Guild Wars 2

Tolmos.8395:

darkace.8925:

munkiman.3068:

This is the sort of defense of this practice i see a lot on here. It’s not about having to have the items, it’s about wanting to have them. Comparing real life luxury items, with in game items is really a bit silly, don’t you think?

No, I don’t. I see no difference at all in the purchase of real life luxury item and a virtual luxury item. And cosmetic skins are just that, luxury items. I don’t like the rng system any more than you do, but let’s not pretend these cosmetic skins are required to enjoy the game.

I agree with most of what you said, but you worded that last line incorrectly. They are not required to be SUCCESSFUL in the game, but whether or not they are required to enjoy the game is 100% subjective. For some players, aesthetics are a big part of a game and if they find an aesthetic they desire for their character and have no valid way of attaining that item, it can indeed kill their enjoyment of the game.

It would be like a raider being told there is a raid in the game and they have a random chance of getting to play it. You might be thinking “That’s different. That’s actually playing!”. No, it isn’t. That’s what a raider enjoys doing. Aesthetics is what others may enjoy. The way you are thinking about aesthetics, I am thinking about that raid. Me being able to enter that instance doesn’t affect my enjoyment in any way, shape or form, so I wouldn’t care if it was RNG.

Anet added this RNG in with super low chances knowing full well that it would kill the enjoyment of the game for certain individuals. That’s impossible to deny. But it’s that same fact that brings in so much money for them- those people are going to spend spend spend (if they can) to get those items to increase their own enjoyment.

They know those players want their next hit, and Anet is the only provider for them.

I agree with this. Some players are going to be very disenfranchised when they see a skin they can’t have that they love. I really like the new skins. I’d love to get one, but I know if I spent fifty bucks on boxes and don’t get one, I’ll start hating this game, so I’m not spending a cent.

It’s a bad move, from my point of view.

munkiman.3068:

This is the sort of defense of this practice i see a lot on here. It’s not about having to have the items, it’s about wanting to have them. Comparing real life luxury items, with in game items is really a bit silly, don’t you think?

All of these in game items are still a real world purchase. You are purchasing digital content which is a real product. Also many have agreed that this digital content is a ‘luxury’ item. If it was needed to play the game then that is a different story.

Have you ever played a free game on a tablet app, phone, facebook? Almost of those games function on the same principal. You can play for free all you want but if you want the fancy building or what ever you have to pay for it. It’s often done in a similar fashion where the player buys coins. Many of these games are even more limited, only giving you so much land to build on for example unless you buy coins.

As many and myself have said many times over, the best way to cast your vote against it is to not open your wallet. This thread among many will probably have little or no affect. The only thing I agree with regarding the RNG chest is that they should present the actual odds to the buyer.

Mourningcry.9428:

Fine. How’s this? A lot of alternatives center around the idea of outright, fixed price sales of items. And some even want to increase the number of these items. Great.

Question. What’s the price and why?

Ya, seems like a great idea until you start getting into the details. Pricing methodology is not trival. Do you think it’s arbitrary that the new loot boxes are priced @ 150 gems, and that a bundle of them is also avaialble for 1200gems?

Do any of these kind of alternatives people list even bother to offer an explanation of how they’d go about pricing the items? Nope.

Quite frankly, one might argue that that may be a “waste of time”.

Well, I don’t think that pricing the items is a big issue, right now (taking the fused tickets as an example) there isn’t a set price. it could literally be well over 100 bucks. So, the options about what pricing is fair is up in the air. I see what you’re saying though, i’m really unsure how to go about it though, given we only have a very basic rough guesstimate.

darkace.8925:

munkiman.3068:

This is the sort of defense of this practice i see a lot on here. It’s not about having to have the items, it’s about wanting to have them. Comparing real life luxury items, with in game items is really a bit silly, don’t you think?

No, I don’t. I see no difference at all in the purchase of real life luxury item and a virtual luxury item. And cosmetic skins are just that, luxury items. I don’t like the rng system any more than you do, but let’s not pretend these cosmetic skins are required to enjoy the game.

Part of the enjoyment of a game is getting the nice shiny new stuff (obviously the items themselves are subjective), comparing working to earn a real world item and enjoying a video game and it’s content are kinda vastly different things. I certainly don’t play a video game to work, quite the opposite actually. Sure i like my job and all (i can even post on forums if i want), but it’s certainly not entertainment most of the time.

If this is what it takes for ANET to profit while making great content, I’m all for it. However, personally, I will only buy non-rng items. So long as they offer great ones (rox set? Oh mercy me dat looks good) I’ll keep supporting anet with real world money. The last thing I want to do is farm cof when I could just skip that and go straight to arah, fotm, or wvw.

Tolmos.8395:

darkace.8925:

munkiman.3068:

This is the sort of defense of this practice i see a lot on here. It’s not about having to have the items, it’s about wanting to have them. Comparing real life luxury items, with in game items is really a bit silly, don’t you think?

No, I don’t. I see no difference at all in the purchase of real life luxury item and a virtual luxury item. And cosmetic skins are just that, luxury items. I don’t like the rng system any more than you do, but let’s not pretend these cosmetic skins are required to enjoy the game.

I agree with most of what you said, but you worded that last line incorrectly. They are not required to be SUCCESSFUL in the game, but whether or not they are required to enjoy the game is 100% subjective. For some players, aesthetics are a big part of a game and if they find an aesthetic they desire for their character and have no valid way of attaining that item, it can indeed kill their enjoyment of the game.

It would be like a raider being told there is a raid in the game and they have a random chance of getting to play it. You might be thinking “That’s different. That’s actually playing!”. No, it isn’t. That’s what a raider enjoys doing. Aesthetics is what others may enjoy. The way you are thinking about aesthetics, I am thinking about that raid. Me being able to enter that instance doesn’t affect my enjoyment in any way, shape or form, so I wouldn’t care if it was RNG.

Anet added this RNG in with super low chances knowing full well that it would kill the enjoyment of the game for certain individuals. That’s impossible to deny. But it’s that same fact that brings in so much money for them- those people are going to spend spend spend (if they can) to get those items to increase their own enjoyment.

They know those players want their next hit, and Anet is the only provider for them.

I hear what you’re saying. I even paused when I typed that sentence, expecting someone might reply as you have. There are certainly people who enjoy playing dress-up in MMOs. I do as well. I don’t obsess over it, it’s not what drives me to play games; but I certainly have fun crafting looks I enjoy for each of my characters.

I can see where someone might be upset they can’t have the look they desire because of rng, but I can’t see where they’d be completely unable to enjoy the game without that look. Even if the sole reason they play GW2 is to play dress-up, it’s not like there aren’t a plethora of other skins they can work with.

I have a very hard time believing someone will either enjoy or hate this game based solely on the possession of a few exclusive cosmetic skins. It might very well be the case, but it’s still hard to believe.

JustTrogdor.7892:

munkiman.3068:

This is the sort of defense of this practice i see a lot on here. It’s not about having to have the items, it’s about wanting to have them. Comparing real life luxury items, with in game items is really a bit silly, don’t you think?

All of these in game items are still a real world purchase. You are purchasing digital content which is a real product. Also many have agreed that this digital content is a ‘luxury’ item. If it was needed to play the game then that is a different story.

Have you ever played a free game on a tablet app, phone, facebook? Almost of those games function on the same principal. You can play for free all you want but if you want the fancy building or what ever you have to pay for it. It’s often done in a similar fashion where the player buys coins. Many of these games are even more limited, only giving you so much land to build on for example unless you buy coins.

As many and myself have said many times over, the best way to cast your vote against it is to not open your wallet. This thread among many will probably have little or no affect. The only thing I agree with regarding the RNG chest is that they should present the actual odds to the buyer.

I can use a pretty popular example of what i’m talking about. In the case of Mass Effect 3 and EA selling relevant content as DLC was a really bad move (except you didn’t buy a chance at this content, which is way worse IMO). So much so that the outrage caused an entire change in the structure of how they treat DLC in the future. People got fired, heads rolled (so to speak), simply since they were seen as a greedy money grubbing corp. Speaking out on this practice should really hit home for ANet and i’m going to assume these crates were already a thing, but i can tell you for sure i won’t be buying them, ever, and i spent a nice chuck of cash on a fused ticket. Here’s hoping this goes away.

This is an excellent post, not in the sense the individual statements haven’t been made, but that it encapsulates the issue within a well-reasoned argument. It also answers the question: why don’t players feel rewarded (beyond intrinsic rewards) when they play GW2. It’s simply because it’s designed to take, not give.

GW2 is certainly not alone. D3, which shares it’s monetization model, functions and feels exactly the same, same loot wasteland, same yellow brick road to the cash shop.

I’m not sure that the practice is indefensible so much as unworkable. I’ve mused long and hard on this and often that has manifested as support for the subscription model.

1. Companies need to make money.
2. We play games to feel rewarded (again, beyond the intrinsic rewards of the gameplay itself).
3. There is no free lunch.

There needs to be more money changing hands than the box sale, but how to effect that? The majority of players really think that they are getting a F2P game after they B2P. And, they will defend to the death the model without ever noticing that they are being extorted in the process. As Maz says, they have some investment and they have donned Blinkered Helm of the White Knight.

Again, great post. The current model and methods around monetization are slimey and greasy. Worst of all, they make for an unrewarding game. I don’t know the answer to the problem, but I know I don’t like the B2P/F2P games I’ve played for this very reason. It’s good to have the rot exposed to the fresh air and sunshine.

Raine.1394:

The majority of players really think that they are getting a F2P game after they B2P. And, they will defend to the death the model without ever noticing that they are being extorted in the process.

You make some fair points, but I have to object to this insinuation that I’m being extorted and I’m just too ignorant to see it. Yes, I did get a F2P game after B2P. The game is everything I want it to be. I’m not defending the model to death because I’m blind, I’m doing it because, for me, it’s been fantastic. Please point out where I’m being extorted if I’m getting all the game content I want from launch and updates and I have no interest in these mini pets and limited time weapon skins.

munkiman.3068:

Mourningcry.9428:

Fine. How’s this? A lot of alternatives center around the idea of outright, fixed price sales of items. And some even want to increase the number of these items. Great.

Question. What’s the price and why?

Ya, seems like a great idea until you start getting into the details. Pricing methodology is not trival. Do you think it’s arbitrary that the new loot boxes are priced @ 150 gems, and that a bundle of them is also avaialble for 1200gems?

Do any of these kind of alternatives people list even bother to offer an explanation of how they’d go about pricing the items? Nope.

Quite frankly, one might argue that that may be a “waste of time”.

Well, I don’t think that pricing the items is a big issue, right now (taking the fused tickets as an example) there isn’t a set price. it could literally be well over 100 bucks. So, the options about what pricing is fair is up in the air. I see what you’re saying though, i’m really unsure how to go about it though, given we only have a very basic rough guesstimate.

I think that’s what he’s asking for. In another thread Mourningcry posted:

Just some quick, very basic, off the cuff calcs to kind of paint the picture of what some of you are asking for.
What’s the value of one of these weapon skins? Let’s say there are 1million players. Of those, some (like so many here) won’t buy gems (they’ll convert gold, or abstain), and there are others that simply don’t want them. So, let’s say, half of those players are willing to make a single, one time purchase.

500,000 * $10 = $5,000,000 = 400,000,000 gems

At 125gems/key, they get 6 tries.

500,000 * 6 = 3,000,000 tries

Let’s be generous and set the drop rate for a skin @ 1%

3,000,000 * 1% = 30,000 weapons skins dropped

400,000,000 / 30,000 = 13,333 gems is the value of 1 skin

I would even go so far as to say these are very generous assumptions (only one gem purchase per player and a 1% drop rate) Feel free to tweak it as you like, but you’ll get the idea.
———————————————

This is a very rough (and probably not very accurate) estimation, but compare the value in thousands of gems to the skins currently available in the gem shop (Rox’s bow and quiver, Braham’s mace and shield) at 600 gems and you’ll see the gap between direct sale and RNG sales. How do you find a compromise between these values? Do you think people would pay 10,000 gems for a single skin? 1,000? At what point will additional sales make up for the loss of sales to the people who spend $1000+ trying to get a single skin?

Any financial analyst hired by Anet is going to take about ten seconds to realize that there is a LOT more money to be made in RNG boxes than through selling the same items directly. Arguments about morality and greed are irrelevant, the analyst’s job is to show them how to make more money, not how to be a better person. To have any chance of making a change, you need to demonstrate that there is the potential to make more money without relying on the RNG boxes.

munkiman.3068:

I can use a pretty popular example of what i’m talking about. In the case of Mass Effect 3 and EA selling relevant content as DLC was a really bad move (except you didn’t buy a chance at this content, which is way worse IMO). So much so that the outrage caused an entire change in the structure of how they treat DLC in the future. People got fired, heads rolled (so to speak), simply since they were seen as a greedy money grubbing corp. Speaking out on this practice should really hit home for ANet and i’m going to assume these crates were already a thing, but i can tell you for sure i won’t be buying them, ever, and i spent a nice chuck of cash on a fused ticket. Here’s hoping this goes away.

Do you you think that Anet/NCsoft didn’t invest a lot of time and money to assess that risk? If things turn south, mostly from lost revenue in games sold and gem purchases then I think there would indeed be a major be a change. Who knows it could cause a shift to a subscription model to help them maintain a profit. I’d hate to try to visit this forum if that happened.

Yes your statement regarding expressing the way you disagree by not buying these purchases is indeed an excellent way to cast your vote. I don’t like the way Walmart does business and the way their expansion has put countless locally owned business under. So, I don’t shop there, ever. Unfortunately it appears that the majority don’t care or they would be out of business. I still won’t shop there even though they have some stuff I want at a lower price.

I’m not trying to say that this isn’t a valid thread and people should just not say anything. I’ve rather enjoyed reading several points of views even though I may not agree with many of them. I’m simply saying that is very difficult to say what the majority of players think or want.

I do understand the concerns expressed in this thread and I can understand that. I agree that the RNG situation is a bit grey and I feel that if they at least posted odds of getting these rare items it would alleviate part of the problem. I’m just not a fan of the, “It’s not fair because I really really want it,” argument.

Now if everyone will excuse me I’ve been planing to pick up a few mini pets.

Facepunch.5710:

Raine.1394:

The majority of players really think that they are getting a F2P game after they B2P. And, they will defend to the death the model without ever noticing that they are being extorted in the process.

You make some fair points, but I have to object to this insinuation that I’m being extorted and I’m just too ignorant to see it. Yes, I did get a F2P game after B2P. The game is everything I want it to be. I’m not defending the model to death because I’m blind, I’m doing it because, for me, it’s been fantastic. Please point out where I’m being extorted if I’m getting all the game content I want from launch and updates and I have no interest in these mini pets and limited time weapon skins.

Yeah, his argument just kind of fell apart with that statement. He/she speaks as if the game used SWTOR’s F2P model…as if all quality of life features (Trading Post, Way Points, Bank Access, etc) are locked behind Gem Shop purchases. He/she speaks as if we haven’t had free content, including story and cosmetic additions, haven’t been implemented.

Facepunch.5710:

Raine.1394:

The majority of players really think that they are getting a F2P game after they B2P. And, they will defend to the death the model without ever noticing that they are being extorted in the process.

You make some fair points, but I have to object to this insinuation that I’m being extorted and I’m just too ignorant to see it. Yes, I did get a F2P game after B2P. The game is everything I want it to be. I’m not defending the model to death because I’m blind, I’m doing it because, for me, it’s been fantastic. Please point out where I’m being extorted if I’m getting all the game content I want from launch and updates and I have no interest in these mini pets and limited time weapon skins.

My wife and I have enjoyed playing this game off and on since September, and combined we’ve spent about $220 on it. The price per hour is ridiculously low for a fun and engaging hobby. I fail to see how this is extortion, nor do I defend the game because I am deeply invested in it. Very much the opposite, I don’t play the RNG lottery and I’ve taken breaks from it anywhere from a few days to several months.

I just don’t like to see people distort the truth to support baseless accusations.

Facepunch.5710:

I’m getting all the game content I want from launch and updates and I have no interest in these mini pets and limited time weapon skins.

^ This.

tolunart.2095:

munkiman.3068:

Mourningcry.9428:

Fine. How’s this? A lot of alternatives center around the idea of outright, fixed price sales of items. And some even want to increase the number of these items. Great.

Question. What’s the price and why?

Ya, seems like a great idea until you start getting into the details. Pricing methodology is not trival. Do you think it’s arbitrary that the new loot boxes are priced @ 150 gems, and that a bundle of them is also avaialble for 1200gems?

Do any of these kind of alternatives people list even bother to offer an explanation of how they’d go about pricing the items? Nope.

Quite frankly, one might argue that that may be a “waste of time”.

Well, I don’t think that pricing the items is a big issue, right now (taking the fused tickets as an example) there isn’t a set price. it could literally be well over 100 bucks. So, the options about what pricing is fair is up in the air. I see what you’re saying though, i’m really unsure how to go about it though, given we only have a very basic rough guesstimate.

I think that’s what he’s asking for. In another thread Mourningcry posted:

Just some quick, very basic, off the cuff calcs to kind of paint the picture of what some of you are asking for.
What’s the value of one of these weapon skins? Let’s say there are 1million players. Of those, some (like so many here) won’t buy gems (they’ll convert gold, or abstain), and there are others that simply don’t want them. So, let’s say, half of those players are willing to make a single, one time purchase.

500,000 * $10 = $5,000,000 = 400,000,000 gems

At 125gems/key, they get 6 tries.

500,000 * 6 = 3,000,000 tries

Let’s be generous and set the drop rate for a skin @ 1%

3,000,000 * 1% = 30,000 weapons skins dropped

400,000,000 / 30,000 = 13,333 gems is the value of 1 skin

I would even go so far as to say these are very generous assumptions (only one gem purchase per player and a 1% drop rate) Feel free to tweak it as you like, but you’ll get the idea.
———————————————

This is a very rough (and probably not very accurate) estimation, but compare the value in thousands of gems to the skins currently available in the gem shop (Rox’s bow and quiver, Braham’s mace and shield) at 600 gems and you’ll see the gap between direct sale and RNG sales. How do you find a compromise between these values? Do you think people would pay 10,000 gems for a single skin? 1,000? At what point will additional sales make up for the loss of sales to the people who spend $1000+ trying to get a single skin?

Any financial analyst hired by Anet is going to take about ten seconds to realize that there is a LOT more money to be made in RNG boxes than through selling the same items directly. Arguments about morality and greed are irrelevant, the analyst’s job is to show them how to make more money, not how to be a better person. To have any chance of making a change, you need to demonstrate that there is the potential to make more money without relying on the RNG boxes.

But the bigger questions to this point to me is for how long? How long can you “take advantage” of tremendous sales and not look like your just being greedy? How long before the majority of your player base refuses to spend once cent on your store items or up and quits altogether because you continue to do these things? Further more, how many more threads speaking out about this practice is it going to take?

I think those are far more important points than what a fair price is, obviously selling a skin for 10000 gems isn’t going to sell well, but how about selling 1000 @ 10 gems? It certain doesn’t cost the company anymore money to manufacture more of the same item.

Vayne.8563:

This is a really good analysis of the situation as it stands. I’m not sure it adds anything that hasn’t been said in other threads, but it does bring the entire issue under one roof, so to speak.

The difference, though, in comparing Tribes: Ascended and an MMO is the amount of new content that the company has to create to keep people interested.

In first person multiplayer shooters like Tribes Ascended, it’s all about player vs. player and that makes it’s own content. The same can not be said for an MMO. So I find it interesting that you chose to compare an MMOs cash shop to that of a FPS. I’m not sure the situation is congruent.

The question is, for me, how much money does it take to maintain that game, compared to how much money it takes to maintain an MMO. When comparing cash shops, it’s easy to make the basic assumption that the cash needs of one game are equal to another, but I don’t find that true.

Even within the MMO genre, its’ not true. WoW has a cash shop and you can buy a mount for $25 dollars or more. They charge as much as Guild Wars 2 for server transfers too…but they also have a monthly fee….a huge influx of cash every month.

Other MMOs have cash shops that are far worse than Guild Wars 2’s. They lock off certain professions or certain races. In some you can buy traits or character upgrades. In the worst of them you can buy BIS gear. It’s a pretty sad story, all together.

But because every MMO that has a cash shop and no subscription has a cash shop at least as bad as Guild Wars 2, it makes you wonder why.

I don’t think it’s particularly good to compare the cash shop in an FPS where regular content isn’t a monthly deal and no one is expecting it really, and something like Guild Wars 2. In fact, do we even know how big the company that makes Tribes: Ascended is. How many people they’re paying?

That sort of overhead definitely changes the game with regards to how “greedy” a cash shop is. I don’t have the answer, because I haven’t researched it, but I do know that it’s far easier to run an FPS than an MMORPG.

that is Precisely the point WHY must the good stuff be Monthly why cant anet simply put the items on some sort of EVENT tab and leave them there permanently that way players canchoose to grind over time or simply buy the items whenever they feel like it instead of feeling they are forced to buy or simply turn away. how is it more beneficial selling content temporarily than leaving it for sale permanently. a player that enjoys his experience will gladly pay money for stuff for the sake of supporting the game.

JustTrogdor.7892:

I do understand the concerns expressed in this thread and I can understand that. I agree that the RNG situation is a bit grey and I feel that if they at least posted odds of getting these rare items it would alleviate part of the problem. I’m just not a fan of the, “It’s not fair because I really really want it,” argument.

Many of the complaints are poorly hidden “sour grapes” attitudes, certainly. I agree that giving a better chance of the odds of getting “the good stuff” would be a positive step, but even that is likely to cause a drop in sales that would discourage Anet from doing so willingly. So absent a massive protest and boycott by players, or the laws about gambling changing to include such requirements, I don’t expect anything like that to happen.

But it is the most reasonable suggestion to come out of these arguments.

tolunart.2095:

My wife and I have enjoyed playing this game off and on since September, and combined we’ve spent about $220 on it. The price per hour is ridiculously low for a fun and engaging hobby. I fail to see how this is extortion, nor do I defend the game because I am deeply invested in it. Very much the opposite, I don’t play the RNG lottery and I’ve taken breaks from it anywhere from a few days to several months.

I just don’t like to see people distort the truth to support baseless accusations.

I’ve made this argument before and many choose to ignore it. At the time I stated I had played a total of 106 hours. I think it would be extremely hard to find other forms of commercial entertainment where you can enjoy that many hours for $60. For example if you enjoy movies and go to the theater, you would have to watch 53 two hour movies at a cost of about $10 a movie = $530.

Since this is not a subscription based game the return of entertainment related to financial investment is huge. Keep in mind that many players have spent FAR more time playing than 106 hours.

Personally, even if I deleted the game right after this post, I feel I have gotten my money out of it. The fact that I can continue playing as long as I want for absolutely nothing is a bonus.

well lets look at the bright side since all this rare stuff keeps popping out temporarily it ll eventually be worth more than legendaries.

munkiman.3068:

But the bigger questions to this point to me is for how long? How long can you “take advantage” of tremendous sales and not look like your just being greedy? How long before the majority of your player base refuses to spend once cent on your store items or up and quits altogether because you continue to do these things? Further more, how many more threads speaking out about this practice is it going to take?

I think those are far more important points than what a fair price is, obviously selling a skin for 10000 gems isn’t going to sell well, but how about selling 1000 @ 10 gems? It certain doesn’t cost the company anymore money to manufacture more of the same item.

How long has the Powerball lottery been running? How long has Las Vegas had casinos?

An individual can wake up one day and realize he has a gambling problem. Hopefully he will do what he needs to do in order to stop gambling. But the rest of the people aren’t going to change their behavior because he does.

Or more importantly, how long have other games engaged in this kind of practice? SWTOR went F2P around the same time GW2 was released, and so far as I know it still has RNG boxes, not just with skins, but with vehicles and gear that are as good or better than equipment you find in the game. It’s a little different because they are tradeable, but highly sought after and expensive because they are exclusive to the RNG boxes.

I don’t know about other games. But I don’t expect to see any game taking them away in the near future.

JustTrogdor.7892:

I’ve made this argument before and many choose to ignore it. At the time I stated I had played a total of 106 hours. I think it would be extremely hard to find other forms of commercial entertainment where you can enjoy that many hours for $60. For example if you enjoy movies and go to the theater, you would have to watch 53 two hour movies at a cost of about $10 a movie = $530.

Acknowledging that you don’t need anything from the cash shop to play the game would probably involve taking responsibility for spending hundreds of dollars on gems for no real purpose. It’s especially noticeable with the RNG boxes, because you can spend $1000 chasing an elusive prize without success, and see a guildie get it within $100, or even through using an in-game drop.

tolunart.2095:

JustTrogdor.7892:

I do understand the concerns expressed in this thread and I can understand that. I agree that the RNG situation is a bit grey and I feel that if they at least posted odds of getting these rare items it would alleviate part of the problem. I’m just not a fan of the, “It’s not fair because I really really want it,” argument.

Many of the complaints are poorly hidden “sour grapes” attitudes, certainly. I agree that giving a better chance of the odds of getting “the good stuff” would be a positive step, but even that is likely to cause a drop in sales that would discourage Anet from doing so willingly. So absent a massive protest and boycott by players, or the laws about gambling changing to include such requirements, I don’t expect anything like that to happen.

But it is the most reasonable suggestion to come out of these arguments.

I really don’t think this is the case. I know of 3 RL friends, my fiance, and several in game friends with the same attitude I have, where we will not give them a dime for RNG skins.

Which one would make them more money, some poor sap dropping 100$ on gems and getting nothing and leaving the game for essentially being ripped off, never to buy gems again, or 10 happy customers that spent 10$ a pop for a skin that will stay around and willingly purchase gems in the future.

It’s really not hard to decide between good business and slimy business.

tolunart.2095:

munkiman.3068:

But the bigger questions to this point to me is for how long? How long can you “take advantage” of tremendous sales and not look like your just being greedy? How long before the majority of your player base refuses to spend once cent on your store items or up and quits altogether because you continue to do these things? Further more, how many more threads speaking out about this practice is it going to take?

I think those are far more important points than what a fair price is, obviously selling a skin for 10000 gems isn’t going to sell well, but how about selling 1000 @ 10 gems? It certain doesn’t cost the company anymore money to manufacture more of the same item.

How long has the Powerball lottery been running? How long has Las Vegas had casinos?

An individual can wake up one day and realize he has a gambling problem. Hopefully he will do what he needs to do in order to stop gambling. But the rest of the people aren’t going to change their behavior because he does.

Or more importantly, how long have other games engaged in this kind of practice? SWTOR went F2P around the same time GW2 was released, and so far as I know it still has RNG boxes, not just with skins, but with vehicles and gear that are as good or better than equipment you find in the game. It’s a little different because they are tradeable, but highly sought after and expensive because they are exclusive to the RNG boxes.

I don’t know about other games. But I don’t expect to see any game taking them away in the near future.

I still have a very hard time comparing real life experiences, with getting a visually nice skin that’s tied directly to making more money than selling them outright. I can quit a video game experience quite easily, real life experiences however, not so much. I know i personally expected more from ANet, than i do from bioware or many of these other companies. That certainly isn’t a good thing on my part, but it will also cause me to lose interest in supporting them in the future. So i ask, why risk it? Why risk a future relationship with paying customers over a get rich quick scheme? It’s almost like your best friend scamming you out of money, not caring at all about the future of your relationship. This especially since i prolly would’ve help him/her out anyway.

tolunart.2095:

Facepunch.5710:

Raine.1394:

The majority of players really think that they are getting a F2P game after they B2P. And, they will defend to the death the model without ever noticing that they are being extorted in the process.

You make some fair points, but I have to object to this insinuation that I’m being extorted and I’m just too ignorant to see it. Yes, I did get a F2P game after B2P. The game is everything I want it to be. I’m not defending the model to death because I’m blind, I’m doing it because, for me, it’s been fantastic. Please point out where I’m being extorted if I’m getting all the game content I want from launch and updates and I have no interest in these mini pets and limited time weapon skins.

My wife and I have enjoyed playing this game off and on since September, and combined we’ve spent about $220 on it. The price per hour is ridiculously low for a fun and engaging hobby. I fail to see how this is extortion, nor do I defend the game because I am deeply invested in it. Very much the opposite, I don’t play the RNG lottery and I’ve taken breaks from it anywhere from a few days to several months.

I just don’t like to see people distort the truth to support baseless accusations.

Let me clarify and state that I did not attempt to roll all players into the blinkered category. There are players who, like you, do not play the obvious lotteries and are generally satisfied with level of reward from the game. This is both natural and fine.

To me the RNG lottery is not confined to the boxes and my original post was actually more general in this regard. My referenced “loot wasteland” has to do with the loot system generally, and is not limited to the RNG boxes—they are just part of the loot system. And, again, it is fine if you feel satisfied with the general level of reward in the game. But, as you can see, there is another class of player who are both aware and conversant on the issues under discussion and I believe OP has made a thoughtful, well-reasoned argument representative of this class of player.

munkiman.3068:

I still have a very hard time comparing real life experiences, with getting a visually nice skin that’s tied directly to making more money than selling them outright. I can quit a video game experience quite easily, real life experiences however, not so much. I know i personally expected more from ANet, than i do from bioware or many of these other companies. That certainly isn’t a good thing on my part, but it will also cause me to lose interest in supporting them in the future. So i ask, why risk it? Why risk a future relationship with paying customers over a get rich quick scheme? It’s almost like your best friend scamming you out of money, not caring at all about the future of your relationship. This especially since i prolly would’ve help him/her out anyway.

I understand where you’re coming from, but a business is a collective entity, not a single person, and it is not your friend. At best, you have a mutually beneficial relationship where you exchange cash for something of value to you. At worst, you realize you’ve been fooled by lies and exaggerations and move on.

It’s up to the individual to determine whether the relationship is beneficial or not. If not, there is no shame in moving on.

Raine.1394:

This is an excellent post, not in the sense the individual statements haven’t been made, but that it encapsulates the issue within a well-reasoned argument. It also answers the question: why don’t players feel rewarded (beyond intrinsic rewards) when they play GW2. It’s simply because it’s designed to take, not give.

GW2 is certainly not alone. D3, which shares it’s monetization model, functions and feels exactly the same, same loot wasteland, same yellow brick road to the cash shop.

I’m not sure that the practice is indefensible so much as unworkable. I’ve mused long and hard on this and often that has manifested as support for the subscription model.

1. Companies need to make money.
2. We play games to feel rewarded (again, beyond the intrinsic rewards of the gameplay itself).
3. There is no free lunch.

There needs to be more money changing hands than the box sale, but how to effect that? The majority of players really think that they are getting a F2P game after they B2P. And, they will defend to the death the model without ever noticing that they are being extorted in the process. As Maz says, they have some investment and they have donned Blinkered Helm of the White Knight.

Again, great post. The current model and methods around monetization are slimey and greasy. Worst of all, they make for an unrewarding game. I don’t know the answer to the problem, but I know I don’t like the B2P/F2P games I’ve played for this very reason. It’s good to have the rot exposed to the fresh air and sunshine.

Yet more proof that no game’s features will appeal to everyone. GW2’s model works very well for me. The subscription and F2P models don’t. Why? Sub games offer tiered treadmills, which feel to me like, “Gear up so you can gear up again.” F2P usually involves needing to pay out cash for in game advantages over non-payers.

I don’t feel that cosmetic items are necessary to enjoy a game. I also won’t buy RNG stuff, ever. If this practice is “slimy” and “rotten,” so be it. However, making moral objections and expecting a business to take the high road is imo a lost cause. Talk to their bottom line, instead, if you want change.

Raine.1394:

Let me clarify and state that I did not attempt to roll all players into the blinkered category. There are players who, like you, do not play the obvious lotteries and are generally satisfied with level of reward from the game. This is both natural and fine.

To me the RNG lottery is not confined to the boxes and my original post was actually more general in this regard. My referenced “loot wasteland” has to do with the loot system generally, and is not limited to the RNG boxes—they are just part of the loot system. And, again, it is fine if you feel satisfied with the general level of reward in the game. But, as you can see, there is another class of player who are both aware and conversant on the issues under discussion and I believe OP has made a thoughtful, well-reasoned argument representative of this class of player.

Thanx for the clarification. It is my opinion that those players would be better served by looking for a game that more closely suits their play style.

I see it as something like criticizing an Italian restaurant for serving pizza and pasta when you wanted Chinese food. Personally, I would just go to a Chinese restaurant.

munkiman.3068:

I think those are far more important points than what a fair price is, obviously selling a skin for 10000 gems isn’t going to sell well, but how about selling 1000 @ 10 gems? It certain doesn’t cost the company anymore money to manufacture more of the same item.

This is representative of the “off the cuff”, thinking I’m talking about. Why would anyone pay cash for 10gems (or any small value) instead of exchanging gold for gems, resulting in zero revenue. It doesn’t have a cost associated with it, but it certainly has revenue implications. How is price not a consideration?

munkiman.3068:

But the bigger questions to this point to me is for how long? How long can you “take advantage” of tremendous sales and not look like your just being greedy? How long before the majority of your player base refuses to spend once cent on your store items or up and quits altogether because you continue to do these things? Further more, how many more threads speaking out about this practice is it going to take?

You want the official answer? Looks like strong and consistent going forward (my formating)

Taken from the NCsoft Q1 2013 Earnings Call
Represting NCsoft were:
Jae-Sung Lee, the Head of IR
Hong Cha Na, the Head of Finance and Accounting Group

<Q – Seok-Min Kim>: [Foreign Language] (00:25:08 – 00:26:08) So I would like to ask a couple of questions. First, if
you look at your first quarter operating profit it seems that it is at a significant level. In only a quarter you have gone
from an operating profit that was in the late KRW30 billion range or so, to a range that is now KRW50 billion. So for
the reasons behind this, in addition to the very strong performance by Lineage 1, is there any other factors that have
been driving this operating profit in general? That’s the first question I would like to ask. And added to that, in terms of
your second quarter, in terms of the fee structure that you have or the cost structure, do you think that the structure that
you have had in the first quarter will be something that will consistent in the second quarter?
And the second question I would like to ask is with relation to your China Blade & Soul and also Guild Wars 2 tests
and the reaction from that. Right now, would you be able to share how many participants you have in the test that you
are currently conducting? And what the number of participants will be in future tests going forward? In addition to that,
if you – lastly, if I could also ask about the Guild Wars 2 revenue. In terms of that revenue, what is the percentage of
the item sales revenue?

/snip

<A>: [Foreign Language] (00:29:49 – 00:30:13)
And in terms of your last question, which was the percentage of item sales within the Guild Wars 2 sales, it is difficult
for us to talk about the specifics in this area because it is a business issue. I do believe that in the previous quarter I did
mention some numbers. But when compared to our initial expectations in terms of the box sales and the item sales, we
have seen a very consistent and very strong performance in this area, and we do believe it will be consistent going
forward.

/snip

<Q – Sean Oh>: [Foreign Language] (01:22:31 – 01:23:09) This is about your Guild Wars 2 sales. If you look at the
revenue, of course, it can be broken down into your box sales and your in-game item sales. If you were to break that
down and maybe give a view about your in-game item sales going forward, that would be something that we would
appreciate.
And secondly, with regards to Blade and Soul, you do have an update that you are planning right now, in terms of the
monthly subscription fees. Currently, it’s priced at a slightly higher level than AION. However, if you take into
consideration where League of Legends is pricing right now, do you believe that you need to change where your
pricing point is? And if so, what is your view about that situation?

<A>: [Foreign Language] (01:23:50 – 01:24:14) To address your question for the outlook going forward in terms of
our box sales and our micro payment from Guild Wars 2. We believe that both will remain strong going forward.
However, in terms of the break down, because this is a business issue, we don’t believe that that is information that we
can provide and we do hope that you understand this point.

Edit: edited for formatting.

dinominator.9862:

Facepunch.5710:

I’m getting all the game content I want from launch and updates and I have no interest in these mini pets and limited time weapon skins.

^ This.

This discussion isn’t about the initial value of the purchase price, i can think of plenty of games that people put thousands of hours into that have the same initial price (Battlefield, Black Ops, The Sims, SimCity, etc.). This is about what is perceived as a shady practice to keep the money rolling in. It’s about how you can’t even value most of these items since your only buying a chance to get them. It’s always been about those things, not about whether you got your money out of the purchase price or not. I’m satisfied with what i’ve put into the game so far (aside from the 200 i dropped for a fused weapon, my fault i know, but i really didn’t expect it to take that much), but i’m not happy with these practices, I also don’t just want to speak with my wallet.

tolunart.2095:

Raine.1394:

Let me clarify and state that I did not attempt to roll all players into the blinkered category. There are players who, like you, do not play the obvious lotteries and are generally satisfied with level of reward from the game. This is both natural and fine.

To me the RNG lottery is not confined to the boxes and my original post was actually more general in this regard. My referenced “loot wasteland” has to do with the loot system generally, and is not limited to the RNG boxes—they are just part of the loot system. And, again, it is fine if you feel satisfied with the general level of reward in the game. But, as you can see, there is another class of player who are both aware and conversant on the issues under discussion and I believe OP has made a thoughtful, well-reasoned argument representative of this class of player.

Thanx for the clarification. It is my opinion that those players would be better served by looking for a game that more closely suits their play style.

Hahaha, this is the attitude that made games like EQ2 and SWToR a ghost town ( TOR obviously had issues other than fanboys). I’m sure the 17 people sitting in LA in 2 years will take solace in the fact that they ran every other type of player out of the game.

It’s the same 4 or 5 people objecting to reducing/removing RNG and adding more skins, yet the more I read people upset with the RNG on the gem store the more names I see fed up with it.

These threads really speak for themselves, all you have to do is look through them. I look forward to Anet’s eventual response

Mourningcry.9428:

munkiman.3068:

I think those are far more important points than what a fair price is, obviously selling a skin for 10000 gems isn’t going to sell well, but how about selling 1000 @ 10 gems? It certain doesn’t cost the company anymore money to manufacture more of the same item.

This is representative of the “off the cuff”, thinkingI’m talking about. Why would anyone pay cash for 10gems (or any small value) instead of exchanging gold for gems, resulting in zero revenue. It doesn’t have a cost associated it with it, but it certain has revenue implications. How is price not a consideration?

munkiman.3068:

But the bigger questions to this point to me is for how long? How long can you “take advantage” of tremendous sales and not look like your just being greedy? How long before the majority of your player base refuses to spend once cent on your store items or up and quits altogether because you continue to do these things? Further more, how many more threads speaking out about this practice is it going to take?

You want the official answer? Looks like strong and consistent going forward (my formating)

---

Taken from the NCsoft Q1 2013 Earnings Call
Represting NCsoft were:
Jae-Sung Lee, the Head of IR
Hong Cha Na, the Head of Finance and Accounting Group

<snip for space>

First i was using 10 gems as an example, nothing in the store comes at that price. Second, the system is already heavily weighted in favor of paying cash for gems, so much so in fact that converting the excess gems to gold even makes sense. If players have that kind of time to spend on playing and earning enough gold (mostly the unemployed or people in school) you won’t be getting their money anyway, since they don’t have any to spend.

You’re also quoting a call that said an expansion to be released sometime this year, when anet recently said there wasn’t one in the works. I take what those investment calls say with a grain of salt.

Aeonblade.8709:

Hahaha, this is the attitude that made games like EQ2 and SWToR a ghost town ( TOR obviously had issues other than fanboys). I’m sure the 17 people sitting in LA in 2 years will take solace in the fact that they ran every other type of player out of the game.

It’s the same 4 or 5 people objecting to reducing/removing RNG and adding more skins, yet the more I read people upset with the RNG on the gem store the more names I see fed up with it.

These threads really speak for themselves, all you have to do is look through them. I look forward to Anet’s eventual response

It is my opinion, I have stated this before, and will do so again.

This is a game. It is not necessary to maintain my life or health. I play it because it is fun. When it is not fun, I will not play it.

It is up to Arenanet to produce a fun game and keep players interested. If they cannot, the game will fail and the servers will close. The responsibility falls squarely upon Arenanet for making an unfun game, not on me for telling people “if you’re not having fun, play another game.”

Your opinion of my opinion is irrelevant.

munkiman.3068:

dinominator.9862:

Facepunch.5710:

I’m getting all the game content I want from launch and updates and I have no interest in these mini pets and limited time weapon skins.

^ This.

This discussion isn’t about the initial value of the purchase price, i can think of plenty of games that people put thousands of hours into that have the same initial price (Battlefield, Black Ops, The Sims, SimCity, etc.). This is about what is perceived as a shady practice to keep the money rolling in. It’s about how you can’t even value most of these items since your only buying a chance to get them. It’s always been about those things, not about whether you got your money out of the purchase price or not. I’m satisfied with what i’ve put into the game so far (aside from the 200 i dropped for a fused weapon, my fault i know, but i really didn’t expect it to take that much), but i’m not happy with these practices, I also don’t just want to speak with my wallet.

Actually, no, it’s not only about the shadiness of these sales, since my original comment was in response to a user who, in this thread, stated that people who are not complaining just don’t realize they are being extorted. He has since clarified his remarks.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raine.1394:

This is an excellent post, not in the sense the individual statements haven’t been made, but that it encapsulates the issue within a well-reasoned argument. It also answers the question: why don’t players feel rewarded (beyond intrinsic rewards) when they play GW2. It’s simply because it’s designed to take, not give.

GW2 is certainly not alone. D3, which shares it’s monetization model, functions and feels exactly the same, same loot wasteland, same yellow brick road to the cash shop.

I’m not sure that the practice is indefensible so much as unworkable. I’ve mused long and hard on this and often that has manifested as support for the subscription model.

1. Companies need to make money.
2. We play games to feel rewarded (again, beyond the intrinsic rewards of the gameplay itself).
3. There is no free lunch.

There needs to be more money changing hands than the box sale, but how to effect that? The majority of players really think that they are getting a F2P game after they B2P. And, they will defend to the death the model without ever noticing that they are being extorted in the process. As Maz says, they have some investment and they have donned Blinkered Helm of the White Knight.

Again, great post. The current model and methods around monetization are slimey and greasy. Worst of all, they make for an unrewarding game. I don’t know the answer to the problem, but I know I don’t like the B2P/F2P games I’ve played for this very reason. It’s good to have the rot exposed to the fresh air and sunshine.

Yet more proof that no game’s features will appeal to everyone. GW2’s model works very well for me. The subscription and F2P models don’t. Why? Sub games offer tiered treadmills, which feel to me like, “Gear up so you can gear up again.” F2P usually involves needing to pay out cash for in game advantages over non-payers.

I don’t feel that cosmetic items are necessary to enjoy a game. I also won’t buy RNG stuff, ever. If this practice is “slimy” and “rotten,” so be it. However, making moral objections and expecting a business to take the high road is imo a lost cause. Talk to their bottom line, instead, if you want change.

In addressing the monetization model, I was talking to the bottom line. And, I have no problem with game companies making a profit as it is essential to the game itself.

One correction: there is no inherent correlation between sub model and vertical progression. VP has existed historically in sub model games, but they are entirely separate concepts with no inherent need to coexist.

By the way, I’m not making a plea for a sub model, just sharing my musings and noting that the problems under discussion have gone hand in hand with B2P/F2P games in my experience.

Also, I bought and subscribed to Rift the day it was released to the public, in March 2011. In April 2013 I allowed my subscription to lapse. This week they announced the game would go Free To Play next month.

Do you think I should feel responsible for this? Or should Trion have created a game that kept me interested so that I didn’t cancel my sub? Obviously I was not alone because if they were making a profit from subs they would not go for the F2P model instead.

Aeonblade.8709:

Hahaha, this is the attitude that made games like EQ2 and SWToR a ghost town
snip

Maybe one day people will realize that beginning a reply with ‘Hahaha’ does nothing to foster civil discussion.

And I was just going to comment on how well we were doing.

Aeonblade.8709:

Hahaha, this is the attitude that made games like EQ2 and SWToR a ghost town ( TOR obviously had issues other than fanboys). I’m sure the 17 people sitting in LA in 2 years will take solace in the fact that they ran every other type of player out of the game.

It’s the same 4 or 5 people objecting to reducing/removing RNG and adding more skins, yet the more I read people upset with the RNG on the gem store the more names I see fed up with it.

These threads really speak for themselves, all you have to do is look through them. I look forward to Anet’s eventual response

You’re projecting a awful lot of person animus, here. Just because YOU dislike this or that about the game, or the game as a whole, doesn’t mean it’s dying. You may want it to die, but the fact is plenty of people are still enjoying the game. Sucks for you, I know, but that’s just the way it is.

darkace.8925:

Aeonblade.8709:

Hahaha, this is the attitude that made games like EQ2 and SWToR a ghost town ( TOR obviously had issues other than fanboys). I’m sure the 17 people sitting in LA in 2 years will take solace in the fact that they ran every other type of player out of the game.

It’s the same 4 or 5 people objecting to reducing/removing RNG and adding more skins, yet the more I read people upset with the RNG on the gem store the more names I see fed up with it.

These threads really speak for themselves, all you have to do is look through them. I look forward to Anet’s eventual response

You’re projecting a awful lot of person animus, here. Just because YOU dislike this or that about the game, or the game as a whole, doesn’t mean it’s dying. You may want it to die, but the fact is plenty of people are still enjoying the game. Sucks for you, I know, but that’s just the way it is.

I’m not sure what you are getting across. I didn’t say anything about “oh the sky is falling the game is dying” I just inferred that eventually at this rate they are going to run every other type of player away.

Is it true? Maybe. Neither of us are certain, and with the drops in population since release you would think they would want to retain the people they have here now

I would wish upon a star (or BLChest, just as numerous) that Anet would make enough profit to buy themselves out from under NCSoft and get back to doing what they do best; making a great and successful game that is fun to play from all perspectives without the MONEY GRUBBING.

munkiman.3068:

First i was using 10 gems as an example, nothing in the store comes at that price. Second, the system is already heavily weighted in favor of paying cash for gems, so much so in fact that converting the excess gems to gold even makes sense. If players have that kind of time to spend on playing and earning enough gold (mostly the unemployed or people in school) you won’t be getting their money anyway, since they don’t have any to spend.

First, it’s exactly what I called it as. Instead of offering a useful, rational example, some posters would rather just throw out random garbage, rathen then put in the least amount of effort to offer up something meaningful.

Second, the steadily rising gem → gold exchange would lead one to belive there are plenty of players out there with more then enough gold to convert to gems to make gemstore purchases (perhaps as an investment tool as a secondary reason). And it rises like clockwork each time new store items are made available. And further, you can’t just dismiss that they won’t without mentioning price. After all, price is going to be a major factor in how players pay for those gems items.

munkiman.3068:

You’re also quoting a call that said an expansion to be released sometime this year, when anet recently said there wasn’t one in the works. I take what those investment calls say with a grain of salt.

As well you should. But then who’s answer to your questions would you not dismiss?

Mourningcry.9428:

First, it’s exactly what I called it as. Instead of offering a useful, rational example, some posters would rather just throw out random garbage, rathen then put in the least amount of effort to offer up something meaningful.

Your “useful, rational example” is just as much “random garbage” as what anyone else has said. Making numbers up, even if you’re attempting to do so logically, to prove a point or support an argument is a wasteful endeavor because it proves nothing. It’s baseless speculation.

Mourningcry.9428:

Second, the steadily rising gem -> gold exchange would lead one to belive there are plenty of players out there with more then enough gold to convert to gems to make gemstore purchases (perhaps as an investment tool as a secondary reason). And it rises like clockwork each time new store items are made available. And further, you can’t just dismiss that they won’t without mentioning price. After all, price is going to be a major factor in how players pay for those gems items.

Something you don’t appear to be accounting for is inflation. Yes, the price of gems is increasing; but so is the price of everything else. There’s more gold in the economy than there used to be. Accordingly, gold is worth less now than it used to be. It’s simple economics.

darkace.8925:

Something you don’t appear to be accounting for is inflation.

Don’t let John Smith hear you call it inflation

darkace.8925:

Yes, the price of gems is increasing; but so is the price of everything else.

Next, the price of items in the gem store has remained constanst since the start of the game. And there is no greater reason to exchange gold for gems, then to make gem store purchases. All other “prices” are irrelevant to this point.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Gem_Store

darkace.8925:

There’s more gold in the economy than there used to be. Accordingly, gold is worth less now than it used to be. It’s simple economics.

Finally, the exchange rate of gems to gold is dictated entirely by player actions. The more people exchanging gold for gems, causes an appreciation the that rate. Likewise, if more players have been purchasing gems for cash and exchanging those gems for case, it would have depreciated. Those are the main factors that affect rate. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

Simply, and in direct answer to the other poster’s claims, players do have the excecss gold to exchange for gems, for gem store items (which haven’t increased in price).

I’d say more, but I’d probably just get another infraction.

Inflation? … have you checked the price of ectos lately? Several lodestones have also been holding very steady in the last few months. Without actually data mining GW2 it’s hard to claim run away inflation, as there are a lot of gold sinks in the game, too. And notice how not everyone is running around with 2k gold in the bank?

But, yea, you are all right, ANet really should just give everything away, not even charge gold for it, because some people are poor and couldn’t afford the cost of enjoying a rare skin.

Heck, they should just give GW2 away for free, because some people don’t have the real money to buy it. Throw in a good PC and solid internet connection, so they can enjoy playing the game. Free food, housing, air conditioning, because that’s what you need for enjoyment, and how dare they keep that from you?!

Some people enjoy rare skins because they are rare. You’d be destroying their enjoyment if you’d make those skins available to everyone.

darkace.8925:

Your “useful, rational example” is just as much “random garbage” as what anyone else has said. Making numbers up, even if you’re attempting to do so logically, to prove a point or support an argument is a wasteful endeavor because it proves nothing. It’s baseless speculation.

What my “garbage” was intended to show, was a thought process, based on reasonable assumptions, of how I came to my opinion. Of course, it can offer no proof. Nor was it ever intended to.

The point it made was to offer up some rational behind the value of what one of those random items may be. Do you know what they’re worth? Me neither. But at least now I kind of have a pretty good idea that they’re probably worth a lot more then 800 gems.

If you can’t appreciate the difference between theoretical analysis and a “gut feeling” in the abscence of hard data, well, then there really isn’t much to discuss.

Mourningcry.9428:

darkace.8925:

Your “useful, rational example” is just as much “random garbage” as what anyone else has said. Making numbers up, even if you’re attempting to do so logically, to prove a point or support an argument is a wasteful endeavor because it proves nothing. It’s baseless speculation.

What my “garbage” was intended to show, was a thought process, based on reasonable assumptions, of how I came to my opinion. Of course, it can offer no proof. Nor was it ever intended to.

The point it made was to offer up some rational behind the value of what one of those random items may be. Do you know what they’re worth? Me neither. But at least now I kind of have a pretty good idea that they’re probably worth a lot more then 800 gems.

If you can’t appreciate the difference between theoretical analysis and a “gut feeling” in the abscence of hard data, well, then there really isn’t much to discuss.

I think there are 2 numbers you would be after here and really only one of them is relevant. But please correct me if this is not what you are looking for.

First is the gem value of items that are no longer for sale via RNG. Things like the Fused skins, Halloween skins, etc. Extremely hard to place a value on the ones that are account bound such as the Fused ones. You can however convert the gold prices of the others to gems to see what they go for. Greatsaw at 234g is worth 7800 gems if gems are 3g for 100 (rough current prices).

Second is what should item skins sell for if Anet was to sell them individually rather than via RNG. I’m not sure this is as hard to estimate. Surely they wouldn’t sell for 7800 gems as there would be very few people who would pay that much for them. That would be around $100 worth of gems in real money. There may be people that would, especially those that paid that much or more for the RNG version. But my assumption is they didn’t intend or want to spend that much.

If you look at current offerings in the store you have basic consumables in the 150-200 range, armor and town clothing sets for 500-700, and the most expensive item (DD upgrade) at 2000. Wintersday skins were sold for 500 and the Flame and Frost weapons were 600. So based on this 500-600 gems seems to be about right for a single weapon skin. It equates to about 16g or $7 per skin.

The big question is would the sale of skins in this price range have higher or lower total sales than what RNG currently provides? Anet wouldn’t have the high paying outliers it currently has who were willing to spend upwards of $250 to get their desired skin. But on the other hand they also had many people not participate at all that would have gladly done so for a reasonable fixed cost. If people felt the in game gold cost was low enough to convert to gems, the cost of gems would only continue to increase and potentially bring in people who want to buy gold with real money and in the end Anet still gets paid either way.

We can only assume Anet has done this study and has determined they are better off with the RNG model regardless of the impact it has on the player experience.

As I have said in previous threads, I am not in favor of the current RNG model nor did I expect it coming to GW2 from GW1. I have yet to spend a dime of real money in the gem shop and most likely will never do so. I have converted in game gold for items or upgrades I felt were worth it. Time will tell if things will change but I’m not counting on it. There is a lot of really good dialogue in this thread and we can only hope Anet is reading it and seeing how a small but representative sample of its player base feels.

Remember GW1? Just go to the Hall of Monuments if you do not and consider what is in the Hall for you. Now fast forward a few years to something called GW3. If ANET sticks to a pattern, items, minis, achievements, legendarys will all count to what you will be able to start the next game with. In GW1 it was grinding that brought you these rewards whereas in GW2 it is rng for the majority of them.

The way things are going with rng if there is a GW3, I highly doubt that I would even bother with it.

I really think ANet must remove RNG boxes for the good of the game in the long run, I am all for them making money, more money for ANet the more stuff they can put in GW2, but making money this way is just wrong IMO. The RNG in this game is pretty brutal to begin with, to make players pay extra for bad RNG is the wrong way to go. By placing skins in the gem store even if for just limited time here or there they will generate them more revenue in the long run, sure the skins will not be “rare” in the beginning but in the long run, with thousands of skins added and the coming and goings of players new and old they will eventually become the “rarest” items out there.

Right now I am seeing way too much negativity regarding this issue, both in game and out, the many I know who attempted these chest feel disappointed and worst of all ripped off. I personally would never purchase these chest, I want to actually see something of value for my money, if these new skins were available for purchase in the gem store I would buy at least 6 right now! But they are not and I have no interest in becoming one of the many who currently feel ripped off by playing the RNG chest game.

tolunart.2095:

tigirius.9014:

This is how I feel, especially with the lopsided loot system. It’s not truly RNG when the same exact people do the same exact things and end up with wildly different if any loot at all. Like one person in a five man will have 9 items while another has 2 and the rest get junk. That’s not RNG that’s loot nerfing or loot manipulation and it’s only going to end when enough people become outraged about it.

Actually that sounds suspiciously similar to the definition of “random.” I’d be concerned if everyone got equal amounts of loot and the devs claimed it was random.

Actually no not when it happens the same exact way every single time these activities take place and with the same people involved and that’s why it’s lopsided not random.

tigirius.9014:

tolunart.2095:

tigirius.9014:

This is how I feel, especially with the lopsided loot system. It’s not truly RNG when the same exact people do the same exact things and end up with wildly different if any loot at all. Like one person in a five man will have 9 items while another has 2 and the rest get junk. That’s not RNG that’s loot nerfing or loot manipulation and it’s only going to end when enough people become outraged about it.

Actually that sounds suspiciously similar to the definition of “random.” I’d be concerned if everyone got equal amounts of loot and the devs claimed it was random.

Actually no not when it happens the same exact way every single time these activities take place and with the same people involved and that’s why it’s lopsided not random.

You’ve posted your results in the “loot” thread and they were similar to those of other players who also posted their results, and similar to what I see while playing. There is not enough deviation from expected results to convince me that there is something sinister going on here, and I’m just not going to take your word for it no matter how many times you insist that you don’t get “good” loot.

tigirius.9014:

Actually no not when it happens the same exact way every single time these activities take place and with the same people involved and that’s why it’s lopsided not random.

The only thing that predicts frequency of a random result is the percentage set for the random mechanic itself and even then it is a prediction. For example flipping a coin you can predict that it will be heads 5 times out of ten because it is 50/50. You can flip that coin 10 times and get heads 1 maybe three times or even all ten times. Given your argument if you and 9 of your friends buy 10 lottery tickets a day and don’t win but 1 guy buys one lottery ticket for the first time ever and wins, it isn’t random.

Mourningcry.9428:

munkiman.3068:

First i was using 10 gems as an example, nothing in the store comes at that price. Second, the system is already heavily weighted in favor of paying cash for gems, so much so in fact that converting the excess gems to gold even makes sense. If players have that kind of time to spend on playing and earning enough gold (mostly the unemployed or people in school) you won’t be getting their money anyway, since they don’t have any to spend.

First, it’s exactly what I called it as. Instead of offering a useful, rational example, some posters would rather just throw out random garbage, rathen then put in the least amount of effort to offer up something meaningful.

It really doesn’t matter what an item costs in the gem shop when some people simply don’t have an extra 10 or 20 bucks to toss at virtual item purchases. Any example will do in those cases. Some people in turn simply refuse to spend cash also, whatever numbers are used there can be tossed out as well, Anet could never cater to those folks. We can toss around gut instinct numbers all day, for the sake of this particular argument, i really don’t think it’s as relevant. What’s a fair amount then? Who knows?

Mourningcry.9428:

Second, the steadily rising gem -> gold exchange would lead one to belive there are plenty of players out there with more then enough gold to convert to gems to make gemstore purchases (perhaps as an investment tool as a secondary reason). And it rises like clockwork each time new store items are made available. And further, you can’t just dismiss that they won’t without mentioning price. After all, price is going to be a major factor in how players pay for those gems items.

There’s more gold in the economy, so the exchange is going to rise as more gold gets generated, this says very little about individual wealth. The stabilizing factor is those wiling to convert gems to gold. But, given the rising trends that plateau, we can see something about how much wealth is in the economy overall, people are simply out buying the rate in which people are selling the gems back to the pool. Since that’s more the case as the conversions climb, we could almost assume that anet isn’t making as much money as there are people willing to trade in their game gold for goodies. How much they are spending on things with fake money is pretty much irrelevant they are simply taking more out of the pool faster than is being put back in, further swaying in favor of those that are willing to spend cash. My point was as this trend continues, it makes even more sense to players with disposable income to pay with cash, that was really my only point. Where is the breaking point? No idea… Since they do have sales in the store, one might assume we’ve actually reached a point where they need to decide what numbers need to be adjusted.

munkiman.3068:

Mourningcry.9428:

You’re also quoting a call that said an expansion to be released sometime this year, when anet recently said there wasn’t one in the works. I take what those investment calls say with a grain of salt.

As well you should. But then who’s answer to your questions would you not dismiss?

Well since we won’t be getting those numbers from Anet, we could look at the earnings reports and make guesses, but since they seemed to be lumped with sales of the box, it might be tough to sort out. Both have different reason to deceive or distort things.