Selling In-Game Advantages (The Great Debate Over Mercenary Heroes)

Mmos evolve over time. Gw is not the same game it used to be. Am I to understand that in order to experience the games evolution one must pay for it?

Ofc one could buy Prophs and play it out of the box, but would they really be experiencing GW? Imo...no ofc they would be missing out on a lot. The game has changed since introduction. Many things have been added to the game, it has evolved. Does this stop said person from playing prophs continually? No...Is that same person missing out on a lot of GW? Yes..... To experience all GW has to offer would that person need to purchase microtransactions and dlc? Yes

Like I have mentioned numerous times....my concern is not limited to the current state of GW. I am worried about how the game will evolve due to microtransactions and dlc. Atm they have not strayed too far from the B2P model, but MH and other microtransactions/dlc deviate from that ethos. I fear that the B2P will turn into P2P via microtransactions and dlc.

Will you okay with more microtransactions/dlc that change game experience completely? Let's say they introduce 20 more items each with the same level of effect that MH have on the game and each one cost 45 dollars. Can you see how the person who spent 900 dollars is no longer playing the "same" game as the person that did not?

Each particular microtransaction/dlc might not make that much of a difference but when they are compounded they eventually will.

Are MH SCs faster and easier than SCs with real players? No? Then come back later when they do and we can start talking about imbalances and in game advantages.

So far we only have examples of emulated real player SCs that can be cited as MH advantages. The root of the problem is and always has been SCs.

Edit: Take away SCs and the payed for advantages of MHs becomes a mute point.

Did you pay for Factions, Nightfall & EotN? They were fundamental changes to the game at launch. It was Prophecies and only Prophecies. When you bought the next chapter, did it impact how you played Prophecies? Make it easier, perhaps? I know it did for me... I got to the Crystal Desert & stalled out. Other players here suggested I add Nightfall & EotN so I could get a few heroes to help me finish Prophecies.

I still could have played Prophecies through to the end... I made a choice to spend extra money to specifically enhance my experience of that chapter. Failing to make that choice still would not have prevented me from experiencing the game I bought - Prophecies. I got exactly what I paid for when I bought Prophecies, and in paying for Prophecies, I had all the tools at hand to complete Prophecies.

Had ANet suddenly changed an existing area within Prophecies that I then could not access or beat without giving them more money... then yes, they would be preventing me from playing the game I bought without spending more money, and that would very much be a violation of their stated core philosophy. But they did not do that, have never done that.

Anet did not change heroes... they added hero "content" via the Merc Hero packs. It does not impact my ability to play what I paid for. I can choose to explore that new content by paying for it... or not. That's the same as any expansion... and it's a fool's folly to think a company owes us free expansions of their original content. It's like saying that Kraft owes us new boxes of Mac & Cheese free because the new ones come with hot dogs and the old ones... the ones we already paid for... don't. It's silly.

What's ironic is that ANet regularly gives us those hot dogs, even though they don't OWE them to us. WiK, Hearts, WoC, etc. Free content and lots of it. Free. Even in the midst of several years without a profit, even in the midst of working hard on a new game... they've still cared enough to give us totally free, totally new content. Just because.

Why isn't that the focus of your "future speculations"? Why aren't you hyped up about what else they might give us for free? Why are you instead focusing on your perception of a change in their philosophy... one which sorry, from my perspective the facts still don't actually bear out... which you think MIGHT turn out negatively?

If we're going to judge their future possible behavior on current actions, then it seems to me that the overwhelming theme of their current actions is "free content for all!"

Or have they suddenly started charging for all the GW:B content, the festival events & quests, the new outpost, the new skill balances, etc. when I wasn't looking?

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/u...tml?t=10050661 Yes, I suppose they didn't call them "mercenaries" so you'd win if we were arguing semantics.

I just feel that when we argue the "values" of a game, we're wasting time. Moreover, I don't consider game balance to be a value or theme of GW because it ceased to be a major concern of ANet's when Nightfall was released. Not saying I like it or anything.

It was implied in the first part of my answer.

But you criticized me for not just saying 'yes' earlier. It was a simple reply because my opinion of A-net hasn't changed as a result of this update.




Merc heroes are certainly are an advantage if you have them, but the selling of in-game advantages is nothing new. In addition to the weapons/imp in pre, buying more character slots/storage tabs gives you more space to store stuff (and in the case of characters, a greater potential to farm zaishen coins, but that's minor I suppose). Skill unlock packs save you either faction or gold.

In short, it's an advantage to have the heroes, but I personally don't feel that I'm missing out on anything by not buying them.

I have a hard time seeing why ANet should provide any upgrade/content/balance over the course of almost six years if it is always at their own cost. It's not as if updating and working on GW is just a hobby. These people are employees and have their own bills to pay. If constantly updating and providing any sort of content were an attempt at maintaining customer loyalty or interest until GW2 arrives, I can see how they might do it up to a certain point, but given how seemingly fickle many players are who rage at GW every time an update doesn't go in their favor, ANet has to eventually ask themselves if they're at the point of diminishing returns: namely, the cost for them to maintain customer satisfaction > expected returns from GW2 sales.

Personally, I think GW is a great game and I don't mind the microtransactions for what has so far been offered (although I think the pricing is way to high). To keep this in perspective, I think of other games in which microtransactions are a necessity to make any sort of progress. The fact that GW is an instanced game, I don't have to worry that someone with seven heroes is kill-stealing my mob because I only have three heroes and four henchies. And the fact that GW is not a zero sum game, where someone else having obsidian armor is mutually exclusive to myself having obby, is another fact that I appreciate.

If you read my other post you might have seen that campaigns and expansion were noted in the ethos that GW took when it deviated from other MMOs. Through other searching I have found that microtransactions were privately (not diluged to us) included (but thats a whole new can of worms). They stated that there would be free content provided...and there was...which is one of the absolutely great things about GW. Granted it's not as often as they orginally planned...none the less its' still there.

Anet chose to deviate from other Mmo's that's a main part of what made them great. Now they are converging back. If that's okay with you....thats fine ....thats your right..If we had a thread talking about all the positive aspect of GW I would have a lot of input there as well. This thread being about the impact MH have, (sry to say) what I have to say here is going to reflect upon that, not other issues.

Please provide your source for this.

I'm actually still waiting for someone to provide the source of what GW's original business model was stated, by them, to be - since there have been multiple complaints that they've massively deviated from that with regards to microtransactions as well. Perhaps what they refer to and what you're referring to are the same source? I'd like to see it for myself.

As to the rest... the idea that ANet is now converging back into the standard MMO model... I'm just not seeing that. If anything, I consistently see them making decisions that keep them very much apart from any other MMO that I have played or worked for. I am constantly in awe of their business decisions actually, and they are in turn influencing the decisions I make in regards to my own work in the gaming industry, and the suggestions I make to the companies I work for.

If I had a complaint about ANet, it would be their support partnership with NCSoft... their support department is seriously lacking. If my employees utilized software which responded to customers with canned responses based on keyword recognition the way theirs do, utterly lacking human review at apparently several points in the escalation process... I'd either be canning the software, the employees or myself... maybe all three.

But in terms of their business ethics, their business model, their policies on microtransactions and content... they are so far apart from traditional MMOs as to basically be their own genre.

If I recall correctly, they aren't technically an MMO. I think they're classified as a CORPG.

I could be wrong, so please correct me if that is so.

Technically they are a mmo although they classify themselves as a corpg...I can provide link if u like.

No need, I researched it myself for clarification.

I'd argue that GW1 isn't an MMO in the sense that playing with others is optional at this point. It feels more like a single player campaign with a cooperative option.

Anyway it is unrelated to the topic at hand.


As for proof on GW Philosophy, they have stated on GW2Guru that the in game store will not sell in game advantages that affect game mechanics and they will all be cosmetic or expansions.

Its somewhere with the transmutation stone announcement.

I cannot find the post, but looking there deeply enough will yield it as a result.

Therefore, they either changed their philosophy or lied to the community both of which are displeasing.

Is there a reason you were willing to source this statement but are not sourcing your other statement as I requested?

And is there a reason no one seems willing to source ANet's original business model? The one they keep saying recent events are in violation of? I think it might be useful if we could all see the exact text which various contributors believe ANet is now in violation of.

I'm guessing they're referring to all the PR crap that was bundled in with how GW wasn't a standard MMO and "skill > time" etc. Frankly, that ship sailed years ago...

Requoting myself for emphasis.

Also, I can be a dick and try and cast doubt on well known facts from anyone else's posts as well. It won't get either of us anywhere.

That may be... but if the core of the argument is that ANet has gone in a different direction than that which they originally committed to in regards to DLC/microtransactions, then it would be helpful if we were all on the same page in understanding just what that commitment originally was. I see a lot of people posting their paraphrasing or interpretation of that original commitment... I'd like to see the original as presented by ANet itself.

Maybe then I can better understand where those posters are coming from and we can find common ground.

There are 12 pages of search results when searching for "Transmutation." If you could be a little more specific, that would be helpful.

Then again, I'm not sure what relevance a statement about policies regarding GW2 actually has on policies (past or present) regarding GW1, but perhaps there's something in the comment you are referring to that will clear that up.

If something I've said is inaccurate, please feel free to point it out and we can discuss it... after all, it was once a "well known fact" that the world was flat. That didn't make it true.

In the articles and guru threads about t-stones there are dev comments about how they are not trying to use t-stones to promote in game advantages and that in game advantages will not be sold in GW because it goes against what GW is about.

So:

1. They lied
2. They shifted their philosophy.

This is what the thread is about.

This is our reaction to them changing their attitude on game development.

(and i'm not gonna find the source because i don't want to waste my time)

I read an article somewhere with comments from the president of ANet that they were releasing GW2 tomorrow. And I'm not going to find the source because I don't want to waste my time... I'd rather just keep posting about how the information is out there somewhere and anyone who doesn't agree with my interpretation of what was said can go find the little blurb among billions of words that I'm referring to, even though I'm the one saying that I read it.

Helpful, yeah? Conducive to further discussion, yeah?

Or, you know, maybe not so much.

The difference is that I'm basing what I say from well known factual information.

You're just trolling.

We haven’t decided on what exactly we are or aren’t going to offer for money post-release. We’re open to whatever our players seem most interested in. If, after release, you guys would like more story content, more dungeons, more events, more maps or whatever, it’s something that we have to consider because ultimately making you happy is what makes us successful. Whether we release that in DLC (like the bonus mission packs in GW1) or whether we do it through expansions (Like Eye of the North) is yet to be determined. As to whether or not there are going to be items like XP boosts available in the in game store, I can only reiterate what we’ve said before (and will continue to say,) that we’ll release details on it when they are available, and that our core philosophy of not requiring you to spend additional money to play the game and not making the game difficult or painful to play in order to encourage you to buy things from the store still stands.”

http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/10/21/gu...rotransactions

I don't see any change re Mercenary Heroes. I see no change in policy. As far as I am concerned ANET is doing exactly as they have said.

IT'S THEIR JOB. THEIR JOB.

They are a proven studio with a huge publisher. Money will never be an issue again unless they prove themselves incompetent to perform at their original capacity.

This has become the same hollow arguments over and over and most people clearly have too little knowledge about this industry to even waste time thinking up what they call an argument.

Perfect. Lasai found it.

I agree that Merc heroes haven't drastically changed the game yet. Their impact upon the game thus far has been minimal.

However, their impact upon the community and the philosophy of GW is more drastic. What the Merc heroes foreshadow is much worse than what they actually are.

Individually, the in game advantages we have so far (storage panes, /bonus weps, fire imp, etc) are not too beyond the line of what we accept.

As an aggregate total, the compounded effect of many of these types of store items will cross the line to the point where many people will complain if ANet keeps adding them.

Imagine if they released 20 more types of microtransaction along the lines of Mercs. Now you'd have to buy the 21 items from the store to keep up with the metagame.

This is what we who are against Mercs in this thread do not want.

How can I even make this clearer?

Somehow, I don't think there'll be any new arguments anymore either. People seem quite adamant about their positions, and the tone's gotten a lot more confrontational over the course of the past few pages.

It was fun while it lasted, though!