Would you support ArenaNet if they implemented an optional subscription?

[maddoctor.2738]

I prefer paying for an expansion every 2 years instead ;)That's my subscription.

[bambi.6214]

No, subscription is a stupid idea. Just buy gems monthly if you want to support ArenaNet more than just buying the game/expansions.

[WeedyZeGreedy.8635]

I'm generally against optional subscriptions as I can think of no example in any game where it didn't skew the balance.However i think a gem subscription could work. Say you pay 10-15 euros/dollars you get 1200 gems and for every month you are subscribed you get addition 100 gems to a cap of 2000 or so. That's about the amount i spend on gems per month anyway.Note, NO OTHER BENEFITS THAN GEMS, no boosters no bonus MF. ONLY gems

[Myrdreth.6829]

@WeedyZeGreedy.8635 said:I'm generally against optional subscriptions as I can think of no example in any game where it didn't skew the balance.However i think a gem subscription could work. Say you pay 10-15 euros/dollars you get 1200 gems and for every month you are subscribed you get addition 100 gems to a cap of 2000 or so. That's about the amount i spend on gems per month anyway.Note, NO OTHER BENEFITS THAN GEMS, no boosters no bonus MF. ONLY gems

Yeah, that's the only sensible way in my opinion. Don't know about the amount of the gems that would make sense but it sounds good.

[pah.4931]

Don't they already have an optional subscription? Buy gems every month. :D

[Lonami.2987]

Lot of people just go wild with hate and don't think enough about the idea, just like with the old mount discussions.

I think a discounted gem subscription would be fine, and make a lot of people buy things they wouldn't otherwise. For example:

• 10€ monthly subscription.
• You get 1,200 gems (15€ value).
• You get a loot crate with some special surprise stuff, nothing important you can't earn through other means, but still valuable. The contents change each month, and no RNG is involved, so everyone gets the same things (some items could have various options to choose from).
• You can pay monthly, or subscribe for an entire year for 100€ (you save 20€).

This kind of subscription would be perfect for the game, and not hurt it at all.

Even more, if the subscription works well, we could see less and less RNG as a side-effect of it.

[BlueIce.6951]

I would not be part of an optional subscription system because there are a lot of times that I am away from the game for extended periods of time. Feeling that I was "wasting" my subscription during that time would cause a lot of stress personally and I would begin to resent the game as something demanding of my time, not something that I do with my time to relax from other demands in my life or just for fun.

Instead, I feel that I support the company by purchasing gems regularly. I have probably spent 3x or more what a yearly subscription would cost with gem purchases for myself and my brother. However, the gems do not have an expiration date and the items that I purchase with them increase my feelings of enjoyment and immersion in the game.

[LanfearShadowflame.3189]

@Helbjorne.9368 said:

@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.

The basic suggestion/thought of 'I want to give an optional monthly payment to Anet' in an of itself is not a bad suggestion / idea / thing. However, that ability exists, sans perhaps the means of opting in to a means of 'auto pay'. Which, really, I could get behind an opt in " auto buy 'x' number of gems each month" just because I'm lazy.

However the general problem with "optional subscriptions" (which we've already seen in this thread) is that people feel they should have some sort of perk or bonus for doing so. Absolutely not. You do not get special treatment just because you're spending money. (Unless you're single handedly bank rolling the company, then we can discuss perks.) That's just a way to make the rest of your player-base that can't necessarily afford to join that option subscription (though they may want to) feel really shitty and pressured.

Beyond that, throwing money at a problem doesn't always resolve it. (Time and again we've seen that games with sub fees, optional or not, are not always better than games that don't have them. We've also seen that they don't necessarily address issues or get content any faster.) People think this is the solution time and again, but money is not always the answer. Is it great to have more? Oh absolutely. Would it be great if they had more people? Maybe. While in theory more people potentially means more gets done, it takes time for new people to get up to speed. If someone else leaves in the meantime (turnover does happen in the gaming industry, the same as anywhere else), you may never see any true fruit for your labor. How many people have come and gone from Anet that we have absolutely no knowledge of? How many may be in the onboarding process that may not last more than a year? How many positions are the looking to fill that they can't find someone they consider a fit? Its not just about 'lack of funds' when it comes to personnel.

[wheelz.5461]

Optional subscriptions have their ups and downs. Do they help with additional funding? Maybe, but not to the point where every thing is always running smoothly for the players. Developers and technicians would be able to work over time, but that's pretty much it. Upgrading severs and engines and almost all other things for Anet to bring everything up to would still cost more than an optional subscription funding would bring in. I've played games that have optional subscriptions...ToR being one of them and they give players minor perks for being a subscriber, but they're not all that great or they're purely cosmetic. However the game still doesn't run smoothly on my pc and I'd rather save my money to buy a better gaming pc or even upgrade my current rig. I also know that the player base in general would rather not subscribe and just purchase the expansions with the continuation of the no sub fees! Not everyone has the financial ability to sock money into subscriptions every month...even if it is optional and you can subscribe or not at your pleasure or ability to do so. The beauty of the gem store is that if you want something special and also want to support Anet at the same time, you have the ability to do so. And there are those out there that just want to enjoy a game and not have to worry about what their missing out on because they won't/aren't/can't subscribe.

[TheGrimm.5624]

I and I think others view transactions on the gem store as a way to show if we are happy or not with ANet and GW2. Right now they also have the high ground and keep the marketing claim that they are a niche game market where you can buy and then come back and play whenever you want, no rush. This also allows them to develop at their own speed. If you add in a subscription model the pressure mounts to have more target time frames.

But to the examples above, ESO did launch an interesting model where you have the opt-in sub. They got around the what do I get from that by offering their gem store currencies, free DLCs and expanded storage for each month you sub. Tried that model as well and by offering the extra bonuses for optting-in to the sub there was less of a feeling or why am I paying you for nothing, instead you get perks are you go.

The difference here is that the GW2 method feels more like choosing to spend and when and no rush, and the ESO opt-in sub still has a feel that you are paying for something you might not be using each time you are not in game for any period of time.

In short, could something like that work here, yes, but I think a similar you get 'x' for 'y' would be a better way of doing. I also don't miss forum discussions of I pay for a sub, when do I get 'x', those never go well since it shows that a customer's expectation wasn't meet and that just brings someone down and/or leads to non-productive conversations. Good gaming!

[Zedek.8932]

Regardless of the back-and-forth of a discussion about the hows and whys...yes, I would.I know, the "Free" attitude hits people hard and I see some really awkward attitude adjustments all over the place ("My bank charges me €1.00 for each transaction I do on the counter - now I changed to an online bank" - sorry, you wanted the service from that man or lady behind the counter, so pay for that service, right?! Just an example, you get the point) I pay many subscriptions every month right now:

• My loan : Bought an appartment (alternatively of course: Rent) - I have to live somewhere. Convenient.
• My power and water company: I want fresh water and elecricity, so I can live like a human. Convenient.
• My ISP: The internet is still and won't make our lives unlivable, yet I think it's convenient to have high speed internet instead of buying newspapers or rely on TV programmes for entertainment.
• My janitor service: 8 € / month so I don't have to mow the lawn and clean the stairwells. Worth, it's convenient.
• ver.di - German labour union: Fee of 1% of gross income a month: Convenient, it includes also legal protection.
• In total five additional insurances: Dental care, liability insurance, etc.. Convenient, because those sums covered are making me sleep well.
• My bank: To provide easy and convenient money transactions without me sending euro bills all over the world every month._
• GuildWars - I know the game that is well-done keeps entertaining me whenever I want, at every weather situation and emotional feelings, it's just there to bring me in a good mood right into my appartment, how convenient._

Something that is fun or helpful deserves to get paid. If said service is there 24/7, I have no problem to pay for it accordingly in a recurring fashion.I am strongly against this "free stuff" attitude, but I also work in a very close industrial sector, and it disgusts me that people want everything for free and recurring forever and justify that with a single payment but then go and happily buy a 1.300€ iPhone for some reason,.Excelsior.

[PookieDaWombat.6209]

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:1) "Optional" subscriptions generally come with rental features to create incentives to spend the money. I've yet to see a "free" game where such a subscription is really optional if you want to enjoy the game. Think about it. If people are spending money, they're going to want to get things that those who don't spend, don't get. If those things are not "good enough," people will complain and ultimately won't spend.2) Renting features for a game one has bought seems backward.3) ANet has stuck by their business plan since the original game came out. They're apparently doing as well or better than a lot of Freemium games.4) Many players could feel betrayed were ANet to change their business model. I certainly would.5) Would the optional sub revenue be sufficient to offset money lost in XPac and gem sales should the players alluded to in 3 leave the game, no longer supporting it via gem or XPac purchases?6) Expecting a developer to give you what you want due to a Freemium sub is wishful thinking. They will add what they think is best, just as they do now.7) Anyone who wants to support ANet can already do so.

Were ANet to go this route, and if the rented incentives offered via the sub meant -- as I expect -- that doing without them leads to reduced enjoyment of the game, I'd have a lot more room on my SSD and I'd not look back.

If I could've hit the thumbs up harder I would have. All of these things x 100.

[notebene.3190]

You can support them with an optional subscription now. :)

For I'd say the first 3 years of the game, I bought $10/mo in gems, regularly (later I quit for about 15 months when HoT came out, but then started up this past December, and while I didn't buy 'consistently', I have dropped at leave $100 in gems).

I'd save up the gems to buy things I wanted, more bag space for my main, alts, bank spaces. Every so often something would come out I'd really want, and I'd push another $10/20 in gems to get it before it left the store.

You could, I suppose, spend $15/mo on gems, then spend them on things that in your mind might be useful things they might tag on as 'sub only' items. Maybe a few packs of keys each month, few 2-week port passes each month, transmutation charges. Or, do like what I used to do and spend them on bigger things.

I don't think it really has to be a thing, does it? Just...buy gems. :)

[Taelac.7036]

I could get behind being able to set up an automatic gem purchase each month. That's as close to a subscription model as I'd be willing to stand. I also expect that ANet has some very good reasons as to why that's not already an option.

[Carighan.6758]

Assuming that paying a sub fee would also come with the development quality and care of say, WoW, sure, all for it. But I doubt that this late in the game's life even the most rigorous rework spree could fix the deep-seated issues the combat and character systems have, nevermind the outdated engine.

[Zaklex.6308]

I'm not voting, but since ArenaNet is a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of NCSoft I would think they get some of their budget from HQ, at least that is how most companies work that own subsidiaries...i.e. a subsidiary doesn't support itself but provides income to the parent company that then provides a budget to the subsidiary to function. Not saying this is how NCSoft and ArenaNet work, but it would seem reasonable to presume that is how the relationship has been running all along.

[choovanski.5462]

anet's handling of PvP has been an absolute joke of late. adding a sub fee would only be insult to injury

there is no reason for a PvP player, like myself to want a sub fee. no reason at all

[Wizler.8192]

I can (and do on occasion) buy gems with real money. But I don't have to. That is optional subscription/support that I already embrace. And I did it in GW1 too.

[ugrakarma.9416]

Particularly I do not feel comfortable giving business opinion, about business in which I have no financial information. The post presumes they would be going through financial tightening, which may be unreality.

Is a extremely risky bet, it is probable that what they bill from those who buy gems in the spirit "I'm going to buy some shinies to support the game" is superior to what they would have if they would accommodate the base player to pay a minimum monthly fee. Sporadic buyers tend not to rely on the "minimum" and spend more especially if a "shinie thing" is attached on the purchase.

[TheMagickDoll.7594]

I would support getting rid of the gambling boxes out of the game, aka, black lion chests.

[Myrdreth.6829]

@TheMagickDoll.7594 said:I would support getting rid of the gambling boxes out of the game, aka, black lion chests.

I hate those with a passion. I wouldn't mind spending a lot of money on certain items without a thought. But I always hesitate to buy black lion keys. They would get more money out of me if they would just sell all those items separately.

[Egrimm Van Horstmann.7921]

I would be for it if gems were a part of the deal. Many free to play actually give in game currency for subscription support. The only worry I have with this model is if gems lose value and/or item on TP increase in cost.

[Nubsauce.9821]

@Conncept.7638 said:No, subscription models invariably lead to filler content, grinding, gating, and design around addiction instead of enjoyment. A purchase to play model is healthier for everyone involved.

And you have never grinded levels or mastery here....?

[Nubsauce.9821]

Imo. The game has become somewhat P2W....Pay for gems, Transfer them into gold. Buy Legos.

Edit: But def not Eastern MMO P2W.... (thank god)

[castlemanic.3198]

@Lucas.2974 said:You're making a lot of bold claims, without any proper evidence to account for what you're stating. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand where you're coming from, but disagree with the content of your argument.

As it stands, having the option to have access to all skins currently in the shop is no different than purchasing it permanently. However, with the subscription, people have access to any sort of customization that they desire, rather than paying for one item.

However, if the subscriber did indeed like an item, they can happily purchase the permanent version. Moreover, it's disingenuous to say that it'll be something difficult to code for. That is, unless we both know this to be fact, it's an empty statement with no truth in it.

You're right, I am making a lot of bold claims, but some of that is from lots of community feedback (whether gw2 or another MMO's), some of it is psychology and a lot of it is my own assumptions, I'll own up to that.

And yeah, that programming/coding comment was definitely an empty statement (I know changing a system can be difficult and that's from absolute minimal programming experience, but even if I was programming from the moment I was born, it's impossible to know how easy/difficult it is to make such a thing happen without being an arenanet programmer), so I'll own that too.

I do however disagree that having access to all skins currently in the shop and purchasing it permanently is 'no different'. It's completely different in that a full purchase cannot be lost (assuming that the purchase went through, no scamming issues, none of that associated drama). Having access and then losing access introduces a psychological effect known as the 'sunk cost fallacy' (which almost every subscription only game falls into) in that there was 'too much time or money' spent on having something to have it be worth losing. For pay-to-play games, that's their entire character and the time they've invested in the game, you'll find people who wish to leave but don't because they believe that their time and money spent in the game makes it too much of a loss to stop paying and playing it (it's not exclusive to games, I believe this also occurs in gambling, playing the lottery and other systems I can't currently think of, but games is most relevant to this specific conversation). The same would go for a game that's colliquially known as 'fashion wars 2', where access to every purchasable skin without actually purchasing it can potentially induce the same sunk cost fallacy issue as pay-to-play games are well known to have. I doubt it would be to the same degree (as skins aren't the same as 'gameplay' and 'access to characters'), but it's a potential issue that needs to be thought about before introducing such massive gains for subscriptions and massive losses for no longer paying that subscription.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy

The link is for more information (I actually forgot about the term loss aversion and it's something that i failed to explain well).