Counterpoint: GW2 has the best in-game cash shop I've ever seen

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @pah.4931 said:

> > @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said:

> > Sorry, but a cash shop that lets you buy a chance at what you want instead of just being able to buy what you want is a bad thing. I suppose it could be the best the OP has ever seen, but that doesn't mean it's a good one.

>

> But they have been consistent with this. i.e., black lion chests (slightly different but still very RNG-based).

>

> The only miss, imo, is that mount skins should be able to be put on the TP (though if that were the case then I am certain they would not have made it so you couldn't get dupes).

>

> I have no problem with people disagreeing with how this went down and expressing their feelings. For sure, you need to do that. But the posts I am reading are so entitled and whiney, it's just... sad. As if Anet owes them mount skins, when 3 months ago they didn't have mounts.

>

> It's funny. Blizzard adds things to WoW like Looking For Dungeon/Raid that has serious negative impacts on the actually in-game design and its players, and most people just go "if you don't like it, don't do it" unable to see how such decisions effect the holistic picture. And then when Anet adds something to the game that does NOT impact in-game design or its players at all, the "don't like it, don't do it" argument is "stupid" and "wrong."

 

And people are complaining about BLCs as well. Mount skins are just another step in the process they started long time ago to slowly make their playerbase used to this and exploit it hard in the future.

[pah.4931]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > @pah.4931 said:

> > > @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said:

> > > Sorry, but a cash shop that lets you buy a chance at what you want instead of just being able to buy what you want is a bad thing. I suppose it could be the best the OP has ever seen, but that doesn't mean it's a good one.

> >

> > But they have been consistent with this. i.e., black lion chests (slightly different but still very RNG-based).

> >

> > The only miss, imo, is that mount skins should be able to be put on the TP (though if that were the case then I am certain they would not have made it so you couldn't get dupes).

> >

> > I have no problem with people disagreeing with how this went down and expressing their feelings. For sure, you need to do that. But the posts I am reading are so entitled and whiney, it's just... sad. As if Anet owes them mount skins, when 3 months ago they didn't have mounts.

> >

> > It's funny. Blizzard adds things to WoW like Looking For Dungeon/Raid that has serious negative impacts on the actually in-game design and its players, and most people just go "if you don't like it, don't do it" unable to see how such decisions effect the holistic picture. And then when Anet adds something to the game that does NOT impact in-game design or its players at all, the "don't like it, don't do it" argument is "stupid" and "wrong."

>

> And people are complaining about BLCs as well. Mount skins are just another step in the process they started long time ago to slowly make their playerbase used to this and exploit it hard in the future.

 

But my question to you would be... why not just ignore mount skins and be happy? The basic mounts look fine. There will be other skins you can buy (there is currently one for 2k gems). This doesn't effect you. It's like being mad at the price to craft a legendary. Just don't craft it.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @pah.4931 said:

> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > > @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said:

> > > > Sorry, but a cash shop that lets you buy a chance at what you want instead of just being able to buy what you want is a bad thing. I suppose it could be the best the OP has ever seen, but that doesn't mean it's a good one.

> > >

> > > But they have been consistent with this. i.e., black lion chests (slightly different but still very RNG-based).

> > >

> > > The only miss, imo, is that mount skins should be able to be put on the TP (though if that were the case then I am certain they would not have made it so you couldn't get dupes).

> > >

> > > I have no problem with people disagreeing with how this went down and expressing their feelings. For sure, you need to do that. But the posts I am reading are so entitled and whiney, it's just... sad. As if Anet owes them mount skins, when 3 months ago they didn't have mounts.

> > >

> > > It's funny. Blizzard adds things to WoW like Looking For Dungeon/Raid that has serious negative impacts on the actually in-game design and its players, and most people just go "if you don't like it, don't do it" unable to see how such decisions effect the holistic picture. And then when Anet adds something to the game that does NOT impact in-game design or its players at all, the "don't like it, don't do it" argument is "stupid" and "wrong."

> >

> > And people are complaining about BLCs as well. Mount skins are just another step in the process they started long time ago to slowly make their playerbase used to this and exploit it hard in the future.

>

> But my question to you would be... why not just ignore mount skins and be happy? The basic mounts look fine. There will be other skins you can buy (there is currently one for 2k gems). This doesn't effect you. It's like being mad at the price to craft a legendary. Just don't craft it.

 

Because it's a process. If it goes by quiet, even if you don't buy them, they will come with even more ridiculous system next time. You have to be loud and make it big enough if you don't want to experience worst things in the future.

[Suinz.5968]

You obviously haven't played Warframe. Warframe is COMPLETELY free and EVERYTHING in the cash shop can be achieved through simply achieving things in the game. You can't say the same here. 30 mount skins and you can't get one of them through actually achieving things in-game. You need to literally gamble for the ones you want.

[Lilyanna.9361]

Bless you OP, you are making sense.

 

You are not thinking with your emotions, you are thinking logic and critically.

[pah.4931]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > @pah.4931 said:

> > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > > > @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said:

> > > > > Sorry, but a cash shop that lets you buy a chance at what you want instead of just being able to buy what you want is a bad thing. I suppose it could be the best the OP has ever seen, but that doesn't mean it's a good one.

> > > >

> > > > But they have been consistent with this. i.e., black lion chests (slightly different but still very RNG-based).

> > > >

> > > > The only miss, imo, is that mount skins should be able to be put on the TP (though if that were the case then I am certain they would not have made it so you couldn't get dupes).

> > > >

> > > > I have no problem with people disagreeing with how this went down and expressing their feelings. For sure, you need to do that. But the posts I am reading are so entitled and whiney, it's just... sad. As if Anet owes them mount skins, when 3 months ago they didn't have mounts.

> > > >

> > > > It's funny. Blizzard adds things to WoW like Looking For Dungeon/Raid that has serious negative impacts on the actually in-game design and its players, and most people just go "if you don't like it, don't do it" unable to see how such decisions effect the holistic picture. And then when Anet adds something to the game that does NOT impact in-game design or its players at all, the "don't like it, don't do it" argument is "stupid" and "wrong."

> > >

> > > And people are complaining about BLCs as well. Mount skins are just another step in the process they started long time ago to slowly make their playerbase used to this and exploit it hard in the future.

> >

> > But my question to you would be... why not just ignore mount skins and be happy? The basic mounts look fine. There will be other skins you can buy (there is currently one for 2k gems). This doesn't effect you. It's like being mad at the price to craft a legendary. Just don't craft it.

>

> Because it's a process. If it goes by quiet, even if you don't buy them, they will come with even more ridiculous system next time. You have to be loud and make it big enough if you don't want to experience worst things in the future.

 

This is the "slippery slope" argument that is usually uniformly rejected in debates in all other realms. Just sayin'.

 

I personally think it's a decent and fair enough argument (though if this method proves to earn them more money, then obviously they will keep doing it ... if it doesn't, then they won't). Being loud won't be enough if they make more $$$

[pah.4931]

> @Suinz.5968 said:

> You obviously haven't played Warframe. Warframe is COMPLETELY free and EVERYTHING in the cash shop can be achieved through simply achieving things in the game. You can't say the same here. 30 mount skins and you can't get one of them through actually achieving things in-game. You need to literally gamble for the ones you want.

 

I have not played Warframe (but I trust your description)! And I do NOT think Anet has the best cash shop conceivable (I could conceive a better cash shop in 2 hours time). But they have the best I have seen in all the games I have played. And I think the worst things they sell seem to be the things people care least about... which confuses me.

 

Reusing my original example: purposefully limiting bank and bag space, then purposefully designing drops so that inventory management is a headache, all to encourage people to buy more space, is very borderline in my opinion and should cause more alarm than cosmetic loot boxes. The cash shop should NEVER influence in-game systems. Cosmetics do not effect anything. They are 100% optional and its impossible to argue against that. On the other hand, limited space (after an AB octovine run, for example) is annoying as shit and so painful you feel /compelled/ to buy more space.

 

And I will repeat, the one big miss with the Mount Skin implementation is NOT letting players put these things on the TP.

[Ashen.2907]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > @pah.4931 said:

> > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > > > @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said:

> > > > > Sorry, but a cash shop that lets you buy a chance at what you want instead of just being able to buy what you want is a bad thing. I suppose it could be the best the OP has ever seen, but that doesn't mean it's a good one.

> > > >

> > > > But they have been consistent with this. i.e., black lion chests (slightly different but still very RNG-based).

> > > >

> > > > The only miss, imo, is that mount skins should be able to be put on the TP (though if that were the case then I am certain they would not have made it so you couldn't get dupes).

> > > >

> > > > I have no problem with people disagreeing with how this went down and expressing their feelings. For sure, you need to do that. But the posts I am reading are so entitled and whiney, it's just... sad. As if Anet owes them mount skins, when 3 months ago they didn't have mounts.

> > > >

> > > > It's funny. Blizzard adds things to WoW like Looking For Dungeon/Raid that has serious negative impacts on the actually in-game design and its players, and most people just go "if you don't like it, don't do it" unable to see how such decisions effect the holistic picture. And then when Anet adds something to the game that does NOT impact in-game design or its players at all, the "don't like it, don't do it" argument is "stupid" and "wrong."

> > >

> > > And people are complaining about BLCs as well. Mount skins are just another step in the process they started long time ago to slowly make their playerbase used to this and exploit it hard in the future.

> >

> > But my question to you would be... why not just ignore mount skins and be happy? The basic mounts look fine. There will be other skins you can buy (there is currently one for 2k gems). This doesn't effect you. It's like being mad at the price to craft a legendary. Just don't craft it.

>

> Because it's a process. If it goes by quiet, even if you don't buy them, they will come with even more ridiculous system next time. You have to be loud and make it big enough if you don't want to experience worst things in the future.

 

Not if people dont buy into these systems. As long as this sort of thing generates more revenue than straightforward sales it will exist. The instant that the company has reason to believe that selling directly will be more profitable the system will change.

[pah.4931]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > > > > @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said:

> > > > > > Sorry, but a cash shop that lets you buy a chance at what you want instead of just being able to buy what you want is a bad thing. I suppose it could be the best the OP has ever seen, but that doesn't mean it's a good one.

> > > > >

> > > > > But they have been consistent with this. i.e., black lion chests (slightly different but still very RNG-based).

> > > > >

> > > > > The only miss, imo, is that mount skins should be able to be put on the TP (though if that were the case then I am certain they would not have made it so you couldn't get dupes).

> > > > >

> > > > > I have no problem with people disagreeing with how this went down and expressing their feelings. For sure, you need to do that. But the posts I am reading are so entitled and whiney, it's just... sad. As if Anet owes them mount skins, when 3 months ago they didn't have mounts.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's funny. Blizzard adds things to WoW like Looking For Dungeon/Raid that has serious negative impacts on the actually in-game design and its players, and most people just go "if you don't like it, don't do it" unable to see how such decisions effect the holistic picture. And then when Anet adds something to the game that does NOT impact in-game design or its players at all, the "don't like it, don't do it" argument is "stupid" and "wrong."

> > > >

> > > > And people are complaining about BLCs as well. Mount skins are just another step in the process they started long time ago to slowly make their playerbase used to this and exploit it hard in the future.

> > >

> > > But my question to you would be... why not just ignore mount skins and be happy? The basic mounts look fine. There will be other skins you can buy (there is currently one for 2k gems). This doesn't effect you. It's like being mad at the price to craft a legendary. Just don't craft it.

> >

> > Because it's a process. If it goes by quiet, even if you don't buy them, they will come with even more ridiculous system next time. You have to be loud and make it big enough if you don't want to experience worst things in the future.

>

> Not if people dont buy into these systems. As long as this sort of thing generates more revenue than straightforward sales it will exist. The instant that the company has reason to believe that selling directly will be more profitable the system will change.

 

Agreed. "Whales" are not driving these types of business decisions. Ordinary, everyday people are. So either we are hearing from the vocal minority, or a majority of people condemn with their keyboards, then condone with the credit cards.

[Ellisande.5218]

GW2's cash shop is awful. All the skins and appearance content was cut from the base game and placed in the cash shop, leaving the base game empty of any value. The GW2 cash shop has NEVER ONCE been fair. It has always felt like they cut out important and valuable content from the base game so that they could place it in the cash shop. By important content I of course means appearance altering items as appearance altering items are GW2's end game goals as the game doesn't actually offer anything else to work towards.

 

Star Trek Online's cash shop is better as one purchase of a tier 6 3 ship pack (about $20 when you wait for a really good sale on both the cash shop currency and sale on the ship pack) gives you all the ships and cool you will need for your entire Star Trek Online career. Given how easy it is to earn dilithium that you can exchange for the cash shop currency by doing ANYTHING you want in the game, including faffing off instead of grinding, you can easily afford to buy the cash shop items for free with little to no effort and by doing any activity you want.

 

The open world content in Guild Wars 2 does not pay equivalent to the amount of time that content takes and is in need of a huge increase in reward to bring it on par with other higher paying sources of income.

[pah.4931]

> @Ellisande.5218 said:

> GW2's cash shop is awful. All the skins and appearance content was cut from the base game and placed in the cash shop, leaving the base game empty of any value. The GW2 cash shop has NEVER ONCE been fair. It has always felt like they cut out important and valuable content from the base game so that they could place it in the cash shop. By important content I of course means appearance altering items as appearance altering items are GW2's end game goals as the game doesn't actually offer anything else to work towards.

>

> Star Trek Online's cash shop is better as one purchase of a tier 6 3 ship pack (about $20 when you wait for a really good sale on both the cash shop currency and sale on the ship pack) gives you all the ships and cool you will need for your entire Star Trek Online career. Given how easy it is to earn dilithium that you can exchange for the cash shop currency by doing ANYTHING you want in the game, including faffing off instead of grinding, you can easily afford to buy the cash shop items for free with little to no effort and by doing any activity you want.

>

> The open world content in Guild Wars 2 does not pay equivalent to the amount of time that content takes and is in need of a huge increase in reward to bring it on par with other higher paying sources of income.

 

But ... you can use gold to get gems to buy cash shop items. It isn't great for RPers, I guess (but neither are sweet, magical boots dropping from a giant spider), but your in-game goal could be "get money" and then you can use that to buy stuff. It's really no different than if there was some long grind to get some bogus (arbitrary) in-game currency to buy an item in game (other than RP aspects). It's just a longer grind, as you say.

 

And then this goes back to the whole problem of... Anet is a business. If you can get everything in the cash shop without much effort, then fewer will buy gems and then Anet will develop less content until the game dies. You can't have it both ways.

[Dredg.4890]

The cash shop stopped being good the moment they shelved legendaries so that their cash shop weapons wouldn't fall behind schedule.

[Dredg.4890]

> @pah.4931 said:

> But ... you can use gold to get gems to buy cash shop items. It isn't great for RPers, I guess (but neither are sweet, magical boots dropping from a giant spider), but your in-game goal could be "get money" and then you can use that to buy stuff. It's really no different than if there was some long grind to get some bogus (arbitrary) in-game currency to buy an item in game (other than RP aspects). It's just a longer grind, as you say.

>

> And then this goes back to the whole problem of... Anet is a business. If you can get everything in the cash shop without much effort, then fewer will buy gems and then Anet will develop less content until the game dies. You can't have it both ways.

 

If your goal in an MMO is to grind currency to dump into the cash shop, I'd question whether or not you're actually playing the game or just grinding to grind.

[Ashen.2907]

> @Ellisande.5218 said:

> GW2's cash shop is awful. All the skins and appearance content was cut from the base game and placed in the cash shop, leaving the base game empty of any value. The GW2 cash shop has NEVER ONCE been fair. It has always felt like they cut out important and valuable content from the base game so that they could place it in the cash shop. By important content I of course means appearance altering items as appearance altering items are GW2's end game goals as the game doesn't actually offer anything else to work towards.

>

> Star Trek Online's cash shop is better as one purchase of a tier 6 3 ship pack (about $20 when you wait for a really good sale on both the cash shop currency and sale on the ship pack) gives you all the ships and cool you will need for your entire Star Trek Online career. Given how easy it is to earn dilithium that you can exchange for the cash shop currency by doing ANYTHING you want in the game, including faffing off instead of grinding, you can easily afford to buy the cash shop items for free with little to no effort and by doing any activity you want.

>

> The open world content in Guild Wars 2 does not pay equivalent to the amount of time that content takes and is in need of a huge increase in reward to bring it on par with other higher paying sources of income.

 

Weird, I find most of the gemstore options to be rather ugly. Most (not all) of my favorite cosmetic options are unlocked in game. I do feel for anyone who only likes the gemstore options though.

[pah.4931]

> @Dredg.4890 said:

> > @pah.4931 said:

> > But ... you can use gold to get gems to buy cash shop items. It isn't great for RPers, I guess (but neither are sweet, magical boots dropping from a giant spider), but your in-game goal could be "get money" and then you can use that to buy stuff. It's really no different than if there was some long grind to get some bogus (arbitrary) in-game currency to buy an item in game (other than RP aspects). It's just a longer grind, as you say.

> >

> > And then this goes back to the whole problem of... Anet is a business. If you can get everything in the cash shop without much effort, then fewer will buy gems and then Anet will develop less content until the game dies. You can't have it both ways.

>

> If your goal in an MMO is to grind currency to dump into the cash shop, I'd question whether or not you're actually playing the game or just grinding to grind.

 

That's just an illusion. You've been fooled. What's the difference? Just pretend that the Gem Shop is an NPC, named, let's say, Garth, and that Gems are "Tryian Doubloons" , most of which were lost at sea when the Queen's Armada scuddled off the shores of Lion's Arch...

 

You grind for stuff in game ALL THE TIME. It's irrelevant whether you get in game currencies or cash shop items. You have a goal. You want something. You accomplish by playing the game.

 

To really illustrate the point, just pretend the Griffon was a cash-shop only item that was just about 250 gold worth of gems. People would have LOST THEIR SHIT that it was a gem shop item. But it's actually not different AT ALL from having it in game and worth 250 gold...

[Jordan.5930]

> @pah.4931 said:

> > @Dredg.4890 said:

> > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > But ... you can use gold to get gems to buy cash shop items. It isn't great for RPers, I guess (but neither are sweet, magical boots dropping from a giant spider), but your in-game goal could be "get money" and then you can use that to buy stuff. It's really no different than if there was some long grind to get some bogus (arbitrary) in-game currency to buy an item in game (other than RP aspects). It's just a longer grind, as you say.

> > >

> > > And then this goes back to the whole problem of... Anet is a business. If you can get everything in the cash shop without much effort, then fewer will buy gems and then Anet will develop less content until the game dies. You can't have it both ways.

> >

> > If your goal in an MMO is to grind currency to dump into the cash shop, I'd question whether or not you're actually playing the game or just grinding to grind.

>

> That's just an illusion. You've been fooled. What's the difference? Just pretend that the Gem Shop is an NPC, named, let's say, Garth, and that Gems are "Tryian Doubloons" , most of which were lost at sea when the Queen's Armada scuddled off the shores of Lion's Arch...

>

> You grind for stuff in game ALL THE TIME. It's irrelevant whether you get in game currencies or cash shop items. You have a goal. You want something. You accomplish by playing the game.

>

> To really illustrate the point, just pretend the Griffon was a cash-shop only item that was just about 250 gold worth of gems. People would have LOST THEIR kitten that it was a gem shop item. But it's actually not different AT ALL from having it in game and worth 250 gold...

 

Except the griffon was tied to a quest and clues which made it fun and exciting. The "difference" is one method is boring, and the other method is fun and filled with a sense of adventure, which is the point when you play a game, to have FUN. And if you think grinding is fun, then that's your personal opinion. But I'll say this... great games like Fallout, Uncharted, Mass Effect, The Last of Us, Zelda, Portal, The Witcher and MANY more did not become renowned and respected AAA titles for their grind factor, or the amount of lootboxes they presented.

[vesica tempestas.1563]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> Used to have*

>

> This is a B2P game that for years stood as an example for fair microtransaction model. We are currently experiencing Anet testing waters of how far and how fast they can go with this scheme. It didn't start tomorrow, it's happening since the revamp of BLCs and introducing more and more unique skins gated behind RNG.

>

> We are not talking about single mount being BLC exclusive here. We are talking about 30 skins locked behind RNG box that you have no control how much you have to spend to get the one you want. 1 player will pay 400 gems to get the one desired skin, the other may be required to buy all of them to get it.

>

> Unless players make their disgust heard this is only a step to worse practices. So this is one of many points where the community has to say "NO". If you keep people down with claims you posted, you are ony hurting yourself in the future.

 

They are skins, just like armor skins that means we pay no sub. Whats changed here is that these are skins that people appear to be _desperate_ for lol. Good one Anet for creating something that is in demand that continues to avoid pay to win. Supply and demand will take care of the price over time.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> They are skins, just like armor skins that means we pay no sub. Whats changed here is that these are skins that people appear to be _desperate_ for lol. Good one Anet for creating something that is in demand that continues to avoid pay to win. Supply and demand will take care of the price over time.

 

No. What changed is they deliberately decided to put it behing 100% RNG wall to push more sales. People are happy to buy mount skins - directly! Not with RNG!

[WARIORSCHARGEING.2637]

> @thehipone.6812 said:

> Come on now OP, it is torches and pitchforks time. You can't go on making reasonable arguments. (/s)

 

yeah really how dare he do that to us must not have no shame at all . on topic tho i bet if some one made a poll saying just what you said . i would be willing to bet gold that poll would have not so shocking turn out. on the answer maybe joko will smite him for it LOL

[zombyturtle.5980]

Originally I would have agreed with you but now its pretty clear they ARE cutting content from the core game to push gem store sales. 'directly influences in game design/philosophy decisions and systems' is exactly what they have been doing with mount choice in the core game. Only 1 dye channel and on a accent rather than main body so people feel the need to buy very basic recolour skins to actually have options.

 

Only 3 armor sets across 5 maps but a fallen balthazar outfit in an RNG lootbox.

 

Unreasonable RNG from these lootboxes so you cant farm gold and convert to gems, because it can take thousands of gold before RNG is kind to you and you get the item you want. Account bound items instead of tradable to force people to buy gems. Just feels like a crappy mobile game now instead of a quality MMO.

[Latorn.4209]

Wow, a reasonable post in this sea of salt. I completely agree, people are overreacting. Also 400 gems isn't that bad for a random skin.

 

Would it be better if you could select the skin? I don't know, because it would mean each skin would need to be much more expensive in order for Anet to make the same amount of profit, due to the fact that everyone would just buy the one they wanted and be done.

 

People need to remember that between expansions the gem store is the only source of income to support the developers working on all the living story content; and even then you don't need to spend a dime if you farm gold and exchange for gems...

[Astralporing.1957]

> @pah.4931 said:

> But my question to you would be... why not just ignore mount skins and be happy?

Seriously, do you really believe it will end at mounts? Because i don't.

 

 

[dolcolax.1268]

seriously this loot boxes thing are a plague in the gaming industry. while anet might be testing the community with this mount skins, if you hate it then dont support it. maybe some here bought some boxes and are just salty coz they didnt get the skin they want. regarding of buying/pre ordering pof and after a few weeks they sell this skins, didnt you decide to buy pof back then coz you thought it was worth it.

[Leo G.4501]

OP, I'm in agreement. Granted, I do feel the price for mounts is way too overblown, I do understand that the skins are purely cosmetic, have no affect on gameplay and can technically be farmed for. I thought long and hard and decided to go ahead and gamble for the skin I wanted (the Jackalope Springer). Took 14 tries so roughly $70 in gems but I got what I wanted + some other stuff that will soften the blow.

 

I think players need to make distinctions between their desires. Sure, there are some nice skins out there and some of them would be great to have, but unless you've practically got everything and thus need to maintain that percentage, there is a difference between "Oh! That looks nice!" and "I WANT THAT!". The Electric Raptor is a "Oh! That looks nice!" but it's too gaudy for me but the Jackalope was a skin I wanted for the Springer the instant I saw it. Considering other micro-transaction games, this is far from unreasonable.

 

Unless you plan to shake up the market as a whole and shift the entire industry from micro-transactions, expecting someone beside yourself to make that sacrifice is selfish and hypocritical. NCSoft and by extension Anet, isn't doing anything that every other company isn't doing to stay afloat.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @pah.4931 said:

> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > Because it's a process. If it goes by quiet, even if you don't buy them, they will come with even more ridiculous system next time. You have to be loud and make it big enough if you don't want to experience worst things in the future.

>

> This is the "slippery slope" argument that is usually uniformly rejected in debates in all other realms. Just sayin'.

>

Slippery slope is only when the chain of events presented is not so certain at all. In this case unfortunately it _is_, because it's not the first step, and not the first Anet's attempt. They try to push the borders of what community consider to be reasonable in gemshop at least few times a year. Sometimes they do it quietly and softly, sometimes they use more of a brute force, but they do keep pushing. And as a result the gemshop now is not the same as it was at launch. And the direction all those changes go is not a good one (well, for players, because i bet the marketing and monetarization guys at Anet do love it).