A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[fizzypetal.7936]

I was pleased to see that we'd had a response from MO as he answered questions I had. However, I'm still not persuaded to change my mind on playing the RNG game with the block of 30 mount skins.

 

Going forward if the price is going to remain 2k gems for individual mount skins, I think that no matter how much I liked it I probably won't buy it.

 

With regard to themed skins; I hope that ArenaNet will give players a choice of what to purchase and not just stick them in a bundle like the Halloween skins without the option to purchase an individual skin from the pack. The only one of the 5 I really liked was the Raptor because it was one that I could see using using all year round. However I couldn't justify the 1600 gems for the pack since there was only 1 I'd use.

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @Cloud.7613 said:

> > @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.

You said it yourself right after, I do think a non gambling way should be added. That said I don't think the current RNG system is bad, we have different opinions on that matter.

>

> > @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?

>

A discount on already discounted mounts? Yeah I do think it's fine. It's 30 skins, including a few "shinies" that would most probably cost more per unit if sold separately.

> > @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?

You couldn't if people weren't gambling for you, that's the whole hypocrisy.

And rare items are sold at insane price, if we turn gold into gems, it's a LOT of gems, bypassing RNG has a high price.

> > @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.

I don't think RNG should be the ultimate factor. I am calling out people for overreacting about this specific one. If Jim wants to tackle GW2, he can tackle the real RNG in this game: Ecto gambling, BL Chest, even Teq skins are pure RNG.

But people saying now "Anet you crossed a line" shows how little they know about the gemstore, and my conclusion (exagerated maybe) is that they don't spend money on it, so aren't supporting the game in the first place. Edit precision about that: Yes you can contribute in the gemstore without touching RNG, but that's the thing, when you use the gemstore, you know it's there, and you're ok with RNG being part of the gemstore. That someone pretends it's a new disgusting move from Anet is simply being wrong, or ignorant.

I am in between in this discussion. I do not like RNG myself, but I understand Anet's point with this RNG mount adoption.

However I despise BL Chests, as much as I fall for it.

[Chadramar.8156]

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

> You have valid concerns about random boxes. We hoped that the design of the Mount Adoption License would be reassuring.

 

For whom? For the suits and shareholders who look at shady, exploitative, unregulated practices like this with big dollar signs in their eyes? For yourselves, because you can say that at least _your_ lootbox BS is not as scummy as what the big bads like EA or Blizzard/Activision do?

 

> * 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.

 

Yes. So the question is, _why didn't you?_ Did you think you'd get a pass because you're not one of the abovementioned big bads? Did you think you had sufficiently habituated your playerbase to RNG mechanics through the Black Lion Chests and the encroachment of account-bound items into them? No matter the reason, it looks like arrogance and a disconnect from players.

 

> * 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.

 

That's because that is _exactly_ what it is.

 

> * 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

 

That's because that is _exactly_ what it is.

 

Do NOT blame a mere difference of perception here.

 

> * 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.

 

As others have pointed out, these two points are pretty much the same and make it look like a feeble attempt to find enough points to justify a really bad move. Also, there is no "discount" in a spin of the roulette wheel, especially when the price of a non-random skin in a bundle is the same as said roulette-wheel spin. Plus, getting a skin that we neither want nor are able to give or trade away is not something you get to portray as a positive for us.

 

> * You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety.

 

Wow. Are you seriously shifting the blame here? "You asked for this!", my springer's bouncy butt. People are asking for more variety in terms of being able to obtain skins through various in-game activities instead of a glut of gemstore items and some vendor-bought stuff. The griffon collection was a lot of fun and exactly what I for one want to see in a game -- gaining something by working directly on it in a lore-appropriate way. Same for the Caladbolg mini-story, which had the added bonus of a little bit of long-overdue HoT closure. These were very well done and _satisfying_ in a way that, for many people, merely forking over gold or gems is not.

 

The other context in which people call for variety is the kind of skins we get. Stop the endless trenchcoat and buttflap parade for medium armors, is one obvious example. More gear that isn't exclusively designed and themed for humans, but offers other races (especially sylvari and charr who are the hardest to "dress up"), something that doesn't make them look like clowns. More gender parity: less of an underwear parade that barely looks like the male version on female characters, actual skimpy options for male characters (and by that I mean truly skimpy like the female "armors" are, not just "ooh a dude with a half-bare chest how risque").

 

A demand for lootboxes _never_ figured into the calls for variety, from what I have seen.

 

> 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.

 

If you think that non-eyesore skins that actually look like they belong in the world wouldn't sell on their own merit (and I dispute that, as you might guess from my choice of words), then why did you "waste" your art team's time on them _except_ to pad the lootbox so people have to buy more to get the sparklefarts ones? It feels insulting to the artists as well, although you say you stand by all of their work. And again, there is no "lower price per skin" because it is impossible to pick what we get.

 

Between this and the fact that the _only_ directly purchaseable skin (i.e. no lootbox, no bundle) is so insanely expensive, you people have a LOT of ground to cover to earn back trust not only in terms of mount skins, but in general.

[Emprer.7256]

Can't believe some people seriously decided to leave the game because of rng in some gem store cosmetic items.

[Cloud.7613]

> @EMTDJ.9042 said:

> 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.

For starters, you're implying that the people complaining ever ventured into collectible card games, this is completely invalid. To add onto this though, you're talking about booster packs, there were also starter decks and you could also buy the cards you want from a trader, they did exist in some places. Even in digital forms there are often consumer benefits to reduce the randomness.

 

Hearthstone -> Disenchanting

MTGO -> Buy+Sell

HexTCG -> Buy+Sell+Cash out

 

So this analogy is completely unusable and puts ANet in the position of the scummist companies in the CCG world that force you into booster packs (RNG) and reject any notion that you could be able to make use of unusable cards for better cards.

 

> @EMTDJ.9042 said:

> 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.

 

... Jim Sterling didn't make a video on loot boxes because he likes GW2, he did so because a significant portion of the gaming world despises loot boxes, especially in this form. The makers of Middle-earth: Shadow of War specifically got targeted for this same, exact practice. You shouldn't lecture a player base when you don't know why people are complaining.

[Maekrix Waere.2087]

I realize this might be a bit late for anyone to still be reading, but I still feel I should say it.

 

I want to talk about the third bullet point. Specifically, I want to say that I think all of the mount skins are good (though I admit to only being a fan of maybe 80%), and I really, really, _REALLY_ hope Arenanet keeps making skins that appeal to different kinds of people. An undercurrent I’ve been seeing over these few days is people calling the mount skins that are re-textures or model tweaks “filler” between the particle effect skins. As someone whose favorite new raptor skin is the Canyon Spiketail, I feel I need to speak up.

 

Please keep making mount skins that are subtle. The re-textures and model tweaks are my favorites of the new skins. As much as some people might be pushing for less Highlands Harriers and more Fire Pinions, I just want to say that there are definitely people out here who love the more subdued skins!

[Rashagar.8349]

> @Cloud.7613 said:

> > @EMTDJ.9042 said:

> > 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.

> For starters, you're implying that the people complaining ever ventured into collectible card games, this is completely invalid. To add onto this though, you're talking about booster packs, there were also starter decks and you could also buy the cards you want from a trader, they did exist in some places. Even in digital forms there are often consumer benefits to reduce the randomness.

>

> Hearthstone -> Disenchanting

> MTGO -> Buy+Sell

> HexTCG -> Buy+Sell+Cash out

>

> So this analogy is completely unusable and puts ANet in the position of the scummist companies in the CCG world that force you into booster packs (RNG) and reject any notion that you could be able to make use of unusable cards for better cards.

>

> > @EMTDJ.9042 said:

> > 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.

>

> ... Jim Sterling didn't make a video on loot boxes because he likes GW2, he did so because a significant portion of the gaming world despises loot boxes, especially in this form. The makers of Middle-earth: Shadow of War specifically got targeted for this same, exact practice. You shouldn't lecture a player base when you don't know why people are complaining.

 

If it's any consolation, I know exactly why people are complaining and I still think they're... let's just say wrong since anything more accurate would be rude...

[Ohoni.6057]

> @brenda.9723 said:

> 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).

 

That would be *better,* in that it does solve the issue of people who don't have all five mounts, and also would mean that if you lucked out and got the exact jackal skin you wanted, you wouldn't need to roll the jackal gacha again, but I still don't like that. It still means having to roll randomly for the mount you want, rather than being able to select the specific one that interests you.

[Talsi.1469]

Hey,

thank you for the response. I ma a bit sad by it, but I do understand. I will keep playing and supporting the game by buying expansion and gems, but I will do so only when I know what I am buying. Looking forward to new mount skins and meanwhile........ I will spend my money somewhere else.

[Ganathar.4956]

> @"Maekrix Waere.2087" said:

> I realize this might be a bit late for anyone to still be reading, but I still feel I should say it.

>

> I want to talk about the third bullet point. Specifically, I want to say that I think all of the mount skins are good (though I admit to only being a fan of maybe 80%), and I really, really, _REALLY_ hope Arenanet keeps making skins that appeal to different kinds of people. An undercurrent I’ve been seeing over these few days is people calling the mount skins that are re-textures or model tweaks “filler” between the particle effect skins. As someone whose favorite new raptor skin is the Canyon Spiketail, I feel I need to speak up.

>

> Please keep making mount skins that are subtle. The re-textures and model tweaks are my favorites of the new skins. As much as some people might be pushing for less Highlands Harriers and more Fire Pinions, I just want to say that there are definitely people out here who love the more subdued skins!

 

Speaking about themes, it makes me kinda sad that I will never get the mount theme that I was looking forward to because it has already been introduced into the RNG licenses. I doubt they will make the same themes twice. Also, subtle skins are a nice addition due to the dye channels, but I doubt they will add any more of those, at least not the reskin type. It could be subtle if it is an entirely different creature.

[troops.8276]

> @EMTDJ.9042 said:

> 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.

 

Strawman

False Equivalency

Hyperbole

Appeal to Authority

Appeal to Ignorance

Special Pleading

 

But yes it is just business at the end of the day. Nobody _has_ to buy in to the franchise and play the game (f2p or otherwise) or indeed purchase anything (from the Cash Shop).

In that all are equal. The only difference now I suppose, is that when any potential customer is thinking about _buying in_ to any of the various products on the market, that Anets IP cannot, in good faith, claim to be any more consumer friendly than the rest. Which was used, albeit informally, as a selling point.

[Redfeather.6401]

It is insulting to think that we are considered so stupid not to work out what exactly is being rewarded from keeping this distribution system. It is the use of RNG to facilitate a form of market manipulation to grossly inflate 'value'.

 

[Sartharina.3542]

> @OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:

> > @Sartharina.3542 said:

> > > @Szaku.1495 said:

> > > 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.

> >

> > I hope you're alone when the servers shut down because everyone abandons this money-grubbing trashheap of a once-great game, because the developers decided to chase whales instead of provide an actually decent and rewarding gaming experience.

> >

> > Providing a nice diversity of in-game mount skins as rewards for people playing the game should be the BASELINE for the genre, and absolutely every other game company in the world understands that. Except for morons like you.

>

> That's a bit much. So you didn't like one item in the gemstore, not really a reason to quit the game. Its not as if the quality or content of the game hinges on this one purchase. The game doesn't become trash just because of one **aesthetic** item that you can simply choose not to buy, regardless of the items cost or purchase mechanic. While I don't like what they did with the so called 'adoption,' its not something I'd quit over. To be frank, that's quite childish.

 

The problem isn't "One gemstore item" - it's the fact that they take content that belongs in the game and stuff it into the gem store instead. In a game without Vertical progression, appearance customization is very much part of the game, and to leave those who bought the game with just the most basic mounts and a single dye channel to customize it sends a very strong "We don't give a rat's ass about you unless you open your wallet to the Gem Store as well".

 

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

> > @"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.

 

Although a 'funny recolor', the Spooky Mounts carried several flashy particle effects and came as a novelty set, justifying their position in the gem store.

[SlateSloan.3654]

the system is not supporting me in getting variety. it forces me into variety i dont want. in my case i would only buy the green raptor as it fits into my rangers theme but i wont start to gamble for it having spend money on purchases i dont want.

 

i would be fine though if there was a system like the old sports trading cards system. hundreds of skins and small packages to buy, skins then tradeable with other players against other skins or whatever item another player offers me. like if i loot a rare skin i could offer it for sale and another players messages me „hey i would like the skin, i can offer you a precursor and a stack of ectoplasm“ like that. as a child we trained our trading skills with such and had alot of fun showing our cards to others. sometimes a special card was not available within our community and we had to find people who had the card so it pushed us to train our skills in getting in contact with strangers to arrange trades. it helped us to grow up and be social.

 

i am fed up with gaming industry which makes more purchases mandatory than i basically want and creates computer games not to push entertainment and community but to squeeze every penny out of people. i want my freedom from gw1 back.

[Rashagar.8349]

> @troops.8276 said:

> > @EMTDJ.9042 said:

> > 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.

>

> Strawman

> False Equivalency

> Hyperbole

> Appeal to Authority

> Appeal to Ignorance

> Special Pleading

>

> But yes it is just business at the end of the day. Nobody _has_ to buy in to the franchise and play the game (f2p or otherwise) or indeed purchase anything (from the Cash Shop).

> In that all are equal. The only difference now I suppose, is that when any potential customer is thinking about _buying in_ to any of the various products on the market, that Anets IP cannot, in good faith, claim to be any more consumer friendly than the rest. Which was used, albeit informally, as a selling point.

 

Fallacy fallacy

 

=P

 

*Edit just to explain to troops:

A true statement can still be backed up through use of a fallacy. Meaning that simply using a fallacy does not make a statement untrue.

The fallacy fallacy is when someone believes or pretends that pointing out the fallacy used in a statement is all that is required for refuting the trueness of that statement.

[Kapax.3801]

I support this idea, if it had been like that, I would buy 5 skins for sure.

 


 

[Nightmare.1234]

It takes a lot for a company to admit they made an oversight into the backlash they would receive from this trial. people should be happy with the outcome that mo as posted as it a win for the gw2 community that your voices are heard and you can make a difference maybe not directly now (to the current situation) but to the gw2 market structure down the road. if more and more companies can slowly start drifting from this shady loot box practice that infecting games these days then we can get back to a time when in game markets are like a shop. you see the product on show, you see its price if you can afford it you buy it, if not you don't or you save up for it or wait for a sale to be on.

 

we are making a difference, thanks Anet for listening

[psizone.8437]

Can you at least change it so you choose a species for skins?

 

If I go to adopt a puppy, I'm going to be pretty annoyed if I get handed a frog.

[Ceridwen.6703]

Whilst I appreciate your acknowledgement the mount adoption licence has issues, I knew you wouldn't be able to change it, thus I'm still not going to buy these skins. For any future mounts, I'll have to see. Additionally, please remember bundles are a great idea, sure, but everything there should really be available individually in-store. Consider also some future mount skins being made available to earn in-game, just as we earned the initial creatures. A lot of work goes into making them, yes, so I'll always expect to find them being sold for gems, but still, earning items in game is often more rewarding for players than simply buying them outright. Ditto armour (skins).

[troops.8276]

> @Rashagar.8349 said:

> > @troops.8276 said:

> > > @EMTDJ.9042 said:

> > > 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.

> >

> > Strawman

> > False Equivalency

> > Hyperbole

> > Appeal to Authority

> > Appeal to Ignorance

> > Special Pleading

> >

> > But yes it is just business at the end of the day. Nobody _has_ to buy in to the franchise and play the game (f2p or otherwise) or indeed purchase anything (from the Cash Shop).

> > In that all are equal. The only difference now I suppose, is that when any potential customer is thinking about _buying in_ to any of the various products on the market, that Anets IP cannot, in good faith, claim to be any more consumer friendly than the rest. Which was used, albeit informally, as a selling point.

>

> Fallacy fallacy

>

> =P

 

"Fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy,

fallacy fallacy fala..."

"Will you lot shut up! Now you can have egg, chips and fallacy, or chips fallacy and eggs, or double fallacy with chips and eggs......"

 

(This is where a gif of that Monty Python sketch should go)

[Turin.6921]

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

> We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made,

 

Understandable. A bit disappointing as this would not allow people that do not want to risk money to get these skins if they want them but indeed you cannot do anything that invalidates any purchases already done.

 

>but I want to confirm to you that our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack.

 

That hopeful for sure. Hoping for a more reasonable pricing than the forged skin though. A mount skin should not be more than the typical pricing for a glider (to say the least).

 

>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.

 

Good to know. It can at least be used as a long term goal for ppl trying to get it through in-game gold. Also please consider in-gam mounts. Not too many to create issues for sales but at least a few are needed. Just like with the legendary gliders. In game goals need to be refreshed and mounts would be one good way to do it.

 

 

 

[troops.8276]

> @Rashagar.8349 said:

> > @troops.8276 said:

> > > @EMTDJ.9042 said:

> > > 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.

> >

> > Strawman

> > False Equivalency

> > Hyperbole

> > Appeal to Authority

> > Appeal to Ignorance

> > Special Pleading

> >

> > But yes it is just business at the end of the day. Nobody _has_ to buy in to the franchise and play the game (f2p or otherwise) or indeed purchase anything (from the Cash Shop).

> > In that all are equal. The only difference now I suppose, is that when any potential customer is thinking about _buying in_ to any of the various products on the market, that Anets IP cannot, in good faith, claim to be any more consumer friendly than the rest. Which was used, albeit informally, as a selling point.

>

> Fallacy fallacy

>

> =P

>

> *Edit just to explain to troops:

> A true statement can still be backed up through use of a fallacy. Meaning that simply using a fallacy does not make a statement untrue.

> The fallacy fallacy is when someone believes or pretends that pointing out the fallacy used in a statement is all that is required for refuting the trueness of that statement.

 

Oh I know, but I just couldn't really be bothered breaking it down point by point as it's fairly obvious and others did so anyway. But mostly I couldn't be bothered. Any comment though on my comment that came after my lazily put to together list of pop culture fallacies? Or was it all just misdirection.....(couldn't resist)

[Dante Stormwind.3794]

Although I generally don’t have a problem with the GW2 gem store, I do find these mount boxes to be poorly designed. I don’t think anything you buy from the store should be RNG, you should be able to pick from the pool of skins to get what you want. And if they continue to price individual skins at 2000 gems I definitely won’t be buying any. I was happy to buy the Halloween skins, and at 1600 gems I think it was a fair price. Allowing for a discount as it was a pack with 5 skins, I think 400 gems per skin is fair, and in keeping with other skins such as gliders. Anet should really rethink not changing the current mount boxes.

[Blackari.2051]

How to offer current skins out of RNG without invalidating anyone else who already bought the licenses ? Easily, add another license which gives you a choice but instead of 400 gems it will cost 600gems, there you go done ....

[Rashagar.8349]

> @troops.8276 said:

> > @Rashagar.8349 said:

> > > @troops.8276 said:

> > > > @EMTDJ.9042 said:

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > Strawman

> > > False Equivalency

> > > Hyperbole

> > > Appeal to Authority

> > > Appeal to Ignorance

> > > Special Pleading

> > >

> > > But yes it is just business at the end of the day. Nobody _has_ to buy in to the franchise and play the game (f2p or otherwise) or indeed purchase anything (from the Cash Shop).

> > > In that all are equal. The only difference now I suppose, is that when any potential customer is thinking about _buying in_ to any of the various products on the market, that Anets IP cannot, in good faith, claim to be any more consumer friendly than the rest. Which was used, albeit informally, as a selling point.

> >

> > Fallacy fallacy

> >

> > =P

> >

> > *Edit just to explain to troops:

> > A true statement can still be backed up through use of a fallacy. Meaning that simply using a fallacy does not make a statement untrue.

> > The fallacy fallacy is when someone believes or pretends that pointing out the fallacy used in a statement is all that is required for refuting the trueness of that statement.

>

> Oh I know, but I just couldn't really be bothered breaking it down point by point as it's fairly obvious and others did so anyway. But mostly I couldn't be bothered. Any comment though on my comment that came after my lazily put to together list of pop culture fallacies? Or was it all just misdirection.....(couldn't resist)

 

Hehe I wasn't following the discussion to be honest, I've kind of exhausted myself on the topic already for that much reading.

Throwing one more onto the end of a list of fallacies in a tongue in cheek manner was about all I had the energy for.

Then I just thought I should explain in case it was taken the wrong way.

 

Edit:

Turned out you took it in a monty python way which I never would have anticipated but very much appreciated. =)