ArenaNet talk:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Monthy Fee & Alternatives

Isn't the whole "no monthly fees" thing one of the main reasons that Guild Wars stands out from other online RPGs? -- Michael the Perfectionist  01:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * holy crap, I forgot to transfer the discussion over!! (Terra Xin 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC))
 * That's funny. I was wondering why nobody had said anything yet. :D -- Michael the Perfectionist  [[Image:User-Michael the Perfectionist Signature.gif]] 01:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved from scratchpad
Ok, it was said ages ago that there wouldn't be a monthly fee in GW2, but i think differently. A monthly fee is required to keep the game a fresh and thus keep players playing. The current state of GW1 is (lets face it): DYING! Players stop playing or simply turn to WoW. GW looses players at the same rate as WoW increase their numbers. Now why is this? Because (in my opinion) there is no money left in ArenaNet. Atleast not any money to keep GW1 alive, all of it goes to GW2. There is loads of good suggestion on the GW1 suggestion page, but none of them get implemented in the game. At this rate, there wont be any players left in GW that is willing to buy GW2 simply because they are afraid the same thing will happen to GW2.

The alternative to a monthly fee would be to have advertising on the login page (everyone that enters the game would see this add, thus making it profitable). This could acctually be something for GW1 aswell. Not a monthly but advertising on the login page. -- Treasure Boy   Talk  05:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO a monthly fee would kill Guild Wars 2 by destroying its' niche, alienating the fanbase and giving casual players an incentive to quit. There are better options, such as buyable content packs. -- Gordon Ecker 06:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for monthly fees lol ppl. People left OGW because they got bored of it and achieved what they could-because it's limmited and WOW is not-but WOW has monthly fees.GW2 will be better than WOW and won't have monthly fees and that's the big + for Anet. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:212.200.220.181 (talk).
 * There is money in Blizzard, there is none in ANet. Although no monthly fees is a big +, its also a big - due to lack of improvement of the game. Developers aren't free (if you didn't know that already), they need money to feed their kids. Its the same with the developers in Blizzard. Blizzard however, can improve and expand WoW because they can afford the developers. ArenaNet seem to fail at that point, and thus the game start dying. Thats why i think they need some way to keep the money flowing so they can keep the game alive, because at this rate, GW is going to die. If you fail to see that, I think you need some new glasses. -- Treasure Boy  [[Image:User T-boy sig.jpg|19px|I love this skill :D]]  Talk  10:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the Guild Wars series broke even well before they racked up 4 million sales, ArenaNet didn't divert most of their resources away from Guild Wars because their business model stopped being profitable, they diverted them due to the developement of Guild Wars 2 and the design issues which became apparent during the developement of Guild Wars Utopia. As for Blizzard, they were raking in huge profits before they released any subscription-based games, and if they didn't trust the business model, they wouldn't be using it for Diablo III. -- Gordon Ecker 11:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As I see you're making urself clever (talking to T-boy)...well friend,no one is rich like u, probably and some ppl can't afford even to buy the game not only to mention to pay it every month. ANet has that in mind and they made this game for ppl to enjoy it without any pressure of monthly fees!212.200.220.181 16:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

GW players -> WoW? lol I guess I must've been WAY out of the loop. /end sarcasm 99.247.17.46 19:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Jarrkha


 * You will laugh, but for some it's true. I myself tired playing GW for some time and now resting my brains in D&D (not online now, table game, yano). Well... Not resting, sorta "vacationing" ^^ Not this is the point, tho. ANet's business policy proven itself worthy, because we got AWESOME quantities of AWESOME content in current GW, you can't argue with that. As for no recent changes: many think that GW is it's best as it's now; even if not, skill rebalancing still running on, so, techically, we are expiriencing changes. Ratys 20:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think some (if not all) of you failed to read this line: ''The alternative to a monthly fee would be to have advertising on the login page (everyone that enters the game would see this add, thus making it profitable). This could acctually be something for GW1 aswell. Not a monthly but advertising on the login page.'' I also stated that advertising could be a way to earn money just for the sake of keeping GW1 alive. Advertising is bought, its not free. Although it might not be any huge amount of money, it would probably make enough money to make it possible to add a few new things to the game (like reworking SF and Tombs). -- Treasure Boy   Talk  16:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In game ADs wouldn't be a bad idea at all but the companies that are been advertised do have Surveys online and to be VERY hones if i see an AD on the login i'm not going to bother with it nor would alot of players. back to the survey if the advertised company surveys and no Sells are been done because of GW ADS the AD may have to be removed. So its a gamble. I my self Going fo My Game and art Desings(almost done^^) would not mind working off the clock to make Tombs better and and make better maps for AB Heck I've alrdy made 16 Maps in 3DS Max Based on the Lux env.--71.98.160.14 05:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Guild Wars isn't "dying" - or in other words, the fact it is losing players is irrelevant considering how said players do not pay a monthly fee, and thus they leaving the game has no impact at all over Arena Net. That's the beauty of Arena Net's business model - how many people are in game does not matter, rather how many people bought the game is what's important. This is a massive design shift from WoW - Blizzard has to keep players around in order to get money from them, and so WoW has to offer content that is very time consuming yet is not hard to create, which translates to grind and other time sinks.
 * In other words, our options are not "paying a monthly fee and getting a fresh game or not paying and having a dying game"; rather, IMO, it's a matter of "paying a monthly fee for the periodical addition of grind or not paying and thus keeping a relatively grind free game". Erasculio 14:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said Erasculio Lashbrook002 15:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said! Im glad I'm in a guild with over 300 members(officer),active too! having a guild of this magnitude made the Title grind, grindless. If i was to work on my titles with out my Guild i would quit the game its no fun. And a big plus im going to college. this game been free of charge, means more money tours studies!^^--161.38.223.219 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

about the "The alternative to a monthly fee would be to have advertising on the login page " idea it would not work I'm fairly sure ANet is smart enough to avoid possible viruses attached to adds that could cripple gameplay like a keylogger etc. would you risk having an add that could be infected and have it send your account/password information to dishonest people whom will hijack your account? their doing a great job coming out with bonus packs etc to bring more profit there is no need for monthly fees cause yes some people do "vacation from it" but eventually they come back either during special events, new expansions, or when their ready to try the mission that made them pull their hair out... again, eventually everyone needs a break to renew their senses before charging in again.(Solitude 04:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC))
 * NOT TRUE, GW is not dieing, but rather that ppl r getting bored of it. if u stop and think about it for a minute, you will find out that there is no point on playing GW anymore. Why? you might ask. Well because you see by playing GW anymore you will gain nothing, because GW is goin to die once GW2 hits the market. Plus by getting all those titles maxed out wat r u geting in return??  By getting the elite armurs, lots of minitures, very coastly destoryer weapons, WHAT ARE YOU GETTING IN RETURN?You know wat ur getting? You are getting something that has to do with GW2!!!!! not GW.  Even if u do get stuff  in GW2, what does it do for u in GW2?????  From what gathered up, it looks like we r getting stuff that dont have any major infulence in GW2.  so i ask u Whats the point in playin??  As for the money makeing part thats pretty simple, because if you all remember Anet did have a "Plan"!!!! And it was called: "Release Of A New Campain Every 6 Months". Which is exactlly what they did for one year.  Then wat?  Then they got the idea of GW2.  Now that really put a stop on "The Plan", because there was no point in creating another campain, so they decide to do the expansion.  Now if they had not gotten the idea of GW2, i think "The Plan" would have really worked; because as we all know that to get the most out of GW you need to have all the games.  If you look at all the builds that are out there, like 80% of them have skills that are all over the "campains". A simple example is the build RaO Thummper . Now this very simple, yet very very very powerful, build DEMANDS you to own all three campains to be able to play it. So if Anet plans to use this "Plan" in GW2, then I think it will keep Anet's pocket pretty full. PLZ also note that they probably wont create stand-alone campains for GW2, so they will be mini expansions. And by knowing what Anet is like, i can conclude that we will not have to buy the previous mini-expansions to play the latest one, but of course we will probably end up buying then any ways. Now i did the math of money Anet probably got in 2006 when they released Factions & NF, here it goes,(in US $). 2(campains) X $60 (price of ea camp)= $120. Now assuming that only half of the players from GW got both campains, which is around 2.5 million players. $120 (price of 2 campains) X 2.5 million (players)= 3 billion $s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Now i also realize that some of the money also goes to the stores, NCsoft, etc. note that Anet probably also gets some money from NCsoft, and NC has a lot of games on the market. Now if i m not mistaken, (if i m then correct me), then paying stores, and others companies does not coast you 1 billion $s!!!! Even if it does then they still have 2 billion left. NOw i know that Anet has around 150 members, so even if they paid them $100,000 a year, Anet will only lose 15 million!! Thats more than most ppl make in their lifetime. Thats not all Anet also gets money from thier In Game Store, which could be a lot of money. And it gets better because the math that I did above is done with Half of GW players, so i m guessing that more will buy the campains. Thats not all i also did the math and found out that if you bought the 2 campains in 2006 then you just paid Anet $10 a month!!!!($120(price of both games)/ 12 months= $10 per month. Thats more then Runescape and $5 less than WOW!!!! Of course at least half of it goes to other companies so, Anet made $5 a month, same as Runescape. Now if anyone this is totally wrong then plz correct me kindly. Also, the math that i did above is in US $, so i m hopeing that Euros + $ blances out low currencies in other contries. but still they would have made a lot of money--74.70.84.170 14:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC) TheRavfour 78

I like the idea of ads on the main page? Hell maybe even on the loading screens? Honestly, I wouldn't even mind 5$/mo+buying the game if they add new content all the time. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Eragon610 (talk).
 * The idea of ads within the game either on the login screen or in load screens is just BAD. Also a large amount of their player base would not be here if there were a monthly fee. I know I wouldn't be. I think ArenaNet is doing just fine, they have a relatively secure, stable game environment, they have provided a very rich game that offers things for players of all level and type of play. Of course after 3 and a half years, some of that content is going to be stale, you as a player need to find ways to refresh it for yourself. Try different builds, different party make ups. To say that it is always up to the company to provide you with new content to keep you entertained is just unimaginative on your part.
 * (edit) @TheRavfour - What are you getting by maxing out titles, and getting cool armor and weapons? You are getting hours of play time. The question you should be asking is what are you losing by doing these things? Pixel gold? Your time? Well, obviously if you are playing a game, you have the time on your hand that you aren't doing anything else with, so why not max out your characters? Why not pimp them out with cool stuff? The fact that it may benefit you in some way if you choose to purchase and play GW2 is just a bonus. Stop being so negative. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 00:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I rather like the idea of ads on the login screen. Maybe along with the announcements could be sponsor messages. Imagine if next to "protect your account" was a paid announcement that would display some kind of promotional banner. I could see companies wanting to buy a space there to give a special GW offer or something.
 * By the way, the idea of monthly fees for GW is laughable. Many (dare I say most) of us here paid upwards of $100 for the four Guild Wars games. I think of it as, they charged us the same price that we would pay for most games, so they already have our money. The same would go for GW2, instead of having a monthly fee it would cost $50. No need for them to alienate half of the player base. 66.91.223.207 06:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Up to one hundred dollars for all four campaigns, wow where are you buying your games from? If you check online stores you will often find guild wars campaigns around the fifteen to twenty dollar price range and brand new (meaning yes they are still sealed and come with all of the goodies just like if you purchased it from a game store or something).William Wallace 04:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think having monthly fees is a bad idea, ESPECIALLY if the game is going for $40 to $70 on release. Now presuming that is what Anet is going to charge for GW2, roughly, if I had to shell out that much money for a game and then on top of that, a fee every month to play, I just wouldn't bother getting the game.

Same goes for in-game advertisements, imo. Ok, so I've shelled out some heavy cash for the game, and I should have to put up with advertisements while playing? Hell no. Ads in games have next to no business being there, what-so-ever. Now I know there's the ad on the character screen for products in the GW Store.... Ya know what? That's fine. It's directly related to the game. But if there is EVER an ad for a product completely unrelated to the GW world(IE: Coke, Pepsi, Mercedes-Benz, etc., etc.(You get my point)), I'm gonna be mighty pissed and someone at ANet will, probably, end up getting a very large piece of my mind. - Raknor  -  Talk  06:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Requesting the source that says that Anet has no money, please. Over 5 million copies of GW sold, averagine $50 per copy (GWEN was less, collectors editions more) is about $250 million spread out over the past 3.5 years?  Add in the downloadable stuff, and even after expenses, I highly doubt Anets coffers are empty.  GW1 is dieing because, lets face it, it was really just a giant experiment for Anet.  Their first game as a company, so yeah, it wasnt going to be perfect.  IMHO, GW is less than stellar atm because they are pouring all their resources/manpower into GW2. Quite frankly they probably dont give a fuck about GW1 anymore, they just want people to stick around long enough to remember GW when GW2 comes out.  Anet is doing very well if they are selling more than 1 million copies per year. Plenty of other game companies pull in less reveune and are still ticking; hell, take a look at Ataris profits over the past few years.  Also add in that Anet isnt its own company, its part of NCsoft, and I doubt anyone here knows how exactly Anet is funded.  They could operate on a set budget that NCsoft gives them, who knows?

tl;dr, Show me proof that Anet is poor before screaming "Give them more money." Too lazy to spell check this so bite me.--Ryudo 07:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

TheRavfour 78, your math was off by a mile an a light year buddy...--Ryudo 07:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

GW1 still has much to offer. It is however thwarted by a few issues. Anet seems to be losing touch with the fact that GW is a game, primarily used for fun and relaxation. Eye of the north was brilliant, but why was the Mission Bonus Pack and other later quest additions made so hard. I want to play - not work. The titles were a great addition, but regarding some (the Zaishen title for example), If a player manages to earn or buy 5 keys per day (say 25K)it would take just under 11 years to max the title, What sort of nonsense is that? Where is the incentive to go for that title, and not everyone wants to play in the tournaments. Let's see some balance in the title system. Let's see another "FUN" expansion released (happy to pay for that to keep GW1 alive, and Anet seeing a continuing income) I alone actively play 11 accounts and have the resources to update all of those (Although NEVER thru PLAYNC / NCsoft). Yes, thats another issue, lets allow players to add slots and upgrades etc without being forced thru the PlayNC system, which results in having LOGIN control removed from ones account. We need to be able to buy in-game without having our accounts detrimentally affected. Players leaving GW1 now will have no immediate effect on Anet income, however we cannot assume that all these players will return when GW2 is released, once they are submersed in alternative games. We need to keep these players here, now. Rampage 12:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Anet has got other games than GW for which you do need to pay monthly fee. So Anet probably gets it's money from those games. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.173.131.5 (talk).

No, those are NCsoft's games. NCsoft owns Arenanet which is a separate company. And just to let you know, Guild Wars 1 will be kept up indefinately after GW2's release. So you can still play it if you don't like GW2. (Not likely, but personally, I'm going to go back every once in a while for nostaliga.70.71.240.170 22:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If monthly fee is implemented
Then why not play WoW instead? Napalm Flame 13:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So do you actually think anyone plays WoW so they can pay a monthly fee, or are you just acting stupid? -- Inspired to ____ 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you're the stupid one. The whole point is, WoW is the best pay-per-month game ever. Napalm Flame 14:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

this is about guildwars not world of warcraft if you have a problem with guildwars blab about it to someone who cares,this is for suggestions for guildwars 2 not "flame each other cause i like a different game" (198.53.83.236 15:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

Many people don't have the option to play games that have a mothly fee. And that is a big amout of players, so having a monthly fee would cut out those players. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.93.147.200 (talk).
 * Don't split up others' posts. -- Gordon Ecker 09:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

More moved talk

 * That acctualy makes sence, trivial stuff like custom trinkets and capes that is in no way requiered to play normaly or do not give HUGE advantage would be quite nice, I have no idea how #2 will work thougth. Biz 08:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The 2. is basically like Age of Conan, except requires paying leaders to own a faction, which grants him siege weapons, whereas non-paying players can be recruited as mercenaries or go on his own. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:68.146.216.67 (talk).

the whole bidding with real cash is just betting that could be easily done by a 12 year old that just says they're 18, and presto chango that kid gets 5000$ dollars illeagaly, lets just say you came in second, and you WERE doing it legally, but this kid lies to play and you lose 2500$, would you want that or would you rather just have him keep the cash? I know i sure as hell wouldn't, unless a-net checked,which they probably wouldn't, (unless they used pay pal or w/e it is or something like that) but i doubt they would.Diescumbag 20:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, current buying products is limited to credit cards, which only adults have. Besides, if the kid really did get the hands on a credit card, whats to stop him in doing anything? My point is this won't make guild wars more vulnerable, it will just add an oportunity to those who already are capable of criminal actions. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:68.146.216.67 (talk).
 * Many jurisdictions have strict betting and gambling regulations. -- Gordon Ecker 07:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, im gonna remove #3 --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:68.146.216.67 (talk).

NO!!!!!!!!!!!
This idea stinks!!!!! I don't have any type of income, so for me it would be good bye Guild Wars! Ps: How do I add a cool little tag thing at the end of my posts? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Unendingfear (talk).
 * See Guild Wars Wiki:Sign your comments for instructions. -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Unendingfear 22:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)]

NONONONONONONO!!!!That would get rid of half of the guild wars population, the teenagers 12-15. With the real world economy the way it is, this is a terrible idea. It would also ruin the gw tradition of NO MONTHLY FEES!!!!! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Hholy mim (talk).
 * Cutting the 12-15 year old demographic is the only real plus side of the monthly fee argument. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.198.133.124 (talk).
 * You'd think, but no. Backsword 22:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)