would you be willing to pay a subscription

[Gehenna.3625]

> @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> They make more than enough ~~gold~~ money from the steadly-more-and-more-ridiculously-priced Gemstore.

 

When the cash shop in an MMO shows increases in price and frequency, that usually is a sign that the game isn't doing that well financially. Aside for the months around an expansion release there is a clear downward trend in spending and so to keep the game viable the cash shop becomes more important. This happened last year as well in SWTOR when they changed to massive direct sales rather than the rng boxes they had before. Also that is a sign that the game wants to get more people to spend cash on the game rather than relying on a number of whales that have an increasingly smaller target audience for their cash shop item sales in game. SWTOR had server merges as well last year.

 

I cannot say much about population in GW2, but the financial reports of NcSoft are clear. Unless there is a temporary expansion spike, revenue goes down every month. Cash shop sales can be annoying when their presence is increased but at the same time it's probably needed to keep the game viable financially.

 

Personally I am pro-sub because it comes with certain advantages that people tend to forget. However, I do not think that adding it to GW2 makes any sense.

 

So yes I am willing to pay a sub as a general rule of thumb, but no I don't think it's appropriate for GW2.

 

[Gehenna.3625]

> @"Endless Soul.5178" said:

> I've spent well over $1,500 USD on this game since March 2015. That's _without_ a subscription. However, as others have mentioned above, the moment this game becomes subscription based, I'm out, and so is my money.

 

I find people like yourself interesting. You prefer spending 1500 bucks on leased items but you'd be against paying 150 bucks a year which is much cheaper. So, if you could try to help me understand, why would you be happy to spend 1500 bucks but find spending 450 bucks instead a problem? I'd be happy with the 1000 bucks I'd have saved but apparently you see some advantage to spending over 3 times as much and I just have a hard time understanding what that advantage is that you perceive.

[Ephemiel.5694]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > @"Fenom.9457" said:

> > > Absoultely i will pay if Anet hires more employees to make more content.

> > >

> > > More content = more money.

> > > Quality of content can increase money

> >

> > Again, check the comparissons between Destiny 2 (a paid game with paid updates) vs Warframe (a free game with what's widely considered one of, if not the, fairest premium stores in the world).> @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > > I would be paying a subscription even without anything added.

> > >

> > > Subscription models are just that much better.

> > > Why? Because if they can get money without the need of a cashshop, it means that all the skin content and other "comfort" items could be obtained through playing the game.

> > > Which is... kinda the point of a game. Playing it.

> > >

> > > Of course that's ONLY if the gemstore stops being a thing.

> >

> > Except that nowadays all subscription games also have a premium store. Do they have less stuff on offer, sure, but they still have it.

> >

> > > @"Yannir.4132" said:

> > > I'd be down to a Voluntary (Premium) Subscription model with no p2w aspects. Maybe cosmetic benefits like exclusive mount skins or like an exclusive legendary gizmo(only available in PvP atm). Mistfire Wolf would be cool to get as well. Maybe a custom title. Maybe if you play on a free account, and buy the sub, you could be upgraded into a core account.

> > > But the thing is, even if I'd be okay supporting ANet with a subscription, I don't want to force it on everyone and I don't want it to have any unfair benefits, because that would make me feel like a scrub, which I'm not.

> >

> > Thing is, these things eventually downgrade into the subscribers asking for more than non-subscribers.

> > Also, like me, and others have said, more money doesn't equal better quality. In fact it can men just the oposite. 2017 was arguably the best year in terms of finance for GW2, and yet that money didn't translate into an improvement in the game's quality.

>

> Warframe doesnt get much content. It gets alot of updates which incentivise you to replay existing content/grind it.

>

> I dont really want better content quality outside of bugs, production value of the fontent can be the same,i just want more of it.

 

Warframe is widely considered the best F2P game you can play even when it doesn't get much content and it's mainly updates and additions to what it already has, that should tell you A LOT about how good their approach works.

[Ephemiel.5694]

> @"Zedek.8932" said:

> Yes, I would. Just like my boss needs to pay me monthly so I can and want take care of my department, I would also pay to keep up this game on a regular base.

> I've been raised by that way and I am glad about that. Millienials however want everything Free2Play, but then do not accept jobs themselves if it's not 5,000€/month net.

>

> But then, I boycott Office365 and Adobe due to that, so I am kinda amibivalent on that matter.

>

> The question is: Would GW2 greatly benefit from that? Can we, like a pay toll road, expect and demand better service then? The support doing their work for example?

>

> Buying gems is useless for me since there is no dark/thief'ish stuff there (would pay 20€ for suppressed pistols with the right sound).

>

> Excelsior.

>

> EDIT: 4 days ago, Square Enix received 13 EUR for FF14. Does not feel too bad.

 

Games went F2P because companies realized that cash shops and microtransactions made far more money with far less work, not because "millennials want everything f2p".

[Gehenna.3625]

> @"Ephemiel.5694" said:

> > @"Zedek.8932" said:

> > Yes, I would. Just like my boss needs to pay me monthly so I can and want take care of my department, I would also pay to keep up this game on a regular base.

> > I've been raised by that way and I am glad about that. Millienials however want everything Free2Play, but then do not accept jobs themselves if it's not 5,000€/month net.

> >

> > But then, I boycott Office365 and Adobe due to that, so I am kinda amibivalent on that matter.

> >

> > The question is: Would GW2 greatly benefit from that? Can we, like a pay toll road, expect and demand better service then? The support doing their work for example?

> >

> > Buying gems is useless for me since there is no dark/thief'ish stuff there (would pay 20€ for suppressed pistols with the right sound).

> >

> > Excelsior.

> >

> > EDIT: 4 days ago, Square Enix received 13 EUR for FF14. Does not feel too bad.

>

> Games went F2P because companies realized that cash shops and microtransactions made far more money with far less work, not because "millennials want everything f2p".

 

But maybe they realized this because "millennials wanted everything f2p" and so they started looking for other means of making money...and found them.

[Ephemiel.5694]

> @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > @"Ephemiel.5694" said:

> > > @"Zedek.8932" said:

> > > Yes, I would. Just like my boss needs to pay me monthly so I can and want take care of my department, I would also pay to keep up this game on a regular base.

> > > I've been raised by that way and I am glad about that. Millienials however want everything Free2Play, but then do not accept jobs themselves if it's not 5,000€/month net.

> > >

> > > But then, I boycott Office365 and Adobe due to that, so I am kinda amibivalent on that matter.

> > >

> > > The question is: Would GW2 greatly benefit from that? Can we, like a pay toll road, expect and demand better service then? The support doing their work for example?

> > >

> > > Buying gems is useless for me since there is no dark/thief'ish stuff there (would pay 20€ for suppressed pistols with the right sound).

> > >

> > > Excelsior.

> > >

> > > EDIT: 4 days ago, Square Enix received 13 EUR for FF14. Does not feel too bad.

> >

> > Games went F2P because companies realized that cash shops and microtransactions made far more money with far less work, not because "millennials want everything f2p".

>

> But maybe they realized this because "millennials wanted everything f2p" and so they started looking for other means of making money...and found them.

 

....no, they didn't. They realized it because they found out they make far more money that way. Again, not because "millennials wanted everything F2P".

[AegisFLCL.7623]

No.

 

The story quality has gotten worse. The elder dragons being the main villains however many years we are into the game is a BORING theme at this point; there is no quality of connection between them existing and us as the PC.

 

Aside from that there is no concrete means of progress in terms of player power aside from artificially inflated/poorly balanced elite specs. As a GW1 player, and player of GW2 since release, there is no viable reason to craft ascended or legendary items (of which I sadly have 3) as they only exist for prestige, looks, or simple convenience. Outside of beating a raid, there is no satisfaction or progression in this game in my eyes, it's simply an expensive game of dress up for those who buy gems/gemstore items.

 

With the introduction of raids the GW2 team has abandoned the idea of not having the holy trinity exist, and to me by adding difficult and coordinated content there needs to be a carrot at the end of the stick otherwise you're going to have a minuscule percentage of your player base ever touching that content. The large majority of items are earned through other, more easily attainable means basically pushing players who may actually enjoy the raiding experience away from that content. As is, the quality of the storytelling in this game doesn't make up for the lack of character progression.

 

I generally dislike grinding for items, but if they actually meant something to my character I'd be for it, and would even consider paying a sub fee. GW2 in it's current state is a personally unrewarding way to spend my free time.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Zedek.8932" said:

> > @"Endless Soul.5178" said:

> > I've spent well over $1,500 USD on this game since March 2015. That's _without_ a subscription. However, as others have mentioned above, the moment this game becomes subscription based, I'm out, and so is my money.

>

> This is weird. You spend all that money mostly on your 5 million alts, right? All that stuff should/would be free then because of no Gemstore I guess (from the OP's idea at least).

> So with a subscription, you'd be **much, much cheaper** (roughly would've _saved $1,000_ - taking 40 months à $13 = $520), however, you would immediately quit if you had to pay a monthly fee. Mind to explain? And one of the other 8 upvoters, too, why they think that, uh, let's kindly call it "logic", is reasonable?

>

> So far, many of the posters here (mostly 50%) are just barking because it'd cost money. Simple the principle of costing money. Others voiced their opinion which are fine and make sense, but your's really odd. Or just a part of the aforementioned 50%?

>

>

 

I am willing to spend money when I want to. I have spent thousands of dollars on the game between two accounts. Being told that I cannot access any of what I have already spent money on unless I spend $15 more would be off-putting for me.

 

Of course any opinion on how to spend disposable entertainment budgeted dollars is reasonable. The goal is to be happy. If buying the game and items contained therein makes one happy, but renting access to content does not then opposing a sub fee while being willing to spend more on purchases is perfectly reasonable.

[Danikat.8537]

Well if you really want to get into the history of it originally paying a subscription for an MMO had nothing to do with paying for new content - that had to be purchased separately, as it still is in many P2P games. The subscription fee was purely to cover the cost of running the servers, which back in the 90's was very expensive for something considered a niche market, and other running costs. Remember early MMOs had nothing like the numbers even mid-level games get now, Ultima Online's developers were aiming for 15,000 players at launch and it was considered amazing that they hit 100,000 in the first year, and that was released all over the world.

 

Just a few years later people began to talk seriously about how that really wasn't necessary any more. Server costs had gone down and MMOs were catching on with a wider market than their predecessors like MUDs could ever have imagined (and this is still pre-WoW). They could easily cover the server costs through box sales or through other means. Early free-to-play games experimented with all kinds of ideas, including in-game advertising, as alternatives because microtransactions didn't exist - bank fees were too expensive and slow to process. (Remember when you couldn't use your card in shops unless you were spending over a certain amount? Usually £5 in the UK. That was for the same reason - less than that and it would wipe out their profit.)

 

When downloadable content caught in in 2005/6 it was more of a logical next-step than a game-changer for MMOs. Both free-to-play and pay-to-play games incorporated it into their business model and it caught on surprisingly quickly and proved very profitable.

 

I have to admit I've never heard how consumer preferences played into that, other than the popularity of microtransactions. My understanding has always been that the shift away from pay-to-play games was due to other options becoming available rather than customers proving unwilling to pay a subscription.

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @"Ephemiel.5694" said:

> People STILL don't seem to realize why companies constantly do B2P or F2P instead of sub based. Some of you seem to be stuck in 2006.

 

You mean an era without micro-transactions literally everywhere?

Yeah, I kinda liked it more :)

[Ephemiel.5694]

> @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > @"Ephemiel.5694" said:

> > People STILL don't seem to realize why companies constantly do B2P or F2P instead of sub based. Some of you seem to be stuck in 2006.

>

> You mean an era without micro-transactions literally everywhere?

> Yeah, I kinda liked it more :)

 

Grats, we're not in that era anymore, we haven't been for years.

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @"Ephemiel.5694" said:

> > @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > > @"Ephemiel.5694" said:

> > > People STILL don't seem to realize why companies constantly do B2P or F2P instead of sub based. Some of you seem to be stuck in 2006.

> >

> > You mean an era without micro-transactions literally everywhere?

> > Yeah, I kinda liked it more :)

>

> Grats, we're not in that era anymore, we haven't been for years.

 

The question is "would you be willing to pay for a subscription", so it's pretty much a call for opinion rather than what is in place right now.

[lagrangewei.8516]

to have a new successful subscription MMO would require the game to be as good as final fantasy which is not an easy task. it won't be something anet can just stick a fresh coat of paint and achieve.

[GreyWolf.8670]

This has been brought up many times and my response is still "nope." Blizzard taught me not to rent games on the hope that new content would come in a timely fashion. I am also done with cash shops and that's thanks to ANet rather than Blizzard.

[ReV.6097]

I paid sub and bought store stuff in SWToR: and I regret it. Too much cash wasted.

I do love GW2, but I spend a good enough amount eeach week on gems, which would be far more than any monthly sub. I'd probably do away with my account if it got to that point. Either that or they'd have to reduce store item prices, to keep customers because a monthly sub + the money on store items together would just be taking the piss.

[Lorienys.5407]

I gave it some thought, and eventually went with "yes", but I would want gem store prices adjusted to be cheaper, plus some other perks, like idk free black lion keys every now and then. I put enough money in the game, and if the yearly sum was divided equally between months, it would be the equivalent of a subscription anyway. I don't want to be required to increase that amount of money I spend to a point where it just seems outrageous...

[Cragga the Eighty Third.60]

When I came looking for a new game to play, I looked for one that was free to play. That's why I and many others are here.

 

Since then I've bought two expansions, all the living world content before Head of the Snake (where I came in) and more gems than I would ever admit to anyone I know in real life. Now you propose that a monthly fee be added that I must pay to continue enjoying stuff I _already_ paid for under different, agreed-upon terms. **No**. If my hours get cut, if I have car repairs to pay for, if I can't make that monthly payment, you say I must give up any right to enjoy the stuff I have already bought? That was not the deal when they took my money, and if it had been, I'd have gone elsewhere. Unacceptable to change the terms now.

 

I don't know why this subject keeps being dragged out and waved around like a moldy old trout every couple of months. As far as I'm aware, Anet is not considering instating sub fees.

[Endless Soul.5178]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > @"Zedek.8932" said:

> > > @"Endless Soul.5178" said:

> > > I've spent well over $1,500 USD on this game since March 2015. That's _without_ a subscription. However, as others have mentioned above, the moment this game becomes subscription based, I'm out, and so is my money.

> >

> > This is weird. You spend all that money mostly on your 5 million alts, right? All that stuff should/would be free then because of no Gemstore I guess (from the OP's idea at least).

> > So with a subscription, you'd be **much, much cheaper** (roughly would've _saved $1,000_ - taking 40 months à $13 = $520), however, you would immediately quit if you had to pay a monthly fee. Mind to explain? And one of the other 8 upvoters, too, why they think that, uh, let's kindly call it "logic", is reasonable?

> >

> > So far, many of the posters here (mostly 50%) are just barking because it'd cost money. Simple the principle of costing money. Others voiced their opinion which are fine and make sense, but your's really odd. Or just a part of the aforementioned 50%?

> >

> >

>

> I am willing to spend money when I want to. I have spent thousands of dollars on the game between two accounts. Being told that I cannot access any of what I have already spent money on unless I spend $15 more would be off-putting for me.

>

> Of course any opinion on how to spend disposable entertainment budgeted dollars is reasonable. The goal is to be happy. If buying the game and items contained therein makes one happy, but renting access to content does not then opposing a sub fee while being willing to spend more on purchases is perfectly reasonable.

 

Ashen understands me.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

I see people have very optimistic view of sub fee, which is basically naive belief that starting sub fee would remove lots of stuff from gemstore and added as base feature. Don't fool yourselves.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

> I don't know why this subject keeps being dragged out and waved around like a moldy old trout every couple of months. As far as I'm aware, Anet is not considering instating sub fees.

 

Some people believe if anet added sub fee they would get more raids.

 

 

[zealex.9410]

> @"Ephemiel.5694" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > > @"Fenom.9457" said:

> > > > Absoultely i will pay if Anet hires more employees to make more content.

> > > >

> > > > More content = more money.

> > > > Quality of content can increase money

> > >

> > > Again, check the comparissons between Destiny 2 (a paid game with paid updates) vs Warframe (a free game with what's widely considered one of, if not the, fairest premium stores in the world).> @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > > > I would be paying a subscription even without anything added.

> > > >

> > > > Subscription models are just that much better.

> > > > Why? Because if they can get money without the need of a cashshop, it means that all the skin content and other "comfort" items could be obtained through playing the game.

> > > > Which is... kinda the point of a game. Playing it.

> > > >

> > > > Of course that's ONLY if the gemstore stops being a thing.

> > >

> > > Except that nowadays all subscription games also have a premium store. Do they have less stuff on offer, sure, but they still have it.

> > >

> > > > @"Yannir.4132" said:

> > > > I'd be down to a Voluntary (Premium) Subscription model with no p2w aspects. Maybe cosmetic benefits like exclusive mount skins or like an exclusive legendary gizmo(only available in PvP atm). Mistfire Wolf would be cool to get as well. Maybe a custom title. Maybe if you play on a free account, and buy the sub, you could be upgraded into a core account.

> > > > But the thing is, even if I'd be okay supporting ANet with a subscription, I don't want to force it on everyone and I don't want it to have any unfair benefits, because that would make me feel like a scrub, which I'm not.

> > >

> > > Thing is, these things eventually downgrade into the subscribers asking for more than non-subscribers.

> > > Also, like me, and others have said, more money doesn't equal better quality. In fact it can men just the oposite. 2017 was arguably the best year in terms of finance for GW2, and yet that money didn't translate into an improvement in the game's quality.

> >

> > Warframe doesnt get much content. It gets alot of updates which incentivise you to replay existing content/grind it.

> >

> > I dont really want better content quality outside of bugs, production value of the fontent can be the same,i just want more of it.

>

> Warframe is widely considered the best F2P game you can play even when it doesn't get much content and it's mainly updates and additions to what it already has, that should tell you A LOT about how good their approach works.

 

Warframe amd de are known for alot of great things. Content pace isnt one of those.

 

Also, ofc you can play even when theres no new content, game's basically a grind.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > @"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

> > I don't know why this subject keeps being dragged out and waved around like a moldy old trout every couple of months. As far as I'm aware, Anet is not considering instating sub fees.

>

> Some people believe if anet added sub fee they would get more raids.

>

>

 

Theres multiple things that would increase the numbers of raids and fractals. Better work flow internally, more money. Money they can get alot more easily than fixing bad management.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > > @"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

> > > I don't know why this subject keeps being dragged out and waved around like a moldy old trout every couple of months. As far as I'm aware, Anet is not considering instating sub fees.

> >

> > Some people believe if anet added sub fee they would get more raids.

> >

> >

>

> Theres multiple things that would increase the numbers of raids and fractals. Better work flow internally, more money. Money they can get alot more easily than fixing bad management.

 

Throwing money at them won't help. They have money. But they also have terrible management, that we agree on, ancient game engine, terrible game code and bajillion other problems, one of which is their attitude. About mostly anything they do. Throwing money at them won't help. You (we?) need new anet and totally new gw game. This one is done, trapped in its current form.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > > > @"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

> > > > I don't know why this subject keeps being dragged out and waved around like a moldy old trout every couple of months. As far as I'm aware, Anet is not considering instating sub fees.

> > >

> > > Some people believe if anet added sub fee they would get more raids.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Theres multiple things that would increase the numbers of raids and fractals. Better work flow internally, more money. Money they can get alot more easily than fixing bad management.

>

> Throwing money at them won't help. They have money. But they also have terrible management, that we agree on, ancient game engine, terrible game code and bajillion other problems, one of which is their attitude. About mostly anything they do. Throwing money at them won't help. You (we?) need new anet and totally new gw game. This one is done, trapped in its current form.

 

I dont have an issue with their attitude personally. My issues with the game would need radical changes which theres a big chance that they would kill it or a new instalment.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"Ephemiel.5694" said:

> > > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > > > @"Fenom.9457" said:

> > > > > Absoultely i will pay if Anet hires more employees to make more content.

> > > > >

> > > > > More content = more money.

> > > > > Quality of content can increase money

> > > >

> > > > Again, check the comparissons between Destiny 2 (a paid game with paid updates) vs Warframe (a free game with what's widely considered one of, if not the, fairest premium stores in the world).> @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > > > > I would be paying a subscription even without anything added.

> > > > >

> > > > > Subscription models are just that much better.

> > > > > Why? Because if they can get money without the need of a cashshop, it means that all the skin content and other "comfort" items could be obtained through playing the game.

> > > > > Which is... kinda the point of a game. Playing it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Of course that's ONLY if the gemstore stops being a thing.

> > > >

> > > > Except that nowadays all subscription games also have a premium store. Do they have less stuff on offer, sure, but they still have it.

> > > >

> > > > > @"Yannir.4132" said:

> > > > > I'd be down to a Voluntary (Premium) Subscription model with no p2w aspects. Maybe cosmetic benefits like exclusive mount skins or like an exclusive legendary gizmo(only available in PvP atm). Mistfire Wolf would be cool to get as well. Maybe a custom title. Maybe if you play on a free account, and buy the sub, you could be upgraded into a core account.

> > > > > But the thing is, even if I'd be okay supporting ANet with a subscription, I don't want to force it on everyone and I don't want it to have any unfair benefits, because that would make me feel like a scrub, which I'm not.

> > > >

> > > > Thing is, these things eventually downgrade into the subscribers asking for more than non-subscribers.

> > > > Also, like me, and others have said, more money doesn't equal better quality. In fact it can men just the oposite. 2017 was arguably the best year in terms of finance for GW2, and yet that money didn't translate into an improvement in the game's quality.

> > >

> > > Warframe doesnt get much content. It gets alot of updates which incentivise you to replay existing content/grind it.

> > >

> > > I dont really want better content quality outside of bugs, production value of the fontent can be the same,i just want more of it.

> >

> > Warframe is widely considered the best F2P game you can play even when it doesn't get much content and it's mainly updates and additions to what it already has, that should tell you A LOT about how good their approach works.

>

> Warframe amd de are known for alot of great things. Content pace isnt one of those.

>

> Also, ofc you can play even when theres no new content, game's basically a grind.

 

That's the game type, just like Destiny 2. Their content pace isn't that unreasonable if you compare apples with apples.