Guild Wars 2

As many threads before have discussed, many believe that ArenaNet’s increasing trend of prioritizing monetization as well as micro-transactions is becoming increasingly evident. A very popular topic which pertains to this idea is the alteration of our content delivery method. The gripe that many players have with the micro-transactional model is that in order to favorise their own model, ArenaNet is essentially releasing micro-content (see: Past living stories episodes only being unlocked through gems).

The micro-transaction and micro-content model has it’s pros and cons, like anything else. In an increasingly technological world, where everyone is banking, playing and interacting online, this model does have it’s merits. Much like Facebooking or texting, people prefer everything to be at their fingertips, and money is one way to overcome time (why grind for skins when you can just buy it?). The main issue is that micro-transactions work the best with skins, petty upgrades and other general kitch that ArenaNet will do for a cheap buck.

If we look at other MMOs, we notice an evident difference in content delivery method. In Guild Wars, there was no subscrition fee, but expansions were filled with new areas, classes, weapons etc. Evidetnly, this model was relatively successful as the game remained popular for many years. Unfortunately for us, ArenaNet’s monetization was not constant as it is now, so according to their new priorities for GW2, expansions were abandoned (as far as we know).

The discomfort regarding the progression of GW2 is apparent in any quick visit to the forums, but what is often forgotten is that most things that are happening (lack of communication, lack of content, increas in grind and Gem-Store based items) are tied to a business model, and none of this can be changed unless the business model does.

Ultimately, my topic for discussion in this thread is; Does a micro-transactional model promote an even spread of content as well as set a platform for longevity? Will ArenaNet we able to deliver all that was promised based on their current LS and Gem Store model?

One is not better than the other in its raw form.

What matters here is how good of a job is performed in the outlined framework

The means must justify the ends

and

The ends must justify the means

What this means to you is entirely based on how you’ve liked what has been delivered to you.

At the end of the day, what matters is that NCSOFT is happy.
So far, they seem to be happy since they are not actively firing/ transferring
people from ANET to other projects. In fact, Anet is hiring more people than the other development teams under NCSOFT. So, they have to be doing something right to keep NCSOFT happy.

I understand that Anet has issues with other games being mentioned here, so I am just going to refer to this other one as “SF2P” (successful Free to Play).

See, this particular SF2P managed to deliver a complete game with periodic events and new maps/levels for a time (although slower lately on those), and even new items into the game. Sure they offered the items and cosmetics in their store for purchase, but they also made those items attainable through gameplay, and not under some horrifyingly unjust RNG system. Some things were craftable and few other things available as exclusives for a a time. All in all it still has tons of people logging in a playing even after 6+ years. being F2P and having a store to sell vanity items or even other game assets isn’t the problem per se. Its Anet locking basic things behind a god awful grind OR using real money to buy your way past it with gems. THAT is the problem here. Add to that the “bolster our numbers of logins” by foricing players to log into get content for free or else you’re paying for it doesn’t endear people who are already irked about your business practices. just sayin.

PookieDaWombat.6209:

I understand that Anet has issues with other games being mentioned here, so I am just going to refer to this other one as “SF2P” (successful Free to Play).

See, this particular SF2P managed to deliver a complete game with periodic events and new maps/levels for a time (although slower lately on those), and even new items into the game. Sure they offered the items and cosmetics in their store for purchase, but they also made those items attainable through gameplay, and not under some horrifyingly unjust RNG system. Some things were craftable and few other things available as exclusives for a a time. All in all it still has tons of people logging in a playing even after 6+ years. being F2P and having a store to sell vanity items or even other game assets isn’t the problem per se. Its Anet locking basic things behind a god awful grind OR using real money to buy your way past it with gems. THAT is the problem here. Add to that the “bolster our numbers of logins” by foricing players to log into get content for free or else you’re paying for it doesn’t endear people who are already irked about your business practices. just sayin.

I understand and agree with all with what you have to say except:

dd to that the “bolster our numbers of logins” by foricing players to log into get content for free or else you’re paying for it doesn’t endear people who are already irked about your business practices. just sayin.

I would argue, that this is a very nice and handy feature, way better than Season 1’s model of login and play now or forever be screwed. I have guildies who are in the military and enjoy the freedom that they can be out on operations for 1-2 weeks and be back later to catch it for free or pay a couple of gems if the episode was decent in their eyes to play it later.

Even casual players, I have a guildie who is struggling financially and does not have power or internet some times, when ever his parents are able to afford it, he is able to log in and play. It’s nice that he is given a chance that if he has $10-15 spare dollars from his part time job, that he can play the past content with out being penalized for missing it. In season 1 of Living Story, this was NOT an option and he would have missed those episodes and would not have the chance to play them.

PookieDaWombat.6209:

I understand that Anet has issues with other games being mentioned here, so I am just going to refer to this other one as “SF2P” (successful Free to Play).

See, this particular SF2P managed to deliver a complete game with periodic events and new maps/levels for a time (although slower lately on those), and even new items into the game. Sure they offered the items and cosmetics in their store for purchase, but they also made those items attainable through gameplay, and not under some horrifyingly unjust RNG system. Some things were craftable and few other things available as exclusives for a a time. All in all it still has tons of people logging in a playing even after 6+ years. being F2P and having a store to sell vanity items or even other game assets isn’t the problem per se. Its Anet locking basic things behind a god awful grind OR using real money to buy your way past it with gems. THAT is the problem here. Add to that the “bolster our numbers of logins” by foricing players to log into get content for free or else you’re paying for it doesn’t endear people who are already irked about your business practices. just sayin.

I completely agree. One thing that makes me quite uncomfortable is the feeling that everywhere I look I’m being asked for gems, gems and more gems. If you don’t have skill you need money, if you don’t have time you need money, if you want to get a certain skin, you need money. The current approach is excessive and disappointing (In my person opinion) considering the usual MMO approach is: go on an adventure, face a challenge and get rewarded, which is basically being bypassed by anyone with a fat wallet.

While i agree that its better than play it now, or forever miss out, I honestly feel that they should still be free to unlock. In essence you’re telling someone who’s walked away from the game for some time (and let’s say don’t even know this is a thing), that “hey you’ve been gone for a bit and there’s been this new content that…oh wait…you want to play it? Drop another 50 dollars on us and you’ll get to play through something that isn’t even a full expansion/campaign.”

I believe a traditional expansion system is far more satisfying and honest as a business practice, and as a player experience.

PookieDaWombat.6209:

While i agree that its better than play it now, or forever miss out, I honestly feel that they should still be free to unlock. In essence you’re telling someone who’s walked away from the game for some time (and let’s say don’t even know this is a thing), that “hey you’ve been gone for a bit and there’s been this new content that…oh wait…you want to play it? Drop another 50 dollars on us and you’ll get to play through something that isn’t even a full expansion/campaign.”

That gem lockout system they have with the season 2 episodes is really stupid. If they had full confidence in the quality of the episodes then there would be no reason to do time lockouts like that, people would be lining up to go see that movie if you know what I mean. Quite a few people would be so happy with the deliverance that gem store purchases would be less of a topic.

If I’m really happy with the production values of an event, reception, etc etc. Of course I’m gonna buy more drinks or spend more at the food trucks at an outdoor community gathering. If I know the movie is gonna be fricken awesome at the theatre, I’m obviously gonna get myself a large kitten popcorn, soda, and a bit of food just to make sure my experience is well kept.

My bigger issue with it is that i know for a fact that some of these LS updates are simply not worth the price of admission, so to speak. They’re not. So my bigger question to myself was do I give them the login data to unlock it for free or so I purchase it later. since i am not in the business of giving them anymore money, but might want to play through these later i’m stuck giving them the data instead.

A traditional expansion has a bunch of things, typically:

Content:

• new lands
• new enemies
• new dungeons

Rewards:

• new weapons
• new armors
• new minipets

The problem with the current setup of GW2 is that you get all of the Content stuff for free (if you log in on time), but 90% of the rewards are locked behind a paywall. We buy most of our minis with gems. We buy most of our weapon and armor skins with gems.

What’s the point of content if you can just buy most of the rewards separately? Is it not more satisfying to pay for an expansion, and then play the content, and be rewarded?

Here’s another question: Why the effing kittens can’t we have a gem store AND an expansion?

I believe it is entirely possible to have a gem store and Expansions. One of the biggest failures of GW2 is their failure in bring exciting and interesting content on a regular basis. Nothing will bring more players than interesting and engaging content, which is exactly what brought many of us to the game, even those who played the original Guild Wars.

Content brings you here, and the gem store should satisfy your desires to look good while completing said content, nothing more. In essence, the game is devaluing itself.

If you’re into sports,
Would you rather watch the event for free? or pay to watch it later?
It’s a crab shoot if your team will do well, or get humiliated. Maybe you
will see something amazing, maybe you wont.

Example:
I can watch the Tampa Bay Lightning game for free when it comes on.
Or I can pay the $4.99 to watch the replay when I come home for my lunch break.
Just as I can go to the guild wars 2 wiki to see the results, I can go to nhl.com and see the results; however, I’m not actually experiencing the game or seeing everything play for play.

Would it be nice if it was free? sure. But the option to experience it later is worth while. The price I do believe should be lowered to something a little more manageable. 100 gems per episode? 16 gold 12 silver at the moment. Missed 4 months? $10 and you’re caught back up with everyone else or 128 gold [current price].

I’m all for an expansion w/ gemstore being a commodity shop

You can’t deprioritize because the Gem Shop is the primary source of operating income. The mass layoffs might as well begin if that was done. The OPs tone implies that monetization has been ramped up which I don’t think it has. I think it’s just that more players are noticing now than before.

I would rather they make us pay upfront for the content and give the rewards free for completing the content. That means the priority for making money goes to the quality and quantity of the content.

Instead we have black lion weapons and gem store armors. Pay for the rewards up front and play the content later for free. Where is the incentive for the content to be fun? The only incentive here is to make the gem store skins as pretty as possible.

I have some questions, some for the OP and some for other posters.

• What is “an even spread of content?”
• What did Anet “promise?”
• What leads you to believe that dissatisfaction with the alteration in the method for story content delivery is a popular topic?
• What MMO’s offer new content for free?
• Why is the alternate method of story content unlock (logging in) such an onerous burden?
• Why is it unjust to offer a choice between logging in once in a given two week period or paying somewhere between 50-60% of the cost of a caramel macchiato?
• What evidence is there that “lack of communication” or lack of content acceptable to certain posters are a result of the monetizing model?
• What makes the RNG in this game “horrifyingly unjust?”
• Does any other company offer a B2P model with expansion packs as the only other cost to access?
• If no one else is monetizing solely via initial box sale and sales of expansion packs, what leads you to think it would be a viable method to monetize game development?
• What am I not doing that I do not get the feeling that “everywhere I look I’m being asked for gems, gems and more gems?” Or maybe, what are you doing that you do feel this way?

Xenon.4537:

I would rather they make us pay upfront for the content and give the rewards free for completing the content. That means the priority for making money goes to the quality and quantity of the content.

Instead we have black lion weapons and gem store armors. Pay for the rewards up front and play the content later for free. Where is the incentive for the content to be fun? The only incentive here is to make the gem store skins as pretty as possible.

Of course, pretty sells.

And I think you turned it on it’s head. Rewards in of themselves shouldn’t define if content is fun to do or not. It’s like asking to be paid to go play ring toss at an amusement park. Can’t players simply take on the challenge and enjoy beating it unless they dangle something in front of them?

Consensus.2785:

~

It’s not so much about Deprioritizing Monetization because they still need to make money, it’s about changing it.

Here is my thread about it: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/A-focus-on-micro-transactions/first#post3324571

Many people indeed fail to see the connection, they say they do not like elements of the game but don’t see how it’s related to the current payment-model (Cash-shop focus)

Some farming you find in every MMO but the currency grind in GW2 is the most I personally had in any MMO. But that makes senses. If you would be able to directly work towards all items in the game gold would be less important and so buying gems to convert to gold would also be less interesting. So obviously Anet does not make it so you can work directly towards to a specific items (by putting it in a specific place with a low enough RNG rate it’s doable to get it) but they put it in many places but with such a high RNG that you can almost never really work towards getting it other then grinding gold and then buying it. It’s that boring grind many people dislike.

And of course the same holds true for any items they put in the cash-shop. You want it? You buy it with cash or grind gold to buy it.

It’s in my opinion the biggest mistake they did made.

There would be no need to do this if they would go with a true B2P (The way they released the games and many people might have expected it to be based on GW1) and so release an expansion about once a year. So more like the model they used in GW1. Also we would have gotten more real game-content in the form of more maps, new crafts and so on because thats the sort of stuff you add in expansions.

Overall I think it would have been a better game that would have managed to get a high popularity along the way.

Not only that but when you look at the income https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/151443/1q14_NCSoft.jpg and where to make a relative comparison using GW1 you see that GW1 had a peak of 100% income compared to it’s own release. If you would do the same with GW2 as if it would have gotten an expansion once a year and no other money in-between GW2 would have earned more money then it did using the current model. Some people think this F2P type of model GW2 is now using is the only viable but simply looking at the numbers we have thats false. A true B2P model (when the expansions would be of a good quality) would have earned them more.

The current model did do a lot of damage to the game and when GW2 will get an expansion (many people are expecting one somewhere between now and the 3 year mark) I think you will see that because the sales will be much lower then the original game sales. Thats what I expect.

The only option I see for GW2 to stay one of the bigger players in the future (so long term) is to indeed turn away from there cash-shop model and back to a B2P model and making this also very clear to the public. Getting rid of the all the grind and putting 99% of those cash-shop items in the game in fun ways to get them (that is what playing a game is.. not grinding gold to buy it or just buying it with cash). If they don’t I think that this game will not be one of the bigger games out there anymore when it hit’s the 3 year mark or maybe half a year later if they indeed do release an expansion in-between that time. It will then simply be one of the smaller MMO’s a small fan-base is still playing but that is really not interesting for most people.

—

Lastly to answer you two questions: “Does a micro-transactional model promote an even spread of content as well as set a platform for longevity?”

If it comes to longevity, absolutely not and we have already seen that (ongoing decrease of income) so it’s a question we really already know the answer to. Sure it will be able to drag the game a long for a long time but with this model when the game hits 2,5 / 3,5 years max! (depending if we get an expansion in-between and other patches) it’s just one of the smaller older MMO’s out that’s that is not a big player anymore and only has still a small fan-base playing. While with a B2P model I think it could have stayed being one of the bigger players easily for 10 years.

“Will ArenaNet we able to deliver all that was promised based on their current LS and Gem Store model?”
Again this question has already been answered. They said the LS would deliver the content we would normally see in an expansion. Well looking at what that marked in general does GW2 would already have had an expansion by now. (WoW for example was one of the games that took very long, maybe even the longest of the bigger MMO’s out there to release it’s first expansion, 2 years and almost 2 months. A time long passed now with GW2) But it didn’t and more important to answer this question, in that time it did also not deliver the content we would normally see in an expansion.

Not sure what to make of this thread.

The trend was noticeable many months ago, reducing the amount of currency gained from drops was a huge hint.

I’ve not actually played for many months and even I noticed the trend way back then. I also purchased gems from the in game shop as it was a quick way to gain in game currency. Part of the problem with levelling characters too fast with poor world drop rates, without resorting to joining the boss kill trains.

Consensus.2785:

I completely agree. One thing that makes me quite uncomfortable is the feeling that everywhere I look I’m being asked for gems, gems and more gems. If you don’t have skill you need money, if you don’t have time you need money, if you want to get a certain skin, you need money. The current approach is excessive and disappointing (In my person opinion) considering the usual MMO approach is: go on an adventure, face a challenge and get rewarded, which is basically being bypassed by anyone with a fat wallet.

I’m not getting your point here. If you don’t have skill or time and you want something, the answer in any other facet of life is to have money.

What it basically boils down to is you either put in the time to grind for what you want or you spend money on it. That is, and always will be, the trade off. Everything in game can be obtained either way. This is not something anet has invented.

Azala Yar.7693:

Not sure what to make of this thread.

The trend was noticeable many months ago, reducing the amount of currency gained from drops was a huge hint.

I’ve not actually played for many months and even I noticed the trend way back then. I also purchased gems from the in game shop as it was a quick way to gain in game currency. Part of the problem with levelling characters too fast with poor world drop rates, without resorting to joining the boss kill trains.

Well then you did fall for there ‘trap’ to get you buying gems and so supported that behavior even more.

I did never buy a single gem to make sure I did not support it sadly enough to many people did.

cranked.3812:

Consensus.2785:

I completely agree. One thing that makes me quite uncomfortable is the feeling that everywhere I look I’m being asked for gems, gems and more gems. If you don’t have skill you need money, if you don’t have time you need money, if you want to get a certain skin, you need money. The current approach is excessive and disappointing (In my person opinion) considering the usual MMO approach is: go on an adventure, face a challenge and get rewarded, which is basically being bypassed by anyone with a fat wallet.

I’m not getting your point here. If you don’t have skill or time and you want something, the answer in any other facet of life is to have money.

What it basically boils down to is you either put in the time to grind for what you want or you spend money on it. That is, and always will be, the trade off. Everything in game can be obtained either way. This is not something anet has invented.

It’s a game, it’s supposed to be fun, it’s not supposed to be a real live simulator.

You should go into the world have an epic adventure (doing a dungeon) and get a cool drop related to that adventure. That is fun loot, thats a game.

Buying an item with cash is not playing a game. And doing some brainless thing like killing champions over and over again to get stuff you don’t want to sell that to earn money (so grinding) to then buy what you want thats also not what a game should be about.

cranked.3812:

Consensus.2785:

I completely agree. One thing that makes me quite uncomfortable is the feeling that everywhere I look I’m being asked for gems, gems and more gems. If you don’t have skill you need money, if you don’t have time you need money, if you want to get a certain skin, you need money. The current approach is excessive and disappointing (In my person opinion) considering the usual MMO approach is: go on an adventure, face a challenge and get rewarded, which is basically being bypassed by anyone with a fat wallet.

I’m not getting your point here. If you don’t have skill or time and you want something, the answer in any other facet of life is to have money.

What it basically boils down to is you either put in the time to grind for what you want or you spend money on it. That is, and always will be, the trade off. Everything in game can be obtained either way. This is not something anet has invented.

What was noticeable in the past is that the world drop rates were low essentially extending that grind. Making gems more attractive for those with spare cash to part with it in the shop. Especially if they didn’t want to wait by doing all that extra grind.

One of my level 80’s (in Orr, iirc, been awhile) tested world mobs out by grinding them to see how they compared with other games and the conclusion I came up with is they were not worth the grind. That was even before people moaned on the forums about drop rates being lowered there, as I was not in-game when they were lowered further.

Devata.6589:

It’s a game, it’s supposed to be fun, it’s not supposed to be a real live simulator.

That’s the nice thing about GW2 … you can play content you want to and it will reward you with fun AND gold at the same time. Anet don’t actually make you choose between your time and your RL money. You can use one or the other, or a mixture of the two. It’s a really smart and player-conscious approach.

The implication that one has to choose between having fun OR grinding gold makes Anet’s approach to pushing gem sales unfair/biased/unreasonable is nonsense.

Obtena.7952:

Devata.6589:

It’s a game, it’s supposed to be fun, it’s not supposed to be a real live simulator.

That’s the nice thing about GW2 … you can play, have fun AND get gold to buy gems if that’s what you want to do. Anet don’t actually make you choose between your time and your RL money. You can use one or the other, or a mixture of the two. It’s a really smart and player-conscious approach.

I find it fun to directly work towards an item I am interested in. Thats what at least partly drives me to do that content and make it more interesting (if it’s rng every time that feeling of will it drop or not and if it does that awesome feeling) and if it’s an guaranteed drop it’s the thrill of completing it.

In most mmo’s thats also what I did most of the time. For example I did see this cool mini, found out where and how to get it and when on my way, then I did see a skin again found out how to get it and went on my way, another mini, a special recipe for a nice craft and so on. In this game for 90% the way to get it is the same.. grind gold and then you can just do anything and it might take forever or do whatever go’s the fastest. Thats what most people do but I consider that really boring. What I then still like to do purely for fun.. Well JP’s but I never ever get the gold I would need to get the thinks I would want. SAB was awesome but thats gone.

Just doing it to slowly see a number (gold) going up, knowing exactly how long it will take (for example 5 gold per hour, you need 50 gold to 50 hours) thats boring as hell. And if it was that a few things would work this way so you would earn that money along the way.. sure that would be fine but most of the rewards work this way so you will always have to look at getting more gold.

No that is not what I consider a fun way of playing.

And it’s not a really smart and player-conscious approach. It’s a way to try and get people to buy gems.

Besides this excuse (just do what you like, earn gold that way… grind gold) you are using is used a lot to counter when this is broth up, like if it’s something special this current approach adds.

But thats of course completely false. Do it the way I say and don’t make those items account-bound and the option to grind gold (or like you like to say it.. do what you like and earn gold that way) is still an option if you like to do that. That does not change.
But working directly towards it (what I like) and giving it that extra to the content (rush of will it drop or not) that is not in the current approach.

Of course the buying it with real cash part would be gone but that has nothing to do with playing a game and it completely devaluates the items from a game-play perspective… Oow he has that item, did he do some hard content for it or did he just throw in some cash?

Devata.6589:

I find it fun to directly work towards an item I am interested in.

Sure but that doesn’t have anything to do with what I’ve said. There isn’t a way to be directly rewarded with anything in this game with the exception of gold, so arguments based on “I like direct rewards for stuff I want” are meaningless. Anet allows players to have fun and earn gold doing anything. Players still have the choice of getting gems with their gold ingame or money outside the game. Either approach doesn’t change the value of something a player buys in the gemstore. The perceived value of someone else’s items to other players is simply irrelevant.

Devata.6589:

cranked.3812:

Consensus.2785:

I completely agree. One thing that makes me quite uncomfortable is the feeling that everywhere I look I’m being asked for gems, gems and more gems. If you don’t have skill you need money, if you don’t have time you need money, if you want to get a certain skin, you need money. The current approach is excessive and disappointing (In my person opinion) considering the usual MMO approach is: go on an adventure, face a challenge and get rewarded, which is basically being bypassed by anyone with a fat wallet.

I’m not getting your point here. If you don’t have skill or time and you want something, the answer in any other facet of life is to have money.

What it basically boils down to is you either put in the time to grind for what you want or you spend money on it. That is, and always will be, the trade off. Everything in game can be obtained either way. This is not something anet has invented.

It’s a game, it’s supposed to be fun, it’s not supposed to be a real live simulator.

You should go into the world have an epic adventure (doing a dungeon) and get a cool drop related to that adventure. That is fun loot, thats a game.

Buying an item with cash is not playing a game. And doing some brainless thing like killing champions over and over again to get stuff you don’t want to sell that to earn money (so grinding) to then buy what you want thats also not what a game should be about.

I think what’s missing from this analysis is perspective. There has been and probably will always be a market in mmos for people who want to use money instead of time and skill to get what they want. It’s pretty much the entire reason for the RMT industry. There are many facets to the decision to implement a gem for gold system in Guild Wars 2. Illicit RMT is one of them. Even in games where there is no official cash to in-game money system, third parties stepped in to fill that lucrative void and made/make a lot of money in the process. In a perfect world, no one would want to pay real money to skip to the end of an in-game goal. But we don’t live in that world.

We can argue on what is a worthwhile task in game to achieve something but I just wanted to get the elephant in the room out of the way.

Obtena.7952:

Devata.6589:

I find it fun to directly work towards an item I am interested in.

Sure but that doesn’t have anything to do with what I’ve said. There isn’t a way to be directly rewarded with anything in this game, especially from gemstore. Anet allows players to have fun and earn gold doing anything. Players still have the choice of getting gems with their gold ingame or money outside the game.

It does because you said you can do the content you like to do. Well I like to work directly towards items. Thats the content I like to do. But you can´t really.

For example I loved to do the MF dungeon back during season one and I really had fun of doing it. However a big part of that was the mini and backpack dropping in there. Especially for re-playability. Now you can do it in fractals but with those two rewards gone I really don´t care for doing it anymore.

nightwulf.1986:

Devata.6589:

cranked.3812:

Consensus.2785:

I completely agree. One thing that makes me quite uncomfortable is the feeling that everywhere I look I’m being asked for gems, gems and more gems. If you don’t have skill you need money, if you don’t have time you need money, if you want to get a certain skin, you need money. The current approach is excessive and disappointing (In my person opinion) considering the usual MMO approach is: go on an adventure, face a challenge and get rewarded, which is basically being bypassed by anyone with a fat wallet.

I’m not getting your point here. If you don’t have skill or time and you want something, the answer in any other facet of life is to have money.

What it basically boils down to is you either put in the time to grind for what you want or you spend money on it. That is, and always will be, the trade off. Everything in game can be obtained either way. This is not something anet has invented.

It’s a game, it’s supposed to be fun, it’s not supposed to be a real live simulator.

You should go into the world have an epic adventure (doing a dungeon) and get a cool drop related to that adventure. That is fun loot, thats a game.

Buying an item with cash is not playing a game. And doing some brainless thing like killing champions over and over again to get stuff you don’t want to sell that to earn money (so grinding) to then buy what you want thats also not what a game should be about.

I think what’s missing from this analysis is perspective. There has been and probably will always be a market in mmos for people who want to use money instead of time and skill to get what they want. It’s pretty much the entire reason for the RMT industry. There are many facets to the decision to implement a gem for gold system in Guild Wars 2. Illicit RMT is one of them. Even in games where there is no official cash to in-game money system, third parties stepped in to fill that lucrative void and made/make a lot of money in the process. In a perfect world, no one would want to pay real money to skip to the end of an in-game goal. But we don’t live in that world.

We can argue on what is a worthwhile task in game to achieve something but I just wanted to get the elephant in the room out of the way.

Oow I am very much aware there is a marked for it, all F2P are running on that marked. But it does not improve the quality of the game and there very well is also a marked for quality good games so I would rather have Anet aiming for that last market. Sadly you can´t really combine the two because the bite each other, history has proven that.

And based at the numbers we have Anet would have even earned more with a true B2P model so it´s also not like this cash-shop market is the most lucrative. The biggest draw it has for company´s is that it´s a low-risk approach.

Devata.6589:

It does because you said you can do the content you like to do. Well I like to work directly towards items. Thats the content I like to do. But you can´t really.

You have to argue within the context of the game if you want to have a reasonable discussion about how the game works. You’re perspective is not relevant to the context of GW2 because we know GW2 doesn’t work that way. If you don’t like not being directly rewarded in GW2, you know what the answer to that is.

I still don’t see how your issue with no-direct rewards is relevant to the thread. Even if you WERE rewarded directly with things you wanted, I don’t see that having an influence on how the gemstore works or how Anet markets gems to players.

People lack perspective here. You don’t like Anet pushing gems on you? Would you rather have Anet push a monthly fee AND expansion fees on you? I don’t know about you guys but I’m more tolerant of gem marketing than I am subscription-based business models.

Obtena.7952:

Devata.6589:

It does because you said you can do the content you like to do. Well I like to work directly towards items. Thats the content I like to do. But you can´t really.

You have to argue within the context of the game if you want to have a reasonable discussion about how the game works. You’re perspective is not relevant to the context of GW2 because we know GW2 doesn’t work that way. If you don’t like not being directly rewarded in GW2, you know what the answer to that is.

I still don’t see how your issue with no-direct rewards is relevant to the thread. Even if you WERE rewarded directly with things you wanted, I don’t see that having an influence on how the gemstore works.

Why would not not be within the context. The OP is also talking about things that are not good in the game because of the payment model (or how it effects the game) so it’s completely relevant to talk about that. Yes this is not how it works in the game and that has a lot to do with the payment model (as the two are linked to each other.. making it this way gives more reasons to buy gems to buy geld and for the cash-shop items itself grinding gold is also the only really game way of getting them).

It’s really strange to think you where not allowed to talk about it because it’s not the way it works. Then you should never talk about something that is wrong in the game.. or how it would be better because well thats now how it works so not in the context and so should not be talked about. Sorry but thats complete nonsense.

And the thread is also about how monetization effects the game (in a negative way) so if you do not see how this is relevant to the thread I think thats a problem on your side.

“Even if you WERE rewarded directly with things you wanted, I don’t see that having an influence on how the gemstore works.”

It wouldn’t work.. there would be less drive to buy gems for gold and well there would be no items in the cash-shop because they would be in the game where you could directly work towards them… what you can’t in the cash-shop.

Devata.6589:

It wouldn’t work.. there would be less drive to buy gems for gold and well there would be no items in the cash-shop because they would be in the game where you could directly work towards them… what you can’t in the cash-shop.

That’s a nice ideal, academic point of view but that’s not how the game works. It’s not how the game could be changed to work either and this is why.

This isn’t a university experiment in MMO business models … it’s a real business that answers to investors who expect the business model they were pitched would make money. The reason it won’t change to a different model is is because it DOES satisfy the investors; as long as investors are satisfied, there is NO chance in hell that Anet or their parent company would propose screwing with the model they are using to make that money. It would be stupid. If anything, they would try to improve how it makes money by …. hold on to your hat …. MARKETING GEMS TO PLAYERS. Did I just see hundreds of points of light go off in people’s heads?

So based on real life things that knowledgeable people consider … it’s irrelevant if a direct or indirect rewards system COULD impact gemstore. The point is that it won’t in GW2 for the reason above. Maybe if the game starts tanking really bad, your position would have more merit but likely in those cases, Investors don’t stick around long enough to wait for that; game would likely just shut down. Heck, I’ve seen NCSOFT shut down games because they don’t make ENOUGH money (anyone remember Tabula Rasa?), so what I’m saying is very real.

Problem I think this game has, it’s not developing the way they thought it would. Ok this is my view, but I think the shop probably isn’t making as much as they would have liked.

There’s no expansions being produced that could have been sold as a genuine expansions, keeping the no subscription model healthier.

Resulting in the necessity of making the shop more desirable to use, hence generate more income.

That’s just my gut feeling.

I don’t really see they have much choice, hence why the thread seems redundant to some extent.

Obtena.7952:

Devata.6589:

It wouldn’t work.. there would be less drive to buy gems for gold and well there would be no items in the cash-shop because they would be in the game where you could directly work towards them… what you can’t in the cash-shop.

That’s a nice ideal, academic point of view but that’s not how the game works. It’s not how the game could be changed to work either and this is why.

This isn’t a university experiment in MMO business models … it’s a real business that answers to investors who expect the business model they were pitched would make money. The reason it won’t change to a different model is is because it DOES satisfy the investors; as long as investors are satisfied, there is NO chance in hell that Anet or their parent company would propose screwing with the model they are using.

Thats funny because you would think they pitched the model that worked so great for GW1 and also the one they told the customers we would get. And at release they said it was a B2P game and the cash-shop would only have a very minimized role.

There is also no reason why investors would not be satisfied with that B2P pitch especially because Anet could point towards GW1.

The whole LS is something they started with months after release so you can really wonder if that was part of the pitch as well.

Devata.6589:

Thats funny because you would think they pitched the model that worked so great for GW1 and also the one they told the customers we would get. And at release they said it was a B2P game and the cash-shop would only have a very minimized role.

There is also no reason why investors would not be satisfied with that B2P pitch especially because Anet could point towards GW1.

The whole LS is something they started with months after release so you can really wonder if that was part of the pitch as well.

The argument here isn’t that investors may have liked a similar model as GW1. The relevant argument is investors bought into the model that GW2 uses now. Your perception that we didn’t get the model we were pitched is just a matter of opinion. I think it’s disingenuous to claim the gemstore has anything but a minimal role in playing the game; nothing in the gemstore is necessary to play this game … for free. Again, if the model of the game doesn’t satisfy you for whatever reason, you have choices as a consumer to take your time/money to a game that does.

The point you make about LS is an interesting sidebar. IIRC, the pitch of an evolving game world was always there … LS fulfills that beyond my expectations. I’ve not played many games where the devs change the world to the extent I see in GW2. I think that’s awesome and makes me hope that at some point, PLAYERS will be able to have an effect in changing the world to the same extent. That’s exciting.

Obtena.7952:

Devata.6589:

Thats funny because you would think they pitched the model that worked so great for GW1 and also the one they told the customers we would get. And at release they said it was a B2P game and the cash-shop would only have a very minimized role.

There is also no reason why investors would not be satisfied with that B2P pitch especially because Anet could point towards GW1.

The whole LS is something they started with months after release so you can really wonder if that was part of the pitch as well.

The argument here isn’t that investors may have liked a similar model as GW1. The relevant argument is investors bought into the model that GW2 uses now. Your perception that we didn’t get the model we were pitched is just a matter of opinion. I think it’s disingenuous to claim the gemstore has anything but a minimal role in playing the game; nothing in the gemstore is necessary to play this game … for free. Again, if the model of the game doesn’t satisfy you for whatever reason, you have choices as a consumer to take your time/money to a game that does.

The point you make about LS is an interesting sidebar. IIRC, the pitch of an evolving game world was always there … LS fulfills that beyond my expectations. I’ve not played many games where the devs change the world to the extent I see in GW2. I think that’s awesome and makes me hope that at some point, PLAYERS will be able to have an effect in changing the world to the same extent. That’s exciting.

“The relevant argument is investors bought into the model that GW2 uses now.” But is that true. Are you sure they pitched a cash-shop model? It’s what they ended up using I don’t know if it’s what they pitched and even if they did it’s still relevant because it’s not good for the game and it’s time to change it. With income dropping it’s time for a new pitch.

" I think it’s disingenuous to claim the gemstore has anything but a minimal role in playing the game; nothing in the gemstore is necessary to play this game" I did give perfect examples of how it effects the game. Yes you can play it without using it, I never said you could not but it does very much effects how the game works.

“I think that’s awesome and makes me hope that at some point, PLAYERS will be able to have an effect in changing the world to the same extent. "

It’s nice for you that you like the LS but as you know it’s not very popular in the community as a hole and players effect it will not happen, not other then what we did see with the voting. Thats simply is not possible if you design a scripted story. If you really want players to have an effect on the game you would need sandbox elements. That is they only way you really get a living breathing world that really changed (in ways not though of by developers) by players.

The LS is not the tool for that, a sandbox is.

I would bet on it … considering that investors put money up front to fund the development based on that model. IF income is dropping, making a radical move to change it and hope it gives more revenue is more risky than simply having better offerings in the gemstore to boost income with the model that already exists. Investors do not like increased risk. You can invent whatever reality you want to think exists. That doesn’t change the reality of how the game model and the implications of changing it affects investor relations. Your statements haven’t taken any of that into consideration.

This all seems like a thinly-veiled attempt to justify removal of cash-stop while ignoring the likelihood that it’s working as intended and making revenue and ROI for investors. The reality of this industry is that it doesn’t take 2 years for major changes to happen to games that don’t deliver on those investments. I think cash-stop is here to stay.

Devata.6589:

Obtena.7952:

Devata.6589:

Thats funny because you would think they pitched the model that worked so great for GW1 and also the one they told the customers we would get. And at release they said it was a B2P game and the cash-shop would only have a very minimized role.

There is also no reason why investors would not be satisfied with that B2P pitch especially because Anet could point towards GW1.

The whole LS is something they started with months after release so you can really wonder if that was part of the pitch as well.

The argument here isn’t that investors may have liked a similar model as GW1. The relevant argument is investors bought into the model that GW2 uses now. Your perception that we didn’t get the model we were pitched is just a matter of opinion. I think it’s disingenuous to claim the gemstore has anything but a minimal role in playing the game; nothing in the gemstore is necessary to play this game … for free. Again, if the model of the game doesn’t satisfy you for whatever reason, you have choices as a consumer to take your time/money to a game that does.

The point you make about LS is an interesting sidebar. IIRC, the pitch of an evolving game world was always there … LS fulfills that beyond my expectations. I’ve not played many games where the devs change the world to the extent I see in GW2. I think that’s awesome and makes me hope that at some point, PLAYERS will be able to have an effect in changing the world to the same extent. That’s exciting.

“The relevant argument is investors bought into the model that GW2 uses now.” But is that true. Are you sure they pitched a cash-shop model? It’s what they ended up using I don’t know if it’s what they pitched and even if they did it’s still relevant because it’s not good for the game and it’s time to change it. With income dropping it’s time for a new pitch.

" I think it’s disingenuous to claim the gemstore has anything but a minimal role in playing the game; nothing in the gemstore is necessary to play this game" I did give perfect examples of how it effects the game. Yes you can play it without using it, I never said you could not but it does very much effects how the game works.

They can’t get rid of the cash shop, that’s here to stay.

I see the main problem as being the LS (temporary content), all that time messing about with the LS when they could have been making some meaningful expansion that they could have sold as additional content.

Question is after all this time have they the resources left to do anything about it. Or are they just locked into a holding action, doing the best with what they have.

Obtena.7952:

I would bet on it … considering that investors put money up front to fund the development based on that mode. IF income is dropping, making a radical move to change it is more risky than having better offerings in the gemstore.

“considering that investors put money up front to fund the development based on that mode.” You don’t know the pitch so you don’t know that.

“IF income is dropping” Yes it is as can be seen in the quarterly reports.

“making a radical move to change it is more risky than having better offerings in the gemstore.” Maybe but if income is dropping anyway and the game has provided the money investors wanted they might want to do that. All those games that where pitched with a P2P model that then completely failed did change there model to get at least the money they could with a cheap F2P model.

Azala Yar.7693:

Devata.6589:

Obtena.7952:

Devata.6589:

Thats funny because you would think they pitched the model that worked so great for GW1 and also the one they told the customers we would get. And at release they said it was a B2P game and the cash-shop would only have a very minimized role.

There is also no reason why investors would not be satisfied with that B2P pitch especially because Anet could point towards GW1.

The whole LS is something they started with months after release so you can really wonder if that was part of the pitch as well.

The argument here isn’t that investors may have liked a similar model as GW1. The relevant argument is investors bought into the model that GW2 uses now. Your perception that we didn’t get the model we were pitched is just a matter of opinion. I think it’s disingenuous to claim the gemstore has anything but a minimal role in playing the game; nothing in the gemstore is necessary to play this game … for free. Again, if the model of the game doesn’t satisfy you for whatever reason, you have choices as a consumer to take your time/money to a game that does.

The point you make about LS is an interesting sidebar. IIRC, the pitch of an evolving game world was always there … LS fulfills that beyond my expectations. I’ve not played many games where the devs change the world to the extent I see in GW2. I think that’s awesome and makes me hope that at some point, PLAYERS will be able to have an effect in changing the world to the same extent. That’s exciting.

“The relevant argument is investors bought into the model that GW2 uses now.” But is that true. Are you sure they pitched a cash-shop model? It’s what they ended up using I don’t know if it’s what they pitched and even if they did it’s still relevant because it’s not good for the game and it’s time to change it. With income dropping it’s time for a new pitch.

" I think it’s disingenuous to claim the gemstore has anything but a minimal role in playing the game; nothing in the gemstore is necessary to play this game" I did give perfect examples of how it effects the game. Yes you can play it without using it, I never said you could not but it does very much effects how the game works.

They can’t get rid of the cash shop, that’s here to stay.

I see the main problem as being the LS (temporary content), all that time messing about with the LS when they could have been making some meaningful expansion that they could have sold as additional content.

Question is after all this time have they the resources left to do anything about it. Or are they just locked into a holding action, doing the best with what they have.

Nothing is off the table in software.

Devata.6589:

Obtena.7952:

I would bet on it … considering that investors put money up front to fund the development based on that mode. IF income is dropping, making a radical move to change it is more risky than having better offerings in the gemstore.

“considering that investors put money up front to fund the development based on that mode.” You don’t know the pitch so you don’t know that.

“IF income is dropping” Yes it is as can be seen in the quarterly reports.

“making a radical move to change it is more risky than having better offerings in the gemstore.” Maybe but if income is dropping anyway and the game has provided the money investors wanted they might want to do that. All those games that where pitched with a P2P model that then completely failed did change there model to get at least the money they could with a cheap F2P model.

GW2 isn’t completely failing so radical moves like making a completely different game model isn’t necessary and would likely not be approved by investors. You’re right, I don’t know the pitch. I simply said I would bet on the pitch that we have now being the one that the investors bought into through evidence that it’s successful after 2 years.

I mean, we can argue all this back and forth. I’m not really interested in having an academic argument with someone that doesn’t understand the business relationships that drive the reasons we have cash stop or might change how it would work. The model we have works and it’s fair for everyone. It doesn’t need to change because a few people can’t ignore gem marketing or can’t get over the idea that the game doesn’t work the way they want it to. IMO, those are rather stupid reasons to upset what is generally a successful business model for GW2.

Obtena.7952:

Devata.6589:

Obtena.7952:

I would bet on it … considering that investors put money up front to fund the development based on that mode. IF income is dropping, making a radical move to change it is more risky than having better offerings in the gemstore.

“considering that investors put money up front to fund the development based on that mode.” You don’t know the pitch so you don’t know that.

“IF income is dropping” Yes it is as can be seen in the quarterly reports.

“making a radical move to change it is more risky than having better offerings in the gemstore.” Maybe but if income is dropping anyway and the game has provided the money investors wanted they might want to do that. All those games that where pitched with a P2P model that then completely failed did change there model to get at least the money they could with a cheap F2P model.

GW2 isn’t completely failing so radical moves like making a completely different game model isn’t necessary and would likely not be approved by investors. You’re right, I don’t know the pitch. I simply said I would bet on the pitch that we have now being the one that the investors bought into through evidence that it’s successful after 2 years.

I mean, we can argue all this back and forth. I’m not really interested in having an academic argument with someone that doesn’t understand the business relationships that drive the reasons we have cash stop or might change how it would work. The model we have works and it’s fair for everyone. It doesn’t need to change because a few people can’t ignore gem marketing or can’t get over the idea that the game doesn’t work the way they want it to. IMO, those are rather stupid reasons to upset what is generally a successful model for an MMO business.

It works as in keeping the game alive. But it’s not the best for keeping the game at a high quality and it’s bad in the long run.. the long run , something I said 1,5 years ago but we can now also simply see by the income numbers.

The problem is simply how it effects the game itself in a negative way.

“IMO, those are rather stupid reasons to upset what is generally a successful model for an MMO business.” It’s a successful model in the business because it’s easy and low-risk. But it’s not good for the quality as the game. I think it’s rather stupid if people don’t make that difference when talking about successful. The fact that it’s good for the company does not mean it’s good for the customer / the product and so is not really a good excuse.

Let the company make their money. The gem shop does not infringe on the game play. Most micro transaction MMOs would have locked the wallet, the wardrobe, etc behind a gem store transaction. All the ‘quality of life’ improvements that do come through the gem store seem reasonable enough, and I don’t begrudge anyone their infinite mining pick if they want to buy it.

Stooperdale.3560:

Let the company make their money. The gem shop does not infringe on the game play. Most micro transaction MMOs would have locked the wallet, the wardrobe, etc behind a gem store transaction. All the ‘quality of life’ improvements that do come through the gem store seem reasonable enough, and I don’t begrudge anyone their infinite mining pick if they want to buy it.

It does interfere with the game much more than people think, especially since the Gem Exchange is basically ANet selling gold for money. This is a sharp contrast to many other games (most subscription based) who actively discourage real world trading.

I think they’ve struck a decent balance between free content and the gemstore. They could be charging people upfront for the Living Story, but the fact that they have given a grace period where it can be unlocked for free is something quite remarkable. If this was any other mmorpg with non-subscription model, they’d be charging it up front. Or be billing it as part of an expansion.

There are times where I wish things weren’t monetized but GW2 has struck it’s own balance that sets it apart from the other mmorpgs. I’m completely fine with buying certain things from the gemstore if it means supporting the developers. I do draw line between some things that are simply not worth the gems. I hope other players do too, so that forces them to put up quality items in the gemstore. But overall, they need to turn a profit without forcing a subscription and I respect that.

What I fear is that deprioritizing how they are currently monetizing things, may lead to some rather unsatisfactory solutions or outcomes. It sounds like a case of becareful what you wish for.

One upside to the gem based content or general stuff, if that we as consumers can direct the game’s content if we vote with our wallets. There are going to be those who splurge on everything, but there is at least an opportunity for us to reward good stuff with gems and shun the bad. Probably works in theory rather than in practice. But luckily nothing major has been hidden behind paywalls like in other games that rely on a gemstore model.

Consensus.2785:

It does interfere with the game much more than people think, especially since the Gem Exchange is basically ANet selling gold for money. This is a sharp contrast to many other games (most subscription based) who actively discourage real world trading.

RMT gold in other games is the province of third party gold sellers who do not abide by game Terms of Service. A developer assuming that function is bowing to the inevitable — that some players will spend money for gold — while turning it into a source of revenue. It was a smart move that I expect other developers will seriously consider going forward.

You seem adept at making insinuations while offering nothing in the way of substance other than an opinion rooted in your dislike for the way Anet is subsidizing the game and their company. If you’re really interested in a discussion, then how about offering something more substantial than the extremely vague, “It does interfere with the game much more than people think…”

Players in an MMO are an asset to the game. Players like seeing other players running about even if they never interact with them. Therefore you need a way to attract and retain players. Not having a monthly fee helps that greatly as it gets players who only have free time infrequently to play without feeling like they are tossing away $15 a month for something they may play 10 hours or less a month.

Now that’s a well and good but no subscription means no income to run the game and continue content development. Therefore we get an optional cash shop. Now unlike a true F2P MMO, you do have to buy an account and that repays any advance/loan taken during the game’s initial development. Also this means the cash shop doesn’t have to be extremely predatory because it’s only there for continuing development and doesn’t also have to pull in funds to pay off it’s original development costs.

But just putting out a static set of items in the shop isn’t going to provide a steady stream of income. Items need to be cycled in and out as well as being added. Even limits are raised when we are talking about collection expanders and bank tabs.

Lastly RMT isn’t something any MMO can prevent. It’s going to happen so why not regulate it. So they provide a means to covert cash into gold. The clever way they did it is something to note. By use of the exchange as oppose to an open trade like found in EVE with PLEX, they were able to let players acquire items from the cash shop early in the game’s life for cheap and as the game matured, the price naturally went up until now it’s attractive to buy gold with cash. Two years ago it was $1 for 1 gold, a year ago 5 gold per $1 and now 9 gold per $1.

The fact is you can’t run a modern MMO indefinitely on the initial box sale anymore. And since in NA/EU subscriptions are no longer a sole viable option to finance a game that leaves the cash shop and necessitates promoting the cash shop at every opportunity.

The problem that some have that since there was a time when you could play a modest amount and be able to afford new items off the cash shop for free and now you can’t. That was also a desired outcome from the way the exchange work, IMO. It hooked and then weened players away from paying nothing to actually through some cash ANet’s way. You all had a couple of years getting your free donut in the morning at the office, time to pony up a buck or two to the donut fund.

Consensus.2785:

Stooperdale.3560:

Let the company make their money. The gem shop does not infringe on the game play. Most micro transaction MMOs would have locked the wallet, the wardrobe, etc behind a gem store transaction. All the ‘quality of life’ improvements that do come through the gem store seem reasonable enough, and I don’t begrudge anyone their infinite mining pick if they want to buy it.

It does interfere with the game much more than people think, especially since the Gem Exchange is basically ANet selling gold for money. This is a sharp contrast to many other games (most subscription based) who actively discourage real world trading.

That’s nothing new in MMO’s, Eve online has been doing that for years, long before this game was released. Probably where ANet got the idea from. Was looking on the EQ2 website yesterday, a game I used to play a long time ago and noticed even they’re doing it now for EQ2 and EQ.

Better for people to buy from ANet than a RMTer. Not ideal for gaming but the better of the two evils. They don’t actually impact the game that much, certainly in the case of Eve online although the company themselves must do well out of it.

It’s certainly something that doesn’t bother me in MMO’s. Especially as I used to be a gamer that would spend 12 -16 hours a day gaming which of course gave me a huge advantage over those that could only spend a few hours a day gaming. Being able to essentially buy in-game currency just makes it easier for those that spend less time playing to be able to compete with those that can spend all day playing.

MMO’s have never been a level playing field, not even worth thinking about what is fair. Factors, such as time, internet connection speeds, lag adding RL currency to that isn’t really going to be that noticeable.

I played Eve online for years, even spent 100’s of £ on PLEX* to sell on the in-game market to raise in-game currency quickly. It has a minimal effect on the game as a whole.

*PLEX is equivalent to gems here.

So far the Gem store has failed to deliver enough armor skins into this game.

The LS model has failed to deliver enough content into the game.

So – I don’t really think it’s working.

Stooperdale.3560:

Let the company make their money. The gem shop does not infringe on the game play. Most micro transaction MMOs would have locked the wallet, the wardrobe, etc behind a gem store transaction. All the ‘quality of life’ improvements that do come through the gem store seem reasonable enough, and I don’t begrudge anyone their infinite mining pick if they want to buy it.

“Let the company make their money.” Sure there are many ways to do that, some better then other.

“The gem shop does not infringe on the game play.” It very mutch does, it makes it much more of a grind.

“Most micro transaction MMOs would have locked the wallet, the wardrobe, etc behind a gem store transaction.”
If it was a true F2P game (so without initial buy) I rather would have these one time unlocks as that would make it in fact more of a B2P game then having rewards / items linked to the cash-shop. Especially in a game that is all about cosmetics. In a game that is all about cosmetics, putting cosmetics in the cash-shop is the P2W equivalent of putting stats in a cash-shop that is about competition.

“All the ‘quality of life’ improvements that do come through the gem store seem reasonable enough” Like adding a lot of junk to the game so every body’s bags are filling up and then starting to sell the possibility to allow for more items per slot Yeah that does seem fair enough.. not.

“and I don’t begrudge anyone their infinite mining pick if they want to buy it.” Because having to grind to get it or buying it with real cash is much better then having some actual game-play (you know it’s a game) around it that rewards you this sort of items. Adding more to do to the game and giving the content nice rewards. No we would not want that.