Patreon: - How I Think Alliances Should Have Been Handled

[Whiteout.1975]

@Swagger.1459 said:

@"Whiteout.1975" said:I stopped myself from making this post a couple of years ago because I thought to myself, "Eh, Anet adding only a system (Alliances). Anet is not even making a full-on game or full-on expansion. How much longer can it take?" Yet, here we all are, years later, still waiting . . . I guess that is what "soon" means. Anyways, done with that small rant. I making this post regarding an idea involving how I still think Alliances could have progressed much faster. The idea is overall simple:

Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators items such as Gems, Artwork, and/or whatever is perceived fair, what matches their contribution, in/out of the game. I would have gladly donated to the cause. I am not making this post anymore complicated than that. That is all, thanks for reading.

Name all the established MMOs that turn to crowd funding for continued development?

That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . ."What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

[Whiteout.1975]

@Sovereign.1093 said:I doubt alliances will happen if there is no announcements. It's not really worth taking seriously until they do tournaments.

You are probably right. I only brought the topic up because I get tired of seeing what WvW could have been (Alliances). Current WvW feels like I'm playing some unrefined version of the game. Almost, like a Game-Demo in a sense, back when they used to have those more so. It completely destroys my urge to play as a result.

Under respectable matching circumstances (was hoping Alliances would help with this) I believe I would love tournaments too.

[Whiteout.1975]

@knite.1542 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@knite.1542 said:Do you actually have faith that anet would deliver if some hypothetical goal set by them was met?

The amount of "faith" I posses, large or small, holds very little if any weight in the overall desired outcome of Alliances. Sure though, I'll still bite. If the goal set by them "was met," as you said, then in all fairness, yes, I should have reason to believe at that point Anet would deliver. Regardless, people, no matter where they stand, have the option to donate however much or not at all. If they find this option too risky, then they simply don't donate then.

You don't really need to 'bite', the question isn't bait, it is just a question. Either way, the only reason I ask is because anet doesn't have the greatest track record of doing what they say they are going to do. I remember a time when they listed 2nd generation legendary weapons as a selling point of the Heart of Thorns expansion and then once they realized they couldn't deliver that, they silently changed the Heart of Thorns FAQ page, removing any mention of legendary weapons, and only addressed it after they got called out by the community.

Things like that are why I believe that, even if arenanet were to do something like this, I don't think they would deliver if the goal was met.

edit: Also, not trying to be a negative nancy, just being realistic. Anet clearly has little to no interest in alliances, or wvw in general.

Okay, I just have gotten tired of sitting around, waiting on the world to change. I just thought I would mention an approach that could potentially help. I hope that is understandable.

[Swagger.1459]

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:I stopped myself from making this post a couple of years ago because I thought to myself, "Eh, Anet adding only a system (Alliances). Anet is not even making a full-on game or full-on expansion. How much longer can it take?" Yet, here we all are, years later, still waiting . . . I guess that is what "soon" means. Anyways, done with that small rant. I making this post regarding an idea involving how I still think Alliances could have progressed much faster. The idea is overall simple:

Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators items such as Gems, Artwork, and/or whatever is perceived fair, what matches their contribution, in/out of the game. I would have gladly donated to the cause. I am not making this post anymore complicated than that. That is all, thanks for reading.

Name all the established MMOs that turn to crowd funding for continued development?

That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . ."What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

My question is valid. Anet made like around $50,000,000 USD last year, and you want them to now ask for donations to develop wvw???

Name an existing MMO that's taking in MILLIONS that then turns to the community for hand out donations to add content??? Hmm? And you think that looks good for a business?... And that's exactly what you are proposing, and crowd funding is only done for start up studios to produce a "someday" game...

[Whiteout.1975]

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:I stopped myself from making this post a couple of years ago because I thought to myself, "Eh, Anet adding only a system (Alliances). Anet is not even making a full-on game or full-on expansion. How much longer can it take?" Yet, here we all are, years later, still waiting . . . I guess that is what "soon" means. Anyways, done with that small rant. I making this post regarding an idea involving how I still think Alliances could have progressed much faster. The idea is overall simple:

Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators items such as Gems, Artwork, and/or whatever is perceived fair, what matches their contribution, in/out of the game. I would have gladly donated to the cause. I am not making this post anymore complicated than that. That is all, thanks for reading.

Name all the established MMOs that turn to crowd funding for continued development?

That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . ."What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

My question is valid. Anet made like around $50,000,000 USD last year, and you want them to now ask for donations to develop wvw???

Name an existing MMO that's taking in MILLIONS that then turns to the community for hand out donations to add content??? Hmm? And you think that looks good for a business?... And that's exactly what you are proposing, and crowd funding is only done for start up studios to produce a "someday" game...

• How much of that money was put into Alliances so far?

Everything you just said makes Anet look bad for having so much money and still no Alliances to show for years now. That hurts them before anything I've suggested here, so congrats. Also, I never explicitly said: "hand out donations." I basically said, have a Pateron that rewards people back based on how much they donate accordingly. However, if they want a strict free hand out donation method . . . They can go ahead. That is just not my preferred method and you just further illustrated why already.

[Swagger.1459]

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:I stopped myself from making this post a couple of years ago because I thought to myself, "Eh, Anet adding only a system (Alliances). Anet is not even making a full-on game or full-on expansion. How much longer can it take?" Yet, here we all are, years later, still waiting . . . I guess that is what "soon" means. Anyways, done with that small rant. I making this post regarding an idea involving how I still think Alliances could have progressed much faster. The idea is overall simple:

Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators items such as Gems, Artwork, and/or whatever is perceived fair, what matches their contribution, in/out of the game. I would have gladly donated to the cause. I am not making this post anymore complicated than that. That is all, thanks for reading.

Name all the established MMOs that turn to crowd funding for continued development?

That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . ."What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

My question is valid. Anet made like around $50,000,000 USD last year, and you want them to now ask for donations to develop wvw???

Name an existing MMO that's taking in MILLIONS that then turns to the community for hand out donations to add content??? Hmm? And you think that looks good for a business?... And that's exactly what you are proposing, and crowd funding is only done for start up studios to produce a "someday" game...

• How much of that money was put into Alliances so far?

Everything you just said makes Anet look bad for having so much money and still no Alliances to show for years now. That hurts them before anything I've suggested here, so congrats. Also, I never explicitly said: "hand out donations." I basically said, have a Pateron that rewards people back based on how much they donate accordingly. However, if they want a strict free hand out donation method . . . They can go ahead. That is just not my preferred method and you just further illustrated why already.

Yes, so Anet makes money, no alliances yet, and community isn’t happy. Now add in how it would look if Anet asked players for donations to make alliances...

[XenesisII.1540]

@"Whiteout.1975" said:That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . ."What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

GW2 has expansions, they have a gem store which takes the place of a monthly sub. You can already donate to them by using the gem store. It's not a matter of money, they obviously had money to invest and development power to use, they just chose to use it on side projects which eventually got cancelled, and Mike running off to form another studio.

What you are asking for is for donations to be funneled into a specific area and to be used in a specific manner, which will not happen for various reasons. When they take money in this way they are obligated to use that money in that specific way, but with any and all develop things can change, things can be canceled, what if they don't even make enough to cover the cost?

You might be happy to chip in $100, but what if they don't even raise 5k? or 10k or 20k whatever amount may be needed for the development. Then people are going to be screaming for refunds. What if alliances doesn't turn out how you want it? are you going to turn around and start demanding stuff because you donated specifically for this? No other company does this after release.

You want them to take wvw seriously? then force them and get more players playing wvw. There's a big social aspect of wvw that is not welcoming or toxic, and turns off a lot of new or non pvp players. We can blame anet for everything, the lack of development, lack of marketing for wvw, whatever else, but the other reason why wvw does not grow and does not get taken seriously is because of it's player base too.

But we all know things won't change either way, and anet is at that point they need to keep themselves afloat, there isn't room a lot of extra side projects, not when they need to work on the next expansion.

Better yet go buy warclaw mount skins, show them how much interest you have in wvw development with that.

[Whiteout.1975]

@XenesisII.1540 said:

@"Whiteout.1975" said:That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . ."What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

GW2 has expansions, they have a gem store which takes the place of a monthly sub. You can already donate to them by using the gem store. It's not a matter of money, they obviously had money to invest and development power to use, they just chose to use it on side projects which eventually got cancelled, and Mike running off to form another studio.

I disagree. The Gem Store provides goods that required production money to make in the first place, along with unspecified distribution of revenue earned concerning the company. A monthly sub (as illustrated in the OP) is a much more specific approach as to where the funds are intended.

• I hear it's not because of money, but then I remember layoffs . . . So, in fairness, I wonder.

Paying the employees, art supplies, technical equipment, overall studio bills (including the rights to the property) . . . I'm not going to pretend like I know how much comes out to.

What you are asking for is for donations to be funneled into a specific area and to be used in a specific manner, which will not happen for various reasons. When they take money in this way they are obligated to use that money in that specific way, but with any and all develop things can change, things can be canceled, what if they don't even make enough to cover the cost?

The vast majority of things put forth, including some coming from Anet, do not happen. Do you really think I'd be surprised regarding this time? If they follow what I initially said in the OP, or a similar system, they can reward people for how much they do donate accordingly. Have a goal date, if they don't reach it in time, refund people. Refunds are nothing new as the times' people have been upset about HoT or PoF content. Of course, we wouldn't know if they would happen though, just more negatively theorizing.

You might be happy to chip in $100, but what if they don't even raise 5k? or 10k or 20k whatever amount may be needed for the development. Then people are going to be screaming for refunds. What if alliances doesn't turn out how you want it? are you going to turn around and start demanding stuff because you donated specifically for this? No other company does this after release.

Okay, so you are describing refunds in the case of a finished product here. If Alliances come, as advertised, then I wouldn't expect a refund. If the method in the OP was used then you are still rewarding the player for being a donator.

• I mean I don't donate to a cancer patient and then demand a refund because they died, sadly. I understood the potential risks of doing so.
• Also, similar to that logic, I should be refunded every time I have to change my WvW gear after a balance patch because I was unsatisfied.

Of course, however, I don't speak for the company and what they do is for them to decide.

You want them to take wvw seriously? then force them and get more players playing wvw. There's a big social aspect of wvw that is not welcoming or toxic, and turns off a lot of new or non pvp players. We can blame anet for everything, the lack of development, lack of marketing for wvw, whatever else, but the other reason why wvw does not grow and does not get taken seriously is because of it's player base too.

Completely disagree on the first sentence. Yes, I want them to take WvW seriously, but that will not happen with more players in WvW. More players actively playing WvW just shows the company that those players already value that service/part of the game.

I agree with the rest. Do you know what doesn't help either? Is when I see/hear conversations like this all the time:

Player 1: "Man, I hate that Anet still hasn't brought out Alliances."Player 2: "Yeah bro, what gives? Something like that should have been finished by now. Pisses me off."Player 1: "This game sucks!"Player 2: "Yeah . . . So . . . See you on for reset tomorrow?"Player 1: "Of course, sure thing man, also don't forget to buy more siege ahead of time, hahaha"

. . . LOL

But we all know things won't change either way, and anet is at that point they need to keep themselves afloat, there isn't room a lot of extra side projects, not when they need to work on the next expansion.

True.

Better yet go buy warclaw mount skins, show them how much interest you have in wvw development with that.

Don't know about this last one though lol. Plenty of people need to stop paying for services they will never truly value. No matter where they transfer, WvW will still be a WvW without Alliances. I'm convinced that current WvW is just a demo version of its true self.

[Swagger.1459]

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@XenesisII.1540 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . ."What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

GW2 has expansions, they have a gem store which takes the place of a monthly sub. You can already donate to them by using the gem store. It's not a matter of money, they obviously had money to invest and development power to use, they just chose to use it on side projects which eventually got cancelled, and Mike running off to form another studio.

I disagree. The Gem Store provides goods that required production money to make in the first place, along with unspecified distribution of revenue earned concerning the company. A monthly sub (as illustrated in the OP) is a much more specific approach as to where the funds are intended.

• I hear it's not because of money, but then I remember layoffs . . . So, in fairness, I wonder.

Paying the employees, art supplies, technical equipment, overall studio bills (including the rights to the property) . . . I'm not going to pretend like I know how much comes out to.

What you are asking for is for donations to be funneled into a specific area and to be used in a specific manner, which will not happen for various reasons. When they take money in this way they are obligated to use that money in that specific way, but with any and all develop things can change, things can be canceled, what if they don't even make enough to cover the cost?

The vast majority of things put forth, including some coming from Anet, do not happen. Do you really think I'd be surprised regarding this time? If they follow what I initially said in the OP, or a similar system, they can reward people for how much they do donate accordingly. Have a goal date, if they don't reach it in time, refund people. Refunds are nothing new as the times' people have been upset about HoT or PoF content. Of course, we wouldn't know if they would happen though, just more negatively theorizing.

You might be happy to chip in $100, but what if they don't even raise 5k? or 10k or 20k whatever amount may be needed for the development. Then people are going to be screaming for refunds. What if alliances doesn't turn out how you want it? are you going to turn around and start demanding stuff because you donated specifically for this? No other company does this after release.

Okay, so you are describing refunds in the case of a

finished

product here. If Alliances come, as advertised, then I wouldn't expect a refund. If the method in the OP was used then you are still rewarding the player for being a donator.

• I mean I don't donate to a cancer patient and then demand a refund because they died, sadly. I understood the potential risks of doing so.
• Also, similar to that logic, I should be refunded every time I have to change my WvW gear after a balance patch because I was unsatisfied.

Of course, however, I don't speak for the company and what they do is for them to decide.

You want them to take wvw seriously? then force them and get more players playing wvw. There's a big social aspect of wvw that is not welcoming or toxic, and turns off a lot of new or non pvp players. We can blame anet for everything, the lack of development, lack of marketing for wvw, whatever else, but the other reason why wvw does not grow and does not get taken seriously is because of it's player base too.

Completely disagree on the first sentence. Yes, I want them to take WvW seriously, but that will not happen with more players in WvW. More players actively playing WvW just shows the company that those players already value that service/part of the game.

I agree with the rest. Do you know what doesn't help either? Is when I see/hear conversations like this all the time:

Player 1

: "Man, I hate that Anet still hasn't brought out Alliances."

Player 2

: "Yeah bro, what gives? Something like that should have been finished by now. Pisses me off."

Player 1

: "This game sucks!"

Player 2

: "Yeah . . . So . . . See you on for reset tomorrow?"

Player

1: "Of course, sure thing man, also don't forget to buy more siege ahead of time, hahaha"

. . . LOL

But we all know things won't change either way, and anet is at that point they need to keep themselves afloat, there isn't room a lot of extra side projects, not when they need to work on the next expansion.

True.

Better yet go buy warclaw mount skins, show them how much interest you have in wvw development with that.

Don't know about this last one though lol. Plenty of people need to stop paying for services they will never truly value. No matter where they transfer, WvW will still be a WvW without Alliances. I'm convinced that current WvW is just a demo version of its true self.

Different game companies monetize their game differently. Anet chose to monetize this game as follows... "We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions.".

"The Gem Store provides goods that required production money to make in the first place, along with unspecified distribution of revenue earned concerning the company. A monthly sub (as illustrated in the OP) is a much more specific approach as to where the funds are intended."... No, its not a more "specific approach as to where the funds are intended.". A monthly sub is just a monetization method, that's it. And monetization methods are not an indication of "where the funds are intended.".

You are asking for a donation system. That's called "crowd funding"... "Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators"... Again.. you want " tier donators" to fund a portion of the game and that's not gonna happen.

This is an example of crowd funding... https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/13861848/camelot-unchained

When CU launches they will stop crowd funding. That's how it works.

[Whiteout.1975]

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@XenesisII.1540 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . ."What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

GW2 has expansions, they have a gem store which takes the place of a monthly sub. You can already donate to them by using the gem store. It's not a matter of money, they obviously had money to invest and development power to use, they just chose to use it on side projects which eventually got cancelled, and Mike running off to form another studio.

I disagree. The Gem Store provides goods that required production money to make in the first place, along with unspecified distribution of revenue earned concerning the company. A monthly sub (as illustrated in the OP) is a much more specific approach as to where the funds are intended.

• I hear it's not because of money, but then I remember layoffs . . . So, in fairness, I wonder.

Paying the employees, art supplies, technical equipment, overall studio bills (including the rights to the property) . . . I'm not going to pretend like I know how much comes out to.

What you are asking for is for donations to be funneled into a specific area and to be used in a specific manner, which will not happen for various reasons. When they take money in this way they are obligated to use that money in that specific way, but with any and all develop things can change, things can be canceled, what if they don't even make enough to cover the cost?

The vast majority of things put forth, including some coming from Anet, do not happen. Do you really think I'd be surprised regarding this time? If they follow what I initially said in the OP, or a similar system, they can reward people for how much they do donate accordingly. Have a goal date, if they don't reach it in time, refund people. Refunds are nothing new as the times' people have been upset about HoT or PoF content. Of course, we wouldn't know if they would happen though, just more negatively theorizing.

You might be happy to chip in $100, but what if they don't even raise 5k? or 10k or 20k whatever amount may be needed for the development. Then people are going to be screaming for refunds. What if alliances doesn't turn out how you want it? are you going to turn around and start demanding stuff because you donated specifically for this? No other company does this after release.

Okay, so you are describing refunds in the case of a

finished

product here. If Alliances come, as advertised, then I wouldn't expect a refund. If the method in the OP was used then you are still rewarding the player for being a donator.

• I mean I don't donate to a cancer patient and then demand a refund because they died, sadly. I understood the potential risks of doing so.
• Also, similar to that logic, I should be refunded every time I have to change my WvW gear after a balance patch because I was unsatisfied.

Of course, however, I don't speak for the company and what they do is for them to decide.

You want them to take wvw seriously? then force them and get more players playing wvw. There's a big social aspect of wvw that is not welcoming or toxic, and turns off a lot of new or non pvp players. We can blame anet for everything, the lack of development, lack of marketing for wvw, whatever else, but the other reason why wvw does not grow and does not get taken seriously is because of it's player base too.

Completely disagree on the first sentence. Yes, I want them to take WvW seriously, but that will not happen with more players in WvW. More players actively playing WvW just shows the company that those players already value that service/part of the game.

I agree with the rest. Do you know what doesn't help either? Is when I see/hear conversations like this all the time:

Player 1

: "Man, I hate that Anet still hasn't brought out Alliances."

Player 2

: "Yeah bro, what gives? Something like that should have been finished by now. Pisses me off."

Player 1

: "This game sucks!"

Player 2

: "Yeah . . . So . . . See you on for reset tomorrow?"

Player

1: "Of course, sure thing man, also don't forget to buy more siege ahead of time, hahaha"

. . . LOL

But we all know things won't change either way, and anet is at that point they need to keep themselves afloat, there isn't room a lot of extra side projects, not when they need to work on the next expansion.

True.

Better yet go buy warclaw mount skins, show them how much interest you have in wvw development with that.

Don't know about this last one though lol. Plenty of people need to stop paying for services they will never truly value. No matter where they transfer, WvW will still be a WvW without Alliances. I'm convinced that current WvW is just a demo version of its true self.

Different game companies monetize their game differently. Anet chose to monetize this game as follows... "We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions.".

Yeah, "non-pay-to-win." Nothing I've said is suggesting "pay-to-win" rewards. So, cool?

"The Gem Store provides goods that required production money to make in the first place, along with unspecified distribution of revenue earned concerning the company. A monthly sub (as illustrated in the OP) is a much more specific approach as to where the funds are intended."... No, its not a more "specific approach as to where the funds are intended.". A monthly sub is just a monetization method, that's it. And monetization methods are not an indication of "where the funds are intended.".

Disagree. When someone or some entity, rather, states what they are raising money for (Alliances in the case) they are making their intentions known. Whether the money heads in that direction OR whether an individual/group believes them is not only a personal problem but another story. I hope that makes things more clear on what I mean by that if I was not before.

You are asking for a donation system. That's called "crowd funding"... "Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators"... Again.. you want " tier donators" to fund a portion of the game and that's not gonna happen.

Crowdfunding is a generalized term. Yes, it is crowdfunding, but I was referring to a more specific method/system of going about it, initially. Yes, I am asking for the potential funding of a major feature of the game. And the day you @Swagger.1459 you work at Anet is the day you can tell more accurately tell me: "[T]hat's not gonna happen." Provided you don't pick up traditional company values of bad player communication.

This is an example of crowd funding... https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/13861848/camelot-unchained

When CU launches they will stop crowd funding. That's how it works.

Yes! Kickstarter, that's the one I forgetting to mention before. Thanks for reminding me :+1:

[Swagger.1459]

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@XenesisII.1540 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:That question is extremely unreasonable because many established MMOs have monthly payment systems and/or Pay-to-win mechanics and/or DLCs to help fund continued development. GW2 takes on a much more limited approach in comparison. Thus, I find the cause to be more justifiable. Also, you seem to be implying that because a method has maybe not been tried before that method will, therefore, be ineffective.

Alright, now my turn to ask you a question, and is probably more important too. . ."What is wrong with giving people the option to choose to donate?" When it is their money and their perceived risk, true or not.

GW2 has expansions, they have a gem store which takes the place of a monthly sub. You can already donate to them by using the gem store. It's not a matter of money, they obviously had money to invest and development power to use, they just chose to use it on side projects which eventually got cancelled, and Mike running off to form another studio.

I disagree. The Gem Store provides goods that required production money to make in the first place, along with unspecified distribution of revenue earned concerning the company. A monthly sub (as illustrated in the OP) is a much more specific approach as to where the funds are intended.

• I hear it's not because of money, but then I remember layoffs . . . So, in fairness, I wonder.

Paying the employees, art supplies, technical equipment, overall studio bills (including the rights to the property) . . . I'm not going to pretend like I know how much comes out to.

What you are asking for is for donations to be funneled into a specific area and to be used in a specific manner, which will not happen for various reasons. When they take money in this way they are obligated to use that money in that specific way, but with any and all develop things can change, things can be canceled, what if they don't even make enough to cover the cost?

The vast majority of things put forth, including some coming from Anet, do not happen. Do you really think I'd be surprised regarding this time? If they follow what I initially said in the OP, or a similar system, they can reward people for how much they do donate accordingly. Have a goal date, if they don't reach it in time, refund people. Refunds are nothing new as the times' people have been upset about HoT or PoF content. Of course, we wouldn't know if they would happen though, just more negatively theorizing.

You might be happy to chip in $100, but what if they don't even raise 5k? or 10k or 20k whatever amount may be needed for the development. Then people are going to be screaming for refunds. What if alliances doesn't turn out how you want it? are you going to turn around and start demanding stuff because you donated specifically for this? No other company does this after release.

Okay, so you are describing refunds in the case of a

finished

product here. If Alliances come, as advertised, then I wouldn't expect a refund. If the method in the OP was used then you are still rewarding the player for being a donator.

• I mean I don't donate to a cancer patient and then demand a refund because they died, sadly. I understood the potential risks of doing so.
• Also, similar to that logic, I should be refunded every time I have to change my WvW gear after a balance patch because I was unsatisfied.

Of course, however, I don't speak for the company and what they do is for them to decide.

You want them to take wvw seriously? then force them and get more players playing wvw. There's a big social aspect of wvw that is not welcoming or toxic, and turns off a lot of new or non pvp players. We can blame anet for everything, the lack of development, lack of marketing for wvw, whatever else, but the other reason why wvw does not grow and does not get taken seriously is because of it's player base too.

Completely disagree on the first sentence. Yes, I want them to take WvW seriously, but that will not happen with more players in WvW. More players actively playing WvW just shows the company that those players already value that service/part of the game.

I agree with the rest. Do you know what doesn't help either? Is when I see/hear conversations like this all the time:

Player 1

: "Man, I hate that Anet still hasn't brought out Alliances."

Player 2

: "Yeah bro, what gives? Something like that should have been finished by now. Pisses me off."

Player 1

: "This game sucks!"

Player 2

: "Yeah . . . So . . . See you on for reset tomorrow?"

Player

1: "Of course, sure thing man, also don't forget to buy more siege ahead of time, hahaha"

. . . LOL

But we all know things won't change either way, and anet is at that point they need to keep themselves afloat, there isn't room a lot of extra side projects, not when they need to work on the next expansion.

True.

Better yet go buy warclaw mount skins, show them how much interest you have in wvw development with that.

Don't know about this last one though lol. Plenty of people need to stop paying for services they will never truly value. No matter where they transfer, WvW will still be a WvW without Alliances. I'm convinced that current WvW is just a demo version of its true self.

Different game companies monetize their game differently. Anet chose to monetize this game as follows... "We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions.".

Yeah, "non-pay-to-win." Nothing I've said is suggesting "pay-to-win" rewards. So, cool?

"The Gem Store provides goods that required production money to make in the first place, along with unspecified distribution of revenue earned concerning the company. A monthly sub (as illustrated in the OP) is a much more specific approach as to where the funds are intended."... No, its not a more "specific approach as to where the funds are intended.". A monthly sub is just a monetization method, that's it. And monetization methods are not an indication of "where the funds are intended.".

Disagree. When someone or some entity, rather, states what they are raising money for (Alliances in the case) they are making their intentions known. Whether the money heads in that direction OR whether an individual/group believes them is not only a personal problem but another story. I hope that makes things more clear on what I mean by that if I was not before.

You are asking for a donation system. That's called "crowd funding"... "Anet could have made the Alliance System a Patreon with a goal of "x" estimated funds needed for further implementation concerning GW2. Anet could then reward the different (higher/lower) tier donators"... Again.. you want " tier donators" to fund a portion of the game and that's not gonna happen.

Crowdfunding is a generalized term. Yes, it is crowdfunding, but I was referring to a more specific method/system of going about it, initially. Yes, I am asking for the potential funding of a major feature of the game. And the day you @Swagger.1459 you work at Anet is the day you can tell more accurately tell me: "[T]hat's not gonna happen." Provided you don't pick up traditional company values of bad player communication.

This is an example of crowd funding...

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/13861848/camelot-unchained

When CU launches they will stop crowd funding. That's how it works.

Yes! Kickstarter, that's the one I forgetting to mention before. Thanks for reminding me :+1:

"Yeah, "non-pay-to-win." Nothing I've said is suggesting "pay-to-win" rewards. So, cool?"

First of all, that dev quote was to highlight the monetization method they use for gw2. The key words here are... "fund GW2 live development through" "microtransactions". Context... right? right.

You can disagree all you want, but it doesn't change the facts that different games use different monetization methods to generate money to pay employees, for continued development of their games, future potential games from the company... and for the 1000 other things that require money. I think you should brush up on things in this area. And assuming one monetization method means 1 thing and another monetization method means another thing is your big misunderstanding here. Doesn't work the way you are assuming here.

No, you are asking Anet to make a fundraiser system for alliances using player donations. No need to niggle over wording or synonyms... That's not gonna happen period. Anet funds "GW2 live development through" "microtransactions". That's it period. They are NOT going to do a some "donation" monetization system for the game, nor for specific content development.

Read and get a better understanding of monetization methods... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_monetization

[Riba.3271]

Alliances will just remove most peoples reason to play WvW: Almost all active commanders that lead 10 hour+/week are loyal to their server. This also applies to off-prime crew and such. Most long-standing servers are still around as main servers because they refused to let the server go down without a fight.

Nobody really cares about giving guilds more tools to stack on same place. Alliances just fill the dreams of people who thought "you should be able to vote to kick people out of server" was a good idea.

Alliances seemed like a ray of hope during dark times but those times are gone by now and people should just open their eyes and accept the reality that the main-server people left in the game have hardly any interest in putting effort in for some random people that swap every 1-2 months.

TLDR; Alliances won't fix anything and just kill the gamemode