Less Gemstore Items and more earnable items

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

@yann.1946 said:Can someone make some graphs which show what was added to the gem store and game per patch?

You can find the information in the Wiki.

[Awesumness.1823]

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Awesumness.1823 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:You know gw2 needs to make money to exist, right?

At this point I'd probably pay a subfee if it meant raid bosses came more frequently and CMs were repeatable. Or even $60 per wing.

What I cannot do right now is confidently buy gems and know it'll fund raid content or even non-Gemstore content.

I'm to the point where I'm paying sub fees in games with worse gameplay just because those games have more frequent raid-like content drops.

That's ok. I wouldn't. :D

And that's fine! :D The same way some people choose not to buy Box o' Funs/Boosters/Repair Canisters/Lootboxes from the gemstore, you could choose not to buy a Raid Pack. I think it would be pretty neat to buy a Raid Pack that had something the size of the Freezie raid along with a base Weapon/Hat/Mount skin matching the raid's aesthetic. Then upon completion of the Raid's CMs, a fancier version of the skin would be unlocked with more dye channels/particle effects/details/footfalls.

@"yann.1946" said:Can someone make some graphs which show what was added to the gem store and game per patch?

I believe these reddit posts have the data you want: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/ckqmvw/a_thorough_overview_of_ingame_rewards_from_hot/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/cnm14q/a_thorough_overview_of_rewards_part_ii_gem_store/ Spoilers: the comments go into more depth how the issue is not just quantity in gemstore vs quantity in game rewards.

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Awesumness.1823 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:You know gw2 needs to make money to exist, right?

At this point I'd probably pay a subfee if it meant raid bosses came more frequently and CMs were repeatable. Or even $60 per wing.

What I cannot do right now is confidently buy gems and know it'll fund raid content or even non-Gemstore content.

I'm to the point where I'm paying sub fees in games with worse gameplay just because those games have more frequent raid-like content drops.

That's ok. I wouldn't. :D

---

@ErikTheTyrant.4527 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:You know gw2 needs to make money to exist, right?

GW2 is not a f2p game. It's b2p.

It's not b2p. It's b2p with microtransactions and it's not anything new.

Also I didn't see OP suggesting to dismantle the gem store at any point in this post.

I never said he did. Less gemstore items = lower diversity of items available = lower chance for players finding what they like = less money. Glad I could explain something as complex as this.

I get that they need to make money, but what I'm pointing out is that all the new items they make come in through the gemstore almost exclusively. What we need is for some of those new items to be grindable and achievable through the game. Whether its through achievements or making them drop from bosses, or some other means, so that we have something good and simple to work for other than legendaries. If everything new comes in through the gemstore then all we do is log on buy it then log off, which isn't very fun.

The new items they make that aren't in gemstore are mostly added with new expansions and LWs. Also you say you want them to be grindable. Well, technically they are, grind gold in any way you want, convert to gems and get what you want by literally grinding it.

Did you already unlock everything available including legendaries?

---

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:You know gw2 needs to make money to exist, right?

GW2 is not a f2p game. It's b2p.

It's not b2p. It's b2p with microtransactions and it's not anything new.

Also I didn't see OP suggesting to dismantle the gem store at any point in this post.

I never said he did. Less gemstore items = lower diversity of items available = lower chance for players finding what they like = less money. Glad I could explain something as complex as this.

You didn't need to explain, it is indeed, not complex at all. Ideally though, more items in game don't mean less in the store.

I'm mostly referring to the part where -for some reason- you said "

Also I didn't see OP suggesting to dismantle the gem store at any point in this post.

" (in a cheap attempt to discredit what I said I guess). But he literally wrote "

Less gemstore items

", so I assumed I had to point that out no matter how obvious it is for you

now

.

What would need a bit of explaining though is why anyone who isn't a dev or shareholder, would argue against having more stuff available in the game they are playing. Even if it cuts a bit into the bottom line, that should be a shareholder's concern not a player's. Although in this era of 'buying" your way through games instead of playing them, maybe even that doesn't need any explanation.

You literally can't tell me what should be my concern. I mean technically you can, but that won't do anything. Also I wrote why in my very first post in this thread, it's pretty simple. And no, just because you didn't understand something I already wrote, doesn't mean I'm "buying my way through games".

Of course I can't tell you what should concern you or not. What I can do, is point out how paradoxical is for a player playing a game, to not want more stuff available in said game.

Also one could argue that more stuff to do/earn in-game = more people actively playing it = wider pool of potential gem buyers = more money. See I can do pretend projections too. That's the thing though, unless one knows the very specific goals NCsoft has for this game, it's all pretend.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@"yann.1946" said:Can someone make some graphs which show what was added to the gem store and game per patch?

Fortunately someone has done that work for us:

• Overview of In-Game Rewards (from HoT through LS4's end)
• Gem Shop Rewards covering same period

The data was collated by redditor u/Skyy-High and the quoted text below is theirs. (I don't entirely agree with their synopsis, even though I'm reposting it.)

---

Armors compared

There are two outfit bars. The first (Cyan; second from left) counts each outfit once; the other (Red, fourth from left) counts them six times, to represent how many slots utilized. Using the first comparison, there have been far more in-game armor options than gem shop ones.

!

Weapons compared

Standalone weapons in-game consistently outpace standalone weapons in the gemstore. Again, Season 3 weapon sets were much more prevalent in the gemstore, but Season 4 has been much closer, and HoT and PoF both were equal or better than the gemstore. Also, almost all BLC weapon sets end up on the TP with fairly reasonable prices, so you rarely have to gamble or pay gems to acquire these.!

Redditor's conclusions

The data was collated by redditor u/Skyy-High and the quoted text below is theirs. (I don't entirely agree with their synopsis, even though I'm reposting it.)

• Mounts (and, to a lesser extent, gliders) make up the bulk of gemstore offerings right now. I didn't correct for gem prices, but I think we're all aware that mounts tend to be more expensive than outfits or weapons too, so the total cost of items on the gemstore has probably gone up, even though total offerings (sans mounts) have gone down.

• Items linked to BLC acquisition alone have always been in the game, but they used to be tradable and there were fewer of them. This is definitely a trend, one that is anti-consumer and they should really implement an alternative method for these things. The statuettes are a good option but they don't get added to that vendor for months (if ever).

• Armor and weapons are surprisingly fair (with the exception of Season 3, which I think soured a lot of people on the gemstore entirely). Again, there's no accounting for taste, and obvious favoritism for the gemstore like the Starborn outfit vs the fractal infusion is going to rankle people, but on the whole I think the idea that we're not getting any rewards unless they can be directly monetized is not true. I think ANet knows if they push the gemstore too hard, we notice and stop playing.

[Whitworth.7259]

It's not necessarily the fact items are added to the gemstore that's the issue. It's the quality of items in the gemstore vs high tier items earnt in game.

For a game with a fashion based end game and no gear treadmill a new player that swipes their credit card can get an outfit+wep+backpack that makes them look like they've played 1000+ hours and the resolution of said items will far exceed a player that grinded gold for an infusion or leg weapon.

Like I said there's no issue with the gem store, but the items there should be mainly convenience. Pay for cosmetic but under no circumstance should it exceed the quality of the cosmetics of in game rewards.

[Sobx.1758]

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Awesumness.1823 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:You know gw2 needs to make money to exist, right?

At this point I'd probably pay a subfee if it meant raid bosses came more frequently and CMs were repeatable. Or even $60 per wing.

What I cannot do right now is confidently buy gems and know it'll fund raid content or even non-Gemstore content.

I'm to the point where I'm paying sub fees in games with worse gameplay just because those games have more frequent raid-like content drops.

That's ok. I wouldn't. :D

---

@ErikTheTyrant.4527 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:You know gw2 needs to make money to exist, right?

GW2 is not a f2p game. It's b2p.

It's not b2p. It's b2p with microtransactions and it's not anything new.

Also I didn't see OP suggesting to dismantle the gem store at any point in this post.

I never said he did. Less gemstore items = lower diversity of items available = lower chance for players finding what they like = less money. Glad I could explain something as complex as this.

I get that they need to make money, but what I'm pointing out is that all the new items they make come in through the gemstore almost exclusively. What we need is for some of those new items to be grindable and achievable through the game. Whether its through achievements or making them drop from bosses, or some other means, so that we have something good and simple to work for other than legendaries. If everything new comes in through the gemstore then all we do is log on buy it then log off, which isn't very fun.

The new items they make that aren't in gemstore are mostly added with new expansions and LWs. Also you say you want them to be grindable. Well, technically they are, grind gold in any way you want, convert to gems and get what you want by literally grinding it.

Did you already unlock everything available including legendaries?

---

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:You know gw2 needs to make money to exist, right?

GW2 is not a f2p game. It's b2p.

It's not b2p. It's b2p with microtransactions and it's not anything new.

Also I didn't see OP suggesting to dismantle the gem store at any point in this post.

I never said he did. Less gemstore items = lower diversity of items available = lower chance for players finding what they like = less money. Glad I could explain something as complex as this.

You didn't need to explain, it is indeed, not complex at all. Ideally though, more items in game don't mean less in the store.

I'm mostly referring to the part where -for some reason- you said "

Also I didn't see OP suggesting to dismantle the gem store at any point in this post.

" (in a cheap attempt to discredit what I said I guess). But he literally wrote "

Less gemstore items

", so I assumed I had to point that out no matter how obvious it is for you

now

.

What would need a bit of explaining though is why anyone who isn't a dev or shareholder, would argue against having more stuff available in the game they are playing. Even if it cuts a bit into the bottom line, that should be a shareholder's concern not a player's. Although in this era of 'buying" your way through games instead of playing them, maybe even that doesn't need any explanation.

You literally can't tell me what should be my concern. I mean technically you can, but that won't do anything. Also I wrote why in my very first post in this thread, it's pretty simple. And no, just because you didn't understand something I already wrote, doesn't mean I'm "buying my way through games".

Of course I can't

tell

you what should concern you or not. What I can do, is point out how paradoxical is for a player playing a game, to not want more stuff available in said game.

There's nothing paradoxical about that and I already told you why. Also who said I "don't want more stuff avaiable in the game"? You literally just made up that claim.

Also one could argue that more stuff to do/earn in-game = more people actively playing it = wider pool of potential gem buyers = more money. See I can do pretend projections too. That's the thing though, unless one knows the very specific goals NCsoft has for this game, it's all pretend.

...am I supposed to pretend they're not steadily adding content to the game or what?

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@"Sobx.1758" said:Not sure why you think copying someone's research and conclusions is needed when the links to those posts are literally already posted in this thread.I assume copy-pasting stuff is some kind of hobby for you, but OP (reddit OP) literally wrote "TLDR: No, kitten, I worked pretty hard on this, go read the table at least.", have some respect.

(1) The OP of this thread did not post those links, so clearly they hadn't seen them.(1b) At the time I started putting together my post, no one else had posted links. I just ended up taking longer to press submit. I'm sorry that you find that inefficient.

(2) "I assume copy-pasting stuff is some kind of hobby for you" -- when other people have done the research, yes. I'm not sure why you would be against that, especially since I always offer attribution.(2b) Generally, people don't follow links. I always find it helpful when others paste some relevant details, especially if I'm reading an old page (because sometimes the links don't work).(2c) FYI that's also why there are so many Reddit bots that make that easy, e.g. copy/pasting from wikipedia, from anet blogs, and so on. There are no such bots for these forums.

(3) "TLDR: No, kitten, I worked pretty hard on this, go read the table at least" Their first submission didn't address the topic of this thread; the second did. That's why I posted the tables and their conclusions from the second thread.(3b) FYI the topic of the first thread was what rewards were available in game, while the charts and conclusions of the second thread compared in-game rewards with gem shop offering. The first thread doesn't address the concern(s) raised by the OP of this thread; the second thread does.

[Ashantara.8731]

@Sobx.1758 said:You know gw2 needs to make money to exist, right?

Right. But its existence should consist of making the player base happy, not of boring them to death. ;) The game has so much more potential than the small chunk the devs seem to be focusing on. Pseudo-content <> content.

Edit - An example: raids are basically all the same: go in, kill stuff, avoid/learn dangerous, complex fight mechanics (What for? Shinies). The thing is, they have great story content that is reduced to fighting. Just imagine how those cool stories would enrich LW content and expansions (Saul D'Alessio's fate, realm of the djinn, Dhuum,...), but no, it is wasted on combat content. Instead, we have only one topic in PvE: elder dragons; accompanied by pesudo-content: boss week, champ week, etc.

[Ged Kealmen.7210]

I feel the balance between earnable and purchased items/skins is right. There are plenty of things to craft and obtain through collections. Very complex grindy stuff and easy simple stuff too. And for those who want to pull out their CC and help support Anet while getting fancy stuff, there's lots too. I see absolutely no reason to complain.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

I always appreciate copies of what is found on Reddit, as I don't really like that site very much.Not sure why anyone would care; if re-stating something in a thread is offensive, there must be much reporting to Mods going on in these forums, as we hear the same thing over and over in threads.

[Sobx.1758]

@Ashantara.8731 said:

@"Sobx.1758" said:You know gw2 needs to make money to exist, right?

Right. But its existence should consist of making the player base happy, not of boring them to death. ;) The game has so much more potential than the small chunk the devs seem to be focusing on. Pseudo-content <> content.

Edit - An example: raids are basically all the same: go in, kill stuff, avoid/learn dangerous, complex fight mechanics (What for? Shinies). The thing is, they have great story content that is reduced to fighting. Just imagine how those cool stories would enrich LW content and expansions (Saul D'Alessio's fate, realm of the djinn, Dhuum,...), but no, it is wasted on combat content. Instead, we have only one topic in PvE: elder dragons; accompanied by pesudo-content: boss week, champ week, etc.

Story content =/= raid content, one is for people that enjoy story, the other is for those enjoying raiding. It's like having a lot of different stuff in the gemstore -the whole point is for "every" player to have something they might like. The moment they abandon "x" content for "y" content because you asked for it, it takes away from the game for other people.

[Awesumness.1823]

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Ototo.3214 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Ototo.3214 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Ototo.3214 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Ototo.3214 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Ototo.3214 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:Not sure why you think copying someone's research and conclusions is needed when the links to those posts are literally already posted in this thread.I assume copy-pasting stuff is some kind of hobby for you, but OP (reddit OP) literally wrote "TLDR: No, kitten, I worked pretty hard on this, go read the table at least.", have some respect.

(1) The OP of this thread did not post those links, so clearly they hadn't seen them.(1b) At the time I started putting together my post, no one else had posted links. I just ended up taking longer to press submit. I'm sorry that you find that inefficient.

You claim it took you nearly an hour to copy-paste that post? Right. :DAlso you chose a pretty weird formatting for an answer to a 2-sentence post. Regardless of you seeing it or not, you still saw what 'reddit-OP' wrote about his work and it was a kittenhole move imo. Next time just post original links to the source like @"Awesumness.1823" instead of copy-pasting it here for no reason.

Considering links break on here most of the time and even when they don't a lot of people ignore them. No. I greatly appreciate them quoting the stuff directly with credit given.

Links were broken some time ago, the issue is clearly fixed, not sure why you'd bring that up now. Also people that ignore them usually refuse to read more than 3 sentences anyways. yay, generalisations!

Or, just maybe, people don't want to have to click off to another tab. I know I certainly don't, especially on mobile. You're insulting someone because they dare actually post the information in the thread people are already in instead of expecting people to click away.

Ah, here we go. Who am I insulting here exactly? What I said is as "insulting" as your claim that people are being too lazy to click a link or change a tab. You're allowed to make generalizations and assumptions but I'm not?

people who don't click links are just lazy

That's what you implied, there's no reason to not click a link and read the contents of the message.

I explained my reasoning, you're the one asserting that because of that I'm lazy. But ok.

There's no reason not to click the link and read the context, stop backpedalling now. :)

I can just as easily say that someone who just posts a link to someone else explaining something instead of saying it themselves, and expecting other people to put in effort to go to and read the other post, is lazy. But I won't because I don't actually think that. Just like I don't think people that don't want to click on links to elsewhere are necessarily lazy.

Everything you said since the start are assumptions as good as mine and nothing else, you seem to be pretty bored.

The reason is that it's tedious. Especially on mobile. And Illconceived basically providing a TL;DR is appreciated.

Clicking on a link is still just clicking, nothing is "tedious" about it -mobile or not. Weak excuse.And all he did was just reposting what someone already included in the same thread before him.

Can this back and forth stop? It's derailing the conversation. After the links and data was presented, the only posts with a thumbs up in this chain is the one calling out links on this forum are busted.

[yann.1946]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@"yann.1946" said:Can someone make some graphs which show what was added to the gem store and game per patch?What's stopping you from doing so?

Regardless (and fortunately) someone has done that work for us:

• Overview of In-Game Rewards
  (from HoT through LS4's end)
• Gem Shop Rewards
  covering same period

The data was collated by redditor

u/Skyy-High

and the quoted text below is theirs. (I don't entirely agree with their synopsis, even though I'm reposting it.)

---

Armors compared

There are two outfit bars. The first (Cyan; second from left) counts each outfit once; the other (Red, fourth from left) counts them six times, to represent how many slots utilized. Using the first comparison, there have been far more in-game armor options than gem shop ones.

!

Weapons compared

Standalone weapons in-game consistently outpace standalone weapons in the gemstore. Again, Season 3 weapon sets were much more prevalent in the gemstore, but Season 4 has been much closer, and HoT and PoF both were equal or better than the gemstore. Also, almost all BLC weapon sets end up on the TP with fairly reasonable prices, so you rarely have to gamble or pay gems to acquire these.!

Redditor's conclusions

The data was collated by redditor

u/Skyy-High

and the quoted text below is theirs. (I don't entirely agree with their synopsis, even though I'm reposting it.)

• Mounts (and, to a lesser extent, gliders) make up the bulk of gemstore offerings right now. I didn't correct for gem prices, but I think we're all aware that mounts tend to be more expensive than outfits or weapons too, so the total cost of items on the gemstore has probably gone up, even though total offerings (sans mounts) have gone down.

• Items linked to BLC acquisition alone have always been in the game, but they used to be tradable and there were fewer of them. This is definitely a trend, one that is anti-consumer and they should really implement an alternative method for these things. The statuettes are a good option but they don't get added to that vendor for months (if ever).

• Armor and weapons are surprisingly fair (with the exception of Season 3, which I think soured a lot of people on the gemstore entirely). Again, there's no accounting for taste, and obvious favoritism for the gemstore like the Starborn outfit vs the fractal infusion is going to rankle people, but on the whole I think the idea that we're not getting any rewards unless they can be directly monetized is not true. I think ANet knows if they push the gemstore too hard, we notice and stop playing.

Thanks for the info.

I didn't really want to do the work myself that's why I asked. :)

This data does confirms my bias though.

[Obtena.7952]

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:You know gw2 needs to make money to exist, right?

GW2 is not a f2p game. It's b2p.

Also I didn't see OP suggesting to dismantle the gem store at any point in this post.

Well ... actually ...

anytime someone suggests more not GS and less GS ... they are suggesting EXACTLY that. No one should want to diminish GS sales ... unless they really want less development in the game ... or monthly fees ... or the game to simply ceasing to exist.

I always find the calls for 'more' earnable items to be a little nonsensical ... if there are items still left in these people's wardrobe to earn, why do they need more ... ESPECIALLY at the expense of GS items like this thread suggests? These people make it sound like there isn't enough earnable items for them to get, or that the number of purchaseable ones vastly outnumber earnable ones. Statistically, most of these people aren't even close to getting everything that is earnable, nor does the number of purchaseable items exceed earnable ones.

I don't even think these people have thought about why they are asking for this.

[Ashen.2907]

@ErikTheTyrant.4527 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:You know gw2 needs to make money to exist, right?

GW2 is not a f2p game. It's b2p.

It's not b2p. It's b2p with microtransactions and it's not anything new.

Also I didn't see OP suggesting to dismantle the gem store at any point in this post.

I never said he did. Less gemstore items = lower diversity of items available = lower chance for players finding what they like = less money. Glad I could explain something as complex as this.

what I'm pointing out is that all the new items they make come in through the gemstore almost exclusively.

This is false.

What we need is for some of those new items to be grindable and achievable through the game.

We have this.

If everything new comes in through the gemstore

It doesnt.