1) There was simply no reason for Level 500 Food and Jewelry. It was the presumption of the players that these crafts would go to 500.
“We’ll expand all crafting professions to allow them to reach a new milestone: 500 points!” (2013)
There’s also the Xunlai Ingot
From the same article:
“As always, the content above is subject to change as we test and iterate on these systems.”
Changing your mind on doing something isn’t quite the same as not finishing it. For example we were going to put a shed in our back yard, but we decided on a gazebo instead.
They probably did some tests, and figured the time, energy and expense to level it wouldn’t be worth it, so they changed their minds about doing it.
You’re making a completely different argument than that quote was meant to express. Context matters. If you read it, Behellagh said that the players made the presumption that the two crafts would be expanded to 500. The quote shows that it was not an assumption made by the players, but it was based on actual information given by ANET.
Also, anyone who is using the “And you wonder why ANET doesn’t communicate with players” argument: Yeah, it’s super unreasonable to expect that people mean what they say. Why is it that in this format, it’s suddenly inappropriate to use official communication as a fact of intention? This is on the same level as politicians who make stupid statements and then say, “That was not intended to be a factual statement.”
You say things like that, and then you turn around and act like anyone who questions the various development plans that are currently “on the table” are people who just want to complain about everything and if ANET says they’re doing something, then they’re doing it and that’s that.
How do you even live with that kind of cognitive dissonance going on? It boggles the mind.
I live with it quite easily because I know the company is doing stuff that I like. I was told straight out we wouldn’t have gliding in core Tyria, but we do.
I find that adds to my game a lot more than more raids being out, or even more legendary weapons. It’s something I use frequently.
That’s how I live with it. I don’t get everything I want, and sometimes I don’t even get everything mentioned, but I get other stuff I didn’t expect to get.
Thing is, while I personally agree with you that gliding in Central Tyria is a far more fun and useful addition than more Legendaries I won’t make, I have to recognise that; a) that is a totally subjective opinion, on my behalf and b) they did, specifically, promise people the legendaries, in their marketing materials.
So, while we may be happy, in this instance, that doesn’t make it an OK thing for companies to do, in general.
…and in fact, if other types of companies did something like it, they would be in big trouble.
For example, if you bought a vacuum cleaner and they (intentionally) delivered a lawn mower, while you might be happy, as you happened to need a lawn mower even more than you did a vacuum cleaner (and felt it was worth more), that wouldn’t make it OK, if other people who bought the vacuum cleaner didn’t happen to agree with you.
…and OK, you could say that they are only changing a part of the vacuum cleaner, but even that isn’t really OK.
For example, if you ordered a vacuum cleaner that used bags and they sent you a bagless one instead, you would be under no obligation to accept that change, even if they (and some other people) viewed it as an improvement.
You are supposed to get exactly what you ordered; not a different thing, even if it could be viewed as better.
That’s kind of how trade works.
These analogies, everyone single one of them is pointless for a lot of reasons. Guild Wars 2 isn’t a vacuum cleaner. A court would have to determine if it’s a product or a service and both products and services come under different laws.
The whole false advertising commentary, at least in the states, presupposes intention to deceive by the company who creates the advertisement. That has to be proven in court and so far, no one can prove that intention to deceive exists. Laws exist to protect consumers, but laws also exist to protect companies.
If Anet had every intention of doing something and they say they’re going to do it and they don’t, then we have to actually prove they knew before they said they were going to do it that they couldn’t do it at that time. If no one has proven that, then it’s not false advertising. Nor is it a vacuum.
What you’re paying for when you purchase an MMO is access to an account and a world. That’s what you pay for. The specific nature of what you get in that work is determined by a lot of different factors, including fan pressure.
Simple example, HOT was advertised with a new WvW zone. That zone WAS delivered and many people, I’m sure most people, didn’t like the zone. So if Anet brings back the old zone due to player pressure, and that zone isn’t here anymore, they’re not actually false advertising, or breaking a promise. They made the zone and players asked for the old zone back.
In effect, the new “promised” zone won’t be here, but it’s still not false advertising.
All this comparing HoT to a vacuum cleaner is pointless. One thing is a service and one thing is a product. They follow different laws.
What you’re really paying for is a game key.
A better analogy would be buying a season ticket to a theme park based on the idea that one ride would be available and then finding out they weren’t going to finish it due to reasons.
In the mean time though, you’ve gone to the park and ridden other rides and seen other shows. That’s the best analogy for an MMO, particularly a theme park MMO.
You may not like this, but this is by far the best anology. A theme park isn’t a vacuum cleaner and sometimes planned things don’t happen. You could try to sue the theme park, and you could even ask for a refund. The problem is you’ve already used part of the product.
If you can PROVE that you bought this only because of one feature, and you never entered the park and did other stuff, or you can prove the theme park never had any intention of adding the attraction, you’d be right.
In this case those, with Anet furnishing 25% of the content listed, you’d have a very hard time proving in court that they didn’t intend to go further.
All they’d have to say is we did start providing this content and it proved unpopular with the percentage of the playerbase, so to give people more content they did want, we changed tracks.
And that would be enough to quash anything you could prove in court.