JaddynnStarr.5201 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @zealex.9410 said: > > @JaddynnStarr.5201 said: > > > @Lambent.6375 said: > > > Why would some people think they were going to change the current 30 pack skin system? The best option is that they will be avoiding rng mounts in the future. > > > > > > If they changed the current one they would suddenly have to deal with a lot of people that made $50-$100+ purchases. > > > > We understand that, but there have been half a dozen or more options layed out to them that would allow them to retain the money spent, give the players the mounts they want and not suffer an ymore bad PR..... > > Why is there going to be any more bad RP because of this? simply put.... they are continuing to use predatory practices and not fix any of the real issues, so they will continue to be plagued by disgruntled players who will voice their opinions and concerns not only here, but likely to their friends and other social media outlets they participate in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shintao.6392 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 I use the gemstore quite frequently, I have roughly 66% of the Glider and Outfits for example. I seriously considered buying the Spooky Mounts but decided against it since I just returned to the game after 6 months and might want to buy stuff I missed in that time. But when the Adoption Licenses hit I was torn between laughing and facepalming... I appreciate that you acknowledged the controversy behind the lootbox system, I will wait and see what you come up with for the next mount skins. But in my opinion the Reforged Warhound (way too expensive for a single skin) and the Adoption Licenses (hilariously expensive/RNG) are the worst features to ever hit the gemstore. I still have hope you will find a similar solution as you did with the Glider and Outfit skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sartharina.3542 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @zealex.9410 said: > > @JaddynnStarr.5201 said: > > > @Lambent.6375 said: > > > Why would some people think they were going to change the current 30 pack skin system? The best option is that they will be avoiding rng mounts in the future. > > > > > > If they changed the current one they would suddenly have to deal with a lot of people that made $50-$100+ purchases. > > > > We understand that, but there have been half a dozen or more options layed out to them that would allow them to retain the money spent, give the players the mounts they want and not suffer an ymore bad PR..... > > Why is there going to be any more bad RP because of this? Because this is a fancy way of saying "Thanks for your money. Suck it up." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telem.3542 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Thanks for not fixing the problem. You did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adenin.5973 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @Hecate.2891 said: > Yeah don't get it twisted. I, and many others, are not asking for free skins. We actually are asking anet to sell us their goods without a gambling factor and some of us, myself included, are willing to pay higher than 400 gems to do so. We ARE asking them to let us give them our money with a minor stipulation that up until this week has been a rather normal business procedure. But the rng is not at all the main problem people really have. Try imagine this: 10 mount skins were just added to the game, available directly through achievements. The other 20 mount skins are ingame available through very long term collections (We're talking about several days or weeks of hard work for a single collection). These 20 mount are now also available through the equivalent of a super expensive black lion chest, with a random dropchance for one of it. This is in fact the way some games that are considerable successful and profitable (Warframe for example) do it. Make everything a bit harder to get ingame, a grind and also sell it on your cashshop. As long as the grind is fun enough people keep playing and as long at it is hard enough to get, enough people keep buying. A constant balance. We don't have that in GW2 at all! Would the high price and the rng element now be a problem? Hell no. We wouldn't have anywhere near the outrage. So how can the rng thing be the main problem of this game when it is only a symptom. A symptom caused by the main problem: that the majority of new and cool looking stuff are cash shop exclusives. That's what the sh*tstorm should've been all about. The main message. Instead people complained about the wrong thing and Anet in their "explanation" didn't even mention once that they plan on adding any new skins as ingame rewards. Because apparently this was not what this thing was about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mini.1786 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Logged into forums ( that I usually avoid) to appreciate this statement. Very coehent positioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ider.1276 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @"Mike O Brien.4613" said: > Microtransactions can be polarizing, and we’ve received both positive and negative feedback on the license. We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made, but I want to confirm to you that our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack. We will not add any skins to the currently available Adoption License, thus not pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin in that set. You could go for a compromise and sell individual skins from lootboxes for x2-x3 amount of gems. Those who bought your adoption licences would be happy to have 2-3 times more skins than people who bought more pricy individual skins. Those who bought a single skin for 800-1200 gems instead of 400 would be happy they got what they want without gambling. Alternatively, you could give a refund to all who bought lootboxes so they could buy what they want. It is not like you have to return then real money, that is just your non-existant currency you are refunding. But you didn't. Because you don't want us to give you some money and ride away happily after getting what we want. You want all the money we could be milked off by gambling. That is why the lootboxes will stay in the game. Well, at least you made it clear. I won't wave a banner and shout about leaving the game or not buying anything from gemstore ever (though I doubt I will ever again purchase anything with real money). I am just an average person with average infuence on like a dosen of my friends. I objectivelly can't fight you, I can't compel you to do a just and right thing. So I will shut up, with my trust in customer-friendly Anet shattered to peices forever. But if you actually care about the good game you created (which I actually truelly love at the end of a day), think about this. You alienated casuals, when you made a 180 degree turn from vanily to HoT. Then you alienated hardcore players that came to GW2 during HoT start by a 180 turn to PoF with no new challenging or end-game content. Now with your adoption of trendy lootbox system you are alienating all those "dolphins" (I really hate this term) like me that were happy to give you like 15-20$ from time to time for some shiny they actually liked. Every time you chase for an innovation, you burn the bridges and discard everything you created before instead of analising it and building on what was actually good. And every time you do it you are loosing a part of your playerbase which liked the things you destroyed. Today you destroyed a customer-friendly gemstore reputation for some of us. How long can you sacrifice your playerbase peice by peice in your wild chase? Oh, I think I should thank you for honesty, the quickness of your reply, your attention to the subject... But I'd rather thank God for Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuzsie.9263 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 I love a few of the mount skins but some I really don't like at all and would never use them so it would be a complete waste for me to even consider buying any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasima.8143 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 So here's the problem right. It's going to be difficult as hell to beat those celestial skins for the doggie and the griffon. They seemed very popular. So I don't know how you're going to convince people who like these skins to go for something else rather than wait for you to maybe put that 30-license pack on sale or change your mind and sell them in different packs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devildoc.6721 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Mike one more thing if you're out there still listening that might be a compromise.. and that is to let us buy the mount adoptions per mount rather than all 30 at once. Now you can narrow it down to within 6 skins and it'll be on a mount of your choosing. I had some leftover gems and decided to buy a few things since it was apparent no changes were going to be made and lo and behold I got the Jackalope Hopper and Stardust Jackal as the first two . Now this is great considering the long odds I was playing and these are 2 of the 3 skins I really liked. But now.. to get the 3rd skin, my odds are even longer, and not only that, but any other hopper or jackal skins I acquire are complete wastes as I have the one skin I want to use for those mounts already. If I could buy just griffon licenses, knowing that at most I'd have to buy 6... you'd have yourselves a deal.... but since I'm not interested in any of the skins for raptor or skimmer, and have the only skins I want for hopper and jackal.. that's a really, really really hard deal to sell I hope you can understand that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaddynnStarr.5201 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @Adenin.5973 said: > > @Hecate.2891 said: > > Yeah don't get it twisted. I, and many others, are not asking for free skins. We actually are asking anet to sell us their goods without a gambling factor and some of us, myself included, are willing to pay higher than 400 gems to do so. We ARE asking them to let us give them our money with a minor stipulation that up until this week has been a rather normal business procedure. > > But the rng is not at all the main problem people really have. > > Try imagine this: > 10 mount skins were just added to the game, available directly through achievements. The other 20 mount skins are ingame available through very long term collections (We're talking about several days or weeks of hard work for a single collection). These 20 mount are now also available through the equivalent of a super expensive black lion chest, with a random dropchance for one of it. > > This is in fact the way some games that are considerable successful and profitable (Warframe for example) do it. Make everything a bit harder to get ingame, a grind and also sell it on your cashshop. As long as the grind is fun enough people keep playing and as long at it is hard enough to get, enough people keep buying. A constant balance. We don't have that in GW2 at all! > > Would the high price and the rng element now be a problem? Hell no. We wouldn't have anywhere near the outrage. So how can the rng thing be the main problem of this game when it is only a symptom. A symptom caused by the main problem: that the majority of new and cool looking stuff are cash shop exclusives. > > That's what the sh*tstorm should've been all about. The main message. Instead people complained about the wrong thing and Anet in their "explanation" didn't even mention once that they plan on adding any new skins as ingame rewards. Because apparently this was not what this thing was about. bud, were all kinda already one step ahead of you on that idea. there isn't a person here that's gonna argue with you over whether or not there should be more put into direct game content vs the cashshop.... the problem is, it has been this way systemically for years now and we recognize the futility of beating that dead horse. We all want more put into the game to earn.... Anet has made it a point of saying NO.... now they are doubling down on the cash shop and we are trying to walk it back a bit. People have gotten so used to just buying gems to obtain anything good, that it has become the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veplerion.3921 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @"Mike O Brien.4613" said: > * You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price. > * It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins. > * You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin. I don't necessarily mind the first point, but you shouldn't have put every mount type under one license. This entire thing might have gone over better had you separated each mount type into it's own license, either as a different license entirely or through a second selection after using the license that let people choose which stable, separated by mount type, to try at. That, and actually putting some mount skins in the game as a reward to begin with... with more than one dye channel. But I'm sure that point has been beaten to death already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaggerLee.6397 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Is a mount skin being $5 really considered discounted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lifelike.5862 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Thanks a lot for actually addressing this to some degree, but... "You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin." I'm sorry, but this is complete nonsense. If you're so keen on supporting variety, why don't you just release all of the cheap skins and...I don't know...remove the random mechanic and allow people to buy the ones they want? If you believe so deeply in your artist's integrity then there should be no reason for this randomization in the first place. What purpose does it possibly serve beyond forcing players to roll the dice and potentially spend more money than they intend to spend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shark Drake.9461 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 So when are we getting another 30 mount skins that are available ingame instead of on gemstore to balance it out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinfullysweet.4517 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 The singular hound is wayyyyy overpriced currently. Hopefully bundles will be the cost of a singular mount skin currently. I can do that. Also make some awesome ones achievement related. Us Achieve hunters would greatly appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegeta.2563 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @"Mike O Brien.4613" said: > our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound > ~ MO Speaking of Reforged Warhound. It's a nice looking skin, but for 2000 gems, I would have expected it to be for all 5 mounts, not just 1. Just saying might wanna think about the price on some of that stuff. Not even the Balthazar outfit was that high in price when it came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critwrench.8432 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 This doesn't address any of the concerns at all. People want to buy the skins. They do not want to GAMBLE for the skins. Take the RNG off and raise the price of the skins IF YOU MUST, but I don't think you have to. Gliders were all 400 gems, more if it included a backpiece, I see no reason to deviate from that model. Furthermore, this controversy has raised ancillary concerns from "nitpicks" to "actual issues" amongst your playerbase, and you have addressed none of them. **WHY** are all default mounts 1 dye channel, when all the skins conveniently have 4? **WHY** are there no mount skins earnable as in-game rewards, in an expansion sorely lacking in medium- or long-term reasons to keep playing the maps? **WHY** do you have the resources to release _thirty skins at once_ for the gemstore, but you can't throw one or two into a box that people like myself have paid up to **eighty dollars** for? I'm not saying I don't want to work for them, I'm not even saying I don't want to buy them. I'm saying that the current situation is the absolute worst for everyone involved, except perhaps your yarn-pawing kitten bottom line. It's greed, blatant and putrid, and your customers expect better than that from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zealex.9410 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @Critwrench.8432 said: > This doesn't address any of the concerns at all. > > People want to buy the skins. They do not want to GAMBLE for the skins. Take the RNG off and raise the price of the skins IF YOU MUST, but I don't think you have to. Gliders were all 400 gems, more if it included a backpiece, I see no reason to deviate from that model. > > Furthermore, this controversy has raised ancillary concerns from "nitpicks" to "actual issues" amongst your playerbase, and you have addressed none of them. > > **WHY** are all default mounts 1 dye channel, when all the skins conveniently have 4? > **WHY** are there no mount skins earnable as in-game rewards, in an expansion sorely lacking in medium- or long-term reasons to keep playing the maps? > **WHY** do you have the resources to release _thirty skins at once_ for the gemstore, but you can't throw one or two into a box that people like myself have paid up to **eighty dollars** for? I'm not saying I don't want to work for them, I'm not even saying I don't want to buy them. I'm saying that the current situation is the absolute worst for everyone involved, except perhaps your yarn-pawing kitten bottom line. > > It's greed, blatant and putrid, and your customers expect better than that from you. I dont believe its fair for the mounts to be on the same price as the glider since theres more work going into them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zealex.9410 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @StaggerLee.6397 said: > Is a mount skin being $5 really considered discounted? Considering blizzard sells their skins for 25$ id say yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @Endlos.4852 said: > _"Hey we understand that you're angry that we tried to exploit you, but we're not backing down on that because it would be too much effort to rectify things for the players we already fleeced, and we could still make money from new players with this scam, but we promise not to do it again in the future."_ Adding three bullet points that all say the same thing and try spin it as if Anet was doing _us_ a favor with their predatory pseudo-gambling system doesn't really make me feel all that appeased. This seems less like _"Wow, we really messed up, we tried to take advantage of you as customers, and we're sorry"_ and more like _"Man, we grossly underestimated how upset you'd be by us exploiting you, we'll tone it down in the future."_ LOL! Great summation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaddynnStarr.5201 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @zealex.9410 said: > > @StaggerLee.6397 said: > > Is a mount skin being $5 really considered discounted? > > Considering blizzard sells their skins for 25$ id say yes. I disagree as this is not WoW... furthermore typical skins IN OUR GAME usually run the gambit of 400-800 gems which is $5-$10. Discounted... no. on the cheaper side of things yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegeta.2563 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @Menadena.7482 said: > Mike, if I have one question it is this: > > What are you supposed to do if you do not HAVE a particular mount nor intend to get it (most likely the griffon) then get a skin for it? That does not unlock the griffon so you are out $5 of gems for nothing. I can already see the answer.. "You'll have the mount eventually, so the skin will be waiting for you!" :tongue: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 **What I expected:** "We won't be rolling back the licenses in favor of a non-random system because a lot of gems were expended to get them, and it would be time-intensive and costly to do the refunds a rollback would require.", but dressed up via PR Speak ... well, pretty much as it was. "We've heard your concerns and are taking them into consideration for the future." Not worded exactly that way, but close enough. **What I read as far as the future goes:** "The next releases of mount skins will be individual sales like the Fiery Goat of Doom for 5/6th of the base cost of the XPac and bundles like the skelly skins." I find this disappointing. It removes randomness for the next releases, but not going forward beyond the "next planned releases." Also, it is still a business plan focused on big-spenders, which I believe ignores the majority of players. I see no reason why any individual mount skin must cost almost 3x as much as an outfit, which has to fit multiple frames while the mount skin need fit only one. **What I heard about random boxes:** Again, ANet committed to not use random sales in the next planned releases of mount skins, even though they recognize that, "...there is a lot of debate about random boxes in gaming." Not what I hoped for. So, sorry, Mr. O'Brien. As far as I can see, you've applied a Band-aid to the current upset. You've also paid lip service to peoples' concerns about wanting to buy your store products at a fair price without random boxes and other attempts to get us to buy things we don't want without actually committing to anything beyond however many mount skin releases are currently planned. I will continue to do what I can to hold you to "high standards for monetization." I appreciate the attempt to make the licenses more consumer friendly than the typical lootbox (both here and in other games. However, at least for me, this does not go far enough. I believe that attempting to get people to spend money on things they don't want as the only means of getting things they do want is a questionable business practice. Using a slightly better version of a questionable business practice is still questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sartharina.3542 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @zealex.9410 said: > > @StaggerLee.6397 said: > > Is a mount skin being $5 really considered discounted? > > Considering blizzard sells their skins for 25$ id say yes. You forgot that 90% of WoW's skins can be obtained in-game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts