Endo wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 15:53:
I understand the definition of conjecture perfectly well. You however clearly don't understand the definition of "100%".
But hey, don't believe me. It's really nothing to me whether you do your you don't. You'll see soon enough when the game is released.
Teddy wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 15:38:I understand the definition of conjecture perfectly well. You however clearly don't understand the definition of "100%".
con·jec·ture
   [kuhn-jek-cher] noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
noun
1.
the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2.
an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
3.
Obsolete. the interpretation of signs or omens.
verb (used with object)
4.
to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.
Since you seem to lack an understanding of what conjecture is, I provided a definition for you.
You do not know how much operating costs are, you just declare them "not cheap" and assume that's somehow sufficient proof of your point. You do not know what the costs are, how much of each purchase is put toward those costs, or how those costs scale with population size. Again, the claim that they "have" to cross the line with MT's is 100% conjecture on your part.
Find some actual evidence that anything they're going to offer from MT's is going to detract from anyone's enjoyment of the game, and then I'll have reason to believe you. Until then, you've proven nothing and provided nothing to actually back up your argument outside of your own speculation on vague comments made by the developers.
Endo wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 13:53:Teddy wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 13:39:
That's all very nice, but also 100% conjecture on your part. You have no idea how much anything costs the company or how many sales they require to provide service, or how much they expect to have to make from microtransactions to support the rest of the costs.
As I said, time will tell. Doom and gloom conjecture is neither proof, nor fact.
Not 100% conjecture at all. We know operating costs aren't cheap. We know they're putting in a cash shop with more than what GW1 had, they've already given away that much.
And what makes you think it's doom and gloom? It's simply looking at things realistically. It's certainly not going to drive me away from the game. I've played other cash shop games before, and it's never been the cash shop that caused me to stop. It's always been the gameplay. Personally, I prefer the cash shop model (even if it's somewhat P2W) simply because it lets me keep an account active without paying when I'm not actively playing. Then when I DO play, I can pay to maximize my time. The only time I've ever been pissed off about a cash shop was when City of Heroes went to that model, and they took away perks and chracter slots I'd already paid for.
Alamar wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 14:25:Keilun wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 14:17:
Maybe I didn't explain myself as well as I could have. My point is that, if you earn gold while having fun going about regular in-game activities, is it really a grind?
No more or less than WoW, was the point I was eluding to...
I do really like the idea that everything may be available for gold, but their verbiage is a bit off... If I can unlock extra character slots with gold, even if it costs a 'lot' (subjective term), that's great, because I'm the type that wants to try every class (and never have to delete one).
However, I don't see it strictly stated that you can pay for microtransations with gold, because stuff on the store costs gems, and they state it is a player driven market that allows players to buy gems (with gold), but doesn't strictly say we can buy gems from them with gold. This is only a non-issue if there are always a ton of gems available for a consistent price, which seems unlikely to me (the success of gold selling over the last decade+ might argue with me).
-Alamar
Keilun wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 14:17:
Maybe I didn't explain myself as well as I could have. My point is that, if you earn gold while having fun going about regular in-game activities, is it really a grind?
Alamar wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 12:33:
Your post screams naivety to me... So I may be misunderstanding, but it seems like you're saying WoW can be grindy, but GW2 isn't going to be because you earn gold while playing?
If the costs in GW2 take a day or two each, that might seem reasonable, but once you have to play, at max level, for a week (or play the AH), to buy one measely little item/buff/whatever, that's a whole different thing.
Also, this is the exact style of 'microtransactions' that has made mobile games so much money... You can play and play and play and unlock things as you go, or just pull out some cash and get it NOW... I personally like that the choice is there, but the counter-argument is that the game is purposefully slowed to 'make' people buy the currency instead...
-Alamar
Fion wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 14:05:
So you see, there is a serious difference. RMT has a limited use in GW2 and does not result in a Pay 2 Win situation. RMT in Diablo 3 is just another way for Blizzard to monetize the game and will lead to serious Pay 2 Win situations, especially in PvP.
Fion wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 14:05:
Now, if you can buy them you'll certainly look cooler than the average player, but statistically you will have no advantage what so ever.
Alamar wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 13:58:
I agree with all this... Except, they can sell buffs... We won't know everyone on the store until it's there : )
Do I think a company that isn't adding a gear cycle (at launch) will add buffs to the store, or P2W features at all? No, but if they get bought by Activision, this could totally happen, because Blizzard was a shining beam of holy goodness before they were bought : )
-Alamar
Krovven wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 13:08:
Seriously I need to spell it out? You are in the D3 beta, you should know how the Auction House works. Gold currency and Blizzard Bucks (real money), same thing as Gems in GW2.
Endo wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 13:53:Teddy wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 13:39:
That's all very nice, but also 100% conjecture on your part. You have no idea how much anything costs the company or how many sales they require to provide service, or how much they expect to have to make from microtransactions to support the rest of the costs.
As I said, time will tell. Doom and gloom conjecture is neither proof, nor fact.
Not 100% conjecture at all. We know operating costs aren't cheap. We know they're putting in a cash shop with more than what GW1 had, they've already given away that much.
And what makes you think it's doom and gloom? It's simply looking at things realistically. It's certainly not going to drive me away from the game. I've played other cash shop games before, and it's never been the cash shop that caused me to stop. It's always been the gameplay. Personally, I prefer the cash shop model (even if it's somewhat P2W) simply because it lets me keep an account active without paying when I'm not actively playing. Then when I DO play, I can pay to maximize my time. The only time I've ever been pissed off about a cash shop was when City of Heroes went to that model, and they took away perks and chracter slots I'd already paid for.
Fion wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 13:48:
I think a lot of people are considering the system 'pay 2 win' because if you have money you can buy gems, sell them for gold and buy gear with that gold. But those people aren't thinking clearly about the subject because if they did, they would realize that just isn't the case.
The reason it isn't is because GW2's gear 'progression' is lateral. Anet has stated multiple times that by the time you hit 80 you'll have top end gear or very near it. Whether you get it via dungeons (where you get a token and then turn that token in for a piece of gear), from crafting, from PvP (using Glory), or from World vs World. Top end stats are easy to get to, the progression from there is in getting your hands on some of the rare skins for gear, just like GW2.
Because of this, even if you DID spend $ on gems and sold them, then bought top end gear, you would not have an advantage, simple because every level 80 will have top end gear. It's that simple, so pay 2 win is simply impossible with this system.
I personally like that it's all up to the players how the gem system plays out. What the market prices will be in game for one. The ability to spend gold on them at the trading post, and thus the ability to purchase micro-transactions without spending $. This makes any purchases a 'reward' to Anet, a direct way to help them build future content and expansions, etc. And that is pure win.
Teddy wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 13:39:
That's all very nice, but also 100% conjecture on your part. You have no idea how much anything costs the company or how many sales they require to provide service, or how much they expect to have to make from microtransactions to support the rest of the costs.
As I said, time will tell. Doom and gloom conjecture is neither proof, nor fact.
Krovven wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 13:43:
Probably the same reason you feel compelled to argue with me over a simple statement that doesn't even remotely apply to you.
Verno wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 13:33:
I'm not even sure why you're bothering but whatever
Endo wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 13:16:Teddy wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 13:04:Of course they're going to have to "cross the line" with GW2. It's an actual MMO. It's going to cost a lot more money to run than GW1 does. You say you're still playing GW, how can you not see this? It's the same move as Blizzard going from Diablo 2 to WoW. I fully expect to see most of the standard fare you see in totally F2P MMOs. Going by what other MMOs charge in subscription fees or what they make you want to buy in cash shops, $60 per player should be enough for about 3-6 months, maybe 8 tops. We all know they won't have a new expansion ready by then (and even if they did, expansions aren't cheap to develop either). So with no subscription fee, where the hell do you think the money is going to come from? An extra character slot or recustomization now and then? You know that's not enough revenue to keep things going.
Having played (or rather still playing) the original Guild Wars, I've seen what they did with the microtransactions (MT's) in that and it gives some hope. Most of the MT's in that were related to costumes or polymorphs that had no impact on the game itself. Another big one was the ability to bring one of your previous characters along as a hero character when creating/leveling an alt. The most questionable one was the ability to unlock huge chunks of skills in game, though you still had to spend the time/effort in game to buy them after they were unlocked. It just saved you the grind of running around looking for mobs that had those skills to capture for yourself.
They may cross the line with GW2, but I found what was there in GW1 to be fairly well balanced, nothing that dramatically changed the way you played the game. Most of the things I thought were absurdly overpriced as well, but that's me.
Krovven wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 13:23:
You are really failing to see my point. This implementation of P2W (buying gear with real money) I don't have a problem with as the player can use in-game gold instead. The point is the hypocrisy of some that have been trashing these AH/real money features in D3, praising GW2 and now the same features are being announced in GW2. I've seen it, Don't really care if you haven't.
Which I could care less about, and would lead to even more hypocrisy from those that have a problem with D3 being online required vs GW2 being online required.
Verno wrote on Mar 21, 2012, 13:14:
How exactly does the GW2 implementation turn into P2W?
The common complaint I saw around here was people don't like how its inclusion has caused restrictions to things like offline play which is entirely reasonable.