Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
- - - - -

Would you pay?


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 Haggus

Haggus

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 117 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 02:15 PM

With the addition of the third crafting profession slot added to the Trading Post, combined with the Jimmy Carter-era inflation of gold-to-gemstones, it got me to thinking(always a dangerous prospect).  Would I pay a subscription for certain benefits, instead of having to: a) whip out a credit card for gems; B) craft/grind/level-farm for the cash/gems to use in the shop?  Yes, I know the arguments will flood in about, "There is plenty to do in the game without ever having to grind out for tears of Ascalon/Koda Teddy Bears/Whatever."  What if you could pay a sub, though, and, say, get extra storage/character slots, or a discount on TP items?  What would you have to get to sub for the game?

#2 Baron von Scrufflebutt

Baron von Scrufflebutt

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 3316 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 02:49 PM

I wouldn't pay a sub, but I REALLY wish the game was built on the expansion-model: that way you throw those 50 bucks at A.Net every year or two and everyone gets something out of it (A.Net would actually get some money from me and I'd get some decent content).

#3 Miragee

Miragee

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 02:56 PM

The benefit of having a sub fee is, that everyone is equal. So if GW2 would have a sub fee then for all people and not just optional. With a sub fee also remove the shop and deliver more quality content instead of tid bit feeding of crap to support the gem shop. I wouldn't pay a sub fee for GW2 right now but I would pay one if the core design would keep my long term interest as well as the quality of the new content being on par with the money invested.

Otherwise, I completly agree with Baron.

#4 I post stuff

I post stuff

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 287 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 03:33 PM

As of right now there are very few, if any, items I'd whip out my credit card for. I would if they lowered the cost/increased the benefit given by certain items such as storage expansion though.

#5 I'm Squirrel

I'm Squirrel

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1119 posts
  • Location:Canada
  • Guild Tag:[DPS]

Posted 16 June 2014 - 03:50 PM

wouldnt pay for anything arenanet releases after what gw2 has become in the past 2 years

#6 Haggus

Haggus

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 117 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 05:56 PM

View PostMiragee, on 16 June 2014 - 02:56 PM, said:

The benefit of having a sub fee is, that everyone is equal. So if GW2 would have a sub fee then for all people and not just optional. With a sub fee also remove the shop and deliver more quality content instead of tid bit feeding of crap to support the gem shop. I wouldn't pay a sub fee for GW2 right now but I would pay one if the core design would keep my long term interest as well as the quality of the new content being on par with the money invested.

Otherwise, I completly agree with Baron.
I'm pretty much of the same opinion.  I've been looking at FFXIV, for example.  A lot of features you'd have to give plasma to TP in GW2 you don't have to worry about in FFXIV.  The same goes for other sub games.  At $10-15 bucks a month, it seems more and more worth a few trips less to Starbuck's, just to not worry about getting fleeced for every nit-picking thing.  I do love the game play and the basics of the game; but after a while, I need something more to keep me in the game.   Grinding/putting out cash for more content isn't my idea of fun.

#7 Konzacelt

Konzacelt

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 571 posts
  • Location:a prairie under a clear, blue sky
  • Guild Tag:[PD]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 16 June 2014 - 08:20 PM

I might for an expansion...

...if it would finally bring us guildhalls
...if it would come with better storytelling
...if it would mean better rewards/drops and cheaper TP items
...and especially if the expansion would be a real "new-land" expansion, and not just some rehashed 2.0 bullkitten of an existing zone.

#8 MCBiohazard

MCBiohazard

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 263 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:21 AM

View PostKonzacelt, on 16 June 2014 - 08:20 PM, said:

I might for an expansion...

...if it would finally bring us guildhalls
...if it would come with better storytelling
...if it would mean better rewards/drops and cheaper TP items
...and especially if the expansion would be a real "new-land" expansion, and not just some rehashed 2.0 bullkitten of an existing zone.

None of that is inherently tied to an expansion type content monetization model. None of it. If A-Net wants to give you guildhalls, they will do it in a feature update. If they tighten up their lore and narrative team to do something different and potentially more interesting than what we've been getting so far, they will roll it out in a content update that might be one lump thing or something over time like how they're planning LS2. If they want to change the in-game economy, they will do so by pulling internal levers. If they want to drop a new continent on us, they'll just do it. None of that requires a paid expansion model. If they want to do it, they just will. If not, you're not going to get it even if you wave money at them. Because your money is less money than they're getting by monetizing the way they are now and they can still give you what you want without steering the boat 180 into 2004.

#9 Bryant Again

Bryant Again

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 895 posts
  • Location:Michigan
  • Profession:Warrior

Posted 17 June 2014 - 12:43 AM

Eh, I'm not much of a fan of either extreme: Free-to-play vs. cash shop. But I'm also not sure how I feel about a boxed price game going free-to-play, either, although I'd much rather have that than boxed price + subscription fee.

I'm still a big fan of the more conventional payment of continuing boxed prices, ala expansions. It could still be done poorly, of course, but I'd imagine we'd be looking at a very different set of mechanics if it was their only means of revenue. Same if the game was sub-based.

One thing I'm curious about is how things would play out if they offered an -optional- subscription fee.

Edited by Bryant Again, 17 June 2014 - 12:47 AM.


#10 Andemius

Andemius

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • Guild Tag:[herd]
  • Server:Desolation

Posted 17 June 2014 - 01:12 AM

No, I would not play gw2 if it had a sub fee.

#11 ilr

ilr

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2726 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 03:38 AM

View PostMCBiohazard, on 17 June 2014 - 12:21 AM, said:

None of that is inherently tied to an expansion type content monetization model. None of it. If A-Net wants to give you guildhalls, they will do it in a feature update. If they tighten up their lore and narrative team to do something different and potentially more interesting than what we've been getting so far, they will roll it out in a content update that might be one lump thing or something over time like how they're planning LS2. If they want to change the in-game economy, they will do so by pulling internal levers. If they want to drop a new continent on us, they'll just do it. None of that requires a paid expansion model. If they want to do it, they just will. If not, you're not going to get it even if you wave money at them. Because your money is less money than they're getting by monetizing the way they are now and they can still give you what you want without steering the boat 180 into 2004.

The devil's advocacy is strong here, but I think it focuses too much on the business model rather than the reasons that the prior one existed.  They did all that ambitious stuff for the expansions because they felt like they had to in order to break into a better market.  They had plenty of additional microtransactions in Gw1 too.  But they didn't have a lot of "Whales" left once the PvP'ers became disenfranchised from expansions (which brought in many times more PvE'ers instead).  Rather, they traded one very nitpicky hard to please demographic with waning income potential, for a larger but much more casual target.

It worked too.  After the other standalone "Chapters", the total sales really took off from 1 mill to over 6 mil by the time they started hinting at GW2.  And the reason it worked, is that they pushed themselves into a content crunch to deliver a known quantity.  They buckled down and condensed their focus on making just a few things that were really good, with unified currencies/rewards.   Instead of a menagerie of fluff that lives too much in the moment.  They didn't sacrifice "creativity" to do this, they sacrificed endless jerking around.  They accepted a process, and some kind of standard with it.  Did they end up powercreeping some stuff pretty badly?  ....yes.   Was that powercreep ONLY for the Whales?  Not at all.  These Ascended / Legendaries cleary are however.  Along with other "Market Advantages" this thread's asking about.

Eventually that market will become insolvent.  Quarterlies showed it was already starting to weaken.  Gems wouldn't be endlessly inflating if it wasn't. And not even "Premium Memberships" can save it once it starts to go.  And when it reaches that breaking point, they won't have the rest of that uber-important content model from a real Process / Commitment -- to fall back on.  It's a downward spiral frozen in time just like Waking Waters, specifically because they heard the popular opinion about expansions and then ignored it so they could keep frittering away at an approach that required a lot less Focus.  They only thought about what was more fun for them, not what was more fun for You, ...and I, and all their Gw1 Vets.

Edited by ilr, 17 June 2014 - 03:50 AM.


#12 Trei

Trei

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2930 posts
  • Server:Jade Quarry

Posted 17 June 2014 - 06:32 AM

What makes you think a sub would entitle you to any of those things, OP?

I'm glad here's a game that does not make me 'pay' for things I do not need, or want to buy.

Edited by Trei, 17 June 2014 - 06:38 AM.


#13 Gecko

Gecko

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 100 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 07:18 AM

I have had the same thought, and a small part of me would actually like to pay a subscription fee. As of now I do want to support the game, but there is next to nothing in the shop that I want.

With that said, I would like to pay a subscription if all the microtransactions would be gone. 10$ a month for free waypoint, wardrobe changes, gathering, access to content and so on would be a very fine trade in my book. I know some of these things can be acquired through the shop, but I just want these things to be there, contrary to them being a limited ressource that I have to renew now and then.

#14 RandolfRa

RandolfRa

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 414 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 09:27 AM

Would you pay?

No.

#15 Cube

Cube

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 571 posts
  • Location:A Web of Lies
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Server:Ring of Fire

Posted 17 June 2014 - 11:27 AM

If
  • Every time there's a new armour or weapon skin it is achievable through missions or end game content.
  • Every time there's costumes available they can be achieved through mini quest lines(that would be so fun!)
  • Every time there's new hairstyles or faces we all get one make over kit per 3 characters.
  • It meant that content would always be of quality and feel satisfying.
Yeah, I'd pay :)

#16 Konzacelt

Konzacelt

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 571 posts
  • Location:a prairie under a clear, blue sky
  • Guild Tag:[PD]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 17 June 2014 - 03:08 PM

View PostMCBiohazard, on 17 June 2014 - 12:21 AM, said:

None of that is inherently tied to an expansion type content monetization model. None of it. If A-Net wants to give you guildhalls, they will do it in a feature update. If they tighten up their lore and narrative team to do something different and potentially more interesting than what we've been getting so far, they will roll it out in a content update that might be one lump thing or something over time like how they're planning LS2. If they want to change the in-game economy, they will do so by pulling internal levers. If they want to drop a new continent on us, they'll just do it. None of that requires a paid expansion model. If they want to do it, they just will. If not, you're not going to get it even if you wave money at them. Because your money is less money than they're getting by monetizing the way they are now and they can still give you what you want without steering the boat 180 into 2004.
This is the problem with your premise.  The way they are doing it now is just feeding the masses.  There's nothing innovative or unique about it, it's simply the most profitable way to deliver content, not the best way, or even a good way.  The reason expansions are wanted is because it comes with some expectations by the playerbase that they have been asking for: a whole new continent, a whole new story, perhaps new classes or weapons.  New stuph!  Expansions typically do that.  This endless rehashing they are doing now doesn't...it just gives you slightly different ways to do the same thing over and over.

irl is right, it's a downward spiral that isn't self-sustaining in the long run.  Not to mention it's hardly something to be proud of from a developer perspective.

#17 davadude

davadude

    Seraph Guardian

  • News Correspondents
  • 1418 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Profession:Elementalist
  • Guild Tag:[Team]
  • Server:Gandara

Posted 17 June 2014 - 03:11 PM

Nope, the fact that this game is a one-time purchase is one of the things that lures me into it.  What I also enjoy is that you can still buy gems with in-game gold, and are never required to purchase gems for anything that contribues to the game in a way that cannot be done already in-game.

Edited by davadude, 17 June 2014 - 03:12 PM.

Davadude - Guru Village Idiot

#18 Mordakai

Mordakai

    Mordakai7

  • Community Contributors
  • 8121 posts
  • Guild Tag:[GSCH]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 17 June 2014 - 04:44 PM

A sub fee would kill this game.

It will also never, ever happen.

#19 fireflyry

fireflyry

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 11:13 PM

Nope.

The only subscription I have ever been happy to pay is for City of Heroes and even that put me off in the last two years when the mechanics changed so much, outside it going semi-f2p. Also my life has changed in that time and my employment and real life commitments often dictate my play time which can fluctuate from playing whenever I want for 2 weeks to a month to not being able to log on at all for a similar period.The only way I would pay a subscription mechanic now in any game is if it entitled me to the actual hours payed for opposed to a window of time and access.

Buy a month, your hours actually online get logged and when that months up resub if you want.Current subscription models are highly outdated and have no sympathy or mechanic to cater for actual available play time used.They can also make one feel forced to play when you have payed for say, 6 months advance at a better deal, only to then have life dictate you have a week left and have barely touched the game.I then feel forced to play to get my moneys worth.

As such no thanks.No sub is one of the larger reasons I play this franchise.

Also creation of in-game disparity between players based purely on how much RL cash one has or is prepared to drop on a game is never a good idea.I have no issues with aesthetics but leave it at that.

Edited by fireflyry, 17 June 2014 - 11:17 PM.


#20 ExplosivePinata

ExplosivePinata

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 198 posts
  • Guild Tag:[TRA]
  • Server:Maguuma

Posted 18 June 2014 - 01:05 AM

What a telling thread. All the people who wouldn't and have principles are gone!

Guess that makes me a glutton for punishment?

Edited by ExplosivePinata, 18 June 2014 - 01:06 AM.


#21 Kymeric

Kymeric

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1984 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 01:13 AM

My life doesn't allow me to play any video game consistently enough to warrant a sub.  Some months I'd be getting my fifteen buck's worth, others I wouldn't at all.

#22 zeth006

zeth006

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 07:19 AM

View PostBaron von Scrufflebutt, on 16 June 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

I wouldn't pay a sub, but I REALLY wish the game was built on the expansion-model: that way you throw those 50 bucks at A.Net every year or two and everyone gets something out of it (A.Net would actually get some money from me and I'd get some decent content).

This. If I was 15, I would be vociferously opposing a sub model. But let's face the reality. The majority of Anet's dollars come from people who actually work. Many of us are willing to pay the right price for more content and features.

View PostExplosivePinata, on 18 June 2014 - 01:05 AM, said:

What a telling thread. All the people who wouldn't and have principles are gone!

Guess that makes me a glutton for punishment?

Not really. It's just that there are many of us who still enjoy the game, but as you can see from the "Yes, but only if..." posts, many of us would agree to a sub only if we got more from the game than we currently get. The game in its current state CANNOT justify a sub.

Edited by zeth006, 18 June 2014 - 07:21 AM.


#23 MCBiohazard

MCBiohazard

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 263 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 01:05 PM

View Postilr, on 17 June 2014 - 03:38 AM, said:

The devil's advocacy is strong here, but I think it focuses too much on the business model rather than the reasons that the prior one existed.  They did all that ambitious stuff for the expansions because they felt like they had to in order to break into a better market.  They had plenty of additional microtransactions in Gw1 too.  But they didn't have a lot of "Whales" left once the PvP'ers became disenfranchised from expansions (which brought in many times more PvE'ers instead).  Rather, they traded one very nitpicky hard to please demographic with waning income potential, for a larger but much more casual target.

It worked too.  After the other standalone "Chapters", the total sales really took off from 1 mill to over 6 mil by the time they started hinting at GW2.  And the reason it worked, is that they pushed themselves into a content crunch to deliver a known quantity.  They buckled down and condensed their focus on making just a few things that were really good, with unified currencies/rewards.   Instead of a menagerie of fluff that lives too much in the moment.  They didn't sacrifice "creativity" to do this, they sacrificed endless jerking around.  They accepted a process, and some kind of standard with it.  Did they end up powercreeping some stuff pretty badly?  ....yes.   Was that powercreep ONLY for the Whales?  Not at all.  These Ascended / Legendaries cleary are however.  Along with other "Market Advantages" this thread's asking about.

Eventually that market will become insolvent.  Quarterlies showed it was already starting to weaken.  Gems wouldn't be endlessly inflating if it wasn't. And not even "Premium Memberships" can save it once it starts to go.  And when it reaches that breaking point, they won't have the rest of that uber-important content model from a real Process / Commitment -- to fall back on.  It's a downward spiral frozen in time just like Waking Waters, specifically because they heard the popular opinion about expansions and then ignored it so they could keep frittering away at an approach that required a lot less Focus.  They only thought about what was more fun for them, not what was more fun for You, ...and I, and all their Gw1 Vets.

Hey ilr, long time no see, haha.

I agree with your premise that A-Net lacks direction right now for some reason or another. Why that is so, neither you or I can really say without some extremely reliable insider information which I suspect none of us are privy to. I just disagree a lot with the notion that an expansion based model is the only way an MMO can reliably release quality content. It did work for A-Net in GW1 and for Blizzard for many many years but the environment's changed for MMOs these days. Your old bugbear Jack "Jackalope" Emmert at Cryptic Studios kind of saw where the wind was blowing after Turbine made it big turning DDO into a F2P game. While Champions Online still isn't a game I want to play and Neverwinter Nights went in a direction I didn't like either, his studio's middle child Star Trek Online is exactly the the content release model that could work for GW2 and seems to be what the upcoming LS2 is trying to pull off. It had a rocky start as a sub game, a rocky transition into a freemium model and then finally reached a point where they had enough focus to keep releasing new replayable content on a steady basis after their first big post F2P release that finally shored up a lot of the stuff that was missing at launch. And they're about to drop the last piece of the post launch puzzle next month as well by replacing the terrible crafting system they had at first with something else. It only took them 4 years to do it, right? How long does it take the average MMO to even out, even the ones everyone here remembers fondly? For us City of Hero vets, I'd say it was at least 2 to 3 years before we had something really solid and there were still bumps in the road after that.

A-Net's issue is definitely lack of focus. But to say that forcing them into releasing an expansion is the only way to fix that is not really too arguable given that we don't know why there is a lack of focus. The example I gave above shows that there are viable ways for them to give what people want without throwing the upcoming content release model out the window before it even shows up. It's still up to them to deliver though. I'm in wait and see mode instead of full out doom.

Edited by MCBiohazard, 18 June 2014 - 01:07 PM.


#24 Mordakai

Mordakai

    Mordakai7

  • Community Contributors
  • 8121 posts
  • Guild Tag:[GSCH]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 18 June 2014 - 03:14 PM

Everything is riding on LS 2.  It needs to have, as Colin describes, "expansion- like" content.  New zones are a must, and hopefully new skills, maybe even a race or (dare to dream!) a new Profession.  At the very least, new weapons for existing Professions would help.

If Anet truly delivers "expansion-like" content, it will be worth 200 gems, and more importantly, worth getting back into the game for.

#25 Feathermoore

Feathermoore

    Underdog

  • Super Moderators
  • 3838 posts
  • Guild Tag:[AWWW]
  • Server:Crystal Desert

Posted 18 June 2014 - 03:24 PM

View PostTrei, on 17 June 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:

What makes you think a sub would entitle you to any of those things, OP?

I'm glad here's a game that does not make me 'pay' for things I do not need, or want to buy.

The OP doesn't think any of these would be entitled with a sub. The OP asks what sort of perks you would need to pay a sub and gave them as examples.


Kind of along these lines, I actually am favoring the TSW approach more and more lately. Sure it was initially a sub, but I like their current model.

You can subscribe to the game (monthly fee) which is basically a pledge to the cash shop as you get some of that money "back" to use in the shop. It also gives you access to new content a little early and some other things I think. They have the cash shop which has some clothing skins and exp boosts. Stats and armor are 100% separate in TSW. Clothing does not drop in the world, stats do. You buy clothes in the department stores or the cash shop. Cash shop clothes are fancy, but don't really fit the game world (aren't realistic like the in game clothes). But the game's main cash flow is from the "issues" which are basically content expansions. The story is advance through issues to a degree and more side quests are added (and are generally really high quality). You can choose to buy an issue or not. So the system is expansion based, but it doesn't have most of the downsides the typical expansions do. Subscribers get enough of their subscription back to get the issues included in their sub.

The issues don't include a new tier of gear. Though the Tokyo issue did actually introduce two completely new systems. The two new systems are active without the issue though you can't get the components without the issue (you may be able to trade for it). But that doesn't matter because the Aegis system (new system) only has any relevance in Tokyo itself, which you can't enter without the issue.

TSW subscription comes with perks. I have a friend that likes those perks and subscribes. I don't feel I benefit from them and buy issues as they come out instead. It is an example of a game that uses both systems in a non-annoying way for those that don't subscribe. Your play is not effected if you don't subscribe at all.

Little Mabel won't be able to be here it's our worst fear. She's busy working on her garden that she's growing up in space.


Why hello there forumite. Would you like me to review some moderation you did not agree with? Never fear! PM is here! Want to be a better poster? Check on this link! And this one!


#26 Krazzar

Krazzar

    Legend of the Norn

  • Members
  • 7990 posts
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 18 June 2014 - 07:19 PM

No.

A subscription is not necessary for any game and that has been Anet's personal crusade since they started.  I don't play games that have a subscription out of principle and usually I won't even play them after they inevitably drop the subsrciption fee.  I will pay for large installments of content if they're worth it, like expansion packs, but not for DLC or small things.

#27 MCBiohazard

MCBiohazard

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 263 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 12:16 AM

View PostFeathermoore, on 18 June 2014 - 03:24 PM, said:

The OP doesn't think any of these would be entitled with a sub. The OP asks what sort of perks you would need to pay a sub and gave them as examples.


Kind of along these lines, I actually am favoring the TSW approach more and more lately. Sure it was initially a sub, but I like their current model.

You can subscribe to the game (monthly fee) which is basically a pledge to the cash shop as you get some of that money "back" to use in the shop. It also gives you access to new content a little early and some other things I think. They have the cash shop which has some clothing skins and exp boosts. Stats and armor are 100% separate in TSW. Clothing does not drop in the world, stats do. You buy clothes in the department stores or the cash shop. Cash shop clothes are fancy, but don't really fit the game world (aren't realistic like the in game clothes). But the game's main cash flow is from the "issues" which are basically content expansions. The story is advance through issues to a degree and more side quests are added (and are generally really high quality). You can choose to buy an issue or not. So the system is expansion based, but it doesn't have most of the downsides the typical expansions do. Subscribers get enough of their subscription back to get the issues included in their sub.

The issues don't include a new tier of gear. Though the Tokyo issue did actually introduce two completely new systems. The two new systems are active without the issue though you can't get the components without the issue (you may be able to trade for it). But that doesn't matter because the Aegis system (new system) only has any relevance in Tokyo itself, which you can't enter without the issue.

TSW subscription comes with perks. I have a friend that likes those perks and subscribes. I don't feel I benefit from them and buy issues as they come out instead. It is an example of a game that uses both systems in a non-annoying way for those that don't subscribe. Your play is not effected if you don't subscribe at all.

That is the general model for most freemium games these days. And it's a reasonable compromise if your game started on a sub model and had to transition into F2P. GW2 and now Wildstar weren't the first to attempt an in-game currency <-> real money credit conversion market, I actually first encountered that in the above mentioned Star Trek Online. There also, subscribing gave you a real money credit stipend to use in the cash shop, some extra character slots along with some exclusive veteran rewards but otherwise conferred no in-game advantage or access paywall over the free to play user. STO's main similarity to what A-Net is attempting now with LS2 is that their story content releases are all free, permanent and replayable released in smaller chunks on a frequent basis. If the quality for each chunk remains consistently good, then we can get something aggregate to an expansion over the course of a LS season because it eventually will become part of the game permanently as well as any feature updates major or minor that A-Net releases as well. The feature updates might very well be big balance changes or additions like new traits, new skills, new weapons or new professions. All got without having to buy Factions or Nightfall all over again because they will be available to the entire game populace if they get made at all.

Edited by MCBiohazard, 19 June 2014 - 12:21 AM.


#28 Kymeric

Kymeric

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1984 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 12:45 AM

Just started Neil Stephenson's novel Reamde.  Started it and about fell out of my chair.

Published in 2011, it revolves around an MMORPG.  This MMORPG was designed first, and primarily, as an economic engine, around which a world was built, finally wrapped up in a story and game.  The core of it is the virtual economy that is designed to make actual currency, and the game is just there to give people a reason to engage in the economy.

Suddenly GW2 and several other recent games make so much more sense.  This is why GW2 has a resident economist cutting down people on the forums who are trying to say the economy isn't making the game fun.  The only reply you'll get in the BLTC forum is that the economy is stable and functioning well.  Which, to someone complaining about it not being fun, doesn't seem like an answer at all.  But it is.  The answer is that the game serves the economy, not the other way around.

Which is why they don't even need a sub.  A subscription model assumes that the game is an entertainment service provided in exchange for pay.  It's antique.  The new MMORPG is a virtual economy with an entertainment wrapper.

#29 GraceHolly

GraceHolly

    Pale Tree Seedling

  • New Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 03:04 AM

I think I will pay fr for it.
if it's still meaningful for me .

#30 segadomcast

segadomcast

    Pale Tree Seedling

  • Members
  • Curse Premium
  • 6 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 08:44 AM

Absolutely not.  I will never pay a subscription fee for any game ever again.  I dislike the practice in general, but more so because of what it does to a game.  Any game with a sub fee will ALWAYS impose some form of a treadmill, or carrot-on-a-stick mechanic to keep you grinding at something.  As consumers, we can only vote with our wallets and this is something I refuse to ever vote for.  Guild Wars 2 is beautiful because you DON'T need to play every day, you don't need to consider if your monthly fee is being used properly or not, you don't need to consider scheduling a break to play other games if you want, and if you take a break, you aren't behind at all (or in the case of ascended, it's barely tangible at least).

I'm completely fine with GW2's payment scheme.  Box price is fair and has been steeply discounted for new users, and the cash shop is convenience and visuals for the most part.  Nothing game breaking.  While I'm fine with this, I'd also support an expansion pack model as well.  If they keep the cash shop, I feel that purchasing an expansion pack would be wise to include 800-1200 gems depending on price.  It'll let them off the hook of providing too many account style upgrades with the xpack, and also entice people to spend gems that may have otherwise overlooked it due to costing money (or quite a lot of gold these days).

tl;dr, ♥♥♥♥ monthly fees, expansions and or cash shops (providing they aren't game breaking as many titles have done) are the future.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users