Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

[Belorn.2659]

Maybe a cynical view, but I suspect that the high price is to anchor it so they can later have "HUGE" sales on a later date. The trend in micro transactions are not just loot boxes but also "limited" time offers to rush the consumer to spend without thinking. Come Christmas and the skin will be 1000 gems (ie 300 gems higher than most glider skins at launch) while also rush players to pay since its on limited 50% sale! Save 1000 gems today! Buy, buy, buy!

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Myhr.9108 said:

> Unlike the mount lootboxes that had real ethic problems attaches to them (addiction, unclear pricing, and anti-consumer practices), there is nothing wrong with an overpriced mount skin. It's clear : either you think it's worth it, or you don't. Personally, I'd buy a single mount skin for 1000 gems if I really like it. But most likely, I'll wait for a bundle of 5 skins for 2000 gems that I like. In the meantime, I'm in no hurry.

 

As long as there is only one skin per mount available through gameplay it is an ethical issue to me. The whole gem store is, IMO.

[Rauderi.8706]

> @OrbitalButt.5708 said:

> So don't buy the thing, seems simple

 

That is, like, the very essence of a boycott, right? :p

[dukenukem.9072]

I'm not a fan of the RNG boxes either, but I bought $20 worth of gems (what I was willing to pay in total for the 3 skins I wanted) and I got 2 of the 3 I wanted. I don't like the flashy skins but I got the Badlands griffon and the crowned ancient which are the 2 I was shooting for. I'll wait to buy the other one if/when it's sold individually

[Rococo.8347]

> @Kapax.3801 said:

> > And I'm not defending them, when something has no solution, it's because it's not a problem.

 

That's one of the most insane rationalisations ive heard in a long time.

 

Is war not a problem? famine?

 

I wish the kids of today would teach themselves some basic critical thinking because they sure as kitten didn't get any in school.

[SNS.8713]

> @"DakotaCoty.5721" said:

> The Black Lion Stables are pleased to open their doors and offer new mount adoption licenses. Each license will allow you to claim a random mount skin from the Black Lion Stables, and they are available in the Style category of the Gem Store for 400 gems each.

>

> If this trend continues, RNG skins upon RNG I won't fund this game anymore, simple as that. This is stupid.

>

> The math:

> 400 * 31 = 12,400 gems.

>

> Is this the direction ArenaNet is taking? Loot box skins?

 

Quite honestly, it's concerning.

 

It's bad enough the route SW:BF2 has gone, and GW2 seems to be going in the same direction.

 

Armor and Mounts and skins are the most lucrative items in any Micro-transaction based game. They know this, and instead of just giving us a nice Shop Window to browse through and choose the skin we want, they have randomised it behind "loot boxing". If you consider they will continue adding more, and more skins, it will become harder and cost more to find the one you may want.

 

Please scrap this way of doing it, and just make Mount Skins choosable from a list, the same way Armor skins are.

[BunjiKugashira.9754]

By now we have some more data on what pricing ANet seems to have in mind for mount skins.

* 2000 gems for total remodels (that few or no-one wants)

* 1600 (2000) gems for packages of retextures with minor additions to the model

* 6000 gems avg or 12000 gems worst case for actually desirable skins

 

I will wait for a non-seasonal themed package as it's very unlikely ANet will release a skin that is worth 2000 gems for me.

[Rauderi.8706]

Huh, this is still going? It's probably been said before, but I think the biggest objection to the mount acquisition methods has been the lack of options.

 

* No option to buy a desired skin directly (unless it was a premium $25 skin)

* $25 skins with no option to gamble and mitigate the cost

* No option to buy an RNG ticket for a *specific* type of mount

 

The process for this should have been way more thought out and released as an options blitz.

**Give players as many options as possible to give you money, ANet!**

 

**First**

Release bundles to fit themes and sell them for discounts.

Release the $25 ultra premiums.

Make the RNG adoption available with a pre-set array of rewards. (We can make this work!)

Rotate direct-buy options for some of the lower (?) skins.

 

**Then**

As skins fall out of rotation, including the premiums...

**Add the older skins to the RNG adoption license!**

I'm sure adding items to it was already intended, but the presentation of it was kinda borked by not having enough options to acquire them elsewhere. But, the more I think on it, the adoption license can still be a fantastic vector to promote sales in more player-manageable chunks.

 

[IndigoSundown.5419]

Lest we forget, the mount license is not the only RNG purchase available in GW2.

[sorudo.9054]

well, i personally much rather want the license then the 2000 gem skins, if they were part of the license they would still be 400 gems regardless.

just think about it, you can ether buy one skin for 2000 gems and know you got it or buy a few licenses every month and eventually get it anyway, but in the process you got the other skins as well.

[TwilightSoul.9048]

> @"sorudo.9054" said:

> well, i personally much rather want the license then the 2000 gem skins, if they were part of the license they would still be 400 gems regardless.

> just think about it, you can ether buy one skin for 2000 gems and know you got it or buy a few licenses every month and eventually get it anyway, but in the process you got the other skins as well.

 

And likely spend more than 2000 gems in the process? For a bunch of skins you don't care about and a chance to get the one you were looking for.

The only Mount Skins I would buy would be either max 800 Gems for one Skin or somewhere around 2000 for all four. (Glacial/Snow Diamond Mount Skins please!)

[sorudo.9054]

> @"TwilightSoul.9048" said:

> > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > well, i personally much rather want the license then the 2000 gem skins, if they were part of the license they would still be 400 gems regardless.

> > just think about it, you can ether buy one skin for 2000 gems and know you got it or buy a few licenses every month and eventually get it anyway, but in the process you got the other skins as well.

>

> And likely spend more than 2000 gems in the process? For a bunch of skins you don't care about and a chance to get the one you were looking for.

> The only Mount Skins I would buy would be either max 800 Gems for one Skin or somewhere around 2000 for all four. (Glacial/Snow Diamond Mount Skins please!)

 

but you will still pay 400 gems for a skin, there is always a use for skins you don't care about at the time but later on need it.

[Julischka Bean.7491]

Hello all.

Sorry I am so late to the party on this subject. I experienced Total Hip Replacement surgery shortly after PoF came out, and between being sad that all the PoF Hero Points I tried to do solo were a no go for me, and the reality of the Hip Replacement, I just did not feel like posting.

 

I do have ideas about the mounts though.

 

I may not be good enough to solo the Hero Points, I but I did manage to get all the mounts with the exception of the Flying one..whose name escapes me because I need coffee. The Griffon

 

I wanted to buy some new skins for my babies, but..

 

(1) They are expensive

(2) They are RNG

 

I would not mind forking over some cash for new skins even though they are expensive, but this is where the RNG stumbling block comes in.

 

I do not have this Griffon, and probably will never get this Griffon.

 

If I buy some skins via RNG there is a terrifying chance of my getting Griffon skins which I cannot use.

 

If I get Griffon skins, I just threw my money away on something totally useless for me...which does not sit well with my thrifty Scottish blood.

 

Solutions...I can think of a couple.

(1) Since the format is a money maker, keep the RNG, but, divide the packs into animals packs. All Springers, All Raptors, etc, etc. This way I can spend my cash and still know that what I buy will not be useless to me...which makes all the difference in the world.

 

(2) Do what Walmart does. Lower the price and make up the difference in bulk sales. A con with this is, with me being an example, there is still a chance of getting Griffon skins...thus throwing money away on something useless...but if the price is not as expensive, that pill will be less bitter.

 

(3) Throw the gates open and let us choose. You say this is bad as people will not buy the plain ones.

This may not be true.

 

(1) because if you have armor with infusions coming out the wazoo, you need a plain mount so as to not to detract from your armor creation.

 

(2) Some people enjoy a natural looking animal. It fits into the environment better. To these people, plain is a plus.

 

Anyway. My two cents.

 

Lisa-off to get some coffee.

 

[TwilightSoul.9048]

> @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > @"TwilightSoul.9048" said:

> > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > well, i personally much rather want the license then the 2000 gem skins, if they were part of the license they would still be 400 gems regardless.

> > > just think about it, you can ether buy one skin for 2000 gems and know you got it or buy a few licenses every month and eventually get it anyway, but in the process you got the other skins as well.

> >

> > And likely spend more than 2000 gems in the process? For a bunch of skins you don't care about and a chance to get the one you were looking for.

> > The only Mount Skins I would buy would be either max 800 Gems for one Skin or somewhere around 2000 for all four. (Glacial/Snow Diamond Mount Skins please!)

>

> but you will still pay 400 gems for a skin, there is always a use for skins you don't care about at the time but later on need it.

 

No there isn't, when would I need a skin that is not tradable and doesn't look good to me? I don't care in the least about mount skins for my toons and for my main the only mount skins I would use would have to be ice-themed. So currently we have ONE Mount skins that I care about in the lootbox - everything else is useless to me in that box.

Although I might use the lantern skimmer skin, so, beeing generous let's say there are two skins I care about, what are the chances of getting both skins within the first four tries? Because Four tries would be like 800 Gems / skin which is the maximum I'd spent on one skin.

[ananda.5946]

I’ve gotten a few so far. This system works just fine, I think. I got one skin I wanted and others I don’t care for. They’re cheap enough that you can just make it a long term project to get them all. Eventually, you’ll get the ones you like best. And, since anet is pretty generous with gems, you can even never pay with real money. I don’t mind the rng factor because, unlike keys or dye kits, you always actually get a new skin. Just look at this set of 30 as a long term goal rather than an instant gratification thing.

[Julischka Bean.7491]

Hello Ananda.

 

If the Griffin skin was not included, which I do not have, I, personally, would be on board totally with what you are saying. But because I do not have the Griffin, there is a very real chance that I will get a Griffin skin....my fault of course, but I wonder how many others of the player base, like me, do not have this Griffin and thus are not buying the RNG mount skins solely because of this.

 

On the last day of my Physical Therapy, to celebrate, I took a chance on a skin..I really, really, really wanted a new Springer skin, and gambling was the only way to get one. I ended up with a nice Jackal skin..the Crowned Ancient.

 

I might try again , but right now I am happy with the colors I used on the Springer skin I received in the Christmas Edition Pack.

 

Big wide grin--- Springers came from the Crystal Desert.

 

Core Vanilla game is probably too cold for them..

 

They need a sweater set to keep warm...

 

That is my excuse for playing a Christmas Springer after Christmas and I am sticking to it :)

 

 

[MrScott.5407]

As I see this atm you have only a couple of options, spend real world money on random chance items & high cost (value) virtual items, that have no real world value.

Or don't buy & or leave game, for me its the latter I value my hard earned cash far more than a stupid (stupid to me not every one) virtual skin, the game as stands is a run of the mill mmo not a lot better than some & worse than others, what made this game stand out for me was the community.

 

I have been around many many online games over the years & have seen the ways that companies adopt to farm the customers for cash, the rng is the main stay it would seem for all companies, but never fear it can & may well get worse in the future, do some research to see some of the antics of f2p games & see whats in store for the future, plus you needs the rng stats & percentages to decide if its really in your interest to gamble for a said item in a pool of xx, & as the more items get added the pool enlarges & percentages drop rapidly.

 

Its just a pity I did enjoy my time here, but I refuse to pay large or even small sums of cold hard cash for **virtual** items, if you love this game & can afford the costs well great enjoy your self, but never tell others they are poor/cheap/etc if they have enough common sense to use there money for **real world** items.

 

These views are mine & mine alone agree or not, but stop telling other players what they should or should not do/feel/buy, not all do this but enough in this topic alone!!

[ananda.5946]

> @"Julischka Bean.7491" said:

> Hello Ananda.

>

> If the Griffin skin was not included, which I do not have, I, personally, would be on board totally with what you are saying. But because I do not have the Griffin, there is a very real chance that I will get a Griffin skin....my fault of course, but I wonder how many others of the player base, like me, do not have this Griffin and thus are not buying the RNG mount skins solely because of this.

>

> On the last day of my Physical Therapy, to celebrate, I took a chance on a skin..I really, really, really wanted a new Springer skin, and gambling was the only way to get one. I ended up with a nice Jackal skin..the Crowned Ancient.

>

> I might try again , but right now I am happy with the colors I used on the Springer skin I received in the Christmas Edition Pack.

>

> Big wide grin--- Springers came from the Crystal Desert.

>

> Core Vanilla game is probably too cold for them..

>

> They need a sweater set to keep warm...

>

> That is my excuse for playing a Christmas Springer after Christmas and I am sticking to it :)

>

>

 

Oh, I didn’t think about the griffin skins and that some people won’t have that mount. If you never plan to get it, that makes the adoption thingie less fun for sure. On the other hand, if you plan to get it eventually, there are a couple of cute ones. And, I agree those winter mount skins are adorable.

[BrotherBelial.3094]

I got PoF this week for my birthday, and have avoided the forums like the plague to avoid spoilers, but I had to come here to express my disappointment in the loot box approche to the mount skins.

 

There are probable 2 I like, and would gladly pay the 800 gems for them. But you have zero chance of me spending anything on these. I have not spent real money on the game outside of exspantions for about 2 years ish, as you have had nothing I wanted added to the store. Now you do, but you lock it away behind RNG. You guys must not like money. Or you just want to bleed people of money for the skins they want.

 

You ANet are stooping to EA levels of greed. As soon as you change this I will crack open my wallet and buy the 800 gems for the mount skins. Till then my wallet is closed to you.

 

 

[Razael.1204]

Here is an idea on mount skins. Not sure if this has been already posted as there are 75 pages and I really don't have time to read them all.

 

1. Make mount skins sellable on the TP.

2. Add mount skins to the Black Lion Chests as Super Rare or Rare.

3. Keep the RNG Adoption tickets but lower the price.

4. Add direct sales of the mount skins but at a higher price than the RNG.

 

Example: Direct sale of a skin = 700 gems, RNG = 200 gems. If you want to gamble on the skin you get, it will not cost as much as getting the one you really want. To me, this would add to the economy and give players more options to obtain the skins they want. Just a suggestion.

[mercury ranique.2170]

> @"Razael.1204" said:

> 1. Make mount skins sellable on the TP.

 

This would devaluate my purchase, both in uniqueness and value.

 

> @"Razael.1204" said:

> 2. Add mount skins to the Black Lion Chests as Super Rare or Rare.

 

This would devaluate my purchase, both in uniqueness and value.

 

> @"Razael.1204" said:

> 3. Keep the RNG Adoption tickets but lower the price.

 

This would devaluate my purchase, both in uniqueness and value.

 

> @"Razael.1204" said:

> 4. Add direct sales of the mount skins but at a higher price than the RNG.

>

> Example: Direct sale of a skin = 700 gems, RNG = 200 gems. If you want to gamble on the skin you get, it will not cost as much as getting the one you really want. To me, this would add to the economy and give players more options to obtain the skins they want. Just a suggestion.

 

This would devaluate my purchase, both in uniqueness and value.

 

My point here is that nothing can be done to the current mounts added to the game without infureating the customers who bought the mounts. And lets face it, those are the customers Arenanet should value over those who find mountskins too expensive. So the only suggestion that can be made is that they should change the system for future mounts. Mo's post allready stated they will. Not the price, but by keeping the current RNG mounts exclusive to the RNG set, but not extend there and add only direct buy skins to the store.

 

 

[rcs.4120]

In case the devs/decision makers (not necessarily the same people) are curious. Yes, 1600 gems is still to expensive for a single mount skin.

 

And yes, as a result of the overpricing on gems and pretty much blatant telling of the community to go screw yourselves with regards to their feedback, none of the four accounts in our household purchased or received gemcards this holiday season as a result.

 

What do I think is fair and consistent?

 

The 1600 gems for the set of 5 as in the holiday packs.

200 for random chance,

300 for random chance of a given type.

400 for specific skin of a given type.

600-800 if its really really fancy.

 

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @"Matick.4132" said:

> **25€ or 30$ for 1 skin**, you can hardly call that ‚microtransactions‘ anymore. That’s the same amount they charged entry level of expansion packs. Really not cool.

>

> Oh and can we pls stop comparing to other publishers, who are way more stupid in exploiting their players anyway?!

> For example: just because WoW is sucking their players dry, doesn’t mean that a) it’s ok and b) the fact that other publisher follow along this path, makes it a good practice in the first place.

 

Until the definition of microtransaction includes a quantifiable amount that's lower, it's a microtransaction.

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @"rcs.4120" said:

> In case the devs/decision makers (not necessarily the same people) are curious. Yes, 1600 gems is still to expensive for a single mount skin.

>

> And yes, as a result of the overpricing on gems and pretty much blatant telling of the community to go screw yourselves with regards to their feedback, none of the four accounts in our household purchased or received gemcards this holiday season as a result.

>

> What do I think is fair and consistent?

>

> The 1600 gems for the set of 5 as in the holiday packs.

> 200 for random chance,

> 300 for random chance of a given type.

> 400 for specific skin of a given type.

> 600-800 if its really really fancy.

>

 

Translation - devs and artists have no right to a decent living. They are only allowed to work for a pittance.

[Cragga the Eighty Third.60]

> @"rcs.4120" said:

> In case the devs/decision makers (not necessarily the same people) are curious. Yes, 1600 gems is still to expensive for a single mount skin.

>

> And yes, as a result of the overpricing on gems and pretty much blatant telling of the community to go screw yourselves with regards to their feedback, none of the four accounts in our household purchased or received gemcards this holiday season as a result.

>

> What do I think is fair and consistent?

>

> The 1600 gems for the set of 5 as in the holiday packs.

> 200 for random chance,

> 300 for random chance of a given type.

> 400 for specific skin of a given type.

> 600-800 if its really really fancy.

>

 

Considering that a glider skin costs 500 (or 700 with back item) and I suspect mount skins probably involve more work to create, since they have to be applied to a much more complicated model, I consider the 400 gems for RNG skins to already be a bargain-basement price. (Which is one of the reasons I don't get upset with the RNG)

 

Doubling your prices would be more realistic.