Sorry for the confusion. What he meant to say was "I've not played much of it if at all so it wasn't a very important landmark in my personal gaming time-line and because of this I'm going to make a wildly inaccurate assuming statement based on my extremely limited experience with said product without actually gathering information on the topic."
That should clear it up a bit.
Mountains rise in the distance stalwart as the stars, fading forever.
Roads ever weaving, soul ever seeking the hunter's mark.
Formerly Ryngo Blackratchet
To simplify financial incentives for companies:
1. Subscription fees present, free content patches:
a. You get paid as long as people are playing, regardless of content being played
b. You lose money creating new content
- conclusion: You want to stretch content patches as far as possible, and make as few of them as possible to maximize profit. Example: most WoW's content patches not containing nearly enough to be possible to sell them as stand alone products for the cost of amount of monthly payments that patches last. For example, ICC lasted almost a year, meaning even at cheapest rate of 12 euro/month that patch would cost you over 120 euro to purchase as stand alone. In more recent times, Firelands lasted about half a year, making it cost around 60 euros at the cheapest possible rate.
2. No subscription fees, paid content patches.
a. You earn money selling content patches
b. You lose money the longer people stay playing each patch
- Conclusion: You want to make content patches as big and attractive as possible, while maintaining a reasonable price tag and good pace of releases. You do not want people to keep on playing in periods between content patches to reduce server costs as much as possible. Example: GW1 with it's very beautiful and large content patches, and extreme lack of community building and communication from lack of central official forums to purposeful buildup of barrier of entry from "casual" to "hardcore" in PvP content and complete lack of "hardcore" PvE content until later expansions.
Sub-fees: Shittier, poorer quality content, released with huge delays.
Paid patches: Better, higher quality content, very frequently.
It makes business sense for a company to attempt at sub-fees if possible, but that's the worst possible outcome for a consumer/gamer. Paid content patches might not be as profitable for companies, but is the very best model for consumers.
I just don't understand how people cannot see this... and in fact many people think the exact opposite - which is mind-boggling.
Note: I do believe community-building would help arenanet because it would eventually lead to an increase in customers purchasing new boxes. Perhaps it was different back in the day in 2005... but these days server costs are, thankfully, pretty trivial and nearly negligible.
That doesn't really apply anymore. It's mostly a Warcraft thing- the slow content updates.
Um, you are aware that GW1 released several expansions and is still quite popular yes?
Blizzard removed my subscription from WoD's features, it'll be added sometime later.
And thus I give you: MALE contraception!
Honestly just think of GW2 as a singleplayer rpg like Dragon age, Torchlight, Mass Effect , Borderlands, or the Elder Scrolls series. play the game, have fun, then think of the expansion packs more as sequels then expansions (hopefully standalone).
Last edited by SPeedy26; 2011-12-21 at 02:03 AM.
It will survive fine. Look at GW1. I quit WoW a long time ago and still play GW for hours at a time when I play. There's no shortage of content or things to do in GW1 and just because Arena Net dares to be different than WoW and SWTOR doesn't mean it won't survive. It just means that raiding won't be the focus of GW2 which it never woulda been from the start.
---------- Post added 2011-12-21 at 03:05 AM ----------
---------- Post added 2011-12-22 at 01:56 AM ----------