Curse

thedarkmarine · Dec 21, 2009, 02:03 AM // 02:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

For crying out loud, you people are relentless. You're burying yourself deeper and deeper into an argument that I'm not even having. 'My logic'? 'The issue I'm dealing with'?

Pray tell, what issue am I dealing with? Because I thought what I was doing when I first got involved here, was pointing out that a GW campaign is more than just 'content' and therefore not the same as the costume pack. I wasn't referring to economic principles, I was pointing out a practical issue. God forbid I ever find out what will happen if I post that an apple is not an orange.

So, once more, here's the only point I've ever tried to make in a conversation dominated by people who seem to have their heads so far up their own asses, they can see the fillings in their teeth: a GW campaign is not just content.

Is it so hard to to accept the fact that "learned" people think your point is absurd under any ounce of inspection? No additional amount of colorful rhetoric is going to make your silly point any more acceptable. Neither is calling arguments irrelevant because you can't seem to understand it.

Content is content is content. "More than content" is just content++ is just content. If you want people to take you seriously, replace the word "content" with "utility."

And to call us relentless, your glass house still ok?

Esprit · Dec 21, 2009, 02:05 AM // 02:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkantos

I don't see why people are hating on ANet for this.

It's because they can.

Dystopiax · Dec 21, 2009, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Let's all give anet 10$ for a costume so they can provide us with a 5k ping server for christmas

Arkantos · Dec 21, 2009, 02:21 AM // 02:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esprit

It's because they can.

Well, of course. I'd like to hear some valid reasons as to why they're opposed of a business making money, though.

Esprit · Dec 21, 2009, 02:34 AM // 02:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkantos

Well, of course. I'd like to hear some valid reasons as to why they're opposed of a business making money, though.

Heh, you'll be hard pressed to find that here, as most of the reasons given are based on greed and not wanting to pay to get something they want.

People do not understand the concept of an evolving business model. Look at Blockbuster 10 years ago. All they had to do was rent/sell movies from a store to be successful. With the creation of Netflix's successful online, ship-to-you, movie rental system, Blockbuster had to change its business model to compete against it (creating its own online, ship-to-you, movie/game rental model).

With companies having to compete against so many different games out there, micro-transactions and in-game purchases is a valid evolution in the business model. It only affects the game cosmetically and you can easily see why Anet chose to charge for this cosmetic change. High-end armor costs more, but looks better, and high-end weapons typically look better and cost more AND people pay for it, so why not apply that desire to generating revenue?

Since I see sense in charging for this limited item (if a bit expensive for my taste) I have no valid reason for getting the costumes for free.

Gli · Dec 21, 2009, 02:43 AM // 02:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

Is it so hard to to accept the fact that "learned" people think your point is absurd under any ounce of inspection? No additional amount of colorful rhetoric is going to make your silly point any more acceptable. Neither is calling arguments irrelevant because you can't seem to understand it.

Oh my, that's a mighty big horn you're blowing! Imagine, little ole me having to deal with learned people. Wait till I tell the folks back home. So, my point that in the real world where real people play Guild Wars, a campaign is more than just content, as opposed to a custome pack which is just content, is silly?

What I consider silly, is to bombard that simple, commonsensical notion with economic rhethoric that has no bearing on it whatsoever. Economic theory does not address the specifics you can do with the Guild Wars software after you've logged on to your account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

Content is content is content. "More than content" is just content++ is just content. If you want people to take you seriously, replace the word "content" with "utility."

In this specific case, and a specific case is all I ever injected into this conversation, "more than content" happens to be "a service packaged with some content". I'm not going to replace it with anything. Especially not "utility". "Utility" is your addition to the conversation, which up to the point where you injected it, had nothing to do whatsoever with such a broad concept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

And to call us relentless, your glass house still ok?

Don't you learned people use verbs in your sentences?

Pistachio · Dec 21, 2009, 03:17 AM // 03:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

...There is nothing fundamentally different between Factions, the Bonus Mission Pack, or this costume pack....

That is a truly absurd statement. Of course they are different. As was mentioned earlier - the campaigns, and mission pack are additions to gameplay, and the costume pack is essentially just another skin. The look of your armor has no bearing on how the game is played and is fundamentally different than new dungeons, skills, classes, etc - which are additions and changes to actual game mechanics.

You are just being difficult, but perhaps you're the one that's too dense to realize it.

thedarkmarine · Dec 21, 2009, 03:27 AM // 03:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

Oh my, that's a mighty big horn you're blowing! Imagine, little ole me having to deal with learned people. Wait till I tell the folks back home. So, my point that in the real world where real people play Guild Wars, a campaign is more than just content, as opposed to a custome pack which is just content, is silly?

Yes.

Quote:

What I consider silly, is to bombard that simple, commonsensical notion with economic rhethoric that has no bearing on it whatsoever. Economic theory does not address the specifics you can do with the Guild Wars software after you've logged on to your account.

Common sense says heavier things falls faster as well, but lets not bring physics into that simple notion! In other words, it is silly to disregard established means designed to address the issue had hand.

Quote:

In this specific case, and a specific case is all I ever injected into this conversation, "more than content" happens to be "a service packaged with some content". I'm not going to replace it with anything. Especially not "utility". "Utility" is your addition to the conversation, which up to the point where you injected it, had nothing to do whatsoever with such a broad concept.

Utility is the economist's term for content, or service packaged with content, or whatever else. It is the purest way to address value, illustrating the fact that there's no fundamental difference between the things at hand. I'm trying to teach you an embarrassingly simple notion by equating words.

Quote:

Don't you learned people use verbs in your sentences?

We've used them numerous times within the posts you've quoted.

Reverend Dr · Dec 21, 2009, 03:27 AM // 03:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkantos

Well, of course. I'd like to hear some valid reasons as to why they're opposed of a business making money, though.

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.

thedarkmarine · Dec 21, 2009, 03:29 AM // 03:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pistachio

That is a truly absurd statement. Of course they are different. As was mentioned earlier - the campaigns, and mission pack are additions to gameplay, and the costume pack is essentially just another skin. The look of your armor has no bearing on how the game is played and is fundamentally different than new dungeons, skills, classes, etc - which are additions and changes to actual game mechanics.

You are just being difficult, but perhaps you're the one that's too dense to realize it.

No, you're not looking deep enough. In the end, it all boils down to how much a person enjoys what they've spend their money on. It's about the raw enjoyment, or formally, utility, one gains. That's why there's no fundamental difference. They may give enjoyment in different ways, but in the end, it's fundamentally the same thing.

thedarkmarine · Dec 21, 2009, 03:33 AM // 03:33

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.

Other very successful ventures do suggest otherwise though.

In the end, I'm all for what the market decides, and will voice my opinion with the ripple of my individual purchasing power within the tsunami of mass market opinion.

Kaleban · Dec 21, 2009, 05:19 AM // 05:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

No, you're not looking deep enough. In the end, it all boils down to how much a person enjoys what they've spend their money on. It's about the raw enjoyment, or formally, utility, one gains. That's why there's no fundamental difference. They may give enjoyment in different ways, but in the end, it's fundamentally the same thing.

This is the kind of argument that can justify ANYTHING, such as punching babies and stealing their candy because it gives you more marginal utility on your investment.

Here's a quick test. If ANet were to put out a standalone 5 mission campaign, with new skills and everything, and charged $9.99, and was not connected to GW in any way, you could play it.

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

A pretty simple and obvious observation if you ask me. Why people argue this point is beyond me.

thedarkmarine · Dec 21, 2009, 05:40 AM // 05:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

This is the kind of argument that can justify ANYTHING, such as punching babies and stealing their candy because it gives you more marginal utility on your investment.

Oh boy that was a loaded example. You can explain the utility of it, but the morality of the situation is a totally a red herring.

Quote:

Here's a quick test. If ANet were to put out a standalone 5 mission campaign, with new skills and everything, and charged $9.99, and was not connected to GW in any way, you could play it.

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

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.

Again, it all comes down to the utility of the content. The context of the content is just high level irrelevancy.

Quote:

A pretty simple and obvious observation if you ask me. Why people argue this point is beyond me.

A pretty simple and obvious deduction if you ask me. Why people still fail to see these things is beyond me.

Kaleban · Dec 21, 2009, 05:51 AM // 05:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

SNIP

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.

w00t! · Dec 21, 2009, 05:52 AM // 05:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleban

This is the kind of argument that can justify ANYTHING, such as punching babies and stealing their candy because it gives you more marginal utility on your investment.

Well, it doesn't justify anything, it just explains the behavior.

The funny thing is, I don't necessarily disagree with Gil's conclusion, it's just that his (her?) argument was false.

I agree that not every Guild Wars dollar spent provides the same perceived value, at least for me. I just bought a new GW mule account for $15, which seems to a better deal than $10 spent buying another pane or and additional character. But that's just me, and no one is forcing me to spend my money on Guild Wars. Just bought a new Ska compilation on Amazon instead of GW Costumes. Perhaps if they'd been a bit cheaper...

So it's reasonable to make the argument that $10 is too much for a costume, a pane, or a character in that it isn't priced properly.

It's fair to state that a micro-transaction model may dilute the GW brand.

But people simply stamping their foot and proclaiming it loudly doesn't make it so. Even though you and I seem to land on opposite sides of several threads, I respect your opinion. Many others seem to completely fail at deductive reasoning. Must be Outcome-based Education at work.

Kaleban · Dec 21, 2009, 06:00 AM // 06:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by w00t!

Must be Outcome-based Education at work.

LOL for No Child Left Behind hehe.

True, even though we may disagree, at least there's some form of spirited debate going on, rather than just clapping our hands over our ears and holding our breath until we're blue in the face lol.

Gli · Dec 21, 2009, 08:13 AM // 08:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

Common sense says heavier things falls faster as well, but lets not bring physics into that simple notion! In other words, it is silly to disregard established means designed to address the issue had hand.

Utility is the economist's term for content, or service packaged with content, or whatever else. It is the purest way to address value, illustrating the fact that there's no fundamental difference between the things at hand. I'm trying to teach you an embarrassingly simple notion by equating words.

You're not teaching me anything.

I'm just saying, and I think this must be the 8th or 9th time that I'm repeating myself, that I simply, in a practical, gameplay sense, reject the notion that a GW campaign is the same as the costume pack. What each of them represents economically has no bearing on that point. Which is why, if you hadn't noticed, I'm not engaging in conversation about that.

Also, at the point where I made my original observation, the topic of conversation was about concrete stuff, not economic theory. You dragged that into the conversation by the hairs, regardless of any bearing it had on anything whatsoever. (Which I can assure you, it had and still has none.)

At no point have I attempted to discuss anything other than my original point, nor have I at any point tried to counter anything you're posting, nor have I tried to introduce any kind of claim of my own regarding the economic significance of anything at all. All I'm doing is dismissing your inapplicable wisdom, again and again. You're basically having an argument with yourself here, rainman-style.

I'm pointing out that apples aren't oranges, and you're trying to lambast me about how they're both fruit. I don't care that they're both fruit. I have no interest beyond the point that apples aren't oranges.

Gli · Dec 21, 2009, 08:39 AM // 08:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by w00t!

The funny thing is, I don't necessarily disagree with Gil's conclusion, it's just that his (her?) argument was false.

That is actually rather funny, because I don't think I've actually offered any kind of conclusion or forwarded any arguments relevant to the discussion you're having right now, at all!

All I've pointed out is that:

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

I'd really like to hear what you think I've concluded, or what arguments I brought forward leading me there.

thedarkmarine · Dec 21, 2009, 04:37 PM // 16:37

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.

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.

thedarkmarine · Dec 21, 2009, 05:12 PM // 17:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

You're not teaching me anything.

*Sigh. Your stubbornness is overwhelming and disappointing.

Quote:

I'm just saying, and I think this must be the 8th or 9th time that I'm repeating myself, that I simply, in a practical, gameplay sense, reject the notion that a GW campaign is the same as the costume pack. What each of them represents economically has no bearing on that point. Which is why, if you hadn't noticed, I'm not engaging in conversation about that.

But you still need to have the last post, eh?

No. What you're "just saying" is wrong. Lets look at what you initially posted:

Quote:

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.

Which is bullshit.

Quote:

Also, at the point where I made my original observation, the topic of conversation was about concrete stuff, not economic theory. You dragged that into the conversation by the hairs, regardless of any bearing it had on anything whatsoever. (Which I can assure you, it had and still has none.)

Last time I checked, economic theory is concrete stuff. You're just not able to go a bit deeper and understand some simple fundamental concepts, and is using flashing rhetoric to bat everything away that doesn't support your point.

But don't let physics stop you from thinking heavier things fall faster.

Quote:

At no point have I attempted to discuss anything other than my original point, nor have I at any point tried to counter anything you're posting, nor have I tried to introduce any kind of claim of my own regarding the economic significance of anything at all. All I'm doing is dismissing your inapplicable wisdom, again and again. You're basically having an argument with yourself here, rainman-style.

What is this shit? We're all discussing your original point, and we're saying it is wrong, and you're saying it is right. You can't introduce any economic significance because none of it supports your point.

Quote:

I'm pointing out that apples aren't oranges, and you're trying to lambast me about how they're both fruit. I don't care that they're both fruit. I have no interest beyond the point that apples aren't oranges.

Then don't spew your original shit.