How happy are you with Guild Wars 2 right now?

[Tachenon.5270]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> But it's worth keeping in mind that NCSoft is ANet's publisher, they do not own the game.

 

Actually, they do. NCSoft acquired ArenaNet in 2002. It made all the papers. Well, not really, but the info is just a google search away. See also: wholly-owned subsidiary.

[TexZero.7910]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> FF14 funds the things they put in their cash shop off of profits made in the cash shop. They fun things that they put into the game for free off of the subscription. You can't just subtract the subscription fee entirely and expect an equal amount of content. Instead of hassling GW2 for putting gem store stuff in their gem store, maybe hassle FF14 for having both a gem store AND a sub fee in 2017.

 

No you see why FF14 is able to do this is because back in 1.0 they had a bunch of devs train-wrecking the game in a very similar vain. This all changed when they noticed the game and its player base was at an all time low. They closed the game down and rebuilt it as ARR fixing the same poor design choices that have been creeping their way into gw2 as of late. Like too many spread out resources.

[Colton Hunter.4108]

It’s pretty good. I have never connected to a class like I have in other games for some reason. They always feel lacking and kind of uninteresting. Wish WVW was not a total disaster. Pretty bored with pvp.

[Chickenooble.5014]

> @"Phoebe Ascension.8437" said:

> What bothers me? Anet openly being lazy. 'This or that costs to much manpower, making expansion is better with this manpower'. I don't (fully) agree. I understand making something is more efficient then fixing something. But that fix might make players so much happier.

So I have some insight into software development and I can completely understand ArenaNet's stance if what you posted above is accurately quoted from them. I've been leading development teams and projects for large government projects for over a decade. During the last six years, I've been leading agile development teams and have been an evangelist for Agile practices.

 

Money is always the most important factor when doing any development project. Without the proper amount of money, or allocation of said money, then projects collapse. My development teams have what we call a "backlog" -- essentially a list of things that we want to put into our applications. The list is prioritized -- high-priority items are things like bugs/defects or items that provide high value to the product. The bottom of the list is the low-priority "nice to haves" that we'll get to if we have time or money. Value, in my world, is the things that help the government agencies run most efficiently and effectively. We're mission-driven in the government/contracting arena. Value, in the public world, is a little different since profit, shareholders and consumer sentiment are important factors that determine value; the most important of those, of course, is profit.

 

When ArenaNet says, "That costs too much manpower" or "making an expansion is better" isn't laziness but rather transparency. Companies have a finite amount of money and resources. ArenaNet has a certain number of artists, writers, modelers, developers, testers, and so on, and a limited budget which keeps them from hiring untold numbers of new employees. When we project managers have to complete a project by a certain date. Sometimes concessions are made. Just today I had to talk to my government POC about some extra functionality (frills and fanciness that users could live without) being a lower priority because it's not necessary and other things are most important to their mission. Like I have a backlog of things to do, ArenaNet would too. They have a similar "backlog" but theirs is scheduled and prioritized around a release schedule for Living World, Expansion and other seasonal content. The "nice to have" frills are things that get handled AFTER other deliverables are finished. Unfortunately, one Living World team, when an episode is released, jumps right into the next Living World episode a couple episodes down the line. They keep their teams busy trying to deliver content and not "nice to have" things.

 

So I appreciate and understand those statements. They, like all projects, have limited resources and they want to deliver the things that will provide the most value to the users while generating the most profit for the company. Failure to do either of those things results in the end of GW2.

 

 

[Erasculio.2914]

> @Vayne.8563 said:

> No they didn't drop the ball twice. They did what they were doing to keep the doors open. You think box sales alone are going to run this game. If you give away stuff, people will buy less of it. And unlike the one glider skin we get by default which was total crap, the five mount skins we get were really good out of the box. Sometimes I think people are living in a bubble and don't see what's going on with other MMOs

 

I disagree.

 

I think that, the more we go in the direction of "games as services" as opposed to "games as a single product bought by players", the more developers rely on the good will of the players to be successful. Players are not going to use a service from a company they do not trust in.

 

Now, the Gem Store objectively makes the game worse for the players. It's a way for resources that could have been made available in game for free to be monetized. There's a tacit agreemente between the players and ArenaNet, in that the players are willing to tolerate the Gem Store because it helps to fund the game... But that's up to a point.

 

The weapon skins, for example - a lot of weapon skins are made available through the Gem Store. But, a lot of weapon skins are also available in game, and players can use gold (although a significant sum) to buy exactly the skin they want from the Trading Post.

 

Then we got the gliders. The basic glider we get by playing the game looks like a kitchen towel, and can barely be dyed. Almost all other gliders are only available through the Gem Store, and players can't buy them from the Trading Post, only through gems or gem conversion. This was a step further in the direction of "let's make the game worse for players so ArenaNet will profit".

 

Then, we got the mounts. The basic mounts we got by playing the game cannot be dyed, and all other mounts are available either through the Gem Store at a very high price (the Forged Jackal) or through a random loot box system. They also cannot be traded in the Trading Post. This was one more further step in the direction of "let's make the game worse for players so ArenaNet will profit".

 

If ArenaNet keeps walking too far in that direction, they will lose their players' goodwill. Under the "games as service" mentalty, that's a death sentence - a game in which players don't trust is not a game they're going to pay, or even continue playing.

 

How much farther can ArenaNet push until a significant number of players push back? I don't know. You, Vayne, also doesn't know. The worst thing is, ArenaNet themselves don't know. Right now their strategy appears to be to keep pushing until there's a disaster - like the idea of trying to see how much weight a bridge can hold by placing so many trucks on top of it that it breaks.

 

But what is undeniable is that they are moving in that direction - adding less to the game so they can add more, in a less player friendly way, to the gem store. It's not a surprise that players are complaining. It will be a surprise if ArenaNet continues to go in that direction without stopping before they fall into a big hole.

[Svarty.8019]

> @"Colton Hunter.4108" said:

> It’s pretty good. I have never connected to a class like I have in other games for some reason. They always feel lacking and kind of uninteresting. Wish WVW was not a total disaster. Pretty bored with pvp.

 

Yep, the classes are appalling and combat is horrible. The only redeeming feature is the dodge mechanic. Thankfully camaraderie, social interaction and feelings of shared accomplishment overcome these abysmal game mechanics.

 

I find it interesting that while all the things I mention above concern the massively multiplayer aspect of this MMO, the development agenda seems concern more single player or small group content.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @Vayne.8563 said:

>

> I don't believe that this company is any worse than any of the other MMO companies. Companies that charge a sub and have a cash shop. Pay to win companies.

 

I believe ANet is by and large a better company than most other MMO companies. That does not mean that I am happy with the current state of the game, just that if I bag this game, I will likely be bagging MMO's entirely.

 

> Making an MMO is hard. Titan was cancalled. Everquest Next was cancelled. It's just easier to make mobile games because the ROI is insane and yes, this is what computer games need to compete with.

 

It's really too bad. Every mobile game I've seen was just an excuse to get into your wallet. It's looking more and more like fun computer games -- which became a thing late in my life -- may be a thing of the past before I am.

 

> Your OPINION on what's moral is just that. Your opinion. It's not factually immoral to sell mount skins for $5 each, even if they are RNG.

 

Nor could it be. What's moral and what isn't depends on the mores of the community. A huge problem with the modern age is that there are a plethora of global or near-global communities with little to no cultural foundations around which such mores grow. The controversy over the mount licenses is a case in point. Some people want to protect the vulnerable from being exploited by the floating price ceilings in random sales systems. Others don't care. There's no shared acceptance that sales techniques which manipulate people who have low self control into spending more than they would for a desired item at a fixed price are bad.

 

Legal is another matter. I believe it's only a matter of time before game company lawyers lose the fight to keep loot boxes from being classified as and thus regulated as gambling. However, that hasn't happened, yet.

[Djinn.9245]

> @Vayne.8563 said:

>

> Your OPINION on what's moral is just that. Your opinion. It's not factually immoral to sell mount skins for $5 each, even if they are RNG.

 

Read the articles by doctors and psychologists on gamble boxes and dopamine.

[Djinn.9245]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

>

> Sure, but most people don't make a single purchase per week. I certainly don't. Yes, overall the gem store purchases balance out against subs because some people pay nothing into the gem store while others pay 2-3 times what a sub would be, but that requires that the gem store have items worth purchasing, and you keep saying that they should remove items from the gem store to give players for free.

>

I think that GW2 should have a variety of sources for things like skins. For the mounts, if they were going to make the base mounts as blah as they did with only one very small dye channel, then they should have offered at least one skin for each as an in-game reward. Maybe a 2-3 dye channel skin as a reward for a collection or something. PoF could certainly use the content also.

 

Then of course a multitude of non-gamble box options in the store including the WOW-factor skins for higher prices would have been fine :) I'm waiting to give them my money for skins...

 

I hope they also add a "legendary" mount skin (works on any mount breed) with cool effects that you can achieve in-game.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Phoebe Ascension.8437" said:

> Springer kills core gw2 fun though. Alll casual (but fun) vista's mean nothing anymore.

 

I don't know about this one. I've had a TON of fun taking my characters back through old maps and using the new mounts to "terrain break" across them. I'd already done pretty much everything at least once, and I recommend that new players do that, but since I already have, being able to shortcut a lot of it on a Springer or Griffin is a whole new fun experience. It's basically similar to coming back to an early map on a level 80 character and being able to casually whup mobs.

 

> @Erasculio.2914 said:

>Now, the Gem Store objectively makes the game worse for the players. It's a way for resources that could have been made available in game for free to be monetized. There's a tacit agreemente between the players and ArenaNet, in that the players are willing to tolerate the Gem Store because it helps to fund the game... But that's up to a point.

 

No, it's not "objectively worse." I mean, is it worse than "getting everything we do now, only it's free?" Sure, but that's an unrealistic goal, like saying "McDonalds would be better if all the food was free."

 

They need to fund the game somehow. Just people buying the expansions barely covers the work on those expansions, if that. What you got in PoF for free? That's what you paid for. Nothing more. Whatever they decide to put on the gem store, that's not stuff that you were "owed for free" that they chose to withold, that was content that was paid for by the idea that players would buy that stuff using microtransactions.

 

Now it's fair to argue that there is a better way, but you need to actually present a better way. If you insist that they should cut off this revenue stream they have, then what do you suggest they use to replace it? Monthly subscriptions? More frequent expansions that have less content to them than PoF and HoT? Where is the money coming from?

 

I do think that the mount skin system was an abuse of player trust, and that they haven't taken the steps necessary to regain that trust, but I also accept that the Gem Store is a necessary element of the game, and that the alternatives would be worse. I expect gem store offers that are not gambles, but I still expect them to cost money.

 

> @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

>It's really too bad. Every mobile game I've seen was just an excuse to get into your wallet. It's looking more and more like fun computer games -- which became a thing late in my life -- may be a thing of the past before I am.

 

The only one I could really recommend is Marvel Future Fight. As mobile games go, they are far less wallet-gropey than most. There are obviously incentives to pay, but you can do without them, and spending small amounts of money results in large payouts, as opposed to other games where if you don't intend to whale out then you may as well not bother. One of the best parts, minimal RNG (in the cash shop), almost everything you can buy is strictly WYSIWYG (there is a ton of RNG in the non-cash elements though).

 

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> I think that GW2 should have a variety of sources for things like skins. For the mounts, if they were going to make the base mounts as blah as they did with only one very small dye channel, then they should have offered at least one skin for each as an in-game reward. Maybe a 2-3 dye channel skin as a reward for a collection or something. PoF could certainly use the content also.

 

My stance on this from a few weeks back, and I stand by it today, is that I was fine with the mounts only have one dye channel, and expected them to release the "basic mount skins" that were mostly the same as the default only with four channels as gem store only, and was fine with that IF these skins were released individually AND at a VERY low pricepoint, like 100-200 gems. Just like one for each mount, maybe two. If they'd done that, I would have been 100% behind them so far as that goes, because that sort of a sale is like a "door buster," it gets people to spend a little money without breaking the bank, and I think there's value in that. Bundling them in with 25 other skins and making it cost 400 per slot machine pull, on the other hand, was completely abominable.

 

Now, I *do* fully expect we'll see some more mount skins for free in the game, unfortunately they will likely be tied to raids, or if we're lucky to living world content, but probably not more than one each, and they might take a while to roll out. I kind of doubt they will go "full legendary" with those, that seems to be the domain of luxury-priced gem store stuff, they'll probably be mid-range, interesting models, full dye channels, maybe a nifty effect to them, but not too over the top.

[Vayne.8563]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Vayne.8563 said:

> > NcSoft closed down City of Heroes, even though it was making money. The question is if the resources your spending have enough return on investment to keep the company moving forward. And we simply don't know what that ROI level is. So whether you've seen signs or not isn't really relevant, because neither one of us know.

>

> But it's worth keeping in mind that NCSoft is ANet's publisher, they do not own the game. They did own City of Heroes. So NCSoft made a business decision to shut City of Heroes down, one which the developers did not agree to. They cannot do that to GW2, so the only way GW2 would shut down is if ANet had nothing better to do with their time. Short of the entire studio collapsing, I doubt GW2 will die until they at least come out with some other, more immediately successful property. Unless there have been some horrible mismanagement issues behind the scenes, the most likely worst case scenario over the next couple years would be that they'd halt future development of this game and just let it coast, but even Wildstar hasn't been quite that dire. And it's Wildstar.

>

> >Making an MMO is hard. Titan was cancalled. Everquest Next was cancelled. It's just easier to make mobile games because the ROI is insane and yes, this is what computer games need to compete with.

>

> Somewhat true. Currently, you'll never beat some gacha mobile game on profits, that much is true. As gamers, our only hope is game developers with SOULS, ones that would put player engagement over maximum profits, making *enough* profits to pay everyone and further develop the game, but not gouging players for every penny just because the whales will put up with it.

>

> > @TexZero.7910 said:

> > Yeah, no you see that's your guys misunderstanding. Assuming the "cost of PoF" was anywhere near 42mil to begin with. Here's a hint, it wasnt.

>

> Spreadsheets?

>

> >Anet and Games at large make more money from micro-transactions than they ever will off sub fees. Especially when your options for GEMS are 5/10/15, a single purchase once a week from any person covers the same cost as a sub, now keep in mind they have bi-weekly sales.

>

> Sure, but most people don't make a single purchase per week. I certainly don't. Yes, overall the gem store purchases balance out against subs because some people pay nothing into the gem store while others pay 2-3 times what a sub would be, but that requires that the gem store have items worth purchasing, and you keep saying that they should remove items from the gem store to give players for free.

>

> >Now then try and explain away why that game understands that A) you need in game rewards and B.) can still have a functioning store.

> >I'll wait. Cause the answer really isn't the sub fee. I'll even give you a giant hint 1.0

>

> FF14 funds the things they put in their cash shop off of profits made in the cash shop. They fun things that they put into the game for free off of the subscription. You can't just subtract the subscription fee entirely and expect an equal amount of content. Instead of hassling GW2 for putting gem store stuff in their gem store, maybe hassle FF14 for having both a gem store AND a sub fee in 2017.

 

NcSoft still owns Anet that hasn't changed. Whether they call themselves the publisher or not, they still completely own Anet.

[Djinn.9245]

If GW2 is about to shut down, no point in spending more money on it.

[Majic.4801]

I used to be against mounts, now I like mounts.

 

Don't judge me.

[Reaper Alim.4176]

As a RvR and PvP oriented player. I am so happy with ANet. That %97 of my MMO time goes to ESO.

 

GW2 is just so awesome. I mean what more can you ask for? Highly unbalanced links. Players who blatantly match manipulate and then brag about doing so. PvP matches that consist of highly unbalanced teams, to the point that result of the match is pretty much clear at the 0:00 mark. Highly spam based combat. Monetized WvW server imbalance.

 

GW2 best MMORPG ever 10/10 Will more than likely never recommend it, to any of my RvR or PvP gaming buddies. Well done ANet you guys are awesome.

[JackOfAllGames.2409]

I'm very happy. I continue to find the core gameplay fun. There are tons of things on my in-game to-do list. Loving the mounts. I have mixed but mostly positive feelings toward the recent mount skins. There are things I'd like improved (like making all weapons available to all specs...or some non-mount way to get rid of certain skimmer-mitigated environmental effects), but I'm generally quite happy.

 

P.S. Anet, please don't stop creating glider skins 'til I get a blue version of the phoenix glider.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Reaper Alim.4176" said:

> As a RvR and PvP oriented player. I am so happy with ANet. That %97 of my MMO time goes to ESO.

>

> GW2 is just so awesome. I mean what more can you ask for? Highly unbalanced links. Players who blatantly match manipulate and then brag about doing so. PvP matches that consist of highly unbalanced teams, to the point that result of the match is pretty much clear at the 0:00 mark. Highly spam based combat. Monetized WvW server imbalance.

>

> GW2 best MMORPG ever 10/10 Will more than likely never recommend it, to any of my RvR or PvP gaming buddies. Well done ANet you guys are awesome.

 

Yeah, it's really not a PvP game, and the less resources they throw after the PvP aspects, the better.

[hornswroggle.8023]

Ok... maybe I'm right in between answer 2&3. I have the feeling since Rising Flames that the game is solely depending on the impact of the "next release". Path of Fire did aleviate that a bit, but the feeling remains. I don't see a "Big Picture" in either the game development nor the story.

Partially this is due to the aftershock of the **massive** restructuring within ArenaNet done by MO, and I can feel and see how much good this has done in the form of a steady release cadence, the return of Gen2 Legendaries, the re-re-restructuring of Fractals and their continued expansion and the quality of Story delivery.

But I feel how after 4000h the game starts to thin out for me and my daily activity schedule becomes more and more repetitive. I do a bit of gathering, maybe a daily, sometimes Fractals. That will keep me occupied for 1.5 maybe 2 h ... and then what? Sometimes I look where the World Boss cycle is ad do a few of those but PoF didn't add much that keeps me coming back.

I'm in the desert once a week right now because I lead a bounty zerg on thursdays for my guild but I feel that I'm still more in HoT than in PoF maps.

I fear that there is either not enough meaningfully repeatable content in PoF or not enough incentive to do so.

 

My two cents.

[Erasculio.2914]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> They need to fund the game somehow. Just people buying the expansions barely covers the work on those expansions, if that. What you got in PoF for free? That's what you paid for. Nothing more. Whatever they decide to put on the gem store, that's not stuff that you were "owed for free" that they chose to withold, that was content that was paid for by the idea that players would buy that stuff using microtransactions.

 

See, the thing is: unless you work for ArenaNet and/or NCSoft, all of the above is just a big assumption. You don't know the cost of working on PoF, you don't know ArenaNet's expected profit, you don't know how much they made with people buying the expansion, and so on and so on. The idea you're trying to sell is possible, but in the context of a player - someone who simply does not know about the inner workings of ArenaNet - it's basically a fairytale you're telling yourself to justify the current gem store.

 

(And, for the records, I love the oxymoron in saying "What you got in PoF for free? That's what you paid for".)

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Erasculio.2914 said:

> See, the thing is: unless you work for ArenaNet and/or NCSoft, all of the above is just a big assumption.

 

It is, but I feel that it's a much safer assumption than "they have a Scrooge McDuck vault in their offices that they roll around in while they laugh at us paying extra for Outfits that can't even be broken down into different pieces." If they spend so much time working on the gem store stuff, it's because the gem store stuff needs to be made and put in the gem store. If they put a certain amount of content into the expansion, it's because that's the amount of content that the expansion sale can justify.

 

>(And, for the records, I love the oxymoron in saying "What you got in PoF for free? That's what you paid for".)

 

Fair enough, but I assume you got my point, the stuff that you didn't have to pay for *on top of the expansion costs* is the content that the expansion budget was set aside to develop. The content that ended up on the Gem Store was not part of the expansion's budget, it was budgeted as a gem store item, intended to be sold at some sort of individual price.

 

You haven't presented any alternative for how they would pay for all this free content you think they should be producing.

[Kyon.9735]

Considering that only PvE is in a decent place out of the 3 game modes that I play (PvP, WvW, PvE), I'm mostly unhappy then. But hey, Anet generates most money from PvE so they probably see no problem.

[Erasculio.2914]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> It is, but I feel that it's a much safer assumption than "they have a Scrooge McDuck vault in their offices that they roll around in while they laugh at us paying extra for Outfits that can't even be broken down into different pieces." If they spend so much time working on the gem store stuff, it's because the gem store stuff needs to be made and put in the gem store. If they put a certain amount of content into the expansion, it's because that's the amount of content that the expansion sale can justify.

 

I think the safer assumption is a middle ground between both narratives. That ArenaNet isn't Greedy McGreed laughing at their players, but that they also aren't saints hardly making by while selling only the minimum necessary in the gem store. They want to have some profit for themselves, above just paying their expenses - and that's not "evil". We all work (hopefully) because we like our jobs but also because we want the money, not only to survive but also to do the things we want to do.

 

The degree of profit that ArenaNet will have at the expense of players is what is at stake here. Again, it's not an "all or nothing" situation; but they have been moving further and further in the direction of making the game worse for us so they have more ways to profit. If we don't complain, they will keep moving even further - because if players are ok with it, why wouldn't ArenaNet be?

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Erasculio.2914 said:

> I think the safer assumption is a middle ground between both narratives. That ArenaNet isn't Greedy McGreed laughing at their players, but that they also aren't saints hardly making by while selling only the minimum necessary in the gem store. They want to have some profit for themselves, above just paying their expenses - and that's not "evil". We all work (hopefully) because we like our jobs but also because we want the money, not only to survive but also to do the things we want to do.

 

Sure, and I assume that to be the case and I *want* them to have that reasonable take-home pay and cushion. Achieving that though means that they need to take in more money than an Expansion box alone seems capable of providing, given that the NCsoft-presented revenue figures have been going downward over time, while the amount of content they've been producing has been, if anything, *growing* over time. Add into that the fact that there are less "staple products" being sold on the Gem Store over time, as many if not most players already have as many character slots, bank slots, shared inventory slots, etc. as they'll ever need at this point, so most of those markets just dry up. They even undermined themselves a bit by offering the new larger bag sizes, as it made various other inventory upgrades less necessary (although it's possible that this turned a profit for them on gem-gold conversions in the crafting process).

 

Less total revenue + more content created does not indicate to me that the gem store operations are somehow redundant to the process.

 

>The degree of profit that ArenaNet will have at the expense of players is what is at stake here. Again, it's not an "all or nothing" situation; but they have been moving further and further in the direction of making the game worse for us so they have more ways to profit. If we don't complain, they will keep moving even further - because if players are ok with it, why wouldn't ArenaNet be?

 

By and large, I don't see it that way. The Mount thing was a huge mistake. **HUGE.** And they still have not resolved it, and they **must resolve it,** but while I do believe there were better ways to put the skins in the gem store, I don't necessarily believe that they owed us any free\* ones either. I think that given the costs of PoF, they fulfilled the responsibilities of that purchase price with what PoF offered in terms of maps, specs, and the mounts themselves, not to mention what I hope will be a solid LWs4, which we've already paid for but will take a year or so to fully deliver. Now, I hope that they do put in a lot of work over the coming months. They absolutely **need** to figure out a way to get the existing 30 mount skins into the hands of people who don't roll RNG for them. They need to overhaul many of the PoF specs to offer more varied builds and in many cases stronger gameplay themes than the existing options provide. And of course LWs4 needs to be pretty cool.

 

I have faith that they can do these things, and want them to. I just don't see any way that they could manage this while at the same time reducing the amount of items being sent to the Gem Store, without some completely new revenue stream opening up. They can't keep trying RNG gamble boxes in the Gem Store, and there's plenty of room for them to make more attractive offers on existing merchandise, but the Gem Store is a major part of their future, and you'll need to accept that.

 

\* with purchase of PoF.

[RoChan.1926]

I am a drifter in this game for now. I dropped it 3 years ago and recently came back because the mounts were interesting. Going through HoT and PoF I've had a pretty "Meh" experience overall. There have been some interesting things, a few things that have a potential to be more, and a lot of bland or terrible things. While I can appreciate a lot of the better qualities of the game it's overall been very boring to me so I can neither say I am happy or unhappy with the game since in a way I gave up any hope on this game a long time ago.

 

The things that I do and can appreciate are:

* Mounts are very cool and distinct. Their animations, their diversity of skills are really top notch and really are fun to use. I am looking forward to any new mounts they bring about (if they do).

* QoL things in this game have gotten so much better than they we before and I look forward to seeing more things implemented in time. Perhaps a keychain and a bookcase.

* The new PoF areas are beautiful, but I have always found the base game to be lovely overall.

* HoT adventures were really fun for me. I still have a few that I don't have gold on, but so far I have enjoyed all of them.

[sephiroth.4217]

I'm happy with everything they are doing but I'm unhappy with the way they are doing it....

 

To be more specific with an example:

 

Mount skins......

Mount skins released in a group of 30 could have brought so much life to the game if they left *most* of them out of the cash stop (im a credit card player and do love buying things quickly which is why I say "most"). It could have created "content" so to speak. They could have added themed mounts to dungeons, WvW reward tracks, PvP reward tracks, collections, fractals, map completion and so on....

 

 

[Erasculio.2914]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> The Mount thing was a huge mistake. **HUGE.**

 

Think about it: from ArenaNet's point of view, why was the mount thing a mistake?

 

You and I don't know how many people bought those mounts... But, a lot has been written about how, in most games with RNG loot boxes, most players don't buy them; however, the companies still profit because a few players buy A LOT of them. With the RNG mount boxes, many players complained, so we can probably safely assume that not all players bought them... But ArenaNet likely wasn't expecting all players to buy them anyway. Based on previous literature, the most likely outcome was that a few players would buy a lot of them, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly what happened.

 

In other words, it's likely that people bought a lot of the RNG mounts, and ArenaNet made a profit. Why would that be a mistake, from their point of view?

 

Only if, players have lost faith in ArenaNet and decided to spent less money with GW2 as a result. Not all players, of course, only enough to have an impact. And if that is seen as significant, then we have a situation in which players losing faith in ArenaNet ends with the developers having less money, so it's in their interest to keep players happy with them.

 

Giving players access to things in game is a way to make players happy, isn't it? So, if the players being happy leads to them potentially spending more money, wouldn't it be interesting for ArenaNet to give the players more stuff in game?

 

And, IMO, that's the balancing act ArenaNet is at. They don't want to give players things in-game so players get those thing in the gem store; at the same time, they want players to be happy enough so they are willing to support ArenaNet, and one way for players to be happy is for them to receive things (in the ample meaning of items, skins, content, and so on) in game.

 

Going back to what I have said a few pages ago - with weapons, I think we are at balance. ArenaNet releases a lot of weapon skins in the gem store, and they're rather expensive, but we don't see people complaining about that; IMO, that's because we have a lot of weapon skins available in game. I believe ArenaNet should follow something slightly like that for other things:

 

* **Outifts**: give us two outfits in game. One at level 20 to introduce players to the outfit system, with something like the old town clothes we had. Give it a simple tutorial so players understand how the outfits work. Then give the players a second outfit, for something like completing the Path of Fire storyline. Make both outfits something players would like to use (which means, all dye channels), and it becomes an opportunity for ArenaNet: when players go to the outfit selection screen, they would see all the other options there, and hopefully be tempted to buy something else. Players would win, because they would be happy to (finally) get outfits in game, and they would end with a choice of two good outfits to use; and ArenaNet would also win, because they still have a lot of outfits for sale, and players would be more likely to find new outfits when accessing the outfit selection screen.

 

* **Gliders**: same thing. The basic glider is horrible - it looks like a kitchen towel and it can't even be dyed. I bought a better looking one, and that's it - I'm never again going to the glider selection screen. Which means ArenaNet is losing an opportunity here - if I went to the glider selection screen once in a while, I would see everything that is being offered there and maybe I would be tempted to buy something. I would go to the glider selection screen more often if I had more than one decent looking glider, as opposed to just the kitchen towel glider and the one I bought. If ArenaNet gave us two gliders to be earned in game in some achievable way (two because the basic glider is horrible; if it had been better, just the basic one and an extra would have been enough), players would be happy (and remember, happy players are more likely to use the gem store), and they would expose themselves to what ArenaNet is offering more often.

 

* **Mounts**: again, the same idea. If the basic skins were fully dyable, and we got a second set of skins in game (for something doable instead of doing all raid wings within 1 hour of each other), players would be happy (because they got nice looking things), ArenaNet would still be able to sell the shinniest skins (such as the celestial griffon), and players would be more likely to browse the list of mounts for sale and hopefully find something they want.

 

That's my suggestion. Not "close the gem store, offer everything for free and turn all ArenaNet developers into monks". Just change it from a situation in which ArenaNet wins with players losing (we get the ugly glider, no outfits and mounts that cannot be dyed), to a situation in which both wins: players are happy because they get a couple skins in game, and ArenaNet is happy because they continue to sell a lot more options in the gem store, with happier players making more purchases and browsing the options more often.