Guild Wars 2

I apologise in advance for this not being a happy post.

Right now, the direction this game is taking makes my skin crawl. The issues with temporary content and gem store RNG boxes are certainly troublesome, but there’s one that sticks in my craw so badly it’s almost offensive.

One issue I can point to and feel like is something that is objectively wrong, something that should not be, is entire armour sets, related to content currently (if temporarily) in the game, unobtainable through gameplay but solely through the gem store.

Long ago, before GW2 launched, I clearly remember a developer blog post about how this game was not going to have stat-based progression, about how progression was going to be about making your character look cooler and better. I also remember plenty of worries about the gem store being allayed by us being told that everything in the gem store could also be obtained through gameplay (aside from things like boost items and account/character services).

I seriously wonder at what point grinding for gold to convert to gems is so much part of the meta in this game that, when you put an armour set related to a temporary dungeon in the game that can only be obtained through the gem store and nowhere else, how we are not to feel almost cheated. If the only progression in this game is through aesthetics (read: gear), but those aesthetics are not only able to be bought through the gem store but solely through the gem store, then that is literally buying progression, paying to win.

The occasional back item cover, and weapon skin here and there, those aren’t too bad, but when the first armour set added to the game since its launch is obtainable only through the gem store, that is a truly toxic precedent being set. It’s a precedent that makes me feel as though I was mislead when I bought this product.

It is a precedent that serves only to highlight the business practises of this game, of creating artificial scarcity (an arguably unethical practise) with temporary content to get as much flowing into the gem store as quickly as possible. I understand ANet needs money to operate, that is absolutely acceptable, ANet launched a fine product, they should make money from it. However, there are many ways to make money and this one is one of the least positive ways ANet could use for the sake of their customers.

Between this one issue with the armour and my own personal incredible distaste for the very concept of temporary content that isn’t a holiday (and hence cyclical), I have lost all desire to spend more money on this game than I already have. I hope to see something in this game like what I was promised.

I don’t see how you looking different than me is a “pay to win” scenario.. You don’t win anything for wearing different armor..

They promised to have little to no stat progression and they have kept to that. Cosmetic items have nothing to do with “winning”. You have shifted your idea of progression to having cosmetic items and then being able to pay real money for these items as paying to win. So they can’t sell BiS stat items in the gem store because that’s pay to win and now they shouldn’t sell cosmetic items because that’s pay to win as well. Maybe they shouldn’t offer more character slots because players can “win” more often by making more alts than other players.

By your logic, buying the game is pay to win because you can’t win if you aren’t able to play the game.

Achernar.9716:

The occasional back item cover, and weapon skin here and there, those aren’t too bad, but when the first armour set added to the game since its launch is obtainable only through the gem store, that is a truly toxic precedent being set. It’s a precedent that makes me feel as though I was mislead when I bought this product.

Armor is different from a skin. To me, “pay to win” implies they are selling armor. These new items are skins.

If you’re tired of the game, quit. You aren’t holding anyone hostage but yourself.

You use the word “solely” like it’s incredibly limiting.

It’s not. Gem Shop armors are incredibly affordable, and obtainable through a variety of gameplay options (anything you do that earns you money, basically).

I think someone did the calculations and it’s around 25G to get the gems for the entire armor set. How does this compare to spending 100G + on entire armor sets (t3 cultural, NOT EVEN EXOTIC REQUIRES MORE TRANSMUTATION STONES), armor sets gated through content grinding (dungeon armor. 1300+ required for set, 60 tokens per…that’s around ~20 runs), armor sets, obtainable through specialized currency (karma/BoH).

Really? You have so many options compared to some traditional method of obtaining some skins.

Ursan.7846:

You use the word “solely” like it’s incredibly limiting.

It’s not. Gem Shop armors are incredibly affordable, and obtainable through a variety of gameplay options (anything you do that earns you money, basically).

I think someone did the calculations and it’s around 25G to get the gems for the entire armor set. How does this compare to spending 100G + on entire armor sets (t3 cultural, NOT EVEN EXOTIC REQUIRES MORE TRANSMUTATION STONES), armor sets gated through content grinding (dungeon armor. 1300+ required for set, 60 tokens per…that’s around ~20 runs), armor sets, obtainable through specialized currency (karma/BoH).

Really? You have so many options compared to some traditional method of obtaining some skins.

I agree entirely.

Having armour sets available on the Gem Store at the price they’re at right now limits nobody from buying them. Sure, those spending real money or who have a char with a fair bit of gold (a lot of people) will get them faster – the only problem with limits would be if the armour were limited content only, but so far, there isn’t any indication of that so I won’t judge that here.

Absolutely anyone, even very casual players, can spend the time earning in-game money to buy these sets over time if they wish. In my opinion, that’s better than having sets that are gated – I don’t run dungeons or fractals. Not because I wouldn’t like to, but because of various restraints that make it very difficult for me to do. So where can I get this armour? I’m not complaining I can’t get it, but to complain that a very cheap set on the gem store is limiting the number of people who have access to that armour set is simply not true. The stuff IN GAME is more restricted than this new stuff.

I have to agree with the OP on the negative effects of adding vertical progression to the game. And many thanks for the proper English spelling.

Agree with the author of this thread. Many of you say that armor in gemstore are only skins so its not pay to win. But the problem is that this game is a skin based game. Putting new skins through gemstore in this kind of game…its like putting end game gear in WoW, Aion, Rift store!. Its easy to say" but are only skins..its not pay to win!"…thanks CAPTAIN OBVIOUS there is no gear progression in this game!…the only progression are skins, and i like this, but you can put the progression obtainable through real money.

Albert Of Tyria.2149:

Agree with the author of this thread. Many of you say that armor in gemstore are only skins so its not pay to win. But the problem is that this game is a skin based game. Putting new skins through gemstore in this kind of game…its like putting end game gear in WoW, Aion, Rift store!. Its easy to say" but are only skins..its not pay to win!"…thanks CAPTAIN OBVIOUS there is no gear progression in this game!…the only progression are skins, and i like this, but you can put the progression obtainable through real money.

1300 hours and I’ve yet to feel like skins are the only progression.. I’ve worn the same stuff for almost 8 months and have never felt like I’m not progressing in this game.

Skins are not the game.

You aren’t differentiating the difference between skins and armors, that’s your problem.

Also, you CAN acquire the skins through normal gameplay and without spending real $ – use gem conversion.

#1. Everything in store is available for Gems. Gems are available for gold. Gold is available in game. Ergo, everything in store is available in game.

#2. Skins are not progression, they are cosmetics; your personal attempt to redefine cosmetics to be synonymous with progression notwithstanding.

#3. Items in store do not have stats. Stats are requires for winning. Pay to win cannot exist without stats from store.

Skins are “progression.” But they are horizontal progression, not vertical progression. So yes, in a sense, paying for skins is paying for progression.

…..But then you realize you can convert in-game gold for gems, hence progression is not restricted to the gem store.

I just hit 80. I don’t have enough gold/karma to buy exotic armor. I go out and buy gems to convert to gold and then effectively pay to get max gear. ’’Pay2win’’

Or, Im level 30, fed up with trudging through zones, so I go out and buy gems, convert, and max out all the crafting disciplines with crafting boosters. I just paid2win my way to level 80.

Also, skins are part of the non existent end game. They’re probably one of the easier to attain goals in this game. Armor at least. Some weapon skins are priced ridiculously.

Balkanwarrior.5132:

I just hit 80. I don’t have enough gold/karma to buy exotic armor. I go out and buy gems to convert to gold and then effectively pay to get max gear. ’’Pay2win’’

Or, Im level 30, fed up with trudging through zones, so I go out and buy gems, convert, and max out all the crafting disciplines with crafting boosters. I just paid2win my way to level 80.

Also, skins are part of the non existent end game. They’re probably one of the easier to attain goals in this game. Armor at least. Some weapon skins are priced ridiculously.

There’s several problems with your statement.

First, is your definition of “winning.” What is it? If your personal win condition is getting skins, or getting to level 80, or getting all exotic armor, then sure, you can “Pay2Win your own personal goal.” However, that is still your personal goal. A true “win” in a competition is victory upon meeting certain conditions for a specific competition. The reason why P2Win is bad is because you winning means someone else is losing in a competition and getting frustrated. If you get your character to Lvl 80, who is winning? Who is frustrated at losing? Hence “Pay2Win your own personal Goal” is not “pay2win”

Second, “Pay2Win” usually implies items and advantages obtained through real-money, but unobtainable through in-game play. Which isn’t true. Pay2GetThingQuicker isn’t Pay2Win. Due to the Gem/Gold ratio, there is absolutely nothing in the Gem Shop that you cannot get with in-game effort.

Third, the highest tier in the game (ascended) is obtainable SOLELY through in-game content. Cannot be purchased at all. So the closest argument to a P2W (Ascended stats in WvW) is basically moot, since Ascended cannot be paid for, period.

Not going to bother reading every post, but I am sure it has been said and it is the plain and simple truth…

“These skins CAN be bought with in game gold!”

Anet never said you would not have to grind for skins, which they have been up front about…they consider them “luxury” items.

What is it like 26 atm? That isn’t much…A LOT cheaper then cultural skins.

This thread is ridiculous. If an armor skin is so valuable to you, you will get it with either of the two ways to purchase gems.

Yet another “entitlement” thread. It’s sad that people keep on mistaking their wants for needs. Because one person can’t afford to purchase Gems, or have enough Gold to convert, they must complain the same applies to everyone else.

Achernar.9716:

If the only progression in this game is through aesthetics (read: gear), but those aesthetics are not only able to be bought through the gem store but solely through the gem store, then that is literally buying progression, paying to win.

If by “win” you mean looking better than the next random person in LA, then yes, I concede. You can have this win if it makes you feel better.

Achernar.9716:

I apologise in advance for this not being a happy post.

Right now, the direction this game is taking makes my skin crawl. The issues with temporary content and gem store RNG boxes are certainly troublesome, but there’s one that sticks in my craw so badly it’s almost offensive.

One issue I can point to and feel like is something that is objectively wrong, something that should not be, is entire armour sets, related to content currently (if temporarily) in the game, unobtainable through gameplay but solely through the gem store.

I don’t see how its objectively wrong. I’d far rather cosmetic items were sold directly in the gem store rather than only being available via gambling boxes even if the gem store is the only place to get them. eg. the jade weapon skins.

Ursan.7846:

There’s several problems with your statement.

First, is your definition of “winning.” What is it? If your personal win condition is getting skins, or getting to level 80, or getting all exotic armor, then sure, you can “Pay2Win your own personal goal.” However, that is still your personal goal. A true “win” in a competition is victory upon meeting certain conditions for a specific competition. The reason why P2Win is bad is because you winning means someone else is losing in a competition and getting frustrated. If you get your character to Lvl 80, who is winning? Who is frustrated at losing? Hence “Pay2Win your own personal Goal” is not “pay2win”

Second, “Pay2Win” usually implies items and advantages obtained through real-money, but unobtainable through in-game play. Which isn’t true. Pay2GetThingQuicker isn’t Pay2Win. Due to the Gem/Gold ratio, there is absolutely nothing in the Gem Shop that you cannot get with in-game effort.

Third, the highest tier in the game (ascended) is obtainable SOLELY through in-game content. Cannot be purchased at all. So the closest argument to a P2W (Ascended stats in WvW) is basically moot, since Ascended cannot be paid for, period.

Like you noted p2w relies on a definition of “win”. With an ever evolving genre it is evident that the correlating “win” is evolving as well. Thus we cannot be tied to a strict definition of the term and as such p2w has a broad spectrum it encompasses.

For example) What might be considered a “win” in pve is not going to be the same thing that is considered a “win” in pvp. What might be considered a “win” to a collector is not the same as to a dungeon runner.

Since the scenarios differ for many varying players the definition must adapt.

Now how does an advantage classify as a “win” when it does not necessitate a loss?

If marathon runner pays for a cab ride to the finish line, is that p2w? What if that cab gets stuck in traffic or gets into an accident and the runner still loses the race? Was the thing in p2w question only p2w if it resulted in a “win”?

Doe s a fighter who pays for a gun, yet still loses to an unarmed combatant guilty of attempting p2w?

Doe s a stock broker with information who adapts early have an advantage over someone with out who doesn’t? P2w quicker?

Does time or money qualify as an advantage?

One thing I can comfortably note is that p2w confers some sort of advantage. What qualifies as an advantage is open to debate and very much dependent on the objective.

I can’t believe you and some others are still complaining about BLTC skins.

You realize they are a business first? They have to make money. If they have to make money by selling skins, I say good! I’ve spent over 40+$ trying to get a sclerite weapon and have got none. This is a huge step forward those boxes.

You should be happy too. There are people who will obviously convert Gold→Gems.
Good for them. That way anything Anet puts in the gemstore will always be accessible to any one. But many others actually paid for these too. And for that I say thanks to those who bought with real money. Because they encourage non RNG skins and sustain the game through it.

Essence Snow.3194:

Like you noted p2w relies on a definition of “win”. With an ever evolving genre it is evident that the correlating “win” is evolving as well. Thus we cannot be tied to a strict definition of the term and as such p2w has a broad spectrum it encompasses.

For example) What might be considered a “win” in pve is not going to be the same thing that is considered a “win” in pvp. What might be considered a “win” to a collector is not the same as to a dungeon runner.

Since the scenarios differ for many varying players the definition must adapt.

Now how does an advantage classify as a “win” when it does not necessitate a loss?

If marathon runner pays for a cab ride to the finish line, is that p2w? What if that cab gets stuck in traffic or gets into an accident and the runner still loses the race? Was the thing in p2w question only p2w if it resulted in a “win”?

Doe s a fighter who pays for a gun, yet still loses to an unarmed combatant guilty of attempting p2w?

Doe s a stock broker with information who adapts early have an advantage over someone with out who doesn’t? P2w quicker?

Does time or money qualify as an advantage?

One thing I can comfortably note is that p2w confers some sort of advantage. What qualifies as an advantage is open to debate and very much dependent on the objective.

Advantages are actually quite easy to define. They provide a numerically provable benefit not available otherwise.

Armor skins change no numbers, therefore they bestow no benefit and therefore no advantage.

mtpelion.4562:

Essence Snow.3194:

Like you noted p2w relies on a definition of “win”. With an ever evolving genre it is evident that the correlating “win” is evolving as well. Thus we cannot be tied to a strict definition of the term and as such p2w has a broad spectrum it encompasses.

For example) What might be considered a “win” in pve is not going to be the same thing that is considered a “win” in pvp. What might be considered a “win” to a collector is not the same as to a dungeon runner.

Since the scenarios differ for many varying players the definition must adapt.

Now how does an advantage classify as a “win” when it does not necessitate a loss?

If marathon runner pays for a cab ride to the finish line, is that p2w? What if that cab gets stuck in traffic or gets into an accident and the runner still loses the race? Was the thing in p2w question only p2w if it resulted in a “win”?

Doe s a fighter who pays for a gun, yet still loses to an unarmed combatant guilty of attempting p2w?

Doe s a stock broker with information who adapts early have an advantage over someone with out who doesn’t? P2w quicker?

Does time or money qualify as an advantage?

One thing I can comfortably note is that p2w confers some sort of advantage. What qualifies as an advantage is open to debate and very much dependent on the objective.

Advantages are actually quite easy to define. They provide a numerically provable benefit not available otherwise.

Armor skins change no numbers, therefore they bestow no benefit and therefore no advantage.

That is completely dependent on one’s goal. If one’s goal doesn’t rely on said numbers, then they are irrelevant and something else may be acting in the number’s stead.

In the case in question (where the goal is a look) the means of obtaining armor takes place of stats (means of killing). Thus the advantage inlies in how one obtains the armor and not on the stats the armor provides.

Essence Snow.3194:

Now how does an advantage classify as a “win” when it does not necessitate a loss?

To try to equate P2AchievePersonalGoals to P2W is to forget the context in which why the term P2W has such a negative connotation. P2W is derided because of purchasable tools which confer a very clear statistical, mechanical, and functional advantage over competition, which negatively impacts the gameplay of others who do not have access.

Personal Goals of other people do not affect you in any way. Whether I hit 80 or not hit 80, would it affect you? Whether that guy has a rare mini or not, would it affect your gameplay? In competitive games, (from where the term spawned) this is important because winning means someone else losing. Many personal goals though set by players have none of that effect. If my personal goal is to “get a mini karka,” will my act of paying for it affect anyone negatively?

In addition, of course money should confer an “advantage” to a paying player. If not, why would anyone spend money on video game cash shops? But then this statement completely misses the point of P2W: does this “advantage” given to a player affect others negatively? (Mainly through competitive gameplay types?)

Again, the whole point if of course moot because of the fact that you can purchase Gems with Gold.

Essence Snow.3194:

mtpelion.4562:

Essence Snow.3194:

Like you noted p2w relies on a definition of “win”. With an ever evolving genre it is evident that the correlating “win” is evolving as well. Thus we cannot be tied to a strict definition of the term and as such p2w has a broad spectrum it encompasses.

For example) What might be considered a “win” in pve is not going to be the same thing that is considered a “win” in pvp. What might be considered a “win” to a collector is not the same as to a dungeon runner.

Since the scenarios differ for many varying players the definition must adapt.

Now how does an advantage classify as a “win” when it does not necessitate a loss?

If marathon runner pays for a cab ride to the finish line, is that p2w? What if that cab gets stuck in traffic or gets into an accident and the runner still loses the race? Was the thing in p2w question only p2w if it resulted in a “win”?

Doe s a fighter who pays for a gun, yet still loses to an unarmed combatant guilty of attempting p2w?

Doe s a stock broker with information who adapts early have an advantage over someone with out who doesn’t? P2w quicker?

Does time or money qualify as an advantage?

One thing I can comfortably note is that p2w confers some sort of advantage. What qualifies as an advantage is open to debate and very much dependent on the objective.

Advantages are actually quite easy to define. They provide a numerically provable benefit not available otherwise.

Armor skins change no numbers, therefore they bestow no benefit and therefore no advantage.

That is completely dependent on one’s goal. If one’s goal doesn’t rely on said numbers, then they are irrelevant and something else may be acting in the number’s stead.

In the case in question (where the goal is a look) the means of obtaining armor takes place of stats (means of killing). Thus the advantage inlies in how one obtains the armor and not on the stats the armor provides.

No, it is not dependent upon one’s goal at all. You cannot win at looking better because that is a completely subjective and irrelevant factor in the game. You may prefer to look a certain way, but looking that way bestows no advantage and does not contribute to “winning” in any way. It simply allows you to enjoy the game more.

Ursan.7846:

Essence Snow.3194:

Now how does an advantage classify as a “win” when it does not necessitate a loss?

To try to equate P2AchievePersonalGoals to P2W is to forget the context in which why the term P2W has such a negative connotation. P2W is derided because of purchasable tools which confer a very clear statistical, mechanical, and functional advantage over competition, which negatively impacts the gameplay of others who do not have access.

Personal Goals of other people do not affect you in any way. Whether I hit 80 or not hit 80, would it affect you? Whether that guy has a rare mini or not, would it affect your gameplay? In competitive games, (from where the term spawned) this is important because winning means someone else losing. Many personal goals though set by players have none of that effect. If my personal goal is to “get a mini karka,” will my act of paying for it affect anyone negatively?

In addition, of course money should confer an “advantage” to a paying player. If not, why would anyone spend money on video game cash shops? But then this statement completely misses the point of P2W: does this “advantage” given to a player affect others negatively? (Mainly through competitive gameplay types?)

Again, the whole point if of course moot because of the fact that you can purchase Gems with Gold.

In the context of this game those “early adapters” have an effect on other players via the tp and prices. Take for instance a trader that purchases a massive amount of something 1st, which in turn raises the prices for others.

I prefaced everything with noting p2w needing to be redefined as games evolve.

P2w in Sims for example if not the same as p2w in CoD.

Essence Snow.3194:

In the context of this game those “early adapters” have an effect on other players via the tp and prices. Take for instance a trader that purchases a massive amount of something 1st, which in turn raises the prices for others.

The reason why there was a massive increase in prices since game launch is due to players earning more, and more, and more gold.

The idea that a single “trader” can by himself increase prices of goods has been debunked many times in the fact due to the sheer amount of transactions which goes on.

I really can’t get the fuss around people complaining about this since if it’s so important to you then why don’t you invest more time in earning gold to get your armor skin set?

Or maybe like I do since I don’t play hardcore but I just play when I feel like too play GW2 too just buy gems? Or is a lousy 10 sometimes 20 euro’s (or whatever your currency is) each month too much for you ? Which btw with buying gems your helping Anet/ncsoft as well so hey you get a shiny new armor + you help them with funding investment too the game !

Ursan.7846:

Essence Snow.3194:

In the context of this game those “early adapters” have an effect on other players via the tp and prices. Take for instance a trader that purchases a massive amount of something 1st, which in turn raises the prices for others.

The reason why there was a massive increase in prices since game launch is due to players earning more, and more, and more gold.

The idea that a single “trader” can by himself increase prices of goods has been debunked many times in the fact due to the sheer amount of transactions which goes on.

You know better than to make a blanket statement like that. Ofc a single player can influence prices of an item given the contexts of short term and low fluidity. That said, in most cases here it is not a single player, but a classification of players hence the term “early adapters”.

Essence Snow.3194:

You know better than to make a blanket statement like that. Ofc a single player can influence prices of an item given the contexts of short term and low fluidity. That said, in most cases here it is not a single player, but a classification of players hence the term “early adapters”.

The point is a few players who bought Gems → Gold early on and “hoarded” certain items are not the cause of the price increase which occurred since launch. The fact that players started earning more and more gold is.

This is also irrelevant to the topic at hand: skins, and how P2Skin is not P2Win.

“Critics of the free-to-play approach are concerned that if players that paid for special items subsequently become better at a multiplayer game than those who did not purchase the same items, then it will not be as enjoyable as other games since players who paid more money are more successful than those who simply rely on skill. These games are known as “Pay-to-Win” (often abbreviated P2W)¹² games. Instead, some suggest that payments should only be used to broaden the gaming experience without affecting the game play itself. They also claim that the secret is in finding the balance between a game that makes players want to pay for extra features to make the game more special, while also ensuring that players who decide not to pay do not feel as though they are getting an inferior product. The theory is that players who do not pay for items in a game would still increase awareness of the game through word of mouth marketing, which ultimately benefits the game indirectly even though it does not directly receive income from a specific player. A common concern about the free-to-play model is whether or not free games have to constantly request that the player buy extra content in order for them to survive or continue in the game, and if so, at what point does it become an annoyance or make the player feel uncomfortable about it.⁵"

The definition of pay to win is becoming more successful through purchases than those who spend no money. You are not more successful due to a shiny new look, you may think so, but you are not. I have over 20 unique, rare, hard to obtain items that will probably never be in game again. Do I feel like I’m better than other players who didn’t spend cash on them? Absolutely not. You can try to redefine the term as much as you like but you could do the same with any definition. The definition is there for a reason, and while it can be interpreted slightly different in some cases, this one does not apply.

Do you think a man in Africa with no job, no house, in poverty stricken land is any better than those who sweat and bleed for money to support their family’s just because he has a fancy suit? At the end of the day what you look like in terms of clothing (in game) has no effect on how amazing, how terrible, how special you are to ANYONE ELSE. It is your perspective on the game that you feel your wares make you feel special, well that is just fine. But that feeling is for you and you alone, it affects no one else unless perhaps you have a stalker or some cult following. Saying an outfit is somehow an advantage over others or pay to win is about as nonsensical as saying that because I have a Nike shirt I’m somehow as good or better than a pro athlete. there is no comparison there, it makes no sense whatsoever.

You may judge yourself and others on looks, but most of us do not. Most of us value skill over looks, over gear, over achievements, over just about anything. You can be the prettiest princess in Tyria and have every cute backpack in your bank, but to everyone else you are just another person who got lucky or had money to buy stuff from an optional game store.

The idiom of “keeping up with the Joneses” comes to mind. The social effects of which are very much evident via multiple channels.

Most of my opinion has been said by some of the previous posters in this thread, and many others. To me, ANet has delivered on its promise of little to no vertical progression.

Scarcity is really the only point I want to talk about. Creating scarcity is not, in my eyes, unethical. In fact, it’s really the only reason I want any given object in the game.

By nature, we are all wired this way. Throughout human history, we have coveted precious metals and gemstones. Their pleasing appearance is secondary to (and could be even a direct result of) their profound rarity.

On a personal level, this principle drives the majority of my decisions in this game. I crafted the Bifrost because it was owned by relatively few players compared to Twilight and Sunrise (at the time, last november). I collect limited time equipment because they may not be available ever again, and thus scarce. I didn’t get a Molten ticket, but I did manage to find a Jade one, which I think is neat only really due to the fact that it’s fairly scarce. I really don’t like any of the actual skins save for the staff. Is the mystic forge conduit really THAT useful? No. Not so much. It saves a 5 second walk from time to time, big deal. But they are no longer craftable in the game, save from what already exists, so thus I love it.

Everything I enjoy owning in the game, I enjoy because relatively few people have it (or the % ownership is likely to decline in the future). This is not the sort of arrogance some of you will undoubtedly try to make this out to be. I highly doubt this feeling is even a minority opinion: We as a species love to own rare objects, from past to present.

If everything were to be available for cheap, for easy, or forever, much of what we love about this game vanishes. Aside from its practical application (standard asc/exotic gear for stats) I have no real desire to own something I regard as common, and whether you all care to admit it or not, most of you agree with me. This is not to say I don’t want to have it, more that it’s not one of those things I really love to have.

Case in point: there are phenomenal skins on much of the masterwork equipment in this game (the glyphic weapon skins are fantastic), but it is never discussed or mentioned because it is regarded as common. When attractive new skins are released that are readily obtainable by everyone, it is often passed over and not even discussed. If ArenaNet painted the Glyphic sword blue, and repackaged it as an exotic sword that had a 1/10000000 chance of dropping from a certain chest, how soon can we expect this item to be the hottest topic on the forums?

Could you truthfully say that no one would care because the nearly identical Glyphic sword is already available for less than 1 silver? Many of you speak as if you simply want the cosmetics, but it’s really just about the rarity.

In truth, all the chatter/complaints about the <1% of skins in this game that are only available through the gem store or RNG only reinforces my point: we only care about that which is rare. 99% of the posts are made about 1% of the skins. Those arguing to remove the RNG (and thus remove the scarcity) of such items – having that happen would do far more harm than good. These complaints, this buzz about the rare items, the threats to quit the game, the repeated “ANet, you won’t get another dollar from me”: it’s all a good thing, whether you believe me or not. This is emotion, it’s attachment for better or for worse. Consider a game where no one felt one way or another about anything at all….

This has gotten long enough to where I feel like I would skip over my own post, so just read this one sentence: This game needs item scarcity, and artificial scarcity is one way to achieve it.