0.  Upgraded the bank twice via gold in game... and still have plenty left.  Game is kind of boring now though...

I will never pay a dime through microtransactions ever.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by jacklo

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

 

 

So with a normal subscription MMO you'd have brought in $3120 from these people. If you assume best case scenario and they've all just subbed up for month 2 at $15 it would be $3900.

 

 

With GW2 model and this poll and assuming dead center in each choice as the average spent and assuming $300 for the 251+ you end up with: ~$4340 or 1.4x as much money spent over if 100% of the people subbing for a second month in a sub based game.

 

Yes B2P as the future sounds great for gamers...

Seems almost everyone who purchased, bought bag/bank space. Those are really a one-off and I can't see the same spend occuring month after month.

You make some poorly based assumptions.

None of the assumptions are the least bit poorly based. To assume that a company which makes money off a store won't continue to come up with things for people to spend money on would be the poor assumption.

 

Given how many people I saw running around in game with the ridiculous sunglasses and boxing gloves, I would also say people aren't just spending money on bag/bank space.

 

You'll also notice in my assumption I helped the B2P model by assuming a 100% continue to play rate which raises how much the subscription type of game costs. In reality you at best end up with a 50% rate on the first month if not lower which further increases the cost difference between the two models.

 

But be that guy who just says anything anyone says is just wrong if it is at all critical of the game they love.

I don't mind being critical, there's plenty I don't like about GW2.

To jump in and make assumptions based on a poll with only 50 or so votes, seems a bit premature.

My argument still stands and it doesn't matter whether it's GW2 or not, you're talking about the whole B2P model.

The vast majority have spent nothing, some chose to make things easier by buying something they may see as essential, in this case bank and bag space.

If a gamer has disposable income he wants to dispose of to increase his enjoyment, how is that bad for gamers?

It doesn't lessen my enjoyment of the game.

So be that guy who in the absence of a reasonable argument, stoops to the safety zone of calling me a fanboy.

Originally posted by jacklo

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by jacklo

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

 

 

So with a normal subscription MMO you'd have brought in $3120 from these people. If you assume best case scenario and they've all just subbed up for month 2 at $15 it would be $3900.

 

 

With GW2 model and this poll and assuming dead center in each choice as the average spent and assuming $300 for the 251+ you end up with: ~$4340 or 1.4x as much money spent over if 100% of the people subbing for a second month in a sub based game.

 

Yes B2P as the future sounds great for gamers...

Seems almost everyone who purchased, bought bag/bank space. Those are really a one-off and I can't see the same spend occuring month after month.

You make some poorly based assumptions.

None of the assumptions are the least bit poorly based. To assume that a company which makes money off a store won't continue to come up with things for people to spend money on would be the poor assumption.

 

Given how many people I saw running around in game with the ridiculous sunglasses and boxing gloves, I would also say people aren't just spending money on bag/bank space.

 

You'll also notice in my assumption I helped the B2P model by assuming a 100% continue to play rate which raises how much the subscription type of game costs. In reality you at best end up with a 50% rate on the first month if not lower which further increases the cost difference between the two models.

 

But be that guy who just says anything anyone says is just wrong if it is at all critical of the game they love.

I don't mind being critical, there's plenty I don't like about GW2.

To jump in and make assumptions based on a poll with only 50 or so votes, seems a bit premature.

My argument still stands and it doesn't matter whether it's GW2 or not, you're talking about the whole B2P model.

The vast majority have spent nothing, some chose to make things easier by buying something they may see as essential, in this case bank and bag space.

If a gamer has disposable income he wants to dispose of to increase his enjoyment, how is that bad for gamers?

It doesn't lessen my enjoyment of the game.

So be that guy who in the absence of a reasonable argument, stoops to the safety zone of calling me a fanboy.

Yes I "stooped" to anything. I put out data with my reasons. Your rebuttal was "no" followed by sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalala". No rebuttal data, no sources, no studies. Just a "Nuh-huh" response, the lowest form of debate.

As the poll progresses it is actually driving the number up as some of the higher categories previously had no responses but now do yet the 0 percentage is mostly unchanged.

The fact of the matter is average player spending, regardless of individual spending, is higher compared to a subscription model with no store. That is not a good thing for gamers. End of story.

$10 for bank space.

Now that I've played the game for a month, I do think they gimped you on the amount of bank space you are given since it is shared account-wide.

And I already know you can alts to hold items, but, really, nearly every other MMO gives plenty of bank space.  So I think they intentially limited you to pump their cash shop.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

The fact of the matter is average player spending, regardless of individual spending, is higher compared to a subscription model with no store. That is not a good thing for gamers. End of story.

And?  It's their money to spend.  I bought the game and haven't been able to play the past month.  I didn't spend an extra $15 for that time.  Gamers can make up their own minds.  End of story.

Originally posted by Eir_S

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

The fact of the matter is average player spending, regardless of individual spending, is higher compared to a subscription model with no store. That is not a good thing for gamers. End of story.

And?  It's their money to spend.  I bought the game and haven't been able to play the past month.  I didn't spend an extra $15 for that time.  Gamers can make up their own minds.  End of story.

If a game has 1 million players and an average cost of $15 per gamer (aka sub model) it is a cost to all gamers of $15 million for a month of that game.

If the same game has 1 million players and an average cost of $21 per gamer it is a cost to all gamers of $21 million for a month of that game.

That means the company just got to profit more on the same amount of work and that is spread down to the gamers themselves. Some will pay more directly out of pocket, others will have to grind more to compete with those who paid more and in the end everyone does/pays more to be exactly how they would have been in the other model.

It has absolutely nothing to do with 1 gamer spending $200 of his/her own money. In the end when a game cost a collective group more for the same amount of stuff it is bad for that group. Of course the people who don't understand that are the ones who are repeatedly helping that same company rip off customers more.

I won't bother trying to explain it beyond that. I'll come back in 5 years and try to point it out when people wonder why it feels so expensive to play games in the future as the trend continues.

Same ones who are cutting out basic things in their lives to pay the higher and higher cell phone bills as the companies figure out how to exploit people more and more and yet those people never stop paying/downgrade to minimums to send a message. Best part is those phone companies don't even try to hide what they're doing and flat out say they think they can make people pay more for the same service. Pretty some certain game companies will realize they can be upfront about what they're doing because people will just pay anyways.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by jacklo

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by jacklo

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

 

 

So with a normal subscription MMO you'd have brought in $3120 from these people. If you assume best case scenario and they've all just subbed up for month 2 at $15 it would be $3900.

 

 

With GW2 model and this poll and assuming dead center in each choice as the average spent and assuming $300 for the 251+ you end up with: ~$4340 or 1.4x as much money spent over if 100% of the people subbing for a second month in a sub based game.

 

Yes B2P as the future sounds great for gamers...

Seems almost everyone who purchased, bought bag/bank space. Those are really a one-off and I can't see the same spend occuring month after month.

You make some poorly based assumptions.

None of the assumptions are the least bit poorly based. To assume that a company which makes money off a store won't continue to come up with things for people to spend money on would be the poor assumption.

 

Given how many people I saw running around in game with the ridiculous sunglasses and boxing gloves, I would also say people aren't just spending money on bag/bank space.

 

You'll also notice in my assumption I helped the B2P model by assuming a 100% continue to play rate which raises how much the subscription type of game costs. In reality you at best end up with a 50% rate on the first month if not lower which further increases the cost difference between the two models.

 

But be that guy who just says anything anyone says is just wrong if it is at all critical of the game they love.

I don't mind being critical, there's plenty I don't like about GW2.

To jump in and make assumptions based on a poll with only 50 or so votes, seems a bit premature.

My argument still stands and it doesn't matter whether it's GW2 or not, you're talking about the whole B2P model.

The vast majority have spent nothing, some chose to make things easier by buying something they may see as essential, in this case bank and bag space.

If a gamer has disposable income he wants to dispose of to increase his enjoyment, how is that bad for gamers?

It doesn't lessen my enjoyment of the game.

So be that guy who in the absence of a reasonable argument, stoops to the safety zone of calling me a fanboy.

Yes I "stooped" to anything. I put out data with my reasons. Your rebuttal was "no" followed by sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalala". No rebuttal data, no sources, no studies. Just a "Nuh-huh" response, the lowest form of debate.

 

As the poll progresses it is actually driving the number up as some of the higher categories previously had no responses but now do yet the 0 percentage is mostly unchanged.

 

The fact of the matter is average player spending, regardless of individual spending, is higher compared to a subscription model with no store. That is not a good thing for gamers. End of story.

Data?

Clearly you have no idea about data and how to properly analyse it.

How can you assume the same monthly spend, when all that this data shows is that a small percentage of people bought a one-off item early in the game.

Moreso, how does this equate to being bad for gamers?

It will certainly save me some cash because I have no intention of spending on vanity items or things I can get in-game anyway - as seems to be the case with most people who have replied here.

I hope Arenanet do make more money from the cash shop to support their game and business, but at least it will come from those who can afford it and choose to go that route.

spend 10$ in the shop. 

bought over 3000 gems with in game gold.