zealex.9410 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @JaddynnStarr.5201 said: > > @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. I disagree. I believe a price around 800-1000 gems is a fair price for 1 mount with 1.6k gems for a full set of mounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneYenShort.3189 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 translation: we like your gold and money to much to bother spending developer time to change things because w know you players are suckers and will spend your monies anyway for a chance. Honestly, your answer only proved that I was right in my perceptions. "Oh, so sad you didn't get what you wanted. But try again and maybe you'll get lucky this time because your monies you just spent increased the odds of getting what you wanted." https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0199-prize-scams#signs "Legitimate sweepstakes don’t make you pay a fee or buy something to enter **or improve your chances of winning **" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 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. Anyone else get the feeling that this is a not-so-veiled threat? Like "Ok, so you want individual sales? Every skin will be 2000 gems going forward!" Individual gliders are 700 gems. I don't know why a mount skin should be so much more expensive, but no thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ider.1276 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @zealex.9410 said: > I dont believe its fair for the mounts to be on the same price as the glider since theres more work going into them. The first gliders in gemstore were bat wing glider and exalted glider, both a complete remodel with new textures and effects. First mount skins were simple retextures of existing (spookey skins and most of lootbox pack) with a few mounts with tweeked model (some griffons, bunnies). The only complete remodel was warforged jackal for 2k gems. So I call bullsh*t on that. The overall amount of skins are just mere recolor +particle effects, that are not that hard to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaddynnStarr.5201 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @zealex.9410 said: > > @JaddynnStarr.5201 said: > > > @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. > > I disagree. I believe a price around 800-1000 gems is a fair price for 1 mount with 1.6k gems for a full set of mounts. well regardless of what you think they should be at.... they have been selling past and present at 400 gems for all mounts but the single jackal one, so no that isn't a discount, that's the normal price of them currently and on the cheaper side as gliders and regular char skins run 500-700 gems. As for future sales, I could tolerate 800 gems for a mount skin if it wasn't just a recolor... 1600 would be good for a standard 5 pack of skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockheedlight.5910 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Wow, I was so excited when I saw there was a response from Arenanet. I thought "maybe they are going to drop the price per pack or remove the randomness". NOPE. wow. You don't want to invalidate the purchases already made? They decided to buy them. That is what happens when you rush to buy something. You get it first, but not always the best deal. You could also have refunded everyone who had already bought them like 50-100 gems a skin too. This is so sad. I really want some of the skins, but I don't have a ton of free money. I can't afford to gamble just to get the few skins I want. I like this game and I would really like to support it, but not like this. And here I thought this thread would contain good news. I feel so let down. Also no mount skin should be worth $25. $25 is what the price of a full expansion on sale should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 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. It bears repeating, Blizzard is Blizzard. Don't try to be Blizzard, because you ain't Blizzard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haker.5067 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 "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." Then put them all in individually, charge less for the skins no one wants, charge more for the skins everyone wants. Why should the majority of players be punished because a few people like the less flashy skins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheQuickFox.3826 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @"Mike O Brien.4613" said: > Hi, > > We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions. We try different ideas, but we always hold true to that commitment. [...] > ~ MO What about the game and expansion sales as main monetization? (The no-monthly-fees promise) Besides the gem store? (The Guild Wars 1 model?) I surely pre-ordered the game and its two expansions and am commited to keep doing so. In GW1 this seemed to work out great. Sure, I also used the gem store, and even spent more there than on the chapters, but I always considered the game and later the expansion sales to be the main income stream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sankofa Jimiyu.1567 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @"Game of Bones.8975" said: > What about a "golden adoption ticket" that allows a person to select the specific skin they are looking for? This could be used like the Jubilant and Exuberant Dye packs. Maybe as part of a choosy birthday thing , a Taming Bridle to allow you to choose mounts released from previous bundles. I appreciate the explanation of the logic behind the choices you folks made. I love this game and support it through microtransactions because I want it and the people that are behind it to thrive. That being said, I treat my payments into the game like a subscription. Once a month a little something to treat myself in the gem store. The addition of a bunch of skins at once was going to result in this no matter what. 30 individual full priced skins in the Gem Store was going to be too much, while plans for more later would be backed up if they were dripped out over time. It would have lead to community fatigued and just as disenchanted with the situation. The result being the RNG license model. Considering I usually pick up a pack of BLC keys a month, I can see trying at a mount skin instead, but I prefer the random useful items in the BLC to one mount skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrimpkin.4851 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 I would have paid through the nose for that starry jackal skin if it was sold individually. Now though? Blow it out your a*s Anet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daralii.8940 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. WoW has hundreds of mounts obtainable through gameplay, and the majority of store mounts have unique skeletons. The forgehound is the closest thing to any Blizzard store mount(unique model, reused skeleton), and it's... $25. Don't pretend that ANet is any less predatory than Activision, EA, or any of their subsidiaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @Ider.1276 said: > > @zealex.9410 said: > > I dont believe its fair for the mounts to be on the same price as the glider since theres more work going into them. > > The first gliders in gemstore were bat wing glider and exalted glider, both a complete remodel with new textures and effects. First mount skins were simple retextures of existing (spookey skins and most of lootbox pack) with a few mounts with tweeked model (some griffons, bunnies). The only complete remodel was warforged jackal for 2k gems. So I call kitten on that. The overall amount of skins are just mere recolor +particle effects, that are not that hard to do. To be absolutely fair, while many of the "dirty-30" mount skins involved relatively subtle model tweaks, there were more than they're getting credit for. Most of the non-Griffon skins involved at least minor model tweaks, slightly different head shapes, tail shapes, "Rock v Sand" layouts, etc. They aren't as noticeable when released alongside "flaming griffon" and "doge jackal," but at least soem modeling work went into them. They should still be available as single pieces for less than 300 gems, but some work *did* go into them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirius.4510 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Could do something similar to the dye packs... they are mostly RNG, as in you don't know which one you're going to get, but eventually there was an item given out that let you pick the exact dye you wanted from those packs - just not at first. If it was legit for that, it should be for the mount skins. There'll probably be a backlash from a different set of customers if it happens too soon though. Maybe you could introduce a higher-priced (800 gems?) alternative that lets you pick one of the skins you don't already have for, say, Wintersday? And add a Wintersday meta-achievement or collection for PoF players that rewards one of those "golden adoption licenses" on completion? Obviously it wouldn't be that useful if you already had all of them, so perhaps it would also be tradeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoraFern.2475 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Really disappointing that there's going to be no fix for this. People have suggested plenty of solutions. I'm particularly a fan of introducing a "golden" ticket like Game of Bones suggested. Just raise the price higher than a regular ticket, and the golden ticket lets u pick any mount skin u want out of the thirty. That way folks who already bought mount skins still get a good discount in comparison, keep the skins they already bought, and have the added fun of the rng. Frankly I'd be much happier paying double the 400 gem price for a skin I ACTUALLY want, instead of risking getting something I'll never use. Shame, because there's easily 6 skins I would've insta-bought too. Point is, having mounts be the cornerstone of the new expansion and then putting the grand majority of skins behind a system that takes all choice away from the player feels bad. It's why so many people are upset, because there isn't an alternative method to just get the skin they want. I hope u reconsider and an actual solution beyond a forum post apology is put in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberia.7830 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Basically Anet is saying, those who buy 30 packs, you're screwed if you think we're gonna add anything to the adoption licenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khisanth.2948 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @Freakshow.1809 said: > I'm content with this. I still wish they would just do away with the RNG feature of the current adoption licences and allow you to pick and choose, but at least they will not being doing this again.......hopfully > > Also I will be screenshoting the OP for the future. > > Forgive, but never forget. > @zealex.9410 said: > > @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. Many of them are just texture/fur pattern changes. That wouldn't have required much more work than the similarly retextured gliders(all the different colored hawk wings for example) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oni.7451 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Gotta admit, I'm not ecstatic that the current mount license won't be changed. But I understand the meaning of compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EoNenmacil.2361 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 Thank you Mo for your Post, I do have one quiestion about it. "We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made," Does that mean No changes at all or does it mean that you will be looking in to a way for us to buy skins from this pack directly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sartharina.3542 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @Oni.7451 said: > Gotta admit, I'm not ecstatic that the current mount license won't be changed. But I understand the meaning of compromise. I just hope Mike understands the meaning of Bankruptcy, and finds his company heading that way if he doesn't fix this problem instead of trying to brush it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @Oni.7451 said: > Gotta admit, I'm not ecstatic that the current mount license won't be changed. But I understand the meaning of compromise. You do understand that the meaning of "compromise" is not "we'll just keep things exactly how they are whether you like it or not," right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldirtbeard.9834 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 While I appreciate the statement I'll vote with my wallet and not contribute to RNG, it's a shame because my wife and I were interested in specific skins but it seems our money isn't meant for this product. Regarding that 2000 gem mount its too expensive for me to justify buying. You had the right idea with Spooky Mounts and I'll buy the next set as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urieldhynne.2743 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 "We won’t change the existing license **in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made**" We need to understand that they are tied to a compromise with people who invested money in this system, a bad system, buy a lot of people already spended money on it and they need to protect them. Imagine if you spend money in another item that sell in certain way, and later they change it to a cheaper one because a lot of people (right or wrong) complain about it, you are going to lose trust in the company. What he said was: They CAN'T change it now, but they know the people don't want/like it and they are going to sell new skins in a more traditional way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zealex.9410 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @Ider.1276 said: > > @zealex.9410 said: > > I dont believe its fair for the mounts to be on the same price as the glider since theres more work going into them. > > The first gliders in gemstore were bat wing glider and exalted glider, both a complete remodel with new textures and effects. First mount skins were simple retextures of existing (spookey skins and most of lootbox pack) with a few mounts with tweeked model (some griffons, bunnies). The only complete remodel was warforged jackal for 2k gems. So I call kitten on that. The overall amount of skins are just mere recolor +particle effects, that are not that hard to do. The base glider was a piece of fabric stitched on our back while the mounts are detailed model. Also gliders hardly have animations except only a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldirtbeard.9834 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 > @Larathia.5284 said: > Supporting development through microtransactions is fine. But guys, please remember that 2000 gems is not 'micro' anything, okay? If it translates to more than five dollars in Actual Cash Moneys, it is not 'micro'. No that is not true, it costs $25 to get 2000 gems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts