A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[Rococo.8347]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @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".

>

To give WP full props for his honesty - I don't think he said this out of machinations to protect Anet's love of RNG - he doesn't like BLC - I think it was out of fear that Anet will just drop GW2 if their profits plummet, HOWEVER that's a really terribly unhealthy position to take, more and more I see younger people especially who have grown up around the more extreme version of Capitalism we live in now and who feel it is almost their duty to be protective of a Companies products and bottom line.

 

It isn't.

 

It started with the Legal idea of Companies being treated as 'persons' throw in the world wide deregulation of Laws that were supposed to protect people, the normalisation of the idea that profit be legally enshrined and all and any ethical boundaries can be crossed for said profit and we are all being trained essentially to put ourselves AFTER companies interests.

 

I still think WP is great, I don't think he is a shill but I do think a pervasive unhealthy culture especially in gaming for treating a company like your extended family friend is a bad idea - especially when said family friend asks you to promote their business, waits a couple of weeks then tries to sell you something they should have been putting in with the previous thing you bought off them...

[Keller.3914]

Here's my 2 cents:

 

* **Random adoption licence** for the people that like to gamble

* ** Mount packs** (1 of each type) for the people who like a specific theme

* **Induvidual skins** (including the ones contained above) rotating every week in the gem store for those who just want one mount (not 2k gems tho ffs)

 

[Tetsumon.8297]

I literally want one skin of all 30, considering I'm a crazy shiba lady and proud shiba owner I only wanted Twin Sands, and I got a Raptor and Skimmer. Considering my luck, with all 30 skins he would be the one I'll get as the last.

Can't we get anything like Trade Center for those? Personally I'd give both skins + throw in Gold for this one fella I want. And I doubt I'm the only one thinking about this.

[DakotaCoty.5721]

Hey guys,

 

I know a lot of people are angry, frustrated and some people are being flat out rude - but I want to put this constructively because MO doesn't tackle the core issue with the uproar that this whole situation caused.

 

**He addresses:**

_The timing in which they released lootboxes, due to their attitude._

 

**What he neglects:**

The major issue that I have personally witnessed on the forums, in-game and on several Discord / Facebook communities is the **direction in where 'end-game' cosmetics are going...**

 

**The outline/timeline:**

 

- We first saw this with gliders; although cheaper and initially had more customisation compared to mounts.

- More gliders came, with different designs, stayed cheap and even discounted during seasonal events.

- Mounts were poorly implemented into the game, especially for an expansion based around "content".

- We had bare minimum customisation on the original mounts.

- Halloween came, we had a new pack for 1,600 gems: 4 dye nodes & particle effects. People are going to buy into it, that's okay. <- _This is where the issue starts (intentional poor design and implementation of mounts leads to a market design that's good for ArenaNet's wallet and not so much for player's morale.)_

- This week we saw 30 new skins added to the wardrobe, amazing.**I won't disagree with MO**, the amount of effort _most_ of the skins had were simply stunning but this is where the main issue (that was neglected) starts to fall into place.

- **These mount skins, of all 30, 0 were added to current content or current events**. Some of you may ask: *what's wrong with that?*

- **Observation**: Does ArenaNet now feel every good skin should be added into gambling methods or the gem-store?

 

_Let's analyse the above point..._

**Hydra Staff & Jackal Backpack**

One of the main selling points of the expansion in terms of returning monsters was of course the Hydras. Why was this staff not added onto a bounty reward, rare drop from hydra or perhaps a dungeon with a theme of flames / hell / hydras not added? _where's the content?_

 

_Moving on..._

**Fallen Balthazar Outfit & Balthazar Helmet**

Oh cool, we finally get an outfit with its own helmet skin that can be used for armours, oh but wait... **it's in the BLC as an uncommon drop**...

 

_But wait, it gets worse from there..._

Someone at ArenaNet it would be a good idea instead of having one set of exclusive uncommon skins, they now decided to carry over those skins into the new roll of BLC. So this means at one point, you had a chance of getting 1 of 4 uncommon items instead of 2. These items were: _Hydra Staff_, _ Jackal Backpack_ , _Spooky Mini Set_ and _Balthazar Outfit_.

 

The issue persists...

Players have requested and requested armor skins on the gem store instead of outfits, even if it costs higher. Yet, a beautiful outfit like the Awakened Outfit, something I consider **truly unique in design** is completely wasted being an outfit. The chest on that is visually pleasing, never seen before, but nope.

It then gets worse from this...

 

In MO's statement he addresses and defends ArenaNets integrity by kindly reminding people they fund their game through _microtransactions_. But again, another issue arises which wasn't addressed, binge spending 75 keys to get 1 skin **is not a _microtransaction_**. Spending £120 for 30 mount skins **is not a _microtransaction_**.

 

I even spent several hours a few months back making a concept piece about how they could implement different Legendary colours and even included how they could fund it and dedicate resources to it. [Link here.](https://www.facebook.com/notes/dakotacoty/concept-idea-gw2-legendary-colours-funding-issues/1459367427467053/ "Link here.")

 

-------

`TL;DR:`

Mike addressed 1 minor issue, neglected major issues. Halloween mount skins THEN the 30 mount skins were poorly implemented and purposefully monetised, outfits still being added despite public request to add armors into the game. 0 added into actual content. PoF remains a wasteland for hardcore players - Silverwastes still dominates.

 

**Small issue he addressed:** The anti-hype to lootboxes.

**Big issue he neglected:** The amount of players requesting a better gem-store shopping experience and general feel of betrayal from mount skin implementation as a whole, and none being added to actual content.

[Substance E.4852]

> @Rococo.8347 said:

> how did we get to the point where a companies bad decisions affecting their profitability is OUR responsibility.

>

> I give up.

 

"We" didn't.

 

Youtube pseudo-Ecelebs who's entire income revenue relies on their favorite game remaining popular and going strong however...

 

> @zealex.9410 said:

>These skins all have equal drop chance which is suprising considering thats not the case with blc.

 

That's literally only because they didn't want them to be tradeable.

 

Imagine the backlash if they released the system we have now only the particle skins had a 1% chance of dropping and you couldn't sell the more common ones on the TP.

 

[Erasculio.2914]

GW2 has a massive issue with its rewards. The rewards were meant to be skins... But less and less skins are released in the game, and more and more are released on the Gem Store. Other games offer power to be acquired in-game with skins bought with real money, but (thankfully) that's not the case with GW2.

 

It feels like ArenaNet's planned end game for players is for us to buy stuff from the Gem Store, and that's it.

[DakotaCoty.5721]

> @Erasculio.2914 said:

> GW2 has a massive issue with its rewards. The rewards were meant to be skins... But less and less skins are released in the game, and more and more are released on the Gem Store. Other games offer power to be acquired in-game with skins bought with real money, but (thankfully) that's not the case with GW2.

>

> It feels like ArenaNet's planned end game for players is for us to buy stuff from the Gem Store, and that's it.

 

This is exactly the point I am trying to make - we all understand they need to make money, but PoF's over-hyping simply didn't live up to standards and I believe the sales reflect that. Gem store would be much healthier if we had a flow of armors skins in the gem store (which is a community requested thing) and also adding actual skins to content.

[troops.8276]

> @zealex.9410 said:

> > @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.

 

The probability of getting the 1 you want is much much lower than getting 1 of the other 29 you don't. After 3 tries its still only a 1/27 chance.

[NotASmurf.1725]

He didn't address anything to begin with, has was very careful with wording to calm people down without actually changing anything. All he said was the next few releases won't be RNG boxes, that's it.

[DakotaCoty.5721]

> @NotASmurf.1725 said:

> He didn't address anything to begin with, has was very careful with wording to calm people down without actually changing anything. All he said was the next few releases won't be RNG boxes, that's it.

 

He addressed that it was a hyper-sensitive time to release mounts as RNG products, and nothing more than that. It was a 'misstep'.

[TheUndefined.1720]

Personally, I thought ANet did a good job of releasing in game skins / weapons / armors. However, after playing Elder Scrolls Online (with their new expansion they basically hand you a an outfit pretty early on), and FFXIV (lots of fun seasonal outfits as rewards for their festivals) I have to say that the in game skin reward system for ANet kind of died with the achievement based skins.

 

I get it. ANet is not a monthly based p2p powerhouse. Both of the games I listed offer / require a monthly fee for good price of purchase. The only thing ANet has to make its money are flashy costumes / skins. That's it. They've held onto their non-p2w standard. The amount of money it takes to make these exapansions / living stories are pretty intense I'm sure. There is no steady stream of income for ANet.

 

I think, if they pushed more of their living stories with some sort of skin / outfit reward it would be a lot more appreciated than - Check out the new costume! Some sort of option in game would be nice. I know ANet's goal is profit, and you don't get much profit in video games like these without selling some sort of good. Still, in game skins would give more incentive for players to play than - Check out the Trading Post!

[troops.8276]

> @DakotaCoty.5721 said:

> > @NotASmurf.1725 said:

> > He didn't address anything to begin with, has was very careful with wording to calm people down without actually changing anything. All he said was the next few releases won't be RNG boxes, that's it.

>

> He addressed that it was a hyper-sensitive time to release mounts as RNG products, and nothing more than that. It was a 'misstep'.

 

Yeh the misstep was not releasing them sooner (or later).

[ownedbycats.3580]

> @TwilightSoul.9048 said:

> Glad to hear we're not gonna see another mess like that, but I still don't see the point of having the skins not beeing tradable?

> What are we supposed to do with 10 Skins per Mount if we only wanted 1 out of 30 to begin with? Why not let us sell them (or buy the ones we want from other players)?

 

Someone may have mentioned this earlier, I don't know as I haven't read the whole thread yet so forgive me if they have. I'm wondering if the reason they can't be traded is because of the "unique" feature that you'll never get a duplicate. So if you get a skin and sell it, then the system will not see the item in your account and then you run the risk of getting duplicates. I don't know if there is any way that can be avoided. Is there any way for the system to remember you got that skin before if you sold it? As I know nothing about this I could be wrong and it can still keep track. Would people be ok with duplicates if they could sell them?

[Oglaf.1074]

> @ownedbycats.3580 said:

> > @TwilightSoul.9048 said:

> > Glad to hear we're not gonna see another mess like that, but I still don't see the point of having the skins not beeing tradable?

> > What are we supposed to do with 10 Skins per Mount if we only wanted 1 out of 30 to begin with? Why not let us sell them (or buy the ones we want from other players)?

>

> Someone may have mentioned this earlier, I don't know as I haven't read the whole thread yet so forgive me if they have. I'm wondering if the reason they can't be traded is because of the "unique" feature that you'll never get a duplicate. So if you get a skin and sell it, then the system will not see the item in your account and then you run the risk of getting duplicates. I don't know if there is any way that can be avoided. Is there any way for the system to remember you got that skin before if you sold it? As I know nothing about this I could be wrong and it can still keep track. Would people be ok with duplicates if they could sell them?

 

Nah, the system almost certainly checks against your unlocked "Wardrobe" of mount skins so that wouldn't be an issue.

[OmskCamill.6412]

> @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> > @Klonex.4562 said:

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

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

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

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

>

> > @OmskCamill.6412 said:

> > > @Deihnyx.6318 said:

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

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

> > > >

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

> > >

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

> >

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

>

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

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

 

Wrong. It was 9600 gems, i.e. 1920 gems per skin, to get a **50% probability**. Which means half of the people will not get it.

 

[Fire X.5184]

https://zerolives.com/article/PexEOxDu/arenanet-we-wont-change-current-guild-wars-2-mount-skins-lootboxes-but-wont-add-new-skins-to-it-either that did not take long at all o.o

[Dovienya.6597]

Survey with fairly comprehensive questions and answers, though only 500 or so people have answered it, most of the responses starkly stand out.

https://survey.zohopublic.com/public/thankyou.do?uid=xHB0fQ&responseid=318283000000012633&responseekey=6d351fa77e342297803b53295dc2ac9d

 

When a part of the community spoke out against the reskinning of the human light cultural armor as a cash shop item, the purchases were refunded if those who bought them did not like the new skin. The item was changed.

 

While I do recognize that this is not as straightforward a situation, the consequences in terms of community perception are different by an order of magnitude. I find it difficult to believe that the only equitable way forward is to leave things as they are.

 

A lot of people ask why the mount monetization is so infuriating when Black lion chests aren't. I don't like BLC, and don't buy them, but there's a significant difference. There are many ways to get many, many weapon, armor and backpack skins in-game. The exclusive, non-tradable items... stink regardless. The tickets can be used to buy an item of choice and then traded if you want to. There is only one single way to get mount skins, ANY mount skins. Mounts were sold to us as the special feature of the PoF expansion. Any content or feature gated by the expansion is going to be a grey area in terms of whether or not the player perceives themselves as having paid for it already, and any game company should have been keenly aware that their playerbase was holding its breath in anticipation of both how/when/whether mount skins/new mount types may be implemented and how they would be introduced/monetized. Well, we thought we saw at Halloween already. Additionally, a lot of the post-expansion content releases haven't dropped yet. The first balance pass after the expansion was... difficult to swallow for a lot of players all on its own.

 

36 mount skins have been released in the short time since PoF's launched showing that additional dye slots and mounts for in-game rewards, which are under tuned in Pof, were obviously a possibility. A lot of people wondered why even 2 dye slots were not available on the original mounts. Lack of customization, on its own, would not have been so bad, had there been a quest, a collection that had skins available, it may have assuaged some disappointment with rewards in PoF, and cushioned the blow when mount skins were monetized in this way.

 

Adding a second dye slot to the original mount skin, or making even a simple, acquirable in-game skin that can be fully dyed available would be a fine gesture.

 

I do not consider amassing gold to trade for gems an acceptable compromise, when it means saving so very much, if, in fact, all you want is one skin, or to gamble until you get one. This would be as though every time you buy a skin from the trade post, you got a "discount" but there were a pool of 29 other account bound skins you may get. As someone pointed out to me in another thread, regardless of the monetary value (pricing), and the value of an item relative to the effort it took to create it, if I will not use it and do not value it and cannot trade it, a drop as a consolation prize is worth nothing. Which brings up my next point.

 

I neither bought mount skins nor intend to so long as they're RNG, and I have all the mounts. However, not everyone has all the mounts, uses all the mounts, or intends to get them all. So, aside from the issue of like/dislike, some people are getting skins for mounts they don't have. One possible change would be to split the packages up into groups by mount with smaller RNG pools/discount packages that would not feel as cost prohibitive.

 

 

 

 

[Tanner Blackfeather.6509]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @Shikigami.4013 said:

> > Ask for mount-specific random skins and not to just leave out the griffon for all who don't have one yet. What about those who play casually and don't have the jackal yet? Should they ask to leave out the jackal? What about people who just started, should everything except raptors be removed?

>

> The difference is pretty obvious here: the non-Griffon mounts are unlocked by playing the PoF story, whereas the Griffon is a luxury item behind a 250g paywall.

>

>

 

The story does not bring you to, or require, the Jackal either. Only three mounts are required for the story - Raptor, Springer and Skimmer.

[fizzypetal.7936]

> @Dovienya.6597 said:

> Survey with fairly comprehensive questions and answers, though only 500 or so people have answered it, most of the responses starkly stand out.

> https://survey.zohopublic.com/public/thankyou.do?uid=xHB0fQ&responseid=318283000000012633&responseekey=6d351fa77e342297803b53295dc2ac9d

>

> When a part of the community spoke out against the reskinning of the human light cultural armor as a cash shop item, the purchases were refunded if those who bought them did not like the new skin. The item was changed.

>

> While I do recognize that this is not as straightforward a situation, the consequences in terms of community perception are different by an order of magnitude. I find it difficult to believe that the only equitable way forward is to leave things as they are.

>

> A lot of people ask why the mount monetization is so infuriating when Black lion chests aren't. I don't like BLC, and don't buy them, but there's a significant difference. There are many ways to get many, many weapon, armor and backpack skins in-game. The exclusive, non-tradable items... stink regardless. The tickets can be used to buy an item of choice and then traded if you want to. There is only one single way to get mount skins, ANY mount skins. Mounts were sold to us as the special feature of the PoF expansion. Any content or feature gated by the expansion is going to be a grey area in terms of whether or not the player perceives themselves as having paid for it already, and any game company should have been keenly aware that their playerbase was holding its breath in anticipation of both how/when/whether mount skins/new mount types may be implemented and how they would be introduced/monetized. Well, we thought we saw at Halloween already. Additionally, a lot of the post-expansion content releases haven't dropped yet. The first balance pass after the expansion was... difficult to swallow for a lot of players all on its own.

>

> 36 mount skins have been released in the short time since PoF's launched showing that additional dye slots and mounts for in-game rewards, which are under tuned in Pof, were obviously a possibility. A lot of people wondered why even 2 dye slots were not available on the original mounts. Lack of customization, on its own, would not have been so bad, had there been a quest, a collection that had skins available, it may have assuaged some disappointment with rewards in PoF, and cushioned the blow when mount skins were monetized in this way.

>

> Adding a second dye slot to the original mount skin, or making even a simple, acquirable in-game skin that can be fully dyed available would be a fine gesture.

>

> I do not consider amassing gold to trade for gems an acceptable compromise, when it means saving so very much, if, in fact, all you want is one skin, or to gamble until you get one. This would be as though every time you buy a skin from the trade post, you got a "discount" but there were a pool of 29 other account bound skins you may get. As someone pointed out to me in another thread, regardless of the monetary value (pricing), and the value of an item relative to the effort it took to create it, if I will not use it and do not value it and cannot trade it, a drop as a consolation prize is worth nothing. Which brings up my next point.

>

> I neither bought mount skins nor intend to so long as they're RNG, and I have all the mounts. However, not everyone has all the mounts, uses all the mounts, or intends to get them all. So, aside from the issue of like/dislike, some people are getting skins for mounts they don't have. One possible change would be to split the packages up into groups by mount with smaller RNG pools/discount packages that would not feel as cost prohibitive.

>

>

>

>

 

Great post...wanted to expand a little on the survey - it is a well balanced multiple choice survey with options for, against or in the middle as it pertains to the mount skin acquisition system. It also covers options for changing the system or leaving it as it is. It takes less than two minutes to complete - the results make for interesting reading for sure.

[DakotaHaven.9036]

Sooo, the one extra Adoption Contract I got is useless now, since I unlocked them all? :V Oh joyous days.

[SpaceSheep.5874]

This whole thing was utterly tone deaf from Anet. Disappointed. Lost a lot of trust and good will from me and probably a lot of others. Not sure I will continue with the game now but we will see how much it holds me... I got paid the other day but I guess I'll spend my allotted money for GW2 elsewhere (and would you look at that, I just got a 50% off premium currency log in reward on Warframe, right you are DE, right you are). Hope it was worth ruining your reputation anyway, you are on the list with Activision, EA and all that jolly lot. Well done.

[DarksunG.9537]

Not surprising, but not pleased. Not pleased at all.

[Microundeas.4530]


 

This is my feeling when reading 90% of your comments, yes rng is bad! But it's applied on skins.... That have 0 impact in high end game play.....

If you don't like, just don't buy it.

In case you are wandering i bought 0 so far cause of the rng, but the existence of this boxes will not make me quit the game, that's just a bit childish. That's why sometimes is hard to take people seriously.

 

Like WP said, vote with your wallet.

[Huldrelokk.6598]

Bundles and Mount Adoption License is just an abomination, forget this models, we just want choose what we want buy, nothing more, and this is a simple thing.

And don't matter if Anet will put new skins by 2000 gems, we know why this price are so high compared with gliders, is just because we dont want be slaves of abusive practices.

Mount Skins = 700 gems max price. Why a player only with PoF should pay more to get new skins while HoT skins is just 700 gems? nobody will accept this model.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @Microundeas.4530 said:

>That have 0 impact in high end game play.....

 

Which is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

Loot boxes for cosmetic items is just as bad as loot boxes for "working" items.