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

[Vayne.8563]

42 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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Glad you found another opportunity to call people poor again.

You're right. Because some people can't afford the game, Anet should make it cheaper? Give it away for free even?  We should do the same with food, which people need, but games we don't.  I'm not calling people poor. I said some people don't; have the money to afford the game at the price it is, and that would be true with virtually any price it was made.  And some people do have the money.

However, Anet didn't go into business as a charity. It went into business to make money.  You say people will  play WOW if they enjoy it but more people have stopped playing WoW than currently play Guild Wars 2. WoW is bleeding subs, and some of those people have come here.

Don't try to shame me into saying I'm calling out the poor. I didn't even use the word. Being in favor of a business staying in business is not the same thing as being mean to the poor.  There's a matter of balance.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Vayne.8563

[Gibson.4036]

On 8/26/2022 at 12:43 AM, Freya.9075 said:

Players told anet to bundle up expansions and living world to not confuse new steam players. 
 

anet proceeds to bundle up said content.

forum: why no discount huh??? 
 

it’s like when ppl complained about not having build templates. Said they were even willing to pay for them. Then they add templates and ppl are like omg why do we have to pay for them? Amazing 

I don’t know that I’ve ever seen people complain about having to pay for them. 
 

I have seen plenty of complaints about how their implementation is inferior to the free service they used before, and that they shouldn’t have to be bought per character.

[Sunchaser.9854]

I mean gw2 has a historic record of going old expacs on sale 4-6 x a year for like the last 5 years. We're trying to get new lifeblood into the game and like intentional or not, im ..... Not sure if comparing them to the starving poor is like the best option? 

Everyone was hyped up for the steam release being free advertising for the game and maybe it'll work out. But I'm not kidding when I say steam is literally a platform notorious for mass 50-85% sales in the non mmorpg field, and one thing I hadn't considered is when you sell people to the idea of a mostly solo single player mmorpg you're having a market literally compare itself to 4-11x steam userbases (2-4k steam gw2 players launch 1.6k reviews to 22k Skyrim players no events but a sale for a like 12 year old game.)

 

I think even sc2 coop and wings of liberty is free and coop have people who have played it for literally thousands of hours past prestiege 900 which is like 7x 15-25 minute brutals per level for over 6000 games and despite all the Diablo immortal stuff, sc2 coop is legitimately a online hosted game  with rts ability leveling and quite diverse prestiges you could play f2p forever off p0 or p1 raynor with mass marines, medics and marauders with about a infinite ceiling on how long you could spend improving your micro and strats. Then if you want a premium commander you spend 5$.

And one forgotten flipside of Wow when I logged in to 90$ of wow token credit  is that on the flipside, although wow can be hit or miss on moneymaking, if you make excess profits in the game, those excess profits can often easily be used to purchase other blizzard properties such as sc2 campaigns. Commanders, and if you play for over 3-5 hours a month, you could gold farm to pay a sub or even profit with 90-100$+ wow token credit to buy hearthstone packs, sc2 commanders.

I won't lie I like the pressure of not having to pay a sub but after finishing ascended, completing all not on sale stories, waiti 3 months for living story sales, after 100-150$ spend justifying it as a 3 month wow sub wow made itself free and I noticed I still had 90$ of wow token credits in a pocket (and had spent 60-75$ wow token credit).

Imo gw2 is good to get a sub fix when you play a mmorpg for less than 5 hours a week.

But I forgot that I had like +90$ + 75$ = 165$ of spare wow token credit that I had used to purchase 4x buy for life sc2 commanders for 5$ each (Nova, stukov, Tychus and zeratul, bought lotv on sale (+ zagara, swann, and vorazun) so like yeah. Wow can certainly be more expensive but I ended up with +165$ what I was spending on it, only paying for months I played more than 5 hours a week. But I didn't mind spending 100$ on a developed game.

There's wow privates that can literally be 0$ for as long as you want classic, tbc and wotlk wow fully functional (and panda wow if you want to speak Hungarian). I didnt mind spending more for the confidence of a game I was going to play for 1000s of hours getting updates.

But taking new player perspectives into count, most of what we're playing is content from 1-9 years ago... But sometimes the content to a newcomer is refered to as "9 years of monthly gem store content updates and 1 year of dungeon content isn't content."  Or comments like "it doesn't matter if it's 10 years of gw2 content. If the amount of dungeon and raid updates is lower than the bad year of competitor W/F/E or the open world I get from 75-80% on sale 800k+ review 7-22k+ single player games like witcher 3:Wild hunt/Skyrim"

Right or wrong, we're getting player feedback and pof goes on sale 4-6x a year. Isn't a 10 year anniversary maybe one of those 4-6x a year events worth having at least a pof 50% off on for a potentially more successful steam launch(??) We just had one a month ago even for prime day. 

[Freya.9075]

6 minutes ago, Gibson.4036 said:

I don’t know that I’ve ever seen people complain about having to pay for them. 
 

I have seen plenty of complaints about how their implementation is inferior to the free service they used before, and that they shouldn’t have to be bought per character.

I am pretty sure I’ve seen ppl complain about paying for them. It may be a brain fart from my end though as it’s been a while since I read one of these topics.
 

point was no matter what anet does, even if they listen to suggestions or wishes about the game there will always be someone complaining about something as they disagree with anets decision. Even if it’s something they asked for as they “didn’t do it right” 

[Miragen.6127]

1 hour ago, Vayne.8563 said:

You're right. Because some people can't afford the game, Anet should make it cheaper? Give it away for free even?  We should do the same with food, which people need, but games we don't.  I'm not calling people poor. I said some people don't; have the money to afford the game at the price it is, and that would be true with virtually any price it was made.  And some people do have the money.

Which is not the point, it's about value, not cost.

Yes there are people who cannot afford it, and people have been talking about regional pricing, that's not the point.

 

1 hour ago, Vayne.8563 said:

However, Anet didn't go into business as a charity. It went into business to make money.  You say people will  play WOW if they enjoy it but more people have stopped playing WoW than currently play Guild Wars 2. WoW is bleeding subs, and some of those people have come here.

 

WoW is also 20 years old so that's a completely meaningless argument, another game is losing subscriptions for a vast variety of reasons, that's a loss for them, which doesn't make it a win for GW2.

 

1 hour ago, Vayne.8563 said:

Don't try to shame me into saying I'm calling out the poor. I didn't even use the word. Being in favor of a business staying in business is not the same thing as being mean to the poor.  There's a matter of balance.

 

In order to stay in business you need to make sales and earn money, which means you need to put down an attractive product in a competitive market, which is not what Anet is doing.

[Miragen.6127]

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

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.

 

If you're trying to sell a product creating an urge to try and enjoy the product is a good thing, which is non-existent in this case and the alternative is way too steep.

 

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

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

 

And people apparently see no issue with this, if the 2012 game is still representative it just means the game has not developed at all in the last 10 years.

 

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

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.

 

No one here is an expert, we are all making assumptions and going by our opinions and experience, what is this comment even? 

 

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

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.

 

Something I have pointed out several times, but no one talks about that in regards to videogame costing $50, that's an absurd statement to try and make.

[Vayne.8563]

10 minutes ago, Miragen.6127 said:

Which is not the point, it's about value, not cost.

Yes there are people who cannot afford it, and people have been talking about regional pricing, that's not the point.

 

 

WoW is also 20 years old so that's a completely meaningless argument, another game is losing subscriptions for a vast variety of reasons, that's a loss for them, which doesn't make it a win for GW2.

 

 

In order to stay in business you need to make sales and earn money, which means you need to put down an attractive product in a competitive market, which is not what Anet is doing.

Yep you need to earn money.  There's an equation there.  If you lower the price you have to predict to sell enough extra units to make up how much you lower the price by. This is basic business. It's a guessing game on one level.

If you only lower the price a little, then you're not likely to shift the people who don't have the money to pay. If you lower the price a lot you have to sell a lot more copies to make up the difference. Are you going to guarantee that many more copies sell?  Business people analyze these concerns. You're talking from an emotional point of view, because you don't have the data.  I don't have the data either. You know who does? Anet.  Companies craft price on how much money they're going to make based on what they price stuff at.   They have meetings about it, and graphs, and projections.  We don't have those.

So your emotional plea to change the price based on people who won't pay that is just that. Your feeling. What evidence can you present that lowering the price will bring in enough new people to make that worth it? How much  would Anet have to lower the price for that to happen?

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, Miragen.6127 said:

If you're trying to sell a product creating an urge to try and enjoy the product is a good thing, which is non-existent in this case and the alternative is way too steep.

To steep in your opinion. You forgot to add that part.

 

Quote

And people apparently see no issue with this, if the 2012 game is still representative it just means the game has not developed at all in the last 10 years.

 

The issues is not solved by pretending like the core game is non existant or the core roots of the game somehow got upheaved or changed.

It remains at its roots the same game, with a ton more content. 

One of the weakest arguments, yet most often heard, in convincing others to play a game they aren't enjoying:"oh but you have to play on until part xyz, then you'll start having fun." 

Quote

No one here is an expert, we are all making assumptions and going by our opinions and experience, what is this comment even? 

So, no one here is an expert. Agreed though you have no idea what profession people might have. Let's stick with everyone is no expert though because it makes the next part easier:

 

In that case, why do so many believe they know better than the marketing and sales department of Arenanet/NCSoft? You know, the hopefully actual experts and people who do this as their job? 

Quote

Something I have pointed out several times, but no one talks about that in regards to videogame costing $50, that's an absurd statement to try and make.

 

People talk and behave that way all the time and the idioms are just a reflection of this widespread behavior. 

 

It's simply a matter of which segment of the wealth/wage/prosperity subsection you look at. Stop assuming your own standard of living  and values apply to everyone else.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[Miragen.6127]

1 hour ago, Vayne.8563 said:

Yep you need to earn money.  There's an equation there.  If you lower the price you have to predict to sell enough extra units to make up how much you lower the price by. This is basic business. It's a guessing game on one level.

 

It's all profit one way or another, having a large discount paired with special events and everything it's a safe gamble.

 

 

1 hour ago, Vayne.8563 said:

If you only lower the price a little, then you're not likely to shift the people who don't have the money to pay. If you lower the price a lot you have to sell a lot more copies to make up the difference. Are you going to guarantee that many more copies sell?  Business people analyze these concerns. You're talking from an emotional point of view, because you don't have the data.  I don't have the data either. You know who does? Anet.  Companies craft price on how much money they're going to make based on what they price stuff at.   They have meetings about it, and graphs, and projections.  We don't have those.

 

One is a scenario that does not exist and there are way too many variables to have actual data on that, just an educated guess at best.

Based on Anet's usual approach to marketing however there is no reason to assume that they know what they're doing any more than we do.

 

 

1 hour ago, Vayne.8563 said:

So your emotional plea to change the price based on people who won't pay that is just that. Your feeling. What evidence can you present that lowering the price will bring in enough new people to make that worth it? How much  would Anet have to lower the price for that to happen?

 

You think Anet has factual data that can accurately predict the behavior of millions of people in an international market whilst accounting for the million of variables?

[Miragen.6127]

17 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

To steep in your opinion. You forgot to add that part.

 

Too steep from the perspective of the vast majority of people who play games, too steep based on factual information and data that showcases the willingness of the consumer to spend money on a game and how much money they are willing to risk.

Besides pure logic would be enough to conclude that a $15 is a smaller gamble than $100.

 

17 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

 

The issues is not solved by pretending like the core game is non existant or the core roots of the game somehow got upheaved or changed.

It remains at its roots the same game, with a ton more content. 

 

The core game feels dated however, and it's not the same experience it was 10 years ago whilst also lacking any and all of the new features the game offers that would improve the experience.

And one that falls short of the core game all it's competitors offer.

 

17 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

One of the weakest arguments, yet most often heard, in convincing others to play a game they aren't enjoying:"oh but you have to play on until part xyz, then you'll start having fun." 

 

I don't see the relevance of this, the point is that the core game is not as good as the rest of the game yet that is the part used to tempt new players.

 

17 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

In that case, why do so many believe they know better than the marketing and sales department of Arenanet/NCSoft? You know, the hopefully actual experts and people who do this as their job? 

 

It's just common sense.

 

17 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

People talk and behave that way all the time and the idioms are just a reflection of this widespread behavior. 

 

It's simply a matter of which segment of the wealth/wage/prosperity subsection you look at. Stop assuming your own standard of living  and values apply to everyone else.

 

Game value isn't based on personal wealth, it's commonly accepted that $60 is the price for a triple A game and has been the case for many many years, just because you're wealthy doesn't mean that you scoff at games that sell for $30, as there is a perceived value and expectation with a $30 game.

 

Most people who play a lot of games and knows their value can play a brand new game and assume a certain value with that, a price they associate with the level of quality of that game, when that price is significantly higher than they feel it should be that will not change their opinion of the game and assume a greater value. 

 

Only when a game perceived as quality sells for a surprisingly low amount will people get suspicious, but we're talking sub $10-5 there for games, not $50 as that is still in the high end range where no one will feel it's too cheap.

[Cyninja.2954]

27 minutes ago, Miragen.6127 said:

 

Too steep from the perspective of the vast majority of people who play games, too steep based on factual information and data that showcases the willingness of the consumer to spend money on a game and how much money they are willing to risk.

Besides pure logic would be enough to conclude that a $15 is a smaller gamble than $100.

and you have data on this or statistics to back up your claim? I love it when people come and go: everyone feels this way.

Let me guess: you have in fact not read a single paper or study on consumer behavior in regards to video games, right? Or in regards to any consumer behavior at that?

Quote

The core game feels dated however, and it's not the same experience it was 10 years ago whilst also lacking any and all of the new features the game offers that would improve the experience.

And one that falls short of the core game all it's competitors offer.

In which case the initial impressions for players should be improved. Say with an expansion which targets new players or by improving the new player experience somewhat. Seems familiar somehow... and what would you know, EoD is offered at a great value.

Quote

I don't see the relevance of this, the point is that the core game is not as good as the rest of the game yet that is the part used to tempt new players.

The point is that having players buy the complete edition might in no way improve the experience or reduce the amount of players no sticking with the game.

Quote

It's just common sense.

Common sense given by a non expert criticizing experts. How noble of you. How about you swing by your closest hospital and give some free advice to the doctor on call there based around your last physical exam? I'm sure he can use the help.

Quote

Game value isn't based on personal wealth, it's commonly accepted that $60 is the price for a triple A game and has been the case for many many years, just because you're wealthy doesn't mean that you scoff at games that sell for $30, as there is a perceived value and expectation with a $30 game.

Triple A games haven't been 60$ in around 10 years. In fact most games push 60-80 Euro minimum by now and beyond. More if digital deluxe editions or other bonus content is offered and players pay that. Not all, but a significant amount to have developers offer this more and more. Your view, perception and assumed knowledge is terribly out of date.

Quote

Most people who play a lot of games and knows their value can play a brand new game and assume a certain value with that, a price they associate with the level of quality of that game, when that price is significantly higher than they feel it should be that will not change their opinion of the game and assume a greater value. 

 

Only when a game perceived as quality sells for a surprisingly low amount will people get suspicious, but we're talking sub $10-5 there for games, not $50 as that is still in the high end range where no one will feel it's too cheap.

50$ is not high for a game. I can't recall the last tripple A title which I bought for 50 Euro/$, it's been that long.

Even taking only a glance at Steams upcoming titles, some of which aren't even tripple A:

- Soul Hackers 2 - 59,99

- Hogwart' legacy - 59,99

- Total War Warhammer II : 59,99 (discounted to 54,99, with a franchise sale going on)

- Destiny 2 Lightfall - 100,-

Most of games aren't tripple A and these are the base versions offered in some cases going up in price significantly. That's on Steam, not even Playstation, Xbox or Nintendo where prices go up by at least 10-20%.

You have very dated and selective knowledge of pricing, yet you expect to know better than the sales department.

The "high end range" right now? around 120 Euro and even that gets payed.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[Sunchaser.9854]

Silently sits in background watching gta 5 making a estimated 15x annual revenue of gw2 in terms of Billions of dollars to a 265$ million dollar investment with 20x return to date and 7.99$ sales to 59.99$ box prices.

 

Silently looks at gta's 5's 1.2m+ million reviews, vs 34 gw1 reviews and Gw2's current launch day 1.37k reviews.

I'm sure it'll grow someday, but by all metrics, the people on steam with decades of marketing experience making trilogies before gw2 was even a game must surely not know as much as Anet. I mean. The game has already been on sale and had gas station cups to spread it to the masses.

I know we all want to think it's because Gw2's is the superior game and has a superior marketing department and has some good ideas of using 130-200 ms ping megaserver over 90-150x 30-70 ms ping empty servers left over from when other games had more players actively subbing in a single month than almost gw2's entire list of registered accounts in existence.

But i mean, some of the games it's being compared to are like Literally literal multi billion dollar earning triple AAA mainsteam household every console gaming companies with 80% sales and billions made per year. 

I think gw2 is a game with more like, post purchase content than most tbh. I mean sure, the stuff that gw2 listens to most is gw2.. But.. Just so you guys know. There are multi billion dollar companies hosting 80% off sales. It's pretty much a running joke of steam that steam runs assaults on people's wallets will assault people with 75-90% off sales that you might likely never even play but still spend 100-300$ having. Like 2.5$ dishonored, 7.5$ dishonored 2$, 0-20$ gta 5, 10-20$ Red dead redemption, etc. It's less common for mmorpgs but the competition of open world single players are like 8$ witcher 3 (75% off 40$) and like 7-12$ skyrim Remastered (66-75% off 50$).

Again not to critque, just to point out that many games are literally making 100 millions to multi billions of dollars and still have sales but often like other ways of monetizing past sales or just lots of people buying it to shelve it in a library. It's like a planet fitness model where you sell tons even knowing 50-70% of people might never show up when they buy a product 50-90%, but somehow it works. Gw2 would probably just be fine at 50% off pof, i think 75-90% off all of gw2 would lead to potential botting problems though.

But the cash shop still offers monetization post purchase as well easily to the 50-300$++ range or even a few 1000-2000$ cosmetic/legendary spenders.  So even someone who say, got the pof or game for 15-50$ could still have like 50-300++$ spending potential vs.. I have no idea how gta5 makes billions of dollars on shark cards.. Because you can just earn money fine without them. 

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Sunchaser.9854

[Gotejjeken.1267]

7 hours ago, Miragen.6127 said:

 

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.

 

Clearly you are new to MMOs. 

Anyway, my last comments on this are yes, they store player data for players who are inactive--that way when you take a 10-year break to collect your decade armor all of your account is still intact.

Other than that, not derailing this complaint topic any longer--can all go back to arguing about steam discounts.  

[Gorem.8104]

14 hours ago, Sunchaser.9854 said:

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. 

 

That's the part really I don't get. We have new players come in, they not sure about it, so people instantly attack them and tell them to quit and leave? Do you have to love something you have no idea about before you are allowed to play it when it comes to GW2? These toxic positive people have probably just helped the steam launch be as slow as it is. Combine toxic positive people with Anet's bad marketing, no sale, re-selling old content that should be free, and a huge price tag and i'd be amazed at how many actual new players are playing, not just vets who are playing on steam to make it seem successful or improve their review numbers. 

We all got living world free now multiple times, when it came out, and during free events. The fact is, by combining the costs you essentially do miss out on ever getting them free. As it doesn't make any sense to those already playing, I mean if Anet can launch living worlds free - that would most likely mean the majority of the playerbase always gets it all free. Why do we then need to make the few pay? Shouldn't it just always be free then? 

Cheaper things is how you get people to play these days. the first price you see should not be a USD $100. The first price should have been a "buy pof/hot expansions 50% off sale* then below that include the EOD expansion bundle/by itself. if it was $20, you can bet that 2k steam base, would be 10x that at launch. Most likely more. So instead of the extremely low new player count we have, we could be sitting on tens of thousands, which I wonder if Anet realises - that's more then they made already by far by selling it at such an expensive rate with no true information for new players besides positive people telling others to quit.  Especially as the store itself is where they generate most of their revenue. 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Gorem.8104

[Cyninja.2954]

4 hours ago, Sunchaser.9854 said:

But the cash shop still offers monetization post purchase as well easily to the 50-300$++ range or even a few 1000-2000$ cosmetic/legendary spenders.  So even someone who say, got the pof or game for 15-50$ could still have like 50-300++$ spending potential vs.. I have no idea how gta5 makes billions of dollars on shark cards.. Because you can just earn money fine without them. 

 

Let me help you with that:

A. GTA5 has an optional subscription which offers benefits and it is being sold on consoles which have customers which are already used to spending a premium for games

B. Rockstar and the GTA store make acquiring in-game money, in the quantities needed, a lot more difficult versus buying it with real money compared to GW2

C. you are actually able to lose wealth in GTA5, which feeds the need to cash up again

In short: they have a far more aggressive and worked out MTX system compared to GW2 while sitting on a far larger player base. So, how many of those ideas which offset the purchase price discounts, which is still very high when not discounted, do you want implemented in GW2? Do we now go "yay, more aggressive MTX in our game please because we get more often discounts on one time purchases?"

The discussion on optional subscriptions was brought up in the past and a few players were in favor of that. ESO which is often brought as an example when Anet do something wrong, has that too. Maybe we should go down that road too again? Somehow I am not sure that would go over so well with a majority of the players complaining in this very thread.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[Vayne.8563]

7 hours ago, Miragen.6127 said:

 

It's all profit one way or another, having a large discount paired with special events and everything it's a safe gamble.

 

 

 

One is a scenario that does not exist and there are way too many variables to have actual data on that, just an educated guess at best.

Based on Anet's usual approach to marketing however there is no reason to assume that they know what they're doing any more than we do.

 

 

 

You think Anet has factual data that can accurately predict the behavior of millions of people in an international market whilst accounting for the million of variables?

It's a safe gamble?  It's so easy to say that when it's someone else's money you're gambling with. And yes, it is an educated guess, but you know, what you're saying  just a guess, so an educated guess is probably better.