Curse

Abnaxus · Dec 18, 2007, 10:01 AM // 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

To debunk this, one has to do the math:

WoW (prices taken from wikipedia):
15$ per month
minus 1 month you can problably get free
minus 15% if you pay 6 months in one go
-> so in 2 years it's 280$
PLUS price of game+extension=40$ (cheapest)
WoW total=320$

GW (prices on amazon.com were very high so I guessed best prices):
4 games at 80$
possibly a bit more with the BMP? let's add 20$ to make it
GW total=100$

So how is that "the same" for 2 years of gameplay?

Don't confuse business model with overall figures.

A MMOG with 15$ monthly fee and another with 1$ monthly fee have exactly the same business model, despite the fact that the former is 15 times more expensive than the latter.

The two hypotetical software houses both perform their cost and market analisys and decide that they can sell for 15$ and 1$ respectively, and this is financially convenient.
But their business approaches are exactly the same.

Fril Estelin · Dec 18, 2007, 10:14 AM // 10:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abnaxus

Don't confuse business model with overall figures.

A MMOG with 15$ monthly fee and another with 1$ monthly fee have exactly the same business model, despite the fact that the former is 15 times more expensive than the latter.

But to explain that the two are the same, you would have to make up for the (approximate) 220$ over two years, plus the fun (we will agree that this is impossible to quantify), minus the grind, plus the special events, minus the addiction, et caetera.

You are defending your theory here that both models are the same, because of the inability to "punish" (double-quote) Anet. But one can oppose so many unquantifiable aspects of the games (if WoW is not your point of reference, let me know what is) that your theory only apply to you and people who have the same view (no disrespect, but I think it's a minority of people).

It seems you want "accountability" and I believe that we already have it, but not in the "immediate" and "financial timeframe" way you're thinking about. If people want to "punish" Anet, they won't buy the BMP or GW2. (hell, some people even come to GWG to troll for revenge, some people scam and polute the world, and I hope we agree that it's not a way to balance Anet's business model to accomodate one's views!)

Edge Martinez · Dec 18, 2007, 10:17 AM // 10:17

Guild War's business model? Bah! I had this same idea back in '83 at the age of 8! But people laughed. They said, "There's no such things as intrawebs, son." I went to lunch defeated.

Redfeather1975 · Dec 18, 2007, 11:26 AM // 11:26

Really all the game needs is a feedback component to the game client.
Say on the title screen. Just a multiple choice about the latest update and another one for features one would like to see.

Sleeper Service · Dec 18, 2007, 12:28 PM // 12:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redfeather1975

Really all the game needs is a feedback component to the game client.
Say on the title screen. Just a multiple choice about the latest update and another one for features one would like to see.

apparently that is what fansites like this are for (in part).

G.Grey has also a role to play in this, so we are told.

Off course not everyone reads let alone posts, but it can be supposed that a general "temperature" can be taken.

zwei2stein · Dec 18, 2007, 01:20 PM // 13:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

apparently that is what fansites like this are for (in part).

G.Grey has also a role to play in this, so we are told.

Off course not everyone reads let alone posts, but it can be supposed that a general "temperature" can be taken.

Fansites fail at this because not everyone goes there and voices their opinion. There is huge amount of people who are silent because they are content and similary huge amount of people which simply give up on the game and stop playing without fanfares.

Thats feedback anet is missing, and no amount of Gaile FTE's can help with that.

Plus, most of fan sites have certain atmosphere which kills some feedback because its no-go with its community, and where participants wont voice their opinions because they would loose "street cred" there.

Multiple choice questionare in game is very accessible for masses. But ofc, listening to masses never helps.

Fried Tech · Dec 18, 2007, 02:37 PM // 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biostem

TV is different because it is a passive medium; you do not participate, and thus have less of a personal stake in its outcome.

Even the shows that are well written and draw you in lack a sense of being a personal achievement.

and in tv you dont have people trying to get you to join them on "a quick run", which usually turns into an all day event. I think it's the social interaction that keeps me hooked to games like gw

Yanman.be · Dec 18, 2007, 03:23 PM // 15:23

New business model to spice up their sales:

Make noob islands ( Shing Jea, Istan and presearing ) "F2p" (Free2Play) as in Runescape, although Pay2Play in runescape is a subscription system. People can do everything on those islands, but can't do other stuff...I bet this will attract alot of new players, and it wouldn't impact current players that much...they don't need to be in those areas only for some HM or making a new character off course. PvP would be limited to the low level arenas as well.

Mordakai · Dec 18, 2007, 03:25 PM // 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanman.be

New business model to spice up their sales:

Make noob islands ( Shing Jea, Istan and presearing ) "F2p" (Free2Play) as in Runescape, although Pay2Play in runescape is a subscription system. People can do everything on those islands, but can't do other stuff...I bet this will attract alot of new players, and it wouldn't impact current players that much...they don't need to be in those areas only for some HM or making a new character off course. PvP would be limited to the low level arenas as well.

Interesting idea, but what about server costs?

I think the 10 hour trial keys are a better idea at attracting new customers.

CHannum · Dec 18, 2007, 03:43 PM // 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

To debunk this, one has to do the math:

WoW (prices taken from wikipedia):...

GW (prices on amazon.com were very high so I guessed best prices):

So how is that "the same" for 2 years of gameplay?

Let's not weaken the argument with bad math (it's strong enough using good math

). WoW can be had for $13 a month if you buy it in 6 month blocks. At launch in November 2004, the cheapest you could get it new was $45, the Burning Crusade $30 at launch, and each with an inclusive month. Since we're comparing to GW, we'll only go with the since April 2005 amount of time, so that's 31 months.

WoW: $45 + $30 + (29 x $13) = $452

Using wildly discounted prices for GW is not a good argument if you're trying to convey 2 years+ of play time, particularly since you aren't going to find all four games for $80 and the BMP does not count in any way, shape, or form considering it could have been had for free (those who volunteered to pay for it are artificially invoking a cost where there was none, but that's a whole slew of other threads). By taking advantage of deals, I nabbed all four games recently for $115 sans BMP, and that's as good a price as I could come up with, but it's still not a fair comparison - other than GW:EN, all these games are older and not fetching the full price someone would have shelled out had they been playing since April 2005. If we're fair, we'll assume that you probably paid about the same $45 the $50 MSRP WoW cost at its launch for each of the three chapters and $40 for GW:EN and that comes to...

GW: $45 + $45 + $45 + $40 = $175

That's only 258% better deal compared to your 320% figure, but I think it still makes the argument in spite Abnaxus refusal to view reality with anything other than delusional mindset

Fril Estelin · Dec 18, 2007, 05:48 PM // 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHannum

That's only 258% better deal compared to your 320% figure, but I think it still makes the argument in spite Abnaxus refusal to view reality with anything other than delusional mindset

Thanks for the complement. After further thought and search (I was in Oxford Street, London, this afternoon and checked the price, GW and WoW games are cheaper here, and amazon.co.uk has for example NF collector at £10/20$, same price as Wow and burning crusade; so the comparison is very dependent on where you get your numbers), I discovered that the benefit in buying GW against WoW can range from 200% to 500%, depending on where you get your soft/subscription from.

I had further thought about this topic today and it seems to me that the whole business model Anet proposed us is to share the business risk of their project with customers. They grant us the right to "free play once the game is bought", but there's a form of support that is a bit (I insist, it seems to me to be "a bit" and not more, nor less, because GWG's whining and flaming threads are rather limited in scope), some updates are not done due to resource constraints (e.g., problems of cliping, bugs/exploits?), and the issue of banning botters/gold-sellers is quite complex.

Overall, IMO ANet's business model is outstanding. First of all, it enables us, players, to choose not to be tied to p2p and big "mega corporations" (Blizzard and Activisition have recently merge...). Secondly, though you only paid 4 times over 2.5 years, and you got:
- 4 games, further extended with HM;
- 2 special extensions (SF, BMP);
- 59 special events (source: gwiki) of which at least 14 are major special events (halloween wintersday, dragon festival, etc.) which is in average 2 events a month!;
- new products via the online store (unlock packs).
Of course all of these financial benefits are balanced by the fact that the "top tier" of the game (l33t, uber-players) is very difficult to attain due to grinding, and the PvE/PvP divide is sometimes difficult to manage. Of course you may end up on the wrong side of the banning stick (if you're unlucky to buy dupped armbraces or reported by the small part of the GW population that enjoys annoying people).
Thirdly, community support via fan forums and gwikis (which could be extended with the PvP side of the game, but I guess it would be the occasion for certain people to flame this thread). This latter aspect is akin to the Open Source support for software, where users contribute for free to the success of the product. GWiki was so good that Anet created one.
Fourthly, you can even get some of the money back is you play PvP (I'm surprised that the few PvE extremists haven't started to QQ about that, but it'll come) with $100,000 tournament.
(we could also expand our view of the business model by introducing the minipet offers in game magazines)

Honestly, I don't see how you can draw a parellel between Anet's business model and Blizzard's one. There are surely commonalities, but they're very far apart. Anet's business model suits the needs of casual players and hardcore gamer that are ready to sacrifice uber-l33t+grinding for a few hundred $s over 2.5 years (and probably a bit of game addiction too).

Another very good point raised before: since you're not tied to the game due to the absence of monthly fees, you're actually in the strong position here, because you can leave (ok, that's not so easy given how awesome the game is overall) without financial impact, almost. While a Wow account can be worth several thousand $s (someone mentioned a recent story about that on GWG) based on a few hundreds directly paid by the gamer, a GW account is not worth so much but it is directly tied to the amount of efforts/time put into it. Though you will probably feel that this amount of time associated to a GW account creates an emotional link, it is much less that the equivalent amount of time AND the additional money that a WoW-er spent.

Abnaxus · Dec 18, 2007, 05:55 PM // 17:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHannum

That's only 258% better deal compared to your 320% figure, but I think it still makes the argument in spite Abnaxus refusal to view reality with anything other than delusional mindset

LOL

Well actually I've spent double that amount because of 2 accounts, adding some skill unlock packs and other little stuff probably my "better deal" could be evaluated in some 30%, without mentioning the Prophecies account I've made as gift to my brother.

Money is not the problem here, for me at least.

I don't play GW because it's cheap.
I play it because I like the gameplay, the basic ideas of the game concept, the graphics and so on.

I wouldn't buy WoW even if it was pay once, because WoW is an ugly game, I don't like it.

Instead I would have accepted a monthly fee for GW if they had proposed such business model.
Then in case A.net had failed in something, both technical or marketing, I could have had the possibility to "punish" them canceling my subscription.

My "delusional mindset" is essentially referred to their marketing and customer relationship.
The fact itself that I have 2 accounts, comes from long time ago August/September 2005, when me and several other players asked for the possibility to have additional slots to play all 6 core classes.

The answer from A.net representatives was the infamous "we currently have no plans about this" a sentence that we had to hear too many times later on.
So me and many other customers bought a second account.
Then in February 2006 (six months later) Factions came and "magically" character slots were available.

Well, I could have decided to use only one account deleting and rerolling characters. Instead I decided to continue with the double account.
Why? Because it wasn't such a huge economical sacrifice, and I (naively) thought it was my personal contribution to support the game, which I considered the best in the market.

Later on, several players in my situation asked A.net for a system to merge accounts (this mainly because with NF and heroes it could have been useful to use all skill unlocked from both accounts instead of doing unlocking on each account), and this was addressed with the usual "we currently have no plans blah blah ...".

The BMP was the cherry on the pie.

They have always failed in properly addressing customers' needs.
The game is technically otstanding, their marketing and customer relationships are horrible.
I remember that once in a thread about graphical bugs on armors I dared to say that maybe A.net is not willing to address those bugs because they are only focused on GW2 and don't care if players may lose interest in GW1 which they've already got money from.
The answer coming from Ms. G. Gray in person was "please take a break, do something else, create a new character, buy a new armor" LOL. (and of course the usual "we have no plans ...").

I cannot accept a bad marketing just because someone says "hey, GW is cheap, what do you want from them?".

I'm not used to think this way.

GW offers - and will hopefully offer - an excellent game experience, which I'm willing to pay for, supported by a very bad marketing.
A supplier (like A.net is) presents itself to customers with both its technical department and marketing department.
The two aspects cannot be separated when expressing an overall evaluation of the customer satisfaction.

That's why I came to the conclusion that I would feel more confortable with a subscription model.

Mordakai · Dec 18, 2007, 06:03 PM // 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Overall, IMO ANet's business model is outstanding. First of all, it enables us, players, to choose not to be tied to p2p and big "mega corporations" (Blizzard and Activisition have recently merge...). Secondly, though you only paid 4 times over 2.5 years, and you got:

Totally agree, and in addition: additional purchases are not required to continue playing the original product.

On this point, Guild Wars wins hands down. If you decide to stop paying your monthly fee to Activision/Blizzard, then you can no longer play the product you paid for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abnaxus

That's why I came to the conclusion that I would feel more confortable with a subscription model.

The problem is, you're in the minority. I don't think Guild Wars would survive with a monthly fee. The free to play aspect is it's biggest draw IMO.

Abnaxus · Dec 18, 2007, 06:12 PM // 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Secondly, though you only paid 4 times over 2.5 years, and you got:
- 4 games, further extended with HM;
- 2 special extensions (SF, BMP);
- 59 special events (source: gwiki) of which at least 14 are major special events (halloween wintersday, dragon festival, etc.) which is in average 2 events a month!;
- new products via the online store (unlock packs).

We paid for that.

How do you think A.net marketing decides the price?
They consider the development cost of "4 games, HM, 2 special extensions, 59 events" and so on in their budget, as well as maintenance costs (bug fixes, servers, possible further extensions).
Then they make a price that covers those costs and gives a revenue.

That's how every normal business company work.
Nothing is given for free, everything is planned in advance, even special offers, and everything has a budget.
Whatever they offer, they can do only if they have a budget that covers the development costs.

lyra_song · Dec 18, 2007, 06:14 PM // 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abnaxus

That's why I came to the conclusion that I would feel more confortable with a subscription model.

I would be fine with GW as a subscription system too. But it not.

You feel like a sucker, ne? Anet screwed you over, so you believe, because things don't go your way.

Go ahead and "punish" Anet and stop supporting them. Stop buying their games.
In fact, why dont you "punish" the forums and stop posting.

Fril Estelin · Dec 18, 2007, 06:15 PM // 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abnaxus

Well actually I've spent double that amount because of 2 accounts, adding some skill unlock packs and other little stuff probably my "better deal" could be evaluated in some 30%, without mentioning the Prophecies account I've made as gift to my brother.

Be honest and then compare this situation to having 2 WoW accounts and offering WoW to your brother. The % gain is the same, but the current amount spared is twice! (and your brother would have to pay a lot more)

But you've dismissed this point, for yourself at least, by saying next:

Quote:

Money is not the problem here, for me at least.

Quote:

The answer from A.net representatives was the infamous "we currently have no plans about this" a sentence that we had to hear too many times later on.
So me and many other customers bought a second account.
Then in February 2006 (six months later) Factions came and "magically" character slots were available.

I suspected at one point that your view was biased by your personal situation and (no offense) I think you've shown that here: you lost money because of this particular aspect and you'd want to punish (notice the word this time WITHOUT double-quotes) Anet. If the same situation occured in WoW, you'd have lost 12 months (Factions was released exactly 12 months after Prophecies, not 6 months!) of subscription. How is that for accountability?

Quote:

Well, I could have decided to use only one account deleting and rerolling characters. Instead I decided to continue with the double account.
Why? Because it wasn't such a huge economical sacrifice, and I (naively) thought it was my personal contribution to support the game, which I considered the best in the market.

Once more, be honest and responsible and accept the consequences of your decision: it was not a financial sacrifice, you did supported the game and you could play with lots of characters as you wanted to (why you'd want that is beyond me, but I'll accept it's your right!).

Quote:

and this was addressed with the usual "we currently have no plans blah blah ...".

Anet was totally honest with you, but you didn't like that their business model didn't fit your interests. I can understand that you're upset, but not that now you create wrong theories to basically explain "I can't punish Anet for what they did to me". You should instead realise that you didn't realise that your actions would lead to this situation (I mean, after all, you can't merge 2 accounts, is it like not being able to play the game?) and you possibly did this to yourself.

Quote:

The BMP was the cherry on the pie.

You used the exact words. For me too it was the cherry on the EotN pie, what a brilliant thing they did!

Quote:

They have always failed in properly addressing customers' needs.

You meant to say: "They have always failed in properly addressing MY needs and those of the people that I know that thought the same thing"

Quote:

I remember that once in a thread about graphical bugs on armors I dared to say that maybe A.net is not willing to address those bugs because they are only focused on GW2 and don't care if players may lose interest in GW1 which they've already got money from.
The answer coming from Ms. G. Gray in person was "please take a break, do something else, create a new character, buy a new armor" LOL. (and of course the usual "we have no plans ...").

I'm pretty sure you distorted her words (I'm sure we can find them, I'll leave you to do this). I've been on a few threads where people QQed about minor graphical glitches or that minor little bug, transforming them into much bigger things (subjectivity FTL). As if people were no longer able to play the game and no longer have fun!

Quote:

A supplier (like A.net is) presents itself to customers with both its technical department and marketing department.

Technically, Anet is the game creator and NCSoft is the supplier.

Quote:

That's why I came to the conclusion that I would feel more confortable with a subscription model.

And I guess that by the end of this discussion, you'll realise you're part of a very small minority. Think different, think GW

.

Mordakai · Dec 18, 2007, 06:16 PM // 18:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abnaxus

We paid for that.

How do you think A.net marketing decides the price?
They consider the development cost of "4 games, HM, 2 special extensions, 59 events" and so on in their budget, as well as maintenance costs (bug fixes, servers, possible further extensions).
Then they make a price that covers those costs and gives a revenue.

That's how every normal business company work.
Nothing is given for free, everything is planned in advance, even special offers, and everything has a budget.

Right, but you're missing the big picture: You don't have to pay for anything beyond one core game (Prophecy, Factions, or Nightfall).

Anet gives you a choice of what to buy, subscriber MMORPGS force you to pay $$ each month. And is WoW really that better of a game for it?

lyra_song · Dec 18, 2007, 06:19 PM // 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Anet gives you a choice of what to buy, subscriber MMORPGS force you to pay $$ each month. And is WoW really that better of a game for it?

Abanaxus wants the power to cancel his account. He can't do that to GW.

No matter how pissed he gets, GW will always be there. I think thats what irritates him.

Abanaxus: "Screw this shit, im leaving"
Anet: "Um...ok. No problem. We have your money. Bai bai~"
Abanaxus: "Grrr...aren't you even sorry?! Won't you try to gain me back?"
Anet: "Um...you can leave, but we'll always welcome you back. Its up to you."

Fril Estelin · Dec 18, 2007, 06:22 PM // 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abnaxus

We paid for that.

How do you think A.net marketing decides the price?
They consider the development cost of "4 games, HM, 2 special extensions, 59 events" and so on in their budget, as well as maintenance costs (bug fixes, servers, possible further extensions).
Then they make a price that covers those costs and gives a revenue.

That's how every normal business company work.
Nothing is given for free, everything is planned in advance, even special offers, and everything has a budget.
Whatever they offer, they can do only if they have a budget that covers the development costs.

You're absolutely right on Anet's side. But on my side, I remember vividly when I bought the first GW (after a 10h trial) that I was only buying the game and nothing else. And the price was right only for the game. So for me it's free. So if we "map" your view onto my situation, it gets even better for me: by buying GW, I actually bought a lot more than I thought!

And a more technical level, I realised after NF (2nd game I bought) that Anet's game was taking this to a great level. These events (whether you call them free or not it does not change a thing, not one thing) were actually an ideal way for me to play the game, casually during the week when I have free/spare time, then a little bit more (but nothing mad, I still have a life

) during the week-end.

Oh, and you answered to one point of my answer. Please feel free to answer to the rest! We're not here to score points, there's no winner or loser, I'm not attacking you and don't feel attacked by you. But if we start discussing going into a spiral of debates on these "minor" points (it's all relative, I know), we're not going to stop.

I don't think your theory is right, not at all. I believe that you want to punish Anet for a few things that happened to you (and other people, but not that much).

Fril Estelin · Dec 18, 2007, 06:29 PM // 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

Anet: "Um...ok. No problem. We have your money. Bai bai~"

Further thoughts on this point: Anet do have our money, but they're not keeping it to themselves (well they have salaries and they deserve them IMHO!), they're always pushing to the limits of what they can. The BMP is awesome. I'm entirely convinced that they're putting all they can in GW2, while still trying to make Gw1 live (and I think most players are happy about GW1, only those that did everything, from NM to HM, that maxed KOABD and finf no worthy opponents in PvP complain on GWG which probably is no more than 10% of the GW population anyway).

Anet is not stealing our money, especially 2.5 years after they released Prophecies. I know that some people that bought the 3 campaigns didn't buy EotN, and that's probably a mix of accountability and also the fact that for most casual players, the 3 campaigns still offer a lot to do. But as Gaile said recently, sales are steady and Anet has no problem. There are some rightfully questionable aspects of the marketing strategy (minipets, BMP) but overall this is much better than anything we could get. If not, we wouldn't be here.