Curse

shoyon456 · Jan 02, 2010, 01:01 AM // 01:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by the great jess

Kaleban, you have an urge to predict that ANet will make micro transactions effect the game play of Guild Wars 2. Why would ANet change the entire business model of Guild Wars.

It's easy to think that Anet would change the entire business model of GW, because they already have and have been making it up as they go along.

Campaign every 6 months to make enough money instead of monthly? Wasn't that their business model?

Gaile said that GW would never go to a micro-transaction model...well look where we are.

You could try to qualify it by saying "Oh well they wanted to make a better game and had to stop providing new content for GW1 to do it" or "Nothing Gaile has said was ever true" but at the end of the day, that simply supports the overarching theme here that Anet's word simply isn't good enough anymore. What they say and what they actually do are two different things.

EDIT:
For more proof, Anet won't be using individual campaigns for GW2. It will likely be buyable expansions like WoW.

EDIT2:
You might like not having to pay monthly, but I guess you don't realize what you're often getting for that monthly fee. There are constantly new content additions like Sorrows, strong support, and financial stability of the company so they dont ABANDON/DECREASE SUPPORT of an old game while simultaneously working on another.

Kaleban · Jan 02, 2010, 01:47 AM // 01:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by the great jess

Is it just me or do you like insulting other people's intelligence. You seem to think you are higher than everyone else and worst of all, your ego is so big.

I don't enjoy it really, its just difficult not to do when most of you don't understand big words.

Also, you entire post about ANet NOT changing the business model is ridiculous seeing as how ANet already did. Best do your research first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

h look at me, I must be stupid for buying this yes.

Yup. First step in solving a problem is admitting you have one. Good job!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deratrius

As for micro transactions, I don't see whats the problem. You paid for a game, you can play the game. You don't have to buy extra storage pane or bonus mission pack to be better at it. As other have said, maintenance of the servers and development of future games takes money, since you seem to know a bit about economy you should know that. I would rather they make that money from such a model than from monthly fees.

The problem is that IF and when the new business model is successful, even if a limited run, it influences future design decisions, such that GW2 will have the MACROtransaction feature built in to gameplay in all likelihood.

Look at it from ANet's perspective, if there's a significant portion of suckers out there who will pay extra for virtually nothing, why not rake in that cash? The playerbase ultimately decides what the game will be like, given that we vote with our wallets, and if enough do so, ANet will see that as proof that incorporating the MACROtransaction model as a design feature is a good thing.

And as I have said multiple times D, GW2 development costs are being paid for by profits from GW1 sales. IF ANet is hurting so bad that the Costume pack is an attempt to re-fill the coffers, whether for GW2 development or "keeping the lights and servers on" then there ARE some serious issues at ANet/NCSoft.

One of the many rules of a successful business is to not bank future products' development and manufacturing on non-mandatory expenditures by your customers. That's called gambling, and is a big no-no especially in an economy experiencing a deep recession.

the great jess · Jan 02, 2010, 02:21 AM // 02:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban
I don't enjoy it really, its just difficult not to do when most of you don't understand big words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
h look at me, I must be stupid for buying this yes.

Yup. First step in solving a problem is admitting you have one. Good job!

So much not not enjoying insulting people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrvrod View Post
Congratulations, you and your wife are insufferable snobs. Enjoy that.

I agree with you here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoyon456
It's easy to think that Anet would change the entire business model of GW, because they already have and have been making it up as they go along.

They haven't changed the core model which has attracted customers for years, the fact that the actual GAME is free. Sure, they've added in micro transactions, put in new areas such as the bonus mission pack etc, etc, but they haven't changed the core model of buying the game and playing for free. Even if these micro transactions are successful, removing the one thing which makes customers buy the actual product is just stupid, and would therefore lose sales, something which ANet obviously don't want lost.

bhavv · Jan 02, 2010, 03:23 AM // 03:23

Quote:

Because the world revolves around you. If a problem doesn't exist for you, it's just doesn't exist. amiright?

Does this clipping problem even exist? Who have you seen that has actually paid for the costume complain about it? Upier didnt buy it, he was pointlessly complaining about what other people are buying.

I have seen plenty of people wearing these costumes over the last week and have never yet seen any clipping.

bhavv · Jan 02, 2010, 03:35 AM // 03:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

I don't enjoy it really, its just difficult not to do when most of you don't understand big words.

Also, you entire post about ANet NOT changing the business model is ridiculous seeing as how ANet already did. Best do your research first.

Yup. First step in solving a problem is admitting you have one. Good job!

The problem is that IF and when the new business model is successful, even if a limited run, it influences future design decisions, such that GW2 will have the MACROtransaction feature built in to gameplay in all likelihood.

Look at it from ANet's perspective, if there's a significant portion of suckers out there who will pay extra for virtually nothing, why not rake in that cash? The playerbase ultimately decides what the game will be like, given that we vote with our wallets, and if enough do so, ANet will see that as proof that incorporating the MACROtransaction model as a design feature is a good thing.

And as I have said multiple times D, GW2 development costs are being paid for by profits from GW1 sales. IF ANet is hurting so bad that the Costume pack is an attempt to re-fill the coffers, whether for GW2 development or "keeping the lights and servers on" then there ARE some serious issues at ANet/NCSoft.

One of the many rules of a successful business is to not bank future products' development and manufacturing on non-mandatory expenditures by your customers. That's called gambling, and is a big no-no especially in an economy experiencing a deep recession.

I am not the ignorant person here who views an optional $10 purchase to be stupid. In fact, I feel a little better about myself since I am stupid and can afford to buy it, but you cant. Wow, I must be better than you! (Not, its just amusing to rub your own pathetic attitude into your face).

By your definition, everyone who buys a PC game, or pays subscription fees on other games are suckers too, because all games are virtual nothings.

And you think you are so intelligent, yet you have not the slightest idea how F2P games operate. Maple Story and Perfect World International are two highly succesful F2P games that have lasted on non mandatory expenditures from their customers, which shows that your opinion of successful businesses is far less intelligent than you seem to think you actually are.

Oh wow, I spent a mere $10 buying something for a video game. I have still spent less than half the amount of money on GW in 4 years than I would have done on WoW over the same amount of time.

P.S, many people buy collectors editions of video games like Guild Wars to get extra virtual nothings like Divine Auras and Disco Balls. I assume you think they must all be stupid too since they spent an extra $10-20 on the game.

Cacheelma · Jan 02, 2010, 04:02 AM // 04:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

In fact, I feel a little better about myself since I am stupid and can afford to buy it, but you cant. Wow, I must be better than you! (Not, its just amusing to rub your own pathetic attitude into your face).

Please point to me where he said he can't afford to pay 10$ for the costumes.

Who's pathetic now? I'd say the guy who makes stuff up just to insult people.

bhavv · Jan 02, 2010, 04:09 AM // 04:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

Please point to me where he said he can't afford to pay 10$ for the costumes.

Who's pathetic now? I'd say the guy who makes stuff up just to insult people.

I suggest you watch Borat and try to learn what 'not' jokes are, and try to learn to differentiate between fact and opinion.

I do recall being called stupid for buying something for $10, so I will reply with any such insult that I like.

Why dont you try to point out to me how paying £5.99 for a pair of ingame costumes that I actually like is in anyway stupid or reflective of my intelligence before you get so annoyed at me making up whatever I like as well.

Cacheelma · Jan 02, 2010, 08:28 AM // 08:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

I suggest you watch Borat and try to learn what 'not' jokes are, and try to learn to differentiate between fact and opinion.

I do recall being called stupid for buying something for $10, so I will reply with any such insult that I like.

Why dont you try to point out to me how paying £5.99 for a pair of ingame costumes that I actually like is in anyway stupid or reflective of my intelligence before you get so annoyed at me making up whatever I like as well.

I don't really care what people call you. It's their opinion, they didn't make up facts like you did.

If you can't differentiate between the two, I'd understand why you paid 10$ AND also are defending Anet about it.

Just admit it.

Makkert · Jan 02, 2010, 10:23 AM // 10:23

The OP constructs his stroy well, makes an effort to try to bring his arguments.

Unfortunately, the arguments used are all flawed.
It's like being homeless, getting a free meal from someone, and asking where the foie gras is.

You should wonder what ANet, as a company, makes from keeping the servers up at all for us. Having optional purchases for looks is a good business model in my books for keeping things clean. None of the items sold are necessary by any sort of degree.

Truely, you should ponder more what the company does provide you on a non-subscription based model (note that I don't use 'free' as we purchased the campaigns), instead of complaining that an option is not free.

I'm assuming you are not self-sufficient in your life support, and would need to ask your parents to purchase these items for you as a means to obtain them at all. That is not fun at all, I can understand that. But that is by no means a valid argument as a complaint against a business model.

~ Makk.
Master in Business Economics

Kaleban · Jan 02, 2010, 06:06 PM // 18:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

I am not the ignorant person here who views an optional $10 purchase to be stupid. In fact, I feel a little better about myself since I am stupid and can afford to buy it, but you cant. Wow, I must be better than you! (Not, its just amusing to rub your own pathetic attitude into your face).

So you're admitting you're stupid? Then how can anything you say be taken seriously? LOL

Quote:

By your definition, everyone who buys a PC game, or pays subscription fees on other games are suckers too, because all games are virtual nothings.

See, now that's just silly. I never said buying GW was stupid, its a game and I bought it for the express purpose of playing it. Other games with subscription based models are upfront about it, they don't try to trick the playerbase into some contract. Its when a game company goes against what it promised never to do, and then tries to hide it, AND on top of that some players defend such actions, that I call into question the ethics and intelligence of all.

So until you can actually comprehend what I'm defining and how, don't presume to put words in my mouth, 'kay? Thanks.

Quote:

And you think you are so intelligent, yet you have not the slightest idea how F2P games operate. Maple Story and Perfect World International are two highly succesful F2P games that have lasted on non mandatory expenditures from their customers, which shows that your opinion of successful businesses is far less intelligent than you seem to think you actually are.

Again, GW is NOT F2P. Maple Story and other games like it use a business model that is F2P from the start, and are very upfront about the optional extras and such. GW on the other hand, to get all campaigns and content cost at release around US$150 or so, more for CE editions. So until YOU understand the difference in economic models used by these varied games, please do not comment, because it just makes you look even more ignorant.

Quote:

Oh wow, I spent a mere $10 buying something for a video game. I have still spent less than half the amount of money on GW in 4 years than I would have done on WoW over the same amount of time.

And yet again, you demonstrate your ignorance. There's a reason why WoW has 11 million players, and GW has sold ~6 million boxes, including all expansions, which probably places the playerbase at 2 million or so. I'm not going to go into why WoW as a game is much better than GW, despite the added cost. Its too numerous to list. My only reason for not playing WoW is I don't want to be addicted lol, and I NEVER play games with subscriptions. Just a personal choice really.

But think on this. Buying those costumes gave you how much gameplay value? Now how much fun would you have if you spent one month in WoW? Its marginal utility, which you probably don't understand. C'est la vie.

Quote:

P.S, many people buy collectors editions of video games like Guild Wars to get extra virtual nothings like Divine Auras and Disco Balls. I assume you think they must all be stupid too since they spent an extra $10-20 on the game.

I never said CE editions were stupid, from the very beginning my posts have nay-sayed the MACROtransaction business model, which means in-game store stuff hosted by NCSoft. My argument against it primarily deals with its effect on future game design and implementation, or for you, how it make GW2 bad.

Besides, the CE editions don't just have the in-game "virtual nothings" as you assert, they also include real-world items like art books and pins. It may be a small difference to you, but again, that's a PACKAGE deal that came with the game, and is NOT available in the store, hence not under the umbrella of "MACROtransactions" which is what this thread is all about!

Sheesh, its like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

mrvrod · Jan 03, 2010, 03:14 AM // 03:14

Guild Wars was released in April of 2005, the addition of an in-game store, and additional character slots came 1 year later (slightly more, summer of 2006). These "microtransactions" have been around for over 3 years now. None of the in-game store items have offered an in-game advantage. F2P microtransaction games typically (not always) offer items that offer a real in-game advantage over players that do not opt to buy. Until ArenaNet crosses this line, I'm fine with their completely optional content. I will buy what I like, and pass on what I don't.

To severely overstate the "impact" of these additional sales seems to me to be an attempt by some to get this additional content without spending the cash. Time and again, whether content was offered through some limited time offer, store purchase, or "good customer" reward, those on the outside looking in cry foul!

I can't prove this, but I bet the vast majority of people who found the costumes to be of no real value just kept their $10 in their pockets and went on their merry way. I have no clue what the "lololol roflcopter U R Stoopid" crowd gets out of posting their personal attacks and grassy knoll conspiracy theories, but if you call me stupid, you'll get a right back atcha, and yes, both are equally childish.

There is absolutely NO proof that GW2 will/will not have microtransactions or what they will be if/when included. Furthermore (big enough word Kaleban?), only time will tell if GW2 will be "destroyed" if it does include these transactions.

The only thing I can say with absolute certainty is if ArenaNet does cross the line, and force me to spend real money to stay competative in-game, that's when I'll move on to a different game. Real voting happens with your cash/time investment. Everything else is just hot air.

\/
\/
\/

4thVariety · Jan 03, 2010, 12:12 PM // 12:12

Compared to the price-value proposition of a full retail game, most DLC is ridiculous overpriced. Few games offer DLC that is really worth the money.

But that is just my opinion, trying to be of the reasonable kind when it comes to making game purchases. ArenaNet does not try to target me with their princess rags, knowing that whatever I would deem an ok-DLC is far too costly for them to make.

So ArenaNet focuses on those who get easily excited about textures, trying to fool them into an impulse buy. Hence the whole "limited offer" marketing BS. Making money off those who are maybe a bit too involved with the outside appearance of their character. If you are not part of the Barbies, you sadly have to wait for GW2. Or buy something else for your $10, such as Braid, or Darwinia, or Plants vs. Zombies.

If you want bang for your buck stay away from DLC. It is as easy as that.

funbun · Jan 04, 2010, 04:05 PM // 16:05

I've read through much of this thread over the past day or so.

Business 101

1. Provide a product or service that people want.

2. Keep costs below expenses.

Do people want cosmetic micro transactions? Obviously, yes. Is it enough to keep their heads above water? I don't know.

It's obvious that the make-a-new-campaign-every-six-months strategy wasn't working, thus they abandoned it. Games like WoW are still around and still going strong.

The Spread Option

I wonder if it wouldn't be better to combine the different revenue models into a tier system.

Option One: Provide limited free content: one time fee for the game but more limited in the kind of content provided.

Option Two: Pay for everything separately. This would be the micro transactions model.

Option Three: Charge a good old $15 subscription fee like most MMOs so you can get everything for those players who want to pay a reoccurring fee and get everything.

Anet, just be open and honest about the successes and failures of your current model. You have lots of fans out here who want to see you do well.

Targren · Jan 04, 2010, 04:47 PM // 16:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

Maple Story and Perfect World International are two highly succesful F2P games that have lasted on non mandatory expenditures from their customers

You're also ignoring the fact that there is a rather large discrepancy in the form of initial outlay. It doesn't cost $70-$190 (depending on when you started playing) to get into MS or PW.

GW is not "F2P/Free to play" in that sense. It's "buy once to play" just like 99% of video games. Now, however, Anet/NCSoft (not sure who makes the money decisions) are finding that they can have their cake and eat it too, since they have enough people who will defend their decisions, hurl insults around, and generally act like ITGs on their behalf.

Me? I just ain't buying any of it, and "any" probably includes GW2. I've started DDO instead, and I'll gladly buy stuff from them because a) they didn't charge me full price for the game up front and b) they actually know what the "micro-" part of "microtransaction" means.

bigtime102 · Jan 04, 2010, 05:46 PM // 17:46

Forget Anets profits or buisness models,

Whos going to play a game where you can buy the best skins with real money?

mrvrod · Jan 05, 2010, 05:09 AM // 05:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigtime102

Forget Anets profits or buisness models,

Whos going to play a game where you can buy the best skins with real money?

Well, in GW you can't so what's your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunyavadin

You miss the point.

"Best" is defined by the user base, and more often than not revolves around scarcity.

Realistically, what do people consider a more prestigious look? Obsidian armour? Or Grenth's Regalia? One can be bought for a one-off transaction in the store. The other requires either considerable ingame grind to get the materials, or considerable ingame grind to afford the materials.

The one that's more effort to get will always be considered "best" by the players.

Agreed. But to take it one step further: My warrior has Elite Kurzick armor, simply because I find it the most appealing female warrior armor in the game. If Anet started selling that in the store tomorrow, I wouldn't care one bit! Maybe I'm in the minority here, but all of my armor/weapon/shield/costume/whatever choices are based on what I like. I could care less if it raises my leetness in anyone's eyes. I could easily afford to dye her Kurzick armor black but I used a yellow/silver mix because I like how it looks. Too many people hung up on how others play/dress/whatever. When anet chooses to sell items that offer an in-game advantage, then I'll be moving on to a different game.

Sunyavadin · Jan 05, 2010, 05:15 AM // 05:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigtime102

Forget Anets profits or buisness models,

Whos going to play a game where you can buy the best skins with real money?

You miss the point.

"Best" is defined by the user base, and more often than not revolves around scarcity.

Realistically, what do people consider a more prestigious look? Obsidian armour? Or Grenth's Regalia? One can be bought for a one-off transaction in the store. The other requires either considerable ingame grind to get the materials, or considerable ingame grind to afford the materials.

The one that's more effort to get will always be considered "best" by the players.

Schala · Jan 05, 2010, 02:59 PM // 14:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Test Me

If you have been around for some time you might have noticed a change in the GW1 business model from free to play to a micro-transaction system. Originally and with the first update the live team worked on, most thought micro-transactions were a one off thing. With the latest costumes update it becomes pretty clear that the live team is not actually working on free updates and do maintenance but they focus on different ways to get more money for GW1.

I for one don't like the direction GW1 business model is taking. Many would say that the micro-transactions available at the moment are just for cosmetic items and therefore optional, "they don't affect gameplay". There are two points to consider though.

First of all, not all micro-transactions are cosmetic. A noticeable exception is storage panels. They don't give a player an advantage in terms of item stats but they obviously give players that have the money for them an in game advantage. No way around it, that update pointed that even gameplay affecting features worked on by live team won't be free.

Second, cosmetics like costumes are just as bad micro-transaction items as those that would offer gameplay stats advantages. Cosmetics offer only a "looks"/skins advantage. But this is a game. People play games not as much for the stats (they could do pure maths on paper if stats were all about it). If you think about it, costumes are almost like a new elite armor skin that are is available via cash in the in game store. I can see kids begging their parents to buy them the costumes because their friends have those "looks" already. ANet's strategy for the current holiday season I guess.

And last and perhaps the most important, it shows that ANet prefers to stop the "6 months content update expansion/campaign" but move to a new "shinny cosmetics" micro-transaction business model. They don't want to invest in adding real new content to the game (too difficult), however they spend the time of one engineer or so for a couple of weeks to release two costumes that together are as expensive as one full campaign (today).

So they are obviously looking for easy gains and probably think that spending the time of their entire team for a campaign that would be priced around the same as 4 costumes: a waste of time and resources. Doing 4 costumes is probably not even a week's work but just as pricey.

Conclusions:
- I would much rather they worked on real content updates and I would gladly pay for those; but I am afraid real content updates may seem not worth for ANet given the effort/price
- there seems to be enough proof that the updates live team is working mostly on new ways to make easy money rather than really fix issues, perform maintenance and keep the game going.

I just wish things hadn't taken this direction...

EDIT: I'm just expressing my wish that they would go back to real content updates even if I had pay for them instead of ... armor skins. I have nothing against them trying to implement skins and charge for them, or against people that buy them and enjoy them. I just wish that wasn't all the updates they do. Is this what we should expect from now on? No new content at all but some new skins for $6 each? Things seem to point that way. And it makes me sad.

Lets see....I don't see anything wrong with micro-transactions because it is a user-choice. I bought the storage panels and character slots when they were on a special sale so I didn't have to buy a new guild wars account before trilogy came out.

I know many players who spent $100 - $200 to buy a new account and all the campaigns + GWEN to have more character slots..

I've been playing since launch in 2005 and if it were the same as WoW it would be 15 x 55 = $825. I didn't mind paying $40 to fill my storage panes and buying extra character slots if it meant not having to go through a second account, remember two username and passwords along with unlocking everything on the second account to be as good as the first account.

Also you forgot to mention that anyone could download the game and those who don't want PvE could just buy the PvP Access Pack which was by far one of the best things ever introduced.

ArenaNet could have said "no, you must buy all campaigns + gwen to have access to all skills for PvP" Instead they had the PvP Access Pack solve that issue which actually causes them to lose money in favor of gaining customers.

Remember the in-game store looks weak now, but it helped during a time when Guild Wars Trilogy did not exist and back then it was a great way to get more of the game without having to waste more money on buying second accounts...thats why those items were added into the store to begin with.

Arduin · Jan 05, 2010, 04:02 PM // 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

And as I have said multiple times D, GW2 development costs are being paid for by profits from GW1 sales. IF ANet is hurting so bad that the Costume pack is an attempt to re-fill the coffers, whether for GW2 development or "keeping the lights and servers on" then there ARE some serious issues at ANet/NCSoft.

Doesn't NCSoft pay for the production costs? How did Anet get the money to produce GW1?

I honestly don't know what role NCSoft is filling for Anet.

Kaleban · Jan 05, 2010, 05:44 PM // 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arduin

Doesn't NCSoft pay for the production costs? How did Anet get the money to produce GW1?

I honestly don't know what role NCSoft is filling for Anet.

I'm not sure of the exact relationship between them either.

Obviously, the exact details are probably hedged behind multiple NDAs, but the basics would be similar to a movie.

ANet is the Director, NCSoft is the Producer. The Producer receives a percentage (sometimes quite large) of any profits made. It is in their best interests to setup sequels to successful enterprises, so that future profits can be guaranteed.

More than likely, ANet funnels the bulk of its non-operating expense profits into GW2 development, with a minimal investment into GW1 maintenance and updates/changes. NCSoft probably channels a portion of its GW1 profits to GW2 development, while earmarking the rest for other projects that its also producing.

That being said, I have no idea how much creative oversight NCSoft has in the process, but in many cases, Producers can have a large input simply because they're footing the majority of the bill.