Mount Dye Channel Change Request: regular vs spooky

[AegisRunestone.8672]

> @"Lokki.1092" said:

> Anet has to make money somehow. We don't pay for a subscription, so they monetize customization and aesthetics. I prefer this to monetizing power which is what other games do.

>

> If you want 4 color channels on your mount then buy gems, either with gold or cash it helps the game development or to balance the economy. I see no problem with this.

 

So wait, a suggestion to add "colorful" base mount skins with 4 dye channels on the gemstore, or adding One Additional Dye Channel per base mount on the gemstore won't pay the employees?

[Ariurotl.3718]

"Unacceptable"? Not being able to dye every part of your mount is "unacceptable"? Blimey, this culture of entitlement is even worse than I thought.

[Rhanoa.3960]

> @castlemanic.3198 said:

> The core mount skins that we have in the game have little customization, a single dye channel that does not affect the whole mount and delivers some painful customization issues regarding the successful ability to dye your mount the way you wish. Raptor is the most egregious of the five mounts because even when you attempt to dye it a different colour, the red scales underneath will dilute or even be stronger than the dye you put into the game, but all mounts suffer from the lack of ability to dye them.

>

> Then the spooky mounts were introduced, four dye channels that allow you to customize the entire mount as you wish, altering every part of the mount and even the mist and glowing eyes that it emanates from the mounts.

>

> So it's clear that the mounts are fully capable of being dyed all over, Anet has just decided for absolutely no good reason that the regular mount skins should not be fully customizable. This is unacceptable. Plain and simple and it's honestly a little unethical to hang the ability to fully customize your mount on mount skins rather than give players the choice to customize their mounts as is. And honestly? same with the basic glider too.

>

> Anet needs to change the basic mount and glider skins to allow them to be fully cuztomizable dye channel wise. It's clear that they *can* be fully customizable, but the only reason they aren't is to promote their skins that are fully dyeable.

>

> And to make absolutely clear, my issue is NOT with the availability of glider and mount skins. The skins are fine as is, but it's troubling that basic mounts and gliders cannot be fully dyed where other skins can be, condemning the player to be forced to spend gems (whether acquired via lots of play time or with real world money) to truly get the ability to show their favourite colours. At least with the basic glider, make the single dye channel change the colour of the entire glider and not the tinest sliver on the border of it, but mounts need four dye channels and those dye channels CANNOT be sold on the gem store either, they should be available to the playerbase for free.

 

 

Folks were screaming about wanting mounts, they got them. Now it isn't enough you have to have more dye channels?

The fact that it even came dyeable was a huge surprise.

Other MMOs out in the market don't even have this feature only to sell SKINS for your mounts that are non customizable.

FFXIV it's $10 each skin that you can't even dye.

 

[Embered.5089]

The only problem I have with this system is how you're paying for "skins" but are really paying for dye patterns. The skins, though fine for halloween or dying your mount entirely one color for other days, don't really look like skins. The shape of the mounts is still the same... and the springer looks funny. I don't think the chubby bunny look combines with the skeleton paint very well. Fat skeleton?

[TheRandomGuy.7246]

> @Rhanoa.3960 said:

> FFXIV it's $10 each skin that you can't even dye.

 

~50 available ingame for free. 6 sold on the cash shop for 7 dollars each.

 

Tbh not surprised with how things are handled now. Their monetization got more aggressive last year. All this mount business is them pushing boundaries even further since the remaining players don't really care.

[Crossaber.8934]

Our basic glider only got one dye channel, and it is 20% of the whole glider is affected. I think it is intented to give us free mount with less customization to preserve superior mounts available in gem store.

[nosleepdemon.1368]

You have to hand it to them, they know their target market. It doesn't matter to ANet that a couple of players have spotted the obvious and deliberately pitiful mount customization options to artificially inflate the perceived value of the new skins; There will always be people who defend these decisions by claiming that it's ok, since participation is not required. What's not so immediately obvious is that this is proof of the sort of marketing tactics ANet are willing to employ. When it comes to vanity and exclusivety, it appears that people are far more comfortable being at each other's throats than looking for who is pulling their strings. By all means, state the obvious - these skins are optional, but for fucks sake don't shrug off the clear truth that we were given an artificially low starting point to upsell us on future "improvements".

[Einlanzer.1627]

> @Embered.5089 said:

> The only problem I have with this system is how you're paying for "skins" but are really paying for dye patterns. The skins, though fine for halloween or dying your mount entirely one color for other days, don't really look like skins. The shape of the mounts is still the same... and the springer looks funny. I don't think the chubby bunny look combines with the skeleton paint very well. Fat skeleton?

 

I agree with this. I don't necessarily have a problem with the core concept here or Anet's attempt to monetize greater customization options, but in this case it feels poorly handled - treating Halloween skins like a cheap gimmick and that I'm actually buying the ability to customize my mounts more rather than buying cool looking various halloween skins.

 

What they arguably should have done was actually released two new sets of skins - a package of "enhanced" mounts with additional dye channels for less than 1600 gems, and then had individual halloween skins for each of the mounts for 600ish each that changed their appearance more significantly than these do. It's very likely I would have ended up paying more AND feeling more satisfied with those purchases.

[Faaris.8013]

> @Lokki.1092 said:

> Anet has to make money somehow. We don't pay for a subscription, so they monetize customization and aesthetics. I prefer this to monetizing power which is what other games do.

>

> If you want 4 color channels on your mount then buy gems, either with gold or cash it helps the game development or to balance the economy. I see no problem with this.

 

This goes only so far. Color channels were never a premium feature as far as I know. Why are they premium now and only in this case? "Anet has to make money somehow" is an excuse that could be used for everything. If your argument can be used to explain every decision any company makes, it's not a good argument. Imagine the new PoF armor skins would only have 2 dye channels. If you want 4 dye channels, you have to pay extra. Would you use the same argument to defend that decision? What if they add new legendary armor skins that people do raids for and spend thousands of gold on, and the new skins come with 2 dye channels, unless you go to the gem store and upgrade to 4 dye channels. Or let's take other stuff we take for granted when buying an expansion. What if you couldn't apply the new skins to existing armor/weapons anymore, unless you buy a new kind of transmutation charge from the gems store? It's just cosmetics, right?

 

Of course there is the way of the pragmatic person, and I would call me one. I won't whine about this, I'll just treat this as if mounts are more expensive than I first thought. First I thought the Griffon costs 250 gold, but apparently, that's the price for the downgraded version. Gems can be bought with gold, so if they sell a 4 dye channel kit for Griffon for 800 gems, in my book, the Griffon just costs 464 gold as full version. Just makes it more exclusive, like the Griffon on the first week, right? Everybody got the gold for the griffon somehow, so everybody can get the gold to buy the dye channels (of course we depend on the whales to buy gems with real money first, but we can count on that).

 

The problem for me is the lack of transparency. It doesn't feel good to see this happening, and they could do this with other stuff as well, like in my examples above. I don't think that was a business decision that builds trust. It would have felt better if they had implemented 4 dye channel version right away and give players the choice which Griffon to purchase. The one that costs 250 gold with 1 dye channel or the one that costs 464 gold with 4 dye channels. I would probably have simply payed the gold for the full version. Now I feel like they removed dye channels to make me pay extra money, like the full version of mounts was not included in the price I payed for PoF (even people who bought the Ultimate version get downgraded mounts lol). If they had introduced the 4 dye version as standard and offered a downgraded version for people with less liquidity, that would have felt totally different. Nobody is bothered when a company sells an electronic gadget with less features for less money.

 

> @Rhanoa.3960 said:

> Folks were screaming about wanting mounts, they got them. Now it isn't enough you have to have more dye channels?

 

Wrong, people want the dye channels that have been designed and created for the expansion they bought, and not a downgraded version. ArenaNet created mounts with 4 dye channels, and then took 3 away from them. They didn't create mounts with 1 dye channel and then set up a project for more dye channels after PoF launched.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @castlemanic.3198 said:

>

> So it's clear that the mounts are fully capable of being dyed all over, Anet has just decided for absolutely no good reason that the regular mount skins should not be fully customizable. This is unacceptable. Plain and simple and it's honestly a little unethical to hang the ability to fully customize your mount on mount skins rather than give players the choice to customize their mounts as is. And honestly? same with the basic glider too.

 

I don't think a business wanting to make money is not a good reason. I don't believe it's unacceptable, either. I also don't believe it's unethical under any reasonable standard for a company to sell a basic product without false advertising (important point), then sell upgraded versions for more later. Paying extra for something to look better is a matter of course for any product in which looks play a part.

 

Please, wake up and smell the coffee. ANet has been selling convenience and customization in the store since day 1. They're far from the first company to do so. Compare ANet to the competition. Even the MMO developers that only rent you their game have virtual stores that sell customization.

[Myhr.9108]

And what if they indeed removed three dye channels to put them behind a gem price? First, every argument regarding gem cost should always acknowledge the fact that, on the MMORPG market, GW2 is the only one that allows gem for PO exchange, which is an extremely player-friendly practice. Some other MMOs may have kinda similar hybrid systems, but none with the amount of clarity the Gem for PO exchange window offers. One store money, one in-game money, two exchange rates, period. Others big MMOs cashshops always require some real money in a way or another.

 

Secondly, why is there a complain in the first place? Serious question here. It's simple, it's because some people are not satisfied with only one dye channel. In a way, yes, the gemstore mounts skins do look very attractive, almost irresistible for people that want to push their customization. But it's a matter of willpower! You're not FORCED to buy them, the basic mounts are very nice already, and even if you want the upgrade, you can farm for it! Isn't this game about fixing yourself a goal and working toward it?

 

This is not a lack of transparency at all, the gemstore has always been about having superior cosmetic options, in a way (quality, for example, glider skins) or another (quantity, with outfits). That is the whole point. See something you like? Consider supporting us with real money. Or farm for it and get it for free. Honestly can't think of a more player-friendly model out there.

[Shaaba.5672]

> @Esquilax.3491 said:

> Did you see the base glider in HoT? It's a poo stained rag. Of course they are going to make the default bland to encourage people to buy a skin. It's a clearly intentional business decision.

 

I very much agree with this. The mounts are the basic model and they did a fantastic job on those skins. Let them have the gem store sales for more customization.

[OrbitalButt.5708]

> @takatsu.9416 said:

> > @castlemanic.3198 said:

>

> >

> > I get disagreeing, but you're seriously going to suggest that asking for more dyes on basic mounts is some form of communism?

>

> Not the authoritarian system of communism but the ideal of everyone needs to have everything shared equally communism, yes, I think thoughts seem to be aligned that way, rather than work for gems and gold to upgrade and improve etc.

 

You have no idea what communism is

[Knifetwister.3815]

I'm guessing it was a conscious decision. Having limited options on the base model increases interest for multi-channel skins released later. If you were able to customize the baseline mounts as much as you say you want, then the new skins having as many dye channels wouldn't be nearly as awesome. I think this is more about not wanting to drop 1600 gems on skin packs than it is about the base models not being customizable enough. If they gave us everything right out the gate, there would be no market for fancy new skin packs. Good business decision, imo.

[castlemanic.3198]

> @Knifetwister.3815 said:

> I'm guessing it was a conscious decision. Having limited options on the base model increases interest for multi-channel skins released later. If you were able to customize the baseline mounts as much as you say you want, then the new skins having as many dye channels wouldn't be nearly as awesome. I think this is more about not wanting to drop 1600 gems on skin packs than it is about the base models not being customizable enough. If they gave us everything right out the gate, there would be no market for fancy new skin packs. Good business decision, imo.

 

I don't care for these spooky mounts, they're not up to my taste. I only care about the difference in dye channels **especially when dye channels don't truly show the colour you want to show like on a raptor**.

 

The price tag of the mount skins isn't an issue and there's already another thread about it. This also is not about "giving us everything right out the gate", as having 4 dye channels on basic mounts in **no** way invalidates future mount skins, no matter what logic is applied to it.

[Ashen.2907]

> @takatsu.9416 said:

> > @castlemanic.3198 said:

>

> >

> > I get disagreeing, but you're seriously going to suggest that asking for more dyes on basic mounts is some form of communism?

>

> Not the authoritarian system of communism but the ideal of everyone needs to have everything shared equally communism, yes, I think thoughts seem to be aligned that way, rather than work for gems and gold to upgrade and improve etc.

 

Requesting that one get more for what pays, expressing dissatisfaction as a paying consumer, is pretty much the opposite of communism. And when I say, "pretty much the opposite," I mean, truly the antithesis of communism.

 

 

Even so, I disagree with the OP. Having a base model included as part of the PoF purchase while enhanced versions of the mounts are in the gemstore, is exactly how I would want monetization to work in an ongoing basis.

[Rhanoa.3960]

> @Faaris.8013 said:

> > @Lokki.1092 said:

> > Anet has to make money somehow. We don't pay for a subscription, so they monetize customization and aesthetics. I prefer this to monetizing power which is what other games do.

> >

> > If you want 4 color channels on your mount then buy gems, either with gold or cash it helps the game development or to balance the economy. I see no problem with this.

>

> This goes only so far. Color channels were never a premium feature as far as I know. Why are they premium now and only in this case? "Anet has to make money somehow" is an excuse that could be used for everything. If your argument can be used to explain every decision any company makes, it's not a good argument. Imagine the new PoF armor skins would only have 2 dye channels. If you want 4 dye channels, you have to pay extra. Would you use the same argument to defend that decision? What if they add new legendary armor skins that people do raids for and spend thousands of gold on, and the new skins come with 2 dye channels, unless you go to the gem store and upgrade to 4 dye channels. Or let's take other stuff we take for granted when buying an expansion. What if you couldn't apply the new skins to existing armor/weapons anymore, unless you buy a new kind of transmutation charge from the gems store? It's just cosmetics, right?

>

> Of course there is the way of the pragmatic person, and I would call me one. I won't whine about this, I'll just treat this as if mounts are more expensive than I first thought. First I thought the Griffon costs 250 gold, but apparently, that's the price for the downgraded version. Gems can be bought with gold, so if they sell a 4 dye channel kit for Griffon for 800 gems, in my book, the Griffon just costs 464 gold as full version. Just makes it more exclusive, like the Griffon on the first week, right? Everybody got the gold for the griffon somehow, so everybody can get the gold to buy the dye channels (of course we depend on the whales to buy gems with real money first, but we can count on that).

>

> The problem for me is the lack of transparency. It doesn't feel good to see this happening, and they could do this with other stuff as well, like in my examples above. I don't think that was a business decision that builds trust. It would have felt better if they had implemented 4 dye channel version right away and give players the choice which Griffon to purchase. The one that costs 250 gold with 1 dye channel or the one that costs 464 gold with 4 dye channels. I would probably have simply payed the gold for the full version. Now I feel like they removed dye channels to make me pay extra money, like the full version of mounts was not included in the price I payed for PoF (even people who bought the Ultimate version get downgraded mounts lol). If they had introduced the 4 dye version as standard and offered a downgraded version for people with less liquidity, that would have felt totally different. Nobody is bothered when a company sells an electronic gadget with less features for less money.

>

> > @Rhanoa.3960 said:

> > Folks were screaming about wanting mounts, they got them. Now it isn't enough you have to have more dye channels?

>

> Wrong, people want the dye channels that have been designed and created for the expansion they bought, and not a downgraded version. ArenaNet created mounts with 4 dye channels, and then took 3 away from them. They didn't create mounts with 1 dye channel and then set up a project for more dye channels after PoF launched.

 

I didn't purchase PoF because of mounts or dye-able mounts but still got what I didn't want a mount. Then purchasing Halloween skins knowing that this is a great way to support the game.

[Omega Mayhem.7163]

Sounds like someone is preparing for a debate in their poli-sci class.

[Purgatori.3645]

Anet hit a gold mine with mounts, and they know it.

I would like to see the basic mounts dye channels changed as well but I totally understand if they dont change anything.

Mount skins are going to make them an obscene amount of money ... Its just basic commerce ... and allowing 4 dye channels on purchased skins makes sense.

 

This is round 1 .... I cant even begin to imagine all of the wonderful things coming for mounts in the future?

 

~hopes for springer with antlers and a scarf and Jackal with a rudolph nose LOL ~

 

[ROMANG.1903]

> @castlemanic.3198 said:

> > @Knifetwister.3815 said:

> > I'm guessing it was a conscious decision. Having limited options on the base model increases interest for multi-channel skins released later. If you were able to customize the baseline mounts as much as you say you want, then the new skins having as many dye channels wouldn't be nearly as awesome. I think this is more about not wanting to drop 1600 gems on skin packs than it is about the base models not being customizable enough. If they gave us everything right out the gate, there would be no market for fancy new skin packs. Good business decision, imo.

>

> I don't care for these spooky mounts, they're not up to my taste. I only care about the difference in dye channels **especially when dye channels don't truly show the colour you want to show like on a raptor**.

>

> The price tag of the mount skins isn't an issue and there's already another thread about it. This also is not about "giving us everything right out the gate", as having 4 dye channels on basic mounts in **no** way invalidates future mount skins, no matter what logic is applied to it.

 

That guy says it all. They know most people won't pay for a stupid patern change so they intentionally downgrade base mounts to force them to buy gemstore ones. And stop calling the base mounts "free". PoF isn't free, and isn't buyable with gems.

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

The basic mounts need at least two dye channels (I'm pretty sure they _have_ these, mechanically), one for the base color and one for the accents. Gem store skins can have more than this, but that should be the baseline.

 

Especially when some of the basic skins take dye really badly (the raptor, for example, looks muddy and washed-out no matter how bright a dye you apply to it).

[takatsu.9416]

> @Dashiva.6149 said:

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > @takatsu.9416 said:

> > > I disagree. The mounts we got were free and the BASIC mounts.

> > Really? I had to buy an expansion for them.

>

> Agree with this. Mounts were one of the big selling points for PoF. Saying they were "free" isn't entirely accurate.

 

You paid for content, the mounts and their features, the maps, the stories, the elites and a lot more. We got what was expected. We paid for the actual content and gameplay. We paid for access to four default mounts with abilities and all the fun. We did not pay expecting to be able to dye four channels and an unlimited selection of skins or anything cosmetic. We got what we wanted.

 

One default dye channel was actually an EXTRA benefit. Alot of players were happy and excited to see we can actually dye the mounts with a single colour. This was not what we actually expected.

 

Now there is an upgrade for cosmetics of sorts and now youre all arguing that it should have been there since the beginning in retrospect? If they introduce a mount skin upgrade that can have 16 dyes do we all have to complain again? You do know what upgrades are.

 

Also who said they initially made mounts with 4 dye channels just because we have 4 channels now? They can insert and design additional channels if they want. If you notice the channels are designed to be for the spooky skeleton skin, the channel for the bones is certainly created to display that way for this skin only. I'm pretty sure they can add and activate more dye channels and redesign things later. Do you remember the thread on weapon dyes? The dev said they hadn't ever designed weapons with dye channels. But armors have that system active and some have 1channel, some have more. Just because now they created 4 channels doesn't mean the originals had 4 and they TOOK AWAY 3. What kind of unreasonable conclusion is that?

 

Also 250 g for a griffon is still free. It's in game time and gold. No one was asked to pay real money for it. Even the gem store skins can be paid by gold. If you want a legendary do you not need to invest gold and time? If you want a griffon is it not reasonable to invest some gold and time? You also needed to invest time into masteries, should we complain too?

 

These kind of thoughts lead down the same path of entitlement and irrational complaining about everyone getting the best things for free and no effort

[tekfan.3179]

It was the same with the basic glider skin in HoT, so why are there so many surprised players? It's a buy to play game, of course there are forms of monetization. Better pay-to-style than pay-to-win.

Can't say I'm happy with the pack though, I'm kinda underwelmed that it's just a simple reskin with some glow-/cloud-effects. I was expecting something along the line of actual skeleton models. Wouldn't hurt to offer the skins seperately either: Buy skins seperately and get a small discount if you buy the whole pack, to be a bit more user friendly.

[Zephyra.4709]

Marketing ploy. Every successful business enforces this. You see it across a plethora of games, GW2 is no different.

[Zephyra.4709]

> @tekfan.3179 said:

> It was the same with the basic glider skin in HoT, so why are there so many surprised players? It's a buy to play game, of course there are forms of monetization. Better pay-to-style than pay-to-win.

> Can't say I'm happy with the pack though, I'm kinda underwelmed that it's just a simple reskin with some glow-/cloud-effects. I was expecting something along the line of actual skeleton models. Wouldn't hurt to offer the skins seperately either: Buy skins seperately and get a small discount if you buy the whole pack, to be a bit more user friendly.

 

I agree on the likeness of actual skeleton models; how fitting and going the extra mile. I really like how ESO do their skeleton mount models. There is apparently a datamined mount skin regarding the raptor for GW2 on reddit.. I'm hoping it at least features new looks and not merely a reskin with different pattern markings nevertheless I appreciate what ANet has done with the spooky mounts.