Curse

Mordakai · Jul 15, 2009, 02:35 PM // 14:35

Just to be clear, right now with XTH closed and 1st year minipets practically worthless, the ONLY benefit of multiple accounts is more Traveler Gifts.

And with the work required (have to unlock the area on the new account, farm for the required item), if someone feels that is the best use of their time and money, who is it for us to judge?

And again: Let's suppose Anet would want to limit accounts, is there any practical way to do this?

Akaraxle · Jul 15, 2009, 03:14 PM // 15:14

ANet is f**king smart to have planned this, I had never seen it coming. Hats off to them.

nkuvu · Jul 15, 2009, 03:34 PM // 15:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

And again: Let's suppose Anet would want to limit accounts, is there any practical way to do this?

No. You could restrict by IP address, but lots of people have dynamic IP addresses, others may use proxies. You could limit the number of accounts tied to a credit card/name at one, but you don't need to enter accurate information -- you could buy the game for cash at your local game store and ArenaNet would have no way to verify the information.

But on top of that, there's no way they'd do this retroactively. If they suddenly limited me to one game account, then I'd expect a refund for the other two copies of the game I have. Including all of the added things like any character slots or unlock packs I may have purchased. I wouldn't expect a refund, of course, if I did something to violate the user agreement, but if they arbitrarily changed the number of accounts I can have, I can't see a way they'd be able to refuse a refund.

So this whole thread is pointless. You (this is a generic "you," by the way) may as well complain that some people can spend more time in game and therefore can acquire more game wealth. I work full time, but there are plenty of players who don't.

This:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mireles

Obtaining anything in the game should be how you play... not how much cash you have to blow on accounts...

could easily have said "Obtaining anything in game should be how you play... not how much time you have to farm..." instead.

"Cry me a river, child of angst!" --Olias

Daesu · Jul 15, 2009, 03:57 PM // 15:57

Right, there is no effective way to check if someone is buying more than 1 account for XTH or otherwise. The only thing ANet can do now is to remove XTH, Gifts, Birthday presents, NF treasure chest, zquests, all kunnavang, all magazine minis, skill unlock packs, etc. from the game if you want to be strict about it so that people with multiple accounts/characters cannot benefit. This way, people would not buy new accounts, or new character slots, or gain benefit through RL money by buying Factions Collector's edition, or by buying extra copies of those magazines, etc.

The point I am trying to make is, you are years too late! This game has always been giving SOME amount of advantage to people who have spent RL money on it. Not as much of an advantage compared to many other games but strictly speaking it does give SOME advantage. Wake up and smell the coffee!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Just to be clear, right now with XTH closed and 1st year minipets practically worthless, the ONLY benefit of multiple accounts is more Traveler Gifts.

First year minipets wasn't worthless shortly after they were released. Do you know how much Kuunavang was worth when Factions Collector's Edition first came out? Strictly speaking all these did translate into in-game gold through RL money.

The community generally let it slide because they themselves benefited from all these. If you check the poll, most people here have more than one account.

Equating ANet's actions with the gold sellers doesn't make sense because ANet owns this game, they created it, and we use their servers everytime we logon. ANet also created the game's TOS. Gold sellers, on the other hand, are trying to benefit through ANet's work, translating it to RL money for themselves. Buying gold indirectly from ANet is still different from buying gold from online vendors because that would be a TOS issue, not a "game economy purity" issue as OP (and some of you) keep referring to.

And of course ANet would try to convince all of us that it is good for the game's economy not to buy gold from online vendors and in many ways they are right, we dont want to open a flood gate. But if ask them about benefits gained through multiple accounts, they would say they have control over it and will monitor the situation.

esthetic · Jul 15, 2009, 04:43 PM // 16:43

Really, I just don't get you people demanding ANet not to offer incentives to people to buy additional accounts to increase their revenue. Its so shortsighted and moronic. More money ANet makes allows them to keep the game quality up and keep it going. I mean are you paying them a monthly fee? And who the F*@# cares that someone gave their money to ANet to buy additional accounts so that they can get shiney pixels? You get the benefit of ANet using their RL money to keep the game up. Basiclly, you are saying you would rather sacrafice the game or quality of the game over playing with others that spent RL money to get shinier pixels. (moronic)

Unless you are contributing to ANet by giving them your RL money, I dont think you have a leg to stand on to complain...

Where does it say in the EULA, that ANet promises to not to offer incentives to people that buy additional accounts? Where does it say they will sacrafice additional revenue so you can be happy? Who do you think ANet is? Some sort of game company fairy? they are a business formed to make money.

I am on the side of those that have bought additional accounts based on ANet's incentives(XTH predictions) only to have ANet take it away(or not fix in a timely fashion). Those people spent RL money for something they are not getting. They have the valid beef.

Nerel · Jul 15, 2009, 05:04 PM // 17:04

What, they still have their extra accounts don't they? That is after all what they paid money for... extra accounts, not a free cash influx every month.

Anet is free to change or even remove the XTH anytime they choose (I don't think they will) and no-one can call foul, you bought extra accounts and oh look, you still have those accounts.

Maybe Anet will shift to just selling gold in the online store, or better yet, purchase tokens that can't be traded to other players, but can be redeemed for rare skinned weapons.

They've milked the people purchasing accounts for the XTH dry, time to move on to other means of making cash... that is what it's all about, after all, right? Cash flow for Anet?

esthetic · Jul 15, 2009, 05:19 PM // 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerel

What, they still have their extra accounts don't they? That is after all what they paid money for... extra accounts, not a free cash influx every month.

Anet is free to change or even remove the XTH anytime they choose (I don't think they will) and no-one can call foul, you bought extra accounts and oh look, you still have those accounts.

Maybe Anet will shift to just selling gold in the online store, or better yet, purchase tokens that can't be traded to other players, but can be redeemed for rare skinned weapons.

They've milked the people purchasing accounts for the XTH dry, time to move on to other means of making cash... that is what it's all about, after all, right? Cash flow for Anet?

I disagree that they can take out XTH without exposure to liability for one reason. I would argue that ANet marketed additional accounts as though they were selling in game gold for RL $. Additional accounts have no other value component as they cannot be sold or transferred to a third party. Just as if a third party sold in game gold for RL $ and they fail to deliver the in game gold would be in default of contract, Anet would also be in default.

Nerel · Jul 15, 2009, 05:32 PM // 17:32

There is no exposure to liability for NCsoft/Anet here... they originally sold a game with six professions but only four character slots and very limited storage options, as a result many people bought extra accounts to allow them to play all the character professions. Anet later added purchasable character slots and expanded storage availability... were those people ripped off by unfair business practices from NCsoft?

I don't even see where the XTH is advertised as a feature on any GW box, and even if it is, they DO have the right to change or remove elements of the game, there is no legal recourse against them for doing what they have every right to do.

Bad fan publicity and being smacked around on the forums is all they face.

Much like nerfing popular skills.

Join the Ursan class action now!

esthetic · Jul 15, 2009, 05:45 PM // 17:45

Well, the law of virtual space and virtual goods is new and evolving. A third party can be sued for agreeing to yet failing to deliver virtual goods for real life money. ANet/NCsoft can be sued if they sold virtual goods for real life money and they do not deliver. For example if they sold you extra storage slot for real life money and they do not deliver it they are in breach. I would argue that the sale of additional accounts to current account holders as sale of virtual goods for real life money, like additional storage, face lifts, unlock packs, ect..

Once again, just because its not on the box they are off the hook is not true. They did advertise XTH in the game as well as on websites and other forms of media.

Daesu · Jul 15, 2009, 05:51 PM // 17:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerel

There is no exposure to liability for NCsoft/Anet here... they originally sold a game with six professions but only four character slots and very limited storage options, as a result many people bought extra accounts to allow them to play all the character professions. Anet later added purchasable character slots and expanded storage availability... were those people ripped off by unfair business practices from NCsoft?

What unfair business practices are you talking about? ANet owns the game and servers so they have every right to sell us accounts and even add benefits to increase their profits. In other words, they are free to milk their own hard work. What business law have they violated?

They are free to add new features to their game as and when they see fit. The box didn't mention about zquests or nick's gifts either.

Mordakai · Jul 15, 2009, 08:34 PM // 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

First year minipets wasn't worthless shortly after they were released. Do you know how much Kuunavang was worth when Factions Collector's Edition first came out? Strictly speaking all these did translate into in-game gold through RL money.

I know, that's why I said "right now".

(actually, has Kuunivang's price gone UP or DOWN since Factions?

I bought mine for 100k + 7 ectos (of course, ectos were worth more back then, too).

Daesu · Jul 15, 2009, 09:13 PM // 21:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

I bought mine for 100k + 7 ectos (of course, ectos were worth more back then, too).

And that, is a lot of gold to be gained by buying the collector's edition even thought it costs more, so the OP (and others) who compares ANet to gold sellers really doesn't know that ANet has already been translating RL money to gold indirectly since many years ago.

Nerel · Jul 16, 2009, 07:47 AM // 07:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

What unfair business practices are you talking about? ANet owns the game and servers so they have every right to sell us accounts and even add benefits to increase their profits. In other words, they are free to milk their own hard work. What business law have they violated?

They are free to add new features to their game as and when they see fit. The box didn't mention about zquests or nick's gifts either.

That was my point, Anet DIDN'T engage in any unfair business practices, they made changes to the game AS THEY ARE ENTITLED to. Just because someone feels disadvantaged by the changes, or that they had spent money that they might not have if they had of known about the later changes to the game is largely irrelevant.

When something begins with "Were" and ends with a question mark, it's a good bet that it is a question being asked, not a statement of fact or opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by esthetic

Well, the law of virtual space and virtual goods is new and evolving. A third party can be sued for agreeing to yet failing to deliver virtual goods for real life money. ANet/NCsoft can be sued if they sold virtual goods for real life money and they do not deliver. For example if they sold you extra storage slot for real life money and they do not deliver it they are in breach. I would argue that the sale of additional accounts to current account holders as sale of virtual goods for real life money, like additional storage, face lifts, unlock packs, ect..

Once again, just because its not on the box they are off the hook is not true. They did advertise XTH in the game as well as on websites and other forms of media.

Yes, an interesting and evolving area of law, you're right, and one that WOULDN'T apply to the Xunlai tournament house, which isn't a virtual item, isn't something that you can OWN or POSSESS but a small FEATURE of the game, one that ArenaNet is free to alter or remove at their discretion, at best it is a service provided as part of the game experience, a service which they DIDN'T sell, nor agree to any contract ensuring that they would continue to provide it.

There is ABSOLUTELY no legal recourse against ArenaNet if they choose to alter the mechanics of some small part of the game. They have every right to do so.

The whole argument of 'virtual goods' having value is largely bunk here, anyway, as the EULA ensures that you DO NOT OWN your equipment, pretty skinned weapons and virtual gold... those Virtual Goods reside SOLELY on ArenaNet's servers, are the sole property of ArenaNet, and by paying for the game ArenaNet gives you the right to play with THEIR stuff, a right that they can REVOKE at will. But again, the XTH is a game FEATURE, a service they provide as part of the game experience, not a virtual item or asset.

esthetic · Jul 16, 2009, 12:24 PM // 12:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerel

*snip* There is ABSOLUTELY no legal recourse against ArenaNet if they choose to alter the mechanics of some small part of the game. They have every right to do so.

The whole argument of 'virtual goods' having value is largely bunk here, anyway, as the EULA ensures that you DO NOT OWN your equipment, pretty skinned weapons and virtual gold... those Virtual Goods reside SOLELY on ArenaNet's servers, are the sole property of ArenaNet, and by paying for the game ArenaNet gives you the right to play with THEIR stuff, a right that they can REVOKE at will. But again, the XTH is a game FEATURE, a service they provide as part of the game experience, not a virtual item or asset.

My post proposed the following argument. If ANet sold you additional storage, extra character slot, a skill unlock pack or a face lift for real money, $9.99, but they fail to deliver would this be considered breach and ANet liable? Extra, slots, storage or change in appearance or skill available is just "Virtual Goods"

Many on this site, as I, have equated ANet marketing XTH Rewards to existing account holders as incentive to buy additional accounts a vehicle to sell ingame gold "Virtual Goods" for real money.

The fact they used this indirect method does not change the fact that the person who bought the addtional account was induced to buy the account, for XTH rewards = ZKeys = "in game gold" = "Virtual Goods".

The argument that the marketing of by ANet and purchase by an existing account holder of addtional accounts is a RMT for "virtual goods" is further supported by the fact that the additional account has no other value to the person who bought the account but the "Virtual Good" of "in game gold" that was offered by ANet. And that ANet changed the EULA to allow a person to own more than one account.

I think this though is a moot point. ANet will not take down XTH for one HUGE economic reason. By conservative estimate taken from the guru poll, over half of the accounts sold were additional accounts. ANet will not want to discourage this behaviour of purchasing additional accounts, HALF OF THE ACCOUNTS SOLD were additional accounts. To take out XTH would decrease the incentive to purchase addtional accounts, and if GW2 will be of similar structure, people will not have an incentive to buy multiple copies of GW2.

-Sonata- · Jul 16, 2009, 02:35 PM // 14:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by esthetic

My post proposed the following argument. If ANet sold you additional storage, extra character slot, a skill unlock pack or a face lift for real money, $9.99, but they fail to deliver would this be considered breach and ANet liable? Extra, slots, storage or change in appearance or skill available is just "Virtual Goods"

Many on this site, as I, have equated ANet marketing XTH Rewards to existing account holders as incentive to buy additional accounts a vehicle to sell ingame gold "Virtual Goods" for real money.

The fact they used this indirect method does not change the fact that the person who bought the addtional account was induced to buy the account, for XTH rewards = ZKeys = "in game gold" = "Virtual Goods".

The argument that the marketing of by ANet and purchase by an existing account holder of addtional accounts is a RMT for "virtual goods" is further supported by the fact that the additional account has no other value to the person who bought the account but the "Virtual Good" of "in game gold" that was offered by ANet. And that ANet changed the EULA to allow a person to own more than one account.

Nothing short of a conspiracy theory. This is where people need to start kicking their own ass because of greed over fake game money.

You can't compare XTH with the online store. It's not, in any way, the same premise. Why? The XTH was free to participate in. It was not an additional paid service like storage, or extra character slots. Like in many other games, where over time additional features are sometimes added & sometimes taken away, the XTH fits that description. If the XTH came with an additional cost; A purchase made of $9.99 to participate in it, then you'd be right. Then it becomes a direct service transaction that is no longer being delivered. You'd be right if the comparison was paying for Storage, then 6 months later they take away the added storage without refund.

But that's not the case, is it? No, it's not.

Anet didn't hold a gun to anyones head to go out and purchase 3, 4, 5+ accounts. There wasn't any incentive by them to market it as such. It was never marketed as such. No where was it written that in order to participate in the XTH, users must buy a half dozen account to participate in.

However, all some people saw was 'fake dollar signs' in their own eyes. Some people made the choice, on their own, to go buy up accounts because they wanted their imaginary bling and their stacks of ecto in storage, to spam in the GToB.

Fril Estelin · Jul 16, 2009, 02:46 PM // 14:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Sonata-

Nothing short of a conspiracy theory. This is where people need to start kicking their own ass because of greed over fake game money.

You can't compare XTH with the online store. It's not, in any way, the same premise. Why? The XTH was free to participate in. It was not an additional paid service like storage, or extra character slots. Like in many other games, where over time additional features are sometimes added & sometimes taken away, the XTH fits that description. If the XTH came with an additional cost; A purchase made of $9.99 to participate in it, then you'd be right. Then it becomes a direct service transaction that is no longer being delivered. You'd be right if the comparison was paying for Storage, then 6 months later they take away the added storage without refund.

But that's not the case, is it? No, it's not.

Anet didn't hold a gun to anyones head to go out and purchase 3, 4, 5+ accounts. There wasn't any incentive by them to market it as such. It was never marketed as such. No where was it written that in order to participate in the XTH, users must buy a half dozen account to participate in.

However, all some people saw was 'fake dollar signs' in their own eyes. Some people made the choice, on their own, to go buy up accounts because they wanted their imaginary bling and their stacks of ecto in storage, to spam in the GToB.

I think you're completely correct.

On the other hand, I also think that Anet knew the potential for "greedy" people to exploit this opportunity, which benefits them and GW2 (and thus it benefits us!). I don't believe they're short-sighted.

But as you said, no one was forced in any way. And no one bought an "XTH product". The game is still advertised the sane and correct way: buy the box, play the game! It's not Anet's fault if people wanted the box to play "another game".

People are blowing this problem out of proportion, for a collection of unrelated reasons.

esthetic · Jul 16, 2009, 03:12 PM // 15:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Sonata-

*snip*You can't compare XTH with the online store. It's not, in any way, the same premise. Why? The XTH was free to participate in. It was not an additional paid service like storage, or extra character slots. Like in many other games, where over time additional features are sometimes added & sometimes taken away, the XTH fits that description. If the XTH came with an additional cost; A purchase made of $9.99 to participate in it, then you'd be right. Then it becomes a direct service transaction that is no longer being delivered. You'd be right if the comparison was paying for Storage, then 6 months later they take away the added storage without refund.

But that's not the case, is it? No, it's not.

Anet didn't hold a gun to anyones head to go out and purchase 3, 4, 5+ accounts. There wasn't any incentive by them to market it as such. It was never marketed as such. No where was it written that in order to participate in the XTH, users must buy a half dozen account to participate in. *snip*

And here in lies the disagreement. I see the offering of XTH reward pts. for each account, and removing the restriction of one account per player as active intentional marketing to current account holders to purchase additional accounts. I see it as ANet getting into the business of the sale of in game gold for real money. Whether or not, the marketing was intentional, ANet did induce current account holders to purchase additional accounts for XTH reward pts., and that is all that is needed.

But that is beside the point. OVER HALF of the accounts are additional accounts. ANet would be smart to encourage this behavior not discourage. So they will get XTH reward pts on line as soon as they can and offer more incentives to get you to buy additional accounts.

-Sonata- · Jul 16, 2009, 05:43 PM // 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by esthetic

And here in lies the disagreement. I see the offering of XTH reward pts. for each account, and removing the restriction of one account per player as active intentional marketing to current account holders to purchase additional accounts. I see it as ANet getting into the business of the sale of in game gold for real money. Whether or not, the marketing was intentional, ANet did induce current account holders to purchase additional accounts for XTH reward pts., and that is all that is needed.

But that is beside the point. OVER HALF of the accounts are additional accounts. ANet would be smart to encourage this behavior not discourage. So they will get XTH reward pts on line as soon as they can and offer more incentives to get you to buy additional accounts.

You're right - this is exactly where we disagree because I see it as players inducing it on themselves. There's a selection of players, in every game, who want to be rich no matter what it takes and because of that greed they make stupid decisions with real money. Then, when they get busted on those bad decisions, they blame the game maker.

"I got banned for buying gold from an RMT site. It's not may fault <insert game name> makes it so hard to save money"

"I got banned for buying <insert weapon name> from a site. How's that fair? The drop rate is so stupid it'd take me years"

It's the same vicious cycle that has gone on for years. It's never the players fault; Always the games fault as though they should be holding our hands as we cross the street.

Anet doesn't have to encourage, or discourage anything. They shouldn't have to. They're not babysitters. If we weren't talking about the XTH right now, it'd be another excuse pulled out of the book that it's Anets fault for players being greedy and not the players themselves. This is just another circumstance where it's up to the individual to start taking some responsibility for once in their lives and stop blaming the "evil corporation" for lack of self control and making poor purchasing choices.

Short of halting any and all economic princple in this game, or any game for that matter, peoples greed to be virtually wealthy will constantly lay blame on the developer because, like I said, if we weren't talking about XTH, there would be something else to find an excuse for.

esthetic · Jul 16, 2009, 06:10 PM // 18:10

-Sonata- point well taken. But I really have to see ANet as being manipulative and thoughtful in doing what they do. They wanted to increase revenue and at the same time reduce third party RMT for in game gold. Offereing incentives to buy additional accounts so the player base does not give third parties money for ANets product. They decided to offer incentives to buy addtional accounts in part so that players dont go and buy from the third party gold farmers. To say now that its the buyer fault for buying additional accounts and ANet is not responsible for keeping up the XTH reward system is shortsighted.

And I believe that their actions accomplished their goals. RMT from gold farmers seems to be down dramaticly. (this is only an observation of the local trade chat in game)

Daesu · Jul 16, 2009, 06:52 PM // 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by esthetic

And I believe that their actions accomplished their goals. RMT from gold farmers seems to be down dramaticly. (this is only an observation of the local trade chat in game)

And that is the way it should be done, rather than spending unending resources policing the game, the better solution would be: Just reduce the incentive for people to buy gold.