GreyWolf.8670 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Chickenooble.5014 said: > > @Drecien.4508 said: > > > @Oglaf.1074 said: > > > > @Drecien.4508 said: > > > >I have no issue forking over money for such a superior product. > > > > > > As do I. > > > > > > The problem is - you can't! You literally cannot buy these mount skins. > > > > > > You have to gamble for them - and therein lies the problem everyone is so riled up about. > > > > > > Maybe read up on the issue before looking down on other people, calling them "sad", in the future? > > > > > > > Its sad in 2107 that we even have these sort of conversations. We are surrounded by RNG all the time in this game, BL chests, Loots drops etc and all of a sudden everyone loses their minds. Yeah maybe it is looking down on them because with so much more important stuff going on this should be the least of their worries. I know its not going to keep me awake at night. > Damnit. I tried to Like and Helpful your post but the UI won't let me. :\ Wish I could like this 100 times. This game is loaded with RNG -- as is real life -- and nerds aren't locking themselves in the house because they're afraid of what might happen outside. > In-game RNG does not cost real money. Try again, cupcake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @"Aaden Cash.7230" said: >I don't understand why people are so absolute livid about this. 1st, it's purely cosmestic. You're not winning any more pvp or wvw with these skins. They're not locked heroes like Battlefront. 2nd, this is not all that different from stuff like black lion chest keys that have already been in the game. 3rd even if you could just discredit the previous arguments, new glider skins were always gem store only. Why should mounts be any different? Ok, let me help you out there. As to your first point, we agree, and yet we still care. The amount of people that play PvP and WvW in this game is insignificant to the total population. There are FAR more people in this game that care about cosmetic items than care about PvP and WvW balance combined. Now that doesn't mean that every instance of cosmetic-related issues bothers us, but when it does, it does, and that ties into your second point. To that second point, yes, some cosmetic items are tied behind BLCs. Most of these items can be resold on the TP, meaning that there is an alternative method of acquiring them. For those that don't, yes, it is annoying, but not quite as annoying as this case. I am annoyed that the new "Wild Magic" glider can only be found in a BLC, but I'm mostly at peace with that, because I already have a ton of cool glider skins, and while I might pay a little bit extra to be able to use *this* glider skin, I'm mostly content with just using the ones I've got rather than taking a chance with the gamble box. With Mount skins, there aren't nearly enough of them "in the wild," the only ones released so far have been five in a high cost bundle (which had a very specific Halloween themeing), one extremely expensive one (which only accounts for a single mount and is not to everyone's tastes), and then these thirty other ones that are RNG-only, so even if there are some that you want, your chances of getting that one is only 1:30 every time you give them $5. And that ties back into point 3, while many have said that at least *some* skins should be in the game proper (as at least several glider skins are), *most* of the people complaining are 100% fine with the *principle* that the skins be on the Gem Store, and are primarily upset with the random gamble-box nature of the distribution method, and to some extent with the pricing on the Warbeast skin. The general consensus is that it's hard to justify $25 for one mount, and that $120 for a set of thirty is also too much, when most players probably only want 3-10 of them. So again, if you aren't bothered, that's fine, you don't have to be, but other people have every reason to be bothered, and will continue to be bothered until this issue is resolved. "Buy it or don't" Is one way to go, and if that's how you want to live, nobody's stopping you, but some people prefer to fight for a better game, to convince ANet to offer a better deal for everyone involved. It doesn't have to be "buy it or don't," it can also be "or, let me buy it in a better way." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Alchofas.8243 said: > Great decision. > > People just don't see that the license is already fair enough as it is a progressive one so you won't get duplicates like other mmorpg's random box does. That's better than a non-progressive system, but is really only a benefit if A. you commit to spending $120 and buying out the shop, or B. you happen to get very lucky on an early pull. Otherwise, you're still at the whim of chance. It is a much better offer than many gacha games, and there are plenty of games where I would be saying "oh, how super generous of you!" but this is not such a game. I expect better from Guild Wars 2. They can be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Drecien.4508 said: > Its sad in 2107 that we even have these sort of conversations. We are surrounded by RNG all the time in this game, BL chests, Loots drops etc and all of a sudden everyone loses their minds. Yeah maybe it is looking down on them because with so much more important stuff going on this should be the least of their worries. I know its not going to keep me awake at night. I draw a hard line between content-based RNG and paid RNG. I don't *love* RNG in any form, I prefer systems in which there is a clear step-by-step process towards any reward, and any random element is just a potential shortcut to that process, but I accept that RNG can play a role, and don't mind it when it's part of the game, kill a mob, complete an event, get an RNG roll for your effort. Fine. That's not the ideal way to me, but at least it's not a corrupt bargain, they do not profit off of your misfortune. The problem with the mount skins is twofold, 1. there are no alternatives. People can't even sell off unwanted skins, so the ONLY method of acquiring these is by gambling for them. The only "sure thing" is if you commit to $120, and that's too much for a skin. 2. it *is* a corrupt bargain, it's a system in which every time you *don't* get what you want, ANet profits. Every time you have to roll again, ANet profits. You are converting real money not for an item that you want, but for a *chance* of getting an item that you want, that is gambling, and that is wrong. It's no surprised that promoting gambling can be profitable, but that doesn't make it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bekahmonster.3491 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 I was one of the unlucky people who got 2 griffin mount skins in a row and i don’t even own a griffin.. there went all my gold to even get the griffin collection going! Kinda frustrating that i can’t even use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Rashagar.8349 said: > (ie. saying that yes the method favours collectors but it doesn't favour people who only want one skin [which is a rewording of the original statement] does not refute the point that the method can be accurately viewed as a long term collection with a variable end point [ie. you pick the end point you like and each item obtained in the collection brings you one step closer to reaching your desired end point]). It *can* be viewed as a long term collection with an endpoint, but if that is not how the player wants to interact with it then from that player's perspective it is a poorly designed system. If a player only wants a handful of skins, then it is a horribly wasteful process towards achieving that goal, and we're asking for alternative methods. >A refutation of the point would be something along the lines of "I'm not able to think of it as a long term collection with a variable end point because X", where X is something other than "because I don't want to think of it that way". X would be because "that interpretation is fundamentally incompatible with my perspective of the situation." You're entitled to your perspective of the situation, but that doesn't mean that it should apply to everyone. Their perspective is as valid to them as yours is to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashagar.8349 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > @Rashagar.8349 said: > > (ie. saying that yes the method favours collectors but it doesn't favour people who only want one skin [which is a rewording of the original statement] does not refute the point that the method can be accurately viewed as a long term collection with a variable end point [ie. you pick the end point you like and each item obtained in the collection brings you one step closer to reaching your desired end point]). > > It *can* be viewed as a long term collection with an endpoint, but if that is not how the player wants to interact with it then from that player's perspective it is a poorly designed system. If a player only wants a handful of skins, then it is a horribly wasteful process towards achieving that goal, and we're asking for alternative methods. > > >A refutation of the point would be something along the lines of "I'm not able to think of it as a long term collection with a variable end point because X", where X is something other than "because I don't want to think of it that way". > > X would be because "that interpretation is fundamentally incompatible with my perspective of the situation." You're entitled to your perspective of the situation, but that doesn't mean that it should apply to everyone. Their perspective is as valid to them as yours is to you. Thanks for solving for X hehe. Because in the absence of knowing that it's just not a way your brain can bend it is all too easy to believe that you're deliberately choosing not to for some kind of undisclosed reason. If it's incompatible that's regrettable, because if a change in your perspective is all that is standing between you and a happier emotional state, it would make sense to entertain the notion of attempting the change, especially if an altering of your perspective leads to less of a churning of negativity in a presumably usually enjoyable game. Keep in mind I've always been in favour of alternative methods of acquisition by the way (as have most people I remember in the discussion). I'm personally just opposed to a lot of the justifications for those alternatives that have been trotted out and a lot of the actions that were taken as a result of those justifications (because realistically the only justification needed was "because there's currently an untapped market for it", but instead... well, maybe best not dwell on what we got instead). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Ohoni.6057 said: > X would be because "that interpretation is fundamentally incompatible with my perspective of the situation." You're entitled to your perspective of the situation, but that doesn't mean that it should apply to everyone. Their perspective is as valid to them as yours is to you. Just give in to the marketing manipulation - it will be easier for everyone. lol ;P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Rashagar.8349 said: > If it's incompatible that's regrettable, because if a change in your perspective is all that is standing between you and a happier emotional state, it would make sense to entertain the notion of attempting the change, especially if an altering of your perspective leads to less of a churning of negativity in a presumably usually enjoyable game. Sorry man, I'm just not Wonko the Sane, I can't live in an inside out house and convince myself that the rest of the world is an asylum. > @Djinn.9245 said: > Just give in to the marketing manipulation - it will be easier for everyone. lol ;P I know, I know. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penarddun.6827 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Cantatus.4065 said: > > @Nikal.4921 said: > > 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... > > > > Honestly, I think they are related. There have been a lot of complaints about PoF not being rewarding and players feeling like they've already run out of things to do in those zones. They tweaked this some in the most recent patch to my understanding, but still, they added 31 new mount skins at once, couldn't like one or two of those been added somewhere in PoF? Making money is important for GW2, I understand and fully support that, but keeping people interested and playing is important too. If you want players around to spend money, they need to actually have a reason to log in. In the grand scheme of things, even the players that never spend a dime on the game are important to GW2's success since you need an active, vibrant community for those that do. The so-called whales aren't going to stick around if all their buddies get bored and find something else to do. > > That's why, while not technically incorrect, I tend to disagree with the people who defend these sorts of things as being just cosmetic or not having an affect on your gameplay. MMOs are goal-oriented games. A big part of why people log-in and play is because they have some objective they're working towards, whether it be a raid boss you're trying to kill with your friends, a tradeskill you're trying to cap, finishing a quest, or simply leveling. Anet decided for their game to have the goals focus primarily around cosmetic objectives instead of increasing in power. So, having a type of cosmetic end up completely in the store as opposed to being added to the game as new objectives does have an impact on the amount of things players have to work towards, as seen in PoF. > > In my opinion, that's more problematic than RNG. It's a short-sighted approach to making money. I think the response to this would've been a lot more subdued if players didn't feel like their only way of getting a new mount skin was doing monotonous gold grinding or pulling out their wallet. Every other MMO I know of that has mounts has them both in their store and as something you can earn in the game, so why can't GW2? > That was really well said. Summed up a lot of what I had intended to reply to from other posters. I look forward to new items in the gem store, because now that I finished the majority of PoF content, I'm kinda bored. A new gemstore item is exciting. I was *really* looking forward to the mount skins. I expected them to be like gliders and monetized the same when. When they weren't, I was very disappointed, and didn't know what else to do with this game (quite telling really). However, I am *not* interested in gambling for a skin. I want to pick and choose and buy the ones I like, as I did with the gliders. Anything RNG should never be account bound. That was the one saving grace to BL chests. If I really wanted something I could choose to buy it off the TP. I didn't have to participate in the gambling aspect to get the item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldencenser.7046 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 I posted this on a Facebook post aswell and should go here too. You guys sound like veruca from Willy wonka, daddy I want it now. You don’t like the way they do stuff then quit playing the game and youll have less issues in life. Look at your own lives and see how you squander your money anyhow. I bet you visit Starbucks, fast food, smoke shops, or beer stores. your basically crapping it out at the end of the day. I’m tired of seeing the forums flooded with negative bs, boo hoo life isn’t fair speil. I bet some of you have kids or were kids who spent money on quarter machines Or the chicken who dropped a random egg. That isn’t no difference Or spend a large amount of money on ticket games just to leave with toys that could have been bought at a store for a few bucks, but you spent 3, 4, 5+ the times(x) just hopeing to hit the jackpot To win a cool prize. I don’t see you guys protesting peter piper pizza or what ever arcade joint near you. How their ticket/prize system is so unfair. I bet you’ve even wasted money on lotto tickets or powerball. Don’t see no protesting to the lotto... 400 gems is $5. There not asking you for 20;50;$100 for 400 gems, but $5... 1 drink from Starbucks is $5. 1 value meal is $5, 1 pack of smokes is $5+, beer is $5+. Mounts are forever or for the duration of the game itself. 10;20;30+ years. Your not gonna be using the toilet at the end of the day like you would with all the other junk you buy With your money. No one said you had to buy all 30 mounts at one time. I spent $20 and got 1 out of 4 that I like. the ancient one that looks like a triceritops. My first was a gryphon, that ones kinda useless right now since I don’t have the gryphon yet. That’s ok next month ill buy 4 more or just 2. Are Any of you artists of any kind. Would you sell your time if your project took 10+ hours a day or 40+ a week. Sell it to random people for couple of bucks. No you wouldn’t you would put a value on your time and sell it that way. everything they have ever sold in the gem store has been drawn or animated in great detail. Nothing I have seen ever has looked crappy quality. Even the backpacks of animals have animation. The minitures have animation. That piñata Choya has to be of the coolest minis Ive ever seen. he’s running or falling and is endlessly dropping candy like crazy. That is some detailed work, I’m glad the design team inserted It. These guys work hard and We get it for free and don’t have to pay a $15 a month subscription. you guys are complaining because you dont get your fire or space gryphon, jackalope, leopard skinned or firebunny, elemental dragons, ancient or fire jackel, or actual dog mount you wanted asap, but have to get them through random With other mounts. Yeah I like some of those too. Leopard skin/ jackalope and dog mount And ocean skimmer. I didn’t get all 4 I wanted but that’s ok I can try again later. I bet if they just did those with animations and special skins All this boo hoo about mounts would be minimal or not exist at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penarddun.6827 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 Those are a lot of assumptions you're making there. I don't do (or spend money on) any of those things you mentioned above. The fact still remains that I don't want to have to gamble to participate in a major game mechanic. The only reason I am voicing my opinion at all (and haven't just left to play a different game) is because I care about GW2 and I want to see it continue to flourish. I honestly do not believe that will happen with its current direction. What confuses me the most is why other players get so angry with the objections the community expresses toward certain decisions the company makes. The majority of them have been very well though out feedback and kept to two threads, which is much more civilized than many other gaming communities. I think the players here should be quite proud of their overall maturity and insights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasTGnome.6875 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 Sorry, but your explanations don't cut it as far as I'm concerned. The only thing I can say I truly agree with is that your artists put a lot of work into them, and I do appreciate their efforts, but 2000 gems for the single Jackal skin is not a micro transaction. 9600 gems, or $120 for all 30 skins is ridiculous. 400 gems for a single skin? If we could choose which one we wanted? Hey, I'd probably pay up to 700 gems, like for the outfits our avi's wear. By doing that you would have also been able to gauge what type of skins most of your target audience likes for any future skins that get released. You want to make it random? Fine, but at least let us choose which mount we're getting the skin for. All that said, yes, I did get the Halloween skeletal mount skins for the 1600 gems. But that covers all 5 mounts. I've also gotten three, or was it four? of the individual adoptions. Not disappointed with any that I've gotten, save for the Griffin skin, since I don't have a Griffin as yet, nor am I in any hurry to do so. Point is, I'd have gotten more had they been set up as true micro transactions. In case you've forgotten micro means small. I'm sure eventually there will be special sale prices on all of these, so really not all that concerned at the moment. Except the fancy Jackal skin for 2000 gems. Sorry, but anything over 700 gems for a single skin, even knowing what it is, is way too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devata.6589 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > @Devata.6589 said: > > > @"solofrog.3968" > > > > @Devata.6589 said: > > > > > @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. > > > > > > Tomayto/Tomahto, either way, that;s GW2's playerbase whether you like it or not. We don't raid and we consider cosmetics to be as important as anything else. > > > > That is indeed what is left of the player base. I did look at the past of GW2 and this subject in general. I already said that while I believe their approach was bad (and clearly more and more people start disliking that approach) I don't think changing it is a solution now. It's to late. > > > > If anything I am surprised that with the player-base left there are still so many people who got angry because of the current RNG-mounts. > > > > But your right, looking at today’s GW2’s player-base, they will accept most of these things. I was referring to those ‘cosmetic-lovers’ that did leave over the years. > > > > It wasn't "cosmetic lovers" that left over the years, GW2's community has a higher percentage of "cosmetic lovers" than any other MMO. Those who left were the dungeon/raider types, and they mostly left within the first six months or so and the game has been fine without them. This is a game community for people who enjoy casual open world content. > > I know many people who were (also) into cosmetics who left over the years. It is true that GW2's community always had a high percentage of those people, just as it is likely true that most of the GW2 players have left by now. Suggesting that those who left where dungeon-runners and raiders is strange. If only for the fact that it was not marketed as having, raids (so die hard raider likely did not even come to GW2 vanilla). In addition, dungeons have been in the game, first as normal dungeon, later as fractals, so at least for the first 2 years there was also no reason for them to leave if dungeons would be the important factor for them. I think it is fair to say that most people, who left, did so because they did not enjoy the game anymore, so you have to look at factors that can be a reason for that. Maybe you find it strange, but I think that essentially removing the part many people like (chasing skins, pets, mounts) or devaluating it (getting it has no true achievement other than grinding, or the best looking ones you can buy) might be a factor why people do not like a game. But what a non-discussion really. I did not come here to talk about how bad the cash-shop influence was again. I have passed that. I just find it interesting to see how the gaming-community (not only GW2) are getting into the same mind-set. Micro-transactions as a total and RNG-boxes especially are getting more and more negative feedback in the last months (see YouTube). Now his thing exploded here. You can act as if it is not a thing, but for many people it clearly is and the "but it's just cosmetics" does not seem to work anymore. The idea that you do not have to gable because you do not need the skin seems to be irrelevant. I find that interesting. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Devata.6589 said: > I know many people who were (also) into cosmetics who left over the years. It is true that GW2's community always had a high percentage of those people, just as it is likely true that most of the GW2 players have left by now. Suggesting that those who left where dungeon-runners and raiders is strange. If only for the fact that it was not marketed as having, raids (so die hard raider likely did not even come to GW2 vanilla). In addition, dungeons have been in the game, first as normal dungeon, later as fractals, so at least for the first 2 years there was also no reason for them to leave if dungeons would be the important factor for them. I'm going off of comments made by "raid type" players that claim to have played at launch, and burned out over time. The one that stuck around were the ones that were ok with this not being a raid-centric game, until HoT ruined it. >I think it is fair to say that most people, who left, did so because they did not enjoy the game anymore, so you have to look at factors that can be a reason for that. Maybe you find it strange, but I think that essentially removing the part many people like (chasing skins, pets, mounts) or devaluating it (getting it has no true achievement other than grinding, or the best looking ones you can buy) might be a factor why people do not like a game. Maybe, and I'm sure that would be a factor for some players, but there's no reason to believe it was a major impact, given how many of the remaining players seem to be invested in cosmetics. >But what a non-discussion really. I did not come here to talk about how bad the cash-shop influence was again. I have passed that. I just find it interesting to see how the gaming-community (not only GW2) are getting into the same mind-set. Micro-transactions as a total and RNG-boxes especially are getting more and more negative feedback in the last months (see YouTube). Now his thing exploded here. That's because more and more games have been ramping up the quality and quantity of their lootbox offering. GW2 is a bit of an anomaly in that, in that they launched in a time when subscription products were on their tail end, but still seen as viable (numerous MMOs launched as subsciption games in the first year or two of GW2, although none of them stayed that way), and GW2 was experimenting with the idea that an MMO could launch with no expansions, no monthly fee, and support itself entirely through microtransactions. Now, pretty much every MMO\* is a F2P, cash shop-sponsored product, so that's less a novelty. Meanwhile, single player self-contained games have been shifting into "ongoing services" models, in which they are basically like mini-MMOs, and like MMOs they try to get microtransaction payments after purchase to support a longer tail. Communities have very mixed reactions to this depending on the implementation. The problem, of course, is that we're living in the "post-Citizens United" era of gaming, in which "voting with your wallet" is irrelevant because one player spending ten times as much as a normal player is worth as much to the company as any ten players, so their opinions barely matter. It gives game companies plenty of incentive to be as evil as they can get away with, so long as they can keep the whales on board. Real solutions will likely have to come from outside the game companies, with marketplaces or even government demanding that games *cease* operating gambling mechanisms like loot boxes and gachas. Otherwise there's just no hope, and games will all be developed for like 1% of the gaming population that just has no problem throwing thousands of dollars per year at a game, and everyone else's opinions will be irrelevant. \* aside from WoW, WoW is the exception in every argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashagar.8349 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > @Rashagar.8349 said: > > If it's incompatible that's regrettable, because if a change in your perspective is all that is standing between you and a happier emotional state, it would make sense to entertain the notion of attempting the change, especially if an altering of your perspective leads to less of a churning of negativity in a presumably usually enjoyable game. > > Sorry man, I'm just not Wonko the Sane, I can't live in an inside out house and convince myself that the rest of the world is an asylum. > > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > Just give in to the marketing manipulation - it will be easier for everyone. lol ;P > > I know, I know. ;) Yeah it's just funny hearing it being talked as some kind of act of magical contortion when for me the true contortionists are, for example, player "A" who believes that Anet's motives lie somewhere between skeazy and EA levels of evil because Anet dared to target a demographic with their initial release that didn't include player "A" haha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangerdeity.5847 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 when questioning their decision to not change it you have to take the minds of the people who put thousands of gold into getting the ones they wanted into account. if you opened 13 of these bastards to get the skin you wanted then 2 weeks later someone could open one box and get whatever skin they wanted you would be a little annoyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endirasae.3015 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @bekahmonster.3491 said: > I was one of the unlucky people who got 2 griffin mount skins in a row and i don’t even own a griffin.. there went all my gold to even get the griffin collection going! Kinda frustrating that i can’t even use them. I still can't believe they didn't even put in a mechanic that would detect what mounts you owned and only give you skins you could actually use. Oh wait, I CAN believe that, because getting a skin you can only use on mounts you have to buy might lead to you spending money on gems to convert to gold. :angry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Rashagar.8349 said: > Yeah it's just funny hearing it being talked as some kind of act of magical contortion when for me the true contortionists are, for example, player "A" who believes that Anet's motives lie somewhere between skeazy and EA levels of evil because Anet dared to target a demographic with their initial release that didn't include player "A" haha! It's not about "targeting demographics." The Halloween mounts did not "target my demographic," because I didn't want the faux-skeleton designs, and I was totally fine with that. The problem here is that they *did* "target my demographic," in that there are several of those skins that I definitely want, but then they presented them as being impossible to own without buying into a corrupt gambling scheme. That's the problem, for me at least, and from what I gather, for a lot of other players. Nobody forced them to put these skins behind gamble boxes, and nobody is forcing them to keep them there. They could have made a better choice going in and they can still make a better choice now. It's a harder choice now because they might have to take a cut to make it right by the people who already bought in, but the longer they allow it to continue the worse that problem will become. > @Rangerdeity.5847 said: > when questioning their decision to not change it you have to take the minds of the people who put thousands of gold into getting the ones they wanted into account. if you opened 13 of these bastards to get the skin you wanted then 2 weeks later someone could open one box and get whatever skin they wanted you would be a little annoyed. Yes, which is why they will have to do *something* to make it right by those people, and that might take time to implement, but doing nothing is *still* not a satisfactory answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Devata.6589 said: > Increasing the number of players (who then in turn buy expansions so sales will increase) has to come from the quality of the game. So instead of having the best skins in a store, or like now having nice mounts in the store, you could put them as rewards for dungeon and raids. You could add a breeding system allowing people to breed the most awesome mounts, you could add a system to catch some rare looking ones in the world. > Yes but the problem with that is fracturing the players. MMORPGs now are about selling a service, not a game, which means regular and often upgrades. The more expansions you have, the more fractured your players will be. The only way for true expansion based releases to work, is if the majority actually buys those expansions. Which is why I asked in the first place if that would be the case. > Would they be willing to pay for more regular expansions? That's the big question. I will give an example from many multiplayer FPS games, they used to follow the DLC/Season Pass system of release but that is becoming less and less frequent as many gaming companies are trying to find a different release system. The problem with many paid upgrades is that you lock content out of the players and the community becomes fractured with those that own this and that expansion and those who don't. In the end you find it more and more difficult to find players to play some content. It's one of the many reasons why the Guild Wars 1 system (an expansion/campaign every 6 months / 1 year) wasn't sustainable in the long run. The expansion system used to work when games were created with an end in sight. "This game will release now, get 2 expansions in 2 years and then end", now that games are created to last a very long time, the expansion model has its own limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lacuda.8543 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 What ever happened to "Customer First" customer service? Some players spend gold while some of us drop hundreds and even thousands of dollars on this game, and despite all that this is downright a slap in our faces. It's not just randomization that you angered people with; there are clearly "booby prize" skins and some really cool ones, but at 100+ gold per pop you can't afford something that looks like the slightest reskin of the basic mount version. This was a real kick in the junk. You kicked your customers in the junk. You know we'll be coming back, but you also know you will be losing business. "Why?" you say? Because you kicked us in the junk, when there are several other titles of games looking more and more favorable each day. You know what you are supposed to do when you kick your customers in the junk? Apologize and do whatever it takes to keep them. Give them stuff for free, and not just a key or a chest or a swag box. Give them something that soothes that kick in the junk. You kicked us in the junk. How dare you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProtoGunner.4953 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @bekahmonster.3491 said: > I was one of the unlucky people who got 2 griffin mount skins in a row and i don’t even own a griffin.. there went all my gold to even get the griffin collection going! Kinda frustrating that i can’t even use them. Er... what?!? I didn't have griffon, and I still wanted a griffon skin, so I did that griffon collection in a 4-5h play session. So can you. My god, people really got that lazy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashagar.8349 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > @Rashagar.8349 said: > > Yeah it's just funny hearing it being talked as some kind of act of magical contortion when for me the true contortionists are, for example, player "A" who believes that Anet's motives lie somewhere between skeazy and EA levels of evil because Anet dared to target a demographic with their initial release that didn't include player "A" haha! > > It's not about "targeting demographics." The Halloween mounts did not "target my demographic," because I didn't want the faux-skeleton designs, and I was totally fine with that. The problem here is that they *did* "target my demographic," in that there are several of those skins that I definitely want, but then they presented them as being impossible to own without buying into a corrupt gambling scheme. That's the problem, for me at least, and from what I gather, for a lot of other players. Nobody forced them to put these skins behind gamble boxes, and nobody is forcing them to keep them there. They could have made a better choice going in and they can still make a better choice now. It's a harder choice now because they might have to take a cut to make it right by the people who already bought in, but the longer they allow it to continue the worse that problem will become. I'm sure your perspective is as valid to you as mine is to me, but really you are just using a different definition of "demographic" to what my statement was using. Since to me, them releasing the skins with an rng element meant that this initial release method was simply meant to appeal to the people who enjoy rng elements. Nothing more. Calling it a "corrupt gambling scheme" doesn't make it one, that's imbuing their actions with a motive based on your perspective and on one of your assumptions, and to me, believing it is a "corrupt gambling scheme" is an impressive feat of mental contortion. It is usually (though not always) being based on the *assumption* that the skins would never be released in any other fashion, which has, from the beginning, been simply that. An assumption *. And an illogical one at that since the demographic of "people who want these skins without wanting to deal with the rng element" is a market that is very cheap for them to tap into (since the skins already exist) and also entirely in their interests to tap into at a later date. Maybe a little more risky for them now that there's been all this furore and they've been backed into a legalese corner with their every future action being closely judged, but I'd still read their statement of not wanting to, what was it, "invalidate the purchases of those that have already bought the skins"? not as saying that the availability of these skins will be exclusively rng based but instead referencing the people who believe that the correct price point is 400 gems without the rng, and simply warning those people that they are deluding themselves, as that price point would be invalidating the prior purchases, whereas simply releasing the same skins in a different method would not be, providing the lack of random element is factored into the cost. *The reasoning behind the statement; "the belief that it is a "corrupt gambling scheme" is based on the assumption that the skins will never be released in any other method": Logically, if you believed that the skins were likely to be released in another method at a different price point, you would never believe that you were being "forced" to take part in the gamble mechanic. You would simply believe that you weren't the target audience for this release, and wait for the next method of release. Believing both that the skins would be released in a different method and that you were being forced to take part in a gamble mechanic would be flawed logic since the other choice of waiting would be available to you. Unless you were also working under the ironclad belief that you Needed to Have it Now, which Anet can't really be blamed for. This is as clearly laid out as I can manage right now. I hope the message is easy enough to follow, and that it isn't going to get lost in future nitpicking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzypetal.7936 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 As of September 2017, Guild Wars 2 had over **11 million players**. I wager not even 0.5% are expressing a view one way or the other about the mount skin loot box lottery - I haven't seen anywhere close to 55,000 individuals posting in Reddit, in these forums or elsewhere. What I do see are the same people doom speaking and adding pages full of noise over and over again instead of leaving constructive feedback posts. Example: _I don't like the RNG nature of the loot boxes because my luck is rubbish. I won't participate but will happily buy reasonably priced individual skins from the Gem Store as and when. It would also be nice if skins were available as drops, story completion rewards or collection achievements._ It is doubtful that GW2 is going to be going away any time soon because ArenaNet tried something a bit different. They've got their number crunching specialists that have done well so far...as evidenced by the fact there are over 11 million players 5 years on. Speculation regarding ArenaNet's continued success is not helpful. Please for the love of kittens, puppies or whatever floats your boat - stop insulting and attacking ArenaNet and each other. Nothing about the RNG is a scam. You do get a skin, it might not be what you want or can use but you do get a unique skin in return for your gems. Those upset they are gambling and receiving skins for mounts they don't possess: it would be a rather good idea to get those mounts before playing with mount skin loot boxes. If your intention is to never go for the Griffon mount for whatever reason, then best wait until individual skins or mount specific skin loot boxes are available instead of gambling with the current licensing system. Nothing sucks the fun out of something faster than losing. Bottom line is you're the one choosing to place a bet with your money - real or virtual - so you'll either be shouting 'winner winner chicken dinner' or ugly face crying over the skin you didn't want or can't use. As a player with only 2 hours every evening to play, me and a friend with a similar time restriction acquired the Griffon mount within a week - and for me that included farming the gold I needed to pay for it. None of the mounts, including the Griffon are impossible to achieve if you're willing to put the effort in. Re: the Griffon mount - Dulfy has put together a guide so that is far less time intensive then it would be without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devata.6589 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @maddoctor.2738 said: > Yes but the problem with that is fracturing the players. ~ The only way for true expansion based releases to work, is if the majority actually buys those expansions. Which is why I asked in the first place if that would be the case. >It's one of the many reasons why the Guild Wars 1 system (an expansion/campaign every 6 months / 1 year) wasn't sustainable in the long run. GW1 was very good at retaining the players (based on income). But fractation was more of a problem there. That is also because it where stand-alone expansions. Not really comparable with these expansion from a fractionation-point of few. I remember a thread from +- a year ago (I think you where active in it as well) where this question was also asked. Basically the question was, how many of the players do own HoT and how far to they progress in HoT. Somebody there pointed to a site with stats (based on player linking their API-key on that side). Looking at items that where only available for people who did own HoT and seeing how many of the active players owned them. It was clear that by far most active players do own the latest expansion. Of course, you have a subject of the playerbase, but it does give an indication. I guess you can do the same for PoF if you want to be sure. But based on that you can expect that by far most active players do own / buy the last expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts