Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

[Paradox.1380]

I wanted to give these a chance. I really did. So I bought 7 of them, in hopes that at least I could get 1 new skin for every mount because that's all I cared about. I didn't really even care what one I got. But instead I got 3 bunnys, 3 jackals, and 1 skimmer. I didn't even get enough to get 1 for every mount, and most especially the Raptor and Griffon are the ones I use most frequently (read: almost exclusively). That is what soured me. Why couldn't I have at least chose the mount type I wanted? What am I going to do with 3 bunnies and 3 jackals? I can't even use them in tandem because switching them is annoying and messes up dyes.

[Mikuchan.7261]

I did buy a pack of 10 skin tickets.

I do regret doing so.

I got some nice skins out of it and I'm actually happy with my haul (naturally unhappy with what I didn't get, like the star griffon, but it was a nice haul).

So I don't regret it because I got a bad haul. I regret it because I fed into a system that is anti-consumer and really rather disgusting.

I didn't think of it then and that was dumb of me given that I watch about every rant TotalBiscuit puts out and agree on most of it.

I only saw the skins I wanted, and I suppose that's the point of the system.

So I hope to atone for that by adding to this thread.

 

This system is very anti-consumer and disgusting.

The saving grace is that you can't get duplicates, but that's not enough.

It's gambling and it shouldn't be there.

I can't tell you to remove and rollback it, because I bought into it (which was dumb) and then this post would lose its value.

But I don't want to see this bullshit done again.

[Shyanmar.5936]

Just gonna add my two cents here because I believe it's important that we make ourselves and our feedback heard on this.

 

Firstly, let me start on a positive note and just say the skins are gorgeous. The love and passion you guys have definitely shows.

I also do not think that you're evil, greedy villains. In fact, the reaction and outrage this was going to generate was probably blindingly obvious to most if not all of you, even though of course you can't go out and openly say that. And being a software developer myself (even though a far cry from gaming), I also - and I believe this to be an important point that many people might miss - know that you, as a developer, may not always have much of a say in what you release to your customer, even may have to do things you yourself absolutely don't like or think of as okay. I, for one, am neither judging nor condemning you. At the end of the day, you guys are simply doing your jobs.

 

That said, the decision was a horrid one. Many people, me included, are perfectly willing to support you guys by buying stuff from the store, especially the long-awaited mount skins. I, for one, however, want to be able to choose what I pay money for. I don't have much myself and feel it's not a small or trivial thing for me to buy some gems every now and then - I do that very deliberately. I certainly don't have 120 bucks to spend just to make sure I get the skin I want, and even if I did, I believe that adding a RNG element to this (which is a lousy solution in the best of cases, although I know it can't be avoided at times) is basically an insult to any of us who are willing to part with our hard-earned cash to support this game.

 

Yes, it's cosmetic, and yes, you can theoretically pay with gold. But it still sets a bad precedent, and it still sends out a message I do not believe you guys want associated with your studio.

 

I am more than willing to buy some mount skins. I really, really want to. But I will not do it until and unless this is changed.

[LanfearShadowflame.3189]

> @OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:

> > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> > > So I looked up the definition. "take risky action in the hope of a desired result."

> > >

> > > So joining a fractal pug is gambling?

> > > So running in WvW using a berzerker solo build is gambling?

> > > Getting double hits on Claw of Jormag or Tequatl is gambling?

> > > Picking the wrong squad for Labs is gambling?

> > >

> > > The entire game is a casino apparently!

> >

> > Yes, each of those is a gamble.

> >

> > Everything is a gamble to some extent, when you use the very general sense of the word. Life itself is a gamble. Just sitting in your chair is a gamble. You run the risk of it breaking and dropping you on the floor, potentially hurting you in the process. Or the ceiling falling on your head. Or even your desk suddenly collapsing into your lap. All of these things are highly unlikely, but the risk exists. No one likes to look at it from that perspective though.

>

> While you certainly could say everything in a game, or indeed life, is a gamble, If you apply the word to everything, it completely looses its significance and relevance. Therefore we must only use 'Gambling' as it's intended definition applies.

>

> Spending real money, on one of a variety of options, to which the obtained outcome does not envolve the power of choice, and leaves everything to random chance, is a form of gambling. This is akin to placing a $5 bill in a casino slot machine, pressing the button, and watching the meter spin around in circles over 30 possible items before stopping on one. If that is considered gambling in a casino -and make no mistake it is- it is gambling here too.

>

> But deffinitions aside, regardless of whether we call this "adoption" gambling or not, is irrelevant. The simple fact of the mater is I dont like it; there is huuuuge risk that ill waste a LOT of money obtaining things i dont want instead of buying something I do. Its not worth the risk, not worth the money, so I wont do it. And im not alone. Period. Simple as that.

 

Yes, it is gambling by the broad definition of the term. The problem with trying to apply it the way you, and others, are trying to apply it implies the "legal" definition of "gamble", which this doesn't meet the requirements for. At least not at this time. If it did, it would require legal oversight, like a casino. And the game would likely require people to be at least 18 to play it at that point.

 

This has a guaranteed reward. You are purchasing an item and exchanging it for another. Yes, there is risk in that you may not get the skin you are after; however, you are guaranteed a skin for every purchase. "Gambling" in the sense people are trying to apply it, has no guarantees which is where it's 'risk' comes in. More often than not you will get _nothing_, because that is how it is set up to work. Yes, you will eventually get something, but in the long run you typically lose more than you gain. Here you lose nothing, it is an equal trade. You may not like the skin. You may not ever use it. But you never, ever get nothing. You may view it as "getting nothing" because you do not like it, or because you do not use it, but it does remain that you do actually get something (of equal value. this is actually important to note).

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

> @PookieDaWombat.6209 said:

> > @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:

> > Wait. Hold on.

> >

> > _Isn't this slightly better than the black lion chest?_ I mean yes, you can gamble for a skin you want and -not- get it, but it then removes that option from the pool. Eventually you will have larger and larger chances to get what you want. If you liked black lion chests for super rare/rare weapon skins, this is actually slightly better than that.

> >

> > I'm not saying it still doesnt -reek- of lootbox, but the lootboxes that contained rare skins didnt progressively have better rates the more gems you spent.

> >

> > Lets say they put these in the black lion chest as rare drops, as was mentioned before. I don't think there would be even a fraction of the backlash that I'm seeing here if they did. There was some backlash when the hydra skin was introduced, because it was tied to account, but that only really hurts the people who dont buy the keys in the first place.

> >

> > Iiiiiii think I'm on the fence about this. It would be one thing if we could get dupes, but I'm going to have to weigh the "you will always get something you dont have" side of it. Because that way you are guaranteed what you want at some point, instead of potentially spending and spending and never getting what you want.

>

> I can farm keys and sell skins of the trading post.

>

> If you can't see how thats different from this RNG mount skin nonsense then I'm not sure you understand how black lion chests work in the first place.

 

~~What does your ability to farm keys for the black lion chests and sell a fraction of the contents in them have to do with the method of skin acquisition for mounts in the context of this thread? I'm probably missing a significant point here,. ~~

 

~~Are you dissatisfied because you cant resell what you don't want? ~~

 

I think I understand, thank you for your input.

[Maximum Potato.5923]

I don't usually comment on things like this, but I feel I should add my opinion to the pot, for feedback purposes.

 

As many before me have stated, I believe this is a prime example of predatory business practices, and is clearly designed to squeeze as much money as possible out of the playerbase for the content produced. Moreover, it edges on straight up gambling, which is dangerous territory in its own right and can cause serious problems for players who actually suffer from addictions to this kind of thing. There is some over-dramatization going on for sure, but this is definitely _not_ a player-friendly way of implementing new content. Don't get me wrong, lootboxes can be fantastic - I personally think LoL and Overwatch have great lootbox systems - but the way this has been done looks like a ham-handed attempt to cash in quickly without researching how to make the system rewarding and non-exploitive, which is really, really dissapointing, simply because of how player-friendly your company has been for a long time. Kind of feels like breaking a bond of trust, honestly.

 

Moving past the financial aspect of things, I think this has done some long-lasting damage to the game's community as well. The GW2 playerbase, which we were proud to call one of the friendliest MMO communities at the time of HoT release, is now bickering and infighting both in and out of game because of something as trivial as skins - I've seen players being bullied and demonized simply because they have mount skins, which is disgusting. It's completely divided the playerbase. It's also resulted in you guys getting some pretty bad press recently too. I'm no finance expert and far be it from me to tell you how to run your business, but I'm going to assume that several articles and videos calling ANet a predatory company 2 m=onths after the release of an expansion pack can't be good.

 

I don't really know how to fix it at this point - I honestly think a lot of the damage is done. But please, learn from this. We know, you're a company, you have families to feed and wages to pay. We're happy to give you money, but give us the ability to buy what WE want with our money, rather than forcing us into half-baked loot box gambling. The last couple of months have seen more and more gem store content, and now paying money isn't even guaranteed to give players the loot they want anymore. It's been agonizing to watch a game I love so dearly degenerate as much as it has recently.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> > @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > > @Rashagar.8349 said:

> > > > @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > > > > @Rashagar.8349 said:

> > > > > > @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > > > > > > @neven.3785 said:

> > > > > > > This is not gambling as some people like to yell. They simply can't get exactly what they want some are pissed off at anet for sticking to their chosen business model for this game. I love that they offer skins now and am glad they didn't chose to lock away certain mounts behind an account upgrade , rather it is only about how pretty you can make our mount.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now I would say that there have been much truer forms of gambling in this game for a long time. You have the mystic toilet, black lion chests and those oriann boxes at the start of this game. Then came ecto gambling and races. People didn't complain much about it then.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Instead they choose to try to take this out of proportion because they want a pretty and they want it now. This is a pretty childish reaction. If they matter to you, then buy them, if you feel it's a rip off, then use the free skin you get with your mastery unlock. The choice is yours and it is your responsibility to manage your finances responsibly.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For those with kids worried they will take advantage of your credit cards, then rid the accounts of your info and make sure you don't use auto fill.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > When my child bought $100 worth of robox because my autofill synced to the tablet from my phone, I didn't blame roblox or Google, I blamed myself and made him pay back every cent and donated all that currency to his brother as punishment. Then I removed all that information and disabled synchronization like a responsible person should.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So yes I like this concept, I like you don't get doubles and I like that you don't have to buy them. Only change that would have been better would be for anet to break up the bundles into mount types as that full bundle price is a hard pill to swallow for the common folk. As a side note I bought myself one and gifted one to my wife, this will likely take place of the odd black lion key purchases we make every month or two to support anet until we get all the mounts we want

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 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.

> > > > >

> > > > > Which is a fairly big difference. I don't know of any slot machine that will eventually give me all of the money if I keep playing.

> > > >

> > > > Nope, that's not what that means.

> > > >

> > > > gam·ble

> > > > [ˈɡambəl]

> > > > VERB

> > > > gambling (present participle)

> > > >

> > > > 1. play games of chance for money; bet:

> > > > "she was fond of gambling on cards and horses"

> > > > synonyms: bet · place/lay a bet on something · stake money on something · [more]

> > > > 2. bet (a sum of money) on a game of chance:

> > > > "he was gambling every penny he had on the spin of a wheel"

> > > > 3. take risky action in the hope of a desired result:

> > > > "the British could only gamble that something would turn up"

> > > > synonyms: take a chance · take a risk · stick one's neck out · go out on a limb

> > >

> > > You said it's a slot machine with a difference.

> > > I said the difference is important.

> > > The above copy/paste does not refute my claim.

> >

> > Yes it does. It is most certainly gambling by the third meaning. But go ahead, you buy them while everyone else doesn't and see how long it keeps the game afloat.

>

> It has some form of gambling BUT compared to a lot of other RNG lootboxes of the game (be it directly from gemstore on in game) this one is pretty generous. There is guaranteed chance to get something new every time. As a gambler addict myself I don't feel brought down by this one nearly as much as the ecto gambling or black lion keys.

>

> That there are issues and that we may need an alternative way to get them is a fine request, but half of these posts are using words that completely blowing things out of proportion.

>

> By the way, lots of people bought them.

 

There is no gray area. It's either gambling or it's not. Also, "lots" of people buying them is both unverifiable and irrelevant as to whether it's wrong or not.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @Lilyanna.9361 said:

> For the people who who trying to put law or just trying to put some sort ruling against lootboxes:

>

> What is your defense?

> How would you make the judges pay attention?

> How would you make it to some form of court?

> Would this even go past civil court?

>

> If you do not have a sufficient answer to any of these questions, lootboxes will never be illegal. The judges would toss this case faster than you can blink and move. Just thought I'd out there for those who were attempting to bring some sort of court against this business practice.

 

Yes, we're aware that the law will need to be adjusted first. There's already lobbying for exactly that in a lot of countries. I don't think this specific case will influence the result, but i believe it _is_ going to happen eventually, as the people are waking up to this and the resistance is getting stronger and stronger.

 

So, it may be currently legal, but only because of a loophole. It definitely goes against the _spirit_ of the gambling regulation laws.

[fizzypetal.7936]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> Hello,

>

> I think you are aware of the poll being made in addition to this official feedback:

> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/14567/poll-mount-skins-distribution-a-serious-poll/

>

> I think the stable results and amazingly huge sample size allows us to draw some conclusions.

>

> First of all **I would like to thank everyone for participating, those who already voted or will vote in next hours (or days).** The sample is huge. I dare to say this is the most populated vote these forums have ever seen. **At the moment of creation of this post 2257 accounts had voted. This is great sample to be used in providing general community opinion about the situation.**

>

> The reason why I feel safe to assume the conclusions can be made already is the fact that **from the moment we reached about 150 votes, the percentage values are mostly stable, varying 1-2% max as times goes by. It is very rare for any game community to be in such agreement and this is very important for ArenaNet to understand that the situation they created cannot be taken lightly.**

>

> I was told in last 2 days that some options of the poll could have been added - like "I would pay more for no RNG skin". You are correct but it's impossible to edit the poll and creating new one would provide unwanted confusion. For people sharing this opinion option (Price is fine but I don't like RNG aspect) is the closest and if anyone still wants to vote please choose this one.

>

> That being said, **the mentioned option "Price is fine but I don't like RNG aspect" is the one shared within vast majority of playerbase. When this post was created, the poll showed 1455 votes (64% of all votes) that people are fine with paying for skins but the lottery ticket is unacceptable for them.**

>

> The poll is obviously followed by huge discussion, both here and in the poll thread. People suggest a lot of things but the most vocal posts seem to be the ones suggesting **direct sales for mount skins and different tiering of prices considering that mount skins do not share same "creation value".** What I mean by this is that some of the skins (a majority in current skin lottery) are just **color patterns without any significant change in comparison to basic mount model. These models have objectively the least "work value".**

>

> **Some of the mounts are slight iterations of basic models** (like shiba jackal). They are something new, something different and they do not offer any additional visual effects or mount travel effects. **These should be medium tier of mount price.**

>

> **The last tier is all those flashy aura mounts. They should have biggest price value**, as they add similar effect to legendary weapons, to stand out in the crowd.

>

> **The forged jackal is not part of this poll as it's not RNG mount and I am not willing to mix it into this discussion.**

>

> I am sure that those RNG mount boxes are big money for ArenaNet. I do not blame you for trying this path. However, please reconsider your position. Players are deeply disturbed by your actions in terms of mount monetization. Revenue is one thing but customer satisfaction and trust is the other. Look how much harm this decision did to PoF release hype. You decided to ask players to create "buzz", to use word of mouth as main marketing tool for this expansion. Look at all the positive reactions people have for the hard work your developers put into recreating and reintroducing the continent of Elona to us. I don't think it's worth to stick to this bussiness strategy just to sabotage all the good vibe you created almost 2 months ago with PoF release. Especially that all this negativity is spreading through internet.

>

> I believe you know it turned out to be more serious than you expected. But with the huge sample of the poll and comments both here and in other social media related to GW2, I hope you change your decision and reitroduce mount monetization in fair model. Because people want to pay you for these skins, but not for lottery or gamble.

>

> Thank you all for your time you wasted reading this ;)

 

Link to the survey if you'd like to add your voice: https://survey.zohopublic.com/zs/xHB0fQ

[pah.4931]

> @Boxem.3461 said:

> I comes down to: Let us pay for what we want. Mount skins, dyes,... whatever you are selling. Leave the RNG in the Black Lion Chests only.

 

BUT I would say that this method could do exactly what you are asking for, it's just a matter of perspective.

 

What if I want to buy random skins (because it's fun to save up gems and roll the dice). And you clearly don't want to take a chance on random skins. Pretend the randomness IS part of the thing you are buying. You can pay for it if you want and you can not pay for it if you don't want.

 

Don't worry. There will also be individual skins in the cash shop. Plenty of them. Count on it.

[Rauderi.8706]

This is gonna get lost in the 55 pages of text, and probably just reiterates anyway, but...

 

I had extra gems laying around and some cash I sem-routinely throw at ANet for it. No biggie. Bought 5 adoptions, with full disclosure of how it was going to work. (I am not always smart with my money. :P)

 

Results: 2 mediocre raptor skins, 1 skimmer, 1 griffon, 1 sand-doggo

Nothing special.

 

I'm not mad. I'm just disappointed. [/dad]

There was no value in it. I have no whim to continue, because the lots are expensive compared to the minuscule value of the contents.

 

I think I resent the skimmer the most. I don't like it much as a mount, and I don't find the skins appealing. Sand-doggo skin is okay, I just don't like using it and prefer Raptor. If I could, I'd sell back most of them and re-roll. If I could, I'd limit my purchases to Raptor-only and Griffon-only, since those are the two I use the most. I don't like the RNG aspect, but I really don't like that it spans a legion of mediocre skins across mounts I don't even care for, and with them are no functional differences. No Charr Bike Raptor, No Broom Skimmer, etc. Some of the skins are nice, but not nice enough to suffer $5 lots for digital chaff.

 

And it's all stuff we've said before. It's really hard to believe that the financial wing of ANet/NCSoft is listening to us *tell you how to get our money* when stuff like this happens.

[Lilyanna.9361]

> @Astralporing.1957 said:

> > @Lilyanna.9361 said:

> > For the people who who trying to put law or just trying to put some sort ruling against lootboxes:

> >

> > What is your defense?

> > How would you make the judges pay attention?

> > How would you make it to some form of court?

> > Would this even go past civil court?

> >

> > If you do not have a sufficient answer to any of these questions, lootboxes will never be illegal. The judges would toss this case faster than you can blink and move. Just thought I'd out there for those who were attempting to bring some sort of court against this business practice.

>

> Yes, we're aware that the law will need to be adjusted first. There's already lobbying for exactly that in a lot of countries. I don't think this specific case will influence the result, but i believe it _is_ going to happen eventually, as the people are waking up to this and the resistance is getting stronger and stronger.

>

> So, it may be currently legal, but only because of a loophole. It definitely goes against the _spirit_ of the gambling regulation laws.

 

Just putting this out there, by the time they even think of looking this over there will be already a gw3 and probably several more games with a slightly similar set up.

 

You are banking on something that could take month, to years of change. And I could say, at least in good ol' Murica, that ain't the top priority .

[SmirkDog.3160]

> @Lilyanna.9361 said:

> Then hoo boy, you'd be pissed at a lot of your phone companies, insurance companies etc. If you get offended here, how would you take it in the real world?

>

> People have a job to do. Are you gonna scream at casinos? Are you gonna scream at the guy that sells you smokes? Or the person that sells you tantalizing material? Are you gonna be mad at your doctor for giving you them oh so bad medicines that may save your life? Everyone has a job to do.

>

> And by human morality the things we SHOULD be worrying most is things like censorship and other topics I'm not bothering to mention because they don't matter. The point is, they have a job to do just like we do. A lot of these so-called immoral practices as you put it, occur in your everyday life, yet you want to scream when it comes to entertainment, something that is optional compared to our necessities. That's the amusing part about all of this.

>

> But again, as someone said above, this is arguing semantics and that post was specifically for folks that were trying to out their oh-so precious law knowledge out there and claiming: 'Oh the children.'

>

> It's not a business's to look out for children.

 

I like that you insist I must be SO OFFENDED and not just disappointed.

 

Let's break down all your Great Points here:

 

"Are you gonna scream at casinos?" No, because I don't go to casinos, because I refuse to gamble when I can avoid it. They only want my money, and will try to trick me into spending more. This isn't news. As well, I already said I'm prone to addiction, so I avoid gambling in order to avoid making a big mistake. Hence why I'm also not buying into ANet's loot box game.

 

"Are you gonna scream at the guy that sells you smokes?" No, because I don't smoke, and I don't know how it is in other countries, but here in Canada cigarettes can't be sold in most stores that also have a pharmacy or for other reasons, so you only go to a shop that sells cigarettes or other smoking-related items if that's what you're going there for. As well, on cigarette packages they're required by law to tell you that they can give you cancer and kill you, among other things. So as a non-smoker, many of those things deter me from falling victim to their business practices.

 

"Or the person that sells you tantalizing material?" I literally have no idea what this means. Does this mean like 'adult content' or something? Regardless, I have a habit of being an impulsive shopper, so I do my best to not be tempted by 'tantalizing material', and will try to wait and decide if I really want or need the item.

 

"Are you gonna be mad at your doctor for giving you them oh so bad medicines that may save your life?" This is completely unrelated to both the subject at hand as well as your previous examples. Medicine at its core should not be harmful, and is intended to help you. However, this is also an ineffective example because a) I don't have a doctor mainly because I currently don't have health insurance (so that also ruins one of your earlier points), and b) my partner takes medication for seizures but as a side effect they give him really awful migraines. So should he keep taking them even if the side effect is worse than what they're supposed to fix?

 

And I don't know why you keep going "children this, children that", since I never mentioned children at all. Unless that's your way of trying to infantilize me, which is kind of pathetic. For some reason you seem to think I only care about 'entertainment', as if this forum is the only place in which I voice my concerns about immoral things. You don't have all the information here.

 

**tl;dr** Just because lots of people do a bad thing, doesn't mean it's okay to continue doing a bad thing. We should be examining all of those examples you provided and holding them accountable for any scams or exploitative behavior that they're guilty of. And at the moment, we're addressing the exploitation of people's desires by making them spend more money than they would need to in order to get the thing they want.

[troops.8276]

> @Lilyanna.9361 said:

> > @SmirkDog.3160 said:

> > > @Lilyanna.9361 said:

> > > For the people who who trying to put law or just trying to put some sort ruling against lootboxes:

> > >

> > > What is your defense?

> > > How would you make the judges pay attention?

> > > How would you make it to some form of court?

> > > Would this even go past civil court?

> > >

> > > If you do not have a sufficient answer to any of these questions, lootboxes will never be illegal. The judges would toss this case faster than you can blink and move. Just thought I'd out there for those who were attempting to bring some sort of court against this business practice.

> >

> > Y'know, something doesn't have to be illegal to for you to not do it. It's immoral, regardless of the legality. So they shouldn't be forced to stop by a judge or something, they should just stop because it's not right.

>

> Then hoo boy, you'd be pissed at a lot of your phone companies, insurance companies etc. If you get offended here, how would you take it in the real world?

>

> People have a job to do. Are you gonna scream at casinos? Are you gonna scream at the guy that sells you smokes? Or the person that sells you tantalizing material? Are you gonna be mad at your doctor for giving you them oh so bad medicines that may save your life? Everyone has a job to do.

>

> And by human morality the things we SHOULD be worrying most is things like censorship and other topics I'm not bothering to mention because they don't matter. The point is, they have a job to do just like we do. A lot of these so-called immoral practices as you put it, occur in your everyday life, yet you want to scream when it comes to entertainment, something that is optional compared to our necessities. That's the amusing part about all of this.

>

> But again, as someone said above, this is arguing semantics and that post was specifically for folks that were trying to out their oh-so precious law knowledge out there and claiming: 'Oh the children.'

>

> It's not a business's job to look out for children unless that is what their business is based around.

 

Your conflating the guy at the point of sale with the actions of the company. All the industries you listed have been in trouble with legislators for shady business practices at one point or another.

[pah.4931]

> @SmirkDog.3160 said:

> > @Lilyanna.9361 said:

> > For the people who who trying to put law or just trying to put some sort ruling against lootboxes:

> >

> > What is your defense?

> > How would you make the judges pay attention?

> > How would you make it to some form of court?

> > Would this even go past civil court?

> >

> > If you do not have a sufficient answer to any of these questions, lootboxes will never be illegal. The judges would toss this case faster than you can blink and move. Just thought I'd out there for those who were attempting to bring some sort of court against this business practice.

>

> Y'know, something doesn't have to be illegal to for you to not do it. It's immoral, regardless of the legality. So they shouldn't be forced to stop by a judge or something, they should just stop because it's not right.

 

Is it immoral for Anet to make more money so they can pay their employees living wages? Or so they can even prevent themselves from getting shutdown??

 

Is it immoral for you to ask for a raise at work? Or to demand money at all for your work?

 

Calling this immoral is laughable. "It's not right" is a terrible, emotion-based argument.

 

Is it immoral to sell cigarettes? People know what they are (and that they kill you) so who takes the blame? I'll answer for you. When they lied and covered up the truth, it was the company. When its full knowledge of the product, it's the buyer. You know exactly what you are buying. Just because YOU don't enjoy the randomness of it, doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral.

[SmirkDog.3160]

> @troops.8276 said:

> Your conflating the guy at the point of sale with the actions of the company. All the industries you listed have been in trouble with legislators for shady business practices at one point or another.

 

I spent all that time typing a counterpoint, but what you said right here is very accurate.

[SmirkDog.3160]

> @pah.4931 said:

> Is it immoral for Anet to make more money so they can pay their employees living wages? Or so they can even prevent themselves from getting shutdown??

>

> Is it immoral for you to ask for a raise at work? Or to demand money at all for your work?

>

> Calling this immoral is laughable. "It's not right" is a terrible, emotion-based argument.

>

> Is it immoral to sell cigarettes? People know what they are (and that they kill you) so who takes the blame? I'll answer for you. When they lied and covered up the truth, it was the company. When its full knowledge of the product, it's the buyer. You know exactly what you are buying. Just because YOU don't enjoy the randomness of it, doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral.

 

People love to say they're just trying to make money, but they can make money by just selling the skins. Sell them individually, and people will buy them. Hundreds of people in this thread have said they wanted at least one skin but didn't want to pay the extra money and deal with the RNG. It's a scam. Plain and simple.

 

And why do people keep bringing up cigarettes......... I don't smoke. I have asthma, so it's double unhealthy for me. So I just don't. That means nothing. You're right, I do know what I'm buying. And that's why I'm not buying it. _Duh._

 

Oh and, you're right. It's not immoral to demand money for my work. So from now on, if people want to buy any of my designs or photos, they can pay $20 for a random one, and $300 for all of them. Just biz, y'know.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > Hello,

> >

> > I think you are aware of the poll being made in addition to this official feedback:

> > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/14567/poll-mount-skins-distribution-a-serious-poll/

> >

> > I think the stable results and amazingly huge sample size allows us to draw some conclusions.

> >

> > First of all **I would like to thank everyone for participating, those who already voted or will vote in next hours (or days).** The sample is huge. I dare to say this is the most populated vote these forums have ever seen. **At the moment of creation of this post 2257 accounts had voted. This is great sample to be used in providing general community opinion about the situation.**

> >

> > The reason why I feel safe to assume the conclusions can be made already is the fact that **from the moment we reached about 150 votes, the percentage values are mostly stable, varying 1-2% max as times goes by. It is very rare for any game community to be in such agreement and this is very important for ArenaNet to understand that the situation they created cannot be taken lightly.**

> >

> > I was told in last 2 days that some options of the poll could have been added - like "I would pay more for no RNG skin". You are correct but it's impossible to edit the poll and creating new one would provide unwanted confusion. For people sharing this opinion option (Price is fine but I don't like RNG aspect) is the closest and if anyone still wants to vote please choose this one.

> >

> > That being said, **the mentioned option "Price is fine but I don't like RNG aspect" is the one shared within vast majority of playerbase. When this post was created, the poll showed 1455 votes (64% of all votes) that people are fine with paying for skins but the lottery ticket is unacceptable for them.**

> >

> > The poll is obviously followed by huge discussion, both here and in the poll thread. People suggest a lot of things but the most vocal posts seem to be the ones suggesting **direct sales for mount skins and different tiering of prices considering that mount skins do not share same "creation value".** What I mean by this is that some of the skins (a majority in current skin lottery) are just **color patterns without any significant change in comparison to basic mount model. These models have objectively the least "work value".**

> >

> > **Some of the mounts are slight iterations of basic models** (like shiba jackal). They are something new, something different and they do not offer any additional visual effects or mount travel effects. **These should be medium tier of mount price.**

> >

> > **The last tier is all those flashy aura mounts. They should have biggest price value**, as they add similar effect to legendary weapons, to stand out in the crowd.

> >

> > **The forged jackal is not part of this poll as it's not RNG mount and I am not willing to mix it into this discussion.**

> >

> > I am sure that those RNG mount boxes are big money for ArenaNet. I do not blame you for trying this path. However, please reconsider your position. Players are deeply disturbed by your actions in terms of mount monetization. Revenue is one thing but customer satisfaction and trust is the other. Look how much harm this decision did to PoF release hype. You decided to ask players to create "buzz", to use word of mouth as main marketing tool for this expansion. Look at all the positive reactions people have for the hard work your developers put into recreating and reintroducing the continent of Elona to us. I don't think it's worth to stick to this bussiness strategy just to sabotage all the good vibe you created almost 2 months ago with PoF release. Especially that all this negativity is spreading through internet.

> >

> > I believe you know it turned out to be more serious than you expected. But with the huge sample of the poll and comments both here and in other social media related to GW2, I hope you change your decision and reitroduce mount monetization in fair model. Because people want to pay you for these skins, but not for lottery or gamble.

> >

> > Thank you all for your time you wasted reading this ;)

>

> Link to the survey if you'd like to add your voice: https://survey.zohopublic.com/zs/xHB0fQ

 

Cool! Added my voice. Outcomes are very close between our surveys (yours is obviously more in depth).

[Lilyanna.9361]

> @troops.8276 said:

> > @Lilyanna.9361 said:

> > > @SmirkDog.3160 said:

> > > > @Lilyanna.9361 said:

> > > > For the people who who trying to put law or just trying to put some sort ruling against lootboxes:

> > > >

> > > > What is your defense?

> > > > How would you make the judges pay attention?

> > > > How would you make it to some form of court?

> > > > Would this even go past civil court?

> > > >

> > > > If you do not have a sufficient answer to any of these questions, lootboxes will never be illegal. The judges would toss this case faster than you can blink and move. Just thought I'd out there for those who were attempting to bring some sort of court against this business practice.

> > >

> > > Y'know, something doesn't have to be illegal to for you to not do it. It's immoral, regardless of the legality. So they shouldn't be forced to stop by a judge or something, they should just stop because it's not right.

> >

> > Then hoo boy, you'd be pissed at a lot of your phone companies, insurance companies etc. If you get offended here, how would you take it in the real world?

> >

> > People have a job to do. Are you gonna scream at casinos? Are you gonna scream at the guy that sells you smokes? Or the person that sells you tantalizing material? Are you gonna be mad at your doctor for giving you them oh so bad medicines that may save your life? Everyone has a job to do.

> >

> > And by human morality the things we SHOULD be worrying most is things like censorship and other topics I'm not bothering to mention because they don't matter. The point is, they have a job to do just like we do. A lot of these so-called immoral practices as you put it, occur in your everyday life, yet you want to scream when it comes to entertainment, something that is optional compared to our necessities. That's the amusing part about all of this.

> >

> > But again, as someone said above, this is arguing semantics and that post was specifically for folks that were trying to out their oh-so precious law knowledge out there and claiming: 'Oh the children.'

> >

> > It's not a business's job to look out for children unless that is what their business is based around.

>

> Your conflating the guy at the point of sale with the actions of the company. All the industries you listed have been in trouble with legislators for shady business practices at one point or another.

 

 

Again, they are still very much a part of your daily life and really has not moved much even if they had 'warnings'. So, I'm not sure what you were trying to prove here?

 

Unless you have cut those kind of things out of your life now, then.. good on you I suppose?

[Sylv.5324]

> @Lilyanna.9361 said:

 

> It's not a business's job to look out for children unless that is what their business is based around.

 

I live in Vegas, and casinos do, in fact, have anti-addiction measures in place, as well as contribute to anti-addiction programs. The system ANet came up with is basically slots. Its black lion boxes certainly are (the interface is a simplified version), and so is this mount system. The only difference is that you are guaranteed some kind of result, as opposed to none. The issue is that folks rightly want the chance to pick a skin (and/or trade them, but there is no such option unlike almost everything else in loot boxes), and IDK why you would argue against that.

 

I'm one of those vaunted whales, and I think this is wrong. I haven't bought a single skin.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> So I looked up the definition. "take risky action in the hope of a desired result."

>

> So joining a fractal pug is gambling?

> So running in WvW using a berzerker solo build is gambling?

> Getting double hits on Claw of Jormag or Tequatl is gambling?

> Picking the wrong squad for Labs is gambling?

>

> The entire game is a casino apparently!

 

What are you risking in any of those other than time in a game that has no subscription fee?

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Bunter.3795 said:

> The amount of overdramatic responses to the concerns people have about these new skins is almost beyond belief. I have no problem with people having an opinion and posting it but the sheer amount of hyperbole and dramatization makes it hard to take what people are saying seriously.

>

> The 2 biggest offenders I've seen posted are that Anet is evil and preying on it's customers and that this new skin acquisition method is gambling and preys on those with gambling addiction/weakness.

>

> Anet is not evil. It's not preying on it's customers. Don't get me wrong. I'm no white knight and I think Anet has many faults in regards to it's gem shop and micro-transactions but I do not feel it's evil or preying.

>

> At the most Anet is guilty of using these mount skins to hit harder on those with impulse control. This is not unique to Anet as every, and I do mean every, single merchant out there uses impulse items in it's marketing. All those items around the checkout are not there just because you might need them, they are there to get you to impulse buy them. You've shopped the big box store and are now thirsty, hungry, or bored while waiting in line. Well they have a nice cooler with 20oz bottles of water/soda for your thirst, a huge rack full of candy for your hunger and numerous magazines there to read while you're bored and waiting. How many of those items did you truly need? Probably very few but you've bought them due to the placement of the items and your lack on control on your impulses. They could and usually do have these items somewhere else in the store and you could go and get them if you wanted but they sell more when they are at a place where impulse kicks in.

>

> It's the same with these mount skins. Most are unsatisfied with the lack of dye channels on the core mounts and want to make themselves look unique or at least different than the rest of those we see in game. So we purchase a chance at getting the skin we want. it's this chance that has people comparing it to gambling.

>

> The biggest issue I have with those comparing the new mount acquisition method to gambling is that, unlike true gambling, this method has an end point and final cost. You have a maximum expenditure of 12,000 gems. That's it. No more can be spent on getting a mount via this method. It's not gambling when you have a guaranteed result, you spend 12,000 gems you WILL get the mount you want. That is not gambling. It's not even close. You cannot buy more than 30 chances. You cannot spend more than 12,000 gems. Sure you may get lucky early on and not have to spend as much but there is an end point and maximum expenditure. It's not gambling when you have those two points.

>

> Most of would argue that 12,000 gems for a single skin is too much and I would agree. This is where the impulse control comes in. Do you buy a chance for the skin you want or do you wait? Do you want the skin so badly that you are not able to wait until you have the gems to buy them all or do you take a chance now? It's up to you.

>

> The way I look at it is almost like an installment plan. You have a purchase you want to make and it costs 12,000 gems. Some people have more money than others and they are given a discount of 2,400 gems by buying all of the skins at once. Anet gets the immediate influx of money from those people and due to the amount of instant cash, they are given a discount. This is the same as every major purchase you ever make in life. Want to buy a house and don't have the cash for the full purchase price, well you can get a loan. Sure it costs more than if you paid in full at purchase but it helps you out. Yeah, I know , real life vs games but the point holds in this case. 12,000 gems is a major in game purchase. Anet has actually made this easier as they have given us a number of advantages. We have no required installment payment, we have no time limit (as of yet). We can choose to pay if we want, when we want and how often we want.

>

> The thing about this item is that is a true convenience item. The mounts function exactly the same whether they have a new skin or have the core skin. No one gets an advantage in game because they got these skins.

>

> Personally I have no problem with this method or the price. Anet gets to make a lot of skins that cater to a lot of different opinions. While you may not like numerous skins but someone out there will like the ones you dislike and that person may dislike the ones you find most likeable. Everyone shares in the production cost to make everyone happy. I will buy these over time. I'm going to get a new skin with every purchase. I will eventually get them all when I decide to purchase them. I will use gem purchases and in game gold conversion to get them when I feel I have enough of either one to make the choice.

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

No, what is obvious now is that they removed content from an expansion they lowered to $30 in the hopes of gaining it back by reselling content that should have been in said expansion. Blizzard 2.0

[Orion Templar.4589]

My feedback is that some of the new skins look really nice, and kudos to the artists. I'm really disappointed by a couple things though:

 

1. The 2000 gem price for a single skin (reforged warhound) is not reasonable

2. The 400 gem price for a single skin seems reasonable, but I am not pleased that the adoption license grants a random skin rather than allowing us to purchase what we want

 

If we could buy the specific skins we like, I would purchase a few of them. With skins being 400 gems, I'd probably spend about 1600 gems and get about 4 of them. However with skins being random, I know I would be too disappointed by acquiring ones I wasn't interested in. Thus I will spend 0 gems for these. Please allow us to purchase the specific ones we want. (For something less than 2000 gems each...)

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

Why didn't anet make all of the skins cool, I dont understand how you can have a cool griffin skin like starbound and then add in other skins that have no particle effects. At least if all of the mounts had particle effects, the buyers remorse of gambling and getting the skin you don't want would be mitigated by equally cool/quality skins.

[LanfearShadowflame.3189]

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > @Chickenooble.5014 said:

> > So I looked up the definition. "take risky action in the hope of a desired result."

> >

> > So joining a fractal pug is gambling?

> > So running in WvW using a berzerker solo build is gambling?

> > Getting double hits on Claw of Jormag or Tequatl is gambling?

> > Picking the wrong squad for Labs is gambling?

> >

> > The entire game is a casino apparently!

>

> What are you risking in any of those other than time in a game that has no subscription fee?

 

Time. As other threads have argued, time has value. It is more valuable to some than others, but it tends to be a heated point of contention among players regarding how much value it has. Efficiency and doing things as quickly has possible because their time is valuable has been the excuse given many times when people kick others from their groups for not having the right armor, or the right traits, or the right skills. Ringing any bells?