BLC exclusive item droprates warning

[kharmin.7683]

Let's not derail this thread into another gambling one. We already have plenty of those.

[sorudo.9054]

> @"Dante.1763" said:

> > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > @"Dante.1763" said:

> > > > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > > 135 USD.. on Black Lion Keys...

> > > >

> > > > I seriously hope you're joking, I love Gw2 and I want the game to make money but that is just insane man.

> > >

> > > Hey if its disposable income and doesnt actually put a persons lively hood at risk why judge where they spend their money? They could have easily as dropped more than that on a single W40k model which alot of people think is silly, or even legos, maybe pkmn/magic/yugioh cards..

> > >

> > >

> >

> > It's the RNG factor.

> > If it were something else like skins or expansion or something like that I wouldn't have said anything, but lootboxes..

> > That's a lot to drop on essentially gambling mechanics.

> >

> > In general I don't like the unhealthy culture around gambling and lootboxes, specially when people can drop a lot of cash like this and essentially walk away with nothing.

> > Gw2 does lootboxes a significantly better than most others games do which isn't hard considering most games are straight up predatory with them, but I'd still advise caution about dropping too much on them, specially if your after a single specific item.

> > I guess you could say i'm of the mindset that if you put this kind of money into something then by all rights you should have it.

> > Paying 4x the price of a full expansion pack just for a single skin and not getting it can't feel good.

> >

> > I feel bad they didn't get the skin they wanted specially for that investment..

> > I hope they don't regret wasting the money or feel like they were cheated.

>

> i agree with you on how unhealthy they are, id like them to be removed entirely and the items just sold for a flat fee, or even add them to the statuette vendor while making statuettes available for purchase directly. I pesonally spend alot on them as is, but i also want the guaranteed wardrobe unlocks and other items that can drop from them so im always for the most part getting something i want.

>

> I will say, if this person is smart they will save the statuettes they got so that in future they can get the item.

 

there is a reason why they don't do that, just calculate how much the statuettes have to cost, now calculate how many you need.

if they would sell them for let's say 100 gems, you would need 80 euro just for one single armor piece.

anyone with half a brain would see that as ridicules, it's 7500 gems right now so go figure how expensive it already is.

[Super Hayes.6890]

> @"Linken.6345" said:

> > @"Super Hayes.6890" said:

> > They put a new shiny in like this and I imagine they expect to see a certain amount of income from key sales as a result. What I don't like is that the statistics in this scenario don't hurt them at all but it absolutely screws over a select few outlier, extremely unlucky, players. I hope they wake up and realize there is a subset of players that are spending zero $$$ on keys that would spend $$$ on the new shiny straight up because we refuse the rng approach. The players that are buying keys to get this item would also spend $$$ to buy it direct. They can still make a lot of money without upsetting any of us!

>

> Yes but do the ones wanting to buy it straight up outweigh the whales that plop 135$+ each in order to gamble, I think not or they would do that.

 

I think the players that feel they have no other choice would make up the difference in sales and make it worth is for Anet to offer the alternative to rng. I know it is not realistic to convince those players to protest by not buying keys.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Dante.1763" said:

> its digital gambling, it doesnt pay out for everyone

Indeed. As with all the gambling, as long as you continue playing, in the end it's the Casino that wins.

 

And that's why, same as for real-life gambling, for this type of virtual gambling some regulations are needed as well.

 

> @"Vrath.1754" said:

> No thanks. I'd prefer not to have Government, run by old lazy people who have no reall understanding of the issues apply rulings. Did you watch congress question Google? They are clueless about the net and without a doubt gaming.

> And once they start who knows how far their overreach goes.

Well, unless the companies will be willing to self-regulate, the government _will_ have to step in at some point. And yeah, it's quite likely that they will overreact and do more than necessary.

 

Unfortunately, no company will ever willingly self-regulate. They would have to be forced to be so - either by players, or by government. And so far players have shown that not only they don't have any power to force companies to get a bit less greedy, but it's the exact opposite - way too many are very, very eager to be sheep waiting to be sheared, and will defend their right to be fleeced to their last breath.