Would you like a GW 2 Optional Monthly Membership?

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"DarcShriek.5829" said:

> > @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > > @"OriOri.8724" said:

> > > Jesus what an awful poll. On a topic this controversial you need as few options as possible.

> > >

> > > Yes

> > >

> > > No

> > >

> > > Potentially (explain in comments)

> > >

> > > You absolutely cannot run a successful poll on this topic with so many options to choose from for answers.

> >

> > This is incorrect. Less options so you can more clearly see the "No" results is not how you more accurately study public opinions.

> >

> > The poll met the exact purpose I needed, which was to gauge a public opinion more diversely and specifically than "yes" and "no". As well as separate the different types of "no" opinions which you have successfully helped achieve for me. The point is to separate players from their fear of the word "sub" long enough for them to actually analyze what an optional sub would mean. It's not as simple as "yes" and "no". There is also the "other" option as well.

> >

> > To do a basic poll as you suggest, would not be adequate for this type of subject. However if you feel there is something you'd rather analyze that wasn't in or achieved from this poll, you have the choice to create your own poll. Though the point would ultimately be redundant, less accurate, and likely reveal the same overall results.

> >

> I guess I was wrong. I thought you started this thread in order to ask for discounts in the gem store. But I see you made a poll just to argue with people that respond differently than you.

>

 

It looks like you were incorrect with both thoughts, but no worries I can elaborate on this for you. This thread was started to gauge public opinion and ideas on an optional sub model for GW 2. If all you see is argument, then you're only seeing the face value of discussion. The point IS for others to respond differently, contest opinions, and share thoughts. That's what discussion boards are for :) Please join in if you have a credible argument to share.

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"Aerlen.5326" said:

> You are suggesting "Pay To Win" mechanics.

>

> N O

 

Should you read carefully when voting on a poll?

 

Y E S

[Crossaber.8934]

i have kept supporting the game by gems, and i like the way works as is, if i don't like the game is heading, i stop buying gems, its that simple.

 

 

[Taelac.7036]

No. The closest I'll stand to an optional sub would be the ability to set up an automatically recurring gem purchase. No extra benefits beyond the convenience of not having to make a new purchase each month for those who would like to automate.

[Fundor.2098]

An optional membership program might benefit GW2 a great deal, if it would be designed well.

You had many good ideas about giving little convenience bonuses to those who would have the membership. Also slight discounts from the gem store would be a great idea. Not free stuff, but slight discounts. Nothing too outstanding from no-subscription, but some nice little convenience things.

However, you also listed many ideas which would give subscribed players VERY unnecessary recognition and raise them on display so to say. That really shouldn't happen.

[Mahou.3924]

> @"Menadena.7482" said:

> > @"Jin.8501" said:

> > People vote for no, then they whine about lack of content and expensive gem store stuff. Makes sense.

> > And in other thread people are wondering why sub MMOs do better content and popularity wise

>

> You do realize what attracted many people WAS no sub, optional or otherwise, right? The moment there is even an optional sub the company starts putting things in it to get people to subscribe so saying it is optional is like saying there is not pressure to buy GW2 or an expansion.

>

> As to popular? It mystifies me why they are popular. The most well known one has graphics that are cartoonish and kitteny 'quests'.

 

C'mon, graphics and art style is purely personal prefereance. You don't like it? Fine, but that doesn't make it inherently bad or a negative argument against subs. Neither are quests. BUT, the no quest deal among other non-existant classic MMO concepts were - of course - part of GW2's initial appeal.

[Ceridwen.6703]

On one hand, I really have months where I pay more than is reasonable in gems so a subscription can only make sense. On the other, I've had months where I've not been sure if the family in RL would be fed, so have appreciated the no-sub approach with gold-to-gems options. I see merits to both a subscriber option and no-sub option. I'm not sure I sit comfortable with subscriber perks - any other game, sure, do it, but not this one.

 

So I suppose I could say a subscriber option isn't worth it, as if someone wanted that, they could just buy 800 gems (or 1600, or whatever) regularly every month, as it supports the game as a sub should. There's always something interesting in the gem shop. I don't think the game can support a subscription now, even if I can see its merits, as it will be too contentious to a large portion of the player base, perhaps creating greater inequality than we see even now. We're really looking for a different game for that sub model; it wouldn't be right to implement it here.

 

And now I've argued that with myself, I think I could've voted in "no, are you crazy?! Leave it as it is with no sub" option. ;)

[Lindaklingomat.1253]

I think that it would ruin everything that makes GW2 special. The thing that made me play this game in the first place was that everything you_ can _pay for is cosmetics. Some other games are very unfair when it comes to paid subs. One that really comes to mind is LOTRO with their pvp, you can only play as the "free people" if you are a subscriber - and I have the feeling that the "monsters" are somewhat under powered in comparison to the free people.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @"Lindaklingomat.1253" said:

> I think that it would ruin everything that makes GW2 special. The thing that made me play this game in the first place was that everything you_ can _pay for is cosmetics. Some other games are very unfair when it comes to paid subs. One that really comes to mind is LOTRO with their pvp, you can only play as the "free people" if you are a subscriber - and I have the feeling that the "monsters" are somewhat under powered in comparison to the free people.

 

I think it's pretty sad that after 5 years what makes GW2 special is just "no sub fee". But you are correct, that's how people in general gaming crowd see GW2. If they notice it at all.

[Lindaklingomat.1253]

> @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > @"Lindaklingomat.1253" said:

> > I think that it would ruin everything that makes GW2 special. The thing that made me play this game in the first place was that everything you_ can _pay for is cosmetics. Some other games are very unfair when it comes to paid subs. One that really comes to mind is LOTRO with their pvp, you can only play as the "free people" if you are a subscriber - and I have the feeling that the "monsters" are somewhat under powered in comparison to the free people.

>

> I think it's pretty sad that after 5 years what makes GW2 special is just "no sub fee". But you are correct, that's how people in general gaming crowd see GW2. If they notice it at all.

 

Well, that's not entirely my point, because it doesn't stop there, I think that the base of this game is that everyone is equal - and that is a thing that is supported by the fact that you can't "make yourself better" with real money. As an example: The fact that you have the possibility to buy gems with gold is seriously awesome.

Oh, and this is only in regards to the monthly sub idea - I think that this game is special in many other ways :)

[Iza.6415]

GW2 has the weirdest community... I have never seen other game that begs pay-to-win and Module DLCs to be implemented. I love the game for what it is now. As long as it does not cross the line like EA and Activision, I will support it.

[sorudo.9054]

i gather buy what i want from an in-game store and spend more then paying every single month on gimmicks.

[starhunter.6015]

For $5 a month (28 day pass) the Lion's boarding pass. Allowing players to travel back in time to before Lions Arch was destroyed and rebuilt. Consider it same as Royal Terrance or Mistlock pass.

[OriOri.8724]

> @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > @"OriOri.8724" said:

> > Jesus what an awful poll. On a topic this controversial you need as few options as possible.

> >

> > Yes

> >

> > No

> >

> > Potentially (explain in comments)

> >

> > You absolutely cannot run a successful poll on this topic with so many options to choose from for answers.

>

> This is incorrect. Less options so you can more clearly see the "No" results is not how you more accurately study public opinions.

>

> The poll met the exact purpose I needed, which was to gauge a public opinion more diversely and specifically than "yes" and "no". As well as separate the different types of "no" opinions which you have successfully helped achieve for me. The point is to separate players from their fear of the word "sub" long enough for them to actually analyze what an optional sub would mean. It's not as simple as "yes" and "no". There is also the "other" option as well.

>

> To do a basic poll as you suggest, would not be adequate for this type of subject. However if you feel there is something you'd rather analyze that wasn't in or achieved from this poll, you have the choice to create your own poll. Though the point would ultimately be redundant, less accurate, and likely reveal the same overall results.

>

 

This polling system is not capable of performing polls of that nature, and you should be aware of that. Plus, this is a hugely controversial answer. Dressing up your answers in order to try to sway the answer of people answering the polls is a valid hack on polls, and used widely (which can be seen in your very poll here), and does nothing but make it harder to determine what people really want.

 

For a topic this controversial, you first need to determine if people even want an optional subscrption in the first place, not hte reasoning behind their answers. The comments are the place to go to write down your reasoning, not picking 1 of 4 different No options in order to dilute them, to make it look like the Yes options carry more weight versus No than they really do.

 

Besides, none of this changes the fact that the perks you mention make it non optional.

[Menadena.7482]

> @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > @"Menadena.7482" said:

> > > @"FANY.6524" said:

> > > Firstly, let me say that I really don't mind optional "perk" memberships. ESO, for example, has one that I don't mind and find decent enough that I would pay it. It allows the following:

> >

> > I actually consider that an example of why an optional sub is a bad idea. It is like the difference between the BTP and FTP versions of this game. An optional sub should not feel like it is mandatory to get the full enjoyment from the game. An 'optional' sub to get access to your bank?

>

> Maybe you could further elaborate on this. What in particular makes the sub feel mandatory and constitutes "full enjoyment" of the game?

 

I was looking into ESO as a secondary game. I decided against it after buying it on other ground but I was not impressed with its sub model. To take just one thing: having to pay a sub fee to be able to deposit mats. Playing it without the "optional" sub felt like it would be a trial, sort of what ppl expect if they download something that is FTP when a paid version exists.

 

[Zeefa.3915]

Bad idea in a game sold with one of the major values being no subs. The reason many chose this game. Even if optional this breaks with one of the core values and would rightfully be considered upsetting to a lot of people.

As long as people use the gemstore and buy expansions, they seem to be doing fine and makes great content. You can even make your very own optional "sub" buying gems each month to the extend you feel is right and can afford, with 0 effect on other people.

 

Oh and I love the game, I love the content we are getting and the pace we are getting it at, the only time I ever complained about the price of something is the singular mount skins.... which is not too big a peeve for me afterall.

 

[titje.2745]

maybe ppl play gw2 instead of wow because its free.

but if you make both games the same price every month maybe then the ppl move to wow because.... i dont have to explain :)

and it would be unfair for poor ppl. they want advantages also but dont have the money. now everyone gets the same ingame. if bought basic xpack.

gemstore items are optional. and cosmetic most times.

[Greener.6204]

> @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > @"Greener.6204" said:

> > I've re-categorized your ideas.

> Unfortunately for us, that isn’t how marketing and increasing sales works. The purpose of an optional subscription model is to entice members and keep members for that monthly fee. Not cherry-pick and make certain items and benefits available directly.

>

Your first sentence isn't related at all to anything I said. It's a sentence that simply tries to dismiss rather than discuss my words. The second sentence shows how subscriptions work, but doesn't show the necessity, which is still lacking from your argument. The third sentence I can't make heads or tails of, could you explain what you mean here?

 

> There has to be a collective exclusivity in benefits and items to make the membership something worth buying and keeping. If the gem store was working as well as you assume, the need to squeeze it (high prices, limited-time sales, scarcity, ect.) and things like loot boxes, BL keys with low chance, and transmutation charges wouldn’t be as focused on and as necessary to Anet as they are now.

>

Did you just claim that the marketing strategy which Anet has always had is now different from what they've always had, and therefore proof that it's not working? "My local market puts items on sale and rotates out produce seasonally like they've done for 5 years; therefore they're now struggling." Anet's always rotated stock. Anet's always had items at varied price-points. Anet's always had loot boxes. Anet's always had a low drop rate on BL keys. People have always focused on transmutation charges. So what's changed and therefore proof that things aren't working?

 

> The ideas I included are meant to be possible and rework-able ideas. Most who come into this thread will see the word "sub", then look at the possible ideas I alone conjured up, and base their vote on that which is expected. But I want players to look at the idea of an optional sub system and conjure their own ideas of how it can work. If they truly can't find any, then the question of the discussion has found it's answer.

>

My point is that any idea which one tries to develop would fall into the categories of either removing sinks, duplicating what the gem-gold market already does, or offering things which could simply be sold to all customers. If your goal was to facilitate ideas from other players, your approach was poor. You can't conflate asking people whether or not a subscription model could be beneficial with what items would you like to see offered. You'll see one focused on while the other is lost in the noise.

 

[Saranos.9703]

This to me is too far down the pay to win slippery slope. The moment this is introduced I would be uninstalling GW2, no hesitation, despite how much I love this game.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Chichimec.9364" said:

> As a complete newbie, I've been playing the game for 9 whole days and I love it. So I would sign up for a reasonable sub to help support it's ongoing development. I came here from an mmo that never got the financial base it's creators needed so they stopped putting any effort into it. That was sad to see. So yes, I'd do a sub and would buy gems to help keep this game going.

 

Hello and welcome!

 

Just wanted to point out that there is nothing stopping you from voluntarily paying ANet $15/$20 for gems per month and consider it a subscription fee.

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > @"DarcShriek.5829" said:

> > > @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > > > @"OriOri.8724" said:

> > > > Jesus what an awful poll. On a topic this controversial you need as few options as possible.

> > > >

> > > > Yes

> > > >

> > > > No

> > > >

> > > > Potentially (explain in comments)

> > > >

> > > > You absolutely cannot run a successful poll on this topic with so many options to choose from for answers.

> > >

> > > This is incorrect. Less options so you can more clearly see the "No" results is not how you more accurately study public opinions.

> > >

> > > The poll met the exact purpose I needed, which was to gauge a public opinion more diversely and specifically than "yes" and "no". As well as separate the different types of "no" opinions which you have successfully helped achieve for me. The point is to separate players from their fear of the word "sub" long enough for them to actually analyze what an optional sub would mean. It's not as simple as "yes" and "no". There is also the "other" option as well.

> > >

> > > To do a basic poll as you suggest, would not be adequate for this type of subject. However if you feel there is something you'd rather analyze that wasn't in or achieved from this poll, you have the choice to create your own poll. Though the point would ultimately be redundant, less accurate, and likely reveal the same overall results.

> > >

> > I guess I was wrong. I thought you started this thread in order to ask for discounts in the gem store. But I see you made a poll just to argue with people that respond differently than you.

> >

>

> It looks like you were incorrect with both thoughts, but no worries I can elaborate on this for you. This thread was started to gauge public opinion and ideas on an optional sub model for GW 2. If all you see is argument, then you're only seeing the face value of discussion. The point IS for others to respond differently, contest opinions, and share thoughts. That's what discussion boards are for :) Please join in if you have a credible argument to share.

 

Nope, right with both. You have asked for discounts and you have argued with people whose response you don't like.

[KeoLegend.5132]

If it ever becomes like it im done with the game

[FANY.6524]

> @"Menadena.7482" said:

> > @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > > @"Menadena.7482" said:

> > > > @"FANY.6524" said:

> > > > Firstly, let me say that I really don't mind optional "perk" memberships. ESO, for example, has one that I don't mind and find decent enough that I would pay it. It allows the following:

> > >

> > > I actually consider that an example of why an optional sub is a bad idea. It is like the difference between the BTP and FTP versions of this game. An optional sub should not feel like it is mandatory to get the full enjoyment from the game. An 'optional' sub to get access to your bank?

> >

> > Maybe you could further elaborate on this. What in particular makes the sub feel mandatory and constitutes "full enjoyment" of the game?

>

> I was looking into ESO as a secondary game. I decided against it after buying it on other ground but I was not impressed with its sub model. To take just one thing: having to pay a sub fee to be able to deposit mats. Playing it without the "optional" sub felt like it would be a trial, sort of what ppl expect if they download something that is FTP when a paid version exists.

>

 

I guess that's fair. I feel GW2 has spoiled us a bit with the gathering material storage, but I've played ESO without the optional sub (as I'm doing right now) and with it, and honestly it doesn't give off that "FTP" vibe. Probably helps that it's a really good game without the fluff, but eh. To each their own.

[Kalendraf.9521]

Keep it free. Any convenience items should be sold as gemstore items. Other perks should not be offered.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

I wouldn't be against an enrollment of monthly gems however.

As an Option anyway. Then again you can do that yourself if you really believe in it.

 

But the way OP made his post it's like if you're a member you get all these benefits. Where I'm thinking, it really shouldn't provide anything more than what the gemstore is already providing.