serialkicker.5274 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 > @GreyWolf.8670 said: > > @Cyninja.2954 said: > > I love how people are all:"What about expansions, what about the core game, what about blablabla". > > > > Yes what about those expenses for a game you likely have spent thousands of hours or more on? Obviously they are not what keeps the game and the developer afloat. > > > > But it's not about that, it's about the fact that arenanet has a staff which needs to get payed and the price of the game its self is not sufficient to cover. Now they have a business model in place which allows for a huge majority of players to play for free once they've payed the base price of game+expansions, the rest needs to get covered via the gem store. I'd call that more than fair. > > I do not care about that? They are a company. My only concern for them is whether I want to buy something they make, which I now do not. > > You go enjoy your camaraderie with ANet. They're not my friends. If they can no longer figure out how to make a buck that is absolutely not my fault. That's different from what you posted above about what you payed for. You payed for product. If you don't like it, your fault for paying before you informed yourself properly. I bought xpac two weeks ago and knew what I'm buying. Now, you can stop being so edgy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWolf.8670 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 > @serialkicker.5274 said: > > @GreyWolf.8670 said: > > > @Cyninja.2954 said: > > > I love how people are all:"What about expansions, what about the core game, what about blablabla". > > > > > > Yes what about those expenses for a game you likely have spent thousands of hours or more on? Obviously they are not what keeps the game and the developer afloat. > > > > > > But it's not about that, it's about the fact that arenanet has a staff which needs to get payed and the price of the game its self is not sufficient to cover. Now they have a business model in place which allows for a huge majority of players to play for free once they've payed the base price of game+expansions, the rest needs to get covered via the gem store. I'd call that more than fair. > > > > I do not care about that? They are a company. My only concern for them is whether I want to buy something they make, which I now do not. > > > > You go enjoy your camaraderie with ANet. They're not my friends. If they can no longer figure out how to make a buck that is absolutely not my fault. > > That's different from what you posted above about what you payed for. You payed for product. If you don't like it, your fault for paying before you informed yourself properly. I bought xpac two weeks ago and knew what I'm buying. Now, you can stop being so edgy. You can be ANet's friend if you wish, too. They are a business arrangement to me. Enjoy your own "edginess." Apple would love you as a customer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serialkicker.5274 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 > @GreyWolf.8670 said: > > @serialkicker.5274 said: > > > @GreyWolf.8670 said: > > > > @Cyninja.2954 said: > > > > I love how people are all:"What about expansions, what about the core game, what about blablabla". > > > > > > > > Yes what about those expenses for a game you likely have spent thousands of hours or more on? Obviously they are not what keeps the game and the developer afloat. > > > > > > > > But it's not about that, it's about the fact that arenanet has a staff which needs to get payed and the price of the game its self is not sufficient to cover. Now they have a business model in place which allows for a huge majority of players to play for free once they've payed the base price of game+expansions, the rest needs to get covered via the gem store. I'd call that more than fair. > > > > > > I do not care about that? They are a company. My only concern for them is whether I want to buy something they make, which I now do not. > > > > > > You go enjoy your camaraderie with ANet. They're not my friends. If they can no longer figure out how to make a buck that is absolutely not my fault. > > > > That's different from what you posted above about what you payed for. You payed for product. If you don't like it, your fault for paying before you informed yourself properly. I bought xpac two weeks ago and knew what I'm buying. Now, you can stop being so edgy. > > You can be ANet's friend if you wish, too. They are a business arrangement to me. Enjoy your own "edginess." Apple would love you as a customer. I'm their friend because I disagree with you? Yes, they are business, that's why you pay for product. Or did you think you'll get xpac for free? If you don't like the content xpac provides, you could easily inform yourself first and avoid purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oglaf.1074 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 > @OriOri.8724 said: > > @Oglaf.1074 said: > > > @Greyraven.4258 said: > > > Seems like a reasonable approach, I have seen so much worse business models than this...I just don't get what all the kerfuffle is about > > > > The pricing, obviously. 2000 Gems is like 30+ USD - for a single skin. > > > > Consider the pricing for weapon/armour skins and outfits previously and this is a gigantic increase in price because... reasons? > > Its $25, not $30 **+** And its a 100% optional, cosmetic item. Having it will not, in any way shape or fashion, make your character better in the game. I'm not American, so I had to estimate. Secondly the cosmetic nature of Mountfits is irrelevant to the discussion we're having. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorudo.9054 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 like i said in another threat, it's better to price 5 items for 20 then 1 for 50. they want something to fund their game, we want a fair price, putting a high price on a small thing doesn't help but hurts their funding. i would love to pay for them if they were 1000 gems and i think allot of ppl would say the same, putting it for 2000 gems only hurts their funding because only a really small group buys it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaquelidor.2618 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 For a complete reskin I'm not opposed to the 2000 gem cost. In real dollars that's roughly what I've seen other games charge for "premium" mounts which are really just reskins of existing models. However, if they decide to release versions that are nothing more than the addition of more dyeable channels and they try to sell them at the premium cost that's when they'll lose my support on the endeavor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branwen.8741 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 I came to GW2 from a P2W game over four years ago, where I played with people who poured thousands of dollars into their characters just to PVP. To put it into perspective, one person in a group I played with spent upwards of 20k. The gears and upgrades this kind of money was spent on were needed to stay on top and be one of the best. One simply could not compete with the almighty dollar even with great playing skills. I wasn't going to spend that kind of money to play a game and have been so very thankful that GW2 provides a way for me to farm, craft, and sell whatever I need to make purchases I want, as well as a way to buy gems and treat myself sometimes. I will support ANET when I can and purchase the little things here and there that I want, because at the end of the day, I want there to be a game with expansions and new content to play around with that do not require me to go get a second job to fund my addiction. At least these higher priced flashy skins are not necessary to have a good experience within the game. Many thanks and love to ANET! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NICENIKESHOE.7128 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 It is strange how their business model shifted dramatically in just few months. I'm actually curious on whether HoT trend has something to do with it  As you can see a $60 expansion gives GW2 all new height (37k) in revenue but the sales died within half a year to less than half before. One may argue this trend shows that giving solid contents and LS may not profit as much in the long run, either way their model is slowly failing. It continues to drop to 13,557 until PoF hits between Q2 and Q3, giving Q3 roughly 20,145. 20k is no where close to 37k that we had in HoT partly due to launch between the seasons. But I suspect it has been taken noticed and Halloween mount bundle's popularity showed a new approach. But this is just correlation so it'll be interesting to see what Q4 looks like with their new "targeting the whale" model. I'm 100% against this "buy chance or pay 75% PoF again" model but its interesting to explore their motives behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greener.6204 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 > @Loosifah.4738 said: > > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said: > > > @Lilyanna.9361 said: > > > > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said: > > > > > Hi, > > > > Hi... > > > > > > > > > As I wrote in my previous response, it’s been a wonderful challenge to support all Living World and Live content development for a game of this size, for five years and counting, purely through the sale of optional microtransactions. > > > > This is one thing I do admire at least. > > > > > > > > > We laid out our guiding principles for GW2 microtransactions in March 2012 and we've held true to them ever since. My motivation is to continue to stay true to those principles while also continuing to fund Live content development. > > > > Heard this during the "apology" of the rng skins. > > > > > > > > > I recently apologized for our missteps with the Mount Adoption License. Still, mount skins are purely cosmetic, thus in many ways an ideal embodiment of our goal to support the game with optional microtransactions. > > > > Once again show you don't really get why the backlash happen though... > > > > > > > > > Most of us have two relationships with the GW2 gem store. One relationship is that of a customer: we purchase things when we want them for ourselves and agree with how they’re bundled and priced. Another relationship is that of an interested party: we know that ArenaNet funds Live development through the sale of gems for cash, and we enjoy playing new content like today’s release, so we hope that the gem store does well enough to keep supporting content development. We might say, “I wouldn’t buy that!”, but if enough people buy it that it supports ongoing Live development, we’re still happy. > > > > Not going to put words in your mout... um... in your fingers...? But this sounds like "As long as whales pay for it, it's perfectly fine." > > > > > > > > > Mount skins are style items, and style items have some unique challenges. They’re subject to individual taste, so except for the very flashiest items, individual style items will have limited sales. > > > > Some of us hate flashy skritt which is why for the rng one people didn't like that factor. I wanted 1 or 2 normal/simple ones, but at the gamble of getting something that melt my eyes out. > > > > Also this once again sounds like, "We knew a lot of the ones we put in the adoption was horrible and would never sell, but we made them anyway and made a gambling set up so you can work to get the ones you want unless you were lucky." > > > > This does not sound right. > > > > > > > > Also, GW2 isn’t setup to support an enjoyable experience of browsing through a large catalog of style items, so players tend not to do that. What our data shows is that higher-priced flashy individual items can work, and lower-average-price-per-item bundles can work, but lower-priced individual items generally don’t generate meaningful revenue to support the game. And the whole point of these items is to support the game. > > > > So, "Those that want to blind others is the only ones we care most for as the bland plain individuals DO have some nice shiny coins... but eh..." > > > > > > > > > GW2 is a content-rich online world with no monthly fee, so it’s a great overall value, with microtransactions doing the heavy lifting of funding continued development of the game. > > > > I do agree with that for the most part, but I know many would complain about "content" for certain reasons. There's a lot to do in GW2. > > > > > > > > > It shouldn’t also be our goal to have the lowest-priced microtransactions. In that case, the only logical outcome would be that we could afford to make less content than other developers, and I think that’s not what any of us are looking for. I love our current pace of content development and I hope we can support it for a long time to come. > > > > The last few months I have barely seen any "lowest-priced microtransactions". One being 2000 for halloween, another 9600 for the rng, another 3000 for the Elon one, and then the 2000 Mecha Ram and ugly Chicken Peacock. > > > > > > > > > We’re all in this together. It’s obvious in your posts that you’re thoughtful and motivated to see the game do well. You balance between loving the game and not always agreeing with how gem store items are bundled or priced. That’s fair. We have a commerce team that lives that dilemma every day. We’re all doing our best for the long-term health of the game. > > > > Heard this before. > > > > > > > > > Thank you all for your passion, and again, thank you for your continued support of Live development. > > > > And back to square one like how the "apology" ended for the RNG skins. > > > > > > > > Nothing to see here. > > > > > > I know you don't pay attention to the gem store so let's break this down. Right now a lot of people are blinded by mounts. But if you search just a wee bit more... > > > > > > Forge gloves> 400 gems > > > Forge Helm> 400 gems > > > Ram Backpack > 300 gems > > > Outfit > 700-800 gems > > > > > > This is all recent items mind you. People just seem to hyperfocus on mounts without realizing the other gem store items for some reason. > > > > > > This can go on and on. It is true, people do not pay attention to the cheaper end of things on the store. They don't. They are not paying attention to any of that, even when they are on the front page. > > > > > > Higher numbers generate a response. Be it good or bad, and make us pull away or spend. If data is showing this and the psychology shows it just by an everyday occurrence why are you being huffy and rude? > > > > > > You response, your reactions, your wallet made these choices. The community really needs to wake up and look at themselves. Devs are just observers, when in reality we make the decisions. In a both positive and negative light. It seems like no one wants to come to terms with this. It's like watching a rat in a maze and game devs are scientists (not to degrade anyone) YOU are giving them the data. > > > > > > So you want cheaper, yet pretty things? Give them something different to go off of so they won't 'assume' of what you want. But to be fair, people are very easy to read through actions and words so I do not blame them for pulling legit numbers on people's behavioral patterns and reactions to their prices. > > > > > > FYI- Being sarcastic or rude to Anet only proves their point further. > > > > I wasn't being rude or sarcastic. Not sure where that came out at all. > > Also, while I haven't been around for it... many have already stated from the forged "pieces" and the other one... the ones that had candles on the shoulders... > > People that was around when Arenanet used to make full armour skins stated that those incomplete 1 to 3 piece armour sets are the same price as the full ones. > > That already sounds bad. > > I wish I could argue against that last tidbit; but it's true. The full armor skin sets used to cost about 700 gems; now the 3 pieces sets are like 300 a piece. Full armour sets are now designed to be acquired through in-game play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LanfearShadowflame.3189 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 > @Branwen.8741 said: > I came to GW2 from a P2W game over four years ago, where I played with people who poured thousands of dollars into their characters just to PVP. To put it into perspective, one person in a group I played with spent upwards of 20k. The gears and upgrades this kind of money was spent on were needed to stay on top and be one of the best. One simply could not compete with the almighty dollar even with great playing skills. I wasn't going to spend that kind of money to play a game and have been so very thankful that GW2 provides a way for me to farm, craft, and sell whatever I need to make purchases I want, as well as a way to buy gems and treat myself sometimes. > > I will support ANET when I can and purchase the little things here and there that I want, because at the end of the day, I want there to be a game with expansions and new content to play around with that do not require me to go get a second job to fund my addiction. At least these higher priced flashy skins are not necessary to have a good experience within the game. > > Many thanks and love to ANET! > I've played the kind of game you're talking about as well. Where people dump $1000 or more _per week_ into the game to stay "the best." Absolutely mind boggling. So yeah, to me a completely cosmetic skin for $25 isn't worth really blinking at. Granted I'm not necessarily fond of it. I'd like the skin, but its not going to kill me not to have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freakshow.1809 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 The only real issue I have with this is the fact that they literally dropped 30+ skins in less than 2 months. It's obvious they don't take that much effort to produce a nice looking skin, and to me really does not justify the price of 2000 gems. I get thats it's just cosmetic, and i'm used to dropping some $$$ on here on my paydays anyways, but when you're asking for that much for something you have shown you can produce that quickly I just don't really think it's a fair price to charge for it and I think they they would make more funding by reducing the price as more would be willing to buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LanfearShadowflame.3189 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 > @Freakshow.1809 said: > It's obvious they don't take that much effort to produce a nice looking skin, This isn't necessarily true. I'm sure they were cognizant of the fact that skins would be monetized and probably had been building skins for the BLTP well before PoF launched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aye.8392 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 I probably won't buy a 2,000 gem skin, but as long as they keep up the current cadence and quality I will absolutely be buying the next expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OriOri.8724 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 > @GreyWolf.8670 said: > > @Cyninja.2954 said: > > I love how people are all:"What about expansions, what about the core game, what about blablabla". > > > > Yes what about those expenses for a game you likely have spent thousands of hours or more on? Obviously they are not what keeps the game and the developer afloat. > > > > But it's not about that, it's about the fact that arenanet has a staff which needs to get payed and the price of the game its self is not sufficient to cover. Now they have a business model in place which allows for a huge majority of players to play for free once they've payed the base price of game+expansions, the rest needs to get covered via the gem store. I'd call that more than fair. > > I do not care about that? They are a company. My only concern for them is whether I want to buy something they make, which I now do not. > > You go enjoy your camaraderie with ANet. They're not my friends. If they can no longer figure out how to make a buck that is absolutely not my fault. Good for you. That doesn't make this a bad choice on Anet's part. If its profitable for them to continue with this model then they will continue with it. If it isn't then they won't. But your personal bias one way or the other doesn't factor into that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serialkicker.5274 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said: > > @Branwen.8741 said: > > I came to GW2 from a P2W game over four years ago, where I played with people who poured thousands of dollars into their characters just to PVP. To put it into perspective, one person in a group I played with spent upwards of 20k. The gears and upgrades this kind of money was spent on were needed to stay on top and be one of the best. One simply could not compete with the almighty dollar even with great playing skills. I wasn't going to spend that kind of money to play a game and have been so very thankful that GW2 provides a way for me to farm, craft, and sell whatever I need to make purchases I want, as well as a way to buy gems and treat myself sometimes. > > > > I will support ANET when I can and purchase the little things here and there that I want, because at the end of the day, I want there to be a game with expansions and new content to play around with that do not require me to go get a second job to fund my addiction. At least these higher priced flashy skins are not necessary to have a good experience within the game. > > > > Many thanks and love to ANET! > > > > I've played the kind of game you're talking about as well. Where people dump $1000 or more _per week_ into the game to stay "the best." Absolutely mind boggling. So yeah, to me a completely cosmetic skin for $25 isn't worth really blinking at. Granted I'm not necessarily fond of it. I'd like the skin, but its not going to kill me not to have it. Does it start with Sky and end with forge? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopeUrban.2578 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 Translation: **"We understand that you, our customer base, does not think we are providing you products you want at a price you want to pay for them. In stead of changing our business strategy to address customer concerns, let me tell you why you're wrong, and why we're using a free to play business model while still locking content behind a series of paywalls."** Here's the thing MO. This reliance on microtransactions is self imposed. It is a system that failed you so spectacularly that you had to start supplementing it with paid content updates in the form of expansions. Then you released a lightweight expansion that you finished later after nickel and diming a minority of your player base. Then you did it again. Your company used to ship complete experiences worth of a full game price tag, and your supplemental income was from a small selection of microtransactions. Now your company ships half an expansion at half the price and charges people for a single skin at the price point of the other half. If you can not afford to make the game you want to make without relying on overinflating the value of "micro" transactions and undervaluing and underdeveloping your expansions, perhaps you should choose a business model and EITHER make a free to play game or a buy to play game. In attempting to do both you're doing them both poorly and at a disadvantage to your audience. Relying on a minority of your audience to subsidize the majority is acceptable when you aren't already charging your entire audience for an intentionally compromised experience. The "annoyance tax" is a fair way to run a game in which the consumer isn't being charged. Relying on a minority of your audience to subsidize the majority is not an acceptable business practice when you're already charging your entire audience an admission fee. Either up the admission fee and provide a complete product, or eliminate it and rely on microtransactions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirlias.8104 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 > Mount skins are style items, and style items have some unique challenges. They’re subject to individual taste, so except for the very flashiest items, individual style items will have limited sales. Also, GW2 isn’t setup to support an enjoyable experience of browsing through a large catalog of style items, so players tend not to do that. **What our data shows is that higher-priced flashy individual items can work, and lower-average-price-per-item bundles can work, but lower-priced individual items generally don’t generate meaningful revenue to support the game. And the whole point of these items is to support the game**. An example would have been nice, but since it was a concise post i can pretty understand him. I just hope that players could now better understand the meaning of his words, about how gw2 makes money and why a lower-priced individual item does not generate enough ( mostly because of the golds > gems system ). I do agree with him, but i would like to know what about WvW and SPvP balance. I mean, since Gemstore is not necessarily related to those modalities, could there be a way to give more resources to them? Could SPvP and WvW players be able to do anything? Though i know that MO won't read this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcShriek.5829 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 > @Oglaf.1074 said: > > @Loosifah.4738 said: > > For kittens sake people. It's just re-skins for mounts. It's not NEEDED for anything other than looking flashy. If you want one pay for it; if not quit whining already. > > > > If you want to play the fashion wars with your mount pay for a skin. ITS. THAT. SIMPLE. > > And nobody argued otherwise. It is not what the issue is. > > Go strawman somewhere else. It seems that you don't think an artist should be allowed to set the price for their own creation and that a centralized government should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 > @GreyWolf.8670 said: > > @Cyninja.2954 said: > > I love how people are all:"What about expansions, what about the core game, what about blablabla". > > > > Yes what about those expenses for a game you likely have spent thousands of hours or more on? Obviously they are not what keeps the game and the developer afloat. > > > > But it's not about that, it's about the fact that arenanet has a staff which needs to get payed and the price of the game its self is not sufficient to cover. Now they have a business model in place which allows for a huge majority of players to play for free once they've payed the base price of game+expansions, the rest needs to get covered via the gem store. I'd call that more than fair. > > I do not care about that? They are a company. My only concern for them is whether I want to buy something they make, which I now do not. > > You go enjoy your camaraderie with ANet. They're not my friends. If they can no longer figure out how to make a buck that is absolutely not my fault. Exactly, they are a company and as was stated, their research shows that few high priced items sell better than cheaper items which might get released in bigger quantities. You are not their target audience. As are not many of the other players who spend the bare minimum on the game. Since arenanet owes you nothing and you clearly owe them nothing, no reason for you to get upset about cosmetic items which you won't be purchasing. If it affects their business model or bottom line, they will adapt. Until then, expect them to keep making money as best as they see fit while trying to stay true to their core idea of keeping most of the revenue based on cosmetic items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silmar Alech.4305 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 Not unreasonable post. Buying stuff in the shop supports the game, since the game price itself doesn't give enough revenue in comparison to the game development cost and ongoing development. This makes sense. But in its current incarnation, the shop looks dishonest. If I see a shop with items to buy, I assume the seller offers useful or nice stuff for a customer to buy. The seller put effort into his stuff and is eager to sell something of value to his customer. This is honest. But in the GW2 shop, there is stuff that took a minimum amount of work with a price half of the whole game itself. This is no effort for too much money. This is dishonest. Let me tell you this: If there were a button in the game labeled "click to consume 1000 gems to support the game" that consumes 1000 gems without giving anything back, I would probably click it, once in a while, because I definitely want to support the game. Click it, destroy 1000 gems I previously bought for this and get nothing in return. I would click it to support the game. On the other hand, I would never buy a skin for 1000 gems in the shop, because buying a nothing (compared to the whole game) for 12,50 Euro is a thing I simply couldn't do. I hope, this makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generator Gawl.5142 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 I'm fine with that answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 In ANet's neck of the woods a gamedev average salary is in the ballpark of $70k. The cost to employ is between 1.2 and 1.3. The company has somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 employees. Lets guess that about half worked on the expansion. The expansion took two years to develop. So: 70,000 x 1.25 x 175 x 2 = $30,625,000 to develop the expansion. I would be surprised to discover that the expac fully recouped its development cost. I fully expect that the expac pricing was set lower than HoT with the expectation that optional mount skins bought by a fraction of the player base would subsidize the lowered price of the expansion for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiantbliss.6875 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 As someone who bought the full contract for mounts without compunction or regret. I was greatly disturbed at the 2k gem cost. I have no problem spending money on something I want if it makes sense (obviously). The contracts were not full RNG (you want full RNG check out black lion chests and dye packs) and as such that didn't even phase me. The cost of individual mounts was reasonable to me. Based off of past sale of mount skins (the Halloween set) which wasn't even 2k for a set and the cost of that set seemed equally reasonable to me (also a purchase I made). 2k was not. I was not for the Balth Hound. It was not for the Peacock Raptor. It was not comparable in price to the contracts. It was not comparable in price to the Halloween set. It wasn't even comparable to the costs of gliders in the past, not even comparable to glider + toy sets that were released. If they are going to charge that much for ONE SINGULAR mount that thing better light up like the fourth of July and allow me to lag out everyone on the map until they curse my name to the ends of time. It better be a rainbow unicorn of sparkles that plays its own theme music when called forth or put away, splashing in more glitter coming and going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 > @GreyWolf.8670 said: > I'm wondering why exactly I paid $30 for the expansion, then? What was it for? Beer and pretzels? I don't know about you but I've paid $50 or $60 for games I've played for 20 hours and walked away from. Games that never offer more content for free. Games that never expand or change, and rarely do anything but the most major bug fixes. I'd pay $29 for a racing game I get 20 hours out of, and don't expect more, but here I am, logging, getting Living World episodes for free, and what you think your $29 covers those six new zones and the new stories that came with LS 3? The new jumping puzzles? For your $29 you not only got 5 zones and a new guild hall, but you also got new elite specs and five mounts, which people have been raving about. You paid $29 in the way someone pays $29 for a printer. But eventually you're going to have to buy ink. That's why injets printers can be sold so cheap. It's called a business model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cragga the Eighty Third.60 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 > @Haishao.6851 said: > Maybe they should slack down on the voiced dialogue. > If they actually made the UI good, they could have a lot of it just as text instead. In the end it would cost much less than hiring 3 voice actors for every lines. No no no. I love the dialogue, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now