Would you like a GW 2 Optional Monthly Membership?

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> I appreciate that GW2 is sub-free, but I would be willing to pay a relatively small monthly sub (more in the $5 range) for some reasonable perks. Some of your ideas there sound good, but many would be a bad idea. The discount perks would be base because people would just abuse them to get a sub every once in a while, make a bunch of discounted purchases, and then cancel by the next month. The things like TP discounts and harvesting bonuses would not work because they would throw the economy in disaray, basically allowing TP sharks with subscriptions to have a massive competitive advantage over other players.

>

> I do think that things like free WPs and similar services, membership status symbols, things like that might end up being worth it. Right now I'm in a position wher eI'd like to give ANet money to support the game, once they replace the Mount loot box, of course, but there's not really much being offered that I want to buy. A monthly sub could be way to do that, so long as it was a reasonable value.

 

As mentioned to a previous comment, it depends on how Anet implements those changes. They aren't going to throw it in there and hope players don't find loopholes to abuse. There also needs to be more and greater gold sinks like the griffon that players are likely to use.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > > It would go directly against their core design philosophy.

> > > >

> > > > Breaking Trust like that, would make instantly easy to drop this game.

> > >

> > > How would it go against their core design philosophy? A sub as optional as buying a mount skin has no effect on a player who doesn't buy it other than perhaps the desire to have what others have, which is nothing new to GW 2.

> >

> > From MO himself.

> >

> > > Mike o'Brian

> > > So if you love MMORPGs, you should check out Guild Wars 2. But if you hate traditional MMORPGs, then you should really check out Guild Wars 2. Because, like Guild Wars before it, GW2 doesn’t fall into the traps of traditional MMORPGs. It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; **and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee**.

> >

> > GW1 and GW2 prided themselves on the B2P option, they literally invented such an idea for an MMO. In an era of MMO's going F2P.. trying to input a Sub into a game that was a trendsetter to not have one.. they may as well slit the games throat.

>

> I would assume the comment of not having a monthly fee is about having no walls between the player and just playing the game. I don't think he meant no subscription models at all including optional ones. Why should players be afraid of a sub that doesn't prevent you from playing and doesn't give you a gameplay advantage over other players?

>

> Also, GW 2 already broke their core philosophy of "no grinding treadmill" long ago. If your idea of fun is playing in WvW at lvl 80 with good-equipment and all abilities or playing in raids or fractals, you have to grind experience or you have to spend money.

 

LOL, at this point.. I kinda would like to see them do this.. I missed the NGE train wreck.. I would love to witness the fallout first hand if they did something like this.

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> The main problem is that is would set up a feeling of anyone who is no paying the sub, would be looked upon as a "second class citizen" now.. and I have actually seen this happen in other games that had optional subs. Now that game was built to be optional sub, it not tacked on, 5 years after it was made.

>

> GW2, now 5 years in, with a highly unfavorable Expansion like HoT, and dropping in sales, to try that Kind of move to put in a Sub system. LOL, oh.. the damage that would do, it would become the next NGE cautionary tale, of what not to do.

>

> But then again, they have taken what was once a super casual friendly MMO, and are trying to turn it into some challenging Raid end game MMO type system.. so they may be willing to give this idea try, after all.. the worst that happen is they admit they screwed up and try to launch a GW3, with a massive apology and promise never to do that again.

>

> Well no.. the worst that happen is the GW3 bombs.. and Anet goes out of business.. but that would not hurt any of us directly as we would just move on to some other game, the same way people moved on from Champions Online and Ashrons Call.

 

This is a good point. It would likely have that effect on non-members, but its not much different from a F2P player. If you want more, it has a cost. There needs to be that incentive to pay more if you want more from the game than you are already getting for free and with your time. But if it helps the game and ultimately benefits everyone (greater content and development) then what are we really losing?

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> This is a good point. It would likely have that effect on non-members, but its not much different from a F2P player. If you want more, it has a cost. There needs to be that incentive to pay more if you want more from the game than you are already getting for free and with your time. But if it helps the game and ultimately benefits everyone (greater content and development) then what are we really losing?

 

It won't help the game.. it will just piss off a lot of people, many who will look it like it's either flat out betrayal, while others will look upon it as P2W cohesion to get them to spend money.

 

Did you miss people losing their minds for a paltry 25 bucks for a mount skin? And you don't think this would end up a catastrophic fail in the long and short run?

 

But yah.. put it in.. what's the worst that can happen.

[Torolan.5816]

There are some nice features in your list OP. But:

*If you want a subscription you can already make one by buying gems

*If Anet can´t manage to balance their income, they have to close shop.

*I find it very disturbing that some people are so bent on spending money nobody directly asked them for. Are you so desperate or so afraid that Anet will tank tomorrow?

Do you also go out of your way and give a homeless person 20 dollars whenver you encounter them? That would be something I could stand behind more.

*None of the bonus items you mention personally gives me something. it would be stuff only your wallet can grant you, and why should people who like to parade around parade around with something like that? To show the size of their wallet and come out as a tin soldier? Makes no sense.

*I already don´t look for a BLC with one character per week, why should I want three? It´s a sanctioned exploit I have no need for personaly.

 

In summary, a prime membership would not only deepen a first front between casuals and hardcore players, it would also open a second front between whales and hardcore players and a third one between the steady income and the student/unemployed/juvenile people. Not to speak of how many people would just categorically quit over a news like that.

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

 

> People will get mad that let's say an inscription needing 2 dowels instead of 5 or a recipe needing 1 hardened leather than whichever will consider it pay to win as they have to "Pay up, or spend more gold/gems to get this feature" and of course if they stop paying they have lose the benefit.

 

It depends if you craft a lot. If you do and only needing two dowels vs. five is worth something to you, then that membership really helps you out a lot. It also helps every other aspect of your crafting from gathering, to TP, and more. If one has more benefits than disadvantages, what is there to regret from the membership for them?

 

> Same as above can be said here with how some people will see it. Especially if for example on the Soulbound ones where if when you stop paying, anything that was on a character would be locked to that character again until they pay up. Can see this putting people off.

 

> Seeing how many call this "Fashion Wars". I can see a looooot of angry people from this one, lol.

 

If players are jealous and angry about the benefits of members... then that should be enough incentive to become a member and keep your membership for as long as it benefits them. Just as those who are jealous of PoF players with mounts. You want the special goods... ya gotta pay.

 

 

> I think at first this will be fine, but the moment someone say in map chat during Tequila or any other world boss "Nice! I got super ultra rare item/drop from one of those extra chests!" People will swarm the boards saying "So this is pay to win now? He got a better chance on getting items in the game fromthis subscription!"

 

That player will have a better chance. CHANCE being the key word. They have a benefit. Not a guarantee of that rare item. They paid for that greater chance and deserve it. But they did not pay to directly win that item. They only made it more likely and more convenient which is the purpose of the membership.

 

> I've seen people make topics about some Mini Itzel or something that someone in Arenanet has only and people wondering "WHY CAN'T WE GET IT?!" Exclusive minis and finishers and capes I can see the annoyance from people who like thise mini things.

 

I think the players you are describing need to realize that not everything is going to be available to them in basic fashion. There have always been exclusive things in GW 2 and this membership model only expands that into something that everyone can take advantage of. It also helps the entire game as a whole instead of select players that happened to be around at the right time for a certain reward.

 

 

[Bakeneko.5826]

This is how games become p2w

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > This is a good point. It would likely have that effect on non-members, but its not much different from a F2P player. If you want more, it has a cost. There needs to be that incentive to pay more if you want more from the game than you are already getting for free and with your time. But if it helps the game and ultimately benefits everyone (greater content and development) then what are we really losing?

>

> It won't help the game.. it will just kitten off a lot of people, many who will look it like it's either flat out betrayal, while others will look upon it as P2W cohesion to get them to spend money.

>

> Did you miss people losing their minds for a paltry 25 bucks for a mount skin? And you don't think this would end up a catastrophic fail in the long and short run?

>

> But yah.. put it in.. what's the worst that can happen.

 

Well I think that speaks more to the intelligence of a part of the community than the actual legitimacy of the benefits. I can't speak for the community, but I can say that a membership model, if implemented the right way, could provide many good things for the game.

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"Bakeneko.5826" said:

> This is how games become p2w

 

...when implemented incorrectly. GW 2 continues to do old and new mmo features better than most games and I have a faith in their ability to design a fitting membership model.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > That ends up being worse than no-subscription: first, there's nothing in it that can't be achieved today _except_ for the exclusive perks. And second, it uses exclusivity to sell the "optional" subscription — it would no longer be optional for people who want those things, whereas currently folks can spend on just what they want to spend on.

> >

> > And it doesn't mean that ANet will get _more_ money and it doesn't mean the income will be more consistent; it just means they'll get money in a different way. It doesn't guarantee different amounts of development. In fact, if the current management isn't good at managing the budget with their current income, throwing more money at them wouldn't help.

> >

> > And all that is at the expense of undermining one of the core 'personality' features for GW2: no subscription; it's all voluntary.

>

> There are plenty of benefits from what I listed that can't be achieved. Extra chests from events in addition to all that you can currently get? 3 keys a week triples what you can get from key-grinding the story missions.

 

>

> Everything in and of the game is optional and based on what the player desires. Buying the game at all is optional. The difference between this and something like a lootbox is that if you become a member, you know what you will get. With a lootbox, you might get something you never expected or wanted. Can you get the wild magic glider directly? Currently, players CANNOT spend on only what they want to spend on if they want something exclusive.

> Anet would certainly make more money from a sub-model if it's being bought.

>

> A sub would not undermine the core features, but it would alter it. It's still voluntary and it gives more benefits to the players.

 

A sub absolutely undermines the core view that people have of the game: that it's not sub. It doesn't matter if you call it voluntary or not: if you give away tons of stuff that regular players can't get, then it doesn't feel voluntary. And if you don't have lots of exclusives, then why would people pay US$15/month?

 

As it stands now, people can voluntarily spend as much or as little as they like. And you haven't established that this earns the studio a steady increase in income, especially considering how much effort this would take to set up.

 

Regardless, you asked for opinions. I've offered mine.

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"Torolan.5816" said:

> There are some nice features in your list OP. But:

> *If you want a subscription you can already make one by buying gems

> *If Anet can´t manage to balance their income, they have to close shop.

> *I find it very disturbing that some people are so bent on spending money nobody directly asked them for. Are you so desperate or so afraid that Anet will tank tomorrow?

> Do you also go out of your way and give a homeless person 20 dollars whenver you encounter them? That would be something I could stand behind more.

> *None of the bonus items you mention personally gives me something. it would be stuff only your wallet can grant you, and why should people who like to parade around parade around with something like that? To show the size of their wallet and come out as a tin soldier? Makes no sense.

> *I already don´t look for a BLC with one character per week, why should I want three? It´s a sanctioned exploit I have no need for personaly.

>

> In summary, a prime membership would not only deepen a first front between casuals and hardcore players, it would also open a second front between whales and hardcore players and a third one between the steady income and the student/unemployed/juvenile people. Not to speak of how many people would just categorically quit over a news like that.

 

I think you lost focus a few times there, but buying gems for specific things and buying a membership that gives multiple things you want and might not want but still benefit you, are very different things. I'm sure Anet can "balance their income", but they need a better way of doing so that also opens doors to more development where it's needed.

 

The focus is to improve and support the game, the devs, and the players. This is not carelessly throwing money at the company and if you didn't care to do any of those things and just want to play the game, you have that option. That's the point of an OPTIONAL membership.

 

The benefits are not extreme enough to divide players. They are good enough to make some jealous of others. Which is the right kind of incentive needed and intended.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > That ends up being worse than no-subscription: first, there's nothing in it that can't be achieved today _except_ for the exclusive perks. And second, it uses exclusivity to sell the "optional" subscription — it would no longer be optional for people who want those things, whereas currently folks can spend on just what they want to spend on.

> > >

> > > And it doesn't mean that ANet will get _more_ money and it doesn't mean the income will be more consistent; it just means they'll get money in a different way. It doesn't guarantee different amounts of development. In fact, if the current management isn't good at managing the budget with their current income, throwing more money at them wouldn't help.

> > >

> > > And all that is at the expense of undermining one of the core 'personality' features for GW2: no subscription; it's all voluntary.

> >

> > There are plenty of benefits from what I listed that can't be achieved. Extra chests from events in addition to all that you can currently get? 3 keys a week triples what you can get from key-grinding the story missions.

>

> >

> > Everything in and of the game is optional and based on what the player desires. Buying the game at all is optional. The difference between this and something like a lootbox is that if you become a member, you know what you will get. With a lootbox, you might get something you never expected or wanted. Can you get the wild magic glider directly? Currently, players CANNOT spend on only what they want to spend on if they want something exclusive.

> > Anet would certainly make more money from a sub-model if it's being bought.

> >

> > A sub would not undermine the core features, but it would alter it. It's still voluntary and it gives more benefits to the players.

>

> A sub absolutely undermines the core view that people have of the game: that it's not sub. It doesn't matter if you call it voluntary or not: if you give away tons of stuff that regular players can't get, then it doesn't feel voluntary. And if you don't have lots of exclusives, then why would people pay US$15/month?

>

> As it stands now, people can voluntarily spend as much or as little as they like. And you haven't established that this earns the studio a steady increase in income, especially considering how much effort this would take to set up.

>

> Regardless, you asked for opinions. I've offered mine.

 

$15 a month would be too much, they could never justify that and get away with it. But $5 wouldn't be unreasonable, and there could be some reasonable perks they could offer without treading too far into "P2W" territory. Son't call it a "subscription," call it like the "Bonus club" or something. It'd be a bit similar to the lounge passes.

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > That ends up being worse than no-subscription: first, there's nothing in it that can't be achieved today _except_ for the exclusive perks. And second, it uses exclusivity to sell the "optional" subscription — it would no longer be optional for people who want those things, whereas currently folks can spend on just what they want to spend on.

> > >

> > > And it doesn't mean that ANet will get _more_ money and it doesn't mean the income will be more consistent; it just means they'll get money in a different way. It doesn't guarantee different amounts of development. In fact, if the current management isn't good at managing the budget with their current income, throwing more money at them wouldn't help.

> > >

> > > And all that is at the expense of undermining one of the core 'personality' features for GW2: no subscription; it's all voluntary.

> >

> > There are plenty of benefits from what I listed that can't be achieved. Extra chests from events in addition to all that you can currently get? 3 keys a week triples what you can get from key-grinding the story missions.

>

> >

> > Everything in and of the game is optional and based on what the player desires. Buying the game at all is optional. The difference between this and something like a lootbox is that if you become a member, you know what you will get. With a lootbox, you might get something you never expected or wanted. Can you get the wild magic glider directly? Currently, players CANNOT spend on only what they want to spend on if they want something exclusive.

> > Anet would certainly make more money from a sub-model if it's being bought.

> >

> > A sub would not undermine the core features, but it would alter it. It's still voluntary and it gives more benefits to the players.

>

> A sub absolutely undermines the core view that people have of the game: that it's not sub. It doesn't matter if you call it voluntary or not: if you give away tons of stuff that regular players can't get, then it doesn't feel voluntary. And if you don't have lots of exclusives, then why would people pay US$15/month?

>

> As it stands now, people can voluntarily spend as much or as little as they like. And you haven't established that this earns the studio a steady increase in income, especially considering how much effort this would take to set up.

>

> Regardless, you asked for opinions. I've offered mine.

 

The sub is an additional benefit in the game. Not a requirement. GW 2 doesn't entirely become a sub game simple because their is a sub option in it. You can play every feature of the game just fine without the sub. All you are missing out on is the increased benefits of those features. The extras.

 

What you are saying is that no form of a sub of any kind should be in GW 2 simply because it's called a sub or in that category. Buy why should THIS type of sub not be in the game? If it's the word "sub" that frightens us so much, then we can change it to something else more comforting and tell our friends they can play for free without a sub, because that will still be true.

 

Voluntary means exactly that, a choice. If you want the exclusive items that come from the membership, you can choose to get it. How is that different from any other exclusive item in the game? Players would pay a sub for the benefits and the exclusives. If none of those are worth it to you, then you wouldn't have a problem with exclusive items and wouldn't need to buy the membership.

 

Players can voluntarily spend as much or as little as they like on non-exclusive items, yes. What about the exclusive items currently in the game now? If people want them, they can voluntarily do what's necessary to get them.

 

The point of the thread is an idea for a new way of income that could likely increase the income for Anet. Both by membership and regular sales. If the memberships sell well, Anet may be making more than they ever have on "micro-transactions" simply because players are paying a monthly fee and still spending money on the gem store and for new expansions. The memberships make gem store sales more likely because of the reduced price on everything available. If the memberships didn't sell well, the work and time creating it would also be costly. So it depends on how many would pay for and keep their subs... which is why this thread exists; to gauge how many would be interested and what would make them interested.

 

 

[IndigoSundown.5419]

Let's start with the given that MMO development companies are looking to make money. So, offering things as part of the "sub" that are over and above what they offer in the store only works to a point. A minor discount (say 400 gems, a $10 value) on a $15 sub fee is a money maker. As soon as the sub starts offering more that they could charge for, the proposition looks worse for the company. At that point, they'd need to look at the possible revenue from the sub versus the possible revenue accruing from offering those benefits without the sub. The better the sub looks to the consumer, the worse it looks to the company.

 

For this reason, what you see in freemium sub packages is that the company makes the sub fee attractive by withholding _existing_ features from the non-sub players, and renting those features to the sub players. This is easier to sell to consumers when a game converts to freemium. The thought process runs like this, "Well, the game is now free to play, so naturally some features that came with the sub will now come with the optional sub." One example I remember from ToR conversion was that the non-paid game only came with the base skill slots and one added quick slot. If you wanted to use more of your skills, you had to rent added quick slots by paying the "optional" sub.

 

In GW2, converting from a no-sub B2P by taking away existing features is going to cause a lot of backlash. People would feel cheated, and justifiably so. Going there would cost ANet a lot of customers, and squander a lot of whatever good will they have left. So, ANet would have to add new, desirable, features. The problem with that is that any new features used to create incentives for a sub could also be sold in the store. That brings us back to the issue I raised above -- the better the package looks to the consumer, the worse it looks to the company.

 

The way around that would be volume. A huge number of "optional" subscribers would make up for a lot of the potential revenue loss from not selling the sub benefit items to those customers in the store. I don't know what the numbers would look like for GW2. i do know that the more benefits the sub fee rents, the greater that volume would have to be. Now, add in that the production costs associated with the OP's laundry list would likely be hefty. Add to that the likelihood of alienating a lot of the potential renter base for the sub (existing players, many of whom came to this game because it had no sub). I don't know how many players would go for an optional sub package, but I suspect that whatever that number is, it is unlikely to be massive enough to offset the losses in players paying for XPacs and gems under the existing plan, the development costs, the loss of good will and the negative publicity, which would negatively impact the game's ability to attract new players.

 

That's why this suggestion looks to me like a bad idea for this game.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

What impacts the community is how it plays out:

* If the rewards aren't substantive and exclusive, how does it different from what people can do already?

* If the rewards are exclusive, then the majority of players will be cut off from the very thing that drives people to the gem shop.

* If the rewards are substantive, then GW2 moves away from "Buy to Play" into some other realm, the nature of which depends on how substantive the rewards are.

 

In other words, you can call it voluntary, you can change then name from _Subscription_ to _Patronage_, it's still going to feel like there's pressure to spend on more than just the expansion.

 

There's nothing wrong with subs; it's just unlikely to be a good fit for this game 5 years into its history.

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> What impacts the community is how it plays out:

> * If the rewards aren't substantive and exclusive, how does it different from what people can do already?

> * If the rewards are exclusive, then the majority of players will be cut off from the very thing that drives people to the gem shop.

> * If the rewards are substantive, then GW2 moves away from "Buy to Play" into some other realm, the nature of which depends on how substantive the rewards are.

>

> In other words, you can call it voluntary, you can change then name from _Subscription_ to _Patronage_, it's still going to feel like there's pressure to spend on more than just the expansion.

>

> There's nothing wrong with subs; it's just unlikely to be a good fit for this game 5 years into its history.

>

 

The game has ALWAYS had pressures to spend more than the box/expansion. That has ALWAYS been a part of the business model. This would just be a different available option. I agree that it's a tricky needle to thread, making it something of enough value that people would appreciate it, without being so useful that players felt it was vital or even overly pressuring, but I believe it's fundamentally possible.

[Cragga the Eighty Third.60]

Frankly, $10-$15 a month is more than I could commit to paying. (Especially in addition to buying coins and ex-pacs.) Sometimes I have it extra, sometimes I don't. I don;t want to mess with having to cancel a subscription or restart it. This also has the disadvantages inherent in gem store bundles: I don't want everything being offered in the bundle, and it costs me less to just get the stuff I want separately. A LOT less

[Wandering Mist.2973]

I have no issues with an optional monthly subscription, but the benefits have to be balanced and not affect the game too much. I can see what's recommended in the OP could be potentially harmful to the game. The in-game cost benefits (depending on how many got subscriptions) could drastically affect the in-game economy. All the things mentioned are gold sinks, and gold sinks are a required mechanic in mmorpgs to stop hyper-inflation of the economy. Without it, players would stack up more and more gold with nothing to spend it on, and the gold eventually becomes worthless.

[Cyrin.1035]

Just to clarify to those I quoted, I don't mean to discredit your opinion in any way. I just want to make sure this idea of a monthly membership fee is really understood and considered before we just write it off completely because it's a sub. Sub = Bad word in GW 2.

[Charrbeque.8729]

Take a hint from the community already. NO MEANS NO!

 

I'm sick of this crap. Every damn time someone posts a thread about ArenaNet's quarterly earnings, someone takes it to mean the company is going bankrupt, and suggest we all be forced to pay more money for the game.

 

Didn't you learn anything from mountgate?

[Mellodia.7534]

> @"Shirlias.8104" said:

> Buy

> The

> Damned

> Gems

> With

> Real

> Cash

 

I agree with this, I've already supported the game by buying the digital versions themselves (uhhh except Daybreak cuz I'm gonna wait a tad on that)

Otherwise, my support comes from buying gems and I am content enough with simply that. I like that it has gold exchange so I don't really have to be bothered by free waypoints and other junk that is relatively already cheap as they are. I'll start having issues once I see the dollar value of different things in the game shop become ridonkulous, but then again, I don't have to pay for it if I don't want to. I feel that's something many people forget when they get used to paying for their gaming, but currently in this particular game you have the choice not to, you have the choice to save up for things outside in the real world, and you have a chance to play happily without some discouraging bullcrap looming over your head like "Oh, my sub expires in x days and these great perks will be taken away" spoken like an addict and the last thing I'm willing to become is in fact a gaming addict who just throws their money without thinking like the meme of Philip J Fry "Shut up and take my money!". Eff that.

[Astralporing.1957]

Either do the subscription or the gemshop. Don't do both.

[Greener.6204]

I've re-categorized your ideas.

 

## Removal of economic sinks

* People pay real life money to remove sinks from the game. Have you thought about the effect these will have on the economy?

No cost to use waypoints

No crafting license fee

No coin cost for salvaging

Reduced material amount for all crafting recipes

Gold discount on Trading Post fees

Discount on all gem store items

Discount on expansion releases

Soul-bound items are now only account-bound.

Unlimited and free item skin transmutation.

One extra shared-slot for your account.

One extra character slot for your account.

One extra bank tab for your account.

Two extra bag slots pre-filled with 20-slot bags.

 

## Addition of economic faucets

* People pay real life money to gain more, bypassing the gem-gold system which is built to handle such a thing.

Double amount of materials from gathering nodes.

Extra chest in addition to the daily chest from world bosses.

Extra rewards from daily achievement chests.

Black Lion Keys can be aquired from the Story Mission 3 times a week instead of the current 1 key per week.

 

## Items which could just be sold for all players to buy

* Did you think of the cost to develop some of this stuff? Are these lost when a person doesn't renew their subscription?

Can hire a henchie for free that lasts 1-2 hours in PvE non-dungeon content.

Daily Membership Buff (gives all the bonuses of the strength, speed, armor, karma, heroic, and celebration boosts for 2 hours after daily reset and does not count down while logged off - resets each day - alters for PvP and WvW).

Pickup loot radius is increased.

Character Screen Background now can be switched with a few other select backgrounds.

A Rune and Sigil Bag that takes up one slot and holds all available types of runes and sigils.

An additional special item with each daily log-in reward.

Exclusive access to unique items from skins to wardrobe items and toys released on occasion.

Exclusive Guild Hall decorations and finishers.

Exlusive mini, dyes, and titles.

Dyable cape with your membership to show off your membership status.

Special badge by your name on the forums to indicate your membership status.

Access to exclusive avatars for your forum account.

 

Your ideas either have players spend money to gain economically (which we already have a mechanic for called gems), or they're ideas which could be sold directly in the gem store without being hidden behind a subscription (which you've yet to posit any reason for needing to be implemented, making all of this seem rather moot).

[Ameepa.6793]

"Optional" sub is impossible. It would have to be good enough so people would buy it, and then it would no longer be optional since it is that good.

[Cyninja.2954]

I'm one of the strong defenders and believers that many players do not pay their share (as in to cover cost, which is higher than buying the occasional expansion) to keep the game afloat while at the same time criticizing and asking for more.

 

Yet, even I would be absolutely against a paid subscription which pushes the game into p2w mode. I absolutely despise games which have pay to win aspects no matter if I can afford them or not.

 

Any person who wants to support the game can already do so by spending a voluntary monthly amount on gems. This is already a direct economic advantage versus other players, no reason to add more ab-usable aspects locked behind an "optional" subscription.