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

[Samnang.1879]

46 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

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

 

No. Current model is not sub. No matter how much you spend on gemstore, content is still slow.

 

The reason ppl don't spend on gemstore is because they don't think they are supporting the game, having an option sub model makes people think they are supporting the game and content gets released faster.

 

25 minutes ago, maddoctor.2738 said:

 

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

 

YES.

But more people will sub since there are good perks.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Samnang.1879

[Obtena.7952]

1 minute ago, Samnang.1879 said:

 

No. Current model is not sub. No matter how much you spend on gemstore, content is still slow.

 

Hold on ... content being slow or not has NOTHING to do with the game being sub or not ... ESPECIALLY if you want to make subs optional, which is essentially what we have now. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[maddoctor.2738]

1 minute ago, Samnang.1879 said:

YES.

But more people will sub since there are good perks.

 

You mean everyone will sub for a month, when they want to buy anything from the gem store with cash, in order to get the 200 extra gems, and that would change nothing else for the game. What good perks are you talking about?

[Samnang.1879]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

Hold on ... content being slow or not has NOTHING to do with the game being sub or not. 

What it has to do with?

[Samnang.1879]

2 minutes ago, maddoctor.2738 said:

 

You mean everyone will sub for a month, when they want to buy anything from the gem store with cash, in order to get the 200 extra gems, and that would change nothing else for the game. What good perks are you talking about?

Yes, but they can make it so that you get this super cool infusion that can only be used if you stayed sub. Which is cosmetic and not sub-for-win.

 

and many other perks, but anet staff can come up with those ideas. I'm just saying I will personally sub if there is an option to do so....

Edited May 5, 2021 by Samnang.1879

[Obtena.7952]

3 minutes ago, Samnang.1879 said:

What it has to do with?

I don't know ... but not how fast content is released. I mean, why do you think Anet can't have fast content releases without a sub? Why have you assumed content releases would be faster with a sub? I mean, you're asking ME... but it's an assumption you made. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Samnang.1879]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

I don't know ... but not how fast content is released. I mean, why do you think Anet can't have fast content releases without a sub? Why have you assumed content releases would be faster with a sub? I mean, you're asking ME... but it's an assumption you made. 

I don't know. other people said sub games get faster content releases...

[Obtena.7952]

2 minutes ago, Samnang.1879 said:

I don't know. other people said sub games get faster content releases...

Well, no, not just other people. You said it too. 

 

9 minutes ago, Samnang.1879 said:

 

 No matter how much you spend on gemstore, content is still slow.

I mean, you don't say things you don't believe, then ask other people why you believe them do you?

Edited May 5, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Riaenvyr.2091]

3 hours ago, voltaicbore.8012 said:

@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, 

I completely agree with absolutely every single word You've just said, even though the last three make me more curious, but I completely agree with them, too!

No, really.
Where did You get the impression that any of these ideas would go against my grain?

[Samnang.1879]

2 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Well, no, not other people. You said it. 

 

 

I mean there's no guarantee. but they can always trial it out. 

 

people will be in an uproar b ecause they hold on to the belief that this game is "forever free".

 

however ppl were also against mounts, but now they love it. anet has to take risks if they want progress.

[Obtena.7952]

7 minutes ago, Samnang.1879 said:

I mean there's no guarantee. but they can always trial it out. 

 

people will be in an uproar b ecause they hold on to the belief that this game is "forever free".

 

however ppl were also against mounts, but now they love it. anet has to take risks if they want progress.

 

 

Well, no they can't always trial it out because going to a sub model has severe consequences to how people interact with the game. The fact is that the game is designed around a business model of GS revenues. It's not as simple as some trial. Besides, Anet doesn't need to take risks they don't need to take. You don't think the game can't progress if they don't trial a sub? That's makes no sense considering the game has not been on a sub for the last 8+ years and has progressed just fine.

 

I mean, again, what makes you think there is even a need to test a sub model? Why do you assume content will be released faster if the game was subbed?

Edited May 5, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Forum Moderator.7963]

Greetings,

 

We would like to remind everybody to stay on topic and refrain from any personal attacks

 

Regards.

[Samnang.1879]

29 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

 

 

Well, no they can't always trial it out because going to a sub model has severe consequences to how people interact with the game. The fact is that the game is designed around a business model of GS revenues. It's not as simple as some trial. Besides, Anet doesn't need to take risks they don't need to take. You don't think the game can't progress if they don't trial a sub? That's makes no sense considering the game has not been on a sub for the last 8+ years and has progressed just fine.

 

I mean, again, what makes you think there is even a need to test a sub model? Why do you assume content will be released faster if the game was subbed?

 

Because other games that have both a cash shop and a sub make more money, release content faster and are able to keep players playing. 

 

I don't really care about sub or not, or fast content or not. I can find fun with old content and I can wait patiently for new content. However, what i don't like about the free model is that players get bored fast. I meet friends who play for 3 months, maxed everything, killed every raid boss, maxed his guild hall, then quit after 3 months. Then the cycle repeats.

 

I can't meet friends who would play with me to the end of the game, maybe this doesn't matter to you, but it matters to me because I like to see regular friends, not have to meet new friends all the time, and then they quit after 3months-1 year... 😵 and the cycle repeats.

 

This will open another can of worms, and you're gonna ask me, "will sub make players become regular"... i don't know. And nobody really ever knows, unless it is trialed out. 

 

It's also been seen on other games, that subbed models have more regular players, as content is release weekly or monthly... not 3-6months 😵

Edited May 5, 2021 by Samnang.1879

[Obtena.7952]

2 minutes ago, Samnang.1879 said:

 

Because other games that have both a cash shop and a sub make more money, release content faster and are able to keep players playing. 

 

 

That's a bad conclusion because other game's business model isn't directly relevant to GW2 and you don't know if GW2 having both sub and GS would make more money that just the GS alone. 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Riaenvyr.2091]

1 hour ago, Malitias.8453 said:

@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.

You're right, pointing out a flaw in people's logic when they're already immovably certain that their point of view is the only true one in the entire 'verse is completely futile.
Unfortunately, I cannot discern from merely a name and a four-digit number tag how close-minded a person is, so I'm sure You can see the necessity to converse - or at least observe - in order to find out.
Just as You said - and You're certainly not the first one to say so - my ideas aren't the easiest to decode, and I'm kinda bad at putting myself in someone else's shoes as to see these thoughts without me being myself, leading to not exactly few misunderstandings, and, knowing this, I probably try more than a typical person would to get my point across.
Doesn't help I'm apparently naïve enough to hope it'll actually work in the end.

I was mid-way through writing how most of Aodlop's own comments weren't even allowed to evolve past explaining to everybody why sub fees aren't evil incarnate, but I guess I'll start with my learning right here.
I've explained it a myriad of times in this very thread already. If You're genuinely interested in how things work, You'll read through it.
If not, what do I care, right?

Acta, non verba.

[Sonderm.4639]

17 minutes ago, Samnang.1879 said:

It's also been seen on other games, that subbed models have more regular players, as content is release weekly or monthly... not 3-6months 😵

Which subscription MMO releases content weekly or even monthly?

[Samnang.1879]

6 minutes ago, BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

Which subscription MMO releases content weekly or even monthly?

WoW releases expansion every 1-2 year 😵

[Sonderm.4639]

3 minutes ago, Samnang.1879 said:

WoW releases expansion every 1-2 year 😵

Every two years. With usually three major content patches in between. So again, which MMO releases content weekly/monthly?

[Kurrilino.2706]

On 5/1/2021 at 11:51 AM, Aodlop.1907 said:

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.

 

You want to combine this with a monthly fee ????

[Joote.4081]

A subscription would be a darn sight cheaper than the gem store, that's for sure

[Obtena.7952]

2 minutes ago, Joote.4081 said:

A subscription would be a darn sight cheaper than the gem store, that's for sure

That's not a universal truth. It depends on how much an individual spends in the GS. I mean ... what makes anyone think that the GS would actually go away if there was a sub in the game? 

 

I see lots of assumption in this thread ... and they are all pretty bad. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Kurrilino.2706]

4 minutes ago, Joote.4081 said:

A subscription would be a darn sight cheaper than the gem store, that's for sure

 

I never spend a single dollar on the cash shop.

How would a subscription be cheaper?

[Samnang.1879]

57 minutes ago, BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

Every two years. With usually three major content patches in between. So again, which MMO releases content weekly/monthly?

 

6 new world bosses or something new literally every week and new content every month. 

 

People will take that over 5 years = 1 expansion, + HEAVY content drought in between... this is why WoW sells so well. And before people tell me to go play wow, i'm not going to play it even if someone put a gun to my head, i'm just using it as an example.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Samnang.1879

[Sonderm.4639]

7 minutes ago, Samnang.1879 said:

 

6 new world bosses or something new literally every week and new content every month. 

 

 

You either have no idea what you are talking about or are trolling. (Those "world bosses" (four of them) are on a weekly rotation, there isn't a new one each week (and fwiw, it's not very engaging content but rather a chance at a good gear drop). And there is not new content every month. Warlords of Dreanor had only one content patch during its lifecycle.

Edited May 5, 2021 by BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372

[Samnang.1879]

3 minutes ago, BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

You either have no idea what you are talking about or are trolling.

 

How is this comment on topic? Name calling too.

 

anyway.