A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Rashagar.8349 said:

>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.

 

I don't acknowledge that as a valid premise. A skin is art. It is a thing that people value for its aesthetics. You cannot say "this skin is for these players, not for those players," the skin has to be for anyone that like the skin. It'd be like opening a restaurant that serves burgers and also chicken, but has a weird rule that you can order burgers off the menu, but if you want chicken, the only way to get it is off an RNG roll with 29 other food items, some of them salads. It's just nonsensical.

 

If people like RNG, fine, give them RNG, but don't make it the ONLY way to acquire that thing. I highly doubt that there is a single player in GW2's community who believes that the RNG mount box *should* be the only method of acquiring them, that they could *only* enjoy getting the skin they want by participating in an RNG loot box to earn it. I think that if you could acquire them individually as well, it would only *heighten* the experience for fans of RNG, since they could get that feeling that they';d "beat the odds" and got a 800gem skin for half the price. I just don't see a "they had to give something to the poor RNG fans out there" argument as a good faith position, it just comes across as a Potemkin village.

 

>Calling it a "corrupt gambling scheme" doesn't make it one,

 

Of course not, its *existence* as a corrupt gambling scheme is what makes it a corrupt gambling scheme. It's like calling whisky an "alcoholic beverage" doesn't *make* it an alcoholic beverage, it always is one whether you call it that or not. Even if the distiller didn't *intend* for it to be alcoholic, that's how it turned out in the end.

 

>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.

 

Did you not read Mo's post? It's right there at the beginning. "We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made, but I want to confirm to you that our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack."

 

That's about as clear as it could get that they don't intend to offer the existing skins in a respectable fashion, and you have to really stretch to imagine that it intends to mean anything else. Now if there was some misunderstanding on that, they've had over 72 hours and hundreds of posts on the subject in which they had plenty of opportunity to say "oh, no, you misunderstood us, we will be releasing these skins some other way, just give us a little time to get that together."

 

But they haven't.

 

>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.

 

Again, *plenty* of time to correct that misunderstanding if it were one.

 

Plenty of time.

 

And personally I do think that 400 is too high for the most simplistic of the skins, but at this point, for these skins, I wouldn't entirely object to them sticking to that price point for the existing ones, so long as they commit to a lower price on future equivalent skins. It would just mean that I'd be buying less of them than I'd planned.

 

>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.

 

Even if they did always intend to release these skins via some other method at a future date, this would still be a corrupt gambling scheme, because they didn't tell us that. Furthermore, they had a temporary discount on the total package of 9600 gems instead of 12000 gems. This gives players the impression that the best chance they have to get the skins they want is to pay the $120 and get them now, because it's only going to get more expensive later. If in a couple months they were to release them at even double the price-per-skin, that would still be a massive savings over the original method. If they'd intended to offer "plan B" from the start, then what excuse could there be for it than that they wanted to trick people into buying mounts that they did not want?

 

The only way an RNG system is not corrupt is if it is released *alongside* a non-RNG method (or at the very least alongside an explanation of a non-RNG method in the near future), and if the costs of the non-RNG option are within a reasonable margin of the RNG method. Basically, luck-based for people who enjoy that sort of thing, but fair to everyone else too.

 

>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.

 

Definitely, it was very clear and easy to follow. You were just wrong.

 

 

[Turial.1293]

> @PookieDaWombat.6209 said:

> Yeah, I lost count of the feedback that stated quite clearly that if they just fairly priced the mounts with the less flashy ones being in the 400 range and the more flashy ones being higher that people would have gladly spent money/gems to get them. People would have paid for them. Anet would have gotten the money. Instead, by doing it this way people will still not get them, money will not go to Anet and people will be more distrustful of Anet's antics in the future.

Just removing the RNG and upping the price to 600gems a piece would have covered their asses. Anyone complaining that they paid for random now can at least say they got the skins for cheaper; since they chose to buy blindly without complaining though I don't believe they have a say.

> His BS line about "the worth of of designers" or however he phrased it is just some backhanded insult to the players that insinuates that people angry at this RNG are somehow diminishing the work that went into the mount design. We get it, Anet needs to make money. We all agree with that sentiment, and many of us were willing (even those like me that long since closed my wallet to Anet) to throw some more money at Anet for mounts. Apparently we needed to expressly tell them that we wanted to choose our mounts.

Either doesn't get it or doesn't care, either way, poor response. Anyone supporting the game wants to support it, the devs, artists, the whole team but we don't want to be treated like chumps. We will support them so long as they support us, they just have to listen to their community and act appropriately.

> So Mike, next time you go to a car dealership, I hope they ask you for 20 grand and then let you know that they get to pick one of 30 cars in their lot for you at random. They all work and look ok, but you can either end up with a Camry or you could end up with a Mercedes. More than likely it will be a camry though. Unless you want to spend 480,000 dollars and just get all 30 cars right then and there to ensure you got the car you wanted. I mean, those car salesmen worked hard on getting those cars ready for you and their work should be appreciated, along with those of the car makers. Eventually you could just buy each car at 20 grand a pop too as you won't get an exact duplicate. Just not one you directly choose is all.

This.is.magical. ^_^ It is ridiculous that we have to explain it like children but then they are treating us as such....

 

 

[Asum.4960]

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> 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._

 

That is mostly exactly what I have seen in terms of criticism, aside from the responses to people making far sweeping assumptions of "entitlement" and "laziness" towards anybody who isn't a fan of this gambling model, completely missing the point of outrage.

 

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> 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.

 

Most doomsayers seem to be on the other side though, arguing ANet is going down hard, and if they don't milk us now with lootboxes, the game is going to die.

Meanwhile we are arguing for a sustainable and fair business model that can support this game into the far future.

 

To your second point, I agree with you that these boxes are not a "scam".

But giving players who want to buy the product mount skins only the option to gamble is still exploitative at best.

Making people excited and fall in love with these mounts, and then locking their customizability behind gambling boxes does not only show severe lack of confidence in their own product and artists on ArenaNet's part, it's also disrespecting consumer choice.

 

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> 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.

 

People simply have different goals. I can see how it would be very frustrating for some people who are perfectly content with only having the base 4 mounts to now feel forced to in their eyes grind for the Griffon, since they don't actually want to pursue that as a personal goal, just because they fell for the gambling scheme and got skins for 5€ for things they don't even own, without the option to trade them in.

 

If you made 250 gold and completed the entire collection in seven 2h gaming sessions, then maybe you would like to share your process for those who just want to get that part over with fast.

 

Also "playing with mount skin loot boxes" is an interesting mind set and way to put it. For me there is no gameplay involved here.

You pay 5€, roll the dice, and get out a product you may or may not want for your money.

That being the extent of gameplay for future video games, at least in terms of reward structure for most nice things like high quality cosmetics, is exactly what people are afraid of.

[ProtoGunner.4953]

The whole griffon mount collection takes 4-5 hours and 250g is really not that much to get.

[Fireballer.2956]

Sorry but it seems to me you guys are pretending you didn't do it on purpose to eat are wallets, this doesn't seem like an apologie when you say we missed the benefits? you mean the benefit YOU guys get when we give you are money right? surely you wouldn't been talking about us because not a lot of people saw the benefits in this, and to say it was a mishap? really? don't try and deny the fact that you guys purposely did a loot box to have players gamble in on the money and why is it hard to change the price? you don't have to refund them let the people keep the mounts they bought and if for some reason you think that they might get upset that they wasted money all because the price was changed well I don't know , try refunding them something else like maybe you can get on free thing from the gem store or something or send them free character slot or something. And again to insult us by saying it was a mishap like it was some kinda of mistake? really? "we see you had valid concerns" darn right we did you guys have lost my trust and I was a big consumer on the game I will still play but for now on I do not trust the fact that you guys are fair when it comes to real money purchases and I also stop to believe that allot of you care for the players not saying none of you do, I am saying I cannot trust that all of you do care as much as I thought and for now on in my future purchases ill be me more picky about the items and more skeptical. Because you guys KNEW FOR A FACT IF HAD MADE WHERE YOU HAVE MADE IT WHERE THE MOUNTS SKINS ARE IN A LOOT BOX OF SKINS BUT ONLY FOR THAT TYPE OF mount like you if you get the raptor bundle you get all raptor skins or one out of all the raptor skins, people still would have been a little upset but not as bad or something like that. It is screwed up because if someone gets a randomized griffon skin its unfair since the Griffin is 250 gold how are they gonna get a skin for a mount that some people don't even have? disappointed I am kinda shocked that this apologie wasn't much of an apologie more of a brushing off the fact of what you guys did, why you did it, and why we are mad. BUT it is whatever ill be careful with the next thing I get from the gem store and like I said you ArenaNet has lost my trust I see how greedy you guys can get now.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @Devata.6589 said:

> 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.

>

 

That proved that the players registered on gw2efficiency bought Heart of Thorns. gw2efficiency is a website that was opened around the time of Heart of Thorns release, so it made some sense that most players on that website bought Heart of Thorns. The big question was how far those players progressed in the game, because expansion acquisition was a given for the vast majority.

 

Let's check the situation now, shall we?

 

Heart of Thorns

Airship Parts: 91.5%

Lumps of Aurillium: 88.5%

Ley line crystals: 83.5%

 

Living World Season 3

Blood Rubies: 63%

Petrified Wood: 57%

Fresh Winterberries: 56%

Jade Shards: 56%

Fire Orchid Blossoms: 54.5%

Orrian Pearls: 49%

Note: Season 3 currencies can be salvaged or consumed directly as opposed to be used to buy things from vendors, therefore the data for those aren't very accurate.

 

Path of Fire

Trade Contract: 59%

Elegy Mosaic: 41%

 

So from that website, about 9/10 bought Heart of Thorns while about 6/10 bought Path of Fire (You get trade contracts by finishing anything in Path of Fire)

It looks like, unlike Heart of Thorns, a very large part of the registered users haven't bought the second expansion, yet. It's a bit soon to judge.

 

> But based on that you can expect that by far most active players do own / buy the last expansion.

 

Expansion sales go to develop the next expansion, in-between sales go to develop the live game (and the next expansion).

[Sarpan.9074]

Last night I bought an adoption license just for the heck of it, out of curiosity to see what I'd get. It was a raptor skin, which is cool and OK but not that big of a deal and I'm glad I didn't spend more on it.

 

I think Anet could easily offer all of the existing skins from the adoption lottery for straight up sale without problem. I assume they would cost more than the random license. I can't see anyone having grief over another player paying more for the same skin. I wouldn't.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @ProtoGunner.4953 said:

> The whole griffon mount collection takes 4-5 hours and 250g is really not that much to get.

 

In your opinion. I know lots of people who think 250 gold is a large sum of gold. Hell I think it is alot of money.

[Devata.6589]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > @Devata.6589 said:

> > 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.

> >

>

> That proved that the players registered on gw2efficiency bought Heart of Thorns. gw2efficiency is a website that was opened around the time of Heart of Thorns release, so it made some sense that most players on that website bought Heart of Thorns. The big question was how far those players progressed in the game, because expansion acquisition was a given for the vast majority.

>

> Let's check the situation now, shall we?

>

> Heart of Thorns

> Airship Parts: 91.5%

> Lumps of Aurillium: 88.5%

> Ley line crystals: 83.5%

>

> Living World Season 3

> Blood Rubies: 63%

> Petrified Wood: 57%

> Fresh Winterberries: 56%

> Jade Shards: 56%

> Fire Orchid Blossoms: 54.5%

> Orrian Pearls: 49%

> Note: Season 3 currencies can be salvaged or consumed directly as opposed to be used to buy things from vendors, therefore the data for those aren't very accurate.

>

> Path of Fire

> Trade Contract: 59%

> Elegy Mosaic: 41%

>

> So from that website, about 9/10 bought Heart of Thorns while about 6/10 bought Path of Fire (You get trade contracts by finishing anything in Path of Fire)

> It looks like, unlike Heart of Thorns, a very large part of the registered users haven't bought the second expansion, yet. It's a bit soon to judge.

>

> > But based on that you can expect that by far most active players do own / buy the last expansion.

>

> Expansion sales go to develop the next expansion, in-between sales go to develop the live game (and the next expansion).

 

I do not use that site myself so do not know what you can and cannot see. However, we already knew that way less people did get PoF based on the last quarterly results. What we want to see is how many of the still active players did get PoF.

 

If many of those active players did not get PoF that speaks for the idea of it splitting up the community. If by far most of the active players did buy PoF that speaks against the idea of expansions splitting the community up. Therefore, if gw2efficiency has a way to see active vs inactive players you should be able to get the required information.

 

[fizzypetal.7936]

> @Asum.4960 said:

> > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > 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._

>

> That is mostly exactly what I have seen in terms of criticism, aside from the responses to people making far sweeping assumptions of "entitlement" and "laziness" towards anybody who isn't a fan of this gambling model, completely missing the point of outrage.

>

> > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > 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.

>

> Most doomsayers seem to be on the other side though, arguing ANet is going down hard, and if they don't milk us now with lootboxes, the game is going to die.

> Meanwhile we are arguing for a sustainable and fair business model that can support this game into the far future.

>

> To your second point, I agree with you that these boxes are not a "scam".

> But giving players who want to buy the product mount skins only the option to gamble is still exploitative at best.

> Making people excited and fall in love with these mounts, and then locking their customizability behind gambling boxes does not only show severe lack of confidence in their own product and artists on ArenaNet's part, it's also disrespecting consumer choice.

>

> > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > 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.

>

> People simply have different goals. I can see how it would be very frustrating for some people who are perfectly content with only having the base 4 mounts to now feel forced to in their eyes grind for the Griffon, since they don't actually want to pursue that as a personal goal, just because they fell for the gambling scheme and got skins for 5€ for things they don't even own, without the option to trade them in.

>

> If you made 250 gold and completed the entire collection in seven 2h gaming sessions, then maybe you would like to share your process for those who just want to get that part over with fast.

>

> Also "playing with mount skin loot boxes" is an interesting mind set and way to put it. For me there is no gameplay involved here.

> You pay 5€, roll the dice, and get out a product you may or may not want for your money.

> That being the extent of gameplay for future video games, at least in terms of reward structure for most nice things like high quality cosmetics, is exactly what people are afraid of.

 

For a start - I used a figure of speech when I said 'playing with mount boxes'.

 

Players do have choice - buy license tickets or don't.

 

I farmed mats and sold mats I'd been hoarding in my bank. It sets me back for other projects but acquiring all the mounts was worth the sacrifice to me.

 

I am a Veteran player having played since Beta. I am not wealthy money wise, I don't have every item that ever appeared in the gem store, possess only one legendary which I finally managed to craft earlier this year. I don't have a full home instance but I have enough to get a farming daily done. I don't expect ArenaNet to give me stuff just because I want it. I pick and choose what is important to me and have the patience to put the time and effort into getting it.

 

If I want a particular mount skin from the current collection, ArenaNet have provided a way for me to get it. I don't like the method so I won't be playing the odds. I've voiced my opinion on how I'd like to see things in future but it is by no means a deal breaker for me if something cosmetic for my mounts is never something I acquire. I don't feel entitled, cheated, misled, manipulated or extorted. It is what it is and that is that.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > @Devata.6589 said:

> > 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.

> >

>

> That proved that the players registered on gw2efficiency bought Heart of Thorns. gw2efficiency is a website that was opened around the time of Heart of Thorns release, so it made some sense that most players on that website bought Heart of Thorns. The big question was how far those players progressed in the game, because expansion acquisition was a given for the vast majority.

>

> Let's check the situation now, shall we?

>

> Heart of Thorns

> Airship Parts: 91.5%

> Lumps of Aurillium: 88.5%

> Ley line crystals: 83.5%

>

> Living World Season 3

> Blood Rubies: 63%

> Petrified Wood: 57%

> Fresh Winterberries: 56%

> Jade Shards: 56%

> Fire Orchid Blossoms: 54.5%

> Orrian Pearls: 49%

> Note: Season 3 currencies can be salvaged or consumed directly as opposed to be used to buy things from vendors, therefore the data for those aren't very accurate.

>

> Path of Fire

> Trade Contract: 59%

> Elegy Mosaic: 41%

>

> So from that website, about 9/10 bought Heart of Thorns while about 6/10 bought Path of Fire (You get trade contracts by finishing anything in Path of Fire)

> It looks like, unlike Heart of Thorns, a very large part of the registered users haven't bought the second expansion, yet. It's a bit soon to judge.

>

> > But based on that you can expect that by far most active players do own / buy the last expansion.

>

> Expansion sales go to develop the next expansion, in-between sales go to develop the live game (and the next expansion).

 

One thing I wonder is, I used to use Efficiency, but didn't for a while, and then I think the API changed, and now I go on and can't see my data? Maybe that happened for a bunch of people, their content is no longer being tracked or something? I don't know how it all works.

[Fireballer.2956]

BUT I can say one good thing arenanet, is that you guys responded to us at the very least and you did and say this will stop but ill have to see on how far you guys actually improve to gain my trust

[Djinn.9245]

> @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.

 

As someone pointed out on the first day of Mike's response, Anet could have pulled everyone's License skins (they've done that before), refunded the gems, made the skins individually purchaseable for something like 700-900 gems AS WELL as the License random pack, then people could have chosen the method they preferred. People who purchased the entire pack could have done so again if they chose, people who purchased random Licenses could have done so again if they chose, people who preferred to buy the exact skin could have done so, etc. Win for the players, win for Anet's reputation. The only loss would have been to Anet's wallet which is why they didn't do it.

 

As we have seen from the financials people have posted, Anet is not hurting for money. They have actually hired 100 people recently. So I don't know why they are resorting to locking all mount skins behind sleazy gambling boxes except to be greedy.

[ProtoGunner.4953]

> @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> > @ProtoGunner.4953 said:

> > The whole griffon mount collection takes 4-5 hours and 250g is really not that much to get.

>

> In your opinion. I know lots of people who think 250 gold is a large sum of gold. Hell I think it is alot of money.

 

At this point I had only about 500g left, so I went down to 250 and on day later I was up to 300 again. Sorry, but no, it's not much. You get money faster than you think. Of course not if you play 1h per week. But that's a question of relativity. There are people who have 100'000g and btw the highest I had was around 2k gold, but then again I have about 7 legendaries, so everyone it's own.

 

Besides that 250g is 15€/$ which is about the same price I pay for two beers. It's the other way around if you really want it.

[Djinn.9245]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> 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.

 

Great point. Perhaps that's why GW2 was originally created to not have paid expansions at all.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> One thing I wonder is, I used to use Efficiency, but didn't for a while, and then I think the API changed, and now I go on and can't see my data? Maybe that happened for a bunch of people, their content is no longer being tracked or something? I don't know how it all works.

 

That happens only when there is a major API update but it depends on the message you get, if you see "API key invalid" you need to re-input your API key, if you see that your account hasn't been crawled yet then you need to wait a bit for that to happen. It's why the total players count is different based on the statistic you use. It should be the same but it's not.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @Devata.6589 said:

> If many of those active players did not get PoF that speaks for the idea of it splitting up the community. If by far most of the active players did buy PoF that speaks against the idea of expansions splitting the community up. Therefore, if gw2efficiency has a way to see active vs inactive players you should be able to get the required information.

>

 

The problem with that is defining who is an "active" player in a game without a subscription fee. And that's the main issue with any comparison that require the total of all "active" players.

[kurfu.5623]

Dumping 30 skins all at once, at this time of year, sounds like someone is trying to boost 4Q numbers...

 

It's a shame, really, those 30 skins could have been sold as packs spread out over the next year.

But nope, all that hard work from the art team got dumped into a cash-driven RNG loot box all at once.

[Djinn.9245]

> @Rashagar.8349 said:

> > @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.

>

>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.

 

I again find it interesting that you can come to such definitive conclusions - do you happen to work for Anet Marketing to know for a fact what their motive was? I say definitively that their motive was to make more money off mount skins than they would have if they sold them individually by manipulating players with a gamble box. Nothing more. Do you have evidence to prove my statement wrong?

 

>Calling it a "corrupt gambling scheme" doesn't make it one, that's imbuing their actions with a motive

 

There have been many articles over the years and very recently that prove that gamble boxes manipulate the player both psychologically and chemically. I don't see what else you can call it but corrupt when you are talking about manipulating people into spending more money.

[Djinn.9245]

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> 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._

 

You haven't seen the huge number of posts that are exactly like this? O.o

[Djinn.9245]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Rashagar.8349 said:

> >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.

>

> I don't acknowledge that as a valid premise. A skin is art. It is a thing that people value for its aesthetics. You cannot say "this skin is for these players, not for those players," the skin has to be for anyone that like the skin. It'd be like opening a restaurant that serves burgers and also chicken, but has a weird rule that you can order burgers off the menu, but if you want chicken, the only way to get it is off an RNG roll with 29 other food items, some of them salads. It's just nonsensical.

>

> If people like RNG, fine, give them RNG, but don't make it the ONLY way to acquire that thing. I highly doubt that there is a single player in GW2's community who believes that the RNG mount box *should* be the only method of acquiring them, that they could *only* enjoy getting the skin they want by participating in an RNG loot box to earn it. I think that if you could acquire them individually as well, it would only *heighten* the experience for fans of RNG, since they could get that feeling that they';d "beat the odds" and got a 800gem skin for half the price. I just don't see a "they had to give something to the poor RNG fans out there" argument as a good faith position, it just comes across as a Potemkin village.

 

In fact, the majority of posts I read where people did purchase licenses and were happy with their purchase still stated that they thought it was wrong that the skins were only available that way, or stated that they didn't actually like the RNG wall.

[Asum.4960]

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> For a start - I used a figure of speech when I said 'playing with mount boxes'.

 

Well, how language is used matters, see PR talk.

 

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> Players do have choice - buy license tickets or don't.

 

Gamble or get out of here, what a fantastic consumer choice that is, I mean, come on.

 

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> I farmed mats and sold mats I'd been hoarding in my bank. It sets me back for other projects but acquiring all the mounts was worth the sacrifice to me.

>

> I am a Veteran player having played since Beta.

 

So unlike stated, you didn't actually make that money to get the mount in that time at all, you already had it and just liquidized your assets.

That won't be the case for newer players.

Playing since the first Beta as well, I had saved up 1000 Gold for the expansion and was able to get the Griffon within 7 days of launch, doesn't mean I can't empathize with those in a different situation, especially after this lootbox situation unlocking skins for things people may not be able to acquire in months, or even never intended to at all.

 

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> I don't expect ArenaNet to give me stuff just because I want it. I pick and choose what is important to me and have the patience to put the time and effort into getting it.

 

Has anyone actually demanded to just get all these skins unlocked, free of charge or effort put into the game?

How does this old and sorry entitlement "argument" apply to people asking to buy something of their choosing for good cash?

The ability to pick and choose, and then put in the time, effort or money is precisely what people are asking for.

 

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> If I want a particular mount skin from the current collection, ArenaNet have provided a way for me to get it. I don't like the method so I won't be playing the odds. I've voiced my opinion on how I'd like to see things in future but it is by no means a deal breaker for me if something cosmetic for my mounts is never something I acquire. I don't feel entitled, cheated, misled, manipulated or extorted. It is what it is and that is that.

 

And that is perfectly fine, nobody demands you to be outraged.

You just seem very sensitive about your opinion being evaluated while criticising everybody with a different opinion from yours, that's all.

[Djinn.9245]

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> I farmed mats and sold mats I'd been hoarding in my bank. It sets me back for other projects but acquiring all the mounts was worth the sacrifice to me.

 

>I am a Veteran player having played since Beta. I am not wealthy money wise, I don't have every item that ever appeared in the gem store, possess only one legendary which I finally managed to craft earlier this year. I don't have a full home instance but I have enough to get a farming daily done. I don't expect ArenaNet to give me stuff just because I want it.

 

We're talking about the Store here - no one expects Anet to "give" them what they want. They just want the opportunity to fairly pay for what they want instead of spending their precious gold or cash on a CHANCE at what they want. It sounds like you were mainly fine with getting the licenses because you decided to simply get the entire package. And that is great for you. But for those who don't want the entire package and will never want all of the mount skins in that package, there is no reasonable way to purchase only the 1 or few that they do want.

 

[Djinn.9245]

> @Fireballer.2956 said:

> BUT I can say one good thing arenanet, is that you guys responded to us at the very least and you did and say this will stop but ill have to see on how far you guys actually improve to gain my trust

 

All Anet said was that they wouldn't add any more mounts to THIS random box. They didn't promise anything else.

[Djinn.9245]

> @ProtoGunner.4953 said:

> > @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> > > @ProtoGunner.4953 said:

> > > The whole griffon mount collection takes 4-5 hours and 250g is really not that much to get.

> >

> > In your opinion. I know lots of people who think 250 gold is a large sum of gold. Hell I think it is alot of money.

>

> At this point I had only about 500g left, so I went down to 250 and on day later I was up to 300 again. Sorry, but no, it's not much. You get money faster than you think. Of course not if you play 1h per week. But that's a question of relativity. There are people who have 100'000g and btw the highest I had was around 2k gold, but then again I have about 7 legendaries, so everyone it's own.

>

> Besides that 250g is 15€/$ which is about the same price I pay for two beers. It's the other way around if you really want it.

 

The fact that you can make 50 gold in 1 day doesn't mean that everyone else can. I've been playing since beta and I couldn't make 50 gold in one day if I tried.