A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[AlphaWolvesGamer.5790]

I'm just going to put this out here for everyone - Anyone arguing that mounts would be CHEAPER individually (let alone cheaper than Gliders) are fooling themselves. Almost all of the skins available would have been charged 600 Gems BASE LINE for individual skins. My estimate is that skins with slight model variations would have been ~500-700 Gems each (all the ones players are whining about getting because "they aren't worth it).

 

All of the ones with extra partial effects and/or significant changes to them would have been anywhere between ~800-1200 Gems, Guaranteed. (I highly doubt Arenanet would have released the Shiba Inu skin for anything less than 1000 Gems based on its popularity). They have shown this practice consistantly in the past with Gliders - And spoilders: Glider's aren't going to be out for 90% of the gameplay experience, while Mounts are pretty much used anywhere outside combat once you've unlocked them.

 

I understand that RNG isn't the friendliest of ways to release these skins, but at least they're not limited time (unlike some armor and glider skins) that cost upwards of 800 Gems for a small basic change.

 

Also, people whining about the 2,000 Gem Skin - This was a COMPLETE change to the Jackel. I'm talking Animation, Partical Effects, Model, EVERYTHING was changed. This is equivalent to a Legendary Skin in league of Legends. You can argue that it's not worth the money, but consider everything that was put into creating this product.

 

Just my 2 cents on the subject. I see a lot of people crying because RNG - the same people who wouldn't have bought it anyway even if it wasn't RNG because the individual skins would be "to much" for them to buy.

[Draygo.9473]

I would note that MO did not say that Anet will do nothing, he only said they will do nothing that would invalidate the purchases of the players that did buy the item.

 

A lot of the options in the other thread will take development time to implement so I imagine if they want to do something they need to actually make that something first or have a really good idea what is possible and fair. So I will wait for any continued action on this topic.

 

In either case: Anet will not do this again.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @AlphaWolvesGamer.5790 said:

> I'm just going to put this out here for everyone - Anyone arguing that mounts would be CHEAPER individually (let alone cheaper than Gliders) are fooling themselves.

 

You're wrong to the point of hilarity.

 

Buying the skin you want directly (unless as Mike flat-out threatens to do, they jack the price way up) is of course going to be way cheaper than the untold number of Loot Boxes you would have to buy and open.

 

_On average_ of course. Just like there are players who never get what they want, there are players who get exactly what they want from the first Loot Box.

 

[apharma.3741]

While I appreciate the feedback saying that you hear us loud and clear that we do not want adoption licenses like they currently are if you think I will pay 2k gems for a single mount skin then you are incredibly out of touch with your audience. I will put it very clearly below so you do not mistake my feedback.

 

**I will not pay 2000 gems for a single mount skin.**

 

Now if the forged mount skin unlocked a variant for every mount along that same look, I might have been tempted but for a single jackal mount you're essentially tripping if you think that's value. I don't mind dropping gems on skins, outfits, gliders etc and I do buy with cash so as to support Arena Net but you are going down a path I do not wish to follow.

[Setz.9675]

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

> Hi,

>

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

>

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

>

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

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

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

>

>

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

>

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

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

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

>

>

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

>

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

>

> ~ MO

 

Did a lawyer happen to write this piece? Because every pro and con you stated is bending the truth.

Cons:

1:People hated RNG BLC gated items and feared this would open the door to more RNG gated pathways. The players were right and their dissatisfaction grew, all the signs this would happen where there. Arenanet as a company is creating dissatisfaction with a large population of their player base to cash in on a small group of people with a large disposible income. You knew this would happen but simply hoped it wouldnt be taken this far.

2: See pro's 1 and 3, you damn well knew why and what you did. This is not players perceiving as, it is as it is. ITS RIGHT THERE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, LOWER PRICE BECAUSE PEOPLE NEED TO BUY MORE TO GET WHAT THEY WANT, something about being 2 faced.

3:2nd reasonable thing said? First being: You have valid concerns about random boxes.

 

These so called pro's of yours when thought through:

1: 400 gems for 1 mount skin sure is reasonable, problem is that I personally have an 80% not ever going to use whatever I get from my purchase and that % depends per player.

2: What you call a progressive mechanic is a severe downgrade of the direct purchase of what we had before, there is literally no 'pro' here. You would always pay for something but with this system you can pay for things you don't want. I will give you a 9/10 for mental gymnastics.

3:This is you effectively saying that the discounted price is complete and utter bullocks because you calculated how many more purchases are needed on average for players to get what they want.

 

 

[TheGrimReaper.9510]

Let's just be honest here ANET.

 

You introduced the loot box system because you want more money. It doesn't give people a choice. The only choice they now have is gambling for the skin they want! And all those skins together, they are worth 120 euro huh? Yeah, you are delusional if you think that.

 

But what's even worse is that you attempted this in the first place. The backlash got you to back off and (hopefully) not introduce more shit through the RNG lootbox system like this. But let's say this went by unnoticed and that they kept adding skins. Let's say there were 100 mount skins to win and only 20 are actually cool? That would mean someone could spend 50 or 60 euro to get the skin they want. That is flat out robbery! That is flat out disgusting and you should be ashamed to introduce this system in a game that CLEARLY could survive on the model it had. If it couldn't ANET and GW2 would both be long dead by now.

 

But what is most insulting is that you haven't even offered a single skin to be earned in game. You are LITERALLY making the game so the only end goal is the cosmetics. It bothered me for some time but with you nerfing rewards, recycling content again and again and again, not giving a shit about balance, making the game easier and easier, making the grind so absurdly long, increasing the gold to gems ratio again and again, and now this? You let me and apparently a lot of people down.

 

And some people are gonna wonder why people make a big deal or that they should shut up and stop playing the game if they hate it so much etc. Let me clear that up. The reason people complain is because they actually love the game. They like playing and wanna keep playing. We then raise our concerns when bullshit like THIS happens because we don't want it. We want it to do better. Remember Secret World? No because nobody cared about that game, hence why it died out.

 

I seriously hope you get rid of this ANET. I hope you fix this because right now, out of pure principles, I will not play anymore. I will not spend a dime anymore. It's doesn't matter to you ofcourse. I am just one person. But I hope it shows how dissapointed I am.

 

Please reconsider this. I don't think this will be beneficial in the long run for you either cause now, I would never recommend this game to anyone and neither will many others. Why recommend something that betrayed your trust so much? And how did you not expect a backlash? You ask 25 bucks for a single skin! Are you insane?

 

Guess I'll just find a different MMO and hope that one day I can return to Tyria and this is all just a bad dream.

[TheUndefined.1720]

Thanks for the response. I weighed it out and I found the purchase currently fair enough to go through with it. After purchasing the item, despite the skins I got (which I don't complain about), I really regret spending so much on a video game. I made the decision and I enjoy the skins, but I don't think anything in a video game should ever exceed the cost of the game itself in one purchase.

 

Next time, please have a cap on whatever you put out. Again, I think the "randomness" is being exaggerated in comparison to other games. However, I understand the arguments. I think with what we're given, this was a best case in terms of randomness, however, the price is incredibly steep.

 

I definitely think sticking to smaller bundles (maybe if you had cut this 30 pack set into smaller packs for smaller prices it would have been a bit more palatable), festive mount packs, and the single big purchases, it would be a better way to go about it.

 

In either case, thank you for the skins and the response.

[Rococo.8347]

> @Rashagar.8349 said:

>

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > Someone mail this stupid statement to Jim Sterling, please.

> >

> > He needs to make a follow-up video on this tragically hilarious response.

>

> Did you just tune out the part of his video where he repeatedly stated he didn't know much about the subject? And the part where he said that the only reason he was making the video was because his inbox had been flooded by frothing idiots chomping at the bit? Admittedly I'm paraphrasing.

 

He never said he doesn't know much about RNG boxes and grift monetization techniques - that's actually his thing - he is a crusader against it in ALL games. So don't bend the narrative, he hasn't played GW2 in a long time so he obviously doesn't know much about where the game is at in general.

 

Good god, is this where we are at? people on this forum getting mad at you tubers for pointing out shoddy practices rather than at Anet?

 

Ive heard today that INKS a you tuber whose loot box vid showed he was unhappy with what was going on was de- monetized I assume by Anet in the last 24 hours.

 

Meanwhile Wooden Potatoes is wringing his hands over how we shouldn't let this negativity get out into the general gaming community or mainstream media because that will somehow impact Anet profits - how did we get to the point where a companies bad decisions affecting their profitability is OUR responsibility.

 

I give up.

[troops.8276]

> @AlphaWolvesGamer.5790 said:

> I'm just going to put this out here for everyone - Anyone arguing that mounts would be CHEAPER individually (let alone cheaper than Gliders) are fooling themselves. Almost all of the skins available would have been charged 600 Gems BASE LINE for individual skins. My estimate is that skins with slight model variations would have been ~500-700 Gems each (all the ones players are whining about getting because "they aren't worth it).

>

> All of the ones with extra partial effects and/or significant changes to them would have been anywhere between ~800-1200 Gems, Guaranteed. (I highly doubt Arenanet would have released the Shiba Inu skin for anything less than 1000 Gems based on its popularity). They have shown this practice consistantly in the past with Gliders - And spoilders: Glider's aren't going to be out for 90% of the gameplay experience, while Mounts are pretty much used anywhere outside combat once you've unlocked them.

>

> I understand that RNG isn't the friendliest of ways to release these skins, but at least they're not limited time (unlike some armor and glider skins) that cost upwards of 800 Gems for a small basic change.

>

> Also, people whining about the 2,000 Gem Skin - This was a COMPLETE change to the Jackel. I'm talking Animation, Partical Effects, Model, EVERYTHING was changed. This is equivalent to a Legendary Skin in league of Legends. You can argue that it's not worth the money, but consider everything that was put into creating this product.

>

> Just my 2 cents on the subject. I see a lot of people crying because RNG - the same people who wouldn't have bought it anyway even if it wasn't RNG because the individual skins would be "to much" for them to buy.

 

It all depends on how many individual skins you wanted in the pricing model you invented. If its only a few skins then its much more statistically likely to cost far more with the current model than the one you are asserting, if it's most or many of them you want (or you don't care what you get) then in your scenario it probably would be but that's because you made the model to get the outcome you were wanting (but still failed if you only wanted a few specific skins). But either way it's Anet that gets to choose whether to make the skins a complete rip off or not they set the pricing model. So if it's too expensive or better value then that's because they make it so.

[Rashagar.8349]

> @Rococo.8347 said:

> > @Rashagar.8349 said:

> >

> > > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > Someone mail this stupid statement to Jim Sterling, please.

> > >

> > > He needs to make a follow-up video on this tragically hilarious response.

> >

> > Did you just tune out the part of his video where he repeatedly stated he didn't know much about the subject? And the part where he said that the only reason he was making the video was because his inbox had been flooded by frothing idiots chomping at the bit? Admittedly I'm paraphrasing.

>

> He never said he doesn't know much about RNG boxes and grift monetization techniques - that's actually his thing - he is a crusader against it in ALL games. So don't bend the narrative, he hasn't played GW2 in a long time so he obviously doesn't know much about where the game is at in general.

>

> Good god, is this where we are at? people on this forum getting mad at you tubers for pointing out shoddy practices rather than at Anet?

>

> Ive heard today that INKS a you tuber whose loot box vid showed he was unhappy with what was going on was de- monetized I assume by Anet in the last 24 hours.

>

> Meanwhile Wooden Potatoes is wringing his hands over how we shouldn't let this negativity get out into the general gaming community or mainstream media because that will somehow impact Anet profits - how did we get to the point where a companies bad decisions affecting their profitability is OUR responsibility.

>

> I give up.

 

I... didn't say he did? Although I see what you mean about my use of the word "subject" in this instance being a bit vague. By subject I meant this specific instance, which he freely admitted himself to not knowing as much about. So no bending of narratives was present here, you just misinterpreted my meaning. Maybe intentionally, who knows. =P

 

Also, no, no madness is present here in my post either. That was also supplied by you.

[Kumion.7580]

I am glad to hear an official response... but I'm not happy about its contents. Saying things will be different next time isn't very reassuring, especially when it's implied that a 2k gem price point for an individual skin is going to stay.

 

We all see how you work and re-work class balance in the game; it needs to happen in the gem shop, too. If an outfit (full body skin) is around 800 gems and adaptable to 5 races, then why is a 1-body mount skin 2k gems? A glider skin is around 400 gems and glider/back skins combo (2 skins) is around 700 gems. Again, justify the 2k cost for a mount skin, please? Even the fanciest, most individualized outfits capped out at 1k gems. Frankly, I could see spending that much for a very fancy mount skin but I would prefer if it adapted to all five mounts-- just as the 1k outfit adapted to all races/body types. Additionally, what other games charge for a mount skin shouldn't be any more of a factor here than balancing a class in this game to a class in some other game.

 

While I would like to see mount skins available as rewards in-game, I know that we only have a couple of legendary gliders and no outfits. Since outfits are an optional cosmetic costume alternative to in-game armors, they get a pass as an in-game reward. However, it would not surprise me if we only see a couple of hard-to-get mount skins as rewards for larger-effort gameplay rewards. I _do_ expect the gemstore to offer some similar-in-scope skins (see balance, above).

 

Personally, I adore the new bunny skins but I won't gamble for them. I can only hope they'll be sold individually or in reasonably priced bundles sometime down the line when the special-ness of the new skins has waned. I don't want any of the eye-searing, flashy skins at all. It'd be different if I could sell those but since I can't, there's no value for me in the mount licenses.

 

I may be repeating what many others have said, but I feel as if the more we say it, the _more_ of us who say it, the more the repetition we cause, the more it will sink in: don't make us gamble, don't over-price mount skins.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @Rococo.8347 said:

> > @Rashagar.8349 said:

> >

> > > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > Someone mail this stupid statement to Jim Sterling, please.

> > >

> > > He needs to make a follow-up video on this tragically hilarious response.

> >

> > Did you just tune out the part of his video where he repeatedly stated he didn't know much about the subject? And the part where he said that the only reason he was making the video was because his inbox had been flooded by frothing idiots chomping at the bit? Admittedly I'm paraphrasing.

>

> He never said he doesn't know much about RNG boxes and grift monetization techniques - that's actually his thing - he is a crusader against it in ALL games. So don't bend the narrative, he hasn't played GW2 in a long time so he obviously doesn't know much about where the game is at in general.

>

> Good god, is this where we are at? people on this forum getting mad at you tubers for pointing out shoddy practices rather than at Anet?

>

> Ive heard today that INKS a you tuber whose loot box vid showed he was unhappy with what was going on was de- monetized I assume by Anet in the last 24 hours.

>

> Meanwhile Wooden Potatoes is wringing his hands over how we shouldn't let this negativity get out into the general gaming community or mainstream media because that will somehow impact Anet profits - how did we get to the point where a companies bad decisions affecting their profitability is OUR responsibility.

>

> I give up.

 

Really? Well, there goes my respect for Wooden Potatoes down the dumpster, then. This _needs_ to get out there and it _needs_ to impact Anet's profits - that is the only language business of any kind speak. Although, if you're "in the know" about how freemium markets work, you sadly know it won't be the case.

 

It was never the intention that everyone should buy these mount skins. It was always the intention that only a small percentage would (which is why the full bundle is so overpriced). The type of player that the business model oh-so-charitably refer to as "whales".

 

[Syryn.7591]

This still doesn't explain why there is a 2k gem mount skin when we got a set for 1600 - it also doesn't sit well with me that you can CLEARLY see that some of the skins in the 30 were made as sets. How could you sit on 30 skins and release them like this? The whole "400 for a ticket and you always get a new skin" does not address the fact that you will most definitely get a skin you don't want and you don't want to pay for. I don't see why you can't add each skin in individually with a rising gem rate from patterned mounts to mounts with special effects, but 2k for just ONE is absolutely atrocious and should've never seen the light of day. You could've added two pattern sets and two special effect sets and then sold the doggo and warhound ones separately for as much as an outfit. Saying it's ok at least it's always a new mount doesn't change the fact that you're essentially forcing skins people don't want onto them - yes, I know people don't have to pay for these (I sure won't) but removing choice from the player feels cheap af.

[Apokalypt.5120]

Someone will gonna pay less than me to get exactly the same skin ... altough i'm going to have some additionnal skins but i don't care about them i just want a specific skin so i'm gonna gamble to get it at first try but it won't work as probabilities is against it ... it's not fair ANET .. NOT FAIR ...

 

Your expac is build all upon mounts .. and not a single one was put IN game ... and you made it so that the mounts are so ugly that everyone will have to pay for a skin .. i'm really sorry but all your answer is bullshit for me ... you're ruinin your company and THE WORST .. you're treatin your faithful fans like shiiit ...

 

disappointing ...

[lorddarkflare.9186]

Part of the problem is the absurd cost for single mounts. 2000 Gems is waaaaaaay too much. Like, holy crap.

[Hecate.2891]

It makes no sense. People are literally waiting in line to give their money and all you have to do is fix the way the mount skins are sold. The people who already invested don't have to lose out either. There are plenty of ways to accommodate everyone and it's been done before with flamekissed armor and town clothing.

 

SO instead of preventing the toxicity to grow which deadly sin is inhibiting you from just. doing. the. right. thing.? Is it pride or greed? Happy clients means income. If people are lining up and requesting you to sell individual skins at a higher price with no rng then it is greed because rng will give you more money by preying off the weak who can't help but press their luck in a rigged system.

 

You've got to be the worst mesmer ever...we can see right through your weak kitten illusion.

[Oglaf.1074]

As I said, Anet doesn't expect your money. Or mine. Freemium economies are actually supported by a small minorty of players (the whales) not you and I.

 

We were never the intended demographic for the 9000-whatever mount skin bundle, or the 2000 jackal skin.

 

When you think about it along those lines, it makes perfect sense. I mean it is predatory as all heck and very annoying to non-whale players who might want this premium content but... it makes perfect sense.

[Fire X.5184]

> @TheGrimReaper.9510 said:

> Let's just be honest here ANET.

>

> You introduced the loot box system because you want more money. It doesn't give people a choice. The only choice they now have is gambling for the skin they want! And all those skins together, they are worth 120 euro huh? Yeah, you are delusional if you think that.

>

> But what's even worse is that you attempted this in the first place. The backlash got you to back off and (hopefully) not introduce more kitten through the RNG lootbox system like this. But let's say this went by unnoticed and that they kept adding skins. Let's say there were 100 mount skins to win and only 20 are actually cool? That would mean someone could spend 50 or 60 euro to get the skin they want. That is flat out robbery! That is flat out disgusting and you should be ashamed to introduce this system in a game that CLEARLY could survive on the model it had. If it couldn't ANET and GW2 would both be long dead by now.

>

> But what is most insulting is that you haven't even offered a single skin to be earned in game. You are LITERALLY making the game so the only end goal is the cosmetics. It bothered me for some time but with you nerfing rewards, recycling content again and again and again, not giving a kitten about balance, making the game easier and easier, making the grind so absurdly long, increasing the gold to gems ratio again and again, and now this? You let me and apparently a lot of people down.

>

> And some people are gonna wonder why people make a big deal or that they should shut up and stop playing the game if they hate it so much etc. Let me clear that up. The reason people complain is because they actually love the game. They like playing and wanna keep playing. We then raise our concerns when kitten like THIS happens because we don't want it. We want it to do better. Remember Secret World? No because nobody cared about that game, hence why it died out.

>

> I seriously hope you get rid of this ANET. I hope you fix this because right now, out of pure principles, I will not play anymore. I will not spend a dime anymore. It's doesn't matter to you ofcourse. I am just one person. But I hope it shows how dissapointed I am.

>

> Please reconsider this. I don't think this will be beneficial in the long run for you either cause now, I would never recommend this game to anyone and neither will many others. Why recommend something that betrayed your trust so much? And how did you not expect a backlash? You ask 25 bucks for a single skin! Are you insane?

>

> Guess I'll just find a different MMO and hope that one day I can return to Tyria and this is all just a bad dream.

 

Bravo best comment I have seen in a long time. I 100% agree with you

[zealex.9410]

> @"Fire X.5184" said:

> I don't like this at all....any chance we can make this viral so they have to change the RNG loot boxes?

 

[The Sneak.2765]

Thank you so very much for a response! While I was hoping for a few changes, I realize now, that might actually hurt those that have already invested. I really really love the mount skins, and hope that more are produced in the future! However, it would be nice if the next batch had less RNG to it. I hope you guys stay awesome! \o/

[Fire X.5184]

> @zealex.9410 said:

> > @"Fire X.5184" said:

> > I don't like this at all....any chance we can make this viral so they have to change the RNG loot boxes?

>

>

 

I already did that and I sent a message to jim again about how anet is "sorry not sorry"

[Snow.2048]

Yeah it must of taken a lot of hard work and dedication to copy the standard mount and add extra dye channels to lower the chances of getting ones that actually had work done on it. Or did you just remove the multichannel standard mounts and then add a new single channel one for those underserving people who only bought your xpac?

 

Its a gamble, why don't you post the chances? When the law catchs up with these shady practices, you will have to anyway for some countries. Show some forward thinking while doing your customers a favor. Also your rating is 12 years, and the gambling age in most countries on 18+. Way to prey on vulnerable demographics that are otherwise protected!

 

Stop pretending you are a victim in this situation.

 

Vote with your wallet is how I played, and the last few months I have been voting in your favor. Now I won't for a good long time again. Your 'experiments' copying other company's methods which players come to your game to escape are going to cost you long term revenue for a quick buck. In this sense, any of your problems finachially supporting the game in the future will be on you.

 

Congrats, you may have earned 100€ from one guy today, but you lost that from me over the next year or two. And you could have had both incomes just by something simple as selling the skin directly.

 

As a final note, you recently asked your fans to supplement your marketing efforts just before the xpac, to quite a good result I must say. How do you think that word of mouth is currently going to go now?

 

 

 

 

[Suicu.2549]

Since you have now taken an official stance on the backlash, I doubt this will have any impact whatsoever, but here goes..

 

I was waiting for an official stance before trying it out. My starting point was that I wanted a skin for the raptor, or the griffon, those two I use the most and would like to have something special. Well I bought one, by converting gold to gems, since I will not support this model with real money. I would have really been okay with most of the raptor or griffon skins, the one I actually aimed for was one of the uncommon/common type griffon skins. Ok, so 120 gold later, I get a skin for a skimmer, which is fine. But oh look, this is the same skin as I had before, the plain vanilla skin. The only difference is, now I can dye the belly and the sides as well, earlier I could only dye the back.

 

Didn't feel good. I gambled, so I can only blame myself or the system. I'm still disappointed. I invested 5 euros worth of gold in the gem store, and now I have a skin that actually looks pretty much the same as earlier. The skimmer's belly is just a bit darker than before. Dying it in any light color made it look like the basic skimmer.

 

These basic-looking skins with extra dye-slots should be obtainable in-game, e.g. as a reward for the skimmer/jackal/all mount quests/achievements you have to do. Like the one where you help around people on the map. Now my only reward for those, quite work-heavy quests is some achievement points and the possibility to buy treats, for extra mastery xp (which I don't need), after I've done the heart quest (which I won't do, certainly not out of pure fun). Achievements so heavily tied in to the mounts should reward something for the mounts as well.

 

P.S. 2000 gems = 25 euros. For a skin. For a "utility" item. Not even the character that you will see all the time.

P.P.S. HoT+PoF = 50 euros as a bundle.

P.P.P.S. The skimmer skin only has 3 dye slots. Not even 4.

P.P.P.P.S. I really wanted the jackal pup backpack. For the first time in my life, I bought 10 or so black lion chest keys. Got some outfit or something I didn't want. A few wpn tickets. Not the skin, even tho it's "uncommon". Again, disappointed, and decided I will never buy keys anymore. I would've gladly paid 400 gems for the skin.

 

[Hecate.2891]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> As I said, Anet doesn't expect your money. Or mine. Freemium economies are actually supported by a small minorty of players (the whales) not you and I.

>

> We were never the intended demographic for the 9000-whatever mount skin bundle, or the 2000 jackal skin.

>

> When you think about it along those lines, it makes perfect sense. I mean it is predatory as all heck and very annoying to non-whale players who might want this premium content but... it makes perfect sense.

 

Thank you so much for pointing this out. You are indeed correct that this does make the most sense. If this is truly the case then this strategy was implemented into the game for pure greed, not to make an honest income, but to exploit and prey. This seems to completely devalue the people and the product itself. The money given to them feels "dirty" as if it is not deserved for such scummy tactics.

[zealex.9410]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @AlphaWolvesGamer.5790 said:

> > I'm just going to put this out here for everyone - Anyone arguing that mounts would be CHEAPER individually (let alone cheaper than Gliders) are fooling themselves.

>

> You're wrong to the point of hilarity.

>

> Buying the skin you want directly (unless as Mike flat-out threatens to do, they jack the price way up) is of course going to be way cheaper than the untold number of Loot Boxes you would have to buy and open.

>

> _On average_ of course. Just like there are players who never get what they want, there are players who get exactly what they want from the first Loot Box.

>

 

Rng aside. 1 to 1 tanstaction the rng purchase will be cheaper. Than the normal one. Just because its rng doesnt mean you will have to buy 4 or 5 packs for the skin u want or 21-22. U might get it on your first you might get it on your second. These skins all have equal drop chance which is suprising considering thats not the case with blc.