Thanks for the FREE build templates ANET!!

[Dalec.9853]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@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. 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.

Player demand isn't compelling (as long as there is money to be made)? Strange argument, it's pretty much a running joke to be like "Don't encourage them!" to all the "Take my money! I'll pay for X!" posts GW2 gets considering that always seems to end up with whatever was suggested on the gemstore or in BLC. No more paid content updates is probably more down to the game being on the path to 'end of life' and maintenance and automation mode once the LW rushes through the remaining dragons.

I also have the alts for 'build templates', to be honest I would buy it if the rest of the game seemed healthy, but the low quality of the updates* and abandoned game modes ( Many people would like a new expansion or new elite specs for example, I'm not the only one of course) - makes it seem like the push of things like this and that outfit being BLC only for example just being a last attempt at some earnings on a dying game

*Yes I know they're free, that's not my choice, I'd rather have higher cost for better/longer lasting content that isn't just artificially extended in life with 'Item has a 0.000000000001% chance to drop from this daily vault after AFKing 4 now boring events/buying the keys'

[Obtena.7952]

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@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. 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.

Player demand isn't compelling (as long as there is money to be made)? Strange argument, ...

No it's not ... there is lots of things that Anet shouldn't do, even if players want it. Business decisions are not only about giving customers what they want. That's not a sustainable decision making approach. This is actually a really great example, because some players think we should get this for free. That doesn't make sense. Giving away features for free is not a sustainable business practice. People that think they should get this for free need some real Judgement of Solomon style reality check.

You know the best part ... you're willing to get character slots, but somehow THIS feature is somehow an affront to you .... even though they are BOTH the same kind of feature being offered in the SAME way ... you should think about that for a minute and how it destroys your credibility.

[MetalGirl.2370]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@MetalGirl.2370 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@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.

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?

My point is, I saw many people say you're wrong and that you don't understand... and all you do is reply "No, cuz Anet", you never stop and think if you are since so many say you are misunderstanding.for example @Dalec.9853 said that he has NO problem spending money as long as it's on actual content and skins. He doesn't like them selling templates as they should be coming with the game from the start by default. - But you just go on "well they have to earn money and you want everything for free" - no, he doesn't want everything for free, he is even saying he would like to spend more money as long as it's on cosmetics and content rather than being forced into buying more slots.Anet doesn't have to sell templates to earn money, they can make it all up by adding some cosmetics.I'd rather them just implement optional sub fee (something like ESO) if they're struggling rather than having us wait a little over 7 years for templates just to put a fee on it. I play mesmer for example, always have... so I'm supposed to spend loads of money buying 10 templates when I'd rather buy mounts, outfits...etc. I'd love them to add more hairs, like I said to you, I had no problem spending £200 pounds to get perma hair kit or £75 on gambling for Starborn outfit so even if they put hairs up on gemstore, I'd still get them, because it's cosmetics, something I can wear, show and see. I shouldn't be paying for, essentially ... "options" tab, with settings that could be saved in local file like GW1Just because there are bank, inventory and bag slots to buy (which, I have to say I don't agree with buying those either but still had to cuz they give you so many things that you're forced into buying slots) doesn't make it right to add another one. Especially because it was in GW1 by default and unlimited. And I see you constantly go on how - "You can't compare GW2 to GW1, they're not the same". - Well yes you can compare because it's the same company and 2 is just continuing 1, all it does is "play" different (you can't say LOTR 1 and 2 are different books just because it's not the same text copy-pasted? they belong to the same trilogy, they're not completely different stories), and it is the build feature we compare, not game as a whole. Just because they "play" different, doesn't mean they should leave out are core feature that used to be unlimited.

[Obtena.7952]

@MetalGirl.2370 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@MetalGirl.2370 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@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.

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?

My point is, I saw many people say you're wrong and that you don't understand...

That's par for the course. That's why we are having this discussion. No, I understand just fine.

There isn't anything 'wrong' with how Anet offers these quantity-based features. That's for Anet to decide. Again, it's a business. They offer, people can buy or not. If there is a lack of 'correctness', people will let them know by not purchasing. It makes no sense to attach some morality to how this feature is sold ... but not other features that are offered in exactly the same way. That's dishonest.

[MetalGirl.2370]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@MetalGirl.2370 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@MetalGirl.2370 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@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.

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?

My point is, I saw many people say you're wrong and that you don't understand...

That's par for the course. That's why we are having this discussion. No, I understand just fine.

There isn't anything 'wrong' with how Anet offers these quantity-based features. That's for Anet to decide. Again, it's a business. They offer, people can buy or not. If there is a lack of 'correctness', people will let them know by not purchasing. It makes no sense to attach some morality to how this feature is sold ... but not other features that are offered in exactly the same way. That's dishonest.

You're just proving my point, I wrote a wall of text for you to just snip half of one sentence and follow it by "no cuz Anet"

[Obtena.7952]

@MetalGirl.2370 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@MetalGirl.2370 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@MetalGirl.2370 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@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.

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?

My point is, I saw many people say you're wrong and that you don't understand...

That's par for the course. That's why we are having this discussion. No, I understand just fine.

There isn't anything 'wrong' with how Anet offers these quantity-based features. That's for Anet to decide. Again, it's a business. They offer, people can buy or not. If there is a lack of 'correctness', people will let them know by not purchasing. It makes no sense to attach some morality to how this feature is sold ... but not other features that are offered in exactly the same way. That's dishonest.

You're just proving my point, I wrote a wall of text for you to just snip half of one sentence and follow it by "no cuz Anet"

No, I just didn't include it in the quote. It's got nothing to do with 'cuz Anet' ... that's just your spin because your actual arguments are so weak.

What they are doing isn't exceptional. It's standard business practice ... there isn't a reason to complain about how these features are offered as a reason to change it. There isn't any right or wrong. It's simply how they decided to do it. You're attempts to criminalize that are sad.

[MetalGirl.2370]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@MetalGirl.2370 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@MetalGirl.2370 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@MetalGirl.2370 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@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.

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?

My point is, I saw many people say you're wrong and that you don't understand...

That's par for the course. That's why we are having this discussion. No, I understand just fine.

There isn't anything 'wrong' with how Anet offers these quantity-based features. That's for Anet to decide. Again, it's a business. They offer, people can buy or not. If there is a lack of 'correctness', people will let them know by not purchasing. It makes no sense to attach some morality to how this feature is sold ... but not other features that are offered in exactly the same way. That's dishonest.

You're just proving my point, I wrote a wall of text for you to just snip half of one sentence and follow it by "no cuz Anet"

No, I just didn't include it in the quote. It's got nothing to do with 'cuz Anet' ... that's just your spin because your actual arguments are so weak.

What they are doing isn't exceptional. It's standard business practice ... there isn't a reason to complain about how these features are offered as a reason to change it. There isn't any right or wrong. It's simply how they decided to do it. You're attempts to criminalize that are sad.

My arguments are not weak at all.I'm saying the exact same thing @Dalec.9853 is....That they shouldn't charge for it but make more cosmetics and charge for those instead and content. They'd earn far more that way even.

[Obtena.7952]

@MetalGirl.2370 said:That they shouldn't charge for it but make more cosmetics and charge for those instead and content. They'd earn far more that way even.

You don't know that ... it's just your speculation. Why should they all the sudden not charge for features? That's a fallacy to think that because they offer something for free, people will spend more on cosmetic items. That doesn't even make sense.

You haven't thought about this very long. There isn't a reason for Anet to not charge you for EVERYTHING ... and they do. This isn't an exception.

[MetalGirl.2370]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@MetalGirl.2370 said:That they shouldn't charge for it but make more cosmetics and charge for those instead and content. They'd earn far more that way even.

You don't know that ... it's just your speculation. Why should they all the sudden not charge for features? That's a fallacy to think that because they offer something for free, people will spend more on cosmetic items. That doesn't even make sense.

Because you can only buy so many templates and once you do, you don't give them any more money, while cosmetics keep coming and you keep buying... so no it's not just speculation, it's logic

[Obtena.7952]

@MetalGirl.2370 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@MetalGirl.2370 said:That they shouldn't charge for it but make more cosmetics and charge for those instead and content. They'd earn far more that way even.

You don't know that ... it's just your speculation. Why should they all the sudden not charge for features? That's a fallacy to think that because they offer something for free, people will spend more on cosmetic items. That doesn't even make sense.

Because you can only buy so many templates and once you do, you don't give them any more money, while cosmetics keep coming and you keep buying... so no it's not just speculation, it's logic

That doesn't make sense. Nothing stops a person from spending more money after they buy templates. They can buy cosmetics and templates as they wish ... or anything else in the GS. Why would anyone NOT buy cosmetic items they wanted if they purchased some templates? Anet already HAS quantity-based features that are offered side by side with cosmetics on the GS in the exact same way templates will be for 7 years ... yet somehow people still manage to purchase cosmetic items and these quantity-based features . You can't be right because there is nothing exceptional about templates in this regard.

[Dalec.9853]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@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. 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.

Player demand isn't compelling (as long as there is money to be made)? Strange argument, ...

No it's not ... there is lots of things that Anet shouldn't do, even if players want it. Business decisions are not only about giving customers what they want. That's not a sustainable decision making approach. This is actually a really great example, because some players think we should get this for free. That doesn't make sense. Giving away features for free is not a sustainable business practice. People that think they should get this for free need some real Judgement of Solomon style reality check.

You know the best part ... you're willing to get character slots, but somehow THIS feature is somehow an affront to you .... even though they are BOTH the same kind of feature being offered in the SAME way ... you should think about that for a minute and how it destroys your credibility.

You don't understand still I guess as you totally misread or misunderstood or ignored everything I have said to focus on single lines or words

You're deciding things for me that are not the case, I was willing to get character slots, bag slots, and would have purchased these templates extra as well if it were earlier, even though I was unhappy with the game being B2P but with F2P style unlocks, and I heavily dislike the game going the full F2P and extra MTX route even more - I'm not sure how you don't understand what my overall point is even if you DON'T AGREE, you don't have to, you're welcome to your own opinion.The game quality is declining, game modes are seemingly abandoned and the free content is either awful, short and artificially extended with low drop rates or both depending on the release - better content is something I'd really like to pay for, in whatever form it comes, so I'm disappointed by this feature being limited when viewed in the context of how weak the game seems to be right now - as it gives the impression to me and some others that the only thing they are interested in now is how to go full F2P model+MTX everything and making things gambling exclusive (e.g. the Starborn Outfit), rather than extending the life of the game anymore and reviving dead game modes like WvW

Giving away features for free is not a sustainable business practice. People that think they should get this for free need some real Judgement of Solomon style reality check.Giving away CONTENT and the server uptime as it's an MMO is the thing that is not a sustainable business practice, features in the UI/Game are there to enhance the game experience they are not the thing you actually play and enjoy. But the development of that content has to be paid for somehow, features useful to the game are limited, that funding slows down and runs out once the people that want the features fully unlocked have done so, templates are limited in how many you can buy, extra bag slots are limited, bank tabs, even character slots, shared slots - more things to play (or wear/change/mount in the case of cosmetics) is the only thing that has continuing and sustained demand

[Obtena.7952]

@Dalec.9853 said:Giving away CONTENT and the server uptime as it's an MMO is the thing that is not a sustainable business practice, features in the UI/Game are there to enhance the game experience they are not the thing you actually play and enjoy. But the development of that content has to be paid for somehow, features useful to the game are limited, that funding slows down and runs out once the people that want the features fully unlocked have done so, templates are limited in how many you can buy, extra bag slots are limited, bank tabs, even character slots, shared slots - more things to play (or wear/change/mount in the case of cosmetics) is the only thing that has continuing and sustained demand

Obviously that's not the case ... Anet has been doing it for years now. You see the problem is that you speak like you got Anet's financials in front of you ... you don't. You can't say these things and be credible ... it's pure speculation. If Anet couldn't make a go of this business model, they would have abandoned it years ago.

In fact, I'm willing to speculate that they dumped expansions because the ROI was low compared to selling individual items/features on the GS. No business makes that kind of decision unless they think there is a benefit for themselves.

[Dalec.9853]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:Giving away CONTENT and the server uptime as it's an MMO is the thing that is not a sustainable business practice, features in the UI/Game are there to enhance the game experience they are not the thing you actually play and enjoy. But the development of that content has to be paid for somehow, features useful to the game are limited, that funding slows down and runs out once the people that want the features fully unlocked have done so, templates are limited in how many you can buy, extra bag slots are limited, bank tabs, even character slots, shared slots - more things to play (or wear/change/mount in the case of cosmetics) is the only thing that has continuing and sustained demand

Obviously that's not the case ... Anet has been doing it for years now.

You mean the years where they were selling content (expansions) and filling the gemstore with cosmetics? the things I'd like to see? Yeah the game was doing great then!

[Obtena.7952]

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:Giving away CONTENT and the server uptime as it's an MMO is the thing that is not a sustainable business practice, features in the UI/Game are there to enhance the game experience they are not the thing you actually play and enjoy. But the development of that content has to be paid for somehow, features useful to the game are limited, that funding slows down and runs out once the people that want the features fully unlocked have done so, templates are limited in how many you can buy, extra bag slots are limited, bank tabs, even character slots, shared slots - more things to play (or wear/change/mount in the case of cosmetics) is the only thing that has continuing and sustained demand

Obviously that's not the case ... Anet has been doing it for years now.

You mean the years where they were selling content (expansions) and filling the gemstore with cosmetics? the things I'd like to see? Yeah the game was doing great then!

Like I said .. you have no idea what Anet's financials are, so don't present your ideas like you are the authority on them.

[Dalec.9853]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:Giving away CONTENT and the server uptime as it's an MMO is the thing that is not a sustainable business practice, features in the UI/Game are there to enhance the game experience they are not the thing you actually play and enjoy. But the development of that content has to be paid for somehow, features useful to the game are limited, that funding slows down and runs out once the people that want the features fully unlocked have done so, templates are limited in how many you can buy, extra bag slots are limited, bank tabs, even character slots, shared slots - more things to play (or wear/change/mount in the case of cosmetics) is the only thing that has continuing and sustained demand

Obviously that's not the case ... Anet has been doing it for years now.

You mean the years where they were selling content (expansions) and filling the gemstore with cosmetics? the things I'd like to see? Yeah the game was doing great then!

Like I said .. you have no idea what Anet's financials are, so don't present your ideas like you are the authority on them.

I'm sure all the staff let go are happy with your belief that their financials are good! I mean it's catching up to Aion in the race to be NCSofts lowest earning game so I guess that means everything is on track

[Obtena.7952]

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:Giving away CONTENT and the server uptime as it's an MMO is the thing that is not a sustainable business practice, features in the UI/Game are there to enhance the game experience they are not the thing you actually play and enjoy. But the development of that content has to be paid for somehow, features useful to the game are limited, that funding slows down and runs out once the people that want the features fully unlocked have done so, templates are limited in how many you can buy, extra bag slots are limited, bank tabs, even character slots, shared slots - more things to play (or wear/change/mount in the case of cosmetics) is the only thing that has continuing and sustained demand

Obviously that's not the case ... Anet has been doing it for years now.

You mean the years where they were selling content (expansions) and filling the gemstore with cosmetics? the things I'd like to see? Yeah the game was doing great then!

Like I said .. you have no idea what Anet's financials are, so don't present your ideas like you are the authority on them.

I'm sure all the staff let go are happy with your belief that their financials are good! I mean it's catching up to Aion in the race to be NCSofts lowest earning game so I guess that means everything is on track

Let's get back to the point here ... you don't know the financials, so when you speculate that it would be best for Anet to change their business model so you get free stuff ... that's nonsense.

[Dalec.9853]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:Giving away CONTENT and the server uptime as it's an MMO is the thing that is not a sustainable business practice, features in the UI/Game are there to enhance the game experience they are not the thing you actually play and enjoy. But the development of that content has to be paid for somehow, features useful to the game are limited, that funding slows down and runs out once the people that want the features fully unlocked have done so, templates are limited in how many you can buy, extra bag slots are limited, bank tabs, even character slots, shared slots - more things to play (or wear/change/mount in the case of cosmetics) is the only thing that has continuing and sustained demand

Obviously that's not the case ... Anet has been doing it for years now.

You mean the years where they were selling content (expansions) and filling the gemstore with cosmetics? the things I'd like to see? Yeah the game was doing great then!

Like I said .. you have no idea what Anet's financials are, so don't present your ideas like you are the authority on them.

I'm sure all the staff let go are happy with your belief that their financials are good! I mean it's catching up to Aion in the race to be NCSofts lowest earning game so I guess that means everything is on track

Let's get back to the point here ... you don't know the financials, so when you speculate that it would be best for Anet to change their business model so you get free stuff ... that's nonsense.

I want to pay more for the game overall and in a more sustainable way involving something that has continued fresh demand rather than limited (as in there literally being a limit of how much of each of these unlocks you can purchase), so the only thing that makes no sense is saying I just want 'free stuff' as that is twisting my words and invalid completely.

I don't know exactly, but NCSoft earnings per game are released quarterly and show GW2 dropping and again... the company literally had a huge amount of staff booted out - I guess that was a reward for doing so well?

[Obtena.7952]

@Dalec.9853 said:I want to pay more for the game overall and in a more sustainable way involving something that has continued fresh demand rather than limited (as in there literally being a limit of how much of each of these unlocks you can purchase), so the only thing that makes no sense is saying I just want 'free stuff' as that is twisting my words and invalid completely.

I don't know exactly, but NCSoft earnings per game are released quarterly and show GW2 dropping and again... the company literally had a huge amount of staff booted out - I guess that was a reward for doing so well?

That's nice ... but the fact remains how you think the business should work based on what you want and whatever crystal ball you are using isn't a compelling reason to adjust how they do things. If Anet's business model doesn't work, they change it. We can see that with how they are approaching expansions now. They didn't delay (or whatever they are doing) expansion because they want to fail and make less money ... so think about that. If they are offering goods and services on the GS of whatever types they offer, it's because that works for them. If it doesn't work them, they change it. We've seen it happen.

[Dalec.9853]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:I want to pay more for the game overall and in a more sustainable way involving something that has continued fresh demand rather than limited (as in there literally being a limit of how much of each of these unlocks you can purchase), so the only thing that makes no sense is saying I just want 'free stuff' as that is twisting my words and invalid completely.

I don't know exactly, but NCSoft earnings per game are released quarterly and show GW2 dropping and again... the company literally had a huge amount of staff booted out - I guess that was a reward for doing so well?

That's nice ... but the fact remains how you think the business should work based on what you want and whatever crystal ball you are using isn't a compelling reason to adjust how they do things. If Anet's business model doesn't work, they change it. We can see that with how they are approaching expansions now. They didn't delay (or whatever they are doing) expansion because they want to fail and make less money ... so think about that. If they are offering goods and services on the GS of whatever types they offer, it's because that works for them. If it doesn't work them, they change it. We've seen it happen.

Then I guess the sacked staff got what was deserved if Anet think this is the path to go now - of course ArenaNet need less staff for a game on its way to maintenance mode

@Obtena.7952I don't see where they have@Obtena.7952We've seen it happen.... I give up

[Obtena.7952]

@Dalec.9853 said:... I give up

See, here is my big problem with your idea ... it's not new ... it's exactly what Anet has been doing for 7 years ... they offer all the things you say you want to pay for IN ADDITION to charging for features you say they shouldn't.

Now let's follow this through .. you claim based on your awesome knowledge of their financials they aren't doing well ... OK let's assume that's true ... but they did all the things you are suggesting IN ADDITION to charging for features you say they should not be charging for ... and you're solution to fixing what's wrong is to STOP charging for the features. So basically, just cut some revenue.

yeah, you really got the answers here ... GG.

[Dalec.9853]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:... I give up

they offer all the things you say you want to pay for IN ADDITION to charging for features you say they shouldn't.

But they are not offering them anymore, I wouldn't even care much about this, the gambling etc just like I didn't care about the similar things at the start of the game if they were still offering greater amounts of content and cosmetics releases at a cost. To be honest I don't even care about it so much now, I only have disappointment in the decline in the game overall now

[Obtena.7952]

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:... I give up

they offer all the things you say you want to pay for IN ADDITION to charging for features you say they shouldn't.

But they are not offering them anymore, I wouldn't even care much about this, the gambling etc just like I didn't care about the similar things at the start of the game if they were still offering greater amounts of content and cosmetics releases at a cost. To be honest I don't even care about it so much now, I only have disappointment in the decline in the game overall now

Hold on ... your idea is what Anet has been doing for 7 years ... IN ADDITION to selling features ... yet according to you, that doesn't work. So you're suggesting to fix the problems you see with their business model is to continue doing what they do with the exception of making features free.

I'm going to give you an opportunity to see what that makes zero sense.

[Dalec.9853]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:... I give up

they offer all the things you say you want to pay for IN ADDITION to charging for features you say they shouldn't.

But they are not offering them anymore, I wouldn't even care much about this, the gambling etc just like I didn't care about the similar things at the start of the game if they were still offering greater amounts of content and cosmetics releases at a cost. To be honest I don't even care about it so much now, I only have disappointment in the decline in the game overall now

Hold on ... your idea is what Anet has been doing for 7 years ... IN ADDITION to selling features ... yet according to you, that doesn't work. So you're suggesting to fix the problems you see with their business model is to continue doing what they do with the exception of making features free.

I'm going to give you an opportunity to see what that makes zero sense.

Oh stop being a gormless fool; they WERE doing, but not anymore, do you think I'd care if they had actually continued as it were? No, I even said so.

[Obtena.7952]

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:... I give up

they offer all the things you say you want to pay for IN ADDITION to charging for features you say they shouldn't.

But they are not offering them anymore, I wouldn't even care much about this, the gambling etc just like I didn't care about the similar things at the start of the game if they were still offering greater amounts of content and cosmetics releases at a cost. To be honest I don't even care about it so much now, I only have disappointment in the decline in the game overall now

Hold on ... your idea is what Anet has been doing for 7 years ... IN ADDITION to selling features ... yet according to you, that doesn't work. So you're suggesting to fix the problems you see with their business model is to continue doing what they do with the exception of making features free.

I'm going to give you an opportunity to see what that makes zero sense.

Oh stop being a gormless fool; they WERE doing, but not anymore, do you think I'd care if they had actually continued as it were? No, I even said so.

No hold on, you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying ...

What you are suggesting they do into the future is less revenue that what they were doing during a time you claim they were failing. So how is what you are suggesting a solution?

You are literally suggesting they cut revenue streams ... and somehow that fixes their business model problem of declining profits. That makes no sense.

[Dalec.9853]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dalec.9853 said:... I give up

they offer all the things you say you want to pay for IN ADDITION to charging for features you say they shouldn't.

But they are not offering them anymore, I wouldn't even care much about this, the gambling etc just like I didn't care about the similar things at the start of the game if they were still offering greater amounts of content and cosmetics releases at a cost. To be honest I don't even care about it so much now, I only have disappointment in the decline in the game overall now

Hold on ... your idea is what Anet has been doing for 7 years ... IN ADDITION to selling features ... yet according to you, that doesn't work. So you're suggesting to fix the problems you see with their business model is to continue doing what they do with the exception of making features free.

I'm going to give you an opportunity to see what that makes zero sense.

Oh stop being a gormless fool; they WERE doing, but not anymore, do you think I'd care if they had actually continued as it were? No, I even said so.

No hold on, you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying ...

What you are suggesting they do into the future is less revenue that what they were doing during a time you claim they were failing. So how that is that solution?

You are literally suggesting they cut revenue streams ... and somehow that fixes their business model problem of declining profits. That makes no sense.

No I think the game is currently failing, and I wouldn't have a problem with what they were doing enough to care about it - as it is one of those revenue streams HAS been cut, the wrong one....the content, the thing we actually play and aim to have fun in, I hope?

You're the one not paying attention, to anything said. There is no point in continuing this further, since all you are capable of is replying to something that isn't actually what I'm saying. I'll believe in the old saying about not arguing with an idiot now and learn that lesson. Thanks.