Curse

here to troll · Dec 30, 2009, 03:54 AM // 03:54

I know, I know, the point of guild wars is to have a subscription fee-less(<--is that correct, lol) based model. But think about it, the average price for a subscription fee is about $12-$15. Now, how many people go to the movies. At least where I live it is about 10 bucks for a ticket and i might buy popcorn. Thats around 1 and a half hours to 2 hours of entertainment. Maybe longer if you see 2012 which is around 2 and a half hours (i think).

The fact is, it is easy to "get your monies worth" and i would rather support anet through a subscription fee than micro transactions. Just my $0.02.

Zinger314 · Dec 30, 2009, 03:58 AM // 03:58

And then the game would die, since if people wanted to play a game with a monthly fee, they would probably play WoW or Aion instead.

The only reason GW survived at all is because it's free.

animal fighter · Dec 30, 2009, 04:02 AM // 04:02

also many player have played gw for 40 months

who going to pay for that when they dont update game or even create new animals for us to kill ??????

DBMan · Dec 30, 2009, 04:15 AM // 04:15

If you want to support Anet, then buy their stuff?

Zehnchu · Dec 30, 2009, 04:44 AM // 04:44

Feel free to send them 15 bucks a month you can just make a check out and mail it in.

But I'll stuck with their current model.

Cacheelma · Dec 30, 2009, 04:46 AM // 04:46

Support Anet to do what? Are they some poor, starving kids who can't help themselves and could be our hope for the future that our money could make differences in their lives?

What are we now, a charity? What would you call such charity? Bad Games Foundation? Bait & Switch Inc.?

We're indeed a non-profit group, that's for sure.

Zehnchu · Dec 30, 2009, 04:48 AM // 04:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

Support Anet to do what? Are they some poor, starving kids who can't help themselves and could be our hope for the future that our money could make differences in their lives?

What are we now, a charity? What would you call such charity? Bad Games Foundation? Bait & Switch Inc.?

We're indeed a non-profit group, that's for sure.

The Bank of Mum And Da?

Lishy · Dec 30, 2009, 05:01 AM // 05:01

Suuuure

Because Anet will totally switch the business model while the game is live.

Karate Jesus · Dec 30, 2009, 05:20 AM // 05:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

And then the game would die, since if people wanted to play a game with a monthly fee, they would probably play WoW or Aion instead.

The only reason GW survived at all is because it's free.

^ that's exactly right. GW is getting old, and it wouldn't survive without the model it's based on.

The community gets upset enough about the micro-transactions lately. No reason in pissing everyone off.

Arduin · Dec 30, 2009, 05:49 AM // 05:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by here to troll

But think about it, the average price for a subscription fee is about $12-$15.

Okay, now make that 2-3 subs per month, because you don't want to play only one game.

Also, the amount of content/support GW has doesn't warrant a subscription fee in my opinion.

Hyperventilate · Dec 30, 2009, 06:33 AM // 06:33

GW is showing her age and making her a pay to play game this late on won't solve that. It'd drive people further away from the game.

Far too much harm than good.

Gun Pierson · Dec 30, 2009, 07:19 AM // 07:19

If you have half a brain, you know the business model failed as they can't even keep a team of 20-30 peeps up that can create true new content while Anet works on another game which is GW2.

It's true however that this game thanks its success on the no subscription model, but we do pay the price in terms of lack of proper updates and content.

Because of this experience I changed my view on pay to play games as in the past I didn't want to participate in a subscription based model, but I do know better now as long as I don't have the feeling they wanne milk every penny out of it. But that's exactly what's going on in GW lately with their micro transactions.

Richard Garriot, may be a douche, but he has been right from the start that GW's business model fails.

Yes, Anet tried with Sorrow's Furnace, but soon after they announced that it would be impossible for them to release that kinda content in the future and for free. It was a reality check.

I wish GW2 was subscription based, because the current business model doesn't deliver. They said it multiple times themselves, they don't have the recources.

Chronos the Defiler · Dec 30, 2009, 07:43 AM // 07:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by animal fighter

also many player have played gw for 40 months

who going to pay for that when they dont update game or even create new animals for us to kill ??????

Or off and on for 40+ months

Another thing about having no sub is players can come back or leave when they want without worrying about the credit card bind.

fenix · Dec 30, 2009, 07:47 AM // 07:47

If GW had a subscription system since release, it would have been a success, and more money backing it for better/more regular updates.

Adding one now would cause people to leave, because they don't WANT to pay per month. By releasing new chapters as frequently as ANet did, players were practically paying a subscription ANYWAY, but players can be fickle about games, so you're better off not confusing them.

Copenhagen Master · Dec 30, 2009, 08:22 AM // 08:22

I would pay, if they would fix there servers sick of the lag hahaha

Ratman · Dec 30, 2009, 09:43 AM // 09:43

The first reason that i began playing guildwars was the lack of subscription fee. Altough I would like to see some new content I don't think that the game should have a monthly fee. Rather that you buy hours of game time so that you actualy pay for what you get.

Bristlebane · Dec 30, 2009, 09:55 AM // 09:55

I played subscription based games (Ultima Online, and then Everquest), and from my experience you don't really get better support just because it's subscription based.

I would support a "hybrid" model, say a minimal $5/month fee to support for more content updates. I would even support if $5/mo subscribers got access to new contents a month ahead of the no-fee players, then each player could choose their own preferrence.

Abedeus · Dec 30, 2009, 10:00 AM // 10:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

If GW had a subscription system since release, it would have been a success, and more money backing it for better/more regular updates.

Adding one now would cause people to leave, because they don't WANT to pay per month. By releasing new chapters as frequently as ANet did, players were practically paying a subscription ANYWAY, but players can be fickle about games, so you're better off not confusing them.

How do you know it would be a success? I mean, it's a pretty successful game even now, but there's no telling whether the game would be more or less popular or successful if it had a subscription fee.

I know I wouldn't buy it.

Andemius · Dec 30, 2009, 10:09 AM // 10:09

Quote:

The first reason that i began playing guildwars was the lack of subscription fee. Altough I would like to see some new content I don't think that the game should have a monthly fee.

I agree with this. the F2P nature of GW was what attracted me to it to start with. By making a game P2P you basically cut most of the casual players out and just leave ppl who are willing to grind away. I didn't start GW to grind out achivements (they didn't exist), so, sadly if GW was P2P, i wouldn't touch it.

bhavv · Dec 30, 2009, 10:22 AM // 10:22

Every time I hear about MMO fees compared to cinema costs, a part of me dies inside.

This has been argued to death over and over and over again, and nothing changes my opinion that paying around $100 a year to play a video game is a complete joke and a rip off.

P.S. No I dont buy cinema tickets either, yes they are even more expensive. The cinema tickets vs MMO subs argument is only valid to people who actually dont care about wasting their money on both.