Gem store takes away fun .

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Kurrilino.2706" said:

> A very huge part of upgrades and changes go to the Gem Store and very little to the video game.

Sorry, no, that's not remotely true.

The gem shop gets most convenience items and premium skins. There are tons of skins available outside the gem shop, including every single armor set released since around the time of the first outfits.

 

> This is only my observation and i don't have a real solution but GW1 prooved to be a good one.

> The game had very very little ingame economy.

It had (and has) a huge in-game economy; it's just a pain to be a regular player and make use of it. Further the game's budget depended on selling expansions frequently, something that is nearly impossible to sustain over long periods of time.

 

> So yeah. I guess if A-Net would focus a little bit more on playable content and less about features or fashion people would be more willing to invest

How many more dollars|euros would people spend if there were 6 living world updates per year instead of 4? Would it be enough to pay make up for the 40-60% removing the gem shop would leave?

 

There is an alternative to a gem shop funding source: subscriptions; people pay a set amount every month. The appetite for that appears to be very low these days.

[Game of Bones.8975]

Sorry, what I buy has no impact on how you game.

 

Of course you could say with it being a "living" economy each trade impacts the value of gold within the game.

 

I'm talking about what skins I have don't make your gaming experience any better or worse.

 

If you don't like the Market, don't use it. Most pieces of armor/weapons are available to you in the gaming world.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"Kurrilino.2706" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

> >

> > Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

> >

> > It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

>

> I am absolutely on your side here, but the OP has a point as well.

>

> People want to play a video game and not a Gem Store.

> A very huge part of upgrades and changes go to the Gem Store and very little to the video game.

> This creates a natural conflict of interests. People who play a video game couldn't care less where the money comes from.

> The people who create the game couldn't care less about the content. It's just the medium that keeps the people clicking into the Gem Store.

> This is the state of the situation since day 1.

>

> This is only my observation and i don't have a real solution but GW1 prooved to be a good one.

> The game had very very little ingame economy. And the Gem Store was marginal at best. The only thing they sold were character slots and such.

> Then real money maker was the gaming content like the addons. From my perspective the people were more happy this way.

> Those days there wasn't a single post about the Gem Store in the forums. Actually people were asking to add more stuff to the Gem Store when i

> think about it.

>

> So yeah. I guess if A-Net would focus a little bit more on playable content and less about features or fashion people would be more willing to invest

> in the gem store. Of course i am aware this needs a completely new approach to the game and requires flexibility and creativity, areas A-Net didn't exactly shine in GW2

> These are just my 2 cents

>

>

 

The OP would have a point if there weren't skins/armors in game that I want that I don't have that don't appear in the game store. Did you, and the OP, not realize that full armor sets were removed from the gem store, in favor of outfits, but several armor sets have been since added to game. Even recently they've added two armor sets to the living world season 4, both of which I unlocked...by playing the game. I still don't have all the funerary weapons from Path of Fire (which are great looking) but I have quite a few of them. I have fewer of the stellar and astral weapons, both of which look great.

 

Both Heart of Thorns and Path of Fire added new armor skins, and new weapon skins. Since then we've had more. We had a weapon content that added new weapon skins to the game as well. The armor set you get for PVPing is very nice btw. They added the obsidian weapon set to PvP and WvW as well.

 

Yes, it would be nice to get every single armor and weapon skin in the game, but let's face it, the game has to be supported. I don't think Anet's balance of in game skins and gem store skins is that off, unless you forget you can also farm gold (and everything gives you gold in the game) convert to gems and get what you want by playing the game.

 

If you like Fractals, they gave you plenty of coin. Dungeons give you coin slower but still give you coin. If you're into the open world there's Silverwastes, AB (all the HOT metas in fact), Palawadan and gathering (because if you're not a crafter selling that stuff gives you coin). At the end of the day, there are a lot of people who play the game, get gold and they then get stuff from the black lion trading post without spending a penny. I have people in my guild who do that and that's their game.

 

The OP and you're suggesting perhaps that playing for something directly is more fun, and maybe it is. But having no game at all because it can't support itself or it's employees is less fun. A lot less fun.

 

Pretty much all the black lion ticket skins, with the exception of a single set, can be bought from the trading post, which you can get from playing the game. Taking that into account, there's very little you can't get just by playing the game. It's a very good compromise.

 

I'm pretty much always working on skins I can get in game, I probably play more than most people and I don't have all the skins I want yet and I've been playing for 7 years. Not sure how much better it can be without making the game unplayable long term due to lack of funds.

 

Edit: Another important point. Guild Wars 2 sold plenty of stuff in the cash shop including outfits and also skill unlocks (meaning you didn't have to play to unlock those skills), which isn't very different. More to the point, though,. Guild Wars 1 wasn't an MMO. It makes a huge difference in financing. Gaming has become different. A staff of 50 is not a staff of 300 and they probably make more. Voice acting has become a vast expense in game design. It would be nice if things that 10 years ago you could fund, you could fund the same way today, but you can't. This is a whole different business. The Guild Wars 1 solution might work for a lobby game, which Guild Wars 1 was. It wouldn't work for a triple A MMO.

[BlueJin.4127]

It certainly feels more meaningful when you obtain rewards through successfully completing a task. However, it’s also great that, instead of being forced to do something I really hate for a reward I really want, I can do stuff I like and buy what I want with gold. And it’s not like GW2 doesn’t have a lot of task related rewards in-game. Looking at the achievements list, there are actually a lot. I’ve been working on specialization collections and Bladed armor sets lately, and these require actually playing the game. While it’s true that GW2 does not have as much task related rewards as WoW (I can’t compare any other MMO’s since I never played others), GW2 doesn’t have a sub fee. If Anet moved everything to the game, we’d have sub fees and have less freedom to choose how we obtain rewards.

 

Personally, I think Anet is doing a great job balancing task related rewards, gem store items, and gold to gem conversion (which effectively makes everything obtainable in-game).

 

On a side note, I also love that many task related rewards are not grinds. In WoW, pretty much everything worth getting is a grind where I have to repeat the exact same daily quests, dungeons, etc. every day for weeks. In GW2, there are so many rewards that simply require players to play different parts of the game. I LOVE that!

[ProtoGunner.4953]

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

>

> Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

>

> It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

 

GW1 had a very small and negligible in game shop. Instead they sold boxed campaigns/expansions. It works but I think they wouldn't make that much money and also times change. But I am sure they could give us some more than just throwing 95% of skins into the shop. I.e. we don't have any in game mounts skins (aside from original skins ofc). Not a single one. In WoW (yes, monthly sub), you have like 1000 skins you can get in game, some very easily, some harder. We don't need that many and I get that we should have some in the gem store, but not a single skin as in game reward? Just sounds too shabby/greedy in my opinion.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

> >

> > Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

> >

> > It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

>

> GW1 had a very small and negligible in game shop. Instead they sold boxed campaigns/expansions. It works but I think they wouldn't make that much money and also times change. But I am sure they could give us some more than just throwing 95% of skins into the shop. I.e. we don't have any in game mounts skins (aside from original skins ofc). Not a single one. In WoW (yes, monthly sub), you have like 1000 skins you can get in game, some very easily, some harder. We don't need that many and I get that we should have some in the gem store, but not a single skin as in game reward? Just sounds too shabby/greedy in my opinion.

 

You're sure based on what? Do you see the Anet budget sheets?

 

Guild Wars 2's store was based on a different system specifically because the staff was much smaller (only 50 people instead of over 300) and because there was far far less voice acting, which costs a ton of money. Also, being a true MMO costs far more money to run than a lobby game. Also 95% of the skins aren't thrown into the shop, and if you'd do the math you'd see that. Exaggerating to make a point doesn't make the point and calls the rest of your point of view into question.

[ProtoGunner.4953]

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

> > >

> > > Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

> > >

> > > It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

> >

> > GW1 had a very small and negligible in game shop. Instead they sold boxed campaigns/expansions. It works but I think they wouldn't make that much money and also times change. But I am sure they could give us some more than just throwing 95% of skins into the shop. I.e. we don't have any in game mounts skins (aside from original skins ofc). Not a single one. In WoW (yes, monthly sub), you have like 1000 skins you can get in game, some very easily, some harder. We don't need that many and I get that we should have some in the gem store, but not a single skin as in game reward? Just sounds too shabby/greedy in my opinion.

>

> You're sure based on what? Do you see the Anet budget sheets?

>

> Guild Wars 2's store was based on a different system specifically because the staff was much smaller (only 50 people instead of over 300) and because there was far far less voice acting, which costs a ton of money. Also, being a true MMO costs far more money to run than a lobby game. Also 95% of the skins aren't thrown into the shop, and if you'd do the math you'd see that. Exaggerating to make a point doesn't make the point and calls the rest of your point of view into question.

 

I didn't flesh it out but I am well aware of the heightened production values hence I told 'times change'. I am not against the the store, but I think they could give us at least _some_ of the dozens of mount skins as in game rewards.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

> > > >

> > > > Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

> > > >

> > > > It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

> > >

> > > GW1 had a very small and negligible in game shop. Instead they sold boxed campaigns/expansions. It works but I think they wouldn't make that much money and also times change. But I am sure they could give us some more than just throwing 95% of skins into the shop. I.e. we don't have any in game mounts skins (aside from original skins ofc). Not a single one. In WoW (yes, monthly sub), you have like 1000 skins you can get in game, some very easily, some harder. We don't need that many and I get that we should have some in the gem store, but not a single skin as in game reward? Just sounds too shabby/greedy in my opinion.

> >

> > You're sure based on what? Do you see the Anet budget sheets?

> >

> > Guild Wars 2's store was based on a different system specifically because the staff was much smaller (only 50 people instead of over 300) and because there was far far less voice acting, which costs a ton of money. Also, being a true MMO costs far more money to run than a lobby game. Also 95% of the skins aren't thrown into the shop, and if you'd do the math you'd see that. Exaggerating to make a point doesn't make the point and calls the rest of your point of view into question.

>

> I didn't flesh it out but I am well aware of the heightened production values hence I told 'times change'. I am not against the the store, but I think they could give us at least _some_ of the dozens of mount skins as in game rewards.

 

Well, if you give people free mount skins, a lot of people will buy none of them. And they are giving us free mounts. There are plenty of games that charge for mounts. The skins the mounts come with are actually quite detailed. Could they give them to us? Sure. But I don't see how that would make the game better. You can save gold and buy the skins you want anyway. Plenty of people will get mount skins for free.

[Amaranthe.3578]

Its not a problem to get rid of the mtx. Will you be willing to pay a sub fee instead of the mtx though?

Without a sub fee/mtx you can forget about a constant stream of updates like the living world episodes.

GW2 is an ultra casual game...theres barely any challenging in the game(new raids fractals come out at a ridiculously slow paste - cant have a dedicated hc community around them) , a sub fee will not work here so thats not even an option.

Because of the nature of the horizontal progression of GW2 the game can not be pay to win in a subtle way so if there was a game to be able to implement mtx well its this one.

Inventory/bag space is the only thing thats currently in the gem store and has no right to be there...thats really ridiculous and just bad.(especially bank slots, extra inv slots arent important anymore)

[Amaranthe.3578]

> @"Blocki.4931" said:

> Stop being so entitled. There is enough stuff to earn ingame that is shiny. Game has to finance itself somehow.

 

Entitlement has nothing to do with it. Your comment makes zero sense.

[ProtoGunner.4953]

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

> > > > >

> > > > > Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

> > > > >

> > > > > It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

> > > >

> > > > GW1 had a very small and negligible in game shop. Instead they sold boxed campaigns/expansions. It works but I think they wouldn't make that much money and also times change. But I am sure they could give us some more than just throwing 95% of skins into the shop. I.e. we don't have any in game mounts skins (aside from original skins ofc). Not a single one. In WoW (yes, monthly sub), you have like 1000 skins you can get in game, some very easily, some harder. We don't need that many and I get that we should have some in the gem store, but not a single skin as in game reward? Just sounds too shabby/greedy in my opinion.

> > >

> > > You're sure based on what? Do you see the Anet budget sheets?

> > >

> > > Guild Wars 2's store was based on a different system specifically because the staff was much smaller (only 50 people instead of over 300) and because there was far far less voice acting, which costs a ton of money. Also, being a true MMO costs far more money to run than a lobby game. Also 95% of the skins aren't thrown into the shop, and if you'd do the math you'd see that. Exaggerating to make a point doesn't make the point and calls the rest of your point of view into question.

> >

> > I didn't flesh it out but I am well aware of the heightened production values hence I told 'times change'. I am not against the the store, but I think they could give us at least _some_ of the dozens of mount skins as in game rewards.

>

> Well, if you give people free mount skins, a lot of people will buy none of them. And they are giving us free mounts. There are plenty of games that charge for mounts. The skins the mounts come with are actually quite detailed. Could they give them to us? Sure. But I don't see how that would make the game better. You can save gold and buy the skins you want anyway. Plenty of people will get mount skins for free.

 

Yes, it is not needed etc. But I really think it is a missed opportunity: Imagine a questline similar to legendary or - bit shorter - like the beetle collection for some exclusive mount skins. I really hope they will come up with that. And yes, it would make the game better. It is in my opinion a lot more motivating to work towards in game than to just farm gold and buy the skin.

 

I do not agree with your claim that people wouldn't buy skins from he shop still. Even if there are skins around that cost gems.

[Gehenna.3625]

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

>

> Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

>

> It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

 

This is really the core of the issue. Although I feel that some of the more utility items likes storage space and basic skins harvesting tools are overpriced, since they are just a QoL issue that I think the game should have in itself, the point remains that even when tempering a few items in price, the game still needs to make money somehow to stay alive. For an MMO I think it's unrealistic to want a game without a sub and just have to buy the game expansions (the core game is already free as it is).

 

With that I also feel that ArenaNet, aside from the examples I gave above, have been quite reasonable compared to other games as it is. I am for reducing the gem store influence in essence but not without an alternative where ArenaNet can make the needed money. Just limiting the gem store would essentially shut down this game. I don't think that's where we want to go.

 

Then for another topic that relates to this:

> @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > @"Blocki.4931" said:

> > Stop being so entitled. There is enough stuff to earn ingame that is shiny. Game has to finance itself somehow.

>

> Entitlement has nothing to do with it. Your comment makes zero sense.

Entitlement does have something to do with it. When a person feels that they shouldn't have to pay for something and basically wants everything for a price that disallows the game to even pay for its costs, then that is a form of entitlement. The game simply cannot survive without gem store sales. Feeling entitled means that you feel you have the right to something and in the current day usage it means you feel you have the right to something and that someone else has to pay for it. And that's exactly what this is. Clearly the items in the gem store as such are overpriced. However, since they do not represent just a profit margin but also the means to pay for this game's existence and development that value has to be calculated into it also. And then it becomes clear why getting rid of the gem store comes down to getting rid of the game. Just game sales are not enough to keep the ship afloat.

 

I do enjoy being able to collect armour sets or outfits in game but then I have no problem with paying a sub either. You can't have it both ways though and if someone wants to have it both ways, it's what we call entitlement.

 

Now if the OP had some good ideas for alternative ways to make money then that's cool. I wouldn't call him/her entitled. However, to just say you don't want to pay for it and it should all be included with the box price is asking for them to keep the game going on box sales (whether physical or digital) alone. Again, that's not a realistic option. And entitled people do show a lack of realism at least to some degree.

 

So in conclusion, asking for a game to take their money makers out, which would result in the death of the game, and not offering a proper alternative is naïve and entitled at best. I do agree that some items that I describe as core QoL items because of how much they improve the experience of the game could do with a price reduction, but that's just 4-5 items in the total shop and I'm not even asking them to be free. However, beyond that I think ArenaNet have set up a very reasonable approach to how they make money and unless people have a realistic alternative, it's just thoughtless entitlement.

 

[Vayne.8563]

> @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

> > > > >

> > > > > GW1 had a very small and negligible in game shop. Instead they sold boxed campaigns/expansions. It works but I think they wouldn't make that much money and also times change. But I am sure they could give us some more than just throwing 95% of skins into the shop. I.e. we don't have any in game mounts skins (aside from original skins ofc). Not a single one. In WoW (yes, monthly sub), you have like 1000 skins you can get in game, some very easily, some harder. We don't need that many and I get that we should have some in the gem store, but not a single skin as in game reward? Just sounds too shabby/greedy in my opinion.

> > > >

> > > > You're sure based on what? Do you see the Anet budget sheets?

> > > >

> > > > Guild Wars 2's store was based on a different system specifically because the staff was much smaller (only 50 people instead of over 300) and because there was far far less voice acting, which costs a ton of money. Also, being a true MMO costs far more money to run than a lobby game. Also 95% of the skins aren't thrown into the shop, and if you'd do the math you'd see that. Exaggerating to make a point doesn't make the point and calls the rest of your point of view into question.

> > >

> > > I didn't flesh it out but I am well aware of the heightened production values hence I told 'times change'. I am not against the the store, but I think they could give us at least _some_ of the dozens of mount skins as in game rewards.

> >

> > Well, if you give people free mount skins, a lot of people will buy none of them. And they are giving us free mounts. There are plenty of games that charge for mounts. The skins the mounts come with are actually quite detailed. Could they give them to us? Sure. But I don't see how that would make the game better. You can save gold and buy the skins you want anyway. Plenty of people will get mount skins for free.

>

> Yes, it is not needed etc. But I really think it is a missed opportunity: Imagine a questline similar to legendary or - bit shorter - like the beetle collection for some exclusive mount skins. I really hope they will come up with that. And yes, it would make the game better. It is in my opinion a lot more motivating to work towards in game than to just farm gold and buy the skin.

>

> I do not agree with your claim that people wouldn't buy skins from he shop still. Even if there are skins around that cost gems.

 

Only if you like the quest chain. The way it stands now, I did a quest chain for a back piece in Sandswept Isles that I thought was badly designed. I wanted the back piece so I suffered it. If it was in the cash shop, I could buy gems with either cash or farm gold anywhere. I'm sorry but running up to do a caffeinated skritt burglary isn't fun. Doing the recordings weren't fun. It didn't make the game better for me.

 

And that's the issue. The current system actually provides more freedom. I'd wager there are a lot of people who prefer quest chains and a lot of people who just want stuff without having to go through an entire scavenger hunt. How many of those collections require you to wait for events? Sorry I'm not thinking that makes the game better necessarily.

[Amaranthe.3578]

> @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

> >

> > Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

> >

> > It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

>

> This is really the core of the issue. Although I feel that some of the more utility items likes storage space and basic skins harvesting tools are overpriced, since they are just a QoL issue that I think the game should have in itself, the point remains that even when tempering a few items in price, the game still needs to make money somehow to stay alive. For an MMO I think it's unrealistic to want a game without a sub and just have to buy the game expansions (the core game is already free as it is).

>

> With that I also feel that ArenaNet, aside from the examples I gave above, have been quite reasonable compared to other games as it is. I am for reducing the gem store influence in essence but not without an alternative where ArenaNet can make the needed money. Just limiting the gem store would essentially shut down this game. I don't think that's where we want to go.

>

> Then for another topic that relates to this:

> > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > @"Blocki.4931" said:

> > > Stop being so entitled. There is enough stuff to earn ingame that is shiny. Game has to finance itself somehow.

> >

> > Entitlement has nothing to do with it. Your comment makes zero sense.

> Entitlement does have something to do with it. When a person feels that they shouldn't have to pay for something and basically wants everything for a price that disallows the game to even pay for its costs, then that is a form of entitlement. The game simply cannot survive without gem store sales. Feeling entitled means that you feel you have the right to something and in the current day usage it means you feel you have the right to something and that someone else has to pay for it. And that's exactly what this is. Clearly the items in the gem store as such are overpriced. However, since they do not represent just a profit margin but also the means to pay for this game's existence and development that value has to be calculated into it also. And then it becomes clear why getting rid of the gem store comes down to getting rid of the game. Just game sales are not enough to keep the ship afloat.

>

> I do enjoy being able to collect armour sets or outfits in game but then I have no problem with paying a sub either. You can't have it both ways though and if someone wants to have it both ways, it's what we call entitlement.

>

> Now if the OP had some good ideas for alternative ways to make money then that's cool. I wouldn't call him/her entitled. However, to just say you don't want to pay for it and it should all be included with the box price is asking for them to keep the game going on box sales (whether physical or digital) alone. Again, that's not a realistic option. And entitled people do show a lack of realism at least to some degree.

>

> So in conclusion, asking for a game to take their money makers out, which would result in the death of the game, and not offering a proper alternative is naïve and entitled at best. I do agree that some items that I describe as core QoL items because of how much they improve the experience of the game could do with a price reduction, but that's just 4-5 items in the total shop and I'm not even asking them to be free. However, beyond that I think ArenaNet have set up a very reasonable approach to how they make money and unless people have a realistic alternative, it's just thoughtless entitlement.

>

 

That is not a form of entitlement that is a form of ignorance.

You see, the regular form of games is: pay the box price = you get the full access to the content.

Since this game gets constantly updated with fat content drops(now it does at least, cant say the same thing for long chunks of the games history) it need an extra business model on top of that. This is where games usually go to either mtx or a sub fee.

The sentiment of "i paid for the box i want access to the content" has NOTHING to do with entitlement and is a very sensible thing. The game DOES in fact suffer from the gem store and it pushes anet towards putting most of the cool skins in the gem store.

The stupidity/ignorance is in not seeing that the gem store is a better alternative to the sub fee. A sub fee will never work in an ultra casual game with little to no hc community.

[TheQuickFox.3826]

I think the gem store is fine. The generated revenue allows the game, it's server hosting, continuous development and support to be affordable for everyone.

 

Sure, it has some serious drawbacks: for example: mount skins could be wonderful in-game rewards, truly showing off a players achievements in the game. But we have other ways of doing this like titles and ArenaNet will not have enough revenue to continue to deliver new content like they did before if the gem store would close.

[ProtoGunner.4953]

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > > Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > GW1 had a very small and negligible in game shop. Instead they sold boxed campaigns/expansions. It works but I think they wouldn't make that much money and also times change. But I am sure they could give us some more than just throwing 95% of skins into the shop. I.e. we don't have any in game mounts skins (aside from original skins ofc). Not a single one. In WoW (yes, monthly sub), you have like 1000 skins you can get in game, some very easily, some harder. We don't need that many and I get that we should have some in the gem store, but not a single skin as in game reward? Just sounds too shabby/greedy in my opinion.

> > > > >

> > > > > You're sure based on what? Do you see the Anet budget sheets?

> > > > >

> > > > > Guild Wars 2's store was based on a different system specifically because the staff was much smaller (only 50 people instead of over 300) and because there was far far less voice acting, which costs a ton of money. Also, being a true MMO costs far more money to run than a lobby game. Also 95% of the skins aren't thrown into the shop, and if you'd do the math you'd see that. Exaggerating to make a point doesn't make the point and calls the rest of your point of view into question.

> > > >

> > > > I didn't flesh it out but I am well aware of the heightened production values hence I told 'times change'. I am not against the the store, but I think they could give us at least _some_ of the dozens of mount skins as in game rewards.

> > >

> > > Well, if you give people free mount skins, a lot of people will buy none of them. And they are giving us free mounts. There are plenty of games that charge for mounts. The skins the mounts come with are actually quite detailed. Could they give them to us? Sure. But I don't see how that would make the game better. You can save gold and buy the skins you want anyway. Plenty of people will get mount skins for free.

> >

> > Yes, it is not needed etc. But I really think it is a missed opportunity: Imagine a questline similar to legendary or - bit shorter - like the beetle collection for some exclusive mount skins. I really hope they will come up with that. And yes, it would make the game better. It is in my opinion a lot more motivating to work towards in game than to just farm gold and buy the skin.

> >

> > I do not agree with your claim that people wouldn't buy skins from he shop still. Even if there are skins around that cost gems.

>

> Only if you like the quest chain. The way it stands now, I did a quest chain for a back piece in Sandswept Isles that I thought was badly designed. I wanted the back piece so I suffered it. If it was in the cash shop, I could buy gems with either cash or farm gold anywhere. I'm sorry but running up to do a caffeinated skritt burglary isn't fun. Doing the recordings weren't fun. It didn't make the game better for me.

>

> And that's the issue. The current system actually provides more freedom. I'd wager there are a lot of people who prefer quest chains and a lot of people who just want stuff without having to go through an entire scavenger hunt. How many of those collections require you to wait for events? Sorry I'm not thinking that makes the game better necessarily.

 

I am not sure, imo an MMO is 'to have something to do'. If you go further with your arguing, you could argue why to play at all, be cause everything is a chore - or let's put it this way - for someone out there every task may be a chore, so why just not pay a certain amount and have everything the game has to offer. Then, we are at the point where mobile games are. And we don't want this. Imo games are the way to get to something and not to have the thing.

[Goops.8751]

There is enough things to unlock in this game for FREE that should keep you extremely busy to not even worry about what's going on in the Gem Store. Also nothing in the Gem Store is out of reach to those who cant pay cash when you can trade in game gold for Gems. Just another thing to work towards. As long as you cant get hold of items for Gems that boost your pvp stats (which im sure you cant) im not fussed. PvP should always be skill based and not whos got the £££ imo.

[Gehenna.3625]

> @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

> > >

> > > Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

> > >

> > > It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

> >

> > This is really the core of the issue. Although I feel that some of the more utility items likes storage space and basic skins harvesting tools are overpriced, since they are just a QoL issue that I think the game should have in itself, the point remains that even when tempering a few items in price, the game still needs to make money somehow to stay alive. For an MMO I think it's unrealistic to want a game without a sub and just have to buy the game expansions (the core game is already free as it is).

> >

> > With that I also feel that ArenaNet, aside from the examples I gave above, have been quite reasonable compared to other games as it is. I am for reducing the gem store influence in essence but not without an alternative where ArenaNet can make the needed money. Just limiting the gem store would essentially shut down this game. I don't think that's where we want to go.

> >

> > Then for another topic that relates to this:

> > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > @"Blocki.4931" said:

> > > > Stop being so entitled. There is enough stuff to earn ingame that is shiny. Game has to finance itself somehow.

> > >

> > > Entitlement has nothing to do with it. Your comment makes zero sense.

> > Entitlement does have something to do with it. When a person feels that they shouldn't have to pay for something and basically wants everything for a price that disallows the game to even pay for its costs, then that is a form of entitlement. The game simply cannot survive without gem store sales. Feeling entitled means that you feel you have the right to something and in the current day usage it means you feel you have the right to something and that someone else has to pay for it. And that's exactly what this is. Clearly the items in the gem store as such are overpriced. However, since they do not represent just a profit margin but also the means to pay for this game's existence and development that value has to be calculated into it also. And then it becomes clear why getting rid of the gem store comes down to getting rid of the game. Just game sales are not enough to keep the ship afloat.

> >

> > I do enjoy being able to collect armour sets or outfits in game but then I have no problem with paying a sub either. You can't have it both ways though and if someone wants to have it both ways, it's what we call entitlement.

> >

> > Now if the OP had some good ideas for alternative ways to make money then that's cool. I wouldn't call him/her entitled. However, to just say you don't want to pay for it and it should all be included with the box price is asking for them to keep the game going on box sales (whether physical or digital) alone. Again, that's not a realistic option. And entitled people do show a lack of realism at least to some degree.

> >

> > So in conclusion, asking for a game to take their money makers out, which would result in the death of the game, and not offering a proper alternative is naïve and entitled at best. I do agree that some items that I describe as core QoL items because of how much they improve the experience of the game could do with a price reduction, but that's just 4-5 items in the total shop and I'm not even asking them to be free. However, beyond that I think ArenaNet have set up a very reasonable approach to how they make money and unless people have a realistic alternative, it's just thoughtless entitlement.

> >

>

> That is not a form of entitlement that is a form of ignorance.

> You see, the regular form of games is: pay the box price = you get the full access to the content.

> Since this game gets constantly updated with fat content drops(now it does at least, cant say the same thing for long chunks of the games history) it need an extra business model on top of that. This is where games usually go to either mtx or a sub fee.

> The sentiment of "i paid for the box i want access to the content" has NOTHING to do with entitlement and is a very sensible thing. The game DOES in fact suffer from the gem store and it pushes anet towards putting most of the cool skins in the gem store.

> The stupidity/ignorance is in not seeing that the gem store is a better alternative to the sub fee. A sub fee will never work in an ultra casual game with little to no hc community.

 

I think that the one goes in hand with the other. Ignorance leads to unrealistic expectations and that's where the entitlement is founded.

Also your suggestion that the regular form of games is the box price= you get full access is false. I think you're living in the past if you think that. MTX are regular currently, particularly in online games or games as a service as they like to call it now. And even single player games have MTX in them. Look at AC:Odyssey for example.

However, GW2 is an MMO and so you need to compare it to other games like it and there we see that MTX are the standard, not the exception.

I agree it may stem from ignorance but that ignorance creates a false sense of entitlement. And though entitlement have other reasons as well, ignorance is certainly a big one in there. Even arrogance and feeling self-absorbed is in part ignorance and creates unrealistic expectations again.

In the end if this game stopped with a gem store and introduced a sub instead the same person would be complaining about that as well. As much as ignorance and entitlement aren't the same thing, they are definitely connected in a way that this ignorance creates a sense of entitlement.

 

As a sidenote: I do not agree that a gem store is a better alternative to the sub fee, but it is the smarter approach. Most people rather spend more money as long as it feels it's their choice than pay less with a sub OR they spend less on gems than they would on a sub in which case they happily leech on the extra money others spend on it so that they don't have to. So ArenaNet was smart to do it that way but I think that this is another outcome of ignorance and selfishness. However, let me state clearly that this is my take on it. Nobody has to agree with any of it. ;)

 

[Vayne.8563]

> @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > > > Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > GW1 had a very small and negligible in game shop. Instead they sold boxed campaigns/expansions. It works but I think they wouldn't make that much money and also times change. But I am sure they could give us some more than just throwing 95% of skins into the shop. I.e. we don't have any in game mounts skins (aside from original skins ofc). Not a single one. In WoW (yes, monthly sub), you have like 1000 skins you can get in game, some very easily, some harder. We don't need that many and I get that we should have some in the gem store, but not a single skin as in game reward? Just sounds too shabby/greedy in my opinion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You're sure based on what? Do you see the Anet budget sheets?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Guild Wars 2's store was based on a different system specifically because the staff was much smaller (only 50 people instead of over 300) and because there was far far less voice acting, which costs a ton of money. Also, being a true MMO costs far more money to run than a lobby game. Also 95% of the skins aren't thrown into the shop, and if you'd do the math you'd see that. Exaggerating to make a point doesn't make the point and calls the rest of your point of view into question.

> > > > >

> > > > > I didn't flesh it out but I am well aware of the heightened production values hence I told 'times change'. I am not against the the store, but I think they could give us at least _some_ of the dozens of mount skins as in game rewards.

> > > >

> > > > Well, if you give people free mount skins, a lot of people will buy none of them. And they are giving us free mounts. There are plenty of games that charge for mounts. The skins the mounts come with are actually quite detailed. Could they give them to us? Sure. But I don't see how that would make the game better. You can save gold and buy the skins you want anyway. Plenty of people will get mount skins for free.

> > >

> > > Yes, it is not needed etc. But I really think it is a missed opportunity: Imagine a questline similar to legendary or - bit shorter - like the beetle collection for some exclusive mount skins. I really hope they will come up with that. And yes, it would make the game better. It is in my opinion a lot more motivating to work towards in game than to just farm gold and buy the skin.

> > >

> > > I do not agree with your claim that people wouldn't buy skins from he shop still. Even if there are skins around that cost gems.

> >

> > Only if you like the quest chain. The way it stands now, I did a quest chain for a back piece in Sandswept Isles that I thought was badly designed. I wanted the back piece so I suffered it. If it was in the cash shop, I could buy gems with either cash or farm gold anywhere. I'm sorry but running up to do a caffeinated skritt burglary isn't fun. Doing the recordings weren't fun. It didn't make the game better for me.

> >

> > And that's the issue. The current system actually provides more freedom. I'd wager there are a lot of people who prefer quest chains and a lot of people who just want stuff without having to go through an entire scavenger hunt. How many of those collections require you to wait for events? Sorry I'm not thinking that makes the game better necessarily.

>

> I am not sure, imo an MMO is 'to have something to do'. If you go further with your arguing, you could argue why to play at all, be cause everything is a chore - or let's put it this way - for someone out there every task may be a chore, so why just not pay a certain amount and have everything the game has to offer. Then, we are at the point where mobile games are. And we don't want this. Imo games are the way to get to something and not to have the thing.

 

And I play this specific MMO because I can do many different things and get to the same point. Many ways to level. Many ways to gear. A specific quest is the opposite of why I specifically play this MMO.

[Amaranthe.3578]

> @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

> > > >

> > > > Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

> > > >

> > > > It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

> > >

> > > This is really the core of the issue. Although I feel that some of the more utility items likes storage space and basic skins harvesting tools are overpriced, since they are just a QoL issue that I think the game should have in itself, the point remains that even when tempering a few items in price, the game still needs to make money somehow to stay alive. For an MMO I think it's unrealistic to want a game without a sub and just have to buy the game expansions (the core game is already free as it is).

> > >

> > > With that I also feel that ArenaNet, aside from the examples I gave above, have been quite reasonable compared to other games as it is. I am for reducing the gem store influence in essence but not without an alternative where ArenaNet can make the needed money. Just limiting the gem store would essentially shut down this game. I don't think that's where we want to go.

> > >

> > > Then for another topic that relates to this:

> > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > @"Blocki.4931" said:

> > > > > Stop being so entitled. There is enough stuff to earn ingame that is shiny. Game has to finance itself somehow.

> > > >

> > > > Entitlement has nothing to do with it. Your comment makes zero sense.

> > > Entitlement does have something to do with it. When a person feels that they shouldn't have to pay for something and basically wants everything for a price that disallows the game to even pay for its costs, then that is a form of entitlement. The game simply cannot survive without gem store sales. Feeling entitled means that you feel you have the right to something and in the current day usage it means you feel you have the right to something and that someone else has to pay for it. And that's exactly what this is. Clearly the items in the gem store as such are overpriced. However, since they do not represent just a profit margin but also the means to pay for this game's existence and development that value has to be calculated into it also. And then it becomes clear why getting rid of the gem store comes down to getting rid of the game. Just game sales are not enough to keep the ship afloat.

> > >

> > > I do enjoy being able to collect armour sets or outfits in game but then I have no problem with paying a sub either. You can't have it both ways though and if someone wants to have it both ways, it's what we call entitlement.

> > >

> > > Now if the OP had some good ideas for alternative ways to make money then that's cool. I wouldn't call him/her entitled. However, to just say you don't want to pay for it and it should all be included with the box price is asking for them to keep the game going on box sales (whether physical or digital) alone. Again, that's not a realistic option. And entitled people do show a lack of realism at least to some degree.

> > >

> > > So in conclusion, asking for a game to take their money makers out, which would result in the death of the game, and not offering a proper alternative is naïve and entitled at best. I do agree that some items that I describe as core QoL items because of how much they improve the experience of the game could do with a price reduction, but that's just 4-5 items in the total shop and I'm not even asking them to be free. However, beyond that I think ArenaNet have set up a very reasonable approach to how they make money and unless people have a realistic alternative, it's just thoughtless entitlement.

> > >

> >

> > That is not a form of entitlement that is a form of ignorance.

> > You see, the regular form of games is: pay the box price = you get the full access to the content.

> > Since this game gets constantly updated with fat content drops(now it does at least, cant say the same thing for long chunks of the games history) it need an extra business model on top of that. This is where games usually go to either mtx or a sub fee.

> > The sentiment of "i paid for the box i want access to the content" has NOTHING to do with entitlement and is a very sensible thing. The game DOES in fact suffer from the gem store and it pushes anet towards putting most of the cool skins in the gem store.

> > The stupidity/ignorance is in not seeing that the gem store is a better alternative to the sub fee. A sub fee will never work in an ultra casual game with little to no hc community.

>

> I think that the one goes in hand with the other. Ignorance leads to unrealistic expectations and that's where the entitlement is founded.

> Also your suggestion that the regular form of games is the box price= you get full access is false. I think you're living in the past if you think that. MTX are regular currently, particularly in online games or games as a service as they like to call it now. And even single player games have MTX in them. Look at AC:Odyssey for example.

> However, GW2 is an MMO and so you need to compare it to other games like it and there we see that MTX are the standard, not the exception.

> I agree it may stem from ignorance but that ignorance creates a false sense of entitlement. And though entitlement have other reasons as well, ignorance is certainly a big one in there. Even arrogance and feeling self-absorbed is in part ignorance and creates unrealistic expectations again.

> In the end if this game stopped with a gem store and introduced a sub instead the same person would be complaining about that as well. As much as ignorance and entitlement aren't the same thing, they are definitely connected in a way that this ignorance creates a sense of entitlement.

>

> As a sidenote: I do not agree that a gem store is a better alternative to the sub fee, but it is the smarter approach. Most people rather spend more money as long as it feels it's their choice than pay less with a sub OR they spend less on gems than they would on a sub in which case they happily leech on the extra money others spend on it so that they don't have to. So ArenaNet was smart to do it that way but I think that this is another outcome of ignorance and selfishness. However, let me state clearly that this is my take on it. Nobody has to agree with any of it. ;)

>

 

Unless the game gets a constant stream of content drops and/or requires a dedicated and large team like a mmo there is no excuse to put mtx in it. A game that does that is trash that should not be played.

Did you see mtx in the last witcher?(an actually good SP computer game)

No.

Just because its standard doesnt mean anything, most games are a piece of garbage.

A sub fee will never work in the GW2 because what I said.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

Eh? I think I own about 4-5 skins that came from Gem Store purchases (all of them via Wardrobe unlocks btw). Every thing else, and we are talking hundreds of skins, were earned in game.

[Gehenna.3625]

> @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

> > > > >

> > > > > Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

> > > > >

> > > > > It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

> > > >

> > > > This is really the core of the issue. Although I feel that some of the more utility items likes storage space and basic skins harvesting tools are overpriced, since they are just a QoL issue that I think the game should have in itself, the point remains that even when tempering a few items in price, the game still needs to make money somehow to stay alive. For an MMO I think it's unrealistic to want a game without a sub and just have to buy the game expansions (the core game is already free as it is).

> > > >

> > > > With that I also feel that ArenaNet, aside from the examples I gave above, have been quite reasonable compared to other games as it is. I am for reducing the gem store influence in essence but not without an alternative where ArenaNet can make the needed money. Just limiting the gem store would essentially shut down this game. I don't think that's where we want to go.

> > > >

> > > > Then for another topic that relates to this:

> > > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > > @"Blocki.4931" said:

> > > > > > Stop being so entitled. There is enough stuff to earn ingame that is shiny. Game has to finance itself somehow.

> > > > >

> > > > > Entitlement has nothing to do with it. Your comment makes zero sense.

> > > > Entitlement does have something to do with it. When a person feels that they shouldn't have to pay for something and basically wants everything for a price that disallows the game to even pay for its costs, then that is a form of entitlement. The game simply cannot survive without gem store sales. Feeling entitled means that you feel you have the right to something and in the current day usage it means you feel you have the right to something and that someone else has to pay for it. And that's exactly what this is. Clearly the items in the gem store as such are overpriced. However, since they do not represent just a profit margin but also the means to pay for this game's existence and development that value has to be calculated into it also. And then it becomes clear why getting rid of the gem store comes down to getting rid of the game. Just game sales are not enough to keep the ship afloat.

> > > >

> > > > I do enjoy being able to collect armour sets or outfits in game but then I have no problem with paying a sub either. You can't have it both ways though and if someone wants to have it both ways, it's what we call entitlement.

> > > >

> > > > Now if the OP had some good ideas for alternative ways to make money then that's cool. I wouldn't call him/her entitled. However, to just say you don't want to pay for it and it should all be included with the box price is asking for them to keep the game going on box sales (whether physical or digital) alone. Again, that's not a realistic option. And entitled people do show a lack of realism at least to some degree.

> > > >

> > > > So in conclusion, asking for a game to take their money makers out, which would result in the death of the game, and not offering a proper alternative is naïve and entitled at best. I do agree that some items that I describe as core QoL items because of how much they improve the experience of the game could do with a price reduction, but that's just 4-5 items in the total shop and I'm not even asking them to be free. However, beyond that I think ArenaNet have set up a very reasonable approach to how they make money and unless people have a realistic alternative, it's just thoughtless entitlement.

> > > >

> > >

> > > That is not a form of entitlement that is a form of ignorance.

> > > You see, the regular form of games is: pay the box price = you get the full access to the content.

> > > Since this game gets constantly updated with fat content drops(now it does at least, cant say the same thing for long chunks of the games history) it need an extra business model on top of that. This is where games usually go to either mtx or a sub fee.

> > > The sentiment of "i paid for the box i want access to the content" has NOTHING to do with entitlement and is a very sensible thing. The game DOES in fact suffer from the gem store and it pushes anet towards putting most of the cool skins in the gem store.

> > > The stupidity/ignorance is in not seeing that the gem store is a better alternative to the sub fee. A sub fee will never work in an ultra casual game with little to no hc community.

> >

> > I think that the one goes in hand with the other. Ignorance leads to unrealistic expectations and that's where the entitlement is founded.

> > Also your suggestion that the regular form of games is the box price= you get full access is false. I think you're living in the past if you think that. MTX are regular currently, particularly in online games or games as a service as they like to call it now. And even single player games have MTX in them. Look at AC:Odyssey for example.

> > However, GW2 is an MMO and so you need to compare it to other games like it and there we see that MTX are the standard, not the exception.

> > I agree it may stem from ignorance but that ignorance creates a false sense of entitlement. And though entitlement have other reasons as well, ignorance is certainly a big one in there. Even arrogance and feeling self-absorbed is in part ignorance and creates unrealistic expectations again.

> > In the end if this game stopped with a gem store and introduced a sub instead the same person would be complaining about that as well. As much as ignorance and entitlement aren't the same thing, they are definitely connected in a way that this ignorance creates a sense of entitlement.

> >

> > As a sidenote: I do not agree that a gem store is a better alternative to the sub fee, but it is the smarter approach. Most people rather spend more money as long as it feels it's their choice than pay less with a sub OR they spend less on gems than they would on a sub in which case they happily leech on the extra money others spend on it so that they don't have to. So ArenaNet was smart to do it that way but I think that this is another outcome of ignorance and selfishness. However, let me state clearly that this is my take on it. Nobody has to agree with any of it. ;)

> >

>

> Unless the game gets a constant stream of content drops and/or requires a dedicated and large team like a mmo there is no excuse to put mtx in it. A game that does that is trash that should not be played.

That is a very subjective statement and not very believable. It's hard to say what a constant stream of content is because no two players have the same idea about that. Also there it's about what's realistically possible and sensible. Are you saying that GW2 is not living up to your expectations or in your words "trash that should not be played"?

> Did you see mtx in the last witcher?(an actually good SP computer game)

> No.

I didn't but you're missing the main point and are focusing on a side note here. As I also stated GW2 is not a SP game and should be compared to alike games and there it is the standard procedure. I just added the SP example to indicate it goes even further, but for comparative purposes it only makes sense to compare GW2 to like games. My point was that MTX are quite common these days and that means your idea of "regular form" is not correct.

> Just because its standard doesnt mean anything, most games are a piece of garbage.

Again, you were saying that it was the "regular form", which I'm clearly demonstrating is not the case, particularly for MMOs. That is all I am saying with that.

> A sub fee will never work in the GW2 because what I said.

I never said it would work but as far as alternatives, that's the one that has been tried before. As far as I'm concerned it's because people started whining about the sub cost that we have MTX and the game industry has gone off and gone wild with that crap. It really has done a lot of damage because a lot of companies have had zero restraint or moral sense to put the brakes on. However, the OP wants the gem store gone but offers no alternative. I agree with you that as much as I would prefer a sub, it's not going to happen. So what else does the OP propose? Exactly, nothing.

 

[Amaranthe.3578]

> @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is really the core of the issue. Although I feel that some of the more utility items likes storage space and basic skins harvesting tools are overpriced, since they are just a QoL issue that I think the game should have in itself, the point remains that even when tempering a few items in price, the game still needs to make money somehow to stay alive. For an MMO I think it's unrealistic to want a game without a sub and just have to buy the game expansions (the core game is already free as it is).

> > > > >

> > > > > With that I also feel that ArenaNet, aside from the examples I gave above, have been quite reasonable compared to other games as it is. I am for reducing the gem store influence in essence but not without an alternative where ArenaNet can make the needed money. Just limiting the gem store would essentially shut down this game. I don't think that's where we want to go.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then for another topic that relates to this:

> > > > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > > > @"Blocki.4931" said:

> > > > > > > Stop being so entitled. There is enough stuff to earn ingame that is shiny. Game has to finance itself somehow.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Entitlement has nothing to do with it. Your comment makes zero sense.

> > > > > Entitlement does have something to do with it. When a person feels that they shouldn't have to pay for something and basically wants everything for a price that disallows the game to even pay for its costs, then that is a form of entitlement. The game simply cannot survive without gem store sales. Feeling entitled means that you feel you have the right to something and in the current day usage it means you feel you have the right to something and that someone else has to pay for it. And that's exactly what this is. Clearly the items in the gem store as such are overpriced. However, since they do not represent just a profit margin but also the means to pay for this game's existence and development that value has to be calculated into it also. And then it becomes clear why getting rid of the gem store comes down to getting rid of the game. Just game sales are not enough to keep the ship afloat.

> > > > >

> > > > > I do enjoy being able to collect armour sets or outfits in game but then I have no problem with paying a sub either. You can't have it both ways though and if someone wants to have it both ways, it's what we call entitlement.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now if the OP had some good ideas for alternative ways to make money then that's cool. I wouldn't call him/her entitled. However, to just say you don't want to pay for it and it should all be included with the box price is asking for them to keep the game going on box sales (whether physical or digital) alone. Again, that's not a realistic option. And entitled people do show a lack of realism at least to some degree.

> > > > >

> > > > > So in conclusion, asking for a game to take their money makers out, which would result in the death of the game, and not offering a proper alternative is naïve and entitled at best. I do agree that some items that I describe as core QoL items because of how much they improve the experience of the game could do with a price reduction, but that's just 4-5 items in the total shop and I'm not even asking them to be free. However, beyond that I think ArenaNet have set up a very reasonable approach to how they make money and unless people have a realistic alternative, it's just thoughtless entitlement.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > That is not a form of entitlement that is a form of ignorance.

> > > > You see, the regular form of games is: pay the box price = you get the full access to the content.

> > > > Since this game gets constantly updated with fat content drops(now it does at least, cant say the same thing for long chunks of the games history) it need an extra business model on top of that. This is where games usually go to either mtx or a sub fee.

> > > > The sentiment of "i paid for the box i want access to the content" has NOTHING to do with entitlement and is a very sensible thing. The game DOES in fact suffer from the gem store and it pushes anet towards putting most of the cool skins in the gem store.

> > > > The stupidity/ignorance is in not seeing that the gem store is a better alternative to the sub fee. A sub fee will never work in an ultra casual game with little to no hc community.

> > >

> > > I think that the one goes in hand with the other. Ignorance leads to unrealistic expectations and that's where the entitlement is founded.

> > > Also your suggestion that the regular form of games is the box price= you get full access is false. I think you're living in the past if you think that. MTX are regular currently, particularly in online games or games as a service as they like to call it now. And even single player games have MTX in them. Look at AC:Odyssey for example.

> > > However, GW2 is an MMO and so you need to compare it to other games like it and there we see that MTX are the standard, not the exception.

> > > I agree it may stem from ignorance but that ignorance creates a false sense of entitlement. And though entitlement have other reasons as well, ignorance is certainly a big one in there. Even arrogance and feeling self-absorbed is in part ignorance and creates unrealistic expectations again.

> > > In the end if this game stopped with a gem store and introduced a sub instead the same person would be complaining about that as well. As much as ignorance and entitlement aren't the same thing, they are definitely connected in a way that this ignorance creates a sense of entitlement.

> > >

> > > As a sidenote: I do not agree that a gem store is a better alternative to the sub fee, but it is the smarter approach. Most people rather spend more money as long as it feels it's their choice than pay less with a sub OR they spend less on gems than they would on a sub in which case they happily leech on the extra money others spend on it so that they don't have to. So ArenaNet was smart to do it that way but I think that this is another outcome of ignorance and selfishness. However, let me state clearly that this is my take on it. Nobody has to agree with any of it. ;)

> > >

> >

> > Unless the game gets a constant stream of content drops and/or requires a dedicated and large team like a mmo there is no excuse to put mtx in it. A game that does that is trash that should not be played.

> That is a very subjective statement and not very believable. It's hard to say what a constant stream of content is because no two players have the same idea about that. Also there it's about what's realistically possible and sensible. Are you saying that GW2 is not living up to your expectations or in your words "trash that should not be played"?

> > Did you see mtx in the last witcher?(an actually good SP computer game)

> > No.

> I didn't but you're missing the main point and are focusing on a side note here. As I also stated GW2 is not a SP game and should be compared to alike games and there it is the standard procedure. I just added the SP example to indicate it goes even further, but for comparative purposes it only makes sense to compare GW2 to like games. My point was that MTX are quite common these days and that means your idea of "regular form" is not correct.

> > Just because its standard doesnt mean anything, most games are a piece of garbage.

> Again, you were saying that it was the "regular form", which I'm clearly demonstrating is not the case, particularly for MMOs. That is all I am saying with that.

> > A sub fee will never work in the GW2 because what I said.

> I never said it would work but as far as alternatives, that's the one that has been tried before. As far as I'm concerned it's because people started whining about the sub cost that we have MTX and the game industry has gone off and gone wild with that kitten. It really has done a lot of damage because a lot of companies have had zero restraint or moral sense to put the brakes on. However, the OP wants the gem store gone but offers no alternative. I agree with you that as much as I would prefer a sub, it's not going to happen. So what else does the OP propose? Exactly, nothing.

>

 

Oh boy youre not understanding me at all and your post is too long to read.

I will say one last thing though - check the revenue distribution from mtx in video games. You can find lots of material on it online. mtx are cancer.

[Gehenna.3625]

> @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > > Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is really the core of the issue. Although I feel that some of the more utility items likes storage space and basic skins harvesting tools are overpriced, since they are just a QoL issue that I think the game should have in itself, the point remains that even when tempering a few items in price, the game still needs to make money somehow to stay alive. For an MMO I think it's unrealistic to want a game without a sub and just have to buy the game expansions (the core game is already free as it is).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > With that I also feel that ArenaNet, aside from the examples I gave above, have been quite reasonable compared to other games as it is. I am for reducing the gem store influence in essence but not without an alternative where ArenaNet can make the needed money. Just limiting the gem store would essentially shut down this game. I don't think that's where we want to go.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then for another topic that relates to this:

> > > > > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Blocki.4931" said:

> > > > > > > > Stop being so entitled. There is enough stuff to earn ingame that is shiny. Game has to finance itself somehow.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Entitlement has nothing to do with it. Your comment makes zero sense.

> > > > > > Entitlement does have something to do with it. When a person feels that they shouldn't have to pay for something and basically wants everything for a price that disallows the game to even pay for its costs, then that is a form of entitlement. The game simply cannot survive without gem store sales. Feeling entitled means that you feel you have the right to something and in the current day usage it means you feel you have the right to something and that someone else has to pay for it. And that's exactly what this is. Clearly the items in the gem store as such are overpriced. However, since they do not represent just a profit margin but also the means to pay for this game's existence and development that value has to be calculated into it also. And then it becomes clear why getting rid of the gem store comes down to getting rid of the game. Just game sales are not enough to keep the ship afloat.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I do enjoy being able to collect armour sets or outfits in game but then I have no problem with paying a sub either. You can't have it both ways though and if someone wants to have it both ways, it's what we call entitlement.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now if the OP had some good ideas for alternative ways to make money then that's cool. I wouldn't call him/her entitled. However, to just say you don't want to pay for it and it should all be included with the box price is asking for them to keep the game going on box sales (whether physical or digital) alone. Again, that's not a realistic option. And entitled people do show a lack of realism at least to some degree.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So in conclusion, asking for a game to take their money makers out, which would result in the death of the game, and not offering a proper alternative is naïve and entitled at best. I do agree that some items that I describe as core QoL items because of how much they improve the experience of the game could do with a price reduction, but that's just 4-5 items in the total shop and I'm not even asking them to be free. However, beyond that I think ArenaNet have set up a very reasonable approach to how they make money and unless people have a realistic alternative, it's just thoughtless entitlement.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > That is not a form of entitlement that is a form of ignorance.

> > > > > You see, the regular form of games is: pay the box price = you get the full access to the content.

> > > > > Since this game gets constantly updated with fat content drops(now it does at least, cant say the same thing for long chunks of the games history) it need an extra business model on top of that. This is where games usually go to either mtx or a sub fee.

> > > > > The sentiment of "i paid for the box i want access to the content" has NOTHING to do with entitlement and is a very sensible thing. The game DOES in fact suffer from the gem store and it pushes anet towards putting most of the cool skins in the gem store.

> > > > > The stupidity/ignorance is in not seeing that the gem store is a better alternative to the sub fee. A sub fee will never work in an ultra casual game with little to no hc community.

> > > >

> > > > I think that the one goes in hand with the other. Ignorance leads to unrealistic expectations and that's where the entitlement is founded.

> > > > Also your suggestion that the regular form of games is the box price= you get full access is false. I think you're living in the past if you think that. MTX are regular currently, particularly in online games or games as a service as they like to call it now. And even single player games have MTX in them. Look at AC:Odyssey for example.

> > > > However, GW2 is an MMO and so you need to compare it to other games like it and there we see that MTX are the standard, not the exception.

> > > > I agree it may stem from ignorance but that ignorance creates a false sense of entitlement. And though entitlement have other reasons as well, ignorance is certainly a big one in there. Even arrogance and feeling self-absorbed is in part ignorance and creates unrealistic expectations again.

> > > > In the end if this game stopped with a gem store and introduced a sub instead the same person would be complaining about that as well. As much as ignorance and entitlement aren't the same thing, they are definitely connected in a way that this ignorance creates a sense of entitlement.

> > > >

> > > > As a sidenote: I do not agree that a gem store is a better alternative to the sub fee, but it is the smarter approach. Most people rather spend more money as long as it feels it's their choice than pay less with a sub OR they spend less on gems than they would on a sub in which case they happily leech on the extra money others spend on it so that they don't have to. So ArenaNet was smart to do it that way but I think that this is another outcome of ignorance and selfishness. However, let me state clearly that this is my take on it. Nobody has to agree with any of it. ;)

> > > >

> > >

> > > Unless the game gets a constant stream of content drops and/or requires a dedicated and large team like a mmo there is no excuse to put mtx in it. A game that does that is trash that should not be played.

> > That is a very subjective statement and not very believable. It's hard to say what a constant stream of content is because no two players have the same idea about that. Also there it's about what's realistically possible and sensible. Are you saying that GW2 is not living up to your expectations or in your words "trash that should not be played"?

> > > Did you see mtx in the last witcher?(an actually good SP computer game)

> > > No.

> > I didn't but you're missing the main point and are focusing on a side note here. As I also stated GW2 is not a SP game and should be compared to alike games and there it is the standard procedure. I just added the SP example to indicate it goes even further, but for comparative purposes it only makes sense to compare GW2 to like games. My point was that MTX are quite common these days and that means your idea of "regular form" is not correct.

> > > Just because its standard doesnt mean anything, most games are a piece of garbage.

> > Again, you were saying that it was the "regular form", which I'm clearly demonstrating is not the case, particularly for MMOs. That is all I am saying with that.

> > > A sub fee will never work in the GW2 because what I said.

> > I never said it would work but as far as alternatives, that's the one that has been tried before. As far as I'm concerned it's because people started whining about the sub cost that we have MTX and the game industry has gone off and gone wild with that kitten. It really has done a lot of damage because a lot of companies have had zero restraint or moral sense to put the brakes on. However, the OP wants the gem store gone but offers no alternative. I agree with you that as much as I would prefer a sub, it's not going to happen. So what else does the OP propose? Exactly, nothing.

> >

>

> Oh boy youre not understanding me at all and your post is too long to read.

> I will say one last thing though - check the revenue distribution from mtx in video games. You can find lots of material on it online. mtx are cancer.

Oh dear, if that's too long, then that does explain a thing or two.

But let me say something here... I don't disagree with you on MTX being a bad thing. It's more like you don't understand what I'm saying. I much preferred the world when we didn't have them. However, in that world we paid a sub and companies made their money that way.

 

So let me ask you. If just boxed sales are not enough to keep an MMO going. And you don't want to pay for a sub and you don't want any MTX...how is it supposed to work out then?

 

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > Okay, let's say Anet listened, and gets rid of the gem store. How then do you recommend they fund the game moving forward? What's your solution to the problem of paying staff, rent, utilities? They'd have to up their income since the entire payment model is based on box sales and cash shop sales.

> > >

> > > Should they go subscription? If they did how would that hurt people now who play this game because it's free to play? Should they offer an optional subscription?

> > >

> > > It's very nice to ask for stuff you want. But when asking for a change creates a problem, you should probably include possible solutions, because the way it's phrased, what you're asking for can't be done.

> >

> > This is really the core of the issue. Although I feel that some of the more utility items likes storage space and basic skins harvesting tools are overpriced, since they are just a QoL issue that I think the game should have in itself, the point remains that even when tempering a few items in price, the game still needs to make money somehow to stay alive. For an MMO I think it's unrealistic to want a game without a sub and just have to buy the game expansions (the core game is already free as it is).

> >

> > With that I also feel that ArenaNet, aside from the examples I gave above, have been quite reasonable compared to other games as it is. I am for reducing the gem store influence in essence but not without an alternative where ArenaNet can make the needed money. Just limiting the gem store would essentially shut down this game. I don't think that's where we want to go.

> >

> > Then for another topic that relates to this:

> > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > @"Blocki.4931" said:

> > > > Stop being so entitled. There is enough stuff to earn ingame that is shiny. Game has to finance itself somehow.

> > >

> > > Entitlement has nothing to do with it. Your comment makes zero sense.

> > Entitlement does have something to do with it. When a person feels that they shouldn't have to pay for something and basically wants everything for a price that disallows the game to even pay for its costs, then that is a form of entitlement. The game simply cannot survive without gem store sales. Feeling entitled means that you feel you have the right to something and in the current day usage it means you feel you have the right to something and that someone else has to pay for it. And that's exactly what this is. Clearly the items in the gem store as such are overpriced. However, since they do not represent just a profit margin but also the means to pay for this game's existence and development that value has to be calculated into it also. And then it becomes clear why getting rid of the gem store comes down to getting rid of the game. Just game sales are not enough to keep the ship afloat.

> >

> > I do enjoy being able to collect armour sets or outfits in game but then I have no problem with paying a sub either. You can't have it both ways though and if someone wants to have it both ways, it's what we call entitlement.

> >

> > Now if the OP had some good ideas for alternative ways to make money then that's cool. I wouldn't call him/her entitled. However, to just say you don't want to pay for it and it should all be included with the box price is asking for them to keep the game going on box sales (whether physical or digital) alone. Again, that's not a realistic option. And entitled people do show a lack of realism at least to some degree.

> >

> > So in conclusion, asking for a game to take their money makers out, which would result in the death of the game, and not offering a proper alternative is naïve and entitled at best. I do agree that some items that I describe as core QoL items because of how much they improve the experience of the game could do with a price reduction, but that's just 4-5 items in the total shop and I'm not even asking them to be free. However, beyond that I think ArenaNet have set up a very reasonable approach to how they make money and unless people have a realistic alternative, it's just thoughtless entitlement.

> >

>

> That is not a form of entitlement that is a form of ignorance.

> You see, the regular form of games is: pay the box price = you get the full access to the content.

> Since this game gets constantly updated with fat content drops(now it does at least, cant say the same thing for long chunks of the games history) it need an extra business model on top of that. This is where games usually go to either mtx or a sub fee.

> The sentiment of "i paid for the box i want access to the content" has NOTHING to do with entitlement and is a very sensible thing. The game DOES in fact suffer from the gem store and it pushes anet towards putting most of the cool skins in the gem store.

> The stupidity/ignorance is in not seeing that the gem store is a better alternative to the sub fee. A sub fee will never work in an ultra casual game with little to no hc community.

 

Nope, it's entitlement: They feel like they're entitled to every scrap of content that ever releases because they paid for the box (whether physical or digital). I've seen the argument that every piece of DLC should be free, because they bought the game, and that, just the base game, no season pass, or upgrades, just the base game. Then there's this thread, where everything the art department works on should be in game, and the store removed. I'm betting that, if that were done, then they'd be here complaining that they'd have to pay a sub, and full game price for the LSs as they release, assuming ANet didn't require the sub to post on the forums, anyway.

 

This reminds me of a very real topic in the AC Odyssey forums, complaining that outfits in that cash shop aren't free because the poster bought one of the more expensive preorder packs, going so far as to claim he was ripped off, even though everything he was told would be in the package was. I read above that there are not skins in game for armors, and looking at my wardrobe, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around that claim, since I haven't purchased any skins, and yet, my wardrobe has tons of stuff in it. Those skins came from somewhere, and the only place I can figure is that they came from is playing the game, and getting drops, quest rewards, and crafting. So either they're using hyperbole to make a point, which is a very bad way to make a point, or they're deliberately misleading people that read it to make a point, which is also bad. However, either one comes back to feeling like they're entitled to those items that are in the store, for whatever reason.

 

I'd be cool with a sub model, and paying for the LS expansions as they release, or paying full price for Episode 1, with the understanding that all of the episodes will be included in the cost. I see a lot of comparisons to WoW, and this is their model: monthly sub, and full price expansions, and frankly, I've read lots of complaints about that model too, so no matter what, people will be complaining because they're not getting "what they're owed", aka entitled to. What's really ironic, to me, reading these threads, is that in other game's forums, this discussion comes back to wanting a store exactly like what's offered here, or really damn close to it. As we can see, even when we get what the gaming community thinks would be "good for the game", it's not good enough.