Guild Wars 2

Vayne, I want to show you something.

In the last CDI (Horizontal progression) he had been talking about multiple ways of horizontal progression. One of the things that came up where the hunt for ranger pets. When talking about that I was searching for some examples and came across this website. http://www.wow-petopia.com/browse/browse.html

It’s a whole site purely dedicated to ranger pets in WoW. And much is purely about the a different skin and it then tells you where to get them. While many of those pets just have the same stats.

It does proof that there is a very very big player-base interested in exactly this sort of activity. Not just stats but hunting down rare or fun or cool or full collections of items or in this case ranger pets. A pink moa might not be any stronger then a yellow moa but still some people might want that pink moa because it’s pink or because it’s rare or whatever. That is there idea of fun. That is there game-play. For some it’s about stats for some it’s about these sort of things.

And trust me, if many people really think skins are just crap Anet would not be selling enough of it so that also proofs it’s more then just extra junk. But after some time people will get burned out of grinding gold and buying the rare / cool looking skin/ mini / dye (they might be already seeing that now and that might be the reason to now add stats to items). Thats also why I said this might be a good tactic to squeeze out money now and then move on to the next game, but that it’s not a good tactic for the long run.

Devata.6589:

But after some time people will get burned out of grinding gold and buying the rare / cool looking skin/ mini / dye (they might be already seeing that now and that might be the reason to now add stats to items). Thats also why I said this might be a good tactic to squeeze out money now and then move on to the next game, but that it’s not a good tactic for the long run.

I am at this point, honestly. I’m tired of grinding gold for everything I want. Want a legendary? grind gold. Want a different skin? grind gold. Want to craft something worth using? grind gold. Want a Mini? Grind gold. and on and on and on.
There is not one item I have across 8 characters and in 2000+ hours of playing that I obtained through a drop, and with the exception of two ascended weapons, not one item I have crafted was one that I wanted (as far as skin type goes).

Such long arguments without bringing up the main game that is the successful model of FTP with micro-transactions. The one game that has influenced and shown that FTP with micro-transactions is more profitable than Subcription and Expansion models.

League of Legends is the most played game in the world with more people spending money on it than World of Warcraft subscription model from what I read somewhere (if i can find that article i well post it).

GW2 is using BTP with a microtransaction model. This means you have pay to play the game first than after that only items in the gem store are cosmetic or convenience items. Not sure why you guys are saying this is a bad model considering they are in no way forcing you to buy anything with real money from the gem store that you can not get inside of the game itself. There are 0 P2W items in the gem store to date.

P2W is “Games that let you buy better gear or allow you to make better items then everyone else at a faster rate and then makes the game largely unbalanced even for people who have the skill in the game without paying.” http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pay-to-win

There are no items in the gem store that allow you to gain anything at a faster rate than someone who has the skill in the game (expect for gold with gem to gold Conversion). You can not buy anything using microtransactions within the gem store that will allow you get anything faster or unbalances the game in any shape or form.

Take a look at League of Legends development and bug fixing. There is less known bugs in League of Legends than there is World of Warcraft. FTP vs. Subcription. I know they are different types of games but in all honesty there is not many large development companies making high quality FTP MMORPG games that are not P2W. Most high quality MMORPGs are subscription or were made for subscription based model.

Guild Wars 2 is trying to keep people interested in the game by using Living Story which means new content every 2 weeks. They choose this model as they noticed a drop in the player base every 2 week after new content updates. So they went from monthly updates to biweekly updates.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Maybe, the model that ‘worked so good’ for GW1, was working because GW1 was a much smaller game, and a different kind of game. Maybe, having used that model before, ArenaNet has information (that we do not) indicating that model would not work so well with GW2. Maybe, as a compromise, they included the ‘gold-to-gem’ transaction method as a way to ‘marry’ the two. Maybe, they have a long-term plan we know nothing about. Maybe, as experienced game developers, they know more about the whole subject than we do.

Maybe, ….just maybe.

GW1 was by no means a smaller project than GW2.

The best idea is to launch GW1 and you will, de facto, feel how small GW2 feels compared to GW1.

Not to mention, quite off the topic, that GW1 is one of the best selling PC MMOs ( if I remember correctly, 2nd best selling MMO ) with over 8 mln copies sold.

Suddenflame.2601:

Such long arguments without bringing up the main game that is the successful model of FTP with micro-transactions. The one game that has influenced and shown that FTP with micro-transactions is more profitable than Subcription and Expansion models.

League of Legends is the most played game in the world with more people spending money on it than World of Warcraft subscription model from what I read somewhere (if i can find that article i well post it).

We never said it would not be profitable and we did talk about how RPG game have many elements and thats why micro-transactions will always effect a MMORPG. So thats different with LoL. I don’t know enough about there cash-shop to go into details there.

Suddenflame.2601:

GW2 is using BTP with a microtransaction model. This means you have pay to play the game first than after that only items in the gem store are cosmetic or convenience items. Not sure why you guys are saying this is a bad model considering they are in no way forcing you to buy anything with real money from the gem store that you can not get inside of the game itself. There are 0 P2W items in the gem store to date.

P2W is “Games that let you buy better gear or allow you to make better items then everyone else at a faster rate and then makes the game largely unbalanced even for people who have the skill in the game without paying.” http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pay-to-win

If you had read the thread you would have seen that it’s not about P2W but how a focus on micro-transactions (Also with NO P2W items) will effect the game (and depending on your play-style) in a negative way.

Corpus Christi.2057:

GW1 was by no means a smaller project than GW2.

The best idea is to launch GW1 and you will, de facto, feel how small GW2 feels compared to GW1.

Not to mention, quite off the topic, that GW1 is one of the best selling PC MMOs ( if I remember correctly, 2nd best selling MMO ) with over 8 mln copies sold.

Uh… yes… it was. GW1 was a LOT smaller project, in fact.

More goes into a game than just the “physical size” of the world (and even then, if you were to take off the rose-colored glasses, you’d discover Prophecies, which is the closest analogy to the base GW2 game, is smaller even on that score).

Arena.net increased their employment something like 500-600% for this game. It was a much larger investment in manpower, time, and size. To claim otherwise shows you have no idea what game development entails.

chemiclord.3978:

Corpus Christi.2057:

GW1 was by no means a smaller project than GW2.

The best idea is to launch GW1 and you will, de facto, feel how small GW2 feels compared to GW1.

Not to mention, quite off the topic, that GW1 is one of the best selling PC MMOs ( if I remember correctly, 2nd best selling MMO ) with over 8 mln copies sold.

Uh… yes… it was. GW1 was a LOT smaller project, in fact.

More goes into a game than just the “physical size” of the world (and even then, if you were to take off the rose-colored glasses, you’d discover Prophecies, which is the closest analogy to the base GW2 game, is smaller even on that score).

Arena.net increased their employment something like 500-600% for this game. It was a much larger investment in manpower, time, and size. To claim otherwise shows you have no idea what game development entails.

But like we said before the size does not really matter. Expansion based models (or models that look like it, like many non MMORPG games that release a new version ever 2 years) have proven to work for smaller and bigger and middle-size projects.

Because that’s what the whole “size of project” question was all about. Inculpatus cedo commented that maybe the model that worked so well for GW1 would not work for GW2 because GW2 was a bigger project. Then I did refer to some really big projects like GTA and Battlefield that use similar looking payment-models.

So the question if GW2 is a big project or not is not really the question anymore as that seems less relevant for the question how micro-transactions effect the game and how the expansion-based model might be better (in my view).

One point about the issue of there being no more need for quality in an expansion than exists for micro-transaction items: The reason micro-transactions affect the game negatively and promote lazy/poor/cheap design is because of the quantity. If a company is going to make an expansion, they have that one expansion item to create and get right. All the parts of it need to work together to follow it’s theme, etc. Any given part of it that might be broken would need to be patched, and the company, having sold the expansion, would be pushed to do so, or risk having people choose not to pay the money for the expansion.
With micro-transactions, like in GW2, they get to do the “throw it at the wall and see what sticks” method. They throw cheap stuff together and put it on the gem store and see what sells. If something doesn’t sell, they can remove it. If it’s broken, they can ignore it because it only represents a small amount of money.

Corpus Christi.2057:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Maybe, the model that ‘worked so good’ for GW1, was working because GW1 was a much smaller game, and a different kind of game. Maybe, having used that model before, ArenaNet has information (that we do not) indicating that model would not work so well with GW2. Maybe, as a compromise, they included the ‘gold-to-gem’ transaction method as a way to ‘marry’ the two. Maybe, they have a long-term plan we know nothing about. Maybe, as experienced game developers, they know more about the whole subject than we do.

Maybe, ….just maybe.

GW1 was by no means a smaller project than GW2.

The best idea is to launch GW1 and you will, de facto, feel how small GW2 feels compared to GW1.

Not to mention, quite off the topic, that GW1 is one of the best selling PC MMOs ( if I remember correctly, 2nd best selling MMO ) with over 8 mln copies sold.

Except that it wasn’t an MMO and launched at a time with no competition. If WoW launched today it wouldnt’ be what it is now. Neither would Guild Wars 1.

Vayne.8563:

Corpus Christi.2057:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Maybe, the model that ‘worked so good’ for GW1, was working because GW1 was a much smaller game, and a different kind of game. Maybe, having used that model before, ArenaNet has information (that we do not) indicating that model would not work so well with GW2. Maybe, as a compromise, they included the ‘gold-to-gem’ transaction method as a way to ‘marry’ the two. Maybe, they have a long-term plan we know nothing about. Maybe, as experienced game developers, they know more about the whole subject than we do.

Maybe, ….just maybe.

GW1 was by no means a smaller project than GW2.

The best idea is to launch GW1 and you will, de facto, feel how small GW2 feels compared to GW1.

Not to mention, quite off the topic, that GW1 is one of the best selling PC MMOs ( if I remember correctly, 2nd best selling MMO ) with over 8 mln copies sold.

Except that it wasn’t an MMO and launched at a time with no competition. If WoW launched today it wouldnt’ be what it is now. Neither would Guild Wars 1.

I’d have to agree with this statement if only because Jeff Strain basically said that they were positioning themselves in a market where they were the only big game in town not charging a subscription fee when they were launching Guild Wars 1. That just isn’t true today. The market is vastly different with MMOs that offer subscription only, subscription/cash shop, F2P/cash shop, and B2P/Cash shop. The numbers and what people find acceptable have changed. I mean, really, these arguments about how the cash shop affects GW2 would probably be better suited towards suggestions about how to improve it and improve your experience with it (as some people have been doing already) instead of the merits of an expansion only model. Or simply find a game with a subscription, because realistically, that seems to be the only real world analog to what some people seem to be asking for. With how payment models, customer perception, and MMOs have transformed, you may as well be asking for a VCR when everyone else is using blu-ray. Ain’t nothing wrong with a standard def VCR, but it’s a relic of a different era of experience and values.

nightwulf.1986:

I mean, really, these arguments about how the cash shop affects GW2 would probably be better suited towards suggestions about how to improve it and improve your experience with it (as some people have been doing already) instead of the merits of an expansion only model. Or simply find a game with a subscription, because realistically, that seems to be the only real world analog to what some people seem to be asking for.

This is pretty much how I feel as well. I really don’t expect any of this discussion to have any relevance to the game now. It’s done; it’s not changing. At best, perhaps people from Anet will read it and try to minimize the areas we are complaining about when they develop future content. They haven’t given any reason so far to think that they will; we’ll see how this CDI thing turns out when there’s been a full dev cycle or two behind it. Here’s hoping, I guess.

As to the second point, my ‘home game’ is still EVE Online, and being subscription only is one of the reasons I keep going back to it. I had big ambitions when GW2 released, based on the Beta and the promo material. I’ve been playing EVE for a long time and it just plain gets boring after a while; I wanted a new mmo I could dig into, and I have a soft spot for sword/sorcery type games. I came to GW2 fully prepared to buy $10-20 of gems per month to support it. Instead, since release I have paid nothing at all beyond the box price. I’m truly curious how much money they lost from the Ascended gear debacle; did the customers they kept outweigh the ones they lost? We’ll probably never know.

So I log in, play around, have a little fun exploring the world, level up an alt for an hour or two, then I’m off to games with more depth and less tendency to throw bling in my face. I will certainly be staying away from other F2P games in the future as well; GW2 has kind of poisoned the water for me.

I think my point here and I’ve made it elsewhere as well….the entire industry has changed. Expectations of the playerbase has changed. More is demanded now.

If you add all all the voice acting in Prophecies and compare it with all the voice acting in Guild Wars 2, you’d find Guild Wars 2 had TONS more voice acting that Prophecies, which is massively expensive. The cost of making games today is higher than it was years ago.

Guild Wars 1 had a staff of 50. Guild Wars 2 has a staff of over 300. It meant moving to bigger digs, probably with higher rent.

I was in the publishing industry for part of my life, and it has changed dramatically from the 60s till now. There was a time when selling 200,000 copies of a book was profitable. Now it’s not. That’s why all the books you see are basically copies of all the other books. There’s very little new and different coming out. Risk vs reward. The risks are too high.

It’s why the MMO genre is so stagant. It’s a huge risk to try to innovate. It’s why when things aren’t looking good, businesses look to the tried and true. They can’t afford the risk.

So today, due to cost, every game has to do something to be competitive. What works eight years ago isn’t likely to work today. Buy to play in a time when everyone is charging subs, is very different from buy to play at a time when there are dozens of free to play MMOs floating around.

You need more content faster, or you lose the low attention span crowd and the content burners.

People who want a deeper game are going to have problems moving forward in general I think.

The difference however is that the limitations on F2P games are huge, essentially forcing you to spend money if you just want to enjoy yourself. Pay gated content or classes. Extremely limited inventory space with a long hike back to anyplace you can sell or store it. Limited range of items, limited customization.

It’s the difference between those traveling carnivals where each ride has a ticket booth vs the fix price day pass at the big amusement parks with unlimited rides. Sure the parks can still soak you for food and drink but you don’t have to stand in a line to by a ticket to stand in a line to use one. Plus you have rides maned by disinterested teenagers versus traveling serial killers carnies.

We go one step beyond that, lifetime pass.

Devata, casual players often don’t have time to work for stuff in game and WANT to buy it.

You keep saying there are more casual players in the game than hard core players. I agree with that. But many casual players really don’t want to grind. As much as I play I’m more of a casual player than you’d think. I care more about minis and cosmetic stuff than I do about stats, and always have.

But I don’t want to be stuck running the same content over and over to get it, because that’s not fun for me.

I spent a boatload of time running Bogroot Growths in Guild Wars 1 for a Frog Scepter. I never got one. Never. Talk about a waste of time.

And many casual players can’t compete with time but by the same token, many have jobs and can compete with money.

But taking those things out of the cash shop, I’m guessing you’d inconvenience more casual players than you’d help.

nightwulf.1986:

Vayne.8563:

Corpus Christi.2057:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Maybe, the model that ‘worked so good’ for GW1, was working because GW1 was a much smaller game, and a different kind of game. Maybe, having used that model before, ArenaNet has information (that we do not) indicating that model would not work so well with GW2. Maybe, as a compromise, they included the ‘gold-to-gem’ transaction method as a way to ‘marry’ the two. Maybe, they have a long-term plan we know nothing about. Maybe, as experienced game developers, they know more about the whole subject than we do.

Maybe, ….just maybe.

GW1 was by no means a smaller project than GW2.

The best idea is to launch GW1 and you will, de facto, feel how small GW2 feels compared to GW1.

Not to mention, quite off the topic, that GW1 is one of the best selling PC MMOs ( if I remember correctly, 2nd best selling MMO ) with over 8 mln copies sold.

Except that it wasn’t an MMO and launched at a time with no competition. If WoW launched today it wouldnt’ be what it is now. Neither would Guild Wars 1.

I’d have to agree with this statement if only because Jeff Strain basically said that they were positioning themselves in a market where they were the only big game in town not charging a subscription fee when they were launching Guild Wars 1. That just isn’t true today. The market is vastly different with MMOs that offer subscription only, subscription/cash shop, F2P/cash shop, and B2P/Cash shop. The numbers and what people find acceptable have changed. I mean, really, these arguments about how the cash shop affects GW2 would probably be better suited towards suggestions about how to improve it and improve your experience with it (as some people have been doing already) instead of the merits of an expansion only model. Or simply find a game with a subscription, because realistically, that seems to be the only real world analog to what some people seem to be asking for. With how payment models, customer perception, and MMOs have transformed, you may as well be asking for a VCR when everyone else is using blu-ray. Ain’t nothing wrong with a standard def VCR, but it’s a relic of a different era of experience and values.

The expansion model can not be compared to a VCR, thats just silly.
For non MMORPG it’s also today the most used model (I count a game that releases a new version every 2 years in stead of a expansions also in the same model because it’s very similar)

The whole idea of improvements for the cash-shop is nice. I also said that if you would only sell access to beta content and items like name-changers or character slots (so items that will not be from inside the world) you would not effect the game-play for anybody. However if the company generates there main income with only such items they won’t generate enough income. That would be nice as some extra income maybe next to a expansion-based model but won’t work as a main source of income.

The only way to make the cash-shop good enough to generate main income it will always effect some part of the player-base.

This game has been promoted and released as B2P (While at this moment it’s more micro-transaction based with the required to buy, but the main income is not from the box-sales so you can’t really call it just B2P anymore) and was released as a game for casual gamers (who usually like the things now most effect by the cash-shop focus) and came from a company that had a big name mainly because of there true B2P payment-model.. so expansion-based as we came to name it in this thread.

Then I think it’s a valid question to indeed rethink the cash-shop focus and switch to a expansion-based model.

And nobody here was asking for a subscription based model, but I guess you refer to that because the question to pretty much have anything in-game. And you are right thats not possible with a F2P model, only with subscription or expansion-based model. Thats also why just suggestion improvements for the micro-transaction based model will simply not work.

Rhyse.8179:

nightwulf.1986:

I mean, really, these arguments about how the cash shop affects GW2 would probably be better suited towards suggestions about how to improve it and improve your experience with it (as some people have been doing already) instead of the merits of an expansion only model. Or simply find a game with a subscription, because realistically, that seems to be the only real world analog to what some people seem to be asking for.

This is pretty much how I feel as well. I really don’t expect any of this discussion to have any relevance to the game now. It’s done; it’s not changing. At best, perhaps people from Anet will read it and try to minimize the areas we are complaining about when they develop future content. They haven’t given any reason so far to think that they will; we’ll see how this CDI thing turns out when there’s been a full dev cycle or two behind it. Here’s hoping, I guess.

But with this attitude you could just as well also not ask to improve the cash-shop (as far as thats even possible). Because it is the way it is.

Well I think thats the wrong attitude.

Like I said before, they promoted this game as B2P, they promoted this game as casual and they had a big name with expansion-based models. So then I think it’s fair to ask for what you might have expected. An expansion-based model. The might indeed not change it but at least they can not say that people never asked for it when things start to go downhill. And maybe, just maybe they will change it and turn this game into the right direction again. I really don’t see that happen as long as the main question for the monetize people is “how do we get them to buy gems” and that is the whole problem.

Vayne.8563:

I think my point here and I’ve made it elsewhere as well….the entire industry has changed. Expectations of the playerbase has changed. More is demanded now.

If you add all all the voice acting in Prophecies and compare it with all the voice acting in Guild Wars 2, you’d find Guild Wars 2 had TONS more voice acting that Prophecies, which is massively expensive. The cost of making games today is higher than it was years ago.

Guild Wars 1 had a staff of 50. Guild Wars 2 has a staff of over 300. It meant moving to bigger digs, probably with higher rent.

There is also a bigger audience (thats the main reason the gaming industry changed) so that levels each other out pretty well one would think.

Vayne.8563:

So today, due to cost, every game has to do something to be competitive. What works eight years ago isn’t likely to work today. Buy to play in a time when everyone is charging subs, is very different from buy to play at a time when there are dozens of free to play MMOs floating around.

There are indeed many F2P models. Thats exactly why a expansion-based model could work. Those who don’t like the quality or F2P games but also don’t like a timer over there head (sub-based) will go to the ‘real’ B2P game. Thats the main reason I did come to GW2 but sadly enough I did then see GW2 also turn into a micro-transaction based model and so getting the same problems as all the F2P games have.

Vayne.8563:

You need more content faster, or you lose the low attention span crowd and the content burners.

People who want a deeper game are going to have problems moving forward in general I think.

Wait you are basically saying here. ‘Yes you are right, the quality does suffer from it. But heey thats how the world works today, learn to life with it’.

Well it’s nice that you agree but I am not the sort of person who watches things become worse and then does not say anything about it or does try to do anything about it. Even if it’s something small like making this thread.

I am glad to see that we do agree on the fact that it effects the way but I we disagree on the idea of waving the white flag. I’m not willing to.

Even if this game does not change and a ‘developer’ from another game reads this and decide to give that the expansion-based model a try for his upcoming MMORPG and thats a success then this thread has a positive effect. But I would prefer it if GW2 made the needed changes. But there will be no white flag here.

Vayne.8563:

Devata, casual players often don’t have time to work for stuff in game and WANT to buy it.

You keep saying there are more casual players in the game than hard core players. I agree with that. But many casual players really don’t want to grind. As much as I play I’m more of a casual player than you’d think. I care more about minis and cosmetic stuff than I do about stats, and always have.

But I don’t want to be stuck running the same content over and over to get it, because that’s not fun for me.

I spent a boatload of time running Bogroot Growths in Guild Wars 1 for a Frog Scepter. I never got one. Never. Talk about a waste of time.

And many casual players can’t compete with time but by the same token, many have jobs and can compete with money.

But taking those things out of the cash shop, I’m guessing you’d inconvenience more casual players than you’d help.

Getting those items now is indeed buying or grinding by doing the same thing over and over again (grinding gold or grinding temporary available achievements).

Yes casual players might play less hours but they still want to play the game don’t they? Buying an item is not playing, it’s not having fun. It’s nice to then have the items but that’s it. The main reason they would buy imho is because they want that mini and indeed don’t have the option to get it because it will be gone soon (as why we see the many temporary available items.. the monetize team does know exactly what they are doing) or because they need to grind grind and grind even more gold to get them, for every mini pretty much the same content but never going for the mini directly.

That will work but only to a point where people start to get annoyed by it and stop doing it.

When collecting mini’s that are in the world it does not feel dull.. Yeah for sure if one mini requires you to kill one type of mob in one area for +- 5000 times then that gets very boring. But then you kill it 100 times and then go for another mini that requires other ways to get it and when you up to it then you return back to that ‘5000 kills mini’.

Once you then indeed do get the mini you want you will have this epic feeling of getting it and are very proud to have it. A feeling you will never get from buying it.

So yes casual gamers have less time but the time they are online they want to play. Not buy the collections.. thats not fun, is it? Going into the world to collect them is the fun “playing” many are looking for imho. And it would also mean Anet has enough time to create there expansion because collecting the mini’s will keep people busy for a long time.

One again.. I use mini’s here as an example for many item.. but you know that by now

I think what Vayne is getting at here is that you’re NEVER going to see an MMO solely run off an expansion model again (and even by the end of GW1 it was running a cash shop as well). It’s going to be tied with something else that will provide you with a more stable and constant revenue stream. And I’d argue it has to… the cost of making a game has gone up nigh exponentially, and requires much larger staffs to accomplish what the player base demands.

So the question now becomes, “what constant stream do you prefer”, because each one has their strengths and weaknesses. It’s not “cash store or expansion” because pretty much EVERY MMO maker’s answer is going to be “Both.”

The question is “cash store or subscription?” And even THAT might not be accurate, because Activision/Blizzard answered THAT question with “Both” as well.

Devata.6589:

The expansion model can not be compared to a VCR, thats just silly.
For non MMORPG it’s also today the most used model (I count a game that releases a new version every 2 years in stead of a expansions also in the same model because it’s very similar)
{snip}
And nobody here was asking for a subscription based model, but I guess you refer to that because the question to pretty much have anything in-game. And you are right thats not possible with a F2P model, only with subscription or expansion-based model. Thats also why just suggestion improvements for the micro-transaction based model will simply not work.

To that first statement, if you are excluding cell phone games for a reason, please elaborate. One of the biggest single player and multi-player, non-mmo consumer base expansions into the videogame market (a.k.a. cell phone games) has adopted the microtransaction model almost as a standard across the board. Not to mention that many of those non-mmo games that don’t primarily use microtransactions have adopted the DLC model which is meant to support the game beyond the standard expansion model. Often times creating content which consumers believe to be far less than an expansion, and yet still finds some financial success. That is to say, I disagree with the premises on which you base using non-mmorpg games as a golden example of a working model for an expansion only game that you keep referring to. Even traditionally “expansion only” games like Tekken, Dead or Alive, and Soul Calibur are experimenting with moving into the microtransaction funded model and, so far, it appears that they are finding success with people supporting them. Times are changing and even that market has new competition in payment models.

And to this second point, some people in this thread have said as much that they wanted to move on to a subscription game because they feel that it offers them pros and cons that they prefer to deal with over those of a B2P/F2P. And again, it’s already been argued that the subscription game model and expansion models have variations from company to company and other drawbacks to them, just as a free to play model does and can negatively impact the gameplay and community as well. That is not to say that it is all negative, but I still feel like you are pushing the expansion model as an objectively better choice when it clearly isn’t. I think someone said it earlier, and I agree, but what I think you are really hoping for is for a company who doesn’t have a profit motive behind their design choices. Because with that, you can have an awesome free to play model, subscription model, etc. that doesn’t negatively impact the game in the ways you describe. It’s just, well, that I feel it’s unlikely you are going to find these choices implemented in the manner you describe in any company/publisher who’s not willing to take a big risk. Ideally, the company would just create a game that has an awesome story and gameplay and you can play for an unlimited amount of time without having to worry about spending money. But they have to get your money to keep going, and however they implement it, someone, maybe not you, isn’t going to like it.

Devata.6589:

There is also a bigger audience (thats the main reason the gaming industry changed) so that levels each other out pretty well one would think.
[/quote]

I’m not sure what makes you think it balances out. I mean is there evidence of this?

There are ten times the number of MMOs (well over that most likely) but there aren’t ten times the number of MMO players, of that I’m relatively sure. There are more gamers over all, but face it, more people play League of Legends than WoW. Same with Call of Duty.

The problem is most MMOs are computer games and computer game sales are going DOWN, not up as an overall percentage of gaming sales. To prove that point, Bethesda, before releasing Skyrim, said they expected 90% of their sales to come from consoles, not computers.

So more gamers, but maybe not so many more computer gamers, and of those, not necessarily so many more MMO players. You can’t say really believe it balances out.I’m not sure what makes you think it balances out. I mean is there evidence of this?

There are ten times the number of MMOs (well over that most likely) but there aren’t ten times the number of MMO players, of that I’m relatively sure. There are more gamers over all, but face it, more people play League of Legends than WoW. Same with Call of Duty.

The problem is most MMOs are computer games and computer game sales are going DOWN, not up as an overall percentage of gaming sales. To prove that point, Bethesda, before releasing Skyrim, said they expected 90% of their sales to come from consoles, not computers.

So more gamers, but maybe not so many more computer gamers, and of those, not necessarily so many more MMO players. You can’t say really believe it balances out.

FTP/BTP is simply a monetization model as opposed to the sub-model. There is a cash shop or real money action house. And the game developer makes their money on the purchases of players.

In order for players to feel the need to purchase anything reward needs to first be sucked out of the game. Does it work? I’d say no as players generally play games to experience, in part, reward for play. I’d also point to Diablo 3 as it’s the first game I’ve played that completely made the player responsible for reward. Now, they are completely reversing themselves, removing the action houses, and rebooting the loot system to “2.0”. They intend to reward players for playing the game.

Is it working for GW2? I have no numbers but I doubt it. Just like I had no numbers for D3, but knew it wasn’t working. It will be interesting to see how the model works out as I don’t believe it works.

Raine, the problem is, it DOES work. It works for facebook games. It works for games like Candy Corn Crush, where you can buy power. Pay to win actually works. That, unfortunately, is the problem.

For everyone person who takes games seriously, there’s someone who thinks that taking out your credit card is a valid way to play. More to the point, younger generations of players are trained this way.

Both of my sons, in their 20s, think nothing of taking out a credit card to buy stuff to use inside a game, instead of “earning” it, which is what I prefer to do.

I think you’ll find that the shift is toward people buying wins, not away from it. More’s the shame.

chemiclord.3978:

I think what Vayne is getting at here is that you’re NEVER going to see an MMO solely run off an expansion model again (and even by the end of GW1 it was running a cash shop as well). It’s going to be tied with something else that will provide you with a more stable and constant revenue stream. And I’d argue it has to… the cost of making a game has gone up nigh exponentially, and requires much larger staffs to accomplish what the player base demands.

So the question now becomes, “what constant stream do you prefer”, because each one has their strengths and weaknesses. It’s not “cash store or expansion” because pretty much EVERY MMO maker’s answer is going to be “Both.”

The question is “cash store or subscription?” And even THAT might not be accurate, because Activision/Blizzard answered THAT question with “Both” as well.

I agree. Making games may be a passion as well as a job for game developers, but for the backers, it’s a way of making money. We can debate all we want about the value inherent in subscription, B2P+expansion, B2P+shop or F2P. That doesn’t change the fact that the companies behind the developer have one goal, and the developer will be nudged to whichever model looks more profitable.

Since virtual items in cash shops sell, the more profitable model will most likely include a shop. I expect that if GW2 were to sell expansions, the game would still include a shop. Blizz has a sub, a shop, and charges for expansions, after all.

Given that shops are not going away, I believe the best we as consumers can expect is a shop that does not sell in-game advantages. On that front, the GW2 shop has done pretty well. If you aren’t selling in-game power, pretty much the only things left to sell are cosmetics and convenience, and for the most part, that’s what we get.

chemiclord.3978:

I think what Vayne is getting at here is that you’re NEVER going to see an MMO solely run off an expansion model again (and even by the end of GW1 it was running a cash shop as well). It’s going to be tied with something else that will provide you with a more stable and constant revenue stream. And I’d argue it has to… the cost of making a game has gone up nigh exponentially, and requires much larger staffs to accomplish what the player base demands.

So the question now becomes, “what constant stream do you prefer”, because each one has their strengths and weaknesses. It’s not “cash store or expansion” because pretty much EVERY MMO maker’s answer is going to be “Both.”

The question is “cash store or subscription?” And even THAT might not be accurate, because Activision/Blizzard answered THAT question with “Both” as well.

I know what Vayne is getting at but an expansion every year / year and a half is also a steady flow of income. In a way it’s even similar to a subscription based model because you can expect to pretty much having to pay an x amount every year / year and a half. Biggest difference is not having a timer over your head.

BTW having a cash-shop next to that that only sells some extra services like access to beta events and name changers and character slots would be fine. But the moment you are generating you main income from a cash-shop you really will have to try and get people to buy stuff from the cash-shop (by game-play tactics of specific items) and then it will effect the game.

Yes games have become much bigger but so have the communities. That levels each other out pretty well.

So no, I don’t believe it has to be sub or cash-shop but expansion-based won’t be an option. I think is very well is an option and I think there are enough games proving it is. It’s just not being used a lot in the MMORPG genre.

Devata.6589:

chemiclord.3978:

I think what Vayne is getting at here is that you’re NEVER going to see an MMO solely run off an expansion model again (and even by the end of GW1 it was running a cash shop as well). It’s going to be tied with something else that will provide you with a more stable and constant revenue stream. And I’d argue it has to… the cost of making a game has gone up nigh exponentially, and requires much larger staffs to accomplish what the player base demands.

So the question now becomes, “what constant stream do you prefer”, because each one has their strengths and weaknesses. It’s not “cash store or expansion” because pretty much EVERY MMO maker’s answer is going to be “Both.”

The question is “cash store or subscription?” And even THAT might not be accurate, because Activision/Blizzard answered THAT question with “Both” as well.

I know what Vayne is getting at but an expansion every year / year and a half is also a steady flow of income. In a way it’s even similar to a subscription based model because you can expect to pretty much having to pay an x amount every year / year and a half. Biggest difference is not having a timer over your head.

BTW having a cash-shop next to that that only sells some extra services like access to beta events and name changers and character slots would be fine. But the moment you are generating you main income from a cash-shop you really will have to try and get people to buy stuff from the cash-shop (by game-play tactics of specific items) and then it will effect the game.

Yes games have become much bigger but so have the communities. That levels each other out pretty well.

So no, I don’t believe it has to be sub or cash-shop but expansion-based won’t be an option. I think is very well is an option and I think there are enough games proving it is. It’s just not being used a lot in the MMORPG genre.

But you don’t really know that would be enough money to support a game today. You only suspect that would be enough money. And I suspect it wouldn’t be.

It’s nice to theorize that if a company did that, they’d manage to stay afloat, but I’m guessing that if you were putting up your millions and millions of dollars to make a game, you might put a cash shop there….just in case.

Gambling with other people’s money is easy.

nightwulf.1986:

Devata.6589:

The expansion model can not be compared to a VCR, thats just silly.
For non MMORPG it’s also today the most used model (I count a game that releases a new version every 2 years in stead of a expansions also in the same model because it’s very similar)
{snip}
And nobody here was asking for a subscription based model, but I guess you refer to that because the question to pretty much have anything in-game. And you are right thats not possible with a F2P model, only with subscription or expansion-based model. Thats also why just suggestion improvements for the micro-transaction based model will simply not work.

To that first statement, if you are excluding cell phone games for a reason, please elaborate. One of the biggest single player and multi-player, non-mmo consumer base expansions into the videogame market (a.k.a. cell phone games) has adopted the microtransaction model almost as a standard across the board. Not to mention that many of those non-mmo games that don’t primarily use microtransactions have adopted the DLC model which is meant to support the game beyond the standard expansion model. Often times creating content which consumers believe to be far less than an expansion, and yet still finds some financial success. That is to say, I disagree with the premises on which you base using non-mmorpg games as a golden example of a working model for an expansion only game that you keep referring to. Even traditionally “expansion only” games like Tekken, Dead or Alive, and Soul Calibur are experimenting with moving into the microtransaction funded model and, so far, it appears that they are finding success with people supporting them. Times are changing and even that market has new competition in payment models.

And to this second point, some people in this thread have said as much that they wanted to move on to a subscription game because they feel that it offers them pros and cons that they prefer to deal with over those of a B2P/F2P. And again, it’s already been argued that the subscription game model and expansion models have variations from company to company and other drawbacks to them, just as a free to play model does and can negatively impact the gameplay and community as well. That is not to say that it is all negative, but I still feel like you are pushing the expansion model as an objectively better choice when it clearly isn’t. I think someone said it earlier, and I agree, but what I think you are really hoping for is for a company who doesn’t have a profit motive behind their design choices. Because with that, you can have an awesome free to play model, subscription model, etc. that doesn’t negatively impact the game in the ways you describe. It’s just, well, that I feel it’s unlikely you are going to find these choices implemented in the manner you describe in any company/publisher who’s not willing to take a big risk. Ideally, the company would just create a game that has an awesome story and gameplay and you can play for an unlimited amount of time without having to worry about spending money. But they have to get your money to keep going, and however they implement it, someone, maybe not you, isn’t going to like it.

Yeah companies might indeed be using the the F2P model because they see they can squeeze out most money in the easiest way. So from an financial viewpoint it might be a good idea.

Expansion based model would be less good as doing that so from a short-run financial viewpoint that might be less interesting. But it not that I am searching for a company that wants to create a good game but non-profit. The big difference in my opinion is the life-spawn. I think expansion-based models have potentially a higher life-spawn.

So what I am indeed then looking for is a company that wants to create a high quality product and whats that product to keep the company running for many years but is not just looking for fast money in the short run.

Thats also why I said that maybe a lessen learned is that when ever looking for another game it might be wise to see if a game belongs and it paid by one and the same company.

Looking at the games that manage to set up long-running MMO’s that seem to be a good idea. Eve-online is developed and published by the same company, WoW and Lineage 2 is (Ncsoft funny enough).

So it’s not that I want a company that is not looking for money but I might indeed need a company that is not just looking for the quick money. And while I think Anet might not be the problem here, Ncsoft might be.

And as long as there are a lot of people that are letting themselves being fooled in buying some useless items ingame there will indeed be a big market for that. But that does not mean there is no market for for expansion-based games.

IndigoSundown.5419:

chemiclord.3978:

I think what Vayne is getting at here is that you’re NEVER going to see an MMO solely run off an expansion model again (and even by the end of GW1 it was running a cash shop as well). It’s going to be tied with something else that will provide you with a more stable and constant revenue stream. And I’d argue it has to… the cost of making a game has gone up nigh exponentially, and requires much larger staffs to accomplish what the player base demands.

So the question now becomes, “what constant stream do you prefer”, because each one has their strengths and weaknesses. It’s not “cash store or expansion” because pretty much EVERY MMO maker’s answer is going to be “Both.”

The question is “cash store or subscription?” And even THAT might not be accurate, because Activision/Blizzard answered THAT question with “Both” as well.

I agree. Making games may be a passion as well as a job for game developers, but for the backers, it’s a way of making money. We can debate all we want about the value inherent in subscription, B2P+expansion, B2P+shop or F2P. That doesn’t change the fact that the companies behind the developer have one goal, and the developer will be nudged to whichever model looks more profitable.

Since virtual items in cash shops sell, the more profitable model will most likely include a shop. I expect that if GW2 were to sell expansions, the game would still include a shop. Blizz has a sub, a shop, and charges for expansions, after all.

Given that shops are not going away, I believe the best we as consumers can expect is a shop that does not sell in-game advantages. On that front, the GW2 shop has done pretty well. If you aren’t selling in-game power, pretty much the only things left to sell are cosmetics and convenience, and for the most part, that’s what we get.

Like I said before. I do think there is still a market for the B2P+expansion and it would also be interested for a company when it’s looking for long-term income in stead of fast money.

About the way a cash-shop works. You say this is the best but it’s just where you are coming from. You might not might that GW2 is extremely money driven gold gold gold and collecting mini’s ingame is not really a option. But for people who like exactly that part of the game it is.

It doesn’t matter if there’s a market for expansion based games or not, if the risk of making one is too high. The problem is this is all theory. Without being deeply vested in the industry, and really knowing how much everything costs, and without business models to show if it can work or not, it’s all just guess work.

The problem is you want something because you think it would make a better game, but we don’t really know how well that better game would do against the competition.

You’d not only have to convince a company that this could work but the company would have to convince investors that this would work. The problem with that is no one is doing it. The first question an investor would ask is why.

Vayne.8563:

Devata.6589:

chemiclord.3978:

I think what Vayne is getting at here is that you’re NEVER going to see an MMO solely run off an expansion model again (and even by the end of GW1 it was running a cash shop as well). It’s going to be tied with something else that will provide you with a more stable and constant revenue stream. And I’d argue it has to… the cost of making a game has gone up nigh exponentially, and requires much larger staffs to accomplish what the player base demands.

So the question now becomes, “what constant stream do you prefer”, because each one has their strengths and weaknesses. It’s not “cash store or expansion” because pretty much EVERY MMO maker’s answer is going to be “Both.”

The question is “cash store or subscription?” And even THAT might not be accurate, because Activision/Blizzard answered THAT question with “Both” as well.

I know what Vayne is getting at but an expansion every year / year and a half is also a steady flow of income. In a way it’s even similar to a subscription based model because you can expect to pretty much having to pay an x amount every year / year and a half. Biggest difference is not having a timer over your head.

BTW having a cash-shop next to that that only sells some extra services like access to beta events and name changers and character slots would be fine. But the moment you are generating you main income from a cash-shop you really will have to try and get people to buy stuff from the cash-shop (by game-play tactics of specific items) and then it will effect the game.

Yes games have become much bigger but so have the communities. That levels each other out pretty well.

So no, I don’t believe it has to be sub or cash-shop but expansion-based won’t be an option. I think is very well is an option and I think there are enough games proving it is. It’s just not being used a lot in the MMORPG genre.

But you don’t really know that would be enough money to support a game today. You only suspect that would be enough money. And I suspect it wouldn’t be.

It’s nice to theorize that if a company did that, they’d manage to stay afloat, but I’m guessing that if you were putting up your millions and millions of dollars to make a game, you might put a cash shop there….just in case.

Gambling with other people’s money is easy.

If it would be my money I would want to also create a good name for myself so deliver a high-quality product and so would go for expansion-based model. But thats not really the question, is it.

And yes I do think it would work and base my idea partly on GW1 partly on the many non-MMORPG games that use such models.

You think it won’t work and based your idea on the fact that the marked is bigger and many MMO’s are using F2P.

In the end we indeed both don’t have factual numbers to back it up, so it’s kind of useless to keep arguing about that.

Yet I am happy to see that at least we seem to agree that quality wise a micro-transaction based game is not the best option.

Vayne.8563:

You’d not only have to convince a company that this could work but the company would have to convince investors that this would work. The problem with that is no one is doing it. The first question an investor would ask is why.

Well I guess in a way thats exactly what I (and a few other) ar then doing in this thread.

Why, because you can deliver a higher quality product what will improve your name in the business (so people truss your company better so are more likely to buy another game of you) and when done right it will give a more steady flow of income over a much longer period.

It’s not like squeezing out money and going to the next game isn’t without risk. If two games in a row fail the company might be in big financial problems.

Devata.6589:

Like I said before. I do think there is still a market for the B2P+expansion and it would also be interested for a company when it’s looking for long-term income in stead of fast money.

And there is your primary problem with GW2. Arenanet’s montization department is terminally obsessed with “fast money”.

I find it difficult to believe GW2 will ever see an expansion like what you are thinking of. They barely care to invest time in finishing the game they released, let alone an expansion to it.

Devata.6589:

Vayne.8563:

Devata.6589:

chemiclord.3978:

I think what Vayne is getting at here is that you’re NEVER going to see an MMO solely run off an expansion model again (and even by the end of GW1 it was running a cash shop as well). It’s going to be tied with something else that will provide you with a more stable and constant revenue stream. And I’d argue it has to… the cost of making a game has gone up nigh exponentially, and requires much larger staffs to accomplish what the player base demands.

So the question now becomes, “what constant stream do you prefer”, because each one has their strengths and weaknesses. It’s not “cash store or expansion” because pretty much EVERY MMO maker’s answer is going to be “Both.”

The question is “cash store or subscription?” And even THAT might not be accurate, because Activision/Blizzard answered THAT question with “Both” as well.

I know what Vayne is getting at but an expansion every year / year and a half is also a steady flow of income. In a way it’s even similar to a subscription based model because you can expect to pretty much having to pay an x amount every year / year and a half. Biggest difference is not having a timer over your head.

BTW having a cash-shop next to that that only sells some extra services like access to beta events and name changers and character slots would be fine. But the moment you are generating you main income from a cash-shop you really will have to try and get people to buy stuff from the cash-shop (by game-play tactics of specific items) and then it will effect the game.

Yes games have become much bigger but so have the communities. That levels each other out pretty well.

So no, I don’t believe it has to be sub or cash-shop but expansion-based won’t be an option. I think is very well is an option and I think there are enough games proving it is. It’s just not being used a lot in the MMORPG genre.

But you don’t really know that would be enough money to support a game today. You only suspect that would be enough money. And I suspect it wouldn’t be.

It’s nice to theorize that if a company did that, they’d manage to stay afloat, but I’m guessing that if you were putting up your millions and millions of dollars to make a game, you might put a cash shop there….just in case.

Gambling with other people’s money is easy.

If it would be my money I would want to also create a good name for myself so deliver a high-quality product and so would go for expansion-based model. But thats not really the question, is it.

And yes I do think it would work and base my idea partly on GW1 partly on the many non-MMORPG games that use such models.

You think it won’t work and based your idea on the fact that the marked is bigger and many MMO’s are using F2P.

In the end we indeed both don’t have factual numbers to back it up, so it’s kind of useless to keep arguing about that.

Yet I am happy to see that at least we seem to agree that quality wise a micro-transaction based game is not the best option.

I don’t agree on that at all. We never talked about quality specifically. I don’t think you can blame all the woes of this game on the cash shop. Some, maybe. But I don’t think it’s any worse than a subscription based games.

Other games in other genres have no bearing on this conversation. They make a game, they put the game out, and that’s pretty much it. The staff afterwards is miniscule.

Take a driving game. YOu make the game, people buy it. Very often it is a console AND computer game. You sell to everyone and the sales cover the cost of making the game. But most games take far less time and money to make than an MMO aned most games have far last after cost…that’s why other games that use the model are useless to compare. And even Guild Wars 1 wasn’t a true MMO. How much different is it? How much more server power do you need to have 100 people all playing at the same time? Because you didn’t really have this problem in Guild Wars 1. I mean you could get 100 people in cities, but generally they couldn’t use their skills there.

I think that I’ve seen games that have a model like you’re talking about that sucked badly. So should I then conclude that all games that work on selling boxes every few years suck badly.

Dragon Age was a great game. Dragon Age 2…not so much. Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 were great games. Mass Effect 3, not so much.

Making game sequels or adds on and selling them doesn’t mean making a better game.

If I were making a game today, I’d want it funded so I could do great things. I don’t think the model you’re suggesting would fund an MMO…not enough to push the boundaries….which costs money.

Vayne.8563:

It doesn’t matter if there’s a market for expansion based games or not, if the risk of making one is too high. The problem is this is all theory. Without being deeply vested in the industry, and really knowing how much everything costs, and without business models to show if it can work or not, it’s all just guess work.

The problem is you want something because you think it would make a better game, but we don’t really know how well that better game would do against the competition.

You’d not only have to convince a company that this could work but the company would have to convince investors that this would work. The problem with that is no one is doing it. The first question an investor would ask is why.

Devata.6589:

Like I said before. I do think there is still a market for the B2P+expansion and it would also be interested for a company when it’s looking for long-term income in stead of fast money.

Vayne is correct. Company executives don’t just think in terms of short term versus long term gains. They also think in terms of risk v. reward.

Expansions take time to produce. While an expansion is being produced, money is being spent with no return. Long-term projects entail greater risk than short term projects, because there is no guarantee that the return on investment will warrant the risk.

With short term projects, companies can pull the plug and lose less if market conditions change. With a cash shop, risk is very limited. Profit and loss can be determined day to day if a company wants to, although month to month is more standard. Compare that amount of risk versus the 1-2 years needed for an expansion. If a shop-based game fails, the company is out very little. If an expansion-based game were to fail, the company could lose huge amounts of money.

I get that you think an expansion model would work better for you, and for those who think like you. However, the proliferation of cash shops — even in games that sell boxes, sell expansions and have a sub — suggest that the companies think shops work better for them.

You really can’t compare MMO business models to non-MMO business models, either. Shops are less likely to work in non MMO games because the players are paying for a much shorter experience (with PvP games being a possible exception). If a game is providing 100 hours of play or less, the consumer is going to expect everything to be included for the box cost. MMO players expect their MMO to provide many thousands of hours of play, for the same cost.

Find a quality MMO that is B2P and makes money only on expansions and we can talk further.

Guild Wars 2 Flat PvE Square miles = 58
Vanilla WoW Flat Square miles = 80

Using the same methods found in this infograph
Which spawned from this thread

Do note that this simply a flat surface measurement.

Vayne.8563:

Devata.6589:

Vayne.8563:

Devata.6589:

chemiclord.3978:

~

But you don’t really know that would be enough money to support a game today. You only suspect that would be enough money. And I suspect it wouldn’t be.

It’s nice to theorize that if a company did that, they’d manage to stay afloat, but I’m guessing that if you were putting up your millions and millions of dollars to make a game, you might put a cash shop there….just in case.

Gambling with other people’s money is easy.

If it would be my money I would want to also create a good name for myself so deliver a high-quality product and so would go for expansion-based model. But thats not really the question, is it.

And yes I do think it would work and base my idea partly on GW1 partly on the many non-MMORPG games that use such models.

You think it won’t work and based your idea on the fact that the marked is bigger and many MMO’s are using F2P.

In the end we indeed both don’t have factual numbers to back it up, so it’s kind of useless to keep arguing about that.

Yet I am happy to see that at least we seem to agree that quality wise a micro-transaction based game is not the best option.

I don’t agree on that at all. We never talked about quality specifically. I don’t think you can blame all the woes of this game on the cash shop. Some, maybe. But I don’t think it’s any worse than a subscription based games.

Other games in other genres have no bearing on this conversation. They make a game, they put the game out, and that’s pretty much it. The staff afterwards is miniscule.

Take a driving game. YOu make the game, people buy it. Very often it is a console AND computer game. You sell to everyone and the sales cover the cost of making the game. But most games take far less time and money to make than an MMO aned most games have far last after cost…that’s why other games that use the model are useless to compare. And even Guild Wars 1 wasn’t a true MMO. How much different is it? How much more server power do you need to have 100 people all playing at the same time? Because you didn’t really have this problem in Guild Wars 1. I mean you could get 100 people in cities, but generally they couldn’t use their skills there.

I think that I’ve seen games that have a model like you’re talking about that sucked badly. So should I then conclude that all games that work on selling boxes every few years suck badly.

Dragon Age was a great game. Dragon Age 2…not so much. Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 were great games. Mass Effect 3, not so much.

Making game sequels or adds on and selling them doesn’t mean making a better game.

If I were making a game today, I’d want it funded so I could do great things. I don’t think the model you’re suggesting would fund an MMO…not enough to push the boundaries….which costs money.

I was mainly referring to this statement of you.

Vayne.8563:

For everyone person who takes games seriously, there’s someone who thinks that taking out your credit card is a valid way to play. More to the point, younger generations of players are trained this way.

Both of my sons, in their 20s, think nothing of taking out a credit card to buy stuff to use inside a game, instead of “earning” it, which is what I prefer to do.

I think you’ll find that the shift is toward people buying wins, not away from it. More’s the shame.

Judge Banks.9018:

Guild Wars 2 Flat PvE Square miles = 58
Vanilla WoW Flat Square miles = 80

Using the same methods found in this infograph
Which spawned from this thread

Do note that this simply a flat surface measurement.

Relevance?

Vayne.8563:

Judge Banks.9018:

Guild Wars 2 Flat PvE Square miles = 58
Vanilla WoW Flat Square miles = 80

Using the same methods found in this infograph
Which spawned from this thread

Do note that this simply a flat surface measurement.

Relevance?

To the back and forth kitten posting between you and devata, none.

To those discussing the world size, project size, and whatever worthless derailment they can attempt to grasp at, a small reminder.

chemiclord.3978:

I think what Vayne is getting at here is that you’re NEVER going to see an MMO solely run off an expansion model again (and even by the end of GW1 it was running a cash shop as well). It’s going to be tied with something else that will provide you with a more stable and constant revenue stream. And I’d argue it has to… the cost of making a game has gone up nigh exponentially, and requires much larger staffs to accomplish what the player base demands.

So the question now becomes, “what constant stream do you prefer”, because each one has their strengths and weaknesses. It’s not “cash store or expansion” because pretty much EVERY MMO maker’s answer is going to be “Both.”

The question is “cash store or subscription?” And even THAT might not be accurate, because Activision/Blizzard answered THAT question with “Both” as well.

Exactly.

Game companies releasing big budget triple A titles are subject to the same pressures and circumstances as any other major corporate investment…maximize profits. The realistic goal here is not to eliminate a source of revenue, but rather to ensure that said revenue source does not negatively impact the quality of the product.

Personally I prefer a cosmetic focused cash shop over a pure sub and/or expansion model. Ideally I would like to see cash shop and expansion. I am not inherently opposed to the sub model, but I am suspicious of it due to past experiences with traditional sub model MMO game design.

Judge Banks.9018:

Vayne.8563:

Judge Banks.9018:

Guild Wars 2 Flat PvE Square miles = 58
Vanilla WoW Flat Square miles = 80

Using the same methods found in this infograph
Which spawned from this thread

Do note that this simply a flat surface measurement.

Relevance?

To the back and forth kitten posting between you and devata, none.

To those discussing the world size, project size, and whatever worthless derailment they can attempt to grasp at, a small reminder.

The world feels terribly small, but I blame that on the teleporting. It could also be that there is only about 4-5 different style of zones.

Judge Banks.9018:

Vayne.8563:

Judge Banks.9018:

Guild Wars 2 Flat PvE Square miles = 58
Vanilla WoW Flat Square miles = 80

Using the same methods found in this infograph
Which spawned from this thread

Do note that this simply a flat surface measurement.

Relevance?

To the back and forth kitten posting between you and devata, none.

To those discussing the world size, project size, and whatever worthless derailment they can attempt to grasp at, a small reminder.

So, aside from map size, how many quests did vanilla WoW launch with? Because Guild Wars 2 is much bigger in that sense with over 1500 dynamic events, at least 50 personal story quests per character, 300 hearts.

There is so much more content in Guild Wars 2 than there was in vanilla WoW it’s not even funny.

IndigoSundown.5419:

I get that you think an expansion model would work better for you, and for those who think like you. However, the proliferation of cash shops — even in games that sell boxes, sell expansions and have a sub — suggest that the companies think shops work better for them.

You really can’t compare MMO business models to non-MMO business models, either. Shops are less likely to work in non MMO games because the players are paying for a much shorter experience (with PvP games being a possible exception). If a game is providing 100 hours of play or less, the consumer is going to expect everything to be included for the box cost. MMO players expect their MMO to provide many thousands of hours of play, for the same cost.

Find a quality MMO that is B2P and makes money only on expansions and we can talk further.

Hell, even non-MMO games are getting into the “cash shop” business. CoD, for example, allows you to buy different and exclusive weapons and ammo with cold, hard cash. EA games are littered with little perks you can buy (not even counting DLC content). I believe Bethesda toyed with it for a while (but I don’t know if it stuck).

Vayne.8563:

Judge Banks.9018:

Vayne.8563:

Judge Banks.9018:

Guild Wars 2 Flat PvE Square miles = 58
Vanilla WoW Flat Square miles = 80

Using the same methods found in this infograph
Which spawned from this thread

Do note that this simply a flat surface measurement.

Relevance?

To the back and forth kitten posting between you and devata, none.

To those discussing the world size, project size, and whatever worthless derailment they can attempt to grasp at, a small reminder.

So, aside from map size, how many quests did vanilla WoW launch with? Because Guild Wars 2 is much bigger in that sense with over 1500 dynamic events, at least 50 personal story quests per character, 300 hearts.

There is so much more content in Guild Wars 2 than there was in vanilla WoW it’s not even funny.

I understand that Judge Banks sees a relevance as in how big the project was (because we said we did not have the numbers) but because WoW was a sub-based model it’s not really an interesting comparison.

More interesting would be GW1 vs GW2 or maybe also other games like GTA or games closer to the size of GW2 and then also taking the servers into account.

chemiclord.3978:

IndigoSundown.5419:

I get that you think an expansion model would work better for you, and for those who think like you. However, the proliferation of cash shops — even in games that sell boxes, sell expansions and have a sub — suggest that the companies think shops work better for them.

You really can’t compare MMO business models to non-MMO business models, either. Shops are less likely to work in non MMO games because the players are paying for a much shorter experience (with PvP games being a possible exception). If a game is providing 100 hours of play or less, the consumer is going to expect everything to be included for the box cost. MMO players expect their MMO to provide many thousands of hours of play, for the same cost.

Find a quality MMO that is B2P and makes money only on expansions and we can talk further.

Hell, even non-MMO games are getting into the “cash shop” business. CoD, for example, allows you to buy different and exclusive weapons and ammo with cold, hard cash. EA games are littered with little perks you can buy (not even counting DLC content). I believe Bethesda toyed with it for a while (but I don’t know if it stuck).

As far as I know Bethesda did then get the community all over them because they felt it would harm the game. And then Bethesda decided not to proceed in that way. So you see, there is hope.

I just checked my claim and here it is:
http://elderscrollsotr.mymiddleearth.com/2013/08/23/elder-scrolls-online-will-have-microstransactions/

Funny enough he says ‘Maybe we sell a few thinks like a name-changer’ one of the few things I here also mentioned as something that would not harm the game.

The big difference is that they want to make money with a subscription (Don’t have high hopes for that but we will see) so the cash-shop is only an extra and like I said (also see the topic-title) it’s the focus on the cash-shop that creates the problem.

Vayne.8563:

Judge Banks.9018:

Vayne.8563:

Judge Banks.9018:

Guild Wars 2 Flat PvE Square miles = 58
Vanilla WoW Flat Square miles = 80

Using the same methods found in this infograph
Which spawned from this thread

Do note that this simply a flat surface measurement.

Relevance?

To the back and forth kitten posting between you and devata, none.

To those discussing the world size, project size, and whatever worthless derailment they can attempt to grasp at, a small reminder.

So, aside from map size, how many quests did vanilla WoW launch with? Because Guild Wars 2 is much bigger in that sense with over 1500 dynamic events, at least 50 personal story quests per character, 300 hearts.

There is so much more content in Guild Wars 2 than there was in vanilla WoW it’s not even funny.

Which is interesting, because I distinctly remember spending more time with the general leveling experience in vanilla wow. Yet my first playthough with GW2, 1 week Zhaitan dead and story missions complete, 2 weeks oh look all explorable dungeons cleared. Then came the point where you were map completing because there was simply nothing else to do, after that came the endless farming(Also known as the waste of time).

Unfortunately this isn’t really the thread to discuss how dynamic events only serve the purpose of spoon feeding exp and rewards to the player. Whilst making sure that players get to participate the most non-competitve PvE scene to date. However 300 hearts seems in-line with the original planning for WoW’s quest line.

Judge Banks.9018:

Vayne.8563:

Judge Banks.9018:

Vayne.8563:

Judge Banks.9018:

Guild Wars 2 Flat PvE Square miles = 58
Vanilla WoW Flat Square miles = 80

Using the same methods found in this infograph
Which spawned from this thread

Do note that this simply a flat surface measurement.

Relevance?

To the back and forth kitten posting between you and devata, none.

To those discussing the world size, project size, and whatever worthless derailment they can attempt to grasp at, a small reminder.

So, aside from map size, how many quests did vanilla WoW launch with? Because Guild Wars 2 is much bigger in that sense with over 1500 dynamic events, at least 50 personal story quests per character, 300 hearts.

There is so much more content in Guild Wars 2 than there was in vanilla WoW it’s not even funny.

Which is interesting, because I distinctly remember spending more time with the general leveling experience in vanilla wow. Yet my first playthough with GW2, 1 week Zhaitan dead and story missions complete, 2 weeks oh look all explorable dungeons cleared. Then came the point where you were map completing because there was simply nothing else to do, after that came the endless farming(Also known as the waste of time).

Unfortunately this isn’t really the thread to discuss how dynamic events only serve the purpose of spoon feeding exp and rewards to the player. Whilst making sure that players get to participate the most non-competitve PvE scene to date. However 300 hearts seems in-line with the original planning for WoW’s quest line.

“Then came the point where you were map completing because there was simply nothing else to do, after that came the endless farming(Also known as the waste of time).”
Ok so you are saying that while it might have as many content it feels less because there is ‘nothing to do’ and its all grind grind.

What links to what I was telling a some time back that I like to go into the world and collect mini’s in stead of grind grind gold for them. Because going into the world and collecting them is my end-game and that is pretty much non-existing because of the cash-shop focus (the main reason those elements are not in the game)?

But I think there point about the size was mainly that they think that expansion-based would not work or be to risky for a project / game of this size.

From a development viewpoint that size is still the same, even if it might feel smaller because of those thinks.

I completely agree with what you’re saying and have understood it that way as well. I truly hope that the reward system overhaul they have been talking about focuses on making specific rewarding items achievable realistically in a way through playing content in the game rather than purchasing through gold showing that the company does care about the quality of the game rather than solely the revenue the game gives them.

I would much rather pay for the game through expansions or a subscription so that the company would focus more on the content within the game rather than what they can put in the game to improve gemstore sales. We all know that subscription based games are dying and the model hasn’t proved a successful one anymore so boxed sales and expansions seems the way to go. I definitely don’t think it’s too late to do this as the game is still a very new MMO being not even 2 years old.

I loved the video you linked about the past CEO of EA btw. It was a good watch.

I really wish game companies would choose the light side of the force and choose the gamer community over their own pockets. Even Ever quest Next that I have been highly anticipating concerns me since they are going the free to play model and could turn out to be another in game store focused game rather than the latter and could potentially ruin the long term game for that as well.

All you can do is hope.

Btw, sorry for bringing up a month old thread, I just saw you link it in another post and felt like bringing it to the light again.