Guild Wars 2

Draknar.5748:

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.

Well, there’s “Final Fantasy 4: The After Years” which was entirely DLC based, now that you reminded me of it. I still haven’t bought it because of that.

If they would put the entirety of Season 2 into one big update and actually added meaningfull content (basically an expansion) then I wouldn’t mind paying.

But paying 200 gems a week for Living Boredom? No thank you.
So far, nothing LS has released was worth paying for. Season 2 really needs to blow my mind first before I consider any of it worth my money.

This is a game. Nobody wants to donate, or pay real money for anything.
When you buy something those things are not even yours… The account is owned by arena net or ncsoft. You are the guy who is borrowing the account. So its not important how much money you spend on your account all things on the account is owned by a real owner and you cant have it.

Wizzey.7845:

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.

And putting all rewards in the gem store instead seems to help a lot… NO IT’S NOT!

Have seen all the threads about not having anything to do? And about that this game is a huge grind fest and the only end-game we’ve got is about farming gold?

They need to make money somehow… And putting rewards in the gem store is not making this game more popular.

I have never understood those player that seem to be PROUD about never financially supporting this game and then want their opinions to be taken into consideration. Makes absolutely no sense that Anet would listen to your requests.

I don’t have an issue with the financial model changing course to pay for content (expansions, etc.), but being PROUD about never putting a dime into the game beyond the original purchase is mind boggling to me.

Brother Grimm.5176:

I have never understood those player that seem to be PROUD about never financially supporting this game and then want their opinions to be taken into consideration. Makes absolutely no sense that Anet would listen to your requests.

I don’t have an issue with the financial model changing course to pay for content (expansions, etc.), but being PROUD about never putting a dime into the game beyond the original purchase is mind boggling to me.

Ok I’ll bite (even thought your post makes little sense)…

I put $60 into the game — B2P remember? That is financial support — especially when you consider I made it prior to release as a fully paid pre-order.

I don’t put money into the gem store because that’s not the content I want as a player — so I speak with my wallet. ANet is not a charity and should not be treated as such. If this doesn’t make sense then maybe you don’t understand how the free market works.

Many of the responses to my suggestion are really funny. Probably at the top of this list is “no it’s a subscription model”. That similarity extends only so far as how often you pay…. and that’s where the similarity ends. If that is confusing to players then google “B2P vs P2P” and do some reading — ignorance can only be used as an excuse for so long, then people just stop listening.

It is true that the current ANet business model does encourage some quality as they need players to “play”. Otherwise there’s nobody around to make gem store purchases. However the emphasis is still on pretty cosmetics and convenience consumables (how many more resource gathering tools do we need?).

Paying for content puts the emphasis on the content, not the cosmetics. It’s a fundamental shift in the revenue stream. Now there is less monetization of in-game items, and more focus on content. Again I don’t think this concept is difficult.

If you dump more than $5 USD into the gem shop every month for cosmetics, then I don’t see how paying for content is offensive in any way

You’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. They already have plenty of effort put into content quality, they don’t need any more effort in content quality. If you don’t want to spend money on the current gem store content, then that’s fine, but plenty of other people do, and there is no advantage to monetzing the LW updates. All that would do is drive away people who don’t like subs, and you can shout from the rooftops that “it’s not a sub” all day and night, but that won’t matter to anyone.

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…

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.

It is foolish of you to think that would change the quality, charging would change nothing about the teams that work on the content.

It is also a bit silly to demand to pay for something given away freely. But if you really insist then you can log in after each release ends and pay for them instead.

Ohoni.6057:

You’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. They already have plenty of effort put into content quality, they don’t need any more effort in content quality. If you don’t want to spend money on the current gem store content, then that’s fine, but plenty of other people do, and there is no advantage to monetzing the LW updates. All that would do is drive away people who don’t like subs, and you can shout from the rooftops that “it’s not a sub” all day and night, but that won’t matter to anyone.

I think there is a problem. The amount of content that has been added to GW2 is minimal — yes there’s been new content but it is nothing close to what I would expect for an expansion. In addition, I (and others) feel that the content was not that good. There are some jewels in the mix (like fractals) but on the whole the new content was below my expectations.

If you love what’s been done with LS., then hey I understand your point. However if you think the game can improve with regards to content, then paying for content is a step in that direction.

My suggestion not only improves content quality (which you argue is good already, I say it’s not) — but my suggestion also improves the quantity of content. If ANet sells content, then they have to produce content. Right now they just have to produce gathering tools and pretty skins and some meager LS to get players to log on and buy said cosmetics.

Aedelric.1287:

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…

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.

It is foolish of you to think that would change the quality, charging would change nothing about the teams that work on the content.

It is also a bit silly to demand to pay for something given away freely. But if you really insist then you can log in after each release ends and pay for them instead.

I think it’s foolish to presume that the dev teams would not be impacted by a change in the revenue model. You don’t think more developers would shift away from cosmetics and into content?

I’m demanding it should be paid for because I believe the game needs this fundamental change in development for it’s long term survival (and my personal enjoyment). Otherwise you’ll all be sitting around LA saying “hey everyone, look at my cool new skin!”… instead of “who wants to check out the new dungeon with me?”

juno.1840:

My suggestion not only improves content quality (which you argue is good already, I say it’s not) — but my suggestion also improves the quantity of content.

Even if the suggestion were to be adopted, there is zero evidence that content would be produced in greater quantity than the frequency of the LS updates, let alone with greater frequency. The historical sacred cows of “paid-for” content — sub games and/or paid expansions — both update with less frequency than LS did. We haven’t seen the season 2 release plan yet, but even if content comes once a month, it will still be as fast as the best of the supposedly superior paid models.

The current hiatus occurred because of the push to prepare for the China release. The China release was going to happen whether episode content was free or paid for. Thus, you cannot point to the gap between S1 and S2 and claim that a paid-for content model would have kept content flowing regardless.

There is also zero evidence that paid-for content would be of better quality. With what little we’ve seen about S2, it seems as if ANet is taking to heart some of the suggestions in the CDI on Living World. The issue there is always going to be that the player base does not speak with one voice. ANet is going to implement things that both cater to what they perceive as player desires and which meets their intent for the game’s development. Changing payment models is not going to change this. There is no guarantee that changing would result in content you want, or content that is not already coming under the current model.

@IndigoSundown:

I could just as easily say “There’s zero evidence that the current F2P model produces the same quality/quantity of content that we’d get with a B2P model.”

See? Easy word game to play.

I could point at a number of pure F2P games which are complete garbage. I could point to some B2P games which are excellent. Doesn’t really matter because none of those are ANet (except GW1 and that was a different ANet).

However we can talk about how the current and proposed models differ. It’s pretty clear one rewards cosmetic development, and the other rewards content development. It’s not a clean division, but there’s still a concrete difference.

juno.1840:

@IndigoSundown:

I could just as easily say “There’s zero evidence that the current F2P model produces the same quality/quantity of content that we’d get with a B2P model.”

See? Easy word game to play.

I could point at a number of pure F2P games which are complete garbage. I could point to some B2P games which are excellent. Doesn’t really matter because none of those are ANet (except GW1 and that was a different ANet).

However we can talk about how the current and proposed models differ. It’s pretty clear one rewards cosmetic development, and the other rewards content development. It’s not a clean division, but there’s still a concrete difference.

You point of view seems to fluctuate between cynicism and pie-in-the-sky. I don’t believe your viewpoint is realistic.

“Rewards content development” assumes two things. 1) That ANet is not currently producing new content at the speed that their budget supports; and 2) that ANet is deliberately producing content whose quality is below what their best effort could produce. That’s the cynical part of your assumptions.

You also seem to think that cosmetics and gem store items will be back-burnered or done away with if new content becomes pay to acquire. That’s not a good assumption. GW2 does and will have a store. The store has proven to produce revenue. Companies do not abandon cost-effective revenue-producing initiatives. Also, the content — whether free or not — will require there be rewards. Rewards entice players to repeat that content, or in some cases to even to play the content in the first place. That’s the pie-in-the-sky.

IndigoSundown.5419:

“Rewards content development” assumes two things. 1) That ANet is not currently producing new content at the speed that their budget supports; and 2) that ANet is deliberately producing content whose quality is below what their best effort could produce. That’s the cynical part of your assumptions.

No not quite. You touched on the current problems, but then went and added stuff like “ANet is trying not to succeed”. That’s not it at all — not even close. I’ll do my best to clarify:

ANet does not produce enough content (rate, size, etc) required for a long term, successful MMO.

So why is that the case?

Your guess might be as good as mine, who knows. I think one possible answer is “not enough budget”. Monetizing content solves that problem (and if it doesn’t, then the ship sinks anyway). Another possible answer is “development resources used elsewhere”. These are really the same — but the bottom line is a profitable company assigns resources to maximize the profits (by increasing revenue or decreasing expenses).

If you sell content, that encourages all the “good” things required for a successful MMO. If you sell other stuff (such as convenience enablers) you ultimately design your game to “make” players buy that stuff. I’d rather my game be designed around what I find the most fun which is content.

juno.1840:

IndigoSundown.5419:

“Rewards content development” assumes two things. 1) That ANet is not currently producing new content at the speed that their budget supports; and 2) that ANet is deliberately producing content whose quality is below what their best effort could produce. That’s the cynical part of your assumptions.

No not quite. You touched on the current problems, but then went and added stuff like “ANet is trying not to succeed”. That’s not it at all — not even close. I’ll do my best to clarify:

ANet does not produce enough content (rate, size, etc) required for a long term, successful MMO.

So why is that the case?

Your guess might be as good as mine, who knows. I think one possible answer is “not enough budget”. Monetizing content solves that problem (and if it doesn’t, then the ship sinks anyway). Another possible answer is “development resources used elsewhere”. These are really the same — but the bottom line is a profitable company assigns resources to maximize the profits (by increasing revenue or decreasing expenses).

If you sell content, that encourages all the “good” things required for a successful MMO. If you sell other stuff (such as convenience enablers) you ultimately design your game to “make” players buy that stuff. I’d rather my game be designed around what I find the most fun which is content.

Anet doesn’t work like that.
NCSoft invests money upfront on Anet.

At the moment NCSoft is probably investing $35-45M a year in Anet (350+ workers at an average of $100K/year + $10M for offices and expenses).

And Anet keeps expanding, so NCSoft keeps investing more.

If all that Anet produced last year was the Living Story, NCSoft might as well close Anet.

Let me offer an alternative theory.

Anet wanted to produce some content to keep people playing and buying stuff from the cash shop.

The cash shop generated so much revenue that they decided to have a 50-100 people team dedicated to the vanilla game.

The Living Story content is not that amazing if produced by all Anet, but for a third or less of the Anet staff, with many of the them being relatively junior, isn’t so bad.

The cash shop kept churning so much more revenue than expected that they start
actually debating if they were going to release the content the rest of the team was creating (remember Colin talking about a couple of GW2 related projects going on the background) as an expansion pack or some other way.

Not only that they have to sell the idea to NCSoft, that seemed to be convinced that the model would be heavy release of expansions (vide the 2012-early 2013 financial calls of NCSoft).

So we will have to see what Season 2 content actually is.

If it keeps being season 1 type of content either they will release an expansion soon or there is something pretty wrong going at Anet.

If you love what’s been done with LS., then hey I understand your point. However if you think the game can improve with regards to content, then paying for content is a step in that direction.

As I said, I’m willing to pay for content, but never at an ongoing rate like you suggest. They need to continue providing the same amount of free content, but if they want to provide new areas that are unconnected to the LW story, they can charge a lump sum for permanent access to them. It should just never be a monthly/bi-weekly payment schedule just to keep up with the plot.

My suggestion not only improves content quality (which you argue is good already, I say it’s not) — but my suggestion also improves the quantity of content. If ANet sells content, then they have to produce content. Right now they just have to produce gathering tools and pretty skins and some meager LS to get players to log on and buy said cosmetics.

Again, this is flawed reasoning. They are already producing quality content, they have to because people won’t buy gathering tools if they aren’t playing the game. You insist that “paying them money for content = better content,” but there is no evidence to support that assumption.

I think it’s foolish to presume that the dev teams would not be impacted by a change in the revenue model. You don’t think more developers would shift away from cosmetics and into content?

No, because they are completely different jobs. IF they do shift game focus from cosmetics to content then that would involve firing people and hiring new people, for the most part.

I could just as easily say “There’s zero evidence that the current F2P model produces the same quality/quantity of content that we’d get with a B2P model.”

See? Easy word game to play.

Yes, so let’s leave it up to ANet to decide. They know which profit model would work best for them, and they know what kind of content we want, they will do what they do.

Ohoni.6057:

Yes, so let’s leave it up to ANet to decide. They know which profit model would work best for them, and they know what kind of content we want, they will do what they do.

So true… to an extent, they are masters of their own destiny. I believe if LS2 is similar to LS1 in size and scope, it’s “game over” for GW2

Swoo.5079:

If it keeps being season 1 type of content either they will release an expansion soon or there is something pretty wrong going at Anet.

They just released the game in China and they want to keep both versions of the game as much the same as possible.

As it wouldn´t make sense to release an expansion in China short after launch, a soon coming (= 2014) expansion seems unlikely to me.

juno.1840:

If you sell content, that encourages all the “good” things required for a successful MMO.

In an expansion, maybe. However, selling episodes of a story has little precedent in an MMO. Story DLC may work well enough in a SPRPG, but I don’t believe that enough MMO players care about story to make the approach viable. The only game I can think of that tried this approach was CO. The story didn’t sell. That was in a Freemium setting. The story packs are now part of the “free” game, whereas cosmetics, services and vehicles are the big store items, along with a wee dose of P2W.

juno.1840:

If you sell other stuff (such as convenience enablers) you ultimately design your game to “make” players buy that stuff. I’d rather my game be designed around what I find the most fun which is content.

I made the point earlier that the GW2 store is not going away. You did not address it. You’re still assuming it would either go away or take a back seat. Not going to happen, even if ANet were to monetize the LS chapters. Wouldn’t happen if they were to sell and expansion, either. If you find GW2 to be “designed to make you buy stuff” now, the OP’s proposal would not change that.

IndigoSundown.5419:

juno.1840:

If you sell other stuff (such as convenience enablers) you ultimately design your game to “make” players buy that stuff. I’d rather my game be designed around what I find the most fun which is content.

I made the point earlier that the GW2 store is not going away. You did not address it. You’re still assuming it would either go away or take a back seat. Not going to happen, even if ANet were to monetize the LS chapters. Wouldn’t happen if they were to sell and expansion, either. If you find GW2 to be “designed to make you buy stuff” now, the OP’s proposal would not change that.

I didn’t address this point because it doesn’t exist. The scenario is not binary as you describe it — the cash shop doesn’t need to go away. However with my proposal cosmetics/consumables are not the sole revenue stream. The current cash shop fare becomes gravy (like the cash shop in GW1).

This was the original cash shop description when the firestorm occurred back in development. If you were around that long ago, you’ll remember the uproar from GW1 fans at the time the cash shop was announced.

This way the developers can spend less time creating the next great mining pick and instead create the next great dungeon path. If they make another mining pick, that’s fine. The point is the business doesn’t depend upon said mining pick — it depends upon the dungeon path.

Get it?

juno.1840:

I didn’t address this point because it doesn’t exist. The scenario is not binary as you describe it — the cash shop doesn’t need to go away. However with my proposal cosmetics/consumables are not the sole revenue stream. The current cash shop fare becomes gravy (like the cash shop in GW1).

Except I didn’t describe a binary situation. If you think selling LS chapters would be a primary revenue stream, you’re deluding yourself.

Get it?

IndigoSundown.5419:

juno.1840:

I didn’t address this point because it doesn’t exist. The scenario is not binary as you describe it — the cash shop doesn’t need to go away. However with my proposal cosmetics/consumables are not the sole revenue stream. The current cash shop fare becomes gravy (like the cash shop in GW1).

Except I didn’t describe a binary situation. If you think selling LS chapters would be a primary revenue stream, you’re deluding yourself.

Get it?

Selling content is a step in that direction. If making good, new, quality content is not profitable then the game is doomed anyway.

juno.1840:

Selling content is a step in that direction. If making good, new, quality content is not profitable then the game is doomed anyway.

I dunno, Minecraft has been “doomed” that way for ages now. Still going.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

juno.1840:

Selling content is a step in that direction. If making good, new, quality content is not profitable then the game is doomed anyway.

I dunno, Minecraft has been “doomed” that way for ages now. Still going.

No Minecraft hasn’t been “doomed” — and the parallel is non-existent so it’s not even relevant.

juno.1840:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

juno.1840:

Selling content is a step in that direction. If making good, new, quality content is not profitable then the game is doomed anyway.

I dunno, Minecraft has been “doomed” that way for ages now. Still going.

No Minecraft hasn’t been “doomed” — and the parallel is non-existent so it’s not even relevant.

Oh, you need to read the forums I do then. Same as these, any time there’s not a major update with toolkits for modders or cleaning up the memory usage (note, it sucks major skritt) . . . it’s doomed to fail and Mojang has no idea what they’re doing. They’re coasting on the backs of modders who are making the game playable. They got rich so they don’t care.

Really it’s like listening to these forums.

After reading the whole thread. I still don’t see any proof that paying for the LS2 chapters will make them any better. I don’t spend money in the gem store every month. Last December I spent quite a bit. Mostly on BLCK, and changing gems to gold. As I wanted to make my ascended armour.

Making skins and building a map/instance is a very different and time consuming thing. Where it might take them, for the same of argument a week. It would probably take at lest let’s say a month just to do the map. Then put in the NPC’s the pathing, the behaviour. Far more work go’s into making content. The gem store is for making life easier for the player(and completely optinal). That’s why there are no game braking P2W items in there. Also as I and someone else said earlier in the thread which has been completely ignored, is that people in China bought this game being told free to play, no subscription. Then they get to 80 LS2 comes out. You want to keep playing and progressing with YOUR store? That will be 200 gems please. I think that would harm the game in China this soon after launch.

Brother Grimm.5176:

I have never understood those player that seem to be PROUD about never financially supporting this game and then want their opinions to be taken into consideration. Makes absolutely no sense that Anet would listen to your requests.

I don’t have an issue with the financial model changing course to pay for content (expansions, etc.), but being PROUD about never putting a dime into the game beyond the original purchase is mind boggling to me.

I’ve never understood why players are proud to support a company, where the majority aren’t satisfied enough, to support them. It seems selfish to me.

If this meant they had more resources to make something that’s actually worth playing, you know expansion-worthy content, then I’d gladly pay. Especially considering the full package is supposed to cost around the same amount as an expansion, which I’ve always preferred to this living story idea.

nexxe.7081:

Brother Grimm.5176:

I have never understood those player that seem to be PROUD about never financially supporting this game and then want their opinions to be taken into consideration. Makes absolutely no sense that Anet would listen to your requests.

I don’t have an issue with the financial model changing course to pay for content (expansions, etc.), but being PROUD about never putting a dime into the game beyond the original purchase is mind boggling to me.

I’ve never understood why players are proud to support a company, where the majority aren’t satisfied enough, to support them. It seems selfish to me.

Every post in favor of what one prefers is inherently selfish. I’d go so far as to say most posts on MMO forums are promoting what the poster wants, which is also inherently selfish.

There’s nothing wrong with this. It’s their money, their pastime or hobby.

No thanks, I hope Anet ignores your post

I disagree with the OP. There are other ways for Anet to make money out of content.
Option 1) is to add paid “extra” side stories to the main ( stil free of charge ) Living Story.\
Option 2) is to add paid extra episodes of the Personal Story.

That is of course if the upcoming changes to handle stories in your Hero panel works flawless.

Put in words of comparising to a tv channel. They wil have 1 channel that is free of charge ( if you buy a tv { the buy to play model part }). If you miss an episode you can stil buy it afterwards. And then they also have a second/third/etc. channel to broadcast paid content for those who don’t have enough content on the free of charge channel.
There are of course a load of pro’s and con’s here to revieuw but it could be a very good working model.

Woodsman Silencio.9361:

I disagree with the OP. There are other ways for Anet to make money out of content.
Option 1) is to add paid “extra” side stories to the main ( stil free of charge ) Living Story.\
Option 2) is to add paid extra episodes of the Personal Story.

That is of course if the upcoming changes to handle stories in your Hero panel works flawless.

Put in words of comparising to a tv channel. They wil have 1 channel that is free of charge ( if you buy a tv { the buy to play model part }). If you miss an episode you can stil buy it afterwards. And then they also have a second/third/etc. channel to broadcast paid content for those who don’t have enough content on the free of charge channel.
There are of course a load of pro’s and con’s here to revieuw but it could be a very good working model.

… which seems the same as paying for content… so I guess I’d approve. You’d have a hard time “selling” the idea (pun intended).

Kyrie Dark.3628:

No thanks, I hope Anet ignores your post

Yea, judging by the replies the suggestion is quite unpopular.

It makes me laugh how the OP is replying to post he can argue with. But every post that mentions the fact that this will not fly dew to the game launching in China he ignores.

It’s quite simple. ANet do this now, I would guess. They would lose money in China as players would feel they where mislead even lied to. I know some people feel ANet have gone back on some of the things they said before launch but China will have the game I think ANet wanted at launch.

Maybe in a years time ANet might look at doing your idea OP, but I really do not see it happening. I have played lots of game that have payed DLC. On the most part it’s content that should have been in the game anyway. Look at how much flack EA published games get for there “DLC”. Mass Effect 2/3 is a fine example. Day 1 DLC that even comes on the disc AD. They have the cheek to say they worked on it after the main game. I know that with ANet it’s a different story, but the way LS2 is looking. It’s going to be the continuation of your PS that people will say should be in the game and not charged for. If it was something like the bonuse mission pack from GW, then I have no problem it’s optinal content.

TL;DR
LS2 should be as ANet have announced.
Optinal story’s like the bonus mission pack from guild wars should be charged for.

BrotherBelial.3094:

It makes me laugh how the OP is replying to post he can argue with. But every post that mentions the fact that this will not fly dew to the game launching in China he ignores.

It’s quite simple. ANet do this now, I would guess. They would lose money in China as players would feel they where mislead even lied to. I know some people feel ANet have gone back on some of the things they said before launch but China will have the game I think ANet wanted at launch.

Maybe in a years time ANet might look at doing your idea OP, but I really do not see it happening. I have played lots of game that have payed DLC. On the most part it’s content that should have been in the game anyway. Look at how much flack EA published games get for there “DLC”. Mass Effect 2/3 is a fine example. Day 1 DLC that even comes on the disc AD. They have the cheek to say they worked on it after the main game. I know that with ANet it’s a different story, but the way LS2 is looking. It’s going to be the continuation of your PS that people will say should be in the game and not charged for. If it was something like the bonuse mission pack from GW, then I have no problem it’s optinal content.

TL;DR
LS2 should be as ANet have announced.
Optinal story’s like the bonus mission pack from guild wars should be charged for.

LOL — the only post referencing China is yours… you must be offended I didn’t reply to you specifically?

China is a different animal and it’s going through a local developer. They can create content for sale outside China and then give it away in China. The point is moot as it’s a different market with a different business arrangement.

My point is (and has always been) that selling content is good for the game.

It’s not popular because a portion of the game community would rather spend money on pretty skins, RNG consumables, and other cosmetic fair rather than for quality content.

Many posters in this thread have said there’s no evidence that selling content will actually result in better content. However there is evidence to the contrary. LS1 is not an “expansion worth of content”. If you feel that way then you are not being objective.

So there is evidence that not paying for content gets you LS1 quality fair. You’re playing it…

juno.1840:

Many posters in this thread have said there’s no evidence that selling content will actually result in better content. However there is evidence to the contrary.

Feel free to present that evidence. You have not yet done so. Evidence that one iteration of option A produced a negative is not the same as evidence that option B will produce a positive.

In the past, ANet produced quality content for sale as a boxed expansion. There was one iteration of paid DLC (bonus mission pack) that was reasonably well received as well as several iterations of free added content (Guild Wars Beyond) that was also well received. Then, there’s the question as to whether this is really the same ANet as produced the original game.

juno.1840:

My point is (and has always been) that selling content is good for the game.

I’m hesitant to agree, because while it has worked in the past and continues to work in the form of DLC additions to games . . . there’s an equal number of games where that content isn’t sold and the games largely do well. Niche, but they do well enough they still get future development.

They’re not (exactly) MMOs though. And a few of them were “Steam early access” but . . . they did work.

It’s not popular because a portion of the game community would rather spend money on pretty skins, RNG consumables, and other cosmetic fair rather than for quality content.

The first, perhaps . . . but it’d need to be really pretty. The second I give a pass on most times. The last, if we’re talking makeover kits and tonics? Not interested.

I would rather not have to spend money for more content in a small-scale way like we’re talking on this topic. It doesn’t attract me, and it’s too much of a departure from how ANet ran their last game for it to be something I’d be okay with.

Many posters in this thread have said there’s no evidence that selling content will actually result in better content. However there is evidence to the contrary. LS1 is not an “expansion worth of content”. If you feel that way then you are not being objective.

So there is evidence that not paying for content gets you LS1 quality fair. You’re playing it…

I dunno, I have been playing it. Terraria got the Pumpkin Moon, Solar Eclipse, and Frost Moon . . . not to mention ‘Hardmode’. Gnomoria gets constant work on it done to make it interesting and balanced. Minecraft gets fun stuff and many mods which are all offered for free.

juno.1840:

BrotherBelial.3094:

It makes me laugh how the OP is replying to post he can argue with. But every post that mentions the fact that this will not fly dew to the game launching in China he ignores.

It’s quite simple. ANet do this now, I would guess. They would lose money in China as players would feel they where mislead even lied to. I know some people feel ANet have gone back on some of the things they said before launch but China will have the game I think ANet wanted at launch.

Maybe in a years time ANet might look at doing your idea OP, but I really do not see it happening. I have played lots of game that have payed DLC. On the most part it’s content that should have been in the game anyway. Look at how much flack EA published games get for there “DLC”. Mass Effect 2/3 is a fine example. Day 1 DLC that even comes on the disc AD. They have the cheek to say they worked on it after the main game. I know that with ANet it’s a different story, but the way LS2 is looking. It’s going to be the continuation of your PS that people will say should be in the game and not charged for. If it was something like the bonuse mission pack from GW, then I have no problem it’s optinal content.

TL;DR
LS2 should be as ANet have announced.
Optinal story’s like the bonus mission pack from guild wars should be charged for.

LOL — the only post referencing China is yours… you must be offended I didn’t reply to you specifically?

China is a different animal and it’s going through a local developer. They can create content for sale outside China and then give it away in China. The point is moot as it’s a different market with a different business arrangement.

My point is (and has always been) that selling content is good for the game.

It’s not popular because a portion of the game community would rather spend money on pretty skins, RNG consumables, and other cosmetic fair rather than for quality content.

Many posters in this thread have said there’s no evidence that selling content will actually result in better content. However there is evidence to the contrary. LS1 is not an “expansion worth of content”. If you feel that way then you are not being objective.

So there is evidence that not paying for content gets you LS1 quality fair. You’re playing it…

I see you you not a fan of reading. Your own thread just the posts you can pick at to cove your view. I was not the first person to mention China.

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.

And Ncsoft/ANet want to keep the game the same across the board. They only thing, as I understand it is the gem store items. But game play wise, the game here is the same in China, just translated.

And no your idea is unpopular as ANet have already said what they want to do. I personally have always found DLC as a cash grab by dev’s to eek out the life span of there game. Instead of making a great game with great content, where anything added was free! Take the FPS market. They charge crazy money for map packs. I remember when dev’s would make them for free, to encourage people to buy there game. I feel this is what ANet are trying to do. Regain players, build up the rep of the game. I a few years we might get payed for content. I think where the game is right now it would be a very bad call.

There are enough people unhappy with the Living world as is. Charging for content up front would split the player base, and I’ve seen that kill the community of a game. This would also mean ANet having to run more servers as they would have people playing the payed for content alongside people not paying for it.

Take the tower of nightmares release for instance. You would have to have two kessex maps running, then they’d have to add another tick to there mega server system so the people who have payed and those who have not are on the right servers. This would add work that I feel ANet just don’t want to do.

Saying that paying for content will improve its quality is just not true. I’m sure we have all played games that are not that great, the same can be said for DLC. I e played DLC that was just terrible.

So much hate, more money would result in more resources to get bigger content updates. Sure, there’s no guarantee they won’t kitten it up and if they do you always have the choice not to buy the “DLC”.

However, in the several CDIs I followed there were a lot of “we don’t have the resources to do that” comments by devs about things you see regularly in expansions of other MMOs (or even at launch), so yeah I’m not against it.

cranos.5913:

So much hate, more money would result in more resources to get bigger content updates. Sure, there’s no guarantee they won’t kitten it up and if they do you always have the choice not to buy the “DLC”.

However, in the several CDIs I followed there were a lot of “we don’t have the resources to do that” comments by devs about things you see regularly in expansions of other MMOs (or even at launch), so yeah I’m not against it.

The term “resources” might not refer to solely money, you realize? And throwing more money at a problem short on resources isn’t always the best solution.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

cranos.5913:

So much hate, more money would result in more resources to get bigger content updates. Sure, there’s no guarantee they won’t kitten it up and if they do you always have the choice not to buy the “DLC”.

However, in the several CDIs I followed there were a lot of “we don’t have the resources to do that” comments by devs about things you see regularly in expansions of other MMOs (or even at launch), so yeah I’m not against it.

The term “resources” might not refer to solely money, you realize? And throwing more money at a problem short on resources isn’t always the best solution.

Yet we saw a lot larger updates, a lot sooner in GW1 where they used an expansion approach. Ignoring a problem is no solution.

cranos.5913:

Yet we saw a lot larger updates, a lot sooner in GW1 where they used an expansion approach. Ignoring a problem is no solution.

I dispute “expansion approach” only because each campaign was a stand-alone game on its own. It’s somewhat like claiming Pokemon games are an expansion each time they release a new game in each generation.

Most notably, Gen3.

Nop, nop nop and defenitly nop. I have no problem buying a expansion an sesson pass or some other type of product to help develop gw2 but buying stuff on bi- weekly basis looks like a gigant bother and a lot of players wount buy it. the thing is not in not in paying for the contet is that u nead to pay it every 2 weeks and a lot of players dont have credit cars.

I think that arena net makes enough money whit gem store users and they dont need to charge for seasons. Its a fair thing for players who can not affod the episodes. Besides i would be really happy whit an expasion.

That expansion v. campaign point is excessively nit-picky. The additional GW campaigns served as new games to new players, while filling the same role as an expansion for existing players because GW campaigns were tied together.

IndigoSundown.5419:

juno.1840:

Many posters in this thread have said there’s no evidence that selling content will actually result in better content. However there is evidence to the contrary.

Feel free to present that evidence. You have not yet done so. Evidence that one iteration of option A produced a negative is not the same as evidence that option B will produce a positive.

And yet there is no evidence that option B will not produce a positive (yes lots of negatives in that statements, sry).

What you do have is option A right now and many Players would say that Option A (LS1) was not up to their expectations for “an expansion worth of content” (ANet quote).

So while I can concretely point to the existing work of GW2 developers, nobody can point to what these same dev’s would produce under a content driven, B2P model.

I’ve already laid out how business chase the money and right now that chase is the cosmetics. With B2P of LS, the chase is content. You can dislike buying content all you want, but it doesn’t change how the business model works.

Guild Wars 1 delivered much better/more content, and Arenanet made a lot less money with it. So that proves it right there.

I’m sure the gemstore makes anet a lot more money than the expansion pack model gw1 had.

juno.1840:

So while I can concretely point to the existing work of GW2 developers, nobody can point to what these same dev’s would produce under a content driven, B2P model.

Except we can. The GW2 Personal Story was part of the game’s B2P, and is constantly reviled.

IndigoSundown.5419:

juno.1840:

So while I can concretely point to the existing work of GW2 developers, nobody can point to what these same dev’s would produce under a content driven, B2P model.

Except we can. The GW2 Personal Story was part of the game’s B2P, and is constantly reviled.

So, apparently, is the story of the Nightfall campaign.

People still apparently really liked the rest of the content though . . .

This thread is starting to make me chuckle.

“Having to purchase it makes for better content”

As a GW1 vet, I have one word for you….. Factions.

A loooooot of players absolutely hated that campaign, which I never completely understood. However they would argue that just because they had to buy it didn’t make it worth what they paid.

LanfearShadowflame.3189:

This thread is starting to make me chuckle.

“Having to purchase it makes for better content”

As a GW1 vet, I have one word for you….. Factions.

A loooooot of players absolutely hated that campaign, which I never completely understood. However they would argue that just because they had to buy it didn’t make it worth what they paid.

I didn’t like the campaign, but “hate” is the wrong word for it. I didn’t like the factioned format too much as I was Kurzick and it seemed to kind of always have us on the losing side of the border. It was the last one I picked up, for completeness’ sake, and while I don’t regret it . . .

. . . I never really got attached to it. Nightfall, on the other hand . . . I really did enjoy just messing around in that one.