A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[witcher.3197]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> 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.

 

Except you're wrong.

 

It's a very carefully crafted response of PR bullshit, and there's a clear difference between "future" and "next"

 

Next means upcoming 1-3 releases.

 

Future means every single thing released in the future.

 

He says "next planned", so he's talking about the upcoming few they had already planned before this whole fiasco. Furthermore, he says they won't add any more skins to the CURRENTLY AVAILABLE lootbox, hinting at future lootboxes.

 

If they really didn't plan to do it again they would've stated it in the first sentences very bluntly, putting and end to the discussion OR clarified it after the debate in the comments, but no, they are radio silent after 30+ pages of debate.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

To be honest I don't see it as a gamble.. you are buying a guaranteed skin each time you spend.. and each further purchase guarantees you a different skin.

No where does it say you are forced to purchase the adopt licence and nowhere does it say you are purchasing a specific skin or nothing. Therefore if you don't want anything other than 1 skin out of 30, then its you who are making it a gamble not ANET.. they have merely offered a range of 30 skins to the players to purchase either all at once or at a time scale controlled by the player... its a win-win for both unless like I said all you wanting is a certain skin immediately. In which case wait for it to come on sale individually for a lot more gems.

[Ashen.2907]

> @witcher.3197 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > 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.

>

> Except you're wrong.

>

> It's a very carefully crafted response of PR kitten, and there's a clear difference between "future" and "next"

>

> Next means upcoming 1-3 releases.

>

> Future means every single thing released in the future.

>

> He says "next planned", so he's talking about the upcoming few they had already planned before this whole fiasco. Furthermore, he says they won't add any more skins to the CURRENTLY AVAILABLE lootbox, hinting at future lootboxes.

>

> If they really didn't plan to do it again they would've stated it in the first sentences very bluntly, putting and end to the discussion OR clarified it after the debate in the comments, but no, they are radio silent after 30+ pages of debate.

 

Nope.

 

The thread, originally at least, said reading comprehension...not speculation on likelihood, or reading into, or putting words into someone else's mouth.

 

Nowhere in thhe quote is it written that there will be rng mounts in the future. Again, I believe that there will be, but that is not because he says there will, for reading comprehension to come into play, but because industry trends and the like make it seem likely to me.

 

I believe that rng mounts will return, but the quote given does not say so, and the thread was about reading comprehension. Had the OP said might instead of will, he would have been more on target. As written though, he is mistaken, about what was said. Ironic really, as his own reading comprehension failed to alert him to the difference in phrasing between keeping the option open as a future possibility (or even likelihood) and an expressed certainty.

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> 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).

 

Yeah, I imagine that comes down to legal issues, that they don't want to advertise content that might not happen for whatever reason. So they allow the implication without actually committing to it, but I have faith they'll make good on it anyway.

 

In either case, $30 was plenty justified by PoF alone, so if they give us more stuff on top of that, so much the better, right?

 

> 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.

 

Well, I doubt it's so 1:1, like I imagine they have operating funds enough that they could keep making LW for a while, but yes, if people stopped buying gem store stuff then they would likely have to cut back on development. More likely in WvW and PvP than in LW. It's all part of an ecosystem. It's like, I never buy drinks at fast food restaurants, but drinks are a major part of their revenue, because the mark-up is so much higher. If everyone stopped buying drinks en masse, fast food places would have to seriously rework their menus eventually.

 

>So when you buy a mount license you also pay for yet unknown content. When you buy an expansion, you pay for unknown content.

 

That's a different thing though. I mean I got something specific and concrete with my purchase of PoF. Whether or not I get LW content I like is just gravy. for the Mount Licenses to be considered similar, it would need to be a situation where you pay a fair price to *definitely* get one mount that you like, one that you would pay that price for if that's all you got for it, and then they *also* give you another few random mount skins on top of that. That would be random, but you would still be guaranteed to get what you wanted out of it.

 

I would NEVER pay for an expansion where the pitch was "pay us $30 and maybe you'll get something cool out of it later."

 

>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?

 

But again, that was $50/30 once every two years. If I had to buy each LW update, even at $5-10 a piece, I personally would *probably* have bought each one, but there were a few that I might not have, or might have seriously regretted my purchase, and I'm easier with my wallet than many. I imagine the population on some of those maps would have dropped by at least half during their initial launch periods. One nice thing about having them all bundled is that if some of them are meh, but some are great, then you feel pretty good about the whole batch, whereas if you had to fully evaluate each separately, it would be much harsher.

 

 

[Ashen.2907]

The average pay for a game developer in Anet's neck of the woods is in the neighborhood of 70k per year. The average cost to employ multiplier is between 1.2 and 1.3. Does Anet still have 350 employees?

 

Lets assume lowball average pay per employee of 55k (not all employees are actual devs). Multiply that by 350 and then again by a median cost to employ of 1.25 to get an annual payroll cost of over 24 million dollars. I doubt PoF sold enough copies to employ the staff for a year, let alone keep the lights on, satisfy investors, etc.

[StinVec.3621]

> @NotASmurf.1725 said:

> 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

 

 

Also note that the statement that was crafted for him to post only relates to mount skins (and only _these_ mount skins) and gambling boxes - in addition to any future mount skin releases, it does not relate to gambling boxes as a whole being utilized for any and all other items.

 

Not Accurate:

* Gambling boxes will not be utilized again in the future (for mount skins and everything else)

* Based on feedback, more mount skins will not be added to the current mount skin gambling boxes

 

Accurate:

* Gambling boxes _**for mount skins**_ may be utilized again in the future, just not in the very near future as our next planned releases already do not involve gambling boxes.

* More skins will not be added to the current mount skin gambling boxes, but this is not due to feedback received on the gambling boxes, we just never intended to add more to this box in the first place.

* We currently do not have any planned mount skin releases that utilize the gambling boxes, but if we do utilize gambling boxes for mount skins again in the future (like an Adoption Group 2), we would still not be contradicting this crafted statement.

* Gambling boxes will be utilized for other items very soon and for more items in the future.

 

 

As existing planned releases for mount skins in the very near future happen to not involve the gambling mechanic, the statement technically isn't lying while also making it seem like they made some change based on the feedback, which they did not.

 

There will be gambling boxes released for other non-mount skin items very soon, we've already seen them.

 

They may not have had any plans to ever release more mount skins via gambling boxes in the future, but if they do, they are free to do so without contradicting this crafted statement.

 

I am very much saddened by the fact that ArenaNet's statements must now be picked through to see what they are _really_ saying (and _not_ saying), like must be done for so many 'other' people and companies. I do not recall ever needing to do this for ArenaNet in the past - they always had the enjoyment of the game and the players' interests in mind, which has helped bolster my support for them despite a few wayward steps. I truly am sad to see that they've now taken a giant leap away from that and are just like those 'others' now, thus I will treat them accordingly and adjust my expectations and support for them as now being just another company.

[Trise.2865]

Here's how you do it:

Keep the loot box as it is. (I know, I know, "_RNG! Corporate Greed!_" blah, blah... read on. Maybe adjust the price down a bit, I'd like that. But I digress...)

 

Next, add two things to the store in addition to the existing "capped random" tickets: each skin individually, and themed bundle packs. Price them out such that an individual skin will be the most expensive option per skin (comparable to an outfit or armor skin, ideally. $35 for a skin is too kitten much), the bundle packs with slightly better value per skin, and the random tickets as the cheapest option.

For Example: 1 skin for 1000 gems, 5 "fiery" skins for 3750 gems (750 per skin), and 1 random "lottery" ticket for 500 gems.

 

That way, the people who only want one or two skins can get them for a fair investment without feeling ripped off or "forced" to buy things they don't want, the ones who want a selection of skins or just the skins for a specific mount (etc., etc.) feel like they've made a smart investment, and the ones who want to collect all of them (or enjoy gambling/randomness) can do so for a significant discount. Every player has an option that suits their buying needs without pushing their limits, and more importantly, more players are buying them. Everybody wins.

 

PS. This method also lets you expand the random "prize pools" much more easily without depreciating the values of the skins or the tickets too badly (while at the same time, gently encouraging players who haven't filled their stables to buy the more expensive individual skin for ones they want, then "gamble" on the rest at their leisure.) If that seems too much, you can separate out prize pools, similar to the original "seasons" of minis or the limited dye bundles.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> To be honest I don't see it as a gamble.. you are buying a guaranteed skin each time you spend.. and each further purchase guarantees you a different skin.

 

Yes, but many players have significant preferences as to which skin they want. The "gamble" is that you might get a skin that you would not have purchased directly.

 

> No where does it say you are forced to purchase the adopt licence and nowhere does it say you are purchasing a specific skin or nothing.

 

There is no game in Vegas that you're "forced" to play, that does not mean that it's not gambling.

 

>Therefore if you don't want anything other than 1 skin out of 30, then its you who are making it a gamble not ANET..

 

That's. . . not how gambling works. That's not how any of this works.

 

Yes, it's the player choosing to gamble, but it's ANet that's presenting the game of chance. It's ANet running the slot machine even if we have the option to not put our quarter in. The position of most on this issue is just that we would like a method of selecting the individual skins we do want, without having to pull the slot machine lever.

 

> its a win-win for both unless like I said all you wanting is a certain skin immediately.

 

Which would be "everybody."

 

>In which case wait for it to come on sale individually for a lot more gems.

 

Which they've given no evidence they ever plan to do, and even if they did, many of the skins in the set are not worth valuing at over 400 gems, and the few that are should not be "a lot more."

 

 

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> The average pay for a game developer in Anet's neck of the woods is in the neighborhood of 70k per year. The average cost to employ multiplier is between 1.2 and 1.3. Does Anet still have 350 employees?

>

> Lets assume lowball average pay per employee of 55k (not all employees are actual devs). Multiply that by 350 and then again by a median cost to employ of 1.25 to get an annual payroll cost of over 24 million dollars. I doubt PoF sold enough copies to employ the staff for a year, let alone keep the lights on, satisfy investors, etc.

 

That's horrible if true. I would not accept a job that requires that kind of knowledge for restaurant management pay.

$100K+ for a dev that knows what they're doing - you get what you pay for.

[Menadena.7482]

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > The average pay for a game developer in Anet's neck of the woods is in the neighborhood of 70k per year. The average cost to employ multiplier is between 1.2 and 1.3. Does Anet still have 350 employees?

> >

> > Lets assume lowball average pay per employee of 55k (not all employees are actual devs). Multiply that by 350 and then again by a median cost to employ of 1.25 to get an annual payroll cost of over 24 million dollars. I doubt PoF sold enough copies to employ the staff for a year, let alone keep the lights on, satisfy investors, etc.

>

> That's horrible if true. I would not accept a job that requires that kind of knowledge for restaurant management pay.

> $100K+ for a dev that knows what they're doing - you get what you pay for.

 

It depends on the area and what job position you are after. A senior developer in an expensive major city will earn more than the average team member in a more rural area. Maybe not relevant here but what market segment you are looking at has different average salaries.

 

When I mention *low* salaried positions here to family members in other parts of the country they are amazed. Then again, I am jealous of their having an actual house plus double digits of acres they own around it. Then it is their turn to fall over again when they hear what I pay in just rent.

 

From the salary you consider low I will guess maybe you are in SF? Yeah, most people do not have a cost of living like that. The city I am in has high costs but you can see from googling salaries by state that not all cities are equal. Plus my market segment runs a little low so I would guess the average for my segment and city is in the low 70s. The national average is between that and what you consider too low to accept.

 

tl;dr: Comparing salaries in different areas of the country for possibly different jobs and market segments is like comparing bananas and tangerines.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

The adoption Licence was a step in the right direction for both parties... increasing odds per adoption on the surface is better than total RNG each time with a chance of never getting what you want. On the flip side Anet still have enough of a carrot to dangle in order to temp players to come back and try again...

We all would like what we want right outta the box, for sure and when individual skins, packs come up for sale that's what we get... for a pretty price.

 

I like the idea of an adoption licence that offers the same idea per se, but instead allowing of that random skin from the diminishing list.. maybe a random choice of 2 skins to choose from each tim much like the old miniature egg, but each time one is selected that choice of three still only picks from the diminished list.. we still keep coming back, anet still get coin and we get a greater shot at acquiring the skin we want...> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > To be honest I don't see it as a gamble.. you are buying a guaranteed skin each time you spend.. and each further purchase guarantees you a different skin.

>

> Yes, but many players have significant preferences as to which skin they want. The "gamble" is that you might get a skin that you would not have purchased directly.

>

> > No where does it say you are forced to purchase the adopt licence and nowhere does it say you are purchasing a specific skin or nothing.

>

> There is no game in Vegas that you're "forced" to play, that does not mean that it's not gambling.

>

> >Therefore if you don't want anything other than 1 skin out of 30, then its you who are making it a gamble not ANET..

>

> That's. . . not how gambling works. That's not how any of this works.

>

> Yes, it's the player choosing to gamble, but it's ANet that's presenting the game of chance. It's ANet running the slot machine even if we have the option to not put our quarter in. The position of most on this issue is just that we would like a method of selecting the individual skins we do want, without having to pull the slot machine lever.

>

> > its a win-win for both unless like I said all you wanting is a certain skin immediately.

>

> Which would be "everybody."

>

> >In which case wait for it to come on sale individually for a lot more gems.

>

> Which they've given no evidence they ever plan to do, and even if they did, many of the skins in the set are not worth valuing at over 400 gems, and the few that are should not be "a lot more."

>

>

 

You keep making wide, gaping assumptions.. just because you have a preference of "x" skin and nothing else does not make it the same for everyone.. I got the stardust jackal on my first purchase.. guess what others like it, but I don't.. see what I did there.

 

Of course ANET present the game of chance.. but your missing a huge point. In Vegas when you choose to play the slots you stick your money in and 7x outta 10 you get nothing sometimes you get something and very rarely do you get the big win... you choose to play that game.

ANET guarantee you a win for your quarter every single time and then stick the dice a little bit heavier in your favour every time you purchase.. that is some kinda strange gamble imo.

Imagine a casino doing that, they would never turn a profit and everyone would be a winner everytime they stick a quarter in.

 

But like I said.. I personally don't see this as a gamble, I understand what is on offer and how it works.. I just don't go in thinking I only want 1 of 30 skins. BTW I was of the impression that ANET recently posted regarding future skin releases and point of sale skins are on the horizon, perhaps not any of these 30 but future skins for sure. Of course there is one skin in the collection on direct sale, if you want to spend all those gems on it.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> You keep making wide, gaping assumptions.. just because you have a preference of "x" skin and nothing else does not make it the same for everyone.. I got the stardust jackal on my first purchase.. guess what others like it, but I don't.. see what I did there.

 

Yes, you proved my point.

 

>Of course ANET present the game of chance.. but your missing a huge point. In Vegas when you choose to play the slots you stick your money in and 7x outta 10 you get nothing sometimes you get something and very rarely do you get the big win... you choose to play that game.

>ANET guarantee you a win for your quarter every single time and then stick the dice a little bit heavier in your favour every time you purchase.. that is some kinda strange gamble imo.

 

Just because you get "something" every time does not make it not gambling. You could have a gamble game in which the ante is $5 and you might get $10 back or you might get $4.99 back (it would need some pretty low odds to be worthwhile). Even though you get"something" back every time, if it's not the thing you were trying to get then you have still *lost* the gamble. To argue that this gamble has better odds than other gambles does not mean that this gamble is without flaws.

 

>But like I said.. I personally don't see this as a gamble, I understand what is on offer and how it works..

 

Again, people understand the rules of blackjack, that doesn't mean that playing blackjack is not gambling. Whether something is "a gamble" or not has nothing to do with whether or not you've been tricked in some way. Even if you go in fully aware of the conditions at play, a gamble is a gamble. I think maybe you're confusing the term for "con."

 

>BTW I was of the impression that ANET recently posted regarding future skin releases and point of sale skins are on the horizon, perhaps not any of these 30 but future skins for sure.

 

They have, but for players who DO care about which skin they get, and one of *these* 30 was one that they really liked, the proposal that *other* skins will have different pricing models is not helpful.

 

>Of course there is one skin in the collection on direct sale, if you want to spend all those gems on it.

 

I do not. Skins are not fungible, one is not "as good as" another. The one people want is the one people want, and what happens with the remaining ones, nobody cares.

 

 

 

 

[Kalibri.5861]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> I do not. Skins are not fungible, one is not "as good as" another. The one people want is the one people want, and what happens with the remaining ones, nobody cares.

 

Right. ArenaNet and other lootbox peddlers are trying to pass off the idea that getting 'anything' makes this okay, and 'not a gamble'. It's not okay. If you don't value what you get, then you've lost, and for the vast majority of cases, I personally would not value what I got on a random chance from this system. That's gambling.

[Fire X.5184]

I am not happy they wont fix there current skin RNG loot box. Some say it can't be fixed because it effects people who bought the boxes, in a sense yes but at the same time in can be redone. It will take a lot of work but it can be done. In my opinion the RNG skin loot box being on the gem store is a scar on the game as a hole. Sure the wound will heal over time but the scar will be there as a reminder of what happened. I feel that the loot box problem should be fixed now before more skins are added. Fix it in away that both parties can be happy. Then the community can heal.

 

I want to move forward and i'm sure people feel the same, but this hole ordeal left a sour taste. In all honesty fix the problem we have now so we can have a better future. Don't sweep this under the rug or anytime something bad happen's this will be brought up again and again.

[Menadena.7482]

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> I just don't go in thinking I only want 1 of 30 skins.

 

If there were a stable for each mount there would be less complaining. Even though most people have their eyes on some ideal skins, in reality most just want something different for a particular mount and are excluding mounts they rarely use and do not own. Say you do not have the griffon .... would you *really* be happy if you bought 6 skins and they were all griffon skins?

 

 

[Oglaf.1074]

There is also the case of the mounts themselves having inherently different values:

 

Raptor, Jackal and Griffon are far more useful than the poor Skimmer and... uh.. Bunny.

 

The latter two I only bring out when forced in order to bypass a specific obstacle, but I ride my Raptor/Jackal everywhere.

 

As such, a skin for the Skimmer/Bunny are inherently worth a lot less, too.

[Matick.4132]

What I get from this ongoing discussion is:

**By now this isn't just about the Mount-RNG anymore!**

 

It's about LOOTBOXES and pay-2-whatever gets the game going on. Weather it be skins or other stuff. **It's about combining micro transactions with gambling.** Hence the whole Lootbox discussion.

So this is also about the BLC, where the system of getting the stuff is organised in a way, that to call this 'fair' isn't even a euphemism anymore. If you're not grinding massively, acquiring keys to open them means, you need to buy them if you want that cool stuff.

 

If you could get keys in a reasonable way, inside the game without spending **100+ hours grinding**, that be great. Right now it's laughable. There's sometimes a reward for completing high level maps where you can get a key, once they're done, they're done. So this isn't sustainable.

Well and then there's also this little loophole, where you can get them by completing the personal story of a char and even this little one was buffed, so you can only do it once a week. Your little key grind.

And why was it buffed? Just because so you're forced to buy keys in the gem-store, spending real world money (as a normal player, employed and with a family life). But... with the 100+ BLCs in your bank, it's tempting to see this as a lure to do so.

 

**And again: this is called exploitation!**

 

You wanted to do it differently, awesome, but like this other big company that promised to 'THINK DIFFERENT' and for once, tried to be nice to the users and do a user orientated business, you ANet have the potential on your hand to also follow this path and exchange user orientation with getting your hands dirty with the marketing department and go fully fledged towards big money.

 

My wish: Find a sustainable, user friendly way to turn this around. A way all can prosper. The game stays user friendly, you're happy with earning enough trough fair-micro transactions (or whatever model is up on the table to further nourish the development and securing the future of GW [3, 4, 5 ...] ^^) and we are happy, because we know you're after our souls, not our pockets! ;)

 

There was this thread that said: show some love for ANet, well, this is all about love, if it wasn't there wouldn't be this outrage. Enough is enough!

 

[Djinn.9245]

> @OneYenShort.3189 said:

> > @"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.

 

If you have actually been reading the threads, only a minority of posts on the mount skins topic have been socially unacceptable. The vast majority have simply said that they don't like it or explained why.

[Djinn.9245]

> @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:

> > @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.

 

I'm talking about getting mounts in-game vs. high-priced vs. gambling. Those are all the choices. In GW2 we have very few choices that are not gambling:

-stick with basic mounts

-overpriced mounts (only 1)

[Djinn.9245]

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> The adoption Licence was a step in the right direction for both parties...

 

I completely disagree. The only better "step" for consumers from being able to purchase exactly what they want at a reasonable price, is being able to purchase exactly what they want for a lower price. Having to gamble to get what you want is never a better choice unless you truly do not care what you get.

 

I don't personally know of a single person that would PREFER to get a random item vs. an item they can choose.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> The adoption Licence was a step in the right direction for both parties... increasing odds per adoption on the surface is better than total RNG each time with a chance of never getting what you want. On the flip side Anet still have enough of a carrot to dangle in order to temp players to come back and try again...

 

You are correct, if it was totally random it would've been much worse. The idea that your odds are getting better and better when you buy more licenses is a good one, but the overall system is flawed to begin with. It's a less terrible system, but still a terrible one.

[Turial.1293]

Lest we not forget, there was no mention of "invalidating the investment players have made" from EA, they removed lootboxes, albeit temporarily, but did it because they knew they were wrong. The decision from Anet to not lead with this decision is a huge failing on their part and will eventually be the route they have to take, the players won't stand for greed.

 


 

[Turial.1293]

This is also a link to Jim Sterling's response to the EA lootbox response. RNG boxes are predatory by nature.

 

[https://youtube.com/watch?v=eU6xgX-byPQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU6xgX-byPQ "https://youtube.com/watch?v=eU6xgX-byPQ")

[Djinn.9245]

> @Turial.1293 said:

> Lest we not forget, there was no mention of "invalidating the investment players have made" from EA, they removed lootboxes, albeit temporarily, but did it because they knew they were wrong. The decision from Anet to not lead with this decision is a huge failing on their part and will eventually be the route they have to take, the players won't stand for greed.

>

EA didn't remove lootboxes from people who already purchased them. Their statement says that they turned off in-game purchasing. That only means that people can't get any more lootboxes. But those who already purchased them still have their advantage. EA doesn't say anything about that.

 

And this is very similar to the Anet statement. They said that the next mount skins would not be in a gamble box. EA said they would eventually turn in-game purchasing back on but they never promised they wouldn't have more lootboxes. And neither did Anet.

[Turial.1293]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @Turial.1293 said:

> > Lest we not forget, there was no mention of "invalidating the investment players have made" from EA, they removed lootboxes, albeit temporarily, but did it because they knew they were wrong. The decision from Anet to not lead with this decision is a huge failing on their part and will eventually be the route they have to take, the players won't stand for greed.

> >

> EA didn't remove lootboxes from people who already purchased them. Their statement says that they turned off in-game purchasing. That only means that people can't get any more lootboxes. But those who already purchased them still have their advantage. EA doesn't say anything about that.

>

> And this is very similar to the Anet statement. They said that the next mount skins would not be in a gamble box. EA said they would eventually turn in-game purchasing back on but they never promised they wouldn't have more lootboxes. And neither did Anet.

 

Thanks for the clarification and fully agreed, the 'next' set of skins won't have the gamble but that means they fully intend to bring it back this way.