Mounts at 2000 gems actually ARE ok and here's why (xpost from reddit) - Page 3 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Mounts at 2000 gems actually ARE ok and here's why (xpost from reddit)

13

Comments

  • kurfu.5623kurfu.5623 Member ✭✭✭

    Posts like this are why they removed the thumbs down button from the forum.

    This is my signature. It is not very exciting.

  • Grey Moon.6531Grey Moon.6531 Member ✭✭
    edited November 30, 2017

    Rather than listen to people trying to defend obnoxious behaviour from companies who may not owe us anything (but with ANet I used to believed to be one of the better ones). I'm going to wait and see how well Monster Hunter World is going to do. Here is hoping to Capcom setting a better example of how to be an actual games company then the current corporate money grabbing trend followers.

  • Just a flesh wound.3589Just a flesh wound.3589 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 30, 2017

    @BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:
    With the current system, people buy gems (with real money) in order to obtain in-game gold. Without players willing to trade their gold into gems these people wouldn't spend money on the gems (because it's the gold they are after in order to buy stuff on the TP). And the cash people were willing to spend in order to buy the gems to exchange into gold goes straight into ANet's pockets. So where do they lose? (Of course, they could simply cut out the player gold-input and sell the gold for cash at a fixed exchange rate, though that would probably give rise to more inflation and create a huge outcry at the player base).

    My original post was about the transaction itself; however, since it's getting pushed to cover more than that, I'll address it.

    Look at the current exchange rate trend. It's been trending up since launch. This means that more gems are leaving the exchange system than what is being put in. In other words, players are taking out more gems using gold than they are putting into it using real world currencies. That difference in gems, when converted to real world currency, is what Anet is losing.

    Isn't the gem-price appreciation simply a consequence of more people wanting to buy gems with gold than the other way around? Hence the price rises? How can more gems leave the system than are being put in? Where do they come from (unless I'm misunderstanding how the exchange works: you can only buy gems that other players offer)?
    As an aside:** if **gems were really leaving the system via the exchange mechanism that would not necessarily mean that ANet is losing money, since you'd have to assume that people would pay cash if they couldn't pay with gold (and there is zero cost in providing an additional copy of a skin, it doesn't use up any real world materials etc.).

    Simple. Gems spent in the store on items don’t go back to the exchange.

    But you claim that somehow more gems are being taken out than being put in. How does that work?

    In the two exchanges there is a very large pool of gems and a very large pool of gold. When more gems than gold is being taken out, the price for gems goes up. As you can see over time (the graph is set at one month. Show All to see a better view of historical gem prices), the price of gems has risen as more gems are taken out than gold.

    It’s set up to be self correcting to a certain degree. The more gems are taken out, the more they are worth in gold. This tempts people to buy gold with gems once the gems to gold reaches a value they like. However as gold floods into the economy from playing this temptation level will climb higher as the game ages, as people will be able to get the gold they want through playing and not buying.

    Be careful what you ask for
    ANet might give it to you.

    Forum Guides: Images. Text

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ben K.6238 said:

    @zealex.9410 said:

    Both wow and ff14 are living proof of that. In terms of mmos 20 ppl paying 15 euros/dollars per months is better than 5 or 6 ppl paying 30 or 40 if by chance they find something that draws their attention.

    Let alone if the other 15-14 can simply farm in game and make these puchases.

    Doesn't really work like that. Subscription fees also create a lot more player churn, because players have to justify their spending. If they're just casually playing a weekend or two a month, it's a waste of their money. GW2 gets to keep those players who otherwise would spend no money at all, and make occasional sales on gemstore items for each of them.

    Drop the price of mount skins by half, and there's no proof that sales will more than double to compensate, apart from all the armchair accountants claiming their anecdotal examples of themselves and 2-3 friends are somehow representative of the entire GW2 playerbase.

    Additionally, the players who farm in-game gold to trade for gems are actually earning Arenanet as much as the ones who just buy gems. The reason is that those gems you buy with gold were already bought by someone else who didn't want to farm.

    And that's the main reason I'm skeptical of arguments based on vox pops on the forums. I seldom ever see anyone claiming to buy gold from gems here, yet there are obviously players who do, and they're ANet's most important customers. If their views aren't represented in the debate, the debate is meaningless.

    Ofc it it had gone for that business model it wouldnt have that certain group of ppl. And ofc of had gone for that it would be the same game as now at least content wise.

  • Furious.2867Furious.2867 Member ✭✭✭

    @Jacuzzi.1643 said:
    Here's the problem: community members want all the benefits of playing a subscription based MMO (regular content updates, no microtransaction aids, non P2W progression) without paying the subscription. This wave of demands is so confusing to me. You pay $30 for a FULL expansion and 1 year's worth of living world updates and people are still complaining about COSMETIC SKINS? In an MMO like FFXIV I'd have to buy the expansion ($50) and pay a monthly sub ($15) for a year, costing up to $200. These are skins that do not gate progression or give any stat advantages whatsoever and people still believe that they are entitled to free skins in game.

    I understand where are coming from :+1:

    But my advice is for you not to argue with "entitled" people - you will lose :anguished:

  • Ashabhi.1365Ashabhi.1365 Member ✭✭✭

    I don't have a problem with the cost of the mount skins. It's "their game" and they can do what they wish. If we don't like it, then we can find something else to play.

    What I can't swallow about the whole thing is that there's nothing like them that you can earn in-game. Armor has vendors for each PS and certain kinds drop from mobs so you can mix and match looks without resorting to "plastic." Weapons have enough variety to be able to accumulate a nice wardrobe for that "perfect" accessory as well. The three things we cannot get "in-game" are outfits, mount skins, and glider skins. Yes, they're cosmetic, and they are luxuries, which means not everyone are able or willing to buy them. I just wish there was an in-game version we could acquire, even if it were an epic undertaking like legendaries are.

  • ZhouX.8742ZhouX.8742 Member ✭✭✭

    @Shirlias.8104 said:
    That's why i am grateful to all big kind whales.
    Because of them no sub nor premium nor other things.
    They are definitely feeding us.

    Whales lol aka college kids abusing their school loan money to feed their gw2 gaming addiction.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:
    With the current system, people buy gems (with real money) in order to obtain in-game gold. Without players willing to trade their gold into gems these people wouldn't spend money on the gems (because it's the gold they are after in order to buy stuff on the TP). And the cash people were willing to spend in order to buy the gems to exchange into gold goes straight into ANet's pockets. So where do they lose? (Of course, they could simply cut out the player gold-input and sell the gold for cash at a fixed exchange rate, though that would probably give rise to more inflation and create a huge outcry at the player base).

    My original post was about the transaction itself; however, since it's getting pushed to cover more than that, I'll address it.

    Look at the current exchange rate trend. It's been trending up since launch. This means that more gems are leaving the exchange system than what is being put in. In other words, players are taking out more gems using gold than they are putting into it using real world currencies. That difference in gems, when converted to real world currency, is what Anet is losing.

    Isn't the gem-price appreciation simply a consequence of more people wanting to buy gems with gold than the other way around? Hence the price rises? How can more gems leave the system than are being put in? Where do they come from (unless I'm misunderstanding how the exchange works: you can only buy gems that other players offer)?
    As an aside:** if **gems were really leaving the system via the exchange mechanism that would not necessarily mean that ANet is losing money, since you'd have to assume that people would pay cash if they couldn't pay with gold (and there is zero cost in providing an additional copy of a skin, it doesn't use up any real world materials etc.).

    Simple. Gems spent in the store on items don’t go back to the exchange.

    But you claim that somehow more gems are being taken out than being put in. How does that work?

    I have already answered that but I’ll do it again.

    The gem exchange works with there being a finite number of gems within it. Gems leave it when players buy them with gold and gems enter it when players purchase gold with them. Gems purchased with money are newly created. Gems spent on gem store items are removed.

    When more gems are being bought with gold, the exchange rate increases. It costs more gold to purchase gems as well as more gold being received by exchanging gems. That’s a given since there’s usually a ~15% difference between them.

    Since the game launched, the exchange rates have been steadily increasing. This can only happen if more gems are being bought with gold than exchanged for gold.

    So Anet is experiencing a loss in potential gem sales if players were to farm for gold and exchange it for gold rather than purchase with money. If items in the gem store, such as mount skins, were made to be cheaper, farming for gold would be more appealing. So the OP was correct in their statement. The only unknown is how much of a loss it would be and that’s something we don’t have the data to determine.

  • Belorn.2659Belorn.2659 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 30, 2017

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    The gem exchange works with there being a finite number of gems within it. Gems leave it when players buy them with gold and gems enter it when players purchase gold with them. Gems purchased with money are newly created. Gems spent on gem store items are removed.

    That part is correct. Gems on the trading post arrive there when a player buys them and then trade them in for gold, with a 15% tax cut.

    When more gems are being bought with gold, the exchange rate increases. It costs more gold to purchase gems as well as more gold being received by exchanging gems. That’s a given since there’s usually a ~15% difference between them.

    Since the game launched, the exchange rates have been steadily increasing. This can only happen if more gems are being bought with gold than exchanged for gold.

    And that part is false. Anet has several times stated that there is a finite number of gems and all gems are first bought by other players. Every gem being sold on the TP has first been bought by a player. The exchange rate reflect a algorithm, where in theory the price would be infinitively large if the store had only a single gem left.

    In practice, the algorithm seems more complex. Remember that anet takes ~15% tax cut on both when a person sell gems to the store, and when a player buy gems for gold from the store. Those 15% tax on both side generates a lot of missing gems and gold that anet could use as they wish to establish a fair price, while at the same time maintain a maximum 1:1 ratio between bought gems and sold gems on the TP.

    So Anet is experiencing a loss in potential gem sales if players were to farm for gold and exchange it for gold rather than purchase with money. If items in the gem store, such as mount skins, were made to be cheaper, farming for gold would be more appealing. So the OP was correct in their statement. The only unknown is how much of a loss it would be and that’s something we don’t have the data to determine.

    So no, a there is no loss in gem sales from a player buying gems for gold. In contrast, gold->gems is anets take on gold sellers, beating them in their own game. The 250g griffon showed everyone how a strong desire for gold will have a very strong impact on the gem<->gold price, cutting it down to almost 66% of the price before the expansion. Because of the 15% tax, this event generated anet a lot of gem sales that translate to quite a bit of revenue.

    Lets run the numbers: 250g is 1400 gems right now. Let say a player buys those with money to get the gold. Anet take as their cut of 210 gems by acting as a middle man and holding those gems until a buyer wants them, giving the seller his 250g instantly from a gold reserve. When a buyer want to buy those remaining 1190 gems, they have to pay 310G, where 250g goes to back to the bank reserve and 60g goes to anet as tax. In total player A got 250g and paid 1400 gems. Player B paid 310G and got 1190 gems. Anet got for free in this transaction 210 gems and 60 gold.

    Or to put it in other numbers. Every time a player buy gems to buy a griffon, Anet gets $2.5 and remove 60 gold from the economy. For free. I can easily make the bet that this part of micro-transaction is the single highest revenue source in the store. All Anet need to do is to encourage this trade by having items in the store that people want to buy and items in the game that people need gold to buy (such as legendaries/precursors on the TP). The economy will do the rest, and all Anet need to do is to act middle man and provide the market place. Just like the real world, this is where "the real money" is.

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 30, 2017

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    They aren't loosing anything. You get way less gold for 100 gems than people pay for 100 gems. And the dollars were paid none the less. As far as Arena Net is concerned, gold has no value for them, they can spawn a character with a billion gold and won't lose a cent. What is good for them is that people buy gold for gems, and gems for gold, which means there's a bunch of people that give money to Arena Net even when they don't want anything from the gem store.

    You’re thinking the wrong way and comparing apples to oranges. How much gold someone spends for gems or how much gold someone gets from gems isn’t important. They’re loss is the value of the extra gems that those who buy gems over the years have obtained.

    So the OP was correct in their statement about lower mount prices as it would cause more people to convert rather than use real world currency and result in losses in potential gem purchases. Now, the actual percentage of increase that would do that is debatable. I doubt it’d be a large percentage but that’s just my opinion.

    LOL
    How is that? If those people don't want to/can't buy gems, then they wouldn't. You're looking at this the wrong way...
    Here's what the Gold for gems Trade is:

    It's a way for Arena Net to be the official gold seller, thus having a huge increase in revenue.
    But if they were selling 500 gold for 600 gems in the gemstore...
    If you saw those packs in the gemstore, like you see in Mobile games and stuff. People would freak out, and call out P2W, which wouldn't be wrong.
    This trade allows Arena Net to have a P2W transaction without repercussion because it becomes a transaction between players but mediated by Arena Net. The bottom line for Arena Net is the same. They earn money from gems bought by "whales" that trade cash for time, and allow people that probably wouldn't sink a cent past the purchase price in the game to access the gemstore.
    Also it's the fact this exists that prevents people from saying that stuff like bank and bag slots, permanent gathering tools (especially the sprocket and unbound magic ones), and other big advantageous items are P2W, because you can acquire them from in-game efforts.

    And you counter all those advantages with: "If they couldn't, they might would, and Arena Net would earn more". Which is actually, demonstrably false.
    There's always a surplus of gems, meaning that more people buy gold with gems, than people buy gems with gold. Which is a substantial source of revenue that wouldn't be available without gem to gold trading. And trading that for wishing that people that don't buy gems would start buying... Let me just say, i hope you're not running a business for a lot of people's sake.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 30, 2017

    There isn't any argument that makes sense that is pro or con for pricing, the prices just ARE, based on the business model Anet uses for the game. There isn't some 'morality' attached to the price when Anet sets it. Any statement that associates pricing with correctness or incorrectness is completely missing the whole point of WHY a price is set for something in the first place. It's a business decision, it's based on business factors that NONE of us have access to in order to make an informed opinion about the price.

    Complaining about the price is also a rather ridiculous attempt for change anyways, because Anet is fundamentally interested in setting their prices to make money. If they set a wrong price, I can BET you they will rethink how pricing for similar items is determined in the future. It's a self-regulating system and it seems to keep me from paying a monthly fee ... the only value of these threads is to satisfy someone's academic pleasure.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • @Bish.8627 said:
    It is not OK if you have the money or not. GW2 always had the model for micro transactions. I would tell friends how great it is to play an MMO with no sub but I would put in money almost monthly just to support them. Not anymore. Appealing to those with too much cash or those far too easy to part with it for a skin. High prices only attract the kitten and the rich. They will only alienate those who chose carefully what they buy. Such as myself, I will never spend another gem while there are stupid priced 2000 gem mount skins. Meanwhile, those on the forums defending it are only prolonging the cancer within the industry of milking customers for more and more for items no where near worth the price tag. EA are down 3 billion, Anet should start reversing this new business model fast before their customers start to scorn them.

    It is OK for artists to charge whatever they want for their creations.

  • IndigoSundown.5419IndigoSundown.5419 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    So Anet is experiencing a loss in potential gem sales if players were to farm for gold and exchange it for gold rather than purchase with money. If items in the gem store, such as mount skins, were made to be cheaper, farming for gold would be more appealing. So the OP was correct in their statement. The only unknown is how much of a loss it would be and that’s something we don’t have the data to determine.

    I assume you meant "exchange it for gems" in the first sentence.

    The OP's statement pretty much ignores the fact that people buy gems and put them into the exchange. ANet collects revenue for those gems. While there is no way for us to determine just how much money might be spent if there was no exchange, there is also no way for us to determine how much money is currently being spent to put gems into the currency exchange which would not be spent at all if there was no exchange.

    Three more things to chew over:

    1) people inclined to frugality tend to shy away from bigger-ticket items whether they can afford them or not, whether via gold or cash; people who balk at spending $25 on a pixel item might think nothing of spending $40 as long as its in increments of $5 to $10 at a time. Businesses have been using sales to take advantage of that tendency for a long time;
    2) there's a surcharge on both gold and gems; that means that for every store item bought with gems obtained via gold, ANet collected more cash than they would have if the item buyer spent cash for those gems;
    3) there is another explanation for the move towards bigger-ticket items; the GW2 store is based on the F2P monetization model, which relies on a large number of free or minimal spending players and a smaller number of bigger-ticket purchasers; since the intent behind the GW2 store is to stick to optional transactions, the P2W motivations for bigger expenditures is absent; also, style items more and more need to generate revenue to replace revenue lost due to both population decline and the reduction in need for utility items like bag/bank slots as long-time players max these things; before bigger-ticket bundles started to appear, there were not a lot of bigger-ticket style options; now we're seeing $25 mount skins, and 3K gem packages; bigger-ticket style items also provide the exclusivity big spenders tend to like.

    Believe what you like. I'm inclined to believe ANet makes more money due to the exchange rather than less.

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana

  • Can I buy a Griffon? I can't finish the story line to get one. :(

  • Guess why you don't pay in real life currency directly but rather buy gems, because when you spend the gems, you forget they're worth real money, and then you buy more, it's like chips in casinos, also it hurts to see 20 gems you can't spend on anything being leftover so you're impulsive and top up.

    **# It is the customer who pays the wages -Henry Ford. **

  • Coulter.2315Coulter.2315 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 1, 2017

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    1. I don't pay a monthly fee. I can't help but think that if we didn't have the current pricing and business model, we would be. I can only conclude the prices are set to maintain this level of service to players at the price we pay, for the goods in GS and the zero.

    It worked for 5 years. Why the sudden and large shift? Its not like the could have gathered data on the viability of mount prices, ro even stuff at this price. The only thing that was ever sold at these prices were bundles, and their value was arguably much higher than the 2000 gem price, the current is the opposite case. Then there's the argument that a lower price would sell more items, increasing the revenue. But like you said, that's speculation.

    You're missing out something, you can trade gold to gems. They could have looked at previous purchases and seen people able to buy huge amounts of gemstore items through purely gold->gems (I know I did), so they have chosen a new price model which makes it more likely that people would give them money and subsidise that with gold->gems (converting gold to get 800-1200 and getting the rest from real money). Because of the gold->gem availability they maybe found they needed to set the price at a level which got real money through the door.

    Go have a look at all the items you've bought over the last 5 years and think how many of them were from gold.

    If one of the skins comes out that I love at 2000 I will likely pay for it mostly with gold but need to make up the last bit with real money, which I imagine is what they are going for. I don't personally feel the need to buy everything they put in the gemstore, so I am happy to wait and buy something I really want, during that wait I will gather gold and can make up the difference with money, if needed.

    You don't know what data they've got nor analysis they've done, neither do I, but I am showing you here a possible reason for the higher ticket price.

  • Fengzhou.9853Fengzhou.9853 Member ✭✭✭

    @Widowmaker Z.4802 said:
    I have to laugh at the people comparing the price to other games. Most of these other games also allow you to obtain mounts in game, whether it's with gold, achievements or drops. GW2 has no mount skins, except for the original mounts themselves, that are obtainable in game.

    Have to agree with this one massively. Yes.. 25 dollars is pretty average for mounts bought from game shops.. BUT there's often a bunch more obtainable (some super easy and some really difficult) in game as an option. IF there had been these new skins IN game and once in awhile.. every other month a premium skin showed up for 2k gems on the shop? NOBODY would give a flying rat's rear. The fact they dumped 30 skins for 400gems per for a random one.. or a huge wad for all 30.. AND a premium has told players these skins aren't necessarily that time consuming to craft in gw2 and/or they have zero intent to put them in the game.

    They could totally revitalize older zones as well by having themed ones for each area (jungle, glacial, fire, undead, mordrem style etc..) for heading out and doing some new collection or side story etc. I feel they kinda jumped the gun a WEE bit. I'm sure these mounts where ALSO made prior and they didn't want to see them never used and put them in this black lion stable thing as a way to let folks enjoy them if they didn't make the 'cut' so to speak for retail (this is just me guessing..) but kitten... they could've done a lot better.

    If their marketing team had done it's research about loot boxes and rng and the general hatred of these things that gamers have they would've known better and chose a different less predatory fashion to 'release' these in.

    Also GW2 has had the rep of having things that cost a few bucks, 20 tops.. and now we're seeing less of those small ticket vanity things and seeing huge bundles of things for no less then 2k gem price average which puts to question.. WHAT IS A MICRO-TRANSACTION? Micro to me is 5 bucks.. 10 bucks.. not 20-40-60 etc.. Those are MACRO-transactions.

    They're pushing the envelope all over in the gaming industry of what people will take while also playing on the collector mentality folks tend to have for vanity items such as mounts and pets.. that tend to far outweigh those who want armor skins.

  • Ashen.2907Ashen.2907 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Fengzhou.9853 said:

    @Widowmaker Z.4802 said:
    I have to laugh at the people comparing the price to other games. Most of these other games also allow you to obtain mounts in game, whether it's with gold, achievements or drops. GW2 has no mount skins, except for the original mounts themselves, that are obtainable in game.

    Have to agree with this one massively. Yes.. 25 dollars is pretty average for mounts bought from game shops.. BUT there's often a bunch more obtainable (some super easy and some really difficult) in game as an option.

    I can earn ALL of the $25 mounts in game in GW2.

  • With the blizzard comparison remember that the 25 buck mounts are 2% of the available mounts whereas the rest are obtainable by actually playing the game. Gem conversion aside gw2 there's currently 0 in game obtainable mount skins that i know of. There's difference is you can get a lot of cool mounts by playing the game in wow and if you're lazy you can bypass that by paying. In gw2 there's only the lazy option.

    But hey feel free to SW grind all the way and consider that the same as doing raids in wow

  • Rysdude.3824Rysdude.3824 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Its PURELY cosmetic locked behind 2k gems. I like it. Lock the leggy ring behind raids..lock these behind gems.

  • Fengzhou.9853Fengzhou.9853 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ashen.2907 said:

    @Fengzhou.9853 said:

    @Widowmaker Z.4802 said:
    I have to laugh at the people comparing the price to other games. Most of these other games also allow you to obtain mounts in game, whether it's with gold, achievements or drops. GW2 has no mount skins, except for the original mounts themselves, that are obtainable in game.

    Have to agree with this one massively. Yes.. 25 dollars is pretty average for mounts bought from game shops.. BUT there's often a bunch more obtainable (some super easy and some really difficult) in game as an option.

    I can earn ALL of the $25 mounts in game in GW2.

    I just bet you can in a few year's time.. or getting lucky with drops. I honestly have no clue how to make reliable gold in this game and I've been around since it launched. Never seen a precursor, never gotten any lucky high priced dyes to sell, nothing like that.

    I was also waiting for 'that guy' to comment exactly as you did. There's always one out there.

  • sigur.9453sigur.9453 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ashen.2907 said:

    @Fengzhou.9853 said:

    @Widowmaker Z.4802 said:
    I have to laugh at the people comparing the price to other games. Most of these other games also allow you to obtain mounts in game, whether it's with gold, achievements or drops. GW2 has no mount skins, except for the original mounts themselves, that are obtainable in game.

    Have to agree with this one massively. Yes.. 25 dollars is pretty average for mounts bought from game shops.. BUT there's often a bunch more obtainable (some super easy and some really difficult) in game as an option.

    I can earn ALL of the $25 mounts in game in GW2.

    Sorry to say but "grind gold for gemshop" isn´t what i would call "obtainable ingame".
    Gemshop has a "monopoly" on mount skins, so you as a customer have no real choice.
    If there was a Vendor where you could buy a Skin (even a skin with no special effect) which cost 2000G and 2000insert random hard do obtain currency here you could decide for yourself. But for now there is only the option to buy in the gemstore or don´t buy at all. Very consumer unfriendly.

  • IndigoSundown.5419IndigoSundown.5419 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @WeedyZeGreedy.8635 said:
    With the blizzard comparison remember that the 25 buck mounts are 2% of the available mounts whereas the rest are obtainable by actually playing the game. Gem conversion aside gw2 there's currently 0 in game obtainable mount skins that i know of. There's difference is you can get a lot of cool mounts by playing the game in wow and if you're lazy you can bypass that by paying. In gw2 there's only the lazy option.

    But hey feel free to SW grind all the way and consider that the same as doing raids in wow

    Actually, I find playing the content in the Silverwastes to be a superior gaming experience to WoW raids.

    Drop in and play; stay as long or as little as I like; engaging fights.

    No DKP; no drama; no flexing of virtual egos; no 2 hour waits for everyone to show up; no waiting between bosses so the main tank can put upgrades on his shiny new chest-piece; no farming flowers for hours to make potions for everyone. Yeah, I don't miss that kitten at all. I wouldn't put up with WoW raids again unless they paid me like PSG is paying Neymar, and we know that isn't going to happen.

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana

  • endurio.7065endurio.7065 Member ✭✭
    edited December 1, 2017

    There is nothing wrong with the mount skins, 99% of the gem store is pure cosmetics. It is not for me, but if someone wants to pay for it good for them and good for me too as it keeps the game alive. Anet has kept their promise not to have P2W items.

    I would expect to see some mount skins in the future as rewards for some achievements, if they appear first in the gem store, not really a problem.

  • Pifil.5193Pifil.5193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayumi Spender.1082 said:

    @Healix.5819 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    do you have an example of other games where mounts are $25 (apart from WoW)? I'm honestly curious

    They seem to be $25-$30 in FFXIV for an account unlock or $13 for a character unlock.

    $20-$25 in ESO, $10 for a simple a retexture.

    $25-$30 in WoW.

    $5 for a character unlock in PSO2.

    They cost from $5 in Neverwinter too.

    I not sure that simply declaring it an "industry standard" actually makes it an "industry standard". Or indeed means all that much at all.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 1, 2017

    No it's not ok and here's why..

    How much time, work and effort went into Path of Fire?
    How many new features did we get?
    How many maps did we get?
    How many new sounds and music tracks did we get?
    How many new elite specs did we get?
    How many new weapon and armor sets did we get?
    How much story content did we get?
    How many new achievements got added?
    How many brand new enemy types got added?
    How much did path of fire cost?

    Now check the mount..
    How much does 2000 gems cost?

    Is that value for money even justifiably comparable?
    No.. I didn't think so.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 1, 2017

    @Alatar.7364 said:
    By setting the Mount at 2k will generate Anet less profit than if they set it at 1k, this pretty much eliminates the Entire post, because I would really love to see the One who would Braindead farm Silverwastes for enough Gold for 1k gems.

    Even 1k is taking the skritt.. but you're right.. I'd be more than happy to buy these 2k skins if there were cheaper..
    800 gems would be the preference but I could be persuaded to go as high as 1k if the skin is really cool.

    But at 2k gems.. HA! I still wouldn't buy them even if I was a millionaire.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 1, 2017

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @ProverbsofHell.2307 said:
    Now let's look at some alternatives:
    -ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

    -ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

    -ANet could charge money for every patch.
    -ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

    These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

    -ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

    I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

    So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

    $10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

    However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

    Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.
    There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

    This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.
    I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

    Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

    And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.
    I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.
    When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

  • Magnus Godrik.5841Magnus Godrik.5841 Member ✭✭✭✭

    A net just remove the gold to gems option for this and charge $10. Maybe that will make people happy. Probably not.

  • Lambent.6375Lambent.6375 Member ✭✭✭

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    No it's not ok and here's why..

    How much time, work and effort went into Path of Fire?
    How many new features did we get?
    How many maps did we get?
    How many new sounds and music tracks did we get?
    How many new elite specs did we get?
    How many new weapon and armor sets did we get?
    How much story content did we get?
    How many new achievements got added?
    How many brand new enemy types got added?
    How much did path of fire cost?

    Now check the mount..
    How much does 2000 gems cost?

    Is that value for money even justifiably comparable?
    No.. I didn't think so.

    The value of the expansion is more than $30, they just sold it cheap on purpose. They're making their money back through the gem store.

    @FOX.3582 said:
    A freaking chair. Woah. I personally can't wait to buy a gem store CHAIR, so all my characters can SIT around in Tyria while other players see me, SITTING there, looking like a [email protected] ...

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lambent.6375 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    No it's not ok and here's why..

    How much time, work and effort went into Path of Fire?
    How many new features did we get?
    How many maps did we get?
    How many new sounds and music tracks did we get?
    How many new elite specs did we get?
    How many new weapon and armor sets did we get?
    How much story content did we get?
    How many new achievements got added?
    How many brand new enemy types got added?
    How much did path of fire cost?

    Now check the mount..
    How much does 2000 gems cost?

    Is that value for money even justifiably comparable?
    No.. I didn't think so.

    The value of the expansion is more than $30, they just sold it cheap on purpose. They're making their money back through the gem store.

    Not with 2k gem skins..

    I've seen a couple of the new raptors but none of the warhound.. they are not selling anywhere near as well as the mount licences did.. and I expect most of those who did buy them didn't buy the full 2000 gems with money.

  • ZhouX.8742ZhouX.8742 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 1, 2017

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @ProverbsofHell.2307 said:
    Now let's look at some alternatives:
    -ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

    -ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

    -ANet could charge money for every patch.
    -ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

    These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

    -ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

    I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

    So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

    $10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

    However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

    Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.
    There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

    This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.
    I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

    Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

    And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.
    I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.
    When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

    WoW , final fantasy ... die off quickly? wow is easily one of the longest standing mmo's in the history of mmos and has been rather consistent , it's only STARTED to die off in the past years after more than a decade of existence and im going to be honest, with the existence of the vanilla servers you'll pretty much see them bring back A LOT of their older players if even for a few months - a massive amount of money...

    final fantasy is even GAINING ground and has a higher subscription count than most mmos

    Also there's a reason why these 2 mmos listed , who are sub based, are STILL considered the 2 biggest mmo's by subscription count alone. Even bigger than BDO and Gw2 , which are f2p

    In fact, I would say quite the OPPOSITE in that f2p model mmos die off much quicker than most sub based mmo models, but that's kind of hard to really compare considering there is roughly 20 f2p model mmos to every 1-2 sub based mmo model because f2p is a quick easy cash grab and then usually fails because the game is trash. Gw2 is one of the longest standing f2p model mmos I've seen that hasn't died out yet.

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ZhouX.8742 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @ProverbsofHell.2307 said:
    Now let's look at some alternatives:
    -ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

    -ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

    -ANet could charge money for every patch.
    -ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

    These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

    -ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

    I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

    So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

    $10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

    However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

    Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.
    There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

    This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.
    I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

    Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

    And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.
    I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.
    When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

    WoW , final fantasy ... die off quickly? wow is easily one of the longest standing mmo's in the history of mmos and has been rather consistent , it's only STARTED to die off in the past years after more than a decade of existence and im going to be honest, with the existence of the vanilla servers you'll pretty much see them bring back A LOT of their older players if even for a few months - a massive amount of money...

    final fantasy is even GAINING ground and has a higher subscription count than most mmos

    Also there's a reason why these 2 mmos listed , who are sub based, are STILL considered the 2 biggest mmo's by subscription count alone. Even bigger than BDO and Gw2 , which are f2p

    In fact, I would say quite the OPPOSITE in that f2p model mmos die off much quicker than most sub based mmo models, but that's kind of hard to really compare considering there is roughly 20 f2p model mmos to every 1-2 sub based mmo model because f2p is a quick easy cash grab and then usually fails because the game is trash. Gw2 is one of the longest standing f2p model mmos I've seen that hasn't died out yet.

    LOL...
    So you're talking about 2 games that have a franchise rooted in other games, and so a HUGE fanbase outside the MMORPG genre, and that have HUGE companies backing them, and comparing them to MMORPG-centered frachnises.
    Name 2 more subscription games that are still subscription based.

    And while you're thinking i'll tell you a couple that were subscription and lost it (not to mention WoW now allows you to pay the sub with in-game currency - in a way reminiscent of the Gem to gold method of GW - , making it kinda b2p):
    Wildstar, Elder Scrolls Online, ESO, EVE online...
    Even Secret World that was a B2P became F2P. The truth is the F2P micro transactions model is by far the most lucrative model(so much so that even AAA predominantly single-player games now have those).

    Sure WoW and FFXIV are big great games, but if you look closely they're both inching closer and closer to the B2P/F2P with microtransactions model. (WoW subs can be paid with in-game currency, and FFXIV now allows you to play for free up to lvl35 (out of 50) with 8 characters).

  • Ashen.2907Ashen.2907 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Fengzhou.9853 said:

    @Ashen.2907 said:

    @Fengzhou.9853 said:

    @Widowmaker Z.4802 said:
    I have to laugh at the people comparing the price to other games. Most of these other games also allow you to obtain mounts in game, whether it's with gold, achievements or drops. GW2 has no mount skins, except for the original mounts themselves, that are obtainable in game.

    Have to agree with this one massively. Yes.. 25 dollars is pretty average for mounts bought from game shops.. BUT there's often a bunch more obtainable (some super easy and some really difficult) in game as an option.

    I can earn ALL of the $25 mounts in game in GW2.

    I just bet you can in a few year's time.. or getting lucky with drops. I honestly have no clue how to make reliable gold in this game and I've been around since it launched. Never seen a precursor, never gotten any lucky high priced dyes to sell, nothing like that.

    I was also waiting for 'that guy' to comment exactly as you did. There's always one out there.

    Never had a precursor drop, no high priced item drops, and so on. Kist playing the game and selling my mats and such.

    I guess, "that guy," must mean, "that honest and accurate guy."

  • MokahTGS.7850MokahTGS.7850 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ashen.2907 said:
    I have not seen Idaho....so it doesnt exist?

    You are correct, it does not.

    To everyone else...
    But seriously, this debate is silly. ANet does not care about anyone's stated opinion. They care about sales data. MikeO SAID their data suggests/supports $25+ skins as better than $10 skins. Data...not opinion. I don't like it, but there it is. If you don't like it, don't buy it. That's what I'm doing. I'm adding my "did not buy" data to their data pool. If there is enough data to suggest that they should change, they will or they will lose money. It's how business works.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ZhouX.8742 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @ProverbsofHell.2307 said:
    Now let's look at some alternatives:
    -ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

    -ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

    -ANet could charge money for every patch.
    -ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

    These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

    -ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

    I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

    So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

    $10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

    However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

    Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.
    There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

    This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.
    I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

    Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

    And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.
    I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.
    When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

    WoW , final fantasy ... die off quickly? wow is easily one of the longest standing mmo's in the history of mmos and has been rather consistent , it's only STARTED to die off in the past years after more than a decade of existence and im going to be honest, with the existence of the vanilla servers you'll pretty much see them bring back A LOT of their older players if even for a few months - a massive amount of money...

    final fantasy is even GAINING ground and has a higher subscription count than most mmos

    Also there's a reason why these 2 mmos listed , who are sub based, are STILL considered the 2 biggest mmo's by subscription count alone. Even bigger than BDO and Gw2 , which are f2p

    In fact, I would say quite the OPPOSITE in that f2p model mmos die off much quicker than most sub based mmo models, but that's kind of hard to really compare considering there is roughly 20 f2p model mmos to every 1-2 sub based mmo model because f2p is a quick easy cash grab and then usually fails because the game is trash. Gw2 is one of the longest standing f2p model mmos I've seen that hasn't died out yet.

    I said most MMO's not all..

    And you really have to look at the fact that besides WoW and FF14 there is little else to really serve as example.
    They are 2 success story's among an ocean of failed sub fee MMO's that have been forced to switch to F2P as a desperation move to survive.

    That's what I was talking about when I said the market is over saturated..
    There are too many MMO's and not enough people or money in the market for more than a handful to survive on the subscription model.. Gw2 as much as I love the game would not survive on the sub model either.. in fact switching to it would absolutely kill the game as it would drive a huge portion of the fanbase away and attract very few new players as a trade off.

    When everything has a sub fee it forces the players to get very picky about which game they spend their limited money on..

  • @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @ProverbsofHell.2307 said:
    Now let's look at some alternatives:
    -ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

    -ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

    -ANet could charge money for every patch.
    -ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

    These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

    -ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

    I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

    So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

    $10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

    However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

    Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.
    There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

    This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.
    I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

    Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

    And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.
    I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.
    When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

    If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

    Thief F1 must remain an instacast Steal skill. DE will simply apply DE Mark on target on Steal.
    Malice build-up independently from DE Mark. Mark only speed up the build-up, not be the pre-requisite.
    http://sirvincentiii.com ~ In the beginning...there was Tarnished Coast...

  • IndigoSundown.5419IndigoSundown.5419 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

    You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana

  • @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @ZhouX.8742 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @ProverbsofHell.2307 said:
    Now let's look at some alternatives:
    -ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

    -ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

    -ANet could charge money for every patch.
    -ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

    These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

    -ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

    I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

    So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

    $10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

    However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

    Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.
    There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

    This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.
    I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

    Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

    And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.
    I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.
    When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

    WoW , final fantasy ... die off quickly? wow is easily one of the longest standing mmo's in the history of mmos and has been rather consistent , it's only STARTED to die off in the past years after more than a decade of existence and im going to be honest, with the existence of the vanilla servers you'll pretty much see them bring back A LOT of their older players if even for a few months - a massive amount of money...

    final fantasy is even GAINING ground and has a higher subscription count than most mmos

    Also there's a reason why these 2 mmos listed , who are sub based, are STILL considered the 2 biggest mmo's by subscription count alone. Even bigger than BDO and Gw2 , which are f2p

    In fact, I would say quite the OPPOSITE in that f2p model mmos die off much quicker than most sub based mmo models, but that's kind of hard to really compare considering there is roughly 20 f2p model mmos to every 1-2 sub based mmo model because f2p is a quick easy cash grab and then usually fails because the game is trash. Gw2 is one of the longest standing f2p model mmos I've seen that hasn't died out yet.

    LOL...
    So you're talking about 2 games that have a franchise rooted in other games, and so a HUGE fanbase outside the MMORPG genre, and that have HUGE companies backing them, and comparing them to MMORPG-centered frachnises.
    Name 2 more subscription games that are still subscription based.
    And while you're thinking i'll tell you a couple that were subscription and lost it (not to mention WoW now allows you to pay the sub with in-game currency - in a way reminiscent of the Gem to gold method of GW - , making it kinda b2p):
    Wildstar, Elder Scrolls Online, ESO, EVE online...
    Even Secret World that was a B2P became F2P. The truth is the F2P micro transactions model is by far the most lucrative model(so much so that even AAA predominantly single-player games now have those)
    Sure WoW and FFXIV are big great games, but if you look closely they're both inching closer and closer to the B2P/F2P with microtransactions model. (WoW subs can be paid with in-game currency, and FFXIV now allows you to play for free up to lvl35 (out of 50) with 8 characters).

    Ok first of all, FFXIV was not a success on their first launched. The reboot is the one taking off right now. The major difference is that they were charging sub fee while they're developing like GW2. FFXIV 1.0 has less content than what GW2 is at launch. It didn't make sense then. However, after the reboot, they are developing way more than GW2, which justifies the sub fee. This is my point.

    If GW2 was sub based, this game would have been bigger than it is now and the lore will have so much more depth. And none of these microtransactions nonsense that triggers constant protests.

    I've played many other sub-based MMOs and they cannot justify their sub fee, thus they opted to go free-to-play. To be honest, GW2 has been an industry standard whether an MMO is justified charging sub fee. If they are developing less than GW2, they have no business charging subs, thus players tend to leave their game.

    Even if the MMO went F2P, I still would not play them. ESO, for example, albeit a nice game, but it's not player friendly. One example that made me quit is skill refund. It cost gold, in fact, all of my gold, just to rest my skills. I can do that multiple times in GW2 without charge and without sub fee. To me, that is insidious. They take my gold just so I have to keep my sub to try to get those gold back, well, that's not going to happen. I rather play GW2. Thus the sub fee in ESO didn't make sense.

    WoW is not inching towards F2P. For each token bought with gold, it was pre-paid with $5 interest. Technically, these players buying tokens with gold are basically paying $20 sub fee. FFXIV's free access is just that, free access no different than free trial. GW2 is the one offering F2P all the way to level 80 with no time limit.

    Thief F1 must remain an instacast Steal skill. DE will simply apply DE Mark on target on Steal.
    Malice build-up independently from DE Mark. Mark only speed up the build-up, not be the pre-requisite.
    http://sirvincentiii.com ~ In the beginning...there was Tarnished Coast...

  • @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

    You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

    Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

    Thief F1 must remain an instacast Steal skill. DE will simply apply DE Mark on target on Steal.
    Malice build-up independently from DE Mark. Mark only speed up the build-up, not be the pre-requisite.
    http://sirvincentiii.com ~ In the beginning...there was Tarnished Coast...

  • IndigoSundown.5419IndigoSundown.5419 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

    You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

    Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

    Mandatory is a word with a definition. The definition applies to sub fees, but not to gem purchases. Your opinion about business practices and fairness are not applicable to a discussion of accuracy in the use of the word.

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @ProverbsofHell.2307 said:
    Now let's look at some alternatives:
    -ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

    -ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

    -ANet could charge money for every patch.
    -ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

    These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

    -ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

    I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

    So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

    $10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

    However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

    Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.
    There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

    This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.
    I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

    Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

    And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.
    I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.
    When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

    If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

    And if you cancel your subscription you have a game you've paid for and invested a ton of money in taken away from you and essentially held at ransom until you start paying again..

    That is not ok with me in any way shape or form.

    With the buy to play model you never loose access to your game unless you get banned.. this is how it should be.
    When you buy something it should be yours.. and games that run on the subscription model are absolutely ripping you off when they also charge you upfront for the kitten game and additionally for their expansions as well.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

    You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

    Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

    I pay way more than my fair share supporting this game.. that's the best benefit of running a game without a sub fee and relying on a cash shop to make profit.
    I'm more than happy to pay more when it's my own choice and I have the freedom to decide for myself how much money I want to invest in this game.

    Take away that freedom.. take away my choice to pay what I want and demand I pay a mandatory fee instead with the ultimatum that if I don't I'll have everything taken off me and my access to a game I've paid for completely stripped away and I'd walk away from the game and never touch it again even if it went back to a f2p model.

    And i'm not alone in feeling that way.. many Guildwars fans do.. because the main reason many of us got into this franchise was because it was anti sub fee.

  • @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

    You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

    Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

    So, what is a person's fair share? Who decides that? What has Anet decided a person's fair share is?

  • @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

    You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

    Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

    Mandatory is a word with a definition. The definition applies to sub fees, but not to gem purchases. Your opinion about business practices and fairness are not applicable to a discussion of accuracy in the use of the word.

    The word is subjective. To you, the sub fee is mandatory. As I've explained, to those who love the game and wants to support it willingly pays the sub fee no different than buying gems. Even though GW2 has no sub fee, players who love this game spends the same amount, or even more, thus it is not mandatory. In the same way, players who love FFXIV, for example, willingly pay the sub fee and even make purchases in their online store, thus it is not mandatory.

    If the sub fee in those games is mandatory for access, they won't even offer free trials or free accounts. The word mandatory is misused in this discussion.

    Thief F1 must remain an instacast Steal skill. DE will simply apply DE Mark on target on Steal.
    Malice build-up independently from DE Mark. Mark only speed up the build-up, not be the pre-requisite.
    http://sirvincentiii.com ~ In the beginning...there was Tarnished Coast...

  • @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @ProverbsofHell.2307 said:
    Now let's look at some alternatives:
    -ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

    -ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

    -ANet could charge money for every patch.
    -ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

    These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

    -ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

    I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

    So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

    $10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

    However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

    Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.
    There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

    This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.
    I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

    Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

    And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.
    I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.
    When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

    If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

    And if you cancel your subscription you have a game you've paid for and invested a ton of money in taken away from you and essentially held at ransom until you start paying again..
    That is not ok with me in any way shape or form.

    That's not even true. If I cancel, it means I don't want to play. Nothing is being held for ransom.

    With the buy to play model you never loose access to your game unless you get banned.. this is how it should be.

    The reality is; games without funding die and you lose everything.

    When you buy something it should be yours.. and games that run on the subscription model are absolutely ripping you off when they also charge you upfront for the kitten game and additionally for their expansions as well.

    Supply and demand. If the supply doesn't match your demand, you should not pay. However, if the supply matches my demand, I would pay. The price is relative.

    Thief F1 must remain an instacast Steal skill. DE will simply apply DE Mark on target on Steal.
    Malice build-up independently from DE Mark. Mark only speed up the build-up, not be the pre-requisite.
    http://sirvincentiii.com ~ In the beginning...there was Tarnished Coast...

  • @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

    You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

    Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

    I pay way more than my fair share supporting this game.. that's the best benefit of running a game without a sub fee and relying on a cash shop to make profit.
    I'm more than happy to pay more when it's my own choice and I have the freedom to decide for myself how much money I want to invest in this game.

    Take away that freedom.. take away my choice to pay what I want and demand I pay a mandatory fee instead with the ultimatum that if I don't I'll have everything taken off me and my access to a game I've paid for completely stripped away and I'd walk away from the game and never touch it again even if it went back to a f2p model.

    That's overly exaggerated. The scale of GW2 is not even close to the scale of MMOs with sub fee. The reason for the sub fee is to give the game depths in terms of game experience and story. More revenue, more development time. There's a lot of criticism how shallow PoF is, well, what do you expect? You get what you paid for. Sure you spent more than others, but your share will not cover for others who never spent. Besides, the revenue is not consistent.

    And i'm not alone in feeling that way.. many Guildwars fans do.. because the main reason many of us got into this franchise was because it was anti sub fee.

    I understand that. All I'm saying is GW2 could have been a lot bigger and better with a consistent revenue from sub fee.

    Thief F1 must remain an instacast Steal skill. DE will simply apply DE Mark on target on Steal.
    Malice build-up independently from DE Mark. Mark only speed up the build-up, not be the pre-requisite.
    http://sirvincentiii.com ~ In the beginning...there was Tarnished Coast...

  • @DarcShriek.5829 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

    You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

    Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

    So, what is a person's fair share? Who decides that?

    The developer decides. In other MMO it's $15/month to support the game development.

    What has Anet decided a person's fair share is?

    Box price. Which in my opinion is not enough revenue to drive a bigger or bolder project. PoF is evidence of that.

    Thief F1 must remain an instacast Steal skill. DE will simply apply DE Mark on target on Steal.
    Malice build-up independently from DE Mark. Mark only speed up the build-up, not be the pre-requisite.
    http://sirvincentiii.com ~ In the beginning...there was Tarnished Coast...

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @ProverbsofHell.2307 said:
    Now let's look at some alternatives:
    -ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

    -ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

    -ANet could charge money for every patch.
    -ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

    These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

    -ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

    I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

    So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

    $10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

    However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

    Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.
    There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

    This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.
    I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

    Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

    And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.
    I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.
    When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

    If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

    And if you cancel your subscription you have a game you've paid for and invested a ton of money in taken away from you and essentially held at ransom until you start paying again..
    That is not ok with me in any way shape or form.

    That's not even true. If I cancel, it means I don't want to play. Nothing is being held for ransom.

    With the buy to play model you never loose access to your game unless you get banned.. this is how it should be.

    The reality is; games without funding die and you lose everything.

    When you buy something it should be yours.. and games that run on the subscription model are absolutely ripping you off when they also charge you upfront for the kitten game and additionally for their expansions as well.

    Supply and demand. If the supply doesn't match your demand, you should not pay. However, if the supply matches my demand, I would pay. The price is relative.

    And if you can't afford to play you have your game taken away from you..
    And if you can afford but lack time then you're wasting money when you're not playing..

    Games have survived off initial sales since the dawn of online gaming and before it.. if any game cannot do this today then perhaps the companies responsible for them shouldn't be making games like that in the first place.
    Besides for games like WoW.. the amount they make from millions of people paying a sub fee doesn't even remotely come close to the investment put back into the game.
    The bulk of that is pure profit which is one of the big reasons MMO's exploded in popularity in the first place.. It's a cash cow primed to be milked and everyone wanted a piece of the pie.
    Sub fees are completely unnecessary.. specially when you have a good game that sells on it's merits and can survive without them.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 1, 2017

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

    You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

    Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

    I pay way more than my fair share supporting this game.. that's the best benefit of running a game without a sub fee and relying on a cash shop to make profit.
    I'm more than happy to pay more when it's my own choice and I have the freedom to decide for myself how much money I want to invest in this game.

    Take away that freedom.. take away my choice to pay what I want and demand I pay a mandatory fee instead with the ultimatum that if I don't I'll have everything taken off me and my access to a game I've paid for completely stripped away and I'd walk away from the game and never touch it again even if it went back to a f2p model.

    That's overly exaggerated. The scale of GW2 is not even close to the scale of MMOs with sub fee. The reason for the sub fee is to give the game depths in terms of game experience and story. More revenue, more development time. There's a lot of criticism how shallow PoF is, well, what do you expect? You get what you paid for. Sure you spent more than others, but your share will not cover for others who never spent. Besides, the revenue is not consistent.

    And i'm not alone in feeling that way.. many Guildwars fans do.. because the main reason many of us got into this franchise was because it was anti sub fee.

    I understand that. All I'm saying is GW2 could have been a lot bigger and better with a consistent revenue from sub fee.

    That's mostly speculation.. there's no guarantee Gw2 would be a better game with sub fees.. chances are it wouldn't be that much different.. just more expensive for most people with the added factor that if they couldn't pay every month they would be refused access to the game.
    I'll concede that there would be potential for a better game with a sub but considering the core fanbase of the franchise was sold on Guildwars because of it's anti sub fee stance then it's a pretty huge gamble that deciding to add one would instantly lose Gw2 a huge chunk of it's fanbase.

    It's all relative speculation though.. sure what I spend may not add up to what others didn't but what I did spend can easily overtake what a lot of people didn't.
    This is the whole whale concept in effect.. (Not saying I am one)
    One person who spends a lot more than several who don't combined.. makes that one person more valuable than the several others.
    However with a sub fee that One person decides to leave the game making the mandatory sub for the several others necessary to cover that one player who left.. then factor in that a couple of the several also decide to leave since they don't believe the game is worth paying for and you end up overall with a far bigger loss than when you had a free game.

    There's no way for us to accurately know this considering we don't get to see the data but considering this franchise was built around a no sub fee model... not to mention one of the biggest concerns fans had before Gw2 came out was whether it had a sub fee.. it's a pretty safe bet to assume that adding one would turn a great number of Guildwars fans away from the franchise.. overall causing a bigger loss in profits than one gained through a sub fee.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.