Guild Wars 2

Ohoni.6057:

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

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

IndigoSundown.5419:

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

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

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

So why is that the case?

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

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

@IndigoSundown:

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

See? Easy word game to play.

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

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

Aedelric.1287:

juno.1840:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ohoni.6057:

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

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

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

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

Brother Grimm.5176:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vol.7601:

Inflation, demand, yadadada

Also supply right? (yadayada part maybe?)

It’s possible that fewer gems are entering the system in gem-to-gold conversion.

rincewind.9528:

Stark.1350:

I’m not sure what the problem is with people that have one.

How it is currently:
If you show up during the two weeks, you can play it. If you don’t show up during the two weeks, you will never see the content again and will never get to experience it. There is nothing you can do.

What it is going to:
If you show up during the two weeks, you can play it. If you don’t show up during the two weeks, you can still play it by choosing whether not to spend 200 gems. Now you have the option of doing something. (And keep in mind gems can be bought with in game gold and you never have to pay a dime of real life money.)

Someone explain to me the problem?

The problem is that juno is obsessed about making all the content paid.

I can’t figure why.

lol, because I’m secretly plying for an expansion pack. Charging for content is the first step on that road.

Once ANet charges for content then they have to deliver something worthy of buying it in the first place. I think many players would agree that little in LS Season 1 was worthy of purchase.

So in a round about way, I’m lobbying to make the game better by channeling revenue towards content instead of cosmetic fluff.

Anyway, that is my motivation — pure and simple.

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

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

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

I don’t have an issue paying for content (if the content is good). What is out of wack is the business reasoning behind it. Either the content is free or it is not free. Instead we have a weird scenario where it’s free only if you show up when they release it.

There is little justification why showing up 2 weeks late would incur some type of non-recoverable expense on ANet’s side that would require revenue.

That being said, I believe it’s a baby-step towards the future utopia of paying for all content.

lordkrall.7241:

juno.1840:

You are not paying a subscription — it’s not even a pretend subscription. You are buying content. If that content comes out every two weeks then you buy it every two weeks. Again this is only if you want to buy it.

P2P is a subscription model where you pay X-dollars every month regardless of what the game developers release. If they release nothing you still pay X-dollars.

Seriously, google is your friend. Do a search on P2P and B2P to educate yourself a bit.

Paying for episodes is a B2P model (although much more granular than the expansion pack method).

But if I want access to all content, I will basically be forced (with your system) to pay ever second week in order to access that content. How is that any different from having a subscription that I pay in order to access content?

I already explained how it’s different. Now it’s your turn to research P2P and B2P — the difference should become clear after you read up on it a bit.

Blaeys.3102:

Zylonite.5913:

Honestly what did you guys really expect?

I am sorry to tell you, but the end of your free ride in the land of Tyria is finally here.

How so?

You could argue that paying for expired content is a baby-step towards paying for all new content. I think it’s a logical conclusion and I would actually welcome it.

This game needs content driven revenue, not cosmetic/consumable driven revenue (i.e. game content over cash-shop cosmetic fluff). That directs the developer’s back towards the crux of the game.

lordkrall.7241:

juno.1840:

Except that you would not pay if there was no new content — so it’s still a B2P. In addition you would only buy it if you want to play it (crazy, I know).

So if I would want to play new content, I would basically have to pay a subscription in order to experience it.
How does that not make it P2P?

You are not paying a subscription — it’s not even a pretend subscription. You are buying content. If that content comes out every two weeks then you buy it every two weeks. Again this is only if you want to buy it.

P2P is a subscription model where you pay X-dollars every month regardless of what the game developers release. If they release nothing you still pay X-dollars. That’s why it’s called P2P — if you don’t pay, you don’t play.

Paying for episodes is a B2P model (although much more granular than the expansion pack method). If you don’t buy the episode you can still play the game (just not the episode). That’s B2P.

Seriously, google is your friend. Do a search on P2P and B2P to educate yourself a bit.

EDIT: clarified some points

lordkrall.7241:

juno.1840:

Now you’d be delivering content that has value (at least 200 gems of value). You’d be funded by content and not cash shop trash. In short, it’s the B2P model (not the F2P with cash shop).

No, it would be a P2P model in that case, since you would basically be forced to pay in order to get access to new content EVERY SECOND WEEK.

Except that you would not pay if there was no new content — so it’s still a B2P. In addition you would only buy it if you want to play it (crazy, I know).

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

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

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

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

I see nothing but advantages to charging for Living Story.

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

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

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

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

ANet should charge for the content period — not just for players that missed it. There’s no business argument to charge only players that failed to log in.

So in short I feel that each episode should cost 200 gems. If you want it, you buy it.

This puts the revenue stream inline with content (and not cash shop junk). If an episode didn’t sell it was because the content was sub-par — which then encourages better content.

It would be the B2P model everyone signed up for at launch — not the F2P cash-shop model we have now.

So totally confused on the 200 gems to buy old episodes. This one doesn’t make sense to me.

Either a Living Story episode is worth 200 gems, or it isn’t. I hope it is — so why not just change the business model so ALL Season 2 Episodes cost 200 gems each!

Now you’d be delivering content that has value (at least 200 gems of value). You’d be funded by content and not cash shop trash. In short, it’s the B2P model (not the F2P with cash shop).

In the long run that preserves the longevity of the game by putting investment into content and therefore content into the game.

Allisa Wonderland.8192:

Additional profession spaces per character? The first thing that came to my mind was, “new crafting professions coming soon.”

Fishing?

That would actually require creating some new content. If it actually did occur, it would probably be a profession only available through the gem store.

Obtena.7952:

I like that the people asking the question missing the point of what a Legendary weapon is all about …

What a Legendary is all about is different for every player — no one person can dictate that meaning for all players. I’m not surprised you feel differently though.

laokoko.7403:

well there is no perfect solution to make everyone happy. The reality is “some people” actually like megaserver, at the same time there are people hating it.

Anet probably care about making new players continue playing more than any others, so they dont’ want to give the impression on dead server.

Actually there is… make a good game.

I haven’t played in over two months. The lack of something new keeps me from spending time in Tyra.

I’ve also voiced my displeasure buy not dropping any funds into the gem shop. That’s not the ‘content’ I wish to encourage.

Devata.6589:

Andred.1087:

Zylonite.5913:

Devata.6589:

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 finalized 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.

+1

This is exactly how I feel.

Axialbloom.8109:

Bread.7516:

juno.1840:

Using lame RL “entitlement” arguments just shows your lack of understanding of the situation….I’m not stating that everyone deserves or is entitled to a precursor. What I’m stating is the entitlement is not unexpected as Players are also Customers and they purchased a game which contains such items.

I understand the situation very well and how it developed, but understanding it does not mean I have to be nice about it nor do I have to be empathetic. It was a jab at the situation which is not uncommon, and the analogy fits since GW2 has a capitalist-like economy by design. Some people don’t like it – oh well.

I will act empathetic if it is to my benefit, otherwise I do with it as I please.

If you only ‘act empathetic’ when it is to your benefit, then you are never empathetic.

+1

A lack of empathy is a major problem we have in the US. I’m glad this is a game forum where it’s relatively harmless to be an kitten hat.

I’m pretty clear on it — but you still used the term “free” so I think you are not so clear. Nothing in GW2 comes “for free” as everyone playing as spent at least the box price.

I’m not stating that everyone deserves or is entitled to a precursor. What I’m stating is the entitlement is not unexpected as Players are also Customers and they purchased a game which contains such items.

If you bought something from the cash shop, then you received what you bought. You should not feel entitled for anything beyond that as it was a pretty clear sale. The original box however should grant you access to everything in game that is not a cash-shop item — and it does!

So in short, don’t belittle your fellow players with some lame “entitlement” rant which is a stretch at best. I’m sure you can find another way to mock people who disagree with you… I’ve read your other forum posts.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Bread.7516:

So people are now complaining to anet why they cant afford a luxury item.

Why not complain to your government why you can’t afford to buy a helicopter?

When it comes to “Entitlement”, anything can turn into a legitimate complaint.

Except when you buy a game there is some legitimate entitlement to actually experience the entire game. MMOs break that mold a bit, but it’s not entirely unexpected.

Real cash has traded hands, and although the EULA gives no guarantees of any sort, it should not be surprising that Customers perceive a diminished sense of fairness when aspects of the game are out of reach.

Using lame RL “entitlement” arguments just shows your lack of understanding of the situation. But if it makes you happy tossing out catchy slogans and sharp comments, knock yourself out — don’t expect a pat on the back tho.

Well said Indigo.

Dafomen.7892:

If a company has to completely neglect its existing customers because its reaching for a new market with new customers, I doubt that company is capable to handle that at all.

+1. I was trying to say this, but u did a better job. Players shouldn’t expect to be put on hold just because the devs are trying to tap a completely unrelated market. China should not effect us in NA at all, but it is.

Aidan Savage.2078:

Legendaries are not endgame. Exotic with a progessive upgrade to Ascended is endgame. Obtaining Fractal PR 50 is endgame. Legendaries? That’s the “I’m so kittening bored now that I have everything I have to waste my money on SOMETHING” content.

Legendaries are very much endgame. Maybe you don’t play that endgame, but it’s still there.

lordkrall.7241:

juno.1840:

Not sure why the payers outside of china have to sit on our hands while china ramps up. I would have expected a new revenue stream to have additional staff to support it.

So you suggest that they hire a bunch of staff with a revenue stream that they don’t actually have until they have launched it, to help launching it?

Yes, that’s how it works. You start with investment. Otherwise GW2 would never been born.

In this case they risk losing NA/EU customers by diverting resources. It sends a bad message to the player base.

Aidan Savage.2078:

Ramiel.4931:

Up until ANet intervenes. And they most likely will in this case. It’s bad for their image when new players start playing and see that they have to get a gorrillion gold in order to get a precursor.

If new players are that adamant about getting a legendary, their priorities are clearly FUBARed so badly even a blind man could tell. It’s just fine for Anet’s image when people see that legendaries, for the benefit of their skin and stats, you will have to pay the price. It’s bad enough when I see someone in a fractal party with multiple legendaries, and they’re the first ones to die, first ones to complain, and ultimately leave the party. I’m under the immediate assumption that this player got hold of mommy and daddy’s credit card and bought a massive amount of gems and them sank them into conversion to buy the legendaries. I dont want to see some scrub player running around with a top-tier eye-candy item simply because it was handed out.

Disagree aidan. While new players should not expect to get a legendary anytime soon, they will glance at end game items. Seeing the pinnacle so far out of grasp wont generate any good feelings. They can’t even get an RNG lottery chance for 80 lvls.

Not sure why the payers outside of china have to sit on our hands while china ramps up. I would have expected a new revenue stream to have additional staff to support it.

^^ this ^^

China will be the new cash shop cow now. I’m not holding my breath for anything substantial at this point.

I posted a similar inflation topic weeks ago after a steady 30% increase in precursor prices. The responses from some in the community were hardly amusing. You’ll get more satisfaction and meaningful conversation talking with your children. I commend you attempt though.

My current hypothesis is fewer people playing so less supply. You don’t need much of a demand as the volumes are so low… just a guess.

The personal story is lacking. I didn’t even finish it for a year. That’s how unsatisfying the experience and rewards are.

Never had that issue on GW1.

The LS is designed to facilitate the cash shop business model. It was introduced at that moment where Anet shifted from B2P to cash shop models. As was stated earlier, a pure B2P would have had an expansion by now. The LS is for the cash shop as it promotes those behaviors and attempts to maximize daily logins.

I recall Colin stating “we don’t need to do expansions… we can deliver content every two weeks for free!” when LS was first rolled out to the player base. That’s a cash shop model. The game has suffered because of it imho. I don’t even log in right now — but I check the forums once a week hoping for something exciting for GW2’s future.

Obtena.7952:

Leablo.2651:

Obtena.7952:

If what you say is true, the game wouldn’t exist. Zero ROI projects aren’t really popular with investors and employees can’t buy groceries with promises and good will.

I missed the part where he claimed that Anet was a non-profit.

The part where he implies the only funding the game needed was from box sales.

I said it was “marketed” the way I described. I didn’t claim it was the reality of the situation. We believe that gem store revenue is a major component of total revenue. Otherwise the LS content would not be free.

However GW2 was originally marketed as “buy once, play forever” just like GW1. Defend the cash shop all you want, but it’s not good for the longevity of the game.

Behellagh.1468:

The box price was never suppose to fund the game like GW1. The Gem Store was always the plan on how to pay the bills quarter to quarter. The box price paid for the 5 years of development because the $10 million a year for the last couple of years of development from GW1 wouldn’t pay for a 250-300 player dev team.

In your mind maybe, but it was marketed as I have described it.

Behellagh.1468:

TPMN.1483:

There is also currently a bug with the mystic forge .. 4 rare 80s can result in a lvl76 exotic.
It has been suggested that the usual forgers are holding off putting stuff in the toilet until it’s been fixed.

This will be constraining demand more than usual.

That’s not a bug. You did get an exotic from 4 rares so it was a valid promotion.

What planet are you on? It has not worked that way before… ever. Why would u call this new “behavior” not a bug?

DeWolfe.2174:

See, maybe it just comes from being older but, I know how to not support the Lottery dyes. I don’t purchase gems, with cash or gold, to buy RNG dyes from the gems store . I do not buy gems, to convert to gold, to buy RNG dyes off the Trading Post. I do not buy RNG dyes at all.

If someone really wanted change, then they’d stop supporting it entirely. No matter how snazzy a dye maybe, it’s easy to do without.

Players need to speak with their wallets. I have never purchased gems, and will not do it on the future unless in comes with new content. Even ANet said that the game would not require a cash shop back before beta when cash shop first came up.

Remember the box price is supposed to fund this game (like GW1). That seems to have been abandoned tho. It’s like ANet saw how much cash was coming in via gems and revised the business model.

TPMN.1483:

There is also currently a bug with the mystic forge .. 4 rare 80s can result in a lvl76 exotic.
It has been suggested that the usual forgers are holding off putting stuff in the toilet until it’s been fixed.

This will be constraining demand more than usual.

I think that will contribute to ongoing prices. However prices shot up 30% more than a month before that bug was introduced.

I suspected there are multiple factors including speculation and reduced supply from more than one cause (i.e. the bug, reduced active player population, and maybe even a ninja tweak to drops, who knows…).

If the exact dyes were sold for gems, then you’d have a feedback effect between the gem conversion and the trading post. Dyes on the TP could only get as high as the equivalent price in gems (minus the buy/sell hysteresis margin for gem exchange).

So if deflation were to occur, this would be accompanied by a corresponding drop in gem prices… would it not?

If yes, then I’m not sure Anet would “allow” it.

So at what point would you call it inflation?

If never then are you saying there is no inflation in GW2?

Smooth Penguin.5294:

juno.1840:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

ValeN.3129:

juno.1840:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

juno.1840:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

I got a Rodgort’s Flame as a drop over the weekend, and the price didn’t go up by 200 Gold. Where’s the inflation for my item???

Technically Rodgort’s is also up 30% which is same percentage as with Legend and Dusk. Your problem is it’s 30% on 60g.

But it’s not 800+ Gold like the others. That’s not fair.

This is a discussion of inflation, not fairness — sorry u didn’t win the RNG lottery.

What an inconvenient truth to throw around. Guess he should see it coming.

Actually, the discussion was of the OP’s misunderstanding of the difference between what is Inflation, and what is Speculation.

My original post is a question — not a statement of misunderstanding.

I’ll put your answer in the “speculation” column as opposed to another reason. Thanks for participating.

Actually, your original question was based on your misunderstanding between what is Inflation, and the true cause of the price increase, which was Speculation.

Still sticking with your speculation hypothesis (which is all it was even tho u stated it as “fact”)?

Im Mudbone.1437:

arjeidi.2690:

Im Mudbone.1437:

smekras.8203:

wouldn’t that make it B2P actually?

Buying means that SOMEONE PAYED for it, so, any way you look at it, it’s still P2P.

Pay-to-play has traditionally (always?) meant to imply a subscription model. You continue to pay to continue to play. B2P simply means you buy the game to play it. Yes, you do pay money in both scenarios but there is a difference between a one-off exchange of money/goods and a subscription model.

Then, shouldn’t P2P games be called C2P2P.

Making up terms is not useful. F2P, B2P, and P2P are not ambiguous. GW2 is solidly B2P. Unfortunately they haven’t provided any more content to buy. In addition, the LS content is time limited so new players will never see it. It’s like it never existed. So new players don’t get any added value to their purchase.

Xenon.4537:

I would just like to see my gem purchase money being put to better use than temporary living story stuff. I want a lot more seriously substantial content that is permanent. New zones, dungeons, etc. Also, more fixing things that are currently in the game but broken or poor quality. Detha still bugs out in AC. If I click Blink over part of the UI it sends me nowhere. Participating in Karka Queen, Teq, or Triple Wurm is insanely inconvenient.

A great example of how massively disappointing a patch can be is last years Halloween. Nothing new except for a 5 minute story instance that introduced an irrelevant character who turned out to do absolutely nothing in the end. And they actually REMOVED my favorite bit of the previous (first) Halloween: Reaper’s Rumble. Lame Lame Lame! I don’t want to spend a bunch of money in the gem store and then get patches like that.

And that’s why you shouldn’t buy gems until ANet provides content you want. The most powerful feedback comes from how players spend their money.

There’s a reason for 40+ armor skins being sold over time in the gem store.

eisberg.2379:

Zardul.3952:

do a bit of research and you can see the player drop since launch.. its steady and falling.

id put money on that its because of the lack of support. and ingame Responses from staff.

Last quarter their sales revenue for this game raised by 37% compared to last quarter, over through out last year they have been staying pretty steady in revenues, only 29% less in sales in 2013 than they did in 2012 (the year they sold the game). We have no numbers about the population of the game, but the sales revenue does paint a picture of having a pretty steady population.

29% is a rather large drop from one year to the next. Maybe I’m reading your post wrong?

Also I think a lot of their new revenue is from new players. GW2 is fun for about 6 months then the game is tapped. There’s very little new content right now. You can point to all the living story but that’s gone now. A couple hours of new content every two weeks isn’t going to keep your old players around.

Looks very good —thx for sharing!

Smooth Penguin.5294:

ValeN.3129:

juno.1840:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

juno.1840:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

I got a Rodgort’s Flame as a drop over the weekend, and the price didn’t go up by 200 Gold. Where’s the inflation for my item???

Technically Rodgort’s is also up 30% which is same percentage as with Legend and Dusk. Your problem is it’s 30% on 60g.

But it’s not 800+ Gold like the others. That’s not fair.

This is a discussion of inflation, not fairness — sorry u didn’t win the RNG lottery.

What an inconvenient truth to throw around. Guess he should see it coming.

Actually, the discussion was of the OP’s misunderstanding of the difference between what is Inflation, and what is Speculation.

My original post is a question — not a statement of misunderstanding.

I’ll put your answer in the “speculation” column as opposed to another reason. Thanks for participating.