Has Arenanet changed their business model?

Seeing as the thread about Merc heros was closed due to alot of rehashing of arguments, i decided to find the original statement from Arenanet about their business model and how it has changed.

Due to the discussion that was had several people reported that there has been no change in the way GW has done business, this is plainly untrue.

Is it acceptable that we now have to pay for these updates even though they were supposed to be free?

http://www.guildwars.com/products/gu...es/default.php

This is not just about Merc's, it's about the whole shebang. Since release they have added an awful lot of content features that were paid for. It was just during the discussion about Merc's that we came to the realisation that the business model had changed and from this, it is quite alot and started a long time ago. Yes, to jump in here, content is anything added to the game be it Merc's, Xunlai Storage Panes, or Costumes. The response that oh there are no more campaigns is valid in a way yes, but to me the next campaign is GW2 as far as i'm concerned(but thats opinion). Is all the content we have had to pay for acceptable after going back and looking at this statement?

No it isn't. We've never had to pay for additional content between campaigns (which mercenary heroes are most definitely not). Remember that Anet is a business and they need to make money; merc heroes is just a way to do that.

All payable content is purely cosmetic, it would be stupid of them not to have any additional ways to earn revenue (like stadiums not selling T-shirts), and there is no payable content between campaigns because, well, there are no more campaigns left to release for GW1.

People have to stop trying to evilize every company out there.... It's getting stupid now.

They are not releasing any more campaigns for GW, so technically we are not "in between campaigns" anymore so they can charge for any content they add from EOTN on :P

Bonus Mission Packs.
But otherwise, no.

War in Kryta was free.
Hearts of the North was free.
Winds of Change will almost certainly be free.
Embark Beach was free.
7-heros was free.

Just because they've added Mercenary Heroes for a fee (which is rather on par with extra Character Slots and Storage Panes), I can hardly see how it could qualify as them having changed their business model in any significant way.

I'm definitely not a fan of microtransactions, because it's a slippery slope, but so far Anet has kept in-line with their statement.

As long as the micros are purely cosmetic, with no content nor in-game advantages bestowed, I grudgingly accept them. Their pricing on some of the microtransactions have been outrageous however.

edit: I'll add this: yes, their business model has changed, and we all know it has. Originally it was a new GW1 campaign every 6 months, and they didn't get very far with that. I'm purely speculating when guessing they may want to get back to that model with GW2, but now they have this big lull period between GW1 and GW2, and they've had to change the business model to allow for microtransactions to help keep things going. In an ideal scenario, they'll return to their original business model, with a new GW2 campaign every 6 months, with a truly minimal amount of microtransactions if any at all.

Look at the wording of the quotation.
Mercenaries show no violation of that wording. Campaigns are not being released anymore, so Mercenaries cannot count as content released between campaigns.
Only content that was is BMP if I can recall that came out right before EoTN didn't it?

I don't actually care, but I like how people change what "additional content" means so that it doesn't include certain things. Face changing is additional content. Name changing is additional content. Mercenary Heroes are additional content. Bonus Mission packs are additional content. Yes Arena net has charged for additional content. So yes, the business model has changed. The only question is how much of an impact it really has on you.

Has their business model changed in a way that people can reasonably disagree with? Personally I think not, it is kind of stupid to think that they can keep the game going with new content without anything being put back in. Although I do not think Mercenary heroes are worth as much as they charge. But I would still rather have this than forced subscription fees, because I know I would not be playing this game in the state that it is in for a fee per month.

Even that doesn't violate the wording because EOTN is an expansion to any and all of the other games, but not a standalone campaign.


The fact remains that nothing in the ingame store is required to finish any of the games, nor does it provide any significant benefit in that goal. Frankly, if anyone needs 7 heroes, let alone MH to /roll the campaigns in NM, then they should just kill themselves now for being so pathetic.

I haven't had to pay to access any areas in game that can actually provide an advantage, only to play some historical stories to flesh out the backstory a bit, none of which affected my playing of any or all of the campaign storylines at all. You can get weapons for heroes from flipping crafters, you don't need BMP for that.

People should save the butthurt for when they put exclusive armor skins or weapons in the store that can't be obtained by any other means.... despite the fact that that would only be cosmetic anyway....

In other words, what I'm trying to say in my awkward way is.... get the lube because it's going to get worse.

Hmmm, they've been pretty good about providing free access and content between campaigns. Now that no more campaigns are being made Anet has come up with ways for people with spare cash to pay for everyone to continue to enjoy fee content updates and server access. When someone buys some costume or merc pack people that spend nothing are benefiting from other peoples money because that money fuels the live team and free content.

Anet could have charged for wik, but gave it free, very nice for everyone to enjoy even though no campaigns are coming. After Guild Wars 2 is released Guild Wars 1 may have trouble selling microtransactions and perhaps all new content will cost and it will leech of guildwars 2 revenue until its eventually closed.

yes they could have, but then they would have contradicted their retail philosophy Saint Scarlet quoted, and would have shown themselves to be hypocrites and disloyal to their base

I agree with that totally, the complainers need a reality check. I say that as someone who has bought all the costumes, but probably won't be buying the MH. Why? Because the tiny benefit of MH doesn't appeal to me, I'd rather have another costume and pay for something that I actually like wearing on my character.

Apart from that "between campaigns" bit, which, given that NF was the last campaign, means all bets are off and they can do anything they please without being hypocrites or disloyal. But don't let something as insignificant as the facts slow you down.

Eh. Odds are we won't ever see new armor sets (though I wouldn't mind if there were all-class armor sets in the in-game store that would then appear, at appropriate Armor levels, at each crafter) - they went the costume route instead (since it's easier because they don't have to bother with the extra work needed to properly model armor for each profession).

As for the link to the GW product description, it's almost 6 years old and predates pretty much everything, including the in-game store. Obviously it no longer applies and hadn't applied for at least 5 years. And, frankly, you'll be hard pressed to find documents so old in most other online companies that still apply.

Since the introduction of costumes, they accepted the fact that they need to earn money after all.

I know, amazing for a company that hasn't released a game in what, 3 and a half years? How very dare they.....

You do know what "streaming updates" are, right? They're more commonly referred to as patches. Things like Nick, festivals, special events and the like can also be considered "streaming updates" as they are provided automatically via the weekly updates along with bug fixes and the like. None of these cost money.

The remainder of the quote, "nor for additional content that we will provide between the campaigns of Guild Wars."

Campaigns:
Prophecies was released 4/28/2005
Factions was released 4/28/2006
Nightfall was released 10/27/2006

Those are the only campaigns. EotN is an expansion... it is not a campaign. It was released on 8/31/2007

The BMP was originally offered free as a special thank you to those who had spent $29 between July 5th, 2007 and October 31st, 2007. It was later added to the in-game store on January 28th, 2008 so as to allow those who did not qualify during the promotional period (or were not playing) to obtain that expansion.

The only item I can find added to the in-game store besides campaigns and expansions prior to Nightfall's release (the last campaign) was the option to purchase additional character slots.

In other words - they did exactly what they said they were going to do. There was no new content charged for between campaigns.

I'm really glad you tracked this down and posted it... it's exactly what I was looking for in the other thread... an opportunity to peruse the exact text representing ANet's business model with regards to microtransactions. They were quite specific in their wording... and there really is no mistaking the difference between campaigns and expansions, or what qualifies as streaming updates.

This is semantics i know...

EoTN is an expansion yes(i consider it to be the same as a campaign just without the new professions) so surely it is content that we had to pay for that isn't a campaign. The planned 4th campaign got thrown away when they realised the balance issues they had with the previous 2 campaigns got out of control and all the extra work needed was not feasible. So they made EoTN and said at the time what they planned to do is make GW2, because everything in the industry had moved on to such a level that it would be better to make the next instalment of GW. My personal opinion is that GW2 is the next campaign even though it is not directly related to the original(but thats just my opinion).

I just want peoples views on this, i do not want it to turn into a trollfest or people getting into aggressive arguments. The facts are all there and everyone knows the dates at which items were released for the store, it's now just down to the personal opinion of each person to say whether Anet have held to the spirit of this or not.

As far as the quoted statement in the OP goes, EotN counts as a campaign. What they mean is that they'll charge for big/new/proper releases, but building on current content (WiK) will not be charged. The difference between 'campaign' and 'expansion' is just that the expansion isn't stand alone. It's got it's own unique story, it's got it's own characters, etc; there isn't a big distinction between the two.

You can still buy all 3 games and EoTN and play them free, with no constraints.

The games are as completable without additional purchases as the day they were released..and have been greatly enhanced.. at no additional cost.

They still provide free content. WiK, Hearts of the North, the upcoming WOC, additions like Nicholas.. the last update to Pre.. 7 heroes, Festival items, etc.

Menagerie, Z Quests.. all free content.

It is petty beyond belief, to me, that people look at convenience or cosmetic items offered for sale and ignore the things added to this game at no cost. I find the sheer ingratitude hard to comprehend. You all were given everything promised with the purchase of the games.. and more.. and still find the gall to accuse the company of deceitful conduct and greed.

I feel that ANET has more than lived up to its original promise. I find it amazing that they maintain and provide update and content of the level they do with no subscription fees and no revenue stream save game purchases and voluntary purchases of optional, unnecessary addons.

Excuse me for this blast, but I have been appalled by the vitriol leveled at ANET recently.. and I am venting, not at any individuals, but at an attitude of entitlement.