fizzypetal.7936 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Asum.4960 said: > > @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. I am not a PR person so how I speak is how I speak. Each person will have an interpretation of what I write - I can't control that. But I can step up and say hey, this is or isn't what I meant in what I wrote. That isn't being sensitive, that is wanting my intention understood. What is being missed through a lot of the posts that I've read is that players do have a choice. They just don't like the choice on offer. It doesn't make ArenaNet scammers or predators for putting a choice out there people don't like. I didn't just liquidate assets. Like I said I farmed and sold what I farmed on the trading post. I still had to put in time to acquire the mount. And aggro. The mob respawn and cc is just crazy at some of the places you need to get to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzypetal.7936 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Djinn.9245 said: > > @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. > I'd like to know where I said I bought the pack of licences? I haven't touched them. I can't afford them. There is a skin I want but I don't want to spend my gems gambling. It is a bummer but not a deal breaker for me as I've said before. I'm hoping skins will come out in future not locked behind RNG in the same way the 30 are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @fizzypetal.7936 said: > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > @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. > > > > I'd like to know where I said I bought the pack of licences? See below: > @fizzypetal.7936 said: > 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. Maybe you were talking about the actual mounts? But since the subject here is the SKINS, I of course assumed that was what you were talking about. > > I haven't touched them. I can't afford them. There is a skin I want but I don't want to spend my gems gambling. It is a bummer but not a deal breaker for me as I've said before. I'm hoping skins will come out in future not locked behind RNG in the same way the 30 are now. 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: > > >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. > > You're entitled to your perspective of the situation. Obviously I disagree. I did have a bit of a chuckle at the hypocrisy of "their perspective is as valid to them as yours is to you" followed a few posts later by "You're just wrong" though haha! Now here's why I disagree. And why you haven't even come close to showing my stance as "wrong". =P > >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. I can choose to not acknowledge that the sky is blue but sticking my head in the sand doesn't change it's colour to anyone else. >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. I was not saying "this skin is for these players, not for those players" so this entire paragraph is irrelevant as it's not actually referencing something I said, I was saying this *release method* is for the players who enjoy this style of release method, not for the players that don't. A skin's aesthetic value or position as art does not have any bearing on that position. > 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. And here you're agreeing with me again while pretending that it refutes my stance. I have already stated and reiterated my belief that it would be better if both methods were available. So this whole paragraph, again, does not address anything I actually *said*. The point, since it seemed to pass you by, is not that they "had to give something to the poor RNG fans out there", it's that they prioritised a different paying demographic than the one you are a part of. That does not make it a corrupt practice. > >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." > I read it, yes. And my post you chopped up already addressed this point of your's. Interestingly you didn't include the part where I addressed it in your reply though, hmm... > > 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. > It's not a stretch of the imagination to imagine it means anything else, it is however extreme tunnel vision and a failure of imagination to imagine that it only means what you claim it to mean. > 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. This is a question of what they are personally "worth" to you, which is an entirely subjective opinion and not at all related to the discussion when it comes to you defending your claim of it being a corrupt practice from being challenged. > >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. > Again, you're just calling it one here. This paragraph has no substance except to reiterate your belief. It is not fact. Saying something is alcohol is a factual statement. What you are saying about it being corrupt, is not. But look, I can do it too... > >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. It is not a corrupt gambling scheme. No evidence required since no evidence in opposition was provided. > 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? Well, since you asked, off the top of my head: It is not a trick if you believe that the people in your target demographic (ie. the ones who enjoy the rng element) are the ones doing the majority of the purchasing. Which would be a reasonable belief to have. Claiming it can only be a trick is, at best, another failure of imagination. At worst, a self-affirming cyclical argument. (That is, you're using the above quote to justify your perspective, but you're basing your justifications on the assumption that your perspective is the only justifiable one.) > 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. > Your idea of fair is different from everyone else's. (Someone's idea of fair could be that you always get a unique skin and are offered the same opportunities to get the skin you want as anyone else is) Your idea of value for money is different from everyone else's. (One person's definition of "good value" could be 400 gems for the non-rng variety while another person's idea of could be 1600) So if the only way this rng system is designated as not corrupt is through the use of these subjective concepts, then how can you claim that your definition of corrupt is not in turn subjective? And if you now claim that it is subjective after all, how can you claim that my definition is "wrong"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWolf.8670 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @ProtoGunner.4953 said: > > @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? Lazy? What if he didn't want the damned griffon? It's optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzypetal.7936 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Djinn.9245 said: > > @fizzypetal.7936 said: > > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > > @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. > > > > > > > I'd like to know where I said I bought the pack of licences? > > See below: > > @fizzypetal.7936 said: > > 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. > > Maybe you were talking about the actual mounts? But since the subject here is the SKINS, I of course assumed that was what you were talking about. > > > > > I haven't touched them. I can't afford them. There is a skin I want but I don't want to spend my gems gambling. It is a bummer but not a deal breaker for me as I've said before. I'm hoping skins will come out in future not locked behind RNG in the same way the 30 are now. I was replying to your statements in order (I think) but hadn't included what you'd said which is why it looks out of context and caused confusion. Apologies. I farmed mats and sold mats I'd had in my bank to acquire all of the original mounts (not skins but the mounts), including the Griffon. My point in mentioning the Griffon was because many have complained they are getting Griffon skins when they don't have a Griffon. I was trying to put across that it isn't impossible and it is very achievable if you're willing to put the effort in. I can't afford the pack of 30 licenses and am not willing to farm more gold for those as there are only specific mounts I want. I also don't want to pay real money for them - they few that I want really are not worth that much to me. I don't like the RNG loot box situation either - RNG luck is rubbish so for me so I don't even want to try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashagar.8349 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Djinn.9245 said: > > @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? Not at all, my point is that alternative explanations for their motives exist than ones of "corrupt manipulating". I don't have to provide evidence that your statement is wrong because I'm not denying that your's is also possible. If you want to bring evidence into this then you would have to provide evidence why my statement cannot be right. > > >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. I've already told you that if this is your definition of corrupt then coffee is also a corrupt substance. If you're just going to post the same drivel again I'll just go back and copy/paste my original retort into a reply and we can go round and round in circles all day if you really want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombyturtle.5980 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 I see alot of people in feedback threads saying they are somewhat satisfied with Mikes statement on mount skins because they promise the RNG wont happen again. You are wrong. There will be more RNG lootboxes for mounts in the gemstore in the future. > Mikes quote: I want to confirm to you that **our next planned mount skin releases** will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack. We will not **add any skins to the currently available** Adoption License, thus not pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin **in that set**. > Look carefully at the bolded parts. Only the NEXT skin release is guaranteed to be RNG free. The ones **after** that he doesnt mention at all and could easily be RNG again. They wont add more skins to THAT SET meaning its likely there will be other RNG sets in the future. Anet has basically said we listened to you and decided to do nothing. We will release individual skins in the next gemstore update and then go back to whatever we originally planned. Whether you agree or disagree with lootboxes, make sure you can read through the PR speak and understand what is actually being promised here by Anet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @fizzypetal.7936 said: > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > @fizzypetal.7936 said: > > > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > > > @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. > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to know where I said I bought the pack of licences? > > > > See below: > > > @fizzypetal.7936 said: > > > 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. > > > > Maybe you were talking about the actual mounts? But since the subject here is the SKINS, I of course assumed that was what you were talking about. > > > > > > > > I haven't touched them. I can't afford them. There is a skin I want but I don't want to spend my gems gambling. It is a bummer but not a deal breaker for me as I've said before. I'm hoping skins will come out in future not locked behind RNG in the same way the 30 are now. > > I was replying to your statements in order (I think) but hadn't included what you'd said which is why it looks out of context and caused confusion. Apologies. > > I farmed mats and sold mats I'd had in my bank to acquire all of the original mounts (not skins but the mounts), including the Griffon. My point in mentioning the Griffon was because many have complained they are getting Griffon skins when they don't have a Griffon. I was trying to put across that it isn't impossible and it is very achievable if you're willing to put the effort in. I don't think that stating you got a skin for a mount you don't own means you don't own it because it isn't achievable. 250 gold is a lot - maybe they just don't want to spend it. Maybe they have other priorities to spend it on. Maybe they are fine with just gliding. There could be many reasons why players might not currently have, or even never want to get, the griffon. Whatever their reason, "you could get the griffon" is not an appropriate response to getting a skin for something you don't even have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghanto.9784 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 I'm wondering about this line, "You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price." So does this mean that we'll be able to buy only the skins we want in the future but for some reason they'll have to cost "substantially" more because there's no randomness involved? Hmm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pah.4931 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 PSA: Anet will continue to try to make their game profitable. What's wrong with choices? Seems like you don't want others to be able to enjoy the game just because they enjoy it differently than you. Some people like loot boxes. It makes lots of money. And they will release non loot box mount skins in the future. Everybody wins and you're still upset. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Ghanto.9784 said: > I'm wondering about this line, "You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price." > > So does this mean that we'll be able to buy only the skins we want in the future but for some reason they'll have to cost "substantially" more because there's no randomness involved? Hmm.... That might be a possibility if Mike didn't already state: > @"Mike O Brien.4613" said: > We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made This implies that they won't sell the skins that are currently in the gamble box individually as that would mean that the players who already gambled to try to get a skin they wanted could have instead purchased that skin outright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devata.6589 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @maddoctor.2738 said: > > @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. Players, who are really playing, so let us say at minimal play 3 hours a week for at least a month. The thing is, when a player is not really playing, he is also not really split up from other people by not having an expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menadena.7482 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @GreyWolf.8670 said: > > @ProtoGunner.4953 said: > > > @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? > > Lazy? What if he didn't want the damned griffon? It's optional. Exactly, nowhere in the story are you required to have it. The only place I can think of in all of Tyria is one POF HP. It might be fun to whoosh around places where you can get up high but most places it is just optional content. I am another person that has not bothered to do the griffon quest. The cost is not a problem, I just have other things to do besides it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syktek.7912 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 And I will continue to not buy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endless Soul.5178 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > Some people like loot boxes. Out of all my gaming friends, I can't think of a single one that actually likes RNG lootboxes. Obviously this is anecdotal, so if there really are people who like lootboxes, who are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inculpatus cedo.9234 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 It seems the quote says _releaseS_, not release. It's best to quote the actual statement, rather than editing. Regardless, time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loosifah.4738 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 I personally have no issues with RNG loot boxes so long as duplicates aren't a thing and they're not that expensive. Though with the current mount ones I wish they'd separate them by mount so I don't keep getting crappy skimmer skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombyturtle.5980 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > It seems the quote says _releaseS_, not release. It's best to quote the actual statement, rather than editing. > > Regardless, time will tell. I did quote that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghanto.9784 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Djinn.9245 said: > > @Ghanto.9784 said: > > I'm wondering about this line, "You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price." > > > > So does this mean that we'll be able to buy only the skins we want in the future but for some reason they'll have to cost "substantially" more because there's no randomness involved? Hmm.... > > That might be a possibility if Mike didn't already state: > > > @"Mike O Brien.4613" said: > > We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made > > This implies that they won't sell the skins that are currently in the gamble box individually as that would mean that the players who already gambled to try to get a skin they wanted could have instead purchased that skin outright. Yeah, I figure that will be the case. Seems short-sighted to me, though. I think there's a good chance they'd make more money in the long run selling any new mount skins for about the same price as their random loot box skins. Many people would probably buy at least _several_ skins at a cheaper price, whereas after a substantial price hike many people - probably most - will buy far fewer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witcher.3197 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 https://imgur.com/gallery/peMyH Just substitute EA with Anet and it's the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaeys.3102 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 At this point, I think the damage has been done. At the same time, Anet's response makes sense and I can live with it - as long as they don't make it any worse. The telling part will be what comes next. Most obvious - they need to stay away from RNG on the store as much as possible. What we really need now are some well designed and reasonably priced (1000 gems or less) mount skins on the gem store. Let the "adoption license" be something we can work toward unlocking throughout the next year or two (which I will probably do with in game gold until I luck upon all the skins I want). They need to show us their consumer friendly side right now. It is what we've come to expect from this company and this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deihnyx.6318 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @witcher.3197 said: > https://imgur.com/gallery/peMyH > > Just substitute EA with Anet and it's the same thing. It's really, really not at the level of EA. EA's Battlefront has PAY TO WIN elements. People are just blowing it up out of proportion after having been mostly ok with it for 5 years. Way too happy to jump on the shame shame shame bandwagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizzypetal.7936 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Djinn.9245 said: > > @fizzypetal.7936 said: > > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > > @fizzypetal.7936 said: > > > > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > > > > @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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to know where I said I bought the pack of licences? > > > > > > See below: > > > > @fizzypetal.7936 said: > > > > 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. > > > > > > Maybe you were talking about the actual mounts? But since the subject here is the SKINS, I of course assumed that was what you were talking about. > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't touched them. I can't afford them. There is a skin I want but I don't want to spend my gems gambling. It is a bummer but not a deal breaker for me as I've said before. I'm hoping skins will come out in future not locked behind RNG in the same way the 30 are now. > > > > I was replying to your statements in order (I think) but hadn't included what you'd said which is why it looks out of context and caused confusion. Apologies. > > > > I farmed mats and sold mats I'd had in my bank to acquire all of the original mounts (not skins but the mounts), including the Griffon. My point in mentioning the Griffon was because many have complained they are getting Griffon skins when they don't have a Griffon. I was trying to put across that it isn't impossible and it is very achievable if you're willing to put the effort in. > > I don't think that stating you got a skin for a mount you don't own means you don't own it because it isn't achievable. 250 gold is a lot - maybe they just don't want to spend it. Maybe they have other priorities to spend it on. Maybe they are fine with just gliding. There could be many reasons why players might not currently have, or even never want to get, the griffon. Whatever their reason, "you could get the griffon" is not an appropriate response to getting a skin for something you don't even have. If there is going to be constructive dialogue, attacking ArenaNet and other players just isn't the way forward. So yeah, I'm going to draw a line under this and call it good as I don't have time to quadruple check myself before I put words out there that can be taken out of context when it comes to the broader conversation. I know what I meant and what my intentions were - I'm good with that. Ciao!! ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > It seems the quote says _releaseS_, not release. It's best to quote the actual statement, rather than editing. > > Regardless, time will tell. True, but it says "planned releases" - if they are already in the planning stages, then Anet isn't making any changes, they already planned that the next releases would be individual or sets. But of course they don't make any statement about future releases that are not already in planning. As you say, time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts