A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[Chadramar.8156]

> @Erasculio.2914 said:

> I'm not so sure about that one. A pack consisting on nothing but making the standard skins fully dyable, with all four channels available, would likely sell very well.

 

Yes. I'm one of the people who have already stated that they would happily buy such a skin. I do not care about the silly MMO-y sparklefarts stuff, and instead want something that looks like it actually fits into the world and lore. Which is also why I would have bought some of the "bad, lazy" skins from this gambling fiasco if it hadn't been a gambling fiasco.

 

The sparklefarts fans are more _obvious_ because it's hard to _not_ notice an all neon pink griffon madly whizzing around for maximum "looklooklookatme!!!11111" potential. But put a less immersion-breaking and less eyestrain-causing skin out there at a lower price than the effect-laden ones that require more time to create, and I don't see why it wouldn't sell.

[zealex.9410]

> @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.

>

 

Never saw something like the reforged charger in game before this :/ Eh could be wrong. But regardless i did say 2k is too much and around 800 to 1k is better.

[Solitude.8621]

Easy fix...you don't want to block people unwilling to gamble on the loot box RNG mechanism...but you also don't want to annoy people who invested 9600 gems or 400 gem random rolls so...if 30 skins = 9600 gems that is 320 gems per skin. 400 if using the singles...so sell them for 800 gems. People will pick the skins they want and only the one's they want. People who paid 320/400 each skin are looking at the 800 cost and thinking that they were glad they purchased using the RNG system. And people looking at an 800 gem cost can tally up which/how many skins they really want to have and see if the license option is a better choice...everybody wins and Anet make money.

[Shirlias.8104]

Thanks for the response Mike.

 

> @"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.

 

\o

[zealex.9410]

> @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.

 

Theres far less cmplaining about the price of the jackal skin than there is for the whole rng shit.

[Ider.1276]

> @inubasiri.8745 said:

> I know a lot of you don't like that the adoption licence isn't getting changed, but mind the people who already bought them.

I am really tired of this argument, so:

 

1) Those people didn't think about everyone else, when they bought lootboxes. They were not thinking about future of industry when they voted with their wallets. And because of such people 2017 became the Year of a Lootbox.

 

2) There were like dosens of ways to solve this problem without "hurting" those poor lootbox buyers. I would be okey to pay 600-1200 gems (depending on quality) per mount skin I want, while gamblers can get what ther want for 400 gems if they are lucky. Alternatively, there is a game called Path of Exile. It also has lootboxes with exclusive cosmetics. Why noone bitches over it? Cause every 3 months they put the stuff from old lootboxes into the shop. Forever. Want that shiny NOW? Gamble for it. Don't want to gamble? Just wait till the sale.

 

I can assure you, if Mike in his post said something like: "in a few months we will put mounts from lootboxes on a sale with a price of 800 each" this shitstorm would be already over.

But, unfortunately, Anet doesn't want yours or mine 800 gems. They want to be able to squeeze up to 100$ out of people. If people like us wont buy that garbidge, they don't care. A single person who dumps 100$ in lootboxes counts as 10 people like me, who wanted to by 3 skins, not 30.

 

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @Klonex.4562 said:

> The backlash behind these loot boxes have been ridiculous. Do, I hate loot boxes? absolutely, though everyone needs to understand that this game (A non-subcription model) needs money to be put into it for the upcoming content to be free. I do thank those that have bought the 30 mount skins, they support and provide free content for me and I do thank the development team from A-net that continues to provide us with mount skins (probably the only thing I've been looking forward to since I beat and finished the story for POF).

> I absolutely hate RNG and this is coming from a person that has killed Teq for 4 years after his re-work(gave up), killed that darn invisible mushroom for months for the invis slippers(gave up), and starting doing the pinata blitz for the infusion and has never received any of their good rewards is just too much(I've also never received a pre-cursor as drop and I've been playing since closed beta). They can't re-work the contracts because so many people have bought them and it would upset many. Those that have opened 10+ contracts to get the skins that they want would feel even more cheated if they re-worked the contract at this point. I myself grinded like crazy for my extra 117 so I could convert them to gems to buy a contract, did I get the mount that I want? of course not but it has at least 4 dye channels now. I'll keep grinding for more mount skins but it's better for me to grind up 100g (400gems) instead of 500g-600g (2000gems-2400gems).

> I know there will be more mount skins coming out especially for Christmas (it would be a potential waste if they didn't during Christmas)

> The RNG is still extremely terrible in this game... Sorry, I went off in a tangent. Thank you for future reworks in getting mount skins. Hopefully the prices for future mount skins won't be ridiculously high but not so low that it would cost the company a loss of money, time, and effort in putting new skins in the game.

 

> @OmskCamill.6412 said:

> > @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> > > @"Bridget Morrigan.1752" said:

> > > I think there might be a way to improve the situation with the existing 30 skins without invalidating the purchases already made by players:

> > >

> > > 1. Any player who has spent more than 9600 gems should have all 30 skins unlocked, and any gems above 9600 should be refunded.

> >

> > About your 1st, no player has spent more than 9600 gems on it, since it's guaranteed to unlock them all :)

>

> I bet there were. The whole RNG box system is a predatory tactics designed to **make you spend more money that you initially wanted**. The "every new try increases the chance of getting what you want" that you mentioned is here exactly for this. And I am 100% sure that there are people who initially bought some licences, but then bought more complulsively. 9600 gems is the minimum price to unlock all of them, not the maximum.

 

Apologies if my memory is failing but Im pretty sure that someone calculated that in order to get 5 skins you wanted, you'd have to spend about 1800 gems / each, right?

One mount is sold 2k, the others can be hopefully retrieved for a bit cheaper.

 

There is RNG at the price of discount, and I think it's fair. Like I said in the previous thread, I think they should have came up with the alternative to buy individual skins for more. But the RNG itself, as presented here, is not a problem, discount for RNG = fair to me.

 

And yes lots of BL Chest items can be sold to TP, but it doesnt solve anything, rare items are still very expensive, and are still translated by a heavy price in gem, much more than 2k.

Whatever the solution, you will never get premium skins that everyone wants for as cheap as 400 gems. The only acceptable solution to me is a selectable license for a 800 pricetag or more.

 

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> > @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> > Didn't miss your point, but still the same answer. They can give it the pricetag they want, it's their game, their skin, their work.

> > The perceived value of the skin doesn't matter. If you don't think it's worth the price, don't buy it, the market will adjust itself as always.

>

> Yes, but again not acknowledging the point. People need to stop falling on the sword for anet and coming up with lazy excuses to defend them. I'm all for them setting whatever fantastical price they desire, just don't spew utter non-sense about it being a cost related to the effort going into the project because it can quite easily be debunked.

>

I acknowledge it, but don't agree with it being a trap, or the "excuses" even being "excuses".

Cost versus effort is indeed irrelevant yes, the only relevant thing is how much people want it, the more people want it, the more rare it is going to be, and so the more expensive.

[Kameko.8314]

> @Rococo.8347 said:

> Im glad you got back to us but PR speak can be abit dense to get to the meat so I read, re read had a think then read again and...

>

> ..I cant see any major change here unless ( and I hope this is correct?) your next 'bundle' will be a much smaller amount like the Halloween ones, with 1 or 2 of each mount, and you can individually buy them or get a small discount for getting all 5 or 10, no more RNG. That's workable I guess But -

>

> - you sound like you are doubling down on very expensive single mounts when they have bigger changes - 2000 gems is a lot, more than im prepared to pay

> - I, like many liked 1/2/3 only of the current mount bundle, and will not risk the RNG for only 3 max, so that's 1200 gems not going to you I wanted to pay

> - still no agreement that some mount skins and some more unique skins/weapons/armor will go into the actual game, which presumably means you will continue to diminish rewards in game to boost micro transaction - making actually playing end game fashion wars will mainly now happen via the Gem store

> - what exactly did my £26 for POF go to if all development of live content is only via micro transaction? -

>

> I just don't feel all that ecstatic about it, the cost of me buying PoF and getting unlucky and having to pay the full 12,000 gems for 30 ( not that I can even afford this option) is actually the same cost as a sub to WoW for 18 months, and the most recent xp which includes the previous 2 xp's I missed and ide never be caught up in this having to play - to earn gold - to convert to gems - to buy things in a digital shop that I actually want to earn in game

 

I love this ! Because those who got ultimate got some stupid little skin that has no b slur. Maybe if they said ultimate xpac gets 15 of these adoption lincense or 15 free mount skins . I would have get my ultimate purchase was worth. Not just a handful of gems and keep pumping small

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @Ider.1276 said:

> > @inubasiri.8745 said:

> > I know a lot of you don't like that the adoption licence isn't getting changed, but mind the people who already bought them.

> I am really tired of this argument, so:

>

> 1) Those people didn't think about everyone else, when they bought lootboxes. They were not thinking about future of industry when they voted with their wallets. And because of such people 2017 became the Year of a Lootbox.

 

Vote with your wallet: OK

Propose alternative ways of buying, or other bundles: OK

Blaming others, starting with players? Useless and counter productive

 

You sir are part of the problem for blaming it on other players.

I am presented with a choice, I consider the pricetag to be a step up compared to the usual BL Chest gambling, I want all skins, so I get them all. The community as a whole completely overreacted about it and blamed this situation on about everything, gambling itself, anet of course, players, and last night we had people kicking others for that. This was a nice move to offer affordable mounts, the price was simply RNG. I don't mind it, others do, fine. Now for each new "super shiny mount" expect a high pricetag, aka the price you would have paid with RNG anyway.

 

If you think about the future of industry, pick your fights better, and not just a fight because the community is getting crazy over it and it's easy to just follow the movement, pick up a fight with Ecto gambling or BL keys, where you can actually lose a lot of money without ever being guaranteed something nice.

 

[Kameko.8314]

I loved the fairness of the game, until now. Take mount hype and make it into your mfing short term bank for the game.

 

We knew when we bought keys we take a gamble. We know when we click that ecto gamble we take a gamble. But to tailor a new xpac around mounts and shove rng skins into it? That is beyond low. That is pathetic and I also like others no longer will recommend this game.

 

I got 2-3 friends to play working on others to help but yah. I can’t say this is amazing price for the game when I say you have to shell $120 for 1 yes 1 batch of mounts with more to come. That price is more than I put into the first four years of the game ! Are you that crunch for money?

 

Shove your apology where it counts and you didn’t even really apologize . I will still play and support but you’re on the last straw

[Kameko.8314]

> @OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:

> > @Ider.1276 said:

> > > @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!"

> >

> that's not the point, its not about revenge. When their analysis looks over the report and see's what sold well and what fell flat on its face, they will then determine what methods of sale to use in the future based upon this data. if all the people who don't like the loot box simply buy nothing at all, then the only data ANet will have is on the loot box from people who did buy it. From that they will assume it is popular because it got the most sales. If instead all of us who are unhappy with the loot box buy other things, they will see that the loot box is not popular, doesn't sell well, and that they should not make such items in the future.

>

 

The point is the people with gambling behavior and rich accounts is big in this game . So they will see . Man we hit fairly well for subpar work and design . So they will dump another batch (or would have) and people wild fall more into gambling behavior during the next set. It’s just like a casino . You will always have those people coming back regardless and they get their money leavin the people that are logical out of the equation

[Carighan.6758]

> @Hevoskuuri.3891 said:

> Thank you MO, it's wonderful to see that you listened to our feedback, even when alot of people were way out of line with their comments. I sincerely hope this 'negative press' didn't hurt the game or Arenanet as a company too badly.

 

They didn't listen to any feedback. They just said it'll be as it is and has always planned to be. But they tried to put a positive spin on 25€ single mount sales because well, no randoms!

 

[Chicken Fro.6953]

Thank you, MO. I love the skins, I love the *amount* of skins. Price is not shabby. Worst-case scenario, I wish I could have at least chosen from a smaller pool (mount type) so the risk didn't feel as daunting. Oh well, nothing that will break the game, right? :)

[SoulPariah.2856]

I think it's great to get a response to the issue, so thanks a lot to Mike and anyone else who assisted with feedback. Really glad there's not going to be an attempt to "undo" everything, as you're spot on with the thought that it would invalidate previous investments.

I was never against the concept as long as it wasn't just done this way every time new skins came out (which i assume was never the plan anyways). That's only because it's a slow process of acquisition this way if you go one at a time so I wouldn't want all skins forever to be released that way. However, I had never even considered the point made about allowing for more skins to be created/implemented and putting them at a lower price point due to using this method. Makes me appreciate it a little more for it's concept and the thought that went into it trying to do something good, whether it was received that way or not (as a whole).

I hope this doesn't mean that should you create 10 skins and end up choosing 5 for sale, the others just get tossed in the trash going forward. I think your concept was good here about the variety and lower price points. Honestly, I'm not sure this issue even comes up if all the flashy "premium" skins had been sold normally and the rest done by adoption licensing at an even lower price point. Some players may never get a skin at 1000+ gems, but I like the idea they can get something more simple with maybe an extra dye channel for a smaller cost if they're willing to "adopt" or whatever it becomes. [Now that adoption is dead maybe this can still happen at lower price points or maybe some cool way to get a rare item drop or achievement in game and only if you have that item/achievement is the ability to adopt/whatever available. Not sure if that's technically possible, but just a thought.]

Finally, a quick note about the way of releasing these kinds of things. I think a simple 2-3 paragraph post in addition to patch notes (or at the beginning/end) outlining goals of a patch or new implementation might help the company moving forward as well as players. Players get an idea as to what the larger purpose is of changes being made that may not be readily identifiable, which helps if they are upset by something to at least know the overall goal it was meant to achieve. Even if they have no complaints, it gives a direction for the game they can follow as each patch comes through to help them see the developer's direction. It helps the company because assumptions aren't made as to why something is being done and you can head of controversies or complaints with an initial stance so it doesn't fall victim to accusation and conjuncture should a subset of players not agree with something that's happened. Even if nothing comes up, it's still nice to establish that direction/focus patch after patch as you address issues.

 

Anyways, getting too long here, but thanks again for the response and for all your hard work on this great game!

[Cloud.7613]

> @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> Apologies if my memory is failing but Im pretty sure that someone calculated that in order to get 5 skins you wanted, you'd have to spend about 1800 gems / each, right?

> One mount is sold 2k, the others can be hopefully retrieved for a bit cheaper.

Implying everyone wants 5 skins, i'm sure quite a lot of people want less than 5. Hopefully they can be retrieved for a bit cheaper, rather a disturbing mindset to have when we're talking about gambling, but it seems like no matter how this was justified you'll accept it.

 

> @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> There is RNG at the price of discount, and I think it's fair. Like I said in the previous thread, I think they should have came up with the alternative to buy individual skins for > more. But the RNG itself, as presented here, is not a problem, discount for RNG = fair to me.

We know you think it's fair, but by your own omission you think they should have made a non-gambling way to get individual skins, they simply did not do anything like that. They did the worst possible decision and bundled them ALL (**30**) together, a discount for that severe RNG is fine with you?

 

> @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> And yes lots of BL Chest items can be sold to TP, but it doesnt solve anything, rare items are still very expensive, and are still translated by a heavy price in gem, much more than 2k.

It solves a lot of things? I can get any of the BLC weapons, i can get the super rare drops if i really wanted them and why would i complain about guaranteed wardrobe unlocks when i can buy most products inside them in some direct fashion, like everyone wants with mounts?

 

> @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> Whatever the solution, you will never get premium skins that everyone wants for as cheap as 400 gems. The only acceptable solution to me is a selectable license for a 800 pricetag or more.

It seems like we agree on a fundamental level – that ANet needs a source of income, even if it's kind of harsh on the consumer – we just don't agree that RNG should be the ultimate deciding factor.

[Avatar Rage.4369]

I might be way out of line but if I may throw my hat into the ring.

 

Why not have the individual mounts available for 500 or 600 gems. Players (like myself) who want one of these mount skins but don't want to risk the RNG can still purchase the one that they want. But if they have less Gems they can still roll the dice for the lower 400 gems. Also players who have already bought the adoption pack are not losing anything.

 

On a side note 2000 Gems really is a lot for a single skin, especially when compared to the Halloween pack. A president has been unconsciously set in the mind of players that mounts to be about 500 gems. With the Halloween pack being 2000 gems for four skins. The Adoption Pack coming out at the same time as the Forged Jackal skin provides the appearance of very intentional gouging (I do not know & definitely hope this is not the case).

 

So in summery adding a pack that allows individual mounts to be chosen at a slightly higher price would be a largely acceptable compromise in this situation. In addition a standardised prices for skins should really be found soon. A single skin that equals the price of four is way too high and certainly has not helped the players bases attitude.

[aries.6548]

Hello Mo!

 

Thank you very much for the open communication. For me personally, as long this box stays at 30 mounts I am fine with it, although I would recommend not making them bigger in the future. 30 mount skins for the price of a legendary is a great deal in my book and I just treat it as a longtime goal, buying some with gems, some with gold in time, playing the game the way I want to. Just make sure please this is the most amount of rng it will be for mount skins at least for a long while, I was really sad to see the balthazar outfit being locked away in the Black lion chest, I would have bought it in a heartbeat.

 

On another note, it has been 10 months since the last Raid release!!! I got, to be honest, many are getting restless now and if a new Raid isn't released in the very foreseeable future, there might be another big backlash coming soon, from a smaller subset of the community of course but certainly one of the most loyal one. Having no update or communication in that department isn't really helping either. Anyway sorry for being offtopic here, and thanks for the hard work and great expansion so far.

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

The least you can do **as a start** is cut the Reforged Warhound down to 1000 gems and refund the difference to those who bought it.

 

"We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made" isn't a really a valid excuse considering putting this on live without feedback first. You intended to use this as an excuse so you didn't have to do anything. You're not fooling anyone.

 

You can do something that won't invalidate players purchases up to this point. You can give them a gem refund at a percentage rate and change how licenses work from here on out. This "we aren't going to do anything about it" is actually worse than not responding to us at all. Keep on digging.

 

All this does now is prevent people from ever getting the specifically themed mounts like fire or electricity. You've doomed all 30 of these skins to this RNG purgatory.

[brenda.9723]

Thanks for a response.

I am happy that individual mounts will be sold.

 

But I still think that people would be totally oke with this system, if you could choose a category of mount (skimmer, griffin, raptor, bunny or jackal).

The problem (at least for me) is that I dont have the griffin or the jackal.

Also a lot of players have a preference for a certain mount.

So players like me have a high chance of getting something they cannot (or want not) use.

(Which is for me almost the same as getting no rewards)

And if you could choose a category it would be way of a less gamble for peolpe that only want one skin

(instead of getting 1 out of 30, it is 1 out of 6 chance, which is way more fair).

 

I only want four dye slots for my bunny.

I paid now a lot of gems and I still dont have a bunny with four dye slots,

but I now have a griffin skin, which I cannot use :scream:.

[EMTDJ.9042]

To those complaining about the mount skins being RNG, yet were perfectly ok with Pokémon, Yugioh, Magic, Baseball cards, and all other forms of collectable games being RNG, you have no place to complain. People go and spend 25, 50, 100's of dollars at a time, with no real guarantee on what you will get unless the one you need is outside the package or fearured, on these collectable games with packs and tins and no one complains.

 

No one says to these other companies "I should be able to pick which collectable I get instead of it being blind chance that I get the one I want.", they just go and buy until they get the one they want and then they find another one they want. For the tins and special releases where a much wanted card is featured, you end up paying a lot more, which is what Guild Wars 2 did here with the Jackal. People were saying that they wanted mount skins to be sold separately from each other when the Halloween set came out, that they would pay more if they could just buy one skin rather than have them all grouped together and getting ones they don't use, and that is what they did with the Jackal since it was one of the most requested from there community.

 

To those saying "Oh this is a p2w or p2p scheme by Arena Net." I say to you, no it isn't... mount skins are not required to play the game and the Jackal and Griffin are not required either, they are extra content that the devs gave us, which they didn't have to. The fact that gems can be bought without paying cash or card also negates this argument. In fact you don't even have to pay cash at all, just earn gold in game and buy gems that way if you wish. The devs don't make any money from gold to gem transactions, but they allowed them anyway.

 

Some might argue that the price is too high in the gem store. Do you realize how much it costs to make these skins in the first place? You know that game designers have lives and families too right? This is extra content that they didn't need to make or give in the first place. These skins and the gem store is how the game companies pay their employees and the bills on a month to month, week by week, basis. On top of maintaining the game and equipment itself. These gem store transactions are the side hustle of the developers, just to make the game and their lives sustainable. That is, unless you want the cost of games and expansions to go sky high? The gem store is also is how they keep game and expansion cost down, and how they keep the base game free. You won't find that with other games either.

 

No one complains about it when other companies do the same practices that Guild Wars 2 is doing now. Mind you most of these other companies have been around for ages and have stayed prominent so they must be doing something right. All of a sudden Guild Wars 2 does the same exact concept and people get upset. You all have very little if any concept at all of how business works and don't realize how much Guild Wars 2 is doing for its community compared to other games.

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

> @EMTDJ.9042 said:

>*snip*

 

Your argument is completely invalid from the start because you're comparing physical goods to digital goods. Especially because the digital goods are priced for direct buy rates of Gliders but needing RNG.

 

How would you like it if outfits, gliders and Gem store weapon skins were not able to be bought directly and everything was put in a gamble box?

[Rashagar.8349]

Honestly I'm a lot more ashamed of the community than I am of the game devs from this debacle.

[Shirlias.8104]

> @"Avatar Rage.4369" said:

> On a side note 2000 Gems really is a lot for a single skin, especially when compared to the Halloween pack. A president has been unconsciously set in the mind of players that mounts to be about 500 gems. With the Halloween pack being 2000 gems for four skins. The Adoption Pack coming out at the same time as the Forged Jackal skin provides the appearance of very intentional gouging (I do not know & definitely hope this is not the case).

 

Depends the work behind the skin.

The Halloween bundle was a scam compared to the 2k gems mount, because they were only a funny recolor, and you were allowed only to buy em on bundle.

 

The Jackal skin instead is totally different.

We can discuss about the price, but if a spooky skin is 320-400 gems ( 320 this first year, 400 the next year ) each, then Jackal price should be 1600-2000 gems.

[Profanum.1024]

It would be good to ensure everyone that this expensive mount pack won't disappear in few days so they can save their money and buy it later in future. But I can understand employees need to get paid so it's only week time frame pack.

[Yadovid.5863]

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

 

Yea, compared to 2000 it's a bargain indeed... >:P