Djinn.9245
-
Posts
473 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Djinn.9245
-
-
> @Menadena.7482 said:
> My guess is anet is just avoiding us on this topic until season 4 starts getting publicity. Unfortunately for them the negative PR they got is not likely to go away any time soon.
Unless they put another gamble box in the store...
-
> @ProtoGunner.4953 said:
> One thing I noticed is that GW2 lost publicity and momentum with the HoT fail. They had to make an expansion similar to PoF to attract more players. Now people ask me "this game still exists"?
The problem is that GW2 has changed too much trying to appeal to all kinds of players, which has turned off large number of players. There was a point before HoT when GW2 was viewed as the casual-friendly game. Large numbers of casual players loved GW2. Then they introduced a really difficult expansion in HoT, raiding, Esports, etc to try to appeal to the more hard-core gamer. But they drove away many casual gamers. So they probably didn't ultimately gain many players in the end.
But then it seems that Anet aren't actually supporting the hard-core aspects very well. Not many new raids, balance issues with PvP, WvW seems to be declining, etc.
An MMO can rarely be great for all types of players.
-
> @Devata.6589 said:
> > @pah.4931 said:
> >
> > It's losing players because that's what games do as they age, as players move on and as newer games get released. It has nothing to do with subs or loot boxes or balance.
>
> Well the first part of your statement can be proven wrong.
> Here are the player-stats for WoW: https://www.statista.com/statistics/276601/number-of-world-of-warcraft-subscribers-by-quarter/ It did grow for the first 5 years.
> And here are steamstats from FINAL FANTASY XIV: http://steamcharts.com/app/39210 Put the from as low as you can get and you also see an increase overtime.
>
> Compare that with the numbers from GW2 https://i.imgur.com/6j0dsRn.png and you notice a decrease over time, starting at release.
>
> It' s not so much a box that does it, but by taking elements out of the game (by selling most cosmetics instead of allowing people to really play for them (other then grinding gold)) people will get bored by the game sooner
This might be a factor, but the two games you reference are subscription games and so they can afford to keep items out of the gem shops.
-
> @ErikTheTyrant.4527 said:
> I was admiring the reforged warhound skin, and couldn't help but wanting a griffon forged skin. Then I started wanting awakened mount skins, and branded mount skins, so on and so forth. I think Anet should classify them as themed/legendary mount skins. Sell them in packs for 2000 gems that contain a skin of that theme for all the mounts.
If Anet wants to sell SOME packs for all the mounts, that would be fine. But I want my mounts to look different from each other so if that's all they sell they will get no gems from me. That's why I didn't buy the Halloween set. I'm still waiting to give them money for mount skins - won't even purchase the gems until they have some reasonably prices single skins similar to gliders or outfits.
-
> @jheryn.8390 said:
> I think it is a general consensus that the mount skin acquisition was awful. I hate it too. However, it has become mass hysteria and has blown into a freaking mob mentality. It is just way beyond the pale.
>
> Anet has created an amazing game and what did they do that has players wanting to start a March on Washington? A loot box. Unbelievable.
>
> I'll throw my praise in to Anet. They have made an amazing game that will keep me playing for years. Path of Fire was amazing. It's all amazing. So you had a big mistake in the current mount skin boxes. Who doesn't screw up once in a while? Thanks for the great game Anet people.
If you actually read the OP instead of just the title, this is what we are all responding to:
> @nosleepdemon.1368 said:
> Recent events on Reddit regarding a certain other publisher certainly do put things in perspective, don't they? Have you guys *seen* the economy in *that* game? Full AAA price, with loot boxes on top that literally are pay to win. A bajillion different currencies and unlocks and crafting and cards and locked characters, all screaming at you to pay money to get passed the grind.
>
> This really puts ArenaNet's "Here's 30 mounts have at it!" attitude into perspective.
The OP is directly referencing the gamble boxes and saying that at least Anet isn't as bad as "the other publisher". Many of us are saying that seems to be the direction Anet is trying to take and we want to be sure to nip it in the bud.
-
> @Feanor.2358 said:
> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:
> > > @Feanor.2358 said:
> > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:
> > > > > @Feanor.2358 said:
> > > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:
> > > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said:
> > > > > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:
> > > > > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said:
> > > > > > > > > > @nosleepdemon.1368 said:
> > > > > > > > > > Recent events on Reddit regarding a certain other publisher certainly do put things in perspective, don't they? Have you guys *seen* the economy in *that* game? Full AAA price, with loot boxes on top that literally are pay to win. A bajillion different currencies and unlocks and crafting and cards and locked characters, all screaming at you to pay money to get passed the grind.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This really puts ArenaNet's "Here's 30 mounts have at it!" attitude into perspective. I'm not saying I agree with loot boxes in *any* form, but I sure am glad I threw my hat in with Gaille and her Krew, instead of those unbelievable kitten hats at that *other* publisher.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, how about some love for our chums at ArenaNet? Not everything they do is always super popular, but for goodness sake, they are at least still human!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm just going to throw one more thing about the 30 mount skins. You know, as food for thought.> @Zakka.2153 said:
> > > > > > > > > > How about no, and we stop pretending that these types of business practices are ok. Developers and Companies should strive to make their service excellent not nickel and dime their consumers any given chance.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > See, this kind of attitude is precisely why developers are forced into exploring various monetization methods.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Forced? Anet is doing better than expected financially. This means that new mount license is motivated only by greed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How do you know that? You don't have information about their revenues, nor you have information about their expenses. You're just guessing and drawing conclusions from it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Read last NCsoft financial report. And by read I mean read, not just look at the chart.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > @Vayne.8563 said:
> > > > > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:
> > > > > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said:
> > > > > > > > > > @nosleepdemon.1368 said:
> > > > > > > > > > Recent events on Reddit regarding a certain other publisher certainly do put things in perspective, don't they? Have you guys *seen* the economy in *that* game? Full AAA price, with loot boxes on top that literally are pay to win. A bajillion different currencies and unlocks and crafting and cards and locked characters, all screaming at you to pay money to get passed the grind.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This really puts ArenaNet's "Here's 30 mounts have at it!" attitude into perspective. I'm not saying I agree with loot boxes in *any* form, but I sure am glad I threw my hat in with Gaille and her Krew, instead of those unbelievable kitten hats at that *other* publisher.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, how about some love for our chums at ArenaNet? Not everything they do is always super popular, but for goodness sake, they are at least still human!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm just going to throw one more thing about the 30 mount skins. You know, as food for thought.> @Zakka.2153 said:
> > > > > > > > > > How about no, and we stop pretending that these types of business practices are ok. Developers and Companies should strive to make their service excellent not nickel and dime their consumers any given chance.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > See, this kind of attitude is precisely why developers are forced into exploring various monetization methods.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Forced? Anet is doing better than expected financially. This means that new mount license is motivated only by greed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > People keep saying this. But the better than expected is not Anet or NcSoft's expecations only a stock company that makes predictions. It did better than that cmpany expected. No one here knows how much profit the game makes or doesn't make.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It means they got more money than they planned so they have more money to cover expenses and grow. And anet grew since HoT. They do not starve. They have money.
> > > > >
> > > > > It means nothing of the sort. Good financial results for NCSoft do not mean a thing about ANet. You don't know their internal contracts and relationships. ANet might not be seeing a penny out of the good financial results. Or they might be getting funding even if their products are losing money. You don't know how much they are getting, you don't know how much they are burning on development costs, and you don't know how much they are spending on marketing. Again, you're taking wild guesses and drawing conclusions based on them.
> > > >
> > > > If I am to follow your logic, there is no reason we should in any way pay anet more - if you assume only ncsoft benefits from it, we should stop funding them instantly.
> > >
> > > The only thing you can be certain about is, if we stop funding them, the game dies. So if you want to keep playing it, you should keep paying, even though you can't know how much of it goes to ANet.
> >
> >
> > So your logic is:
> > a) financial report is better than expected - it's bad anyway because ncsoft must steal their moneh - game dies
> > b) we stop paying - game dies
> >
> > I have a difficulty in understanding why should I care about any of this? Anet is a bussiness. If they don't get money, they should just close the bussiness. Since they are still around, they most likely get the money, which means there is no reason to look panic. Also, it's their job to look for money, not ours. We are customers, not their fundraisers. If they create a product worth the money, people will pay for it. Simple.
> >
> > Bussiness is cynical. They don't care about you or me as people, they cafe about our wallets. There is no reason to offer them anything besides our money.
>
> Again, people will only pay if they have no other options. And they will complain doing it. And they will act as if they somehow *deserve* to pay less.
Perhaps SOME people are like that, but not all. I'm sure you don't put yourself in that category, and I have gladly purchased many gems to get many ITEMS THAT I CHOOSE from the gemstore. This is the first real criticism I've had about the gemstore, but unfortunately it is a major issue with me.
-
> @"Zin Dau.1749" said:
> Are we people really falling for the Stockholm syndrome now? Are we supposed to thank Anet for graciously devising a system that intentionally cheats customers money?
>
> Under the guise of making money. So do thieves also need to make money. So do scam artists, embezzlers, greedy businessmen, corrupted politicians. They all gotta make a living too. So we should be grateful they didn't steal 'that much' from us. Not like those other thieves who steal your money and your girlfriend.
> Just be grateful Anet--while shady--is not as despicable.
>
>
Yes, some people are actually in that boat. They are saying "poor Anet! They would only do this to us if they were really hurting financially so we have to give them money!"
It really is remarkable.
-
> @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:
> I say let anet keep the rng loot boxes. And just charge $15 per unique mount skin. By $15 I mean use real life monies and remove the gold to gem option on them. Keep the gold to gem option for only rng mount boxes. This will ensure that anet does not go under and you get NO content. I too was angry about it but the more I think about it this is probably one of the best F2P out there, so show your support and throw a few bucks there way.
$15 per skin, no way. I want skins on a similar price point to gliders or outfits. If Anet thought that a few people on the forums saying they would pay huge amounts for mounts meant that all of us would, that was selective reading on their part.
-
> @Feanor.2358 said:
> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:
> > > @Feanor.2358 said:
> > > > @nosleepdemon.1368 said:
> > > > Recent events on Reddit regarding a certain other publisher certainly do put things in perspective, don't they? Have you guys *seen* the economy in *that* game? Full AAA price, with loot boxes on top that literally are pay to win. A bajillion different currencies and unlocks and crafting and cards and locked characters, all screaming at you to pay money to get passed the grind.
> > > >
> > > > This really puts ArenaNet's "Here's 30 mounts have at it!" attitude into perspective. I'm not saying I agree with loot boxes in *any* form, but I sure am glad I threw my hat in with Gaille and her Krew, instead of those unbelievable kitten hats at that *other* publisher.
> > > >
> > > > So, how about some love for our chums at ArenaNet? Not everything they do is always super popular, but for goodness sake, they are at least still human!
> > >
> > > I'm just going to throw one more thing about the 30 mount skins. You know, as food for thought.> @Zakka.2153 said:
> > > > How about no, and we stop pretending that these types of business practices are ok. Developers and Companies should strive to make their service excellent not nickel and dime their consumers any given chance.
> > >
> > > See, this kind of attitude is precisely why developers are forced into exploring various monetization methods.
> >
> > Forced? Anet is doing better than expected financially. This means that new mount license is motivated only by greed.
>
> How do you know that? You don't have information about their revenues, nor you have information about their expenses. You're just guessing and drawing conclusions from it.
>
> Additionally, it is utterly arrogant to say what the devs should *strive* to do. Do you have any idea what it is like to be passionate about a game in development, to do your best about it, to end up with a good game that the users love but that barely pays for its development? Let me say that as a developer, I'm quite disillusioned about the playerbase. Users want polished and entertaining games, they want content, but they want it free. Sorry, you can't have that. Gamedev is a business, not a charity.
The vast majority of people on the mount threads want to give Anet money for mount skins. They just want to give their money for particular skins they choose instead of throwing it down a toilet for a gamble. That isn't wanting stuff for free.
The sad thing is, if Anet is truly hurting for money here we all are practically begging to give them money for skins and the only actual CHOICE we have is ONE SINGLE 2000 gem jackal skin. Anet has put themselves in this position.
-
> @Cyninja.2954 said:
> > @Djinn.9245 said:
> > > @Cyninja.2954 said:
> > > The comparisons some people make, the pure entitlement that seeps out of some comments. Guess what, things are going to get even worse down the road.
> > >
> > > Why? Because as GW2 grows older and the playerbase declines and revenue dries up, more drastic methods of monetisation will be required to keep the game working with this kind of monetisation method (no pay to win, cosmetics mostly from gem store, no subscription fee, living world updates inbetween expansions).
> > >
> > > Was the mount addition not well received? Sure, it could have been handled better. I personally was/am more concerned with what this says about the state of the monetisation which arenanet are willing to try more than the:"Waaaaah, I can't get the skins I want."
> >
> > You are absolutely correct - this type of scheme should signal the beginning of a kind of desperation that a company needs to dupe their customers out of more money than the customer would willingly pay. I wonder if Anet means to send this message that GW2 is going down the tubes? But whether a company is doing poorly or not, there is still no excuse to treat your customers poorly.
> >
> >
>
> Poorly? Dupe?
>
> The mount pricing and implementation model was very clear on how it works. At no point should there have been any confusion to a person with basic linguistic skills to understand how it works. So there is your "dupe" out the window, here read up on what to dupe actually means:
>
> > dupe - verb [ T ] uk /dʒuːp/ us /duːp/
> > to deceive someone, usually by making that person do something that they did not intend to do:
> - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dupe
>
> Words have meanings, use them properly and don't hyperbole.
>
And perhaps you should read some of the articles on gamble boxes so that you can understand how they work. In addition, these gamble boxes are very effective at what they do which is why Anet wanted to add yet another one to the store.
> As far as poorly, it's OPTIONAL COSMETIC CONTENT which in no way affects you as a customer or player
By treating customers poorly, I was again talking about using gamble boxes.
-
> @Cyninja.2954 said:
> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:
> > I hated this fight. It was boring and I couldn't figure out what all the dialogue was about. They kept talking about Kralkatorrik and I didn't have a clue what that had to do with anything. Turns out, there was a huge dragon head up in the sky doing stuff for most of the fight. What the kitten kind of nonsense is that?
> >
> > Why put something in the sky if you can't afford taking your eyes off the floor for even a split-second? I actually played through the whole fight without realizing some of the ridiculous amount of effects were caused by an elder dragon instead of a god, only realizing what had been going on when Balthazar finally croaked and I finally had the opportunity to raise my camera angle. Ridiculous design.
>
> While I agree that some better build up might have been beneficial, I'm sorry to say, if you haven't been paying attention to the story so far, don't expect a summary right before the final battle.
>
> Balthazars plans for Kralkatorik were made very clear throught the story and your reason for stopping him exactly when you do is also well explained earlier. It's the main reason and only reason even why we bither with stopping Balthazar in the first place.
I think you missed the point of what he was saying. He clearly said "Why put something in the sky if you can't afford taking your eyes off the floor for even a split-second?"
And I agree with Manasa. I understood that Balthazaar was trying to kill Kralkatorrik, what I and Manasa didn't understand is that Kralkatorrik had shown up for this fight against Balthazar because you can't take the time to look up - you are surrounded by AOE that will kill you if you don't watch the red marks on the ground.
-
If GW2 is about to shut down, no point in spending more money on it.
-
> @Ohoni.6057 said:
>
> Sure, but most people don't make a single purchase per week. I certainly don't. Yes, overall the gem store purchases balance out against subs because some people pay nothing into the gem store while others pay 2-3 times what a sub would be, but that requires that the gem store have items worth purchasing, and you keep saying that they should remove items from the gem store to give players for free.
>
I think that GW2 should have a variety of sources for things like skins. For the mounts, if they were going to make the base mounts as blah as they did with only one very small dye channel, then they should have offered at least one skin for each as an in-game reward. Maybe a 2-3 dye channel skin as a reward for a collection or something. PoF could certainly use the content also.
Then of course a multitude of non-gamble box options in the store including the WOW-factor skins for higher prices would have been fine :) I'm waiting to give them my money for skins...
I hope they also add a "legendary" mount skin (works on any mount breed) with cool effects that you can achieve in-game.
-
> @Vayne.8563 said:
>
> Your OPINION on what's moral is just that. Your opinion. It's not factually immoral to sell mount skins for $5 each, even if they are RNG.
Read the articles by doctors and psychologists on gamble boxes and dopamine.
-
All with cash (I've never felt I had enough "extra" gold to convert to gems): I have mainly purchased Armor Skins and Inventory & Bank Tabs. I have probably purchased about half of the available Armor skins and a few Inventory & Bank tabs. I have also purchased a bit of this and that: 1 set of permanent harvest tools, Copper Salvage-o-matic, 1 glider skin, a couple Shared Inventory slots, a couple Character slots, 1 single dye pack (should have researched what it actually dropped) and a few BL keys. After using and researching the keys, I concluded that they were a waste of my cash and decided I would use gold-to-gems if I purchased any in the future.
What I would like to see is more glider skins and some reasonably priced mount skins AND ARMOR SKINS :)
What I do not want to see are any more gamble boxes of any kind, nor any more outfits.
-
> @nosleepdemon.1368 said:
> ANet's was an admission that they could have designed this better.
Read again - no such admission was made.
-
> @Cyninja.2954 said:
> The comparisons some people make, the pure entitlement that seeps out of some comments. Guess what, things are going to get even worse down the road.
>
> Why? Because as GW2 grows older and the playerbase declines and revenue dries up, more drastic methods of monetisation will be required to keep the game working with this kind of monetisation method (no pay to win, cosmetics mostly from gem store, no subscription fee, living world updates inbetween expansions).
>
> Was the mount addition not well received? Sure, it could have been handled better. I personally was/am more concerned with what this says about the state of the monetisation which arenanet are willing to try more than the:"Waaaaah, I can't get the skins I want."
You are absolutely correct - this type of scheme should signal the beginning of a kind of desperation that a company needs to dupe their customers out of more money than the customer would willingly pay. I wonder if Anet means to send this message that GW2 is going down the tubes? But whether a company is doing poorly or not, there is still no excuse to treat your customers poorly.
-
> @ChrisLew.5492 said:
> > @IndigoSundown.5419 said:
> > I've praised ANet many times when I think it is warranted. The best I can say about mount licenses is that they may well be good deals for gamblers, whales and completionists. For anyone else who has any interest in these particular mount skins, the setup is guaranteed to entice spending more than one might choose to were the skins individually priced at an amount the market would bear. In other words, the system is not friendly for what is likely a large consumer demographic.
> >
> > The carefully-crafted response by Mr. O'Brien encourages the belief that the license sales were designed to be more friendly to consumers. I'd like to believe that. However, the sales plan was also carefully crafted. It comes complete with a supposedly consumer-friendly element (no repeats) which elicits purchasing more than one would be inclined to due to the psychological effect of the sunk-cost fallacy. Sunk-cost thinking is more likely to entice people to go beyond their personal limits than the gambler's fallacy does, except perhaps in people who regularly gamble. ANet completed the sales package with the limited-time bundle price and the anchoring effect of the 2K gem fiery goat skin. The overall marketing strategy, and the we-won't-do-this-again-in-the-next-planned-releases statement make it harder for me to believe ANet had overall consumer interests in mind.
> >
> > So, the best I can do is to say, "Thanks for designing a mount skin purchase plan which is likely better for your big-ticket customers than other games do."
> >
> > What I will also say is, "Thanks for avoiding the sale of in-game power in the gem store." That part I do appreciate.
>
> Except “sunk-cost” when it applies to real gambling, or truly deplorable cash shops has literally no assurance you will ever get what you want. $120 for 30 different mount skins with no repeats isn’t the worst gouge in the world. I suggest some of you look at the actual fiascos and gambling boxes in other “buy to play” MMORPGs: ESO, Black Desert. I know for a fact you can spend $3000 in ESO trying to get a ‘special’ mount—there’s a post on their forums with someone who did just that. And failed.
>
Just because there are worse examples of gamble boxes doesn't meant that any gamble box is good or even ok. They ALL manipulate the customer. The fact that Anet didn't release a single reasonably priced skin at the same time as the Mount License box is purposeful: if the players had a choice between gambling or directly purchasing what they wanted, there would be no contest. Would some people purchase the gamble box? Perhaps, but the vast majority of people who have commented on them on these forums have said that even though they purchased a license they would have preferred to not have the RNG.
-
> @Deihnyx.6318 said:
> > @Djinn.9245 said:
> > > @Ohoni.6057 said:
> > > Again, people need to **stop arguing that ANet needs to get paid.** Nobody is disputing that point. Nobody thinks that ANet should not get paid. That is not an argument on the table. The question is, **when** ANet gets paid, should it be in the form of direct "what you see is what you get" purchases, or in the form of blind box gambling?
> >
> > As you say, this is the straw man that people feel they must use to get sympathy for Anet. Apparently these players feel that only way Anet can make money is to force players to keep throwing money at gamble boxes until they get what they actually want - thereby spending far more money on the single wanted item than they would have if Anet simply sold that item separately. And maybe Anet believes this also since they are the ones who introduced said gamble box.
> >
> > Which doesn't say much for Anet's supposed support of their artists' work. The players who use this straw man must also not have much of an opinion of Anet's work if they feel this is the only way Anet can make money.
>
> Speaking of strawman...
> Anet doesn't use RNG as their only way to make money. They offered a pack of mounts without RNG. And other things before that.
> Misrepresented proposition.
30 out of 36 equals "most" which is called "a generalization", not a straw man.
-
> @kurfu.5623 said:
> ...for the night, and get some sleep.
>
> 
>
>
LOL, cute! :)
-
> @Ohoni.6057 said:
> Again, people need to **stop arguing that ANet needs to get paid.** Nobody is disputing that point. Nobody thinks that ANet should not get paid. That is not an argument on the table. The question is, **when** ANet gets paid, should it be in the form of direct "what you see is what you get" purchases, or in the form of blind box gambling?
As you say, this is the straw man that people feel they must use to get sympathy for Anet. Apparently these players feel that only way Anet can make money is to force players to keep throwing money at gamble boxes until they get what they actually want - thereby spending far more money on the single wanted item than they would have if Anet simply sold that item separately. And maybe Anet believes this also since they are the ones who introduced said gamble box.
Which doesn't say much for Anet's supposed support of their artists' work. The players who use this straw man must also not have much of an opinion of Anet's work if they feel this is the only way Anet can make money.
-
> @pah.4931 said:
> > @Turial.1293 said:
> > > @pah.4931 said:
> > > Sinking gems into this also encourages Anet to continue developing the game GW2.
> > As a player since GW1 beta.... if the games future direction is RNG loot boxes like mobile games then I hope it goes under today, nobody should be supporting greed from a company that was founded on supporting players best interests. The RNG aspect does not support the players, loot boxes are a corrupt practice and they know it. They have screwed up big time but don't seem to care, if that is how it is, then they deserve the irreparable damage to their good name and with it a large loss in business. I wonder how their stocks are looking...
>
> My argument is that it's not greed. It's an attempt to keep the lights on.
People keep saying this as though the game isn't making money and is going to shut down any day. This is simply not true - you can look at their numbers yourself. And even if it was true, that doesn't excuse the use of sleazy business practices. If the game is really going to close down any day then it would be even worse to encourage players to spend more and more money on something they won't be able to use much longer. That's like a MMO selling an expansion and then closing down before anyone can even play the expansion they purchased.
-
> @Deihnyx.6318 said:
> > @Djinn.9245 said:
> > > @Swagger.1459 said:
> > > This is the super EASY guide to obtaining all 30 mount skins for FREE! Guaranteed!!!
> > >
> > > 1. Gather crafting materials daily and sell them on the BLTC!
> > >
> > > 2. Exchange the gold earned from selling mats into 400 FREE gems at the end of each week!
> > >
> > > 3. Buy your 1 FREE mount license, you earned with FREE gold and FREE gems, and enjoy it!
> > >
> > > 4. Repeat steps 1-3 weekly, and you will get all 30 mount skins for FREE!
> > >
> > > 5. Don’t rush yourself, just gather casually and savor the journey to collect all 30 FREE mount skins!
> > >
> > > You are very welcome!!!
> >
> > My time isn't free.
>
> Then what's the point of playing a video game, I wonder, if not sending free time to waste?
The time I have to spend playing a game is precious - I don't have a lot of it. So I'm not going to waste that time grinding for a random mount skin. If the only way I can get a mount skin is from a gamble box, I just won't get one. I will spend my time in games having fun.
-
> @Zionka.6897 said:
> Agree with OP, I think things were handled fine. We all have opinions, who's to say who is right or wrong in their opinion? Only the person stating it. RNG factor didn't bother me, and I'm not a gambler, and I'm not a whale. I'm just not picky. Whatever skin I'd get would be a better skin than what I was given, therefore no loss.
And do you think Anet made the inherent mount skins so blah and with only one dye channel on accident?
How About Some Love For ArenaNet??
in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Posted
> @jheryn.8390 said:
> > @Djinn.9245 said:
> > > @jheryn.8390 said:
> > > I think it is a general consensus that the mount skin acquisition was awful. I hate it too. However, it has become mass hysteria and has blown into a freaking mob mentality. It is just way beyond the pale.
> > >
> > > Anet has created an amazing game and what did they do that has players wanting to start a March on Washington? A loot box. Unbelievable.
> > >
> > > I'll throw my praise in to Anet. They have made an amazing game that will keep me playing for years. Path of Fire was amazing. It's all amazing. So you had a big mistake in the current mount skin boxes. Who doesn't screw up once in a while? Thanks for the great game Anet people.
> >
> > If you actually read the OP instead of just the title, this is what we are all responding to:
>
> First off, my original post was deleted because I quoted someone whose post was deleted. I actually posted not to long after your first post.
>
> Secondly, if you actually read my post instead of skimming it for key words to admonish with, you would understand that I think that those of you responding snidely about the mount skins as you have are being ridiculous.
>
> I agree with the OP. Anet deserves love for the amazing game they created.
I'm sorry you read some kind of negative emotion into my post. I was simply providing some information.