Guild Wars 2

It was a poor choice of words. Anet should have said, “intend to, plan to, would like to,” etc rather than, “will be.”

A disclaimer at the end that what was stated as factual or definite at the beginning is false or untrue is a bad idea. I don’t think that ANet was intentionally being dishonest in this case but rather that they made a mistake.

what if reincarnation allowed you to add one utility skill from your previous level 80 character to the list of available skills for your new profession ? For example if I reincarnated my level 80 ranger to a level 1 mesmer I might choose to add Lightning Reflexes to the list of skills available to him as a mesmer.

Not arguing for reincarnation really, just find the idea somewhat interesting.

Welcome aboard.

Bubi.7942:

I have explained in detail why these actions are not what you would call jumping

And you were mistaken.

Raenzjar,

You have a lot of convincing to do if you want me to believe that you have played or interacted with hundreds of thousands, or millions, of players over the course of your 600 days in the game. “Most players,” does not mean the relatively small percentage of the playerbase that you will have had the opportunity to interact with on this topic.

I dont like jumping puzzles either, but by claiming to speak for people youve never even interacted with you make your entire position look fabricated. I know that if I see that someone is blatantly making up or falsifying aspects of their argument it makes the entire argument suspect in my eyes. How can I possibly assume that they are being honest or accurate about aspect X of their position if they are clearly not being so about aspect Y ?

And no you do not need to start screenshotting your conversations because even if you did you wouldnt have the hundreds of thousands, perhaps more, that would encompass, “most players.”

nicknamenick.2437:

So if i am on holiday or whatever, i have to pay for a story that i missed?

No. This is completely incorrect.

Raenzjar.4210:

@Ashen.2907

I wouldn’t mind seeing the data to support the, “most,” and, “quite a lot.”

Based upon the reactions from players on this very forum here, which you maybe have read also, in the topics about the whole jumping stuff. I do not speak for others.

This translates to, “I have no data that supports my claims regarding how, ‘most players,’ feel about jumping, etc.”

And claiming that, “most players,” dislike something and so on is speaking for them. Presenting your position without inventing facts will go much further to support it.

Xenon.4537:

Jumping puzzles is an innovation in the realm of MMOs.

We will have to agree to disagree here. I don’t consider adding a feature that has been used successfully in other products within the overall genre of computer games for decades to one’s own product to be particularly innovative.

Xenon.4537:

I believe the true issue here is people stamping “MMO” on GW2 and forcing it to be associated with expectations which limit the possibilities. The more people do this, the less GW2 can be different. People keep stamping their MMO expectations on GW2 instead of letting it try to be different and unique. Genres shouldn’t be like prisons.

An interesting opinion. I think that by indicating that they do not like platforming games even outside of MMOs some (many/most ?) of the anti-jumping respondents have demonstrated that it is not an element of, “this shouldn’t be in an MMO,” but rather a much more straightforward demonstration that they just don’t like this type of gameplay.

“I do not like platforming/jumping gameplay in any game,” is not the same as, “I do not like platforming/jumping gameplay in GW2 because GW2 is supposed to be an MMO.”

Draknar.5748:

I guess not everyone can learn and adapt the way most people can. Or I guess not everyone is willing to learn and adapt the way most people can may be a more accurate statement.

No one can learn and adapt to everything.

Customers providing feedback, even complaints, to a business that wants their money is not a, “first world problem,” situation.

Zin.1673:

Anet implemented some innovative gameway concept

Innovative ?

Raenzjar.4210:

Most players complete them even with the use of a friendly Mesmer, just to counter the whole jumping. Aside from that, there are, as it turns out, quite a lot of players who simply can not do them without the help of a friendly Mesmer. It’s not just about pressing the spacebar and having a stable connection.

You might want to speak for yourself rather than claiming to know what, “most players,” do and why they do it.

I wouldn’t mind seeing the data to support the, “most,” and, “quite a lot.”

I like the idea. Quite a bit actually.

Xenon.4537:

Ashen.2907:

I would hate to see jumping puzzles removed from the game. I would similarly be disappointed if they, and their like, were used to gate content.

Are you calling this latest release gated by jumping puzzles?

No.

Davey.7029:

Our damage is great and we can survive longer than other classes because we are ranged

These two contradict each other. Ranger ranged damage is not great.

Xenon.4537:

I’ve seen at least 4 threads calling for an end to jumping mechanics in GW2 due to frustration with this release and it’s auxiliary mechanic; aspect crystals. I just want to remind Anet that many of us love the jumping in this game.

Environments in GW2 have real physical depth and consequences. A mountain actually means something because you can climb it and jump off of it. A cliff actually means something because you can fall off of it. 3D is pointless if you don’t actually make use of the 3rd dimension. Jumping is pointless if there is nothing to jump on, over, around, through, etc. Without jumping, GW2 would be a flat, boring, 2D landscape full of punching bags for us to auto attack until we fall asleep from the monotony.

If you remove auxiliary mechanics from existing or future content, you will be removing the flavor that brings the content to life. You will be dumbing it down. Lowering the bar to the lowest common denominator. Every time this happens in a game, it diminishes the entire industry. See Call of Duty as an example.

For every one person complaining about it, there is another person who thoroughly enjoys it and is willing to learn to press 1, 2, 3, and space bar from time to time. Please don’t curtail “fun” from the game.

Also please bring back SAB! :P

I would hate to see jumping puzzles removed from the game. I would similarly be disappointed if they, and their like, were used to gate content.

I love the idea of jumping puzzles. Something that adds to the options of things to do in a game seems like a great idea to me.

I don’t actually particularly care for doing them. Not my cup of tea, just generally not fun for me, but I am glad that others do enjoy them and that the game includes this sort of diversity.

I have not played the new content yet, but I really hope that the new jumping puzzle is not required to be able to fully participate. Adding a new type of activity to the game increases its diversity. Mandating participation in that one specific activity in order to access new content reduces it.

As an aside:

For all of the analogies out there…playing for the NBA is a job for which one gets paid (a lot), flying an airplane is an activity that potentially puts others’ lives at risk. GW2 is a game for which one must pay in order to play. The differences are huge and make the analogies suspect at best.

Nerelith.7360:

You neede to look up the definitions of Fact and Opinion.

No, actually I do not. I am quite familiar with the meanings of the words.

Nerelith.7360:

Fact: The earth is not flat.
Opinion: Based on limited information, and personal observation only, and lacking a rudimentary education someone MIGHT say " To me, the earth appears flat"

They might also say, “in my opinion the world is flat.” You did not answer my question. Instead you posited a completely different scenario than the one I questioned. I did not ask if they said, “to me, the earth appears,” anything. I asked if they said, “in my opinion the earth is flat,” would they be right ?

Nerelith.7360:

The former can be said to be right or wrong, The latter cannot, since the person is saying how things appear to them.

Of course, obviously so, but the latter was not a question I asked nor a point I raised.

Nerelith.7360:

Opinion is a personal observation, and cannot be wrong. it can be agreed with or disagreed with.

If someone, based on personal observation, expresses the opinion that the earth is flat…are they right ?

I would really rather not see bagpipes added until a better control scheme (such as existed in LoTRO for example) is implemented.

pdavis.8031:

Arguments against dueling?

First and foremost. Gw2 wasn’t launched with dueling. Gw2 ISN’T other MMOs. The majority of reasons for dueling is “X MMO has it, many others do too, why not GW2?” If Anet wanted GW2 to be like other MMOs they would have included dueling, mounts, and raids from the very beginning. But they didn’t.

Not sure that this is a viable argument. Everything that is ever developed after launch in any game was not included at launch. Does this mean that ANet should add nothing to the game post launch ? No fractals, no special events, no new armor or weapons, no new dungeons, no new stories, etc ?

The argument that if something was not included at launch it must not be something that the developer ever intended to be included runs counter to the fact that developers launch while still working on features all of the time.

pdavis.8031:

I don’t think it will become as “toxic” as people would like to believe, but map chat in general (expect when train or boss is going on) is already irritating and “toxic” enough as it is. (Thats why I pretty much ignore it anymore. Saw a conversation in LA before the Zepharites about anime, and it got pretty graphic pretty quick).

You point out that people PVEing are toxic as an argument to claim that duelists will be toxic ? That seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Still your point seems to argue that PVE should be removed from the game since people can be toxic while playing it.

pdavis.8031:

Anet already gave us an option for dueling. 1v1 “rooms” in the heart of the mist. You can duel to your hearts content.

This is inaccurate. If HOTM dueling made duelists’ hearts content they wouldn’t be here asking for the option to duel in the open world.

pdavis.8031:

“Becasue its fun, and is a good way to train/pass time” is also a major pro argument for having open world dueling. But I would contend that just as many people find NOT dueling to be just as fun. .

No one is asking people who, “find NOT dueling to be just as fun,” to duel. If not dueling is fun for them then they could continue to have their fun even if the option is added for others to have fun as well.

pdavis.8031:

Dueling for training purposes is not really a valid argument anyway, because any PvP/WvW is done in a seperate area and has completely different mechanics from PvE. I would be behind dueling in WvW, as a form of training, but in open world PvE it doesn’t really make sense..

Which mechanics are different in a character’s build and/or performance between WvW and PvE ?

pdavis.8031:

And finally, Dueling by waiting for mega bosses would cause more problems and grief than anything. Everyone already complains about no one listening to commanders for Teq and THW, and thats with nothing to distract them. People can get downright hostile when it goes wrong because “Noobs weren’t paying attention!!!” Now throw in dueling. People arrive early, half listen to commander and instead start dueling. They have fun, but when fight is ready to begin, they were too busy dueling to know what was going on and cause more people to rage and QQ and cry about “noobs not paying attention!!!” same thing with dungeons…

So people doing world events are being hostile (a form off toxicity I guess) so events should be removed (or at least no new ones ever added again), right ?

If no one is listening now then dueling could not make matters worse. You cannot have fewer than zero people not listening.

pdavis.8031:

All in all I can see very little benefit to adding dueling in open world PvE at this point. If it had been implemented shortly after launch it wouldn’t even be an issue. Bu this late in the game, it most certainly would be buggy as heck, and people wouldn’t be used to it and begin QQing about people going crazy with duels causing party wipes, lags, chat spam, harassment, etc.

Perfectly good arguments for adding nothing to the game ever again. “People wouldn’t be used to,” new content. New content would likely be buggy, and people will QQ about it.

JMadFour.9730:

as long as there is an option to auto-decline.

I would prefer that the default be auto-decline. I think it would be better for a player to have to make a choice to opt in, not to opt out.

ANet has said that they want to implement this, I think these threads are a good place to remind them that some portion of their playerbase is still interested, and to provide feedback on ways to avoid negatively impacting those who do not desire to participate in duels.

Vayne.8563:

The other game is irrelevant unless we all know the economy because the currencies aren’t normalized. I had tons of gold in another game, but in that game, gold filled the role that copper does in Guild Wars 2. I could have had a million gold and it would have meant nothing.

I played a game where I had 100,000 gold and I still couldn’t buy a decent weapon with it. Any game where gold is easy to get for everyone means greater inflation and things cost more. Any game with an auction house anyway.

If players can decide what to charge for stuff, they can only charge as much as players can afford. It’s a self regulated system. If everyone has more gold, then people selling stuff will charge more, because they can…that’s for rare items, obviously.

Pretty much this ^^^.

I had millions of gold (in coin or barter) in GW1. That doesn’t make ten thousand gold in GW2 a paltry sum.

Arcane Echo was a Mesmer skill in GW1. Is there a reason why you desire it to be implemented for Eles in GW2 ?

Errant.1942:

That means that if you say “well, it was never rewarding for me, because I didn’t run it the way you did” doesn’t suddenly imply the areas weren’t rewarding. That means they weren’t rewarding if you choose to make them unrewarding by inefficient gameplay. That’s not my fault, nor Anets fault.

This point is worth repeating in my opinion. Choosing to not pursue the rewards does not make something unrewarding.

That said, a game marketed at casuals might want to make casual play rewarding. I am not speaking of making everything achievable without effort and skill, but rather tiered degrees of challenge and reward so that everyone can feel as if they are getting something for their effort. I believe that some people will even progress through those tiers as they are exposed to the possibility of greater challenge matched by greater reward.

Fenrir.3609:

Scientia.8924:

Funny that you talk about common sense and then make the same mistake you’re trying to put other people down for. I’m not talking about loot Rarity in that post, and wouldn’t even make sense in that context since Exotics and below don’t share the same equip characteristic.

If it were actually unique it would be impossible to buy more than one. and only one person would have it.

It is really rather obvious that a 30+ laurel item available on a merchant is not going to be an item which is a complete one off which once bought, no one else in the game world can own.

Perhaps they should replace “unique” with “one per character”, i’m just somewhat surprised that people can’t work it out for themselves.

Of course it is obvious that a 30+ laurel item is not truly unique as the option to buy more , assuming one has a sufficient stockpile of laurels available, remains after the first purchase. This demonstrates that the item is not unique and that GW2 uses the term outside of its actual definition, perhaps as a proper noun or a technical term. In such a situation GW2 should define the term in a manner that is accessible to the player, without requiring the player to go beyond the bounds of the game.

There is nothing wrong with borrowing a word that does not quite fit the usage for use as a technical term in order to avoid having to use a more lengthy phrase, particularly in something like an item description where space is at a premium. But, defining the term for the user is a necessary step.

Fenrir.3609:

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

emikochan.8504:

It says unique on the ring.

It’s a really small tag at the bottom of the stats, barely noticeable. And how are people supposed to know what this ‘unique’ tag actually means?

It’s called paying attention, reading something and applying common sense. But no, there should clearly be a fifteen page PDF guide to walk people through this.

If it were actually unique it would be impossible to buy more than one. and only one person would have it.

Love the idea. They were fun in GW 1.

I don’t really see the need for this.

I think that, “limited edition,” and, “rare,” minis are fine, but that all minis should be tradable. Not everyone will have every mini because supply will be limited, but the potential will exist for a truly interested individual to pursue them all.

Unfortunately the lack of a reliable direct player to player trade system severely limits the mini trade among collectors community.

DiazKincade.2891:

Ashen.2907:

Completely agreed, except for the part of the current state of technology in GW2. The game includes high cyclical ROF machine pistols, automatic rifles with rates of fire not too dissimilar from modern assault weapons, flame throwers, grenades, and so on, not as exceptions but rather as defining aspects of the setting’s tech level.

As I stated before in my second post (edited to reply to your first post) the rate of fire is more a class balance mechanic or just class skills in general. Try using a bundle rifle weapon or one of the sniper turrets near various hearts in Ascalon. They have long cooldown times. The high cyclical rate of fire machine pistols are more class mechanics. The look of most pistols and rifles in the game have a flared muzzle. This is very similar to muskets and blunderbusses. Both of which took a very long time to load (relative to a bow/crossbow) and both were highly inaccurate. There are a few exceptions to this but for the most part the majority are based off muzzle loading weaponry.

The charr are the only ones that had “machine pistols” but even then they looked very heavy steam punk with gears and what not. As far as what actual machine pistols did you can’t really call the ones we have machine pistols as almost none of them have clips to hold the ammo. Same for rifles.

The flamethrower is what it is and bombs and grenades were not to far out there for this tech period (though in most cases they were seen as magic and not science)

FenrirSlakt.3692:

It would be cool if they also made crossbows that could be strapped to your wrist.
Idk.

Yeah they are typically called wrist bolters. Which would be awesome one handed weapons.

Regardless of cosmetic elements such as flared muzzles weapons in GW2 have rates of fire comparable to automatic weapons. Call it class balance or class mechanics the setting includes high ROF autofire firearms as a commonplace element. Once you establish the fact that firearms are accurate and have a high ROF, bows become obsolescent.

Yes there are slow firing weapons in the setting as well. They, and bows for that matter, exist in the real world too. That doesnt mean that bows and the like are not obsolete on a modern battlefield including elements such as machineguns, mortars, artillery, grenades, flamethrowers, tanks, helicopters and so on.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

Ashen.2907:

If you are looking at this from a technological perspective the real questions should not be, “where’s the crossbow,” but rather, “why is anyone enough of an idiot to use a bow in a setting where automatic firearms are fairly commonplace ?”

Bit of an interesting trivia, but the prevalence of firearms wasn’t due to their superiority on the field. The bow and arrow had several distinct advantages that put it well above the standard musket or pistol that was used.

*Faster to reload and fire.
*More accurate for seasoned archers.
*Easier to make arrows/bullets for.
*More reliable and less likely to jam/break.
*Easier to make bows from local materials.
*Could be fired reliably from longer ranges.
*Made little to no noise.

Once, when a general asked a native american chief why he didn’t switch to guns, the chief responded with “In the time it takes you to reload, I’ll have 3 arrows in the air”. I can’t find the particular source for that quote, though.

So, you’re probably wondering why, instead of bows and arrows, we use guns now? Well, the two advantages that guns had were just too important.

*Higher lethality on impact
*Much easier to learn a gun than a bow.

And that was it. To become a skilled archer, capable of hitting a bullseye from a football field away, you’d have to have grown up and used your bow your whole life. You can get a similar performance out of a rifleman in a few weeks training. So while it takes a lifetime to make an archer, it takes a month to make a rifleman.

GW2 takes place in the bridge between technology, where rifleman and bowman stand side by side. This overlooks sonic weaponry and laser cannons, which are also in the game, though.

Completely agreed, except for the part of the current state of technology in GW2. The game includeshigh cyclical ROF machine pistols, automatic rifles with rates of fire not too dissimilar from modern assault weapons, flame throwers, grenades, and so on, not as exceptions but rather as defining aspects of the setting’s tech level.

If you are looking at this from a technological perspective the real questions should not be, “where’s the crossbow,” but rather, “why is anyone enough of an idiot to use a bow in a setting where automatic firearms are fairly commonplace ?”

phys.7689:

Ashen.2907:

Death Penalties are essentially a form of time gate between attempts at a piece of content you cannot complete flawlessly. Humans learn through repetition. Slowing the learning process does not necessarily improve a player’s skill level. Making a player wait longer to reattempt a boss fight after he missed one dodge against the boss’ one shot kill attack does not increase the player’s skill at dodging the attack. A player that gets lucky and makes that dodge the first time will actually learn less than the player who fails and tries again.

What is needed, in my opinion, in general are not death penalties on the player but encounters that cannot be overcome with attrition. Bosses getting a “morale boost” that heals them for some small amount, or perhaps provides them with a short term invulnerability buff, when they defeat a character would incentivize not dying without directly penalizing a character.

actually death in games are not really about a time gate, its generally about showing you what you did wrong, or testing how skilled/intellegient you are. It is possible to design systems that dont use death and achieve the same thing, but in a game where you are role playing a adventurer, it make some sense.

I tend to agree. Keep in mind that I said, “death penalties,” are a form of time gate, not, “death in games.”

phys.7689:

But i suppose some people dont really play games to face challenges, thats fine, but i think some parts of the game should be designed with challenge in mind.

I enjoy a challenge in a game. Having my armor take damage, or my character lose experience, or the like due to failing an encounter does not make the encounter itself any more challenging. More exciting perhaps. Knowing that you will face a form of punishment for not executing perfectly may very well add some spice to a difficult encounter, but that is all.

Imagine a DP system in which your credit card is billed $.10 every time your character dies. Would the Liadri fight be more difficult as a result ? Is the fight less difficult, or even easy, now, due to the lack of such a DP ?

…Of course not.

Rouven.7409:

Ashen.2907:

(…)

What is needed, in my opinion, in general are not death penalties on the player but encounters that cannot be overcome with attrition. Bosses getting a “morale boost” that heals them for some small amount, or perhaps provides them with a short term invulnerability buff, when they defeat a character would incentivize not dying without directly penalizing a character.

Why does that remind me of the boss blizz. Oh yes, because more players = bad. Same here, don’t come close you underleveled @$^^$ – you are going to ruin the whole thing for us. Anet make instances so we can play alone!

Yes, it’s a good idea, for instanced content, dungeons, guild missions perhaps. Team gauntlets?

I had assumed that the emphasis for something of this sort would be on instanced content. Open world content is entirely too subject to variables outside a player’s (or team’s) control for what I suggested (or death penalties for that matter).

1) Legendaries are ugly (IMO of course)
2) Legendaries require crafting.

Reasons why pursuing a legendary is not a viable way of maintaining interest in the game for me.

Death Penalties are essentially a form of time gate between attempts at a piece of content you cannot complete flawlessly. Humans learn through repetition. Slowing the learning process does not necessarily improve a player’s skill level. Making a player wait longer to reattempt a boss fight after he missed one dodge against the boss’ one shot kill attack does not increase the player’s skill at dodging the attack. A player that gets lucky and makes that dodge the first time will actually learn less than the player who fails and tries again.

What is needed, in my opinion, in general are not death penalties on the player but encounters that cannot be overcome with attrition. Bosses getting a “morale boost” that heals them for some small amount, or perhaps provides them with a short term invulnerability buff, when they defeat a character would incentivize not dying without directly penalizing a character.

nolij.4327:

$15 month converted into gems = 1200 gems = 96 gold

Yes, spending $15 per month can generate in game gold through the gem to gold conversion process. That is what I said in the post you quoted.

nolij.4327:

not only a pathetically low amount of gold, but that’s being GENEROUS, as i used 8g/100gem to calculate that, and 8g is a roundup of the average price. in reality you’d get even less than 96g

Not everyone would agree with you that 96G is a, “pathetic,” amount. Even so this portion of your post paints the complaint in an entirely new light. Apparently, from what you are saying, the issue is that the already in existence method for converting real world currency to in game gold does not give you enough of a return for your dollar. You (apparently) think that money spent should provide more of an economic advantage over others than it currently does.

nolij.4327:

which last time i checked, is the purpose of a video game.

You might want to check again.

Sartharina.3542:

Actually, ANet’s the one with the control over releasing content to GW2 – they’re the developers, and the ones making the game. NCSoft is the one that publishes the game, but not the content in the game.

NCSoft is not only ANet’s publisher, but also its owner. I am not saying that NCSoft is exercising hands on influence in GW2 but, as they own the game in its entirety, they could.

Artanis.4963:

Ashen.2907:

If something has a list price equivalent to $10 but your budget, or inclination, will not accommodate more than $5 you can spend $5 in real world currency supplemented with in game currency to cover the remainder of the cost. I have even purchased cash shop options without spending any real world money at all. Spending $0 to get something I want is pretty much the best discount I have ever personally experienced.

Not quite. Say you earn 10 gold in an hour of play time.

Right now, that 10g will get you 100 gems. Using your credit card, 100 gems costs you $1.25.

If you could legally sell gems for USD, you’d get $1.25 an hour. Minimum wage in the USA is $7.25 an hour. Is Guild Wars 2 worth $6 an hour to play?

Not saying you shouldn’t buy gems with gold, but don’t fool yourself into thinking you’re ahead of the game doing that. If you work a minimum wage job three hours extra a day, you could play three hours, have your gem store items, and thirty gold, and extra spending money.

Playing a game.

Working a minimum wage job.

Not the same thing at all. If they were the same there would be no reason to play any game at all because doing so will earn you far less real world money (as in zero generally) than would working extra hours at your place of employment.

For what its worth that minimum wage worker will often not be in a position to choose to work extra hours. Employers generally make an effort to control labor costs as closely as possible.

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.

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.

1) The removal of ascended gear.

2) Improvements for Ranger archery.

sorudo.9054:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

sorudo.9054:

lordkrall.7241:

sorudo.9054:

or watch it trough a stream website for free, allot cheaper……

Not legal in most countries though And I doubt they take illegal alternatives into consideration, but that might just be me.

it’s legal to watch a video regardless of it’s content, it’s illegal to host copyrighted episodes.

Aren’t all episodes of anything copyrighted, there’s just a choice not to exercise it?

team four star, mastermovies, other fan-made episodes.
all not copyrighted, all legal.

Fan-fiction is not an episode of the original, which are (generally) copyrighted.

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.

Just to clarify:

The OP seems to be suggesting an option to spend real world money to increase his in game wealth…

…An option that already exists.

joneb.5679:

Ashen.2907:

joneb.5679:

Anet don’t do big discounts. This has been the reason I do not buy much from them as on my wage I can not justify spending the money they ask on in game items or simple digital content. If they did 50% of bargains and above they would get more cash from me and poorer folks just the way Steam seems to be flourishing on its business model where poorer folks just have to wait patiently for a bargain whilst the better waged can pay at will.

Players can essentially print their own discount coupons in GW2. Anet has implemented a game where 100% discounts are not only possible but relatively commonplace.

Ashen can you explain this concept you have invented?
Kalaris there have been a few freebies given out randomly and different versions of the game have been sold at 50% but the actual gem store items I cant ever remember given for a significant discount as in 50% or above. Turbine did give significant discounts. I use to wait for them when I played DDO and Steam for a fact does extremely good discounts.

I did not invent anything.

In any game where cash shop currency can be acquired through game play the player essentially has the ability to create his own real world currency discounts.

If something has a list price equivalent to $10 but your budget, or inclination, will not accommodate more than $5 you can spend $5 in real world currency supplemented with in game currency to cover the remainder of the cost. I have even purchased cash shop options without spending any real world money at all. Spending $0 to get something I want is pretty much the best discount I have ever personally experienced.

“Is GW2 trying to lose players?”

I really doubt it.

a t s e.9614:

I don’t think females like guys who wear this kind of wierd stuff that shows off your skin.

Women pay to see guys who wear “weird” skimpy stuff…or less.

joneb.5679:

Anet don’t do big discounts. This has been the reason I do not buy much from them as on my wage I can not justify spending the money they ask on in game items or simple digital content. If they did 50% of bargains and above they would get more cash from me and poorer folks just the way Steam seems to be flourishing on its business model where poorer folks just have to wait patiently for a bargain whilst the better waged can pay at will.

Players can essentially print their own discount coupons in GW2. Anet has implemented a game where 100% discounts are not only possible but relatively commonplace.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

I like to see criticism which is well-thought, presented with some reasons why points are made and questions asked.

I like to see criticism which gives a modicum of thought about other people.

I like seeing criticism where there is a conscious effort to remember this is a game where some manner of time commitment is expected, or some charge pending to sidestep the time commitment.

I don’t like seeing criticism which hinges on what an individual wants in the game, to benefit them and only them.

I don’t like seeing criticism posts which are nothing other than “the game is dying because X”.

I don’t like seeing criticism posts which decide they need to speak for me (i.e. “everyone” “all players” “nobody likes this”, et cetera).

I highly suggest criticism in the future comes better thought out about what the issue is, and then follows into an idea which might fix it, rather than just demand it be fixed.

Also, I highly dislike asura. Except as catapult ammunition.

I agree with most of what you say here…particularly about the asura.

But…

Doesn’t

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

I don’t like seeing criticism which hinges on what an individual wants in the game, to benefit them and only them.

contradict

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

I don’t like seeing criticism posts which decide they need to speak for me (i.e. “everyone” “all players” “nobody likes this”, et cetera).

My apologies if I am misunderstanding your point, but it seems as if you are suggesting that you dislike people speaking for only themselves, but also dislike them speaking for others.

Purple Miku.7032:

Just saying, the vast majority of the attire that’s available on this game is what I’d expect to see on strippers.

The strippers in your area need to step up their game.