A Proposal for a Subscription Model in Guild Wars 2

[Xelqypla.6817]

6 hours ago, Drew The Geek.9613 said:

Just to clear up a few things.

1. Subscriptions would be in addition to what already exists, not a replacement

2. When the subscription ends, so do the extra perks.  So all the storage and character slots would go away.

3. You could pay a smaller fee during the subscription period to unlock those items permanently.

Nothing would change for any players, it would only be in addition to what is already offered.  I was also using the pricing as a base line but it could be adjusted for better balancing between how much a player pays and how much Anet actually makes.

So even if a subscription was an option, I was not suggesting that any features get removed or changed for anyone that isn't a subscriber. It's only as another option.

 

You definitely kicked a hornets nest.

I don't mind subscriptions. However, as a long term player, I have zero reason to subscribe. I have a level 80 of every profession. My storage space is enough. I have all the content.

The suggested subscription might pull more money out of short term players or newbies. I don't think it would be worth the excessive anger though. This is a lot of anger.

[Remus Darkblight.1673]

On 8/23/2024 at 9:51 PM, Drew The Geek.9613 said:

I’ve never been one to purchase virtual items frequently.

. . . 

When it comes to gear...  However, the current system still favors those willing to spend money, which, while understandable, creates a barrier for players like me who prefer to earn their way.

You claim to be a player that does not purchase items frequently and prefers to earn their gear, yet you are advocating for a model that requires you to pay real money into the game and also allows you to bypass some of the work required to earn your gear?

Why not just buy gems yourself every month? It would not take long to permanently unlock full storage, extra character slots, and enough gems to buy the gold needed to bypass much of that farming for legendaries you feel so favours those who spend money? Call it your own personal little subscription model.

[Royal Grand Majesty.9852]

What you're asking is for ArenaNet to throw away Guild Wars 2's biggest appeal [ No Sub ].

Not going to lie, if Guild Wars 2 implements a sub fee, I would just go play WoW.

[Kulvar.1239]

Just buy a fixed amount of gems monthly, never more nor less than that, and pretend it's a sub fee.

[Sobx.1758]

13 hours ago, Drew The Geek.9613 said:

Just to clear up a few things.

1. Subscriptions would be in addition to what already exists, not a replacement

2. When the subscription ends, so do the extra perks.  So all the storage and character slots would go away.

3. You could pay a smaller fee during the subscription period to unlock those items permanently.

Nothing would change for any players, it would only be in addition to what is already offered.  I was also using the pricing as a base line but it could be adjusted for better balancing between how much a player pays and how much Anet actually makes.

So even if a subscription was an option, I was not suggesting that any features get removed or changed for anyone that isn't a subscriber. It's only as another option.

None of this (which still makes little to no sense) explained anything about why you're claiming you "prefer to earn your way" while at the same time your proposal is nothing more than "pay monthly to have it all by default".

Again: if you want to pay monthly, you can already buy gems monthly and keep unlocking things from gemstores. Are you doing that or are you simply trying to make the prices lower for yourself while claiming the system shouldn't be "favoring players willing to spend" for some bonus audience points?

Edited August 27 by Sobx.1758

[DeanBB.4268]

Am I misunderstanding something? Don't the subscription games (WoW, FF14) make you both buy their $50+ expansion and pay a monthly subscription fee? And OP wants to roll the expansion cost into the $15 monthly fee? So I could just pay $15 when all of JW is released and blow through all the content, then go back to FF14 for a year?

[Omega.6801]

No.

[Teknomancer.4895]

On 8/23/2024 at 7:09 PM, Ashen.2907 said:

Pretty much everything that can be bought multiple times over for self, friends, family, guildies and new players I run into while hanging in beginner zones to welcome people to the game. 

😲 That's an average of nearly $20 a day, every day, since launch in 2012.

I've never liked any game that much.

[Schimmi.6872]

59 minutes ago, DeanBB.4268 said:

Am I misunderstanding something? Don't the subscription games (WoW, FF14) make you both buy their $50+ expansion and pay a monthly subscription fee? And OP wants to roll the expansion cost into the $15 monthly fee? So I could just pay $15 when all of JW is released and blow through all the content, then go back to FF14 for a year?

Guess it's meant like the (not so) "optional" sub of ESO where you get access to all DLCs which are sold in the ingame shop. But you still have to buy the newest one I think (has been some time since I played it).

Also don't forget, that all this games still have ingame shops in addition to expansion sales and a sub fee.

[DarcShriek.5829]

smells like pay to win.  I would quit.

[Tsakhi.8124]

Y'all, some of these responses have me acting up for real.

[Malus.2184]

On 8/23/2024 at 10:51 PM, Drew The Geek.9613 said:

**Balancing Revenue Streams**

I understand that introducing a subscription model could potentially reduce revenue from gem sales. However, I believe that many players who are hesitant to invest in digital items might see a subscription as a more valuable option, potentially offsetting any loss in gem sales. The subscription model would also provide a more predictable and steady revenue stream, which could be beneficial for planning and development. Offering multiple subscription tiers (An example would be: month-to-month for $20.00/month, six months at $108, or one year at $180) could also encourage longer-term commitments and boost revenue.

This would severely hurt the revenue stream. People are okay with the Gem Store because there's no sub. Most people I've spoken to only begrudgingly accept the cash shop in FF14 and many of them dislike that all the pretty things are stuff they have to pay extra for on top of the sub they already pay. Having a shop and sub is a recipe for failure since people will feel they're getting bilked regardless of this being the case.

[Smurfiness.3714]

I would pay to play if I get easy Legendaries.

[Erathiel.9318]

ESO being a sub optional game is a shitfest to say the least, who has more or less purely focused on housing and cashing in on people's addiction on ESO+, housing features and items that serve no real purpose in the game beyond fashion. Guild Wars 2 with it's latest expansion and introduction to housing actually beat ESO's housing feature by miles with their features and the things you can do considering it being their first time beyond guild halls.

 

That alone should give OP a point of view why a subcription fee is anything but a good idea. This game is doing perfectly well without a sub fee and I can easily vouch that f2p people are paying real money for gems as we speak. It's actually worrying and crazy that some folks would actually suggest a subcription fee after all the bad experiences and destruction it has brought to the mmo gaming sphere. To not mention those implying that they'd pay if they could get end-game items easier.

My god in heaven, some people should simply not be allowed to post in these forums 😂

[Darkk.3018]

I'd be against a subscription fee as it would feel forced. I spend more on gems monthly anyways because I like supporting the devs and the game. 

[packeteers.9764]

i did not read this topic (sorry) but i came to gw2 from tera-online which failed after a few years despite an op similar monthly sub model 🤫

if anet must let gw2 die as profitability wanes, there are better ways to generate cash income which involve making the gold based economy more vibrant by making far more crafts and drops for player BLT resale. keep cash buyers able to buy gold with gems, but take away the player ability to convert in game gold to gems.  these two economic changes will bring more cash into the game, while making gold use more relevant and gem store items for cash paying players only. 

to give players who craft (or keep and use rare drops) their own gear a modest incentive advantage over players who bought their crafts from other players, you could add a 1% buff that keeps accumulating 1% more for every player crafted and used item that player wears simultaneously.  the idea being to not give high cash "pay to play" people no greater advantage over players who actually grind through achievements in this game, so these cash rich players pay for the rest of us.

Edited August 28 by packeteers.9764

[Luthan.5236]

I don't think it is needed. For full-subscription only it would be very annoying - and the game is not made for it The suggestion in OP might annoy people that later rather would have the things permanent.

What might work: A model where you subscribe to get full access to certain things - where each month would also slowly progress you on unlocking permanently. (Similar to what afaik the website gw2efficiency users for their supporter status. You can do 1-time payments but also subscribe and the monthly payment adds to your "total" paid stuff that once reaches a threshold unlocks a higher supporter level permanently similar to buying it directly with a 1-time purchase.)

Let's say you pay like ... 12.5. The 2.5 is like a fee for having access to all QoL stuff temporarily. For the 10 you get a value in gems (800) that can be used to unlock stuff permanently that you get temporarily with the subscription. But only at full price (not getting a sales price). Would work for bank slots, mat storage. Maybe also to get bag slot expansions.

They could stay locked if subscription expires and you did not get them permanently. (Locked = being able to move the item from there to an unlocked space but not being able to place stuff there again or "use" it while letting it stay there.) Not sure if/how unlimited gathering tools could work.

Imo: "Too much work" to implement it (and then debug the bugs and deal with requests to the customer support lol) ...
I would not be against it but I think devs resources (time) are better spent at other things.

[Quench.7091]

I do think that there are things that would work just fine inside of a subscription setup. A lot of people dislike the idea of subscriptions at all, even though some of the current gem store items are just badly structured subscriptions at this point in time. Think about it. What is an EXP booster in the gem store if not a 2 hour subscription for experience gain? But having to pay for an EXP boost every 2 hours is kind of... annoying. That said, this suggestion surprisingly didn't go for a subscription involving booster buffs or other things that are otherwise annoying to refresh. The suggestion went for the idea of giving us temporary access to things that we could otherwise have permanent access to.

Lockouts for things like character slots upon the subscription expiring would not work well with the Western audience. I have seen it in Korean MMORPGs, using things like bank slots. People always complain about things like having their loot left inside of inaccessible slots on English forums for those games. It would be better to stick with more of a Western approach to subscriptions while suggesting a subscription for the Western version of this game.

Edit 1: Actually, I think I remember Western MMORPGs adopting the lockout system for banks after switching to F2P, but then people complaining about it on forums. I might've missed Western games that used lockouts due to their late entry into the F2P market and their eventual restructuring. It looks like character slot lockouts are the only rare lockout from what I've seen.

Edit 2: Yep!  Looks like I was wrong on banking. Went to research other games. I thought they switched to a inventory purchase option for those other games. It appears to be a pain point for players.

Edited August 29 by Quench.7091

[FaeOnyx.3740]

I have given myself a subscription model by buying gems every month.

I, personally, would be cool with a gem ONLY "subscription" model because it would be easier for me to get my gems automatically, but it's not that big of a deal. However, if I could "sign up" to pay $X a month to get a bundle of gems without doing it manually, I would. There shouldn't be any extra "perks" though, imo.

[Dibit.6259]

Only way I could see a subscription model work in gw2 would probably be something related to the gemstore. Outside of expansions the gemstore is their main source of income. Gemstore stuff typically does not give people advantage in the game in regards to parts that require participation or skill since it's mostly cosmetic or qol utility. Maybe something like early access to new gemstore items, weakling freebies like black lion key, bonfire etc and % saving on gem conversion rates in game.

Doing a sub for expansions would be a big no no.

[Inssengrimm.7924]

The only plus a subscription actually brings is that allows the developers to have a "consistent" and "predictable" income of resources they can work arround with.
That alone doesn't grant anything like quantity or quality of said content.

For a subscription to work there has to be a tacit line of agreement between community and developer on how much content and what quality said content needs to be to even begin with - And this usually happens when the developer has not released the game yet, is the first offer "We will offer X at Y". 

No game has ever pulled successfully going F2P into B2P into S2P, thats because the business model is something you set from the very begining before you even release the project to the public, and in the case of games going from B2P into F2P thats entirely on the project's faults and terrible business models that made them panic and risk a lot of losses and had to change entirely out of their plans in order to savage whatever they could: SWTOR and LOTRO are great examples.

In straight terms, no one currently playing GW2 would support the existance of a subscription if Anet wouldn't offer something completely unrealistic to what a developer team of their size -and sadly- capabilities with the current software they work. What is 12 USD gonna get me here?

Gems? ridiculous.

For me, i would consider if subscription would grant me.

Per expansion:
+5 Full map expansions with +50 hours of voiced storyline.
1 New elite specialization per class.
3 New classes, one per armor class.
+3 New dungeons, story + 3-route exploration mode.
+2 Raids.
+2 Strike Missions.
+3 Fractals
New PvP mode and maps.
New WvW mode and maps.
New legendary gear.
Expansion features: Mounts  and Homesteads are excelent features, then you would have to come up with anything new at equeal level every expansion
Other activities: Rift and Convergences would have to become a standarized release with new instances and mechanics.
Minor features: All minor improvements to existing systems, QoL assurance, and the rest goes here.

Patches would have to include FULL maps instead of sliced up maps as we have been getting for years now, think Nayos but released in it's entirity from Ignaxious to Eparch in one patch, including all the storyline which would be arround aprox 5 hours, thats PER PATCH. 

Yeah, a 12 USD subscription isn't giving Anet the resources nor the know-how to make such a feat possible, and what i listed is like what i feel is the bare minimun to justify a subscription. I say that as someone with +15k hours in XIV, the only subscription game i have ever played, and yeah, thats more or less what you get through expansions and patches and tbh, i don't know if its a good deal anymore... Since for at least 2 expansions now i just pay 1 month at release and 2 months at end-expasion / pre-expansion time to "catch up and prepare". Most of that gametime is actually extremely inflated by college years and constant AFK no shutting down my PC. 

The rest of the time, guess what.

Im playing GW2. 

[Flowersunshine.7385]

4 hours ago, FaeOnyx.3740 said:

I have given myself a subscription model by buying gems every month.

I, personally, would be cool with a gem ONLY "subscription" model because it would be easier for me to get my gems automatically, but it's not that big of a deal. However, if I could "sign up" to pay $X a month to get a bundle of gems without doing it manually, I would. There shouldn't be any extra "perks" though, imo.

Now this is an idea I can get behind. Wouldn't be for me, but I can imagine there's more people who are interested in the ease. I see less risk of a slippery slope with this sort of thing. Heck, you could even throw in a free gem store item like a BL-key or a hat skin or something if someone commits to a certain length. (Much like you get a cheaper rate, a free month or extra credit with other subscription services.)

Just keep it limited to gems & gem store items, and don't start messing with buffs or boosters that are otherwise unavailable - let alone access to game content.

[TheNurgle.4825]

Noone and nothing actually prevent OP to play GW2 as subscription based MMO. So anyone can pay certain amount each mount and play GW2 as subsciption MMO and by whatever they want. Sadly is it not about subs and improvement, but about gatekeeping.

PS I played some F2P games like subs MMOs and it was not bad.

[CAA.9653]

Are you new or something? I don't think you understand GW2 or the community. This might work for some games/communities, but not here. Let me quickly explain to you why:

1. If there is a sub fee, most people will simply quit the game. 

2. If you want perks (more storage space, character slots, etc.) buy them for yourself, with your money. I don't need more storage, why should I pay for it? If/when I need more storage, I'll buy it.

3. A subscription tier system makes people unhappy because people will feel like they have to get the top tier, but will not be happy paying for it, which leads back to (1) they will quit the game.

[Smart College Boy.3249]

All these players complaining about sub fees, I can't wait to see what they do when the next generation of MMORPGs like Ashes of Creation release with a sub fee.