Would you support ArenaNet if they implemented an optional subscription?

[Lucas.2974]

I would definitely subscribe to help the game. However, I understand that most need an incentive to subscribe. I also understand that subscriptions cannot create divide between subscribers and non-subscribers.

If anything, I'd subscribe if ArenaNet made all current outfits, armor skins and gliders available for free with the subscription, but once the subscription ended, those items are revoked, unless purchased with actual money.

Or maybe the ability to change how my character looked, any time, without having to buy a makeover kit every time.

[OriOri.8724]

Optional subscriptions always eventually end up with lots of features hidden behind that paywall that should be in the base game, otherwise people have no incentive to buy the subscription.

Plus, GW2 has a gem store...... I've never understood why some players are so eager to hop onto a subscription model but are reluctant to spend their money on gems . If you want to support the game you have ways to do that, and if you have no need for gems then either give gifts away or convert htem to gold.

As players we already have the ability to support Anet on a monthly (or more/less often) basis via buying gems. If you think this game is worth a $10/month subscription, then buy 800 gems each month for money, not gold. Otherwise your suggestion falls a bit flat

[Greyraven.4258]

No it goes against what Arenanet promised us in the Original GW and the GW2 MMO manifesto, they have (unlike so many other developers) kept their promise of no monthly fee, and I have zero problem buying the expansion as quick as they come out and regularly buying Gems.

[Lucas.2974]

@OriOri.8724 said:Optional subscriptions always eventually end up with lots of features hidden behind that paywall that should be in the base game, otherwise people have no incentive to buy the subscription.

Plus, GW2 has a gem store...... I've never understood why some players are so eager to hop onto a subscription model but are reluctant to spend their money on gems . If you want to support the game you have ways to do that, and if you have no need for gems then either give gifts away or convert htem to gold.

As players we already have the ability to support Anet on a monthly (or more/less often) basis via buying gems. If you think this game is worth a $10/month subscription, then buy 800 gems each month for money, not gold. Otherwise your suggestion falls a bit flat

You have perfectly valid points, however, some of us just like the idea of a subscription model where it feels rewarding to donate 10$-15$, or whatever it would be.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@Lucas.2974 said:

some of us just like the idea of a subscription model where it feels rewarding to donate 10$-15$, or whatever it would be.

You can do that already. What are you expecting to get that's different from buying US$10-15 of gems each month?

[Haishao.6851]

@Lucas.2974 said:

You have perfectly valid points, however, some of us just like the idea of a subscription model where it feels rewarding to donate 10$-15$, or whatever it would be.

You're already rewarded 800 gems for paying 10$

[Helbjorne.9368]

@Haishao.6851 said:

@Helbjorne.9368 said:

It wouldn't affect you as a consumer if you didn't subscribe as you would be in the exact same position you're in now, however the increased funding would allow ArenaNet to address these aforementioned issues, we would see an increase in content, and a decrease in the time in which these things are handled/presented.

This is false. You're only in the same position if no other position come take its place. Adding an higher position make the one you're currently in become lower.Therefor you're not in the same position as before.

There's no way to tell they would make more money with a subscription on top of the gem store. The only way to assume they would is if everyone who already buy gems would also subscribe. Or if people who never buy gems would suddenly subscribe. Gemstore is already an optional subscription model. There's no reason to have a second one on top of it. If you are in the opinion that arenanet doesn't make enough money, buy more gems. Or even more game "boxes" or physical goods from their store.

Also money doesn't fix everything. This forum is a very good proof of it. They trashed 5 years of posts to upgrade the forum engine. Fixing the engine could lead into them having to trash all characters or progress. Would you want that? I certainly wouldn't. I'd prefer they make another game than potentially destroy this one.

No, money certainly doesn't fix everything, although I don't think the forum change is a good example. I had plenty of posts on the old one, and the migration doesn't bother me in the least; posts older than a week rarely see the light of day again anyways. A better example would be @"Danikat.8537"'s comparison to The Elder Scrolls Online business model, in which they have multiple features gated behind an 'optional' subscription, yet continue to make poor decisions regarding the development of the game.

Engine improvements and a graphics overhaul wouldn't involve losing any characters or progress either, plenty of games have improved their engines/graphics over time and it didn't affect anything negatively. That isn't to say that it can't negatively affect anything, but rather that it likely won't (or at the very least they wouldn't implement it until it wouldn't).

That all being said, I understand that a lot of people wouldn't like this, especially seeing as this hasn't been ArenaNet's traditional business model, but as I mentioned in the OP, this poll was made in response to another discussion, seen here, and is meant to just gauge the community's opinion on the idea.

The better question I would have, and the one I should have asked, is how can we, as the playerbase, get these changes listed in the OP (engine/graphics overhaul, additional QoL features (cough build templates cough), profession optimization (ie. outdated traits, unused skills, etc.)) implemented?

[Pretty Pixie.8603]

I'm personally opposed to a business model that couples a subscription (optional or not) with microtransactions. I'm good with either one, but both feels like double dipping to me, taking advantage of people with addictive personalities.

[Shyra Jade.9642]

I voted no because I don’t want the hassle of subbing and unsubbing if I decide to take a break. I buy gems when I play and I feel that is an easier way to support the game.

[JVJD.4912]

Just keep your majority occupied playing the game. Thats all the company needs needs to do to attract $$

[Cyninja.2954]

I did vote yes since I can afford and am not opposed to a subsciption model.

The major flaw I see here though is that eventually people who pay a subscription will demand something in return for their money. Also GW2 would lose one of its major draws: being buy to play.

Personally I think the way it is right now works too. If you want to support arenanet monthly, just buy some gems each month and put it down as you monthly subscription. Done.

[Menadena.7482]

@Helbjorne.9368 said:

@Menadena.7482 said:It all depends on the exact proposal however one of my major reasons for coming here was because there was NOT a subscription. I can go idle any time I want and do not have to worry about wasting money.

And I wouldn't want that to be changed at all. People shouldn't feel forced or obligated to purchase anything that's optional, and an optional subscription should give a few little bonuses to thank those that purchased it for their support, and nothing more.

Which is why the exact proposal would matter. For example, paying an 'optional' sub fee for material storage (who in the world would do that) is not something I would consider an option.

[Rhanoa.3960]

Standard Sub

• $14.99 x 60 months (5yrs) Valued at $899.40

My Gem Purchase (can substitute as a Subscription)

• $18.17 x 60 months (5yrs) Totally at $1090.20 Spending an extra $38.16 a year so far out of 50 purchases.

I can log into the game when I want and spend what I want. I'm a very satisfied happy customer.

[rapthorne.7345]

A subscription would never be successful without offering benefits for subscribing.

I'm very happy to support ANet through gem purchases (and spend about £50 a month minimum on gems), but to add a subscription would mean offering in-game benefits for that subscription, going directly against ANet's philosophy of no Pay to Win. (and a subscription providing benefits is, at it's very core, paying money for advantage over other players).

If you want to support ANet, simply buy gems like I do.

[Ashen.2907]

There is already an option to spend money on the game every month.

[Myrdreth.6829]

@Ameepa.6793 said:People are not going to pay for an optional subscription if it does not give good enough bonuses and once it does give good enough bonuses, it's no longer optional.

This. If you want to support the game just buy gems. They get money, you get a reward. Win win for everyone.

[Zok.4956]

@Helbjorne.9368 said:How would you feel about an optional subscription to support the company and the further development and improvement of Guild Wars 2?

A-Net is not a charity organization that needs our financial support to make the world a better place. It is a company that sells a game/game-service to its customers.If the game/product is good enough to attract a lot of customers and they want to pay for the product, the company makes a lot of money.

We as customers can decide, if we want to spent money for the game but we can not decide how the money is spent by A-Net and its shareholders.

It would be an illusion if we would think that we just have to give the company more money and they will work on the features that we want but did not have yet.

So, if there would be an optional subscription (in Rift it is called "patron") in GW2 I would ask what I would get for my money what I would otherwise not get in the GEM-store before I make the buy/not-buy decision.

[Helbjorne.9368]

They really need to implement a way for us to edit posts longer than 15 minutes, as a lot of people are replying to the OP without reading the thread.

[The Revenant.4970]

I won't pay a subscription for a game ever again. That's why I invested in GW2 to begin with...

and when has there ever been a successful transition from Buy to Play...to Subscription? Stop trying to poison the well.

[Zaraki.5784]

One of the most (if not the most) distinctive feature of Guild Wars® is not having a monthly subscription and that's what made me buy and play GW1 in the past and GW2 now, if that will ever change, count me out.

[Helbjorne.9368]

Quoting myself here:

@Helbjorne.9368 said:That all being said, I understand that a lot of people wouldn't like this, especially seeing as this hasn't been ArenaNet's traditional business model, but as I mentioned in the OP, this poll was made in response to another discussion, seen here, and is meant to just gauge the community's opinion on the idea.

The better question I would have, and the one I should have asked, is how can we, as the playerbase, get these changes listed in the OP (engine/graphics overhaul, additional QoL features (cough build templates cough), profession optimization (ie. outdated traits, unused skills, etc.)) implemented?

[Ceridwen.6703]

Although I actually said yes, sub away and all that, it's because I have a horrid habit of spending rather too much on gems, rather than to assist with any kind of game development. I couldn't possibly discuss that, since I don't know the in-depth financials and where cash gets distributed, or what the development cycles are at Anet. I can only, therefore, talk about what I think would be best for me (and me alone).

So in some ways, I'd rather a straight-up subscription and no gem shop, and all the gem shop stuff available to acquire with in-game currencies. That said, even with a sub if there was a gem shop, I'd probably still buy gems, but would hope to see some kind of discount, or veteran points scheme. Mostly I shouldn't spend so much and a sub only and no in-game shop would likely help with that - well, I would hope, anyway.

On the other hand, I always liked the buy-to-play of GW2 - it's what kept me playing when I didn't have the cash to spend regularly on games (let alone gems). I'm also no muppet, and know those days could come again sooner than I'd like. If/when they do, I'll be grateful I don't have to sub, and hopefully able to grind enough gold to buy anything I fancy that pops up on the gem shop (unlikely for those short-term sales, but that's a different discussion).

On the other hand, the base game is already free-to-play, with restrictions. People who bought the game don't have the restrictions. Just how different is that (hypothetically) to someone who subs vs. someone who doesn't? (that last one's rhetorical.)

[Nikal.4921]

There would have to be some incentive for players to purchase subscriptions. Usually that means non-subscribers get locked out of something. Sooner or later have some advantage over non-subscribers. You get into Have & Have-not territory. I would not like to see that. I pour enough money into the gem store that I would feel pretty bitter about that.

[Greyrebel.7492]

@Helbjorne.9368 said:How would you feel about an optional subscription to support the company and the further development and improvement of Guild Wars 2?

With talks of upgrading the engine, graphics, and other features in another thread, one of the issues that was consistently brought up was funding. Outside of the Gem Store, ArenaNet has no income to continuously develop Guild Wars 2. That isn't to say that they haven't done a fantastic job thus far, however I think that if there was consistent, reliable funding then the figurative table would be much larger, and a lot more of the issues brought up by the community would be able to be addressed.

I know that being subscription based something that traditionally ArenaNet has been against, but I would really like to see some improvements in terms of engine development and graphics rendering (I'm looking at you, DirectX9), overall QoL features, bug fixes, and profession balancing. Other games have implemented optional subscriptions successfully by rewarding subscribers with little bonuses. For Guild Wars 2, this could take the form of an additional bank tab, bag slot, a monthly gem stipend, etc. If done correctly I think this business model could benefit both the playerbase and ArenaNet, and I'm interested to see how others feel about it.

Edit: For those that don't agree with an optional subscription, would you mind elaborating why? It wouldn't affect you as a consumer if you didn't subscribe as you would be in the exact same position you're in now, however the increased funding would allow ArenaNet to address these aforementioned issues, we would see an increase in content, and a decrease in the time in which these things are handled/presented.

if any1 loves the game and wants to support anet more they can buy gems and stuff from arenanet , idk what would any1 wants from optional subscription ? u can buy all from gemshop , mybe a passive xp booster or free acces to Captain's Airship Pass and such or a combat booster ,,,, well u already can get them from gemstore and have them on all the time :)

[OriOri.8724]

@Lucas.2974 said:

@OriOri.8724 said:Optional subscriptions always eventually end up with lots of features hidden behind that paywall that should be in the base game, otherwise people have no incentive to buy the subscription.

Plus, GW2 has a gem store...... I've never understood why some players are so eager to hop onto a subscription model but are reluctant to spend their money on gems . If you want to support the game you have ways to do that, and if you have no need for gems then either give gifts away or convert htem to gold.

As players we already have the ability to support Anet on a monthly (or more/less often) basis via buying gems. If you think this game is worth a $10/month subscription, then buy 800 gems each month for money, not gold. Otherwise your suggestion falls a bit flat

You have perfectly valid points, however, some of us just like the idea of a subscription model where it feels rewarding to donate 10$-15$, or whatever it would be.

How is it any different then just buying $10-15 worth of gems each month? With a subscription model you will have 3 options

A - The subscription gives you stuff worth less than the $10-15 of gems you could buy wth the money, so its abandoned rather quicklyB - The subscription gives you the gems (or items equivalent in value to that amount of gems)C - The subscription gives you more than this much in worth each month, at which point it no longer is an optional thing, but slowly starts to become a mandatory thing, and GW2 will start to look more and more like runescape

Optional subscriptions are bad. If there is to be a supscription then make it mandatory (not that I support this decision either)