"I wish the game would just cost $10." - Chris Wilson

Yes, he also said that it would be difficult trying to implement a model like that now.

These are my words as to why, I would think that. For example, some people like myself have already "donated" large sums. It would be argued that this would have to be taken into account somehow.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Yes, he also said that it would be difficult trying to implement a model like that now.

These are my words as to why, I would think that. For example, some people like myself have already "donated" large sums. It would be argued that this would have to be taken into account somehow.

I, like many of you in this thread so far, have already given GGG a large amount of money to support a game we all enjoy playing. I'm not entirely sure why most of you are opposed to a subscription based way of supporting them. What exactly is the downside to this?

Chris wasn't even talking about a subscription anyway so not sure what this thread is about. He was saying it would be $10 or so and that would get you access to the game and more tabs than you get currently. Just a way to stop the abuse that happens in f2p games.

"

HeyCarl wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Yes, he also said that it would be difficult trying to implement a model like that now.

These are my words as to why, I would think that. For example, some people like myself have already "donated" large sums. It would be argued that this would have to be taken into account somehow.

I, like many of you in this thread so far, have already given GGG a large amount of money to support a game we all enjoy playing. I'm not entirely sure why most of you are opposed to a subscription based way of supporting them. What exactly is the downside to this?

Because with the supporter packs, you fork out $1000 or whatever and that's it. You have no further obligations to GGG, they have your money and you have your vanity titles and in-game stuff. With a subscription system it's a lot more time-consuming for no real reason, especially if you're offering rewards for x months in a row. You also don't really own anything you get for subscribing if it goes away when you stop, whereas nobody will be coming to take away your supporter points.

It's just a shit concept and even worse than a flat $10 to play cost.

"

HeyCarl wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Yes, he also said that it would be difficult trying to implement a model like that now.

These are my words as to why, I would think that. For example, some people like myself have already "donated" large sums. It would be argued that this would have to be taken into account somehow.

I, like many of you in this thread so far, have already given GGG a large amount of money to support a game we all enjoy playing. I'm not entirely sure why most of you are opposed to a subscription based way of supporting them. What exactly is the downside to this?

For me personally, I don't play PoE as much as I used to because I hate labyrinth and can't stomach doing labyrinth. That being the case, it would be a total deal breaker for me if they said I had to give $10 per month or something like that.

Talking about it more in general, looking at the steam usage charts for PoE, it seems that a good percentage of the people on Steam play PoE for a few weeks on a new release but then leave until the next release. I'm not sure how subscriptions would impact this population?

I don't believe most of you are getting what I'm trying suggest.
I'm not say the game should move from F2P to P2P. I'm saying it's still free to play but it offers an alternative way of supporting the devs. Instead of just buying ordinary points or buying the expensive supporter packs, you have a different way of contributing to the game we all enjoy, while getting some exclusive rewards. How is that something you guys are against? It's a win-win situation all around.

HeyCarl is suggesting something akin to Patreon. You'll have three options:

1. Buy a supporter pack. That's like commissioning an artist directly.

2. Enroll in the subscription. You get less than commissioning (the supporter packs), but you're still contributing and you get something out of it.

3. Free to play. You get nothing extra 'cause you're paying nothing extra, so just keep on doin' what you're doin'


As a free-to-play player myself, I don't see why that couldn't exist as an option. An in-between for those who want to support but don't have the sum cash to drop on a support pack all at once.

I see reading comprehension is on the decline.

The idea is fine, many F2P games use it successfully, I might even take advantage of it. I personally don't like that if I want to support GGG it's shell out 50$+ or go home.

Getting the same benefits of said supporter pack over the course of 5 months would be fine by me.

This does not take into account those of use who already contribute nor does it account for long absences like the ones I take. No, changing the model now would make people like me quit outright and to stop giving them my money.

I would only sub around holidays when i had time to play and they would lose money from me. In my time off on weekends and stuff I may find another game altogether and not sub at all ever.

This was why I never could get into WoW. I'm too cheap to not get utility from a sub and I didnt. Like after I watched all netflix movies I wanted cancelled them too.