The Subscription Option Debate: How Guild Wars 2 Can Implement This

[EmmetOtter.8542]

The "Free to play" business model supported by micro transactions has shown itself to be significantly more profitable than any kind of business model using subscriptions. The 2 business models aren't close in profitability in any way. It doesn't matter if you can spin a subscription as being beneficial to players because Anet and NCSoft aren't charities.

[Lincolnbeard.1735]

> @"EmmetOtter.8542" said:

> The "Free to play" business model supported by micro transactions has shown itself to significantly more profitable than any kind of business model using subscriptions. The 2 business models aren't close in profitability in any way. It doesn't matter if you can spin a subscription as being beneficial to players because Anet and NCSoft aren't charities.

 

This.

 

I think I've said this somewhere, I used to be on other forums and in one of them there was this mod that worked on one mmorpg, this mod told everyone how surprised people would be if they knew how much some people spend monthly on cash shops, we're talking thousands every month (each person).

[lokh.2695]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> You can already subscribe on your own. Spend $20 on gems every month. No need to force others to do so.

>

> I am so sick of this argument coming up.

 

^^this.

 

Now stop beating the spot of grass where the horse died years ago.

[Tic Tac Toe.1482]

Like many here I oppose a subscription fee for the reasons already stated.

For the OP's stated benefits, unlimited storage and build templates, if Anet implemented that and I gathered lots of mats and put lots of good gear into many templates, would I lose access to that if I don't pay the fee for a month? So this proposal would essentially paywall your stuff, at least the stuff in the templates and mat storage past what you normally have?

No thanks.

[Luthan.5236]

I think it is possible. As long as there aren't any real advantages given out on a subscription-based model where others had to grind for it. (I. e. no "renting" of legendaries where subscribers could just get them for free to use during the subscription.)

 

Opening post explained a model where there would only be given stuff that is usually paid by gems. But instead of playing a huge amount of gems to unlock something permanently (material storage) he wants to be able to get the full stuff directly for a short subscription fee (but having to pay that fee repeatedly).

 

That would be interesting in the beginning ... I guess. But long term buying it directly would be cheaper. Also the subscription model in these cases could lead to more coding effort for the developers. Let's say your subscription expires and you have stored 2000/250 in your storage. Should you be able to access the 250 only? Or should you be able to access the full 2000 (and only storing of new stuff should be locked until you subscribe again)? Both would need some check implemented at the server side.

 

I don't think it's worth. Better to decide to buy some gems monthly - and then throw them at sales. That way you can slowly increase storage and bank tabs and other stuff. The subscription model could be interesting if you actually could pay for stuff in installments.

 

Like: You unlocking the next template slot, bank slot, storage increase .... then for those 3 total price divided by 3 and you having to pay it over the next 3 months but getting the benefits directly at month 1. Still ... with that many sales it will always be cheaper to just buy at sales directly.

 

Now if you had all template slots, bank slots, etc. and after staying subscribed for 3 months you got 1 permanently (others still temporary while you stay subscribed) ... that could be interesting. A mix of getting all benefits while still not wasting too much money by only paying for temporary stuff.

 

But yeah ... I don't think it is necessary. I would not use it. And I guess there is additional effort to implement it and not worth for ArenaNet.

[Vrath.1754]

Personal I have no issues with a sub fee for MMOs they offer an incredible amount of entertainment for a small amount of money. And I'd certainly rather pay a sub then have p2w items in the game. Luckily GW2 doesnt go that route.

 

That said, it's not feasible or realistic for a game that's been out 8 years and chose to operate around the B2P + micro trans model like GW2. You just cannot implement a sub at this point without starting a shit storm that results in unhappy players and bad pub.

 

Gw2 main issue is they're slow expansion launches if they kept a release model similar to other MMOs they'd have projectile income ever 1.5 years but they've chosen to work on other projects and that's on Anet management. Players shouldn't be punished due to management's failures by a sub option implemented that wouldnt be popular with a majority of players.

[Danikat.8537]

> @"Lincolnbeard.1735" said:

> > @"EmmetOtter.8542" said:

> > The "Free to play" business model supported by micro transactions has shown itself to significantly more profitable than any kind of business model using subscriptions. The 2 business models aren't close in profitability in any way. It doesn't matter if you can spin a subscription as being beneficial to players because Anet and NCSoft aren't charities.

>

> This.

>

> I think I've said this somewhere, I used to be on other forums and in one of them there was this mod that worked on one mmorpg, this mod told everyone how surprised people would be if they knew how much some people spend monthly on cash shops, we're talking thousands every month (each person).

 

Makes sense. You only need a few people like the "Pokemon Go Grandpa" who spends over $1000 a month playing a free to play game on 11 accounts at once: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/7/18072192/pokemon-go-11-phones-taiwanese-grandpa

 

I've periodically worked it out and overall I spend about the same on GW2 as I would on a subscription, but this method has two important advantages for me:

1) I can spend the money when it suits me, not on a schedule. At one point I stopped spending money on GW2 for almost a year because of my personal finances, and I was able to keep playing and didn't lose any of the stuff I'd previously paid for because of that.

2) I can buy stuff and then it's there whenever I get around to using it. My free time is pretty erratic, so with a subscription I could easily end up paying and then not get to play during the time I have the subscription benefits. Whereas this way if I buy gems then I'm away for a few weeks they're still there when I get back, and anything I buy with them will similarly be there for me.

 

Basically it gives me as a customer a lot more flexibility, and I much prefer that to paying for something for a fixed period of time.

[Super Hayes.6890]

> @"Friday.7864" said:

> If you want to support the game buy gems every month like I do.

> Don't know what to do with the gems? Do a giveaway for your guild or send them to me.

>

 

This is a good response. Buy a set nimber of gems each month as your sub fee and seek out new players each month to gift stuff to. In this way you would support both the game and its community. This would work much better than simply having an optional sub that only benefits the game. YOU CAN DO THIS RIGHT NOW

[Blude.6812]

OP--the search function, You could add to one of the multiple threads on sub . No need to start another thread and revisit a subject that has been overwhelmingly rejected.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

No one in their right mind would pay a continual sub for the pve in this game if quality remained the same including the infrequent and low quality content, bug/design fixes etc. The team on gw2 would have to be significantly larger and the content better to warrant a sub fee. As it is the population is steadily declining, a sub fee would kill the game. Gw2 has its niche in the mmo world and its few strengths appeal to enough for it to have the success of has but it's not in the same league as sub worthy mmo's.

[Taril.8619]

> @"Crash.4376" said:

> **It doesn't have to be either/or...**

 

In theory, it doesn't.

 

In practice, it does.

 

Why?

 

Simply because trying to balance out the benefits of having a sub vs not is really hard to get right. It's far too easy to make subs too valuable or not valuable enough and you're left with only one optimal option anyway.

 

I say this as someone who personally, prefers subscription MMO's because subs provide secure and easily quantifiable income for developers which is ideal for a game genre that thrives on constant updates and server maintenance costs.

 

It also leads to more cosmetic content being earned through in-game actions, rather than slapped into a MTX store where you either pay for it outright, or convert in-game currency into the premium currency which is less satisfying than say, doing some content in game and being rewarded with said cosmetics.

 

That is, when the company is not a greedy pile of ass. I.e. WoW using most of its sub money to go into Bobby Kotick's pocket. FFXIV using most of its sub money to fund other games like DLC for FFXV or FFVIIR because SE just wants to milk money from the XIV dev team. etc...

 

But outside of that whole opinion, there are some things objectively that will be to consider.

 

Like, what advantage would you give to Subscribed players in GW2? That wouldn't be terrible for balancing?

 

Even something as inocuous as "Get access to all previous LW stories" has issues because a sub is like what $10 a month? Vs the cost of buying the 3 LW stories which is around 2000 gems each or about $60 overall. Meaning if you sub for 1 month, then run through all the LW stories and get all the achievements, you just saved $50 which is pretty significant.

 

Extra storage space runs into the same issue, why spend $10 per Bank/Material storage upgrade, if a $10 1 month subscription gives you a bunch along with other stuff (Then you cancel your sub and what? They gonna stop you from accessing half of your items? Or are you going to end up keeping like $100 worth of MTX upgrades for a mere $10 single month sub fee)

 

It just won't work. Not when MTX items are priced steeply to earn profits, gaining access to any MTX item at all for a monthly sub will end up being too lucrative unless it's something they can prevent access to if your sub ends (Which would make it more expensive in the long run)

 

At best, they could maybe offer something like you pay $10/20/30/45/85 a month and get the 800/1600/2400/4000/8000 gems that you normally can purchase at any time from the shop, just for convenience and to be able to monitor your own spending limit (While ANet gets to track what its monthly earnings from subs will be as guaranteed income and thus can factor that into their spending habits) but such an option is really not worth the hassle to implement.

[Etria.3642]

I prefer to just buy gems. Incidentally I spend more on gems for this game ($35 a month) than I spend on a subscription for swtor ($15) and because you can buy everything on their cartel market for credits there is zero reason to buy cartel coins.

 

This may be why gw2 releases more content.

 

I mean, technically gw2 already has a difference between ftp and purchased and that is not an insignificant one. Adding a sub would make the difference more vast. In addition gw2 markets itself with the attraction that you CAN take a break without suffering. Your armor is still best in slot, nothing degrades. Just login to get the episodes and if you miss one you can buy it with gold.

 

Tldr: no.

[Crash.4376]

Oh wow. I didn't expect this many responses. Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. Even though I'm not a new player of this game, my perspective was from someone who was when it came to the Living World. As for the other things like material storage and build templates, I was just throwing that out there not knowing if Anet would have the capacity to do that. I can understand as well the negative impact it can have.

 

If their financials are great and in a healthy spot, then I do agree with the whole "If it's not broke, don't fix it" mentality. I hope that's true. It's tough to believe it being the case after the massive layoffs last year.

 

Overall, as long as developers are being paid for their hard work, I'm good with whatever. If they're not, I feel like some sort of sub option (not a requirement) or even something like a season pass for the Living World / Icebrood Saga wouldn't be irrational to reward them for their hard work.

[Ashantara.8731]

> @"Burnfall.9573" said:

> 

 

She wasn't referring to material things, though...

[Psientist.6437]

I think there are games that successfully implement subscriptions and player bases that prefer their game keep that business plan. The opposite is also true. Imo, Arenanet has made being buy to play such an important design pillar, that removing that pillar would force the studio to disfigure their personality. It would be healthier for the studio's personality to increase the demand for gem to gold conversions.

[Josiah.2967]

Honestly, the only sub option that I think would work is gem based.

 

Subscribe for $20 a month get 2000 Gems. Get +400 gems from your auto payment. A lot of placed provide discounts for auto payments. People will buy things they wouldn't so it would balance out and make a stable income. Anything else would provide issues.

 

I believe Arenanet should release more New Horizons Supply Drop Requisition. These almost work like a monthly subscription. I have bought every one.

[Burnfall.9573]

> @"Ashantara.8731" said:

> > @"Burnfall.9573" said:

> > 

>

> She wasn't referring to material things, though...

 

i know and i'll leave it at that. I understand the Op reasoning with having new players experiences in mind. At the end of the day, it is all about improving and expanding players experiences.

 

As a reminder, Anet have to be on the same page with the players because we can not only give them healthy bright ideas without them showing any interests whatsoever and leaving us dry

 

**Give and Take Approach**

-Players and Anet-

-Anet collaboration with the players-

 

- I would gladly pay for subscription to help the players experiences including new players entertainment.... if this approach were to be adapted

[Excursion.9752]

I am neither for or against this. Sorta meh. :expressionless: Both sides of the fence will always have valid arguments. The one thing everyone can agree on is that ANET needs money coming in to keep this boat a float. So what that looks like is up to them.

[Josiah.2967]

> @"Excursion.9752" said:

> I am neither for or against this. Sorta meh. :expressionless: Both sides of the fence will always have valid arguments. The one thing everyone can agree on is that ANET needs money coming in to keep this boat a float. So what that looks like is up to them.

 

I think a subscription model (outside of auto-pay gem bonus) at this point is income suicide. We have a history of MMO's trying to do this like Rift. After they do it, they lose consumer faith and die.

 

These games didn't have Guild Wars 2 additional baggage:

"Guild Wars 2 will never require a monthly subscription"

[Donutdude.9582]

ArenaNet will _never_ implement a subscription. Their _**entire**_ philosophy as a company is built around the buy-to-play with microtransactions model. Implementing a sub. fee of _any_ kind will, in my opinion, do catastrophic damage to their image and completely wreck their community's confidence in them. Until recently, that confidence had been considerably tested and shaken. It has only strengthened lately due to the announcement of a new expansion.

 

Honestly. I have no idea why people _continue_ to suggest this idea after so many years. Have you _**ever**_ looked into ArenaNet as a company?

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Donutdude.9582" said:

> Honestly. I have no idea why people _continue_ to suggest this idea after so many years. Have you _**ever**_ looked into ArenaNet as a company?

Because, these people usually want something extra for paying a monthly fee. They want exclusive perks that the non-sub players can't get. Or, sometimes it is jealousy because vets have things that they don't and they use this model as justification for not putting in the time/effort.

 

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Josiah.2967" said:

> > @"Excursion.9752" said:

> > I am neither for or against this. Sorta meh. :expressionless: Both sides of the fence will always have valid arguments. The one thing everyone can agree on is that ANET needs money coming in to keep this boat a float. So what that looks like is up to them.

>

> I think a subscription model (outside of auto-pay gem bonus) at this point is income suicide. We have a history of MMO's trying to do this like Rift. After they do it, they lose consumer faith and die.

>

> These games didn't have Guild Wars 2 additional baggage:

> "Guild Wars 2 will never require a monthly subscription"

Yeah it's quite amazing that people wanting subscriptions seems to have paid absolutely **zero** attention to gaming the last decade. Almost all subscription based games has crashed and burned within months of release, only a few big ones - which mostly existed before the last decade, lol - has endured. Meanwhile, f2p games, "gemshops" and lootboxes has absolutely **soared** in popularity, with some f2p games probably earning more money in 1 month than what GW2 has earned in 8 years.

[Seteruss.4058]

Buy with gems all the template slots for all your characters.

Split the amount of money to every month of the year.

Here is your sub.

Thank you but no.

The reason many players like this model(personal opinion), is because of what it is and not for what it can become.

I love to have my game b2p instead of p2p.

 

Always personal opinion....

[Crash.4376]

Thank you all for your thoughts on this.

 

Just a few corrections since there's some confusion. (I feel like some people didn't read the entire post and got pissed off by a few key points I made and commented immediately after that)

 

1) The examples I illustrated earlier like build templates and material storage were just examples, nothing concrete. Also to be clear, the buy to play model would still exist. This option would not replace it.

 

2) The subscription model would not replace the buy to play model at all. It would be there to give the player the option of either subscribing for things like more build templates or buying it permanently. I figure having options would be good, right? No? maybe not.

 

3) I am not a new player. I've played since launch and love this game, but I can see how a new player would walk in and would like to play the story content locked off but wouldn't want to buy it all.

 

The game I see this implemented well in is ESO with their ESO Plus membership. That's what inspired this post. I figure if they can do with a lot to offer in that subscription, why not? Also, it wouldn't be a permanent sub. You sub for 2-3 months to get through the content you want and you can be done. If there are some quality of life changes you get through the sub and want to keep it, then it becomes worth it (depending on the type of player you are)

 

Ultimately, I see where you all are coming from. It all depends on the playerbase, from a cultural standpoint, and each game has their playerbase for a reason. The people of WoW/FFXIV are fine with that sub requirement, the people of ESO enjoy the option, and the Guild Wars 2 community like the way the gem store is.

[kharmin.7683]

If you've been around since launch, then you would have already known the answer to this proposition.