Curse

Chasing Squirrels · Dec 22, 2009, 06:12 AM // 06:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zesty

If you think 10$ is a lot of money then I srsly pity you. I've payed at least 200$~ on this account and have had an account banned with similar money due to buying the releases at original price. If you don't want to pay for it then that's fine but I don't think it's necessary that you complain about ANet trying to make money. Also, the unlimited amount that you can make for any character, including PvP, along with the pack containing 2 different types of costumes makes it worthwhile if you like how it looks.

This is exactly what they want to hear haha.

Gli · Dec 22, 2009, 08:52 AM // 08:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

Also, they don't compete for the same money? You've got some grant or allowance that can only be spent on campaigns or something? The explanation that follows doesn't relate at all. Your position also falls apart for the majority of people here, as they have at least one campaign registered, rendering whatever arbitrary difference you think there is to be further neutralized.

You cannot usefully buy the costumes unless you have already bought a former product.

Since you can only spend money once, the costumes are after different money.

The majority of people here having already registered at least one campaign, how did you think that happened? Could they, perhaps, have already spent money on those?

Guild Wars campaigns have the entirety of the game playing population as their intended target, costumes only have the subset of gamers that have been succesfully targeted with a campaign as their target. Costumes depend on campaigns.

Arkantos · Dec 22, 2009, 09:37 AM // 09:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend Dr

Because this business model is questionable and it is very possible that another business model would be more successful not just in revenue generated, but in player satisfaction and ultimately game support. The fact that so many people are upset by it being put into place goes a ways to questioning that avenue for revenue.

Questionable? They found something that people are willing to buy, and sold it. If players are dissatisfied that they have to pay $10 for something that does not affect gameplay at all then, well, sucks for them really. The fact that so many people are upset just goes to show that people are going to complain about anything they have to purchase in GW other than new campaigns.

I mean really, are people surprised that ANet are doing this? GW1 is done for campaigns, they need to make money. This is obviously an excellent way to do so.

shoyon456 · Dec 22, 2009, 10:29 AM // 10:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zesty

If you think 10$ is a lot of money then I srsly pity you. I've payed at least 200$~ on this account and have had an account banned with similar money due to buying the releases at original price. If you don't want to pay for it then that's fine but I don't think it's necessary that you complain about ANet trying to make money. Also, the unlimited amount that you can make for any character, including PvP, along with the pack containing 2 different types of costumes makes it worthwhile if you like how it looks.

1. For many people money is tight. They could probably afford $10 if they really wanted to, but it wouldn't be wise for them to. That or that would mean taking $10 away from spending for others during the holiday. Most people won't find the $10 a problem if they want to get it.

2. Hmmm, I wonder why you had that account banned. If it was perma banned, and since you show so much willingness to pay $ for GW stuff, could it have been for using RMT services?

Although I do have a problem with it in principle, my major concern really comes from the fact that people are passing this off as "content." Well, you can pay $10 to get the BMP. That consists of four missions with unique skillbars and objective, with four different skins of EVERY type of weapon in the game for rewards. THAT is content.

For the same $10 one can get these two new costumes that cancel out the appearance of any armor being worn. Well, these costumes are pixels not "content" and definitely not worth the same as the BMP.

EDIT:
And unless the reason they can't put out a skill update even a month after schedule is because they're short on cash, then they should be using their organizing power to do THAT first and this SECOND.

Qing Guang · Dec 22, 2009, 03:53 PM // 15:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoyon456

Although I do have a problem with it in principle, my major concern really comes from the fact that people are passing this off as "content." Well, you can pay $10 to get the BMP. That consists of four missions with unique skillbars and objective, with four different skins of EVERY type of weapon in the game for rewards. THAT is content.

For the same $10 one can get these two new costumes that cancel out the appearance of any armor being worn. Well, these costumes are pixels not "content" and definitely not worth the same as the BMP.

EDIT:
And unless the reason they can't put out a skill update even a month after schedule is because they're short on cash, then they should be using their organizing power to do THAT first and this SECOND.

Bingo. I, personally, have no problem with microtransactions... except when they come at the expense of real content. I have a problem with ANet wasting time on shinies when they could be producing more content - another expansion, perhaps, or even something as small-scale but interesting as the BMP. I wouldn't mind the shinies if there was new content as well - hence why I am not at all upset with Blizzard, who just released two new minipets... as well as a huge new patch AND who are still working on revamping the entire planet for Cataclysm. Clearly it can be done.

I'm not complaining about the skill update, which I couldn't give a rat's about, and which the artists, at least, would not be working on (though I wouldn't be surprised if the people implementing the new costume system might also be in charge of that, considering how few people still work on Guild Wars). But honestly, I logged in yesterday in hopes of finding new Wintersday content, just a quest or two. But no. No, ANet's more interested in selling shinies to the poor saps who will pay for them than in actually giving us something to do in said shinies.

mrvrod · Dec 22, 2009, 04:47 PM // 16:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qing Guang

hence why I am not at all upset with Blizzard, who just released two new minipets... as well as a huge new patch AND who are still working on revamping the entire planet for Cataclysm. Clearly it can be done.

Of course it can be done. it can be done with a monthly pay mmo because all that extra revenue means a larger staff and more capital for content. if you are looking for that, by all means move to a subscription based mmo and get a lot more content. I, for one, will stick with a one-time purchase, a decent amount of content, and non game changing microtransactions which are totally optional.

It's a matter of choice, no one answer is right or wrong. It's what the individual is looking for in a game.

thedarkmarine · Dec 22, 2009, 04:53 PM // 16:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

You cannot usefully buy the costumes unless you have already bought a former product.

Since you can only spend money once, the costumes are after different money.

This makes no difference in the economic sense. It just means the goods are complementary.

Quote:

The majority of people here having already registered at least one campaign, how did you think that happened? Could they, perhaps, have already spent money on those?

And rendering your argument null. They are fundamentally the same for these people! Again, this makes it even more fundamentally the same, if it was possible to begin with.

Quote:

Guild Wars campaigns have the entirety of the game playing population as their intended target, costumes only have the subset of gamers that have been succesfully targeted with a campaign as their target. Costumes depend on campaigns.

You've successfully ignored EotN twice, and really is now grasping at straws. Different goods being attractive to different people is irrelevant. You've failed at your common sense argument, and you don't know anything about economics to make a coherent sentence. This wack-a-mole game is getting stale for me now, so here, have the last post.

mrvrod · Dec 22, 2009, 05:18 PM // 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

Prove me wrong then. Uninstall Guild Wars, and then only go play the Costume Pack.

Let me know how that works for you. If it does, then I'll eat my hat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

The entire Gaia Online and Solia community has already done so. Unlike you, I am able to understand how others value content, even if I don't agree with them.

The entire Gia Online and Solia community can play the microtransaction content with the game client uninstalled? I'm very impressed with those games!

Believe me I understand this conversation thread better than you think. I have a 19 year old son who also loves to argue the minutiae until the core discussion gets lost in the details. It doesn't make your points incorrect, it makes them extraneous.

thedarkmarine · Dec 22, 2009, 05:32 PM // 17:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrvrod

The entire Gia Online and Solia community can play the microtransaction content with the game client uninstalled? I'm very impressed with those games!

Yes. There's no game client.

Quote:

Believe me I understand this conversation thread better than you think. I have a 19 year old son who also loves to argue the minutiae until the core discussion gets lost in the details. It doesn't make your points incorrect, it makes them extraneous.

It takes two to tango.

mrvrod · Dec 22, 2009, 05:43 PM // 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

Yes. There's no game client.

You win that one, I neglected to do my homework. It is funny though that you chose to use avatar based social networking sites for comparison to an online role-playing game. So now we're comparing apples to peanuts. Although the argument could be made that the web browser now becomes the "client". Can you play your purchased content without being logged in?

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

It takes two to tango.

You are correct. I'm using irrelevant arguments in an attempt to distract you. See I took debate in school too. Although now I believe you call it Forensics.

Shy Guy · Dec 22, 2009, 05:47 PM // 17:47

If people want to pay $10, they do.
If not, they don't.

What more is there...? Smart of ANet to make money.

chessyang · Dec 22, 2009, 05:47 PM // 17:47

so like hum.. someone going to make a "poll" about who will/would

a) bought it
b) consider buying it
c) don't' care

so much talk about Anet about the ideal of mico payments. i want want to know how many people bought it or just don't care.

Gli · Dec 22, 2009, 06:03 PM // 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

This makes no difference in the economic sense. It just means the goods are complementary.

And rendering your argument null. They are fundamentally the same for these people! Again, this makes it even more fundamentally the same, if it was possible to begin with.

But they aren't mutually complimentary. One can be utilized with the other, the other can't be utilized without the one. It's nonsensical to dismiss prior consumption of a former good just because it destroys your argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

You've successfully ignored EotN twice, and really is now grasping at straws.

EotN is neither a campaign, nor is it the costume pack. It's an expansion. Why would I not ignore it when the topic is campaigns versus costume pack?

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

Different goods being attractive to different people is irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant when there's a clear dependancy.

__________________________________________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrvrod

Believe me I understand this conversation thread better than you think. I have a 19 year old son who also loves to argue the minutiae until the core discussion gets lost in the details. It doesn't make your points incorrect, it makes them extraneous.

Well yes, that's been my argument for my first 5 or 6 responses, but it's hard to break through the shell of self-congratulatory smugness. Oh well, what did I expect of a guy who butted into a conversation that was about people's feelings about the costume offer with nothing but an unmotivated dismissal and a magnificently pointless "Utility is utility". Yeah, Einstein, stuff is just stuff. What a memorable contribution to the wonderful world of internet fora. I'll be sure to inform the Nobel prize commity.

thedarkmarine · Dec 22, 2009, 06:10 PM // 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrvrod

You win that one, I neglected to do my homework. It is funny though that you chose to use avatar based social networking sites for comparison to an online role-playing game. So now we're comparing apples to peanuts. Although the argument could be made that the web browser now becomes the "client". Can you play your purchased content without being logged in?

The key argument is about how stuff like costumes without gameplay can possibly yield utility. Those sites have sufficiently demonstrated how.

Related to your second argument but not critical to the discussion: can you purchase without an account?

Quote:

You are correct. I'm using irrelevant arguments in an attempt to distract you. See I took debate in school too. Although now I believe you call it Forensics.

I never went to school.

mrvrod · Dec 22, 2009, 06:19 PM // 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

The key argument is about how stuff like costumes without gameplay can possibly yield utility. Those sites have sufficiently demonstrated how.

Actually I believe Kaleban's key argument, which I reiterated, was that this content cannot be enjoyed without being logged in to the "client".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

Prove me wrong then. Uninstall Guild Wars, and then only go play the Costume Pack.

Let me know how that works for you. If it does, then I'll eat my hat.

thedarkmarine · Dec 22, 2009, 06:24 PM // 18:24

You know those bubble wraps that are so irresistable to pop? Your post is like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

But they aren't mutually complimentary. One can be utilized with the other, the other can't be utilized without the one. It's nonsensical to dismiss prior consumption of a former good just because it destroys your argument.

They're complementary goods. Seriously, you really don't know anything.

Quote:

EotN is neither a campaign, nor is it the costume pack. It's an expansion. Why would I not ignore it when the topic is campaigns versus costume pack?

Because costume pack is an expansion. Wow.

Quote:

It isn't irrelevant when there's a clear dependancy.

But it doesn't make a fundamental difference.

Quote:

Well yes, that's been my argument for my first 5 or 6 responses, but it's hard to break through the shell of self-congratulatory smugness. Oh well, what did I expect of a guy who butted into a conversation that was about people's feelings about the costume offer with nothing but an unmotivated dismissal and a magnificently pointless "Utility is utility". Yeah, Einstein, stuff is just stuff. What a memorable contribution to the wonderful world of internet fora. I'll be sure to inform the Nobel prize commity.

Again, two to tango. Then again, what can I expect from a guy who attempts to change the focus of discussion when he can't win, spews crude irrelevant rhetoric, tries to use jargon he doesn't understand and buries head within is own ignorance. Oh well, the internet tough guys would love to have you as a member.

No. The focus is on the fundamental difference, not your meta feely crap. Get your facts straight.

thedarkmarine · Dec 22, 2009, 06:29 PM // 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrvrod

Actually I believe Kaleban's key argument, which I reiterated, was that this content cannot be enjoyed without being logged in to the "client".

The chain of debate started a couple of posts back:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

If they just put out a Costume pack for $9.99 that was not connected to the game for $9.99, it might as well not exist, because you can't play costumes. They're a cosmetic enhancement, not gameplay addition

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

Sure they can. There are avatar sites that offer nothing but cosmetic enhancements. For example, Gaia Online, Solia,...,etc, sell special avatar items for real money, and the avatars are just displayed on forums, and that's it. People are able to play by dressing up and showing off. The sites are making a killing off of this business model.

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

Deakon · Dec 22, 2009, 07:48 PM // 19:48

I'd pay $30 for dungeons in Proph, Factions and NF. How hard would it be to add new content that way? But I'm not paying for a costume. They do look cool though.

Qing Guang · Dec 22, 2009, 08:50 PM // 20:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrvrod

Of course it can be done. it can be done with a monthly pay mmo because all that extra revenue means a larger staff and more capital for content. if you are looking for that, by all means move to a subscription based mmo and get a lot more content. I, for one, will stick with a one-time purchase, a decent amount of content, and non game changing microtransactions which are totally optional.

It's a matter of choice, no one answer is right or wrong. It's what the individual is looking for in a game.

But see, there was a day, once, when ANet WAS producing new content AND creating new campaigns (and thereby earning money) at the same time. Our holidays were first being put in place at around the same time ANet must have been working on Factions, and later Nightfall. As recently as last year they were rigging these kinds of things up (while presumably working on GW2). So obviously that's not a problem.

Yes, I know that more money translates into better quality service, as I've observed with Blizz (did you know they actually have real customer service and even restore hacked accounts? Concept!), and ANet, while still backed up by a fairly large company and funded by the sales of millions of copies of the game, just isn't on that scale. Blizz can afford to work on three things at once. I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for ANet to focus on only what they can handle, and asking them not to sacrifice actually giving us things to do in favor of things that will interest us for about 5 minutes. I'm not asking them to make a game, a major content update, and shinies all at once; I'm asking them to make a small content update (perhaps charge for it! I'd be willing to buy BMP sorts of things if they were available, because those are genuine content) rather than spend their time on overpriced baubles.

And yes, you're right, it is a question of taste. But I know that I, and I suspect that many others, have found that what ANet is now providing in their game is no longer what they were looking for in a game when they first arrived.

w00t! · Dec 22, 2009, 09:56 PM // 21:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qing Guang

But see, there was a day, once, when ANet WAS producing new content AND creating new campaigns (and thereby earning money) at the same time.
(snip)
And yes, you're right, it is a question of taste. But I know that I, and I suspect that many others, have found that what ANet is now providing in their game is no longer what they were looking for in a game when they first arrived.

I pretty much agree with everything you said above.

Like it or not, Anet stated over a year ago that they were focusing most of their resources on Guild Wars 2. While I'd love a new campaign, I'm happy to at least get table scraps every now and again.

I'm just hoping to be blown away when GW2 does finally come out.