Mounts at 2000 gems actually ARE ok and here's why (xpost from reddit)

[Pifil.5193]

@Ayumi Spender.1082 said:

@Healix.5819 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:do you have an example of other games where mounts are $25 (apart from WoW)? I'm honestly curious

They seem to be

$25-$30

in FFXIV for an account unlock or $13 for a character unlock.

$20-$25

in ESO, $10 for a simple a retexture.

$25

-

$30

in WoW.

$5 for a character unlock in PSO2.

They cost from $5 in Neverwinter too.

I not sure that simply declaring it an "industry standard" actually makes it an "industry standard". Or indeed means all that much at all.

[Teratus.2859]

No it's not ok and here's why..

How much time, work and effort went into Path of Fire?How many new features did we get?How many maps did we get?How many new sounds and music tracks did we get?How many new elite specs did we get?How many new weapon and armor sets did we get?How much story content did we get?How many new achievements got added?How many brand new enemy types got added?How much did path of fire cost?

Now check the mount..How much does 2000 gems cost?

Is that value for money even justifiably comparable?No.. I didn't think so.

[Teratus.2859]

@Alatar.7364 said:By setting the Mount at 2k will generate Anet less profit than if they set it at 1k, this pretty much eliminates the Entire post, because I would really love to see the One who would Braindead farm Silverwastes for enough Gold for 1k gems.

Even 1k is taking the skritt.. but you're right.. I'd be more than happy to buy these 2k skins if there were cheaper..800 gems would be the preference but I could be persuaded to go as high as 1k if the skin is really cool.

But at 2k gems.. HA! I still wouldn't buy them even if I was a millionaire.

[Teratus.2859]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:

Now let's look at some alternatives:

-ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

-ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

-ANet could charge money for every patch.-ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

-ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

$10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

[Magnus Godrik.5841]

A net just remove the gold to gems option for this and charge $10. Maybe that will make people happy. Probably not.

[Lambent.6375]

@Teratus.2859 said:No it's not ok and here's why..

How much time, work and effort went into Path of Fire?How many new features did we get?How many maps did we get?How many new sounds and music tracks did we get?How many new elite specs did we get?How many new weapon and armor sets did we get?How much story content did we get?How many new achievements got added?How many brand new enemy types got added?How much did path of fire cost?

Now check the mount..How much does 2000 gems cost?

Is that value for money even justifiably comparable?No.. I didn't think so.

The value of the expansion is more than $30, they just sold it cheap on purpose. They're making their money back through the gem store.

[Teratus.2859]

@Lambent.6375 said:

@Teratus.2859 said:No it's not ok and here's why..

How much time, work and effort went into Path of Fire?How many new features did we get?How many maps did we get?How many new sounds and music tracks did we get?How many new elite specs did we get?How many new weapon and armor sets did we get?How much story content did we get?How many new achievements got added?How many brand new enemy types got added?How much did path of fire cost?

Now check the mount..How much does 2000 gems cost?

Is that value for money even justifiably comparable?No.. I didn't think so.

The value of the expansion is more than $30, they just sold it cheap on purpose. They're making their money back through the gem store.

Not with 2k gem skins..

I've seen a couple of the new raptors but none of the warhound.. they are not selling anywhere near as well as the mount licences did.. and I expect most of those who did buy them didn't buy the full 2000 gems with money.

[ZhouX.8742]

@Teratus.2859 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:

Now let's look at some alternatives:

-ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

-ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

-ANet could charge money for every patch.-ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

-ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

$10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

WoW , final fantasy ... die off quickly? wow is easily one of the longest standing mmo's in the history of mmos and has been rather consistent , it's only STARTED to die off in the past years after more than a decade of existence and im going to be honest, with the existence of the vanilla servers you'll pretty much see them bring back A LOT of their older players if even for a few months - a massive amount of money...

final fantasy is even GAINING ground and has a higher subscription count than most mmos

Also there's a reason why these 2 mmos listed , who are sub based, are STILL considered the 2 biggest mmo's by subscription count alone. Even bigger than BDO and Gw2 , which are f2p

In fact, I would say quite the OPPOSITE in that f2p model mmos die off much quicker than most sub based mmo models, but that's kind of hard to really compare considering there is roughly 20 f2p model mmos to every 1-2 sub based mmo model because f2p is a quick easy cash grab and then usually fails because the game is trash. Gw2 is one of the longest standing f2p model mmos I've seen that hasn't died out yet.

[ReaverKane.7598]

@ZhouX.8742 said:

@Teratus.2859 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:

Now let's look at some alternatives:

-ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

-ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

-ANet could charge money for every patch.-ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

-ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

$10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

WoW , final fantasy ... die off quickly? wow is easily one of the longest standing mmo's in the history of mmos and has been rather consistent , it's only STARTED to die off in the past years after more than a decade of existence and im going to be honest, with the existence of the vanilla servers you'll pretty much see them bring back A LOT of their older players if even for a few months - a massive amount of money...

final fantasy is even GAINING ground and has a higher subscription count than most mmos

Also there's a reason why these 2 mmos listed , who are sub based, are STILL considered the 2 biggest mmo's by subscription count alone. Even bigger than BDO and Gw2 , which are f2p

In fact, I would say quite the OPPOSITE in that f2p model mmos die off much quicker than most sub based mmo models, but that's kind of hard to really compare considering there is roughly 20 f2p model mmos to every 1-2 sub based mmo model because f2p is a quick easy cash grab and then usually fails because the game is trash. Gw2 is one of the longest standing f2p model mmos I've seen that hasn't died out yet.

LOL...So you're talking about 2 games that have a franchise rooted in other games, and so a HUGE fanbase outside the MMORPG genre, and that have HUGE companies backing them, and comparing them to MMORPG-centered frachnises.Name 2 more subscription games that are still subscription based.

And while you're thinking i'll tell you a couple that were subscription and lost it (not to mention WoW now allows you to pay the sub with in-game currency - in a way reminiscent of the Gem to gold method of GW - , making it kinda b2p):Wildstar, Elder Scrolls Online, ESO, EVE online...Even Secret World that was a B2P became F2P. The truth is the F2P micro transactions model is by far the most lucrative model(so much so that even AAA predominantly single-player games now have those).

Sure WoW and FFXIV are big great games, but if you look closely they're both inching closer and closer to the B2P/F2P with microtransactions model. (WoW subs can be paid with in-game currency, and FFXIV now allows you to play for free up to lvl35 (out of 50) with 8 characters).

[Ashen.2907]

@Fengzhou.9853 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Fengzhou.9853 said:

@"Widowmaker Z.4802" said:I have to laugh at the people comparing the price to other games. Most of these other games also allow you to obtain mounts in game, whether it's with gold, achievements or drops. GW2 has no mount skins, except for the original mounts themselves, that are obtainable in game.

Have to agree with this one massively. Yes.. 25 dollars is pretty average for mounts bought from game shops.. BUT there's often a bunch more obtainable (some super easy and some really difficult) in game as an option.

I can earn ALL of the $25 mounts in game in GW2.

I just bet you can in a few year's time.. or getting lucky with drops. I honestly have no clue how to make reliable gold in this game and I've been around since it launched. Never seen a precursor, never gotten any lucky high priced dyes to sell, nothing like that.

I was also waiting for 'that guy' to comment exactly as you did. There's always one out there.

Never had a precursor drop, no high priced item drops, and so on. Kist playing the game and selling my mats and such.

I guess, "that guy," must mean, "that honest and accurate guy."

[MokahTGS.7850]

@Ashen.2907 said:I have not seen Idaho....so it doesnt exist?

You are correct, it does not.

To everyone else...But seriously, this debate is silly. ANet does not care about anyone's stated opinion. They care about sales data. MikeO SAID their data suggests/supports $25+ skins as better than $10 skins. Data...not opinion. I don't like it, but there it is. If you don't like it, don't buy it. That's what I'm doing. I'm adding my "did not buy" data to their data pool. If there is enough data to suggest that they should change, they will or they will lose money. It's how business works.

[Teratus.2859]

@ZhouX.8742 said:

@Teratus.2859 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:

Now let's look at some alternatives:

-ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

-ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

-ANet could charge money for every patch.-ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

-ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

$10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

WoW , final fantasy ... die off quickly? wow is easily one of the longest standing mmo's in the history of mmos and has been rather consistent , it's only STARTED to die off in the past years after more than a decade of existence and im going to be honest, with the existence of the vanilla servers you'll pretty much see them bring back A LOT of their older players if even for a few months - a massive amount of money...

final fantasy is even GAINING ground and has a higher subscription count than most mmos

Also there's a reason why these 2 mmos listed , who are sub based, are STILL considered the 2 biggest mmo's by subscription count alone. Even bigger than BDO and Gw2 , which are f2p

In fact, I would say quite the OPPOSITE in that f2p model mmos die off much quicker than most sub based mmo models, but that's kind of hard to really compare considering there is roughly 20 f2p model mmos to every 1-2 sub based mmo model because f2p is a quick easy cash grab and then usually fails because the game is trash. Gw2 is one of the longest standing f2p model mmos I've seen that hasn't died out yet.

I said most MMO's not all..

And you really have to look at the fact that besides WoW and FF14 there is little else to really serve as example.They are 2 success story's among an ocean of failed sub fee MMO's that have been forced to switch to F2P as a desperation move to survive.

That's what I was talking about when I said the market is over saturated..There are too many MMO's and not enough people or money in the market for more than a handful to survive on the subscription model.. Gw2 as much as I love the game would not survive on the sub model either.. in fact switching to it would absolutely kill the game as it would drive a huge portion of the fanbase away and attract very few new players as a trade off.

When everything has a sub fee it forces the players to get very picky about which game they spend their limited money on..

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

@Teratus.2859 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:

Now let's look at some alternatives:

-ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

-ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

-ANet could charge money for every patch.-ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

-ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

$10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@ZhouX.8742 said:

@Teratus.2859 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:

Now let's look at some alternatives:

-ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

-ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

-ANet could charge money for every patch.-ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

-ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

$10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

WoW , final fantasy ... die off quickly? wow is easily one of the longest standing mmo's in the history of mmos and has been rather consistent , it's only STARTED to die off in the past years after more than a decade of existence and im going to be honest, with the existence of the vanilla servers you'll pretty much see them bring back A LOT of their older players if even for a few months - a massive amount of money...

final fantasy is even GAINING ground and has a higher subscription count than most mmos

Also there's a reason why these 2 mmos listed , who are sub based, are STILL considered the 2 biggest mmo's by subscription count alone. Even bigger than BDO and Gw2 , which are f2p

In fact, I would say quite the OPPOSITE in that f2p model mmos die off much quicker than most sub based mmo models, but that's kind of hard to really compare considering there is roughly 20 f2p model mmos to every 1-2 sub based mmo model because f2p is a quick easy cash grab and then usually fails because the game is trash. Gw2 is one of the longest standing f2p model mmos I've seen that hasn't died out yet.

LOL...So you're talking about 2 games that have a franchise rooted in other games, and so a HUGE fanbase outside the MMORPG genre, and that have HUGE companies backing them, and comparing them to MMORPG-centered frachnises.Name 2 more subscription games that are still subscription based.And while you're thinking i'll tell you a couple that were subscription and lost it (not to mention WoW now allows you to pay the sub with in-game currency - in a way reminiscent of the Gem to gold method of GW - , making it kinda b2p):Wildstar, Elder Scrolls Online, ESO, EVE online...Even Secret World that was a B2P became F2P. The truth is the F2P micro transactions model is by far the most lucrative model(so much so that even AAA predominantly single-player games now have those)Sure WoW and FFXIV are big great games, but if you look closely they're both inching closer and closer to the B2P/F2P with microtransactions model. (WoW subs can be paid with in-game currency, and FFXIV now allows you to play for free up to lvl35 (out of 50) with 8 characters).

Ok first of all, FFXIV was not a success on their first launched. The reboot is the one taking off right now. The major difference is that they were charging sub fee while they're developing like GW2. FFXIV 1.0 has less content than what GW2 is at launch. It didn't make sense then. However, after the reboot, they are developing way more than GW2, which justifies the sub fee. This is my point.

If GW2 was sub based, this game would have been bigger than it is now and the lore will have so much more depth. And none of these microtransactions nonsense that triggers constant protests.

I've played many other sub-based MMOs and they cannot justify their sub fee, thus they opted to go free-to-play. To be honest, GW2 has been an industry standard whether an MMO is justified charging sub fee. If they are developing less than GW2, they have no business charging subs, thus players tend to leave their game.

Even if the MMO went F2P, I still would not play them. ESO, for example, albeit a nice game, but it's not player friendly. One example that made me quit is skill refund. It cost gold, in fact, all of my gold, just to rest my skills. I can do that multiple times in GW2 without charge and without sub fee. To me, that is insidious. They take my gold just so I have to keep my sub to try to get those gold back, well, that's not going to happen. I rather play GW2. Thus the sub fee in ESO didn't make sense.

WoW is not inching towards F2P. For each token bought with gold, it was pre-paid with $5 interest. Technically, these players buying tokens with gold are basically paying $20 sub fee. FFXIV's free access is just that, free access no different than free trial. GW2 is the one offering F2P all the way to level 80 with no time limit.

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

Mandatory is a word with a definition. The definition applies to sub fees, but not to gem purchases. Your opinion about business practices and fairness are not applicable to a discussion of accuracy in the use of the word.

[Teratus.2859]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@Teratus.2859 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:

Now let's look at some alternatives:

-ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

-ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

-ANet could charge money for every patch.-ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

-ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

$10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

And if you cancel your subscription you have a game you've paid for and invested a ton of money in taken away from you and essentially held at ransom until you start paying again..

That is not ok with me in any way shape or form.

With the buy to play model you never loose access to your game unless you get banned.. this is how it should be.When you buy something it should be yours.. and games that run on the subscription model are absolutely ripping you off when they also charge you upfront for the damn game and additionally for their expansions as well.

[Teratus.2859]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

I pay way more than my fair share supporting this game.. that's the best benefit of running a game without a sub fee and relying on a cash shop to make profit.I'm more than happy to pay more when it's my own choice and I have the freedom to decide for myself how much money I want to invest in this game.

Take away that freedom.. take away my choice to pay what I want and demand I pay a mandatory fee instead with the ultimatum that if I don't I'll have everything taken off me and my access to a game I've paid for completely stripped away and I'd walk away from the game and never touch it again even if it went back to a f2p model.

And i'm not alone in feeling that way.. many Guildwars fans do.. because the main reason many of us got into this franchise was because it was anti sub fee.

[DarcShriek.5829]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

So, what is a person's fair share? Who decides that? What has Anet decided a person's fair share is?

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

Mandatory is a word with a definition. The definition applies to sub fees, but not to gem purchases. Your opinion about business practices and fairness are not applicable to a discussion of accuracy in the use of the word.

The word is subjective. To you, the sub fee is mandatory. As I've explained, to those who love the game and wants to support it willingly pays the sub fee no different than buying gems. Even though GW2 has no sub fee, players who love this game spends the same amount, or even more, thus it is not mandatory. In the same way, players who love FFXIV, for example, willingly pay the sub fee and even make purchases in their online store, thus it is not mandatory.

If the sub fee in those games is mandatory for access, they won't even offer free trials or free accounts. The word mandatory is misused in this discussion.

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

@Teratus.2859 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@Teratus.2859 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:

Now let's look at some alternatives:

-ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

-ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

-ANet could charge money for every patch.-ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

-ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

$10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

And if you cancel your subscription you have a game you've paid for and invested a ton of money in taken away from you and essentially held at ransom until you start paying again..That is not ok with me in any way shape or form.

That's not even true. If I cancel, it means I don't want to play. Nothing is being held for ransom.

With the buy to play model you never loose access to your game unless you get banned.. this is how it should be.

The reality is; games without funding die and you lose everything.

When you buy something it should be yours.. and games that run on the subscription model are absolutely ripping you off when they also charge you upfront for the kitten game and additionally for their expansions as well.

Supply and demand. If the supply doesn't match your demand, you should not pay. However, if the supply matches my demand, I would pay. The price is relative.

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

@Teratus.2859 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

I pay way more than my fair share supporting this game.. that's the best benefit of running a game without a sub fee and relying on a cash shop to make profit.I'm more than happy to pay more when it's my own choice and I have the freedom to decide for myself how much money I want to invest in this game.

Take away that freedom.. take away my choice to pay what I want and demand I pay a mandatory fee instead with the ultimatum that if I don't I'll have everything taken off me and my access to a game I've paid for completely stripped away and I'd walk away from the game and never touch it again even if it went back to a f2p model.

That's overly exaggerated. The scale of GW2 is not even close to the scale of MMOs with sub fee. The reason for the sub fee is to give the game depths in terms of game experience and story. More revenue, more development time. There's a lot of criticism how shallow PoF is, well, what do you expect? You get what you paid for. Sure you spent more than others, but your share will not cover for others who never spent. Besides, the revenue is not consistent.

And i'm not alone in feeling that way.. many Guildwars fans do.. because the main reason many of us got into this franchise was because it was anti sub fee.

I understand that. All I'm saying is GW2 could have been a lot bigger and better with a consistent revenue from sub fee.

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

@DarcShriek.5829 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

So, what is a person's fair share? Who decides that?

The developer decides. In other MMO it's $15/month to support the game development.

What has Anet decided a person's fair share is?

Box price. Which in my opinion is not enough revenue to drive a bigger or bolder project. PoF is evidence of that.

[Teratus.2859]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@Teratus.2859 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@Teratus.2859 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:

Now let's look at some alternatives:

-ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

-ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

-ANet could charge money for every patch.-ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

-ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

$10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

And if you cancel your subscription you have a game you've paid for and invested a ton of money in taken away from you and essentially held at ransom until you start paying again..That is not ok with me in any way shape or form.

That's not even true. If I cancel, it means I don't want to play. Nothing is being held for ransom.

With the buy to play model you never loose access to your game unless you get banned.. this is how it should be.

The reality is; games without funding die and you lose everything.

When you buy something it should be yours.. and games that run on the subscription model are absolutely ripping you off when they also charge you upfront for the kitten game and additionally for their expansions as well.

Supply and demand. If the supply doesn't match your demand, you should not pay. However, if the supply matches my demand, I would pay. The price is relative.

And if you can't afford to play you have your game taken away from you..And if you can afford but lack time then you're wasting money when you're not playing..

Games have survived off initial sales since the dawn of online gaming and before it.. if any game cannot do this today then perhaps the companies responsible for them shouldn't be making games like that in the first place.Besides for games like WoW.. the amount they make from millions of people paying a sub fee doesn't even remotely come close to the investment put back into the game.The bulk of that is pure profit which is one of the big reasons MMO's exploded in popularity in the first place.. It's a cash cow primed to be milked and everyone wanted a piece of the pie.Sub fees are completely unnecessary.. specially when you have a good game that sells on it's merits and can survive without them.