Curse

Ec]-[oMaN · Dec 19, 2009, 04:32 PM // 16:32

Waits for GW2 and full details to be looked over. When those surface we'll really know what direction Anet/NcSoft have moved towards

I guarantee that GW2 will have a 300%+ increase in the amount of things that can be purchased in a micro transaction method. What it will come down to once again is; are any game play features being left out? will it all be strictly cosmetic? and the quality of cosmetics built into the game already and what is being offered for money, comparative?

DreamWind · Dec 19, 2009, 04:36 PM // 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

A thought I've posted on Ravious' blog:

It’s actually funny that people should complain about these things in GW: Anet do it because they know that they can afford it financially, as people will pay more than the required development time, while they can’t spend the same resources on free content without jeopardizing their future plans. But the extra money benefits Anet which will do updates that will benefit those that paid … and those that didn’t (like me!). So it’s almost a win-win (buyer gets his art/cosmetic, non-buyer gets something from free updates in the future), if it weren’t for potentially tempting Anet into moving its games into the “cosmetic” direction, rather than core gameplay. But I believe that gameplay is one of their core values and they’ll never, ever relinquish that!

Hey Fril. What you posted is fair enough, but I don't agree with it.

Let us think about the situation of the person who partially enjoyed the game because trash like microtransactions didn't exist in it. It is similar to me enjoying a magazine because it isn't full of ads. Yes I can skip over the ads, but it still annoys the crap out of me. What about the situation where this same person hasn't enjoyed a single update in years and sees no benefit of said profits? What is this person supposed to think? I don't agree with microtransactions and I don't see the benefit of them for anybody but Anet.

I'd also like to address the people saying "Anet has to make money" again. Don't you think they thought of this when they came up with the no monthly fees model?!? Microtransactions isn't a way to make money. Microtransactions is a way to SUCK more money out of the community at the expense of game integrity.

upier · Dec 19, 2009, 04:38 PM // 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

It is funny that people are ok with the expensive WoW/Aion monthly subscriptions but not ok with the cheaper and optional mini offers in their online store.

I doubt these are the same people.
My guess is that the people who are really anti micro's are mostly the people who wouldn't go near a subscription based game.

Daesu · Dec 19, 2009, 04:39 PM // 16:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I'd also like to address the people saying "Anet has to make money" again. Don't you think they thought of this when they came up with the no monthly fees model?!?

Sure they have. And the solution was micro transactions.

Or did you really think their solution was to strip naked and beg for money on the streets?

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

I doubt these are the same people.
My guess is that the people who are really anti micro's are mostly the people who wouldn't go near a subscription based game.

Then these people are not being realistic (i.e. they probably decided to be selfish and simply shut down their brains) and did not think through how a company can survive for 3+ years between releases, by giving everything away for free.

Kaleban · Dec 19, 2009, 04:48 PM // 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

It is still CHEAPER for a game be funded by lots of optional mini fluffy features that you can buy in the store, than having to pay a subscription.

Not really. A $15 a month subscription at WoW entitles you to constant updates, a support team that usually responds within an hour, constant and vigilant class balancing, new frills that are free (Mohawk grenade lawl) and more. If WoW charged $9.99 for every single thing that they offer, as GW does, no one would be playing WoW because no one could afford it, realistically speaking.

Quote:

It is funny that people are ok with the expensive WoW/Aion monthly subscriptions but not ok with the cheaper and optional mini offers in their online store.

See above. The marginal cost of monthly subscriptions is evened out by the utility granted. WoW's model offers so much more for the money spent than does GW micro-transactions. However, the reason I went with GW over WoW is precisely because I can't stand monthly fees for a game, nor do I like micro-transactions (for example, I bought none of the DLC for Oblivion, even though each one took more work than the costumes and cost less, I was still against it on principle).

A business is going to charge as much as it can while retaining the most people, I think ANet's "micro model" is just being tested to see how many chumps and suckers are out there so that they can refine it for GW2. Which means all you players who bought the costumes are nothing more than lab rats to ANet devs.

Kaleban · Dec 19, 2009, 04:52 PM // 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Sure they have. And the solution was micro transactions.

Or did you really think their solution was to strip naked and beg for money on the streets?

Then these people are not being realistic (i.e. they probably decided to be selfish and simply shut down their brains) and did not think through how a company can survive for 3+ years between releases, by giving everything away for free.

No, we didn't shut down our brains, we believed what we were told, that ANet would release $49.99 expansions every six months or so, which, while not a monthly subscription, comes close. It was six of one, half a dozen of the other basically. The difference was more psychological than anything, added to the fact you could still play without the new expansions, but you couldn't play the new expansions.

Whereas in a game like WoW you get the expansions as part of the monthly fee (well, content update, how they rope people into buying Burning Crusade or Lich King or the new one I don't know, I had roomies who were addicted to the game, literally, maybe there's crack cocaine embedded in each box?).

In any case, ANet changed its business model, or as I said, is testing the micro model on the GW playerbase. GG guinea pigs!

Rocky Raccoon · Dec 19, 2009, 04:52 PM // 16:52

If people had shown ANET they would not buy such items when they were first offered, they would have quit right then. Apparently the feed back they got was that people were willing to buy, so we now see more releases.

upier · Dec 19, 2009, 04:54 PM // 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Then these people are not being realistic (i.e. they probably decided to be selfish and simply shut down their brains) and did not think through how a company can survive for 3+ years between releases, by giving everything away for free.

A.Net isn't giving stuff away for free.
We "pay" with our continuous interest in the franchise and company. They'll bank on everything that they do for free now when they offer their next game.

Daesu · Dec 19, 2009, 04:57 PM // 16:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

Not really. A $15 a month subscription at WoW entitles you to constant updates, a support team that usually responds within an hour, constant and vigilant class balancing, new frills that are free (Mohawk grenade lawl) and more. If WoW charged $9.99 for every single thing that they offer, as GW does, no one would be playing WoW because no one could afford it, realistically speaking.

And you would get more updates if you pay a subscription but since you did not, then you wont get that. You cant take the state of the game now, ASSUME that you paid a subscription, and say see, not enough updates, their fault!

Quote:

See above. The marginal cost of monthly subscriptions is evened out by the utility granted. WoW's model offers so much more for the money spent than does GW micro-transactions. However, the reason I went with GW over WoW is precisely because I can't stand monthly fees for a game, nor do I like micro-transactions (for example, I bought none of the DLC for Oblivion, even though each one took more work than the costumes and cost less, I was still against it on principle).

Then you should ask them to go for a subscription model or play Aion or WoW. If you dont like to pay this and that, then go make your own game or something.

Quote:

A business is going to charge as much as it can while retaining the most people, I think ANet's "micro model" is just being tested to see how many chumps and suckers are out there so that they can refine it for GW2. Which means all you players who bought the costumes are nothing more than lab rats to ANet devs.

I think it is fair for them to ask for some money to get by for 3+ years in between releases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

No, we didn't shut down our brains, we believed what we were told, that ANet would release $49.99 expansions every six months or so, which, while not a monthly subscription, comes close. It was six of one, half a dozen of the other basically. The difference was more psychological than anything, added to the fact you could still play without the new expansions, but you couldn't play the new expansions.

$50/6 month is not even close to the revenue Aion gets per player. You said that you did not shut down your brains but for some reason, you couldnt even do simple multiplication: 12 X $15/month = $180 per year, while $50/6mths = $100 per year, that is almost twice the difference, not even close!

Furthermore, it is cheaper for Aion to make some content here and there over 6 months than to release a full campaign every 6 months. I can tell you that if ANet's no-subscription business model turns out to be a losing venture, then NCSoft would do something about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

A.Net isn't giving stuff away for free.
We "pay" with our continuous interest in the franchise and company. They'll bank on everything that they do for free now when they offer their next game.

How are they going to get paid over the 3+ years in between releases? Server maintainance, upkeep, staff pay, etc. for free for 3+ years?

Kaleban · Dec 19, 2009, 05:10 PM // 17:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

And you would get more updates if you pay a subscription but since you did not, then you wont get that. You cant take the state of the game now, ASSUME that you paid a subscription, and say see, not enough updates, their fault!

I assumed we'd get the updates they said they would give, within the time frame they gave. Nothing more, nothing less. You're making bad assumptions.

[quote/
Then you should ask them to go for a subscription model or play Aion or WoW. If you dont like to pay this and that, then go make your own game or something.[/quote]

Oh okay, so the solution to anyone who doesn't like one small aspect is to go make their own MMORPG. Got it. Or how about this, I voice my dislike of the feature and perhaps they realize their folly and make a change?

Quote:

I think it is fair for them to ask for some money to get by for 3+ years in between releases.

Right, because ANet is struggling right now, those poor, poor devs.

GW: Prophecies - April 2005
GW: Factions - April 2006
GW: Nightfall - October 2006
GW: Eye of the North - August 2007

So for the last two years the only thing they've been able to come up with is Xunlai storage, Character makeovers (which is just a pay-to-use character creator that preserves the name and associated details), and two costumes?

If that's the case then they've got maybe one guy, the janitor working on ALL content. ANet already has a customer placation, I mean relations department, they don't need mindless shills defending them from the evil Forumites... lawlz

Daesu · Dec 19, 2009, 05:15 PM // 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

Oh okay, so the solution to anyone who doesn't like one small aspect is to go make their own MMORPG. Got it. Or how about this, I voice my dislike of the feature and perhaps they realize their folly and make a change?

I simply said, since you refused to pay for a subscription or pay for any micro transactions, and want everything cheap or free, then you should make your own game then you can play it for free.

Quote:

So for the last two years the only thing they've been able to come up with is Xunlai storage, Character makeovers (which is just a pay-to-use character creator that preserves the name and associated details), and two costumes?

And dont forget that most of their resources are tied to GW2 development. So, should they release that for better GW1 updates?

Quote:

If that's the case then they've got maybe one guy, the janitor working on ALL content. ANet already has a customer placation, I mean relations department, they don't need mindless shills defending them from the evil Forumites... lawlz

Just because you like a pair of costumes and are too cheap to pay for them, doesn't imply that they do this out of pure evil.

Kaleban · Dec 19, 2009, 05:16 PM // 17:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

$50/6 month is not even close to the revenue Aion gets per player. You said that you did not shut down your brains but for some reason, you couldnt even do simple multiplication: 12 X $15/month = $180 per year, while $50/6mths = $100 per year, that is almost twice the difference, not even close!

Furthermore, it is cheaper for Aion to make some content here and there over 6 months than to release a full campaign every 6 months. I can tell you that if ANet's no-subscription business model turns out to be a losing venture, then NCSoft would do something about it.

I didn't say GW was exactly the same revenue stream model as Aion or WoW, I said it came relatively close, given that GW was billed as a no-subscription, semi-yearly expansion installment model. I can do simple math, you fail at simple logic and remembering what ANet claimed GW was. Lol.

Quote:

How are they going to get paid over the 3+ years in between releases? Server maintainance, upkeep, staff pay, etc. for free for 3+ years?

So you're saying that its 3+ years between releases? Can you do simple addition? If what you said were true, it would be the years 2014 right now. ANet pays for everything off of the PROFITS made by selling the game, duh. That's how companies make money, they put out a product, and hopefully their income forecasts match up with sales. Those that don't fail. Since ANet is still around, its a safe bet to say that the profit they made from selling their product has enabled them to remain in business.

Duh.

Daesu · Dec 19, 2009, 05:19 PM // 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

I didn't say GW was exactly the same revenue stream model as Aion or WoW, I said it came relatively close, given that GW was billed as a no-subscription, semi-yearly expansion installment model. I can do simple math, you fail at simple logic and remembering what ANet claimed GW was. Lol.

When they said no subscription did they promise no micro-transactions also? Or did they promise that they will live off grass growing on the side of the road before they ask money from you?

Quote:

So you're saying that its 3+ years between releases? Can you do simple addition? If what you said were true, it would be the years 2014 right now. ANet pays for everything off of the PROFITS made by selling the game, duh. That's how companies make money, they put out a product, and hopefully their income forecasts match up with sales. Those that don't fail. Since ANet is still around, its a safe bet to say that the profit they made from selling their product has enabled them to remain in business.

Duh.

I said 3+ years between releases. When was GWEN released?

Kaleban · Dec 19, 2009, 05:25 PM // 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

When they said no subscription did they promise no micro-transactions also? Or did they promise that they will live off grass growing on the side of the road before they ask money from you?

If you have no idea how business works, you shouldn't claim otherwise, because you look like a fool.

Quote:

It is 3+ years between releases. When was GWEN released?

Again, simple math:

GW: Prophecies - April 2005
GW: Factions - April 2006
GW: Nightfall - October 2006
GW: Eye of the North - August 2007

Proph to Factions - 1 year; Factions to Nightfall - 18 months; Nightfall to EoTN ~ 10 months. EoTN to now - 2 years, 4 months.

Right, I can see how you'd infer 3 years between releases... /sarcasm

Just as a hint, game companies predict their sales and revenue streams, and make their products around what they can expect to make.

Which is why Diablo 2 kept getting free content updates and patches even several years after LoD was released. Like I said, until you understand how a business functions, perhaps you should not comment on things of that nature?

upier · Dec 19, 2009, 05:31 PM // 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

How are they going to get paid over the 3+ years in between releases? Server maintainance, upkeep, staff pay, etc. for free for 3+ years?

And why should this be our problem?
If they were stupid enough to choose a business model that isn't working, then I guess the kids of A.Net's employees won't be getting a visit from Santa this year.

Fril Estelin · Dec 19, 2009, 05:40 PM // 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

It is similar to me enjoying a magazine because it isn't full of ads. Yes I can skip over the ads, but it still annoys the crap out of me.

Well, it shouldn't. The ads aren't for you (companies have to run to pay people, ads are a part of our modern societies now), skip them and then the following remains:

Quote:

What about the situation where this same person hasn't enjoyed a single update in years and sees no benefit of said profits? What is this person supposed to think?

That it's time to move on, until something better comes (be it GW2, D3, SC2, STO, SWTOR, TSW, etc.). My feeling is that it's not impossible that you'll be surprised by GW1 in 2010.

Quote:

I don't agree with microtransactions and I don't see the benefit of them for anybody but Anet.

Lots of people benefit from it. Art gives joy and the price tag doesn't remove that. Some people love it, some hate it, some don't see the point. But it's wrong to say that it doesn't "benefit" anyone. It'd be like saying that the stamps and papers used by Anet to send their xmas cards didn't benefit anyone but them!

Quote:

Don't you think they thought of this when they came up with the no monthly fees model?!?

The world has changed since they started. GW2, the size of the studio, the competitors, the gaming and MMO market, etc.

Quote:

Microtransactions isn't a way to make money. Microtransactions is a way to SUCK more money out of the community at the expense of game integrity.

Yes it is. As I was saying it's actually putting some RL money value on cosmetic in order to provide for free the non-cosmetic. The extreme of the reasoning behind my previous post is the following: PvP doesn't bring substantial revenues (I know that many PvPers did buy quite a lot of char slots, unlock packs etc.) compared to how many resources it requires. So instead of deciding to drop the unprofitable and focus on where they could make the most money, Anet decided to try to keep the PvP side and start charging more from the PvE side, via content that people have been more or less requesting, or at least will be buying. And from all I read, these costumes are making people quite happy.

Sure, you're not happy (but I've seen you happy only VERY rarely :PPPP ). But you know that not everyone can be. But if you're still here on Guru, it probably means that you'll give Anet a(nother) chance, as you don't have to pay a fee.

Side-note: these minipayment contents sound very similar to the wave of "reenlistment" campaigns we can see in various MMOs (WAR, Champions) or Aion's refer a friend, MMO Companies need to have sustained interactions with customer and this is how Anet is able to make some money. And when I see the GW2 artbook and trailers, I believe this money is in the right place (I think you don't to a certain extent).

crazybanshee · Dec 19, 2009, 05:52 PM // 17:52

I'm actually glad to see micro transactions. To me, that means anet is still devoting time and resources to gw, keeping us occupied with shiny things until gw2, and nailing down the business model to use on gw2. $10 costumes? Character makeovers? Name changes? Fine.

bigtime102 · Dec 19, 2009, 05:55 PM // 17:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Then would you rather pay a $15/month subscription instead?

ANet's last release was GWEN on Aug 2007. Between then and the time when GW2 will be released is a span of 3+ years. Now stop and think for a while. How do you think they should get by while maintaining their servers, and paying their staff?

At the same, they have to prove to NCSoft that they are still competitive with their no-subscriptions business model.

How they make money isnt any of mine or your concern. The concern with the player is the game. If the game must be comprimised to make money then so be it, I choose not to play those games.

Fortunatley with GW it doesnt really matter anymore, still I think its unfair to ruin the game like that for newer players but whatever. What im concerned about is GW2. Will we be able to compete in the game by how we play? or by how much we spend?

If they add these sort of things at the end of a games life cycle I wouldnt mind, but if they start the game off like that, count me out.

Rocky Raccoon · Dec 19, 2009, 06:19 PM // 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

And why should this be our problem?
If they were stupid enough to choose a business model that isn't working, then I guess the kids of A.Net's employees won't be getting a visit from Santa this year.

You can always be trusted to make an outrageously stupid comment. Perhaps it helps them keep the game running. A company that finds what they were trying do isn't working and doesn't change fails, it's that simple.

upier · Dec 19, 2009, 06:31 PM // 18:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

You can always be trusted to make an outrageously stupid comment. Perhaps it helps them keep the game running. A company that finds what they were trying do isn't working and doesn't change fails, it's that simple.

Once again, if GW dies, that's our problem because ...?