would you be willing to pay a subscription

[zealex.9410]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Fenom.9457 said:Absoultely i will pay if Anet hires more employees to make more content.

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

Again, check the comparissons between Destiny 2 (a paid game with paid updates) vs Warframe (a free game with what's widely considered one of, if not the, fairest premium stores in the world).> @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

I would be paying a subscription even without anything added.

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

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

Except that nowadays all subscription games also have a premium store. Do they have less stuff on offer, sure, but they still have it.

@Yannir.4132 said:I'd be down to a Voluntary (Premium) Subscription model with no p2w aspects. Maybe cosmetic benefits like exclusive mount skins or like an exclusive legendary gizmo(only available in PvP atm). Mistfire Wolf would be cool to get as well. Maybe a custom title. Maybe if you play on a free account, and buy the sub, you could be upgraded into a core account.But the thing is, even if I'd be okay supporting ANet with a subscription, I don't want to force it on everyone and I don't want it to have any unfair benefits, because that would make me feel like a scrub, which I'm not.

Thing is, these things eventually downgrade into the subscribers asking for more than non-subscribers.Also, like me, and others have said, more money doesn't equal better quality. In fact it can men just the oposite. 2017 was arguably the best year in terms of finance for GW2, and yet that money didn't translate into an improvement in the game's quality.

Warframe doesnt get much content. It gets alot of updates which incentivise you to replay existing content/grind it.

I dont really want better content quality outside of bugs, production value of the fontent can be the same,i just want more of it.

Warframe is widely considered the best F2P game you can play even when it doesn't get much content and it's mainly updates and additions to what it already has, that should tell you A LOT about how good their approach works.

Warframe amd de are known for alot of great things. Content pace isnt one of those.

Also, ofc you can play even when theres no new content, game's basically a grind.

That's the game type, just like Destiny 2. Their content pace isn't that unreasonable if you compare apples with apples.

Not really destiny releases more content than warframe does. Destiny 2 had a terrible start and a terrible dlc which puts it well bellow warframe.

But still its more content.

We can compaire apples with apples for mmos too. WoW, FF14, ESO all mmos like gw2 and all get more content than gw2. All of them monetise theor content as well unlike gw2.

[Carnius Magius.8091]

Save all that for GW4. Leave GW2 alone.

[melodyca.8921]

@Tort.1975 said:Let me begin with saying that I know this is a touchy subject and that there will be some strong opinions for and against it, so here go's.

So we all know that there are features and content that we want integrated in to game such as-New races-New classes-player housing-quality of life features-more armor/weaponsbut as it has been said there not enough funds or manpower to create these features without taking away from other departments. so what I want to find out is how many people would be willing to pay a monthly subscription for the hiring of more employees for the creation of more content that could be bigger, better and arrive faster then before. I know it's probably too late or too risky to change to a subscription base game, but me personally I would be willing to pay a subscription just to be able to see the game I love to play grow.

No. And I've subscribed to WOW, if you think that a paid subscription would increase the speed at which more content is released you are quite mistaken. What would happen is you would see more complaints on why its taking so long. The system Guild Wars 2 has is fine the way it is.

[Brother.1504]

Anet makes more money from me through the gemstore then a sub.

[Obtena.7952]

The question is moot; the game as it's designed doesn't support it. Besides ... what MORE could I expect if I paid a sub? Certainly I would be unwilling to pay a sub given the fact that Anet has already shown what they can provide us with the current business model.

[Klowdy.3126]

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

To be fair, the playerbase, and forum users change all of the time. It may turn out to be the same result, but it doesn't hurt to test the waters. If you're tired of reading the same threads, I would suggest not doing it, and just skipping those threads. Often, change occurs through persistence.

[Rio.4259]

I wouldn't want a sub fee in this game, no. I feel like adding a sub fee won't magically cause anet to start adding the features listed, like housing.

But...maybe someday they'll add a house to the gemstore for 20,000 gems, with 2000-gem house skins.

[Iozeph.5617]

Why in hell would I give them money every month when they've abandoned dungeons? Fractals aren't a replacement, regardless of what they said when they made the switch.

[Ephemiel.5694]

@zealex.9410 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Fenom.9457 said:Absoultely i will pay if Anet hires more employees to make more content.

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

Again, check the comparissons between Destiny 2 (a paid game with paid updates) vs Warframe (a free game with what's widely considered one of, if not the, fairest premium stores in the world).> @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

I would be paying a subscription even without anything added.

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

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

Except that nowadays all subscription games also have a premium store. Do they have less stuff on offer, sure, but they still have it.

@Yannir.4132 said:I'd be down to a Voluntary (Premium) Subscription model with no p2w aspects. Maybe cosmetic benefits like exclusive mount skins or like an exclusive legendary gizmo(only available in PvP atm). Mistfire Wolf would be cool to get as well. Maybe a custom title. Maybe if you play on a free account, and buy the sub, you could be upgraded into a core account.But the thing is, even if I'd be okay supporting ANet with a subscription, I don't want to force it on everyone and I don't want it to have any unfair benefits, because that would make me feel like a scrub, which I'm not.

Thing is, these things eventually downgrade into the subscribers asking for more than non-subscribers.Also, like me, and others have said, more money doesn't equal better quality. In fact it can men just the oposite. 2017 was arguably the best year in terms of finance for GW2, and yet that money didn't translate into an improvement in the game's quality.

Warframe doesnt get much content. It gets alot of updates which incentivise you to replay existing content/grind it.

I dont really want better content quality outside of bugs, production value of the fontent can be the same,i just want more of it.

Warframe is widely considered the best F2P game you can play even when it doesn't get much content and it's mainly updates and additions to what it already has, that should tell you A LOT about how good their approach works.

Warframe amd de are known for alot of great things. Content pace isnt one of those.

Also, ofc you can play even when theres no new content, game's basically a grind.

Like most MMOs, including this one? Doesn't discredit me in the slightest.

[ReaverKane.7598]

@zealex.9410 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Fenom.9457 said:Absoultely i will pay if Anet hires more employees to make more content.

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

Again, check the comparissons between Destiny 2 (a paid game with paid updates) vs Warframe (a free game with what's widely considered one of, if not the, fairest premium stores in the world).> @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

I would be paying a subscription even without anything added.

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

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

Except that nowadays all subscription games also have a premium store. Do they have less stuff on offer, sure, but they still have it.

@Yannir.4132 said:I'd be down to a Voluntary (Premium) Subscription model with no p2w aspects. Maybe cosmetic benefits like exclusive mount skins or like an exclusive legendary gizmo(only available in PvP atm). Mistfire Wolf would be cool to get as well. Maybe a custom title. Maybe if you play on a free account, and buy the sub, you could be upgraded into a core account.But the thing is, even if I'd be okay supporting ANet with a subscription, I don't want to force it on everyone and I don't want it to have any unfair benefits, because that would make me feel like a scrub, which I'm not.

Thing is, these things eventually downgrade into the subscribers asking for more than non-subscribers.Also, like me, and others have said, more money doesn't equal better quality. In fact it can men just the oposite. 2017 was arguably the best year in terms of finance for GW2, and yet that money didn't translate into an improvement in the game's quality.

Warframe doesnt get much content. It gets alot of updates which incentivise you to replay existing content/grind it.

I dont really want better content quality outside of bugs, production value of the fontent can be the same,i just want more of it.

Warframe is widely considered the best F2P game you can play even when it doesn't get much content and it's mainly updates and additions to what it already has, that should tell you A LOT about how good their approach works.

Warframe amd de are known for alot of great things. Content pace isnt one of those.

Also, ofc you can play even when theres no new content, game's basically a grind.

That's the game type, just like Destiny 2. Their content pace isn't that unreasonable if you compare apples with apples.

Not really destiny releases more content than warframe does. Destiny 2 had a terrible start and a terrible dlc which puts it well bellow warframe.

But still its more content.

We can compaire apples with apples for mmos too. WoW, FF14, ESO all mmos like gw2 and all get more content than gw2. All of them monetise theor content as well unlike gw2.

Do they get more content than GW2? Can you prove that?ESO, launched a Paid DLC/Expansion in the same time GW2 released 2 Free Living World releases. Despite ESO having a P2W subscription model.Honestly, i could go on in scour those game's patch notes, but it's late, i'm tired, and you're the one that made that assertion, should be upon you to back your own word.

[cyanweapon.7290]

I didn't buy GW2 to rent a character.

[Chiluver.9253]

Honestly, I was drawn to GW2 because it's so accessible to F2P players since it doesn't require a subscription to play. And even being F2P when I first started, I still ended up later buying the expansions when I had the funds to do so anyway because I enjoyed the game so much that I wanted to support the developers.

[Dreamy Lu.3865]

I voted no.For me, the most positive point of this game is to be without monthly fee. This allows that players who can afford it invest money via the shop, contributing to the need for a regular income of money, while those who can't afford a monthly fee have a game to play, without to worry about money.

[Seteruss.4058]

I can't imagine gw2 as a sub based model. Right now is my main and only game because of it's current state model. I will immediately quit if this happens.It's odd to have to play cause of the feeling that sub is running.Right now we have the freedom to not play for some days and lose only daily login rewards. Not mention that with current model you can't really quit.

So no.. Hell no...

[SweetPotato.7456]

If there is available a bigger font size, say 100pt, I'd use it for this NO

Did I say No already?Yes, I did, the answer is NONO, i do not want a subscriptionNO NO NO

[Danikat.8537]

@zealex.9410 said:We can compaire apples with apples for mmos too. WoW, FF14, ESO all mmos like gw2 and all get more content than gw2. All of them monetise theor content as well unlike gw2.

I don't think ESO gets more content than GW2. Although I suppose it depends on how you measure it.

If you look at the number of releases GW2 comes out slightly ahead. Since Morrowind was released in June 2017 ESO has gotten 4 new releases, including Summerset which is a paid expansion not included in the price of a subscription. GW2 has had 5 (if you count Path of Fire and don't count festivals and feature packs).

If you look at the amount of content then it gets difficult because there's no easy measurements. Summerset only had 1 over-world map, but it seems bigger than any of the individual PoF maps, but smaller than all of them put together. 2 of the 4 releases were 'just' pairs of dungeons which if you're only interested in completing the content won't take very long at all, but the way ESO is designed a lot of people will end up repeating them over and over for equipment drops, so it takes up more time, (but based on the way they talk about it on the forum certainly isn't more fun) - and is that comparable to repeating meta-events like Palawadan for drops? Some people say Clockwork City's story takes about the same amount of time as 1 Living World release, others claim it's much longer and I think it depends on how you play it.

I play both and enjoy both, but I definitely don't feel like ESO gets more content, especially not in terms of value for money for subscribers since the majority of new content is in expansions which they still have to buy separately. According to the ESO forum most people subscribe for access to the crafting bag - the equivalent of GW2's material storage - and because only subscribers get bank space increases, if it wasn't for that a lot of people say they wouldn't bother. I think if you told them subscribing increases the amount of content they get they'd laugh you off the forum. Especially since many people still remember the games first year when subscribing was mandatory and they got just 1 new map out of it. Admittedly there were other reasons for that - the developers changed their mind on what kind of game they were making relatively late in the process and had to re-do almost everything (worth it IMO because their original idea was a WoW clone that would have looked very out-dated in 2014) and ended up having to release a game that wasn't really finished and spend most of that year trying to fix it. A process they say they only really finished with the One Tamriel update in November 2016.

But they also say they got a lot more players after switching to buy-to-play and even alongside the continued fixes through 2015 the pace of releases went up. Most articles I've seen actually present ESO as an illustration of the benefits of switching from a pay-to-play model to buy-to-play with optional extra purchases, rather than the shining example of how great subscription games can be which it was originally supposed to be before they had to abandon that model.

[zealex.9410]

@Danikat.8537 said:

@zealex.9410 said:We can compaire apples with apples for mmos too. WoW, FF14, ESO all mmos like gw2 and all get more content than gw2. All of them monetise theor content as well unlike gw2.

I don't think ESO gets more content than GW2. Although I suppose it depends on how you measure it.

If you look at the number of releases GW2 comes out slightly ahead. Since Morrowind was released in June 2017 ESO has gotten 4 new releases, including Summerset which is a paid expansion not included in the price of a subscription. GW2 has had 5 (if you count Path of Fire and don't count festivals and feature packs).

If you look at the amount of content then it gets difficult because there's no easy measurements. Summerset only had 1 over-world map, but it seems bigger than any of the individual PoF maps, but smaller than all of them put together. 2 of the 4 releases were 'just' pairs of dungeons which if you're only interested in completing the content won't take very long at all, but the way ESO is designed a lot of people will end up repeating them over and over for equipment drops, so it takes up more time, (but based on the way they talk about it on the forum certainly isn't more fun) - and is that comparable to repeating meta-events like Palawadan for drops? Some people say Clockwork City's story takes about the same amount of time as 1 Living World release, others claim it's much longer and I think it depends on how you play it.

I play both and enjoy both, but I definitely don't feel like ESO gets more content, especially not in terms of value for money for subscribers since the majority of new content is in expansions which they still have to buy separately. According to the ESO forum most people subscribe for access to the crafting bag - the equivalent of GW2's material storage - and because only subscribers get bank space increases, if it wasn't for that a lot of people say they wouldn't bother. I think if you told them subscribing increases the amount of content they get they'd laugh you off the forum. Especially since many people still remember the games first year when subscribing was mandatory and they got just 1 new map out of it. Admittedly there were other reasons for that - the developers changed their mind on what kind of game they were making relatively late in the process and had to re-do almost everything (worth it IMO because their original idea was a WoW clone that would have looked very out-dated in 2014) and ended up having to release a game that wasn't really finished and spend most of that year trying to fix it. A process they say they only really finished with the One Tamriel update in November 2016.

But they also say they got a lot more players after switching to buy-to-play and even alongside the continued fixes through 2015 the pace of releases went up. Most articles I've seen actually present ESO as an illustration of the benefits of switching from a pay-to-play model to buy-to-play with optional extra purchases, rather than the shining example of how great subscription games can be which it was originally supposed to be before they had to abandon that model.

I personally view it as how much replayability each updates gives eso. With dungeons raids and incentives to play the content more impo eso comes out ahead compaired to gw2's lw.

[zealex.9410]

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Ephemiel.5694 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Fenom.9457 said:Absoultely i will pay if Anet hires more employees to make more content.

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

Again, check the comparissons between Destiny 2 (a paid game with paid updates) vs Warframe (a free game with what's widely considered one of, if not the, fairest premium stores in the world).> @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

I would be paying a subscription even without anything added.

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

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

Except that nowadays all subscription games also have a premium store. Do they have less stuff on offer, sure, but they still have it.

@Yannir.4132 said:I'd be down to a Voluntary (Premium) Subscription model with no p2w aspects. Maybe cosmetic benefits like exclusive mount skins or like an exclusive legendary gizmo(only available in PvP atm). Mistfire Wolf would be cool to get as well. Maybe a custom title. Maybe if you play on a free account, and buy the sub, you could be upgraded into a core account.But the thing is, even if I'd be okay supporting ANet with a subscription, I don't want to force it on everyone and I don't want it to have any unfair benefits, because that would make me feel like a scrub, which I'm not.

Thing is, these things eventually downgrade into the subscribers asking for more than non-subscribers.Also, like me, and others have said, more money doesn't equal better quality. In fact it can men just the oposite. 2017 was arguably the best year in terms of finance for GW2, and yet that money didn't translate into an improvement in the game's quality.

Warframe doesnt get much content. It gets alot of updates which incentivise you to replay existing content/grind it.

I dont really want better content quality outside of bugs, production value of the fontent can be the same,i just want more of it.

Warframe is widely considered the best F2P game you can play even when it doesn't get much content and it's mainly updates and additions to what it already has, that should tell you A LOT about how good their approach works.

Warframe amd de are known for alot of great things. Content pace isnt one of those.

Also, ofc you can play even when theres no new content, game's basically a grind.

Like most MMOs, including this one? Doesn't discredit me in the slightest.

Like alot of mmos yes, unlike this one? Yes.

[Ayakaru.6583]

@Tort.1975 said:Let me begin with saying that I know this is a touchy subject and that there will be some strong opinions for and against it, so here go's.

So we all know that there are features and content that we I want integrated in to game such as-New races-New classes-player housing-quality of life features-more armor/weaponsbut as it has been said there not enough funds or manpower to create these features without taking away from other departments. so what I want to find out is how many people would be willing to pay a monthly subscription for the hiring of more employees for the creation of more content that could be bigger, better and arrive faster then before. I know it's probably too late or too risky to change to a subscription base game, but me personally I would be willing to pay a subscription just to be able to see the game I love to play grow.

Fixed your post

Besides, the game already has an optional subscriptin, #Gemstore

[GreyWolf.8670]

@zealex.9410 said:

@"Kheldorn.5123" said:

@"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:I don't know why this subject keeps being dragged out and waved around like a moldy old trout every couple of months. As far as I'm aware, Anet is not considering instating sub fees.

Some people believe if anet added sub fee they would get more raids.

Theres multiple things that would increase the numbers of raids and fractals. Better work flow internally, more money. Money they can get alot more easily than fixing bad management.

...and for those of us that don't want raids or fractals what would the subscription bring?

[Gehenna.3625]

@cyanweapon.7290 said:I didn't buy GW2 to rent a character.

Except you did. There will be a day that the servers will shut down and then the lease will end. You cannot play this game without their servers running. So considering it a long-term lease, circumstances willing, but any game that is played on online servers is a rental and they decide how long it will last. At least you can see that GW1 is still around so that's a positive but that's only because of its link with GW2 I'd say. If they'd made a completely different game than GW2 then the GW1 servers might have been closed by now. It's a positive they're willing to do this but once they pull the plug on servers you are left with nothing. So it's very much a rental and not a game you own that you can play offline.

[sorudo.9054]

if this game had a sub it would've died years ago.

[Daddicus.6128]

I put "other", because while I wouldn't mind paying monthly (heck, I already fork over a few hundred dollars a year), it would have to serve a purpose. The problem is that once it serves a purpose, it becomes a form of pay-to-win, which isn't a good idea at all.

I think what they need to is permanently lower the prices of some gem store items, to take into account the reduced revenue stream from the aging population of players. Only active players buy stuff, and as time goes on, there are fewer and fewer of those.

So, lowering prices would have the effect of generating more income, which can offset the decline in the number of players.

IMPORTANT: they can't do this with all items, lest they cut their own throats. Price reductions should exist for older items, especially those that used to sell well, but no longer do.

One last thing is that sales should still exist. There's a subset of the player population that only buys stuff when it's "on sale" (like, me for instance). But, I buy a LOT when sales go on, so the perm. reductions should be done before sale prices are calculated.

NOTE: "Permanent" can be tested to see if it works. If it doesn't help substantially, then it could be rescinded.

[Solypsys.1876]

I would much rather they take the route of other MMOs and add in an optional cash item that lasts a month and costs about $15. A couple of ideas I've had for something like this would be spend $15, get a month long mega booster that gives all the benefits of a celebration booster + maybe something extra like extra loot from chests, maybe even all boosters added together so you get the full wvw reward track benefit as well. Then on top of this they could make it so that people with boosters active have access to a monthly achievement system that gives decent individual rewards, similar to the daily achievements, and a significant completion reward that gives you the choice between a moderate amount of gold, ascended/legendary crafting materials, unique skins, and etc. This would not only increase Anet's revenue, which would hopefully spur more substantive and frequent content releases, but they could design the monthly achievements to boost traffic into older zones and content.

[cyanweapon.7290]

@Gehenna.3625 said:

@"cyanweapon.7290" said:I didn't buy GW2 to rent a character.

Except you did. There will be a day that the servers will shut down and then the lease will end. You cannot play this game without their servers running. So considering it a long-term lease, circumstances willing, but any game that is played on online servers is a rental and they decide how long it will last. At least you can see that GW1 is still around so that's a positive but that's only because of its link with GW2 I'd say. If they'd made a completely different game than GW2 then the GW1 servers might have been closed by now. It's a positive they're willing to do this but once they pull the plug on servers you are left with nothing. So it's very much a rental and not a game you own that you can play offline.

Except I didn't. Conflating "renting" with "servers closing someday down the road despite GW1 being launched more than 13 years ago, still running, and without subscriptions" is extremely disingenuous. How can you even look at these things, as well as GW2's production, and hint that subscriptions are necessary?

When you rent something, that something doesn't stop existing simply because the rent is up. It means you don't have access to it. When servers shut down, that's it. Bam. Gone. You can't pay a fee and suddenly get it back. You may not consider that a big difference, but it really is. And your suggestion that GW1 is still around simply because of GW2 is, as you alluded, your own speculation. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. The irrefutable fact is that it's still up and running, alongside GW2, without subscriptions. So let's stick to facts and not try to frighten folks into paying unnecessary fees.

I've always loved Guild Wars because it's basically the bogeyman to Pay-2-Play apologists.