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

[Zok.4956]

I think a wish for a sub fee is understandable. Players want (during the sub) access to free or at least discounted items/services in exchange for giving Anet a constant sub revenue stream. Players get more items with paying less and Anet gets a dependable revenue stream in return.

 

But I do not believe this will ever happen in GW2 because of two main reasons (just my opinion, I can not prove them).

 

1.  A lot of players would be angry with this (for different reasons) and Anet does not want that kitten-storm to happen.

2.  Anet is actually making more money with whales/addicted players with the gambling loot-boxes in the GEM-store than they would make with an optional sub fee where whales would switch to the sub model.

 

EDIT: Of course I could be wrong. For years, players that wanted mounts in GW2 got mostly the same negative feedback like from some in this thread and were told they were riding a dead-horse and mounts would never happen ... and then Anet added mounts to GW2.

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Zok.4956

[Hesione.9412]

57 minutes ago, SoulGuardian.6203 said:

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.

 

 

It apparently also gives them a thread for insulting players who don't agree with them.

 

Apparently we don't understand the point and/or we're being hyperbolic.

[Astralporing.1957]

1 hour ago, Quench.7091 said:

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.

Well, let's just say that my opinion about how "fair" Anet's gemshop is may not be as clearcut as yours. Mountgate controversy did not erupt without a reason. "template" system triple monetization that crppled the main functionality of that system is also a thing.

Just saying.

 

 

[Jin.8501]

I would want something like this since its purely optional 

[Quench.7091]

41 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Well, let's just say that my opinion about how "fair" Anet's gemshop is may not be as clearcut as yours. Mountgate controversy did not erupt without a reason. "template" system triple monetization that crppled the main functionality of that system is also a thing.

Just saying.

 

 

How did the template system change your view on them? They give you several free slots to make up for when you change game modes, which actually was a boon to people that only play one game mode. Wasn't this also during the time they said that they no longer wanted to do expansions, so they lost a major source of income? Call that what you want, but I wouldn't call that unfair.

The worst offense I'd hold against them are the RNG cosmetics they have, because it's gambling by another name, but the cosmetic bit really softens that blow. Some people find cosmetics to be very important and don't like them being monetized at all. I think it's fair to treat mount skins as a source of income, even if they come in an RNG package, within a B2P game. They went with the guaranteed unlock system to boot and even made several changes to mount packs during feedback. That doesn't seem like a company that is untrustworthy or unfair. 

If I had one thing to be critical about, it would actually be elite specializations being locked behind expansion packs. Even then I don't think I would call that unfair. People did state that they won't buy expansions unless they have elite specializations. I have a very high tolerance level and I'll admit that, but I think that the community has a uniquely weird tolerance of their own. I've seen more people kick up dirt about cosmetics or quality of life than a direct power boost in the form of elite specializations. It's crazy!

[Astralporing.1957]

48 minutes ago, Quench.7091 said:

How did the template system change your view on them? They give you several free slots to make up for when you change game modes, which actually was a boon to people that only play one game mode. Wasn't this also during the time they said that they no longer wanted to do expansions, so they lost a major source of income? Call that what you want, but I wouldn't call that unfair.

There's been several very long threads about all the issues with the template system on the forums already, so i will only say, that, for me, the "template" system is a great example of how bad things can get when monetization becomes the primary design goal, trumping everything else (including functionality).

 

You may not see it, but this system is basically good only for people that didn't need it. For those that truly did need it however, it's a "product" you have to spend a ton of money on in order to obtain a very limited, crippled functionality that is nowhere close to being enough. With those limitations being a consequence of the system being designed for monetization first, and everything else a very far second.

 

And to be able to sell it Anet killed the third party alternative, that was not only free, but offered significantly better functionality (because its functionality was not constrained by trying to find out one more way in which parts and pieces of the system could be sold).

 

If things could get this bad with the system that was originally meant for QoL, i don't have any trust in Anet not going even deeper in case of a system that would be created solely for monetization purposes.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Astralporing.1957

[Obtena.7952]

5 hours ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

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?

Except in this case it is about the item because there is no effort barrier to obtain it. Any item that is offered in the GS is intended to be ONLY an item directly purchased with no sense of pride attached to it for earning it ... unless earning a few dollars IRL is a proud moment for someone. 

[Quench.7091]

2 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

There's been several very long threads about all the issues with the template system on the forums already, so i will only say, that, for me, the "template" system is a great example of how bad things can get when monetization becomes the primary design goal, trumping everything else (including functionality).

 

You may not see it, but this system is basically good only for people that didn't need it. For those that truly did need it however, it's a "product" you have to spend a ton of money on in order to obtain a very limited, crippled functionality that is nowhere close to being enough. With those limitations being a consequence of the system being designed for monetization first, and everything else a very far second.

 

And to be able to sell it Anet killed the third party alternative, that was not only free, but offered significantly better functionality (because its functionality was not constrained by trying to find out one more way in which parts and pieces of the system could be sold).

True. I could see a blurry obscure grey area allowing an addon that provides some quick swapping for builds, but once they added their own support it isn't an issue for the player, just them. The hurdle I could see would maybe be automation detection. I don't think they could allow the 3rd party thing to continue, as a matter of principle, but they could've made the 1st party thing better. The equipment slots and build slots should have been connected. Nobody can dice it any other way, because traits favor certain equipment stats. Clear cut there. Monetization got in the way.

I don't know if unfair would be the right word for it, due to the freebies and the terms of service we agreed upon, but it's certainly something bad. Disappointing? Sounds a little underwhelming when I put it that way. I'd need a better word.

[lezbefriends.7516]

With the guaranteed cash flow, we would also get new races and actually rewarding PvE. On the other hand, the design was not made with subscription models in mind, and the IP isn't big enough. Not gonna happen.

[Astralporing.1957]

Oh, the thread just got merged, even though both threads were about different things - subscription-based MMO model is something else completely than introducing an optional subscription in a b2p/cashshop game.

[Aodlop.1907]

1 minute ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

subscription-based MMO model is something else completely than introducing an optional subscription in a b2p/cashshop game.

They are different things, but at the end of the day, people who ask for the former would be more than happy with the latter if the result was the same: more rewards acquired through gameplay rather than the cash shop. 

[kharmin.7683]

1 hour ago, Mortifera.6138 said:

With the guaranteed cash flow, we would also get new races and actually rewarding PvE.

We can't know that for certain.

This is one of the problems that I have with people asking for the subscription model.  There is no guarantee that such a model would change things in the game that they want changed. 

[Astralporing.1957]

11 minutes ago, Aodlop.1907 said:

They are different things, but at the end of the day, people who ask for the former would be more than happy with the latter if the result was the same: more rewards acquired through gameplay rather than the cash shop. 

That's a big if here. The end result usually also is not the same after all. Optional subscription system often feeds even more into cashshop dominance.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Astralporing.1957

[Dami.5046]

I'm beginning to wonder if this is one of those 'magic' threads that suddenly happen, like ranger pets or the menders amulet that suddenly got taken away after a thread was written about it. 

I'm still wondering what's NC's plan is with GW2 and having a 'prestige pack' in the gem store would be almost the same as another item in another NC game i played.

It certainly pops up form time to time and find it odd that people would 'pay' for an old game monthly if that wasn't the business model to start.

[Thornwolf.9721]

17 hours ago, WarTactics.6725 said:

Its a big hypothetical which can be frustrating. I just wished ArenaNet had the capacity to release major expansions every 2 years. Encouraging dedicated players to spend some dough every month may help the business side of ArenaNet so that we may experience more frequent major content. I think as long as the optional subscription service is offering non-pay-to-win goodies that doesn't create a massive divide between casuals and dedicated players it would keep the peace in the Guild Wars 2 community.

They do have the capacity, they simply didn't want to. They could of done an expansion and not the icebrood saga, or make the saga an expansion with all the toys we could want. The issue is not the money; The issue again is leadership and the willingness to make such a thing. As the devs said in a guild chat. They wanted to do an expansion, but their glorious leader of that time said "nah, living world is sufficient" which is a poor leadership choice on that persons part.

Season 1 and 2 should of taught that living world was and never will be enough, Id be happy to scrap living world entirely if it meant bigger and more meaty expansions. Guild wars 2 would be in a better place with regular large content drops and smaller patches in-between; The issue is they keep trying to do this "Small patches make the game" move with living world. It wont and can't work and while that content is not bad? A four year gap between expansions is NOT the way to go. 

But then that requires leaders/managers who know whats up, none of the people who headed this project were qualified on a mental or task driven sense. They might of been baller dev's with tons of great Ideas but they haven't had a lead dev who knew what the community wanted (Expansion) until the last one left.(Don't roll Mo into this, because I believe he wanted to migrate to a new game rather than an expansion. The guy after him though was much like collin, he believed waaaay to heavily in living world.) Im pretty sure as well it was NCsoft coming down and telling them to do the expansion, and to stop playing "just the tip" with giving content to players. One good thing of NCsoft being more in control is maybe we will have a stable direction for the game, and not whatever this has been.

[Vintoleth.6170]

On 5/1/2021 at 7:32 PM, Aodlop.1907 said:

Because then, ALL rewards, cool sets and mounts could be obtainable in game since Anet's business model wouldn't force them to put everything beautiful they create on the store.. 

But... WoW is sub based, yet people say that each new store mount is beautiful when compared to another reskinned boar in the game?

 

i personally have always loved GW2 even though i have not played it during HoT and the last year or so because the lack of subscription means i dont feel like im losing money by not playing. also, if i decide i want to just randomly play out of the blue i am not restricted by am i subbed or not. or dont need to buy a 60 day sub to play for 1 week.

 

also, i have never given a PENNY to WoW beyond the sub and the standard game cost. compare that to GW2 where i think i bought some gems when GW2 originally released, and i bought the deluxe edition of PoF and some more gems. the lack of sub makes me choose do i tip Arenanet for their good work instead of being forced to "tip" blizzard for their poor work. and answer was yes.

[Riaenvyr.2091]

3 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Except in this case it is about the item because there is no effort barrier to obtain it. Any item that is offered in the GS is intended to be ONLY an item directly purchased with no sense of pride attached to it for earning it ... unless earning a few dollars IRL is a proud moment for someone. 

And that is exactly the crux of the issue!
The Gem Store itself is completely irrelevant, what we want is a reason to play the game, because in the current state the reward system makes GW2 look like a mobile game.

Huh.
Never occurred to me, but what if the mass lay-offs happened to the actual GW2 staff, and the mobile guys were the ones being kept?
Would explain... a lot.

So, in case You missed it the last time, 'cuz reasons, what made You think Aodlop just feels too rich, not too bored?

[Ashen.2907]

18 hours ago, WarTactics.6725 said:

Encouraging dedicated players to spend some dough every month may help the business side of ArenaNet 

And discouraging players from spending money on the game may hurt the business side of the game. Dedicated players already have the option to spend money every month if they are not inclined to do so, or are unable, this would only alienate them.

 

[crewthief.8649]

No thank you.

[Obtena.7952]

1 hour ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

And that is exactly the crux of the issue!
The Gem Store itself is completely irrelevant, what we want is a reason to play the game, because in the current state the reward system makes GW2 look like a mobile game.
 

I don't get that complaint because GS is NOT a reward system and subs have nothing to do with getting rewards for completing content in this game. The OP should have NEVER confused those things to make his argument for 'better' rewards for completing content in the first place. 

 

I also don't get the argument that the reward system make GW2 look like a mobile game. What differentiates mobile from MMO reward systems and why is that differentiation a problem for GW2 in the first place? Seems to me that it's actually NOT a problem, otherwise GW2 wouldn't exist ... clearly 8+ years of existence is evidence enough that Anet has made this 'mobile-like reward system' work for them as a business. 

 

I mean, there ARE rewards given for completing content and they are rewards similar to what I've seen in MMOS for the last 20 years ... so what's really the issue here? It seems it's just not the rewards that the OP wants to get and he's wrongfully associated GS items as 'rewards' when they aren't to justify this convoluted argument about subs. 

 

TLDR: It's absurd for anyone to claim there is something wrong with the GW2 business model because there are items in the GS that someone wants to earn as a content reward. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Riaenvyr.2091]

45 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I don't get that complaint because GS is NOT a reward system and subs have nothing to do with getting rewards for completing content in this game. The OP should have NEVER confused those things to make his argument for 'better' rewards for completing content in the first place. 

 

I also don't get the argument that the reward system make GW2 look like a mobile game. What differentiates mobile from MMO reward systems and why is that differentiation a problem for GW2 in the first place? Seems to me that it's actually NOT a problem, otherwise GW2 wouldn't exist ... clearly 8+ years of existence is evidence enough that Anet has made this 'mobile-like reward system' work for them as a business. 

 

I mean, there ARE rewards given for completing content and they are rewards similar to what I've seen in MMOS for the last 20 years ... so what's really the issue here? It seems it's just not the rewards that the OP wants to get and he's wrongfully associated GS items as 'rewards' when they aren't to justify this convoluted argument about subs. 

 

TLDR: It's absurd for anyone to claim there is something wrong with the GW2 business model because there are items in the GS that someone wants to earn as a content reward. 

To condemn to a punishment or fate; especially to condemn to hell.
I was really hoping we were just misunderstanding each other - different mother language, different starting perspective, that sort of thing.

Alas, it seems like You've already set Your mind and there's no argument good enough to change it, especially considering You decided to ignore all of my explanations, and such a simple question as why would Aodlop's idea be in any way bad twice now.

Ah, well. C'est la vie.
Still... To condemn to a punishment or fate; especially to condemn to hell.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Riaenvyr.2091
12 year-olds

[Malitias.8453]

3 hours ago, kharmin.7683 said:

We can't know that for certain.

This is one of the problems that I have with people asking for the subscription model.  There is no guarantee that such a model would change things in the game that they want changed.

I'm pretty sure everyone who would prefer subscription does so with exactly that in mind.
"I would prefer a subscription with the premise of the GS items being obtainable through in-game means (NOT farming gold)"

When someone prefers an all-you-can-eat, it's obvious he doesn't want to only be served stale bread.

[Obtena.7952]

13 minutes ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

... and such a simple question as why would Aodlop's idea be in any way bad twice now.

 

I don't see how it's relevant ... except to perpetuate a further academic and speculative discussion to no end. Will a sub work and take all the GS items into the game as content rewards? Maybe for some people ... probably not for many others. For the game itself? No idea and not willing to discuss speculative guesses either. There just isn't any point to do so. 

 

No apologies here ... I'm a practical person and I'm completely doubtful no amount of discussion by amateur business analysts with no data will change the business model of the game, especially if there isn't any evidence to suggest it's necessary to do so. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[voltaicbore.8012]

4 hours ago, Aodlop.1907 said:

They are different things, but at the end of the day, people who ask for the former would be more than happy with the latter if the result was the same: more rewards acquired through gameplay rather than the cash shop. 

 

What you describe is not "more rewards acquired through gameplay," what you want is "more specific rewards tied to specific forms of gameplay." In other words, you want to trade our current generalized "do whatever you want to get gold then convert to gems for your reward" for a "do this particular thing to get this particular reward."

 

I get the appeal of that trade. One could argue that grinding a specific thing for a specific reward will yield a more durable sense of reward compared to the current freeform system we have of gold to gem conversion.

 

But while I acknowledge the value that such a system theoretically has, I have never seen that highly specific do-this-exact-thing-to-get-this-exact-reward executed particularly well in any game I've played thus far. It invariably turns into 

 

(1) grind for some specialized currency, in absolutely mind-numbing amounts, 

(2) grind the same instance or area of the world for a horrendous RNG chance at a rare drop, or

(3) some unholy combination of both.

 

Based on my direct experience and what I've indirectly observed in games I haven't played, I think any reasonable player can expect points (1) through (3) to hold true any time you have "more in-game rewards." To pretend otherwise seems frankly insulting to the intelligence of all involved. If we're going to need to grind either way, I greatly prefer the freedom that gold-to-gem conversion offers.

Edited May 10, 2021 by voltaicbore.8012

[Riaenvyr.2091]

21 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I don't see how it's relevant ... except to perpetuate a further academic and speculative discussion to no end. Will a sub work and take all the GS items into the game as content rewards? Maybe for some people ... probably not for many others. For the game itself? No idea and not willing to discuss speculative guesses either. There just isn't any point to do so. 

 

No apologies here ... I'm a practical person and I'm completely doubtful no amount of discussion by amateur business analysts with no data will change the business model of the game, especially if there isn't any evidence to suggest it's necessary to do so. 

I'm honestly just curious at what point our perspectives separate, because I do agree with basically all the ideas You've put into words so far.

Does a sub fee guarantee the game's going to favor the player? Of course not. People are always just people, and Blizzard's WoW is the prime example of both the best and the worst this model can be.
Does a change of mindset help with grinding not feeling tedious? Sure. Question is whether players should be required by the game to be in a state of high zen to even enjoy it.
Then there was the "subs make stuff come out faster" arc, which... what am I to say to that 😄
Would the Gem Store not exist if GW2 were using a sub model? Square Enix sell story skips in their FFXIV official store, besides all the mounts, emotes, and whatnot. 'Nuff said? 'Nuff said.
And then the "grind vs. gameplay" debate started, which is revolving pretty much about only a single thing.

Or maybe not where the perspectives separate, but why is it that I can't seem to be able to explain to You the difference between an original song and a cover.
Because it feels like everything goes smooth, and then we hit a wall, and instead of just walking around, You look at the wall and say "Well, guess that's it," disregarding all the other almost exactly the same walls already passed and/or torn down.
What's different about this one?