IndigoSundown.5419 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @Turial.1293 said: > > 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. While I am also not a fan of random drop purchasing, what they said was that the "next planned mount skin releases" will be either single skins or bundles. Assuming ANet means to honor that statement, it means any skin releases already in planning will be sold via one of those two methods. It neither means they won't use RNG mount skin sales again, nor that they will. Leaving the possibility open is much better for them. Now, the cynical part of me says, "The next planned releases, let's see. What are the odds a Wintersday themed bundle was already in planning? In fact, we can't know whether they had already planned X number of mount skin releases, and planned for all of them to be bundles or skins at a fixed price. They might not even have had to change any of their plans to make that statement." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire X.5184 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @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. Most concerning, only time will tell if thing's change for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menadena.7482 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @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. It is not just 'a preference'. As has been stated multiple times it is possible to 'win' the skin for a mount you do not own. For example, I do not own the griffon nor do I ever intend to get one. I could buy 6 lootboxes and not get a usable skin. Yes, $30 for nothing but the satisfaction that I have unlocked all of the skins that currently exist for a mount I have not unlocked that they would go on. Say you went to a tire sale and they offered to sell you random tires cheep. Not necessarily ones that would fit on your car but hey, they are cheep. Still think it is a good deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @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. Yes. There are 2 main differences here, though. EA did turn off in-game purchasing for the lootboxes. Anet _didn't_. EA did not say the content from those lootboxes won't ever be available through other means. Anet _did_. Additionally, while EA admitted to "not getting it right", all Anet admitted was getting _misunderstood_ by players and to _bad timing_. So, even though EA's announcement is not that much hopeful at all, Anet's is _worse_. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @Astralporing.1957 said: > Yes. There are 2 main differences here, though. EA did turn off in-game purchasing for the lootboxes. Anet _didn't_. Did you expect Anet to disable the purchasing of gems with cash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWolf.8670 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @maddoctor.2738 said: > > @Astralporing.1957 said: > > Yes. There are 2 main differences here, though. EA did turn off in-game purchasing for the lootboxes. Anet _didn't_. > > Did you expect Anet to disable the purchasing of gems with cash? > > I'm pretty sure you quoted what he said: lootboxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @maddoctor.2738 said: > > @Astralporing.1957 said: > > Yes. There are 2 main differences here, though. EA did turn off in-game purchasing for the lootboxes. Anet _didn't_. > > Did you expect Anet to disable the purchasing of gems with cash? The existence of the gem store is not a topic of serious discussion right now. The existence of gems-to-gold is not a topic of serious discussion right now. The discussion right now is focused squarely on loot boxes, RNG mechanics, which is a distinct portion of the gem store. It's ok to have good faith discussions about gems and the gemstore, but they seem to be used here more as a distraction. Let's save discussions of the gem store that are not directly related to RNG loot boxes in a separate thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @Astralporing.1957 said: > > @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. > > Yes. There are 2 main differences here, though. EA did turn off in-game purchasing for the lootboxes. Anet _didn't_. EA did not say the content from those lootboxes won't ever be available through other means. Anet _did_. Additionally, while EA admitted to "not getting it right", all Anet admitted was getting _misunderstood_ by players and to _bad timing_. > > So, even though EA's announcement is not that much hopeful at all, Anet's is _worse_. I agree that Anet's response was worse than EA's. Of course EA's lootbox was worse in that it held P2W items so they felt they had to take more drastic action. They want to be able to turn in-game purchasing back on in time for their holiday sales lol, so they have to quickly let the issue die down. Anet has a similar problem: bad will about the gemstore right before the holiday sales. Yet another reason why such an obvious cash-grab was a particularly bad move at this time of the year. Just a bad idea all around when you think about it. And how will the non-whale player feel when a bunch of nice sales come up in a few weeks and they already spent huge amounts of gems on mount licenses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @GreyWolf.8670 said: > > @maddoctor.2738 said: > > > @Astralporing.1957 said: > > > Yes. There are 2 main differences here, though. EA did turn off in-game purchasing for the lootboxes. Anet _didn't_. > > > > Did you expect Anet to disable the purchasing of gems with cash? > > > > > > I'm pretty sure you quoted what he said: lootboxes. You DO know that loot boxes in Battlefront weren't disabled right? You get loot boxes in Battlefront by playing the game. You can get the mount adoption license by playing the game, get gold -> convert to gems -> get a license. So I asked a simple question, was the problem that Anet didn't disable the purchase of gems with cash? Because that's the only difference between Battlefront and Guild Wars 2. > @Ohoni.6057 said: > The discussion right now is focused squarely on loot boxes, RNG mechanics, which is a distinct portion of the gem store. > I'm not the one who brought EA and Battlefront II into the discussion. What EA did and what Anet did are on completely different situations. EA disabling purchasing of loot boxes with cash is the same as Anet removing the ability to buy gems with cash, because in both cases loot boxes still exist. There are still loot boxes, with the same chances in Battlefront, so I'm confused why someone would ask Anet to do something like EA did. I do not like the mount adoption license at all, I hate everything RNG related on the gem store. But this whole "EA did it better than Anet" really irritates me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @maddoctor.2738 said: >You DO know that loot boxes in Battlefront weren't disabled right? You get loot boxes in Battlefront by playing the game. >You can get the mount adoption license by playing the game, get gold -> convert to gems -> get a license. That is NOT an equivalent position. Gold to gems is not "playing the game," the gems are still purchased with actual money. Just because the player using the gems did not pay for those gems himself does not mean that it is not a "pay to play" transaction. >So I asked a simple question, was the problem that Anet didn't disable the purchase of gems with cash? Because that's the only difference between Battlefront and Guild Wars 2. No, the problem is that they did not disable the loot boxes in the gem store and promise to offer a non-RNG alternative to them. The Gem-to-Gold aspect is entirely irrelevant. If you want to make the case that "ANet should have done what EA did," then the corresponding mechanism for doing that would not be to remove the "Gem-to-Gold pipeline, it would be to remove the "Cash to Gems" pipeline, so that the ONLY way to acquire gems was via in-game gold. That would be very confusing though, and I don't know why anyone would suggest it except to distract from the actual issues at hand. >I'm not the one who brought EA and Battlefront II into the discussion. What EA did and what Anet did are on completely different situations. They are different in some details, but they can still be compared to each other. The salient point is that EA **made changes to the game** in reaction to customer feedback. All ANet did was issue a "sorry/notsorry" statement and made NO changes to the game in response. >There are still loot boxes, with the same chances in Battlefront, so I'm confused why someone would ask Anet to do something like EA did. Different issue, different response, but we want a response appropriate to the situation. If you have one town, and they have a pothole problem, and people complain, so they go around and fill in the potholes, and then you have another town, and they have a garbage fire problem, and people in that town say "see, that other town had a problem, and they fixed it," they clearly aren't asking for their town to dump asphalt on the garbage fire, they are just asking for the fire to be *put out.* A *different* solution of *equivalent* customer appreciation and sense of urgency. >I do not like the mount adoption license at all, I hate everything RNG related on the gem store. But this whole "EA did it better than Anet" really irritates me. It irritates me too, which is why I wish ANet would *catch up.* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @Ohoni.6057 said: > That is NOT an equivalent position. Gold to gems is not "playing the game," the gems are still purchased with actual money. Just because the player using the gems did not pay for those gems himself does not mean that it is not a "pay to play" transaction. > The player that uses gold to buy items didn't buy any gems. Just because someone else did sometime in the past doesn't change this. Also, Anet can indeed add more gems to the exchange, gems are created from various reasons, achievement points, old pvp tournament rewards, e-sports prize money and of course the we-do-not-know how huge initial pool of gems when the game launched. > No, the problem is that they did not disable the loot boxes in the gem store and promise to offer a non-RNG alternative to them. EA didn't disable the loot boxes either, nor they provided any non-RNG alternative way to get anything from inside them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vyrulisse.1246 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 Another bundle full of RNG was just released into the Gem Store today. I suppose that's what "we understand your concerns" means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 The pack we got today in gemstore has been created and datamined around mountgate episode so it was already set in stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWolf.8670 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @maddoctor.2738 said: > > @GreyWolf.8670 said: > > > @maddoctor.2738 said: > > > > @Astralporing.1957 said: > > > > Yes. There are 2 main differences here, though. EA did turn off in-game purchasing for the lootboxes. Anet _didn't_. > > > > > > Did you expect Anet to disable the purchasing of gems with cash? > > > > > > > > > > I'm pretty sure you quoted what he said: lootboxes. > > You DO know that loot boxes in Battlefront weren't disabled right? You get loot boxes in Battlefront by playing the game. > You can get the mount adoption license by playing the game, get gold -> convert to gems -> get a license. > So I asked a simple question, was the problem that Anet didn't disable the purchase of gems with cash? Because that's the only difference between Battlefront and Guild Wars 2. > > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > The discussion right now is focused squarely on loot boxes, RNG mechanics, which is a distinct portion of the gem store. > > > > I'm not the one who brought EA and Battlefront II into the discussion. What EA did and what Anet did are on completely different situations. > EA disabling purchasing of loot boxes with cash is the same as Anet removing the ability to buy gems with cash, because in both cases loot boxes still exist. > There are still loot boxes, with the same chances in Battlefront, so I'm confused why someone would ask Anet to do something like EA did. > > I do not like the mount adoption license at all, I hate everything RNG related on the gem store. But this whole "EA did it better than Anet" really irritates me. Oh, so I can get mount skin licenses by playing the game now? You're still avoiding the topic for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @maddoctor.2738 said: >The player that uses gold to buy items didn't buy any gems. Not in dispute, neither is it relevant. In Battlefront, if you get a loot box via gameplay, NOBODY MAKES MONEY. If they take out the paid loot boxes, then EA has cut off their corrupt incentive to have them. That makes them *less evil.* In GW2, even if a player earns gold through gameplay and converts that gold to gems, ANet is still getting paid cash money in that transaction. They still have the corrupt incentive to encourage gambling, because they profit off of that behavior. Can you genuinely not see the distinction here or are you just engaging in shenanigans? >EA didn't disable the loot boxes either, nor they provided any non-RNG alternative way to get anything from inside them. But they did take actions. I notice that you completely ignored that portion of my response. Makes sense. Sad, but makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @GreyWolf.8670 said: > Oh, so I can get mount skin licenses by playing the game now? You're still avoiding the topic for some reason. Play the game -> get gold -> buy gems -> buy license? Like you know any other item on the gem store? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > @maddoctor.2738 said: > >The player that uses gold to buy items didn't buy any gems. > > Not in dispute, neither is it relevant. > > In Battlefront, if you get a loot box via gameplay, NOBODY MAKES MONEY. If they take out the paid loot boxes, then EA has cut off their corrupt incentive to have them. That makes them *less evil.* In GW2, even if a player earns gold through gameplay and converts that gold to gems, ANet is still getting paid cash money in that transaction. They still have the corrupt incentive to encourage gambling, because they profit off of that behavior. Can you genuinely not see the distinction here or are you just engaging in shenanigans? > > >EA didn't disable the loot boxes either, nor they provided any non-RNG alternative way to get anything from inside them. > > But they did take actions. I notice that you completely ignored that portion of my response. Makes sense. Sad, but makes sense. Let me ask you a question, if they didn't allow you to use cash to buy the license, but instead require you to pay gold for it, but use the exact same system as we have now. Would you be happy with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @maddoctor.2738 said: > > @GreyWolf.8670 said: > > Oh, so I can get mount skin licenses by playing the game now? You're still avoiding the topic for some reason. > > Play the game -> get gold -> buy gems -> buy license? Like you know any other item on the gem store? Anet is still getting money for this since SOMEONE bought the gems you are getting with gold. Not going to happen for a mount gamble box for me - I'm not going to support that crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @maddoctor.2738 said: > Let me ask you a question, if they didn't allow you to use cash to buy the license, but instead require you to pay gold for it, but use the exact same system as we have now. Would you be happy with it? Happy? No. Less upset and concerned? Yes. There are plenty of mechanisms in this game that are based in RNG, numerous loot boxes abound. I am not particularly a fan of these, particularly in cases where the odds are extremely low. The vital distinction, however, is the corrupt motives factor. If an item is earned purely and 100% via gameplay, if ANEt does not make a dime based on how often it is used, then I may not like it, but at least it's not a corrupt motivator. They have no reason to make it any more RNG than they feel (right or wrong) that the players would most enjoy. If the loot box can be purchased with money, however, *either* in the form of gems purchased with cash *or* with gems purchased with cash that are then sold for gold, then the company in question would have a corrupt motivation at play. The more random it is, the less likely the player is to get what he wants on each pull, the more money they would make off that player. This puts them in an antagonistic relationship with the players rather than a supportive one, they *benefit* off the players *failures.* It's basically like any corrupt enterprise. If a politician enacts a policy that I don't like because he genuinely believes it's in the overall best interests, then ok, I disagree, but I can respect his choices. If he does it because he's being paid off to do it, however, I would be *particularly* upset about it. Now, again, EA did not remove their loot boxes entirely, and considering how their game is structured I'm not surprised, since doing that would be a *massive* undertaking over any short period of time. What they did do is shut down the "pay" portion of the "pay to win," they removed the corrupt incentives from the system, and put all players on a level playing field. Ideally they will put i the work to come up with a system that is less reliant on the loot boxes for progression, but that's not somethign you could expect overnight. What ANet did is. . . nothing. Exactly nothing whatsoever. We got some vague claims that they wouldn't make it *worse,* but they did absolutely nothing to make it better, and did not even promise to make anything better. GW2's problems are different than Battlefront's problems. The solutions to GW2's problem would need to be different than the solution to Battlefront's. But EA at least took action, EA actually did something, and ANet did not. And that is important to point out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @Menadena.7482 said: > > @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? > > That for sure is something that ANET should consider improving on.. if you don't have a certain mount available then the perhaps include some code to cancel out those particular skins.. I hear you on that for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @maddoctor.2738 said: > > @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. As I said, its a step in the right direction imo.. certainly not perfect but better than most other RNG loot box systems I have ever come across. Then again the onus is still on the player to choose whether the risk is worth taking if they only want that one shiny skin.. it is not a forced sale. By improving the odds each time you buy a licence brings coins into the coffers, which isn't a bad thing if we want to see the game to keep going on. Many players forget that GW2 has to somehow make profit to keep the lights on and when things like Quarterly reports come up the players whine about how badly its doing, the game is on life support lalala.. but they still expect to get exactly what they want every time the login or buy something from the store which incorporates a carrot and hook to keep us coming back. If they put every skin in the collection up for sale players would still whine about something and the revenue stream would indeed be dented or the gemstore flooded with one off item sales and less development of actual content, which in turn will just push players away - so ANET will never make all of us happy any of the time, no matter what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaaba.5672 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > The pack we got today in gemstore has been created and datamined around mountgate episode so it was already set in stone. So there was nothing they could have done about it? How about this - they scrap it. I mean, technically it is better than the mounts because at least you get to chose a specific weapon to RNG for, but I'd hardly call it good. To still introduce this feels tone deaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @Bloodstealer.5978 said: >Then again the onus is still on the player to choose whether the risk is worth taking if they only want that one shiny skin.. it is not a forced sale. Sure, but again, if I want that skin, I can take the step to "not gamble for it," sure, but where does that leave me? I still don't have the skin. So additional steps need to be taken to try and convince them to open up new options for acquiring it. >By improving the odds each time you buy a licence brings coins into the coffers, which isn't a bad thing if we want to see the game to keep going on. Yes, but it also means players spending more money than they'd care to on skins that they don't want. I'm all for ANet making money off the game and keeping it going, but not if it comes at the expense of enabling gambling. >If they put every skin in the collection up for sale players would still whine about something and the revenue stream would indeed be dented or the gemstore flooded with one off item sales and less development of actual content, which in turn will just push players away - so ANET will never make all of us happy any of the time, no matter what they do. Sure, but that doesn't mean that they can't do better than gamble boxes. They *can* do better than gamble boxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 > @Bloodstealer.5978 said: > > @maddoctor.2738 said: > > > @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. > > As I said, its a step in the right direction imo.. certainly not perfect but better than most other RNG loot box systems I have ever come across. > Then again the onus is still on the player to choose whether the risk is worth taking if they only want that one shiny skin.. it is not a forced sale. > By improving the odds each time you buy a licence brings coins into the coffers, which isn't a bad thing if we want to see the game to keep going on. There might be many players who decided to buy licenses, some of them mainly because there was no other way to get a mount skin. But how smart was it to try to wring more cash out of players right before the holidays? Many players may have spent all or most of their "game money" on mount skins and now will not purchase holiday sales / items. There is also the problem of increasing numbers of gamble boxes. Although I was infracted for mentioning them (didn't know mentioning data mined content was against the CoC), we have now seen that the datamined weapon box has indeed been introduced to the gemstore. Is this really the way GW2 players want the gemstore to be? Many were ok with the license box, how about more and more boxes until maybe that is the only way we can get items from the gemstore? It is a slippery slope that many MMO companies have already gone down in this very way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachineManXX.9746 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 While I have absolutely no problem with the mount adoptions, and am quite satisfied with Anets response, it simply can't be argued that these are not a form of gambling. They are a gamble. If that is good or bad is obviously debatable, but they are gambling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts