Is 'free' the right word?

[Tinnel.4369]

@Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:Not worth arguing over if not agreeing with someone means those with a different opinion have 'no common sense'.

Also, you might want to look at the Stickies, again....particularly the 'Libraries'.

Good luck on your suggestion...whatever it is.

There was no intent to imply a differing opinion lacked common sense, just that to me it's pretty sensible why it's a bad argument, given the fact that we know with certainty that what we buy gets us the item AND is used as profits and or reinvestment in the game. That is common knowledge and irrefutable and thus, unless you disagree with the facts, common sense.

[Tinnel.4369]

@MachineManXX.9746 said:

@Tinnel.4369 said:

@MachineManXX.9746 said:

@Tinnel.4369 said:

@MachineManXX.9746 said:

@Tinnel.4369 said:

@"Tanner Blackfeather.6509" said:Except, the fact that something is subsidized doesn't change the fact that it's free

to the customer

.

The customers that didn't put anything into the game, I would agree. Do you think these are a majority or minority of the community?

Your argument makes zero sense. Free is free. It doesn't matter what you purchased before. If you spend money in the game, you are already buying something for that money. It does not mean you are pre-paying for any future content.

As I said, "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."

Well, common sense does not seem so common coming from someone who does not understand the word "free". You already know it's free, yet you want to continue to argue semantics for whatever reason.

What is semantical? You understand that this whole game revolves around micro-transactions, right? And that those transactions are made by players, playing the game? No money, no game, no content. Not no money, lots of game and content. Free is a misnomer that is appropriately applied to only a minority of the community.

Of course this game revolves around micro-transactions. That still does not change the fact that LW episodes are FREE. Answer this ... Do you have the option to buy the episode during its release? It is not even possible to do so. They are FREE content.

You can't change the definition of a word to suit your agenda. By the way, what even is your agenda here?

I'm not sure how you can acknowledge that the game revolves around micro-transactions and then say free. Some content is delivered at 'no charge', it's not developed at 'no charge'. Someone paid, paid and free are the opposite of each other.

Players invested, players have expectations, those expectations are ok, it's clear ANet has a much larger interest in keeping revenue pumping than in what the source of that revenue is interested in. How is this unclear in my original post?

[Zaklex.6308]

@Tinnel.4369 said:

@Tanner Blackfeather.6509 said:Except, the fact that something is subsidized doesn't change the fact that it's free

to the customer

.

The customers that didn't put anything into the game, I would agree. Do you think these are a majority or minority of the community?

You really want an answer to this? If you do the answer would be majority, there's a minority that contribute funds through the BLTC, and keep in mind, those that post on the forums are definitely a minority of the player base(in this case a minority being less than 25%, which is still really excessive, it's probably closer to 1 - 3% of players actually make posts on game forums).

[Rogue.4756]

Would you rather pay a subscription fee as well as in game purchases? Yes, it is free.

[Tinnel.4369]

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@Tinnel.4369 said:

@Tanner Blackfeather.6509 said:Except, the fact that something is subsidized doesn't change the fact that it's free

to the customer

.

The customers that didn't put anything into the game, I would agree. Do you think these are a majority or minority of the community?

You really want an answer to this? If you do the answer would be majority, there's a minority that contribute funds through the BLTC, and keep in mind, those that post on the forums are definitely a minority of the player base(in this case a minority being less than 25%, which is still really excessive, it's probably closer to 1 - 3% of players actually make posts on game forums).

Indeed, I do! Do you have proof of this? I think my assumptions are pretty accurate based on the fact we keep getting new stuff and I think it's far fetched that ANet pays for all of it just for us. I'm happy for evidence to the contrary though.

If the funds through the BLTC are a minority, where do all the development funds come from?

[MachineManXX.9746]

@Tinnel.4369 said:

@MachineManXX.9746 said:

@Tinnel.4369 said:

@MachineManXX.9746 said:

@Tinnel.4369 said:

@MachineManXX.9746 said:

@Tinnel.4369 said:

@"Tanner Blackfeather.6509" said:Except, the fact that something is subsidized doesn't change the fact that it's free

to the customer

.

The customers that didn't put anything into the game, I would agree. Do you think these are a majority or minority of the community?

Your argument makes zero sense. Free is free. It doesn't matter what you purchased before. If you spend money in the game, you are already buying something for that money. It does not mean you are pre-paying for any future content.

As I said, "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."

Well, common sense does not seem so common coming from someone who does not understand the word "free". You already know it's free, yet you want to continue to argue semantics for whatever reason.

What is semantical? You understand that this whole game revolves around micro-transactions, right? And that those transactions are made by players, playing the game? No money, no game, no content. Not no money, lots of game and content. Free is a misnomer that is appropriately applied to only a minority of the community.

Of course this game revolves around micro-transactions. That still does not change the fact that LW episodes are FREE. Answer this ... Do you have the option to buy the episode during its release? It is not even possible to do so. They are FREE content.

You can't change the definition of a word to suit your agenda. By the way, what even is your agenda here?

I'm not sure how you can acknowledge that the game revolves around micro-

transactions

and then say free. Some content is delivered at 'no charge', it's not developed at 'no charge'. Someone paid, paid and free are the opposite of each other.

Players invested, players have expectations, those expectations are ok, it's clear ANet has a much larger interest in keeping revenue pumping than in what the source of that revenue is interested in. How is this unclear in my original post?

You seem to think you are "investing" into this game by purchasing products? You (we) are not investing into anything. We are not shareholders who get a say in any of this. If you make a purchase, that's all it is, a simple purchase. And again to be clear, it's not even possible to purchase a LW episode during its release. (Shhhh ... big secret here, they are free)

The only thing clear here is that you want to manipulate the English language to suit your unclear agenda.

[Tinnel.4369]

@MachineManXX.9746 said:

@Tinnel.4369 said:

@MachineManXX.9746 said:

@Tinnel.4369 said:

@MachineManXX.9746 said:

@Tinnel.4369 said:

@MachineManXX.9746 said:

@Tinnel.4369 said:

@"Tanner Blackfeather.6509" said:Except, the fact that something is subsidized doesn't change the fact that it's free

to the customer

.

The customers that didn't put anything into the game, I would agree. Do you think these are a majority or minority of the community?

Your argument makes zero sense. Free is free. It doesn't matter what you purchased before. If you spend money in the game, you are already buying something for that money. It does not mean you are pre-paying for any future content.

As I said, "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."

Well, common sense does not seem so common coming from someone who does not understand the word "free". You already know it's free, yet you want to continue to argue semantics for whatever reason.

What is semantical? You understand that this whole game revolves around micro-transactions, right? And that those transactions are made by players, playing the game? No money, no game, no content. Not no money, lots of game and content. Free is a misnomer that is appropriately applied to only a minority of the community.

Of course this game revolves around micro-transactions. That still does not change the fact that LW episodes are FREE. Answer this ... Do you have the option to buy the episode during its release? It is not even possible to do so. They are FREE content.

You can't change the definition of a word to suit your agenda. By the way, what even is your agenda here?

I'm not sure how you can acknowledge that the game revolves around micro-

transactions

and then say free. Some content is delivered at 'no charge', it's not developed at 'no charge'. Someone paid, paid and free are the opposite of each other.

Players invested, players have expectations, those expectations are ok, it's clear ANet has a much larger interest in keeping revenue pumping than in what the source of that revenue is interested in. How is this unclear in my original post?

You seem to think you are "investing" into this game by purchasing products? You (we) are not investing into anything. We are not shareholders who get a say in any of this. If you make a purchase, that's all it is, a simple purchase. And again to be clear, it's not even possible to purchase a LW episode during its release. (Shhhh ... big secret here, they are free)

The only thing clear here is that you want to manipulate the English language to suit your unclear agenda.

So, you're saying that if micro-transactions stopped today, the game would keep developing?

[Damiani.2941]

@"Tinnel.4369" said:I'm not sure how you can acknowledge that the game revolves around micro-transactions and then say free. Some content is delivered at 'no charge', it's not developed at 'no charge'. Someone paid, paid and free are the opposite of each other.

Players invested, players have expectations, those expectations are ok, it's clear ANet has a much larger interest in keeping revenue pumping than in what the source of that revenue is interested in. How is this unclear in my original post?

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

[kharmin.7683]

@Tinnel.4369 said:

Are you saying that BLTC isn't the major source of revenue for the game and its development? Because that's pretty much the basis of the micro-transaction model.

It may not be. The company has investors who probably put a fair amount into the pot. Without delving into financial records, we really couldn't know what the major source of revenue is.

[Bunter.3795]

I think what OP is trying to point out is the number of people who jump into threads made by people who are unhappy with the content being released and use lines of the likes of "it's free, what more did you want?" as an answer to their dissatisfaction with the game and/or it's current state. No part of this game is free except for the free core version of the game. Remember anyone posting in this forum has had to purchase some form of the game to post here as free accounts are not given forum posting access.

Now I realize you get a lot of content and depending on how much you partake of the various game modes, the cost "per feature" will become smaller and smaller but for the vast majority of people, including everyone who posts here, it will not disappear completely. There is a cost to play the game. Yes, I realize a good number buy the game and/or the expansions and then purchase nothing else but they have still put money towards Arenanet's ability to provide their product to us. Additional updates such as the new LW season while provided at no additional cost if you play it during the time it's active, still have a cost in the form of the purchase of the expansion(s) that allow you to play it so it is not "free".

Back to what I started with, I think the OP is just trying to point out that the LW is not "free" and for people to stop using it as a rebuttal to those unhappy with the game's state or content.

[Tinnel.4369]

@Damiani.2941 said:

@Tinnel.4369 said:I'm not sure how you can acknowledge that the game revolves around micro-

transactions

and then say free. Some content is delivered at 'no charge', it's not developed at 'no charge'. Someone paid, paid and free are the opposite of each other.

Players invested, players have expectations, those expectations are ok, it's clear ANet has a much larger interest in keeping revenue pumping than in what the source of that revenue is interested in. How is this unclear in my original post?

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

Alas, a response!!!

I did exclude base product and expansions, but from the perspective that you bought it knowing what was offered. It is indeed revenue and I have no data to say it's a major or minor contribution, but it's pretty easy to rack up the equivalent of the purchase price of the initial product or expansion on the Gem Store. It's no secret that GW2 is a micro-transaction model game and that micro-transactions are a way to generate revenue and that businesses use revenue to....grow their business.

I think that the nature of the micro-transaction model, unlike base product and expansions, comes with a level of trust from the community that the revenue generated is going to 'pay off' in the form of development. Yes, you got what you bought, but I don't understand people arguing that the micro-transaction model doesn't work the way the micro-transaction model works. That's how we keep getting content without a monthly fee, I don't believe I'm redefining 'free', ANet is, thus my question if it's the right word.

It is, of course, not our game, but business is a mutual relationship. I believe your two numbered points assume that ANet exists without customers and any variation in their level of success is not related to the customers satisfaction. As with any business they will exist/be successful as long as, and to the extent that, they cater to their consumer base. No less and no more.

The argument can be made that those that expect a return or are unhappy with the return are not a majority and are just baselessly complaining can be made, sure. However, as I indicated, it seems to me those complaints are pretty loud of recent, not baseless, and even garnering media coverage. Reviews and perception are things for a reason and they do, indeed, shape the way a business functions.

I'm not trying to stir an argument. The media and abundance of comments here and on reddit raised the question for me of why is 'it's free' a justification/explanation. I would say one point I'm trying to make is that there isn't a relationship based on mutual respect and this sentiment is echoed across said posts, loud and often enough to garner media attention. I'm asking pretty clear questions (at least I think I am).

If it cost ANet to make it, someone paid for it, the antonym of free.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Tinnel.4369 said:

@"Mewcifer.5198" said:Saying "this game is actually funded" isn't some breakthrough statement that will shock people or blow people's minds.

It's pretty well understood that the game isn't made on thin air. That doesn't change the fact that you do not have to buy the new content as long as you are active in the game.

What are you trying to accomplish with this thread?

Why does it have to be breakthrough or mind blowing?

If it's well understood, than 'free' might not be the right word and since it's not 'free', expectations are ok.

Well when I choose to spend in the gemstore it is to buy something I like.. the fact I get free content as well at varying points of the year to me means it is free.. I got what I purchased, how they choose to use their money I give them is entirely up to ANET

So sorry to rain on the parade, but free content to me is exactly that. If I choose to miss a LS update then sure I got to pay price as is quite clear.

What is your point to this thread cos really I don't see it.

[Tinnel.4369]

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Tinnel.4369 said:

@"Mewcifer.5198" said:Saying "this game is actually funded" isn't some breakthrough statement that will shock people or blow people's minds.

It's pretty well understood that the game isn't made on thin air. That doesn't change the fact that you do not have to buy the new content as long as you are active in the game.

What are you trying to accomplish with this thread?

Why does it have to be breakthrough or mind blowing?

If it's well understood, than 'free' might not be the right word and since it's not 'free', expectations are ok.

Well when I choose to spend in the gemstore it is to buy something I like.. the fact I get free content as well at varying points of the year to me means it is free.. I got what I purchased, how they choose to use their money I give them is entirely up to ANET

So sorry to rain on the parade, but free content to me is exactly that. If I choose to miss a LS update then sure I got to pay price as is quite clear.

What is your point to this thread cos really I don't see it.

How can you respond to my point, admit you're raining on it, and then ask what it is?

[Daishi.6027]

@"Tinnel.4369" said:many players have used it as a rationale for why other players' expectations are out of line, "It's free, what do you expect?"Citation needed? Maybe a few people argue by that standard, but that is at best an uncritical, disingenuously flawed argument; as you can clearly tell.If anyone is arguing by such standards and staunchly believes that stance, assess the context for validity if you want, debate if you think it'll matter; but I think it's best to ignore the stupidity.A-net and anyone who understands the business model knows we are their customers, or potential customers.

However, I don't understand what you are arguing? That a the game being "F2P" past the initial purchase is untrue?Being "Free" ultimately depends on the player. Everyone is offered a free experience and can choose to opt in or out of such. A-net being a for profit organization doesn't change the base model. Even if the base model is designed to let you in for free, then entice you to pay. That's still your choice if you want to do so instead of farming maps.

The truly "Free" part of the experience, is that even without buying the expac you don't need anything to reach the stat cap, and nothing blocks your progress. If it wasn't for elite specs you could even be competitive in PvP modes. Even then you could buy the expacs with gold.

Compare that to a mobile game that may have some description of a "stamina bar" that refills over time, but you need to dump consumables in to, if you want loot from fractals within the next 24 hours. Or games that pretend to be f2p but then unfairly ramp the difficulty in such a way that you can only progress with higher stats leaving you to grind for days, but is conveniently available quicker if you spend money.These are something that directly blocks your progress unless you pay and almost twists your arm. It's hard to call any of these truly "Free".

Nothing in the gemstore requires you to pay, that's what makes the experience "Free to play". Just because the company is "For Profit" and uses a portion of the money earned to fund more content doesn't change that option for the individual experience.

I think it's a bit of a weird semantic here. It's free for players if they want to be, but it's not free for A-net, for both development and profit.

[Damiani.2941]

@Tinnel.4369 said:Alas, a response!!!

I did exclude base product and expansions, but from the perspective that you bought it knowing what was offered. It is indeed revenue and I have no data to say it's a major or minor contribution, but it's pretty easy to rack up the equivalent of the purchase price of the initial product or expansion on the Gem Store. It's no secret that GW2 is a micro-transaction model game and that micro-transactions are a way to generate revenue and that businesses use revenue to....grow their business.

I think that the nature of the micro-transaction model, unlike base product and expansions, comes with a level of trust from the community that the revenue generated is going to 'pay off' in the form of development. Yes, you got what you bought, but I don't understand people arguing that the micro-transaction model doesn't work the way the micro-transaction model works. That's how we keep getting content without a monthly fee, I don't believe I'm redefining 'free', ANet is, thus my question if it's the right word.

It is, of course, not our game, but business is a mutual relationship. I believe your two numbered points assume that ANet exists without customers and any variation in their level of success is not related to the customers satisfaction. As with any business they will exist/be successful as long as, and to the extent that, they cater to their consumer base. No less and no more.

The argument can be made that those that expect a return or are unhappy with the return are not a majority and are just baselessly complaining can be made, sure. However, as I indicated, it seems to me those complaints are pretty loud of recent, not baseless, and even garnering media coverage. Reviews and perception are things for a reason and they do, indeed, shape the way a business functions.

I'm not trying to stir an argument. The media and abundance of comments here and on reddit raised the question for me of why is 'it's free' a justification/explanation. I would say one point I'm trying to make is that there isn't a relationship based on mutual respect and this sentiment is echoed across said posts, loud and often enough to garner media attention. I'm asking pretty clear questions (at least I think I am).

If it cost ANet to make it, someone paid for it, the antonym of free.

Curiously... do you maintain a running (or did you) debt to anything your parents gave you while growing up? Or what our forefathers did for our societies as we pass through the eras? That's the thinking you're challenging on the simple use of the word 'free', in Anet's communication to us, the player base and potential purchasers.

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.

[kharmin.7683]

@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?

[Tinnel.4369]

@Damiani.2941 said:

@Tinnel.4369 said:Alas, a response!!!

I did exclude base product and expansions, but from the perspective that you bought it knowing what was offered. It is indeed revenue and I have no data to say it's a major or minor contribution, but it's pretty easy to rack up the equivalent of the purchase price of the initial product or expansion on the Gem Store. It's no secret that GW2 is a micro-transaction model game and that micro-transactions are a way to generate revenue and that businesses use revenue to....grow their business.

I think that the nature of the micro-transaction model, unlike base product and expansions, comes with a level of trust from the community that the revenue generated is going to 'pay off' in the form of development. Yes, you got what you bought, but I don't understand people arguing that the micro-transaction model doesn't work the way the micro-transaction model works. That's how we keep getting content without a monthly fee, I don't believe I'm redefining 'free', ANet is, thus my question if it's the right word.

It is, of course, not our game, but business is a mutual relationship. I believe your two numbered points assume that ANet exists without customers and any variation in their level of success is not related to the customers satisfaction. As with any business they will exist/be successful as long as, and to the extent that, they cater to their consumer base. No less and no more.

The argument can be made that those that expect a return or are unhappy with the return are not a majority and are just baselessly complaining can be made, sure. However, as I indicated, it seems to me those complaints are pretty loud of recent, not baseless, and even garnering media coverage. Reviews and perception are things for a reason and they do, indeed, shape the way a business functions.

I'm not trying to stir an argument. The media and abundance of comments here and on reddit raised the question for me of why is 'it's free' a justification/explanation. I would say one point I'm trying to make is that there isn't a relationship based on mutual respect and this sentiment is echoed across said posts, loud and often enough to garner media attention. I'm asking pretty clear questions (at least I think I am).

If it cost ANet to make it, someone paid for it, the antonym of free.

Curiously... do you maintain a running (or did you) debt to anything your parents gave you while growing up? Or what our forefathers did for our societies as we pass through the eras? That's the thinking you're challenging on the simple use of the word 'free', in Anet's communication to us, the player base and potential purchasers.

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.

If you entirely missed my case that it's not really free, I don't know how to help more. I mean, literally I asked if it was the right word then said we actually really pay.

Can you play the most recent or upcoming 'free content' drop of LW with the base game?

[Tinnel.4369]

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/mike-obrien-on-microtransactions-in-guild-wars-2/

"We believe in microtransactions because they fund ongoing development of the game in a very straightforward and open way."

"You get a complete and playable game no matter what, but we think we can provide additional content and services that you’d be happy to pay for. And when you pay for them, you help fund our support of Guild Wars 2 in a way that benefits all players of the game."

"ArenaNet generates revenue from the sale of gems that we can use to keep supporting and updating the game. Everyone wins."

"We have always taken our responsibility to players seriously with the original Guild Wars, and we will continue to do so with Guild Wars 2. We believe the foundation I’ve described here is the right foundation for us to build upon, and we look forward to sharing more details with you in the future as we nail down our microtransaction content."

[Tinnel.4369]

@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.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@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....

[kharmin.7683]

@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.

[Tinnel.4369]

@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.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@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.

Players have zero say on how the business model is set up to support the game and ultimately no one forces us to spend money that we don't want to. It is however, ANETs job to entice us to spend that money, of course, why wouldn't they want to.. as I said ANET is not a charity and the money the game generates, goes towards a lot more than just an offering of pixels on our screens.If a player does not want to have other players in game who choose not to spend beyond the base purchase, or F2P players as a whole in the game, then there is plenty of room in the marketplace for such players to either move to another product or better still develop their own sub based game and we can sit back and watch how well it does before feeling the need to draw players via a different models, because recent history shows MMO's need all the help they can otherwise life support gets switched on sooner than they planned.

EDIT - Do you, I or the OP know that any particular player type,is influencing this game's content or it's direction.. I have never seen any such posting from ANET or any such soundbyte to suggest that.

[Linken.6345]

@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.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

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.