It's ok for every MMO company out there to make money. Problem with Anet is that they want money for nothing. 2 years completely same game, with UI overhaul and different commander colors.
It's ok for every MMO company out there to make money. Problem with Anet is that they want money for nothing. 2 years completely same game, with UI overhaul and different commander colors.
Ya! What the heck are they doing with my subscription? What a waste. /sarcasm
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
It's ok for every MMO company out there to make money. Problem with Anet is that they want money for nothing. 2 years completely same game, with UI overhaul and different commander colors.
I played for about 6 months from release, just came back and this is absolutely not the same game it was back then. There is much more content and way better performance in WvWvW.
I do blame the players that staunchly advocated and defended F2P/ B2P for where we are now, true.
Exactly. This one instance proves all B2P models are awful and subs lead to a bright future of brilliant, successful games like SWTOR and Wildstar. One could claim it's all about the execution in both cases and the B2P model that was sold to people isn't the one in use right now, but surely we mustn't be reasonable?
In your rush to be 'cuttingly' sarcastic, you seem to have missed the point.
No one said SWTOR or WS were made better games by being a sub, where did you get that from? SWTOR, for example, is a crap game IMO sub or F2P.... It's not worth my time whatever.
What was said is that the current state of monetisation in these games was allowed to happen by the players, and that the advocates and defenders of the model in regards to GW2 were told repeatedly that this kind of practice is where it would end up.
See the part in red? That's pointed out because it backs my point up. The B2P advocates for GW2 emotionally bought into the spin of Anet over the common sense of a minority of posters here on these forums. They are warned about slippery slopes and the bed they were making, and yet they argued bitterly to defend it. And now they are here complaining about it.
I don't have much sympathy for people that make their own beds after not listening and then whine about it
Wow. Project much? You and a few others are doing the exact same thing with Archeage.
I have said clearly that in AA I pay a sub right now and ignore the cash shop. It has no impact on me whatsoever and I have never complained about the CS in that game because it doesn't effect me. But nor have I promoted it as being a great thing, beyond allowing the time rich folks to play for 100% free if they so choose.
The only statement I have made about AA is that it isn't P2W, but that isn't relevant here so shouldn't be discussed really.
I have said in that forum that I am a fan and advocate of the sub model. Not because I think it makes the game 'better', but because I think it is a much fairer, more transparent, more honest, and more even way to charge for games like MMORPGs that are as much service as they are product.
So, 'exact'? No... No not at all. But keep sniping and looking to score cheap little points.
Please provide quotes or links that contradict what I say here if you choose to carry on with this kind of unfounded smearing.
You guys bought this game, a game that you KNEW was not up front with potential costs,that is what you expect from ANY game going the cash shop route.
You cannot blame anyone but your selves for supporting such a system.You should have all said no,we want a straight up sub fee,no strings attached,no gimmicks ,just give us the full content and everyone is equal.
Everyone was like this is the way developers should run their business,all game should be like Arena.Net.
You can NEVER make such claims about any game that has a non set monetary system,it can change at any moment and will never be a fair system to everyone,you get what you wanted,so no complaints.
Yeah because games with a set monetary system never make changes that upset their respective communities.... I mean WoW just released a huge patch last week and you would think they had completely destroyed the game and shit on their playerbase if you were to go by the minority crying fits on forums and up-in- arms demanding action and compensations. I think some of you sensationalists need your soapbox privileges suspended. This is not to say I agree or disagree with the decision because after all I can still pop in whenever I want and all that CS stuff is cosmetic and in no way impacts my gaming experience since I have already supported or farmed enough gems to buy the stuff I needed. The point is, your statement is false because a sub model doesn't protect players from changes and their perceived concepts of "fairness".
As to others I wont name, I find it absolutely astounding that they can make any negative comments about Anets business practices then turn around and support AA and it's shenanigans with a straight face. But it is so nice to see all the finger wags and I told you so's come out everytime something news worthy hits these forums on a game you so obviously do not support. See you next time.
I have said clearly that in AA I pay a sub right now and ignore the cash shop. It has no impact on me whatsoever and I have never complained about the CS in that game because it doesn't effect me. But nor have I promoted it as being a great thing, beyond allowing the time rich folks to play for 100% free if they so choose.
The only statement I have made about AA is that it isn't P2W, but that isn't relevant here so shouldn't be discussed really.
I have said in that forum that I am a fan and advocate of the sub model. Not because I think it makes the game 'better', but because I think it is a much fairer, more transparent, more honest, and more even way to charge for games like MMORPGs that are as much service as they are product.
So, 'exact'? No... No not at all. But keep sniping and looking to score cheap little points.
Please provide quotes or links that contradict what I say here if you choose to carry on with this kind of unfounded smearing.
And the exact same thing can be said of GW2. I bough the game and I supported it with a small gem purchase at around 3 months because I hadn't spent a dime and felt like I wanted to. I had earned enough gems for the account unlocks and upgrades already so it was purely optional and have not looked at the cash shop since. I have many complaints about the game, but the CS has not been one of them.
I have said clearly that in AA I pay a sub right now and ignore the cash shop. It has no impact on me whatsoever and I have never complained about the CS in that game because it doesn't effect me. But nor have I promoted it as being a great thing, beyond allowing the time rich folks to play for 100% free if they so choose.
The only statement I have made about AA is that it isn't P2W, but that isn't relevant here so shouldn't be discussed really.
I have said in that forum that I am a fan and advocate of the sub model. Not because I think it makes the game 'better', but because I think it is a much fairer, more transparent, more honest, and more even way to charge for games like MMORPGs that are as much service as they are product.
So, 'exact'? No... No not at all. But keep sniping and looking to score cheap little points.
Please provide quotes or links that contradict what I say here if you choose to carry on with this kind of unfounded smearing.
And the exact same thing can be said of GW2. I bough the game and I supported it with a small gem purchase at around 3 months because I hadn't spent a dime and felt like I wanted to. I had earned enough gems for the account unlocks and upgrades already so it was purely optional and have not looked at the cash shop since. I have many complaints about the game, but the CS has not been one of them.
Ofc the same can be said.
My statements aren't aimed at the guys just playing the game and getting on with it, because fair play to them. They are aimed at the guys who advocated and argued for the model then as Christ's own saving plan for MMORPGs, and are now here whinging about it, despite being warned about where it will take them.
This is the harsh reality of monetizing a no sub game.
I guess all the people saying that they like F2P as long as the shop only sells cosmetics didn't buy enough cosmetics. I guess what they meant by 'cosmetics' though was "stuff that i don't ever have to, and of course won't ever, buy".
Take away the sub from a AAA MMORPG and it seems people expect it to run on fresh air and just be provided as a gift to them for entertainment.
F2P, and B2P, advocates are reaping the seeds they helped sow.
Maybe now, after the blinders are lifted, we can get the genre to move back to the more economical and fair minded subscription model.
Oh yeah, renting a game for $200 a year plus DLC xpac for $50/$90 sounds really fair.
I haven't spent a dime on GW2 since I bought the box. My son has spent $30. Tell me again how renting for 5 times the box price PER YEAR is fair again? Sub for 5 years and spend $1000 on the game. That makes sense. I'm trying really hard to think of a game worth $1000 and I'm coming up with nothing.
But hey, keep on preaching the hidden grind treadmill of renting your games as if it's superior.
Because all of the game's players share the load of the cost. Nothing irritates me more than freeloading gamers. I happen to want this genre to thrive, but in a fair way where the cost is shared by everyone and games are designed to be fun instead of using psychology 101 in order to take advantage of player's vices.
This is the harsh reality of monetizing a no sub game.
I guess all the people saying that they like F2P as long as the shop only sells cosmetics didn't buy enough cosmetics. I guess what they meant by 'cosmetics' though was "stuff that i don't ever have to, and of course won't ever, buy".
Take away the sub from a AAA MMORPG and it seems people expect it to run on fresh air and just be provided as a gift to them for entertainment.
F2P, and B2P, advocates are reaping the seeds they helped sow.
At least when I'm playing a P2P game I know I don't have to deal with sleazy dev tactics to disguise money grab ploy as a feature, and the constant power struggle between cash shop vs content focus.
Not to mention when your business model is so volatile (you don't know how much revenue you're getting month over month unlike in P2P), it is extremely hard to plan any long-term content development outside expansion packs that are expected to pay for themselves.
FFXIV and GW2 are the prime examples of what can happen. Meaty content updates every 3 months on the dot + expansion packs every year and a half. Promised features are actually released. When your game is B2P your promises amount to nothing outside maybe expansion packs. Everything depends on the ROI which the B2P devs can't anticipate ahead of time.
GW2 was released a full year before FFXIV yet the signs seem to indicate the latter is getting its first expansion before the former. This is ridiculous considering how much of the game's increasing value rests on expansion packs in GW2. I don't know what the hell ANet is doing, letting a P2P game get ahead of them on this. The players are getting royally screwed here.
I fully agree.
Even in 'F2P', such as AA which i am playing now, I just buy a sub and ignore the cash shop.
Given the choice I would have every game 100% sub all the time every time.
Sad that it takes something like this being done by a big-name MMO for people to snap out of their "F2P iz teh bestest!" mindset and realize the kind of devious crap that really goes on with this revenue model. Even from a company like ANet.
What the OP describes and links to is the kind of crap *all* Cash Shop based MMOs pull. I posted a similar explanation a while ago, of how CS's stagger the cost of items against the quantities of gems you can purchase at a time, to make sure people never have enough left over, for anything worth purchasing anyway, and always need to buy more.
The entire reason they use a "cash shop currency" rather than real currency, is so they can set it up that way, as well as making it harder to track exactly what they're charging for things. It also makes it more difficult for the player to track exactly how much they're spending. Everything about it is shady.
And all the while, the devs dress it up to make it look like they're doing their players some huge favor.
I was told I didn't know what I was talking about.
Heh.
It's sad that some people will still attempt to defend it.
This is the harsh reality of monetizing a no sub game.
I guess all the people saying that they like F2P as long as the shop only sells cosmetics didn't buy enough cosmetics. I guess what they meant by 'cosmetics' though was "stuff that i don't ever have to, and of course won't ever, buy".
Take away the sub from a AAA MMORPG and it seems people expect it to run on fresh air and just be provided as a gift to them for entertainment.
F2P, and B2P, advocates are reaping the seeds they helped sow.
Maybe now, after the blinders are lifted, we can get the genre to move back to the more economical and fair minded subscription model.
Oh yeah, renting a game for $200 a year plus DLC xpac for $50/$90 sounds really fair.
I haven't spent a dime on GW2 since I bought the box. My son has spent $30. Tell me again how renting for 5 times the box price PER YEAR is fair again? Sub for 5 years and spend $1000 on the game. That makes sense. I'm trying really hard to think of a game worth $1000 and I'm coming up with nothing.
But hey, keep on preaching the hidden grind treadmill of renting your games as if it's superior.
Maybe you should also consider the many doing exactly that, are what leads to the current item of issue?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
This is the harsh reality of monetizing a no sub game.
I guess all the people saying that they like F2P as long as the shop only sells cosmetics didn't buy enough cosmetics. I guess what they meant by 'cosmetics' though was "stuff that i don't ever have to, and of course won't ever, buy".
Take away the sub from a AAA MMORPG and it seems people expect it to run on fresh air and just be provided as a gift to them for entertainment.
F2P, and B2P, advocates are reaping the seeds they helped sow.
At least when I'm playing a P2P game I know I don't have to deal with sleazy dev tactics to disguise money grab ploy as a feature, and the constant power struggle between cash shop vs content focus.
Not to mention when your business model is so volatile (you don't know how much revenue you're getting month over month unlike in P2P), it is extremely hard to plan any long-term content development outside expansion packs that are expected to pay for themselves.
FFXIV and GW2 are the prime examples of what can happen. Meaty content updates every 3 months on the dot + expansion packs every year and a half. Promised features are actually released. When your game is B2P your promises amount to nothing outside maybe expansion packs. Everything depends on the ROI which the B2P devs can't anticipate ahead of time.
GW2 was released a full year before FFXIV yet the signs seem to indicate the latter is getting its first expansion before the former. This is ridiculous considering how much of the game's increasing value rests on expansion packs in GW2. I don't know what the hell ANet is doing, letting a P2P game get ahead of them on this. The players are getting royally screwed here.
I fully agree.
Even in 'F2P', such as AA which i am playing now, I just buy a sub and ignore the cash shop.
Given the choice I would have every game 100% sub all the time every time.
Sad that it takes something like this being done by a big-name MMO for people to snap out of their "F2P iz teh bestest!" mindset and realize the kind of devious crap that really goes on with this revenue model.
What the OP describes and links to is the kind of crap *all* Cash Shop based MMOs pull. I posted a similar explanation a while ago, of how CS's stagger the cost of items against the quantities of gems you can purchase at a time, to make sure people never have enough left over, for anything worth purchasing anyway, and always need to buy more.
And all the while, the devs dress it up to make it look like they're doing their players some huge favor.
I was told I didn't know what I was talking about.
Heh.
It's sad that some people will still attempt to defend it.
I have been on these forums a long time and, trust me, I understand where you are coming from.
This is the harsh reality of monetizing a no sub game.
I guess all the people saying that they like F2P as long as the shop only sells cosmetics didn't buy enough cosmetics. I guess what they meant by 'cosmetics' though was "stuff that i don't ever have to, and of course won't ever, buy".
Take away the sub from a AAA MMORPG and it seems people expect it to run on fresh air and just be provided as a gift to them for entertainment.
F2P, and B2P, advocates are reaping the seeds they helped sow.
Maybe now, after the blinders are lifted, we can get the genre to move back to the more economical and fair minded subscription model.
Oh yeah, renting a game for $200 a year plus DLC xpac for $50/$90 sounds really fair.
I haven't spent a dime on GW2 since I bought the box.
Maybe you should also consider the many doing exactly that, are what leads to the current item of issue?
I suspect that he might be one of the guys that argues that the only 'good' cash shop is the cosmetic cash shop.
Because that's the cash shop he can easily ignore and therefore pay nothing into the game.
This is the harsh reality of monetizing a no sub game.
I guess all the people saying that they like F2P as long as the shop only sells cosmetics didn't buy enough cosmetics. I guess what they meant by 'cosmetics' though was "stuff that i don't ever have to, and of course won't ever, buy".
Take away the sub from a AAA MMORPG and it seems people expect it to run on fresh air and just be provided as a gift to them for entertainment.
F2P, and B2P, advocates are reaping the seeds they helped sow.
At least when I'm playing a P2P game I know I don't have to deal with sleazy dev tactics to disguise money grab ploy as a feature, and the constant power struggle between cash shop vs content focus.
Not to mention when your business model is so volatile (you don't know how much revenue you're getting month over month unlike in P2P), it is extremely hard to plan any long-term content development outside expansion packs that are expected to pay for themselves.
FFXIV and GW2 are the prime examples of what can happen. Meaty content updates every 3 months on the dot + expansion packs every year and a half. Promised features are actually released. When your game is B2P your promises amount to nothing outside maybe expansion packs. Everything depends on the ROI which the B2P devs can't anticipate ahead of time.
GW2 was released a full year before FFXIV yet the signs seem to indicate the latter is getting its first expansion before the former. This is ridiculous considering how much of the game's increasing value rests on expansion packs in GW2. I don't know what the hell ANet is doing, letting a P2P game get ahead of them on this. The players are getting royally screwed here.
I fully agree.
Even in 'F2P', such as AA which i am playing now, I just buy a sub and ignore the cash shop.
Given the choice I would have every game 100% sub all the time every time.
Sad that it takes something like this being done by a big-name MMO for people to snap out of their "F2P iz teh bestest!" mindset and realize the kind of devious crap that really goes on with this revenue model.
What the OP describes and links to is the kind of crap *all* Cash Shop based MMOs pull. I posted a similar explanation a while ago, of how CS's stagger the cost of items against the quantities of gems you can purchase at a time, to make sure people never have enough left over, for anything worth purchasing anyway, and always need to buy more.
And all the while, the devs dress it up to make it look like they're doing their players some huge favor.
I was told I didn't know what I was talking about.
Heh.
It's sad that some people will still attempt to defend it.
I have been on these forums a long time and, trust me, I understand where you are coming from.
Yep. I guess the word "FREE!" is a hell of a blue pill.
I didn't see it mentioned in the thread, so to add a little update, they announced about an hout ago that they're adding a custom amount button as well, so basically they'll keep the change but add the functionality it had before as well:
From the GW2 forum:
Here’s an update for you:
It’s clear that quite a lot of you would like to have greater flexibility in using the Currency Exchange. Our intention when we designed the new interface was to streamline large volume purchases, which make up the majority of transactions.
In light of your feedback, we will update the Currency Exchange so that you can decide how you want to use it. We will keep the new streamlined system and also offer a new “Custom” button on the panel that you can use to exchange any increment of gems or gold.
We anticipate rolling this out soon. Stay tuned!
~~~~~
Sorry for the delay in posting this, but out of respect to our international community, we wanted to be able to post in several forums at once
This is the harsh reality of monetizing a no sub game.
I guess all the people saying that they like F2P as long as the shop only sells cosmetics didn't buy enough cosmetics. I guess what they meant by 'cosmetics' though was "stuff that i don't ever have to, and of course won't ever, buy".
Take away the sub from a AAA MMORPG and it seems people expect it to run on fresh air and just be provided as a gift to them for entertainment.
F2P, and B2P, advocates are reaping the seeds they helped sow.
Maybe now, after the blinders are lifted, we can get the genre to move back to the more economical and fair minded subscription model.
Oh yeah, renting a game for $200 a year plus DLC xpac for $50/$90 sounds really fair.
I haven't spent a dime on GW2 since I bought the box. My son has spent $30. Tell me again how renting for 5 times the box price PER YEAR is fair again? Sub for 5 years and spend $1000 on the game. That makes sense. I'm trying really hard to think of a game worth $1000 and I'm coming up with nothing.
But hey, keep on preaching the hidden grind treadmill of renting your games as if it's superior.
Maybe you should also consider the many doing exactly that, are what leads to the current item of issue?
Do you have even the smallest bit of logic that would lead you to that conclusion? I can think of at least one other more plausible reason and that Arena Net wants more consistent income from those that buy gems.
I could consider it, but why would I? It's not my problem. I have no beef with the cost of gems. If I did I wouldn't have let my son purchase them. I just haven't wanted anything with gems so far. I've thought about buying some more storage, but haven't needed it that bad.
OFc there's logic behind what I said, I just don't think you're seeing it.
Ofc the person who doesn't want to put anything in regularly, enjoys such a system, as you just said it doesn't cross your mind. It doesn't effect your wallet nor tendencies. It's like the guy on welfare being okay with inflated payroll taxes.
I've found, I'm more often than not on your side in most debates, but I can't agree with your train of thought here.
I'll have to agree with Vesavius in that people did put this monetary plan up on a pedestal as the pinnacle of developer generosity, without really ever considering what happens when they don't put anything in after the initial purchase. IT forces the company into a situation where they have to increase revenue in such ways...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The other funny thing I hear from you quite often is how expensive sub-free games are, but then when someone spends in moderation you take a few personal jabs and imply they're freeloaders. That tells me you don't have a lot of valid criticism to add to the topic.
By the way you know that Trion only sells Credits in specified allotments just like the OPs complaint. How is that justifiable, but it's not here?
When have I ever complained about the expensiveness of F2P/B2P? My opinion on this subject in general is quite simple and clear, I don't care about the business model, P2W, etc... I care about having fun. I have a preference of course, Subscriptions, simply because one flat fee gets me everything, and places the items I'd want as rewards for playing, in game...
I can't remember calling anyone a freeloader before either, I try and steer clear of name calling... I can't think of ever really using the word without quotations...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
This is the harsh reality of monetizing a no sub game.
I guess all the people saying that they like F2P as long as the shop only sells cosmetics didn't buy enough cosmetics. I guess what they meant by 'cosmetics' though was "stuff that i don't ever have to, and of course won't ever, buy".
Take away the sub from a AAA MMORPG and it seems people expect it to run on fresh air and just be provided as a gift to them for entertainment.
F2P, and B2P, advocates are reaping the seeds they helped sow.
Maybe now, after the blinders are lifted, we can get the genre to move back to the more economical and fair minded subscription model.
Oh yeah, renting a game for $200 a year plus DLC xpac for $50/$90 sounds really fair.
I haven't spent a dime on GW2 since I bought the box. My son has spent $30. Tell me again how renting for 5 times the box price PER YEAR is fair again? Sub for 5 years and spend $1000 on the game. That makes sense. I'm trying really hard to think of a game worth $1000 and I'm coming up with nothing.
But hey, keep on preaching the hidden grind treadmill of renting your games as if it's superior.
Maybe you should also consider the many doing exactly that, are what leads to the current item of issue?
Do you have even the smallest bit of logic that would lead you to that conclusion? I can think of at least one other more plausible reason and that Arena Net wants more consistent income from those that buy gems.
I could consider it, but why would I? It's not my problem. I have no beef with the cost of gems. If I did I wouldn't have let my son purchase them. I just haven't wanted anything with gems so far. I've thought about buying some more storage, but haven't needed it that bad.
OFc there's logic behind what I said, I just don't think you're seeing it.
Ofc the person who doesn't want to put anything in regularly, enjoys such a system, as you just said it doesn't cross your mind. It doesn't effect your wallet nor tendencies. It's like the guy on welfare being okay with inflated payroll taxes.
I've found, I'm more often than not on your side in most debates, but I can't agree with your train of thought here.
I'll have to agree with Vesavius in that people did put this monetary plan up on a pedestal as the pinnacle of developer generosity, without really ever considering what happens when they don't put anything in after the initial purchase. IT forces the company into a situation where they have to increase revenue in such ways...
How would you rate this by comparison of what other b2p models have done? Such as TSW, Tera...
How would you rate this by comparison of what other b2p models have done? Such as TSW, Tera...
I'd have to know what they did first, and to be clear I was making a point about never putting into a game after an initial purchase, and what happens when you don't. While the game still costs zero for you going forward, the price just went up for someone else more or less.. They have to make their profits somewhere.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The other funny thing I hear from you quite often is how expensive sub-free games are, but then when someone spends in moderation you take a few personal jabs and imply they're freeloaders. That tells me you don't have a lot of valid criticism to add to the topic.
By the way you know that Trion only sells Credits in specified allotments just like the OPs complaint. How is that justifiable, but it's not here?
When have I ever complained about the expensiveness of F2P/B2P? My opinion on this subject in general is quite simple and clear, I don't care about the business model, P2W, etc... I care about having fun. I have a preference of course, Subscriptions, simply because one flat fee gets me everything, and places the items I'd want as rewards for playing, in game...
I can't remember calling anyone a freeloader before either, I try and steer clear of name calling... I can't think of ever really using the word without quotations...
Same here. If I play a game, I always opt for the sub option because it typically provides the full experience without the cash shop interference. However, I don't have anything against f2p or b2p. I don't think they are better, just different....a different that tends to lead to a bit of sleaze with some companies.
How would you rate this by comparison of what other b2p models have done? Such as TSW, Tera...
I'd have to know what they did first, and to be clear I was making a point about never putting into a game after an initial purchase, and what happens when you don't. While the game still costs zero for you going forward, the price just went up for someone else more or less.. They have to make their profits somewhere.
Why go this route though? Why not an expansion? Do they not have the resources any more? Wasn't this game doing fairly well?
This is the harsh reality of monetizing a no sub game.
I guess all the people saying that they like F2P as long as the shop only sells cosmetics didn't buy enough cosmetics. I guess what they meant by 'cosmetics' though was "stuff that i don't ever have to, and of course won't ever, buy".
Take away the sub from a AAA MMORPG and it seems people expect it to run on fresh air and just be provided as a gift to them for entertainment.
F2P, and B2P, advocates are reaping the seeds they helped sow.
Maybe now, after the blinders are lifted, we can get the genre to move back to the more economical and fair minded subscription model.
Oh yeah, renting a game for $200 a year plus DLC xpac for $50/$90 sounds really fair.
I haven't spent a dime on GW2 since I bought the box.
Maybe you should also consider the many doing exactly that, are what leads to the current item of issue?
I suspect that he might be one of the guys that argues that the only 'good' cash shop is the cosmetic cash shop.
Because that's the cash shop he can easily ignore and therefore pay nothing into the game.
Freeloaders tend to argue strongly in this way.
Is that what you would suspect?
Yeah, that's what I would suspect....
Actually, mass edit because I have just realised that I don't care enough about it to argue it.
How would you rate this by comparison of what other b2p models have done? Such as TSW, Tera...
I'd have to know what they did first, and to be clear I was making a point about never putting into a game after an initial purchase, and what happens when you don't. While the game still costs zero for you going forward, the price just went up for someone else more or less.. They have to make their profits somewhere.
Where I questioned your logic earlier was specifically about this. The game didn't get more expensive for someone else. I'm questioning the connection that this is about players not buying enough gems. I think it's just as possible this is about inhibiting players from gaming the buy/sell market and getting really cheap gems. That is a problem (and a criticism previously leveled at ANet) for almost every game with a currency exchange or "PLEX" like exchange.
ANet sells the box on sale for much less than the original price. If they needed to squeeze more revenue then they wouldn't lower the box price either. I'm not convinced this has anything to do with players not buying enough gems. I also don't see it as an unfair change. It could keep gem purchases fair across all players and not just those who game the market.
WIth all due respect I have to disagree changes like this aren't about revenue. People are going to complain regardless of such a change, and most devs should know chicken little will rear it's head along with such changes. That's inevitable.
The BOx price is lowered because of falling sales, that's also inevitable. Yet Box sales and continued regular income are two different things. Especially when entering into the era where expansions are expected. They're also running an ongoing service, on top of building a game. That's a lot to pay for. Regular monthly income is a high priority in relation to that. I think you might be underplaying the importance of Gem sales, and what they make off it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Comments
It's ok for every MMO company out there to make money. Problem with Anet is that they want money for nothing. 2 years completely same game, with UI overhaul and different commander colors.
Ya! What the heck are they doing with my subscription? What a waste. /sarcasm
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
I played for about 6 months from release, just came back and this is absolutely not the same game it was back then. There is much more content and way better performance in WvWvW.
I have said clearly that in AA I pay a sub right now and ignore the cash shop. It has no impact on me whatsoever and I have never complained about the CS in that game because it doesn't effect me. But nor have I promoted it as being a great thing, beyond allowing the time rich folks to play for 100% free if they so choose.
The only statement I have made about AA is that it isn't P2W, but that isn't relevant here so shouldn't be discussed really.
I have said in that forum that I am a fan and advocate of the sub model. Not because I think it makes the game 'better', but because I think it is a much fairer, more transparent, more honest, and more even way to charge for games like MMORPGs that are as much service as they are product.
So, 'exact'? No... No not at all. But keep sniping and looking to score cheap little points.
Please provide quotes or links that contradict what I say here if you choose to carry on with this kind of unfounded smearing.
Looking forward to: Crowfall / Lost Ark / Black Desert Mobile
Yeah because games with a set monetary system never make changes that upset their respective communities.... I mean WoW just released a huge patch last week and you would think they had completely destroyed the game and shit on their playerbase if you were to go by the minority crying fits on forums and up-in- arms demanding action and compensations. I think some of you sensationalists need your soapbox privileges suspended. This is not to say I agree or disagree with the decision because after all I can still pop in whenever I want and all that CS stuff is cosmetic and in no way impacts my gaming experience since I have already supported or farmed enough gems to buy the stuff I needed. The point is, your statement is false because a sub model doesn't protect players from changes and their perceived concepts of "fairness".
As to others I wont name, I find it absolutely astounding that they can make any negative comments about Anets business practices then turn around and support AA and it's shenanigans with a straight face. But it is so nice to see all the finger wags and I told you so's come out everytime something news worthy hits these forums on a game you so obviously do not support. See you next time.
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
And the exact same thing can be said of GW2. I bough the game and I supported it with a small gem purchase at around 3 months because I hadn't spent a dime and felt like I wanted to. I had earned enough gems for the account unlocks and upgrades already so it was purely optional and have not looked at the cash shop since. I have many complaints about the game, but the CS has not been one of them.
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
Ofc the same can be said.
My statements aren't aimed at the guys just playing the game and getting on with it, because fair play to them. They are aimed at the guys who advocated and argued for the model then as Christ's own saving plan for MMORPGs, and are now here whinging about it, despite being warned about where it will take them.
Because all of the game's players share the load of the cost. Nothing irritates me more than freeloading gamers. I happen to want this genre to thrive, but in a fair way where the cost is shared by everyone and games are designed to be fun instead of using psychology 101 in order to take advantage of player's vices.
Sad that it takes something like this being done by a big-name MMO for people to snap out of their "F2P iz teh bestest!" mindset and realize the kind of devious crap that really goes on with this revenue model. Even from a company like ANet.
What the OP describes and links to is the kind of crap *all* Cash Shop based MMOs pull. I posted a similar explanation a while ago, of how CS's stagger the cost of items against the quantities of gems you can purchase at a time, to make sure people never have enough left over, for anything worth purchasing anyway, and always need to buy more.
The entire reason they use a "cash shop currency" rather than real currency, is so they can set it up that way, as well as making it harder to track exactly what they're charging for things. It also makes it more difficult for the player to track exactly how much they're spending. Everything about it is shady.
And all the while, the devs dress it up to make it look like they're doing their players some huge favor.
I was told I didn't know what I was talking about.
Heh.
It's sad that some people will still attempt to defend it.
Maybe you should also consider the many doing exactly that, are what leads to the current item of issue?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I have been on these forums a long time and, trust me, I understand where you are coming from.
I suspect that he might be one of the guys that argues that the only 'good' cash shop is the cosmetic cash shop.
Because that's the cash shop he can easily ignore and therefore pay nothing into the game.
Freeloaders tend to argue strongly in this way.
Yep. I guess the word "FREE!" is a hell of a blue pill.
I didn't see it mentioned in the thread, so to add a little update, they announced about an hout ago that they're adding a custom amount button as well, so basically they'll keep the change but add the functionality it had before as well:
From the GW2 forum:
Here’s an update for you:
It’s clear that quite a lot of you would like to have greater flexibility in using the Currency Exchange. Our intention when we designed the new interface was to streamline large volume purchases, which make up the majority of transactions.
In light of your feedback, we will update the Currency Exchange so that you can decide how you want to use it. We will keep the new streamlined system and also offer a new “Custom” button on the panel that you can use to exchange any increment of gems or gold.
We anticipate rolling this out soon. Stay tuned!
~~~~~
Sorry for the delay in posting this, but out of respect to our international community, we wanted to be able to post in several forums at once
Source: https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/game/gw2/Lets-talk-about-the-new-Gem-conversion-Merged/page/34#post4507962
What can men do against such reckless hate?
Already heard this was being reverted...
/close topic
OFc there's logic behind what I said, I just don't think you're seeing it.
Ofc the person who doesn't want to put anything in regularly, enjoys such a system, as you just said it doesn't cross your mind. It doesn't effect your wallet nor tendencies. It's like the guy on welfare being okay with inflated payroll taxes.
I've found, I'm more often than not on your side in most debates, but I can't agree with your train of thought here.
I'll have to agree with Vesavius in that people did put this monetary plan up on a pedestal as the pinnacle of developer generosity, without really ever considering what happens when they don't put anything in after the initial purchase. IT forces the company into a situation where they have to increase revenue in such ways...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
When have I ever complained about the expensiveness of F2P/B2P? My opinion on this subject in general is quite simple and clear, I don't care about the business model, P2W, etc... I care about having fun. I have a preference of course, Subscriptions, simply because one flat fee gets me everything, and places the items I'd want as rewards for playing, in game...
I can't remember calling anyone a freeloader before either, I try and steer clear of name calling... I can't think of ever really using the word without quotations...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
How would you rate this by comparison of what other b2p models have done? Such as TSW, Tera...
I'd have to know what they did first, and to be clear I was making a point about never putting into a game after an initial purchase, and what happens when you don't. While the game still costs zero for you going forward, the price just went up for someone else more or less.. They have to make their profits somewhere.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Same here. If I play a game, I always opt for the sub option because it typically provides the full experience without the cash shop interference. However, I don't have anything against f2p or b2p. I don't think they are better, just different....a different that tends to lead to a bit of sleaze with some companies.
Why go this route though? Why not an expansion? Do they not have the resources any more? Wasn't this game doing fairly well?
Yeah, that's what I would suspect....
Actually, mass edit because I have just realised that I don't care enough about it to argue it.
WIth all due respect I have to disagree changes like this aren't about revenue. People are going to complain regardless of such a change, and most devs should know chicken little will rear it's head along with such changes. That's inevitable.
The BOx price is lowered because of falling sales, that's also inevitable. Yet Box sales and continued regular income are two different things. Especially when entering into the era where expansions are expected. They're also running an ongoing service, on top of building a game. That's a lot to pay for. Regular monthly income is a high priority in relation to that. I think you might be underplaying the importance of Gem sales, and what they make off it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson