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

[Riaenvyr.2091]

31 minutes ago, BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

A bit disingenuous. WOW has 2 professions per character, build storage is available only as an add-on (which tbf isn't necessarily a disadvantage), there are no shared inventory slots, five bag slots and 10 equipment sets (this puts GW2 to shame indeed). 

Bank space is a mixed bag. Since each character has its own "private" bank you might end up with more than you get in GW with the not small inconvenience that you lack storage that can be accessed by all characters on your account. Which also means that there is no central material storage which all characters can access. Add to that the fact that stack size in WoW varies from 5 to 200 so that additional bank space may look great at first, but looks can be deceiving.

Let me preface this by saying that all my data is from Wrath. Haven't touched WoW for a long time, so the accuracy might be off.

WoW's professions, however, are utilized way less than GW2's crafting system, and they also don't intermingle as much.
The latter might not be entirely accurate for today, but during WotLK, there was, what, one thing that required another profession? And even that was Alchemy for that single obscure vanilla Cooking recipe. And Engineering, since Engineering could make use of everything.

ANet has a horrifying allergy to add-ons. Or perhaps merely too few people care enough to go through all that hell and highwater to make them.

Looking at my own shared slots, there aren't even systems in WoW that would make use of them:
no salvaging (Disenchant is a professional skill), all gathering tools are infinite, no portal tomes (Hearthstones, mage portals, ring portals, and that was ten years back, hell knows what is available nowadays), all the utility thingies were relatively easily obtainable by alts and usable through hotbars.

In GW2, a relatively easily available bag for new players or altoholics has 20 slots. Sure, 40 gold thrown to the wind, but they probably won't be replaced, and they're kinda future-proof, considering they can be turned into 24s and up.
In Wrath, a profession-specific bag of 36 slots cost absolute nothing, which made the issue of storing anything profession-related disappear, and 20-slot universal bags were exactly as easy to come by.
And then there's the fact that WoW didn't throw six thousand different kinds of loot containers at a player for no reason whatsoever.
Which leads beautifully into the bank, because although there wasn't an account-wide storage, the professions, as I've said, didn't need each other very much, and the 36-slot specialized bags covered the rest to a marvelous degree. Sucked for new players, that much is true.
Also, back in Wrath, making a guild solely for the guild bank was horribly easy and far, far from uncommon, and the tab prices weren't that steep, especially for the first few tabs.
There were also add-ons - AtlasLoot, was it? Or Bagnon... Certainly Carbonite, too, to some extent - which tracked storage over characters, banks, and even guild banks.

And that was back when the max stack size went up to a grand total of 20.
Good old times.

So I agree, it is a bit disingenuous.
I'm selling WoW too short.

 

48 minutes ago, BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

I'm not sure if another aspect of sub based games has been mentioned (it applies to WOW, used to apply to SWTOR not sure if they changed it in the meantime, and it applies to FFXIV): since the games monetize your playtime, leveling takes far longer (WOW was insane before the recent changes) and can only be skipped by paying for it with real world money - no "tomes of knowledge".to quickly bring that new class up to max-level and account bound gear to gear her (all that all-important gear in WOW is soulbound, you can catch up characters that have fallen behind later during the expansion to some extent, but if you want them to be in state of the art gear, start grinding with two characters now).

That's a good point.
Still, WoW had Heirloom gear even back in Wrath, and that was just shoulders and a chest piece, each providing a 10% XP bonus (on top of the Rested boost), with trinkets restoring HP/Mana on kill, and weapons behaving basically the same way as the Bloodbound set here.

Also, as "grand" as Renown Hearts are as a replacement for the usual MMORPG quests, they function pretty much identically, take about as much time as regular quests would, but, most importantly, they deliver virtually no lore whatsoever.
Getting to max level in WoW involved wonders like Darrowshire, Angrathar, Matthias Lehner, even the Death Knight tutorial storyline was more than decent. Every single quest had value even beyond level 80, too, no matter if it didn't give any XP, because the stories lived on, not to mention that expansions tend to change the quests or add new one, whereas here the leveling experience is so horrifyingly cut off from the rest of the game - and, mainly, the new and relevant content - that people cry their eyes out immediately after setting foot in the Heart of Maguuma.

The gear... Is gear even a relevant comparison? Genuinely asking.
Sure, it's another time sink, but the endgame of WoW has almost nothing in common with the endgame of GW2.
In WoW, better gear means better stats, and better stats might mean a difference between hitting an enrage timer, or whether that Pyro crits or that Resto Druid successfully spams you to the graveyard with Moonfires, and a raid in blues will not put a dent into Marrowgar, regardless of how well they dance, and a Hateful mage will do exactly as much to a Wrathful druid.

GW2's endgame, on the other hand, is about reaching the very low skill tier required to farm a certain type of content, because a full set of Exotics can be bought off the Trading Post, and there's less difference between Exotics and Ascended than between Normal 25-man and Heroic 25-man gear. The sole purpose of Ascended gear is giving Fractals some sort of progression, and even that problem can be beaten to death with a bag of gold, both for the gear itself, and the agony infusions.

All in all, I can see why this would be an artificially inflated system.
But if even that one is enjoyed, is it overall a bad thing?

[Riaenvyr.2091]

39 minutes ago, The Greyhawk.9107 said:

All those cost totals might be more meaningful if they were mandatory, half that stuff you list I've still not bothered to purchase yet (such as the template stuff and the crafting license) and the other stuff I almost always purchase during sales and haven't max out any of them (like the bank and storage stuff).

Likewise, but, as

2 hours ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

Still, the main thing I want to bring up - and why the "make your own sub" argument is utter trash - is the difference between the F2P and sub-based games' structure.
As I've said a couple of times at this point, a F2P game is developed in a vastly different way than a sub-based one, so a "make you own sub" would work ONLY if everybody was forced to make their own sub, which is basically a regular sub already.

Meaning absolutely all of it would be included in the subscription fee.
If Your issue with the argument is that the numbers look like I'm shooting just for the effect, I can totally cut all the costs to only the useful parts, but then I'll have to add every single thing from Style, Utility, Toys, and Upgrades categories of the Gem Store, since all of those would be available as an in-game reward.

And I'm quite sure that would pay for a lifespan of gametime for even my grandchildren's grandchildren.

[The Greyhawk.9107]

3 hours ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

Likewise, but, as

Meaning absolutely all of it would be included in the subscription fee.
If Your issue with the argument is that the numbers look like I'm shooting just for the effect, I can totally cut all the costs to only the useful parts, but then I'll have to add every single thing from Style, Utility, Toys, and Upgrades categories of the Gem Store, since all of those would be available as an in-game reward.

And I'm quite sure that would pay for a lifespan of gametime for even my grandchildren's grandchildren.

You can't guarantee any of that.  You can't guarantee that each and every item in the gem store would be available to earn in game if it had been designed for subs.  You can't even guarantee that any of those items or upgrades would be available as such.  Just because there is some logic of sorts to Devs not needing to charge for convenience or cosmetic items or upgrades due to getting income through subs doesn't mean that Devs will for sure follow that.

 

I don't get what your trying to achieve here.  Its about as objective of a fact as you can get that switching to a Sub system at this stage of the game's life cycle will kill it and Arenanet knows this.  They aren't going to do that. I won't pay a sub for this or any other game and most that have posted on this thread hold similar views on the matter.

Edited May 5, 2021 by The Greyhawk.9107

[Dantert.1803]

I wouldn't play Gw2 with the current quality if it was subscription based but if they would deliver much more,better and polished content and also give the community what they want from a long time, like proper world bosses and starting zones rework, main story and final boss rework and so on I would pay for that.
Hell if they would have made the living story chunks chapters and IBS pay to play I would have paid if that would have meant for them to make them good and not a rushed unpolished mess

[HappyHubris.1096]

14 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Which shows how weirdly illogical this is. 

You can get all that by spending money gems monthly. €5, €10, €15 take your pick of a monthly "sub". Unlock everything up to cap. If you want to get fancy economical you can even spend €500 straight away and argue that's for a couple years worth of "sub", in order to unlock more instantly.

What's the difference? Why would you prefer a sub model over literally the exact same thing with more flexibility and choice?

Because $10 or $15 a month is well worth paying to avoid the hassle of constantly running into annoyances and deciding which ones are really worth paying for.  Instead of agonizing over whether or not to spend gems on things you just play the game.  No more trying to decide whether or not you should use transmute charges to try a new idea, whether or not character X is worth the extra equipment/template/bag slots, etc. No more "oh you took a break during this content patch, so now you have to pay for these chapters/entire living worlds/etc."  I tried out 4 different "mains" after coming back recently and it was annoying as pocket raptors to try and decide "hmm should I buy the extra build slots on this one or shuffle everything around until I'm sure."  I definitely "wasted" a bunch of gems.

 

"FTP" is designed to annoy the average player into paying at least as much as a sub, so just bundle it all in up front. A sub also feels like money better spent than when you "upgrade" a character and then realize that you're not as interested in that profession, or buy a skin that ends up not looking great on your character's build, etc.

 

It's the same reason why I pay for a YouTube sub instead of sitting through a thousand advertisements a month.  If you can pay a trivial fee to avoid a business model that's designed to annoy the user, that's a win.

Edited May 5, 2021 by HappyHubris.1096

[Maikimaik.1974]

11 hours ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

Alright, I got officially bored by the "make your own sub" argument.
Let's look at the total cost of maxing out on everything a sub-based game would give everybody for a monthly devotion.

The first character cost (because some things are account-wide):
Additional Crafting License: 2x 800 gems.
Bank Tab Expansion: 16x 600 gems.
Build Storage Expansion: 7x 500 gems.
Shared Inventory Slot: 4x 2800 gems + 2x 700 gems.
Storage Expander: 7x 800 gems.
Bag Slot Expansion: 5x 400 gems.
Build Template Expansion: 3x 300 gems.
Equipment Template Expansion: 4x 500 gems.

Total: 37 800 gems - 472,50 €

Additional character cost:
Bag Slot Expansion: 5x 400 gems.
Build Template Expansion: 3x 300 gems.
Equipment Template Expansion: 4x 500 gems.
(Character Slot itself: 800 gems.)

Total: 4900 (5700) gems - a breath above 61,25 (71,25) €

Although, because we can't have nice things and the inability to buy exact amount of in-game currencies with money is just another manipulation attempt, we'd have to buy more gems than we actually need (only 200, granted my calculations are correct, but that requires a bunch of combinations of available values on the buyer's part, and any leftover is already a perceived "discount" on the next thing to buy, which is a well-known trick abused on a regular basis by pretty much everybody).

No Living World, no special areas, no costumes, no skins, no quality of life, no nothing.

As such, for the price of a fully fleshed-out first character, you could easily get an old car, a pretty musical instrument, or, in some cases, a whole apartment, while every other character would, without a slot, trade for a triple-A game at launch, plus a cup of tea.

For comparison, a monthly subscription to WoW, which currently costs 13€ at the worst value of buying it each month, would yield a full access to everything the game has to offer for a few months more than 3 years for the price of the first character, jumping to about two weeks short of 8 years with the best value of 11€.


The reason why such an atrocious price tag that nobody without a severe lack of sense or their mother's wallet would ever even consider willingly is the F2P monetization model, which always makes everything look palatable, a philosophy native to the model, mind you, not ANet.

Still, the main thing I want to bring up - and why the "make your own sub" argument is utter trash - is the difference between the F2P and sub-based games' structure.
As I've said a couple of times at this point, a F2P game is developed in a vastly different way than a sub-based one, so a "make you own sub" would work ONLY if everybody was forced to make their own sub, which is basically a regular sub already.

F2P games make money the same way an illusionist baffles the audience: a classic misdirection.

And before you start unloading your "But GW2 has gold-to-gem conversion!" miniguns, consider the fact that most other F2P games gift players a lot of free stuff otherwise found only in cash shop (e. g. customization items/bag slots in Vindictus), or said items are actively being traded on the auction house (BDO outfits immediately come to mind).
So although I'd say our cash shop version is superior to any overall, because we're able to buy literal everything offered in the Gem Store with our playtime, it's far from unique in the MMORPG market, and certainly far from perfect.

But shoot away, anyway.
Ideas are bulletproof.

I'd like to chime in with a slightly more realistic calculation.

I am a veteran player who's been playing this game since release. I can comfortably say that I haven't come across any situation in which I felt like my current account upgrade setup was insufficient or limiting in any way. I'm going to include QoL purchases that aren't really necessary but saved me from a lot of hassel:

 

So:

Basegame + 2 Expansions: 40€ each (probably less though)

4 Character Slot Expansions to be able to play every class :  800 gems each

4 Bank Tab Expansions: 600 gems each

4 Bag Slot Expansions on my main: 400 gems each

1 Shared Inventory Slot (you get 2 for free if you bought both expansion): 700 gems

1 Storage Expansion: 800 gems

1 Set of permanent Gathering tools: 2,700 gems

1 Copper-Fed-Salvage-o-Matic: 800 gems

1 Mistlock Sanctuary Passkey: 1000 gems

 

Combined, this results in me having spent a total of 13.200 gems + 120€, so around 290€ in total.

 

Let's compare this to WoW:

 

If I were to be subbed to WoW for the same amount of time as I've been playing Gw2 (so around 9 years), I would have spent 1188€ (11€/month) on sub fees alone. That doesn't even include the cost of expansion packs, which results in an additional 200€ for the 5 expansion packs released since then.

So even IF you were to buy every single account upgrade available (which is completely unrealistic, nobody needs 17 bank slots), you'd still be spending only half the amount of money you'd have spent on playing WoW.

 

Does this clarify why some people are against a sub fee?

 

 

 

[Riaenvyr.2091]

2 minutes ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

I'd like to chime in with a slightly more realistic calculation.

I am a veteran player who's been playing this game since release. I can comfortably say that I haven't come across any situation in which I felt like my current account upgrade setup was insufficient or limiting in any way. I'm going to include QoL purchases that aren't really necessary but saved me from a lot of hassel:

 

So:

Basegame + 2 Expansions: 40€ each (probably less though)

4 Character Slot Expansions to be able to play every class :  800 gems each

4 Bank Tab Expansions: 600 gems each

4 Bag Slot Expansions on my main: 400 gems each

1 Shared Inventory Slot (you get 2 for free if you bought both expansion): 700 gems

1 Storage Expansion: 800 gems

1 Set of permanent Gathering tools: 2,700 gems

1 Copper-Fed-Salvage-o-Matic: 800 gems

1 Mistlock Sanctuary Passkey: 1000 gems

 

Combined, this results in me having spent a total of 13.200 gems + 120€, so around 290€ in total.

 

Let's compare this to WoW:

 

If I were to be subbed to WoW for the same amount of time as I've been playing Gw2 (so around 9 years), I would have spent 1188€ (11€/month) on sub fees alone. That doesn't even include the cost of expansion packs, which results in an additional 200€ for the 5 expansion packs released since then.

So even IF you were to buy every single account upgrade available (which is completely unrealistic, nobody needs 17 bank slots), you'd still be spending only half the amount of money you'd have spent on playing WoW.

 

Does this clarify why some people are against a sub fee?

And there are people (I imagine) who've never before spent a single cent on the game and bought everything except the expansions for gems.
Does that mean You owe them money, 'cuz... reasons?

Besides the fact that You decided to compare a single person's playstyle to an entire game, as opposed to my comparison of everything versus everything, I'd like to point out, AGAIN, since it's written it the very post You've quoted, that this wasn't meant to represent the minimum of what every single player has to buy, otherwise the game wouldn't be playable, as some sort of an argument in favor of sub-based games.

Lemme quote myself, once more, in honor of repetition, the mother of wisdom, and all that:

Quote

Still, the main thing I want to bring up - and why the "make your own sub" argument is utter trash - is the difference between the F2P and sub-based games' structure.
As I've said a couple of times at this point, a F2P game is developed in a vastly different way than a sub-based one, so a "make you own sub" would work ONLY if everybody was forced to make their own sub, which is basically a regular sub already.

See the problem here? That post has nothing to do whatsoever with what You've just said.
I even wrote it in bold, hell's sake 😄

If I dance too much against Your rhythm, let me know, there's a lot of tunes out there to sing.
Because so far the only idea this post brought to my mind is one of Scooter's quotes from Borderlands 2:
"Statistically, these is the safest cars on Pandora! Lemme toss some numbers at ya! Five! Twenty-three! Eight hundred six!"

[Maikimaik.1974]

3 minutes ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

Besides the fact that You decided to compare a single person's playstyle to an entire game, as opposed to my comparison of everything versus everything, I'd like to point out, AGAIN, since it's written it the very post You've quoted, that this wasn't meant to represent the minimum of what every single player has to buy, otherwise the game wouldn't be playable, as some sort of an argument in favor of sub-based games.

 |

 |

V

39 minutes ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

So even IF you were to buy every single account upgrade available (which is completely unrealistic, nobody needs 17 bank slots), you'd still be spending only half the amount of money you'd have spent on playing WoW.

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Maikimaik.1974

[The Greyhawk.9107]

1 hour ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

At this point I'm beginning to be quite confident in the fact that You're either completely unable to read, or simply enjoying the sound of people burning at stakes.

Tell me, what are YOU trying to achieve? You're so low on confidence that You have to hunt likes on Your posts for catering to shallow masses to feel at least some semblance of importance?
 

You really are acting in bad faith.  How is either of the above not Ad Hominem, Stawmen AND violations of the Forum rules? How does any of that shite improve your arguments?

 

I'll restate for clarity my previous comment.  Say ArenaNet decides to make GW3 and are going to make it a Subbed game from the get go.  What stops them from deciding to still charge money for things like character slots, inventory slots, bank slots, and whatever else you've insisted would be earned in game so Arenanet can get just a few more dollah bills?  Sure, some people would be turned off by that, but look at how many people waste money on allthose Pay-2-Win trash mobile games.  So, what makes them adhere to your theoretical system with subs?

Edited May 5, 2021 by The Greyhawk.9107

[Sonderm.4639]

10 hours ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

WoW's professions, however, are utilized way less than GW2's crafting system, and they also don't intermingle as much.
The latter might not be entirely accurate for today, but during WotLK, there was, what, one thing that required another profession? And even that was Alchemy for that single obscure vanilla Cooking recipe. And Engineering, since Engineering could make use of everything.

They are used about to the same extent in WOW, and frankly the restriction per character is about as meaningful in WOW as in GW2 since you get easy access to all available professions by utilizing alts. Where professions do interact though, GW2 is the clear winner seeing how easy it is to manage and share materials across characters (or check the auction house from anywhere). I never even remotely considered buying an additional crafting license.

 

EDIT: Come to think of it, the profession restriction is far worse in WOW since you cannot simply make a crafting alt - the character has to be at max level and actively play the game (in some cases grinding reputation) in order to get access to the crafting recipes.

 

 

 

Quote

In GW2, a relatively easily available bag for new players or altoholics has 20 slots. Sure, 40 gold thrown to the wind, but they probably won't be replaced, and they're kinda future-proof, considering they can be turned into 24s and up.
In Wrath, a profession-specific bag of 36 slots cost absolute nothing, which made the issue of storing anything profession-related disappear, and 20-slot universal bags were exactly as easy to come by.
And then there's the fact that WoW didn't throw six thousand different kinds of loot containers at a player for no reason whatsoever.

Sorry, but no. Playing WOW I have about as much hassle with full inventories as playing GW2 (WOW doesn't have a deposit materials button though). Bag space in WOW and GW2 (out of the box) amounts to about the same. And those profession specific bags in WOW are far to restrictive as to be useful (IMO) - after all they take up one valuable bagslot but accept only certain items.

Quote

Which leads beautifully into the bank, because although there wasn't an account-wide storage, the professions, as I've said, didn't need each other very much, and the 36-slot specialized bags covered the rest to a marvelous degree. Sucked for new players, that much is true.
Also, back in Wrath, making a guild solely for the guild bank was horribly easy and far, far from uncommon, and the tab prices weren't that steep, especially for the first few tabs.

Private guild bank doesn't cut it if you want to be a member in a regular guild (only one guild per character).

Quote

There were also add-ons - AtlasLoot, was it? Or Bagnon... Certainly Carbonite, too, to some extent - which tracked storage over characters, banks, and even guild banks.

Yeah, sorry but these add-ons are no replacement for a shared storage.

Quote

And that was back when the max stack size went up to a grand total of 20.
Good old times.

So I agree, it is a bit disingenuous.
I'm selling WoW too short.

If you think so.

All those additional gemstore purchases you described are not necessary to bring GW2 up to par with WOW. GW2 out of the box in some areas is more convenient, in others less convenient than WOW but overall I think the game nowhere forces you into additional payments to make the game "tolerable" (I am looking at you, ESO, with your material storage that you only get as a subscriber). 

 

 

Quote

That's a good point.
Still, WoW had Heirloom gear even back in Wrath, and that was just shoulders and a chest piece, each providing a 10% XP bonus (on top of the Rested boost), with trinkets restoring HP/Mana on kill, and weapons behaving basically the same way as the Bloodbound set here.

Also, as "grand" as Renown Hearts are as a replacement for the usual MMORPG quests, they function pretty much identically, take about as much time as regular quests would, but, most importantly, they deliver virtually no lore whatsoever.
Getting to max level in WoW involved wonders like Darrowshire, Angrathar, Matthias Lehner, even the Death Knight tutorial storyline was more than decent. Every single quest had value even beyond level 80, too, no matter if it didn't give any XP, because the stories lived on, not to mention that expansions tend to change the quests or add new one, whereas here the leveling experience is so horrifyingly cut off from the rest of the game - and, mainly, the new and relevant content - that people cry their eyes out immediately after setting foot in the Heart of Maguuma.

Yeah, the great WOW questing experience, which rich stories, presented in an exciting and accessible manner. Seriousl, it is a mess story-wise. Core parts of the previous expansion stories have been removed after the next launched. What questing in WOW amounts to is "go there, kill that and don't try to figure out why". And the game forces you into these quests (if you don't want to mindlessly spam dungeons) since there are no open world events to provide you with XP (let alone "tomes of knowledge").

 

Quote

The gear... Is gear even a relevant comparison? Genuinely asking.
Sure, it's another time sink, but the endgame of WoW has almost nothing in common with the endgame of GW2.
In WoW, better gear means better stats, and better stats might mean a difference between hitting an enrage timer, or whether that Pyro crits or that Resto Druid successfully spams you to the graveyard with Moonfires, and a raid in blues will not put a dent into Marrowgar, regardless of how well they dance, and a Hateful mage will do exactly as much to a Wrathful druid.

GW2's endgame, on the other hand, is about reaching the very low skill tier required to farm a certain type of content, because a full set of Exotics can be bought off the Trading Post, and there's less difference between Exotics and Ascended than between Normal 25-man and Heroic 25-man gear. The sole purpose of Ascended gear is giving Fractals some sort of progression, and even that problem can be beaten to death with a bag of gold, both for the gear itself, and the agony infusions.

All in all, I can see why this would be an artificially inflated system.
But if even that one is enjoyed, is it overall a bad thing?

It's a bad thing if you want to play more than one class which was the context of my post.

Edited May 5, 2021 by BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372

[SexyMofo.8923]

No, you wouldn’t. 

[yann.1946]

19 hours ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

Thought by thought!

The metaphor wasn't meant as a counter-point of any sort, more as an explanation of my stance on the issue:
the cash shop is relatively irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, especially since most cash shop games don't even have our gold-gem conversion in the first place, I'd wager; what we're talking about is that getting a new shiny skin shouldn't be bound (almost) solely to gold or money.

Of course, not everybody has the time or willingness to reach a reward through in-game means, and, just as You've said before, a certain balance should be struck - which is a spark for another debate entirely - yet having the vast majority of things tied to grinding gold means there will always be a best way of getting it, which favors those who think like Himi.
 

 

Honestly i feel like the issue is then more with the gold to gems transaction. 

 

19 hours ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

You're right (except EVE Online would like a word with that niche exclusion), if we considered the two models in a vacuum.

 

 

Eve has a free to play version now with an optional sub like eso, so i guess that helps my point.

 

19 hours ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

Taking the real world consequences into account, however, the F2P model is the epitome of everything wrong with callous manipulation running rampant.
Sure, theoretically, everybody is always able to simply opt out of any participation, but the human psyche is a very frail and impressionable thing to begin with, not to mention people who had the misfortune of abusive relationships or just plain bad luck in experience.
Habits are formed, innate biases exploited, and primal urges satisfied - a surefire way to suck people in without any effort.
That's why it's so hard to give up smoking, why conspiracy hypotheses exist, and why fantasy armor turns men into cans, but since the real strength of a woman comes from within, sticks and stones can't break her bones.

 

 

See my next part about corralation vs causation. Also these problems of manipulation you speak of is just marketing, that happens in literary all products, so that has no correlation with f2p.

 

19 hours ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

So I completely agree that people kill people, not guns.
But giving a gun to a very, very pissed of guy standing in front of the one who wronged him, there's no wonder four murders of crows have already gathered.

its actually more like the videogames cause violence debate. Most people have the direction of causation wrong.

 

Because i agree that if you want to have a shitty businessmodel you take a f2p model garantueed because you can get away with shittier models. But that corralation doesn't go in the other direction.

 

To show this let me ask you a question. How would you differentiate between someone who made a game. And then after the game was designed adds a shop that makes some ingame things easier, vs someone who designs a game, then makes things harder and sells things to get people back in the standard game they designed?

[Naxos.2503]

I have yet to see an example of a game that starts free to play (originally buy to play, but valid argument regardless) and went Pay to play. I'm trying to think of something, and there's just nothing coming to mind. GW2 being a trend setter doesn't necessarily mean it has to set That one.

 

People go to GW2 specifically because of the lack of a monthly fee. It retains a healthy population despite it's age because of that policy as well as generally good content. 

Take a guess at what happens when the entire reason your current players go to your game isn't part of your game anymore. It's like cutting your leg in the hope that it regrows more healthy. I think that's a good perspective to account for.

[Maikimaik.1974]

1 minute ago, Naxos.2503 said:

I have yet to see an example of a game that starts free to play (originally buy to play, but valid argument regardless) and went Pay to play. I'm trying to think of something, and there's just nothing coming to mind. GW2 being a trend setter doesn't necessarily mean it has to set That one.

The European version of Wizard101 started as a mostly f2p game but implemented a subscription model a few years later. The game died in a matter of weeks.

[Naxos.2503]

Thanks for that 😛 I suppose I could have added the characteristic "Successful" to that ponder

[voltaicbore.8012]

@Riaenvyr.2091 I guess the new forums don't do nested quotes (or I just haven't figured it out), but you yourself seem quite incapable of grasping the points others have brought up about your "if GW2 were designed from the ground up, it wouldn't have many of the designed inconveniences of the f2p model" claim. 

 

I'll get right to the point: 

 

(1) Both sub-based and f2p games have designed/intentional inconvenience baked into them. But since f2p cash shops need to collect more money from players per purchase, that incentivizes worse game design and financial practice choices. However...

 

(2) ...GW2 is in many important respects an exception to the f2p cesspool. I (and others) believe these differences/exceptions are substantial enough to challenge the normally useful assumption that a sub-based version would be substantially superior in most regards.

 

Even without the benefit of actual experience with how sub-based games turn out, logic alone is enough to figure out that designed inconvenience is also very much fundamental to the design of sub-based games. There has to be some benefit, some value to paying a sub. And no, games that require you to sub simply to even play the game (do any of those even exist anymore?) are not an exception - being barred from even setting foot in the game is the greatest inconvenience of them all.

 

As such, sub-based games also have an inherent need for designed, intentional inconvenience. The only difference is that sub-based games sell you time to live free of those inconveniences, while f2p straight up sells you something that alleviates the inconvenience. So a sub game can sell you this convenience indefinitely, while f2p prices their conveniences much more steeply since they're often one-time purchases. As such, a subscription game is less desperate to extract several years' worth of value from you all at once, and doesn't have to be as in-your-face with what it's trying to sell all the time. All a sub-based game need to prove is that the underlying game remains worth players' time, since that's literally what they're selling you. In contrast, the f2p game must remain obsessed with pricing the individual inconveniences themselves, and calibrating the game experience carefully to mix the desire to keep playing with the desire to pay to get past the inconvenient aspects of playing.

 

So I get, I do - f2p can (and all to often does) thrive on an inherently predatory structure. Even worse, the predation is baked right into the game design itself, not just the shop.

 

However, the huge problem with applying this to GW2 is that ANet strove to (and I would argue, largely succeeded in) creating an extremely generous buy-to-play experience (which is essentially an f2p experience between expansions, IMO). This is not to say that the game is perfect, far from it. I think unbreakable tools should have had special shared slots from day one, and I think the copper-fed salvage-o-matic should be a reward from a fairly substantial beginner quest (probably not going to happen though, as I'm sure it's a pretty great seller in the shop). So yeah, I'm not above admitting the b2p/f2p model has definitely poisoned GW2's design at times.

 

But on balance, I think what the base free account gets is quite generous for a f2p game, and all unlocks are so permanent and account wide. Buying into it with the expansions opens up even more account-wide benefits that stick around forever. Finally, a reasonable gold-to-gem conversion rate means that a player can just perform a complete end-run around monetization without needing to work as mindlessly hard as you would in many other titles. It's a grind, sure, but what passes for gold grind here in GW2 is utterly laughable compared to the massive grinds necessitated by competitor titles. Of course, most other titles don't even have such an in-game-to-cash-shop conversion in the first place. So for me, it's not that I don't think sub-based games inherently have better design incentives - I think they do. It's just that I think ANet has worked pretty hard at making GW2 a very consumer-positive b2p experience, and largely succeeded outside of the times where the f2p spirit bit them a bit too deeply (I'm looking at you, build loadouts).

 

 Also note that I'm talking about inconveniences only, which is admittedly distinct from the reward structure difference @Aodlop.1907 started this with.

 

At any rate, 

[Riaenvyr.2091]

49 minutes ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

 |

 |

V

 

👍
Such a brutal rebuttal deserves an award!
Don't wanna tattoo it on Your forehead, so nobody ever doubts how easily You've destroyed me that one time?
 

 

48 minutes ago, The Greyhawk.9107 said:

You really are acting in bad faith.  How is either of the above not Ad Hominem, Stawmen AND violations of the Forum rules? How does any of that shite improve your arguments?

"Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong"."
-- Wiki

"A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one."
-- Wiki

In every single of my responses, I tore apart Your arguments without as much as a breath missed, because, honestly, You haven't put much validity into any, instead, as I've pointed out in the quoted post, the majority of Your "content" was exactly what You're accusing me of.

Let's recap!
First comment: "I wouldn't.  Easily the fastest and surest way of getting me to quit for good."
Has absolutely nothing to do with anything, unless You've been responding to somebody other than the OP, but since there's no quotation, I assume it wasn't addressed to anybody. Aodlop has brought up an idea for discussion. You brought up Your personal feelings for... some... reason.

Second comment: "And this just shows us that you are not interested in having a good faith discussion and should be ignored entirely."
A response to my idea that ANet's content with people not caring for the game as long as they're paying.
Again, offers nothing of value, because a discussion usually operates on arguments against arguments, and the entirety of this sentence qualifies as ad hominem to the letter - no reason for the statement given, no proof of the deed.
You simply came in and it is so because You said so.

Third comment: "You've hardly gotten rid of me and I'll tell you whats wrong with your argument as you've done it more than just what I previously quoted:  You're engaging in Ad Hominems and Strawmen in multiple instances to de-legitimize those that don't agree with you."
Replying once more to a post of mine, which pointed out exactly the same thing I've said to the second comment.
You're promising to tell me what's wrong with my argument, claim that I've done it numerous times already, and then simply brandish "ad hominem" and "strawmen" in "multiple instances" to "de-legitimize those that don't agree with [me]".
Obviously, a witness asked to accuse a murderer would describe the deed as it's been seen, to as much detail as possible.
All You've managed to muster was "he's done BAAAAAAAAAAD things, and he's REEEEEEEEEEEALLY evil", which very eagerly suggests that You have absolutely nothing concrete besides Your own motives.

Fourth comment: "All those cost totals might be more meaningful if they were mandatory, half that stuff you list I've still not bothered to purchase yet (such as the template stuff and the crafting license) and the other stuff I almost always purchase during sales and haven't max out any of them (like the bank and storage stuff)."
Your counter-point to my illustration of why sub-based and F2P games differ from their very conception.
You either didn't understand the point, didn't care to understand the point, or, considering the past posts, are trying to once again look good in the eyes of the like-minded by attacking a "common enemy" by picking something out of context to make me look bad, not responding to the actual idea, just attacking for the sake of attacking.

Fifth comment:

"You can't guarantee any of that.  You can't guarantee that each and every item in the gem store would be available to earn in game if it had been designed for subs.  You can't even guarantee that any of those items or upgrades would be available as such.  Just because there is some logic of sorts to Devs not needing to charge for convenience or cosmetic items or upgrades due to getting income through subs doesn't mean that Devs will for sure follow that.

 

I don't get what your trying to achieve here.  Its about as objective of a fact as you can get that switching to a Sub system at this stage of the game's life cycle will kill it and Arenanet knows this.  They aren't going to do that. I won't pay a sub for this or any other game and most that have posted on this thread hold similar views on the matter."
Responding to my (very gracious at this point) allowance of the previous comment having some merit as being afraid of me simply inflating the gem numbers to make GW2 look bad.
Once again You demonstrate Your motives by not arguing the idea, but semantics (can't guarantee that each and every item would be in the sub-based GW2) and bringing up ideas which have never been talked about to begin with (switching to sub would kill GW2) by anybody other than all the people who don't read anything before their own posts, not even the original post or its title, apparently, because neither even as much as suggests this switch. Aodlop in his very first post even says that "Sadly, this can't happen with their current business model, and to me that's a shame."
The very first post. And almost everybody charges in guns blazin' with "SWITCHING GW2 TO SUB WOULD MAKE PEOPLE LEAVE".
What, then, would anybody with two brain cells to rub against each other conclude, if not that they can't read, if they - YOU - can't be bothered to read even the very first post in a topic?

I've also tried really hard to find any instance of the straw man fallacy in any of ours posts, but the closest they get to it is You constantly picking two sentences out of the context of my ideas to throw shade at me.
Isn't that just a bit ironic, what do You think?

So no, I'm not trying to discredit Your arguments by pointing out Your flaws. You're obviously well-versed in doing that to Yourself without anybody's help.
If You still feel like "fat" is not a description, but an insult, there's a problem in Your world view, not the world itself. You're not a precious little snowflake everybody will bow down to.
Or perhaps You are.
But even if, I won't.
Cry to whichever higher power You want.


 

Quote

I'll restate for clarity my previous comment.  Say ArenaNet decides to make GW3 and are going to make it a Subbed game from the get go.  What stops them from deciding to still charge money for things like character slots, inventory slots, bank slots, and whatever else you've insisted would be earned in game so Arenanet can get just a few more dollah bills?  Sure, some people would be turned off by that, but look at how many people waste money on allthose Pay-2-Win trash mobile games.  So, what makes them adhere to your theoretical system with subs?

NCSoft.
As abominable as publishers usually are, if there's something they know how to do, it's luring money out of people.
Absolutely nobody would play a game that's sub-based and still has 80% of things locked behind more money.
And although the mobile example is relatively valid here - plus the fact that people still buy Fifa - those trash mobile games are also F2P.
You see the pattern here?

[Malitias.8453]

@voltaicbore.8012 I really enjoyed reading your take on the difference in convenience between f2p / b2p and p2p and how GW2 fares in regard to competitors. Great input!
You ended the post pointing out that this doesn't take into account the reward structure.
I'd love to read another one of those posts where you write about that topic.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Malitias.8453

[Maikimaik.1974]

36 minutes ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

👍
Such a brutal rebuttal deserves an award!
Don't wanna tattoo it on Your forehead, so nobody ever doubts how easily You've destroyed me that one time?

I feel like we're being trolled.

You've managed to dismiss every single argument given to you by claiming that nobody understands the point you're trying to make, you've continuously responded to people disagreeing with you by insulting them, you straight up ignore 90% of valid arguments against a p2p model, you're trying to present your own opinion as objective facts but ignore every other opinion that's not in favor of p2p and have managed to move the goal post so far away that I legitimately have no idea what this discussion is trying to accomplish.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Maikimaik.1974

[Riaenvyr.2091]

1 hour ago, BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

They are used about to the same extent in WOW, and frankly the restriction per character is about as meaningful in WOW as in GW2 since you get easy access to all available professions by utilizing alts. Where professions do interact though, GW2 is the clear winner seeing how easy it is to manage and share materials across characters (or check the auction house from anywhere). I never even remotely considered buying an additional crafting license.

 

EDIT: Come to think of it, the profession restriction is far worse in WOW since you cannot simply make a crafting alt - the character has to be at max level and actively play the game (in some cases grinding reputation) in order to get access to the crafting recipes.

Could see that.
For one, I haven't set foot on Azeroth for a long time, and the fact I had two accounts full of characters ready for any content I wanted at whim might be skewing my perspective a bit.

 

 

1 hour ago, BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

Sorry, but no. Playing WOW I have about as much hassle with full inventories as playing GW2 (WOW doesn't have a deposit materials button though). Bag space in WOW and GW2 (out of the box) amounts to about the same. And those profession specific bags in WOW are far to restrictive as to be useful (IMO) - after all they take up one valuable bagslot but accept only certain items.

Guess I'm just better at the inventory shuffle, then, because I had no trouble in WoW, and I don't have any here, either, with said 18/20-slot bags for alts, but that seems to be all player-specific, then.
 

 

2 hours ago, BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

Private guild bank doesn't cut it if you want to be a member in a regular guild (only one guild per character).

It doesn't, if You're hell-bent on only having a single character on Your account, but... why would anyone do that?
No clue how many character slots are in WoW nowadays, but back in Wrath it was 10 chars per realm with 50 in total across all realms, and 10 classes to choose from, so I'm pretty sure a single alt being out of the main guild wouldn't hurt anybody.
Seen it done, done it myself, and we've always been able reach everybody via Ventrilo, TS, or even phones if needed.
 

 

2 hours ago, BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

Yeah, sorry but these add-ons are no replacement for a shared storage.

Of course they're not, but they were able to turn a world without a shared storage and endless searching for mats into a matter of precision. Took many more relogs, sure, but beats having to guess by light years.
 

 

2 hours ago, BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

If you think so.

All those additional gemstore purchases you described are not necessary to bring GW2 up to par with WOW. GW2 out of the box in some areas is more convenient, in others less convenient than WOW but overall I think the game nowhere forces you into additional payments to make the game "tolerable" (I am looking at you, ESO, with your material storage that you only get as a subscriber).

That depends solely on the player, I think, and their, should I say, "kitten" threshold?
Everything is cool at first, even running to the vendor every 25 dismantled armor pieces or 100 ore gatherings, but after realizing, concretely in GW2, how many such armor pieces and ores a player needs for basically anything, it very quickly stops being cool in any way.
Pretty sure there's a reason why most people would recommend a Salvage-O-Matic as everybody's first Gem purchase.
 

 

2 hours ago, BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

Yeah, the great WOW questing experience, which rich stories, presented in an exciting and accessible manner. Seriousl, it is a mess story-wise. Core parts of the previous expansion stories have been removed after the next launched. What questing in WOW amounts to is "go there, kill that and don't try to figure out why". And the game forces you into these quests (if you don't want to mindlessly spam dungeons) since there are no open world events to provide you with XP (let alone "tomes of knowledge").

Well... that sucks.
Has that been going on for long? I recall trying out the Cataclysm questing briefly after Wrath, and although they removed a lot of the old ones as You say, very many new ones got added, with rather impressive updated scripts and even voice acting in some places.
 

 

2 hours ago, BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

It's a bad thing if you want to play more than one class which was the context of my post.

Ah. Alright, missed that point entirely, it seems.
Thanks for clarification!
 

[Malitias.8453]

@Riaenvyr.2091 I don't think pointing out to people how they obviously miss the point is going to be very productive.
If they missed the point OP was making, they certainly won't get yours. No offense, but your posts are hard to read and understand at times.
 

OP said he'd enjoy the game more if it was sub-based because it could allow the games reward system to be structured differently and that is his primary issue with the game. The rewards system. He's explaining how he would enjoy the game more (more skins being unlocked via in-game accomplishments) and concludes that changing the payment model would accomplish that.
Other people are totally on-topic when they argue that they wouldn't play if the game was changed to p2p. They are against the proposed solution OP was giving (sometimes in an overly dramatic and sometimes insulting way, but it's on-topic).
 

To everyone:

Wouldn't this discussion be a lot more productive if we proposed other solutions to the problem (:mount skins and subjectively too many other skins not being available through in-game accomplishments), rather than collectively bashing OPs proposed solution? I do believe there are ways to accomplish what OP is asking for without changing the payment model, but I'll need to think about it more.

[Samnang.1879]

I would pay up to $10USD per month if they make it sub-based, and give us like 1000gems per month; if it means GOOD contents are released faster.

 

This 3-6months content wait is............................................ not fun.

 

It's also the reason why 99% of people in guilds are always, "last logged on: 10 years ago"

 

 

Anet can make this subscription totally OPTIONAL too, and not a sub to win, but a sub for FASTER CONTENT RELEASE and the 1000gems perk and other cosmetic perks. Many people would sub to be honest. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Samnang.1879

[Obtena.7952]

28 minutes ago, Samnang.1879 said:

I would pay up to $10USD per month if they make it sub-based, and give us like 1000gems per month; if it means GOOD contents are released faster.

 

This 3-6months content wait is............................................ not fun.

 

It's also the reason why 99% of people in guilds are always, "last logged on: 10 years ago"

 

 

Anet can make this subscription totally OPTIONAL too, and not a sub to win, but a sub for FASTER CONTENT RELEASE and the 1000gems perk and other cosmetic perks. Many people would sub to be honest. 

So it's an optional subscription? I mean .. that's just how it works now. The current model IS an optional subscription. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[maddoctor.2738]

47 minutes ago, Samnang.1879 said:

I would pay up to $10USD per month if they make it sub-based, and give us like 1000gems per month; if it means GOOD contents are released faster.

 

This 3-6months content wait is............................................ not fun.

 

It's also the reason why 99% of people in guilds are always, "last logged on: 10 years ago"

 

 

Anet can make this subscription totally OPTIONAL too, and not a sub to win, but a sub for FASTER CONTENT RELEASE and the 1000gems perk and other cosmetic perks. Many people would sub to be honest. 

 

10$ is 800 gems. You want them to give free 1000 gems AND expect faster content releases?

[Riaenvyr.2091]

3 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Honestly i feel like the issue is then more with the gold to gems transaction.

Why so?
 

 

3 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Eve has a free to play version now with an optional sub like eso, so i guess that helps my point.

And EVE players talk about the free version of their game exactly like GW2 players talk about the free version of Tyria: as a glorified trial.
 

 

3 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Also these problems of manipulation you speak of is just marketing, that happens in literary all products, so that has no correlation with f2p.

Yes, but they occur demonstratively more often in F2P games, even without the logic of them being the F2P model's only income.
 

 

3 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

its actually more like the videogames cause violence debate. Most people have the direction of causation wrong.

 

Because i agree that if you want to have a shitty businessmodel you take a f2p model garantueed because you can get away with shittier models. But that corralation doesn't go in the other direction.

 

To show this let me ask you a question. How would you differentiate between someone who made a game. And then after the game was designed adds a shop that makes some ingame things easier, vs someone who designs a game, then makes things harder and sells things to get people back in the standard game they designed?

By comparison. If both games are the same, however, there's no way of telling them apart, other than a knife at said developers' necks.
But if any game sells for money a way to NOT play the game, then it can be in all cases written off as greed.

Take, for example, Shadow of War, the sequel to Shadow of Mordor.
The first game was such an absurd success that people loved it to high heaven. Then the second game came along, and, when compared to the first, the XP grind required to enjoy the game was utterly atrocious, but the in-game shop was always ready to help players skip all the content the devs TOTALLY made the game mindful of.