I would play GW2 more if it was a subscription-based MMO. [MERGED]

[Astralporing.1957]

4 hours ago, Faline.8795 said:

I'd be okay with that.  ESO does that.

And does it in a way that makes a good example of why this is a bad idea. No, thank you.

 

Either go full subscription, or stay as it is. Do not ever go into the "optional subscription" models. They always go wrong, and end up aggregating bad sides of both systems (without giving any positives in exchange).

 

 

[medivh.4725]

crap idea. go play final fantasy

Edited May 9, 2021 by medivh.4725

[Quench.7091]

I think an optional subscription is a good idea, but people always imagine the worst when it comes to that. They already sell EXP boosters and stuff like that in the store. They have things like transmutation charges. A subscription could be had that gives us boosters passively and reduces the cost of the wardrobe 100%, which would be a bargain when compared to the ripoff store prices, but no. People will fight against this bargain no matter how good it is. It doesn't matter if you give a person 100% the subscription value in gems! No!

You better not give them any amazing deals, ArenaNet! They might just quit if they could do everything they can already do now, except for a better price 1x a month. They'll do it! They aren't bluffing!

[Linken.6345]

13 minutes ago, Quench.7091 said:

I think an optional subscription is a good idea, but people always imagine the worst when it comes to that. They already sell EXP boosters and stuff like that in the store. They have things like transmutation charges. A subscription could be had that gives us boosters passively and reduces the cost of the wardrobe 100%, which would be a bargain when compared to the ripoff store prices, but no. People will fight against this bargain no matter how good it is. It doesn't matter if you give a person 100% the subscription value in gems! No!

You better not give them any amazing deals, ArenaNet! They might just quit if they could do everything they can already do now, except for a better price 1x a month. They'll do it! They aren't bluffing!

Maybe people are against it because it never ends.

After awhile the people paying a sub feel like they dont get enough value and start argueing for more.

[Hesione.9412]

4 hours ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Please stop with the subscription model threads.  If a player wants to subscribe to GW2, there already exists a method by which they may do so. They may purchase gems on a monthly basis, in any denomination that they prefer.

 

I don't believe that it would be a good idea to split the community into those who have a "premium" account and those who don't.  Pretty sure Anet doesn't either; else, they would have done so.

 

One can also use the forums search feature to read the numerous threads that already exist on this topic.

Exactly.

 

I'm going to repeat here what I have said in other threads: some of us simply can't afford subscriptions. Although we can afford to occasionally buy gems and support Anet that way (and some of us are in countries where the foreign exchange hits us: $25 in USD is about $34 in NZD - my country - plus we have to pay sales tax on top, which is 15%, so the $25 USD comes to around $40 NZD). Any subscription, premium or otherwise, will hit us harder compared to people in the USA/who have a 1:1 rate with the USD.

 

When I was working, I bought a lot of gems - multiple unbreakable farming sets, outfits, character slots, storage expansions, ... now my financial situation is dramatically different and I can't afford to buy very much.

 

Any subscription model, "voluntary" or otherwise, hits people like me. Basically, we become second-class players. Although we contribute to the game, such as: command squads in PvE metas, help out players with problems (e.g. help with a hero point), play competitive game modes such as WvW. You think that people like me are going to stick around when we're told we're not really wanted because we can't pay a sub?

 

GW1 and GW2 not having subs were a huge selling feature of the games....

[Super Hayes.6890]

I'm surprised people still ask for this! Spoiler alert: this game will never do this...

[WarTactics.6725]

I think I'm not communicating this effectively. The subscription model would be completely optional. Free to play would be unaffected.

 

Arguing hypotheticals can be stressful 😅 

Edited May 10, 2021 by WarTactics.6725

[DarcShriek.5829]

If GW2 utilizes any kind of sub, I am out of here.

Edited May 10, 2021 by DarcShriek.5829

[kharmin.7683]

11 minutes ago, WarTactics.6725 said:

I think I'm not communicating this effectively. The subscription model would be completely optional. Free to play would be unaffected.

 

Arguing hypotheticals can be stressful 😅 

So is buying gems on a monthly basis completely optional, which likewise would not affect F2P.  There is no reason to change the current business model.

[Linken.6345]

10 minutes ago, WarTactics.6725 said:

I think I'm not communicating this effectively. The subscription model would be completely optional. Free to play would be unaffected.

 

Arguing hypotheticals can be stressful 😅 

 

Yea and the other side says you can already do this buy as many gems as needed to fill what you think a subscription should be each month.

 

There you go optional sub that dont affect buy to play or free to play model at all.

 

And greatest thing is that its already implemented in game.

 

You seem to have money burning a hole in your pocket mate Anet will gladly take them

[Hesione.9412]

19 minutes ago, WarTactics.6725 said:

I think I'm not communicating this effectively. The subscription model would be completely optional. Free to play would be unaffected.

 

Arguing hypotheticals can be stressful 😅 

We understand your suggestion. We are disagreeing with your suggestion. You seem to think that any disagreement from us is due to a lack of understanding. It is not.

[WarTactics.6725]

 Some players pay gems bi-weekly or at once to have access to lounge areas such as Armistice Bastion (WvW). Could ArenaNet offer something similar for access to an expanded Black Lion Market? Would it have a non-rotating gem-store? Players would be able to purchase seasonal black lion market offerings all year long.  

Edited May 10, 2021 by WarTactics.6725

[Quench.7091]

27 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

So is buying gems on a monthly basis completely optional, which likewise would not affect F2P.  There is no reason to change the current business model.

ArenaNet tried to break away from the expansion pack model during the Icebrood Saga, but now they're switching back. They seem to want to make payment more optional, but they also want a steady form of income. An optional subscription might be somewhat appealing to them. I wouldn't say that there's no reason, although I suppose it could be too late if they're going back to the expansion model.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Quench.7091

[Infusion.7149]

7 minutes ago, WarTactics.6725 said:

 Some players pay gems bi-weekly or at once to have access to lounge areas such as Armistice Bastion (WvW). Could ArenaNet offer something similar for access to an expanded Black Lion Market? Would it have a non-rotating gem-store? Players would be able to purchase seasonal black lion market offerings all year long.  

If the impetus for this thread is Armistice Bastion pass, I have long suggested it be permanently in the store. It's basically a must have for anyone serious about WVW.

[Ashantara.8731]

Another of those threads? Didn't we have one just days ago? Is someone at NCsoft paying those people, because they intend to change the business model? 🤨

[Zephire.8049]

1 hour ago, WarTactics.6725 said:

I think I'm not communicating this effectively. The subscription model would be completely optional. Free to play would be unaffected.

 

Arguing hypotheticals can be stressful 😅 

Leaving out whether GW2 should have a sub—optional or otherwise—here's how it happens in every game that I'm familiar with.

 

Option 1: Zero benefits and it just sets up a monthly withdrawal so people don't need to remember to buy it. The problem is if it's optional, there is zero incentive to sign up for it unless you don't want to remember to buy a sub.

 

Option 2: Some minor benefits that don't directly affect gameplay... maybe. The problem with this one is design decisions start being made based on the optional sub and making things just annoying enough to "encourage" players with the means to buy a subscription monthly so as to not deal with them. For GW2 let's go with can only deposit materials once every 15 minutes, a 10-slot subscription-only bag slot, and the ability to craft a second ascended crafting item a day. Pretty minor compared to other "optional" subs out there but still not enjoyable for players.

 

For one getting a pop-up saying "Cannot perform this action for X more minutes" is annoying. Second while 10 slots isn't much, it's 10 more slots than you'd have otherwise which means you can do more content for longer without having to pause to deal with your inventory. Third that would mean people who pay to play now get more daily gold while also suppressing the market so those who can't pay make less.

 

And from there decisions end up becoming "Should this be available to everyone?" or "How do we add something to incentivize people to move to the subscription?" It is never a one-and-done deal and how much or how little influence the subscription has depends on marketing and upper management, not developers, and all it takes is one greedy person to get power and the non-paying players would be out of luck (just check out the history of GaiaOnline if you want an extreme example of this sort of thing).

 

But what it sounds like is you have an issue with the artificial scarcity of the cash shop's design and how some items are only available for a short amount of time and are trying to find a solution to that. And the artificial scarcity model is a bad one but adding a subscription on top of it only pushes the user-unfriendliness onto a different group of players and may not even solve what you want to be solved.

[kenny.7236]

In Rift, optional monthly sub gives:

 

Faster XP

Discounts in item shop

Able to store daily dungeon charges up to 7 days? Maybe like can do max 7 sets of daily fractals in gw2

More gold & extra loot drops from mob, dungeons & raids

 

These are all I can remember.

 

It got more & more pay to win so more players will sub to stay competitive.

 

[mindcircus.1506]

12 hours ago, WarTactics.6725 said:

Hey folks. Since day one the original Guild Wars was founded on the principle that there be no monthly fee. I wonder these days if ArenaNet could offer a premium subscription service that's mutually beneficial for dedicated players and the developers. Say if a dedicated player subscribed for $15-20 USD a month, players would immediately get that full value back in Gems and earn in-game bonuses. From ArenaNet's standpoint I believe it would mean a commitment of dollars coming in every month and players would get full in-game value.  Something premium players could have access to would be a full non-rotating Black Lion Gem-Store Market. Meaning having access to all historical and present gem store items with more interesting sales. Increasing the daily limit of crafting Ectoplasm Refinement from 1 to 3-5? Increased daily log-in rewards? Maybe there's more

 

What does the Guild Wars 2 community think of this? I hope it doesn't seem greedy.

 

Thanks,

WarTactics

 

The players who actually want a sub fee for this game don't just want the gemstore items.

They want an in game path to the acquisition of them.

They want experiences to give the cosmetics value.

 

Your idea is nothing more than discounted gems.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

"Optional" subs ... aren't.

 

In order to make the sub appealing, it has to look really good. That's basic marketing.  That usually involves conveniences, which a lot of people are going to consider essentials.  Sometimes, it's out-and-out essentials.  SWtOR when it went Freemium put extra quick bars behind the optional sub.  In order to have all of your skills available to use, once you got more than just a few, you had to sub.  That's just one example.

 

Over time, as has been said, those who do sub will ask for more.  That's human nature, and a natural psychological byproduct of spending money.  So, the developer either puts more into the sub, alienating *maybe further alienating) non-sub players, or they lose sub money.

 

So, even if a hypothetical GW2 optional sub were to not immediately alienate a lot of players who came to the game because it is buy-to-play., the likelihood that that would happen over time is very high.

 

I believe that those who want GW2 to change its monetization, whether via some sort of sub scheme, or wanting to crowd-fund the game, believe that ANet would then use that money to produce the sort of content that players wants.  There is no guarantee that any increase in content output would include what any given players wants. Heck, there is no guarantee that any increased revenue would be used to increase the amount or frequency of content at all, and that NCSoft would not just say, "OK, that's now profit."

[Riaenvyr.2091]

15 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

No, I guess what I mean is that I'm not bringing 'W1' gameplay into this discussion, so it's not clear why you mentioned it. I mean, if gamplay is W1 in this game, I have no doubt that's intended by Anet's targeted audience in the market ... much the same way the GS decision targets the same market and much the same way this game may not have as many tangible rewards for content as most people are used to.

Ah, that way.
Please, return Shame at Your earliest convenience.

Of course ANet aren't shooting randomly (right?), but what currently is doesn't mean it cannot change. If that were the case, no human would ever learn how to walk.
The target audience, as vast and important as it is - which I'm not disregarding in any way - doesn't represent the entirety of the playerbase, and, since a product can usually only gain with more customers being interested, the fact that so few of the shinies available in-game are rewarding gameplay (and those that do tend to involve an absurd amount of mindless grind, like the capes and even legendaries mentioned before) is at the very least rather strange, and at worst discouraging for the actual players wanting to play the game.
It's like ANet saying: "We're good, guys, this is quite enough money, we don't need more."
Would make them a very, very unique company. And NCSoft probably wouldn't let such a mindset exist in the first place, not even because the "evil publisher" stereotype, but shooing people away is a bit questionable business strategy for anybody wanting to sell things.
 

 

16 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Anyways, if what you say is correct: Aodlop main wish is getting tangibly rewarded for things like, say, slaying Liadri or Turai Ossa during the Festival of the Four Winds ... then his approach to doing so is completely misguided in this thread because more tangible rewards wouldn't necessarily require a rework of the current business model and whatever he's pining for in the GS that he wants isn't likely to become ingame content rewards.

Well, I can't really know what the initial idea was, can I. Perhaps it's all just an elaborate ruse to pick the individuals with the most fitting arguments to then kidnap and fill a personal dungeon to torture them with non-stop "alternative" healing TV channels.

Might just be a difference in perspective, but what made You conclude Aodlop's agenda is paying a monthly fee, and not enjoying the game?
 

 

16 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

The bottomline here is that regardless of how shiny or appropriate GS items are ... any 'sense of fulfillment' by owning one is mostly false, so no one shouldn't be using that to argue GS should go away so those items can be earned as rewards ingame. 

True, but it's not about the item.

Imagine having to climb a tall mountain to make a ball out of the snow from the top. You train hard, fail a couple of times, improve Your technique with each new attempt, and finally get there, grab the snow, make a ball, and return back.
What would stay in Your memory; what would You be proud of - the snowball that thawed even before You got half-way home, or the path to the top and everything You've learned along the way?

[Astralporing.1957]

7 hours ago, Linken.6345 said:

Maybe people are against it because it never ends.

After awhile the people paying a sub feel like they dont get enough value and start argueing for more.

It's actually the other way around. After a while marketing department always is going to start thinking how they can increase the amount of "optional" subscribers. This in turn creates a pressure to introduce more and more benefits to that subscription, and (which is far worse) to withhold some features from non-subscribing users. Sure, subscribers always tend to ask for more, but those voices are never a primary reason why it meets with positive responses.

 

In an "optional subscription" world, you can bet that, for example, the legendary armoury would have been subscribers-only. So would many of the features that are currently free if they were developed in a game with such income model.

 

5 hours ago, WarTactics.6725 said:

I think I'm not communicating this effectively. The subscription model would be completely optional.

It's always supposed to be that way. It never actually turns out that way though.

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Astralporing.1957

[Touchme.1097]

Stop asking for a subscription, it would be the end of GW2, not just the end of dragons.

The most efficient way of farming gold is currently getting at least a part time job and convert gems to gold, there is no need to change the current business model. The sub model is a business failure, the company wouldn't profit from it if half their customers stopped renewing their subscription after clearing all the game content and leaving the servers deserted with players on free trials who can't even buy gems with gold.

ArenaNet founders did the right thing not adopting the sub business model for guild wars 2, if the game is still alive it's basically thanks to the current business model with microtransactions and the items offered in the gem store. If you want to play as if the game required a subscription you can do that yourself buying gems every month and converting gems to gold to avoid the big grind behind gold farming.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Touchme.1097

[Omega.6801]

Cool, another Sub-fee-thread. That Idea is really original and has never been brought up so far. Kudos to you.

Also, No.

[SoulGuardian.6203]

44 minutes ago, lokh.2695 said:

Cool, another Sub-fee-thread. That Idea is really original and has never been brought up so far. Kudos to you.

Also, No.

I was just about to say this very same thing.

What's with these people and the sub fee thing?

What's wrong with just buying a ton of gems?

Is this so they feel special and above the rest!?

 

I said in a previous post that I wasn't very keen on emojis. 

I changed my mind. 

There should be a spam emoji for this type of thread, so we could bury it to oblivion.

 

 

[Quench.7091]

People are being hyperbolic and acting like ArenaNet will run a drug cartel the moment they open up a subscription model. They'll point at subscription models from games that can't even run fair cash shops as examples as to why ArenaNet shouldn't try this payment option. We're talking about the company that put boosters in their cash shop, but lets us buy them for free with laurels or for a huge gem discount with candy corn gobblers! It's like watching a guy with a credit score of 800 get denied a credit card, because some people don't pay their debts. A serious lack of trust here! For real!