Guild Wars 2

Leablo.2651:

Obtena.7952:

If what you say is true, the game wouldn’t exist. Zero ROI projects aren’t really popular with investors and employees can’t buy groceries with promises and good will.

I missed the part where he claimed that Anet was a non-profit.

The part where he implies the only funding the game needed was from box sales.

Obtena.7952:

Leablo.2651:

Obtena.7952:

If what you say is true, the game wouldn’t exist. Zero ROI projects aren’t really popular with investors and employees can’t buy groceries with promises and good will.

I missed the part where he claimed that Anet was a non-profit.

The part where he implies the only funding the game needed was from box sales.

I said it was “marketed” the way I described. I didn’t claim it was the reality of the situation. We believe that gem store revenue is a major component of total revenue. Otherwise the LS content would not be free.

However GW2 was originally marketed as “buy once, play forever” just like GW1. Defend the cash shop all you want, but it’s not good for the longevity of the game.

juno.1840

However GW2 was originally marketed as “buy once, play forever” just like GW1. Defend the cash shop all you want, but it’s not good for the longevity of the game.

How much is the monthly sub cost again? I don’t think I’ve had to pay anything since my box fee.

It’s fair to debate the merits of things like gem to gold conversions, etc…, but it’s not fair to imply that anet is being deceitful with the playerbase.

juno.1840:

Obtena.7952:

Leablo.2651:

Obtena.7952:

If what you say is true, the game wouldn’t exist. Zero ROI projects aren’t really popular with investors and employees can’t buy groceries with promises and good will.

I missed the part where he claimed that Anet was a non-profit.

The part where he implies the only funding the game needed was from box sales.

I said it was “marketed” the way I described. I didn’t claim it was the reality of the situation. We believe that gem store revenue is a major component of total revenue. Otherwise the LS content would not be free.

However GW2 was originally marketed as “buy once, play forever” just like GW1. Defend the cash shop all you want, but it’s not good for the longevity of the game.

You dont need anything form the gem shop to play forever, after your initial purchase.

juno.1840:

However GW2 was originally marketed as “buy once, play forever” just like GW1.

So… what part of this has anything to do with being forced to make microtransaction purchases? You’re really grasping at straws here mate.

If you’re unhappy with the Gem Store, just say “I don’t like it”. Making false claims to try and justify your personal feelings is not healthy for forum debates.

juno.1840:

Obtena.7952:

Leablo.2651:

Obtena.7952:

If what you say is true, the game wouldn’t exist. Zero ROI projects aren’t really popular with investors and employees can’t buy groceries with promises and good will.

I missed the part where he claimed that Anet was a non-profit.

The part where he implies the only funding the game needed was from box sales.

I said it was “marketed” the way I described. I didn’t claim it was the reality of the situation. We believe that gem store revenue is a major component of total revenue. Otherwise the LS content would not be free.

However GW2 was originally marketed as “buy once, play forever” just like GW1. Defend the cash shop all you want, but it’s not good for the longevity of the game.

How is it not good for the longevity of the game? How does a continuing stream of revenue for ANet from the GW2 gem store hurt longevity? Won’t they want to continue that revenue stream and maximize it by doing things in the game that keep people playing and buying gems?

Btw, I am not defending the cash shop. I’ve never bought a gem with anything other than in-game gold and have been playing since the pre-release weekend. But it seems like the gem store is more likely to increase the longevity of the game rather than harm it.

Wanze.8410:

juno.1840:

Obtena.7952:

Leablo.2651:

Obtena.7952:

If what you say is true, the game wouldn’t exist. Zero ROI projects aren’t really popular with investors and employees can’t buy groceries with promises and good will.

I missed the part where he claimed that Anet was a non-profit.

The part where he implies the only funding the game needed was from box sales.

I said it was “marketed” the way I described. I didn’t claim it was the reality of the situation. We believe that gem store revenue is a major component of total revenue. Otherwise the LS content would not be free.

However GW2 was originally marketed as “buy once, play forever” just like GW1. Defend the cash shop all you want, but it’s not good for the longevity of the game.

You dont need anything form the gem shop to play forever, after your initial purchase.

The point is that somebody does have to make those purchases. If everyone were to stop making them, then the whole game would cease.

Essence Snow.3194:

Wanze.8410:

juno.1840:

Obtena.7952:

Leablo.2651:

Obtena.7952:

If what you say is true, the game wouldn’t exist. Zero ROI projects aren’t really popular with investors and employees can’t buy groceries with promises and good will.

I missed the part where he claimed that Anet was a non-profit.

The part where he implies the only funding the game needed was from box sales.

I said it was “marketed” the way I described. I didn’t claim it was the reality of the situation. We believe that gem store revenue is a major component of total revenue. Otherwise the LS content would not be free.

However GW2 was originally marketed as “buy once, play forever” just like GW1. Defend the cash shop all you want, but it’s not good for the longevity of the game.

You dont need anything form the gem shop to play forever, after your initial purchase.

The point is that somebody does have to make those purchases. If everyone were to stop making them, then the whole game would cease.

Actually, that’s not the point. The player was just complaining that he doesn’t like the Gem Store, and was making up various excuses that the “marketing” of the game didn’t comply with his personal preferences.

juno.1840:

Obtena.7952:

Leablo.2651:

Obtena.7952:

If what you say is true, the game wouldn’t exist. Zero ROI projects aren’t really popular with investors and employees can’t buy groceries with promises and good will.

I missed the part where he claimed that Anet was a non-profit.

The part where he implies the only funding the game needed was from box sales.

I said it was “marketed” the way I described. I didn’t claim it was the reality of the situation. We believe that gem store revenue is a major component of total revenue. Otherwise the LS content would not be free.

However GW2 was originally marketed as “buy once, play forever” just like GW1. Defend the cash shop all you want, but it’s not good for the longevity of the game.

Well Guild Wars 1 had the ingame store also, which people seem to forget about. And what could you buy there?

1) the Bonus packs. Content you had to pay for extra to play. No payee, no playee. (And no, I’m not talking about expansions here).
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Bonus_Mission_Pack
2) mercenary hero slots, so you never had to group up with those annoying other people in the game again.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Mercenary_Hero_Slot
3) skill unlock packs. Don’t want to play the game and earn the skills? You don’t have to! (Major credit cards happily accepted)
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Skill_Unlock_Pack
4) not enough storage? We got storage. For a small fee of course.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Xunlai_Storage_Pane
5) SIGH. It’s so tedious earning your PvP stuff.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/PvP_Item_Unlock_Pack

Now, tell me again that the Guild Wars 2 cash shop is so much worse.

Astral Projections.7320:

juno.1840:

Obtena.7952:

Leablo.2651:

Obtena.7952:

If what you say is true, the game wouldn’t exist. Zero ROI projects aren’t really popular with investors and employees can’t buy groceries with promises and good will.

I missed the part where he claimed that Anet was a non-profit.

The part where he implies the only funding the game needed was from box sales.

I said it was “marketed” the way I described. I didn’t claim it was the reality of the situation. We believe that gem store revenue is a major component of total revenue. Otherwise the LS content would not be free.

However GW2 was originally marketed as “buy once, play forever” just like GW1. Defend the cash shop all you want, but it’s not good for the longevity of the game.

Well Guild Wars 1 had the ingame store also, which people seem to forget about. And what could you buy there?

1) the Bonus packs. Content you had to pay for extra to play. No payee, no playee. (And no, I’m not talking about expansions here).
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Bonus_Mission_Pack
2) mercenary hero slots, so you never had to group up with those annoying other people in the game again.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Mercenary_Hero_Slot
3) skill unlock packs. Don’t want to play the game and earn the skills? You don’t have to! (Major credit cards happily accepted)
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Skill_Unlock_Pack
4) not enough storage? We got storage. For a small fee of course.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Xunlai_Storage_Pane
5) SIGH. It’s so tedious earning your PvP stuff.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/PvP_Item_Unlock_Pack

Now, tell me again that the Guild Wars 2 cash shop is so much worse.

You just pulled a “John Smith” on him by using facts to debunk his claims. Good job on the research.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Essence Snow.3194:

Wanze.8410:

juno.1840:

Obtena.7952:

Leablo.2651:

Obtena.7952:

If what you say is true, the game wouldn’t exist. Zero ROI projects aren’t really popular with investors and employees can’t buy groceries with promises and good will.

I missed the part where he claimed that Anet was a non-profit.

The part where he implies the only funding the game needed was from box sales.

I said it was “marketed” the way I described. I didn’t claim it was the reality of the situation. We believe that gem store revenue is a major component of total revenue. Otherwise the LS content would not be free.

However GW2 was originally marketed as “buy once, play forever” just like GW1. Defend the cash shop all you want, but it’s not good for the longevity of the game.

You dont need anything form the gem shop to play forever, after your initial purchase.

The point is that somebody does have to make those purchases. If everyone were to stop making them, then the whole game would cease.

Actually, that’s not the point. The player was just complaining that he doesn’t like the Gem Store, and was making up various excuses that the “marketing” of the game didn’t comply with his personal preferences.

^^

Now ya’ll are gonna make me go back and read all of this. I had just assumed ya’ll jumped on that person b/c it’s what ya’ll do.

Essence Snow.3194:

Now ya’ll are gonna make me go back and read all of this. I had just assumed ya’ll jumped on that person b/c it’s what ya’ll do.

Nah. We don’t jump on people just to troll. We attack with facts and logic. Some just do it better than others (and that I’m too lazy to research facts).

I bought two packs of 5 dyes and got none of the new ones and one rare. I’m still kicking myself a few days later over it.

Not the best way to welcome a new player back. At the very least the real chances of getting the new dyes should be on the description instead of a vague “you may win something”

Quetz.4389:

I bought two packs of 5 dyes and got none of the new ones and one rare. I’m still kicking myself a few days later over it.

Not the best way to welcome a new player back. At the very least the real chances of getting the new dyes should be on the description instead of a vague “you may win something”

The word “chance” does not mean the same as “guaranteed”. Even if you knew the exact odds, you could realistically be in the same position if you took that chance. Tis RNG.

Why can’t they just sell us a dye flat out that is account bound? Why the RNG? Must they bait us into giving them money? It just turns most people off of the gem store I would think.

When they sold us kites you got to pick what color you wanted. Why not a chance for a kite, but you may get a kitten instead.

Elric Of Melnibone.4781:

Why can’t they just sell us a dye flat out that is account bound? Why the RNG? Must they bait us into giving them money? It just turns most people off of the gem store I would think.

When they sold us kites you got to pick what color you wanted. Why not a chance for a kite, but you may get a kitten instead.

Because “rarity” isn’t just a cute pony.

juno.1840:

Obtena.7952:

Leablo.2651:

Obtena.7952:

If what you say is true, the game wouldn’t exist. Zero ROI projects aren’t really popular with investors and employees can’t buy groceries with promises and good will.

I missed the part where he claimed that Anet was a non-profit.

The part where he implies the only funding the game needed was from box sales.

I said it was “marketed” the way I described. I didn’t claim it was the reality of the situation.

… you can ‘buy once and play forever’ though. That doesn’t contradict the need to continue funding the development of the game.

Elric Of Melnibone.4781:

Why can’t they just sell us a dye flat out that is account bound? Why the RNG? Must they bait us into giving them money? It just turns most people off of the gem store I would think.

When they sold us kites you got to pick what color you wanted. Why not a chance for a kite, but you may get a kitten instead.

Because it’s a source of non-special dyes and if they do charge directly it would be in the 400-500 gem range to balance the number of special dyes RNG delivers Vs gems spent.

Ideally they could do both. 600 gems for a guaranteed special dye or a 125 gems for a 1 in 4 chance of one.

It’s not like I am buying a legendary with gems, just some dye. If they sold really cool armor skins, does the fact that everyone has one make them less valuable?

TP flippers make tons of gold and can buy any dye they want, do they really deserve it?

If I am supporting the game by buying some dye shouldn’t I get something better than a lump of coal?

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Quetz.4389:

I bought two packs of 5 dyes and got none of the new ones and one rare. I’m still kicking myself a few days later over it.

Not the best way to welcome a new player back. At the very least the real chances of getting the new dyes should be on the description instead of a vague “you may win something”

The word “chance” does not mean the same as “guaranteed”. Even if you knew the exact odds, you could realistically be in the same position if you took that chance. Tis RNG.

If I knew the general odds it would definitely affect my buying.

But I guess that is what they are counting on… that the person buying believes it’s a better deal than it really is.

Quetz.4389:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Quetz.4389:

I bought two packs of 5 dyes and got none of the new ones and one rare. I’m still kicking myself a few days later over it.

Not the best way to welcome a new player back. At the very least the real chances of getting the new dyes should be on the description instead of a vague “you may win something”

The word “chance” does not mean the same as “guaranteed”. Even if you knew the exact odds, you could realistically be in the same position if you took that chance. Tis RNG.

If I knew the general odds it would definitely affect my buying.

But I guess that is what they are counting on… that the person buying believes it’s a better deal than it really is.

You do know the odds, you just don’t understand them. That’s OK, most people who hadn’t taken Prob and Stats in college don’t (and some who did still don’t). There is a 1 in 16 chance that 10 dyes yield no special ones. There is always a chance of failure. A one on your saving throw. And since the fine dye market collapsed compared to the pre-announcement prices, it’s even more of a loss.

Behellagh.1468:

Quetz.4389:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Quetz.4389:

I bought two packs of 5 dyes and got none of the new ones and one rare. I’m still kicking myself a few days later over it.

Not the best way to welcome a new player back. At the very least the real chances of getting the new dyes should be on the description instead of a vague “you may win something”

The word “chance” does not mean the same as “guaranteed”. Even if you knew the exact odds, you could realistically be in the same position if you took that chance. Tis RNG.

If I knew the general odds it would definitely affect my buying.

But I guess that is what they are counting on… that the person buying believes it’s a better deal than it really is.

You do know the odds, you just don’t understand them. That’s OK, most people who hadn’t taken Prob and Stats in college don’t (and some who did still don’t). There is a 1 in 16 chance that 10 dyes yield no special ones. There is always a chance of failure. A one on your saving throw. And since the fine dye market collapsed compared to the pre-announcement prices, it’s even more of a loss.

As I mentioned previously, you’re making the assumption that each dye has an equal chance to drop. This is not necessarily the case.

Edit: To expand on this, just for clarity, you’re assuming that we’re reaching into a hat with 25 items in it, and each of those items are one dye, each a different color. The odds change if the hat contains 35 dyes, and 10 of them are olive silk, even though the tooltip is still accurate- it’s choosing from a pool of 25 colors. So what I’m saying is that we don’t know how many of each color are in the hat.

And I did mention in my original post in this thread that I was assuming equal weighting. There is no reason to not believe that this is the case. It’s natural that players who are feeling short changed to report their results while players who benefit with the appropriate number or more not to. You can’t get a valid sample from selective reporting. Crowd sourcing data has it’s limits.

Behellagh.1468:

And I did mention in my original post in this thread that I was assuming equal weighting. There is no reason to not believe that this is the case. It’s natural that players who are feeling short changed to report their results while players who benefit with the appropriate number or more not to. You can’t get a valid sample from selective reporting. Crowd sourcing data has it’s limits.

I am in no way suggesting that we crowd source. I’m pointing out a flaw in your argument that the odds are known, when they actually aren’t.

Guhracie.3419:

Behellagh.1468:

And I did mention in my original post in this thread that I was assuming equal weighting. There is no reason to not believe that this is the case. It’s natural that players who are feeling short changed to report their results while players who benefit with the appropriate number or more not to. You can’t get a valid sample from selective reporting. Crowd sourcing data has it’s limits.

I am in no way suggesting that we crowd source. I’m pointing out a flaw in your argument that the odds are known, when they actually aren’t.

And your flaw is assuming you can’t take their 6 of 25 statement at face value.

No, I’m not making any assumptions. That’s the difference.

Behellagh.1468:

You do know the odds, you just don’t understand them. That’s OK, most people who hadn’t taken Prob and Stats in college don’t (and some who did still don’t). There is a 1 in 16 chance that 10 dyes yield no special ones. There is always a chance of failure. A one on your saving throw. And since the fine dye market collapsed compared to the pre-announcement prices, it’s even more of a loss.

You simply cannot make this scientific argument without all the data. The very premise that you’re trying to dismiss (the complaint that the odds aren’t known) is more valid than your argument against it, because you are the one making the assumption. That proves the point.

I read your point as the odds must be below what’s implied. And because it costs so much to do any empirical testing ourselves before we achieve any level of confidence it leaves both of us with the choice of believing what’s implied by their 6 in 25 statement or not.

I’m using the implied odds to demonstrate that it’s possible to get a dissatisfied result with sample size of 10 or 20 or 5 or whatever. Others choose to take these complaints as fact that the odds are significantly less. I’m simply trying to show that’s not necessarily the case.

Every time I read these I snicker cause like the OP I once bought a few dye packs and got nothing and felt angry. Then I decided to let my wallet do the talking. I buy things from the gem store…guaranteed items. I don’t buy ANYTHING that is random. If I want something that comes from one of their boxes of random crap I save up the in game money and buy it with in game money and make sure it never comes from my wallet.

Speak with your wallet it will get you farther. If people didn’t buy the random lotto tickets they would quit making them. Hopefully.

^ This. If you really feel strongly about RNG gem store items, stop buying them. If enough people stop buying them, ANet will change their product offerings.

Of course, that’s practically guaranteed to never happen. All available evidence says that there are PLENTY of people who love gambling.

Behellagh.1468:

I read your point as the odds must be below what’s implied. And because it costs so much to do any empirical testing ourselves before we achieve any level of confidence it leaves both of us with the choice of believing what’s implied by their 6 in 25 statement or not.

I’m using the implied odds to demonstrate that it’s possible to get a dissatisfied result with sample size of 10 or 20 or 5 or whatever. Others choose to take these complaints as fact that the odds are significantly less. I’m simply trying to show that’s not necessarily the case.

No, what you said was that the odds are known. All I did was demonstrate that the odds are not known. I was not making any further implications about my own personal beliefs, I was stating fact. I did not speculate in any way that the odds are lower than what is implied, I said that it’s possible they are, and that’s what I meant.

Even with 50/50 odds it’s possible to get a dissatisfied result; I don’t think anyone is contesting that. I’m certainly not.

I really don’t know how to make this more clear.

Guhracie.3419:

No, what you said was that the odds are known. All I did was demonstrate that the odds are not known. I was not making any further implications about my own personal beliefs, I was stating fact. I did not speculate in any way that the odds are lower than what is implied, I said that it’s possible they are, and that’s what I meant.

Even with 50/50 odds it’s possible to get a dissatisfied result; I don’t think anyone is contesting that. I’m certainly not.

I really don’t know how to make this more clear.

Behellagh.1468:

… with 6 out of 25 chance, assuming an evenly weighted probability …

Really? I stated the odds were known?

Behellagh.1468:

Quetz.4389:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Quetz.4389:

I bought two packs of 5 dyes and got none of the new ones and one rare. I’m still kicking myself a few days later over it.

Not the best way to welcome a new player back. At the very least the real chances of getting the new dyes should be on the description instead of a vague “you may win something”

The word “chance” does not mean the same as “guaranteed”. Even if you knew the exact odds, you could realistically be in the same position if you took that chance. Tis RNG.

If I knew the general odds it would definitely affect my buying.

But I guess that is what they are counting on… that the person buying believes it’s a better deal than it really is.

You do know the odds, you just don’t understand them. That’s OK, most people who hadn’t taken Prob and Stats in college don’t (and some who did still don’t). There is a 1 in 16 chance that 10 dyes yield no special ones. There is always a chance of failure. A one on your saving throw. And since the fine dye market collapsed compared to the pre-announcement prices, it’s even more of a loss.

LOOK. You said this. It’s right here. The only adjustment I have made was to bold your statement, “You do know the odds, you just don’t understand them.”

This is factually inaccurate. You cannot calculate the odds without crucial data that we simply do not have, and you clearly stated that the odds are known.

I’m not going to engage in this line of conversation any further, for the sake of my alleged sanity. I sincerely do not understand how you can claim you never said that the odds could be calculated, when you clearly did, on this very page.

Odds based on taking ANet’s statement of 6 out of 25 at face value. If the odds are significantly different than why bother stating the pool size? Wouldn’t that generate more dissatisfaction because players would feel that they were lied to about their chances?

Euler’s complaint is he only got 1 dye out of 10 packs and that’s a rip off. IF you use the odds of 6 in 25 or 24% on each pack, only getting 1 dye out of 10 packs occurs 20.3% of the time which is the same chance as getting 4 or more. If Euler did get 4 or more I’m sure he wouldn’t have started a thread about his good fortune.

My original points on page one is if you want a guaranteed new special dye to be offered, expect to pay in the 400-500 gems range assuming the current odds are 6 in 25 is correct.

People don’t grasp probability. They often assume that a 1 in 4 chance means that they will win one time out of every four, guaranteed. And if not then they will “catch up” with two of the next four. That’s not the case. Players may think that if they buy a 5 pack that they will get one special dye but, assuming a 6 in 24 chance, they will get no special dyes 25% of the time. If you are one of those players you will be mightily upset and suggest that the odds are actually much lower and ANet is pulling the rug over everyone’s eyes.

I’m simply trying to show that even with the assumed odds implied by ANet, Euler’s result wasn’t statistically unusual. It’s not even one SD away from the mean.