Guild Wars 2

Charge 200 gems for all episodes of LS2 — please make this a content driven business model. That would be the true B2P game we signed up for at launch.

I have never dropped a cent into the cash shop. However I would gladly buy content if it was available (the game sorely needs more content). That’s the only way you’ll get my money.

This also has the effect of forcing quality into the content. If the content sucks, nobody will buy it. It’s a positive feedback loop in the development cycle.

Anyway, I suspect ANet wanted to go this route but for some reason is baby-stepping it with only charging “late” customers.

You want to have to pay weekly, or you’ll lose out on content?

This will not be a popular suggestion.

If the LS season is all connected, then it forms one story. So, to experience the entire storyline, we would have to buy every instalment. I see no benefit to this.

Also, that “positive feedback” loop would be nice, but unfortunately, fans tend to be hyperbolic and extreme in their criticism, and usually don’t mention good stuff at all, even when it is good.

juno.1840:

Charge 200 gems for all episodes of LS2 — please make this a content driven business model. That would be the true B2P game we signed up for at launch.

I have never dropped a cent into the cash shop. However I would gladly buy content if it was available (the game sorely needs more content). That’s the only way you’ll get my money.

This also has the effect of forcing quality into the content. If the content sucks, nobody will buy it. It’s a positive feedback loop in the development cycle.

Anyway, I suspect ANet wanted to go this route but for some reason is baby-stepping it with only charging “late” customers.

No thank you. If this was the case most people would

1) not buy it at all (going by the majority of people complaining that the LS 1 was bad — I personally enjoyed almost all of it — they wouldn’t bother having to buy anything new)

2) get it with gold (which late comers can do in their proposed system anyway)

The only thing your suggestion would do is to drive the gem prices further into the ground and alienate a good portion of the player base who would normally play the new content.

What you’re suggesting isn’t B2P, it’s a (voluntary) sub fee — you want all those cool things we did for the first year and a half, well now you need to pay us a biweekly fee for them. We already bought the game, we shouldn’t be subject to have to pay another cent unless something in the gem store catches our eye. And depending on the value of the rewards (which they said will be improving) it may boarder on P2W, but that is a very broad speculation and most likely would just be in the normal bounds of play.

This is less about them making money (though I’m sure that is a driving factor of it) and more about them listening to us (while making money at the same time). People complained about how temp all the content was in season 1 and also how if they missed it it was gone for good. This new approach fixes both things. If you’re there, you can play it as many times as you want for free. If not, you can still experience it (at a slight cost). The players get to play perm content and get to go back and buy it if they miss it, the devs make money; everyone wins.

Wow — both of you guys completely missed the boat on what I was saying.

First: You don’t have to buy the content for the 2 weeks it’s out. You can buy it anytime — that’s how expansions work.

Second: If people don’t buy it, it’s because the content sucked. That’s how you speak with your cash — and believe me the Developers listen to the voice of money.

Unrelated: The gem conversion rate has nothing to do with any of this. If your goal is the selfish desire to keep gem prices cheap, then sorry, that’s your problem. Use RL cash to buy the 200 gems for an episode — you had to do that to buy GW2 in the first place so it’s not a difficult concept.

I see nothing but advantages to charging for Living Story.

The most important aspect of an MMORPG are the players. If you start charging for content at this point, many players would leave and would hurt the game much more than help it. The point of the cash shop is to make it so that players that enjoy the game can choose to pay more to support it and to set their own price for it depending on how much they value the game.

That aside, I do not like the make it free if you were there, 200 gems if you weren’t, approach they are taking. I think it should be 200 gems to unlock it for revisiting regardless of whether you were there or not.

juno.1840:

Wow — both of you guys completely missed the boat on what I was saying.

First: You don’t have to buy the content for the 2 weeks it’s out. You can buy it anytime — that’s how expansions work.

Second: If people don’t buy it, it’s because the content sucked. That’s how you speak with your cash — and believe me the Developers listen to the voice of money.

Unrelated: The gem conversion rate has nothing to do with any of this. If your goal is the selfish desire to keep gem prices cheap, then sorry, that’s your problem. Use RL cash to buy the 200 gems for an episode — you had to do that to buy GW2 in the first place so it’s not a difficult concept.

I see nothing but advantages to charging for Living Story.

monetizing it for those who miss it should be enough motivation to make the content “purchase-worthy”…….but charging for the content, in general, is no guarantee that the the content will be “purchase-worthy”.

i would rather take a chance that their planned monetizing is enough motivation to make “purchase-worthy” content that i , a regular player, will get for free……rather than have to pay to find out.

I don’t think that would be a good idea, at all. Changing the core concept of the game mid-stream seems like a recipe for disaster. It would surely upset more people than it would satisfy.

Perhaps, we could experience Living World/Story Season Two first, and see how it works out before we condemn it as being the wrong decision by the Developers.

juno.1840:

White Dragon.5429:

Either the OP didn’t consider the consequences of his suggestion, or he is an obvious troll. I’ll play it safe and assume the latter.

If I was an obvious troll you wouldn’t even have to ponder it. That aside…

I did lay out the consequences of my suggestion pretty succinctly, maybe you didn’t read it? You on the other hand did not lay out a single counter point. So maybe you are a troll yourself?

Why can’t be both trolls. Now both are vets, by the way.

No, but seriously.
If you make all content paid you probably will get the same content than before, but paid instead of free. What’s make you think that being paid will guarantee better content?
If they really need more money they will put nice things in the gem store and voila!!

By the way… I really want swimsuits and school uniforms anet.
Give swimsuits and school uniforms and take my gems anet!!!

If they are going to charge for all episodes, regardless….

They may as well box is up as one package and sell it all at once. No point in doing the biweekly stuff at all at that point.

Charging for the content promotes quality because in theory the player base wouldn’t not buy it otherwise.

So it’s a direct revenue feedback loop on the quality of the game. The current cash shop model is only an indirect feedback loop on content quality (indirect because it’s only based upon the number of players in the game which is tied in part to content quality).

However if we all shelled out for the content regardless of quality, then we all lose because we still got garbage and are out $$$ on top.

So far there has been nothing in Living World Content worth paying for! All of the Living World Content released so far was finished in a week or less. The claims that released Living World Content was equal to an expansion is just BS. I don’t like being nickle and dime’d for limited content and will not buy a week’s worth of content even with in game currency. Create a real expansion with new races, new classes, new skills, new maps, new dungeons and some randomness then you got something worth buying with real money.

I would uninstall.

You seem to have a very hazy grasp of what motivates a company and what motivates players other than yourself. Good luck with your suggestion though.

juno.1840:

Charge 200 gems for all episodes of LS2 — please make this a content driven business model. That would be the true B2P game we signed up for at launch.

I have never dropped a cent into the cash shop. However I would gladly buy content if it was available (the game sorely needs more content). That’s the only way you’ll get my money.

This also has the effect of forcing quality into the content. If the content sucks, nobody will buy it. It’s a positive feedback loop in the development cycle.

Anyway, I suspect ANet wanted to go this route but for some reason is baby-stepping it with only charging “late” customers.

There’s a reason you don’t hold a job that requires any kind of decision making…PLEASE PEOPLE, stop trying to ruin this game for the rest of us who are sane!

The Revenant.4970:

There’s a reason you don’t hold a job that requires any kind of decision making…PLEASE PEOPLE, stop trying to ruin this game for the rest of us who are sane!

This thread is exactly the proof I need to claim again that monetizing the story at all, is a step in the wrong direction. What the OP here is suggesting is nothing more or less than a subscription, which I will never pay for a game.

They are charging pepole who are late not because they want more money. They are doing it because they want you to login. Because if you log in then you kept the game installed. If you kept the game installed it is a lot easier for you to play the game on a whim. If you play the game on a whim you provide one thing that the game needs. Players to populate the world.

Who says the story can not be better then Season 1. The entire reason why they are changing the delivery method is because they know that Season 1 was not up to par and not delivered well. Paying money =/= better content.

If they were to attempt this, ArenaNet and GW2 wouldn’t survive the backlash.

Thankfully, everyone in this thread (including the OP) knows this suggestion isn’t going to happen.

I wouldn’t mind paying for the whole season.

If and only if they released it all at once and called it an expansion. Even if it was gemstore-only. If they made me pay for a story bit by bit, I’d probably ignore it until it was finished and then pay once and only once (most likely at a discounted rate, I’m sure it would end up being).

I wouldnt mind paying at all either. People seem to have various opinions about this subject. Its so interesting to see how people react to this decision.

No.

This suggestion is idiotic. (I would have left out the last bit, but the board insisted I expand on my premise).

I’d pay for it, if it was actual content, with maps etc. I’d rather have content than mini-pets or finishers.

I worry that a lot of people might not, and it would diminish the experience / fragment the player base.

Paying a lump sum every now and then for full maps and the content to go with them, I’d be fine with that, but paying on a bi-weekly or monthly basis for new content is too much like a subscription fee, and if I wanted that I’d be playing ESO.

Ohoni.6057:

but paying on a bi-weekly or monthly basis for new content is too much like a subscription fee

$5 a month for optional new content vs. a mandatory $15 a month for the same content.

$5 a month for optional new content vs. a mandatory $15 a month for the same content.

It’s a lower sub fee, but it still feels like a sub fee. Again, it’s not that they’d be asking for money, I’ve given them money in the past and would do so again, I just wouldn’t want it to be such a “regular habit” sort of thing. I’d proposed a while back how they could release a new zone as a “DLC” type purchase, by having access to the zone be free for the first two weeks or so (to demo it a bit), while the Living World story passes through it, and then player character access to it is closed, but you pay like $10-15 to permanently unlock it, along with new events that take place there including at least one worthwhile meta, 2-3 jumping puzzles of various sizes, new skills you can unlock, etc. This would have to be a large zone though, a lot of content to enjoy, something well worth the price.

It would be a bit like if they took the Tower of Knightmare story arc (only in a completely new zone that was as large and featureful as Kessex Hills, but with all the “non-LW” content temporarily disabled), and made it free to play up until six weeks in when you knock over the tower, and then all the players are locked out unless they pay the DLC fee. If they do, then they can get back in, enjoy all the “aftermath” content, and play all the heart quests and skill points and JP and meta and all that (and the tower dungeon would stay available). Of course the PoIs and stuff would not count towards World Completion, but could count towards map completion to get reward boxes.

But this should be a very occasional thing, 1-2 per year, and totally optional even just for keeping up with the living world, no story content would take place in there while it was not free, and there would still be the bi-weekly free LW content, so players would still have plenty of new free content to enjoy.

If you had to pay for every two-week update, even if it was like a dollar, it would just feel icky. It’s not that it would be unreasonably expensive, just. . . crass.

Test, begin and end words or phrases of note with underscores, like this. It adds impact to words you prefer to focus on, without being quite as distracting as capslock. I think you still emphasize more words than are strictly advisable, however.

Test.8734:

juno.1840:

Charge 200 gems for all episodes of LS2

2) It’s BAED. It’s POOR content, BADLY designed.

Are you a wizard? Is my breakfast going to be awesome or terrible tomorrow? Will I spill my OJ?

Because I mean if you know the next installment is going to suck before it’s even out, I want some simple freebies since you’re dropping bombshells like that for free.

Too rich for my blood. I’m a simple man and I wanna avoid immediate pre-soaks in my laundry future.

Free LS content is in place as an inducement for players to stick around. More players will stick around if the content is good than will if the content isn’t good. More players sticking around yields higher returns (If X% of customers buy gems, then having a larger customer pool will result in more sales).

Some people seem inclined to induce companies to reduce the quality of their products by offering to pay extra for what ought to be standard. The way things ought to work is that consumers ought to encourage quality by refusing to pay. On the surface, the OP’s suggestion seems to include this idea. However, he’s also offering to throw money at ANet for content that is now produced free as part of the ongoing service. This behavior can only encourage companies to monetize everything, and is not a positive trend for the MMO consumer.

I hear what you are saying OP but there are some fallacies with your logic. If people pay for it but don’t play it or leave feedback, what does that accomplish? If people uninstall the game because they were told they were getting a buy to play game and now they have a mini sub fee in the form of paying for episodic content when it used to be free, what does that accomplish for ArenaNet? Leavers=no more chance for ArenaNet to reap money from them. Make it free and they might be enticed into buying something on the gem shop.

The free model is the best model because it encourages players to log in every two weeks and keep the game installed on their PC and get the content for free. It works for ArenaNet and it works for the consumers. It also works for those who still follow the forums but don’t play anymore but hear that the new content is amazing. It has the chance to pull them back in the game.

I don’t agree with your suggestion in the slightest. Nothing personal, but as a consumer and regular player, it’s not good for my wallet.

You see no disadvantages? You’re basically suggesting what is effectively a P2P freemium system.

You’re saying that we should get the base game free but pay what is essentially a subscription fee to access the ongoing story. No thanks, the model they’ve gone with is bad enough. People shouldn’t be paying to access the story retroactively because they didn’t log on for two weeks.

From the earliest commentary by Anet paying for content expansion has been mentioned as a possibility. The company’s success was built on such. The only real differences between what the OP is suggesting and what Anet has mentioned as a possible approach to monetizing the game are breaking the cost of buying an expansion up into smaller chunks and allowing players to buy only those aspects of the expanded content that they desire.

Personally I prefer the approach that Anet has announced, but the possibility of charging for expanded content has been on the table for GW2 all along.

Ashen.2907:

From the earliest commentary by Anet paying for content expansion has been mentioned as a possibility. The company’s success was built on such. The only real differences between what the OP is suggesting and what Anet has mentioned as a possible approach to monetizing the game are breaking the cost of buying an expansion up into smaller chunks and allowing players to buy only those aspects of the expanded content that they desire.

Personally I prefer the approach that Anet has announced, but the possibility of charging for expanded content has been on the table for GW2 all along.

Except that paying for an expansion is a flat fee, whereas what the OP suggests is that the Living Story – which is ongoing – be continually charged for. So in the end it’s entirely possible that to purchase all of the story sections you would up paying WELL over the cost of an expansion. That’s the issue, this is a B2P game, and they’re essentially introducing a P2P freemium model (if they followed what the OP suggests, and to a lesser extend with what Anet has already decided on)

FlamingFoxx.1305:

Ashen.2907:

From the earliest commentary by Anet paying for content expansion has been mentioned as a possibility. The company’s success was built on such. The only real differences between what the OP is suggesting and what Anet has mentioned as a possible approach to monetizing the game are breaking the cost of buying an expansion up into smaller chunks and allowing players to buy only those aspects of the expanded content that they desire.

Personally I prefer the approach that Anet has announced, but the possibility of charging for expanded content has been on the table for GW2 all along.

Except that paying for an expansion is a flat fee, whereas what the OP suggests is that the Living Story – which is ongoing – be continually charged for. So in the end it’s entirely possible that to purchase all of the story sections you would up paying WELL over the cost of an expansion. That’s the issue, this is a B2P game, and they’re essentially introducing a P2P freemium model (if they followed what the OP suggests, and to a lesser extend with what Anet has already decided on)

Paying for one expansion is a single flat fee. Paying for continual additions to the game world through the expansion model is not.

Spending an average of $2.50-$5 per month (potentially less because some months will not have episodes) is not functionally different than paying $30-$60 per year for expansions except that the per episode approach allows people to purchase only those parts of the expanded content that appeal to them (thereby saving money) and free permanent content additions are being added for everyone, including those that do not purchase the expanded content.

And yes this is a Buy to Play game…Anet’s second such. Paying for access to expanded content is pretty common, perhaps even the norm, in such games. It certainly was the standard in GW1.

Ashen.2907:

FlamingFoxx.1305:

Ashen.2907:

From the earliest commentary by Anet paying for content expansion has been mentioned as a possibility. The company’s success was built on such. The only real differences between what the OP is suggesting and what Anet has mentioned as a possible approach to monetizing the game are breaking the cost of buying an expansion up into smaller chunks and allowing players to buy only those aspects of the expanded content that they desire.

Personally I prefer the approach that Anet has announced, but the possibility of charging for expanded content has been on the table for GW2 all along.

Except that paying for an expansion is a flat fee, whereas what the OP suggests is that the Living Story – which is ongoing – be continually charged for. So in the end it’s entirely possible that to purchase all of the story sections you would up paying WELL over the cost of an expansion. That’s the issue, this is a B2P game, and they’re essentially introducing a P2P freemium model (if they followed what the OP suggests, and to a lesser extend with what Anet has already decided on)

Paying for one expansion is a single flat fee. Paying for continual additions to the game world through the expansion model is not.

Spending an average of $2.50-$5 per month (potentially less because some months will not have episodes) is not functionally different than paying $30-$60 per year for expansions except that the per episode approach allows people to purchase only those parts of the expanded content that appeal to them (thereby saving money) and free permanent content additions are being added for everyone, including those that do not purchase the expanded content.

And yes this is a Buy to Play game…Anet’s second such. Paying for access to expanded content is pretty common, perhaps even the norm, in such games. It certainly was the standard in GW1.

The problem is not requiring payment for the content, but requiring continual payment. The living story releases are supposed to occur every two weeks, the amount of those that total to what you could expect from an expansion could thus completely eclipse the cost of an expansion.

I think most players would rather pay a flat fee for the entire “season” of the living story, than be continually forced to pay 2.50$ every two weeks like the OP suggests. Of course I suspect Arenanet might actually have an option for buying a whole season, but then that doesn’t work very well when most people are all going to have earned different amounts of chapters for free.

There was never ANYTHING like this in GW1. The three campaigns were all a standalone purchase, the expansion was a standalone purchase, and the bonus mission pack was a standalone purchase. The content that was comparable to the living story was free and could be begun at any time regardless of whether or not you were there when it was initially released (war in kryta, hearts in the north, winds of change).

FlamingFoxx.1305:

The problem is not requiring payment for the content, but requiring continual payment. The living story releases are supposed to occur every two weeks, the amount of those that total to what you could expect from an expansion could thus completely eclipse the cost of an expansion.

We have been told that LS episodes will sometimes be longer than two weeks. We also know that sometimes festivals and such will take the place of a living story episode. This means that the $2.50 per episode cost could occur as little as once a month when averaged over the year. That equates to $30 per year. A yearly expansion, in a paid expansion financial model game, generally costs more than that. GW1 added a boxed expansion (which were also stand alone products except for EotN) on average every nine months until the decision was made to back burner that game in favor of developing GW2. $40-$50 every nine months is more expensive than $30 per year, particularly since an individual could choose to not buy those LS episodes emphasizing game elements that dont appeal to him.

FlamingFoxx.1305:

I think most players would rather pay a flat fee for the entire “season” of the living story, than be continually forced to pay 2.50$ every two weeks like the OP suggests. Of course I suspect Arenanet might actually have an option for buying a whole season, but then that doesn’t work very well when most people are all going to have earned different amounts of chapters for free.

I won’t attempt to argue what, “most,” players would prefer for the simple fact that neither you or I are most players nor do we know the desires of most players. That said, I would prefer to pay for an entire season up front if all episodes needed to be purchased.

FlamingFoxx.1305:

There was never ANYTHING like this in GW1. The three campaigns were all a standalone purchase, the expansion was a standalone purchase, and the bonus mission pack was a standalone purchase. The content that was comparable to the living story was free and could be begun at any time regardless of whether or not you were there when it was initially released (war in kryta, hearts in the north, winds of change).

In GW1, in order to play the expanded content (Factions, Nightfall, EotN) you had to pay for them.

I don’t think that it works to compare the free content in GW1 to future LS in GW2 because we do not know what will be included in season 2, 3, etc. It has been mentioned that there will be more emphasis on permanent open world content in S2 than was the case in S1. This permanent open world content will be free.

I do want to repeat that, as I said earlier, I prefer Anet’s approach to the OP’s. I do think that complaining that paying $30-$60 for an expansion is somehow bad is a bit off. Being able to split the cost up over time and having the option to not buy elements of the expansion that one finds undesirable are not bad things.

Of course if the LS season is not worth buying….well neither are some expansions. The difference is that the per episode cost involves less risk to the player.

We have been told that LS episodes will sometimes be longer than two weeks. We also know that sometimes festivals and such will take the place of a living story episode. This means that the $2.50 per episode cost could occur as little as once a month when averaged over the year. That equates to $30 per year.

$30 a year I would pay. $2.50 per month I would not. I make no attempt to justify the logic of that stance, but it is the way it is.

Why do people think that paying for content will make it better, when has that ever been the case?
Look at every sub based game, content does not improve because you give them more money, and in most cases it gets worse.

juno.1840:

Charge 200 gems for all episodes of LS2 — please make this a content driven business model. That would be the true B2P game we signed up for at launch.

I have never dropped a cent into the cash shop. However I would gladly buy content if it was available (the game sorely needs more content). That’s the only way you’ll get my money.

This also has the effect of forcing quality into the content. If the content sucks, nobody will buy it. It’s a positive feedback loop in the development cycle.

Anyway, I suspect ANet wanted to go this route but for some reason is baby-stepping it with only charging “late” customers.

ANet has said there will NEVER be a subscription fee. What you are suggesting is just that. Pay to play content. Same as wow and anything else.

You can say well t you have the boxed game. And don’t have to buy the living story. This is true. But if ANet where to box it and sell it as an exspantion I’m sure people would not have a problem. What people would have a problem with is paying for content that might be good one week and had the next. Where as if it was boxed you would not notice it all that much. Being on the same bad story point for 2 weeks will deter people from buying the next part.

But as I have already said. I can not see it happening, as it would go against what ANet has said from day 1. And it happend with Guild Wars. No subscription fee, ever.

A mandatory charge would be bad – especially for china. The episodes contain only an instanced piece of story and some rewards/challenges coupled to it. They mentioned in the livestream the rewards will not be “must haves”. I assume many people will complain soon after launch. Not many people would buy the episodes anyway. In addition you can guest to enjoy the story. You will find many videos about the story for each episode on youtube. I suspect the sales via episodes will be small.

Belenwyn.8674:

A mandatory charge would be bad – especially for china. The episodes contain only an instanced piece of story and some rewards/challenges coupled to it. They mentioned in the livestream the rewards will not be “must haves”. I assume many people will complain soon after launch. Not many people would buy the episodes anyway. In addition you can guest to enjoy the story. You will find many videos about the story for each episode on youtube. I suspect the sales via episodes will be small.

Yes. I forgot about china. They would have just bought a game that said no sub fees ever. Then oh look you need to pay every few weeks to get the new content. I think the folks in china might think they where lied too. We can only guess how this would end.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

I wouldn’t mind paying for the whole season.

If and only if they released it all at once and called it an expansion. Even if it was gemstore-only. If they made me pay for a story bit by bit, I’d probably ignore it until it was finished and then pay once and only once (most likely at a discounted rate, I’m sure it would end up being).

They wouldn’t call it an expansion, because it wouldn’t fit with what an expansion is traditionally considered. Even if they did include all the content which was expected, even if it contained as much content and the story chapters would play out like the GW1 campaign missions . . .

They didn’t call those campaigns expansions, they won’t call a LS bundle expansions. They’ll probably just call them “Living Story Chapters” and be done with it.

So basically, you want to pay weekly for a game that is marketed free to play??? that goes against the very crede this company strives to maintain. Well, I guess I would pay if they sold it by season rather than episode, because then it would feel like buying an expansion rather than paying to play.

I am sorry but this suggestion really sucks.

First of all, charging money for unreleased contents will not guarantee better quality of the contents.

Second…Selling small DLC in a cash shop MMO is a bad business model. If you want to pay for contents then there are many good Sub MMOs out there….Mixing the two won’t fly nice….

Third….If people pay for the future content and it turns out buggy or released with some other issues, can you imagine the uproar in the community?….

If ANet actually makes the mistake and start charging for future contents, then it will definitely be the end of it for many players…but ANet usually makes a lot of mistakes and never listens.

At the end of the the day, the new focus of the game is towards the new player base and the new markets for GW2 and not its fans…..

I have to admit it’s pretty funny that, in other threads, anyone who dislikes having to pay gems for missed living story is completely bashed and shouted down with cries of “But it’s not that much money and Anet has to fund the game somehow so quit your whining!”, while in this thread everyone is like “Zomg! Pay for my content? That’s crazy talk!”

minbariguy.7504:

I have to admit it’s pretty funny that, in other threads, anyone who dislikes having to pay gems for missed living story is completely bashed and shouted down with cries of “But it’s not that much money and Anet has to fund the game somehow so quit your whining!”, while in this thread everyone is like “Zomg! Pay for my content? That’s crazy talk!”

Honestly, if I had to pay for access after regardless if I was online, while the current one could be played for free? I’d be fine with it. I’d set aside $20 out of a paycheck which used to be my MTG habit fund, and change it over.

If I had to pay for the Living Story all chapters at once or not get access, and it was also retroactive I’d have more of an issue but I’d allow it.

If I had to pay for the Living Story before I could experience it, and it was not retroactive? I’d go back to Terraria and Minecraft.

I have to admit it’s pretty funny that, in other threads, anyone who dislikes having to pay gems for missed living story is completely bashed and shouted down with cries of “But it’s not that much money and Anet has to fund the game somehow so quit your whining!”, while in this thread everyone is like “Zomg! Pay for my content? That’s crazy talk!”

It’s because of the nature of what’s being asked for. I think there are three major types of MMO customers.

There are the “Subscriptionistas,” who have payed into WoW so long they can’t imagine an alternative, and insist that every game should have a monthly fee, or something equivalent, and that good games cannot function without such a system, despite all evidence to the contrary. They are mostly playing WoW, ESO, and Wildstar, at least until the latter two go F2P in the fall.

There are the “Freeloaders.” They might enjoy the game well enough, but have no intention of paying anything more than they absolutely have to, and reject anything that would cause them to pay more than they are now. These customers clearly matter very little, since they won’t be contributing much to the game’s future, so both other sides largely deride them.

But then there are the “Kool-aide Teetotalers.” These are people who don’t buy into the Subscriptionista’s pitch, but also care about the game’s future and understand the economics necessary, so they don’t mind spending money in the game, so long as they feel it’s an optional experience, more a donation to the game than a fee.

A pitch to make players pay for ALL new content is too much like a poorly disguised Subscriptionista plot. It’s a defacto subscription for a game that is clearly quite profitable without one. Those same people that reject it, however, would typically not object to other pay-for mechanics that GW2 has been using, and I doubt many of them would object to a paid expansion, so long as it was large enough and disconnected from the LW storyline and content updates that they’ve come to expect.

Basically, ANet have committed themselves to a roughly 2-4 week schedule of free LW updates. That’s the pact on their honor that they’ve made with the players.They have to keep that up as best they possibly can, whatever else they do. If they want to release a paid expansion, with its own story, it’s own zones, classes, races, whatever, then they can do that too, but they can’t stop the LW storyline dead while they do so, they can’t say “if you want any new content, you’ll have to buy this thing.” That would be a betrayal of the players’ trust that they would get seriously stung for.

breaths in Noooooo!!!

juno.1840:

Charge 200 gems for all episodes of LS2 — please make this a content driven business model. That would be the true B2P game we signed up for at launch.

I have never dropped a cent into the cash shop. However I would gladly buy content if it was available (the game sorely needs more content). That’s the only way you’ll get my money.

This also has the effect of forcing quality into the content. If the content sucks, nobody will buy it. It’s a positive feedback loop in the development cycle.

Anyway, I suspect ANet wanted to go this route but for some reason is baby-stepping it with only charging “late” customers.

Doesnt this already force quality in content in a way? I mean they’re selling singular episodes to those people who might have missed them but of course for people to actually buy those singular episodes they need to be good. I mean who ever would buy something like the first episode in flame and frost, not even the most diehard LS fans probably

Besides even without any of this they still have an incentive to do the best they can. Sure they’re currently getting the bulk of their money off gems sales and sure none of that is tied directly to the LS but LS is also the only breath of fresh air we’re getting and people will get bored playing the same content over and over again even though GW2 gives you everything to play with at max level. If the LS content isnt engaging it will end up driving players away and if players dont play the game they dont buy gems.

Doesnt this already force quality in content in a way? I mean they’re selling singular episodes to those people who might have missed them but of course for people to actually buy those singular episodes they need to be good. I mean who ever would buy something like the first episode in flame and frost, not even the most diehard LS fans probably

Yeah, some cases they might need to do in bulk, like it would be shameful for them to release anything less than all of Flame and Frost, or for them to release the first two weeks of the original Festival, and then ask people to pay a second time for the second two weeks which were barely different (I know they aren’t planning to release the old stuff soon, I’m just referencing new content like those releases).

well I dont think thats going to be an issue most likely. I mean to do this they had to essentially move the story part of the LS release into an instance (hence why you can replay it and how the world can still change) And they cannot really do that sort of thing in an instance.

The first release of flame and frost worked because it was in the open world. It would be crazy to do that in an instance. I mean imagine an instance in which you get to hammer in 50 signs or help some refugees walk to safety or look for momentos etc.. and then you come out of the instance and its all gone. It would seem like a refugee exoducs of 30 mins. it would be bad.

S2 releases will probably be more like the instances we got in the 2nd 1/2 of season 1 like say the tower of nightmares or the nightmares within then what we saw in flame and frost. When it comes to instances they have to have meatier content so to speak.

But anyway thats what I am expecting, we’ll have to wait and see.

OP is suggesting what pretty much every single player RPG is doing these days. Paid DLC. You finished main story, now you want to play some new side quests? That’ll be $15 please.

GW2 already has way more gameplay on its own than ANY single player game. I would not be utterly insulted if they had all new content purchasable (assuming it was good—otherwise they would quickly see sales drop and then back to the drawing board).

So instead of $15 for an additional 8-10hrs gameplay like with most DLC. We would get bi-weekly $2 DLC that would “hopefully” be ~4hrs of gameplay each.

I would prefer not purchasing of course. But if they wanted to I wouldn’t be against it.