Curse

Daesu · Dec 20, 2009, 12:10 AM // 00:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

So who is actually "hurting your experience" here?

Let me try to imagine what some of these people are feeling:

It is called "Jealous Envy". If I am too cheap to buy them myself, then it hurts when I see someone else wearing them in the game, thus I try to ask people around me not to buy them.

Jecht Scye · Dec 20, 2009, 02:24 AM // 02:24

Jealous Envy?

That's completely untrue. I wouldn't doubt that everyone arguing against the micro-transaction model could buy these costumes if they wanted to. What we fear is the continuation and expansion of this micro-transaction model. For my points on this, I refer you back to my original arguments in this thread.

HawkofStorms · Dec 20, 2009, 03:15 AM // 03:15

I too am a bit nervous about the direction this is heading in. While they look cool... they aren't "just cosmetic" since they can be used in actual combat. It really is no different from selling an actual armor set for real money. It's just not the kind of business model that was promised to customers when they purchased the product. I know A.net needs the money (simply saying they made 200 million, without taking into account how much of that money was the retailer markup, etc is a little shortsighted). And as such, I'm sure they will continue to do this in the future. People are buying these and it is profitable.

But that doesn't excuse the fact that this is the slippery slope that I first warned about when the in-game store was introduced. BMP? Fine, you aren't just paying for the weapon skins, but also the actually missions. Pet and skill unlock pack? Okay, something for the lazy for something already available in game. But when you get "pay money for this cool armor..." that's a line I didn't want to be crossed.

The main fear people have is that this will simply continue. Many of the people's gut reaction against this is mainly because many microtransaction based games are just TERRIBLE games... so that gives microtransactions as a whole bad vibe.

I understand why this is done and why it is needed... but still, I don't see stuff like this helping GW2 sales and word of mouth about the GW series. I doubt the short term profits made from this will overcome the (abiet small) long term lost profits from people who don't like microtransactions abadoning the game.

Garreth MacLeod · Dec 20, 2009, 05:09 AM // 05:09

Has anyone noticed the female Dwayna "wing things" on the arms clip each other and also the back of the costume? Saw that today on someone in Kamadan. You'd at least think if they were going to charge $10 they'd make sure the costume doesn't clip.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

But that doesn't excuse the fact that this is the slippery slope that I first warned about when the in-game store was introduced. BMP? Fine, you aren't just paying for the weapon skins, but also the actually missions. Pet and skill unlock pack? Okay, something for the lazy for something already available in game. But when you get "pay money for this cool armor..." that's a line I didn't want to be crossed.

I remember that discussion back when it first came up. I guess anet is going to continue down that slope.

Kityn · Dec 20, 2009, 05:46 AM // 05:46

I remember when I first got this game. I fully expected the game to evolve and change. What I did not expect at all was all the added content I did not have to pay for. There has been far more given to us then what has been taken away.
I can care less what is added to the in game store as long as it gives no one any advantage over other players whether it be pve or pvp.

Daesu · Dec 20, 2009, 07:43 AM // 07:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

I understand why this is done and why it is needed... but still, I don't see stuff like this helping GW2 sales and word of mouth about the GW series. I doubt the short term profits made from this will overcome the (abiet small) long term lost profits from people who don't like microtransactions abadoning the game.

[removing the hat of a game customer...]

If I am ANet, I would have said the hell with it and just go with the subscription based model that most gamers seem to be just fine and dandy with (see Aion). A subscription based model would be a more solid path towards long term profits.

The moment they started selling cosmetic upgrades some people here started using the "Satanic" word on them. I really don't think a business model based around free-to-play and financed through releases and micro transactions would be competitive in today's MMO world. Furthermore, even if in the end they provided more value for money than the subscription based MMOs, they still get more bad rep from their customers. This would hurt their sales.

I wish ANet would just give up and follow the rest of the MMO world into the subscription model, ditch the bad rep micro transactions and spare themselves the expensive as well as the hectic schedule of needing to release every 6 months just to stay competitive. It is just not worth it.

[putting on the hat of a game customer...]

I would rather have more optional cosmetic micro transactions than mandatory subscriptions to finance this game so I would prefer to support free-to-play games and hopefully more MMOs would be free-to-play even though I dont think that is going happen.

Riot Narita · Dec 20, 2009, 09:53 AM // 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

I wish ANet would just give up and follow the rest of the MMO world into the subscription model

Me, I wish the rest of the MMO world would just give up trying to replicate WoW's success, and follow GW into the NON-subscription model.

I do not want a world where EVERY game I play requires a subscription.

Daesu · Dec 20, 2009, 05:18 PM // 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hissy

Me, I wish the rest of the MMO world would just give up trying to replicate WoW's success, and follow GW into the NON-subscription model.

I do not want a world where EVERY game I play requires a subscription.

Sure, and I agree with you while having the hat of a game customer ON. But look around you, how many MMOs require a subscription and how many are actually free-to-play? Which is the majority?

You want a good free-to-play MMO that is well financed so that GW2 would be released with excellent quality 3+ years after the latest release, which is GWEN in Aug 31st 2007.

ANet simply doesn't have the army of designers, developers, and testers that Blizzard has because GW's revenue is not even close to WoW's. It is stupid to demand ANet to have a new release of GW1 every 6 months while they are working on GW2 at the same time. How do you think they are going to get by from GWEN sales (from 2007) till the time when GW2 is ready?

Pistachio · Dec 20, 2009, 06:06 PM // 18:06

Here's how I see it.

I do not like the micro-transaction business model, because it takes our "free to play" game and blocks off some content that can only be accessed by shelling out some cash. This may be cosmetic content only, but it truly moves the game outside of "free to play", because some content requires you pay.

But.

I really do enjoy playing Guild Wars, and have done so since release. I don't have many big complaints about the game, and I don't think Anet has gone wrong yet - so considering there is no required monthly fee, I don't mind dropping a few bones here and there to ensure the continuation of a game I've enjoyed consistently for years, and getting a little eye candy for it. Yes, I would love absolutely everything to be free in GW, but I've come to accept that can't be a reality if I want the game supported by Anet. What can I say? I'm a sucker for the game.

Burst Cancel · Dec 20, 2009, 07:26 PM // 19:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jecht Scye

That's completely untrue. I wouldn't doubt that everyone arguing against the micro-transaction model could buy these costumes if they wanted to. What we fear is the continuation and expansion of this micro-transaction model. For my points on this, I refer you back to my original arguments in this thread.

And I refer you back to my explanation of why your arguments are complete bullshit. Microtransactions are a symptom of the root problem. Anet is simply giving the players what they want - the privilege to grind existing content for free.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

But when you get "pay money for this cool armor..." that's a line I didn't want to be crossed.

It should tell you something about GW as a whole when players think a cosmetic upgrade is game-changing.

Where were all of you when they released the collector's editions with exclusive Divine Aura and minipets (minipets that could actually be traded in-game - the closest thing yet to selling gold for real money)? Or pre-order bonus/game of the year weapon skins?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pistachio

I do not like the micro-transaction business model, because it takes our "free to play" game and blocks off some content that can only be accessed by shelling out some cash.

You have got to be f'ing kidding me. Do you really not realize that games themselves are "content that can only be accessed by shelling out some cash." What do you think Prophecies, Factions, and Nightfall were? Could you access GW content without buying GW? Are you people even listening to yourselves?

I'm going to say it again: GW players demonstrate that they enjoy grinding the same content over and over again for shinies. Microtransactions allow these players to continue doing so without paying - those who pay are subsidizing those who don't. As long as the players continue acting the way they do, this is the kind of treatment they should expect.

masharra · Dec 20, 2009, 07:49 PM // 19:49

Oh well A-nets got my paycheck

Horrah now i need to be able to buy it for my guildies
\
any ideas how?

Maker of the fallen · Dec 20, 2009, 07:58 PM // 19:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

How do you think they are going to get by from GWEN sales (from 2007) till the time when GW2 is ready?

Micro transactions

People moan and whine about "Where's my skill update?!?!?!?!?!?" Oh please, they can't afford anything it seems, so they are making money for these "balances" you so desperately need.

Not bashing Daesu, just answering your question.

Pistachio · Dec 20, 2009, 08:28 PM // 20:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

You have got to be f'ing kidding me. Do you really not realize that games themselves are "content that can only be accessed by shelling out some cash." What do you think Prophecies, Factions, and Nightfall were? Could you access GW content without buying GW? Are you people even listening to yourselves?

I've been accessing all the GW content without paying for it for years now. What have you been doing?

You're just being difficult, Burst. We're talking about content tacked onto the game(s) we all already purchased, and you know it. Don't be argumentative just for the sake of it, because it just makes you look stupid.

Arduin · Dec 20, 2009, 09:03 PM // 21:03

Hmmm, I'm wondering, are we going to get more headpieces outside of events?

Great opportunity for Anet too sell some sets in the store.

the Puppeteer · Dec 20, 2009, 09:43 PM // 21:43

again - fork out the cash deal... lame

nologic · Dec 20, 2009, 09:54 PM // 21:54

Still dont get it why people moan atleast for people who doesnt want it doesnt need to pay up for it. 8.99 euros aint that much either. Dont know the dollar price but still.

I'd rather buy outfits than paying up for a lame xp boost pot in another game thats laggy as shit far even worse than GW and then concludes this game isnt profitable enough we shut it down on this date.

They dont have the full staff team on the GW side either its just only a few people who is continuing the update the rest are working on GW2.

The skill update will also come when its ready!

I'd rather get small updates rather than none!

Burst Cancel · Dec 20, 2009, 10:06 PM // 22:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pistachio

I've been accessing all the GW content without paying for it for years now. What have you been doing?

You're just being difficult, Burst. We're talking about content tacked onto the game(s) we all already purchased, and you know it. Don't be argumentative just for the sake of it, because it just makes you look stupid.

You need to pay attention, because I'm not just being difficult. If you were less dense you would realize that you're trying to make a distinction where there isn't one. There is nothing fundamentally different between Factions, the Bonus Mission Pack, or this costume pack. All of them are extra content that you have to pay for. You can argue that Factions is a better deal for your money than a few fancy outfits, but they're ultimately the same thing - extra stuff for extra money.

What's particularly interesting here is that many people openly admit that they only play for the shinies. Thus, adding shinies is actually better value for these players than extra missions.

Premium Unleaded · Dec 20, 2009, 10:28 PM // 22:28

Except Factions is fundamentally different than the BMP or the costumes in that the extra content includes new skills, and therefore has a direct effect on a core aspect of the whole game.

Gli · Dec 20, 2009, 10:28 PM // 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

You need to pay attention, because I'm not just being difficult. If you were less dense you would realize that you're trying to make a distinction where there isn't one. There is nothing fundamentally different between Factions, the Bonus Mission Pack, or this costume pack. All of them are extra content that you have to pay for. You can argue that Factions is a better deal for your money than a few fancy outfits, but they're ultimately the same thing - extra stuff for extra money.

There's a fundamental difference. The campaigns are games, the bonus mission pack adds gaming content. The costume pack has no 'gaming value' whatsoever and is therefore in no way equivalent.

The costume pack is to guild wars as a bottle of wood polish is to chess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

What's particularly interesting here is that many people openly admit that they only play for the shinies. Thus, adding shinies is actually better value for these players than extra missions.

I play for the shinies, among other things. Notice the letter 'L' in that word. 'Play' for the shinies, as in, accomplish game-related stuff, get rewarded with shinies. 'Pay' for the shinies, that does nothing for me.

Burst Cancel · Dec 20, 2009, 11:00 PM // 23:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

There's a fundamental difference. The campaigns are games, the bonus mission pack adds gaming content. The costume pack has no 'gaming value' whatsoever and is therefore in no way equivalent.

Sorry, that's not a fundamental difference. The fact is that Anet is still providing you additional content for additional money; whether that content is worth the amount of money they are asking is a question for the individual, and that question is one of value, period - not "gaming value" or whatever other arbitrary "type" of value. If the costumes don't have value commensurate to their cost, people won't buy them, it's really that simple.

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.

There's a reason chess sets with ivory chessmen cost more than ones with plastic chessmen.

Quote:

I play for the shinies, among other things. Notice the letter 'L' in that word. 'Play' for the shinies, as in, accomplish game-related stuff, get rewarded with shinies. 'Pay' for the shinies, that does nothing for me.

If you enjoy the grinding itself, you aren't really playing for the shinies. As I stated in the other microtransaction thread, if I wanted Obsidian armor, it would be a much better use of my time to work 10 minutes of overtime and buy that armor with real money - but that's because I don't enjoy grinding. If all you actually want is the shinies, buying is a lot better than grinding.

And if you do enjoy grinding, be thankful that other people are subsidizing your playtime by buying costume packs and storage panes.