445 replies to this topic

[Horrorscope]

OP is spot on. The genius part of it is they got us to pay $60 for a FTP game, where as the other FTP's you pay nothing upfront and get nickle dime'd. GW's 2 is already $60 ahead of the curve plus hopes to nickle/dime. The player in either case gets to determine how much a sap they are. A true FTP, I usually go $10/20'ish on those to get proper Inv space and trading options.

There other game GW1 didn't even start with a cash shop, so I overall preferred that. But I don't mind a sub, it's easy to cancel and start again, seems like so many people find that it takes too much time, reading their whines over it.

Edited by Horrorscope, 30 November 2012 - 09:43 PM.

[Asha2012]

First off, I'm not stupid.  I see what you doing with "as a financial analyst".  I am not putting on airs.  In fact, I poked a bit of fun at myself if you read between the lines.  The person who quoted me seemed to be inferring I didn't understand something I do, so I gave a bit of bio (albeit in a snarky fashion but I felt he/she deserved it), so save the platitudes.  Now to address your comments.

MazingerZ, on 30 November 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

Ah, so I have a question for you. As a financial analyst, what's your opinion of managing a virtual economy where a singular Supreme Being can manipulate the generation of resources.

I would say you have a serious flaw in the foundation of your economy.  I would say we are entering into the realm of how "real" should a  fantasy game be? (Oxoymoron anyone). This is a computer game, code.  It is a finite thing.  I'm fairly sure Anet could program a finite amount of whatever it wants.  Maps have edges after all.  Earth has a finite amount of cobalt, oil and numerous other commodities.  There is no Anet changing that.  This fact is baked into what we, in the real world, understand as economics.  Because Anet has chosen not to simulate this condition means the economics of the game were flawed from day one.  Rigged if you want.  This very truth more or less makes any further debate pointless.  Either Anet stops manipulating things in the manner it does or it doesn't.  Personally, I like the idea of "sold out" and prices truly be set by the market (what people are willing to pay - above par value).

MazingerZ, on 30 November 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

I speak specifically of manipulating, not setting them.  Such as when the world was spun, there is a finite amount of copper on this ball of dirt and where it is, how much there is of it (in the short term, not the long term... avoiding discussions on rarity or peak production)... what was wrought will not be changed by any form of intelligent hand.

"In the beginning, there is a finite amount of X and we assume matter can not be created or destroyed" would have sufficed Mr. Wordsmith.

MazingerZ, on 30 November 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

Without getting into a severe theology discussion, assume that this being is capable of deciding the rate at which copper enters the world and can, at a moment's notice, affect that rate of generation if the rate becomes to fast or slow.  From that angle, they can therefore affect the price and value of that copper... both being separate things, as price is the monetary number and value is its intrinsic value in its application.

Nothing to assume.  It is as you say.  The intrinsic value is the sticking point.  It doesn't matter if diamonds cost a million a pound unless you need them for the drill you require to run your business.  And you need "copper" for any number of things in GW2.  So the crux is more about the intrinsic values of things than the price.As for the flow of "copper" [read: various materials].  Think oil (commodities).  Oil sits in natural deposits, some reachable some not so much.  It sits in reserves as well.  The oil market is driven by many things, some of which are the ability to extract oil, the speed in which it can be refined and how much is released by those controlling the reserves.  Demand is a given.  If Anet, our supreme being, is treating "copper" like oil, then it is acting more like OPEC (thought with fewer uncontrolled variables) or the US government.  The difference of course being it can get to any oil it wants, there is no finite supply (back to the flawed foundation of the in-game economy) and it controls all the reserves and hell NYMEX for that matter.  The lack of a finite supply may not be at issue.  In our world, though there is a finite supply of oil, we are no where near to depleting it even with current energy demands, so there might as well be an infinite supply for all intent and purpose.  Based on that, the bigger issue is that there are not enough market forces out of Anet's control.  It's not as if speculators can drive up the price of ectos.  Anet sets the price, always.  There is no exchange and unless you want to introduces shares and futures contracts into GW2, there is no need for one.

MazingerZ, on 30 November 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

Also, what are the business ethics of having such influence while at the same time being able to spontaneously generate the wealth to acquire said copper for a certain class of people willing to take part in a practice that specifically benefits this Supreme Being?

This comment is too elevated and esoteric.  Be more specific.Here's the thing:  Anet is not motivated to create a realist in-game economy by some deep seeded desire to simply do so.  However the in-game economy works is motivated 100% by how the real world  economy works.  An economy that rewards profits and punishess losses as it should.  This is to say, the GW2 economy will take the form of whateever drives the most real world dollars to Anet's coffers.  At the end of the day, Anet is simply a company with a F2P business model that uses other conventions to generate revenue, plain and simple.

Edited by Asha2012, 30 November 2012 - 10:16 PM.

[MazingerZ]

Asha2012, on 30 November 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

First off, I'm not stupid.  I see what you doing with "as a financial analyst".  I am not putting on airs.  In fact, I poked a bit of fun at myself if you read between the lines.  The person who quoted me seemed to be inferring I didn't understand something I do, so I gave a bit of bio (albeit in a snarky fashion but I felt he/she deserved it), so save the platitudes.

I will honestly say that what I said was met meant with all sincerity.

Edited by MazingerZ, 30 November 2012 - 10:15 PM.

[Asha2012]

MazingerZ, on 30 November 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

I will honestly say that what I said was met meant with all sincerity.

Then I apologize for getting defensive.  Admitted character flaw of mine when posting in forums.

[Ojikes]

I have it this way. If you dont have much cash you dont need to pay them to play, if you now had some cash over then you could give them some.

There are ways to get gold, learn to use the tp and try to see what will go up etc.

Love GW2 for being the game it is.. Just wish that the gear grind wouldnt get implemented, but oh well.

[MazingerZ]

Formatting crapped the bed on the quote, so I stripped out the emphasis.  I apologize.

Any emphasis is mine.

Asha2012, on 30 November 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

Nothing to assume.  It is as you say.  The intrinsic value is the sticking point.  It doesn't matter if diamonds cost a million a pound unless you need them for the drill you require to run your business.  And you need "copper" for any number of things in GW2.  So the crux is more about the intrinsic values of things than the price.As for the flow of "copper" [read: various materials].  Think oil (commodities).  Oil sits in natural deposits, some reachable some not so much.  It sits in reserves as well.  The oil market is driven by many things, some of which are the ability to extract oil, the speed in which it can be refined and how much is released by those controlling the reserves.  Demand is a given.

If Anet, our supreme being, is treating "copper" like oil, then it is acting more like OPEC (thought with fewer uncontrolled variables) or the US government.  The difference of course being it can get to any oil it wants, there is no finite supply (back to the flawed foundation of the in-game economy) and it controls all the reserves and hell NYMEX for that matter.  The lack of a finite supply may not be at issue.  In our world, though there is a finite supply of oil, we are no where near to depleting it even with current energy demands, so there might as well be an infinite supply for all intent and purpose.

Based on that, the bigger issue is that there are not enough market forces out of Anet's control.  It's not as if speculators can drive up the price of ectos.  Anet sets the price, always.  There is no exchange and unless you want to introduces shares and futures contracts into GW2, there is no need for one.

This comment is too elevated and esoteric.  Be more specific.

Here's the thing:  Anet is not motivated to create a realist in-game economy by some deep seeded desire to simply do so.  However the in-game economy works is motivated 100% by how the real world  economy works.  An economy that rewards profits and punishess losses as it should. This is to say, the GW2 economy will take the form of whateever drives the most real world dollars to Anet's coffers.  At the end of the day, Anet is simply a company with a F2P business model that uses other conventions to generate revenue, plain and simple.

Those two points are what I am getting at.  ArenaNet will manipulate the game to generate demand to drive money into its coffers.  It is well within their power.  And they are already doing it.  They cannot only control the rate at which wealth is generated, but generate demand by attaching intrinsic value to anything on the fly.  Only when those efforts begin driving away players will ArenaNet reconsider its approach, so having a low (if any) tolerance policy on these types of things is the best approach for players.

Edited by MazingerZ, 30 November 2012 - 10:27 PM.

[Arewn]

Horrorscope, on 30 November 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

OP is spot on. The genius part of it is they got us to pay $60 for a FTP game, where as the other FTP's you pay nothing upfront and get nickle dime'd. GW's 2 is already $60 ahead of the curve plus hopes to nickle/dime. The player in either case gets to determine how much a sap they are. A true FTP, I usually go $10/20'ish on those to get proper Inv space and trading options.

There other game GW1 didn't even start with a cash shop, so I overall preferred that. But I don't mind a sub, it's easy to cancel and start again, seems like so many people find that it takes too much time, reading their whines over it.

And then in a sub based MMO you pay upfront, and have to dump an unjustifiably large sum of money on the game every month just to be aloud access to play the game you bought, and in certain cases they also try to nickle and dime you(I'm looking at you WoW, but other games, such as The Secret World, do it too).

And people's problem with a sub fee isn't that "it's so hard to unsub and resub", its that the general sub fee of 15$ a month that is forced on you just to access the game, often on top of the box price, can be pretty pricey especially in the long run. Paying for a year adds up to 180$, did you really get a 180$ experience out of that game? (roughly 180, depending on box price and discount from buying multiple months at a time)Depends how you look at it of course, 15 dollars a month for something you enjoy and spend a lot of time on is certainly good. But 15 dollars a month for the actually content and frequency of updates you are getting generally isn't.

[Mystika]

You don't have to buy anything from the cash shop.....at all........ever. If, on occasion, I choose to buy something from the cash shop, it is still a whole lot cheaper than paying a sub fee every month.

[MazingerZ]

Mystika, on 30 November 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

You don't have to buy anything from the cash shop.....at all........ever. If, on occasion, I choose to buy something from the cash shop, it is still a whole lot cheaper than paying a sub fee every month.

Cheaper can be a subjective term.  In your case, it might be true, but if you're looking at the value/quality of service, people might feel better served by ponying up the $180/yr instead of paying ArenaNet for practices designed to push you to the Cash Shop for a better experience.

[Horrorscope]

Arewn, on 30 November 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

And then in a sub based MMO you pay upfront, and have to dump an unjustifiably large sum of money on the game every month just to be aloud access to play the game you bought, and in certain cases they also try to nickle and dime you(I'm looking at you WoW, but other games, such as The Secret World, do it too).

And people's problem with a sub fee isn't that "it's so hard to unsub and resub", its that the general sub fee of 15$ a month that is forced on you just to access the game, often on top of the box price, can be pretty pricey especially in the long run. Paying for a year adds up to 180$, did you really get a 180$ experience out of that game? (roughly 180, depending on box price and discount from buying multiple months at a time)Depends how you look at it of course, 15 dollars a month for something you enjoy and spend a lot of time on is certainly good. But 15 dollars a month for the actually content and frequency of updates you are getting generally isn't.

Hey now, I just told you I don't mind it. There's nothing you can say that will change that with me. It's cheap ass entertainment. Some games like DDO you have to have a PHD to figure out how to work around not subbing and maximizing $$$, please just give me everything for $15, thank you. I will say since FTP has made a hold, that yes even in sub games they now want that cash shop to, that indeed does suck. I know one thing, if everyone was like me, there wouldn't be FTP because there just isn't any money in it because I'm very tight on buying virtual gimmicks. But there are people with loads of cash that obviously feeds these companies for crapola. I never get caught up in that, you could be wearing a million dollars in virtual swag, I won't even notice and if I did, I'd care even less.

Edited by Horrorscope, 30 November 2012 - 11:11 PM.

[Xenesis]

The funny thing here is they could be making money and not have to screw with their customers by screwing with the world drops and the trading post, if they would actually put some worthwhile things in the cash shop. When it comes to buying stuff from the cash shop not even Blizzard stoops so low to make your purchase rely on RNG. If you want to sell a product then be straight up and sell the product, from blizzard $10 I get a mini pet I want, $25 I get the mount I want, hell within 1 week blizzard made over 25mil just selling the winged guardian. Anet could be making tons off the cash shop if they would just do it properly, have the server transfer for $20 like you said you would, sell minis for $5, sell character makeovers which they just now implemented, more costumes wearable anywhere not just in town, mad king costume was a blown opportunity, more costumes equals more opportunities to sell transmute stones.

Instead Anet feels they need to squeeze us by screwing with the drop rates, diminishing returns on loot drops, and adding in the worse stat ever created with magic find, so they can force players to buy gems for easier access. How about instead you make your customers feel happy they're getting properly rewarded in your world, happy enough to buy upgrades and other shop items to support you. I mean am I really suppose to go out to orr, grind there for 2 hours feel like I didn't get anything worth a damn and then run to the cash shop to make up for it? Because I don't.

I'm one of those willing to spend as much as I would pay a sub per month, already chipped my $20 for oct for bank slots, held back on paying anymore now because of various things, like the monthly achievement, like the sticking ascended only in a dungeon, like the neglact of wvw but that's all another topic already burnt to the ground. 250 ectos for an ascended item, and then call it a mistake, no you damn well knew what you were doing Anet, it's just too bad so many are willing to let you off the hook still.

So bloody stupid the direction they've taken this game.

[OriginalSinX]

Seriously, why is anyone spending coins when making coins in the game is so easy?  QQ about a cash shop,  i play semi regularly, watch for dragon timers, farm smart spots, im making lots, with not a huge amount of time invested.  I use the gold to buy gems, and have thousands, so i'm pretty sure there is no need to cs.

[Mockingjay74]

Speaking as one of those stereotypically broke students, I really wouldn't prefer a subscription fee. For a B2P game, Guild Wars 2 has blown me away. I've moved about 95% over to GW2 but I'm starting to visit my old game (LOTRO) more with Rohan.

Yeah, GW2 could use some improvement. Making players pay for their playtime won't necessarily fix that problem. For example's sake, look at Lord of the Rings Online. They use a free-to-play system, with the cash shop, but most of the features that allow you to play require you to pay for it OR you can subscribe and still have to buy some stuff. A lot of people don't like this model, because Turbine can do whatever they want and jerk customers around and produce insufficient content and lots of lag. Subscription fees don't fix everything.

Like has been pointed out many times on this thread, ArenaNet can do a lot of good by just making the cash shop more awesome. Right now gem prices are high enough where there's a good amount of incentive to purchase gems instead of attempting to farm gold then exchange it. I purchased $16 worth of gems for two character slots after gem prices started to go up (aka, I got really lazy and didn't want to farm another 800 gems). However, I don't really see anything worth buying other than the aviator's cap. I think the cosmetics system needs to be revisited and revamped at some point, because I want to be able to run around non-town maps looking steampunk-y if I want to. Once they add houses and guild halls, I would be way more than willing to purchase gems for some really ridiculously awesome stuff to put in any sort of house. Even though they could be considered useless mechanically, mounts would be cool to see and they would also provide a heavy source of income. Maybe they could introduce mounts with an expansion into a previously unexplored area where our characters discover how horses can be used and other sorts of steeds. Like Xenesis pointed out, mounts can seriously be valuable things.

Xenesis, on 30 November 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:

I'm one of those willing to spend as much as I would pay a sub per month, already chipped my $20 for oct for bank slots, held back on paying anymore now because of various things, like the monthly achievement, like the sticking ascended only in a dungeon, like the neglact of wvw but that's all another topic already burnt to the ground. 250 ectos for an ascended item, and then call it a mistake, no you damn well knew what you were doing Anet, it's just too bad so many are willing to let you off the hook still.

You've got a really great point. I hate to bring up LOTRO again, but I spent way more on its version of gems than I did on the monthly fee, just because there were a lot of cool things I could buy and that I had reason to buy. Example A: spending the like $15-20 on a horse because I collect them over there. There's literally nothing I am overly excited about buying, so I have no reason to purchase gems. The things worth buying encourage farming (specifically, the exp/magic find/etc boosters), but ArenaNet's DR code kind of counteracts that...

[Corvindi]

Gilles VI, on 30 November 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

1) The female employee that comes from Nexon where everyone is crying about? She's there to manage the cash-shop.
The economics professor is there to monitor the economy, I have no doubt they both have some people working with them.

2) I disagree with you, an economy is there to allow people to interact without problems, if it is a virtual one, a theoretical one, a simplified one,... doesn't matter. Someone who understands how a certain economy works (by example you need to understand a virtual economy is different than a realistic one by the constant surplus of cash) can monitor and lead it in good tracks.
Even if that person really hates virtual economies.

1.  That doesn't prove their teams don't communicate with prearranged goals to meet.

2.  If currency flow in a game did not affect enjoyment it wouldn't exist in games and no one would miss it. Therefore, I disagree with you.

[Asha2012]

MazingerZ, on 30 November 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Formatting crapped the bed on the quote, so I stripped out the emphasis.  I apologize.

Any emphasis is mine.



Those two points are what I am getting at.  ArenaNet will manipulate the game to generate demand to drive money into its coffers.  It is well within their power.  And they are already doing it.  They cannot only control the rate at which wealth is generated, but generate demand by attaching intrinsic value to anything on the fly.  Only when those efforts begin driving away players will ArenaNet reconsider its approach, so having a low (if any) tolerance policy on these types of things is the best approach for players.

Right and this is what the original poster (I believe) is getting at.  The question is:  Is that acceptable (enough) to continue playing?  Are you missing out if you avoid striving for those things that require materials that are purposefully given a high intrinsic value?  In GW1 I played for six years and never acquired Obsidian Armor.  I just could not get into the whole Underworld speed clear farming for ectos and "obby shards" required to get the armor.  And trying to buy the ectos became financial unreasonable in-game.  BUT, and my point is, I was still able to enjoy every other part of the game to the fullest.

Can the same be said for GW2?

[Brizna]

The key point isn't that there is a Cash Shop in GW2. There was a cash shop in GW1 and I never had an issue with it, GW1's revenues were based around game sales at least 95%. The key is ANET is expecting -unlike in GW1- to make a substantial proffit from the cash shop in GW2, this means the game is designed with the cash shop in mind so it is profitable which has very undesirable effects on gameplay and design decissions, effectively turning pay to play players into a blend between that and free to play players, no need to say for people who think they have payed what it was required of themthat is likely to lead to disapointment to say the least.

I don't know why that decission to make a significant ammount of revenue from the cash shop was made but it isn't exactly in accordance with the spirit of ANET's GW2 manifesto and it certainly ensured that GW2 is a worst game than it could have been.

Edited by Brizna, 01 December 2012 - 03:13 AM.

[Saul Spotter]

All this posting about economy, the changing nature of MMO's, and other innane arguements, just is more indicative that ya'll have forgotten what gaming is about: Quaggan Calfs.


^something I found on Tumblr

Nothing has changed, and money doesn't really matter in this game.  Ya'll just forgot how to have fun.

Edited by Saul Spotter, 01 December 2012 - 06:38 AM.

[Ritter]

Yeah, because subscription games don't have their own tricks to milk money from subbies.

Face the reality, people gotta make money somehow. But the undeniable fact is that GW2 offers better value for your money than any other subscription game.

Edited by Ritter, 01 December 2012 - 08:06 AM.

[MazingerZ]

Asha2012, on 01 December 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

Right and this is what the original poster (I believe) is getting at.  The question is:  Is that acceptable (enough) to continue playing?  Are you missing out if you avoid striving for those things that require materials that are purposefully given a high intrinsic value?  In GW1 I played for six years and never acquired Obsidian Armor.  I just could not get into the whole Underworld speed clear farming for ectos and "obby shards" required to get the armor.  And trying to buy the ectos became financial unreasonable in-game.  BUT, and my point is, I was still able to enjoy every other part of the game to the fullest.

Can the same be said for GW2?

The issue is how the cash shop is implemented.  With the option to buy in-game wealth, and that clearly being leveraged as a steady stream of revenue, every move that ArenaNet makes is now suspect with a for-profit motive as opposed to the health of the game.  The GW1 cash shop had no such direct translation of wealth.  You could buy shortcuts, but then nothing like getting yourself infused.  Nor did the staff for the original game include any lofty positions like a monetization producer or an economist to monitor the in-game economy.  Clearly they have a much more aggressive interest in how the cash shop is leveraged (despite the trickle of content on it) and managing the in-game economy to control player wealth.  Ultimatley, I think the ability to change gems into gold is going to lessen the game.  It'll be the well ArenaNet needs to constantly revisit to appear profitable and the game will suffer.

[Spooch]

Naginto, on 30 November 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

Wrong on both counts.
Bots made the T6 mats cheap (a two month long trend of lowered pricing)- here is the TP trend, note the Nov. patch was the 18th, and bot removal was earlier, so it was a change in supply that impacted the economy, not the increased drop rate of precursors from chests or introduction of ascended gear that happened weeks later.

it wasn't 10 days later but whatever

Daesu, on 30 November 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

That kind of reasoning only sounds like an excuse to ask people to stay.  Simply saying "things will get better, you'll see", without showing us a plan on how things will get better sounds like blind faith.  ArenaNet has to put together a plan for fixing the economy, and  announce it so that we can all believe that things will indeed get better.  For all we know, things can also get worse with time.

like i care if someone stays or go i'm just saying that for some changes it takes time, and there is not a single game that will come out specially mmo game that will be great since the day of the release. it's just not possible. Yeah it might get worst but why to look at it in such a gloomy manner? have some hope. Also i'm pissed at some things too so don't look at my opinions as a opinion of a "blind" fanboy

Edited by Spooch, 01 December 2012 - 11:36 PM.

[Daesu]

Spooch, on 01 December 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

Yeah it might get worst but why to look at it in such a gloomy manner? have some hope. Also i'm pissed at some things too so don't look at my opinions as a opinion of a "blind" fanboy

All I am saying is, hope needs to be well placed.  There has to be a reason to hope.

[Robsy128]

We hope Arenanet can make the game better because then we can have even more fun than what we're already having in-game.

If you pay a sub fee, you'll constantly be saying to yourself: I need to play this game to get my money's worth. It feels more like a chore than a choice. I prefer games where I can have the freedom to say yes or no to playing them on that particular day. If I don't play it 24/7 as well, then I'm not getting my money's worth.

[Asha2012]

MazingerZ, on 01 December 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

The issue is how the cash shop is implemented.  With the option to buy in-game wealth, and that clearly being leveraged as a steady stream of revenue, every move that ArenaNet makes is now suspect with a for-profit motive as opposed to the health of the game.  The GW1 cash shop had no such direct translation of wealth.  You could buy shortcuts, but then nothing like getting yourself infused.  Nor did the staff for the original game include any lofty positions like a monetization producer or an economist to monitor the in-game economy.  Clearly they have a much more aggressive interest in how the cash shop is leveraged (despite the trickle of content on it) and managing the in-game economy to control player wealth.  Ultimatley, I think the ability to change gems into gold is going to lessen the game.  It'll be the well ArenaNet needs to constantly revisit to appear profitable and the game will suffer.

Yes.  And like I said, I think the No. 1 issue with this business model is that if affects how we play.  If I'm paying $15 a month for access to the game, my $15 dollars gets me no more or no less than any other player.  At no time during a P2P session are you concerned about how your in-game decisions might trickle over into your real world wallet.  It is too bad Anet could not have come up with a less invasive means to drive revenue.  And yes, if not for the gems into gold option, the cash shop would be a non issue and Anet would not have even bothered with all the gold sinks in the game.

Obviously, as soon as it was decided that the primary in-game currency could be purchased with real world funds, they had to build in game mechanics that would lure/temp players to "artificially" inflate their wealth.  "We don't want players to grind".  Right.  So we allow them to buy their way out of doing so.  Far from an eloquent and creative solution.

Are you listening Anet?

[Spooch]

Daesu, on 02 December 2012 - 12:01 AM, said:

All I am saying is, hope needs to be well placed.  There has to be a reason to hope.

oh cmon this is not real life it's a game. You either play it and maybe it will become better over time or don't it's simple.

[Daesu]

Spooch, on 02 December 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

oh cmon this is not real life it's a game. You either play it and maybe it will become better over time or don't it's simple.

Funny, I always thought ArenaNet policies and business plans exist in real life.

Edited by Daesu, 02 December 2012 - 05:24 PM.

[Jetjordan]

I finally figured out what bothers me about threads like this.

If you can't just have fun playing the game to whatever degree you find entertaining without putting a bunch of money into the in game shop, then maybe the game just isn't for you.  I play for fun, and I've had a blast with GW2 so far.  I'm not rich in game, but I'm have plenty of gold to do what I want to do.  I play the game the way I want to and don't worry about what other people are doing.  

Buying in game wealth with real money is a BAD and VERY EXPENSIVE way to go about playing this game.  The Exchange rate is such that you would have to spend literally hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to have a maxed out toon in the sexiest gear.  T3 cultrual armor would cost like $200 alone.  Having said that I could personally afford to spend money like that on this game if I wanted to.  That would, however, ruin the experience of the game for me so I don't.  

That fact of the matter is this; there will always be people spending more time and money on this game than you and will have "better" stuff.  It's up to you how much that is going to bother you.  Now, before the obligatory WvW argument comes out I'll say this;  WvW has always been, and will always be, unbalanced.  It was meant to be as such, that means there will be people spending real life money making them slightly more effective.  I don't really know how to respond to people that have balance issues in WvW, it just wasn't built for balance.

[MazingerZ]

Jetjordan, on 02 December 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

If you can't just have fun playing the game to whatever degree you find entertaining without putting a bunch of money into the in game shop, then maybe the game just isn't for you.  I play for fun, and I've had a blast with GW2 so far.  I'm not rich in game, but I'm have plenty of gold to do what I want to do.  I play the game the way I want to and don't worry about what other people are doing.

But those are the types of customers ArenaNet is courting.  The game design will be based around the needs and desires of those who are willing to engage in RMT.  They have to control the flow of fun to coerce a percentage of the population to give them money for more fun.  I have no real issue with the concept of makng money, but I take issue with design being dictated by maximizing profit.  Concern yourself with what other people are doing, because it is those people who are rewarding ArenaNet, not you.  So keeping them as a customer over you is higher on their list of priorities.

Edited by MazingerZ, 02 December 2012 - 04:48 PM.

[Daesu]

Jetjordan, on 02 December 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

I finally figured out what bothers me about threads like this.

If you can't just have fun playing the game to whatever degree you find entertaining without putting a bunch of money into the in game shop, then maybe the game just isn't for you.

I am sure the game designers would disagree with you, since the cash shop has been placed there for their revenue.  But if you disagree with the game designers for putting it there, then maybe this game just isn't for YOU instead!

It is ridiculous to blame players for using the cash shop when the cash shop has been a feature in this game since beta.  You should have known that from the start.  If you don't like the cash shop being there, why do you even buy this game?  Furthermore, I am sure the cash shop is here to stay.  It is pointless to blame others for using a legit feature of the game which is needed to provide revenue to ArenaNet so that you can continue to play this game without paying a sub.  You should say 'thank you' to these players instead.

However, I can understand OP's point of view and perhaps ArenaNet can look into some of these issues.  But I just wouldn't blame players for using a game feature as it is intended.

Edited by Daesu, 02 December 2012 - 05:36 PM.

[Draugadan]

@OP I share your feelings. Guild Wars 2 is a great game and I would have paid 13 euro a month any day if it saved me the trouble of the intrusive cash shop. Heck, I was subscribed to WoW for 2 years and a half without any interruption. Guild Wars 2 would deserve far more, if they didn't have a cash shop to begin with.

When the gold-gems trading system was leaked, my first thought was that it was going to be a pain to get gems for gold and you'll wind up spending real money anyway. I said "Fine, it doesn't have a fee, I'll just spend the cost of a subscription per month in the shop." Not once did it cross my mind that ArenaNet would fall so low as to limit gold income in-game so as to encourage gem purchases. This is the very reason why I have not spent a single dime on gems: I'm not going to endorse such practices.

In the end, Guild Wars 2 has been an enlightening experience: I will never again expect a gaming company, no matter how passionate they seem, to fulfill even the promises related to the core of the game.

[Blixcoe]

I have 5 gold and I play alot... you say it will take you a long time to get dusk because you ''only'' have 100g? 100g IS heck of a lot I tell you. I can't even afford the best inventory bags.....