Curse

Vilaptca · Apr 17, 2009, 08:46 PM // 20:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

How I love people whine about A while ignoring tasty, juicy B.

People would whine about B because it isn't complete. They would demand that right hand bottom corner be added. You know, because they deserve it, and after all the money they paid for this game, they are owed that right hand corner. And where would ANet be without them, so if ANet wants to give them more storage it better include that right hand corner...or else they won't buy GW2.

DreamWind · Apr 17, 2009, 08:49 PM // 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Do you mean that they shouldn't be having any micro purchases whatsoever?

But still: the only thing I'd like to see purchasable from the online store would be additional chapters.

Precisely. We agree 100% here.

The only thing I don't agree with is that it would be ok to sell vanity items in the store. I only think content should be sold. Even selling mini content updates would be fine with me and better than what we have now.

I find it hilarious that many of the people who are fine with selling storage are NOT fine with selling vanity items. Don't they see how ridiculous their stance is? They only aren't fine with it when ANet sells something that affects them personally.

I could really care less what the cost of the storage is. I don't care what people will or won't buy. I am talking about the principle of the whole thing. Storage shouldn't be sold in the same way that UAX shouldn't be sold. If you are fine with UAX being sold, your opinion is absolutely 100% bad. Same for storage.

fog_of_redoubt · Apr 17, 2009, 08:59 PM // 20:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malice Black

[B]
The price will drop eventually anyway. Maybe only a few $, but they'll still be making money from this in 6 months time.

Why do people keep saying this? What evidence suggests this? The price of the character slot has not dropped has it? Have any of the unlocks dropped in price?

BenjZee · Apr 17, 2009, 09:14 PM // 21:14

My problem with B is is requires creating a character...and purchasing bags....and runes... which i can't be bothered to do.

As i and many have said countless times - ITS ALL ABout ACCESS !!!! we don't wanna switch to characters in the middle of a game, to ones we don;t even like for that matter either....

Vilaptca · Apr 17, 2009, 09:17 PM // 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by fog_of_redoubt

Why do people keep saying this? What evidence suggests this? The price of the character slot has not dropped has it? Have any of the unlocks dropped in price?

The unlocks have. By A LOT. They're currently $9.99. I remember when they used to be $39.99.

They changed the prices when they added the PvP kits, and split the unlock packs up a bit.

Not long after they dropped the price they had the promotion where you could buy the unlock packs for half off. I bought them all at $5 each.

BenjZee · Apr 17, 2009, 09:19 PM // 21:19

HAHA random but i am buying a suitcase for my holidays...for £17...it is medium sized....

the larger is on offer at £15....however i don't wanna buy this storage as its inconient for me ....takes up alot of room for example.. just thought id share that

Empress Amarox · Apr 17, 2009, 09:36 PM // 21:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lourens

@Empress Amarox
I bet you can't make a game like Guildwars right? so it seems that you are a bigger noob then a-net if you say that a-net is one.

Actually, I was just putting a more realistic trading scenario (e.g. if that was said in-game due to a similar scenario, the response would be much more likely.. people don't ask to meet in the middle, they just insult you and try to find a better deal somewhere else), but way to be a naive inconsequential person:

Non Sequitur:
Something that just does not follow. For example, "Tens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other planets is fast becoming certainty!"
Another example: arguing at length that your religion is of great help to many people. Then, concluding that the teachings of your religion are undoubtably true.
Or: "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."

Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection):
If your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn't up on.
This is related to Argument By Question. Asking questions is easy: it's answering them that's hard.
It is also possible to lower the bar, reducing the burden on an argument. For example, a person who takes Vitamin C might claim that it prevents colds. When they do get a cold, then they move the goalposts, by saying that the cold would have been much worse if not for the Vitamin C.

Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man):
Attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)
Another example is this syllogism, which alludes to Alan Turing's homosexuality:
Turing thinks machines think.
Turing lies with men.
Therefore, machines don't think.
A common form is an attack on sincerity. For example, "How can you argue for vegetarianism when you wear leather shoes?" The two wrongs make a right fallacy is related.
Another variation is attack by innuendo: "Why don't scientists tell us what they really know; are they afraid of public panic?"
There may be a pretense that the attack isn't happening: "In order to maintain a civil debate, I will not mention my opponent's drinking problem." Or "I don't care if other people say you're [opinionated/boring/overbearing]."
Attacks don't have to be strong or direct. You can merely show disrespect, or cut down his stature by saying that he seems to be sweating a lot, or that he has forgotten what he said last week. Some examples: "I used to think that way when I was your age." "You're new here, aren't you?" "You weren't breast fed as a child, were you?" "What drives you to make such a statement?" "If you'd just listen.." "You seem very emotional." (This last works well if you have been hogging the microphone, so that they have had to yell to be heard.)
Sometimes the attack is on the other person's intelligence. For example, "If you weren't so stupid you would have no problem seeing my point of view." Or, "Even you should understand my next point."

Looks like we're done here. :P

Legion Magnus · Apr 17, 2009, 09:48 PM // 21:48

Whereas I do not believe anyone's opinions are wrong or 'bad' I do believe inevitably that this issue is about principle. The concept of charging for additions like extra storage (which people have been requesting since Rurik met his first Charr) deeply concern some people about the shape of things to come, especially with GW2 on the distant horizon.

ANet will do as they will. Some will buy, some will not. But those that do will demonstrate to ANet that micro-transactions or a-la-carte, is an acceptable way to do business. I do not fault ANet for making an honest profit, that is what they are in business for, however my concern is - where does it end?

For those that travel via airplanes these days, do you appreciate paying additionally for your baggage, your pillow, your peanuts? Can you do without these 'convenience' items? Sure you can, but you wouldn't have to if the practice had not become acceptable, especially in a market economy.

Will you, some day, pay for your skill balances separately, as an example? Will some receive updates, while others who have not paid the paltry transaction fee of $10 for the latest skill update packs miss out on the better skills? I (hopefully) exaggerate for effect, but who knows? Talk about your skill imbalance then! Who wants the shiny new armor, or that wicked looking new weapon? Want access to the new, high-end Domain of Profitability, hmm?

I doubt ANet will expend much on additional disk space until they meet certain thresholds of storage tab sales. It could be awhile before they spend anything on extra storage, we will likely never know. Server storage is more expensive than what most people realize, especially if you base your expectations on commodity desktop storage pricing. But at $10 each, assuming many people signed up, this could be a cash cow for ANet.

Truly, I believe this is about the principle of the matter. Will you support the slippery slope, or not?

Arduin · Apr 17, 2009, 09:57 PM // 21:57

Option B is not only one easy to reach huge pane of storage, and you know it:

That's the trade-off, easy to reach storage opposed to a much bigger storage, but with added hassle.

Gli · Apr 17, 2009, 10:00 PM // 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I find it hilarious that many of the people who are fine with selling storage are NOT fine with selling vanity items. Don't they see how ridiculous their stance is? They only aren't fine with it when ANet sells something that affects them personally.

Another player buying a new storage option that's offered in addition to more efficient storage options that have been available for years doesn't really bother me, nor can I see how it could bother anyone else. The only 'bother' I can think of is wanting the new storage option but not wanting to pay for it. Is that what it's all about?

DreamWind · Apr 17, 2009, 10:53 PM // 22:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

Another player buying a new storage option that's offered in addition to more efficient storage options that have been available for years doesn't really bother me, nor can I see how it could bother anyone else. The only 'bother' I can think of is wanting the new storage option but not wanting to pay for it. Is that what it's all about?

Another player buying a new vanity option that is offered in addition to better looking items that have been available for years doesn't really bother me, nor can I see how it could bother anyone else. The only 'bother' I can think of is wanting a new vanity outfit but not wanting to pay for it. Is that what it's all about?

It is all or nothing. Where does this end?

Master Knightfall · Apr 17, 2009, 11:09 PM // 23:09

It all boils down to buy or not buy nothing else really. Boycotts don't really do anything but get a bunch of beer chugging pretzel eating fat boys together rah rahing their opinions and trying to get everyone else to agree with them and lead the way (they are too fat to move that fast lol).
Anet will take in some money from this. Will they take in projected figures? Nobody knows you can only speculate. Does it really matter to the majority of players not buying into it? Nope not at all. Will it save GW2 or keep GW1 alive? Is it meant to? Nobody knows and most again don't care.
Most people only care about things when it concerns them, I know I'm that way. So, I don't expect a boycott to do much of anything. Those that aren't going to buy have already decided not to buy and those that are going to buy have already decided to buy as well. I don't see any reason to keep discussing it or arguing about it. The path is set so just let it run its course.

Gli · Apr 17, 2009, 11:52 PM // 23:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Another player buying a new vanity option that is offered in addition to better looking items that have been available for years doesn't really bother me, nor can I see how it could bother anyone else. The only 'bother' I can think of is wanting a new vanity outfit but not wanting to pay for it. Is that what it's all about?

It is all or nothing. Where does this end?

Vanity is the one of the rare rewards for playing Pve that one can measure against other players. There is little else. If you put that up for sale, the game collapses for players who care about that part of the game. Skill unlocks and storage are completely invisible. How can they matter when you can't even tell if another player spent real money on them?

Yawgmoth · Apr 18, 2009, 12:53 AM // 00:53

Update. Option B is even better than it seems!

rabwatt · Apr 18, 2009, 12:53 AM // 00:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vilaptca

People would whine about B because it isn't complete. They would demand that right hand bottom corner be added. You know, because they deserve it, and after all the money they paid for this game, they are owed that right hand corner. And where would ANet be without them, so if ANet wants to give them more storage it better include that right hand corner...or else they won't buy GW2.

That sums up 50% of this thread pretty nicely hehe

belladonna shylock · Apr 18, 2009, 01:28 AM // 01:28

If you want more storage Anet probably doesn't care which you buy: a new account, new character slot or a new pane.. Actually, they would probably prefer you to buy a new account so they can report it in their 10-Q and 10-K.

It works like this:

Do you want more storage? Yes or No?
If no, don't read any further.

If yes, here are your options:
New Pane
New character slot
New account

If you want more storage and think the price of a pane is too much, buy a new GW game or another character slot. it's that simple. If you already have all character slots for said account, get a new account.

I don't see why this has to be such a great big discussion.

immortius · Apr 18, 2009, 01:44 AM // 01:44

I notice the trolls enjoy ignoring the convenience side of the equation, because it complicates their arguments.

Ignoring the size end of the equation things are equally clear:

Storage - Can access with all your characters in every outpost! Brilliant.
Characters - Have to switch characters to access, and even then must move items into storage to give access to other characters.
Accounts - Have to mess around to get multiple instances of GW running, and then can only transfer items via the trade system (or dropping stuff outside of outposts if you're mad).

Seems perfectly clear cut to me which is better. :P

pamelf · Apr 18, 2009, 03:00 AM // 03:00

I'm all for this, but only if Anet gets off their asses and changes the Australian payment methods OUT OF BRITISH POUNDS. It's extortionary and wrong.

Hell Raiser · Apr 18, 2009, 03:01 AM // 03:01

Never have I ever heard of a boycott of a luxury item because of its price, that's just crazy. I could see being angry about a price if the product was a necessity and there were no alternatives, but an optional, luxury, item? No way. I would say it's just a misuse of the word boycott; not buying 1 product from a company because it's "overpriced" is not a boycott, it's how every product works, and if it really is overpriced, like many of you claim, Anet's sales will show it, and they will have to lower the price or lose profits (that's assuming it is overpriced). Just keep in mind that us players don't get to decide what a fair price is for a product, the "market" will do that.

Personally, looking at my two accounts, I think I will be buying 1 or 2 of these panes. I see that my primary's 4 storage panes are packed and have been that way for a while, my primary character's inventory has only 20 open slots, and none of my other characters have anything but their own armor/weapons/books/kits (so none of them are mules). While my secondary account has an almost empty storage (4 panes), no mules, and 4 open char slots. I tried using mules and my secondary account as extra storage, but I couldn't take it. It's so annoying and inconvenient to have to get my second GW client open, log in, get both of them to the same town, open storage, trade with them, and then go back to wherever I was before, just to use a damn tome. So now I just deal with the low storage on my primary and don't even bother trying to use mules. Now at least I will have the option to pay for storage that I'll actually use.

And no offense to whoever created it, but this poll is not very good. I would have just added 2 options: 1) $10 is too much. 2) $10 is a fair price.

byteme! · Apr 18, 2009, 03:08 AM // 03:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hell Raiser

Never have I ever heard of a boycott of a luxury item because of its price, that's just crazy. I could see being angry about a price if the product was a necessity and there were no alternatives, but an optional, luxury, item? No way. I would say it's just a misuse of the word boycott; not buying 1 product from a company because it's "overpriced" is not a boycott, it's how every product works, and if it really is overpriced, like many of you claim, Anet's sales will show it, and they will have to lower the price or lose profits (that's assuming it is overpriced). Just keep in mind that us players don't get to decide what a fair price is for a product, the "market" will do that.

This is a very well thought out post in my opinion and I'm inclined to agree with you.