Guild Wars 2 Question

[GenerationX.9178]

I have played Guild Wars 1 and moved to Guild Wars 2. I have question, why hasn't this implemented monthly subscription? I honestly feel it would help

with content in the game and also feel it would really eliminate some toxic players and possible bots. I would really like a developer to respond because I am curious to why it's not

a subscription . I enjoy the game but the content feels the same and really think a monthly subscription could be beneficial to players and the company.

[sorudo.9054]

because if this game had a monthly fee, 80% of the player base would leave.

also, it's Anet's stand to never do monthly fee's, it has always bin a B2P model and always will be.

[Randulf.7614]

Because it would pretty much kill a franchise built on the foundation of not having one. And having a sub has never eliminated trolling, botting, toxicity or any other such issues in any game that does have a sub - there is no correlation between the two. The game is very well funded via its cash shop model so it really just isn't necessary to do so

[Daddicus.6128]

GW has the most cooperative and least toxic players anywhere in gaming. Or, at least anywhere I've been to or known people who've been there. It is hands-down the friendliest community of players anywhere.

 

Part of the reason is because of its most fundamental design element: no ongoing fees. While I myself have indicated I would pay if they changed, they won't change, because a VERY large percentage of players would go elsewhere. Why wouldn't they? If GW became just like one of the other cesspools, ….

[artemis.6781]

I refuse to buy a game then rent it every month. I willingly spend money each month, but if I were forced to pay, I'd walk away.

[Ayakaru.6583]

> @"sorudo.9054" said:

> because if this game had a monthly fee, 118% of the player base would leave.

> also, it's Anet's stand to never do monthly fee's, it has always bin a B2P model and always will be.

 

You made a typo there

[lokh.2695]

The day GW2 changes to a monthly subscription model is the day I will uninstall it.

 

Also, this is an open forum, adding "I would really like an official statement of ANet here" wil neither force anyone from Anet to respond to you, nor will it keep us casual know-nothings from answering.

[KeoLegend.5132]

> @"GenerationX.9178" said:

> I have played Guild Wars 1 and moved to Guild Wars 2. I have question, why hasn't this implemented monthly subscription? I honestly feel it would help

> with content in the game and also feel it would really eliminate some toxic players and possible bots. I would really like a developer to respond because I am curious to why it's not

> a subscription . I enjoy the game but the content feels the same and really think a monthly subscription could be beneficial to players and the company.

 

1. Because Monthly subscription sucks and if it ever happens or happened, GW2 would have half of its former players

2. How subscription can eliminate toxicity? And bots? AFAIK is cheaper to sub than buy the game, and for talk on mapchat you need to B2P

3. Developers won't answer you.

4. How subscriptions are related to content? WoW is the same piano game for almost a decade and still run subs. SWTOR is the same since its conception and still running subs... whats your point?

[Uden Reavstone.3426]

My dad and I used to play FFXI and we left because of the monthly payments. Then we were drawn to Guild Wars because of the lack of said payments. I know that we aren't the only people like this, and I know that people like me would leave GW without a second thought if they ever added one. Now, if they were to announce that they were going to do a monthly fee as a April Fools, I'll laugh my butt off. My high school did something similar, and you should have seen my mother's face when that happened. It was glorious! Though Anet, if you do end up doing that, you might want to isolate yourselves from the internet for a while. The rage would be insane!

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Though, it doesn't exactly answer your query, there is this statement:

 

 

_Mike O Brien.4613_

_Mike O Brien.4613 ArenaNet ›_

_November 10, 2017 in Guild Wars 2 Discussion_

 

_Hi,_

 

_We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through (non-pay-to-win) microtransactions._

 

Thus, ArenaNet has committed to offering content through micro-transactions rather than subscriptions. You would not want them to go back on their commitment now, would you? Something like that would likely cause a loss of revenue, rather than being beneficial.

[GenerationX.9178]

> @"Daddicus.6128" said:

> GW has the most cooperative and least toxic players anywhere in gaming. Or, at least anywhere I've been to or known people who've been there. It is hands-down the friendliest community of players anywhere.

>

> Part of the reason is because of its most fundamental design element: no ongoing fees. While I myself have indicated I would pay if they changed, they won't change, because a VERY large percentage of players would go elsewhere. Why wouldn't they? If GW became just like one of the other cesspools, ….

 

Not from my experience. I get told to go kill myself least once every time play thief. I think people have more to lose if there's payment involved.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"GenerationX.9178" said:

> with content in the game and also feel it would really eliminate some toxic players and possible bots.

How could it possibly have an impact on toxicity? Are you saying that all the other games that do require a subscription don't have toxic players?

 

And as for bots, what makes you think that it's a problem of large enough scale? How would a sub eliminate bots?

Real Money Traders fund their in-game currency through stolen accounts, not by programming bots to farm. Unorganized player bots exist, but not in large enough numbers to be of concern to ANet (we know this from previous comments that they've made).

 

> I would really like a developer to respond because I am curious to why it's not a subscription .

You could, of course, do an internet search to discover what they've already said on the topic.

 

> I enjoy the game but the content feels the same and really think a monthly subscription could be beneficial to players and the company.

The main thing a sub offers to a studio is a base level of consistent income. Without one, game producers are at the mercy of the whims of fans, whose support/interest can turn on a dime/shilling/10p. So there's an argument to be made that it's better for gamers if there's no sub, as it means that the studio has to be always on their toes, always thoughtful about what the community needs & wants.

 

 

 

[Joemo.6074]

I'm really surprised you played from GW1 days and are asking this question. Unless you've started playing recently. If read what Anet puts out you would have an answer to this question.

[Danikat.8537]

I could be wrong but I suspect subscription fees were one of the reasons Anet's founders split off from Blizzard to make their own MMO back in 2000. Mike O'Brien was one of the major developers of the original Battle.net system and one of the big selling points of that was the fact that it was free for players to use. I think he wanted to do the same with MMOs.

[RoseofGilead.8907]

I play WoW, which obviously has a monthly subscription. Having to pay that subscription (either with real money or with in-game gold) does not stop the trolling or toxicity. Anet adding a sub fee would not get rid of any toxic players or behaviors, and it would also alienate a large portion of its fan base.

[Cragga the Eighty Third.60]

I'm sure I am not the only player here who came to GW2 after searching for a free-to-play game. (Yeah, I have probably spent more on GW2 since than a subscription would have cost, but it is not the same.)

 

Whether or not players would leave over a subscription, the influx of new players would probably be strangled.

[HnRkLnXqZ.1870]

> @"GenerationX.9178" said:

> Not from my experience. I get told to go kill myself least once every time play thief. I think people have more to lose if there's payment involved.

 

So you've basically got roasted in PvP? Thief exists in this game since ever. It has always been one of the most controversial classes when it comes to competitive gameplay. A lot of people do not like being attacked from behind or fighting a mere ghost. There exist builds which allow a thief to spend 99% of their time in stealth, only sneak out to attack. The burst damage is literally insane, making it a true assassin. For you as the player, the thief is an ultimate weapon. For us as your enemy, it is an annoying mosquito. As killing with this class is so easy, compared to other classes, most thief players have a ... difficult ego. Some see themselves as the condensed essence of pure skill, what makes communication already quite difficult. I do not say it is imbalanced or overpowered, I just say it is rather easy to get a foothold in competitive with a thief.

 

On the one hand you have one of the easiest entries into PvP you can get. On the other hand, there is plenty of salt. When players fight against each other, one side wins and the other loses. Nobody wants to lose. The breath of fire exists in almost every game that has PvP. And the stealth classes get most of the flames. That is life.

 

The idea for monthly subscriptions is not new. But this motivation is wrong. Calm down, take a walk outside in the park. Life is too short to bother with a bunch of idiots.

[Gehenna.3625]

> @"artemis.6781" said:

> I refuse to buy a game then rent it every month. I willingly spend money each month, but if I were forced to pay, I'd walk away.

 

It's a purely psychological thought pattern and objectively it makes little sense to want to pay more for the same content. However, I'm sure ArenaNet also prefers your way, so I don't see any danger of this game ever getting a sub.

 

But, whatever you spend on an online game is rent. When you buy items you rent them. You only buy the right to use them in the game but the items actually still belong to ArenaNet. The only difference is that you pay only once for each item and that makes a lot of people feel better. But you know very well that the day the servers close sometime in the future, you are left with nothing, no matter how many thousands you spend over the years. All those items are gone. It's the norm now though. Even single player games are on online servers so also those games that you buy, you don't actually buy. You rent them till the servers go down, just with a single purchase. It's kinda like buying an apartment in a flat but at some point the general building owner tears down the building to make something else and your flat is gone. It's not as bad for games cause very few people still play games that are over 10 years old anyway. But the reality is that in an online game, nothing you buy is actually your property. Well except the box and disc when you buy a physical copy, but not the actual game. Old games you can still play today, but more recent games you won't be able to play in the future unless they keep the servers open.

 

Personally I look at the long term and if I play a game for 5 years or ten years then the sub will cost me roughly 140 bucks a year. For 10 years that adds up to 1400 bucks, be it dollars or euros. A lot of people who drop cash in the shops spend that in a year or two.

 

So it's bad for your wallet but it makes you feel better. I can see why companies have caught on to the cash shops because it's a way for you to spend more money and be happy about it.

 

I can't entirely blame you but if you look at the long term it's just more expensive. However, times have changed now and most sub games now also have extensive cash shops, but at least you don't have to pay for things like inventory and such. It's really an interesting subject and I do not want to change your mind. I mean, it keeps the game alive when people spend and I do spend some also. However, I do prefer the old sub system because I do have the long term in my view. At the same time though, I know those days are gone, so I do not expect them to come back. Cash shops are here to stay, sub or not.