Nice addition to the game

[Cyninja.2954]

@Dante.1763 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

Last I checked, the outrage over monetization of convenience things was growing too, see the forum outrage about build templates.

Build templates was probably the worst example you could have used, a better one would be tomes and scrolls, at least those arent monetized.

No, it is a very fitting one. While they might have issues, they perfectly represent the inert unwillingness of many players to spend money on the game and the absurd expectation some have as to how much free content they should get without ever spending money on a product.

[Dante.1763]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Dante.1763 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

Last I checked, the outrage over monetization of convenience things was growing too, see the forum outrage about build templates.

Build templates was probably the worst example you could have used, a better one would be tomes and scrolls, at least those arent monetized.

No, it is a very fitting one. While they might have issues, they perfectly represent the inert unwillingness of many players to spend money on the game.

I only say that because i refuse to spend money on them(and i spend alot on the game) because of how they got implemented, it has less to do with wanting more convenience and finding them less convenient than just..keeping the stuff in my inventory.

[Cyninja.2954]

@Dante.1763 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Dante.1763 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

Last I checked, the outrage over monetization of convenience things was growing too, see the forum outrage about build templates.

Build templates was probably the worst example you could have used, a better one would be tomes and scrolls, at least those arent monetized.

No, it is a very fitting one. While they might have issues, they perfectly represent the inert unwillingness of many players to spend money on the game.

I only say that because i refuse to spend money on them(and i spend alot on the game) because of how they got implemented, it has less to do with wanting more convenience and finding them less convenient than just..keeping the stuff in my inventory.

That is a very valid complaint and makes sense. People voting with their wallet is something which should be done more often (especially in regards to predatory practices) but that also means to be willing to spend money when satisfied with a product, which now leads again to the core issue of some players being unwilling to spend any money.

[serialkicker.5274]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@serialkicker.5274 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:So let me get this:You are annoyed by a feature which allows players who actually enjoy spending money on the game to be notified that there might be something to buy? A feature which probably cost 10 minutes of some developers time (thus just about no time at all).

How does this in any way negatively impact players who do not want to spend money on the game, besides the 1 click every few weeks?Shouldn't all those players who do not enjoy spending money on the game be exhilarated about the fact that others might spend more, thus supporting the developer and game, thus allowing for more resources potentially being diverted to content?

I am a bit confused here. I will agree that I dislike the new icon, but the notification that something new is up is appreciated by myself.

Here is my recommendation:Before going all RAWR! NEW GEM STORE STUFF/CHANGES. RAWR! ALL IS BAD!!!, maybe take 2 minutes to give a change some thought and how it actually might impact you, others and the game overall, then start the rage mode. If this change helps with revenue while not negatively impacting players who do not spend money on the gem store, it's the last type of change to complain about.

This change doesn't bother me much, but since you are talking about impact, consider this - more people throw money at gemstore for insta skins = less reason to actually make content for game. Why do you think we have come to this new modern game design? Because companies want to put little effort and then milk players for years. That's why you have all these mobile games and live service games. Give me 60 bucks and then give me more money every month in addition to that and we'll give you some skins and kitten. Why develop a new game or quality DLCs for existing title, if you can make a skin in few days and people go crazy and will throw you 10€ for each skin (price of entire dlc in many cases).

This is so backwards, it hurts... (in relation to GW2, agreed on the general direction of gaming and free to play)

This game is designed around making money via the gem store. You can dislike this fact, but it is reality. Expansions and episodic content (which still is not being monetized) do not make the bulk of the revenue the developer makes/needs. That too is a fact.

Last I checked, the outrage over monetization of convenience things was growing too, see the forum outrage about build templates.

So I will politely disagree that the developer making more revenue via their MAIN monetization stream within their current business plan is bad. You can't take all the good with none of the bad. I personally would love a subscription fee to get some less incentives for gem store items, but I know that a vast majority of the current player base would oppose that. Unfortunately many here want everything without spending a single dime. That is not an expectation which can ever be met.

I know this game is designed to make money from gemstore, that much is obvious. But is it sustainable? And for how long. That is the question. There are many games out there with population so low, they are quite literally on life support, but their in game shop is still getting new regular updates.And there are games that do very well by releasing new content in form of dlcs/expansions.Gw2 isn't yet in danger of dying very soon, so it'd be a shame if we soon learned game goes into maintenance mode with gemstore trying to squeeze as much and as long as it can.I believe LW is a mistake and I believe expansions should be a thing again and can be way more successful. Just needs better decisions. Making half arsed content like guild halls is a waste of resources. Making raids and abandoning dungeons that are accessible to everyone and would keep busy a way larger playerbase is another mistake.Making a mess out of masteries, tying them to specific expansions, LW and locking yourself out of options when designing new maps and content is another mistake. And so on and so on.

[Danikat.8537]

@serialkicker.5274 said:I know this game is designed to make money from gemstore, that much is obvious. But is it sustainable? And for how long. That is the question.

At least 7.5 years apparently, and probably (hopefully) much longer.

I think one advantage GW2 has over some other games with similar business models is that it's ALWAYS worked this way. It was designed, marketed and sold as a subscription free MMO with optional cash shop purchases and has stuck to that (with the addition of expansions) so people who chose to start the game knew that's what they were going to get, rather than buying a subscription MMO or whatever which then changed when they found a cash shop model to be more profitable.

The people who are opposed to that model simply won't have gotten GW2 in the first place (unless they paid no attention to what they were buying) so there's less opposition from within the playerbase than in games which changed business model part-way.

Which isn't to say we should accept anything they decide to sell. It's always worth voting with your wallet and explaining why you don't like certain things (explaining, not just ranting about it) because that can work out better for everyone.

Look at the mount licences: Anet apparently thought we'd like (or at least accept) buying random skins with no control over what we got. Players told them we don't like that and they changed future sets to include select licences so you can choose a skin. Players are happier and I suspect Anet get more money this way because people who would never buy mounts will do now. (I also think the select licences are too expensive, so I only buy them when they're on sale, another compromise.)

But if anyone is surprised at this point that GW2 gets free content updates and then sells some cosmetics and convinience items instead of bundling it all into paid DLC they haven't been paying attention.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

@Asenath.8694 said:

@Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:Really? It seems most players would rather find the armor in-game.

And you can do that,

in games with subscription fees

.

You may be confused. Armor sets are found in-game ever since the change years and years ago; with the occasional exception of some shoulders/gloves, and once in a while boots. No subscription required. :)

[Firebeard.1746]

@Gryphon.2875 said:

@Firebeard.1746 said:

@Arzurag.7506 said:It´s nice that now the black-lion-shop icon gets highlighted and notifies me of new stuff to buy there.Really nice, as it is in many mobile games, so I don´t miss out on these exclusive items that are on on sale ( actually just available and not for sale but language) for a short amount of time.I better get some gems and buy the stuff fast to fund the development of my favorite game-modes like wvw and pvp and raids and dungeons and fractals.All my support to you !!!!!!!!!!

In practice, this is the least exploitative game i've ever played. My only real annoyance with the cash shop is its link to the auction house & how it's the default as more of my play has been auction house oriented. They should have a way to directly open the auction house.

Talk to an NPC.

When i'm trying to sell stuff on the go. Going to the npc defeats the purpose of being able to buy and sell on the go.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

When I open the Gem Store/Trading Post, and click on 'Trading Post', I never see the Gem Store offerings. It loads right away. Maybe a faster computer is the option desired.

[serialkicker.5274]

@Danikat.8537 said:

@serialkicker.5274 said:I know this game is designed to make money from gemstore, that much is obvious. But is it sustainable? And for how long. That is the question.

At least 7.5 years apparently, and probably (hopefully) much longer.Of course you conveniently forgot to mention in those 7,5 years we got 2 expansions, game received frequent updates for more than half of its lifetime and obviously need I mention the very start of the game when everything is fresh to everyone and it takes a long time to do and explore everything? Obviously, when game receives constant updates, no one will have problem with gemstore, most probably even endorse it.

[Gryphon.2875]

@Danikat.8537 said:

Look at the mount licences: Anet apparently thought we'd like (or at least accept) buying random skins with no control over what we got. Players told them we don't like that and they changed future sets to include select licences so you can choose a skin. Players are happier and I suspect Anet get more money this way because people who would never buy mounts will do now. (I also think the select licences are too expensive, so I only buy them when they're on sale, another compromise.)

But if anyone is surprised at this point that GW2 gets free content updates and then sells some cosmetics and convinience items instead of bundling it all into paid DLC they haven't been paying attention.

I only buy the mount packs... 2000 gems makes sense for 4 skins, not just 1.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

It's 1200 Gems for a Mount Select License.
Too much for me; I prefer the regular Mount Licenses (at 400 Gems).