Feedback on the new gemstore Pack

[Oglaf.1074]

The only thing I take "offense to" is the damnable Arsenal loot box.

 

You just had to go sneak yet another one in, didn't you Anet?

 

Sigh.

[Shirlias.8104]

> @Fenom.9457 said:

> > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> > I just want the Universal Outfit Ticket sold separate. I really have no use for the rest of it whatsoever.

>

>

>

> That's just buying the outfit you want

 

The bundle sucks as the other bundles imho, but could be worth if somebody missed and item and want to trade gems for months of waiting.

However, since it's a matter of "returning items", sales and returns will lose they purpose if they are going to introduce it separately...

 

...unless ANET decide to put the outfit ticket at a high price like 1500 gems, which would be totally fine.

[Erulogos.2591]

> @Atonement.8021 said:

> But the tendency towards larger bundles is becoming more common now, I am fully aware that in present day GW2 these bundles are not unusual. It's not just the bundles, I was also thinking about single items like the reforged warhound jackal skin, or the waypoint unlock package, or the level 80 booster are high cost items that you have to purchase in one hit.

>

> My point is it's becoming harder and harder to support Anet with smaller ticket purchases for new gem store items.

 

I agree with most of your point (they are taking the 'micro' out of 'microtransaction',) but I have no issue with the 80 boosts being a bit pricey. Level boost items have always been a bit divisive, but often necessary for long running games. Pricing them fairly high has been a sort of compromise, to keep people leveling the old fashioned way (either because they haven't decided to commit to the game and/or character class, or because they can't justify the expense relative to the time it'd take to do things the long way.)

 

 

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> The only thing I take "offense to" is the damnable Arsenal loot box.

>

> You just had to go sneak yet another one in, didn't you Anet?

>

> Sigh.

 

At least you can pick the weapon type, so you can remove the chance to get a useless skin, and you can apparently sell them as always so you can convert unwanted skins to gold. RNG loot boxes aren't ideal, but that implementation is better than most.

[Devilman.1532]

Absolutely not worth the money. No chance Ill buy it. If the items were sold individually I might consider the outfit unlock. The combo pack however is absolute garbage at 3000 gems.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> The only thing I take "offense to" is the damnable Arsenal loot box.

 

Because you support [ManU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry)?

[Manasa Devi.7958]

We're getting to a point where we shouldn't refer to the purchase of these items as "micro-transactions". There's nothing micro about gem store packages costing upward of 2000 gems.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> We're getting to a point where we shouldn't refer to the purchase of these items as "micro-transactions". There's nothing micro about gem store packages costing upward of 2000 gems.

 

The economic/marketing origin of the term refers to the impact on gameplay, not the cost. The price could be US$5000 and it would still be a "microtransaction" if all it did was change one skin for one piece of equipment. Macro-transactions the original sources of funds when the industry started: full game, expansions or "campaigns", i.e. things that add new professions, new maps, etc.

 

So originally, it was all macro and now gaming has moved to F2P & all micro (with MMOs and the like being old school, with a mix of the two).

[Manasa Devi.7958]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > We're getting to a point where we shouldn't refer to the purchase of these items as "micro-transactions". There's nothing micro about gem store packages costing upward of 2000 gems.

>

> The economic/marketing origin of the term refers to the impact on gameplay, not the cost. The price could be US$5000 and it would still be a "microtransaction" if all it did was change one skin for one piece of equipment. Macro-transactions the original sources of funds when the industry started: full game, expansions or "campaigns", i.e. things that add new professions, new maps, etc.

>

> So originally, it was all macro and now gaming has moved to F2P & all micro (with MMOs and the like being old school, with a mix of the two).

Do you have a source for that definition of microtransaction? I can find hundreds that define them based upon the amount of money involved but not a single one using your definition. Macrotransaction isn't even google-friendly, it gives only 2160 hits, google wonders if I didn't mean "microtransaction" and the hits it produces are all over the place as for context, many of them relating to computing.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> Do you have a source for that definition of microtransaction? I can find hundreds that define them based upon the amount of money involved but not a single one using your definition. Macrotransaction isn't even google-friendly, it gives only 2160 hits, google wonders if I didn't mean "microtransaction" and the hits it produces are all over the place as for context, many of them relating to computing.

 

I'll see if I can find it. I read it in two recent articles and the term was used by two different industry "insiders". I don't typically preserve my browser history, so I'll have to figure out how to retrace my steps.

 

"Macro-transaction" is the implied term: if the new model is micro, then the old model was macro.

 

****

Now that I'm looking at various google results (rather than actual research), I'm going to say that this is not going to be worth debating: different people are using it to mean different things. It's not quite as bad as "casual vs hardcore", but it also fails at language 101: we can't be sure what someone means when they use it.

 

The more useful term is probably just "in-game purchases." Not a very "sexy" phrase, but also less-easily misunderstood.

 

* http://www.usgamer.net/articles/the-history-of-gaming-microtransactions-from-horse-armor-to-loot-boxes

* https://www.techopedia.com/definition/27615/in-game-purchases

 

[Atonement.8021]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > The only thing I take "offense to" is the damnable Arsenal loot box.

>

> Because you support [ManU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry)?

 

They would only be triggered by that if they were Spurs fan ;)

[Atonement.8021]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > Do you have a source for that definition of microtransaction? I can find hundreds that define them based upon the amount of money involved but not a single one using your definition. Macrotransaction isn't even google-friendly, it gives only 2160 hits, google wonders if I didn't mean "microtransaction" and the hits it produces are all over the place as for context, many of them relating to computing.

>

> I'll see if I can find it. I read it in two recent articles and the term was used by two different industry "insiders". I don't typically preserve my browser history, so I'll have to figure out how to retrace my steps.

>

> "Macro-transaction" is the implied term: if the new model is micro, then the old model was macro.

>

> ****

> Now that I'm looking at various google results (rather than actual research), I'm going to say that this is not going to be worth debating: different people are using it to mean different things. It's not quite as bad as "casual vs hardcore", but it also fails at language 101: we can't be sure what someone means when they use it.

>

> The more useful term is probably just "in-game purchases." Not a very "sexy" phrase, but also less-easily misunderstood.

>

> * http://www.usgamer.net/articles/the-history-of-gaming-microtransactions-from-horse-armor-to-loot-boxes

> * https://www.techopedia.com/definition/27615/in-game-purchases

>

 

Manasa's point still stands though, if we are taking micro and macro in their most literal senses then we are just talking about small and large, and I don't think many people at all would argue gem store items that cost almost as much and sometimes more than an entire expansion are really all that 'micro'. We can argue semantics all we like but the point still stands that these items cost a comparatively large amount of money (be that real life currency or in-game gold > gems, in my case the former as I don't have the time to grind out the gold I'd need for some of these items).

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @Atonement.8021 said:

>

> But the tendency towards larger bundles is becoming more common now, I am fully aware that in present day GW2 these bundles are not unusual. It's not just the bundles, I was also thinking about single items like the reforged warhound jackal skin, or the waypoint unlock package, or the level 80 booster are high cost items that you have to purchase in one hit.

>

> My point is it's becoming harder and harder to support Anet with smaller ticket purchases for new gem store items.

 

This is what I find disappointing about the way their business model seems to be going. I'm not inclined to waste money or gold and the bigger ticket bundles invariably contain stuff that is of no interest. I'm not angry or anything, I'm just not going to spend either money or gold on stuff I don't want because it's lumped in with things I might want. If ANet returns to offering items at a set, reasonable price, I'll return to my prior habits. If it turns out my kind of player is no longer of interest to ANet, then so be it. I'll be damned if they'll turn me into a whale with virtual gewgaws.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Perhaps, there are larger Gem Store purchase offerings to offset the recent lower expansion cost. I've no idea. Something like 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'. /shrug

 

I've no real opinion on whether one or the other is better, nor a 'yea or nay' opinion on bundles or higher cost items. If it's outside my budget, it's not for me.

[PopeUrban.2578]

Fun idea:

 

Put items in gem store.

Price items in gem store.

Let customers evaluate if items are worth price.

If you are not selling enough items, lower the price until your customer base shows you they think it is a good value proposition by spending money.

 

Bundling, artificial scarcity "sales", rng boxes, etc. aren't necessary for a storefront that maintains literally zero physical inventory and incurs literally zero additional data costs to maintain the storefront in a game with an existing robust scaling database structure. There is no need to move inventory to clear shelf space, there is no need to bundle items that sell poorly with new stuff, or hold sales. There is no need to price out the competition because no one else can sell these digital items that can only exist on the platform you own.

 

The only reason any of these practices are in effect is specifically to convince people to buy things they otherwise would not because your basic price point is too high for the consumer. It is an inherently deceptive practice done solely for the purpose of manipulating people in to paying more for something than they usually would because you've forced them to buy a bundle, purposely sold them disappointment in RNG boxes, or established a phantom "stock room" that doesn't actually exist to encourage panic-buying at a higher price point.

 

All of these systems are great game play drivers for currency and items in the context of playing a game, but exploitative anti-consumer practices in a cash shop that sells virtual items that only have use in a virtual environment.

[Lanhelin.3480]

Even if this pack was sold for 1 gem only, I wouldn't buy it because of its rng-element. I'm quite sure a lot of customers are allayed by only one rng among everything else not rng in this pack, but it's the rng-wolf in sheep's clothing and I will not support this.

[gaborkaldy.3210]

You know how this works. They "survived" (aka ignored) the RNG mount skin rage threads and now released more RNG bullshit. They will put these in 1 by 1 until the crowd accepts them. The more RNG kitten item they add the lesser people will rage because they get bored.

 

I keep myself to my decision to not buy any gems until the next expansion comes. I will get the mount skins with gold only.

So far bought 5. Of course all average but no way I pay a single EUR to support their desperate rampage for money.

[Kalibri.5861]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> > I rather they make the Universal Outfit Ticket permanent and just set it like 1000 gems or something.

>

> That's an intriguing idea.

> I don't think it would work in practice: aside from people complaining that ANet was gouging by deliberately moving skins out of the store (and claim that they are being _forced_ to purchase the ticket), it also undermines about half the principles for artificial scarcity. Like it or not, artificial scarcity generates more sales and makes the items feel special (familiarity breeds contempt, after all).

>

> However, I'd love for the gem shop team to consider it, if not for outfits then maybe for other things. Would you consider a new thread to propose this? (Or maybe it belongs in the [sticky for gem shop ideas](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/348/suggestions-gemstore-items).) I'll :+1: it wherever it ends up, too.

>

 

No, this is not an intriguing idea. You're basically saying, "Yes ArenaNet, I understand you're arbitrarily limiting product availability, but please charge me more for the privilege of bypassing your unnecessary restriction." The response to this should actually be, "Hi, ArenaNet. Stop limiting your system so that I can actually buy stuff."

 

Artificial scarcity should go away.

 

> @gaborkaldy.3210 said:

> You know how this works. They "survived" (aka ignored) the RNG mount skin rage threads and now released more RNG kitten. They will put these in 1 by 1 until the crowd accepts them. The more RNG kitten item they add the lesser people will rage because they get bored.

>

> I keep myself to my decision to not buy any gems until the next expansion comes. I will get the mount skins with gold only.

> So far bought 5. Of course all average but no way I pay a single EUR to support their desperate rampage for money.

 

We don't have to accept them... if we don't accept them. Also, I hope you understand that by purchasing gems for gold you're contributing to the value of gems which perpetuates the problem by making them more lucrative for gold exchange. It's designed to be a self-feeding system. Best way to fight this is to not buy gems at all.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @Kalibri.5861 said:

> No, this is not an intriguing idea.

I wasn't aware that someone else could determine what is or isn't intriguing for me.

 

> You're basically saying, "Yes ArenaNet, I understand you're arbitrarily limiting product availability, but please charge me more for the privilege of bypassing your unnecessary restriction."

I'm literally saying, "yes, I'm okay with artificial scarcity and yes, I'm okay with being charged for the privilege of being impatient." I don't see any difference between paying extra to shortcut the system from waiting for a sale price before buying something. For example, I only buy character slots when they are on sale, which means that others are paying for the privilege of not waiting.

 

I'm not asking you to like the system. I am suggesting it's worth taking the time to understand why a company would choose it and accept that it's okay if others are okay with it.

[Egrimm Van Horstmann.7921]

It may have no value to you, but that does undermine your whole argument as an Identity Repair Kit is 1000 gems. Transformation kit which is 350 by it'self. So yes it's a discount, just not for you. I have no reason to buy it as most of it is nothing I need or want. How did you determine a random weapon skin is only worth 400 gems? They only sell tickets in the chest and most require multiple tickets.

[PopeUrban.2578]

> @gaborkaldy.3210 said:

> You know how this works. They "survived" (aka ignored) the RNG mount skin rage threads and now released more RNG kitten. They will put these in 1 by 1 until the crowd accepts them. The more RNG kitten item they add the lesser people will rage because they get bored.

>

> I keep myself to my decision to not buy any gems until the next expansion comes. I will get the mount skins with gold only.

> So far bought 5. Of course all average but no way I pay a single EUR to support their desperate rampage for money.

 

You know that you're actually providing arenanet MORE money in addition to spending MORE time grinding when you trade gold for gems right?

 

Someone has to buy those gems, and when they sell them for your gold on the exchange that transaction is taxed, removing some of those gems from the economy, effectively makeing the gems you buy with gold actually more expensive (for the person who bought them) in terms of real money.

 

Spending your gold on gem store items does not prevent anet from making exploitative and consumer unfriendly gem store decisions. In the case of untradable items, it actually encourages them to do so because they're making more money by taxing the gems to gold market. The only difference is that someone else with less restraint and patience than you is paying that cost, and the both of your are cooperating to pay Anet even more money for your gems.

 

Anet makes more money by convincing people to trade gold for gems than they made from someone who buys their own gems.

[Kalibri.5861]

.> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @Kalibri.5861 said:

> > No, this is not an intriguing idea.

> I wasn't aware that someone else could determine what is or isn't intriguing for me.

>

> > You're basically saying, "Yes ArenaNet, I understand you're arbitrarily limiting product availability, but please charge me more for the privilege of bypassing your unnecessary restriction."

> I'm literally saying, "yes, I'm okay with artificial scarcity and yes, I'm okay with being charged for the privilege of being impatient." I don't see any difference between paying extra to shortcut the system from waiting for a sale price before buying something. For example, I only buy character slots when they are on sale, which means that others are paying for the privilege of not waiting.

>

> I'm not asking you to like the system. I am suggesting it's worth taking the time to understand why a company would choose it and accept that it's okay if others are okay with it.

 

Admittedly, I was being cheeky with that first bit. I really do understand the theory of artificial scarcity, but it's practically inarguably detrimental to players, and I genuinely believe it doesn't help ArenaNet either in the long run. No, I won't accept that something is 'okay' just because others think it's okay when I think that those others have been fooled by the system. Will you please explain to me why you're okay with artificial scarcity? It makes no sense to me why you would be okay with a system that's designed to fool you, and which bears only a mystical and highly questionable degree of efficacy (even for ArenaNet since they've always employed this and thus have no control data to compare to).