F2P Restrictions as of 9/10/2015 for GW2

Jemcrystal

For anyone who wants to know:  link

"...f2p can only buy/sell materials and crafting items..." -quote Bomber.3872

Albatroes

looks fair to me

arobi

This is about as fair as you can make it. Unfortunately you have to combat gold sellers somehow. 

Wizardry

Only one area should be changed.
It is not a FAIR two way street when you are ok with selling gems but not ok giving that player the same shake.

What should be in place is for those spending money in their cash shop,their should be an even fair rebound to the player.One such example would be just for simple math sake,if you spent the equivalent of 1 gem then you should be allowed to sell gold to get one gem in return.
Obvious reason is that it is not likely but possible some gamer's spend more money than the actual full account players who also bought the original game.So you should treat those willing to support your business equally.

Gaia_Hunter

Wizardry said:

Only one area should be changed.
It is not a FAIR two way street when you are ok with selling gems but not ok giving that player the same shake.

What should be in place is for those spending money in their cash shop,their should be an even fair rebound to the player.One such example would be just for simple math sake,if you spent the equivalent of 1 gem then you should be allowed to sell gold to get one gem in return.
Obvious reason is that it is not likely but possible some gamer's spend more money than the actual full account players who also bought the original game.So you should treat those willing to support your business equally.

It is a non issue.
Once you start spending money in the game you should simply get the full game as you get 3 character slots, +3 bag slots for each character and on top you get extra content.
You can probably (not sure) just buy a vanilla serial and add it to your free account and that is like $15-20.

TheDarkrayne

Fair and better than most other FTP games... there's no cap on the amount of gold you can earn or the equipment you can use. The only time the bag slots limit will be annoying is when you run fractals.. it's the only time I fill up but that's only because you rarely have the time to salvage and deposit to bank while doing them, that can still be done if needed. Map chat is the main way of talking in GW2.. but the restriction is 100% needed to stop gold spam attempts.

maskedweasel

Wizardry said:

Only one area should be changed.
It is not a FAIR two way street when you are ok with selling gems but not ok giving that player the same shake.

What should be in place is for those spending money in their cash shop,their should be an even fair rebound to the player.One such example would be just for simple math sake,if you spent the equivalent of 1 gem then you should be allowed to sell gold to get one gem in return.
Obvious reason is that it is not likely but possible some gamer's spend more money than the actual full account players who also bought the original game.So you should treat those willing to support your business equally.

The issue with allowing them to buy gems with in game gold is that they actually sell editions of the game (or at least the upgrades) with gems.  This also includes living world content - etc - that people had to pay the box price for.  If anything, its minor damage control.  For example I didn't buy the deluxe edition when I bought GW2,  but eventually I had so much gold I just changed it to gems and bought it later on.  

It will discourage players from creating free accounts and gaining the majority of what a paid account could do without actually spending money.  The difference being if they want to buy gems with cash, they can, and transfer it into gold for in-game items,  or just use those gems to purchase whatever they want from the shop negating the need for a gold to gem transfer.

moonbound

maskedweasel said:

Wizardry said:

Only one area should be changed.
It is not a FAIR two way street when you are ok with selling gems but not ok giving that player the same shake.

What should be in place is for those spending money in their cash shop,their should be an even fair rebound to the player.One such example would be just for simple math sake,if you spent the equivalent of 1 gem then you should be allowed to sell gold to get one gem in return.
Obvious reason is that it is not likely but possible some gamer's spend more money than the actual full account players who also bought the original game.So you should treat those willing to support your business equally.

The issue with allowing them to buy gems with in game gold is that they actually sell editions of the game (or at least the upgrades) with gems.  This also includes living world content - etc - that people had to pay the box price for.  If anything, its minor damage control.  For example I didn't buy the deluxe edition when I bought GW2,  but eventually I had so much gold I just changed it to gems and bought it later on.  

It will discourage players from creating free accounts and gaining the majority of what a paid account could do without actually spending money.  The difference being if they want to buy gems with cash, they can, and transfer it into gold for in-game items,  or just use those gems to purchase whatever they want from the shop negating the need for a gold to gem transfer.

Free players should not be able to convert into gems period, this is a big part of how they make money, now its not hard to convert gold into gems in the first place but if they allowed free players to do this they could get rid of way to many limitations which in the end would probably keep allot of people from actually buying the game.

FomaldehydeJim

Seems reasonable... but one can only wonder what would have been if they had made a true sequel to GW1 where the quality of the game sold itself, and the further chapters were must-haves for players. It seems a shame to me. 

moonbound

FomaldehydeJim said:

Seems reasonable... but one can only wonder what would have been if they had made a true sequel to GW1 where the quality of the game sold itself, and the further chapters were must-haves for players. It seems a shame to me. 

They should just make the first one free, maybe leave a cosmetics shop opened or something and be done with it, gw1 is just to old and not really an mmorpg anyways.

Reizla

Looks very fair indeed. Only thing I don't get is that people who have purchased the game after August 28th have to verify through SMS to send items/gold though mail and withdrawn from the guildbank.

FomaldehydeJim

moonbound said:

FomaldehydeJim said:

Seems reasonable... but one can only wonder what would have been if they had made a true sequel to GW1 where the quality of the game sold itself, and the further chapters were must-haves for players. It seems a shame to me. 

They should just make the first one free, maybe leave a cosmetics shop opened or something and be done with it, gw1 is just to old and not really an mmorpg anyways.

Give GW1 whatever title you choose, it was a better game. 

Gaia_Hunter

FomaldehydeJim said:

moonbound said:

FomaldehydeJim said:

Seems reasonable... but one can only wonder what would have been if they had made a true sequel to GW1 where the quality of the game sold itself, and the further chapters were must-haves for players. It seems a shame to me. 

They should just make the first one free, maybe leave a cosmetics shop opened or something and be done with it, gw1 is just to old and not really an mmorpg anyways.

Give GW1 whatever title you choose, it was a better game. 

I really liked GW1.
But GW2 makes a ton more money than GW1.

The worst quarter of GW2 made more money than an expansion release quarter of GW1.

Gaia_Hunter

maskedweasel said:

The issue with allowing them to buy gems with in game gold is that they actually sell editions of the game (or at least the upgrades) with gems.  This also includes living world content - etc - that people had to pay the box price for.  If anything, its minor damage control.  For example I didn't buy the deluxe edition when I bought GW2,  but eventually I had so much gold I just changed it to gems and bought it later on.  

It will discourage players from creating free accounts and gaining the majority of what a paid account could do without actually spending money.  The difference being if they want to buy gems with cash, they can, and transfer it into gold for in-game items,  or just use those gems to purchase whatever they want from the shop negating the need for a gold to gem transfer.

The editions upgrades only add virtual items.
The gold to gems is to avoid bots/gold farmers to "gift" (for real money) gem store items to other players.

Loke666

FomaldehydeJim said:

Give GW1 whatever title you choose, it was a better game. 

It wasn't a MMO but it was a great game. I wouldn't call it better though, it is like comparing an apple with a pear. If you want to compare GW with something it is games like DDO and STO. GW was closer to Diablo 3 than GW2 gamewise (but still pretty far from there)

Gaia_Hunter said:
I really liked GW1.
But GW2 makes a ton more money than GW1.
The worst quarter of GW2 made more money than an expansion release quarter of GW1.

Yeah, but compared to the cost of making the games GW is one of the most successful computer games ever. Every quest were written by 3 guys and the team were incredible small for an online game. 
. 

moonbound

Loke666 said:

FomaldehydeJim said:

Give GW1 whatever title you choose, it was a better game. 

It wasn't a MMO but it was a great game. I wouldn't call it better though, it is like comparing an apple with a pear. If you want to compare GW with something it is games like DDO and STO. GW was closer to Diablo 3 than GW2 gamewise (but still pretty far from there)

Gaia_Hunter said:
I really liked GW1.
But GW2 makes a ton more money than GW1.
The worst quarter of GW2 made more money than an expansion release quarter of GW1.

Yeah, but compared to the cost of making the games GW is one of the most successful computer games ever. Every quest were written by 3 guys and the team were incredible small for an online game. 
. 

I actually owned it at the time and prefered wow over gw and that is saying allot as I did not care for it but eventually I chose city of heroes over all of them, I did not like the art style, the combat animations nor spell animations, nor did I care for multi classing because it was a silly concept, I should be able to wield real hybrid abilities thematic towards my class, not roll necro abilities mixed with purplish energies from a mesmer for example, it just did not fit and made it way less immersive as a fantasy game.

And then there was all the solo stuff, I had other rpgs I could play if I wanted to solo. The story was nice, the movies, and the crazy stuff like watching the city being destroyed as you where traveling. That was pretty cool for its time.

Gaia_Hunter

Loke666 said:

I really liked GW1.
But GW2 makes a ton more money than GW1.
The worst quarter of GW2 made more money than an expansion release quarter of GW1.

Yeah, but compared to the cost of making the games GW is one of the most successful computer games ever. Every quest were written by 3 guys and the team were incredible small for an online game. 
. 

There is no doubt GW1 was financially very successful.
But GW2 is no less successful - more than twice the team but also more than twice the revenue.

Open world MMO vs private instance online game is very different in terms of man power.

MMOs require much more development time than other type of games (even online ones) just by their nature. That is why its very risky to develop and release one and then it requires time to recoup the costs and start profiting.

As you said, almost orange and apples. I like both, and after 10K hours and 6 or 7 years of GW1, GW2 was a nice change.

Loke666

Gaia_Hunter said:

Loke666 said:

Yeah, but compared to the cost of making the games GW is one of the most successful computer games ever. Every quest were written by 3 guys and the team were incredible small for an online game. 
. 

There is no doubt GW1 was financially very successful.
But GW2 is no less successful - more than twice the team but also more than twice the revenue.

More than 5 times the team but I am not arguing with you about the fact that GW2 so far earned in a lot of money.

There is a reason NC Soft West turned over the western publishing to ANET and not Carbine when they cut down on their western division, and that ANET is one of the few companies actually have more people working on a released game then they had when making it.

I do miss Jeff Strain though, he wouldn't have made that difficulty nerf after the first beta weekend, he knows that games should be challenging. That thing have always been my drawback with the game, they had the difficulty just right and listened to some whiners who mostly quit after a few weeks anyways.

I still enjoy the game though but it is a bit too easy for my taste now besides a few fractals and exp dungeons.

arobi

LOL GW1 better then GW2.......... this is 2015 I expect to atleast be able to jump in my games. I still cant believe you couldnt jump in GW1. Meh opinions and stuff.

TheDarkrayne

GW1 was more like a tactical combat game.. like an RTS, kind of. Which have I played more? Probably GW1, if it's your kind of thing it's the best in class. I fully get why a lot of people can't into it though; it's very slow until you get yourself fully set up with endgame builds on all your heroes. I'd still play it if they actually kept doing proper content. I love GW2 too but for completely different reasons.

Gaia_Hunter

Vannor said:

GW1 was more like a tactical combat game.. like an RTS, kind of. Which have I played more? Probably GW1, if it's your kind of thing it's the best in class. I fully get why a lot of people can't into it though; it's very slow until you get yourself fully set up with endgame builds on all your heroes. I'd still play it if they actually kept doing proper content. I love GW2 too but for completely different reasons.

GW1 is an amazing Solo/Coop game, based on a large party facing AI teams that work together.
GW1 and GW2 are very different beasts.

jackygogo

Do F2P get Elite Specialization? 

rastapastor

jackygogo said:

Do F2P get Elite Specialization? 

As i recall, only those who buy Heart of Thorns expansion will hace access to new elite specializations.

Dagon13

Looks like a convoluted mess to me.  I'm not judging what should/shouldn't be free but if I have to consult a chart then you're doing it wrong.

HighestHand

^^ Charts are usually how companies get people to invest to buy their product. You almost see it in any free product with a premier version. 

@Arobi - GW1 is a much more complete game than GW2. The progression, the story, the mechanics of GW1, etc, is at least as good as GW2. 

GW2 is popular no doubt, and has great game play, great PVP, and lots more content with higher potential, but it is no GW1. In fact, GW1 is without a doubt one of the most underrated MMORPG there is. If they did some more advertising, and came out with some more expansions or stand-alones, then it would still be one of the top games played today. 

Siphaed

Dagon13 said:

Looks like a convoluted mess to me.  I'm not judging what should/shouldn't be free but if I have to consult a chart then you're doing it wrong.

Not really, as all "F2P" titles are like this.  Check out an of Turbine's games, SW:TOR, the changing of Wildstar, Tera, and so on.  There is a distinct list in each title of what a F2P player has...or rather, does not have access to when compared to a 'premium player'. 

From what they mention for release of Heart of Thorns, there are only two features that F2P players will have access to at all:  Desert Borderlands WvW map and Stronghold sPvP map+mode.   These are for balance and participation reasons that can only be solved by allowing F2P players to access these.     Everything else of the expansion requires the actual expansion:  Masteries,  Elite Specs, Revenant Class,  Maguuma map, Legendary precursor crafting, raids, Living Story: Season 3, and so on.