Curse

Kaleban · Dec 22, 2009, 10:39 PM // 22:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

The idea I addressed is how one can play costumes, demonstrating how these things are fundamentally the same.

Wow! You can play costumes in GW without being logged in? Show me how.

Here, I'll make the same comparison based in your logic:

The Sims and Guild Wars are fundamentally the same because you can customize the way your avatars look, and you move around in a game world.

Sounds dumb, right? That's because it is. Comparing a browser based game (the browser becomes the client, der der der) with Guild Wars is both pointless and foolhardy.

Again, try to prove me wrong. Play the $9.99 costume pack without logging into Guild Wars, and I will YouTube myself eating my underwear. I mean, that's a pretty good bet for you to take, what with you being so sure that the costume pack and the GW game itself are so fundamentally alike in gameplay and all.

If you CAN'T prove me wrong, then stop posting incoherent comparisons based on nothing but your flawed perceptions.

Last point, just because you CAN play costumes (i.e. Barbie dress up) in other games does not mean the same can be said of GW, or even that it should! Different games offer different types of gameplay, what you get out of Halo is probably a different feel than IL-2 Sturmovik. Until you can make a place for yourself in reality and realize that difference and variation are GOOD things (the spice of life), you'll probably never understand basic and simple concepts like what is being discussed in these threads.

Also, admitting you never went to school is brave, but likely to make people flame you. Especially when you attempt to use economics terms and get it wrong on top of that! Just saying...

thedarkmarine · Dec 22, 2009, 11:10 PM // 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

Wow! You can play costumes in GW without being logged in? Show me how.

Here, I'll make the same comparison based in your logic:

The Sims and Guild Wars are fundamentally the same because you can customize the way your avatars look, and you move around in a game world.

No. They are fundamentally the same, but not for the reason you stated. The rest of the post builds upon the assumption that I agree, and therefore is misdirected. I'll still reply to some parts of your post that are relevant.

Quote:

Again, try to prove me wrong. Play the $9.99 costume pack without logging into Guild Wars, and I will YouTube myself eating my underwear. I mean, that's a pretty good bet for you to take, what with you being so sure that the costume pack and the GW game itself are so fundamentally alike in gameplay and all.

This shows that you've totally missed the point. We are not talking about being fundamentally alike in gameplay. We are talking about being fundamentally alike as goods. I'm also not interested in people eating their clothing, and don't care for the actual costumes, so that's a pretty poor deal.

Quote:

Last point, just because you CAN play costumes (i.e. Barbie dress up) in other games does not mean the same can be said of GW, or even that it should!

The point is not should, but could. The internet shouldn't be used for theft of data, but lots of people know they could and thus is factored into their utility for an internet connection. What you think should or should not has is irrelevant. In the end upgrades, like costumes and EotN, and standalones, like Factions and Nightfall, are fundamentally the same since they are both just different ways to acquire utility for money.

Quote:

Also, admitting you never went to school is brave, but likely to make people flame you. Especially when you attempt to use economics terms and get it wrong on top of that! Just saying...

Well, saying you wear your underwear as a hat is also not very smart, as people would just call you an asshat.

Also, don't call our perception flawed. I could say your perception flawed, and that just gets us nowhere. I could also say that we've proven you wrong and you're not willing to accept it, but I will not as that would also get us nowhere.

w00t! · Dec 23, 2009, 12:41 AM // 00:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

(snip)... when you attempt to use economics terms and get it wrong on top of that! Just saying...

Kaleban, I'm sorta with you in that I think that the costumes deliver questionable value, and microtransactions have the potential to dilute the brand.

But I do know a bit about economics. I have an MBA in Finance (Investment Theory) and am a former broker, so I've had this beaten into my head over time. There was a concept we learned called "share of the belly" which discusses how things that seemingly don't compete with each other actually do, and therefore can be compared based on their perceived value.

So you may or may not disagree with what theDarkMarine concludes, but the logic he is using to get there is based on economic principles which have been around for a very long time.

That said, we should probably stop discussing the finer points of economic theory and focus on the more important aspect you brought up, namely the possible dilution of the GW brand via micro-transactions.

Kaleban · Dec 23, 2009, 01:11 AM // 01:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

No. They are fundamentally the same, but not for the reason you stated. The rest of the post builds upon the assumption that I agree, and therefore is misdirected. I'll still reply to some parts of your post that are relevant.

Agree or not, you're wrong.

Quote:

This shows that you've totally missed the point. We are not talking about being fundamentally alike in gameplay. We are talking about being fundamentally alike as goods. I'm also not interested in people eating their clothing, and don't care for the actual costumes, so that's a pretty poor deal.

I understand what w00t! is saying, but perhaps you don't. ANYTHING can be compared on a fundamental level in market economics if the defining hallmark of said comparison is that they're marketable goods. According to that logic, the value of GW is the same as a big pizza order for a party. The costumes would have the same fundamental value as a Wal-Mart shirt.

That type of logic gets you nowhere, because there's no end to it. You can't come to a conclusion on a comparison when everything is defined the same.

Quote:

The point is not should, but could. The internet shouldn't be used for theft of data, but lots of people know they could and thus is factored into their utility for an internet connection. What you think should or should not has is irrelevant. In the end upgrades, like costumes and EotN, and standalones, like Factions and Nightfall, are fundamentally the same since they are both just different ways to acquire utility for money.

Again, you're absolutely, horribly wrong, and spreading disinformation like that is foolish. According to your logic process, anything with the same price can be compared on a 1:1 ratio for utility. Which is patently rediculous. You CAN compare against perceived value, such as a person's time spent playing GW versus, say a couple of weekend lift tickets. They can spend thousands of hours playing GW, but only those weekends skiing. The memories and such of skiing might be MORE valuable than any number of GW hours, relatively speaking.

But to say that a person who only got 72 hours of ski time acquired much less marginal value than 2000 hours GW time for the same amount of money is true if and only if you're talking a straight line hourly basis.

The whole point is, you have to define what a person's utility is first. For me, spending $9.99 on costumes makes no sense, because that's the price of 1/5th of Prophecies, which has more more value relatively speaking.

Quote:

Well, saying you wear your underwear as a hat is also not very smart, as people would just call you an asshat.

Also, don't call our perception flawed. I could say your perception flawed, and that just gets us nowhere. I could also say that we've proven you wrong and you're not willing to accept it, but I will not as that would also get us nowhere.

Again, you're dodging my initial question and trying to skew the point with yadda yadda. Just answer one SIMPLE question:

CAN you play GW: Costumes by itself? For that $9.99 could you do ANYTHING with it, without first having purchased GW itself?

I'll answer for you, since I know you won't just give a straight answer. The answer is NO YOU CAN'T, therefore the Costumes just as a GAMEPLAY addition don't work or qualify.

As many have said, they could go pick up ANOTHER whole account for $15, due to the price decrease over time. Would you spend $20 on two Xunlai storage panes for one account, or $15 for an entire new account, with five storage panes, multiple character slots, more crafting material storage, etc., etc.?

There ARE ways to compare value, such as the one I showed above, if you're unwilling to accept that, then your perception IS flawed and you're proven wrong.

So argue away about relative value and how Costumes are such and such, but the FACT of the matter is, they do not add any GAMEPLAY value, because you cannot PLAY them without GW itself. They are not a GAME. The skill unlock pack or pet unlock pack DO add value because they open up more options of gameplay (different builds, different pets), although even the pet unlock pack could be questionable since each pet more or less is exactly the same with just different skins. You do however get many more pets than the two costumes lol.

thedarkmarine · Dec 23, 2009, 01:34 AM // 01:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

Agree or not, you're wrong.

No. You are. Neer neer neer.

Quote:

I understand what w00t! is saying, but perhaps you don't. ANYTHING can be compared on a fundamental level in market economics if the defining hallmark of said comparison is that they're marketable goods. According to that logic, the value of GW is the same as a big pizza order for a party. The costumes would have the same fundamental value as a Wal-Mart shirt.

That type of logic gets you nowhere, because there's no end to it. You can't come to a conclusion on a comparison when everything is defined the same.

Ha. You jumped into a discussion without knowing what it's about, and is now pulling out about how it's a meaningless discussion. Well, you logged onto this forum with much higher expectations than I. Also, we're not defining things as being the same, but the same type.

And w00t! agrees with me, so you should be understanding what I'm saying...

Quote:

Again, you're absolutely, horribly wrong, and spreading disinformation like that is foolish. According to your logic process, anything with the same price can be compared on a 1:1 ratio for utility. Which is patently rediculous. You CAN compare against perceived value, such as a person's time spent playing GW versus, say a couple of weekend lift tickets. They can spend thousands of hours playing GW, but only those weekends skiing. The memories and such of skiing might be MORE valuable than any number of GW hours, relatively speaking.

But to say that a person who only got 72 hours of ski time acquired much less marginal value than 2000 hours GW time for the same amount of money is true if and only if you're talking a straight line hourly basis.

The whole point is, you have to define what a person's utility is first. For me, spending $9.99 on costumes makes no sense, because that's the price of 1/5th of Prophecies, which has more more value relatively speaking.

Yeah, I'm not defining a specific person's utility, as that is left as an exercise for the reader for themselves. Everything I've said is general, with fill-in-the-blanks for each individual.

Quote:

Again, you're dodging my initial question and trying to skew the point with yadda yadda. Just answer one SIMPLE question:

CAN you play GW: Costumes by itself? For that $9.99 could you do ANYTHING with it, without first having purchased GW itself?

I'll answer for you, since I know you won't just give a straight answer. The answer is NO YOU CAN'T, therefore the Costumes just as a GAMEPLAY addition don't work or qualify.

Wow. You're still focusing on the gamplay! Didn't we say we're not talking about that? We're talking about fundamental value.

Quote:

As many have said, they could go pick up ANOTHER whole account for $15, due to the price decrease over time. Would you spend $20 on two Xunlai storage panes for one account, or $15 for an entire new account, with five storage panes, multiple character slots, more crafting material storage, etc., etc.?

There ARE ways to compare value, such as the one I showed above, if you're unwilling to accept that, then your perception IS flawed and you're proven wrong.

I never said there wasn't other ways to compare value.

Quote:

So argue away about relative value and how Costumes are such and such, but the FACT of the matter is, they do not add any GAMEPLAY value, because you cannot PLAY them without GW itself. They are not a GAME. The skill unlock pack or pet unlock pack DO add value because they open up more options of gameplay (different builds, different pets), although even the pet unlock pack could be questionable since each pet more or less is exactly the same with just different skins. You do however get many more pets than the two costumes lol.

Again, you've completely missed the point. I was never talking about gameplay value. I was talking about fundamental value. Next time, tread more carefully before diving into a discussion you don't want to be a part of.

Kaleban · Dec 23, 2009, 01:45 AM // 01:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

Wow. You're still focusing on the gamplay! Didn't we say we're not talking about that? We're talking about fundamental value.

Again, you've completely missed the point. I was never talking about gameplay value. I was talking about fundamental value. Next time, tread more carefully before diving into a discussion you don't want to be a part of.

Then you've missed the point. If you read closely back over the thread, relatively because the point is obvious to anyone, the major argument in the thread is ABOUT gameplay value.

Just because you're the one talking about idealized fundamental Plato's Forms value, doesn't mean anyone else is.

Your entire argument is irrelevant to the question of whether the Costumes have value in the first place, as they are not real world objects, but part of a game system. Because they're part of that system, they cannot be held up to some pedastal like standard for comparison.

That was kind of the whole point I was trying to make to you with the idea of playing Costumes by themselves. Apparently you missed the obvious, so I won't be-labor the issue.

Suffice to say, the costumes are a blatant rip-off, indicate a bad trend of overpriced MACROtransactions in the NCSoft store, and worse point towards this as a new model for GW2, which is potentially capable of generating MORE revenue for the same or less service than a comparable subscription model. Which means less gameplay, higher cost and worse customer service.

But you of course knew all that, right? /sarcasm

thedarkmarine · Dec 23, 2009, 02:34 AM // 02:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

Then you've missed the point. If you read closely back over the thread, relatively because the point is obvious to anyone, the major argument in the thread is ABOUT gameplay value.

No. The point where I entered the discussion is a follow-up to this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Let me put it this way: if you honestly think that buying a painting or movie is fundamentally different from buying a video game, you aren't thinking about your purchases correctly.

You followed in this discussion shortly after. This is also an example of me not being the only one; w00t! is another key witness. Anyone who actually knew what was what understood the context of my posts. You're the only one thinking I'm not. Again, you misstepped, now go away.

Quote:

Your entire argument is irrelevant to the question of whether the Costumes have value in the first place, as they are not real world objects, but part of a game system. Because they're part of that system, they cannot be held up to some pedastal like standard for comparison.

Last I checked, human psychology still holds in a virtual world, and ANet maintains scarcity in GW like a real economy. As such, they CAN be held up in the same way for comparison. Nowhere does any economic model say an object needs to be real in order to be applicable. The key is if they have utility for the consumer.

Then again, this is meta-argument, about the applicability of an economic model in a virtual economy, so whatever. This one is simple, and is left as an exercise for the reader.

Quote:

That was kind of the whole point I was trying to make to you with the idea of playing Costumes by themselves. Apparently you missed the obvious, so I won't be-labor the issue.

No. You missed the discussion we were already having. Isn't this blaming game great?

Quote:

Suffice to say, the costumes are a blatant rip-off, indicate a bad trend of overpriced MACROtransactions in the NCSoft store, and worse point towards this as a new model for GW2, which is potentially capable of generating MORE revenue for the same or less service than a comparable subscription model. Which means less gameplay, higher cost and worse customer service.

Probably, but that's a different train of thought. Your opinion about their price is just an opinion though, but I do share it.

Quote:

But you of course knew all that, right? /sarcasm

Actually, I do. I am able to differentiate between discussion subtopics, a skill you just choose not to exercise, right? /sarcasm

You obviously now understand what I'm talking about. You are now engaging with me in a meta-argument about the significance of the discussion I was involved in. That is a debate I'm not interested in, so if you want to continue with that train of thought, you may do so at your own pace.

Whatever, I'm sorry for having a meaningless discussion because the internet is serious business, amirite?

Cluebag · Dec 23, 2009, 04:22 AM // 04:22

If I'm understanding this correctly, according to thedarkmarine, as long as you are cool with the fact that "the fundamental value" of the costume pack ($9.99) is the essentially the same "value" as any other good under the sun that is the same price ($9.99), be it another campaign or other purchasable content from the NCsoft store for $9.99, a different $9.99 game entirely, $9.99 worth of cheetos, a $9.99 blowjob from a crackhead, some "art" I just created in the terlet that I'll let go for the modest price of $9.99, or 999 pennies, they are all fundamentally economically identical since they are all goods which share the same value of $9.99. Is my assumption of his postulations accurate? I'm not trying to be an asshole (necessarily

), I'm just trying to figure out if this is what the sentiment is essentially, independent of the validity or applicability of the various arguments flying around.

Regardless of the various attempts to channel Paul Krugman going on in this thead, I'm of the opinion that the costumes are overpriced. I don't have a problem with microtransactions in general, and would likely pay for things that appeal to my particular tastes, if I find the pricing reasonable. However, their historical pricing structure with online store items lends me to belive that they are going to have trouble with this business model.

I think they would have more people hop on board w/the micro purchases if the prices were actually a bit smaller, say a buck or so for the odd bit of fluff. Considering the online store is the only way to pick these things up, and the online store isn't bashful with their prices, if they stick to their steep pricing arrangement for any add on content, they'll find themselves with a smaller share of their consumers willing to take part in participating in this "microtransaction" business model.

You may have your niche, true believers (ala apple fanboys) who fork over cash for every and anything that is made available for purchase, and that's fine, but extremely limiting. I certainly won't be paying 7 bucks per costume, tho I might have picked 'em up if they were a buck apiece.

And for the record, don't mistake my unwillingness to pay 10 bucks for a couple of costumes indicative of me being under financial hardship or being stingy or miserly or whatever. Just because I could go to the Mercedes dealership tomorrow and pick up just about any 2010 model on the lot (ok, maybe not the McLaren roadster) for cash money doesn't mean that I will, regardless of perceived value or liquid assets on hand. I personally tend to be a bit more pragmatic in my buying habits, with the occasional indulgence here and there. The same will go for my online gaming purchases.

Chocobo1 · Dec 23, 2009, 05:05 AM // 05:05

Just to ignore the arguing for a sec, I'm having some problems with the costume on my male mesmer. When I have it equipted and I click Do not Display, the costume still appears. The solution is obviously just to take it off, which worked, and it's not really an annoyance, just felt like reporting it in.

Also, I enjoy being able to buy this. I think of it as a way to donate to a company that has kept me entertained for almost 5 years.

thedarkmarine · Dec 23, 2009, 05:15 AM // 05:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocobo1

Just to ignore the arguing for a sec, I'm having some problems with the costume on my male mesmer. When I have it equipted and I click Do not Display, the costume still appears. The solution is obviously just to take it off, which worked, and it's not really an annoyance, just felt like reporting it in.

Also, I enjoy being able to buy this. I think of it as a way to donate to a company that has kept me entertained for almost 5 years.

You might be using the wrong type of do not display. Other than that, it does sound like a bug.

Shadowspawn X · Dec 23, 2009, 05:55 AM // 05:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocobo1

Also, I enjoy being able to buy this. I think of it as a way to donate to a company that has kept me entertained for almost 5 years.

LMAO, Anet is not a freakin soup kitchen, they are part of NCSoft now which is a billion dollar corporation. You need your head examined if you have to reconcile your purchase as a good will gesture to a global corporate juggernaut.

mrvrod · Dec 23, 2009, 04:29 PM // 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowspawn X

LMAO, Anet is not a freakin soup kitchen, they are part of NCSoft now which is a billion dollar corporation. You need your head examined if you have to reconcile your purchase as a good will gesture to a global corporate juggernaut.

Donate was probably not the best choice of words, but I've always believed that if you like a company's product, you show that with your cash. I know that mentality has changed ever since napster, but not everything in life is free.

w00t! · Dec 23, 2009, 06:01 PM // 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cluebag

If I'm understanding this correctly, according to thedarkmarine, as long as you are cool with the fact that "the fundamental value" of the costume pack ($9.99) is the essentially the same "value" as any other good under the sun that is the same price ($9.99)
(snip)
Is my assumption of his postulations accurate?

Well, the real equation is something like this:

Utility = Cost x satisfaction derived

Or something like that, it's been a while. (edit: just looked the actual equation up, and it's far scarier, but my example above should give you the general idea.)

In one grad school class, the professor started talking about how Coca Cola competed against Hot Dogs. This led to what he called "The Share of the Belly" concept.

The idea is that both Hot Dogs and Coca Cola go into your stomach, they take up room. So at some point you have to decide, with either your last dollar, or your last bit of room in your stomach, what to buy. Coca Cola or a Hot Dog? That's how they can compete.

So the idea is that entertainment dollars compete in the same way. Not all dollars provide the same perceived satisfaction (or utility), and that is a personal decision. The satisfaction I derive from the costume may be higher than yours, so it would provide greater "utility" for me than it would for you. I make an okay wage, so $10 isn't much, yet I still haven't bought them. Therefore the utility it brings to me doesn't compare favorably to the $15 GW Trilogy Pack I just bought at Best Buy last week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cluebag

I'm of the opinion that the costumes are overpriced.
(snip)
I think they would have more people hop on board w/the micro purchases if the prices were actually a bit smaller, say a buck or so for the odd bit of fluff.

Agree completely. For a couple bucks I would have snapped them up in a second.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cluebag

And for the record, don't mistake my unwillingness to pay 10 bucks for a couple of costumes indicative of me being under financial hardship or being stingy or miserly or whatever. Just because I could go to the Mercedes dealership tomorrow and pick up just about any 2010 model on the lot (ok, maybe not the McLaren roadster) for cash money doesn't mean that I will, regardless of perceived value or liquid assets on hand. I personally tend to be a bit more pragmatic in my buying habits, with the occasional indulgence here and there. The same will go for my online gaming purchases.

Lol I just went through the same exercise. I was going to buy a C Class, then an E Class. Then I went and bought a Honda Insight for less than half the price, and am going to use the extra $30k to take my family on a couple nice vacations. So a vacation was competing with a car in my warped mind, and makes me happier than a luxury car.

Zehnchu · Dec 24, 2009, 06:08 AM // 06:08

I am quickly losing faith in Areanet with every wrong step they take. It seems that they have not learned their lesson from the last mistake of putting the BMP in the cash shop. They no longer have a clue about the community of Guild Wars and have lost touch with the fan base.

The longer this discussion about this costume armor goes on the more I see how wrong of an idea it was to put it in the cash shop and I see more problems with it. Even though it says it has no armor rating is skins over the existing armor and use it’s as it rating rather then dropping it to zero like it should be. If it did this I might have had less of a problem with it so this just add further to the mistake.

Lets start at NightFall because it’s an great example and will do nicely to make a point. Those who paid full price and the extra cost to support Anet (per-order pack) bought the game it was lacking six armor sets three for the Assassin and Ritualist. So where was the time and effort for these armor sets? Then came ETON which was a lot of reskins and left over odd armor sets never used again where was the time and effort. Then we get another two new armor sets for the and warrior class that where left out. While I agree with Anet decision not to go reverse campaign with new class armor sets I do not see the same with up coming expansions.

Those who fail to see the problem with this really don’t understand the value. So I try to explain the best I can the dangers this has as it is allowed to progress. The simple fact is this more money time and effort will go into items in the cash shop and the game that people pay will suffer with the lack. This is how it’s done and will always be done so don’t try to fool other in saying that it helps the game when it doesn’t the only thing is helps is putting more items in the cash shop look at any game to see the truth in that. Just look at the reskins in ETON if the cash shop was so great in helping the game why was it lacking in the armor and why to this day still there are six missing armor sets.

The other thing is that if the F2P model was fail then why did Anet come out and say it is a success. Thus making any arguments saying that the cash shop is needed null because you can look back on the first three years and see how it was not needed. Actually anything said about any cost all you need to do is look back on the first three years.

Word of warning if this is the path that Anet is going to take then they will lose in the long run. People want quality content for buying that game you can’t cater to both. The more money time and effort taken away from the core game and put into the cash shop to keep the game afloat. This will be a turn off for players who are already playing a cash shop or subscription game wanting to buy a game lacking in content and quality. The sooner that Anet goes back to what made them successful the better.

And yes I can’t help but be miffed about all the time, money and effort of cash shop armor while there are so many missing armor sets for those who bought the game. We pay good money for crappy in game armor just so Anet can waste time in making cash shop armor.

Skyy High · Dec 24, 2009, 07:52 AM // 07:52

Wait, wait, wait....we're honestly going back to the crying about NF not having as many armors for sins and rits as all the other professions? Really, you want to go back to that?

The day you can honestly tell me that they're putting zero effort into anything free in GW, and it's all going into the pay-for-upgrades ingame store, then I'll entertain your argument. The thing is, all of their effort right now is going into GW2. Extrapolating anything from their current behavior is pointless and inflammatory, which is probably why so many posters have taken to it in the past year; anything along the lines of "OMG ANET'S NOT GIVING US X SO GW2 IS GOING TO SUCK!" is at about the same level right now. If GW2 comes out, and there are only 5 free armor sets available and another 30 available for purchase in the store, then you might have a point, and GW2 will surely fail pretty hard. Until and unless that happens, however, holding up these beautiful (but obviously time-intensive) costumes as evidence that ANet is never going to put any effort into free content is asinine. They read these forums, they know damn well who their customer base is and what we're willing to pay for, and what is likely to cause a mass exodus from the game. They also know damn well that they are making money off of these costumes, no matter how much whining about it this thread has spawned. So, you all are just going to have to live with the fact that aesthetic content has been and will continue to be offered for a little bit extra, but hopefully you are not so full of paranoia and vitriol to not recognize how much free content we actually get. I don't see an NPC telling me to go make my offering to the credit card gods before I can face Dhuum, do you?

The Drunkard · Dec 24, 2009, 08:44 AM // 08:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zehnchu

The other thing is that if the F2P model was fail then why did Anet come out and say it is a success. Thus making any arguments saying that the cash shop is needed null because you can look back on the first three years and see how it was not needed. Actually anything said about any cost all you need to do is look back on the first three years.

It was a sucess. Anet took the wrong approach with introducing too many skills without properly balancing them. EoTN was really made to keep the players occupied until GW2.

While I don't mind the microtransaction approach to help fund the game, I'm not going to buy things if I feel they are overpriced. Most of the stuff in the online store is to me.

Mindtrust · Dec 24, 2009, 11:28 AM // 11:28

I was more then happy to pay for the costume, i liked it but first i thought it was expensive but then i thought again, this game have kept me busy since the Beta in Nov 2004 and i got so much from it for so little money!!!

Big Tuna · Dec 24, 2009, 11:36 AM // 11:36

Why would I want to pay $14 just to look like everyone else and hide the armor that I like so much?

AngelWJedi · Dec 24, 2009, 11:17 PM // 23:17

costumes are cute but until i can get them for free i wont buy them. i prefer to use my money to either pay bills(more important then costumes) or buy a char slot.

I had a ally ask would we get costumes when we get hats since we have this new slot on our inventory. had to let the poor kid down.told him we wont ever get it free since we had to buy it inthe first place.

Zehnchu · Dec 25, 2009, 04:13 AM // 04:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyy High

Wait, wait, wait....we're honestly going back to the crying about NF not having as many armors for sins and rits as all the other professions? Really, you want to go back to that?

The day you can honestly tell me that they're putting zero effort into anything free in GW, and it's all going into the pay-for-upgrades ingame store, then I'll entertain your argument. The thing is, all of their effort right now is going into GW2. Extrapolating anything from their current behavior is pointless and inflammatory, which is probably why so many posters have taken to it in the past year; anything along the lines of "OMG ANET'S NOT GIVING US X SO GW2 IS GOING TO SUCK!" is at about the same level right now. If GW2 comes out, and there are only 5 free armor sets available and another 30 available for purchase in the store, then you might have a point, and GW2 will surely fail pretty hard. Until and unless that happens, however, holding up these beautiful (but obviously time-intensive) costumes as evidence that ANet is never going to put any effort into free content is asinine. They read these forums, they know damn well who their customer base is and what we're willing to pay for, and what is likely to cause a mass exodus from the game. They also know damn well that they are making money off of these costumes, no matter how much whining about it this thread has spawned. So, you all are just going to have to live with the fact that aesthetic content has been and will continue to be offered for a little bit extra, but hopefully you are not so full of paranoia and vitriol to not recognize how much free content we actually get. I don't see an NPC telling me to go make my offering to the credit card gods before I can face Dhuum, do you?

It's the holidays I feel like being in an argumentative attitude. First of all it's not free content. In order for something to be free it would it would zero dollars. And well you have to buy the game in order to play the game there for making it not free.

Games like Arch Lord that went to free to play with cash shop which had content update that was for free. Being that it's cost zero dollars to download, install play through all the content with. There are also a ton of other games. Farmville might be more your speed, it's free to play and has free content updates.

Secondly it's obvious that you haven't read that entire thread. But to make it simple I consider these two new costume armor to be far better then armor in nightfall and Eton well the best in then whole game. So since this armor cost real cash and it far better then ingame armor that would mean that better armor cost money while missing armor and glitchy clipping armor, and bad reskins, and left overs (Deldrimor armor pieces) is what people get when they buy the game. Thus solidifying that you get substandard game content and you have to pay extra to be better guilty.

Yet you have not shown other wise....Happy Holidays