Originally posted by Brewsir

Originally posted by GoldenArrow

Monthly subs hands down. It's a lot more player friendly as it offers balanced enviroment and gives the company a solid stream of revenue which allows them to plan their updates/expansion better ahead.

F2P/B2P games with cash shop is just greedy scheme to drain the money out of the gamers pockets. I've spent around 200€'s on League of Legends (F2P) and nothing even remotely compares to that. Lifetime account for Lotro was around 130$ and that's a lot bang for your buck :j

Ok, maybe it's the new math, or something, but, let me get this straight.

Company A, forces you to buy the box $50, and then forces you to pay a sub $15 per month, ($210 for the first year of play)

Company B, forces you to buy the box $60, ($60 for the first year of play) and then offers you the OPTION to buy things YOU MAY OR MAY NOT WANT, from it's shop.  Therefore, company B has a "greedy scheme to drain the money out of the gamers pockets".   I just can't grasp this logic.  Is it the freedom to choose whether to spend the extra money in Company B's shop?  Is there some kind of evil reverse psychology at play here that's not immediately apparent to lesser minds like mine?

That would fine, if Company B had not bragged about how every other company are doing things wrong and claimed that Company A is greedy for forcing you to pay the sub, while in fact Company B's is not significantely money-wise different in the end. The lower boundary was decreased, but at the same time the upper boundary was increased. 

Originally posted by whisperwynd

Originally posted by Madimorga

We're all speculating, but it does relate to it.  I'm not willing to maintain a bunch of guilds with a high tax by farming gold, and I'm even less eager to maintain it with my wallet, nor do I think influence and gold should have anything to do with each other since it affects WvW.

Sorry to burst your bubble but every game has the gold creates advantage scenario. Everyone of them. Even TSW will.

The guild mechanics are in place to have players sculpt their guilds and therefor server pride in WvW.  No game can effectively cut off outside influence on the fairness.

Speculating is fine but harping on a topic is no longer speculating, it's rumormongering. Debating opinion is fine but becomes invalid when supposition is used to attempt at bolstering said point of view.

Which was my point all along.  If gold creates an advantage that can be used against other players (and in pvp it certainly can), then being able to buy gold with gems bought with cash means your wallet can give an advantage.

Originally posted by Madimorga

Which was my point all along.  If gold creates an advantage that can be used against other players (and in pvp it certainly can), then being able to buy gold with gems bought with cash means your wallet can give an advantage.

 

 

So can all other mmo's out there. Must mean we'll never be seeing you in any further Mmo. Right?! 

Originally posted by whisperwynd

Originally posted by Madimorga

Which was my point all along.  If gold creates an advantage that can be used against other players (and in pvp it certainly can), then being able to buy gold with gems bought with cash means your wallet can give an advantage.

 

 

So can all other mmo's out there. Must mean we'll never be seeing you in any further Mmo. Right?! 

Not without risking a ban they can't.  Or risking their account by buying from gold farmers.  And don't get cheeky with me just because you had to concede your point.   

Originally posted by whisperwynd

Originally posted by Madimorga

Which was my point all along.  If gold creates an advantage that can be used against other players (and in pvp it certainly can), then being able to buy gold with gems bought with cash means your wallet can give an advantage.

 

 

So can all other mmo's out there. Must mean we'll never be seeing you in any further Mmo. Right?! 

Not every mmo allows legal RMT. It is also not necessary for them to allow it.

Originally posted by InFaVilla

Originally posted by Brewsir

Originally posted by GoldenArrow

Monthly subs hands down. It's a lot more player friendly as it offers balanced enviroment and gives the company a solid stream of revenue which allows them to plan their updates/expansion better ahead.

F2P/B2P games with cash shop is just greedy scheme to drain the money out of the gamers pockets. I've spent around 200€'s on League of Legends (F2P) and nothing even remotely compares to that. Lifetime account for Lotro was around 130$ and that's a lot bang for your buck :j

Ok, maybe it's the new math, or something, but, let me get this straight.

Company A, forces you to buy the box $50, and then forces you to pay a sub $15 per month, ($210 for the first year of play)

Company B, forces you to buy the box $60, ($60 for the first year of play) and then offers you the OPTION to buy things YOU MAY OR MAY NOT WANT, from it's shop.  Therefore, company B has a "greedy scheme to drain the money out of the gamers pockets".   I just can't grasp this logic.  Is it the freedom to choose whether to spend the extra money in Company B's shop?  Is there some kind of evil reverse psychology at play here that's not immediately apparent to lesser minds like mine?

 

That would fine, if Company B had not bragged about how every other company are doing things wrong and claimed that Company A is greedy for forcing you to pay the sub, while in fact Company B's is not significantely money-wise different in the end. The lower boundary was decreased, but at the same time the upper boundary was increased. 

 

As games with a subscription fee also feature a cash shop, the upper boundary was not increased. Also, it doesn't matter even if, if people want to spend money, let them. I mean, you all want to spend $180 each year and many stated they actually like to buy something in the cash shop. Wheres the problem then? Lower boundary lowered for those that don't want to spend much, the rest is fine. Unless you can not control yourself, like it's the case for many people with gambling. Maybe what MMOs really need is a limit of how much you can spend per month/year?

Originally posted by InFaVilla

So can all other mmo's out there. Must mean we'll never be seeing you in any further Mmo. Right?! 

Not every mmo allows legal RMT. It is also not necessary for them to allow it.

No, but Anet did and they weren't forced to put it in. Just as you're not forced to buy anything from it.

Originally posted by Anireth

 

As games with a subscription fee also feature a cash shop, the upper boundary was not increased. Also, it doesn't matter even if, if people want to spend money, let them. I mean, you all want to spend $180 each year and many stated they actually like to buy something in the cash shop. Wheres the problem then? Lower boundary lowered for those that don't want to spend much, the rest is fine. Unless you can not control yourself, like it's the case for many people with gambling. Maybe what MMOs really need is a limit of how much you can spend per month/year?

The problem is that I never wanted to be able to buy gems that could be traded for in game currency and I don't want anyone else to be able to, either.

Originally posted by whisperwynd

Originally posted by InFaVilla

So can all other mmo's out there. Must mean we'll never be seeing you in any further Mmo. Right?! 

Not every mmo allows legal RMT. It is also not necessary for them to allow it.

No, but Anet did and they weren't forced to put it in. Just as you're not forced to buy anything from it.

But we are going to be forced to share the game with people who do buy from it.  That is the problem.

Originally posted by KingGator

Cash shop always leads to pay 2 win in my experien, you guys say it wasn'

t like that in gw1, but from what i've seen available now already its leaning slightly toward pay to win. And that's why most of us favor sub games. It isn't that i am worried about ME spending too much in cash shop and not making the rent, but someone with more money than sense "buying" their way to superiority.

 

This is just my opinion, i was excited abnout this game, i MIGHT still try it, but pay 2 win will run me off quickly.

So what's in GW1 CS that is P2W?

PvP item unlock pack? - Takes 10 minutes to get an upgrade set you need through normal play. PvPers will unlock things as they go regardless of if they need it. only useful for PvP, PvE is completely seperated from this pack.

PvP access kit? - Grants access to all PvP areas. again PvE is not affected. and you don't win anything by getting access to all PvP areas

Skill unlock packs for each of the campaigns? -  unlocks all skill for their respective campaign. PvPers have access to them right away. PvE characters need to buy tomes ingame to access the unlocked skills. Or they can play through the campaigns to get them normally.

The PvP packs only grants these things for PvP only characters 

Pet Unlock pack? - Pets are easy to obtain and the elite ones aren't included in the pack

Mercenary hero packs? - They are basically upgraded heroes. Only difference is that they have their own weapon and armor sets. This makes them slightly more effective. Mainly to make PvE slightly easier

Mission Bonus Pack? - Promotional bonus pack that was first offered to people who preordered a certain campaign through the ncsoft store. Was added due to demand much later. It only contains short back story missions with unique weapons 

The rest is fluff vanity stuff.

So what is leaning towards P2W, what gives players an edge over other players? The Mercenary packs? Heroes or even Henchmen work just as well.

I have my doubts about gems and the ingame economy, but that will not stop me from buying gems to use later on for hopefully expansions. Yes if all goes well I won't spend a dime extra  on GW2 after the initial boxprice with the system they want to implement. That is Play to Win in my book.

Wow, this thread has gotten crazy.  My original point was that I would rather give ArenaNet $15 a month rather than have the game and it's economy influenced by microtransactions in the cash shop. 

I also think that it puts an asterisk next to many achievements because people will never know if you truly worked hard or simply bought stuff in the cash shop.

Originally posted by Madimorga

Originally posted by Anireth

 

As games with a subscription fee also feature a cash shop, the upper boundary was not increased. Also, it doesn't matter even if, if people want to spend money, let them. I mean, you all want to spend $180 each year and many stated they actually like to buy something in the cash shop. Wheres the problem then? Lower boundary lowered for those that don't want to spend much, the rest is fine. Unless you can not control yourself, like it's the case for many people with gambling. Maybe what MMOs really need is a limit of how much you can spend per month/year?

The problem is that I never wanted to be able to buy gems that could be traded for in game currency and I don't want anyone else to be able to, either.

 

That really is the problem; the basis of most arguments on these boards. Different people want different things. Sometimes those things are polar opposites.

Who wins?

Originally posted by Madimorga

Originally posted by whisperwynd
 

So can all other mmo's out there. Must mean we'll never be seeing you in any further Mmo. Right?! 

Not without risking a ban they can't.  Or risking their account by buying from gold farmers.  And don't get cheeky with me just because you had to concede your point.   

Well I apologize if it sounded negative. It wasn't meant as such, just a little sardonic comment at the possible logical conclusion. Certainly doesn't mean it's valid.

As for the bans, whether or not the companies are really doing it, it hasn't stopped the gold selling industry one iota as they probably make more revenue than all the mmo's combined.

Originally posted by Madimorga

Originally posted by whisperwynd

Originally posted by InFaVilla

So can all other mmo's out there. Must mean we'll never be seeing you in any further Mmo. Right?! 

Not every mmo allows legal RMT. It is also not necessary for them to allow it.

No, but Anet did and they weren't forced to put it in. Just as you're not forced to buy anything from it.

But we are going to be forced to share the game with people who do buy from it.  That is the problem.

Precisely!

In a game such as SWTOR, which is just a glorified Co-op/single player game with online chat, I wouldn't really care about what everyone else was doing. However, GW2 is supposed to be about the community and your world against the rest. We are supposed to bond within our world and therefore you can't just ignore what everyone else does in your world; it would go against the whole point.

Originally posted by whisperwynd

Originally posted by Madimorga

Originally posted by whisperwynd
 

So can all other mmo's out there. Must mean we'll never be seeing you in any further Mmo. Right?! 

Not without risking a ban they can't.  Or risking their account by buying from gold farmers.  And don't get cheeky with me just because you had to concede your point.   

Well I apologize if it sounded negative. It wasn't meant as such, just a little sardonic comment at the possible logical conclusion. Certainly doesn't mean it's valid.

As for the bans, whether or not the companies are really doing it, it hasn't stopped the gold selling industry one iota as they probably make more revenue than all the mmo's combined.

Ooops, I wasn't mad, just being a bit silly back at you.

You're right, bans aren't nearly as common as they should be, although I laugh whenever someone gets their account stolen because they bought gold. 

As I said before, I was hoping the no sub fee would make it more likely that Anet would ban the hell out of these idiot gold buyers as well as sellers.  I sure didn't expect to see what boils down to sanctioned gold buying and farming.  I realize it's not a big deal to some people, but that is a big deal to me. 

Originally posted by Anireth

 

As games with a subscription fee also feature a cash shop, the upper boundary was not increased. Also, it doesn't matter even if, if people want to spend money, let them. I mean, you all want to spend $180 each year and many stated they actually like to buy something in the cash shop. Wheres the problem then? Lower boundary lowered for those that don't want to spend much, the rest is fine. Unless you can not control yourself, like it's the case for many people with gambling. Maybe what MMOs really need is a limit of how much you can spend per month/year?

Not all sub based games have a cash shop. Many do though, and those are even worse than this. So what makes you think people who have a problem with this would go to one of those games?

Originally posted by Madimorga

Originally posted by whisperwynd
 

No, but Anet did and they weren't forced to put it in. Just as you're not forced to buy anything from it.

But we are going to be forced to share the game with people who do buy from it.  That is the problem.

Again, just like every other mmo out there. The problem is illusionary since it prevalent in all games. The belief that the banhammer shall drop on all transgressors is sadly misguided by the sheer fact of the profitability of gold-selling.

Those willing to risk a ban to be Epic shall do so because they'll just buy another copy of the game and do it again.

Originally posted by Anireth

Originally posted by InFaVilla

Originally posted by Brewsir

(quotes)

 

That would fine, if Company B had not bragged about how every other company are doing things wrong and claimed that Company A is greedy for forcing you to pay the sub, while in fact Company B's is not significantely money-wise different in the end. The lower boundary was decreased, but at the same time the upper boundary was increased. 

 

As games with a subscription fee also feature a cash shop, the upper boundary was not increased. Also, it doesn't matter even if, if people want to spend money, let them. I mean, you all want to spend $180 each year and many stated they actually like to buy something in the cash shop. Wheres the problem then? Lower boundary lowered for those that don't want to spend much, the rest is fine. Unless you can not control yourself, like it's the case for many people with gambling. Maybe what MMOs really need is a limit of how much you can spend per month/year?

It is nowadays a norm among p2p games to have a such large selection of "convenience" as GW2 intends to offer? I remember that not much time has gone since people were up in arms about p2p games including non-cosmetic items in their item malls. 

If Arenanet was really comparing themselves with p2p games with an extensive item mall, then yes, the upper boundary was not raised. I really hope that was not what they were comparing themselves to. 

Originally posted by InFaVilla

Originally posted by Brewsir

Originally posted by GoldenArrow

Monthly subs hands down. It's a lot more player friendly as it offers balanced enviroment and gives the company a solid stream of revenue which allows them to plan their updates/expansion better ahead.

F2P/B2P games with cash shop is just greedy scheme to drain the money out of the gamers pockets. I've spent around 200€'s on League of Legends (F2P) and nothing even remotely compares to that. Lifetime account for Lotro was around 130$ and that's a lot bang for your buck :j

Ok, maybe it's the new math, or something, but, let me get this straight.

Company A, forces you to buy the box $50, and then forces you to pay a sub $15 per month, ($210 for the first year of play)

Company B, forces you to buy the box $60, ($60 for the first year of play) and then offers you the OPTION to buy things YOU MAY OR MAY NOT WANT, from it's shop.  Therefore, company B has a "greedy scheme to drain the money out of the gamers pockets".   I just can't grasp this logic.  Is it the freedom to choose whether to spend the extra money in Company B's shop?  Is there some kind of evil reverse psychology at play here that's not immediately apparent to lesser minds like mine?

 

That would fine, if Company B had not bragged about how every other company are doing things wrong and claimed that Company A is greedy for forcing you to pay the sub, while in fact Company B's is not significantely money-wise different in the end. The lower boundary was decreased, but at the same time the upper boundary was increased. 

 

Did the word "Optional" get removed from the english language? I think it's still with us, just a sec...............I knew it, it's still in the dictionary

Originally posted by InFaVilla

Originally posted by Madimorga

Originally posted by whisperwynd

Originally posted by InFaVilla

So can all other mmo's out there. Must mean we'll never be seeing you in any further Mmo. Right?! 

Not every mmo allows legal RMT. It is also not necessary for them to allow it.

No, but Anet did and they weren't forced to put it in. Just as you're not forced to buy anything from it.

But we are going to be forced to share the game with people who do buy from it.  That is the problem.

 

Precisely!

In a game such as SWTOR, which is just a glorified Co-op/single player game with online chat, I wouldn't really care about what everyone else was doing. However, GW2 is supposed to be about the community and your world against the rest. We are supposed to bond within our world and therefore you can't just ignore what everyone else does in your world; it would go against the whole point.

 

Yes, and although it is in a way my choice, so in a way my fault, this system is probably going to make me far less generous than I usually am in MMOs with my time, extra gear, and gold.  I usually delight in giving things away and helping other players, but I don't see that happening in a game where I feel driven to compete with people's wallets and put up with what will probably be a terribly inflated economy.