Boycott the Storage Update!

I hope you dorks do boycott the fee. I really do, because once all you freeloaders dry up and blow way the people like me that are willing to pay for addons or content can better influence the direction on the game.

You have one group that doesnt want to pay for anything no matter how small and you have one group that would be willing to pay a price for certain things. Who do you think the company is going to listen to? So go ahead and complain, I'll still be here when you dorks get priced out.

In what sense is it "optional"?

Is it optional in the sense that exactly nothing will happen if I purchase it? That nothing will happen if I *do* purchase it?

Or is it more optional in a similar sense that say an overpowered skill is optional, and that we don't have to use it if we don't like it?

The problem is that one of the above is faulty.

Now here's the funny thing: Yes, you will be "disadvantaged", in a sense, if you don't buy it because you'll be able to carry less stuff. But the other side is that most of the "stuff" in this game is optional, unless you're hoarding mass loads of consumables.

/dontcare
$10 usd i can afford,
dont have a credit card so i dont really care.
those who buy it want it
those who dont buy it either cant, or dont want it, or a sulking that we didnt just get given it,

get over it,

read the whole post I bought a lot of stuffs from their online store FYI but this situation is different. I even wear guild wars t-shirt (size is too big lol, don't know how to return, :P)

btw, I keep forgetting, a question to all those players who think they are responsible to "fund for the development of GW2".

Do you have NCsoft or ArenaNet shares/stocks?

I'll be saying thank you to ANet for the free pane, and get back to working on gw2.

I did. I'm still recovering from it. I still can't get over this little gem:

I believe you'll find the majority of MMOs change this little thing called a monthly subscription which covers updates among other things. Many other programs charge for updates, often by switching up a version number and ceasing support of previous versions. Anti virus software in particular tends to require subscriptions for continuing updates. At any rate ANet aren't charging for an update - the update is the ability to buy extra storage tabs if desired.

To me the storage pane purchase situation seems directly comparable with the selling of character slots, so beyond arguing over the price I don't see what the big deal is. There is no paradigm shift taking place here.

If I know how the Stock Exchange works, I think you can't really buy ArenaNet Stocks because it's a Private company. But, ArenaNet IS a subsidiary of NCSoft, which is a PUBLIC company, meaning one can buy NCSoft stocks. Now, personally, I may just invest in it, but I won't because I don't know how the Stock Market really works. >_>

As for the extra storage? First people complain that there isn't enough storage space, yet when extra storage space is offered, people complain about the price?! What the flying monkeys! Seriously, people? SERIOUSLY?! Good GOD! The people on this planet need to GROW THE FLYING MONKEY UP!!!

I simply continue to play as before.

immortius
suit yourself, that was my opinion. and happy recovering.

JupiterStarWarrior
when have i ever say i want to pay for extra storage? some other lemmings maybe but not me.
BTW: it means we are not responsible for arena net's financial situation unless you are afraid you stock value drops.

Redvex
off course we continue playing, we PAID for it already.

I'm sorry...I didn't buy onto a game where micro transactions determined what I do or don't have in the game. That was supposed to be skill. If this is the route of GW2 it is simply another reason on the list of reasons I'm not buying it.

Another thing people are forgetting...many people bought character slots specifically for extra storage (a much more valid option). Now we are thrown the ability to buy extra storage directly. Again...you people need to stop thinking of this in terms of "optional convience" and more in terms of "optional way to get around a game shortcoming". Sort of like how everybody should have UAX from the beginning and not have to purchase it...the option shouldn't exist. Saying it is optional so we shouldn't QQ is a stupid and bad argument.

From Regina's wiki talkpage:

I myself wanted an option to buy more xunlai panes as a last resort if there's no free storage update, and I WOULD buy those if they were fairly priced.
$5 per pane would be expensive but bearable, and if they went with selling them 2 for $10 I WOULD buy a pair as I could really use them. And they would make more money this way (2 for $10).

But after seeing where they're going I immediately changed my mind - I won't support them changing the business model and giving us less and less and less for the same price. This has to stop now. Bring back fair pricing, deliver better value for the prices you charge.

I need the storage but I will boycott absurd prices - I will have to struggle with a full chest but I did that for years... now while money is no problem for me, I'm boycotting it only for a principle of better future.

The choice is up to you, think of it as an intelligence TEST - if you get ripped-off you fail it, if the community fails and shows support to blatantly horrible deals - we will surely get more of them in the future... and even worse ones... and GW2 may be entirely based on rip-off deals from the base design... and it will be too late then.

The time is now. Open your eyes. Don't get owned.

Given that $5 is the actual cost of these panes for Anet, how can you justify your "absurd" prices now?

Was it mentioned at all previously that a portion of this "mega April update" would include a price?

Actually, $5 is how much an online transaction costs, so the panes themselves cost more on top of that.

Still, this implies that selling multiple panes together might be viable, perhaps 2 panes for $15. Assuming $5 for a transaction, selling 2 together at $15 results in the same amount of money after the transaction cost as selling 2 separately at $10 each.

So if i understand it correctly if they make it $5 they could better give it for free ?

Well, it would be the same as giving it away for free, except instead of only losing money with each purchase, they'ld lose it all straight away. :P

Adding extra storage costs some amount, say $x. These involves implementation costs, and server costs, and probably overheads on backups and other things.

Additionally, there is a $5 overhead when selling things via the online store (at least how Regina describes it) - probably a fee involved with the interaction with the credit card companies in validating your details, transferring funds, etc.

So if they sold it at $5 they'ld lose $x with every purchase - which is the same as if they gave it away for free, and thus just as untenable. At $10, then they end up with $5 to offset the storage cost and make some profit.

By selling two panes for $15, they'ld end up with $10 to offset 2x $x, which is the same as before.

Assuming the transaction overhead doesn't scale with the price of the transaction though.

Wow you're very knowledgable, how do you know the ACTUAL COST per 1 pane?

I'm absolutely 100% sure their cost it's far less than $5 per pane. Unit costs are no more than a couple cents.

The main cost they have to cover is the cost of the server upgrade that allowed all the storage updates we're getting. There's also a cost that comes from processing the small transaction, that's exactly why I suggest selling packs of 2 panes for $10 - for pure fairness and good marketing, and MORE pure profit.

Simple analysis:
Think about how many people will spend $30 or $40 on panes at $10 per one.
Now think about how many people who aren't going to buy any of them at current riddic prices would spend $10 or $20 on them if they were sold 2-for-$10 instead.

I bet there are many more people in the 2nd group. And I'm almost sure the actual unit costs difference between: selling 1 pane for $10 and selling 2 panes for $10 are negligible (but they will never confirm this, as companies never want to talk about their real costs)

Well, they could have $10 for 1, $15 for 2, $20 for 3 and $25 for 4, pane packs available for purchase if it's the transaction cost that is the problem...

If they're losing $5 per online transaction and you can get 2 for $15, then that's -$5 and that ends up to be $10 which would be their profit for 2 currently as I understand, but yet it saves the consumer $5 in the end as well.

That sound about logical, hmm?

Then again, that all is based on false logic and quick-to-jump presumptions.

So you know better than the Anet team and Regina?

Do you even read the posts in this thread?

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??!!??