[ICoa] Blackgate
(edited by dodgycookies.4562)
KongZhong: Details about GW2 China
~ In fact looking with all the information you had it would make sense that expansions would be the ‘predominant source for income’ as that is what made ArenaNet big with GW1.
Except that they have made statements that implied as much.
By the way that quote is an example of what you say you do not like. You say, “In fact,” when the truth is, “in your opinion.”
Nope they did not. Your attempt at trying to find a statement where they do (and failing in it) only seems to proof that more.
I state that it’s a fact that ‘If you look at the information it would make sense’. Meaning it’s the best you can get from the available information.
I am happy to see people here trying to proof that mini’s in the cash-shop are in fact better for the game-play. Because it shows they are not trying to be objective about it but trying to make up excuses (what was not needed if it would be better for the game-play in any way). One person who starts about how money can make new game-play.. well that does not say anything about how the mini’s in the cash-shop are better for that part of the game-play itself.
Another example of that thing you do not like. I made no such effort to prove anything of the sort.
So if I talk about “people” it must be you?
The part about money makes new game-play and so it is good was not referring to you. However part of what I said there was referring to your statement here.
“https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/KongZhong-Details-about-GW2-China/first#post4075258”
(people is plural so if I say people it means I am not just talking about you)
~What make no sense whatsoever. So those people who like those other thinks could still get there drop and sell the mini’s got that drop. While in fact now there are people who do not get that sort of drops they like because they are not in the game in the cash-shop.
Another one of those things you say you do not like. I did not say what you claim. This may be a language issue so my apologies if such is the case but, “people might not get drops they do not care about,” means the opposite of what you claim due to the double negative. Drop either, “not,” and your quote captures the essence of my statement.
If a mini-pet takes up a slot on a drop chart then generating that numerical result on the drop chart means getting the mini-instead of something else.
The sentence was a little strange indeed but I did mean what you said. Depending on the way the loot-system works you might be right and you might be wrong. It’s not necessarily true that it would take up the slot. However if it would true it would still be a very small change it would effect a person because in that case it would only effect him if he would have gotten both the rare drops but the mini being first in line (50 / 50 change of that without knowing the code) it would take up the slot of the item the person would have wanted to drop.
So you do take that into consideration (poor guy there is a slim change he might not get the drop he wants because he got the mini instead) meanwhile totally ignoring the fact that the way it is the person who would want the mini (or other item) to drops has now 0% change of getting it to drop and will always end up with that other item… the one he might not be interested in.
So yes there might be a group of people that would have a slim change of not getting the drop they wanted. Versus the other group that now in fact for sure does not get it. Sorry but that slim change for that group (because it’s only true for those wanting that other item) compared to the fact that now another group is for sure not getting it, then that last totally outweighs that slim change that one group might in some circumstances not get the item they want. And thats even only true if the loot-system works that way. Else it it totally invalid.
And yes at least most items that drop should be tradable. Including mini’s. Maybe you want have a select few that are account-bound but by far most drops should be tradable.
Personally I do not care for account or soul bound items. I prefer to have the option to trade anything that I get as a drop that I might not desire to someone who does desire it but couldn’t get it as a drop for whatever reason. But, I understand others’ preferences do not match my own and think that a middle ground of some sort is reasonable.
Like I said I mostly agree with you on this. I do understand that some items are account-bound (so not tradable) but for sure most should be.
I would want them to remove most of the cash-shop increasing the choice and experience for everybody in the game itself. It is however nice of you to agree that apparently the cash-shop does take part of that out of the game by stating you get can it by buying items from the cash-shop.
And how would you finance your beloved expansion if you remove most of their income?
You keep shouting about how much the gem-store sucks and how they should remove it and add expansions instead, but you refuse to actually suggest how they would get money to develop said expansion without the money gained from the gem-store.
I refuse to suggest how they would get the money? Pretty sure you said that already multiple times to me and I answering it multiple times.
Like here https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/KongZhong-Details-about-GW2-China/page/2#post4076878
However I will state it more easy here. (as you had to get the information form multiple places on that comment)
You earn money with the game and invest part of that into the expansion (like most companies invest part of there income) then that expansion earns money and you can invest part of that into the next expansion and so on and so on.
I don’t remove most of there income (what I have also said multiple times to you). I just replace it with another source of income. Expansions in stead of cash-shop.
Here is the answer to the question you might be asking next:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/KongZhong-Details-about-GW2-China/page/2#post4077017
If you keep following the same trend.
(edited by Devata.6589)
Gold grinding is a skill in the way that an accountant can be skilled and rewarded for that skill. Or else everyone would have loads of in game gold super easy. While I find grinding for gold boring and just do not do it, some players do find enjoyment in TP trading or gold grinding and have gotten good at it. I respect their playstyle, even though it could make a few things more expensive for me but not overly so. I am pretty poor in game and sometimes(recently for hugely expensive strength runes. Boo for non craftable/non npc buyable runes) have to rely on a few certain guildes who are good at that kind of thing for a bit of assistance.
Though most things imo in game are not that big of a gold grind other than legendaries which is only a gold grind because the time investment required is unrealistic. For most things in the gem store it comes down to if you want an item and are not willing to pay with real money it becomes a gold grind. Some see that as a negative, while I see it as anet giving players a choice in not spending real money if they have excess gold rather than requiring payment. Plus the gem to gold conversion allows players like me to convert cash to gold to save time while avoiding those shady third party sites.
The cash shop is not perfect nor is the pricing (upgrade extractors!). One thing i disagree strongly with in the cash shop is the gambling system for dyes and weapon skins and don’t partake in part of that. BL chests and dye kits should go away and let us buy the skins and dyes we want directly with gems rather than rely on rng.
As to the health of the game, i leave that to the devs with hard data to look at.
I don’t mind people who like to grind but thats also an option without the way it works now. If items drops in game and you can put them on the TP people still can grind gold and buy the items.
I was not only talking about the items in the cash-shop but yes they are part of it. I think they should be available in-game.
So yes now they have the option to grind gold for them or buy them. The way I preferred it (expansion – based model with no ore a more limited cash-shop) they would have the option to grind gold for them or play directly for them. They also have the option to buy an expansion that throws in many new items they can then get by playing for or grind gold for.
Nope they did not. Your attempt at trying to find a statement where they do (and failing in it) only seems to proof that more.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. They have said, on a number of occasions, things that can be taken in a number of different ways. You choose to interpret them in a manner that supports your opinions and position. This is perfectly understandable.
I state that it’s a fact that ‘If you look at the information it would make sense’. Meaning it’s the best you can get from the available information.
And it is an opinion, not a fact. If you look at the information that supposition makes sense to you. Its subjective. Not everyone will draw the same conclusion.
So if I talk about “people” it must be you?
If you are quoting me, and only me, not a single other person, when making the statement I think that it is reasonable to take the statement as refering to me. If it was meant as a general commentary about people on the forums in general there would have been no need to quote me, and only me, specifically.
The sentence was a little strange indeed but I did mean what you said. Depending on the way the loot-system works you might be right and you might be wrong. It’s not necessarily true that it would take up the slot. However if it would true it would still be a very small change it would effect a person because in that case it would only effect him if he would have gotten both the rare drops but the mini being first in line (50 / 50 change of that without knowing the code) it would take up the slot of the item the person would have wanted to drop.
So you do take that into consideration (poor guy there is a slim change he might not get the drop he wants because he got the mini instead) meanwhile totally ignoring the fact that the way it is the person who would want the mini (or other item) to drops has now 0% change of getting it to drop and will always end up with that other item… the one he might not be interested in.
So yes there might be a group of people that would have a slim change of not getting the drop they wanted. Versus the other group that now in fact for sure does not get it. Sorry but that slim change for that group (because it’s only true for those wanting that other item) compared to the fact that now another group is for sure not getting it, then that last totally outweighs that slim change that one group might in some circumstances not get the item they want. And thats even only true if the loot-system works that way. Else it it totally invalid.
And yet the player who does like minis can get them, through gameplay, without them being on the drop table. No matter what drops the player who likes minis gets something he can use or sell. The reverse is not true for a player who dislikes minis.
Also keep in mind that my point was that the individual who does not like minis is getting a drop that he dislikes and has zero use for. If the mini comes up you know that you hit that very tiny ultra-rare drop chance…and got something worthless to you. Kind of a bummer IMO. Again, make it tradable (or give an alternate reward choice: Mini or X) and I see no concern whatsoever.
I personally don’t care much for the emphasis on gold farming to the exclusion of hunting specific rewards from specific content, but I know others that do like being able to get whatever they want by playing whatever they want.
To clarify, I am not arguing for the removal of minis and the like from drop tables. I think that having interesting things to hunt in game adds to the game. I was however responding to a comment to the general effect of how few people would find having them drop in game to be a negative thing. I pointed out how it could be so for some people.
Nope they did not. Your attempt at trying to find a statement where they do (and failing in it) only seems to proof that more.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. They have said, on a number of occasions, things that can be taken in a number of different ways. You choose to interpret them in a manner that supports your opinions and position. This is perfectly understandable.
I guess this statement is an improvement as before you where still trying to proof that they stated to go for a cash-shop focus before. Or well something like that.
I did say all the time that they where vague only that if anything (That’s not saying it literally what they said!) then it would point more towards expansion-based focus with something as a cash-shop to the side. Simply because they said the the game would be B2P (that part was known pretty early), and because what they did with GW1, because a statement as “there will be expansions for sure”. Yes it was also pretty obvious they would have a cash-shop but to what extent has always been vague, just as how they would support the game as total. So I don’t really interpret them in any other way as vague as that’s what they where. Except for using the B2P model. And a true B2P model of course is one with expansions but not to extent the discussion to much I will leave that to the side.
So if I talk about “people” it must be you?
If you are quoting me, and only me, not a single other person, when making the statement I think that it is reasonable to take the statement as refering to me. If it was meant as a general commentary about people on the forums in general there would have been no need to quote me, and only me, specifically.
No it means I am talking to you not (only) about you. If you look back in my first paragraph after I quote you I talk about ‘people’ and then in the second paragraph I refer to ‘you’. So I do split the two pretty clearly. Anyway, no I was not talking to you.
~
And yet the player who does like minis can get them, through gameplay, without them being on the drop table. No matter what drops the player who likes minis gets something he can use or sell. The reverse is not true for a player who dislikes minis.
Also keep in mind that my point was that the individual who does not like minis is getting a drop that he dislikes and has zero use for. If the mini comes up you know that you hit that very tiny ultra-rare drop chance…and got something worthless to you. Kind of a bummer IMO. Again, make it tradable (or give an alternate reward choice: Mini or X) and I see no concern whatsoever.
I personally don’t care much for the emphasis on gold farming to the exclusion of hunting specific rewards from specific content, but I know others that do like being able to get whatever they want by playing whatever they want.
To clarify, I am not arguing for the removal of minis and the like from drop tables. I think that having interesting things to hunt in game adds to the game. I was however responding to a comment to the general effect of how few people would find having them drop in game to be a negative thing. I pointed out how it could be so for some people.
“And yet the player who does like minis can get them – The reverse is not true for a player who dislikes minis.” Sure it is, why wouldn’kitten Also you do understand that one of my complains about the cash-shop focus is turning everything into a gold-grind. You say you can get them gameplay but you can’t get them directly with game-play but by grinding gold (with game-play). So that does not make it any better it’s in fact the problem I am talking about. (one of them)
“you know that you hit that very tiny ultra-rare drop chance…and got something worthless to you.” The ultra-rare drop chance for that mini yeah, not for that other item you would have preferred. And yes if it’s up to me most items (so also most mini’s) should be tradable. We agree on that part.
“I know others that do like being able to get whatever they want by playing whatever they want.”
As long as items are tradable playing directly for them is possible but grinding gold for them is as well as they will end up on the TP.
“I think that having interesting things to hunt in game adds to the game.”
“I was however responding to a comment to the general effect of how few people would find having them drop in game to be a negative thing. "
Yeah that was clear but you have an extreme example as to “if case x and if exception and if case y” then it might be negative for a group of people. To me the benefit of having interesting things to hunt in game in general far out-waits this very exceptional possibility in what in some cases it can be negative for some people.
I refuse to suggest how they would get the money? Pretty sure you said that already multiple times to me and I answering it multiple times.
Like here https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/KongZhong-Details-about-GW2-China/page/2#post4076878
However I will state it more easy here. (as you had to get the information form multiple places on that comment)
You earn money with the game and invest part of that into the expansion (like most companies invest part of there income) then that expansion earns money and you can invest part of that into the next expansion and so on and so on.
I don’t remove most of there income (what I have also said multiple times to you). I just replace it with another source of income. Expansions in stead of cash-shop.
Here is the answer to the question you might be asking next:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/KongZhong-Details-about-GW2-China/page/2#post4077017
If you keep following the same trend.
But you time and time again completely ignore the fact that making said expansions will COST MONEY, money that you claim will come WITH said expansion. So where would they get the money to make said expansion in the first place?
The fact remains that it is rather unlikely that the box-sales alone would be enough to give salaries to 300+ employees during the whole time it takes to create, market and sell an expansion.
You are removing a continuous source of income (gem-store) with a one-time source of income with rather long time in-between. Sure they would get a big boost of income with the release of expansions. But would that income be enough to keep the game and company going between those expansions?
Krall Bloodsword – Mesmer
Krall Peterson – Warrior
Piken Square
Krall Peterson – Warrior
Piken Square
I refuse to suggest how they would get the money? Pretty sure you said that already multiple times to me and I answering it multiple times.
Like here https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/KongZhong-Details-about-GW2-China/page/2#post4076878
However I will state it more easy here. (as you had to get the information form multiple places on that comment)
You earn money with the game and invest part of that into the expansion (like most companies invest part of there income) then that expansion earns money and you can invest part of that into the next expansion and so on and so on.
I don’t remove most of there income (what I have also said multiple times to you). I just replace it with another source of income. Expansions in stead of cash-shop.
Here is the answer to the question you might be asking next:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/KongZhong-Details-about-GW2-China/page/2#post4077017
If you keep following the same trend.But you time and time again completely ignore the fact that making said expansions will COST MONEY, money that you claim will come WITH said expansion. So where would they get the money to make said expansion in the first place?
The fact remains that it is rather unlikely that the box-sales alone would be enough to give salaries to 300+ employees during the whole time it takes to create, market and sell an expansion.
You are removing a continuous source of income (gem-store) with a one-time source of income with rather long time in-between. Sure they would get a big boost of income with the release of expansions. But would that income be enough to keep the game and company going between those expansions?
Lordkrall do me one favour. Don’t ask or say I refuse to explain something I already explained to you (multiple times) before. You can simply read it back.
I said the money comes from the sale of the game itself, that pays for the first expansion and then the money for the second expansion comes from the first expansion.
The LS story cost money as well you know.
“The fact remains that it is rather unlikely that the box-sales alone would be enough to give salaries to 300+ employees during the whole time it takes to create, market and sell an expansion. ”
Lol, Well have a look at the link I gave as answer to what I said you would be asking next.. as that’s where your answer is to this question.
Summarised what is being said there: When looking at the numbers an expansion-based model could generate more money then the cash-shop. It’s also how many games finance the sequels.
“You are removing a continuous source of income (gem-store) with a one-time source of income with rather long time in-between. ”
No I replace the gem-store income (what at this moment is about 21% every Q of what the game earned at release) with an expansions-based model that generates money once a year (when releasing every year). What, looking at the numbers, would generate about 100% of the original sales in a years time. (when released today it would likely not also generate the 100% as to many people have already been alienated from the game).
Anyway you asked what I predicted you would ask and gave the link to the answer. If you would have read it you would have gotten your answer (again). Yes the numbers suggest it’s enough, in fact they suggest it might be more. (when releasing an expansion every year)
(edited by Devata.6589)
Not just me, but the majority of people too. We actually wanted to enjoy GW2, but the designers listened to the minority, and made the game less enjoyable for everyone else. The game went from overflows to merged servers, and your logic is to keep supporting bad decisions by giving them more money! Brilliant.
The majority based on what survey?
Not even the majority of the forums agree with you, and the forums is very far from even close to a majority of the actual player base.Just because people disagree with you doesn’t make them a minority.
You don’t need a survey. Merging populations with Megaservers is all you need to know that the population dropped off drastically. If it was stable, no mergers would be needed. If it was growing, they would add new servers.
The majority left, because they didn’t like GW2 and how it was being developed over the last year.
After a year, EVERY game does server merges. Sorry, but the game IS stable. The reason the mega servers was to actually allow people to PvP/WvW for the server they want to while being able to play with anyone (because servers don’t matter in PvE). Also, the PvP/WvW players care more about home server thean PvE’ers (I could be wrong). There were areas of GW2 that were full and others that were not, The mega server fixed that and that is exactly why they went that way.
Your assumptions and attitude show too well and one cannot argue with declarative statements. If you dislike the game so much, why are you here?
Lordkrall do me one favour. Don’t ask or say I refuse to explain something I already explained to you (multiple times) before. You can simply read it back.
I said the money comes from the sale of the game itself, that pays for the first expansion and then the money for the second expansion comes from the first expansion.
The LS story cost money as well you know.
“The fact remains that it is rather unlikely that the box-sales alone would be enough to give salaries to 300+ employees during the whole time it takes to create, market and sell an expansion. ”
Lol, Well have a look at the link I gave as answer to what I said you would be asking next.. as that’s where your answer is to this question.Summarised what is being said there: When looking at the numbers an expansion-based model could generate more money then the cash-shop. It’s also how many games finance the sequels.
“You are removing a continuous source of income (gem-store) with a one-time source of income with rather long time in-between. ”
No I replace the gem-store income (what at this moment is about 21% every Q of what the game earned at release) with an expansions-based model that generates money once a year (when releasing every year). What, looking at the numbers, would generate about 100% of the original sales in a years time. (when released today it would likely not also generate the 100% as to many people have already been alienated from the game).Anyway you asked what I predicted you would ask and gave the link to the answer. If you would have read it you would have gotten your answer (again). Yes the numbers suggest it’s enough, in fact they suggest it might be more. (when releasing an expansion every year)
Yes, you claim that the money games for the game-sales. But do you really think that they did get enough money on game-sales alone in order to pay salaries for 300+ employees + all other required fees, such as server-clusters, working-stations, consults and marketing among other things, for OVER A YEAR without any additional income?
On an average in the gaming industry a single employee (as of last year) $84,337 per year.
If we assume that everyone (which is not true, there are people earning more and people earning less) earns exactly that and assume that they currently have 350 employees that would mean about 29,5 MILLION dollars per year. For salaries alone.
Now lets say that an expansion takes 2 years to complete and release (because releasing yearly real expansions is rather unlikely, most MMOs doesn’t get their first expansions until several years in) that would mean about 60 million dollars spent on only salaries.
Do you really think they would be able to survive in the long-term with costs like that (and that is not including costs outside of salaries) based on only releasing an expansion now and then?
An expansion would most likely not cost the same as the original game, and people have (as you seem keep to point out quite often) left the game, and as such it is extremely unlikely that every expansion would generate 100% of the original income from the original game.
Krall Bloodsword – Mesmer
Krall Peterson – Warrior
Piken Square
Krall Peterson – Warrior
Piken Square
Lordkrall do me one favour. Don’t ask or say I refuse to explain something I already explained to you (multiple times) before. You can simply read it back.
I said the money comes from the sale of the game itself, that pays for the first expansion and then the money for the second expansion comes from the first expansion.
The LS story cost money as well you know.
“The fact remains that it is rather unlikely that the box-sales alone would be enough to give salaries to 300+ employees during the whole time it takes to create, market and sell an expansion. ”
Lol, Well have a look at the link I gave as answer to what I said you would be asking next.. as that’s where your answer is to this question.Summarised what is being said there: When looking at the numbers an expansion-based model could generate more money then the cash-shop. It’s also how many games finance the sequels.
“You are removing a continuous source of income (gem-store) with a one-time source of income with rather long time in-between. ”
No I replace the gem-store income (what at this moment is about 21% every Q of what the game earned at release) with an expansions-based model that generates money once a year (when releasing every year). What, looking at the numbers, would generate about 100% of the original sales in a years time. (when released today it would likely not also generate the 100% as to many people have already been alienated from the game).Anyway you asked what I predicted you would ask and gave the link to the answer. If you would have read it you would have gotten your answer (again). Yes the numbers suggest it’s enough, in fact they suggest it might be more. (when releasing an expansion every year)
Yes, you claim that the money games for the game-sales. But do you really think that they did get enough money on game-sales alone in order to pay salaries for 300+ employees + all other required fees, such as server-clusters, working-stations, consults and marketing among other things, for OVER A YEAR without any additional income?
On an average in the gaming industry a single employee (as of last year) $84,337 per year.
If we assume that everyone (which is not true, there are people earning more and people earning less) earns exactly that and assume that they currently have 350 employees that would mean about 29,5 MILLION dollars per year. For salaries alone.Now lets say that an expansion takes 2 years to complete and release (because releasing yearly real expansions is rather unlikely, most MMOs doesn’t get their first expansions until several years in) that would mean about 60 million dollars spent on only salaries.
Do you really think they would be able to survive in the long-term with costs like that (and that is not including costs outside of salaries) based on only releasing an expansion now and then?An expansion would most likely not cost the same as the original game, and people have (as you seem keep to point out quite often) left the game, and as such it is extremely unlikely that every expansion would generate 100% of the original income from the original game.
Isn’t this a copy paste of your own post before?
Anyway, yeah an expansion a year should be possible and yes that should be able to finance the game (I won’t go into specific numbers because we don’t have the exact numbers) as that is how most (non-mmo) games make there money. Sure cost for an MMO are higher but they should be able to push out an expansion every year while those non-mmo games it can take longer (like 3 years) before they have a sequel.
I did also say this before. Asking me the same thing as if I never countered that before does not make it right you know. I really wonder why you keep doing that? Repeating / asking the same as if I did not already answered that. Or are you just trolling? Or do you hope I will not react at some point so you can feel victorious? If that is what makes you happy I will not react anymore on something you already said or asked before (and I answered on before).
And no at this point an expansion would likely not create the 100% any-more. That is what I said. However it might help to get people back or stop a possible decrease of people. If it improves the game enough the expansion after that might raise the number of sales more. Less people just as well also means less cash-shop sales. No difference there.
Anyway it’s cool of you to agree that enough people to leave already because of the current state of the game that they would likely not be able to generate the 100% they did with GW1. What would proof the expansions-based model is able to keep more people happy.
(edited by Devata.6589)
“Ben Miller: The Guild Wars business model has worked really, really well for us. We’re blown away by the success of the first game. We were three guys with an idea and now we’re a 130 person company supporting one of the biggest online role-playing games in the market. We’re certainly not going to turn our back on the business model that got us here.
But the fundamental business model is not going to change. You buy the game once, you can play it for as long as you want. And the new content we introduce in the future you can choose to buy or not to buy."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-best-things-in-life-are-free-interview?page=2
Can we stop with the whole “expansion business model doesn’t work” nonsense?
(edited by NewTrain.7549)
How old is that? 7 years. Plans change. The original rumors had GW2 in 2009 and later 2010 or 11. Something went into a hand basket to ship estimates that badly. Maybe they found it’s more difficult to build open world content than instanced and realized that a proper expansion, meaning large enough with enough activities, would take too long to do so they switched to plan B.
I’ve been rereading some of the earliest articles about the game on a number of sites. The one noticeable thing lost was the Hero system. But they stuck to their guns with B2P, no subscription model for a full blown MMO. They just needed a way to pay for continuing development and make it optional. So we have a totally optional gem shop selling cosmetic and minor convenience items as well as the standard character slots and account bank expansions. They even talked about way back then doing away with guild vs guild and going world vs world PvP play. But gee what a surprise that’s what they delivered. How dare they.
Oh BTW, you left out a paragraph between those two.
Whether that means Guild Wars 2 will have expansions, or the same kind of release cycle as Guild Wars, or mini-expansions on a more frequent cycle – I don’t know the exact answer. But I think we have time here to really find out what works best for the game and for the community.
Can’t get much more mini or frequent than every two weeks. And guess what, they’re free.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
(edited by Behellagh.1468)
It does not effect YOUR game-play. In fact if they put ascended stats in the cash-shop it would not effect my game-play. However I would still be against it as it does effect the game-play for other people.
You might be fine with those items because they don’t effect your game-play. I’m not because overall it still effects the game-play just not your game-play. There are only trivial for your gameplay not for game-play in general.
And what I am saying is not that they have to do anything for free. Simply that they make there money with expansions in stead of with the cash-shop so they don’t have to put any of those things in the cash-shop.
It does affect my game play though. I enjoy collecting minis (which is why I frustrated myself to the point of destroying my keyboard in my ‘journey’ to kill liadri). If I want something from the gem shop, I either set myself a goal of making enough gold in game to get it or I see if I can budget the gems into my spending for the month. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can’t. If I can’t then it makes me try that much harder to earn the gold in game. Its not the end of the world if I don’t succeed though. Such things don’t impact the game itself, just my personal goals.
On the other hand, having something like ascended for sale in the shop would impact the game as a whole. Maybe it wouldn’t affect you right away. You may think it wouldn’t affect your game play, but power creep eventually affects everyone. At which point, then people could kitten that the shop is becoming pay to win.
I understand what you’re trying to go for; however, there is no way to know for sure that they could make enough to sustain their needs through just expansions. GW2 is not built the same way as GW1. Anet was a much smaller company then, not to mention that the GW1 games were built as stand alone boxes, not expansions. Each game was smaller than what GW2 is as a whole. A factions sized expansion for GW2 would probably cause as much kittening as it would happy feelings. Why? Because people would be done with it in a matter of days unless Anet implemented some type of gating to slow us down and drag it out, which would generate its own subset of kittening. Also, keep in mind that factions took a year to push out. For any substantial sized expansion, they’d need at least that much time. However, pile on top of that LS updates, QoL updates, the China launch, and whatever else they having going on in the background…I can see that time frame growing almost exponentially. They need to keep a solid income flow through all of this…
Beyond that, keep in mind that GW1 started offering its own micro-transactions right around the launch of Nightfall (might have been slightly after, but it was long before GWEN). Before they determined that they would not be doing any more boxed campaigns. That implies to me that box sales were in fact not sufficient to sustain their income needs.
Don’t look at me like that. Whatever you’ve heard, it’s probably not true.
How old is that? 7 years. Plans change. The original rumors had GW2 in 2009 and later 2010 or 11. Something went into a hand basket to ship estimates that badly. Maybe they found it’s more difficult to build open world content than instanced and realized that a proper expansion, meaning large enough with enough activities, would take too long to do so they switched to plan B.
I’ve been rereading some of the earliest articles about the game on a number of sites. The one noticeable thing lost was the Hero system. But they stuck to their guns with B2P, no subscription model for a full blown MMO. They just needed a way to pay for continuing development and make it optional. So we have a totally optional gem shop selling cosmetic and minor convenience items as well as the standard character slots and account bank expansions. They even talked about way back then doing away with guild vs guild and going world vs world PvP play. But gee what a surprise that’s what they delivered. How dare they.
Oh BTW, you left out a paragraph between those two.
Whether that means Guild Wars 2 will have expansions, or the same kind of release cycle as Guild Wars, or mini-expansions on a more frequent cycle – I don’t know the exact answer. But I think we have time here to really find out what works best for the game and for the community.
Can’t get much more mini than every two weeks. And guess what, they’re free.
I’m sorry. Where in that rambling post did you prove that the expansion business model was unsuccessful? You know, the point I was making, which you completely ignored.
(edited by NewTrain.7549)
~
I did not really understand your first paragraph. You mean it already effects you negatively or it would effect you positive or negative if those items where in the game and not in the cash-shop? You can still set your goal on getting it, also with gold if that is your preferred game-play. Now however you can’t play directly for it. Something that seems not to be a problem for you. Or you mean it does effect you already negatively because it’s only available temporary. Well wouldn’t it be great to also get rid of that then?
It both effects the game as a whole (items in the cash-shop make the game more of a gold-grind while stats in the cash-shop make the game more P2Kill) but if it effects your personal game-play depends on the person.
I do think that it would be enough to sustain, it as it’s how most game-companies work and very recently we got some numbers that also seem to indicate that a model based on expansion would be enough and in fact would earn more compared to what they earn now (after a second expansion when pushing out an expansion every year).
See: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/KongZhong-Details-about-GW2-China/page/2#post4077017
Yes the game-world has gotten bigger but so has the company and so has the number of total sales. So that should level each other out pretty well.
Of course it would mean they would not have the same amount of LS as they do now. Basically you replace most of the LS (development time) for Expansions.
As far as I know (but I don’t know for sure) the cash-shop in GW1 came at the time they did decide on making a GW2 and is was meant to be there to keep supporting when the expansions would stop. Still the problem I have with it thats it has a focus on it. If they had a cash-shop that would just sell some out-of game items (name-changers) maybe even something like town-cloth (if I am correct thats mainly what they did sell in GW1) then it would not be a big problem. The problem is that it has the focus on the cash-shop and you notice that in game-design as well as that most mini’s are in the cash-shop just as many of the new skins, dyes and so on. Most of that should in the world and if they would sell a few things to the side in the cash-shop without effect the game-world itself I would be fine with it.
I’m sorry. Where in that rambling post did you prove that the expansion business model was unsuccessful? You know, the point I was making, which you completely ignored.
Never said the expansion business model was unsuccessful. As long as expansions are relatively quick to produce. Since the game was originally planned in 2009, then pushed back to a nebulous 2010/2011 and finally came out in 2012, it seems obvious that open world content creation for a true MMO was something the devs underestimated using their instanced content creation as a guide.
The first two GW campaigns were a year a part and like clockwork. Each time sales spiked as it was snapped up. A game like WoW can sell expansions with a much longer delay between releases because they are subscriber based. The question is could an expansion business model work with a longer time between expansions than the first game. At double plus the staff size I would be inclined to say no. You would either have to run with a smaller staff or seriously limit the amount of new content for the expansion. Which begs the question if enough players would buy a smaller expansion when the first game’s campaigns were essentially full games on their own.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
I’m sorry. Where in that rambling post did you prove that the expansion business model was unsuccessful? You know, the point I was making, which you completely ignored.
Never said the expansion business model was unsuccessful.
Then why on earth are you responding to a post where the ONLY point being made was that the expansion model was successful and people claiming otherwise are mistaken?
I’m sorry. Where in that rambling post did you prove that the expansion business model was unsuccessful? You know, the point I was making, which you completely ignored.
Never said the expansion business model was unsuccessful.
Then why on earth are you responding to a post where the ONLY point being made was that the expansion model was successful and people claiming otherwise are mistaken?
Because you cherry picked quotes from that article so you could call ANet an oath breaker. Plans change, income modeling done and something between then and now told them it wouldn’t work. But they didn’t give up the notion that it would be free to play once purchased or that new content would be added while the game was live.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
(edited by Behellagh.1468)
I’m sorry. Where in that rambling post did you prove that the expansion business model was unsuccessful? You know, the point I was making, which you completely ignored.
Never said the expansion business model was unsuccessful. As long as expansions are relatively quick to produce. Since the game was originally planned in 2009, then pushed back to a nebulous 2010/2011 and finally came out in 2012, it seems obvious that open world content creation for a true MMO was something the devs underestimated using their instanced content creation as a guide.
The first two GW campaigns were a year a part and like clockwork. Each time sales spiked as it was snapped up. A game like WoW can sell expansions with a much longer delay between releases because they are subscriber based. The question is could an expansion business model work with a longer time between expansions than the first game. At double plus the staff size I would be inclined to say no. You would either have to run with a smaller staff or seriously limit the amount of new content for the expansion. Which begs the question if enough players would buy a smaller expansion when the first game’s campaigns were essentially full games on their own.
They would have to push out an expansion once a year (more or less) and that should be possible if thats what they focus on.
GW1’s first compain indeed was a year after release of the game however the second expansion was 6 months after that and the expansion (as far as I know development for GW2 had then also started) was 10 months after that.
Also looking at how much time they put into the LS then yeah I do think they should be able to push out a good expansion every year.
I’m sorry. Where in that rambling post did you prove that the expansion business model was unsuccessful? You know, the point I was making, which you completely ignored.
Never said the expansion business model was unsuccessful.
Then why on earth are you responding to a post where the ONLY point being made was that the expansion model was successful and people claiming otherwise are mistaken?
Because you cherry picked quotes from that article. The rest was a general post about the thread.
Cherry-picked? The quotes are not taken out of context in the least and fully support my point that the expansion model is successful.
This is the problem with forum white knights (whether or not you are one). They immediately jump on the defensive when there is any perceived criticism of their beloved game. In many cases, they wind up arguing against things ANet has directly stated to be true, such as in this case.
I’m sorry. Where in that rambling post did you prove that the expansion business model was unsuccessful? You know, the point I was making, which you completely ignored.
Never said the expansion business model was unsuccessful.
Then why on earth are you responding to a post where the ONLY point being made was that the expansion model was successful and people claiming otherwise are mistaken?
Because you cherry picked quotes from that article. The rest was a general post about the thread.
Cherry-picked? The quotes are not taken out of context in the least and fully support my point that the expansion model is successful.
This is the problem with forum white knights (whether or not you are one). They immediately jump on the defensive when there is any perceived criticism of their beloved game. In many cases, they wind up arguing against things ANet has directly stated to be true, such as in this case.
And you left out the paragraph that was between the two you used, the one I included that talked about the size and frequency of the expansion, why? Is it because it could be used to support the notion of Living Story content? “… or mini-expansions on a more frequent cycle …” could easily mean what was delivered to us as the Living Story. But lets not include that, it disagrees with your assertion that they promised paid expansions as a means to generate income.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
I’m sorry. Where in that rambling post did you prove that the expansion business model was unsuccessful? You know, the point I was making, which you completely ignored.
Never said the expansion business model was unsuccessful.
Then why on earth are you responding to a post where the ONLY point being made was that the expansion model was successful and people claiming otherwise are mistaken?
Because you cherry picked quotes from that article. The rest was a general post about the thread.
Cherry-picked? The quotes are not taken out of context in the least and fully support my point that the expansion model is successful.
This is the problem with forum white knights (whether or not you are one). They immediately jump on the defensive when there is any perceived criticism of their beloved game. In many cases, they wind up arguing against things ANet has directly stated to be true, such as in this case.
And you left out the paragraph that was between the two you used, the one I included that talked about the size and frequency of the expansion, why? Is it because it could be used to support the notion of Living Story content? “… or mini-expansions on a more frequent cycle …” could easily mean what was delivered to us as the Living Story. But lets not include that, it disagrees with your assertion that they promised paid expansions as a means to generate income.
Living world expansions are not the expansion business model, you don’t pay for them. Irrelevant information. Besides the second paragraph I included specifically states they’re discussing paid expansions.
Again, it seems like you don’t even know what point you’re arguing against. Perhaps, instead of knee-jerk replying, you take a second to realize what my point actually was and respond to that. The fact that you think I’m asserting “they promised paid expansions as a means to generate income” shows you have no idea what my point was, despite me telling you multiple times.
I’m sorry. Where in that rambling post did you prove that the expansion business model was unsuccessful? You know, the point I was making, which you completely ignored.
Never said the expansion business model was unsuccessful.
Then why on earth are you responding to a post where the ONLY point being made was that the expansion model was successful and people claiming otherwise are mistaken?
Because you cherry picked quotes from that article. The rest was a general post about the thread.
Cherry-picked? The quotes are not taken out of context in the least and fully support my point that the expansion model is successful.
This is the problem with forum white knights (whether or not you are one). They immediately jump on the defensive when there is any perceived criticism of their beloved game. In many cases, they wind up arguing against things ANet has directly stated to be true, such as in this case.
And you left out the paragraph that was between the two you used, the one I included that talked about the size and frequency of the expansion, why? Is it because it could be used to support the notion of Living Story content? “… or mini-expansions on a more frequent cycle …” could easily mean what was delivered to us as the Living Story. But lets not include that, it disagrees with your assertion that they promised paid expansions as a means to generate income.
NewTrain did not say they promised expansions (in fact nobody here did). NewTrain only said that the expansion-model is a successful model. So he only quotes what is relevant for that and that paragraph is simply not relevant for showing that the expansion-model can work and was successful. (as some people here said it was not).
What I said before is that they where vague, not saying the one or the other but if anything then it would point more towards expansions. Also with this article that is the case. They have option they are looking at (including smaller more regular expansions and the cash-shop) but if anything they are happy with the expansion-based model (how it worked for them) and want to use that as a basis for Gw2. Thats basically what this article says.
So also what I said before still stands. You are trying to proof that they never literally said they would release expansions to generate the money. (They of course did say they would use the B2P model what basically means the same) But you are right, they never said that they would use expansion to generate money. Nobody here is saying that they did. So you are arguing about something that nobody is disagreeing on.
(edited by Devata.6589)
~~~ snip ~~~
Been reading your posts, and feel the need to add some thoughts.
NCSoft’s goals, as with most any other publicly traded company, is to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. Sure selling expansions would be enough to pay for future content. That’s basically want the Living Story was – an expansion’s worth of content given for free. But the reality of this is that you have a highly successful business plan that requires no changes. The microtransaction shop has been doing great with new Gem Store items related to LS content. Because GW2 is the #2 moneymaker for NCSoft, it makes sense to milk the cash cow for as much as possible if the current strategy is working.
As sales from the microtransaction store declines, that’s when you’ll see a shift in the strategy. New content or bringing back popular content is a way to increase player activity. Releasing new expansion content is an even better way. So right now, I’m theorizing that NCSoft is holding back on any expansion type releases until they need a boost to their sales numbers. Releasing the expansion content while sales are up wouldn’t make sense (from a business perspective). The hype would be drowned out by current popularity of the game. But if you wait a while before releasing the expansion, and time the release right, you get your name back in the news.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
But I never said expansion model doesn’t work, it obviously worked for GW.
It’s a 7 year old article and it was an answer to the question about income models and all that it was stated that they liked how it worked out in Guild Wars and they’ll look into it for GW2. Not that they would absolutely use it. That’s what I got from New Train’s first post. That they promised to use that means to finance GW2’s free to play after purchase. See, here’s the quotes.
But it’s equally obvious that sometime between then and now that they decided that method wouldn’t/couldn’t work in GW2. (Waiting for the Nexon conspiracy post.) Me including that left out quote is to show that even back then they were unsure what would work or how they would deliver expansions.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
(edited by Behellagh.1468)
~~~ snip ~~~
Been reading your posts, and feel the need to add some thoughts.
NCSoft’s goals, as with most any other publicly traded company, is to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. Sure selling expansions would be enough to pay for future content. That’s basically want the Living Story was – an expansion’s worth of content given for free. But the reality of this is that you have a highly successful business plan that requires no changes. The microtransaction shop has been doing great with new Gem Store items related to LS content. Because GW2 is the #2 moneymaker for NCSoft, it makes sense to milk the cash cow for as much as possible if the current strategy is working.
As sales from the microtransaction store declines, that’s when you’ll see a shift in the strategy. New content or bringing back popular content is a way to increase player activity. Releasing new expansion content is an even better way. So right now, I’m theorizing that NCSoft is holding back on any expansion type releases until they need a boost to their sales numbers. Releasing the expansion content while sales are up wouldn’t make sense (from a business perspective). The hype would be drowned out by current popularity of the game. But if you wait a while before releasing the expansion, and time the release right, you get your name back in the news.
Yeah I understand the reasons they do it this way is to use it as a cash-cow. Mainly also because it’s less risky then the expansion-based model.
Still I do think an expansion every year would also get them back in the news every year.
Releasing a game later after letting it’s quality drop because of what they are doing now will also mean they do not get as many people back as if they would have kept the quality high.
However I don’t purely look from an investors point who likely prefers to make money as low-risk possible as fast as possible and is less interested in the long term because he simply switches to the next product.
I also look at it from my (consumer) perspective who wants a high quality product with a long life-spawn.
Still for a investor willing to have a little higher risk but with a bigger reward on the longer-term I do think the expansion-based model would also benefit them the most.
That’s what I got from New Train’s first post. That they promised to use that means to finance GW2’s free to play after purchase.
Then you got it wrong, especially since my last sentence made my point abundantly clear. Heck, it was the only sentence of mine, the rest being quotes from ANet.
I have no idea how you misinterpreted a single very explicit sentence so badly.
Again, here it is for you convenience:
Can we stop with the whole “expansion business model doesn’t work” nonsense?
By stating that you are implying it could work here. The whole gist of this thread is that ANet gave up on an income model that worked in GW to focus on a cash shop for GW2 and it’s somehow China’s fault. The players who are talking about paid expansion not working are talking about not working in this game, not the income model in general. It worked in single player games for years.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
(edited by Behellagh.1468)
By stating that you are implying it could work here. The whole gist of this thread is that ANet gave up on an income model that worked in GW to focus on a cash shop for GW2 and it’s somehow China’s fault. The players who are talking about it not working are talking about not working in this game, not the model in general.
I’m implying nothing. If I wanted to state that it would work in GW2, I would have written that. However, I didn’t write that. I wrote what I wrote and what I wrote is what I meant.
Don’t blame me for your misinterpretation of a very simple post. You chose to respond to what you wanted me to have written and not what I actually wrote. At least exercise some maturity and own up to the fact that you failed to actually understand what I wrote before writing a knee-jerk response.
“Ben Miller: The Guild Wars business model has worked really, really well for us. We’re blown away by the success of the first game. We were three guys with an idea and now we’re a 130 person company supporting one of the biggest online role-playing games in the market. The Guild Wars business model has worked really, really well for us.
But the fundamental business model is not going to change. You buy the game once, you can play it for as long as you want. And the new content we introduce in the future you can choose to buy or not to buy."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-best-things-in-life-are-free-interview?page=2
Can we stop with the whole “expansion business model doesn’t work” nonsense?
What other conclusions could I draw from the text you bolded other that showing that they implied that GW2 would also be financed via expansions. Let me list those to be clear.
The Guild Wars business model has worked really, really well for us.
But the fundamental business model is not going to change.
What was their business model again? Oh yes, paid expansions.
Now if your intention was just to show that it worked once you could have proceeded the quotes with a “see, this is what they said about how well it worked in Guild Wars” if your just wanted to say it had worked in the past. But since posters were saying it wouldn’t work in GW2 your post seem to state that it would and the highlighted quotes show that it was their original plan.
See why I “misunderstood” your post. Why it looked as if you were saying that they stated that was how GW2 would be marketed as well.
Honestly we are picking nits here.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
“Ben Miller: The Guild Wars business model has worked really, really well for us. We’re blown away by the success of the first game. We were three guys with an idea and now we’re a 130 person company supporting one of the biggest online role-playing games in the market. The Guild Wars business model has worked really, really well for us.
But the fundamental business model is not going to change. You buy the game once, you can play it for as long as you want. And the new content we introduce in the future you can choose to buy or not to buy."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-best-things-in-life-are-free-interview?page=2
Can we stop with the whole “expansion business model doesn’t work” nonsense?
What other conclusions could I draw from the text you bolded other that showing that they implied that GW2 would also be financed via expansions.
The conclusion I made explicitly clear in the only sentence of my own. You know, the sentence that I used the quotes to prove correct?
Again, have the maturity to admit you made a completely knee-jerk response to a perceived criticism that in actuality didn’t exist. A fault lying entirely with you.
Yeah I understand the reasons they do it this way is to use it as a cash-cow. Mainly also because it’s less risky then the expansion-based model.
Still I do think an expansion every year would also get them back in the news every year.
Releasing a game later after letting it’s quality drop because of what they are doing now will also mean they do not get as many people back as if they would have kept the quality high.
However I don’t purely look from an investors point who likely prefers to make money as low-risk possible as fast as possible and is less interested in the long term because he simply switches to the next product.
I also look at it from my (consumer) perspective who wants a high quality product with a long life-spawn.Still for a investor willing to have a little higher risk but with a bigger reward on the longer-term I do think the expansion-based model would also benefit them the most.
If you look at it the other way, delaying expansions is a way to increase the lifespan of the product. While the current GW2 you’ve been playing might not appeal to you as it did 2 years ago, it’s still popular (judging from the sales figures from NCSoft). If you brought out highly popular new content, including new open world maps, of course they’ll see a bump in their sales. But couple that with a currently popular game, and the sales bumps wouldn’t be as large. Then you have the question of how long the new expansion content will last. Remember, most hard core players got to end game within the first month. We ate up GW2 for all it’s worth, and then everything since has been seeking out the small details we missed along the way (i.e. dungeon paths, dynamic events, etc).
Now take an expansion, and release it later when sales start to decline. You have an instant spike in sales, and add some years to the lifespan of the game. Now there’s more content to do, and people will flock back to play the game again. It’s like a brand new game was released, without having to develop a new game engine.
Releasing an expansion like this wouldn’t be so great for players, as we all want new content here and now. But it makes perfect business sense in terms of longevity and sales. With that in mind, I’m more forgiving that we haven’t had our Cantha fix yet.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
Did you ever thing they were planning to go into China when the released GW2? Maybe it took that long to translate the game properly and they didn’t want to release an expansion before the China release.
Of course they were planning to go into China. Likely rest of Asia as well (Korea and Japan) since GW did. They may be using the money from China to do the ports for other regions.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
Indeed. One of the Devs mentioned that it was 18 months in the making. Thus another reason why I’m now thinking Cantha was withheld so long. If they release an Asian themed expansion after China GW2 hit the market, you’ll have a whole population of new players who will think that Anet did it just for them. That “feel good” feeling can go a long way in terms of loyalty. Business-wise, it’s a good psychological tactic, as increased loyalty can lead to increased microtransactions.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
~
If you look at it the other way, delaying expansions is a way to increase the lifespan of the product. While the current GW2 you’ve been playing might not appeal to you as it did 2 years ago, it’s still popular (judging from the sales figures from NCSoft). If you brought out highly popular new content, including new open world maps, of course they’ll see a bump in their sales. But couple that with a currently popular game, and the sales bumps wouldn’t be as large. Then you have the question of how long the new expansion content will last. Remember, most hard core players got to end game within the first month. We ate up GW2 for all it’s worth, and then everything since has been seeking out the small details we missed along the way (i.e. dungeon paths, dynamic events, etc).
Now take an expansion, and release it later when sales start to decline. You have an instant spike in sales, and add some years to the lifespan of the game. Now there’s more content to do, and people will flock back to play the game again. It’s like a brand new game was released, without having to develop a new game engine.
Releasing an expansion like this wouldn’t be so great for players, as we all want new content here and now. But it makes perfect business sense in terms of longevity and sales. With that in mind, I’m more forgiving that we haven’t had our Cantha fix yet.
Personally I do consider the argument “the ’ hard core players’ would burn through an expansion in a month” as reason why expansion would not work not valid. It’s not so much the hard-core people, but there is indeed a group of people that burns through the content to get highest level and highest stats gear and then say there is nothing to do. However you will also not keep them happy with the current LS content because they would burn through that in a few hours and it’s likely also not what they are looking for. What they are looking for is (endless) vertical progression, not horizontal. The LS is not vertical and you can’t make it vertical because it would make the game unplayable for anybody else who does not want that endless vertical progression.
All you can do for those people (part of them) is implementing hard, challenging repeatable content with weekly or monthly refreshing leader-boards and add some rewards to there account (something just for them, a metal they see on there account or something.). Don’t even think of having a leader board that does not refresh on a weekly or monthly (max half year) base as it will scare away the people who want to be first in that list but can’t get it anymore. Think of hard raid content you can do with a guild, maybe also giving some metals to the guild. Every year (expansion) you could add another two raid dungeons and new metals. (and maybe other rewards, but I don’t think you will make them happy with a mini, a metal or a title will give them more I think)
Doing it this way could keep many of those people happy but like I said there is always a group that gets to max level and max stats and is done with it. You won’t be able to please them anyway.
Horizontal progression on the other hand should be easy enough to keep you busy for a year (or more) when implemented in an expansion, exactly by doing the stuff I asked for but am missing in GW2. If you need to hunt down all those horizontal items dye-colors, mini’s skins, recipes for fun-crafts and so on in the world that can easily keep you busy for a year or more.
I do agree with the positive effect of expansions you describe, just not with the idea that you would first have to wait longer and basically let the game decline for it to have that effect. In fact by doing that you will have scared people away that will not come back so it would have a less positive effect imho. Releasing an expansion every year would give the same positive effect, you would not need the cash-shop focus and so you can keep the game at a high standard all the time earning your money with those expansions.
Alienating those people is also not good for the longevity of the game so I don’t really see why you think waiting longer in-between expansion (using the cash-shop in the meanwhile) would be better for the longevity. I think it’s exactly the other way around.
Indeed. One of the Devs mentioned that it was 18 months in the making. Thus another reason why I’m now thinking Cantha was withheld so long. If they release an Asian themed expansion after China GW2 hit the market, you’ll have a whole population of new players who will think that Anet did it just for them. That “feel good” feeling can go a long way in terms of loyalty. Business-wise, it’s a good psychological tactic, as increased loyalty can lead to increased microtransactions.
While obviously the team would be involved in the process especially as launch time comes closer usually most of that sort of thinks like translating or making changes based on the region / culture are done by a separate team from the developer / company releasing it in that country.
What I did hear about why Ncsoft did not want a Cantha expansion (I am not one of the person dying to get a Cantha expansion, just for the record) was exactly because the Asian markets would react negatively on it because of cultural misconception. I could not give you a direct link with the source but I think you might find more information about that in the Cantha thread. ArenaNet (back then) would love to release a Cantha expansion but it was Ncsoft who was against it.
I don’t know how far this story is fact or just a internet story but I do know that in the Cantha thread an Anet person did say that if the player-base would keep asking it might convince people to create a Cantha expansion. So that would fit with the story.
(edited by Devata.6589)
It was a Reddit post referencing what an anonymous dev said off the record at a game conference. That has all the authenticity of JFK’s being patched up, dyed black and left in a nursing home in East Texas (Bubba Ho Tep reference).
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
-snip-
My point was that cosmetic items in the shop aren’t game impacting. They are cosmetic, they don’t affect the game world. It’s ‘pay to look shiny.’ Yes, that impacts how you and I play because of our play styles. We can’t…say, go do a jumping puzzle and get that reward. We have to either use cash or earn gold, but in the earning gold scenario that’s not any different than buying the mini (if it were tradeable) because you either couldn’t or didn’t want to complete the content. In that respect it’s really no different than GW1.
Stats on the other hand are ‘pay to win’ and should never, ever be in the cash shop. You think it wouldn’t affect you, but when they start putting in harder content that you can’t do without those stats, because you can’t kill the mobs, then its blatantly obvious how it affects the game, and not just person A or person B. Sadly, I’m pretty sure the day is coming where ascended will be a necessity and not just a nicety.
I will point out that “most game companies” also charge a 15$ a month fee to access their game, on top of their expansion costs. That is their means of keeping a solid income flow. On top of all of that, those game companies also offer cash shops. Outside of GW1, I cannot think of any game that is not either p2p or p2w, which generates their cash flows. GW2 cash shop gives you the option to spend money to continue supporting the game, via items that are cosmetic niceties. They also give people that don’t have the cash the option to exchange gold for those items, which most other games (including GW1) do not do.
In regards to China, yeah they got a lot more box sales, but those are going to dwindle eventually, just like they did in NA/EU. It gives them a pile of cash ‘right now’ which they can stretch, but they still need a stable, reliable income on which to base future development forecasts. They have 300+ people that they have to pay salaries for, plus any number of temps or interns that earn an income that aren’t necessarily listed on the employment roster. Like all businesses, they have bills to pay for not just GW2, but also to maintain GW1. I honestly don’t think simply relying on box sales will cut it at this point. Sure, when they were half the size they are now, and able to push out a small game every 6 months to year, yeah I can see it. However, they are bigger operation now. Look at all the voice acting for GW2 as just 1 example. GW1 didn’t have anywhere near that much. You think some of the actors they hired to do voice work come cheaply? No, unless they are consistently selling a significant number of boxes every month, that income alone isn’t going to cut it.
I’m not advocating for no expansions. Not in the least. I like the LS, and I wouldn’t mind seeing a boxed expansion either. I think they are completely capable of doing both; however they seem to have the desire to want to give us more story without charging us over and over for it. I’m not going to look that gift horse in the mouth. If the story gets better, and we start getting things like new maps, new skills, new weapons, etc for free, I’ll gladly spend some money in the gem shop to support it. It wouldn’t be any different than spending money on an expansion at that point. Except that they didn’t shove it into a box and make me buy it for a very specific set price in order to play it. They just gave it to me. (Side tangent, can you imagine the screaming had they boxed LS1 and sold it as mini expansion rather than being free? Terrifying)
I thought the cash shop n GW1 came in around NF time, although maybe it was GWEN. It’s been too long at this point. I could have sworn we could purchase costumes and such before then though. Maybe not.
Yes, sometimes it feels like they focus on the cash shop, but as long as it stays cosmetic and I have the option to work towards it via gold, then I have no issue with it. Would I like to see new weapon and armor skins in the game itself, rather than just in the shop? Yes, and I’ve said that many times. Outside of that my only real kitten with the cash shop is the rng involved for certain things – like the dye packs or the weapon skins. However, even those can be purchased via gold, since they are tradeable and do end up on the trading post. Honestly, I think if they just balanced it out a little more (1 new set earnable in game to 2 sets in the shop for example) there would be less issue.
Don’t look at me like that. Whatever you’ve heard, it’s probably not true.
-snip-
My point was that cosmetic items in the shop aren’t game impacting. They are cosmetic, they don’t affect the game world. It’s ‘pay to look shiny.’ Yes, that impacts how you and I play because of our play styles. We can’t…say, go do a jumping puzzle and get that reward. We have to either use cash or earn gold, but in the earning gold scenario that’s not any different than buying the mini (if it were tradeable) because you either couldn’t or didn’t want to complete the content. In that respect it’s really no different than GW1.
Stats on the other hand are ‘pay to win’ and should never, ever be in the cash shop. You think it wouldn’t affect you, but when they start putting in harder content that you can’t do without those stats, because you can’t kill the mobs, then its blatantly obvious how it affects the game, and not just person A or person B. Sadly, I’m pretty sure the day is coming where ascended will be a necessity and not just a nicety.
I will point out that “most game companies” also charge a 15$ a month fee to access their game, on top of their expansion costs. That is their means of keeping a solid income flow. On top of all of that, those game companies also offer cash shops. Outside of GW1, I cannot think of any game that is not either p2p or p2w, which generates their cash flows. GW2 cash shop gives you the option to spend money to continue supporting the game, via items that are cosmetic niceties. They also give people that don’t have the cash the option to exchange gold for those items, which most other games (including GW1) do not do.
In regards to China, yeah they got a lot more box sales, but those are going to dwindle eventually, just like they did in NA/EU. It gives them a pile of cash ‘right now’ which they can stretch, but they still need a stable, reliable income on which to base future development forecasts. They have 300+ people that they have to pay salaries for, plus any number of temps or interns that earn an income that aren’t necessarily listed on the employment roster. Like all businesses, they have bills to pay for not just GW2, but also to maintain GW1. I honestly don’t think simply relying on box sales will cut it at this point. Sure, when they were half the size they are now, and able to push out a small game every 6 months to year, yeah I can see it. However, they are bigger operation now. Look at all the voice acting for GW2 as just 1 example. GW1 didn’t have anywhere near that much. You think some of the actors they hired to do voice work come cheaply? No, unless they are consistently selling a significant number of boxes every month, that income alone isn’t going to cut it.
I’m not advocating for no expansions. Not in the least. I like the LS, and I wouldn’t mind seeing a boxed expansion either. I think they are completely capable of doing both; however they seem to have the desire to want to give us more story without charging us over and over for it. I’m not going to look that gift horse in the mouth. If the story gets better, and we start getting things like new maps, new skills, new weapons, etc for free, I’ll gladly spend some money in the gem shop to support it. It wouldn’t be any different than spending money on an expansion at that point. Except that they didn’t shove it into a box and make me buy it for a very specific set price in order to play it. They just gave it to me. (Side tangent, can you imagine the screaming had they boxed LS1 and sold it as mini expansion rather than being free? Terrifying)
I thought the cash shop n GW1 came in around NF time, although maybe it was GWEN. It’s been too long at this point. I could have sworn we could purchase costumes and such before then though. Maybe not.
Yes, sometimes it feels like they focus on the cash shop, but as long as it stays cosmetic and I have the option to work towards it via gold, then I have no issue with it. Would I like to see new weapon and armor skins in the game itself, rather than just in the shop? Yes, and I’ve said that many times. Outside of that my only real kitten with the cash shop is the rng involved for certain things – like the dye packs or the weapon skins. However, even those can be purchased via gold, since they are tradeable and do end up on the trading post. Honestly, I think if they just balanced it out a little more (1 new set earnable in game to 2 sets in the shop for example) there would be less issue.
CS in GW1 was there from the beginning but was less than what it was say starting with Factions. Buying skills for cash, etc was there (for PvP only but when you unlocked them it made it easier to do PvE also).
CS in GW1 was there from the beginning but was less than what it was say starting with Factions. Buying skills for cash, etc was there (for PvP only but when you unlocked them it made it easier to do PvE also).
Ah, k, thought so. Like I said, been a long time haha. I know I didn’t start paying attention to it until I could buy storage panels, which I know came much later in the game’s lifetime. And then mercenaries, when they came in near the end. Now that was fun times…
Don’t look at me like that. Whatever you’ve heard, it’s probably not true.
~
Well I was always taking about how it effects game-play and so the game itself (as the game is defined by it’s game-play), I am not able to work directly towards that item.
It might still be the same content but grinding it for gold I usually don’t consider fun while doing it for that specific item directly I do consider fun. It’s simply how prefer to play MMO’s. Working my way from item to item.
Buying it if it was be tradable would indeed be the same as it is now. But then again it would not be a route I would be likely to take simply because I don’t consider it fun.
“but when they start putting in harder content that you can’t do without those stats “ That is locking content behind the cash-shop (in an indirect way) and is more then just P2Kill (I don’t name it P2W because for me getting that cosmetic item from some content is also a form of winning so by that definition the game would already be P2W). Even then it would only effect people who in fact want to kill those mobs. While it then would likely effect me (I would want to kill it for the challenge and for the cosmetic item it would drop… if it did) there might be people completely not interested in that. Think for example on RP, some of them really only just want to RP with friends and killing a hard mob is not there interest. So also that would not effect everybody. Again it really depends on your preferred game-play if it effects you.
“I will point out that “most game companies” also charge a 15$ ” (you only mean MMO’s right?) Forgetting any releases within lets say two years as they still have to see if the sub-model works for them, there have not been any MMO’s (in the western market) released after WoW (almost 10 years) that where able to have success with the P2P model. Now there are 3 more trying it and I think most people can see how one of them is failing with it for sure. So I am not sure that “most MMO game companies do so”. I think ‘most’ are F2P. GW was supposed to be the one that did thinks different. In fact they still do much of there marketing as if they use some special unique business model but at this moment it’s just the same as the many F2P game out there. And I disagree that all those F2P games are P2Kill. Yeah some companies have all (while usually having a focus on one thing, WoW for example has a cash-shop but that is in no way comparable to GW2’s cash-shop) still that other companies do stuff bad does not mean it’s an excuse for this game.
It’s an argument I see a lot in political discussion. We should not complain because children in Africa are way worse of. So then I always wonder if, if those person has a child and it comes back with a low grade it’s just fine as long as there where people with a lower grade. I don’t think so.
The expansion based model should be able to generate enough money (likely more then the cash-shop model) and it would be effect the game-design / game-play / game less then a cash-shop model does. That’s why I prefer it.
I don’t know if the Chinese part is for me? Because I never said anything about using that money. But if it comes to the question if box-sales (and then I to also talk about expansions!) would be able to support it. Well the numbers seem to indicate that they could earn even more money with a pure expansion-based model. So if the cash-shop can support them then an expansion-based model should as well. (when releasing a expansion every year and managing to keep a high-quality game that people keep playing)
“It wouldn’t be any different than spending money on an expansion at that point. ” It would because the game-play is still effected by it. Everything is still a gold-grind to get people to buy gems. While if I would have paid for the expansion and there would not be no cash-shop focus then those items could be in the game letting me directly play for them. So yes, there would be a huge difference.
“but as long as it stays cosmetic and I have the option to work towards it via gold, then I have no issue with it ” You don’t, I do because I have fun in working directly towards those items and don’t find it fun to grind gold for it. Like I said, if it effects you completely depends on your preferred game-play.
-snip-
So don’t “grind” the gold then. Just play the game and enjoy it. Set the cash shop item in the back of your mind. Its still working ‘from item to item’ as you put it, just in a different way. Yes, in a perfect world, we could earn everything in game, but that’s not how it works here.
So, per your example that RPer will never want to go to the zones where these mobs exist? They will never want to explore the new maps as part of their storylines, the growth of their characters? Maybe not, but I highly doubt it. I guess on this one we’ll agree to disagree because your ‘pay to win’ differs from the typical ‘pay to win’ definition.
We were discussing a MMO, so I kept the comparison to MMOs, yes. (It took quite a while for many post-WoW p2p mmos to finally suck it up and go without a monthly fee)
Although if you want to look at console games, those aren’t an expansion model. Each game is its own game, they don’t typically tie in together beyond using the same lore / story / universe. Regular rpg pc games do sometimes do ‘expansions’ depending on the game, but those companies also tend to make more than just one game and its associated expansions. They are also much smaller in scale and have to come out much more frequently in order to sustain their income, which is why it worked for GW1. It was much smaller in scale than GW2.
GW2’s cash shop is essentially the equivalent of WoW’s monthly fee, when it comes to income generation. The only difference is that your monthly fee is paid by someone else that is willing to spend money because you won’t.
It’s an argument I see a lot in political discussion…
That’s not the same thing. At least, it’s not the same thing I’m talking about here.
The expansion based model should be able to generate enough money
“Should be”
“Should be”
“Should be”
You keep saying that, but the bottom line is that you do not know. Hell, I do not know.
Obviously people smarter than us took a look at the options and decided differently. We don’t know if it would generate enough revenue, obviously they opted to go with a cash shop. We don’t know if it would have been an effective model, how many people purchased all of the available GW1 games? They have that data from which to make such decisions. You prefer it the old way, but the business decided that wasn’t the best model for them. Short of buying them out, there really isn’t anything you can do about it.
I don’t know if the Chinese part is for me?
I wasn’t asking if the Chinese stuff was for you. I think you’re missing what I’m saying. I was discussing revenue generated from the sales of the Chinese game, and the fact that it will eventually taper off. Anet needs a steady source of income, which box sales are not. Simply because of what they are, they cannot be a ‘steady, reliable’ source of income because eventually people are going to stop buying the boxes in any significant quantity. Anet requires a steady income source outside of box purchases, in order to fund development and pay thier bills. Other MMOs use monthly fees. ANet uses a cash shop. The main difference is that in p2p mmos, you have to pay each month, where with the cash shop, not everyone has to spend money. I’d bet the majority of players actually don’t.
It would because the game-play is still effected by it.
I think again you’re missing what I’m saying. If they gave us all the stuff we normally got in an expansion (armor, weapons, dungeons, etc) for free, if you spent 10$ in the cash shop, it wouldn’t be any different. Spending 60$ on an expansion affects game play too, if gives you more stuf… It’s the same difference.
Of course, there would be those that wouldn’t spend anything in the cash shop, and unlike GW1, would still get all that new content.
You don’t, I do because I have fun in working directly towards those items and don’t find it fun to grind gold for it.
I guess it’s just how you look at it. I have shop item goals and I never ‘grind gold’ during my play, but that’s just the difference between you and me.
From the general sounds of things (and not just from this thread of conversation), GW2 just is not your game Devata. You want to like it, but the cash shop completely shuts you off. Somehow that one thing makes the entire rest of the game not enjoyable for you, because you can’t collect everything right when you want to do it.
Don’t look at me like that. Whatever you’ve heard, it’s probably not true.
-snip-
So don’t “grind” the gold then. Just play the game and enjoy it. Set the cash shop item in the back of your mind. Its still working ‘from item to item’ as you put it, just in a different way. Yes, in a perfect world, we could earn everything in game, but that’s not how it works here.
So, per your example that RPer will never want to go to the zones where these mobs exist? They will never want to explore the new maps as part of their storylines, the growth of their characters? Maybe not, but I highly doubt it. I guess on this one we’ll agree to disagree because your ‘pay to win’ differs from the typical ‘pay to win’ definition.
We were discussing a MMO, so I kept the comparison to MMOs, yes. (It took quite a while for many post-WoW p2p mmos to finally suck it up and go without a monthly fee)
Although if you want to look at console games, those aren’t an expansion model. Each game is its own game, they don’t typically tie in together beyond using the same lore / story / universe. Regular rpg pc games do sometimes do ‘expansions’ depending on the game, but those companies also tend to make more than just one game and its associated expansions. They are also much smaller in scale and have to come out much more frequently in order to sustain their income, which is why it worked for GW1. It was much smaller in scale than GW2.
GW2’s cash shop is essentially the equivalent of WoW’s monthly fee, when it comes to income generation. The only difference is that your monthly fee is paid by someone else that is willing to spend money because you won’t.
It’s an argument I see a lot in political discussion…
That’s not the same thing. At least, it’s not the same thing I’m talking about here.
The expansion based model should be able to generate enough money
“Should be”
“Should be”
“Should be”You keep saying that, but the bottom line is that you do not know. Hell, I do not know.
Obviously people smarter than us took a look at the options and decided differently. We don’t know if it would generate enough revenue, obviously they opted to go with a cash shop. We don’t know if it would have been an effective model, how many people purchased all of the available GW1 games? They have that data from which to make such decisions. You prefer it the old way, but the business decided that wasn’t the best model for them. Short of buying them out, there really isn’t anything you can do about it.
I don’t know if the Chinese part is for me?
I wasn’t asking if the Chinese stuff was for you. I think you’re missing what I’m saying. I was discussing revenue generated from the sales of the Chinese game, and the fact that it will eventually taper off. Anet needs a steady source of income, which box sales are not. Simply because of what they are, they cannot be a ‘steady, reliable’ source of income because eventually people are going to stop buying the boxes in any significant quantity. Anet requires a steady income source outside of box purchases, in order to fund development and pay thier bills. Other MMOs use monthly fees. ANet uses a cash shop. The main difference is that in p2p mmos, you have to pay each month, where with the cash shop, not everyone has to spend money. I’d bet the majority of players actually don’t.
It would because the game-play is still effected by it.
I think again you’re missing what I’m saying. If they gave us all the stuff we normally got in an expansion (armor, weapons, dungeons, etc) for free, if you spent 10$ in the cash shop, it wouldn’t be any different. Spending 60$ on an expansion affects game play too, if gives you more stuf… It’s the same difference.
Of course, there would be those that wouldn’t spend anything in the cash shop, and unlike GW1, would still get all that new content.
You don’t, I do because I have fun in working directly towards those items and don’t find it fun to grind gold for it.
I guess it’s just how you look at it. I have shop item goals and I never ‘grind gold’ during my play, but that’s just the difference between you and me.
From the general sounds of things (and not just from this thread of conversation), GW2 just is not your game Devata. You want to like it, but the cash shop completely shuts you off. Somehow that one thing makes the entire rest of the game not enjoyable for you, because you can’t collect everything right when you want to do it.
No, it is not the same as WoW’s monthly sub – Wow also has a CS. You can buy your lvls, etc – it is getting to be a P2W. If Blizzard could get all their money from subs they wouldn’t have put a CS in the game. The original idea for WoW’s sub was to pay for the rental of their servers until theirs came up.
The Guild Wars In-Game Store (formerly called “The Guild Wars Official Store”), introduced in the July 28 2006 game update.
Guild Wars Factions is the second stand-alone campaign of Guild Wars, released on April 28, 2006 in North America.
Guild Wars Nightfall is the third campaign of Guild Wars, released on October 27, 2006.
The Store was released three months after Factions and three months before Nightfall.
Just an fyi. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Main_Page
No, it is not the same as WoW’s monthly sub – Wow also has a CS. You can buy your lvls, etc – it is getting to be a P2W. If Blizzard could get all their money from subs they wouldn’t have put a CS in the game. The original idea for WoW’s sub was to pay for the rental of their servers until theirs came up.
I was leaving WoW’s cash shop out of the equation, since they didn’t always have one.
The GW2 cash shop is in essence what Blizzard’s sub fee was supposed to be. That better? It’s means of generating a steady, reliable income. Nothing more, nothing less. The difference in that GW2’s income model is wholly optional for it’s players. A person can choose to never spend a penny of real money in the shop and never be any worse off for it.
Don’t look at me like that. Whatever you’ve heard, it’s probably not true.
Why does 1-week retention even warrant a statistic? That gives me the immediate impression that even they believe the game is shallow.
I find this humorous.
Tracking user retention helps them see if the overall players think the game is shallow. 70% shows they do not.
So don’t “grind” the gold then. Just play the game and enjoy it.
That is what I am trying to tell you but you don’t get. I get much of my joy out of hunting those items down. Getting a special item for doing a hard task. Going into a dungeon to get the special recipe. That is where my joi comes from. Not just doing a dungeon over and over just for doing the dungeon over and over again. And there are many people who like to play that way. Many of the people who you hear complain about grind or nothing to do or boring and so on.
Set the cash shop item in the back of your mind. Its still working ‘from item to item’ as you put it, just in a different way. Yes, in a perfect world, we could earn everything in game, but that’s not how it works here.
It’s not about the item it’s about the fun of collecting it in the game. Yeah it’s not how it works here and thats why I complain about it. It’s why I went for a B2P game not a F2P game. To have that sort of stuff mainly in the world.
So, per your example that RPer will never want to go to the zones where these mobs exist? They will never want to explore the new maps as part of their storylines, the growth of their characters?
It depends on the role-player but no not everybody will be interested in that. Trust me if people could tame there own pets (like close to how it works in the real world.. but faster) you would have people doing only that. An MMO RPG is more then just killing or getting max stats.
Although if you want to look at console games, those aren’t an expansion model. Each game is its own game, they don’t typically tie in together beyond using the same lore / story / universe.
No idea, they often have sequels. Develop a game, get money for it and 3 more years of development for the next game. So why would it not be possible for an MMO to earn enough money with a yearly expansion? The numbers indicate it should be enough.
[quote=4086146;LanfearShadowflame.3189:][quote=4086146;LanfearShadowflame.3189:][quote=4086146;LanfearShadowflame.3189:][quote=4086146;LanfearShadowflame.3189:][quote=4086146;LanfearShadowflame.3189:]
I was discussing revenue generated from the sales of the Chinese game, and the fact that it will eventually taper off.
Well I never calculated the Chinese income into my expansion based model so thats sort of irrelevant to what I am saying.
I just say they could generate a steady income with expansions.
If they gave us all the stuff we normally got in an expansion (armor, weapons, dungeons, etc) for free, if you spent 10$ in the cash shop, it wouldn’t be any different. Spending 60$ on an expansion affects game play too, if gives you more stuf… It’s the same difference.
It would not be different in me giving them money (I mean I don’t buy gems but if I did) but it’s not like I don’t want to pay. In fact I do. It’s different in the way that it’s in the game, people play for the rewards directly. They don’t buy them
Yeah with an cash-shop model the company always has to answer the question “how do we get people to buy from the cash-shop” and also make game-decisions around that. With the expansion-based model they always have to ask them self the question “how do we get people to keep buying our expansions.”
I think the last one results in a better game then the first one.
I guess it’s just how you look at it. I have shop item goals and I never ‘grind gold’ during my play, but that’s just the difference between you and me.
That is what I am trying to say the whole time. It all depends on your preferred game-play. It might not be a problem for people with your preferred game-play but it is for people with my preferred game-play.
From the general sounds of things (and not just from this thread of conversation), GW2 just is not your game Devata.
There are still elements I like (SAB, JP’s, some WvW now and then, guild-missions) but indeed after release the game went hostile on people with my preferred game-play. Why am I then still here? Well I do still think there is hope, I do still think the core is good, I have a big guild I like, there are those elements I still like and I did go for this game because of it’s B2P model especially to not have the stuff we are now talking about. So now I do complain about how they did go cash-shop focus. Maybe thinks can change but indeed if it comes to those elements I complain about here they are not for me anymore (and many with me, not just Devata) thats why I am complaining about them.