Those options are not the same as saying to sub along with the option to buy additional content...
1) SUB no DLC
2) SUB and DLC
In the sentence, the word 'subscription' implies an option. The phrase "option of being able to buy content seperately" explicitly refers to another option. The phrase "along with" suggests that they should both be options. Therefore, if one were to paraphrase the sentence, it could read out like this: "Why not have the option of subscribing and the option of buying content seperately."
Furthermore, logically, the suggestion you fathomed would lead to a contextual inconsistency.
The word subscription might imply an option to you. No idea why that would be the case, mind you. That being said, the wise man realizes that when communicating with standard terminology something that may have special meaning to himself that he should elaborate upon any of those special meanings so as to avoid any possible confusion.
The wise man would not ask "So why not just have a subscription along with the option of being able to buy content seperately?" when he was asking "So why not just have the option of a subscription, being able to buy content separately, or doing neither?"
Since the two statements are obviously different... as I previously explained.
Had you done so, Malevil would not have replied to you in the manner that he did...nor would I be sitting here explaining rudimentary English...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
The word subscription might imply an option to you. No idea why that would be the case, mind you. That being said, the wise man realizes that when communicating with standard terminology something that may have special meaning to himself that he should elaborate upon any of those special meanings so as to avoid any possible confusion.
The wise man would not ask "So why not just have a subscription along with the option of being able to buy content seperately?" when he was asking "So why not just have the option of a subscription, being able to buy content separately, or doing neither?"
Since the two statements are obviously different... as I previously explained.
Had you done so, Malevil would not have replied to you in the manner that he did...nor would I be sitting here explaining rudimentary English...
Oh no. It implies an option based on the context of the situation in which we are presented. To interpret the sentence as one requiring a subscription in order to play the game would go entirely out of context as it would defy how Guild Wars 2 is being advertised, created, and sold: as a B2P game. Such an interpretation would make no sense and would be absolutely unnecessary given the context of things and, naturally, the other interpretation, that Guild Wars 2 should have the option of allowing for subscriptions, would be the only possible understanding.
I would much rather pay a subscirption than DLC. I mean, I would rather not buy any content related stuff at all (I'll buy cosmetics and junk). The reason I believe subscription is better is because then everyone would be even, you don't have 5 people with a certain dungeon, then another 5 without becuase they haven't had the time/ wanting to buy it. With a sub., it will be updating it automatically (assuming they would do it that way). Now if they had a sub. AND a DLC, I simply won't get the game. Now, if all they sell content wise is dungeons, then I'll be fine with it, as long as they don't get anything special from those dungeons such as awesome weapons, armour, etc. The dungeons will each have a different story, and maybe even costumes at the end (like you have to beat the dungeon, then you'll get a costume) and weapon skins that don't affect the weapon stats itself. So yeah, I would rather pay a sub. than have to buy some new content over and over and over, becuase sometimes I just may not be able to, or it'll be gone before I get there to buy it. I'm sure that will aplpy to other people.
The word subscription might imply an option to you. No idea why that would be the case, mind you. That being said, the wise man realizes that when communicating with standard terminology something that may have special meaning to himself that he should elaborate upon any of those special meanings so as to avoid any possible confusion.
The wise man would not ask "So why not just have a subscription along with the option of being able to buy content seperately?" when he was asking "So why not just have the option of a subscription, being able to buy content separately, or doing neither?"
Since the two statements are obviously different... as I previously explained.
Had you done so, Malevil would not have replied to you in the manner that he did...nor would I be sitting here explaining rudimentary English...
Oh no. It implies an option based on the context of the situation in which we are presented. To interpret the sentence as one requiring a subscription in order to play the game would go entirely out of context as it would defy how Guild Wars 2 is being advertised, created, and sold: as a B2P game. Such an interpretation would make no sense and would be absolutely unnecessary given the context of things and, naturally, the other interpretation, that Guild Wars 2 should have the option of allowing for subscriptions, would be the only possible understanding.
You were assuming a context not evidenced within the specfics of the discussion at hand. In the post where you referenced ArenaNet stating that the game is B2P, you also used the term MMORPG - opening the scope of the conversation to a broader content - a more general context. You did not confine the discussion simply to the B2P model ArenaNet is offering.
Even there, in your additional statement - you did not attempt to maintain such a context. This thread involves discussion beyond just ArenaNet's model. Malevil even asked you if that is what you are saying. Rather than elaborate or clarify your statement, you attacked his reading comprehension. Meanwhile, it continued to appear to myself at least - that you were the one having the comprehension issues. You even continue to take the scope of the conversation beyond just GW2/B2P by discussing DDO as well. Your context is obviously your own...not that shared by the group...as it changes to suit you.
All of that aside though, we return to what you meant with your question:
If ArenaNet is going to be doing DLC, why do they not simply offer the options of Subscription, DLC, or just the original box B2P (+ expansions)...?
Given your apparent preference for the third option there...why does it matter in the least whether they offer a subscription (a form of VIP status, if you will) or DLC?
If you only want to play the B2P aspect of the game (along with any expansions) - then that is all you will be playing, no?
And as Malevil pointed out, many people would prefer the DLC option over a subscription. It is part of that hybrid F2P/cash shop mentality - in regard to content - you only pay for what you want... which generally speaking, is no different than deciding whether or not you want to buy an expansion. You do not have to buy an expansion. You do not have to buy the DLC. With a subscription, you may very well end up paying for content that does not interest you in the least.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
I would much rather pay a subscirption than DLC. I mean, I would rather not buy any content related stuff at all (I'll buy cosmetics and junk). The reason I believe subscription is better is because then everyone would be even, you don't have 5 people with a certain dungeon, then another 5 without becuase they haven't had the time/ wanting to buy it. With a sub., it will be updating it automatically (assuming they would do it that way). Now if they had a sub. AND a DLC, I simply won't get the game. Now, if all they sell content wise is dungeons, then I'll be fine with it, as long as they don't get anything special from those dungeons such as awesome weapons, armour, etc. The dungeons will each have a different story, and maybe even costumes at the end (like you have to beat the dungeon, then you'll get a costume) and weapon skins that don't affect the weapon stats itself. So yeah, I would rather pay a sub. than have to buy some new content over and over and over, becuase sometimes I just may not be able to, or it'll be gone before I get there to buy it. I'm sure that will aplpy to other people.
You face the issue of paying for content that you do not care about. Consider the "traditional MMO" for example:
Raiding
PvP
Those are the typical "endgame" characterisitcs of "traditional MMOs"...no?
Thomas does not Raid.
Richard does not PvP.
Harold does both.
Each is paying $15 a month - yet, they are not participating in the same amount of content.
If Raid content were sold as DLC... Thomas and Harold would buy it. Richard would pass.
If PvP content were sold as DLC... Richard and Harold would buy it. Thomas would pass.
Other suggestions have included reduced subscription costs. Perhaps both Thomas and Richard pay less per month than Harold, since they are not accessing that particular form of content. You kind of get into tiered subscription models at that point. But that is with a subscription model still. For many people with B2P, DLC works because they do not have to buy "parts of the game" that do not interest them. Using Thomas, Richard, and Harold again as an example:
Game X costs $60. Game X includes both PvP and Raiding.
If there were an option to buy Game Y (Game X w/o Raiding) and Game Z (Game X w/o PvP) at a reduced cost, would not Thomas and Richard want to avail themselves of that? Meanwhile, Harold would be more than happy to buy Game X since he does both...
That being said...yes, the concept of buying dungeons in the store becomes an interesting one. ArenaNet has stated that gear will be more important in GW2 (though PvP will still be artificially balanced so that the gear will not affect it) - so you do run into the possibility there on the PvE side that if a dungeon that provides better gear is available through the store, that in essence - as far as PvE goes - you could buy better gear through the store. Once again though, with ArenaNet wanting to maintain a form of esportism around the PvP in GW2 - that better gear would not affect PvP.
And in regard to the "store" - have to keep in mind, that they may be talking about the "NCSoft Store" as opposed to the "In-Game Store"... don't know if it will be something that is DLC unlocked from the store or bought in game from the store, etc, etc... even there, can't really say 100% that it will even come to be. Don't know what the additional content will be - expansions, etc - then it is no different than buying regular expansions would it?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
also, i think sub games tend to sit back and enter cruise mode on innovating. with dlc, there's at least a financial motivator for the developer to keep improving. more importantly: there's a financial motivator to give out GOOD content.
look at eve and wow. both their latest expansions are proving to be highly controversial among their own customers. yet, if they were dlc, it may have been added a little more smoothly and without all the fuss. it's also probable that MORE interaction between the company and the community would have mitigated any negative reaction.
with sub games (eve excepted) there's a great deal of distance between the devs and the customers.
personally, i hope dlc becomes the norm. i want more for my bucks.
You were assuming a context not evidenced within the specfics of the discussion at hand. In the post where you referenced ArenaNet stating that the game is B2P, you also used the term MMORPG - opening the scope of the conversation to a broader content - a more general context. You did not confine the discussion simply to the B2P model ArenaNet is offering.
Even there, in your additional statement - you did not attempt to maintain such a context. This thread involves discussion beyond just ArenaNet's model. Malevil even asked you if that is what you are saying. Rather than elaborate or clarify your statement, you attacked his reading comprehension. Meanwhile, it continued to appear to myself at least - that you were the one having the comprehension issues. You even continue to take the scope of the conversation beyond just GW2/B2P by discussing DDO as well. Your context is obviously your own...not that shared by the group...as it changes to suit you.
All of that aside though, we return to what you meant with your question:
If ArenaNet is going to be doing DLC, why do they not simply offer the options of Subscription, DLC, or just the original box B2P (+ expansions)...?
Given your apparent preference for the third option there...why does it matter in the least whether they offer a subscription (a form of VIP status, if you will) or DLC?
If you only want to play the B2P aspect of the game (along with any expansions) - then that is all you will be playing, no?
And as Malevil pointed out, many people would prefer the DLC option over a subscription. It is part of that hybrid F2P/cash shop mentality - in regard to content - you only pay for what you want... which generally speaking, is no different than deciding whether or not you want to buy an expansion. You do not have to buy an expansion. You do not have to buy the DLC. With a subscription, you may very well end up paying for content that does not interest you in the least.
Ah, a valid, in certain aspects, yet rather ingenuous point. By including multiple posts, you must also include multiple contexts, for not all of them make reference to the same argument. As such, the reference to "MMORPG's" serves only to point out the argument that games such as Guild Wars 2 are in constant development, and that people, who buy a game advertised as B2P, don't expect to be charged, atleast monthly, for additional content. As for the reference to DDO, such was only utilized to compare and further enlighten the audience on my proposed idea. The central argument, however, revolves around Guild Wars 2, and as such, certain contexts must be defined for the discussion to flow accordingly. For instance, the fact that Guild Wars 2 is advertised and will be sold as a B2P game comes off as a stringent parameter for the formulation of the central argument being considered thus far. Such ensures that the conception of an argument in which this parameter is not met leads the argument to become contextually inappropriate and unsound. Therefore, one would lack the basis of sensibility and actuality to suggest otherwise.
My preference, in reality, never strayed towards the no-subscription, no-DLC model. I do, however, specify that my preference lies in subscriptions over DLC's, granted the ease of maintaining a subscription as opposed to individually buying every DLC released for the game.
also, i think sub games tend to sit back and enter cruise mode on innovating. with dlc, there's at least a financial motivator for the developer to keep improving. more importantly: there's a financial motivator to give out GOOD content.
look at eve and wow. both their latest expansions are proving to be highly controversial among their own customers. yet, if they were dlc, it may have been added a little more smoothly and without all the fuss. it's also probable that MORE interaction between the company and the community would have mitigated any negative reaction.
with sub games (eve excepted) there's a great deal of distance between the devs and the customers.
personally, i hope dlc becomes the norm. i want more for my bucks.
When i look at the F2P (whomever made up that totally wrong name) game like Lotro, i prefer to sub because that is cheeper with that buisenessmodel... espescially with me juts playing the game for a few months (one trip to max level)
But whenever i would start a new game that i want to play for years... I would go the pay for vontent road...
In my orriginal proposition.... DLC would allways be an option as it will not be the money hug that games like EQ2E and LOTRO are right now... there should never be 100's of dollars of DLC like we see in LOTRO and EQ2 available... thats just not fair.. And i dont expect Arenanet to go that way...
Next to that "There will be no sub option available for GW2" So much is clear by now. It does not fit their buiseness model.
The biggest possible problem i foresee with DLC is that it could be to expensive.... I am not going to pay $20 for a single dungeon.... If they want to do DLC right, they'll have to make enough high quallity stuff to make enough money and not just a few things they push every 2 months for a lot of money...
Its better to earn a quick dime then a slow quarter.....
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
The biggest possible problem i foresee with DLC is that it could be to expensive.... I am not going to pay $20 for a single dungeon.... If they want to do DLC right, they'll have to make enough high quallity stuff to make enough money and not just a few things they push every 2 months for a lot of money...
Its better to earn a quick dime then a slow quarter.....
that's the joy, in the end, of dlc. you get to CHOOSE what you buy. with sub, you keep paying, often for nothing more than logging in. with dlc, you're paying for what you want.
and if you don't want to pay 20 bucks for one lousy dungeon - there's no need.
The biggest possible problem i foresee with DLC is that it could be to expensive.... I am not going to pay $20 for a single dungeon.... If they want to do DLC right, they'll have to make enough high quallity stuff to make enough money and not just a few things they push every 2 months for a lot of money...
Its better to earn a quick dime then a slow quarter.....
that's the joy, in the end, of dlc. you get to CHOOSE what you buy. with sub, you keep paying, often for nothing more than logging in. with dlc, you're paying for what you want.
and if you don't want to pay 20 bucks for one lousy dungeon - there's no need.
win.
Tough if they used prices like that for the DLC.... then i think that the naysayers will become right... PRices need to be reasonable and everyone will nuy it... Charge $20 for a single dungeon, and you might wake up with people leaving your game behind because they feel exloited by your pricing schemes...
So what would be a reasonable price for a single new dungeon?
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
So what would be a reasonable price for a single new dungeon?
Dungeons shouldn't be sold as an individual DLC in the first place
I would much rather pay for complete expansion packs, with DLC as optional fluff, not playable content, such like weapon skin, alternate weapon packs, costumes, festival items, possible mounts, but nothing core to story elements or gameplay.
Look at Bioware, all their major releases get review ratings from 8.5 upwards, but their DLC is like average 7 at best. Thats because 2-3 hours of content does not worth much, what you mostly paid for in the expanion packs are for the engine and graphical updates, new voice overs, modelling. DLC tend to be re-used model and reharshed gameplay.
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.
The biggest possible problem i foresee with DLC is that it could be to expensive.... I am not going to pay $20 for a single dungeon.... If they want to do DLC right, they'll have to make enough high quallity stuff to make enough money and not just a few things they push every 2 months for a lot of money...
Its better to earn a quick dime then a slow quarter.....
that's the joy, in the end, of dlc. you get to CHOOSE what you buy. with sub, you keep paying, often for nothing more than logging in. with dlc, you're paying for what you want.
and if you don't want to pay 20 bucks for one lousy dungeon - there's no need.
win.
Tough if they used prices like that for the DLC.... then i think that the naysayers will become right... PRices need to be reasonable and everyone will nuy it... Charge $20 for a single dungeon, and you might wake up with people leaving your game behind because they feel exloited by your pricing schemes...
So what would be a reasonable price for a single new dungeon?
you know, sub doesn't equal quality.
dlc has more potential for quality because you're right - no one would pay 20 bucks for one dungeon. who would? you would CHOOSE what you want to pay for, as i said. so, the devs would need to make it worth your money. hence, you'd get more quality.
is that a hard concept to grasp, because, you know, i could maybe put a few diagrams up for you if you need.
The problem I have with dlc is that I don't want to pay for Alecia goes to the market dlc. In which she goes through areas that were already IN the game, you pretty much pay for a short fanfic in an old area.
Add to that they come out with more dlc a few weeks later, how much is this stuff going to cost us? I'd rather pay $50 for a expansion that lasts a while than a combined $40 over a few months with less than 3 hours of gameplay put together.
Opps! New area released! That'll be another $10 dollars. Oh yeah, there's nothing signifigant in it except an npc walking around spouting some lore.
Doing a price comparison to the $60-50 dollars you pay for the whole game, $10 or even $6 bucks for an hour of gameplay is a rip-off. Has anyone here actually had a good experience with DLC that wasn't going back through an old zone that was on the CD and experiencing some short dialogue that had nothing signifigant to contribute to the story?
The problem I have with dlc is that I don't want to pay for Alecia goes to the market dlc. In which she goes through areas that were already IN the game, you pretty much pay for a short fanfic in an old area.
Add to that they come out with more dlc a few weeks later, how much is this stuff going to cost us? I'd rather pay $50 for a expansion that lasts a while than a combined $40 over a few months with less than 3 hours of gameplay put together.
Opps! New area released! That'll be another $10 dollars. Oh yeah, there's nothing signifigant in it except an npc walking around spouting some lore.
Doing a price comparison to the $60-50 dollars you pay for the whole game, $10 or even $6 bucks for an hour of gameplay is a rip-off. Has anyone here actually had a good experience with DLC that wasn't going back through an old zone that was on the CD and experiencing some short dialogue that had nothing signifigant to contribute to the story?
You somehow dont seem to understand that Arenanet has stated that all expansions wether Boxed or DLC, Huge or mini will be the same quallity as the orriginal game or better.. And even if you buy all possible DLC you'll end up with more content then a sub AAA game at a rate cheeper then a subscription...
Its a win win.....DLC makes sure that there will be continuously new content available as soon as people reach max level....It needs to be, because without new fresh content from time to time people will soon move on... And thats something you dont want even in a B2P game ... you allways want to have full servers and not only the one month after a boxed expansion
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
You face the issue of paying for content that you do not care about. Consider the "traditional MMO" for example:
Raiding
PvP
Those are the typical "endgame" characterisitcs of "traditional MMOs"...no?
Thomas does not Raid.
Richard does not PvP.
Harold does both.
Each is paying $15 a month - yet, they are not participating in the same amount of content.
If Raid content were sold as DLC... Thomas and Harold would buy it. Richard would pass.
If PvP content were sold as DLC... Richard and Harold would buy it. Thomas would pass.
If Raid content were sold as DLC... Harold would buy it. Thomas would want to buy it too, but doesn't care about shitty DLCs. Richard would pass.
---> Harold ends up raiding alone and feels ripped off.
Except that you foprget that HArold isn't alone and that atleast 70% of people bought the DLC thats great vallue for the money
If PvP content were sold as DLC... Harold would buy it. Richard would want to buy it too, but doesn't care about shitty DLCs. Thomas would pass.
---> Harold ends up PvPing alone and feels ripped off.
Except that you foprget that HArold isn't alone and that atleast 70% of people bought the DLC thats great vallue for the money
At least 70%?? Where did you rip that number? Out of your ass?
It's more like 10%.
My main message was.. DLCs rip the community apart. The game ends up with scrooges who buy almost everything, then we have some guys who pick only some DLCs.. and then we have guys who buy nothing.
What's the end result? Only a few guys have the same DLCs. The game basically forces you to buy DLCs in order to play with a friend. The one with less DLCs has to buy more or if both are buying DLCs (most likely different ones) it forces both of them to buy the missing DLCs.
You face the issue of paying for content that you do not care about. Consider the "traditional MMO" for example:
Raiding
PvP
Those are the typical "endgame" characterisitcs of "traditional MMOs"...no?
Thomas does not Raid.
Richard does not PvP.
Harold does both.
Each is paying $15 a month - yet, they are not participating in the same amount of content.
If Raid content were sold as DLC... Thomas and Harold would buy it. Richard would pass.
If PvP content were sold as DLC... Richard and Harold would buy it. Thomas would pass.
If Raid content were sold as DLC... Harold would buy it. Thomas would want to buy it too, but doesn't care about shitty DLCs. Richard would pass.
---> Harold ends up raiding alone and feels ripped off.
Except that you foprget that HArold isn't alone and that atleast 70% of people bought the DLC thats great vallue for the money
If PvP content were sold as DLC... Harold would buy it. Richard would want to buy it too, but doesn't care about shitty DLCs. Thomas would pass.
---> Harold ends up PvPing alone and feels ripped off.
Except that you foprget that HArold isn't alone and that atleast 70% of people bought the DLC thats great vallue for the money
At least 70%?? Where did you rip that number? Out of your ass?
It's more like 10%.
My main message was.. DLCs rip the community apart. The game ends up with scrooges who buy almost everything, then we have some guys who pick only some DLCs.. and then we have guys who buy nothing.
What's the end result? Only a few guys have all same DLCs, in order to play with friends the game basically forces the one with less DLCs to buy more.. or if both are buying DLCs (most likely different ones) it forces both of them to buy the missing DLCs.
From buiseness reports of X-Box games... where top quallity DLC was bought by 70% of the playerbase
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
You face the issue of paying for content that you do not care about. Consider the "traditional MMO" for example:
Raiding
PvP
Those are the typical "endgame" characterisitcs of "traditional MMOs"...no?
Thomas does not Raid.
Richard does not PvP.
Harold does both.
Each is paying $15 a month - yet, they are not participating in the same amount of content.
If Raid content were sold as DLC... Thomas and Harold would buy it. Richard would pass.
If PvP content were sold as DLC... Richard and Harold would buy it. Thomas would pass.
If Raid content were sold as DLC... Harold would buy it. Thomas would want to buy it too, but doesn't care about shitty DLCs. Richard would pass.
---> Harold ends up raiding alone and feels ripped off.
Except that you foprget that HArold isn't alone and that atleast 70% of people bought the DLC thats great vallue for the money
If PvP content were sold as DLC... Harold would buy it. Richard would want to buy it too, but doesn't care about shitty DLCs. Thomas would pass.
---> Harold ends up PvPing alone and feels ripped off.
Except that you foprget that HArold isn't alone and that atleast 70% of people bought the DLC thats great vallue for the money
At least 70%?? Where did you rip that number? Out of your ass?
It's more like 10%.
My main message was.. DLCs rip the community apart. The game ends up with scrooges who buy almost everything, then we have some guys who pick only some DLCs.. and then we have guys who buy nothing.
What's the end result? Only a few guys have all same DLCs, in order to play with friends the game basically forces the one with less DLCs to buy more.. or if both are buying DLCs (most likely different ones) it forces both of them to buy the missing DLCs.
From buiseness reports of X-Box games... where top quallity DLC was bought by 70% of the playerbase
Just to remind you: X-box is NOT a PC. Only filthy rich kids are buying consoles and their overpriced (60€+) games. The amount of money they have also affects their habit of spending money on low quality DLCs.
Just to remind you: X-box is NOT a PC. Only filthy rich kids are buying consoles and their overpriced (60€+) games. The amount of money they have also affects their habit of spending money on low quality DLCs.
So true. Except few interesting games, most made for ps3 and nintendo, like 95% of the rest are uninteresting action or shooting games.
Comments
The word subscription might imply an option to you. No idea why that would be the case, mind you. That being said, the wise man realizes that when communicating with standard terminology something that may have special meaning to himself that he should elaborate upon any of those special meanings so as to avoid any possible confusion.
The wise man would not ask "So why not just have a subscription along with the option of being able to buy content seperately?" when he was asking "So why not just have the option of a subscription, being able to buy content separately, or doing neither?"
Since the two statements are obviously different... as I previously explained.
Had you done so, Malevil would not have replied to you in the manner that he did...nor would I be sitting here explaining rudimentary English...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Oh no. It implies an option based on the context of the situation in which we are presented. To interpret the sentence as one requiring a subscription in order to play the game would go entirely out of context as it would defy how Guild Wars 2 is being advertised, created, and sold: as a B2P game. Such an interpretation would make no sense and would be absolutely unnecessary given the context of things and, naturally, the other interpretation, that Guild Wars 2 should have the option of allowing for subscriptions, would be the only possible understanding.
I would much rather pay a subscirption than DLC. I mean, I would rather not buy any content related stuff at all (I'll buy cosmetics and junk). The reason I believe subscription is better is because then everyone would be even, you don't have 5 people with a certain dungeon, then another 5 without becuase they haven't had the time/ wanting to buy it. With a sub., it will be updating it automatically (assuming they would do it that way). Now if they had a sub. AND a DLC, I simply won't get the game. Now, if all they sell content wise is dungeons, then I'll be fine with it, as long as they don't get anything special from those dungeons such as awesome weapons, armour, etc. The dungeons will each have a different story, and maybe even costumes at the end (like you have to beat the dungeon, then you'll get a costume) and weapon skins that don't affect the weapon stats itself. So yeah, I would rather pay a sub. than have to buy some new content over and over and over, becuase sometimes I just may not be able to, or it'll be gone before I get there to buy it. I'm sure that will aplpy to other people.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation
You were assuming a context not evidenced within the specfics of the discussion at hand. In the post where you referenced ArenaNet stating that the game is B2P, you also used the term MMORPG - opening the scope of the conversation to a broader content - a more general context. You did not confine the discussion simply to the B2P model ArenaNet is offering.
Even there, in your additional statement - you did not attempt to maintain such a context. This thread involves discussion beyond just ArenaNet's model. Malevil even asked you if that is what you are saying. Rather than elaborate or clarify your statement, you attacked his reading comprehension. Meanwhile, it continued to appear to myself at least - that you were the one having the comprehension issues. You even continue to take the scope of the conversation beyond just GW2/B2P by discussing DDO as well. Your context is obviously your own...not that shared by the group...as it changes to suit you.
All of that aside though, we return to what you meant with your question:
If ArenaNet is going to be doing DLC, why do they not simply offer the options of Subscription, DLC, or just the original box B2P (+ expansions)...?
Given your apparent preference for the third option there...why does it matter in the least whether they offer a subscription (a form of VIP status, if you will) or DLC?
If you only want to play the B2P aspect of the game (along with any expansions) - then that is all you will be playing, no?
And as Malevil pointed out, many people would prefer the DLC option over a subscription. It is part of that hybrid F2P/cash shop mentality - in regard to content - you only pay for what you want... which generally speaking, is no different than deciding whether or not you want to buy an expansion. You do not have to buy an expansion. You do not have to buy the DLC. With a subscription, you may very well end up paying for content that does not interest you in the least.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
You face the issue of paying for content that you do not care about. Consider the "traditional MMO" for example:
Raiding
PvP
Those are the typical "endgame" characterisitcs of "traditional MMOs"...no?
Thomas does not Raid.
Richard does not PvP.
Harold does both.
Each is paying $15 a month - yet, they are not participating in the same amount of content.
If Raid content were sold as DLC... Thomas and Harold would buy it. Richard would pass.
If PvP content were sold as DLC... Richard and Harold would buy it. Thomas would pass.
Other suggestions have included reduced subscription costs. Perhaps both Thomas and Richard pay less per month than Harold, since they are not accessing that particular form of content. You kind of get into tiered subscription models at that point. But that is with a subscription model still. For many people with B2P, DLC works because they do not have to buy "parts of the game" that do not interest them. Using Thomas, Richard, and Harold again as an example:
Game X costs $60. Game X includes both PvP and Raiding.
If there were an option to buy Game Y (Game X w/o Raiding) and Game Z (Game X w/o PvP) at a reduced cost, would not Thomas and Richard want to avail themselves of that? Meanwhile, Harold would be more than happy to buy Game X since he does both...
That being said...yes, the concept of buying dungeons in the store becomes an interesting one. ArenaNet has stated that gear will be more important in GW2 (though PvP will still be artificially balanced so that the gear will not affect it) - so you do run into the possibility there on the PvE side that if a dungeon that provides better gear is available through the store, that in essence - as far as PvE goes - you could buy better gear through the store. Once again though, with ArenaNet wanting to maintain a form of esportism around the PvP in GW2 - that better gear would not affect PvP.
And in regard to the "store" - have to keep in mind, that they may be talking about the "NCSoft Store" as opposed to the "In-Game Store"... don't know if it will be something that is DLC unlocked from the store or bought in game from the store, etc, etc... even there, can't really say 100% that it will even come to be. Don't know what the additional content will be - expansions, etc - then it is no different than buying regular expansions would it?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
i'd rather pay for dlc than sub.
that way i know what my money's buying.
also, i think sub games tend to sit back and enter cruise mode on innovating. with dlc, there's at least a financial motivator for the developer to keep improving. more importantly: there's a financial motivator to give out GOOD content.
look at eve and wow. both their latest expansions are proving to be highly controversial among their own customers. yet, if they were dlc, it may have been added a little more smoothly and without all the fuss. it's also probable that MORE interaction between the company and the community would have mitigated any negative reaction.
with sub games (eve excepted) there's a great deal of distance between the devs and the customers.
personally, i hope dlc becomes the norm. i want more for my bucks.
Ah, a valid, in certain aspects, yet rather ingenuous point. By including multiple posts, you must also include multiple contexts, for not all of them make reference to the same argument. As such, the reference to "MMORPG's" serves only to point out the argument that games such as Guild Wars 2 are in constant development, and that people, who buy a game advertised as B2P, don't expect to be charged, atleast monthly, for additional content. As for the reference to DDO, such was only utilized to compare and further enlighten the audience on my proposed idea. The central argument, however, revolves around Guild Wars 2, and as such, certain contexts must be defined for the discussion to flow accordingly. For instance, the fact that Guild Wars 2 is advertised and will be sold as a B2P game comes off as a stringent parameter for the formulation of the central argument being considered thus far. Such ensures that the conception of an argument in which this parameter is not met leads the argument to become contextually inappropriate and unsound. Therefore, one would lack the basis of sensibility and actuality to suggest otherwise.
My preference, in reality, never strayed towards the no-subscription, no-DLC model. I do, however, specify that my preference lies in subscriptions over DLC's, granted the ease of maintaining a subscription as opposed to individually buying every DLC released for the game.
When i look at the F2P (whomever made up that totally wrong name) game like Lotro, i prefer to sub because that is cheeper with that buisenessmodel... espescially with me juts playing the game for a few months (one trip to max level)
But whenever i would start a new game that i want to play for years... I would go the pay for vontent road...
In my orriginal proposition.... DLC would allways be an option as it will not be the money hug that games like EQ2E and LOTRO are right now... there should never be 100's of dollars of DLC like we see in LOTRO and EQ2 available... thats just not fair.. And i dont expect Arenanet to go that way...
Next to that "There will be no sub option available for GW2" So much is clear by now. It does not fit their buiseness model.
The biggest possible problem i foresee with DLC is that it could be to expensive.... I am not going to pay $20 for a single dungeon.... If they want to do DLC right, they'll have to make enough high quallity stuff to make enough money and not just a few things they push every 2 months for a lot of money...
Its better to earn a quick dime then a slow quarter.....
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
that's the joy, in the end, of dlc. you get to CHOOSE what you buy. with sub, you keep paying, often for nothing more than logging in. with dlc, you're paying for what you want.
and if you don't want to pay 20 bucks for one lousy dungeon - there's no need.
win.
Tough if they used prices like that for the DLC.... then i think that the naysayers will become right... PRices need to be reasonable and everyone will nuy it... Charge $20 for a single dungeon, and you might wake up with people leaving your game behind because they feel exloited by your pricing schemes...
So what would be a reasonable price for a single new dungeon?
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Dungeons shouldn't be sold as an individual DLC in the first place
I would much rather pay for complete expansion packs, with DLC as optional fluff, not playable content, such like weapon skin, alternate weapon packs, costumes, festival items, possible mounts, but nothing core to story elements or gameplay.
Look at Bioware, all their major releases get review ratings from 8.5 upwards, but their DLC is like average 7 at best. Thats because 2-3 hours of content does not worth much, what you mostly paid for in the expanion packs are for the engine and graphical updates, new voice overs, modelling. DLC tend to be re-used model and reharshed gameplay.
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.
you know, sub doesn't equal quality.
dlc has more potential for quality because you're right - no one would pay 20 bucks for one dungeon. who would? you would CHOOSE what you want to pay for, as i said. so, the devs would need to make it worth your money. hence, you'd get more quality.
is that a hard concept to grasp, because, you know, i could maybe put a few diagrams up for you if you need.
The problem I have with dlc is that I don't want to pay for Alecia goes to the market dlc. In which she goes through areas that were already IN the game, you pretty much pay for a short fanfic in an old area.
Add to that they come out with more dlc a few weeks later, how much is this stuff going to cost us? I'd rather pay $50 for a expansion that lasts a while than a combined $40 over a few months with less than 3 hours of gameplay put together.
Opps! New area released! That'll be another $10 dollars. Oh yeah, there's nothing signifigant in it except an npc walking around spouting some lore.
Doing a price comparison to the $60-50 dollars you pay for the whole game, $10 or even $6 bucks for an hour of gameplay is a rip-off. Has anyone here actually had a good experience with DLC that wasn't going back through an old zone that was on the CD and experiencing some short dialogue that had nothing signifigant to contribute to the story?
You somehow dont seem to understand that Arenanet has stated that all expansions wether Boxed or DLC, Huge or mini will be the same quallity as the orriginal game or better.. And even if you buy all possible DLC you'll end up with more content then a sub AAA game at a rate cheeper then a subscription...
Its a win win.....DLC makes sure that there will be continuously new content available as soon as people reach max level....It needs to be, because without new fresh content from time to time people will soon move on... And thats something you dont want even in a B2P game ... you allways want to have full servers and not only the one month after a boxed expansion
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
If Raid content were sold as DLC... Harold would buy it. Thomas would want to buy it too, but doesn't care about shitty DLCs. Richard would pass.
---> Harold ends up raiding alone and feels ripped off.
If PvP content were sold as DLC... Harold would buy it. Richard would want to buy it too, but doesn't care about shitty DLCs. Thomas would pass.
---> Harold ends up PvPing alone and feels ripped off.
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
At least 70%?? Where did you rip that number? Out of your ass?
It's more like 10%.
My main message was.. DLCs rip the community apart. The game ends up with scrooges who buy almost everything, then we have some guys who pick only some DLCs.. and then we have guys who buy nothing.
What's the end result? Only a few guys have the same DLCs. The game basically forces you to buy DLCs in order to play with a friend. The one with less DLCs has to buy more or if both are buying DLCs (most likely different ones) it forces both of them to buy the missing DLCs.
From buiseness reports of X-Box games... where top quallity DLC was bought by 70% of the playerbase
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Just to remind you: X-box is NOT a PC. Only filthy rich kids are buying consoles and their overpriced (60€+) games. The amount of money they have also affects their habit of spending money on low quality DLCs.
So true. Except few interesting games, most made for ps3 and nintendo, like 95% of the rest are uninteresting action or shooting games.