Subscription based access?

[Holgarf.6581]

No because I bought the game originally - the base game, the expansion and PoF. With that, I got severely limited bank and bag space, with the intention of being extremely inconveniencing and thus encouraging people to spend or to grind endlessly (which not everyone has time for), so I spent money in the game for extras. Cosmetics are understandable and I don't mind about spending on those as they are truly optional and don't pester you until you give in, but I more or less had to buy the game, then buy bank, bag and material storage space to avoid huge inconveniences (which is evident if you ever venture into crafting). I don't see why NCSoft profit margins should mean I have to pay again (though of course it is just a proposed idea). For a game that focuses solely around monetising almost every aspect of it or inconveniencing you otherwise even though the game was originally touted as buy once ONLY, only to later turn F2P anyway, it would be unfair to those of us who disagreed with a subscription model to have to pay to continue to have certain features of the game. That's like shafting people 3 times over (which few other developers would get away with without uproar). Of course there are mega fans who are willing to do just that if it means extending their game life but I don't think everyone would agree and it'd be hugely unfair to those who don't want pay a subscription.

 

I've put a lot of money into GW2 and I've not got much to show for it but while I have found the necessary purchases to be expensive and excessive, some of that I did with the intention of supporting the game. I'm not a hardcore player by any means and while people can defend it by saying they are optional purchases, we all know that the point of limiting players is to chip away at their resolve until they break and opt for convenience purchases. That would just fine if the game was F2P from the get-go, perhaps even the expansions too, but they weren't. It wasn't a free 2 play game so I expect something for it and the idea of a subscription to continue to play what I paid for is a big fat no. I'd rather see the game reach its end of life than get screwed over, but hey, that's just my opinion.

 

 

[Donutdude.9582]

If a subscription is introduced, I will quit and never return. I think ArenaNet is aware of the hatred towards subscription-based games so it is not likely to happen.

[Blaeys.3102]

Obviously a subscription will never happen in this game and isn't worth even discussing (for the many reasons people list above).

 

I think a better model would be a pure dlc style approach. Abandon the concept of expansions and instead charge $5-$10 dollars for a smaller update each quarter (replacing the current living world update).

 

Then move any personnel you have on expansions to that team and beef up what is in these updates to include things like new elite specs (2-3 professions with each update), a more aggressive fractal/raid/WvW update schedule and more relevant/larger world maps (including faster expansion into Cantha).

 

I would happily spend an extra $10 every 3-4 months for a beefier update with the above elements. The long term income for Anet would significantly outpace the $30 every 2-3 years they would see from larger expansions and give players more to look forward to with the smaller more frequent update.

[sorudo.9054]

the no sub part is WHY this game has any income at all, add a sub and the game dies really fast.

[Dawdler.8521]

In the last 10 years, almost every subscription game has *died* while f2p games are *making billions*.

 

Anyone thinking that subscription makes games better are living in the past. Even game developers know that now.

 

> @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> I think a better model would be a pure dlc style approach. Abandon the concept of expansions and instead charge $5-$10 dollars for a smaller update each quarter (replacing the current living world update).

Thats how Anet already does it, except you've already paid a larger sum up front. I'm sure no one would mind another $30 expansion this year either.

[kasoki.5180]

> @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> Obviously a subscription will never happen in this game and isn't worth even discussing (for the many reasons people list above).

>

> I think a better model would be a pure dlc style approach. Abandon the concept of expansions and instead charge $5-$10 dollars for a smaller update each quarter (replacing the current living world update).

>

> Then move any personnel you have on expansions to that team and beef up what is in these updates to include things like new elite specs (2-3 professions with each update), a more aggressive fractal/raid/WvW update schedule and more relevant/larger world maps (including faster expansion into Cantha).

>

> I would happily spend an extra $10 every 3-4 months for a beefier update with the above elements. The long term income for Anet would significantly outpace the $30 every 2-3 years they would see from larger expansions and give players more to look forward to with the smaller more frequent update.

 

How is that different than what some of us here have suggested as a premium model subscription? From the perspective of people who dont wanna subscribe its the same thing, while it gives additional options and QoL for people who want this hypothetical subscription/premium model. People who dont subscribe can purchase each individual dlc, while people who are in the premium/subscription programme get them with no additional cost.

[Doggie.3184]

I don't like renting virtual content so a subscription of any sort would be offputting. I don't even like ESO's 'optional' sub model. Games are either a psuedo subscription because it annoys you intentionally to encourage/force buying it which reduces the overall enjoyment of the game or it's a required subscription which I never touch because time/money is wasted on people like me who don't play the same one single game 24/7~ I can't just hop in when I want to randomly without buying an overabundance of game time I can't use.

 

It's been a pretty long time though since they've catered to me personally with gem store releases. I like normal town-clothes style skins and stuff that doesn't have skirts and buttcapes or look bad and suffocating on males. Anet tends to not only buttcape everything but go full blown bizarre/abstract runway model with most things. Weapon skins have become pointless since I'm a Thief where most of my sets are pointless and/or have legendary weapons already. ;o They never stepped into player housing territory either really, despite having Guild Halls you can edit.

[ArmoredVehicle.2849]

I think most people bought this game in the first place because it has no subscription, adding one would most probably hurt it a lot. I bought GW1 in the 2005 because it was one of the very very few buy to play mmo's without sub and I bought the 2nd one because of the same reason.

 

If GW2 were to go on a monthly sub I would stop playing.

[derd.6413]

> @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > @"derd.6413" said:

> > the layoffs were unrelated to gw2s health as a game

> I don't know if that's true. From my point of view, some of NcSoft's decisions on how to use the ArenaNet resources may have caused delays for GW2 content like for example the decision to do another LS season rather than the next expansion. That could have negatively affected GW2's health as a game (last quarter revenue for GW2 was down about 25%) since LS has a much smaller chance of attracting new players and bringing back older players. And that could mean that now they have to cut back staff because the current revenue of the game no longer warrants the current size of ArenaNet's team as a result of that. So you may be right, but you may not be.

>

>

That's baseless speculation and also not what we're discusqing.

 

We're discussing the lay offs not the "skipped" xpac

[Gop.8713]

I'd quit, but tbh I'm a leech so I don't think they'd miss me :)

[Gehenna.3625]

> @"derd.6413" said:

> > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > the layoffs were unrelated to gw2s health as a game

> > I don't know if that's true. From my point of view, some of NcSoft's decisions on how to use the ArenaNet resources may have caused delays for GW2 content like for example the decision to do another LS season rather than the next expansion. That could have negatively affected GW2's health as a game (last quarter revenue for GW2 was down about 25%) since LS has a much smaller chance of attracting new players and bringing back older players. And that could mean that now they have to cut back staff because the current revenue of the game no longer warrants the current size of ArenaNet's team as a result of that. So you may be right, but you may not be.

> >

> >

> That's baseless speculation and also not what we're discusqing.

>

> We're discussing the lay offs not the "skipped" xpac

 

Erm we're talking about the layoffs and in this particular part whether there could be a link to the state of the game. I am most certainly speculating. That's why I used the verbs like MAY and COULD.

 

You are speculating just the same by the way. So I'm not sure why you throw that at me like an accusation.

[derd.6413]

> @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > > the layoffs were unrelated to gw2s health as a game

> > > I don't know if that's true. From my point of view, some of NcSoft's decisions on how to use the ArenaNet resources may have caused delays for GW2 content like for example the decision to do another LS season rather than the next expansion. That could have negatively affected GW2's health as a game (last quarter revenue for GW2 was down about 25%) since LS has a much smaller chance of attracting new players and bringing back older players. And that could mean that now they have to cut back staff because the current revenue of the game no longer warrants the current size of ArenaNet's team as a result of that. So you may be right, but you may not be.

> > >

> > >

> > That's baseless speculation and also not what we're discusqing.

> >

> > We're discussing the lay offs not the "skipped" xpac

>

> Erm we're talking about the layoffs and in this particular part whether there could be a link to the state of the game. I am most certainly speculating. That's why I used the verbs like MAY and COULD.

>

> You are speculating just the same by the way. So I'm not sure why you throw that at me like an accusation.

 

I'm not. It's stated in multiple anet posts and articles that the layoffs were caused by the cancelation of unanaunced projects and that they won't affect gw2.

 

Nowere is it stated they skipped xpacs because of ncsoft and the game failing

[Gehenna.3625]

> @"derd.6413" said:

> > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > > > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > > > the layoffs were unrelated to gw2s health as a game

> > > > I don't know if that's true. From my point of view, some of NcSoft's decisions on how to use the ArenaNet resources may have caused delays for GW2 content like for example the decision to do another LS season rather than the next expansion. That could have negatively affected GW2's health as a game (last quarter revenue for GW2 was down about 25%) since LS has a much smaller chance of attracting new players and bringing back older players. And that could mean that now they have to cut back staff because the current revenue of the game no longer warrants the current size of ArenaNet's team as a result of that. So you may be right, but you may not be.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > That's baseless speculation and also not what we're discusqing.

> > >

> > > We're discussing the lay offs not the "skipped" xpac

> >

> > Erm we're talking about the layoffs and in this particular part whether there could be a link to the state of the game. I am most certainly speculating. That's why I used the verbs like MAY and COULD.

> >

> > You are speculating just the same by the way. So I'm not sure why you throw that at me like an accusation.

>

> I'm not. It's stated in multiple anet posts and articles that the layoffs were caused by the cancelation of unanaunced projects and that they won't affect gw2.

>

> Nowere is it stated they skipped xpacs because of ncsoft and the game failing

 

Nowhere is it stated that it's not. That article clearly won't have all the details and background. So assuming that a company will just give you all the details and not omit or embellish anything is naïve really. They just say the bare minimum and I get that. And for my part I am saying there could be more to it. There may not be, but generally we never get the full story, nor do I expect that. That's not an unreasonable stance.

[Khisanth.2948]

Probably quit within a few months. Has any company actually done a very good job of the "optional" subscription thing?

 

> @"Gopaka.7839" said:

> New players wont even consider joining 2012 game that was 6-7 years without subscription and after that adding it. Think about all the quitting playera as well. Your idea will doom this game.

 

Somehow people always miss the obvious thing when starting these sort of threads.

[Cobra.6509]

Anet can't make a subscription right now because they don't have anything to sell. For next to years they have only 6 hours new content / episode and 7 episodes planned = meaning almost 2 days of new content for next 700 days. And maybe some nobody wants/needs things like mounts in WvW, races with beetle on old maps or swimming infusions. Lets face it this is a nightmare for us, GW2 players.

[kasoki.5180]

> @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> Probably quit within a few months. Has any company actually done a very good job of the "optional" subscription thing?

>

Elder Scrolls Online

[Swagger.1459]

Anet does need to be more proactive when it comes to generating money for the game. After all, there are bills, people need to get paid and players want this game to survive and actually grow.

 

There is nothing wrong with offering an optional subscription, and also adding in tons of new items on the gemstrore. And maybe now the team can get focused on doing yearly Xpacs considering the circumstances...

 

And remember folks, players get more when Anet does better financially.

[Khisanth.2948]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> Anet does need to be more proactive when it comes to generating money for the game. After all, there are bills, people need to get paid and players want this game to survive and actually grow.

>

> There is nothing wrong with offering an optional subscription, and also adding in tons of new items on the gemstrore. And maybe now the team can get focused on doing yearly Xpacs considering the circumstances...

>

> And remember folks, players get more when Anet does better financially.

 

From the information that has come out it seems more like they need to stop wasting as much money or at least invest in smaller things that can offer quicker returns.

[Raknar.4735]

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

> > @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > Probably quit within a few months. Has any company actually done a very good job of the "optional" subscription thing?

> >

> Elder Scrolls Online

 

I disagree, the crafting bag you get from the "optional" sub is the reason i'm not interested in ESO. Makes the sub not feel "optional" if you want to craft.

[DaFishBob.6518]

I think an optional subscription like thing could be done. Don't call it a subscription up front, instead make it more like a contract or a letter of intent sort of thing. Player signs up to pay X amount of money per month and will receive Y amount of gems per month (where Y is the amount X would have bought + a bonus). Player would also be able to request items be made available on gem shop under this contract. Anet gets a promised revenue stream, players get a slightly cheaper option to purchase gems over time and a say in what they'd like to see appear in the gem shop.

[Maikimaik.1974]

Introducing a subscription based model to a game after it being Buy to Play for years will result in the end of said game.

Some of you may argue that but afaik ever single one of the few attempts to introduce a subscription based model has failed tremendously.

I can vividly remember what happened to the German (or EU) version of Wizard 101 after changing it's model from free to play with premium worlds and optional subscription to fully subscription based. The game was extremely popular and well populated, I had dozens of friends who played that game almost daily. After they switched to P2P every single one of my friends left the game. Since then, the game has pretty much been in maintenance mode.

[Zaraki.5784]

I firstly came here just because there were no subscription and I stayed.

The moment you introduce one I'll feel betrayed and I will leave the game for good.

[kharmin.7683]

No. I would leave if things became sub based in any form.

[kharmin.7683]

Also, wouldn't optional sub kinda be like P2W?

[kasoki.5180]

> @"Raknar.4735" said:

> > @"kasoki.5180" said:

> > > @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > > Probably quit within a few months. Has any company actually done a very good job of the "optional" subscription thing?

> > >

> > Elder Scrolls Online

>

> I disagree, the crafting bag you get from the "optional" sub is the reason i'm not interested in ESO. Makes the sub not feel "optional" if you want to craft.

 

Well, I also personally dislike it since its very convoluted and feels like a scam. But it is arguably successful, no matter what you and I think. (Note, just because I have said that ESO has that kind of model, doesnt mean I think GW2 needs to have that exact same model)