Would optional gem subscriptions be terrible?

[Vulf.3098]

I really do not get this. If you want to pay a sub what is stopping you from dumping $10-$15 a month right now?

 

[TheLastNobody.8319]

> @OriOri.8724 said:

> > @TheLastNobody.8319 said:

> > I wouldn’t be opposed to it. If ANET’s problem right now is having a stable source of income a optional sub would probably do the trick.

> >

> > You’d also have to give other incentives for a sub over just going “well I’ll just buy $20 worth of gems a month.” Perhaps giving a black lion ticket or something along those lines.

>

> And this is exactly the problem with subscriptions. Over time the bonuses would grow more and more, until it wasn't really a choice to have the subscription or not past a superficial level (think member accounts in RS). This is just a fact of subscriptions. If the bonuses aren't high enough, people won't buy them. People who would buy them without bonuses attached (the only healthy way to have a subscription on a F2P game) should just suck it up and buy gems monthly _regardless_ in order to support ANet. The game is amazing, you shouldn't need bonuses in order to support ANet as a company.

 

You make a good point with how easy It’d be to abuse the sub system, but ANET wouldn’t need to make The incentives that drastic, nor

 

Even if they didn’t give gems with the sub, there are still things they could give to incentivize players, like the BL ticket I mentioned, or a choice of glider, or a social outfit/armor skin like we got with when the game went FTP and all the people who bought it beforehand got....was it the mentor outfit? Can’t rememebr the name, big suit of armor though, nice blue lighting by default.

 

Hopefully with a steady revenue stream coming in we’d see more gemstore type content in the game as actual potential rewards (so we wouldn’t have another mount debacle).

 

> @Rauderi.8706 said:

> > @TheLastNobody.8319 said:

> > I wouldn’t be opposed to it. If ANET’s problem right now is having a stable source of income a optional sub would probably do the trick.

> >

> > You’d also have to give other incentives for a sub over just going “well I’ll just buy $20 worth of gems a month.” Perhaps giving a black lion ticket or something along those lines.

>

> And that's where it kind of snowballs. What incentives would they have to offer to get people to do a $10/month or $20/month subscription?

>

> I'd be glad to do a $10/month sub, but being the selfish sod that I am, I'd expect something extra every month for the commitment. Extra keys (a free 5-pack per month!) or extra gems (get 20% more gems for your subscription!) or some other similar gem-store oriented benefit. But with Gold->Gem conversion in play, it would be decried as pay-to-win.

>

> Or, instead of a subscription, have a Gem Reward Track! The more gems you buy with real money, the more rewards you earn!

> (Yeah, I know, it's a horrible idea. :mrgreen: )

 

 

Actually the keys sound great for a 5 dollar sub fee, I’d gladly buy that. Decently priced, so long as they’d avoid putting exclusive skins In the chests I could see that working out.

[OriOri.8724]

> @TheLastNobody.8319 said:

> > @OriOri.8724 said:

> > > @TheLastNobody.8319 said:

> > > I wouldn’t be opposed to it. If ANET’s problem right now is having a stable source of income a optional sub would probably do the trick.

> > >

> > > You’d also have to give other incentives for a sub over just going “well I’ll just buy $20 worth of gems a month.” Perhaps giving a black lion ticket or something along those lines.

> >

> > And this is exactly the problem with subscriptions. Over time the bonuses would grow more and more, until it wasn't really a choice to have the subscription or not past a superficial level (think member accounts in RS). This is just a fact of subscriptions. If the bonuses aren't high enough, people won't buy them. People who would buy them without bonuses attached (the only healthy way to have a subscription on a F2P game) should just suck it up and buy gems monthly _regardless_ in order to support ANet. The game is amazing, you shouldn't need bonuses in order to support ANet as a company.

>

> You make a good point with how easy It’d be to abuse the sub system, but ANET wouldn’t need to make The incentives that drastic, nor

>

> Even if they didn’t give gems with the sub, there are still things they could give to incentivize players, like the BL ticket I mentioned, or a choice of glider, or a social outfit/armor skin like we got with when the game went FTP and all the people who bought it beforehand got....was it the mentor outfit? Can’t rememebr the name, big suit of armor though, nice blue lighting by default.

>

> Hopefully with a steady revenue stream coming in we’d see more gemstore type content in the game as actual potential rewards (so we wouldn’t have another mount debacle).

>

> > @Rauderi.8706 said:

> > > @TheLastNobody.8319 said:

> > > I wouldn’t be opposed to it. If ANET’s problem right now is having a stable source of income a optional sub would probably do the trick.

> > >

> > > You’d also have to give other incentives for a sub over just going “well I’ll just buy $20 worth of gems a month.” Perhaps giving a black lion ticket or something along those lines.

> >

> > And that's where it kind of snowballs. What incentives would they have to offer to get people to do a $10/month or $20/month subscription?

> >

> > I'd be glad to do a $10/month sub, but being the selfish sod that I am, I'd expect something extra every month for the commitment. Extra keys (a free 5-pack per month!) or extra gems (get 20% more gems for your subscription!) or some other similar gem-store oriented benefit. But with Gold->Gem conversion in play, it would be decried as pay-to-win.

> >

> > Or, instead of a subscription, have a Gem Reward Track! The more gems you buy with real money, the more rewards you earn!

> > (Yeah, I know, it's a horrible idea. :mrgreen: )

>

>

> Actually the keys sound great for a 5 dollar sub fee, I’d gladly buy that. Decently priced, so long as they’d avoid putting exclusive skins In the chests I could see that working out.

 

Or people could just buy gems each month? In the end ANet gets the same amount of money for less work this way.

[TheOrlyFactor.8341]

> @OriOri.8724 said:

> > @TheLastNobody.8319 said:

> > > @OriOri.8724 said:

> > > > @TheLastNobody.8319 said:

> > > > I wouldn’t be opposed to it. If ANET’s problem right now is having a stable source of income a optional sub would probably do the trick.

> > > >

> > > > You’d also have to give other incentives for a sub over just going “well I’ll just buy $20 worth of gems a month.” Perhaps giving a black lion ticket or something along those lines.

> > >

> > > And this is exactly the problem with subscriptions. Over time the bonuses would grow more and more, until it wasn't really a choice to have the subscription or not past a superficial level (think member accounts in RS). This is just a fact of subscriptions. If the bonuses aren't high enough, people won't buy them. People who would buy them without bonuses attached (the only healthy way to have a subscription on a F2P game) should just suck it up and buy gems monthly _regardless_ in order to support ANet. The game is amazing, you shouldn't need bonuses in order to support ANet as a company.

> >

> > You make a good point with how easy It’d be to abuse the sub system, but ANET wouldn’t need to make The incentives that drastic, nor

> >

> > Even if they didn’t give gems with the sub, there are still things they could give to incentivize players, like the BL ticket I mentioned, or a choice of glider, or a social outfit/armor skin like we got with when the game went FTP and all the people who bought it beforehand got....was it the mentor outfit? Can’t rememebr the name, big suit of armor though, nice blue lighting by default.

> >

> > Hopefully with a steady revenue stream coming in we’d see more gemstore type content in the game as actual potential rewards (so we wouldn’t have another mount debacle).

> >

> > > @Rauderi.8706 said:

> > > > @TheLastNobody.8319 said:

> > > > I wouldn’t be opposed to it. If ANET’s problem right now is having a stable source of income a optional sub would probably do the trick.

> > > >

> > > > You’d also have to give other incentives for a sub over just going “well I’ll just buy $20 worth of gems a month.” Perhaps giving a black lion ticket or something along those lines.

> > >

> > > And that's where it kind of snowballs. What incentives would they have to offer to get people to do a $10/month or $20/month subscription?

> > >

> > > I'd be glad to do a $10/month sub, but being the selfish sod that I am, I'd expect something extra every month for the commitment. Extra keys (a free 5-pack per month!) or extra gems (get 20% more gems for your subscription!) or some other similar gem-store oriented benefit. But with Gold->Gem conversion in play, it would be decried as pay-to-win.

> > >

> > > Or, instead of a subscription, have a Gem Reward Track! The more gems you buy with real money, the more rewards you earn!

> > > (Yeah, I know, it's a horrible idea. :mrgreen: )

> >

> >

> > Actually the keys sound great for a 5 dollar sub fee, I’d gladly buy that. Decently priced, so long as they’d avoid putting exclusive skins In the chests I could see that working out.

>

> Or people could just buy gems each month? In the end ANet gets the same amount of money for less work this way.

 

Pretty much this.

 

I try to give Anet at least $25/2000 gems a month anyway because, as much as I despise the story, the gameplay and content they push out is of good enough quality to me warrant that. At least if, for whatever reason, I can't/won't give them anything on a month (it's happened before), I'm still not missing out.