Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Thanks for the FREE build templates ANET!!


SLOTH.5231

Recommended Posts

@Obtena.7952 said:Anet selling stuff in the GS hasn't really been a problem to people.

Well I think the bags/bank tabs etc are questionable and there have been complaints about that as well in the past, I've been a heavy user of the gem store for a couple accounts so I guess I've supported that already and it's too late to complain now.

As I've said I don't agree with game going from B2P to F2P, I think content updates do not have to be free either especially if it could help bring up the quality of the releases.

If the game was advertised as having great build diversity (Agree or Disagree on if it is the case, some people have a lot of saved templates in the 3rd party add-on now) then templates should have been a core feature, possibly an expectation from GW1 having it, and you know it has been long requested.

The disagreement ISN'T over IF there should be things in the store to buy, but WHAT. But as you mention in another post about not spending money if not happy with the game and supporting that - I agree but think it's unfortunate to be having to choose that if I still kinda like the game and the game should be trying to keep veteran players in game and spending not pushing them away. (But that is caused by the many issues with the game currently, not just this discussion obviously)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@"MetalGirl.2370" said:Just cuz something was done since forever doesn't make it right.Do you also think it's right that they are removing headphones socket on phones for example? Do you also think "well they gotta make money, how else would they make money if they don't make us buy dongles" ?I'm sure you're not like this irl, to take everything so lightly ... I'm sure you're rolling your eyes every time you hear companies mess something up.Unless you're 12 yr old kid who's sitting on parents back and don't understand the concept of money so you don't care as it's not yours

I don't know what you are going on about ...

There isn't anything wrong with Anet providing features and services that they charge customers for. Especially features and services that customers want. If the feature is valuable to me, I have NO problem exchanging money to get it if I think the price is reasonable. That's not a unique concept ... it's pretty much existed since the implementation of currency or even bartering. It seems like you are suggesting there is something unreasonable about this exchange of money for goods and services 'cuz something was done since forever'. We can stop the rhetoric now ... if you want to have an economic revolution, I'm pretty sure imposing your manifesto on a game development company isn't the best place to start.

@Dalec.9853 said:The disagreement ISN'T over IF there should be things in the store to buy, but WHAT.

There isn't any reason to think that this feature is something we shouldn't pay for. Nothing differentiates this as a feature we should get for free ... other than the fact that people feel entitled to it because they were using illegal third party software to access a similar feature for someone else's cost to provide it. This is the big problem with this thread ... it's got alot of dishonest ideas about why this should be free, especially since it wasn't free when it was 3rd party to begin with ... SOMEONE shouldered that cost to provide it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:Oh this again from you, yes we can be assured ArenaNet are absolutely perfect and never wrong.

I'm not suggesting Anet is perfect ... that's just your BEST attempt to discuss this issue with me.

There isn't anything unreasonable going on here. This is a feature that is worth paying for ... even by players own admission. Anet making it purchasable is reasonable ... it's a service they provide players.It's not binary, there are degrees here. Yes, this feature is worth paying for. The question is however whether this specific implementation of this feature is worth paying for, and how much. And as i see it, this implementation is bad, and the pricing terrible.No, as it is now it is definitely not worth paying for,
nor is it worth losing access to arc templates
.

Great, then don't buy it. You shouldn't regard this as losing access to something. You should be thinking how lucky you were to have access to it for the time you did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SLOTH.5231 said:

@Offair.2563 said:Build templates were a thing before this update though

Well it simplifies things being built in to the game. I know some people don’t like change but sometimes change is necessary for evolution.

:lol: I think you are completely lacking understanding of what is being criticized and why. :) If it was only the monetization aspect, I would agree with you - but it is not. It's mostly the limitations that ANet's solution comes with compared to the previously used, free template tool (unlimited templates vs an extremely limited number). Of course, it brings other boni that ArcDPS could not offer, but for some people saving inventory slots isn't as important as being able to use and save as many builds as you please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:Great, then don't buy it. You shouldn't regard this as losing access to something. You should be thinking how lucky you were to have access to it for the time you did.Why i should lie to myself? I am losing access to it. And what replaces it costs an absolutely horrendous amount of money, and works way worse, to boot. You may pretend to not see that, or try to think of convoluted explanations about why what is happening isn't happening, or isn't that bad, but i prefer to see things for what they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Great, then don't buy it. You shouldn't regard this as losing access to something. You should be thinking how lucky you were to have access to it for the time you did.Why i should lie to myself? I
am
losing access to it. And what replaces it costs an absolutely horrendous amount of money, and works way worse, to boot. You may pretend to not see that, or try to think of convoluted explanations about why what is happening isn't happening, or isn't
that
bad, but i prefer to see things for what they are.

hey, if you want to compare illegal offerings to legit ones, be my guest. That's not a reasonable comparison in ANY industry though and we all know it. That's why that argument is not an honest approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Great, then don't buy it. You shouldn't regard this as losing access to something. You should be thinking how lucky you were to have access to it for the time you did.Why i should lie to myself? I
am
losing access to it. And what replaces it costs an absolutely horrendous amount of money, and works way worse, to boot. You may pretend to not see that, or try to think of convoluted explanations about why what is happening isn't happening, or isn't
that
bad, but i prefer to see things for what they are.

hey, if you want to compare illegal offerings to legit ones, be my guest. That's not a reasonable comparison in ANY industry though and we all know it. That's why that argument is not an honest approach.

It was allowed (under the condition that it is removed once the official templates are in apparently), but I don't think you have the right word in illegal, no laws being broken the worst that would happen is account permaban which would be a blessing for some to give up caring about this shit (Yes me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Obtena.7952"There isn't any reason to think that this feature is something we shouldn't pay for. Nothing differentiates this as a feature we should get for free ... other than the fact that people feel entitled to it because they were using illegal third party software to access a similar feature for someone else's cost to provide it. This is the big problem with this thread ... it's got alot of dishonest ideas about why this should be free, especially since it wasn't free when it was 3rd party to begin with ... SOMEONE shouldered that cost to provide it.

You're wrong, as I said it's a disagreement about not IF things should be paid but WHAT should be - you have your opinion that you prefer this model and so have closed your mind to any other viewpoints to dismiss them as "isn't any reason".

I am for greater and more options for monetisation in other parts of the game; in my view, the cosmetics and content, while having the belief that the features of the game should just work so the experience of playing the game is smooth for everyone, as "I like this hair/chair/armour/outfit lets get it" or "I like this content, lets buy more" feels more positive than "shit ran out of space, gotta buy more" as that is coming up against a limitation in the games features rather than wanting more of something you enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Great, then don't buy it. You shouldn't regard this as losing access to something. You should be thinking how lucky you were to have access to it for the time you did.Why i should lie to myself? I
am
losing access to it. And what replaces it costs an absolutely horrendous amount of money, and works way worse, to boot. You may pretend to not see that, or try to think of convoluted explanations about why what is happening isn't happening, or isn't
that
bad, but i prefer to see things for what they are.

hey, if you want to compare illegal offerings to legit ones, be my guest.Hey, if you want to call an officially allowed addon illegal, be my guest. Of course, if you think you need to misrepresent reality that much to make a point, you probably never had a point in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Great, then don't buy it. You shouldn't regard this as losing access to something. You should be thinking how lucky you were to have access to it for the time you did.Why i should lie to myself? I
am
losing access to it. And what replaces it costs an absolutely horrendous amount of money, and works way worse, to boot. You may pretend to not see that, or try to think of convoluted explanations about why what is happening isn't happening, or isn't
that
bad, but i prefer to see things for what they are.

hey, if you want to compare illegal offerings to legit ones, be my guest.Hey, if you want to call an officially allowed addon illegal, be my guest. Of course, if you think you need to misrepresent reality that much to make a point, you probably never had a point in the first place.

I will and I am... allowed or not, it was still breaking the TOS. It's still a ridiculous premise to compare that offering to anything Anet would have provided to us. This is why your arguments always fall way short. You lose all credibility the second you think something being tolerated establishes the baseline for the minimum offering a legit source should provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952There isn't any reason to think that this feature is something we shouldn't pay for. Nothing differentiates this as a feature we should get for free ... other than the fact that people feel entitled to it because they were using illegal third party software to access a similar feature for someone else's cost to provide it. This is the big problem with this thread ... it's got alot of dishonest ideas about why this should be free, especially since it wasn't free when it was 3rd party to begin with ... SOMEONE shouldered that cost to provide it.

You're wrong, as I said it's a disagreement about not IF things should be paid but WHAT should be.

There isn't anything wrong here ... anything Anet decides to put into the GS is what players will pay for. A player vote doesn't decide that. That's not some far out there thinking either ... it's fairly common. It works because you get to decide if you want it. Try to walk out of Walmart with what you think you shouldn't have to pay for ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952There isn't any reason to think that this feature is something we shouldn't pay for. Nothing differentiates this as a feature we should get for free ... other than the fact that people feel entitled to it because they were using illegal third party software to access a similar feature for someone else's cost to provide it. This is the big problem with this thread ... it's got alot of dishonest ideas about why this should be free, especially since it wasn't free when it was 3rd party to begin with ... SOMEONE shouldered that cost to provide it.

You're wrong, as I said it's a disagreement about not IF things should be paid but WHAT should be.

There isn't anything wrong here ... anything Anet decides to put into the GS is what players will pay for. A vote doesn't decide that. That's not some far out there thinking either ... it's fairly common. Try to walk out of Walmart with what you think you shouldn't have to pay for ...

Again with these nonsensical comparisons, I'm not sure if you are deliberately pretending to not understand or if you truly think that every game has the same model of monetisation with features being locked when in fact feature complete games and UIs with paid cosmetics and content DLC is the MOST common type, you pretend they don't exist somehow and due to that talking about opinions on what models we prefer to see is impossible as they do not exist in your head! Yes, I'm off to go do a bit of shoplifting now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952There isn't any reason to think that this feature is something we shouldn't pay for. Nothing differentiates this as a feature we should get for free ... other than the fact that people feel entitled to it because they were using illegal third party software to access a similar feature for someone else's cost to provide it. This is the big problem with this thread ... it's got alot of dishonest ideas about why this should be free, especially since it wasn't free when it was 3rd party to begin with ... SOMEONE shouldered that cost to provide it.

You're wrong, as I said it's a disagreement about not IF things should be paid but WHAT should be.

There isn't anything wrong here ... anything Anet decides to put into the GS is what players will pay for. A vote doesn't decide that. That's not some far out there thinking either ... it's fairly common. Try to walk out of Walmart with what you think you shouldn't have to pay for ...

Again with these nonsensical comparisons, I'm not sure if you are deliberately pretending to not understand or if you truly think that every game has the same model of monetisation with features being locked when in fact feature complete games and UIs with paid cosmetics and content DLC is the MOST common type, you pretend they don't exist somehow and due to that talking about opinions on what models we prefer to see is impossible as they do not exist in your head! Yes, I'm off to go do a bit of shoplifting now...

The isn't anything nonsensical about it . Anet provides goods and services, like any other business, at a price for consumers. For some reason you have convinced yourself that some of those should be free to you, for no other reason other than you don't want to pay for them ... or some irrelevant association to some other game's business practices. That doesn't make sense. If Anet decides it's free, fine ... and they have done that BTW ... you do get some templates for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952There isn't any reason to think that this feature is something we shouldn't pay for. Nothing differentiates this as a feature we should get for free ... other than the fact that people feel entitled to it because they were using illegal third party software to access a similar feature for someone else's cost to provide it. This is the big problem with this thread ... it's got alot of dishonest ideas about why this should be free, especially since it wasn't free when it was 3rd party to begin with ... SOMEONE shouldered that cost to provide it.

You're wrong, as I said it's a disagreement about not IF things should be paid but WHAT should be.

There isn't anything wrong here ... anything Anet decides to put into the GS is what players will pay for. A vote doesn't decide that. That's not some far out there thinking either ... it's fairly common. Try to walk out of Walmart with what you think you shouldn't have to pay for ...

Again with these nonsensical comparisons, I'm not sure if you are deliberately pretending to not understand or if you truly think that every game has the same model of monetisation with features being locked when in fact feature complete games and UIs with paid cosmetics and content DLC is the MOST common type, you pretend they don't exist somehow and due to that talking about opinions on what models we prefer to see is impossible as they do not exist in your head! Yes, I'm off to go do a bit of shoplifting now...

The isn't anything nonsensical about it . Anet provides goods and services, like any other business, at a price for consumers. For some reason you have convinced yourself that some of those should be free to you, for no other reason other than you don't want to pay for them. That doesn't make sense.

What you say is completely nonsensical because you ignore the point and pretend I wish for everything in the game to be free, rather than following a better (opinion) model that is more common than what ArenaNet are doing - that is a feature complete games with cosmetics and content paid, I assume maybe it's a problem to you as you think the content releases are not worth a cost? Players coming up against a game feature limitation and being told to pay up is a negative experience as you don't really get a feeling of something "new" to play and it has to be justified to yourself as "oh well, guess I want the convenience" meanwhile at least content or looks for your character is a positive purchase as you get the feeling of something to see, to play, to enjoy.

Oh why am I bothering, you don't understand the point behind it, you don't understand that opinions exist, Obtuse-bot is just going to reply "NO! Arenanet never made any questionable design decisions! You're just so cheap I bet you steal from Lidl!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952There isn't any reason to think that this feature is something we shouldn't pay for. Nothing differentiates this as a feature we should get for free ... other than the fact that people feel entitled to it because they were using illegal third party software to access a similar feature for someone else's cost to provide it. This is the big problem with this thread ... it's got alot of dishonest ideas about why this should be free, especially since it wasn't free when it was 3rd party to begin with ... SOMEONE shouldered that cost to provide it.

You're wrong, as I said it's a disagreement about not IF things should be paid but WHAT should be.

There isn't anything wrong here ... anything Anet decides to put into the GS is what players will pay for. A vote doesn't decide that. That's not some far out there thinking either ... it's fairly common. Try to walk out of Walmart with what you think you shouldn't have to pay for ...

Again with these nonsensical comparisons, I'm not sure if you are deliberately pretending to not understand or if you truly think that every game has the same model of monetisation with features being locked when in fact feature complete games and UIs with paid cosmetics and content DLC is the MOST common type, you pretend they don't exist somehow and due to that talking about opinions on what models we prefer to see is impossible as they do not exist in your head! Yes, I'm off to go do a bit of shoplifting now...

The isn't anything nonsensical about it . Anet provides goods and services, like any other business, at a price for consumers. For some reason you have convinced yourself that some of those should be free to you, for no other reason other than you don't want to pay for them. That doesn't make sense.

What you say is completely nonsensical because you ignore the point and pretend I wish for everything in the game to be free, rather than following a better (opinion) model that is more common than what ArenaNet are doing - that is a feature complete games with cosmetics and content paid, I assume maybe it's a problem to you as you think the content releases are not worth a cost? Players coming up against a game feature limitation and being told to pay up is a negative experience as you don't really get a feeling of something "new" to play and it has to be justified to yourself as "oh well, guess I want the convenience" meanwhile at least content or looks for your character is a positive purchase as you get the feeling of something to see, to play, to enjoy.

Oh why am I bothering, you don't understand the point behind it, you don't understand that opinions exist, Obtuse-bot is just going to reply "NO! Arenanet never made any questionable design decisions! You're just so cheap I bet you steal from Lidl!"

I'm not ignoring anything ... I just disagree that some things should be free just because you don't want to pay for them. I don't see having features available to purchase as a negative experience. I realize they may be something that has value to me that I'm willing to exchange for money. This is where the thread takes a massively dishonest turn for you guys because you acknowledge the value of this feature but not enough to realize it's worth exchanging ANY amount of money for it. I can't help feel like we are just being lied to because there isn't anything unreasonable about paying for goods and services someone provides you that you want. It's so commonplace, no one should ever question it. Yet here we are ... so something in your message isn't right here.

It's also very dishonest to sit there and claim we are up against a game feature limitation and being told to pay up ... for all the crowing going on, you seem to have forgotten some of the free access everyone is going to get to this feature to begin with. If anyone is ignoring things here, it's you. Just be honest ... it won't be good enough for you until you get all the template slots you want ... for free. Then you won't have to worry about me exposing your posts for the truth behind them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952There isn't any reason to think that this feature is something we shouldn't pay for. Nothing differentiates this as a feature we should get for free ... other than the fact that people feel entitled to it because they were using illegal third party software to access a similar feature for someone else's cost to provide it. This is the big problem with this thread ... it's got alot of dishonest ideas about why this should be free, especially since it wasn't free when it was 3rd party to begin with ... SOMEONE shouldered that cost to provide it.

You're wrong, as I said it's a disagreement about not IF things should be paid but WHAT should be.

There isn't anything wrong here ... anything Anet decides to put into the GS is what players will pay for. A vote doesn't decide that. That's not some far out there thinking either ... it's fairly common. Try to walk out of Walmart with what you think you shouldn't have to pay for ...

Again with these nonsensical comparisons, I'm not sure if you are deliberately pretending to not understand or if you truly think that every game has the same model of monetisation with features being locked when in fact feature complete games and UIs with paid cosmetics and content DLC is the MOST common type, you pretend they don't exist somehow and due to that talking about opinions on what models we prefer to see is impossible as they do not exist in your head! Yes, I'm off to go do a bit of shoplifting now...

The isn't anything nonsensical about it . Anet provides goods and services, like any other business, at a price for consumers. For some reason you have convinced yourself that some of those should be free to you, for no other reason other than you don't want to pay for them. That doesn't make sense.

What you say is completely nonsensical because you ignore the point and pretend I wish for everything in the game to be free, rather than following a better (opinion) model that is more common than what ArenaNet are doing - that is a feature complete games with cosmetics and content paid, I assume maybe it's a problem to you as you think the content releases are not worth a cost? Players coming up against a game feature limitation and being told to pay up is a negative experience as you don't really get a feeling of something "new" to play and it has to be justified to yourself as "oh well, guess I want the convenience" meanwhile at least content or looks for your character is a positive purchase as you get the feeling of something to see, to play, to enjoy.

Oh why am I bothering, you don't understand the point behind it, you don't understand that opinions exist, Obtuse-bot is just going to reply "NO! Arenanet never made any questionable design decisions! You're just so cheap I bet you steal from Lidl!"

I'm not ignoring anything ... I just disagree that some things should be free just because you don't want to pay for them. I don't see having features available to purchase as a negative experience. I realize they may be something that has value to me that I'm willing to exchange for money. This is where the thread takes a massively dishonest turn for you guys because you acknowledge the value of this feature but not enough to realize it's worth exchanging ANY amount of money for it. I can't help feel like we are just being lied to because there isn't anything unreasonable about paying for goods and services someone provides you that you want. It's so commonplace, no one should ever question it. Yet here we are ... so something in your message isn't right here.

It's also very dishonest to sit there and claim we are up against a game feature limitation and being told to pay up ... for all the crowing going on, you seem to have forgotten some of the free access everyone is going to get to this feature to begin with. If anyone is ignoring things here, it's you. Just be honest ... it won't be good enough for you until you get all the template slots you want ... for free. Then you won't have to worry about me exposing your posts for the truth behind them.

You are ignoring the point, if you were not you could have just answered that YOU prefer the current way thing work and don't like the idea of paid content for example (which would earn more as it's more in demand and not a one-time thing like a feature unless the content stops coming, guess you want devs to go hungry, you monster!)

But lets try it your way then, in your style

"What Obtena is really trying to say?"I just disagree that extra content/extra cosmetics should be paid for just because you don't want them to be free anymore. I see having content available to purchase as a negative experience. I realize it's something that has value to me but I'm not willing to exchange for money. This is where the thread takes a massively dishonest turn because i acknowledge the value of content but not enough to realize it's worth exchanging ANY amount of money for it or that others might have an opinion that content is worth paying for. I can't help feel like I'm lying because there isn't anything unreasonable about paying for goods and services like content/cosmetics someone provides that I might want. It's so commonplace like in literally every major game, no one should ever question it. Yet here we are ... so something in my message isn't right here.

You see, what I suggest means I wish to pay more for the game overall, I just hold a belief that a game should be feature complete and the "fun" should be paid, and more of it coming because I assume we play the game for fun and play content, not to play the UI I hope?

It's OK to state that you prefer the current way, I'd just agree to disagree and move on, there's no need for your twisting words as you do and deciding what I think. I doubt you like how I did it for you above? Exposing your posts for the truth behind them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952There isn't any reason to think that this feature is something we shouldn't pay for. Nothing differentiates this as a feature we should get for free ... other than the fact that people feel entitled to it because they were using illegal third party software to access a similar feature for someone else's cost to provide it. This is the big problem with this thread ... it's got alot of dishonest ideas about why this should be free, especially since it wasn't free when it was 3rd party to begin with ... SOMEONE shouldered that cost to provide it.

You're wrong, as I said it's a disagreement about not IF things should be paid but WHAT should be.

There isn't anything wrong here ... anything Anet decides to put into the GS is what players will pay for. A vote doesn't decide that. That's not some far out there thinking either ... it's fairly common. Try to walk out of Walmart with what you think you shouldn't have to pay for ...

Again with these nonsensical comparisons, I'm not sure if you are deliberately pretending to not understand or if you truly think that every game has the same model of monetisation with features being locked when in fact feature complete games and UIs with paid cosmetics and content DLC is the MOST common type, you pretend they don't exist somehow and due to that talking about opinions on what models we prefer to see is impossible as they do not exist in your head! Yes, I'm off to go do a bit of shoplifting now...

The isn't anything nonsensical about it . Anet provides goods and services, like any other business, at a price for consumers. For some reason you have convinced yourself that some of those should be free to you, for no other reason other than you don't want to pay for them. That doesn't make sense.

What you say is completely nonsensical because you ignore the point and pretend I wish for everything in the game to be free, rather than following a better (opinion) model that is more common than what ArenaNet are doing - that is a feature complete games with cosmetics and content paid, I assume maybe it's a problem to you as you think the content releases are not worth a cost? Players coming up against a game feature limitation and being told to pay up is a negative experience as you don't really get a feeling of something "new" to play and it has to be justified to yourself as "oh well, guess I want the convenience" meanwhile at least content or looks for your character is a positive purchase as you get the feeling of something to see, to play, to enjoy.

Oh why am I bothering, you don't understand the point behind it, you don't understand that opinions exist, Obtuse-bot is just going to reply "NO! Arenanet never made any questionable design decisions! You're just so cheap I bet you steal from Lidl!"

I'm not ignoring anything ... I just disagree that some things should be free just because you don't want to pay for them. I don't see having features available to purchase as a negative experience. I realize they may be something that has value to me that I'm willing to exchange for money. This is where the thread takes a massively dishonest turn for you guys because you acknowledge the value of this feature but not enough to realize it's worth exchanging ANY amount of money for it. I can't help feel like we are just being lied to because there isn't anything unreasonable about paying for goods and services someone provides you that you want. It's so commonplace, no one should ever question it. Yet here we are ... so something in your message isn't right here.

It's also very dishonest to sit there and claim we are up against a game feature limitation and being told to pay up ... for all the crowing going on, you seem to have forgotten some of the free access everyone is going to get to this feature to begin with. If anyone is ignoring things here, it's you. Just be honest ... it won't be good enough for you until you get all the template slots you want ... for free. Then you won't have to worry about me exposing your posts for the truth behind them.

You are ignoring the point, if you were not you could have just answered that YOU prefer the current way thing work and don't like the idea of paid content for example (which would earn more as it's more in demand and not a one-time thing like a feature unless the content stops coming, guess you want devs to go hungry, you monster!)

But lets try it your way then, in your style

"What Obtena is really trying to say?"I just disagree that extra content/extra cosmetics should be paid for just because you don't want them to be free anymore. I see having content available to purchase as a negative experience. I realize it's something that has value to me but I'm not willing to exchange for money. This is where the thread takes a massively dishonest turn because i acknowledge the value of content but not enough to realize it's worth exchanging ANY amount of money for it or that others might have an opinion that content is worth paying for. I can't help feel like I'm lying because there isn't anything unreasonable about paying for goods and services like content/cosmetics someone provides that I might want. It's so commonplace like in literally every major game, no one should ever question it. Yet here we are ... so something in my message isn't right here.

You see, what I suggest means I wish to pay more for the game overall, I just hold a belief that a game should be feature complete and the "fun" should be paid, and more of it coming because I assume we play the game for fun and play content, not to play the UI I hope?

It's OK to state that you prefer the current way, I'd just agree to disagree and move on, there's no need for your twisting words as you do and deciding what I think. I doubt you like how I did it for you above?
Exposing your posts for the truth behind them

Hey ... that's a nice suggestion ... when you make a MMO, you feel free to use that business model. It's simply not very realistic to suggest Anet change how they do business because you don't want to pay for features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:Hey ... that's a nice suggestion ... when you make a MMO, you feel free to use that business model. It's simply not very realistic to suggest Anet change how they do business because you don't want to pay for features.

One simple question to you then, no twisting words or adding them, simple yes or no... Do you think ArenaNet have ever changed their business model with GW2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Hey ... that's a nice suggestion ... when you make a MMO, you feel free to use that business model. It's simply not very realistic to suggest Anet change how they do business because you don't want to pay for features.

One simple question to you then, no twisting words or adding them, simple yes or no... Do you think ArenaNet have ever changed their business model with GW2?

I don't see where they have. I can see that they might be with how they are dealing with expansions. I know where you want to go with this; you aren't the first one to try this approach ... I'm ready. Let's continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Hey ... that's a nice suggestion ... when you make a MMO, you feel free to use that business model. It's simply not very realistic to suggest Anet change how they do business because you don't want to pay for features.

One simple question to you then, no twisting words or adding them, simple yes or no... Do you think ArenaNet have ever changed their business model with GW2?

I don't see where they have. I can see that they might be with how they are dealing with expansions. I know where you want to go with this; you aren't the first one to try this approach ... I'm ready. Let's continue.

Expansions which were at first not even going to be a thing, then became a thing they wanted to do, and now they are dropped again until when? never again? who knows - and the fact they changed from a B2P to F2P for the core game and now an expansion even though because of how GW2 works with no increasing level/gear that content is as relevant to new joining players as it was to us when we paid for it, not just something to be rushed through to get to the new stuff; so it could be argued still worth having a cost?

So yes, ArenaNet have been flexible and open to change on how they want to charge for the game, features and new content. I wouldn't think there are many reasonable commonly requested options that are completely forever ruled out, even things like the optional sub fee/plus account idea unlikely as it is.( Of Course, something like "100% Free for everything" is unreasonable and unsustainable)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Hey ... that's a nice suggestion ... when you make a MMO, you feel free to use that business model. It's simply not very realistic to suggest Anet change how they do business because you don't want to pay for features.

One simple question to you then, no twisting words or adding them, simple yes or no... Do you think ArenaNet have ever changed their business model with GW2?

I don't see where they have. I can see that they might be with how they are dealing with expansions. I know where you want to go with this; you aren't the first one to try this approach ... I'm ready. Let's continue.

Well if he is not the first one to question you that, maybe it's a sign that you're in the wrong. And so far by your comment history, barely anyone agrees with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MetalGirl.2370 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Hey ... that's a nice suggestion ... when you make a MMO, you feel free to use that business model. It's simply not very realistic to suggest Anet change how they do business because you don't want to pay for features.

One simple question to you then, no twisting words or adding them, simple yes or no... Do you think ArenaNet have ever changed their business model with GW2?

I don't see where they have. I can see that they might be with how they are dealing with expansions. I know where you want to go with this; you aren't the first one to try this approach ... I'm ready. Let's continue.

Well if he is not the first one to question you that, maybe it's a sign that you're in the wrong. And so far by your comment history, barely anyone agrees with you.

Someone asking me a question is a sign I'm wrong? OK ... I'm going to let you think about why that doesn't make sense. I mean, if I'm wrong ... where? my premise is PRETTY simple ... Anet offers things in exchange for money from customers ... for some reason, you guys think this is some exception to that. You haven't explained why ... probably because we already have multiple instances of the exact same kind of feature being offered in exactly the same way since day 1. But don't let that stop you ...

Please, now you tell me why I'm wrong ... or is that all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Hey ... that's a nice suggestion ... when you make a MMO, you feel free to use that business model. It's simply not very realistic to suggest Anet change how they do business because you don't want to pay for features.

One simple question to you then, no twisting words or adding them, simple yes or no... Do you think ArenaNet have ever changed their business model with GW2?

I don't see where they have. I can see that they might be with how they are dealing with expansions. I know where you want to go with this; you aren't the first one to try this approach ... I'm ready. Let's continue.

Expansions which were at first not even going to be a thing, then became a thing they wanted to do, and now they are dropped again until when? never again? who knows - and the fact they changed from a B2P to F2P for the core game and now an expansion even though because of how GW2 works with no increasing level/gear that content is as relevant to new joining players as it was to us when we paid for it, not just something to be rushed through to get to the new stuff; so it could be argued still worth having a cost?

So yes, ArenaNet have been flexible and open to change on how they want to charge for the game, features and new content. I wouldn't think there are many reasonable
commonly requested options that are completely forever ruled out, even things like the optional sub fee/plus account idea unlikely as it is.(
Of Course, something like "100% Free for everything" is unreasonable and unsustainable)

I didn't say they weren't flexible or can't change. I'm simply saying that if you want a change like that, it better come with a better reason than "It's just what I want".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Hey ... that's a nice suggestion ... when you make a MMO, you feel free to use that business model. It's simply not very realistic to suggest Anet change how they do business because you don't want to pay for features.

One simple question to you then, no twisting words or adding them, simple yes or no... Do you think ArenaNet have ever changed their business model with GW2?

I don't see where they have. I can see that they might be with how they are dealing with expansions. I know where you want to go with this; you aren't the first one to try this approach ... I'm ready. Let's continue.

Expansions which were at first not even going to be a thing, then became a thing they wanted to do, and now they are dropped again until when? never again? who knows - and the fact they changed from a B2P to F2P for the core game and now an expansion even though because of how GW2 works with no increasing level/gear that content is as relevant to new joining players as it was to us when we paid for it, not just something to be rushed through to get to the new stuff; so it could be argued still worth having a cost?

So yes, ArenaNet have been flexible and open to change on how they want to charge for the game, features and new content. I wouldn't think there are many reasonable
commonly requested options that are completely forever ruled out, even things like the optional sub fee/plus account idea unlikely as it is.(
Of Course, something like "100% Free for everything" is unreasonable and unsustainable)

I didn't say they weren't flexible or can't change. I'm simply saying that if you want a change like that, it better come with a better reason than "It's just what I want".

'Wanting' is a good reason as long as there is enough of that want (as in enough people), people were willing to pay for expansions for extra content so it's not unreasonable to think other content unlocks could be paid too as long term repeating source of income (as long as content keeps coming and alongside cosmetics as I've mentioned) as an alternative to one-time feature unlocks - as I've mentioned, that model is very successful in the gaming industry now so it's not like it's some strange opinion, as that's all it is, my opinion/preference even if it would involve paying more for the game (which would hopefully support it more and help quality).

You must have an opinion on what you prefer, surely? It can't be just whatever ArenaNet choose, you support; unless that always aligns with your preference for games somehow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Hey ... that's a nice suggestion ... when you make a MMO, you feel free to use that business model. It's simply not very realistic to suggest Anet change how they do business because you don't want to pay for features.

One simple question to you then, no twisting words or adding them, simple yes or no... Do you think ArenaNet have ever changed their business model with GW2?

I don't see where they have. I can see that they might be with how they are dealing with expansions. I know where you want to go with this; you aren't the first one to try this approach ... I'm ready. Let's continue.

Expansions which were at first not even going to be a thing, then became a thing they wanted to do, and now they are dropped again until when? never again? who knows - and the fact they changed from a B2P to F2P for the core game and now an expansion even though because of how GW2 works with no increasing level/gear that content is as relevant to new joining players as it was to us when we paid for it, not just something to be rushed through to get to the new stuff; so it could be argued still worth having a cost?

So yes, ArenaNet have been flexible and open to change on how they want to charge for the game, features and new content. I wouldn't think there are many reasonable
commonly requested options that are completely forever ruled out, even things like the optional sub fee/plus account idea unlikely as it is.(
Of Course, something like "100% Free for everything" is unreasonable and unsustainable)

I didn't say they weren't flexible or can't change. I'm simply saying that if you want a change like that, it better come with a better reason than "It's just what I want".

'Wanting' is a good reason as long as there is enough of that want ...

Well, as a player you would like to think that's true but I can tell you from the business side, that's hardly compelling; there is more to doing something in a business other than what people want. You have to realize that Anet already put the business case together for how it will work ... and you think you have a better answer? That kind of thinking you show demonstrates a lack of understanding how business actually works. Someone at Anet was paid and spent time into justifying this solution ... more than whatever few minutes you did. And you think they will throw that away because you want something? You're going to learn the hard way aren't you.

You must have an opinion on what you prefer, surely? It can't be just whatever ArenaNet choose, you support; unless that always aligns with your preference for games somehow?

Sure I do ... and it's irrelevant in this discussion. To be frank, I have little use for this feature ... I rolled many alts for my 'build templates'. If you don't like the feature, you don't have to use it. There are options. I just feel that you like others, aren't being honest about this because you know the options are still going to cost you something or be inconvenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...