445 replies to this topic

[raspberry jam]

Robsy128, on 07 December 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Don't talk about identity otherwise Feathermoore will get upset

I don't understand your logic.

Games are meant to be fun.
Guild Wars 2 is a game.
Therefore, Guild Wars 2 is meant to be fun.
People have opinions on what is fun and what is not.
I'm a person.
I think Guild Wars 2 is fun.
You're a person.
You think Guild Wars 2 is boring.

If you think it's boring, don't play. And no, a subscription fee has nothing to do with it. WoW is as boring as hell (in my opinion) yet they still charge a subscription for it. SW:TOR is as boring as hell (in my opinion), but hey! There's the subscription model once again.

In short: subscription models are not needed to make a game fun. Designers should also do their best to make things fun for the players, otherwise they're pretty rubbish game designers haha.

I edited it. Identity isn't the topic here!

What on earth?? Games aren't primarily meant to be fun. Well, some games are, I suppose. But when a corporation puts out a game, "fun" is secondary, it's a necessary component, but not what's actually aimed at.

Games are products and they are meant to make money. That includes GW2. Its primary purpose is to move money from your wallet to NCSoft's boss' wallet. Subscription fees are not meant to make the game fun, they are meant to move money while making players trick themselves into thinking that whatever they are paying for is actually worth paying for (read again what I said about fun...).

Edited by raspberry jam, 07 December 2012 - 02:28 PM.

[Robsy128]

raspberry jam, on 07 December 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

I edited it. Identity isn't the topic here!

What on earth?? Games aren't primarily meant to be fun. Well, some games are, I suppose. But when a corporation puts out a game, "fun" is secondary, it's a necessary component, but not what's actually aimed at.

Games are products and they are meant to make money. That includes GW2. Its primary purpose is to move money from your wallet to NCSoft's boss' wallet. Subscription fees are not meant to make the game fun, they are meant to move money while making players trick themselves into thinking that whatever they are paying for is actually worth paying for (read again what I said about fun...).

They're not going to sell very well if they're not fun. So fun has to be the primary objective.

Seriously, do you honestly think that game designers sit down and start planning a game by saying: 'Hmmm.... how can we make the most money out of this?' Of course not! That would be completely absurd. When game designers sit down, they start creating concepts of what the game can be about and what will happen in the game. The game designers always ask themselves: 'What can the player do? What do they have to do? How can we make it more fun?'

Once you have everything in order (as in, the overall concept of the game, as well as maybe a prototype or mock-up), that's when you approach a publisher. Their concern is about the money aspect of it all. How much will it cost them to finance the game? How much money will this game make? So yes, games are products that are meant to make money, but they're not designed to make money. They're designed to be fun. I know this as I'm training to be a game designer myself.

[Arquenya]

Robsy128, on 07 December 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

They're not going to sell very well if they're not fun. So fun has to be the primary objective.

Seriously, do you honestly think that game designers sit down and start planning a game by saying: 'Hmmm.... how can we make the most money out of this?' Of course not! That would be completely absurd. When game designers sit down, they start creating concepts of what the game can be about and what will happen in the game. The game designers always ask themselves: 'What can the player do? What do they have to do? How can we make it more fun?'

Once you have everything in order (as in, the overall concept of the game, as well as maybe a prototype or mock-up), that's when you approach a publisher. Their concern is about the money aspect of it all. How much will it cost them to finance the game? How much money will this game make? So yes, games are products that are meant to make money, but they're not designed to make money. They're designed to be fun. I know this as I'm training to be a game designer myself.

Of course it's not that black and white - but obviously, there's a lot of decisions being made with money in the back of their heads. Look at the haloween events with the keys from the gem store, for example. Or this thread which basically says "I'd rather have a subscription based game because the gem store has too much influence on the game design".

In order to make money, games should be fun for a significant amout of people, so it doesn't exactly exclude one another. But there's a thin line where the game gets less fun but generates more cash and visa versa. And I don't have the feeling that ANet/NCSoft has the idea "lets make the best and most enoyable game possible because if it's really great, the money will come automatically."

Edited by Arquenya, 07 December 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[Feathermoore]

Robsy128, on 07 December 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

They're not going to sell very well if they're not fun. So fun has to be the primary objective.

The primary objective of every consumer product is to make money. Being "fun" is the method that the ensure that the primary object of making money is met. This is basic business. If you aren't going to make money, don't bother spending the time to think about the project.

An individual designer that is creating the layout of a certain dungeon or the physical appearance of a mob is not thinking about making money as it isn't their job. But the design of the overall game and game features are directly tied to the goal of making money. Only features that will help the overall goal, making money, will make it into the game with any sort of priority.

If it is possible to make more money by making a game less fun (nudging players towards cash shops without putting so much of a force that the game doesn't sell), then the developers are going to do it. It is only good business sense.

If you don't already know this, you will learn it pretty fast once you actually enter an industry.

Edited by Feathermoore, 07 December 2012 - 03:54 PM.

[Capn_Crass]

raspberry jam, on 07 December 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

What on earth?? Games aren't primarily meant to be fun. Well, some games are, I suppose. But when a corporation puts out a game, "fun" is secondary, it's a necessary component, but not what's actually aimed at.

Games are products and they are meant to make money. That includes GW2. Its primary purpose is to move money from your wallet to NCSoft's boss' wallet. Subscription fees are not meant to make the game fun, they are meant to move money while making players trick themselves into thinking that whatever they are paying for is actually worth paying for (read again what I said about fun...).

You're right, and that's exactly the reason my interest in gaming has waned severely over the past 15 years or so. Flashy shit and explosions may draw the masses, but I demand more from my games. There are still a few holdouts that make games with the intent of making entertainment first and money second, but they're getting few and far between.

[raspberry jam]

Robsy128, on 07 December 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

They're not going to sell very well if they're not fun. So fun has to be the primary objective.

Seriously, do you honestly think that game designers sit down and start planning a game by saying: 'Hmmm.... how can we make the most money out of this?' Of course not! That would be completely absurd. When game designers sit down, they start creating concepts of what the game can be about and what will happen in the game. The game designers always ask themselves: 'What can the player do? What do they have to do? How can we make it more fun?'

Once you have everything in order (as in, the overall concept of the game, as well as maybe a prototype or mock-up), that's when you approach a publisher. Their concern is about the money aspect of it all. How much will it cost them to finance the game? How much money will this game make? So yes, games are products that are meant to make money, but they're not designed to make money. They're designed to be fun. I know this as I'm training to be a game designer myself.

If you do B (making something fun) in order to get A (what you actually want, money in this case), then A is the primary purpose and B is secondary to A. This is completely obvious lol. If B was primary, you'd do B because you want to get B, not because you want to get A. I'm sorry for calling you an idiot but this was really, you know, I actually laughed in real life.

It's nice to see a future game designer. That's not at all how it happens though, it's not the 80s anymore. Most games you see out there is not because Idea Guy met Programmer Guy and they made a jolly fun game and then they sold it to EA. It's because Programmer Guy already works together with Designer Guy in an existing studio, and either they make a generic clone rehash (e.g. Call of *ing Battlefield Shooter #79, Final JRPG XVII, etc.), and those are made 100% with profit predictions in them from the start, or they take one of the ten billion ideas floating around (because basically everyone in the world is actually an Idea Guy), make a profit prediction, and then start working on it.

There are exceptions. These exceptions are never, ever, AAA high-budget titles like GW2. Ever. They are games like World of Goo. Or they are games like Minecraft - oh wait, no they are not, Notch had a profit model right from the start as well (one that worked much better than expected, but still). But yeah, World of Goo, anyway.

Look, these people work for a living making games. If you had a job, or had to make your own money in any way whatsoever, you'd realize that you don't do actual work without getting paid for it.

[Robsy128]

raspberry jam, on 07 December 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

If you do B (making something fun) in order to get A (what you actually want, money in this case), then A is the primary purpose and B is secondary to A. This is completely obvious lol. If B was primary, you'd do B because you want to get B, not because you want to get A. I'm sorry for calling you an idiot but this was really, you know, I actually laughed in real life.

It's nice to see a future game designer. That's not at all how it happens though, it's not the 80s anymore. Most games you see out there is not because Idea Guy met Programmer Guy and they made a jolly fun game and then they sold it to EA. It's because Programmer Guy already works together with Designer Guy in an existing studio, and either they make a generic clone rehash (e.g. Call of *ing Battlefield Shooter #79, Final JRPG XVII, etc.), and those are made 100% with profit predictions in them from the start, or they take one of the ten billion ideas floating around (because basically everyone in the world is actually an Idea Guy), make a profit prediction, and then start working on it.

There are exceptions. These exceptions are never, ever, AAA high-budget titles like GW2. Ever. They are games like World of Goo. Or they are games like Minecraft - oh wait, no they are not, Notch had a profit model right from the start as well (one that worked much better than expected, but still). But yeah, World of Goo, anyway.

Look, these people work for a living making games. If you had a job, or had to make your own money in any way whatsoever, you'd realize that you don't do actual work without getting paid for it.

You do B first (primary) in order to get A (which would be secondary). A is a result of doing B. You don't get A without doing B first. This is very obvious and was my point in the first place. If the game isn't fun, then who on earth would buy it? Aside from the odd retarded person - nobody. Nobody likes a boring game. Also, nobody would hire you if you made a boring game. They'd take one look at your portfolio and say 'well you made a bunch of junk which nobody was even slightly interested in. You're not going to make us any money.'

I know that's how it works in studios. More often than not, the publishing financial department comes down and says: 'look, you made us a lot of money with (insert name of generic shooter here). We want you to make a sequel. Do it. Now.' Then everybody loads up all of the saved work from the last project, creates a few maps, makes a few more textures, spends a few months recording new dialogue and then ships the game. Boom - instant profit - see you again for the next sequel in 3 months time.

But now you've shifted the conversation to generic AAA titles. I was talking about games in general, whether they're board games, outdoor games - any kind of game. They're designed to be fun. You get the odd designer who questions everything and decides to go back to pen and paper for the next game. It really depends if the new idea is good enough for publishers. This is how Mirror's Edge came to be. This is how Portal came to be. This is how Doom came to be. I could go on, but all of those games were designed to be fun. If a game is that good, they will sell.

Of course they'd want to be paid for it, but they should know that a fun game will sell well. I wasn't talking about generic AAA titles at all.

Arquenya, on 07 December 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

Of course it's not that black and white - but obviously, there's a lot of decisions being made with money in the back of their heads. Look at the haloween events with the keys from the gem store, for example. Or this thread which basically says "I'd rather have a subscription based game because the gem store has too much influence on the game design".

In order to make money, games should be fun for a significant amout of people, so it doesn't exactly exclude one another. But there's a thin line where the game gets less fun but generates more cash and visa versa. And I don't have the feeling that ANet/NCSoft has the idea "lets make the best and most enoyable game possible because if it's really great, the money will come automatically."

This is true, especially in the case of MMOs. When you design an MMO, you obviously need to take into account the cost of everything. Actually, you need to do that with any game you design otherwise your pitch will definitely fail (the pitch is when you're trying to get a publisher to support you if you don't have one already). If you already have a publisher, they'll tell you what your budget is and it's up to the management to decide how to spend it. Obviously in the case of MMOs, they have an ongoing fee because of server costs, support teams, etc.

A system has to be put in place in order to make more money than spending it. In the case of (insert generic MMO title here), they rely on a subscription fee. That subscription fee doesn't only cover all of the expenditures - it also gives them a fair bit of profit. How do you think Blizzard could afford those fancy offices with statues of their most recognisable characters in the lobby?

In order to sell the actual boxes, the game needs to be fun. Or, at least look fun enough to buy. If it looks like junk and it plays like junk, then nobody will even think about it. Ideally, the price of the initial box fee will cover the development cost as well as provide a bit of profit. The ongoing price of the servers, support teams, etc should be covered by the subscription fee.

Now, Arenanet doesn't want their game to have a subscription fee. They also designed the game to be fun. Ignore all of the bugs and complaints for now because they'll just cloud the overall picture. The game was advertised as fun and the game gives a lot of fun (going by a lot of reviews). I'd take a guess and say that they sold more boxes within the first month of release than most MMOs have done previously. I could be wrong - I'm not going to look into it now.

Not only do they have to pay for the servers, support team, etc. - they also have to pay the employees whilst they develop content for free. So, how can they do all of this without a subscription fee? They're shooting themselves in the foot, aren't they? Well, yes, they obviously won't make as much money as Blizzard, but they  can still do it with an in-game cash shop. How do they maximise the cash shop, though? How can they get enough money to pay for everything and still have enough to make a profit?

They sell options. Obviously they hire someone with a psychology background (it is quite a desirable qualification in the video game industry) in order to help with this. If people knew that content was deliberately locked out and they would have to pay for it in order to access it, they would be more inclined to not buy the base game. So, they sell optional upgrades, time savers and cosmetic items. If people aren't forced into paying monthly for the game and see an optional item for sale in the cash shop, they might be inclined to buy it. After all, £5 for an optional item in the cash shop is better than £10 a month, right? That's what goes through a customer's mind.

This technique of sales has been proven on the iOS app store. Just look at Angry Birds - a fun game packed with content and sold for only 69p. The average consumer will think: '69p is nothing compared to all of the other games that are being sold for £4.99!' This is why Angry Birds is now a best-selling game and probably one of the top grossing as well. As of today, yeah, it's at number 19 on the grossing chart and that's their latest release, which was in September or October?

And when they want more money - they release more content and charge people for it. I'm fairly certain an expansion is in the works already at Arenanet. And this is how they make money without ruining the game for everyone. Selling the base game and selling options.

Edited by Robsy128, 07 December 2012 - 05:13 PM.

[raspberry jam]

Robsy128, on 07 December 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

You do B first (primary) in order to get A (which would be secondary). A is a result of doing B. You don't get A without doing B first. This is very obvious and was my point in the first place. If the game isn't fun, then who on earth would buy it? Aside from the odd retarded person - nobody. Nobody likes a boring game. Also, nobody would hire you if you made a boring game. They'd take one look at your portfolio and say 'well you made a bunch of junk which nobody was even slightly interested in. You're not going to make us any money.'

I know that's how it works in studios. More often than not, the publishing financial department comes down and says: 'look, you made us a lot of money with (insert name of generic shooter here). We want you to make a sequel. Do it. Now.' Then everybody loads up all of the saved work from the last project, creates a few maps, makes a few more textures, spends a few months recording new dialogue and then ships the game. Boom - instant profit - see you again for the next sequel in 3 months time.

But now you've shifted the conversation to generic AAA titles. I was talking about games in general, whether they're board games, outdoor games - any kind of game. They're designed to be fun. You get the odd designer who questions everything and decides to go back to pen and paper for the next game. It really depends if the new idea is good enough for publishers. This is how Mirror's Edge came to be. This is how Portal came to be. This is how Doom came to be. I could go on, but all of those games were designed to be fun. If a game is that good, they will sell.

Of course they'd want to be paid for it, but they should know that a fun game will sell well. I wasn't talking about generic AAA titles at all.

Holy shit. Primary vs. secondary purpose doesn't mean that one happens before the other. It means that you care about the primary one and do the secondary one just because it will get you the primary one. While it's cool to make a fun game, that is not why people make the games you see if you walk into Gamestop right now. Those are made to make money. No one cares about you and your fun, they just care about that you buy it. I mean that literally. People who make these games do not care about you, they care about your money. The game is only fun because that's the only way that you'd ever buy it. If they could get away with making a game that isn't fun, they would, because making a shitty game is easier than making a fun one.

"Publishing financial department", hahah. Well, yes, that's almost how it happens, it's a little more involved than that, but yeah. And that is true even with original games (non-sequel ones).
Mirror's Edge was made by DiCE... These guys don't mess around, I can tell you that. They're good. Sharp as tacks. All that. You think they just randomly spent two years on a game that they didn't know would sell? Hell no. Two weeks, then you make a profit prediction. Then you finance it. Then you work. Don't forget that Mirror's Edge was directed by a guy assigned by EA.

Portal was a clone of an existing game. Gabe saw it and decided that if he hired these guys, Valve wouldn't have to do all the work themselves. You think he is so successful because he's good at making games? Hell no. He is a businessman, and he's very good at seeing what is fun and what is not fun, what will attract players and how to make money off something. If he didn't see the profit, Portal would still be called Narbacular Drop and would still suck.

Doom was made with a profit prediction by an already established studio (id was already famous for Commander Keen and Wolfenstein 3D). Carmack literally came up with the idea while was reading a math paper from the 70s.

Also, you were talking about a generic AAA title. You were talking about Guild Wars 2.

[Robsy128]

raspberry jam, on 07 December 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

Holy shit. Primary vs. secondary purpose doesn't mean that one happens before the other. It means that you care about the primary one and do the secondary one just because it will get you the primary one. While it's cool to make a fun game, that is not why people make the games you see if you walk into Gamestop right now. Those are made to make money. No one cares about you and your fun, they just care about that you buy it. I mean that literally. People who make these games do not care about you, they care about your money. The game is only fun because that's the only way that you'd ever buy it. If they could get away with making a game that isn't fun, they would, because making a shitty game is easier than making a fun one.

"Publishing financial department", hahah. Well, yes, that's almost how it happens, it's a little more involved than that, but yeah. And that is true even with original games (non-sequel ones).
Mirror's Edge was made by DiCE... These guys don't mess around, I can tell you that. They're good. Sharp as tacks. All that. You think they just randomly spent two years on a game that they didn't know would sell? Hell no. Two weeks, then you make a profit prediction. Then you finance it. Then you work. Don't forget that Mirror's Edge was directed by a guy assigned by EA.

Portal was a clone of an existing game. Gabe saw it and decided that if he hired these guys, Valve wouldn't have to do all the work themselves. You think he is so successful because he's good at making games? Hell no. He is a businessman, and he's very good at seeing what is fun and what is not fun, what will attract players and how to make money off something. If he didn't see the profit, Portal would still be called Narbacular Drop and would still suck.

Doom was made with a profit prediction by an already established studio (id was already famous for Commander Keen and Wolfenstein 3D). Carmack literally came up with the idea while was reading a math paper from the 70s.

Also, you were talking about a generic AAA title. You were talking about Guild Wars 2.

Clearly you've never spoken to a game designer or know how the process works at all. Nobody, and I literally mean this, nobody sits at home, on the loo, on a train or wherever and thinks to themselves: 'I know a great game that will sell well and get me tonnes of money!' It never starts out like that at all. Most game designers are actually playing a game, watching a movie, having a dream or even showering when a great game idea pops up into their head. 'Hey, that would be a fun game!' is what they say to themselves. The money aspect of it comes in later. It's the secondary thought. Is it viable? How would it be marketed? Is there anything in the industry at the moment like this? Has it been done before? What are the pros and cons of this? Of course they want to make money from it - what person wouldn't? You don't spend hours on something and give it away for free. An artist doesn't give away a painting. A writer doesn't give away a book. A game designer is no different. If they make a fun, polished game that is somehow unique, it will sell - fact.

A game designer loves their job and gets paid for it - the best of both worlds. Only a miserable person would do a job just for the money. When it comes to publishers - yes, they're the ones whose primary focus is money. Their eyes look like this: $_$ and £_£. You see it as one company that purely wants to make money, but it's not like that at all. Have you even been inside a studio? Have you talked to a games designer, or a coder, or a concept artist? They just want to make a great game, have fun doing it and get some money for it. When you love doing a job, the money is really an after thought (as long as you can pay to live of course).

What's wrong with "publishing financial department"? That's what it is. I wouldn't expect you to know that. When it comes to original games, it works a little differently. You all have deadlines, so obviously you can't make the perfect game. You're constantly pushed by the publishers. You have a vision and you stick to it as much as you can whilst working towards those deadlines.

You also just proved my point - all of those designers came up with the idea of a fun game first and then looked at it from a financial point. And all of this is in relation to your rather stupid comment that "games aren't primarily meant to be fun." Of course they are, otherwise they wouldn't be called games.

Edited by Robsy128, 07 December 2012 - 08:17 PM.

[Feathermoore]

Robsy128, on 07 December 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Clearly you've never spoken to a game designer or know how the process works at all. Nobody, and I literally mean this, nobody sits at home, on the loo, on a train or wherever and thinks to themselves: 'I know a great game that will sell well and get me tonnes of money!' It never starts out like that at all. Most game designers are actually playing a game, watching a movie, having a dream or even showering when a great game idea pops up into their head. 'Hey, that would be a fun game!' is what they say to themselves. The money aspect of it comes in later. It's the secondary thought. Is it viable? How would it be marketed? Is there anything in the industry at the moment like this? Has it been done before? What are the pros and cons of this? Of course they want to make money from it - what person wouldn't? You don't spend hours on something and give it away for free. An artist doesn't give away a painting. A writer doesn't give away a book. A game designer is no different. If they make a fun, polished game that is somehow unique, it will sell - fact.

I hate to say this... but you just seem to be ignoring what people are telling you. A game will not be made if it won't sell. Even if it was fun. The primary directive of a game is to be sold. Fun games make money, therefore we make fun games. People come up with an idea "that would be fun!" because they are looking for fun things to make because fun things sell. There is a reason that they are looking to make something fun.

Some guy making a game for the heck of it probably isn't thinking about profit as his primary goal (although it becomes it as soon as he realizes what he has). I can attest to this as I have been involved in such situations. But developers are working in an established industry. If they don't think a game will sell, they won't make it. This makes the attempt to make money the "primary directive" and making a fun game be "the method to make money."

It doesn't matter that the dev's first thought isn't "how do I make some money?" It is an understood fact that that is the end goal in almost all situations. In the case of GW2? The primary goal is to make money. This is impossible to argue against. It is a sequel made by an established design company. Profit is the goal of the company, and the goal of the company is literally the only thing that matters.

I would like to point you to my previous post that explains just how the industry works. How all industries making consumer products work. I will just add that your viewpoint is extremely naive and I am not saying that to demean you. It just is.

Edited by Feathermoore, 07 December 2012 - 08:26 PM.

[Robsy128]

Feathermoore, on 07 December 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

I hate to say this... but you just seem to be ignoring what people are telling you. A game will not be made if it won't sell. Even if it was fun. The primary directive of a game is to be sold. Fun games make money, therefore we make fun games. People come up with an idea "that would be fun!" because they are looking for fun things to make because fun things sell. There is a reason that they are looking to make something fun.

This is true. However, some games are made and released without the intention of being sold. Maybe they're made by a student who wants to get some experience in video game design. Maybe they're released because the people behind them want to share what they have created. Not everybody is out to make a profit when it comes to games. It would be more accurate to say: 'a game will not be published if it won't sell.'

I agree that it's different in the actual video game industry. Games are meant to be sold, otherwise the industry would just collapse haha.

Please don't read my 'games' as 'video games'. When I talk about games, I'm talking about all kinds of games.

Edited by Robsy128, 07 December 2012 - 08:38 PM.

[MazingerZ]

Robsy128, on 07 December 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

This is true. However, some games are made and released without the intention of being sold. Maybe they're made by a student who wants to get some experience in video game design. Maybe they're released because the people behind them want to share what they have created. Not everybody is out to make a profit when it comes to games. It would be more accurate to say: 'a game will not be published if it won't sell.'

I agree that it's different in the actual video game industry. Games are meant to be sold, otherwise the industry would just collapse haha.

Please don't read my 'games' as 'video games'. When I talk about games, I'm talking about all kinds of games.

At this point though in trying to defend your viewpoint, you've drifted away from GW2 to try in include "all kinds of games."

You're shutting out the point that's been made and substantiated.

GW2 is designed to make money.

GW2 is therefore designed to have the broadest appeal.

The mechanism for GW2 to make money is the Gem Shop.

Planned obsolescence has been a staple of commerce since the 1960s.  The idea that any purchase you make is temporary.  You will eventually have to buy another one.

That's the point of the treadmill, that's the point of the consumable conveniences and/or services and why the only costumes up on the shop since launch were limited-time only, because a costume once purchased is permanent. They supplanted obsolescence with temporary availability.

They need to drive people to purchase those consumable services/conveniences because that generates money.

O'Brien even said it himself

Quote

We have a new player-driven market that allows players to trade gold for gems and gems for gold. If you want something, whether it’s an in-game item or a microtransaction, you ultimately have two ways to get it: you can play to earn gold or you can use money to buy gems.

The question is, which activity benefits ArenaNet more?  People playing (for free) over a long period of time, or people buying gems for gold.

That is a no-brainer.

At that point, it becomes Arenanet carefully balancing the temptation to buy gems versus the disgust at their practices.

It's much like how companies have been trying to manage DLC and then hit a wall with Day 1 DLC.  Suddenly, gamers were upset with Day 1 DLC.  Now they have to somehow convince players that Day 1 DLC is acceptable.  Because with Day 1 DLC, they've managed to get people to fork over 70 bucks for a game instead of 60 in the first week.

Edited by MazingerZ, 07 December 2012 - 10:51 PM.

[Corvindi]

Perception is everything, or none of us would play a giant furry dragon killing kitty to wile away our endless days.  If we perceive that we are being forced to pay real cash for the best gear in game it doesn't matter if it's true or not in reality, it's true enough to us to alter how we view the game.

They should never. ever, have introduced gems for gold. It was the death blow to this game before the game even launched.

[Soki]

I would prefer a cash shop done right.
Done right is not allowing players to convert Gems to Gold; and having every part of the game designed to push players to do so in order to get the only unique things of merit in the game.

[Soki]

I would prefer a cash shop done right.
Done right is not allowing players to convert Gems to Gold; and having every part of the game designed to push players to do so in order to get the only unique things of merit in the game.

[Trei]

So you would rather those who cannot pay real money be locked out of any items or services they might have liked to acquire from the gemshop?

Or do you actually mean it should be a one way exchange - can use gold to buy gems but cannot sell gems for gold?

Edited by Trei, 08 December 2012 - 12:17 AM.

[Feathermoore]

Robsy128, on 07 December 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

This is true. However, some games are made and released without the intention of being sold. Maybe they're made by a student who wants to get some experience in video game design. Maybe they're released because the people behind them want to share what they have created. Not everybody is out to make a profit when it comes to games. It would be more accurate to say: 'a game will not be published if it won't sell.'

I agree that it's different in the actual video game industry. Games are meant to be sold, otherwise the industry would just collapse haha.

Please don't read my 'games' as 'video games'. When I talk about games, I'm talking about all kinds of games.

This is a conversation about GW2 not some random game a student made to practice.

That "practice" or "experience" game still has a primary motivation. To get practice or experience making games that will sell. I already even covered this with the possibility of random games being made without profit in mind. GW2 is not one of these and that is what the discussion is about.

[Robsy128]

Trei, on 07 December 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

So you would rather those who cannot pay real money be locked out of any items or services they might have liked to acquire from the gemshop?

Or do you actually mean it should be a one way exchange - can use gold to buy gems but cannot sell gems for gold?

The first option would be quite ridiculous. People who can't pay with real life money shouldn't be locked out of any items.

The second option could be a good idea, but I don't see them implementing it.
I actually don't see them making any changes to the gem store at all, and at the moment it's hardly game breaking.

Edited by Robsy128, 08 December 2012 - 01:16 AM.

[MazingerZ]

Trei, on 07 December 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

So you would rather those who cannot pay real money be locked out of any items or services they might have liked to acquire from the gemshop?

Or do you actually mean it should be a one way exchange - can use gold to buy gems but cannot sell gems for gold?

The latter is much like Kool-Aid points (showing my age here!)

Long term play could (not should) probably equate to some in-store benefit.

Removing gems->gold removes a pretty free-form way of bypassing grind dictated by a revenue generation mandate.  At that point, the only way to acquire things with gold would be through grinding out the coin and if you used the gem shop, to purchase boosters to up your more money/loot rate.  At that point, there would have to be a balance between non-boosted grind and boosted-grind.

Edited by MazingerZ, 08 December 2012 - 01:41 AM.

[Trei]

MazingerZ, on 08 December 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

The latter is much like Kool-Aid points (showing my age here!)

Did you get your Kool-Aid for free?
To phrase it another way, did you get points from drinking free Kool-Aid?
Or, was your Kool-Aid a lifetime supply for a onetime $XX.XX fee?

Are we paying regularly just to play the game?
Should we be granted gemstore items with gold, like how Kool-Aid points (or any other loyalty point systems) could get you items for redemption?

Sure.
If Kool-Aid were free.

Edited by Trei, 08 December 2012 - 05:24 AM.

[Dasryn]

Robsy128, on 07 December 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

Seriously, do you honestly think that game designers sit down and start planning a game by saying: 'Hmmm.... how can we make the most money out of this?'  

i actually do think they think this.  first and foremost, a game developer is a business.  businesses do not run off of love and kittens.  you must first make sure you are going to turn a profit before you secure investors and go into debt over an endeavor such as a grand scale mmorpg.

so yes, the very first thing developers and publishers think about is how they are going to make money.  

if they deem they cant make any money off of the product, then its not worth investing in is it?

thats business 101.

[Alleji]

Zebes, on 07 December 2012 - 02:09 AM, said:

I keep seeing an erroneous claim in this thread. The general gist of the claim is that altering your chosen method of playstyle or chosen activities of play within the game to make money is something new to the franchise. The far more erroneous version of this claim is that this money-based playing is born of the Gem Shop.

Of course, you need to alter your playstyle to make gold. Or, to put it in more general terms, different playstyles make different amounts of gold. That was true in GW1, is true in GW2 and probably in every other online game.

However, since buying gold in GW1 wasn't an option, when I bought a set of 15k armor it was with the gold I earned in the game. It might've come from a single lucky HoH drop or from 30 hours of farming (different playstyles making different amounts of gold right there), but it did not come out of other players' pockets. When somebody goes through the money --> gems --> gold process in GW2, all they do is take out gold from the economy because they did not put anything into the game that earned them that gold.

Let's say you pay for gas for your car using the money you earn from your job. So does everyone else in the world who needs gas. There's a finite amount of gas in the world, so the supply and demand here determine the price. Now imagine a world where aliens come and they also need gas. So they pay the government in alien dollars. The government doesn't use these alien dollars in any visible way - they might be simply stockpiling them in a vault or buying themselves and their kids alien spaceships, but the point is these alien dollars don't trickle down into the economy. You never get to see them or use them, and you don't get any benefit from them. But the aliens still bought your gas! The supply remains the same, but the demand went up. As a result, the gas is more expensive for you.

[Trei]

Alleji, on 08 December 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

...However, since buying gold in GW1 wasn't an option, when I bought a set of 15k armor it was with the gold I earned in the game. It ....

Not from Anet sanctioned sources, no.

But it was most definitely an option, one which (I am glad and applaud the fact that) you apparently chose not to take.
Many others likely did.

Edited by Trei, 08 December 2012 - 07:27 AM.

[Corvindi]

Robsy128, on 08 December 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

The first option would be quite ridiculous. People who can't pay with real life money shouldn't be locked out of any items.

The second option could be a good idea, but I don't see them implementing it.
I actually don't see them making any changes to the gem store at all, and at the moment it's hardly game breaking.

So it's ridiculous that people who can't afford the $60 box fee with real life money don't get to play Guild Wars 2?  Of course it's not ridiculous.  Unless you're a company out to populate your game world with freeloaders while raking in cash from a few people with more money than sense, that is.  Which would be fine, except companies can't seem to resist wrecking drop rates and increasing grind in order to drive more people to spend money.  And Guild Wars 2 has sadly proved to be no exception.

[Zebes]

Alleji, on 08 December 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

Of course, you need to alter your playstyle to make gold. Or, to put it in more general terms, different playstyles make different amounts of gold. That was true in GW1, is true in GW2 and probably in every other online game.

However, since buying gold in GW1 wasn't an option, when I bought a set of 15k armor it was with the gold I earned in the game. It might've come from a single lucky HoH drop or from 30 hours of farming (different playstyles making different amounts of gold right there), but it did not come out of other players' pockets. When somebody goes through the money --> gems --> gold process in GW2, all they do is take out gold from the economy because they did not put anything into the game that earned them that gold.

Let's say you pay for gas for your car using the money you earn from your job. So does everyone else in the world who needs gas. There's a finite amount of gas in the world, so the supply and demand here determine the price. Now imagine a world where aliens come and they also need gas. So they pay the government in alien dollars. The government doesn't use these alien dollars in any visible way - they might be simply stockpiling them in a vault or buying themselves and their kids alien spaceships, but the point is these alien dollars don't trickle down into the economy. You never get to see them or use them, and you don't get any benefit from them. But the aliens still bought your gas! The supply remains the same, but the demand went up. As a result, the gas is more expensive for you.

Well you could buy gold in GW1, just not through any official means. Also, I'm pretty sure gold to gem conversion is influenced by the market and gold supply.The gold isn't just manufactured upon the gem conversion.

[Alleji]

Trei, on 08 December 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

Not from Anet sanctioned sources, no.

But it was most definitely an option, one which (I am glad and applaud the fact that) you apparently chose not to take.
Many others likely did.

Zebes, on 08 December 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Well you could buy gold in GW1, just not through any official means. Also, I'm pretty sure gold to gem conversion is influenced by the market and gold supply.The gold isn't just manufactured upon the gem conversion.

Yeah, of course you could buy gold illegaly, but I would guess that gold buying is way, way less common when there's no official way to do it. Plus, I would argue that the effects of an illegal gold market would be less severe than what we have now. Bots, as annoying as they are, just create inflation and devalue common farmable things. They don't warp the entire game design around themselves.

Gem to gold IS regulated by the market. Barring some conspiracy theories, we know that anet doesn't create gold. (But they do create gems). So people who are buying gold via gems are buying other players' gold. It's not nearly as bad as just creating gold out of thin air, but it still messes with the economy and game design more than I would prefer. Hence this thread.

Edited by Alleji, 08 December 2012 - 08:59 AM.

[Robsy128]

Rickter, on 08 December 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

i actually do think they think this.  first and foremost, a game developer is a business.  businesses do not run off of love and kittens.  you must first make sure you are going to turn a profit before you secure investors and go into debt over an endeavor such as a grand scale mmorpg.

so yes, the very first thing developers and publishers think about is how they are going to make money.  

if they deem they cant make any money off of the product, then its not worth investing in is it?

thats business 101.

I was talking about individuals.

But yes, when it comes to companies and industries, they're all out to make money.

[Arquenya]

Rickter, on 08 December 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

i actually do think they think this.  first and foremost, a game developer is a business.  businesses do not run off of love and kittens.  you must first make sure you are going to turn a profit before you secure investors and go into debt over an endeavor such as a grand scale mmorpg.

so yes, the very first thing developers and publishers think about is how they are going to make money.  

if they deem they cant make any money off of the product, then its not worth investing in is it?

thats business 101.

I think it's understandable that a company wants to make profit. After all, making a game isn't free and you'd also like to have some spare cash to make the next game, which also requires significant investments before release.
In my opinion it's not the thing that most people are worried about. Or what this thread is about. We all like our game developers to be able to pay the rent and have something to eat - so their only concern is to make "our" game the best and most enjoyable possible.

The thing is that it seems that just making money and a decent profit doesn't seem to be enough. Sometimes it seems that the company (not sure if it's ANet, NCSoft or some other investor) wants to squeeze every possible penny out of the players. The halloween RNG key thing was really over the top, in my opinion. I thought it was a shameless exhibition.

As I've written before, there's a fine line where making profit goes at the expense of fun and game quality. If game design is too much revolving around catering the acquisition of gamer's money, I can imagine that people rather have a subscription game where the company gets money anyway and it's just the quality and fun of the game that decides their income. Which means that parts of the game's mechanics don't evolve so much around cash shops and gold for gems and such.

Edited by Arquenya, 08 December 2012 - 10:17 AM.

[Robsy128]

Corvindi, on 08 December 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

So it's ridiculous that people who can't afford the $60 box fee with real life money don't get to play Guild Wars 2?  Of course it's not ridiculous.  Unless you're a company out to populate your game world with freeloaders while raking in cash from a few people with more money than sense, that is.  Which would be fine, except companies can't seem to resist wrecking drop rates and increasing grind in order to drive more people to spend money.  And Guild Wars 2 has sadly proved to be no exception.

I didn't say that. There are all kinds of reasons how someone would get their hands on Guild Wars 2. Maybe it was a present, maybe they saved up their money, etc. But not everyone has a credit card. Not everyone is allowed to use their parents' cards, either. Or, I don't know, maybe they can't afford/don't want to pay for things in the gem store. This is why I think the gold to gem conversion is a good idea. It doesn't stop people obtaining the gem store items.

[MazingerZ]

Robsy128, on 08 December 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

I didn't say that. There are all kinds of reasons how someone would get their hands on Guild Wars 2. Maybe it was a present, maybe they saved up their money, etc. But not everyone has a credit card. Not everyone is allowed to use their parents' cards, either. Or, I don't know, maybe they can't afford/don't want to pay for things in the gem store. This is why I think the gold to gem conversion is a good idea. It doesn't stop people obtaining the gem store items.

At this point, you've reached an ends justifying means argument.  That gold/gem conversion should be allowed because it allows people who don't want to or can't spend money to use the gem store.  So its fine if ArenaNet manages to manipulate the economy to make money off those with means instead of time.