Loosifah.4738

Argh, they added 2 more scythe skins into the game.

They've had the occasional miss-step; but overall; yes.

No. We do not need a greatsword scythe skin. We already have like 3 scythe skins in the game for staves. Leave it at that.

> @ReaverKane.7598 said:

> > @pah.4931 said:

> > Thank GOODNESS what you read on forums is just a tiny, teeny minority of players ... otherwise I have no idea why anyone would WANT to develop video games for people.

> >

> > "Here's a free game you can play and some stuff you don't need AT ALL that you can buy so we can feed our families..."

> >

> > "kitten YOU, GREEDY kitten!"

> >

> > Sheesh.

> >

> > Thanks for making this awesome game, Anet. And thanks making it with a great cash shop! I wish more companies ran their games like you! Keep up the good work!!!

>

> Free?

> LOL, idk about you, but just for the priviledge of playing this game with my brother i'm down 500€ (for me and my brother), and that's not counting Gems.

500€ just to play the game? Even if both you and your brother bought the $100 copies of GW2 and HoT, plus the $60 copy of PoF that's nowhere near 500 pounds. And if you did do that; that was your decision to pay for the premium content + gems.

> @ReaverKane.7598 said:

> > @Biff.5312 said:

> > The whole speech says basically nothing. It also fails to recognise the difference between objecting to an expensive item that we may not think is worth it, and an item we have to gamble for. If all the mount skins were available at 1000 gems, I would be far more likely to simply buy the one I want. They might even get more revenue this way, as a lot of people don't want to gamble on a long shot.

>

> This is mostly about the 2000 gem ones, not the RNG. All in all Mount skins are problematic... They overestimated the hype.

Which is why everyone wants them; right?

> All I can say is goodbye I am done with games that are complete microtransaction messes. Wow is far cheaper at 15$ a month.

Buh-Bye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

P.S. You don't need to spend a single dollar on the cash shop micro transactions to play this game; It's all cosmetic stuff. So the comparison to that horrible game WoW is invalid.

> @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> > @Lilyanna.9361 said:

> > > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> > > > Hi,

> > > Hi...

> > >

> > > > As I wrote in my previous response, it’s been a wonderful challenge to support all Living World and Live content development for a game of this size, for five years and counting, purely through the sale of optional microtransactions.

> > > This is one thing I do admire at least.

> > >

> > > > We laid out our guiding principles for GW2 microtransactions in March 2012 and we've held true to them ever since. My motivation is to continue to stay true to those principles while also continuing to fund Live content development.

> > > Heard this during the "apology" of the rng skins.

> > >

> > > > I recently apologized for our missteps with the Mount Adoption License. Still, mount skins are purely cosmetic, thus in many ways an ideal embodiment of our goal to support the game with optional microtransactions.

> > > Once again show you don't really get why the backlash happen though...

> > >

> > > > Most of us have two relationships with the GW2 gem store. One relationship is that of a customer: we purchase things when we want them for ourselves and agree with how they’re bundled and priced. Another relationship is that of an interested party: we know that ArenaNet funds Live development through the sale of gems for cash, and we enjoy playing new content like today’s release, so we hope that the gem store does well enough to keep supporting content development. We might say, “I wouldn’t buy that!”, but if enough people buy it that it supports ongoing Live development, we’re still happy.

> > > Not going to put words in your mout... um... in your fingers...? But this sounds like "As long as whales pay for it, it's perfectly fine."

> > >

> > > > Mount skins are style items, and style items have some unique challenges. They’re subject to individual taste, so except for the very flashiest items, individual style items will have limited sales.

> > > Some of us hate flashy skritt which is why for the rng one people didn't like that factor. I wanted 1 or 2 normal/simple ones, but at the gamble of getting something that melt my eyes out.

> > > Also this once again sounds like, "We knew a lot of the ones we put in the adoption was horrible and would never sell, but we made them anyway and made a gambling set up so you can work to get the ones you want unless you were lucky."

> > > This does not sound right.

> > >

> > > Also, GW2 isn’t setup to support an enjoyable experience of browsing through a large catalog of style items, so players tend not to do that. What our data shows is that higher-priced flashy individual items can work, and lower-average-price-per-item bundles can work, but lower-priced individual items generally don’t generate meaningful revenue to support the game. And the whole point of these items is to support the game.

> > > So, "Those that want to blind others is the only ones we care most for as the bland plain individuals DO have some nice shiny coins... but eh..."

> > >

> > > > GW2 is a content-rich online world with no monthly fee, so it’s a great overall value, with microtransactions doing the heavy lifting of funding continued development of the game.

> > > I do agree with that for the most part, but I know many would complain about "content" for certain reasons. There's a lot to do in GW2.

> > >

> > > > It shouldn’t also be our goal to have the lowest-priced microtransactions. In that case, the only logical outcome would be that we could afford to make less content than other developers, and I think that’s not what any of us are looking for. I love our current pace of content development and I hope we can support it for a long time to come.

> > > The last few months I have barely seen any "lowest-priced microtransactions". One being 2000 for halloween, another 9600 for the rng, another 3000 for the Elon one, and then the 2000 Mecha Ram and ugly Chicken Peacock.

> > >

> > > > We’re all in this together. It’s obvious in your posts that you’re thoughtful and motivated to see the game do well. You balance between loving the game and not always agreeing with how gem store items are bundled or priced. That’s fair. We have a commerce team that lives that dilemma every day. We’re all doing our best for the long-term health of the game.

> > > Heard this before.

> > >

> > > > Thank you all for your passion, and again, thank you for your continued support of Live development.

> > > And back to square one like how the "apology" ended for the RNG skins.

> > >

> > > Nothing to see here.

> >

> > I know you don't pay attention to the gem store so let's break this down. Right now a lot of people are blinded by mounts. But if you search just a wee bit more...

> >

> > Forge gloves> 400 gems

> > Forge Helm> 400 gems

> > Ram Backpack > 300 gems

> > Outfit > 700-800 gems

> >

> > This is all recent items mind you. People just seem to hyperfocus on mounts without realizing the other gem store items for some reason.

> >

> > This can go on and on. It is true, people do not pay attention to the cheaper end of things on the store. They don't. They are not paying attention to any of that, even when they are on the front page.

> >

> > Higher numbers generate a response. Be it good or bad, and make us pull away or spend. If data is showing this and the psychology shows it just by an everyday occurrence why are you being huffy and rude?

> >

> > You response, your reactions, your wallet made these choices. The community really needs to wake up and look at themselves. Devs are just observers, when in reality we make the decisions. In a both positive and negative light. It seems like no one wants to come to terms with this. It's like watching a rat in a maze and game devs are scientists (not to degrade anyone) YOU are giving them the data.

> >

> > So you want cheaper, yet pretty things? Give them something different to go off of so they won't 'assume' of what you want. But to be fair, people are very easy to read through actions and words so I do not blame them for pulling legit numbers on people's behavioral patterns and reactions to their prices.

> >

> > FYI- Being sarcastic or rude to Anet only proves their point further.

>

> I wasn't being rude or sarcastic. Not sure where that came out at all.

> Also, while I haven't been around for it... many have already stated from the forged "pieces" and the other one... the ones that had candles on the shoulders...

> People that was around when Arenanet used to make full armour skins stated that those incomplete 1 to 3 piece armour sets are the same price as the full ones.

> That already sounds bad.

I wish I could argue against that last tidbit; but it's true. The full armor skin sets used to cost about 700 gems; now the 3 pieces sets are like 300 a piece.

You paid 30 dollars for the expansion content; which is 20 dollars less than HoT.

This helps fund the companies endeavors into the next expansion you'll likely complain about.

Sure add story mode; but none of the achievements or gear from the raids.

This peacock raptor is ugly

> @Turial.1293 said:

> > @Loosifah.4738 said:

> > Oh for the love of the gods; how many of these threads are we going to see before people quit making duplicates?

>

> Probably plenty more until Anet have been reprimanded in some way by law or on the very slimmest of chances they offer an apology and revert their lootbox practices. I am just personally waiting for the joint boycott as a protest to all this.

They already said they're not changing the current licenses; but they wouldn't be adding any more to the loot boxes. They're not going to go any further than that. This is just beating a dead horse.

Oh for the love of the gods; how many of these threads are we going to see before people quit making duplicates?

Raid and WvW/PvP vendors sell ascended items with PoF stat sets(You get to choose the stat on the items).

As Ojimaru said

The mosaic IS the inscription

Oh no someone spoiled that you actually kill Balthy. Because nobody saw that coming.

Yes because calling out the Dev's always gets you the wanted reaction.

I don't have a griffon yet; but the last box I opened gave me a griffon skin,

That's one hell of a comparison for a video game company that added RNG mount skin boxes.

You know I could see where your argument was coming from if this was some game breaking thing you needed to have to compete. But it's not. It's simply a way to make your mount look different. It in no way affects the gameplay at all.

So what I'm hearing is "You betrayed me by putting in cosmetics that I don't need; but really really want and I can't choose my own"

Womp womp

I remember the RNG loot boxes for the perfect world Halloween event. I sunk quite a bit of money and all of my in game money trying to get that damned flaming horse and never got anything remotely worth it out of the boxes.

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > @Loosifah.4738 said:

> > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > I don't think Anet deserve anything at this point. They used lootbox mechanic for one reason only - money. If all they care is money, we owe them nothing. More cynism towards anet actions from now on.

> >

> > Yes how dare they make a ploy to make more money so they can give us more content. Shame on them!

>

> At which point there is a note on mount box that the result of sale is new content?

>

> Anet is already making money. And as mentioned in NCsoft report - they are doing better than expected. They are not starving or dying. They became greedy. Too many good will and reviews were given for this game at the release so they feel they are unique gem on the market. But they are oh so mistaken.

Go play something else then? We pay them once(per expansion) for new content. Even if they are doing better than expected they still use the cash shop money to pay developers(or give them bonuses). The mount RNG boxes **AT LEAST** guarantee a unique mount skin you don't already have.

Could it have been implemented better? Yes

Will they do future implementations better? Probably

Will I still buy the occasional RNG mount box to get what I want eventually? It's likely

So far I've paid 30 dollars and though I didn't get the skins I wanted; I did get some pretty nice ones anyways. It's just cosmetic stuff. You want to look all spiffy with a special mount? Pay up

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @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?

I think it was intentional they did it that way. Just like how they did it with the basic gliders. It's a way for them to make money without making the cash shop pay to win.

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> I don't think Anet deserve anything at this point. They used lootbox mechanic for one reason only - money. If all they care is money, we owe them nothing. More cynism towards anet actions from now on.

Yes how dare they make a ploy to make more money so they can give us more content. Shame on them!

I personally have no issues with RNG loot boxes so long as duplicates aren't a thing and they're not that expensive. Though with the current mount ones I wish they'd separate them by mount so I don't keep getting crappy skimmer skins.

I was thinking it looked a little different; but to be honest Kralk should just learn to not have lieutenants. So far Glint has betrayed Kralk; and both of her children have fought against it