Mount Dye Channel Change Request: regular vs spooky

[notebene.3190]

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> I don't believe it's 'unacceptable' nor that ArenaNet 'needs' to change anything. I understand some players would appreciate more or different features to come standard in ArenaNet's game, but, after all, it _is_ ArenaNet's game and I believe they can monetize certain features as they see fit.

>

> Just like with many things in life, we have the _choice_ to pay extra for improvements over the basic model.

>

> Good luck.

 

Agreed. I'd maybe like to see a set of skins you can buy just to get the dye channels without changing how they look too much. I'd love the extra dye channels, but not excited about having skeleton mounts. :)

[Djinn.9245]

>> @Rhanoa.3960 said:

>> 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.

 

> @TheRandomGuy.7246 said:

>

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

 

Interesting how different what you say is from what Rhanoa says. The vast majority of skins available in game for free. Hm, which system do I prefer?

 

[Dashiva.6149]

> @takatsu.9416 said:

> > @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

 

Oh, I agree with you on many points. I along with everyone else were stoked that mounts were dyeable at all when they were first previewed, and people were perfectly happy with it up until the skins revealed that mounts had a deeper level of customization "hidden away".

 

Now I personally like the natural look on mounts better and find fully dyed out mount ugly AF, but I can see why people are having a fit about this and claim entitelment to something that was already "in the code" so close to the PoF release. I don't need more dye channels, but I think it was a mistake to play their hand and introduce skins for mounts this soon.

 

And I still don't agree with your point that mounts, basic or griffon, are free. Both require ingame time, gold **and** a purchase of Path of Fire before you have the option to aquire them ingame. Free players, Core-players and HoT-players can't get them.

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

>@Dashiva.6149 said:

> Oh, I agree with you on many points. I along with everyone else were stoked that mounts were dyeable at all when they were first previewed, and people were perfectly happy with it up until the skins revealed that mounts had a deeper level of customization "hidden away".

A lot of people, myself included, actually did complain about the lack of dye channels on the basic mounts long before this.

[Faaris.8013]

> @Rhanoa.3960 said:

> > 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.

 

Sorry, but who gave you the authority to declare what exactly we players payed for and what we didn't pay for? And while I am at it, who is "we"? I certainly wouldn't include myself in your "we".

 

If 4 dye channels had been in the game with the launch of PoF and only hidden, they were part of the content I payed for. If they make changes after launch and put some more mobs to a story to make it harder, are they part of the PoF content I payed for? If they make changes to the Eater of Souls, is that new Eater of Souls still content I payed for? This is becoming ridiculous really quick.

 

Why should changes to existing content change the status of that content? Sure, I did not expect to be able to dye 4 channels at mounts, but I also didn't expect the Griffon. Is the Griffon not content of PoF in your book? If they took away the griffon and reimbursed players with gold, and then put the griffon on the gem store, would you still argue in the same way?

[lynspottery.6529]

Actually with the new skins for the mounts you can get the 4 channels for dyes. I did it and here are my Halloween results.

[s1292.photobucket.com/user/lynspottery/slideshow/WoW](http://s1292.photobucket.com/user/lynspottery/slideshow/WoW "s1292.photobucket.com/user/lynspottery/slideshow/WoW")

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

 

Why is it unacceptable./unethical to offer access to color customization for gems, apart from personal preference?

 

[AegisRunestone.8672]

> @"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.

Because basic glider skin was ugly as sin? How many people do you use using it? YET, the basic mounts look beautiful! I doubt people are going to abandon the basic mounts anytime soon. Especially...

 

> 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.

 

... since they did that. It's quite possible they'll all be reskins. Gliders don't need a complex model to work, but think about how the mounts are designed--to make the Springer into, oh say a rocket-boot golem, you'd have to pretty much make a entirely new model.

[AegisRunestone.8672]

Also, I have a question for those of you who don't think this is a problem: Did anyone complain when multi-dye channeled glider skins were released because the basic glider had one dye channel?

[Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582]

> @Rhanoa.3960 said:

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

 

Yeah, I was really surprised that you could actually dye them at all!

 

I don't think we need more channels.

[Grim West.3194]

New mount skins are goofy looking, even dyed. Love the idea but I'll wait for something else.

[ROMANG.1903]

Why are people who don't think we need more dye channels even on this topic at all? If you don't want more customization, more dye channels won't change anything for you: just keep the base colour. For those of us who want to customize our mounts, having the base skin intentionally toned down to make us buy skins that we wouldn't want otherwise, feels like a dick move from Anet. I would actually be pissed as a game designer if my models were lowered in quality in order to make others models more appealing. The extras from the gem store are supposed to be just that, extras. I don't concider something that's technically possible from the begining, that everyone asked for as soon as we knew mounts were dyable, and that offers just a decent amount of customization, to be an extra. Spooky Haloween skins are extras. But more dye channels should be there from the begining.

[MrRay.3027]

"It's unethical" People using these flufy words should also explain why that is, not just stick a label on it.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @castlemanic.3198 said:

> So it's clear that the mounts are fully capable of being dyed all over,

Indeed.

 

> Anet has just decided for absolutely no good reason that the regular mount skins should not be fully customizable.

There are a couple of reasons:

* It doesn't affect gameplay.

* The monetization model for the game has **always** included selling cosmetic alterations for gems. This is no different

 

> This is unacceptable.

You mean that you don't like it, which is not the same.

 

> 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.

Plain & simply, it's consistent with past practices. It's only "unethical" if you think that the game was advertised & sold with any sort of promise of "full customization"

 

> And honestly? same with the basic glider too.

Agreed, it's no different, which is why this shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

> 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.

For a game without a subscription, when there's unlimited opportunity to convert gold to gems, it seems completely reasonable.

 

tl;dr OP doesn't like or support ANet's monetization model. That's different from ANet's plan being unacceptable or unethical.

[PopeUrban.2578]

At what point did you think arenanet would make the core selling point of the second expansion customizable to a reasonable degree?

 

Did you miss the entire HoT release cycle? Anet does not want you to play the game to earn rewards. They want you to play the game enough to get your eyeballs on the gem store so they can sell you the rewards for ten bucks a pop and have you roleplay like you earned them.

 

If you're lucky you might be able to acquire a single mount skin through a raid track or collection by actually playing the game.

 

Anet is not in the business of rewarding you for playing the expansion. They're in the business of providing you a new thing they can sell you skins for.

 

If you want the majority of rewards to show up in the game in stead of the gem store, you'll have to convince arenanet that they'll make as much money by providing customers value for the expansion they purchased in stead of using it as a platform to sell them overpriced skins.

 

I doubt they'll listen. I've seen people literally begging to give arenanet half the cost of an expansion for mount skins and cheering when they get LS updates with less rewards in the content than the same day gem store patch.

[tekfan.3179]

> @AegisRunestone.8672 said:

> > @"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.

> Because basic glider skin was ugly as sin? How many people do you use using it? YET, the basic mounts look beautiful! I doubt people are going to abandon the basic mounts anytime soon. Especially...

 

So your point basically is:

The first expansion includes **one ugly** glider, so you're OK to **buy** more costumization options in the gemstore.

The second expansion includes **five beatiful** mounts, so Anet has to include more costumization options **for free**?

 

Getting one ugly thing you have to buy stuff for is alright, but getting five beatiful things that you have to buy stuff for is bad?

 

> @AegisRunestone.8672 said:

> > @"tekfan.3179" said:

> > 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.

>

> ... since they did that. It's quite possible they'll all be reskins. Gliders don't need a complex model to work, but think about how the mounts are designed--to make the Springer into, oh say a rocket-boot golem, you'd have to pretty much make a entirely new model.

 

You mean like the outfits, the entirely new models that snap to our characters and scale to the manifold proportion of five different races? Or the toys and tonics that snap entirely new skeletons and animations to our characters?

Snapping a few golemparts to the skeleton of the springer and laying a few of the golem sounds over the animations doesn't sound that farfetched.

[ananda.5946]

> @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.

>

> 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.

 

You are aware that Anet is a business? It’s how the basic armour skins, weapon skins, gathering tools, home instance nodes (none), eye colours, hair colurs, hair styles, glider skin, etc. are. They sell optional, fancier versions for those who wish to buy them. And, they are rather fair in this practice as they allow players to even make these purchases with earned in-game gold rather than money.

 

 

[Limodriver.4106]

its fine the way it is, go farm some gold in Lab or buy gem from anet.

[Killerbot.8645]

> @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said:

> The base mounts should have 2 dye channels at bare minimum, one for the base color and the existing one for the accents, especially considering how badly most of them take dye (the raptor is the worst of them, even the brightest dyes look like washed out garbage on it).

That's the point. Dyes on the original mounts are washed out so people can't run around being massive eyesores, giving Spooky Mounts 4 dye channels and allowing people to run around practically screaming ''look at me i am shiny'' was a massive mistake.

 

 

[Zoltar MacRoth.7146]

> @nosleepdemon.1368 said:

> don't shrug off the clear truth that we were given an artificially low starting point to upsell us on future "improvements".

 

....as opposed to a 'natural' starting point? O_o

 

Look, you're arguing against basic supply and demand here. It's a vendor's purpose to make a profit. It's a customer's goal to save money. The vendor offers a product at a price they've carefully selected according to various parameters, the customers either buy more or less of the product, leading the vendor to raise or lower the price. That's how capitalism works. You're arguing against it because in this case, you're the customer. I dare say if you were running your own business and some customer came to you and said your prices were "artificially low", you might have a different opinion.

[Quarktastic.1027]

It was the same way with HoT and gliders. The basic glider is very plain, with only one dye channel...and that's it. You don't get any other glider skins unless you buy them from the gem store *or craft one of the three currently available legendary back pieces*. I expected the same with mounts, and it looks like I was right. At least the basic mounts aren't hideous like the default glider skin. (except the skimmer)

 

Edited for clarity (because I forgot those back pieces were also gliders)

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

> @Quarktastic.1027 said:

> It was the same way with HoT and gliders. The basic glider is very plain, with only one dye channel...and that's it. You don't get any other glider skins unless you buy them from the gem store. I expected the same with mounts, and it looks like I was right. At least the basic mounts aren't hideous like the default glider skin. (except the skimmer)

 

Did they ever release a glider like the original you can dye?

I still use the original glider, even though ugly, as I see no gliders I want in the stores since starting to play.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

> @Quarktastic.1027 said:

> It was the same way with HoT and gliders. The basic glider is very plain, with only one dye channel...and that's it. **You don't get any other glider skins unless you buy them from the gem store**. I expected the same with mounts, and it looks like I was right. At least the basic mounts aren't hideous like the default glider skin. (except the skimmer)

 

Not quite. There are 2 gliders you can get ingame and a 3rd you get ingame but it requires a gemstore purchase to unlock the quest line. (The Ascension, Warbringer and the Ugly Wool Glider)

Presumably ANet can give us more basic skinned mounts in game but the custom skins will be in the gemstore.

 

[TwoGhosts.6790]

> @nosleepdemon.1368 said:

> By all means, state the obvious - these skins are optional, but for kitten sake don't shrug off the clear truth that we were given an artificially low starting point to upsell us on future "improvements".

 

Why does this surprise you? (perhaps it doesn't, it didn't surprise me)

Why are you so affronted by this common sense business practice?

The consumer interest in mounts clearly represents a great new potential revenue stream for ANet.

It's not like the 'artificially low starting point' is garbage... the vanilla mounts are quality products; it's clear that they spent a good deal of effort in creating what seems to me to be a really satisfying baseline product; they sold everybody the opportunity to acquire all the basic models via PoF.

There's no additional functionality gated behind gemstore items, it's all cosmetic enhancements (as usual).

I think it's entirely reasonable to monetise the ability to pimp your ride a bit if you want; but the respray's gonna cost you a modest amount.

Seems cool.

It would have made more sense to me if you'd been complaining that there were _no_ gemstore enhancements available for mounts.

Weird.

~TG

[VaaCrow.3076]

I think the basic dye channels are fine, this is a well thought out business decision by anet. You are clearly a minority in your opinion OP, as most people seem to have got the skins.