Has Arenanet changed their business model?

...but which will very unlikely be more effective in actual practice than those without Mercenary Heroes doing the same party using Secondary Professions rather than Primaries in the case of team builds using multiples of a Profession where enough of the Primary doesn't exist in the standard Heroes. (the exception might be Mesmers because of Fast Casting's recharge bonus to Mesmer Spells - but that will only slow them down slightly, at least if you don't have 40/40 sets on them, rather than break the team)

Anet used to make campaigns and put an effort into this game, but then they realized something: They don't need to spend all this time and effort into making wonderful new campaigns and content, when they can just churn out mspaint constumes, name changes, mercenary heroes, etc that return 5x the profit.

Honestly, why spend months developing a new campaign, when you can just charge for features already in the game (name change/appearance change), create some simple costumes, and spend a little bit of time creating X/X heroes that copy your skin?

For years they haven't done anything substantial in relation to guild wars. They make loads more from these micro-transactions than they would ever have made from a new campaign. Thus, they just keep adding in these new things to the NCstore, and justify it with minimal updates and some rinky dinky new quests.

And since tons people buy these things and so adamantly defend anet, thats all they need to do. Some simple profession update every few months, and a new 'pack' of simple quests once in a while.

Please do provide statistical information regarding profits made by ANet/NCSoft to back this up. I absolutely can't wait to see this!

This isn't WoW, GW doesn't have the user base to make $2 million in a couple of hours by selling a mount...

You don't like what they're selling, guess what, don't buy it. They're working on a whole new game and the Live Team is like 3 people, ffs.

I would have to say yes.
Afterall it has been 6+ years since their original model---and if you dont change with the times you get left behind. They made the first significant change when they decided to stop making new chapters.....after that their original model was gone---so the point is moot.
Yes it changed. Look back to 2005 do you still have the EXACT same goals today as you did then????? probably not, why would you push this onto a company as well? Changing your business model only make sense especially in the market that anet is in. (whether I agree with the way they did it etc, is another can--50gal drum--of worms altogether).

I believe the reason they gave up on the idea of adding new chapters was the creation of 2 new classes and skills combined with additional skills for the existing classes was just impossible keep up.

There have always been paid enhancements to this game and one of the most sought after is purely cosmetic.
If you bought the collectors edition of prophesies you got the glowing hands or whatever its called.
Each collectors edition after that added something special dance emotes.
If you didn't buy it didn't get it.

I really feel that we the players created all the other add ons cosmetic or otherwise.
Players keep asking for more storage so they thought ok lets see if we can make some cash, they did so more features were added for cash.
If we didn't buy them they wouldn't keep writing them.
So I agree with you there.

Well, when it comes down to it, how people are 'interpreting' things is relevant here. You cannot say "well my opinion is this" and expect to be right and for people to care when your opinion completely contradicts actual facts. EOTN is not a campaign and is an expansion. GW2 is not a campaign and is a brand new game entirely (seriously, what? Why am I even having to say that?). Content refers to playable content, not "everything added ever". Opinions can be wrong, believe it or not, especially when your opinion is about the definitions of things that we already know for a fact what they are.

There has only been one piece of content released outside of a campaign that had to be paid extra for, which was the BMP. Which originally was a freebie to say thanks to those who had bought things during a certain time period. And was later released for everyone to purchase - after the campaigns were done, after EOTN was released, even. So since the original statement was, at it's core, "We won't charge for any content released between campaigns", they still stayed with that with the BMP, and still stay with it now. Even if they've realized that their business model isn't one that's feasible, they didn't break their original statement. At this point in time, it isn't possible for them to do so, as the period of time in which they could have is over with.

Just sort of an interesting side-note to this discussion...

There's a gent I've worked with over the years who is also a start-up contractor like me. The best way I've heard his job described (though the person was joking) was as a "Company Commitment Continuity Compliance Collator." LOL

He does basically one thing: ensures that absolutist statements (aka commitments) by developers and publishers are tracked within the development/publishing company itself.

So this is a guy who, if working for ANet/NCSoft, would have made note of the commitment made (as presented in the original post) and made sure the company was a) aware that they were making such a commitment, b) that it was actually the commitment they intended to make, and c) for the duration of his contract, inform them if something they were proposing would violate such a commitment. Any official verbiage is passed through his department... website language, packaging, press releases, etc.

Most of the companies I've worked for eventually turn that role over to one of their own people, generally in conjunction with other duties. But this thread illustrates why it is so important to ensure such commitments are tracked and honored... players never forget stuff like that. *chuckling*

It's definitely NOT a job I'd ever want... one miss of a nuance can cost a company millions. My brain just doesn't work that well. LOL

Fair enough to be concerned, but just trying to look at it as a ratio is too much of an over-simplification. For example take Hearts of the North and the Wedding Costumes: If you just look at that as a ratio, then it was 1:1 new free content to new paid content added at the same time. But that's really an apples-to-oranges comparison because the experience one gets from the added quests/storyline is a completely different type than the experience of having that costume.

And it's also worth noting that the majority of the recently added pay-for items are those various kinds of costumes. Sure if you count each costume set as an individual piece of added content then it inflates the ratio of paid to free. But each costume is a very trivial thing for them to add at this point. After the initial development work was done for the first costume set, every one thereafter is just additional artwork. So it's no surprise that they would offer numerous kinds over time - if for no other reason then because it's very cheap and easy for them to do so.

I would even argue that Mercenary Heroes likely took a relatively small amount of design/development/testing because it reused a lot of existing aspects of the game. This would be in comparison to all the design/development/testing required for things like War in Kryta, Hearts of the North, or even the Embark Beach. (Of course, none of us have enough information to accurately make such a comparison, so disregard this point if you want.)

And we have to look at this in the context of the life-time of the game as a whole. It's almost 6 years old. The sequel is being developed. We know that the many of their resources are no longer dedicated to GW1 but instead to the sequel.

In that context, it's hardly surprising that over time we would see fewer and fewer updates that add any real substance to the game - they simply don't have the resources set aside to do more.

Yes because it is far preferable to have a $60 campaign slapped out every six months, rather than regular mini-releases for free and paid for by people who like vanity items.

Back on Planet Reality, I much prefer the microtransaction model. I've bought character slots, the BMP (edit: actually, I didn't buy the BMP, I got it free with three character slots) and the campaigns through the web store, and I fully support those who choose to spend their money on costumes and such and thereby pay the salaries of the people who make the content that I play and who keep the game in running order.

It's a great deal. Those who play casually (like me) free ride off of those who play enough that vanity gear seems like good value for the money! Hurray!

Is there more paywalled content than previously? Probably! Do I care? Not in the least! After all, if something interesting enough comes out that I want to buy it, I'll buy it. And if something is all Horse Armor, then no one will buy it or the price will drop -- either way, if there's no requirement to buy it to keep playing the game, it won't affect you in the least.

So stop whining about a business model that is effective, generates salaries, and costs you zippo if you don't want it.

Opinions are not right or wrong, or contradict facts or falsehoods. They are as defined here:
So my opinion is as valid as your own, as is everyones. Unless you wish to be a dictator then only your opinion is correct/fact.

Content is anything that is added to the game, i would give you a definition of content but it is very long and does not entirely convey what we take to mean content in games. It is not just the playable aspect, it is all facets of stuff that is added.
The problem is that there is always multiple ways to say exactly the same thing. Those words that are used have multiple definitions to them, some depending on context and others not. The context of the whole statement is also in question depending on the way in which someone views it.
Nothing when written is exact and specific, only in Maths is that possible which is why it's called the pure language.

@ TheGizzy - I have worked in politics before, and am very aware of the way in which things that can be said might alter peoples perception of things. A small slip of the tongue can cost someone their career, or in business cost a company millions. It was a job that is very difficult to do as there are always words you cannot say due to their absolute definitions, but on the other side there are words that have several meanings both good and bad(which we were encouraged to use as it always leaves that little get out clause if things go wrong).
Peoples memory of bad things generally outweighs their memory of good things, so people are more likely to forget something that was mostly positive and remember the fact it didn't live up to it's full gain.

@ Verene - If you want to be technically accurate about it we are still between campaigns as the promised fourth campaign was cancelled and they said they were going to work on GW2. I do not remember them actually saying there will never be another campaign for GW ever again. So to be pedantic everything we paid for is against their statement(unless such a statement was said by Anet about them never releasing a new campaign for GW, then i am wrong, but to my recollection they haven't)

Exactly. All this uproar over Merc heroes shows to me that Anet has indeed steered in a different direction policy wise.

The competitive advantage it gives you is so minimal that I don't have an issue with it. Now if all of the sudden people start coming out with heroway builds that require you to have an extra profession from the merc. heroes then i foresee Anet making a change to how they work. Until then get over it don't buy them if you don't like/want them Have some faith in Anet's ability to recognize imbalances in the game, and adjusting appropriately... eventually.

Technically it just demonstrates the widespread perception of policy change.

I don't know that it really went against any explicit Anet policy, but there is a stronger case how this micotransaction just feels on a different order than any before it, whether that be by sheer accident or not.

Anet has changed its business model a loooong time ago, when they discovered the campaign system led to balance issues. It was back then that they decided they'd go for a new game instead, and they explained it too - that's why the GW2 announcement was made so long ago.

That meant the abandonment of the old business model, and Anet searched around for a bit and eventually settled on a primary purchase + cash shop / DLC model for GW1 and GW2.

Given the temptation that a cash shop is, Anet have so far kept themselves quite well under control, resisting the temptation of making power advantage an element of the offers.

The advantages offered by the purchaseable content have been practically negligent compared to that of the previous campaigns. In the end, Anet are trying to find stuff people want and not trying to make stuff that people would NEED.

I'm not quite happy with the fact that there are advantages, minor as they might be, and that what I'd really like hasn't been offered (I'd prefer DLC dungeons and storyline elements, myself), but it generally fully lets me keep faith in Anet - with the temptation, they have kept themselves well under control. I'd expect them to be much more inclined to selling the +25% damage to humans swords, PvP useable...

Did you know that in Global agenda, the dev team sells "boosters that are litterally Double XP and double the loot and earnings? Now that's being a little #$"(/&...

There isn't a business in this world that does not stray from its original path. If you don't evolve, or adjust to your market, your competition, and what you need to do to keep your business in competition, you collapse. I would rather have them stray, just a bit, to stay afloat, instead of being stubborn and falling through the industry cracks.

Six years later, we're still not paying a monthly fee. That was a bold thing to do 6 years ago when, unless you were a poorly designed F2P grind fest, the market dictated you had to charge a subscription.

Straying from a business model you initiated at the beginning isn't always a bad thing. Has Anet strayed? Yes, but not much, and certainly hasn't strayed from its core model. No subscription, no hidden costs.

And I'll end on this personal thought. I've been a part of this game for almost 5 years now. And aside from a few prolonged breaks of a month, or a bit more, I've entered GW at least once a month for 5 years. If we had a Subscription, based on the standard market price, plus the initial purchase costs, I'd be pushing close to $1,100.00 dollars invested into Guild Wars.

$1,100.00 Vs. a personal choice to buy a costume for $9.99....over a 5 year span.

To me, that's a bit of perspective. Therefore I can hardly find reason to be angry, or disappointed, at purely cosmetic items in a store, that doesn't change what the core business model has been and continues to be for Guild Wars.

180 dollars a year for me to just log in to EQ2, above and beyond the cost of the game and expansions. No extras.. just the ability to play the game. Minor aside.. the few extra store items I purchased there were by character, not account. Using that.. a single costume on all of my characters would have been nearly 150 dollars. GW remains incredible bang for the buck.

Edit.. to be fair, if players have not experienced the cost associated just to play traditional subscription based MMO's there will not be that perspective.

Um...yes. Opinions can very well be wrong. If you say "It's my opinion that the sky is really orange during the day", then you're contradicting known fact and your opinion is wrong. Racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. opinions are wrong. If you say "I believe EOTN is really a campaign despite the fact that Anet, the ones that made it, say that it's an expansion", your opinion is wrong.

"It's just my opinion" is not an excuse to ignore actual facts.

...no. If you want to be technically accurate, we are not between campaigns. The fourth was canceled, they moved on to GW2, and they have never said that they may possibly make a new one in the future. Only if they actually said "We are making a new campaign for GW1", or maybe "We may make another campaign for GW1" could you make that claim.

And if they were going to make another campaign, they wouldn't 1) have pulled everyone to GW2 with the exception of the 7 member Live Team, and 2) wouldn't be doing GW: Beyond, because it could be taken care of in a new campaign.

And no, only one thing that was released could be against their statement, which was the BMP. Costumes and name changes and etc. are not game content.

I do not feel that ArenaNet has changed their philosophy, although they have had to evolve their business stance. They may have had to stop the "new campaign every six months" due to finding the balancing impossible, but they have stuck to not giving any player an advantage over any other player.

I, personally, have purchased character slots, storage panes, and costumes. I have no interest in name changes, makeovers or mercenary heroes. I am very pleased that my purchases have helped fund the new game content and provided a funding source to keep the servers active.

Keep in mind that without some income, the servers might have been shut down by now, as new box purchases cannot be providing sufficient income to the company.