The objective of chess is to checkmate the other King piece.
That is how you win.
Under the basic rules, sure. Chess if a fairly straight-foward game. MMOs are not. What, to you, is the “win condition” for GW2?
The expression “pay to win” originated in and exclusively applied to PvP games.
Not even slightly true.
Wow, Rage still available for under 80g.
Forum Rage available at vendor value.
Forum Rage available at vendor value.
Looks like they’re having a BOGO sale…
Forum Rage available at vendor value.
Looks like they’re having a BOGO sale…
Oh goodie…so which one of you is free?
… but 80G is too much!!!
If ANet is keeping the value of Legendaries artificially high to deliberately incentivize players to buy them using gems, then they have committed a grave pay2win sin and deserve no respect from any quarter.
I think that would actually be a good reason to not change legendary supply: if legendaries are responsible for a significant amount of gem sales, that helps sustain the game, to hopefully keep content coming.
The game doesn’t have subscription income to rely on.
It’s not like they’re selling weapons that have twice the stats of everything else, something that would be truly “pay to win”.
I think that would actually be a good reason to not change legendary supply: if legendaries are responsible for a significant amount of gem sales, that helps sustain the game, to hopefully keep content coming.
No. Definitely not. I have absolutely no trouble with ANet collecting money, but this would be a particularly dishonest way of doing so. If they want to sell Legendaries for Gems then they should just be up front about it and put them on the gem store like the various other weapons and armors.
No. Definitely not. I have absolutely no trouble with ANet collecting money, but this would be a particularly dishonest way of doing so. If they want to sell Legendaries for Gems then they should just be up front about it and put them on the gem store like the various other weapons and armors.
Not sure what your problem is with Anet. You complain about RNG about Precursors, yet you claim to be one of the lucky few who won the Skritt Foil Wrapper lotto. You’re ok with Anet having a microtransaction store to bring in revenue, yet you’re not ok with them using it to allow players to exchange Gems for Gold. You say GW2 is a P2W game, because you loosely compare “winning conditions” to anything that the player considers a victory (I have a Job-o-Tron backpack, I beat the game!). You say you want Anet to make Legendary crafting easier, so non-wealthy players are able to short cut the process faster, and feel TP prices should be brought back down to what they were in the beginning of the game.
I think we can all agree that you’re basically grasping at any straw you can find, because all your arguments have been shot down multiple times.
Back on topic, Precursors prices are falling fast. You can now get one for 65 Gold on the TP.
Not sure what your problem is with Anet. You complain about RNG about Precursors, yet you claim to be one of the lucky few who won the Skritt Foil Wrapper lotto.
Yes, I did. That makes me happy. But that’s a privilege, and while I appreciate it, I don’t think it’s fair. I don’t think I’m more entitled to it than anyone else, but I’ll take it. If the system was that everyone would get one of the skins, I’d have been just as happy with the outcome.
I play the game I’m given, if it has RNG then I’ll take my luck where I can get it, but that doesn’t mean that I think luck is the best way to handle things, and I will keep pushing for that better way.
You’re ok with Anet having a microtransaction store to bring in revenue, yet you’re not ok with them using it to allow players to exchange Gems for Gold.
Yes. I think the one is more honest than the other. I believe in a firm line between cash transaction and gameplay effort transaction. You should not be able to buy Gem Store items using gold, or vice versa, because ultimately that means almost everything can be bought outright for cash, and that cheapens the in-game effort of those who do not. Consider that a Sunrise, bought outright for cash, comes to about $360. This is a fair bit of money, but ultimately it would only come to about 50 hours of work at minimum wage, and how many players earn all the materials needed for a Legendary in less than 50 hours of play time?
They crack down kitten gold sellers, while being the highest volume gold sellers in the game. Perhaps the botters should just agree to give ANet their cut of the action, that seems to be all they care about. Ultimately ANet gold selling would not be a problem, but you’re right that it gives them a poor incentive to fix the economy, since they profit off its very brokenness. It would be very easy for them to take the corrupted stance that you ascribe to them, “why should we change this, if it encourages players to buy gold from us,” but I would hope that they are better than you assume them to be.
You say GW2 is a P2W game, because you loosely compare “winning conditions” to anything that the player considers a victory (I have a Job-o-Tron backpack, I beat the game!).
That’s not exactly accurate. You cannot earn Job-o-Tron through ingame activities (aside from earning gold to convert to gems), so buying him with cash is no short-cut to gameplay. Buying an ingame item with gold earned through gems, on the other hand, is shortcutting. This is why I believe there needs to be a strict separation.
You say you want Anet to make Legendary crafting easier, so non-wealthy players are able to short cut the process faster, and feel TP prices should be brought back down to what they were in the beginning of the game.
Also true.
I think we can all agree that you’re basically grasping at any straw you can find, because all your arguments have been shot down multiple times.
No, not really. I believe they all hold up quite well, but multiple other questions have been raised and I’ve addressed them all. The same answer doesn’t always apply to multiple questions.
I think the heart of the issue here is that you’re anti-Capitalism. Anet, as a company, offers optional vanity and convenience items that can be bough using real money. This revenue stream is fed to the mother company, NCSoft, who in turn pays Anet employees to develop more content for us to enjoy, for free. Non-paying and paying customers all get to partake in the additional game time that paying customers are responsible for.
Because paying customers have the additional feature of exchanging purchased microtransaction currency for in-game currency, you feel that this is a sin because non-paying customers don’t have access to it. This isn’t a moral issue here. This is straight up jealousy. Someone willing to spend hundreds of their own dollars to buy virtual goods in game get what they pay for. They sacrifice real money for virtual pride. What has the non-paying customer done to deserve the same perks?
The key to the success of the Gem Store is that Anet allows non-paying customers to enjoy some of the same perks that paying customers have. They can exchange in-game Gold for microtransaction currency. By doing this, a player can go through his entire GW2 lifespan without spending any additional real money, and still enjoy the game extras. I know of people with thousands upon thousands of Gems, and never spent a cent beyond the purchase price of the game.
One more thing, the Gem Exchange was created to counter RMT Gold Sellers. If people are willing to pay for Gold in games, why not sell it directly to the players? By cutting out the middle man (RMTs) and becoming the supplier, the company can enjoy the additional sales. From a business standpoint, it was the smart thing to do.
I think the heart of the issue here is that you’re anti-Capitalism. Anet, as a company, offers optional vanity and convenience items that can be bough using real money. This revenue stream is fed to the mother company, NCSoft, who in turn pays Anet employees to develop more content for us to enjoy, for free. Non-paying and paying customers all get to partake in the additional game time that paying customers are responsible for.
Because paying customers have the additional feature of exchanging purchased microtransaction currency for in-game currency, you feel that this is a sin because non-paying customers don’t have access to it. This isn’t a moral issue here. This is straight up jealousy. Someone willing to spend hundreds of their own dollars to buy virtual goods in game get what they pay for. They sacrifice real money for virtual pride. What has the non-paying customer done to deserve the same perks?
The key to the success of the Gem Store is that Anet allows non-paying customers to enjoy some of the same perks that paying customers have. They can exchange in-game Gold for microtransaction currency. By doing this, a player can go through his entire GW2 lifespan without spending any additional real money, and still enjoy the game extras. I know of people with thousands upon thousands of Gems, and never spent a cent beyond the purchase price of the game.
One more thing, the Gem Exchange was created to counter RMT Gold Sellers. If people are willing to pay for Gold in games, why not sell it directly to the players? By cutting out the middle man (RMTs) and becoming the supplier, the company can enjoy the additional sales. From a business standpoint, it was the smart thing to do.
there are few non paying customers here, the box costs money. when it goes f2p, you can claim there are non paying customers
I think the heart of the issue here is that you’re anti-Capitalism. Anet, as a company, offers optional vanity and convenience items that can be bough using real money. This revenue stream is fed to the mother company, NCSoft, who in turn pays Anet employees to develop more content for us to enjoy, for free. Non-paying and paying customers all get to partake in the additional game time that paying customers are responsible for.
Because paying customers have the additional feature of exchanging purchased microtransaction currency for in-game currency, you feel that this is a sin because non-paying customers don’t have access to it. This isn’t a moral issue here. This is straight up jealousy. Someone willing to spend hundreds of their own dollars to buy virtual goods in game get what they pay for. They sacrifice real money for virtual pride. What has the non-paying customer done to deserve the same perks?
The key to the success of the Gem Store is that Anet allows non-paying customers to enjoy some of the same perks that paying customers have. They can exchange in-game Gold for microtransaction currency. By doing this, a player can go through his entire GW2 lifespan without spending any additional real money, and still enjoy the game extras. I know of people with thousands upon thousands of Gems, and never spent a cent beyond the purchase price of the game.
One more thing, the Gem Exchange was created to counter RMT Gold Sellers. If people are willing to pay for Gold in games, why not sell it directly to the players? By cutting out the middle man (RMTs) and becoming the supplier, the company can enjoy the additional sales. From a business standpoint, it was the smart thing to do.
there are few non paying customers here, the box costs money. when it goes f2p, you can claim there are non paying customers
quibble much, phys? Smooth Penguin thank you for summing this up so eloquently.
I think the heart of the issue here is that you’re anti-Capitalism.
No. As I’ve said when others have brought this up before, I’m not anti-capitalism. I’m anti-unregulated Capitalism, certainly, but I think moderate capitalism is by far better than the alternatives. But any economic system becomes destructive if allowed to run rampant, and capitalism is no more innocent of this than any other. I believe in capitalism, but that doesn’t mean that certain elements do not need controls to function better in a shared society.
Anet, as a company, offers optional vanity and convenience items that can be bough using real money. This revenue stream is fed to the mother company, NCSoft, who in turn pays Anet employees to develop more content for us to enjoy, for free. Non-paying and paying customers all get to partake in the additional game time that paying customers are responsible for.
Yes, and as you would know if you bothered to read my half of the supposed dialogue, I have no problem with that. But you don’t, because all you like to do is monologue about how flawless the system is and how we just don’t get it.
Because paying customers have the additional feature of exchanging purchased microtransaction currency for in-game currency, you feel that this is a sin because non-paying customers don’t have access to it.
Keep in mind, this is not a “freeloaders vs. spenders” issue. I’m a paying customer. I’ve not only bought the game box, like EVERY customer, but I’ve also spent probably a couple hundred dollars since launch, all on gem store items. I want to support the game, and have absolutely no problem with ANet implementing systems to fund the game’s development.
I’m one, for example, who argues against those who complain that “all the new armor comes in the gem store.” If that’s how ANet wants to release new armor then I have no problem with that, we got all the armor we paid for in the launch box, I see no problem with them asking us to pay for more armor.
Where I have a problem is when the line gets blurred between what is a “cash shop purchase” and what is an “in game achievement.” The two should be kept completely distinct. If someone wants to spend a lot of money and get a full set of “cash shop” weapons and armor, that’s great, but they should look different than someone who bought/made the best available in-game items.
They sacrifice real money for virtual pride. What has the non-paying customer done to deserve the same perks?
So let’s take that to the logical extremes, what do you believe would be the fair dollar price for a level-up tome, allowing a player to buy his way to 80? What do you believe would be a fair price for a “World Atlas,” allowing them to get world completion instantly? What do you believe would be a fair price for a “Personal Journal,” allowing them to have cleared the Personal Story. If you believe that it’s perfectly fair game for a player to buy his way to a Legendary weapon, one of the most significant achievements in the existing game that requires you to have done all of those things to earn legitimately, then where do you draw the line?
By doing this, a player can go through his entire GW2 lifespan without spending any additional real money, and still enjoy the game extras. I know of people with thousands upon thousands of Gems, and never spent a cent beyond the purchase price of the game.
And these players are even more toxic to the game, because they are cheating ANet out of the money that should be spent on gem store items. Most players do not have nearly enough gems to be regularly buying stuff on the gem store with it, it’s only those that distort the ingame economy that can afford such extravagance while laughing in ANEt’s face about how little they are benefiting the game.
One more thing, the Gem Exchange was created to counter RMT Gold Sellers. If people are willing to pay for Gold in games, why not sell it directly to the players? By cutting out the middle man (RMTs) and becoming the supplier, the company can enjoy the additional sales.
Yeah, and I used to like that, until you pointed out that this system could result in a corruption at ANet, in which they would deliberately allow the market to remain dysfunctional, because this gives incentive for players to buy gold. It’s too much temptation when you can profit from players needing gold to make sure that they’ll keep needing a lot of it. I’m not sure any longer that I trust ANet to remain impartial in how they handle the economy, to make moves entirely based on what’s right for the players, rather than what’s more likely to get them to buy gold. As you say, they have been slow-peddling Precursor Crafting. . .
It’s not un-regulated capitalism. Competition ensures it’s self-regulated
I think the heart of the issue here is that you’re anti-Capitalism. Anet, as a company, offers optional vanity and convenience items that can be bough using real money. This revenue stream is fed to the mother company, NCSoft, who in turn pays Anet employees to develop more content for us to enjoy, for free. Non-paying and paying customers all get to partake in the additional game time that paying customers are responsible for.
Because paying customers have the additional feature of exchanging purchased microtransaction currency for in-game currency, you feel that this is a sin because non-paying customers don’t have access to it. This isn’t a moral issue here. This is straight up jealousy. Someone willing to spend hundreds of their own dollars to buy virtual goods in game get what they pay for. They sacrifice real money for virtual pride. What has the non-paying customer done to deserve the same perks?
The key to the success of the Gem Store is that Anet allows non-paying customers to enjoy some of the same perks that paying customers have. They can exchange in-game Gold for microtransaction currency. By doing this, a player can go through his entire GW2 lifespan without spending any additional real money, and still enjoy the game extras. I know of people with thousands upon thousands of Gems, and never spent a cent beyond the purchase price of the game.
One more thing, the Gem Exchange was created to counter RMT Gold Sellers. If people are willing to pay for Gold in games, why not sell it directly to the players? By cutting out the middle man (RMTs) and becoming the supplier, the company can enjoy the additional sales. From a business standpoint, it was the smart thing to do.
there are few non paying customers here, the box costs money. when it goes f2p, you can claim there are non paying customers
When you bought the game you paid for the content offered at that time. Any additional content developed after that, is free to play for you.
When you bought the game you paid for the content offered at that time. Any additional content developed after that, is free to play for you.
Except that was/is a feature detailed under that box sale price. If there was no mention of it linked to the box price then it sure would be 100% free. Since it is associated with the box price consideration is conveyed to said price.
Edit: I was mistaken about updates being associated with initial purchase (box) price
(edited by Essence Snow.3194)
When you bought the game you paid for the content offered at that time. Any additional content developed after that, is free to play for you.
Except that was/is a feature detailed under that box sale price. If there was no mention of it linked to the box price then it sure would be 100% free. Since it is associated with the box price consideration is conveyed to said price.
I just checked under the box price for heroic and digital deluxe version and it isnt mentioned as a feature.
http://buy.guildwars2.com/store/gw2/en_IE/html/pbPage.buyguildwars2
The description of the game features also doesnt mention it.
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/
When you bought the game you paid for the content offered at that time. Any additional content developed after that, is free to play for you.
Except that was/is a feature detailed under that box sale price. If there was no mention of it linked to the box price then it sure would be 100% free. Since it is associated with the box price consideration is conveyed to said price.
I just checked under the box price for heroic and digital deluxe version and it isnt mentioned as a feature.
http://buy.guildwars2.com/store/gw2/en_IE/html/pbPage.buyguildwars2
The description of the game features also doesnt mention it.
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/
Just looked myself and must admit you are correct. Thus I will edit my prior post.
It’s not un-regulated capitalism. Competition ensures it’s self-regulated
That’s unregulated Capitalism. Competition alone does not keep markets in check, it’s like saying that sports don’t need referees because “competition” will keep everyone in line.
When you bought the game you paid for the content offered at that time. Any additional content developed after that, is free to play for you.
Which accounts for Gem Store items, but not for items purchased on the TP using gold bought with gems.
I don’t really care how or what you want to label it or whatever academic argument you want to have. What matters is what happens in-game. The competitive nature of the TP sets the purchase points of the goods in it, and people buy at that purchase points. This matters; it shows pricing is competitive. This makes it a REALLY hard case for you to demonstrate regulation is necessary to carry out the function of the TP for buyers and sellers of precursors or that it will even address your issue.
Although there are ways to increase precursor ownership, you don’t seem to want to focus on any that don’t have severe market impacts. It’s clear you just want to use the precursor question to demonstrate how bad the TP is, for whatever agenda you have.
This always comes back to the fundamental: Anet values stability in the market. Until you come around to factor that into your position, little of what you say has any meaning other than a theoretical “if they do this, then that” kind of discussion. That’s just not part of a solution here.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Although there are ways to increase precursor ownership, you don’t seem to want to focus on any that don’t have severe market impacts.
Such as? I’m open to discussing any method of making Precursors more conveniently available, but I’ve been told that any method of doing so would have “severe market impacts,” which is why my focus has been on addressing and balancing out those potential impacts.
This always comes back to the fundamental: Anet values stability in the market. Until you come around to factor that into your position, little of what you say has any meaning other than a theoretical “if they do this, then that” kind of discussion. That’s just not part of a solution here.
And yet there’s always the more fundamental: Anet values their customers more. When they’ve seen fit to make changes to the game that have added instability to the markets, they have done so, and if they see fit to make this change, they will, and they will try to insulate the markets from these changes, but if that proves impossible then the markets will just have to adapt. No matter how much short term chaos might result, long term things will certainly settle back down.
Such as … anything you want to think of. You don’t actually HAVE any suggestions other than the ones that Anet are the most unlikely to implement because of their values. Anet strives to lessen the impact of game changes to the market; you’re ignoring that point and being obtuse. We’ve already put that nonsense to bed. Hammering it harder doesn’t make it a more thoughtful point.
It’s also really ridiculous to claim that Anet will do something outlandish because they value customers, especially if you have no idea of how significant this issue really is to it’s customers. You keep claiming this is of the utmost importance, yet have no idea where legendary ownership ranks with the customer base. You do not have a better grasp on the voice of the customer than Anet does. Do not pretend you know what is best for the game and it’s customers.
Every claim and idea you have is baseless and not considerate of any reality. It’s pretty much fairy tales at this point.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Even though I don’t agree with Ohoni on making pre’s cheaper for the sake of making them obtainable……they provide quite a bit of base in their posts, which is more than I can credit to you Obtena.
That’s a nice story. I guess that sums up how much you have to add on the subject of the thread.
Frankly, I don’t consider suggesting the complete opposite to what Anet values as having ‘base’. Nor do I think that ‘base’ is demonstrated by suggesting it’s more important for Anet to give people what they want at the expense of what they need. If anything, it’s completely obtuse and agitative and goes against what could be considered constructive discussion.
Yes, so much ‘base’ going on here. ><
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Nice exaggeration. It is no way the complete opposite of what Anet values. For starters we don’t know exactly what they value.
Ohoni has provided reasoning to as why they want what they want…a base for their debate.
You on the other have exaggerate wildly claiming things that aren’t said to try and discredit them for what reason? What’s you base for your exaggerations and claims?
Such as … anything you want to think of. You don’t actually HAVE any suggestions other than the ones that Anet are the most unlikely to implement because of their values.
You said that I was unwilling to focus on “any [methods of making Precursors more available] that don’t have severe market impacts.” If this is true, what are these methods that I’m apparently ignoring?
You keep claiming this is of the utmost importance, yet have no idea where legendary ownership ranks with the customer base.
I have my beliefs on the matter, it would be up to ANet to determine methods of figuring out what the truly players value. If they do truly value having more equitable access to Legendaries, as I believe if the case, then they should know that, and should act on that knowledge.
Frankly, I don’t consider suggesting the complete opposite to what Anet values as having ‘base’.
You can’t presume to know what ANet values, beyond ‘base’-less assumptions. We only know what they have and what they have not done, and very little info as to “why” in either case. From the outside it’s difficult to judge what they have not done because they didn’t want to, or what they’ve not done because technical reasons prevented it, or what they have not done but are working on it and could release it any day now. All we know is that they haven’t done it yet, and if we judge everything that they haven’t done yet as “impossible,” then we might as well pack it in right now.
You on the other have exaggerate wildly claiming things that aren’t said to try and discredit them for what reason? What’s you base for your exaggerations and claims?
Word salad, Nicely tossed!!!!
I think the heart of the issue here is that you’re anti-Capitalism. Anet, as a company, offers optional vanity and convenience items that can be bough using real money. This revenue stream is fed to the mother company, NCSoft, who in turn pays Anet employees to develop more content for us to enjoy, for free. Non-paying and paying customers all get to partake in the additional game time that paying customers are responsible for.
Because paying customers have the additional feature of exchanging purchased microtransaction currency for in-game currency, you feel that this is a sin because non-paying customers don’t have access to it. This isn’t a moral issue here. This is straight up jealousy. Someone willing to spend hundreds of their own dollars to buy virtual goods in game get what they pay for. They sacrifice real money for virtual pride. What has the non-paying customer done to deserve the same perks?
The key to the success of the Gem Store is that Anet allows non-paying customers to enjoy some of the same perks that paying customers have. They can exchange in-game Gold for microtransaction currency. By doing this, a player can go through his entire GW2 lifespan without spending any additional real money, and still enjoy the game extras. I know of people with thousands upon thousands of Gems, and never spent a cent beyond the purchase price of the game.
One more thing, the Gem Exchange was created to counter RMT Gold Sellers. If people are willing to pay for Gold in games, why not sell it directly to the players? By cutting out the middle man (RMTs) and becoming the supplier, the company can enjoy the additional sales. From a business standpoint, it was the smart thing to do.
there are few non paying customers here, the box costs money. when it goes f2p, you can claim there are non paying customers
When you bought the game you paid for the content offered at that time. Any additional content developed after that, is free to play for you.
and here is the flaw in your argument, precursors, legendaries, are all part of the box price that everyone paid for. Smooth brought it up in the context of anet should keep precursors high to help the market, and help them sell gems.
The product that they, according to smooth are trying to manipulate for profit is not extra content IT IS BOX CONTENT.
Now im not going to say they shouldnt have anything in the gemstore, but as has been said, if they are sacrificng good game design for beleif that they will get more dollars, i personally doubt they will.
design something good, and sell it in the gemstore, fine, but dont make an inferior game design just to get more money, because the more inferior your product the less likely people will want to spend money on it.
I think the heart of the issue here is that you’re anti-Capitalism. Anet, as a company, offers optional vanity and convenience items that can be bough using real money. This revenue stream is fed to the mother company, NCSoft, who in turn pays Anet employees to develop more content for us to enjoy, for free. Non-paying and paying customers all get to partake in the additional game time that paying customers are responsible for.
Because paying customers have the additional feature of exchanging purchased microtransaction currency for in-game currency, you feel that this is a sin because non-paying customers don’t have access to it. This isn’t a moral issue here. This is straight up jealousy. Someone willing to spend hundreds of their own dollars to buy virtual goods in game get what they pay for. They sacrifice real money for virtual pride. What has the non-paying customer done to deserve the same perks?
The key to the success of the Gem Store is that Anet allows non-paying customers to enjoy some of the same perks that paying customers have. They can exchange in-game Gold for microtransaction currency. By doing this, a player can go through his entire GW2 lifespan without spending any additional real money, and still enjoy the game extras. I know of people with thousands upon thousands of Gems, and never spent a cent beyond the purchase price of the game.
One more thing, the Gem Exchange was created to counter RMT Gold Sellers. If people are willing to pay for Gold in games, why not sell it directly to the players? By cutting out the middle man (RMTs) and becoming the supplier, the company can enjoy the additional sales. From a business standpoint, it was the smart thing to do.
there are few non paying customers here, the box costs money. when it goes f2p, you can claim there are non paying customers
When you bought the game you paid for the content offered at that time. Any additional content developed after that, is free to play for you.
and here is the flaw in your argument, precursors, legendaries, are all part of the box price that everyone paid for. Smooth brought it up in the context of anet should keep precursors high to help the market, and help them sell gems.
The product that they, according to smooth are trying to manipulate for profit is not extra content IT IS BOX CONTENT.
Now im not going to say they shouldnt have anything in the gemstore, but as has been said, if they are sacrificng good game design for beleif that they will get more dollars, i personally doubt they will.
design something good, and sell it in the gemstore, fine, but dont make an inferior game design just to get more money, because the more inferior your product the less likely people will want to spend money on it.
I dont think that Smooth ever suggested that Anet is trying to manipulate legendary crafting in order to sell more gems.
Legendary acquisition has been pretty much the same since release, if anything, they made them easier to obtain by buffing the forge rate, introducing a 1 time event that had a high drop rate for pres and adding pres and t6 mats to more loot tables (champ bags, bonus chests, rank up chests, etc).
You also need to convert far less gems into gold now, if you want to buy rage/frenzy compared to a year ago.
So they made Legendary acquisition easier and cheaper across the board but people come here with a p2w arguement.
I think the heart of the issue here is that you’re anti-Capitalism. Anet, as a company, offers optional vanity and convenience items that can be bough using real money. This revenue stream is fed to the mother company, NCSoft, who in turn pays Anet employees to develop more content for us to enjoy, for free. Non-paying and paying customers all get to partake in the additional game time that paying customers are responsible for.
Because paying customers have the additional feature of exchanging purchased microtransaction currency for in-game currency, you feel that this is a sin because non-paying customers don’t have access to it. This isn’t a moral issue here. This is straight up jealousy. Someone willing to spend hundreds of their own dollars to buy virtual goods in game get what they pay for. They sacrifice real money for virtual pride. What has the non-paying customer done to deserve the same perks?
The key to the success of the Gem Store is that Anet allows non-paying customers to enjoy some of the same perks that paying customers have. They can exchange in-game Gold for microtransaction currency. By doing this, a player can go through his entire GW2 lifespan without spending any additional real money, and still enjoy the game extras. I know of people with thousands upon thousands of Gems, and never spent a cent beyond the purchase price of the game.
One more thing, the Gem Exchange was created to counter RMT Gold Sellers. If people are willing to pay for Gold in games, why not sell it directly to the players? By cutting out the middle man (RMTs) and becoming the supplier, the company can enjoy the additional sales. From a business standpoint, it was the smart thing to do.
there are few non paying customers here, the box costs money. when it goes f2p, you can claim there are non paying customers
When you bought the game you paid for the content offered at that time. Any additional content developed after that, is free to play for you.
and here is the flaw in your argument, precursors, legendaries, are all part of the box price that everyone paid for. Smooth brought it up in the context of anet should keep precursors high to help the market, and help them sell gems.
The product that they, according to smooth are trying to manipulate for profit is not extra content IT IS BOX CONTENT.
Now im not going to say they shouldnt have anything in the gemstore, but as has been said, if they are sacrificng good game design for beleif that they will get more dollars, i personally doubt they will.
design something good, and sell it in the gemstore, fine, but dont make an inferior game design just to get more money, because the more inferior your product the less likely people will want to spend money on it.
I dont think that Smooth ever suggested that Anet is trying to manipulate legendary crafting in order to sell more gems.
Legendary acquisition has been pretty much the same since release, if anything, they made them easier to obtain by buffing the forge rate, introducing a 1 time event that had a high drop rate for pres and adding pres and t6 mats to more loot tables (champ bags, bonus chests, rank up chests, etc).
You also need to convert far less gems into gold now, if you want to buy rage/frenzy compared to a year ago.
So they made Legendary acquisition easier and cheaper across the board but people come here with a p2w arguement.
its not any easier, before they did those things to increase it, they decreased it first(precursors).
I suppose for certain precursors, some t6 lodestones are easier now, but thats more a case of unbalanced supply than particularly making it easier.
and your arguement that it is easier to buy with real cash, is not really relevant, the purpose of legendaries, was supposedly to provide an endgame goal for players
at around 7:30. “things that you have to do yourself…., things that show mastery of the game”
The buying gold to get it, is not supposed to be the main method of acquisition, though the option exists. And here is the flaw, the way precursors/legendaries work now, is not acting as an endgame goal that shows mastery of the game.
The problem here is that there are Entitled players who want easy Gold and easy luxury items with no effort.
I’m so, so, so, so, soooooooooo sick of you continuing to repeat this lie. So many people have come in and said that they’re willing to put in the work for a precursor, through something like a scavenger hunt… a process that actually feels legendary. They want a way to earn it a directly, not pay exorbitant amounts to other people who got lucky with RNG, nor attempt to get lucky with RNG themselves.
I can earn the money for these precursors. I have done so. I’ve the money to buy a few now. But I refuse to because I find the process and prices ridiculous. I don’t want anything handed to me. I want to put in the work and have an enjoyable experience. I don’t find grinding money for a month or two, then paying someone else to be at all enjoyable. In MMOs I’ve always gone and played the hardest content and earned my shinies directly. My characters were usually blinged out with best in slot everything. What I had reflected my skill, not my willingness to farm by pressing 111111111 or willingness to open my real life wallet and convert gems to gold.
But no, you seem to stick your fingers in your ears and blatantly ignore the many people that say this and instead resort to continually insulting people who have a problem with the system as it currently exists, attributing an attitude to them that they never expressed. Seriously, just stop it already.
(edited by Lothirieth.3408)
In MMOs I’ve always gone and played the hardest content and earned my shinies directly. My characters were usually blinged out with best in slot everything. What I had reflected my skill, not my willingness to farm
In other MMO’s that is exactly what you did is farm. You farmed the same stupid PvE content to get a better glove. then you went on to a different hero mode or hard mode and farmed your boots. These were behind another RNG wall too, albeit with less possible drops.
I hate grinding out the same content for gear. GW2 is a breath of fresh air in that respect, in that I can play the content I want and still get BIS items.
In MMOs I’ve always gone and played the hardest content and earned my shinies directly. My characters were usually blinged out with best in slot everything. What I had reflected my skill, not my willingness to farm
In other MMO’s that is exactly what you did is farm. You farmed the same stupid PvE content to get a better glove. then you went on to a different hero mode or hard mode and farmed your boots. These were behind another RNG wall too, albeit with less possible drops.
I hate grinding out the same content for gear. GW2 is a breath of fresh air in that respect, in that I can play the content I want and still get BIS items.
Thanks for cutting my quote short and misrepresenting it. You left out the bit about “pressing 11111111”. I was making a distinction between doing something mindless and boring (in my opinion) and something that took actual skill. (edit: since SmoothPenguin blatantly misrepresent many people on here and says they want things given to them without putting in any effort.) Nowhere did I say “farming” in itself was bad. (Farming is a subjective term in any case. ) Nowhere did I say I didn’t want to repeat anything, did I?
(edited by Lothirieth.3408)
In MMOs I’ve always gone and played the hardest content and earned my shinies directly. My characters were usually blinged out with best in slot everything. What I had reflected my skill, not my willingness to farm
In other MMO’s that is exactly what you did is farm. You farmed the same stupid PvE content to get a better glove. then you went on to a different hero mode or hard mode and farmed your boots. These were behind another RNG wall too, albeit with less possible drops.
I hate grinding out the same content for gear. GW2 is a breath of fresh air in that respect, in that I can play the content I want and still get BIS items.
in the current terms of gw2 (which may change) its not a question of best in slot items. Its currently a case of specific looking items. That said there are valid arguments on both sides of unique drops being available to all, and only for different types of content.
I dont think that Smooth ever suggested that Anet is trying to manipulate legendary crafting in order to sell more gems.
Legendary acquisition has been pretty much the same since release, if anything, they made them easier to obtain by buffing the forge rate, introducing a 1 time event that had a high drop rate for pres and adding pres and t6 mats to more loot tables (champ bags, bonus chests, rank up chests, etc).
You also need to convert far less gems into gold now, if you want to buy rage/frenzy compared to a year ago.
So they made Legendary acquisition easier and cheaper across the board but people come here with a p2w arguement.
its not any easier, before they did those things to increase it, they decreased it first(precursors).
I suppose for certain precursors, some t6 lodestones are easier now, but thats more a case of unbalanced supply than particularly making it easier.
and your arguement that it is easier to buy with real cash, is not really relevant, the purpose of legendaries, was supposedly to provide an endgame goal for players
at around 7:30. “things that you have to do yourself…., things that show mastery of the game”
The buying gold to get it, is not supposed to be the main method of acquisition, though the option exists. And here is the flaw, the way precursors/legendaries work now, is not acting as an endgame goal that shows mastery of the game.[/quote]
Edit for formatting: Reply starts here
Do you have a source for them nerfing the droprate of precursors at any time?
Lets take Charged Lodestones:
At release they only dropped from CoE, later on they introduced them to fractal chests.
At release they dropped just from sparks, now they added 4 more mobs in dry top that drop them directly.
At release, they dropped from only 5 containers, they added 8 more containers since then.
Working/farming for your precursor/mats has gotten easier since release and players have more options in the content they choose to do so.
I agree though, that legendaries should have been account bound on acquire.
those drop rates dont really make it easier though, that just gives you more sources for the same thing. But most of the sources dont have a faster output per time invested.
so whether you kill sparks, run fractals, kill dwayna, or hunt bags, your probably looking at one every 1-2 hours depending on your luck. I definately think that is a good thing, less ways to get bored, and more types of content that can get you what you want. But its not really easier.
If we dilute the term “win” to mean “whatever makes me happy” we are broadening the definition of “pay 2 win” so much that it isn’t really relevant for discussion anymore. Pay 2 win originally, and in my mind still does, mean paying real world money to have an objective gameplay advantage that someone who does not pay cannot obtain. If you label anything on the gemstore in gw2 as “pay to win” you’re simply using the term as a meaningless pejorative not unlike people who call politicians they don’t like “communist kittens.”
If we dilute the term “win” to mean “whatever makes me happy” we are broadening the definition of “pay 2 win” so much that it isn’t really relevant for discussion anymore. Pay 2 win originally, and in my mind still does, mean paying real world money to have an objective gameplay advantage that someone who does not pay cannot obtain. If you label anything on the gemstore in gw2 as “pay to win” you’re simply using the term as a meaningless pejorative not unlike people who call politicians they don’t like “communist kittens.”
BUT … but… cosmetics…..
(edited by eithinan.9841)
Nice exaggeration. It is no way the complete opposite of what Anet values. For starters we don’t know exactly what they value.
You can’t presume to know what ANet values, beyond ‘base’-less assumptions.
Actually we do. JS has outright said Anet values market stability in the stickied questions about the economy thread. I’ve also linked it directly in this thread. When I find it, I will link it again, just for posterity.
Do yourselves a favour: read that, let it sink in and and give up dumb ideas about letting the market take a nosedive so more people can get legendaries. JS is EXPLICIT about how long-term market stability is a factor in considering the implementation of permanent content (legendaries would fall under this category).
Stable economy is significantly more important and beneficial to players than getting a legendary will ever be, even if they don’t know or refuse to acknowledge it.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Nice exaggeration. It is no way the complete opposite of what Anet values. For starters we don’t know exactly what they value.
You can’t presume to know what ANet values, beyond ‘base’-less assumptions.
Actually we do. JS has outright said Anet values market stability in the stickied questions about the economy thread. I’ve also linked it directly in this thread. When I find it, I will link it again, just for posterity.
This?
Question:
From an economic point of view, does the fact the Living Story content is now permanent, make your job of balancing material faucets easier?
I would reckon its easier now because you add new sources permanently. During season 1, it seemed to me, whenever you tried to add some more mats to the economy, it just resulted in a small supply spike and once the chapter was over, everything was back to normal. As an example, cloth during the Escape/Battle for LA come to mind, as well as exotic sentinel gear in the same updates.
It’s actually harder. With short term content we can be a lot more liberal with changes because the worst case scenario is minimized. With permanent content a lot more research has to go into the long term stability of markets.
I’d think that’s reaching a bit. That answers the question asked “does it make it easier to balance material faucets?”. Is it the same answer that would be given if asked “What are Anet’s values?”, idk for sure but I kinda doubt that would be the same answer. It might contain long term stability (long term being key), but that’s merely one faucet of a much broader scope.
(edited by Essence Snow.3194)
I’d think that’s reaching a bit. That answers the question asked “does it make it easier to balance material faucets?”. Is it the same answer that would be given if asked “What are Anet’s values?”, idk for sure but I kinda doubt that would be the same answer. It might contain long term stability (long term being key), but that’s merely one faucet of a much broader scope.
That may not be what he was referring to. I was just pulling the first post I found.
JS makes a statement that directly links their consideration of the long term stability of the market to permanent content. It’s not reaching to see that Anet values its market stability with respect to the content in the game from that statement, otherwise they wouldn’t consider it in their permanent content plans and he wouldn’t have mentioned it as a factor.
I mean, this gets back to the whole point and the evidence that supports it. A Game development company does not hire a PhD economist to monitor the market because they don’t value the performance of the market in the game. They clearly value the market stability in the game. It’s just stupid to suggest otherwise.
… and before someone says it, this means they are more likely to loathe changes in the game that impact market stability; they recognize it will happen and take efforts to do things to reduce those impacts. They don’t foist themselves into market chaos situations. It hasn’t happened yet and all evidence supports the fact that again, when they see it , they correct it fairly fast. That’s not at all similar to the level of impact increasing legendary ownership would have on the market. We haven’t seen an impact of that level in the game to date.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
JS makes a statement that directly links their consideration of the long term stability of the market to permanent content. It’s not reaching to see that Anet values its market stability with respect to the content in the game from that statement, otherwise they wouldn’t consider it in their permanent content plans and he wouldn’t have mentioned it as a factor.
I mean, this gets back to the whole point and the evidence that supports it. A Game development company does not hire a PhD economist to monitor the market because they don’t value the performance of the market in the game. It’s just stupid to suggest otherwise.
long term stability does not require the current design, in fact the current design seems to be one that will not be stable. Too much is tied to the values of one class of item.
JS is still here, in charge of watching the markets and sending up the flag when there are potential risks to its stability. Maybe what you say is correct about the amount of value tied to a class of item but that doesn’t change the value they have in the market stability. In fact, I can see how having so much value in a specific class of item helps regulate market stability simply through the steady supply and demand of those class of items. Maybe I’m giving them too much credit but that could even be through intentional design. Honestly, it seems to work rather well.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
JS makes a statement that directly links their consideration of the long term stability of the market to permanent content. It’s not reaching to see that Anet values its market stability with respect to the content in the game from that statement, otherwise they wouldn’t consider it in their permanent content plans and he wouldn’t have mentioned it as a factor.
I mean, this gets back to the whole point and the evidence that supports it. A Game development company does not hire a PhD economist to monitor the market because they don’t value the performance of the market in the game. It’s just stupid to suggest otherwise.
long term stability does not require the current design, in fact the current design seems to be one that will not be stable. Too much is tied to the values of one class of item.
What do you consider stable?
I would say that precursors are some of the stablest items in game.
The idiom “Don’t put all your eggs into one basket” comes to mind.
JS makes a statement that directly links their consideration of the long term stability of the market to permanent content. It’s not reaching to see that Anet values its market stability with respect to the content in the game from that statement, otherwise they wouldn’t consider it in their permanent content plans and he wouldn’t have mentioned it as a factor.
I mean, this gets back to the whole point and the evidence that supports it. A Game development company does not hire a PhD economist to monitor the market because they don’t value the performance of the market in the game. It’s just stupid to suggest otherwise.
long term stability does not require the current design, in fact the current design seems to be one that will not be stable. Too much is tied to the values of one class of item.
What do you consider stable?
I would say that precursors are some of the stablest items in game.
They are stable now, but should they become unstable, the whole economy will feel the ripples.
lets say some new high profile items come up that dont have the same aquisition, how will that effect the entire rest of the economy?
then there is the question, what happens when precursors reach the saturation point? when most who want them have them?
Precursors probably arent going to be the “thing” forever, and since that is the case, it may not be a good idea for so much of the economy to be dependent on these items.
(edited by phys.7689)
JS makes a statement that directly links their consideration of the long term stability of the market to permanent content. It’s not reaching to see that Anet values its market stability with respect to the content in the game from that statement, otherwise they wouldn’t consider it in their permanent content plans and he wouldn’t have mentioned it as a factor.
I mean, this gets back to the whole point and the evidence that supports it. A Game development company does not hire a PhD economist to monitor the market because they don’t value the performance of the market in the game. It’s just stupid to suggest otherwise.
long term stability does not require the current design, in fact the current design seems to be one that will not be stable. Too much is tied to the values of one class of item.
What do you consider stable?
I would say that precursors are some of the stablest items in game.They are stable now, but should they become unstable, the whole economy will feel the ripples.
lets say some new high profile items come up that dont have the same aquisition, how will that effect the entire rest of the economy?then there is the question, what happens when precursors reach the saturation point? when most who want them have them?
Precursors probably arent going to be the “thing” forever, and since that is the case, it may not be a good idea for so much of the economy to be dependent on these items.
You said the current design is/will be unstable, I was just wondering what design you were referring to.
The idiom “Don’t put all your eggs into one basket” comes to mind.
We can pull all kinds of idioms from where ever we want but unless you have an example of how it could apply, then what is the relevance? Are you suggesting that because so many high end materials are linked to legendaries that some event would lead to a relatively harder path to get one? I would like to hear what you have in mind if that’s the case. Just imagine what that would look like if we increase precursors … fun stuff.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.