Guild Wars 2

Daroon.1736:

Astralporing.1957:

Daroon.1736:

When Guild Wars 3 is announced, how would a $15 subscription model with a major expansion release every 30 months affect your decision to buy the game and why?

I’d put it that way – if GW2 has been announced with that subscription model, i wouldn’t be playing the game now. And that’s even after considering that i have actually paid more than i would in such case.

Wow, that’s really interesting.

Is it the term ‘subscription’ that put’s you off, even though you would be paying less to play over the 5-6 year period (assuming you purchase the expansion and the next expansion is 2-3 years away)

For me, it’s not just a word.

If I don’t like something in this game, or I want to take a break now, I can log in and get my dailies and not play much and I’m not paying a sub.

If I want to just log in and bang around a game that’s a sub game, between expansions, I have to access it.

I went away to the US for 6 weeks. During that time, I had very little time to log in, but I did sometimes, when I had nothing to do, or I just wanted to unwind. In a sub game, I’d have to pay for the priviledge of doing that, even though I didn’t have much TO do that.

I still got my daily log in rewards almost every day, because it took a minute. Again in a sub game, I’d have paid $15 a month to play the game for maybe 2-3 hours. I could have cancelled my sub, not checked in with the guild, not talked to my friends in game, but this way I didn’t have to miss that.

Not having a sub allows me to log in whenever I want, and not pay if there’s nothing I particularly want.

Forcing people to pay a price to pay a game they already bought for an expansion is boarder line extortion in my book. If this game had a subscription it would be different. You cant say “No Subscription fee!” but then say “But if we add new content you have to pay us money or be suspended from all forms of game play”

Eggs.3142:

Forcing people to pay a price to pay a game they already bought for an expansion is boarder line extortion in my book. If this game had a subscription it would be different. You cant say “No Subscription fee!” but then say “But if we add new content you have to pay us money or be suspended from all forms of game play”

Well good thing nobody is buying the core game when they pre-purchase the expansion.

Pertinent questions:
Which model makes more money for Anet, subscription model with cash shop, B2P with cash shop, or F2P with cash shop? <—-Relevant to Anet mostly.
Do any of these monetisation models result in less money going back into game development? <——Consumer psychology question. Usually brought up by players.
What are the hurdles, imagined or otherwise, that would prevent players from buying into these business models? <——Another consumer psychology question.
What examples can we look to, historically, to forecast the success of said business models? <——Look at AOC, Wildstar, WOW, FFXIV, etc. All relevant to the question, all very different stories of success/failure/change.

The list of questions that help determine what business model to run with, I would imagine, can run pretty long and can’t be easily divorced from the original question posed in the thread. Swapping an expansion price point some find too high for locking access to the service behind a subscription fee is indeed trading one perceived evil for another, but to add to that, consider that players have already harped on Anet for the Manifesto language debacle for many years. They don’t need more ammo. The three business models used in MMOs referenced in the questions earlier all have pros and cons. Add to that, consumer perception of service access value has changed over the years. MMOs haven’t come up with a bullet proof business model as there are success and failure stories within all models. There has to be some risk assessment done where you get an idea of who you are going to lose and why, and whether or not you are ok with those numbers.

I don’t think adding a subscription fee that removes access to the game when not paid will endear the market demographic Anet has catered to for three years. Not to mention that no MMO (that I can think of) has gone from a “F2P” model to a P2P model. That would be a enormous uphill marketing battle. I think Anet’s idea of bundling previous expansions is a great way to alleviate the fear of having a high barrier to entry starting price point for new players. If anything, I think they just need to be more creative in how they add value for existing players for future expansions if they continue with this model as expected. There isn’t sufficient evidence to suggest that a subscription model has a higher chance of financial success for Anet nor added value for us as players.

Daroon.1736:

Can anyone make a reasonable argument that a $15 fee would not encourage many more of the huge number of inactive players, who purchased the game at launch to try the game again?

ANet in all likelihood looked at various price points when making their decision and chose what they think would be best for the company and thus the game. They have access to data we do not have. Why should anyone here have to prove anything? The burden of proof is on you, not us. So go ahead, provide something other than your opinion to show that ANet would generate more revenue with your plan. Be sure to include indirect costs, like the lost good will of all account holders who don’t want HoT and of those who would find denying access after selling GW2 on a B2P model to be a scummy move which would make them decide to never do business with ANet again.

My rating: 0/10: blatant attempt by someone who wants to spend as little as possible.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Daroon.1736:

Can anyone make a reasonable argument that a $15 fee would not encourage many more of the huge number of inactive players, who purchased the game at launch to try the game again?

ANet in all likelihood looked at various price points when making their decision and chose what they think would be best for the company and thus the game. They have access to data we do not have. Why should anyone here have to prove anything? The burden of proof is on you, not us. So go ahead, provide something other than your opinion to show that ANet would generate more revenue with your plan. Be sure to include indirect costs, like the lost good will of all account holders who don’t want HoT and of those who would find denying access after selling GW2 on a B2P model to be a scummy move which would make them decide to never do business with ANet again.

My rating: 0/10: blatant attempt by someone who wants to spend as little as possible.

Or those who had bought HOT asking for a refund out of principal in support of the players who did not want to buy HOT and don’t want to have to pay to continue playing the game.

This alternative Business Model would buy ANet so much ill will that if they could turn ill will into money they could close down Guild Wars 2 and retire early.

1) breaking their word on buy once and never have to pay again.
2) forcing a subscription model on all those who play this game to get away from subscriptions
3) locking people away for extended periods out of their accounts unless they cough up 15, 30 or $45
4) invalidating/terminating the $10 alt accounts that won’t be going on to play the expansions.
5) forcing extra money out of people who don’t plan to buy the expansion, such as WvW or PvP players, who won’t benefit from the new charges.

No. Nope. No thanks.

Let me file this suggestion in the proper place.

IndigoSundown.5419:

HoT is atm $10 less than GW2 was when it released.

This isnt true at all. I got GW2 from the store for 45euros. HoT however i cannot find for a cheaper price at stores because they dont carry it, the number of resellers for HoT is considerably less then GW2.

So they both cost me 45euros.

But wait! To enjoy the content like Revenant i need to get a character slot as well, thats another 10euros. So that ends up making HoT more expensive than GW2 was.

And i dont care that if i prepurchase i get a free slot, because i dont want to gamble 45euros on the off chance i really end up wanting HoT. The product itself should be attractive enough, and not base its value on prepurchase bonuses.

Daroon.1736:

Phy.2913:

“To continue playing the game after HOT launches – existing players would need to pay a nominal expansion fee of around $15 or there account would be suspended.”

Ya, no. That would be a kitten storm to end all kitten storms.

The question I would have to you and all existing player who have replied is: Will you or have you already purchased the expansion? If so, my alternative model just saved you $35.

Of course changing the business model at this point would indeed cause a kitten storm, which is why it is a theoretical model for discussion.

So going forward, if an announcement was made now – that in future this model would be adopted and you would have a nominal ‘subscription’ to play every 2-3 years when a major expansion was added:

a) would you be happy?
b) do you think it would be good or bad for the long term health of the game both in terms of maintaining and attracting new players and financially for Anet?

Will I buy HoT, yes at some point, and I will choose when that is, not ANet or someone’s half baked idea.

If I choose not to buy HoT I’ve saved my self even more money by not buying it and I’m still able to play the core game. Your idea means I can not play something I’ve payed for.

Terrahero.9358:

IndigoSundown.5419:

HoT is atm $10 less than GW2 was when it released.

This isnt true at all. I got GW2 from the store for 45euros. HoT however i cannot find for a cheaper price at stores because they dont carry it, the number of resellers for HoT is considerably less then GW2.

So they both cost me 45euros.

But wait! To enjoy the content like Revenant i need to get a character slot as well, thats another 10euros. So that ends up making HoT more expensive than GW2 was.

And i dont care that if i prepurchase i get a free slot, because i dont want to gamble 45euros on the off chance i really end up wanting HoT. The product itself should be attractive enough, and not base its value on prepurchase bonuses.

He’s talking about dollars and not euros. What he stated was true. At release, GW2 was $60.

You get a free character slot between now and when the expansion is released. It’s not a gamble as you’ll have all of the information you need within the final week leading to its release. I’m also willing to bet that you’ll have more information for the expansion than you had when you purchased other games.

What difference does it make if he talks about dollars and i talk about euros? GW2 cost me just as much as HoT will, not including the extra 10euros for the char slot.

And i already said i dont care that a char slot is a prepurchase bonus. Besides that the game should be a good deal without prepurchase goodies, i do not plan to prepurchase a game for which so much info is still not disclosed. To just spend 45euros on good faith now and hope that its worth it so i save the 10euros for a char slot.

Also you will lose that bet, i dont blindly buy into hype for games at all. I do my homework before i buy a game, read or watch reviews, watch streams, published information, that sort of thing. Unlike many of the people who prepurchased HoT and didnt even so much as read the FAQ, as was made apparent when people thought every beta event ever was a Beta Weekend Event.

Terrahero.9358:

What difference does it make if he talks about dollars and i talk about euros? GW2 cost me just as much as HoT will, not including the extra 10euros for the char slot.

And i already said i dont care that a char slot is a prepurchase bonus. Besides that the game should be a good deal without prepurchase goodies, i do not plan to prepurchase a game for which so much info is still not disclosed. To just spend 45euros on good faith now and hope that its worth it so i save the 10euros for a char slot.

Also you will lose that bet, i dont blindly buy into hype for games at all. I do my homework before i buy a game, read or watch reviews, watch streams, published information, that sort of thing. Unlike many of the people who prepurchased HoT and didnt even so much as read the FAQ, as was made apparent when people thought every beta event ever was a Beta Weekend Event.

Because he was referring to the dollar metric which is not the same as euro. From what I remember, there’s an additional tax in Europe which adds to the cost.

You can pre-purchase the expansion the day before its release when you have all of the information to make a decision for yourself. Did you not see that part of my post? The game is a pretty good deal to many as they have already pre-purchased it. What you’re doing, although in no way wrong, is doing the same decision process that someone would do when buying a car or a home. You’re in the minority for this one as not many players would do that for a game.

Not to mention the pricing is really just either Anet or NCsoft testing the waters to see if GW2 has a financial future. This is problem for all us of, because we want the game to continue, but the accountants are only looking at sales numbers.

They want to see exactly how much we are willing to put up with, using blind faith as a litmus test of our spending habits. The game was supposed to sustain itself on Gem purchases…. but their game design habits had been steadily bleeding customers over the last 2 years. The steep price drops of Core was a huge sign of this. But they realized they can’t generate enough gem sales without incurring significantly high production costs.

But this raises are unnerving questions about the game’s development budget. The content they’ve been putting out is oddly reminiscent of skeleton crew work most other MMOs utilize when they go into maintenance mode. Its a point where they try to minimize costs, while milking as much money as possible because they have no confidence in the game’s long term revenue. On the one hand, you have the story development, which obviously has a decent amount of money put into…… but the other side of the coin (outfits, skins, armor, stats) rarely incorporated new mechanics for Core. They were always just area specific, and typically never seen again as if it was some type of failed beta test.

It basically took this gigantic project (which so far is hardly gigantic) to initiate major changes to the game that haunted it for well over 3 years; when we were promised incremental changes and refinement over time. SAB then becomes a mixed bag, as it operated on exploits in the engine’s behavior, and no longer viable now that its been “fixed”.

This will is very likely the only major project this game will have in the next 5 years, as NCsoft will pull funding for future development until they feel enough time as passed for Guildwars 3. And as much I want to happily support the game, I do not feel ANY good will coming from the money handling side of the business. And HOT will undoubtedly suffer internally for it.

Ayrilana.1396:

Because he was referring to the dollar metric which is not the same as euro. From what I remember, there’s an additional tax in Europe which adds to the cost.

Tax would have been applied to both prices equally, so no, it doesn’t count for such comparison.

Astralporing.1957:

Ayrilana.1396:

Because he was referring to the dollar metric which is not the same as euro. From what I remember, there’s an additional tax in Europe which adds to the cost.

Tax would have been applied to both prices equally, so no, it doesn’t count for such comparison.

Please read the bolded.

EDIT: Here’s one possible reason. Read the Anet comment.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/wp1oo/do_you_think_gems_are_too_expensive_for_eu_zone/

Ayrilana.1396:

Astralporing.1957:

Ayrilana.1396:

Because he was referring to the dollar metric which is not the same as euro. From what I remember, there’s an additional tax in Europe which adds to the cost.

Tax would have been applied to both prices equally, so no, it doesn’t count for such comparison.

Please read the bolded.

Notice how the person you replied to originally was comparing eu price to eu price (and as such tax was irrelevant, because it was applied to both prices equally).

Astralporing.1957:

Ayrilana.1396:

Astralporing.1957:

Ayrilana.1396:

Because he was referring to the dollar metric which is not the same as euro. From what I remember, there’s an additional tax in Europe which adds to the cost.

Tax would have been applied to both prices equally, so no, it doesn’t count for such comparison.

Please read the bolded.

Notice how the person you replied to originally was comparing eu price to eu price (and as such tax was irrelevant, because it was applied to both prices equally).

No. Look at who that person was replying to. Indigo was expressing the costs in dollars and then Terra went about it in Euros.

Ayrilana.1396:

No. Look at who that person was replying to. Indigo was expressing the costs in dollars and then Terra went about it in Euros.

Yes, but you seem to have missed that Terra was talking about both core and HoT prices. In euros, so no tax difference between those.

I’ll go on to add that GW2 cost 50£/55€ at release. HoT costs 34.99£/44.99€ according to PC Gamer. In the US, it released for $60 and the expansion sells for $50. That’s a 10€ difference just as it’s a $10 difference in the US.

Terra refuted Indigo’s statement about there being a $10 price difference. Terra is wrong as there clearly is such a difference. He’s also wrong about the price of the core game at release unless he’s referring to the price that he personally paid for which is irrelevant to the discussion.

My initial post was refuting his statement about Indigo being wrong when he was expressing it in dollars and Terra in euros. What it was in euros didn’t matter as Indigo was still correct in what he stated. Of course, it turned out Terra was incorrect in the core game release price so it was a 10€ difference there too.

Chances are if I had looked up the price difference in euros, I would not have brought up the VAT tax. The tax for both the core game and expansion would have been proportional so you’re correct about that. Somehow I convinced myself that the VAT tax was the difference.

Ayrilana.1396:

Chances are if I had looked up the price difference in euros, I would not have brought up the VAT tax. The tax for both the core game and expansion would have been proportional so you’re correct about that. Somehow I convinced myself that the VAT tax was the difference.

That was my only point (and to be honest, i failed to check the actual euro prices myself, or i wouldn’t even bother to make it).

Stochastic.1398:

Phy.2913:

“To continue playing the game after HOT launches – existing players would need to pay a nominal expansion fee of around $15 or there account would be suspended.”

Ya, no. That would be a kitten storm to end all kitten storms.

With the release of the expansion they are effectively doing that, but making everyone pay 50 instead of 15. I have no doubt the new specializations will be OP.

Not “everyone” will bother to buy the expansion. There’s been a great number of fumbles and bad policy decisions by Anet that has alienated a lot of folks, and a high-priced expansion isnt what they were looking for to make them come back.