Inculpatus cedo.9234 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"anninke.7469" said: > > @"Chyanne Waters.8719" said: > > NO !!!! Why can't you just buy them like everyone else if you get $20 worth of GEMS each month just do that through the proper channels you can even get $25 gem cards at Walmart no tax on them unless your area charges taxes on services of course. Why do they need to add some subscription for it? The only thing I would want is the more you spend it adds a percentage of Gems increase like if you buy 4000 gems for $50 you get another 100 gems free not included for the ultimate game purchase though. > > Maybe because there's no Walmart where many players are from? Because it is convenient? Because then I wouldn't have to go through the annoying process of almost begging the stupid digital retailer kitten to actually work and let me buy the gems? > > Look, no one wants to press anyone into getting the hypothetical "sub". That's why there's the word "optional" in the very thread title. What's the problem with others wanting to have this done automatically, especially if you don't have to do it? > Ha! No guarantee the DR wouldn't throw a wrench in even a monthly subscription. It's not like they don't when players try to purchase some Gems just 1 hour after having purchased Gems successfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kharmin.7683 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > > > > i am against this because soon after adding this feature they will start adding bonus to those that use this feature > > > > > > > > > > So ... the problem here is what? You don't like the idea that Anet would give benefits to people that patronize the game periodically? That doesn't really make any sense ... unless you are simply one of those jealous types. > > > > > > > > If the intention is to have a more convenient way of supporting the company financially, then what is the problem with no added bonus? Could it be that the stated intention is not entirely honest? If that's the case, one can just clearly say they want to pay to be a special snowflake above the rest of the peasants, instead of those "selfless" dev support claims that convince no one. > > > > > > I got no problem with that ... if I'm up front supporting the game with guaranteed revenue, you're kitten straight there better be advantages to it. I mean ... this should be no problem to anyone that spends money on this game already. As far as I'm concerned, if someone did volunteer to pay into a monthy fee scheme, they do deserve whatever bonus would be associated with it ... and for the benefits it gives ... anyone that doesn't pay should also be thankful for it. > > > > Sure let's add more mechanics from mobile trash mmos and pure f2p games. Mechanics that go directly against their manifesto, not that it means anything in 2019. Inventing more ways to separate players to patricians and plebs (even among paying customers), is what this game needs right now. Surely no way this would cause any negative reaction at all. > > > > Obviously since this is not a feature yet, Anet doesn't think the rest of the players would be...thankful for it. Still wouldn't put it past them at this point, I 'll just make sure to have my popcorn ready. > > > > > > Now you're just being sensational. You can invent or speculate all the bad things they could add all you like. None of them are a reason to not consider the benefits of such a business model. Actually, there are very good reasons to speculate all of the bad things. How else would a company make an informed decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > > > > > i am against this because soon after adding this feature they will start adding bonus to those that use this feature > > > > > > > > > > > > So ... the problem here is what? You don't like the idea that Anet would give benefits to people that patronize the game periodically? That doesn't really make any sense ... unless you are simply one of those jealous types. > > > > > > > > > > If the intention is to have a more convenient way of supporting the company financially, then what is the problem with no added bonus? Could it be that the stated intention is not entirely honest? If that's the case, one can just clearly say they want to pay to be a special snowflake above the rest of the peasants, instead of those "selfless" dev support claims that convince no one. > > > > > > > > I got no problem with that ... if I'm up front supporting the game with guaranteed revenue, you're kitten straight there better be advantages to it. I mean ... this should be no problem to anyone that spends money on this game already. As far as I'm concerned, if someone did volunteer to pay into a monthy fee scheme, they do deserve whatever bonus would be associated with it ... and for the benefits it gives ... anyone that doesn't pay should also be thankful for it. > > > > > > Sure let's add more mechanics from mobile trash mmos and pure f2p games. Mechanics that go directly against their manifesto, not that it means anything in 2019. Inventing more ways to separate players to patricians and plebs (even among paying customers), is what this game needs right now. Surely no way this would cause any negative reaction at all. > > > > > > Obviously since this is not a feature yet, Anet doesn't think the rest of the players would be...thankful for it. Still wouldn't put it past them at this point, I 'll just make sure to have my popcorn ready. > > > > > > > > > > Now you're just being sensational. You can invent or speculate all the bad things they could add all you like. None of them are a reason to not consider the benefits of such a business model. > > Actually, there are very good reasons to speculate all of the bad things. How else would a company make an informed decision? That doesn't make sense. Anet can DECIDE to not do these bad things. They aren't going to decide to not do something because of some bad thing they could do with it. This kind of response isn't really being honest. When people fear monger about all the bad things that might happen if something changes, they aren't doing it to be informative. They are rocking the boat. The chances Anet starts throwing exclusive content to some for example ... that would be stupid. That's not what anyone is asking for here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zealex.9410 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > > > > > > i am against this because soon after adding this feature they will start adding bonus to those that use this feature > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So ... the problem here is what? You don't like the idea that Anet would give benefits to people that patronize the game periodically? That doesn't really make any sense ... unless you are simply one of those jealous types. > > > > > > > > > > > > If the intention is to have a more convenient way of supporting the company financially, then what is the problem with no added bonus? Could it be that the stated intention is not entirely honest? If that's the case, one can just clearly say they want to pay to be a special snowflake above the rest of the peasants, instead of those "selfless" dev support claims that convince no one. > > > > > > > > > > I got no problem with that ... if I'm up front supporting the game with guaranteed revenue, you're kitten straight there better be advantages to it. I mean ... this should be no problem to anyone that spends money on this game already. As far as I'm concerned, if someone did volunteer to pay into a monthy fee scheme, they do deserve whatever bonus would be associated with it ... and for the benefits it gives ... anyone that doesn't pay should also be thankful for it. > > > > > > > > Sure let's add more mechanics from mobile trash mmos and pure f2p games. Mechanics that go directly against their manifesto, not that it means anything in 2019. Inventing more ways to separate players to patricians and plebs (even among paying customers), is what this game needs right now. Surely no way this would cause any negative reaction at all. > > > > > > > > Obviously since this is not a feature yet, Anet doesn't think the rest of the players would be...thankful for it. Still wouldn't put it past them at this point, I 'll just make sure to have my popcorn ready. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now you're just being sensational. You can invent or speculate all the bad things they could add all you like. None of them are a reason to not consider the benefits of such a business model. > > > > Actually, there are very good reasons to speculate all of the bad things. How else would a company make an informed decision? > > That doesn't make sense. Anet can DECIDE to not do these bad things. They aren't going to decide to not do something because of some bad thing they could do with it. > > This kind of response isn't really being honest. When people fear monger about all the bad things that might happen if something changes, they aren't doing it to be informative. They are rocking the boat. The chances Anet starts throwing exclusive content to some for example ... that would be stupid. That's not what anyone is asking for here. What if the target for anet and the players around balan-cough an optional sub fee is diff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"zealex.9410" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > > > > > > > i am against this because soon after adding this feature they will start adding bonus to those that use this feature > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So ... the problem here is what? You don't like the idea that Anet would give benefits to people that patronize the game periodically? That doesn't really make any sense ... unless you are simply one of those jealous types. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the intention is to have a more convenient way of supporting the company financially, then what is the problem with no added bonus? Could it be that the stated intention is not entirely honest? If that's the case, one can just clearly say they want to pay to be a special snowflake above the rest of the peasants, instead of those "selfless" dev support claims that convince no one. > > > > > > > > > > > > I got no problem with that ... if I'm up front supporting the game with guaranteed revenue, you're kitten straight there better be advantages to it. I mean ... this should be no problem to anyone that spends money on this game already. As far as I'm concerned, if someone did volunteer to pay into a monthy fee scheme, they do deserve whatever bonus would be associated with it ... and for the benefits it gives ... anyone that doesn't pay should also be thankful for it. > > > > > > > > > > Sure let's add more mechanics from mobile trash mmos and pure f2p games. Mechanics that go directly against their manifesto, not that it means anything in 2019. Inventing more ways to separate players to patricians and plebs (even among paying customers), is what this game needs right now. Surely no way this would cause any negative reaction at all. > > > > > > > > > > Obviously since this is not a feature yet, Anet doesn't think the rest of the players would be...thankful for it. Still wouldn't put it past them at this point, I 'll just make sure to have my popcorn ready. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now you're just being sensational. You can invent or speculate all the bad things they could add all you like. None of them are a reason to not consider the benefits of such a business model. > > > > > > Actually, there are very good reasons to speculate all of the bad things. How else would a company make an informed decision? > > > > That doesn't make sense. Anet can DECIDE to not do these bad things. They aren't going to decide to not do something because of some bad thing they could do with it. > > > > This kind of response isn't really being honest. When people fear monger about all the bad things that might happen if something changes, they aren't doing it to be informative. They are rocking the boat. The chances Anet starts throwing exclusive content to some for example ... that would be stupid. That's not what anyone is asking for here. > > What if the target for anet and the players around balan-cough an optional sub fee is diff? I dunno .. what if? Do you have a point? I don't see how they are related .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zealex.9410 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Knighthonor.4061" said: > > > > > > > > > > i am against this because soon after adding this feature they will start adding bonus to those that use this feature > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So ... the problem here is what? You don't like the idea that Anet would give benefits to people that patronize the game periodically? That doesn't really make any sense ... unless you are simply one of those jealous types. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the intention is to have a more convenient way of supporting the company financially, then what is the problem with no added bonus? Could it be that the stated intention is not entirely honest? If that's the case, one can just clearly say they want to pay to be a special snowflake above the rest of the peasants, instead of those "selfless" dev support claims that convince no one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I got no problem with that ... if I'm up front supporting the game with guaranteed revenue, you're kitten straight there better be advantages to it. I mean ... this should be no problem to anyone that spends money on this game already. As far as I'm concerned, if someone did volunteer to pay into a monthy fee scheme, they do deserve whatever bonus would be associated with it ... and for the benefits it gives ... anyone that doesn't pay should also be thankful for it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure let's add more mechanics from mobile trash mmos and pure f2p games. Mechanics that go directly against their manifesto, not that it means anything in 2019. Inventing more ways to separate players to patricians and plebs (even among paying customers), is what this game needs right now. Surely no way this would cause any negative reaction at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously since this is not a feature yet, Anet doesn't think the rest of the players would be...thankful for it. Still wouldn't put it past them at this point, I 'll just make sure to have my popcorn ready. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now you're just being sensational. You can invent or speculate all the bad things they could add all you like. None of them are a reason to not consider the benefits of such a business model. > > > > > > > > Actually, there are very good reasons to speculate all of the bad things. How else would a company make an informed decision? > > > > > > That doesn't make sense. Anet can DECIDE to not do these bad things. They aren't going to decide to not do something because of some bad thing they could do with it. > > > > > > This kind of response isn't really being honest. When people fear monger about all the bad things that might happen if something changes, they aren't doing it to be informative. They are rocking the boat. The chances Anet starts throwing exclusive content to some for example ... that would be stupid. That's not what anyone is asking for here. > > > > What if the target for anet and the players around balan-cough an optional sub fee is diff? > > I dunno .. what if? Do you have a point? I don't see how they are related .... Im just saying what Anet envision for a sub fee and what some players do might be different, they might not want to add one or add one with no additional benefits regardless of how long ppl stay subbed for. The balance bit is me jesting, i found the passage very similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 OK ... that could be true. To be fair, I think we are more discussing the idea of having a sub option, not what the actual benefit of it would be. I'm just shocked at some of the thinking some people exhibit in this thread ... someone paying a sub for the game might get some advantage, so we just forget the idea? Yeah, you know who gets the advantage of someone that pays for the game? It's all the people that **don't**. I just get the sense that the people against the idea because of whatever bad things they are imagining are a bunch of people that would rather see everyone have nothing and be equal, including themselves so they don't have to deal with their insecurities about seeing someone with something they don't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zealex.9410 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > OK ... that could be true. To be fair, I think we are more discussing the idea of having a sub option, not what the actual benefit of it would be. I'm just shocked at some of the thinking some people exhibit in this thread ... someone paying a sub for the game might get some advantage, so we just forget the idea? Yeah, you know who gets the advantage of someone that pays for the game? It's all the people that **don't**. > > I just get the sense that the people against the idea because of whatever bad things they are imagining are a bunch of people that would rather see everyone have nothing and be equal, including themselves so they don't have to deal with their insecurities about seeing someone with something they don't have. Thats honestly a pretty accurate representation of the gw2 community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"The Ace.9105" said: > > @"Firebeard.1746" said: > > I don't want to have to go through the shop ui every time i want to contribute to this game and anet may make some extra money on people who just stop playing and want to support anet ( my boss at work for example pays his WoW sub even when he's not playing because he loves the lore/blizzard). > > > > I don't want special perks or anything else and i want the rate to be customizable. Craft bags and the continuous stream of new crating mats ruined eso for me. > > The gemstore money you spend does not go to supporting gw2 but it goes to funding ncsoft that funds anet which at this point is focusing on the side projects so maybe like 1-10% you spend goes to actually supporting the game. It's well know that 72.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot. I'm not 100% sure it works the way you seem to suggest, but I know for a fact, if you're not working for Anet or NcSoft, you don't have those numbers, or even a range. The funny bit is, it STILL supports the game, because if income falls below a certain amount, the game can be closed. Keeping the game open is supporting the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexxxDelta.1806 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 _"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."_ Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An _optional_ monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not? It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of **a game**, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed. What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that. And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zealex.9410 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > _"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."_ > Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An _optional_ monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not? > > It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of **a game**, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed. > > What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that. > > And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling. I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play. I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example. The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasimir.6239 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that. I wouldn't suppose that many of those who ask for an optional subscription with added benefits want to be "better", but they sure want more value for their money than those who pay irregularly. The beauty of the current system GW2 has is that no matter how many gems I buy or how often, I can be sure to always get my money's worth in gems. I can buy 10 Euros worth of gems each month, or 120 Euros worth once a year, and I will end up with 120 Euros worth of gems either way. If ANet were to implement either a subscription with benefits or a discount on larger gem purchases that would in fact make me more wary of buying gems at all, because I would most likely always feel like I'm either buying more gems than I need, or not get my full money's worth in gems. It may be an irrational feeling, but it's nevertheless very real, to me as well as others. Somebody further up in the thread claimed that a subscriber deserves added benefits because they do support the game. That to me is the really problematic, if not even dishonest argument in all of this. Why do they deserve added benefits for paying monthly, when I don't get those benefits if I pay the same amount of money in one larger purchase instead? That's where people start being treated differently even though they support the game with the same amount of money. I don't mind people being able to set up a recurring payment plan, but I sure hope ANet will stick to their principle of same value gem purchases and not start muddling the water with discounts and benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexxxDelta.1806 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"zealex.9410" said: > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > _"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."_ > > Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An _optional_ monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not? > > > > It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of **a game**, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed. > > > > What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that. > > > > And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling. > > I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play. > > I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example. > > The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken. Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between **paying** customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce **more** separation, isn't it? Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless. You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zealex.9410 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > _"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."_ > > > Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An _optional_ monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not? > > > > > > It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of **a game**, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed. > > > > > > What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that. > > > > > > And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling. > > > > I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play. > > > > I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example. > > > > The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken. > > Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between **paying** customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce **more** separation, isn't it? > > Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless. > > You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all. Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasimir.6239 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"zealex.9410" said: > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > _"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."_ > > > > Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An _optional_ monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not? > > > > > > > > It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of **a game**, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed. > > > > > > > > What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that. > > > > > > > > And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling. > > > > > > I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play. > > > > > > I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example. > > > > > > The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken. > > > > Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between **paying** customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce **more** separation, isn't it? > > > > Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless. > > > > You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all. > > Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter. I still fail to see why giving them the same amount of money over the same timespan justifies one getting added value compared to the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zealex.9410 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"Rasimir.6239" said: > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that. > I wouldn't suppose that many of those who ask for an optional subscription with added benefits want to be "better", but they sure want more value for their money than those who pay irregularly. > > The beauty of the current system GW2 has is that no matter how many gems I buy or how often, I can be sure to always get my money's worth in gems. I can buy 10 Euros worth of gems each month, or 120 Euros worth once a year, and I will end up with 120 Euros worth of gems either way. If ANet were to implement either a subscription with benefits or a discount on larger gem purchases that would in fact make me more wary of buying gems at all, because I would most likely always feel like I'm either buying more gems than I need, or not get my full money's worth in gems. It may be an irrational feeling, but it's nevertheless very real, to me as well as others. > > Somebody further up in the thread claimed that a subscriber deserves added benefits because they do support the game. That to me is the really problematic, if not even dishonest argument in all of this. Why do they deserve added benefits for paying monthly, when I don't get those benefits if I pay the same amount of money in one larger purchase instead? That's where people start being treated differently even though they support the game with the same amount of money. > > I don't mind people being able to set up a recurring payment plan, but I sure hope ANet will stick to their principle of same value gem purchases and not start muddling the water with discounts and benefits. Why wouldnt u benefit with a larger purchase? Subscriptions often also include subscription plans, u either renew the sub monthly or you can pay for a plan in advance and get the same benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zealex.9410 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"Rasimir.6239" said: > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > _"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."_ > > > > > Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An _optional_ monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not? > > > > > > > > > > It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of **a game**, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed. > > > > > > > > > > What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that. > > > > > > > > > > And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling. > > > > > > > > I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play. > > > > > > > > I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example. > > > > > > > > The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken. > > > > > > Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between **paying** customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce **more** separation, isn't it? > > > > > > Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless. > > > > > > You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all. > > > > Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter. > I still fail to see why giving them the same amount of money over the same timespan justifies one getting added value compared to the other. Because for the company the one that spends in bulk is a riskier spender, the person who spends monthly a set amount brings a steady flow of money to the company over a period of time and missing a month is far smaller of a loss. If for w/e reason the bulk spender isnt able to do their spending its a way bigger loss of income for the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexxxDelta.1806 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"zealex.9410" said: > > @"Rasimir.6239" said: > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > _"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."_ > > > > > > Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An _optional_ monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not? > > > > > > > > > > > > It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of **a game**, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that. > > > > > > > > > > > > And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling. > > > > > > > > > > I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play. > > > > > > > > > > I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example. > > > > > > > > > > The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken. > > > > > > > > Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between **paying** customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce **more** separation, isn't it? > > > > > > > > Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless. > > > > > > > > You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all. > > > > > > Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter. > > I still fail to see why giving them the same amount of money over the same timespan justifies one getting added value compared to the other. > > Because for the company the one that spends in bulk is a riskier spender, the person who spends monthly a set amount brings a steady flow of money to the company over a period of time and missing a month is far smaller of a loss. > > If for w/e reason the bulk spender isnt able to do their spending its a way bigger loss of income for the company. If they wanted to have a set, steady flow of income then they should have gone with a subscription from the start. Instead, they not only chose otherwise, but made the absence of one a main feature of their promo campaign. A gem discount is a good way to make an optional sub, seem not so...optional. Players without one would be paying more for their gems, simply because they opted out of a subscription that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. I remember being told repeatedly, during the peak of f2p MMOs, that those games (and b2p), need a heavy cash store focus, in the absence of a sub, to _pay the bills_. Then I saw sub-based games adding cash stores, and f2p/b2p games adding sub schemes/payment tiers. Apparently, now both are needed to _pay those pesky bills_. Oh, and don't forget lootboxes, or more accurately, surprise mechanics, that's also, much needed revenue to _pay the kitten bills_. At this point I'm just wondering what's next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"zealex.9410" said: > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > _"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."_ > > > > Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An _optional_ monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not? > > > > > > > > It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of **a game**, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed. > > > > > > > > What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that. > > > > > > > > And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling. > > > > > > I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play. > > > > > > I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example. > > > > > > The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken. > > > > Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between **paying** customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce **more** separation, isn't it? > > > > Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless. > > > > You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all. > > Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter. This is exactly it ... people need to get over themselves in a pretty bad way when they are more concerned that there is a bonus to a gem purchasing scheme than the fact that someone is paying for the game so they don't have to. > @"Rasimir.6239" said: > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > _"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."_ > > > > > Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An _optional_ monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not? > > > > > > > > > > It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of **a game**, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed. > > > > > > > > > > What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that. > > > > > > > > > > And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling. > > > > > > > > I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play. > > > > > > > > I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example. > > > > > > > > The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken. > > > > > > Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between **paying** customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce **more** separation, isn't it? > > > > > > Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless. > > > > > > You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all. > > > > Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter. > I still fail to see why giving them the same amount of money over the same timespan justifies one getting added value compared to the other. Honest? You don't see how there is added value to a predicable revenue stream? Do you have a job? Do you get paid on a constant frequency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > @"Rasimir.6239" said: > > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > > _"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."_ > > > > > > > Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An _optional_ monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of **a game**, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play. > > > > > > > > > > > > I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example. > > > > > > > > > > > > The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken. > > > > > > > > > > Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between **paying** customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce **more** separation, isn't it? > > > > > > > > > > Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless. > > > > > > > > > > You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all. > > > > > > > > Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter. > > > I still fail to see why giving them the same amount of money over the same timespan justifies one getting added value compared to the other. > > > > Because for the company the one that spends in bulk is a riskier spender, the person who spends monthly a set amount brings a steady flow of money to the company over a period of time and missing a month is far smaller of a loss. > > > > If for w/e reason the bulk spender isnt able to do their spending its a way bigger loss of income for the company. > > If they wanted to have a set, steady flow of income then they should have gone with a subscription from the start. I don't think you get this ... it's not about what Anet wants. The suggestion is convenience for players .. but yes, there are benefits for Anet if people buy gems in this manner. They has to be, otherwise there isn't any attraction from their side for the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancho.8750 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 This type of thread pops regularly after the layoffs , like someone in NCSOFT is trying to pull something. "They are asking for it" kind of deal. And if NCSOFT guy is reading, many would leave if Arenanet breaks another promise they made as a core principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexxxDelta.1806 Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > _"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."_ > > > > > Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An _optional_ monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not? > > > > > > > > > > It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of **a game**, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed. > > > > > > > > > > What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that. > > > > > > > > > > And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling. > > > > > > > > I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play. > > > > > > > > I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example. > > > > > > > > The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken. > > > > > > Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between **paying** customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce **more** separation, isn't it? > > > > > > Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless. > > > > > > You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all. > > > > Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter. > > This is exactly it ... people need to get over themselves in a pretty bad way when they are more concerned that there is a bonus to a gem purchasing scheme than the fact **that someone is paying for the game so they don't have to.** I'm pretty sure I've paid money for this game. Both in bundle purchases (core+xpacs) and gems. So I'm not sure where this notion, that actual paying customers are some kind of freeloaders(!?) who need others paying their game for them, comes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasimir.6239 Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > @"Rasimir.6239" said: > > > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > > > _"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."_ > > > > > > > > Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An _optional_ monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of **a game**, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between **paying** customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce **more** separation, isn't it? > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all. > > > > > > > > > > Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter. > > > > I still fail to see why giving them the same amount of money over the same timespan justifies one getting added value compared to the other. > > > > > > Because for the company the one that spends in bulk is a riskier spender, the person who spends monthly a set amount brings a steady flow of money to the company over a period of time and missing a month is far smaller of a loss. > > > > > > If for w/e reason the bulk spender isnt able to do their spending its a way bigger loss of income for the company. > > > > If they wanted to have a set, steady flow of income then they should have gone with a subscription from the start. > > I don't think you get this ... it's not about what Anet wants. The suggestion is convenience for players .. but yes, there are benefits for Anet if people buy gems in this manner. They has to be, otherwise there isn't any attraction from their side for the idea. > No. The suggestion is for players to get a bonus above what other players get (even those that pay the same money). You are arguing that it's in ANet's interest to make it look less selfish, but changing from the status quo where everybody's money is the same value to a system where people are tricked into paying up-front what they might not even need so you can get a bonus on the value you'd pay for anyway is just that. Mind, this is the suggestion we are talking about right now. The original suggestion was really just for convenience, without any added benefits. I'm fine with that, but I'm not fine with giving a bonus that might well entice a lot of players to spend more than they need to feel like they got their money's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 > @"Rasimir.6239" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > > @"Rasimir.6239" said: > > > > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > > > > _"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."_ > > > > > > > > > Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An _optional_ monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of **a game**, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between **paying** customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce **more** separation, isn't it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter. > > > > > I still fail to see why giving them the same amount of money over the same timespan justifies one getting added value compared to the other. > > > > > > > > Because for the company the one that spends in bulk is a riskier spender, the person who spends monthly a set amount brings a steady flow of money to the company over a period of time and missing a month is far smaller of a loss. > > > > > > > > If for w/e reason the bulk spender isnt able to do their spending its a way bigger loss of income for the company. > > > > > > If they wanted to have a set, steady flow of income then they should have gone with a subscription from the start. > > > > I don't think you get this ... it's not about what Anet wants. The suggestion is convenience for players .. but yes, there are benefits for Anet if people buy gems in this manner. They has to be, otherwise there isn't any attraction from their side for the idea. > > > No. The suggestion is for players to get a bonus above what other players get (even those that pay the same money). You are arguing that it's in ANet's interest to make it look less selfish, but changing from the status quo where everybody's money is the same value to a system where people are tricked into paying up-front what they might not even need so you can get a bonus on the value you'd pay for anyway is just that. > > Mind, this is the suggestion we are talking about right now. The original suggestion was really just for convenience, without any added benefits. I'm fine with that, but I'm not fine with giving a bonus that might well entice a lot of players to spend more than they need to feel like they got their money's worth. OK ... and I think that's not a problem. I agree with giving players a bonus like that if they a more patronizing to a company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > @"zealex.9410" said: > > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > _"It doesn’t suck your life away and force you onto a grinding treadmill; it doesn’t make you spend hours preparing to have fun rather than just having fun; and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."_ > > > > > > Just as a reminder this is a line from the original GW2 manifesto back in 2010. Let's ignore most of it and focus on the last part about a monthly fee. An _optional_ monthly fee is still a monthly fee, is it not? > > > > > > > > > > > > It also strikes me as amusing how it is somehow perceived as a bad thing to have an equal playing field among the players of **a game**, of all things. Maybe I'm one of the few who isn't willing to settle for the "games as a service" thing, as different payment tiers with advantages, is something I expect from an ISP offering, not from a game. I guess the terms have been muddled for too long now and players have started to normalize this. I've dabbled a bit in DnD back in the day and I'm trying to picture the reactions of the group if I paid our DM each session, so I would get more gold/rewards from each battle. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't go too well, but times have changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > What annoys me the most though, is the hypocrisy of that request (with some exceptions). It is often presented as a need for convenience, in order to support the devs with automated monthly purchases. And yet the same people who asked, would be up in arms if that feature was added with no bonus for the subscribers. Because in truth, the request is about yet another way to distinguish oneself in-game from the rest of the peasants, the monthly fee is just the means towards that. > > > > > > > > > > > > And the best part is that, in games that offer those tiers with bonuses, they are never enough. You can search game forums or other online communities and see various threads of players asking for more advantages or even more tiers, because the current ones are not enough. Whales are always hungry I guess, and tiny plankton can't be too filling. > > > > > > > > > > I think you are pretty biased on this one, also i think the line about the sub fee had nothing to do with an optional sub that doesnt get you any content and all to do with having to pay sub to play. > > > > > > > > > > I didnt go msg by msg but did you see the op asking for any unique benefits? I personally suggested an addition but it wasnt smth that distinguishes "peasants" from non "peasants". And if you could pls do bring up an example. > > > > > > > > > > The more i read those line the more i feel theres been multiple moments in this gam's life circle that the rest have been broken. > > > > > > > > Here is an example. Let's say subscribers get a discount for buying gems. A person who spends on gems whenever they feel like it, won't be getting the same bang for their buck as the one who is subscribed. That automatically puts one group at an advantage over the other, between **paying** customers. And that's just one way it could go, same would apply for any kind of meaningful advantage, that would translate into in-game economy. Granted, it's already happening to an extent, with certain gem store items but that's hardly a reason to introduce **more** separation, isn't it? > > > > > > > > Now let's say the added bonus is something purely cosmetic, like exclusive outfits, mountfits or something less meaningful that doesn't affect in-game economy in any way. It's only speculation, as it hasn't happened here yet, but in my experience from other games, the same players who asked for the convenience of a sub, will proceed to blast it as something worthless. > > > > > > > > You are correct, there have been moments in this game's life circle, where the rest of that quote has been broken. That's why I chose to focus on the last part. More like a reminder than an argument, as I do believe it's possible they will brake this part too. Creative vision < $$$ after all. > > > > > > Imo if someone is choosing to give a steady stream of money for a better deal gem wise then i dont see the issue tbh. Its like having someone who has the money buying the 25 euro skin over someone who doesnt, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter. > > > > This is exactly it ... people need to get over themselves in a pretty bad way when they are more concerned that there is a bonus to a gem purchasing scheme than the fact **that someone is paying for the game so they don't have to.** > > I'm pretty sure I've paid money for this game. Both in bundle purchases (core+xpacs) and gems. So I'm not sure where this notion, that actual paying customers are some kind of freeloaders(!?) who need others paying their game for them, comes from. > > Don't get off track here. Sure, you and everyone else made the ABSOLUTE **smallest** and **necessary** purchase to support this game. This game persists because people by gems. 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