The Subscription Option Debate: How Guild Wars 2 Can Implement This

[Thornwolf.9721]

@"Crash.4376" said:Thank you all for your thoughts on this.

Just a few corrections since there's some confusion. (I feel like some people didn't read the entire post and got pissed off by a few key points I made and commented immediately after that)

1) The examples I illustrated earlier like build templates and material storage were just examples, nothing concrete. Also to be clear, the buy to play model would still exist. This option would not replace it.

2) The subscription model would not replace the buy to play model at all. It would be there to give the player the option of either subscribing for things like more build templates or buying it permanently. I figure having options would be good, right? No? maybe not.

3) I am not a new player. I've played since launch and love this game, but I can see how a new player would walk in and would like to play the story content locked off but wouldn't want to buy it all.

The game I see this implemented well in is ESO with their ESO Plus membership. That's what inspired this post. I figure if they can do with a lot to offer in that subscription, why not? Also, it wouldn't be a permanent sub. You sub for 2-3 months to get through the content you want and you can be done. If there are some quality of life changes you get through the sub and want to keep it, then it becomes worth it (depending on the type of player you are)

Ultimately, I see where you all are coming from. It all depends on the playerbase, from a cultural standpoint, and each game has their playerbase for a reason. The people of WoW/FFXIV are fine with that sub requirement, the people of ESO enjoy the option, and the Guild Wars 2 community like the way the gem store is.

If a good chunk of this player-base refuses to support expansions because its "Pay2Win" in their eyes what on earth makes you think this would go any better? They then would have the hike the prices on the gem-store to off-set and build necessity for their sub. Also What if we've gotten all the QOL such as expanded storage and so on? Its too little, too damn late and if they decided to do it it would seal the games doom.

I got turned off by ESO's Stupid sub, because now they break apart the Expansion into bite sized bits. You buy the ticket in, but each subsequent chapter you need to purchase through out the year. The game is expensive as fuck and for new players getting into it? A good chunk of the gear/content since all they care about are dungeons, trials and open world stuff is locked behind a pay wall and to even be competitive they need to purchase these things...

And don't even get me started on all the boosters, mount upgrades and so on for whales to spend money on and get their shit maxed out because no one wants to work to actually get that done. No thank you, if this game ever introduced it then it would die for many of us. I mean Im having trouble even swallowing the idea that their are games out there that require a Sub and still put out luke warm content. (WoW And BFA for example.)

[Rogue.8235]

@Crash.4376 said:Thank you all for your thoughts on this.

Just a few corrections since there's some confusion. (I feel like some people didn't read the entire post and got pissed off by a few key points I made and commented immediately after that)

1) The examples I illustrated earlier like build templates and material storage were just examples, nothing concrete. Also to be clear, the buy to play model would still exist. This option would not replace it.

2) The subscription model would not replace the buy to play model at all. It would be there to give the player the option of either subscribing for things like more build templates or buying it permanently. I figure having options would be good, right? No? maybe not.

3) I am not a new player. I've played since launch and love this game, but I can see how a new player would walk in and would like to play the story content locked off but wouldn't want to buy it all.

The game I see this implemented well in is ESO with their ESO Plus membership. That's what inspired this post. I figure if they can do with a lot to offer in that subscription, why not? Also, it wouldn't be a permanent sub. You sub for 2-3 months to get through the content you want and you can be done. If there are some quality of life changes you get through the sub and want to keep it, then it becomes worth it (depending on the type of player you are)

Ultimately, I see where you all are coming from. It all depends on the playerbase, from a cultural standpoint, and each game has their playerbase for a reason. The people of WoW/FFXIV are fine with that sub requirement, the people of ESO enjoy the option, and the Guild Wars 2 community like the way the gem store is.

That last paragraph is just the beginning of a very long process called market and industry research. Your proposing a business strategy, but seeing it only in terms of gameplay. This is why most posters' suggestions of monetization won't pan out. There isn't a single line of business intelligence or analysis involved. It's just the perspective of gameplay.

You can't base a market positioning strategy or financial investments based solely on client-side perspective. Your arguments don't even include the very basics of SWOT or Porter analysis, not to mention excluding every stakeholder group besides one.

A subscription model wouldn't work because it has to be in-line with every core business process and core competency of the business. Essentially, it's a monetization process that runs counter to their development process and workforce learning curves.

EDIT: wanted to clarify that the last paragraph you wrote is touching on the subject of market segmentation, which is part of a larger analytical process. Before a business even becomes fully conceptualized, target market segments must be identified. I really want to emphasize that such a move as to whether or not subscriptions should be implemented is a gargantuan iceberg in which you're only scraping a millimetre of.

[Trise.2865]

Take a good long look at Star Wars: The Old Republic.They implemented a system like this.And it was miserable for everyone involved.Let's not be like them.

[Dawdler.8521]

@"Crash.4376" said:The game I see this implemented well in is ESO with their ESO Plus membership. That's what inspired this post. I figure if they can do with a lot to offer in that subscription, why not? Also, it wouldn't be a permanent sub. You sub for 2-3 months to get through the content you want and you can be done. If there are some quality of life changes you get through the sub and want to keep it, then it becomes worth it (depending on the type of player you are)Yeah and do you know why that is in ESO?

Because the game released as subscription only which made it crash and burn within 3 months of release. Its subscription - which again was not optional and should have offered "all the value" to all its customers - did absolutely NOTHING to improve the game. Quite the contrary, they cut every corner, they straight up lied to the community about the EU servers, they completely ignored game breaking imbalances and bugs and when pressured to fix things they waved it off with a "meh maybe some day".

ESO was forced to make it f2p and offer its "plus" crap just to avoid shutting down.

[Danikat.8537]

@"Crash.4376" said:The game I see this implemented well in is ESO with their ESO Plus membership. That's what inspired this post. I figure if they can do with a lot to offer in that subscription, why not? Also, it wouldn't be a permanent sub. You sub for 2-3 months to get through the content you want and you can be done. If there are some quality of life changes you get through the sub and want to keep it, then it becomes worth it (depending on the type of player you are)

Have you seen the posts above yours using ESO as an example of why it doesn't work? What about the points raised there, like the constant pressure from subscribers to restrict QoL updates to subscription only and the frustration that causes? If you've ever been to the ESO forum you must have seen how many people say they don't actually want to subscribe but don't want to figure out playing without the crafting bag either. (It can be done, but it takes planning and some time to set it up.)

I know I'm not the only one who accepts that situation because I wanted to play an Elder Scrolls MMO and after they started out as pay-to-play assumed an 'optional' subscription was the best option I was going to get but would prefer a system like GW2 uses with buy-to-play and truly optional extra purchases (especially with the ability to buy gems with gold without an overly complicated and risky work-around like ESO players use). Yes there are also people who would prefer them to go back to a madatory subscription and remain convinced it would produce a better game in spite of the evidence of ESO's first year. I don't remember seeing many people who say they're happy with the current system, especially after they went from "a subscription will still get you all the new content without paying extra" to "Oh, DLC, we meant all the DLC, this release is...a chapter, which is totally different to DLC...for a year, then it'll be DLC again."

[Witch of Doom.5739]

@Friday.7864 said:If you want to support the game buy gems every month like I do.Don't know what to do with the gems? Do a giveaway for your guild or send them to me.

I'll second or third to buy gems every month. Also, encourage your friends and fellow players to buy gems if they're so inclined.I'm a total nerd in that I would much rather have gem cards for Mother's Day than any flowers, perfume, or candy. Oooooh, pretty glider.....

[Blude.6812]

@kharmin.7683 said:If you've been around since launch, then you would have already known the answer to this proposition.

Best answer in the thread, and perhaps offers insight to the question.

[Seteruss.4058]

@Crash.4376 said:

The game I see this implemented well in is ESO with their ESO Plus membership. That's what inspired this post. I figure if they can do with a lot to offer in that subscription, why not?

Eso hide material storage behind sub, I think you know that.Subscription to this game requires to sacrifice things from f2p and b2p users. Things that most ppl already pay for them.So what is sub for?Taking free gems every month?Reduce material storage and get it back again behind sub?Not paying for expansions?

To be honest I like to pay once and only once. Then purchase via gold to gems inside game.The moment that this game will become sub based, is the moment I will completely uninstall it.

[kratan.4619]

If the sub was optional and part of it gave you access to LW episodes, does that mean if you go back to FTP that you lose LW access? Or if you sub for one month you just get access forever? If you lose access do you also lose AP/items/ etc. gained from the episodes? No matter the answer, this would be a little problematic to keep track of for each player.

[Rasimir.6239]

@"Crash.4376" said:Thank you all for your thoughts on this.

Just a few corrections since there's some confusion. (I feel like some people didn't read the entire post and got pissed off by a few key points I made and commented immediately after that)

(snip)The game I see this implemented well in is ESO with their ESO Plus membership. That's what inspired this post. I figure if they can do with a lot to offer in that subscription, why not? Also, it wouldn't be a permanent sub. You sub for 2-3 months to get through the content you want and you can be done. If there are some quality of life changes you get through the sub and want to keep it, then it becomes worth it (depending on the type of player you are)Did you read the posts further up that explained why many of us see ESO as a prime example of an "optional sub" system gone wrong? I've played ESO on and off since beta and still try to jump back into it several times a year, but the inventory restrictions alone if you don't have an active subscription always turn me off again in a matter of days. I have maxed out my bank slots as well as the mount inventory on all of my 8 characters, have maxed or close to max bags on the two characters I actually play, and still I spend tons of time managing inventory just to move around crafting materials I find while playing. I've got to stop and relog to different characters every hour at the latest because my maxed bank isn't even big enough to hold all crafting materials you can find and bags and bank overflow regularly. The restriction of bank size and material storage alone makes the "optional" subscription so much of a hassle for those that don't care to subscribe that it can make the game near un-playable (by the definition of having to spend half your gametime micromanaging inventory instead of actually playing).

Sorry for the rant, but as a long-time player that enjoys crafting, ESO's "optional" sub is one of the worst examples of how to bully players into paying that I've ever experienced. If I'd just buy GW2 gems each month for the amount I'd pay for ESO+ I'd quickly have a lot more comfort on my GW2 account than I'd ever have on my ESO account, and have it permanently unlocked on top of it.

[notebene.3190]

I used to pay a sub for GW2.

For the first few years or so (maybe up to around the time HoT came out?), I bought $10 worth of gems per month.

Every so often, when I had enough money, I'd buy more character storage, bank storage, material storage, pets, outfits. On rare occasions, I bought more gems in a month because I couldn't afford everything I wanted. Usually time limited March sales for minis, I think it happened to March's in a row. But mostly, I was able to save up for everything I wanted.

Now days, I'm a bit richer and have a steadier stream of gold, I buy gems with gold, but still probably throw $100/yr at them.

So, I think we do have both. You can subscribe right now.

My concern would be burying things in the subscription that aren't currently there, and you wouldn't be able to access them 'without' a sub, not even with gems. That would be a problem, because then you would not have 'both'.

As far as 'unlimited material storage', I think it's 2,000 now (?), and I don't suspect you will see unlimited, just because of performance considerations. I have mine at 1,000 now, and I kinda like it. It's a nice balance between having enough for something big that needs them (maybe a new legendary trinket), but not so much that I don't then feel at least a 'little' bit of pressure to want to go out and replenish it all. After all these years, I still haven't managed to max out any of my T6 mats.

[Danikat.8537]

@kratan.4619 said:If the sub was optional and part of it gave you access to LW episodes, does that mean if you go back to FTP that you lose LW access? Or if you sub for one month you just get access forever? If you lose access do you also lose AP/items/ etc. gained from the episodes? No matter the answer, this would be a little problematic to keep track of for each player.

In Elder Scrolls Online the way it works is you only have access to DLC maps (equivalent to living world maps) while your subscription is active, but when it ends you retain any items, achievements etc. you earned there. You just can't go back or make more progress until you either buy the DLC or subscribe again. IMO that part is ok, because you also have the option to buy DLC directly and then you own it forever. The subscription can kind of work like a trial version - play each DLC a bit to see which ones you want to buy, or blast through as much as you can finish in a month.

I'm not sure that on it's own would be much of a perk for GW2 though. DLC in Elder Scrolls Online is about £8-£12 each, whereas a living world episode is £2, so it wouldn't be as much of a benefit (although there are typically more LW releases in a year).

[pninak.1069]

yea I am not paying for something again I paid for already. I don't mind having gw2 selling cosmetics, but subcriptions survices are pretty much forcing you to play the game. and you gonna invest way more money into the game than you would on a game without it. and a lot of games that have subcriptions were pretty disappointing. esspecially the triple a industry tried to go for it and disappointed the players by going for money first and having content as second option.

cough cough bethesda cough cough

with subcription gw2 might lose its casual playerbase. esspecially those who don't have much time to play the game and just go in for login reward/ daily.