Curse

Daesu · Dec 19, 2009, 03:27 PM // 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jecht Scye

As I said before, where is ArenaNet's incentive to continue making chapters after Guild Wars 2 is released if they can simply release items like this costume pack and receive a much better return on investment?

Partly why we do not have any major content update ever since the relase of GWEN, and no I dont consider Dhuum to be a major content update.

If they stop producing new content then the game would dwindle and die. ANet should know that. Which is why they are thinking of content update next year but whether these new content would be buyable through the store or free, we are not sure yet. I think chances are, they would be in-store transactions.

Between the release of GWEN and the release of GW2 is a time span of 3+ years with no new releases. I am sure ANet execs must have deliberated long and hard if they have to release another GW1 expansion pack in between. My GUESS is that they do not have the resources to release another GW1 expansion pack while working on GW2 and maintaining GW1 at the same time. Thus, they resorted to micro transactions to gather the additional revenue.

Lest121 · Dec 19, 2009, 04:08 PM // 16:08

Signs of the future for GW............CS game.

Kaleban · Dec 19, 2009, 04:36 PM // 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regina Buenaobra

"Cost pennies to produce"? No... We had several artists working long hours to create and implement these costumes, not to mention the other team members who were involved in making this happen. We actually do pay our staff.

Channeling Gaile?

If even a small fraction buy into this bollocks, ANet more than recoups the cost to make it. "Long hours" is very nice and non-informative, and what I want to know is who suggested 1/5th the purchase price of a full campaign for a costume set? That is insane, and what's worse is, players actually buy into it!

This whole thing is like watching a Discovery Channel special on lemmings. Or ANet as the Pied Piper.

I bought GW under the expressed notion that I would get actual new content on a regular time interval, and that GW would avoid both the monthly fee and a microtransaction model. Economically the costs would even out to something like WoW, IF ANet wasn't run by a bunch of monkeys.

The move to "micro transactions" ($9.99 is micro? LOLOLOLOLOL) is great for business, but horrible for customer relations. ESPECIALLY in a flagging economy, people on a large scale won't be willing or are incapable monetarily of following a model like this.

Just as a comparison, have a gander at the WoW "Mohawk Grenade." There's a massive TV marketing campaign with a well known celebrity, for an item that does nothing more than act as a joke. Cost to player? $ZERO.

Yes, WoW has a monthly fee, and with 11 million subscribers at an average of $12 or so a month, comes in at $132 million a month in revenue, so there's no shortage of bread and water for the devs there.

But GW is not some money pit that is circling the drain either, with 5 million copies sold at around $40 each (averaging late buyers with CE editions and such), that's a cool $200 million not including any "micro-transactions" like extra storage, character makeovers, etc.

So really, its a red herring for "community relations" to claim the pity route for their poor programmers who work so gosh darn hard for such little recognition, I mean, don't they all just want a pat on the back for their extra sooper hard work? I'm sorry, Regina wasn't channeling Gaile, she was channeling Sarah Palin, all we're missing is "youbetcha" and a wink.

IlikeGW · Dec 19, 2009, 05:15 PM // 17:15

Though I think it's old news to even care about GW1's death and over the top things they add to make money... What I do wonder is why they skimp on the promotional factor. If you think about it, good update = good promotion for both GW1 and 2. And not promotion like a TV commercial, but promotion like solidifying the community relationship to the brand. Of course this takes money... but I'm also confused why that is constantly an issue. Ask NCSoft to pony the hell up? They are a publisher afterall, and should be responsible for the ongoing investment in the community. I've seen games with ongoing development time 5+ years... and these weren't WoW or getting monthly fees either. So Anet is in a way out of step with PC audience expectations, and that way they've failed.

Gli · Dec 19, 2009, 05:17 PM // 17:17

I'm actually growing to like these costumes and hope more people buy them. They're improving the visuals after a long stretch of the game turning more and more into a bizarre freakshow. People wearing costumes aren't running around with some rubbish tonic active, or some dreadful fashion accessory like chaos gloves.

Garreth MacLeod · Dec 19, 2009, 05:51 PM // 17:51

I do believe we are seeing the future of GW2 in all these "micro" transactions. Everything from elite armors/weapon skins and makeover kits to "mini" expansions is what I am beginning to expect in GW2. Buy the "one" chapter and after that it's all micro this and micro that.

own age myname · Dec 19, 2009, 05:56 PM // 17:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

Channeling Gaile?

If even a small fraction buy into this bollocks, ANet more than recoups the cost to make it. "Long hours" is very nice and non-informative, and what I want to know is who suggested 1/5th the purchase price of a full campaign for a costume set? That is insane, and what's worse is, players actually buy into it!

This whole thing is like watching a Discovery Channel special on lemmings. Or ANet as the Pied Piper.

I bought GW under the expressed notion that I would get actual new content on a regular time interval, and that GW would avoid both the monthly fee and a microtransaction model. Economically the costs would even out to something like WoW, IF ANet wasn't run by a bunch of monkeys.

The move to "micro transactions" ($9.99 is micro? LOLOLOLOLOL) is great for business, but horrible for customer relations. ESPECIALLY in a flagging economy, people on a large scale won't be willing or are incapable monetarily of following a model like this.

Just as a comparison, have a gander at the WoW "Mohawk Grenade." There's a massive TV marketing campaign with a well known celebrity, for an item that does nothing more than act as a joke. Cost to player? $ZERO.

Yes, WoW has a monthly fee, and with 11 million subscribers at an average of $12 or so a month, comes in at $132 million a month in revenue, so there's no shortage of bread and water for the devs there.

But GW is not some money pit that is circling the drain either, with 5 million copies sold at around $40 each (averaging late buyers with CE editions and such), that's a cool $200 million not including any "micro-transactions" like extra storage, character makeovers, etc.

So really, its a red herring for "community relations" to claim the pity route for their poor programmers who work so gosh darn hard for such little recognition, I mean, don't they all just want a pat on the back for their extra sooper hard work? I'm sorry, Regina wasn't channeling Gaile, she was channeling Sarah Palin, all we're missing is "youbetcha" and a wink.

Great post. 100% agreed.

Shadowed Ritualist · Dec 19, 2009, 06:16 PM // 18:16

That's two expensive of those, I bought the entire trilogy for 3x that...

w00t! · Dec 19, 2009, 06:29 PM // 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

Channeling Gaile?

(snip, of the tldr sort)

So really, its a red herring for "community relations" to claim the pity route for their poor programmers who work so gosh darn hard for such little recognition, I mean, don't they all just want a pat on the back for their extra sooper hard work? I'm sorry, Regina wasn't channeling Gaile, she was channeling Sarah Palin, all we're missing is "youbetcha" and a wink.

Kaleban, do me a favor please:

Take the total amount that you have spent on Guild Wars, then divide that by the number of hours you have played. I'd like to be able to put your comments about cost into context.

Second, please let me know how much these micro transactions change the balance of the game.

Third, please give other examples where corporations aren't allowed to change their business models over time in order to react to economic circumstances.

Thanks.

Kaleban · Dec 19, 2009, 06:49 PM // 18:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by w00t!

Kaleban, do me a favor please:

Take the total amount that you have spent on Guild Wars, then divide that by the number of hours you have played. I'd like to be able to put your comments about cost into context.

2600 hours over 55 months. Bought all the campaigns, none of the extra fluff from the store, and I bought the CE editions of Factions and NF. So probably about $180 give or take $10.

Of course, I'm not so dense that I don't see you "leading the witness" as it were... In an effort to derail your obvious argument I will just say that the gaming business is based on a certain model, MMOs especially, that include low cost/hour of gametime. While my marginal utility of GW is high, the added cost of $9.99 "micro" transactions completely upsets that balance and market predictions for companies. Its akin to the housing market here in Florida, for a while it was a nice smooth curve, and then it got spiked, and exploded and self-destructed. So in the short term ANet may see profit, in the long run it can only serve to hurt business.

Quote:

Second, please let me know how much these micro transactions change the balance of the game.

Not at all. Unless you're one of those whose concern over cosmetic appearance deflates your ego, i.e. "e-peeners." But as it stands, the PvE component is largely cosmetic, people don't run UW hundreds of times for the scenery, they do it for drops to "pimp" their characters. By utilizing pay-to-play for cosmetic upgrades, ANet is basically condoning gold-selling, but only as long as its only from them. Its their game, they can do whatever they way, even if in the end it ruins the franchise.

Quote:

Third, please give other examples where corporations aren't allowed to change their business models over time in order to react to economic circumstances.

Thanks.

I never said they should not change their business model. However they should admit it to the playerbase, so there aren't a bunch of "wtf?!" moments and threads about why they did it. As it stands, there is rampant speculation that they're in equal amounts, evil, profiteering, poor and homeless.

Lastly, perhaps you shouldn't construct your post entirely out of loaded questions? Thanks.

w00t! · Dec 19, 2009, 08:12 PM // 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

2600 hours over 55 months. Bought all the campaigns, none of the extra fluff from the store, and I bought the CE editions of Factions and NF. So probably about $180 give or take $10.
(snip)
While my marginal utility of GW is high, the added cost of $9.99 "micro" transactions completely upsets that balance and market predictions for companies.

(snark)
Okay, so if you were to purchase this upgrade your total cost would go from $0.069/hr to $0.073/hr. I could see where that would upset you.

(/snark)

I am very happy when I buy a console game for my son at $60 and he gets 20 hours enjoyment ($3.00/hr). So I find Anet's attempt to extract a bit more cash out of my wallet to be a pittance, especially since it is purely optional.

I would agree with you if the upgrade caused an imbalance in the meta and wasn't, strictly speaking, optional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

PvE component is largely cosmetic, people don't run UW hundreds of times for the scenery, they do it for drops to "pimp" their characters. By utilizing pay-to-play for cosmetic upgrades, ANet is basically condoning gold-selling, but only as long as its only from them. Its their game, they can do whatever they way, even if in the end it ruins the franchise.

I certainly agree with you that GW is largely cosmetic. I also share your concerns of diluting their franchise. Where I would draw the line is if they decided to sell things that are otherwise difficult to obtain in-game. For example, if they sold FoW armor. As it is though, they are selling something that you can't obtain. I've seen a bunch of people with the new armor, and every time I see it I think "hmm, another $10 for Anet". While it looks nice, it's not as impressive as FoW, eternal swords, VS, divine aura, et cetera.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

I never said they should not change their business model. However they should admit it to the playerbase, so there aren't a bunch of "wtf?!" moments and threads about why they did it.

I completely agree that Anet can and should do a better job of change management. But one of my managers once told me "No matter what you say, you're bound to piss of 30% of the people". For the Guild Wars community, I'd place that at closer to 50%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

Lastly, perhaps you shouldn't construct your post entirely out of loaded questions? Thanks.

Easier to attack your post than create my own.

I've posted previously, but since I have found your posts here and on other threads well thought-out, I thought I'd do a bit of cross-examination to see how well you could support your assertions.

goodrix · Dec 19, 2009, 08:46 PM // 20:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by w00t!

I am very happy when I buy a console game for my son at $60 and he gets 20 hours enjoyment ($3.00/hr). So I find Anet's attempt to extract a bit more cash out of my wallet to be a pittance, especially since it is purely optional.

This sort of comparison is erroneous.

For example, if that game is single-player (aka pve) then a guild wars campaign, sold at let's say $50, gives you probably 40 hours of new content-play. Better than your average console game, but still in the same range (if you normalize price by content-time).

Now, any further game time spent is just repetition of the same content. I could very well spend the same amount of time replaying a console game over and over again (to get all achievements, for example). So, the fact that you choose to play only 20 hours on the console game is entirely up to you, doesn't mean GW has a better value.

If the game was multi-player, then accepting a $3/hour rate is just a bad consumer decision. Any multiplayer game has to have a lot more value than that. For example, I bought Team Fortress 2 for about $9 and played it >400 hours which gives me 0.0225$/hour. That is great play value. If you play GW for multiplayer than I don't see a problem having the similar play value.

I hope you see the problem with your comparison.

Now, to the issue of the OP topic, I'll just add that $10 for a minor cosmetic skin is = overcharging. I don't like this "macro-transaction" model and I would stay away from GW2 if they follow up with it. I already changed my stance from buying pre-order and will wait to see what is their business plan for the next game.
As a personal preference I would rather entertain a monthly fee if that meant content (of any sort) is equally available to everyone. Looking forward to SW: The Old Republic in regards to that.

FyrFytr998 · Dec 19, 2009, 09:32 PM // 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garreth MacLeod

I do believe we are seeing the future of GW2 in all these "micro" transactions. Everything from elite armors/weapon skins and makeover kits to "mini" expansions is what I am beginning to expect in GW2. Buy the "one" chapter and after that it's all micro this and micro that.

I would rather have an optional "micro this and micro that", than a MANDATORY monthly fee.

I stated before in another thread that I'm for this now after having initial concerns about the micro transactions. It will enable players to do things with their characters out of game that they might not be able to do in game. For instance, they can make different costumes for purchase to further add customization to players characters. While avoiding the grind necessary to obtain some ELITE skins. Being a very busy husband, father, and firefighter. This appeals to me greatly, as my "actual" playing time is sometimes limited. And to stop playing to go and farm for mats and gold is time consuming and boring. So I can now get the "look" I want while not wasting time. These micro transactions can also begin to act as a way of defeating e-bay gold sellers also.

I know this doesn't work for our unemployed and younger players, but hey, they obviously have more time to play than I do anyways (Yes, I know this is a generalization, so what?). So while they can go and "grind" it out for their elite looks while I'm chilling with my family.

The best part is this will all be optional. Your GW experience will be dictated by finding out what you're willing to put into it. That being real life cash or ectos. And to head anyone off at the pass. It will be auto phail if ANET decides to lose their minds completely and sell gold and mats for RL cash. I would immediately switch to WoW or something similar. There is a fine line between genius and stupidity on their parts.

Kaleban · Dec 19, 2009, 09:35 PM // 21:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by w00t!

(snark)
Okay, so if you were to purchase this upgrade your total cost would go from $0.069/hr to $0.073/hr. I could see where that would upset you.
(/snark)

I am very happy when I buy a console game for my son at $60 and he gets 20 hours enjoyment ($3.00/hr). So I find Anet's attempt to extract a bit more cash out of my wallet to be a pittance, especially since it is purely optional.

I would agree with you if the upgrade caused an imbalance in the meta and wasn't, strictly speaking, optional.

The problem with this, as I posted in other threads too, is that you cannot just add the cost as gameplay value. That's like saying $9.99 for an extra Xunlai pane has the same value over time as 1/5th of a full campaign.

A direct cost/time comparison only works logically if the items being compared have the same marginal utility. Five missions and their attendant zones, mobs and even just landscape artwork from Prophecies (~$9.99 according to your argument) should require the same resources to make as the costumes.

I think we can both agree that the price for the costumes is MORE than exorbitant, and what even funnier is the idea that $9.99 is a special "deal" and that each INDIVIDUAL costume will normally be $6.99. You can argue economics all day until you're blue in the face, but that's just pure profiteering and kind of a slap in the face to longtime GW players who signed on with the initial release and its promises.

w00t! · Dec 19, 2009, 09:59 PM // 21:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodrix

This sort of comparison is erroneous.

Well, actually it isn't, based on both economic and marketing principles. There was a simple concept in grad school that they called "share of the belly". It basically stated that anything that goes in your stomach indirectly competes with anything else that goes in your stomach. So, in an odd way, Coca Cola competes with Oscar Mayer Hot Dogs.

By extension, any form of entertainment compares in some way to any other form of entertainment. Some direct comparisons can be made, but stating that the rule doesn't hold because you're not making that direct comparison is in itself erroneous.

I would agree with your argument that some might state that the marginal utility of your RPG dollar is worth less than the marginal utility of a different game, say an iPhone app.

But to state that we're somehow getting a bad deal because we'd be spending more than 7 cents an hour playing an RPG is a pretty thin argument at best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodrix

Now, to the issue of the OP topic, I'll just add that $10 for a minor cosmetic skin is = overcharging. I don't like this "macro-transaction" model and I would stay away from GW2 if they follow up with it. I already changed my stance from buying pre-order and will wait to see what is their business plan for the next game.
As a personal preference I would rather entertain a monthly fee if that meant content (of any sort) is equally available to everyone. Looking forward to SW: The Old Republic in regards to that.

I agree that $10 is steep, and I choose not to pay it, at least at this time. I'm against micro-transactions on principle, but can't seem to get upset about something that is cosmetic and in no way affects game play.

BoxOfCox · Dec 19, 2009, 10:04 PM // 22:04

I'm actually quite saddened to find I can't wear my frosty hat when trolling RA with my W/Mo Infuse Health bar anymore

w00t! · Dec 19, 2009, 10:07 PM // 22:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

The problem with this, as I posted in other threads too, is that you cannot just add the cost as gameplay value. That's like saying $9.99 for an extra Xunlai pane has the same value over time as 1/5th of a full campaign.

A direct cost/time comparison only works logically if the items being compared have the same marginal utility. Five missions and their attendant zones, mobs and even just landscape artwork from Prophecies (~$9.99 according to your argument) should require the same resources to make as the costumes.

I think we can both agree that the price for the costumes is MORE than exorbitant, and what even funnier is the idea that $9.99 is a special "deal" and that each INDIVIDUAL costume will normally be $6.99. You can argue economics all day until you're blue in the face, but that's just pure profiteering and kind of a slap in the face to longtime GW players who signed on with the initial release and its promises.

Oh yeah, I completely agree here. Not every GW dollar spent is equal. I just purchased a fourth account, buying GW Trilogy for $15. Much better deal than $10 for shiny objects or an extra storage pane.

Like you, I'm a long-time GW player, having purchased "glowy hands" way back when. But I am completely unable to become upset with Anet for offering something that is completely optional and in no way affects game play.

And as far as the promises go, I really wish that Anet had been able to follow through on their vision. But GW is still far and away the best value for my computing dollar I've ever spent, and I go all the way back to a home-built Sinclair ZX-81 that loaded games off of cassette tape!

goodrix · Dec 19, 2009, 10:55 PM // 22:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by w00t!

I agree that $10 is steep, and I choose not to pay it, at least at this time. I'm against micro-transactions on principle, but can't seem to get upset about something that is cosmetic and in no way affects game play.

I'm not upset in any way or form either and at least we agree on not liking the "micro/macro"-transactions system. Probably has to do with being used to old-school gaming.

But there's one thing that I don't agree with most on these forums. For me gameplay includes visuals. That's why I play a fantasy RPG (or I should say I played). Visuals are a major reason why I spent time repeating content (and I did enjoy it). Doing a dungeon a 20th time is nothing new for gameplay, it's about getting a new flashy end-chest drop. That's what it was designed for. Imagine playing a fantasy RPG game where all the armors are the same and there are no item drops. How good would that be?

So I hope you see why I consider visuals as part of my gameplay enjoyment.
Not complaining about GW, it's just a point of view that applies here as well.

PS: For competitive play I have other games to keep me busy.

w00t! · Dec 19, 2009, 11:45 PM // 23:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodrix

I'm not upset in any way or form either and at least we agree on not liking the "micro/macro"-transactions system. Probably has to do with being used to old-school gaming.

But there's one thing that I don't agree with most on these forums. For me gameplay includes visuals. That's why I play a fantasy RPG (or I should say I played). Visuals are a major reason why I spent time repeating content (and I did enjoy it). Doing a dungeon a 20th time is nothing new for gameplay, it's about getting a new flashy end-chest drop. That's what it was designed for. Imagine playing a fantasy RPG game where all the armors are the same and there are no item drops. How good would that be?

So I hope you see why I consider visuals as part of my gameplay enjoyment.
Not complaining about GW, it's just a point of view that applies here as well.

PS: For competitive play I have other games to keep me busy.

Agreed, and the points are all fair. That's why, as a middle aged guy I have all hot looking female characters and create interesting armor combinations (I'd rather stare at a female backside than a male one whilst playing).

For me what differentiate it is:

I see someone in FoW armor and I think "They either worked really hard or paid some Chinese guy a lot of money to get that". (stereotype warning!)

I see unique a Armor combination with interesting dye and think "That person was inventive enough to come up with a really cool-looking set".

I see the $10 Anet armor and I say "Cool, that person liked the armor set enough to pay Anet $10. At least it'll help keep the lights on".

Burst Cancel · Dec 20, 2009, 12:01 AM // 00:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jecht Scye

Subsidizing my gaming experience? Purchasing these lame items could hurt my experience. Why, you ask? More micro-transactions (like this one) accounts for 1/3rd to 1/5th of an entire campaign price when it's new. If this trend is continued in the future, what is ArenaNet's incentive to continue making new Chapters priced at $50.00 when they can receive 1/5th of that by making a couple costumes? I was more than content to continue to fork over money for a Nightfall-sized campaign every six months instead.

There is really so much wrong with this thread I don't even know where to begin at this point. I know Gurus isn't exactly a bastion of critical thinking, but this is getting ridiculous.

Here's what normally happens when you stop producing content:
1) Your players run out of things to do.
2) Players who have nothing to do will stop playing.
3) Nobody is left to buy idiotic costumes for real money.

So who is actually "hurting your experience" here? It's all of the people who are happy recycling the same shitty content over and over again. Take a look at some of the posts in this thread:

Quote:

But as it stands, the PvE component is largely cosmetic, people don't run UW hundreds of times for the scenery, they do it for drops to "pimp" their characters.

Quote:

Visuals are a major reason why I spent time repeating content (and I did enjoy it). Doing a dungeon a 20th time is nothing new for gameplay, it's about getting a new flashy end-chest drop.

Quote:

I could very well spend the same amount of time replaying a console game over and over again (to get all achievements, for example).

This is exactly the thinking that enables the GW microtransaction business model.

There is no actual problem here, because everyone is getting exactly what they want. Those who want to buy the costumes can, those who don't want to aren't compelled to, all players can continue farming, grinding, or whatever for free, and Anet takes the profit off the top. Until the playerbase decides that hey, grinding the same dungeon thousands of times for a rare cosmetic upgrade isn't a good use of their time, the microtransaction model is a win-win; there is simply no basis for complaint here.