Guild Wars 2

Vayne.8563:

ZeftheWicked.3076:

Caution! Logic ahead! Enter at your own risk!

So let’s see “HoT” is more expensive because it’s an expansion…
Riiiiiiiiight.

So by that logic an xpansion that is smaller then core game, has already base game’s foundation (financial incomes, art & programming assets, general gameplay mechanics and direction, playerbase), should not be cheaper then the core game that has more of everything, is build from scratch facing much more challenges on every front then the xpac, and right now is way cheaper then the expansion…

Because you know….reasons!

HoT is more expansive because the entire landscape has changed, internally and externally and you ignore that.

My dad used to talk about getting into the theater for a nickle. I don’t pay a nickle anymore. Theaters are much more expensive and many of them aren’t really making much of a profit anymore. Times change.

Anet is a company that pays more employees, more rent, more to voice actors, the currency itself has inflated, the internal differences between working on a pathed game with no Z axis that’s entirely instanced makes a huge difference in both delivery time and the amount of work to produce the game, but you think it should cost $20 because it has “less content” when all the content has yet to be revealed.

For example, Nightfall had 250 plus quests and 20 missions. Seems like a lot. But we have nothing really to compare it to. Zones aren’t quests. They’re zones. They’re pathed.

I think I’ll wait to see what’s coming before comparing, but even if I do compare later…it’s still much later, and just about everything has changed.

There’s much more logic here than insisting you get the same deal on something 8 years later, between not only different games, but different genres of games. Guild Wars 1 was a lobby game…a CORPG not an MMO. It does make a huge difference in development time.

All the inflation talk might make sense if the price of games or the size of games had dramatically changed from 2005 to 2015. It hasnt. Games have been 40-60 dollars and been about the same length from then till now.

This game is substantially smaller as far as what we know, and costs more. Thats not really how other games price vs content has evolved.

I think anet justifies thia because they look at HOT as a subscription to thw future. But since they arent willing to talk about that future, its a pretty hard sell. (not to mention gw2 future is extremely changeable)

Zero Day.2594:

And they barely had a gem/cash shop back then…

This is indeed the main reason imho why then $50,- was a justifiable price (even without all the stuff that came with it). That was a B2P game, GW2 has not been behaving as a B2P game, but maybe Anet can clear the air by letting us know they want to move towards that again, way less cash-shop but more expansions, and then the price of $50,- is completely justifiable .

Randulf.7614:

Be very careful about comparing NF maps to any GW2 maps, especially new ones. GW1 were generally light on content and had repeat value only for hard mode which was added later. Because of their small size of maps and lack of any real substance, they required substantially and I mean substantially less work work to make and develop than a GW2 map.

Take Dry Top. Dry Top alone has generated more time and content than any single GW1 map across any campaign;
- Coins to collect
- farming
- exclusive crafting reward
- an interesting and unique map mechanic
- a variety of different bosses with different mechanics
- jumping puzzles

By comparison what did Bahdok Caverns or Jahai Plains have? A couple of bosses, most of which had no discernable difficulty, some mobs, some pretty scenery confined by pathing, some non-repeatable quests. And that’s it.

You cannot compare GW2 and GW1 in terms of maps simply because the content ratio is utterly different and more time and effort goes into 1 single map in GW2. That’s why they churned NF out so quickly after Factions.

Objection.
Everything Silverwastes and Dry Top added was two maps, which were long overdue and had Map specific rewards.
Rewards many other maps have in their own way.
However these were just not tied to special mechanics.
We usually got them through karma or hart quests.
There were also allready maps around who offered unique rewards and hidden gems.

Just adding a map with refined mechanics and finaly allowing us access to armor and weapons after 2,5 years is something I count under service.

It basicaly showed: “We learned from our past work.”

Shifitng from Karma to some other courency just made it more grindy.

The unlocks through Archievments are something that was a feature update and is there for all to play.

So the question for what HoT really brings to the table is still up in the open.
We have a lot of “maybe”, but not a lot of facts or numbers.

On the other hand you are right. You cannot compare these two games as their structure is completly different.
Then again, there is still some consitency in terms of value that is expected.
Right now it just feels smaller and the “rewards” more so in terms of physical or digital are very lackluster.

Do you really justify “reused” assets and their own currency as something “very special for the fans” if we talk about “rewards” with the deluxe and ultimate?
Right now the only thing special is the Glyder, which might in the end only be a skin swap + particle effects and a preview for the gem-shop future.

Two Rytlocks and some assets to put in the guildhall (not by you, but your leader) are very somehow lazy rewards. I have seen better in many other games.
Heck Faction gave you an unique dance i have seen very often.
The core game later gave unique weaponskins and stuff.

Before we got the expansion/game + stuff
Now we get expansion/game + stuff after putting extra money on the table.

The simple fact that they stopped selling GW2 alone and made GW2HoT basicly the new game makes any “free” core game argument very questionable, while furthermore the “characterslot” upgrade only occoured after the public backlash.
We have no choice.

The economy has not changed that much since the release of GW2. You are now paying the price of a full game, for something that is clearly not a full game, it’s a small expansion.

Now the argument that computer games are more expensive to make nowadays, falls completely apart when you realize:

I’m comparing HOT to a special edition of a GW1 expansion. So the base version of Nightfall (the none-special edition if you will) is already cheaper than HOT’s base price. So that already accounts for smaller production costs.

Nightfall was a standalone game. Heart of Thorns is not.

By definition, an expansion to a core game should be cheaper than the core game, because it contains far less content. HOT is priced the same as a core game. Even taking modern production costs into account, an expansion should STILL be cheaper than the core game. But it is not, and that is weird.

" A free character slot, we all should be happy now!"

Sorry but as stated this is only if you pre-purchase! If you buy at or after release you wont get it!!!

We dont know what we are getting with HoT, and Anet expect us to throw $50 at them?! Sorry but you must be either really dedicated to Anet or just easy to get money off.

Orochimaru.4730:

We dont know what we are getting with HoT, and Anet expect us to throw $50 at them?! Sorry but you must be either really dedicated to Anet or just easy to get money off.

Yet nobody is forcing you to buy now. Do what most people should be doing anyway, wait for more info to come out before you buy. I won’t spend anything until we get specific information (group content, elite specs) and even then I will buy only if it is actually what I expect/want or close to it.

Anet started the pre-purchase early, that’s obvious, that doesn’t mean players should be sheep and go buy it now, there is no rush. Just relax and wait until all you want to learn about is revealed and then decide to buy or not.

Pre-purchasing now or a just few days before release is the exact same thing, you will still get the character slot.

phys.7689:

Vayne.8563:

ZeftheWicked.3076:

Caution! Logic ahead! Enter at your own risk!

So let’s see “HoT” is more expensive because it’s an expansion…
Riiiiiiiiight.

So by that logic an xpansion that is smaller then core game, has already base game’s foundation (financial incomes, art & programming assets, general gameplay mechanics and direction, playerbase), should not be cheaper then the core game that has more of everything, is build from scratch facing much more challenges on every front then the xpac, and right now is way cheaper then the expansion…

Because you know….reasons!

HoT is more expansive because the entire landscape has changed, internally and externally and you ignore that.

My dad used to talk about getting into the theater for a nickle. I don’t pay a nickle anymore. Theaters are much more expensive and many of them aren’t really making much of a profit anymore. Times change.

Anet is a company that pays more employees, more rent, more to voice actors, the currency itself has inflated, the internal differences between working on a pathed game with no Z axis that’s entirely instanced makes a huge difference in both delivery time and the amount of work to produce the game, but you think it should cost $20 because it has “less content” when all the content has yet to be revealed.

For example, Nightfall had 250 plus quests and 20 missions. Seems like a lot. But we have nothing really to compare it to. Zones aren’t quests. They’re zones. They’re pathed.

I think I’ll wait to see what’s coming before comparing, but even if I do compare later…it’s still much later, and just about everything has changed.

There’s much more logic here than insisting you get the same deal on something 8 years later, between not only different games, but different genres of games. Guild Wars 1 was a lobby game…a CORPG not an MMO. It does make a huge difference in development time.

All the inflation talk might make sense if the price of games or the size of games had dramatically changed from 2005 to 2015. It hasnt. Games have been 40-60 dollars and been about the same length from then till now.

This game is substantially smaller as far as what we know, and costs more. Thats not really how other games price vs content has evolved.

I think anet justifies thia because they look at HOT as a subscription to thw future. But since they arent willing to talk about that future, its a pretty hard sell. (not to mention gw2 future is extremely changeable)

Actually it still makes sense. There are two ways to save money in the creation of a product. You can charge more, or offer less.

Many times companies pair down offerings and charge the same price, which is the same thing as raising the price. It’s hard to see people selling games for $80 or $100 dollars, so they use different strategies to raise the price, everything from cash shops to DLC to prepurchases, to pay to win.

Every single company is using some strategy to make ends meet in this time of ultra competitive gaming. WOW charges for their expansion, they charge a monthly fee, and they still have a cash shop and charge for transfers and renaming. When even sub games have a cash shop, you know the industry has changed.

Many games have an optional subscription that you pretty much have to buy. Lotro and DDO sell items that you’d have to grind forever to get, or you can pay cash. I assure you most players don’t have the hours available to grind that kind of stuff. And so they pay cash.

There’s more than one way to raise the price of a product.

well this should make for an interesting read on topic ^.^
http://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2015/06/26/the-witcher-3-kept-its-budget-low-because-it-was-self-published/

i wonder how much ncsoft has their hands in this and throwing a hot potato in arenanets lap!

one thing in particular i noticed from the ncsoft quarterly report – was their unusually low packaging / distribution costs – this may be why there is no collectors edition. maybe we need to bail anet from ncsoft ? lol

Dear NCsoft, Arenanet is not a potato, stop with those crazy meetings and let them focus!! We the players have spoken!

So, they have low packaging and distribution costs… but HOT does not come as a physical copy, it’s purely digital. And yet, it still costs the same as the fully packaged standalone Nightfall CE with a soundtrack, and a “making of…” DVD, and all the other stuff that came with the box?

Where is this $50 bucks price tag derived from? It’s not packaging costs, and it’s certainly not content. There’s no bonus content. And the core game is supposedly included for free. So…. please explain Anet.

but that may not be anets call, i’d hate to think we are jumping on anet when ncsoft might be the one pulling the kittens tail! maybe what we need is a fundraiser more than an expansion ?

what is the truth?!

i’m sure there is at least one insider just itching to type it!! ^.^

edit: wrong discussion

The original price of the Nightfall CE was much more expensive than 50. I think something between 100 or 150. Don’t compare a 9 year old game’s price with an upcoming expansion. Also you get a ton of updates in the future. You forgot some other features. Just check wooden patatoes youtube channel.

Anyway, there is one thin you were right: I don’t get a physical collector’s edition which sucks.

Development costs are not the same. Do you really believe that development costs for Diablo 2 were the same as Diablo 3? How about Super Mario Bros to Super Mario World? Or Daggerfall to Morrowind? If you do then I’m shocked. If you don’t then how could you think that they would be the same between GW1 and GW2 core game/expansion? Higher costs tend to translate to higher prices.

like i said in another thread, they can open a www.zazzle.com account, development costs would then be uploading jpgs. Then they can work with zazzle to offer coupons that zazzle would honor as part of an anet bundle. zero costs to open the store, and makes alot of work they have already done on files into a stream of revenue.

There are more resources today than in the brick and mo-kittenays to generate cashflow, the most important thing , anet already has, is an audience.

mor-tar got kittenned ? this is better than iphone autocorrect!! lol

ProtoGunner.4953:

The original price of the Nightfall CE was much more expensive than 50.

I don’t think so.

ProtoGunner.4953:

Don’t compare a 9 year old game’s price with an upcoming expansion.

Why not? Same company, same price. It is entirely justified to compare the value for the same price.

ProtoGunner.4953:

Also you get a ton of updates in the future.

You are not paying for the updates, you are paying for the expansion. Besides, Nightfall also got plenty of updates, including a whole endgame area. So that argument is void.

Ayrilana.1396:

Development costs are not the same. Do you really believe that development costs for Diablo 2 were the same as Diablo 3? How about Super Mario Bros to Super Mario World? Or Daggerfall to Morrowind? If you do then I’m shocked. If you don’t then how could you think that they would be the same between GW1 and GW2 core game/expansion? Higher costs tend to translate to higher prices.

Oh really? How much was GW2 on release?

I don’t see the value in it at all. Why? Because we don’t know how big or small it is. I’m not gonna pony up coin for a pre-order for a product I know little to nothing about. ArenaNet in the past have had really cool CEs. I bought the Factions CE and never regretted it. It’s amazing. If I decide to wait to get HoT until I get more info, I could be spending as much money as I did on the base game. That’s asinine to me.

I agree with Mad Queen on this. Heck, even if we put away his/her comparison to Nightfall, compare the CE for the GW2 base game with the CE for the x-pac. It’s awful.

I’m waiting to purchase this til there is more info. I am not confident enough in ArenaNet to put out the type of quality they used to be capable of. THey also aren’t putting out the type of content I like in their games anymore so this product isn’t really for me. As a ten year fan of the franchise who owns multiple accounts in both games, it pains me to say that. This is one of my fave franchises ever and it seems to be headed in a direction that isn’t in line with what I am looking for in terms of marketing, communication, game play, or cash shop.

the price of the expansion doesn’t bug me, I trust anet to create more content as we go….what DOES have me on the fence, is where are we going ?? ….this game play going further and further away from the mmo I first bought. specifically the prefab builds and constant change in game play – example, my jeweler is simply useless, and now I’m hearing that all this time and gold i spent building grandmasters was also wasted.

I’m not worried about anet cheating me, but i’m also not interested in playing a prefab game that leaves me very few choices in how to play – especially in pvp.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Ayrilana.1396:

Development costs are not the same. Do you really believe that development costs for Diablo 2 were the same as Diablo 3? How about Super Mario Bros to Super Mario World? Or Daggerfall to Morrowind? If you do then I’m shocked. If you don’t then how could you think that they would be the same between GW1 and GW2 core game/expansion? Higher costs tend to translate to higher prices.

Oh really? How much was GW2 on release?

$60. How much was GW1 on release? $50.

Ayrilana.1396:

$60. How much was GW1 on release? $50.

So in other words, development costs have not changed that much at all.
And also, you are clearly paying the same price for a small expansion, as you did for the full game.

This looks like they are tricking us into paying for the same game twice.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Ayrilana.1396:

$60. How much was GW1 on release? $50.

So in other words, development costs have not changed that much at all.
And also, you are clearly paying the same price for a small expansion, as you did for the full game.

This looks like they are tricking us into paying for the same game twice.

So you paid $50 for Nightfall which is smaller than Prophecies? You paid the price of the original game. EotN was like $35 which contained even less content. You paid 70% of the price of the Prophicies compared to HoT which is 83%. Not to mention EotN was easily less than half the content of Prophecies.

Ayrilana.1396:

So you paid $50 for Nightfall which is smaller than Prophecies?

Yes, but that was the special edition, which also included dozens of goodies. The actual base expansion was cheaper.

Ayrilana.1396:

You paid the price of the original game.

For a special edition of a stand alone game.

Ayrilana.1396:

EotN was like $35 which contained even less content.

Which WAS an expansion, and was priced accordingly.

Ayrilana.1396:

EotN was easily less than half the content of Prophecies.

And was thus priced at much less than Prophecies. But you are paying the same price for HOT as for GW2. See the problem? You pay the price of a full game, and get a small expansion. They never did this with GW1. The price was based on the size of the expansion/region.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Ayrilana.1396:

So you paid $50 for Nightfall which is smaller than Prophecies?

Yes, but that was the special edition, which also included dozens of goodies. The actual base expansion was cheaper.

Ayrilana.1396:

You paid the price of the original game.

For a special edition of a stand alone game.

Ayrilana.1396:

EotN was like $35 which contained even less content.

Which WAS an expansion, and was priced accordingly.

Ayrilana.1396:

EotN was easily less than half the content of Prophecies.

And was thus priced at much less than Prophecies. But you are paying the same price for HOT as for GW2. See the problem? You pay the price of a full game, and get a small expansion. They never did this with GW1. The price was based on the size of the expansion/region.

Gw2 was $60 and not $50. You don’t know how big/small HoT will be. EotN and HoT are priced similar to their base games.

I already made up my mind to not invest in any Arena net non-worth and non-value that only care about making money instead of fixing problems, making serious change and making their product: challenge, fun, hard-work, effort, risk-reward and skill-play.

Great research with Excellent evidence. You are sincere, honest, genuine and very experience player because of your history. Your physical evidence is 100% Fool Proof with 100% credibility.

Last,

Mad Queen Malafide, Great Job!

" Honest hearts produce honest actions "
Brigham Young

" Courage Is What It Takes To Stand Up And Speak.. "
Winston Churchill

" Be brave. Take risks. Nothing can substitute experience "

I’d rather pay $50 and get $50 worth of in-game content than spend $50 and get $25 worth of random filler crap to clutter my desk.

The people in this thread who pretend to know exactly what HoT will contain make me laugh. Nobody knows; stop pretending like you’re not just mad that mom won’t shell out $50 for a prepurchase for you.

Ayrilana.1396:

Gw2 was $60 and not $50. You don’t know how big/small HoT will be..

HOT is $60 bucks as well. So you are paying exactly the same.

And no we don’t know how big HOT will be. But we do know:

-It will be smaller than the core game, and thus shouldn’t cost the same.
-It’s a small expansion, not a full standalone expansion like in GW1.

Ayrilana.1396:

EotN and HoT are priced similar to their base games.

EotN was NOT priced similar to it’s core game. It was a lot cheaper than Prophecies.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Ayrilana.1396:

Gw2 was $60 and not $50. You don’t know how big/small HoT will be..

HOT is $60 bucks as well. So you are paying exactly the same.

And no we don’t know how big HOT will be. But we do know:

-It will be smaller than the core game, and thus shouldn’t cost the same.
-It’s a small expansion, not a full standalone expansion like in GW1.

Ayrilana.1396:

EotN and HoT are priced similar to their base games.

EotN was NOT priced similar to it’s core game. It was a lot cheaper than Prophecies.

Your argument is that quantity of content is the only metric on which price should be established. Fine that is a fair position to have then. For others this is not the case, it is always something nice but for some of us we weigh the worth of games more abstractly.

Asudementio.8526:

Your argument is that quantity of content is the only metric on which price should be established. Fine that is a fair position to have then. For others this is not the case, it is always something nice but for some of us we weigh the worth of games more abstractly.

Then by what metric do you weigh the value of this expansion?

Asudementio.8526:

Your argument is that quantity of content is the only metric on which price should be established. Fine that is a fair position to have then. For others this is not the case, it is always something nice but for some of us we weigh the worth of games more abstractly.

Preach. I don’t care about 78 instanced maps that are all basically the same thing. I don’t care about silly desktop memorabilia to look at. I don’t care about 2 professions that I didn’t end up playing more than maybe 2 hours of total (my Paragon was only leveled so I could run Imbagon in FoW and my Dervish made it to level 3).

If you can’t justify spending $50 on an expansion to a game you (presumably) enjoy, then don’t get it. NOBODY is forcing you. I’m very excited about this expansion. Will I be let down? It’s always possible. Will I be blown away? It’s always possible. In the end, very few people are going to care that they aren’t getting a physical copy of the game with a bunch of desktop filler books and miniatures. I want $50 worth of content.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Ayrilana.1396:

Gw2 was $60 and not $50. You don’t know how big/small HoT will be..

HOT is $60 bucks as well. So you are paying exactly the same.

And no we don’t know how big HOT will be. But we do know:

-It will be smaller than the core game, and thus shouldn’t cost the same.
-It’s a small expansion, not a full standalone expansion like in GW1.

Ayrilana.1396:

EotN and HoT are priced similar to their base games.

EotN was NOT priced similar to it’s core game. It was a lot cheaper than Prophecies.

You’re purposely inflating the cost for the extra character slot which comes free with pre-purchases. EotN was priced similar as I showed by showing the percentage of the original’s cost.

The HoT editions also come with a lot of great things. Some may not care for just as some may not care for the stuff in the Nightfall CE. Some of the items from that edition could have been gotten for free.

Ayrilana.1396:

Development costs are not the same. Do you really believe that development costs for Diablo 2 were the same as Diablo 3? How about Super Mario Bros to Super Mario World? Or Daggerfall to Morrowind? If you do then I’m shocked. If you don’t then how could you think that they would be the same between GW1 and GW2 core game/expansion? Higher costs tend to translate to higher prices.

Prices for games has not gone up in general since 2005. Nor has size gone down.
Ffxi cost 15 a month and had 40 dollar expansions 10 years ago. Ffxiv costs the same thing right now, and its very profitable.
Dark souls i cost 60 and dark souls 2 cost 60. Street fighter games costed 50 in the 90s and cost the same today.

Point is game prices have not inflated and game content has not deflated. So using that as an excuse is a fallacy

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Asudementio.8526:

Your argument is that quantity of content is the only metric on which price should be established. Fine that is a fair position to have then. For others this is not the case, it is always something nice but for some of us we weigh the worth of games more abstractly.

Then by what metric do you weigh the value of this expansion?

When i decide to purchase any dlc or expansions i usually ask the following:

1) do i have time to keep playing
2) is the game still interesting to me, do i have goals left, are friends still playing
3) do i find the theme of the content interesting, does it add novelty that is enticing
4) do i want to support the development team/publisher
5) do i think that purchasing will improve my experience above and beyond that of the base game

Pretty consistently this is how i decide if an expansion is worth buying. HoT hits and misses some of these, which is why i am waiting to pre-order until i know more about it and more about my commitment to the game.

That this is how i judge if i will purchase a game does not mean it is a valid method for everyone. If you are a very raw content driven individual then it may only make sense for you to purchase based on the number of zones and dungeons and so on so forth. My point in all of this is to point out that your way is not necessarily the best or more fair way to make consumer choices.

edit:phrasing

Ayrilana.1396:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Ayrilana.1396:

Gw2 was $60 and not $50. You don’t know how big/small HoT will be..

HOT is $60 bucks as well. So you are paying exactly the same.

And no we don’t know how big HOT will be. But we do know:

-It will be smaller than the core game, and thus shouldn’t cost the same.
-It’s a small expansion, not a full standalone expansion like in GW1.

Ayrilana.1396:

EotN and HoT are priced similar to their base games.

EotN was NOT priced similar to it’s core game. It was a lot cheaper than Prophecies.

You’re purposely inflating the cost for the extra character slot which comes free with pre-purchases. EotN was priced similar as I showed by showing the percentage of the original’s cost.

Prepurchase bonuses are irrelevant to the actual product. They are special offers in exchange for buying a product which does not exist yet

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Ayrilana.1396:

Gw2 was $60 and not $50. You don’t know how big/small HoT will be..

HOT is $60 bucks as well. So you are paying exactly the same.

And no we don’t know how big HOT will be. But we do know:

-It will be smaller than the core game, and thus shouldn’t cost the same.
-It’s a small expansion, not a full standalone expansion like in GW1.

Ayrilana.1396:

EotN and HoT are priced similar to their base games.

EotN was NOT priced similar to it’s core game. It was a lot cheaper than Prophecies.

You’re purposely inflating the cost for the extra character slot which comes free with pre-purchases. EotN was priced similar as I showed by showing the percentage of the original’s cost.

Prepurchase bonuses are irrelevant to the actual product. They are special offers in exchange for buying a product which does not exist yet

And the actual product is $50, not $60.

If an extra character slot is not part of the actual product, then how can the price of the actual product be the cost of the actual product plus an optional addition?

This logic doesn’t even make sense. If you are going to complain about character slots not being baseline with the actual product, then do so, but don’t try to suggest that the actual product costs $10 more than it actually does simply to include something the developers have deemed optional.

comprisedpuma.1324:

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Ayrilana.1396:

Gw2 was $60 and not $50. You don’t know how big/small HoT will be..

HOT is $60 bucks as well. So you are paying exactly the same.

And no we don’t know how big HOT will be. But we do know:

-It will be smaller than the core game, and thus shouldn’t cost the same.
-It’s a small expansion, not a full standalone expansion like in GW1.

Ayrilana.1396:

EotN and HoT are priced similar to their base games.

EotN was NOT priced similar to it’s core game. It was a lot cheaper than Prophecies.

You’re purposely inflating the cost for the extra character slot which comes free with pre-purchases. EotN was priced similar as I showed by showing the percentage of the original’s cost.

Prepurchase bonuses are irrelevant to the actual product. They are special offers in exchange for buying a product which does not exist yet

And the actual product is $50, not $60.

If an extra character slot is not part of the actual product, then how can the price of the actual product be the cost of the actual product plus an optional addition?

This logic doesn’t even make sense. If you are going to complain about character slots not being baseline with the actual product, then do so, but don’t try to suggest that the actual product costs $10 more than it actually does simply to include something the developers have deemed optional.

What you are saying has nothing to do with what i said.

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

Development costs are not the same. Do you really believe that development costs for Diablo 2 were the same as Diablo 3? How about Super Mario Bros to Super Mario World? Or Daggerfall to Morrowind? If you do then I’m shocked. If you don’t then how could you think that they would be the same between GW1 and GW2 core game/expansion? Higher costs tend to translate to higher prices.

Prices for games has not gone up in general since 2005. Nor has size gone down.
Ffxi cost 15 a month and had 40 dollar expansions 10 years ago. Ffxiv costs the same thing right now, and its very profitable.
Dark souls i cost 60 and dark souls 2 cost 60. Street fighter games costed 50 in the 90s and cost the same today.

Point is game prices have not inflated and game content has not deflated. So using that as an excuse is a fallacy

I wasn’t arguing about the price level of the industry. I picked those games to show that production costs would be different between sequels as they’re more involved and general larger in scale. Dark Souls vs Dark Souls was only a 3 year gap compared to like 9 with Guild Wars. High costs tend to result in high prices unless they can minimize this through other ways such as economies of scale or additional revenue from sources beyond the game’s sale.

To clear out the price “debate”:

The price of Guild Wars Nightfall (the BASE game) was 49.99 USD. The price of Guild Wars Nightfall Collector’s Edition was 59.99 USD. When Guild Wars Nightfall was released, you HAD to also buy Prophecies AND Factions in order to have everything that game had to offer.

The price of HoT pre-purchase is $49.99 / $74.99 / $99.99 for the 3 editions. The Ultimate editions contains 4000 gems which are priced at $50 if you get them individually. And for that $49.99 you access EVERYTHING, no additional costs required.

The pricing means that for $49.99 you get all the Deluxe features. Which makes the Deluxe edition rather pointless in my opinion. They should’ve given 1600 gems with the Collector’s Edition and price it at $59.99 making it the best value for the money but no…

On a side note about the price isn’t it funny how HoT base game costs $49.99 but €44.99 (cheaper in euros) but the numbers are the same for the other editions! What gives?

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Ayrilana.1396:

Gw2 was $60 and not $50. You don’t know how big/small HoT will be..

HOT is $60 bucks as well. So you are paying exactly the same.

And no we don’t know how big HOT will be. But we do know:

-It will be smaller than the core game, and thus shouldn’t cost the same.
-It’s a small expansion, not a full standalone expansion like in GW1.

Ayrilana.1396:

EotN and HoT are priced similar to their base games.

EotN was NOT priced similar to it’s core game. It was a lot cheaper than Prophecies.

You’re purposely inflating the cost for the extra character slot which comes free with pre-purchases. EotN was priced similar as I showed by showing the percentage of the original’s cost.

Prepurchase bonuses are irrelevant to the actual product. They are special offers in exchange for buying a product which does not exist yet

No more and no less as that additional cost for a character slot is on the basis that someone has used up their existing character slots.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Ayrilana.1396:

Gw2 was $60 and not $50. You don’t know how big/small HoT will be..

HOT is $60 bucks as well. So you are paying exactly the same.

And no we don’t know how big HOT will be. But we do know:

-It will be smaller than the core game, and thus shouldn’t cost the same.
-It’s a small expansion, not a full standalone expansion like in GW1.

Ayrilana.1396:

EotN and HoT are priced similar to their base games.

EotN was NOT priced similar to it’s core game. It was a lot cheaper than Prophecies.

A) Hot is $50 not $60
B) EotN had a release price of 39.99 USD but when it was released you also had to buy at least one more GW1 campaign. And when it was released you had to buy ALL GW1 campaigns to access everything.

Ricky.4706:

well this should make for an interesting read on topic ^.^
http://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2015/06/26/the-witcher-3-kept-its-budget-low-because-it-was-self-published/

i wonder how much ncsoft has their hands in this and throwing a hot potato in arenanets lap!

one thing in particular i noticed from the ncsoft quarterly report – was their unusually low packaging / distribution costs – this may be why there is no collectors edition. maybe we need to bail anet from ncsoft ? lol

Dear NCsoft, Arenanet is not a potato, stop with those crazy meetings and let them focus!! We the players have spoken!

The witcher 3 isn’t an MMO. It’s not going to constantly provide free content after you beat it.

I’ve played Guild Wars 2 for thousands of hours for the price I paid for it. Are you suggesting you can play Witcher 3 for thousands of hours. I sort of doubt it.

MMOs aren’t like stand alone games, because they’re constantly being updated. For example, I own the Witcher and Witcher 2, and I’ve played them. But I don’t get content updates for them with any regularity. I haven’t spent a hundred hours playing either one. So the price I paid for them, even if it was $10, it’s still more expensive per hour than Guild Wars 2 is for me.

The same goes for an expansion. If it gives you ten, fifteen times the amount of play a stand alone game gives you, it’s a kitten good deal.

Ayrilana.1396:

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

Development costs are not the same. Do you really believe that development costs for Diablo 2 were the same as Diablo 3? How about Super Mario Bros to Super Mario World? Or Daggerfall to Morrowind? If you do then I’m shocked. If you don’t then how could you think that they would be the same between GW1 and GW2 core game/expansion? Higher costs tend to translate to higher prices.

Prices for games has not gone up in general since 2005. Nor has size gone down.
Ffxi cost 15 a month and had 40 dollar expansions 10 years ago. Ffxiv costs the same thing right now, and its very profitable.
Dark souls i cost 60 and dark souls 2 cost 60. Street fighter games costed 50 in the 90s and cost the same today.

Point is game prices have not inflated and game content has not deflated. So using that as an excuse is a fallacy

I wasn’t arguing about the price level of the industry. I picked those games to show that production costs would be different between sequels as they’re more involved and general larger in scale. Dark Souls vs Dark Souls was only a 3 year gap compared to like 9 with Guild Wars. High costs tend to result in high prices unless they can minimize this through other ways such as economies of scale or additional revenue from sources beyond the game’s sale.

Production costs effecting prices is not an accurate defense if, for the industry as a whole, it has not effected prices.
Dark souls was one example.
Final fantasy 11 and final fantasy 14 was another. They are 10 years apart.

Production costs are not the reason for the chosen price. The monetization policy they have profits even if they sold it at cost. This is simply the number the marketing dept came up with that they think people are willing to pay.

They just think the market is willing to bear this price. The only real question is do the consumers agree.

Vayne.8563:

Ricky.4706:

well this should make for an interesting read on topic ^.^
http://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2015/06/26/the-witcher-3-kept-its-budget-low-because-it-was-self-published/

i wonder how much ncsoft has their hands in this and throwing a hot potato in arenanets lap!

one thing in particular i noticed from the ncsoft quarterly report – was their unusually low packaging / distribution costs – this may be why there is no collectors edition. maybe we need to bail anet from ncsoft ? lol

Dear NCsoft, Arenanet is not a potato, stop with those crazy meetings and let them focus!! We the players have spoken!

The witcher 3 isn’t an MMO. It’s not going to constantly provide free content after you beat it.

I’ve played Guild Wars 2 for thousands of hours for the price I paid for it. Are you suggesting you can play Witcher 3 for thousands of hours. I sort of doubt it.

MMOs aren’t like stand alone games, because they’re constantly being updated. For example, I own the Witcher and Witcher 2, and I’ve played them. But I don’t get content updates for them with any regularity. I haven’t spent a hundred hours playing either one. So the price I paid for them, even if it was $10, it’s still more expensive per hour than Guild Wars 2 is for me.

The same goes for an expansion. If it gives you ten, fifteen times the amount of play a stand alone game gives you, it’s a kitten good deal.

Play per hour doesnt have the same value. Unless your goal is simply to pass time. I enjoy mmos. But to be honest the hours are not created equally. Mmos generally stretch content through repetition and long term goals.

Things that would take an hour in offline rpg are stretched to 10-20 times that. Its often not a case of more to do, more a case of doing it longer

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

Development costs are not the same. Do you really believe that development costs for Diablo 2 were the same as Diablo 3? How about Super Mario Bros to Super Mario World? Or Daggerfall to Morrowind? If you do then I’m shocked. If you don’t then how could you think that they would be the same between GW1 and GW2 core game/expansion? Higher costs tend to translate to higher prices.

Prices for games has not gone up in general since 2005. Nor has size gone down.
Ffxi cost 15 a month and had 40 dollar expansions 10 years ago. Ffxiv costs the same thing right now, and its very profitable.
Dark souls i cost 60 and dark souls 2 cost 60. Street fighter games costed 50 in the 90s and cost the same today.

Point is game prices have not inflated and game content has not deflated. So using that as an excuse is a fallacy

I wasn’t arguing about the price level of the industry. I picked those games to show that production costs would be different between sequels as they’re more involved and general larger in scale. Dark Souls vs Dark Souls was only a 3 year gap compared to like 9 with Guild Wars. High costs tend to result in high prices unless they can minimize this through other ways such as economies of scale or additional revenue from sources beyond the game’s sale.

Production costs effecting prices is not an accurate defense if, for the industry as a whole, it has not effected prices.
Dark souls was one example.
Final fantasy 11 and final fantasy 14 was another. They are 10 years apart.

Production costs are not the reason for the chosen price. The monetization policy they have profits even if they sold it at cost. This is simply the number the marketing dept came up with that they think people are willing to pay.

They just think the market is willing to bear this price. The only real question is do the consumers agree.

Yeah. Production costs are but a factor and not the sole cause.

not comparing the game itself, but the way it was able to turn itself into a relevant indie… and i found it interesting how they said publishers can interfere -arches brow-

wondering if anet needs us to have a little talk with ncsoft for them!

but since you are on the game perspective ….from what I’ve been watching with the witcher, it has a strong replayability value because supposedly some quests shut down others when you take them so you have a variety of endings to the story, some sort of choice and consequences set up, I found it interesting…….it’s not guildwars as far as mmo, but it is a nice way to keep things interesting and diverse for a while. Also from what i’ve seen, their maps are extremely large. it’s like they took single player to an mmo scale with environment.

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

Development costs are not the same. Do you really believe that development costs for Diablo 2 were the same as Diablo 3? How about Super Mario Bros to Super Mario World? Or Daggerfall to Morrowind? If you do then I’m shocked. If you don’t then how could you think that they would be the same between GW1 and GW2 core game/expansion? Higher costs tend to translate to higher prices.

Prices for games has not gone up in general since 2005. Nor has size gone down.
Ffxi cost 15 a month and had 40 dollar expansions 10 years ago. Ffxiv costs the same thing right now, and its very profitable.
Dark souls i cost 60 and dark souls 2 cost 60. Street fighter games costed 50 in the 90s and cost the same today.

Point is game prices have not inflated and game content has not deflated. So using that as an excuse is a fallacy

I wasn’t arguing about the price level of the industry. I picked those games to show that production costs would be different between sequels as they’re more involved and general larger in scale. Dark Souls vs Dark Souls was only a 3 year gap compared to like 9 with Guild Wars. High costs tend to result in high prices unless they can minimize this through other ways such as economies of scale or additional revenue from sources beyond the game’s sale.

Production costs effecting prices is not an accurate defense if, for the industry as a whole, it has not effected prices.
Dark souls was one example.
Final fantasy 11 and final fantasy 14 was another. They are 10 years apart.

Production costs are not the reason for the chosen price. The monetization policy they have profits even if they sold it at cost. This is simply the number the marketing dept came up with that they think people are willing to pay.

They just think the market is willing to bear this price. The only real question is do the consumers agree.

You state this as fact though it’s really just your opinion. Unless you’re working for NCsoft and Anet, you pretty much are just guessing.

My guess is that the amount of work required to make all the changes they’re making to the game, including designing the new tech for new skills and such, bears out the cost of making the game.

It’s absolutely possible that companies can make stuff more efficiently. It’s also just as possible that its easier to make stuff efficiently when you’re working with a tried and true formula and just repeating it.

Vayne.8563:

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

Development costs are not the same. Do you really believe that development costs for Diablo 2 were the same as Diablo 3? How about Super Mario Bros to Super Mario World? Or Daggerfall to Morrowind? If you do then I’m shocked. If you don’t then how could you think that they would be the same between GW1 and GW2 core game/expansion? Higher costs tend to translate to higher prices.

Prices for games has not gone up in general since 2005. Nor has size gone down.
Ffxi cost 15 a month and had 40 dollar expansions 10 years ago. Ffxiv costs the same thing right now, and its very profitable.
Dark souls i cost 60 and dark souls 2 cost 60. Street fighter games costed 50 in the 90s and cost the same today.

Point is game prices have not inflated and game content has not deflated. So using that as an excuse is a fallacy

I wasn’t arguing about the price level of the industry. I picked those games to show that production costs would be different between sequels as they’re more involved and general larger in scale. Dark Souls vs Dark Souls was only a 3 year gap compared to like 9 with Guild Wars. High costs tend to result in high prices unless they can minimize this through other ways such as economies of scale or additional revenue from sources beyond the game’s sale.

Production costs effecting prices is not an accurate defense if, for the industry as a whole, it has not effected prices.
Dark souls was one example.
Final fantasy 11 and final fantasy 14 was another. They are 10 years apart.

Production costs are not the reason for the chosen price. The monetization policy they have profits even if they sold it at cost. This is simply the number the marketing dept came up with that they think people are willing to pay.

They just think the market is willing to bear this price. The only real question is do the consumers agree.

You state this as fact though it’s really just your opinion. Unless you’re working for NCsoft and Anet, you pretty much are just guessing.

My guess is that the amount of work required to make all the changes they’re making to the game, including designing the new tech for new skills and such, bears out the cost of making the game.

It’s absolutely possible that companies can make stuff more efficiently. It’s also just as possible that its easier to make stuff efficiently when you’re working with a tried and true formula and just repeating it.

What you are suggesting is that anet is noticeably less effecient at making their game tham everyone rlse. So much so that they cannot compete at the same price as other games. I find that highly unlikely, especially considering they are top 10 in eRnings in the genre, and based on when they claimed they started development, the game was not in development overlong.

Really if you are right it would mean anet cant compete with their competition

While I preferred GW to GW2, it’s foolish to compare the prices of a product that released 8.5 years ago to one releasing this year (?). Very little that I spend money on now costs as little as it did in 2006. A Double Swiss Burger and fries cost me about $6.50 at Best Burger in 2006, now it’s over $10.

At that time, ANet reportedly had about 50 people then, now it’s over 300, 6x+ in staffing and undoubtedly more than 6x the overhead. Game graphics and animations have improved quite a bit, but it’s got to cost them more to produce a product now than it did then. If the sale price is similar, then something had to give.

Don’t get me wrong, I lament the reduction in value for money. However, businesses are not in business for charity, or to be my friend. They’re in business to make money, hopefully by doing something the people involved enjoy doing.

As a consumer, I have to recognize the realities that businesses face, while also exercising my consumer rights. I need to look critically at products and exercise due diligence using the tools at my disposal. One of those tools is comparison shopping. However, comparing a contemporary product to one from from an earlier time is just not a valid comparison. As fast as things change in the computer industry, 8.5 years is a long time. Costs are different, production values are different, and market forces are different.

If you want to focus on comparison shopping, please do. I encourage this. However, comparing current products to current products is a better way to determine current value.

phys.7689:

Vayne.8563:

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

Development costs are not the same. Do you really believe that development costs for Diablo 2 were the same as Diablo 3? How about Super Mario Bros to Super Mario World? Or Daggerfall to Morrowind? If you do then I’m shocked. If you don’t then how could you think that they would be the same between GW1 and GW2 core game/expansion? Higher costs tend to translate to higher prices.

Prices for games has not gone up in general since 2005. Nor has size gone down.
Ffxi cost 15 a month and had 40 dollar expansions 10 years ago. Ffxiv costs the same thing right now, and its very profitable.
Dark souls i cost 60 and dark souls 2 cost 60. Street fighter games costed 50 in the 90s and cost the same today.

Point is game prices have not inflated and game content has not deflated. So using that as an excuse is a fallacy

I wasn’t arguing about the price level of the industry. I picked those games to show that production costs would be different between sequels as they’re more involved and general larger in scale. Dark Souls vs Dark Souls was only a 3 year gap compared to like 9 with Guild Wars. High costs tend to result in high prices unless they can minimize this through other ways such as economies of scale or additional revenue from sources beyond the game’s sale.

Production costs effecting prices is not an accurate defense if, for the industry as a whole, it has not effected prices.
Dark souls was one example.
Final fantasy 11 and final fantasy 14 was another. They are 10 years apart.

Production costs are not the reason for the chosen price. The monetization policy they have profits even if they sold it at cost. This is simply the number the marketing dept came up with that they think people are willing to pay.

They just think the market is willing to bear this price. The only real question is do the consumers agree.

You state this as fact though it’s really just your opinion. Unless you’re working for NCsoft and Anet, you pretty much are just guessing.

My guess is that the amount of work required to make all the changes they’re making to the game, including designing the new tech for new skills and such, bears out the cost of making the game.

It’s absolutely possible that companies can make stuff more efficiently. It’s also just as possible that its easier to make stuff efficiently when you’re working with a tried and true formula and just repeating it.

What you are suggesting is that anet is noticeably less effecient at making their game tham everyone rlse. So much so that they cannot compete at the same price as other games. I find that highly unlikely, especially considering they are top 10 in eRnings in the genre, and based on when they claimed they started development, the game was not in development overlong.

Really if you are right it would mean anet cant compete with their competition

Nowhere did I say everywhere else, so you’re misquoting me. What I’m saying is that when you break the mold it takes longer to make stuff, because there’s no hard and fast rules and if you want to be in the forefront of stuff, you pay for that priviledge. If you prefer to play the old, annoying MMOs (which I can’t stomach at all), by all means, go play them. They may come out with content faster, but to me they’re far more annoying and less fun than I have in Guild Wars 2.

What I said was Anet is competing with their competition by being new and different rather than being fast and efficient.

I’d rather have new and different than fast and efficient in many cases.

Vayne.8563:

phys.7689:

Vayne.8563:

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

phys.7689:

Ayrilana.1396:

Development costs are not the same. Do you really believe that development costs for Diablo 2 were the same as Diablo 3? How about Super Mario Bros to Super Mario World? Or Daggerfall to Morrowind? If you do then I’m shocked. If you don’t then how could you think that they would be the same between GW1 and GW2 core game/expansion? Higher costs tend to translate to higher prices.

Prices for games has not gone up in general since 2005. Nor has size gone down.
Ffxi cost 15 a month and had 40 dollar expansions 10 years ago. Ffxiv costs the same thing right now, and its very profitable.
Dark souls i cost 60 and dark souls 2 cost 60. Street fighter games costed 50 in the 90s and cost the same today.

Point is game prices have not inflated and game content has not deflated. So using that as an excuse is a fallacy

I wasn’t arguing about the price level of the industry. I picked those games to show that production costs would be different between sequels as they’re more involved and general larger in scale. Dark Souls vs Dark Souls was only a 3 year gap compared to like 9 with Guild Wars. High costs tend to result in high prices unless they can minimize this through other ways such as economies of scale or additional revenue from sources beyond the game’s sale.

Production costs effecting prices is not an accurate defense if, for the industry as a whole, it has not effected prices.
Dark souls was one example.
Final fantasy 11 and final fantasy 14 was another. They are 10 years apart.

Production costs are not the reason for the chosen price. The monetization policy they have profits even if they sold it at cost. This is simply the number the marketing dept came up with that they think people are willing to pay.

They just think the market is willing to bear this price. The only real question is do the consumers agree.

You state this as fact though it’s really just your opinion. Unless you’re working for NCsoft and Anet, you pretty much are just guessing.

My guess is that the amount of work required to make all the changes they’re making to the game, including designing the new tech for new skills and such, bears out the cost of making the game.

It’s absolutely possible that companies can make stuff more efficiently. It’s also just as possible that its easier to make stuff efficiently when you’re working with a tried and true formula and just repeating it.

What you are suggesting is that anet is noticeably less effecient at making their game tham everyone rlse. So much so that they cannot compete at the same price as other games. I find that highly unlikely, especially considering they are top 10 in eRnings in the genre, and based on when they claimed they started development, the game was not in development overlong.

Really if you are right it would mean anet cant compete with their competition

Nowhere did I say everywhere else, so you’re misquoting me. What I’m saying is that when you break the mold it takes longer to make stuff, because there’s no hard and fast rules and if you want to be in the forefront of stuff, you pay for that priviledge. If you prefer to play the old, annoying MMOs (which I can’t stomach at all), by all means, go play them. They may come out with content faster, but to me they’re far more annoying and less fun than I have in Guild Wars 2.

What I said was Anet is competing with their competition by being new and different rather than being fast and efficient.

I’d rather have new and different than fast and efficient in many cases.

So you are saying the lack of comparitive value in cost versus content (compared to current competition) is balanced by bringing a unique and new product.

A valid idea, a bit subjective, but thats fine.

I personally agree in theory, but i feel 2 things about this specific case.
1) they arent making a new product anymore, they ve been doing this for 3 years, it shouldnt be like starting from scratch anymore.

2) the game has not evolved along its unique paths, the game looks s lot more similar to older paradigms than it used to. Many of the unique aspects are fairly underdeveloped or have become a lot closer to the basic formula.

To me, the expansion doesnt seem that new and different, which makes me expect more polish refinement and quantity. Based on what we ve seen, i dont feel they can claim innovation as a reason for less development per dollar in this case.

@phys.7689

Well you see that’s the thing. Having experienced many, many MMOs I’ve yet to find one with all the features that I like. Not one.

So I don’t really want to do a bunch of static quests, like in FF or ESO. Those things don’t really interest me. Even though the quests in ESO are voiced, they feel so much the same old. It doesn’t feel organic to me, and that’s really the issue. This game does feel organic and most others don’t.

I don’t want to have to compete with someone for kills or nodes. That’s a big thing for me. I want to be happy when I see other players. Nor do I want to play a game that claims to be free to play, but you really have to sub. I don’t mind paying a sub. I don’t like people saying their game is free, when it’s only free in name. I’ve played too many of them.

I prefer active combat, to passive combat. I don’t really love cartoony graphics like WoW or Wildstar. And I don’t love games that focus on instances. And I don’t like the holy trinity.

You start going through that list and suggest to me one other game that has what I like and I’d be happy to try it. The fact is you can count on one hand games that don’t really focus on instance that don’t have a trinity.

That’s all down to what Anet has created. HoT is an extension of that creation. When you add in stuff like Guild Halls (and the guild halls in most games aren’t going to be entire guild zones) and you add in not raising the level cap or adding a new tier of gear (that’s certainly unusual for any MMO expansion), then you have something that’s very different. Maybe you’re looking in different places than I am.

In fact, I’m not sure how many MMOs there are that won’t add a new tier of gear and won’t add more levels. That’s a major selling point for me.