Is 'free' the right word?

Bloodstealer.5978 · September 6, 2019

@Tinnel.4369 said:
@Bloodstealer.5978 said:
@Tinnel.4369 said:
@kharmin.7683 said:
@Bloodstealer.5978 said:What is your point to this thread cos really I don't see it.I think the point is in the end of the original post ...@Tinnel.4369 said:Content isn't 'free', it's very much funded, and ANet goes to great lengths to ensure it's funded. Is it really out of line that those funding it, at any level, want a say in what it is or isn't? Is there any indication I'm missing that ANet is actively engaged in understanding what it is or isn't different players want?

Indeed, it is. Thanks for reading the whole thing.

And like I said... I spend my money on things I wish to purchase from the gemstore.. therefore I got what I paid for.How ANET then choose to spend that money is entirely up to them and if they then choose to give to me content borne out of my spending choices then that's good for me cos it has cost me nothing other than what I paid for.

So as I said what is the point of your thread, what are you trying to advocate for cos I see nothing.

I am pretty sure the majority of this playerbase understands ANET is a business not a charity and everything they do has a cost to it, so how do you think they are suppose to fund it.. even my kids know money doesn't grow on trees, but it does not change the fact I got what I choose to pay for and then they gave me something extra out of generosity....

It's fine if you're content.

However, it's not generosity, it's baked into the model, you can see it explicitly stated by O'Brien in the post two above yours. It's not free, it's funded through the model. I, for one, think having a say in what you're funding is ok here. As it is in every other business where there's two scenarios - business meets demand, or demand leaves. Before leaving it seems reasonable to explore the option of having the business understand how they're failing to engage or meet the demand.

I guess you missed the slapstick..

Goettel.4389 · September 6, 2019

@Tinnel.4369 said:...makes it a bit of a socialist environment

Hyperbole is never a great way to argue a case.

Bloodstealer.5978 · September 6, 2019

@Linken.6345 said:
@kharmin.7683 said:
@Bloodstealer.5978 said:
@Tinnel.4369 said:
@kharmin.7683 said:
@Bloodstealer.5978 said:What is your point to this thread cos really I don't see it.I think the point is in the end of the original post ...@Tinnel.4369 said:Content isn't 'free', it's very much funded, and ANet goes to great lengths to ensure it's funded. Is it really out of line that those funding it, at any level, want a say in what it is or isn't? Is there any indication I'm missing that ANet is actively engaged in understanding what it is or isn't different players want?

Indeed, it is. Thanks for reading the whole thing.

And like I said... I spend my money on things I wish to purchase from the gemstore.. therefore I got what I paid for.How ANET then choose to spend that money is entirely up to them and if they then choose to give to me content borne out of my spending choices then that's good for me cos it has cost me nothing other than what I paid for.

So as I said what is the point of your thread, what are you trying to advocate for cos I see nothing.

I am pretty sure the majority of this playerbase understands ANET is a business not a charity and everything they do has a cost to it, so how do you think they are suppose to fund it.. even my kids know money doesn't grow on trees, but it does not change the fact I got what I choose to pay for and then they gave me something extra out of generosity....

To me, it feels that the point being advocated is that "free" players ought not to have influence (or very little) over the direction or content of the game and that those who actually pay should have that privilege.

Well I think the ftp people dont have much influence over the direction or the content since they cant play any of it.Those that pay shouldent have any privilege either since they get what they pay for.As Bloodstealer.5978 says you pay for y and get y, what then the company do with the money from y you got no right to complain about.If you dont like it vote with your wallet.

Absolutely correct Linken.. we each choose to spend when we want to, on what we want to. From the moment the money lands in the game coffers, my influence on the why's and wherefores' ends.I am certainly no shiny white advocate of ANET or the games direction at times and have myself closed the wallet for long periods at times because of it... and that is all any of us players can do besides uninstalling and going elsewhere.So I still fail to understand the point of the OP's thread.

Tinnel.4369 · September 6, 2019

@"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:Why not be direct and just say, "ArenaNet, I've put money into the game and now I want you to listen to what I have to say. Not only listen, but act on my demands because I have funded your endeavors."
No need for all this obfuscation.

Because that's not the point.

If the statement isn't clear to you and you're unwilling/unable to engage any of the number of questions, that's ok.

Inculpatus cedo.9234 · September 6, 2019

Really!
Well, if it is truly just about the word 'free', I wish you much luck on getting ArenaNet to change the terms for "Play4Free" and "Heart of Thorns is free..." and "this Episode is free to play...".

/smh

Tinnel.4369 · September 6, 2019

@Goettel.4389 said:
@Tinnel.4369 said:...makes it a bit of a socialist environment

Hyperbole is never a great way to argue a case.

Admittedly poor choice. I meant to imply precisely what O'Brien lays out. That a portion of what is spent in the Gem Store is used to benefit the whole through, often at the time of purchase unknown, future 'programs', if you will.

Tinnel.4369 · September 6, 2019

@"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:Really!
Well, if it is truly just about the word 'free', I wish you much luck on getting ArenaNet to change the terms for "Play4Free" and "Heart of Thorns is free..." and "this Episode is free to play...".
/smh

Thanks!!

Defias.1892 · September 6, 2019

I don't know what you are really trying to argue. Did you pay for the content? No? Then it's free. If you are going to say that things don't appear out of thin air, that's true. When you buy gems, you buy gems, not content. When you buy expansions, you get the content included in the expansion. If you get LWS content for free, even if you don't want it, it's still free. Anet employees actually play the game and interact with the community very often. The only thing is that most of their staff has been cut and the people on the art team are usually more active than others.

Damiani.2941 · September 6, 2019

@"Tinnel.4369"

Quoting the use of "FREE" in this URL: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/guild-wars-2-heart-of-thorns-is-free-with-guild-wars-2-path-of-fire/

Yeah, it's fine to use that, because you'll note, if you GET Path of Fire, you now get Heart of Thorns FREE. I had to pay for it previously, so that's a departure from the past, i.e. change and won't put someone out xxx USD or whatever their currency of choice is like I did. You can even consider my spending of money for Heart of Thorns a gift, to get us to this FREE Heart of Thorns, if you buy Path of Fire. (eg) Also, if you GET Path of Fire, I believe going forward, while logged in during the release of new Living World material, you get that content FREE too. Especially if any of the money I've spent towards it, helped this happen. Again, my donation/gift. I don't mind. That's why I open my wallet when I do to pay for this content.

The use of FREE is acceptable as a choice in it's use this way for English. What is not clearly stated in the URL above, isn't required to be, and per your quote of their business model, is that ongoing micro-transactions are a method by which they will fund their company while developing and giving us FREE things, if we purchased something.

So yes, I feel FREE is fine, in the examples and quotes above. I do not believe their is any inherent obfuscation, or lie. They clearly list the requirements to get said FREE things. How those FREE things are created are a moot point, since at the moment of handing them out; if you did not possess said things but meet the conditions to acquire said FREE things, you'd get them without any cost to you. The cost to Anet, or other person(s) who choose to buy, grind for, or earn -- is not relevant to the use of the word FREE in the examples above.

Very similar to 2 for 1 at your local coffee shop. Buy a coffee, get a second one free. Same use of the word free here too.

That's my reply, though I do appreciate your quotes of their business model. I mean, you can tell that's how their making their money these days; it's changed since 2012 when they originally intended to be just 'buy this 'boxed' thing once, and we'll make things for you ...'.

Personally I appreciate that there are people who contribute their monies to help fund this title. I further appreciate getting the FREE stuff that's been developed, and provided to me, because I do not consider what people choose to pay, as part of the price of the FREE material given to me. Much like my prior examples I presented on gifts from parents. That's not how the use of FREE is being applied and I infer you're looking to imply that its use is misleading or out right lying.

Further, what's your suggestion on how to resolve this 'issue' you're bringing up to argue? Please do provide a potential resolution, otherwise, indicate if this is merely an argument for argument's sake like our society seems to be rife with these days.

Cheers.

Kaliwenda.3428 · September 6, 2019

@"Tinnel.4369" said:I see the word 'free' being thrown around a lot recently in regards to the content we receive. ANet, obviously, emphasized it in the announcement last week and many players have used it as a rationale for why other players' expectations are out of line, "It's 'free', what do you expect?"
However, it's not free and both the community and ANet know this. ANet doesn't fund content out of the goodness of their hearts, that money comes from the community by way of transactions through the BLTC. The nature of this makes it a bit of a socialist environment; some contribute more than others, but 'everyone benefits'.
Of course, for some players the content is, literally, free. They bought the game and never make purchases through the BLTC, or do so strictly with gold they earned in game. I don't believe it's far fetched, based on the continued 'success' of the game and delivery of 'free' content, to say that these people are a minority of the community population.
It likewise shouldn't be too far fetched to assume that the majority of the community does contribute and while arguments can be made over which mode does or doesn't contribute more, I believe it's reasonable to say that the majority of the community in each mode does contribute. For these people, the content isn't 'free'. That the displeasure some of these players experience, and express, with what is delivered on what time scale is met with "It's free, what do you expect?" is pretty distasteful. They did pay! Some may try and make the argument that this part of the community got what they paid for in the form of whatever shiny they bought and ANet is square with them. I would hope that common sense knocks this argument down fast.
If you look around the forums you'll find an overwhelming abundance of suggestion threads, investments by the community playing the game to stimulate conversations and relay to ANet what they'd like to see or what may be helpful. They're not all good or feasible ideas, but a plethora of ideas no less. ANet, to their credit, has acted on some, but has also blatanly ignored some of the most frequently mentioned.
If you look at the top of this sub forum the top two sticky's are related to the BLTC. One is what can we make that you'll buy and the other is what can we do to keep you buying trouble free. Does this strike anyone as odd? That these are the two most important things? There are no stickied, moderated, and guided discussions in any of the sub forums for different modes or professions where content and balance and the quality with which they're functioning can be discussed. Despite many attempts by players to generate them and represent them.
Content isn't 'free', it's very much funded, and ANet goes to great lengths to ensure it's funded. Is it really out of line that those funding it, at any level, want a say in what it is or isn't? Is there any indication I'm missing that ANet is actively engaged in understanding what it is or isn't different players want?

I'm glad that ANet is invested in making BLTC items that players want to buy, and making sure that those who want to spend money don't run into problems when doing so. It shows that they respect and appreciate players' willingness to spend money on the game.

As for your last line, the indication that ANet is actively engaged in understanding what it is or isn't different players want is the extensive survey that many people were sent not that long ago. I'm sure they're still working through all the responses to formulate plans for the future. And I bet they targeted a good cross-section of players to make sure that all aspects of game play were represented in the participants who were selected to receive the survey.

Tinnel.4369 · September 6, 2019

@Damiani.2941 said:@"Tinnel.4369"
Quoting the use of "FREE" in this URL: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/guild-wars-2-heart-of-thorns-is-free-with-guild-wars-2-path-of-fire/
Yeah, it's fine to use that, because you'll note, if you GET Path of Fire, you now get Heart of Thorns FREE. I had to pay for it previously, so that's a departure from the past, i.e. change and won't put someone out xxx USD or whatever their currency of choice is like I did. You can even consider my spending of money for Heart of Thorns a gift, to get us to this FREE Heart of Thorns, if you buy Path of Fire. (eg) Also, if you GET Path of Fire, I believe going forward, while logged in during the release of new Living World material, you get that content FREE too. Especially if any of the money I've spent towards it, helped this happen. Again, my donation/gift. I don't mind. That's why I open my wallet when I do to pay for this content.
The use of FREE is acceptable as a choice in it's use this way for English. What is not clearly stated in the URL above, isn't required to be, and per your quote of their business model, is that ongoing micro-transactions are a method by which they will fund their company while developing and giving us FREE things, if we purchased something.
So yes, I feel FREE is fine, in the examples and quotes above. I do not believe their is any inherent obfuscation, or lie. They clearly list the requirements to get said FREE things. How those FREE things are created are a moot point, since at the moment of handing them out; if you did not possess said things but meet the conditions to acquire said FREE things, you'd get them without any cost to you. The cost to Anet, or other person(s) who choose to buy, grind for, or earn -- is not relevant to the use of the word FREE in the examples above.
Very similar to 2 for 1 at your local coffee shop. Buy a coffee, get a second one free. Same use of the word free here too.
That's my reply, though I do appreciate your quotes of their business model. I mean, you can tell that's how their making their money these days; it's changed since 2012 when they originally intended to be just 'buy this 'boxed' thing once, and we'll make things for you ...'.
Personally I appreciate that there are people who contribute their monies to help fund this title. I further appreciate getting the FREE stuff that's been developed, and provided to me, because I do not consider what people choose to pay, as part of the price of the FREE material given to me. Much like my prior examples I presented on gifts from parents. That's not how the use of FREE is being applied and I suggest you're looking to imply that its use is misleading or out right lying.
Further, what's your suggestion on how to resolve this 'issue' you're bringing up to argue? Please do provide a potential resolution, otherwise, indicate if this is merely an argument for argument's sake like our society seems to be rife with these days.
Cheers.

I've posed a number of questions, both in the initial post and throughout, to attempt to clarify points of confusion for both myself and potentially others. I haven't fielded many answers really, just more questions of what the question was that was clearly stated many times.

Despite our mutual disagreement, I appreciate the discourse you've provided.

A conversation about solutions requires an acknowledgement that companies live and die by their customers satisfaction and thus, demand for their product. If you can buy this, you can reread my initial post and see that there are maybe ways ANet could demonstrate they're connected to customer satisfaction of the majority of their consumers.

If they're content with the segment of the customer base they are satisfying that's, of course, perfectly acceptable. They need simply to say so instead of continuing to prioritize 'what can we make that you'll buy within the micro-transaction model' without delivering a suitable return.

Tinnel.4369 · September 6, 2019

@Kaliwenda.3428 said:As for your last line, the indication that ANet is actively engaged in understanding what it is or isn't different players want is the extensive survey that many people were sent not that long ago. I'm sure they're still working through all the responses to formulate plans for the future. And I bet they targeted a good cross-section of players to make sure that all aspects of game play were represented in the participants who were selected to receive the survey.

This is a good point, I didn't receive one, does anyone have a rundown of the questions? I wonder if the results will be made public.

Damiani.2941 · September 6, 2019

@"Tinnel.4369" said:I've posed a number of questions, both in the initial post and throughout, to attempt to clarify points of confusion for both myself and potentially others. I haven't fielded many answers really, just more questions of what the question was that was clearly stated many times.
Despite our mutual disagreement, I appreciate the discourse you've provided.
A conversation about solutions requires an acknowledgement that companies live and die by their customers satisfaction and thus, demand for their product. If you can buy this, you can reread my initial post and see that there are maybe ways ANet could demonstrate they're connected to customer satisfaction of the majority of their consumers.
If they're content with the segment of the customer base they are satisfying that's, of course, perfectly acceptable. They need simply to say so instead of continuing to prioritize 'what can we make that you'll buy within the micro-transaction model' without delivering a suitable return.
Hats off to you as well, this is an excellent exchange. Agree to disagree, and I note your stance.

Though I have to stand by my arguments that your core presumption is already inherent in the way businesses work. Product is made at a company's cost, revenue/funds are generated/gained via methods that maximize the gain to earn profit. Anet isn't a not for profit organization. Product is either given away (FREE) or at a cost. It is this known cycle, readily accepted and assumed (or I'm grossly taking it far too much for granted as applied to any company making a thing they produce) which I find odd in your desired goal: alteration of the use of the word FREE in their communication with us, the consumers.

That's why I don't quite associate what you've posted against your original written question: "Is FREE the right word?" I think it is. Perhaps through this conversation, though, your original goal ...shifted some?

I'm simply looking for an alternate word from you to replace the use of FREE, not the full discourse of why it applies or not. Pointing to a wall and saying, "That should not be called a wall..." kinda doesn't help get us to what it can be called instead. You want to redefine common English terms and their historical use.

Does the method of communication Anet uses to speak with their customers sometimes suck and not reward us individually how we want? Sure. Often times it's very wanting. That might just be a sense of 'control' we don't get when they don't share, or lack of 'inclusion'. Just remember, officially, they don't 'owe' us anything, and we sure as hell don't own/owe them anything either. I very much doubt Anet would "help bury the bodies" if I asked. It's not that type of a relationship.

Life is always best if you had full transparency, but here's where I'd argue, they cannot for legal reasons, do that. People would take them for their exact words and pounce as is VERY common these days, perhaps even sue, or not give them the room to bend and flow, which is healthy for any product that's being developed for a mass group of persons. They have a vision of a product, they are hitting us up for monies to continue against that vision, and yeah, it makes sense if they 'follow' their vision or adjust based on financial returns from that investment of their effort and time, that's just like any relationship, really. Stay the course, stay the method, and do what's worked in the past. We don't reinvent the wheel for this very reason (though one can argue we should).

You're effectively ... maybe not demanding, per say, but endeavoring to get Anet to 'confess' that they are focusing more on the monies and making the things that get those monies versus the grander picture? Is that it? It's already a given, isn't it? "Goes without saying" as it were.

They aren't family. They're a company making a product we are consuming. Very few things in this existence are ever balanced and honest, call me cynical if you want, but ... that's an almost impossible ask of anyone. let alone a business. Family, maybe. Definitely not a company that's going to survive on what they make, after some recent financial woes and shifting of personnel. Likely a moot point, but I'm rather glad they are even still going and things are fun.

So, hope this sharing of my interpretation of what you initially asked, and where we are now. I'm potentially wrong, but unless we do talk it out, I cannot know. Mind reading isn't a thing I do.

Have you tried an open letter to an actual Anet person that has the authority to reply? Or is that your end goal, to state they are "content with the segment of the customer base they are satisfying"? is that what you really want?

Tinnel.4369 · September 6, 2019

@Damiani.2941 said:
@"Tinnel.4369" said:I've posed a number of questions, both in the initial post and throughout, to attempt to clarify points of confusion for both myself and potentially others. I haven't fielded many answers really, just more questions of what the question was that was clearly stated many times.
Despite our mutual disagreement, I appreciate the discourse you've provided.
A conversation about solutions requires an acknowledgement that companies live and die by their customers satisfaction and thus, demand for their product. If you can buy this, you can reread my initial post and see that there are maybe ways ANet could demonstrate they're connected to customer satisfaction of the majority of their consumers.
If they're content with the segment of the customer base they are satisfying that's, of course, perfectly acceptable. They need simply to say so instead of continuing to prioritize 'what can we make that you'll buy within the micro-transaction model' without delivering a suitable return.
Hats off to you as well, this is an excellent exchange. Agree to disagree, and I note your stance.