would you be willing to pay a subscription

[Yachi lama.7906]

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

For that game? bwaaahahahaha!

Srsly i play it for nearly 6 years .. but pay for it with that balacing? with that lack of content ? with that bugs they bringt with every patch?

bwaaahahahah .. this question made my day

[Rayti.6531]

No.

 

And it's not because I don't want to spend money on the game - actually I spend more than I care to admit on "convenience items" and gemstore skins (and in sum definitely more than I would have with a subscription model in place). Especially when I'm happy with changes made to the game, I tend to find certain gem store items much more attractive and go ahead and buy them. If they introduced a subscription model, I'd most likely stop playing even though it would end up being "cheaper" for me.

 

What I like about the current model is that I can choose when to spend money on supporting the game. It also gives me the freedom to play whenever I like (or quit for months when I don't feel like playing/don't have time to) rather than feeling "forced" to play, just because I already paid my subscription. Being able to play the game casually is one of the things advertised about this game a lot and would no longer apply if this game had a subscription model.

 

**Also the features you mentioned in the OP are:**

1. not what everyone wants/expects from the game (there are different target groups within the GW2 community)

2. partly features where ANet might have decided it's not worth the effort to implement them because of different reasons (see also above)

3. features that might not fit into the game from a design standpoint

4. things they might already work on in the background or might be "on the table" (but with other features having a higher priority)

5. most importantly: not something that will magically appear out of nowhere just because of a switch to a subscription model (and the pressure that some people think they could put on ANet with such a model in place -> "I am forced to pay a sub - why is feature xy not implemented yet?")

[Dawdler.8521]

Some of the most common arguments for subscription is well devs can maintain the game better, add more stuff, avoid p2w, have more ingame stuff instead of a cashshop, "be good" instead of moneygrubbing in general, etc etc.

 

To that I say: **do you even live in the same world as the rest of us?!?!**

 

Game developers and publishers have shown again and again, *again and again* **and again and again and again** that they can NEVER have "enough money". Subscription games come out with cashshops. They add DLC. They add expansion. Everything costs.

 

All while f2p still make billions having the exact same cashshops, dlcs, expansion, passes, whatever.

 

A subscription makes people hesistant to try, which makes the ones paying not having any fun because there is no one to play with, which drives people away and that just start a spiral of doom you cant stop. We've seen it happen as fast as a couple of months.

 

I am incredibly happy that Anet has taken the high road on this. I honestly think GW2 would have been dead within 4 months of release had it been subscription. It would have been sad.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

It's cute how people keep believing that throwing money on anet would result in more content. They already made more money on mounts with PoF and as a result we get less content and what is released is untested or unfinished.

 

There is no question if gw2 would be better with sub fee. GW2 does not deserve sub fee at current state.

[lokh.2695]

The day subscriptions are added and mandatory to the game is the day I will delete my account.

[maddoctor.2738]

If you answered yes in the poll: set a goal for yourself and start buying a set amount of gems every month. Here, you got a subscription.

[Feanor.2358]

Subscriptions, what? Come on, it's not 2008 any more.

[Chaba.5410]

Paying a subscription fee is so against the original intent from developers (MO!) who programmed the free battle.net and went on to create GW1 to prove that gamers didn't need subscription fees for a company to be successful. I don't know why you would even suggest it. So many subscription games have gone free-to-play for REASONS. I will always support games without subscriptions.

[KGS.9842]

If they completely removed the gem shop and made all items from there obtainable in-game, and the subscription is less than 10 EUR a month, I would consider it

[Comus.7365]

i wouldn't throw a tantrum if they added one but i don't really see the benefit of them adding one. what they got going now is most likely way more profitable.

[Goettel.4389]

I wouldn't mind them rethinking revenue streams and implementing a different system, sub-based or otherwise, since I'm already spending €20 on gems each month.

It's tricky business though, and seeing all those shiny gem skins out there it looks like there's good money coming in right now. Best not kitten with that, if it's true.

[VanWilder.6923]

> @"Tort.1975" said:

> -New races

I do not want new races because I simply do not care the looks. I made all my characters as small as possible so They will not block my view while doing JP or hit the wall. Hate that auto zooming so much. For me, those races are just BLOCKS. Not once I zoom in to see how all my characters look like, not even my main.

> -New classes

I may do but too lazy to get hero points to unlock Elite specialization. Got 5 alts, 2 of them have not been unlocked any of elite spec. Lucky that Mastery points are account bound, if not, I would only play 1 character.

> -player housing

I do not even bother to visit my own home instance after the story for once. Hence visiting a house in a home instance is very "Promising" that I will go there. Sarcasm.

> -quality of life features

Depend on what QoL, I am lazy, anything makes my gaming experiment easier will have my vote.

> -more armor/weapons

I am using the meta builds. Anything builds outside of that I won't give a glance, never give a kitten to try new builds, test new stats. What is fun for me is how fast I kill mobs. Armor, dont care about cosmetics. All my characters, 5 actually, using the defaul skins of "zojja's, yassith's", never transmutation and not once I zoom in to see how they look like nor hear what they say. All my mounts are using original skin, never bother to dye, dont even bother to zoom in and see how they look like.

I mute all sound while playing GW2. Disable all the NPC's speeches. Skip all the "blahblah" in the story, or unskippable, I looked away. Never bother to get Achievement Points. Because all of that, IMO, are meaningless. Many would say that I am play MMO/RPG wrong because GW2 is about fashion. i got GW2 as a gift, bought ls2+3 using gold to gems. I dont think I will ever spend any real money to this game, it is a great game and I like it but "IT IS JUST A GAME". Good, keep playing, micro transaction or sub fee then I move on. No emotion attached whatsoever.

 

And That is how I play GW2 and I am enjoying it, playing the game whenever I can and do things as slow as I want, subscription will push me to be a hardcore player and when you rush things, you lose your "COOL".

 

Sum up. I would say "NO" to paying "subscription".

 

[Tort.1975]

> @"StinVec.3621" said:

> Just to note - the [search](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/search "Search") feature of the forums that is found at the top of every page is functional.

>

> There are already 3 other poll threads that exist on these forums asking about feelings on a subscription cost:

> * [Would you support ArenaNet if they implemented an optional subscription?](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/1412/would-you-support-arenanet-if-they-implemented-an-optional-subscription "Would you support ArenaNet if they implemented an optional subscription?")

> Started: September 14, 2017

> 376 votes

> 5 pages of comments on the topic

> Dominant Opinion = **No, I do not support the idea of an optional subscription.**

> * [Would you prefer to pay for content?](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/18551/would-you-prefer-to-pay-for-content "Would you prefer to pay for content?")

> Started: November 30, 2017

> 114 votes

> 1 page of comments on the topic

> Dominant Opinion = **No, I prefer the system we have now.**

> * [Would you like a GW 2 Optional Monthly Membership?](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/20083/would-you-like-a-gw-2-optional-monthly-membership "Would you like a GW 2 Optional Monthly Membership?")

> Started: December 10, 2017

> 337 votes

> 4 pages of comments on the topic

> Dominant Opinion = **No, GW 2 was always meant to be sub-free and should stay that way no matter what.**

>

> As many players have already voted in those polls in the months they have existed, perhaps take a look at them and read the pages of opinions expressed on the matter to get an idea of what kind of interest there is in a subscription cost. If time is an issue and you cannot spend it performing this action, the majority in all existing polls on these forums say no to any kind of subscription cost.

and

> @"Blude.6812" said:

> May I respectively suggest that the OP use the search function for similar topics. You would discover that this have been discussed, suggested, thoroughly examined and dismissed many many many many times in the past.

>

sorry about this. I been with the game since release but have just recently join the forums, so still trying to get familiar with the layout. I did a quick search on google and didn't see anything really pop up, so I didn't really think there was anything on it.

 

> @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> NO!!! Also, stop assuming that everyone wants new races, classes and player housing, or even some of those other items you listed...those are things you want, everyone needs to stop talking for everyone else.

 

I must politely disagree. In the short time I been on the forums I have seen countless threads about races/new weapon with a vast majority of players in favor of it.

 

I didn't mean to offend anyone with this poll. I was just seeing how many people like or dislike the idea of a subscription which I now see is a very bad idea. I would still like to see some more content in future like this and occasionally by gems about every two weeks since i have a good paying job.

[Razor.9872]

It would really depend on how the "subscription" was implemented. Like, not paying for the subscription shouldn't subtract from the game in the least. It would be a fine line to walk.

[Danikat.8537]

I voted no for 2 reasons:

 

1) It doesn't appear to actually lead to more stuff being released. Elder Scrolls Online uses this model - it's buy to play with a store selling very similar things to GW2's and also has an optional subscription which gets you a few extra perks, including some things we get free, like material storage and the ability to dye outfits (the ones which are equivalent to GW2's outfits, not the system they call outfits which is basically the wardrobe...games really need to standardise their terminology more).

 

They do 4 releases a year - 1 expansion (which everyone, including subscribers, has to buy), 1 dungeon DLC (literally 2 dungeons with associated achievements and items) and 1 story DLC which is like a Living World release (which subscribers get as part of their benefits and everyone else can buy separately) and 1 free QoL update. I suspect because subscribing gives you £9/$15 of cash shop currency to spend it basically just means people who would buy in-game currency regularly anyway subscribe instead, so no one's actually spending any extra.

 

What it does achieve is subscribers demanding that all new features (or at least those they think aren't essential) should be made subscription exclusives so they can feel like they're getting their money's worth and complaining that they're not getting enough stuff and deserve more. It also leads to some people treating non-subscribers like 2nd class citizens - calling them 'free loaders' or 'free to play accounts' and complaining that they can't be bothered to support the game - regardless of how much they actually spend - and insisting that subscribers opinions should be more valued, subs should have 1st priority for everything from loading into PvP to getting replies from Support and so on.

 

2) A subscription model does not work for me. I can't actually remember the last time I had a regular schedule and there's absolutely no way for me to know at the start of a month how much time I'll have to play, much less whether I'll want to spend it playing that particular game. I could very easily end up paying for time I will never get to use. Even worse I'm one of those people who feels pressured to use the time I've paid for so even when I can play I end up feeling like I'm doing it because I have to (and rushing things to make sure I'm getting the best use of my time) and then I don't enjoy it as much. I don't mind spending extra on a game I've already bought (if it's on things I want!) but I much prefer a system where I can buy things and then have it available to use whenever I want.

[otto.5684]

I dunno about WoW and FF14, but the GW2 model, is considered more profitable currently. Since a much larger portion of the revenue is generated from the cash shop, MMOs try to be accessible to the largest possible audience. Having F2P and low cost expansions ensures that.

[KeoLegend.5132]

Remember that not everyone lives in US! So a US subscription price would cost A LOT in other countries

[ShiningSquirrel.3751]

"So we all know that there are features and content that we want integrated in to game such as"

 

Actually you mean "some features" that "some players" want. Add subscription, lose most of the player base, great idea.

[Zawn.9647]

They can't even balance the current classes... Why would we need more? :pensive:

[juhani.5361]

Maybe, if the "subscription" was voluntary and had benefits I was interested in. I've subbed for SWTOR, where "Preferred" status is painful, and F2P is pretty much so impossibly horrid you battle the urge to uninstall every 30 seconds. I've gone Patron in SWL, which offers one daily cache key, higher XP and double the skill unlocks. It's painful to level skills and weapons otherwise. Same with ESO. I tried without ESO+ after Steam's free weekend last year, and ran out of gold just when my armor was so out of sync with my level. The ESO+ crafting bag made a huge difference for me this time around.

 

Stuff that would appeal to me:

 

1) More character slots.

2) The ability to have characters on different servers, not just the low-population one I picked when I first started playing fresh off of SWTOR's overcrowded servers and/or free transfers.

3) Better story with more individual agency or a single "Commander" who's not a titanic jerk.

4) Gem store stipend of some sort.

5) Luck/gold find bonuses.

[Alek Seven.2374]

Out of the 25 regulars in my guild (me included), 23 (me included again) would close their account if it becomes pay to play (unless its optional).

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said:

> I would absolutely pay a subscription, and I do in a sense with monthly gem purchases (in fact, I pay more than I did for WoW!). However, I'm not sure that's a winning strategy for this game as I doubt I am like most players in this. **But if there were no other considerations and paying a subscription meant more content? **There's no question I'd be willing to pay for that.

 

That's the point, that's a **BIG IF** and a big assumption.

Just look at the Warframe vs Destiny 2 comparissons to realize more money doesn't equal more quality.

It's all in the mentality and the ambition, and honestly, Arena Net seemingly lost most of it's ambition. The living world became a repetition of the same formula that worked for Season 3, with barely any changes, PvP balance is stale and ineffective, they even stopped adding Jumping Puzzles, which was probably the last realm of creativity that was left in Season 3.

 

> @"otto.5684" said:

> I dunno about WoW and FF14, but the GW2 model, is considered more profitable currently. Since a much larger portion of the revenue is generated from the cash shop, MMOs try to be accessible to the largest possible audience. Having F2P and low cost expansions ensures that.

Those two games can get away with subscriptions because of the huge franchise behind them. Warcraft was already a giant brand before WoW, and WoW became a monolith on the back of the RTS. It's the most recognizable brand in terms of MMORPGs, and to the lay man that's the game that's associated with RPGs.

Final Fantasy speaks for itself. I mean XIV started out as a crappy game, and still had a lot of people. Thankfully they were honest and caring enough to actually turn it into a good game (or so people say, i don't play sub games), but if it wasn't for the brand name, it wouldn't have survived the subscription model.

And still both of those games had to add a premium store to their game, so clearly the subscription model isn't the best one.

 

This type of suggestion comes only from a place of ignorance and the prejudice that used to be associated with Free to Play games.

 

[Celldrax.2849]

Lets put it this way. I've have literally not once played WoW (not even the free trial).

 

The reason for that is the monthly subscription. I've got enough other shit to pay for without spending money on that.

[Etria.3642]

All a subscription did for swtor is help fund anthem. Swtor itself certainly didn't get much from it. Go to their forums and read the pages of complaints about lack of content bugs and terrible short story considered 'Content'.

 

We get an actual explorable map, albeit somewhat small. They get an outpost. Yep. Can't walk outside it.

 

The one thing I wish would come here that they have is two versions of their raids. But worth a sub to get it? No. They put all their development into the Cartel market so they get not only the sub but also money from packs and stuff AND STILL have a huge lack of content.

[EdDreath.2508]

if the class design is not busted that it undergo ridiculous nerfs into oblivion patches after patches (watching you scourge), my consideration on subscription plan would increase from 0 to 1%