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

[Sunchaser.9854]

I mean, it's literally new player feedback. "I tried the game, there was no regional pricing, the raptor expired. it was 100$ to get in. I didn't buy the game, i quit, please offer regional pricing of launch with a sale", etc. That's all new player feedback. So are 6 players then proceding to launch clown emojis on the new player and then saying that they thought their review was funny to a player who could have potentially joined, but seemed to likely quit. 

I hope people kinda realize.. that for advertising. You don't have to sell a game to someone who's already sold on it, but to sell the game to a player who hasn't tried it. While the game feels very much alive even on a low pop with a mega server, any time you talk to someone in the open field. You have to realize gw2 comes up much less in discussions over all those games. Gw2 players play gw2, nobody else does. Most people are barely aware it exists.

There are some games with 50x more views than eod's 100k view launch just advertising their new 5m view fortnight skin dance show or 50M = 500x 100k views Ff14 launch menus. 

I mean, positive feedback is great and all. but if 8/10 of the pages on steam's discussion are people just asking "what's all the hype around this game?" and then only 2k steam players playing it on a launch vs 9.8k players for a witcher 3 still being 7 years old and having 5x more steam numbers play it, i'd argue it's fair for new players to want access to the sales or a least some of the default 50$ eod + pof + pay to complete  offers for living world to try a 15$ bite vs a 100$ blind jump. Even tf2 is 15 years old and has 100k steam players and 900k reviews. Gw2 is just launched and at 1.6k reviews.

Of course it'll build up over time.. but maybe the launch reviews and experience might possibly be good for setting up and converting up new players into the future, possibly? Or, do we want players to just like, quit and not try the game after their raptor expires and put like 6 clown emojis over them, saying it didn't feel like a good experience and they hated having it taken away and they had no sales so they didn't buy the game, etc? 

Gw2 by all rights and metrics, is actually pretty low population by numbers. it's just it has 1 mega server vs 100s. So you have everyone in one 100-200 ping 50 man server in a meta vs 80-100+ servers with 5-15 people in each, etc. It does fill up the game well. But i remember pre launch after i left the starting zone, it'd be like 30 hours between seeing another player in the 10-80 zones after launch. The megaservers are all the reason why the game feels as populated as it is. It's a great system but like..

I think it's fair to reason the population is likely lower than we think and only hidden by the megaserver, and having new players join in and welcome gw2 might set up positive relationships for the future and future development of gw2. 

[Freya.9075]

i mean. If you think gw2 has low population it’s clear you do not play it enough. The starting areas and world bosses are overflowing with veterans and new players. Everywhere I go I see someone. And getting something done in the game is not difficult at all since ppl help out if you need it. 
 

forums will always have trolls and naysayers no matter what forum you go to. You can’t assume a game is horrible based on forums or Reddit. You experience the game yourself and see what the truth is. And truth is gw2 has a thriving population.
 

Remember forums tend to be for ppl that see an issue with the game and go there to report it or vent. The players enjoying the game usually doesn’t come to the forums to tell how happy they are about the game. some do but it’s quite rare compared to ppl having issues. That doesn’t mean majority has issues with the game. 

gw2 steam reviews are also veterans that loves the game and give their review as well. Which also counts as they are players of the game and not trolls that doesn’t even play the game and claim “ded game, move on” or “top game best of the best” none of these should be taken seriously 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Freya.9075

[Sunchaser.9854]

I mean when i talk about population, i talk about objectively. Exit gw2, talk to a player who doesn't play gw2. do they know about it, most people won't. The mega server is a good example, and lvl 80 hub zones and lvl 1-10 zones are good, but before the launch, the lvl 10-80 zones would quite literally often be just 1-2 people there.  Maybe someone on their way to walk to a dungeon or living season event. 

I mean i'm not saying ingame, ingame it feels full vs some dead, and i think the 100-200 ms ping megaservers solve the population problem of having 1 server with 50 people over 90-150 servers with 5-10, but 90-150 x 5-10 would still be a 450-1500 vs 50 gap. It's just that wotlk WoW doesn't have it's 10m monthly subscribers anymore which is about the number of monthly subs as gw2's entire account creation with people making login accounts to farm login rewards.

Though it's a good game, it seems like some people are highly fixated on making sure no negative feedback comes through, (even if it's from the NEW players themselves?). . We can't keep saying "we need new players". then when the new players come and go "100$ is a lot, i don't get all the hype, the game isn't really as good as how those people say it is, im gonna play something else.", It's not that sustainable to just go "Go quit and play another game then!, we don't want you. Here are 6 jester awards. come back when you learn how to appreciate gw2!" etc.

For a outsider, it doesn't sell the game to them unless they're already in the gw2 circle. Which while it seems strong when you're inside, seems almost on life support when you exit it and ask people their thoughts on gw2 and hear.. "That game.. It's been 10 years ago, it's still alive? Hey, want to go play some Fortnite/League/L4d2/Sc2 with me?" 

I know it's easy to see feedback as attack to something one might love, but i mean for new player retention, ignoring new player feedback on why they weren't sold on the game or quit right after their raptor expired and there weren't any sales, or regional pricing while they were paying and supporting their families, or that only 2-4k players were playing it at any given time vs some 10k player pops on 7 year old single player games. I mean it's all good and all to want positive feedback only..

But if we ignore all negative feedback, including the new player feedback who say they Want to join, but can't afford the 100$ game without a sale, or feel cautious spending 100$ on a game they're not sure if they want to invest in yet. Couldn't ignoring negative new player feedback be shooting ourselves in the foot, ignoring looking into why players stay or leave, and trying to make sure it's the best possible launch possible?

We might only get one chance at the steam launch and im not sure if there's any other population growths other than expansions. 

I'm not saying this to criticize gw2 at all, it's a fair game but kinda runs out of things to do after a month after you complete all the story, run each strike once, do all the raids once, and notice fractals are starting to repeat and do all the dungeons once.

Players on steam are comparing it to other single player games they have even like, 22k player counts and 800,000+ reviews to our 2-4k player count and 1.6k reviews over even like 12 year old games like skyrim.. And there's not even any reason to be specifically playing skyrim 12  years after release right now. It just has 11x more players randomly playing it than steam gw2 players on a launch weekend. 

It isn't about like hiding it or not, just it seems like a very ripe time to maybe re evaluate the living world structure maybe to be new player friendly, find ways to retain new players, get future players playing gw2, and doing everything they can to ensure a successful launch. Steam might be the last bastion of advertising gw2 might have for a major population growth chance.

If WoW copies flight and Riot games release a new friendly to players mmorpg with a big budget, gw2 might just become a game for people who already play gw2 and might struggle harder to attract new players. Just like how not many people are drawn to gw1 except the people who've been playing it the whole time from 15 years ago.

But if it was successful, wouldn't it be a great thing for gw2 to succeed on steam, welcoming to new players with a fresh bundle, have a great launch weekend, have record great sales, welcome players in, and make more money over the long term and gain a launcher + 10th year anniversary juggernaut foothold on one of the most major gaming platforms of all time, etc? 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Sunchaser.9854

[Freya.9075]

Ofc it would be great if they succeed in steam. I don’t think anyone who loves the game would oppose that. Marketing is not their strong suit for sure and I do agree they could do better at that front. 
 

but I don’t agree with the population based on my own experience with the game. I’ve never had issues finding ppl to play content with or getting help with events no matter the map I’m in. While that’s said I don’t raid and I know population there can make ppl wait for quite some time. All I can do is speak on my own behalf and I see many players around unless I play at some off time when most ppl sleep or work. Which is rare to me. 
 

the new infographic also shows a healthy population in eod. With 182k soo yun kills already. And dragon storm with over a half million clears. Which is quite recent content. There is no way for us to know the total number of active players as this is something anet clearly sees as something we do not need to know. But that doesn’t mean it’s low numbers. 

[PancakeMix.9604]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone can think the population is great. So many "new" players yet the LFG for dungeons is completely dead, at most you will see maybe 1 group on a few dungeons. Most of the raid LFG is people trying to sell runs, you might see 1 or 2 real groups in there. Fractals, which replaced dungeons, are a main selling point of most MMOs, you see maybe like 1 group in the lower levels, and this is at that is at peak hours. Right now in retail WoW (which is at its lowest player count in history) you can open up the dungeon LFG and there are over a hundred dungeon groups forming and over 50 raid groups forming in the middle of the night, and that isn't not even counting all the solo queued players which isn't publicly visible. I love a lot about this game, but it could definitely use some new players. They really need to redo the LFG system as well. I think most people are using discord to make groups which is horrible, it makes the game actually look way more dead than it is.

 

You guys are looking at this through people who already love the game and play it all the time. Imagine if another online game like came RIFT to steam and was marketed as "Free To Play" and right below it had a $100 price tag with no discount. Would you play it even if people kept yelling "10 YEARS OF CONTENT THO!!" at you? No, you would not.  Launching with NO discount for new players is insanity.

Edited August 27, 2022 by PancakeMix.9604

[Gotejjeken.1267]

4 hours ago, Labjax.2465 said:

That's save info you store in a database, not copies of the game itself. The copies of the game are created and stored player side on their PC when they download it.

Edit: Also, save data can be big or small depending on the nature of the game and how it's saved, but it's likely that save data sizes are overall smaller per player for an online game than, say, a game like Skyrim. Because for one thing, they only need one save at a time per player (maybe a few if they are doing backups, but nothing like a giant folder of saves you could get from some single player games). And for another, it doesn't need to save all of the different component level states of the game world within the save itself. That can be loaded from a single global save, since it's mostly the same for everybody (maybe a few cases where something is rendered differently for the player on the client side). It mostly just needs to save account info about the player, as it relates to their progress/states in-game. Not sure I have a larger point here, just thought I'd add some context about how this stuff actually works.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean it literally--I mean if you have a million players you are saving state for all of them.  You might as well have a million copies of 'the game' then because you are saving state for everything that isn't a static asset.  

Essentially my point being that storage is not cheap, and we all know anet isn't efficient in the least with the coding so its definitely on the larger side of data storage than the smaller.  

And that's just data storage, because servers are another matter entirely; these types of servers cannot be cheap especially in game like this where large-scale event rendering is common.  

My overall point is SaaS type games like this are not 'free' because there are no physical copies being shipped.  They're very expensive and very much have stakeholders watching sales.  The Steam launch being primarily that, because a decade in and something major is going to need to happen to keep things going.  

EDIT: Also, not saying they shouldn't discount, because they knew launching on Steam would lose them profit but gain them players, and Steam has sales all the friggin' time, so it's literally expected at this point.  

Edited August 27, 2022 by Gotejjeken.1267

[Labjax.2465]

21 minutes ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

 

Sorry, I didn't mean it literally--I mean if you have a million players you are saving state for all of them.  You might as well have a million copies of 'the game' then because you are saving state for everything that isn't a static asset.  

Essentially my point being that storage is not cheap, and we all know anet isn't efficient in the least with the coding so its definitely on the larger side of data storage than the smaller.  

And that's just data storage, because servers are another matter entirely; these types of servers cannot be cheap especially in game like this where large-scale event rendering is common.  

My overall point is SaaS type games like this are not 'free' because there are no physical copies being shipped.  They're very expensive and very much have stakeholders watching sales.  The Steam launch being primarily that, because a decade in and something major is going to need to happen to keep things going.  

EDIT: Also, not saying they shouldn't discount, because they knew launching on Steam would lose them profit but gain them players, and Steam has sales all the friggin' time, so it's literally expected at this point.  

Right, but that's not the case. The bulk of the data size in a copy of the game is the static assets. Particularly things like textures and audio files. Assets like those are what changes most games from being <1GB to being 20-80GB. Look at the size of Stardew Valley vs. Skyrim, for example. Stardew Valley is pixel art and IIRC, doesn't use voiceover acting, so it can get away with being very small in storage size.

That said, you're not wrong that it costs something to maintain servers and databases, but it's also true that producing digital copies of something is dirt cheap compared to physical copies. With physical copies, someone has to manufacture each copy from start to finish. There's the distribution cost. There's all the details that go into getting it on store shelves, trying to make sure you produce enough copies to meet demand, but not so many that you can't sell them, etc. With digital copies, people just download a copy of it. You'll have to cover server/database costs for an online game, but that's about it. It's ridiculously cheaper and simpler by comparison.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

8 minutes ago, Labjax.2465 said:

Right, but that's not the case. The bulk of the data size in a copy of the game is the static assets. Particularly things like textures and audio files. Assets like those are what changes most games from being <1GB to being 20-80GB. Look at the size of Stardew Valley vs. Skyrim, for example. Stardew Valley is pixel art and IIRC, doesn't use voiceover acting, so it can get away with being very small in storage size.

That said, you're not wrong that it costs something to maintain servers and databases, but it's also true that producing digital copies of something is dirt cheap compared to physical copies. With physical copies, someone has to manufacture each copy from start to finish. There's the distribution cost. There's all the details that go into getting it on store shelves, trying to make sure you produce enough copies to meet demand, but not so many that you can't sell them, etc. With digital copies, people just download a copy of it. You'll have to cover server/database costs for an online game, but that's about it. It's ridiculously cheaper and simpler by comparison.

 

I mean, you're comparing offline games to online ones--so I'm not sure where this is going.  I get the argument that digital is cheaper on developers for offline games, but not online, and especially not MMOs.  

I'd probably wager (from a development perspective) that account data is gigs per person, and over a million+ accounts that never get deleted for inactivity.  Then you add backups.  That's a lot of storage.  At least from my work experience, as we are entirely digital and store a ton of finance data, and the size of that is pretty staggering.

I also think you may be overestimating the production aspects of physical copies.  They have manufactured them in the past (all the way back to GW1), and also just recently contracted the Aurene statues for manufacture--not sure either of those drove them to need a Steam release.  Especially since physical is always driven by demand--someone is buying them, whether it be a store or a person; they don't just produce physical copies and hope to sell them.

Anyway. my wager is Steam release is due to falling player population vs. maintaining a game of this size--something you don't need to worry about with offline games. 

Basically, Steam itself taking a cut on an already thin profit margin is causing them not to discount at all--that should be telling.  If the game were practically free to run (because its already made) they'd definitely discount to drive up sales.  That they are not doing so is telling me the expense of running it is greater than the players they'd get by a discount.

[Zaret.1450]

you all know the game is f2p right? at least the core game, once they have done all core tyria then you can decide to keep on or not, and getting 2 expansions or more together is a huge discount by itself, most veterans had to buy every expansion.

For how much content the game has, you cant do a discount and put 2 hole expansions at 20€.

[Miragen.6127]

7 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

 

They essentially DO need to keep a million copies of a game somewhere, how do you think player data is stored? 😂

I think you also grossly underestimate what developers and artists charge.  These aren't fast food wages here.

But anyway, my advice to you is learn a little more about how game economics work.  

 

Player data for players that are not playing the game? And you think they store 60-70GB per player? 

And what's the point? They produce a product that can infinitely be sold, it makes zero difference for their direct profit if they sell 1 for $100 or 10 for $10.

[Miragen.6127]

7 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

Someone who has no idea what they value is can do a minimal amount of research and find out. The game descriptions and what  it contains is provided on the site anyway, but reviews are everywhere.  Videos are on youtube. It's not like someone can't find out what the game is about.

How does this compare with all the crappy games coming out that become pay to win, or just plain sucked. How many Anthems have come out, or Cyberpunk, or even games like Star Citizen.  Anet is selling a game, it's listing what you get and if you're curious you can look it up.  Like with pretty much all game.  I invested $40 in star citizen which never came out and $60 in anthem which is pretty much the entire cost of three expansions and five living world chapters, plus the core game.  It's a good value for the pack. If people want to know what they get, they'll look it up. Who buys games blind?

 

It's not about buying games blind, it's about not buying those games at all because it doesn't present a convincing offer.

The mere sight of a $100 price tag will prompt a percentage to instantly move on, others when they see it's a game from 2012, others when they see the low player count, other when they see they charge you for content from many years ago when they have played WoW, FF14 or ESO and are used to seeing old content getting merged with the base game.. thinking everyone spends their afternoon doing research is unrealistic if they are just casually browsing Steam for games.

 

Quite often I see a game that seems interesting, I look at the screenshots on the store page and move on if it's not quite my thing, if it's still interesting I read the description and text, beyond that I might look at some reviews.. if that's all good I check the Steam forums and see the player engagement and see if people are talking about fun stuff or just issues and frustrations with the game.. there's a ton of checkpoints a game needs to pass, and failing any of them just has players move on before they ever bother looking in depth at a game.

 

There's thousands and thousands of games on offer on Steam, 99.9% will be cheaper than GW2 so it needs to offer something really impressive if it wants to convince people to purchase it and not literally any other game/ triple A game from the last decade, probably buy multiple of them, and GW2 by no means does offer that.

 

If you are looking for a new game and have some money to spend, there are a ton of highly rated, highly reviewed, lower priced games from the last year or so.

 

 

 

[Miragen.6127]

45 minutes ago, zaswer.5246 said:

you all know the game is f2p right? at least the core game, once they have done all core tyria then you can decide to keep on or not, and getting 2 expansions or more together is a huge discount by itself, most veterans had to buy every expansion.

For how much content the game has, you cant do a discount and put 2 hole expansions at 20€.

 

You think WoW should charge $500 for the base game because people paid that for the base games over the last 20 years or so? 

[Vayne.8563]

Just now, Miragen.6127 said:

 

It's not about buying games blind, it's about not buying those games at all because it doesn't present a convincing offer.

The mere sight of a $100 price tag will prompt a percentage to instantly move on, others when they see it's a game from 2012, others when they see the low player count, other when they see they charge you for content from many years ago when they have played WoW, FF14 or ESO and are used to seeing old content getting merged with the base game.. thinking everyone spends their afternoon doing research is unrealistic if they are just casually browsing Steam for games.

 

Quite often I see a game that seems interesting, I look at the screenshots on the store page and move on if it's not quite my thing, if it's still interesting I read the description and text, beyond that I might look at some reviews.. if that's all good I check the Steam forums and see the player engagement and see if people are talking about fun stuff or just issues and frustrations with the game.. there's a ton of checkpoints a game needs to pass, and failing any of them just has players move on before they ever bother looking in depth at a game.

 

There's thousands and thousands of games on offer on Steam, 99.9% will be cheaper than GW2 so it needs to offer something really impressive if it wants to convince people to purchase it and not literally any other game/ triple A game from the last decade, probably buy multiple of them, and GW2 by no means does offer that.

 

If you are looking for a new game and have some money to spend, there are a ton of highly rated, highly reviewed, lower priced games from the last year or so.

 

 

 

They're free to move on. It's they're loss.  Anet didn't agree to sell everything cheaper.  It's already very cheap. It's not one game for $100, it's  four games (the core and 3 expansions), plus five seasons of the living world. If you want to say each season of the living world is half a game, it's still 6.5 games, and ten years worth of content. If someone doesn't want to pay that, they're perfectly able not to.  

Maybe they'd rather play WoW for a year at $180 plus the price of the game, or FF XIV.   Let's not pretend this is expensive for an MMO.

[Miragen.6127]

8 hours ago, Freya.9075 said:

If you go to wow homepage and see their full collection price you’ll notice it costs over 100 dollars. For all their content and a couple months subscription. 

 

That's just a super deluxe version with anything and everything included, $40 is the regular pre-order.

 

8 hours ago, Freya.9075 said:

Who’s to say the bundle is what anet will sell most? I would think ppl most would buy one expansion first if they want to check it out more, and buy them over time if they’re stingy about money. Nothing wrong with that. The bundle is just an option if you want to pay for all at once. If you look at the popular games on steam, most of them do have several dlc options that cost a lot as well. It’s not that rare to see bundles after bundles with steep prices on steam. And those bundles are there for a reason. Ppl buy them. 
 

 

Once you buy a single expansion you're basically ineligible for the bundle later on so that's not consumer friendly at all, and I don't know why you people repeatedly want to call people stingy for not throwing money at the screen all the time but making rational decisions.

There are very few bundles that are a $100+ that aren't in the category of collector's editions, special editions, franchise bundles, deluxe/ultimate/gold bundles that generally just add in a bunch of extras for people who do have the money to spend, they rarely lack cheaper alternatives.

 

[Miragen.6127]

7 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:

They're free to move on. It's they're loss.  Anet didn't agree to sell everything cheaper.  It's already very cheap. It's not one game for $100, it's  four games (the core and 3 expansions), plus five seasons of the living world. If you want to say each season of the living world is half a game, it's still 6.5 games, and ten years worth of content. If someone doesn't want to pay that, they're perfectly able not to.  

Maybe they'd rather play WoW for a year at $180 plus the price of the game, or FF XIV.   Let's not pretend this is expensive for an MMO.

 

It's not about the total amount of money, it's about what is on offer, and the others provide a less jarring option and are able to draw in new players.

Subscription models are the norm these days anyways, everyone is used to paying monthly fees for everything, people are used to consistently spending small amounts of money on their Netflix or Spotify and whatever other things people want monthly.. so moving to WoW is a very easy thing to do, either they have the money or they shift around some of their expenses, cancel one subscription and replace it with another, of course it's more expensive in the long run if you subscribe for the entire year, but that cost is no different than what they're used to.

 

 

 

[Freya.9075]

4 minutes ago, Miragen.6127 said:

That's just a super deluxe version with anything and everything included, $40 is the regular pre-order.

And the bundle anet is offering is not? That’s exactly what the bundle is when it comes to content. 
 

40 dollars for the game and 6 months in wow is the same amount of money the bundle costs. And you got access to the game for as long as gw2 is running. 
 

11 minutes ago, Miragen.6127 said:

Once you buy a single expansion you're basically ineligible for the bundle later on so that's not consumer friendly at all, and I don't know why you people repeatedly want to call people stingy for not throwing money at the screen all the time but making rational decisions.

There are very few bundles that are a $100+ that aren't in the category of collector's editions, special editions, franchise bundles, deluxe/ultimate/gold bundles that generally just add in a bunch of extras for people who do have the money to spend, they rarely lack cheaper alternatives.

the price for the expansions and living world is not that much cheaper if you buy the bundle. I would even argue that it’s cheaper to buy the expansions separately and farm gold to buy living world over time for gold.  Buying the bundle is a choice. You got other options that is cheaper.

[Cyninja.2954]

24 minutes ago, Miragen.6127 said:

 

It's not about the total amount of money, it's about what is on offer, and the others provide a less jarring option and are able to draw in new players.

Subscription models are the norm these days anyways, everyone is used to paying monthly fees for everything, people are used to consistently spending small amounts of money on their Netflix or Spotify and whatever other things people want monthly.. so moving to WoW is a very easy thing to do, either they have the money or they shift around some of their expenses, cancel one subscription and replace it with another, of course it's more expensive in the long run if you subscribe for the entire year, but that cost is no different than what they're used to.

That is not actually true and certainly not reflected in the MMORPG space.

WoW and FF14 are outliers when it comes to subscriptions models which can easily be researched. The sub model was replaced by a hybrid model and free to play model years ago. If you're still banking on making big bucks with subscriptions in the game space, you are years behind. This is especially true in the largest segment of the gaming market: mobile gaming but also visible in other far larger franchises than WoW or FF14 in the MMO space.

The reason FF14 and WoW still get away with subscriptions is because the first is currently the most successful MMORPG in the market after years of polish, reworks and a huge brand name. The later lives off of its past influence for which it is a shadow of currently while trying desperately regurgitate and recapture old time players for many of which it was the first MMO they played.

Current MMORPG are in competition with other MMOs, many of which do not have subscription fees. It's all about seasonal content, battle passes and lootboxes. Even WoW will at some point go free to play and this idea was already brought up ages ago by one of their lead devs shortly before the Legion release.

So far the Steam release is likely going as planned, maybe trailing a tad behind expectations (for which we have no idea what they were from a developers side). The player count on Steam has grown the last few days and remains stable in the 3-5k concurrent players range. The game has a free2play option for players to try out, which is likely what most players are currently making use off. The cost for expansions and first bar of entry is very low while the complete package is on par with similar products (Destiny 2 Lightfall is selling at 100 Euro with a release scheduled for next year Feb.).

Not sure what people were expecting here. Even if the complete package had been discounted for consumers, at best it might have lead some players to buy instead of try the f2p version. Neither of which matters if they do not enjoy the game. If they do, the price as mentioned is not a large obstacle.

I somehow have the feeling that some players believe that a discounted complete package would have miraculously lead to tens of thousands of Steam players, which is simply nonsense given the f2p option available.

Discounts makes sense to get undecided players to make a switch from the f2p version, it has almost no effect on player numbers for initial players trying out the game or swaying someone to give the game a try when that barrier is as low as free. Which is an even greater reason to offer a discount some time later to sway players that tried the game and enjoyed it but were hesitant to spend that amount of money.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[Miragen.6127]

9 minutes ago, Freya.9075 said:

And the bundle anet is offering is not? That’s exactly what the bundle is when it comes to content. 

 

It's the base game, it's not fluff, it's not goodies, it's not a collector edition, it does not include mounts/cosmetics of any kind, it's not just a luxury pack.

 

9 minutes ago, Freya.9075 said:

40 dollars for the game and 6 months in wow is the same amount of money the bundle costs. And you got access

to the game for as long as gw2 is running. 

 

One is a staircase and the other is a wall.

 

9 minutes ago, Freya.9075 said:

 

the price for the expansions and living world is not that much cheaper if you buy the bundle. I would even argue that it’s cheaper to buy the expansions separately and farm gold to buy living world over time for gold.  Buying the bundle is a choice. You got other options that is cheaper.

 

New players will have no idea how to get all that gold, nor do I think it's great design that new players need to dedicate their time to farming and grinding to be able to follow the story.

[Vayne.8563]

22 minutes ago, Miragen.6127 said:

 

It's not about the total amount of money, it's about what is on offer, and the others provide a less jarring option and are able to draw in new players.

Subscription models are the norm these days anyways, everyone is used to paying monthly fees for everything, people are used to consistently spending small amounts of money on their Netflix or Spotify and whatever other things people want monthly.. so moving to WoW is a very easy thing to do, either they have the money or they shift around some of their expenses, cancel one subscription and replace it with another, of course it's more expensive in the long run if you subscribe for the entire year, but that cost is no different than what they're used to.

 

 

 

Many people will probably not be smart enough to see that this game up front will cost them a bit more than half a year of any sub game, and this game has no sub.  But many people do buy this game because it has no sub.  Some people will pass it by, but if the game were $95 how many more would buy it?  $90?  How low do you think Anet should go.

$50?  It's already like 6 games.  And if people aren't able to afford that, what makes you think they'd spend money in the gem store. You're asking a company to cut the price of it's product in half in the hope that enough people buy it to make up that difference. I don't know why you think that would be the case.  Better to get the people who are willing to spend the $100 and smart enough to see the value because those people are more likely to spend money in the gem store as well.

This is a business decision. It's sad some people will give the game a pass, but that's true of every game.  People without money often pass on sub games as well.

[Zaret.1450]

40 minutes ago, Miragen.6127 said:

 

You think WoW should charge $500 for the base game because people paid that for the base games over the last 20 years or so? 

theres a diference, the first is that both hot and pof were around 50€ on launch i think? maybe a bit less, but now you get both at the price of just one, the prices right now are the same as the in game shop, as for discounts, well maybe a discount in eod could be good but the expan launched like 5 months ago? i dont know but i dont think a discount right now is needed.

And yeah i understand 10 aniversary and all that but... i dont know, i just see it fine however they do it.

[Miragen.6127]

Just now, Vayne.8563 said:

Many people will probably not be smart enough to see that this game up front will cost them a bit more than half a year of any sub game, and this game has no sub.  But many people do buy this game because it has no sub.  Some people will pass it by, but if the game were $95 how many more would buy it?  $90?  How low do you think Anet should go.

 

Again, people don't mind paying for something they enjoy, people will pay more for something they enjoy, people aren't going to stop playing WoW because GW2 is cheaper.

WoW offers a low entry to get a full experience and then pay more if you want to, there is a very low cost to get invested in the game.

 

 

Just now, Vayne.8563 said:

$50?  It's already like 6 games.  And if people aren't able to afford that, what makes you think they'd spend money in the gem store. You're asking a company to cut the price of it's product in half in the hope that enough people buy it to make up that difference. I don't know why you think that would be the case.  Better to get the people who are willing to spend the $100 and smart enough to see the value because those people are more likely to spend money in the gem store as well.

 

 

I really don't think it's 'like 6 games' or that it's about being able to afford it, can we please stop this narrative that tries to insult people because they're too poor to play the game and should be thrown aside because they cannot be milked for money?

And yeah, I think you'll easily find double, triple, quadruple the amount of people willing to spend $50 compared to those willing to spend $100.

 

 

Just now, Vayne.8563 said:

This is a business decision. It's sad some people will give the game a pass, but that's true of every game.  People without money often pass on sub games as well.

 

Glad you found another opportunity to call people poor again.

[Miragen.6127]

1 minute ago, zaswer.5246 said:

theres a diference, the first is that both hot and pof were around 50€ on launch i think? maybe a bit less, but now you get both at the price of just one.

 

What is the difference? You think BC, WotlK, Cataclysm, MoP, WoD, Legion, BoA and Shadowland expansions were not $50 or whatever at launch? Now you get them for free, that's the difference.

 

[Cyninja.2954]

16 minutes ago, Miragen.6127 said:

 

Again, people don't mind paying for something they enjoy, people will pay more for something they enjoy, people aren't going to stop playing WoW because GW2 is cheaper.

WoW offers a low entry to get a full experience and then pay more if you want to, there is a very low cost to get invested in the game.

So is GW2 with it's f2p model. It's even cheaper than WoW.

Quote

I really don't think it's 'like 6 games' or that it's about being able to afford it, can we please stop this narrative that tries to insult people because they're too poor to play the game and should be thrown aside because they cannot be milked for money?

And yeah, I think you'll easily find double, triple, quadruple the amount of people willing to spend $50 compared to those willing to spend $100.

Except that is not true because your discounted game is not competing with the 100 Euro price tag. It's competing with the 100 Euro price tag AND a f2p version. A discount on the full version would not have that great an effect to get players interested given they can try the game for free. 

The effects of possible player retention kick in far later. So all this bogus belief that the numbers on Steam would have been astronomically higher is just that: wishful thinking.

In fact, chances are very high that among the current new players on Steam a large amount of them is trying the f2p version. Completely unaffected by the bundle price currently. Offering the game at a heavy discount could have insinuated less faith of the devlopers in their product which might affect a f2p players decision to convert. Have you ever actually considered that?

 

Your entire reasoning seems based around the belief that the price of the different items on the Steam page have a significant effect on players which to a great extent likely are not in the slightest concerned with any of them currently. I hope we don't have to argue over the likeliness of a vast majority of players trying the f2p version first before spending any money...

Quote

Glad you found another opportunity to call people poor again.

The only one bringing this up over and over is you. Stating facts that some players are financially worse off is not putting blame on them unless one decides to interpret it that way, which says a lot more about your state of mind than the person bringing up the fact.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[Miragen.6127]

8 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

So is GW2 with it's f2p model. It's even cheaper than WoW.

 

It's a 2012 vs a 2022 experience, I'd rather pay $15 for the latter which gives me a feel for the game today and if I will like it.

 

8 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Except that is not true because your discounted game is not competing with the 100 Euro price tag. It's competing with the 100 Euro price tag AND a f2p version. A discount on the full version would not have that great an effect to get players interested given they can try the game for free. 

 

They can try an old version of the game for free.

 

8 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

The effects of possible player retention kick in far later. So all this bogus belief that the numbers on Steam would have been astronomically higher is just that: wishful thinking.

 

Don't know where I said that 'numbers on Steam would have been astronomically higher'.

 

8 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

In fact, chances are very high that among the current new players on Steam a large amount of them is trying the f2p version. Completely unaffected by the bundle price currently. Offering the game at a heavy discount could have insinuated less faith of the developers in their product which might affect a f2p players decision to convert. Have you ever actually considered that?

 

And it's still nowhere compared to the other MMOs it's competing with on the platform despite a free version,  and they are likely playing the free version because there is no good alternative and then Anet is shooting themselves in the foot by making people pick and the tempting offer nets them absolutely nothing.

As much as people like to talk about how Anet will suffer from making sales, somehow, the free to play offer probably also doesn't help them.

And no, I don't think people would lose faith in a game because it's on sale during a special celebration.

-Well I was going to pay a $100 but then it went on sale for $50 so I decided against it.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

The only one bringing this up over and over is you. Stating facts that some players are financially worse off is not putting blame on them unless one decides to interpret it that way, which says a lot more about your state of mind than the person bringing up the fact.

 

Riiight.

[Cyninja.2954]

13 minutes ago, Miragen.6127 said:

 

It's a 2012 vs a 2022 experience, I'd rather pay $15 for the latter which gives me a feel for the game today and if I will like it.

You feel that way great. What was it you kept saying: how will new players know about this exactly? They will start the game, get bombarded by all the expansion upgrades and extras, start in the beginner areas and if they don't enjoy it: quit.

 

You've run into the same problem you complain about: you assume that a new player can put any value and proper assessment to what he purchased. When in fact he most likely will follow the same path he would have on a f2p account with a very similar result at the end.

 

The main difference here coming in at sunk cost if they did spend money, creating an urge to try to enjoy the product. Which will be stronger at a higher price point and lower at a cheaper price point.

Quote

They can try an old version of the game for free.

Yes, which most will do any way unless they boost.

Quote

Don't know where I said that 'numbers on Steam would have been astronomically higher'.

So if there is no net positive effect on acquiring more players, why exactly are we debating Arenanet cutting their earnings?

Quote

And it's still nowhere compared to the other MMOs it's competing with on the platform despite a free version,  and they are likely playing the free version because there is no good alternative and then Anet is shooting themselves in the foot by making people pick and the tempting offer nets them absolutely nothing.

As much as people like to talk about how Anet will suffer from making sales, somehow, the free to play offer probably also doesn't help them.

And no, I don't think people would lose faith in a game because it's on sale during a special celebration.

-Well I was going to pay a $100 but then it went on sale for $50 so I decided against it.

 

You've been off on so many issues or haven't accounted for things outside of your knowledge scope, you "thinking" that something might not occur is not really that confidence granting.

 

It's called value perception, and yes it can be easily affected by discounts, but it is also affected by offering items at to high or low a value. Ever heard of the expression:"if it's cheap it won't be good"? Or "buy cheap, buy twice"? Very popular idioms seeing use in common language expressing exactly those sentiments.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Cyninja.2954