How happy are you with Guild Wars 2 right now?

[serialkicker.5274]

I have to say this is the first time after about 3 years I actually honestly enjoy gw2 again. PoF is very enjoyable, mounts improved my gameplay more than I expected, it's fun to explore again, even older maps. The biggest surprise for me was the story in PoF. I never really enjoyed story in gw2 and a few times I even wrote critics on forum, but I very much enjoyed story in PoF. No cheesy and cringy dialogue, I liked commanders lines more (it helps that my holosmith is male asura with awesome voice acting), jokes didn't felt forced and overdone like before and so on. I hope story can continue like this now onward. Oh and boss fights were well done, enjoyable and properly balanced.

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

Been playing Scourge last night. Decided to give it a 5th chance.

I'm almost hooked.

A billion times better than the derailing they did to Necro in the last balancing.

[Ashen.2907]

> @Athrenn.9468 said:

> Aside from my personal opinions about the quality of storytelling from Season 3 to Path of Fire...

>

> >! (just as a 'brief' note (okay, maybe not brief at all), my problem with the last two story arcs is that the villain felt one dimensional, the pacing was unfocused and the big identity reveal was not foreshadowed properly. Writers need to play fair with their audience and their plot twists are poorly executed. That, and they tried to pack too many villains into six episodes, thus resulting in the anticlimactic resolution of the White Mantle, Jormag and Primordus plot threads in a way that was unsatisfactory. The writers need to just focus on one good antagonist and flesh out the PC's conflict with them rather than telling a bunch of separate and unrelated stories at the same time and rushing through all of them.)

>

> ...my main problem with Guild Wars 2 right now is that I feel kept in the dark about what I'm getting for the money I already paid. Normally a company who's selling you a product will tell you, "For $30, you get 11 new maps, 9 story episodes, 9 elite specializations, 4 raid wings, 1 new PvP game types, Etc. Etc." To me, that is what an honest business practice looks like. You tell me what you're offering and I'll tell you whether I want to buy it. That is not what I've been seeing post-Heart of Thorns.

>

> How many maps do I get for $30? Sure, there's the 5 base maps of the expansion, but how many Living World episodes do I get for my money's worth? I don't count LW as a free add-on that the 'generous' developers are giving me, they count as part of the expansion and I want to know how many episodes I'm getting. When Wrath of the Lich King was in presales, Blizzard told everyone up front what we were getting: 8 new zones, level increase, deathknight class, 1 new PvP game types, and a specific amount of raid wings and dungeons. That is the kind of honest dealing I expect from the industry.

>

> How many new raid wings am I getting and when will they be ready for release? There is no guarantee how much content we'll be getting or even when, just that it will come out when they say it's ready. When WotLK was released, most raids we're there and ready to go immediately. Again, that is what the industry standard should be in my opinion.

>

> I think it's my right as a customer to know how much content I'm getting and when I'll be getting it if they're already asking me to reach for my wallet. That's how honest business should be conducted, not this 'surprise-you-later' model where I'm not even told how many episodes of LW I'm getting until the penultimate episode goes live, thus telling me that there's only one more episode to go.

>

> Right now, I am very unimpressed by ArenaNet's business model and the recent mount scandal only made it worse. I want the developers to tell me upfront what they're selling, for how much and I'll be the judge of whether it's worth my time and money to buy it. That's what an honest deal looks like in my opinion and what they should be striving for. I don't want this mount adoption nonsense where I'm not allowed to choose the one skin I want and instead have to gamble away my gems just for a chance at getting it. To me, that is where I draw the line. Customers have a right to demand transparency. ArenaNet should be able to tell us exactly what we're getting for the money we're putting down the moment we come up to the checkout and ask to see their products.

>

> So to wrap it all up, here is what I am asking from ArenaNet in point form:

>

> * Tell your playerbase upfront how many Living World episodes/maps they can expect to come with their purchase of the expansion. You're not just doing us a 'kind service', you're being transparent with us about what we're getting for the money that you're asking from us. Five maps worth of content is not a generous sum compared to other games; in Wrath of the Lich King, there were eight zones worth of content and quests including new dungeons, raids, and 1 new PvP game type. This is what I expect as the industry standard for transparency.

> * If you can't deliver new raids, dungeons, or PvP game types with the expansion's release, tell us when we can expect to have them and what the content will be like. If other developers can bundle their new content together for the expansion's release then you should be able to either meet or beat their standard.

> * Do better with communication overall. If you're going to promise us new raids with the expansion, tell us something about those new raids so that we're not throwing money blindly at a product that we can't even see. Transparent business practices reassure your customers that you have nothing to hide from them.

> * If you can manage all of the above, please take some time to see my above point about where your story is failing. It's not the most important part of the product you're selling, but it's important enough to me that I've been disappointed by the quality of villain characterization, pacing and foreshadowing consistently.

 

I understand where you are coming from. I, however, tend to look at it as $30 for what is included with the expac launch. If what is listed for the launch is worth the price of admission, to me, I buy. In this case I considered the price acceptible and so bought. If PoF had been advertised as launching with less, with the promise of more later, I would not have bought it.

[qbalrog.8017]

I'm pretty happy. I hope for the addition of metas in the new maps. Otherwise mounts are great. The adoption license is fine. It's an okay tradeoff on cost and rng.

 

I like this xpacs skins much more than HOT (at least none are literally trash). New elites are fun. New maps are nice.

 

I think it just needs some more events and good metas.

 

[Athrenn.9468]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > Aside from my personal opinions about the quality of storytelling from Season 3 to Path of Fire...

> >

> > >! (just as a 'brief' note (okay, maybe not brief at all), my problem with the last two story arcs is that the villain felt one dimensional, the pacing was unfocused and the big identity reveal was not foreshadowed properly. Writers need to play fair with their audience and their plot twists are poorly executed. That, and they tried to pack too many villains into six episodes, thus resulting in the anticlimactic resolution of the White Mantle, Jormag and Primordus plot threads in a way that was unsatisfactory. The writers need to just focus on one good antagonist and flesh out the PC's conflict with them rather than telling a bunch of separate and unrelated stories at the same time and rushing through all of them.)

> >

> > ...my main problem with Guild Wars 2 right now is that I feel kept in the dark about what I'm getting for the money I already paid. Normally a company who's selling you a product will tell you, "For $30, you get 11 new maps, 9 story episodes, 9 elite specializations, 4 raid wings, 1 new PvP game types, Etc. Etc." To me, that is what an honest business practice looks like. You tell me what you're offering and I'll tell you whether I want to buy it. That is not what I've been seeing post-Heart of Thorns.

> >

> > How many maps do I get for $30? Sure, there's the 5 base maps of the expansion, but how many Living World episodes do I get for my money's worth? I don't count LW as a free add-on that the 'generous' developers are giving me, they count as part of the expansion and I want to know how many episodes I'm getting. When Wrath of the Lich King was in presales, Blizzard told everyone up front what we were getting: 8 new zones, level increase, deathknight class, 1 new PvP game types, and a specific amount of raid wings and dungeons. That is the kind of honest dealing I expect from the industry.

> >

> > How many new raid wings am I getting and when will they be ready for release? There is no guarantee how much content we'll be getting or even when, just that it will come out when they say it's ready. When WotLK was released, most raids we're there and ready to go immediately. Again, that is what the industry standard should be in my opinion.

> >

> > I think it's my right as a customer to know how much content I'm getting and when I'll be getting it if they're already asking me to reach for my wallet. That's how honest business should be conducted, not this 'surprise-you-later' model where I'm not even told how many episodes of LW I'm getting until the penultimate episode goes live, thus telling me that there's only one more episode to go.

> >

> > Right now, I am very unimpressed by ArenaNet's business model and the recent mount scandal only made it worse. I want the developers to tell me upfront what they're selling, for how much and I'll be the judge of whether it's worth my time and money to buy it. That's what an honest deal looks like in my opinion and what they should be striving for. I don't want this mount adoption nonsense where I'm not allowed to choose the one skin I want and instead have to gamble away my gems just for a chance at getting it. To me, that is where I draw the line. Customers have a right to demand transparency. ArenaNet should be able to tell us exactly what we're getting for the money we're putting down the moment we come up to the checkout and ask to see their products.

> >

> > So to wrap it all up, here is what I am asking from ArenaNet in point form:

> >

> > * Tell your playerbase upfront how many Living World episodes/maps they can expect to come with their purchase of the expansion. You're not just doing us a 'kind service', you're being transparent with us about what we're getting for the money that you're asking from us. Five maps worth of content is not a generous sum compared to other games; in Wrath of the Lich King, there were eight zones worth of content and quests including new dungeons, raids, and 1 new PvP game type. This is what I expect as the industry standard for transparency.

> > * If you can't deliver new raids, dungeons, or PvP game types with the expansion's release, tell us when we can expect to have them and what the content will be like. If other developers can bundle their new content together for the expansion's release then you should be able to either meet or beat their standard.

> > * Do better with communication overall. If you're going to promise us new raids with the expansion, tell us something about those new raids so that we're not throwing money blindly at a product that we can't even see. Transparent business practices reassure your customers that you have nothing to hide from them.

> > * If you can manage all of the above, please take some time to see my above point about where your story is failing. It's not the most important part of the product you're selling, but it's important enough to me that I've been disappointed by the quality of villain characterization, pacing and foreshadowing consistently.

>

> I understand where you are coming from. I, however, tend to look at it as $30 for what is included with the expac launch. If what is listed for the launch is worth the price of admission, to me, I buy. In this case I considered the price acceptible and so bought. If PoF had been advertised as launching with less, with the promise of more later, I would not have bought it.

 

But you did buy Path of Fire, and they did promise to release new Living World episodes and raids later bundled with your purchase. The only difference is that they aren't telling us how much content we can expect, when to expect it, etc. It feels 'free', but it's really not. You're paying for access to Living World episodes, raids, and everything else that requires the expansion so it really is part of the purchase price regardless of how they advertise it.

 

I'm going to hide the rest of my post in spoiler tags because it comes with a warning. Keep reading if you want to know why I've come to this conclusion, but be prepared for the possibility of becoming disillusioned with the Disneyland fantasy of the game world once you start thinking about how the video game industry works:

 

>! Just think about the economics of their decision. What is their monetary incentive to release 'free' maps and episodes? The game designers are certainly getting paid to design those maps and the writers are getting paid to write those episodic stories, so where are they getting the money to pay those people? My theory is that Living World is only profitable because their business model is heavily reliant on the gem store and regular 'free' content releases are integral to their success.

>!

>! In a conference call from 2015, it was stated that "the contribution of item sales (Gem Store) is Much Stronger than the Box Sales. The Xpac Revenue will weaken further over time." [(Source)](

"(Source)") From that information, my hypothesis is that it is in ArenaNet's best interest (I.e. For their bottom line) to keep players coming back at regular intervals to check the gem store for new sales. That can only happen if they spread their content releases out over time so that every two months, players flock back to play the new content which is coordinated with the promotion of gem store sales and item releases. If my hypothesis is correct, then ArenaNet's business strategy is to intentionally hold back on content releases so that players can't complete the whole story in one go.

>!

>! This is why I believe that Living World is just a strategic ploy to keep players from figuring out that their expansion releases are lightweight compared to the industry standard established in other games. They want their players to believe that they got their money's worth with the expansion but their true motivation is to keep them coming back for 'free' content so that they are exposed to the gem store sales and new items. It's a psychological trick that makes people think that ArenaNet is doing them a favor when it's really just part of a cold, hard and calculating strategy to boost gem store sales because they know it's more profitable than box sales of the expansion on its own.

>!

>! Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. ArenaNet is a business and they need to stay competitive in the industry. How many people are playing this game because of the fact that there are no subscription fees? I'm perfectly content with their business model because it allows me to play for $30 as long as I control my gem store spending. The thing is, players are catching on to how their business strategy works and it's transparent as glass.

>!

>! You know how games like World of Warcraft reward players for playing the game? That's because you're paying a subscription fee and it's in the company's best interest to keep players putting hours of work into the game so that they keep paying subscriptions. Now, what happens when you take subscription fee revenues away? Those profits are going to come from somewhere else, and I'll bet it's the gem store. All that content that other game developers would have bundled with the expansion as gameplay rewards become microtransactions in GW2. Have you ever wondered why it feels like GW2 doesn't have as much to offer by just playing the game? It's probably because the company's profit revolves around item sales and they always save their nicest items for the cash shop.

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

> @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > > Aside from my personal opinions about the quality of storytelling from Season 3 to Path of Fire...

> > >

> > > >! (just as a 'brief' note (okay, maybe not brief at all), my problem with the last two story arcs is that the villain felt one dimensional, the pacing was unfocused and the big identity reveal was not foreshadowed properly. Writers need to play fair with their audience and their plot twists are poorly executed. That, and they tried to pack too many villains into six episodes, thus resulting in the anticlimactic resolution of the White Mantle, Jormag and Primordus plot threads in a way that was unsatisfactory. The writers need to just focus on one good antagonist and flesh out the PC's conflict with them rather than telling a bunch of separate and unrelated stories at the same time and rushing through all of them.)

> > >

> > > ...my main problem with Guild Wars 2 right now is that I feel kept in the dark about what I'm getting for the money I already paid. Normally a company who's selling you a product will tell you, "For $30, you get 11 new maps, 9 story episodes, 9 elite specializations, 4 raid wings, 1 new PvP game types, Etc. Etc." To me, that is what an honest business practice looks like. You tell me what you're offering and I'll tell you whether I want to buy it. That is not what I've been seeing post-Heart of Thorns.

> > >

> > > How many maps do I get for $30? Sure, there's the 5 base maps of the expansion, but how many Living World episodes do I get for my money's worth? I don't count LW as a free add-on that the 'generous' developers are giving me, they count as part of the expansion and I want to know how many episodes I'm getting. When Wrath of the Lich King was in presales, Blizzard told everyone up front what we were getting: 8 new zones, level increase, deathknight class, 1 new PvP game types, and a specific amount of raid wings and dungeons. That is the kind of honest dealing I expect from the industry.

> > >

> > > How many new raid wings am I getting and when will they be ready for release? There is no guarantee how much content we'll be getting or even when, just that it will come out when they say it's ready. When WotLK was released, most raids we're there and ready to go immediately. Again, that is what the industry standard should be in my opinion.

> > >

> > > I think it's my right as a customer to know how much content I'm getting and when I'll be getting it if they're already asking me to reach for my wallet. That's how honest business should be conducted, not this 'surprise-you-later' model where I'm not even told how many episodes of LW I'm getting until the penultimate episode goes live, thus telling me that there's only one more episode to go.

> > >

> > > Right now, I am very unimpressed by ArenaNet's business model and the recent mount scandal only made it worse. I want the developers to tell me upfront what they're selling, for how much and I'll be the judge of whether it's worth my time and money to buy it. That's what an honest deal looks like in my opinion and what they should be striving for. I don't want this mount adoption nonsense where I'm not allowed to choose the one skin I want and instead have to gamble away my gems just for a chance at getting it. To me, that is where I draw the line. Customers have a right to demand transparency. ArenaNet should be able to tell us exactly what we're getting for the money we're putting down the moment we come up to the checkout and ask to see their products.

> > >

> > > So to wrap it all up, here is what I am asking from ArenaNet in point form:

> > >

> > > * Tell your playerbase upfront how many Living World episodes/maps they can expect to come with their purchase of the expansion. You're not just doing us a 'kind service', you're being transparent with us about what we're getting for the money that you're asking from us. Five maps worth of content is not a generous sum compared to other games; in Wrath of the Lich King, there were eight zones worth of content and quests including new dungeons, raids, and 1 new PvP game type. This is what I expect as the industry standard for transparency.

> > > * If you can't deliver new raids, dungeons, or PvP game types with the expansion's release, tell us when we can expect to have them and what the content will be like. If other developers can bundle their new content together for the expansion's release then you should be able to either meet or beat their standard.

> > > * Do better with communication overall. If you're going to promise us new raids with the expansion, tell us something about those new raids so that we're not throwing money blindly at a product that we can't even see. Transparent business practices reassure your customers that you have nothing to hide from them.

> > > * If you can manage all of the above, please take some time to see my above point about where your story is failing. It's not the most important part of the product you're selling, but it's important enough to me that I've been disappointed by the quality of villain characterization, pacing and foreshadowing consistently.

> >

> > I understand where you are coming from. I, however, tend to look at it as $30 for what is included with the expac launch. If what is listed for the launch is worth the price of admission, to me, I buy. In this case I considered the price acceptible and so bought. If PoF had been advertised as launching with less, with the promise of more later, I would not have bought it.

>

> But you did buy Path of Fire, and they did promise to release new Living World episodes and raids later bundled with your purchase. The only difference is that they aren't telling us how much content we can expect, when to expect it, etc. It feels 'free', but it's really not. You're paying for access to Living World episodes, raids, and everything else that requires the expansion so it really is part of the purchase price regardless of how they advertise it.

>

> I'm going to hide the rest of my post in spoiler tags because it comes with a warning. Keep reading if you want to know why I've come to this conclusion, but be prepared for the possibility of becoming disillusioned with the Disneyland fantasy of the game world once you start thinking about how the video game industry works:

>

> >! Just think about the economics of their decision. What is their monetary incentive to release 'free' maps and episodes? The game designers are certainly getting paid to design those maps and the writers are getting paid to write those episodic stories, so where are they getting the money to pay those people? My theory is that Living World is only profitable because their business model is heavily reliant on the gem store and regular 'free' content releases are integral to their success.

> >!

> >! In a conference call from 2015, it was stated that "the contribution of item sales (Gem Store) is Much Stronger than the Box Sales. The Xpac Revenue will weaken further over time." [(Source)](

"(Source)") From that information, my hypothesis is that it is in ArenaNet's best interest (I.e. For their bottom line) to keep players coming back at regular intervals to check the gem store for new sales. That can only happen if they spread their content releases out over time so that every two months, players flock back to play the new content which is coordinated with the promotion of gem store sales and item releases. If my hypothesis is correct, then ArenaNet's business strategy is to intentionally hold back on content releases so that players can't complete the whole story in one go.

> >!

> >! This is why I believe that Living World is just a strategic ploy to keep players from figuring out that their expansion releases are lightweight compared to the industry standard established in other games. They want their players to believe that they got their money's worth with the expansion but their true motivation is to keep them coming back for 'free' content so that they are exposed to the gem store sales and new items. It's a psychological trick that makes people think that ArenaNet is doing them a favor when it's really just part of a cold, hard and calculating strategy to boost gem store sales because they know it's more profitable than box sales of the expansion on its own.

> >!

> >! Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. ArenaNet is a business and they need to stay competitive in the industry. How many people are playing this game because of the fact that there are no subscription fees? I'm perfectly content with their business model because it allows me to play for $30 as long as I control my gem store spending. The thing is, players are catching on to how their business strategy works and it's transparent as glass.

> >!

> >! You know how games like World of Warcraft reward players for playing the game? That's because you're paying a subscription fee and it's in the company's best interest to keep players putting hours of work into the game so that they keep paying subscriptions. Now, what happens when you take subscription fee revenues away? Those profits are going to come from somewhere else, and I'll bet it's the gem store. All that content that other game developers would have bundled with the expansion as gameplay rewards become microtransactions in GW2. Have you ever wondered why it feels like GW2 doesn't have as much to offer by just playing the game? It's probably because the company's profit revolves around item sales and they always save their nicest items for the cash shop.

 

The problem there though is let's say someone couldn't play when the Living World came due to anything. Death in the whatever, emergency, temporary coma, Meta happening in another country/continent and no waypoints in real life so they have to head there, they would have to pay for that Living World so it would be extra.

[Ashen.2907]

> @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > > Aside from my personal opinions about the quality of storytelling from Season 3 to Path of Fire...

> > >

> > > >! (just as a 'brief' note (okay, maybe not brief at all), my problem with the last two story arcs is that the villain felt one dimensional, the pacing was unfocused and the big identity reveal was not foreshadowed properly. Writers need to play fair with their audience and their plot twists are poorly executed. That, and they tried to pack too many villains into six episodes, thus resulting in the anticlimactic resolution of the White Mantle, Jormag and Primordus plot threads in a way that was unsatisfactory. The writers need to just focus on one good antagonist and flesh out the PC's conflict with them rather than telling a bunch of separate and unrelated stories at the same time and rushing through all of them.)

> > >

> > > ...my main problem with Guild Wars 2 right now is that I feel kept in the dark about what I'm getting for the money I already paid. Normally a company who's selling you a product will tell you, "For $30, you get 11 new maps, 9 story episodes, 9 elite specializations, 4 raid wings, 1 new PvP game types, Etc. Etc." To me, that is what an honest business practice looks like. You tell me what you're offering and I'll tell you whether I want to buy it. That is not what I've been seeing post-Heart of Thorns.

> > >

> > > How many maps do I get for $30? Sure, there's the 5 base maps of the expansion, but how many Living World episodes do I get for my money's worth? I don't count LW as a free add-on that the 'generous' developers are giving me, they count as part of the expansion and I want to know how many episodes I'm getting. When Wrath of the Lich King was in presales, Blizzard told everyone up front what we were getting: 8 new zones, level increase, deathknight class, 1 new PvP game types, and a specific amount of raid wings and dungeons. That is the kind of honest dealing I expect from the industry.

> > >

> > > How many new raid wings am I getting and when will they be ready for release? There is no guarantee how much content we'll be getting or even when, just that it will come out when they say it's ready. When WotLK was released, most raids we're there and ready to go immediately. Again, that is what the industry standard should be in my opinion.

> > >

> > > I think it's my right as a customer to know how much content I'm getting and when I'll be getting it if they're already asking me to reach for my wallet. That's how honest business should be conducted, not this 'surprise-you-later' model where I'm not even told how many episodes of LW I'm getting until the penultimate episode goes live, thus telling me that there's only one more episode to go.

> > >

> > > Right now, I am very unimpressed by ArenaNet's business model and the recent mount scandal only made it worse. I want the developers to tell me upfront what they're selling, for how much and I'll be the judge of whether it's worth my time and money to buy it. That's what an honest deal looks like in my opinion and what they should be striving for. I don't want this mount adoption nonsense where I'm not allowed to choose the one skin I want and instead have to gamble away my gems just for a chance at getting it. To me, that is where I draw the line. Customers have a right to demand transparency. ArenaNet should be able to tell us exactly what we're getting for the money we're putting down the moment we come up to the checkout and ask to see their products.

> > >

> > > So to wrap it all up, here is what I am asking from ArenaNet in point form:

> > >

> > > * Tell your playerbase upfront how many Living World episodes/maps they can expect to come with their purchase of the expansion. You're not just doing us a 'kind service', you're being transparent with us about what we're getting for the money that you're asking from us. Five maps worth of content is not a generous sum compared to other games; in Wrath of the Lich King, there were eight zones worth of content and quests including new dungeons, raids, and 1 new PvP game type. This is what I expect as the industry standard for transparency.

> > > * If you can't deliver new raids, dungeons, or PvP game types with the expansion's release, tell us when we can expect to have them and what the content will be like. If other developers can bundle their new content together for the expansion's release then you should be able to either meet or beat their standard.

> > > * Do better with communication overall. If you're going to promise us new raids with the expansion, tell us something about those new raids so that we're not throwing money blindly at a product that we can't even see. Transparent business practices reassure your customers that you have nothing to hide from them.

> > > * If you can manage all of the above, please take some time to see my above point about where your story is failing. It's not the most important part of the product you're selling, but it's important enough to me that I've been disappointed by the quality of villain characterization, pacing and foreshadowing consistently.

> >

> > I understand where you are coming from. I, however, tend to look at it as $30 for what is included with the expac launch. If what is listed for the launch is worth the price of admission, to me, I buy. In this case I considered the price acceptible and so bought. If PoF had been advertised as launching with less, with the promise of more later, I would not have bought it.

>

> But you did buy Path of Fire, and they did promise to release new Living World episodes and raids later bundled with your purchase. The only difference is that they aren't telling us how much content we can expect, when to expect it, etc. It feels 'free', but it's really not. You're paying for access to Living World episodes, raids, and everything else that requires the expansion so it really is part of the purchase price regardless of how they advertise it.

>

> I'm going to hide the rest of my post in spoiler tags because it comes with a warning. Keep reading if you want to know why I've come to this conclusion, but be prepared for the possibility of becoming disillusioned with the Disneyland fantasy of the game world once you start thinking about how the video game industry works:

>

> >! Just think about the economics of their decision. What is their monetary incentive to release 'free' maps and episodes? The game designers are certainly getting paid to design those maps and the writers are getting paid to write those episodic stories, so where are they getting the money to pay those people? My theory is that Living World is only profitable because their business model is heavily reliant on the gem store and regular 'free' content releases are integral to their success.

> >!

> >! In a conference call from 2015, it was stated that "the contribution of item sales (Gem Store) is Much Stronger than the Box Sales. The Xpac Revenue will weaken further over time." [(Source)](

"(Source)") From that information, my hypothesis is that it is in ArenaNet's best interest (I.e. For their bottom line) to keep players coming back at regular intervals to check the gem store for new sales. That can only happen if they spread their content releases out over time so that every two months, players flock back to play the new content which is coordinated with the promotion of gem store sales and item releases. If my hypothesis is correct, then ArenaNet's business strategy is to intentionally hold back on content releases so that players can't complete the whole story in one go.

> >!

> >! This is why I believe that Living World is just a strategic ploy to keep players from figuring out that their expansion releases are lightweight compared to the industry standard established in other games. They want their players to believe that they got their money's worth with the expansion but their true motivation is to keep them coming back for 'free' content so that they are exposed to the gem store sales and new items. It's a psychological trick that makes people think that ArenaNet is doing them a favor when it's really just part of a cold, hard and calculating strategy to boost gem store sales because they know it's more profitable than box sales of the expansion on its own.

> >!

> >! Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. ArenaNet is a business and they need to stay competitive in the industry. How many people are playing this game because of the fact that there are no subscription fees? I'm perfectly content with their business model because it allows me to play for $30 as long as I control my gem store spending. The thing is, players are catching on to how their business strategy works and it's transparent as glass.

> >!

> >! You know how games like World of Warcraft reward players for playing the game? That's because you're paying a subscription fee and it's in the company's best interest to keep players putting hours of work into the game so that they keep paying subscriptions. Now, what happens when you take subscription fee revenues away? Those profits are going to come from somewhere else, and I'll bet it's the gem store. All that content that other game developers would have bundled with the expansion as gameplay rewards become microtransactions in GW2. Have you ever wondered why it feels like GW2 doesn't have as much to offer by just playing the game? It's probably because the company's profit revolves around item sales and they always save their nicest items for the cash shop.

 

What was described as included with the expac at launch was worth the price of admission to me. Nothing described as being added later was included in my decision to purchase. I got what I paid for, and am pretty happy with it.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @TexZero.7910 said:

> >If the entire home movie industry shifts from VHS to DVD it will be dead too right ?

>

> We aren't just talking about a platform shift here. If it were that simple then we wouldn't be talking about it in terms of profitability, because any mobile game could work just fine on any other platform from a "gameplay" perspective. The issue is that the "profitability" comes down to business model, which is "free to play, in theory, but LOADED with the most aggressive, pay-to-win, semi-mandatory microtransactions imaginable. For all the controversy around GW2 and Battlefront lately, highly successful mobile games get up to things that would make EA blush.

>

> If we could get high quality, content-rich games on mobile, fine, but if the industry truly does move to mobile, not just the platform, but the ideology, then it means very simple Skinnerbox simulators with the bare minimum of content, tight limitations as to what you can actually accomplish at any given time (without paying them money to keep playing), and massive advantages to those who are willing to drop thousands of dollars on the game, making it impossible for anyone to keep up with the curve otherwise.

>

> That's not a gaming environment I want to live in.

 

It's harder to find the great games on mobile but they are definitely there. Just usually you need to pay for them.

Alot of big names have been putting their whole series on android. And alot of older classic games are on there as well.

 

So while alot of the free games are usually some skinnerbox simulator as you call it, there's are fullfledged games on mobile these days. The problem is more that those games are mixed with smaller names that indeed try to get in on the big simulator thing. Other games do provide a great deal of fun gameplay additionally to the whole grind your ass off for stuff or pay up.

 

Just take a look at console classics on the google play store. Those are not simple skinnerbox simulations.

[Athrenn.9468]

> @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > > > Aside from my personal opinions about the quality of storytelling from Season 3 to Path of Fire...

> > > >

> > > > >! (just as a 'brief' note (okay, maybe not brief at all), my problem with the last two story arcs is that the villain felt one dimensional, the pacing was unfocused and the big identity reveal was not foreshadowed properly. Writers need to play fair with their audience and their plot twists are poorly executed. That, and they tried to pack too many villains into six episodes, thus resulting in the anticlimactic resolution of the White Mantle, Jormag and Primordus plot threads in a way that was unsatisfactory. The writers need to just focus on one good antagonist and flesh out the PC's conflict with them rather than telling a bunch of separate and unrelated stories at the same time and rushing through all of them.)

> > > >

> > > > ...my main problem with Guild Wars 2 right now is that I feel kept in the dark about what I'm getting for the money I already paid. Normally a company who's selling you a product will tell you, "For $30, you get 11 new maps, 9 story episodes, 9 elite specializations, 4 raid wings, 1 new PvP game types, Etc. Etc." To me, that is what an honest business practice looks like. You tell me what you're offering and I'll tell you whether I want to buy it. That is not what I've been seeing post-Heart of Thorns.

> > > >

> > > > How many maps do I get for $30? Sure, there's the 5 base maps of the expansion, but how many Living World episodes do I get for my money's worth? I don't count LW as a free add-on that the 'generous' developers are giving me, they count as part of the expansion and I want to know how many episodes I'm getting. When Wrath of the Lich King was in presales, Blizzard told everyone up front what we were getting: 8 new zones, level increase, deathknight class, 1 new PvP game types, and a specific amount of raid wings and dungeons. That is the kind of honest dealing I expect from the industry.

> > > >

> > > > How many new raid wings am I getting and when will they be ready for release? There is no guarantee how much content we'll be getting or even when, just that it will come out when they say it's ready. When WotLK was released, most raids we're there and ready to go immediately. Again, that is what the industry standard should be in my opinion.

> > > >

> > > > I think it's my right as a customer to know how much content I'm getting and when I'll be getting it if they're already asking me to reach for my wallet. That's how honest business should be conducted, not this 'surprise-you-later' model where I'm not even told how many episodes of LW I'm getting until the penultimate episode goes live, thus telling me that there's only one more episode to go.

> > > >

> > > > Right now, I am very unimpressed by ArenaNet's business model and the recent mount scandal only made it worse. I want the developers to tell me upfront what they're selling, for how much and I'll be the judge of whether it's worth my time and money to buy it. That's what an honest deal looks like in my opinion and what they should be striving for. I don't want this mount adoption nonsense where I'm not allowed to choose the one skin I want and instead have to gamble away my gems just for a chance at getting it. To me, that is where I draw the line. Customers have a right to demand transparency. ArenaNet should be able to tell us exactly what we're getting for the money we're putting down the moment we come up to the checkout and ask to see their products.

> > > >

> > > > So to wrap it all up, here is what I am asking from ArenaNet in point form:

> > > >

> > > > * Tell your playerbase upfront how many Living World episodes/maps they can expect to come with their purchase of the expansion. You're not just doing us a 'kind service', you're being transparent with us about what we're getting for the money that you're asking from us. Five maps worth of content is not a generous sum compared to other games; in Wrath of the Lich King, there were eight zones worth of content and quests including new dungeons, raids, and 1 new PvP game type. This is what I expect as the industry standard for transparency.

> > > > * If you can't deliver new raids, dungeons, or PvP game types with the expansion's release, tell us when we can expect to have them and what the content will be like. If other developers can bundle their new content together for the expansion's release then you should be able to either meet or beat their standard.

> > > > * Do better with communication overall. If you're going to promise us new raids with the expansion, tell us something about those new raids so that we're not throwing money blindly at a product that we can't even see. Transparent business practices reassure your customers that you have nothing to hide from them.

> > > > * If you can manage all of the above, please take some time to see my above point about where your story is failing. It's not the most important part of the product you're selling, but it's important enough to me that I've been disappointed by the quality of villain characterization, pacing and foreshadowing consistently.

> > >

> > > I understand where you are coming from. I, however, tend to look at it as $30 for what is included with the expac launch. If what is listed for the launch is worth the price of admission, to me, I buy. In this case I considered the price acceptible and so bought. If PoF had been advertised as launching with less, with the promise of more later, I would not have bought it.

> >

> > But you did buy Path of Fire, and they did promise to release new Living World episodes and raids later bundled with your purchase. The only difference is that they aren't telling us how much content we can expect, when to expect it, etc. It feels 'free', but it's really not. You're paying for access to Living World episodes, raids, and everything else that requires the expansion so it really is part of the purchase price regardless of how they advertise it.

> >

> > I'm going to hide the rest of my post in spoiler tags because it comes with a warning. Keep reading if you want to know why I've come to this conclusion, but be prepared for the possibility of becoming disillusioned with the Disneyland fantasy of the game world once you start thinking about how the video game industry works:

> >

> > >! Just think about the economics of their decision. What is their monetary incentive to release 'free' maps and episodes? The game designers are certainly getting paid to design those maps and the writers are getting paid to write those episodic stories, so where are they getting the money to pay those people? My theory is that Living World is only profitable because their business model is heavily reliant on the gem store and regular 'free' content releases are integral to their success.

> > >!

> > >! In a conference call from 2015, it was stated that "the contribution of item sales (Gem Store) is Much Stronger than the Box Sales. The Xpac Revenue will weaken further over time." [(Source)](

"(Source)") From that information, my hypothesis is that it is in ArenaNet's best interest (I.e. For their bottom line) to keep players coming back at regular intervals to check the gem store for new sales. That can only happen if they spread their content releases out over time so that every two months, players flock back to play the new content which is coordinated with the promotion of gem store sales and item releases. If my hypothesis is correct, then ArenaNet's business strategy is to intentionally hold back on content releases so that players can't complete the whole story in one go.

> > >!

> > >! This is why I believe that Living World is just a strategic ploy to keep players from figuring out that their expansion releases are lightweight compared to the industry standard established in other games. They want their players to believe that they got their money's worth with the expansion but their true motivation is to keep them coming back for 'free' content so that they are exposed to the gem store sales and new items. It's a psychological trick that makes people think that ArenaNet is doing them a favor when it's really just part of a cold, hard and calculating strategy to boost gem store sales because they know it's more profitable than box sales of the expansion on its own.

> > >!

> > >! Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. ArenaNet is a business and they need to stay competitive in the industry. How many people are playing this game because of the fact that there are no subscription fees? I'm perfectly content with their business model because it allows me to play for $30 as long as I control my gem store spending. The thing is, players are catching on to how their business strategy works and it's transparent as glass.

> > >!

> > >! You know how games like World of Warcraft reward players for playing the game? That's because you're paying a subscription fee and it's in the company's best interest to keep players putting hours of work into the game so that they keep paying subscriptions. Now, what happens when you take subscription fee revenues away? Those profits are going to come from somewhere else, and I'll bet it's the gem store. All that content that other game developers would have bundled with the expansion as gameplay rewards become microtransactions in GW2. Have you ever wondered why it feels like GW2 doesn't have as much to offer by just playing the game? It's probably because the company's profit revolves around item sales and they always save their nicest items for the cash shop.

>

> The problem there though is let's say someone couldn't play when the Living World came due to anything. Death in the whatever, emergency, temporary coma, Meta happening in another country/continent and no waypoints in real life so they have to head there, they would have to pay for that Living World so it would be extra.

 

That's not a problem for the developers at all. They'll always find some way to cash in on an opportunity. If you miss unlocking it for free, they'll charge you for it. If you log in to check out the content, you're being exposed to gem store deals that you're more likely to buy. Either way, there's no such thing as a free lunch in economics. If they're advertising it as 'free' then they want something from you and it always involves money.

 

 

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > > > Aside from my personal opinions about the quality of storytelling from Season 3 to Path of Fire...

> > > >

> > > > >! (just as a 'brief' note (okay, maybe not brief at all), my problem with the last two story arcs is that the villain felt one dimensional, the pacing was unfocused and the big identity reveal was not foreshadowed properly. Writers need to play fair with their audience and their plot twists are poorly executed. That, and they tried to pack too many villains into six episodes, thus resulting in the anticlimactic resolution of the White Mantle, Jormag and Primordus plot threads in a way that was unsatisfactory. The writers need to just focus on one good antagonist and flesh out the PC's conflict with them rather than telling a bunch of separate and unrelated stories at the same time and rushing through all of them.)

> > > >

> > > > ...my main problem with Guild Wars 2 right now is that I feel kept in the dark about what I'm getting for the money I already paid. Normally a company who's selling you a product will tell you, "For $30, you get 11 new maps, 9 story episodes, 9 elite specializations, 4 raid wings, 1 new PvP game types, Etc. Etc." To me, that is what an honest business practice looks like. You tell me what you're offering and I'll tell you whether I want to buy it. That is not what I've been seeing post-Heart of Thorns.

> > > >

> > > > How many maps do I get for $30? Sure, there's the 5 base maps of the expansion, but how many Living World episodes do I get for my money's worth? I don't count LW as a free add-on that the 'generous' developers are giving me, they count as part of the expansion and I want to know how many episodes I'm getting. When Wrath of the Lich King was in presales, Blizzard told everyone up front what we were getting: 8 new zones, level increase, deathknight class, 1 new PvP game types, and a specific amount of raid wings and dungeons. That is the kind of honest dealing I expect from the industry.

> > > >

> > > > How many new raid wings am I getting and when will they be ready for release? There is no guarantee how much content we'll be getting or even when, just that it will come out when they say it's ready. When WotLK was released, most raids we're there and ready to go immediately. Again, that is what the industry standard should be in my opinion.

> > > >

> > > > I think it's my right as a customer to know how much content I'm getting and when I'll be getting it if they're already asking me to reach for my wallet. That's how honest business should be conducted, not this 'surprise-you-later' model where I'm not even told how many episodes of LW I'm getting until the penultimate episode goes live, thus telling me that there's only one more episode to go.

> > > >

> > > > Right now, I am very unimpressed by ArenaNet's business model and the recent mount scandal only made it worse. I want the developers to tell me upfront what they're selling, for how much and I'll be the judge of whether it's worth my time and money to buy it. That's what an honest deal looks like in my opinion and what they should be striving for. I don't want this mount adoption nonsense where I'm not allowed to choose the one skin I want and instead have to gamble away my gems just for a chance at getting it. To me, that is where I draw the line. Customers have a right to demand transparency. ArenaNet should be able to tell us exactly what we're getting for the money we're putting down the moment we come up to the checkout and ask to see their products.

> > > >

> > > > So to wrap it all up, here is what I am asking from ArenaNet in point form:

> > > >

> > > > * Tell your playerbase upfront how many Living World episodes/maps they can expect to come with their purchase of the expansion. You're not just doing us a 'kind service', you're being transparent with us about what we're getting for the money that you're asking from us. Five maps worth of content is not a generous sum compared to other games; in Wrath of the Lich King, there were eight zones worth of content and quests including new dungeons, raids, and 1 new PvP game type. This is what I expect as the industry standard for transparency.

> > > > * If you can't deliver new raids, dungeons, or PvP game types with the expansion's release, tell us when we can expect to have them and what the content will be like. If other developers can bundle their new content together for the expansion's release then you should be able to either meet or beat their standard.

> > > > * Do better with communication overall. If you're going to promise us new raids with the expansion, tell us something about those new raids so that we're not throwing money blindly at a product that we can't even see. Transparent business practices reassure your customers that you have nothing to hide from them.

> > > > * If you can manage all of the above, please take some time to see my above point about where your story is failing. It's not the most important part of the product you're selling, but it's important enough to me that I've been disappointed by the quality of villain characterization, pacing and foreshadowing consistently.

> > >

> > > I understand where you are coming from. I, however, tend to look at it as $30 for what is included with the expac launch. If what is listed for the launch is worth the price of admission, to me, I buy. In this case I considered the price acceptible and so bought. If PoF had been advertised as launching with less, with the promise of more later, I would not have bought it.

> >

> > But you did buy Path of Fire, and they did promise to release new Living World episodes and raids later bundled with your purchase. The only difference is that they aren't telling us how much content we can expect, when to expect it, etc. It feels 'free', but it's really not. You're paying for access to Living World episodes, raids, and everything else that requires the expansion so it really is part of the purchase price regardless of how they advertise it.

> >

> > I'm going to hide the rest of my post in spoiler tags because it comes with a warning. Keep reading if you want to know why I've come to this conclusion, but be prepared for the possibility of becoming disillusioned with the Disneyland fantasy of the game world once you start thinking about how the video game industry works:

> >

> > >! Just think about the economics of their decision. What is their monetary incentive to release 'free' maps and episodes? The game designers are certainly getting paid to design those maps and the writers are getting paid to write those episodic stories, so where are they getting the money to pay those people? My theory is that Living World is only profitable because their business model is heavily reliant on the gem store and regular 'free' content releases are integral to their success.

> > >!

> > >! In a conference call from 2015, it was stated that "the contribution of item sales (Gem Store) is Much Stronger than the Box Sales. The Xpac Revenue will weaken further over time." [(Source)](

"(Source)") From that information, my hypothesis is that it is in ArenaNet's best interest (I.e. For their bottom line) to keep players coming back at regular intervals to check the gem store for new sales. That can only happen if they spread their content releases out over time so that every two months, players flock back to play the new content which is coordinated with the promotion of gem store sales and item releases. If my hypothesis is correct, then ArenaNet's business strategy is to intentionally hold back on content releases so that players can't complete the whole story in one go.

> > >!

> > >! This is why I believe that Living World is just a strategic ploy to keep players from figuring out that their expansion releases are lightweight compared to the industry standard established in other games. They want their players to believe that they got their money's worth with the expansion but their true motivation is to keep them coming back for 'free' content so that they are exposed to the gem store sales and new items. It's a psychological trick that makes people think that ArenaNet is doing them a favor when it's really just part of a cold, hard and calculating strategy to boost gem store sales because they know it's more profitable than box sales of the expansion on its own.

> > >!

> > >! Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. ArenaNet is a business and they need to stay competitive in the industry. How many people are playing this game because of the fact that there are no subscription fees? I'm perfectly content with their business model because it allows me to play for $30 as long as I control my gem store spending. The thing is, players are catching on to how their business strategy works and it's transparent as glass.

> > >!

> > >! You know how games like World of Warcraft reward players for playing the game? That's because you're paying a subscription fee and it's in the company's best interest to keep players putting hours of work into the game so that they keep paying subscriptions. Now, what happens when you take subscription fee revenues away? Those profits are going to come from somewhere else, and I'll bet it's the gem store. All that content that other game developers would have bundled with the expansion as gameplay rewards become microtransactions in GW2. Have you ever wondered why it feels like GW2 doesn't have as much to offer by just playing the game? It's probably because the company's profit revolves around item sales and they always save their nicest items for the cash shop.

>

> What was described as included with the expac at launch was worth the price of admission to me. Nothing described as being added later was included in my decision to purchase. I got what I paid for, and am pretty happy with it.

 

You're happy now, but would you be happy if they told you that Living World was cancelled or you had to pay extra for it? Would you be happy if there was no new 'free' content between now and Expansion 3?

 

That is the psychological effect that spread out expansion releases has on people. Subconsciously you think that there's enough content there to tie you over for the next few months because you know that there's always another release just around the corner. If Living World didn't exist, the amount of content released with Path of Fire would have been outrageously lightweight for an expansion that's supposed to contain a year's worth of new features.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @Athrenn.9468 said:

>

> This is why I believe that Living World is just a strategic ploy to keep players from figuring out that their expansion releases are lightweight compared to the industry standard established in other games.

 

I deleted the rest of your "spoiler" text in line with your intent to allow people to choose to read it or not.

 

I have to question the above assumption, especially in the case of PoF. What PoF lacks is not content, it is rewards to fuel the near-endless repetition some MMO fans expect. When I comparison shop, ANet's business plan is a lot more consumer-friendly than other companies. $30 for PoF compares favorably to the first 2 ESO DLC, which sold for ~$22 and ~$30, respectively. It especially compares favorably to games which charge $40-50 for XPac's, then rent access to players. I know there is going to be disagreement on the latter assertion. I never felt more cheated by a game than when I played the big gorilla of MMO's. Ommv.

 

So, for me, the Living World updates are gravy, especially at PoF's price. Maybe that's damning ANet with faint praise, but if that's the case, I'd be damning the whole industry.

[Zionka.6897]

Am enjoying the game as much as I always have. Maybe even more. The only thing keeping me from giving the best vote, is the fact PoF itself really is kinda lackluster, as much as I hate to admit it. beautiful maps, story is .. ok, mounts are awesome, but as people have been saying, once you've done the content, there's no reason to go back really. I have faith that season 4 will enrich it there some (always the optimist). And as someone else mentioned here, rewards and loot are sooo ho-hum, all cosmetics seem to be locked behind gems now, I never want to fight any mobs or even bosses there now that I got the standard skins all unlocked from the zone. Chests? *yawns*

[Crystal Master.4169]

Pretty much quit playing a week after expac dropped. There's just nothing new and interesting to do we havent been doing for the past years... EVEN AFTER EXPAC. 0 instance content, 0 great events, 0 good achieves/collections, 0 challenging titles to go for... meh... How to play gw2 nowadays? Check new MTX on gem store each week and swipe credit card, run around LA with new shiny griffon skin ---> log off... not my type of game xD

[Athrenn.9468]

> @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> >

> > This is why I believe that Living World is just a strategic ploy to keep players from figuring out that their expansion releases are lightweight compared to the industry standard established in other games.

>

> I deleted the rest of your "spoiler" text in line with your intent to allow people to choose to read it or not.

>

> I have to question the above assumption, especially in the case of PoF. What PoF lacks is not content, it is rewards to fuel the near-endless repetition some MMO fans expect. When I comparison shop, ANet's business plan is a lot more consumer-friendly than other companies. $30 for PoF compares favorably to the first 2 ESO DLC, which sold for ~$22 and ~$30, respectively. It especially compares favorably to games which charge $40-50 for XPac's, then rent access to players. I know there is going to be disagreement on the latter assertion. I never felt more cheated by a game than when I played the big gorilla of MMO's. Ommv.

>

> So, for me, the Living World updates are gravy, especially at PoF's price. Maybe that's damning ANet with faint praise, but if that's the case, I'd be damning the whole industry.

 

I haven't played ESO so I can't comment on that, but again, I would question whether people would feel the same way about Path of Fire if the developers told them that there was no 'free' Living World content for Winter 2017/Spring and Summer 2018. What feels like a generous amount of content now will feel dry in comparison 4-6 months down the road. Like gravy, I believe that the promise of regular 'free' updates is the reason why Path of Fire sounds palpable. "It's enough content to tie me over for the next two months until episode 1," people might say. "It doesn't need to be enough to last me all year." Whereas if this was a game where expansions had most of their maps, dungeons, raids, PvP game modes, etc. packed into them on day 1 of the release, a longer draught between releases would be more bearable.

 

I challenge people to consider the thought experiment of how they would feel about Path of Fire as a standalone product if ArenaNet said that Living World was either canceled or gated behind a mandatory paywall for all players. In this scenario, there would be no more free content updates until Expansion 3. Would it still be worth it in your opinion? If not, then I think that Living World is really part of Path of Fire's selling point. You're paying money with the promise of future free updates that are just around the corner.

[Djinn.9245]

> @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> > > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > >

> > > This is why I believe that Living World is just a strategic ploy to keep players from figuring out that their expansion releases are lightweight compared to the industry standard established in other games.

> >

> > I deleted the rest of your "spoiler" text in line with your intent to allow people to choose to read it or not.

> >

> > I have to question the above assumption, especially in the case of PoF. What PoF lacks is not content, it is rewards to fuel the near-endless repetition some MMO fans expect. When I comparison shop, ANet's business plan is a lot more consumer-friendly than other companies. $30 for PoF compares favorably to the first 2 ESO DLC, which sold for ~$22 and ~$30, respectively. It especially compares favorably to games which charge $40-50 for XPac's, then rent access to players. I know there is going to be disagreement on the latter assertion. I never felt more cheated by a game than when I played the big gorilla of MMO's. Ommv.

> >

> > So, for me, the Living World updates are gravy, especially at PoF's price. Maybe that's damning ANet with faint praise, but if that's the case, I'd be damning the whole industry.

>

> I haven't played ESO so I can't comment on that, but again, I would question whether people would feel the same way about Path of Fire if the developers told them that there was no 'free' Living World content for Winter 2017/Spring and Summer 2018. What feels like a generous amount of content now will feel dry in comparison 4-6 months down the road. Like gravy, I believe that the promise of regular 'free' updates is the reason why Path of Fire sounds palpable. "It's enough content to tie me over for the next two months until episode 1," people might say. "It doesn't need to be enough to last me all year." Whereas if this was a game where expansions had most of their maps, dungeons, raids, PvP game modes, etc. packed into them on day 1 of the release, a longer draught between releases would be more bearable.

>

> I challenge people to consider the thought experiment of how they would feel about Path of Fire as a standalone product if ArenaNet said that Living World was either canceled or gated behind a mandatory paywall for all players. In this scenario, there would be no more free content updates until Expansion 3. Would it still be worth it in your opinion? If not, then I think that Living World is really part of Path of Fire's selling point. You're paying money with the promise of future free updates that are just around the corner.

 

I've been reading your comments and I honestly don't understand what you're on about. Living World updates are clearly a separate entity from Expansions as they are charged a separate amount in the gemstore if you fail to login while they are active. I personally did not buy PoF thinking that Living World Season 4 had anything to do with it.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> It's harder to find the great games on mobile but they are definitely there. Just usually you need to pay for them.

>Alot of big names have been putting their whole series on android. And alot of older classic games are on there as well.

 

Agreed, there are several mobile games I play or have played, some that were very straight forward "games games," some that were Skinner box games that I engaged with eyes-open, there is a wide variety, but again, there are certain types of games that are both ubiquitous in mobile and also relatively uncommon outside of mobile, and they are the ones that seem to deliver the highest return on investment (because, of course, the prey on the worst aspects of human psychology), and so when people talk about "moving to mobile," you can't really have that discussion without discussing those sorts of games. It would be like describing something as a "Vegas-like" or "Atlantic City vibe," and NOT be talking about anything to do with gambling. It may be technically accurate to do so, there are other aspects to those locations, but it would be at best confusing, at worst misleading.

 

> @Athrenn.9468 said:

> Either way, there's no such thing as a free lunch in economics. If they're advertising it as 'free' then they want something from you and it always involves money.

 

Yes and no. Yes, they would like you to spend, and have mechanisms in place to increase those odds, but many F2P products do understand that not *everyone* will spend, and are based on the concept that plenty *won't.* Now *someone* needs to pay, but typically that means one person paying the price for 5-10 others. The games that handle this best establish a very careful balance between what you get for free and what you pay for, so that people who pay feel they've gotten something of value to them, while people who play for free don't feel that they're missing out on so much that it makes the game seem shallow and unrewarding. It's a difficult balance to walk, and GW2 has managed it at least decently, most of the time, but occasionally they wobble. What matters is how they fix it, and the current situation. . . they have not handled well.

 

Yet.

 

>That is the psychological effect that spread out expansion releases has on people. Subconsciously you think that there's enough content there to tie you over for the next few months because you know that there's always another release just around the corner. If Living World didn't exist, the amount of content released with Path of Fire would have been outrageously lightweight for an expansion that's supposed to contain a year's worth of new features.

 

Exactly. OR they would have postponed the release until LWs4 was in the can and then dumped it all out at once with the expansion, in which case people would likely be done with all of it by now and would then have another 3-4 years before ANet was ready to do that again. By spacing out the LW content, it focuses player attention on the new map for a few months, gives them something to anticipate in the near future, allows later maps to adapt a little to commentary on the earlier ones, and makes the true content droughts much shorter.

 

 

[Darjamtar.4712]

I am disappointed in that it seems that all NPC's have been buffed up. I have 11 toons, my main is a warrior that didnt have any problems with random trash mobs. Now if more then 2 mobs attack , im dead in a few seconds. My legendary weapon is not hitting as hard as the low level mobs are hitting me. With conditions, they are hitting for 2 or 3k plus burns ect, my legendary weapon is crit'ing for less then that. I didnt have a problem prior to the expansion and all my gear and armor is ascended besides my main weapon. I guess they want me to spend 500 in the store to upgrade my gear to fight more then 2 level 56 mobs ( not elite, not champions, just common mobs). Time for another game, this game has went from enjoyable to pay, pay, pay to play, or get 5 people to run around with you to farm anything on the main maps. How sad is it that your elite gear hits and protects you less then a common npc's gear does.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> I've been reading your comments and I honestly don't understand what you're on about. Living World updates are clearly a separate entity from Expansions as they are charged a separate amount in the gemstore if you fail to login while they are active. I personally did not buy PoF thinking that Living World Season 4 had anything to do with it.

 

No, LW is part of the expansion. You need to buy PoF to gain access to s4, just as you needed to buy HoT to gain access to s3, even though s2 was part of the original box purchase. Yes, if you do not log in during the content, you have to pay extra to unlock it, but that's only *if you do not log in during the content.* So log in. During the content. It's basically just a reason to keep players consistently engaged, rather than just waiting until the season is over and binging it all.

 

[Egrimm Van Horstmann.7921]

Gameplay especially old stuff can't be left to the dustbins of too old to care. The story of the game is bound to this content and it does a disservice to the players and devs efforts to deem material not important enough to be playable. Dungeons need love, they are in some ways a persons first look at the game and their current state doesn't reflect well on the effort devs put in creating these elements.

 

It detracts from new players by disinteresting them in the story undermining the whole experience.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> > > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > >

> > > This is why I believe that Living World is just a strategic ploy to keep players from figuring out that their expansion releases are lightweight compared to the industry standard established in other games.

> >

> > I deleted the rest of your "spoiler" text in line with your intent to allow people to choose to read it or not.

> >

> > I have to question the above assumption, especially in the case of PoF. What PoF lacks is not content, it is rewards to fuel the near-endless repetition some MMO fans expect. When I comparison shop, ANet's business plan is a lot more consumer-friendly than other companies. $30 for PoF compares favorably to the first 2 ESO DLC, which sold for ~$22 and ~$30, respectively. It especially compares favorably to games which charge $40-50 for XPac's, then rent access to players. I know there is going to be disagreement on the latter assertion. I never felt more cheated by a game than when I played the big gorilla of MMO's. Ommv.

> >

> > So, for me, the Living World updates are gravy, especially at PoF's price. Maybe that's damning ANet with faint praise, but if that's the case, I'd be damning the whole industry.

>

> I haven't played ESO so I can't comment on that, but again, I would question whether people would feel the same way about Path of Fire if the developers told them that there was no 'free' Living World content for Winter 2017/Spring and Summer 2018. What feels like a generous amount of content now will feel dry in comparison 4-6 months down the road. Like gravy, I believe that the promise of regular 'free' updates is the reason why Path of Fire sounds palpable. "It's enough content to tie me over for the next two months until episode 1," people might say. "It doesn't need to be enough to last me all year." Whereas if this was a game where expansions had most of their maps, dungeons, raids, PvP game modes, etc. packed into them on day 1 of the release, a longer draught between releases would be more bearable.

>

> I challenge people to consider the thought experiment of how they would feel about Path of Fire as a standalone product if ArenaNet said that Living World was either canceled or gated behind a mandatory paywall for all players. In this scenario, there would be no more free content updates until Expansion 3. Would it still be worth it in your opinion? If not, then I think that Living World is really part of Path of Fire's selling point. You're paying money with the promise of future free updates that are just around the corner.

 

And as to that thought experiment, I'm telling you that Path of Fire as is, no living world content, compared favorably to the competition -- at least for me. As to whether it's enough for the masses, I'd say no. Then, a lot of players, at least those commenting on forums, play for rewards a lot more than I do. So, I may (or may not) be atypical. You can also probably tell that I am not really enamored of the rest of the industry. It's possible that I will be migrating to SP games in the future, assuming there are any worth their salt.

[Ashen.2907]

> @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> > > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > > > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > > > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > > > > Aside from my personal opinions about the quality of storytelling from Season 3 to Path of Fire...

> > > > >

> > > > > >! (just as a 'brief' note (okay, maybe not brief at all), my problem with the last two story arcs is that the villain felt one dimensional, the pacing was unfocused and the big identity reveal was not foreshadowed properly. Writers need to play fair with their audience and their plot twists are poorly executed. That, and they tried to pack too many villains into six episodes, thus resulting in the anticlimactic resolution of the White Mantle, Jormag and Primordus plot threads in a way that was unsatisfactory. The writers need to just focus on one good antagonist and flesh out the PC's conflict with them rather than telling a bunch of separate and unrelated stories at the same time and rushing through all of them.)

> > > > >

> > > > > ...my main problem with Guild Wars 2 right now is that I feel kept in the dark about what I'm getting for the money I already paid. Normally a company who's selling you a product will tell you, "For $30, you get 11 new maps, 9 story episodes, 9 elite specializations, 4 raid wings, 1 new PvP game types, Etc. Etc." To me, that is what an honest business practice looks like. You tell me what you're offering and I'll tell you whether I want to buy it. That is not what I've been seeing post-Heart of Thorns.

> > > > >

> > > > > How many maps do I get for $30? Sure, there's the 5 base maps of the expansion, but how many Living World episodes do I get for my money's worth? I don't count LW as a free add-on that the 'generous' developers are giving me, they count as part of the expansion and I want to know how many episodes I'm getting. When Wrath of the Lich King was in presales, Blizzard told everyone up front what we were getting: 8 new zones, level increase, deathknight class, 1 new PvP game types, and a specific amount of raid wings and dungeons. That is the kind of honest dealing I expect from the industry.

> > > > >

> > > > > How many new raid wings am I getting and when will they be ready for release? There is no guarantee how much content we'll be getting or even when, just that it will come out when they say it's ready. When WotLK was released, most raids we're there and ready to go immediately. Again, that is what the industry standard should be in my opinion.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think it's my right as a customer to know how much content I'm getting and when I'll be getting it if they're already asking me to reach for my wallet. That's how honest business should be conducted, not this 'surprise-you-later' model where I'm not even told how many episodes of LW I'm getting until the penultimate episode goes live, thus telling me that there's only one more episode to go.

> > > > >

> > > > > Right now, I am very unimpressed by ArenaNet's business model and the recent mount scandal only made it worse. I want the developers to tell me upfront what they're selling, for how much and I'll be the judge of whether it's worth my time and money to buy it. That's what an honest deal looks like in my opinion and what they should be striving for. I don't want this mount adoption nonsense where I'm not allowed to choose the one skin I want and instead have to gamble away my gems just for a chance at getting it. To me, that is where I draw the line. Customers have a right to demand transparency. ArenaNet should be able to tell us exactly what we're getting for the money we're putting down the moment we come up to the checkout and ask to see their products.

> > > > >

> > > > > So to wrap it all up, here is what I am asking from ArenaNet in point form:

> > > > >

> > > > > * Tell your playerbase upfront how many Living World episodes/maps they can expect to come with their purchase of the expansion. You're not just doing us a 'kind service', you're being transparent with us about what we're getting for the money that you're asking from us. Five maps worth of content is not a generous sum compared to other games; in Wrath of the Lich King, there were eight zones worth of content and quests including new dungeons, raids, and 1 new PvP game type. This is what I expect as the industry standard for transparency.

> > > > > * If you can't deliver new raids, dungeons, or PvP game types with the expansion's release, tell us when we can expect to have them and what the content will be like. If other developers can bundle their new content together for the expansion's release then you should be able to either meet or beat their standard.

> > > > > * Do better with communication overall. If you're going to promise us new raids with the expansion, tell us something about those new raids so that we're not throwing money blindly at a product that we can't even see. Transparent business practices reassure your customers that you have nothing to hide from them.

> > > > > * If you can manage all of the above, please take some time to see my above point about where your story is failing. It's not the most important part of the product you're selling, but it's important enough to me that I've been disappointed by the quality of villain characterization, pacing and foreshadowing consistently.

> > > >

> > > > I understand where you are coming from. I, however, tend to look at it as $30 for what is included with the expac launch. If what is listed for the launch is worth the price of admission, to me, I buy. In this case I considered the price acceptible and so bought. If PoF had been advertised as launching with less, with the promise of more later, I would not have bought it.

> > >

> > > But you did buy Path of Fire, and they did promise to release new Living World episodes and raids later bundled with your purchase. The only difference is that they aren't telling us how much content we can expect, when to expect it, etc. It feels 'free', but it's really not. You're paying for access to Living World episodes, raids, and everything else that requires the expansion so it really is part of the purchase price regardless of how they advertise it.

> > >

> > > I'm going to hide the rest of my post in spoiler tags because it comes with a warning. Keep reading if you want to know why I've come to this conclusion, but be prepared for the possibility of becoming disillusioned with the Disneyland fantasy of the game world once you start thinking about how the video game industry works:

> > >

> > > >! Just think about the economics of their decision. What is their monetary incentive to release 'free' maps and episodes? The game designers are certainly getting paid to design those maps and the writers are getting paid to write those episodic stories, so where are they getting the money to pay those people? My theory is that Living World is only profitable because their business model is heavily reliant on the gem store and regular 'free' content releases are integral to their success.

> > > >!

> > > >! In a conference call from 2015, it was stated that "the contribution of item sales (Gem Store) is Much Stronger than the Box Sales. The Xpac Revenue will weaken further over time." [(Source)](

"(Source)") From that information, my hypothesis is that it is in ArenaNet's best interest (I.e. For their bottom line) to keep players coming back at regular intervals to check the gem store for new sales. That can only happen if they spread their content releases out over time so that every two months, players flock back to play the new content which is coordinated with the promotion of gem store sales and item releases. If my hypothesis is correct, then ArenaNet's business strategy is to intentionally hold back on content releases so that players can't complete the whole story in one go.

> > > >!

> > > >! This is why I believe that Living World is just a strategic ploy to keep players from figuring out that their expansion releases are lightweight compared to the industry standard established in other games. They want their players to believe that they got their money's worth with the expansion but their true motivation is to keep them coming back for 'free' content so that they are exposed to the gem store sales and new items. It's a psychological trick that makes people think that ArenaNet is doing them a favor when it's really just part of a cold, hard and calculating strategy to boost gem store sales because they know it's more profitable than box sales of the expansion on its own.

> > > >!

> > > >! Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. ArenaNet is a business and they need to stay competitive in the industry. How many people are playing this game because of the fact that there are no subscription fees? I'm perfectly content with their business model because it allows me to play for $30 as long as I control my gem store spending. The thing is, players are catching on to how their business strategy works and it's transparent as glass.

> > > >!

> > > >! You know how games like World of Warcraft reward players for playing the game? That's because you're paying a subscription fee and it's in the company's best interest to keep players putting hours of work into the game so that they keep paying subscriptions. Now, what happens when you take subscription fee revenues away? Those profits are going to come from somewhere else, and I'll bet it's the gem store. All that content that other game developers would have bundled with the expansion as gameplay rewards become microtransactions in GW2. Have you ever wondered why it feels like GW2 doesn't have as much to offer by just playing the game? It's probably because the company's profit revolves around item sales and they always save their nicest items for the cash shop.

> >

> > The problem there though is let's say someone couldn't play when the Living World came due to anything. Death in the whatever, emergency, temporary coma, Meta happening in another country/continent and no waypoints in real life so they have to head there, they would have to pay for that Living World so it would be extra.

>

> That's not a problem for the developers at all. They'll always find some way to cash in on an opportunity. If you miss unlocking it for free, they'll charge you for it. If you log in to check out the content, you're being exposed to gem store deals that you're more likely to buy. Either way, there's no such thing as a free lunch in economics. If they're advertising it as 'free' then they want something from you and it always involves money.

>

>

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > > > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > > > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > > > > Aside from my personal opinions about the quality of storytelling from Season 3 to Path of Fire...

> > > > >

> > > > > >! (just as a 'brief' note (okay, maybe not brief at all), my problem with the last two story arcs is that the villain felt one dimensional, the pacing was unfocused and the big identity reveal was not foreshadowed properly. Writers need to play fair with their audience and their plot twists are poorly executed. That, and they tried to pack too many villains into six episodes, thus resulting in the anticlimactic resolution of the White Mantle, Jormag and Primordus plot threads in a way that was unsatisfactory. The writers need to just focus on one good antagonist and flesh out the PC's conflict with them rather than telling a bunch of separate and unrelated stories at the same time and rushing through all of them.)

> > > > >

> > > > > ...my main problem with Guild Wars 2 right now is that I feel kept in the dark about what I'm getting for the money I already paid. Normally a company who's selling you a product will tell you, "For $30, you get 11 new maps, 9 story episodes, 9 elite specializations, 4 raid wings, 1 new PvP game types, Etc. Etc." To me, that is what an honest business practice looks like. You tell me what you're offering and I'll tell you whether I want to buy it. That is not what I've been seeing post-Heart of Thorns.

> > > > >

> > > > > How many maps do I get for $30? Sure, there's the 5 base maps of the expansion, but how many Living World episodes do I get for my money's worth? I don't count LW as a free add-on that the 'generous' developers are giving me, they count as part of the expansion and I want to know how many episodes I'm getting. When Wrath of the Lich King was in presales, Blizzard told everyone up front what we were getting: 8 new zones, level increase, deathknight class, 1 new PvP game types, and a specific amount of raid wings and dungeons. That is the kind of honest dealing I expect from the industry.

> > > > >

> > > > > How many new raid wings am I getting and when will they be ready for release? There is no guarantee how much content we'll be getting or even when, just that it will come out when they say it's ready. When WotLK was released, most raids we're there and ready to go immediately. Again, that is what the industry standard should be in my opinion.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think it's my right as a customer to know how much content I'm getting and when I'll be getting it if they're already asking me to reach for my wallet. That's how honest business should be conducted, not this 'surprise-you-later' model where I'm not even told how many episodes of LW I'm getting until the penultimate episode goes live, thus telling me that there's only one more episode to go.

> > > > >

> > > > > Right now, I am very unimpressed by ArenaNet's business model and the recent mount scandal only made it worse. I want the developers to tell me upfront what they're selling, for how much and I'll be the judge of whether it's worth my time and money to buy it. That's what an honest deal looks like in my opinion and what they should be striving for. I don't want this mount adoption nonsense where I'm not allowed to choose the one skin I want and instead have to gamble away my gems just for a chance at getting it. To me, that is where I draw the line. Customers have a right to demand transparency. ArenaNet should be able to tell us exactly what we're getting for the money we're putting down the moment we come up to the checkout and ask to see their products.

> > > > >

> > > > > So to wrap it all up, here is what I am asking from ArenaNet in point form:

> > > > >

> > > > > * Tell your playerbase upfront how many Living World episodes/maps they can expect to come with their purchase of the expansion. You're not just doing us a 'kind service', you're being transparent with us about what we're getting for the money that you're asking from us. Five maps worth of content is not a generous sum compared to other games; in Wrath of the Lich King, there were eight zones worth of content and quests including new dungeons, raids, and 1 new PvP game type. This is what I expect as the industry standard for transparency.

> > > > > * If you can't deliver new raids, dungeons, or PvP game types with the expansion's release, tell us when we can expect to have them and what the content will be like. If other developers can bundle their new content together for the expansion's release then you should be able to either meet or beat their standard.

> > > > > * Do better with communication overall. If you're going to promise us new raids with the expansion, tell us something about those new raids so that we're not throwing money blindly at a product that we can't even see. Transparent business practices reassure your customers that you have nothing to hide from them.

> > > > > * If you can manage all of the above, please take some time to see my above point about where your story is failing. It's not the most important part of the product you're selling, but it's important enough to me that I've been disappointed by the quality of villain characterization, pacing and foreshadowing consistently.

> > > >

> > > > I understand where you are coming from. I, however, tend to look at it as $30 for what is included with the expac launch. If what is listed for the launch is worth the price of admission, to me, I buy. In this case I considered the price acceptible and so bought. If PoF had been advertised as launching with less, with the promise of more later, I would not have bought it.

> > >

> > > But you did buy Path of Fire, and they did promise to release new Living World episodes and raids later bundled with your purchase. The only difference is that they aren't telling us how much content we can expect, when to expect it, etc. It feels 'free', but it's really not. You're paying for access to Living World episodes, raids, and everything else that requires the expansion so it really is part of the purchase price regardless of how they advertise it.

> > >

> > > I'm going to hide the rest of my post in spoiler tags because it comes with a warning. Keep reading if you want to know why I've come to this conclusion, but be prepared for the possibility of becoming disillusioned with the Disneyland fantasy of the game world once you start thinking about how the video game industry works:

> > >

> > > >! Just think about the economics of their decision. What is their monetary incentive to release 'free' maps and episodes? The game designers are certainly getting paid to design those maps and the writers are getting paid to write those episodic stories, so where are they getting the money to pay those people? My theory is that Living World is only profitable because their business model is heavily reliant on the gem store and regular 'free' content releases are integral to their success.

> > > >!

> > > >! In a conference call from 2015, it was stated that "the contribution of item sales (Gem Store) is Much Stronger than the Box Sales. The Xpac Revenue will weaken further over time." [(Source)](

"(Source)") From that information, my hypothesis is that it is in ArenaNet's best interest (I.e. For their bottom line) to keep players coming back at regular intervals to check the gem store for new sales. That can only happen if they spread their content releases out over time so that every two months, players flock back to play the new content which is coordinated with the promotion of gem store sales and item releases. If my hypothesis is correct, then ArenaNet's business strategy is to intentionally hold back on content releases so that players can't complete the whole story in one go.

> > > >!

> > > >! This is why I believe that Living World is just a strategic ploy to keep players from figuring out that their expansion releases are lightweight compared to the industry standard established in other games. They want their players to believe that they got their money's worth with the expansion but their true motivation is to keep them coming back for 'free' content so that they are exposed to the gem store sales and new items. It's a psychological trick that makes people think that ArenaNet is doing them a favor when it's really just part of a cold, hard and calculating strategy to boost gem store sales because they know it's more profitable than box sales of the expansion on its own.

> > > >!

> > > >! Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. ArenaNet is a business and they need to stay competitive in the industry. How many people are playing this game because of the fact that there are no subscription fees? I'm perfectly content with their business model because it allows me to play for $30 as long as I control my gem store spending. The thing is, players are catching on to how their business strategy works and it's transparent as glass.

> > > >!

> > > >! You know how games like World of Warcraft reward players for playing the game? That's because you're paying a subscription fee and it's in the company's best interest to keep players putting hours of work into the game so that they keep paying subscriptions. Now, what happens when you take subscription fee revenues away? Those profits are going to come from somewhere else, and I'll bet it's the gem store. All that content that other game developers would have bundled with the expansion as gameplay rewards become microtransactions in GW2. Have you ever wondered why it feels like GW2 doesn't have as much to offer by just playing the game? It's probably because the company's profit revolves around item sales and they always save their nicest items for the cash shop.

> >

> > What was described as included with the expac at launch was worth the price of admission to me. Nothing described as being added later was included in my decision to purchase. I got what I paid for, and am pretty happy with it.

>

> You're happy now, but would you be happy if they told you that Living World was cancelled or you had to pay extra for it? Would you be happy if there was no new 'free' content between now and Expansion 3?

>

> That is the psychological effect that spread out expansion releases has on people. Subconsciously you think that there's enough content there to tie you over for the next few months because you know that there's always another release just around the corner. If Living World didn't exist, the amount of content released with Path of Fire would have been outrageously lightweight for an expansion that's supposed to contain a year's worth of new features.

 

The existence, or non-existence, of LS4 doesnt play into my happiness with PoF, or GW2 in general. I bought something, the expansion, that I enjoy. It was fairly inexpensive for the amount of entertainment I got/get from it. Whether or not there is a LS4 doesnt really matter to my enjoyment of what I received for my purchase price.

[Athrenn.9468]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > Either way, there's no such thing as a free lunch in economics. If they're advertising it as 'free' then they want something from you and it always involves money.

>

> Yes and no. Yes, they would like you to spend, and have mechanisms in place to increase those odds, but many F2P products do understand that not *everyone* will spend, and are based on the concept that plenty *won't.* Now *someone* needs to pay, but typically that means one person paying the price for 5-10 others. The games that handle this best establish a very careful balance between what you get for free and what you pay for, so that people who pay feel they've gotten something of value to them, while people who play for free don't feel that they're missing out on so much that it makes the game seem shallow and unrewarding. It's a difficult balance to walk, and GW2 has managed it at least decently, most of the time, but occasionally they wobble. What matters is how they fix it, and the current situation. . . they have not handled well.

 

Maybe I didn't word my statement correctly, or at least not in a way that expressed my viewpoint as precisely as I would have wanted. When I said "There's no such thing as a free lunch in economics," I meant that _someone_ is paying for it. Who is paying for the advertisement that you see while walking on the street? If you buy the product, then you are! The cost of advertising is incorporated into the product.

 

In the case of Living World episodes, I highly suspect that the cost of producing 6-10 'free' episodes worth of content every year is partly incorporated into the price of the expansion, but also considered a form of advertising for the gem store since Living World releases are coordinated with new products which you can clearly see in the patch notes of each episodic release. "If you log in during this two-month window, it's free!" is a good way of drawing players back regularly to check out the content as well as the gem store. Not everyone needs to throw down money to make the advertising effective, but you're right that someone has to and it must be working because they keep doing it.

[RoChan.1926]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > I've been reading your comments and I honestly don't understand what you're on about. Living World updates are clearly a separate entity from Expansions as they are charged a separate amount in the gemstore if you fail to login while they are active. I personally did not buy PoF thinking that Living World Season 4 had anything to do with it.

>

> No, LW is part of the expansion. You need to buy PoF to gain access to s4, just as you needed to buy HoT to gain access to s3, even though s2 was part of the original box purchase. Yes, if you do not log in during the content, you have to pay extra to unlock it, but that's only *if you do not log in during the content.* So log in. During the content. It's basically just a reason to keep players consistently engaged, rather than just waiting until the season is over and binging it all.

>

 

I will never understand this logic fallacy. :/ Yes, you are gated by expansions, but when you purchase any of the expacs you don't _gain_ access to the living stories or new players would not have to purchase them **on top of** the expansion. If they were included, new players would pay for the expac you would also get the Living Stories. If you don't log in during the time they are active even if you have the expansion you don't _gain_ access to the living stories that were released that are related to the expac. It's not included with the expac it's never been and the idea that it's part of it needs to stop and at most can be considered DLC that is related. It's deceptive to players that purchase the expacs and aren't active during the living stories or were not part of the game at the time. :/ I had to explain this many times to new players who were confused about the Living Stories because veteran players would tell them it was part of the expac but that they had to also purchase them. That whole sentence makes little to no sense when you need to explain it. Less when they don't even know and the story jumps from one plot point to 4 down the line. They are carved out pieces of DLC that are free for a limited time for logging in but are not part of an expansion and based on LS2 and LS3 they really are just a bridge between expacs so yeah... still not understanding how people think they are included when you don't look at it from the outside in.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Athrenn.9468 said:

> If they were included, new players would pay for the expac you would also get the Living Stories. If you don't log in during the time they are active even if you have the expansion you don't gain access to the living stories that were released that are related to the expac. It's not included with the expac it's never been and the idea that it's part of it needs to stop and at most can be considered DLC that is related.

 

Ok, then answer this. What if you *do* log into the game even once during the period during which the Living World chapter is available, how much extra do you have to pay to play that content?

 

 

[RoChan.1926]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > If they were included, new players would pay for the expac you would also get the Living Stories. If you don't log in during the time they are active even if you have the expansion you don't gain access to the living stories that were released that are related to the expac. It's not included with the expac it's never been and the idea that it's part of it needs to stop and at most can be considered DLC that is related.

>

> Ok, then answer this. What if you *do* log into the game even once during the period during which the Living World chapter is available, how much extra do you have to pay to play that content?

>

>

Better question. If they were part of the expac why are they not advertised as part of it on the actual store front?

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @RoChan.1926 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > @Athrenn.9468 said:

> > > If they were included, new players would pay for the expac you would also get the Living Stories. If you don't log in during the time they are active even if you have the expansion you don't gain access to the living stories that were released that are related to the expac. It's not included with the expac it's never been and the idea that it's part of it needs to stop and at most can be considered DLC that is related.

> >

> > Ok, then answer this. What if you *do* log into the game even once during the period during which the Living World chapter is available, how much extra do you have to pay to play that content?

> >

> >

> Better question. If they were part of the expac why are they not advertised as part of it on the actual store front?

>

 

Because the PoF content is available at launch, the LW content comes later. If they advertised it as being part of the package then people would be even more confused that it wasn't there.