Mainloop25 said: If $10/month got you something like, say 200 crystals, 150 jewels, and a random new rare a month, I don't see that breaking the game or pushing it into P2W. I can see a bunch of people going for it, I might even go for that.
bken1234 said: The day ads are introduced is the day I will leave this game -- I have no problem paying microtransactions or a subscription to prevent that. I don't feel this makes me supportive of P2W, rather it makes me an investor in one of my main sources of entertainment. I pay for Spotify to get extra benefits and be ad-free, no reason why I wouldn't do the same here.
FindingHeart8 said: Mainloop25 said: If $10/month got you something like, say 200 crystals, 150 jewels, and a random new rare a month, I don't see that breaking the game or pushing it into P2W. I can see a bunch of people going for it, I might even go for that. in our current mtgpq environment, that amount of additional currency would give the monthly subscribers a significant edge on f2p and selective purchase players. That divide would only increase in the following months.Monthly costs are the reason I never played World of Warcraft and similar MMOs. I'll spend money when I want to spend money, not out of an obligation to remain competitive.
DumasAG said: I understand the argument here, but I think the recent calls for things, particularly the subscription, is more a case of realism than a desire to increase P2P functions of the game. A trend first noticed was a decrease in rewards, and increase in the amount of new cards coming out, and a (slight) increase in cost of newest packs. Most people have felt a little strapped for resources.Rather than fight against the tide to demand things return to the way they were, much less become more F2P, I think people are saying, "IF we have to pay some amount to keep the game moving forward, how about we pay in these ways and stop the choke on resources?" As an added benefit, if the crowd hovering between P2P and F2P pony up a little extra money, in theory that would allow for the game to become friendlier to F2P (and tangentially, I would certainly spend MORE if I was forced to spend LESS). That's perfect-world thinking, of course. In all likelihood, austerity will only ever continue no matter who starts paying more.
span_argoman said: Erm, there was no decrease in resources. The crunch comes from having all the new planeswalkers being available for purchase in rapid succession. It's 2,895 Crystals for H1, H2, J3, Angrath and Vraska over 1.5 months.
Aeroplane said: I'm surprised they don't sell pink stones straight up. Once you have filled your set with all the commons to rares there isn't much incentive to splurge on premium boosters to go for the elusive masterpieces and mythics. They could even have an option of when you attain all commons to rares pinkies become available for purchase. It could be a win win.
Bil said: I occasionally invest in mythic bundles but i always have the feeling that I'm paying too much for a single card and a bunch of currencies ... Which i accept in the end because its a way to support a game i enjoy playing.
Sirchombli said:Erm... Are you still getting rares from new events ? How about 160 jewels with an exclusive bundle? Didn't think so. As another mostly f2p, long time player, we're fine. I can play competitively without a single new card . I'm still getting cards at a far slower rate than usual .Plus, I didn't get a chance to save for rix because it came out the day after the last xln bundle left the vault . The only thing that has remained constant in the current environment is that there are always events that have entry fees and there aren't any rewards that involve the new set . i don't know what you call that, but I call that a decrease in resources. It's not even a push to spend more money. I've locked up my wallet because of it and it's going to take something spectacular to change that.