Would you support ArenaNet if they implemented an optional subscription?

[Donari.5237]

@Helbjorne.9368 said: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.

Good news, they're going to do that. Check page 13 of the Forums Feedback thread for Gaile's post on it (I assume the page numbers are the same for everyone regardless of their screen size). Iirc anyone who has at least five posts on the forums and has been registered at least 3 days will get unlimited edits (so the first batch of people able to do that will get the ability tomorrow), and new "recruits" will get the 4 hour limit.

OT: Danikat nailed it, as did others replying in the negative. We do have optional contribution via gem purchases. If the "optional" sub gets incentives akin to ESO's, it's no longer optional. I know that I could not be bothered to play ESO again without the crafting bag, which is essentially infinite mats storage you can put stuff in for as long as you keep paying. You think GW2 inventory management is difficult, go try the much more restricted space in ESO >< On top of that, you have to be a subscriber to use dyes on costumes (their "outfits). I feel like there it's not exactly pay to win but it is pay to enjoy.

I've spent a great deal on this game, all of it voluntary and most of it back when I had income. I'm not interested in a paywall between me and QoL, or in feeling that I'd have to pay more from my dwindling reserves than I choose to on a case by case basis. And if this "optional sub" gives no benefits that non-subbers cannot get, then how on earth do you expect anyone to be willing to toss extra money at the game they weren't already willing to spend on individual transactions?

[Ceridwen.6703]

@Myrdreth.6829 said:

@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.

Although I don't disagree with supporting through gem purchases, it's technically not a reward when we receive what we purchase. If they gave us money for playing the game, that would be a reward. Also a rather novel way of running a business. :/

[TheUndefined.1720]

I would support it if the system was akin to TESO's sub model. Imo, I think TESO has a well thought out sub model. Base game is free, expansions are paid per release, and with the sub-model members get:

• all DLC (Living Story for GW2) can either be paid for individually or free during monthly membership,
• the equal price of the monthly payment for the cash shop currency,
• expanded bank inventory,
• free unlimited dye use on costumes (maybe this could be switched for transmutations) during the monthly membership,
• increased xp gain,
• increased gold drops from mobs,
• decreased crafting times, etc.

I don't know how well this could translate to GW2, but the TESO sub model really pays for itself. The in game perks alone are worth the payment, then the added cash shop currency for the price of subscription is really fair for the price.

In other words, I would support a sub model so long as there are perks that go along with it - substantial perks, not just throw away ones.

[Ceridwen.6703]

@Helbjorne.9368 said: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?

Are you telling me you wanted us to stay on topic? Oh, my. You posted this whilst I was wittering in my previous two posts so apologies if it got derailed (although that's a feature on GW2 forums, I think).

My immediate snarky response is you're talking about GW3. (I'm sorry).

My sensible response is simply to keep feedback going through. I think it takes time to implement a lot of changes, but putting up a sub model to get stuff done wouldn't necessarily get it there to make all those changes overnight. I also think too many players would be unhappy at a mandatory sub being implemented to effect changes and it would lose revenue as a result, and a voluntary sub may also lose influence. Also, the game is perhaps too old, even at just five years, to have a complete overhaul successfully (I say this having just spent a month or so tinkering at Secret World Legends, the re-do of The Secret World, where some improvements were made, but mostly it ends up a little gawky, with a horribly cheeky pay model as well. But that's because it's free-to-play, with an optional sub, but is so monetised it's ridiculous) - although I'd love to be proved wrong.

Supporting Anet right now involves make gem purchases where we can, and then buying expansions. Then, again, giving lots of constructive feedback for improvements - plus positive word of mouth to prospective players, whilst also being aware that no game is guaranteed to tick everyone's boxes.

[LanfearShadowflame.3189]

You want to support them?You want it to be something people can choose to do as an option?

Well congratulations! It's your lucky day! You can already do exactly this!

Buy gems.

/thread

This isn't about an "optional subscription." This is a poorly veiled 'I want a prestige system so I can show off how much I spend.' Moving on.

[Helbjorne.9368]

@Donari.5237 said:And if this "optional sub" gives no benefits that non-subbers cannot get, then how on earth do you expect anyone to be willing to toss extra money at the game they weren't already willing to spend on individual transactions?

Personally, I'd suggest the following:

• 1 or 2 Additional Bank Tabs while subscription is active
• 1 or Additional Bag Slots (account wide) while subscription is active
• 1000 Gem monthly stipend while subscription is active
• Personal Assistant that gives you remote access to Bank, Merchant (basic), and Trading Post while subscription is active
• Beauty Parlor, which allows you to change appearance of any character as many times as you wish while subscription is active

I understand the prevalent counterargument in the thread is "just buy Gems," but again, the better question I should have posed is if the reason for the lack of the changes and improvements to the game listed in the OP, the other thread I linked, and elsewhere in this thread isn't tied to funding, what is it tied to, and how can we as the playerbase help get these changes implemented? The obvious answer would be to simply post on the forums about it, however people have been posting about build templates (excuse the meme), numerous other QoL improvements, profession optimization, graphics/engine updates, etc. for quite some time on the forums, and to no avail. That's not to say that every suggestion is worth implementing, nor is it to say that suggestions don't go unheard, but if the reason for the delay on the implementation of these suggestions is due to a lack of reliable and consistent funding (which Gem store purchases are not), would an optional subscription be a viable solution?

[Panda.1967]

It really depends on what the subscription benefits are...

Unacceptable subscritption benefits

• "Bonus" XP - This is something a lot of optional subscriptions do, and it's quite frankly bullshit. One major offender of this is SW:tOR, where they actually HALVED the original XP from quests for non-subscribers, from what it was before the game went F2P.
• Subscriber Exclusive Areas/Items - while some might think this is fine, it's actually a major problem. Especially when the exclusives are game changing. Exclusives are quite honestly NEVER a good thing.
• Subscriber Buffs - Usually found in the form of reduced Cooldowns on travel abilities in most games, but could also include things like +5% movement speed, extra gold drops, +10% rare item drops, etc... These sorts of buffs, while usually benign create a sense of "requirement" which is the exact opposite of what you want with an Optional Subscription. You want players who don't have a subscription for whatever reason (lack of funds, lack of interest, whatever) to not feel slighted by not having a subscription, although you do still want the subscription to be appealing and valuable.

Acceptable subscription benefits

• Monthly Gem Stipend - Highly valuable and will guarantee value on any optional subscription service. Coincidentally, a lot of people are actually more willing to buy extra gems when they are getting a monthly stipend already. Most games with successful optional subscriptions place their stipend at the equivalent of $5 worth of their cash stop currency, so for GW2 that would be 400 Gems. Going under $5 worth of gems is unadvisable as it removes a good chunk of the value from the subscription and makes it look like a ripoff, going over $5 worth of gems has the opposite effect of making it too valuable and is likely to reduce the value of the subscription service to ArenaNet. (NOTE: DO NOT INCREASE CASH SHOP ITEM PRICES This has been done before by games that added an optional subscription and monthly stipend, all it does is anger the player base and ultimately reduces cash shop currency purchases.)
• Bonus Bank/Inventory Tabs - These are definately good additions, however they must be implmented properly. To be honest, the best way to add these is to create a 1-time purchase account-wide bag/bank expansion upgrade that is "purchased" when you First subscribe. Lapsing subscription cannot remove this benefit, and resubscribing cannot duplicate it. The reason for this is that if a player's subscription lapses, it is honestly far too punishing to require them to empty out everything from their extra bank/inventory tab to free up space again. And obviously, you don't want people abusing subscription resubs to gain more and more tabs at minimal cost.
• Bonus Character Slots - A number of extra "free" character slots while subscribed. These CAN be locked when subscription lapses, however, the player should be allowed to choose which characters are locked out. Usually this choice is made by locking all characters and having the player select characters to unlock while their subscription is lapsed.

Optional subscription benefits must always be non-intrusive and forgiving when subscriptions lapse, as well as minor enough benefits that there is no sense of requirement, yet valuable enough to be desired. They must never add power in any form, nor be exclusive, any benefit offered in subscription should have a cash-shop equivalent for those who would prefer not to subscribe.

[Chickenooble.5014]

I purchase gems when I can and I buy the mega-super expansion bundles. I do that because there is no subscription fee.

[Baltham.8796]

I'd much rather it stay as-is. When I'm playing, I happily and regularly buy gems. But I don't want to be bothered to cancel/renew a sub everytime I want to take a break from the game.

[Helbjorne.9368]

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:You want to support them?You want it to be something people can choose to do as an option?

Well congratulations! It's your lucky day! You can already do exactly this!

Buy gems.

/thread

This isn't about an "optional subscription." This is a poorly veiled 'I want a prestige system so I can show off how much I spend.' Moving on.

If you read the OP this is about having prevalent issues addressed, if the issue of having them addressed is tied to reliable, consistent funding. If people want to showcase how much money they spend there's plenty of flashy costumes and gliders for that. I fail to see how you drew a connection there.

[Panda.1967]

A side note:An optional subscription service for $10-$15/mo that simply gives you 800-1200 gems each month could also work... zero "subscription benefits" simply an automated purchase of gems every month. This sort of system would likely please most people who want a subscription service, while having zero negative impact on the game since it does nothing but offer an alternative method of buying gems. The effective cost of gems remains unaltered, it's just people buying a set amount of gems through an automated service every month at their normal cost.

[TheQuickFox.3826]

No, I dislike subscriptions, even optional ones. The lack of subscriptions if the sole reason I chose Guild Wars over other MMO's years ago. I don't mind paying for content, nor paying for gems/micro transactions, but I don't like recurring payments for VIP accounts.

The points of improvement you mention I also support, but I rather pay for it per-feature than per subscription. Then I can select which features I like to buy/support.Of course, ANet could add a big donation button for everyone who has too much money and wants to voluntarily give ANet monthly income to improve the game. But this should not change the status of the account over non-donators.

[Zaron.1987]

If there will be any kind of subscription system added i'll immediatly stop playing this game and wont touch any game made from Arena net in the future. And i know many in my guild/friendslist will act the same way.

We don't need such a pseudo choice sub like in the China gw2 Version where 95% are forced to buy the monthly fee paket.

Please don't brake this promise. There we're already enough broken promises at your side made.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

Microtransactions are the future of gaming. Sadly.

[Blodeuyn.2751]

Don't forget Anet makes money from server transfers. They don't need our charity, that's what the gem store is for.

[Helbjorne.9368]

@Blodeuyn.2751 said:

Don't forget Anet makes money from server transfers. They don't need our charity, that's what the gem store is for.

Server transfers aren't so often purchased as to be considered reliable and consistent income. This has nothing to do with charity nor sympathy, this is about getting consistent system and QoL improvements in Guild Wars 2. Quoting myself from earlier:

@Helbjorne.9368I understand the prevalent counterargument in the thread is "just buy Gems," but again, the better question I should have posed is if the reason for the lack of the changes and improvements to the game listed in the OP, the other thread I linked, and elsewhere in this thread isn't tied to funding, what is it tied to, and how can we as the playerbase help get these changes implemented? The obvious answer would be to simply post on the forums about it, however people have been posting about build templates (excuse the meme), numerous other QoL improvements, profession optimization, graphics/engine updates, etc. for quite some time on the forums, and to no avail. That's not to say that every suggestion is worth implementing, nor is it to say that suggestions don't go unheard, but if the reason for the delay on the implementation of these suggestions is due to a lack of reliable and consistent funding (which Gem store purchases are not), would an optional subscription be a viable solution?

[Krydle.7418]

We're getting a good amount of content without a sub option. If there ever came a time where the game was in such dire need of financial support that a sub option was the only thing left to keep it afloat, then yeah. As of right now it seems fine without it. Plus they'd need to come up with content locked behind a subscription to make it worth the payment and I don't think anyone would be happy with that.

[Helbjorne.9368]

@Reinthir.1349 said:We're getting a good amount of content without a sub option.

We get content every 2 years (excluding Living World), and even then, it's purely PvE content that can be completed in a month. The last 'update' to sPvP was over a year ago when the Revenge of the Capricorn was released, which was just a map. There have been no additional game modes implemented, such as death match, capture the flag, 1v1, 2v2, etc. There has been no substantial updates to WvW in over 2 years. Edge of the Mists has been abandoned. Oh, and Fractals were added, but again, PvE content.

Outside of content, QoL improvements are seen maybe once every 6 months, and they're often quite minimal. We're getting additional Elite Specializations when the core professions are still poorly optimized with many professions having multiple useless traits, skills, and weapons. Abilities are balanced based on PvE and PvP, often leaving one or the other underpowered. There are still abilities with known bugs that haven't been addressed. Some professions still aren't capable of pushing 30k+ DPS regardless of build, when others are pushing close to 40k. The only customizable portion of the UI is the minimap, the graphics are still rendered in DirectX9, the list goes on and on.

I'm not trying to be hypercritical of the game, as I think GW2 is great and easily the best MMO on the market, but it could be so much more with just a little bit of work (minus the graphics overhaul; that is a massive undertaking).

[jokke.6239]

When the game launched I didn't have a job, and didn't have one for the first 3 years of GW2 for personal reasons. 60$ was a lot for me at that time, I was barely able to afford the game when it came out. It's amazing this game gave me over 4k hours of playtime for 60$. Biggest reason I went out and sacrificed 60$ on the game was because I wanted an mmo to play, I really wanted to play WOW back then, but the sub fee kept me away from it. I wouldn't had bought GW2 if it had a sub fee, even if it was "optional". GW have always had this model, it's part of the appeal, and a lot of GW's success is due to this. The backlash would be insane if they went back on their promises/selling points and added a sub fee, no mather how "fair" or "optional" it is implemented.Now that I can afford it I buy 10-20$ worth of gems every week. And I prepurchased ultimate edition of Path of Fire.Moral of the story, people who have the money to spare will support Arena Net regardless if there is a sub fee or not. People who don't would be likely to leave the game, and the game would become less active.And a big playerbase is extremely important for an mmo, even if half of them are "freeloaders". New players who seek a new mmo to play will only begin to play if the game has an active playerbase.Just look at Wildstar, it had a rough launch. They quickly got rid of the sub fee, but it was to late. The game is incredible, and probably have one of the best f2p models in the industry, but the game will never recover, because once the word of mouth gets out that the game is dead, no one will ever join.Arena Net implementing a sub fee would be VERY risky, if lots of players abbandoned the game, the whole game could potentially be ruined.Mike O'Brian recently said that the most important thing to keep growing GW2 now is word of mouth. Bad press and dissapointed customers is not what Arena Net needs right now.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

I'm confused. If purchasing Gems is optional, and doesn't guarantee ArenaNet a monthly income amount, how is an optional subscription going to? Are you suggesting this subscription can not be opted out from? That would be the only way ArenaNet could be guaranteed income in the future. If the subscription can be cancelled, then there is no guarantee that monies will be acquired.

Also, for players, there is no guarantee that their QoL/content of choice would be what any monies collected be spent on. Even with increased income, it is unlikely ArenaNet would change the policy of "We won't talk about it until it is ready to ship", so no one would know if their subscription was being used to implement the changes they desire, anyway.

[lothefallen.7081]

If an optional sub means I get the gem store items or a ration of gems every month along with some QoL / non-pay-to-win features, I would support it. Steady income for the developers is a good thing.

[Coulter.2315]

There is an optional subscription already, buy gems each month.

[OriOri.8724]

@Helbjorne.9368 said:

@Donari.5237 said:And if this "optional sub" gives no benefits that non-subbers cannot get, then how on earth do you expect anyone to be willing to toss extra money at the game they weren't already willing to spend on individual transactions?

Personally, I'd suggest the following:

• 1 or 2 Additional Bank Tabs while subscription is active
• 1 or Additional Bag Slots (account wide) while subscription is active
• 1000 Gem monthly stipend while subscription is active
• Personal Assistant that gives you remote access to Bank, Merchant (basic), and Trading Post while subscription is active
• Beauty Parlor, which allows you to change appearance of any character as many times as you wish while subscription is active

I understand the prevalent counterargument in the thread is "just buy Gems," but again, the better question I should have posed is if the reason for the lack of the changes and improvements to the game listed in the OP, the other thread I linked, and elsewhere in this thread isn't tied to funding, what is it tied to, and how can we as the playerbase help get these changes implemented? The obvious answer would be to simply post on the forums about it, however people have been posting about build templates (excuse the meme), numerous other QoL improvements, profession optimization, graphics/engine updates, etc. for quite some time on the forums, and to no avail. That's not to say that every suggestion is worth implementing, nor is it to say that suggestions don't go unheard, but if the reason for the delay on the implementation of these suggestions is due to a lack of reliable and consistent funding (which Gem store purchases are not), would an optional subscription be a viable solution?

So, for $10 a month players are getting 1000 gems? That's ok I guess, a small discount on gems in order to guarantee the subscription each month. That's more or less fine. But you literally replied to a comment that said they supported this if and only if it didn't give the subscribers anything that non subscribers could also get, and then you talk about exclusive bank and bag slots, on top of the PA and not needing a makeover kit to change your character's appearance. This is exactly what shoulld NOT be in an optional subscription. Again, what is wrong with just buying gems? If people wanted to support the game there is nothing stopping them from buying gems. But a lot of people WILL leave if an optional subscription is implemented, and overall Anet will probably lose money on it

[castlemanic.3198]

There isn't a NEED for a subscription and thus, why put dev time into an unnecessary feature that doesn't provide any extra benefits to those who purchase them?

If you want to supply a constant stream of money to Arenanet, you can buy a bunch of gems per month and use them as you wish. Also, having an optional subscription (regardless of the existence of benefits) would bring bad publicity to an already old game by the market's standards, thus driving away potential customers who dislike subscription models. Imagine the damage of a single article stating "Guild Wars 2 has subscriptions", most readers would stop beyond that point and not read the whole article, it's just the nature of the modern world to read a headline (and sometimes not even the whole headline) and not the article (enough that studies have been done on this behaviour). So on top of the potential resources spent away from developing the game (more than likely a miniscule amount of development, but there may be a ton of stuff behind the scenes that we may never know about) there's also the high probability of gaining bad publicity as well and an expectation (potentially demands) from people who DO pay a subscription to receive benefits that non-subscribers won't have (this behaviour of 'i should have this and they shouldn't' already exists within the community in minor degrees, it would increase exponentially with a subscription that has no benefits).

Thus, the way I see it, there's no benefits and ONLY losses if they go through with a subscription process. Those who wish to spend extra money have the opportunity to do so with the gem store.

You've also complained about the lack of progress regarding certain things (like content coming every so often) which they've actually fixed now. Arenanet have found their footing and now have a stable method of bringing out enough content every month, making things better for everyone, plus i'm sure the teams related to pvp, wvw, raiding etc are working to make things better but it takes it's time and the community will always find metas that go out of the scope of what developers intended (thus rebalancing their previous changes and trying to make better ones). As for the direct 9 thing, they've said it would be too much work, thus an increase in funding wouldn't reduce the 'work' part of changing from direct 9 to direct 11 for what they perceive would be minimal benefits/reward for their effort. An increase in funding can help in some situations, but not all, and if you really wish to help Arenanet more and you have the money to spare, give it to the devs as a show of support. A subscription is not the solution to the problems you have.

[Alimar.8760]

Honestly i'm on the fence. I love Arenanet and support what they do. So if I was given a way to encourage more and better development of features and updates I'm more than happy to support it.

If it's truly optional, then those that don't want to pay it, lose nothing. However if this ever came about there would need to be some kind of incentive to actually pay the subscription, just straight gems or bonuses people have already purchased years ago wouldn't be enough. Elder Scrolls Online has an optional subscription, after they moved to free to play. They adjusted it so that similar to gems, you could purchase any new expansion coming out with less than what you were getting in gems total. So if this was implemented as a subscription service, I could see them giving all accounts that had a subscription the ability to purchase the expansion for free, as long as they had been subscribed for a year. This excludes other bonuses like extra gems monthly. All in all, they'd need to make it worth it, but not exclude or have exclusive content available only to those that were not paying for the service.

Honestly, even though it's a good idea, I doubt it'd happen. I don't want to be a naysayer but five years of an established way kinda sets it in stone.

I'd be more happy with more regular content updates like what they did with Living Story Season 3. I know it's beating a dead horse but I'd also pay to be able to play Season 1 of Living Story again. I missed the last half of it due to unforeseen circumstances.

TL:DR: Good Idea, but I don't think it'll ever be implemented.