would you be willing to pay a subscription

[Vayne.8563]

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> > @"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.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. The original analogy was flawed from my point of view. It has nothing to do with the original argument, which was arguing dollars per hour. You may not find dollars per hour valid yourself, which isn't really relevant. Most people don't get entertainment watching the same 2 hour movie 100 times.

[Rauderi.8706]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> 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.

 

Let's not forget that ANet screws gem-buyers with rounding error, so Player C is only getting 190 gold...

 

 

 

[TheQuickFox.3826]

> @"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.

 

Something like this indeed.

 

Well, I would pay the subscription, as I'm in this game too far to quit. But ArenaNet will make more money off me by keeping me interested in the game with cool additions and stuff well-worth paying for.

[Amaranthe.3578]

If it meant raids dungeons and fractals would actually get released yea

[Menadena.7482]

When you look at my average amount of gems spent I am probably spending 10$ or whatever a month as it is, I do not want to see a subscription? Why? I would feel pressured to play 24/7/365. Even if it were only-pay-for-weeks-that-you-want-it there would be an eventual progression to put things into the paid vs free category. No, just, no.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"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.

 

Is it even possible to measure the utility of a purchase objectively when the utility essentially boils down to, "makes me happy?"

[Soa Cirri.6012]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> Is it even possible to measure the utility of a purchase objectively when the utility essentially boils down to, "makes me happy?"

Lmko. That's a good question. Of course, any self-respecting utilitarian would immediately say "yes." I'm not one, but I still think measurement based upon content is the most logical basis for comparison.

Of the few objective standards by which to measure a game, _content_, specifically the _amount of content_, is among, if not the, paramount. Considering that gameplay necessitates directly engaging with content, and that content available per dollar (that is, how much content you are entitled to engage with by buying the game) can be proportioned more or less exactly, it forms a fairly objective standard of measurement. By this one can compare GW2 launch to the content of the sequels in sheer numbers of maps, classes, traitlines, weapons, armors, &tc, and even to other games. Whether this content is enjoyable or not is subjective, but obviously without content there's no substance to derive happiness from, and all games are predicated on the interest of completing content.

Now if this is not the case, then nothing really changes that much; it's a popularity contest, and ANET makes the executive decision whether to abide or not by the result. However, as a benchmark, content is a much more objective standard than personal time invested on an individual basis.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"Soa Cirri.6012" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > Is it even possible to measure the utility of a purchase objectively when the utility essentially boils down to, "makes me happy?"

> Lmko. That's a good question. Of course, any self-respecting utilitarian would immediately say "yes." I'm not one, but I still think measurement based upon content is the most logical basis for comparison.

> Of the few objective standards by which to measure a game, _content_, specifically the _amount of content_, is among, if not the, paramount. Considering that gameplay necessitates directly engaging with content, and that content available per dollar (that is, how much content you are entitled to engage with by buying the game) can be proportioned more or less exactly, it forms a fairly objective standard of measurement. By this one can compare GW2 launch to the content of the sequels in sheer numbers of maps, classes, traitlines, weapons, armors, &tc, and even to other games. Whether this content is enjoyable or not is subjective, but obviously without content there's no substance to derive happiness from, and all games are predicated on the interest of completing content.

> Now if this is not the case, then nothing really changes that much; it's a popularity contest, and ANET makes the executive decision whether to abide or not by the result. However, as a benchmark, content is a much more objective standard than personal time invested on an individual basis.

 

Most people don't buy stuff based on logic, or advertising wouldn't work. It's very few people that buy on advertising, which is why hype is so effective. People get swept up in it. If advertising didn't work, no one would do it. People make decisions to buy stuff most often because it looks cool, or it looks fun. I think I'll have fun playing it. They make decisions to play MMOs that have subs for tons of reasons.

 

Both of my kids complained about WoW incessantly but stayed subbed to it for years. Why? Because all their friends were there. Other people stay subbed because they've invested a lot of money and walking away from hundreds of dollars a year they've spent would feel like they wasted that money. Other's log into WoW because they feel they're paying a subscription and they have to get their money's worth, even if they're not necessarily having a good time.

 

Of course, the same could be said here if you've paid a lot in the cash shop. This isn't really logic, but more emotion based decision making. Over all there are more emotional people than logical people, at least when it comes to entertainment.