Why are we discouraging players from returning to the game?

[aberrantone.5410]

I found it inconvenient, but not a roadblock, when I came back to GW2 after nearly 6 years. If new players like the game well enough they will pay for the content, if not they will move on. And that I think is the key point, GW2 does get new player, but if they aren't sold on the game by the time they get 80 they aren't going to stick around.

 

So I don't think paid content is what keeps new players out, I think dead maps are worse. I mean anet did a good thing with dailies from what I can see by getting people to go back to previous (read vanilla) content. The problem is that most of those dailies can be completed in under 5 minutes (minus the event completionist ones). And honestly the maps that aren't dead are pretty specific. I mean Orr is all but abandoned most of the time, but Queensdale seems to be a center for exploration.

 

I'm not saying your (the OP) wrong, because I do kind of agree with you. But I think it is only a small part of the overall problem.

[Aaralyna.3104]

When I was a new player (last year), I had no issue in buying the living worlds (2 and 3). Its not that much gold to unlock everything (especially not right after halloween event where you can make nice money while doing achievements). I also didn't see it as locked out. The thing I did struggle with was that at lvl 80 I had no clue what to do. Did personal story, not really interested in pvp/wvw, so what to do and where to start. Even now I still have those moments. Tier 1 fractals in pugs (too insecure to join those as I don't want to play some meta, I wanna play what I find fun to play), raids (above my league for now coz well meta...), achievements (often needs other ppls help on bounties and so on), jumping puzzles (these are fun but at some point you completed all known ones), minidungeons (heard bout it but no clue where they all are), dungeons (same as fractals for me). I think this is what may keep people from playing once they finished their known mmo type of lvl to 80 and complete all personal story.

[DeanBB.4268]

Weird. When I bought a game on Steam, say Civilization 6, I then had to buy it's "living worlds" (aka, DLC). That didn't keep me from buying the game.

 

Maybe all Anet really needs to do is rename it: DLC: Living World Season 2, etc.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"DeanBB.4268" said:

> Weird. When I bought a game on Steam, say Civilization 6, I then had to buy it's "living worlds" (aka, DLC). That didn't keep me from buying the game.

>

> Maybe all Anet really needs to do is rename it: DLC: Living World Season 2, etc.

 

I doubt this would work for those complaining. If LW Episodes cost everyone, then there would be no issue, as with other games that offer DLC. The issue is that "other people" got the LW free, so they should, too.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > @"DeanBB.4268" said:

> > Weird. When I bought a game on Steam, say Civilization 6, I then had to buy it's "living worlds" (aka, DLC). That didn't keep me from buying the game.

> >

> > Maybe all Anet really needs to do is rename it: DLC: Living World Season 2, etc.

>

> I doubt this would work for those complaining. If LW Episodes cost everyone, then there would be no issue, as with other games that offer DLC. The issue is that "other people" got the LW free, so they should, too.

I wouldn't say it's an issue of entitlement. For a new player it feels like a Day one DLC. And if you don't understand why that's a shady practice, don't bother reading further.

The fact that it isn't a actual Day One DLC, but actual "kind of" DLC content, does nothing to atone for the fact that someone just dropped 40-100€ on a game, only to find out, that he still needs to spend an extra 20€+ for the "DLCs".

That's why i still think it's bad form on Arena Net's end to not include Living World with Deluxe packages.

[mindcircus.1506]

Are we still aguing about the accessibility of content when each DLC is less than 5 bucks?

I could have gotten PoF for less than 30 dollars, which included the MASSIVE content/systems/QoL drop, and two full seasons of LW DLC.

 

A gamer who thinks these content drops at their current price is somehow prohibitive does not need to be welcomed with open arms. They offer nothing to Arenanet's bottom line and zero to the ongoing development costs of this game. They should be encouraged to go pay 80 bucks for a console title with less than 50 hours of game time or go play any of the "free" MMOs that gate progression behind microtransactions.

 

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"mindcircus.1506" said:

> Are we still aguing about the accessibility of content when each DLC is less than 5 bucks?

> I could have gotten PoF for less than 30 dollars, which included the MASSIVE content/systems/QoL drop, and two full seasons of LW DLC.

>

> A gamer who thinks these content drops at their current price is somehow prohibitive does not need to be welcomed with open arms. They offer nothing to Arenanet's bottom line and zero to the ongoing development costs of this game. They should be encouraged to go pay 80 bucks for a console title with less than 50 hours of game time or go play any of the "free" MMOs that gate progression behind microtransactions.

>

 

Or maybe, people who already buy the game for 80€ should get something more in return?

Besides, the "i can afford it, you should too" argument, is a bit on the presumptuous side, a bit arrogant, even.

 

Also, it's not 5 bucks... It's around 30 for someone who's joining the game now to unlock everything behind. I can buy FULL GAMES at that price. Like you said, there's that choice. And the "hours" you get from Living world varies incredibly. If someone's doing only the story, then it has like, what? 20h LW2-4? If you go for achievements, then it increases, and if you farm, same... But then, that's the same for any other game.

 

That means in your biased comparison, since PC games (which GW2 is exclusively for - including MAC OS on the PC market) are usually 20-30$ cheaper than consoles, that's 60-70USD for ~50h (according to you) vs 30+ for ~20 (according to my probably woefully wrong estimation), which makes a new game a smarter purchase than Living World?

 

I'm not even going to mention how much cheaper games get with time, i mean half a year later you can buy most titles at 40$, GW2 is 6 years old, HoT is 3, and PoF is 1 year old. Season 2 is 4 years old (and is the most expensive package), Season 3 is a bit over 1 year. Season 4 is ongoing, still 200 gems per episode is 2,5$ per.

 

So, awesome argument there mate...

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > > @"DeanBB.4268" said:

> > > Weird. When I bought a game on Steam, say Civilization 6, I then had to buy it's "living worlds" (aka, DLC). That didn't keep me from buying the game.

> > >

> > > Maybe all Anet really needs to do is rename it: DLC: Living World Season 2, etc.

> >

> > I doubt this would work for those complaining. If LW Episodes cost everyone, then there would be no issue, as with other games that offer DLC. The issue is that "other people" got the LW free, so they should, too.

> I wouldn't say it's an issue of entitlement. For a new player it feels like a Day one DLC. And if you don't understand why that's a shady practice, don't bother reading further.

 

My initial reaction was that the topic of the thread was the discouragement of _returning players_. I see that the OP also refers to new players, but never got the impression from his post that his issue was one of spend-a-bunch on the XPac and then spend more. He also specifically refers to the LS content being "designed to be free." The issue he presents seems pretty embedded in the idea of, "I shouldn't have to pay just because I did not log in."

 

I wasn't going to use the word, "entitlement," because it's such a pejorative these days. However, I think a solid case can be made for a general tendency for humans to disregard conditions or requirements when it comes to sales or freebies they did not qualify for.

 

> The fact that it isn't a actual Day One DLC, but actual "kind of" DLC content, does nothing to atone for the fact that someone just dropped 40-100€ on a game, only to find out, that he still needs to spend an extra 20€+ for the "DLCs".

> That's why i still think it's bad form on Arena Net's end to not include Living World with Deluxe packages.

 

I've supported -- and even posted the idea, on the old boards -- the bundling of LS chapters with XPac's. I'm part of the choir as far as that goes. I just don't think that relabeling LW as DLC would matter to the complaint. It would still be content that some people got free and others did not.

[Laila Lightness.8742]

> @"Aridon.8362" said:

> > @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > I cut this down to the 'headline' sentences for each section, because it's probably going to be right below the original post so it's easy for people to see the full version and would otherwise be very long.

> > > @"Aridon.8362" said:

> > > The biggest and most absolute reason people aren't coming back, simply put is because there's no reward for new content. If you look at everything that has came out every patch you don't get new armor or weapons, you don't get mount skins like they give you in wow, you just don't get rewarded for saying "I was here for this".

> >

> > Do you have any proof for that? Anecdotal or otherwise. A link to a discussion where multiple people have said that puts them off, especially that it's a bigger barrier than the cost of buying all the content they missed? I would have thought by now most MMO players know that GW2 was designed to be a 'casual friendly' horizontal progression game which doesn't add new levels or more powerful items on a regular basis (or ever) so the ones who aren't interested in a game that doesn't offer that progression aren't waiting for a reason to come back. If they are then they're wasting their time because it's almost certainly never going to happen.

> >

> But that's what makes MMOs like WoW Fun, it gives the player something to do!

>

> > However, if you mean armour and weapon _skins_ or exotic/ascended equipment rather than more powerful items then you're absolutely wrong that we don't get them. The latest release actually includes a new armour skin with two variations for each armour weight ([Elegy](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Elegy_armor_(medium) "Elegy") and [Requiem](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Requiem_armor_(medium) "Requiem") armour), each episode awards an armour piece for completing the meta-event and we often get new weapons too. We've only had one new mount so far, but there are rumours of others coming in future.

> >

> We got this like what, the last living story and Path of Fire has been out since September last year? Not only that but they are incredibly hideous despite all the flashy getup. It's more of a disappointment than a luxury.

> > > @"Aridon.8362" said:

> > And the lack of any sign of progression and moments that a player like Asmongold would stuff zebra cakes on his face for, simply not being there, just adds to that spice that fuels people telling others not to come back.

> >

> > I'm not sure if this is a typo or a reference to an in-joke I'm not privy to, but if your friend is unhappy with the lack of progression then as I said either they've misunderstood what type of game this is (in which case it's not worth waiting for a reason to come back) or they're missing the stuff which is available, maybe because it's not awarded by direct drops from bosses or other traditional sources.

>

> You're a smart man, you know what a typo is or isn't. Asmongold is a staple streamer in the MMO genre, if you look at the excitement that he has when he gets something new in WoW, it's the exact same reaction and satisfaction all players have in the game when they work for something and don't come out wearing the same thing. I understand this is catered to fashion wars, but fashion is the easiest element in the game to work for. What I'm saying is I want to come out of a new raid and come out with something that screams "Wow! I worked really hard for this **AWESOME** new weapon!", or come out of WvW and say "WoW! I got this **AWESOME** new outfit that nobody else can unlock without putting in hard effort!" (don't say ranks are these things because ranks don't actually mean anything since there's a missing badge system, and titles are too long term of a goal), or come out of PvP and be like "WoW! I got this **AWESOME** new mount skin other people can't normally get!". If you've actually played the game, you'd realize that in all those phrases the word **awesome** can easily get replaced with **mediocre** or **ugly**.

>

> When you kill Cairn the Indomitable for example, you get some garbage skin like this:

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Indomitable_Gladius

>

> Whereas in WoW for doing something in the same field you get something like this:

> http://images.mmosite.com/photo/2009/01/06/wowa195Mv1fELk55q.jpg

>

> Guild Wars 2 New Outfit/Armor:

> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiF6KDBzsLeAhWEmuAKHTsRC5EQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdulfy.net%2F2017%2F08%2F01%2Fgw2-spearmashal-weapon-skins-and-sunspear-outfit%2F&psig=AOvVaw0d2j4OXA60weO1opGgqwt9&ust=1541691493623252

>

> Wow New Outfit/Armor:

> https://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2017/june/DeathKnightTier21MythicRough.jpg

>

> Guild Wars:

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_HMS_Divinity

>

> Wow:

> https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iur/?f=1&image_host=http%3A%2F%2Fwow.zamimg.com%2Fuploads%2Fscreenshots%2Fnormal%2F497903-axe-2h-artifactarathor-d-06.jpg&u=https://wow.zamimg.com/uploads/screenshots/normal/497903-axe-2h-artifactarathor-d-06.jpg

>

> Guild Wars:

> https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Elegy_armor_(heavy)

>

> wow:

> https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iur/?f=1&image_host=http%3A%2F%2Fwow.zamimg.com%2Fuploads%2Fnews%2F11797-warrior-tier-21-and-pvp-armor-juggernaut-battlegear.png&u=https://wow.zamimg.com/uploads/news/11797-warrior-tier-21-and-pvp-armor-juggernaut-battlegear.png

>

> There is an obvious difference. And don't get me wrong there's things in WoW I absolutely hate, and things other players hate about it too. In fact there's more to hate in WoW than there is in Guild Wars.

 

You seem to try to promote wow . Dont get me wrong you seem too like wow alot more than gw 2

[sorudo.9054]

let me put a thought in, the game rift is tons cheaper then anything GW2 yet does perfectly fine.

[zombyturtle.5980]

They should just add a free, decent recap of each LW and expansion story. If people want to skip a portion, they can watch the recap. If they actually want to play through the content, then its only fair they pay.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > > > @"DeanBB.4268" said:

> > > > Weird. When I bought a game on Steam, say Civilization 6, I then had to buy it's "living worlds" (aka, DLC). That didn't keep me from buying the game.

> > > >

> > > > Maybe all Anet really needs to do is rename it: DLC: Living World Season 2, etc.

> > >

> > > I doubt this would work for those complaining. If LW Episodes cost everyone, then there would be no issue, as with other games that offer DLC. The issue is that "other people" got the LW free, so they should, too.

> > I wouldn't say it's an issue of entitlement. For a new player it feels like a Day one DLC. And if you don't understand why that's a shady practice, don't bother reading further.

>

> My initial reaction was that the topic of the thread was the discouragement of _returning players_.

Same difference... Imagine someone that stopped playing because Season One was a bit overwhelming with the serial releases every 2 weeks and gone. Now imagine them getting back, and reading that to catch up to the story they need to spend, what currently amounts to roughly 30€ in gems. I wouldn't be happy.

 

>I see that the OP also refers to new players, but never got the impression from his post that his issue was one of spend-a-bunch on the XPac and then spend more. He also specifically refers to the LS content being "designed to be free." The issue he presents seems pretty embedded in the idea of, "I shouldn't have to pay just because I did not log in."

>

Well, i always thought that charging for the old episodes was a bit underhanded, but it's their right to choose how to market. It's also our right as customers to like and support, or dislike and refuse to purchase services and products we don't agree with. Its also positive on behalf of both halves that we give feedback and suggestions on what we agree and disagree from the product we're buying.

 

> I wasn't going to use the word, "entitlement," because it's such a pejorative these days. However, I think a solid case can be made for a general tendency for humans to disregard conditions or requirements when it comes to sales or freebies they did not qualify for.

Well, it's what a lot of people imply on their attitudes and responses to this. Thing is, it's not really a freebie. It's actually part of the ongoing development of the game, and it's support. I mean, do you really think that PoF had enough content for what we paid for? I've paid less for expansions and DLCs that had so much more content than PoF delivered. Heck, there's competition for GW2 out there that delivers all their DLCs and expansions for FREE.

If LW wasn't at least delivered the way it is now, they'd have shut down the game a long time ago, because the only way they could EVER justify the prices on either expansion would be with the high quality of Living World.

I mean it's not like they themselves use the living world as an excuse to make up for lacking content on their expansions. I think it was Mike Z himself (don't quote me on this) that said they didn't have any proper Map-wide metas in the Expansion because they knew they'd be releasing one with Episode one. But that justification doesn't hold for someone that buys PoF today and wasn't playing at least as F2P back when episode one released. Those people to get access of content that wasn't delivered with the expansion because it would be in the living world, need to buy that episode. Which is pretty much the makings of a day one DLC.

 

It's hard to put ourselves in someone else's shoes... I've never missed a release since Season 2 came out, so it's easy for me to say that Living World is the redeeming part of most expansions, and that without it the game isn't worth it. But then i've encountered several new players that joined my guild over the time, that didn't have it, and had to purchase it on the side.

And if, for me, personally, the game isn't worth it without Living World. It, then becomes that much more obvious why it's kind of bad for new and returning players to need to purchase that content on the side. Because if you don't let people that bought the game experience the best the game has to offer without paying extra for it, the image and perception of the game they'll have is less than what i have. And honestly, at this point, even my perception of the game, having experienced those best bits, isn't that hot.

 

> > The fact that it isn't a actual Day One DLC, but actual "kind of" DLC content, does nothing to atone for the fact that someone just dropped 40-100€ on a game, only to find out, that he still needs to spend an extra 20€+ for the "DLCs".

> > That's why i still think it's bad form on Arena Net's end to not include Living World with Deluxe packages.

>

> I've supported -- and even posted the idea, on the old boards -- the bundling of LS chapters with XPac's. I'm part of the choir as far as that goes. I just don't think that relabeling LW as DLC would matter to the complaint. It would still be content that some people got free and others did not.

Indeed.

I guess we agree then.

[Deimos.4263]

It's always fun to explain to new guild members that they need to purchase old content if they want to play it, but if they had been around at the time it would've been free.

[starhunter.6015]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> As I understand it, LS content is tied to expansions so if you purchase the expansion and then log in ONCE during the LS release, you would get the LS for free to play at your leisure. This encourages players to purchase the expansions and encourages them to log on frequently (the LS releases are well advertised). ANet has to make money somewhere so these incentives help pay for the continued content.

>

>

 

That is correct, also you don't need to own the xpac to unlock the LS content but only to play it. F2P logging in can unlock each LS as it goes live so they will have access to them if/when they do buy the xpac.

[Kreejaffa.3682]

> @"Archlvt.2036" said:

> nobody plays a game for 7 years straight, nobody.

>

 

I have not missed more than a few days of dailies since early start in 2012, and I only missed those days because I was out of town on vacation for a few days every year.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Deimos.4263" said:

> It's always fun to explain to new guild members that they need to purchase old content if they want to play it, but if they had been around at the time it would've been free.

Is it the same fun as explaining to them that you once had to pay for core?

 

[Ashen.2907]

I think that the OP has it backwards. Every few months ANet encourages players to return by offering them an incentive in the form of free content.

[Etria.3642]

The way I had it explained to me was that originally the seasons would NOT be available after the initial release. Players yelled about this and said things like 'if I have to pay to be able to experience content I would not otherwise be able to then I will' and there it is.

 

I still hear that in fact. In fact /I/ would pay for season 1. And I did pay for season 2. No regrets either. All those achievements! So don't look at it as a barrier. It's an opportunity.

[Balthazzarr.1349]

> @"Archlvt.2036" said:

> I find it a curious design choice to lock the living story unless you've logged in during that period. The content was designed to be free, yet we are charging new and returning players a fee for coming to GW2. I get that they want to reward loyal players, but nobody plays a game for 7 years straight, nobody.

>

> So I have to wonder, how many more people would have returned to the game had we not hired bouncers (in the form of paying to come back) to keep players out?

 

lol hate to break it to ya but I’m into my 7th year with no plans on stopping anytime soon. ?

[TheOrlyFactor.8341]

> @"Archlvt.2036" said:

>nobody plays a game for 7 years straight, nobody.

 

The classic Doom community says otherwise as there's over 20 years of user-created content to play through and I've been playing it for well beyond that long.

[Tiny Doom.4380]

> @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > @"Archlvt.2036" said:

> > nobody plays a game for 7 years straight, nobody.

> >

>

> Guess I'm a nobody then XD

>

> Yeah it does suck a little for new players who have to catch up on the living world stuff but at the very least the option to obtain that content with in game gold exists.

> I'm definitely in the mindset that when buying the expansions there should be an option to obtain the previous living world season at a heavy discount.

> I'm not sure if there is an option like that or not already since I've never needed to buy living world content.

 

I've been playing without any breaks since the first beta weekend back in spring 2012. So has my wife. What's more , it's not the only MMO I play and I've played others for a lot longer, albeit with occasional breaks. I don't see there's anything very odd about that. Jusdging by the names I see around every day and the people on my friends lists in various MMOs it's pretty run of the mill behavior to play for 5+ years at a stretch. Seven isn't pushing that envelope very far.