Curse

Abedeus · Dec 21, 2009, 05:18 PM // 17:18

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.

Why do you compare a shitty F2P game like Gaia Online to games where you actually have gameplay, and aren't just kiddy chatrooms?

thedarkmarine · Dec 21, 2009, 05:28 PM // 17:28

There's no comparison being made like the one you're suggesting. The point is how "just costumes" still are content to some people.

Gli · Dec 21, 2009, 07:40 PM // 19:40

When you take two things, and one of those things has not a single aspect to it that can be utilized in any fashion without the other thing, whereas the other thing has no such limitations, these two things are not the same. One is subordinate to the other.

If your grand economic master theory says that they are the same, it only goes to show that this theory has little value when it comes to making practical, concrete use of these two things.

Lourens · Dec 21, 2009, 07:46 PM // 19:46

They look nice but im not willing to pay €10 for it €5 sounds fair

thedarkmarine · Dec 21, 2009, 08:20 PM // 20:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

When you take two things, and one of those things has not a single aspect to it that can be utilized in any fashion without the other thing, whereas the other thing has no such limitations, these two things are not the same. One is subordinate to the other.

If your grand economic master theory says that they are the same, it only goes to show that this theory has little value when it comes to making practical, concrete use of these two things.

The entire field of economics laughs in your uneducated stubbornness. Solia and Gaia Online would laugh too, but they're too preoccupied with staring at shiny things.

Gli · Dec 21, 2009, 08:28 PM // 20:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

The entire field of economics laughs in your uneducated stubbornness. Solia and Gaia Online would laugh too, but they're too preoccupied with staring at shiny things.

Tell, me, how can we use these wintersday costumes without also having first bought a campaign? And what do Solia and Gaia have to do with it?

thedarkmarine · Dec 21, 2009, 09:42 PM // 21:42

Solia and Gaia Online operate by selling avatar items, with no gameplay. All they can do with the items they buy is equip them, and they have a thriving community to support them.

Seriously, utility is utility. They are fundamentally the same thing. An option to pay for people to get some utility. What's so hard to understand?

Windf0rce · Dec 21, 2009, 09:44 PM // 21:44

Just bought mine, I really like the Grenth male and Dwayna female versions. Very good for a change on my main characters, and a great option for characters I can't be bothered to buy elite armors for.

Of course, I wanted to support Anet and show them some appreciation too.

Qing Guang · Dec 21, 2009, 10:00 PM // 22:00

Wow... I log in for the first time in months to check out the Wintersday stuff, and find... this? Wow. Just wow.

I mean, sure, the Dwayna costume looks pretty nice, though totally inappropriate for winter. But why on earth would I want to cover up my beautiful armor, which I farmed for days to buy and carefully selected and dyed to suit my characters, with an overpriced costume that really would be more at home in Aion than Guild Wars?

The festival hats thing is a nice change. Still, I was so excited to find that I could finally wear both my scar pattern and my Ice Crown, only to find that the costume hides the headgear. So basically there's no real point, as I only wear my festival hats during, y'know, festivals, and I was only interested in displaying both the scar and the hat.

So good game once again, ANet. I'm just gonna go over and enjoy more of the new content from Patch 3.3.

Arduin · Dec 21, 2009, 10:02 PM // 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Windf0rce

Of course, I wanted to support Anet and show them some appreciation too.

Hm, so next time 2 new costumes are on sale for 15$, but you could also buy the same 2 for 20$, but of that ~5$ goes directly to Anet, as sponsorship, you'll be getting the 20$ packaging?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qing Guang

The festival hats thing is a nice change. Still, I was so excited to find that I could finally wear both my scar pattern and my Ice Crown, only to find that the costume hides the headgear. So basically there's no real point, as I only wear my festival hats during, y'know, festivals, and I was only interested in displaying both the scar and the hat.

Yes, that was kind of a disappointment. Wanted to wear glasses + a hat too, but that wasn't optional.

Gli · Dec 21, 2009, 10:16 PM // 22:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

Solia and Gaia Online operate by selling avatar items, with no gameplay. All they can do with the items they buy is equip them, and they have a thriving community to support them.

What has that got to do with anything?

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedarkmarine

Seriously, utility is utility. They are fundamentally the same thing. An option to pay for people to get some utility. What's so hard to understand?

Again, I'm saying that apples aren't oranges, and your claiming they're both fruit.

I'm not arguing against that. At no point. I'm just dismissing the relevance of that statement, as I've done from the moment you started quoting my posts. Your magnificent "stuff is just stuff" observation has nothing relevant to add to or take away from the notion that there's a practical and glaringly obvious difference between a GW campaign and a wintersday costume.

You can't utilize the wintersday costumes unless you first own at least a guildwars campaign, yet you can utilize a guild wars campaign without owning the customes at all. That makes these items different. Do you agree that this is true? A simple yes-no will suffice.

Of course, you're going to post again about how they are the same from an ecomonical viewpoint. To which I (again) will say: "So what? That's not what I'm talking about." Repeat ad nauseam, until a mod, in a moment of undeniable wisdom, closes the thread.

Here's an idea, why don't you go ahead and illuminate the issue from a quantum-mechanical viewpoint next? Or when you get bored, maybe you can look at it from an geo-political or neo-pagan viewpoint and see what that tells you.

Zesty · Dec 21, 2009, 10:19 PM // 22:19

Male Dwayna's Dyed Black.

WARNING TO ALL MALE WARRIORS, When fully zoomed out you may experience this graphics glitch in the Grenth's version of the suit. Tested without Texmod with same results.

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.

thedarkmarine · Dec 21, 2009, 10:42 PM // 22:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

What has that got to do with anything?

Illustrating how being provided just costumes without gameplay could be gameplay enough.

Quote:

Again, I'm saying that apples aren't oranges, and your claiming they're both fruit.

And...which one is fundamental?

Quote:

I'm not arguing against that. At no point. I'm just dismissing the relevance of that statement, as I've done from the moment you started quoting my posts. Your magnificent "stuff is just stuff" observation has nothing relevant to add to or take away from the notion that there's a practical and glaringly obvious difference between a GW campaign and a wintersday costume.

And I'm saying that statement is relevant! Gosh. We are talking about fundamental differences. How is that not relevant?

Quote:

You can't utilize the wintersday costumes unless you first own at least a guildwars campaign, yet you can utilize a guild wars campaign without owning the customes at all. That makes these items different. Do you agree that this is true? A simple yes-no will suffice.

These differences don't make the items fundamentally different. Content is content, regardless of the preconditions.

Quote:

Of course, you're going to post again about how they are the same from an ecomonical viewpoint. To which I (again) will say: "So what? That's not what I'm talking about." Repeat ad nauseam, until a mod, in a moment of undeniable wisdom, closes the thread.

Here's an idea, why don't you go ahead and illuminate the issue from a quantum-mechanical viewpoint next? Or when you get bored, maybe you can look at it from an geo-political or neo-pagan viewpoint and see what that tells you.

More meta argument rhetoric bullshit.

w00t! · Dec 22, 2009, 12:05 AM // 00:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

Again, I'm saying that apples aren't oranges, and your (sic) claiming they're both fruit.

Actually, that's a good comparison, and both can be correct.

They are different in that they may provide different perceived value Some may prefer the costume because all they do is stand around chatting or trading anymore, some may prefer an expansion because it gives them more to do.

They are the same in that they compete for the same finite resource, namely, your money. That comparison is also relevant. One may depend on the other, but that is a bit of a spurious argument, like saying EoTN is worthless because you need one of the primary campaigns to use it.

So the economic argument is still valid. Apples are not oranges, but they are both fruits and can be compared as such (i.e. the utility argument).

Whether or not the costumes are good or bad is a personal choice. While I may not prefer them myself, I certainly can't blame others for purchasing them, and also can't fault Anet for offering them.

And with that I'll let you have the last word, as we've beaten this dead horse enough. Back to reading my book "End the Fed".

Gli · Dec 22, 2009, 01:02 AM // 01:02

Maybe I should stoop to arguing the economics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by w00t!

They are the same in that they compete for the same finite resource, namely, your money. That comparison is also relevant. One may depend on the other, but that is a bit of a spurious argument, like saying EoTN is worthless because you need one of the primary campaigns to use it.

That isn't a spurious argument at all. In fact, the dependancy that's at work there is a clear indication that GW campaigns and the wintersday costumes are as unequivalent from a microeconomical perspective as from a practically applied perspective: taken side by side, one (the campaigns) are an independent good, while the other isn't. Costumes and campaigns don't compete for the same money, costumes only become an option after money has already been spent on a non-zero amount of campaigns. (Where 'PvP' access can be brought into the equation under the umbrella of 'campaigns' without invalidating the argument that costumes are not an independant good and campaigns are.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by w00t!

So the economic argument is still valid. Apples are not oranges, but they are both fruits and can be compared as such (i.e. the utility argument).

But the difference is even felt economically, to such an extent that the blanket "utility is utility" argument doesn't describe the situation in a meaningful way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by w00t!

And with that I'll let you have the last word, as we've beaten this dead horse enough. Back to reading my book "End the Fed".

I'm going for glue, thank you.

Windf0rce · Dec 22, 2009, 01:17 AM // 01:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arduinna

Hm, so next time 2 new costumes are on sale for 15$, but you could also buy the same 2 for 20$, but of that ~5$ goes directly to Anet, as sponsorship, you'll be getting the 20$ packaging?

Not sure if you are trolling me or I indeed worded my thoughts poorly, but what I wanted to say is I appreciate Anet's work on GW and I am willing to support them by buying items or whatever interesting stuff they put up for sale. Buying their stuff and donating to them are totally different things.

I just don't really jump the negativist wagon, I think GW is a great game. Of course it is not perfect but nothing in this life is. It is really good, good enough to set my standards really high.

thedarkmarine · Dec 22, 2009, 01:40 AM // 01:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

Maybe I should stoop to arguing the economics.

You really shouldn't have. Your post is a mess, and further illustrates your ignorance. (lol at using established conventions as "stoop")

Quote:

That isn't a spurious argument at all. In fact, the dependancy that's at work there is a clear indication that GW campaigns and the wintersday costumes are as unequivalent from a microeconomical perspective as from a practically applied perspective: taken side by side, one (the campaigns) are an independent good, while the other isn't. Costumes and campaigns don't compete for the same money, costumes only become an option after money has already been spent on a non-zero amount of campaigns. (Where 'PvP' access can be brought into the equation under the umbrella of 'campaigns' without invalidating the argument that costumes are not an independant good and campaigns are.)

I don't know where to start. As we've stated, utility gained from money spent is utility gained from money spent. They are the same from a microeconomic standpoint. 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. EotN also has a funny position, don't you think? Stop talking about what you don't know.

Quote:

But the difference is even felt economically, to such an extent that the blanket "utility is utility" argument doesn't describe the situation in a meaningful way.

No. There are no bones in the egg, no matter how hard you try. Scattering economic jargon does not create a real economic argument. Stop talking about what you don't know.

Esprit · Dec 22, 2009, 01:59 AM // 01:59

I don't like when people say 'it's only X amount of money'. Some people have extra money to spend on games, some people run a tighter budget.

Saying it's "it's only this amount of money" is poor justification for purchase of something.

Martin Alvito · Dec 22, 2009, 02:04 AM // 02:04

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.

This one's actually pretty easy. Seeing people run around in overpriced costumes creates disutility for some players that choose not to buy. They would be willing to pay a "reasonable" (in their eyes) price for the item, are jealous of those that have the costume, but are not sufficiently jealous to justify the purchase.

Basically, the costumes are a public bad that individual players have the power to remedy; ANet makes money in part by segmenting the marketplace and in part by creating the public bad that fence-sitters remedy by making a purchase.

The same basic logic exists for why people get all worked up about scarce miniatures that they can't afford; the difference here is that the miniatures actually serve a game function (promote a functioning, liquid economy) that washes out at least some of the public bad of their existence, but the costumes do nothing but line ANet's pockets.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that players need to have realistic expectations about the company they are doing business with. If ANet can make a profit producing this sort of content, they are going to produce it and sell at the price they think will be the most profitable.

Neo Nugget · Dec 22, 2009, 04:37 AM // 04:37

I just bought the costume pack from the store. Shh, don't tell anybody.

They're really nice, and I have no regrets buying them at all.