would you be willing to pay a subscription

[Fyrebrand.4859]

The only monthly sub I could get behind is if we had an in-game Gem Store "Loot Crate." Each month you pay into, you are sent a mail with a bundle of Gem Store items. There would be some standard constants, like transmutation charges, a couple Black Lion keys, maybe a ticket scrap. But you'd also get a few of that month's new outfits, armor pieces, toys, gathering tools, etc., at a heavy discount. What you get would always be a surprise, and perhaps you even get access to the new outfits a week or two before they even become available for purchase to the rest of the community.

 

Another perk to consider, is if you're a subscriber you can buy ANY item that has ever been on the Gem Store -- no waiting around for previous limited-time or seasonal items to return.

 

Of course, nothing in the subscription would remain exclusive. Non-subscribers could just buy the stuff normally from the Gem Store, but they would not get the discount for ponying up the money in advance.

[Gehenna.3625]

> @"cyanweapon.7290" said:

> > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > @"cyanweapon.7290" said:

> > > I didn't buy GW2 to rent a character.

> >

> > Except you did. There will be a day that the servers will shut down and then the lease will end. You cannot play this game without their servers running. So considering it a long-term lease, circumstances willing, but any game that is played on online servers is a rental and they decide how long it will last. At least you can see that GW1 is still around so that's a positive but that's only because of its link with GW2 I'd say. If they'd made a completely different game than GW2 then the GW1 servers might have been closed by now. It's a positive they're willing to do this but once they pull the plug on servers you are left with nothing. So it's very much a rental and not a game you own that you can play offline.

>

> Except I didn't. Conflating "renting" with "servers closing someday down the road despite GW1 being launched more than 13 years ago, still running, and without subscriptions" is extremely disingenuous. How can you even look at these things, as well as GW2's production, and hint that subscriptions are necessary?

>

> When you rent something, that something doesn't stop existing simply because the rent is up. It means you don't have access to it. When servers shut down, that's it. Bam. Gone. You can't pay a fee and suddenly get it back. You may not consider that a big difference, but it really is. And your suggestion that GW1 is still around simply because of GW2 is, as you alluded, your own speculation. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. The irrefutable fact is that it's still up and running, alongside GW2, without subscriptions. So let's stick to facts and not try to frighten folks into paying unnecessary fees.

>

> I've always loved Guild Wars because it's basically the bogeyman to Pay-2-Play apologists.

 

No, any online game is not something you buy as in buying something you own because you have to be online on their servers whereas stand-alone games you can own and play forever as long as you keep a computer that runs it. You don't need their services to play it. For me ownership stopped with online play. Now you also completely misconstrue what I said because I clearly stated that I do not think subscriptions would work for GW2 and therefore I am against subs for GW2.

 

And I do believe there is a big difference between B2P and subs. I never said the contrary. So really, try not to let your bias interpret what I said. Again, I am AGAINST subs for GW2. I like a sub game better for various reasons, but it wouldn't work for GW2 anyway.

 

 

[Kalendraf.9521]

This poll needs a stronger "No" option. I will never, ever pay a monthly subscription for a game. If they ever add a subscription to GW2, I would immediately stop playing and move to a different game instead.

[Nuka Cola.8520]

What are they doing with all the money they're making from the gem store? original game was $60. expansion1 was $50. expansion 2 was $30. they're making a ton with the gem store. Why do they need a monthly sub to have content in their game? They most likely have an insanely poor management, that's why their game looks like a headless chicken with no direction whatsoever.

 

 

[Ashabhi.1365]

I voted "other." It was an accident... I should have voted "no" but wasn't paying attention.

 

I am not going to say that I wouldn't play this game if they went to a subs system, but I'm not going to say that I would, either. For me, the appeal of the B2P model is that I can leave it for as long as I like and still come back and play when my circumstances permit. When I pay a subs, I feel like I have to "show up" all the time in order to get my moneys' worth, so to speak. Unfortunately, in my life, I can't guarantee that I can be in-game every day.

 

As for the so-called QoL things we've all been asking for, there is absolutely no guarantee that we'd get them if we paid a subscription fee either. In fact, it would probably be less likely that they would work on those items when grabbing new subscriptions would be their primary focus.

 

 

[Glider.5792]

Depends. If it was optional, sure. By optional i mean as, for "x" price per month you get some account benefits like bigger bank/inventory/gathering tools while having subscription. That would be fine imo.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> > @"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.

 

DVD is not unlimited entertainment if it's the same DVD over and over again. It's limited entertainment. If you want something close to unlimited you'd need to compare it to Netflix which charges a monthly fee. If they introduced nothing new, and it remained the same from month to month, year to year, then your analogy would be more apropos.

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> DVD is not unlimited entertainment if it's the same DVD over and over again.

A little delayed, but okay.

The original analogy was going to a movie theater. That's not unlimited entertainment either; it doesn't take too long to see all of the films at a small theater, and you have to pay all over again even to see each movie, whereas with a video game you can play the same content over and over again whether or not there are updates at all, and major updates (expansions) then require more investment.

The point was, a movie ticket is supposed to be justified by the often millions or hundreds of millions of dollars of development going into the movie you're seeing, which is an entirely new experience; a new movie is like a whole new game.

Netflix also isn't a terribly good analogy. In that you're paying for a grab bag of thousands of experiences, in the hopes of enjoying a minority of them, and the library is constantly updated, not only by introducing new experiences but removing old ones. It's neither coherent nor consistent, as a game is generally meant to be.

If you look at games with monthly subscriptions, what it amounts to is basically getting to replay all of the same content over again, with small periodic updates, while 90% of the core or expansion content, mechanics, graphics, &tc. remain the bulk of overall the content. In effect, this persistent 90% of old content is closer to watching the same DVD over and over again than watching a new movie (100% new content) every time.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > DVD is not unlimited entertainment if it's the same DVD over and over again.

> A little delayed, but okay.

> The original analogy was going to a movie theater. That's not unlimited entertainment either; it doesn't take too long to see all of the films at a small theater, and you have to pay all over again even to see each movie, whereas with a video game you can play the same content over and over again whether or not there are updates at all, and major updates (expansions) then require more investment.

> The point was, a movie ticket is supposed to be justified by the often millions or hundreds of millions of dollars of development going into the movie you're seeing, which is an entirely new experience; a new movie is like a whole new game.

> Netflix also isn't a terribly good analogy. In that you're paying for a grab bag of thousands of experiences, in the hopes of enjoying a minority of them, and the library is constantly updated, not only by introducing new experiences but removing old ones. It's neither coherent nor consistent, as a game is generally meant to be.

> If you look at games with monthly subscriptions, what it amounts to is basically getting to replay all of the same content over again, with small periodic updates, while 90% of the core or expansion content, mechanics, graphics, &tc. remain the bulk of overall the content. In effect, this persistent 90% of old content is closer to watching the same DVD over and over again than watching a new movie (100% new content) every time.

 

The original analogy is that if you're willing to pay $20 to go to a movie for 2 hours, then you should be able to pay $15 if you're playing 2 hours a month or get 2 hours a month entertainment out of it. It wasn't talking about unlimited entertainment. People who go to a movie and decide this 2 hours is worth $20 of my money, are agreeing to pay $10 for the experience, assuming they don't buy anything else, assuming they don't count transport. They're making that value judgement.

 

A subscription for an MMO is always going to be one of the cheaper forms of entertainment per hour, that's all. The whole point if the analogy is that if people are already willing to pay $10 a hour, what's $15 a month for an MMO you'll play for dozens of hours? A dollar an hour? Your analogy falls short for a lot of reasons.

 

That said, I'm not in favor of a sub, nor do I think it will work. However, your analogy short circuits what I consider to be a valid argument.

[sorudo.9054]

instead of a sub, why not separate paying customers from exchanged customers.

only ppl who really pay real money keeps Anet alive, exchange customers only reuse the gems bought with real money while not spending a dime. (and not supporting Anet in any way)

 

so what about silver and gold gems, each item has a silver and gold gem price and is different in amount.

let's use a character slot since that's 800 gems, while it's 800 gems for gold gems it's about 1200 silver gems.

why the difference of price you might ask, when you pay real money IMO you should not pay a huge price, when you exchange you should pay more since it both makes players grind more for their gold and promoted buying gems with real money.

 

if it was up to me i would put it on 400 gold gems and 1200 silver gems, you ether pay for convenience or grind till you drop.

[Blockhead Magee.3092]

I've already stopped playing regularly and subs would mean that I'd be done permanently.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

You can always subscribe yourself to a monthly purchase of however high you want your subscription to be.

 

I call it, voluntary subscription.

[Mapherez.9315]

For me, Guild Wars is a casual game and that's something I like about it. Being subscription-free means I can play whenever I want and not be "forced" to play for 30 days straight to get the most of what I paid.

I do spend money on the game though. Bought all the deluxe editions and buy a lot of gems from the store, for gold and cosmetics.

But that's it. I like to spend money when I want, where I want and not feel forced to do something just because I spent it.

 

Besides, if Guild Wars went subscription-based, the store would have to go. You can't have both. Not to mention, it would be bad to "compete" against other subscription-based MMOs, that's something that GW is not trying to do.

 

I think their business model is pretty good as it is. Sure, some things can be improved, but that's something they' ll figure out.

[BunjiKugashira.9754]

> @"sorudo.9054" said:

> instead of a sub, why not separate paying customers from exchanged customers.

> only ppl who really pay real money keeps Anet alive, exchange customers only reuse the gems bought with real money while not spending a dime. (and not supporting Anet in any way)

>

> so what about silver and gold gems, each item has a silver and gold gem price and is different in amount.

> let's use a character slot since that's 800 gems, while it's 800 gems for gold gems it's about 1200 silver gems.

> why the difference of price you might ask, when you pay real money IMO you should not pay a huge price, when you exchange you should pay more since it both makes players grind more for their gold and promoted buying gems with real money.

>

> if it was up to me i would put it on 400 gold gems and 1200 silver gems, you ether pay for convenience or grind till you drop.

 

You do realise that the gem exchange is a market where both the gems and the gold is provided by players (besides the initial pool)? Without "exchange customers" as you call them, there would be no gems -> gold exchange and ANet wouldn't earn a cent from people who want to buy gold as there would be no gold to buy. The whole exchange ratio automatically balances itself depending on how much gems people are willing to spend on gold and how much gold people are willing to spend on gems.

 

In the end it doesn't matter for ANet whether someone spends gems that they paid for themselves or gems that they bought via the exchange. In both cases the gems were paid for, the currency gets consumed and the supply is reduced. If anything, ANet earns more from the "exchange customer" since 15% of the gems he buys are lost during the transaction.

 

If you think buying gems with gold is too cheap, then that's your opinion. However the market shows a different picture.

[Danikat.8537]

> @"BunjiKugashira.9754" said:

> > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > instead of a sub, why not separate paying customers from exchanged customers.

> > only ppl who really pay real money keeps Anet alive, exchange customers only reuse the gems bought with real money while not spending a dime. (and not supporting Anet in any way)

> >

> > so what about silver and gold gems, each item has a silver and gold gem price and is different in amount.

> > let's use a character slot since that's 800 gems, while it's 800 gems for gold gems it's about 1200 silver gems.

> > why the difference of price you might ask, when you pay real money IMO you should not pay a huge price, when you exchange you should pay more since it both makes players grind more for their gold and promoted buying gems with real money.

> >

> > if it was up to me i would put it on 400 gold gems and 1200 silver gems, you ether pay for convenience or grind till you drop.

>

> You do realise that the gem exchange is a market where both the gems and the gold is provided by players (besides the initial pool)? Without "exchange customers" as you call them, there would be no gems -> gold exchange and ANet wouldn't earn a cent from people who want to buy gold as there would be no gold to buy. The whole exchange ratio automatically balances itself depending on how much gems people are willing to spend on gold and how much gold people are willing to spend on gems.

>

> In the end it doesn't matter for ANet whether someone spends gems that they paid for themselves or gems that they bought via the exchange. In both cases the gems were paid for, the currency gets consumed and the supply is reduced. If anything, ANet earns more from the "exchange customer" since 15% of the gems he buys are lost during the transaction.

>

> If you think buying gems with gold is too cheap, then that's your opinion. However the market shows a different picture.

 

Exactly what I was going to say. Anet wouldn't want to discourage buying gems with gold because then the exchange rate would fall and it would also discourage people buying gold with gems. Even worse it might push them to buy gold from illegal gold sellers which means the money isn't going to Anet at all and they have to spend more time (and therefore money) dealing with the increase in botting and/or account theft to meet the demand for illegal gold.

 

Plus having 2 separate kinds of gems with 2 separate prices would add other annoying complications. I often have gems left over after buying some, because the amounts you can buy with real money don't always match the price of items. At the moment I can 'top up' my balance using gold to buy 50 or 100 extra gems so I can buy something else. But if gold bought gems were a separate currency I couldn't do that, so I'd end up holding onto those extra gems until there's something I _really_ want - something I'd buy gems for anyway, which means in the long run Anet lose money even if you don't factor in the gems bought to convert to gold.

[Soa Cirri.6012]

@"Vayne.8563"

The entertainment/hour ratio is irrelevant because in a game any two people can derive 2 hours of "entertainment" from a completely different pace of content consumption, while two people watching the same movie will have roughly the same experience over the same amount of time, because the movie is the entirety of the content they're purchasing. Meanwhile, two different people playing a game (like GW2) can each be doing 2 hours worth of PvP, WvW, PvE, meta events, dungeons, fractals, raids, etc, and a good deal of content can even be mitigated by skill, where someone completes fractals (for example), faster, and so is able to consume proportionally more content in the same time frame.

 

But when you pay for the game you're paying for the entire scope of content on release, no matter the pace at which you consume it, just as when you're paying for a DVD you're paying for everything on the DVD which you can then experience at your own pace. That's the whole premise behind Buy-to-Play in giving you the content for a single purchase.

 

And so in this sense, the potential entertainment from a DVD is unlimited; you can derive entertainment from the content in portions as large as you want, as frequently as you want, with no arbitrary monthly restrictions or additional fees. You can watch Star Wars, and then watch it again, and again, throughout your entire lifetime and be entertained each time, and then your kids can watch it, and so on, until the end of civilization. The film is still the same content you payed for, just as you might have payed for GW2's dungeons five years ago and still play them over again.

[sorudo.9054]

> @"BunjiKugashira.9754" said:

> > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > instead of a sub, why not separate paying customers from exchanged customers.

> > only ppl who really pay real money keeps Anet alive, exchange customers only reuse the gems bought with real money while not spending a dime. (and not supporting Anet in any way)

> >

> > so what about silver and gold gems, each item has a silver and gold gem price and is different in amount.

> > let's use a character slot since that's 800 gems, while it's 800 gems for gold gems it's about 1200 silver gems.

> > why the difference of price you might ask, when you pay real money IMO you should not pay a huge price, when you exchange you should pay more since it both makes players grind more for their gold and promoted buying gems with real money.

> >

> > if it was up to me i would put it on 400 gold gems and 1200 silver gems, you ether pay for convenience or grind till you drop.

>

>If anything, ANet earns more from the "exchange customer" since 15% of the gems he buys are lost during the transaction.

 

false, if you spend nothing you get nothing, if you spend something you get something.

it's basic math.

 

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @"sorudo.9054" said:

> instead of a sub, why not separate paying customers from exchanged customers.

> only ppl who really pay real money keeps Anet alive, exchange customers only reuse the gems bought with real money while not spending a dime. (and not supporting Anet in any way)

>

> so what about silver and gold gems, each item has a silver and gold gem price and is different in amount.

> let's use a character slot since that's 800 gems, while it's 800 gems for gold gems it's about 1200 silver gems.

> why the difference of price you might ask, when you pay real money IMO you should not pay a huge price, when you exchange you should pay more since it both makes players grind more for their gold and promoted buying gems with real money.

>

> if it was up to me i would put it on 400 gold gems and 1200 silver gems, you ether pay for convenience or grind till you drop.

 

The players that are online are always an asset. Who wants to play an MMO with nobody else in the world?

[Chyanne Waters.8719]

No I would not pay for a subscription for GW2. Not for the reason that it will cost me money to play. The reason I will not is because the buy to play platform was instituted by arenanet. They did not want to charge a fee after the game was purchased so it is on them. Is GW2 worth a monthly fee yes I believe it can be if done right, but would never want that to happen.

[Rauderi.8706]

If it meant getting more content in-game and less of me hemorrhaging cash to the gem store, then yes. :P

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > @"BunjiKugashira.9754" said:

> > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > instead of a sub, why not separate paying customers from exchanged customers.

> > > only ppl who really pay real money keeps Anet alive, exchange customers only reuse the gems bought with real money while not spending a dime. (and not supporting Anet in any way)

> > >

> > > so what about silver and gold gems, each item has a silver and gold gem price and is different in amount.

> > > let's use a character slot since that's 800 gems, while it's 800 gems for gold gems it's about 1200 silver gems.

> > > why the difference of price you might ask, when you pay real money IMO you should not pay a huge price, when you exchange you should pay more since it both makes players grind more for their gold and promoted buying gems with real money.

> > >

> > > if it was up to me i would put it on 400 gold gems and 1200 silver gems, you ether pay for convenience or grind till you drop.

> >

> >If anything, ANet earns more from the "exchange customer" since 15% of the gems he buys are lost during the transaction.

>

> false, if you spend nothing you get nothing, if you spend something you get something.

> it's basic math.

>

 

You want math. Here's math.

 

Player A wants a new outfit, costing 700 gems. He spends $10 US for 800 gems, buys the outfit and has 100 gems left over. ANet gets $10 US in revenue.

Player B wants the same new outfit. He spends (assuming the rate listed right now on GW2 Efficiency of 100 gold --> 368 gems) 190G, 25S, gets his 700 gems and buys what he wants. ANet gets no revenue. Some might argue that ANet lost out on $8.75.

Player C wants 190.25 gold. C needs to put 1028 gems (assuming the rate at the same time as noted in the line about player B, above) into the exchange to get that gold. Assuming he had no gems, he'd need to spend $20 for 1600 gems. He'd then have 572 gems left over. ANet revenue directly connected to C's purchase of gold would be 64.25% of $20, or $12.85. Without the exchange, C would not be spending that $12.85.

 

Removing C's desire to buy gems to exchange for gold costs ANet money, even if B were to be willing to spend cash -- which is by no means a given.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> @"Vayne.8563"

> The entertainment/hour ratio is irrelevant because in a game any two people can derive 2 hours of "entertainment" from a completely different pace of content consumption, while two people watching the same movie will have roughly the same experience over the same amount of time, because the movie is the entirety of the content they're purchasing. Meanwhile, two different people playing a game (like GW2) can each be doing 2 hours worth of PvP, WvW, PvE, meta events, dungeons, fractals, raids, etc, and a good deal of content can even be mitigated by skill, where someone completes fractals (for example), faster, and so is able to consume proportionally more content in the same time frame.

>

> But when you pay for the game you're paying for the entire scope of content on release, no matter the pace at which you consume it, just as when you're paying for a DVD you're paying for everything on the DVD which you can then experience at your own pace. That's the whole premise behind Buy-to-Play in giving you the content for a single purchase.

>

> And so in this sense, the potential entertainment from a DVD is unlimited; you can derive entertainment from the content in portions as large as you want, as frequently as you want, with no arbitrary monthly restrictions or additional fees. You can watch Star Wars, and then watch it again, and again, throughout your entire lifetime and be entertained each time, and then your kids can watch it, and so on, until the end of civilization. The film is still the same content you payed for, just as you might have payed for GW2's dungeons five years ago and still play them over again.

 

It's not irrelevant to some people because that's how some people actually judge whether something is worth it. That's not irrelevant at all. I'm one of those people so that's how I know. Obviously you have to factor in the experience of going somewhere, which as I get old I find to be worth less and less, but beyond that, it's part of how someone factors in worth. The less money you have the more time you have free, the more that's going to factor into your decisions.

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> It's not irrelevant to some people

That may very well be, but the time priority of _some_ people is hardly an authoritative or objective standard against which to measure the universal utility of a purchase, nor was that specific priority initially invoked. Those time constraints are imposed subjectively by a consumer, and not by the pay model itself.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > It's not irrelevant to some people

> That may very well be, but the time priority of _some_ people is hardly an authoritative or objective standard against which to measure the universal utility of a purchase, nor was that specific priority initially invoked. Those time constraints are imposed subjectively by a consumer, and not by the pay model itself.

 

Sure some people can say anything they want, except to invalidate perfectly logical reasoning with an analogy that doesn't apply to their example. I'm not saying all people feel the same. I'm saying the initial example I responded to is completely off base to continue the conversation at all.

 

Again I'm against subs. I don't think it'll be good for the game. But the argument of subs being cheap entertainment per hour is an old valid argument for a percentage of the population.

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

>I'm saying the initial example I responded to is completely off base to continue the conversation at all.

And yet the conversation has been continued 2 1/4 pages later than its origin, and is being continued with only half the help from me. But that's none of my business.

>an old valid argument _for a percentage of the population_.

Conditionally valid is not universally valid. That's my point. Subs being "cheap entertainment per hour" can't be universally valid in the face of the vast discrepancies in content available within the comparison. That's exactly the relation the original analogy, and your apparent foster-argument, ignore by excluding content beyond the 2-hour condition to justify themselves. If an argument relies on excluding content in the context of a game, then I find it hard to call it particularly valid, the substance of the object being what separates it from the other object in comparison. And to reiterate: if it's based on personal constraints, then it is _preferential_, which hardly makes it "_logical_" in any objective sense.

So what you're expressing is an opinion, not logic, and that's completely fine. That's ostensibly the purpose of the thread. But to conflate an opinion with logic on the basis of personal preference is not really logical.