Would you support ArenaNet if they implemented an optional subscription?

[IndigoSundown.5419]

@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?

For your idea to generate enough additional revenue to produce the results you want, it would have to attract enough people to produce a very significant increase in revenue. I believe the people that are already spending that much or more would support it, but that they might as a consequence buy fewer gems. I believe that for a Freemium fee to generate a large increase in revenue, it would have to attract a lot of people from the "frugal" demographic. That's the people whose only contribution to ANet revenue (beyond XPac purchase) is to farm the gold that those who'd rather pay than farm want. I'm willing to be wrong, but I suspect that to hook them, the package would have to be very much less optional.

[Helbjorne.9368]

@"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: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.

No, but it's a measurable amount of income, especially if they follow the business model of paying for additional months at a reduced cost. Gems are measurable and predictable as well, but with Gems you have those that impulse buy, causing spikes in Gem sales, those that purchase Gems once or twice because they "need" something (ie. name change, server transfer, etc.), and those that purchase them "just because." I'm not claiming to be an economist, nor am I claiming that a subscription would be a magic fix to the issues I listed, but it would certainly incentivize ArenaNet (imo) to address some of those issues.

@OriOri.8724 said: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

I was following the typical subscription = $15 model, as with most MMOs, so the amount of Gems received would be less than that of just purchasing the Gems directly. Additional bank tabs can be purchased with Gems, additional bag slots can be purchased with Gems, the personal assistant functions can be obtained via Black Lion Chests in the form of 1 time uses, and the makeover kit can be purchased with Gems. Nothing listed would only be obtainable through a subscription, which is what I believe the post I was replying to was referring to (as other games' subscriptions have features gated behind subscriptions, such as material storage, mounts, etc.).

[Game of Bones.8975]

I would only support it if they do major changes to the Black Lion Trading Post. Right now I believe the Gems are the way they gain money on a monthly basis.If they were to start using subscription prices for money, would there be one price for all? or different prices for access to freebies each month?

[ITheNormalPerson.9275]

It depends on the specific rewards for the sub-fee. Personally, I'd love to support Arena Net more, but I don't exactly have the funds to. That being said, I don't like the idea of exclusive rewards behind a sub-fee. If anything, what I'd like is an option to subscribe for say, $10 a month, but the only thing it offers is 1000 gems every month. That way, people who wish to support the game like I do, and already buy gems to support them have an option to get a little extra for their continued support, while not introducing rewards that other players will be extremely envious of.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

For your list, you would have to remove the addition Bank Tabs and (account-wide) Bag Slots, as Account upgrades can not be removed once implemented. No Account upgrades could be used as subscription incentives.

And, it couldn't be one of the QoL upgrades as the studio would need the money first, if this suggestion is based on providing money for changes.

[Bollocks.4078]

@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.

That's exactly the problem with the whole idea. People want the optional subscription because they want to get more than what they should get for a given amount of money spent on gems. They want extra perks and bonuses and freebies, etc. It's not really about supporting ANET, it's about entitlement and greed.

[Helbjorne.9368]

@castlemanic.3198 said: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.

Do you have a source for the developers stating they won't be moving from DirectX9? And as I mentioned, I know that a subscription isn't a magic fix to the many issues that I listed, but it would hopefully incentivize ArenaNet into addressing them and providing more frequent updates. If that's already what they plan on doing, great, but we haven't seen it thus far.

@Bollocks.4078 said:That's exactly the problem with the whole idea. People want the optional subscription because they want to get more than what they should get for a given amount of money spent on gems. They want extra perks and bonuses and freebies, etc. It's not really about supporting ANET, it's about entitlement and greed.

That's an awful lot of assumptions. This was also never about supporting ArenaNet, this is about providing them with adequate means to address the many issues that I listed (none of which, mind you, are new ideas or issues):

@Helbjorne.9368 said: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).

However, the consensus appears to be that reliable and consistent funding through an optional subscription would not help address these issues.

[Sarge shot Grif.6450]

I have never played an online game with that kind of subscription that didn't completely screw over the people not paying for it, all it does is drive players away and eventually lead to a pay-to-win atmosphere. The gemstore gives us the option to support the game with our wallets as it is and this would only hurt the game.

[castlemanic.3198]

@Helbjorne.9368 said:Do you have a source for the developers stating they won't be moving from DirectX9? And as I mentioned, I know that a subscription isn't a magic fix to the many issues that I listed, but it would hopefully incentivize ArenaNet into addressing them and providing more frequent updates. If that's already what they plan on doing, great, but we haven't seen it thus far.

I can't find the post, it was in the old forums though (possibly on reddit too, but i don't frequent it enough to have seen it there, so i know it's in the old forums).

A subscription wouldn't incentivise Arenanet to addressing already existing issues, it would incentivise them (through huge community backlash) to either drop subscriptions or provide subscription only benefits that goes against the ENTIRE reason GW2 was made as a non-subscription game. There can ONLY be bad things coming out of a subscription, as I mentioned in my full post that you left out of your quote. And we HAVE seen the more frequent updates, the living world season episodes coming out every 2-3 months and the expansion dropping less than 2 months after the final season 3 episode. Whether or not YOU deem that as an update, each living world episode is objectively an update, and we will hopefully continue seeing updates every 2-3 months, barring necessary patches to solve bugs and glitches. It's a promise that they seem to be keeping and all evidence points to this as being their MO from here on out. Quality over quantity, which necessitates taking 2-3 months as the devs have explicitly said before. You seemingly don't care about PvE content (or at least it's prevalence over pvp and wvw), but it is content (also i don't understand why you dismiss living world releases, they're objectively content).

So we are seeing it. Objectively so, it's not something that can be argued against. We have been having constant, regular updates since episode 1 of season 3 released.With regards to pvp and wvw, they decided to release patches not tied to the living world season 3 episodes and have an entire release page dedicated to it:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/releases/june-06-2017/

(note how there is, in fact, a 2v2 team deathmatch)

It's an update, it's not nothing and they do seem to genuinely be working on new stuff, building a base to go forward from. So more updates should be coming for wvw and pvp in the near future hopefully.

And all of this without subscriptions. Like I said, there's no need and it'll only make things worse if they're ever implemented.

[Shaaba.5672]

@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?

I think the answer is, we can't. We can make suggestions, but this isn't our game. We get the privileged of playing someone else's hard work. Yeah, we pay for that privileged, but that's only fair. It doesn't give us the right to make demands. If you're unhappy, simple, don't give them anymore money. If enough people do that, they'll get the message.

I'm guessing Anet has looked at some of those changes you want, weighed the pros and cons and made some decisions based on things we can't see and have no way of knowing about. I think it's a mistake to equate money with getting your demands heard. As a playerbase we've made some progress just using our voice and having a discussion. It's also kind of clear that no amount of shouting is going to change other things.

[Lucas.2974]

@OriOri.8724 said:

@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)

@OriOri.8724 said:

@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)

@OriOri.8724 said:

@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)

[Lucas.2974]

@OriOri.8724 said:

@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)

Well, I was thinking about it on a more superficial level. Like, say, access to almost any wardrobe, dye and outfit skins (minus weapon skins), and the ability to change my characters appearance at will, and that's it.

I'd pay for a subscription like that. However, the drawback would, once the subscription ended, the skins and dye colors would revert back to their original form, like it was prior to the subscription. The only thing I could see staying would be the character's current appearance.

That way, there are no benefits from a subscription model other than the convenience of not having to grind for certain dyes, skins and outfits, and avoiding buying multiple makeover kits. In addition, there is no disadvantage for non-subscribers, as these changes are revoked after the subscription ends.

[castlemanic.3198]

@Lucas.2974 said:Well, I was thinking about it on a more superficial level. Like, say, access to almost any wardrobe, dye and outfit skins (minus weapon skins), and the ability to change my characters appearance at will, and that's it.

I'd pay for a subscription like that. However, the drawback would, once the subscription ended, the skins and dye colors would revert back to their original form, like it was prior to the subscription. The only thing I could see staying would be the character's current appearance.

That way, there are no benefits from a subscription model other than the convenience of not having to grind for certain dyes, skins and outfits, and avoiding buying multiple makeover kits. In addition, there is no disadvantage for non-subscribers, as these changes are revoked after the subscription ends.

Those are unbelievably huge advantages and disadvantages, so much so that it ruins the idea of the subscription model in the first place. Also, for a game that's called by the players 'fashion wars 2', those would be quickly seen as 'mandatory', and thus have heavy repercussions on the playerbase (and woe to those who lose those benefits).

No matter if those ideas or ideas similar to them were implemented in a subscription model, it would end up as a huge net loss for arenanet, simply because player trust was lost, then the backlash, and then the demands and it all snowballs into an impossible to resolve situation. We're better off without a subscription model to begin with and we're doing really good so far without the model.

[Helbjorne.9368]

@castlemanic.3198 said:

@Helbjorne.9368 said:Do you have a source for the developers stating they won't be moving from DirectX9? And as I mentioned, I know that a subscription isn't a magic fix to the many issues that I listed, but it would hopefully incentivize ArenaNet into addressing them and providing more frequent updates. If that's already what they plan on doing, great, but we haven't seen it thus far.

I can't find the post, it was in the old forums though (possibly on reddit too, but i don't frequent it enough to have seen it there, so i know it's in the old forums).

A subscription wouldn't incentivise Arenanet to addressing already existing issues, it would incentivise them (through huge community backlash) to either drop subscriptions or provide subscription only benefits that goes against the ENTIRE reason GW2 was made as a non-subscription game. There can ONLY be bad things coming out of a subscription, as I mentioned in my full post that you left out of your quote. And we HAVE seen the more frequent updates, the living world season episodes coming out every 2-3 months and the expansion dropping less than 2 months after the final season 3 episode. Whether or not YOU deem that as an update, each living world episode is objectively an update, and we will hopefully continue seeing updates every 2-3 months, barring necessary patches to solve bugs and glitches. It's a promise that they seem to be keeping and all evidence points to this as being their MO from here on out. Quality over quantity, which necessitates taking 2-3 months as the devs have explicitly said before. You seemingly don't care about PvE content (or at least it's prevalence over pvp and wvw), but it is content (also i don't understand why you dismiss living world releases, they're objectively content).

So we are seeing it. Objectively so, it's not something that can be argued against. We have been having constant, regular updates since episode 1 of season 3 released.With regards to pvp and wvw, they decided to release patches not tied to the living world season 3 episodes and have an entire release page dedicated to it:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/releases/june-06-2017/

(note how there is, in fact, a 2v2 team deathmatch)

It's an update, it's not nothing and they do seem to genuinely be working on new stuff, building a base to go forward from. So more updates should be coming for wvw and pvp in the near future hopefully.

And all of this without subscriptions. Like I said, there's no need and it'll only make things worse if they're ever implemented.

I wasn't dismissing Living World, but because I have little knowledge on it, I excluded it. I'm not claiming that those aren't updates, but content was never a point of my argument, I was just replying to the comment that content was already coming consistently, when the content being provided is PvE content, which only benefits a portion of the community. Of course, PvP and WvW content updates only benefit a portion of the community as well, but if one portion of the playerbase (PvE) gets constant updates and the other does not, you can understand why the portion that doesn't get relevant content feels left out.

As for the WvW and PvP updates you posted, they added a new reward track, a backpack (which does look freaking awesome to be fair), the 2v2 deathmatch map is purely for fun (there are no rewards, matchmaking, rankings, etc.), and the Automated Tournaments only pertain to 5 man groups and are extremely bugged. That imo isn't content, it's features (minus the 2v2 map), but then again the argument could be made that features = content.

Either way, that still doesn't address the other issues that I listed (and the entire purpose of the proposal), which have been issues for quite some time:"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."

That all being said, I think it is safe to say that an optional subscription would not directly help these issues be addressed, and that the community rejects the idea of an optional subscription regardless of whether or not it means securing more consistent development and updates for the game.

[Lucas.2974]

@castlemanic.3198 said:

@Lucas.2974 said:Well, I was thinking about it on a more superficial level. Like, say, access to almost any wardrobe, dye and outfit skins (minus weapon skins), and the ability to change my characters appearance at will, and that's it.

I'd pay for a subscription like that. However, the drawback would, once the subscription ended, the skins and dye colors would revert back to their original form, like it was prior to the subscription. The only thing I could see staying would be the character's current appearance.

That way, there are no benefits from a subscription model other than the convenience of not having to grind for certain dyes, skins and outfits, and avoiding buying multiple makeover kits. In addition, there is no disadvantage for non-subscribers, as these changes are revoked after the subscription ends.

Those are unbelievably huge advantages and disadvantages, so much so that it ruins the idea of the subscription model in the first place. Also, for a game that's called by the players 'fashion wars 2', those would be quickly seen as 'mandatory', and thus have heavy repercussions on the playerbase (and woe to those who lose those benefits).

No matter if those ideas or ideas similar to them were implemented in a subscription model, it would end up as a huge net loss for arenanet, simply because player trust was lost, then the backlash, and then the demands and it all snowballs into an impossible to resolve situation. We're better off without a subscription model to begin with and we're doing really good so far without the model.

Well, is didn't particularly mean ALL skins and outfits. I meant current ones that are available for purchase to everyone.

Second, perhaps it's me, but I fail to see how it's a major disadvantage to a non-subscriber? The outfits and skins are available for purchase to them, and it'll be permanent, as opposed to the subscription idea, which is not.

Lastly, what I'm proposing won't allow subscribers to access skins and dyes NOT currently attainable. Only those that are.

[Helbjorne.9368]

@Shaaba.5672 said:

@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?

I think the answer is, we can't. We can make suggestions, but this isn't our game. We get the privileged of playing someone else's hard work. Yeah, we pay for that privileged, but that's only fair. It doesn't give us the right to make demands. If you're unhappy, simple, don't give them anymore money. If enough people do that, they'll get the message.

I'm guessing Anet has looked at some of those changes you want, weighed the pros and cons and made some decisions based on things we can't see and have no way of knowing about. I think it's a mistake to equate money with getting your demands heard. As a playerbase we've made some progress just using our voice and having a discussion. It's also kind of clear that no amount of shouting is going to change other things.

No one here is shouting, nor is anyone making any demands. I looked at the issues constantly being brought up on both the forums and Reddit, and given that funding was a consistent suspected factor as to why things aren't being addressed, proposed a solution. Everyone in this thread has made strong cases on both sides, and I believe that implementing an optional subscription this late into the game's development would be detrimental based on both the poll and the arguments presented by those that oppose the idea of an optional subscription.

[Leo Schrodingers Cat.2497]

I do want an engine overhaul. But I'm only going to support a subscription if and only if they can maintain devblog updates about their progress on these features, and that this subscription fee is only for funding the enhancement of the game, and NOT affect the game in whole in any shape or form. Multi-threaded client has been needed for a LOOOOOOOOOONG time.

[Omar Aschi Popp.7496]

They took away from me:

TownclothesPersonality systemOriginal Trait systemAll brown panel UIHoliday Meta EventsQueens PavillionNormal warhorn soundQueensdale champsExclusive temporary items staying exclusiveBanners original obtain methodGift from Tixx... a REAL oneOriginal TP UI no-nonsense text formatRaid on the CapricornUnfixed random world boss spawns

They are lucky I got PoF as it is. And actually it was a gift so I didnt even give them money.

All my gems come from gold. Not one penny from me until I see somethig even remotely appealing. I will give PoF a chance and withold judgement.

Inb4 "leave now of u dont like it"-Nothing better-comfortable/part of routine-nostalgia of old times keeps me logging in-pvp is the ONLY reason I now play(not corrupted by gimmedats)

Literally tho, sure fire way to lose me completely; change something in DR physically. I dont even care about lame story anymore.

Just picking berries, craft, play with bank, kill bandits in QD.

[zealex.9410]

If the rate and quality of the updates the game will get are in line with the subscription ofc. If im paying to get what we already get in the same pace then no not really

[Ashantara.8731]

I would consider the idea if I was guaranteed content improvement. And by content I don't mean silly new travel mechanics or new strange futuristic skins, but better writing, more personalized content (based on race, profession, and personality choice at character creation), more love in the design department (Go back to the roots, guys! As an example, take a look at the pirate captain's cave in Lion's Arch <3), more focus on what really makes a game engaging, exciting and entertaining (atmospheric places, excellent writing, mini games, more RPG quality content, etc.).

I just watched this video, and many of the things the game is dearly missing are listed in it:

[BeardedVagabond.8136]

this question pops up every few months. with the same answers. We already have an optional subscription. Buy what ever amount of gems you would like to support. Those who already buy gems are the only ones who would buy a subscription anyway, it wouldn't get anybody new who does not buy gems.

[castlemanic.3198]

@Helbjorne.9368 said:I wasn't dismissing Living World, but because I have little knowledge on it, I excluded it. I'm not claiming that those aren't updates, but content was never a point of my argument, I was replying to the comment that content was already coming consistently, when the content being provided is PvE content, which only benefits a portion of the community. Of course, PvP and WvW content updates only benefit a portion of the community as well, but if one portion of the playerbase (PvE) gets constant updates and the other does not, you can understand why the portion that doesn't get relevant content feels left out.

As for the WvW and PvP updates you posted, they added a new reward track, a backpack, the 2v2 deathmatch map is purely for fun (there are no rewards, matchmaking, rankings, etc.), and the Automated Tournaments only pertain to 5 man groups and are extremely bugged. That imo isn't content, it's features (minus the 2v2 map), but then again the argument could be made that features = content.

Either way, that still doesn't address the other issues that I listed (and the entire purpose of the proposal), which have been issues for quite some time:"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."

That all being said, I think it is safe to say that an optional subscription would not directly help these issues be addressed, and that the community rejects the idea of an optional subscription regardless of whether or not it means securing more consistent development and updates for the game.

"We get content every 2 years (excluding Living World)" is definitely a comment about content (and does dismiss Living World updates as content). You're not wrong in that pvp and wvw updates are lacking, but the recent update is objectively content and hopefully points to more frequent updates in the future (it's possible that pvp and wvw have a much more involved QA procedure than pve content since it does focus on players fighting against players and not npcs and that may be what causes issues). Quality of life improvements happen depending on what you deem as 'quality of life improvements', automated tournaments are a huge quality of life improvment for pvpers who like tournaments and stuff like that, improvements to lfg are also quality of life improvements, there are several that have occurred and several that havent occurred. Elite specialisations are expansion territory, and thus shouldn't be a complaint about guild wars 2 in general, though non-elite spec builds need to match elite spec builds in power, and everything else you mention is in the huge but vague category of 'balance', besides the bugs which need to be fixed.

At least the topic is ended.

@Lucas.2974 said:Well, is didn't particularly mean ALL skins and outfits. I meant current ones that are available for purchase to everyone.

Second, perhaps it's me, but I fail to see how it's a major disadvantage to a non-subscriber? The outfits and skins are available for purchase to them, and it'll be permanent, as opposed to the subscription idea, which is not.

Lastly, what I'm proposing won't allow subscribers to access skins and dyes NOT currently attainable. Only those that are.

I meant huge disadvantages to a subscriber if they stop paying subscription fees. Having access to the majority of skins (as you specifically proposed) for the subscription fee does play heavily into the fashion wars.

And your last comment makes it even MORE of a disadvantage or has way more hassle involved programming wise (what happens if an item becomes unattainable while someone has a subscription, do they lose access to it when it could have been a permanent unlock for them if they had paid for that specific item?). LOTS of things that could go wrong with that, and again no tangible benefit for the developers to do this and the downsides are too huge for subscribers losing out on subscriptions (as well as the absolutely assured massive backlash from established fans/veterans who would riot at the inclusion of such a huge quality of life feature made exclusive to subscribers), making it either a permanent thing that someone tries to keep up with, or something that's too huge of a risk to take and thus they won't even pay the subscription where they otherwise might have (which may in fact mean if someone becomes unable to pay the subscription fee, they may simply leave gw2 and never return). Having access to a HUGE wardrobe and having that access suddenly cut off at the whim of a credit card is NOT a viable thing for any subscription model, huge losses like that aren't something that most people would be willing to put up with.

We're far better off without a subscription fee, no matter what benefits can be put forth.

[WARIORSCHARGEING.2637]

it take a whole hell lot of fixing and updating and run 5 times better than grand theft auto wow overwatch and Destiny 2. before i would ever ever even think about being ok with a optional subscription for this game !! did not buy new pack path of fire for that reason and a few other reasons . they did that and i was able to get the game the way it should have been in the first place. after a test drive and i liked it i might maybe be ok with a optional subscription of $10.00 but their have to be updates coming with that $10.00 and they have to do other things like make all items like legendary weapons and so forth for that to even happen

[Evil Octopi.8253]

I would not support a subscription model. There too many things I don't like that the game does. The horrible RNG, the horrible DR. I am not on board for any model that might validate that these things are ok for a player to pay monthly for.

[Hevoskuuri.3891]

I absolutely would support Anet, if they were to introduce a subscription of some sort.

Let's put it this way, I pretty much dislike every other common MMO's marketing, prices and subscriptions out there. None of them has enough (interesting) content to make me stay, and they demand heaps of money in turn for the little content that I actually like.

And then there's Guild Wars 2.No "pay 100€+ a year to play this" subscriptions.No average-looking helmet skins in the cash shop priced at 50€.Near-endless amount of content that I actually enjoy, and a wonderful combat system compared to many other MMO's out there.The level cap and the gear tiers will always remain the same, meaning you will stay on par with everyone else, even if you took a break.The game is far from dead and gets updated regularly.

So, playing Guild Wars 2 I actually get so much more, with so much less. This is the only MMO in my opinion that actually deserves a subscription. What Anet already pushes out with the current cashflow is beyond me, so I can't even imagine what they could give us with subscription incomes.

However, the no-subscription thing is and has always been a big selling point for GW2, thus I don't think it would be a good idea to introduce a subscription now. But if they did, I'd definitely pay.