A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[Rashagar.8349]

> @troops.8276 said:

> > @Rashagar.8349 said:

> > > @troops.8276 said:

> > > > @Rashagar.8349 said:

> > > > > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> > > > > > @yann.1946 said:

> > > > > > I do wonder why people are neglecting the fact that their may be people who enjoy the gamble. I understand it sucks if you gamble and don't get what you want but their should be no reason to not have both systems at the same time. One where you can gamble and the other where you can buy the skins outright.

> > > > >

> > > > > Which is why countless times in countless posts since this whole thing multiple people have said

> > > > >

> > > > > "There are people who enjoy the gamble, so why not leave that one up and those that don't want to gamble get one where they select the mount they want from the adoption agency".

> > > > > Arenanet simply just said "Lol, no. Gamble."

> > > >

> > > > You can't pretend that there haven't also been people saying "all gambling should be removed forever, gambling should never be an option etc." though. They've invariably been the people I disagree with. The ones that claim that their preference for a non-rng based method is the morally right one and the only one that should be catered to.

> > >

> > > And you can't pretend that you shouldn't of just put the word 'some' in front of 'people' in your original statement to qualify what you actually meant.

> >

> > ?

> > "There have been people who have said this" implies that not all people have said this though, so the "some" would be superfluous. No?

>

> That wasn't your original wording though.

> It wouldn't be superfluous if it's used to clarify what you meant and avoid misinterpretation.

 

Is this that misdirection fallacy thing you were talking about before? =P

 

This probably counts as derailing the thread tbh, especially if it turns out you agree with me in everything except grammar.

If there are people to whom the "some" isn't implied then... know that the "some" was implied...

Oh, sorry.

If there are *some* people to whom the "some" isn't implied then... =P

 

Regardless of that though. As I said, choice is good and continuing to provide for different demographics going forward is good. Every demographic will eventually be targeted because it's in Anet's interest to do so. Though obviously it would have been better if they had targeted all demographics sufficiently from the outset.

[troops.8276]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > > @Burnfall.9573 said:

> > > From creditable sources: which i will withhold, Anet is losing money. The only way for them to increase the gap is by going rng. Sources continues: what's driving their business structure is Ego. (taking the easiest route to win and will do whatever it takes, to gain even more)- you're smart enough to figure this out.

> > > I will end it there.

> >

> > Why can't you say who your source is? Let the readers of your post be the judge for themselves on whether or not it is credible.

>

> I'm assuming that if this person exists, they do not want to be on the record, which is fair. It still makes the claim less credible, but it is somewhat reasonable given what we do know. I could go 60/40 on this one.

 

The absolute lack of any credibility comes from the lack of details not of a name. At least if 'losing money' was better defined. Is it in the sense of not earning as much as projected or has NCsoft diverted revenue towards Anet and aren't getting the return as quickly as anticipated or are they struggling to keep the lights on and about to go into administration or something else entirely.

[fizzypetal.7936]

> @Burnfall.9573 said:

> > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > > @Burnfall.9573 said:

> > > From creditable sources: which i will withhold, Anet is losing money. The only way for them to increase the gap is by going rng. Sources continues: what's driving their business structure is Ego. (taking the easiest route to win and will do whatever it takes, to gain even more)- you're smart enough to figure this out.

> > > I will end it there.

> >

> > Why can't you say who your source is? Let the readers of your post be the judge for themselves on whether or not it is credible.

>

> Anet will infract me, that is why. (i've learned my lesson from others who've done it)

 

An allegation is made that you won't back up because you'll be censored by ANet. Seems a bit shady to me. If you can't give all the dets on what you know, then what was your point in posting?

[maddoctor.2738]

> @Burnfall.9573 said:

> From creditable sources: which i will withhold, Anet is losing money. The only way for them to increase the gap is by going rng. Sources continues: what's driving their business structure is Ego. (taking the easiest route to win and will do whatever it takes, to gain even more)- you're smart enough to figure this out.

> I will end it there.

 

Did this credible source at least came in contact with a gaming website or something? Because if this credible source only approached a forum poster it doesn't mean anything. An anonymous person approached an anonymous person to give some data. At least when journalists use anonymous sources, they themselves are credible and have a name (or their company/channel has one)

[Torgan DeBaku.9534]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> >You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins.

>

> I agree with this part, if they added all 30 skins as unique purchases it wouldn't work very well, so adding them as a random reward from boxes was a good move.

>

> > 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.

>

> And this is what got me thinking. How much would the price of individual skins be? Currently you need to pay 400 gems for a chance to get a skin you want out of 30 choices. So if you want one skin you will get it by spending anything between 400 and 12000 gems. The more skins you want, the less you have to pay to get at least one you want, and the more you have to pay to get all of them. But what would the individual skin price be?

 

Perspective is the key here.

 

Right now the forged mount costs 2000 gems. That price tag translates to $25.

 

The "Path of fire" expansion costs $30. PoF gives you five new maps larger than any previous map, five mounts, new armor, new elite skills, new enemies, a ton of new dialogue, new story, new cut scenes and so on.

 

Now the question is. Do you believe the work that had to be done to create that one forged mount skin was near equal to the work it took ANet to create Path of Fire?

 

The obvious answer is: of course not.

 

Which leads to the conclusion that any Gem Store skin price tag is chosen arbitrary by ANet and is in no away correlated to the time it took to create a skin. ANet could have sold that forged mount for 600-800 and probably still make cash out of it. The 2k price tag is only to encourage us to try our luck with the “massive discounted” 30 RNG skin roulette and ANet execs are broadly grinning and rubbing their hands because of all the cash players throw at them without even knowing each skins individual drop chance. You can bet your rear end that the pyro jackal skin has a much lower drop rate then the “default skimmer with 4 dye channels” skin.

 

 

ANets way out of Mountgate?

 

Raise the single mount skin price to 600 Gems and remove the RNG so we can pick what we want.

By this players who already bought skins got their skins earlier and cheaper. And two skins sold under the new pricing amounts to “three skins sold” under the old system. Win / Win. As Anet sells more gems and we can pick the skins we like without any RNG BS attached to it.

 

But sadly once again corporate greed is blinding the ppl making the decisions so it is unlikely this will happen.

As a result ANet does not get my money although I am totally prepared to buy 3-5 out of the 30 skins.

But NOT under RNG conditions!

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

>And this is what got me thinking. How much would the price of individual skins be? Currently you need to pay 400 gems for a chance to get a skin you want out of 30 choices. So if you want one skin you will get it by spending anything between 400 and 12000 gems. The more skins you want, the less you have to pay to get at least one you want, and the more you have to pay to get all of them. But what would the individual skin price be?

 

A price point that I think would work out well for both players and ANet would be to have the fifteen most simple skins cost 200-250 gems, then the next ten fanciest skins at 600 gems, and the five fanciest at 800, and then keep the loot box at 400 gems. In this way, it would take 3000 gems to clear out the commons, so even if you did that and then bought loot boxes to clear out the rest it would cost 9000 gems, which is roughly as much as the current special offer. If it was 250 instead of 200 it would be 9750, which is even slightly above the current best deal. Of course if someone *just* wanted one of the fancier skins it would only run 800 gems, but that's fair, that's what it SHOULD be, rather than 400 + Luck. And clearing out just the five fanciest would be 4000 gems, or picking up five of the mid-tier ones would be 3000, both fair ranges, I believe, and well higher than the Halloween bundles.

 

I get that they might not make as much on that deal from some players, but any player that they would make more off of using the current deal would be a player that they were knowingly exploiting, selling them skins that they did not want and would not use just so that the player could reach the ones he wanted. This deal would bring them more *honest* money, and I'm certain that many more players would at least participate in it than in the current scheme.

[Noctis.4028]

They just really didn't understand the issue. why does he keep talking as if people were upset we they might potentially increase the number of mounts so the rng will be worse? ... no... the first and foremost problem was that its a ridiculously expensive rng system. the problem remains is that these are just ridiculously expensive "microtransactions" .. 2k gems for one mount will never be ok. ever. and 9.6k gems to get the ones you like out of a bunch of useless ones is not something that should even be an option. Also why all the talk about " for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price." Haloween mounts were expensive already as it is and we got 5 for 1.6k gems (still a lot of money for microtransaction btw). 400 gems per one skin (especially when the majority are basic reskins) is again NOT a discount. it is a scam. pure and simple.

This entire thing just leaves a bitter taste and is disappointing... :'(

what happened to the anet that listened to the insane amount of feedback and changed the beautiful original flamekissed armour to the stupid new version back in the day? :s

[NotASmurf.1725]

> @yann.1946 said:

> I do wonder why people are neglecting the fact that their may be people who enjoy the gamble. I understand it sucks if you gamble and don't get what you want but their should be no reason to not have both systems at the same time. One where you can gamble and the other where you can buy the skins outright.

 

Yes but they could've done it BLC chest style - you can gamble, OR buy them directly from the TP after someone else gambled. Here you have no other option, and to make it worse, this is pretty much the only way to obtain new skins for the mounts right now.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Substance E.4852" said:

> > @Rococo.8347 said:

> > how did we get to the point where a companies bad decisions affecting their profitability is OUR responsibility.

> >

> > I give up.

>

> "We" didn't.

>

> Youtube pseudo-Ecelebs who's entire income revenue relies on their favorite game remaining popular and going strong however...

>

> > @zealex.9410 said:

> >These skins all have equal drop chance which is suprising considering thats not the case with blc.

>

> That's literally only because they didn't want them to be tradeable.

>

> Imagine the backlash if they released the system we have now only the particle skins had a 1% chance of dropping and you couldn't sell the more common ones on the TP.

>

 

Why would mount skins ever be tradeable? Gliders arent so why do mount skins have to or should?

[zealex.9410]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > @Burnfall.9573 said:

> > From creditable sources: which i will withhold, Anet is losing money. The only way for them to increase the gap is by going rng. Sources continues: what's driving their business structure is Ego. (taking the easiest route to win and will do whatever it takes, to gain even more)- you're smart enough to figure this out.

> > I will end it there.

>

> Did this credible source at least came in contact with a gaming website or something? Because if this credible source only approached a forum poster it doesn't mean anything. An anonymous person approached an anonymous person to give some data. At least when journalists use anonymous sources, they themselves are credible and have a name (or their company/channel has one)

 

If they what ever it takes wouldnt lw updates be purchase only?

[Zelanard.5806]

I was reading comment after comment, and at the end of the first page i realized that there's 22 pages, so I am going to give up on reading everything and just speak my own mind here:

 

Thank you Arena Net and Mike O Brien for the reply to everyone's concerns. You're probably the best on the market at this communication thing, and I am happy to see your sincere words.

 

now, because of this post of yours, If I could afford the insanely expensive 30 mount package, I would. If nothing else than because I'd like to support the game as a whole.

 

I could write a small book complaining about the gemstore as a whole, this matter especially. I am not going to do that. Though I am generally disappointed with your decision to keep the RNG mounts, you do deserve quite a lot of credit for taking your time to write to us. For that I am going to withdraw from elaborating my disappointment and instead I will go write something more positive...

 

Best of luck and best of wishes!

[Sykper.6583]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

>

> And this is what got me thinking. How much would the price of individual skins be? Currently you need to pay 400 gems for a chance to get a skin you want out of 30 choices. So if you want one skin you will get it by spending anything between 400 and 12000 gems. The more skins you want, the less you have to pay to get at least one you want, and the more you have to pay to get all of them. But what would the individual skin price be?

 

This is the big question. Arenanet has a set value for the skins based upon the amount of work gone into them, we can all assume the 'Celestial' skins took quite a bit longer than say a Coastal Raptor given sound and animation effects were added onto those ones.

 

We can do a bunch of what-ifs here, but given the Halloween Mounts as a set of 5 were valued at 2000 gems, or 400 a piece with some effects and not really too much 'Model' work, I imagine skins like the Coastal raptor are likely under 400 gems, remodels would be 400 or more gems, and the special skins like Ice Bunny would be much higher than 400 gems.

 

My theory given MOs response is that when he refers to the discounted price, they roughly saw that with 6 skins per mount, 2 of them being below 400 gems likely for cost and the 4 other skins being at or much higher price tag, that making the RNG box at 400 gems does mean that out of 30 skins, 20 would match or be a great discount and 10 would be paying just a bit more, maybe the reskins are 300 gems but who knows what flat number they gave it.

 

What people are really angry about is that the price might be ok with many folks but the RNG is bad though as mentioned the RNG continues to favor the customer as they buy more to get that one mount they wanted. The licenses do not favor mount lovers who want one particular mount, but the licenses are **extremely** good for players who want a mix of mounts that favorably give them good odds at landing some really nice mounts with effects.

 

Just some morning thoughts.

[Sykper.6583]

The real outlier is the Warforged, imo that skin is a bit overvalued at 2k gems, but it's not just a remodel but a rework on the dog with far more changes than any of the skins in the Adoption Licenses.

 

If we had to say Starbound is worth 800 gems, I would price Warforged about twice that given they had to take animations and build up something that's less like a dog and more like a goat with the horns, details and all. 20 bucks seems fair I don't see it dropping further than that.

[TheGrimReaper.9510]

> @zealex.9410 said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > @AlphaWolvesGamer.5790 said:

> > > I'm just going to put this out here for everyone - Anyone arguing that mounts would be CHEAPER individually (let alone cheaper than Gliders) are fooling themselves.

> >

> > You're wrong to the point of hilarity.

> >

> > Buying the skin you want directly (unless as Mike flat-out threatens to do, they jack the price way up) is of course going to be way cheaper than the untold number of Loot Boxes you would have to buy and open.

> >

> > _On average_ of course. Just like there are players who never get what they want, there are players who get exactly what they want from the first Loot Box.

> >

>

> Rng aside. 1 to 1 tanstaction the rng purchase will be cheaper. Than the normal one. Just because its rng doesnt mean you will have to buy 4 or 5 packs for the skin u want or 21-22. U might get it on your first you might get it on your second. These skins all have equal drop chance which is suprising considering thats not the case with blc.

 

Yeah, no fucking shit Sherlock! If the RNG wasn't there, that would mean the skins would simply cost 5 bucks. You fell into their trap.

 

The reason the Jackal costs so much is precisely to entice people into buying the RNG option instead and studies has shown that this way brings in more money. This isn't about player choice, this isn't about diversity, this is pure greed. And are you HONESTLY telling me that you actually believe that a mount skin is worth 25 euro? Modders do that shit for free. They should have just done this in the same way as glider skins.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @Sykper.6583 said:

> The real outlier is the Warforged, imo that skin is a bit overvalued at 2k gems, but it's not just a remodel but a rework on the dog with far more changes than any of the skins in the Adoption Licenses.

>

> If we had to say Starbound is worth 800 gems, I would price Warforged about twice that given they had to take animations and build up something that's less like a dog and more like a goat with the horns, details and all. 20 bucks seems fair I don't see it dropping further than that.

 

Why? Why does a model change warrant 2.000 Gems all of the sudden?

 

Outfits for your characters are exactly that, yet nobody in their right mind would argue that they are worth 2.000 Gems because of it.

 

The Warforged skin is ridiclously overpriced, simple as that.

[Burnfall.9573]

> @Noctis.4028 said:

> They just really didn't understand the issue. why does he keep talking as if people were upset we they might potentially increase the number of mounts so the rng will be worse? ... no... the first and foremost problem was that its a ridiculously expensive rng system. the problem remains is that these are just ridiculously expensive "microtransactions" .. 2k gems for one mount will never be ok. ever. and 9.6k gems to get the ones you like out of a bunch of useless ones is not something that should even be an option. Also why all the talk about " for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price." Haloween mounts were expensive already as it is and we got 5 for 1.6k gems (still a lot of money for microtransaction btw). 400 gems per one skin (especially when the majority are basic reskins) is again NOT a discount. it is a scam. pure and simple.

> This entire thing just leaves a bitter taste and is disappointing... :'(

> what happened to the anet that listened to the insane amount of feedback and changed the beautiful original flamekissed armour to the stupid new version back in the day? :s

 

they do understand.: that's what some fail to understand. They clearly know what they're doing. It's not about you or me or us, It's a game that many dare to play in the industry. In the end, who wins?

 

(sit back, calmly and see how this one plays out)

[Sykper.6583]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @Sykper.6583 said:

> > The real outlier is the Warforged, imo that skin is a bit overvalued at 2k gems, but it's not just a remodel but a rework on the dog with far more changes than any of the skins in the Adoption Licenses.

> >

> > If we had to say Starbound is worth 800 gems, I would price Warforged about twice that given they had to take animations and build up something that's less like a dog and more like a goat with the horns, details and all. 20 bucks seems fair I don't see it dropping further than that.

>

> Why? Why does a model change warrant 2.000 Gems all of the sudden?

>

> Outfits for your characters are exactly that, yet nobody in their right mind would argue that they are worth 2.000 Gems because of it.

>

> The Warforged skin is ridiclously overpriced, simple as that.

 

I actually said it was overpriced at 2k, 1600 gems would be more suited.

 

The only assets that aren't changed on the Warforged is the Skeleton, aka, it has four legs and runs like the Jackal. Everything else from the model and details, animations, sound effects are completely different.

 

It's extremely similar to how another game handled 'Legendary' Skins (League of Legends) where the base was the same but all other things were changed completely. I believe it was Pulsefire Ezreal that came out back then, and it was priced at a whopping $30 if memory serves. RiotGames had it priced that high because voice lines, sound effects, a complete remodel and reskin, unique animations and so forth were put into the skin and it took months to make.

 

I don't know what time the Warforged took, I don't think it has as MUCH details as some of the other legendary skins in other games have, but it's clear as day that the Warforged is worth far, far more than 400 gems.

 

Furthermore, with Outfits the amount of 'details' and art that go into them is less than mounts themselves. Mounts are larger than the player which means more surfaces to detail and animations to get right. When outfits start adding effects and sounds is when you start to notice their price skyrocket, or if the outfit isn't just a rehash of something existing in the world on an NPC or a boss.

[Sykper.6583]

If I had to guess the prices Arenanet will work on now, we would see things like Coastal Raptor 300+ gems, Remodels like Trihead at 600+ gems and a mix of both at 800+ gems, depending on the amount of work put into them. Ice Bunny probably is a 800 gem skin while Starbound would be closer to 1200 gems.

 

Speculation of course.

[Djinn.9245]

> @yann.1946 said:

> I do wonder why people are neglecting the fact that their may be people who enjoy the gamble. I understand it sucks if you gamble and don't get what you want but their should be no reason to not have both systems at the same time. One where you can gamble and the other where you can buy the skins outright.

 

There's a reason why some people like to gamble:

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/behind-the-addictive-psychology-and-seductive-art-of-loot-boxes/

 

Because gamble boxes manipulate a person psychologically and chemically (Dopamine) is why many people object to locking items behind them that you can't get in any other way.

 

The other issue with mount skins right now, is that the gamble box is the only choice you have unless you want to purchase the ONE OTHER SKIN available for 2000 gems.

[troops.8276]

> @Sykper.6583 said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > @Sykper.6583 said:

> > > The real outlier is the Warforged, imo that skin is a bit overvalued at 2k gems, but it's not just a remodel but a rework on the dog with far more changes than any of the skins in the Adoption Licenses.

> > >

> > > If we had to say Starbound is worth 800 gems, I would price Warforged about twice that given they had to take animations and build up something that's less like a dog and more like a goat with the horns, details and all. 20 bucks seems fair I don't see it dropping further than that.

> >

> > Why? Why does a model change warrant 2.000 Gems all of the sudden?

> >

> > Outfits for your characters are exactly that, yet nobody in their right mind would argue that they are worth 2.000 Gems because of it.

> >

> > The Warforged skin is ridiclously overpriced, simple as that.

>

> I actually said it was overpriced at 2k, 1600 gems would be more suited.

>

> The only assets that aren't changed on the Warforged is the Skeleton, aka, it has four legs and runs like the Jackal. Everything else from the model and details, animations, sound effects are completely different.

>

> It's extremely similar to how another game handled 'Legendary' Skins (League of Legends) where the base was the same but all other things were changed completely. I believe it was Pulsefire Ezreal that came out back then, and it was priced at a whopping $30 if memory serves. RiotGames had it priced that high because voice lines, sound effects, a complete remodel and reskin, unique animations and so forth were put into the skin and it took months to make.

>

> I don't know what time the Warforged took, I don't think it has as MUCH details as some of the other legendary skins in other games have, but it's clear as day that the Warforged is worth far, far more than 400 gems.

>

> Furthermore, with Outfits the amount of 'details' and art that go into them is less than mounts themselves. Mounts are larger than the player which means more surfaces to detail and animations to get right. When outfits start adding effects and sounds is when you start to notice their price skyrocket, or if the outfit isn't just a rehash of something existing in the world on an NPC or a boss.

 

I disagree. The work is done to justify asking the high price. They don't just tell their staff to "go make some stuffs" and when they come back ask how long it took and how hard it was to make to figure out the price based on that.

[OmskCamill.6412]

> > 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.

>

> And this is what got me thinking. How much would the price of individual skins be? Currently you need to pay 400 gems for a chance to get a skin you want out of 30 choices. So if you want one skin you will get it by spending anything between 400 and 12000 gems. The more skins you want, the less you have to pay to get at least one you want, and the more you have to pay to get all of them. But what would the individual skin price be?

 

Less or at least no more than outfis of comparable quality.

 

There is some point for consideration:

1) Each outfit needs to fit up to TEN different models, one for each race-gender combo. A mount is one model only.

2) Each player can have only one outfit or glider equipped at a time to be content. With mounts, you need to use 3 or 4 of them **constantly**. But there is only so much money each given player can afford to spend on his game (and this is what the whole RNG bullshit was aimed at: to make players spend more money that they were ready to spend).

 

2000 gems per mount is obviously too high a price.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @Sykper.6583 said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > @Sykper.6583 said:

> > > The real outlier is the Warforged, imo that skin is a bit overvalued at 2k gems, but it's not just a remodel but a rework on the dog with far more changes than any of the skins in the Adoption Licenses.

> > >

> > > If we had to say Starbound is worth 800 gems, I would price Warforged about twice that given they had to take animations and build up something that's less like a dog and more like a goat with the horns, details and all. 20 bucks seems fair I don't see it dropping further than that.

> >

> > Why? Why does a model change warrant 2.000 Gems all of the sudden?

> >

> > Outfits for your characters are exactly that, yet nobody in their right mind would argue that they are worth 2.000 Gems because of it.

> >

> > The Warforged skin is ridiclously overpriced, simple as that.

>

> I actually said it was overpriced at 2k, 1600 gems would be more suited.

 

1600 Gems is also a ridiclous price for it.

 

The most workload of the mounts was already done (rigging, animating etc) with the expansion pack. Adding a new model on that framework is actually a lot less work than the average player seems to think.

 

Much, much work goes into a player Outfit (two sexes, multiple races as opposed to a single mount to work with) which is at 700 Gems.

[Lord Arhan Warmark.7098]

Personally I'd like to see the option that games like STO offer. A monthly fee that comes with an amount of gems that I can spend on anything I want. This gives GW2 an ongoing revenue stream and let's me purchase things when I want to. And yes I'm ok with having bought the game first. Maybe this would allow items to be priced lower. As for the random mounts, complete non starter for me. They should never have been RNG, but offered in either packs like the spooky mounts or individually at different price points depending on how fancy they are. And if any mounts are offered at 2000 gems... Never buying them either.

[archangel.4925]

So you're basically explaining why you're introducing a mechanic in the game that is gambling, but legal... wtf, i expected more, anet

[Ashen.2907]

> @OmskCamill.6412 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > @troops.8276 said:

> > > > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > > > @OmskCamill.6412 said:

> > > > > > @Abelisk.4527 said:

> > > > > > I think that the license isn't as bad as people make it out to be. The difference between this and other RNG lootboxes from other MMOs is that there is a 100% chance of obtaining a unique mount skin, for a pretty cheap price, and best of all you do not need to pay IRL money, if you don't want to to obtain the skins. Other MMOs put in filler items, or bad items that nobody needs at all in lootboxes

> > > > >

> > > > > Like Black Lion Chests, yes, we know.

> > > > > Anet's target audience is people who don't like other MMOs to begin with.

> > > > > Anet overall is a fundamentally "good" company with business model that I like and support, and over the years they build their loyal and passionate audience with their benevolent business practices.

> > > > > The flipside of which is naturally negative and disproportional response to the attempts of being dicked. Many other companies' audience would be totally OK with that - part of people would shrug and open their purses, another part would shrug and move to another title, case closed.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > The Reforged Warhound on the other hand is overpriced. 2k Gems in contrast to your typical 500 Gem glider? Nearly 4x the price compared to a glider.

> > > > >

> > > > > Warhound's main purpose is **not to be sold**, making direct sells is a side effect. Its core purpose is exactly to sit on display and be overpriced.

> > > > > It's the purest form of **[contrast principle](https://colejoshua.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/contrastprinciple/ "contrast principle")**. It's a form of exploitation of human cognitive bias that all shops in the world use, ever.

> > > > >

> > > > > By putting this one skin at 2000 gems price tag, Anet tried to make you compare their 400 gems lottery tickets against that 2000 gems skin, so that you think "wow! Those lottery tickets cost five times less than an actual mount skin! By Ogden's hammer, what savings!" Your perceived expenses go down significantly, because you compare the price to the next-in-line item.

> > > > >

> > > > > In reality, the real price of a skin formula is simple: 9600 gems divided by the amount of skins that you wanted **before ** purchase. So if you wanted one skin for each of your 5 mounts, you still spend 9600 gems for a bundle of 5 skins (and one skin costs 1920).

> > > > >

> > > > > > @SansSariph.9548 said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > Losing a gamble feels bad. Mike seems to argue that you never "lose" - you always get a brand new skin! We all know that getting a skimmer skin with slight model updates is not the same as getting a griffon with particle effects. The player hoping for the griffon is going to be sad when they get a more simple skin for a mount they use less often.

> > > > >

> > > > > Saying that you can't lose because worst case scenario you still get a skin that you don't want is like saying you can't lose in a lottery because worst case scenario you still got a scrap of paper. It's hypocricy.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I would happily buy 30 powerball tickets for a guaranteed multimillion dollar payout.

> > > >

> > > > I dont think your analogy works.

> > >

> > >

> > > Do you mean because it would actually be the equivalent of buying 0.00000001 adoption tickets and getting a guaranteed payout? (a skin you actually want).

> > >

> > > Disclaimer: I'm not actually going to work out precisely how many zeros should come after the decimal point. That was just a made up number.

> >

> > I mean because the person I quoted compared the current mount system to buying lottery tickets.

> >

> > The current mount system means that for 30 payments you are guaranteed 100% of the potential yield. Id happily drop $5 x 30 for 100% of the potential yield of the powerball jackpot.

>

> Please google what "analogy" and "principle" is before proceeding. In fact, the level of your miscomprehention of both the principle and the argument is beyond hilarious. Lottery is a **principle**, your arbitrary and incorrect analogy is irrelevant. Your desire or absence of desire to participate in a lottery with different prize pool/distribution has nothing to do with the fact that both a lottery and Mount Adoption License fall under definition of gambling. The fact that even if you lose you end up with **something** (piece of paper or undesired mount) does not change the fact that you still **lose**, and the whole scheme is there to make you spend more money that you were initially going to.

 

A 100% chance of getting what you want is not gambling, or at least not in the same sense as a classic lottery.

 

Making an analogy does not mean that it is a valid comparison.

 

The mount system is like banana cream pie because both are purchased by consumers who are left with nothing physical to show for their purchase once they have finished consuming the purchase.