Quote:
| Everything about a character is one big BLOB |
Never mind, I give up. I refuse to defend them on anything ever again, because every time I do, I learn something like this.
Boycott the Storage Update!
Ctb
Never mind, I give up. I refuse to defend them on anything ever again, because every time I do, I learn something like this.
Gargle Blaster
new storage tabs are cool but they are not $10.00 worth of cool.
You can get double storage slots with a mule for the same dollar amount.
You can get double storage slots with a mule for the same dollar amount.
Daesu
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lourens
Why are you attacking him? maybe he is right.
|
It doesn't justify why ANet should lower the cost of each slot. In fact, he seems to be suggesting that the gross profit has to be enough to cover the overheads too.
If the demand for the slots is high enough (and I dont mean just the small gamer population on this thread), that justifies a higher cost for each slot. ANet probably looked at the numbers and made an informed decision already.
For those who prefers the cheaper option of another account, then go for it. Some people have the money and dont really care to transfer items across accounts.
Makkert
/NOT signed for obvious reasons.
Targren
Quote:
|
If the demand for the slots is high enough (and I dont mean just the small gamer population on this thread), that justifies a higher cost for each slot. ANet probably looked at the numbers and made an informed decision already. For those who prefers the cheaper option of another account, then go for it. Some people have the money and dont really care to transfer items across accounts. |
Fates
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Targren
Already have. ordered 2 factions boxes from newegg for $9.99 ea. Part of the reason I have the money is because I know how to get the most value out of it. My PC is 3 years old (Rebuilt to play oblivion. Waste of money that was. :P) and can run GWx2 just fine, so yeah. For me, the accounts were better value.
|
Daesu
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Targren
Already have. ordered 2 factions boxes from newegg for $9.99 ea. Part of the reason I have the money is because I know how to get the most value out of it. My PC is 3 years old (Rebuilt to play oblivion. Waste of money that was. :P) and can run GWx2 just fine, so yeah. For me, the accounts were better value.
|
It is just dumb to "hate" ANet for this and boycott, when you can already order a new account from egghead.
king swift
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gun Pierson
You know what would be funny? Anet reacting with: 'We drop the project alltogether, forget about the April update, we'll continue with next month's skill balance'
|
Anduril_0923
So, I clicked on this forum thread because I was interested to see what the consensus might be on the guru community regarding the planned price of the additional storage tabs they are releasing. Little did I know I would also get such a high level of entertainment from Orange Milk and Targren.
On point, I actually agree with both sides of the debate. $9.99 seems a little steep for the amount of value you're getting. However, I also will probably purchase them anyway, if only for my main account. It's a total outlay of $30, after the promotional one. While I think A-net was a little silly in charging for it, I also understand the need to recoup some costs and maintain some level of viability in the revenue stream.
Having recently started my own business, I know that overhead is paid for regardless of whether there is income by making use of business loans or some other source of liquidity. Any *good* business has some amount of liquid assets to support themselves in the event there is no income. How else do you think a development team (like the one for GW2) gets paid?
While overhead is taken into consideration in developing a business model, it generally does not dictate the price of the product/service being offered because there would be no way to definitively say how many of a particular unit might be sold. Theoretically, if your sales had to pay for your overhead, you'd set your price at the amount of your overhead just to make that amount back. But then no one would buy it.
Long story short: a good business model takes total cost of operation into account when pricing a product, but there's also consideration of market demand, viability, and 'value' (as nebulous as that term is). Essentially, if ANet wanted to recoup the costs incurred in developing the upcoming update, they would charge for the whole works. You think Linsey works for free?
On point, I actually agree with both sides of the debate. $9.99 seems a little steep for the amount of value you're getting. However, I also will probably purchase them anyway, if only for my main account. It's a total outlay of $30, after the promotional one. While I think A-net was a little silly in charging for it, I also understand the need to recoup some costs and maintain some level of viability in the revenue stream.
Having recently started my own business, I know that overhead is paid for regardless of whether there is income by making use of business loans or some other source of liquidity. Any *good* business has some amount of liquid assets to support themselves in the event there is no income. How else do you think a development team (like the one for GW2) gets paid?
While overhead is taken into consideration in developing a business model, it generally does not dictate the price of the product/service being offered because there would be no way to definitively say how many of a particular unit might be sold. Theoretically, if your sales had to pay for your overhead, you'd set your price at the amount of your overhead just to make that amount back. But then no one would buy it.
Long story short: a good business model takes total cost of operation into account when pricing a product, but there's also consideration of market demand, viability, and 'value' (as nebulous as that term is). Essentially, if ANet wanted to recoup the costs incurred in developing the upcoming update, they would charge for the whole works. You think Linsey works for free?
Shasgaliel
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ctb
Well, that explains why changing storage is so difficult.
Never mind, I give up. I refuse to defend them on anything ever again, because every time I do, I learn something like this. |
Targren
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Orange Milk
I can see that you are good with your money by the fact that you waste it.
WAIT! WHAT? |
Rather than let it go to waste though, I took that gaming tank, I picked up GW. 8000 hours later...
Targren
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shasgaliel
I was also surprised when I read about it from the link on the previous page. When I was studying SQL databases I was told not to use BLOBs unless there is no other option. Now I understand some of the explanations from Gaile and Regina that something we thought is fast and easy is actually very hard to implement.
|
Oh... my... gods... I'm now surprised the game's as stable as it is... I just died a little inside.
Daesu
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Anduril_0923
While overhead is taken into consideration in developing a business model, it generally does not dictate the price of the product/service being offered because there would be no way to definitively say how many of a particular unit might be sold.
|
Quote:
| Theoretically, if your sales had to pay for your overhead, you'd set your price at the amount of your overhead just to make that amount back. But then no one would buy it. |
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
Anet Monday briefing, 13/04/2009, 8:00:
Mike O'brien: ok guys, big news, I decided we're going to give away the additional extra storage for FREE, as our reasonable customers expect. James (from the finance department): Wait, but, but... Mike O'brien: yes James, it means we'll make a loss on it so this means... James: we're not getting paid this month? Linsey, Regina, Martin: WHAT??!!?? James: ok ok let's calm down, what about $5 a pane? Mike: well you'd all get half your salary but I'm afraid we'd break the trust of our customers who expect us to deliver everything completely free Regina: I can already see the thread on Guru... Linsey: I <3 this game but, hmmm... Martin: I just moved to Seattle! Mike: well I'm sorry guys, we can't afford to loose our customer's trust, read the threads on Guru and you'll understand what I mean Linsey, Regina, Martin: GURU??!!?? |
Anet Monday briefing, 13/04/2009, 8:00:
Mike O'brien: ok guys, big news, I decided we're going to give away some additional storage, as our reasonable customers expect.
James (from the finance department): Sounds good, we have a nice profit from our loyal fans already and this will keep them loyal in the future for even more profit.
Mike O'brien: yes James, we may a very minor short term hit for a larger long term gain but it will be well worth it when our customers know that we take pride in making quality games with as minimal shortcomings as possible.
James: and we will still get paid this month due to the success that GW1 remains in terms of unit sales, as well as the sale of everything else in our store.
Linsey, Regina, Martin: Sounds great! I love working at this company!
James: ok ok wait a second I was thinking, what about $10 or $5 a pane? We should get something out of this right?
Mike: First of all, $10 is ridiculously stupid. As for $5, I'm afraid we'd break the trust of our customers who expect us to deliver updates that rid them of game shortcomings. Fans have been asking for this for years, and to charge them would be a disgrace to them. UAX should have always been free as well but since we screwed that up its too late to go back as it would piss off everybody who already bought UAX. I don't want to make the same mistake selling extra storage.
Regina: I can already see the thread on Guru if we tried to sell extra storage. I wouldn't be able to respond to the legitimate criticism of that.
Linsey: I <3 this game and this company!!!!!!!
Martin: I just moved to Seattle! I'm so happy!
Mike: we can't afford to loose our customer's trust, read the threads on Guru and you'll understand what I mean
Linsey, Regina, Martin: We agree! Guru is one of the more respected fan sites and contains many loyal customers. We value their opinion on the matter.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
Same question as to DreamWind (not answered yet?): what kind of game advantage does the Xunlai chest panes give you?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eht123
Here's how it works: If you don't like it, don't buy it. Pretty simple, really.
|
Lastly, I am getting kicks out of the fact that I agree with Yawgmoth, Bryant, and Red Sonya in this thread (of which at least 2 I have strongly disagreed with in the past). Maybe everybody is slowly starting to see the light that I have seen for years...Anet's slow but drastic turn for the worse.
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
It gives the obvious advantage of you being able to hold more than me.
|
EDIT: P.S.: Do you still play the game? And would you buy one pane at $5? (just for my information)
Daesu
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
Maybe everybody is slowly starting to see the light that I have seen for years...Anet's slow but drastic turn for the worse.
|
Even though they are working on GW2, GW2 is a new game and whether it would be as successful as GW1 or not, remains to be seen. They would probably want to reduce risks there too.
I find it wierd that some people here want everything to free free free without working for it. Maybe you should sign up to be a GW2 game tester/dev and work for free, in exchange for all free game content.
In the real world, if price of something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Targren
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
Can you give me examples of how this affect the game, rather than its economy? Because Xunlai chest panes are accessed in towns/outposts where we don't play the game. You may see something that I don't see.
|
Permasin heads out to Jaga. Fills up 2 stacks of bunnies and a 40 unid golds. Oh no! She only has 4 panels, three are filled up! Better go to Kamadan and spam for 40 minutes to sell half of them off...
vs.
Drop the gold on the new panes. Return to farming. Mo money mo money mo money...
Honestly, that's what annoyed me. Ended up two-boxing, selling the golds with a mule on the 2nd acct so I could go back to farming.
Not that I call that an "advantage", per se, other than being able to spend more time farming on the weekends, but it does effect how much time you spend in the field, playing as opposed to in an outpost.
Targren
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Daesu
Maybe you should sign up to be a GW2 game tester/dev and work for free, in exchange for all free game content.
|
Hand me the pen and the contract. I'm in.
Daesu
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Targren
Only way I can think of is farming. Take the recent easter weekend for instance...
Permasin heads out to Jaga. Fills up 2 stacks of bunnies and a 40 unid golds. Oh no! She only has 4 panels, three are filled up! Better go to Kamadan and spam for 40 minutes to sell half of them off... |
Actually I think getting a new account that cheap, along with zkeys would be unfair to those who buy storage slots. Which do you think affects the game more?
Targren
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Daesu
You can just pay $10 and get a new account with even MORE storage space, problem solved!
|
Daesu
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Targren
S'what I did. Plus I get 4 slots for Bday gifts, and extra zkeys. ^_^
|
Targren
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Daesu
I think that cheaper option is alot more game breaking than the slots. And the cheek of some people complaining about the price of the slots, when they themselves are exploiting the game. That sounds hypocritical.
|
I fail to see the hypocrisy in it though?
Jaran Cell
You'r all making this way too complicated.
The question isn't if Arena-net is trying to screw you over with "super high" storage prices.
10$ isn't much, I'm a rather poor student I could afford a couple of these without any problems.
The real question is if you'r prepared to pay 10$ for a couple of extra slots in a virtual chest to store your virtual items in Arena-nets virtual world.
I'd rather have a pizza or take my gf out to see a movie but you guys can do whatever you want.
Peace ^^
The question isn't if Arena-net is trying to screw you over with "super high" storage prices.
10$ isn't much, I'm a rather poor student I could afford a couple of these without any problems.
The real question is if you'r prepared to pay 10$ for a couple of extra slots in a virtual chest to store your virtual items in Arena-nets virtual world.
I'd rather have a pizza or take my gf out to see a movie but you guys can do whatever you want.
Peace ^^
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Targren
Not that I call that an "advantage", per se, other than being able to spend more time farming on the weekends
|
To the point: farming is done for getting the vanity items or the titles via money (not the SS/LB/EotN factions), I don't consider them part of the game (and don't think DreamWind and Bryant Again do). So no advantage? I'm back to the point where we're talking convenience, not advantage. Unless you see the fact of "having more" an advantage simply because there's the word "more", I mean the dictionary definition of "advantage" allows that, but I thought we meant "advantage" like "beating the game faster".
Targren
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
To the point: farming is done for getting the vanity items or the titles via money (not the SS/LB/EotN factions), I don't consider them part of the game (and don't think DreamWind and Bryant Again do). So no advantage? I'm back to the point where we're talking convenience, not advantage. Unless you see the fact of "having more" an advantage simply because there's the word "more", I mean the dictionary definition of "advantage" allows that, but I thought we meant "advantage" like "beating the game faster".
|
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
Can you give me examples of how this affect the game, rather than its economy? Because Xunlai chest panes are accessed in towns/outposts where we don't play the game. You may see something that I don't see.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
EDIT: P.S.: Do you still play the game? And would you buy one pane at $5? (just for my information)[/I]
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Daesu
I find it wierd that some people here want everything to free free free without working for it. Maybe you should sign up to be a GW2 game tester/dev and work for free, in exchange for all free game content.
|
Gli
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
There are some things that should be given for free without working...example being UAX (and Anet agrees as they are doing so in GW2). Almost everybody knows that having to work for UAX or having to buy it has always been a stupid idea. The sad part is a lot of people still bought UAX so they didn't have to work, even though the entire concept of buying something that should be free is ridiculous. Does that make it right? Extra storage to me falls right into this category. Honestly this is like attribute refund points still existing and they gave you the $10 option to have infinite of them. There is a big difference between selling a convience and selling the removal of a game inadequacy.
|
You're saying the amount they picked is an inadequate amount, others find it just fine. Your opinion has no factual basis, there's no inadequacy.
Daesu
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
I'm talking about advantages between players, not affects on the game. If somebody spends money they can have a game advantage over me. They can hold more. They can get more keys. Etc. As minimal as that might be to you (or me for that matter), it is still a game advantage they shouldn't be allowed to have through those means.
|
Using the "game-breaking" excuse for 3 more storage tabs is ridiculous.
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gli
The amount of storage isn't a game inadequacy. It's a design parameter. It's quite obvious that zero storage wouldn't work for players while unlimited storage won't work for the provider. So, they decided upon a value inbetween.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gli
You're saying the amount they picked is an inadequate amount, others find it just fine. Your opinion has no factual basis, there's no inadequacy.
|
Gli
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
Your scenario is even worse than the one I described, because that means they deliberately chose a low storage value in order to sell more storage to us later. Sounds a lot like those GW2 doom posts I have been reading in this thread may actually come true.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
What others find it just fine? The low amount of storage has probably been the most complained about feature in the history of the game. I rarely play PvE anymore and even I don't have any storage. Character slots are often purchased solely for extra storage. How can you sit here and say there is no inadequacy with a straight face.
|
Targren
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gli
How can you claim there is one? There has never been a storage inadequacy. If there had been, people would've left the game in droves over it. Do you even know the meaning of the word inadequate? 'Inadequate storage' doesn't mean 'less than I would like', it means 'less than I would absolutely need to get by.' And obviously the latter is not the case. |
If everyone felt like they had enough storage, there would not even exist a market for the new panels.
agrios
/not signed.
ANet cant give us freebies for ever. But... I think 10 bucks for a single pane is a bit overpriced imho. I think US$ 5 is a fair price for a single storage pane.
Id gladly pay more than US$10 for other stuff like more PVE content and/or shiny stuff, name/sex change, hair stylist, unlocking equipment skins for PvP chars, etc..
ANet cant give us freebies for ever. But... I think 10 bucks for a single pane is a bit overpriced imho. I think US$ 5 is a fair price for a single storage pane.
Id gladly pay more than US$10 for other stuff like more PVE content and/or shiny stuff, name/sex change, hair stylist, unlocking equipment skins for PvP chars, etc..
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Daesu
Why dont you complain about the price of a new accounts right now? You can hold even MORE and get more zkey in return. That is even more game breaking than the slots so why dont some one start a thread complaining about that?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gli
Seeing as how they had to be goaded on for over a year by the player base before they even considered selling any separate storage in the form of extra character slots, I don't see much merit in your claim. (And that's about par for that course.)
|
This isn't even mentioning the fact that if Anet charged us for all this at the beginning of Guild Wars, there would not be nearly as many players today due to outrage. They waited YEARS to give us extra storage (all the while continually hinting at it) and then finally released it with a charge for all the people who have been waiting. How can you not call this a slap in the face?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gli
How can you claim there is one? There has never been a storage inadequacy. If there had been, people would've left the game in droves over it. Do you even know the meaning of the word inadequate? 'Inadequate storage' doesn't mean 'less than I would like', it means 'less than I would absolutely need to get by.' And obviously the latter is not the case.
|
Gli
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Targren
Using your selected definition of "inadequacy" meaning "bad enough to warrant quitting the game", perhaps. Using a more mainstream definition of "enough", "acceptable", then that's an entirely subjective claim, so claims that your statements are "factual" are false.
If everyone felt like they had enough storage, there would not even exist a market for the new panels. |
To say that storage is inadequate is an exaggeration of subjective experience into fact. 'Acceptable' isn't a more mainstream definition of inadequate. It doesn't even remotely mean the same thing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
The thing is they didn't sell the extra character slots specifically for the storage purposes. Instead many people bought them for the storage purposes. Anet didn't give people what they wanted (more storage) until after they had already bought a bunch of other stuff and now they are charging us again for what was probably the most requested feature to begin with.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
This isn't even mentioning the fact that if Anet charged us for all this at the beginning of Guild Wars, there would not be nearly as many players today due to outrage. They waited YEARS to give us extra storage (all the while continually hinting at it) and then finally released it with a charge for all the people who have been waiting. How can you not call this a slap in the face?
|
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gli
Inadequate means insufficient; not up to the task. It's an absolute. It would be a game breaking condition if storage were inadequate.
To say that storage is inadequate is an exaggeration of subjective experience into fact. 'Acceptable' isn't a more mainstream definition of inadequate. It doesn't even remotely mean the same thing. |
adjective
1. lacking the requisite qualities or resources to meet a task; "inadequate training"; "the staff was inadequate"; "she was unequal to the task" [ant: adequate]
2. not sufficient to meet a need; "an inadequate income"; "a poor salary"; "money is short"; "on short rations"; "food is in short supply"; "short on experience"
I'm sorry, but our definition of inadequate stands. The current storage is very inadequate for a large amount of people as shown by years of complaints. People need more storage to hold their stuff. Anet is selling a way around a game inadequacy.
Gli
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
inadequate:
adjective 1. lacking the requisite qualities or resources to meet a task; "inadequate training"; "the staff was inadequate"; "she was unequal to the task" [ant: adequate] 2. not sufficient to meet a need; "an inadequate income"; "a poor salary"; "money is short"; "on short rations"; "food is in short supply"; "short on experience" I'm sorry, but our definition of inadequate stands. The current storage is very inadequate for a large amount of people as shown by years of complaints. People need more storage to hold their stuff. Anet is selling a way around a game inadequacy. |
Maybe you should give some thought to the idea that the amount of stuff people need to store is a subjective desire and not a defining absolute characteristic? Because if you don't, you'll have to follow your reasoning to the bitter end and conclude that no amount of storage is ever enough to meet everybody's needs. You'll have to keep being argumentative until they offer unlimited storage for free.
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
inadequate:
adjective |
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gli
They're not charging us anything. They're making something available for purchase.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gli
Something that's been available for a long time, in a different form, at a lesser price.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gli
Buy at your leisure, or not if you don't find the luxury worth the price. No reason to raise a shitstorm over it.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gli
It's a luxury option, and it's up to the individual to decide if they find it worth the price. Do you consider it a slap in the face if the manufacturer of your car introduces as smaller, more sleek model that costs more than the one you're driving?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gli
Because if you don't, you'll have to follow your reasoning to the bitter end and conclude that no amount of storage is ever enough to meet everybody's needs.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gli
You'll have to keep being argumentative until they offer unlimited storage for free.
|
White Lies
This is going to sound stupid but: I dont understand whether we have to pay for the armor and equipment stuff (as in it counts as a pane) or not.
If that is the case, i find it absolutly ludicrous that ArenaNet didnt mention before that this update would have a price tag. A LOT of interest was generated with the announcement of this storage update and finding out we have to pay for it nearly at the last minuite, after being told that we would get no skill balance this month because all resources have been diverted to this 'speacial update' is a joke. Also, i noted when i clicked on the link in the first post that they are releasing a new area and some quests and missions aswell. This area of land/quests/ect are free to access. To me it would have made MUCH more sence to have the players pay for that and have the storage update free rather than the otherway around. From what i have seen on these forums especially, people complain(ed) alot more about storage problems than lack of areas and those that seeked these new areas wanted nothing like this. When i was glancing through the article i read 'Zaishen' and 'Pets'. That (in my book at least) means title farmers, PvP and rangers...
Long story short, i feel the interest generated by this update will be lost because of this price tag and that the price tag itself could have easily have been placed on the elements of the update that people DIDNT know about, that were to be announced as fresh stuff now.
Overall, im becoming tiered of GWs and was hoping that this update would refresh my enjoyment of a game i once did enjoy an awefull lot. But it seems not to be...
Just my incoherent thoughts on the matter at hand
~Lies
If that is the case, i find it absolutly ludicrous that ArenaNet didnt mention before that this update would have a price tag. A LOT of interest was generated with the announcement of this storage update and finding out we have to pay for it nearly at the last minuite, after being told that we would get no skill balance this month because all resources have been diverted to this 'speacial update' is a joke. Also, i noted when i clicked on the link in the first post that they are releasing a new area and some quests and missions aswell. This area of land/quests/ect are free to access. To me it would have made MUCH more sence to have the players pay for that and have the storage update free rather than the otherway around. From what i have seen on these forums especially, people complain(ed) alot more about storage problems than lack of areas and those that seeked these new areas wanted nothing like this. When i was glancing through the article i read 'Zaishen' and 'Pets'. That (in my book at least) means title farmers, PvP and rangers...
Long story short, i feel the interest generated by this update will be lost because of this price tag and that the price tag itself could have easily have been placed on the elements of the update that people DIDNT know about, that were to be announced as fresh stuff now.
Overall, im becoming tiered of GWs and was hoping that this update would refresh my enjoyment of a game i once did enjoy an awefull lot. But it seems not to be...
Just my incoherent thoughts on the matter at hand
~Lies
kupp
The storage update is free, so is the equipment tab... The only thing you'll have to pay for is the optional extra storage tabs you can get from the ingame store.