Jump to content

  • Curse Sites


Member Since 31 Aug 2012
Offline Last Active Mar 17 2015 08:58 PM

Topics I've Started

Chris Whiteside Leaving ArenaNet

11 March 2015 - 06:32 PM

Broken here: http://www.mmorpg.co...eaving-ArenaNet

Subreddit thread: http://www.reddit.co...aving_arenanet/

Sony Online Entertainment - All Their Stuff for $15 a Month

29 April 2014 - 01:27 PM


  • EverQuest
  • EverQuest II
  • DC Universe Online
  • PlanetSide 2
  • Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
and the upcoming
  • EverQuest Next
  • Landmark
  • H1Z1

So, can't create new posts in Tyrian Assembly or News

09 April 2014 - 03:26 PM

The buttons don't work.  Noticing distinct differences in the HTML between this forum and Tyrian and News.  Links in the latter two 'return false' on the onclick.

http://www.guildwars...o=new_post&f=24 - returns nothing

Cash->Gem<->Gold Conversion

02 April 2014 - 03:04 PM

Forked from here.  Quoted for context.

View PostMordakai, on 02 April 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:

So, Raspberry brings probably the most controversial aspect of GW2 up:  buying and selling gold through gems.

The argument is that GW2 circumvents "p2win" buy allowing people to buy gems with gold.

For example, I believe buying 800 gem armor with gold is actually cheaper than the high end cultural armor, (can someone do the math and verify?)

The argument is that GW2 allows you to complete your end-game goals for cash.  People keeping muddying the waters with what "p2win" is.  P2Win goes beyond a player-vs-player mindset.  Its just viewed as more "unfair" because it has a direct effect on a competitive environment.  Theoretically there is no competition in PvE, there are however, personal conditions for 'victory' in one player that don't necessarily impact other players.  Completing an item, getting a Legendary.  None of these impact other players in a direct way, affecting their own personal conditions for victory in the PvE game.  This is the essence of "p2win."  To pay to meet whatever victory conditions you've set for yourself.

They do have an indirect effect, which is that they affect game-play development.

The entire point of the argument against any form of micro-transaction game is that it encourages developers design in game-play by encouraging that player tithes be coerced through micro-transactions.  The Candy Crush models.  The Smurf Village model.  "Don't want to wait 24 hour to make progress?  Buy some!"

Its the same logic that drives injecting multi-player into single-player games, because multi-player pulls in the player group that enjoys multi-player as well as justifies further expense in map-packs that all your friends and you have to buy to play together, as well as the Live or Plus subscription if you're on a console.  Not to mention the weapon lockers/crates/boxes what have you, which short-cut an arduous weapon/skill unlocking system that is designed to be arduous to encourage micro-ts.

If only certain conditions are going to drive people to paying cash for gems, that's behavior any business person wants to encourage.

Nexon CEO: " Going after whales is [...] misunderstanding of what [F2P] is"

25 March 2014 - 06:41 PM


Oh lord, it's getting hot up in here.

Re/code: What’s the first step toward finding a better foothold in the West?

Nexon CEO Owen Mahoney: We think there’s a couple things. We’re going to make immersive games that are properly done free-to-play. Free-to-play does not mean “trick your customers into paying you money” or “give them something that is potentially free or supposedly free but, in fact, in order to really enjoy yourself, you have to pay money.” That is not free-to-play. Going after whales is a fundamental misunderstanding of what that really is. Our objective is to bring really good, immersive, synchronous online gameplay to the West. We have to have an infrastructure, an operating team that can execute that as well as we do in Korea, China and Japan, and also we have to have the types of IP that really resonate with Western users.