Feedback talk:User/Copper Legray/M Credits from Z coins
Players would always buy with Zcoins if this was implemented. What incentive is there for users to spend their IRL money if they can spend in-game money instead? I agree that the makeover prices are too high and that they would probably get a greater following for the item, and thus net a greater profit, if they halved them. But this suggestion will just cut the profit from these items completely. EDIT: Forgot to sign in --[ Kyoshi ]::[ Talk ] 00:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
No. (a) they obviously added makeovers as a way to extort microtransactions from the players and keep some income. They simply will not do it. (b) Anything that makes zcoins disappear from the system like this, without adding things circulating in the economy (like the unobtainable heavy equipment packs) is a Bad Idea (TM). --Emkyooess 00:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. I like this idea, I've thought about this since these were released. I bought the makeover credits, and 3 of them are still sitting on my account, I only needed 2. Maybe eventually I will use the others once I get really bored with my other chars' appearances. I wouldn't mind paying up to 10 gold zcoins for a makeover, these need to be expensive in that sense. Take the skill unlock packs: all skills can be easily unlocked in game from purchasing them or unlocking with balth faction, yet people still buy the unlock packs because they don't want to spend the time and effort for in-game unlocking. I also don't see how making zcoins disappear from the system is bad. The only reason ectos are still worth money is because of obsi armor, and that was also the reason that chaos gloves exist. Armbraces technically disappear when the tormented weapon from it is dedicated in Valor: now it only serves as a cosmetic addition to a single character, ooh just like a makeover (nevermind the unknown HoM bonus in GW2, we're talking GW1). The reason gold is still worth anything is because it disappears when people craft armor, and this armor can't be resold to other players once you're tired of it. The disappearance of zcoins as you put it doesn't look like a problem to me, at all.
Rose Of Kali 18:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is a good idea, but since M credits are GW's version of an item mall, they will never incorporate it. They do not want to stop laughing at the people who are dumb enough to spend money on thin air. Koda
Kumi 23:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- People have historically been willing to spend money on anything that pleases them. If thin air pleases them, it's not up to comparatively less rich people like us to scoff at. Pika Fan 23:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is a good idea, but since M credits are GW's version of an item mall, they will never incorporate it. They do not want to stop laughing at the people who are dumb enough to spend money on thin air. Koda
I would LOVE to see this implemented. It's not like people would only buy them with Coins, because it would take quite some time to gather all the coins needed for, say, ten characters. I bought two packs myself, and have two characters left that I'd like to change. I don't want to spend $10 on a pack of five when I only need two. Maybe make it 15 to 20 gold z-coins per normal makeover, 25 for an extreme?
I think the idea benefits the player, but not Anet. Let's summarize what we pay for our Guild Wars experience, once we purchase it: nothing. We live happily in a game that doesn't nag us constantly for money. Look at all the other games out there and what you get with "free", it's pitiful. We are fortunate enough to have a rich experience without needing to open our wallets. Changing a character, after creation, requires database work, which is more or less digital labor. It deserves some compensation. Does anyone here play Second Life? See how far you get in that game without buying the virtual money. Owning a tiny plot of "land" in that game can run you as much as a monthly World of Warcraft subscription. Let's be thankful for what we have, and not judge luxury benefits as "extortion". Nobody is forcing anyone to buy them. Microsoft will charge credit to change an Xbox Live gamer tag all the same. Imagine if you could purchase content on Xbox Live with gamer points. It's silly to think of, now, isn't it? Makeovers are a service, and I think it's fair to charge a small fee. Xiaquin 
19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, it's completely fair. However, it's unfair to sell them at a minimum of 5 per purchase without the option to buy only one or two. The reason for that is because a smaller transaction wouldn't pay for itself due to charge company fees - Anet has to pay the bank for them to charge money from your credit card for each transaction, so smaller transactions are less profitable or even costly compared to "bulk" ones. (When I delivered pizza in the U.S., we charged and extra $1 for credit card payments as opposed to cash specifically because of this). So, if they can't reduce the number of makeovers in a real money transaction, it's only fair to offer some way to get it in-game, even if it takes an average player 6 months to get (thus, the really have to want to not pay for it). The fact that a makeover is activated instantly, as soon as you save it at the NPC, means that there is no human involvement in the change, and thus doesn't cost Anet any extra money per change. But, in the end, it's all business, as Xiaquin said, so there's no reason for Anet not to charge $10 from people like me, who only wanted 1 or 2 makeovers total. Rose Of Kali 20:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Individual purchases of makeover credits would help us a lot, but as Kali pointed out, that makes it unprofitable for Anet. I'm also very curious to know what the number of gold coins a credit would run. If you'd really need to save up for half a year to purchase one in-game, it seems kind of silly to me. If Anet allows it, I won't lie, I'd enjoy it. However as it stands, I think it's a reasonable purchase given we enjoy a subscription-free service. Xiaquin
03:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- How is it reasonable to spend money and getting nothing in return? Once the GW servers close a few months after GW2 goes live, you have lost your money and Jeff laughs at your stupidity. Koda Kumi 10:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- They will not close that fast, period. D2 is free and STILL running, even waiting for a major update. They may reduce the # of servers though. They also said that new HoM achievements after GW2 release will still reward the GW2 account, which could entice some GW2 players to get GW1 for that, and in itself demonstrates intent to keep the GW1 servers open. Every time someone buys flowers, they also throw their money away? Rose Of Kali 12:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Funny that you make a connection to Diablo 2, which not only has far superior replay value but is a PvE game with a PvE-playerbase. This game is already dead and is a PvP game with a PvE-playerbase (and apart from controlling a character, it has nothing in common with Diablo 2). Koda Kumi 12:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are completely ignoring the fact that both D2 and GW have the same business plan, as well as still having a solid playerbase. Sure, the game is stale, but I see the same guilds, same players playing the game everyday. A game's playerbase is only naturally going to dwindle as time goes by. Just because you might not play the game anymore does not mean people aren't still playing. You are merely part of the natural reduction of a game's population, please don't think as though your leaving means much in the bigger picture. Delusion of self-importance does not an accurate picture describe. 209.107.217.9 12:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Funny that you make a connection to Diablo 2, which not only has far superior replay value but is a PvE game with a PvE-playerbase. This game is already dead and is a PvP game with a PvE-playerbase (and apart from controlling a character, it has nothing in common with Diablo 2). Koda
- They will not close that fast, period. D2 is free and STILL running, even waiting for a major update. They may reduce the # of servers though. They also said that new HoM achievements after GW2 release will still reward the GW2 account, which could entice some GW2 players to get GW1 for that, and in itself demonstrates intent to keep the GW1 servers open. Every time someone buys flowers, they also throw their money away?
- How is it reasonable to spend money and getting nothing in return? Once the GW servers close a few months after GW2 goes live, you have lost your money and Jeff laughs at your stupidity. Koda
- People left d2 because it got old. People leave GW because of the decisions ArenaNet makes. There's a huge difference in the reasoning behind those two. Yeah, of course people are going to leave an old game - but the number of people leaving GW at the rate they're leaving is too big and too fast to attribute to simple aging of the game.
- I agree on your last point, though. I always hated those "GOOD BYE GUILD WARS" threads on guru, people are so hung up on themselves :< -Auron 14:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Koda, do you have a source for your claim of the GW servers closing? Because I read that the game will still have events after GW2 is released. You also speak of this Jeff person as if you know him personally, are you willing to quote him or someone of significance? I'll let the D2 comments slide, but I whole-heartedly disagree, having been a once-serious player of that trite. Xiaquin 05:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Koda, do you have a source for your claim of the GW servers closing? Because I read that the game will still have events after GW2 is released. You also speak of this Jeff person as if you know him personally, are you willing to quote him or someone of significance? I'll let the D2 comments slide, but I whole-heartedly disagree, having been a once-serious player of that trite. Xiaquin
- This thread has gotten seriously off-topic. Could we bring it back on-topic? The live team has made it pretty clear they're unhappy with threads devolve into such as this, and tend not to read them. The feedback area is one place we'd like them to be able to read with minimal such problems. --Emkyooess 12:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Emkyooess' first post. Anet is not going to sacrifice real income for a method which would use up more server space and therefore eat up more money. Sacrificing income so that they can spend money doesn't make sense no matter which way you look at it. --Musha
Talk 00:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Emkyooess' first post. Anet is not going to sacrifice real income for a method which would use up more server space and therefore eat up more money. Sacrificing income so that they can spend money doesn't make sense no matter which way you look at it. --Musha
- This thread has gotten seriously off-topic. Could we bring it back on-topic? The live team has made it pretty clear they're unhappy with threads devolve into such as this, and tend not to read them. The feedback area is one place we'd like them to be able to read with minimal such problems. --Emkyooess 12:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
