If you were in charge of deciding whether the game had a cash shop or did not have a cash shop what would you choose?

[Xanadrine.4352]

I would still keep the gem store, but with a few changes. I would remove loot box lotto, and instead put items in a rotation, and make the number of items available in the store larger to pick up the stuff from the blc loot boxes. As it is now there isnt much stuff available on a day to day basis. I would def rotate blc weapon skins in there. And def have the festival themed weapons like mad kings GS pop up around that time of year , same with the other holiday themed skins and weapons. For every normal day there is enough BLC skins minis outfits gliders backs ect to rotate out through the year.

[Borked.6824]

I would absolutely remove the Cash Shop and push subscription.  As an impulsive aesthete, I've likely spent more money on the Gem Store in the last 6 months than 2 years of WoW subscriptions.  The model they have here is cool and calculated to prey on whales like me, and those than think freedom of choice is going to ensure their self-control is getting them a better deal.  Doesn't even have to be a small subscription.  I'd happily pay 30+ bucks a month over the casino model Anet helped pioneer.  Also,  more importantly; keeping the Cash Shop out of the equation makes sure item acquisition stays in the game and under a properly immersive context.

[AliamRationem.5172]

My personal preference is subscription based, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work for this game.  I probably spend just as much either way, but sub games just seem to get more development resources.  If I could have that, I'm perfectly happy to pay for it. But I'm just one player.

[Tabootrinket.2631]

Things are not that simple. If Anet could just say no to cash shop and still have the same amount of income they would do just that.

However, I think they should've thought out the balance between cash shop content and ingame content more thoroughly.

While cash shop gives them income, contents give the players incentive to continue playing, and thus reasons to keep investing in the cash shop. It's kinda dissuasive when two third of cash shop weapons are more original and inspired than actual legendaries. 

Personally, I would have made all weapons and armors drop throughout all different contents and rare "MVP" mobs, but not exclusive to specific ones. The nature of the contents would just (drastically) increase or decrease the percentage of drops of specific gears (depending on the lore of the content). Some contents would also just straight up lead to one specific gear, laying out the backstory of that gear while progressing towards it.
Btw, I mean all that content should be made intuitive and not hidden in obscure collections achievements.

So we would end up with a game where every piece of armor (except maybe headgears) and weapons are earned by playing the contents...
So what would be left for the cash shop ?

Pieces of cosmetics that can be put ON TOP of the gears. By that, I mean adding specific slots of cosmetics that would be put on a layer above the armor set :
- Badges
- Scarves
- Masks
- Floating trinkets (like the obnoxious legendaries)
- backpacks
- effects applied to specific compartments of the gears

- Hats that allow hair in.

- new accountbound hairstyles (but it would require the possibility to change haircuts with no cash money)

- pets with mini games 

- chairs

- transportations that replace the running animation (like the broom and the carpet)

-mount skins was a pretty neat idea because it's not an element that competes with any ingame activity.


That idea is not new. It was actually successfully used in older Asian MMOs (Ragnarok, Maple Story, Tales Weaver too I think etc).
It gave a nice balance between cash shop cosmetics and a gear progression within the game.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Tabootrinket.2631

[medivh.4725]

If by cash shop you actually mean BLTC then yes cash shop has to stay

[Astralporing.1957]

10 hours ago, Tabootrinket.2631 said:

Things are not that simple. If Anet could just say no to cash shop and still have the same amount of income they would do just that.

That's not how businesses work. If they could have the same amount of income without the cash shop, they would do just that... and then keep the cashshop for added income. Remember, for business there's no amount of income that is "enough". If you can earn more, you do exactly that.

[kharmin.7683]

People who prefer the subscription model can already do that on their own!  Just pay Anet $15/month or so for gems.  There's your subscription.  The rest of us, who prefer the current method, are quite satisfied with the model.

[robertthebard.8150]

Since it is impossible to make the money needed to keep the game running w/out a source of revenue, I'd keep the CS.

[medivh.4725]

OK now to the follow up question, then how to make money for game.

I am playing gw2 for a year now. Back then studied some business in school. Since I love the game don't mind trying to help.

My only regret was not finding GW2 sooner. I spent so much money on other games. If only I had GW2 to play 2, 3 years back. Just too busy in corporate rat race and busy at school maybe. But hey why I have heard other titles but not GW2?

This come down to your marketing putting bare effort. Maybe anet can park in some marketing budget because the game is great. The contents is there. All you need is more to come in. 

Current pandemic also opportunity for anet people hiding indoors. What do they do after netflicks? 

Keep the current model or cash shop if that what you call it. Get the numbers on board. Pump in the marketing dollars. Some gamers are inpatient they literally buy their way up. Some are into fashion like me and spend on looking fabulous. I think a heavy majority will buy the expansion packs in the end. A mix bag really. So I say grab expand player base. GW2 is known as the most underrated MMORPG. Now make it known do the promo

Hope it helps! 

[Stalkingwolf.6035]

On 10/27/2021 at 8:48 PM, MikeG.6389 said:

Here's an idea: buy gems with the money you would be willing to pay as a sub fee. Your problem is solved.

not even close.13€ would be only 1040 Gem or 190 Gold. Thats a joke to get anything. 

[Handsel.2891]

35 minutes ago, Stalkingwolf.6035 said:

not even close.13€ would be only 1040 Gem or 190 Gold. Thats a joke to get anything. 

So you would rather have everyone pay that amount monthly in order for you to be able to buy the things you want at a lower cost? It sounds like a you problem.

I mean I get it, the gem store has a lot of stuff that I would buy in a heartbeat, if I had the money. I don't and I only buy gems with in-game gold so I'm extremely selective with my purchases. But, if GW2 had launched with your supposed monthly subscription, by now I would have paid them about €1500, which is around 120,000 gems... The things I could buy with that kind of freedom in the gem shop! Sadly, it's also only a hypothetical, as a monthly sub would have made me quit the game a long time ago.

But buying gems with my money only when I am able to so that I can save up for the things I want from the shop? Mmm...

Edited October 29, 2021 by MikeG.6389

[Linken.6345]

27 minutes ago, Stalkingwolf.6035 said:

not even close.13€ would be only 1040 Gem or 190 Gold. Thats a joke to get anything. 

Each month tho so over time you would get what ever you like.

[Tabootrinket.2631]

21 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

That's not how businesses work. If they could have the same amount of income without the cash shop, they would do just that... and then keep the cashshop for added income. Remember, for business there's no amount of income that is "enough". If you can earn more, you do exactly that.

"Retention" and "feeling of fairness" are two concepts that those kind of companies are actually following very closely, you know.
It's actually more profitable for them to make players feel that whatever is paid actually deserves it and doesn't hinder the actual experience.

So yeah, that IS how working businesses function. Otherwise, the overtime player sentiment will get lower and lower until the profit doesn't come anymore. And most importantly, the next IP will tank.

Balance is the key for companies that want to last with their services. Anet has found a balance, but my view is it could've been altered a little bit.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Tabootrinket.2631

[Danikat.8537]

2 hours ago, Tabootrinket.2631 said:

"Retention" and "feeling of fairness" are two concepts that those kind of companies are actually following very closely, you know.
It's actually more profitable for them to make players feel that whatever is paid actually deserves it and doesn't hinder the actual experience.

So yeah, that IS how working businesses function. Otherwise, the overtime player sentiment will get lower and lower until the profit doesn't come anymore. And most importantly, the next IP will tank.

Balance is the key for companies that want to last with their services. Anet has found a balance, but my view is it could've been altered a little bit.

It's an important part of marketing.

We've had people doing sales at my work say they feel like they need to know how to turn any conversation into a sale, or at least an opportunity to promote products, and the marketing team say they'd actually prefer they just have a nice chat about something unrelated than try to push a sale because on average it takes '3 encounters' with a brand before someone will buy from them and those need to be positive. Someone who looks around, has a nice chat and leaves with a positive impression of a shop is far more likely to become a repeat customer (and therefore more profitable in the long run) than someone who is pressured to buy something on their first visit and leaves feeling like they were pushed into it or regrets the purchase later.

Obviously GW2 is a bit different to a physical shop but it's the same idea. It's much more beneficial for Anet in the long-run for players to feel like the game is good value for money and they're not being double charged or over-charged for what they get because they'll stick around longer and over time buy more.

Of course there's lower limits as well, they can't sell everything for 1 gem each because they need to make enough money to keep the game going, and also people don't tend to value things they get for free or very cheap as highly. 

[Astralporing.1957]

2 hours ago, Tabootrinket.2631 said:

"Retention" and "feeling of fairness" are two concepts that those kind of companies are actually following very closely, you know.
It's actually more profitable for them to make players feel that whatever is paid actually deserves it and doesn't hinder the actual experience.

The whole mountgate and Anet's reaction to it (as well as the whole "template" system debacle) shows that they might not fully agree with you on that point.

[Danikat.8537]

5 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

The whole mountgate and Anet's reaction to it (as well as the whole "template" system debacle) shows that they might not fully agree with you on that point.

I'd say "mountgate" is an example of them recognising that a feeling of fairness is important. Anet put in a model they thought would be profitable for them and tolerable for players where almost all new mount skins could only be obtained by buying a random licence. Players weren't happy and complained about it, so Anet changed the system to allow players to choose the skins they wanted and added new ones to different licences, so if someone wants to gradually collect all the skins in a set or try for a specific one through random licences they're not in a race against time where new skins are added faster than they can buy them and their odds of getting the one they want actually go down over time.

Yes the select licences cost more than a lot of people like (although some people did say before then they'd be willing to pay 2x or 3x as much to choose a skin) but the complaint at the time was specifically that only having random licences feels unfair and isn't enjoyable and players wanted to be able to choose skins.

As one of the people who was complaining I think it's a reasonable compromise, especially since the select licences go on sale periodically so the fact that I think they're too expensive at full price isn't a big problem because I can wait to buy them when they're cheaper.

[Astralporing.1957]

11 minutes ago, Danikat.8537 said:

I'd say "mountgate" is an example of them recognising that a feeling of fairness is important.

Then you probably did not read the response they gave there. They were very clear that they thought the issue was not in the original licenses, but in players not noticing how great the original system was. And they never made changes to original licenses either.

If the player response was not so loud then (and if that did not coincide with similar issues cropping up in several other games at the same time, which brought the issue a lot of bad publicity at that moment) i'm quite sure there would have been neither any response, nor any changes at all. They'd just have assumed that players would eventually get used to it, like they did with a lot of other things.

Besides, there's still the whole templates case to consider, which is actually much worse than mountgate, because it's not about visuals, but about intentional crippling of a planned Qol system in order to overmonetize it.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Astralporing.1957

[kharmin.7683]

But there are games with sub fees that still have a cash shop, so I'm not sure where you're going with that argument.

[ShadowCatz.8437]

16 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

But there are games with sub fees that still have a cash shop, so I'm not sure where you're going with that argument.

Directed to @Borked.6824

Which games that have a sub fee, do not have a cash shop or micro transaction? I don't know any game that is based on regular payment for a period that doesn't also make use of cash shops.

[Teratus.2859]

Not even question really.

Cash shop is fine as it is.. hell it's better than most i've seen in other games.

Gem to gold conversion, gold to gem conversion.
Tons of QoL upgrades for my account.
Tons of optional cosmetic stuff for my account that can be used and shared on all my characters.

But best of all it keeps money flowing into the game which keeps the game alive.
That's certainly better than the alternative where Anet would tell me every month they're taking my account away from me unless I give them more money and no matter how much money I've paid into the game it would never stop this perpetual monthly monetary demand that if I decided I wasn't going to pay then my account and everything i've invested into it over the years would be locked away from me forever, until I caved in and paid.

Those subscription fees that people like to call them are eerily similar to ransom demands if you ask me lol

[Borked.6824]

22 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

But there are games with sub fees that still have a cash shop, so I'm not sure where you're going with that argument.

That's why this thread is hypothetical.  If we were literally in charge of managing the financial success of Anet alone, of course we'd say "hell yeah, let's do a subscription fee, and a cash shop, and an in-game casino tied to the cash shop, and a perishable in-game currency that's tied to the casino, and an agreement to sacrifice first borns in exchange for perishable shinies, and 10% of your year's tax returns if you don't have a subscription, etc."  Of course all games do it, because it follows the fitness of capitalism.  But if we're talking un-biased ideation/opinion, why wouldn't it sound more equitable for the whole of the game and it's community?

[Handsel.2891]

2 hours ago, Borked.6824 said:

I think you're missing the big picture.  To most people, adding and equitable sub fee "should" invalidate the need for items to be on the cash shop.  For example, if I the developer is charging $20 a month for a sub fee for all players, I would have to evaluate whether having Skyscale mounts and Skins be paid through direct methods is a equitable/moral course.  So where do we acquire these things if not by Cash Shop?  In game!  By playing the game!  Sounds great, huh?  Removes all of the complexity and bullsht, and garners trust between player and developer because there's no fine print, just your sub fee.

I didn't miss anything you just said here. I also know that there are a lot of games with sub fees which still have cash shops filled with items that often go way beyond cosmetics. What you seem to be missing is that by paying a sub fee you are FORCED to pay if you want to play the game, as opposed to paying only for the things I really want from the gem store. Do they cost more than you'd expect if there was a monthly fee? Sure. But the idea that because of a sub-fee, all the items now in the gem store would be available through simple gameplay is a rather naïve line of thinking. You underestimate how powerful the desire can be to buy the things you can't get anywhere else. That's the allure of all the cash shops in games. Morality plays second fiddle to profit.

A $20 sub-fee would have taken around $2200 out of my pocket since launch. That's 176,000 gems at current rates. I don't think there are enough items in the gem store right now that appeal to me to spend a third of it. So far, the game cost me about £160-170 and I buy the things I want with in-game gold. I like this system immensely, thank you very much. Admittedly, I am not the kind of player that keeps Anet's boat afloat, but there are enough of those who want to and are able to spend money on the gem shop, sometimes possibly much more than that $2200 you proposed.

[Borked.6824]

3 hours ago, MikeG.6389 said:

But the idea that because of a sub-fee, all the items now in the gem store would be available through simple gameplay is a rather naïve line of thinking. You underestimate how powerful the desire can be to buy the things you can't get anywhere else.

I'm not sure how long you've played MMOs, but the line of thinking you're trying to describe is exactly where people started to lose trust in MMO developers.  I played WoW for a decade in it's halcyon era, when it was just subscription based, and precisely around the time they started integrating the cash shop is when people started jumping ship and permanently scorning Blizzard's credibility.  There's a reason they are phoning in on Classic WoW right now, because people prefer the framework of the game that there is no reward that cannot be obtained in game by either time, difficulty, or both.  The point isn't to have me decide where to spend my money, it's to keep my spent money in the game itself and not as a virtual department store. 

How they achieve their profit is not my problem.  I'm a consumer.  

[Handsel.2891]

You are right, I don't play many MMOs but I've yet to see one without a cash shop. If you know of one, I'm very curious to learn how it's doing. WoW is not the only game in town with a sub-fee, either.

16 minutes ago, Borked.6824 said:

The point isn't to have me decide where to spend my money, it's to keep my spent money in the game itself and not as a virtual department store. 

First of all, what's the difference between the game and its cash shop in terms of where your money ultimately ends up? And second of all, isn't the current setup the exact embodiment of your desire to spend your money where you want to? Not to mention how much you want to spend?

24 minutes ago, Borked.6824 said:

How they achieve their profit is not my problem. 

Well, one could argue that this entire thread, including your posts, is exactly about ideas how they should do that.

[frareanselm.1925]

I would put all the gemstore skins as a rare reward in hard dungeons or fractals, this would create a more motivated playerbase, meanwhile the actual endgame is sitting in divinity's reach showing skins,thrones and playing music....