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?

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

4 hours ago, Zuldari.3940 said:

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

 

Player population/retention may be just as important. It's also an advantageous selling point.

Edited September 11, 2021 by Inculpatus cedo.9234
those pesky line breaks

[Gazrul.3086]

I am personally happy with how the shop is now. Yes, it'd be great if we had more cool cosmetics like those in the game, but since you can turn gold into gems you could say you're getting them with your efforts in the game. 

If Guild Wars 2 had a subscription, then I would be against the shop. But it's free to play, and nothing in the shop is in any way or form pay to win. 

Edited April 21, 2022 by Kotarnus.6217

[Gehenna.3625]

7 hours ago, Zuldari.3940 said:

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

 

Anet understood that some people will not be able to buy gems and wanted to accommodate them as well. And it creates goodwill and that creates loyal customers so it does make them more money in the end and also it creates a legal alternative to gold sellers.

 

But they also understood the effects of selling gems that can be exchanged for gold on the in game economy. Because of the exchange the gold you buy is already in the economy instead of adding new gold to the economy. That makes it that this doesn't cause inflation in the in game economy. 

 

In terms of in game economy, they really did their home work. Inflation is normal in any economy, but how fast it goes is the difference. If you compare GW2 economy to SWTOR economy you'll see the difference. SWTOR started with 1 million credits to being a lot. Now people have billions of credits...I'm not exaggerating, I have almost 2 billion credits and I don't do a lot of things to make credits in that game.

 

 

[Gibson.4036]

10 hours ago, Zuldari.3940 said:

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

 

The gems people are buying with gold were paid for with real money by people who are selling them. ANet got paid for those gems.

[yann.1946]

On 9/11/2021 at 7:57 AM, 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.

 

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

Honestly, this is a really good point. You can't just sell gold for money if it appears from nowhere. 

[yann.1946]

On 9/11/2021 at 7:57 AM, 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.

 

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

Honestly, this is a really good point. You can't just sell gold for money if it appears from nowhere. 

[yann.1946]

On 9/11/2021 at 7:57 AM, IndigoSundown.5419 said:

 

Accidental multipost on my cellphone.

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by yann.1946

[yann.1946]

On 9/11/2021 at 7:57 AM, IndigoSundown.5419 said:

 

Is it possible to delete these?

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by yann.1946

[yann.1946]

On 9/11/2021 at 7:57 AM, IndigoSundown.5419 said:

 

Delete please

Edited September 12, 2021 by yann.1946

[yann.1946]

On 9/11/2021 at 7:57 AM, IndigoSundown.5419 said:

 

Delete please

Edited September 12, 2021 by yann.1946

[Gehenna.3625]

23 hours ago, Gibson.4036 said:

The gems people are buying with gold were paid for with real money by people who are selling them. ANet got paid for those gems.

I hadn't even considered that angle. Kudos for that!

[Conncept.7638]

There's nothing wrong with a cash shop.

There is very much something wrong with charging people for something, and then not giving it to them, that is called theft, or as the gaming industry likes to spin it, gambling and lootboxes.

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Conncept.7638

[kharmin.7683]

Your comparison is flawed, but that's for another thread.

[medivh.4725]

Just make more cool nice weapon, mount skins, outfits and people will buy.
Sell name contract in bulk discount to us please

[Gibson.4036]

Why in the world did you feel the need to necro this pointless thread?

[Shadowmoon.7986]

On 9/11/2021 at 10:36 AM, Gehenna.3625 said:

Anet understood that some people will not be able to buy gems and wanted to accommodate them as well. And it creates goodwill and that creates loyal customers so it does make them more money in the end and also it creates a legal alternative to gold sellers.

 

But they also understood the effects of selling gems that can be exchanged for gold on the in game economy. Because of the exchange the gold you buy is already in the economy instead of adding new gold to the economy. That makes it that this doesn't cause inflation in the in game economy. 

 

In terms of in game economy, they really did their home work. Inflation is normal in any economy, but how fast it goes is the difference. If you compare GW2 economy to SWTOR economy you'll see the difference. SWTOR started with 1 million credits to being a lot. Now people have billions of credits...I'm not exaggerating, I have almost 2 billion credits and I don't do a lot of things to make credits in that game.

 

 

You have to be joking me. There is no good will. It is legal RMT, plain and simple. It allows players to buy gold that will not get them banned. This is the same as the WoW token in WoW and Real Money AH in Diablo 3. It allows the company to make money selling gold, ie "go whaling".

[Gibson.4036]

See Medivh, now you've stirred up Shadowmoon, who was content to have contributed their last post a month and a half ago, and is now back replying to another post from a month and a half ago.

[Kurrilino.2706]

On 9/8/2021 at 9:04 AM, Bish.8627 said:

Would there be an alternative money solution for the game if the shop was removed?

Yep, GW1 had expansions/add on 6 month apart from each other.

[DarcShriek.5829]

I have no problem with Anet's cash shop.

[mythical.6315]

1 hour ago, Kurrilino.2706 said:

Yep, GW1 had expansions/add on 6 month apart from each other.

Either a subscription fee or they charge players for each episode. 
 

Whoops. Quoted the wrong person. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by mythical.6315

[Sobx.1758]

On 9/8/2021 at 5:14 PM, Southerncarl.2740 said:

Ok had a feeling people would worry about the sub thing or how the game would make money. Lets say that they could make enough money from the one time purchase of the full game and individual expansions what would you pick? Still keep the cash shop?

Lets say everyone has infinite money and there's no war, hate or hunger in the world, what would you choose?

I don't see the point of those completely fictional hypothetical scenarios. Your "lets say" is pretty much impossible, so why even try to consider it. And I'm fine with current version of monetization.

[Stalkingwolf.6035]

not and pay a sub.

Get Main Skins in the game for playing the game. there is no mount skin in the game. almost non glider skin beside legendary backpacks. the best outfits and weapons are in the gem store.

i love GW2 but there is to much good stuff in the gemstore and not enough good stuff in the game.

and no gold to gem is so bad that the time/value is only valueable for something without a job and who plays 24/7

[Dondarrion.2748]

On 9/8/2021 at 4:59 PM, Southerncarl.2740 said:

As the title says if Arena put you in charge of deciding whether there was a cash shop in the game or not what would be your decision? If there was a world where they could make enough money from the one time purchase of the game and individual expansions what would you pick?

So instead of  $39.99 for the game, and then again for each expansion, to cover the loss of gem store transactions, you'd be willing to say, dish out $300.00 for the game back in 2012? And $150 - $200 for each xpac?

Or even worse, have the game on a P2P/subscription model...

Nahh... I'm happy with no subscriptions and a convenience gem store like we got in GW2.

[Handsel.2891]

I would rather have the Gem Store as it is now than the inevitable subscription without it. There is nothing in the store that makes you better at the game and it is a serious source of revenue that keeps Anet's ship afloat without forcing every player to pay more than what they are asking with the buy-to-play model.

10 minutes ago, Stalkingwolf.6035 said:

not and pay a sub.

...

i love GW2 but there is to much good stuff in the gemstore and not enough good stuff in the game.

and no gold to gem is so bad that the time/value is only valueable for something without a job and who plays 24/7

Here's an idea: buy gems with the money you would be willing to pay as a sub fee. Your problem is solved.

Edited October 27, 2021 by MikeG.6389
Formatting

[HnRkLnXqZ.1870]

Cash shop and the option to unlock most of the skins with collections/quests. Some of us can play barely 30 minutes per day/week, while others can spend entire days ingame. You should never punish people for their personal situation. Many of us play the game relax from RL. There should always be an easy cash-related alternative for cosmetics and convenience items. Those who can spend more time ingame should have an option to unlock those things via collections/quests. There is room for cash-shop exclusives. Finding the perfect balance would be a special challenge. 

6 hours ago, Gibson.4036 said:

Why in the world did you feel the need to necro this pointless thread?

https://youtu.be/G2LBIFQEr2M?t=25

Welcome to another round. Now I have to get rid of that ear-worm again.