Plok.5873 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 [belgian Gambling Commission targets EA and Blizzard over loot boxes](http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-11-16-belgian-gambling-commission-targets-ea-and-blizzard-over-loot-boxes) Good start... I dare to hope they won't stop there. Anyone here, speaking dutch or french, who would like to point them at AN's recent endeavour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWolf.8670 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 > @"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said: > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > @"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said: > > > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > > > @Kalibri.5861 said: > > > > > > @jguerin.8261 said: > > > > > > I want you PvPers (poster versus posters -- get it?! ha ha) to know that YOU.ARE.NOT.EMPLOYED.BY.ANET: You were never in that meeting (and you never will be) where this was first brought up, never in that meeting when $$$ and RNG were discussed and you were **never** there at the meeting when this was given the go. > > > > > > > > > > This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be. > > > > > > > > The problem is that there is no "need" to implement manipulative systems. The vast majority of companies simply sell products that people want. If people don't want their product, they either change their product until people want it or the company fails. Introducing manipulative systems is a CHOICE (based on low standards IMO), not a NEED. > > > > > > Someone mentioned in another thread (and I would give credit here if I could find it) some other examples of real-world RNG, and my favorite is McDonald's Monopoly. This is purely subjective data, but many people I know wait for the Monopoly tickets to be attached to large sodas and fries for a chance to win, and McDonald's sells a lot more and their revenues skyrocket during this time (check out the Income Statements for details). > > > > That isn't comparable. With McDonalds Lottery you get exactly what you pay for, there is no mystery as to what you are going to get. > > > > What would be comparable to what Anet did is if McDonalds sold a "sandwich gamble box". You pay $2.50 and get one sandwich. It could be a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a Filet o Fish, a Bacon Cheeseburger, a regular Hamburger, a Chicken Sandwich, etc. Of course each of these sandwiches is actually worth different amounts of money - some quite a bit less than $2.50, some quite a bit more. Some sandwiches you won't like, and some you would particularly want. But you don't get a choice. McDonalds only sells it's sandwiches this way. > > > > How long do you think McDonalds would last if they did this btw? LOL > > A little late in response (sorry, busy), but keep in mind I am not suggesting that McDonald's food items are RNG, just the Monopoly ticket. This is relevant because many people do not purchase the same volume from McDonald's until the Monopoly "game" comes out, suggesting that the Monopoly game tickets are what are driving the revenue. People would certainly not pay for a Big Mac and accept a Fish Filet, but I've seen people buy an extra meal to get an extra three tickets, despite the fact the tickets are a lottery. McDonalds Monopoly isn't a lottery. You do not have to pay for the game pieces. They have to give them to you if you ask for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 > @GreyWolf.8670 said: > > @"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said: > > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > > @"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said: > > > > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > > > > @Kalibri.5861 said: > > > > > > > @jguerin.8261 said: > > > > > > > I want you PvPers (poster versus posters -- get it?! ha ha) to know that YOU.ARE.NOT.EMPLOYED.BY.ANET: You were never in that meeting (and you never will be) where this was first brought up, never in that meeting when $$$ and RNG were discussed and you were **never** there at the meeting when this was given the go. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be. > > > > > > > > > > The problem is that there is no "need" to implement manipulative systems. The vast majority of companies simply sell products that people want. If people don't want their product, they either change their product until people want it or the company fails. Introducing manipulative systems is a CHOICE (based on low standards IMO), not a NEED. > > > > > > > > Someone mentioned in another thread (and I would give credit here if I could find it) some other examples of real-world RNG, and my favorite is McDonald's Monopoly. This is purely subjective data, but many people I know wait for the Monopoly tickets to be attached to large sodas and fries for a chance to win, and McDonald's sells a lot more and their revenues skyrocket during this time (check out the Income Statements for details). > > > > > > That isn't comparable. With McDonalds Lottery you get exactly what you pay for, there is no mystery as to what you are going to get. > > > > > > What would be comparable to what Anet did is if McDonalds sold a "sandwich gamble box". You pay $2.50 and get one sandwich. It could be a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a Filet o Fish, a Bacon Cheeseburger, a regular Hamburger, a Chicken Sandwich, etc. Of course each of these sandwiches is actually worth different amounts of money - some quite a bit less than $2.50, some quite a bit more. Some sandwiches you won't like, and some you would particularly want. But you don't get a choice. McDonalds only sells it's sandwiches this way. > > > > > > How long do you think McDonalds would last if they did this btw? LOL > > > > A little late in response (sorry, busy), but keep in mind I am not suggesting that McDonald's food items are RNG, just the Monopoly ticket. This is relevant because many people do not purchase the same volume from McDonald's until the Monopoly "game" comes out, suggesting that the Monopoly game tickets are what are driving the revenue. People would certainly not pay for a Big Mac and accept a Fish Filet, but I've seen people buy an extra meal to get an extra three tickets, despite the fact the tickets are a lottery. > > McDonalds Monopoly isn't a lottery. You do not have to pay for the game pieces. They have to give them to you if you ask for them. Yes, and the reason for that is to *avoid* laws specifically put in place to limit gambling, which they would otherwise trigger. All such "buy something, get a prize" contests have to follow that rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 > @WonderVampGirl.7934 said: > http://dulfy.net/2017/11/15/swtor-former-swtor-dev-damion-schubert-talks-loot-boxes/ > Very nice - thanks for sharing this article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 > @fizzypetal.7936 said: > So after the past few days of reading and occasionally responding to posts in the GW2 forums, my thoughts are this: if the rage and disgust that has been expressed in the GW2 forums and elsewhere regarding Pixel Pony Paintgate were channelled into a force for good in the resolution of say _actual world problems_...like violence, clean water, sanitation, hunger and basic healthcare, imagine how much better the world might be for everyone. Someone actually said yesterday that MO should burn in hell. Over pixels in a make believe world. Mind boggling. Funny you should say that. If this amount of complaining over a virtual game did not produce any real changes in the game, what makes you think that effort would have any effect whatsoever on world problems? The fact is -- and this is an unfortunate fact -- that any attempts to change things run into problems from not only the people in the driver's seats, but also many stakeholders who do not want change. It doesn't help, of course, that some people choose to express outrage and emotion, which generally gets used against them by those who want the status quo. Disclaimer: I don't condone the hyperbole or insults. Complaining about a seller's sales tactics is legitimate consumer advocacy. Resorting to insults, blame, shame, etc. is counter-productive. At best, it gets the target's back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodzynald.5897 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Well... I did it. I've sold all my mats and bought 4 licenses in which I got 2 good skins, one decent I would say, and one trash. I would gladly give all of them to someone else and get the one I want, because I didn't get it. I wish we could trade skins with other players (only skin exchange so that people have to buy them first). This whole RNG thing is utter trash, but it works. If I want that one particular skin I have to buy gems and because of that I have mixed feelings. If something like that happens again in the future I don't know if I'll still be willing to play this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tekoneiric.6817 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 > @Arrow.4619 said: > ArenaNet, > > The mount skin RNG is the main problem. Yes, you can eventually get all of them but not getting the one (or ones) you want without having to pay significantly more than just a fair/reasonable price for the product is unacceptable. The pricing for the solo skin is also out of line. Mount skins should be priced in a manner similar to gliders or outfits - 400 gems is a good baseline with some of the mount skins that ANet believes will be more popular going for more (perhaps up to 800 gems). I would think that 400 gems for a skin using the same model w/different gfx but without particle/flame effects, 700 gems if they have particle/flame effects and 1000 gems if they use an entirely different model. Most of the ones in the RNG would fall under the 400 gems but a few had effects so I'd pay a bit more for those. There is no way I'm going to map 2000 gems for a single mount skin though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 > @IndigoSundown.5419 said: > > @fizzypetal.7936 said: > > So after the past few days of reading and occasionally responding to posts in the GW2 forums, my thoughts are this: if the rage and disgust that has been expressed in the GW2 forums and elsewhere regarding Pixel Pony Paintgate were channelled into a force for good in the resolution of say _actual world problems_...like violence, clean water, sanitation, hunger and basic healthcare, imagine how much better the world might be for everyone. Someone actually said yesterday that MO should burn in hell. Over pixels in a make believe world. Mind boggling. > > Funny you should say that. If this amount of complaining over a virtual game did not produce any real changes in the game, what makes you think that effort would have any effect whatsoever on world problems? The fact is -- and this is an unfortunate fact -- that any attempts to change things run into problems from not only the people in the driver's seats, but also many stakeholders who do not want change. It doesn't help, of course, that some people choose to express outrage and emotion, which generally gets used against them by those who want the status quo. > > Disclaimer: I don't condone the hyperbole or insults. Complaining about a seller's sales tactics is legitimate consumer advocacy. Resorting to insults, blame, shame, etc. is counter-productive. At best, it gets the target's back up. Also, last time i checked, gambling _was_ an actual world problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tekoneiric.6817 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said: > Please see Mike O'Brien's comments on this subject [here](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/15523/a-message-about-the-mount-adoption-license "here"). I've suggested a solution a couple of times on the forums that would go a long way to make people happy. Sell the individual skins from the hero panel. The player clicks on a locked skin then they could purchase it there for the gem amount of that skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tekoneiric.6817 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Here's a CNN article on the subject of RNG. http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/16/technology/battlefront-ii-star-wars-game-gambling/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 > @Rodzynald.5897 said: > Well... I did it. I've sold all my mats and bought 4 licenses in which I got 2 good skins, one decent I would say, and one trash. I would gladly give all of them to someone else and get the one I want, because I didn't get it. I wish we could trade skins with other players (only skin exchange so that people have to buy them first). This whole RNG thing is utter trash, but it works. If I want that one particular skin I have to buy gems and because of that I have mixed feelings. If something like that happens again in the future I don't know if I'll still be willing to play this game. I'm sorry that you gave in to the temptation and bought the gamble, but I'm more sorry that you didn't get what you wanted. Unfortunately that is exactly what these gamble boxes are designed to do. You wanted only 1 skin, but not only did you purchase 4, you didn't end up getting what you wanted. What developers are hoping is that you will be like some people and continue buying licenses until you get what you want. What would happen in most cases is you would spend more money than if you just purchased the entire 30 skin set for the discount price of 9600 gems. Its a scam no matter how you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HunterStern.2893 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Random skins is not the only issue from this. I bought 3-4 and in all cases I received skins for mounts I did not have yet! I still have two locked skins for Griffon now. People should get random skin for the coinciding mounts they have unlocked imo, not this "Surprise! you have 4 weeks or more before you can use your PURCHASED item, Cheers!" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodzynald.5897 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 > @Djinn.9245 said: > > @Rodzynald.5897 said: > > Well... I did it. I've sold all my mats and bought 4 licenses in which I got 2 good skins, one decent I would say, and one trash. I would gladly give all of them to someone else and get the one I want, because I didn't get it. I wish we could trade skins with other players (only skin exchange so that people have to buy them first). This whole RNG thing is utter trash, but it works. If I want that one particular skin I have to buy gems and because of that I have mixed feelings. If something like that happens again in the future I don't know if I'll still be willing to play this game. > > I'm sorry that you gave in to the temptation and bought the gamble, but I'm more sorry that you didn't get what you wanted. Unfortunately that is exactly what these gamble boxes are designed to do. You wanted only 1 skin, but not only did you purchase 4, you didn't end up getting what you wanted. What developers are hoping is that you will be like some people and continue buying licenses until you get what you want. What would happen in most cases is you would spend more money than if you just purchased the entire 30 skin set for the discount price of 9600 gems. Its a scam no matter how you look at it. Temptation or not, I didn't plan not buy those skins. I would buy it anyway just for the flashy one. Sadly, Anet won't change it and I have to deal with it, so I'll farm the gold till I get it even if I have to pay more gold for gems than I would for the whole pack. This is my iron rule that I do not spend real money on a game besides expansion packs, so I will play the game and farm the gold until Fire Pinion is mine. It will feel grand at the end, but I've lost a lot of confidence in Anet for that. I absolutely approve the idea of buying gems and stuff like that, they have to keep the servers working and pay for other stuff, wages etc.... But... there were some other options to make those skins obtainable. Just like Tekoneiric mentioned above, mount specific adoptions to buy. Higher cost in gems (700-800) but less chance that you will get some trashy skin from other mount instead of the one you want. Now I just feel betrayed, salty and whatever. I wish I could just exchange skins, like 5 of them for 1 skin that I want, but that's not gonna do, they won't change it now which rustles my jimmies even more. Just have to deal with it and farm that gold like a good and obedient customer that I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Godrik.5841 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Well I broke down and got all 30 of the skins. And I feel they are all worth 400gems. I have 11 characters, 6 that I play frequently, so I fashion wars alot. Each character I have is unique, right down to the gathering tools, which I have 10 complete sets of, and now the mounts. So I'm happy in supporting a game that I love and enjoy countless hours. It's free to play so I don't mind spending over $150 a year in cosmetic stuff. My suggestion for anet is to provide an instant unlock key for mounts for 600 gems, for those who don't want to rng. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelian Ravenwood.4130 Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 > @Penarddun.6827 said: > > A lot of the backlash could have been avoided if there were non-RNG and non-Gemstore ways to obtain mount skins. Like as a reward at the end of a raid, or the end of the PoF storyline, or for completing a challenging achievement. It's the extreme one-sided-ness of 30 mounts being dumped into the gemstore, all at once, behind high paywalls and/or rng that has caused this effect. > Let's be honest here... if there were also mounts offered through questing, achievements or other methods, we would hear an outcry because "that's not the mount I want" or "only the good-looking mounts are behind the RNG; the ones available from achievements are terrible/everyone has them and I want my mount to be unique". There is a mount available outside of RNG, but the complaint is that it is "too expensive" despite the multitude of gamers stating they would pay more for good-looking mount skins (for the record, I think 2000 gems for a mount skin is too expensive as well, and that's why I didn't buy it). That all being said, I have seen a few posts where someone decided this was the end of their time with GW2; I don't agree, but the poster kept everything civil and wished ArenaNet well. I think this is the kind of post we should all try to emulate, if we feel this way. > @GreyWolf.8670 said: > > @"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said: > > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > > @"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said: > > > > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > > > > @Kalibri.5861 said: > > > > > > > @jguerin.8261 said: > > > > > > > I want you PvPers (poster versus posters -- get it?! ha ha) to know that YOU.ARE.NOT.EMPLOYED.BY.ANET: You were never in that meeting (and you never will be) where this was first brought up, never in that meeting when $$$ and RNG were discussed and you were **never** there at the meeting when this was given the go. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be. > > > > > > > > > > The problem is that there is no "need" to implement manipulative systems. The vast majority of companies simply sell products that people want. If people don't want their product, they either change their product until people want it or the company fails. Introducing manipulative systems is a CHOICE (based on low standards IMO), not a NEED. > > > > > > > > Someone mentioned in another thread (and I would give credit here if I could find it) some other examples of real-world RNG, and my favorite is McDonald's Monopoly. This is purely subjective data, but many people I know wait for the Monopoly tickets to be attached to large sodas and fries for a chance to win, and McDonald's sells a lot more and their revenues skyrocket during this time (check out the Income Statements for details). > > > > > > That isn't comparable. With McDonalds Lottery you get exactly what you pay for, there is no mystery as to what you are going to get. > > > > > > What would be comparable to what Anet did is if McDonalds sold a "sandwich gamble box". You pay $2.50 and get one sandwich. It could be a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a Filet o Fish, a Bacon Cheeseburger, a regular Hamburger, a Chicken Sandwich, etc. Of course each of these sandwiches is actually worth different amounts of money - some quite a bit less than $2.50, some quite a bit more. Some sandwiches you won't like, and some you would particularly want. But you don't get a choice. McDonalds only sells it's sandwiches this way. > > > > > > How long do you think McDonalds would last if they did this btw? LOL > > > > A little late in response (sorry, busy), but keep in mind I am not suggesting that McDonald's food items are RNG, just the Monopoly ticket. This is relevant because many people do not purchase the same volume from McDonald's until the Monopoly "game" comes out, suggesting that the Monopoly game tickets are what are driving the revenue. People would certainly not pay for a Big Mac and accept a Fish Filet, but I've seen people buy an extra meal to get an extra three tickets, despite the fact the tickets are a lottery. > > McDonalds Monopoly isn't a lottery. You do not have to pay for the game pieces. They have to give them to you if you ask for them. If you're curious how well that law works, go into any business that is advertising game pieces for a chance to win a prize and ask for 10,000 tokens/pieces/chances. The best you can hope for is an invitation to send 10,000 SASEs to their corporate headquarters. Part of me (the stubborn, poetic-justice-yearning side) hopes that everyone that wishes to remove RNG from games gets what they seem to want... all F2P games would be gone (startups can only fund so far), progression in games would follow straight-line method and offer little-to-no variety, all players would have the optimal equipment, and we would have a chance to move on to the next item to complain about. I'm not a fan of lootboxes (who is?), but I have the choice to not participate, as does everyone else. If you feel so strongly, don't give them your money. If enough feel that way, the game will have to find other methods of creating revenue to support their servers, staff and software, or they will simply end the game. I'm in favor of self-regulation in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said: > Let's be honest here... if there were also mounts offered through questing, achievements or other methods, we would hear an outcry because "that's not the mount I want" or "only the good-looking mounts are behind the RNG; the ones available from achievements are terrible/everyone has them and I want my mount to be unique". Not really on the former, what they choose to offer through content is what they offer, and everyone seems ok with that. For the latter it might end up being a somewhat valid complaint, but it probably wouldn't be a big deal. It certainly wouldn't have received the *degree* of action that the current situation has. Every situation will receive some level of complaint, that does not mean that all complaint is invalid. >There is a mount available outside of RNG, but the complaint is that it is "too expensive" despite the multitude of gamers stating they would pay more for good-looking mount skins (for the record, I think 2000 gems for a mount skin is too expensive as well, and that's why I didn't buy it). It also only applied to a single mount out of five, and had a specific design that was not to everyone's tastes. Let's be clear, havign reasonable alternatives to the Dirty Thirty would have slightly defused the situation, but there would still be a major problem here, which was that the 30 skins in the RNG box could ONLY be acquired through RNG. That issue would have remained whether there were six other skins or sixty. >Part of me (the stubborn, poetic-justice-yearning side) hopes that everyone that wishes to remove RNG from games gets what they seem to want... all F2P games would be gone (startups can only fund so far), p RNG is not necessary to fund F2P games. You *can* sell customers the product they want at a fair price. It worked for Walmart. >If you feel so strongly, don't give them your money. I am doing that. I am also complaining about it, loudly and often, in the hopes that they will change the policy, so that I *can* give them my money. I can do both things. >If enough feel that way, the game will have to find other methods of creating revenue to support their servers, staff and software, or they will simply end the game. The problem is, we're living in the age of "post Citzens United" gaming. The "vote with your wallet" no longer applies, because ten people withholding $10 is less important than one person willing to pay $120. We can't just withhold our money and hope for the best, because whales gonna whale. Solutions won't come from making exploitative practices unprofitable. Solutions either have to come from convincing companies to not sell their souls to achieve maximum profits when reasonable profits can be accomplished while also making their customers happy, OR by appealing to outside agencies to impose rules that limit a company's ability to embrace the dark side. "Vote with your wallet" is dead, and has been for a while now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Day.2594 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 This video explains the larger picture (though still a bit towards EA). If there are people that still haven't clued in that it's not just about GW2/ANet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalibri.5861 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @Ohoni.6057 said: > "Vote with your wallet" is dead, and has been for a while now. It's not as effective perhaps, but still worth doing. Less money is less money whether it comes from ten people or a thousand. I think people often overlook the fact that we can also vote with our time. MMOs survive on an active player base. This is significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @Kalibri.5861 said: > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > "Vote with your wallet" is dead, and has been for a while now. > It's not as effective perhaps, but still worth doing. Less money is less money whether it comes from ten people or a thousand. > > I think people often overlook the fact that we can also vote with our time. MMOs survive on an active player base. This is significant. Not if we want to change for the better, i'm afraid. If we "vote with our time", then either it won't be significant, and we won't accomplish anything, or it will be significant and either will cause devs to go into panic mode (possibly introducing even _more_ of the changes we wouldn't want) or will cause the game to shut down (which is also hardly a change for the better). Besides, if we keep silent and do not complain loudly, the devs would not really know _why_ we stopped paying in gemstore/playing the game. I'd rather they knew without a shadow of doubt, than hope they won't guess wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalibri.5861 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 .> @Astralporing.1957 said: > > @Kalibri.5861 said: > > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > > "Vote with your wallet" is dead, and has been for a while now. > > It's not as effective perhaps, but still worth doing. Less money is less money whether it comes from ten people or a thousand. > > > > I think people often overlook the fact that we can also vote with our time. MMOs survive on an active player base. This is significant. > > Not if we want to change for the better, i'm afraid. If we "vote with our time", then either it won't be significant, and we won't accomplish anything, or it will be significant and either will cause devs to go into panic mode (possibly introducing even _more_ of the changes we wouldn't want) or will cause the game to shut down (which is also hardly a change for the better). > > Besides, if we keep silent and do not complain loudly, the devs would not really know _why_ we stopped paying in gemstore/playing the game. I'd rather they knew without a shadow of doubt, than hope they won't guess wrong. You're creating a pretty finite collection of realities here, but I think they're not the only ones. I am voting with time, have stated why, and remain involved in forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWolf.8670 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said: > > @Penarddun.6827 said: > > > > > A lot of the backlash could have been avoided if there were non-RNG and non-Gemstore ways to obtain mount skins. Like as a reward at the end of a raid, or the end of the PoF storyline, or for completing a challenging achievement. It's the extreme one-sided-ness of 30 mounts being dumped into the gemstore, all at once, behind high paywalls and/or rng that has caused this effect. > > > Let's be honest here... if there were also mounts offered through questing, achievements or other methods, we would hear an outcry because "that's not the mount I want" or "only the good-looking mounts are behind the RNG; the ones available from achievements are terrible/everyone has them and I want my mount to be unique". There is a mount available outside of RNG, but the complaint is that it is "too expensive" despite the multitude of gamers stating they would pay more for good-looking mount skins (for the record, I think 2000 gems for a mount skin is too expensive as well, and that's why I didn't buy it). > That all being said, I have seen a few posts where someone decided this was the end of their time with GW2; I don't agree, but the poster kept everything civil and wished ArenaNet well. I think this is the kind of post we should all try to emulate, if we feel this way. > > @GreyWolf.8670 said: > > > @"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said: > > > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > > > @"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said: > > > > > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > > > > > @Kalibri.5861 said: > > > > > > > > @jguerin.8261 said: > > > > > > > > I want you PvPers (poster versus posters -- get it?! ha ha) to know that YOU.ARE.NOT.EMPLOYED.BY.ANET: You were never in that meeting (and you never will be) where this was first brought up, never in that meeting when $$$ and RNG were discussed and you were **never** there at the meeting when this was given the go. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be. > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is that there is no "need" to implement manipulative systems. The vast majority of companies simply sell products that people want. If people don't want their product, they either change their product until people want it or the company fails. Introducing manipulative systems is a CHOICE (based on low standards IMO), not a NEED. > > > > > > > > > > Someone mentioned in another thread (and I would give credit here if I could find it) some other examples of real-world RNG, and my favorite is McDonald's Monopoly. This is purely subjective data, but many people I know wait for the Monopoly tickets to be attached to large sodas and fries for a chance to win, and McDonald's sells a lot more and their revenues skyrocket during this time (check out the Income Statements for details). > > > > > > > > That isn't comparable. With McDonalds Lottery you get exactly what you pay for, there is no mystery as to what you are going to get. > > > > > > > > What would be comparable to what Anet did is if McDonalds sold a "sandwich gamble box". You pay $2.50 and get one sandwich. It could be a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a Filet o Fish, a Bacon Cheeseburger, a regular Hamburger, a Chicken Sandwich, etc. Of course each of these sandwiches is actually worth different amounts of money - some quite a bit less than $2.50, some quite a bit more. Some sandwiches you won't like, and some you would particularly want. But you don't get a choice. McDonalds only sells it's sandwiches this way. > > > > > > > > How long do you think McDonalds would last if they did this btw? LOL > > > > > > A little late in response (sorry, busy), but keep in mind I am not suggesting that McDonald's food items are RNG, just the Monopoly ticket. This is relevant because many people do not purchase the same volume from McDonald's until the Monopoly "game" comes out, suggesting that the Monopoly game tickets are what are driving the revenue. People would certainly not pay for a Big Mac and accept a Fish Filet, but I've seen people buy an extra meal to get an extra three tickets, despite the fact the tickets are a lottery. > > > > McDonalds Monopoly isn't a lottery. You do not have to pay for the game pieces. They have to give them to you if you ask for them. > > If you're curious how well that law works, go into any business that is advertising game pieces for a chance to win a prize and ask for 10,000 tokens/pieces/chances. The best you can hope for is an invitation to send 10,000 SASEs to their corporate headquarters. > > Part of me (the stubborn, poetic-justice-yearning side) hopes that everyone that wishes to remove RNG from games gets what they seem to want... all F2P games would be gone (startups can only fund so far), progression in games would follow straight-line method and offer little-to-no variety, all players would have the optimal equipment, and we would have a chance to move on to the next item to complain about. I'm not a fan of lootboxes (who is?), but I have the choice to not participate, as does everyone else. If you feel so strongly, don't give them your money. If enough feel that way, the game will have to find other methods of creating revenue to support their servers, staff and software, or they will simply end the game. > > I'm in favor of self-regulation in this case. That's a far-fetched stretch, isn't it? 10,000 pieces? You're not even trying to put up a defensible argument so there's no point in replying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tekoneiric.6817 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @Kalibri.5861 said: > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > "Vote with your wallet" is dead, and has been for a while now. > It's not as effective perhaps, but still worth doing. Less money is less money whether it comes from ten people or a thousand. > > I think people often overlook the fact that we can also vote with our time. MMOs survive on an active player base. This is significant. There is also the word of mouth promotion of the game that ANet has to consider. For myself I'm reluctant to promote this with other people since they brought RNG into the game in a big way and gave a half baked response to upset players. Months ago I was speaking with an online friend about the game basically trying to get her try the game out. She is an ex-Everquest player and she asked me if the game had a homestead space because she liked it in Everquest. I was left to explain that they haven't implemented it. Needless to say she didn't start playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caberea.8139 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 These new mount skins have actually killed the game for me. I have been playing this game for over 2000 hours and adored Path of Fire, I was looking forward to getting a griffon mount and flying about the place with it, and really hyped for living world season 4. But unfortunately, these mount skins have destroyed all of that joy and turned it into anger. Every time I see one of these mount skins I have get infuriated that we've had lootboxes come into this game, and have to force myself not to lash out at the player for indulging them. As a result, i instead get angry at the game for trying to spread this lootbox scum and I quit out. I was trying to get some of my friends to play the game when path of fire came out, but now I'm urging them to stay as far away as possible from it. I adored this game so much, I even defended the black lion chests for the most part (Not the account bound stuff, that was the little lead in to these boxes of raptor droppings), but this little scheme here has made it clear that whoever has control there hates us players. Because I doubt that the people actually working on the game wanted this to be in it, so if anyone from working on the game wants to try and take back their game, show whoever was in charge of this this thread. Show them all the hatred that EA's gotten from their lootboxes with battlefront. Convince them that this is going to hurt their profits with the hatred its getting, because they sure as hell don't care about what their reputation. Because sooner or later this is going to collapse. This may not be the straw that broke the camels back, but there's certainly a lot of strain. And all it's going to take is a small mistep to make things come crashing down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis.2019 Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 Belgium states loot box as gambling, will seek to have them banned in Euro...hope America isn't far behind.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashantara.8731 Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 If anyone is interested, Belgium just ruled that virtual loot boxes are indeed gambling: http://www.pcgamer.com/belgium-says-loot-boxes-are-gambling-wants-them-banned-in-europe/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now