would you be willing to pay a subscription - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

would you be willing to pay a subscription

245

Comments

  • Rayti.6531Rayti.6531 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 13, 2018

    No.

    And it's not because I don't want to spend money on the game - actually I spend more than I care to admit on "convenience items" and gemstore skins (and in sum definitely more than I would have with a subscription model in place). Especially when I'm happy with changes made to the game, I tend to find certain gem store items much more attractive and go ahead and buy them. If they introduced a subscription model, I'd most likely stop playing even though it would end up being "cheaper" for me.

    What I like about the current model is that I can choose when to spend money on supporting the game. It also gives me the freedom to play whenever I like (or quit for months when I don't feel like playing/don't have time to) rather than feeling "forced" to play, just because I already paid my subscription. Being able to play the game casually is one of the things advertised about this game a lot and would no longer apply if this game had a subscription model.

    Also the features you mentioned in the OP are:
    1. not what everyone wants/expects from the game (there are different target groups within the GW2 community)
    2. partly features where ANet might have decided it's not worth the effort to implement them because of different reasons (see also above)
    3. features that might not fit into the game from a design standpoint
    4. things they might already work on in the background or might be "on the table" (but with other features having a higher priority)
    5. most importantly: not something that will magically appear out of nowhere just because of a switch to a subscription model (and the pressure that some people think they could put on ANet with such a model in place -> "I am forced to pay a sub - why is feature xy not implemented yet?")

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Some of the most common arguments for subscription is well devs can maintain the game better, add more stuff, avoid p2w, have more ingame stuff instead of a cashshop, "be good" instead of moneygrubbing in general, etc etc.

    To that I say: do you even live in the same world as the rest of us?!?!

    Game developers and publishers have shown again and again, again and again and again and again and again that they can NEVER have "enough money". Subscription games come out with cashshops. They add DLC. They add expansion. Everything costs.

    All while f2p still make billions having the exact same cashshops, dlcs, expansion, passes, whatever.

    A subscription makes people hesistant to try, which makes the ones paying not having any fun because there is no one to play with, which drives people away and that just start a spiral of doom you cant stop. We've seen it happen as fast as a couple of months.

    I am incredibly happy that Anet has taken the high road on this. I honestly think GW2 would have been dead within 4 months of release had it been subscription. It would have been sad.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It's cute how people keep believing that throwing money on anet would result in more content. They already made more money on mounts with PoF and as a result we get less content and what is released is untested or unfinished.

    There is no question if gw2 would be better with sub fee. GW2 does not deserve sub fee at current state.

  • lokh.2695lokh.2695 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The day subscriptions are added and mandatory to the game is the day I will delete my account.

    If you want X, and Y is needed to get get X, you also have to want Y if you really want X. If you don't want Y, you don't want X. It's easy.
    Pro: Build Templates, Dungeon Rework, UW content
    Contra: New Races, New Classes, New Weapons, Capes

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Subscriptions, what? Come on, it's not 2008 any more.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 13, 2018

    Paying a subscription fee is so against the original intent from developers (MO!) who programmed the free battle.net and went on to create GW1 to prove that gamers didn't need subscription fees for a company to be successful. I don't know why you would even suggest it. So many subscription games have gone free-to-play for REASONS. I will always support games without subscriptions.

  • KGS.9842KGS.9842 Member ✭✭

    If they completely removed the gem shop and made all items from there obtainable in-game, and the subscription is less than 10 EUR a month, I would consider it

  • Comus.7365Comus.7365 Member ✭✭

    i wouldn't throw a tantrum if they added one but i don't really see the benefit of them adding one. what they got going now is most likely way more profitable.

  • Goettel.4389Goettel.4389 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I wouldn't mind them rethinking revenue streams and implementing a different system, sub-based or otherwise, since I'm already spending €20 on gems each month.
    It's tricky business though, and seeing all those shiny gem skins out there it looks like there's good money coming in right now. Best not kitten with that, if it's true.

  • VanWilder.6923VanWilder.6923 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @Tort.1975 said:
    -New races

    I do not want new races because I simply do not care the looks. I made all my characters as small as possible so They will not block my view while doing JP or hit the wall. Hate that auto zooming so much. For me, those races are just BLOCKS. Not once I zoom in to see how all my characters look like, not even my main.

    -New classes

    I may do but too lazy to get hero points to unlock Elite specialization. Got 5 alts, 2 of them have not been unlocked any of elite spec. Lucky that Mastery points are account bound, if not, I would only play 1 character.

    -player housing

    I do not even bother to visit my own home instance after the story for once. Hence visiting a house in a home instance is very "Promising" that I will go there. Sarcasm.

    -quality of life features

    Depend on what QoL, I am lazy, anything makes my gaming experiment easier will have my vote.

    -more armor/weapons

    I am using the meta builds. Anything builds outside of that I won't give a glance, never give a kitten to try new builds, test new stats. What is fun for me is how fast I kill mobs. Armor, dont care about cosmetics. All my characters, 5 actually, using the defaul skins of "zojja's, yassith's", never transmutation and not once I zoom in to see how they look like nor hear what they say. All my mounts are using original skin, never bother to dye, dont even bother to zoom in and see how they look like.
    I mute all sound while playing GW2. Disable all the NPC's speeches. Skip all the "blahblah" in the story, or unskippable, I looked away. Never bother to get Achievement Points. Because all of that, IMO, are meaningless. Many would say that I am play MMO/RPG wrong because GW2 is about fashion. i got GW2 as a gift, bought ls2+3 using gold to gems. I dont think I will ever spend any real money to this game, it is a great game and I like it but "IT IS JUST A GAME". Good, keep playing, micro transaction or sub fee then I move on. No emotion attached whatsoever.

    And That is how I play GW2 and I am enjoying it, playing the game whenever I can and do things as slow as I want, subscription will push me to be a hardcore player and when you rush things, you lose your "COOL".

    Sum up. I would say "NO" to paying "subscription".

  • @StinVec.3621 said:
    Just to note - the Search feature of the forums that is found at the top of every page is functional.

    There are already 3 other poll threads that exist on these forums asking about feelings on a subscription cost:

    As many players have already voted in those polls in the months they have existed, perhaps take a look at them and read the pages of opinions expressed on the matter to get an idea of what kind of interest there is in a subscription cost. If time is an issue and you cannot spend it performing this action, the majority in all existing polls on these forums say no to any kind of subscription cost.

    and

    @Blude.6812 said:
    May I respectively suggest that the OP use the search function for similar topics. You would discover that this have been discussed, suggested, thoroughly examined and dismissed many many many many times in the past.

    sorry about this. I been with the game since release but have just recently join the forums, so still trying to get familiar with the layout. I did a quick search on google and didn't see anything really pop up, so I didn't really think there was anything on it.

    @Zaklex.6308 said:
    NO!!! Also, stop assuming that everyone wants new races, classes and player housing, or even some of those other items you listed...those are things you want, everyone needs to stop talking for everyone else.

    I must politely disagree. In the short time I been on the forums I have seen countless threads about races/new weapon with a vast majority of players in favor of it.

    I didn't mean to offend anyone with this poll. I was just seeing how many people like or dislike the idea of a subscription which I now see is a very bad idea. I would still like to see some more content in future like this and occasionally by gems about every two weeks since i have a good paying job.

  • Razor.9872Razor.9872 Member ✭✭✭

    It would really depend on how the "subscription" was implemented. Like, not paying for the subscription shouldn't subtract from the game in the least. It would be a fine line to walk.

    NSPride~

  • Danikat.8537Danikat.8537 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I voted no for 2 reasons:

    1) It doesn't appear to actually lead to more stuff being released. Elder Scrolls Online uses this model - it's buy to play with a store selling very similar things to GW2's and also has an optional subscription which gets you a few extra perks, including some things we get free, like material storage and the ability to dye outfits (the ones which are equivalent to GW2's outfits, not the system they call outfits which is basically the wardrobe...games really need to standardise their terminology more).

    They do 4 releases a year - 1 expansion (which everyone, including subscribers, has to buy), 1 dungeon DLC (literally 2 dungeons with associated achievements and items) and 1 story DLC which is like a Living World release (which subscribers get as part of their benefits and everyone else can buy separately) and 1 free QoL update. I suspect because subscribing gives you £9/$15 of cash shop currency to spend it basically just means people who would buy in-game currency regularly anyway subscribe instead, so no one's actually spending any extra.

    What it does achieve is subscribers demanding that all new features (or at least those they think aren't essential) should be made subscription exclusives so they can feel like they're getting their money's worth and complaining that they're not getting enough stuff and deserve more. It also leads to some people treating non-subscribers like 2nd class citizens - calling them 'free loaders' or 'free to play accounts' and complaining that they can't be bothered to support the game - regardless of how much they actually spend - and insisting that subscribers opinions should be more valued, subs should have 1st priority for everything from loading into PvP to getting replies from Support and so on.

    2) A subscription model does not work for me. I can't actually remember the last time I had a regular schedule and there's absolutely no way for me to know at the start of a month how much time I'll have to play, much less whether I'll want to spend it playing that particular game. I could very easily end up paying for time I will never get to use. Even worse I'm one of those people who feels pressured to use the time I've paid for so even when I can play I end up feeling like I'm doing it because I have to (and rushing things to make sure I'm getting the best use of my time) and then I don't enjoy it as much. I don't mind spending extra on a game I've already bought (if it's on things I want!) but I much prefer a system where I can buy things and then have it available to use whenever I want.

    Danielle Aurorel - Desolation EU. Mini Collector.

    "I know that I'm born and I know that I'll die, the in-between is mine."

  • otto.5684otto.5684 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I dunno about WoW and FF14, but the GW2 model, is considered more profitable currently. Since a much larger portion of the revenue is generated from the cash shop, MMOs try to be accessible to the largest possible audience. Having F2P and low cost expansions ensures that.

  • KeoLegend.5132KeoLegend.5132 Member ✭✭✭

    Remember that not everyone lives in US! So a US subscription price would cost A LOT in other countries

  • "So we all know that there are features and content that we want integrated in to game such as"

    Actually you mean "some features" that "some players" want. Add subscription, lose most of the player base, great idea.

  • Zawn.9647Zawn.9647 Member ✭✭✭

    They can't even balance the current classes... Why would we need more? :pensive:

  • juhani.5361juhani.5361 Member ✭✭✭

    Maybe, if the "subscription" was voluntary and had benefits I was interested in. I've subbed for SWTOR, where "Preferred" status is painful, and F2P is pretty much so impossibly horrid you battle the urge to uninstall every 30 seconds. I've gone Patron in SWL, which offers one daily cache key, higher XP and double the skill unlocks. It's painful to level skills and weapons otherwise. Same with ESO. I tried without ESO+ after Steam's free weekend last year, and ran out of gold just when my armor was so out of sync with my level. The ESO+ crafting bag made a huge difference for me this time around.

    Stuff that would appeal to me:

    1) More character slots.
    2) The ability to have characters on different servers, not just the low-population one I picked when I first started playing fresh off of SWTOR's overcrowded servers and/or free transfers.
    3) Better story with more individual agency or a single "Commander" who's not a titanic jerk.
    4) Gem store stipend of some sort.
    5) Luck/gold find bonuses.

  • Alek Seven.2374Alek Seven.2374 Member ✭✭✭

    Out of the 25 regulars in my guild (me included), 23 (me included again) would close their account if it becomes pay to play (unless its optional).

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 13, 2018

    @AliamRationem.5172 said:
    I would absolutely pay a subscription, and I do in a sense with monthly gem purchases (in fact, I pay more than I did for WoW!). However, I'm not sure that's a winning strategy for this game as I doubt I am like most players in this. **But if there were no other considerations and paying a subscription meant more content? **There's no question I'd be willing to pay for that.

    That's the point, that's a BIG IF and a big assumption.
    Just look at the Warframe vs Destiny 2 comparissons to realize more money doesn't equal more quality.
    It's all in the mentality and the ambition, and honestly, Arena Net seemingly lost most of it's ambition. The living world became a repetition of the same formula that worked for Season 3, with barely any changes, PvP balance is stale and ineffective, they even stopped adding Jumping Puzzles, which was probably the last realm of creativity that was left in Season 3.

    @otto.5684 said:
    I dunno about WoW and FF14, but the GW2 model, is considered more profitable currently. Since a much larger portion of the revenue is generated from the cash shop, MMOs try to be accessible to the largest possible audience. Having F2P and low cost expansions ensures that.

    Those two games can get away with subscriptions because of the huge franchise behind them. Warcraft was already a giant brand before WoW, and WoW became a monolith on the back of the RTS. It's the most recognizable brand in terms of MMORPGs, and to the lay man that's the game that's associated with RPGs.
    Final Fantasy speaks for itself. I mean XIV started out as a crappy game, and still had a lot of people. Thankfully they were honest and caring enough to actually turn it into a good game (or so people say, i don't play sub games), but if it wasn't for the brand name, it wouldn't have survived the subscription model.
    And still both of those games had to add a premium store to their game, so clearly the subscription model isn't the best one.

    This type of suggestion comes only from a place of ignorance and the prejudice that used to be associated with Free to Play games.

  • Celldrax.2849Celldrax.2849 Member ✭✭✭

    Lets put it this way. I've have literally not once played WoW (not even the free trial).

    The reason for that is the monthly subscription. I've got enough other kitten to pay for without spending money on that.

  • Etria.3642Etria.3642 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 13, 2018

    All a subscription did for swtor is help fund anthem. Swtor itself certainly didn't get much from it. Go to their forums and read the pages of complaints about lack of content bugs and terrible short story considered 'Content'.

    We get an actual explorable map, albeit somewhat small. They get an outpost. Yep. Can't walk outside it.

    The one thing I wish would come here that they have is two versions of their raids. But worth a sub to get it? No. They put all their development into the Cartel market so they get not only the sub but also money from packs and stuff AND STILL have a huge lack of content.

  • if the class design is not busted that it undergo ridiculous nerfs into oblivion patches after patches (watching you scourge), my consideration on subscription plan would increase from 0 to 1%

  • ZDragon.3046ZDragon.3046 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Im going to vote as other because while paying a monthly fee to play could help them bring even more content to the game it is unlikely. I would like to see more content like more playable races etc. But paying a Fee does not promise that content.

    Right now Anet is encouraged to work hard on the content they do provide even more so via the gem store because its their main source of income form the player when we are between x pacs just as we currently are.
    If they didn't provide good content and items people would buy them.
    More importantly not having to pay a fee allows more people to play. Many people likely would not still play this game if it required you to pay a monthly fee.

    I will also cover **optional premium memberships* here too. I dont think its fair to split the community with a "Pay for premium services membership" either. The moment this happens a game takes a slow but inevitable turn to the pay to win nightmare that other mmo's love to abuse.
    A system where Playing without a membership your grind is long and hard months even meanwhile paying for a membership lets you do all that in more in days to weeks at most.

    Would I pay if I knew it would without a doubt mean more playable professions, races, etc. Yes
    Would I pay currently in hopes that things like that would happen No
    Would I pay a premium membership fee for extras No

    I some time ago took a break from gw2 for about a year had it been on monthly fee system I likely would have never came back.
    The buy to own and play system is good as is.

    For a free game you only have to toss 30-60 $ at every few months for an xpack its not to bad.

  • RoseofGilead.8907RoseofGilead.8907 Member ✭✭✭✭

    If the game went sub, I would most likely not play it.

    Oh look. I have a signature now.

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

    @Tort.1975 said:

    @StinVec.3621 said:
    Just to note - the Search feature of the forums that is found at the top of every page is functional.

    There are already 3 other poll threads that exist on these forums asking about feelings on a subscription cost:

    As many players have already voted in those polls in the months they have existed, perhaps take a look at them and read the pages of opinions expressed on the matter to get an idea of what kind of interest there is in a subscription cost. If time is an issue and you cannot spend it performing this action, the majority in all existing polls on these forums say no to any kind of subscription cost.

    and

    @Blude.6812 said:
    May I respectively suggest that the OP use the search function for similar topics. You would discover that this have been discussed, suggested, thoroughly examined and dismissed many many many many times in the past.

    sorry about this. I been with the game since release but have just recently join the forums, so still trying to get familiar with the layout. I did a quick search on google and didn't see anything really pop up, so I didn't really think there was anything on it.

    @Zaklex.6308 said:
    NO!!! Also, stop assuming that everyone wants new races, classes and player housing, or even some of those other items you listed...those are things you want, everyone needs to stop talking for everyone else.

    I must politely disagree. In the short time I been on the forums I have seen countless threads about races/new weapon with a vast majority of players in favor of it.

    I didn't mean to offend anyone with this poll. I was just seeing how many people like or dislike the idea of a subscription which I now see is a very bad idea. I would still like to see some more content in future like this and occasionally by gems about every two weeks since i have a good paying job.

    What you see in response to those polls and or suggestions of new races are only replies from forum users, which is a tiny subset of the player base, a small minority, so we actually have no clue what the vast majority of the player base wants...unless everyone that plays the game starts using the forums and voting in polls...which would then have votes in the hundreds of thousands if not millions...most polls are lucky to get a thousand votes. So again, we do not know what the majority of players want.

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

  • Despond.2174Despond.2174 Member ✭✭✭

    Even though I average out to $10 a month anyway on GW2, the answer is no. It should be optional. GW2 has a unique horizontal system, you'd need more tiers and layers to start charging a sub.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Absolutely not.

    Subscription fees are the first thing I look for in a MMO or online service and if they are mandatory I completely refuse to support the product on that alone.
    Although I don't support them I am more forgiving towards certain things like Netflix which only utalizes a subscription fee to use and no initial price is required.

    When asked to purchase a product.. say a game for the standard $60 price and then asked to pay a constant subscription fee from then on to use it.. I feel blatantly ripped off and that $60 investment is pretty much theft.
    I will not buy any game that locks me out of it if I stop paying for it.. never have and never will.. and the same applies to these console online subs as well which is yet another greedy attempt to extort money from the consumer.
    If i'm paying upwards of $400 for a system let alone the individual price of every game I buy and the company still has the nerve to demand a regular subscription from me to unlock those games online features then frankly they can go to hell and I'll take my money eslewhere.

    As for Gw2.. No I would not support a subscription fee in this game, however if there was an optional one that granted players free gem store stuff and perks like that I wouldn't complain about it.
    But if that subscription started to limit my account in any way such as no longer getting the free living world updates, my inventory space becoming more limited, my RNG luck getting worse, Gems becoming more expensive for non subs etc because I choose not to pay it then my support for this game would be completely over in a heartbeat.

    I'm fine with subscribers getting benefits.. but I'll never be ok with non subscribers being penalized for not paying an optional fee.. and I'll never support any service that has a mandatory subscription fee.

  • AliamRationem.5172AliamRationem.5172 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @AliamRationem.5172 said:
    I would absolutely pay a subscription, and I do in a sense with monthly gem purchases (in fact, I pay more than I did for WoW!). However, I'm not sure that's a winning strategy for this game as I doubt I am like most players in this. **But if there were no other considerations and paying a subscription meant more content? **There's no question I'd be willing to pay for that.

    That's the point, that's a BIG IF and a big assumption.
    Just look at the Warframe vs Destiny 2 comparissons to realize more money doesn't equal more quality.
    It's all in the mentality and the ambition, and honestly, Arena Net seemingly lost most of it's ambition. The living world became a repetition of the same formula that worked for Season 3, with barely any changes, PvP balance is stale and ineffective, they even stopped adding Jumping Puzzles, which was probably the last realm of creativity that was left in Season 3.

    @otto.5684 said:
    I dunno about WoW and FF14, but the GW2 model, is considered more profitable currently. Since a much larger portion of the revenue is generated from the cash shop, MMOs try to be accessible to the largest possible audience. Having F2P and low cost expansions ensures that.

    Those two games can get away with subscriptions because of the huge franchise behind them. Warcraft was already a giant brand before WoW, and WoW became a monolith on the back of the RTS. It's the most recognizable brand in terms of MMORPGs, and to the lay man that's the game that's associated with RPGs.
    Final Fantasy speaks for itself. I mean XIV started out as a crappy game, and still had a lot of people. Thankfully they were honest and caring enough to actually turn it into a good game (or so people say, i don't play sub games), but if it wasn't for the brand name, it wouldn't have survived the subscription model.
    And still both of those games had to add a premium store to their game, so clearly the subscription model isn't the best one.

    This type of suggestion comes only from a place of ignorance and the prejudice that used to be associated with Free to Play games.

    WoW may have a cash shop, but having played both WoW and GW2 for years I can tell you that you will never get the feeling that they invest more in the cash shop than they do in the actual game. GW2 definitely gives players that impression from time to time, in particular when it comes to rewards earned by playing the game. That's one of the differences between subscription and free-to-play models.

    I don't think subscription would be a good idea for GW2. Like I said, if that weren't a consideration and we could expect more content for our money, I already pay more in gems each month than a subscription would cost as it is. So for me personally, that would be a win. But realistically, I don't see them making money that way. It would probably just kill the population and send the game into a death spiral.

  • Riku.4821Riku.4821 Member ✭✭
    edited July 13, 2018

    To pay for a sub fee, I would need a few guarantees.
    1. Not too expensive.
    2. Great amount of polish, and reliable current constant content. The content dropped now is not enough to warrant a sub fee at the moment.
    3. The game still promotes a healthy micro transaction non-p2w model even with the sub fee.
    4. A waifu to pay for it

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 13, 2018

    @AliamRationem.5172 said:

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @AliamRationem.5172 said:
    I would absolutely pay a subscription, and I do in a sense with monthly gem purchases (in fact, I pay more than I did for WoW!). However, I'm not sure that's a winning strategy for this game as I doubt I am like most players in this. **But if there were no other considerations and paying a subscription meant more content? **There's no question I'd be willing to pay for that.

    That's the point, that's a BIG IF and a big assumption.
    Just look at the Warframe vs Destiny 2 comparissons to realize more money doesn't equal more quality.
    It's all in the mentality and the ambition, and honestly, Arena Net seemingly lost most of it's ambition. The living world became a repetition of the same formula that worked for Season 3, with barely any changes, PvP balance is stale and ineffective, they even stopped adding Jumping Puzzles, which was probably the last realm of creativity that was left in Season 3.

    @otto.5684 said:
    I dunno about WoW and FF14, but the GW2 model, is considered more profitable currently. Since a much larger portion of the revenue is generated from the cash shop, MMOs try to be accessible to the largest possible audience. Having F2P and low cost expansions ensures that.

    Those two games can get away with subscriptions because of the huge franchise behind them. Warcraft was already a giant brand before WoW, and WoW became a monolith on the back of the RTS. It's the most recognizable brand in terms of MMORPGs, and to the lay man that's the game that's associated with RPGs.
    Final Fantasy speaks for itself. I mean XIV started out as a crappy game, and still had a lot of people. Thankfully they were honest and caring enough to actually turn it into a good game (or so people say, i don't play sub games), but if it wasn't for the brand name, it wouldn't have survived the subscription model.
    And still both of those games had to add a premium store to their game, so clearly the subscription model isn't the best one.

    This type of suggestion comes only from a place of ignorance and the prejudice that used to be associated with Free to Play games.

    WoW may have a cash shop, but having played both WoW and GW2 for years I can tell you that you will never get the feeling that they invest more in the cash shop than they do in the actual game. GW2 definitely gives players that impression from time to time, in particular when it comes to rewards earned by playing the game. That's one of the differences between subscription and free-to-play models.

    I don't think subscription would be a good idea for GW2. Like I said, if that weren't a consideration and we could expect more content for our money, I already pay more in gems each month than a subscription would cost as it is. So for me personally, that would be a win. But realistically, I don't see them making money that way. It would probably just kill the population and send the game into a death spiral.

    That is true, Arena Net is definetly way too aggressive and gem-store centric. But at the same time, they do have a fair gem store, staying away from P2W stuff.
    Sure they could be more like Warframe that is way less aggressive with their Platinum items, and entirely f2p.

  • GenghisKhan.7842GenghisKhan.7842 Member ✭✭✭

    Didn't read anything, just voted

  • Danikat.8537Danikat.8537 Member ✭✭✭✭

    If money was the only thing stopping them adding the stuff the OP wants a better approach would be for them to make it and sell it, either as part of an expansion or as a stand-alone DLC.

    For example they could sell an upgrade which makes it possible for you to create a Tengu character. That achieves the same thing - the cost of making it is covered by the people who want it - but with the added benefit that the people contributing the money know beforehand exactly what they're getting, instead of handing over money for a subscription and hoping Anet will choose to use that money for the things they want to see added to the game.

    And if you're thinking the problem there is they need to make it before they get the money to fund it that's true but it's also how the vast majority of products - including most games - are made. The initial cost would be covered by profits from other areas of the game, or for bigger projects by NCSoft, just like when GW1 and almost certainly GW2 was first made.

    Danielle Aurorel - Desolation EU. Mini Collector.

    "I know that I'm born and I know that I'll die, the in-between is mine."

  • DeanBB.4268DeanBB.4268 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I've never paid a subscription for a game, but if it is a game I enjoy (there are only a few) then I support it. And unless something changes where the paying players dictate what will be developed (HA!) then I see no change in how things are done. So pointless -- other than teeing off a ton of players.

    X__________________________
    (Signature Required)

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Absolutely if it meant more regular updates and balance patches etc

  • Sinful.2165Sinful.2165 Member ✭✭✭

    I think it's pretty funny that so many players balk at the idea of paying a subscription for a game they invest SO MUCH TIME into.

    How much does going to the theatre and watching a movie - alone, no food/drink - just the ticket for admission? Around $14. For maybe 2 hours of entertainment. Gods forbid you spend that same amount of money per month on entertainment. That's 720 hours on average. Somehow you all are willing to pay $14 for 2 hours, but not 720?

    Do you like amazing new updates to come regularly? Do you enjoy your favorite game not being AT ALL pay-to-win? Guess what! There's an entire team of skilled professionals that produce that content. They pay soooooo much for bandwidth so all you cheapskates can connect to their service and enjoy their hard work.

    GW2 is one of the absolute few games that haven't gone disgustingly P2W with their gem store and doesn't charge a subscription fee. It's an endangered species balanced in a precarious position where there is really no better options on the market. I guarantee when a more modern MMO is released - subscription or not - GW2 will be hurting for resources. All the people left behind who think $14/month is too steep are not going to be keeping the servers online.

  • Mea.5491Mea.5491 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    No. I don't like the feeling that my time is ticking. Want my money? Make items I want to buy! I like good Gem Store stuff and willing to buy Gems with real money every now and then to support the game (despite sitting on 12k Gold). Also, it will never happen because the GW franchise is known for being B2P.

    Btw, I'm about to throw some money at Anet to stock up on Gems for the anniversary sale. :P Best part of the year, lol.

  • As long as it's an optional subscription and it follows what Tera does with their game. I'd be happy to.

    You can have a cash shop and a subscription. But the way Tera does it is amazing. Well, when I played it was.

  • Lanhelin.3480Lanhelin.3480 Member ✭✭✭

    I'd be willing, but then the shop prices must be the half or a third of the current prices.

  • Substance E.4852Substance E.4852 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:
    Those two games can get away with subscriptions because of the huge franchise behind them. Warcraft was already a giant brand before WoW, and WoW became a monolith on the back of the RTS. It's the most recognizable brand in terms of MMORPGs, and to the lay man that's the game that's associated with RPGs.
    Final Fantasy speaks for itself. I mean XIV started out as a crappy game, and still had a lot of people. Thankfully they were honest and caring enough to actually turn it into a good game (or so people say, i don't play sub games), but if it wasn't for the brand name, it wouldn't have survived the subscription model.
    And still both of those games had to add a premium store to their game, so clearly the subscription model isn't the best one.

    This type of suggestion comes only from a place of ignorance and the prejudice that used to be associated with Free to Play games.

    1. They get away with it because they are genuinely good games that have a massive amount of content and regular updates. The first iteration of FF14 was so terrible they literally had to shutdown the whole game to redesign it from the ground up. And they actually did an amazing job of it. It's probably the only game that has copied the WoW formula and managed to stand on it's own doing it.

    2. You completely misunderstand the mechanisms behind the current system. They don't do it because they "have to", they do it because they can get away with it. The only reason they didn't at launch is because the gaming world hadn't yet been infested with adults with uncontrollable instant gratification addiction. Horse armor used to be a meme about paying for cosmetic add ons and now people pay $500 for knife skins.

    That being said, no I wouldn't pay a sub fee in the game's current form.

    Paying a sub fee in a game that is basically just mindless grind for small amounts of gold that eventually amounts to a big pile of gold I use to buy a pure cosmetic item is silly.

    The majority of the content is neither difficult nor rewarding enough to hold my attention for $10-15 a month. Most of the content has devolved into opposite extremes of "mindless blob pve" vs "raid culture". I'm not paying a door fee to access what ammounts to an idle game and I'd just go back to WoW or FF14 if I'm gonna pay for raids since they actually mean something there.

  • Fenom.9457Fenom.9457 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Absoultely i will pay if Anet hires more employees to make more content.

    More content = more money.
    Quality of content can increase money

    HARRY! DIDYA PUT YER NAME IN DA GOBLET OF FIYAH?!

  • Deihnyx.6318Deihnyx.6318 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    I would be paying a subscription even without anything added.

    Subscription models are just that much better.
    Why? Because if they can get money without the need of a cashshop, it means that all the skin content and other "comfort" items could be obtained through playing the game.
    Which is... kinda the point of a game. Playing it.

    Of course that's ONLY if the gemstore stops being a thing.

  • DarcShriek.5829DarcShriek.5829 Member ✭✭✭

    I would quit playing and I would demand a refund for the games I’ve purchased

  • pay monthly ONLY and only if:

    1º : They recruit not one but at least 3 economists to the game.

    2º: At least 200 gems montlhy free

    3º They improve the story.

    The price is no higher than 20, 25 Euros month.

    If only one of thoses fails, then no, I am against it

  • Chay.7852Chay.7852 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    No to subs. As a long time customer (my GW1 account is 12 years old) i prefer to pay (= buy gems) whenever i can and feel like it (which i did many many times) not because i have to in order to play the game.

  • ZeftheWicked.3076ZeftheWicked.3076 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2018

    I would, but on the condition that gemstore goes away. Sub fee + cash shop is not acceptable for me. I want the full experience ingame in exchange for signing up for guaranteed, continueed support.

    For example i'd much rather go to branded zone do few missions there (or long term commitment there) to unlock branded mount skins, rather then having to shell out for it.

©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.