Would you like a GW 2 Optional Monthly Membership?

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"OriOri.8724" 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.

> >

>

> 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.

 

This is an irrelevant, empty response simply reiterating the "no you're wrong! -cries-" response of DarcShriek.5829, which is as much as I would expect.

 

However, I will respond that the poll achieved exactly what I needed it to. If you are unsatisfied with how I worded the options, posed this controversial question, or what results the poll achieved, you are welcome to make your own poll. I would be happy to take part in it and contribute.

 

As to the exaggeration and inability to comprehend the intention of a poll or it's creator, which is common, I enjoy tea and trail mix to this level of entertainment. Please proceed.

 

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"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.

>

 

Well, I would certainly be uninterested in a sub-model like that which PREVENTS content from players who already purchased the game.

 

However, the optional sub model I am proposing does not gate or prevent any feature content. It simply means for example, that the mats you need for whatever you are crafting are a little cheaper on the TP or when you go out gathering you can get more than the non-sub player for the same time spent. Maybe it's not as much as twice the amount of mats, but it should be enough to be a helpful benefit and make your time better spent since you paid for that convenience.

 

If "full enjoyment" to you means having ALL the extra benefits, then you would have to become a member, but that is what makes the membership worth it for players and lucrative for Anet.

 

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"Greener.6204" said:

> > @"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.

>

 

It seems you are not retaining many of the points discussed so far, Greener. Therefore it's difficult and repetitive to make them clearer for you in a response. Remember that the intention is for Anet to make money so the entire game and everyone involved can benefit. Start with that and then reread ALL responses to have a better understanding of the thread's purpose and my approach to the topic.

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"DarcShriek.5829" said:

> > @"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.

 

Well there ya go. You got me Darc. I created this entire thread JUST to ask for discounts! And arguing points in a discussion forum... clearly not what we should be doing.

 

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> 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.

 

The purpose is to establish continuous payment from players through exclusivity. You cannot achieve that to a degree that is dependable and enough to remove the need of such things as lootboxes, if you are relying only on the current way of funding the game.

 

[Mea.5491]

NO, NEVER. I really hate games like that. That is why I couldn't get into ESO. I must pay monthly just to dye my costume (not armor) and access crafting storage! Just horrible! I avoid every game that offers some kind of silly "membership". The way we have GW2 now (B2P with fluff items in Gem Store) is PERFECT and every game should do the same! I occasionally buy Gems with real money. Want more??? MAKE MORE ITEMS I WANT TO BUY! Especially armor skins...

[zinkz.7045]

Putting aside that I severely doubt a subscription would every happen, I'd be fine with one, though a compulsory one, not an optional one.

 

The reason being the subscription model produces the highest quality MMORPG, compromises gameplay less and leads to the game being designed for most of the playerbase, rather than a minority being prioritized.

[TheQuickFox.3826]

I do not think this would be a good idea. I think it opens a slippery slope of putting the non-subscription buyers of the game on a disadvantage.

[Vague Memory.2817]

People have been moving away from subscription based games for a long time, that is why GW2 went the Buy to Play route. Maybe leave the pay 2 win stuff to EA. Look how that is working out for them in SW Battlefronts 2. They are getting absolutely hammered by everyone including Disney, who owns the Star Wars rights.

[Altion.9576]

NO, I bought this game to avoid shit like that.

[Beda Zzle.5281]

I voted "Other" because I do not want a paid subscription for GW2. I buy gems every month and to me that is my subscription. Like someone (maybe multiple someones) have said, I'll buy gems out the wahzoo but not on top of a sub fee.... I like the way GW2 is now... even though with a sub GW2 would be guaranteed the sub fee every month that would not guarantee the extra $100 a month I'd purchase in gems. Take WoW for instance. I pay a sub fee every month but I do not purchase anything else... so to me they are losing money from me.. So, no leave GW2's structure alone.

[TheRandomGuy.7246]

> @"Beda Zzle.5281" said:

> I voted "Other" because I do not want a paid subscription for GW2. I buy gems every month and to me that is my subscription. Like someone (maybe multiple someones) have said, I'll buy gems out the wahzoo but not on top of a sub fee.... I like the way GW2 is now... even though with a sub GW2 would be guaranteed the sub fee every month that would not guarantee the extra $100 a month I'd purchase in gems. Take WoW for instance. I pay a sub fee every month but I do not purchase anything else... so to me they are losing money from me.. So, no leave GW2's structure alone.

 

Sooo... paying less is bad?

[Beda Zzle.5281]

> @"TheRandomGuy.7246" said:

> > @"Beda Zzle.5281" said:

> > I voted "Other" because I do not want a paid subscription for GW2. I buy gems every month and to me that is my subscription. Like someone (maybe multiple someones) have said, I'll buy gems out the wahzoo but not on top of a sub fee.... I like the way GW2 is now... even though with a sub GW2 would be guaranteed the sub fee every month that would not guarantee the extra $100 a month I'd purchase in gems. Take WoW for instance. I pay a sub fee every month but I do not purchase anything else... so to me they are losing money from me.. So, no leave GW2's structure alone.

>

> Sooo... paying less is bad?

 

No, but paying for gem store items on top off a sub is bad... why pay a sub for the things I already get for buying the game. I pay extra for the gem store items that I want without having to pay a sub. But if they want to go the sub fee route and give me all my gliders and costumes and pets for free then sure I'd be all for it...

[Richard.1079]

I would be fine with a monthly subscription offering like 25 black lion keys for $15/month or something similar (a discount on something readily available), but I don’t want anything exclusive. I’ve seen games go that route, and they always say it will only be a few things, but they always expand because the suits pushing for profits get a lot more say than anyone seems to like admitting.

[FANY.6524]

> @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > @"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.

> >

>

> Well, I would certainly be uninterested in a sub-model like that which PREVENTS content from players who already purchased the game.

>

>

 

To be fair, crafting material storage wasn't available when the game came out (and it was originally sub only). The crafting bag is a perk that comes with the + membership, so it doesn't prevent people from doing anything - it just gives them extra storage space.... But, you know, you can just use in-game gold to increase your storage space if you don't want to pay $15 for an extra bag. Where are people getting this idea that they can't deposit items from? It's literally another bag that only crafting material can go into and doesn't prevent you from playing the game at all - it's a convenience.

[Eltiana.9420]

Cyrin, what I think you are failing to understand is how instituting a sub, even if completely optional, would affect the mindset of people playing this game. Look how people are responding in this thread. You can apply as much logic and reasoning as you want, sub fees leave a bad taste in people's mouths, especially considering a lot of people who came to this game, play on the promise that there is no sub fee. Regardless of how it's worded, instituting a sub fee would cause a sizable exodus from this game. Really don't think it'd be worth it, which is why I voted the way I did. Fear mongering is a thing. People would leave. This is the reality of the situation that you are presenting. It's not that making a workable sub fee for GW2 isn't plausible, it's being able to sell it to the consumer base without major backlash.

[Chickenooble.5014]

70% say no. GG. Close thread.

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"Eltiana.9420" said:

> Cyrin, what I think you are failing to understand is how instituting a sub, even if completely optional, would affect the mindset of people playing this game. Look how people are responding in this thread. You can apply as much logic and reasoning as you want, sub fees leave a bad taste in people's mouths, especially considering a lot of people who came to this game, play on the promise that there is no sub fee. Regardless of how it's worded, instituting a sub fee would cause a sizable exodus from this game. Really don't think it'd be worth it, which is why I voted the way I did. Fear mongering is a thing. People would leave. This is the reality of the situation that you are presenting. It's not that making a workable sub fee for GW2 isn't plausible, it's being able to sell it to the consumer base without major backlash.

 

Well said. I had expected that conclusion long before making this poll, but the need for an alternate way for Anet to reliably fund the game without its current desperate attempts still remains.

[Eltiana.9420]

> @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > @"Eltiana.9420" said:

> > Cyrin, what I think you are failing to understand is how instituting a sub, even if completely optional, would affect the mindset of people playing this game. Look how people are responding in this thread. You can apply as much logic and reasoning as you want, sub fees leave a bad taste in people's mouths, especially considering a lot of people who came to this game, play on the promise that there is no sub fee. Regardless of how it's worded, instituting a sub fee would cause a sizable exodus from this game. Really don't think it'd be worth it, which is why I voted the way I did. Fear mongering is a thing. People would leave. This is the reality of the situation that you are presenting. It's not that making a workable sub fee for GW2 isn't plausible, it's being able to sell it to the consumer base without major backlash.

>

> Well said. I had expected that conclusion long before making this poll, but the need for an alternate way for Anet to reliably fund the game without its current desperate attempts still remains.

 

The problem really is, I don't think ANet can really do much of anything to reliably fund the game at this juncture while the community is still so hostile towards them due to mount gate. Any attempt at increasing their revenue is just going to be called out, regardless of how fair it may be. What ANet should really do right now is lay low, and as much as I hate to say it, pander to the community at least a tad, and throw in some affordable mount skins in the gem shop as well as make at least a few earnable in game. These are by far the biggest complaints the community has currently. They really need to win back the community before they can even attempt to try new ways to increase revenue, or they're just not going to have much of a community left when all is said and done.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > @"Eltiana.9420" said:

> > Cyrin, what I think you are failing to understand is how instituting a sub, even if completely optional, would affect the mindset of people playing this game. Look how people are responding in this thread. You can apply as much logic and reasoning as you want, sub fees leave a bad taste in people's mouths, especially considering a lot of people who came to this game, play on the promise that there is no sub fee. Regardless of how it's worded, instituting a sub fee would cause a sizable exodus from this game. Really don't think it'd be worth it, which is why I voted the way I did. Fear mongering is a thing. People would leave. This is the reality of the situation that you are presenting. It's not that making a workable sub fee for GW2 isn't plausible, it's being able to sell it to the consumer base without major backlash.

>

> Well said. I had expected that conclusion long before making this poll, but the need for an alternate way for Anet to reliably fund the game without its current desperate attempts still remains.

 

I had suggested before to sell content, that way, what sells is what gets developed, so they are not just guessing what players wanted and trying to bankroll them from a blind fund (which is also the same problem that subs fall into).

 

Now some games have done a great job with this.. some games have not. It really comes down to how they are built.

 

Sometimes a game company shoots themselves in the foot right from the stat..

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> > 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.

>

> The purpose is to establish continuous payment from players through exclusivity. You cannot achieve that to a degree that is dependable and enough to remove the need of such things as lootboxes, if you are relying only on the current way of funding the game.

>

 

I can only rephrase what I said. I only believe in optional payments. Exclusivity is already in the gemstore. But to give people more than that exclusivity is not needed imo. And I dont want a segregation between VIP members and non VIP members purely based on membership.

 

 

[Miellyn.6847]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > > @"Eltiana.9420" said:

> > > Cyrin, what I think you are failing to understand is how instituting a sub, even if completely optional, would affect the mindset of people playing this game. Look how people are responding in this thread. You can apply as much logic and reasoning as you want, sub fees leave a bad taste in people's mouths, especially considering a lot of people who came to this game, play on the promise that there is no sub fee. Regardless of how it's worded, instituting a sub fee would cause a sizable exodus from this game. Really don't think it'd be worth it, which is why I voted the way I did. Fear mongering is a thing. People would leave. This is the reality of the situation that you are presenting. It's not that making a workable sub fee for GW2 isn't plausible, it's being able to sell it to the consumer base without major backlash.

> >

> > Well said. I had expected that conclusion long before making this poll, but the need for an alternate way for Anet to reliably fund the game without its current desperate attempts still remains.

>

> I had suggested before to sell content, that way, what sells is what gets developed, so they are not just guessing what players wanted and trying to bankroll them from a blind fund (which is also the same problem that subs fall into).

>

> Now some games have done a great job with this.. some games have not. It really comes down to how they are built.

>

> Sometimes a game company shoots themselves in the foot right from the stat..

 

Introducing a pay model that is the complete opposite of what the game is marketed just kills it on the spot. Your suggestion and Cyrin's would just kill the game.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Miellyn.6847" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > > > @"Eltiana.9420" said:

> > > > Cyrin, what I think you are failing to understand is how instituting a sub, even if completely optional, would affect the mindset of people playing this game. Look how people are responding in this thread. You can apply as much logic and reasoning as you want, sub fees leave a bad taste in people's mouths, especially considering a lot of people who came to this game, play on the promise that there is no sub fee. Regardless of how it's worded, instituting a sub fee would cause a sizable exodus from this game. Really don't think it'd be worth it, which is why I voted the way I did. Fear mongering is a thing. People would leave. This is the reality of the situation that you are presenting. It's not that making a workable sub fee for GW2 isn't plausible, it's being able to sell it to the consumer base without major backlash.

> > >

> > > Well said. I had expected that conclusion long before making this poll, but the need for an alternate way for Anet to reliably fund the game without its current desperate attempts still remains.

> >

> > I had suggested before to sell content, that way, what sells is what gets developed, so they are not just guessing what players wanted and trying to bankroll them from a blind fund (which is also the same problem that subs fall into).

> >

> > Now some games have done a great job with this.. some games have not. It really comes down to how they are built.

> >

> > Sometimes a game company shoots themselves in the foot right from the stat..

>

> Introducing a pay model that is the complete opposite of what the game is marketed just kills it on the spot. Your suggestion and Cyrin's would just kill the game.

 

They already do sell Living story (if you were not active when it came out), so that would not be as big a break from what they already do.

 

But that is why I said some game companies shoot themselves in the foot from the start. Your income plan, is very important, and should be worked out from the start.. not tacked on a few years later and in direct contradiction to what you pledged from the start.

[Kapax.3801]

With a monthly subscription there should not be a gem store. All items should be obtained in the game.

[ReaverKane.7598]

First off...

I don't understand the need some people have to subvert the only positive thing that GW2 has accomplished (as in most MMORPGs that launched after GW2 have either been B2P or ended up dying and going F2P).

Second, Pay to win much?

 

GW2's model is very healthy, and if they're struggling it isn't due to the monetization model, its that there have been several moments in the past where Arena Net messed up big time and that drew people away from the game. (It's happening right now with the less than stellar balance patch)

GW2 is a 5 year old game (in modern terms it's VERY OLD, not ancient like WoW, but still not spiffy enough to lure people based on the novelty of the title), and every time a bad patch (or certain dubious choices with the gemstore) come into play, they lose players, and thus lose money.

 

Lastly i'd like to point out to you that microtransactions are the most lucrative way of monetization, that's why even non MMO games are including them.

Unlike mandatory fees that chain you and are "another bill" at the end of the month, microtransactions are based on impulse buys (which the new mount prices kind of off-set, i mean a single mount that costs more than the service subscription for my ISP (as in one of the bills i pay monthly), that'll curb my enthusiasm, and the impulse buy turns into one that i have to think upon, and end up not really buying), so at the end of the month, if a person is liberal enough with it's impulse buying you'll end up spending WAY MORE than you'd pay with a subscription model. And those that don't buy into the microtransactions that much would probably not pay a sub fee either, so win-win. ESPECIALLY with the gem to gold trade creating an extra stimulus for a subset of the population to keep on spending on gems.