A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[Ohoni.6057]

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> From where I sit it looks like you're quoting specific sentences from my post and bending them to fit your narrative. I have my perspective, you have yours.

 

Ok, but again, *where* did I get it wrong? My impression was that the quotes I snipped out (for brevity and specificity rather than deliberate misdirection) were emblematic of primary points on which I believed we disagreed. In what way did I miss the mark on that?

[Kapax.3801]

Continue with this topic? They have already spent more than a week and they will not do anything ... I do not know why they are still in this lost cause, the director of the game said that they were not going to make changes now, but maybe if later ...

 

Now you should only think of the Christmas skins, which are sure to do the same as in Halloween, put the five designs in a single package and sell them to 1,600 gems (on offer).

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Kapax.3801 said:

> Continue with this topic? They have already spent more than a week and they will not do anything ... I do not know why they are still in this lost cause, the director of the game said that they were not going to make changes now, but maybe if later ...

>

> Now you should only think of the Christmas skins, which are sure to do the same as in Halloween, put the five designs in a single package and sell them to 1,600 gems (on offer).

 

Later is later, but they need to do something about the CURRENT skins, because the current ones include some that people will ALWAYS want to have (unless they somehow just start releasing ones that are practically identical yet different enough that they can claim they are "different."

 

The next set of skins might be fine and all, but I need that shibi.

[Kapax.3801]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Kapax.3801 said:

> > Continue with this topic? They have already spent more than a week and they will not do anything ... I do not know why they are still in this lost cause, the director of the game said that they were not going to make changes now, but maybe if later ...

> >

> > Now you should only think of the Christmas skins, which are sure to do the same as in Halloween, put the five designs in a single package and sell them to 1,600 gems (on offer).

>

> Later is later, but they need to do something about the CURRENT skins, because the current ones include some that people will ALWAYS want to have (unless they somehow just start releasing ones that are practically identical yet different enough that they can claim they are "different."

>

> The next set of skins might be fine and all, but I need that shibi.

 

It was clear that they will not do anything with a lot of current skins, but if they would look for another way to sell skins without falling into the RNG (I doubt it, but good)

 

[Djinn.9245]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Kapax.3801 said:

> > Continue with this topic? They have already spent more than a week and they will not do anything ... I do not know why they are still in this lost cause, the director of the game said that they were not going to make changes now, but maybe if later ...

> >

> > Now you should only think of the Christmas skins, which are sure to do the same as in Halloween, put the five designs in a single package and sell them to 1,600 gems (on offer).

>

> Later is later, but they need to do something about the CURRENT skins, because the current ones include some that people will ALWAYS want to have (unless they somehow just start releasing ones that are practically identical yet different enough that they can claim they are "different."

>

> The next set of skins might be fine and all, but I need that shibi.

 

Unfortunately MO already said that they won't invalidate the purchases of those who bought licenses. So I doubt they are going to offer any of these 30 licenses separately or there will be more outcry.

 

I also don't want any skins (like holiday skins) in a set for all mounts. I don't want to pay for ANY skins that I'm not going to use. I don't use all the mounts equally so I only want to purchase skins for the mounts I use the most. That said, I'm fairly certain that holiday packages will continue because its about money, not player choice.

[JackOfAllGames.2409]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> It is unfortunate that you already purchased some licenses in the pursuit of the 6 you want, because the numbers on getting what you want are not good. Here is an article with the detailed math on the RNG:

>

>

>

> Which ultimately boils down to:

> "If you want more than 3 specific skins, it is on average more cost efficient to just buy the 30 pack"

 

What you're saying makes sense in a vacuum, but I was going to be happy with whatever I got. Each skin offers some fun options and I only dislike a few of them. While I'm hoping to get some specific skins, that's long-term. And I'm not about to dump something like $120 into an MMO this time of year. I got a few skins to start. Got two of the skins I'd been after. Later, I bought a couple more skins and found myself with at least one skin of each mount type that I can fully dye. That's great in my book!

 

> Given that you agree with many that $20 / skin is too much, how much will you have to spend in the gamble box to get the 6 skins you want?

 

Sorry, but you're WAAAAAY too focused on that number 6. It's not like everything outside of that 6 is without value. (This isn't a black lion chest. ;) )

 

> They have removed the 30 skin deal for 9600 gems (320/skin) so now there is only the 10 packs at 3400 gems (340/skin). But there is really no point to purchasing a 10 pack since if you happen to get lucky you will end up with additional licenses you don't need. So it seems you are stuck buying them 1 by 1. I don't know how many you've already purchased, but how much cash are you willing to spend to get your 6 skins?

 

I'm willing to toss $10-20 at the game per month that I'm playing regularly (as has been my habit). ANet doesn't charge a lot for this game so I support it when I can. In exchange, I get fun stuff and some ease-of-life stuff. To put it another way, if I only ever bought those exact 6 mount skins for 2000 gems apiece (let's hope that's not the normal price), I'm looking at 12000 gems, costing $150. You know what else costs that? Buying all 30 mount adoption licenses 1 at a time. Except EVERY time I spend 400 gems, I get something new and fun. It may not be the thing I was hoping for, but that doesn't make it BAD. Some character of mine will at least try it out for a while. Further, that's if I'm unlucky with the draws and have to put in the full 12000 gems. I could always get lucky and need fewer. (...but if not, it really doesn't matter. I'll end up with 24 extra mounts in the end. Some of which I'll also learn to like after trying out some dyes.)

 

You seem to be approaching this, thinking that I'm unaware of my situation and getting ripped off. While I didn't bother to do the math, I'm roughly aware of my chances. My finances. How much I want to put toward a game. I like variety (in this context, I get a bunch of mount options) and paying a little bit into the game as I play. This mount adoption setup seems ideal to me (and I'm VERY happy with what I've gotten so far). I'm sorry that it's not to your liking as well.

 

 

[Sarrs.4831]

Hi Mike! I love you but I'm honestly a little worried about this.

 

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

> * At a time when there’s a lot of debate about random boxes in gaming, we should have anticipated that a new system with a random element would cause alarm.

 

This honestly really reads to me like 'I'm sorry that you took offense'.

 

I usually like to give you guys the benefit of the doubt and I hope that you will earn it. Please rethink this, and the other lootbox models in the game. GW2 prides itself on breaking from convention - RNG lootboxes are now a market convention!

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Kapax.3801 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > @Kapax.3801 said:

> > > Continue with this topic? They have already spent more than a week and they will not do anything ... I do not know why they are still in this lost cause, the director of the game said that they were not going to make changes now, but maybe if later ...

> > >

> > > Now you should only think of the Christmas skins, which are sure to do the same as in Halloween, put the five designs in a single package and sell them to 1,600 gems (on offer).

> >

> > Later is later, but they need to do something about the CURRENT skins, because the current ones include some that people will ALWAYS want to have (unless they somehow just start releasing ones that are practically identical yet different enough that they can claim they are "different."

> >

> > The next set of skins might be fine and all, but I need that shibi.

>

> It was clear that they will not do anything with a lot of current skins, but if they would look for another way to sell skins without falling into the RNG (I doubt it, but good)

>

 

And again, **that is an unacceptable response.** They can do better next time, that's all well and good, but they **still need to make the CURRENT skins available outside the gamble boxes.**

 

Period.

 

> @Djinn.9245 said:

>Unfortunately MO already said that they won't invalidate the purchases of those who bought licenses. So I doubt they are going to offer any of these 30 licenses separately or there will be more outcry.

 

Well too bad, because this will not go away until they DO fix it. They will have to make it up to people who have already purchased, and the longer they allow this to go on, the more people they will have to make it up to, but they STILL need to fix this. Not fix next time, next time is next time. They need to fix THIS time.

 

**EA** was willing to change course and actually fix the problems related to their **current** state of the game. How can any company on earth say with any degree of pride,

 

**"EA** did a better job at handling this than we did."

[Djinn.9245]

> @JackOfAllGames.2409 said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > It is unfortunate that you already purchased some licenses in the pursuit of the 6 you want, because the numbers on getting what you want are not good. Here is an article with the detailed math on the RNG:

> >

> >

> >

> > Which ultimately boils down to:

> > "If you want more than 3 specific skins, it is on average more cost efficient to just buy the 30 pack"

>

> What you're saying makes sense in a vacuum, but I was going to be happy with whatever I got.

 

My comment isn't based on a vacuum, it is based on the fact that you said you wanted 6 specific skins. Since you really are fine with whatever, that's great. But please don't act like I'm obsessed - I was trying to be helpful.

[Djinn.9245]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Kapax.3801 said:

> > > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > > @Kapax.3801 said:

> > > > Continue with this topic? They have already spent more than a week and they will not do anything ... I do not know why they are still in this lost cause, the director of the game said that they were not going to make changes now, but maybe if later ...

> > > >

> > > > Now you should only think of the Christmas skins, which are sure to do the same as in Halloween, put the five designs in a single package and sell them to 1,600 gems (on offer).

> > >

> > > Later is later, but they need to do something about the CURRENT skins, because the current ones include some that people will ALWAYS want to have (unless they somehow just start releasing ones that are practically identical yet different enough that they can claim they are "different."

> > >

> > > The next set of skins might be fine and all, but I need that shibi.

> >

> > It was clear that they will not do anything with a lot of current skins, but if they would look for another way to sell skins without falling into the RNG (I doubt it, but good)

> >

>

> And again, **that is an unacceptable response.** They can do better next time, that's all well and good, but they **still need to make the CURRENT skins available outside the gamble boxes.**

>

> Period.

>

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> >Unfortunately MO already said that they won't invalidate the purchases of those who bought licenses. So I doubt they are going to offer any of these 30 licenses separately or there will be more outcry.

>

> Well too bad, because this will not go away until they DO fix it. They will have to make it up to people who have already purchased, and the longer they allow this to go on, the more people they will have to make it up to, but they STILL need to fix this. Not fix next time, next time is next time. They need to fix THIS time.

>

> **EA** was willing to change course and actually fix the problems related to their **current** state of the game. How can any company on earth say with any degree of pride,

>

> **"EA** did a better job at handling this than we did."

 

Oh I completely agree that this is unacceptable. I just don't have any hope at all that Anet will fix it. Unfortunately.

[MachineManXX.9746]

I'm quite satisfied with the response. I'm also disgusted with some of the player base for the childish response they have shown. Spoiled children is what comes to mind. This game absolutely does not fall into any pay to win category, and for that I applaud Anet. Sure it's a bit of a cash grab, but it's a win win for Anet and for those who choose to participate. If you don't want to take a chance on a mount skin, then quite simply, don't! Wait for something else to come along that you don't have to take a chance on.

[JackOfAllGames.2409]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> My comment isn't based on a vacuum

I...didn't say that you based it on nothing. I said it made sense in a vacuum - without external factors. I think you misunderstood me there.

> it is based on the fact that you said you wanted 6 specific skins.

Hmm. How do I put this? I did want roughly 6 of those skins when I started getting those, but wanting one thing doesn't keep me from enjoying what I have. Does that make sense? All of the skins in that set are superior to the 2-dye-channel versions you get for free. It's fun to experiment with whatever does pop out - see what different dyes can do with them.

> Since you really are fine with whatever, that's great. But please don't act like I'm obsessed - I was trying to be helpful.

Uhh...what? Sorry, but you're not making sense to me. I suspect we're just on different trains of thought here. I think my general opinion goes back to what I said before - it's possible to both want something and be happy with what you have (or get). I'm happy with what I have and will probably continue putting money into the random mount set over time (since I'm always guaranteed something new).

[Djinn.9245]

> @JackOfAllGames.2409 said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > My comment isn't based on a vacuum

> I...didn't say that you based it on nothing. I said it made sense in a vacuum - without external factors. I think you misunderstood me there.

> > it is based on the fact that you said you wanted 6 specific skins.

> Hmm. How do I put this? I did want roughly 6 of those skins when I started getting those, but wanting one thing doesn't keep me from enjoying what I have. Does that make sense? All of the skins in that set are superior to the 2-dye-channel versions you get for free. It's fun to experiment with whatever does pop out - see what different dyes can do with them.

 

If you say you want 6 skins, that is very specific. You didn't say that you'd like a few random skins or that you wanted 6 *Licenses*. So that implies that you want something specific. If that's not really what you meant, that's fine. No problem. But that is what you said and I responded based on that.

 

> > Since you really are fine with whatever, that's great. But please don't act like I'm obsessed - I was trying to be helpful.

> Uhh...what? Sorry, but you're not making sense to me. I suspect we're just on different trains of thought here. I think my general opinion goes back to what I said before - it's possible to both want something and be happy with what you have (or get). I'm happy with what I have and will probably continue putting money into the random mount set over time (since I'm always guaranteed something new).

 

You stated that I was obsessed and I said I wasn't. I don't know what doesn't make sense about that. So yes, there must be some kind of language barrier.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @MachineManXX.9746 said:

> I'm quite satisfied with the response. I'm also disgusted with some of the player base for the childish response they have shown. Spoiled children is what comes to mind. This game absolutely does not fall into any pay to win category, and for that I applaud Anet. Sure it's a bit of a cash grab, but it's a win win for Anet and for those who choose to participate. If you don't want to take a chance on a mount skin, then quite simply, don't! Wait for something else to come along that you don't have to take a chance on.

 

Well of course it's a win/win for ANet and those who choose "to participate" (by which I assume you mean spend $120 to clear out the store). For everyone else it's lose/lose, and they matter too.

 

>Wait for something else to come along that you don't have to take a chance on.

 

That *entirely misses the point.* Of course there will be other things later, but what about people who want THESE things? What if the skin you want is one of *these* skins? Other things coming later will do absolutely nothing to make that any better. Why do people keep saying this as if it is at all relevant to people's complaints?

[maddoctor.2738]

> @Astralporing.1957 said:

> ...and yet they still did a better job than Anet. Because they 've actually done _something_ (even if it may end up being only temporary).

>

 

I'm not sure Anet can do anything anyway about the current mount adoption deal because if they allowed purchase of separate skins that would upset everyone who already got through the randomness. What they CAN do (and remains to be seen) if they scrap this idea forever and future gem stores additions do not follow this pattern.

Personally I hate all their recent ideas, first putting things in Bundles so I can't buy just what I want, and now putting things in bad random boxes so, once again, I can't get what I want. No to mention the bundles for the mounts also contain random element.

 

Give players the chance to buy what they want, when they want, and then offer a bundle, for those who want all available options, at a heavy discount.

 

> @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> See, your facts are immaterial to me, or anyone who does not raid. At least here, I'm not renting the game to fund content exclusively for other people.

 

Although their "argument of 10+ raid wings vs 1 raid wing is flawed because players in GW2 aren't looking for so many Raids, you can see it in another way. Dungeons and Raids are by design repeatable content, but there is more than that in Guild Wars 2, like meta events with huge replay value. How many good rewarding, worth repeating, meta events did we get with Path of Fire? How much content to keep players interested in the long run did we get with Path of Fire? That's a better way to compare things. WoW adds Raids and Dungeons to keep players interested in the long run, GW2 adds meta events.

[Djinn.9245]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > @Astralporing.1957 said:

> > ...and yet they still did a better job than Anet. Because they 've actually done _something_ (even if it may end up being only temporary).

> >

> I'm not sure Anet can do anything anyway about the current mount adoption deal because if they allowed purchase of separate skins that would upset everyone who already got through the randomness.

 

If they had acted quickly, they could have done what many people suggested:

1. Completely remove the licenses and all of the mount skins from the licenses completely from the game.

2. Return all gems that purchased licenses.

3. Reintroduced the skins to the gemstore as individual skins from 500 -1000 gems (depending on quality or demand or whatever)

4. Reintroduce at the same time the licenses if Anet still wanted to offer the gamble box AT THE SAME TIME AS AN INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.

5. Now everyone who purchased licenses can choose to either re-purchase licenses or purchase individual skins.

 

> What they CAN do (and remains to be seen) if they scrap this idea forever and future gem stores additions do not follow this pattern.

> Personally I hate all their recent ideas, first putting things in Bundles so I can't buy just what I want, and now putting things in bad random boxes so, once again, I can't get what I want. No to mention the bundles for the mounts also contain random element.

>

I agree.

 

> Give players the chance to buy what they want, when they want, and then offer a bundle, for those who want all available options, at a heavy discount.

>

> > @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> > See, your facts are immaterial to me, or anyone who does not raid. At least here, I'm not renting the game to fund content exclusively for other people.

>

> Although their "argument of 10+ raid wings vs 1 raid wing is flawed because players in GW2 aren't looking for so many Raids, you can see it in another way. Dungeons and Raids are by design repeatable content, but there is more than that in Guild Wars 2, like meta events with huge replay value. How many good rewarding, worth repeating, meta events did we get with Path of Fire? How much content to keep players interested in the long run did we get with Path of Fire? That's a better way to compare things. WoW adds Raids and Dungeons to keep players interested in the long run, GW2 adds meta events.

 

Good points.

[Menadena.7482]

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> I personally prefer ArenaNet make statements when they are ready to make and honour them. If it is a long pause in between communications, I'm good with that.

 

Being a programmer somewhere else I have quite the opposite view. When there is a problem I communicate with the affected users as often as possible, even if there is no news other than 'n people are working on it and did xyz towards the resolution' since the last time I saw them. Some people may see it as I am wasting my time (the argument is the users should identify a problem and I eventually will send an email saying it was fixed) but I know if I was in their shoes I would want that information, especially if what I thought was a couple hour fix will be days.

[Andy.5981]

Quite a long thread now and I'm not sure if this has been discussed. When PoF came out and I got my first mount, the Raptor, I was quite surprised at how it only had one dye channel. I sent a report suggesting that it might be an idea to allow players to dye their mounts eyes different colours, along with the backround skin and fur/bristle/scales. i.e. having three dye spots per mount. This was prior to the mount adoption announcement. I now know why they didn't allow players to dye three spot on their mount.

 

It is quite clear that Anet and Mike O'Brien have upset quite a lot of players, not just on these forums but on other forums as well. It is also quite clear that O'Brien isn't going to go against the accountants within Anet, after all its a business and he probably has a shedload of shares, he is also on the payroll and obviously cannot rock the boat. They're not going to backtrack on the mounts either, doesn't matter what any players say or argue. It sticks my throat and certainly I don't like the way they've done it.

 

Dialogue is a two way street, O'Brien has made his point on the Forums. I suspect that is the last we will hear of it, because he a) either doesn't wish to engage in dialogue or b) he has been told what to say from a corporate perspective. In either case that is a shame.

 

Personally from my own perspective, I think opening up the dye channels of the Mounts, i.e eyes, scales, background colour and perhaps in the case of the Griffon mount the colour of the round jewel around its neck, would be a nice and decent thing to do for the playerbase - a gesture of goodwill you might say. Is that goodwill forthcoming from O'Brien or indeed Anet? /gauntlet thrown down.......

 

[Menadena.7482]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> So just for future reference, [this](

) is how you handle it when you have a massive microtransactions SNAFU.

 

Yes, I was reading about this yesterday. Good on them for reacting so fast and pulling it. The criticism though is they did not out-and-out say it was gone permanently, just that it was being reworked. Which means it could still come back later.

[Menadena.7482]

> @Lilo.8230 said:

> I'm just super happy with no subscription fee. I'll pay for anything as long as I don't have to pay to play to be honest.

 

Look back though your credit card receipts. While I also love the flexibility of not having a gaming company bill you will probably find you were spending in the same ballpark as a subscription between the original game, the expansion, and any gem store purchases.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> If they had acted quickly, they could have done what many people suggested:

 

That's true but I think it's a bit late now. I'd be surprised if at this point they do something although they may positively surprise us.

 

> @Menadena.7482 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > So just for future reference, [this](

) is how you handle it when you have a massive microtransactions SNAFU.

>

> Yes, I was reading about this yesterday. Good on them for reacting so fast and pulling it. The criticism though is they did not out-and-out say it was gone permanently, just that it was being reworked. Which means it could still come back later.

 

It's not the same situation, the loot boxes in battlefront are still there and part of the main game mechanic (progression through loot boxes, you get them through gameplay anyway) but they removed the option to buy them with cash. If they had to do something similar in GW2 they'd simply remove the ability to buy gems with cash. But, for example the mount adoption license would stay as it is, only you'd gamble with gold instead of cash.

[Menadena.7482]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > @Astralporing.1957 said:

> > ...and yet they still did a better job than Anet. Because they 've actually done _something_ (even if it may end up being only temporary).

> >

>

> I'm not sure Anet can do anything anyway about the current mount adoption deal because if they allowed purchase of separate skins that would upset everyone who already got through the randomness.

 

Yes, people will get upset but they do it all the time on the gem store. Something is there at one price then it goes away and comes back later ... to come back maybe at the same price, maybe cheaper, or maybe as part of a bundle. They could temporarily retire these skins and, bring the next ones in without RNG and at a fair cost (something akin to an outfit or a glider). Later bring these skins back over time at whatever the new skins were selling for (or a little lower if the state of the art left them in the dust, which is likely).

 

[Kalibri.5861]

> @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> > @NotASmurf.1725 said:

> > > @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> > > > @NotASmurf.1725 said:

> > > >

> > > > You do realize that you are probably spending 10 times more money on this game than if it had a sub fee, but end up getting 1/10th of the content of a P2P MMO?

> > >

> > > While I'm not disputing the rest of the post, I can't help but laugh at "1/10th the content." P2P MMO's are the biggest rip-off in gaming. Give me GW2's optional store any day of the week.

> >

> > WoW released 10+ raid wings in a little more than a year with more coming later this month, meanwhile GW2 released 1 raid wing during that time.

> >

> > The next WoW expansion is said to start with 10 new dungeons, Anet couldn't even deliver a fractal for PoF.

> >

> > These are facts, I don't know what's so funny about it.

>

> I once did dungeons and raids in WoW. I saw the treadmill for what it was. It was not fun, so I stopped. At that point, my experience of WoW was, "Pay premium dollar for an expansion with some leveling content, but built around a crappy gear treadmill that ends in an everlasting instanced content cycle I would not participate in. Meanwhile, pay to rent the game month to month, and wait two years for the next Xpac. That's why I'm laughing.

>

> See, your facts are immaterial to me, or anyone who does not raid. At least here, I'm not renting the game to fund content exclusively for other people.

 

Furthermore, Living World comes as part of the expansion. That's a lot of additional content. It's a different model entirely.

[Rebel Queen.7314]

OK. Here's my thought on how to if not fix the situation on mounts at least make the current pricing more palatable. Make the mount skins and dye patterns we choose for said mounts transfer to their mini counterparts.

[mercury ranique.2170]

Just my two pences.

I see many people in trenches defending one side or the other, but I would like to step out and look at it from a broader angle

One of the issue with microtransactions is that the name is not really correct. It means a non traditional transaction for something else then a traditional content pack (expansion, campaign, core game, etc). They are used to pay for free content.

If I also incorporate GW1, we see less and less content being released in the traditional way (compare a GW1 campaign with the PoF-expansion). Even when you compare PoF and HoT you can see a decrease of content (even besides the amount of repeatable appealing content)

 

The free content is getting bigger and bigger. In GW1 we only had festivals. In LW S1 we only had a 1 new map, some changes to existing maps and a temporary map, in S3, we are used to having a new map every episode. new fractals. new raids. new game mechanics.

 

As stated by Mo, the free content is not free at all. It is payed for by the microtransactions. So the huge profit margines on these skins are used to fund the free content. In this progress of shifting more content to living world, the profit from the microtransactions is more needed as we.

 

A common argument here is that Arenanet needs the money to make stuff, or that it all goes to Mo. Actually I don't care how much money Mo makes. What I do care about is that I pay for what I get. In the current system, more and more I do not.

We had a simular stand-off in the past with monthly fees. We pay up 10-15 dollar each month and it is very unclear where it is spend on. Arenanet used to be a company that fought againt that. We used to pay for what we get. Not vague promises about future content that is called "free" but also payed for in microtransactions AND as part of the expansions.

 

My solution is to bring back clearity in what you pay for. So make the microtransactions micro again and the living world payed content. I know with a 2 monthly release schedule, it is very much a monthly fee, but with a big acception. You know exaclty what you pay for.

I know why on first glance this is not appealing for company's. You want to have steady income. But also realize that it means that you are forced to release quality content that keeps players spending their money at you and not the competition. I think that Arenanet is the winner when it comes to quality content and can easily win back every investment with a huge profit.