Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Sub or no sub that is the question?!

TheTrueKingTheTrueKing San Antonio, TXPosts: 427Member

Most people I know have been gaming for many many years and have partaken in many of the games over the last few years.  Some of them Pay to play some free to play.   thousands of people played LoTro when it was a sub and now when it went free many more who would have never looked at the game prior are now playing it.  Many games have seen greater profit and greater freedom for players by switching to a free to play platform.

back in the day it cost a ton to run servers and maintain the high speed internet to connect games online which is mainly why monthly subs were needed.  Other reasons did exist but the main reason was to maintain servers and connectivity..

I've seen many people say that because GW2 is Box purchase then free after makes it not worth playing.  Others are happy that its not a sub after purchase.   Why do you think it makes a difference if it does not have a monthly sub?  Do you feel the box price is not enough and the monthly sub is needed for some reason?

 

Developers and Publishers in other games have recently proven that a great game does not need a sub to maintain good support and quality updates.  Anet has even proven that by offering Box price on original and for expansions that it can more then cover quality support and maintain quality server maintanence / content / expansions.

 

I personally have played nearly all games which have been on the market in the last 10 years.  From F2P, B2P, and P2P.  I know that the F2P games attract a less desirable type of player and that in the past P2P has seemed to provide higher quality content expansions as well as customer service / support and an all around better quality game.

 

Sharing in the questionable reasoning on no continued sub fee after box purchase makes me curious as to continued income and continued quality after release.

 

At the time GW was released at box price only and compared to the games on the market at its time, it was above most in quality and continued content.

 

The market has proven that the free to play model with cosmetic cash shop drives higher revenue then a monthly sub.  So for not having a monthly sub why would that make this any less of a game or not intrigue people even more so to play it?

 

My thought is I'd rather see this game have a box price + cosmetic only cash shop which gives Anet MORE money then sub monthly on average so that Anet can provide further quality customer service / content expansions then stay with the sub model which has proven to be un needed to help a company produce what people think will be missing without it.

When they compared monthly subs vs cash shop they found that monthly sub = $15 a month but on average players in cash shop models spent $20+ a month so with this knowledge Anets model will bring them more income.

 

What are your thoughts about monthly subs? needed or not, why?

** edited ** watch this then bring on the debate

«13

Comments

  • Lord.BachusLord.Bachus Den HelderPosts: 9,065Member Uncommon
    No monthly sub, but paying for added downloadable content seems to be much fairer.

    Either you charge for the box, or you charge for playing, charging for both allways has felt over the top to me

    Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)

  • TheTrueKingTheTrueKing San Antonio, TXPosts: 427Member

    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

    No monthly sub, but paying for added downloadable content seems to be much fairer. Either you charge for the box, or you charge for playing, charging for both allways has felt over the top to me

    and probably the reason why Blizzard had extremely high revenue with this old method of charging for box + monthly sub + expansions.... talk about milking it.  and on top of it they still offer items to purchase.

     

    don't get me wrong I am all for them making money but milking your customer base and hiding behind maintaining servers / creating quality updates and expansions seems like lame justification in this day and age.

  • SarielleSarielle Lexington, KYPosts: 91Member

    This video does a great job of explaining why subs are unnecessary in a very logical way. Great view, imo, and does a better job explaining than I could. :)

     

     

  • TheTrueKingTheTrueKing San Antonio, TXPosts: 427Member

    Originally posted by Sarielle

    This video does a great job of explaining why subs are unnecessary in a very logical way. Great view, imo, and does a better job explaining than I could. :)

     

     

    this is exactly the video I was looking for and was going to link once I found it, THANK YOU for posting it.

     

    I hope EVERYONE who claims subs are needed and why they are not interested in GW2 watches that video!!

     

     

    WATCH IT!!!!

  • SuperXero89SuperXero89 Amory, MSPosts: 2,544Member Uncommon

    Can a GW2 fan explain to me why you have MMORPGs that sold a lot of boxes eventually shut down because they are no longer profitable if subscription fees do not matter?

    I ask because in comparison to sub-based games, GW2 felt cheaply made, lacked the depth and breadth of content of a P2P MMORPG, and had a very short lifespan.  Just because GW2 has persistant areas outside of towns and outposts isn't enough to subside my fears that GW2 may end up the same way.

  • Master10KMaster10K LondonPosts: 3,065Member

    Originally posted by Sarielle

    This video does a great job of explaining why subs are unnecessary in a very logical way. Great view, imo, and does a better job explaining than I could. :)

    Was about to say the same. Can't be assed to put it into my own words, when someone can do it better. But I seriously think that the subscription model is dying and new games like TERA and The Secret Word will definitely go F2P in a year or 2 after release. Especially if GW2 becomes financially successful, making the B2P model seem more viable for MMOs.

    image

  • Master10KMaster10K LondonPosts: 3,065Member

    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Can a GW2 fan explain to me why you have MMORPGs that sold a lot of boxes eventually shut down because they are no longer profitable if subscription fees do not matter?

    I ask because in comparison to sub-based games, GW2 felt cheaply made, lacked the depth and breadth of content of a P2P MMORPG, and had a very short lifespan.  Just because GW2 has persistant areas outside of towns and outposts isn't enough to subside my fears that GW2 may end up the same way.

    You've either mixed up your numbers. [Mod Edit]

    image

  • SuperXero89SuperXero89 Amory, MSPosts: 2,544Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Master10K

    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Can a GW2 fan explain to me why you have MMORPGs that sold a lot of boxes eventually shut down because they are no longer profitable if subscription fees do not matter?

    I ask because in comparison to sub-based games, GW2 felt cheaply made, lacked the depth and breadth of content of a P2P MMORPG, and had a very short lifespan.  Just because GW2 has persistant areas outside of towns and outposts isn't enough to subside my fears that GW2 may end up the same way.

    You've either mixed up your numbers, [Mod Edit]

     

     

     

  • Cod_EyeCod_Eye jarrowPosts: 1,016Member

    Subs were originally set because the bandwidth was expensive when MMO's hit our streets, now they cost next to nothing.   Some Developers keep them as a money spinner and nothing more.  Most popular MMO's have even sold extra content on top of their subscription model, because they know consumers will fork out for their favourite game.

    Maybe Anet have taken the moral high ground and believe its unjust to charge for both subs and content, Its also a good way to  pull in punters to play their game as they won't be competing for players.  You buy the box and play as and when you feel like it and dont feel that you are forced to play because you just spent money to play for the month.

    If I was to pay subs and it was set at £9 a month then 6 months later a content expansion was released at say £25, that be £79 I would of layed out, not paying subs and they release content, even if it cost £40, I already have saved £39.  For me that makes a whole lot better sense than the former.  Personally I think its a no brainer.

  • TheTrueKingTheTrueKing San Antonio, TXPosts: 427Member

    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Can a GW2 fan explain to me why you have MMORPGs that sold a lot of boxes eventually shut down because they are no longer profitable if subscription fees do not matter?

    I ask because in comparison to sub-based games, GW2 felt cheaply made, lacked the depth and breadth of content of a P2P MMORPG, and had a very short lifespan.  Just because GW2 has persistant areas outside of towns and outposts isn't enough to subside my fears that GW2 may end up the same way.

    miss type?

    Watch that video which was linked.

     

    The MMORPG's that sold a lot of boxes eventually did not shut down because of a lack of sub fee.  No game has ever shut down because it didn't have a sub fee ever.   When a Game Dev or Publisher states "we are closing our doors because it is no longer profitable" tells you one of two things. They didn't manage their profits well enough or that the assumption of their box sells were higher then reality.  GW1 at launch compared to WoW at launch, GW1 was without a doubt better quality when it took WoW months if not nearly a year to iron out wrinkles. 

     

    If sub fee's were required to maintain a great game then console games would not be profitable but we all know that they are extremely profitable especially FPS games such as COD or BF which work on a box price and expasion price and still offer awesome games.  Same logic and reasoning can be used on MMORPGS who have a box price and expasion price no subs are needed or required.

     

    I'm personally not a fan of GW but sub fee's have only proved useful to me in one aspect it kept out the majority of low lifes that are found in F2P games.

  • Master10KMaster10K LondonPosts: 3,065Member

    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Originally posted by Master10K


    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Can a GW2 fan explain to me why you have MMORPGs that sold a lot of boxes eventually shut down because they are no longer profitable if subscription fees do not matter?

    I ask because in comparison to sub-based games, GW2 felt cheaply made, lacked the depth and breadth of content of a P2P MMORPG, and had a very short lifespan.  Just because GW2 has persistant areas outside of towns and outposts isn't enough to subside my fears that GW2 may end up the same way.

    You've either mixed up your numbers,[Mod edit]

    No, not everyone who objects to your views is being touchy, or otherwise defensive. Actually in this case it seems like you're refereing to bad experiences in Guild Wars 1 half the time. The rest was pure conjecture. Stuff you simply made up. Especially love how you refer to GW2 in past tense, as if you've bought it or something. image

    image

  • Cod_EyeCod_Eye jarrowPosts: 1,016Member

    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Originally posted by Master10K


    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Can a GW2 fan explain to me why you have MMORPGs that sold a lot of boxes eventually shut down because they are no longer profitable if subscription fees do not matter?

    I ask because in comparison to sub-based games, GW2 felt cheaply made, lacked the depth and breadth of content of a P2P MMORPG, and had a very short lifespan.  Just because GW2 has persistant areas outside of towns and outposts isn't enough to subside my fears that GW2 may end up the same way.

    You've either mixed up your numbers, [Mod Edit]

     

     

     

    He was refering to the number 1 and the number 2,

    1, GW1 wasnt an MMO

    2 GW2 hasnt been released yet.

    3 GW1 is very successful in its own right, even if you didnt like it. and the servers are still busy. 

  • XzenXzen Los Alamos, NMPosts: 2,607Member Common

    Subs are not needed. I think the buisness model Anet has chosen will work just fine.

  • nerovipus32nerovipus32 dublinPosts: 2,735Member

    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Originally posted by Master10K


    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Can a GW2 fan explain to me why you have MMORPGs that sold a lot of boxes eventually shut down because they are no longer profitable if subscription fees do not matter?

    I ask because in comparison to sub-based games, GW2 felt cheaply made, lacked the depth and breadth of content of a P2P MMORPG, and had a very short lifespan.  Just because GW2 has persistant areas outside of towns and outposts isn't enough to subside my fears that GW2 may end up the same way.

    You've either mixed up your numbers [Mod Edit]

     

     

    you're just spreading misinformation, how exactly is guild wars 2 cheaply made? and compared to what mmo?

  • Master10KMaster10K LondonPosts: 3,065Member

    Originally posted by nerovipus32

    Originally posted by SuperXero89


    Originally posted by Master10K


    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Can a GW2 fan explain to me why you have MMORPGs that sold a lot of boxes eventually shut down because they are no longer profitable if subscription fees do not matter?

    I ask because in comparison to sub-based games, GW2 felt cheaply made, lacked the depth and breadth of content of a P2P MMORPG, and had a very short lifespan.  Just because GW2 has persistant areas outside of towns and outposts isn't enough to subside my fears that GW2 may end up the same way.

    You've either mixed up your numbers, [Mod Edit]

     

    Well compared to SW:TOR anything is cheap. image

    Maybe that's what he was getting at.

    image

  • nerovipus32nerovipus32 dublinPosts: 2,735Member

    guild wars a game with no sub has lasted longer than alot of mmo's that do have subs.

    guild wars 2 will be the final nail in the coffin of p2p mmo's,

  • SuperXero89SuperXero89 Amory, MSPosts: 2,544Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Master10K

    Originally posted by SuperXero89


    Originally posted by Master10K


    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Can a GW2 fan explain to me why you have MMORPGs that sold a lot of boxes eventually shut down because they are no longer profitable if subscription fees do not matter?

    I ask because in comparison to sub-based games, GW2 felt cheaply made, lacked the depth and breadth of content of a P2P MMORPG, and had a very short lifespan.  Just because GW2 has persistant areas outside of towns and outposts isn't enough to subside my fears that GW2 may end up the same way.

    You've either mixed up your numbers, Mod Edit]

    No, not everyone who objects to your views is being touchy, or otherwise defensive. Actually in this case it seems like you're refereing to bad experiences in Guild Wars 1 half the time. The rest was pure conjecture. Stuff you simply made up. Especially love how you refer to GW2 in past tense, as if you've bought it or something. image

     

    The conjecture was all on your behalf.  GW1 was a great game, but it is not a game that I felt deserved a subscription fee because it was not of the same quality as a game that has one.  Just to say what pops into my head, when I played,  the graphics were nice, but the gameworld didn't allow for much interaction (can't swim, can't open doors and thus can't explore buildings) animations were stiff, everyone looked the same, there wasn't a lot of draw to the game after having raised a character to level 20 aside from HoH PvP and GvG. 

    GW1 is entirely irrelevant.  It hasn't had a major content update in close to 5 years, pick up PvP is absolutely dead, and it is pretty much only still played by diehard fans.  If you bring up seeing several players around in outposts, lets not forget the game only has a single server. 

  • nerovipus32nerovipus32 dublinPosts: 2,735Member

    Originally posted by Master10K

    Originally posted by nerovipus32


    Originally posted by SuperXero89


    Originally posted by Master10K


    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Can a GW2 fan explain to me why you have MMORPGs that sold a lot of boxes eventually shut down because they are no longer profitable if subscription fees do not matter?

    I ask because in comparison to sub-based games, GW2 felt cheaply made, lacked the depth and breadth of content of a P2P MMORPG, and had a very short lifespan.  Just because GW2 has persistant areas outside of towns and outposts isn't enough to subside my fears that GW2 may end up the same way.

    You've either mixed up your numbers [Mod Edit]

    you're just spreading misinformation, how exactly is guild wars 2 cheaply made? and compared to what mmo?

    Well compared to SW:TOR anything is cheap. image

    Maybe that's what he was getting at.



    swtor might have been costly to develope but it looks very cheaply made.

  • SuperXero89SuperXero89 Amory, MSPosts: 2,544Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by nerovipus32

    Originally posted by SuperXero89


    Originally posted by Master10K


    Originally posted by SuperXero89


    Originally posted by Master10K


    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Can a GW2 fan explain to me why you have MMORPGs that sold a lot of boxes eventually shut down because they are no longer profitable if subscription fees do not matter?

    I ask because in comparison to sub-based games, GW2 felt cheaply made, lacked the depth and breadth of content of a P2P MMORPG, and had a very short lifespan.  Just because GW2 has persistant areas outside of towns and outposts isn't enough to subside my fears that GW2 may end up the same way.

    You've either mixed up your numbers [ModEdit]

    No, not everyone who objects to your views is being touchy, or otherwise defensive. Actually in this case it seems like you're refereing to bad experiences in Guild Wars 1 half the time. The rest was pure conjecture. Stuff you simply made up. Especially love how you refer to GW2 in past tense, as if you've bought it or something. image

    You accused me of trolling, tried to derail the conversation by pointing out a typo, and 2 posts later, you still haven't answered my question.

    The conjecture was all on your behalf.  GW1 was a great game, but it is not a game that I felt deserved a subscription fee because it was not of the same quality as a game that has one.  Just to say what pops into my head, when I played,  the graphics were nice, but the gameworld didn't allow for much interaction (can't swim, can't open doors and thus can't explore buildings) animations were stiff, everyone looked the same, there wasn't a lot of draw to the game after having raised a character to level 20 aside from HoH PvP and GvG. 

    GW1 is entirely irrelevant.  It hasn't had a major content update in close to 5 years, pick up PvP is absolutely dead, and it is pretty much only still played by diehard fans.  If you bring up seeing several players around in outposts, lets not forget the game only has a single server. 

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars:_Eye_of_the_North

  • nerovipus32nerovipus32 dublinPosts: 2,735Member

    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Originally posted by nerovipus32


    Originally posted by SuperXero89


    Originally posted by Master10K


    Originally posted by SuperXero89


    Originally posted by Master10K


    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Can a GW2 fan explain to me why you have MMORPGs that sold a lot of boxes eventually shut down because they are no longer profitable if subscription fees do not matter?

    I ask because in comparison to sub-based games, GW2 felt cheaply made, lacked the depth and breadth of content of a P2P MMORPG, and had a very short lifespan.  Just because GW2 has persistant areas outside of towns and outposts isn't enough to subside my fears that GW2 may end up the same way.

    You've either mixed up your numbers

     

    No, not everyone who objects to your views is being touchy, or otherwise defensive. Actually in this case it seems like you're refereing to bad experiences in Guild Wars 1 half the time. The rest was pure conjecture. Stuff you simply made up. Especially love how you refer to GW2 in past tense, as if you've bought it or something. image

    You accused me of trolling, tried to derail the conversation by pointing out a typo, and 2 posts later, you still haven't answered my question.

    The conjecture was all on your behalf.  GW1 was a great game, but it is not a game that I felt deserved a subscription fee because it was not of the same quality as a game that has one.  Just to say what pops into my head, when I played,  the graphics were nice, but the gameworld didn't allow for much interaction (can't swim, can't open doors and thus can't explore buildings) animations were stiff, everyone looked the same, there wasn't a lot of draw to the game after having raised a character to level 20 aside from HoH PvP and GvG. 

    GW1 is entirely irrelevant.  It hasn't had a major content update in close to 5 years, pick up PvP is absolutely dead, and it is pretty much only still played by diehard fans.  If you bring up seeing several players around in outposts, lets not forget the game only has a single server. 

    [Mod Edit]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars:_Eye_of_the_North



    they also release content thats free.

  • SuperXero89SuperXero89 Amory, MSPosts: 2,544Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by nerovipus32

    Originally posted by SuperXero89


    Originally posted by nerovipus32


    Originally posted by SuperXero89


    Originally posted by Master10K


    Originally posted by SuperXero89


    Originally posted by Master10K


    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Can a GW2 fan explain to me why you have MMORPGs that sold a lot of boxes eventually shut down because they are no longer profitable if subscription fees do not matter?

    I ask because in comparison to sub-based games, GW2 felt cheaply made, lacked the depth and breadth of content of a P2P MMORPG, and had a very short lifespan.  Just because GW2 has persistant areas outside of towns and outposts isn't enough to subside my fears that GW2 may end up the same way.

    You've either mixed up your numbers [Mod Edit]

     

    No, not everyone who objects to your views is being touchy, or otherwise defensive. Actually in this case it seems like you're refereing to bad experiences in Guild Wars 1 half the time. The rest was pure conjecture. Stuff you simply made up. Especially love how you refer to GW2 in past tense, as if you've bought it or something. image

    You accused me of trolling, tried to derail the conversation by pointing out a typo, and 2 posts later, you still haven't answered my question.

    The conjecture was all on your behalf.  GW1 was a great game, but it is not a game that I felt deserved a subscription fee because it was not of the same quality as a game that has one.  Just to say what pops into my head, when I played,  the graphics were nice, but the gameworld didn't allow for much interaction (can't swim, can't open doors and thus can't explore buildings) animations were stiff, everyone looked the same, there wasn't a lot of draw to the game after having raised a character to level 20 aside from HoH PvP and GvG. 

    GW1 is entirely irrelevant.  It hasn't had a major content update in close to 5 years, pick up PvP is absolutely dead, and it is pretty much only still played by diehard fans.  If you bring up seeing several players around in outposts, lets not forget the game only has a single server. 

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars:_Eye_of_the_North



    they also release content thats free.

    [Mod Edit]

  • gainesvilleggainesvilleg Gainesville, FLPosts: 1,053Member

    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Originally posted by Master10K


    Originally posted by SuperXero89


    Originally posted by Master10K


    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Can a GW2 fan explain to me why you have MMORPGs that sold a lot of boxes eventually shut down because they are no longer profitable if subscription fees do not matter?

    I ask because in comparison to sub-based games, GW2 felt cheaply made, lacked the depth and breadth of content of a P2P MMORPG, and had a very short lifespan.  Just because GW2 has persistant areas outside of towns and outposts isn't enough to subside my fears that GW2 may end up the same way.

    You've either mixed up your numbers [mod edit]

    No, not everyone who objects to your views is being touchy, or otherwise defensive. Actually in this case it seems like you're refereing to bad experiences in Guild Wars 1 half the time. The rest was pure conjecture. Stuff you simply made up. Especially love how you refer to GW2 in past tense, as if you've bought it or something. image

    You accused me of trolling, tried to derail the conversation by pointing out a typo, and 2 posts later, you still haven't answered my question.

    The conjecture was all on your behalf.  GW1 was a great game, but it is not a game that I felt deserved a subscription fee because it was not of the same quality as a game that has one.  Just to say what pops into my head, when I played,  the graphics were nice, but the gameworld didn't allow for much interaction (can't swim, can't open doors and thus can't explore buildings) animations were stiff, everyone looked the same, there wasn't a lot of draw to the game after having raised a character to level 20 aside from HoH PvP and GvG. 

    GW1 is entirely irrelevant.  It hasn't had a major content update in close to 5 years, pick up PvP is absolutely dead, and it is pretty much only still played by diehard fans.  If you bring up seeing several players around in outposts, lets not forget the game only has a single server. 

    Here's my confused thought process on GW2 hype:

    0) I'm confused about the GW2 hype

    1) No monthly fee (for those without jobs)!  Awesome!  No grind (for those that hate that) yeah!  Dynamic quests.  Yeah!  RvRvR PVP Awesome!  GW2 gonna rock this world!

    2) Wait a minute, most of those people who are most excited about GW2 also loved GW1

    3) I personally thought GW1 was horrid.  Literally one of the worst games I've ever played (not trolling here, honestly)

    4) Hmmm.  Now I'm not so sure about GW2.  Many of those hyping it loved a game I hated.

    5) I'm confused again

    GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
    1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
    2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements

  • TheTrueKingTheTrueKing San Antonio, TXPosts: 427Member

    so how does this involve the topic of sub fee's and no sub fee's?

     

    I replied about the failed games who because of "lack of profit" closed their doors.

     

    Subs are a thing of the past and should be, as prove, useless for us consumers.

  • KuppaKuppa Boulder, COPosts: 3,292Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by SuperXero89

    Originally posted by nerovipus32


    Originally posted by SuperXero89


    Originally posted by nerovipus32


    You accused me of trolling, tried to derail the conversation by pointing out a typo, and 2 posts later, you still haven't answered my question.

    The conjecture was all on your behalf.  GW1 was a great game, but it is not a game that I felt deserved a subscription fee because it was not of the same quality as a game that has one.  Just to say what pops into my head, when I played,  the graphics were nice, but the gameworld didn't allow for much interaction (can't swim, can't open doors and thus can't explore buildings) animations were stiff, everyone looked the same, there wasn't a lot of draw to the game after having raised a character to level 20 aside from HoH PvP and GvG. 

    GW1 is entirely irrelevant.  It hasn't had a major content update in close to 5 years, pick up PvP is absolutely dead, and it is pretty much only still played by diehard fans.  If you bring up seeing several players around in outposts, lets not forget the game only has a single server. 

    That's a lie. you are trolling.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars:_Eye_of_the_North



    they also release content thats free.

     

    If it's such major updates, why haven't we seen any real coverage from mmorpg.com?

    http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/82/view/news/page/1/read/23473/Guild-Wars-Mikus-Tale-Winds-of-Change-Pt-3-.html

    http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/82/view/news/page/1/read/22065/Guild-Wars-Winds-of-Change-Update-Now-Live.html

    image


    image

  • gainesvilleggainesvilleg Gainesville, FLPosts: 1,053Member

    Originally posted by phigety

    so how does this involve the topic of sub fee's and no sub fee's?

     

    I replied about the failed games who because of "lack of profit" closed their doors.

     

    Subs are a thing of the past and should be, as prove, useless for us consumers.

    I think he is in the camp that hated GW1 (I am in that camp).  He then connected the dots that it might be shoddy underfunded development that wasn't supported by monthly fees.  Then he worries about GW2.

    I think that is his argument.  My post was just relating that the perceived quality of GW1 does impact how one feels about GW2, despit4e the fact they are different games.

    GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
    1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
    2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements

«13
Sign In or Register to comment.