Guild Wars 2

Indeed. More fodder for lamentations. A bit sad, really.

That’s great that you expect/demand all of those things, but reality check: Nobody – Not even WoW – releases a complete xpac. They always expand upon it over the years following any expansion. And why wouldn’t they? Do you need to have 5 different raids to work on simultaneously? Or would it be a better use of resources to release 1 raid initially and then work on the others as players work their way through the first raid? That’s just smart use of resources and it applies to more than just raid releases.

Adry.7512:

Amaimon.7823:

Adry.7512:

Blude.6812:

Fatalyz.7168:

Dear Anet,

Your players do not expect this.

Agree, don’t want raids, couldn’t care about PvP , WvW is way down the list for me as well.

The OP has no right to use ‘WE’ as if he speaks for the entire the entire player base. OP needs to edit out all the “we” and change them to I WANT.

Yes I do, you should read more carefully. Additionally “we” is subjective to the crowd I am referring to.

then who is this ‘we’ you’re talking about because a lot of ‘wes’ are currently denying their association to your ‘we’

Keyword is “currently”. Currently the Xpac is fantastic. Even at the beginning it had great quality but small quantity, which it’s why it was considered an incomplete Xpac. My friend, when the big man of a company aka MO has to come down and defend his product, you know it’s getting bashed. This can’t be questioned. Yes now we love HOT, me included, but the past can’t be denied. At the end of the day this is meant for anet, because I want them to standout, because I want them to be the best in the field. It’s not meant to bash the Xpac at all. I just want the next Xpac to put everyone it’s their place.

That’s more reasonable. I can agree that it was missing some critical things initially, and there was an odd and lengthy period of seemingly no development releases. That is something I don’t consider normal for an expansion and would like to see avoided in the next one. But I can agree that HoT is great stuff now. I do wish there were more of it – especially of the original maps and reasons to play them – but I would always feel that way no matter how much and how good the content is. Why wouldn’t I want to see more of what I like, right?

I am seeing a lot of what I feared when I saw the thread. The moment someone says what people wants it becomes a squabble over specifics. I would suggest being a bit more vague. Like delivering what was promised or how content delays should be handled.

I expect nothing. So far all we have is their word on the fact that they are working on a new expansion, and frankly, for me, their word is currently worth less than dirt.
If they release a new expansion, I’ll take a look at what it contains after a few weeks when they have had time to nerf everything in it.

People seem to think that i dont understand that an Xpac can include content throughout the course of a year. I am well aware. Regardless, the HOT problem cant happen again. We want a complete product. We want an Xpac with most of its content delivered and the rest already planned out. Once again, I dont mind waiting, I am a firm believer of long-term rewards heavily outweighing short-term rewards.

Ashandar.2570:

I expect nothing. So far all we have is their word on the fact that they are working on a new expansion, and frankly, for me, their word is currently worth less than dirt.
If they release a new expansion, I’ll take a look at what it contains after a few weeks when they have had time to nerf everything in it.

Yes, after HOT that is probably what they will see a lot of. People were looking forward to the first expansion and, well, you only get one chance to make a first impression. I am still looking forward to the next expansion but now consider it vaporware until non-anet people have bought it and started to review it.

Yargesh.4965:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Xillllix.3485:

I expect about 15 pve zones at the bare minimum, new dungeons, and a GvG gamemode with at least 3 maps and elite professions that aren’t rushed out… That is if I’m ever going to pay the price of HoT again.

I don’t want a story, those are pretty badly written anyway. If I want a good story I’ll read a book instead. I just want good gameplay.

I don’t think your expectations will be met. Doubtful there will be new dungeons or a GvG game mode, nor 18 total new maps.

But when unrealistic expectations are not met an entire genre of forum posts crops up.

Why is it unrealistic to expect for 50$ more than 10% of what you get for 60$? HoT was barely 10% of the full game, and I’m being generous here.

Seriously, if they could sell the game for 60$ at launch with 25+ maps including WvW then they should be able to sell an expansion with 3 gvg maps and 15 PvE maps for 50$.

Anyway, this time if its a no-buy unless they deliver.

Xillllix.3485:

Yargesh.4965:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Xillllix.3485:

I expect about 15 pve zones at the bare minimum, new dungeons, and a GvG gamemode with at least 3 maps and elite professions that aren’t rushed out… That is if I’m ever going to pay the price of HoT again.

I don’t want a story, those are pretty badly written anyway. If I want a good story I’ll read a book instead. I just want good gameplay.

I don’t think your expectations will be met. Doubtful there will be new dungeons or a GvG game mode, nor 18 total new maps.

But when unrealistic expectations are not met an entire genre of forum posts crops up.

Why is it unrealistic to expect for 50$ more than 10% of what you get for 60$? HoT was barely 10% of the full game, and I’m being generous here.

Seriously, if they could sell the game for 60$ at launch with 25+ maps including WvW then they should be able to sell an expansion with 3 gvg maps and 15 PvE maps for 50$.

Anyway, this time if its a no-buy unless they deliver.

I will have to agree. This time I won’t buy the Xpac unless it’s worth it. If they give me a low budget low content Xpac i won’t buy until they add the rest of the content 1-2 years after. That’s why I’m saying they should take their time. I’m loyal and I’m patient and sometimes maybeeee optimistic, but my logic is clear and I won’t buy something from them until I see it’s worth. Now if it’s worth it, oh boy I’ll buy it and tell everyone to by it.

I could make a SUPER long post, but for now I’ll put my 3 most important things (aside from a new feature)

Story! Long interesting story, little and small, impactfully world changing and specific lore bits

Mapssssss!! As many as possible don’t worry about using the world map, there’s a lot more beyond to make!

ARMOR! I always wanted this, but even more so since the last xpac only had TWO sets, and very few sets are non coat cape trope.

Xillllix.3485:

Why is it unrealistic to expect for 50$ more than 10% of what you get for 60$? HoT was barely 10% of the full game, and I’m being generous here.

Seriously, if they could sell the game for 60$ at launch with 25+ maps including WvW then they should be able to sell an expansion with 3 gvg maps and 15 PvE maps for 50$.

This is a really crucial point for me. Even though I’d expect less content in general for the same price for an expansion, I’d expect SLIGHTLY less, not dramatically less. The cost of supporting a game for time after launch is that it must be done with a smaller team, so that means slower output. That’s fine and I get that. But HoT on release was not even remotely comparable to its price tag.

I’ll personally be looking for at least
1-3 new classes
Content added to current classes
1-3 new weapon types
Maps of VARYING LEVELS
Either a new race or perhaps more race differentiation in some way, just to spice each one up a bit

New maps of levels other than 80 is big for me. I understand feeling the need to keep top-level players happy, but some push to re-experience the leveling process in new ways and new places would be very exciting, since I consider one of GW2’s strengths to just be exploring and wandering into places, not following signposts for the current month’s story. Back before launch, GW2 was sold as a game where the “whole progression matters,” not where everybody is rushing to the max level to do raids/important content. That pitch is still attractive to me and I’d very much like some service paid to that ideal, even while being unable to deny the importance of appeasing the maxed-out players. A new race to run through new zones would be all gravy.

I think this is a good thread. Because yes anet did see the backlash of their first Xpac, but a thread like this offers great insight nonetheless.

Slothrop.6871:

Xillllix.3485:

Why is it unrealistic to expect for 50$ more than 10% of what you get for 60$? HoT was barely 10% of the full game, and I’m being generous here.

Seriously, if they could sell the game for 60$ at launch with 25+ maps including WvW then they should be able to sell an expansion with 3 gvg maps and 15 PvE maps for 50$.

This is a really crucial point for me. Even though I’d expect less content in general for the same price for an expansion, I’d expect SLIGHTLY less, not dramatically less. The cost of supporting a game for time after launch is that it must be done with a smaller team, so that means slower output. That’s fine and I get that. But HoT on release was not even remotely comparable to its price tag.

I’ll personally be looking for at least
1-3 new classes
Content added to current classes
1-3 new weapon types
Maps of VARYING LEVELS
Either a new race or perhaps more race differentiation in some way, just to spice each one up a bit

New maps of levels other than 80 is big for me. I understand feeling the need to keep top-level players happy, but some push to re-experience the leveling process in new ways and new places would be very exciting, since I consider one of GW2’s strengths to just be exploring and wandering into places, not following signposts for the current month’s story. Back before launch, GW2 was sold as a game where the “whole progression matters,” not where everybody is rushing to the max level to do raids/important content. That pitch is still attractive to me and I’d very much like some service paid to that ideal, even while being unable to deny the importance of appeasing the maxed-out players. A new race to run through new zones would be all gravy.

I see what you mean. We need more main cities so we can start our new characters in a fresh new environment, instead of the same old places we are used to seeing all the time. It does get dull after seeing the same main maps over and over for so many years.

Slothrop.6871:

Xillllix.3485:

Why is it unrealistic to expect for 50$ more than 10% of what you get for 60$? HoT was barely 10% of the full game, and I’m being generous here.

Seriously, if they could sell the game for 60$ at launch with 25+ maps including WvW then they should be able to sell an expansion with 3 gvg maps and 15 PvE maps for 50$.

This is a really crucial point for me. Even though I’d expect less content in general for the same price for an expansion, I’d expect SLIGHTLY less, not dramatically less. The cost of supporting a game for time after launch is that it must be done with a smaller team, so that means slower output. That’s fine and I get that. But HoT on release was not even remotely comparable to its price tag.

It’s unfortunate for consumers that MMO content patches or XPac’s are light in content when compared to the original game. That seems to be a reasonable expectation. ~17% less cost should yield ~17% less game. However, that’s not what we see in the MMO industry across the board.

With the exception of WoW, other MMO’s mostly see their market share peak (at a number very much lower than WoW’s peak) shortly after initial release, then decline over time. Even WoW loses market share between XPac’s and that game is unlikely to reach its high-water mark in terms of subs ever again. Still, WoW generates far more revenue than its competition.

Blizzard charges the industry standard of $10 less than the going rate for a new game (currently $59.99 US). That’s the industry standard. That’s what ANet charged for HoT. Blizzard rents access to the game. ANet does not.

The industry standard is that XPac’s only offer a fraction of the base game’s content with an XPac. BC and WotLK offered far fewer zones and 10 levels of content v. 60. They get away with it because they offer raid/gear progression which forces players to raid to progress, renting the game all the while. ESO’s first two post-B2P content DLC’s combined price was similar to HoT’s, and offered a fraction of the content the vanilla game did.

WoW gets away with “far less than vanilla” while charging slightly less than a new game and renting access. How are developers whose games generate (much) less revenue going to produce “slightly less” content than their vanilla game at that slightly lower price point when their production costs are likely similar to WoW’s? That’s the business reality.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Slothrop.6871:

Xillllix.3485:

Why is it unrealistic to expect for 50$ more than 10% of what you get for 60$? HoT was barely 10% of the full game, and I’m being generous here.

Seriously, if they could sell the game for 60$ at launch with 25+ maps including WvW then they should be able to sell an expansion with 3 gvg maps and 15 PvE maps for 50$.

This is a really crucial point for me. Even though I’d expect less content in general for the same price for an expansion, I’d expect SLIGHTLY less, not dramatically less. The cost of supporting a game for time after launch is that it must be done with a smaller team, so that means slower output. That’s fine and I get that. But HoT on release was not even remotely comparable to its price tag.

It’s unfortunate for consumers that MMO content patches or XPac’s are light in content when compared to the original game. That seems to be a reasonable expectation. ~17% less cost should yield ~17% less game. However, that’s not what we see in the MMO industry across the board.

With the exception of WoW, other MMO’s mostly see their market share peak (at a number very much lower than WoW’s peak) shortly after initial release, then decline over time. Even WoW loses market share between XPac’s and that game is unlikely to reach its high-water mark in terms of subs ever again. Still, WoW generates far more revenue than its competition.

Blizzard charges the industry standard of $10 less than the going rate for a new game (currently $59.99 US). That’s the industry standard. That’s what ANet charged for HoT. Blizzard rents access to the game. ANet does not.

The industry standard is that XPac’s only offer a fraction of the base game’s content with an XPac. BC and WotLK offered far fewer zones and 10 levels of content v. 60. They get away with it because they offer raid/gear progression which forces players to raid to progress, renting the game all the while. ESO’s first two post-B2P content DLC’s combined price was similar to HoT’s, and offered a fraction of the content the vanilla game did.

WoW gets away with “far less than vanilla” while charging slightly less than a new game and renting access. How are developers whose games generate (much) less revenue going to produce “slightly less” content than their vanilla game at that slightly lower price point when their production costs are likely similar to WoW’s? That’s the business reality.

Times have changed quickly, today with download services gamers are offered great deals, up to 85% off sometimes, on the best games ever made.

I don’t think Anet can afford to overprice the next expansion if they want to rebuild their player base.