Djinn.9245

> @goji.4172 said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > @goji.4172 said:

> > > a thought: i would actually be completely fine with the system in place if the price were halved to 200 gems per roll. that way if you don't get what you were hoping for it's cheap enough that it stings less, and Anet gets an increased likelihood that people will roll again while also not cheating people out of hundreds of dollars for randomized virtual cosmetics

> >

> > I wouldn't. I like picking exactly what I want. What if I bought 4 random chances (800 gems - around the price of a glider skin) and I still didn't get a skin I wanted? What if they were all ugly (to me)? Or if they were all for mounts I didn't use regularly? No, I would rather just spend 700 gems for 1 skin that I choose. I won't buy mount skins at all any other way.

>

> id prefer that too, but with the established system already in the game all i can really hope for at this point is a price cut : (

>

I hope for a good deal more than that. I hope for Anet to correct this marketing mistake. Lowering the price won't make any difference to me.

> @goji.4172 said:

> a thought: i would actually be completely fine with the system in place if the price were halved to 200 gems per roll. that way if you don't get what you were hoping for it's cheap enough that it stings less, and Anet gets an increased likelihood that people will roll again while also not cheating people out of hundreds of dollars for randomized virtual cosmetics

I wouldn't. I like picking exactly what I want. What if I bought 4 random chances (800 gems - around the price of a glider skin) and I still didn't get a skin I wanted? What if they were all ugly (to me)? Or if they were all for mounts I didn't use regularly? No, I would rather just spend 700 gems for 1 skin that I choose. I won't buy mount skins at all any other way.

In addition to objecting to Anet using manipulative practices to try to get me to spend more money, I have the following practical objections to the random mount skins:

1. You can't choose the skin you actually want.

2. If you have limited funds, you can't just keep buying skins until you get the one you want.

3. No matter how many random skins you buy, if you don't buy them all you could be stuck with only skins you don't like.

4. You could get a griffon skin even if you don't have the griffon.

5. If you prefer a specific mount (I prefer the jackal), you could end up with skin(s) that aren't for that mount.

And I'm sure I will think of more.

> @pah.4931 said:

> > @Sylv.5324 said:

> > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > > @Sylv.5324 said:

> > > > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > >

> > > > > And frankly, if you like this game, you should too.

> > > >

> > > > Of course I like this game, that's why I'm ticked off that the reason I bought this xpac was gated behind 'gamble or pay a further $120 for a limited time to get the skin you want'. I already paid for the ultimate edition, why was this not included, if they were that desperate for cash?

> > >

> > > OK. First of all. Anet never promised Mount Skins with the expansion at all. I can't recall a single marketing device that stated mounts would even have skins. So you can't claim that first point. You bought PoF as it was advertised.

> > >

> > > Second of all, if they indeed are "strapped for cash" then why would they include something for free in a package that you bought without them including it? You see how that's silly right? (I still feel like most of you need business lessons ... "making money" isn't enough when you have bosses and investors and boards of directors)

> > >

> > > Now let me ask you something. Would you have bought PoF if they announced there would never be any mount skins? If you still would have, then just go ahead and pretend there aren't any mount skins. Boom. Have fun!

> >

> > Responses like yours are pretty much cementing my resolve never to spend a dime on ANet again, because they have enabled and encouraged this disingenuousness and condescension. Thanks for saving me money!

>

> Does logic often resolve you to not spend money in other realms? Or is logic just toxic to you in video games?

>

> People need to stop thinking with their hearts. This is a very emotional reaction to a very logical decision.

>

> And anyone who is against Anet trying to make more money, please work next week for free at your job. And never, ever ask for a raise. Lest you be yet another "greedy kitten", eh?

As I've said, Anet could make money like other companies who don't use manipulative practices. You act like Anet has no choice but to use manipulative practices if they want to make money. This is simply untrue.

> @"Camaro Charr.2805" said:

> > @Sylv.5324 said:

> > > @"Camaro Charr.2805" said:

> > > > @"Camaro Charr.2805" said:

> > > > > @Jaskar.3071 said:

> > > > > > @"Camaro Charr.2805" said:

> > > > > > Hey I spent 400 gems on a random mount. It came up Highland Harrier, but I do not show the option to mount the Highland Harrier in game. What gives?

> > > > >

> > > > > Its a SKIN.

> > > > > there is an option to change mount skins in the hero-menu

> > > >

> > > > In the hero menu it is showing as locked for me... has a lock symbol over it.

> > >

> > > Let me guess... because I don't have the original griffon mount, then I cant use it... crap

> >

> > Thank you for illustrating why the current method is garbage.

>

> Okay A-net, at least give people a "random" skin they can use. Thus far I have given you 400 of my gems for nothing.

Contact Customer Service and ask for a refund. Let us know what they say.

> @Sylv.5324 said:

> > @pah.4931 said:

>

> > No laws were broken, and I GUARANTEE YOU they are making more money this way. If you actually love this game, you would see that and be happy that this "manipulative" (lol) business practice is keeping the lights on. OK, so you don't get the shiny raptor you want, but maybe now you might get one more expansion before the game shutters.

>

> Just makes it clear that there's no longer any point in investing in a game that's going so broke that it's going to shut down soon. Maybe folks should have stuck to GW1's original design, that one lasted over a decade.

There are many companies that haven't and wouldn't stoop to using manipulative practices even if they are/were going broke. It's called having higher standards.

Luck is part of your rewards - you should never have to delete a reward instead of actually getting something for it. Anet should have come up with a plan of what to do with excess luck when the first few accounts capped luck. That must have been years ago and yet Anet still hasn't done anything about it.

> @Elyssandariel.2679 said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > > @"Stu Grockalot.2937" said:

> > > > Personally, I love everything to do with GW2 and want it to be the best game ever.

> > > > I am also mindful that Arenanet do not work on the game for FREE!!

> > > >

> > > > This all costs money to pay the developers, and as a player I am happy to help support Arenanet and contribute towards the next Living World Season,(a considerable amount of content shipped for free by the way), and also balance patches, new Raid wings, new PvP content, WvW content, (again all for free).

> > > >

> > > > When you look at other online role playing games that force you to have a subscription of ~£10 a month, I won't name-drop any here, but suffice to say there was a massive motion picture based on it! ; then even after that GW2 is still cheaper.

> > > >

> > > > Mounts skins are optional, so if you chose to support the company that you love, to help develop the game that you love, stop your moaning.

> > > > Otherwise you run the risk of sounding like a spoiled child who doesn't get their way, and how life is unfair and treats you poorly.

> > > > Do the math, even if you CHOOSE to buy all the mounts, still cheaper than other online games!

> > >

> > > People are happy to pay for mount skins. Directly. Not for lottery tickets.

> >

> > I want mount skins to be like glider skins - I buy what I choose. There is only ONE REASON why they did mount skins this way: Anet knows that gamble boxes force people to spend more than they would if they simply purchased what they want. There is no other reason - forcing people to spend more money if they want skins.

>

> Yes, and I agree with WP on the fact that GW2 needs to make ANET money, so that we continue to have a game to play.

There are companies that make money by good methods: making good products that people want to buy and give word of mouth to their friends about what a good product it is and what a great value for their money. And there are companies that make money by using things like psychological tricks to try to force people to buy more than they really want, or have less-good products that they want to bundle with the good products in order to make money. (Which is what Anet is doing with the RNG mount skins.)

> @Elyssandariel.2679 said: I don't dispute that at all. We need to buy the things that are done the way we like them, when we buy gems. And before anyone starts in about gold to gems, those gems that you are buying with gold? Someone BOUGHT them with REAL MONEY. It is real money gems that go into the system. If they are needing money because they are working towards GW3, or they are trying to fundraise for the next expansion in the works, that is ok! What is NOT ok is doing what they are doing right now withholding skins from the game except for cash shop only RNG boxes.

>

> WP brought up a REALLY great point, as much as I am disappointed for other things he mentioned. He said if they did this five skins at a time, just put 5 skins in a loot box, then people would have bought it with no problem. If they released 5 more next week, in another box, then people would buy that one too. We have a problem because they have no ingame skins, and then they dumped THIRTY of them in a box, and said "Here you go guys! If you buy a huge amount of these, we'll give you a discount!!" Yeah, that's not the best way to make your players want to spend real money in the gemstore.

I agree that many people would have had less of a problem with an RNG box with only 5 skins. I would not have been one of those people, but many would. It would still not be a simple 1:1 of me buying the skin I want.

> @sidecarpilot.3468 said:

> I strongly disagree with unlockable mount skins on achievements/collections/loot. We didn't have it with gliders, I dont think it makes sense to have it with mounts

There are a couple of gliders that you can get in-game:

Ad Infinitum: Fractals

The Ascension: PvP

Warbringer: WvW

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > @"Stu Grockalot.2937" said:

> > Personally, I love everything to do with GW2 and want it to be the best game ever.

> > I am also mindful that Arenanet do not work on the game for FREE!!

> >

> > This all costs money to pay the developers, and as a player I am happy to help support Arenanet and contribute towards the next Living World Season,(a considerable amount of content shipped for free by the way), and also balance patches, new Raid wings, new PvP content, WvW content, (again all for free).

> >

> > When you look at other online role playing games that force you to have a subscription of ~£10 a month, I won't name-drop any here, but suffice to say there was a massive motion picture based on it! ; then even after that GW2 is still cheaper.

> >

> > Mounts skins are optional, so if you chose to support the company that you love, to help develop the game that you love, stop your moaning.

> > Otherwise you run the risk of sounding like a spoiled child who doesn't get their way, and how life is unfair and treats you poorly.

> > Do the math, even if you CHOOSE to buy all the mounts, still cheaper than other online games!

>

> People are happy to pay for mount skins. Directly. Not for lottery tickets.

I want mount skins to be like glider skins - I buy what I choose. There is only ONE REASON why they did mount skins this way: Anet knows that gamble boxes force people to spend more than they would if they simply purchased what they want. There is no other reason - forcing people to spend more money if they want skins.

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> Has Anet done anything other than merge the threads like this? Any response in this thread? Their social media? Anything?

>

> Or are they just bunkering down and praying that this will blow over?

Yes, they have outright closed the thread that talks about the damage of gamble boxes instead of merging it. Interesting, huh?

Interestingly, Anet decided to close the thread I posted this in - instead of merging it with this thread. So I'll repost here for everyones' edification:

http://www.pcgamer.com/behind-the-addictive-psychology-and-seductive-art-of-loot-boxes/

"Dr Luke Clark, director at the Center for Gambling Research at the University of British Columbia. "We know that the dopamine system, which is targeted by drugs of abuse, is also very interested in unpredictable rewards. Dopamine cells are most active when there is maximum uncertainty, and the dopamine system responds more to an uncertain reward than the same reward delivered on a predictable basis.""

Certainly Anet knew what it was doing when it implemented any of the loot boxes. This is common knowledge in the game industry.

I just discovered an issue: I have had 2 threads merged with other threads and now they don't appear in my Discussions list.

I just discovered another issue with these new forums: When the moderators merge Discussions, the Discussion that got merged is like it never existed. I've had 2 discussions merged and now I can't find them. They don't show up in my list of discussions.

> @Irrwahn.7269 said:

> I wish I could return those mount skins... Q___Q They make me sad, everytime I see them. I feel like I've paid too much for it.

> Most of them look all the same, but with small varieties in patterns - that's noth worth it at all. Please sell them cheaper or let us select the mounts we want for that horrendous amount of real money!

>

Contact Customer Service.

> @phandaria.4891 said:

> This is so interesting. Is it possible to get people/dev to confirm that this is NOT halloween leftover? Or maybe it is on purpose?

> >! So.. the next Living Story is involving Dhuum?

Not sure why it would be a halloween leftover - that type of thing isn't there during halloween.

> @Natto.5819 said:

> When I see people in town flying around, I get jealous. I really want to get this content, but I don't have the time to go on a quest. Can I just pay you 2,000 Gems to unlock this account wide? Then maybe offer a dragon skin for another 2,000 Gems so I can cosplay as Daenerys.

Why would they give you an actual mount for 2k gold when currently for 2k gold in gem store all you get is a skin pack? (Not actual mount.) No, can't see it happening.

> @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:

> > @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > How is it NOT gambling? It's a slot machine just like the BLCs. The only difference is that you will eventually get all of the skins if you keep buying.

>

> A key facet of gambling is that winning is never guaranteed.

>

Yep, same as this system. I want ONE particular skin. Anything else I get is a loss.

> @Vennyman.7521 said:

> I mean, it's not like it would hurt anything if we could turn those in, right? He used to accept those items outside of previous Halloweens.

I agree. We have the new armor recipes but no way to promote the ingredients.

I completely agree that something needs to be changed - especially now that we have mounts. I accidentally jumped outside the border on the raptor while chasing something. Yes it shows the border on the minimap but I don't look at the minimap the entire time. And yes I got a warning but only 1 or 2 seconds before kicking.

And of course Anet has decided not to have checkpoints anymore so we had to start the entire instance over.

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> - Game is buy to play so microtransactions are required for it to survive

This is correct, but seems to imply that Anet NEEDS to use psychological tricks to TRICK players into buying things instead of simply providing nice items that players CHOOSE to buy. Yes, Anet needs to make money but this is not the way to do it.

> @Elyssandariel.2679 said:

> > @"Rodney Gallowglass.2310" said:

> > So, in my opinion, the real problem with"loot boxes" or pay to play rng is that it uses principles developed by a fellow named B.F. Skinner.

> > (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner)

> >

> > These techniques user the way or brains are election to respond to rewards to manipulate you on a subconscious level to keep playing. You find these techniques in most modern games, especially MMOs, loot and shoot games and the like.

> >

> > http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/experienced-points/15510-Skinner-Boxes-and-How-Games-Use-Them

> >

> > These "Mount licenses" are just like micro Skinner boxes designed to suck the money or if your wallet. We'll see more of these, they're to profitable for them to do anything else. Just hope they suck to cosmetics and not actually power.

>

> Fellow psychologist, I salute you! This is exactly like Skinner boxes. Push that lever as fast as you can, and the food (LOOT) will come out eventually. But how many times do you have to push the lever? One? Two? Five? Twenty? Skinner showed that if you make the food drops random, then the lever gets pushed down more, and faster, than if it was a continual, guaranteed thing. And THIS RIGHT HERE is what I was talking about when I was explaining in another thread that these games have been designed around stimulating the limbic system in your brain (reward center that floods you with dopamine). I cannot give this enough helpfuls.

Yes, how underhanded of game developers to manipulate people by using their brain chemistry against them in order to make more money. Truly scummy.

> @Halbarz.3854 said:

> Housing could be a big feature for this game, as it could fit perfectly in the housing instance. Could feel like a tiny village in some cases.

> Would you pay let's say 10-15 EURO's to unlock this feature in the game?

> - includes housing for each home instance (you get a house and can decorate it as your will)

> - Scriber craft can also craft furniture (basic stuff)

> - Some achievements rewards you with decorations

> - Includes crafting stations, vaults and etc to make it your personal base.

> - Furniture packs could be sold in the gem store as well.

After what happened with mount skins, Anet would probably just make more gamble boxes for housing items. No thank you.

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> > @jdmThor.3806 said:

> > Except, the mount adoption license is far from being what the loot boxes being discussed in the article are:

> >

> > 1. You get a maximum of 30 trials to get that one skin that you supposedly want.

> > 2. You are guaranteed to get that skin within the 30 trials.

> > 3. Your odds of getting that skin increases with every skin that you unlock because you never get duplicates.

> >

> > Massive difference there.

>

> Agreed.

>

> I still don't like it, but the fact that you are guaranteed to get the skin you want if you spend enough does make for a significant difference. The RNG effect here is not a matter of will you get the desired item, but rather of how much will you have to spend. Essentially the skins have a variable price tag.

If I only want one skin, it is a terrible ploy on Anet's part to potentially make me pay 9600 gems for it. And unlike many other skins, you can't sell them on the TP which forces people to either gamble or simply not get the skin. Very greedy method which I, for one, will not support. And this is another tick on my list of reasons to leave the game altogether. Once the list is long enough, that's it for me.

This is to help educate those who don't understand why many GW2 players are upset that Anet has added yet another gamble box to the game. Gamble boxes are designed to take advantage of specific human psychological response - what PC Gamer calls a "dark compulsion". Is Anet the only game to utilize this system? Of course not. But just because it is prolific doesn't mean we have to like it.

http://www.pcgamer.com/behind-the-addictive-psychology-and-seductive-art-of-loot-boxes/

"Dr Luke Clark, director at the Center for Gambling Research at the University of British Columbia. "We know that the dopamine system, which is targeted by drugs of abuse, is also very interested in unpredictable rewards. Dopamine cells are most active when there is maximum uncertainty, and the dopamine system responds more to an uncertain reward than the same reward delivered on a predictable basis.""