Here what you're saving from buying the complete collection- $0.00

[Beast Sos.1457]

8 hours ago, Crono.4197 said:

People will always complain, huh?

You wanted bundled game, you got one. Now you complain about the price being to high. What do you want, the whole game for free? Other people paid a lot more. Base Guild Wars 2 (before it became free) was 60 euros + Heart of Thorns 40 euros + Path of Fire 30 euros + End of Dragons 30 euros =  160 euros.  Now people can get the same content for 60 euros total, do you see us complaining about us? Of course not, because we do not feel entitled like other people do.

If the price was lower, then it would be unfair for the general playerbase and even if that happened, I'm sure people would STILL find something to complain about.

"I spent more money so you should have to too!" Grow up

[Beast Sos.1457]

7 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Players demand bundles and proper descriptions of what is contained in those bundles (which is very understandable given the complex nature of it).

 

The developer delivers (arguably far to late).

 

Players now want discounts with those bundles joining others which have demanded content be made free.

 

The developer has to now find other revenue streams because the product has no subscription.

 

Meanwhile in the same game "Whaaah Arenanet/NCSoft are greedy because":

- way to many cool cosmetics in the gem store

- way to many mount skin in the gem store

- equipment and build templates are monetized

- things are to expensive and cost to much gold, give for free please

- "insert random item someone feels entitled to while not spending a dime on the game or at best the bare minimum"

 

🙄

You clearly don't understand. The discount would make more people buy the game=more money for Anet. I swear Its not rocket science.

[Beast Sos.1457]

4 hours ago, Danikat.8537 said:

The idea that you can pay for something in a game and then loose access to it still seems very weird to me. Of course I understand that games themselves sometimes get shut down, but the idea that you could buy something in a game and then it's taken away even though the game is still running seems crazy.

I was going to say if that was a concern I'd see the fact that it's still a paid extra as a good sign because I assume the company wouldn't do that with something they consider obsolete and especially something that's going to be removed soon, but maybe that's my own lack of experience with those types of games. Especially since I'd interpret a bundle version (like GW2 has) with everything in together differently to just making older updates a free addition.

In general though what I want from a game I'm considering buying is some simple options, and now I think GW2 has that. If I'd never played it before and was considering the game now I wouldn't buy the complete collection with everything in it because it's expensive for a game I'm not yet committed to, but having it there is still useful to me because it gives me an idea of how much there is to buy, and roughly what it costs in total.

What I'd do instead is download the free version to try, then when I want to either get rid of the restrictions or get more to play I'd buy HoT + PoF, then Season 2 from the gem store when I'd finished Season 1 and keep going like that - buying new bits when I got to them. (Or maybe shortly before if they're discounted, since I've done that with ESO.)

That's the thing. New players don't know what gw2 has to offer and even the core game doesn't do it justice. Having the game discounted would have made people who were on the fence be more willing to buy. It would have also put gw2 in the sale section on steam giving it more exposure. In turn more people would have bought it. There is only gain from discounting the game. Anet loses nothing. If anything not having it on discount is costing them money. 

[Beast Sos.1457]

4 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Has nothing to do with defending Anet.

To some of us with actual disposable income it just gets tiresome to have to deal with the same entitled and constant complaining brought forth by some players.

We get it, some players want everything and they want at it no cost. Unfortunately that's not how this world works.

LMAO "Us privileged rich people are sick of poors complaining" Thats all I read here. 

 

Clearly this post wasn't about making anything free...

[Beast Sos.1457]

4 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

The collection is discounted (even if barely). So we are already discussing the insufficiency of the discount. While ignoring the original demand being "please just bundle everything for ease of purchase" but hey who is keeping track of a shifting goalpost. We are fighting for our rights to cheaper/free stuff here!

It's the same as templates all over again: "give us templates, we'll pay for them. What, templates cost money?!"

The argument that LW was free to players who logged on is bogus because it wasn't. Among those players some were spending money on gems and the gem store WHILE the LW episodes kept them active in the game. The fact YOU or many players might not have does not change the fact that offering the episodes to committed players increased revenue even while releasing them.

Players coming in later do not bring that benefit. On the contrary, one could make the argument that players so spending sensitive will spend even less money on the game.

And so the wheel goes round and round all over again with the 1 common denominator from the complaining being: some are unhappy, unwilling or unable to afford the game. The unhappy and unable ones are hardly able to get tapped into, the unwilling ones even less so. Simple reality.

It's not like they added LW to the expansion free of cost. It still cost relatively the same price if you were to buy it off the gem shop(excluding 160 gem more) 

 

Man people are clearly not understand that the point is if it was discounted more poeple would have bought the game, equaling more money for Anet. More gem sales more exposure, higher listing on steam. There are so many benefits yet all anyone can think on these forums is "omg you want it free?!". Its mind boggling how people misinterpret what was said to suit their bias. "YOU WANT IT FREEEEE?!"...

[Beast Sos.1457]

3 hours ago, Freya.9075 said:

Except ppl are not saying that. If someone will suffer it’s not the ppl who bought their game or will buy it. It’s anet that will suffer. Is that so hard to understand? 

Suffer from what exactly? Having more players buy their game is suffering? Having more gem sales is suffering? Making money is suffering? Then someone come and please make me suffer 😂

[Miragen.6127]

46 minutes ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

Suffer from what exactly? Having more players buy their game is suffering? Having more gem sales is suffering? Making money is suffering? Then someone come and please make me suffer 😂

 

Suffering from success

[Miragen.6127]

5 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

The collection is discounted (even if barely). So we are already discussing the insufficiency of the discount. While ignoring the original demand being "please just bundle everything for ease of purchase" but hey who is keeping track of a shifting goalpost. We are fighting for our rights to cheaper/free stuff here!

 

No discount at all, just a different bundle.

And the original demand is not was what being discussed and not really relevant for new players who definitely did not ask.

 

5 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

The argument that LW was free to players who logged on is bogus because it wasn't. Among those players some were spending money on gems and the gem store WHILE the LW episodes kept them active in the game. The fact YOU or many players might not have does not change the fact that offering the episodes to committed players increased revenue even while releasing them.

That's quite a stretch, did you get LW for free? Yes. Can you get LW for free now? No. Does it cost $60? Yes. Is that the same thing? No.

 

And if we go by your logic that offering the episodes increases revenue by keeping them active, why can they not repeat that? And at the same time people argue Anet will suffer from offering LW, despite it generating revenue?

 

5 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Players coming in later do not bring that benefit. On the contrary, one could make the argument that players so spending sensitive will spend even less money on the game.

 

Players that come in later are so spending sensitive, why exactly? Aside from the fact players are barely coming in later due to Anet being so earning sensitive and rather lose players than make money.

 

5 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

And so the wheel goes round and round all over again with the 1 common denominator from the complaining being: some are unhappy, unwilling or unable to afford the game. The unhappy and unable ones are hardly able to get tapped into, the unwilling ones even less so. Simple reality.

 

And luckily we always have people around to call them poor, entitled or whatever else and jump to Anet defense despite clear evidence that their approach to Steam didn't accomplish anything.

[Cyninja.2954]

7 minutes ago, Miragen.6127 said:

That's quite a stretch, did you get LW for free? Yes. Can you get LW for free now? No. Does it cost $60? Yes. Is that the same thing? No.

A stretch? Have you looked at the financial/revenue reports and how content drops affect them? Hint: keeping players occupied and entertained makes a segment of the player base spend money on the game.

In fact from Anets perspective, the living world episodes they develop at a cost to them, most likely are ONLY "free" because the revenue is compensated for from other revenue streams. If it wasn't, I guarantee you, they'd not be free any longer.

Quote

And if we go by your logic that offering the episodes increases revenue by keeping them active, why can they not repeat that? And at the same time people argue Anet will suffer from offering LW, despite it generating revenue?

They did and they might again, with then the purpose of increasing revenue overall from other segments of their business model at the expense of giving content out again.

They might even do so in order to retain some new players.

Quote

Players that come in later are so spending sensitive, why exactly? Aside from the fact players are barely coming in later due to Anet being so earning sensitive and rather lose players than make money.

Anet being earning sensitive is not reflected when comparing their business model to the market segment they operate in. Yes, listening to the whining on the forums might make one believe that, but if you'd care to compare most of the revenue generating items, they are either comparable or most often cheaper than all of their competitors.

Quote

And luckily we always have people around to call them poor, entitled or whatever else and jump to Anet defense despite clear evidence that their approach to Steam didn't accomplish anything.

Financial reality: this game is payed for by a minority and that minority is most often not the one bickering over a few bucks.

Unless you are of the opinion that the few content drops and occasional expansion every few years keeps the lights on. In which case: more power to your dream.

Edited August 26, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[Freya.9075]

1 hour ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

Suffer from what exactly? Having more players buy their game is suffering? Having more gem sales is suffering? Making money is suffering? Then someone come and please make me suffer 😂

Reading comprehension is a thing. If living world was free, who would suffer with less money to make content? We sure wouldn’t. Anet would. I was responding to the hyperbole comment that “we want new players to suffer like we did” 

[Freya.9075]

1 hour ago, Miragen.6127 said:

 

Suffering from success

Anet is successful as the latest numbers clearly shows. Do you think they would be just as successful if they gave in to all the entitled players wanting content that costs them money for free? I think not 

[Miragen.6127]

6 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

A stretch? Have you looked at the financial/revenue reports and how content drops affect them? Hint: keeping players occupied and entertained makes a segment of the player base spend money on the game.

 

So a profitable strategy yet everyone gatekeeping the content then.

 

6 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

They did and they might again, with then the purpose of increasing revenue overall from other segments of their business model at the expense of giving content out again.

 

It's not really an expense if you weren't selling it, it's pure profit.

 

6 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

They might even do so in order to retain some new players.

 

If they had any.

 

6 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Financial reality: this game is payed for by a minority and that minority is most often not the one bickering over a few bucks.

 

Wonder why it's the minority, or why anyone think a game catering to whales is the acceptable strategy, but at least someone is acknowledging the cash shop as a source of revenue rather than pretending Anet makes no money outside of the selling the expansions.

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

It's not like they added LW to the expansion free of cost. It still cost relatively the same price if you were to buy it off the gem shop(excluding 160 gem more) 

 

Man people are clearly not understand that the point is if it was discounted more poeple would have bought the game, equaling more money for Anet. More gem sales more exposure, higher listing on steam. There are so many benefits yet all anyone can think on these forums is "omg you want it free?!". Its mind boggling how people misinterpret what was said to suit their bias. "YOU WANT IT FREEEEE?!"...

 

People understand reasonably well. You seem to not understand that not everything is as simple as: make cheaper, get more money.

 

Here are some points to think about which might affect pricing:

1. the bundles on Steam are already sold at a discount in Arenanets books because Steam takes a cut

2. offering them at full price keeps the Steam bundles in competition with their in-house offer potentially leading players to use their own client, especially with the entire marketing happening right now.

3. offering the items at a discount later on can lead to late adopters

4. offering the bundles at a specific price point might encourage specific customers to buy, aka ones that are less price sensitive

5. offering the game and expansions on Steam at a similar price does not cause friction with their existing players base, especially newer players. We get enough of the "but I payed so and so much in the past" threads

 

All those points are perfectly valid from a position where one has no data. In fact: heavily discounting something to promote sales at the expense of future revenue might not always be the best idea.

[Miragen.6127]

Just now, Freya.9075 said:

Anet is successful as the latest numbers clearly shows. Do you think they would be just as successful if they gave in to all the entitled players wanting content that costs them money for free? I think not 

 

Not selling it doesn't make them money, and apparently offering LW does make them money, so I would argue that they would be.

[Cyninja.2954]

Just now, Miragen.6127 said:

So a profitable strategy yet everyone gatekeeping the content then.

 

 

It's not really an expense if you weren't selling it, it's pure profit.

 

 

If they had any.

 

 

Wonder why it's the minority, or why anyone think a game catering to whales is the acceptable strategy, but at least someone is acknowledging the cash shop as a source of revenue rather than pretending Anet makes no money outside of the selling the expansions.

 

So your "arguments" devolved into complaints and assumptions to which you have no data what so ever.

 

As far as the gem store, yes it keeps the lights on. It's the business model which allows a large majority of players to play with spending less than in any competitive product. Not sure what issue you are having here given you are most likely one of the players benefiting from this model.

[Miragen.6127]

Just now, Cyninja.2954 said:

 

So your "arguments" devolved into complaints and assumptions to which you have no data what so ever.

 

As far as the gem store, yes it keeps the lights on. It's the business model which allows a large majority of players to play with spending less than in any competitive product. Not sure what issue you are having here given you are most likely one of the players benefiting from this model.

 

The gem store, which gets more revenue when LW is on offer, but they shouldn't put LW on offer because they'll suffer.

[Cyninja.2954]

1 minute ago, Miragen.6127 said:

 

The gem store, which gets more revenue when LW is on offer, but they shouldn't put LW on offer because they'll suffer.

 

That is not what I said, unless you really do not understand the more complex interaction between player retention and content delivery paired with spending habits.

[Miragen.6127]

1 minute ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

 

That is not what I said, unless you really do not understand the more complex interaction between player retention and content delivery paired with spending habits.

 

Well clearly I wouldn't be the only one who doesn't understand this.

[kharmin.7683]

3 hours ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

You clearly don't understand. The discount would make more people buy the game=more money for Anet. I swear Its not rocket science.

So, Anet should discount the product by what... 70%?  85%?  90%?  The deeper the discount, the more money they'll make, right?

[Gotejjeken.1267]

19 hours ago, Miragen.6127 said:

 

Did you not read anything I said?

 

I did, and am now concluding that apparently you can't understand the concept of sunk-time costs.  There's man hours behind these games and part of that is factored into profit--so when a digital storefront takes a cut, yes, they lose money.

But reading through some of your other hot takes like 'everything loses value over time' (spoilers, not true) I understand economics is not your strong suit.

The 'tldr' is stop trying to guess what Steam players want.  They may want to buy the entire game in one bundle because its way easier to understand that way--and if they don't, they come back to the gem store where anet retains full profit.  Win-win for the developer.  

[Gorem.8104]

lol really? Well it makes sense that its 140 Aud over here, and then you are not told the only servers are US based untill you get into the game which I see has already caused some negative reviews (its actually wild to see some real reviews on there, not the 1k fake positive reviews) Hopefully new Aussie players realise what servers us Aussies play on. Anet should put that on the front page. But that would be assuming they know how to Market, which they don't. 

No idea at all why this didn't launch with a sale, no idea at all. It should have been half that for a good week to bring in new players. how is charging them the same price its been for years going to bring in new players? If you have no player retention too, people can ask for Refunds on steam quite easily. 

[Miragen.6127]

28 minutes ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

 

I did, and am now concluding that apparently you can't understand the concept of sunk-time costs.  There's man hours behind these games and part of that is factored into profit--so when a digital storefront takes a cut, yes, they lose money.

 

Something that exists in infinite amounts is about selling volume, you're not selling rare or exclusive items in limited numbers which can directly be tied to production cost to calculate the product value and profit margins.

Making sales versus not making sales is an easy choice, Anet doesn't spend a $100 per copy of the game.

 

28 minutes ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

But reading through some of your other hot takes like 'everything loses value over time' (spoilers, not true) I understand economics is not your strong suit.

 

We're on a videogame forum, stop pretending we can only talk in absolute truths, no one cares.

 

28 minutes ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

The 'tldr' is stop trying to guess what Steam players want.  They may want to buy the entire game in one bundle because its way easier to understand that way--and if they don't, they come back to the gem store where anet retains full profit.  Win-win for the developer.  

 

It's what people in general want, which is a feeling of control , good value for their money and making safe purchases, and most people looking at that are not likely to end up with the Guild wars 2 offer when viewed objectively.. and considering the GW2 players on Steam barely peaked over 5k, this surely isn't a popular product.

 

 

[Gotejjeken.1267]

11 minutes ago, Miragen.6127 said:

Something that exists in infinite amounts is about selling volume, you're not selling rare or exclusive items in limited numbers which can directly be tied to production cost to calculate the product value and profit margins.

Making sales versus not making sales is an easy choice, Anet doesn't spend a $100 per copy of the game.

 

You think it's infinite--but storage costs money.  Just because digital goods are not tangible doesn't mean they are pure profit.

[Freya.9075]

7 minutes ago, Miragen.6127 said:

It's what people in general want, which is a feeling of control , good value for their money and making safe purchases, and most people looking at that are not likely to end up with the Guild wars 2 offer when viewed objectively..

Most gamers have no problem paying for games. They are in control of what they’re buying. It is a safe buy and they see the price tag. It is good value. If I go out one night with my friends at a bar, I will spend more money that night then if I buy the collection from steam with all the content. For thousands of hour playtime that’s a pretty good deal in my book. 
 

also, gaming is a hobby. Hobbies costs money. You would not go to a gym and expect to use their stuff without paying for it. Since it costs to maintain the service they charge whatever they see fit. That goes for any hobby and business models. Their employees does not work for free  and their equipments costs money. 

[Miragen.6127]

8 minutes ago, Freya.9075 said:

Most gamers have no problem paying for games. They are in control of what they’re buying. It is a safe buy and they see the price tag. It is good value. If I go out one night with my friends at a bar, I will spend more money that night then if I buy the collection from steam with all the content. For thousands of hour playtime that’s a pretty good deal in my book. 
 

also, gaming is a hobby. Hobbies costs money. You would not go to a gym and expect to use their stuff without paying for it. Since it costs to maintain the service they charge whatever they see fit. That goes for any hobby and business models. Their employees does not work for free  and their equipments costs money. 

 

Paying for games doesn't mean paying for any game, hobbies costing money doesn't mean there is a limit to what people are comfortable with spending.

No one said everything had to be free.