Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 I don't agree with anyone on here who says, vote with your wallet and don't buy them, but don't complain. Complaining is how the word gets out to others on how the community feels about this issue and it is essential. It also convinces others to not buy those skins and to hear the grievances of the community. I don't understand what the stigma is against complaining in general. Just think if nobody complained we'd have no worker rights or changes to any laws and companies would have no idea really what specifically people didn't like about their product, so quit it with complaining shaming because it's just dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tachenon.5270 Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 If there had been no random chance lootboxing, and we could have just straight out bought whichever of these skins we wanted at 400 gems each.... Wouldn't the so-called whales have bought them all, anyway? Did anet really need to chum the waters with RNG? Wouldn't anet now be hauling in profits not only from the whales, and the remoras, but also from the rest of us guppies, who currently aren't biting? Fish food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 > @"Rebel Queen.7314" said: > 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. The issue is not with pricing, it's with the random nature of the gamble boxes. > @"mercury ranique.2170" said: > 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 don't support this. Making LW paid content would mean that many players would just skip certain LW updates entirely. This fragments the community and makes those updates less fun for those who do buy it because the maps would be lower population. It would also make certain updates financial liabilities to the company. Lake Doric, for example, probably would not have been a profitable one. I'm fine with the current Gem Store model, *other* than the RNG loot crates. If they'd just released the same 30 skins on the store at reasonable prices they wouldn't have had all this hoopla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 > @Tachenon.5270 said: > If there had been no random chance lootboxing, and we could have just straight out bought whichever of these skins we wanted at 400 gems each.... > > Wouldn't the so-called whales have bought them all, anyway? Did anet really need to chum the waters with RNG? Wouldn't anet now be hauling in profits not only from the whales, and the remoras, but also from the rest of us guppies, who currently aren't biting? > > Fish food for thought. The lure for the whales is the 9600 gem package. The random licenses are lures for the people who want just a few. Some have/will get lucky. Some will not, but will keep buying anyway to make up for people boycotting the licenses altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 > @Tachenon.5270 said: > If there had been no random chance lootboxing, and we could have just straight out bought whichever of these skins we wanted at 400 gems each.... > > Wouldn't the so-called whales have bought them all, anyway? Did anet really need to chum the waters with RNG? Wouldn't anet now be hauling in profits not only from the whales, and the remoras, but also from the rest of us guppies, who currently aren't biting? > > Fish food for thought. The rng is there not for whales, but for the next group in line (i believe that they are usually dubbed "dolphins"). So, those that do not buy everything, but can be easily persuaded to buy some things (if they look nice) on a semi-regular basis. Dolphins do not spend as much as whales, but there's a lot more of them. If you can trick them into buying few things they do not really want and wouldn't buy if they had a choice, that'd be a significant boost to income as well. And that's exactly what has happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menadena.7482 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > @"Rebel Queen.7314" said: > > 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. > > The issue is not with pricing, it's with the random nature of the gamble boxes. > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said: > > 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 don't support this. Making LW paid content would mean that many players would just skip certain LW updates entirely. This fragments the community and makes those updates less fun for those who do buy it because the maps would be lower population. It would also make certain updates financial liabilities to the company. Lake Doric, for example, probably would not have been a profitable one. I'm fine with the current Gem Store model, *other* than the RNG loot crates. If they'd just released the same 30 skins on the store at reasonable prices they wouldn't have had all this hoopla. Seasons 1 and 2 were free. Seasons 3 and the upcoming 4 are paid content (you need the expansions to open them). If you buy the expansion after the season I think you even need to unlock them with gems AND purchase the expansion to play them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalibri.5861 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 > @Menadena.7482 said: > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > > @"Rebel Queen.7314" said: > > > 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. > > > > The issue is not with pricing, it's with the random nature of the gamble boxes. > > > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said: > > > 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 don't support this. Making LW paid content would mean that many players would just skip certain LW updates entirely. This fragments the community and makes those updates less fun for those who do buy it because the maps would be lower population. It would also make certain updates financial liabilities to the company. Lake Doric, for example, probably would not have been a profitable one. I'm fine with the current Gem Store model, *other* than the RNG loot crates. If they'd just released the same 30 skins on the store at reasonable prices they wouldn't have had all this hoopla. > > Seasons 1 and 2 were free. Seasons 3 and the upcoming 4 are paid content (you need the expansions to open them). If you buy the expansion after the season I think you even need to unlock them with gems AND purchase the expansion to play them. > Edit: Sorry, misunderstood your post. This is right. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harper.4173 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Of course they backtracked and decided that in the future they won't do this again - the backlash was massive. Still it was a *complete* and utter disappointment to see them go back on the core GW2 design philosophies that they have adopted in the past. I thought the reason original content (like Dungeons) had a currency was to avoid people having to rely on RNG drops. I thought the reason we can now purchase Fractal rings and Fractal weapons with currency was to give people a way to avoid RNG. I thought the reason that raids have a currency was to give people a chance to get the items they want without having to rely on RNG. I thought the reason we got precursor crafting for Gen 1 precursors and every other precursor afterwards (Gen 2 with HoT) was to work around the fact that previously you could only get them through RNG. Many of the changes made to the game post launch were made in order to reduce the reliance on RNG and showed the developers understood RNG is a poor mechanic and one that the player base hates. I would have assumed they realized this given all the changes mentioned above. It's not like they didn't know we hate RNG - RNG has been the reason for every change listed above ( not to mention countless player complaints on the forums). And what did they add with the new Mount skins? RNG. Because it's making them money. Because design philosophy is great but not when you can ignore it for a better profit. Because why be consistent or care about core ideas you specifically incorporated into the game when you can make a quick buck? It's truly sad to see such a choice get the green light. It also feels insulting - did they really think we were this blind? That they could do this and nobody would care? Did they expect players to hate RNG in every other aspect of the game but *love* it in the gem store? I had higher expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menadena.7482 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Yes, rng lootboxes seem like an odd thing to do now if you are at all in touch with the gaming world too. All you have to do is be peripherally involved to know all the blowback about them with other games. Plus it is not just the players, there are even countries taking action against them at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 > @Harper.4173 said: > Of course they backtracked and decided that in the future they won't do this again - the backlash was massive. Except the message never actually says this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 > @Menadena.7482 said: > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > > @"Rebel Queen.7314" said: > > > 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. > > > > The issue is not with pricing, it's with the random nature of the gamble boxes. > > > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said: > > > 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 don't support this. Making LW paid content would mean that many players would just skip certain LW updates entirely. This fragments the community and makes those updates less fun for those who do buy it because the maps would be lower population. It would also make certain updates financial liabilities to the company. Lake Doric, for example, probably would not have been a profitable one. I'm fine with the current Gem Store model, *other* than the RNG loot crates. If they'd just released the same 30 skins on the store at reasonable prices they wouldn't have had all this hoopla. > > Seasons 1 and 2 were free. Seasons 3 and the upcoming 4 are paid content (you need the expansions to open them). If you buy the expansion after the season I think you even need to unlock them with gems AND purchase the expansion to play them. > Seasons 1 and 2 weren't free either, you needed to buy the core game for that, but so long as you buy the relevant expansion, the LW chapters are free. *Directly* charging extra for them individually would fragment the playerbase WAY more than asking for one $30-50 payment every two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercury ranique.2170 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > @Menadena.7482 said: > > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > > > @"Rebel Queen.7314" said: > > > > 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. > > > > > > The issue is not with pricing, it's with the random nature of the gamble boxes. > > > > > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said: > > > > 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 don't support this. Making LW paid content would mean that many players would just skip certain LW updates entirely. This fragments the community and makes those updates less fun for those who do buy it because the maps would be lower population. It would also make certain updates financial liabilities to the company. Lake Doric, for example, probably would not have been a profitable one. I'm fine with the current Gem Store model, *other* than the RNG loot crates. If they'd just released the same 30 skins on the store at reasonable prices they wouldn't have had all this hoopla. > > > > Seasons 1 and 2 were free. Seasons 3 and the upcoming 4 are paid content (you need the expansions to open them). If you buy the expansion after the season I think you even need to unlock them with gems AND purchase the expansion to play them. > > > > Seasons 1 and 2 weren't free either, you needed to buy the core game for that, but so long as you buy the relevant expansion, the LW chapters are free. *Directly* charging extra for them individually would fragment the playerbase WAY more than asking for one $30-50 payment every two years. Nothing is free. That is my main point and you always pay for them. My issue is that it is now not clear what you pay for. You buy an expansion, but also the right to unlock future living world content (if you still play actively). In Mo's post he also claims that that content is funded by microtransactions (indicating that if everyone would stop buying gemstore stuff, they would need to stop making living world content. So when you buy a mount license you also pay for yet unknown content. When you buy an expansion, you pay for unknown content. Believe me. most active player will buy it. How many active players do you know that didnt buy HoT or PoF? Do you think that fragmented the playerbase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harper.4173 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 > @Djinn.9245 said: > > @Harper.4173 said: > > Of course they backtracked and decided that in the future they won't do this again - the backlash was massive. > > Except the message never actually says this. "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 pretty much what it says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olterin Fire.5960 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 > @Harper.4173 said: > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > @Harper.4173 said: > > > Of course they backtracked and decided that in the future they won't do this again - the backlash was massive. > > > > Except the message never actually says this. > > "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 pretty much what it says. I've said my piece on this already, but this continues to irk me. What this says is that the *next planned* releases will not contain *mount* RNG boxes. What it explicitly does *not* say is that there never again will be mount RNG boxes, nor does it say that there will never be new kinds of RNG boxes (the latter I'll just point you towards the most recent datamining effort by that_shaman). Please, be careful when reading PR statements, especially ones that defend the company position by saying "the customers misunderstood, sorry guys we miscommunicated". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWolf.8670 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 > @Menadena.7482 said: > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > > @"Rebel Queen.7314" said: > > > 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. > > > > The issue is not with pricing, it's with the random nature of the gamble boxes. > > > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said: > > > 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 don't support this. Making LW paid content would mean that many players would just skip certain LW updates entirely. This fragments the community and makes those updates less fun for those who do buy it because the maps would be lower population. It would also make certain updates financial liabilities to the company. Lake Doric, for example, probably would not have been a profitable one. I'm fine with the current Gem Store model, *other* than the RNG loot crates. If they'd just released the same 30 skins on the store at reasonable prices they wouldn't have had all this hoopla. > > Seasons 1 and 2 were free. Seasons 3 and the upcoming 4 are paid content (you need the expansions to open them). If you buy the expansion after the season I think you even need to unlock them with gems AND purchase the expansion to play them. > LW2 isn't free. You have to buy it from the gem store if you didn't have it already. The maps for it are free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 > @Harper.4173 said: > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > @Harper.4173 said: > > > Of course they backtracked and decided that in the future they won't do this again - the backlash was massive. > > > > Except the message never actually says this. > > "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 pretty much what it says. You said they won't do it again. What they actually said is that they won't do it in their "next planned mount skin releases". So only in what they already have planned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunjiKugashira.9754 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 > @Harper.4173 said: > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > @Harper.4173 said: > > > Of course they backtracked and decided that in the future they won't do this again - the backlash was massive. > > > > Except the message never actually says this. > > "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 pretty much what it says. The "next planned mount skin releases" could literally refer to the next 2 skins to be released. If ANet releases 1 individual skin and 1 bundle, this sentence is fulfilled and ANet can go back to publishing RNG boxes. ANet never admitted that RNG boxes were a bad idea or that RNG boxes are inherently bad. And reading M.O.'s statement : "Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins." I wonder what skins ANet plans on adding to outshine the starbound or fiery griffon in flashyness. It's either going to draw a whole bunch of Skritt every time you mount or it's a blatant PR lie. Since obviously those skins were not flashy enough for individual sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serialkicker.5274 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 I wasn't really bothered too much about this, since it's just cosmetics and everyone should have enough brain cells to decide if they want to spend their money for RNG and risking not getting skin they want. I don't mind this honestly, but the thing is, we don't know what would happen afterwards. If such thing gets accepted and succeeds, they could come up with some really BS mechanics next time or time after that, slowly pushing the limits to how far they can go. That happens way too much in gaming industry, so I'm happy this is getting addressed immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneYenShort.3189 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > I don't agree with anyone on here who says, vote with your wallet and don't buy them, but don't complain. Complaining is how the word gets out to others on how the community feels about this issue and it is essential. Honestly I would say do not complain. As a complaint is typically "You suck quaggan rolls." Or whatever "colorful metaphor" people have in their vocabulary. Please leave, and I'm certain Gail would agree, feedback that explains your position and reasoning in a non attacking, non vulgar way. If your feedback is all of "I agree with player.1234 and I'm not going to buy any." or "I agree with player.5678 and going to buy XYZ number of them." that is fine too because then (hopefuly) reasonable feedback has been left. But just bitching is not useful at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Godrik.5841 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 > @Djinn.9245 said: > > @Wildfang.3271 said: > > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > > @Devildoc.6721 said: > > > > > @StaggerLee.6397 said: > > > > > Is a mount skin being $5 really considered discounted? > > > > > > > > Unfortunately yes if you compare it to similar items in other MMO's. WoW sells $25 mount skins and it's a subscription game. ESO has mounts between $9-$30. LotRO between $10-$25. > > > > > > As other people have pointed out, WoW sells mounts for a premium price because they are extremely nice looking mounts, but the VAST majority of their mounts are available in-game. *WoW has over 400 mounts and only sells 11 in their store!* I went to their store and counted them. So there is literally no need for a player to purchase a mount from the store give the huge number of mounts available in the game. > > > > Well, just out of curiousity sake, why is it that WoW has so many mounts in game? Is it because : > > A. Blizzard is altruistic? > > B. Blizzard wants to have too many things for players to strive to achieve/get so that they will keep on subbing like a hamster on a wheel? > > C. (You come up with any good valid reason) > > > > For me, I think the answer is B. > > Now since GW2 doesn't have any sub system like WoW, does ANET benefit much from adding so many mount skins and only selling just a few like WoW? Would those sell enough to pay for server costs/employees' salaries? And ppl already do complain about the 2k gem prices for the warhound atm. > > Don't get me wrong, I would like ANET to add some mount skins to the game as well but wanting them to do everything similar to WoW is kinda silly considering the size of company and amount of assets. > > Who said anything about Blizzard being altruistic? I'm talking about Blizzard being SMART! Yes, they provided huge amounts of CONTENT in their game so players will continue to enjoy and play their game - what a concept! Will GW2 players continue to purchase gems when they've run out of content and don't play the game anymore? > > But that wasn't my point - my point was that it doesn't matter that WoW sells 11 mounts in their store for $25 each because the vast majority of players don't need to purchase those mounts - they have 400 other mounts that they can get. GW2 players don't have that choice. We have the base mounts and that's it. Then GW2 adds only these choices on the store: > > 1600 gems: Spooky Mounts Pack (skins for all 5 mounts, no single skins available) > 2000 gems: Reforged Warhound (single Jackal skin) > 9600 gems: Mount Adoption License 30 Pack (only way to guarantee you get the skins you want) > OR 400 gems per random Mount Adoption License. No way to simply get the skin you want. > > So what CHOICE do GW2 players have in getting mounts? You can CHOOSE the Spooky Mounts for 1600 gems (not anymore) or the Reforged Warhound for 2000 gems. That's it for being able to make an actual choice. You have the choice to use real world cash or grind in game gold and convert. A lot of mmo don't give you that option at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Warrior Lord.7248 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Please stop this practice now. Its not healthy for game nor is it healthy for the players. Anet you are making plenty of money. I get its just skins and what you guys quote on, " you can buy over time". Its still a gamble. You still have to gamble to find that one skin you want. You either have to buy 400 gems (10 bucks for 800 gems) for one(two) random skins. For example, lets rule out 5 skins that are the best for each mount. So, now you have 25 (30 total) for 400 gems each which makes 25x400=10,000 gems, 400x5(best skins)=2,000, 10,000-2000=8,000 gems in theory . So, you going to spend about $100 bunks to find those 5 best skins or spend 9,600 gems for $120 bucks for the 30 pack bundle, *Remember these are just skins, right!*. The point is you are spending money on gambling and that this practice is looked down upon. Don't be like EA sports and Disney, listen to the players don't drain them out for money. Tell me and Anet on your thoughts about this practice. Let them see this Discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirlias.8104 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/15523/a-message-about-the-mount-adoption-license#latest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoseofGilead.8907 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 There's already a thread about the mount contracts, and a thread (which Shirlias posted above) about the dev response to the complaints. https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/14758/official-mount-adoption-feedback-thread-merged/p73 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotASmurf.1725 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 I've seen a lot of misconceptions floating around about Mike O'Brien's response to the lootbox outrage, and since the same thing has to be explained over and over again I've decided to clear things up once and for all so that the discussion may continue properly instead of getting derailed by misinterpretation. But while doing that, let's have some fun! So I'll give you the response and then make you answer correctly to a question about it: >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. 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. What does this comment mean? Click the spoiler after voting to see the correct answer: Correct answer is the 2nd one. He said next releases, not all future releases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 You are mistaken, based solely on the quote. Saying that the next planned releases will not use the rng box system is not a statement that future releases will. I believe that it is likely that there will be rng mounts in the future, but MO's statement does not say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts