Why should I pay for the story, when I already have bought both expansions?

[mauried.5608]

WOW subscription is now $16.50 a month, you can bet that very few players in GW2 spend that much in the gemstore each month.

 

[Teratus.2859]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > - you are not being punished for not logging in, you are being rewarded for logging in. What's the difference? Simple: Living World Content episodes cost 200 gems, when you log in while they are released, you get them for free as a thank you. If you do not log in, you do not get them. You are not forced to buy them and concurrent episodes do not require previous ones to unlock.

> >

> > I have to disagree with you on that.. if you want continuity in Gw2's storyline you are forced to buy these episodes..

> > Sure you don't technically need episode 4 to play episode 5 but if you want to know what the hell happened between episode 3 and 5 you won't have a choice but to buy episode 4.

> >

> > Can you imagine how annoyed someone would be if they last played episode 4 of this living world and went straight to episode 6 because they missed an episode and thought ahh well no big deal, i'm sure I didn't miss too much..

> > Considering the new maps and rewards etc often require you to play the first story chapter as well I'm going to have to say that for the sake of continuity.. you definitely have to invest in any missed episodes.

> > Considering how many people play them as they come out as well I don't believe that the number of players who do miss them is that big tbh..

> > So if the vast majority of players are getting these episodes for free it does feel like those who aren't are kinda being punished.. specially newer players who have a lot to catch up on.. and a pretty significant amount of money to invest if they do, which is where I can see a lot of newer people being turned off the game or at least everything past the end of the Personal Story.

> > That's why I think the living world seasons should be bundled into the more expensive expansion versions.

> > Season 2 with HoT and season 3 with PoF specifically and 4 and 5 with the next one.

>

> That's just bundling cost (unless you also expect the total cost to be less) and taking away the opportunity for people who are not interested in the Living World to not purchase them.

 

I was thinking more as a free incentive for those bundles.. much like the original Gw2 was bundled in free with HoT to entice players.

To this day I still believe that backlash over that was completely ridiculous.. and i'm a collectors owner who payed around 130 pounds for my copy of Gw2.

Not to mention someone who paid for both ultimate editions of the expansions.. and bought both HoT and PoF for a friend as well, that being the reason he's been able to catch up and play during the current story as his financial situation didn't allow him to afford both expansions and all the missed living world.

 

> I doubt players are being turned off the game from lack of Living World Episodes. I doubt most players even know about Living World Episodes until they are quite a bit in.

 

I beg to differ, Gw2's main focus is it's PvE story mode.. there are some who play exclusively for the PvP and WvW aspects of the game but the majority of players play for the PvE game which is heavily defined by it's story.

I can certainly see how a new player would be turned off the game when they beat the Personal story, buy Heart of Thorns and then realize they have to buy all of living world 2 seperately just to know what the hell is going on.. and then have to do the same with season 3 before PoF..

As time goes on this problem gets worse and worse as more seasons releases increasing that overall cost.. and more so since Anet have already stated that they intend to add big, expansion like content moments to the living world going forward..

I think going into the 5th season of living world soon it is important that Anet work something out to make catching up for newer players both easier and cheaper.

Specially since they clearly want more players involved with the game.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

 

> This game can barely get any new players.

 

Please cite your source for this fact. Otherwise, only ANet has this data and, if your argument were true, I'm sure that they would find ways to remedy it.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"mauried.5608" said:

> WOW subscription is now $16.50 a month, you can bet that very few players in GW2 spend that much in the gemstore each month.

>

 

In 5+ years of GW2, I have probably purchased gems at $20 a shot three or four times. I wouldn't doubt that many other casual players like myself have similar patterns.

[kasoki.5180]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

 

> I'm sorry, but you are comparing subscription based monetization models with non-subscription based models. If people spent 5-10$ per month on gems in this game, none of the issues discussed here would be present. Most do not though, yet complain that content is not free.

 

 

I'm sorry, but i don't understand the point of your post. Idea that you cant compare story access, or how friendly to new players a game is, with subscription and non-subscription model has no logical reasoning behind it. You absolutely can compare game experience of WoW, ESO and GW2 even though they have different business models.

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

 

> If people spent 5-10$ per month on gems in this game, none of the issues discussed here would be present. Most do not though, yet complain that content is not free.

 

But isn't that part of the issue? Beside LWS, gemstore items are not really gameplay content. Gemstore cant really be compared with subscriptions since one gives you mostly vanity items. Other gives you access to the game. People have little incentive to purchase vanity/cosmetic gemstore items. That means that gemstore cannot and isn't even intended to be something that fills the role of subscription in terms of development financing.

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

 

> Those expansions in ESO are not free. They literally cost you the subscription.

>

> In WoW all previous expansions are certainly not free. They are at best heavily discounted. Once again, payed for by the subscription fee.

 

Finally, your argument about it "not being free because you pay fur sub" is semantics for semantics sake. Its like those people that screech whenever someone uses the term free healthcare.

Like, we all know what was meant when i said "free if you subscribe". Making points about semantics just for semantics sake contributes little to the discussion. My main point still remains, and that is that in other MMO story is far more accessible to new players, and also cheaper

[kasoki.5180]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"kasoki.5180" said:

>

> > This game can barely get any new players.

>

> Please cite your source for this fact. Otherwise, only ANet has this data and, if your argument were true, I'm sure that they would find ways to remedy it.

 

This is indicative of players interest. Including potentially new players. Sure its not exact science but is best we got

 

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Guild%20Wars%202,GW%202,Guild%20Wars,GW2

 

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Guild%20Wars%202,Guild%20Wars,GW2,ESO,%2Fm%2F0jt2y_q

 

The issue is that GW is at a steady place. No drastical increases or decreases in interest. That implies no significant numbers of new players

[Randulf.7614]

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

> > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > @"kasoki.5180" said:

> >

> > > This game can barely get any new players.

> >

> > Please cite your source for this fact. Otherwise, only ANet has this data and, if your argument were true, I'm sure that they would find ways to remedy it.

>

> This is indicative of players interest. Including potentially new players. Sure its not exact science but is best we got

>

> https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Guild%20Wars%202,GW%202,Guild%20Wars,GW2

>

> https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Guild%20Wars%202,Guild%20Wars,GW2,ESO,%2Fm%2F0jt2y_q

>

> The issue is that GW is at a steady place. No drastical increases or decreases in interest. That means no significant numbers of new players

 

Anet also stated last year they had a huge influx of new and returning customers which in part contributed to the massive support lead times. Anecdotally I've seen a lot to support that in game

 

Since any data we provide will be contradictory, any discussion on population increases or decreases is worthless. Only Anet will have that accurate data and only Anet are in a position to identify what business model changes would improve the situation.

 

 

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> > I'm sorry, but you are comparing subscription based monetization models with non-subscription based models. If people spent 5-10$ per month on gems in this game, none of the issues discussed here would be present. Most do not though, yet complain that content is not free.

>

>

> I'm sorry, but i don't understand the point of your post. Idea that you cant compare story access, or how friendly to new players a game is, with subscription and non-subscription model has no logical reasoning behind it. You absolutely can compare game experience of WoW, ESO and GW2 even though they have different business models.

 

We aren't comparing stories here, we are comparing costs.

 

A subscription model versus a non-subscription model is the very backbone of where costs and revenue arise. You are comparing content developed under a subscirption model (and thus payed for with the subscriptions) to content which was developed under a no-subscription model. Do I need to explain more? It's called different monetization and business plans.

 

 

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> > If people spent 5-10$ per month on gems in this game, none of the issues discussed here would be present. Most do not though, yet complain that content is not free.

>

> But isn't that part of the issue? Beside LWS, gemstore items are not really gameplay content. Gemstore cant really be compared with subscriptions since one gives you mostly vanity items. Other gives you access to the game. People have little incentive to purchase vanity/cosmetic gemstore items. That means that gemstore cannot and isn't even intended to be something that fills the role of subscription in terms of development financing.

 

You are cherry picking what you are looking at.

 

First off, vanity and other gem store items are insignificant as far as cost to the Living World Episodes unless Arenanet decides that they bulk of revenue comes from those (which it likely does) and decides to make Living World completely free. They instead chose a middle patch:

- active players get the content for free since some of them are more likely to spend money on the gem store

- not active players are forced to pay for the DLC/content

 

Second, the mere ability to exchange gold to gems means that even more concessions must be made. Gems are not magically stored in the exchange. The are purchased by players and exchanged for gold. As such incentives both positive and negative are placed in the game for people to purchase gems.

 

Stop looking at this from only the consumer who wants free stuff. Arenanet has employees and bills to pay.

 

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> > Those expansions in ESO are not free. They literally cost you the subscription.

> >

> > In WoW all previous expansions are certainly not free. They are at best heavily discounted. Once again, payed for by the subscription fee.

>

> Finally, your argument about it "not being free because you pay fur sub" is semantics for semantics sake. Its like those people that screech whenever someone uses the term free healthcare.

> Like, we all know what was meant when i said "free if you subscribe". Making points about semantics just for semantics sake contributes little to the discussion. My main point still remains, and that is that in other MMO story is far more accessible to new players, and also cheaper

 

Please read up on the term semantics. You are using it incorrectly.

 

I applied your subscription model to GW2 system and explained that if people were to pay a voluntary subscription (I even went lower than current subscription based games by offering 5-10 dollars), they would never have any issue with any content offered for gems. They would not even have to farm gold depending on their spending habits.

 

Those are not semantics. Those are equal value comparisons.

 

Also please don't bring free health care into this. Getting free Living World Episodes has nothing to do with a system were everyone pays a small increment to cover the majority fees. It's actually not even similar.

[kasoki.5180]

> @"Randulf.7614" said:

> > @"kasoki.5180" said:

> > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > > @"kasoki.5180" said:

> > >

> > > > This game can barely get any new players.

> > >

> > > Please cite your source for this fact. Otherwise, only ANet has this data and, if your argument were true, I'm sure that they would find ways to remedy it.

> >

> > This is indicative of players interest. Including potentially new players. Sure its not exact science but is best we got

> >

> > https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Guild%20Wars%202,GW%202,Guild%20Wars,GW2

> >

> > https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Guild%20Wars%202,Guild%20Wars,GW2,ESO,%2Fm%2F0jt2y_q

> >

> > The issue is that GW is at a steady place. No drastical increases or decreases in interest. That means no significant numbers of new players

>

> Anet also stated last year they had a huge influx of new and returning customers which in part contributed to the massive support lead times. Anecdotally I've seen a lot to support that in game

>

> Since any data we provide will be contradictory, any discussion on population increases or decreases is worthless. Only Anet will have that accurate data and only Anet are in a position to identify what business model changes would improve the situation.

>

>

 

I partially agree with you. But new players basically have to google the game first, especially if they are doing some research on the game first. And that would be shown in google trends. Its not really true that only Anet has all the relevant data

[Obtena.7952]

> @"MoriMoriMori.5349" said:

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" , I'm living in that lucky part of the world, where 50$ is 1/3 - 1/4 of monthly salary for a lot of people :) I can assure you, very few people living in such regions will buy story chapters for that money, when they even consider 10-15$ for a game on Steam at 66% discount "a lot". Anet won't finance anything with those people's money, they will just lock them from the story, that's all.

>

> The said Eve Online offers special regional prices on their ingame goodies in such regions, which 2 times lower than for the rest of the world, at least, thus making it affordable - as an example. To pay 50$ (a money for which you can buy 2 AAA games at Steam, as Steam also offers regional discounts around there) **for a story** is something that will sound ridiculous for 90% of people around there. Thus Anet won't ever see their money. Yet, if they would be selling the older chapters at huge discounts, allowing people to get all older seasons for, say, 10$ - most of them would buy it, in the end.

 

here is the problem with that thinking. The question isn't what Anet could do to get more money. There are lots of things that COULD be done.

 

The question is if what Anet does sustains the business; I guess it must because it's still here.

 

I don't get this logic that $50 is too much. If you consider how much time people play games, $50 is almost nothing for the entertainment value you get. I can barely go out for dinner and a movie for $50 anymore but here, I get dozens of hours of fun. /shrug I think the real answer here is that the market Anet targets for the game CAN afford it or avoids that story fee in the first place because of the types of players in that market.

[kasoki.5180]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

 

> We aren't comparing stories here, we are comparing costs.

>

> A subscription model versus a non-subscription model is the very backbone of where costs and revenue arise. You are comparing content developed under a subscirption model (and thus payed for with the subscriptions) to content which was developed under a no-subscription model. Do I need to explain more? It's called different monetization and business plans.

>

 

Actually, I was since the beginning talking about access to game content, mostly story and how current business model is hurting delivery of the same, especially for new/returning players. What you just said is exactly what I'm saying from the start.

 

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

 

> First off, vanity and other gem store items are insignificant as far as cost to the Living World Episodes unless Arenanet decides that they bulk of revenue comes from those (which it likely does) and decides to make Living World completely free. They instead chose a middle patch:

 

Exactly what I said. Unless I misunderstood what you mean by this.

 

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Stop looking at this from only the consumer who wants free stuff. Arenanet has employees and bills to pay.

 

I'm the one arguing that game would be better with some kind of subscription model, and that gemstore isnt making enoughmoney for Anet. But sure, i guess Im just asking for free stuff. /s

 

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

 

> Please read up on the term semantics. You are using it incorrectly.

>

> I applied your subscription model to GW2 system and explained that if people were to pay a voluntary subscription (I even went lower than current subscription based games by offering 5-10 dollars), they would never have any issue with any content offered for gems. They would not even have to farm gold depending on their spending habits.

>

> Those are not semantics. Those are equal value comparisons.

 

When I accused you of semantics this is not what I was talking about. If you plan to quote me and counterargument me, please quote me propperly and counterargue arguments I have actually made, instead of accusing me of something i have never said, and then counterarguing a point I have never made.

 

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

 

> Also please don't bring free health care into this. Getting free Living World Episodes has nothing to do with a system were everyone pays a small increment to cover the majority fees. It's actually not even similar.

 

I'm not bringing healthcare into this. I was comparing you to people that correct others that use the term "free healthcare" when they should be using "public healthcare".

This is where I accused you of semantics. Because you were correcting me about "free with sbuscription". Its a matter of what is understood when we use a certain terminology.

 

Maybe instead of making assumption about what I'm saying, you should actually read what I'm saying

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> > We aren't comparing stories here, we are comparing costs.

> >

> > A subscription model versus a non-subscription model is the very backbone of where costs and revenue arise. You are comparing content developed under a subscirption model (and thus payed for with the subscriptions) to content which was developed under a no-subscription model. Do I need to explain more? It's called different monetization and business plans.

> >

>

> Actually, I was since the beginning talking about access to game content, mostly story and how current business model is hurting delivery of the same, especially for new/returning players. What you just said is exactly what I'm saying from the start.

>

> > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> > First off, vanity and other gem store items are insignificant as far as cost to the Living World Episodes unless Arenanet decides that they bulk of revenue comes from those (which it likely does) and decides to make Living World completely free. They instead chose a middle patch:

>

> Exactly what I said. Unless I misunderstood what you mean by this.

>

> > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > Stop looking at this from only the consumer who wants free stuff. Arenanet has employees and bills to pay.

>

> I'm the one arguing that game would be better with some kind of subscription model, and that gemstore isnt making enoughmoney for Anet. But sure, i guess Im just asking for free stuff. /s

>

> > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> > Please read up on the term semantics. You are using it incorrectly.

> >

> > I applied your subscription model to GW2 system and explained that if people were to pay a voluntary subscription (I even went lower than current subscription based games by offering 5-10 dollars), they would never have any issue with any content offered for gems. They would not even have to farm gold depending on their spending habits.

> >

> > Those are not semantics. Those are equal value comparisons.

>

> When I accused you of semantics this is not what I was talking about. If you plan to quote me and counterargument me, please quote me propperly and counterargue arguments I have actually made, instead of accusing me of something i have never said, and then counterarguing a point I have never made.

>

> > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> > Also please don't bring free health care into this. Getting free Living World Episodes has nothing to do with a system were everyone pays a small increment to cover the majority fees. It's actually not even similar.

>

> I'm not bringing healthcare into this. I was comparing you to people that correct others that use the term "free healthcare" when they should be using "public healthcare".

> This is where I accused you of semantics. Because you were correcting me about "free with sbuscription". Its a matter of what is understood when we use a certain terminology.

>

> Maybe instead of making assumption about what I'm saying, you should actually read what I'm saying

 

Goes both ways then. Also on the subject of a subscription model, I think most people in the thread were very clear on their stance. Trust me when I tell you, between a subscription model (which I personally would be absolutely fine with) and the status quo, you'll get a ton of people who would vote for status quo.

 

Also for the purpose of this thread and topic creators problem, a subscription model would not solve his issue, given he is playing from a very low wage country.

[zealex.9410]

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

> > @"Ayakaru.6583" said:

>

> > The real difference?

> > If you're an active player or not.

> > Active players are keeping the game alive by playing and using the gemstore.

> > Players who aren't playing, aren't helping keeping the game alive.

> > Youre not being charged for being inactive.

> > Youre being rewarded for being active.

> >

> > That's a misconception i see thrown around a lot

> >

> > And even if you're taking a break, if you can't take 2 minutes out of your life every 2-3 months to log in, you're not passing the bar of having put in the minimal effort you be called a 'gw2 player'

>

> You are basically showing a large middle finger to new and returning players with this kind of attitude. Do you honestly not see whats wrong with this attitude of veteran elitism.

>

> This game can barely get any new players. We get some fresh blood when an asian MMO fails but thats it.

> But sure. lets put barriers for new players because up until this point they have never helped keeping the game alive.

>

> Do you realize how auto destructive for a game is this idea that players who arent playing should be ignored? Or new and returning players. Game cant function without getting steady supply of new players.

>

> At this point World of Warcraft has more accessible story than Guild Wars 2. That speaks volumes.

>

> Also, i have never in my life used a gemstore. Never will. Unlike new player who needs to actually buy Living World Seasons. By your own logic, new and (forcefully) spending player should be rewarded more than me who got his LWS simply by logging in.

>

> On another topic, argument about spending gold to buy stories has a serious fault. Unless you have LWS your main source of serious gold needed for LW is going to be T4 fractals. If you are someone new/returning who is frustrated that you have to grind to unlock story, you probably wont play this game long enough to get to T4 fracs, or any other content that gives you substantial amount of gold. Locking the story behind end game grind or real life money is simply not that appealing to people when there are so many games on the market nowdays.

>

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

>

> > Ff14 you pay for expacs and sub fee, in Eso u pay for expacs and sub fee or dlc, in wow u pay for expacs and sub fee.

>

> If I'm not mistaken, all new content is free if you are subscriber in ESO. And in WoW all the previous expansion are free. You only need to purchase the most recent.

 

You still pay for sub in Eso. The expansion in wow are "included" with the last so long as you are paying a sub witch also costs money. Gw2 also bundles base game with the nexpansions and since you dont need tue expansions this on its own is enough.

 

His arguememt was that the only game that charged more for aditional content past its box price was gw2, which is just not true.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > @"Ayakaru.6583" said:

> > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > >But the worst of it is for new players. They buy the game with expansions and then find out they have to spend even more for stuff that >normally you'd expect to be part of the expansions.

> > >

> > > What do you mean?

> > > Was living world in the description box of the expansions page? I dont recall seeing it there, but apparantly since you expected LS to be part of the expansions, it must’ve been advertised somewhere.

> >

> > You need to take your GW2 blinders off and look around. It's normal for MMOs to have content updates and they're either paid as part of expansions, part of sub payment or as separate DLC. GW2 does it halfway. It charges some customers and some customers not. The difference? You were there are the right time and if you took a break or were not a customer back then because you didn't know about the game then that's the criteria for being charged after the fact. It's not something I've seen other games do in this respect. When people start playing another game or are used to certain things then you have expectations that are based on how things are generally done. Also it's common to make older content available for less or free as time progresses. Like they did with the core game for example here.

> >

>

> Well to be completely fair though, how many of those MMOs you are comparing GW2 too have way more restrictive limitations which require either a subscription or money purchases for unlocks or are far more pay to win or allow gold to gem conversion (aka in-game gold to deluxe currency). People keep forgetting how much GW2 is offering to allow players to spend 0 money on it.

>

> Sure, Arenanet could change the business model, but then there would be other annoyances wouldn't there?

>

> EDIT: and please no pick and chose from different MMOs system. Most are designed to work specifically within their framework in mind. All to often people love to go:"Well SWTOR does this, and ESO does this, and WoW does this...". GW2 model works in the way it does because all the factors are interlinked, same as all other MMO business models (at least of those which are successful).

 

I mean that goes off to contemt that is generally free vs content that u have to pay to play, how much content in both cases gets added etc. But for the sake of pricing gw2 allows u a completely free of charge aquisition of lw, yes.

[PseudoNewb.5468]

The least Anet could do is make an easy to buy package, for each expansion, that includes all content associated with the expansion. Living world is a bit bizarre with two requirements to play. One is to buy the associated expansion, then it is to get an unlock that is free at first, then costs something through the gem store, at a future date. And it doesn't help, that, depending on when you buy or login, you will have a different arrangements of these unlocks for the current season already available to you. I also think buying gems is inconvenient for some people. A S2 + HoT complete pack can be made right now (although core players who have logged in diligently over the years won't need this :confounded: ), PoF is a little weird in that it is still possible to get 2/6th of the associated living world unlocked for free at this point. Now is S5 going to have a PoF requirement? ?‍♀️

From my perspective. It is more complicated than it should be. I personally don't care too much about the price (I get the free unlocks for now). But this system is a bit convoluted.

[Arden.7480]

~60 g per episode it is if you havent logged in within a cadance. That's the way it works. New players have to buy the previous Episodes, because it's fair towards the players that log in to the game within the release cadence. It's not like punishing new players. If someone misled you in that case, I hope you're not mad at us.

[Arden.7480]

> @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > @"Odinens.5920" said:

> > Even if you are taking a break from the game, which sounds like you did, how hard is it to log in for 5 seconds.....seconds....to have access to the current LWS episode for free? My suggestion to the OP is if you don't want to pay anything at all then at least keep an eye on the game and when new episodes release so you don't have to pay anything to play them.

> >

> > As far as the older episodes from before you owned any of the expansions buy them as bundles. It's cheaper that way.....everyone has had to do it. If you like the game why wouldn't you want to support it?

>

> Well when I take a break from a game for an extended time, logging into that game is the last thing I want to do. But the worst of it is for new players. They buy the game with expansions and then find out they have to spend even more for stuff that normally you'd expect to be part of the expansions. Honestly, I think ArenaNet should sell the expansions as part of a package deal together. It's just weird to have to pay for part of the story and zones outside of the expansions.

 

They don't have to buy anything, the whole game is a massive world and the Episodes are just addition to the game, not core thing. Also 60 gold is not a big deal, 10$ per two episodes is also fair. No one forces the new players to buy everything at once, they have the whole Tyria to explore and the expansions' regions too, but if someone cares only about the story, then its a must to buy every episode.

 

EDIT: 72,5$ to have Season 2,3 and 4 unlocked fully.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

> @"Arden.7480" said:

> > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > @"Odinens.5920" said:

> > > Even if you are taking a break from the game, which sounds like you did, how hard is it to log in for 5 seconds.....seconds....to have access to the current LWS episode for free? My suggestion to the OP is if you don't want to pay anything at all then at least keep an eye on the game and when new episodes release so you don't have to pay anything to play them.

> > >

> > > As far as the older episodes from before you owned any of the expansions buy them as bundles. It's cheaper that way.....everyone has had to do it. If you like the game why wouldn't you want to support it?

> >

> > Well when I take a break from a game for an extended time, logging into that game is the last thing I want to do. But the worst of it is for new players. They buy the game with expansions and then find out they have to spend even more for stuff that normally you'd expect to be part of the expansions. Honestly, I think ArenaNet should sell the expansions as part of a package deal together. It's just weird to have to pay for part of the story and zones outside of the expansions.

>

> They don't have to buy anything, the whole game is a massive world and the Episodes are just addition to the game, not core thing. Also 60 gold is not a big deal, 10$ per two episodes is also fair. No one forces the new players to buy everything at once, they have the whole Tyria to explore and the expansions' regions too, but if someone cares only about the story, then its a must to buy every episode.

>

> 145$ to have Season 2,3 and 4 unlocked fully.

 

It's $2.50 per Episode, and only if you buy them separately; there's also a 20% discount if you buy in bundles. Nowhere near $145.

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

> @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> On the other hand, if ANet made it clear you need to buy the living story chapters to complete the story, eventually we would have a thread here stating that OP felt scammed into paying for content they could have had acquired for free in game using gold. :)

 

People don't feel that way with the deluxe packages.

[Chyanne Waters.8719]

If you as a player were in GW2 when the living story started it was updated every two to three weeks. Once the next part came the older parts were gone never to be seen again. So just like real life there was no reset button like we have now. Quite a bit of work goes into each episode of the living story and now it can be repeated. Each episode can be considered a mini expansion due to new areas being opened, and some other things that you can get in that mini expansion you cannot get anywhere else.

Living world is not just a story line it is a free to loyal player cost to new and non loyal player expansion of GW2. It is designed to give earlier information of previous episodes or start a new story line from scratch. 200 gems per episode is like $2.50 you can buy them separately or wait for a sale to come along and save that way. Because Anet made it so you can trade in game gold for gems you can also pay for it that way, just have to earn the gold. Unlike other games Anet rewards loyalty in many different ways like this. It is easy to be loyal just log on anytime a new episode of the Living story is running and it will always be free to you. Quit or forget then that will be your fault. Like you I believed the story up to the time I got my second account the story up to that time should be included, but if you think about it why should it be

Now even though I do not have all the expansions on my second account I do however have the story for the expansions from the time I started playing the second account. My question is WoW players pay way more than GW2 players do even with the Living story charges (not how much is paid for gemstore items in general) just for the game story and expansions. WoW also has a way you can pay by playing now from what I hear.

 

[Gehenna.3625]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"mauried.5608" said:

> > WOW subscription is now $16.50 a month, you can bet that very few players in GW2 spend that much in the gemstore each month.

> >

>

> In 5+ years of GW2, I have probably purchased gems at $20 a shot three or four times. I wouldn't doubt that many other casual players like myself have similar patterns.

What people need to look at is the point that ArenaNet pulls in about 6 million USD per month (based on 2018 figures from the financial reports). Now I'm sure there are some box sales in that but the vast majority of that will be gem purchases. That's quite a bit, so someone is buying these gems, so there have to be a fair number of players buying these gems regularly.

 

And a game like this does need a constant flow of revenue to stay alive of course. That's what subs were originally for and they do still for some games.

 

Now let's look another situation entirely to explain what happens in GW2. Let's say that you go out every Saturday night to a local bar. And every time there are people who buy rounds for everyone who's there. Every single time. So how long before you start feeling like a "mooch" and decide to start pitching in and giving rounds as well. Or are you the type who sits backs and let's others pay for you? You don't have to actually answer that by the way.

 

So this is what cash shops do for games now. Because a game does need income. So when you buy very few gems or none at all, you are basically able to play the game because a number of other players do spend regularly and in big enough amounts. This game isn't for free even for the f2p accounts because other players are basically paying for you to be able to pay very little or nothing at all. Without them this game would shut down. This may feel uncomfortable for some but that's the simple reality of it. It's not nice to say that you'd be "mooching" off of other players but the crude word choice aside, it is where it's at.

 

So regardless of whether you think it's ok to charge people for LS stories after they come out. The people who get stuff for free, do so because other players pay for you to be able to get it free. Anyone who says that being active is rewarded with LS updates should realize they only do so because other players paid for that.

 

And if someone even dares to bring up the point that they get something for what they buy, let me remind them that that's bs because clearly all of that stuff is way overpriced. It's not worth 2 bucks in actual value but the overhead goes towards maintaining the game, the studio and profit. People who are against subs basically can because of other players in the end because in the traditional sub format everybody pays the same for the same content. I'm sure people will get upset at me for saying it, but it's simply true that people can only play without a sub because other players pay for them via overpriced mtx. And as long as the people who buy the gems regularly are fine with that, that's ok for them I guess. I'm just not a fan of it. I just want to make clear that that IS where it's at. So be grateful for the whales because they're paying for you.

[Maikimaik.1974]

> @"MoriMoriMori.5349" said:

> > @"sokeenoppa.5384" said:

> > You dont have to buy every lws at the same time. Just buy one episode with ingame gold and play it, after a while buy a second one and so on.

>

> At that price point I'll never buy it personally, as it just feels like a total robbery. I can name a dozen games I can buy at Steam for 2-3 times less money, which can offer story experience times better than LW seasons of GW2, for example. And I can assure you most of other people from around here will think the same.

 

That's sad to hear. But 2$ (the price of one episode) is what many people in the US (where Anet is located) spend on just a single cup of coffee. 2$ is pretty much NOTHING in western countries. I'm very sorry that you're not able to afford the game, but wanting to pay your employees is not "robbery".

[Hugheszie.6291]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"kasoki.5180" said:

>

> > This game can barely get any new players.

>

> Please cite your source for this fact. Otherwise, only ANet has this data and, if your argument were true, I'm sure that they would find ways to remedy it.

 

Well, the comment "This game can barely get any new players" isn't true. Anet should see a spike since battle for azeroth launched, as the mass exodus happened.

Almost my entire guild left WoW and play GW2 now. Many other player would of followed - I've found so many people in GW2 who have left Wow in the last couple of months. People running around called "LichKing***" "Aundiun***" "Horde***" etc.

[Ashantara.8731]

> @"MoriMoriMori.5349" said:

> Or am I missing something? Currently all Living Seasons chapters in my character sheet are locked and a price of 200 gems is displayed at each of them. But I have both expansions, haven't I already paid enough to have access to everything?

 

Living World episodes are additional DLC content, they are not released alongside the respective expansion. The fact that each episode is for free on release for a limited time is a mere courtesy of the developer.

 

> @"MoriMoriMori.5349" said:

> At that price point I'll never buy it personally, as it just feels like a total robbery.

 

You are getting the core game for free, which others have paid a lot of dough for back then, yet you are feeling robbed? Hmm.

 

[maddoctor.2738]

Arenanet has been treating new players badly for a rather long time and the disjointed story is a huge part of it, especially for players that buy both expansions and can't experience the story between them. I know it's a loyalty reward for players that are logging in monthly, but it's something that is not communicated well (if at all) to new players. Plus the whole mess with Season 1 that is also not available for newer players and there is little to no explanation for them. Sure we know why Season 1 isn't available, sure we know why the episodes are released this way, but new players don't and the game is doing a terrible job at telling them.