Leo G.4501

> @"Hybarf Tics.2048" said:

> > @"Ben K.6238" said:

> > I was expecting 2000 gems for the Outrider skin anyway, so I'm more than happy to get another four skins as well for that price. I'll probably just use the one though.

> >

> > 

> >

>

> That being said those 4 skin jobs Anet pulled on you are identical in every way, they simply came out the paint shop $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ differently $$$$$$$$$. :o

U just mad you fell outta the fashion-wars meta.

> @"Hesione.9412" said:

> I had some gems, converted some gold to gems, and bought the pack. I wvw numerous hours a week, though, so it's worth it to me being able to see the mount the way I want.

>

> I don't consider items in the Gem Store to be rip-offs. Lots are cosmetic (skins) and some have utility (permanent gathering tools, bank/character/material slots). But you can happily play the game having purchased absolutely nothing from the Gem Store.

>

> It's not like the Gem Store prices are hidden, or the gold-to-gems conversion rate is hidden.

>

> The definition of rip-off being used here seems to be "I don't want to pay this price for this item." Given that the item is not being misadvertised, nothing in the Gem Store meets the definition of an actual rip-off.

Spot on!

I like the way you think. Next, people will say it's predatory in some nature. 's cool. We understand that this is the player's way of saying "I want it! But I want to haggle for it!" Just wait a few months or a year. There will be a sale and you'll be rewarded for your haggling skills.

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > Because what they want to encourage is people buying gems, not just exchanging gold for them.

> > >

> > > The choices are saving gems slowly, or spending a bit of cash.

> >

> > Er..the only way anyone can buy gems with gold is if another players buys gems with $$$ and sells them for gold. Both = $$$ in ANET's pocket. There are still gems available for gold, the price has jumped a bit, which also means people will get more gold for the $$$ they spend buying gems.

> >

> > The issue is the amount of gems. I didn't pay 2000 gems for the Shrine Guardian Mount skin because even though it was awesome, it was 1 skin for the Jackal which I hardly use. Now they ask 2000 gems for 6 skins for 1 mount that, comparatively speaking, I hardly use. Still a flat 'no' for me.

>

> It's not completely like that. While the conversion rate is affected by supply and demand, it isn't a direct stock like the trading post. There won't be a point in which there's no gold to trade if no one buys gems.

> It also prevents people fiddling with the system and depleting stocks by buying or selling too much.

As far as supply goes, the reason that it practically is a straight conversion is because there are people that want that gold. Consider that, near the game's launch, there were players stockpiling hundreds of gems at the cost of a pittance of gold (like 4 gold for 100 gems). A couple years after launch, there were players probably five-digit gems just sitting there collecting dust because they hit the cap in gold and needed something that held value.

There won't be a point where there's no gold because the game infinitely generates gold. When you see the conversion rate to gems becoming 15 gold for 100 gems, there *might* be a shortage but that just won't ever happen lol. It's a good thing though. It's a direct attack against gold-sellers while also allowing a sink for gold to help counter inflation.

At the end of the day, despite how disappointed you are, you'll find some way to get the gems for them. You wouldn't have bothered to get the mount if you weren't.

> @"Arheundel.6451" said:

> > @"Mil.3562" said:

> > > @"DanAlcedo.3281" said:

> > > You do realize that Firebrand is garbage at ACTUAL healing people.

> > >

> > > If you think the numbers Firebrand can push out are high..... then you never played a proper healing build.

> > >

> > > Tempest outhealed Firebrand before the patch by a huge margin.

> > >

> > > L2P issue.

> >

> > Not just L2P issue, L2build issue too.

> >

> > Just because Tempest cannot cleanse more than FB (and again this is TC's opinion) that makes her trash in WvW? Good point : D

> >

> > I have been playing nothing but healing tempest in WvW for more than four years and always running with squad. And by the end of most run, most time players whispered me thankful words for my heals. And this is even before the 10 player buff update.

> >

> > Probably TC is referring to PvP and thinking WvW is same as PvP? Or TC tried out Tempest support in WvW and got owned by Scrouges and Condi Mems hence the rage.

> >

> > Definitely L2BP issue.

>

> ..... learn to read and play pls.....the tempest you run in wvw is a gimmick which relies on core traits for most of the job , the spec itself brings almost nothing to the table , the trait line itself doesn't make ele useful anywhere outside the gimmick PvE group setting with busted tanky stats......**how many eles can you fit in a tempest box ? - all of them it seems**

What does this even mean? Core traits *ARE* a spec. How can something rely on traits but then the traits that make up the spec bring nothing if the traits in question accomplish a job?

Can you define your terms? What do you mean by "core traits" in regard to doing a job or being a gimmick?

And what do you define as a "spec"? And how does a "spec" differ from the traits, runes and weapon/sigils that make up said spec?

> A PvE gimmick cannot be compared to Firebrand which can be run with harrier stats for roaming - minstrel for support and other variants like condi firebrand , it can be run in PvP with great success.....that's what I call balance design...not the healing rain staff monkey build...a try hard spec as I mentioned in the OP which you didn't read

I'd also like to state that an e-spec doesn't have to be competitive (competitive defined as competing for top performance in a given role across all professions and specs) in every game mode. Especially considering PvP situations where part of what makes it "player" versus "player" is artificially creating the scenario that gives you and advantage, not just pressing builds together.

It's actually very dumb to try to appeal to that kind of balance because it will never happen. Tempest is just not competitive for ranked PvP and there's nothing wrong with that.

My 2 cents:

If you want to make players pay for content, make the content exorbitantly exclusive. Not some little cutscene collab in a story instance, but straight up party content subsistence. Want to play a certain race + its story, put up some cash despite the p2w tory. New news, Anet is pushing out 3 elite specs and elite spec specific content (quests, weapon skins, special auras and emotes) for every profession in the next year....requires cash.

While I don't mind paying cash for Living World story updates (I don't often log into the game), it's not going to draw me into the game to *want* to need to buy those individual updates. New professions, new elite specs, new races, new stories specific to those specs/races, would draw me in like a moth to a flame.

Something else that might be a possibility to *KEEP* players is character progression. Not cosmetic progression. Something like expanding PvE or WvW specs like doing certain objectives and completing certain requirements unlocks new trait in a certain spec or alternate weapon skill for a certain weapon. Do enough of this, provide enough variation and make the requirements steep enough and you keep players playing and customers paying.

FYI, I have the "Rhyme with inebriated" quirk via BNHA.

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> On the flavor topic, I'd even say that contrary to what you say, focusing on attuning into a single attunment is not what the traitline should do. Traitlines should define the kind of mage that you are and add an hint of your primary element(s) into every skills that you use, whatever your attunment. Fire magic making fire skill do more damage isn't gonna fix anything on a profession that highly revolve around the idea of going in and out of attunment. On the opposite, traits that give an hint of fire magic to any attunment like _burning precision_ really make you a fire mage on such a profession.

>

Perhaps on a mechanical level. I agree with your premise, I just don't think it actually reflects what is presented. Applying burning on crits doesn't denote a fire mage because the act of burning is denoted with the condition of burn, not the magic. A Guardian can burn, a Berserker can burn, anything with Forgeman Rune or combo in a fire field can burn. Not to mention, burning on crit isn't very visual in execution.

Maybe it's personal preference, but if I'm imbuing fire magic in all my fire elementalist skills, wouldn't that equate to a modified element? Like Fire+Air= Smoke/Ash, Fire+Water=Combustion/Steam and Fire+Earth=Lava/Metal? This should be the concept of Weaver, not every other element specialization unnless we get specializations that do the opposite (focus on focusing on particular elements) then I'm not sure why you think all concepts for all specializations should emulate the same concept.

> @"lLobo.7960" said:

> > @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> > I didn't go throught everything but I can see that you keep the traits that are effective only when you are in a specific attunment and that's simply why I disagree with the whole thing. In reality, the elementalist don't need much to become "good", the elementalist only need traits to affect them whatever their attunment is. By enoforcing the idea that you need to be in a specific attunment to make use of a trait (like you do) you continue to pigeonhole the elementalist into specific traitlines based on the gamemode "need". Which mean that the whole thing that you did is as flawed as the current thing and elementalist would continue to stay pigeonholed in water in spvp after all those change happen.

> >

> I disagree. The elemental lines let the ele specialize in those aspects of each element and be better while focusing that element. This is part of the flavor and mechanics of the ele. The one thing I see it could change is the return of this trait in arcane:

I'm in agreement with you. I feel the purpose of the trait lines has always given favor to using specific elements because the concept lends to the idea that choosing a specialization *specializes* you in some fashion. To expect the traitlines to just be generic bonuses that don't take much account of what attunement it improves really makes building much more bland.

To Dadnir, I'm assuming you're on the mark with the prospect of meta-building for competitive play, and I appreciate that perspective because it is a necessary perspective when discussing suggestions as a whole...but you have to admit, balancing so that a set of traits is decently functional across all attunements will likely lead to mild and vanilla builds in general. It's what makes the difference between GW2 build-craft and GW1 build-craft (or at least that's what I've been told as I've not played GW1 myself).

That being said, some criticism to lLobo's Water attunement suggestion: Why is it all healing!? While I can see what you're getting at, no other attunement is that pigeonholed. Fire gets power/condi and resistance/blinds, air gets burst power/crit/quickness and movement/CC, earth gets bunker/stab/defensive boon support and longer duration condi while water gets support/boon share and dodges. Something doesn't add up here.

Water has no offensive options whatsoever. Might sound crazy but I'm just seeing an imbalance. Maybe give Water team condi-damage support with some kind of ability that improves condi duration on a target (call it Poison the Well or something) or at the very least, using a chill on a target with max vulnerability causes a status that mimics max vulnerability (+25% damage) while removing all stacks of vulnerability, basically giving you the ability to bypass the cap for a time. Give water something offensive besides some +% damage per boon, is what I'm saying.

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Emberstone.2904" said:

> > > @"Biff.5312" said:

> > > Your personal anecdotal evidence is not significant and no conclusions can be drawn from it.

> > >

> > > For instance, in my guild I've seen dozens of new players join in the past several months, and only seen one or two existing players stop coming around much. Nobody has quit the game to my knowledge and I still see the people I always did in chat/discord.

> > >

> > > The fact is that you simply aren't in a position to assess this based on 32 people you know.

> >

> > 30 people is considered enough to be statistically relevant. It won't necessarily paint 100% of the picture, but 30 is enough to start showing trends. That's basic stats.

> >

> Sorry, but I have to disagree. 30 is nowhere near a relevant sample size when considering the many thousands of accounts. It could show a trend, but that trend may not be indicative of the actual situation. Maybe these 30 live in a relatively close proximity and something local has caused them to no longer be able to log in (like a natural disaster or change in laws). When using statistics, one has to be very careful of the sample size and how it is generated.

>

>

You can also use statistics to measure the probability of your hypothetical with consideration to relevant information such as how those 30 individuals were recruited.

I'd actually consider it unlikely that, even if they were all in a close proximity, they would all be affected similarly unless they were actually apart of the same neighborhood/household which is statistically unlikely.

> @"Lost Dragons Tail.3760" said:

> > @"tinymurder.5791" said:

> > ...you do realize this game has always been F2P, right? Maybe you're referring to trial accounts as F2P, which is not at all the same thing.

>

> No this game has not always been F2P, it began as B2P. My bank account is testament when the game came out. It transitioned to F2P.

Indeed. I remember when the sale for a registration code here on the site dropped to $10. I bought 6 and gave 5 away to friends so technically, I still have one floating around. This was before f2p.

Make the skin sellable on the tp so the player can profit off of the Belgians.

> @"SunRay.5874" said:

> The amount of considerate comments bringing up the workload that Anet would have to face, should this mechanic be implemented, is quite... beguiling? I've never seen a community that concerns itself this much with the potential troubles that their game creators might go through by complying with player demands. Over half of the replies here are something like "Yeah I guess it would be nice, but Anet would have a hard time trying to figure it out". Or "Anet is busy with other stuff". Very interesting.

The response to practically every suggestion thread here.

It's a source of never-ending frustration everytime I decide to pop back on these forums every few days or so.

I think the most compelling reason to support the idea from a player perspective is animations.

It's a subjective reason but if done well, having a set where you're using one sword occasionally swapping from swinging with a single hand to using both hands for really powerful blows is very aesthetically pleasing or a pistol animation where you steady your aim for a convincing well aimed burst or use the other hand for a quick mag change or loading a special round. Or what about an animation for dagger that shows a compelling hand swap for a martial combo using a feinted and stab to an unprotected area.

The thing is, a lot of the current animations could be better. Many look recycled or like limp wristed flailing and it kind of had to be when a player can have any combo of offhand weapons that would affect the main.

Having a sole one handed weapon could possibly utilize more stylized animations than dual weapons.

I think currencies are kinda standard for MMOs now-a-days. It's to limit progress to certain content.

In FFXIV, if I recall, to obtain/craft/upgrade certain gear, you have to do certain difficulty dungeons that grant the proper currency. Once you get the desired reward, you can use the currencies on other things but ultimately you'll need to move on to other content and currencies to get the next desired reward.

Blade and Soul does this too by requiring certain stuff for upgrades as well as lock the next level piece of gear in a box obtained in certain content that then requires keys (usually obtained from the same content but you can also just buy the key with cash) but where currencies come in are the materials you gain from the multi-player dungeons, the faction PvP events, the ranked PvP rewards and time-gated crafted items.

Ultimately, the purpose is always to funnel players into certain content to get certain rewards and to time-gate them so it takes a decided amount of time to get.

I'd be curious if players have some ideas on other ways to accomplish these goals other than how Anet is doing it now. I suppose they could "group" certain content together so you can do any of them and get the same currency, but you're still going to get an outcome where players funnel even harder into specific content and ignore other content.

> @"trev.1045" said:

> > @"shoegaze.3482" said:

> > > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > the game isn't dying the layoffs had nothing to do with gw2 not making money (because it does make money)

> >

> > I dont know, i just saw the PDF with the various ncsoft games revenue and GW2 doesn't see to be doing great, compared with other ncsoft titles and with other mmorpgs.

> >

> > And i really think It deserve more.

> >

> > But ye, the game Is not dying at all, lot of players, lot of contents, im sure with more founds would be even better.

>

> I know how you feel

>

> I downloaded a mobile game recently, it is making good money (darkness rises)...12 million downloads in a couple of months

> Incredibly shallow game play, blatant p2w. Ridiculous 'sexy' costumes - yet it is making a lot of cash.

>

> I dont understand how these games do so well, but i put it down to my age....

>

>

Well, I wouldn't assume all mobile games are like that.

Another aspect to look at, however, is overhead costs i.e. how much it costs to make and maintain these games vs how much revenue they get and over what time period.

Now that I'm not blind and looking at any kind of lit screen doesn't cause searing pain, I'll get around to responding to some of this.

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > > > I'm not going to sit here and say that mobile gaming isn't gaming because that's just dumb, full stop. i will say though that mobile gaming as a viable income stream is a dumb idea built around the idea of short term gain. I will also point out that most gaming done on phones is reserved for times when people are looking to pass time in boring situations, like bathroom visits or being stuck at airports, and not when people are looking to enjoy a more robust gaming experience. in short, any game developer that already makes PC games trying to "break into" the mobile gaming market as means of additional revenue is already on the wrong track.

> > > >

> > > > And this will continue to be the case if no one ever attempts to make mobile games robust.

> > > >

> > > > If say, rather than try to pin why you feel mobile gaming isn't appealing, there are people that aren't armchair pop culture critics doing actual work to push change.

> > >

> > > What you call an "armchair pop culture critic" I call someone who is an actual target customer who already has a solid grasp of what mobile gaming is and what it will be...

> >

> > ..who is complaining on a forum for a PC online game which seems patently pointless but sure, use whatever lables you want.

> >

> > >Mobile games HAVE to basically be under-powered and free or almost free to play with a super low barrier to entry, simplified mechanics that don't require high precision and incorporates incentives to open your wallet without explicitly showing that it is pay to win.

> >

> > And what of the stronger performing MMOs of the current time? How graphic intensive and precision oriented are they?

> >

> > >Thoseall things that classic gaming/gamers tend to bristle at, yet we are being told that this is the direction game companies have to move, and its ridiculous.

> > >

> >

> > I'd say it's more that your modern FotM MMORPG with everything being voiced, detailed graphics and cinematics and including as many bells and whistles as desired are becoming a bloated financial black hole. It's not that companies have to move to mobile, it's just the market is pushing them away from AAA.

> >

> > > Due to the platform you simply cannot make a mobile game robust enough to both get big groups willing to drop serious money on them, let alone stay with them. Certainly not in the way current big game companies think they can get into that market. Worse still, they think they can then apply those same money making tactics to their AAA titles.

> > >

> >

> > FFXI is pretty robust and it's going to be available on mobile. Blade and Soul will have a mobile version. Also, smartphones advance too.

>

> Lets do a point by point here:

>

> * you were the one who decided to use labels when posing your rebuttal. If you don't feel you can stand by them then perhaps you should refrain from using them in the first place as it doesn't help your argument.

>

I didn't say I can't stand by the labels, I just say if you're going to focus on my labels and then counter with your own, it's all just hyperbole. I'm just willing to admit they're hyperbole and not some ethics-based moral category that supersedes what the market actually reflects. It's called looking at reality.

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> * Are you literally asking how precision heavy these modern games are? Have you not played GW2 beyond core level 80 maps? Raids? PvP? Do you honestly think any modern phone can handle the number of inputs necessary to play any of that content?

>

I'm talking about games that actually retain their popularity over a long period of time. I mean, you can bag on Runescape all you like but it's actually doing better...

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> * Companies are not being pushed to mobile. Companies are getting greedy and projecting sales numbers that are unrealistic and try to squeeze sales through monetization of content after the fact which is hurting their bottom line and their reputations all while trying to rush games to market. Game companies saw the kind of "quick money" others made in the mobile space and tried spreading themselves thinner just to get into that space. There is a certain Cyber game coming out soon that looks to be smash that i will gladly pay premium money to play, along with another space based one from the FO:NV folks that looks like it will be great. Both of those are AAA level games that will be worth the money spent on them and if they are smart they won't over project their numbers to investors, which is how it should be.

>

And this is the same death-wails of the standard MMORPG die-hard fan who refuses to look at trends, look at how the industry has changed and take these into consideration when you're talking about a game being marketed as a service. Companies are greedy too, but they're also not stupid. What you see as pure greed, they see as common sense capitalism. When MMORPGs bloat the same as AAA games have, fiasco like SWTOR happen where they spent WAAAAY too much and couldn't make their investment back in a timely manner. They likely could have made MORE money if SOE didn't mess up Star Wars Galaxies back in the day and then in current day, made it accessible on mobile. Not add voiceovers to everything. Not improve graphics to facilitate DX17 and 4k VR support. Not twitch combat super-leet e-sports PvP. Just a big sandbox with lots of freedom and lots of variety.

> * Smartphones have two key design flaws as far as games are concerned: size and interface. Too small and the type of game that can be developed for it severely diminishes due to screen real estate being a problem. Too big of a screen and you're no long playing on a phone, and most people with tablets are not using them to play on, let alone carting them everywhere, nor are they as ubiquitous as phones. Interface of a touch screen also limits how you can design a game for the platform. This isn't even mentioning battery life, network latency issues, mobile service provider limits on data and/or network reliability. All of those things make phones as a "serious" gaming platform that can overtake or even replace console and PC gaming a non-starter. This of course gets even muddier when you have the likes of the Switch being a thing because then those trying to make mobile games for phones have to contend with them.

I disagree but it's not really my prerogative to defend mobile gaming (I'm not even a big mobile gamer myself). I'll just say put your money where your mouth is and go invest in an AAA MMORPG that isn't an arena-type shooter or MOBA that is exclusively not mobile. See where the market takes you. I hope you finally put WoW in the dirt or at the very least get the same success as FFXIV. I don't want standard PC MMOs to fail, but what I want and what is happening in reality don't always line up.

For new races (tengu, kodan or skritt but would take others), I will but:

* Character slots

* inventory expansions

* bank expansions

* outfits I missed

* mount skins I missed

* LW chapters I missed

* makeover kits depending if the need exceed the 4 I have left

* shared inventory slots

* some extra gold for gp

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > > I'm not going to sit here and say that mobile gaming isn't gaming because that's just dumb, full stop. i will say though that mobile gaming as a viable income stream is a dumb idea built around the idea of short term gain. I will also point out that most gaming done on phones is reserved for times when people are looking to pass time in boring situations, like bathroom visits or being stuck at airports, and not when people are looking to enjoy a more robust gaming experience. in short, any game developer that already makes PC games trying to "break into" the mobile gaming market as means of additional revenue is already on the wrong track.

> >

> > And this will continue to be the case if no one ever attempts to make mobile games robust.

> >

> > If say, rather than try to pin why you feel mobile gaming isn't appealing, there are people that aren't armchair pop culture critics doing actual work to push change.

>

> What you call an "armchair pop culture critic" I call someone who is an actual target customer who already has a solid grasp of what mobile gaming is and what it will be...

..who is complaining on a forum for a PC online game which seems patently pointless but sure, use whatever lables you want.

>Mobile games HAVE to basically be under-powered and free or almost free to play with a super low barrier to entry, simplified mechanics that don't require high precision and incorporates incentives to open your wallet without explicitly showing that it is pay to win.

And what of the stronger performing MMOs of the current time? How graphic intensive and precision oriented are they?

>Thoseall things that classic gaming/gamers tend to bristle at, yet we are being told that this is the direction game companies have to move, and its ridiculous.

>

I'd say it's more that your modern FotM MMORPG with everything being voiced, detailed graphics and cinematics and including as many bells and whistles as desired are becoming a bloated financial black hole. It's not that companies have to move to mobile, it's just the market is pushing them away from AAA.

> Due to the platform you simply cannot make a mobile game robust enough to both get big groups willing to drop serious money on them, let alone stay with them. Certainly not in the way current big game companies think they can get into that market. Worse still, they think they can then apply those same money making tactics to their AAA titles.

>

FFXI is pretty robust and it's going to be available on mobile. Blade and Soul will have a mobile version. Also, smartphones advance too.

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > Your problem is, you see the industry as some sort of war, with mobile on one side and console/pc on the other. You're short sighted. Advancements in any avenue of games is advancements for all of gaming.

> >

> > Holy kitten... You'd think improvements to handheld games would be example enough for you but apparently you think someone's propping up candy crush as the epitome of mobile gaming while completely ignoring things like the switch.

> >

> > Get some kitten perspective, jeebus...

>

> No you see what's being short sighted is thinking that going backwards is progress.

> Recycling old IP's and outright taking them while hoisting the banner of "Progress" is exactly why we're here right now and why we have people paying $60 annually for the next map pack of Call of Duty, Fifa, Madden etc. This is even more evident when you look at what the industry thinks is healthy for itself and that's the absurd nature of profit at all cost including that of a completed product.

>

And you're saying I'm advocating recycling old IPs why?

Any trying to paint your position as "progressive" while constantly pushing to keep the status quo while making non arguments is exactly why you types get jokingly referred to as "regressive".

The only point I'm making is, shifting markets to take advantage of tech is an option for your old school MMOs which become skeleton-crew endeavours after a year or two anyway. Turning up your nose at options to preserve a game is just foolish.

> When earnings reports go out and a game sells 500 million units, but it's deemed a failure by the higher ups because it didn't sell 550million. The get rich now facade of mobile is exactly what's wrong with the mobile games industry and it's a cancer on the games industry as a whole.

>

I'd say cry more but you're already at it. I dislike that a lot of the industry has shifted to appease graphic-wh**** but it's just pointless whining at this point.

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > > > > Thanks, but no thanks.

> > > > >

> > > > > If i want to re-play GW1 i have it for PC. I don't need to take it with me nor have i really understood why people feel compelled to game everywhere.

> > > >

> > > > I'd say, it's not about gaming everywhere (although that is an option for such games). It's more the prospect that all they have to do to play is dig in their pocket or pull their phone off the charger and with a swipe have the game ready to play. Not being confined to a specific location is just icing on the cake. Showing other people the game you're playing is another appeal since you don't have to lure someone into your dungeon to show the gameplay and another person can likely download the game themselves on their own device.

> > > >

> > > > I honestly don't understand everyone's disdain for the medium itself (you can even play a mobile game on a PC *gasp*). It's this how people see laptop users? Is this the same attitude thrown at VR tech? I mean wow, we likely wouldn't have smartphones and tablets with as advanced of specs as we have if no one tried to put good looking games on them.

> > >

> > > I don't need to be on a mobile device to showcase any product. Streams exist and have for well over a decade now.

> > >

> > > The disdain for the medium comes because of what it's done to the industry, case in point NcSoft, Blizzard and EA have all been attempting to maximize profit over quality products because their CFO's see mobile as some great saviour. Just because phones have the highest market penatration of all electronic devices does not make them good for games. To argue such a thing would be akin to arguing that Mircorwaves are the only device you need to cook with, it's absurd.

> > >

> >

> > Who even said that? Don't present a strawman and label it absurd unless you have no actual counter. But it's hilarious you think phones aren't good for games... Unless you were specifically speaking on the penetration factor which is also a laughable argument to make.

> >

> > No where did I imply if you have a "microwave" you need no other tools to cook. I actually argue the opposite, that having a microwave doesn't preclude ovens, grills, stoves, etc... You just give people without those things an easier option with a microwave.

> >

> > > Tech has grown not because of "mobile games" advancement, but because of the bright men and women who have a desire to push the envelope of what is possible, and while it is possible to game on a phone that doesn't mean that we as a people have to like it, nor accept it. In addition your premise that mobile gaming is what pushed the bounds of technology is baseless, the industry with the single greatest push of technology has always been the Adult Entertainment Industry.

> >

> > kitten pushing phone graphics is just as, if not more baseless than my assertion.

>

> Fine i won't present the strawman, instead since you believe phones to be so substaintal on games name me one decent phone game that is a unique IP and didn't outright steal an existing one and rebrand it.

>

> I believe you wont be able to, because phones have not done anything for games aside from recycle existing IP and plague the games industry with lower quality products as a whole.

Who doesn't recycle existing IPs or outright steal existing ones or rebrand then? I think you've committed a heinous mischaracterization of pc and console games who have for decades been re-releasing the same games or copying the same formula (hint: look at the MMORPG scene for the past 15 years).

Your problem is, you see the industry as some sort of war, with mobile on one side and console/pc on the other. You're short sighted. Advancements in any avenue of games is advancements for all of gaming.

Holy crap... You'd think improvements to handheld games would be example enough for you but apparently you think someone's propping up candy crush as the epitome of mobile gaming while completely ignoring things like the switch.

Get some kitten perspective, jeebus...

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > > Thanks, but no thanks.

> > >

> > > If i want to re-play GW1 i have it for PC. I don't need to take it with me nor have i really understood why people feel compelled to game everywhere.

> >

> > I'd say, it's not about gaming everywhere (although that is an option for such games). It's more the prospect that all they have to do to play is dig in their pocket or pull their phone off the charger and with a swipe have the game ready to play. Not being confined to a specific location is just icing on the cake. Showing other people the game you're playing is another appeal since you don't have to lure someone into your dungeon to show the gameplay and another person can likely download the game themselves on their own device.

> >

> > I honestly don't understand everyone's disdain for the medium itself (you can even play a mobile game on a PC *gasp*). It's this how people see laptop users? Is this the same attitude thrown at VR tech? I mean wow, we likely wouldn't have smartphones and tablets with as advanced of specs as we have if no one tried to put good looking games on them.

>

> I don't need to be on a mobile device to showcase any product. Streams exist and have for well over a decade now.

>

> The disdain for the medium comes because of what it's done to the industry, case in point NcSoft, Blizzard and EA have all been attempting to maximize profit over quality products because their CFO's see mobile as some great saviour. Just because phones have the highest market penatration of all electronic devices does not make them good for games. To argue such a thing would be akin to arguing that Mircorwaves are the only device you need to cook with, it's absurd.

>

Who even said that? Don't present a strawman and label it absurd unless you have no actual counter. But it's hilarious you think phones aren't good for games... Unless you were specifically speaking on the penetration factor which is also a laughable argument to make.

No where did I imply if you have a "microwave" you need no other tools to cook. I actually argue the opposite, that having a microwave doesn't preclude ovens, grills, stoves, etc... You just give people without those things an easier option with a microwave.

> Tech has grown not because of "mobile games" advancement, but because of the bright men and women who have a desire to push the envelope of what is possible, and while it is possible to game on a phone that doesn't mean that we as a people have to like it, nor accept it. In addition your premise that mobile gaming is what pushed the bounds of technology is baseless, the industry with the single greatest push of technology has always been the Adult Entertainment Industry.

Porn pushing phone graphics is just as, if not more baseless than my assertion.

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> Thanks, but no thanks.

>

> If i want to re-play GW1 i have it for PC. I don't need to take it with me nor have i really understood why people feel compelled to game everywhere.

I'd say, it's not about gaming everywhere (although that is an option for such games). It's more the prospect that all they have to do to play is dig in their pocket or pull their phone off the charger and with a swipe have the game ready to play. Not being confined to a specific location is just icing on the cake. Showing other people the game you're playing is another appeal since you don't have to lure someone into your dungeon to show the gameplay and another person can likely download the game themselves on their own device.

I honestly don't understand everyone's disdain for the medium itself (you can even play a mobile game on a PC *gasp*). It's this how people see laptop users? Is this the same attitude thrown at VR tech? I mean wow, we likely wouldn't have smartphones and tablets with as advanced of specs as we have if no one tried to put good looking games on them.

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> I'm not going to sit here and say that mobile gaming isn't gaming because that's just dumb, full stop. i will say though that mobile gaming as a viable income stream is a dumb idea built around the idea of short term gain. I will also point out that most gaming done on phones is reserved for times when people are looking to pass time in boring situations, like bathroom visits or being stuck at airports, and not when people are looking to enjoy a more robust gaming experience. in short, any game developer that already makes PC games trying to "break into" the mobile gaming market as means of additional revenue is already on the wrong track.

And this will continue to be the case if no one ever attempts to make mobile games robust.

If say, rather than try to pin why you feel mobile gaming isn't appealing, there are people that aren't armchair pop culture critics doing actual work to push change.

> @"AnClar.1304" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > @"Deimos.4263" said:

> > > We have no real say here. The only way the community can fix this is by voting with their wallets until better decisions are made.

> > >

> > > Judging by the number of people who say truly uninspired things like "layoffs happen it's not the end of the world" or "not supporting them now will only kill the game faster", it seems that collectively we'd rather watch this ship sink slowly than even try to turn it.

> > >

> > > I can't speak for everyone, but my gem store dollars aren't something to be taken for granted. If NCSoft wants them they'll turn the boat. I doubt they will, but we'll see.

> >

> > This is NCsoft turning the boat.

>

> That's what they tried to do with the Titanic...turn the boat...problem was, on the Titanic they were too slow and the ship sank. I hope if turning the boat is really what NCSoft is trying to do here that they have better results than they did on the Titanic. I can't help but think about what happened to Wildstar and CoH. That just fills me with dread.

A lot of other boats have turned... More, in fact, than those that failed to turn. Also, the Titanic turned a few times too before it sank.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > Many posters seen very confident in the detail about Anet working on unrelated side projects. It's this confirmed somewhere?

> Yes, confirmed from multiple sources. Nothing very specific, due to NDA (and thus we don't know, for example, _how_ unrelated the projects were and even if all of them were unrelated), but we do know there was more than one such project in the work.

I suppose the million dollar question for me is who planned this/who's idea was it.

I guess I'll need to scourer around for sources. Sometimes YouTube personalities are keen on covering niche stuff like this.