Guild Wars 2

…and here I was thinking they were all robots.

Yes, of course they’re people too, but no one is angry with the devs (on this occasion!).

People are angry with the company as a whole and more specifically, with the financial part of the company (or the investment company – whoever controls prices).

Just because a few of the people, who work at a company, are artists, doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed to complain, for risk of hurting their delicate sensibilities.

BTW, before anyone accuses me of being unempathetic, my mother was an artist and had she worked for Anet, I’m sure she could have coped with this situation perfectly well.

Especially as she wouldn’t have been the one to design the bundle, or set the prices.

Unloveableone.6082:

Squee.7829:

Where were you people when everyone was raving about Destiny or Assassin’s Creed: Unity? Or Rage? You were silent then. because people had complaints. And legitimate ones. None of those games were worth the $60 price tag and people were very vocal about it. But no one called those “works of art”. Just terrible games. It’s criticism game designers unfortunately come across.
Of course, I’m not saying “OMG your game suckslol” is the proper response, but if people feel it’s not worth $50, it’s not worth $50. Try harder or drop the price.

Harassing devs(that dont even have anything to do with it either) and acting like this is not criticism.
You don’t want to buy it? Don’t buy it then.
But acting like a spoiled rotten child and harassing people is not the right way to go.

Of course it’s not.

I would be interested to know how that person even got hold of her personal account name, in order to do that?

But, just because someone contacts the wrong type of employee, highly inappropriately, doesn’t mean everyone else should just have to keep quiet on the subject.

If that were the case, don’t you think the temptation for companies would be to find the most innocent (and innocent looking) employee and ask them to say they were upset?

We’re not our brother’s keeper – let alone the keeper of some random person, on the internet.

Whereas, if you work for a company, of course you have to accept that you may experience some unfair backlash, from time to time.

As you are professionally associated with the company, whether you are responsible for, or agree with, everything they do, or not.

That’s just life.

Sad Swordfish.9743:

Tigaseye.2047:

Sad Swordfish.9743:

Sirendor.1394:

This is not a matter of entitlement. It’s a matter of rewarding loyalty and being fair to people.

You couldn’t define entitlement more clearly if you tried. We’ve already abolished these arguments countless times. There is nothing unfair about any of this. A base product is being absorbed into another – The expansion is 50 USD with or without the base game. Its added to avoid cannibalization.

And the rewarding loyalty one is just crazy. The best way they can reward loyalty is to keep making the game great and keeping a service players want to use. Asking for a better deal on a product that does not even have a release date is pointless.

hibari.9836:

Frankly, there is no time when being told “X amount isn’t that much” isn’t going to cause bad blood, and that’s the case whether someone’s saying “$10 isn’t that much” or “150 gold isn’t that much” or “$50 isn’t that much,” because those are all relative and subjective statements. All of them are going to make people whose means are lower feel very slighted, dismissed, and judged.

What you are doing here is that you are trying to assert yourself as a victim in this discussion, removing personal sovereignty and responsibility on yourself. The fact that you are pulling a “everything is relative” statement speaks to this.

People are just telling you that you can go about it. One of my friends doesn’t play much it, but it is completely dooable and reasonable. The expansion doesn’t have a date. The Revernants full feature set has not even been shown yet. So there is time and options.
Im close to 10000 AP. They give you 400 gems for that for free, just for doing things in the game. Thats a half character slot right there. They might even do sales again with character slots off 25% if you want that. Or you can simply wait with buying the expansion until it comes down in price.

I think you’re missing the point.

It would be better if you just stopped calling people “entitled”.

It’s rude, frankly and on a forum that doesn’t tolerate rudeness, however mild and/or justified the person may have felt in being so, it is inappropriate.

That doesn’t mean you can’t hold your view, or disagree with other people’s views, but it would be better to just stick to the facts, rather than calling people names.

I think that is the point of the thread.

Listen, “entitled” is not a slur. It’s a word which basically means “someone who expects something”. That is essentially what entitled means. Trying to turn it into a rude word, or a dirty word or some other form of censorship is bad.

I’m entitled. You are entitled. We all entitled in our daily lives. The discussion, and what is so egregious is about what they are entitled about is fair. That’s essentially it.

No, it is a slur, or a criticism, used in that way.

Yes, the word entitled fundamentally means something innocuous, but when you accuse someone of acting in an entitled way, we all know that means acting in a selfish, childish and overly deserving way.

If you, genuinely, don’t mean it like that, you should be aware that that is how it will be perceived; so (if you do not wish to cause offence) it would be best not to use it at all.

Sad Swordfish.9743:

Sirendor.1394:

This is not a matter of entitlement. It’s a matter of rewarding loyalty and being fair to people.

You couldn’t define entitlement more clearly if you tried. We’ve already abolished these arguments countless times. There is nothing unfair about any of this. A base product is being absorbed into another – The expansion is 50 USD with or without the base game. Its added to avoid cannibalization.

And the rewarding loyalty one is just crazy. The best way they can reward loyalty is to keep making the game great and keeping a service players want to use. Asking for a better deal on a product that does not even have a release date is pointless.

hibari.9836:

Frankly, there is no time when being told “X amount isn’t that much” isn’t going to cause bad blood, and that’s the case whether someone’s saying “$10 isn’t that much” or “150 gold isn’t that much” or “$50 isn’t that much,” because those are all relative and subjective statements. All of them are going to make people whose means are lower feel very slighted, dismissed, and judged.

What you are doing here is that you are trying to assert yourself as a victim in this discussion, removing personal sovereignty and responsibility on yourself. The fact that you are pulling a “everything is relative” statement speaks to this.

People are just telling you that you can go about it. One of my friends doesn’t play much it, but it is completely dooable and reasonable. The expansion doesn’t have a date. The Revernants full feature set has not even been shown yet. So there is time and options.
Im close to 10000 AP. They give you 400 gems for that for free, just for doing things in the game. Thats a half character slot right there. They might even do sales again with character slots off 25% if you want that. Or you can simply wait with buying the expansion until it comes down in price.

I think you’re missing the point.

It would be better if you just stopped calling people “entitled”.

It’s rude, frankly and on a forum that doesn’t tolerate rudeness, however mild and/or justified the person may have felt in being so, it is inappropriate.

That doesn’t mean you can’t hold your view, or disagree with other people’s views, but it would be better to just stick to the facts, rather than calling people names.

I think that is the point of the thread.

Yeah, generally, it’s a completely inappropriate accusation and is very often projection, anyway.

For example, when someone, who owns a no longer available item, tries to accuse other people of acting “entitled”, just because they ask for a chance to get the item, themselves.

They, apparently, don’t see that is it them who is acting entitled, as they think they are entitled to remain one of the special few, who have exclusive access to the item, forever.

Also, it’s quite often (wrongly) used as an insult, when the supposedly “entitled” person involved is, in fact, quite literally, legally entitled to something, as they have paid for it.

These people often, also, throw the words “children” and “babies” around, when they are the ones with an, apparently, only childlike understanding of consumer rights.

In this case, someone is not acting “entitled” by just stating their opinion that there should be some kind of compensation for people who have already bought the game, or by saying that (in their opinion) the price point is too high.

Just because someone else may not agree with that point of view, doesn’t give them the right to call them that.

Kalavier.1097:

Tigaseye.2047:

I envisage rangers spending a lot of their time running through forests.

Long coats would catch on everything – undergrowth, low branches, fallen trees – it would be a total nightmare.

Trenchcoats are for open ground and well, trenches…

I feel that a sleek top and leggings, with as little in the way of extraneous attachments and loose material, as possible and flat boots, would be far more practical; or even a catsuit type thing.

I think ‘rangers’ by general definition, encompass so many different archtypes and themes it’s hard to say one suits all.

I’d envision a ranger of the wild to use something simple. More akin to a general leather tunic, pants, and coat with pockets for storage and easy to maintain. Like Aragorn from LOTR movies. Because tight/sleek pants and a top wouldn’t have much storage and all. Using modern terms, I’d picture them wearing cargo pants and a simple shirt with a good coat over tight jeans and a tight shirt.

Now somebody who lives in a city but hunts, I could see using more of a tight leather armor, with a coat overtop. A scout themed ranger would have more of a leather armor or light (meaning chainmail/light weight) armor look to them.

“Getting caught on everything around” depends on the terrain. I mean, some forests are thick and cramped, others are more open with less brush. Is the ranger situated in a harsher or colder enviroment (Like the shiverpeaks)? They’d probably go for a longer coat simply for warmth reasons (assuming we are talking about a human.) While one who is in a warmer/more friendly enviroment may prefer just a tunic with a cloak or coat in their pack for a rainy day.

I’d wager a coat would catch less then loose straps. edit: Meaning, if the ranger lives out in the wild more then in civilization, they likely carry everything with them. A coat is an effective protection from rain and elements, and can double as a blanket. Even if they aren’t wearing it, it likely is bundled and attached to their pack (which they’d have to have anyway because pockets can only hold so much).

Well yes, as you say, we do also have backpacks (and a quiver, maybe) for storage.

I just think of hunters (which is, basically, what the ranger class is) as being, traditionally, mainly found in woods and forests.

…and I live in the UK, where the climate is normally damp, but temperate and deciduous woods and forests are generally full of undergrowth and stuff to get caught on.

But, yes, rangers could be anywhere and loose straps would be even worse than long coats, but I don’t really get why it, necessarily, needs to be one or the other?

I think, ideally, you would have a choice of clothing styles available in-game.

The Aragorn look is great.

The jungle outfit is fairly close to what you are describing, with the pockets, but it’s obviously a gemstore item.

…and this is probably where the problem lies.

The more choices you provide in-game, the less you can force people to feel they have to buy gemstore stuff.

I think they can take that approach too far, though.

Provide no real choice in-game and people will be more likely to lose interest.

Personally, I wouldn’t have started from here – I would have made the game a sub one and provided everything in-game.

Where, or not, that would have been a smart business move, I’m not sure, but it’s what I prefer.

jihm.2315:

what the kitten is wrong with people this days?

Austerity.

Instead of fighting to try to make sure they are paid enough, it feels easier to refuse to spend any money.

Ridiculous forum bug.

Kalavier.1097:

Kinda funny because I’d see the medium armor classes using more pockets and stuff then tight leather outfits without pockets.

Though I’d not call Vigil medium a trench coat at all… SOME themes fit long coats, some don’t. I’d see a ranger who spends most of their time in the wild to prefer a longer coat then a short one/tighter leather. You can use a long coat as a makeshift blanket if you have to. I mean, a coat is easier to manage then a cloak which a lot of fantasy realms/stories have people using.

My norn ranger doesn’t have a long coat ingame anymore (used to use tier 2 norn armor before wardrobe), but I could easily see her wearing one over her armor at times. In general, the medium armor is filled with coats. I’d call some simply normal coats, and not ‘long coats’.

I envisage rangers spending a lot of their time running through forests.

Long coats would catch on everything – undergrowth, low branches, fallen trees – it would be a total nightmare.

Trenchcoats are for open ground and well, trenches…

I feel that a sleek top and leggings, with as little in the way of extraneous attachments and loose material, as possible and flat boots, would be far more practical; or even a catsuit type thing.

Jski.6180:

CureForLiving.5360:

Lord Kuru.3685:

No. If applied to existing GW2 account you get:

Access to GW2 HoT

and that’s all. No additional character slots.

Yeah ANet should just give all existing players 2 free character slots. Hopefully that will make them feel ‘rewarded’.

There no way to make ppl feel rewarded you have ppl who are using self deceiving math that will always have it come up that they should not get it due to how much it is even if it was 20$. Ppl simply do not want to pay for it.

You don’t know that.

Obviously, there will be people who either can’t, or won’t, pay anything of they can help it.

But there are other people who have some sort of lesser amount in mind that they would be prepared to pay.

You have to remember that some people have several accounts, so they are talking about $150, or more, here, to upgrade them all.

Personally, I think that is one of the other issues in this game; that people play WvW on all 3 competing servers, simultaneously.

How can you hope to have honest competition with that happening?

I, personally, think they should limit WvW participation to one server per household.

…but that’s another topic.

One way and another this game isn’t currently worth kitten xpac, IMO.

It could be with some work, but it isn’t currently.

ETA: …and how on earth a multi million dollar company can think it’s OK to stick with a forum which turns “a fifty dollar” (in numbers and $) into “kitten”, not to mention its other bugs, I have absolutely no idea?

Yes, it’s subjective, but just because a view is subjective doesn’t make it not worth expressing.

If it is a full expansion, then I personally think $50 is fair enough and pretty much in-line with what other games charge.

In fact, you really would be getting quite a lot of entertainment for that price.

If not, then it probably is a little on the high side, but I have no idea how many gems they have been selling lately (for real money)?

Maybe it’s not deemed to be enough?

As long as most of the money they receive (in whatever way) is ploughed back into the game, to sort out any issues quickly and the game continues to improve and grow, then I think it’s OK.

If not, then it obviously isn’t.

As an expansion (however large) for a flawed, unbalanced game, that is never really fixed, obviously wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) be worth very much.

…or not to me, anyway.

Sorean.5379:

You guys are forgeting one thing.
This is a PRE PURCHASE,you are basically paying to get free beta keys. You are playing before other people do.

That’s something I really don’t get.

Since when did being a beta tester become something you pay to do?

Isn’t it bad enough that companies don’t pay their beta testers, anymore, without making them pay them?

It’s a pretty hilarious situation, frankly.

Not that I, necessarily, think they’re doing that here; but the fact that some people pay for beta keys, in general, surprises me.

…and yes, I get that some people do it to get a headstart on how to master the content, but that isn’t good for games, either, IMO.

DarkWasp.7291:

New players win again.

Alright fellow veterans, we take the bench again as Tyria gets overrun by the bearbow army.

Blame Anet’s staggeringly rubbish design for that.

Should be nothing wrong with using a bow and practically any other (non-tank) pet dies within 2 secs, which is not the new player’s fault.

If you don’t like it, campaign for them to make ranged weaps and pets better.

Instead of complaining about people who just, logically, try to play their ranger like a ranger and use a pet with some kind of longevity.

Kal Spiro.9745:

DarksunG.9537:

HAHAHAHA. oh god.. it’s like ANET is going out of their way to lose respect. these prices are just silly.

Can’t wait to see the white Knights justify how this meager expansion costs more than the GW1 full Campaigns +2 character slots.

First off, how old is GW1? How long ago was that? Are you completely mental?

Well, the thing is, that wages have not gone up much since then for a lot of people and austerity cuts are targeting the poor and the middle class (such as it is, now); not the very few rich people.

Also, we have been in deflation, recently, in the UK.

Then there have been cuts to affordable credit.

So, one way and another, many people actually have less spare cash than they had back then, if anything; not more.

This is what happens when you try to make the poor pay for the super-rich.

It actually affects consumer capitalism negatively, as you reduce the number of ordinary people who can afford to buy things.

The way they’re probably looking at it, is that they’re throwing in the core game for free, for new players; rather than ripping off existing players.

I do still see why people are angry, though.

I don’t like this change.

Being bullied and then bullying, purely due to gear, is never a good thing.

There again, as others have said, there is so much imbalance anyway that it probably still won’t be anywhere near the worst of the game’s issues.

zoejo.2317:

A lot of you make the assumption that “if they lowered the gem price, more people would buy, therefore they would profit more”.

May I remind you that this conclusion is, unless you’re an exception, completely baseless except for your intuition. Nothing wrong with that. But know that ArenaNet, as a company, has people dedicated to data analysis and advanced statistics that demonstrate inequivocally that a certain price is better. If they run the prices they run, it’s probably because that’s where the profit is. And we can’t legitimately blame them for that.

After almost 3 years of selling gems to players that number in the millions, they can now run very accurate linear regressions that predict the most profitable prices. That is more evidence than any of us can provide to back up our opinions.

While the price might be too high for your budget, Anet sells for a whole community. It’s irrelevant whether you, as an individual, can afford it or not. Profit is predicted based on the behaviour of the population.

Ah, but does this analysis take into account people who are gradually worn down by the price?

By that, I mean (for example) people who might cough up, to begin with, but who then realise they can’t carry on like that and who then gradually drift off and/or go back to another game.

I doubt it.

I bet they just think “successful sale” and don’t think any further.

Unlike a sub game, they don’t even have a “reason for leaving” form for people to fill in.

mulzi.8273:

On the topic of sub verus f2p, we cannot say which model is the best financially for the companies involved. However, in my experience with both types, I’ve found that the upkeep/patches/balancing/new content is VASTLY better in a sub game than in a f2p game.

The f2p companies, right or wrong, give me the vibe that its just ‘maintaining to shut up their character base, and lure then into cash transactions’. Whereas the sub companies have to pump out the content/updates to keep the subs (and money) rolling in…

Yeah, this is my feeling, as well.

Behellagh.1468:

Tigaseye.2047:

Behellagh.1468:

It’s 80 gems per $1€/£0.85 and has been that since launch. And as others pointed out it’s ANet’s primary source of continuing income. It’s comparable to other game proxy currency available on consoles and in other MMOs.

Your issue is that items cost too much in your opinion in terms of real money. $10€/800 gems for an armor set. As others have said, you are saving from no subscription or being charged for the littlest of things that you would find in F2P.

You also have to remember that a fair number of purchases at the Gem Shop is done with gold bought gems. Lowering the price of items will simply mean it’ll be easier to buy items with gold bought gems which may mean less cash bought gems bought and that means less income for ANet. Given a way to get something for “free” (no cash cost), people will pursue that route rather than open up their wallets more to actually buy gems.

That’s probably why he’s not asking them to lower the price of the items; but just the real money cost of gems.

If they did that, more people would (almost certainly) buy gems with real money, rather than waiting to buy them with gold.

But in the end it’s the same thing. $10€ for a full armor skin is $10€ if it’s 800 gems or 2000 gems. Since I doubt that’s what he’s suggesting, altering the cash cost per gem then he is asking them to lower the cash cost of items on the gem shop by reducing the gem cost or increasing the amount of gems you can get with cash. It’s the same result either way.

Or is this a complaint about the equivalency of $1 is 1€ even though that’s been addressed (UK VAT, exchange rate at launch and any other fees involved with currency exchange).

But it sounds like he’s asking ANet to lower their income by discounting the price of gems, something that will never happen. You want to pay less for an item, wait for the sale.

No, he is very clearly asking them to lower the real money price per gem.

Look at the title.

That is exactly what he is asking (and he said nothing about Dollar to Euro conversion).

…and yes, it amounts to the same thing, for the customer, if they are only using real cash to buy gems.

But, as you rightly pointed out, if you lowered the item price, but left the gold to gem conversion the same, people would be less likely to use real money and more likely to save up gold, instead.

Which would be less good for Anet’s bank balance.

Whereas, if they made it slightly cheaper to buy gems with real money, but left them costing the same amount of gold (and the items costing the same number of gems), it would (presumably) have the opposite effect.

Which would, quite possibly, be good for Anet’s bank balance (overall).

Your entire original point was, effectively, that lowering the gem price of items is, in fact, different from lowering the real money gem price, from that point of view and you are correct; it is.

WereDragon.6083:

World of Warcrafts $15 sub AND cash-shop would like to have a word with the complaining going on here.

Hell you’re paying 15 bucks a month and the mini pets from WoW’s cash shop are still $10 each, for one pet.

As I say, they feel completely unnecessary, though, as you can tame (literally) hundreds of pets, really easily, out in the wild.

Starting right from minute 1, of day 1 and at level 1.

So, you would never, ever, need to be in a situation where you felt devoid of pets, or even devoid of a certain kind of pet, as you can in this game.

You would have to just really, really, like that particular WoW cash store pet to even bother and there aren’t even a lot of cash store pets to choose from.

Nothing really.

Just a few exotics worth around 2.5 to 3g.

Er, yeah, if lots of people from all over the world are experiencing the same thing, simultaneously, then it’s not likely to be a personal internet issue, is it?

Not to mention that my worst issues are invariably during US and Asia peak times, which are during my country’s non-peak times.

Dano.5298:

I think its interesting how dang interested people are in the “rewards” side of the game. I mean I get that too but to me, the real reward in the game is wiping some bad guys, helping your team out, etc.

I mean whats more rewarding saving a keep a few were trying desperately to defend or looping around in SW “finding” “hidden” chests?

I think the point is that it doesn’t have to be an either/or situation.

You can do something because you enjoy it and be equally rewarded.

Doesn’t have to be one, or the other.

…and in a game where gold = real money, of course people will be interested in the rewards.

^ Really?

As I say, play a ranger, then and make sure you enjoy standing on that wall, because that is pretty much all they’re good for in this game.

zoejo.2317:

Tigaseye.2047:

That way, they would (presumably) have a more guaranteed income, without bleeding half their (paying) customers dry, or making people who genuinely can’t afford it have to find money for a sub.

1) What makes you think they don’t have a more than enough income as it is?
2) The fact that there’s someone who can’t afford something isn’t an argument for a change of business plan. Their plan works – otherwise they’d change it. If someone can’t afford something they just won’t buy it. I don’t expect a change of business plan in the real estate market just because I can’t afford a better house. I’ll just live in the house I have.

Well, I don’t really know if it works, or not?

I know they haven’t gone out of business, but I don’t know whether it is working optimally, or not.

Do you?

Personally, I don’t really feel it is working for me, one way and another.

I have spent quite a lot, but I don’t really feel like the money is going where it ought to be going and as such, I am becoming reluctant to spend more.

Clearly people do have various issues with the current system – you can see that from the threads that keep cropping up.

OK, so slightly crazy idea possibly, but what about this:

They carry on sub-free and charging what they currently do for gems and items, but at some point you hit a real-money ceiling and then, after that, everything cosmetic, that is buyable with gems, is freely obtainable (for personal use only) for the rest of that year.

So, for example, the ceiling amount could be twice what they need to make from each player, per year, to be comfortably profitable.

So, going by WoW subs, that would be about £240 (or about £$360).

This would assume that some people would still spend nothing, or next to nothing (in terms of real money), but other people (i.e. pretty much anyone who could afford it) would strive to reach that ceiling as soon as possible.

That way, they would (presumably) have a more guaranteed income, without bleeding half their (paying) customers dry, or making people who genuinely can’t afford it have to find money for a sub.

Ashen.2907:

Tigaseye.2047:

…and then we’re back to spending gold (which equals either time, or real life money) again.

In GW2 you can choose to spend either time or real life money to get what you want. In WoW you must spend both.

Doing a few pet battles and soloing old content to get armour and weaps, for transmog, takes very little time.

Ultimately, you want to spend a certain amount of time playing, anyway – that is the point of playing games.

It’s not just supposed to be a means to an end.

ATM, I am basically paying real money, to avoid having to play certain badly designed areas of the game.

That’s insane, when you think about it.

lordkrall.7241:

^ Actually there are multiple minis that can ONLY be obtained in-game and at least 1 outfit (back during Halloween).

Yeah, I know there are some and most of them are pretty horrible (IMO).

Most of them I wouldn’t take for free.

Not only that, but as I really only do WvW and don’t do group PVE content, in this game, it’s unlikely I could get most of them from anywhere but the TP anyway.

…and then we’re back to spending gold (which equals either time, or real life money) again.

Look, I understand this is a free game (after the initial payment) and I have said myself that it has to make money somehow.

It’s just that, personally, for what I like, it is really bad financially, compared to a sub game like WoW.

Ashen.2907:

Tigaseye.2047:

Ashen.2907:

To those stating that they prefer a sub based game overvone with a cash shop:

The reality is that, in general, the choice is between a no subscription game with a cash shop and a game with a cash shop and a sub.

None of the stuff in the WoW cash shop feels necessary.

There is (or was) virtually no armour (apart from a couple of helms, more recently) in the store and there is plenty of armour in-game.

I’ve only ever bought a couple of non-combat pets, because there are tons easily available in-game.

Same with mounts.

They recently introduced instant 90s, which was slightly controversial, but for anyone who has played for more than 5 mins, they already have a stable full of high level chars, anyway.

None of the stuff in the GW2 cash shop feels necessary.

It is all attainable through the game.

Um, you can’t obtain outfits, directly from the game, at all and the armour available easily, from playing the game, is pretty few and far between, from what I can see.

Most of the minis that are available in-game are not for me.

I like regular-sized baby animals, not weird miniature versions of npcs following me about.

Whereas, in WoW, I can tame endless baby animal comps (WoW version of minis) via pet battles and easily solo tons of low level content, whenever I like, to get armour for transmog.

I know I can subject myself to a skip>permastack>melee group PVE nightmare of a life to farm gold to (eventually) convert gold to gems, but I can’t solo anything (easily) and prefer to play WvW.

It’s just not the same, trust me.

uknortherner.2670:

Taku.6352:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Permanent_Hair_Stylist_Contract

A snip at a mere 2,411g! Perfect for the 1%ers with all that gold lying around I’m sure.

I know, lol!

Over £200 for a few hairstyles.

That’s over a year and a half of WoW subs and that is assuming you don’t spend any more real life money, on anything else, in that timeframe.

Which most people, who would spend that on hairstyles, undoubtedly would do…

I’m not cheap – I think anything up to about £240 a year (on average), for a decent game, would be fair.

But, when you have a single item at virtually that price, it’s just too much.

What I would settle for, is a hairstyle wardrobe.

So, you pay to unlock them, but once you have, it is free to change them.

It’s pretty irritating to pay for a new hairstyle and then realise you can’t even revert back to your old one without paying again.

At the very least, we should be able to have a couple of currently available ones; rather than just one.

IRL, you can put your hair up, or down, for free, after all.

Ashen.2907:

To those stating that they prefer a sub based game overvone with a cash shop:

The reality is that, in general, the choice is between a no subscription game with a cash shop and a game with a cash shop and a sub.

None of the stuff in the WoW cash shop feels necessary.

There is (or was) virtually no armour (apart from a couple of helms, more recently) in the store and there is plenty of armour in-game.

I’ve only ever bought a couple of non-combat pets, because there are tons easily available in-game.

Same with mounts.

They recently introduced instant 90s, which was slightly controversial, but for anyone who has played for more than 5 mins, they already have a stable full of high level chars, anyway.

Behellagh.1468:

It’s 80 gems per $1€/£0.85 and has been that since launch. And as others pointed out it’s ANet’s primary source of continuing income. It’s comparable to other game proxy currency available on consoles and in other MMOs.

Your issue is that items cost too much in your opinion in terms of real money. $10€/800 gems for an armor set. As others have said, you are saving from no subscription or being charged for the littlest of things that you would find in F2P.

You also have to remember that a fair number of purchases at the Gem Shop is done with gold bought gems. Lowering the price of items will simply mean it’ll be easier to buy items with gold bought gems which may mean less cash bought gems bought and that means less income for ANet. Given a way to get something for “free” (no cash cost), people will pursue that route rather than open up their wallets more to actually buy gems.

That’s probably why he’s not asking them to lower the price of the items; but just the real money cost of gems.

If they did that, more people would (almost certainly) buy gems with real money, rather than waiting to buy them with gold.

Yeah, I think it’s a little high.

I understand that this is their only income, at this point, but it still feels slightly on the high side.

By that, I mean that I think they might make slightly more money by charging slightly less.

After all, I assume each transaction costs them virtually nothing – so, it’s all about the initial design cost and then selling as many units as possible.

DJRiful.3749:

I find that GW2 is a much more expensive game than a sub base game. That money can get you 2 months sub and game items are not limited to real life money even if it is not pay 2 win items.

I prefer sub base game because I can get all the items I wanted without paying $20 for one piece and $20 for another piece. That is equivalent to 4 mths of sub.

Yeah, I’ve found the same.

If you’re really careful, it could be cheaper (or even free!); but, if not, you lose.

You then also realise you’re financially subsidising people, some of whom pay nothing but still think they’re superior.

That is not a good feeling.

Whereas, in a sub game, everyone pays the same.

Yes, there are still some people who think they’re superior and may try to exclude others from content, but at least you’re not effectively paying for them to act that way.

lordkrall.7241:

So you prefer being forced to pay in order to even login over being able to CHOOSE to pay for something?

Yep.

Far prefer that, personally.

Of course, if people paid a sub, they would probably be even more annoyed if the game didn’t reach and maintain certain levels of quality.

…and I suspect that is why Anet chose to not do it that way.

Kind of seems to let them off the hook, in many ways.

Initially, people probably felt they could complain about the game they had bought.

But, at this point, I suspect that all many people feel they can really complain about is the items they buy with real money.

That’s not good.

Cyninja.2954:

Vague topic is vague. Are you refering to past black lion ticket skins? Halloween event skins? Wintersday? Are you asking for anet to reduce price on black lion tickets more often?

All of the above?

As it stands your topic is very broad and unclear.

How is it vague?

He clearly says he wants them to bring back the old skins, says they have already said they will and is asking when that will happen.

Whether they have actually said that, I don’t know, but it’s hardly vague.

Enko.6123:

Did they ever say that they were going to find a way to bring back every weapon skin?

Personally, I’d be thrilled if they did so I wouldn’t need to get 60k more gold to buy halloween 2012, fused, aetherized, dreamthisle, sclerite skins.

Yeah, the current price of some of the older skins is absolutely ridiculous.

I hope no one is actually paying that amount for them…

serenke.4806:

Hypersexualized females? What the actual … nvm.

Yeah, I don’t really see them as hypersexualised, either.

Not compared with some other games, anyway.

I would describe them as mildly sexy, at most.

Chuck.8196:

A lot f you seem to miss that stacking is also to break LoS and pull enemies together or into a more suitable area for fighting. (THATS WHAT IT’S USED FOR) And I don’t know about you guys but I find AOEs tend to hit more often when the enemy actually stays in it instead of running out of it chasing other players around the map.

I don’t think people are missing that.

We (or most of us) are not even claiming that people don’t have valid reasons to stack.

We’re taking issue with the fact that the game design has made that the case.

Better design and better balance could have avoided this situation.

I’m trying to make allowances for the fact that the game doesn’t use a trinity design; I understand that that may make things more awkward.

But, even then, I think it’s disappointing how much it relies on things that favour (or appear to favour) perma-stacking and meleeing.

Jerus.4350:

Point being, that it’s not a “stacking” issue as much as an overall game issue that has more than just stacking as a symptom that arises.

Yes, I would totally agree with that.

It definitely seems to be a symptom; not a cause, as such.

cthaeh.2168:

Morfedel.4165:

cthaeh.2168:

Morfedel.4165:

Honestly, I think stacking is a way to exploit flawed AI, not a tactic per se. I’d bet if you talked to the developers they would say that they had never intended stacking to be a tactic to beat these guys.

This actually made me laugh out loud. Yes, I’m sure the developers put all those short duration, small AOE skills and the entire freaking combo system in just so you would never use them.

Wasn’t talking about combos, was talking about stacking. Its not the same thing, not by a long shot. Glad you got a good laugh, but try addressing the actual subject and not some tangent.

Oh, sorry, forgot this is one of those threads where people who have no clue how the game works come to complain that it should change. You see, this game has skill combinations. Some skills are combo fields and some are combo finishers. If a combo finisher is executed inside a combo field an effect is granted to all players or enemies within in its radius. The radius of pretty much every skill in the game is very small, so you have to be close to your enemies and allies in order to take advantage of this system. One would even say you have to “stack” on each other to be inside these combo fields. So, I ask you, how does one take advantage of such a combo system without stacking? Since you seem to understand developer intent so well, why would the developers create such a system if they had no intention of players being close to each other and the enemy?

I don’t know if they did it intentionally, or not, but the other possibility is that some people simply aren’t very good at foreseeing the potential outcomes of their actions.

Unintended consequences, in other words.

Either way, it’s not good – as if they did it on purpose, they are not very good designers (quite frankly) and if they didn’t do it on purpose, they’re lacking in foresight.

^ You’re absolutely right in many ways and I do agree with you to an extent, but I also maintain that it was, primarily, Anet’s fault that players got into these bad habits, in the first place.

If you play a game where every encounter is different and requires a series of different and unique responses and where trying to do the same tactic, repeatedly, simply doesn’t work, you don’t get into those bad habits in the first place.

pdavis.8031:

Morfedel.4165:

Stacking… is effing boring, and to be completely honest, brainless. It requires no real tactics, no thought of any kind. It doesn’t make encounters fun, it makes them lacking in challenge, strategy, and requires no real effort at outplaying the enemy.

Someone else said it earlier in the thread, but I’ll say it again.
Stacking is a legitimate tactic and strategy. Armies all over the world, going back to the days of the Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc. and even today, have used “stacking” at some point or another. The idea was to pack close together for better protection, as well as concentrated fire power. Just because “IT’S SUPER EFFECTIVE!!” doesn’t mean that it’s in anyway broken. Even if in some way, some how, stacking became impossible in GW2, within a week the players would find the next single most effective method, and that would become the norm. Until people started complaining that the “New stacking” was boring and braindead and needs to be removed in favor of a play style the OP enjoys.

No.

Well designed games manage to make each encounter unique and complex enough that one type of method, like perma-stacking (or any other), isn’t always (or even mostly) used.

If people don’t realise that, I can only assume they haven’t played many other MMOs (or no good ones).

I totally agree.

videoboy.4162:

Once again, it looks like they just got bored by the time they got to the female boots. How do boots that clunky fit with the rest of the aesthetic?

Women do wear chunky boots with more feminine clothes.

…and vice versa.

In fact, I think it’s more typical to mix stuff up like that, than to wear outfits where everything is super-feminine.

I love the colours and the Egyptian theme.

Less keen on the fact you can only hide the headpiece (not the shoulders) and on the flared skirt.

Especially as my both my char’s hands and her warhorn clip through it.

I would, ideally, like a slightly more casual leggings-only version (with no skirt).

I totally agree.

Probably bank.

It’s shared across all chars and you get more spaces than you would from an extra bag.

I don’t really mind waiting (within reason) for new content in games.

I get that new stuff takes time to produce.

I’m more concerned about overall fairness and balance and whether the existing stuff works properly and is enjoyable.

Seems to me, when you sell someone a game, you have promised to ensure that all the existing stuff works properly and is enjoyable, for that initial price.

So, it’s not like it should be viewed as extra work, that should be paid extra for, if it doesn’t.

That is kind of my issue with the game – that I don’t feel they have a firm enough grasp of what is going on (and going wrong) in their game.

That they just made it and, basically, washed their hands of much further responsibility.

Whereas, new stuff is new stuff – as long as they don’t charge extra for it, in advance (and you’re not paying a sub), they have every right to take as long as they like.

Although, if they do, they do so at their own risk (of gradually losing players).

Much as you can’t (and shouldn’t try to) force them to produce extra stuff quickly, they obviously can’t force you to hang around waiting forever, either.

Broom.2561:

I think that all the political correctness is getting a bit tiresome, frankly. Not because I’ve got any issues with gender identity / handicaps / sexual orientation / race or what have you, but because I’m tired of getting my face rubbed into it.

As someone else pointed out, earlier – on that basis, we’re constantly rubbing their faces (not sure I really like that phrase, under the circumstances!) in our non-transgender heterosexuality, all the time, without even realising it.

If straight marriages between feminine women and masculine men are depicted constantly, why shouldn’t they get the occasional gay marriage, or transgender person, to relate to?

If that had just happened automatically, no one would have had a reason to make a thread like this.

Ralanost.8913:

Tigaseye.2047:

Ralanost.8913:

I honestly don’t see a reason. This isn’t a mature game. Our characters never encounter sex. They don’t even have sexual organs. You can make feminine looking guys, you can make masculine women. You can RP your character however you like. But visually nothing needs to change. Do they need to put this into a characters story to be inclusive? I don’t think so. I don’t see this as common in a fantasy/medieval setting. They usually have more important things to worry about than gender identity. Like getting food on the table or not dying to bandits or wild monsters.

I have nothing against it, but from a story and lore standpoint, I don’t feel the game needs to change at all.

The female humans have secondary sexual organs – pretty sure we’re supposed to assume they also have primary ones?

I don’t think there is any need for sexual themes in this game, but marriages aren’t supposed to just be about sex.

The point is, if a Sylvari female, for example, called you over and said her wife had gone missing in the forest and could you help find her, would that be so bad?

I’m straight and it doesn’t bother, or threaten, me.

If I had kids, I wouldn’t think it would upset them, or turn them gay.

I don’t think you can be turned gay, anyway – you either are, or you aren’t (or you’re somewhere in between).

I think you can be given permission to be who you are, but that is a good thing, surely?

If this was about anything else, we would (hopefully) want our kids to realise they could be themselves and not have to try to live a lie.

I think you are getting transgender characters and same sex relationships mixed up. Those are completely different subjects.

Well, I was talking about the subject, in general, when I gave that example; not just transgender.

I used that example, as opposed to one for transgender, as it is something you would need to explain, to an extent.

Otherwise, if a female char just asked you to find another female char for her, without saying she was her wife/girlfriend/partner, you would probably just assume that they were friends, or sisters, or something.

I would have thought it would be even easier to subtly include a transgender character?

As you would just include a female-looking char with a male name (or maybe not even a male name), or vice versa.

No explanation needed.

Cyninja.2954:

Tigaseye.2047:

Yeah, I don’t know what is happening with the post deletion, here, Menadena.

Some of my replies have gone, too.

Reply number 3 or 4 from when the thread was created (which was very hateful) got moded. Every message quoting said reply gets deleted too as to not leave it in the thread.

Well, that’s good then, I guess.

Although, we do have to face facts – some people still feel that way, unfortunately.

Yeah, I don’t know what is happening with the post deletion, here, Menadena.

Some of my replies have gone, too.

Ralanost.8913:

I honestly don’t see a reason. This isn’t a mature game. Our characters never encounter sex. They don’t even have sexual organs. You can make feminine looking guys, you can make masculine women. You can RP your character however you like. But visually nothing needs to change. Do they need to put this into a characters story to be inclusive? I don’t think so. I don’t see this as common in a fantasy/medieval setting. They usually have more important things to worry about than gender identity. Like getting food on the table or not dying to bandits or wild monsters.

I have nothing against it, but from a story and lore standpoint, I don’t feel the game needs to change at all.

The female humans have secondary sexual organs – pretty sure we’re supposed to assume they also have primary ones?

I don’t think there is any need for sexual themes in this game, but marriages aren’t supposed to just be about sex.

The point is, if a Sylvari female, for example, called you over and said her wife had gone missing in the forest and could you help find her, would that be so bad?

I’m straight and it doesn’t bother, or threaten, me.

If I had kids, I wouldn’t think it would upset them, or turn them gay.

I don’t think you can be turned gay, anyway – you either are, or you aren’t (or you’re somewhere in between).

I think you can be given permission to be who you are, but that is a good thing, surely?

If this was about anything else, we would (hopefully) want our kids to realise they could be themselves and not have to try to live a lie.

I have no problem with LGBT chars/relationships in games.

As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, it is absolutely fine.

I do, however, draw the line at interspecies stuff as that is just wrong.

Have to be honest, this thread reads like a commercial.

You know, one of those ones that is full of glowing “customer testimonials”?

It’s kind of funny to me how that can happen in a single thread, when other parts of the forum are full of constructive criticism (with no developer replies).