would you be willing to pay a subscription

[Taygus.4571]

I would quit the moment a sub fee was introduced. (assuming the necessary to keep playing kind).

 

I play GW2 because there's no sub.

 

Why do people keep thinking a sub fee means more content anyway? It could mean less players and less impulse buys..

[Oglaf.1074]

They're already making money hand over fist with these whale-friendly 2k Gem mounts.

 

Freemium-styled games probably make more money than purely subscription-based "outdated" MMORPGs.

[graceangel.3618]

I was paying a monthly sub for LOTRO while i was there for a while.

 

I'm not against paying subs; but rather than pay on monthly basis. I prefer the every three months. That way; if i get bored or want to take a hiatus from the game. I'm not paying for time i won't use. I feel this works well for me as i do take hiatuses from gw2. from all mmo's really. I'll play one a lot for a while then rotate over to another one.

 

While I am open to that idea, I have to agree with people insisting that the company could actually lose money rather than gain it. There are a lot of people who probably buy through the trading post gem shop who wouldn't if they were paying monthly. Some people might feel that if they aren't paying 10-15 a month; they spend that in the store instead. if you think about it, people who do that are essentially paying an equivalent to a sub.

[StinVec.3621]

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.

[Irokou.3215]

Optional subs can be done well, but ultimately with the state of the classes and "balancing efforts" this game has alongside of the increasingly dull and short lived living world experiences, I could safely say that my cash would be better allocated elsewhere for the time being.

[Vlad Morbius.1759]

Anyone who thinks this would help this game grow is either new to MMO's or caught in some time loop! Let me break it down in a business sense; paying will allow the company to guarantee a specific level of development which would then become hinged to deadlines and not passion. Two it also allows management to become complacent in the quality of content because they in turn are based on securing dollars and after all if this month doesn't make it i have next month. Three subscription does not ever translate to guaranteed customer satisfaction it translates to corporate satisfaction and at a very limited level. Why would any gaming company in this day and age want to limit dollar intake to a subscription....frankly you need to count yourself lucky that despite their faults Anet has given more value per dollar than any other game I've tried, and I've been playing MMO's since 1999.

[ReaverKane.7598]

The myth that Free to Play games (which this isn't) are lower quality and can't do as much as pay to play games has been entirely destroyed by the Juggernaut that is League of Legends, also, look at all the Destiny 2 vs Warframe videos, and see why a game that asks for money constantly isn't automatically better.

 

Guild Wars 2 was marked as 8th in the top 10 PC games by revenue in 2017, so it's doing better than a lot of games. (BTW #1 was League of Legends)

The problem with GW2 is how it has been run, and lots of mistakes made by Arena Net.

PvP was getting a lot of publicity for the game, and growing, until they just killed it, completely.

WvW, another "unique" aspect of the game, has been orphaned since times immemorial.

PvE has been the support pillar of the game, but even in that area there's been a lot of ground to cover.

The first 2 years of the game were wasted with the once-only content, which means that's a ton of dev man-hours that today have very little impact in the game.

Arena Net, is still, as recently as this latest release figuring out how to organize their workflow, that's not something that is solved with just throwing money at it.

 

Also, answering the question, subscription is the solution from greedy companies that sell for irresponsible players (or just people that don't know the alternatives).

For 20 years games were made, sold and that's it. For years you could easily pirate most games, and still companies were making a profit. There's simply no justification to be paying the price of a new PC game every 4 months to play the same game.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

The OP presumes that the issue of "not enough resources to do everything" can be countered by a subscription. Ignore the fact that a subscription might decrease funding and there will still not be enough people at ANet to do everything. Businesses set priorities with the resources they have; increase those resources and a smart business doesn't always change the priorities, but might instead just do all of it a little faster (or a little more thoroughly).

 

In short, instead of asking us about whether some people are willing to pay more for the game, why not keep letting ANet know how important the things you do want are.

****

 

> @"Tort.1975" said:

> -New races

Not everyone wants that.

 

> -New classes

Not everyone wants that either.

 

> -player housing

Lots of people have no interest in that.

 

> -quality of life features

You'd have to be more specific.

 

> -more armor/weapons

This particular itch won't ever get fully scratched. There will never, ever be enough skins in the game.

 

> but as it has been said there not enough funds or manpower to create these features without taking away from other departments.

This isn't an issue of subscription|not, this is a business dilemma for every product ever made: there's always more good ideas than there are people to work on them.

 

 

> so what I want to find out is how many people would be willing to pay a monthly subscription for the hiring of more employees for the creation of more content that could be bigger, better and arrive faster then before.

There is absolutely no guarantee that increasing the cost of the game is going to result in more of the sorts of features you want to see. The best use of, let's say, 20% more funding might not be new races, professions, housing, or skins. It might be revamping the game engine or managing six-plus story releases per year (instead of 4 or so). It might be balancing every month instead of every 2-4 months.

 

[Altosk.8492]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> The myth that Free to Play games (which this isn't) are lower quality and can't do as much as pay to play games has been entirely destroyed by the Juggernaut that is League of Legends, also, look at all the Destiny 2 vs Warframe videos, and see why a game that asks for money constantly isn't automatically better.

>

> Guild Wars 2 was marked as 8th in the top 10 PC games by revenue in 2017, so it's doing better than a lot of games. (BTW #1 was League of Legends)

> The problem with GW2 is how it has been run, and lots of mistakes made by Arena Net.

> PvP was getting a lot of publicity for the game, and growing, until they just killed it, completely.

> WvW, another "unique" aspect of the game, has been orphaned since times immemorial.

> PvE has been the support pillar of the game, but even in that area there's been a lot of ground to cover.

> The first 2 years of the game were wasted with the once-only content, which means that's a ton of dev man-hours that today have very little impact in the game.

> Arena Net, is still, as recently as this latest release figuring out how to organize their workflow, that's not something that is solved with just throwing money at it.

>

> Also, answering the question, subscription is the solution from greedy companies that sell for irresponsible players (or just people that don't know the alternatives).

> For 20 years games were made, sold and that's it. For years you could easily pirate most games, and still companies were making a profit. There's simply no justification to be paying the price of a new PC game every 4 months to play the same game.

 

[GW2](https://massivelyop.com/2018/01/30/guild-wars-2-makes-superdatas-top-10-list-of-premium-pc-games-by-revenue-for-2017/ "GW2") made #8 on Top Premium at 87mil which is half of the # 10 spot of top free to play, which is FIFA Online 3 at 163mil(#1 is LoL at 2.1B). Just because the game made that much money on game sales doesn't mean they have it to spend on production. I would assume that NCSoft takes it and only filters back what the Anet needs to get the job done. That being said I would fully support a optional sub to this game if it meant that Anet could hire more in house workers to further the quality of the game and speed up things like balance changes/content release. As it seems right now, they are short handed and hastily getting mediocre content out the door. Some of it is getting pushed back like raids and some isn't even making it out, just look at HoT legendary weapons. We still don't have them all and we won't probably until next year or even the next Xpack. We all know how good/fair Anet has been to us so just because IF THEY DID add a option sub doesn't mean everything about what we have now would change. Honestly though this game would never get one. The community is so set on not having one that if the option did present itself with the guarantee of increase production value, content and a plethora of new features/updates, they would rather see it burn to nothing. Then complain that it did.

 

EDIT: I'm just going to put this in here to set my stance on the subject. I honestly don't care if this game does or doesn't get a optional sub. I'm split on the subject and I'm okay/open minded to the idea that's all. I'm okay without and okay if it gets one.

[Palador.2170]

I would gladly pay a sub to play a really awesome game.

 

GW2 is a good game with a lot of really awesome potential that it failed to live up to. I would not pay a sub for GW2.

[castlemanic.3198]

GW2 is an amazing investment without any subscription options, and it's why I've sunk so much money into this game just for skins. If an optional subscription model was introduced, I'd feel like my investment wasn't worth it anymore and would probably refuse to put any more money into it.

[Khisanth.2948]

> @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> They're already making money hand over fist with these whale-friendly 2k Gem mounts.

>

> Freemium-styled games probably make more money than purely subscription-based "outdated" MMORPGs.

 

Which is why everything switched to that model. I mean would any business go "hey I heard this freemium thing makes less money, lets switch"?

[Oglaf.1074]

> @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > They're already making money hand over fist with these whale-friendly 2k Gem mounts.

> >

> > Freemium-styled games probably make more money than purely subscription-based "outdated" MMORPGs.

>

> Which is why everything switched to that model. I mean would any business go "hey I heard this freemium thing makes less money, lets switch"?

 

Aye, it has overtaken the subscription fee model for a reason.

 

Except those sneaky. sneaky MMORPGS who get away with having their cake (sub fee) and eating it too (premium store).

[SepiaBrownie.7504]

I don't really think it's needed and in the end I don't think it would benefit the game as much as you suggest. If people want to support the game regularly they can do that via buying gems every month already.

[Endless Soul.5178]

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.

[Blude.6812]

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.

 

[Ephemiel.5694]

1. no

2. nope

3. no [in Spanish].

 

With the exception of removing people from the visual department, i wouldn't mind if they actually DID take away from a few of the others for a while and have them design new playable races [like Largos and Tengu that we've wanted for YEARS] and new weapons [like, you know, SCYTHES AND SPEARS!].

 

Oh....right, everything they design goes straaaaaaaaaaaaight to the gem store, which is getting more and more ridiculously overpriced as time goes on, so if they do add these things, we'll likely have to buy them from there.

[AliamRationem.5172]

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.

[crepuscular.9047]

> @"Tort.1975" said:> Let me begin with saying that I know this is a touchy subject and that there will be some strong opinions for and against it, so here go's.> > So we all know that there are features and content that we want integrated in to game such as> -New races> -New classes> -player housing> -quality of life features> -more armor/weapons> but as it has been said there not enough funds or manpower to create these features without taking away from other departments. so what I want to find out is how many people would be willing to pay a monthly subscription for the hiring of more employees for the creation of more content that could be bigger, better and arrive faster then before. I know it's probably too late or too risky to change to a subscription base game, but me personally I would be willing to pay a subscription just to be able to see the game I love to play grow.First and foremost, subscription based business model MMOs are pretty much dead, even the sole survivor WoW is starting to shift away towards 'micro' transactions.a subscription based model creates a mentality of "oh, I must play as much as possible to get the most out of my subscription", and possibly on the other side of the fence for casuals "why the heck am I paying the same price as those hardcores when I'm only playing less than a tenth of their play time"

onto the features you suggested> -New racesunlike other MMOs where races have a part through race traits, in GW2 it's just a slap on skin that brings no diversity to the game because how little impact personal story have on PvE and how useless racial skills are; this ensures everyone are one the same playing field.Imagine an asura (extra 10% int) warrior vs a char (extra 10% health pool) warrior, identical gears, traits, skills, and player skill level, can you imagine how pissed that asura player would be constantly losing because char have extra 10% health pool; and it will create an imbalance of race class combinations> -New classesand I'm guess the next thing you will add to that is the possibility of new weapons?It's a massive undertaking, this is the very reason why Elite specialisation exists, reusing existing classes and weapons without creating new ones.> -player housingpretty much failed in every game, your home instance is your 'player housing'; creating new things in new zones does not incur too much cost, but to put new things on top of existing things is very expensive because dev need to make adjustments to existing properties, testing team needs to go back and verify existing things does not get broken by new things.Just look at the release of current LW, it is totally unrelated to raids but it broke raid boss Xera> -quality of life featuresthey have already implemented plenty of it, just look at how much things they had done since the release of HoT, and they are continously working on it as a side task beyond adding new contents.> -more armor/weaponsI'm assuming you are talking about skins...armors, i too wish they make more armor sets than individual pieces and outfits, after all it's Fashion Wars 2, outfits makes things stale; but management at anet said it is taking way too much time, just 1 set (6 pieces, 5 races, 2 genders) takes them months to complete, plus the additional time to tweak because of complaints from fashionista about imperfections from mix ups; but there's currently 2,045 individual pieces of armor skins (include armor) in game.weapons, i don't know about how long you been playing the game considering this is your very first post, there are 3,033 weapon skinsas a third year player, I have devotes quite a significant amount of my time unlocking skins since the introduction of wardrobe unlocker in Black Lion Chest, so far I have only unlocked close to 50% of the skins in-game currently; and the number is continuing to grow with more living world and expansions

[rdfaye.4368]

If there is a sub, I won't play. Real life trumps the game, sometimes for weeks.

[Balthazzarr.1349]

I would uninstall the game in a heartbeat. Nothing I play has a subscription and never will.

[Yamazuki.6073]

Even if people were willing to pay a subscription, and it was implemented, this doesn't mean you'll get what you want added to the game. Some features simply aren't added not because there's a lack of resources, but because it's either a waste of resources, or because those in charge don't think said feature will pay itself off.

[Zaklex.6308]

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.

[Sanity Obscure.6054]

It would be an immediate uninstall. My love for this game would fold faster than Superman on laundry day.

 

 

[Chasind.3128]

GW2 is to shallow and casual for a subscription.

You can just stand anywhere and press 1 1 1 1 1 1, log in for daily, 1 1 1 1 1 1 , change outfit - endgame content right there.