2 in game version of loot crate, that comes with a combination of guaranteed stuff, and stuff that they change up each month, maybe even some unique items sometimes.

    Important detail though.

    • You would have to purchase it before the crate is released each month, just like the ones irl. If they don't do it this way, people would just not buy it, until they see something they want.

    It wouldn't be a subscription, but it should have a similar effect, and you wont have to deal with people converting their accounts to a sub model, and then wanting to go back to the non sub model.

    @FOX.3582 said:
    A freaking chair. Woah. I personally can't wait to buy a gem store CHAIR, so all my characters can SIT around in Tyria while other players see me, SITTING there, looking like a [email protected] ...

  • Cronos.6532Cronos.6532 Member ✭✭✭

    Absolutely would do an optional subscription for VIP features

    signature

  • Helbjorne.9368Helbjorne.9368 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 15, 2017

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    Thank you for sharing this. It really does hit on just about every issue I mentioned in the OP and in this thread even if only briefly, and seeing as WP is a well known content creator and an ArenaNet partner, hopefully they listen to his criticism and address the majority of these issues. They have made balance changes directly following his videos/advice in the past, so I'd say things are fairly hopeful.

  • blambidy.3216blambidy.3216 Member ✭✭✭✭

    If it's a subscription i would hope it's like eso. Get all content for updates and get gems. If that was the case I would happily do that. However I don't want to pay a sub and wait another year for expansion and then have to pay for the expansion when I already put over a hundred into the game that year and still pay for the expansion. As much as this sounds nice. Would arenanet even be ready for that many subscribers to update the game for us subscribers? Say if we started now, in a Couple months would we get something valuable that's updated? And them still work on the next expansion while working on POF bugs that everyone will go through? That's something arenanet has to decide. Not saying no. Just is it realistic. There barely over 150 employees who work there. And you have to constantly keep up for millions of people, it's going to be a big heartache. And be prepared for their methods to change.

  • You can't treat gem store sales as if it's inconsequential when it comes to a game like this- that's a massive amount of money for a f2p game. Nor can you ignore box sales for xpacs. GW2 simply doesn't come out with new content except when it's behind a pay wall- living story, xpacs all cost money. Other than that I think they've come out with three zones since launch- Maguuma Wastes and Southsun iirc. And even then, these aren't complex zones with stories and new mechanics or goals- they're more of the same in a blur of zones that almost all play the same.

    My point is- since launch, other than the things they require you to pay for, they don't really add anything to the game to justify a sub, they barely justify it being a f2p game frankly. While engine upgrades and the such would be great, I feel like most of what OP is asking for a sub are what other mmos would just call 'typical patching', even if some mmos admittedly do a poor job of it (GW2 included).

    I cringe at the idea of paying for what is normal behaviour, I even cringe at the thought of doing it for minimal content additions. If the game's going to add a sub, I'd definitely want steady content patches including meaningful additions and evolution of the game outside of xpacs. As it is now, well, they add some stuff with xpacs- zones, mounts, flight, hero classes- as well as a bit of story, so that's worth money imo. If they want to charge subs- let's say industry standard 15/month- are they going to add content every 3 months or so?

    I'm honestly kinda doubtful they will- and without that, subs don't belong.

    GW2 is a very successful mmo, probably one of the most, and it's raking in a lot of money for very little in return- let's not give them more ideas to milk money and potentially ruin the game. Because let's face it- they could still be making bank and adding story, content, and fixing up engine issues at a profit. Giving them excuses to milk players for more money is just enabling more greed- and it'll come with limitations, it always does with f2p subs.

    Think about it this way- what can Anet offer? Gems? You can already buy those. Bags, bank space- why not have that as part of the gem store? Access to constant new content releases- oh, those don't exist. They don't really have anything that can't just be earned through gems- and when you want to push a sub (and trust me, if they change their direction from being against subs to having them, that's a major change in strategic direction and it won't be for 'oh, we hope a few people might sub' it'll be an all in 'we need 500k subs' or so) you want to push it hard. They'll take things, and say 'if you want it back, sub'.

    Guaranteed. I'll eat my words if I'm wrong on this- smash my face right through my monitor and start chomping down.

  • @castlemanic.3198 said:

    @Helbjorne.9368 said:
    I wasn't dismissing Living World, but because I have little knowledge on it, I excluded it. I'm not claiming that those aren't updates, but content was never a point of my argument, I was replying to the comment that content was already coming consistently, when the content being provided is PvE content, which only benefits a portion of the community. Of course, PvP and WvW content updates only benefit a portion of the community as well, but if one portion of the playerbase (PvE) gets constant updates and the other does not, you can understand why the portion that doesn't get relevant content feels left out.

    As for the WvW and PvP updates you posted, they added a new reward track, a backpack, the 2v2 deathmatch map is purely for fun (there are no rewards, matchmaking, rankings, etc.), and the Automated Tournaments only pertain to 5 man groups and are extremely bugged. That imo isn't content, it's features (minus the 2v2 map), but then again the argument could be made that features = content.

    Either way, that still doesn't address the other issues that I listed (and the entire purpose of the proposal), which have been issues for quite some time:
    "QoL improvements are seen maybe once every 6 months, and they're often quite minimal. We're getting additional Elite Specializations when the core professions are still poorly optimized with many professions having multiple useless traits, skills, and weapons. Abilities are balanced based on PvE and PvP, often leaving one or the other underpowered. There are still abilities with known bugs that haven't been addressed. Some professions still aren't capable of pushing 30k+ DPS regardless of build, when others are pushing close to 40k. The only customizable portion of the UI is the minimap, the graphics are still rendered in DirectX9, the list goes on and on."

    That all being said, I think it is safe to say that an optional subscription would not directly help these issues be addressed, and that the community rejects the idea of an optional subscription regardless of whether or not it means securing more consistent development and updates for the game.

    "We get content every 2 years (excluding Living World)" is definitely a comment about content (and does dismiss Living World updates as content). You're not wrong in that pvp and wvw updates are lacking, but the recent update is objectively content and hopefully points to more frequent updates in the future (it's possible that pvp and wvw have a much more involved QA procedure than pve content since it does focus on players fighting against players and not npcs and that may be what causes issues). Quality of life improvements happen depending on what you deem as 'quality of life improvements', automated tournaments are a huge quality of life improvment for pvpers who like tournaments and stuff like that, improvements to lfg are also quality of life improvements, there are several that have occurred and several that havent occurred. Elite specialisations are expansion territory, and thus shouldn't be a complaint about guild wars 2 in general, though non-elite spec builds need to match elite spec builds in power, and everything else you mention is in the huge but vague category of 'balance', besides the bugs which need to be fixed.

    At least the topic is ended.

    @Lucas.2974 said:
    Well, is didn't particularly mean ALL skins and outfits. I meant current ones that are available for purchase to everyone.

    Second, perhaps it's me, but I fail to see how it's a major disadvantage to a non-subscriber? The outfits and skins are available for purchase to them, and it'll be permanent, as opposed to the subscription idea, which is not.

    Lastly, what I'm proposing won't allow subscribers to access skins and dyes NOT currently attainable. Only those that are.

    I meant huge disadvantages to a subscriber if they stop paying subscription fees. Having access to the majority of skins (as you specifically proposed) for the subscription fee does play heavily into the fashion wars.

    And your last comment makes it even MORE of a disadvantage or has way more hassle involved programming wise (what happens if an item becomes unattainable while someone has a subscription, do they lose access to it when it could have been a permanent unlock for them if they had paid for that specific item?). LOTS of things that could go wrong with that, and again no tangible benefit for the developers to do this and the downsides are too huge for subscribers losing out on subscriptions (as well as the absolutely assured massive backlash from established fans/veterans who would riot at the inclusion of such a huge quality of life feature made exclusive to subscribers), making it either a permanent thing that someone tries to keep up with, or something that's too huge of a risk to take and thus they won't even pay the subscription where they otherwise might have (which may in fact mean if someone becomes unable to pay the subscription fee, they may simply leave gw2 and never return). Having access to a HUGE wardrobe and having that access suddenly cut off at the whim of a credit card is NOT a viable thing for any subscription model, huge losses like that aren't something that most people would be willing to put up with.

    We're far better off without a subscription fee, no matter what benefits can be put forth.

    You're making a lot of bold claims, without any proper evidence to account for what you're stating. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand where you're coming from, but disagree with the content of your argument.

    As it stands, having the option to have access to all skins currently in the shop is no different than purchasing it permanently. However, with the subscription, people have access to any sort of customization that they desire, rather than paying for one item.

    However, if the subscriber did indeed like an item, they can happily purchase the permanent version. Moreover, it's disingenuous to say that it'll be something difficult to code for. That is, unless we both know this to be fact, it's an empty statement with no truth in it.

  • Shirlias.8104Shirlias.8104 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 15, 2017

    @Helbjorne.9368 said:

    @Donari.5237 said:
    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?

    Personally, I'd suggest the following:

    • 1 or 2 Additional Bank Tabs while subscription is active
    • 1 or Additional Bag Slots (account wide) while subscription is active
    • 1000 Gem monthly stipend while subscription is active
    • Personal Assistant that gives you remote access to Bank, Merchant (basic), and Trading Post while subscription is active
    • Beauty Parlor, which allows you to change appearance of any character as many times as you wish while subscription is active

    I understand the prevalent counterargument in the thread is "just buy Gems," but again, the better question I should have posed is if the reason for the lack of the changes and improvements to the game listed in the OP, the other thread I linked, and elsewhere in this thread isn't tied to funding, what is it tied to, and how can we as the playerbase help get these changes implemented? The obvious answer would be to simply post on the forums about it, however people have been posting about build templates (excuse the meme), numerous other QoL improvements, profession optimization, graphics/engine updates, etc. for quite some time on the forums, and to no avail. That's not to say that every suggestion is worth implementing, nor is it to say that suggestions don't go unheard, but if the reason for the delay on the implementation of these suggestions is due to a lack of reliable and consistent funding (which Gem store purchases are not), would an optional subscription be a viable solution?

    This would be impossible.
    1. 800 gems > 10€ -> 1000 gems = 12.5€
    2. Banker Golem > 500 gems/2weeks > 1000 gems monthly fee > 12.5€
    3. Hair Style > 250gems each > XXXXXXXXX gems monthly fee > XXXXX €
    4. Additional bank tab > 1200 gems > 15€
    5. Additional bag Slots account wide > 400 gems each > 5 €

    Total Cost per month, between 40€ and infinite. Depends how much would they value an infinite personal hairstile.

  • If the implementation of a sub would mean that they spend less time making cash shop stuff and more time developing stellar content, I'd love to have a sub choice.

    But nothing like the CN VIP system where you get a free prec every month :sweat_smile:

  • Henry.5713Henry.5713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The talk about the mising funding is a little misinformed. Assumptions done by people who do not know the financial workings at ArenaNet. We are not talking about a Kickstarter project or anything similar here. We are talking about a big developer with a huge publisher behind them. The funding would already have been given by NCSoft if a new engine was deemed worthy of the investment. I am not even opposed to an optional sub or a premium system as other games might call it but throwing money at them will not change anything or make them focus on the project you want to see most.

    Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something. ~ Robert Heinlein

  • Thelgar.7214Thelgar.7214 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 15, 2017

    @Shirlias.8104 said:

    @Helbjorne.9368 said:

    @Donari.5237 said:
    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?

    Personally, I'd suggest the following:

    • 1 or 2 Additional Bank Tabs while subscription is active
    • 1 or Additional Bag Slots (account wide) while subscription is active
    • 1000 Gem monthly stipend while subscription is active
    • Personal Assistant that gives you remote access to Bank, Merchant (basic), and Trading Post while subscription is active
    • Beauty Parlor, which allows you to change appearance of any character as many times as you wish while subscription is active

    I understand the prevalent counterargument in the thread is "just buy Gems," but again, the better question I should have posed is if the reason for the lack of the changes and improvements to the game listed in the OP, the other thread I linked, and elsewhere in this thread isn't tied to funding, what is it tied to, and how can we as the playerbase help get these changes implemented? The obvious answer would be to simply post on the forums about it, however people have been posting about build templates (excuse the meme), numerous other QoL improvements, profession optimization, graphics/engine updates, etc. for quite some time on the forums, and to no avail. That's not to say that every suggestion is worth implementing, nor is it to say that suggestions don't go unheard, but if the reason for the delay on the implementation of these suggestions is due to a lack of reliable and consistent funding (which Gem store purchases are not), would an optional subscription be a viable solution?

    This would be impossible.
    1. 800 gems > 10€ -> 1000 gems = 12.5€
    2. Banker Golem > 500 gems/2weeks > 1000 gems monthly fee > 12.5€
    3. Hair Style > 250gems each > XXXXXXXXX gems monthly fee > XXXXX €
    4. Additional bank tab > 1200 gems > 15€
    5. Additional bag Slots account wide > 400 gems each > 5 €

    Total Cost per month, between 40€ and infinite. Depends how much would they value an infinite personal hairstile.

    The Personal Assistant/Beauty Parlor is equivalent to a Permanent Bank Access Contract, Permanent Trading Post Contract, Permanent Black Lion Trading Post Contract and Permanent Hairstylist Contract (with additional functionality) - that's about 11000 gold or 800 dollars at seller price on the TP right now. So you'd need to subscribe for over six-and-a-half years at $10 per month to make up the value just of that...

  • @Helbjorne.9368 said:

    @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.

    You say "it's about providing reliable and consistent funding" but nothing about optional says reliable or consistent. Honestly, they make way more money off whales and streamers opening chests than they would with an occasional 10 bucks thrown at them. Give people a reason or inclination to not purchase gems, IE subscriptions, and they would actually lose money. I have three people in my household alone that plays this game, and I purchase gems for each of us regularly. So lets do some math. 10 bucks per person per month is $30...or...$35 per person for gems per month, occasionally more, totaling $110 . Not to mention the deluxe versions of the xpacs added onto that bill. And I'm willing to pay this amount BECAUSE I want to support the game. Also, why pay $10 a month for 500 gems, when you can pay $10 for 800 now? Just buy gems and support them through their own planned business model, it makes more money for them anyway.

  • @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:
    That's why the action camera and material storage improvements were labors of love by individual employees (who also happened to have enough authority to shoehorn them into the game) -- they agreed that these were important QoL changes and that they were unlikely to be prioritized by management because there are just too many things that we all want. Or put another way, do you really think Linsey Murdock lacks enough influence to have moved the material storage overhaul to the priority list? Or do you accept her own assessment that it was more appropriate to do it as a side project?


    tl;dr it's not at all clear that the issue preventing popular changes from being prioritized is lack of resources/money. Even as a thought experiment, a subscription (perfectly implemented or not) isn't likely to address the core issue which is: ANet doesn't have to agree with any of our own personal ideas of what should be done next.

    You brought up a lot of good points, and I after reading all the arguments/counter-arguments in this thread I think that it's safe to assume that it isn't a lack of funding, although it may still be a lack of resources given that there aren't enough developers to address these issues (ie. having a dedicated balance team, a dedicated PvP team, etc.), but no amount of funding would fix that if those issues aren't a priority for ArenaNet. I find it hard to swallow that after 2 years there are still acknowledged bugs with some abilities (Necro GS5 for instance) that have yet to be addressed, and that after 2 years of HoT elite specs we still haven't had a core profession trait overall to compliment these changes, and that after 5 years we still have traits, skills, and weapons that are considered completely useless with some professions, but as you stated, that falls on the company's priorities, and not the playerbase's.

    With the action camera and material storage I think it's much more likely that those employees got sick of the bureaucratic process that is trying to get anything done within an established company, and decided to take it on their own not because they didn't deem those issues worthy of being a priority, but rather the company didn't. Having worked with bureaucrats within the IT field for 5+ years it unfortunately often fell on individual employees to address issues in our own/down time that the higher ups didn't deem worthy of addressing officially (ie. replacing cracked/worn down cables/connectors to avoid having to return every other week to replace a few cables at a time, reconfiguring subnets to avoid future conflicts, etc.). For whatever reason when I was writing the initial post I managed to turn my brain off and ignore experience in favor of speculations presented by other members of the community, but given that a lot of posts within this thread were constructive and informative, I think it worked out alright.

    I think everything that could possibly be said has been said, but unfortunately I have to wait until tomorrow to be able to edit the OP.

  • Samnang.1879Samnang.1879 Member ✭✭✭✭

    If it means more new content more frequently and subscribers get some really good perks, then yes I'll support the idea of subscriptions.

    But if new content is the same rate, then no, I don't support it.

    Anet: give us in-game customizable human NPC companion please
    Please, no more balance changes, or at least reset our gears so we don't have to waste gold changing gears every time.
    Please have option to not receive bloodstone dusts, empyreal fragments, dragonite etc

  • Faaris.8013Faaris.8013 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 15, 2017

    I don't see how this is a discussion. If you want to support the company with a monthly payment, just go ahead and buy gems for 15 €/$ per month, and encourage others to do so.

    ArenaNet is a company, not a welfare institution. Only purchase their products and services if you get value in return, not to "support" the company. If you purchase gems without really wanting them to have more fun in the game, or maybe even hoard them, it's like a donation. Companies neither need nor want donations. It's their job to figure out how to make the customer happy and sell more products/services. They are running a business, they are supposed to convince people to buy. Also, they want to decide where to spend time and effort on. If you have 100 people who pay the optional monthly fee, these people would demand things they want to see implemented, and might have a lever to actually get what they want. Not sure a company likes that ^^

    (looks like it is indeed a discussion, since I'm discussing it too)

  • Glacial.9516Glacial.9516 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 15, 2017

    Nope nope nope. If you want a monthly sub buy gems each month. I think it would be more likely for Anet to create an automatic monthly gem purchase option (if one doesn't already exist) that would purchase a number of gems each month until cancelled. And that would accomplish anything a subscription would without dividing the players and without giving incentive to lock new content behind the subscription.

    The one suggestion I saw that I think would be neat for a subscription is temporary access to all outfits and gliders. I could see myself purchasing this for one month just to try them out and see which outfits or gliders I'd like to permanently purchase. Sometimes the preview window just doesn't cut it and you need to run around in different lighting to see if you truly like an outfit. It's not something I'd want to see, but it is something that may encourage the purchase of gems and outfits. (Of course, it could also discourage purchase - I can count numerous times I've bought an item and regretted it soon after.)

  • Depends on what the sub gets you... it cant give advantages of course. Maybe part of of the sub could include reduced gem costs along with free gems every sub update?
    Maybe even reduced gem store costs also?
    I would hate to see monthly skins, unless maybe those skins were early access to gemstone skins for a lower total cost?
    Maybe a permanent EXP boost for the duration of the sub?
    Nothing game changing, and hard to complain about for those that do not have the sub. And there would be consumers for it.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    This poll has no answer I can accept. If an optional subscription existed, I'm relatively sure I'd pay for it. But I don't think it's right for the game and it might actively hurt the game, depending on what it includes. However just the stigma of having an optional sub can turn some people away. If you want to support the game, buy $15 a gems a month. There's your optional subscription. I spend more than that anyway.

  • No. I don't play games with subscription fees. Even optional ones. I'd be off.

  • I'm a bit indifferent to whether it would be added or not. Although, there are aspects to such optional subscriptions that I could support or are strongly against. I wouldn't ever agree to an optional subscription that simply put isn't optional. I've played a couple games/multiple servers of one that offered these "optional" subscriptions, and they really weren't optional even if you were a casual unless you just didn't care at all.

    You also have to remember resources would have to be dedicated to setting up any systems related to the optional subscription, it wouldn't be just free income, this would be an investment that may or may not even pay for itself. Given the game is a bit on the older side and wasn't designed in a way to accommodate for an optional subscription I wouldn't think it's a good investment at present.

  • Ayakaru.6583Ayakaru.6583 Member ✭✭✭✭

    They already have an optional subscription.
    Buy 800/1600/2400 gems every month

    To defeat the dragons, see the good in them.
    Zhaitan reunites lost ones, primordus creates fertile land, mordremoth spreads the green, and jormag..
    ..jormag? Who's that?

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I prefer paying for an expansion every 2 years instead ;)
    That's my subscription.

  • Samug.6512Samug.6512 Member ✭✭✭

    No, subscription is a stupid idea. Just buy gems monthly if you want to support ArenaNet more than just buying the game/expansions.

  • I'm generally against optional subscriptions as I can think of no example in any game where it didn't skew the balance.
    However i think a gem subscription could work. Say you pay 10-15 euros/dollars you get 1200 gems and for every month you are subscribed you get addition 100 gems to a cap of 2000 or so. That's about the amount i spend on gems per month anyway.
    Note, NO OTHER BENEFITS THAN GEMS, no boosters no bonus MF. ONLY gems

  • @WeedyZeGreedy.8635 said:
    I'm generally against optional subscriptions as I can think of no example in any game where it didn't skew the balance.
    However i think a gem subscription could work. Say you pay 10-15 euros/dollars you get 1200 gems and for every month you are subscribed you get addition 100 gems to a cap of 2000 or so. That's about the amount i spend on gems per month anyway.
    Note, NO OTHER BENEFITS THAN GEMS, no boosters no bonus MF. ONLY gems

    Yeah, that's the only sensible way in my opinion. Don't know about the amount of the gems that would make sense but it sounds good.

  • pah.4931pah.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Don't they already have an optional subscription? Buy gems every month. :D

  • Lonami.2987Lonami.2987 Member ✭✭✭

    Lot of people just go wild with hate and don't think enough about the idea, just like with the old mount discussions.

    I think a discounted gem subscription would be fine, and make a lot of people buy things they wouldn't otherwise. For example:

    • 10€ monthly subscription.
    • You get 1,200 gems (15€ value).
    • You get a loot crate with some special surprise stuff, nothing important you can't earn through other means, but still valuable. The contents change each month, and no RNG is involved, so everyone gets the same things (some items could have various options to choose from).
    • You can pay monthly, or subscribe for an entire year for 100€ (you save 20€).

    This kind of subscription would be perfect for the game, and not hurt it at all.

    Even more, if the subscription works well, we could see less and less RNG as a side-effect of it.

  • BlueIce.6951BlueIce.6951 Member ✭✭✭

    I would not be part of an optional subscription system because there are a lot of times that I am away from the game for extended periods of time. Feeling that I was "wasting" my subscription during that time would cause a lot of stress personally and I would begin to resent the game as something demanding of my time, not something that I do with my time to relax from other demands in my life or just for fun.

    Instead, I feel that I support the company by purchasing gems regularly. I have probably spent 3x or more what a yearly subscription would cost with gem purchases for myself and my brother. However, the gems do not have an expiration date and the items that I purchase with them increase my feelings of enjoyment and immersion in the game.

    Currently attempting all Legendary Journey collections at once.

  • @Helbjorne.9368 said:

    @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:
    You want to support them?
    You want it to be something people can choose to do as an option?

    Well congratulations! It's your lucky day! You can already do exactly this!

    Buy gems.

    /thread

    This isn't about an "optional subscription." This is a poorly veiled 'I want a prestige system so I can show off how much I spend.' Moving on.

    If you read the OP this is about having prevalent issues addressed, if the issue of having them addressed is tied to reliable, consistent funding. If people want to showcase how much money they spend there's plenty of flashy costumes and gliders for that. I fail to see how you drew a connection there.

    The basic suggestion/thought of 'I want to give an optional monthly payment to Anet' in an of itself is not a bad suggestion / idea / thing. However, that ability exists, sans perhaps the means of opting in to a means of 'auto pay'. Which, really, I could get behind an opt in " auto buy 'x' number of gems each month" just because I'm lazy.

    However the general problem with "optional subscriptions" (which we've already seen in this thread) is that people feel they should have some sort of perk or bonus for doing so. Absolutely not. You do not get special treatment just because you're spending money. (Unless you're single handedly bank rolling the company, then we can discuss perks.) That's just a way to make the rest of your player-base that can't necessarily afford to join that option subscription (though they may want to) feel really kitten and pressured.

    Beyond that, throwing money at a problem doesn't always resolve it. (Time and again we've seen that games with sub fees, optional or not, are not always better than games that don't have them. We've also seen that they don't necessarily address issues or get content any faster.) People think this is the solution time and again, but money is not always the answer. Is it great to have more? Oh absolutely. Would it be great if they had more people? Maybe. While in theory more people potentially means more gets done, it takes time for new people to get up to speed. If someone else leaves in the meantime (turnover does happen in the gaming industry, the same as anywhere else), you may never see any true fruit for your labor. How many people have come and gone from Anet that we have absolutely no knowledge of? How many may be in the onboarding process that may not last more than a year? How many positions are the looking to fill that they can't find someone they consider a fit? Its not just about 'lack of funds' when it comes to personnel.

    Don't believe anything you've heard. None of it is remotely close to my actual insanity.

  • Optional subscriptions have their ups and downs. Do they help with additional funding? Maybe, but not to the point where every thing is always running smoothly for the players. Developers and technicians would be able to work over time, but that's pretty much it. Upgrading severs and engines and almost all other things for Anet to bring everything up to would still cost more than an optional subscription funding would bring in. I've played games that have optional subscriptions...ToR being one of them and they give players minor perks for being a subscriber, but they're not all that great or they're purely cosmetic. However the game still doesn't run smoothly on my pc and I'd rather save my money to buy a better gaming pc or even upgrade my current rig. I also know that the player base in general would rather not subscribe and just purchase the expansions with the continuation of the no sub fees! Not everyone has the financial ability to sock money into subscriptions every month...even if it is optional and you can subscribe or not at your pleasure or ability to do so. The beauty of the gem store is that if you want something special and also want to support Anet at the same time, you have the ability to do so. And there are those out there that just want to enjoy a game and not have to worry about what their missing out on because they won't/aren't/can't subscribe.

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I and I think others view transactions on the gem store as a way to show if we are happy or not with ANet and GW2. Right now they also have the high ground and keep the marketing claim that they are a niche game market where you can buy and then come back and play whenever you want, no rush. This also allows them to develop at their own speed. If you add in a subscription model the pressure mounts to have more target time frames.

    But to the examples above, ESO did launch an interesting model where you have the opt-in sub. They got around the what do I get from that by offering their gem store currencies, free DLCs and expanded storage for each month you sub. Tried that model as well and by offering the extra bonuses for optting-in to the sub there was less of a feeling or why am I paying you for nothing, instead you get perks are you go.

    The difference here is that the GW2 method feels more like choosing to spend and when and no rush, and the ESO opt-in sub still has a feel that you are paying for something you might not be using each time you are not in game for any period of time.

    In short, could something like that work here, yes, but I think a similar you get 'x' for 'y' would be a better way of doing. I also don't miss forum discussions of I pay for a sub, when do I get 'x', those never go well since it shows that a customer's expectation wasn't meet and that just brings someone down and/or leads to non-productive conversations. Good gaming!

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • Zedek.8932Zedek.8932 Member ✭✭✭

    Regardless of the back-and-forth of a discussion about the hows and whys...yes, I would.
    I know, the "Free" attitude hits people hard and I see some really awkward attitude adjustments all over the place ("My bank charges me €1.00 for each transaction I do on the counter - now I changed to an online bank" - sorry, you wanted the service from that man or lady behind the counter, so pay for that service, right?! Just an example, you get the point) I pay many subscriptions every month right now:

    • My loan : Bought an appartment (alternatively of course: Rent) - I have to live somewhere. Convenient.
    • My power and water company: I want fresh water and elecricity, so I can live like a human. Convenient.
    • My ISP: The internet is still and won't make our lives unlivable, yet I think it's convenient to have high speed internet instead of buying newspapers or rely on TV programmes for entertainment.
    • My janitor service: 8 € / month so I don't have to mow the lawn and clean the stairwells. Worth, it's** convenient.**
    • ver.di - German labour union: Fee of 1% of gross income a month: Convenient, it includes also legal protection.
    • In total five additional insurances: Dental care, liability insurance, etc.. Convenient, because those sums covered are making me sleep well.
    • My bank: To provide easy and convenient money transactions without me sending euro bills all over the world every month.
      _

    • GuildWars - I know the game that is well-done keeps entertaining me whenever I want, at every weather situation and emotional feelings, it's just there to bring me in a good mood right into my appartment, how convenient._

    Something that is fun or helpful deserves to get paid. If said service is there 24/7, I have no problem to pay for it accordingly in a recurring fashion.
    I am strongly against this "free stuff" attitude, but I also work in a very close industrial sector, and it disgusts me that people want everything for free and recurring forever and justify that with a single payment but then go and happily buy a 1.300€ iPhone for some reason,.
    Excelsior.

  • @IndigoSundown.5419 said:
    1) "Optional" subscriptions generally come with rental features to create incentives to spend the money. I've yet to see a "free" game where such a subscription is really optional if you want to enjoy the game. Think about it. If people are spending money, they're going to want to get things that those who don't spend, don't get. If those things are not "good enough," people will complain and ultimately won't spend.
    2) Renting features for a game one has bought seems backward.
    3) ANet has stuck by their business plan since the original game came out. They're apparently doing as well or better than a lot of Freemium games.
    4) Many players could feel betrayed were ANet to change their business model. I certainly would.
    5) Would the optional sub revenue be sufficient to offset money lost in XPac and gem sales should the players alluded to in 3 leave the game, no longer supporting it via gem or XPac purchases?
    6) Expecting a developer to give you what you want due to a Freemium sub is wishful thinking. They will add what they think is best, just as they do now.
    7) Anyone who wants to support ANet can already do so.

    Were ANet to go this route, and if the rented incentives offered via the sub meant -- as I expect -- that doing without them leads to reduced enjoyment of the game, I'd have a lot more room on my SSD and I'd not look back.

    If I could've hit the thumbs up harder I would have. All of these things x 100.

    Greck Howlbane - Firebrand
    Sorrow's Furnace For Life

  • notebene.3190notebene.3190 Member ✭✭✭✭

    You can support them with an optional subscription now. :)

    For I'd say the first 3 years of the game, I bought $10/mo in gems, regularly (later I quit for about 15 months when HoT came out, but then started up this past December, and while I didn't buy 'consistently', I have dropped at leave $100 in gems).

    I'd save up the gems to buy things I wanted, more bag space for my main, alts, bank spaces. Every so often something would come out I'd really want, and I'd push another $10/20 in gems to get it before it left the store.

    You could, I suppose, spend $15/mo on gems, then spend them on things that in your mind might be useful things they might tag on as 'sub only' items. Maybe a few packs of keys each month, few 2-week port passes each month, transmutation charges. Or, do like what I used to do and spend them on bigger things.

    I don't think it really has to be a thing, does it? Just...buy gems. :)

    In the event I don't get a chance, thank you all for the company and help when I needed it from time to time.

  • Taelac.7036Taelac.7036 Member ✭✭✭

    I could get behind being able to set up an automatic gem purchase each month. That's as close to a subscription model as I'd be willing to stand. I also expect that ANet has some very good reasons as to why that's not already an option.

    Good luck, have fun.

  • Carighan.6758Carighan.6758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Assuming that paying a sub fee would also come with the development quality and care of say, WoW, sure, all for it. But I doubt that this late in the game's life even the most rigorous rework spree could fix the deep-seated issues the combat and character systems have, nevermind the outdated engine.

  • Zaklex.6308Zaklex.6308 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I'm not voting, but since ArenaNet is a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of NCSoft I would think they get some of their budget from HQ, at least that is how most companies work that own subsidiaries...i.e. a subsidiary doesn't support itself but provides income to the parent company that then provides a budget to the subsidiary to function. Not saying this is how NCSoft and ArenaNet work, but it would seem reasonable to presume that is how the relationship has been running all along.

    Yes...no...maybe...what do you want, can't you see I'm busy saving the world...AGAIN!

  • choovanski.5462choovanski.5462 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 15, 2017

    anet's handling of PvP has been an absolute joke of late. adding a sub fee would only be insult to injury

    there is no reason for a PvP player, like myself to want a sub fee. no reason at all

    It's coming for me through the trees
    Help me someone
    Help me please
    Take my shoes off and throw them in the lake

  • Wizler.8192Wizler.8192 Member ✭✭✭

    I can (and do on occasion) buy gems with real money. But I don't have to. That is optional subscription/support that I already embrace. And I did it in GW1 too.

  • ugrakarma.9416ugrakarma.9416 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Particularly I do not feel comfortable giving business opinion, about business in which I have no financial information. The post presumes they would be going through financial tightening, which may be unreality.

    Is a extremely risky bet, it is probable that what they bill from those who buy gems in the spirit "I'm going to buy some shinies to support the game" is superior to what they would have if they would accommodate the base player to pay a minimum monthly fee. Sporadic buyers tend not to rely on the "minimum" and spend more especially if a "shinie thing" is attached on the purchase.

    main pvp: Khel the Undead(power reaper).

  • I would support getting rid of the gambling boxes out of the game, aka, black lion chests.

  • @TheMagickDoll.7594 said:
    I would support getting rid of the gambling boxes out of the game, aka, black lion chests.

    I hate those with a passion. I wouldn't mind spending a lot of money on certain items without a thought. But I always hesitate to buy black lion keys. They would get more money out of me if they would just sell all those items separately.

  • I would be for it if gems were a part of the deal. Many free to play actually give in game currency for subscription support. The only worry I have with this model is if gems lose value and/or item on TP increase in cost.

  • @Conncept.7638 said:
    No, subscription models invariably lead to filler content, grinding, gating, and design around addiction instead of enjoyment. A purchase to play model is healthier for everyone involved.

    And you have never grinded levels or mastery here....?

  • Nubsauce.9821Nubsauce.9821 Member ✭✭
    edited September 15, 2017

    Imo. The game has become somewhat P2W....Pay for gems, Transfer them into gold. Buy Legos.

    Edit: But def not Eastern MMO P2W.... (thank god)

  • castlemanic.3198castlemanic.3198 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lucas.2974 said:
    You're making a lot of bold claims, without any proper evidence to account for what you're stating. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand where you're coming from, but disagree with the content of your argument.

    As it stands, having the option to have access to all skins currently in the shop is no different than purchasing it permanently. However, with the subscription, people have access to any sort of customization that they desire, rather than paying for one item.

    However, if the subscriber did indeed like an item, they can happily purchase the permanent version. Moreover, it's disingenuous to say that it'll be something difficult to code for. That is, unless we both know this to be fact, it's an empty statement with no truth in it.

    You're right, I am making a lot of bold claims, but some of that is from lots of community feedback (whether gw2 or another MMO's), some of it is psychology and a lot of it is my own assumptions, I'll own up to that.

    And yeah, that programming/coding comment was definitely an empty statement (I know changing a system can be difficult and that's from absolute minimal programming experience, but even if I was programming from the moment I was born, it's impossible to know how easy/difficult it is to make such a thing happen without being an arenanet programmer), so I'll own that too.

    I do however disagree that having access to all skins currently in the shop and purchasing it permanently is 'no different'. It's completely different in that a full purchase cannot be lost (assuming that the purchase went through, no scamming issues, none of that associated drama). Having access and then losing access introduces a psychological effect known as the 'sunk cost fallacy' (which almost every subscription only game falls into) in that there was 'too much time or money' spent on having something to have it be worth losing. For pay-to-play games, that's their entire character and the time they've invested in the game, you'll find people who wish to leave but don't because they believe that their time and money spent in the game makes it too much of a loss to stop paying and playing it (it's not exclusive to games, I believe this also occurs in gambling, playing the lottery and other systems I can't currently think of, but games is most relevant to this specific conversation). The same would go for a game that's colliquially known as 'fashion wars 2', where access to every purchasable skin without actually purchasing it can potentially induce the same sunk cost fallacy issue as pay-to-play games are well known to have. I doubt it would be to the same degree (as skins aren't the same as 'gameplay' and 'access to characters'), but it's a potential issue that needs to be thought about before introducing such massive gains for subscriptions and massive losses for no longer paying that subscription.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy

    The link is for more information (I actually forgot about the term loss aversion and it's something that i failed to explain well).

    Whataboutism is disingenuous at best. If you join a debate and provide little to no proof when the other side provides lots of evidence, you can't then declare yourself the winner of that debate. I won't engage with bad faith arguments.

  • Swoo.5079Swoo.5079 Member
    edited September 15, 2017

    Subscriptions aren't used to develop games.
    If that was the case games would never be released in the first place. In fact, when Guild Wars 2 was being developed Arenant had basically 0 revenue (it had some, but not enough to pay the bills).
    The publisher-developer business model: the publisher invests in the developer in the hopes of reaping the reward when the product releases.

    Now, obviously the more money Arenanet generates, the more money, time and freedom NCSoft will give them.
    One could even say that the original success of GW2 gemstore led to some decisions that many didn't enjoy and that the revenue decline led to decisions many seem to agree with.