(edited by Devata.6589)
The people with access to player data have chosen cash shop over paid expansion (for now at least).
+
The sales chart shows that the version of the GW franchise relying on cash shop makes more money than the game that relied on expansions
=
Cash shops are not as good for the game financially as paid expansions ?
I loved GW1. I loved the financial model. There is very little in GW2’s cash shop that I consider worth buying. I prefer content specific to unique skins and the like for my own pursuit of in game rewards over GW2’s grind gold – > buy on TP approach. I do think that cosmetic options in the gem shop is fine, in theory, and would be even better if there were more added in game. But that is all personal preference. Opinion. It doesn’t change the facts that are available:
1) The people with access to player data have experience with both cash shop and paid expansion financial models, have years of experience actually running successful online games, and have chosen the cash shop model (for now).
2) The financial data, per the chart in this thread, shows that the version of the GW franchise relying on a cash shop makes more money than the version that relied on paid expansions.
Pretty much everything else is supposition, personal bias, opinion, etc.
“The sales chart shows that the version of the GW franchise relying on cash shop makes more money than the game that relied on expansions”
You really want to hold that argument? Looking at the absolute numbers. Ok let me explain it to you.
GW2 has a much bigger audience and is a bigger game. The franchise became big because of GW1. So in fact much of the first sales you see are thanks to GW1. That to the side however.
To get an idea how GW2 might have worked with expansions we can take a look at GW1.
After initial sales it dropped a lot (not strange as it did then not have a cash-shop) however after a year at the release of the first expansion it did get a spike to almost the sale level as it did at initial release sales. Then half a year after that when selling the second expansion it even managed to go over the original sales.
So lets set the original sales at 100% then a year after initial sales it was about 95% and half a year later it was at about 110%.
Lets for the sake of argument say that in-between it was 0%. Doing this is negative for my story.
Now lets look at GW2 is the same period.
initial sales (when the game was released as B2P!) is 100% (in absolute number much higher then GW1 yeah). A quarter later it’s at 31% of that (of that there will be still many copy sales but lets say thats all cash-shop.. thats positive for your story). another quarter later we are at 24% another quarter later 21%, quarter later 29% and then back to 21%. So after it’s initial release it made about 126%.
GW1 made after it’s initial sale about 205%. (over the same period)
Yeah in absolute numbers it’s different but then you also forget that the game released as B2P but then turned out to be heavenly cash-shop focused.
Thats the best you can get out of these numbers.
(And thats much better for the expansion-based model then I personally expected. I did expected cash-shop sales to be higher but going down while expansion-sales would be more steady and overtaking the total profit after maybe a year of 3. On the other hand I expect an expansion once a year / year and a half, GW1 released much faster)
(edited by Devata.6589)
Lol. Tunnel-vision can be hazardous to your health. You’ve said the same thing over and over and over and over.
Personally, I don’t feel the cash shop ‘hurts’ the game. Nor do I ever ‘gold-grind’. I’ve have purchased everything I’ve wanted from the Gem store with nary a bit of grind. And those with much more information than I have seem to feel the same about the cash shop. I prefer GW2’s model over GW1’s model. Seven years of play with 4 major updates. That’s a lot of waiting. Pretty sure I would not want to go back to that, but that’s just me. A Guild Wars (1 & 2) player.
Me saying the same thing over and over again is not tunnel-vision is reaction on people who keep saying the same thing over and over again.
“Seven years of play with 4 major updates.” am I going to tell you why this line is nonsense? No i’m not. Everybody can judge for themselves.
I’m not sure you can assert that the cash shop causes more people to leave the game, than would without one. You conveniently leave out the fact that with this model, one can earn gold to exchange for gems and purchase anything in the Gem store. How do you know that very fact does not entice more people to stay than waiting yearly for an expansion-type model that would not offer that incentive?
Turning everything in a gold-grind is a positive thing? Sorry but I do not think so. And yes I did take that fact into consideration as I did mention the gold-grind before.
I do say I think that is better explaining why. Some say they don’t think it’s better. Thats just as much of an assertion.
No, it isnt just as much of an assertion. A statement of fact is a more forceful assertion than a statement of opinion.
Anyway this is a great way to try is destroy a discussion. Asking for data you know is almost impossible to get and then state you don’t have to provide any yourself.
If I am not making an assertion there is nothing to support with facts.
And if you then really want data then somebody just listed a nice chart. That is the best data we have so far (if it’s valid) and seems to proof my point as much as possible. So there is your data.
https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/151443/1q14_NCSoft.jpg
Now if you want to continue the discussion give your idea’s and logic. Then you would really add useful information to the thread.
According to that chart the game relying on a cash shop rather than paid expansions makes more money.
What if we had expansions AND a cash shop?
Depends. A cash-shop as we have now? Then the game would still be influenced by it likely resulting in more people leaving. Expansion-sales would still mean some speaks (first likely higher then second) but it would likely not be able to stay at a level as when you had no cash-shop focus.
Now if you had a cash-shop that would not influence the game.. name-changers, sex-changers and that sort of stuff then I don’t think it’s a problem for the game and so I would expect higher expansions-sales but of course less cash-shop sales.
And if you then really want data then somebody just listed a nice chart. That is the best data we have so far (if it’s valid) and seems to proof my point as much as possible. So there is your data.
https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/151443/1q14_NCSoft.jpg
Now if you want to continue the discussion give your idea’s and logic. Then you would really add useful information to the thread.
According to that chart the game relying on a cash shop rather than paid expansions makes more money.
Lol then you get the data you asked for (well as best as possible) and still you do not want to see it. I am not even going to explain the numbers (already did that btw) as I think you are just as able as me to interpret them correctly. If you don’t want to see it explaining it again will not help anyway.
You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.
Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?
I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.
I see assertions. Nothing more.
Oh wait… there’s a tidbit of conspiracy theory in there.
It’s no assertion, it’s a fact that I do like the game less because of those examples. And with me others (thats also a fact as you can find multiple people on the forum saying such things). Now you could argue that all those things have nothing to do with the cash-shop focus. Without a cash-shop we would still have a gold-grind, mini’s would simply almost not exist and so on. But there is of course also something like common sense.
Not sure what part is conspiracy theory.. the marketing techniques?
Ah, you’re confusing something you don’t like with hurting the overall game. I see.
(s)He listed mounts not being introduced into the game as an argument. His entire argument is invalid simply because of that sentence I saw regarding mounts. MOUNTS WILL NOT HAPPEN WITH 15+ WAYPOINTS PER ZONE PEOPLE DEAL WITH IT.
If anything the way the cash-shop works in this game it’s probably one of the better ones. Granted that the watchwork pick gives an advantage over the other cash shop picks (for no reason) for the same cost of the molten alliance and bone pick given that they charged 1k gems for both of them at some point (yes the molten alliance pick only cost 800 gems at one point yadda yadda yadda).
Now read that sentence where I talked about mounts again. As I never said what you stated as proof that I was wrong. (and even if I had one statement that was wrong that would not mean other statements are wrong.. but that doesn’t matter now)
With your second paragrah you pretty much agree with me “If anything the way the cash-shop works in this game it’s probably one of the better ones.” You do see that with that line you agree in saying cash-shops do influence the game (in a negative way). By saying that GW2 at least is one of the better ones… So where the cash-shop influence the game the least or at least for your preferred game-play the least in a negative way.
You seem to be referring to P2W (with your example) as a negative but what is pay to win? It’s negative if it’s influence the game in any way. You basically say why it hurts you personally. But mini’s, skins and so on are just as much game-play for one as killing or farming is for somebody else. As you refer to the pick you might prefer farming. And even then, don’t you mind that everything is a gold-grind in stead of really faming for items and mats?
Oow and if mounts would ever be introduces I would also expect way-points (in new maps at least) to be reduced. But even if they didn’t that would not yet mean you could not introduce mounts just for fun (this being a game and all) Just for the record.
The only negative impact that the cash shop has inflicted upon this game was the watchwork pick. I have yet to see any other item that has negatively impacted the game other than the long standing bug with the copper fed which was finely fixed ages ago.
Well how about the fact that everything is a gold-grind. The fact that getting an mini or many skins are not behind specific content but in the cash-shop or / and require gold-grind? how about temporary stuff?
All stuff that might not bother you personally. The watchwork pick is not something that effected me personally. It all depends on what game-play you personally prefer the best.
Yes, year over year the game’s revenue for 1Q is off by 30.9%, which isn’t all that bad considering the game is 19 months old at the end of 1Q14.
The downturn in Europe is disturbing while the upturn here is curious.
Overall, here is the chart of income per game according to NCSOFT’s quarterly reports going back to 1Q05.
This chart is very interesting. It shows that Aion has performed better than GW2, over a 6 quarter period so far. I’m not sure if the chart even takes inflation into account, so it could be performing even better than what is appearing. One thing that I’m noticing is up until 2012 Aion had been releasing expansions every year or so, then when the new round of AAA MMOs hit, it tapers off, even though they did an expansion in 2013, which seems to have given them a boost.
With how much revenue GW2’s gemshop/box sales has been bringing in since launch, it might make sense for ANet to hold off on expansions, so that they’re wider intervals. If they can get some major overhauls and additions into their expansions (like the next directx?, new contenents?), maybe it’ll be like a release of an entirely new game with huge revenue spikes similar to launch. That’s all speculation, of course, but it’d be interesting to see if it could turn out that way nonetheless.
But if you wait to long (and have the cash-shop influence in the meanwhile) you might have to many people who walked away forever. There will be a spike with an expansion for sure but if it will be close to GW2’s original sales? Besides that GW1 seems to proof that you can use a normal expansion (the one you can push out in a year) to stay at the level of original sales.. Of course only of you manage to keep your customers happy. (why I say, no cash-shop influence)
They do not have any ‘what if’ data. Just as I do not have that data.
Not, “what if,” but rather comparative analysis. They have data on both cash shop and expansion models’ impact in their games. With said data they have opted, for now at least, to continue with a cash shop model.
Logically it seems to be true. And thats the best we can get here.
Except that what you are presenting is not logic but rather personal bias.
Haha that one again (did see that argument a lot). No because one might be right and one might be true. That does not change depending on who made the assertion. None of us can at this moment proof or disprove anything. Any data any of us can provide (see for example that chart) can easily be disputed with another argument about not having all data. From both sides.
You are the only one, that I have seen, making an assertion here. If others are not making an assertion they have nothing to prove. If you state something as fact then you should be able to support it with facts rather than just personal opinion. If you cannot do so then you might want to say something like, “I think that the cash shop hurts the game,” or, “I don’t like the impact of the cash shop on the game,” rather than things like, “you seem to be forgetting that the cash shop hurts the game,” which implies that such is a fact (that is known to all even if they “forget”).
Yeah the idea that the question “how to get people to buy gems” is worse for the game then “how do we get people to buy expansions” is indeed ‘me personal bias.’ and the examples are as well and there is no logic involved at all.
I do say I think that is better explaining why. Some say they don’t think it’s better. Thats just as much of an assertion. I just was the first to come with it.
Anyway this is a great way to try is destroy a discussion. Asking for data you know is almost impossible to get and then state you don’t have to provide any yourself.
All nice and well but it leads no nothing and it does also not proof you are right.
And if you then really want data then somebody just listed a nice chart. That is the best data we have so far (if it’s valid) and seems to proof my point as much as possible. So there is your data.
https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/151443/1q14_NCSoft.jpg
Now if you want to continue the discussion give your idea’s and logic. Then you would really add useful information to the thread.
(edited by Devata.6589)
I will point out that this quarter still has more income that the last 2 1/2 years of reported GW income (since they stopped breaking out it’s numbers when GW2 came out).
I don’t disagree with the notion that there are income spikes from expansions. I’m just saying the numbers don’t show a pressing need for one. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a major content patch, expansion or LS, for this holiday season.
I knew this one was coming. Yeah GW2 is much bigger (and that B2P model is what made this franchise so big). That would of course also be the case if it was B2P + expansions in stead of the cash-shop focus it turned into. so you have to see those numbers in proportion with the GW1 numbers, not in absolutes.
I also do expect to see another spike if they release an expansions even if they keep the current cash-shop focus. However the question would be how they manage to keep the line up relevance to the original sales and setting that against how they did that with GW1.
Only think we can see now is that GW1 kept it’s income almost at the same level as release with the expansions after one year and GW2 dropped a lot with there current approach.
If I would take a car and reduce it’s performance but leaving everything else in tact you could see that as a factual way of ‘hurting the car’. It has lower performance. However if you don’t care for that performance it might not hurt you as owner of the care. Did you care about it then it would hurt you.
Now those people who don’t care about the performance might still buy the care but those who care might not. So it hurts the car in general.
And it is very easy to make the argument that the performance of the game is better served by a cash shop model than by an expansion model.
Yeah like I said. What is important is what group is bigger. Those who consider the one better or those who consider the other better.
What you are trying to say there I already said with my example of how you could argue that F2P games have more players.
and we do not have the data.
But the company who does is the one who decided to backburner the paid expansion model in favor of the cash shop.
They do not have any ‘what if’ data. Just as I do not have that data.
However in general I do think it’s fair to say that at least pure from a game-point the cash-shop effects the game more in a negative way
Of course it is fair to say it, being fair doesn’t make it factually accurate though.
Logically it seems to be true. And thats the best we can get here.
No, they want me to disprove the Easter Bunny by showing them it does not exist.
All I am saying is that yes in that same way they can’t disprove it exist.
So it’s a none argument.
Nope. You made the assertion so the burden of proof is on you.
Haha that one again (did see that argument a lot). No because one might be right and one might be true. That does not change depending on who made the assertion. None of us can at this moment proof or disprove anything. Any data any of us can provide (see for example that chart) can easily be disputed with another argument about not having all data. From both sides.
Anyway I already said that the whole ‘you don’t have the data so you can’t proof it’ is a great argument. Especially when you refuse to use common sense or logical thinking.
It’s indeed the perfect example of your Easter Bunny.
So do with what I am saying what you want. Take it for notice or ignore it or whatever.
(edited by Devata.6589)
This is what happens when I crash “early” without checking NCSOFT’s site.
Two things jump out at me that I’m pretty sure haven’t been talked about among the doom and gloom.
First, royalties are the largest single source of income, beating out even Lineage. This is the result of Blade and Soul’s success in China.
Second, GW2 is still 2nd in terms of direct income from a named game, behind Lineage and in front of Aion which looks stable for now.
Now I’m not counseling that “all is well” …
… but it’s not the doom and gloom some always read into these quarterly reports.
Yes, year over year the game’s revenue for 1Q is off by 30.9%, which isn’t all that bad considering the game is 19 months old at the end of 1Q14.
The downturn in Europe is disturbing while the upturn here is curious.
Overall, here is the chart of income per game according to NCSOFT’s quarterly reports going back to 1Q05.
If anything that chart would seem to proof what I am saying as much as I possibly can with data.
The peak you see at the beginning of GW2’s release are most likely from the box-sales. If only half would stay to buy expansions you would already have a huge profit over the cash-shop.
Or it would disproof it as it would even be way more profitable then what I said as I expected the cash-shop to be more profitable in the short run and expansions-based model more in the long run. So I do have some doubts that this might not give all details (net income?). This chart would be almost to good to be truth for what I am saying.
It does however also nicely show how GW1 stays pretty much on the same level of income (even having a spike on there last expansion) and then after that starting to decline. Proving that expansions can keep income pretty stable.
(edited by Devata.6589)
You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.
Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?
It’s a pretty big one considering the cash shop model is also applied to games like those on facebook, and mmos that also include a MONTHLY subscription. RFO was one such game until Crapmasters failed to maintain distro rights from the game’s owning company.
I agree, it is a pretty kittenertion indeed. It’s also still without evidence and based solely on opinion. If he wants to show any validity to the claim he’s going to have to show me the data. Show me the droves of people leaving GW2 because of the cosmetic cash shop. I have no reason to take his word for it, especially when there’s absolutely nothing in the cash shop that detriments my play in any way, shape or form.
I can not provide that information just like you can’t. I do see many people leave but of course I do not have the complete numbers just like you don’t have the numbers that to disproof it. So you ask for something you know nobody can deliver, however that does not yet means it’s not correct. It only means there is no date to proof it.
Besides I dear to bed that many of the people who do not like the game and might not like it because of effects from the cash-shop don’t even them-self directly link it to the cash-shop. Somebody who liked to hunt down mini’s in mmo’s might simply say he dislikes the game-play.. there is nothing to do. Not even linking it to the fact that mini’s are almost only cash-shop items. As an example.
Lastly you now do look at your own game-play as sort of proof or at least reason to disbelieve my statements. What is funny because you stated that that was not a valid source.
Anyway, yeah it may not hurt any type of gamer. I however did give direct examples how it does hurt some. So understanding that should not be that hard.
In other words, I can’t disprove the Easter Bunny, therefore he must exist.
No, they want me to disprove the Easter Bunny by showing them it does not exist.
All I am saying is that yes in that same way they can’t disprove it exist.
So it’s a none argument.
It did not say it hurts everybody.
Hurting the game, “in general,” means hurting it for everyone.
So it hurts the game at least for me and some other people and by that hurting the game in general.
You might want to avoid using this, “logic,” because it leads to impossible to resolve contradictions when someone else says that the expansion model would hurt the game for them and so the game in general would be hurt.
Currently the only people with access to spending habits, retention rates, rate of departure relative to gem store releases, player base purchase rates for expansions, and so on have used both the cash shop method and the expansion method. They have, currently at least, decided, with access to said data, that the cash shop method works better for them. I’ve seen nothing from anyone to counter that. “I prefer paid expansions over a cash shop based business model,” certainly doesn’t do it.
If I would take a car and reduce it’s performance but leaving everything else in tact you could see that as a factual way of ‘hurting the car’. It has lower performance. However if you don’t care for that performance it might not hurt you as owner of the care. Did you care about it then it would hurt you.
Now those people who don’t care about the performance might still buy the care but those who care might not. So it hurts the car in general.
That is exactly the same. I hope this example makes it more clear what I am saying.
“You might want to avoid using this, “logic,” because it leads to impossible to resolve contradictions when someone else says that the expansion model would hurt the game for them and so the game in general would be hurt."
That is true, so the question is what would hurt the most or the least people. And then we are at the point were we where to begin with and we do not have the data.
You could for example say that there are people who can’t effort the expansion. Problem is, they might not be an interesting revenue in the first place also not in a F2P game. They might still be interesting to fill up the world but that’s only the case if you don’t have enough paying people to do so.
However in general I do think it’s fair to say that at least pure from a game-point the cash-shop effects the game more in a negative way as an expansion approach because with expansions you are not influencing the game itself, you just try to make the best game. With the cash-shop your decisions for in the game always need to answer to the question “how to we get people to buy gems”. With the expansion you have to answer the question “how do we get people to buy the expansions”. I do feel the second has a more positive effect on the game then the first.
And yet, for the people that do have the numbers, they haven’t felt the need to change it, so far. And funny enough, those same people tried it both ways.
Nobody has those numbers. Thats why it’s such a nice argument.
ANet has those numbers and has tried it both ways. With Guild Wars 1 that had paid expansions and a limited cash shop and Guild Wars 2 with its financial model. When ANet looks at the money coming in, the number of people logging in each day and how many have stopped logging in versus the numbers from Guild Wars 1 and are satisfied with it, then that’s a good indication that their financial model of b2p and cash shop is working.
Anet does not have the numbers as to how many people are still playing next year and how much they are spending. Anet does also not have the numbers as of how many people would still be playing and actively buying expansions if they would have gone for that approach.
Yeah ArenaNet does have the numbers of what how successful they where with GW1. And that was so successful that they where able to start making GW2. That we all know.
You can also not directly compare GW1 and two but of course you could work with percentages to get an idea.
They do have the current numbers for GW2 and the old numbers for GW1 however what I have been saying is that this model is good for the short run (about 3 years, one expansion but keeping the same model might up that a little) and Anet does not have the future numbers. And when they do (in a few years from now) and it would have not worked out so great you could still say “you can’t proof that it would have worked out with a expansion-based model” as nobody has those numbers even. Even if it did work out financially you would still not be able to compare it to what they would have been earning if they went for Expansion focus. All we know now is that it was a huge success for GW1 else we did not have GW2.
You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.
Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?
I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.
I see assertions. Nothing more.
Oh wait… there’s a tidbit of conspiracy theory in there.
It’s no assertion, it’s a fact that I do like the game less because of those examples. And with me others (thats also a fact as you can find multiple people on the forum saying such things). Now you could argue that all those things have nothing to do with the cash-shop focus. Without a cash-shop we would still have a gold-grind, mini’s would simply almost not exist and so on. But there is of course also something like common sense.
Not sure what part is conspiracy theory.. the marketing techniques?
Ah, you’re confusing something you don’t like with hurting the overall game. I see.
(s)He listed mounts not being introduced into the game as an argument. His entire argument is invalid simply because of that sentence I saw regarding mounts. MOUNTS WILL NOT HAPPEN WITH 15+ WAYPOINTS PER ZONE PEOPLE DEAL WITH IT.
If anything the way the cash-shop works in this game it’s probably one of the better ones. Granted that the watchwork pick gives an advantage over the other cash shop picks (for no reason) for the same cost of the molten alliance and bone pick given that they charged 1k gems for both of them at some point (yes the molten alliance pick only cost 800 gems at one point yadda yadda yadda).
Now read that sentence where I talked about mounts again. As I never said what you stated as proof that I was wrong. (and even if I had one statement that was wrong that would not mean other statements are wrong.. but that doesn’t matter now)
With your second paragrah you pretty much agree with me “If anything the way the cash-shop works in this game it’s probably one of the better ones.” You do see that with that line you agree in saying cash-shops do influence the game (in a negative way). By saying that GW2 at least is one of the better ones… So where the cash-shop influence the game the least or at least for your preferred game-play the least in a negative way.
You seem to be referring to P2W (with your example) as a negative but what is pay to win? It’s negative if it’s influence the game in any way. You basically say why it hurts you personally. But mini’s, skins and so on are just as much game-play for one as killing or farming is for somebody else. As you refer to the pick you might prefer farming. And even then, don’t you mind that everything is a gold-grind in stead of really faming for items and mats?
Oow and if mounts would ever be introduces I would also expect way-points (in new maps at least) to be reduced. But even if they didn’t that would not yet mean you could not introduce mounts just for fun (this being a game and all) Just for the record.
(edited by Devata.6589)
And yet, for the people that do have the numbers, they haven’t felt the need to change it, so far. And funny enough, those same people tried it both ways.
Nobody has those numbers. Thats why it’s such a nice argument.
Anyway, the ‘show me the date’ argument when you know nobody can provide the date is one that a some people always come up with. If thats what you want to believe be my guess.
I just state some facts, some opinions and some logic. I would love to have some numbers to be able to do some real calculations (see me first post in the thread) however the ‘show me the data’ excuse will always be valid as you will never ever be able to get the data… nobody can. We are comparing 2 situation against each other. Fact is that there is only one of the situations in existence so you will never have the data of the other situation to compare it to.
nobody has that information and will get that information. The best we could do is ask all players and ex players what they like, what they dislike and why they dislike what and why they left.
Then we have to take all business decisions and see if there are comparisons. That would be the closes we could get (and we really can’t get that) but you would still be able to use the argument ‘you don’t know what would have happened in the other situation’.
So it’s a very nice to use argument. Like I said in the end it’s up to anybody to use there own common sense.
You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.
Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?
I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.
I see assertions. Nothing more.
Oh wait… there’s a tidbit of conspiracy theory in there.
It’s no assertion, it’s a fact that I do like the game less because of those examples. And with me others (thats also a fact as you can find multiple people on the forum saying such things). Now you could argue that all those things have nothing to do with the cash-shop focus. Without a cash-shop we would still have a gold-grind, mini’s would simply almost not exist and so on. But there is of course also something like common sense.
Not sure what part is conspiracy theory.. the marketing techniques?
Ah, you’re confusing something you don’t like with hurting the overall game. I see.
So it hurts the game at least for me and some other people and by that hurting the game in general.
No. No, no, no. You cannot make that leap logically at all. You cannot claim that because it allegedly hurts you it’s allegedly hurting everyone. It’s not hurting me at all. You are falsified.
It did not say it hurts everybody. I do say that the more people it hurts the worse it is for a game. Thats the logic here.
You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.
Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?
It’s a pretty big one considering the cash shop model is also applied to games like those on facebook, and mmos that also include a MONTHLY subscription. RFO was one such game until Crapmasters failed to maintain distro rights from the game’s owning company.
I agree, it is a pretty kittenertion indeed. It’s also still without evidence and based solely on opinion. If he wants to show any validity to the claim he’s going to have to show me the data. Show me the droves of people leaving GW2 because of the cosmetic cash shop. I have no reason to take his word for it, especially when there’s absolutely nothing in the cash shop that detriments my play in any way, shape or form.
I can not provide that information just like you can’t. I do see many people leave but of course I do not have the complete numbers just like you don’t have the numbers that to disproof it. So you ask for something you know nobody can deliver, however that does not yet means it’s not correct. It only means there is no date to proof it.
Besides I dear to bed that many of the people who do not like the game and might not like it because of effects from the cash-shop don’t even them-self directly link it to the cash-shop. Somebody who liked to hunt down mini’s in mmo’s might simply say he dislikes the game-play.. there is nothing to do. Not even linking it to the fact that mini’s are almost only cash-shop items. As an example.
Lastly you now do look at your own game-play as sort of proof or at least reason to disbelieve my statements. What is funny because you stated that that was not a valid source.
Anyway, yeah it may not hurt any type of gamer. I however did give direct examples how it does hurt some. So understanding that should not be that hard.
You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.
Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?
It’s a pretty big one considering the cash shop model is also applied to games like those on facebook, and mmos that also include a MONTHLY subscription. RFO was one such game until Crapmasters failed to maintain distro rights from the game’s owning company.
Oow I don’t say that there are people who are fine with a cash-shop. I just say that there are also many people who prefer none of those things and then the question is, what group would be bigger for ArenaNet.
About the games that have a sub-model AND a cash-shop. I don’t know about RFO but I know that for example WoW has it. However they do not have a focus on it (and focus is the keyword here). They have mainly out-game items (name-changers and so on) They do have some ingame-items as well (very bad for a sub-based game) however that is still very limited, 11 mini’s, 7 mounts and 3 helms. With likely hundreds of those things in the game that is very limited. If GW2 would have a cash-shop like that I would not be complaining (but it can’t because it’s using it’s cash-shop to generate it’s income).
So that can’t be compared with a cash-shop of a game that focuses on the cash-shop to generate it’s money.
You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.
Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?
I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.
I see assertions. Nothing more.
Oh wait… there’s a tidbit of conspiracy theory in there.
It’s no assertion, it’s a fact that I do like the game less because of those examples. And with me others (thats also a fact as you can find multiple people on the forum saying such things). Now you could argue that all those things have nothing to do with the cash-shop focus. Without a cash-shop we would still have a gold-grind, mini’s would simply almost not exist and so on. But there is of course also something like common sense.
Not sure what part is conspiracy theory.. the marketing techniques?
Ah, you’re confusing something you don’t like with hurting the overall game. I see.
So it hurts the game at least for me and some other people and by that hurting the game in general.
And as you can say that if something is good or bad is subjective (especially if it’s about fun) you can then indeed also say it’s an assumption to say many or most people would disagree that having something like mini’s in the cash-shop is better for the game as having it in the game behind content so you add the gameplay of working towards those items.
Indeed you can say that is an assumption.
Then it’s up to everybody to decide for themselves what they think that is better.
So use my examples as you wish. You wish to think it’s better or wish to believe most people think it’s better with the cash-shop focus things like that then you are completely free to believe so.
You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.
Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?
I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.
I see assertions. Nothing more.
Oh wait… there’s a tidbit of conspiracy theory in there.
It’s no assertion, it’s a fact that I do like the game less because of those examples. And with me others (thats also a fact as you can find multiple people on the forum saying such things). Now you could argue that all those things have nothing to do with the cash-shop focus. Without a cash-shop we would still have a gold-grind, mini’s would simply almost not exist and so on. But there is of course also something like common sense.
Not sure what part is conspiracy theory.. the marketing techniques?
You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.
Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?
I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.
Nah, just go for expansions and drop the cash-shop. If it is expansion content that means we need to pay for it and then Anet can drop there cash-shop or at lease for 99% putting all those items in the game in stead of in a cash-shop. It would simply be better for the quality of the game. If it’s expansion-like they would need to keep focusing on the cash-shop for money with all the negative side-effects we have seen for over a year now.
Cash-Shop is aiming players willing to pay 15 € or much more per month. Expansion with costs is aiming players willing to spend 50 € each 12 or 24 months.. Depending on the numbers I would rather drop expansion with costs.
For a B2P game that would be every 12 months. The big question here however is how many people you would be able to keep (again, in the long run) with expansion vs with cash-shop.
I don’t know where you get the number of 15 from. But lets say that is correct then in the long run you would want to have 4 times the amount of players. And then I am not even talking about the fact that a more popular product (of a higher quality) will also sell more merchandise and royalties and be more asured of better sales of other games and so on.
For a company your goal is to keep as much people as possible, who pay as much as possible for your product. If you remove or reduce the cash-shop you will lose the money from people willing to pay more money than for expansions only. You can’t raise the price for the expansion to compensate this. This would cause even less people playing the game. As compensation you have to try to attract much more people, who are willing to buy an expansion or the game itself.
If you remove traditional expansions with costs and provide content for free or modules via cash-shop you avoid the problems mentioned above. In this scenario you can keep both factions: the expansion buyers and the cash-shop fans. The company can satisfy both
Everybody keeps talking about expansions and cash shop as if they’re incompatible business models. You could dedicate 3 people to keeping the cash shop stocked with fresh bullkitten for idiots to buy while the rest of the team works on real stuff. Not to mention the gems->gold conversion allows you to buy almost anything in the game with real money, an offer that many, many people will continue to take.
Oow you can combine the two but those wanting a quality game still have a problem.
Lets for example see at what I like. I like to go into the work and work towards goals. That can be a collection of mini’s, a nice looking skin, a nice color and so on.
Now see what we have mainly because of the cash-shop focus. Mini’s are mainly a gold-grind (what benefits the cash-shop because of gems > gold), or you buy them directly with cash. Then we have all the temporary living story stuff. Why is it temporary? Maybe so they have a new theme to release stuff with in the cash-shop. Of course temporary available because you want to create a feeling of urgency. However me as not-gem-buyer does also feels that urgency but does not act on it by buying gems still I do dislike it. Collecting mini’s is just not fun anymore.
Skins? Same story there. Dyes? Again same story. Would they ever introduce mounts while still focusing on the cash-shop as main resource.. then we would likely see the same.
I just want a game to play it, so have everything in the game. Not have half the stuff locked behind a cash-shop effectively skipping away part of the game-play.
I am very willing to pay for the content but don’t want to pay for a commercial.
Why can’t I go to a in-game barber for 15 silver? Because they sell that stuff in the cash-shop.
Could you combine the two. Yeah when you only put things in the cash-shop that really don’t belong in the game-world. Name-changers, full makeover kits (except if it’s barbapapa online), seks-changers, guild-name changers and maybe (if provided enough (whatever you have most, races or classes) character-slots. But thats about it. As soon as you start selling ingame stuff you do effect the game.
That means that you do lose all those players who want everything ingame.. those looking for a true B2P model.
So you can combine the two but it will not result in the same game and so you will most likely end up with less players.
Nah, just go for expansions and drop the cash-shop. If it is expansion content that means we need to pay for it and then Anet can drop there cash-shop or at lease for 99% putting all those items in the game in stead of in a cash-shop. It would simply be better for the quality of the game. If it’s expansion-like they would need to keep focusing on the cash-shop for money with all the negative side-effects we have seen for over a year now.
Cash-Shop is aiming players willing to pay 15 € or much more per month. Expansion with costs is aiming players willing to spend 50 € each 12 or 24 months.. Depending on the numbers I would rather drop expansion with costs.
For a B2P game that would be every 12 months. The big question here however is how many people you would be able to keep (again, in the long run) with expansion vs with cash-shop.
I don’t know where you get the number of 15 from. But lets say that is correct then in the long run you would want to have 4 times the amount of players. And then I am not even talking about the fact that a more popular product (of a higher quality) will also sell more merchandise and royalties and be more asured of better sales of other games and so on.
For a company your goal is to keep as much people as possible, who pay as much as possible for your product. If you remove or reduce the cash-shop you will lose the money from people willing to pay more money than for expansions only. You can’t raise the price for the expansion to compensate this. This would cause even less people playing the game. As compensation you have to try to attract much more people, who are willing to buy an expansion or the game itself.
If you remove traditional expansions with costs and provide content for free or modules via cash-shop you avoid the problems mentioned above. In this scenario you can keep both factions: the expansion buyers and the cash-shop fans. The company can satisfy both
You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.
Now the question is, how much more people are there that want a higher quality vs those that are fine with being used as cash-cows and for how long. You expect that with the current approach (cash-shop focus) they will keep both players. What is imho a wrong assumption. Plus there are many many many F2P games that are now competing with them, way more then if they would have a true B2P model. That by itself might indicate that with a true B2P model they would have many more players.
Don’t forget that it’s the B2P model that made this franchise.
Nah, just go for expansions and drop the cash-shop. If it is expansion content that means we need to pay for it and then Anet can drop there cash-shop or at lease for 99% putting all those items in the game in stead of in a cash-shop. It would simply be better for the quality of the game. If it’s expansion-like they would need to keep focusing on the cash-shop for money with all the negative side-effects we have seen for over a year now.
Cash-Shop is aiming players willing to pay 15 € or much more per month. Expansion with costs is aiming players willing to spend 50 € each 12 or 24 months.. Depending on the numbers I would rather drop expansion with costs.
For a B2P game that would be every 12 months. The big question here however is how many people you would be able to keep (again, in the long run) with expansion vs with cash-shop.
I don’t know where you get the number of 15 from. But lets say that is correct then in the long run you would want to have 4 times the amount of players. And then I am not even talking about the fact that a more popular product (of a higher quality) will also sell more merchandise and royalties and be more asured of better sales of other games and so on.
Nah, just go for expansions and drop the cash-shop. If it is expansion content that means we need to pay for it and then Anet can drop there cash-shop or at lease for 99% putting all those items in the game in stead of in a cash-shop. It would simply be better for the quality of the game. If it’s expansion-like they would need to keep focusing on the cash-shop for money with all the negative side-effects we have seen for over a year now.
Why would you even think they would consider dropping the Gem Store? No matter which direction the content takes, why would they just close a source of revenue? Some of the comments made on these forums just baffle me at times….. Do some of you just not grasp that beyond providing an entertainment product, this is a BUSINESS?
No company divulges details of their revenue sources and CERTAINLY not details of their expenses unless it is publicly traded (which NCSoft is) and then only to stockholders (obviously, those documents are easily obtainable). Even then they do everything they can to keep competitors from learning too much about their internal finances. There is a level of legal disclosure they must make (to maintain public trade status), but rest assured, no company will EVER divulge more information they are legally obliged to.
I did not say drop it completely but I did say 99%. Yes I 100% understand that. That’s also why I see what they do. That however does not mean I have to agree. From a pure financial viewpoint I can follow this direction (from Ncsoft) completely. However from a personal viewpoint I also want a good quality product and if it was my company (sitting in Anet’s shoes) I would also be more interested in the long term for the company.
Now why throw away the cash-shop. Well that should be why lose the focus. Why put skins, mini’s and so on in the game in stead of in the cash-shop. Why make those items all available directly by playing in stead of by buying (with real money or with ingame gold what results in gold-grind). Simply because it would mean you have a better game. Even if you would only do it with half of the mini’s that mean collectors will need to grind gold (or buy) to get the other half. That means they are not satisfied and might lieve the game. If I am interested in the long term I want them to stay.
So I would sell expansions, at least one a year. Try to get make the franchise itself big. Then you can start selling merchandise (I wonder how much Blizz earns purely on franchise). My company name would get a better name resulting in better sales when I release a new game. Look at Crytec. They did sell many Crysis 2 copies because they sad a name for themselves with Crysis 1. I was also active in the Crysis forums and I did say back then that what they did with Crysis 2 might have resulted in better sales (because of console sales) but they also destroyed there name by basically not giving the PC community what they want. (What many game-companies miss is that PC-games might not sell as good but it’s also the billboard for the console sales) meaning Crysis 3 would sell way less. And that is exactly what happened. Worse even, if Crytec ever releases a new game will people trust them and almost blindly buy it? I don’t think so.
For ArenaNet it’s the same. They made a name for themselves with GW1. Now they should keep providing that same quality to keep that name and keep sales (of expansions) high. The cash-shop focus is bad for the game and bad for the company.
So that might be a reason to not focus on that cash-shop but on expansions. It will be much better for the long run. Something that a company should also look to.
About making those numbers public. Like you say, Ncsoft has stockholders and so needs to publish information to them. I am just not sure what they are obligated to make public to them. On paper you would be one of the owners of the company so you could expect to see all numbers, but in reality thatss a little different. So I don’t know what would be obtainable and what not.
EU and NA players will rush back once there is an expansion. ANET had to see a decline coming without an expansion for so long… right? …. right????
Not so sure.. I mean for sure many will come back after the first expansion but what is stuff stays the same. Gold-grind and so on. Then they might leave and never come back. I did say before. The current cash-shop focus model works great in the short term (lets say 3 years). A cash-shop focus might make less money in those 3 years but would provide more money over the longer period. So for ArenaNet they should be interested in the expansion focus (the real B2P model).
For Ncsoft however things are a little different. Going for long term (that results in shorter returns in the beginning) is a higher risk because if the game does not become and stay popular then they will make less or even lose money. While the short term squeezing out as much as they can (destroying the product in the meanwhile) will have less risk. Now on the long run they might have earned more money if they did it different, however they simply launch the next game and do the same trick again, and again, and again. For Ncsoft ArenaNet is not a company that they want to keep alive. It’s just an source of income that they want to use in a way that it provides the best income with the lowest risk.
With that knowledge it might be smart to search for a game-company that is also it’s own investor / publisher. They might be more interested in keeping the game running in the long term as that is there company.
(edited by Devata.6589)
Two things I took away from this earnings report:
1. Revenue has finally stabilized for GW2 after steady decline. (Couldn’t tell from Q4 2013 report due to Christmas influence.) Q3 2013 = 24.481, Q1 2014 = 25.142. This is great news!
2. Europe is disappearing as a GW2 revenue source. Q3 2013 = 11.369, Q1 2014 = 5.151. Bye bye European servers!
I am not surprised by the 2. point you’ve made. Soon, it will be China only as both EU/NA will stop playing it, unless there’s something expansion-worthy out.
PS Definition of “expansion-worthy”: ‘mostly substantial, permanent content, providing inter alia a couple of new explorable zones, races, classes, plethora of new skills, weapons, in-game as opposed to in-gemstore armours, weapons, skins etc.’
PS2 I say “expansion-worthy”, not “expansion”. I still believe that the “expansion-worthy” stuff could be introduce via the Living Story.
I agree with you Living story can be able to deliver such content. It could even be more exciting compared to an expansion delivering it all at once.
Nah, just go for expansions and drop the cash-shop. If it is expansion content that means we need to pay for it and then Anet can drop there cash-shop or at lease for 99% putting all those items in the game in stead of in a cash-shop. It would simply be better for the quality of the game. If it’s expansion-like they would need to keep focusing on the cash-shop for money with all the negative side-effects we have seen for over a year now.
Ok that explains what I am seeing (as European customer), even a fan site I know of that was from a GW1 community has gone offline and that community is pretty much non-existing anymore. I do wonder why there is that difference. Are European people harder to trick with marketing tricks? (Not meant negative towards US players.. I like you just as well)
If the US people could also buy a little less gems then we maybe get an expansion. Well I would love to see the results between cash-shop and box-sales separated.
(edited by Devata.6589)
Can’t we see how much they earned on box sales and how much on cash-shop sales and also see Arenabet’s running cost to see the total net earnings and to see how much they earn on copy sales (at release mainly) and how much on cash-shop sales.
Indeed.
When a game focuses on a cash-shop to generate it’s money the game will become a marketplace / marketing device, commercial for the company and that hurts the game-value and the quality of the game itself.
F2P / cash-shop games don’t suddenly become better just because they don’t provide B2W (whatever that mean, as getting a cool skin is my win). I rather have the marketing before I buy the game, not as game.
This is just as true for DLC nonsense you see now more and more in single-player games btw.
~
No, financially this wouldn’t hurt ANet in no way, because net is always at the lever to add more stuff into the store, if the sales are subsiding to the point, that the incoming profits get too low and they need something, that lets them make lots of money for a while again.People who bought the removed sets with tickets already had their own personal profits from turnign their tickets for those skins in, because most people did that anyway rather for making just some quick good amount of gold with those weapons, than to keep them anyway, especially with those skins of the sets, that sell very high…
Aslike I have said – it would be the absolute most smartest move of anet, if they would just put the Sclerite Weapon Set for example into the World Boss Loot Chest of the Karka Queen.
Then it would become alot more interestign to go beat the crap out of that world boss, when it would receive out of a sudden a chance to obtain randomly one of thsoe Sclerite Weapon Skins from it, because the weapon set skin of the Sclerite Weapons just simply belongs to the Southsun Cove map.
Its basically just predestine to be a map unique reward there, as the weapon set is clearly alot inspired and designed after the Karkas and the weapons got also introduced with the Patch, that brought the Southsun Cove Map…. so both thigns are obviously linked together and this should stay so definetely.
Before Anet put that weapon ticket sale NPC into Lions Arch, there even was a Ticket Sale NPC in the Southsun Cove Map in the past and if I remember right, that NPC is even STILL THERE (being useless there, as he wants something, that isn’t in the game anymore)I’ve personally enough of this kind of cheese hole game design, where stuff that gets implemented gets shreddered later into pieces, where the result at the end has then no hand and no feet anymore, where useless things remain in the game, looking like being completely forgotten that they were once there…
Part 2 follows:
In fact it would hurt them. The hole reason for removing them is a marketing trick. Create the feeling time pressure. People need to buy it now or lose it out forever. Many people who did buy stuff would have never both it if it was not temporary.
If the cash-shop was basically only a way to get it sooner (would still not be great because it would also be a way to get it more easy so devalue the item form a game-viewpoint. But would indeed be less of a problem) then those people would not buy it in the first place and some other might wait for it to be in the game. So as long as ArenaNet uses the cash-shop to generate most of it’s money you will keep this sort of marketings trick. And even if they move on from one it’s only because the last one did not work (dyes soul-bound is an example of that) or they will likely introduce another.
So yeah they would lose sales with that and as long as they focus on the cash-shop that is a problem. Only solution would be generating money with expansions so they would need less money out of the cash-shop. (they could also try both but then the number of players would drop very fast so that is (luckily) not a real option).
Lastly if you put items in the world they should be put in more specific. Not ’ ow in that map it can drop’ because then people can still not work directly for the item they want. That means the map will just become a place for grinding gold (get drops you don’t want, sell it and use the gold to buy what you want. Exactly the way the game already is. The price of those weapons will also drop. See some of the exotic weapon drops at this moment). But yeah, kill that boss for the change to get that one 1 weapon and kill another mob for another weapon works great.
Not saying that you could also have some map-specific drops. But the most wanted items should be behind specific content (then it really adds game-play), not just in a map.
I am honestly tired of how the black lion weapons are handled. I would never buy black lion keys cause of all the chests I have opened with free keys I have never seen even a weapon ticket fragment drop. Keys are such a huge waste of money that it boggles my mind that anyone even buys them.
When will ANet move away from black lion ticket weapons and just sell us the weapon skins for 500-800 gems each in the Gem store? I might actually start purchasing them instead of just thinking “oh look, more weapon skins locked forever behind RNG”. And no, I am not going to waste $25+ dollars or more on keys just to get one weapon skin (even it would even turn out to be that cheap).
But you are going to waste 5 to 10 dollar on a single skin? How about spending 60 dollar on an expansions and then expecting to find all those sort of skins in the world.
At least you then also have the game-play of acquiring the skins.
Or don’t you buy a game to play it but buy a game so you can then buy skins for the character in that game? Then maybe I have a strange way of how I look at games.
Let’s look at it like this:
Two major games (or one major and one half-baked piece of crap I regret buying in the first place game) and one upcoming release game have announced they are introducing Guild Housing AND Player housing.
1) World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor: They have announced Garrisons on Draenor, where you can build up your own town and have NPC’s craft and run for mats for you, as well as make it a great place for Roleplaying and Guild meetings.
2) Old Republic: While I’m just waiting for this game to eventually die as it is just a vain attempt at creating a new Star Wars Galaxies, they are introducing player housing on all the capital worlds, Nar Shadaa, and now Tattooine. They have also announced guild capital warships and a system where guilds can conquer a system.
3) Wildstar: They have player housing much similar to how WoW is putting out garrisons, your own plot where you can create crafting spots and portals to other regions and dungeons. However, what I see with wildstar’s player housing that is superior to WoW’s is that there is a massive amount of customization on the grand scale of Star Wars Galaxies’ housing.
With these companies taking steps towards player/guild housing, and with the Guild Wars franchise having a history with guild halls, I doubt we will “never” see guild halls. Just give it time, keep speaking up on the matter and we will eventually get something from the Reds.
You forget AA what is important because it’s F2P so will have a similar payment model as GW2 has at this moment. Guild-halls however are Guild-castles that are in WvW like maps where guild can fight each other (not a perfect system I did hear, but still) and houses are in the open world and can be on pvp or non-pvp maps. They also have a lot of customization.
So that’s another big release that will have player and guild-housing.
Next year there will also be EQN. That’s still a year off however it has always been a big player in the MMO scene. It will also have player housing and extremely customizable. (See landmark). That will also be F2P.
So yes, many big mmo’s are now releasing games with player-housing and so taking an innovative leap up on GW2 if GW2 does not act.
I did not ask for both. Just expansions is fine.
I have worked in enough software companies to know that ANet doesn’t have the budget to sit back and develop an expansion while having little to zero cash flow for that period of time.
So all this talk of expansion is really a waste of time…..
They’ve already indicated that they are working on expansion-like content.
Also, it’s not like keeping the gem store stocked with pretty cash fodder is a full-time job. I’m certain they could keep most of their income from gem purchases while still working on an expansion if they didn’t couple each new set of items with a Living Story update.
Like I did say many times before. It’s not so much that I don’t think they can deliver expansion-like content with the LS. Ok, they did promise to do so and they didn’t during S1 but thats not the issue for me.
If games are funded by a cash-shop it simply influences the game. It’s a company and they have to earn money. When they use a cash-shop that means they have to try to get you to buy gems. So basically you play in a big commercial.
Mini’s are not in the game as drops behind specific content but in the cash-shop, so are many skins and everything is a gold-grind. No barber in the game where you can cut your hair for a few silver but haircut skins in the cash-shop that in ingame gold cost lots of gold. Temporary events, rewards and cash-shop items that are supposed to give you a feeling of (do / get it now or lose out on it forever).
It’s all those sorts of things that are so bad. It doesn’t matter how good a game is, a cash-shop will harm them all.
Also don’t forget that the real B2P model is what made GW2 because it;s what made GW1. It’s basically the reason for GW1’s existent and it’s success. Now GW2 has become some general cash-shop game. So even if they would deliver all the expansion-like content with the LS I would still not be happy because of that influence the cash-shop focus will have and keep on the game.
I want expansions because I want that GW2 is financed by it’s expansions, not by the cash-shop. The game was promoted as a B2P game after-all. Not a cash-shop game that you had to buy first.
(edited by Devata.6589)
- To generate outrage posts like this one…..
- TO GENERATE OUTRAGE POSTS LIKE THIS ONE…..
- …so “panic” sets in within the “general” playerbase to obtain them NOW!!!!
- Increasing BL key sales (and these were also on sale recently…..go figure).
Brilliant marketing…. You can call it sleazy if you want, but one of their only revenue source to keep the game running is RL $ Gem sales and I for one would rather see them obtain that revenue from completionist collectors and dress-up addicts than me. (sorry if the truth huts).
The problem is that (at this point) the gem-store is there main revenue source to keep the game running.
And they won’t get me to buy gems this way. But it does hurt my preferred game-play.
They throw away a fundamental part of a RPG: itemization. It seems to me they don’t care about item rarity, or whatever systems it’s tied with.
Well they monetize it and by doing so effectively removing it from the game-play mechanic.
One could say that temporary items are even more rare. On the other hand, specific skins behind specific hard content can also be very rare. Difference is that if a player wants to go for that rare item he skill can.. and not just by grinding gold but by working directly for that item by doing the content that (can) reward that item.
Now it’s ‘not available any-more’ or grind gold. The excuse is then ‘you can earn gold in many ways so you can play the way you want’. However you can not work directly for the item and the value of the item is lower from a personal viewpoint (getting it as a reward for doing that content adds value). Also if you go for an item and there are multiple ways to earn the money it’s likely you would at least take the route that go’s the fasted. So the ’ play the way you want excuse’ is really that, an excuse.
I did not ask for both. Just expansions is fine.
I have worked in enough software companies to know that ANet doesn’t have the budget to sit back and develop an expansion while having little to zero cash flow for that period of time.
So all this talk of expansion is really a waste of time…..
Tell that to the last software project I worked on, which went over budget by $5 million.
As long as eventual the profit is enough to support future development (in case of GW2 that should be expansions) and still has enough profit left to really make money (still the core business of a business).
Basically shared my opinions in here. Pretty much I don’t like it.
It’s basically a way to get you to buy BL keys instead of buying the skins directly. Players were given the opportunity to get the skins for a very long time. Sclerites dated from the other Southsun Cove event series from last year after all. It’s like any business. You don’t keep a stock of dated merchandise forever, you need to continually revamp your merchandise to keep people buying stuff.
Granted, this stuff is virtual but the concept holds the same
No it doesn’t because the reason you don’t keep a stock of dated merchandise is because it’s not useful anymore (outdated) and because the room cost money and so can better be used for other stuff that does sell.
Both are not true for this.
It’s more the ACTION!!! Only now!!! sort of stuff where you compare this with.
Only problem is that people want to play a game, not a commercial.
Do those ACTIONS just when selling expansions.
People keep forgetting that analogies to real world examples breaks apart because we’re dealing with 1s and 0s. There is no reason to do this except for sales.
They will be back I’m sure.
Until there’s official word, I’ll just go on ranting though.
Biggest problem here is that I signed up for a B2P game.. You know a game that focuses on selling expansions in stead of focusing on the cash-shop. All those items in the cash-shop should be in the game providing game-play. And then we pay for it by buying expansions.
I’m a bit less bothered by the cash shop, servers and people do cost money and I’m sure the box-sale-profit was used up long ago. The cash shop is there to help provide a source of money for the running costs. The lack of expansion however does lean toward a situation where the cash shop becomes the only source of revenue meaning that we start seeing bad-sales-tactics like this.
I’ve never really been the one to call for expansions, but if this is the sort of things ANet needs to do to make some extra cash, I’d rather they fork over a expansion every now and then and stop with sales gimmicks in the cash-shop.i guess i’m not going to be able to get a skin before they disappear forever. this is stupid and i’m legitimately upset
oh well I guess no one else seems to like sclerite so my opinion does not matter
Actually I like them too, and I’m unhappy about not being able to get them aswell.
2. Reduce prices. This is where Steam’s strategy has been so successful. People like to feel that they are getting a good deal. Their weekly sales result in massive take-up, yet previous studies have shown that the vast majority of gamers do not actually complete the games they buy. But they don’t mind, because they feel they “got a bargain”.
Overall useful advise, but I’ll point out the issue with reducing prices, that you still have to play the lotto to get the tickets. Reducing ticket costs doesn’t help when the price of getting those tickets is completely random.
Lets not forget that most (non-mmo) gaming company’s work like that, so why would they have to have run out of money? Maybe they would not have the bigger profit many MMO’s get vs non-MMO’s but good sales should provide enough money for development of the expansion + profit. That is how all those non-MMO’s work. However indeed they would likely not have much left by now. That’s why I expect a real B2P game to release an expansion at least every year to maximum 1,5 year. That’s also the main reason I want expansion so they can focus on expansions for income in stead of the cash-shop. Even if they would give us the expansion-like content ‘for free’ it would mean they where making money mainly with the cash-shop resulting in this sort of things.
99% off all items in the cash-hop belong in the game. It’s not ‘ok’ because it are just skins. Working for skins in the game is a huge part of the game-play for many people. By putting it in the cash-shop they effectively take that game-play out of the game or at least turn it all into a gold-grind.
Then people would have a lot of bruises because of all the invisible walls they bumped into.
Devata, I’m willing to bet you’re still getting negative feedback but a lot of it may end up directed at computer screens. There’s only so much arguing most normal people can manage.
People don’t have to grind gold for gems but that’s their choice. Good for them if that’s what they want to do. If its the only choice they have then they have to wear it.
There should be more skins available throughout the game. Some as drops for a chance at “prestige” skins , and maybe even some crafted from particular recipes. Not absurd crafting either but skins that can crafted at a variety of levels.
In fact lately many complains on the forum I see say the same and no haven’t gotten a lot of negative feedback, mostly agreeing feedback. Also see the comments in this thread.
No people don’t so much choose to grind it, then people would not complain so much about it. Because the items are not in the game (dropped by a mob or a boss or a dungeon or as quest / event/ hearth reward) in many cases it’s the only way to get that item (or buy with cash of course). So if they like it they will have to grind gold to be able to get it. The idea is they should play the game to get it (that’s why it’s a game), not grind gold to be able to buy it. (you know like a job)
I did not ask for both. Just expansions is fine.
I have worked in enough software companies to know that ANet doesn’t have the budget to sit back and develop an expansion while having little to zero cash flow for that period of time.
So all this talk of expansion is really a waste of time…..
First of all they will get some money from the cash-shop even without this heavy focus, people will buy name-changers, they will buy char slots. Box sales will also continue after initial bulk and there is merchandise to make some money off.
However they would mainly run on part of the profit they earned on initial release. Development cost for the first expansion would be lower because it would only take a year / year and a half and they are mainly building upon what they already have,
That should easily be doable as that is how most non-mmo game-companies earn the money. You invest, you earn, part of your earning you invest again and so on.
I am complaining about the cash-shop focus for over a year now. I got my worries when they said that if they did it right they would not need expansions. As that simply means ‘our business model is focusing on the cash-shop’. By then the first signs where already noticeable.
The game got released with mini’s in the cash-shop in stead of in the game but except for that all seemed fine. Then we did get temporary items with Halloween en Wintersday but heey that retuns next year.. right? We also got dyes based on the season (winter, summer) but heey that also returns next year? Spring mini’s. Well there is another spring next year.
So while not the best (especially having all mini’s in he cash-shop in stead of in the game and maybe those few spring seasonal in the cash-shop) it all seemed acceptable. But pretty much the moment they announced the LS focus (= cash-shop focus) we did see negative stuff increase and much of the annual stuff did not come back (well not in a reasonable way to obtain). Things became even more of a gold-grind but heey you can also buy gold with gems.
When I started my complains and worries about this (over a year ago) I did get a lot of negative feedback. I should not complain because at least the cash-shop was not P2W (with that they mean P2Kill) and besides you could grind gold to buy gems anyway (that’s in fact one of the ways the cash-shop focus does influence the game, turning everything into a gold-grind.)
I said I preferred them using expansions. Then I did hear that Anet would be able to put in expansion-like content with the LS and I was just shallow-minded for thinking they could not. Well first of all I do think they can do that (alto they didn’t in LS S1, while they said they would) but the problem for me was and is that if they make money with the cash-shop it influences the game in one way (every decision is also based on the questions, how do we get people to buy gems) while if they generate most money with expansion it influences the game in another way. And I think the expansion-like influence is much better for the quality of the game itself.
For one there was no need for all the negatives people are talking about in this forum. Those skins or the tickets could simply be in the game itself and they could simply return every year making it less of a (time-limited) gold-grind.
Anyway, I am happy to see that now more people seem to notice the negative influence of the cash-shop. Hopefully this also triggers people to ask for expansions, stop buying gems and are willing to spend money for those expansions. (buying a CE is a good sign if Anet would make the turn back to a real B2P model).
In the end it’s the money that talks. Buying gems is what helped to get GW2 is the state it is now, and imho that’s not a good state.
This game will never get an expansion because that is not the model the game was originally designed in regards of the cash flow to survive. Anybody would be a fool to think it will…But people will still ask for it everyday on the forums because they got nothing else to say…
At this moment it’s indeed not how there model works but it it’s not something that is in the core of the game. It can easely be switched.
At this moment it’s indeed not how there model works but it it’s not something that is in the core of the game. It can easily be switched.
Maybe I am a fool for asking but it’s simply the best for the game.
Because no matter how much talent ANet devs have, it is impossible for them to create living story bi-weekly contents and also work on an expansion on the side. Look at the the release in China and how they don’t even have enough people to reply to a support ticket.
That said, a bi-weekly $10 gem store skin would bring them a lot more cash than spending six months on an expansion to end up selling it for $20-$30. Yes, not everyone spends money on the gem store for the living story items but it has kept the game alive until now. Also you should know that not everyone will pay for an expansion if they ever develop one (which they won’t)….
Some mathematical facts:
Let’s say ANet has 300 devs and approximately $100k salary per each dev. That is $30 million a year just on salary and not even including NCSOFT’s share.
A 6 months development cost on an expansion costs ~$15 million to cover the devs rent and gas money. and lets say they sell the expansion for $30. That means they have to sell ($15 million/$30) = 500,000 copies to cover the costs. Do you really think 500,000 players will actually buy the expansion? I doubt even 500,000 players actually play this game every day….
All that said it is still the best MMO in the market today and their business strategy is working great for them as long as gem store doesn’t go pay to win. But just don’t expect an expansion.
Edit: space
I did not ask for both. Just expansions is fine.
The bi-weekly updates are there also to promote the cash-shop. That need is gone with a real B2P model.The cash-shop does it’s work for them in the short run but does not do the game any good. You say it keeps the game alive but not in good heath. And your calculations are a little strange to say the least.
Maybe the short run is all they are after….. Or maybe there are other big projects for them on the horizon (outside GW2).
Especially for NCSoft that might be the case indeed.
This game will never get an expansion because that is not the model the game was originally designed in regards of the cash flow to survive. Anybody would be a fool to think it will…But people will still ask for it everyday on the forums because they got nothing else to say…
At this moment it’s indeed not how there model works but it it’s not something that is in the core of the game. It can easely be switched.
At this moment it’s indeed not how there model works but it it’s not something that is in the core of the game. It can easily be switched.
Maybe I am a fool for asking but it’s simply the best for the game.
Because no matter how much talent ANet devs have, it is impossible for them to create living story bi-weekly contents and also work on an expansion on the side. Look at the the release in China and how they don’t even have enough people to reply to a support ticket.
That said, a bi-weekly $10 gem store skin would bring them a lot more cash than spending six months on an expansion to end up selling it for $20-$30. Yes, not everyone spends money on the gem store for the living story items but it has kept the game alive until now. Also you should know that not everyone will pay for an expansion if they ever develop one (which they won’t)….
Some mathematical facts:
Let’s say ANet has 300 devs and approximately $100k salary per each dev. That is $30 million a year just on salary and not even including NCSOFT’s share.
A 6 months development cost on an expansion costs ~$15 million to cover the devs rent and gas money. and lets say they sell the expansion for $30. That means they have to sell ($15 million/$30) = 500,000 copies to cover the costs. Do you really think 500,000 players will actually buy the expansion? I doubt even 500,000 players actually play this game every day….
All that said it is still the best MMO in the market today and their business strategy is working great for them as long as gem store doesn’t go pay to win. But just don’t expect an expansion.
Edit: space
I did not ask for both. Just expansions is fine.
The bi-weekly updates are there also to promote the cash-shop. That need is gone with a real B2P model.
The cash-shop does it’s work for them in the short run but does not do the game any good. You say it keeps the game alive but not in good heath. And your calculations are a little strange to say the least.
(edited by Devata.6589)
This game will never get an expansion because that is not the model the game was originally designed in regards of the cash flow to survive. Anybody would be a fool to think it will…But people will still ask for it everyday on the forums because they got nothing else to say…
At this moment it’s indeed not how there model works but it it’s not something that is in the core of the game. It can easely be switched.
At this moment it’s indeed not how there model works but it it’s not something that is in the core of the game. It can easily be switched.
Maybe I am a fool for asking but it’s simply the best for the game.
I guess that’s what you get from a B2P game, and it seems they’re working towards this very same action for several years to come.
It should be what you get from a F2P or cash-shop game. It should not be what you get from a B2P game. However in the current state GW2 is a cash-shop game, not a B2P game. Yeah you still have to buy it but there payment model is about making money mainly with the cash-shop.
The new content is in the cash shop of course. duh. Buy to play model does not provide content updates…..
Festivals and zerg fights are all you’re getting.
It should provide expansions. I am not expecting much for free. I do expect at least one content-patch in-between the expansions and some bug-fixes and stuff but overall I do expect to be paying for most of the content. However I do then also expect everything to be in the game, not in a cash-shop.
The fun of collecting mini’s in the world (my famous / infamous mini example) is completely gone. Same for skins, dyes and so on. Collecting dyes in the world could be a game-play of it’s own. The best dyes should be behind the hardest mobs / bosses / dungeons. Not behind a cash-shop or behind a high gold-number on the TP.