GW2: What I don't like to hear

[Edited 22 Oct.]
It occurred to me today, as I looked at the latest PC Gamer article, that GW2 had until recently only released news I was either felt fully positive to, or neutrally to with a "let's see how they actually do this" sort of feel. Now it feels like it's going downhill.

I've already mentioned how much I don't like the inflexibility of dungeon team sizes despite the flexibility of other places and the already included robust scaling system. What I forgot to mention is that I also don't like the way you'd have to run the same dungeon 7 times to get a full armor set out of it (first time in 'story mode' gives you a weapon, then one armor per run, which feels like it's tilting to WoW repetitiveness).

Now I'm starting to feel really uneasy about the microtransactions.

Until a couple weeks ago, I was totally fine with the idea of "buy the box, play with no subscription, optionally buy some microtransactions". See, in GW1, microtransactions are basically cosmetic and convenience items: extra character slots, makeover tokens, item and skill unlock packs, costumes which don't interfere with your armor, and storage. There's one piece of downloadable content; it's $10 for four mini-missions with some unique rewards. That's all fine, and I was expecting it to be similar for GW2 (though I still hold out hope for an in-game hair stylist).

Now we have one confirmed microtransaction item: transmutation stones, which let you take the stats from one armor and put them on another piece. It's a way to meld stats and skins. Now, some people argue that this qualifies as "purely cosmetic", and there's no doubt ANet thinks this as well (for one thing, they've said so). I, on the other hand, think that anything that involves transferring stats has a gameplay consideration. On one side of the argument: You're applying a skin you like to an item with good stats, so it's cosmetic! On my side: No, you're combining two items (which then get destroyed) into a single item with good stats and a good skin, and the reason you're doing this is so you can continue to wear that cool skin you already had but have it be effective with new stats. That makes it for gameplay considerations in my book, and I tend to not like that sort of thing being in cash shops.

I would've still called my reaction neutral to this point; if they make transmutation stones cheap enough, or make it possible to get a discount on a multi-use stone, or something along those lines, I might even consider purchasing them anyhow. It's not the implementation I want (an alternative I support was suggested in the community, and maybe ANet will consider that), but I may come around to living with it.

Okay, but, today? Today PC Gamer said, based on an interview they had with Eric Flannum, that they're considering additional dungeons as for-pay downloadable content. That's not what pushed microtransactions into "negative" for me, but it didn't help.

Now, I don't mind the idea of mini-expansions in general, in between larger ones, but I don't want to buy my content routinely piecemeal, and I'm afraid that selling a single dungeon would definitely qualify. Even a pack with several dungeons and nothing else might be iffy for me (well, particularly since I hate the reported dungeon implementation, but let's pretend for a moment I don't), depending on the cost, plus the schedule of release and how that affected any freebie releases and major box expansion releases. The thing is, if they start regularly releasing downloadable content a smidgen at a time, no matter how cheap the cost, it really will start feeling like a hidden subscription fee. I think I'd rather have an actual subscription fee than that.

The quote included something else that worried me, though, and that's this: "Yeah, we’re going to look at what the demand is. Look at what players want more of and we’re going have to release that stuff because that’s the stuff that players are going to be willing to pay for and that’s the stuff that’s going to make our company profitable."

That's kind of a far cry from "cosmetic and convenience items".

If you base your cash shop items on "what players want more of", you have to be careful you put it through a filter of "what is really appropriate for a cash shop", and while a few weeks ago I would've said "Well, I'm sure they'll keep that in mind."? I'm not feeling very confident right now, because that quote is, frankly, worrisome.

The line up until now was "Of course we don't want to offer any advantage in the cash shop," with, from my reading, the implication that they were basically going to stick to the sort of thing they have now in GW1, which has, to date, been sufficient to keep them with a steady income alongside box sales.

Well... T-stones made that iffier for me, I'm afraid. And now it's sounding like "Well, if we need money, and there's something the players want, we should give it to them." And: no. No, you shouldn't. Because what a lot of players want will be an advantage.

Now, this may seem a little premature; the game's not even out yet, and maybe I'm taking Eric Flannum's words a little too literally. But there's a problem for me here, see: if it happens that ANet chooses to put uber-equipment or leveling shortcuts in the cash shop, I will not buy the game. No matter how much I looked forward to it, no matter how much I love the setting and the mechanics, I refuse to support any game that sells people a gameplay advantage.

So, yeah. I'm a little concerned, and the information of late has been trending towards negative... and I really, really hope that doesn't continue.

ETA: But, it did. You will not be able to dye weapons. "Millions" of possible character looks. 256 or more dye colours for my armor, usually appliable in three places. But too bad if I don't like the colour of my weapon or it doesn't go with that carefully constructed colour scheme!

And yeah, that's minor, but... I really would like something positive now.