Guild Wars 2

All right, so I think that we all know that it is inevitable that the Chop-It-All logging axe and its friends are not the last unlimited gathering tools that are going to grace the store. This isn’t from data-mining or anything, it’s just figuring that ANet would continue to make money by making more gathering tools going forward.

So, if a new logging axe comes out, wouldn’t it be good to be able to trade in your old one for some gems (maybe 50%) towards the new one? I believe that this would both make it more likely for previous purchasers to purchase again (because they’re not paying for the ‘same item’ in full price again), and it would make players more likely to purchase in the first place, knowing that they can get part of their investment back if something more interesting does come along.

Now, personally, I wouldn’t want to limit this to just the gathering tools. How about those Aetherblade armor sets? They all come in one chunk of 800 gems, but what if you just want the gloves, shoulders, and boots? How about being able to return the three pieces you don’t want to get ~200 gems back? 600 gems for the pieces you really want may be easier to swallow than 800 for the whole thing.

Taking it one step further, perhaps the items could return gems at a rate of 80-100% if refunded while the item is still being sold, which gives someone who has buyers remorse a chance to get most of their investment back without feeling ripped off.

As for implementation… Well, as a developer, I know that I hate getting designs that already have the solution in their requirements, but I have a suggestion, anyway:
- A new tab on the TP that is just for refunding items. Applied skins cannot be refunded.
- Right-click option that opens the TP to that tab, with the item selected, just like the ‘Sell item at trading post’ menu option

Just one question – why would you want to trade one infinite tool for the other of the same variety? Do you mean if a new axe comes along that has a more attractive graphic effect or something like that?

I don’t think that it’s a fair suggestion.

We already get quite a lot for the price we paid for the game, and there’s probably a decent balance of real money gem buyers vs the rest. Your suggestion would probably benefit players much more than the company, which is not that good considering how much we are getting already.

AntiGw.9367:

I don’t think that it’s a fair suggestion.

We already get quite a lot for the price we paid for the game, and there’s probably a decent balance of real money gem buyers vs the rest. Your suggestion would probably benefit players much more than the company, which is not that good considering how much we are getting already.

SAYS ANTI GUILD WARS

Gnat.9405:

Just one question - why would you want to trade one infinite tool for the other of the same variety? Do you mean if a new axe comes along that has a more attractive graphic effect or something like that?

Yes, that was the intent. For example, if you have the Chop-It-All and they come out with an axe that animates like Whirlwind Axe plus an icy wind effect, and you want that one, you would trade in your Chop-It-All for some gems, buy a few more gems to make up the difference, and then pick up the new axe.

The idea here is that players may say "Well, I already have an infinite axe, so getting the new one would be a waste.." In that case, no gems are bought, and no pressure is put on the gold-to-gems market. If the player could feel like they can get the new one for cheaper due to their previous purchases, it makes them more likely to go and spend more on the new items. It’s like trading in your old games to partially pay for a new one, and there are businesses based around that.

AntiGw.9367:

I don’t think that it’s a fair suggestion.

We already get quite a lot for the price we paid for the game, and there’s probably a decent balance of real money gem buyers vs the rest. Your suggestion would probably benefit players much more than the company, which is not that good considering how much we are getting already.

I don’t believe that is true, although I don’t think that either of us have data to back up our opinions.

Like I mentioned above, I believe that the ability to trade something old in to get something new will encourage the flow of money, not stifle it. If you only get 400 gems for your old CIA axe, you still need 400 more for the new axe. You will either purchase more gems (in bunches of 800, no less) or put pressure on the gold-to-gems market (which makes it more likely that players will spend money on gems, either to translate it to gold or to avoid spending gold for their gems).

I understand your point of view as to why it would benefit ANet financially, but I also don’t think they would take the risk of a refund service due to the fact that outside of actual game sales, the gem store is their ONLY source of income through the game, and the fact that it has such a large impact on the game’s market. Gems would be valued significantly less if they were exchanged back and forth as often as a refund system would allow

Gnat.9405:

I understand your point of view as to why it would benefit ANet financially, but I also don’t think they would take the risk of a refund service due to the fact that outside of actual game sales, the gem store is their ONLY source of income through the game, and the fact that it has such a large impact on the game’s market. Gems would be valued significantly less if they were exchanged back and forth as often as a refund system would allow

Sure, but the main thing that would make this work is that it’s not a full refund. You would not be able to turn your old infinite sickle into a new infinite sickle. You would need to purchase SOME gems, but little enough that you go from “I already have one of these” to “if I spend a bit of money and return this, I can get the new one”. This would mean that some of the previous buyers (players who have shown that they will spend money on these items) will spend again, when otherwise they wouldn’t.

I believe that this system would actually generate revenue. If you disagree, then we’ll just have to disagree.

It’s something I would like to see but from ANet’s end I’m sure the question is “do we want people to pay full price for this or half price” and the answer is obvious. I think the problem I’m having with agreeing with you is the example of the permanent tool, considering they KNOW people are going to buy it.

Here’s hoping though.

+1