Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Can we get optional gem subscriptions?


Recommended Posts

@Obtena.7952 said:

"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."

Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An
optional
monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not?

It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of
a game
, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed.

What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that.

And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling.

I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play.

I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example.

The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken.

Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between
paying
customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce
more
separation, isn't it?

Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless.

You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all.

Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter.

This is exactly it ... people need to get over themselves in a pretty bad way when they are more concerned that there is a bonus to a gem purchasing scheme than the fact
that someone is paying for the game so they don't have to.

I'm pretty sure I've paid money for this game. Both in bundle purchases (core+xpacs) and gems. So I'm not sure where this notion, that actual paying customers are some kind of freeloaders(!?) who need others paying their game for them, comes from.

Don't get off track here. Sure, you and everyone else made the ABSOLUTE
smallest
and
necessary
purchase to support this game.

This game persists because people by gems.

You misread his/her post.they said they bought gems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

@yann.1946 said:

"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."

Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An
optional
monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not?

It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of
a game
, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed.

What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that.

And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling.

I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play.

I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example.

The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken.

Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between
paying
customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce
more
separation, isn't it?

Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless.

You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all.

Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter.

This is exactly it ... people need to get over themselves in a pretty bad way when they are more concerned that there is a bonus to a gem purchasing scheme than the fact
that someone is paying for the game so they don't have to.

I'm pretty sure I've paid money for this game. Both in bundle purchases (core+xpacs) and gems. So I'm not sure where this notion, that actual paying customers are some kind of freeloaders(!?) who need others paying their game for them, comes from.

Don't get off track here. Sure, you and everyone else made the ABSOLUTE
smallest
and
necessary
purchase to support this game.

This game persists because people by gems.

You misread his/her post.they said they bought gems.

True .. I did ... but then again, he statement doesn't make sense as a reply to me either because I'm saying that people who buy gems are paying for the game for those that don't. Not sure how he comes off playing the victim as being labeled a freeloader based on that fact ... but hey, we all got kinds here I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."

Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An
optional
monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not?

It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of
a game
, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed.

What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that.

And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling.

I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play.

I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example.

The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken.

Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between
paying
customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce
more
separation, isn't it?

Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless.

You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all.

Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter.

This is exactly it ... people need to get over themselves in a pretty bad way when they are more concerned that there is a bonus to a gem purchasing scheme than the fact
that someone is paying for the game so they don't have to.

I'm pretty sure I've paid money for this game. Both in bundle purchases (core+xpacs) and gems. So I'm not sure where this notion, that actual paying customers are some kind of freeloaders(!?) who need others paying their game for them, comes from.

Don't get off track here. Sure, you and everyone else made the ABSOLUTE
smallest
and
necessary
purchase to support this game.

This game persists because people by gems.

You misread his/her post.they said they bought gems.

True .. I did ... but then again, he statement doesn't make sense as a reply to me either because I'm saying that people who buy gems are paying for the game for those that don't. Not sure how he comes off playing the victim as being labeled a freeloader based on that fact ... but hey, we all got kinds here I guess.

The point people are making is twofold.

We would lose players if advantages were introduced which is not a good thing.

Secondly (this is the point you and others disagree on.) it's not necessarily fair to create an difference between paying costumers based on how they pay not how much they pay.

So the people who you are disagreeing with are not the "freeloaders" but the ones who buy gems

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."

Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An
optional
monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not?

It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of
a game
, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed.

What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that.

And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling.

I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play.

I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example.

The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken.

Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between
paying
customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce
more
separation, isn't it?

Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless.

You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all.

Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter.

This is exactly it ... people need to get over themselves in a pretty bad way when they are more concerned that there is a bonus to a gem purchasing scheme than the fact
that someone is paying for the game so they don't have to.

I'm pretty sure I've paid money for this game. Both in bundle purchases (core+xpacs) and gems. So I'm not sure where this notion, that actual paying customers are some kind of freeloaders(!?) who need others paying their game for them, comes from.

Don't get off track here. Sure, you and everyone else made the ABSOLUTE
smallest
and
necessary
purchase to support this game.

This game persists because people by gems.

You misread his/her post.they said they bought gems.

True .. I did ... but then again, he statement doesn't make sense as a reply to me either because I'm saying that people who buy gems are paying for the game for those that don't. Not sure how he comes off playing the victim as being labeled a freeloader based on that fact ... but hey, we all got kinds here I guess.

I guess you missed the part of the discussion about a proposed gem discount as a subscription bonus and the disparity it would cause between paying customers (AKA gem buyers). In case you are still having trouble finding and reading posts, I can link them and the exact point you chimed in.

Also, you don't get to judge what is a small contribution to this game's monetization model or not. Anet has that task.

The game persists because players buy gems of varied amounts as often as they like. The game persists because players are buying its xpacs and its living stories (newcomers). The game persists because f2pers are keeping the population lively, despite its age. An ecosystem of groups working in tandem and even overlapping. The game persists because its monetization model is working and no forum user gets to say which of its parts is the most important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."

Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An
optional
monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not?

It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of
a game
, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed.

What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that.

And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling.

I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play.

I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example.

The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken.

Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between
paying
customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce
more
separation, isn't it?

Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless.

You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all.

Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter.

This is exactly it ... people need to get over themselves in a pretty bad way when they are more concerned that there is a bonus to a gem purchasing scheme than the fact
that someone is paying for the game so they don't have to.

I'm pretty sure I've paid money for this game. Both in bundle purchases (core+xpacs) and gems. So I'm not sure where this notion, that actual paying customers are some kind of freeloaders(!?) who need others paying their game for them, comes from.

Don't get off track here. Sure, you and everyone else made the ABSOLUTE
smallest
and
necessary
purchase to support this game.

This game persists because people by gems.

You misread his/her post.they said they bought gems.

True .. I did ... but then again, he statement doesn't make sense as a reply to me either because I'm saying that people who buy gems are paying for the game for those that don't. Not sure how he comes off playing the victim as being labeled a freeloader based on that fact ... but hey, we all got kinds here I guess.

I guess you missed the part of the discussion about a proposed gem discount as a subscription bonus and the disparity it would cause between paying customers (AKA gem buyers). In case you are still having trouble finding and reading posts, I can link them and the exact point you chimed in.

I didn't miss that at all; the fact is that the disparity is irrelevant because it's based on people's envy. That's a stupid reason to dismiss the idea of a gem subscription. In fact, it's perfectly reasonable to have tiered offerings that give advantages to people that choose the highest tier. As a matter of fact, that already exists in the game with BL keys, so don't think that disparity is some compelling reason for Anet to not do something with the Gem Store ... it already exists in many places there.

Also, you don't get to judge what is a small contribution to this game's monetization model or not. Anet has that task.

It's not a judgement ... it's clear that people that spend more money on gems are supporting the game more than those that don't. It's really disingenuous to conclude that's a 'judgement'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@yann.1946 said:

"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."

Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An
optional
monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not?

It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of
a game
, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed.

What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that.

And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling.

I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play.

I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example.

The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken.

Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between
paying
customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce
more
separation, isn't it?

Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless.

You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all.

Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter.

This is exactly it ... people need to get over themselves in a pretty bad way when they are more concerned that there is a bonus to a gem purchasing scheme than the fact
that someone is paying for the game so they don't have to.

I'm pretty sure I've paid money for this game. Both in bundle purchases (core+xpacs) and gems. So I'm not sure where this notion, that actual paying customers are some kind of freeloaders(!?) who need others paying their game for them, comes from.

Don't get off track here. Sure, you and everyone else made the ABSOLUTE
smallest
and
necessary
purchase to support this game.

This game persists because people by gems.

You misread his/her post.they said they bought gems.

True .. I did ... but then again, he statement doesn't make sense as a reply to me either because I'm saying that people who buy gems are paying for the game for those that don't. Not sure how he comes off playing the victim as being labeled a freeloader based on that fact ... but hey, we all got kinds here I guess.

The point people are making is twofold.

We would lose players if advantages were introduced which is not a good thing.

Maybe ... that's just speculation if you ask me. Do we dismiss ideas because of people's envy? That's pretty snowflakey if you ask me. The fact is that disparity on the GS has always existed ... of hand I can think of three examples. So if people will leave because of disparity, they're already gone.

Secondly (this is the point you and others disagree on.) it's not necessarily fair to create an difference between paying costumers based on how they pay not how much they pay.

Sure it is ... OFC it is. I mean, that's as ridiculous as claiming sale prices are unfair because you paid full price and the guy buying at the sale price is getting better value than you did ... and mind you Anet has sales on items all the time. The fact is that some who is willing to submit to a gem sub model is a more valuable customer. People that don't like idea need to get over themselves pretty hard.

So the people who you are disagreeing with are not the "freeloaders" but the ones who buy gems

Well, that's not a statement I made ... so, you need to pick that bone with someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Knighthonor.4061 said:i am against this because soon after adding this feature they will start adding bonus to those that use this feature

Good. I have money and would like to spend it on something I value. If you can not afford it, that's fine too, but I do not feel that poor people should dictate my possibilities of having fun in a game I enjoy.

Add the monthly fee Anet, but make it worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@wickedkae.4980 said:

@Knighthonor.4061 said:i am against this because soon after adding this feature they will start adding bonus to those that use this feature

Good. I have money and would like to spend it on something I value. If you can not afford it, that's fine too, but I do not feel that poor people should dictate my possibilities of having fun in a game I enjoy.

Add the monthly fee Anet, but make it worth it.

Spend your money. Nobody stopping you. I dont want Gem Sub though. But hey spend 100$ a week if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."

Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An
optional
monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not?

It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of
a game
, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed.

What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that.

And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling.

I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play.

I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example.

The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken.

Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between
paying
customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce
more
separation, isn't it?

Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless.

You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all.

Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter.

This is exactly it ... people need to get over themselves in a pretty bad way when they are more concerned that there is a bonus to a gem purchasing scheme than the fact
that someone is paying for the game so they don't have to.

I'm pretty sure I've paid money for this game. Both in bundle purchases (core+xpacs) and gems. So I'm not sure where this notion, that actual paying customers are some kind of freeloaders(!?) who need others paying their game for them, comes from.

Don't get off track here. Sure, you and everyone else made the ABSOLUTE
smallest
and
necessary
purchase to support this game.

This game persists because people by gems.

You misread his/her post.they said they bought gems.

True .. I did ... but then again, he statement doesn't make sense as a reply to me either because I'm saying that people who buy gems are paying for the game for those that don't. Not sure how he comes off playing the victim as being labeled a freeloader based on that fact ... but hey, we all got kinds here I guess.

The point people are making is twofold.

We would lose players if advantages were introduced which is not a good thing.

Maybe ... that's just speculation if you ask me. Do we dismiss ideas because of people's envy? That's pretty snowflakey if you ask me. The fact is that disparity on the GS has always existed ... of hand I can think of three examples. So if people will leave because of disparity, they're already gone.

The fact that people will leave is not really speculation, some people in this tread have already stated they would. An dwhile i agree that is no reason to not do it it is still something to consider.

What is the present disparity you're talking about.

Secondly (this is the point you and others disagree on.) it's not necessarily fair to create an difference between paying costumers based on how they pay not how much they pay.

Sure it is ... OFC it is. I mean, that's as ridiculous as claiming sale prices are unfair because you paid full price and the guy buying at the sale price is getting better value than you did ... and mind you Anet has sales on items all the time. The fact is that some who is willing to submit to a gem sub model is a more valuable customer. People that don't like idea need to get over themselves pretty hard.

They are remotely the same thing.

  • First they have never done a sale on gems specifically. So You always get the same amount of gems for the same amount of money. (if you want to bring up deluxe versions of expacs those still fall under the idea that a person who pays more gets more).

  • Secondly their is a debate to be had about the fairness of sales.

Now personally i don"t really agree with either you and the rest. their are good points in either position.I just wanted you to see why people think the way they do.

So the people who you are disagreeing with are not the "freeloaders" but the ones who buy gems

Well, that's not a statement I made ... so, you need to pick that bone with someone else.

Didn't you make the following statement

"This is exactly it ... people need to get over themselves in a pretty bad way when they are more concerned that there is a bonus to a gem purchasing scheme than the fact that someone is paying for the game so they don't have to."

This statement literary says that the people are more concerned about bonuses (the people you disagree with) instead of the fact that the game gets paid for them (implying they don't spend any gems).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Rasimir.6239" said:

I don't mind people being able to set up a recurring payment plan, but I sure hope ANet will stick to their principle of same value gem purchases and not start muddling the water with discounts and benefits.

And that is what I'd like to have. No bonuses, no benefits, just my "self bought" heap of gems waiting to be spent in gem store without me having to think about it. And I would not get in situations like "I absolutely love this skin but have no gems and have no extra money to buy gems, since pay day isn't before next Monday". That alone is enough of a bonus (for me).

@Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

Ha! No guarantee the DR wouldn't throw a wrench in even a monthly subscription. It's not like they don't when players try to purchase some Gems just 1 hour after having purchased Gems successfully.

I suspect it's as good as guaranteed that they would. But I want to keep dreaming...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are at least 3 disparities I can think of offhand that already exist on the gemstore ... the idea that we can't introduce such an idea because of disparity is nonsense.

  • volume discount on BL keys
  • bundled items vs individual
  • sales on recurring items

All of those things create the advantages in the GS that people say we shouldn't have or they will leave; the advantage of better value for the same dollar spent. If people will leave because of disparity, they should have already gone because we have had situations of gem store disparity since day 1. If they are threatening to leave now, they are just being ignorant. Idle threats to try to shut down the idea.

Let's play a game:

If Anet offered a bonus to players that bought a certain number of gems for a number of consecutive months ... is that disparity OK? You're not getting a discount on gems with it ... but still getting an advantage of better value for money. If you think yes, you're a hypocrite. It's the SAME advantage as a gem discount on a subscription. In otherwords, gem discounts or gemstore item discounts are the same advantage because they are directly correlated to the dollars you spend. R=1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Zuldari.3940 said:I would rather have a sub and have everything in the game and get more content, than have to pay for every little thing on the side shop.

Just a note, the sub games still have cash shops. Subscribers do not get everything in the game and more content. They get more than the free-to-play'ers and the 'preferred'ers(those who spend but are not subscribers) but they do not get everything. At least, not in any game I know of.

EDIT: I suppose if gw2 were to go to a sub base the equivalent would be free to play, core, expac, sub, sub-who-also-buys-everything-in-cash-shop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Etria.3642 said:

@Zuldari.3940 said:I would rather have a sub and have everything in the game and get more content, than have to pay for every little thing on the side shop.

Just a note, the sub games still have cash shops. Subscribers do not get everything in the game and more content. They get more than the free-to-play'ers and the 'preferred'ers(those who spend but are not subscribers) but they do not get everything. At least, not in any game I know of.

EDIT: I suppose if gw2 were to go to a sub base the equivalent would be free to play, core, expac, sub, sub-who-also-buys-everything-in-cash-shop

Tbf sub games gove their players quite abit more in terms of ingame stuff than anet (which makes sense)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want an automated way to pay into the game on my terms (hence customizable amount) and i believe it would help anet as well as i imagine there would be people who are the same who would keep that automation in place even when they're inactive. I'm first and foremost concerned about the health of the game and i'm afraid a few bad quarters could mean pw2 elements creeping into the cash shop. Pw2 elements choke games and ruin the experience for everyone.

So i would like people who don't want perks to clearly state they're okay with it as long as there are none which i totally support and i'd like everyone proposing perks to just stop it. You'd be able to unlock lw seasons eventually with the gems you'd buy anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Games that even have such and option typically come with some basic features that this games not only lacks but people vehemently defend the lack of in this game. I know people who just buy a year and whether or not they pay the money goes in for other games. The reason why they do so however is not only tied to fun but services games with subs even minor subs have basics such as class and race which keeps the many people who play but a single toon and shy away from alts other than mules of course. The game relies on people decking out not just a single toon but all of your toons with cash shop items for revenue. A sub for this game by default would of course add bonuses in character creations, decoration, leveling, and fashion so people would again dip in to deck even more characters with CS items. For the record I have bought gems but only to deck out a single toon that has become boring due to changes since S1(Mesmer)thus I log in for a new episode then complete it before going on hiautus again. If they added and bonuses then I wouldn't even bother logging in for that out of principle. People complain about the health of the game and supporting it however that'll only speed up the decay to truly support is to seek out issues find solutions and be vocal about it . To cure the disease rather than placing a weak money bandage on it so it can fester and spoil underneath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Doam.8305 said:Games that even have such and option typically come with some basic features that this games not only lacks but people vehemently defend the lack of in this game. I know people who just buy a year and whether or not they pay the money goes in for other games. The reason why they do so however is not only tied to fun but services games with subs even minor subs have basics such as class and race which keeps the many people who play but a single toon and shy away from alts other than mules of course. The game relies on people decking out not just a single toon but all of your toons with cash shop items for revenue. A sub for this game by default would of course add bonuses in character creations, decoration, leveling, and fashion so people would again dip in to deck even more characters with CS items. For the record I have bought gems but only to deck out a single toon that has become boring due to changes since S1(Mesmer)thus I log in for a new episode then complete it before going on hiautus again. If they added and bonuses then I wouldn't even bother logging in for that out of principle. People complain about the health of the game and supporting it however that'll only speed up the decay to truly support is to seek out issues find solutions and be vocal about it . To cure the disease rather than placing a weak money bandage on it so it can fester and spoil underneath.

Dude. PoF had great reviews. You think no one bought it and ncsoft just randomly made anet fire 1/3rd of the staff for no reason? Anet is a business and it needs to make money. Making it easier for players to pay into Anet without introducing pay to win elements is the best way to stop it from going the direction of pay to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...