A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[HitmanHaydon.1053]

It's easy guys, DO NOT BUY ANY GEMS.

ANet obviously aren't interested in our opinions, just our money.

Just another company trying to squeeze what they can out of their customers rather than plan for the future.

 

[Torgan DeBaku.9534]

Usually I do not post here but I have to on this topic.

 

That was such a weak answer from Mike O.

 

What he said boils down to:

 

If you like any of the 30 skins -> go play LootBoox roulette as we are not changing it! But at least we made it so, that with each skin you unlock your chance of getting the skin you actually want increases. But since it’s still tied to RNG that skin you like might still be the 30th skin you pull out of the rabbit hat. Yay!

 

Future Mount Skin sales will either be ridiculously expensive like the forged mount skin (fugly as hell) for 2k Gems which is the near equivalent of the entire Pof Expansion price. Or we will bundle some good, bad and ugly Mount skins, like the Halloween ones in to a – well bundle – and if you only like one out of the five, bad luck. At least you got to choose a bundle with a skin you like without RNG attached to it. But instead of buying just this one skin you like, you need to pay more since you get four additional skins you don’t want. Yay!

 

 

 

Mike O.

 

You may have read what we said, but you did NOT get the message!

 

Every other skin you are selling via Gem Store, whether it is Armor, Outfit, Weapon, Mini, Glider or Toy, we can specifically pick the ones we like and buy them with no RNG attached when they are available. Why are Mounts skins handled differently? Why not let us choose which of the skins we want and then adopt that mount? You know if I adopt an animal from animal rescue I can actually choose the one pet I want. It is not the proverbial “cat in the bag”.

 

So the answer why you are doing it can only be, you KNOW ppl want customization. Fashion Wars is a thing you are happy about. So you know some will pay that $120 to get them all now and some will pay up to $120 if RNJesus isn’t with them to get the skins they want. So effectively you are squeezing your player base of every copper you can get out of us!

 

At the same time you are relying on us – the players- to promote e.g. PoF as all the adverbs you did are piss poor excuses of adverbs as they are cutout sections of your PoF announcement trailer you showed to us! You couldn’t even be bothered to create a real promotion trailer for PoF to be shown in TV / Youtube but instead hope we would create the buzz for you.

 

And this – Mount skin gate – is how you thank us. Unethically is too soft a word to describe how you are treating your customers.

 

[mac.9645]

This is hot garbage, I'm not spending another dollar on this game and I hope others do the same. Blow it out your hiney, Mike.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @JustTrogdor.7892 said:

> > @"Fire X.5184" said:

> > yeeeah no. I will say good that you will change your ways (we shall see about that) but at the same time you can't change the system with existing license? Are you kidding me? here I will fix it for you. Make it that we can choose the mounts we want and give the gems back. Don't give a money refund just give the gems back and take away the skins. Then they can choose the skins they want and at the same time they have gems left over. You keep the money and we get the skins we want everyone is happy.

>

> Sound good on the surface but I am fairly sure Anet has stated that it is not easy to remove account unlocks and is on a case by case basis and may even involve rolling an account back. So that won't work.

 

That's likely untrue. The data is probably stored in SQL tables and an update command could do it all at once.

[Huntress.1608]

I appreciate that ANet has realised that people are unhappy with the adoption pack and they have responded, but i feel really disappointed that this has even become a thing. I always thought ANet was pretty decent not jumping on the lootbox RNG bandwaggon but unfortunately this isn't the case anymore. I can't afford the full pack as i only treat myself to a little something when i have some spare money from my wages and i'm pretty sure i will be addicted to the random adoption contract, so i don't want to even try one. ANet has done well in the past, i'm just upset that it has come down to this gambling scenario and it's a shame that it won't change.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Alga.6498 said:

> I will support and I will gladly purchase gemshop items, no matter what. If I like it of course. But I bought the 9,600 gems mount skin license contract because I love the variatons and the skins!

>

 

Yes, you keep saying that. You're one of the whales and this argument doesn't apply to you.

[Hecate.2891]

First off, MO could you at least change your forum pic to 

 

...the dragon doesn't suit you. No need to hide behind Lyssa's hand mirror, we see you :)

 

Next, please stop equating black lion chests to this mount rng malarkey. The reason why black lion chests are accepted, not loved, but accepted is for a couple of reasons. One, you can actually make use of something undesirable, for the most part, that you get. Also, you can acquire the keys for the chests without having to pay gems! And if you do pay gems for the keys they are fairly priced AND sold in bundles! They can be farmed weekly or earned from rare drops by just playing the game or by mapping. In addition, some of the unwanted results of black lion chests are able to be sold on the tp.

 

On the other hand, the mount skin rng is much more punishing. If you get a skin that you didn't want there is **nothing** you can do with it. Especially if you earn a skin for a mount you don't have, can't have, and have no intention of getting anytime soon or ever. You can't trade it, sell it, NADA. The only thing it will do is sit in your wardrobe collecting dust, but it will be there, waving at you every time you open the mount skin tab perpetually reminding you "Hey, I'm a 400 gem waste"

 

So, please stop saying well nobody burned people at the stake for black lion chests' rng...well that's because you're comparing apples and oranges. Both kitten fruits but **not the same thing. **

 

[TheGrimReaper.9510]

Yeah, the backlash is more than fair.

 

GW2 already had lootboxes in the form of Black Lion Chests but this? This is just pushing it. The BL Chests were a nice little blind bag thing, nobody really missed it but it was kinda fun to have a key now and then. But RNG for mount skins?

 

And 2000 gems for 1 mount skin?! I thought you were pushing it with the halloween pack but Jesus! That is about 25 euro. There is NOTHING micro about it! And gambling to get a skin you want (which you cannot even see in game btw) is just wrong. I hope you do the right thing ANET. You should have just done it like the gliders and not give such ludicrous prices.

 

Until then, I am signing off. I hope you fix this :(

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" 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.

> >

> > I'm only replying because you mentioned Pokémon.

> > I spend $80 every 2 or 3 years on the versions that come out. After that, I don't have to pay a kitten thing until the next version comes out.

> > I'm not sure where the RNG is in that unless you mean the encounters and maybe if I'm looking for a shiny or something.

> > I'm pretty sure in Pokémon games, less money has been spend "Catchin' 'em All" than people trying to let's say get an item from the Black Lion Chest. (Except for like 2 items and the permanent contracts, the chest have nothing for me personally, but I've seen people spend a ton on keys to get the items they like in it).

> > The RNG on mounts are just version 2 of those chests.

>

> Pretty sure they were talking of the pokemon trading card game.

> When you pay for boosters, they are purely RNG too.

 

Trading card game booster packs aren't totally RNG. They're weighted. In Magic it was generally 1 rare, 2-3 uncommon, the rest common in the pack.

[Tiny Doom.4380]

> @inubasiri.8745 said:

 

> Except in Magic's case, pretty much nobody opens boosters for the RNG anymore. What happens is that shops open thousands of booster packs at once and then put the individual cards on sale. And thus it's not the same thing at all.

>

 

Are you serious? I work in a bookshop that sells Magic Card Boosters and no-one has ever done that, nor has any customer ever asked if we do. Is that even legal?

[mac.9645]

I think it's time to actively dissuade people from playing this game and spending money on it. It's a winning battle but maybe once you start the layoffs you'll reconsider caring about your players and your game. I've convinced so many of my friends to play this game, next time I hear someone talking about it I'm going to tell them straight: don't bother.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @"Tiny Doom.4380" said:

> > @inubasiri.8745 said:

>

> > Except in Magic's case, pretty much nobody opens boosters for the RNG anymore. What happens is that shops open thousands of booster packs at once and then put the individual cards on sale. And thus it's not the same thing at all.

> >

>

> Are you serious? I work in a bookshop that sells Magic Card Boosters and no-one has ever done that, nor has any customer ever asked if we do. Is that even legal?

 

It's been done since M:TG came out. The store already paid for the boxes of boosters so they belong to the store until sold. Generally the commons are just sold in bulk.

[Tiny Doom.4380]

> @Verthiss.9541 said:

> I'm disappointed you give up on RNG so easily. It sucks that there is no other way of aquiring specific skins, but RNG itself is not a problem here, having no alternatives is. For me, the perfect way of doing this would be to keep adding new skins to Adoption Licence while letting us purchase them separately for the first week or so (for 500-1200 gems, depending on the skin).

> This would mean that people who really like just one specific skin could buy it directly, while the rest of us (like me) could just buy a random skin for fun from time to time.

> PS: doing separate packages for every mount type would be fair.

> PS2: also, the system I described would give competionists a way to buy everything for a reasonable price (because they would get every skin meant for RNG packs for 400gems) while still showering you with the money.

 

This or something like it is really the correct way to handle this issue. I'm not interested in mount skins per se and there is no chance whatsoever that I'll ever pay 2000 gems for one - or even 1000. I am, however, very interested in rolling the dice for fun and seeing what turns up. At 400 gems it's a reasonable proposition and it's quite likely I'll do it now and then for fun. I have all the mounts and I'm not interested in any skin in particular so the Adoption system is a decent offer for me.

 

If I was specifically trying to get a particular skin, though, it would be incredibly annoying and prohibitively expensive. By selling the skins directly at a higher price, possibly with a "buy only" period when first introduced, and also adding them to the Adoption lottery you could please everyone or at least not annoy them. You'd also gmake some sales to people like me who you'd never reach at all otherwise.

 

I can't see that your (ANet's) proposed solution can be the optimal one.

 

 

[Magnus Godrik.5841]

So these rng mounts will stay unique since the majority refuse to buy, allegedly. Kinda like that thought.

[The King of Dust.7925]

The comparison to trading card games is irrelevant. Those always had RNG from the get-go, you know what you're getting into when you start. Hence why I don't bother with them.

 

This mount-skin lootbox bs was added to GW2 five years in. I'm very disappointed by the weak official response and the decision to keep the current adaption license system as-is.

[Menadena.7482]

> @Adenin.5973 said:

> I really understand the point of many people here and share their concerns, regarding the lack of ingame rewards through the cash shop, the rng element and the prices in the gemstore.

>

> But when I read the comments here half of people are now outraged about the fact that they want at least one of the skins but can't afford it. I see pure disappointment. Not because Anet didn't admit any failure, not because they didn't promise to make things better in the future. They made all that sh*itstorm and got nothing from it. They behave like little kids that didn't get what they want. They want a mount skin for 400 gems instantly and now they got of course nothing.

 

What the kitten? Are we even reading the same posts? Granted the comments in this thread seem to have brought out more pro comments than in the other megathread but I do not see anyone saying they can not afford 400 gems for a skin.

 

Personally I do not care what they charge as long as it is within reason. The 2000 gem skin is a complete nonstarter but I would not blink at something whose price was closer to a glider or an outfit. Yes, I am sure everyone would prefer 1 gem skins but the market will decide what is the best price and for that giders (400), outfits (700), and armor/weapon skins (variable) are the best indicators of what a good price is.

 

As to affording it? Oh, come on. I am not a kid. I make more than enough to even afford the 30-skin package if I wanted (although I do not since 1/5th of the skins would be pointless to own and I am not THAT much of a completionist). I just actually assign VALUE to things and, well, the value is not there. No, I refuse to participate in this loot box scheme for a fundamental idea: loot boxes.

 

Yes, I know, do not feed the troll. *sigh*

[jediwolf.8724]

It was great to get a response. Thanks for that. We can all understand that you are looking for ways to improve revenue streams. But to hide this behind RNG was a mistake.

Trying to reverse it might have been a total mess of a refund process. It's done. Lets move on and see what comes out in the future. I am sure the Wintersday mount package of skins is just around the corner.

 

[Camaro Charr.2805]

> @Frostfang.5109 said:

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

>

> Some ppl CANT even use the skins they get due to not have unlocked the griffon!

> = 400 gems wasted for nothing!

>

 

This is the situation I am in... thus far I have seen no direct response addressing this situation.

[Menadena.7482]

> @zealex.9410 said:

> > @Critwrench.8432 said:

> > This doesn't address any of the concerns at all.

> >

> > People want to buy the skins. They do not want to GAMBLE for the skins. Take the RNG off and raise the price of the skins IF YOU MUST, but I don't think you have to. Gliders were all 400 gems, more if it included a backpiece, I see no reason to deviate from that model.

> >

> > Furthermore, this controversy has raised ancillary concerns from "nitpicks" to "actual issues" amongst your playerbase, and you have addressed none of them.

> >

> > **WHY** are all default mounts 1 dye channel, when all the skins conveniently have 4?

> > **WHY** are there no mount skins earnable as in-game rewards, in an expansion sorely lacking in medium- or long-term reasons to keep playing the maps?

> > **WHY** do you have the resources to release _thirty skins at once_ for the gemstore, but you can't throw one or two into a box that people like myself have paid up to **eighty dollars** for? I'm not saying I don't want to work for them, I'm not even saying I don't want to buy them. I'm saying that the current situation is the absolute worst for everyone involved, except perhaps your yarn-pawing kitten bottom line.

> >

> > It's greed, blatant and putrid, and your customers expect better than that from you.

>

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

 

That is debatable. Many of the early gliders, yes. Some later ones, no. Especially when a simple reskin of a mount costs the same amount as one with massive changes.

[Witch of Doom.5739]

> @Cantatus.4065 said:

> However, I think one thing you [Mike O'Brien] neglect to consider is how much it sucks to be aiming at getting a specific mount and repeatedly losing out (which is how someone is going to view it even if they are still getting a mount every time). Yes, the odds move more in your favor, but the odds are still stacked against you. <

 

Are you kidding? That is EXACTLY what they have considered, accepted, and promoted. They WANT people to aim for one particular skin, or a few, and be disappointed so they'll keep pushing that "buy 400 gem item" button over and over. That is the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the RNG gambling modus operandi.

 

[Zeivu.3615]

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > @Alga.6498 said:

> > I will support and I will gladly purchase gemshop items, no matter what. If I like it of course. But I bought the 9,600 gems mount skin license contract because I love the variatons and the skins!

> >

>

> Yes, you keep saying that. You're one of the whales and this argument doesn't apply to you.

 

They bought it. It totally applies to them. Their opinion is valid too. I bought three and I totally loved it.

 

[Menadena.7482]

> @Vegeta.2563 said:

> > @Menadena.7482 said:

> > Mike, if I have one question it is this:

> >

> > What are you supposed to do if you do not HAVE a particular mount nor intend to get it (most likely the griffon) then get a skin for it? That does not unlock the griffon so you are out $5 of gems for nothing.

>

> I can already see the answer.. "You'll have the mount eventually, so the skin will be waiting for you!" :tongue:

 

Yes, probably so. The frustrating thing is I have 0 intention of ever doing the griffon quest given GW2 is not my life. Maybe if they made it more like the other things (do a heart at pretty much any point). It is not the 250 Gold, I would make that back in no time, it is the time investment that makes it a nonstarter.

[Rikou.4720]

I had just hoped you'd refund those who bought mount skins then made them selectable. For you to go this route....I'm disappointed. Or at least break the package into per mount sections so I don't end up with a mount I don't have yet (i.e griffon) or a mount I don't use often. This feels like "We hear your feed back and will consider in the future but we're absolutely not fix the thing you're upset about." Again I don't mind buying these, just fix the blasted rng! Make them selectable!

[Demilion.5683]

I know that I'm going to get hanged for saying this and I don't care. I actually like this idea for the adoption license via the gem store. Why do I like this? These skins are optional to go after. Optional. A side thing to think about. Sure most of them are awesome looking however I sit myself back and add things up then say "Ya know, when I get some gold saved up I'll go gamble and see what RNG has for me today." I will spend about $10 to $20 on the gem store if I find something nice if my TP sales aren't going too well for a week and won't be afraid to do so. I'm not mindless nor am I a shill however most people will think differently cause they are still red eyed about this whole stupid mount thing.

 

 

I've played MMO's for almost 20 years and this mount discussion isn't the most terrible thing I have ever encountered in all of my playing. Trust me.

 

Now go ahead everyone and act entitled while tearing each other up over skins that are optional to go after.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

> We appreciate the thoughtful feedback many of you have provided, and that you hold us to high standards for monetization.

 

No longer, Mike. No friggin' longer.

 

You guys used to be the company/developer I could use as an example of a good premium economy done right. No longer. You've shown with this introduction of even more Loot Box gambling (and this subsequent sticking to your guns with them) that you're just as bad as the people behind all these recent Loot Box controversies such as Shadow of Mordor, Star Wars Battlefront and so on.

 

Moreso than make me angry, you've made me sad and disappointed.