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

[Maikimaik.1974]

21 minutes ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

We can go through every single non-gem store prestige item and its acquisition case by case, and I'm confident I could find at least four in Wrath (2004/5 - 2010) for every single one in GW2 for its almost nine years of life.
I'm not saying they don't exist, not even if we consider absolutely all of them, not just the two I personally happen to like, or that the Tyrian items are somehow worse than the WoW items, but the ones in GW2 are so vastly outnumbered by all the gem store shinies in both quantity and quality that the go-to reward center for people isn't the game, but the gem.

If I sound bitter about the universally accepted idea of Tyrian beauty, it's because I simply don't find it appealing.
I enjoy cold elegance, intricate designs, function in harmony with form - the legendary bow Pharus, for example - not opulence of disco lights and short bows that either need their own audio setting or wouldn't be able to be lifted off the ground.
Not relevant in any way to the topic, just an explanation.

Yes, F2P games need to be good enough for people to spend, too.
But they can't be good enough for people to have fun without said spending.

Why don't you understand that Gw2 and WoW are two completely different games with different target audiences?

Gw2 is one of the most casual MMOs out there, putting a sub fee on a game like this would be devastating. If Gw2 had been designed with a sub based monetization system in mind, it would be a fundamentally different game. It's build upon the idea that you can log in for a couple of days, do whatever you want to do, and then not log in for several weeks on end (see lack of gear treadmill, old content still being relevant and virtually no temporary events).

I feel like you're not considering that a subscription based monetization system wouldn't just result in a different reward system, but a completely different game.

[Aodlop.1907]

20 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

While i am understand why, the reality of mmo gaming is that both wow and ff have cosmetic cashshop.

There's currently one single armor set in the WoW store. As for mounts, it's about a dozen.

 

A dozen of store mounts, in a game where you can collect up to 400 by playing the game. That's the difference. Every single mount appearance in GW2 is locked behind the cash shop, 0 exception.

[yann.1946]

22 minutes ago, Aodlop.1907 said:

There's currently one single armor set in the WoW store. As for mounts, it's about a dozen.

 

A dozen of store mounts, in a game where you can collect up to 400 by playing the game. That's the difference. Every single mount appearance in GW2 is locked behind the cash shop, 0 exception.

Ofcourse, but that shouldn't change the fact that a cool mount doesn't have to be from the game.

 

And in my personal opinion its better to seperate cashshop and game completely. So they shouldn't have added the warclaw skin as an ingame reward, and they shouldn't sell backpieceskins in the gemstore.

[Riaenvyr.2091]

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

So from the first part it seems you have a problem with cosmetic only purchases. While i am understand why, the reality of mmo gaming is that both wow and ff have cosmetic cashshop. So this is not a f2p thing.

 

On the second part "But they can't be good enough for people to have fun without said spending." is a false statement. Now most f2p games go this route, but thats a consequence of "greedy developer implies scummy cashshop and f2p" not "f2p implies scummy practises".

Not at all. If there is a cash shop in a game, I'd prefer it being cosmetics-only, especially granted that selling power very quickly turns a game into a pay-to-win mess.
What I'm defending is solely the idea of rewards for actual gameplay, not for finding a job in real life to convert real money to gold.

You're correct on the second part - nothing keeps the F2P model from being fair except for greed.
But considering that publishers in this industry don't just want to make more money, but ALL the money, we might as well go full cynical. Keeps the sanity mostly intact, since there's no disappointment without expectation.

[Riaenvyr.2091]

1 hour ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

Why don't you understand that Gw2 and WoW are two completely different games with different target audiences?

Gw2 is one of the most casual MMOs out there, putting a sub fee on a game like this would be devastating. If Gw2 had been designed with a sub based monetization system in mind, it would be a fundamentally different game. It's build upon the idea that you can log in for a couple of days, do whatever you want to do, and then not log in for several weeks on end (see lack of gear treadmill, old content still being relevant and virtually no temporary events).

I feel like you're not considering that a subscription based monetization system wouldn't just result in a different reward system, but a completely different game.

Literally my first post in this topic:

Quote

Even sub-based games have their issues - and there's no need to look any further than at what dirt has Activision been dragging Blizzard through lately - but considering the vast differences in even the underlying philosophy between Free-to-P(l)ay and monthly subscription games, the latter, naturally, provide a much more reliable income, thus fueling the engines of development with certainty, rather than blind chance and artificial stretching of playtime.

The aforementioned philosophical differences, however, would amount to vastly different games, and the question begging to be asked is whether You'd enjoy those in the first place.
It's already way too late for GW2 to do anything of the sort, since the entirety of everything would need to be remade from scratch, and why not make a new game entirely to start with, then, right.

All in all, if there were a subscription fee from the start, then sure, but the product would have a very different look eight years into its life than when compared to how Tyria looks right now, and since there's no telling what that particular timeline entails, jumping into this what-if rabbit hole seems far from productive.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure nobody would make a MMORPG from the beginning with the philosophy of incentivizing players to casually leave it without consequences, and, what's more important in this day and age, even fewer people would get funded for such a stellar idea.
If the game turns out that way and the devs have no choice but to roll with it, that's a different story. But saying ANet planned to make GW2 a vacation project is throwing more shade on them than even what I've managed during my entire feedback career, and I'm slapping them with the undying passion of somebody who truly loves their work.

[yann.1946]

1 hour ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

Not at all. If there is a cash shop in a game, I'd prefer it being cosmetics-only, especially granted that selling power very quickly turns a game into a pay-to-win mess.
What I'm defending is solely the idea of rewards for actual gameplay, not for finding a job in real life to convert real money to gold.

 

But cosmetics are a type of rewards, your whole complaint as far as i understood it was that their where to few items to earn as rewards. but that will always be the case as long as you sell cosmetics. Because the amount of cosmetics thats acceptable is so subjective i doesn't even matter almost.

 

Quote

You're correct on the second part - nothing keeps the F2P model from being fair except for greed.
But considering that publishers in this industry don't just want to make more money, but ALL the money, we might as well go full cynical. Keeps the sanity mostly intact, since there's no disappointment without expectation.

 

My point wasn't that though. i point was that while you said that the f2p motivates a worse game.(making problems to sell solutions), f2p just motivates different things then sub, not nessecarily worse things. A sub mmo incentivises geargrind, as thats a way to keep people playing, now some people like that but other people don't, (one isnt worse then the other)

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 5/1/2021 at 1:51 PM, Aodlop.1907 said:

Unpopular, I know. 

But a sub-based GW2 would mean that all the amazing mounts and sets that have been released over the years would be earnable in game, by completing achievements, dungeons, raids or PvP feats instead of...bought with real life money, or gold grinded by following a zerg of 40+ players circling on the same map for hours.

I love GW2. But it does feel pointless sometimes. The feeling of logging in and wondering what to do is a very common feedback among people who've stopped playing GW2.

 

I just wish more rewards were unlockable in game. Sadly, this can't happen with their current business model, and to me that's a shame.

I think I know more people that have tried or returned to the game because of its lack of a sub than I do people that would play only if subbed. People that do play sub games feel more forced to play since their time is ticking down which can create a false sense of commitment. But it also makes players a bit more bitter for anything that requires time in game to do since it creates a sense of you are wasting their time/money. GW2 time gates don't feel as punishing since you are not paying a sub with a ticking clock.

 

 I am not against sub styles like ESO that are optional but as many have said in the past you could do that yourself here already, and though I would disagree as it's not the same, I understand their point. If anything from your points I would say a bigger take away is that the gameplay should be more rewarding in coinage so that people could do more gold to gems conversion to acquire items from the store they may want but don't or can't put the real world cash towards.

 

I do agree though you have to watch for and need a balance between items that can be acquired directly by playing the game versus just visiting the gemstore.  Additions of collections and additions to drops are welcome and give more items for players to work towards and this needs to be balanced against gem store items options. 

[DeanBB.4268]

@Riaenvyr.2091, I am a bit confused by your posts. You proclaim the glory of achievements from WoW, yet complain you don't like grind. Yet grinding achievements seems to be just what you want to do, work for rewards in-game. Your contradictions do nothing but confuse me.

Edited May 3, 2021 by DeanBB.4268

[Nato.2051]

I just wanted to thank those of you who put in a legitimate thought process into your responses. 

 

Also to agree with @Daddy.8125 on their post about the cash shop. I just checked my bank out of curiosity, and I had spent $500-ish USD, last year alone (2020), on keys, mounts, glittery thingies that look amazing, and shiny stuff, for both my partner and I.

TL;DR - Cash shops are great, they make money. GW2 wont ever have a P2P, it just doesn't make any sense for this type of system. It might gain them some consistent cash flow, but most of the players I know play this game because it's not P2P, and so they risk losing a lot of their player base, and potential cash shop bling.

-------------------------------------------
More words below if you're bored.

 

I'm gonna go on a ramble because it's covid and I'm feeling verbose.  Just to give an example that cash shops rake in money. And if I'm doing crude math here, and assume there is just 10k players out there spending the same as I am, that's $5.4 mil.

 

Now, for some pseudo research - 10 bored minutes of digging around.

The average estimated number of GW2 players per month is about 542k - sourced from: https://mmo-population.com/r/guildwars2#:~:text=Guild Wars 2 is estimated to have 14%2C265%2C884 total players or subscribers. (They say it's an estimate too, not sure where they scape that from). I didn't dig into this number much at all, or checked other sources, as I'm mostly attempting a very poor thought experiment.

 

So let's assume this: 5% of the population is: 0.05 x 542k is: 27,100 people. Take 27,100 x $500 (average assumed spending per year) gives you: $13,550,000.00. So even if those numbers are WAY off, like 50-70% skewed (which they probably are) - you're STILL looking at: $4-6 mil per year. That's not laughing matter cash. It'll keep some lights on and pay some salaries.

 

Cash shops work, GW2 P2P is a terrible idea and wouldn't deliver what people expect anyway, as it was told.

 

I miss Rurik though...he was a good dude. Cared about his people wanted nothing in return except their safety. I reflect on that sometimes. Having leaders that go above and beyond. I'm disappointed I didn't see him in the mists yet. Brother is probably just chilling.

 

Well...see ya later.
 

Edited May 3, 2021 by Nato.2051

[Riaenvyr.2091]

45 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

 

But cosmetics are a type of rewards, your whole complaint as far as i understood it was that their where to few items to earn as rewards. but that will always be the case as long as you sell cosmetics. Because the amount of cosmetics thats acceptable is so subjective i doesn't even matter almost.

Hm.

Imagine two people, say, Rhen and Himi, who both want to get a necklace.
Himi looks one up on the internet, notices the price, picks up a well-paid job, and keeps working and working and working 'till he gets enough money to buy it.
Rhen, on the other hand, instead finds a jewelry store, seduces its guard so there's no protection, befriends the manager so she gets the treasury code, almost gets caught, anyway, because the manager's wife's sister's horse's tabourette's best friend randomly walks by, but ultimately manages to leave the store with her price unnoticed.

In the end, both of them got their new piece of adornment, but Rhen's way was obviously much, much more exciting, no?
 

 

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

My point wasn't that though. i point was that while you said that the f2p motivates a worse game.(making problems to sell solutions), f2p just motivates different things then sub, not nessecarily worse things. A sub mmo incentivises geargrind, as thats a way to keep people playing, now some people like that but other people don't, (one isnt worse then the other)

The specific systems don't really matter, because virtually anything can be turned either to leech every last cent out of people or to provide them with a fulfilling experience, just like a knife can be used both to hurt and to carve beautiful wooden statuettes.
What matters is the end goal of these systems which depends on each particular game.
I feel like we agree on the principle, I'm just trying to counter each singular example 😄

[Riaenvyr.2091]

48 minutes ago, DeanBB.4268 said:

@Riaenvyr.2091, I am a bit confused by your posts. You proclaim the glory of achievements from WoW, yet complain you don't like grind. Yet grinding achievements seems to be just what you want to do, work for rewards in-game. Your contradictions do nothing but confuse me.

I'm quite sure that if I read only each third symbol, I'd be questioning reality as well.

As I've said about four hundred times by now, I imagine, the crux of the issue is that achievements offer a varied gameplay challenge as opposed to auto-attacking defenseless trash mobs in a mutant blob of destruction for hours upon hours on end, and as such rewards gotten through actual effort feel much more satisfying, not to mention alluring for another one to be reached.

[AgentMoore.9453]

4 hours ago, Aodlop.1907 said:

Every single mount appearance in GW2 is locked behind the cash shop, 0 exception.

Are you sure about that?

 

If you really want to split hairs, technically all of the mount skins can be earned in-game through the process of earning gold, trading it for gems, and trading gems for the things you want out of the store. I've not played WoW, but I'm curious to hear what their equivalent is for that.

On the topic of a subscription, I often see it assumed that a sub would eliminate the cash shop, would improve the quality of content, and would guarantee more variety in things likes armor and gear. Why? Why would a sub guarantee any of those things? ArenaNet's layoffs weren't a case of not having money, they were a case of upper-level mismanagement and devs being kicked off the payroll because the company was working on side projects while noticeably neglecting their primary product. Money does not solve mismanagement or guarantee quality of any kind. Test it today by setting a monthly gem-purchasing budget for yourself and see if the game improves in any of the ways you think it will.

 

The first lesson I was taught in retail is that a customer won't buy what they can't see, and so you want to make your product as visible as possible through advertising, accessibility, and attentive customer service. Adding a subscription to a game instantly reduces access to the product which inevitably leads to less browsing customers and, ultimately, less revenue. It's why people share a Costco membership instead of buying their own or why you bum your friend's Netflix.

 

A subscription will not deliver what you are looking for - you'll just be paying more and getting the same (or less than) you're getting currently.

[ugrakarma.9416]

On 5/1/2021 at 2:51 PM, Aodlop.1907 said:

But a sub-based GW2 would mean that all the amazing mounts and sets that have been released over the years would be earnable in game, by completing achievements, dungeons, raids or PvP feats instead of...bought with real life money, or gold grinded by following a zerg of 40+ players circling on the same map for hours.

i wouldnt bet on it, beware what u desire, u can have worst of 2 worlds: subscription and still pay for shine stuff.

theyre give core/hot game for free, i suspect they earn enough with gem shinies to do this.

 

im rich i dont worry about prices.

Edited May 3, 2021 by ugrakarma.9416

[Maikimaik.1974]

3 minutes ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

I'm quite sure that if I read only each third symbol, I'd be questioning reality as well.

As I've said about four hundred times by now, I imagine, the crux of the issue is that achievements offer a varied gameplay challenge as opposed to auto-attacking defenseless trash mobs in a mutant blob of destruction for hours upon hours on end, and as such rewards gotten through actual effort feel much more satisfying, not to mention alluring for another one to be reached.

There's a huge amount of all kinds of achievements already in the game, nothing is stopping you from doing them.

Would it be great if they gave more rewards? Sure, but changing the game to p2p won't change that. 

I feel like there's no point to this discussion, you keep dismissing every argument given to you.

[LyraOrpheo.8450]

On 5/1/2021 at 12:51 PM, Aodlop.1907 said:

Unpopular, I know. 

But a sub-based GW2 would mean that all the amazing mounts and sets that have been released over the years would be earnable in game, by completing achievements, dungeons, raids or PvP feats instead of...bought with real life money, or gold grinded by following a zerg of 40+ players circling on the same map for hours.

I love GW2. But it does feel pointless sometimes. The feeling of logging in and wondering what to do is a very common feedback among people who've stopped playing GW2.

 

I just wish more rewards were unlockable in game. Sadly, this can't happen with their current business model, and to me that's a shame.

 

Thing is, everything you outline wouldn't change under a subscription-based model.

[Aodlop.1907]

3 minutes ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

Would it be great if they gave more rewards? Sure, but changing the game to p2p won't change that. 

 

It absolutely would.

The fact that all the cool looking models they created go to the cash shop is a direct consequence of the fact that the shop is their only source of revenue. If they could earn money in a reliable way, with a subscription, then they could also afford to create cool looking items that you earn by playing the game rather than by purchasing them.

[Maikimaik.1974]

Just now, Aodlop.1907 said:

It absolutely would.

The fact that all the cool looking models they created go to the cash shop is a direct consequence of the fact that the shop is their only source of revenue. If they could earn money in a reliable way, with a subscription, then they could also afford to create cool looking items that you earn by playing the game rather than by purchasing them.

 

As has been stated like 100 times already, many p2p games still feature cash shops, some more expansive than others. 

[Riaenvyr.2091]

15 minutes ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

There's a huge amount of all kinds of achievements already in the game, nothing is stopping you from doing them.

Would it be great if they gave more rewards? Sure, but changing the game to p2p won't change that. 

I feel like there's no point to this discussion, you keep dismissing every argument given to you.

The achievements are simply a carrier - a tracker, a challenge, anything, really - of a spice added to the already-present gameplay. This thread isn't about changing some core system (although... it kinda is, just not a gameplay one), but about encouraging utilization and rewarding of said systems.
From Aodlop's very first post - hell, even from the title itself! - the idea wasn't to turn or even as much as propose a change of the monetization model. Aodlop said it'd be cool, but there's not a chance it's going to happen.
Why people come in, don't bother reading even that title, and simply say what You're saying here without any thought given to it, is beyond me, but this is not the first thread where it happened, and I'm quite sure it's not the last either.

As for Your finishing sentiment, it depends on the mindset of the debaters.
If a person discusses a topic with a goal to learn, no matter how many arguments of theirs are discarded, they'll taste idea after idea to find the truth.
On the other hand, if the only reason somebody arrives at a conversation is to feel powerful in a group, because they're unable to admit their own knowledge and perspective are not absolute and that they can be wrong, there's nothing to be gained, since, as Thrall, a prominent WoW character, said:
"The beginning of wisdom is the statement 'I don't know.' The person who cannot make that statement is one who will never learn anything."

[Malitias.8453]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't @Riaenvyr.2091 just arguing that changing the payment model could/should allow ANet to add more of the items that are currently only available in the game-store into the game as in-game rewards for specific achievments and that he'd like that a lot more than grinding for gold/gems to directly buy it from the store?

[Riaenvyr.2091]

Just now, Malitias.8453 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't @Riaenvyr.2091 just arguing that changing the payment model could/should allow ANet to add more of the items that are currently only available in the game-store into the game as in-game rewards for specific achievments and that he'd like that a lot more than grinding for gold/gems to directly buy it from the store?

Nah, Riaenvyr's arguing... basically everything thrown his way, since he's apparently a pathological masochist.

What I'm trying to say is probably best explained in my first post in this thread:

Quote

Even sub-based games have their issues - and there's no need to look any further than at what dirt has Activision been dragging Blizzard through lately - but considering the vast differences in even the underlying philosophy between Free-to-P(l)ay and monthly subscription games, the latter, naturally, provide a much more reliable income, thus fueling the engines of development with certainty, rather than blind chance and artificial stretching of playtime.

The aforementioned philosophical differences, however, would amount to vastly different games, and the question begging to be asked is whether You'd enjoy those in the first place.
It's already way too late for GW2 to do anything of the sort, since the entirety of everything would need to be remade from scratch, and why not make a new game entirely to start with, then, right.

All in all, if there were a subscription fee from the start, then sure, but the product would have a very different look eight years into its life than when compared to how Tyria looks right now, and since there's no telling what that particular timeline entails, jumping into this what-if rabbit hole seems far from productive.

TL;DR: games with sub-based models are built differently from the beginning when compared to F2P games, so although a sub-based game can go F2P to garner population, a F2P game switching to a monthly fee would be a literal suicide in most cases.

So in case of our beloved GW2, if it were a sub-based game from the start, it probably wouldn't even be our current beloved GW2 in the first place, even though there probably would've been many more rewards attainable through gameplay.

[Malitias.8453]

5 minutes ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

Nah, Riaenvyr's arguing... basically everything thrown his way, since he's apparently a pathological masochist.

Cheese is the best food! Argue this!

 

11 minutes ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

What I'm trying to say is probably best explained in my first post in this thread:

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, your point is that the f2p model has influenced the game for such a long time in so many aspects, changing the model now would not be feasible because "f2p" runs too deep in its core?

And the rest is not arguing in favor of a model change, but simply pointing out when someones argument doesn't make sense or is flawed, because you.. just dislike flawed arguments?

[Aodlop.1907]

1 hour ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

As has been stated like 100 times already, many p2p games still feature cash shops, some more expansive than others. 

And I've already answered that it doesn't matter that those games still have cash shop and explained why just here:

5 hours ago, Aodlop.1907 said:

A dozen of store mounts, in a game where you can collect up to 400 by playing the game. That's the difference. Every single mount appearance in GW2 is locked behind the cash shop, 0 exception.

 

[Maikimaik.1974]

27 minutes ago, Aodlop.1907 said:

And I've already answered that it doesn't matter that those games still have cash shop and explained why just here:

 

Have you considered that comparing Gw2 to WoW is kind of disingenuous? 

Maybe WoW can afford to have a very limited cash shop because it's the single most popular and well funded MMORPG in existence?

 

I still don't understand the point of this thread. You already accepted that Gw2 will never be p2p, and a p2p model wouldn't fit Gw2 in it's current state. Everything else boils down to opinion and preference, some people prefer sub based games, some people prefer b2p/f2p games. Nobody's going to change your preference of p2p games (which is completely fine), and you won't change anybody's preference of f2p games. 

All of the arguments in favor of p2p games have been provided, all of the arguments in favor of f2p games have been provided, so I think we can just agree to disagree. At this point I feel like this thread has been solely created to get a negative reaction out of the playerbase.

[Riaenvyr.2091]

33 minutes ago, Malitias.8453 said:

Cheese is the best food! Argue this!

Lactose or casein intolerance isn't that uncommon, high in fat, calories, and salt.
True, dose makes a poison, but considering how heavenly it tastes, pretty sure every adequate serving starts at "deadly".

 

 

39 minutes ago, Malitias.8453 said:

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, your point is that the f2p model has influenced the game for such a long time in so many aspects, changing the model now would not be feasible because "f2p" runs too deep in its core?

And the rest is not arguing in favor of a model change, but simply pointing out when someones argument doesn't make sense or is flawed, because you.. just dislike flawed arguments?

Basically correct, yes.
But it's more about the p(l)ayers who got used to it, since I can't imagine switching a bunch of things around would take even a single member of the development team too much time. Wouldn't be instant, of course, but not like it'd need a brand new game right away.
The main issue with such a switch would be the exact thing the majority of people in this thread came in with: they would stop playing, so the game would need to start gathering an audience from scratch, which is not exactly a pleasant vision for anybody, regardless of how confident in their product they are.

As I've said in one the previous posts, I do enjoy arguing, yet not just for the sake of arguing, but rather as a way to improve my own world view, and to learn something new whenever possible. Likewise, if I'm able to help somebody else understand how things work from my current perspectives, I'd call that a victory, too.

And then there's the visceral satisfaction of defying dogmatic hiveminds; wearing the spite as a crest of pride, as it were.

[Maikimaik.1974]

4 minutes ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

And then there's the visceral satisfaction of defying dogmatic hiveminds; wearing the spite as a crest of pride, as it were.

Calling people who disagree with you part of a hivemind doesn't really make you seem like someone who's trying to improve their own worldview.