Subscriptions or Not

[ZeftheWicked.3076]

I wouldn't mind a sub IF it was the old type of sub - just the sub, NO microtransations of any kind. But atm game is doing fine with it's current model, nor is the gemstore predatory so i'm not complaining. Also GW2 is a great yet non-addictive game which is bad for sub model. It's easy to take a break from GW2 yet, just as easy to come back, because game is great. Not the best for sub model if players take 3 month vacations en masse.

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@"Game of Bones.8975" said:I recently joined one of those monthly subscription MMOs just to see if it was different from a F2P. I was surprised at my mental transformation. Here are a few of the things I found out.

I felt “obligated” to play with a subscription. If I wasn’t playing, my subscription was a waste. At one time I almost kitten out a spreadsheet to see how many hours per week and per day I would have to play on average to make it worth the money. That, in itself, made the experience less fun.

After few weeks I began to see the draw for a subscription. Everything you wanted/needed was yours for a few quests and I didn’t feel like I was grinding for materials.

I can now see why people think if GW went to a subscription format it would be an improvement. It couldn’t be done with GW2, there would be just too many changes to the economy for it to be worthwhile.

If ever there is a GW3, I don’t think I’ll be as turned off as much as I used to be.

The evolution of sub-based to buy-to-play to buy-to-play-cashshop to optional sub has been the markets reply to gamers saying what if. I think I spend more on games that are just cash shop and that allows people that are never cash shop to get free content. Personally I think for me the best bang for the buck is the optional sub. Now that will draw out the people that call for pay to win, but it's easier than forcing everyone into a sub. Under a sub, yes you have reasons to get online since you are paying for it and I think it also gives people more reason to say, hey this bug needs fixed now, not in 5 months, hey that feature, when are we getting it, we will go till it's addressed. Without that I think companies lose metrics to address issues and they can use the marketing card of we are working on it and no we don't need to talk to you about it. Forum goers in buy to play games are more likely to counter other posters where in sub-based games there is more voices behind, why isn't this fixed or this feature could use improvements, at least in my own experience. I admit I have done this myself here and try and keep that checked. Not there now, but take Bethesda and Fallout 76, Fallout only people are up in arms about Fallout First but a number of ESO players that are used to the model are, what's up, this is a value add. So it does come down to perspective and what people are expecting. Take a number of upcoming MMOs, they are planning on sub-based from the gate even though they know it might make them more niche markets. Again personally I expect most will continue to move to a la carte pricing models to try and match as many player expectations as possible and still acquire revenue and ongoing development dollars. I also expect players that are willing to pay for a sub saying what does that get me and others that will come out and say if you get anything from a sub that I don't by doing just a buy-to-play then its pay to win. To that end we all need to try and keep things in check since the middle ground is there should be value in paying more since you paid more but if we can prevent everyone from a sub we might get the most number of players out of the deal and MMOs need players, but we should also avoid things like gold rounds in World Of Tanks that means one on one the person shooting gold will win. Good gaming where you find it!

You know a way to get the most number of players out of the deal? Make an exceptional game that players love playing and keep supporting it in the long run. Either through purely cosmetic mtx or the now extinct "store-less" subscription.

But obviously that's harder and more costly, so we have to find ways to fleece players with thinly veiled p2w like optional subs.

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

@Xar.6279 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@Xar.6279 said:Games with subscriptions are better. It was always like that. Nothing new actually. Almost every good mmorpg I remember was p2p.

• Ultima Online (1997)
• Helbreath (1999)
• Eve (2003)
• WoW (2004)
• FF14 (2010)

Etc, etc.

There's a lot of hidden reasons which makes p2p games better. Too long to write it all.But its impossible for GW2 to go p2p.This game is quite different than average mmorpg.

Eve has had a pretty bad reputation from leadership to game play to community (and a cash shop and many consider it moving to pay2win). FF14 had ungodly critical reviews at release and the user base went mad, so bad that they "suspend subscription fees, indefinitely postponed the PlayStation 3 version, and replaced the development team leadership" FF14 also still has a cash shop. WoW, for end game gear big time, is super grindy and pretty much all RNG, this was supposed to be fixed, it also has a good sized cash shop still, and things like mounts are $25-30 a pop.

It no matter if FF14 was well or bad rated at start tbh. Don't forget their publisher is Square... They know very well what to do. And how to succeed.And Final Fantasy isn't some random title for them. It's the apple of their eye.Squaresoft/enix is synonymous of quality for more than 30 years now. Most of their games are pieces of art.

It was only a matter of time before they fix their game.

Also you can tell bad or good things about WoW. And after all it no matter. Grindy or not grindy. Who cares? It's WoW who's still top1 for about 15 years now. Not GW2.

And yet none of that matters, it shows that sub model games are no different than pay to play or free to play models.

Your first post is touting how superior sub model games are because you have some rose colored glasses on, yet even state in your post that why they are so much better is to long to write. When the topic is that sub models are not grindy and you don't have a focus on cash shops, and here you are saying that how grindy a game is doesn't matter, you now ignore cash shops all together, and brush off a horrible game launch, so bad that the game had to be fully rereleased with a new game engine, server infrastructure, gameplay, interface, and story, in other words, it was a whole new game hoping people forgot about the first, which btw took 3 YEARS for the release. Sorry, if you can't admit that all of these are issues, and serious ones for games with sub models and shows bias when FF14 was straight up called the worst MMO of 2010. The point being that just because something is based on a sub model does not make it by default better.

While GW2 has had it's own issues (all games do) and have lost their way with PvP in the last few years, GW2 is still considered one of the best MMO's of it's time, with one of the best combats systems, a small cash shop with mostly cosmetic items.

Ignoring all of the issues sub model games have had and ignoring all of the good pay to play or free to play games and then saying "I don't have time to explain why sub models are so much better" is not helpful to the topic.

[kharmin.7683]

Players may opt to pay $15-$20 or more per month to buy gems. That is the subscription model for GW2.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:But obviously that's harder and more costly, so we have to find ways to fleece players with thinly veiled p2w like optional subs.

It could already be argued that this game is p2w since you can own more than 1 account, there are expansions, you have account upgrades and you can buy gold. I may not agree with that but I can't discount those arguments, but I can point to other games that are much more so than here. Optional subs in some cases are no different than those same upgrades.

[Pirogen.9561]

Question: does subscription only MMO game even exists this days?

I mean, really sub only. No in-game shop of any kind?

I played many MMO games and all had in-game shop of some kind. I did not played all MMOs, so thats why the question.

[Dawdler.8521]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:But obviously that's harder and more costly, so we have to find ways to fleece players with thinly veiled p2w like optional subs.

It could already be argued that this game is p2w since you can own more than 1 account, there are expansions, you have account upgrades and you can buy gold.Only the expansion part of that can arguably make you win more, due to playing better/being more OP with elite specs. The rest, not at all p2w because you dont win anything.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@kharmin.7683 said:Players may opt to pay $15-$20 or more per month to buy gems. That is the subscription model for GW2.

People are already employing that option today. The only difference here is the value add. The player paying $15-20 receives less value from those gems versus a player converting gold to gems, at least to me since they used real money and received the same item that a player using in game currency didn't. Now this is part of the plus side of saying buying gems is not pay to win since you can do it with in game gold. It's also a plus to the argument that the cash shop is predatory since they know they will make more by not having an optional sub since people paying an optional sub might buy less gems since they would be getting some every month from their optional sub and might be more tempted to say, can wait a month for that.

[Ayrilana.1396]

For that gold being converted to gems, what’s the value of the effort that was put forth to earn it versus the effort to earn real world money and convert that to gems? You need to look at the full picture.

I can farm for one hour in DF, make 30G, which translates to just a little under 100 gems. I can purchase 100 gems, at a rate of $1.25, which you earn more of in an hour from practically any job. Buying gems with money, instead of farmed gold, will always provide more value. The only exception being if you got a lucky drop but that’s more of an edge case.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:For that gold being converted to gems, what’s the value of the effort that was put forth to earn it versus the effort to earn real world money and convert that to gems? You need to look at the full picture.

I can farm for one hour in DF, make 30G, which translates to just a little under 100 gems. I can purchase 100 gems, at a rate of $1.25, which you earn more of in an hour from practically any job. Buying gems with money, instead of farmed gold, will always provide more value. The only exception being if you got a lucky drop but that’s more of an edge case.

I don't disagree with weighing time spent is a good measurement tool, and have used it in the past as well, but gems can't used to pay rent, so real money will always carry a higher cost to me at least.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

@"Game of Bones.8975" said:I recently joined one of those monthly subscription MMOs just to see if it was different from a F2P. I was surprised at my mental transformation. Here are a few of the things I found out.

I felt “obligated” to play with a subscription. If I wasn’t playing, my subscription was a waste. At one time I almost kitten out a spreadsheet to see how many hours per week and per day I would have to play on average to make it worth the money. That, in itself, made the experience less fun.

I felt this as well. I never did the math, either. I also felt that all of the slow-down mechanics were there just to keep me playing longer. That was an even worse fun-killer for me.

After few weeks I began to see the draw for a subscription. Everything you wanted/needed was yours for a few quests and I didn’t feel like I was grinding for materials.

Subjective, or, have sub MMO's changed that much since 2010? I remember flying over Northrend for hours gathering plants so the guild's Alchemist could make potions for raid nights. I also remember doing the same on other days because it was the primary way to make gold then.

I can now see why people think if GW went to a subscription format it would be an improvement.

I can see why people might think that. It all depends on individual wants. For instance, WoW has a store which sells mounts and minis among other things. If you want those particular things, then it's a game that charges a sub and has a store. If you don't want those things, then "everything you wanted/needed" is available in game.

It couldn’t be done with GW2, there would be just too many changes to the economy for it to be worthwhile.

I agree with this. It would be too risky, since some unknown (but likely significant) percentage of GW2 players are here (like myself) because there is no sub (among other reasons).

If ever there is a GW3, I don’t think I’ll be as turned off as much as I used to be.

If there is a GW3, I would be turned off by a sub, as I do not value what sub games offer any more than I value what GW2 offers. In a lot of cases, I value sub offerings less. Also, since we're speculating now, if a franchise turns its back on a core principle of its games it is unlikely to recoup the lost player interest. The MMO genre has an aging main demographic and there is plenty of competition. I doubt there will ever be a GW3. If there is, I wonder whether ANet would get away with a sub model. That is certainly not the trend in the genre.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:For that gold being converted to gems, what’s the value of the effort that was put forth to earn it versus the effort to earn real world money and convert that to gems? You need to look at the full picture.

I can farm for one hour in DF, make 30G, which translates to just a little under 100 gems. I can purchase 100 gems, at a rate of $1.25, which you earn more of in an hour from practically any job. Buying gems with money, instead of farmed gold, will always provide more value. The only exception being if you got a lucky drop but that’s more of an edge case.

I don't disagree with weighing time spent is a good measurement tool, and have used it in the past as well, but gems can't used to pay rent, so real money will always carry a higher cost to me at least.

Well I’m not suggesting that you spend money on gems over something like rent. This is spend the time you would have spent earning the gold that you’d convert instead on a real life job and convert the money to gems.

For example, I hate farming gold in this game because it has always felt so slow. Many years ago I decided to take some of that time I would have spent farming the gold and instead earn money in the real world. As I didn’t want to convert my existing money, not go through the effort of getting a second job, I instead started donating plasma for a few months on the way home from work. Converting all of that money into gems would have yielded more considerably more gems had I spent that same amount of invested time in farming gold to convert into gems. I ultimately opted to invest in accounts instead as they provide much more value than converting money to gems.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Well I’m not suggesting that you spend money on gems over something else. This is spend the time you would have spent earning the gold that you’d convert instead on a real life job and convert the money to gems.

For example, I hate farming gold in this game because it has always felt so slow. Many years ago I decided to take some of that time I would have spent farming the gold and instead earn money in the real world. As I didn’t want to convert my existing money, not go through the effort of getting a second job, I instead started donating plasma for a few months on the way home from work. Converting all of that money into gems would have yielded more considerably more gems had I spent that same amount of invested time in farming gold to convert into gems. I ultimately opted to invest in accounts instead as they provide much more value than converting money to gems.

I agree, I don't farm today either, hence that's another reason I don't use time spent in game versus out to determine the value of the gem. But I don't value the gems purchased with cash the same as those with in game gold either due to the fact that one you will get just by getting in game and doing stuff and the other is done using a currency that is needed for other things in real life that you can only acquired out of game. And again that to me is what also keeps it from being p2w. An advantage of an optional sub, using other game models, is that you would get some gems and some added service. An example here might be access to living story chapters you might have missed on top of the gems, no waypoint costs, some added perks that you could already achieve today thru other methods like extra accounts.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Well I’m not suggesting that you spend money on gems over something else. This is spend the time you would have spent earning the gold that you’d convert instead on a real life job and convert the money to gems.

For example, I hate farming gold in this game because it has always felt so slow. Many years ago I decided to take some of that time I would have spent farming the gold and instead earn money in the real world. As I didn’t want to convert my existing money, not go through the effort of getting a second job, I instead started donating plasma for a few months on the way home from work. Converting all of that money into gems would have yielded more considerably more gems had I spent that same amount of invested time in farming gold to convert into gems. I ultimately opted to invest in accounts instead as they provide much more value than converting money to gems.

I agree, I don't farm today either, hence that's another reason I don't use time spent in game versus out to determine the value of the gem. But I don't value the gems purchased with cash the same as those with in game gold either due to the fact that one you will get just by getting in game and doing stuff and the other is done using a

currency that is needed for other things in real life that you can only acquired out of game

. And again that to me is what also keeps it from being p2w. An advantage of an optional sub, using other game models, is that you would get some gems and some added service. An example here might be access to living story chapters you might have missed on top of the gems, no waypoint costs, some added perks that you could already achieve today thru other methods like extra accounts.

For the bolded, it can also be argued that farming for gold in this game doesn’t have any value then as the time spent doing that could have been used to earn money in the real world for things you need out there.

Time has value and it’s this value which dictates what something is worth. When it comes to this game, converting money to gems will always provide more value than converting farmed gold to gem. You simply get more value for your time spent to acquire those gems.

As for subs, I’m leery because that typically means that features are held back to provide the subs more value. Features that you probably would have gotten if there wasn’t a sub. There’s also the risk that existing features could be taken away to give subs more value.

[Fozzie.5370]

@Danikat.8537 said:

@"Game of Bones.8975" said:I felt “obligated” to play with a subscription. If I wasn’t playing, my subscription was a waste. At one time I almost kitten out a spreadsheet to see how many hours per week and per day I would have to play on average to make it worth the money. That, in itself, made the experience less fun.

This is one of the big reasons why I don't like subscription games. I feel like I have to play it because I've already paid for it, and then I don't enjoy it as much because I feel like I'm forcing myself to play it even when I might otherwise choose to play anyway.

^^ Completely agree: Feel exactly the same. Other player that quoted on the same statement, said something about many players needing to be "forced to play" else they won't. Well that's totally not me. I play for fun. I don't need to be forced or brainwashing to play a game or any game mode such as just for example the daily grind for months on end of T4 fractals + CM's for the sake of a title. As much as I love fractals, I play them for fun, when they become stale or boring, or find myself at any stage "I'm now playing them for the sake of playing them" I quit for a while, until I have desire to return to them. Same for any game mode in Gw2, or playing any game for that matter.

I'm not a fan of any subscription based model games, due to the fact like Danikat states, there are certain times IRL which I cannot predict due to work and other commitments whereby I cannot play as much: with a subscription model I am wasting money for every day/week/month I cannot play. Things I really like about Gw2, is I take a leave of absence for a short or even long period of time, and I won't have wasted any money from not playing, neither due to horizontal progression will I lose too much ground in playing either: I can just pick up where I left off. Gw2 gets massive criticism about Gemstore micro-transactions, but all this stuff is optional and not forced upon anyone, and the very fact players can farm gold and convert gold to gems is a massive bonus: I've played many Micro-transaction MMO's where there is no such facility to convert in-game farmed currency to cash shop currency, and this is massively overlooked by all the moaning players. Try playing an MMO whereby you cannot do this, you either have to go without cash shop items completely or spend your cash.

[Dreams.3128]

Lol people paying subs while also shelling out more cash in the in-game stores they put in.

What a joke. And to top it off, those sub games have the audacity to make their microtransctions sometimes more expensive than the subs themselves. You can keep feeding them endless money, I certainly won't.

[Dante.1508]

I would not play a sub game these days because they still hit you with the cosmetic cash shop on top.. I quit ESO over those scams.

[vyncius.6105]

I am all in for s2p than this ridiculous and greedy mtx, but it wont work now. They would need to rework whole game, like new engine, reworking classes and endgame.Like 95% of players would stop playing, that 5% are hardcore raiders, pvp, wvw players. They want their game mode to have more updates, so they would be okay with paying month subfee. But casuals would quit. Ofc we would get tons of refugees from WoW if we actualy had hard content, but anet will never risk

[Omega.6801]

I'd rather not have this be a sub based game. For further reference you'll find my many answers in the many Subscription Threads.

Feel free to use the forums search option.

[Teratus.2859]

Only reason I bought Gw2 was because I was a big fan of Gw1.. the only reason I bought Gw1 was because not having a subscription fee was a big selling point of the game.

I don't care what it is.. I despise the very concept of subsciption fee services.PS4 needs a subscription.. therefore I only own 11 games on the platform compared to the 300+ Ps1/Ps2 and Ps3 titles I ownNintendo Switch needs a subscription.. therefore I only own 6 games on the platform compared to the 150+ Gamecube/Wii and Wii U titles I own.World of Warcraft has a subscription.. therefore I never played it.FF14 has a subscription.. therefore I never played it.Disney +, Netflix, HBO, Amazon etc have subscriptions.. therefore I refuse to pay for them and only use shared accounts.. ergo I get them for free.

If Gw3 had a subscription I'd straight up quit the franchise and never buy a single Anet product again.Same goes for Steam and other launchers should they move to Subscription models in future which I strongly suspect they will because they make a stupid amount of money from people who can't see Subscription fees for the ripoff that they are.

I will NEVER! pay a subscxription fee for any form of entertainment..Subfees are also one of the biggest enticements to resort to piracy as well which is a practice that I have spent most of my adult life completely opposed to..Who knows.. years from now I may end up pirating everything just to spite greedy companies that exploit their customers with ripoff subfees and malicious monitization practices..If the only choices are piracy or pay a subfee then frankly to hell with every company that adopts them.

[tatte.5389]

I wonder how well a pay-by-hour game could fare. It'd remove the fundamental pressure subs come with, and using a prepaid system with variable hourly cost could conform all kinds of players (i.e. the more hours you play in a set period, the cheaper subsequent hours for that period get, potentially all the way to free).

In retrospect I can note that I have spent on average 11.34 euros per month (F2P period not factored in), which obviously equates pretty close to a typical monthly sub. Per hour I have paid roughly 16 cents, which is one sixth of my general value threshold (h==€), and something I'm happy with even for an MMORPG setting (more "air" in the hours, intensity vice).

Before anyone screams that I have essentially paid a sub without getting sub perks, I disagree with such sentiment. First and foremost I have to give credit for the ease of mind, taking time off doesn't even reset the daily rewards track, you lose absolutely nothing. Additionally, this model (in conjunction with fair policy) allows affordable alt accounts, which are something I greatly enjoy. In terms of QoL features, I don't have relevant peeves (but if I could get just one general wish: custom chat colours. I have 99 more, and they're all about chat, contacts, and guilds).

Would I have gotten this much into the game if it had a sub? From passion perspective it's plausible, but looking at the spending drought and busy summer I had after buying the expansions around March (last year), I may well have lost interest by fall-fall. Without F2P I almost certainly wouldn't be here now (and lack of one is a big part of why I skipped trying WoW Classic and AAU), so that's one aspect I can confidently praise.

I started with a hypothetical model, and I'll end with one too. How about taking a page from Microsoft's Game Pass book, and changing/supplementing B2P with a sub that'd also come with the gems the payment is currently worth. Could that circumvent major changes to the game while still delivering a decent payoff (freedom to choose your personal, accumulating sub benefits instead of getting a static list of features you might not need)? Throw in a "preferred player" tier for ex-sub players if you will. IIRC, seven months of 10€ a month (or 5 at 15) would equate current PoF + LWS cost. It'd be really interesting to see some statistics about us, but there's of course little chance of that happening.

[kharmin.7683]

"Preferred Player" tier? No thanks.

I really don't understand the need for sub "perks" in GW2. If one wants to play under a subscription-style model, then one need only to set a calendar reminder on one's cell phone for the first Monday of each month, pony up the money and purchase gems (which, too, are alt-friendly as gems are account bound).

Please leave the rest of those, who enjoy the current non-sub based model, to purchase things as they want or like to without forcing the issue.

[tatte.5389]

@"kharmin.7683" said:"Preferred Player" tier? No thanks.

I really don't understand the need for sub "perks" in GW2. If one wants to play under a subscription-style model, then one need only to set a calendar reminder on one's cell phone for the first Monday of each month, pony up the money and purchase gems (which, too, are alt-friendly as gems are account bound).

As the only person who has used the words "preferred player" in this thread, I'm guessing you're reacting to my post. I feel obligated to reiterate how that particular concept referred to players who would have had a sub in the past, it was a notion to let such players retain appropriate perks without an active subscription in that imaginary sub-ful world (in contrast to a plain black and white, sub or no sub, model). For full disclosure, I believe I stole that particular term/concept from SWTOR.

I'll also stress that I'm not suggesting we should have a sub model. I saw a thread about a topic, and barfed out some thoughts about it for fun - not demands, and chat colours aside not even suggestions.

[Bladestrom.6425]

This is really an old debate that has no relevance to gw2. As suggested, you could simply buy gems each month at whatever you think is a good 'subscription' amount. However there is already a more attractive model in place, buy what you want when you want.

Imagine wow offered the gw2 free to play model versus their current model without the content restrictions - wow players would be praising blizzard to the heavens (and pop would double). However bliz is greedy. Worth bearing in mind the true cost of subs.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:This is really an old debate that has no relevance to gw2. As suggested, you could simply buy gems each month at whatever you think is a good 'subscription' amount.

Except requests for a sub are not just requests to be able to give ANet more money. There's always a subtext with people who are asking for subs. The request accompanies a perceived lack -- ANet is not providing content that poster wants at a rate acceptable to them. Such requests also come with assumptions; (1) the lack of their preferred content is due to lack of money to make that content; (2) the gem store would go away and all gem store options would now be available in play; and (3) (the whopper) adding a sub means would mean ANet will provide the content that poster wants at an acceptable rate.

All three assumptions are in all likelihood unfounded. ANet might (probably would) make less money if they went to a sub model. Since the existing AAA sub games have micro/macro transaction stores, yeah, the gem store would stay. Finally ANet would still be producing the content they believe works for their customers. Sub fees do not come with control over game direction.