A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[Eddy.7051]

Thank you. I appreciate the guaranteed unlock with each License. Can you make future dye kits on the gem store this way?

[Psientist.6437]

I am obviously late to this discussion. I haven't even purchased PoF; won't be able to play it for a month or two yet and to avoid spoilers have avoided the forums.

In my usual clear way, my thoughts.

 

Give "progressive mechanic" collection boxes a second chance. Though this first offering of PMCBs is not ideal, PMCBs do not have to be the corrupting, rigged Skinner boxes that are true RNG loot boxes. Consider PMCBs and tRNGLBs in the context of the 'gambler's fallacy' and the 'sunk cost fallacy'. Imo, they are the two most corrupt means tRNGLBs use to manipulate an emotional consumer base.

 

Gambler's Fallacy

tRNGLBs create an environment where the 'gambler's fallacy' can exist. The odds of getting any one item from the collection does not mature. A player who thinks their odds of winning their highest valued item improves with each try is wrong.

PMCBs do not create an environment where the 'gambler's fallacy' can exist. The odds of getting any one item from the collection matures. A player who thinks their odds of winning their highest valued item improves with each try is correct.

 

Sunk Cost Fallacy

Both tRNGLBs and PMCBs create an environment where the 'sunk cost fallacy' can exist. With tRNGLBs, the risks incurred by a player chasing sunk costs extend into infinity. With PMCBs, the risks are directly proportional to the size of the collection. [imo, in the specific case of the stable, the size of the collection is also a gauge of the minimal difference between gem store whales (buys a lot) and gem store tuna (buys at premiere skin level). I don't know how relevant that is to this discussion and may be mostly my instincts talking.]

 

Advantages of Bundling

A studio markets products that are difficult to persistently, individually price at optimal market value. For example: The studio goes through the skin production process of brainstorming, mocking, modifying etc, until they have a collection of skins. Within that collection, there will be extreme variation in the amount of work that went into each skin and what each player, player categories are willing to pay for any skin. It is difficult for the studio to predict what will sell and bundling mitigates the risks the studio incurs when producing collections.

 

Bundling tends to lower the per item price. Completionists, collectors, whales have to spend less making it more attractive to be a completionist, a collector, a whale.

 

BE WARY OF THIS ADVANTAGE. For the consumer interested in just one skin or low fraction of total skins, it is fuel for the 'sunk cost fallacy'.

 

Y'all covered the disadvantages of bundling collections and true rng lootboxes well enough.

 

Imo, the risk a studio incurs is worth mitigating and the question is how does a studio mitigate that risk without being kitten eaters. In the context of bundling, the kittens most likely to be on the menu are those players who find value in a low fraction of the collection size. Here, the size of the bundle could be used as a gauge of a studio's appetite for monetizing their player's.

 

30 seems a bit ....hungry.

 

Stable 2.0?

Decrease bundle size, parse along natural distinctions.

Use the price point for an individual premier skin to establish a ratio where that price point is roughly equivalent to the odds a player has of getting a specific skin is 1 in X, Y% of the way through the bundle. For example: Assume the price of the premier skin is 2000 gems and a PMCB of three skins at 1000 gems per attempt. Missing the first attempt a player has a 1 in 2 chance of getting the skin they want when they spend 2000 gems. Ratio is 1:1 with odds at 1 in2 at 50%. Want players to hold the studio to a high standard? Give them an objective way to gauge monetization.

I am tempted to bold the following but will not. Provide assurance that the random element of a PMCB is truly random, that each slot is equally weighted. For example:

Assume a bundle of three items: a toothbrush accessory that no one can view, a 20 slot bag and a kitten mount that shoots laser beams from its eyes but never uses that attack because it also can toot curse words. While there will be obvious preference for the toothbrush, the slots should not be weighted. Weighing the odds according to predictive models corrupts the legitimate pro-studio argument for bundling.

[Devata.6589]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> Besides, most players don't like dungeons or raids. I'd much prefer to be able to get the current raid rewards from the gem store than to only be able to get them via raids. If they locked even more stuff behind raids then that would only make the game worse!

 

You mean, most players left. That might be true, that is why they are the ones left.

[Sylum.1806]

 

Came across this thread on reddit today and felt it was particularly relevant to this topic. So I thought I'd share. Enjoy reading!

 

My thoughts on microtransactions and the lootbox model are too long to share in this post without it becoming an essay. Suffice to say, I think the root of the problem lies beyond developers and publishers.

 

My sharing this thread does not in anyway suggest that ANet is slimy like EA. As a mobile game producer whose practical livelihood depends on the players' ability and willingness to spend, I not only sympathize with ANet but also admire them for being able to stick to principles that gamers believe every developer should have as much as they have done. And that's why GW2 continues to be the only MMO I play without being paid to.

 

I hope that this reddit thread can give some insight into what goes on behind the scenes, so you can be a smarter consumer and let your wallet do the talking instead.

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

> @Devata.6589 said:

> “We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions.” Too bad, it was never communicated that you had a commitment to fund GW2 through micro-transactions. If you did, I would likely never have gotten into the game in the first place.

 

I am still keeping an eye on this thread, but I would just like to point out the above opinion seems surprisingly narrow-minded to me, especially when you consider the fact that initially, developers balked at following the standard expansion model and instead originally intended for Living World to be the general way story and maps were added to the game.

 

At its very core, GW2 was to be supported through the base game sales and the gemstore. It's kind of silly to assume otherwise, especially when a reasonable amount of major cosmetic releases have been specifically through the gem store.

 

I can understand people being angry at the mount system. RNG is never a good solution when delivering anything you have to buy with real money (_not that that applies in every case, because gold-to-gem conversion -is- a thing, and people -can- get all the mount licenses through gold farming -alone-, -specifically- because rng is curtailed to avoid duplicates, but lets just avoid that whole argument branch because why not_)

 

However, GW2 is a business. to keep the game running, they need cash flow. I don't consider myself the moderator of how much or how little they need, but if the means they choose to offer products for that cash flow in no way affects my gameplay short of mount envy, that should be fine. The fact that if I play the game enough I can pick up mount licenses with gold is just a bonus.

 

There's reason to be angry, but lets not blow it out of proportion. The new mount skins are completely optional. You can obtain them, in game, for doing -literally anything you want-. Go command a wvw, world boss train. Offer JP ports. Farm, hoard rares and resell. This could easily be seen as another facet of endgame for people to conquer but a surprising number of people are blowing their lids about it because it isnt tied to some specific map or challenge (because we -love- the open world being barren while everyone's crammed in bloodstone fen rite?)

 

And let's also not pretend like we wouldnt -all- choose the shiny mounts and clutter the open world with even more special effects if we had a choice. At least this way, people will use some of the plainer skins.

 

EX: I have been lurking on some of the other message boards, and claim that making licenses drop duplicates, but making them tradeable would be far preferable. While that would be preferable to people looking for any one skin, it would be significantly more expensive for the gem buyers looking for skins on their own without already sitting on a large pile of gold, not to mention those would __actually be lootboxes.__

 

There's a faction of people here that just want people to spend their money and put the skins they want up for sale so they dont have to slog through it themselves, regardless of how easy or hard that is for the seller. Just keep that in mind. I genuinely dislike lootboxes, but I dislike the sensation I'm getting from the community that "lootboxes are fine as long as I am not buying the keys and generally get to cherry pick skins someone else may or may not put up for sale" more than that.

[Rennie.6750]

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

 

Honestly the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that you lost all credibility you managed to build over 5 years in less than 1000 words. Nothing about not adding additional loot boxes in the future. Not a word about adding a few cool skins as in game rewards (cosmetics are a part of the game). All we got is that you won't be adding new content to this paid rng crap, but that wasn't the point. You truly do not understand why people are upset. Yes it's not just about your game, but it also is about yours. It's not about when or how, you're doing things, it's about **what** you are doing. The sooner you get that, the better for all of us.

[Noctology.7238]

I would like one change to the current system, the ability to buy a "jackal license" that would give me a random jackal mount. Same for others, since other folks use other stuff. It could cost a little more than the current license, but narrow the field.

 

I do think the mounts should have been resellable to make it more like most random box loot, but so be it. I just don't need more skimmer mounts...

[Devata.6589]

> @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:

> > @Devata.6589 said:

> > “We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions.” Too bad, it was never communicated that you had a commitment to fund GW2 through micro-transactions. If you did, I would likely never have gotten into the game in the first place.

>

> I am still keeping an eye on this thread, but I would just like to point out the above opinion seems surprisingly narrow-minded to me, especially when you consider the fact that initially, developers balked at following the standard expansion model and instead originally intended for Living World to be the general way story and maps were added to the game.

>

> At its very core, GW2 was to be supported through the base game sales and the gemstore. It's kind of silly to assume otherwise, especially when a reasonable amount of major cosmetic releases have been specifically through the gem store.

>

> I can understand people being angry at the mount system. RNG is never a good solution when delivering anything you have to buy with real money (_not that that applies in every case, because gold-to-gem conversion -is- a thing, and people -can- get all the mount licenses through gold farming -alone-, -specifically- because rng is curtailed to avoid duplicates, but lets just avoid that whole argument branch because why not_)

>

> However, GW2 is a business. to keep the game running, they need cash flow. I don't consider myself the moderator of how much or how little they need, but if the means they choose to offer products for that cash flow in no way affects my gameplay short of mount envy, that should be fine. The fact that if I play the game enough I can pick up mount licenses with gold is just a bonus.

>

> There's reason to be angry, but lets not blow it out of proportion. The new mount skins are completely optional. You can obtain them, in game, for doing -literally anything you want-. Go command a wvw, world boss train. Offer JP ports. Farm, hoard rares and resell. This could easily be seen as another facet of endgame for people to conquer but a surprising number of people are blowing their lids about it because it isnt tied to some specific map or challenge (because we -love- the open world being barren while everyone's crammed in bloodstone fen rite?)

>

> And let's also not pretend like we wouldnt -all- choose the shiny mounts and clutter the open world with even more special effects if we had a choice. At least this way, people will use some of the plainer skins.

>

> EX: I have been lurking on some of the other message boards, and claim that making licenses drop duplicates, but making them tradeable would be far preferable. While that would be preferable to people looking for any one skin, it would be significantly more expensive for the gem buyers looking for skins on their own without already sitting on a large pile of gold, not to mention those would __actually be lootboxes.__

>

> There's a faction of people here that just want people to spend their money and put the skins they want up for sale so they dont have to slog through it themselves, regardless of how easy or hard that is for the seller. Just keep that in mind. I genuinely dislike lootboxes, but I dislike the sensation I'm getting from the community that "lootboxes are fine as long as I am not buying the keys and generally get to cherry pick skins someone else may or may not put up for sale" more than that.

 

Not sure, what part you find narrow-minded. That they did not communicate this or that I would not be interested in it knowing it would focus on the cash-shop?

Based on what you say I guess it is the idea that they did communicate this by saying they did not wanted to do expansions and they wanted to go for the Living World approach.

This is however not the way things did go.

What they initially did say is that they would not go for stand-alone expansions like GW1. What makes sense as those types of expansion would not fit an MMO like GW2.

At release, there was no reason to think they would go for any other approach as the B2P model that made Anet big at the first place.

The Living World was not a thing at release, this was mentioned later. I do not know exactly when they first came with that, but I think it was like half a year after release. Only then, the micro-transactions approach became clear.

“It's kind of silly to assume otherwise, especially when a reasonable amount of major cosmetic releases have been specifically through the gem store.” When you start blaming somebody for being narrow-minded, you should maybe first make sure you have your facts strait. Mike talks about March 2012. GW2 released on August of 2012. There had been zero cosmetics releases on the gem-store. In fact, also for the first half year the number of (cosmetic) items in the gem-store was also very low. They had a mini-pack and something for Halloween and Wintersdag. That was about it for the first 6 months after release.

 

“However, GW2 is a business. to keep the game running, they need cash flow.” And there are multiple ways to do that.

 

“but if the means they choose to offer products for that cash flow in no way affects my gameplay” It does effect anybody who likes to go out to collect cosmetics in game. And GW2 happened to be a game to catered towards gamers who were into cosmetics.

 

“There's reason to be angry, but lets not blow it out of proportion. The new mount skins are completely optional. You can obtain them, in game, for doing -literally anything you want-.” Now we are getting into the discussion I have had here for 5 years so will not go into that again. I will just leave it at saying that this “any way you like” in practice means boring grinding, grinding means people leaving. Obviously you don’t have this problem as you are still here. But seeing how GW2 initially made 120.000 for its initial sale, and now makes about 20.000 for this expansion, it suggest many people left.

[Rashagar.8349]

> @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:

 

> EX: I have been lurking on some of the other message boards, and claim that making licenses drop duplicates, but making them tradeable would be far preferable. While that would be preferable to people looking for any one skin, it would be significantly more expensive for the gem buyers looking for skins on their own without already sitting on a large pile of gold, not to mention those would __actually be lootboxes.__

 

This part had me laughing at the trueness of it.

 

 

[Blue Blade.3049]

Envy is the unpleasant emotion that can arise when people are exposed to others with superior possessions. Common wisdom and scholarly opinion suggest that when people experience envy they may be motivated to obtain the others' superior possession. Despite the vast interpersonal, societal, and economical consequences attributed to this potential aspect of envious responding, experimental demonstrations of the affective and behavioral consequences of envy-inducing situations are scarce. We propose that social comparisons with better-off others trigger an impulsive envious response that entails a behavioral tendency to strive for their superior good. However, given that the experience of envy is painful, self-threatening, and met with social disapproval, people typically attempt to control their envious reactions. Doing so requires self-control capacities, so that envious reactions may only become apparent if self-control is taxed. In line with these predictions, four experiments show that only when self-control resources are taxed, upward comparisons elicit envy paired with an increased willingness to pay for, to spontaneously purchase and to impulsively approach the superior good.

 

PsycINFO Database Record © 2012 APA, all rights reserved

 

I'm confused. GW2 is a free to play MMO with options to buy additional things via an in game store with micro transactions to allow the game to remain free to play. The mount skins offer nothing game breaking besides cosmetics. If you don't have the self control to play a game without needing what others have then you are the one who should change not the business trying to make profit. If you don't like Anets stance don't buy gems. That's how supply and demand works.

 

[Djinn.9245]

> @hashmonkey.2501 said:

> I don't have a problem with the system but would just like to take this time to thank the team for and amazing job on the mount skins, some better than others of course, but all worth the price. Will not mind spending 100g/5€ per skin anytime for these.

 

I would love to spend money on some mount skins, but Anet won't let me. I want to spend money on a specific skin that I actually want, not a chance that I will get something I actually want. And I have zero opportunity to do that. The only skin not locked behind a gamble box is the Forged skin which I don't happen to like and costs way too much for me. So I'm stuck not being able to spend money on mount skins at all.

[Turial.1293]

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

> 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.

 

Always hold true..... except for this time.

 

> * 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.

 

It's great you stand by your artists but the skins are released for the player to enjoy, not the artist. Removing the ability to choose the skin we want as a consumer is awful, at least if we choose you can see which ones are the most popular.

 

> * 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.

 

Thanks for the tooltip but we understand how the item works, we are not idiots, we are angry at the company once more going back on it's word. As for supporting variety, don't make me laugh; these skins were always planned and could have easily been added to the gem store over time or as a bundle like right now, all you had to do was remove the RNG. Grab bag mechanics and random loot boxes are a plague in the industry, you know this and you still did it. For shame, I don't even need to get into the moral choice regarding gambling and vulnerable players, I am sure there is someone much more eloquent than I who has explained it here already.

 

> Microtransactions can be polarizing, and we’ve received both positive and negative feedback on the license.

 

Be honest, it is mostly negative. You know very well that your huge initial draw from other games on the market was that microtransactions was not what you were going to plow ahead with as the game went on. You had the black lion chest as your one lootbox for a source of income and the players welcomed it as you stood by that was to be your only RNG lootbox. The gem store itself has netted you plenty of cash over the last 5 years and where most of the effort the players see you put, the thing is full to the brim with "optional" items for players to purchase but none of it is random. A player only buys what they want, these new lootboxes go against that value that you are supposed to stand by.

 

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

 

This is the worst part, the players who bought the RNG lootboxes knew what they were buying, they are the ones that were happy with random. If you were to change it now, it would affect a minimal amount of them since most just bought the entire set. So instead of "invalidating" the purchases of people who already bought them because they don't mind lootboxes you will invalidate the majority of your player base who want you to stand by your commitments that you made. Not budging on this point is the biggest mistake you have made.

 

TL;DR - basically you ain't changing it and we have to shut up and deal with it.

Poor decisions have been made, maybe it was pushed by investors, maybe not but either way you screwed up big time and all you had to do was remove the RNG in order to save face. I'll be voting with my wallet on this and refuse to buy anything for the next few months in protest to your lacklustre response to this whole fiasco.

[Djinn.9245]

> @Psientist.6437 said:

> I am obviously late to this discussion. I haven't even purchased PoF; won't be able to play it for a month or two yet and to avoid spoilers have avoided the forums.

> In my usual clear way, my thoughts.

>

> Give "progressive mechanic" collection boxes a second chance. Though this first offering of PMCBs is not ideal, PMCBs do not have to be the corrupting, rigged Skinner boxes that are true RNG loot boxes. Consider PMCBs and tRNGLBs in the context of the 'gambler's fallacy' and the 'sunk cost fallacy'. Imo, they are the two most corrupt means tRNGLBs use to manipulate an emotional consumer base.

 

I don't understand your post. Progressive Mechanic is only better than RNG if you intend to purchase all of the options anyway, or if you truly don't care which one you get. If you want to only buy one item and you want the one you want, no lootbox is good.

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

> @Devata.6589 said:

> Not sure, what part you find narrow-minded. That they did not communicate this or that I would not be interested in it knowing it would focus on the cash-shop?

> Based on what you say I guess it is the idea that they did communicate this by saying they did not wanted to do expansions and they wanted to go for the Living World approach.

 

It's actually not either of those, its more the concept of GW2 can be completely funded on expansions alone and microtransactions that do not largely influence gameplay effectiveness are a bad thing that seems to be coming across here. I am not calling you narrow minded, or addressing what they communicated predominantly.

As people have less and less time to sit down and play mmos in general, microtransactions are beneficial to help keep the game funded for the people who play more but tend to pay less.

 

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

 

> @Psientist.6437 said:

> I am obviously late to this discussion. I haven't even purchased PoF; won't be able to play it for a month or two yet and to avoid spoilers have avoided the forums.

> In my usual clear way, my thoughts.

>

> Give "progressive mechanic" collection boxes a second chance. Though this first offering of PMCBs is not ideal, PMCBs do not have to be the corrupting, rigged Skinner boxes that are true RNG loot boxes. Consider PMCBs and tRNGLBs in the context of the 'gambler's fallacy' and the 'sunk cost fallacy'. Imo, they are the two most corrupt means tRNGLBs use to manipulate an emotional consumer base.

 

Isnt this a progressive collection box?

 

 

[Rashagar.8349]

> @Devata.6589 said:

>

> Not sure, what part you find narrow-minded.

>

 

I think he was saying that he saw a knee-jerk revulsion for the microtransaction business model as a bit narrow-minded. No opinion on whether you showed a revulsion or not.

 

> “but if the means they choose to offer products for that cash flow in no way affects my gameplay”. It does effect anybody who likes to go out to collect cosmetics in game. And GW2 happened to be a game to catered towards gamers who were into cosmetics.

 

I think his point was that people who collect cosmetics are exactly the type of people that this release method favours. Many people before have said it's like completing a step in a long term collection every x gold you earn. (A point that has been repeatedly made and never properly refuted).

 

Another interesting corollary to this method of collection completion is that it removes the power of a small number of trading post enthusiasts being able to hold the completion of a collection to ransom to other players, but that might be a discussion for a different thread haha!

 

>

> “There's reason to be angry, but lets not blow it out of proportion. The new mount skins are completely optional. You can obtain them, in game, for doing -literally anything you want-.” I will just leave it at saying that this “any way you like” in practice means boring grinding, grinding means people leaving.

 

What do you like to do in game? If you do that thing for the joy of doing it, and not for the end goal, does it still feel like boring grinding to you? Because if not, then your point doesn't hold up here as a rebuttal to his point.

[Erulogos.2591]

> @Turial.1293 said:

> Always hold true..... except for this time.

 

I'm no fan of the random mount box, but how is it pay-to-win? It confers no mechanical benefit of any kind. The gem shop booster items, bag/bank/material space, or gathering tools are more pay-to-win than these skins.

 

> @Turial.1293 said:

>

> This is the worst part, the players who bought the RNG lootboxes knew what they were buying, they are the ones that were happy with random. If you were to change it now, it would affect a minimal amount of them since most just bought the entire set. So instead of "invalidating" the purchases of people who already bought them because they don't mind lootboxes you will invalidate the majority of your player base who want you to stand by your commitments that you made. Not budging on this point is the biggest mistake you have made.

 

Players are infamous for throwing tantrums over changes that make anything easier for those who follow (see: any time leveling in any MMO is made even the tiniest bit easier.) Sure, the folks who bought lootboxes so far are OK with the way they work, but that doesn't mean they'll be OK if suddenly folks can just grab the skin they want direct, or if skins are suddenly sellable on the TP. The fact that Anet is acknowledging that this experiment in marketing is radioactive and they won't be doing it again (for now, we'll see how the long haul goes) is, while not ideal, about as good a response as we were ever likely to get.

 

 

 

[solofrog.3968]

Thank you so much ANet. I have been playing since first day of Guild wars 1.... and Guild wars has always been a quality Buy to play game. PLEASE ignore the negativity that people are giving out, and know that your system is far more fair than most models..... simply because we DONT HAVE TO PAY to play your game. Also the fact that you have a great system in place for us to use IN GAME GOLD TO EXCHANGE FOR GEMS. People if you dont want to pay money.... its so easy to make money in game.... and they easily let you do this. Please stop whining about literally the most silliest thing ive ever heard about, and enjoy this game that you dont have to have a sub for. Come on ..... #sadabouttheinternettoday

 

[Devata.6589]

> @"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:

> > @Devata.6589 said:

> > Not sure, what part you find narrow-minded. That they did not communicate this or that I would not be interested in it knowing it would focus on the cash-shop?

> > Based on what you say I guess it is the idea that they did communicate this by saying they did not wanted to do expansions and they wanted to go for the Living World approach.

>

> It's actually not either of those, its more the concept of GW2 can be completely funded on expansions alone and microtransactions that do not largely influence gameplay effectiveness are a bad thing that seems to be coming across here. I am not calling you narrow minded, or addressing what they communicated predominantly.

> As people have less and less time to sit down and play mmos in general, microtransactions are beneficial to help keep the game funded for the people who play more but tend to pay less.

>

 

"its more the concept of GW2 can be completely funded on expansions alone" Then narrow-minded is a strange pick of words because you do not believe that this possibility.. A definition of narrow-minded is "not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind." so would that not be a narrow-minded idea?

 

And "microtransactions that do not largely influence gameplay effectiveness are a bad thing". And this is not what I am saying. Micro-transactions that do not largely influence gameplay are not a bad thing. That is why I do for example say additional character-slots can be sold. What I do say is that relying on cosmetic sales DOES effect the game-play (at least in GW2) in a negative way, because it takes elements out of the game (the chase for those rewards) or make them boring (more of a grind) or less interesting (most flashy for sale, lesser in-game).

 

"As people have less and less time to sit down and play mmos in general, microtransactions are beneficial" Now just read what you are saying here. You say it's good when you do NOT (less) want to play the game. Call me strange, but when I think about games, I consider them to be designed to play.

[Shara.4716]

I actually liked the license pack. Here’s the deal. Anets employees spent allot of time designing these mounts. Some of them more or less desirable than others. They knew there were some that would never sell. And others that would be bought in a heart beat. Honestly those celestial mounts, they could have put a 3k gem price tag on them, and people would have gladly bought them. Do you realize how many more mount skins you got for the worth of the few? Do the math, if you take out the couple of skins and put the gem price on them and add it up, it’s far higher than what you would have spent in the RNG gamble. Can’t afford to spend the extra cash? Get a side job, go mow a seniors lawn, or do some chores for them, take that extra cash and go buy the gem card. Or grind the gold in game. All your complaining did about the current adoption license was make all future mounts more expensive. Good job snowflakes.

[Devata.6589]

> @Rashagar.8349 said:

 

" I think his point was that people who collect cosmetics are exactly the type of people that this release method favours. Many people before have said it's like completing a step in a long term collection every x gold you earn. (A point that has been repeatedly made and never properly refuted)."

For a few items that is fine, when you also have many other ways to work towards other items. When it's the case for most items it means the game-play turns into a boring grind. I reffered to that in a later post : "I will just leave it at saying that this “any way you like” in practice means boring grinding, grinding means people leaving.".

 

This is exactly why many those people leave. And let also not fool each other. Let's say it works like you say. So the people who want to get skins get them in this 'fun' way, and the other people are not interested in them so nobody is buying them. But then the whole system would not work from a financial point. So the idea is not even that people just have fun grinding gold and buying them. The whole idea is that the grind is not fun and so people buy it.

 

"What do you like to do in game? If you do that thing for the joy of doing it, and not for the end goal, does it still feel like boring grinding to you? Because if not, then your point doesn't hold up here as a rebuttal to his point."

The fun is working towards a goal, but just looking at a gold-number going up, looking for whatever makes the best gold and repeating that is boring. Not only that, if you can get all those rewards by just some brainless grind there is also no game-value for the item. It's not like "I killed that boss and earned this thing for it." No it was just brainless grinding or spending money.

 

But again we are getting into the old discussion I have had a long time ago. That is not the point. The argument was always "it's just cosmetics so it's okey". More and more people starting to see that is not just okay and part of that is why this whole mount thing did blow up in their face. Suddenly it has become politically correct to be against it and especially against RNG-boxes. I am happy to see that people are finally getting to their senses.

Obviously there will always be people who keep defending it. But really, if you believe that it’s just a great system, you should ask yourself why GW2 was not able to increase or even retain its player base. Maybe, just maybe, this system is at the very least partly to blame.

[hestiansun.1425]

Did it ever occur to you guys when you decided to make a random lootbox for the mount skins, that you consider having a box that has a guaranteed one skin each for each mount?

I would have happily spent 2000 gold to know that I would get at least one skin for each of my mounts so that I could have the multiple dye channels. Extra models and even one of the animated ones would have been a nice bonus. Heck, if given the choice I'd have probably paid 2500 gold to know for sure I would get one of each.

Since that was really my only goal (one of each so I could use 4 dye channels), I figured I'd be safe buy them up individually until I got one for each.

I gave up at 9 after getting three skimmers in a row to start, and not completing a set of one each.

By my math (not a statistics expert by any means, but) there is less than a 10% probability of opening 9 boxes out of 30 without getting at least one of each type.

And yet, here I am.

Of course, had I known I'd have had to do that, I probably would have just bought the 10 pack and called it a day. Howsabout you give me 600 gems and the crappiest "re-skin" of the same model of the one mount I didn't get, and we can call it even, huh?

(I'd even take swapping out any of the ones that I did get for a four channel for the last one.)

 

You guys know full well what you were doing by putting this behind a loot box. I get the "if we allowed single purchase everyone would get starbrand and people wouldn't get the four crappy ones that are nothing more than a slightly different on the same model" concept. But to make people gamble to be able to have basic game functionality on each of their mounts is awful, and you should be ashamed of yourselves for that and your "apology" that justified how happy you were with your artist's work.

 

There would have been reasonable ways to accomplish your ends and let players accomplish theirs, without forcing them to spend 8800 gems to guarantee one of each, or 9600 gems to get all of them.

And btw, not even providing a slight discount for people who have bought some skins already into the 30 pack license just rubs salt in the wound.

[hestiansun.1425]

> @Erulogos.2591 said:

> I'm no fan of the random mount box, but how is it pay-to-win? It confers no mechanical benefit of any kind. The gem shop booster items, bag/bank/material space, or gathering tools are more pay-to-win than these skins.

 

Pay to win, not necessarily. But they gated basic game functionality (the ability to dye your mounts) behind an RNG box.

 

When a game like this one which has a major element of it being the ability to stylize and colorize your armor, your glider, etc, to your desires, and you introduce the ability to colorize your mounts, but only if you buy enough random boxes to unlock an alternate skin for each of the mount types, then yes, IMO you are turning basic game functionality into RNG.

 

As I said, if they made a single cost to unlock multiple dye channels across all mounts, that would be more reasonable to me. But making someone gamble to be able to do that? That's not cool.

 

 

[Nikal.4921]

Well, since for some reason they think the thread about PoF being dead is related to Mount Adoption (even though it was started before Mount Adoption entered the game), closed it, and told us to post here instead, here goes...

 

After trying to get anything done in PoF and failing because not enough people, I have decided that PoF was a bad investment. I bought the most expensive package and spent a good deal besides, and I am having serious buyer's remorse. It was far from worth it. I spend all day trying to get one thing done, and feeling lucky to get that one thing done by the end of the day. I hated the HoT zones, but they were loads more productive and rewarding, because the population supported it. PoF clearly doesn't have that going for it, I assume from lack of replayability.. For the first time since I started playing GW2, I am seriously considering looking around for a new game.

 

Suggestions are welcome via PM.

[Chickenooble.5014]

> @Turial.1293 said:

> > @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

> > Microtransactions can be polarizing, and we’ve received both positive and negative feedback on the license.

>

> Be honest, it is mostly negative. You know very well that your huge initial draw from other games on the market was that microtransactions was not what you were going to plow ahead with as the game went on.

How do you know it's been mostly negative? You're basing this on the rage people were expressing here and at reddit? Any websites that reported on the outrage were often just re-packaging the 'rage' of the community. But not everyone in the community was outraged. Not everyone even cared.

 

I do see a lot of pretty mounts in game, though.