Do I really have to pay MORE for enjoying the story?

[Labjax.2465]

10 minutes ago, Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

Living World Seasons actually do go on sale from time to time, in addition to the 20% discount when buying as a bundle.

Is this made clear in the story interface itself? Cause you can end up with half a season unlocked depending on when you show up, do they account for that in discounts?

[Hallow.7368]

They did not come out with the expansion so they are not included in the costs. They spent time and money on making the living world seasons AND they're free if you play during the time frame that came out AND they gave them away each week during the return event leading up to EoD. So essentially they've already given them away for free multiple times and you missed out and then complain that you then have to pay for them? Uh ok.

[Hallow.7368]

28 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

Is this made clear in the story interface itself? Cause you can end up with half a season unlocked depending on when you show up, do they account for that in discounts?

I think they do for all but ls2. My IBS pack is 160 gems despite me getting them all for free except the prologue, but for whatever reason my LS2 doesn't seem to be despite me getting one of those for free.

Edited March 9, 2022 by Hallow.7368

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

2 hours ago, Labjax.2465 said:

Is this made clear in the story interface itself? Cause you can end up with half a season unlocked depending on when you show up, do they account for that in discounts?

It's certainly made clear in the Gem Store, and all associated information about the sales/and discounts.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Living_World_Season_2_Complete_Pack#Notes

[Anixa.6015]

For a game that's subscription free, I think it's perfectly fair that we have to pay for the Living World content. In the long run, it will still be cheaper than any other mmo with a sub fee. 

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Here is some handy information:  https://www.guildwars2.com/en/legal/the-forums-code-of-conduct/

[Mirotvorac.9640]

ESO soo greedy game, If wont simple to done crafting that is imposible mission without subscription. Guild Wars 2 have lot better economy system.

[Danikat.8537]

7 hours ago, Redfeather.6401 said:

ESO does an optional subscription that is a package of things people could get on their own but totaled it gives you 1650 crowns a month, unlimited material storage and access to all dlc released. I don't pay a sub in ESO, but a ton of people do simply because of it's dollar to rewards value. GW2 could try that and see how many people prefer to get DLC that way instead of buying each season.

Importantly that only gives you access to the DLC as long as you keep on paying the subscription. If you stop paying you can't get into those maps any more or continue the quests, unless you've bought them from the cash shop (at which point it's basically the same as GW2).

It's a good way to try it out if you're not sure which DLC you might want to buy, but subscribing for access to DLC will work out more expensive in the long term, so it's not really worth it unless you want the other benefits. It seems like most people subscribe primarily for the craft bag (something all GW2 players get a version of for free) and double bank space. Some of them actually complain about getting the DLC because it means they might get the harder DLC dungeons come up when doing a random dungeon for the daily rewards.

[sewenewes.4176]

14 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

To play 1 year of WoW, you're playing $180 plus the price of the game and WoW still sells expansions and has a cash shop on top of that.

 

The free-to-play with microtransaction model doesn't favour the consumer. The cash shop of WoW has about three mounts and one pet thrown into it per year. The game has hundreds of mounts and over a thousand pets that you can earn by just playing the game and more of them get introduced with every expansion and every content patch as well. You are also given access to thousands of appearances to earn and use. Most of these are easy to obtain for the casual and solo player. I only dabble in the game and yet have 200-something mounts, 700-something pets, and most gear appearances for multiple characters. 

 

If I wanted to have a collection this extensive in GW2 as well as full access to all quality of life features (such as fully upgraded bag, bank, and material storage or infinite gathering tools for all characters) it would cost me the equivalent of thousands of dollars. Enough to cover the subscription for WoW from its launch till now.

 

The microtransaction model is by design predatory and forces developers to not only implement problems into the game so a solution can be sold but also be very stingy with rewards so that the paid options don't feel lesser or redundant. It relies heavily on a small percentage of heavy spenders subsidizing the game for the majority who pay little to nothing. Regardless of one's economic circumstances and desire to pay into the system we have to admit that it's not a healthy monetization strategy as it means everything - from the pace and scope of new content to the continuation of the game - hinges on a relatively small group.

[The Boz.2038]

You are comparing GW2's "full QoL" to stuff other games don't even have, lol.

[sewenewes.4176]

38 minutes ago, The Boz.2038 said:

You are comparing GW2's "full QoL" to stuff other games don't even have, lol.

 

I'm fairly sure other games have bag and bank inventories and some have a crafting material inventory as well, such as the cited WoW. I can unlock and maximize the size of all those for a reasonable amount of gold that I can earn just by leveling up my character through quests. Leveling a new character over there right now in fact and have already bought all mount speed upgrades as well as the largest bags (Lightless Silk Pouch) possible through casual gameplay. I didn't need to stay on specific maps and farm specific content for many hours on end (or swipe my card) to have access to the largest possible storage.

 

A QoL that doesn't exist in WoW for example are infinite gathering tools because gathering has no charges on your tools. You also no longer need to carry a tool for them nowadays. There is also no button to send your crafting materials to your storage because the easy access to plentiful backpack space as well as items granting temporary access to the bank and the mailbox makes such a feature redundant. Many of the QoL features free-to-play games have are solutions to inconveniences implemented into the game so that the solution can be sold.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

So, the Gem Store made the Devs release content every two weeks for a year or so? Every 2 months for a year or more? The Gem Store made the Devs wait 5 years to introduce Mounts and their benefic-income Mounts Skins, instead of getting that income since launch?

The Gem Store made the Devs wait to release the Wardrobe, Deposit All, the Legendary Armory, change the Dye system, Salvage all, etc.?  The Gem Store made the Devs create the Gems-for-Gold feature?

[The Boz.2038]

The maxed out bank slots and reagents in wow cost a few hundred gold, but are tiny compared to just what you get in GW2's bank and materials storage for free. Same goes for personal storage; all my characters right now have more storage than a WoW character might ever get, and I have seven of those. 
Getting to grind for a few hours to unlock "free in-game content" in a subscription game is a... laughable argument. 

"This game lets me buy none bags. This game lets me buy ten for ten bucks. Clearly the first game is better, because I get all of the bags for free there."
Real sound logic, there, friendo.

[Forum Moderator.3419]

Hello Everyone,

Just a reminder to keep it civil and avoid attacking/fighting each other. I've removed a few posts.

Regards.

[captrowdy.9561]

I started the game towards the end of when they where giving all the seasons away. I purchased the rest. Very worth the money. This game does not have a subscription fee I don’t know why that is hard to understand 

[Danikat.8537]

2 hours ago, ewenness.6482 said:

 

The free-to-play with microtransaction model doesn't favour the consumer. The cash shop of WoW has about three mounts and one pet thrown into it per year. The game has hundreds of mounts and over a thousand pets that you can earn by just playing the game and more of them get introduced with every expansion and every content patch as well. You are also given access to thousands of appearances to earn and use. Most of these are easy to obtain for the casual and solo player. I only dabble in the game and yet have 200-something mounts, 700-something pets, and most gear appearances for multiple characters. 

 

If I wanted to have a collection this extensive in GW2 as well as full access to all quality of life features (such as fully upgraded bag, bank, and material storage or infinite gathering tools for all characters) it would cost me the equivalent of thousands of dollars. Enough to cover the subscription for WoW from its launch till now.

 

The microtransaction model is by design predatory and forces developers to not only implement problems into the game so a solution can be sold but also be very stingy with rewards so that the paid options don't feel lesser or redundant. It relies heavily on a small percentage of heavy spenders subsidizing the game for the majority who pay little to nothing. Regardless of one's economic circumstances and desire to pay into the system we have to admit that it's not a healthy monetization strategy as it means everything - from the pace and scope of new content to the continuation of the game - hinges on a relatively small group.

According to GW2 Efficiency there are 2,015 armour skins and 4,418 weapons skins obtainable in-game, compared to 450 armour and 59 weapon skins in the gem store so you can literally collect thousands of cosmetics without using the gem store at all.

For mini pets there are 684 obtained in-game and 118 in the gem store. They haven't added a new gem store mini in a long time, I buy all of them when they come out and can't remember the last time there was a new one.

Edited March 9, 2022 by Danikat.8537

[sewenewes.4176]

1 hour ago, Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

So, the Gem Store made the Devs release content every two weeks for a year or so? Every 2 months for a year or more? The Gem Store made the Devs wait 5 years to introduce Mounts and their benefic-income Mounts Skins, instead of getting that income since launch?

The game was designed without mounts in mind and at the time they didn't want to implement a mount system at all. Same for gliding. They didn't introduce them solely as a means of monetization but they do heavily monetize them. The two are not exclusive. We don't know why they decided to implement mounts finally after years of being adamantly against them but once they were introduced they became one of the largest cash generators. 

1 hour ago, Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

The Gem Store made the Devs wait to release the Wardrobe, Deposit All, the Legendary Armory, change the Dye system, Salvage all, etc.?  The Gem Store made the Devs create the Gems-for-Gold feature?

That's a yes.

Wardrobe makes gem store purchases more attractive because you now unlock those appearances account-wide and permanently so you no longer need to juggle multiple armour sets for the express purpose of keeping your cash bought appearances safe from being transmuted over by accident. 

The feature to deposit crafting materials is there to promote the material storage which you are encouraged to upgrade because the base amount of 250 per material type is nowhere enough to hold the amounts required for higher end crafting. There would be no need for it if inventory space wasn't monetized. 

Legendary Armory promotes obtaining legendary weapons and armour both of which are enormous gold sinks which encourages players to buy gems and convert them to gold to purchase the high quantities of crafting materials needed.

Dyes have always been monetized and they were more expensive to buy for gold (relative to what most people were earning in the game at time) in the past before the market got sufficiently saturated with them due to enough people taking the plunge to gamble with unidentified dyes and dye packs.

Salvaging is once again a solution to inventory space being monetized and the game flooding your inventory with mostly garbage gear that are there just to fill up the space till you break them down into materials. The salvage kits take up further space unless you buy an infinite one. The salvage-o-matic is the number one recommended gem purchase for a reason.

Gems for gold enables players to obtain the most valuable in-game rewards through by-passing the grind with sufficient amount of gold that they didn't earn in-game but simply bought with their cash. It's legalized gold buying but the money goes to Arenanet instead of a third party. The conversion working both ways has the additional benefit of keeping gold deflated (so you can never get too much of it for your cash, necessitating bigger spending) as in a free-to-play or buy-to-play (but not subscribe) game there will always be more cash-poor but time-rich players willing to farm countless hours to buy a shiny that otherwise would cost actual money.

1 hour ago, The Boz.2038 said:

"This game lets me buy none bags. This game lets me buy ten for ten bucks. Clearly the first game is better, because I get all of the bags for free there."
Real sound logic, there, friendo.

One game can not be accessed at all without paying fifteen dollars. The other game can be accessed for free but locks some features and cosmetics behind separate purchases that, if I wish to have them, costs me more than a consistent subscription. The emphasis is on me wanting them. Nothing is mandatory. One can and some do buy the game and the expansions and then never pay a penny again. Which is a valid choice. Some drop smaller amounts of cash there and there. Lets say a ten or twenty a month. Also a valid choice. What I'm point out is that for this to work there has to a small group willing to drop large amounts of cash on the game to subsidize for those who can't or won't. This kind of monetization changes what content and features get focused on because a company has to prioritize the interests of the big spenders.

I'm not saying this monetization model makes this game inherently better or worse than a subscription based one. It has its own set of issues just like subscription models have. The most well-known issue of subscription games is the artificial time gating of content to bait players into longer subscription periods. My original comment was about pointing out that the argument of  "GW2 is buy to play while WoW makes you pay a subscription so don't complain about having some things locked behind a paywall." is a deceptive argument once you start adding up the costs of unlocking all those optional things compared to paying a subscription and having access to everything. This doesn't mean WoW is better than GW2. There is a reason I only dabble in WoW instead of it being my main form of entertainment.

No need to defend the game from me. I'm a dolphin tier spender myself and spend between 50 and 70 dollars a month on microtransactions if I'm enjoying myself. I have plenty of gem store goodies and upgrades unlocked and don't particularly want for anything. That doesn't mean I don't recognize the drawbacks of this model and that it can end being the more expensive option for some players depending on their interests and personality.

Edited March 9, 2022 by ewenness.6482

[Vayne.8563]

9 hours ago, ewenness.6482 said:

 

The free-to-play with microtransaction model doesn't favour the consumer. The cash shop of WoW has about three mounts and one pet thrown into it per year. The game has hundreds of mounts and over a thousand pets that you can earn by just playing the game and more of them get introduced with every expansion and every content patch as well. You are also given access to thousands of appearances to earn and use. Most of these are easy to obtain for the casual and solo player. I only dabble in the game and yet have 200-something mounts, 700-something pets, and most gear appearances for multiple characters. 

 

If I wanted to have a collection this extensive in GW2 as well as full access to all quality of life features (such as fully upgraded bag, bank, and material storage or infinite gathering tools for all characters) it would cost me the equivalent of thousands of dollars. Enough to cover the subscription for WoW from its launch till now.

 

The microtransaction model is by design predatory and forces developers to not only implement problems into the game so a solution can be sold but also be very stingy with rewards so that the paid options don't feel lesser or redundant. It relies heavily on a small percentage of heavy spenders subsidizing the game for the majority who pay little to nothing. Regardless of one's economic circumstances and desire to pay into the system we have to admit that it's not a healthy monetization strategy as it means everything - from the pace and scope of new content to the continuation of the game - hinges on a relatively small group.

This game gave me more value than WoW did. So did Guild Wars 1.  I can buy when I want and not buy when I don't want.  When you pay a sub, you have to keep paying a sub, or you can't play. I can play this game whether I'm buying gems or not.  And WOW is designed specifically to slow you down and keep you playing, while it keeps you paying.  And I got ALL the living world episodes without paying a cent by logging in.  There are few games that have a fairer payment model than Guild Wars 2.

[Randulf.7614]

Whilst I am enjoying EoD - albeit to an increasingly lesser extent than prior expacs - the living stories seasons 3 and 4 alone have a lot more content than this expac has and are without question worth the price.

Dont write them off just because they aren’t labelled as expacs. They are content rich, but just lack the big features and elites that expacs came with. They are almost mini expacs and should be thought of as such

[ScoMan.3076]

On 3/8/2022 at 3:01 PM, Veka.8710 said:

They just had an event where they were rereleasing them for free...I doubt they will give em away any time soon, it's a weird concept but I'm not bothered by it on my end. If they do somehow decide to give it away for free they're going to have to find a way to compensate the folks that bought it with gems.

Why?  They haven't given me my money back for the base game, HoT or PoF which are now all totally free, or free with EoD.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

27 minutes ago, ScoMan.3076 said:

Why?  They haven't given me my money back for the base game, HoT or PoF which are now all totally free, or free with EoD.

Path of Fire is not free, with or without End of Dragons.

[Danikat.8537]

You can add me to the list of people who spends less on GW2 than I would on a subscription game. It's been a while since I worked it out but I once estimated I was spending around £40-80 a year on GW2 (largely depending on whether there's an expansion that year) which sounds like a lot but a subscription for WoW is £52.14 for 6 months, so £104.28 for a year. One year I spent literally nothing on the game because I couldn't afford to, but I was able to keep playing, including getting the new releases as they came out and getting some gem store items by converting gold.

I definitely don't spend much on storage space. I buy 1 bank tab per year when they're discounted and I'm currently torn on whether to do that this year for the sake of tradition or skip it because I don't need the extra space. I've only ever bought 1 bag slot (also discounted) and that was a mistake because I don't need it. I have gotten bigger bags, but those are earned in-game and many I haven't bought even with gold because they come from achievements and things.

I suspect that if someone bought everything in the gem store they would spend more than on a subscription. But since the majority of gem store items are cosmetics and I doubt anyone likes all of them that would be a bad comparison because I think it's very unlikely anyone would actually do that.

[SuavePuppy.2809]

The issue is less so the money and more how poorly they advertise the Living World seasons and their importance in the story 

[kharmin.7683]

5 minutes ago, SuavePuppy.2809 said:

The issue is less so the money and more how poorly they advertise the Living World seasons and their importance in the story 

Yep. And this has been echoed in many previous threads on this topic.

[Stalima.5490]

On 3/8/2022 at 5:02 PM, ian.8439 said:

So besides the expansions, a newcomer has to pay 1265 gems in order to follow the story? Come on, this is hilarious. How can this be a thing? These stories should come with the expacs. This is disencouraging. I don't want to farm for 50 hours to get a storyline..

from what I understand, by the time you've finished with one part of the living world you will have enough gold to buy the next one without needing to pay more.