Would this type of subscription be bad?

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Raven.1524

Raven.1524

How about making a subscription based option ONLY for convenience for a more stable income to Anet WITHOUT affecting the economy or the gameplay?
For example:

-availability of free hair stylists
-no WP charge (it’s only a few coins anyways, don’t think it will affect the economy)
-no transmutation charged required for the wardrobe
-unlocked COMMON outfits only while you are subscribed (turning them off while the sub ends, unless you bought them)
-unlocked COMMON minis and dyes for the sub duration
-portable bank, or crafting station (1 or 2 weeks)

Stuff like that, which doesn’t really upset the economy nor anything and gives a stable income to the devs for people paying the ultimate convenience option. (And for that reason alone I didn’t touch subjects like the tax at the market because that would affect the economy, specially since everyone’s sensitive to the latest decision from BDO publishers, lol)

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Boysenberry.1869

Boysenberry.1869

I wouldn’t be opposed to a special subscription option as long as those players did not receive something that was otherwise unobtainable.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: penelopehannibal.8947

penelopehannibal.8947

Any form of subscription would be bad for a game that was marketed as a Buy to Play model.

Blood & Merlot [Wine]

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Danikat.8537

Danikat.8537

Firstly any subscription will be badly received in a game whose main selling point is that it has no subscription.

Secondly if your priority is not upsetting the economy giving ‘free’ access to over 50g worth of minis (assuming ‘common’ means blue rarity ones that are part of sets 1-3, it goes up dramatically if you include any others), and a similar value of dyes and removing one of the only consistent gold sinks in the game (waypoints) is not the way to go.

Also they can’t give you access to minis, dyes and outfits only when you’re paying a subscription because they’ve previously said it’s not possible for them to remove items from players wardrobes.

Danielle Aurorel, Dear Dragon We Got Your Cookies [Nom], Desolation (EU).

“Life’s a journey, not a destination.”

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Danikat.8537

Danikat.8537

If you like the idea of paying a subscription you can just spend a fixed amount on gems every month, and then use those to buy whatever “subscription benefits” you want.

Including converting them to gold and using that to fund waypoints, buy minis or whatever else you want from it.

Danielle Aurorel, Dear Dragon We Got Your Cookies [Nom], Desolation (EU).

“Life’s a journey, not a destination.”

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Randulf.7614

Randulf.7614

If you like the idea of paying a subscription you can just spend a fixed amount on gems every month, and then use those to buy whatever “subscription benefits” you want.

Including converting them to gold and using that to fund waypoints, buy minis or whatever else you want from it.

This. You can fix your own subscription if you wish. Any other form of subscription would do irreparable damage to the game and Anets reputation since it is a huge selling point for players. Even an optional sub will psychologically send out a message which will be immediately misinterpreted, even if the motive were pure.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Khisanth.2948

Khisanth.2948

A subscription for those things is a slider that starts with “gets free stuff” and slides towards “overpaying for stuff” the longer you subscribe. That is a pretty terrible setup.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Raven.1524

Raven.1524

Yea, I pretty much posted this, because I was interested on how could possibly the community react if this were to happen. I’m personally not with or against this type of practices as long as it doesn’t affect the game itself.
I find it quite amusing that there’s no middle ground on this subjects when you mention the word “subscription”. But I guess i could be an interesting social experiment to know what does and doesn’t want the usual playerbase on a simple forum post.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Zephic.3075

Zephic.3075

For me, there is no middle ground. The second they add a subscription plan is when I hit the uninstall button on my desktop.

I am more than willing to spend cash on gems every now and then, but any subscription plan that offers benefits like you describe will turn me and a bunch of other people away.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Raven.1524

Raven.1524

For me, there is no middle ground. The second they add a subscription plan is when I hit the uninstall button on my desktop.

I am more than willing to spend cash on gems every now and then, but any subscription plan that offers benefits like you describe will turn me and a bunch of other people away.

Well, you’ve gotta admit that this type of reaction is interesting
(I’m not talking about good nor bad, just interesting)

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Ameepa.6793

Ameepa.6793

Oooh it’s another “I want these things but I’m not willing to pay that much for them” -thread.

No. You can pay your subscription now if you want too and see how much you can get for it.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Raven.1524

Raven.1524

Oooh it’s another “I want these things but I’m not willing to pay that much for them” -thread.

No. You can pay your subscription now if you want too and see how much you can get for it.

Lol, not realy. I just head the news on the changes for Black desert online and I thought. Hey!~ how would GW2 players react if Anet suddenly decided to do the same but WITHOUT the gameplay changing features.
Let’s call it a socal experiment. It’s quite funny really ^-^

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Ameepa.6793

Ameepa.6793

Oooh it’s another “I want these things but I’m not willing to pay that much for them” -thread.

No. You can pay your subscription now if you want too and see how much you can get for it.

Lol, not realy. I just head the news on the changes for Black desert online and I thought. Hey!~ how would GW2 players react if Anet suddenly decided to do the same but WITHOUT the gameplay changing features.
Let’s call it a socal experiment. It’s quite funny really ^-^

Call it what you will, but these threads always sound like that. This isn’t the first subscription thread. Someone suggest the same thing once a month and always the idea behind them is to get a boatload of stuff for a fraction of the price they would normally cost.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Illconceived Was Na.9781

Illconceived Was Na.9781

I find it quite amusing that there’s no middle ground on this subjects when you mention the word “subscription”.

There cannot be a middle ground about it: Either the game has a sub. Or it doesn’t.

There are plenty of things worth discussing in which there can be a middle ground…and many that don’t. There’s a middle ground in discussing how much of a pizza should include anchovies, but there’s no middle ground in that discussion about if that pizza will be vegan.

But I guess i could be an interesting social experiment to know what does and doesn’t want the usual playerbase on a simple forum post.

Not really. There’s nothing ‘simple’ about suggesting that the business model be overhauled. It’s naturally going to generate strong opinions, because it affects people’s sense of fairness and value for money spent.

John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Ardid.7203

Ardid.7203

No, no subscription. You have to understand that, while a middle ground example like the proposed in the OP could be really reasonable, people are NOT reasonable.

People buy and use and love and hate and leave things, mostly driven by emotion and social pressure. That is why a “fair” idea that crosses a conceptual line is perceived as a full infraction, and is why it will become a true infraction in time: boundaries help people control their emotions and responses, when you mess with them, you change the rules and let bad behaviours grow.

If you offer 1 kind of subscription, people will began to ask for other types, confrontation will grow around the topic, and, while Anet COULD, in fact, win a few monies from all the commotion, in the end the community and the game will became like that of any other subscribed game, without the option to go back. All of us who value the actual “non subscription” spirit of the game will probably go.

“Only problem with the Engineer is
that it makes every other class in the game boring to play.”
Hawks

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Leiloni.7951

Leiloni.7951

No subscription, never. One of the things I like most about this game is there’s no pressure to buy anything ever. I can and do buy things when I want to but that’s it. Any regular payment is not something I’m interested in. I’ve played enough games with “optional subscriptions” by now to know they’re anything but optional – in an effort to make them as appealing as possible, the devs throw a bunch of stuff in there that you’d be a fool to go without. TERA, SWTOR, ESO… BDO is only the newest example. No freaking way.

I’m glad to hear so many of you are so against it as well – the communities in the above mentioned games (aside from BDO because we all know Kakao doesn’t care one bit what it’s community thinks) are very accepting of the subs in those games, which is why they exist.

(edited by Leiloni.7951)

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Zephic.3075

Zephic.3075

No, never. One of the things I like most about this game is there’s no pressure to buy anything ever. I can and do buy things when I want to but that’s it. Any regular payment is not something I’m interested in. I’ve played enough games with “optional subscriptions” by now to know they’re anything but optional – in an effort to make them as appealing as possible, the devs throw a bunch of stuff in there that you’d be a fool to go without. TERA, SWTOR, ESO… BDO is only the newest example. No freaking way.

I’m glad to hear so many of you are so against it as well – the communities in the above mentioned games (aside from BDO because we all know Kakao doesn’t care one bit what it’s community thinks) are very accepting of the subs in those games, which is why they exist.

Exactly. I never feel pressured to buy anything in the gem store. I buy gems mostly to thank the devs for their hard work and because I genuinely love this game. SWTOR was one of the most restrictive games I have ever seen. I had to sub to manage my guild there. No thanks. Never again.

I have friends who wouldn’t play the game when it went free to play and I bought them the expansion as a gift. Imagine how fast they would drop the game once you introduce something like a paid subscription. They would be gone faster than you can blink

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Healix.5819

Healix.5819

ArenaNet is against doing certain things. Their original team split off from WoW, which is why they’ll likely never add mounts, though obviously profitable. If they wanted to add a “subscription” for example, they would do it differently by another name, such as their old loyalty program where those who bought gems within the last few months received a free gift.

The game basically does have a subscription however, but you pay it up front every ~2 years and only if you want to keep up to date with the game. The plan was to bundle all past expansions for free with the current one, but that was announced prior to the free client. Consider that if they simply give it away for free, and since they also gave away season 3 to everyone, you could effectively play the game ~2 years behind and get all the content for free. That was the original plan after all, where the living world was meant to take the place of expansions while the gem store was their main source of revenue, which it is; even surpassing HoT’s launch sales.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Danikat.8537

Danikat.8537

No, never. One of the things I like most about this game is there’s no pressure to buy anything ever. I can and do buy things when I want to but that’s it. Any regular payment is not something I’m interested in. I’ve played enough games with “optional subscriptions” by now to know they’re anything but optional – in an effort to make them as appealing as possible, the devs throw a bunch of stuff in there that you’d be a fool to go without. TERA, SWTOR, ESO… BDO is only the newest example. No freaking way.

I’m glad to hear so many of you are so against it as well – the communities in the above mentioned games (aside from BDO because we all know Kakao doesn’t care one bit what it’s community thinks) are very accepting of the subs in those games, which is why they exist.

To be fair at least two of those games (SWTOR and ESO) started out as pay-to-play games where you had to have a subscription simply to play, so having an optional subscription is actually a step down for them.

Whereas Guild Wars 2, like Guild Wars 1, was marketed as subscription free from day 1. For me at least it’s a major selling point of the game.

I’d played P2P MMOs before and I liked the online, shared world concept but paying a sub just doesn’t work for me. At least half the time I’d end up paying for a month in which I never got to play the game, or I’d feel like I had to play because I’d paid for it and then I wouldn’t enjoy it as much because I felt like I was only doing it because I had to.

So when I saw my brother playing a new game which looked pretty cool (the charr impressed me) and he told me it was an MMO without a subscription that was all I needed to know. Next time I was in town I bought my own copy.

Sure in theory it’s different with an optional subscription, but chances are good the players who are paying a subscription will keep asking for more benefits and the developers will be very tempted to give in to that – why wouldn’t they want to keep their subscribers happy whilst also maybe tempting more people to subscribe. And if it’s just a ‘small’ change surely it won’t upset too many people….

And maybe on it’s own it won’t. Elder Scrolls Online started off (when they switched to buy-to-play) with what I thought was a very fair optional subscription – you got automatic access to all the DLC (which non-subscribers have to buy separately), cash shop currency equivalent to the full price of the subscription and something random like 10% extra experience.

But then they keep adding extra subscription benefits. Nothing game-breaking or pay-to-win exactly. Things like infinite storage for crafting materials, which you’d otherwise have to store in your bank. There are dozens of different materials in that game so they’re the main reason people feel pressured to buy bank upgrades.

Sooner or later it reaches a point where the only realistic option is to pay a subscription, and then it’s basically a pay-to-play game again.

Danielle Aurorel, Dear Dragon We Got Your Cookies [Nom], Desolation (EU).

“Life’s a journey, not a destination.”

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Leiloni.7951

Leiloni.7951

No, never. One of the things I like most about this game is there’s no pressure to buy anything ever. I can and do buy things when I want to but that’s it. Any regular payment is not something I’m interested in. I’ve played enough games with “optional subscriptions” by now to know they’re anything but optional – in an effort to make them as appealing as possible, the devs throw a bunch of stuff in there that you’d be a fool to go without. TERA, SWTOR, ESO… BDO is only the newest example. No freaking way.

I’m glad to hear so many of you are so against it as well – the communities in the above mentioned games (aside from BDO because we all know Kakao doesn’t care one bit what it’s community thinks) are very accepting of the subs in those games, which is why they exist.

To be fair at least two of those games (SWTOR and ESO) started out as pay-to-play games where you had to have a subscription simply to play, so having an optional subscription is actually a step down for them.

Whereas Guild Wars 2, like Guild Wars 1, was marketed as subscription free from day 1. For me at least it’s a major selling point of the game.

I’d played P2P MMOs before and I liked the online, shared world concept but paying a sub just doesn’t work for me. At least half the time I’d end up paying for a month in which I never got to play the game, or I’d feel like I had to play because I’d paid for it and then I wouldn’t enjoy it as much because I felt like I was only doing it because I had to.

So when I saw my brother playing a new game which looked pretty cool (the charr impressed me) and he told me it was an MMO without a subscription that was all I needed to know. Next time I was in town I bought my own copy.

Sure in theory it’s different with an optional subscription, but chances are good the players who are paying a subscription will keep asking for more benefits and the developers will be very tempted to give in to that – why wouldn’t they want to keep their subscribers happy whilst also maybe tempting more people to subscribe. And if it’s just a ‘small’ change surely it won’t upset too many people….

And maybe on it’s own it won’t. Elder Scrolls Online started off (when they switched to buy-to-play) with what I thought was a very fair optional subscription – you got automatic access to all the DLC (which non-subscribers have to buy separately), cash shop currency equivalent to the full price of the subscription and something random like 10% extra experience.

But then they keep adding extra subscription benefits. Nothing game-breaking or pay-to-win exactly. Things like infinite storage for crafting materials, which you’d otherwise have to store in your bank. There are dozens of different materials in that game so they’re the main reason people feel pressured to buy bank upgrades.

Sooner or later it reaches a point where the only realistic option is to pay a subscription, and then it’s basically a pay-to-play game again.

You’re right and TERA also used to be P2P. I used to really like ESO’s payment model and it was something I used as an example of a good one, until the past several months where they keep adding stuff to it that makes it less than optional, along with the fact that the DLC’s are too close together so even if you avoid the sub you’re still paying frequently and likely also buying the occasional cash shop item. It became too much.

With how I play games now, either I lose interest in a game temporarily, or just get busy in real life, so I can’t feel good about paying a subscription I may not make complete use of. The freedom of GW2’s B2P model allows me to play on my terms. That is so important. So I purchased the expansion and I buy occasional gem store items when I want or need them and I feel like that’s worth my money and puts me in the driver’s seat.

However it’s a slippery slope – we consumers are smarter than we used to be so we recognize when a company is trying too hard to make purchases look too good so we buy more. I don’t want to feel like a company is incentivizing me to spend more than I want to spend. It just makes me want to stop spending altogether and quit.

Right now I know a lot of people buy cosmetic items like outfits, wings, backpacks, and random consumables like keys or boosts a lot on the shop. In GW2 that doesn’t affect me at all, so if that makes ANet the most amount of money I’m ok with that and I hope they continue doing it.

It’s just a matter of keeping the customers in game via good game design decisions (which apparently post initial HoT release was a problem but I wasn’t here for that). I don’t think the payment model here is an issue, it’s patches and game design decisions. Just keep players in game and they’ll spend as much as they used to.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Raven.1524

Raven.1524

Thanks for the interesting feedback and giving actual facts instead of simply raging.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: DoctorDing.5890

DoctorDing.5890

Any form of subscription would be bad for a game that was marketed as a Buy to Play model.

this

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Extreme.8350

Extreme.8350

This would be an 180 from the original manifesto and would not be well received.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Zelanard.5806

Zelanard.5806

Here’s a viable middle ground:
Automatic, monthly/weekly gem purchases, with no price reduction for the gems.

When commenting on a suggestion:
Leave it to A-net to decide whether the suggestion is possible or not.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Daddicus.6128

Daddicus.6128

Like most of the others, I’m opposed to any regular subscription. However, they do have sales a lot. How about a monthly offering of something like a 1-day 10% off everything sale that you have to buy into with gems.

I chose 10% because it’s less than their usual reductions. But, even 5% might do the trick.

Give me a REASON to buy gems (that’s not related to the despised HoT), and I’ll buy them.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: IndigoSundown.5419

IndigoSundown.5419

My take on the subject is this.

If you look at the “optional” subs, they’re mostly in games that were P2P, but went free. Every one I’ve seen includes things in the “optional” sub that are: (a) rented (you lose them if you stop paying monthly; and (b) having them provides convenience (or even advantage) that is really hard to do without. Why? Because there needs to be an incentive to make the sub look like a really good deal, or people will not pay. I question whether there will ever be an “optional” sub that contains only things that the average player would feel s/he can just as easily do without.

This is possibly an even bigger issue in this game. Adoption of an optional sub as part of the business model would turn off a lot of players. As a result, those players might choose not to support the game at all. Whatever revenue might be lost from those players would have to be made up via the sub, which would up the ante on having it include things deemed essential.

Due to this reasoning, it is my hope that ANet never goes down this path.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Elorna.5329

Elorna.5329

Fun little fact of my GW1/GW2 gaming – at the start of this year, when I stopped actively playing GW2, I went through my online banking logs and when I averaged all the box prices plus store/gem purchases per month it turns out I gave NCsoft around 4.5 euros per month over the last 10 years. Sure, it’s nowhere near 12 euros monthly plus box prices that p2p games would’ve cost me, but it was still a number that kinda surprised me.

The greatest freedom is the freedom not to get involved.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Nightmare.1234

Nightmare.1234

This just boils down to the fact anet over charge on thier gem store items to compensate for the unreliability of thier income system. In my currency i get 800 gems for £8 that gets me say one outfit every month if i paided that as a subscription. Doesnt look great value does it. Still it just a flawed model and i wouldnt be against an optional sub if it got me more in game gem store stuff at a lower cost. But it just wouldnt work anyway as ppl would juat sub to get the discounts and then un sub till somthing cool pops up in the store again. Subs only really work for restricting access to stuff and this game not that. I think accounts should get 10% off gem stuff for each year old the account is would help bring ppl back at least or reward older players.

Death Good

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: JaddynnStarr.5201

JaddynnStarr.5201

You think server pop is low now…. introduce this and you will almost single-handedly destroy the game and you will only have 3 total servers to fill….. if that. revenue would drop so hard shareholders would likely throw a fit. the only reason SWTOR has what player base it has is cuz its the only starwars based mmo on the market. if SWG was still around or it didnt have iconic ships and sabers, that game would be deader then planetside 1. subs always restrict accounts even if they dont start out that way. if this game goes sub, then you might as well move over to SWTOR….

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: onevstheworld.2419

onevstheworld.2419

AFAIK, no ones gone from b2p/f2p to an optional subscription model. Most examples started as mandatory subs to optional subs

Any change in how RL cash influences the game is always fraught with risk and needs to be managed carefully… just look at what’s been happening to BDO in the last week.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Danikat.8537

Danikat.8537

… just look at what’s been happening to BDO in the last week.

I’ve seen this mentioned several times in this topic. Can anyone summarise what has been happening for those of us who have no idea?

Danielle Aurorel, Dear Dragon We Got Your Cookies [Nom], Desolation (EU).

“Life’s a journey, not a destination.”

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: onevstheworld.2419

onevstheworld.2419

https://youtu.be/EIuFymMM2ak

They broke a promise not to make western BDO into a P2W game, like the korean version.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Remus Darkblight.1673

Remus Darkblight.1673

If you want to pay a subscription there is nothing stopping you from buying 800 gems every month yourself and selling them for gold.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: lokh.2695

lokh.2695

*points to signature, leaves thread

(I think the way it is now, people pay for what they want by gems/gold2gems, is the best solution for a game like this. If you want to have those things, or anything really, given to you on a monthly basis, make a monthly gem purchase and buy what you’d like to have it. I don’t understand the difference between what was suggested by the OP and what would happen if OP just bought some gems every month to get gold/gems for the bonus they want. I deem the second superior, because what if 6 months from now, you don’t want the minis or dyes anymore. With the proposed Sub-Bonus you’d still get them. With the current model, you can still make your monthly/weekly purchase of Gems and buy whatever suits you at the moment, maybe it’s Skins, maybe its materials for a crafting item. Much more flexible…
The only thing that would be different would be the fact that you’d have everything delivered to you at the first of the month or whatever and you’d spare some clicks and maybe 15min of time…)

+ : Keyrings, Underwater-Combat, Build Templates
- : Mounts, ViP-Player systems, HoT-like Xpacs
Have a nice day.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Menadena.7482

Menadena.7482

I would vote no, as noted by many this was a buy-to-play, for me it was the key selling point. I like the idea that I can cut down on my monthly education budget without having to totally give up a game I enjoy. You might want to look at what you are offering too and/or. do it as an option — while unlocking common stuff may look like a good deal to new players vets have a good deal of them unlocked already

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: MrPinks.2015

MrPinks.2015

you have gems you can just go and buy your … benefits

i bought plenty of gems just to support the dev team
i will never regret that
sub benefits is not my ideal idea for support

but it is just my opinion ofc

if you truly love the game support the team behind it !

EDITED – oh anotha thing b2p is a great an amazing model because youngsters could afford to buy and play it

(edited by MrPinks.2015)

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Orpheal.8263

Orpheal.8263

If you like the idea of paying a subscription you can just spend a fixed amount on gems every month, and then use those to buy whatever “subscription benefits” you want.

Including converting them to gold and using that to fund waypoints, buy minis or whatever else you want from it.

That is not the same!!! ….. and anybody with just a tiny bit of basics knowledge about capitalism should know that difference

If you choose to buy every month for a value of 15 Dollar Gems for example, you will get every month a different amount of value in gems back, because the value of Gems is constantly in change. What you will receive back in Gems for your 15 Dollars today won’t be the same what you will receive in a month later.

You receive therefore in return the freedom to decide as you want, what you get back for the money that you spent by the Gems beign used for thigns that YOU want exactly. That’ one important differene in this model which is standing for this model, if you prefer to have more freedom in what you want to receive for your money that you spent. Also heres the end opne, if you want to spent more then 15 Dollar monthly, you are absolutely free to do so, nobody will hold you back…

However, the Subcription Model is a fixated model, which comes with all of its own advantages as like also it’s own disadvantages which you need to compare with each other to be sure, that you choose the model, which would suit you best personally.

If the fixated Subscription Model provided by ANet namely gives the player something, that a player would otherwise never receive and otherwiwse would never be able to buy under any other circumstances just via bought Gems, and unter the circumstance that the player is personally absolutely happy about the thought, that he/she can provide with these constant fixated 15 Dollars anet more financial stability to ensure this way, that anet has always enough money to keep the Game running and tp be able to recruid all the manpower that is needed to be able to develop in a constant manner new high qualitative content for the game and that in a timely fast enough manner that a player should be able to EXPECT from a AAA Game Developer Studio like ANet – which means – if the constant subscription makes sure, that there are never again huge long content droughts and in return für this fixatec money the player can reeive even somethign that Anet is willing to provide as Subscription Fee Feature, that they’d give out otherwise not, while that somethign is still just improving only the player’s comfort/quality of life ect and is no ingame advantage over other players – then and only then I’nm absolutely sure would be out there more than enough people absolutely willing to change over from this more or less random content liked freedom driven payment model over to an absolute fixated classical subscriotion fee model for the disadvantage in return, that you pay this game then even, if you don’t play it.

Thats a costs that surely people are willing to take, if in return the feature that players receive for taking an optional subscription fee over using the freedom model is overweighting in their personal opinion that disadvantage and the difference, that you can always pay monthly onthe the fixated amount of money – never more, even if you wanted and you will receive for that moeny always the same features.

Both models can’t be just pidgeonholed into being the “same”, because thats precisely said simply not true. Both ways are like black and white.
Sure, viewed from above the surface it may look like being identically the same, if a player decides freely to spent just every month 15 dollars and spent them for what the player likes, but the big difference comes in here by the returnign factor, what you as a player receive for your money back and what the background factors four you as a player are, which are completely different in a matter of how much freedom you have to decide over what you get in return for what you have payed for.
—-

I for example wouldn’t hesitate to change over to an optional Subscription Fee, if what I get in return for mey money is convincing enough and includes unique things that are no player advantages, that a freedom payment model player wouldn’t receive, where ANet allows us to decide the amount of money for the Subscrition and offers based on the amount different fixated features.

Example for different Subscription Models

Optional Small Subscription (OSS) = 10 Dollar monthly
Optional Medium Subscription (OMS) = 15 Dollar monthly
Optional Large Subscription (OLS) = 20 Dollar monthly
Optional Small Yearly Subscription (OSYS) = 100 Dollar yearly (20% discount for the player for the safety that Anet gets Anet can calculate safer with money they know, they will have yearly exactly fix on point cash $$ bling)
OMYS = 144 Dollar yearly
OLYS = 200 Dollar yearly

That are all in the end payment models, where every person must know for him/her self, if they are in the end willing to pay that money for the content that you get back in return for that.

By now under the freedom model a player could burn 200 doller into Anet just in 1 day – would it give that player anythign more in content? No, because even under the freedom model can a player burn 200 dollar in 1 day just into the Gemstores content what ANet is currently willing to put into the Gemstore…

However, if I’m willing to put 200 dollar into the game for example over the course of a whole year, I gte as a player alot more bang for my bucks over time for what ANet is willing to give me for that amount of money over a year. the only disadvantage for me as a player in the end is still only, that I’d pay for the game, even if I don’t play it and thats the sole great disadvantage, why many people don’t like subscription fee, because you pay for something, even if you dont use it – it feels like beign caught in a “contract”, no withdraw this, it IS a contract, it doesn’t just feel like one, it is still one and people hate contracts, when something in them is standing against them and they can’t get out of them – oh I know this personally very well due to my job as I’ve daily to do with contracts and I know also very well, how quickly people get outraged, when contracts don’t run after their personal wills – however, thats a different topic

What I want to say is, if a person knows very well all of the conditions of a contract like a Subscription Fee and if that person would pay for the same amount of time (12 months for each of them the same amount of money via Gemstore, a person like that should know very well, when exactly the point for his/her personal taste is reached, where choosign an optional subscription fee outweights the benefits of freely deciding when you give Anet money buy just buying only from the gemstore, if something is there of your interest.

But if you would give out money over the course of a year the exact same money, regardless if you do that monthly with fixated amounts of money, or irregularly with different amounts of money.
When after 12 months the spent amount of money is the same, then can be a subscription model be of advantage for a player, if that model provides you something ,that you’d normally never get via the gemstore.

If I could get an optional yearly subscription fee, for my example 100€ as i live in Europe, and I’d receive for these yearly 100€ following things, I’d instantly do it:

  • Full Access to Hair Style Changing and Access to Subscription Exclusive Hair Styles
  • Access to Sub Exclusive Mounts, only Sub Users can use/see them, Mount Users will be culled out and not be displayed to Non Subers, except when the Non Suber is a friend of yours. Mounts provide for PvE own unique Skill Sets, can’t be used in Towns, PvP and WvW, unless ANet provides for Subers an exlusive new WvW Map, which is designed around Mounts being in there too for mounted combat gameplay.
  • Automatic Account Unlocks of all newly added Outfits
  • No Costs for Traveling between Servers anymore
  • Free Permanent Teleport Stone to Friend, which breaks and removes itself from the inventory, and can’t be sold/deleted, the moment you end the Subscription.
  • Undestroyable Equipment, need no repairings anymore

for 144€ you could get then for example additionally:

  • Automatic Account Unlocks for also Gliders/Backitems-*
  • Automatic Weapon Skin Account Unlocks
  • Ability to freely name your Weapons and Equipment as you like
  • Access to Sub unique Finishing Move Skins

for 200€ you could get then additionally:

  • Automatic Account Unlocks for Gemstore Minipets
  • Automatic Account Unlocks for Gemstore Toys
  • Access to Sub unique Gathering Skins
  • Access to Sub unique class based Dodge Skins
  • Access to Sub unique Mail Carrier Skins
  • Ability to give yourself unique own Personal Titles

If I could get this by subbing the game with a yearly fee, it wold be very temptign for me to change over to such a kind of optional Subscription Fee, because that would be for me then overweighting advantages for my personal taste, where I woudl say, Id get over that year more bang for my bucks with that fixated payment, then when i would give Anet over 12 months the same amount of money, where I have 100% freedom to buy just the stuff I like among what anet currently provides within the Gemstore and where in case that if I miss eventually somethign I have then to hope for THEIR mercy, that the item I want, but missed, eventually returns someday …where under a Sub I’d get everythign that interests me automatically unlocked the moment the patch goes live and I log in …

Personally I like the idea behind sub classes ~ quoted from Chris Whiteside

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Dawdler.8521

Dawdler.8521

  • No Costs for Traveling between Servers anymore

Absolutely and utterly ridiculous. This would break WvW, the only place where server transfers even matter. Why would you even suggest this? Most if not all WvWers know that transfers are already broken and either too cheap or with too little restrictions.

In fact, all your ideas are ridiculous in my book. Money → gems is the type of “subscription” that GW2 has. You buy gems, you get to buy stuff in the gemstore and you can convert it to gold to buy stuff ingame, done deal.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Orpheal.8263

Orpheal.8263

ehm wrong Dawdler.. why the hell are people always thinking only about WvW in regard of servr costs?

People change servers also out of other reasons, than just only WvW, for example to play together with friends, that are there…

Anyways, I think WvW is already way too long overdue for a fundamental gameplay change away from this craptastic server based system which causes permanently only population problems everywhere as long this stupid server based system stays for WVW, we will never get rid of the population issues and people traveling cheap, or not to other “winning” servers.

The game should have changed better already years ago for WvW into a Faction System where Servers play no role, then wouldn’t have people to care about it anymore, why someone else travels for WvW or not to an other Server that one needs to ask for it, that there should be such nonsense “restrictions and raises in the costs”…

Seriuosly??
Just fools would suggest that Anet should make willingly services for their game cost more money or limitate forcefully the players options where and when a player should be able to change servers… and all of that for mostly only 1 game mode.

I’m pretty sure that alot of people that dont play WvW would love to have a “nice” talk with you, if you were responsible for such nonsensical changes like adding more restrictions to server changes and making it cost more money, because its in your eyes “too cheap” right now

You know, this is still a game, not somethign that punishes you for deciding to play on an other server, for whichever reason a person might have for this decision to want to change the server.

What you say here is like going to a Car Seller wanting to buy a car for say 30000 Dollar and you suggest to the Car Seller now, that he can sell it for you for 50000 now, because other people to whom the Car Seller sold other Cars before of you can drive with their bought Cars with cheaper Gas, than you can drive with the Car that you are about to buy, and because of this fact you want on top the restriction put upon you from the Car Seller, that he doesn’t allow you to return the Car within 30 days, if you should find any major shortcomings within the Car after you bought it.

I know, silly example, but it shows the “logic” behind what you want here from Anet, that because you find it’s not ok, that others can have a change in their life “cheap and without restrictions”, that the provider of the service needs to make the selling conditions directly for everyone including yourself worser.

If there is even some kind of logic behind your way of thinking here.. then I don’t get it…

Personally I like the idea behind sub classes ~ quoted from Chris Whiteside

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Donari.5237

Donari.5237

Sooo …. are you asking that server transfers be free so long as the person who transfers is barred from entering WvW on the new server? Dawdler’s logic is that people surging around server to server on a whim heavily imbalances WvW populations. This is a demonstrated fact, as I understand it (I don’t WvW myself). So how do you allow free server hopping for all players while still keeping WvW populations even?

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Gehenna.3625

Gehenna.3625

This would be an 180 from the original manifesto and would not be well received.

Like the previous times they broke their manifesto and it was not well received. To be honest, I think it’s best to leave that manifesto where it belongs: in the past.

And although I have no problems with a sub, it really wouldn’t make sense here, that I agree with.

It’s a game forum. The truth is not to be found here.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Extreme.8350

Extreme.8350

This would be an 180 from the original manifesto and would not be well received.

Like the previous times they broke their manifesto and it was not well received. To be honest, I think it’s best to leave that manifesto where it belongs: in the past.

And although I have no problems with a sub, it really wouldn’t make sense here, that I agree with.

Good for you.
I have to loan 120.000 $ I cant afford to pay both the bank and arenanet.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Seera.5916

Seera.5916

ehm wrong Dawdler.. why the hell are people always thinking only about WvW in regard of servr costs?

People change servers also out of other reasons, than just only WvW, for example to play together with friends, that are there…

Anyways, I think WvW is already way too long overdue for a fundamental gameplay change away from this craptastic server based system which causes permanently only population problems everywhere as long this stupid server based system stays for WVW, we will never get rid of the population issues and people traveling cheap, or not to other “winning” servers.

The game should have changed better already years ago for WvW into a Faction System where Servers play no role, then wouldn’t have people to care about it anymore, why someone else travels for WvW or not to an other Server that one needs to ask for it, that there should be such nonsense “restrictions and raises in the costs”…

Seriuosly??
Just fools would suggest that Anet should make willingly services for their game cost more money or limitate forcefully the players options where and when a player should be able to change servers… and all of that for mostly only 1 game mode.

I’m pretty sure that alot of people that dont play WvW would love to have a “nice” talk with you, if you were responsible for such nonsensical changes like adding more restrictions to server changes and making it cost more money, because its in your eyes “too cheap” right now

You know, this is still a game, not somethign that punishes you for deciding to play on an other server, for whichever reason a person might have for this decision to want to change the server.

What you say here is like going to a Car Seller wanting to buy a car for say 30000 Dollar and you suggest to the Car Seller now, that he can sell it for you for 50000 now, because other people to whom the Car Seller sold other Cars before of you can drive with their bought Cars with cheaper Gas, than you can drive with the Car that you are about to buy, and because of this fact you want on top the restriction put upon you from the Car Seller, that he doesn’t allow you to return the Car within 30 days, if you should find any major shortcomings within the Car after you bought it.

I know, silly example, but it shows the “logic” behind what you want here from Anet, that because you find it’s not ok, that others can have a change in their life “cheap and without restrictions”, that the provider of the service needs to make the selling conditions directly for everyone including yourself worser.

If there is even some kind of logic behind your way of thinking here.. then I don’t get it…

Server no longer really matters a huge amount in any aspect but WvW. Megaservers means the maps for PvE are multiple-server. Granted, the server choice is one function of the shard choice. But you can still guest to the server to bypass that.

So please explain how it affects other game modes than WvW to such a large degree that players are remiss for not mentioning it, because I can’t think of anything.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Berelious.3290

Berelious.3290

Whatever people’s arguments on the matter, there is one inescapable and irrefutable fact. And that is that if ANet makes GW2 subscription based, benefits or otherwise, the majority of the player base would leave en-mass, and no matter how much ANet made from the the remaining players it would not be enough to keep the game afloat. The game would shut down and ANet would be bankrupt in a matter of months.

Corwin Grimjaw: Guardian (80)
Yak’s Bend Server
Crimethink [ct]

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Dawdler.8521

Dawdler.8521

ehm wrong Dawdler.. why the hell are people always thinking only about WvW in regard of servr costs?

People change servers also out of other reasons, than just only WvW, for example to play together with friends, that are there…

Lol!

Best laugh I have had in a long time. You do realize its not 2012 anymore?

- Megaserver in PvE means everyone can play with everyone regardless of what server they picked. Rightclick, join.
- Server population is affected by WvW only.
- Server transfers affect WvW only.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Gehenna.3625

Gehenna.3625

This would be an 180 from the original manifesto and would not be well received.

Like the previous times they broke their manifesto and it was not well received. To be honest, I think it’s best to leave that manifesto where it belongs: in the past.

And although I have no problems with a sub, it really wouldn’t make sense here, that I agree with.

Good for you.
I have to loan 120.000 $ I cant afford to pay both the bank and arenanet.

Are we supposed to feel sorry for you now? As I stated I don’t feel that this game should get a sub. That answer should be satisfactory for you.

It’s a game forum. The truth is not to be found here.

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Orpheal.8263

Orpheal.8263

Sooo …. are you asking that server transfers be free so long as the person who transfers is barred from entering WvW on the new server? Dawdler’s logic is that people surging around server to server on a whim heavily imbalances WvW populations. This is a demonstrated fact, as I understand it (I don’t WvW myself). So how do you allow free server hopping for all players while still keeping WvW populations even?

By changing WvW into a better redesigned gameplay model, that doesn’t require a “Server” System anymore, but moves to a Faction System, which makes usage of all Servers simultanously and spreads all players among the Factions to guarantee this way, that all Factions have all the time enough players.

WvW Population Problems can be solved only by gettign rid of the Server System completely, as long as theres a Server System for NA and EU with each having like 24+ different servers, there won’t be a solution to population problems and nightcapping ect. due to different time zones, playtimes and player activity on the Servers

If GW2 wouldnt have anymore a servr based WvW system where servers battle agaisnt other servers, but instead Factions battle agaisnt Factions, where the Factions have players mixed from all servers from all time zones together, then there would be also no need anymore for any kind of restrictions for Server Travels to other servers.

I think it must be somehow possible to change the WVW game concept somehow into a system, that doesn’t require server anymore, as I see this as the only way to get rid of the damocles sword over our heads thats the population problems which is solely caused by the server system and nothing else!.

Personally I like the idea behind sub classes ~ quoted from Chris Whiteside

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Danikat.8537

Danikat.8537

How would a faction system solve the population problems?

People would still move to the most successful ones, so they would still have longer queues but be more active.

Danielle Aurorel, Dear Dragon We Got Your Cookies [Nom], Desolation (EU).

“Life’s a journey, not a destination.”

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Orpheal.8263

Orpheal.8263

A Faction System doesn’t let you “move” anywhere, the faction System moves YOU for the set amount of time of a match to one of the Factions.

You can’t know, how it would work out exactly, before Net hasn’t tested it out first.
I think it would be very interestign to see what would happen with the game, if Anet would simply test out for a month, so 4 matches a faction System where players ared decided by their servers they are bonded to for which side they have to battle, but instead the game decides via an assigned Faction for which side you have to battle with a system, where you play internationally together with people of all kinds of servers together randomly mixed with you into the same faction, where it plays no role anymore then from which serbver yo uare comign fom, at which time you play, which tiem zone you have ect. the game would always ensure that that players from all servers find togehter for their faction to fight agaist players from all servers of the other two factions that are mixed together in those too.

I thing this owudl be a very very interesting experiment, just to see, how it would end up and to turn back to the old current system, if it really absoutely shouldnt work out at all like hoped

Personally I like the idea behind sub classes ~ quoted from Chris Whiteside

Would this type of subscription be bad?

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Orpheal.8263

Orpheal.8263

bug fix reachs out for the fly flap for annoying forum bugs

Personally I like the idea behind sub classes ~ quoted from Chris Whiteside