A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[Rose Solane.1027]

First of all, thanks for your reaction.

> We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through *non-pay-to-win* microtransactions. We try different ideas, but we always hold true to that commitment.

A very important commitment and I am glad you stick to it.

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

I am very happy you acknowledge this. And as the first point. Communication could have been much better.

> Here are some of the benefits we had in mind when designing the Mount Adoption License:

>

> * You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.

> * It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins.

> * You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.

You cleverly didn't say who benefits. This doesn't benefit the player, it benefits you, the company.

 

You introduced RNG in the microtransaction system. There you crossed the line. I don't care if it is a better system than lootboxes in other games, it is still a terrible system. The fact that I can use in-game gold to buy gems doesn't make it more acceptable. It only gives me the option to buy something in the gem store without paying RL money.

 

Although I am happy you gave a reaction I don't believe your decision to use a different system in the future has anything to do with the backlash in the forum and on other platforms (Reddit). I (and many others) said before that you (ArenaNet) are only looking at the sales figures (**for gem store items**). I assume you didn't make the profit you had planned for and realised that this system wasn't giving you the money you had hoped for. So I will repeat myself: Players, vote with your wallet, don't buy these mount adoption licenses. If ArenaNet doesn't make enough money with it they will try something else next time. Hopefully something better.

[Nereikia.3507]

Well, i respect ppl who work at ArenaNet (NC West) and make gw2, but i just can't appreciate a message that is explicitly related to some 'damage-controlling' PR talk rather than to players' concerns. I'm so sorry for that, to be honest.

 

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

 

> Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while **offering a lower price per skin**.

 

So, following that brilliant logic of yours, dear mr. O'Brien, one might think that when you locked the Fallen Balthazar Outfit behind the black lion lootboxes, you offered it at a significantly lower price, compared to other outfits, because the key costs only 150 gems. Such a good deal!

 

And that logical trick is not the only 'flaw' of this message, unfortunately.

 

P.S. Sorry for my poor English.

 

 

[Oldirtbeard.9834]

> @Nereikia.3507 said:

> Well, i respect ppl who work at ArenaNet (NC West) and make gw2, but i just can't appreciate a message that is explicitly related to some 'damage-controlling' PR talk rather than to players' concerns. I'm so sorry for that, to be honest.

>

> > @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

>

> > Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while **offering a lower price per skin**.

>

> So, following that brilliant logic of yours, dear mr. O'Brien, one might think that when you locked the Fallen Balthazar Outfit behind the black lion lootboxes, you offered it at a significantly lower price, compared to other outfits, because the key costs only 150 gems. Such a good deal!

>

> And that logical trick is not the only 'flaw' of this message, unfortunately.

>

> P.S. Sorry for my poor English.

>

>

 

I would have bought that Outfit as well, provided it wasn't RNG, oh well it's only money right?

[OtakuModeEngage.8679]

Not really happy with the decision, but I do understand why you THINK it must be made. If they change the loot box now to allow choice, what then happens to all the people who already bought the loot box and didn't get to choose? They will feel they lost the value for their money. IE, "I spent $10 and got two random skins, but you spent $10 and got to pick two, that's not fair, why is your money worth more than mine?" However, I disagree with this sentiment, as the people who bought it before the power of choice was added, did so knowingly, willingly. Its like if you buy milk today, and it goes on sale tomorrow, you cant complain to the store that you didn't get the sale price. I believe that was the same argument ANet delivered to _me_ when I complained about HoT being full priced for veterans despite the fact that we had to pay for core GW2 and new players didn't. Devs shut me down pretty hard, even locking one of my threads. Well if that logic is true there, shouldn't it be likewise here?

 

That being said, while I appreciate knowing that your intentions behind adding this loot box were not in fact malicious, saying, 'we understand the problem, we hear your complaints, but we are not going to do anything about it' really does feel like a slap in the face. Its like, "whatever, we don't care." To which I can only say, "whatever, I wont buy your product then." Well I wont say "I'm quitting GW2" or "Ill never buy gems again", but I am extremely disappointed, I had thought GW2 to be more progressive and consumer friendly.

[FearTheOyster.5138]

Thank you for the consideration of feedback, and your response. It's not a very satisfying response to the issues brought up, however.

 

The argument that the skins being in these gamble boxes is in reflection to the quality of work that the artists had put into the skins is weird. Is this admitting that every outfit, miniature or glider that were directly purchasable through the gemstore were somehow inferior to what's being put out now? I'd like to think that outfits and gliders are your best selling items as most other players I interact with tend to buy those things the most readily.

 

Despite myself owning roughly 90% of the outfits that you've put out for purchase, I find it hard to see myself buying items that would grant me 1 of 5 possible outfits. The reason is that despite being a collector, I appreciate being offered choice when I buy things. Most people can't just throw $100 on an impulse purchase. A $10 impulse purchase is much more realistic and feasible for your average customer... however, being able to have choice in what you get is key. There's a reason those gashapon toys are so inexpensive but as to make the price point so attractively low that people can justify putting $5 worth of change into a machine in hopes of getting a complete set.

 

And since I'm using Gashapon as a comparison, I'd like to illustrate something that me and my friends had personally experienced with a store that specialized in these machines. Years ago, one of my friends was going to go swing by Akihabara and buy as much anime goodies as possible. I was going to be somewhere else, but I asked this friend if she could pick up some Bleach figures for me. I gave her what approximated to about $50 and wished her luck on getting me some good figures. Later that day when we met up again, she handed over a full set of a Bleach figurine set (with no duplicates, which impressed me at the moment), and then a few other pieces of merchandise with the money I gave her.

 

"That's amazing that you got all five figures with no duplicates!"

"Oh, no, I actually stopped by a stall in front of the gashapon store and bought the full set there."

"Wait, what?"

 

Some enterprising folks take the time to dump hundreds of dollars into the machines and mark whole sets of figures and re-sell them to people near the store (and I would assume they would also sell them online). The mark-up is big enough that it's worth doing for the reseller, but at such a reasonable price that people who don't want to waste the time (and money) fishing for a specific figure that they want can just buy it. With that, instead of the expectation of having to blow $50 to possibly only get MOST of the figures I wanted, my friend only had to pay $32 (and used the leftover money to get some neat magazines that I honestly couldn't read very well. Damnit).

 

I guess the point that I'm getting at is this. You want to play the gashapon game, but know that you're in a situation where this kind of sale mechanic is not very popular. There are people who do not want to pay $120** to overcome their lack of choice of the skins you have for sale. They would however, would be very willing to pay a smaller price to get EXACTLY what they want. The gashapon reseller figured out it was a big enough demand that he set up a shop for it. The gashapon shop tenders didn't seem to mind the reseller's existence, but you have to wonder how much more money they'd be making if they were selling full sets as a slightly higher price, instead of hoping people are willing to ultimately spend twice as much to get what they want. I guess ultimately your accountants/economist will hold the numbers that'll tell you which is the better long-term sales approach.

 

** at the time of the patch, the gold-to-gem conversion cost was about 10,000g for 9,600 gems. I promise you that the "just farm the gold 2 get the gems lul" argument isn't as good as some of you (players) think it is.

[Kissa.4586]

Very disappointing. I really want the Starbound Griffon skin, but with my RNG luck, it would take many licences to get it. I've been playing since launch, over 3,500 hours, and never got a pre-cursor to drop despite a base MF of 162%. I don't have the money, gold or time for the 30-pack. If it was possible to pick the one I wanted, maybe I could have worked toward it. So I won't be getting ANY.

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @"Rose Solane.1027" said:

> First of all, thanks for your reaction.

> > We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through *non-pay-to-win* microtransactions. We try different ideas, but we always hold true to that commitment.

> A very important commitment and I am glad you stick to it.

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

> I am very happy you acknowledge this. And as the first point. Communication could have been much better.

> > Here are some of the benefits we had in mind when designing the Mount Adoption License:

> >

> > * You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.

> > * It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins.

> > * You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.

> You cleverly didn't say who benefits. This doesn't benefit the player, it benefits you, the company.

>

> You introduced RNG in the microtransaction system. There you crossed the line. I don't care if it is a better system than lootboxes in other games, it is still a terrible system. The fact that I can use in-game gold to buy gems doesn't make it more acceptable. It only gives me the option to buy something in the gem store without paying RL money.

>

> Although I am happy you gave a reaction I don't believe your decision to use a different system in the future has anything to do with the backlash in the forum and on other platforms (Reddit). I (and many others) said before that you (ArenaNet) are only looking at the sales figures (**for gem store items**). I assume you didn't make the profit you had planned for and realised that this system wasn't giving you the money you had hoped for. So I will repeat myself: Players, vote with your wallet, don't buy these mount adoption licenses. If ArenaNet doesn't make enough money with it they will try something else next time. Hopefully something better.

 

Then they crossed the line day 1st with lion keys, which was back at the beginning of the game.

Their implementation was logical, not malicious, the backslash was overreacting though, considering this was all already in game.

 

Players voted with their wallet but they did it years ago.

[Traveller.7496]

Individual sale works if the prices are cheap enough. If you are worried no one will buy mundane skins, dont make then, or set the price lower than flashy skins.

 

I'm disappointed about the response, and looks like random is here to stay. I'd ask people who are also disappointed not to buy these licenses, and instead buy something where you know what you will get, just to vote with your wallet.

[Luth.6915]

So basically, Anet feels bad because they got called out on the loot box thing. ...and nothing's changed, other than promise (?) of not applying element of chance in future microtransaction?

[Berserkeremir.4631]

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

> Hi,

>

> We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions. We try different ideas, but we always hold true to that commitment. We’ve been collecting and discussing your feedback on the Mount Adoption License, and today I’d like to acknowledge and respond to the concerns you’ve raised, and to share our perspective with you.

>

> You have valid concerns about random boxes. We hoped that the design of the Mount Adoption License would be reassuring. In this case, we made some missteps:

>

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

> * We released mount skins with three different purchase models, but with the majority of skins released so far through the Adoption License. It’s easy to perceive this as intentionally channeling you toward randomization.

> * The Adoption License is a large set at 30 skins. We stand by the work our artists put into each skin, but it’s understandable to see this as pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin, and to worry that we might add more skins to lower the chances further.

>

>

> Here are some of the benefits we had in mind when designing the Mount Adoption License:

>

> * You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.

> * It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins.

> * You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.

>

>

> Microtransactions can be polarizing, and we’ve received both positive and negative feedback on the license. 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.

>

> We appreciate the thoughtful feedback many of you have provided, and that you hold us to high standards for monetization. It’s been a challenging but wonderful goal to support live development and Living World purely through optional microtransactions, and it’s your support that’s made that possible. Thank you.

>

> ~ M

 

Arena Net must be joking. Regular interpretation of this later is " we don't change anything, we are just starting boiling the frog slowly so simple peasants dont understand what we are trying rips off from them and evetualy they don't take their pitchforks and torches while we are ripping off" .

[Hawken.7932]

> @Talindra.4958 said:

> would appreciate some new mount skins even if it is ugly to be provided as part of a collection or a story line.. would love to see that as part of the game content not from Gem store. honestly... after this I felt really sick entirely anything to do with gemstore.

> Cheers

>

 

This is the key problem that Arenanet's statement doesn't address at all. It's not just that the skins are locked behind a poorly implemented RNG wall. Personally, I find the 30 mount release to be disappointing in that way, but why it is SUCH a problem, is that the gem store has been the only way to receive such skins. Put some rewards into the world, Anet. Your rich, open, beautifully constructed world! I know, it's cool that you need to make money to continue, everyone understands that, but skins in the gem store should supplement world based rewards, not replace them.

[OtakuModeEngage.8679]

> @Kentsui.4930 said:

> A truly disappointing response to all this.

> If 400 gems is supposed to be a discounted price, I would really be curious to see the 'regular' price for one mount skin in the future ... because much above that and there is NO WAY I'm ever buying one.

 

Most Glider skins are 400 to 500 gems and most Outfits are 700 gems, if we are to compare glider skins to mount skins, its not a discount at all; but if we compare them to outfits, it is. I personally spend way more time mounted than I do gliding, so I think mount skins SHOULD be worth more than glider skins. I would personally price them around the same range as outfits(700gems), since, as with outfits, you use them all the time. Thus to me, 400 gems for a mount skin IS a discount. But in the end, the consumer doesn't set the prices, so if Devs think the skins are worth even more than that, such as the 2,000gem Jackel Skin, then that's what it is. And if that is to be the case, than 400gems, is even more so a discount. Ive never had a problem with the price of the adoption, just the means, the lack of choice.

 

 

[Jordan.5930]

I feel like I'm joining a movement ? people should start making their signatures ---> #votewithyourwallet✊

[TexZero.7910]

> @zealex.9410 said:

> I dont believe its fair for the mounts to be on the same price as the glider since theres more work going into them.

 

Because it's so much more work for them to re-use an already existing asset and charge 2k gems, versus creating entirely new entities for a glider and charging 500 ?

 

Does pass the eye, or smell test.

 

[Daralii.8940]

> @Luth.6915 said:

> So basically, Anet feels bad because they got called out on the loot box thing. ...and nothing's changed, other than promise (?) of not applying element of chance in future microtransaction?

 

In the next batch of mount skins. That's all he mentioned.

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> > @zealex.9410 said:

> > I dont believe its fair for the mounts to be on the same price as the glider since theres more work going into them.

>

> Because it's so much more work for them to re-use an already existing asset and charge 2k gems, versus creating entirely new entities for a glider and charging 500 ?

>

> Does pass the eye, or smell test.

>

 

The price is irrelevant, they're not breaking their promise that no pay to win items are in the shop.

They can price it the way they want, if players think it's not worth it, they won't buy it.

 

Apple sell their overpriced Iphone X at a price that I consider absolutely ridiculous, I don't buy it. Simple as that.

Anet shouldn't be "blamed" for attempts on testing the market, especially not with the price of non RNG items.

[endirasae.3015]

> @Asum.4960 said:

> Now you refuse to change this gambling system and whenever I log into GW2, whenever I see one of those skins I really like, I get this scratch of temptation in the back of my mind. _"Come on, you have 5€ you could spend, maybe you get lucky. Maybe you even have 10 or 15. Come on, even if you don't get anything you want at all and are never going to use, but next time, next time your chances will be better to get something you actually want for your money"_.

>

> I fled other MMO's and triple A games exactly because of that feeling.

> Instead of enjoying the game and wanting to support the devs, to constantly feel that temptation to give in and gamble my money away to have something nice ingame.

> When I was a teenager I fell for that 2 times in games over a decade ago with microtransactions, and I will never forget how horrible I felt afterwards, if I got the thing I wanted or not.

> I've sworn to myself to never indulge in that feeling ever again.

 

You know...it's because of people like you who have gone through this and have to endure it bombarding you whenever you log in that I don't even want to get these skins via gold to gem conversion. It's supposedly called benign marketing or something like that, but it's not benign, not really, when it's forcing people to see something they'd really like for themselves but have no way to get it save by exposing themselves to the same psychological manipulation used by casinos.

 

It's like, I dunno. Casually smoking in front of someone who's finally managed to Quit.

 

I hope the devs introduce a way for people to turn off other players' custom mount skins, like they have for noise-makers. Maybe that would make things easier for you :(

[Ignigknawt.7869]

I honestly do not mind the adoption licenses as they are now. I think they're decently priced at 400 gems each, and I don't mind spending 10 bucks here and there to get a couple of new skins (especially when you're ALWAYS guaranteed a new skin), and for the people who can afford the 30-pack, good for them.

 

What I don't agree with is charging 2000 gems for a single skin, a-la the warhound skin. That's 30-35 dollars for ONE skin, not even the spooky mount pack cost that much.

 

So please, if you decide to release skins individually PLEASE don't charge that much for them. 400 or 500 gems is a much fairer price.

[Szaku.1495]

oh, i quite loved this skin sale and appreciated all three options. having played games which literally use random box sales, i must say this 1/30 was refreshing as well as a delight for me, who simply bought all 30 at once, with the _guarantee_ that you'd get a different skin each time.

 

in another gamble model game i could've easily spent 6 times that amount (literally 180 boxes in an attempt to get 30) and still may/may not have gotten what i aimed for.

 

that being said, everything from the quality of each individual skin, to the purpose of the sale, i fully support and thank you for. i challenge you, anet employee, to check my gem purchases in the past year. you wont get fluff and f2p opinions from me.

 

behind each of these low tier arguments is adamant denial and blatant disregard that this game need be paid for. and say what they want, but had you simply added skins in single purchasable order, sales would decline dramatically. these 3 pay options were FAIR. rest assured knowing that even in these "rng pay to win" games ppl grandstand and preach about, those games are still alive and kicking to this day. people WILL purchase your goods, and for all the ones here bellyaching and threatening because of what they subjectively dont like, objectively speaking, this was a job well done. i undoubtedly feel i got my money's worth 30x with the adoption license and my friends who splurged on skins did as well.

 

i do think it would've been a nice showing to add say, maybe one free, in game mount skin as well. but as an absolute charity at best. skins are a vanity item. they're not necessary to the gameplay nor does the lack of them take away from the game experience. its a luxury. people pay for luxuries. and far as im concerned, thats the end of that particular discussion. even the "free in game" item skins. the good ones? the ones ppl want? are hella expensive. adding a free in game obtainable skin, imo, should be no less rng than getting precursor weapons from tossing in tons of exotics into the ~~toilet~~ mystic forge. which is funny because as much as i see ppl qqing about rng, its the in game items that are rng based the most.

 

the work and style your artists produced _deserves_ payment. this isnt these lazy gamers who run hp trains and beg for tips here. this is __actual__ quality work thats earned its due.

 

as an active gem shopper, my personal opinion is that you should heed the opinions _of_ your market, here. and while i know itd be shooting yourself in the foot to openly admit to it, i highly suggest taking the views and opinions from a biased standpoint. the people who frequently use and invest in your game and gemstore should certainly have a higher priority than those who simply want "more and more" for free and dont care at all about keeping this game and its content rolling out at no loss to its developers.

 

dont get me wrong, im not suggesting everytime i purchase gems im considering your personal situations at all. im simply saying i understand the give and take to game development and putting out good quality work consistently, then throwing it essentially "down the drain" at ppl who, the vast majority of, insist every possible thing should be free-er to them

 

the only actual rng boxes on sale have been and always have been the black lion chests, and even with them i have no gripe at all.

 

as far as the adoption license 30 pack, i would enjoy very much if you were able to keep it the same in the future, provided the quality of the skins also remained this amazing. i think that the 3 pay model was spot on. with any other sale you'd do the exact same; 2k cost for individual skins. gamble and test your luck (of a mere 1/30 odds) for a severely discounted cost. and an in-between markdown price for buying in bulk. maybe at a later date re-release each individual skin out of the 30 pack for 2k a piece. that should quell all the complaints about "rng"

 

phenomenal work, great job, and thanks to you anet! will be looking forward to living story additions soon.

[TexZero.7910]

> @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> > @TexZero.7910 said:

> > > @zealex.9410 said:

> > > I dont believe its fair for the mounts to be on the same price as the glider since theres more work going into them.

> >

> > Because it's so much more work for them to re-use an already existing asset and charge 2k gems, versus creating entirely new entities for a glider and charging 500 ?

> >

> > Does pass the eye, or smell test.

> >

>

> The price is irrelevant, they're not breaking their promise that no pay to win items are in the shop.

> They can price it the way they want, if players think it's not worth it, they won't buy it.

>

> Apple sell their overpriced Iphone X at a price that I consider absolutely ridiculous, I don't buy it. Simple as that.

> Anet shouldn't be "blamed" for attempts on testing the market, especially not with the price of non RNG items.

My point which you clearly missed.....

 

It's not about work in -> cost ratio which was being presented as a defense.

 

Hence doesn't pass the eye or smell test. It's clearly a marketing choice from some accountant who thought there was a market for more expensive one off goods.

 

[Shampanix.3928]

Mo.

 

Thank you for your response. It still misses the point tho... at least IMO.

 

What I see was wrong - **lack of communication**. You could have easily stated at the very beginning that more basic skins will be loaded to Adoption mechanism while more exlusive skins with changed model would go on non-rng sale. This perhaps would work best. And this is what you wanted to do probably, but you didn't say that in an open manner.

 

Perhaps you should have started with smaller ammount of skins in RNG model. This would go easier on you. Dunno.

 

Right now I would blame lack of communication most. I do want you to earn money to keep developing the game which I love with whole my heart, thus I'm not against mount skins on gem store. But man... **when you launch controversial monetizing mechanizm, put a statement about it**. How's it gonna work in the future, why it's this way etc. Visibility so you do not need to explain yourself later after such a kittenstorm...

 

And also if any - Mount adoption should be rather rng around one singe mount, not whole pack of mounts. So you can have random raptor if you love raptors while not risking cancerbunny to drop instead of something you might find useful.

 

It makes me sad to see what happened. I want this game to rise, not fall. And whole Adoption fiasco saddens me as everyone should realise how important is for Anet to earn cash to keep working on GW2.

 

Personally I wouldn't buy any of Adoption skins as it's too big of an RNG right now. I'm not gonna touch it Mo, no way. However if you split mounts I might think about it then. 400 gems for a skin is cheap. And I can collect them slowly, while you could gradually increase the ammount of avaliable skins. But no way I risk dropping cancerbunny or something else I just do not want to use as my daily drive mount.

 

And I do look forward to more exlusive skins, yet I will buy only one, maybe two cus they are hellish expensive. Luckily I have only one favourite mount (jackal) so I'll wait for something amazing to please me.

 

Saddened, but still hopeful.

Shamp.

[OtakuModeEngage.8679]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> > @zealex.9410 said:

> > I dont believe its fair for the mounts to be on the same price as the glider since theres more work going into them.

>

> Because it's so much more work for them to re-use an already existing asset and charge 2k gems, versus creating entirely new entities for a glider and charging 500 ?

>

> Does pass the eye, or smell test.

>

 

You forget, that the player base was practically shouting at ANet, "We want Mount Skins, take our money! Even if its expensive, we'll buy it," prior to the release of skins. Its ironic, that now that they have been released and we find out that they are indeed expensive, we don't want to pay for them anymore... Producer sets the prices, it is our choice as consumers whether to pay them or not. And considering that ANet has been on a slow, but steady decline in sales since the release of GW2, its understandable that they are trying to make money through micro transactions, something has to keep the game running. No, I've never had a problem with the prices.

[TexZero.7910]

> @OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:

> > @TexZero.7910 said:

> > > @zealex.9410 said:

> > > I dont believe its fair for the mounts to be on the same price as the glider since theres more work going into them.

> >

> > Because it's so much more work for them to re-use an already existing asset and charge 2k gems, versus creating entirely new entities for a glider and charging 500 ?

> >

> > Does pass the eye, or smell test.

> >

>

> You forget, that the player base was practically shouting at ANet, "We want Mount Skins, take our money! Even if its expensive, we'll buy it," prior to the release of skins. Its ironic, that now that they have been released and we find out that they are indeed expensive, we don't want to pay for them anymore... Producer sets the prices, it is our choice as consumers whether to pay them or not. And considering that ANet has been on a slow, but steady decline in sales since the release of GW2, its understandable that they are trying to make money through micro transactions, something has to keep the game running. No, I've never had a problem with the prices.

 

I know very well why they did it, again read above and stop missing the point please

 

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/259951/#Comment_259951

 

[Ider.1276]

> @Traveller.7496 said:

>'d ask people who are also disappointed not to buy these licenses, and instead buy something where you know what you will get, just to vote with your wallet.

A very strange logic. It is like: "Merchant, yesterday you sold me pork instead of beef even though you knew I'm jewish! Today I will punish you by buying a barrel of apples from you! Surely you will not trick me into confusing apples to something else. Behold my revenge, muahaha!"

 

[Sanity Obscure.6054]

I can't believe this is going to be left in the game. It's really sad.