Jump to content
  • Sign Up

(video) Build templates, and why the design is horrible in it's current state.


Recommended Posts

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:Some People are happy to play with no subAnd then complain that they have put something desirable in a shop to tempt us to buy - how exactly do you want anet to pay for dev costs and invest in the game? And on top of that you can get them for free as well by converting from gold!

So, you know those are the same people? Ah, my bad, you don't.

Lol well we can assume most people are happy to play with no sub.. So ye 'your bad'

I haven't said that with my statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:So, we should expect Anet to kitten us over, and be content with it?

Of course not ... you just vote with your wallet.

"Voting with your wallet" doesn't work unless you also tell the company
why
you are not spending.

Agreed ... and if you want Anet to take you seriously, you complain when you've tried the product, not seen a few videos about it before it's even released. EXACTLY like how you're example of the free character slot for HOT went down....you do realize that the whole slot debacle with HoT took place (and got partially addressed) months before launch?

Yes I remember that part. I mean, that doesn't change my message. The bottomline is that if you don't like the feature, don't buy it. If you don't like the game, stop playing. Complaining that Anet isn't going to sell something the way you want it makes no sense, especially if there is already an established approach to how they have sold every other feature like this one. That HoT example is not the same as what is happening here ... this isn't new ... features like this have been here and sold in this manner since the beginning of the game. The whole reason this uproar for this feature is dishonest is because there wasn't any problem with this approach in the past for these features. No one had unreasonable expectations that quantity-based features aren't purchased per use. All the sudden, that's a big problem. That makes no sense.

It's just people being dishonest because they were not paying for a similar 3rd party feature. I don't really get the approach ... do you think people are that dense? They can't see that difference? Do you think that makes you credible?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:Some People are happy to play with no subAnd then complain that they have put something desirable in a shop to tempt us to buy - how exactly do you want anet to pay for dev costs and invest in the game? And on top of that you can get them for free as well by converting from gold!

Regular expansions, with the cash shop only as supplemental income?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:So, we should expect Anet to kitten us over, and be content with it?

Of course not ... you just vote with your wallet.

"Voting with your wallet" doesn't work unless you also tell the company
why
you are not spending.

Agreed ... and if you want Anet to take you seriously, you complain when you've tried the product, not seen a few videos about it before it's even released. EXACTLY like how you're example of the free character slot for HOT went down....you do realize that the whole slot debacle with HoT took place (and got partially addressed) months before launch?

Yes I remember that part. I mean, that doesn't change my message. The bottomline is that if you don't like the feature, don't buy it. If you don't like the game, stop playing. Complaining that Anet isn't going to sell something the way you want it makes no sense, especially if there is already an established approach to how they have sold every other feature like this one. That HoT example is not the same as what is happening here ... this isn't new ... features like this have been here and sold in this manner since the beginning of the game. The whole reason this uproar for this feature is dishonest is because there wasn't any problem with this approach in the past for these features. No one had unreasonable expectations that quantity-based features aren't purchased per use. All the sudden, that's a big problem. That makes no sense.

It's just people being dishonest because they were not paying for a similar 3rd party feature. I don't really get the approach ... do you think people are that dense? They can't see that difference? Do you think that makes you credible?

What you are not seeing is that the 3rd party program is heavily superior to the one of Arenanet. If we take the monetization aspect aside for just a second ArcDPS in its function is still better than the GW2 template system.People already wrote it here and in other threads + reddit that they would easily pay for the convenience of the Arc feature but integrated in the game engine. I would easily buy it as well if it facilitates adjustments etc. But their implementation is so terrible it has no meaningful advantage to those who were using templates before and would do after. The people who didn't care before (and didn't use Arc) won't suddenly benefit that much.If they are successful with that system, fine but from an objective business perspective I really can't see that they will make big moneys from that. The system is just too cra_py for being a moneymaker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@perilisk.1874 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:Some People are happy to play with no subAnd then complain that they have put something desirable in a shop to tempt us to buy - how exactly do you want anet to pay for dev costs and invest in the game? And on top of that you can get them for free as well by converting from gold!

Regular expansions, with the cash shop only as supplemental income?

This is the whole problem. It is NOT up to us to decide how we are willing to pay for things offered in this game; you can't run a sustainable business like that. If the old way is being abandoned, there is a reason for that to happen, and it's a business reason. These are not player-based decisions and it's completely unreasonable to expect that to change.

The worst part here is that this argument you make isn't even about this feature .. it's rooted in wanting expansions. Even if you did get this feature for free, the conclusion isn't we are getting expansions coming back. These associations are nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vinceman.4572 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:So, we should expect Anet to kitten us over, and be content with it?

Of course not ... you just vote with your wallet.

"Voting with your wallet" doesn't work unless you also tell the company
why
you are not spending.

Agreed ... and if you want Anet to take you seriously, you complain when you've tried the product, not seen a few videos about it before it's even released. EXACTLY like how you're example of the free character slot for HOT went down....you do realize that the whole slot debacle with HoT took place (and got partially addressed) months before launch?

Yes I remember that part. I mean, that doesn't change my message. The bottomline is that if you don't like the feature, don't buy it. If you don't like the game, stop playing. Complaining that Anet isn't going to sell something the way you want it makes no sense, especially if there is already an established approach to how they have sold every other feature like this one. That HoT example is not the same as what is happening here ... this isn't new ... features like this have been here and sold in this manner since the beginning of the game. The whole reason this uproar for this feature is dishonest is because there wasn't any problem with this approach in the past for these features. No one had unreasonable expectations that quantity-based features aren't purchased per use. All the sudden, that's a big problem. That makes no sense.

It's just people being dishonest because they were not paying for a similar 3rd party feature. I don't really get the approach ... do you think people are that dense? They can't see that difference? Do you think that makes you credible?

What you are not seeing is that the 3rd party program is heavily superior to the one of Arenanet.

Maybe. I won't know until I've tried it

But that's a moot point anyways because Anet is a business that is providing a paid feature within the context of the game.

The other guy wasn't. The comparison is not honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:Maybe. I won't know until I've tried it

Then you haven't watched their stream which is a pity because then you'll realize - and every intelligent human being will - that their system is not well-thought. The splitting into three different parts is not due to qol for the players. It's the monetization aspect only which is understandable from the business point but not for the greater good of the game.

But that's a moot point anyways because Anet is a business that is providing a paid feature within the context of the game.

This argument never gets old. Of course they are a business but everyone of us has their own opinion and can measure for himself if this decision is a good one or not. I won't convince you that I found it terrible and you won't convince me. The market will tell but since we're lacking an expansion that peaked revenues in the past, observed the layoffs, encountered the Deroir & JP debacle, had a disappointing LS announcement + MO leaving the company I doubt that there will be nice numbers in the next months. Where should they come from? That's a serious question for me. There's no indication for a stable evolution of income for Arenanet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vinceman.4572 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Maybe. I won't know until I've tried it

Then you haven't watched their stream which is a pity because then you'll realize - and every intelligent human being will - that their system is not well-thought. The splitting into three different parts is not due to qol for the players. It's the monetization aspect only which is understandable from the business point but not for the greater good of the game.

But that's a moot point anyways because Anet is a business that is providing a paid feature within the context of the game.

This argument never gets old. Of course they are a business but everyone of us has their own opinion and can measure for himself if this decision is a good one or not. I won't convince you that I found it terrible and you won't convince me. The market will tell but since we're lacking an expansion that peaked revenues in the past, observed the layoffs, encountered the Deroir & JP debacle, had a disappointing LS announcement + MO leaving the company I doubt that there will be nice numbers in the next months. Where should they come from? That's a serious question for me.

I don't need to watch a stream. Like any rational person, I will wait to actually experience it before I complain. If you guys think that complaining about paying for features is an approach to justifying Anet committing to expansion based content, it's not. If they are moving away from that expansion model, it's not because they don't like making money. It's not because they like having angry players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry but arcpdps was done by, one guy I think, and it did pretty much what everyone wanted and he did this for free out of the goodness of his heart and didn't go bankrupt doing so yet Anet a company behind a whole mmo could not add this in update free to everyone as a basic QoL update becuase they would go belly up, lose their home and end up in the street?

Yeah no. lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Calistin.6210 said:I am sorry but arcpdps was done by, one guy I think, and it did pretty much what everyone wanted and he did this for free out of the goodness of his heart and didn't go bankrupt doing so yet Anet a company behind a whole mmo could not add this in update free to everyone as a basic QoL update becuase they would go belly up, lose their home and end up in the street?

Yeah no. lol

No one is saying Anet is going to 'end up on the street'. The point is that Anet is a business and the other guy wasn't. To compare what he was doing to what Anet is doing doesn't make sense.

If you don't like the price, you don't have to buy it. If you don't like the feature, you don't have to buy it. But don't sit there and complain when Anet comes and maintains their sovereignty over their game and their right to benefit from that. If you don't see how that's important, you just need to get wise. That's a very important business concept. The only thing did wrong here was that they allowed this fellow (as good as his intentions were) to encroach on that space that Anet owns for as long as they did. The irony is that they did it for the benefit of the players ... the same ungrateful ones that who are now entitled to get the same standard of service they were getting from the other guy. Dream on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:I don't need to watch a stream. Like any rational person, I will wait to actually experience it before I complain.

Of course you don't need to watch it. It was just an offer by them and you could have seen the feature live + asking questions. Actually there will be no difference between the experience ingame and the whole handling you could see in the stream. That's all.Inb4: If you haven't used Arc templates before the templates could be a benefit for you but if you have used it before it's utterly trash.

If you guys think that complaining about paying for features is an approach to justifying Anet committing to expansion based content, it's not. If they are moving away from that expansion model, it's not because they don't like making money. It's not because they like having angry players.

They are moving away from the expansion model because it's cheaper. Just ask the next game developer of your trust. One was already here in a thread like this defending Anet as well (DeltaEagle was his nick name or so).And even if you can't believe it I'm fine with their model as long as we get proper content with it. But that's highly debatable since both expansions - HoT more than PoF - offered more content than the throw-away stuff we got with every LS episode.That's the fun part on your side of defending Arenanet you don't accept that I and others would pay for good, replayable content. From what I see lately: Episodes offering 1 week of interest at most, it's more 1-2 days, raids are in maintenance mode (I could imagine they've already abandoned them internally), fractals treated stepmotherly (100 including CM was the last interesting and well-designed fractal), PvP suffering for years & WvW the same. On the other hand we have objectively more grindy achievements + nice gem store stuff. But hey, maybe that'll work out well. We will see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vinceman.4572 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Maybe. I won't know until I've tried it

Then you haven't watched their stream which is a pity because then you'll realize - and every intelligent human being will - that their system is not well-thought. The splitting into three different parts is not due to qol for the players. It's the monetization aspect only which is understandable from the business point but not for the greater good of the game.

But that's a moot point anyways because Anet is a business that is providing a paid feature within the context of the game.

This argument never gets old. Of course they are a business but everyone of us has their own opinion and can measure for himself if this decision is a good one or not. I won't convince you that I found it terrible and you won't convince me. The market will tell but since we're lacking an expansion that peaked revenues in the past, observed the layoffs, encountered the Deroir & JP debacle, had a disappointing LS announcement + MO leaving the company I doubt that there will be nice numbers in the next months. Where should they come from? That's a serious question for me. There's no indication for a stable evolution of income for Arenanet.

I don't think it was due to the monetization. It was done to keep the spots where you set the build up in the same place.

I thought the system was well thought out. I don't know how much I will use it or how easy it is to swap builds out between template storage and the build template slots, especially if you have more than the max number of them.

I'd imagine those that have a large number of unique builds on a single character (like 20+) or a large number of characters with more than 2-3 builds per character is likely a minority of players who would use the system in the first place. So while I do feel for those who did fully utilize arc's templates to the fullest extent and now have a problem, I don't think ANet needs to drastically change anything.

They should give a 3rd equipment tab for free as very few builds share the same equipment set up.

I do hope that the build templates are relatively cheap as they won't sell many otherwise since those are done via chat codes. I'd max out on equipment tabs likely well before I would buy another build template slot or storage - beyond any offered for free.

I'm also like Obtena and I watched the stream. I don't judge something until I can actually play with it. Especially if the explicitly state in the stream that things can change. I can get a feel for if I think I will or will not like something, but I can't be sure until I've actually played with it.

I don't judge the prices because we don't know specifics. Only a possible method to base it on, but nothing in the gem store is really like that. Nothing holds 60 items max (including duplicates) but can only hold one helm at a time max. So it's hard to say how that would be priced even knowing what bag and bank slots are. But I can see how people are getting the estimates that they are and agreeing that those estimates make this new system fairly cost prohibitive for people who like to have one character fulfill multiple roles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Calistin.6210 said:I am sorry but arcpdps was done by, one guy I think, and it did
pretty much
what everyone wanted and he did this for free out of the goodness of his heart and didn't go bankrupt doing so yet Anet a company behind a whole mmo could not add this in update free to everyone as a basic QoL update becuase they would go belly up, lose their home and end up in the street?

Yeah no. lol

No one is saying Anet is going to 'end up on the street'. The point is that Anet is a business and the other guy wasn't. To compare what he was doing to what Anet is doing doesn't make sense.

If you don't like the price, you don't have to buy it. If you don't like the feature, you don't have to buy it. But don't sit there and complain when Anet comes and maintains their sovereignty over their game and their right to benefit from that. If you don't see how that's important, you just need to get wise. That's a very important business concept. The only thing did wrong here was that they allowed this fellow (as good as his intentions were) to encroach on that space that Anet owns for as long as they did. The irony is that they did it for the benefit of the players ... the same ungrateful ones that who are now entitled to get the same standard of service they were getting from the other guy. Dream on.

Or they could have bought deltaconnected's knowledge transform it into the game as a better implementation and being open with the fact that they need to impose money for it due to having a running business.I mean they didn't even announce an official price because it 1x1 of marketing to evaluate how much you can milk your customer. It's not about making money to ensure running it's making big money to satisfy shareholders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vinceman.4572 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:I don't need to watch a stream. Like any rational person, I will wait to actually experience it before I complain.

Of course you don't
need
to watch it. It was just an offer by them and you could have seen the feature live + asking questions. Actually there will be no difference between the experience ingame and the whole handling you could see in the stream. That's all.Inb4: If you haven't used Arc templates before the templates could be a benefit for you but if you have used it before it's utterly trash.

I will reserve my judgement when the feature is ingame. As always, there is enough time for things to change ... and they do. And yes I tried Arc templates. The integration wtih the game was annoying and clunky IMO ... so I'm all open to whatever Anet can provide.

If you guys think that complaining about paying for features is an approach to justifying Anet committing to expansion based content, it's not. If they are moving away from that expansion model, it's not because they don't like making money. It's not because they like having angry players.

They are moving away from the expansion model because it's cheaper.

Right ... that's a business decision, yet the way you guys are talking, you would think this game is a charity. If you understand this is a business, it's irrelevant what you decide what you would be willing to pay for. The value to anyone that plays MMO's is massive for the number of hours of enteratianment you get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vinceman.4572 said:

@Calistin.6210 said:I am sorry but arcpdps was done by, one guy I think, and it did
pretty much
what everyone wanted and he did this for free out of the goodness of his heart and didn't go bankrupt doing so yet Anet a company behind a whole mmo could not add this in update free to everyone as a basic QoL update becuase they would go belly up, lose their home and end up in the street?

Yeah no. lol

No one is saying Anet is going to 'end up on the street'. The point is that Anet is a business and the other guy wasn't. To compare what he was doing to what Anet is doing doesn't make sense.

If you don't like the price, you don't have to buy it. If you don't like the feature, you don't have to buy it. But don't sit there and complain when Anet comes and maintains their sovereignty over their game and their right to benefit from that. If you don't see how that's important, you just need to get wise. That's a very important business concept. The only thing did wrong here was that they allowed this fellow (as good as his intentions were) to encroach on that space that Anet owns for as long as they did. The irony is that they did it for the benefit of the players ... the same ungrateful ones that who are now entitled to get the same standard of service they were getting from the other guy. Dream on.

Or they could have bought deltaconnected's knowledge transform it into the game as a better implementation and being open with the fact that they need to impose money for it due to having a running business.I mean they didn't even announce an official price because it 1x1 of marketing to evaluate how much you can milk your customer. It's not about making money to ensure running it's making big money to satify shareholders.

I'm not going to pretend I understand why they did or didn't do something like that. I have a feeling, having worked in this area, there are some legalities that Anet may not want to deal with to do that.

And yes, I don't disagree with you at all ... A business IS all about satisfying stakeholders. If you really and truly understand that, then this shouldn't be that big a problem to you because it's due to that relationship we get to play this game in the first place. That's the worst thing about these threads. There is mutually desirable benefits for Anet to making this game and for us to play it. People make threads like these pretending Anet has some parasitic relationship with it's customers. How dishonest can people be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Seera.5916" said:I don't think it was due to the monetization. It was done to keep the spots where you set the build up in the same place.

I thought the system was well thought out. I don't know how much I will use it or how easy it is to swap builds out between template storage and the build template slots, especially if you have more than the max number of them.

It is for monetization. The system way too complex as it should have been. I mean you just need to look at GW1 or at ArcDPS from the functional perspective and I clearly distinguish from engine things it's just about the function and how their system is working.

I'd imagine those that have a large number of unique builds on a single character (like 20+) or a large number of characters with more than 2-3 builds per character is likely a minority of players who would use the system in the first place. So while I do feel for those who did fully utilize arc's templates to the fullest extent and now have a problem, I don't think ANet needs to drastically change anything.

Exactly, the system primary is for players that used build templates before, players that wished the feature from GW1, players that know integrated templates from other MMOs and of course some others. The "others" - that have never claimed templates before will probably have a benefit but not the rest which is a clear indication for a bad implementation functional wise.

They should give a 3rd equipment tab for free as very few builds share the same equipment set up.

That won't change things at all. Seriously, I don't want 1-xx slots for free. I want a good system and I would have paid for it.

I do hope that the build templates are relatively cheap as they won't sell many otherwise since those are done via chat codes. I'd max out on equipment tabs likely well before I would buy another build template slot or storage - beyond any offered for free.

According to them it'll be in the same range like bag slots etc. which makes sense.

I'm also like Obtena and I watched the stream. I don't judge something until I can actually play with it. Especially if the explicitly state in the stream that things can change. I can get a feel for if I think I will or will not like something, but I can't be sure until I've actually played with it.

They worked 2 years on it and you think they can change the core within 3 weeks. Well, yeah, enough for that...

I don't judge the prices because we don't know specifics. Only a possible method to base it on, but nothing in the gem store is really like that. Nothing holds 60 items max (including duplicates) but can only hold one helm at a time max. So it's hard to say how that would be priced even knowing what bag and bank slots are. But I can see how people are getting the estimates that they are and agreeing that those estimates make this new system fairly cost prohibitive for people who like to have one character fulfill multiple roles.

See above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:I will reserve my judgement when the feature is ingame. As always, there is enough time for things to change ... and they do. And yes I tried Arc templates. The integration wtih the game was annoying and clunky IMO ... so I'm all open to whatever Anet can provide.

Clunky? You had to press 3 keys at once to open the tool and then you could do everything you wanted. Compared to the ingame feature that's 2 buttons at the same time more.

Right ... that's a business decision, yet the way you guys are talking, you would think this game is a charity. If you understand this is a business, it's irrelevant what you decide what you would be willing to pay for. The value to anyone that plays MMO's is massive for the number of hours of enteratianment you get.

Nobody has ever said that he or she will have things for free. Do you even read the posts? People will pay for expansions, people support subscription fees. Heck people would even pay for the function of ArcDPS.You still don't understand. Their feature is inferior to ArcDPS and that won't change within 3 weeks. That's what you have to realize in the first place and once the price is known we can go on discussing.Of course I had a massive amount of entertainment and if I think their strategy is right I will pay for more and if I'm not it's completely ok to use their forums to show my discontent. We have the same rights you have and again: I would pay for good implementations and good content as I have in the past.

@Obtena.7952 said:I'm not going to pretend I understand why they did or didn't do something like that. I have a feeling, having worked in this area, there are some legalities that Anet may not want to deal with to do that.

And yes, I don't disagree with you at all ... A business IS all about satisfying stakeholders. If you really and truly understand that, then this shouldn't be that big a problem to you because it's due to that relationship we get to play this game in the first place. That's the worst thing about these threads. There is mutually desirable benefits for Anet to making this game and for us to play it. People make threads like these pretending Anet has some parasitic relationship with it's customers. How dishonest can people be?

You know about the difference of a shareholder and a stakeholder, right?You and me are stakeholder because we have an interest in the company or in this case in their product. A shareholder is someone who has a stock - in this case NCSoft is meant as a company in the Korea Exchange - equivalent of the New York Stock Exchange at Wall Street. (Personally I don't own stocks from NCSoft)There's a difference in satisfying stakeholders and satisfying shareholders and in my view and of others we've seen an increase of imbalance between those interests starting with the layoffs in spring. NCSoft is not making money to run a usual business they need to grow otherwise the stock market will punish them and that affected and will affect Arenanet in the future. The game devs can be enthusiastic as they want, the hunt is on and trying to make money with a tool that is inferior to a tool from a single developer, had to be developed for 2 years (which is a joke) and then promoted like this is clearly one of the best indicators for the bleeding cow that has to be milked - 1x1 business economics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Maybe. I won't know until I've tried it

Then you haven't watched their stream which is a pity because then you'll realize - and every intelligent human being will - that their system is not well-thought. The splitting into three different parts is not due to qol for the players. It's the monetization aspect only which is understandable from the business point but not for the greater good of the game.

But that's a moot point anyways because Anet is a business that is providing a paid feature within the context of the game.

This argument never gets old. Of course they are a business but everyone of us has their own opinion and can measure for himself if this decision is a good one or not. I won't convince you that I found it terrible and you won't convince me. The market will tell but since we're lacking an expansion that peaked revenues in the past, observed the layoffs, encountered the Deroir & JP debacle, had a disappointing LS announcement + MO leaving the company I doubt that there will be nice numbers in the next months. Where should they come from? That's a serious question for me.

I don't need to watch a stream. Like any rational person, I will wait to actually experience it before I complain. If you guys think that complaining about paying for features is an approach to justifying Anet committing to expansion based content, it's not. If they are moving away from that expansion model, it's not because they don't like making money. It's not because they like having angry players.

I feel like you are always under the impression that ANET only makes GOOD business decisions?Do you feel they are heading in the best direction for the game now?genuinely curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Acheron.4731 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Maybe. I won't know until I've tried it

Then you haven't watched their stream which is a pity because then you'll realize - and every intelligent human being will - that their system is not well-thought. The splitting into three different parts is not due to qol for the players. It's the monetization aspect only which is understandable from the business point but not for the greater good of the game.

But that's a moot point anyways because Anet is a business that is providing a paid feature within the context of the game.

This argument never gets old. Of course they are a business but everyone of us has their own opinion and can measure for himself if this decision is a good one or not. I won't convince you that I found it terrible and you won't convince me. The market will tell but since we're lacking an expansion that peaked revenues in the past, observed the layoffs, encountered the Deroir & JP debacle, had a disappointing LS announcement + MO leaving the company I doubt that there will be nice numbers in the next months. Where should they come from? That's a serious question for me.

I don't need to watch a stream. Like any rational person, I will wait to actually experience it before I complain. If you guys think that complaining about paying for features is an approach to justifying Anet committing to expansion based content, it's not. If they are moving away from that expansion model, it's not because they don't like making money. It's not because they like having angry players.

I feel like you are always under the impression that ANET only makes GOOD business decisions?Do you feel they are heading in the best direction for the game now?genuinely curious.

Sorry, my crystal ball is broken so I don't see the value in guessing if it's the BEST direction.

Do I think Anet offering these kinds of features LIKE THEY ALWAYS HAVE is a bad business decision? I don't see how anyone could. It hasn't been a problem for 7 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vinceman.4572 said:

You know about the difference of a shareholder and a stakeholder, right?You and me are stakeholder because we have an interest in the company or in this case in their product. A shareholder is someone who has a stock - in this case NCSoft is meant as a company in the Korea Exchange - equivalent of the New York Stock Exchange at Wall Street. (Personally I don't own stocks from NCSoft)There's a difference in satisfying stakeholders and satisfying shareholders and in my view and of others we've seen an increase of imbalance between those interests starting with the layoffs in spring. NCSoft is not making money to run a usual business they need to grow otherwise the stock market will punish them and that affected and will affect Arenanet in the future. The game devs can be enthusiastic as they want, the hunt is on and trying to make money with a tool that is inferior to a tool from a single developer, had to be developed for 2 years (which is a joke) and then promoted like this is clearly one of the best indicators for the bleeding cow that has to be milked - 1x1 business economics.

Yes I absolutely do ... I do those kinds of analysis all the time in my RL life.

If anything, the layoffs in the spring sounded like a move in the best interests of both stakeholders and shareholders. Resources were being diverted from GW2 development ... and speculating here ... it didn't sound like those projects had management approval. I don't want fewer resources on GW2 (I don't see why any player would either). I'm pretty sure the people that invested in Anet didn't think that was a great idea either considering GW2 still likely has a projected ROI those shareholders expect from it for some period of time in the future. Sounds like someone who recently left had some plans of their own for how things should happen without running it by his boss and he got caught. Naughty Naughty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Wakani.1829 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:Yeah, I'm sure everyone that work for a living have that sentiment too. I mean if your living costs are $1000 a month yet you earn $2000 a month, whats the even the point of the extra cash? Ask your employer to reduce your salary to $1000. No need for good money to go to waste.

Before you rush to the defense, you should probably do some actual research on this subject. Arenanet could EASILY run gw2 without putting 95% of their content into the cashshop, if you're honestly believing anything different, then i don't think you know how the gaming industry works.Virtually almost all publishers these days, are pushing for Mobile-like monetization in PC gaming, because it allows them to push a new, bland, empty title every year, from any franchise, and make millions off the back of people who blindly support it.

ask yourself, did they need all this money from monetization to MAKE guildwars2 ? - no. why?, because their previous game, GuildWars, wich had practically NO monetization, NO subscription fee, made them enough money to:

Not have a single day of downtime on the servers, not even on patchdays.make 3 full scale expansions in just 3 years, the Original guildwars came out on April 26, 2005, and the third expansion was released on August 28, 2007.Build all of guild wars 2, and launch it.

GW1 definitely didn't make them enough money to make Guild Wars 2. That's not how video games work. What really happened is they were funded by their publisher, NCSoft, to make Guild Wars 2 because they were able to convince them that the second could make enough money to fund its development. Just like Guild Wars 1 was developed not from the funds of a prior game, or the pockets of the developers, but from what essentially amounts to a loan from a publisher in exchange for a continuing cut of the future profits. That's how publishing works, off of investment capital.

Meanwhile... I always 100% expected equipment templates to be monetized, if they existed at all... because it is extra storage space, which they have charged for since launch. The trait templates being monetized is annoying, but a minor inconvenience in the long term since you literally can store infinite builds via chat codes + notepad on your home computer. The cap for equipment templates of 6 is by far my biggest irritant, but because I refuse to use ARC I've been manually swapping anyway and will continue to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vinceman.4572 said:

@"Seera.5916" said:I'm also like Obtena and I watched the stream. I don't judge something until I can actually play with it. Especially if the explicitly state in the stream that things can change. I can get a feel for if I think I will or will not like something, but I can't be sure until I've actually played with it.

They worked 2 years on it and you think they can change the core within 3 weeks. Well, yeah, enough for that...

Yeah, they will just try to fix some bugs they have before launch.For example, they said that they "have to make sure that the items in armory won't be deleted"...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its meant to do a task while also making money to keep the game running. Why are you all tripping on this?

It’s thinking like this that got us into the micro transaction kitten show of a world we live in. You get people to spend money in game by making them enjoy playing with what they have already bought. When it is blatantly obvious that someone is trying to get as much cash out of you as possible it generally has the opposite effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:Yes I absolutely do ... I do those kinds of analysis all the time in my RL life.

If anything, the layoffs in the spring sounded like a move in the best interests of both stakeholders and shareholders. Resources were being diverted from GW2 development ... and speculating here ... it didn't sound like those projects had management approval. I don't want fewer resources on GW2 (I don't see why any player would either). I'm pretty sure the people that invested in Anet didn't think that was a great idea either considering GW2 still likely has a projected ROI those shareholders expect from it for some period of time in the future. Sounds like someone who recently left had some plans of their own for how things should happen without running it by his boss and he got caught. Naughty Naughty.

So, if you have any knowledge about running a business or a company you should also be aware of having some kind of innovative things in the pipeline or newer technological inventions otherwise you'll be shipwrecked. The mounts that were brought into the game with PoF were such innovative product resulting in a positive outcome. (They also won prizes in the industry with it but that's an irrelevant fact in this discussion.)The point is revenues are going down again as the numbers from NCSoft showing and there isn't any innovation on the horizon and the cancelling of developing a new expansion which is wanted by the community and came two times with great innovations indicates that the ship has listed. That is backed by the design of the actual template and its function being inferior to a tool that was developed by a single person alone outside the company being monetized in the way they've shown us in the stream.I also don't believe MO got caught. It was always his intention to be creative and inventive and according to his statement unless it's not latrine rumor he didn't have the feeling that this will be possible at Arenanet any longer. Strong statement from a person that created the company and most likely had one of the best surveys over the inside.

Let me speak about my personal situation about financing the company again because you too always repeat the argument of me and others wanting a free ride or as someone else did in this forum portraying us as parasites. I purchased all shared inventory slots, have maxed bank tabs, have additional character slots, bought the salvage-o-matics twice because shared slots didn't exist to that time, have bought some gems here and there for real money and I paid the maximum prices for vanilla, HoT and PoF each. The only thing where I haven't paid real money for are black lion keys because those actually are loot boxes and pure lottery - but that's another topic and thankfully not my cup of tea to deal with.Tell me, how could I have supported the company more than just throwing my money at them and not buying cars, a house, feed my family and enjoy other things like sports, hobbies & entertainment in real life?So, in other words I have been supporting this game very much and definitely more than a lot of casual players, people that already play other games and traders + users that have paid 0 bucks. I would even support them further and especially for a good template system that facilitates things and has a good & fluid mechanic with no shenanigans or other annoying circumstances but this is not the case here. The thing is worse than the already existens helper tool and that my dear is a real shame because Arenanet runs a serious company and should provide more professional performance than a single developer from the outside in his lonely chamber (sorry at delta for those words, just a stylistic device).That's why I'm arguing here and giving feedback to show them that I'm not convinced and not satisfied at all with their solution. I'm glad that the majority sees this as well and only a few against for whatever reasons (that I don't have to evaluate). I'm also aware that a certain group doesn't even raise their voice in forums/reddit no matter what judgement they have towards the system because that group won't be the target group for being a relevant mass in terms of business decisions.Do I think there will be a change regarding the templates and the business model? Not at all, the horse has already left the barn but I'm very much interested in the outcome and especially in NCSofts next but one numbers in february (the third quarter in november won't be that decisive).From a business analytical perspective the events and decisions in 2019 won't expect a solid & sustainable long-term future for the game/company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:Yes I remember that part. I mean, that doesn't change my message.Sure it does. That one example you came up with, not only didn't conform to what you were saying - it was a clear example for the opposing view.

It's just people being dishonest because they were not paying for a similar 3rd party feature. I don't really get the approach ... do you think people are that dense? They can't see that difference? Do you think that makes you credible?Oh, i surely hope they aren't that dense and will be able to easily see through the whole situation, and realize what the difference is. I can only hope that some day you will see it too.

Link to post
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...