If you were in charge of deciding whether the game had a cash shop or did not have a cash shop what would you choose?

[Zaraki.5784]

Of course I would prefer no cash shop, but that's just because I'm a player. 

If I were a studio (like anet), I would prefer a cash shop to make more money.

[Astralporing.1957]

26 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

Not completely, the question is whether allowing the bypass of certain parts of the game can improve the average gameplay experience, and whether its better this bypass should be easily accesible or not.

On top of "is their value to allowing showing of rl wealth in a game?"

There is definitely a value in offering an official option to buy gold at a decent rate (as it counters goldselling practices, that are generally bad in many, many ways for the game). That is not equivalent to having a whole cash shop however - you can have one without the other easily.

[kharmin.7683]

Buying gold at a decent rate.  Who determines what is "decent"?

[Mungrul.9358]

4 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Buying gold at a decent rate.  Who determines what is "decent"?

ANet.

And as I noted above, the house always wins 😉

[kharmin.7683]

9 minutes ago, Mungrul.9358 said:

ANet.

And as I noted above, the house always wins 😉

Don't they kind of do that already?  They can manipulate the market simply by adding or removing gems from it.

[Mungrul.9358]

Oh yeah, for sure, no disagreement here.

It's not as obvious now, but setting GW2Spidy to show gem-to-gold rates from the beginning clearly indicates a skew in ANet's favour.

And to be honest, that's fair enough. As long as there's no way for players to take money out of the system, ANet can skew the rate however they like.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Mungrul.9358

[yann.1946]

1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

There is definitely a value in offering an official option to buy gold at a decent rate (as it counters goldselling practices, that are generally bad in many, many ways for the game). That is not equivalent to having a whole cash shop however - you can have one without the other easily.

fair, i would argue that that cash to gold transition is part of a cash shop per definition. But thats more semantics then anything.

[Gehenna.3625]

2 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

i quoted the part of the conversation this was about.

I gave the example of the conversation as something some people might consider a good thing from the game.

 

To which you said as quoted that this conversion would be unnesecary without a cashshop. which i agree with but

 

i responded with the statement that the conversion in itself is an incentive for the cash shop to exist. My whole point being that if you agree with the gem to gold exchange a cashshop is nessecary to make it usable. 

The shouldnt be was merely pointing out that thats one avenue to argue against it.

 

Yes, gems are a barier so it might be healthier then just giving instant gratification.

For me that defeats the purpose of hypothethicals. 

Ofcourse what youre talking about is an important skill, but it is something that should be done after having engaged with the hypothethical.

Honestly ive never seen this hypothethical been used.

Well its just one avenue where we care about premises we think are false.

I quote

Is this not you agreeing that it is to far from reality?

Well i said that it was difficult to fanthom because the above quote.

Ill quote the thing i responded to.

 

 

Here you mention that these thing can be done in game. This is the part i responded to stating that the question was never about whether it can or cannot be done. It was about whether it should be done.

The thing you quoted was not what that part of my response was about, so why bring it up?

That was the whole point i was making in that part of my response. You gave statements which where not answers to the questions which about whether the cashshop should be in a game without a need for it financially.

So on a scale from 1-10, how high would you rate our discussion in terms of contributing to this topic?

[Forum Moderator.3419]

Hello Everyone,

Just a reminder to keep it civil and avoid attacking each other.

Regards.

[yann.1946]

39 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

So on a scale from 1-10, how high would you rate our discussion in terms of contributing to this topic?

honestly, probably a 7 as we had atleast some different discussions about the asked topic. 

 

Edit: ofcourse thats relative to the other contributions. 

Edited September 10, 2021 by yann.1946

[Danikat.8537]

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

fair, i would argue that that cash to gold transition is part of a cash shop per definition. But thats more semantics then anything.

It's not something I've ever seen outside of GW2. Free to play games often have ways to earn small amounts of cash shop currency in the game, so they can claim you never need to spend real money (which is rarely true) but I've also seen games where the two are kept entirely separate and I can't remember a game which lets you buy in-game currencies.

 

(Elder Scrolls Online "inadvertently" introduced the ability to trade cash shop currency for gold when they added gifting - a lot of players will sell cash shop items for gold and call it selling crowns (which is the currency) but it's unofficial, totally unregulated and a much more awkward system than GW2 has.)

 

I certainly wouldn't assume that just because a game has a cash shop will mean it also has a way to buy in-game currencies like gold.

[yann.1946]

21 minutes ago, Danikat.8537 said:

It's not something I've ever seen outside of GW2. Free to play games often have ways to earn small amounts of cash shop currency in the game, so they can claim you never need to spend real money (which is rarely true) but I've also seen games where the two are kept entirely separate and I can't remember a game which lets you buy in-game currencies.

 

(Elder Scrolls Online "inadvertently" introduced the ability to trade cash shop currency for gold when they added gifting - a lot of players will sell cash shop items for gold and call it selling crowns (which is the currency) but it's unofficial, totally unregulated and a much more awkward system than GW2 has.)

 

I certainly wouldn't assume that just because a game has a cash shop will mean it also has a way to buy in-game currencies like gold.

Thats not really what i meant. I meant that if a game has to option to buy gold, it would be part of the cashshop, not the other way around.)

 

In case you are interested runescape and wow also allow you to buy gold for real life money.

[firedragon.8953]

I like the current cash shop system, which allows players to grind for gold to convert to gems to make purchases. I think GW2 has been pretty good with what is permissible to be purchased, although I am not really a fan of lot of the over-the-top particle effect gear.

However...
I don't really like how QoL options such as bank expansion slots, etc. are included in the cash shop however (I'm okay with character slots). Reason being devs will design something poorly on purpose just so that you can sell the solution. It just leaves a somewhat bad taste in the mouth knowing the game would have less annoying aspects to it if the "solutions" couldn't be monetized.  Ya know, limit inventory space and then have events drop a bunch of trash so that you purchase more inventory from the gem store...yeah... It is what it is, so meh, I just hope the list doesn't continue to grow <cough> build and gear templates <cough>.

I don't want a sub free, and if GW2 tried to go full-on Buy-to-Play like GW1 attempted, then we may get dev burnout again. Granted, there is something wonderful about a company being motivated to produce playable content. I'd rather buy $30 - $50 yearly expansions than build/gear templates for example.

[Gehenna.3625]

2 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

honestly, probably a 7 as we had atleast some different discussions about the asked topic. 

 

Edit: ofcourse thats relative to the other contributions. 

fair enough, I was just wondering and I did ask for your opinion after all. I'll have to leave it at this though cause I can't type long posts like that for long (a health issue). But thanks for the exchange.

[Khisanth.2948]

3 hours ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Don't they kind of do that already?  They can manipulate the market simply by adding or removing gems from it.

There is no need to do that.

 

They simply have to give into player demands when players ask for more rewarding content that gives more gold. That has the added benefit of appearing to give players what they want.

 

That will make gold less valuable in relation to gems.

 

1 hour ago, firedragon.8953 said:

I don't want a sub free, and if GW2 tried to go full-on Buy-to-Play like GW1 attempted, then we may get dev burnout again.

Yup. Attempted. Even GW1 has cash shop.

 

1 hour ago, firedragon.8953 said:

I don't really like how QoL options such as bank expansion slots, etc. are included in the cash shop however (I'm okay with character slots). Reason being devs will design something poorly on purpose just so that you can sell the solution. It just leaves a somewhat bad taste in the mouth knowing the game would have less annoying aspects to it if the "solutions" couldn't be monetized.  Ya know, limit inventory space and then have events drop a bunch of trash so that you purchase more inventory from the gem store...yeah... It is what it is, so meh, I just hope the list doesn't continue to grow <cough> build and gear templates <cough>.

but how much of that is a design issue and how much of it is a player being a hoarder issue? For example I probably don't need these 4000 Blood Rubies and thousands of other currency items taking up space in my bank. Am I going to stop hoarding those or am I going to buy more bank tabs? Probably more tabs unless I am already at the limit.

[Shadowmoon.7986]

On 9/9/2021 at 7:34 AM, lokh.2695 said:

If you want an optional sub, I'd have good news for you, but I won't reiterate what has been said hundreds of times in hundreds of "SuBfEe NaO!"-threads over the years. I'm sure you'll figure it out.

There is no option to make the game have a reward structure more similar to LotRO than PerfectWorld International. Something as reliable access to guaranteed reward unlocks with a sub fee would make the game more enjoyable for me. 

[Omega.6801]

27 minutes ago, Shadowmoon.7986 said:

There is no option to make the game have a reward structure more similar to LotRO than PerfectWorld International. Something as reliable access to guaranteed reward unlocks with a sub fee would make the game more enjoyable for me. 

K, I'll try it once.

You can set yourself a reminder to buy a given amount of gems each month, call it a sub-fee, if it helps you sleep. Like this you can even chose how much your sub should be. You can make this a 30$/month hobby if you want to, or it can be a 5$/month thing. Also, instead of just getting what 5$ will get you this month. You can spend your sub-fee money for any of the guaranteed reward unlocks. Buy character slots if you need those, buy skins if you find some that you like, buy boosters if you want to. I can see, that the rotational nature of the gemshop may seem unreliable. But most things that upgrade your account, character slots, bag space,templates f.e., are available all year round. Same goes for "some kind of infinite gathering tool", "some kind of fancy chair", "some kind of fancy mount skin" and the likes. Granted, you might not like what's in the shop this month, but again, you can save up your Sub-fee money for the month something comes along that is worth your money. But that's just what the system could do for you.

From a developer perspective, the f2p+shop model is profitable because it removes the ceiling, of how much people can spend on a game. One might think, that if every player paid the same 15$/month they would make a lot of money. But in some cases, the company can make far more from the very few players that want to spend 100$/week or more. Also the f2p+shop model exploits a more profitable flaw in human nature than the sub-model does. The sub-model plays into the sunk cost fallacy, while f2p+shop exploits gambling habits, low impulse control and many things that work in regular marketing like salami-slicing, false scaarcity and all that jazz. Basically, the f2p+shop model is more modern and in the long run probably more profitable. Another thing, that play into the f2p+shop model is that people don't want to feel obliged to pay a fee these days, less people than 20 years ago.

Edited September 10, 2021 by lokh.2695

[Golvellius.7856]

Boy, humans sure do make everything complicated...  Especially on the Internet where you can use your wit and intellect to just passive aggressively attack people, if not just outright insult them, with zero consequence.  I'd wager that the good majority of us agree with and understand the cash shop vs. subscription model and all of the pros/cons therein.  We don't need a dissertation on the fundamental principles of economics...or rather opinion gatekeeping, because that's all it really is. 

To answer your question personally OP (and apologies to everyone else who has already responded to a similar question and/or has read similar responses and can't simply even with yet ANOTHER person answering this question...)

Being a vanilla GW2 player, listening to and reading ANet's rationale for going "cash shop" and consequently, fully understanding the relationship to cash shop vs subscription, my response is... 

I like the Gem store and I love that I don't have to pay/manage a subscription - even though I am very well off and can afford this game under any subscription cost/model.  If its a simple, open-ended, "either or" and "all things considered"...whereby I have to pick my poison of:

 

Subscription & RNG/rando/play-n-pray drops...

 

Vs.

 

Cash shop and I can haz what I want...

Ehhhh...

That's a tough question.  I don't want a subscription in this game, but on the principles there...I would prefer a subscription.  I'd rather spend a ~month(+/-) grinding a dungeon for a Skyscale Skin or completing an armor skin set or farming the ingredients for some ultra-rare dyes to throwing $10-20 at the cash shop.  Not for anything as straightforward as cost, time vs. money, or anything like that...  Just I, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but I like the carrot on a stick and the relief/joy that comes with finally getting the random drop.  It's like opening presents!😁

On a final note, while I <disclaimer>love and understand and agree with and fully appreciate how ANet keeps THIS game afloat with their business model</disclamer> I'd like to see more random skin drops from things.  As well, I have to add, cool cosmetics in random drops == yes. QoL rando drops == ABSO-FRICKIN'-LUTELY NOT.  Please just let me buy that stuff.

<plug -own -qol_suggestion -shameless>I would pay scandalous amounts of cash for account-level gathering tool slots 👀</plug>

Edited September 11, 2021 by Golvellius.7856
*edit for giant spaces between mah paragraphz

[zealex.9410]

My problem isnt necessarily with cash shops as a form of mentization, my problem is on a per item basis ratio between the game and the cash shop. The balance between ingame earnable cosmetics and gemstore ones, in cases like weapons, glider, mounts is laughably imbalanced and im not even gonna get into qol item in the gemstore.

Id rather be paying a subfee with an optional cash shop that has zero qol and the split of ingame and cash shop stuff is heavily skewed in favour of ingame earnable rewards.

Then again what do i know, clearly ppl love that anet gave us only 3 earnable glider skins and 1 mount skin (meanwhile theres prob hundreds of  gliders and mount in the gemstore) or that they butchered templates, a feature that was requested since launch to monetise it.

Edited September 11, 2021 by zealex.9410

[Golvellius.7856]

59 minutes ago, zealex.9410 said:

My problem isnt necessarily with cash shops as a form of mentization, my problem is on a per item basis ratio between the game and the cash shop. The balance between ingame earnable cosmetics and gemstore ones, in cases like weapons, glider, mounts is laughably imbalanced and im not even gonna get into qol item in the gemstore.

Id rather be paying a subfee with an optional cash shop that has zero qol and the split of ingame and cash shop stuff is heavily skewed in favour of ingame earnable rewards.

Then again what do i know, clearly ppl love that anet gave us only 3 earnable glider skins and 1 mount skin (meanwhile theres prob hundreds of  gliders and mount in the gemstore) or that they butchered templates, a feature that was requested since launch to monetise it.

 

...and I side with you there.  I've also had this conversation with my people and with others curious about the game.  Every time something cool shows up in the Gem Store, I'm like...man...I wish they'd put this as an exclusive drop some where.

I buy a lot of stuff from the shop and I'd buy more if I spent more time in GW2.  A lot of times, I want to buy something...but I end up asking myself if I'm REALLY going to see this/want this/use this with the amount of time I spend in the game.  Most of the time, I can't justify it. 

 

Just my $0.02, but for players like me...adding more exclusive drops (and consequently keeping me in game) is going to make me buy more gem store stuff.  Especially QOL stuff.  When I'm on, I'm browsing the Gem store like shopping in Wal-Mart...tempted to toss stuff in the cart.  Like last time I was active (months ago), I was seriously considering more bank tabs and increased mat stacks.  I knew a break was coming though so I was like...meh.  But that Dark Monarch Skyscale skin showed up in the shop one week and I copped it.  (Yeah...all bets are off if it's a nice mount skin.  I'm probably buying it.)

[IndigoSundown.5419]

17 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

There is definitely a value in offering an official option to buy gold at a decent rate (as it counters goldselling practices, that are generally bad in many, many ways for the game). That is not equivalent to having a whole cash shop however - you can have one without the other easily.

While it would be easy, it may not be advisable.  If a company just sells gold for its game, then the process is a gold faucet.   Too much gold via such a faucet can produce inflation.  By tying gold buying to gem buying (and having the store), the process becomes a sink, which helps control inflation.

 

Yeah, yeah, so I'm nitpicking.  Isn't that mostly what forums are?

Edited September 11, 2021 by IndigoSundown.5419
Fat-fingered post before done.

[Xanadrine.4352]

On 9/8/2021 at 10:07 AM, Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

Gem Store, as anything can be obtained with in-game Gold to Gems, and it is all optional.

Otherwise, I shudder to think how the game would be monetized. 

So if people are making gold in game to buy gems, how is that helping anet get paid? 

 

[Fueki.4753]

57 minutes ago, Zuldari.3940 said:

So if people are making gold in game to buy gems, how is that helping anet get paid? 

 

Not all people do that.

There are enough people buying gems with real money that it's still profitable for Arenanet.

[Astralporing.1957]

3 hours ago, IndigoSundown.5419 said:

While it would be easy, it may not be advisable.  If a company just sells gold for its game, then the process is a gold faucet.   Too much gold via such a faucet can produce inflation.  By tying gold buying to gem buying (and having the store), the process becomes a sink, which helps control inflation.

Fair enough. Although i'd say that the TP tax is probably the most important gold sink out there.

 

 

[Astralporing.1957]

1 hour ago, Zuldari.3940 said:

So if people are making gold in game to buy gems, how is that helping anet get paid?

It encourages more people to buy gold via gems, due to better (for them) exchange rates, which in turn promotes gem buying for RL cash.

Remember, that the gems you bought for gold were originally bought for cash. They were not produced out of thin air.

Edited September 11, 2021 by Astralporing.1957