Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Please lock or delete the thread is derailed to how the gem to gold conversion works


Recommended Posts

I wonder if this is a soft release and that more templates will be released for free later on after they make sure this whole thing doesn't break coding in that that someone imputing a build and doing something like consuming a primer before switching to it breaks it in a way that boons never disappear, remaining fully stacked and people exploit the piss out of it or it breaks something else like it won't let you do elite builds. I mean, they put in the casino token consume all and had to hot fix it so it would consume all the tokens and not just one. Just cause coding plays nice on the test side doesn't mean it'll behave when it's live. I remember when the first MMO I played had a simple translation error occur in the coding and suddenly everyone had access to GM commands and were banning people, awarding themselves rare items, etc. So even if it's the same engine as GW1, I can still see being tentative about adding too much pepper to the pot.

Though I'm someone who won't be using it except for maybe having a fractal build and that'd be it as I mostly just main one toon and the rest are storage/prof achievement slaves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Bloodstealer.5978 said:

@Dante.1508 said:Since taking a 4 year break its insane how much mobile style gaming has been added to this, it feels terrible and not enjoyable at all.. I guess others don't notice because they have been here the whole time to get used to it.. But wow it feels tacked on and nothing like other mmo's i've played..

Money is one thing ruining game flow to get money and to artificially gate customers is another thing entirely.

Money has always been a thing of need within gaming, we all just got used to shelling out subs all those years.ANET dared to be different and for a long time it worked, but times change, products get older and new things cost.. so it is imperative the business finds new ways to combat mother time and keep making money in order to develop the product further and/or development something new.As for time gating.. heck that is as old as the arc in terms of MMO's.. time gating is used primarily to provide oxygen in the development cycle. We gamers want content and we want it yesterday.. I wish it could work within JIT space but that just isn't going to happen when you consider just how fast we can tear through content these days.There is a reason expansions take years to develop, test and launch.. money and through that development cycle they have to make money in order to spend money, otherwise ANET would have to continually keep holding out the prayer pot to shareholders.. that might work for awhile, but it only goes so far and the slightest hitch in the revenue stream can have profound effects on your viability. So ANET have to look at ways to support not just its own financial viability long term, but that of NCSoft as well and that is no mean feat.Even at the cost to customers and limiting the games life span..

Link to post
Share on other sites

@miraude.2107 said:I wonder if this is a soft release and that more templates will be released for free later on after they make sure this whole thing doesn't break coding in that that someone imputing a build and doing something like consuming a primer before switching to it breaks it in a way that boons never disappear, remaining fully stacked and people exploit the kitten out of it or it breaks something else like it won't let you do elite builds.If that was it, they would introduce small amount for free, and then slowly keep increasing it. Instead, they decided to go for full monetization. So yes, there might be more slot unlocks coming later (like more slot unlocks for bank tabs eventually appeared), but those definitely won't be free. Not if the people will pay for the initial ones anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:@"Vancho.8750" You should know game companies, just like every other business, need to make money to survive and grow if “you work in that part of the industry”. Or do you happen to work for free with a company that gives everything for free?

I dont think anyone is asking for free stuff. Just a more tasteful business model.

“Tasteful”? You mean the “business model” that doesn’t charge a monthly user fee and allows players to get gems for free to buy stuff off the gemstore by exchanging game gold. That one? And the one where non-pay to-win and convenience items are sold on the gemstore?

Yeah, the one that had doubled the gemstore updates while all other areas have slowed down, the one that has pushed lootboxes/gambling predatory tactics now harder than it ever had, the one that falsly advertises chairs then changes the art after ppl have bought said chairs and complained. The one that tied cooking 500 to the gemstore and now has split and monetised build templates in 3 diff ways. The one that you will have a much better time playing the game if you fork over some cash to buy the necessary qol (because if you are a new player all the best farms are money gated to you and farming without bags and salvage omatics is hell). The one that god forbit would lose out on a mount or a glider being a drop from a raid, dungeon, world boss, fractal, pvp or wvw as oposed to charging for it.

And finally that one which sold you the 30 mount lootbox and then 100smth dollar bundle to get them all.

I personally consider the business model anet has to be better than that of other devs but still theres alot to be desired and alot that leave a sour taste in my mouth.

So what you are saying is that you don’t understand how a business works, particularly an online game business.

How do you suppose Anet make money to pay staff, bills, taxes, health benefits and continue to develop the game? Let me guess, by growing money trees?

Do you also think there to be magical coding fairies that create everything overnight while the staff are sleeping?

Edit- You don’t pay a monthly fee to play and you can get gems by exchanging gold so you can get anything off the gemstore... yet you are still complaining about optional stuff being on the gemstore... silly.

I don't know about the magical coding fairies but I'm pretty sure the actual coders only see a pitiful fraction of those gem store profits.

The same coders who are being laid off because the seemingly satisfactory earnings are not enough to satisfy a shareholder's greed.

The same coders who are getting burnt out working crunch, while execs who haven't played a game their whole life enjoy the fruits of their labor. Check out wage distribution in the gaming industry, particularly AAA studios. The data is really interesting.

That's how an online gaming business works. And if this game had a monthly fee, the store would still be there and just as annoying. No need for delusions.

What I find silly is supporting a business built on anti-consumer practices while being a consumer yourself. And doing so while arguing it's all for the benefit of the poor devs. "Gotta pay the bills". If the arguement was "gotta pay an exec's new yacht", it would be far more legitimate.

So go complain to NCsoft, right?

In a sense, I am. I'm not seeing a distinction at this point. I'd wager Anet and NCwest are practically the same thing at the top level. At least when it comes to decision-making over monetization and how the game is developed around it.

Nobody blames coders and artists, the actual game devs, for monetization decisions.

Except you'd be wrong in your assumption...until the layoffs ArenaNet had complete control over the game, including the Gem Shop, marketing, sales and distribution...and based on statements made from NCSoft West around the time of the layoffs the only thing that change is that NCSoft is taking over publishing from ArenaNet, everything else is still under their control, which is why they have a marketing team and Gem Store people that you contact for problems in the first place.

I guess you missed the "practically" part.

It's common knowledge that publishers have considerable pull over development in the industry today. It's not even that recent, I remember an editorial from Kotaku in 2013 with a developer source detailing the abusive relationship.

In our case we are not even talking about a simple developer-publisher relationship, but a parent-subsidiary one on top of that. A parent company that enforced a major restructuring of the subsidiary and a merger with their western publishing branch. Their PR can spin it however they want, but it doesn't take much to put two and two together. All one has to do to see NCsoft's growing influence over the years, is compare the gem store of early years with today's. As long as they are willing to see.

Big publishers are often major investors. In our case they actually own the studio. The publisher doesn't even have to intervene directly in development. More often than not, developers know what's expected by the higher ups and act accordingly.

EA never explicitly asked Bioware to make a live-service looter shooter. But Bioware management knew too well that EA prefers live service trends over single-player story-driven games. So they made a live-service looter shooter in Anthem and majorly sucked at it.

Actually, EA did explicitly tell BioWare to make a live service game...just what do you think saying "we want you to make a game like Destiny" tells a studio?

As a long time ArenaNet follower(like since the early days when it was called Triforge, Inc., before they got involved with NCSoft) and as someone that has is own opinion, which these are, they're our opinions of what is happening at ArenaNet, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and see what happens before making any judgments. I still think it's foolish for any business to try and not attract the 3 Billion mobile game market to the PC, seeing as the projected revenue for mobile gaming is expected to be almost $70 billion for 2019, imagine what a company could do with just $1b of that $70b in revenue.

EA did no such thing. It was Bioware's choice to go for a Destiny clone (even if the project didn't start with that intention). Of course they knew EA pushes for the live-service model and chose to try and satisfy their corporate masters.

You are right, from a business perspective, it makes sense to try and tap into the lucrative mobile market by copying some of their money-making schemes.

But I'm not a business, I'm a player/consumer. And as such, I know that mobile gaming is synonymous with exploitative practices, low investment for max return, lack of quality control and full of money grabbing scams.

A shareholder who just got involved with gaming because they smelled profit, would salivate at the prospect of turning the PC market into an imitation of that toxic cesspool. As a gamer since the mid 90s, I can only see it as a nightmarish future and the death of my favourite hobby. And from the looks of it (this game included), that future is not that distant.

I'll repeat what I said previously, EA was behind the choice to have BioWare make a game like Destiny, not BioWare...that was implicit instructions from Redwood City(Redwood Shores), CA, Casey Hudson said as much himself when he was rehired.

I've been gaming since the 90's as well, so I fully understand where you're coming from when it comes to the consumer/player side of the PC gaming, but I'm also a realist and know that the business side almost always wins unless the consumer/player side can manage to convince the businesses that it would be detrimental to their industry(i.e. - loss of income/profit) to gravitate towards the mobile way of making games. Unfortunately I don't think we have sufficient power to change the direction, unless people start to stop supporting this direction...and when you have whales, of which the vast majority of the people who spend the money on mobile games are moving towards PC gaming(PC gaming has it's own whales too) we're fighting a losing battle, so I'd suggest trying to find a way to minimize the growth of mobile tactics being used in PC games instead of downright elimination of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Acheron.4731 said:They could make real content people are happy to pay for?

Good idea! They should charge for every update too!

lol, i sense your sarcasm. o7No, what I am saying is that the game is BTP..updates are included in that but make a worthwhile expansion and people will happily pay.But if you are just gonna go LWSagas and nickel and dime everything in b/w it is not gonna go over well.You know they could do better...everyone knows they can do better. I am just waiting for them to show it.

And what are your better ways to monetize the game?

Lets start with a more functional spending plan and roadmap for the company and then we can talk about what is or isn't a feasible revenue system

What people are willing to pay depends almost entirely on whether they think it's worth it.

People will spend $30 on mount skins if they think the money is going toward game development and not just more DLC

People will spend $10 on an outfit if the game they are playing that outfit in is engaging and fun

They aren't going to spend that money if all they have to look forward to is never ending overworld zerg gold grind to purchase more content from the gemstore

There's a reason FateGO prints money while other games with the same monetization schemes are virtually unknown outside of AsiaThere's a reason WoW is still going strong while other $15 a month games fell by the wayside

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zaklex.6308 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:@"Vancho.8750" You should know game companies, just like every other business, need to make money to survive and grow if “you work in that part of the industry”. Or do you happen to work for free with a company that gives everything for free?

I dont think anyone is asking for free stuff. Just a more tasteful business model.

“Tasteful”? You mean the “business model” that doesn’t charge a monthly user fee and allows players to get gems for free to buy stuff off the gemstore by exchanging game gold. That one? And the one where non-pay to-win and convenience items are sold on the gemstore?

Yeah, the one that had doubled the gemstore updates while all other areas have slowed down, the one that has pushed lootboxes/gambling predatory tactics now harder than it ever had, the one that falsly advertises chairs then changes the art after ppl have bought said chairs and complained. The one that tied cooking 500 to the gemstore and now has split and monetised build templates in 3 diff ways. The one that you will have a much better time playing the game if you fork over some cash to buy the necessary qol (because if you are a new player all the best farms are money gated to you and farming without bags and salvage omatics is hell). The one that god forbit would lose out on a mount or a glider being a drop from a raid, dungeon, world boss, fractal, pvp or wvw as oposed to charging for it.

And finally that one which sold you the 30 mount lootbox and then 100smth dollar bundle to get them all.

I personally consider the business model anet has to be better than that of other devs but still theres alot to be desired and alot that leave a sour taste in my mouth.

So what you are saying is that you don’t understand how a business works, particularly an online game business.

How do you suppose Anet make money to pay staff, bills, taxes, health benefits and continue to develop the game? Let me guess, by growing money trees?

Do you also think there to be magical coding fairies that create everything overnight while the staff are sleeping?

Edit- You don’t pay a monthly fee to play and you can get gems by exchanging gold so you can get anything off the gemstore... yet you are still complaining about optional stuff being on the gemstore... silly.

I don't know about the magical coding fairies but I'm pretty sure the actual coders only see a pitiful fraction of those gem store profits.

The same coders who are being laid off because the seemingly satisfactory earnings are not enough to satisfy a shareholder's greed.

The same coders who are getting burnt out working crunch, while execs who haven't played a game their whole life enjoy the fruits of their labor. Check out wage distribution in the gaming industry, particularly AAA studios. The data is really interesting.

That's how an online gaming business works. And if this game had a monthly fee, the store would still be there and just as annoying. No need for delusions.

What I find silly is supporting a business built on anti-consumer practices while being a consumer yourself. And doing so while arguing it's all for the benefit of the poor devs. "Gotta pay the bills". If the arguement was "gotta pay an exec's new yacht", it would be far more legitimate.

So go complain to NCsoft, right?

In a sense, I am. I'm not seeing a distinction at this point. I'd wager Anet and NCwest are practically the same thing at the top level. At least when it comes to decision-making over monetization and how the game is developed around it.

Nobody blames coders and artists, the actual game devs, for monetization decisions.

Except you'd be wrong in your assumption...until the layoffs ArenaNet had complete control over the game, including the Gem Shop, marketing, sales and distribution...and based on statements made from NCSoft West around the time of the layoffs the only thing that change is that NCSoft is taking over publishing from ArenaNet, everything else is still under their control, which is why they have a marketing team and Gem Store people that you contact for problems in the first place.

I guess you missed the "practically" part.

It's common knowledge that publishers have considerable pull over development in the industry today. It's not even that recent, I remember an editorial from Kotaku in 2013 with a developer source detailing the abusive relationship.

In our case we are not even talking about a simple developer-publisher relationship, but a parent-subsidiary one on top of that. A parent company that enforced a major restructuring of the subsidiary and a merger with their western publishing branch. Their PR can spin it however they want, but it doesn't take much to put two and two together. All one has to do to see NCsoft's growing influence over the years, is compare the gem store of early years with today's. As long as they are willing to see.

Big publishers are often major investors. In our case they actually own the studio. The publisher doesn't even have to intervene directly in development. More often than not, developers know what's expected by the higher ups and act accordingly.

EA never explicitly asked Bioware to make a live-service looter shooter. But Bioware management knew too well that EA prefers live service trends over single-player story-driven games. So they made a live-service looter shooter in Anthem and majorly sucked at it.

Actually, EA did explicitly tell BioWare to make a live service game...just what do you think saying "we want you to make a game like Destiny" tells a studio?

As a long time ArenaNet follower(like since the early days when it was called Triforge, Inc., before they got involved with NCSoft) and as someone that has is own opinion, which these are, they're our opinions of what is happening at ArenaNet, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and see what happens before making any judgments. I still think it's foolish for any business to try and not attract the 3 Billion mobile game market to the PC, seeing as the projected revenue for mobile gaming is expected to be almost $70 billion for 2019, imagine what a company could do with just $1b of that $70b in revenue.

EA did no such thing. It was Bioware's choice to go for a Destiny clone (even if the project didn't start with that intention). Of course they knew EA pushes for the live-service model and chose to try and satisfy their corporate masters.

You are right, from a business perspective, it makes sense to try and tap into the lucrative mobile market by copying some of their money-making schemes.

But I'm not a business, I'm a player/consumer. And as such, I know that mobile gaming is synonymous with exploitative practices, low investment for max return, lack of quality control and full of money grabbing scams.

A shareholder who just got involved with gaming because they smelled profit, would salivate at the prospect of turning the PC market into an imitation of that toxic cesspool. As a gamer since the mid 90s, I can only see it as a nightmarish future and the death of my favourite hobby. And from the looks of it (this game included), that future is not that distant.

I'll repeat what I said previously, EA was behind the choice to have BioWare make a game like Destiny, not BioWare...that was implicit instructions from Redwood City(Redwood Shores), CA, Casey Hudson said as much himself when he was rehired.

I've been gaming since the 90's as well, so I fully understand where you're coming from when it comes to the consumer/player side of the PC gaming, but I'm also a realist and know that the business side almost always wins unless the consumer/player side can manage to convince the businesses that it would be detrimental to their industry(i.e. - loss of income/profit) to gravitate towards the mobile way of making games. Unfortunately I don't think we have sufficient power to change the direction, unless people start to stop supporting this direction...and when you have whales, of which the vast majority of the people who spend the money on mobile games are moving towards PC gaming(PC gaming has it's own whales too) we're fighting a losing battle, so I'd suggest trying to find a way to minimize the growth of mobile tactics being used in PC games instead of downright elimination of them.

That's slightly off topic so I won't elaborate much but I'm pretty sure Hudson was still covered by NDA during his "break". I'm taking my info from Schreier's recent inside scoops. They detailed how development changed over time to that of a Destiny-clone, even if management avoided the term.

Now back on topic, to Anet and their growing love of mobile tactics, I consider myself a realist too. And as such, I agree some things are inevitable because money talks.

Although I do believe, in the age of information and social media, consumers have more power than they realize. Of course it takes good timing, a loud and dedicated fanbase and a "cause" worthy of mainstream media attention, but industry greed can be pushed back with enough noise. Battlefront is a prime example of that and we even have our own cases here. It was mostly Anet sweetening the deal a bit than full backtracking but still.

I also agree that "voting with your wallet" doesn't work. This is not a democracy and my wallet is insignificant compared to a whale's "voting power". Still dolphins and minnows could prove a point if they ever were organized, something that seems highly improbable.

I can only think of one thing that can fight this spreading of mobile model to all aspects of gaming. And that's their own greed.

GW2 has gone from something very unique at launch, to something increasingly desperate for my money. A trait that's not unique at all in today's MMO business. If the trend continues, I can see it becoming yet another NCsoft property, full with scammy mobile tactics and all. Making it one of many. How long until this industry reaches saturation point with all similar properties competing? The average player's spending power is finite and no business can stay alive long term, only focusing on whales. Even luxury car brands are in financial trouble.

On top of that, there are signs of bubble bursting. Mobile gaming has caused rapid growth. This causes suits to demand the same in all of gaming, copypasting the same model in console and PC. AAA studios are struggling to keep up with their own growth. Activision has huge layoffs because their best ever year was still considered unsatisfactory. EA is trembling at the thought of widespread lootbox bans because a huge chunk of their earnings comes from fifa packs. And of course, Anet layoffs, indicative of NCsoft's dissatisfaction to what seemed to be good financial performance (other project was just one of the reasons). Just a few cases in what seems to be a troubled year for the industry. The whole thing stinks of unsustainability and to me, it's just a matter of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly feel sad for the gamers of today playing with this sort of Make money system.I am an older gamer from way back. I remember a time when you purchased a game for a set price and played for hours upon hours enjoying it.Yes, games are bigger today and more complex. I would rather pay a one time fee of say $120 US than to be bled dry. Most of these companies today don't even release full functioning games. Instead they break parts of it up and resell it to you. Take Call of Duty for instance they will release a game with about 9 maps knowing they made 20. Than sell you the remaining 11 in small bundles, some of which are remakes of old maps, and don't even get me started on the weapons.Don't take it wrong but many of today's publishers were around then Activision/EA 2 of the worst Money grab greed companies out today.Even back then when paying a one time price these companies made money, Hell they are still around today because of it.All this Micro transaction stuff is nothing more than Greed!

I now find myself sticking to games and studios the uphold the old ways like CDPR. One fee whole game unless an Xpac is released!Yes I'm on a guild Wars 2 forum they are doing the same as above, Yes I still play once every 3 months for the nostalgia of GW1 and the story, nothing more..The rest of the game isn't that interesting to me..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just commenting on the NCSoft bit. I know it has a bad reputation and all but if it weren't for NCSoft telling ANet to wake up, GW2 would be close to maintenance mode.

On the gemstore thing, I said it in another thread and someone already said it here.If they want money do xpacs.Crippling your own game so you can sell the band-aid are garbage tactics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Vancho.8750" said:And yet i can smell that smelly smell of mobile game design. Now that i think about it the khan ur helmets seem like something that is done where i work to get more people to shell out cash for potentially worthless things that are artificially hard to get. My concern here is that this is way too obvious and lazy implementation and if people don't poke and prod about it, the design goal post will be moved little by little in a worse direction with the excuse that is "how it was working from before".

It's how GW2 players have been conditioned over the years. Admitting that is something most can't accept.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what are your better ways to monetize the game?

Lets start with a more functional spending plan and roadmap for the company and then we can talk about what is or isn't a feasible revenue system

What people are willing to pay depends almost entirely on whether they think it's worth it.

People will spend $30 on mount skins if they think the money is going toward game development and not just more DLC

People will spend $10 on an outfit if the game they are playing that outfit in is engaging and fun

They aren't going to spend that money if all they have to look forward to is never ending overworld zerg gold grind to purchase more content from the gemstore

There's a reason FateGO prints money while other games with the same monetization schemes are virtually unknown outside of AsiaThere's a reason WoW is still going strong while other $15 a month games fell by the wayside

This is mostly opinions being represented as facts.I will pay $30 for am ount if I like the look of them ount, I do not care what they do with the money at all, never even crosses my mind. The same goes for any outfit.I play this game solely for the purpose of open world PvE, any instanced content is not content for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Substance E.4852 said:

Lets start with a more functional spending plan and roadmap for the company and then we can talk about what is or isn't a feasible revenue system

What people are willing to pay depends almost entirely on whether they think it's worth it.

People will spend $30 on mount skins if they think the money is going toward game development and not just more DLC

People will spend $10 on an outfit if the game they are playing that outfit in is engaging and fun

They aren't going to spend that money if all they have to look forward to is never ending overworld zerg gold grind to purchase more content from the gemstore

There's a reason FateGO prints money while other games with the same monetization schemes are virtually unknown outside of AsiaThere's a reason WoW is still going strong while other $15 a month games fell by the wayside

I disagree with this line of thinking. Playing a computer game should not be viewed as an investment. Any money spent should be considered for the entertainment value of it at the time of spending it. Whether or not that money goes toward one thing or another ought to be irrelevant. Seems to me that this is pretty much GW2 status quo as they keep making gem store items and people keep buying them and playing the game.

/me shrugs

Link to post
Share on other sites

@kharmin.7683 said:I disagree with this line of thinking. Playing a computer game should not be viewed as an investment. Any money spent should be considered for the entertainment value of it at the time of spending it.

In that case 90% of the gemshop is way overpriced. The only argument for things costing as much as they do is if they fund more than what we receive directly by buying them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:I disagree with this line of thinking. Playing a computer game should not be viewed as an investment. Any money spent should be considered for the entertainment value of it at the time of spending it.

In that case 90% of the gemshop is way overpriced. The only argument for things costing as much as they do is if they fund more than what we receive directly by buying them.

Items in the gem shop are only as valuable as the buyer perceives them. If 90% of the gem shop were priced too high, then players wouldn't pay it.

There are very few things I've actually bought gems for (instead of gold -> gem) because I don't agree with the prices. Fortunately, there is nothing in the gem shop that is required to play the game

Link to post
Share on other sites

@kharmin.7683 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:I disagree with this line of thinking. Playing a computer game should not be viewed as an investment. Any money spent should be considered for the entertainment value of it at the time of spending it.

In that case 90% of the gemshop is way overpriced. The only argument for things costing as much as they do is if they fund more than what we receive directly by buying them.

Items in the gem shop are only as valuable as the buyer perceives them. If 90% of the gem shop were priced too high, then players wouldn't pay it.

It's perfectly possible for the vast majority of a playerbase to perceive an item as overpriced, only to be irrelevant because a select few have enough spending power to make it a commercial success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:I disagree with this line of thinking. Playing a computer game should not be viewed as an investment. Any money spent should be considered for the entertainment value of it at the time of spending it.

In that case 90% of the gemshop is way overpriced. The only argument for things costing as much as they do is if they fund more than what we receive directly by buying them.

Items in the gem shop are only as valuable as the buyer perceives them. If 90% of the gem shop were priced too high, then players wouldn't pay it.

It's perfectly possible for the vast majority of a playerbase to perceive an item as overpriced, only to be irrelevant because a select few have enough spending power to make it a commercial success.

That is a valid point, but one we can never prove one way or the other. Unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather pay a 50$ sub fee as long as i get constant content that i can play, as well as more stats and gearing options, and more pvp and pve options.

Yes this game is free to play, but the content leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think that 50% of the content (objects) from the game are from the gem shop.

Yes guild wars 2 has to make money as a business, however, they want profit margins or basically they want endless growth. Imagine trying to make more money this year than you did last year - endless upper growth or on a graph you're trying to grow your profit as high as possible every year.

Basically the easiest way to say this is - imagine your an athlete who wants big muscle gains and you want "endless" growth. So you take drugs and exercise for endless growth. But you can kill your self that way.

In this sense, capitalism in business is after endless positive growth...and the more they stay "stuck" at a certain number, the more they will fire people and cut corners to make gains. Staying stuck is not good in business, you want to go up, higher, more money, endless disease, endless hunger addiction, always up.

So as you can see, microtransactions make more money than a subscription fee, and it cuts projects and game design so they can keep the investors happy.

The investors are always looking for endless growth, and they do a lot of damage to video games in order to see their money growth.

So yea, capitalism is full greed because it has an illusion goal of infinite gains in investments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Vancho.8750" This game exists because of money, not the goodwill of donors or volunteers.

You do not understand business, like at all, nor how generous Anet has been to gw2 players. And you clearly don’t have any better recommendations.

“things got little bit more pushy with the "Macro" transactions”... Game doesn’t run in free pal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Swagger.1459 said:@"Vancho.8750" This game exists because of money, not the goodwill of donors or volunteers.

You do not understand business, like at all, nor how generous Anet has been to gw2 players. And you clearly don’t have any better recommendations.

“things got little bit more pushy with the "Macro" transactions”... Game doesn’t run in free pal.

I don't think people are arguing that anet needs to make money.The argument is they would like to see anet put as much effort into providing expansion-like content in the game and funnel resources into abandoned gamemodes with at least half the vigor of what they do with the gemstore and finding ways to monetize poorly packaged or designed 'garbage'.The game is just screaming 'buy this now' rather than 'play this now'

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Swagger.1459 said:@"Vancho.8750" This game exists because of money, not the goodwill of donors or volunteers.

You do not understand business, like at all, nor how generous Anet has been to gw2 players. And you clearly don’t have any better recommendations.

“things got little bit more pushy with the "Macro" transactions”... Game doesn’t run in free pal.

Im very thankful anet is giving me 2 or 3 days worth of content every 3 to 4 months but i dont consider that worth spending money for or sticking around in the meantime for.

Everything else thats replayable and supposed to keep me playing sees a 10th of that support and it has caused my friends and me to lose interest in the game, a game we've sunk thousands of hours.

Me (and my friends) are all open to support the game if it can in turn support us with a good, strong content plan that we find better in quantity and quality than the current one, we are also open to pay money for said content because we've seen what that enables other devs to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the nature of the industry. You expect it from companies like EA have no interest in their playerbase or community, but even companies like Nintendo are getting in on the act and going all in on it to a degree which is shocking for those that used to have integrity (1 character + currency = same price as a new game..)

Anet threw integrity away a long time ago with skins out of place in their game world in order to make a quick buck. I'm not against micro transactions at all - bank slots, inventory slots, wardrobe slots etc, but the game like so many other games now is heavily dominated by micro transactions that it has become unbalanced. And of course it is all optional, but it is the overall perception that has built up.

This whole topic is moot though. There will not ever be a change in this direction or philosophy from a feedback thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Vancho.8750" said:Since i work in that part of the industry and i know how the sausage is made, some design choices have me worried. Usually i ignore them but after the lay offs things got little bit more pushy with the "Macro" transactions and the design of some content like the Skyscale unlock(bland, boring and unimaginative for the most part like most mobile game practices) and now with build templates (looks like copy of a mobile game feature the only part missing is charging for changing builds, don't get any kitten ideas from that). I don't think GW2 could survive a mobile game flop for pushing too hard. In the mobile space you can always reskin, recycle and reuse a flop into something "new" and it can be churned out quicker, not so much in the PC. Even in the mobile space you don't push way too hard on your crown jewel game that is in the public eye.Now that MO is out and Chris Corry will oversee NCSOFT west and from what i read his experience is in the mobile space from Kabam, that puts some doubt in the future of the game.

Would explain some of the things I am not liking as I pretty much despise mobile gaming, p2w and the harsh monetization they tend to have. Not saying gw2 is there yet but a journey starts with a first step.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@AlexxxDelta.1806 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:@"Vancho.8750" This game exists because of money, not the goodwill of donors or volunteers.

You do not understand business, like at all, nor how generous Anet has been to gw2 players. And you clearly don’t have any better recommendations.

“things got little bit more pushy with the "Macro" transactions”... Game doesn’t run in free pal.

I don't think people are arguing that anet needs to make money.The argument is they would like to see anet put as much effort into providing expansion-like content in the game and funnel resources into abandoned gamemodes with at least half the vigor of what they do with the gemstore and finding ways to monetize poorly packaged or designed 'garbage'.The game is just screaming 'buy this now' rather than 'play this now'

Right, and money also funds game development, so let’s complain that Anet is trying to make money... That’s a smart idea!

Some of you think it must be easy and cheap to develop a game and that things happen overnight.

Only a tiny fraction of that money goes back to development (even less these days). You can pretend the main purpose for the increasingly aggressive monetization is development funding but that won't make it true. Repeating it like a mantra wont do it either.

Anyone who has been with the game long enough can tell the difference. If the monetization is increasing but the game is looking cheaper, it doesn't take a genius to figure out where the money goes.

In the end, we bought a game not a store. If the store ends up looking like it's the priority, why should should I care if they can keep the lights on?

Sorry, I didn’t pretend anything, that’s you making things up and assuming. And if you bothered to pay attention I wrote “also”, not directly or entirely.

If you don’t like how Anet monetizes the game then don’t play it. Your problem is solved then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vancho.8750 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:@Vancho.8750 No, you just want Anet to bend over backwards for you, so you don’t have to spend an additional penny on the game. Yet, you want things like the UI reworked, new armors, more cultural armors , reworks of old armors... Things cost time and money, yet you complain about a game company that doesn’t charge you a monthly fee and only offers non-essential items on the gemstore... None of which you need to progress in the game... Which you can get for $0 by trading your gold for gems, but you complain about how the game is monetized.

You still haven’t provided Anet with a better monetizing plan either, despite your claim.I get you don't like to read but this is getting really annoying you repeating the kitten over and over like you don't have anything useful to say. All im asking is for the game to come first and then the magnetization. And you constantly come around with gems to gold, gold costs time and some point money is worth more then gold per hour, and on top of that the gems are bought for real money and traded with someone else for the gold, arenanet doesn't lose from this. Stop going back to but money this and that, the argument is that they employ bland and boring mobile gameplay loop more and more instead of of a PC game.

The guy that paid 10 dollars real money helps the company to invest/create new contentBy collecting gold YOU BENEFIT from ppl that used cash to get an item for free. The company cannot use the ingame gold to pay the Electrical Bills and keep the servers running up .The person that payed 10 dollars + and you by converting gold to gems = doesnt mean that the company will earn 20 real dollars1 pays and 1 ''benefit''

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...