when will GW2 come out?

[Deleted]

Why do questions like this exist, where people are wanting to pay extra money for more content when they don't even have the original content yet? Day 1 DLC exists only because companies see questions like this, if people would actually refuse to buy a game until a price drop when companies pull this it will reduce these types of behavior, but as long as publishers see people going and buying say ME3 or Kingdoms of Amalur for $60, and then turn around and spend another $10 day 1 DLC and then another $10 a month down the line for another DLC, why wouldn't they just strip content out of the games and sell them as Day 1 DLC...

You can not really blame companies like EA for this, if EA does it once, ok whatever, but if people fall for the bait and end up spending $90-100 within 2 months of a $60 game coming out, well that's at the fault of the consumers showing EA and other publishers its alright to put a price tag of $60 on a game but then charge $100 after $40 of stripped out content that was ready at launch but pulled out to be monetized.

"The game is not even out yet when are your next 3 expansions and 17 DLCs?" just shows publishers that its fine to do that. Please stop asking for expansions before the game even launches, same with DLC, and any other things, if you show your willing to be milked for all your worth why shouldn't the publishers do exactly that, your the one asking to be milked.

I love you...

[Sy]

Why do questions like this exist, where people are wanting to pay extra money for more content when they don't even have the original content yet? Day 1 DLC exists only because companies see questions like this, if people would actually refuse to buy a game until a price drop when companies pull this it will reduce these types of behavior, but as long as publishers see people going and buying say ME3 or Kingdoms of Amalur for $60, and then turn around and spend another $10 day 1 DLC and then another $10 a month down the line for another DLC, why wouldn't they just strip content out of the games and sell them as Day 1 DLC...

You can not really blame companies like EA for this, if EA does it once, ok whatever, but if people fall for the bait and end up spending $90-100 within 2 months of a $60 game coming out, well that's at the fault of the consumers showing EA and other publishers its alright to put a price tag of $60 on a game but then charge $100 after $40 of stripped out content that was ready at launch but pulled out to be monetized.

"The game is not even out yet when are your next 3 expansions and 17 DLCs?" just shows publishers that its fine to do that. Please stop asking for expansions before the game even launches, same with DLC, and any other things, if you show your willing to be milked for all your worth why shouldn't the publishers do exactly that, your the one asking to be milked.

i agree reagarding your "blame people who buy that, not the company who's making money", but buying a day 1 dlc for a singleplayer game and asking how long it will usually take for expansions in an mmo that -- guess what -- focuses on expansions, is definitely not a fair comparison. especially seeing how anet seems way less focused on the "highest profit with least amount of work"-attitude that ea has, but rather on "make it awesome to profit from many happy fans".

do you think every wow fan who was looking for a release date of mop is at fault for ea making good money with their greedy policy?

[Deleted]

Actually no content was 'pulled out' in the case of ME3 (I know there was some beat-em-up type game where this was the case). Most software is finished at least 3 months before it is released; QA, compiling, shipping, etc taking up these remaining 3 months. This means that generally the creative team has very little to do for the next 3 months, so they might as well create more stuff.

Choosing whether you offer this 'stuff' for free or not is another conversation entirely.

[Sy]

Actually no content was 'pulled out' in the case of ME3 (I know there was some beat-em-up type game where this was the case). Most software is finished at least 3 months before it is released; QA, compiling, shipping, etc taking up these remaining 3 months. This means that generally all of your creative team have very little to do for the next 3 months, so they might as well create more stuff.

Choosing to offer this 'stuff' for free on day 1 or not is of course another conversation entirely.

3 months is way too long for today's games. most get worked on until a few weeks before release, afaik.

and in this specific example, the dlc beeing available on day one is only one of the reasons for why it's so frowned upon, the other mainly beeing that it is not something optional that has been added, but a major and important part of the story of the default version.

[Fencers]

Why do questions like this exist, where people are wanting to pay extra money for more content when they don't even have the original content yet? Day 1 DLC exists only because companies see questions like this, if people would actually refuse to buy a game until a price drop when companies pull this it will reduce these types of behavior, but as long as publishers see people going and buying say ME3 or Kingdoms of Amalur for $60, and then turn around and spend another $10 day 1 DLC and then another $10 a month down the line for another DLC, why wouldn't they just strip content out of the games and sell them as Day 1 DLC... <snip>

Not sure why day1 DLC is bad. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Gaming is hardly the only industry that charges per access & for premium content. Seems pretty silly to be up in arms over.

[Deleted]

Let's hope so. Don't fancy waiting even longer!
And yh, no confirmed Asian release - doesn't seem like they care overmuch. But surely, surely it will be.

Oh...an actual release date OP? June 29th!

So what's the deal with you playing it SB? Was there just no chance of getting the last beta working over there?

[Sy]

Not sure why day1 DLC is bad. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

it's not bad in itself, it just more obviously greedy than most publishers are -- even though we all know that companies are always profit oriented.

but when the dlc is a requirement to play the full game with all important story parts, then it is bad and becoming a problem.

[Fencers]

What DLC is required to play a game exactly? Story is not gameplay.

[Hockeyhacker]

Not sure why day1 DLC is bad. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Gaming is hardly the only industry that charges per access & for premium content. Seems pretty silly to be up in arms over.

If its done properly after the approval stage and if it is but a minor thing irrelevant to the plot its not to bad to do, but when its a major part of the storyline that to have full enjoyment of the game you must buy, then yeah that is bad day 1 DLC.

Though you didn't seem to notice it was more about consumers asking to get nickle and dimed and then wounder why they are getting nickle and dimed, then day 1 DLC itself... $10 for a few skins and some crap that makes your game easier sure that can be day 1 DLC that is something not important and why would I want to make a game easier anyways, but yes I find charging $80 on day 1 for a $60 game to get major parts of the story that make the game feel incomplete without paying that $20 hidden fee offensive, but I don't blame the publishers at this point since consumers have shown its ok for them to do so.

Their is a pretty fun little game that makes fun of this by the name of "DLC Quest", but either way the point was on how consumers asking to be milked before the cow is even born yet is bad consumerism and leads to companies obliging and charging for things in game they would have otherwise included before finding out people are wanting to pay extra for it.

[Sy]

What DLC is required to play a game exactly? Story is not gameplay.

i did specifically say "requirement to play the full game with all important story parts", not "requirement to play the full game in terms of gameplay". if you personally are fine with not having the full story, as long as you can shoot all the things in all the different ways, i'm happy for you^^

i personally, as well as many, many other people, value a good story (including story-telling, characters, etc) more than pretty much anything else in games.


anyway, i think we are going a bit too far off-topic now (talking about what we value in games, instead of the gw2 release date), so let's keep it at that.
you are welcome to pm me though, if you feel like continuing

[Deleted]

Release: Soon™
Expansion: 6-12 months

Pretty much this. I'm really hoping for a summer vacation release tbh, it would suck to have a summer without GW2..

[Fencers]

i did specifically say "requirement to play the full game with all important story parts", not "requirement to play the full game in terms of gameplay". if you personally are fine with not having the full story, as long as you can shoot all the things in all the different ways, i'm happy for you^^

Yes, but the statement is nonsensical. DLC is rarely a requirement to play a game. At least I know of no game that is non-functioning w/o DLC.

Games are expressly, chiefly and only about gameplay. They can't exist as games without. It's not subjective matter- that is what they are by form, function and being.

[Sy]

[stuff]

i'll just ask you to read the later part of my last post again, and to act upon it

[DrakeWurrum]

When it's done.

[Deleted]

PC Games can go from Gold to Launch in less than 2 weeks. Often it's even less than that.

Consoles are the ones that take ages to release because Microsoft and Sony both have a lengthy authentication and Q/A process that can drag on for months. That's also the reason we see so much day 1 DLC (although it really should be free).

Since GW2 is a PC game, this whole day 1 DLC is a moot point.

[Glytch]

What DLC is required to play a game exactly? Story is not gameplay.

it is for ME3, which is basically the example they are using

[DrakeWurrum]

PC Games can go from Gold to Launch in less than 2 weeks. Often it's even less than that.

Not when it comes to MMORPGs. Good ones anyways.

[Collected]

Not when it comes to MMORPGs. Good ones anyways.

Is it really that important with a game that checks for updates every time you launch it? The version on the CDs could be several patches old by the time the servers go live.

[Dodrin]

Yes, but the statement is nonsensical. DLC is rarely a requirement to play a game. At least I know of no game that is non-functioning w/o DLC.

Games are expressly, chiefly and only about gameplay. They can't exist as games without. It's not subjective matter- that is what they are by form, function and being.

This is your opinion, Fencers. I personally do not buy a console/single player game unless it has a full, flushed out story. Of course gameplay matters too, but to say story doesn't matter in a game is subjective.

I also wouldn't have a problem with day 1 DLC if the price of games operated off of some reasonable principle of pricing. As it is it's $60 for a new console game, period. Doesn't matter if it's Assassin's Creed which can be beat in a handful of hours even while doing everything in it, or an Elderscrolls game, with potentially hundreds of hours. Once a game is priced according to its actual amount of content, then day 1 DLC can start making sense.

[DrakeWurrum]

Is it really that important with a game that checks for updates every time you launch it? The version on the CDs could be several patches old by the time the servers go live.

Yes, it is important. First impressions are key. Remember that SWTOR launched early with the mindset of "We can fix it in patches" and the community did not take it well, despite the game on it's own still being decent.

In addition, why should we pay for an incomplete game? Why shouldn't ANet deliver on a fully finished, high-quality product right off the bat?