Guild Wars 2

A decline in revenue is only natural after only getting temporary content and no news of an upcoming expansion. Once new mmo’s like Wildstar, Archeage, Black Desert, Everquest Next begin to release this game might become a ghost town.

Belenwyn.8674:

NcSoft recently published the result for the first quarter of 2014.

http://global.ncsoft.com/global/ir/prfile.aspx?ID=AF748C58-8D61-47E2-9B51-05A3D34FAF20

http://cast.calltogether.co.kr/ncsoft/2014_1Q/index.html (stream)

• GW2 sales 17.8 M €
• -31% YTY, -25% QTQ (in Korean Won)
• sales maintained healthy level after elimination of the special effect of 4Q 13
• about expansion: Arenabet is focused on the release in China and the time after it. In EU/NA the focus currently lies on the live service (could mean LW season 2 and more) They will talk more about the topic later on when everything (China and things in NA/EU) is completed. (my guess would be Christmas time 2014.)
• Launch in China was successful: good feedback and positive atmosphere
• In general NcSoft follows the strategy of diversification in regards to games to maintain steady revenues. Expansions are one element within this strategy.

if they are going to announce the expansion on christmas 2014 this is gonna be the first so called triple A mmo without expansion after 28 months and who knows when the expansion actually hit, it could go over 28 months. i think this is very bad for business unless they release good amount of content during LS2. if LS2 is going to be like ls1 which was not received very well by players you will see more lost in income than Q1 2014.
for now gw2 is still doing fine.

saye.9304:

Belenwyn.8674:

NcSoft recently published the result for the first quarter of 2014.

http://global.ncsoft.com/global/ir/prfile.aspx?ID=AF748C58-8D61-47E2-9B51-05A3D34FAF20

http://cast.calltogether.co.kr/ncsoft/2014_1Q/index.html (stream)

• GW2 sales 17.8 M €
• -31% YTY, -25% QTQ (in Korean Won)
• sales maintained healthy level after elimination of the special effect of 4Q 13
• about expansion: Arenabet is focused on the release in China and the time after it. In EU/NA the focus currently lies on the live service (could mean LW season 2 and more) They will talk more about the topic later on when everything (China and things in NA/EU) is completed. (my guess would be Christmas time 2014.)
• Launch in China was successful: good feedback and positive atmosphere
• In general NcSoft follows the strategy of diversification in regards to games to maintain steady revenues. Expansions are one element within this strategy.

if they are going to announce the expansion on christmas 2014 this is gonna be the first so called triple A mmo without expansion after 28 months and who knows when the expansion actually hit, it could go over 28 months. i think this is very bad for business unless they release good amount of content during LS2. if LS2 is going to be like ls1 which was not received very well by players you will see more lost in income than Q1 2014.
for now gw2 is still doing fine.

Also have to take in consideration players leaving for WS, AA, and WoW all release this year too. I don’t believe in the term “mmo killer”, but I think it’s pretty safe to say some of the player base will not give LS2 a chance as they will give these other games a try, return, or over GW2.

Belenwyn.8674:

Devata.6589:

Belenwyn.8674:

Devata.6589:

Nah, just go for expansions and drop the cash-shop. If it is expansion content that means we need to pay for it and then Anet can drop there cash-shop or at lease for 99% putting all those items in the game in stead of in a cash-shop. It would simply be better for the quality of the game. If it’s expansion-like they would need to keep focusing on the cash-shop for money with all the negative side-effects we have seen for over a year now.

Cash-Shop is aiming players willing to pay 15 € or much more per month. Expansion with costs is aiming players willing to spend 50 € each 12 or 24 months.. Depending on the numbers I would rather drop expansion with costs.

For a B2P game that would be every 12 months. The big question here however is how many people you would be able to keep (again, in the long run) with expansion vs with cash-shop.

I don’t know where you get the number of 15 from. But lets say that is correct then in the long run you would want to have 4 times the amount of players. And then I am not even talking about the fact that a more popular product (of a higher quality) will also sell more merchandise and royalties and be more asured of better sales of other games and so on.

For a company your goal is to keep as much people as possible, who pay as much as possible for your product. If you remove or reduce the cash-shop you will lose the money from people willing to pay more money than for expansions only. You can’t raise the price for the expansion to compensate this. This would cause even less people playing the game. As compensation you have to try to attract much more people, who are willing to buy an expansion or the game itself.

If you remove traditional expansions with costs and provide content for free or modules via cash-shop you avoid the problems mentioned above. In this scenario you can keep both factions: the expansion buyers and the cash-shop fans. The company can satisfy both

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now the question is, how much more people are there that want a higher quality vs those that are fine with being used as cash-cows and for how long. You expect that with the current approach (cash-shop focus) they will keep both players. What is imho a wrong assumption. Plus there are many many many F2P games that are now competing with them, way more then if they would have a true B2P model. That by itself might indicate that with a true B2P model they would have many more players.

Don’t forget that it’s the B2P model that made this franchise.

lordkrall.7241:

To be fair if it was supposed to be an informative thread only you would have used a different title.

Aren’t you going to respond to Dream Runner?

Andred.1087:

Belenwyn.8674:

Devata.6589:

Belenwyn.8674:

Devata.6589:

Nah, just go for expansions and drop the cash-shop. If it is expansion content that means we need to pay for it and then Anet can drop there cash-shop or at lease for 99% putting all those items in the game in stead of in a cash-shop. It would simply be better for the quality of the game. If it’s expansion-like they would need to keep focusing on the cash-shop for money with all the negative side-effects we have seen for over a year now.

Cash-Shop is aiming players willing to pay 15 € or much more per month. Expansion with costs is aiming players willing to spend 50 € each 12 or 24 months.. Depending on the numbers I would rather drop expansion with costs.

For a B2P game that would be every 12 months. The big question here however is how many people you would be able to keep (again, in the long run) with expansion vs with cash-shop.

I don’t know where you get the number of 15 from. But lets say that is correct then in the long run you would want to have 4 times the amount of players. And then I am not even talking about the fact that a more popular product (of a higher quality) will also sell more merchandise and royalties and be more asured of better sales of other games and so on.

For a company your goal is to keep as much people as possible, who pay as much as possible for your product. If you remove or reduce the cash-shop you will lose the money from people willing to pay more money than for expansions only. You can’t raise the price for the expansion to compensate this. This would cause even less people playing the game. As compensation you have to try to attract much more people, who are willing to buy an expansion or the game itself.

If you remove traditional expansions with costs and provide content for free or modules via cash-shop you avoid the problems mentioned above. In this scenario you can keep both factions: the expansion buyers and the cash-shop fans. The company can satisfy both

Everybody keeps talking about expansions and cash shop as if they’re incompatible business models. You could dedicate 3 people to keeping the cash shop stocked with fresh bullkitten for idiots to buy while the rest of the team works on real stuff. Not to mention the gems->gold conversion allows you to buy almost anything in the game with real money, an offer that many, many people will continue to take.

Oow you can combine the two but those wanting a quality game still have a problem.
Lets for example see at what I like. I like to go into the work and work towards goals. That can be a collection of mini’s, a nice looking skin, a nice color and so on.

Now see what we have mainly because of the cash-shop focus. Mini’s are mainly a gold-grind (what benefits the cash-shop because of gems > gold), or you buy them directly with cash. Then we have all the temporary living story stuff. Why is it temporary? Maybe so they have a new theme to release stuff with in the cash-shop. Of course temporary available because you want to create a feeling of urgency. However me as not-gem-buyer does also feels that urgency but does not act on it by buying gems still I do dislike it. Collecting mini’s is just not fun anymore.

Skins? Same story there. Dyes? Again same story. Would they ever introduce mounts while still focusing on the cash-shop as main resource.. then we would likely see the same.

I just want a game to play it, so have everything in the game. Not have half the stuff locked behind a cash-shop effectively skipping away part of the game-play.

I am very willing to pay for the content but don’t want to pay for a commercial.

Why can’t I go to a in-game barber for 15 silver? Because they sell that stuff in the cash-shop.

Could you combine the two. Yeah when you only put things in the cash-shop that really don’t belong in the game-world. Name-changers, full makeover kits (except if it’s barbapapa online), seks-changers, guild-name changers and maybe (if provided enough (whatever you have most, races or classes) character-slots. But thats about it. As soon as you start selling ingame stuff you do effect the game.

That means that you do lose all those players who want everything ingame.. those looking for a true B2P model.

So you can combine the two but it will not result in the same game and so you will most likely end up with less players.

papryk.6273:

Kal Spiro.9745:

Cloudwalkernz.1328:

In the defense of the OP, he(or she) is only pointing out the facts.

However, what happened in the parent company (NcSoft) does not mean Anet is not performing well. First of all the a/c is consolidated and did not show how Anet is doing separately.

Further more according to this Asian financial article http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2014/05/123_157346.html, the lower than expected profit is largely due to poor result from the Lineage series.

Given NcSoft has a strong line-up for the second half of the year (Wildstar, Sword & Soul, etc), the revenue should pick up for the final quarter of the year.

Yes, but what is the point of the thread? Why even bother to bring this up at all? What conclusions are we expected to garner from this information?

Pointless thread is pointless, moving on.

Nope…it’s just an informative thread. If it’s pointless to you then don’t read and move on. Some can be interested reading ncsoft revenues.

It would have been informative (kinda), except for the post title you chose – and lack of any real informed description.

Now its just another sky is falling thread that is obviously intended solely to incite irrational hyperbole about something a lot of people really don’t understand to begin with.

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.

I see assertions. Nothing more.

Oh wait… there’s a tidbit of conspiracy theory in there.

IndigoSundown.5419:

VOLKON.1290:

GW2 had more a more modest reduction from 33,555 million to 25,142 million (while their focus was pretty heavy on the China release). … Considering the China release isn’t accounted for in there at all I think ANet isn’t in panic mode.

Certainly not in panic mode. However, a drop of 8413 MN KW represents a drop of ~$8.2 MN (at just over 1,000 KW to the dollar), approximately a 25% decrease. This might represent an acceptable decline if ANet’s focus was more on the China release than on maintaining EU and NA sales — or, it might be at least a concern.

I think (this is an assumption of course) that when you consider the losses from Lineage vs those from GW2 with a new release looming that there’d be far more concern over what happened with the Lineage base.

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.

I see assertions. Nothing more.

Oh wait… there’s a tidbit of conspiracy theory in there.

It’s no assertion, it’s a fact that I do like the game less because of those examples. And with me others (thats also a fact as you can find multiple people on the forum saying such things). Now you could argue that all those things have nothing to do with the cash-shop focus. Without a cash-shop we would still have a gold-grind, mini’s would simply almost not exist and so on. But there is of course also something like common sense.

Not sure what part is conspiracy theory.. the marketing techniques?

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.

I see assertions. Nothing more.

Oh wait… there’s a tidbit of conspiracy theory in there.

It’s no assertion, it’s a fact that I do like the game less because of those examples. And with me others (thats also a fact as you can find multiple people on the forum saying such things). Now you could argue that all those things have nothing to do with the cash-shop focus. Without a cash-shop we would still have a gold-grind, mini’s would simply almost not exist and so on. But there is of course also something like common sense.

Not sure what part is conspiracy theory.. the marketing techniques?

Ah, you’re confusing something you don’t like with hurting the overall game. I see.

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

It’s a pretty big one considering the cash shop model is also applied to games like those on facebook, and mmos that also include a MONTHLY subscription. RFO was one such game until Crapmasters failed to maintain distro rights from the game’s owning company.

Aidan Savage.2078:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

It’s a pretty big one considering the cash shop model is also applied to games like those on facebook, and mmos that also include a MONTHLY subscription. RFO was one such game until Crapmasters failed to maintain distro rights from the game’s owning company.

I agree, it is a pretty kittenertion indeed. It’s also still without evidence and based solely on opinion. If he wants to show any validity to the claim he’s going to have to show me the data. Show me the droves of people leaving GW2 because of the cosmetic cash shop. I have no reason to take his word for it, especially when there’s absolutely nothing in the cash shop that detriments my play in any way, shape or form.

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.

I see assertions. Nothing more.

Oh wait… there’s a tidbit of conspiracy theory in there.

It’s no assertion, it’s a fact that I do like the game less because of those examples. And with me others (thats also a fact as you can find multiple people on the forum saying such things). Now you could argue that all those things have nothing to do with the cash-shop focus. Without a cash-shop we would still have a gold-grind, mini’s would simply almost not exist and so on. But there is of course also something like common sense.

Not sure what part is conspiracy theory.. the marketing techniques?

Ah, you’re confusing something you don’t like with hurting the overall game. I see.

So it hurts the game at least for me and some other people and by that hurting the game in general.

And as you can say that if something is good or bad is subjective (especially if it’s about fun) you can then indeed also say it’s an assumption to say many or most people would disagree that having something like mini’s in the cash-shop is better for the game as having it in the game behind content so you add the gameplay of working towards those items.

Indeed you can say that is an assumption.

Then it’s up to everybody to decide for themselves what they think that is better.

So use my examples as you wish. You wish to think it’s better or wish to believe most people think it’s better with the cash-shop focus things like that then you are completely free to believe so.

Where’s B&S, oh wait…………

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.

I see assertions. Nothing more.

Oh wait… there’s a tidbit of conspiracy theory in there.

It’s no assertion, it’s a fact that I do like the game less because of those examples. And with me others (thats also a fact as you can find multiple people on the forum saying such things). Now you could argue that all those things have nothing to do with the cash-shop focus. Without a cash-shop we would still have a gold-grind, mini’s would simply almost not exist and so on. But there is of course also something like common sense.

Not sure what part is conspiracy theory.. the marketing techniques?

Ah, you’re confusing something you don’t like with hurting the overall game. I see.

So it hurts the game at least for me and some other people and by that hurting the game in general.

No. No, no, no. You cannot make that leap logically at all. You cannot claim that because it allegedly hurts you it’s allegedly hurting everyone. It’s not hurting me at all. You are falsified.

Aidan Savage.2078:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

It’s a pretty big one considering the cash shop model is also applied to games like those on facebook, and mmos that also include a MONTHLY subscription. RFO was one such game until Crapmasters failed to maintain distro rights from the game’s owning company.

Oow I don’t say that there are people who are fine with a cash-shop. I just say that there are also many people who prefer none of those things and then the question is, what group would be bigger for ArenaNet.

About the games that have a sub-model AND a cash-shop. I don’t know about RFO but I know that for example WoW has it. However they do not have a focus on it (and focus is the keyword here). They have mainly out-game items (name-changers and so on) They do have some ingame-items as well (very bad for a sub-based game) however that is still very limited, 11 mini’s, 7 mounts and 3 helms. With likely hundreds of those things in the game that is very limited. If GW2 would have a cash-shop like that I would not be complaining (but it can’t because it’s using it’s cash-shop to generate it’s income).

So that can’t be compared with a cash-shop of a game that focuses on the cash-shop to generate it’s money.

VOLKON.1290:

Aidan Savage.2078:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

It’s a pretty big one considering the cash shop model is also applied to games like those on facebook, and mmos that also include a MONTHLY subscription. RFO was one such game until Crapmasters failed to maintain distro rights from the game’s owning company.

I agree, it is a pretty kittenertion indeed. It’s also still without evidence and based solely on opinion. If he wants to show any validity to the claim he’s going to have to show me the data. Show me the droves of people leaving GW2 because of the cosmetic cash shop. I have no reason to take his word for it, especially when there’s absolutely nothing in the cash shop that detriments my play in any way, shape or form.

I can not provide that information just like you can’t. I do see many people leave but of course I do not have the complete numbers just like you don’t have the numbers that to disproof it. So you ask for something you know nobody can deliver, however that does not yet means it’s not correct. It only means there is no date to proof it.

Besides I dear to bed that many of the people who do not like the game and might not like it because of effects from the cash-shop don’t even them-self directly link it to the cash-shop. Somebody who liked to hunt down mini’s in mmo’s might simply say he dislikes the game-play.. there is nothing to do. Not even linking it to the fact that mini’s are almost only cash-shop items. As an example.

Lastly you now do look at your own game-play as sort of proof or at least reason to disbelieve my statements. What is funny because you stated that that was not a valid source.

Anyway, yeah it may not hurt any type of gamer. I however did give direct examples how it does hurt some. So understanding that should not be that hard.

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.

I see assertions. Nothing more.

Oh wait… there’s a tidbit of conspiracy theory in there.

It’s no assertion, it’s a fact that I do like the game less because of those examples. And with me others (thats also a fact as you can find multiple people on the forum saying such things). Now you could argue that all those things have nothing to do with the cash-shop focus. Without a cash-shop we would still have a gold-grind, mini’s would simply almost not exist and so on. But there is of course also something like common sense.

Not sure what part is conspiracy theory.. the marketing techniques?

Ah, you’re confusing something you don’t like with hurting the overall game. I see.

So it hurts the game at least for me and some other people and by that hurting the game in general.

No. No, no, no. You cannot make that leap logically at all. You cannot claim that because it allegedly hurts you it’s allegedly hurting everyone. It’s not hurting me at all. You are falsified.

It did not say it hurts everybody. I do say that the more people it hurts the worse it is for a game. Thats the logic here.

Anyway, the ‘show me the date’ argument when you know nobody can provide the date is one that a some people always come up with. If thats what you want to believe be my guess.

I just state some facts, some opinions and some logic. I would love to have some numbers to be able to do some real calculations (see me first post in the thread) however the ‘show me the data’ excuse will always be valid as you will never ever be able to get the data… nobody can. We are comparing 2 situation against each other. Fact is that there is only one of the situations in existence so you will never have the data of the other situation to compare it to.

nobody has that information and will get that information. The best we could do is ask all players and ex players what they like, what they dislike and why they dislike what and why they left.

Then we have to take all business decisions and see if there are comparisons. That would be the closes we could get (and we really can’t get that) but you would still be able to use the argument ‘you don’t know what would have happened in the other situation’.

So it’s a very nice to use argument. Like I said in the end it’s up to anybody to use there own common sense.

And yet, for the people that do have the numbers, they haven’t felt the need to change it, so far. And funny enough, those same people tried it both ways.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

And yet, for the people that do have the numbers, they haven’t felt the need to change it, so far. And funny enough, those same people tried it both ways.

Nobody has those numbers. Thats why it’s such a nice argument.

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.

I see assertions. Nothing more.

Oh wait… there’s a tidbit of conspiracy theory in there.

It’s no assertion, it’s a fact that I do like the game less because of those examples. And with me others (thats also a fact as you can find multiple people on the forum saying such things). Now you could argue that all those things have nothing to do with the cash-shop focus. Without a cash-shop we would still have a gold-grind, mini’s would simply almost not exist and so on. But there is of course also something like common sense.

Not sure what part is conspiracy theory.. the marketing techniques?

Ah, you’re confusing something you don’t like with hurting the overall game. I see.

(s)He listed mounts not being introduced into the game as an argument. His entire argument is invalid simply because of that sentence I saw regarding mounts. MOUNTS WILL NOT HAPPEN WITH 15+ WAYPOINTS PER ZONE PEOPLE DEAL WITH IT.

If anything the way the cash-shop works in this game it’s probably one of the better ones. Granted that the watchwork pick gives an advantage over the other cash shop picks (for no reason) for the same cost of the molten alliance and bone pick given that they charged 1k gems for both of them at some point (yes the molten alliance pick only cost 800 gems at one point yadda yadda yadda).

Travis the Terrible.4739:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.

I see assertions. Nothing more.

Oh wait… there’s a tidbit of conspiracy theory in there.

It’s no assertion, it’s a fact that I do like the game less because of those examples. And with me others (thats also a fact as you can find multiple people on the forum saying such things). Now you could argue that all those things have nothing to do with the cash-shop focus. Without a cash-shop we would still have a gold-grind, mini’s would simply almost not exist and so on. But there is of course also something like common sense.

Not sure what part is conspiracy theory.. the marketing techniques?

Ah, you’re confusing something you don’t like with hurting the overall game. I see.

(s)He listed mounts not being introduced into the game as an argument. His entire argument is invalid simply because of that sentence I saw regarding mounts. MOUNTS WILL NOT HAPPEN WITH 15+ WAYPOINTS PER ZONE PEOPLE DEAL WITH IT.

If anything the way the cash-shop works in this game it’s probably one of the better ones. Granted that the watchwork pick gives an advantage over the other cash shop picks (for no reason) for the same cost of the molten alliance and bone pick given that they charged 1k gems for both of them at some point (yes the molten alliance pick only cost 800 gems at one point yadda yadda yadda).

Now read that sentence where I talked about mounts again. As I never said what you stated as proof that I was wrong. (and even if I had one statement that was wrong that would not mean other statements are wrong.. but that doesn’t matter now)

With your second paragrah you pretty much agree with me “If anything the way the cash-shop works in this game it’s probably one of the better ones.” You do see that with that line you agree in saying cash-shops do influence the game (in a negative way). By saying that GW2 at least is one of the better ones… So where the cash-shop influence the game the least or at least for your preferred game-play the least in a negative way.

You seem to be referring to P2W (with your example) as a negative but what is pay to win? It’s negative if it’s influence the game in any way. You basically say why it hurts you personally. But mini’s, skins and so on are just as much game-play for one as killing or farming is for somebody else. As you refer to the pick you might prefer farming. And even then, don’t you mind that everything is a gold-grind in stead of really faming for items and mats?

Oow and if mounts would ever be introduces I would also expect way-points (in new maps at least) to be reduced. But even if they didn’t that would not yet mean you could not introduce mounts just for fun (this being a game and all) Just for the record.

Devata.6589:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

And yet, for the people that do have the numbers, they haven’t felt the need to change it, so far. And funny enough, those same people tried it both ways.

Nobody has those numbers. Thats why it’s such a nice argument.

ANet has those numbers and has tried it both ways. With Guild Wars 1 that had paid expansions and a limited cash shop and Guild Wars 2 with its financial model. When ANet looks at the money coming in, the number of people logging in each day and how many have stopped logging in versus the numbers from Guild Wars 1 and are satisfied with it, then that’s a good indication that their financial model of b2p and cash shop is working.

Astral Projections.7320:

Devata.6589:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

And yet, for the people that do have the numbers, they haven’t felt the need to change it, so far. And funny enough, those same people tried it both ways.

Nobody has those numbers. Thats why it’s such a nice argument.

ANet has those numbers and has tried it both ways. With Guild Wars 1 that had paid expansions and a limited cash shop and Guild Wars 2 with its financial model. When ANet looks at the money coming in, the number of people logging in each day and how many have stopped logging in versus the numbers from Guild Wars 1 and are satisfied with it, then that’s a good indication that their financial model of b2p and cash shop is working.

Anet does not have the numbers as to how many people are still playing next year and how much they are spending. Anet does also not have the numbers as of how many people would still be playing and actively buying expansions if they would have gone for that approach.

Yeah ArenaNet does have the numbers of what how successful they where with GW1. And that was so successful that they where able to start making GW2. That we all know.

You can also not directly compare GW1 and two but of course you could work with percentages to get an idea.

They do have the current numbers for GW2 and the old numbers for GW1 however what I have been saying is that this model is good for the short run (about 3 years, one expansion but keeping the same model might up that a little) and Anet does not have the future numbers. And when they do (in a few years from now) and it would have not worked out so great you could still say “you can’t proof that it would have worked out with a expansion-based model” as nobody has those numbers even. Even if it did work out financially you would still not be able to compare it to what they would have been earning if they went for Expansion focus. All we know now is that it was a huge success for GW1 else we did not have GW2.

Devata.6589:

It did not say it hurts everybody.

Hurting the game, “in general,” means hurting it for everyone.

Devata.6589:

So it hurts the game at least for me and some other people and by that hurting the game in general.

You might want to avoid using this, “logic,” because it leads to impossible to resolve contradictions when someone else says that the expansion model would hurt the game for them and so the game in general would be hurt.

Currently the only people with access to spending habits, retention rates, rate of departure relative to gem store releases, player base purchase rates for expansions, and so on have used both the cash shop method and the expansion method. They have, currently at least, decided, with access to said data, that the cash shop method works better for them. I’ve seen nothing from anyone to counter that. “I prefer paid expansions over a cash shop based business model,” certainly doesn’t do it.

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Aidan Savage.2078:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

It’s a pretty big one considering the cash shop model is also applied to games like those on facebook, and mmos that also include a MONTHLY subscription. RFO was one such game until Crapmasters failed to maintain distro rights from the game’s owning company.

I agree, it is a pretty kittenertion indeed. It’s also still without evidence and based solely on opinion. If he wants to show any validity to the claim he’s going to have to show me the data. Show me the droves of people leaving GW2 because of the cosmetic cash shop. I have no reason to take his word for it, especially when there’s absolutely nothing in the cash shop that detriments my play in any way, shape or form.

I can not provide that information just like you can’t. I do see many people leave but of course I do not have the complete numbers just like you don’t have the numbers that to disproof it. So you ask for something you know nobody can deliver, however that does not yet means it’s not correct. It only means there is no date to proof it.

Besides I dear to bed that many of the people who do not like the game and might not like it because of effects from the cash-shop don’t even them-self directly link it to the cash-shop. Somebody who liked to hunt down mini’s in mmo’s might simply say he dislikes the game-play.. there is nothing to do. Not even linking it to the fact that mini’s are almost only cash-shop items. As an example.

Lastly you now do look at your own game-play as sort of proof or at least reason to disbelieve my statements. What is funny because you stated that that was not a valid source.

Anyway, yeah it may not hurt any type of gamer. I however did give direct examples how it does hurt some. So understanding that should not be that hard.

In other words, I can’t disprove the Easter Bunny, therefore he must exist.

This is what happens when I crash “early” without checking NCSOFT’s site.

Two things jump out at me that I’m pretty sure haven’t been talked about among the doom and gloom.

First, royalties are the largest single source of income, beating out even Lineage. This is the result of Blade and Soul’s success in China.

Second, GW2 is still 2nd in terms of direct income from a named game, behind Lineage and in front of Aion which looks stable for now.

Now I’m not counseling that “all is well” …

… but it’s not the doom and gloom some always read into these quarterly reports.

Yes, year over year the game’s revenue for 1Q is off by 30.9%, which isn’t all that bad considering the game is 19 months old at the end of 1Q14.

The downturn in Europe is disturbing while the upturn here is curious.

Overall, here is the chart of income per game according to NCSOFT’s quarterly reports going back to 1Q05.

Ashen.2907:

Devata.6589:

It did not say it hurts everybody.

Hurting the game, “in general,” means hurting it for everyone.

Devata.6589:

So it hurts the game at least for me and some other people and by that hurting the game in general.

You might want to avoid using this, “logic,” because it leads to impossible to resolve contradictions when someone else says that the expansion model would hurt the game for them and so the game in general would be hurt.

Currently the only people with access to spending habits, retention rates, rate of departure relative to gem store releases, player base purchase rates for expansions, and so on have used both the cash shop method and the expansion method. They have, currently at least, decided, with access to said data, that the cash shop method works better for them. I’ve seen nothing from anyone to counter that. “I prefer paid expansions over a cash shop based business model,” certainly doesn’t do it.

If I would take a car and reduce it’s performance but leaving everything else in tact you could see that as a factual way of ‘hurting the car’. It has lower performance. However if you don’t care for that performance it might not hurt you as owner of the care. Did you care about it then it would hurt you.

Now those people who don’t care about the performance might still buy the care but those who care might not. So it hurts the car in general.

That is exactly the same. I hope this example makes it more clear what I am saying.

“You might want to avoid using this, “logic,” because it leads to impossible to resolve contradictions when someone else says that the expansion model would hurt the game for them and so the game in general would be hurt."
That is true, so the question is what would hurt the most or the least people. And then we are at the point were we where to begin with and we do not have the data.

You could for example say that there are people who can’t effort the expansion. Problem is, they might not be an interesting revenue in the first place also not in a F2P game. They might still be interesting to fill up the world but that’s only the case if you don’t have enough paying people to do so.

However in general I do think it’s fair to say that at least pure from a game-point the cash-shop effects the game more in a negative way as an expansion approach because with expansions you are not influencing the game itself, you just try to make the best game. With the cash-shop your decisions for in the game always need to answer to the question “how to we get people to buy gems”. With the expansion you have to answer the question “how do we get people to buy the expansions”. I do feel the second has a more positive effect on the game then the first.

DarcShriek.5829:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Aidan Savage.2078:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

It’s a pretty big one considering the cash shop model is also applied to games like those on facebook, and mmos that also include a MONTHLY subscription. RFO was one such game until Crapmasters failed to maintain distro rights from the game’s owning company.

I agree, it is a pretty kittenertion indeed. It’s also still without evidence and based solely on opinion. If he wants to show any validity to the claim he’s going to have to show me the data. Show me the droves of people leaving GW2 because of the cosmetic cash shop. I have no reason to take his word for it, especially when there’s absolutely nothing in the cash shop that detriments my play in any way, shape or form.

I can not provide that information just like you can’t. I do see many people leave but of course I do not have the complete numbers just like you don’t have the numbers that to disproof it. So you ask for something you know nobody can deliver, however that does not yet means it’s not correct. It only means there is no date to proof it.

Besides I dear to bed that many of the people who do not like the game and might not like it because of effects from the cash-shop don’t even them-self directly link it to the cash-shop. Somebody who liked to hunt down mini’s in mmo’s might simply say he dislikes the game-play.. there is nothing to do. Not even linking it to the fact that mini’s are almost only cash-shop items. As an example.

Lastly you now do look at your own game-play as sort of proof or at least reason to disbelieve my statements. What is funny because you stated that that was not a valid source.

Anyway, yeah it may not hurt any type of gamer. I however did give direct examples how it does hurt some. So understanding that should not be that hard.

In other words, I can’t disprove the Easter Bunny, therefore he must exist.

No, they want me to disprove the Easter Bunny by showing them it does not exist.

All I am saying is that yes in that same way they can’t disprove it exist.

So it’s a none argument.

Devata.6589:

If I would take a car and reduce it’s performance but leaving everything else in tact you could see that as a factual way of ‘hurting the car’. It has lower performance. However if you don’t care for that performance it might not hurt you as owner of the care. Did you care about it then it would hurt you.

Now those people who don’t care about the performance might still buy the care but those who care might not. So it hurts the car in general.

And it is very easy to make the argument that the performance of the game is better served by a cash shop model than by an expansion model.

Devata.6589:

and we do not have the data.

But the company who does is the one who decided to backburner the paid expansion model in favor of the cash shop.

Devata.6589:

However in general I do think it’s fair to say that at least pure from a game-point the cash-shop effects the game more in a negative way

Of course it is fair to say it, being fair doesn’t make it factually accurate though.

Devata.6589:

No, they want me to disprove the Easter Bunny by showing them it does not exist.

All I am saying is that yes in that same way they can’t disprove it exist.

So it’s a none argument.

Nope. You made the assertion so the burden of proof is on you.

Behellagh.1468:

This is what happens when I crash “early” without checking NCSOFT’s site.

Two things jump out at me that I’m pretty sure haven’t been talked about among the doom and gloom.

First, royalties are the largest single source of income, beating out even Lineage. This is the result of Blade and Soul’s success in China.

Second, GW2 is still 2nd in terms of direct income from a named game, behind Lineage and in front of Aion which looks stable for now.

Now I’m not counseling that “all is well” …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro

… but it’s not the doom and gloom some always read into these quarterly reports.

Yes, year over year the game’s revenue for 1Q is off by 30.9%, which isn’t all that bad considering the game is 19 months old at the end of 1Q14.

The downturn in Europe is disturbing while the upturn here is curious.

Overall, here is the chart of income per game according to NCSOFT’s quarterly reports going back to 1Q05.

If anything that chart would seem to proof what I am saying as much as I possibly can with data.
The peak you see at the beginning of GW2’s release are most likely from the box-sales. If only half would stay to buy expansions you would already have a huge profit over the cash-shop.

Or it would disproof it as it would even be way more profitable then what I said as I expected the cash-shop to be more profitable in the short run and expansions-based model more in the long run. So I do have some doubts that this might not give all details (net income?). This chart would be almost to good to be truth for what I am saying.

It does however also nicely show how GW1 stays pretty much on the same level of income (even having a spike on there last expansion) and then after that starting to decline. Proving that expansions can keep income pretty stable.

I will point out that this quarter still has more income that the last 2 1/2 years of reported GW income (since they stopped breaking out it’s numbers when GW2 came out).

I don’t disagree with the notion that there are income spikes from expansions. I’m just saying the numbers don’t show a pressing need for one. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a major content patch, expansion or LS, for this holiday season.

Ashen.2907:

Devata.6589:

If I would take a car and reduce it’s performance but leaving everything else in tact you could see that as a factual way of ‘hurting the car’. It has lower performance. However if you don’t care for that performance it might not hurt you as owner of the care. Did you care about it then it would hurt you.

Now those people who don’t care about the performance might still buy the care but those who care might not. So it hurts the car in general.

And it is very easy to make the argument that the performance of the game is better served by a cash shop model than by an expansion model.

Yeah like I said. What is important is what group is bigger. Those who consider the one better or those who consider the other better.

What you are trying to say there I already said with my example of how you could argue that F2P games have more players.

Ashen.2907:

Devata.6589:

and we do not have the data.

But the company who does is the one who decided to backburner the paid expansion model in favor of the cash shop.

They do not have any ‘what if’ data. Just as I do not have that data.

Ashen.2907:

Devata.6589:

However in general I do think it’s fair to say that at least pure from a game-point the cash-shop effects the game more in a negative way

Of course it is fair to say it, being fair doesn’t make it factually accurate though.

Logically it seems to be true. And thats the best we can get here.

Ashen.2907:

Devata.6589:

No, they want me to disprove the Easter Bunny by showing them it does not exist.

All I am saying is that yes in that same way they can’t disprove it exist.

So it’s a none argument.

Nope. You made the assertion so the burden of proof is on you.

Haha that one again (did see that argument a lot). No because one might be right and one might be true. That does not change depending on who made the assertion. None of us can at this moment proof or disprove anything. Any data any of us can provide (see for example that chart) can easily be disputed with another argument about not having all data. From both sides.

Anyway I already said that the whole ‘you don’t have the data so you can’t proof it’ is a great argument. Especially when you refuse to use common sense or logical thinking.

It’s indeed the perfect example of your Easter Bunny.

So do with what I am saying what you want. Take it for notice or ignore it or whatever.

Behellagh.1468:

I will point out that this quarter still has more income that the last 2 1/2 years of reported GW income (since they stopped breaking out it’s numbers when GW2 came out).

I don’t disagree with the notion that there are income spikes from expansions. I’m just saying the numbers don’t show a pressing need for one. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a major content patch, expansion or LS, for this holiday season.

I knew this one was coming. Yeah GW2 is much bigger (and that B2P model is what made this franchise so big). That would of course also be the case if it was B2P + expansions in stead of the cash-shop focus it turned into. so you have to see those numbers in proportion with the GW1 numbers, not in absolutes.

I also do expect to see another spike if they release an expansions even if they keep the current cash-shop focus. However the question would be how they manage to keep the line up relevance to the original sales and setting that against how they did that with GW1.

Only think we can see now is that GW1 kept it’s income almost at the same level as release with the expansions after one year and GW2 dropped a lot with there current approach.

Devata.6589:

They do not have any ‘what if’ data. Just as I do not have that data.

Not, “what if,” but rather comparative analysis. They have data on both cash shop and expansion models’ impact in their games. With said data they have opted, for now at least, to continue with a cash shop model.

Devata.6589:

Logically it seems to be true. And thats the best we can get here.

Except that what you are presenting is not logic but rather personal bias.

Devata.6589:

Haha that one again (did see that argument a lot). No because one might be right and one might be true. That does not change depending on who made the assertion. None of us can at this moment proof or disprove anything. Any data any of us can provide (see for example that chart) can easily be disputed with another argument about not having all data. From both sides.

You are the only one, that I have seen, making an assertion here. If others are not making an assertion they have nothing to prove. If you state something as fact then you should be able to support it with facts rather than just personal opinion. If you cannot do so then you might want to say something like, “I think that the cash shop hurts the game,” or, “I don’t like the impact of the cash shop on the game,” rather than things like, “you seem to be forgetting that the cash shop hurts the game,” which implies that such is a fact (that is known to all even if they “forget”).

Devata.6589:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

And yet, for the people that do have the numbers, they haven’t felt the need to change it, so far. And funny enough, those same people tried it both ways.

Nobody has those numbers. Thats why it’s such a nice argument.

You missed the point.

ArenaNet has those numbers. Thus, the statement about not changing the design. Lol.

It is common to see posters making the argument that, “X is hurting the game in a general sense.” This is a form of bias caused because of the poster’s dislike of X. What such posters are really saying is, “I dislike X.” However, some posters seem to think that a more general statement carries more weight. It really doesn’t, but the nature of the bias is such that the poster may have a hard time seeing that.

What’s true is that almost every decision made by the developer is going to cheese off someone. Every decision, from business model to design approach, art style, presence or absence of features and anything else you care to name has the potential to cost revenue. Companies cannot consider the impact of business decisions on any given individual preference or even small group preference. They’d be stuck on a fool’s errand of trying to find a path to please everyone. While the loss of revenue from any one player hurts the company, that loss is insignificant. Loss of revenue even from an entire demographic might be insignificant. The developer is going to focus on general trends, looking at the macro level, they’re not going to focus on the micro level, which is where every poster on these boards is — whether we believe it or not.

Ashen.2907:

Devata.6589:

They do not have any ‘what if’ data. Just as I do not have that data.

Not, “what if,” but rather comparative analysis. They have data on both cash shop and expansion models’ impact in their games. With said data they have opted, for now at least, to continue with a cash shop model.

Devata.6589:

Logically it seems to be true. And thats the best we can get here.

Except that what you are presenting is not logic but rather personal bias.

Devata.6589:

Haha that one again (did see that argument a lot). No because one might be right and one might be true. That does not change depending on who made the assertion. None of us can at this moment proof or disprove anything. Any data any of us can provide (see for example that chart) can easily be disputed with another argument about not having all data. From both sides.

You are the only one, that I have seen, making an assertion here. If others are not making an assertion they have nothing to prove. If you state something as fact then you should be able to support it with facts rather than just personal opinion. If you cannot do so then you might want to say something like, “I think that the cash shop hurts the game,” or, “I don’t like the impact of the cash shop on the game,” rather than things like, “you seem to be forgetting that the cash shop hurts the game,” which implies that such is a fact (that is known to all even if they “forget”).

Yeah the idea that the question “how to get people to buy gems” is worse for the game then “how do we get people to buy expansions” is indeed ‘me personal bias.’ and the examples are as well and there is no logic involved at all.

I do say I think that is better explaining why. Some say they don’t think it’s better. Thats just as much of an assertion. I just was the first to come with it.

Anyway this is a great way to try is destroy a discussion. Asking for data you know is almost impossible to get and then state you don’t have to provide any yourself.

All nice and well but it leads no nothing and it does also not proof you are right.

And if you then really want data then somebody just listed a nice chart. That is the best data we have so far (if it’s valid) and seems to proof my point as much as possible. So there is your data.

https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/151443/1q14_NCSoft.jpg

Now if you want to continue the discussion give your idea’s and logic. Then you would really add useful information to the thread.

As an investor, I thank you for this info. If NCSofts price drops below a certain threshold I’ll be buying a nice bit. Right now it’s still too high of a price for me to buy the quantities I want. I haven’t looked at NCSoft’s stock in good while since it was over 200 a while back. You can’t make decent returns from a high priced stock unless you can afford massive quantities. At the very least I would appreciate more posts like this.

Behellagh.1468:

Yes, year over year the game’s revenue for 1Q is off by 30.9%, which isn’t all that bad considering the game is 19 months old at the end of 1Q14.

The downturn in Europe is disturbing while the upturn here is curious.

Overall, here is the chart of income per game according to NCSOFT’s quarterly reports going back to 1Q05.

This chart is very interesting. It shows that Aion has performed better than GW2, over a 6 quarter period so far. I’m not sure if the chart even takes inflation into account, so it could be performing even better than what is appearing. One thing that I’m noticing is up until 2012 Aion had been releasing expansions every year or so, then when the new round of AAA MMOs hit, it tapers off, even though they did an expansion in 2013, which seems to have given them a boost.

With how much revenue GW2’s gemshop/box sales has been bringing in since launch, it might make sense for ANet to hold off on expansions, so that they’re wider intervals. If they can get some major overhauls and additions into their expansions (like the next directx?, new contenents?), maybe it’ll be like a release of an entirely new game with huge revenue spikes similar to launch. That’s all speculation, of course, but it’d be interesting to see if it could turn out that way nonetheless.

Shockwave.1230:

Behellagh.1468:

Yes, year over year the game’s revenue for 1Q is off by 30.9%, which isn’t all that bad considering the game is 19 months old at the end of 1Q14.

The downturn in Europe is disturbing while the upturn here is curious.

Overall, here is the chart of income per game according to NCSOFT’s quarterly reports going back to 1Q05.

This chart is very interesting. It shows that Aion has performed better than GW2, over a 6 quarter period so far. I’m not sure if the chart even takes inflation into account, so it could be performing even better than what is appearing. One thing that I’m noticing is up until 2012 Aion had been releasing expansions every year or so, then when the new round of AAA MMOs hit, it tapers off, even though they did an expansion in 2013, which seems to have given them a boost.

With how much revenue GW2’s gemshop/box sales has been bringing in since launch, it might make sense for ANet to hold off on expansions, so that they’re wider intervals. If they can get some major overhauls and additions into their expansions (like the next directx?, new contenents?), maybe it’ll be like a release of an entirely new game with huge revenue spikes similar to launch. That’s all speculation, of course, but it’d be interesting to see if it could turn out that way nonetheless.

But if you wait to long (and have the cash-shop influence in the meanwhile) you might have to many people who walked away forever. There will be a spike with an expansion for sure but if it will be close to GW2’s original sales? Besides that GW1 seems to proof that you can use a normal expansion (the one you can push out in a year) to stay at the level of original sales.. Of course only of you manage to keep your customers happy. (why I say, no cash-shop influence)

Devata.6589:

Travis the Terrible.4739:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.

I see assertions. Nothing more.

Oh wait… there’s a tidbit of conspiracy theory in there.

It’s no assertion, it’s a fact that I do like the game less because of those examples. And with me others (thats also a fact as you can find multiple people on the forum saying such things). Now you could argue that all those things have nothing to do with the cash-shop focus. Without a cash-shop we would still have a gold-grind, mini’s would simply almost not exist and so on. But there is of course also something like common sense.

Not sure what part is conspiracy theory.. the marketing techniques?

Ah, you’re confusing something you don’t like with hurting the overall game. I see.

(s)He listed mounts not being introduced into the game as an argument. His entire argument is invalid simply because of that sentence I saw regarding mounts. MOUNTS WILL NOT HAPPEN WITH 15+ WAYPOINTS PER ZONE PEOPLE DEAL WITH IT.

If anything the way the cash-shop works in this game it’s probably one of the better ones. Granted that the watchwork pick gives an advantage over the other cash shop picks (for no reason) for the same cost of the molten alliance and bone pick given that they charged 1k gems for both of them at some point (yes the molten alliance pick only cost 800 gems at one point yadda yadda yadda).

Now read that sentence where I talked about mounts again. As I never said what you stated as proof that I was wrong. (and even if I had one statement that was wrong that would not mean other statements are wrong.. but that doesn’t matter now)

With your second paragrah you pretty much agree with me “If anything the way the cash-shop works in this game it’s probably one of the better ones.” You do see that with that line you agree in saying cash-shops do influence the game (in a negative way). By saying that GW2 at least is one of the better ones… So where the cash-shop influence the game the least or at least for your preferred game-play the least in a negative way.

You seem to be referring to P2W (with your example) as a negative but what is pay to win? It’s negative if it’s influence the game in any way. You basically say why it hurts you personally. But mini’s, skins and so on are just as much game-play for one as killing or farming is for somebody else. As you refer to the pick you might prefer farming. And even then, don’t you mind that everything is a gold-grind in stead of really faming for items and mats?

Oow and if mounts would ever be introduces I would also expect way-points (in new maps at least) to be reduced. But even if they didn’t that would not yet mean you could not introduce mounts just for fun (this being a game and all) Just for the record.

The only negative impact that the cash shop has inflicted upon this game was the watchwork pick. I have yet to see any other item that has negatively impacted the game other than the long standing bug with the copper fed which was finely fixed ages ago.

Travis the Terrible.4739:

Devata.6589:

Travis the Terrible.4739:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

VOLKON.1290:

Devata.6589:

You seem to forget that the cash-shop hurts the game meaning less players overtime.

Now that’s one hell of an assertion to throw out there without any supporting evidence. You have something demonstrable to show that the cash shop is hurting GW2?

I did give multiple examples. See the comment bellow it.

I see assertions. Nothing more.

Oh wait… there’s a tidbit of conspiracy theory in there.

It’s no assertion, it’s a fact that I do like the game less because of those examples. And with me others (thats also a fact as you can find multiple people on the forum saying such things). Now you could argue that all those things have nothing to do with the cash-shop focus. Without a cash-shop we would still have a gold-grind, mini’s would simply almost not exist and so on. But there is of course also something like common sense.

Not sure what part is conspiracy theory.. the marketing techniques?

Ah, you’re confusing something you don’t like with hurting the overall game. I see.

(s)He listed mounts not being introduced into the game as an argument. His entire argument is invalid simply because of that sentence I saw regarding mounts. MOUNTS WILL NOT HAPPEN WITH 15+ WAYPOINTS PER ZONE PEOPLE DEAL WITH IT.

If anything the way the cash-shop works in this game it’s probably one of the better ones. Granted that the watchwork pick gives an advantage over the other cash shop picks (for no reason) for the same cost of the molten alliance and bone pick given that they charged 1k gems for both of them at some point (yes the molten alliance pick only cost 800 gems at one point yadda yadda yadda).

Now read that sentence where I talked about mounts again. As I never said what you stated as proof that I was wrong. (and even if I had one statement that was wrong that would not mean other statements are wrong.. but that doesn’t matter now)

With your second paragrah you pretty much agree with me “If anything the way the cash-shop works in this game it’s probably one of the better ones.” You do see that with that line you agree in saying cash-shops do influence the game (in a negative way). By saying that GW2 at least is one of the better ones… So where the cash-shop influence the game the least or at least for your preferred game-play the least in a negative way.

You seem to be referring to P2W (with your example) as a negative but what is pay to win? It’s negative if it’s influence the game in any way. You basically say why it hurts you personally. But mini’s, skins and so on are just as much game-play for one as killing or farming is for somebody else. As you refer to the pick you might prefer farming. And even then, don’t you mind that everything is a gold-grind in stead of really faming for items and mats?

Oow and if mounts would ever be introduces I would also expect way-points (in new maps at least) to be reduced. But even if they didn’t that would not yet mean you could not introduce mounts just for fun (this being a game and all) Just for the record.

The only negative impact that the cash shop has inflicted upon this game was the watchwork pick. I have yet to see any other item that has negatively impacted the game other than the long standing bug with the copper fed which was finely fixed ages ago.

Well how about the fact that everything is a gold-grind. The fact that getting an mini or many skins are not behind specific content but in the cash-shop or / and require gold-grind? how about temporary stuff?

All stuff that might not bother you personally. The watchwork pick is not something that effected me personally. It all depends on what game-play you personally prefer the best.

Devata.6589:

I do say I think that is better explaining why. Some say they don’t think it’s better. Thats just as much of an assertion.

No, it isnt just as much of an assertion. A statement of fact is a more forceful assertion than a statement of opinion.

Devata.6589:

Anyway this is a great way to try is destroy a discussion. Asking for data you know is almost impossible to get and then state you don’t have to provide any yourself.

If I am not making an assertion there is nothing to support with facts.

Devata.6589:

And if you then really want data then somebody just listed a nice chart. That is the best data we have so far (if it’s valid) and seems to proof my point as much as possible. So there is your data.

https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/151443/1q14_NCSoft.jpg

Now if you want to continue the discussion give your idea’s and logic. Then you would really add useful information to the thread.

According to that chart the game relying on a cash shop rather than paid expansions makes more money.

Ashen.2907:

Devata.6589:

And if you then really want data then somebody just listed a nice chart. That is the best data we have so far (if it’s valid) and seems to proof my point as much as possible. So there is your data.

https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/151443/1q14_NCSoft.jpg

Now if you want to continue the discussion give your idea’s and logic. Then you would really add useful information to the thread.

According to that chart the game relying on a cash shop rather than paid expansions makes more money.

Lol then you get the data you asked for (well as best as possible) and still you do not want to see it. I am not even going to explain the numbers (already did that btw) as I think you are just as able as me to interpret them correctly. If you don’t want to see it explaining it again will not help anyway.

Ashen.2907:

Devata.6589:

I do say I think that is better explaining why. Some say they don’t think it’s better. Thats just as much of an assertion.

No, it isnt just as much of an assertion. A statement of fact is a more forceful assertion than a statement of opinion.

Devata.6589:

Anyway this is a great way to try is destroy a discussion. Asking for data you know is almost impossible to get and then state you don’t have to provide any yourself.

If I am not making an assertion there is nothing to support with facts.

Devata.6589:

And if you then really want data then somebody just listed a nice chart. That is the best data we have so far (if it’s valid) and seems to proof my point as much as possible. So there is your data.

https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/151443/1q14_NCSoft.jpg

Now if you want to continue the discussion give your idea’s and logic. Then you would really add useful information to the thread.

According to that chart the game relying on a cash shop rather than paid expansions makes more money.

What if we had expansions AND a cash shop?