Guild Wars 2

Please stop having a go at people who are going to wait until more info is given regarding HoT. We all have our reasons for not buying it now and we like to think they are valid reasons.

By far the silliest thing I’ve heard is people paying for it now, but we don’t make fun of you or have a go at you!

Like the title says, only fools rush in and I can assure you that plenty of us are not fools.

I will happily wait for more info and if I am still not convinced it is worth the price for basic edition then I shall simply wait until HoT goes on sale further down the line.

Remember, patience is a virtue ;-)

HenleyLegoMan.4987:

Please stop having a go at people who are going to wait until more info is given regarding HoT.

HenleyLegoMan.4987:

By far the silliest thing I’ve heard is people paying for it now, but we don’t make fun of you or have a go at you!

But there you are making a judgment of people that pre-purchased while asking people not to judge you for passing on the pre-purchase. Even your thread title is “having a go” at people that pre-purchased. I’ve seen more than my fair share of comments and threads criticizing people for pre-purchasing. It goes both ways. What it boils down to is, don’t tell me what to do with my money and I won’t tell you what to do with yours. Fair enough?

That why kickstaters always fail? I still do not understand ppl pay 100$ for games that are not out and have no tangible data on what they are going to be like just the ideal but 50$ for a game that you know well is going too far.

HenleyLegoMan.4987:

We all have our reasons for not buying it now and we like to think they are valid reasons.

If they’re the group think reasons I assume you’re using, I assure you, they’re not. But hey you’re free to get emotional about it.

Monkey experiments and all that.

OP, you gave me my first laugh of the day thank you.

You ask people not to have a go at people who want to wait for situation, while having a go with your title by calling the people who did prepurchase fools. Surely I’m not the only one who sees the irony in this.

I’ve not said one bad word about people who want to wait and see. I have probably said a couple of bad words about people who do nothing but attack. Or try to tell other people not to buy. See it’s one thing to say, I don’t think I’ll buy this yet and it’s another thing to say, no one should buy this. Because no one should speak for other people.

There has been far more attacking of people who like the game by people who don’t lately, than the other way around. Thanks for the laugh.

Have fun waiting until 2017

Whether one is willing to pay with insufficient info is largely a trust issue for anyone who doesn’t have a pool of discretionary funds large enough that $50-100 seems trivial. Those who trust the company are willing to pay. If they have doubts, they may not be.

That said, I wish people would be more demanding with regard to products in general. Consumers’ only power to influence the actions of producers is to refuse to buy unless the product deserves the price. Failing to exercise that power can have the unfortunate side effect of encouraging companies to sell lower quality at the same (or a higher) price.

Again, I have no idea at this time whether HoT represents value for money. It might, it might not. That’s the problem. The reveals I’ve seen have largely been about features (Revenant and Elite Specs) and the PvP maps. I’ve seen very little about the PvE content. Thus, it is impossible for me to make a responsible decision on value-for-money.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Whether one is willing to pay with insufficient info is largely a trust issue for anyone who doesn’t have a pool of discretionary funds large enough that $50-100 seems trivial. Those who trust the company are willing to pay. If they have doubts, they may not be.

That said, I wish people would be more demanding with regard to products in general. Consumers’ only power to influence the actions of producers is to refuse to buy unless the product deserves the price. Failing to exercise that power can have the unfortunate side effect of encouraging companies to sell lower quality at the same (or a higher) price.

Again, I have no idea at this time whether HoT represents value for money. It might, it might not. That’s the problem. The reveals I’ve seen have largely been about features (Revenant and Elite Specs) and the PvP maps. I’ve seen very little about the PvE content. Thus, it is impossible for me to make a responsible decision on value-for-money.

Would not the ppl who do buy it say “yes we want more expansion” and thoughts who do not are saying “yes we want more free LS.” Just playing the negative is not the only way to make changes.

HenleyLegoMan.4987:

By far the silliest thing I’ve heard is people paying for it now, but we don’t make fun of you or have a go at you!

Calling somebody a “fool” or somebody’s decision as “silly” seems like making fun or having a go at somebody.

Like Trogdor said, nobody has any business in telling me or somebody else what to do (or not to do) with my money.

I do not regret buying the 100 euro version. GW2 is my favourite game and I’m a long time, proud supporter of A-net. I’m looking forward to playing the betas and I love my bonus goodies- to me, that alone is worth of the price.

Pre-purchase isn’t necessary. Not buying it isn’t the end of the world. But spending my money on the pre-purchase made me happy, and that’s what matters.

Jski.6180:

Would not the ppl who do buy it say “yes we want more expansion” and thoughts who do not are saying “yes we want more free LS.” Just playing the negative is not the only way to make changes.

Should HoT fail to produce the “desired” revenue, that may or may not be interpreted as a demand for a return to LS. Companies are managed by people, who are prone — in the absence of explicit statements from consumers — to interpret a financial failure in light of their own thoughts and beliefs. ANet is as likely to take disappointing Hot revenue as: a reason to return to LS; a reason to pack it in; or a reason to seek a third option — whatever that might be.

I was pointing to a much narrower issue, which is the ability of consumers to influence company behavior in their favor by suing their only power. This power exists and can be used regardless of how the company is presenting their product — as long as they are charging for something. For instance, if ANet shifted back to the LS approach, consumer complaints might shift back to the often-debated issue of RNG boxes.

Edit: telling the company why you’re not paying is essential is the consumer is to in any way influence the company. Finally, to he company, refusing to purchase is the only way to really influence the company — although it takes mass refusal to make a dent.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Jski.6180:

Would not the ppl who do buy it say “yes we want more expansion” and thoughts who do not are saying “yes we want more free LS.” Just playing the negative is not the only way to make changes.

Should HoT fail to produce the “desired” revenue, that may or may not be interpreted as a demand for a return to LS. Companies are managed by people, who are prone — in the absence of explicit statements from consumers — to interpret a financial failure in light of their own thoughts and beliefs. ANet is as likely to take disappointing Hot revenue as: a reason to return to LS; a reason to pack it in; or a reason to seek a third option — whatever that might be.

I was pointing to a much narrower issue, which is the ability of consumers to influence company behavior in their favor by suing their only power. This power exists and can be used regardless of how the company is presenting their product — as long as they are charging for something. For instance, if ANet shifted back to the LS approach, consumer complaints might shift back to the often-debated issue of RNG boxes.

Edit: telling the company why you’re not paying is essential is the consumer is to in any way influence the company. Finally, to he company, refusing to purchase is the only way to really influence the company — although it takes mass refusal to make a dent.

So only be negative is the way to changes things i am not sure if that a good way to look at life. Money is only one of many ways to changes habitat of company if money was the only way then thoughts with more money would have all the say and our system of gov. would comply fall apart.

Vayne.8563:

There has been far more attacking of people who like the game by people who don’t lately, than the other way around. Thanks for the laugh.

Evidence, because from my perspective it has been heavily the other way around.

Jski.6180:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Jski.6180:

Would not the ppl who do buy it say “yes we want more expansion” and thoughts who do not are saying “yes we want more free LS.” Just playing the negative is not the only way to make changes.

Should HoT fail to produce the “desired” revenue, that may or may not be interpreted as a demand for a return to LS. Companies are managed by people, who are prone — in the absence of explicit statements from consumers — to interpret a financial failure in light of their own thoughts and beliefs. ANet is as likely to take disappointing Hot revenue as: a reason to return to LS; a reason to pack it in; or a reason to seek a third option — whatever that might be.

I was pointing to a much narrower issue, which is the ability of consumers to influence company behavior in their favor by suing their only power. This power exists and can be used regardless of how the company is presenting their product — as long as they are charging for something. For instance, if ANet shifted back to the LS approach, consumer complaints might shift back to the often-debated issue of RNG boxes.

Edit: telling the company why you’re not paying is essential is the consumer is to in any way influence the company. Finally, to he company, refusing to purchase is the only way to really influence the company — although it takes mass refusal to make a dent.

So only be negative is the way to changes things i am not sure if that a good way to look at life. Money is only one of many ways to changes habitat of company if money was the only way then thoughts with more money would have all the say and our system of gov. would comply fall apart.

There are really only two* ways for consumers to change a company.

1) Targeting their income.

2) Government regulation.

I don’t think that getting governments involved in the pricing of MMO expansions is a good idea.

• I suppose that being sufficiently wealthy to buy the company counts as a third option.

There’s legal action as well, but I don’t think Anet has done anything illegal here.

DaShi.1368:

There’s legal action as well, but I don’t think Anet has done anything illegal here.

Legal action targets their pocketbook and/or falls under government regulation. But I don’t see anything illegal here either.

Ashen.2907:

Jski.6180:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Jski.6180:

Would not the ppl who do buy it say “yes we want more expansion” and thoughts who do not are saying “yes we want more free LS.” Just playing the negative is not the only way to make changes.

Should HoT fail to produce the “desired” revenue, that may or may not be interpreted as a demand for a return to LS. Companies are managed by people, who are prone — in the absence of explicit statements from consumers — to interpret a financial failure in light of their own thoughts and beliefs. ANet is as likely to take disappointing Hot revenue as: a reason to return to LS; a reason to pack it in; or a reason to seek a third option — whatever that might be.

I was pointing to a much narrower issue, which is the ability of consumers to influence company behavior in their favor by suing their only power. This power exists and can be used regardless of how the company is presenting their product — as long as they are charging for something. For instance, if ANet shifted back to the LS approach, consumer complaints might shift back to the often-debated issue of RNG boxes.

Edit: telling the company why you’re not paying is essential is the consumer is to in any way influence the company. Finally, to he company, refusing to purchase is the only way to really influence the company — although it takes mass refusal to make a dent.

So only be negative is the way to changes things i am not sure if that a good way to look at life. Money is only one of many ways to changes habitat of company if money was the only way then thoughts with more money would have all the say and our system of gov. would comply fall apart.

There are really only two* ways for consumers to change a company.

1) Targeting their income.

2) Government regulation.

I don’t think that getting governments involved in the pricing of MMO expansions is a good idea.

• I suppose that being sufficiently wealthy to buy the company counts as a third option.

There is a 3ed one self or industry regulation where you keep with industry standers of pricing and putting out goods. You can apply to the industry or look at the industry standers to get a good ideal of what is going on. So think movements of protesting (even though they where not going to buy it in the first places) or letters not saying they will not buy the goods or stop ppl from buying them (often killing jobs etc.. and causing more harm then good) but try make a plead to the industry over all to changes something. I mean company are still ran by humans. Must we use the nuclear option every time?

Jski.6180:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Jski.6180:

Would not the ppl who do buy it say “yes we want more expansion” and thoughts who do not are saying “yes we want more free LS.” Just playing the negative is not the only way to make changes.

Should HoT fail to produce the “desired” revenue, that may or may not be interpreted as a demand for a return to LS. Companies are managed by people, who are prone — in the absence of explicit statements from consumers — to interpret a financial failure in light of their own thoughts and beliefs. ANet is as likely to take disappointing Hot revenue as: a reason to return to LS; a reason to pack it in; or a reason to seek a third option — whatever that might be.

I was pointing to a much narrower issue, which is the ability of consumers to influence company behavior in their favor by suing their only power. This power exists and can be used regardless of how the company is presenting their product — as long as they are charging for something. For instance, if ANet shifted back to the LS approach, consumer complaints might shift back to the often-debated issue of RNG boxes.

Edit: telling the company why you’re not paying is essential is the consumer is to in any way influence the company. Finally, to he company, refusing to purchase is the only way to really influence the company — although it takes mass refusal to make a dent.

So only be negative is the way to changes things i am not sure if that a good way to look at life. Money is only one of many ways to changes habitat of company if money was the only way then thoughts with more money would have all the say and our system of gov. would comply fall apart.

If consumers are positive, and pay the set price, the company can only think, “We’re doing this right.” For a company to change their approach, they need to have a reason to do so. However, if you believe there are a multitude of ways consumers can influence companies, please name some.

Private enterprise and government are very different entities. In democracies, citizens can influence their government by voting. Private enterprise does not conduct votes. Iirc, polls are not even allowed on these forums. If someone in government uses their position to enrich themselves, this is, in some countries, illegal. It is never illegal fora company to seek profit, though laws exist to prevent some activity that can lead to profit.

Jski.6180:

Ashen.2907:

Jski.6180:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Jski.6180:

Would not the ppl who do buy it say “yes we want more expansion” and thoughts who do not are saying “yes we want more free LS.” Just playing the negative is not the only way to make changes.

Should HoT fail to produce the “desired” revenue, that may or may not be interpreted as a demand for a return to LS. Companies are managed by people, who are prone — in the absence of explicit statements from consumers — to interpret a financial failure in light of their own thoughts and beliefs. ANet is as likely to take disappointing Hot revenue as: a reason to return to LS; a reason to pack it in; or a reason to seek a third option — whatever that might be.

I was pointing to a much narrower issue, which is the ability of consumers to influence company behavior in their favor by suing their only power. This power exists and can be used regardless of how the company is presenting their product — as long as they are charging for something. For instance, if ANet shifted back to the LS approach, consumer complaints might shift back to the often-debated issue of RNG boxes.

Edit: telling the company why you’re not paying is essential is the consumer is to in any way influence the company. Finally, to he company, refusing to purchase is the only way to really influence the company — although it takes mass refusal to make a dent.

So only be negative is the way to changes things i am not sure if that a good way to look at life. Money is only one of many ways to changes habitat of company if money was the only way then thoughts with more money would have all the say and our system of gov. would comply fall apart.

There are really only two* ways for consumers to change a company.

1) Targeting their income.

2) Government regulation.

I don’t think that getting governments involved in the pricing of MMO expansions is a good idea.

• I suppose that being sufficiently wealthy to buy the company counts as a third option.

There is a 3ed one self or industry regulation where you keep with industry standers of pricing and putting out goods. You can apply to the industry or look at the industry standers to get a good ideal of what is going on. So think movements of protesting (even though they where not going to buy it in the first places) or letters not saying they will not buy the goods or stop ppl from buying them (often killing jobs etc.. and causing more harm then good) but try make a plead to the industry over all to changes something. I mean company are still ran by humans. Must we use the nuclear option every time?

Movements of protesting work because of the potential impact on revenue.

Adherence to industry standards of pricing is done because charging more than what everyone else does means fewer people buy your product.

Letters of refusal to buy the company’s products are targeting the company’s revenue. They work if the company believes that the loss of revenue from the letter writers would seriously impact their bottom line.

Here is a solid test of revenue vs everything else as a motivator for large businesses.

Write a letter to CocaCola asking them to stop selling all of their beverages except for their bottled water because all but the water are harmful to human beings. Do not hold your breath.

There is a reason that it took legal action to get transfats out of food.

Do you want to know why I bought the game? For 100?

I get the expansion: Value unknown
I get a char slot value 800 gems /10 euro
I get 4000 gems value 50 euro
I get a finisher and a mini value 800 gems /10 euro
I get a glider wing skin: Value unknown
I get guild hall stuff: Value unknown

I get beta acces… no value for beta. The fact I want to see it mean I’ll provide some time for them to see their work perform, gfood or bad, which will be a help to the community later on.

I get a title: value: mostly useless. As ppl can buy it it has no significant ingame worth.

So in effect I bought gems , a char slot and a finisher and a mini, I am no hardcore mini buyer but I do own quite a lot of finishers… I payed the equivalent of 5600 gems IMHO which is about 70 euro, and I needed gems and a char slot anyways. so those 60 euro’s would have been payed anyhow. Leaving me the expansion which is not worth anything at the momenty as it’s just a code. Like the wings. but In my personal perspetive I bought it for less then 30 euro’s (still have the glider skin, the guild hall stuff (and the beta’s))

I own the vanilla, and I could have bought a second somewhere in time. but I didn’t. I cannot buy a new vanilla anymore. So be it. I do not want to give up my 18,5k AP account for a supposedly better deal and I played 3 years already, also participated in the vanilla beta, stress test and so on.

Value is what you see in it, as you just bough a lot of 1’s and 0’s actually.

I got 2.5k hours out of the original game. paying $50 for an xpac full for features and content is the least I can do. I preordered as soon as I could.

secondly, im HAPPY for all the new players getting the deal. it doesn’t bother me one bit.

But I cant help falling in love with you.

Anet.

PaxTheGreatOne.9472:

Do you want to know why I bought the game? For 100?

I get the expansion: Value unknown
I get a char slot value 800 gems /10 euro
I get 4000 gems value 50 euro
I get a finisher and a mini value 800 gems /10 euro
I get a glider wing skin: Value unknown
I get guild hall stuff: Value unknown

I get beta acces… no value for beta. The fact I want to see it mean I’ll provide some time for them to see their work perform, gfood or bad, which will be a help to the community later on.

I get a title: value: mostly useless. As ppl can buy it it has no significant ingame worth.

So in effect I bought gems , a char slot and a finisher and a mini, I am no hardcore mini buyer but I do own quite a lot of finishers… I payed the equivalent of 5600 gems IMHO which is about 70 euro, and I needed gems and a char slot anyways. so those 60 euro’s would have been payed anyhow. Leaving me the expansion which is not worth anything at the momenty as it’s just a code. Like the wings. but In my personal perspetive I bought it for less then 30 euro’s (still have the glider skin, the guild hall stuff (and the beta’s))

I own the vanilla, and I could have bought a second somewhere in time. but I didn’t. I cannot buy a new vanilla anymore. So be it. I do not want to give up my 18,5k AP account for a supposedly better deal and I played 3 years already, also participated in the vanilla beta, stress test and so on.

Value is what you see in it, as you just bough a lot of 1’s and 0’s actually.

Thats how I saw my purchase with the ultimate edition a good value for MY MONEY.
A day at work is nothing to me to spend on something that would last me months.

BUT! I am very worried of getting burned by a game, as I have seen it many times in steam early access games or kick starters. But this is a major company they have to think of future plans. Gw2 will eventually die and when they roll out a new game there name must be pristine.

I respect everyone’s views in this sad day in guild wars. What was supposed to be a good announcement has become a debacle.

The blame is Anets more specifically there public relations people. COMMUNICATION is key, I understand were all just a bunch of nerds but were paying nerds that give you your pay checks. So for for the love of god can we get some kind of response.

Anet if you dont want to give these players a free character slot then at least post a sale on it. There a win- win for everyone right? You get a chracter slot for cheap they get a bit of money for the expansion sale and character sale.

I understand some will still be unhappy but its a constructive suggestion unlike many post that are just name calling and insulting.

Who you calling a fool brah?