A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[fivebrights.7359]

I think the course of action re: the current adoption licenses was the best one, considering the circumstances. Trying to backtrack/refund on purchases that were already made would be a mess. And if they lowered the price now, those who had forked over money already would understandably be upset that they had bought in early and paid more for it. (I know I'd be reluctant with future purchases if that were to happen, even if it in the long run was in my favor.) Since they're not adding any more licenses to RNG, and that they'll be pursuing alternate purchase models in the future, I'm overall feeling accepting of their decision here.

 

I definitely support the idea of the (discounted) themed packages. I think there's a fair chance that if you really like something like the starlight or pyro skin for one mount, you're going to be happy to have that for all your mounts. However, I still feel a _single _mount skin shouldn't cost more than a glider or an outfit. I'd love to have the Reforged Warhound, but I can't buy it in good conscience at 2000 gems.

[gaborkaldy.3210]

This worth a translation though:

 

Thank you for your feedback. We made poor Gaile to read them through but decided to don't give PURRRRR to it. We made tons of cash and you are not serious we are going to give back a single cent, right? Also you should consider how hard it was for our developers to create 4 exactly simliar skin with different patterns for each Mount collection to full up the RNG pool to 30. We will leave it as it is, but hey! Good news, in the future we won't make it worse! Take it as a gift! Early Christmas! In the future you can also count on 2k Wintersday mount boundle where we give nice red hats on each mount and colour it white, and they will fart Jingle Bells! Peace out bros! My PA still has to write this down and it is already Friday!

[Avster.1935]

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

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

 

I appreciate the work that your artists did, but the skimmer department was severely lacking - the simple skins were way too simple/close to the original.

 

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

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

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

>

> Microtransactions can be polarizing, and we’ve received both positive and negative feedback on the license. We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made, but I want to confirm to you that our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack. We will not add any skins to the currently available Adoption License, thus not pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin in that set.

 

Those statements above worry me because you think the price points are justified. The Reforged Warhound skin was 2000 gems! That's as expensive _as_ an expansion! Surely you see that, right? The mount packs are also good - but what we / everyone else was asking is for INDIVIDUAL mount skins to be released around 500-600 gems, maybe even 700 gems (if the designs does justice to it).

 

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

 

Yes, but what if I only want a few specific skins? I don't want to gamble, I want certainty.

 

Although I appreciate the communication; you haven't done anything to fix the issues of the Mount Adoption Licenses that we have asked changes to.

 

Also, a "crazy idea" - what if we could actually obtain mount skins via the game as a reward? Seeing that cosmetics _is_ part of the endgame? Give us something meaningful and fun to do other than open our wallets or do gold->gem conversions, the latter is something I'll gladly do if there is a healthy balance between in-game rewards and gem store items. As of now, the weight on the "cool" stuff, imo, is heavily shifted to the gem store...

[NoPanDa.3048]

**It's just so much bullshit with how they handle rewarding people for playing vs rewarding them for paying. We need rewards for both sides for the game to be healthy. **

 

I'd like to think that relatively to the time I spend playing I pay more for every hour in GW2 than any other MMO I played cause of all the items I buy here. That said, it's just sad that there are no new things to get for playing, only from paying, which then means I have no reason to play or pay.

 

It's almost like it would be better if we get to pay to play so that start to add rewards for playing instead, or there are no reason to play or pay....

 

Let's face it, the halloween event was boring and there was nothing new except for a boring race and a few ugly reskins of old armor? That is supposed to be the incentive to play the game? for that?! Well, the incentive to pay for the game was waaay higher as there were a few mount skins, first mount skins released even. That was unique and awesome, but I payed for it and then that was that, nothing more to do there and nothing more to do in halloween event, so there was nothing left to do, again, no reason to play anymore. So, why did I pay for the mount skins? I only used them for like 1 hour or something.... imagine if you could get those mount skins in game and you had to play for a hundred hours to get them, then I would be playing still, and paying.

 

I have not even logged in to get my daily login rewards since I bought the damn halloween skins, ty A-net, ty, but there is no way I pay for that 30 bundle and I will definitely not buy them one by one.

[Bish.8627]

The price on skins is way too high for individual.

 

And honestly, you could change the adoption license. The people who spent a ton of money getting the skin they want had their time floating around in front of others showing it off. Offer affordable skins to everyone and you will sell more. RNG boxes will only cater to a few and in the long run not make as much.

[Iason Evan.3806]

David Brevik who was a colleague of yours Mike, had this system in Marvel Heroes. Specific heroes generally run about 400-600 of their version of in-game currency. RANDOM heroes cost 175 of the same earnable in-game currency. It's been in that game for YEARS and it's great and this isn't. See if you can spot the difference between why theirs works and yours doesn't.

[Poi.6541]

I'm not a whale, I have a bit of savings. I'm homebound, because I'm sick. And the only source of joy I have lately is making music, painting or playing games. GW2 specifically is one of the games that makes my life a little less dull. I love the mounts, they are so adorable and the graphical work put into them gives them a ton of personality.

 

What's so sad is that I'm pretty much scared of having to throw out more money in the future, into the gambling of maybe getting the one out of thirty, that I'm willing to throw out a ~~large~~ bit of extra real money just to get them all. The mounts are a great source of joy for me, I don't expect anyone to understand it really. I spend a lot of time just looking at their animations, wishing I could have a real pet in my current situation. It's stupid. But that's how it is. It's just a simple; At least I get to have many cute looking pets in a stupid game that has adopted a BS monetization model.

[Rashagar.8349]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @Wildfang.3271 said:

> > > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > > @Devildoc.6721 said:

> > > > > @StaggerLee.6397 said:

> > > > > Is a mount skin being $5 really considered discounted?

> > > >

> > > > Unfortunately yes if you compare it to similar items in other MMO's. WoW sells $25 mount skins and it's a subscription game. ESO has mounts between $9-$30. LotRO between $10-$25.

> > >

> > > As other people have pointed out, WoW sells mounts for a premium price because they are extremely nice looking mounts, but the VAST majority of their mounts are available in-game. *WoW has over 400 mounts and only sells 11 in their store!* I went to their store and counted them. So there is literally no need for a player to purchase a mount from the store give the huge number of mounts available in the game.

> >

> > Well, just out of curiousity sake, why is it that WoW has so many mounts in game? Is it because :

> > A. Blizzard is altruistic?

> > B. Blizzard wants to have too many things for players to strive to achieve/get so that they will keep on subbing like a hamster on a wheel?

> > C. (You come up with any good valid reason)

> >

> > For me, I think the answer is B.

> > Now since GW2 doesn't have any sub system like WoW, does ANET benefit much from adding so many mount skins and only selling just a few like WoW? Would those sell enough to pay for server costs/employees' salaries? And ppl already do complain about the 2k gem prices for the warhound atm.

> > Don't get me wrong, I would like ANET to add some mount skins to the game as well but wanting them to do everything similar to WoW is kinda silly considering the size of company and amount of assets.

>

> Who said anything about Blizzard being altruistic? I'm talking about Blizzard being SMART! Yes, they provided huge amounts of *GRIND* in their game so players will continue to *grind* and play their game - what a concept! Will GW2 players continue to purchase gems when they've run out of content and don't play the game anymore?

>

> But that wasn't my point - my point was that it doesn't matter that WoW sells 11 mounts in their store for $25 each because the vast majority of players don't need to purchase those mounts - they have 400 other mounts that they can get. GW2 players don't have that choice. We have the base mounts and that's it. Then GW2 adds only these choices on the store:

>

> 1600 gems: Spooky Mounts Pack (skins for all 5 mounts, no single skins available)

> 2000 gems: Reforged Warhound (single Jackal skin)

> 9600 gems: Mount Adoption License 30 Pack (only way to guarantee you get the skins you want)

> OR 400 gems per random Mount Adoption License. No way to simply get the skin you want.

>

> So what CHOICE do GW2 players have in getting mounts? You can CHOOSE the Spooky Mounts for 1600 gems (not anymore) or the Reforged Warhound for 2000 gems. That's it for being able to make an actual choice.

 

You can also CHOOSE to get a random mount skin.

It's not a choice you like. That doesn't make it not an "actual" choice.

 

You can also CHOOSE to wait for a bit and see what other new shinies will be arriving in the near future. This means you won't be getting in on the latest craze at the earliest opportunity though, horror of horrors.

 

Also, fixed your post for you. *Edit, although I feel kind of dirty for having done that so my apologies, it just seemed like you were, either deliberately or accidentally, missing the point of the poster you had quoted and I wanted to draw your attention to the key element you'd glossed over.

[Oglaf.1074]

@"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

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

 

Except that you guys decide the price. This is basically you saying that "If you force us to remove RNG, we would punish you by increasing the price, nyeh!" Lets be honest here, the majority of the skins are just retextures and would be perfectly justfiable at a 400 Gems pricetag if you could buy them directly. Only a select few are fancy enough to be worth, perhaps, 600 Gems instead if purchaseable directly.

 

@"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

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

 

... with each new license of course costing you the same IRL cash equivalent of 400 Gems, eh? Buy moar, gamble moar! How stupid do you think your playerbase is, Mike? This is the evil design of loot boxes that caught you the flakk in the first place and you try and paint it as something good? Seriously?

 

@"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

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

 

Oh that is just hilarious. "We decided to add gambling because player freedom! Diversity! Options!". Such a bad excuse I don't know wheter to laugh or cry in the end. Nobody ever asked you guys to put in gambling over direct purchases in the name of either player freedom ("I choose to get screwed over! It is my freedom as a player!"). RNG gambling isn't another viable option that is competitive with direct purchasing: it is distinctly and objectively inferior - for the players.

 

For you, of course, it is much muuuuch better, eh? That's what you meant, right?

 

All in all this response is just sooooo bad and I hope Jim Sterling gets wind of it and tears you a new one over it.

 

 

[SidewayS.3789]

>

> All in all this response is just sooooo bad and I hope Jim Sterling gets wind of it and tears you a new one over it.

>

>

And this need to get to Angry Joe,because gw2 its his favorite MMO and atm he's the only one on Youtube who have a review of the game with milions of views. If this gets to him, Anet will be in big trouble.I will personally email him.

 

 

[Aveneo.2068]

While I appreciate it that ANet had decided to address the issue and has agreed to change in the future after their (imo) despicable lootbox gambling scheme failed, I sincerely hope they don't expect me to pay €25 for a single skin now.

 

400-600 gems for a skin would be a good price, but if you think you'll just charge 2000 gems (€25) per skin from now on my wallet still remains shut. I'd just spend that money on a full game someplace else.

[Oglaf.1074]

Make the skins tradeable so that you're not entirely screwed over if you get a skin you don't want.

 

Or if you flat-out refuse to do that, at least do the following:

 

Put a check in place that looks if the player has bought the Griffon or not, and make sure you don't get a skin for it.

 

Because the first case is annoying and disappointing enough, but getting a skin that you literally cannot use whatsoever is downright insulting, wouldn't you say?

[dukenukem.9072]

Make a Mount tab in black lion. Sell each skin separately for 700 gems each. At least it would make me happy and I gauruntee ANET would make some money off it

[inubasiri.8745]

Well that would kinda be like changing the rules mid-game. It would upset those who bought the skins. And honestly, chance is that those who bought the skins, are paying and potentially returning customers.

 

I think there's been several insulting items in the gemstore lately and ANet didn't show much love. I guess it would be nice to have a forewarning, but they either forgot about people who didn't get a griffon, didn't care about them, or outright wanted to make people want to get the griffon afterwards. I personally would be happy with ANet just not continuing in this direction.

[BunjiKugashira.9754]

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

> Hi,

>

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

I don't think we claimed that this was in any way p2w. This was however a highly anticipated gem store addition and many players were eager to spend money on the skins they like. Being fully prepared to buy something and then being told that you can't because the rules have changed hurts.

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

>

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

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

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

Three different purchase models? You're seriously going to claim that you gave us a choice? The package was seasonal themed skins. They're nice if you like Halloween and want to spend on a costume, but anyone looking for a skin they can use the whole year was sure to skip those. And the 2000 gems jackal? Don't make me laugh. There is literally 1 outfit that goes well with the jackal skin. And that outfit hasn't been super popular anyways. The mix-and-match potential of that skin is lower than that of any other jackal skin in the game.

 

I can't blame you for at least acting surprised at the player backlash. It's what any PR-announcement worth its money would contain. Just for your understanding: The first reaction everyone had on Ts when they saw the gem shop was "Oha, this is going to create a huge player backlash. And I'm going to be part of it.". Claiming that you didn't anticipate the player backlash is tantamount to admitting that you have a worse understanding of your community than your average player. On the other hand I'm still convinced that you did anticipate the player backlash and just took it as the price for introducing a highly profitable cash grab.

>

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

>

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

Yeah, we got to see the Anchoring Effect life. The high-price single skin was there, the way cheaper RNG-ticket was there. This is marketing by the book. Good job.

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

Can't you just call it by its name? Sunk-Cost Fallacy is the word you're looking for. And in this case it's highly profitable.

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

So now it's our fault you didn't read the requests until the end? We requested a variety of skins to choose from. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why an RNG-ticket and a wide range of player tastes go well together. Besides every player drawing different skins that they perceive as losses. The only players winning from such an RNG system are those who were planning to collect all the skins anyway and those who like all skins equally. Which doesn't fit the context of a wide range of player tastes at all.

>

> Microtransactions can be polarizing, and we’ve received both positive and negative feedback on the license. We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made, but I want to confirm to you that our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack. We will not add any skins to the currently available Adoption License, thus not pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin in that set.

This isn't about microtransactions. First of all there is nothing micro about spending 6000 gems on average to get the skin you want, but this isn't even about transactions in general. This is about you using the worst, most exploitive marketing shenanigans the market has to offer. This is about the company many of us have come to trust stepping down to trample on that trust. This is about you becoming like EA.

 

Also, looking at your statement, doesn't this basically mean everything stays the way it is right now? "We heard your feedback and decided to do nothing about it." That's what I'm reading here. I'm sure there are ways to introduce a non-RNG option to get these existing skins without invalidating the investment players have made. But you're choosing not to. Just say it the way it is: "The boxes are making good money. We want to keep the status quo."

>

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

I've corrected that for you. You're welcome.

 

Oh, and since you felt like you had to mention that this is not p2w and purely optional microtransactions: You do realize what would happen if any of these microtransactions weren't optional, right? I don't think that's a direction you can go with this game. Before you do that you might as well just shut down the servers.

> ~ MO

 

[How we got into this mess in the first place: An analysis](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/259001#Comment_259001 "https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/259001#Comment_259001")

[Jordan.5930]

> @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> > @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.

>

 

How is blaming others useless and counterproductive when they genuinely may be part of the problem? People need to analyze themselves and consider whether or not their actions hurt the gaming industry as a whole. > @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.

 

This argument was flawed from the beginning. Because guess what? I can still get the EXACT card I want by looking for it on eBay or OfferUp or some other third party website. But we don't have that on GW2.. OH WAIT it's called the Trading Post isn't it. Fancy that.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @inubasiri.8745 said:

>I personally would be happy with ANet just not continuing in this direction.

 

I guarantee you that 99.99% of the player base would, but looking at Mike's ridiclous response to it all I very much doubt it.

 

I mean, we've seen it creepying it's way here for a long time now, with more and more things from BLCs steadily becoming more untradeable.

 

But really, the case with the Griffon skins is just insulting, no?

 

 

[Lilyanna.9361]

> @SidewayS.3789 said:

> >

> > All in all this response is just sooooo bad and I hope Jim Sterling gets wind of it and tears you a new one over it.

> >

> >

> And this need to get to Angry Joe,because gw2 its his favorite MMO and atm he's the only one on Youtube who have a review of the game with milions of views. If this gets to him, Anet will be in big trouble.I will personally email him.

>

>

 

Joe's job is review games because of content, not because of lootboxes.

 

This sounds like a little kid statement when they wanna tell on another kid.

"Mommy the big meanie told me I couldn't have my way and he's being mean to mee."

 

He made that video at launch and got the money out of it, he's not going to waste time because you wanna tattletale.

 

And seriously, Jim Sterling even admitted that he knew nothing about the gsme and the he basically wanted people to shut up. Nice guy huh? Wanting to shut all of this up. Knowing nothing about the game and doing a video just to do it without any background information. Now he's the one that looks idiotic and the ones facerolling the keyboard to type an email just wasted your time. Nice job.

[MachineManXX.9746]

The only thing I think they should do is to put a clear disclaimer on the mount license that you could get any mount skin even if you don't own that particular mount.

[Oglaf.1074]

Jim Sterling might be out of the loop on Guild Wars 2 as a game but that it is entirely irrelevant in this case because where he undeniably knows his stuff is when it comes to terrible business practices in the video game industry.

 

Such as Loot Box Gambling.

 

He doesn't need to be up-to-date with the actual game in order to be able to form a valid opinion on the mount skin gambling debacle.

 

[zealex.9410]

They dont need to. Just make it so you can buy w/e mount you want for an increased prise. That way if someone wants to get the mount he goes and buys it for 700-800-1000 gems or he likes to live on the edge and goes for the cheap gamble.

[Firion Corodix.4510]

> @Lilyanna.9361 said:

> And seriously, Jim Sterling even admitted that he knew nothing about the gsme and the he basically wanted people to shut up. Nice guy huh? Wanting to shut all of this up. Knowing nothing about the game and doing a video just to do it without any background information. Now he's the one that looks idiotic and the ones facerolling the keyboard to type an email just wasted your time. Nice job.

 

Jim didn't say that he wanted people to shut up. He said that he wanted people to check his twitter before mailing (let's be real, spamming) him, because he had already stated on his twitter that he was aware of this stuff and yet he was still getting a ton of emails about it. That pointless spam is obviously a waste of his time and can result in actually important emails getting missed in the flood. So you've got the time wasting relationship reversed there, people are wasting his time, not the other way around ;)

[zealex.9410]

Just make it so you can buy w/e mount you want for an increased prise. That way if someone wants to get the mount he goes and buys it for 700-800-1000 gems (depending on the work that has gone in the skin) or he likes to live on the edge and goes for the cheap gamble.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @"Firion Corodix.4510" said:

> > @Lilyanna.9361 said:

> > And seriously, Jim Sterling even admitted that he knew nothing about the gsme and the he basically wanted people to shut up. Nice guy huh? Wanting to shut all of this up. Knowing nothing about the game and doing a video just to do it without any background information. Now he's the one that looks idiotic and the ones facerolling the keyboard to type an email just wasted your time. Nice job.

>

> Jim didn't say that he wanted people to shut up. He said that he wanted people to check his twitter before mailing (let's be real, spamming) him, because he had already stated on his twitter that he was aware of this stuff and yet he was still getting a ton of emails about it. That pointless spam is obviously a waste of his time and can result in actually important emails getting missed in the flood. So you've got the time wasting relationship reversed there, people are wasting his time, not the other way around ;)

 

People mailing him about things he is already accutely aware of is also an in-joke on the verge of becoming a meme at this point.

 

Just look at the comment section of the video dealing with this - you have people jokingly asking him if he's heard about the GW2 mount skin controversy.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @Jeromai.8203 said:

> Thank you for your communication regarding the mount skins. As some players might like individual skins found in the mount adoption license pack, I would like to ask if your team could consider making individual skins from the group available at a later date. Players who bought the entire pack would have the advantage of exclusivity for an initial period of time, plus presumably a total cheaper cost than buying all the skins individually, thus not invalidating their purchases.

>

> Pricing would understandably have to be higher in gem cost than the random mechanism from the mount adoption licenses. Perhaps on a tiered basis where slight pattern modifications/dye channels are priced below 800 gems, mid-range look alterations at 1000-1600 gems and the complete particle effect reskins at 2000+ gems? This would benefit both those who do not like RNG to have a choice of the same skins, as well as those who are not willing to pay 2000 gems for individual skins but might bite at lower prices. More people would be able to enjoy the skins that your artists worked so hard on.

 

No offense to you and I believe you mean well. However, consider what you're asking for. ANet has demonstrated that they can produce outfits and sell them for 700 gems. They've sold gliders solo for anywhere from 400 on up, with glider plus backpack bundles mostly also being 700. I encourage you, and anyone who wants to throw money at ANet, to compare value across products and let ANet know that consumers want consistent pricing that's fair across all offerings.