Damiani.2941

Diana Ragefire -- Hunter + Passion/fire, simple and to the point... like an arrow!

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?

Three things. Choice. Nothing more than my choice not to stop playing. Free will, I suppose. I certainly don't want guilt, or a sense of ... obligation to keep me banging my head on something that's not enjoyable, that's kinda masochistic, which I know in this regard, I ain't into. Content. Outside of free will, is that this product hasn't been fully been consumed (in terms of content) for me yet. Just like I would stop chewing on a meal once all the pertinent tasty bits are done, I likely would stop nibbling or trying to irk out that last 'bit' with Guild Wars 2 if and when there was not much else to get from it. Social ties. Though, beyond the above items; social ties also have a major impact. The more community I'm involved with, the longer the play time will be. Just like any relationship. :)

Everything that @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said, with an emphasis on Defending a thing. I can fully appreciate if/when a group of people rush towards a thing, set up their siege and go to town. I more so appreciate the art of defending against it; man vs. man. Good stuff. Especially with casters; go go Elementalists and all that. AoE is king. That there are some PvE elements in the game so it's never fully stale, adds to this, gives some variety to the choices. Additionally, if and when I 'lose' that thing, I have some inherent urge to get it back and this form of game play allows me (with help, though slightly on my own too) to balance the books. I think in the end this speaks to our base urge of conquering stuff, and it's well done for a game that really doesn't ultimately care about, in the end, who owns what. Keep the cycle going, I say. The Conan video also sums it up well, well linked there.

@"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.

Here, a real world example to help define this 'free': Roleplay you are a brand new internet user, who's /just/ heard about Guild Wars 2, have a PC that can run it with active ISP and: Download the base product without having to do anything but 'spend your time',Install the base product without 'spending any monies'.Are you playing a game without any cost to you, save your own effort and time? That's what they mean by free. It works, really it does. It's by fixating on the past, and pulling in all the history of getting to where we are, that often times we ignore the beauty of our potential future. You may mar or taint the offering by dwelling on these sorts of things. I mean, Anet is a company, the whole purpose of a company is often to make money. That's kind of a given. I'm pretty certain, going back to the parent examples above, most parents do not form a union, produce off spring, in order to establish some twisted indenture system (or hell, maybe some cultures do?) via their children. So when a business or entity uses the word 'free', it's accurately used because of this manner of living. Now, to be fair, I applaud your efforts at seeking a better word to use versus 'free', however, many folks have asked you to present an alternate. In fact, for the purpose of this discussion, it might help your presentation and stance if you did so; which I'm officially requesting. If not 'free', what? What do /you/ want them to use as an alternative word to speak to the fact all of humanity's efforts to get us to where we are now, is properly conveyed when something is gifted to us? I'm good with free. I'm sure others are too. Seriously though, find a mo' proper word; communicate the intent.

You're potentially ignoring the purchase of the base product and expansions as a source of revenue in your argument over the course of this product's full life cycle to date, and apologies if you excluded it for the purposes of this discussion, or I simply missed that in earlier posts. I assure you I did give a bunch of these postings a read over. If your point is to demonstrate that the owners and managers of the product (Anet) are ignoring the input of those people who have, by way of 'paying' via micro-transactions, contributed their feedback and thoughts/feels, I believe your point is wasted effort. Anet does not 'owe' us anything because with all things in life, we choose what we do, else we are addicts or robots simply reacting to stimuli. Free will and all.Assuming some sort of predetermination here for a second (just to cover our bases), it's a moot point, since it's part of the grand plan and complaining is a waste of time. It will be as it will be.So, what you really need for this argument to properly work, is more data. Just /how/ much the average RMT on average per person is, and further, just how much actual expansion purchases have occurred. Then you can find out just how much people HAVE spent, which generates the pool for continued paying the bills by Anet, while they continue to create and refine THEIR product, which we ... in essence, will never own, but /might/ be renting the use of. Pretty clear in the EULAs the relationship too. Point of fact, if they wanted, lights could go out tomorrow and all our money spent will be for naught. So I would argue, we have zero actual rights or inclusion in the cause of adjusting the product to our whims, and it is more of a relationship based on mutual respect, not paying our way to have a say, that we should be focusing on for the purposes of 'getting our way'. Not how much you pay(ed). That road is ripe with ... vast amounts of elitism which many people will find quite offensive and cause of many of the arguments you see today. Unless your goal is to just stir up the argument vibe. Hope my point of view helps with your mental debate or efforts here. ps: Yes, 'free' is the right word. Common search for definitions on "free" -- going with #5 per: given or available without charge."free healthcare"synonyms: without charge, free of charge, for nothing, complimentary, gratis, gratuitous, at no cost; Moreantonyms: paid for, expensive The point here: it /might/ cost Anet to make things, but for "us", the consumers, the content given is "at no cost". So yeah; Free.