A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Hamburger Jack.2543" said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > @Drecien.4508 said:

> > > Thank you to the wonderful artists that made such gorgeous skins for us to enjoy. I have no issue forking over money for such a superior product. Thanks for giving us free content to play with our gem purchases. It's sad when people can't even play a game and be thankful for all that you guys do for us. Keep up the great work!

> >

> > You do understand that the people who are upset about this are upset because they *can't* purchase and enjoy the lovely mount skins that the artists made because tyhey're locked behind RNG loot boxes, right?

>

> And you also understand if people can't purchase a thing that's not Anet's fault. They're going after the people who can purchase it! And no one has to!

 

Of course it's ANet's fault, they set the distribution model, and it could be anything they like, so if they set it wrong, that's their fault. They chose to exploit players who would be willing to buy into blind box gambling, rather than asking a fair price for the individual skins and allowing the consumers to freely decide which ones they did and did not want. That *is* their fault, entirely their fault.

[Wonderly.1324]

I'm proud of you guys for acknowledging the player's concerns. Now, can you do something about the RNG "uncommon" drops in BLC? If there were a way to obtain the minis I missed in there from before, I might have incentive to continue collecting a complete mini set. Maybe continually update the rare black lion box so it always allows fro a complete selection of every uncommon item from the chest?

[Torolan.5816]

> @"Hamburger Jack.2543" said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > @Drecien.4508 said:

> > > Thank you to the wonderful artists that made such gorgeous skins for us to enjoy. I have no issue forking over money for such a superior product. Thanks for giving us free content to play with our gem purchases. It's sad when people can't even play a game and be thankful for all that you guys do for us. Keep up the great work!

> >

> > You do understand that the people who are upset about this are upset because they *can't* purchase and enjoy the lovely mount skins that the artists made because tyhey're locked behind RNG loot boxes, right?

>

> And you also understand if people can't purchase a thing that's not Anet's fault. They're going after the people who can purchase it! And no one has to!

 

In my opinion, the problem is that Anet did hide things behind a really expensive RNG wall, a three digit number is just too high. When you are not addicted to gambling this is not a problem at all as you rightfull said, nobody has to buy. I initially already laughed off the idea to play GW2 lottery again, but I never really had a mild gambling addiction after my M:TG days were over. Still I know the feeeling of ripping off a booster and browising through the content, it was indeed quite a thrill.

 

Anet needs money, nobody is denying that. But my personal line was crossed when people messaged that they have fallen back into their old gambling habits, Anet simply should not have done that. And not only Anet, nobody should. Games are under attack enough without a gambling accusation, the accusation of being responsible for teenagers running amok at their former high schools should be enough dirt for them already. But in the last 30 years, companies have succesfully tried to sow the idea that they can get away with everything because they provide jobs, and the common man in the street is not educated and united enough to throw them their job thread back in their face through boycotting their goods.

[Djinn.9245]

> @"Hamburger Jack.2543" said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > @Drecien.4508 said:

> > > Thank you to the wonderful artists that made such gorgeous skins for us to enjoy. I have no issue forking over money for such a superior product. Thanks for giving us free content to play with our gem purchases. It's sad when people can't even play a game and be thankful for all that you guys do for us. Keep up the great work!

> >

> > You do understand that the people who are upset about this are upset because they *can't* purchase and enjoy the lovely mount skins that the artists made because tyhey're locked behind RNG loot boxes, right?

>

> And you also understand if people can't purchase a thing that's not Anet's fault. They're going after the people who can purchase it! And no one has to!

 

So you think it's fine that they create content that a lot of people want and then lock it behind a means of selling that not everyone >

[hashmonkey.2501]

I don't have a problem with the system but would just like to take this time to thank the team for and amazing job on the mount skins, some better than others of course, but all worth the price. Will not mind spending 100g/5€ per skin anytime for these.

[Exploding Acorn.3754]

Struggling to even put into words how little this did to help regain any of my enthusiasm I once held for this series. Had a brief resurgence when the expansion was announced, even pre-ordered since I was getting all nostalgic thinking back to when GW2 was first announced and then the ensuing void of any information for years. Was bummed that the mounts were so obviously going to be another revenue stream, but thought, hey if the gliders are anything to go by I don't really mind tossing some cash at the game again. But this.... just no. Nothing about this response does anything to make me as a customer feel any better. I'll just wait and patch up BDO (which yes has a very expensive cash shop, but at least I pick what I buy) and sit this out until for a year or two and check back in then.

[Devata.6589]

“We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions.” Too bad, it was never communicated that you had a commitment to fund GW2 through micro-transactions. If you did, I would likely never have gotten into the game in the first place.

 

“The Adoption License is a large set at 30 skins.” When looking ingame this (large drop-pools resulting in lowering the probability you get the item you really want) has been an element of GW2 for a long time. This is not really different from that. I do agree this approach is not good.

 

“We stand by the work our artists put into each skin” Then put them into the game world. So people see them run around and can catch them, or breed them or create them with crafts. Then those skins would really shine, and it would add game-play as well.

 

“You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.” The reason you ‘can lower’ the price (You determine the price in the first place) is exactly because people also get (unintentionally buy) the skins they do not want.

 

“Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.” This is not different then the first ‘reason’, just other play of words. And so also the same issue, the price is lower because people also buy what they do not want.

 

What is interesting about this post (A post that should be appreciated, even when not agreeing with what is says) is that it shows how Anet feels this mount micro-transaction approach sort of exploded in their face. And this while it’s only cosmetics. In my opinion, the whole micro transactions exploded (years ago already), but that did go unnoticed. On release, GW2 made a profit of 120.000 KRW Mn (based on Ncsoft results), but after that it started dropping and the average for each quarter was about 25000 KRW Mn (in the beginning a little higher, currently lower… but on average). So 100.000 on a yearly basis. But what if they put out an expansion a year, had no micro transactions and so made the game more interesting to buy by making fun mechanics ingame to get all those skins. Maybe that would have helped retaining and even increasing the player base, and so the game-sales. Even if it would only retain the player-base that would be 120.000 a year instead of the 100.000. Not to mention that a more popular game also can earn more with things like merchandise.

 

Obviously micro transactions is a way more fail-save approach and investors will prefer to go for a less risky approach like this. But it’s likely another approach would have made them more and keep GW2 in a better state.

 

By now it’s too late to change anything about it. But it’s interesting to see that suddenly also here more people start to see how ‘just cosmetic sales’ can also be bad. Something I talked about almost 5 years ago already.

 

It’s not only on this forum where I noticed that, I also noticed an increase of YouTube videos of people talking about how micro transactions (no, not P2W, just micro transactions) have destroyed the game industry.

 

Exactly as expected. The same we did see with P2W, that was accepted in the beginning as well but overtime people started to see how bad it was. In some countries, there is now even talk about making loot-boxes (one form of micro transaction) being seen as gambling by law. See: https://wccftech.com/pegi-loot-boxes-cant-define-gambling/ currently its still not seen as such, but the fact that people even talk about this is interesting.

 

Here is just one of the many micro transactions discussion video is that have lately been popping up on YouTube

 

Based on what happened here and what is happening in the gaming community (see the many videos) I feel I have been vindicated, looking at my complains about exactly this subjects on this forum (well the old one) over the last years and the reactions on it.

 

While it is nice to feel as being vindicated, it is too bad Anet and GW2 did fall victim to this approach. Especially when knowing how Anet was known for its very good B2P business model in the first place.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Devata.6589 said:

> But what if they put out an expansion a year, had no micro transactions and so made the game more interesting buy making fun mechanics ingame to get all those skins. Maybe that would have helped retaining and even increasing the player base, and so the game-sales. Even if it would only retain the player-base that would be 120.000 a year instead of the 100.000. Not to mention that a more popular game also can earn more with things like merchandise.

 

I don't think they could manage an expansion each year, and honestly, with LW updates, I don't need or want an expansion every year. Two years is fine, microtransactions are fine too, they just need to **not be random,** and be at a reasonable price. The Mount skins so far have been neither.

 

 

 

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @Devata.6589 said:

> But what if they put out an expansion a year, had no micro transactions and so made the game more interesting buy making fun mechanics ingame to get all those skins. Maybe that would have helped retaining and even increasing the player base, and so the game-sales. Even if it would only retain the player-base that would be 120.000 a year instead of the 100.000. Not to mention that a more popular game also can earn more with things like merchandise.

>

 

The question is how many people would buy that expansion. micro-transactions work in games because someone can buy just an expansion every 2 years and play the game without paying anything else, while another person will fund further live development by using micro transactions. So for the average player, micro transactions lead to cheaper games. Would they be willing to pay for more regular expansions? That's the big question.

[Torgan DeBaku.9534]

> @Astralporing.1957 said:

> > @Noa.7490 said:

> > So, does this mean that the loot box skins are locked and won't be available as individual purchase?

>

> Yes, they straight out said that nothing's gonna change on the current lootbox in the future, so do not expect any other way to get those skins.

 

MO said they would not change it in a way that would invalidate already done purchases by players. However he did NOT say Anet would not change the system by which we can get those 30 skins. Raising the price tag for individual skins MO already hinted at in his response, as he attributed the "substantial discount" of those 30 skins to the RNG nature of the “grab bags” they come with.

 

Hence prices will go up whenever those 30 skins loose their RNG. Since so many ppl are saying they won’t buy any skin with RNG in place. That is what will happen, as ANet desperately* needs the money. So prices will go up and the “adoption licenses” will lose the RNG. Players who bought skins under RNG will have had them earlier to show off and cheaper too. Hence their purchase was not “invalidated” by the change.

 

*desperate because you need to be desperate to resort to the currently most hated monetization practice in gaming: loot boxes. MO can call them “grab bag” as much as he wants, those “Mount adoption passes” are lootboxes!

[fizzypetal.7936]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > @Devata.6589 said:

> > But what if they put out an expansion a year, had no micro transactions and so made the game more interesting buy making fun mechanics ingame to get all those skins. Maybe that would have helped retaining and even increasing the player base, and so the game-sales. Even if it would only retain the player-base that would be 120.000 a year instead of the 100.000. Not to mention that a more popular game also can earn more with things like merchandise.

> >

>

> The question is how many people would buy that expansion. micro-transactions work in games because someone can buy just an expansion every 2 years and play the game without paying anything else, while another person will fund further live development by using micro transactions. So for the average player, micro transactions lead to cheaper games. Would they be willing to pay for more regular expansions? That's the big question.

 

The way GW2 evolves with Living Story Updates and a big expansion every 2 years or so has worked well for me. I like the Gem Store in general and probably spend £50-£80 a year in it. If I had to buy a big expansion every year then I likely would spend less in the gem store because I couldn't justify to myself paying more than £120 a year consecutively on a luxury virtual item - when compared to what one needs to live, GW2 is a luxury.

[Devata.6589]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Devata.6589 said:

> > But what if they put out an expansion a year, had no micro transactions and so made the game more interesting buy making fun mechanics ingame to get all those skins. Maybe that would have helped retaining and even increasing the player base, and so the game-sales. Even if it would only retain the player-base that would be 120.000 a year instead of the 100.000. Not to mention that a more popular game also can earn more with things like merchandise.

>

> I don't think they could manage an expansion each year, and honestly, with LW updates, I don't need or want an expansion every year. Two years is fine, microtransactions are fine too, they just need to **not be random,** and be at a reasonable price. The Mount skins so far have been neither.

>

>

>

>

 

I think they could, but let’s say they would need 1,5 year. They would had have to beat 150.000 (KRW Mn). They started with 120.000 (KRW Mn) but I am convinced there was room to grow (the reason they did not grow is imho partly because of their current approach). So if they managed to grow to 160.000 with the next expansion 1,5 after initial release, they would also be in the winning.

 

2 years is fine, but then you do need to rely on micro-transactions (or a sub) and you say that is also fine but that is where we disagree. I think the decrease in player-base is at least partly to blame not so much on the micro transactions themselves / directly, but for how it in-pacts the game. Like less special items to work towards in game (Because you want to sell fancy skins), no barber in game (because you want to sell haircuts) and so on. The less visible effects that still might mean people get bored sooner and so results in a decrease overtime.

 

It is hard to proof anything because it is a non-existing world we are talking about. However, I am at least happy to see the discussion about also these cosmetic sales to start becoming a thing, not only here but also in the game-community as general. It might now (here) just be focusing on rng-boxes but it is a step in the good direction. I hope that it will mean some other game in the future will not fall for this trap.

 

[When this approach gets a negative vibe going with it, it becomes less profitable and investors will start to move away from it.]

[titje.2745]

i don’t know if someone already said this but can’t you cut the big pack in 5 so every mount have it’s own rng based skins. so if i want a jackal mount i buy the jackal pack. yes it’s rng but the chance of getting my nice jackal mount is much higher. so i maybe can get all jackal mounts with just one gem card. yes it rng but same price as the forged warhound. :)

[Devata.6589]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > @Devata.6589 said:

> > But what if they put out an expansion a year, had no micro transactions and so made the game more interesting buy making fun mechanics ingame to get all those skins. Maybe that would have helped retaining and even increasing the player base, and so the game-sales. Even if it would only retain the player-base that would be 120.000 a year instead of the 100.000. Not to mention that a more popular game also can earn more with things like merchandise.

> >

>

> The question is how many people would buy that expansion. micro-transactions work in games because someone can buy just an expansion every 2 years and play the game without paying anything else, while another person will fund further live development by using micro transactions. So for the average player, micro transactions lead to cheaper games. Would they be willing to pay for more regular expansions? That's the big question.

 

If the quality is there, I think they would.

[yossarian.3061]

Are they going to fix the dye channels for the folks who actually did buy some of the mount skins? The raptor seems fine but the other four mounts don't save the dye selection, at least not on the skins I have for them. They all have a default color selection (mostly greys), which you can change (apart from the same channel on each, which is locked) but when you summon them they're all grey.

 

Edit - just checked on another character and it seems fine. Checked the original character and it seems fine as well. Have no idea what happened (logged in several times yesterday and the bug was consistent) but we'll just go with "they fixed it".

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Torgan DeBaku.9534" said:

>Hence prices will go up whenever those 30 skins loose their RNG. Since so many ppl are saying they won’t buy any skin with RNG in place. That is what will happen, as ANet desperately* needs the money. So prices will go up and the “adoption licenses” will lose the RNG. Players who bought skins under RNG will have had them earlier to show off and cheaper too. Hence their purchase was not “invalidated” by the change.

 

If all they do is release all the skins at a price *above* the grab bag, like in the 600-800 range, then all that would do is guarantee that few people will have the more casual skins. It would be better than nothing, but they really do need to offer a tiered pricing release. It should be less focused on making the second deal fair for the people who bought into the first, and more about making the second deal fair in and of itself. As for those who bought into the first, they need to be compensated some other way, either through refunds, bonus items, maybe tickets for future mounts, something that makes their purchases worthwhile without enshrining their purchase as "the only way to do this."

 

 

[Shadelang.3012]

Im sure im gonna get yelled at here. But to the people that are complaining that they bought skins but didn't get the ones they wanted and are now demanding a refund.....are you SERIOUS?

 

You KNEW what you were purchasing. You don't have the right to get angry at it AFTER the fact. You KNEW. It was there right infront of you. You don't get to pretend it wasn't. You don't get to pretend you were cheated. You weren't. You KNEW. YOU pressed the button knowing full well that in all likelihood you werent gonna get what you wanted.

 

Are there legitimate complaints to be made? Yes but THAT is not one of them. And its my personal opinion that you should NOT get a refund here. Im not gonna try to make some halfassed comparison here. Im not even going to target the people that have been using worst case scenario bull. Because even though its heavily exaggerated and just SAD to see its whatever to me.

 

But complaining when you bought a package knowing it was RNG? Or buying it without even checking what you were purchasing? No. I can't get behind that.

 

And to the people that are keeping this going because they feel like there on some kind of crusade against injustice? Grow up. Doing that only buries the problem in people saying the same thing over and over again instead of actually attempting to find solutions. (But its not MY job to find solutions its THERES) No it is your job. Your the consumer here. Don't spam shit about how your not going to buy stuff. Just DON'T DO IT. And MAYBE if they come out with something that IS cool and you like how its packaged buy THAT instead. Because that actually shows the people who are really running the gemstore (Oh shit They didn't like it when we did THIS but they LOVED it when we did THAT).

 

If your in the right. Then the world will prove it. If nothing changes. Then its obvious the people willing to pay heavily outweigh you then doesn't it?

[Torgan DeBaku.9534]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @"Torgan DeBaku.9534" said:

> >Hence prices will go up whenever those 30 skins loose their RNG. Since so many ppl are saying they won’t buy any skin with RNG in place. That is what will happen, as ANet desperately* needs the money. So prices will go up and the “adoption licenses” will lose the RNG. Players who bought skins under RNG will have had them earlier to show off and cheaper too. Hence their purchase was not “invalidated” by the change.

>

> If all they do is release all the skins at a price *above* the grab bag, like in the 600-800 range, then all that would do is guarantee that few people will have the more casual skins. It would be better than nothing, but they really do need to offer a tiered pricing release. It should be less focused on making the second deal fair for the people who bought into the first, and more about making the second deal fair in and of itself. As for those who bought into the first, they need to be compensated some other way, either through refunds, bonus items, maybe tickets for future mounts, something that makes their purchases worthwhile without enshrining their purchase as "the only way to do this."

>

>

 

The best way to handle this IMHO is:

 

Remove the "casual" skins - aka default skin with four dey channels - form the Gem Store and make them part of the game, achievable through achievements in other maps then the one where you got the default mount. You can only get the achievement once you have the default mount. For example the default jackal with four dye channels can be acquired through a collection that is given to you in the Vaabi map making the four dye channel jackal the native Vaabi jackal. Same for the bunny, get the four color default version in e.g. the desolation via same achievement method. Do the same for the rest of the mounts.

 

Next.

 

Remove RNG from all remaining skins of the “adoption license”. Create two sets out of the remaining skins, where the ones with particle effects are the expensive ones, say 800 gems, as 800 gems is the default value ANet usually falls back to when introducing new shiny Skins at the gem store. The others – changed textures, slight mech changes – go at 600 gems. The adoption window stays the same only change is that you pick the one you want and hit “adopt this mount” and you got it.

 

Last but not least, for every “more casual” skin players who used RNG get 400gems, alas a refund as those skins are now achievable through ingame means and not a Gemstore item anymore.

 

Completely new Mounts* – like the reforged one – with different meshes, different animations and sounds, are sold between 1000 – 2000 depending on complexity. Say the new one uses existing animations but has particle effects if goes for 1000 gems. Another additionally has new animations and sounds and sells at 2000gems.

 

Done. Use this same method for ALL future Mount skin releases!

 

*I would LOVE to see a wolf mount replacing the jackal and an Eagle / Hawk replacing the griffon, if it’s done well as in “has new mesh, textures, animations and sounds” and I might even drop 2000 gems for each.

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Torgan DeBaku.9534" said:

 

> Remove the "casual" skins - aka default skin with four dey channels - form the Gem Store and make them part of the game, achievable through achievements in other maps then the one where you got the default mount. You can only get the achievement once you have the default mount. For example the default jackal with four dye channels can be acquired through a collection that is given to you in the Vaabi map making the four dye channel jackal the native Vaabi jackal. Same for the bunny, get the four color default version in e.g. the desolation via same achievement method. Do the same for the rest of the mounts.

 

That'd be nice, but I can't see it EVER happening. I mean, I hope they make these available through other gem store means, but I can't see them ever taking them *off* the gem store. I could see them adding at least one set of *new* skins through gameplay though, and hope that they do. But *these,* probably not happening. I just think they should put them on at a lower price around 200-250, so players can fairly choose between the "budget" options or the "luxury" options. But yeah, ~600 for the mid-tier, ~800 for the top tier we've seen thus-far, maybe 1600 for the Warbeast tier.

 

 

[Shadelang.3012]

My view on this is that arena net messed up pretty hard on this. (Assuming it was a mess up to give them the benefit of the doubt)

 

My preference on this would be to have had these skins as others suggested be purchasable for a heftier price but be a guaranteed mount. That way people could just look at the skin and say "Yeah thats worth 2000 gems to me" or not. And "sales" could be added later to attempt to encourage people that were on the edge.

 

The idea of a rng system for mount skins doesnt really set off major bells for me as long as they are heavily discounted in comparison to just buying it. The fact that it was the ONLY method to obtain the skins was the issue as there WAS no comparison between prices that could be made.

 

I do feel that people should be outspoken on this matter. But there are wrong ways to do it that im seeing all throughout these threads. You know what they say (there is no such thing as bad publicity) and all that? Well our current method is just drawing eyes. Only money really talks like I said in my previous post.

 

The thing is its not the money of individuals that matters. Its communities. No matter how big a whale you consider yourself your actually quite tiny as far as economics go. Remember that the majority of players probably don't even care enough about this to look on the forums.

 

If you want to do something about it. The forums is actually one of the worst places to do it. Keep in mind its fairly easy for a red post to control the theme of a conversation.

 

A better use would be just playing. And if you see someone who is considering going for that special skin. Don't scream at them not to or anything like that. Dont yell at them in map chat calling them sellouts or talking about how they're bending over to anet. That doesn't work and just makes you seem hysterical. Don't use hyperbole about how there GOING TO HAVE TO BUY IT 30 TIMES TO GET THE ONE THEY WANT. Is it a possiblity? yeah but its also extremely unlikely and only a few people are going to get hit by this overall. Just as many are gonna get it on there first try. Just mention that its heavily rng based and then stop. Let them decide if they want to take that risk.

 

Anyway. Just my two cents. I probably wont post in this conversation again no matter the medium.

[Devata.6589]

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > > @Devata.6589 said:

> > > But what if they put out an expansion a year, had no micro transactions and so made the game more interesting buy making fun mechanics ingame to get all those skins. Maybe that would have helped retaining and even increasing the player base, and so the game-sales. Even if it would only retain the player-base that would be 120.000 a year instead of the 100.000. Not to mention that a more popular game also can earn more with things like merchandise.

> > >

> >

> > The question is how many people would buy that expansion. micro-transactions work in games because someone can buy just an expansion every 2 years and play the game without paying anything else, while another person will fund further live development by using micro transactions. So for the average player, micro transactions lead to cheaper games. Would they be willing to pay for more regular expansions? That's the big question.

>

> The way GW2 evolves with Living Story Updates and a big expansion every 2 years or so has worked well for me. I like the Gem Store in general and probably spend £50-£80 a year in it. If I had to buy a big expansion every year then I likely would spend less in the gem store because I couldn't justify to myself paying more than £120 a year consecutively on a luxury virtual item - when compared to what one needs to live, GW2 is a luxury.

 

But if you then would spend £50-£80 on expansions (depending on the version) and they would be able to have a game that keeps more people interesting and playing, they would not really lose money on you while gaining money because they would be selling it to more people. That is the idea.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Devata.6589 said:

> > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > > @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > > > @Devata.6589 said:

> > > > But what if they put out an expansion a year, had no micro transactions and so made the game more interesting buy making fun mechanics ingame to get all those skins. Maybe that would have helped retaining and even increasing the player base, and so the game-sales. Even if it would only retain the player-base that would be 120.000 a year instead of the 100.000. Not to mention that a more popular game also can earn more with things like merchandise.

> > > >

> > >

> > > The question is how many people would buy that expansion. micro-transactions work in games because someone can buy just an expansion every 2 years and play the game without paying anything else, while another person will fund further live development by using micro transactions. So for the average player, micro transactions lead to cheaper games. Would they be willing to pay for more regular expansions? That's the big question.

> >

> > The way GW2 evolves with Living Story Updates and a big expansion every 2 years or so has worked well for me. I like the Gem Store in general and probably spend £50-£80 a year in it. If I had to buy a big expansion every year then I likely would spend less in the gem store because I couldn't justify to myself paying more than £120 a year consecutively on a luxury virtual item - when compared to what one needs to live, GW2 is a luxury.

>

> But if you then would spend £50-£80 on expansions (depending on the version) and they would be able to have a game that keeps more people interesting and playing, they would not really lose money on you while gaining money because they would be selling it to more people. That is the idea.

 

I don't think that annual expansions would significantly increase the number of players. So all it would do is further fracture the player base between those who buy every expansion and those who are picking and choosing. There would be more items added as content rewards rather than on the gem store, but basically everyone who wanted to keep up with the game would have to buy them, rather than the current model where some people are allowed to free-load between expansions.

[fizzypetal.7936]

> @Devata.6589 said:

> > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > > @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > > > @Devata.6589 said:

> > > > But what if they put out an expansion a year, had no micro transactions and so made the game more interesting buy making fun mechanics ingame to get all those skins. Maybe that would have helped retaining and even increasing the player base, and so the game-sales. Even if it would only retain the player-base that would be 120.000 a year instead of the 100.000. Not to mention that a more popular game also can earn more with things like merchandise.

> > > >

> > >

> > > The question is how many people would buy that expansion. micro-transactions work in games because someone can buy just an expansion every 2 years and play the game without paying anything else, while another person will fund further live development by using micro transactions. So for the average player, micro transactions lead to cheaper games. Would they be willing to pay for more regular expansions? That's the big question.

> >

> > The way GW2 evolves with Living Story Updates and a big expansion every 2 years or so has worked well for me. I like the Gem Store in general and probably spend £50-£80 a year in it. If I had to buy a big expansion every year then I likely would spend less in the gem store because I couldn't justify to myself paying more than £120 a year consecutively on a luxury virtual item - when compared to what one needs to live, GW2 is a luxury.

>

> But if you then would spend £50-£80 on expansions (depending on the version) and they would be able to have a game that keeps more people interesting and playing, they would not really lose money on you while gaining money because they would be selling it to more people. That is the idea.

 

That seems like a risky strategy to me. With the current model there is a steady revenue stream with seasonal spikes throughout the year. If ArenaNet were to go to producing expansions players would feel good about spending £30-£80 on every year, I would think they'd have to double the number of staff they have because they would effectively be trying to produce 2-years worth of work and then some, into 1. I can't see they'd make any more money with an annual expansion release over the way things are done now.

[Devata.6589]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Devata.6589 said:

> > > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > > > @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > > > > @Devata.6589 said:

> > > > > But what if they put out an expansion a year, had no micro transactions and so made the game more interesting buy making fun mechanics ingame to get all those skins. Maybe that would have helped retaining and even increasing the player base, and so the game-sales. Even if it would only retain the player-base that would be 120.000 a year instead of the 100.000. Not to mention that a more popular game also can earn more with things like merchandise.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The question is how many people would buy that expansion. micro-transactions work in games because someone can buy just an expansion every 2 years and play the game without paying anything else, while another person will fund further live development by using micro transactions. So for the average player, micro transactions lead to cheaper games. Would they be willing to pay for more regular expansions? That's the big question.

> > >

> > > The way GW2 evolves with Living Story Updates and a big expansion every 2 years or so has worked well for me. I like the Gem Store in general and probably spend £50-£80 a year in it. If I had to buy a big expansion every year then I likely would spend less in the gem store because I couldn't justify to myself paying more than £120 a year consecutively on a luxury virtual item - when compared to what one needs to live, GW2 is a luxury.

> >

> > But if you then would spend £50-£80 on expansions (depending on the version) and they would be able to have a game that keeps more people interesting and playing, they would not really lose money on you while gaining money because they would be selling it to more people. That is the idea.

>

> I don't think that annual expansions would significantly increase the number of players. So all it would do is further fracture the player base between those who buy every expansion and those who are picking and choosing. There would be more items added as content rewards rather than on the gem store, but basically everyone who wanted to keep up with the game would have to buy them, rather than the current model where some people are allowed to free-load between expansions.

 

"I don't think that annual expansions would significantly increase the number of players. " Ah no, just annual expansions would not do that. The annual release is just to sell more (For example: one a year instead of one every 2 years) to increase income, to prevent having to use micro-transactions or subs.

 

Increasing the number of players (who then in turn buy expansions so sales will increase) has to come from the quality of the game. So instead of having the best skins in a store, or like now having nice mounts in the store, you could put them as rewards for dungeon and raids. You could add a breeding system allowing people to breed the most awesome mounts, you could add a system to catch some rare looking ones in the world.

 

Imagine doing that with most items that are now sold. It would give many people a lot to do in-between expansions. That is what should keep the current players and attract more players. More expansions would just be a required condition for this approach.

 

In a way what you are doing is introducing a sub-model but without the "don't pay, then don't play" problem of a sub. Just, don't play the latest content. You are afraid it would fracture the player-base to much, but I do feel most active players will be buying the expansion anyway. So I do not see that as a huge issue.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Devata.6589 said:

>"I don't think that annual expansions would significantly increase the number of players. " Ah no, just annual expansions would not do that. The annual release is just to sell more (For example: one a year instead of one every 2 years) to increase income, to prevent having to use micro-transactions or subs.

 

I'm saying, I don't think the added breathing room they could get from that business model (if any) would result in significantly higher quality. It would essentially just mean that they would be charging players for the LW seasonal content rather than getting it free along with the expansion (ie players would have been charged for what came boxed in HoT and then charged as a separate expansion for the LWs3 content), and that the items that ended up on the Gem Store would have ended up as drops and crafted items and other sorts of ingame rewards. I don't think it would be reasonable to expect that they would have produced significantly more or higher quality materials over the same amount of time, so all that could reasonably change is how those things are distributed around.

 

Besides, most players don't like dungeons or raids. I'd much prefer to be able to get the current raid rewards from the gem store than to only be able to get them via raids. If they locked even more stuff behind raids then that would only make the game worse!