ZDragon.3046 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Im going to vote as other because while paying a monthly fee to play could help them bring even more content to the game it is unlikely. I would like to see more content like more playable races etc. But paying a Fee does not promise that content. Right now Anet is encouraged to work hard on the content they do provide even more so via the gem store because its their main source of income form the player when we are between x pacs just as we currently are. If they didn't provide good content and items people would buy them. More importantly not having to pay a fee allows more people to play. Many people likely would not still play this game if it required you to pay a monthly fee. I will also cover **optional premium memberships* here too. I dont think its fair to split the community with a "Pay for premium services membership" either. The moment this happens a game takes a slow but inevitable turn to the pay to win nightmare that other mmo's love to abuse. A system where Playing without a membership your grind is long and hard months even meanwhile paying for a membership lets you do all that in more in days to weeks at most. Would I pay if I knew it would without a doubt mean more playable professions, races, etc. **Yes** Would I pay currently in hopes that things like that would happen **No** Would I pay a premium membership fee for extras **No** I some time ago took a break from gw2 for about a year had it been on monthly fee system I likely would have never came back. The buy to own and play system is good as is. For a free game you only have to toss 30-60 $ at every few months for an xpack its not to bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoseofGilead.8907 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 If the game went sub, I would most likely not play it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaklex.6308 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 > @"Tort.1975" said: > > @"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. What you see in response to those polls and or suggestions of new races are only replies from forum users, which is a tiny subset of the player base, a small minority, so we actually have no clue what the vast majority of the player base wants...unless everyone that plays the game starts using the forums and voting in polls...which would then have votes in the hundreds of thousands if not millions...most polls are lucky to get a thousand votes. So again, we do not know what the majority of players want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Despond.2174 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Even though I average out to $10 a month anyway on GW2, the answer is no. It should be optional. GW2 has a unique horizontal system, you'd need more tiers and layers to start charging a sub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teratus.2859 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Absolutely not. Subscription fees are the first thing I look for in a MMO or online service and if they are mandatory I completely refuse to support the product on that alone. Although I don't support them I am more forgiving towards certain things like Netflix which only utalizes a subscription fee to use and no initial price is required. When asked to purchase a product.. say a game for the standard $60 price and then asked to pay a constant subscription fee from then on to use it.. I feel blatantly ripped off and that $60 investment is pretty much theft. I will not buy any game that locks me out of it if I stop paying for it.. never have and never will.. and the same applies to these console online subs as well which is yet another greedy attempt to extort money from the consumer. If i'm paying upwards of $400 for a system let alone the individual price of every game I buy and the company still has the nerve to demand a regular subscription from me to unlock those games online features then frankly they can go to hell and I'll take my money eslewhere. As for Gw2.. No I would not support a subscription fee in this game, however if there was an optional one that granted players free gem store stuff and perks like that I wouldn't complain about it. But if that subscription started to limit my account in any way such as no longer getting the free living world updates, my inventory space becoming more limited, my RNG luck getting worse, Gems becoming more expensive for non subs etc because I choose not to pay it then my support for this game would be completely over in a heartbeat. I'm fine with subscribers getting benefits.. but I'll never be ok with non subscribers being penalized for not paying an optional fee.. and I'll never support any service that has a mandatory subscription fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliamRationem.5172 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > @"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. > WoW may have a cash shop, but having played both WoW and GW2 for years I can tell you that you will never get the feeling that they invest more in the cash shop than they do in the actual game. GW2 definitely gives players that impression from time to time, in particular when it comes to rewards earned by playing the game. That's one of the differences between subscription and free-to-play models. I don't think subscription would be a good idea for GW2. Like I said, if that weren't a consideration and we could expect more content for our money, I already pay more in gems each month than a subscription would cost as it is. So for me personally, that would be a win. But realistically, I don't see them making money that way. It would probably just kill the population and send the game into a death spiral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riku.4821 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 To pay for a sub fee, I would need a few guarantees. 1. Not too expensive. 2. Great amount of polish, and reliable current constant content. The content dropped now is not enough to warrant a sub fee at the moment. 3. The game still promotes a healthy micro transaction non-p2w model even with the sub fee. ~~4. A waifu to pay for it~~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaverKane.7598 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > @"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. > > > > WoW may have a cash shop, but having played both WoW and GW2 for years I can tell you that you will never get the feeling that they invest more in the cash shop than they do in the actual game. GW2 definitely gives players that impression from time to time, in particular when it comes to rewards earned by playing the game. That's one of the differences between subscription and free-to-play models. > > I don't think subscription would be a good idea for GW2. Like I said, if that weren't a consideration and we could expect more content for our money, I already pay more in gems each month than a subscription would cost as it is. So for me personally, that would be a win. But realistically, I don't see them making money that way. It would probably just kill the population and send the game into a death spiral. That is true, Arena Net is **definetly** way too aggressive and gem-store centric. But at the same time, they do have a fair gem store, staying away from P2W stuff. Sure they could be more like Warframe that is way less aggressive with their Platinum items, and entirely f2p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenghisKhan.7842 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Didn't read anything, just voted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danikat.8537 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 If money was the only thing stopping them adding the stuff the OP wants a better approach would be for them to make it and sell it, either as part of an expansion or as a stand-alone DLC. For example they could sell an upgrade which makes it possible for you to create a Tengu character. That achieves the same thing - the cost of making it is covered by the people who want it - but with the added benefit that the people contributing the money know beforehand _exactly_ what they're getting, instead of handing over money for a subscription and hoping Anet will choose to use that money for the things they want to see added to the game. And if you're thinking the problem there is they need to make it before they get the money to fund it that's true but it's also how the vast majority of products - including most games - are made. The initial cost would be covered by profits from other areas of the game, or for bigger projects by NCSoft, just like when GW1 and almost certainly GW2 was first made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanBB.4268 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 I've never paid a subscription for a game, but if it is a game I enjoy (there are only a few) then I support it. And unless something changes where the paying players dictate what will be developed (HA!) then I see no change in how things are done. So pointless -- other than teeing off a ton of players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Absolutely if it meant more regular updates and balance patches etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinful.2165 Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 I think it's pretty funny that so many players balk at the idea of paying a subscription for a game they invest SO MUCH TIME into. How much does going to the theatre and watching a movie - alone, no food/drink - just the ticket for admission? Around $14. For *maybe* 2 hours of entertainment. Gods forbid you spend that same amount of money per *month* on entertainment. That's 720 hours on average. Somehow you all are willing to pay $14 for 2 hours, but not 720? Do you like amazing new updates to come regularly? Do you enjoy your favorite game not being AT ALL pay-to-win? Guess what! There's an entire team of skilled professionals that produce that content. They pay soooooo much for bandwidth so all you cheapskates can connect to their service and enjoy their hard work. GW2 is one of the absolute few games that haven't gone disgustingly P2W with their gem store and doesn't charge a subscription fee. It's an endangered species balanced in a precarious position where there is really no better options on the market. I guarantee when a more modern MMO is released - subscription or not - GW2 will be hurting for resources. All the people left behind who think $14/month is too steep are not going to be keeping the servers online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mea.5491 Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 No. I don't like the feeling that my time is ticking. Want my money? Make items I want to buy! I like good Gem Store stuff and willing to buy Gems with real money every now and then to support the game (despite sitting on 12k Gold). Also, it will never happen because the GW franchise is known for being B2P. Btw, I'm about to throw some money at Anet to stock up on Gems for the anniversary sale. :P Best part of the year, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strikerjolt.9418 Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 As long as it's an optional subscription and it follows what Tera does with their game. I'd be happy to. You can have a cash shop and a subscription. But the way Tera does it is amazing. Well, when I played it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanhelin.3480 Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 I'd be willing, but then the shop prices must be the half or a third of the current prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Substance E.4852 Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > 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. > 1. They get away with it because they are genuinely good games that have a massive amount of content and regular updates. The first iteration of FF14 was so terrible they literally had to shutdown the whole game to redesign it from the ground up. And they actually did an amazing job of it. It's probably the only game that has copied the WoW formula and managed to stand on it's own doing it. 2. You completely misunderstand the mechanisms behind the current system. They don't do it because they "have to", they do it because they can get away with it. The only reason they didn't at launch is because the gaming world hadn't yet been infested with adults with uncontrollable instant gratification addiction. Horse armor used to be a meme about paying for cosmetic add ons and now people pay $500 for knife skins. That being said, no I wouldn't pay a sub fee in the game's current form. Paying a sub fee in a game that is basically just mindless grind for small amounts of gold that eventually amounts to a big pile of gold I use to buy a pure cosmetic item is silly. The majority of the content is neither difficult nor rewarding enough to hold my attention for $10-15 a month. Most of the content has devolved into opposite extremes of "mindless blob pve" vs "raid culture". I'm not paying a door fee to access what ammounts to an [idle game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incremental_game "idle game ") and I'd just go back to WoW or FF14 if I'm gonna pay for raids since they actually mean something there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenom.9457 Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 Absoultely i will pay if Anet hires more employees to make more content. More content = more money. Quality of content can increase money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 > @"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 Too bad the gaming industry has taught us that money doesnt increase the quality of content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deihnyx.6318 Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcShriek.5829 Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 I would quit playing and I would demand a refund for the games I’ve purchased Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condutas.3580 Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 pay monthly ONLY and only if: 1º : They recruit not one but at least 3 economists to the game. 2º: At least 200 gems montlhy free 3º They improve the story. The price is no higher than 20, 25 Euros month. If only one of thoses fails, then no, I am against it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chay.7852 Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 No to subs. As a long time customer (my GW1 account is 12 years old) i prefer to pay (= buy gems) whenever i can and feel like it (which i did many many times) not because i have to in order to play the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soa Cirri.6012 Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 > @"Sinful.2165" said: > I think it's pretty funny that so many players balk at the idea of paying a subscription for a game they invest SO MUCH TIME into. > How much does going to the theatre and watching a movie - alone, no food/drink - just the ticket for admission? Around $14. For *maybe* 2 hours of entertainment. Or buy the DVD for 20 bucks and watch it as many times as you want for unlimited entertainment. Then when the sequel comes out, you can buy that one and own it, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeftheWicked.3076 Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 I would, but on the condition that gemstore goes away. Sub fee + cash shop is not acceptable for me. I want the full experience ingame in exchange for signing up for guaranteed, continueed support. For example i'd much rather go to branded zone do few missions there (or long term commitment there) to unlock branded mount skins, rather then having to shell out for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now