Personally I think much of the game's attraction lies in its payment model. It is a "unique selling point" for many people.
Rubbish.
There are a ton of free to play games that have a cheaper entry cost then GW2 and rely on a cash shop to fund themselves and people aren't excited at all by them.
The reason it stands out is the obvious passion and ambition of the game designers, the imagination applied to it's design and efforts to remove barriers to play, and ofc it's extremely high production values.
i would pay a sub IF all dependancy on the cash shop were removed. No need to buy inv upgrades,unlocks,keys etc.
There is no dependancy on the cash shop. Not sure where that's comign from. Unless it changes drasticall from the next few BWEs -> launch it will remain that way.
That said, if I weren't so burnt out on subscription games (as in, tired of getting screwed over by them / feeling like I've wasted money), then I would gladly pay a sub for GW2. However, I'm also glad it doesn't have one, and the fact that it doesn't have one is just 1 more thing to incentivize me to play it. It definitely has enough content to justify a sub. More so than any MMO I've seen in a long while.
i would pay a sub IF all dependancy on the cash shop were removed. No need to buy inv upgrades,unlocks,keys etc.
There is no dependancy on the cash shop. Not sure where that's comign from. Unless it changes drasticall from the next few BWEs -> launch it will remain that way.
That said, if I weren't so burnt out on subscription games (as in, tired of getting screwed over by them / feeling like I've wasted money), then I would gladly pay a sub for GW2. However, I'm also glad it doesn't have one, and the fact that it doesn't have one is just 1 more thing to incentivize me to play it. It definitely has enough content to justify a sub. More so than any MMO I've seen in a long while.
I don't think he implied "player dependency on cash shop for PvP purposes" which you seem to assume.
Hard to tell. Provided it would not have cash shop and any microtransactions, twice as much character slots, etc then it is very possibe.
If they would just put sub on top of cash shop - then no way in hell. Even if GW2 would be 2 x times better, bigger and more bad ass than it already is.
I havent voted though, voting yes could imply that I would be ok with paying sub on top of CS which I am not.
I don´t mind paying subs for the games I play, as long as they entertain me...so ofc i would.
I have not tried GW2 beta yet, but im gonna preorder very soon.
Games Played: Anarchy Online,Star Wars Galaxies,WOW,Eve,Darkfall,Vanguard, Fallen Earth,SWTOR,GW2,Tera,ESO,Wildstar, Black Desert, Archeage & Albion Online Now playing: Conan Exiles & Rocket League Games looking forward to: Diablo 4! & Star Citizen?
Personally I think much of the game's attraction lies in its payment model. It is a "unique selling point" for many people.
Rubbish.
There are a ton of free to play games that have a cheaper entry cost then GW2 and rely on a cash shop to fund themselves and people aren't excited at all by them.
The reason it stands out is the obvious passion and ambition of the game designers, the imagination applied to it's design and efforts to remove barriers to play, and ofc it's extremely high production values.
'B2P' is just the cherry on the top.
+1
B2P is near the bottom of reasons to be interested in GW2
Block the trolls, don't answer them, so we can remove the garbage from these forums
This is because I believe that the OP was asking not to find out in Arenanet should be doing it P2P or to find out if the game would be 'better' without a cashshop and a sub fee instead.
I beleive he was asking to find out if GW2 is up to a standard of all the other P2P MMo's out there and in that regard, I say yes, yes it is, its better in some cases. Would I pay for SWTOR, HELL NO!, would I pay for GW2 if it had been designed to work in the P2P model from the start, yes I very much think I would.
Saying yes is not taking away from the fact that I love the F2P model and that it has loads and loads of advnatages over the P2P model.
I think everyone on this thread who is getting stuck up on the fact that they would hate it if it went P2P is taking the completly wrong idea from this poll.
If you continue to make sweeping statements like you know what everyone everywhere thinks about a certain topic then I am going to shout at you. It easy to type 'I think this is the worst game ever' Rather than the 'This is the worst game ever'
I think everyone on this thread who is getting stuck up on the fact that they would hate it if it went P2P is taking the completely wrong idea from this poll.
I agree. I would sub to it but I likely would not continue after a certain point (that is to say, un-sub). Then I would probably go back when more content was added later....theoretically...in the future.
As it is, I am looking forward to the game and will likely have a great deal of fun for a while. Then I will go away and come back weeks or months later (maybe I'll click updates periodically so I can stay current with patches...maybe not) and pick up where I left off. B2P means not needing to uninstall and no need for un-sub if I am going to not play for 'a while'.
I would most likely pay a sub fee for GW2 if the game would otherwise be the same, but I certainly wouldn't be so happy about it and I wouldn't be able to persuade so many of my friends to do the same.
As to whether the game and ANet deserves the money, yes. The amount of fun I had in the betas so far is simply unmatched by any other MMO I have ever played (at least considering the same timeframe) and so is the number of innovations both in the gameplay and the game philosophy. However, there is a catch.
While I am generally opposed to the idea of subscription fees for MMOs in this day and age, the question of money is only a part of the problem.
Another one is the fact that if you pay for a month of access to the game, you feel forced to use up as much of it as possible. If someone, for instance, can only play during the weekends, the game is basically more expensive for him than for someone who plays every day. This might not be a big problem for a lot of people come launch, but it discourages returning to the game later on or simply jumping in the game for a short while when you just feel like it, which in effect reduces the game's population in the long run.
Perhaps the more important reason why I don't like subscriptions, however, has to do with game design and philosophy. An MMO that gets a lot of money from monthly fees is encouraged to prolong the time you spend in the game by any means necessary, which can lead to things like mob grind, repetitive quests, long travel times, slow casting and combat in general, frequent downtimes, gear treadmill, extremely rare drops, encouraging griefing etc., and even if all you want to do is PvP, you have to suffer through all this. Not all games do everything with monthly fees in mind and not all players hate such features, but I do and I also think this is one of the reasons the genre is so stagnant lately. And that's why I said I would pay a sub for GW2 as it is now, because I also believe that if the game was built from the ground up with monthly fees in mind, it might as well have been completely different.
EDIT: By saying "if the game would otherwise be the same", I'm not referring to the cash shop. There is no justification whatsoever for keeping both at the same time, no matter what they would be selling in it.
Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
The subscription model is almost dead, so the question is purely hypothetical. But it isn't really a yes or no question: what if the sub was $20, $25, $30 a month?
MMO sub fees are the same $15 they were in 2004. Do you really thing developers can keep that as a business model if they don't have millions of players like WoW?
If the sub fee was $25, wouldn't you rather have an optional cash shop?
If GW2 were originally a P2P instead of B2P and anet had let me test it in open beta then yes i would very likely sub as i fell head over heels in love with this game on first contact and B2P had nothing to do with it..
I dont have a problem subbing to new creative games that i get to try and that i like but i will never sub to an unoriginal clone of WoW nor will i sub to a P2P that has went F2P that uses a cashshop but still offers a sub..
Best 2 MMO games of the year will be GW2 followed by TSW..
$15 a month Subscription games are on their way out the door for numerous reasons but i would advise mmo game devs to go the B2P route so they can sell more boxes to recoop the costs of development, selling box with P2P and then going FTP with both a cashshop and a sub is cheezy and unappealling..
While I am generally opposed to the idea of subscription fees for MMOs in this day and age, the question of money is only a part of the problem.
This 'day and age'...
You guys always try to make it sound like a sci-fi super modern choice of payment model that solves issues rather then creating them.
Such spin.
Another one is the fact that if you pay for a month of access to the game, you feel forced to use up as much of it as possible. If someone, for instance, can only play during the weekends, the game is basically more expensive for him than for someone who plays every day.
Why do you care about your 'expense' compared to some other guy you do not know?
You need to be a little bit more mature here IMO and decide if the time you get is good value to YOU.
Don't sweat the other guy... if you, getting maybe 10-25 hours a week out of your sub in a game you are having fun in is good for you then that's all that matters. If some unemplyed guy gets 60 hours out of his $15 then so what? How does that effect you?
I should actually mention here that $15 for the game time I talk about is extremely competitive compared to many other games out there.
An MMO that gets a lot of money from monthly fees is encouraged to prolong the time you spend in the game by any means necessary, which can lead to things like mob grind, repetitive quests, long travel times, frequent downtimes, gear treadmill, extremely rare drops, encouraging griefing etc., and even if all you want to do is PvP, you have to suffer through all this.
Well, have to say I think you have it wrong.
F2P cash shops benefit from having you in game, because if you are not there you 'aint spending. Sub based games get your money if you are there nor not. Anyone who says F2P games don't care if you dip in and out are delusional. They want you committed, addicted, and spending.
In fact, many F2P games have exactly what you describe in red, only they have the 'solutions' to those debliberatly designed problems in their shop, often in a more extreme version then you would see in a P2P game.
In a P2P game having too much of what you talk about can kill a sub and result in a loss of revenue, in a F2P game it sends the player to the shop to spend and creates revenue.
I think your view of F2P is extremely naive and just a product of the internet 'indie' gaming sites telling you what to think.
The subscription model is almost dead, so the question is purely hypothetical. But it isn't really a yes or no question: what if the sub was $20, $25, $30 a month?
MMO sub fees are the same $15 they were in 2004. Do you really thing developers can keep that as a business model if they don't have millions of players like WoW?
If the sub fee was $25, wouldn't you rather have an optional cash shop?
Me think you the kind of person I should not ask a question to.
Me: Would you like a cup of tea sir?
You: What kind of tea? what tempurature will it be? If i ask for 2 sugars WILL you put 2 sugars in or just 1 and a half? if this a hyperthetical cup of tea? cos in which case I do not see the point in your question. If it is indeed a real tea, then will you be making it personally and will you require me to pay for such a service?
Me: You're having coffee.
If you continue to make sweeping statements like you know what everyone everywhere thinks about a certain topic then I am going to shout at you. It easy to type 'I think this is the worst game ever' Rather than the 'This is the worst game ever'
As the developer name changed the EverQuest subscription fee grew to keep pace, and by April 2002 the price had been upped to $12.95 / month. In June 2003, UO followed EverQuest's lead and jumped the subscription fee to $12.99 / month, and that's where UO's sub fee stands to-date. But EQ went through one final round of increases. In June 2005, EverQuest players were paying what World of Warcraft and EverQuest 2 players were by then currently paying - $14.99 / month.
In each previous instance of an increase, sub fees played "follow the leader" - EQ established the $12.95 increase and then every other developer raised fees to follow suit. The first of the so-called third gen subscription MMOs - World of Warcraft and EverQuest 2 - established the $14.95 rate, then LotRO, Vanguard, AoC, etc. followed suit.
I have paid subs for worse games. But I respect Anets stance GW1 that the excuse for subscription fees of MMos in the past is bogus. Because it is and they were the only ones saying so.
Finally I think its good business as it gives their customers alot more options and helps the MM part of MMORPG.
well i put yes but still the truth is that now day theres no point on paying to have fun ,tyvm arenanet to make the game for us and so you cna keep to have away so we can suport the staff cause iknow you guys eat and have a family too, CS is an option it not somthing that should obligate people to pay for somthing unless we want too and having noa dvantage over some 1
I think GW1 had no sub and it was a decent game. Why should GW2? Yes GW1 has a CS, it was/is not P2W style, not like Allods and some others. It was all convenience/look-style driven is all. GW2 will more than likely be the same, you can play and get stuff unlocked or you can be lazy and unlock stuff with money. Is it a big deal, no, but it is obvious that people think it is.
To the OP, since GW2 will never have a sub fee - this thread is MOOT.
GW2 is worth it more than any other mmorpg. But f2p games are the best way to go, as long as the game truly is f2p like GW2 is.
Games like LOTRO (which i currently play) are not truly f2p. In fact everything in the game is tied to the store. I think the makers of lotro are also afraid of GW2, due to the fact that in their off topic forum, on the official website, they lock or delete any thread about GW2, yet allow threads for Diablo 3 and Star Wars Online.
Interesting that the only game that's released in the last two years or that's due to in the foreseeable future, that's actually worth subscribing to, doesn't require a subscription. Either way, most of those other games will convert to a free to play model eventually. At least after they've milked a year or two of subs first. Maybe they'll even weasel a few lifetime subscriptions out of deal too.
Comments
Rubbish.
There are a ton of free to play games that have a cheaper entry cost then GW2 and rely on a cash shop to fund themselves and people aren't excited at all by them.
The reason it stands out is the obvious passion and ambition of the game designers, the imagination applied to it's design and efforts to remove barriers to play, and ofc it's extremely high production values.
'B2P' is just the cherry on the top.
There is no dependancy on the cash shop. Not sure where that's comign from. Unless it changes drasticall from the next few BWEs -> launch it will remain that way.
That said, if I weren't so burnt out on subscription games (as in, tired of getting screwed over by them / feeling like I've wasted money), then I would gladly pay a sub for GW2. However, I'm also glad it doesn't have one, and the fact that it doesn't have one is just 1 more thing to incentivize me to play it. It definitely has enough content to justify a sub. More so than any MMO I've seen in a long while.
I don't think he implied "player dependency on cash shop for PvP purposes" which you seem to assume.
Hard to tell. Provided it would not have cash shop and any microtransactions, twice as much character slots, etc then it is very possibe.
If they would just put sub on top of cash shop - then no way in hell. Even if GW2 would be 2 x times better, bigger and more bad ass than it already is.
I havent voted though, voting yes could imply that I would be ok with paying sub on top of CS which I am not.
No.
Asbo
From what i've played of it so far i'd have happily paid a sub.
I don´t mind paying subs for the games I play, as long as they entertain me...so ofc i would.
I have not tried GW2 beta yet, but im gonna preorder very soon.
Games Played: Anarchy Online,Star Wars Galaxies,WOW,Eve,Darkfall,Vanguard, Fallen Earth,SWTOR,GW2,Tera,ESO,Wildstar, Black Desert, Archeage & Albion Online
Now playing: Conan Exiles & Rocket League
Games looking forward to: Diablo 4! & Star Citizen?
Well yes if the current GW2 was to go p2p and with the integration of the cashshop into the normal game.
If GW2 was designed from the ground up to be a p2p title we may have had just another wow clone though.. then no.
No because i dont like the game LOL..
+1
B2P is near the bottom of reasons to be interested in GW2
Block the trolls, don't answer them, so we can remove the garbage from these forums
I voted yes.
This is because I believe that the OP was asking not to find out in Arenanet should be doing it P2P or to find out if the game would be 'better' without a cashshop and a sub fee instead.
I beleive he was asking to find out if GW2 is up to a standard of all the other P2P MMo's out there and in that regard, I say yes, yes it is, its better in some cases. Would I pay for SWTOR, HELL NO!, would I pay for GW2 if it had been designed to work in the P2P model from the start, yes I very much think I would.
Saying yes is not taking away from the fact that I love the F2P model and that it has loads and loads of advnatages over the P2P model.
I think everyone on this thread who is getting stuck up on the fact that they would hate it if it went P2P is taking the completly wrong idea from this poll.
If you continue to make sweeping statements like you know what everyone everywhere thinks about a certain topic then I am going to shout at you.
It easy to type 'I think this is the worst game ever'
Rather than the 'This is the worst game ever'
I agree. I would sub to it but I likely would not continue after a certain point (that is to say, un-sub). Then I would probably go back when more content was added later....theoretically...in the future.
As it is, I am looking forward to the game and will likely have a great deal of fun for a while. Then I will go away and come back weeks or months later (maybe I'll click updates periodically so I can stay current with patches...maybe not) and pick up where I left off. B2P means not needing to uninstall and no need for un-sub if I am going to not play for 'a while'.
I would most likely pay a sub fee for GW2 if the game would otherwise be the same, but I certainly wouldn't be so happy about it and I wouldn't be able to persuade so many of my friends to do the same.
As to whether the game and ANet deserves the money, yes. The amount of fun I had in the betas so far is simply unmatched by any other MMO I have ever played (at least considering the same timeframe) and so is the number of innovations both in the gameplay and the game philosophy. However, there is a catch.
While I am generally opposed to the idea of subscription fees for MMOs in this day and age, the question of money is only a part of the problem.
Another one is the fact that if you pay for a month of access to the game, you feel forced to use up as much of it as possible. If someone, for instance, can only play during the weekends, the game is basically more expensive for him than for someone who plays every day. This might not be a big problem for a lot of people come launch, but it discourages returning to the game later on or simply jumping in the game for a short while when you just feel like it, which in effect reduces the game's population in the long run.
Perhaps the more important reason why I don't like subscriptions, however, has to do with game design and philosophy. An MMO that gets a lot of money from monthly fees is encouraged to prolong the time you spend in the game by any means necessary, which can lead to things like mob grind, repetitive quests, long travel times, slow casting and combat in general, frequent downtimes, gear treadmill, extremely rare drops, encouraging griefing etc., and even if all you want to do is PvP, you have to suffer through all this. Not all games do everything with monthly fees in mind and not all players hate such features, but I do and I also think this is one of the reasons the genre is so stagnant lately. And that's why I said I would pay a sub for GW2 as it is now, because I also believe that if the game was built from the ground up with monthly fees in mind, it might as well have been completely different.
EDIT: By saying "if the game would otherwise be the same", I'm not referring to the cash shop. There is no justification whatsoever for keeping both at the same time, no matter what they would be selling in it.
Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
The subscription model is almost dead, so the question is purely hypothetical. But it isn't really a yes or no question: what if the sub was $20, $25, $30 a month?
MMO sub fees are the same $15 they were in 2004. Do you really thing developers can keep that as a business model if they don't have millions of players like WoW?
If the sub fee was $25, wouldn't you rather have an optional cash shop?
If GW2 were originally a P2P instead of B2P and anet had let me test it in open beta then yes i would very likely sub as i fell head over heels in love with this game on first contact and B2P had nothing to do with it..
I dont have a problem subbing to new creative games that i get to try and that i like but i will never sub to an unoriginal clone of WoW nor will i sub to a P2P that has went F2P that uses a cashshop but still offers a sub..
Best 2 MMO games of the year will be GW2 followed by TSW..
$15 a month Subscription games are on their way out the door for numerous reasons but i would advise mmo game devs to go the B2P route so they can sell more boxes to recoop the costs of development, selling box with P2P and then going FTP with both a cashshop and a sub is cheezy and unappealling..
Playing GW2..
Me think you the kind of person I should not ask a question to.
Me: Would you like a cup of tea sir?
You: What kind of tea? what tempurature will it be? If i ask for 2 sugars WILL you put 2 sugars in or just 1 and a half? if this a hyperthetical cup of tea? cos in which case I do not see the point in your question. If it is indeed a real tea, then will you be making it personally and will you require me to pay for such a service?
Me: You're having coffee.
If you continue to make sweeping statements like you know what everyone everywhere thinks about a certain topic then I am going to shout at you.
It easy to type 'I think this is the worst game ever'
Rather than the 'This is the worst game ever'
when I started playing Everquest in 1999 the fee was 9.99 a month
in April 2002, it was raised to 12.99 and finally raised to 14.99 in summer 2005
editorial on sub fees
http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/75692
As the developer name changed the EverQuest subscription fee grew to keep pace, and by April 2002 the price had been upped to $12.95 / month. In June 2003, UO followed EverQuest's lead and jumped the subscription fee to $12.99 / month, and that's where UO's sub fee stands to-date. But EQ went through one final round of increases. In June 2005, EverQuest players were paying what World of Warcraft and EverQuest 2 players were by then currently paying - $14.99 / month.
In each previous instance of an increase, sub fees played "follow the leader" - EQ established the $12.95 increase and then every other developer raised fees to follow suit. The first of the so-called third gen subscription MMOs - World of Warcraft and EverQuest 2 - established the $14.95 rate, then LotRO, Vanguard, AoC, etc. followed suit.
EQ2 fan sites
I have paid subs for worse games. But I respect Anets stance GW1 that the excuse for subscription fees of MMos in the past is bogus. Because it is and they were the only ones saying so.
Finally I think its good business as it gives their customers alot more options and helps the MM part of MMORPG.
well i put yes but still the truth is that now day theres no point on paying to have fun ,tyvm arenanet to make the game for us and so you cna keep to have away so we can suport the staff cause iknow you guys eat and have a family too, CS is an option it not somthing that should obligate people to pay for somthing unless we want too and having noa dvantage over some 1
IF there was no CS, yes.
I have never payed a sub, never will.
I think GW1 had no sub and it was a decent game. Why should GW2? Yes GW1 has a CS, it was/is not P2W style, not like Allods and some others. It was all convenience/look-style driven is all. GW2 will more than likely be the same, you can play and get stuff unlocked or you can be lazy and unlock stuff with money. Is it a big deal, no, but it is obvious that people think it is.
To the OP, since GW2 will never have a sub fee - this thread is MOOT.
Games like LOTRO (which i currently play) are not truly f2p. In fact everything in the game is tied to the store. I think the makers of lotro are also afraid of GW2, due to the fact that in their off topic forum, on the official website, they lock or delete any thread about GW2, yet allow threads for Diablo 3 and Star Wars Online.
Interesting that the only game that's released in the last two years or that's due to in the foreseeable future, that's actually worth subscribing to, doesn't require a subscription. Either way, most of those other games will convert to a free to play model eventually. At least after they've milked a year or two of subs first. Maybe they'll even weasel a few lifetime subscriptions out of deal too.