Curse

DreamWind · Oct 05, 2008, 06:57 PM // 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

They've payed for the service, so yes. It's normal for a game company to release patches even for off-line games. That company expects them to return for the next campaign, or game.

The people that are returning for GW2 are going to return regardless of whether or not 7 heroes is implemented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

So you are really discussing PvP players in a matter that doesn't concern them in the slightest?

I was responding to some point someone made pages ago. I don't even remember. I think it had to do with someone using the box as some kind of 7 hero evidence which is still bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

When I don't answer, its because I think its a waste of my time to try to explain. Besides we weren't talking about faith in the server remain open or shut in the first place (read the last paragraph) But this time I thought it was moot to try to explain, because In my opinion, it is just an excuse to avoid discussing other points that you can't answers.

However, if you like, when I said that, it was in response to your wish that GW be left at prophecies scenario, if it has been left there, then the server would be shut down by now

I've continually answered most posts. The majority of posts that want 7 heroes or "because I want to it would be fun" or "why not". In fact there is probably only 1 or 2 posters that give any legit reasons, and the reasons Anet should do it are still quite thin.

You keep contradicting yourself. I fail to see how you can have any faith in Anet or Guild Wars or anything when you say the servers will shut down unless the players are continually given new content or 7 heroes or whatever else. Eventually Anet is not going to add any new content. If you say the game will die right there I say you have no faith in the game. You are simply playing the content...you don't actually think the game has long term potential.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

hypothesis, as oppose to the situation now, Guild Wars still selling, making money scenario and running strong as we type.

Now, do you have any data to support your theory that the game server will not be shut down? beside quoting other game server not being shut down? becasue its irrelavent telling people that other servers aren't shut down so Guild Wars' won't

I'd like to see those numbers. As far as I know the game was selling much better in the past than it is now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

It would probably not be making money if it had been left at prophecies and players would probably constantly be complaining that Arena Net "did not follow their original motto of wanting to add new contents every 6 months."

Their original motto was not to add new content every 6 months. That came way later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

I have faith in Arena Net that they will deliver what they promise, and did delivered, DO YOU?

I used to have faith in them...I lost it over the years. This is off topic though. Anet is not going to add 7 heroes. You still have faith in them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

...nothing for PvE.

And...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

And all these problems would persist: players would have a hard time grouping due to how old and unrefreshed the content was, outposts would be empty, PUGs would be strained, etc.

I'm not convinced, but oh well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Being willing to pay a monthly fee doesn't mean they have faith in the game. It means they're willing to pay a monthly fee.

So why aren't Guild Wars players willing to pay a monthly fee for it?

Amy Awien · Oct 05, 2008, 08:37 PM // 20:37

Because that's not the way they do business. Is it so hard to grasp that people make their own choices about pricing model they find acceptable? Earlier you've stated that it was odd when people don't want to pay monthly fees, but could you now also explain what you find so odd about that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The people that are returning for GW2 are going to return regardless of whether or not 7 heroes is implemented.

If they have faith the new game will be entertaining. Past experience with the company producing and maintaining earlier games will influence their decision. Their impression of what kind of play the producer is planning will influence it. If I get the impression that GW2 will force PuGs on me, I will not return, if GW2 offers independence from other players, I may return. The 7 heroes would certainly help give me the impression that the producer wants to give me the choice to PuG or not.

Zahr Dalsk · Oct 05, 2008, 10:15 PM // 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

So why aren't Guild Wars players willing to pay a monthly fee for it?

Because we don't like to pay monthly fees for a company that cares more about their own vision of the game than the players' preferences.

Bryant Again · Oct 05, 2008, 11:48 PM // 23:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I'm not convinced, but oh well.

So the PvE population would be living and stable with no new content? No new dungeons? No new continents? No new game??? I'm not terribly convinced that you know what you're talking about anymore. You're either anti-heroes, or pro-PvP without any concern of the PvE game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

So why aren't Guild Wars players willing to pay a monthly fee for it?

Because they don't have to, because they'd rather go with a business model that doesn't require 50 cents a day.

DreamWind · Oct 06, 2008, 01:04 AM // 01:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

Because that's not the way they do business. Is it so hard to grasp that people make their own choices about pricing model they find acceptable? Earlier you've stated that it was odd when people don't want to pay monthly fees, but could you now also explain what you find so odd about that?

I don't find it odd at all. I wouldn't pay a monthly fee for any of the current games that require it either. I'm just saying...don't you find it odd that if Guild Wars were to implement a monthly fee it would probably be dead? Think about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awein

If they have faith the new game will be entertaining. Past experience with the company producing and maintaining earlier games will influence their decision. Their impression of what kind of play the producer is planning will influence it. If I get the impression that GW2 will force PuGs on me, I will not return, if GW2 offers independence from other players, I may return. The 7 heroes would certainly help give me the impression that the producer wants to give me the choice to PuG or not.

Of course. But Anet knows that the players who bought Guild Wars 1 who are also going to buy Guild Wars 2 will not be swayed much (if at all) by 7 heroes in Guild Wars 1. Players are either buying it or they aren't. There are probably no players that are saying "hey I'm not buying Guild Wars 2 unless 7 heroes is implemented in Guild Wars 1!" All they have to do is keep up the HoM system and make promises of solo play in Guild Wars 2. Anet knows this. Its simple cost benefit stuff....and you know most of the team has moved over to Guild War 2 anyways...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Because we don't like to pay monthly fees for a company that cares more about their own vision of the game than the players' preferences.

I'd argue that any game with a monthly fee cares MORE about players preferences because the company gets monthly feedback...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

So the PvE population would be living and stable with no new content? No new dungeons? No new continents? No new game??? I'm not terribly convinced that you know what you're talking about anymore. You're either anti-heroes, or pro-PvP without any concern of the PvE game.

I look at it like this. The game was built as a multiplayer PvP game with a multiplayer PvE campaign that was possible to play singleplayer. Just like any other pay once game, you play through the game and thats it. The benefit with Guild Wars was the mutiplayer markets and areas still existed for play if you chose to do that. As soon as people started looking at it as a typical MMORPG though, I think the game lost all its long term potential like games like Starcraft and others have. Once people start saying "give us new content or the game is dead" then the game loses all long term potential.

It started with Nightfall mostly, which also coincided with the release of heroes and Guild Wars transforming into a single player game. Again...Nightfall was the deathblow to this game in my eyes (for several reasons) and also at least 20 other people I know. But again...experiences may differ. Thats just my opinion, and its the reason I don't like the 7 heroes idea much today. They could implement it though...it wouldn't affect me. I just think they won't for reasons stated previously.

Zahr Dalsk · Oct 06, 2008, 01:32 AM // 01:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I'd argue that any game with a monthly fee cares MORE about players preferences because the company gets monthly feedback...

Kind of my point. If ArenaNet had a monthly fee to upkeep and a reason to keep people playing, the hero cap would have been removed ages ago.

zwei2stein · Oct 06, 2008, 05:21 AM // 05:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Kind of my point. If ArenaNet had a monthly fee to upkeep and a reason to keep people playing, the hero cap would have been removed ages ago.

To be honest, they don't keep their players playing by giving them everything they desire.

But rather by social pressure and by exploiting addictive mechanics. That includes nuking anything that player can use go through content faster. Would GW be pay2play, we would be down to 1 hero slot per player because of "ballance reasons" (aka, if people finish X in one month, they might not come back and pay fee month after that.)

Monthlies effect on game design might be ... unpleasant.

pumpkin pie · Oct 06, 2008, 05:21 AM // 05:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I've continually answered most posts. The majority of posts that want 7 heroes or "because I want to it would be fun" or "why not". In fact there is probably only 1 or 2 posters that give any legit reasons, and the reasons Anet should do it are still quite thin.

You keep contradicting yourself. I fail to see how you can have any faith in Anet or Guild Wars or anything when you say the servers will shut down unless the players are continually given new content or 7 heroes or whatever else. Eventually Anet is not going to add any new content. If you say the game will die right there I say you have no faith in the game. You are simply playing the content...you don't actually think the game has long term potential.

I am going to stop here and not answer you regarding server issue anymore. want to know if I have faith in Arena Net, read last paragraph.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I'd like to see those numbers. As far as I know the game was selling much better in the past than it is now.

http://www.plaync.com/us/news/2008/0...nounce_30.html

Off course it sell More (not much better) in the past because it was new and no one have it yet, the fact that its still selling when millions of people already own it and getting 4.9 million USD (1/3) of what it use to sell is impressive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Their original motto was not to add new content every 6 months. That came way later.

Do you have facts to support what you say? because I have read articles written as early as 2004 and 2005 right after the beta testing, stating that new content were to be added every 6 months.

In those same articles written as early as 2004 and 2005 also stated that Guild Wars is a solo game with choices to be played with Henchmen or real player.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I used to have faith in them...I lost it over the years. This is off topic though. Anet is not going to add 7 heroes. You still have faith in them?

Off course I will still have faith in them, Plan to be the first customer to pre order guild wars 2 as well if possible. In fact, I just upgraded my secondary GW account to include Nightfall several days ago, so I may have HEROS. Also planning to buy 2 more character slots and game of the year upgrade later on. Yay go me! I also plan to use that account to build a Guild with one single player in them. Featuring Pumpkin Pie as Guild Leader, Featuring Pumpkin Pie as Officers, Featuring Pumpkin Pie as Members

Amy Awien · Oct 06, 2008, 07:55 AM // 07:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I don't find it odd at all. I wouldn't pay a monthly fee for any of the current games that require it either. I'm just saying...don't you find it odd that if Guild Wars were to implement a monthly fee it would probably be dead? Think about it.

No, not really, GW has more in common with story driven RPG's then with grind based MMO's. Unlike MMO's it doesn't 'lock' you into buying more and more of it just to stay on top and be part of the groups and guilds and to feel wanted and needed. Though some of that did creep in.

pamelf · Oct 06, 2008, 08:40 AM // 08:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I don't find it odd at all. I wouldn't pay a monthly fee for any of the current games that require it either. I'm just saying...don't you find it odd that if Guild Wars were to implement a monthly fee it would probably be dead? Think about it.

That is such a completely narrow view! If Anet changed their pricing system to pay to play now of course it would be dead! We've already bought the expansions. Pay to play get constant game content updates for your monthly fee instead of purchasable addons. If GW were to change to pay to play at this point the player base would leave in disgust at hundreds of wasted dollars in puchased campaigns and expansions. The business model was decided, and they are sticking to it. A company simply doesn't change their business model at the end of a game's life.

If GW had been pay to play from the beginning that would be a completely different matter...But it never has been, and never will be, so any discussion along these lines are completely pointless. If this were pay to play we would be speaking to a completely different group of players than we are now. Granted i'd probably still be here (I bought GW because I liked it, not becasue it was free to play), but a lot of the player base wouldn't have bought it to begin with.

Like I said, changing a business model now would definitely kill the game, but that's not something Anet is going to do, not even for GW2. Seriously, please think before posting assinine comments.

DreamWind · Oct 06, 2008, 10:07 AM // 10:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

I am going to stop here and not answer you regarding server issue anymore. want to know if I have faith in Arena Net, read last paragraph.

You have faith in what they will do. You don't have faith in what they had done. I think we are talking about 2 completely different things here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

Do you have facts to support what you say? because I have read articles written as early as 2004 and 2005 right after the beta testing, stating that new content were to be added every 6 months.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I didn't think this was even announced until after Factions. Guild Wars was an experiment....I don't think they planned to pump out an expansion every 6 months at time of release. Again..I could be wrong and I don't mind hearing if so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

In those same articles written as early as 2004 and 2005 also stated that Guild Wars is a solo game with choices to be played with Henchmen or real player.

Why keep bringing up the past. Its well established it has no bearing on today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awein

No, not really, GW has more in common with story driven RPG's then with grind based MMO's. Unlike MMO's it doesn't 'lock' you into buying more and more of it just to stay on top and be part of the groups and guilds and to feel wanted and needed. Though some of that did creep in.

You can't be serious. "Some" of it creeping in is a real understatement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

Like I said, changing a business model now would definitely kill the game, but that's not something Anet is going to do, not even for GW2. Seriously, please think before posting assinine comments.

I never said they were going to do it. I think you are underestimating the effects of a monthly fee in a game for both the players and the company though. Let me phrase it this way...would you pay monthly if Anet added 7 heroes? Theres a question that deserves a thread! I'm assuming the answer is overwhelmingly no. So why should Anet add 7 heroes again?

This thread sucks nowadays.

Amy Awien · Oct 06, 2008, 11:22 AM // 11:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

You can't be serious. "Some" of it creeping in is a real understatement.

For the most part one can ignore what crept in, thanks to H/H. With 3+4 heroes you could ignore it completely.

Quote:

Let me phrase it this way...would you pay monthly if Anet added 7 heroes?

No. Because that would take it the way the grind MMO's have gone.

DreamWind · Oct 06, 2008, 06:59 PM // 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

For the most part one can ignore what crept in, thanks to H/H. With 3+4 heroes you could ignore it completely.

Ignoring the problem doesn't mean its not there. It exists in the game everywhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

No. Because that would take it the way the grind MMO's have gone.

How do you figure that? If people aren't willing to pay for 7 heroes, why should Anet implement it?

Amy Awien · Oct 06, 2008, 08:23 PM // 20:23

That's not what you asked, you asked if people would be willing to pay a monthly fee for heroes. If people buy secondary sets just to get 3 additional heroes, I reckon people would be willing to pay something for 4 additional heroes. But asking a monthly fee just for heroes seems a bit over the top.

Bryant Again · Oct 06, 2008, 08:27 PM // 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I'd argue that any game with a monthly fee cares MORE about players preferences because the company gets monthly feedback...

You sure? It's also a cheap and effective way to get more money from your players in ways they won't notice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I look at it like this. The game was built as a multiplayer PvP game with a multiplayer PvE campaign that was possible to play singleplayer. Just like any other pay once game, you play through the game and thats it. The benefit with Guild Wars was the mutiplayer markets and areas still existed for play if you chose to do that. As soon as people started looking at it as a typical MMORPG though, I think the game lost all its long term potential like games like Starcraft and others have. Once people start saying "give us new content or the game is dead" then the game loses all long term potential.

It started with Nightfall mostly, which also coincided with the release of heroes and Guild Wars transforming into a single player game. Again...Nightfall was the deathblow to this game in my eyes (for several reasons) and also at least 20 other people I know. But again...experiences may differ. Thats just my opinion, and its the reason I don't like the 7 heroes idea much today. They could implement it though...it wouldn't affect me. I just think they won't for reasons stated previously.

From the start, Guild Wars has always been in favor of the "soloers". With everything being so demanding and so strict, it's hard to see how Guild Wars ever became so group happy in the beginning. Heroes weren't something that damaged the game, they were a solution. Soloers have been in existence since way back in Proph, some started sooner rather than later, some for personal reasons and others "for the lulz". All heroes did was allow the possibility for it to become easier with "possible" being the obvious keyword. If you sucked at the game, heroes were going to make things difficult. If you were very knowledgeable and knew the resources, things would be less strained. Yes, pugs would be less likely to have knowledgeable players, but they shouldn't have to rely on them in the first place (note: this is not me saying "l2p").

With the Guild Wars universe becoming so large, what would you rather they do? Not expand on PvE and let the PvE world become desolate, old, and stale? Not provide easier soloing options, still losing players in the long run? With the PvE world ever increasing, ever expanding, there was little that could be done. If more in-depth party searches and player groupings were possible we would see them by now, as ANet as shown us quite clearly that they want us to play with other people. However, forcing us to do that by hamstringing us if we don't is not the proper way to encourage that. Make me want to play with others, don't force me to. Find out why quite a few players would rather play alone, then come up with a solution.

ANet's already come up with an answer, though: Guild Wars 2 will be completely soloable. If that's not an indication of how much the multiplayer aspect didn't work in GW1, then I don't know what is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

This thread sucks nowadays.

Repeating that isn't helping.

DreamWind · Oct 06, 2008, 08:53 PM // 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

That's not what you asked, you asked if people would be willing to pay a monthly fee for heroes. If people buy secondary sets just to get 3 additional heroes, I reckon people would be willing to pay something for 4 additional heroes. But asking a monthly fee just for heroes seems a bit over the top.

No no...I mean if Anet came out and said hey we are adding a monthly fee to Guild Wars. We also have plans to add 7 heroes it will be well worth it! Would you do that? Would anybody?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You sure? It's also a cheap and effective way to get more money from your players in ways they won't notice.

Thats true, but I think those companies have to care more because their decisions directly affect their monthly profits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

From the start, Guild Wars has always been in favor of the "soloers". With everything being so demanding and so strict, it's hard to see how Guild Wars ever became so group happy in the beginning.

I don't agree with this. As I said before, Guild Wars to me has always been a multiplayer driven game with the option to play solo. It was never in favor of the soloers and in my opinion never should have been.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

With the Guild Wars universe becoming so large, what would you rather they do?

Expand the original vision. Grow a playerbase and keep your game alive from there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

However, forcing us to do that by hamstringing us if we don't is not the proper way to encourage that. Make me want to play with others, don't force me to. Find out why quite a few players would rather play alone, then come up with a solution.

This is their fault. I think Anet dropped the ball. They never really found a way to effectively do this short of perhaps missions and battles and such that require mutiplayer. My issue here is that too many people are shooting off about all the worst things of playing multiplayer while refusing to mention the good things. Remember...this game is called Guild Wars. To me the best things in PvE require multiple human teams or Guilds. I can't even bear to play this game solo. Of course...to me the best thing in the game is PvP so my opinion probably isn't worth much here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

ANet's already come up with an answer, though: Guild Wars 2 will be completely soloable. If that's not an indication of how much the multiplayer aspect didn't work in GW1, then I don't know what is.

Its not an indication of that at all. If anything its an indication that the company did some radical change over the past 3 years. We really don't know whether GW2 will be solo focused of multiplayer focused at this point. There can't be a focus on both though. Games that attempt that almost always fail...

Bryant Again · Oct 06, 2008, 09:52 PM // 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Thats true, but I think those companies have to care more because their decisions directly affect their monthly profits.

You'd like to think. A p2p game can get away with just as much as a f2p game and still have more cash in their pocket.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I don't agree with this. As I said before, Guild Wars to me has always been a multiplayer driven game with the option to play solo. It was never in favor of the soloers and in my opinion never should have been.

Has it always been in ANet's intentions to get people to play together? Yes. Is they way the game set up entirely against that? Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Expand the original vision. Grow a playerbase and keep your game alive from there.

That's exactly what they did. Instead of expanding upon the PvP of Guild Wars, they did it for the PvE as well. It was inevitable that these multiplayer setbacks would start to have larger and broader effects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

This is their fault. I think Anet dropped the ball. They never really found a way to effectively do this short of perhaps missions and battles and such that require mutiplayer. My issue here is that too many people are shooting off about all the worst things of playing multiplayer while refusing to mention the good things. Remember...this game is called Guild Wars. To me the best things in PvE require multiple human teams or Guilds. I can't even bear to play this game solo. Of course...to me the best thing in the game is PvP so my opinion probably isn't worth much here.

It's not that we're forgetting to mention the "good things", it's that the good things are so easily overwritten by the bad. A good experience is one that is largely or entirely full of negative experiences, and a person just coming into the party and calling you a "faggot" for 10 seconds straight could quite easily ruin that. And when instances like this start to happen numerous times in a row, coupled with the numerous failures and other faults many experience in pugs, you start to lose faith.

I do feel, though, that they started to learn a bit in GW:EN. The quests and missions are much less strict, you won't get a huge "FAILURE" when an NPC just wanders off and is killed in one hit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Its not an indication of that at all. If anything its an indication that the company did some radical change over the past 3 years. We really don't know whether GW2 will be solo focused of multiplayer focused at this point. There can't be a focus on both though. Games that attempt that almost always fail...

World of Warcraft.

And besides, it's already been answered in the GW2 FAQ that the only areas in the game not soloable are the end game raids.

pamelf · Oct 07, 2008, 01:41 AM // 01:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I never said they were going to do it. I think you are underestimating the effects of a monthly fee in a game for both the players and the company though. Let me phrase it this way...would you pay monthly if Anet added 7 heroes? Theres a question that deserves a thread! I'm assuming the answer is overwhelmingly no. So why should Anet add 7 heroes again?
.

Your rephrasing is exactly the same. No I wouldn't pay a monthly fee if Anet added 7 heroes, because I am playing a free to play MMO. My point still stands that the bought chapters would be wasted money if a payment plan were introduced now.

If I had to buy the option to have 7 heroes from the online store, now THAT I would do, because it fits into Anets business strategy, but 7 heroes is simply not enough of a change to make a game pay to play. If they announced that as of January next year they were making the game pay to play but would be releasing brand new content (i.e. areas, quests, missions) every month and weekly updates then I might consider sticking around for pay to play, but assuming that 7 heroes is enough of an insentive to have us disregard the previous money spent and accept pay to play is just foolish.

Your question does NOT deserve a thread, because GW ISN'T pay to play. Your whole argument is not an effective counter to a wish for 7 heroes.

pumpkin pie · Oct 07, 2008, 03:22 AM // 03:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Why keep bringing up the past. Its well established it has no bearing on today.

Because you are the one that wants to make reference to how Guild Wars was originally meant to be. Go back and read your own posts. My bringing up the past articles is telling you it wasn't as you think it was. Stop twisting the facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

You have faith in what they will do. You don't have faith in what they had done. I think we are talking about 2 completely different things here.

Do you know how stupid and arrogant that sound? For someone to tell another person where their faith lies when they don't even know the first thing about this person beside their very cute avatar?

And that someone happens to have spent more then 200 dollars several days ago (in their monastary unit) on Guild Wars an EXISTING product, as in SOMETHING ALREADY DONE BY ARENA NET. /sarcasm Boy! it was fun throwing money at Arena Net for something I don't have faith in ...

RedNova88 · Oct 07, 2008, 03:34 AM // 03:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Because we don't like to pay monthly fees for a company that cares more about their own vision of the game than the players' preferences.

You may see it that way, but out of all the MMOs I've played Anet can easily rank in the top 3 on this matter. At the very least Anet is active in the community, at least more so than Everquest2, WoW, Rappelz, Perfect World, Lineage 2, and the plethora of other uninvolved companies I've seen. Don't cast them into the shadows because they won't give you exactly what you want. People asked for something to do early on because they had beat the game, and thus titles were born. Later to this day people whine and whine about titles because you have to spend time on them.

See my point? Give a man a fish, and he'll want another. Give him another, and he'll want some tartar sauce. Keep giving the man what he wants and eventually he'll want the moon! Give someone a million dollars and they'll complain about having to pay taxes.

Free MMOs that only have an initial cost have a budget to stay on, methinks. So condemning them for not making your wishes true is pretty cold hearted. Especially when 7 heroes (although nice to have) are completely unnecessary, and would be nothing more than a convenience.