the numbers have been done before; a game with a sub costs more money than a b2p game, even if that game has purchasable content.
if your going to play an MMO for 5 years, the one that requires you to pay 15$ a month will be more expensive. Especially with models like WoW that require you to buy expansions to keep playing.
Guild wars vs WoW is a good example of this, the overall expense of playing wow for 5 years is somewhere around 800$ (and thats all required payments, expansions included). But for Guild Wars, you only have to buy one campaign to play for forever; buying any of the other 2 campaigns and other content is optional. The figure of buying all guild wars 2 content as well as several game store items still saves you money when comparing it to a model like WoW's.
its unfair to compare DLC's to a subscription since DLC's are optional and a sub is not if you want to keep playing.
My logic is that the campaigns aren't DLCs, and that in games like D&DO where you can buy dungeons would be a DLC that introduces new content. So with that logic, yes, GW doesn't have a single DLC that introduces new content.
And whats the bonus mission pack?
Weapon skins... aesthetic...
But what about the actual missions? I heard they had pretty decent story-lines. Doesn't even matter if they are well-written and well-scripted either, the fact is that they are content that can be purchased in the store. I know I don't have access to them.
-------- "Chemistry: 'We do stuff in lab that would be a felony in your garage.'"
The most awesomest after school special T-shirt: Front: UNO Chemistry Club Back: /\OH --> Bad Decisions
My logic is that the campaigns aren't DLCs, and that in games like D&DO where you can buy dungeons would be a DLC that introduces new content. So with that logic, yes, GW doesn't have a single DLC that introduces new content.
And whats the bonus mission pack?
Weapon skins... aesthetic...
But what about the actual missions? I heard they had pretty decent story-lines. Doesn't even matter if they are well-written and well-scripted either, the fact is that they are content that can be purchased in the store. I know I don't have access to them.
I guess in that sense it would be considered GW's only DLC that introduces new content. But in reality, its not something people use for the new content. They can only be done alone, they give you a custom build, and some of them are pretty difficult, so its not something people just do OVER and OVER for the "fun" of it. People tend to purchase it thinking that they can get those weapon skins, not to experience the lore. Yes, they have storybooks and background lore, but all that can be wiki-ed or youtubed if you honestly just want to see that aspect of it.
"Many have eyes, but few have seen." - Goddess Lyssa
its a no brainer that instead of a sub fee we are getting DLC....the issue is if it will be cheaper(then other MMOs..or at least worth it. I believe that Anet will not jump from their own plan and the shop will always be reasonable.
if you are worried, buy a jar, and put 15 dollars in it every month. only use that money for GW2 and see how much money is left over at the end of the year.
I Think we will see the first large content up date at a year and it will cost around 30-40 dollars with dungeon packs up for around 7-10 for about 2 or 3 (these don't add to the story just new skins for weapons for maybe add to side stories) and of course cosmetic fluff and other stuff of that nature for whatever price they want.
Originally posted by jpnole Originally posted by cinos Important distinction in the case of Dragon Age is that deciding not to buy the dlc did not prevent you from playing the core game. You stop paying a monthly fee for an mmo however and you are left with nothing but a coaster and a fancy box.
True but DLCs are designed so that you are missing out by not getting them. You can bet that GW2s DLC will not be "optional" if you want to experience all the game has to offer and get the most from it. Besides, the mmo market has evolved to the point where a company won't be able to turn a profit on box sales alone. The DLCs will be prominent and have a very big incentive to purchase. Still, I will be buying them all!
What you say is true for any DLC, even for single-player games. If you do not get the DLC, you will not see all the game has to offer.
Of course the DLC will be how they support continued development. I am sure there will be full expansions or games in the vein of the first GW, and there will be cosmetic or fun items you can purchase as well. This will all serve the same end, which is making sure they are paid and they have running servers, etc.
The difference, and this is key, is that you are not required to buy any of that in order to continue paying. You do not have to set up an automatic draft or pay at the same time each month in order to have access to the game. You buy what you want when you want. If you are me, that will be as soon as it come available. Others may only play casually. I had a boyfriend for a time who was (regrettably) interested in WoW. Something he did was play Guild Wars when the WoW servers were down (which is often, as you all well know). He would have no reason to buy any of the fancy clothes like I do, or the extra character or Xunlai slots. He could still play the game and enjoy his time, even if he was not as serious about the game.
And this is why it is a much better system. You are not forced into paying rent for your game. You get what you pay for, and nothing else, but once you have it, you have it. This is how, to my mind, all purchases should always be. Of course, with this model, you do not have so many content patches as you would in other AAA MMORPGs.
They are different systems to achieve the same end goal, yes, but they are by no means subscription fees in any form. What you have paid for, you get to keep.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Well...let's just assume that they are going to have DLC. GW1 has DLC in terms of skill packs, bonus mission pack, account wide storage, some costumes, etc. Nothing really game breaking or even necessary (although storage might be argued as necessary).
Even IF ANet releases dungeons as DLC, what would be the rate at which they could release such content? It's not entirely reasonable to assume that they would release DLC on a monthly basis. It's also not reasonable to assume that they would release a ton of DLC within the first few months after release anyhow. At best, we might see DLC on a bi-monthly or even quarterly basis, with a new xpack every 12-18 months. In the long run, this model would wind up being less expensive for the gamer.
However, even IF they did release DLC each month for $10-20, you are not required to purchase it to play. Your account doesn't become suspended, you still have access to the core game, and you can purchase whatever content you wish at your own pace.
Honestly, I prefer this type of a model. I purchase a box, and buy whatever content I wish. There is true freedom of choice.
My logic is that the campaigns aren't DLCs, and that in games like D&DO where you can buy dungeons would be a DLC that introduces new content. So with that logic, yes, GW doesn't have a single DLC that introduces new content.
And whats the bonus mission pack?
Weapon skins... aesthetic...
But what about the actual missions? I heard they had pretty decent story-lines. Doesn't even matter if they are well-written and well-scripted either, the fact is that they are content that can be purchased in the store. I know I don't have access to them.
I guess in that sense it would be considered GW's only DLC that introduces new content. But in reality, its not something people use for the new content. They can only be done alone, they give you a custom build, and some of them are pretty difficult, so its not something people just do OVER and OVER for the "fun" of it. People tend to purchase it thinking that they can get those weapon skins, not to experience the lore. Yes, they have storybooks and background lore, but all that can be wiki-ed or youtubed if you honestly just want to see that aspect of it.
Your missing the point though (I expect deilberatly)
Nothing you have said here stops the GW Beyond DLC being play through content, no how you try to twist it. Your plainly wrong.
They are a great example of what I would like to see in GW2 tbh... I mean more group enabled stuff would be ideal, but they represent well told challenging quality content that contains useful in game rewards, so a great step in the right direction.
And, just for the record, a ton of people play these expansions for the story. Just because you don't, maybe don't project your motivations onto others?
It's definitely worthy of the B2P title as you have the choice to buy in order to play. Sure the DLC updates or expansions will end up seeming sort of like a P2P game but in the end, it's your choice to buy them and it doesn't affect the content already purchased.
Also, since when do you not have to buy expansions in sub based games? You can pay 15 bucks a month for a year on WoW for instance, but you still have to pay for the expansions, actually buying the game is insanely expensive if you add it all up. So either way, we're basically gonna be paying for those expansions as well, but without that mindless leech of our paycheck from month to month.
It's definitely worthy of the B2P title as you have the choice to buy in order to play. Sure the DLC updates or expansions will end up seeming sort of like a P2P game but in the end, it's your choice to buy them and it doesn't affect the content already purchased.
Also, since when do you not have to buy expansions in sub based games? You can pay 15 bucks a month for a year on WoW for instance, but you still have to pay for the expansions, actually buying the game is insanely expensive if you add it all up. So either way, we're basically gonna be paying for those expansions as well, but without that mindless leech of our paycheck from month to month.
Someone will say EVE anytime now, so it may as well be me lol
I agree though, compared to a game like EQ2 that demands a box purchase, ongoing sub, expansion buying AND has a cash shop, GW2 utilising playable optional DLC to fund itself will seem like a bargain
First, DLC in GW is rare, all that they have is a single $9.99 Bonus pack of 4 single player mini-missions. This was actually offered free with an in-game purchase of 29.99, since it coincided with many people needing spaces for alts, it was a free bit of lore.
For a complete list of what is for sale at the store, and has been for sale, with history etc. go here:
Second, the article that has been used to cite this as a declarative statement, has clarified that this was speculation on the part of the author.
Finally, yes it is an income stream, but one that I choose to support based upon the quality of the content, not something that is forced upon me for the privelege to play a game I have already paid for.
Finally, yes it is an income stream, but one that I choose to support based upon the quality of the content, not something that is forced upon me for the privelege to play a game I have already paid for.
This, Exactly and absolutely this.
So many games tries to force us uppon a Sub-fee For a game that is well not worth it. I need no mention them, the debates on them as been Roaming around.
F2P payment system is quite Interesting, If you are an aware customer, who Doesnt just junk his whole pay-day on contents...
Then again same apply to Subscription games, exept the money usually go to Farmers, in example wow, where people Dont pay for items to Blizzard , but they sure pay the efty sum to Chinesse farmers as they buy their golds, to buy their Epic Auctioned items...
Money will be wasted on any game in any way that the customer sees fit for him.
Im just glad With GW2 ill be able to encourage the Compagny by buying potential DLC ,with having them shove a gun down my throat and ask me 15$ a month + 50$ for the game.
The main difference between Subscription and DLC is the fact, DLC is not a requirement for gameplay.
Yes you're right in saying you probably won't enjoy 100% of its game content, but how could you expect to enjoy 100% of its game content if you didn't pay for its 100% of its game content. Plus it doesn't force you to buy the DLC to play the main content, while subscription is a recurring fee that is required to access to the main game content.
Subscription works in this way,
Developers obtain investment and talents to start developement.
Developers develops the game, players buys the game start to it once the game, development cost are already mostly covered in the retail cost of the game.
Into the second month, subscription fees start to occur, players feel oblige to support (if it is a good game) the game develop by subscribing to the game, providing funds to the developers to start planning for expansions, updates, fixes, etc.
Developers obtain funds from subscription to continure development on game
Games that requires a box cost and later develop DLC for further revenue, work along the same lines, but with a subtle change of pressure from step 3.
From step 3, B2P games doesn't not gain further revenue from subscription fees, thus forces Developers to create extremely interesting content to attract existing players and newcomers to obtain the game. While subscription games puts pressure on players to continue support the game for further developments, thus putting not as much pressure into development teams to create high end content.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW? As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
With a sub fee, you *must* pay to access *any* content. With DLCs, you only pay for what interests you instead of being force fed everything the developer throws money into so they can recoup their development costs, whether you want it or not. The DDO system is a good example. You can skip the subscription fee and buy only those adventure packs you want to play. You don't need to buy them all. In fact, you don't need any. But I think most people who buy packs will buy just a couple of the ones that they like the most, and skip the rest. Choice is great that way. With a sub fee, they're getting the garbage along with the gems.
Also, I think DLCs force the developers to do a better job. If they release a boring pack, no one will buy and it will be a total waste money for them. But when you're shoveling content to your subscribers "for free", you can easily cut a lot more corners with it. I don't think a crappy addition to a game will put too many people off if it's "free" with their sub fee. They'll continue playing the game and just avoid the stuff they don't like -- but they'll keep paying their monthly tithe.
I'll take the DLC option over subscription, so long as the game I paid for is worth the full box price. It's only if I feel they skimped on the full release in order to have more content to put up for sale later, would I be bothered. The quality would determine just how bothered I would be.
Wait since when it was confirmed it would be DLC's for GW2?
Nothing concrete, just speculation. Mostly that GW2 will be popular enough to warrant wanting new content on a regular basis and that will likely take the form of new box releases like GW1 or DLC. Either way I'm happy with the model and I enjoy the choice of if and when to get content. I'll probably be getting it all, but if I end up only playing it irregularly I don't need to pay for content I haven't reached yet and I can play the existing content I paid for at any time. Win/Win.
My logic is that the campaigns aren't DLCs, and that in games like D&DO where you can buy dungeons would be a DLC that introduces new content. So with that logic, yes, GW doesn't have a single DLC that introduces new content.
And whats the bonus mission pack?
Weapon skins... aesthetic...
But what about the actual missions? I heard they had pretty decent story-lines. Doesn't even matter if they are well-written and well-scripted either, the fact is that they are content that can be purchased in the store. I know I don't have access to them.
I guess in that sense it would be considered GW's only DLC that introduces new content. But in reality, its not something people use for the new content. They can only be done alone, they give you a custom build, and some of them are pretty difficult, so its not something people just do OVER and OVER for the "fun" of it. People tend to purchase it thinking that they can get those weapon skins, not to experience the lore. Yes, they have storybooks and background lore, but all that can be wiki-ed or youtubed if you honestly just want to see that aspect of it.
Your missing the point though (I expect deilberatly)
Nothing you have said here stops the GW Beyond DLC being play through content, no how you try to twist it. Your plainly wrong.
They are a great example of what I would like to see in GW2 tbh... I mean more group enabled stuff would be ideal, but they represent well told challenging quality content that contains useful in game rewards, so a great step in the right direction.
And, just for the record, a ton of people play these expansions for the story. Just because you don't, maybe don't project your motivations onto others?
I'm accounting for the majority of the players. Ofc many players purchase it to experience the lore. Just like many players take their time and effort to translate and decode the languages of Tyria. Does that mean that most players take their time to decode and translate Tyrian texts?
Anyways.. this squabbling back and forth isn't heading anywhere important. We both know that GW doesn't try to give bonus payers and advantage over non-bonus payers. At first the bonus mission pack was a reward to online store purchasers and to encourage people to purchase things from the store. They are not trying to punish people who don't pay extra for their game. They have already announced that they are sticking with these values in GW2... so don't expect to see tons of purchasable extra content in GW2, or a sort of payable membership granting more content. This excludes expansions, because those are made separately.
Personally I would enjoy a game that gives you everything after you pay for the initial cost. For aesthetic purposes I'm fine with separate fees, or anything that doesn't limit my gaming experience.
"Many have eyes, but few have seen." - Goddess Lyssa
This generated a 100 page discussion in Guru some time ago..
People dont like the idea of multiplayer DLC's, they hate it, and will clearly separate the community between who have X dlc and those that do not have it..
But people agreed in singleplayer DLC's (Personal Story someone??)
"It has potential" -Second most used phrase on existence "It sucks" -Most used phrase on existence
Think of it like this. You pay a sub fee for other great MMO's and if you don't want to give the developers your money you cannot play. GW2 on the other hand you buy the game once and play all you want. If you so choose to give ArenaNet your money then you have the option to do so and are not forced out of playing what you already paid for.
Comments
the numbers have been done before; a game with a sub costs more money than a b2p game, even if that game has purchasable content.
if your going to play an MMO for 5 years, the one that requires you to pay 15$ a month will be more expensive. Especially with models like WoW that require you to buy expansions to keep playing.
Guild wars vs WoW is a good example of this, the overall expense of playing wow for 5 years is somewhere around 800$ (and thats all required payments, expansions included). But for Guild Wars, you only have to buy one campaign to play for forever; buying any of the other 2 campaigns and other content is optional. The figure of buying all guild wars 2 content as well as several game store items still saves you money when comparing it to a model like WoW's.
its unfair to compare DLC's to a subscription since DLC's are optional and a sub is not if you want to keep playing.
It's pretty much in the open, it's just your average consumer is dull.
But what about the actual missions? I heard they had pretty decent story-lines. Doesn't even matter if they are well-written and well-scripted either, the fact is that they are content that can be purchased in the store. I know I don't have access to them.
--------
"Chemistry: 'We do stuff in lab that would be a felony in your garage.'"
The most awesomest after school special T-shirt:
Front: UNO Chemistry Club
Back: /\OH --> Bad Decisions
I guess in that sense it would be considered GW's only DLC that introduces new content. But in reality, its not something people use for the new content. They can only be done alone, they give you a custom build, and some of them are pretty difficult, so its not something people just do OVER and OVER for the "fun" of it. People tend to purchase it thinking that they can get those weapon skins, not to experience the lore. Yes, they have storybooks and background lore, but all that can be wiki-ed or youtubed if you honestly just want to see that aspect of it.
"Many have eyes, but few have seen." - Goddess Lyssa
its a no brainer that instead of a sub fee we are getting DLC....the issue is if it will be cheaper(then other MMOs..or at least worth it. I believe that Anet will not jump from their own plan and the shop will always be reasonable.
if you are worried, buy a jar, and put 15 dollars in it every month. only use that money for GW2 and see how much money is left over at the end of the year.
I Think we will see the first large content up date at a year and it will cost around 30-40 dollars with dungeon packs up for around 7-10 for about 2 or 3 (these don't add to the story just new skins for weapons for maybe add to side stories) and of course cosmetic fluff and other stuff of that nature for whatever price they want.
What you say is true for any DLC, even for single-player games. If you do not get the DLC, you will not see all the game has to offer.
Of course the DLC will be how they support continued development. I am sure there will be full expansions or games in the vein of the first GW, and there will be cosmetic or fun items you can purchase as well. This will all serve the same end, which is making sure they are paid and they have running servers, etc.
The difference, and this is key, is that you are not required to buy any of that in order to continue paying. You do not have to set up an automatic draft or pay at the same time each month in order to have access to the game. You buy what you want when you want. If you are me, that will be as soon as it come available. Others may only play casually. I had a boyfriend for a time who was (regrettably) interested in WoW. Something he did was play Guild Wars when the WoW servers were down (which is often, as you all well know). He would have no reason to buy any of the fancy clothes like I do, or the extra character or Xunlai slots. He could still play the game and enjoy his time, even if he was not as serious about the game.
And this is why it is a much better system. You are not forced into paying rent for your game. You get what you pay for, and nothing else, but once you have it, you have it. This is how, to my mind, all purchases should always be. Of course, with this model, you do not have so many content patches as you would in other AAA MMORPGs.
They are different systems to achieve the same end goal, yes, but they are by no means subscription fees in any form. What you have paid for, you get to keep.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
Well...let's just assume that they are going to have DLC. GW1 has DLC in terms of skill packs, bonus mission pack, account wide storage, some costumes, etc. Nothing really game breaking or even necessary (although storage might be argued as necessary).
Even IF ANet releases dungeons as DLC, what would be the rate at which they could release such content? It's not entirely reasonable to assume that they would release DLC on a monthly basis. It's also not reasonable to assume that they would release a ton of DLC within the first few months after release anyhow. At best, we might see DLC on a bi-monthly or even quarterly basis, with a new xpack every 12-18 months. In the long run, this model would wind up being less expensive for the gamer.
However, even IF they did release DLC each month for $10-20, you are not required to purchase it to play. Your account doesn't become suspended, you still have access to the core game, and you can purchase whatever content you wish at your own pace.
Honestly, I prefer this type of a model. I purchase a box, and buy whatever content I wish. There is true freedom of choice.
Your missing the point though (I expect deilberatly)
Nothing you have said here stops the GW Beyond DLC being play through content, no how you try to twist it. Your plainly wrong.
They are a great example of what I would like to see in GW2 tbh... I mean more group enabled stuff would be ideal, but they represent well told challenging quality content that contains useful in game rewards, so a great step in the right direction.
And, just for the record, a ton of people play these expansions for the story. Just because you don't, maybe don't project your motivations onto others?
It's definitely worthy of the B2P title as you have the choice to buy in order to play. Sure the DLC updates or expansions will end up seeming sort of like a P2P game but in the end, it's your choice to buy them and it doesn't affect the content already purchased.
Also, since when do you not have to buy expansions in sub based games? You can pay 15 bucks a month for a year on WoW for instance, but you still have to pay for the expansions, actually buying the game is insanely expensive if you add it all up. So either way, we're basically gonna be paying for those expansions as well, but without that mindless leech of our paycheck from month to month.
Someone will say EVE anytime now, so it may as well be me lol
I agree though, compared to a game like EQ2 that demands a box purchase, ongoing sub, expansion buying AND has a cash shop, GW2 utilising playable optional DLC to fund itself will seem like a bargain
Hey, remember Sorrow's Furnace? Those were good times...
To the OP.
Of course they are ! but the decision is yours on wether you buy it or not. If you dont you still do not pay a fee.
-I am here to perform logic
First, DLC in GW is rare, all that they have is a single $9.99 Bonus pack of 4 single player mini-missions. This was actually offered free with an in-game purchase of 29.99, since it coincided with many people needing spaces for alts, it was a free bit of lore.
For a complete list of what is for sale at the store, and has been for sale, with history etc. go here:
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_In-Game_Store
Second, the article that has been used to cite this as a declarative statement, has clarified that this was speculation on the part of the author.
Finally, yes it is an income stream, but one that I choose to support based upon the quality of the content, not something that is forced upon me for the privelege to play a game I have already paid for.
This, Exactly and absolutely this.
So many games tries to force us uppon a Sub-fee For a game that is well not worth it. I need no mention them, the debates on them as been Roaming around.
F2P payment system is quite Interesting, If you are an aware customer, who Doesnt just junk his whole pay-day on contents...
Then again same apply to Subscription games, exept the money usually go to Farmers, in example wow, where people Dont pay for items to Blizzard , but they sure pay the efty sum to Chinesse farmers as they buy their golds, to buy their Epic Auctioned items...
Money will be wasted on any game in any way that the customer sees fit for him.
Im just glad With GW2 ill be able to encourage the Compagny by buying potential DLC ,with having them shove a gun down my throat and ask me 15$ a month + 50$ for the game.
The main difference between Subscription and DLC is the fact, DLC is not a requirement for gameplay.
Yes you're right in saying you probably won't enjoy 100% of its game content, but how could you expect to enjoy 100% of its game content if you didn't pay for its 100% of its game content. Plus it doesn't force you to buy the DLC to play the main content, while subscription is a recurring fee that is required to access to the main game content.
Subscription works in this way,
Developers obtain investment and talents to start developement.
Developers develops the game, players buys the game start to it once the game, development cost are already mostly covered in the retail cost of the game.
Into the second month, subscription fees start to occur, players feel oblige to support (if it is a good game) the game develop by subscribing to the game, providing funds to the developers to start planning for expansions, updates, fixes, etc.
Developers obtain funds from subscription to continure development on game
Games that requires a box cost and later develop DLC for further revenue, work along the same lines, but with a subtle change of pressure from step 3.
From step 3, B2P games doesn't not gain further revenue from subscription fees, thus forces Developers to create extremely interesting content to attract existing players and newcomers to obtain the game. While subscription games puts pressure on players to continue support the game for further developments, thus putting not as much pressure into development teams to create high end content.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
With a sub fee, you *must* pay to access *any* content. With DLCs, you only pay for what interests you instead of being force fed everything the developer throws money into so they can recoup their development costs, whether you want it or not. The DDO system is a good example. You can skip the subscription fee and buy only those adventure packs you want to play. You don't need to buy them all. In fact, you don't need any. But I think most people who buy packs will buy just a couple of the ones that they like the most, and skip the rest. Choice is great that way. With a sub fee, they're getting the garbage along with the gems.
Also, I think DLCs force the developers to do a better job. If they release a boring pack, no one will buy and it will be a total waste money for them. But when you're shoveling content to your subscribers "for free", you can easily cut a lot more corners with it. I don't think a crappy addition to a game will put too many people off if it's "free" with their sub fee. They'll continue playing the game and just avoid the stuff they don't like -- but they'll keep paying their monthly tithe.
I'll take the DLC option over subscription, so long as the game I paid for is worth the full box price. It's only if I feel they skimped on the full release in order to have more content to put up for sale later, would I be bothered. The quality would determine just how bothered I would be.
Wait since when it was confirmed it would be DLC's for GW2?
"It has potential"
-Second most used phrase on existence
"It sucks"
-Most used phrase on existence
Nothing concrete, just speculation. Mostly that GW2 will be popular enough to warrant wanting new content on a regular basis and that will likely take the form of new box releases like GW1 or DLC. Either way I'm happy with the model and I enjoy the choice of if and when to get content. I'll probably be getting it all, but if I end up only playing it irregularly I don't need to pay for content I haven't reached yet and I can play the existing content I paid for at any time. Win/Win.
I'm accounting for the majority of the players. Ofc many players purchase it to experience the lore. Just like many players take their time and effort to translate and decode the languages of Tyria. Does that mean that most players take their time to decode and translate Tyrian texts?
Anyways.. this squabbling back and forth isn't heading anywhere important. We both know that GW doesn't try to give bonus payers and advantage over non-bonus payers. At first the bonus mission pack was a reward to online store purchasers and to encourage people to purchase things from the store. They are not trying to punish people who don't pay extra for their game. They have already announced that they are sticking with these values in GW2... so don't expect to see tons of purchasable extra content in GW2, or a sort of payable membership granting more content. This excludes expansions, because those are made separately.
Personally I would enjoy a game that gives you everything after you pay for the initial cost. For aesthetic purposes I'm fine with separate fees, or anything that doesn't limit my gaming experience.
"Many have eyes, but few have seen." - Goddess Lyssa
Little bit of INfo for you guys that have not played GW1
DLC is the WRONG term for EXPANSIONS that will be coming out for
GW2 in the future....again EXPANSIONS not DLC.....
if there is some DLC it will just be small mission packs and only hardcore GW
players ever buy that and they are not that popular...now let/s get back to
EXPANSIONS......
The Expansions will be the bread maker for GW2 and I predict that they will be releasing one
every year or two to create revenue and I will gladly pay ANET that money because every
Expansion for GW1 was well worth the money....again the keyword here is..
EXPANSION....hope I made it clear
This generated a 100 page discussion in Guru some time ago..
People dont like the idea of multiplayer DLC's, they hate it, and will clearly separate the community between who have X dlc and those that do not have it..
But people agreed in singleplayer DLC's (Personal Story someone??)
"It has potential"
-Second most used phrase on existence
"It sucks"
-Most used phrase on existence
.........I know what you mean
You know what I mean
Lets just stick with DLC since its shorter to type :P
I wonder if Expansion packs are gonna be new campaign, or extending the main campaign
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
Think of it like this. You pay a sub fee for other great MMO's and if you don't want to give the developers your money you cannot play. GW2 on the other hand you buy the game once and play all you want. If you so choose to give ArenaNet your money then you have the option to do so and are not forced out of playing what you already paid for.
I don't really care if you have to pay or not for DLC. if it looks interesting I'll buy it and if it doesn't I won't.
Of course I can afford it , but some people out there might not have a job or too young to have one won't be able to afford it.
if the DLC pricing was like Dragon Age , a few bucks, I don't see any problems at all.