A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[Tsakhi.8124]

Mistakes are lessons, hopefully A-Net learned this lesson; it seems as though there won't be a repeat, at least. The damage is done, but I still feel that at least acknowledging there's a problem, opposed to ignoring it (although actions speak louder than words, it is a PR thing, but still.). I understand the lost trust thing, I have very bad trust issues, but I just..it's like, we made our point, they didn't take it. Lesson learned. Let's move on and stop punishing people that don't deserve the punishment. You're leaving the game and going to another one, who, you've admitted, screws you over. So, leaving one abusive relationship for another is helping how? Whatever, I'm stupid I guess. This is nothing but a cycle of never-ending schadenfreude. Some of you, I swear, want to see them fail. You were burned. I get it. I've been burned so many times I've lost count, but just because Target stopped selling my favorite drink doesn't mean they will no longer get my patronage. As I said, I am not an intelligent person, but, by quitting a game over something that will _not_ happen again (hopefully) is like cutting your nose to spite your face. This is probably gonna get flamed but, those are my thoughts. :/

[Seera.5916]

> @Microundeas.4530 said:

> 

>

> This is my feeling when reading 90% of your comments, yes rng is bad! But it's applied on skins.... That have 0 impact in high end game play.....

> If you don't like, just don't buy it.

> In case you are wandering i bought 0 so far cause of the rng, but the existence of this boxes will not make me quit the game, that's just a bit childish. That's why sometimes is hard to take people seriously.

>

> Like WP said, vote with your wallet.

 

But this game is also referred to as Fashion Wars 2. Expecting players to not have fashion related desires for their end game is a bit unrealistic.

 

And my two cents on the situation:

 

From what I've read, there are obvious sets of mounts in this one RNG set. ANet may have had a better reaction if they had split the license into multiple ones. Say 6 sets of 5 mounts. Or even 5 sets of 5 and made the set that's really similar to the ones we start with earned in game. Maybe an award for unlocking all mounts.

 

That would have also given ANet a better idea of what type of mount skins we want. ANet will never really know why someone stopped spending money on the license as it is now. Did they get the skin(s) they wanted or did they reach the max amount of money they were willing to gamble on it?

 

Still would have been a gamble, but 1 in 5 chances is always better than the 1/30 chance to get it with the first try.

[MastemaRose.6703]

> @"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. We’ve been collecting and discussing your feedback on the Mount Adoption License, and today I’d like to acknowledge and respond to the concerns you’ve raised, and to share our perspective with you.

>

> You have valid concerns about random boxes. We hoped that the design of the Mount Adoption License would be reassuring. In this case, we made some missteps:

>

> * At a time when there’s a lot of debate about random boxes in gaming, we should have anticipated that a new system with a random element would cause alarm.

> * We released mount skins with three different purchase models, but with the majority of skins released so far through the Adoption License. It’s easy to perceive this as intentionally channeling you toward randomization.

> * The Adoption License is a large set at 30 skins. We stand by the work our artists put into each skin, but it’s understandable to see this as pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin, and to worry that we might add more skins to lower the chances further.

>

>

> Here are some of the benefits we had in mind when designing the Mount Adoption License:

>

> * 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.

>

>

> 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.

>

> We appreciate the thoughtful feedback many of you have provided, and that you hold us to high standards for monetization. It’s been a challenging but wonderful goal to support live development and Living World purely through optional microtransactions, and it’s your support that’s made that possible. Thank you.

>

> ~ MO

 

 

****"We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made" ****

- Like someone is going to say "No, no refund thank you". You could wipe the slate clean.. call a re-do. Yes, I realize the amount of work that would take. One thing, I too work for a living, and it is hard work.. and I sometimes spend my money here. And, one of your jobs IS customer service. Basically what you've just said is, sorry you didn't like our idea, oh well, tough.

- You could give a "one time" exchange ticket to players who are dissatisfied with the ones they unlocked.

 

****"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."****

Not sure why you thought this would add anything to the conversation. Literally what people have been saying is they would like to have the freedom of choice. I've read through here, and Reddit.. Some like the flashy bits, some like the subtle ones and others like the plain ones.. The community IS a wide variety of people and having a choice would have "suited" them just fine.

 

****"We released mount skins with three different purchase models"****

Two actually. One single mount only (the Reforged Warhound) and Adoption Licenses. Just because you can buy the mega pack doesn't make it a different purchase model. What it does make it is unobtainable for a lot of us.

 

This is not the only way to support variety, this is not the only way to generate the most revenue. And there still isn't an apology to those of us who are/were disappointed and have supported this game for years now.

[JaddynnStarr.5201]

> @Microundeas.4530 said:

> 

>

> This is my feeling when reading 90% of your comments, yes rng is bad! But it's applied on skins.... That have 0 impact in high end game play.....

> If you don't like, just don't buy it.

> In case you are wandering i bought 0 so far cause of the rng, but the existence of this boxes will not make me quit the game, that's just a bit childish. That's why sometimes is hard to take people seriously.

>

> Like WP said, vote with your wallet.

 

How many times do we have to explain that skins ARE the high end content of this game..... there is no furthering content in the expansion so skins have become the big draw to this game! This game is ALL ABOUT looking good and showing off while roaming thru its content! How do you not get this? this is tantamount to paying for 398 channels on your TV when all you want to watch is maybe 10 channels. you are forced to buy the most undesireable and least profitable crap in order to get to what you want here... they KNOWINGLY do this.... it is a BUSINESS MODEL.

 

"if you don't like it, don't buy it"...... pffff my friend.... that's exactly what we are telling them in this drivel of a post.... how can you not see it?

[troops.8276]

> @Tsakhi.8124 said:

> Mistakes are lessons, hopefully A-Net learned this lesson; it seems as though there won't be a repeat, at least. The damage is done, but I still feel that at least acknowledging there's a problem, opposed to ignoring it (although actions speak louder than words, it is a PR thing, but still.). I understand the lost trust thing, I have very bad trust issues, but I just..it's like, we made our point, they didn't take it. Lesson learned. Let's move on and stop punishing people that don't deserve the punishment. You're leaving the game and going to another one, who, you've admitted, screws you over. So, leaving one abusive relationship for another is helping how? Whatever, I'm stupid I guess. This is nothing but a cycle of never-ending schadenfreude. Some of you, I swear, want to see them fail. You were burned. I get it. I've been burned so many times I've lost count, but just because Target stopped selling my favorite drink doesn't mean they will no longer get my patronage. As I said, I am not an intelligent person, but, by quitting a game over something that will _not_ happen again (hopefully) is like cutting your nose to spite your face. This is probably gonna get flamed but, those are my thoughts. :/

 

Lessons learnt?

This made kitten loads of money and got lots of Google traffic. Win.

 

One abusive relationship for another?

Well if that's your only option then might as well go for the most attractive chick that kittens your kitten better and doesn't pretend they're something they're not. Win.

 

Face Spite(ing)?

With the time and money you'll save you can buy a new nose and get out more. Win.

[SpaceSheep.5874]

> @Tsakhi.8124 said:

> Mistakes are lessons

 

Mistakes are lessons? How didn't they see this coming from the countless other debates surrounding Lootboxes this year? They didn't need to make a mistake to learn anything, they could have just been in touch in the least with gaming media. Its like watching someone walk into a bush of nettles, seeing that they cry out in pain and then shrugging your shoulders and following after them. Not to their wallets obviously, their wallets are going to be real happy after this. Their response is empty.

[SpaceSheep.5874]

People debating whether or not its okay because its cosmetic should just go to a shop with their eyes closed and buy a t-shirt at random. Its not a colour you like? Tough, its still a t-shirt, it doesn't effect that it covers your torso! Coloured socks aren't necessary to them being socks but I bet you'd still like a choice in what colour you do get to wear. Urgh, enough... being in here is horrible... off to play a game... *grumble grumble*

[Aya.6321]

Oh in case nobody saw in the datamine thread from Tuesday...

**they're going to release a 30 pack of contracts**

Probably for half of what it would be if you bought the multiples of 10 contracts.

I mean, is that even surprising now?

 

Also, coming to a BLC near you...

_Black Lion Weapon Chests_

_Gives you a random Black Lion weapon_

 

To think these contracts were the start of such a awful trend.

If this is making them oodles of money, why would they stop? It's hopeless~

[Myrdreth.6829]

> @Verthiss.9541 said:

> I'm disappointed you give up on RNG so easily. It sucks that there is no other way of aquiring specific skins, but RNG itself is not a problem here, having no alternatives is. For me, the perfect way of doing this would be to keep adding new skins to Adoption Licence while letting us purchase them separately for the first week or so (for 500-1200 gems, depending on the skin).

> This would mean that people who really like just one specific skin could buy it directly, while the rest of us (like me) could just buy a random skin for fun from time to time.

> PS: doing separate packages for every mount type would be fair.

> PS2: also, the system I described would give competionists a way to buy everything for a reasonable price (because they would get every skin meant for RNG packs for 400gems) while still showering you with the money.

 

Ohhhh, I really really like your suggestion! I hope they read that and listen to you.

[Sartharina.3542]

> @Rashagar.8349 said:

>

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

>

> > But just because I disagree with him on _certain topics_, does not mean I must disregard _everything_ he has to say.

>

> Haha! I hope for the sake of you avoiding hilarious hypocrisy that you haven't been one of the people threatening to badmouth gw2 to all their friends and never play/purchase/whatever from them again, keeping the above quoted part in mind.

 

Telling people interested in the game about the caveats isn't "Badmouthing" the game - it's being honest.

[Rashagar.8349]

> @Sartharina.3542 said:

> > @Rashagar.8349 said:

> >

> > > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> >

> > > But just because I disagree with him on _certain topics_, does not mean I must disregard _everything_ he has to say.

> >

> > Haha! I hope for the sake of you avoiding hilarious hypocrisy that you haven't been one of the people threatening to badmouth gw2 to all their friends and never play/purchase/whatever from them again, keeping the above quoted part in mind.

>

> Telling people interested in the game about the caveats isn't "Badmouthing" the game - it's being honest.

 

Telling people caveats is also far and away removed from the kind of behaviour I was referring to.

 

*Edit to be clear

I agree with you that they're not the same thing. However, people have not been threatening to provide their interested friends with reasoned caveats, because that is not much of a threat.

[Drew.1865]

Thank you for communicating with us Mr. O’Brien! I think your comments should help and I will happily buy mount skins just like the glider skins. Thank you for listening to feedback!

[SoulPariah.2856]

> @Dovienya.6597 said:

> While I do recognize that this is not as straightforward a situation, the consequences in terms of community perception are different by an order of magnitude. I find it difficult to believe that the only equitable way forward is to leave things as they are.

>

 

I think this is an interesting part of the issue as it's obviously a very unique situation. I have a different point of view on it.

I'm glad things are being left as they are. I actually like this implementation of skins, and intend to invest in them over time (haven't got one yet / got the silver-fed instead (yay!). Now, unless I'm unbelievably unique, it is therefore reasonable to assume at least some other people also feel this way. And, if any of those people have already adopted one of the mounts, they have invested in that as a standalone item but also it can be seen as an investment into future skins they intend to purchase, as each purchase changes the odds and the cost of the investment. So, that immediately removes the option to refund all of them universally and change the prices/packaging, because each person's situation is different and some amount of them wouldn't want the refund anyways, and then if you do want the refund but then don't like the new price, there's more controversy, etc etc.

Then there's the slightly antagonistic sounding part - is a refund even warranted? Everything about the purchase was made clear, including the random nature of the skins. Given the controversy that swirled around it, it's highly unlikely anyone did not acutely understand exactly what they were spending their gems on, and so, if they knew all the details and made the purchase, why should ANet go through all the opting in/out of a refund then dealing with each individual scenario when the purchase was legit?

 

[Note: My opinion is that ANet 100% do not have this same opinion as far as the legitimacy of refund requests. I think they would do it if was in the best interest of everyone even if the purchase was legit and would probably never even mention it. I'm just putting it out there because I can bring it up without worry of public relations, and I just don't believe people should be able to wriggle out of a decision they made when they were fully informed, especially when providing it would only complicate the resolution without any universal way to address it.

[Setz.9675]

> @Microundeas.4530 said:

> 

>

> This is my feeling when reading 90% of your comments, yes rng is bad! But it's applied on skins.... That have 0 impact in high end game play.....

Cosmetics and how to obtain them is a large part of what this game is, don't go around downplaying issues just because it does not apply to you. PoF illustrates how everything in this game revolves around the cash-shop and people are fed up with it, they want to play a game not their incomes.

> If you don't like, just don't buy it.

I don't like the currect implementation so I don't buy it, but there is more to play then this. I'm now dissatisfied with the game and Anet as a company. The 15 bucks I would spend on the skins I wanted is now going to my WoW subscription making me leave GW2 untill new content is released. Im not alone on this.

> In case you are wandering i bought 0 so far cause of the rng, but the existence of this boxes will not make me quit the game, that's just a bit childish. That's why sometimes is hard to take people seriously.

It's hard to take people serious when they point out disgusting anti-consumer marketing tactics? Using gambling-addictive measures to enrich themselves while treating vulnerable children and adults prone to gambling as mere cash-cows even if it leaves the latter in a difficult situation later on? People like you... just wauw I dont even...

>

> Like WP said, vote with your wallet.

Someone else already said it, this entire move of mount monetization wasnt aimed at people like you and me in the first place. It was aimed at people with large disposible incomes. Anet's psycho-analytics and economics calculated the maximum profit and this is what they came up with, you can't vote when you were never part of the system.

Also WP isn't the end all of discussion about GW2, his 1 hour video about this discussion is disingenuous to say the least.

 

 

 

[Myrdreth.6829]

> @Fenryr.1074 said:

> What a hot pile of PR-**** . The worst thing about it is that a good portion of your "fan"-base is going to buy into this PR nonsense. This is just blatant dishonesty, you should be ashamed of yourselves; your mothers surely are.

 

Doesn't matter how angry and disappointed we are, please don't get personal.

[Hecate.2891]

 

> > @Tsakhi.8124 said:

> > Mistakes are lessons

 

Well they're terrible learners because their opportunity to show improvement and rectify the issue is right in front of their faces **at this very moment** and they're sitting there doing nothing.

[Zionka.6897]

A great response to feedback.. I personally liked RNG making my decision for me... Like.. this is my new mount, it's my destiny! My only grumble about the setup, was mounts weren't individualized by category.. I was fine with whatever skin I got, but I only wanted one for each mount. So I ended up buying 10 licenses to get 5 mounts. But even that is OK really, I can do a little different customizing with all my characters besides coloring. To those still saying the ones in the pool of 30 should become available

separately... Think for a minute. How would that make you feel if you bought 12 - 20 skins to get the one you liked? What's done is done, and I don't think it's as awful of a thing as people made it out to be. But ANet listened and assured they won't put anyone through it again. That's more than a lot of other game companies would do.

[Newsin.1945]

Yeah, not paying 20.00 US for a Mount Skin. Period. Add in new mount models all together... Id think about it. But just a skin of a mount Ive been looking at now since release of Path of Fire... not happening. 1. I'm not made of money and 2. It just seems sleazy.

 

I dont know this all just seems off. Left me feeling a bit sour towards NCSOFT. Feel sorry for ArenaNet though... since they had nothing to do with the decision. Personally Id rather pay 15.00 a month and be able to complete things in order to get these items, get regular updates every 3 - 6 months and if there is a store...get a monthly stipend to spend.

 

Issues with your market system are a lot bigger then just these mounts btw.

 

Bank Slots when in every major update you add more to the game.

Bag Slots that are only for the character you purchase them on.

Are 2 others I have issues with...

 

It all just screams money grab and screw the player.

 

[papercrown.9248]

This is disgusting, ANet. You're pushing your loyal playerbase to spend more money and are encouraging GAMBLING. Why not just sell an item that allows you to choose (only once) from the collection of skins so you get the one you WANT without gambling? I honestly hope no one pays cash for the item you currently have in your store, and just grinds gold to convert to gems if they really want to try it.

 

ANet, GW2 is a good game but it's not as widely known as you might think it is. It would be wise not to upset your playerbase by experimenting further with this new business model cash grab that you are trying.

 

And to think I used to openly praise GW2's micro-transaction service. What a disappointment. Here's hoping it doesn't devolve further.

[hugo.4705]

. "At a time when there’s a lot of debate about random boxes in gaming, we should have anticipated that a new system with a random element would cause alarm."

-> Sure like the thief leader prime item, black lion chest random weapon too... But haven't learnt the lesson! It's like this casino thingy bag of ectoplasm, how this is fun, just answer me!!!

 

."We released mount skins with three different purchase models, but with the majority of skins released so far through the Adoption License. It’s easy to perceive this as intentionally channeling you toward randomization."

->Edit, not randomization, "Stupid money spending for in most case unwanted thing" second edit: Force you TO go trying random loot.

 

."The Adoption License is a large set at 30 skins. We stand by the work our artists put into each skin, but it’s understandable to see this as pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin, and to worry that we might add more skins to lower the chances further."

->To lower the chances, what's a joke, how dirty is your minds? Planned a 30 adoption contract, really?

 

Here are some of the <"benefits-> EDIT trolls"> we had in mind when designing the Mount Adoption License:

-"You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price."

->HMMM no matter if it's an unique and beautiful new mount IF IT ISN'T the one I want! It's like giving "SUPAH GLIDER PACK" -you get a random glider after use...

 

."It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins."

->Sure it is, but when you chance increase, the weight of your wallet decrease! A cool mechanic huh? I SHOULD VERY have chance with me for my specific wanted mount so 1/30 hmm? It's lower than getting ectoplasm glob lol! Hmm and so I'm the unluckiest guy so: 30x400 so around 12000 gems to get my mount, It far more than your stupid gold griifon idea "250 gold", I just don't want to determine the gold value, it would make me cry.

 

."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."

->The real thing is yes, requested variety but not only by adding particles and recolors. Also, have a guaranteed specific skin, not sure the skin price is lower as you are stating. And to complete, individual sale don't work with flashy ones, but with beautiful ones and revolutionary ones.

 

>>>>So to conclude, you see more benefits for players or for YOU? HMM? You are just destroying the actual game soul, the game that I used to know in 2012 isn't this ones, you are taking A VERY BAD PATH, a lot of people will go away, and you fall will be faster than the Pokemon GO phenomena. How to ruin a license with stupid ideas and manner of thinking. You have talented artist, and I have no doubt on this, but here you don't pay attention to their works. By putting them individually on TP, every skins could be seeable by players, and so every works is shown. By Increasing price of items at TP, you will see a lot of people refusing to buy these things, but as always, some feeders will buy them. I speak here, no more as a player, but a customer: The half of my purchase on TP are no sense now: Used to buy transmutation crystals, have 25 of them so 400x5 gems, and you gave me in return only 5 transmutation charges, are you joking? And paying all these LS stuffs and maps for 400 gems.. What reward did I get for all of these nothing, and can't even ask for a refund! The same for these extensions, was totally hyped but now it's totally the opposite.

 

>>What this game became? What about the good old time, with the strict necessary at Trading post? The good old Scarlet briar war? The dungeon development team? The very well made main FREE tyria maps? Whereas you can add free maps and things... I agree with the fact you need micro-transaction, but not so invasive ones! I'm a real gw2 fashionwars, I like fashion as long as what I have to spend is GOLD. It don't hurt me spending gold for cultural armors, It don't hurt me spending for decorations in guild hall, but gems, no I can't. I pay attention to my look, because every toon I make have a story with it, and your force me to spend like for blood sharded glider (500 gems), or aetherblade armor (800 gems), how is it difficult to add they as reward for killing aetherblade and white-mantle huh? Because MONEY MONEY MONEY

YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU WANT I'M not gonna buy extension 3 and adoption contract.

 

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @Mentor.4130 said:

> >

> > > Enjoy individual mount skins being more expensive so they can recoup their losses. Now instead of getting 2 or 3 nice skins, we'll get one.

> >

> > So which is better? Paying a bit more for skin you actually want or pay a lot more to get skin you want if rng gods are against you? Which happens most of the time.

> >

> >

> This is exactly why MMOs use gamble boxes: many people enjoy gambling. Look at people who throw tons of Rares into the MF hoping for a precursor. It makes no sense to purchase thousands of rares to throw away when you could save your gold and simply purchase a precursor on the TP. But some people love to gamble.

 

You do not pay cash for those rares you're throwing into the toilet.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @FaboBabo.3581 said:

> Quick reminder ; U can buy Gems with in Game Gold ...

 

Which you can buy with gems, which are real money. Not a solution.

[Teratus.2859]

I'm not mad about the adoption licence.. Yes sure, I don't like the random element of it and I think people are completely justified to be annoyed by that.

 

However 400 gems for a mount skin? CHEAP!! I don't care what anyone says there.. 400 gems is an absolute bargain imo..

Just buying 800 gems a month guarantees you'll get 2 new mount skins.. and that's really not a big deal tbh, Frankly if you think it is but you're more than happy to throw away the same kind of money on a mandatory subscription fee for something else then sorry but you're being pretty hypocritical as far as I am concerned.

What skins you do unlock are yours for the entire lifespan of this game.. that's hardly screwing you over as much as being forced to pay a subscription fee just to rent access to something which will then revoke that access unless you keep paying for it..

Dropping 10 Euros a month on Gw2 for a while is no big deal.. many of us normally do that anyway because of skins and account upgrades etc.

I'm far more willing to support Gw2 by buying gems when I want stuff in the store than I am to pay a mandatory subscription fee for something that will be taken away from me if I stop paying..

I bet i've dropped far more money on Gw2 overall because of this than they would have made from me if the game had a sub fee..

 

Anyway what i'm really annoyed about is that Reforged Warhound.. 2,000 gems Anet? for a single mount skin... Are you out of your minds?

You have no justification for that.. absolutely none.

Are you seriously expecting people to pay 35 Euros for 2,800 gems just to buy that skin?.

 

I don't even need to remind you that players get 5 mounts, 5 world maps, a new guildhall, access to the unreleased living world 4 and all the new content that adds, new events, skins, achievements, collections, story content and a ton of other stuff when they bought Path of Fire... Do you honestly believe one single mount skin is financially justifiable to cost as much or more than a full expansion pack?

 

I honestly don't care if this mount could run up walls, ran twice as fast as a Raptor, was invincible and pooped legendary weapons as it ran.. 2,000 gems is an utterly repulsive price point for any one single skin.. hell only last month you give us 5 for 1,600 gems.... 5!

Seriously.. what were you guys thinking when you decided 2,000 gems for one skin was a good idea?

[Tsakhi.8124]

@"Teratus.2859"

 

But could it outrun a centaur? That is the important question. XD

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Apokalypt.5120 said:

> Your expac is build all upon mounts .. and not a single one was put IN game ... and you made it so that the mounts are so ugly that everyone will have to pay for a skin ..

 

This really is the essence of it. The only thing _different_ in PoF is the mounts. No new cooperative gameplay ideas, nothing. And the customization behind the one new thing is all paywall.