Should Anet Monetize Content

[Koen.1327]

why would you make a poll asking if players want to pay more for the same lolgame experience is not really a factor in monetizing things

[maddoctor.2738]

@"Cyninja.2954" said:Yes, and what if this does not increase revenue? What makes you think they haven't been doing this so far? We get regular new BLC "content" for over 2 years by now. We get exclusive gem store skins, mount skins, glider skins, you name it. Players have been vocal about being maxed on skins and stuff. I certainly am, and I've spent quite a bit of money on the game.

Yes players are getting full of their skins/convenience, that's where getting new players is essential, which is probably why they made Heart of Thorns free in the first place. Maybe they need to find the next best thing, something as good for revenue as mounts were.

How many of you are willing to spend more on GW2 if the game does not perform financially?

I'm gonna answer that question with "not me" in this current state. If a game does not perform well financially then it means its players aren't happy with what is on offer, if the players are happy with what they get, then they'll pay more. It can't go the other way around, much like the argument "Anet isn't a charity", the other side is "GW2 is not on kickstarter", I'm not willing to pay to help the game recover, I expect the game to release what I want, so I support it.

[Jaeya.5398]

No subscription fee, please. One of the biggest selling points for Guild Wars 2 is that you can pick up and play whenever it suits you, without having to fish out your wallet.

I wouldn't be against more purchaseable items within the Gem Store (I occasionally like to buy gems, both to support the game and also for my own convenience), but I would prefer for them to continue being focused on cosmetics/convenience rather than anything that provides a distinct advantage above those who don't buy gems (or have the gold to convert to gems).

At the end of the day, Guild Wars 2 is an MMO, and I feel it should try to avoid going down the route of mobage/mobile games which seek any available opportunity to part you from your hard-earned cash (particularly for upgrades and things that will elevate you above other, non-paying players).

[Konig Des Todes.2086]

@"Adry.7512":This is assuming that Anet will abstain from any P2W models. There will be no P2W, but there will be more monetizing of content.Okay, sure...

This does not mean that players wont have access to anything unless they pay massive amount of money, but money will be required for big content (Ex: 10-35 dollars depending on the size of the content).That's... what they do. They just offer it to free for active players first.

Please consider the fact that GW2, while having massive amounts of content and a healthy playerbase that love the game, still manage to profit on the low-end in their quarterlies. They have been suffering on this subject for many years and it may effect the game's growth and longevity in the future.I am not entirely sure this is actually accurate.

Make specializations as a separate DLC, new Dungeons and map lore as DLC, Xpac every 2-3 years but more bigger and lore rich, provide LS twice a year but will be more lore rich with repeatable contentYou do realize that making specializations as DLCs, is literally going to be Pay to Win here, especially given the nature of power creep and ANet's decade plus long failure to prevent such a concept from, well, creeping into their games.

Also, your poll is clearly rigged in favor of what's obviously taking first place by a mile - you offer "no change" and "obviously bad choice" and "obviously worst choice". Of course people will pick no change.

[Psientist.6437]

This is a link to GW2's revenue history.https://massivelyop.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/1q20desktop_744342_2.jpg

Was there anything released in Q4 2013 besides Ascended weapons and armor that could account for that quarter's revenue? If we compare HoT to PoF, HoT managed to generate increased revenue over two quarters. Perhaps both Q4 2013 and Q1 2016 can be explained by gem to gold conversions.

Like everyone else, I can only offer educated guesses about the return on investment offered by different content. I also have my personal preferences. However, it does look like giving players something to build earns the studio revenue. I think the game would benefit from something like player housing or public and private hubs. It looks like the gem exchange isn't being used to its potential.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Psientist.6437 said:Was there anything released in Q4 2013 besides Ascended weapons and armor that could account for that quarter's revenue? If we compare HoT to PoF, HoT managed to generate increased revenue over two quarters. Perhaps both Q4 2013 and Q1 2016 can be explained by gem to gold conversions.

Like everyone else, I can only offer educated guesses about the return on investment offered by different content. I also have my personal preferences. However, it does look like giving players something to build earns the studio revenue. I think the game would benefit from something like player housing or public and private hubs. It looks like the gem exchange isn't being used to its potential.

Q4 2013 had the release of Ascended Armor (near the end), Ascended Weapons released in Q3 2013 (near the end). Q4 2013 had a very good sale/promotion. Arenanet also had a FREE TRIAL running in Q3 2013/Q4 2013 which likely brought in some new players. I'm not sure how the 2013 free trial compared with the current free version of the game, maybe it was better?

If we go for content, Q4 2013 had a lot of instanced content, with one dungeon path (Aetherpath), one new Fractal (Thaumanova, which was also promised during Cutthroat Politics) and four more Fractals that were re-worked versions of old Living World dungeons, plus the Mistlock Instability mechanic. One festival that was completely new that year (Blood and Madness introduced new content compared to 2012) and a re-run of the Wintersday festival with new additions. Further, outside the expansions, it was the only quarter that added new skills, first the Anti-toxin spray and then one new healing skill for every profession. And the Tower of Nightmares of course which was an exciting mix of content, more people than an instance, but less than the open world, creating a unique experience.

I'll go with sales and free trials being the better cause of the bump, but content offerings do play an important role for sure.

[Timbersword.9014]

Stay with the current model. New outfits sell. Mount, weapon and armor skins sell. New character customization options (that actually look good) sell, though new options are unfortunately very rare.

I'd recommend to them to keep making expansion packs as well. There's no way they aren't a nice financial kick to their bank account.

Finally, if they really need money, take a page from Warframe - they should see how they could incorporate something like "prime access" into Guild Wars 2. New collectable armor sets, with each LW update or something.

[starK.9127]

Looking at the prices in the Gemstore the game is monetized too much already ...

I will never understand why ppl will even go as far as to suggest a company to take even more money from them ...

[kharmin.7683]

@"starK.9127" said:I will never understand why ppl will even go as far as to suggest a company to take even more money from them ...

Often times, it is for bragging rights or e-kitten. Some want a "premium" or sub-model so that they can get things that others cannot, and they are willing to pony up for this privilege.

[Obfuscate.6430]

@Raknar.4735 said:

@Obfuscate.6430 said:I am conflicted about the idea of monetizing story chapters. I think it would depend on the scope of the content and the price. I am conflicted because what draws people to this game is the very fact that there is no subscription and new content releases outside of expansions are free.

Just wanted to chime in to say that the story chapters are technically already monetized. HoT and PoF story come with the box price, while LS chapters cost gems to unlock.Arenanet hands out those chapters for free during their active period to keep people active/attentive, but they are not actually free content releases, since anyone that wasn't around during the release time still has to buy them.

I'm so sorry that was your take away from my post. I think the current model that you talk about is fair. The OP wants something different than that.The OP's idea doesn't address issues with the game itself which would prevent their idea from being effective.

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

i mean they do that yet or? if ur not day1 veteran, u had to buy the old time Lws; i bought all of them, my "for free" started at pre-last PoF lws i think.

they always monetized new content = DLCs. and that's pretty fine. i personally would also not care if it would cost like 10€ more but that won't make their major money i guess.

[thepenmonster.3621]

Why not just spend $15 on the gemstore every month if you're desperate to give Anet money?

[Tsakhi.8124]

You know, I was gonna not say anything, but eh. First of all, it's rude to assume that people have money for that kind of monetization; I'm barely getting by with what I earn, and $870 a month for rent isn't cheap. People that argue that it's for the good of the game are flat out being biased. They want it for themselves, they want to brag, and they want it now. Second of all: It's already been discussed how the whole pay to play model would be detrimental to future players. Lastly, if you wanna play a sub-game, go play WoW or a rip-off thereof. So sick and tired of this topic: I don't have money to give.

[White Kitsunee.4620]

Anet should start selling merchandise is what anet should do if they need more money.

[Trise.2865]

Please stop begging companies to exploit you. You are not "saving" them, you are demeaning yourself.

[miraude.2107]

The model they have now seems to be working and shouldn't be screwed up with with some ESO garbage. Optional sub that isn't really optional, DLC that's just a dungeon and that's it for $20 unless you do that 'optional' sub but hey if you cancel that sub you lose access to all that stuff. The business model of ESO is basically what drove me away from the game and I sure as kitten don't want to see that model in GW2. Also, an optional sub didn't help Wildstar, why do you think it'd help here?

[Game of Bones.8975]

Without having access to their future business plans, I have no reason be believe that more money would mean a better game. I don't believe throwing money at something will automatically mean it gets better, sometimes it means more money to waste.

[Tumult.2578]

Want more players who stay and spend? Create several more Festivals so there is something extra each month, like 2 or 3 weeks. No prolonged programing costs. Repeatable content with the flip of a switch. Once a year loot types, mount skins, outfits, food, buffs, additional gem shop related items... Expansions bring players that only want difficult content to play once. That is simply not financially sustainable.

[kharmin.7683]

More festivals to keep players out of open world maps? Why bother with LS and expansions then?

[erthebear.8109]

@Randulf.7614 said:I'm confused by some of your statements because they don't seem to apply to GW2 at all.

My hypothesis is the longer this game goes, the more some players want it to be WoW. Didn't even read the OP beyond the first sentence before voting for the overwhelmingly favourite option.

[Randulf.7614]

@erthebear.8109 said:

@Randulf.7614 said:I'm confused by some of your statements because they don't seem to apply to GW2 at all.

My hypothesis is the longer this game goes, the more some players want it to be WoW. Didn't even read the OP beyond the first sentence before voting for the overwhelmingly favourite option.

Some people do yes.

For reference, there are two merged threads here and my reply you quoted was part of a reply aimed at what is now post 2 in this merged thread rather than the poll

[Obtena.7952]

No one has enough information to claim something 'needs to be done'. I would be willing to pay for content; frankly, I'm surprised they can offer as much as they do for as little as they do.