A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[Jordan.5930]

Tried it thinking hey maybe I'm wrong, maybe the odds aren't against me like I thought. Maybe Wooden potatoes was right and I shouldn't be this outraged. Nope. Got 4 skins that I did not care for, 1 Griffin (don't even own one) 2 sparkly skins, the flaming Bunny and the glowing skimmer (which I HATE, I absolutely despise particle effects) and another bunny skin. All I wanted was 1 raptor skin and I couldn't even get that much. $20 wasted. I'm done with this game. However people try to defend it, it's a scam. You got your money Anet, but you just lost 4 players who are fed up with this sort of system.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @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.

 

Where are you getting the information the drop chance is equal?

[Penarddun.6827]

> @Traveller.7496 said:

> Individual sale works if the prices are cheap enough. If you are worried no one will buy mundane skins, dont make then, or set the price lower than flashy skins.

>

There's no reason to make this many "mundane" skins. We as players can (and have been) making our own "mundane" skins by changing the dye channels in armor/gliders for years now. We like that ability to customize it ourselves. Why not just give us an extra dye channel in the default mounts? Even two would be a vast improvement, over one. Didn't the advertisement video about the new mounts have multiple dye channels, before PoF was even released?

 

 

[Melwann.1587]

Reading between the lines: "We heard you, but we do not care, thank you for your feedback".

About me, I will not spend more money in the black lion trading compagny...

[Teratus.2859]

> @Penarddun.6827 said:

> > @Traveller.7496 said:

> > Individual sale works if the prices are cheap enough. If you are worried no one will buy mundane skins, dont make then, or set the price lower than flashy skins.

> >

> There's no reason to make this many "mundane" skins. We as players can (and have been) making our own "mundane" skins by changing the dye channels in armor/gliders for years now. We like that ability to customize it ourselves. Why not just give us an extra dye channel in the default mounts? Even two would be a vast improvement, over one. Didn't the advertisement video about the new mounts have multiple dye channels, before PoF was even released?

>

>

 

The first skin I got was the Coastal Spiketail.. and tbh I didn't care for it at first.

But after playing with the dye channels I quickly realized that I more or less had a Raptor with 4 dye channels rather than one.. so i'm actually quite fond of it now.

Specially since I matched the Raptor's colours with my armor which is something I've been wanting to do since I first got the Raptor mount.

 

Every skin you unlock will be an upgrade over the default in some way.. although it does appear this was by design.. and that's pretty lame.

I have no regrets about the 2 I unlocked though.. even though neither of them were skins I wanted.

But hey.. looking forward to seeing which 2 I get next month.. it's quite exciting really.. but that's not going to make me go nuts and blow tons of cash on mount skins each month.

20 euros is my absolute maximum.. I won't go over that.

[starlinvf.1358]

> @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.

 

The modern gamer is faced with a level of dissonance thats never been this high for as long as I can remember. In every entertainment industry, popularity and profitability are now intertwined. Recently Mass Effect Andromeda was released to massive critical outcry (for good reason). Rather then recognize the situation for what it is, EA came to the conclusion that the franchise was not going to profitable from here on out.... so its 2 planned sequels were canned, and the Dev resources shifted. The problem is realized if you've been paying attention over the last several days, as Visceral was finally dismantled, and Respawn bought up by EA. Visceral suffered the same blow years back with Dead Space 3, has been slowly bleed out since, and was now finally thrown aside. With the beat down MEA got, Bioware now being subjected to the same treatment; and its only a matter of time before they get shut down completely as well.

 

Thats why I know exactly what WP is saying, why hes saying, and what hes afraid might happen. Hes got way too much tied up in the popularity of GW2 as a business, and just as much tied up in it as a fan. As strictly a fan, I've got a lot emotional investment in this franchise, and badly want to see it continue and improve/innovate on their designs. The game itself was praised for being a refreshing change with its good flowing combat, strong art style, and rich world just ripe for exploration. And for all its faults, its a game thats managed to stand out longer then most MMOs that came out in the same time frame. While I agree we are not "responsible" for the game being profitable, we ARE the biggest factor in that equation. The libertarian view point would suggest that things must compete, and the best product will win. But the problem with this line of thinking is how it ignores the value of art and culture, and how it can't readily be measured in terms of Economics. Instead, we've been forced to use popularity as a surrogate in the Economic model, and that comes with a hand full of problems.

 

The continued existence of the game, and the experiences it can provide, are enslaved by an economic model that can't understand nor cares about it. On the other end of the spectrum we have the players and fans, whose only consideration of the financial well being of the game, is the understanding that it will continue to exist. So those who legitimately like the game for its Artistic and cultural value also have to be willing to support it financially. But that relationship between player and business is always a strained one. When the Company (in this instance the Publisher) see value in its game's artistic merits, it will make that the focus of its efforts, with the financial burden something meant to help support that goal. (BTW, whens the last time you visited a museum or historical preserve? Wasn't expecting that moment of clarity, were you?) But when the company only sees the art as an asset to be traded and rented for money..... well...... you pretty much know the state we're in.

 

Now caught in the middle of all this is the Developer Studios. An artist making a deal with the Devil, in the hopes of fulfilling their desire for recognition, advancement, or sharing a message with the world. Unfortunately it comes with a cost. While it is possible to be successful as an Indie, its damn hard. Resources are scarce, success is not guaranteed, and fame or failure can be the difference between a maintaining a comfortable life, or falling into poverty. If we've learned anything from Patreon, art itself has not enough monetary value to sustain a living in this society. Its only through the popularity with the masses, large and small, can the financial demands of the life style be met.

 

Thats the issue we're being faced with. We are in disagreement with the business side of the game; but we also fear the repercussions should symbiosis not be restored. We can't currently afford to let it die, and thats really the only reason we even tolerate this ecosystem. Publishers are main source of capital investment to enable a game to be made. And in return, we feed them money so they can seed other projects to continue the cycle. But as time has gone on, they've turned parasitic..... vicarious and lethal, in a system with nothing that has the power to replace it. Crowdfunding is still in its adolescence, and not yet reliable enough to properly navigate the pitfalls its environment. Independent developers don't have the sheer resources needed to make the kind of projects we're seeing now, and small to medium projects have fierce competition in a market space saturated beyond the capacity for human understanding.

 

So we are left with a choice..... Do we risk letting the Art die, or do we sacrifice something so it may live? Its eerie how earlier in the day I was watching the Extra credits thing on Frankenstein and the origins of Science Fiction, and in it they had briefly talked about the social, political and economic climate of Industrial England when it was published. The sudden awareness of potential parallels to that point in history, and the state the gaming industry is terrifying to say the least. So it begs the question..... should we just give up and let it die, taking all the potential enrichment is can provide? Or we continue the struggle, in the hopes that in the end, it'll all be worth it?

[Jordan.5930]

> @starlinvf.1358 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.

>

> The modern gamer is faced with a level of dissonance thats never been this high for as long as I can remember. In every entertainment industry, popularity and profitability are now intertwined. Recently Mass Effect Andromeda was released to massive critical outcry (for good reason). Rather then recognize the situation for what it is, EA came to the conclusion that the franchise was not going to profitable from here on out.... so its 2 planned sequels were canned, and the Dev resources shifted. The problem is realized if you've been paying attention over the last several days, as Visceral was finally dismantled, and Respawn bought up by EA. Visceral suffered the same blow years back with Dead Space 3, has been slowly bleed out since, and was now finally thrown aside. With the beat down MEA got, Bioware now being subjected to the same treatment; and its only a matter of time before they get shut down completely as well.

>

> Thats why I know exactly what WP is saying, why hes saying, and what hes afraid might happen. Hes got way too much tied up in the popularity of GW2 as a business, and just as much tied up in it as a fan. As strictly a fan, I've got a lot emotional investment in this franchise, and badly want to see it continue and improve/innovate on their designs. The game itself was praised for being a refreshing change with its good flowing combat, strong art style, and rich world just ripe for exploration. And for all its faults, its a game thats managed to stand out longer then most MMOs that came out in the same time frame. While I agree we are not "responsible" for the game being profitable, we ARE the biggest factor in that equation. The libertarian view point would suggest that things must compete, and the best product will win. But the problem with this line of thinking is how it ignores the value of art and culture, and how it can't readily be measured in terms of Economics. Instead, we've been forced to use popularity as a surrogate in the Economic model, and that comes with a hand full of problems.

>

> The continued existence of the game, and the experiences it can provide, are enslaved by an economic model that can't understand nor cares about it. On the other end of the spectrum we have the players and fans, whose only consideration of the financial well being of the game, is the understanding that it will continue to exist. So those who legitimately like the game for its Artistic and cultural value also have to be willing to support it financially. But that relationship between player and business is always a strained one. When the Company (in this instance the Publisher) see value in its game's artistic merits, it will make that the focus of its efforts, with the financial burden something meant to help support that goal. (BTW, whens the last time you visited a museum or historical preserve? Wasn't expecting that moment of clarity, were you?) But when the company only sees the art as an asset to be traded and rented for money..... well...... you pretty much know the state we're in.

>

> Now caught in the middle of all this is the Developer Studios. An artist making a deal with the Devil, in the hopes of fulfilling their desire for recognition, advancement, or sharing a message with the world. Unfortunately it comes with a cost. While it is possible to be successful as an Indie, its kitten hard. Resources are scarce, success is not guaranteed, and fame or failure can be the difference between a maintaining a comfortable life, or falling into poverty. If we've learned anything from Patreon, art itself has not enough monetary value to sustain a living in this society. Its only through the popularity with the masses, large and small, can the financial demands of the life style be met.

>

> Thats the issue we're being faced with. We are in disagreement with the business side of the game; but we also fear the repercussions should symbiosis not be restored. We can't currently afford to let it die, and thats really the only reason we even tolerate this ecosystem. Publishers are main source of capital investment to enable a game to be made. And in return, we feed them money so they can seed other projects to continue the cycle. But as time has gone on, they've turned parasitic..... vicarious and lethal, in a system with nothing that has the power to replace it. Crowdfunding is still in its adolescence, and not yet reliable enough to properly navigate the pitfalls its environment. Independent developers don't have the sheer resources needed to make the kind of projects we're seeing now, and small to medium projects have fierce competition in a market space saturated beyond the capacity for human understanding.

>

> So we are left with a choice..... Do we risk letting the Art die, or do we sacrifice something so it may live? Its eerie how earlier in the day I was watching the Extra credits thing on Frankenstein and the origins of Science Fiction, and in it they had briefly talked about the social, political and economic climate of Industrial England when it was published. The sudden awareness of potential parallels to that point in history, and the state the gaming industry is terrifying to say the least. So it begs the question..... should we just give up and let it die, taking all the potential enrichment is can provide? Or we continue the struggle, in the hopes that in the end, it'll all be worth it?

 

You either die the hero, or live long enough to become the RNG.

[GreyWolf.8670]

How to fix all of this, even retroactively.

 

1. Apologize for disappointing a portion of the customer base. It's not that painful.

2. Immediately disable the current mount offerings on the store.

3. Unbind the licenses so they can be sold or traded.

3. Create a vendor where people can convert the current skins they already got back into an adoption license if they choose to. This was done with the erroneously bound 32-slot bags, so it's doable.

4. Let people exchange licenses for whatever skin they like.

5. Give people a token for completing the treat achievements and as a drop chance for bounties. This will give people an incentive to participate in PoF for a reward.

6. Sell the tokens however you wish.

 

I guarantee you will gain goodwill back and may actually increase sales. Those that like the random element can have fun trying to get a free token by helping with legendary bounties, events, etc.

[Djinn.9245]

> @Lilyanna.9361 said:

> Keyword here. Infamous, not famous. The review is going to age, and wither, perhaps not even be true. They may eventually take the contracts out completely and then what? Oops, well players see it's not there. Time to move on. And you also gave a company publicity. Good or bad people are still going to get curious. It's like how you treat a superstar, no matter what they are still going to be known.

>

> Why do you think mmos like TERA are around even with subpar content and horrible RNG? Publicity. The more you talk the more people get curious and it starts over and over. Yea, you gave them a hit, but y'all gave Anet the spotlight and they took it. So I say kudos. You essentially gave them what they may have wanted.

 

> @FaboBabo.3581 said:

> Quick reminder ; U can buy Gems with in Game Gold ...

 

In game gold is acquired by my entertainment time. I'm not going to waste it on gamble boxes that give me 80% items I don't even want and can't even sell on the TP.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @Lilyanna.9361 said:

> > Keyword here. Infamous, not famous. The review is going to age, and wither, perhaps not even be true. They may eventually take the contracts out completely and then what? Oops, well players see it's not there. Time to move on. And you also gave a company publicity. Good or bad people are still going to get curious. It's like how you treat a superstar, no matter what they are still going to be known.

> >

> > Why do you think mmos like TERA are around even with subpar content and horrible RNG? Publicity. The more you talk the more people get curious and it starts over and over. Yea, you gave them a hit, but y'all gave Anet the spotlight and they took it. So I say kudos. You essentially gave them what they may have wanted.

>

> > @FaboBabo.3581 said:

> > Quick reminder ; U can buy Gems with in Game Gold ...

>

> In game gold is acquired by my entertainment time. I'm not going to waste it on gamble boxes that give me 80% items I don't even want and can't even sell on the TP.

 

This is what I've been saying. Gold income from play is obviously gated because you can technically pay cash for it. I had to wipe out almost my entire stock of crafting materials for 2 years just to buy the collectibles for the griffon.

[Teratus.2859]

> @starlinvf.1358 said:

>

> The modern gamer is faced with a level of dissonance thats never been this high for as long as I can remember. In every entertainment industry, popularity and profitability are now intertwined. Recently Mass Effect Andromeda was released to massive critical outcry (for good reason). Rather then recognize the situation for what it is, EA came to the conclusion that the franchise was not going to profitable from here on out.... so its 2 planned sequels were canned, and the Dev resources shifted. The problem is realized if you've been paying attention over the last several days, as Visceral was finally dismantled, and Respawn bought up by EA. Visceral suffered the same blow years back with Dead Space 3, has been slowly bleed out since, and was now finally thrown aside. With the beat down MEA got, Bioware now being subjected to the same treatment; and its only a matter of time before they get shut down completely as well.

>

> Thats why I know exactly what WP is saying, why hes saying, and what hes afraid might happen. Hes got way too much tied up in the popularity of GW2 as a business, and just as much tied up in it as a fan. As strictly a fan, I've got a lot emotional investment in this franchise, and badly want to see it continue and improve/innovate on their designs. The game itself was praised for being a refreshing change with its good flowing combat, strong art style, and rich world just ripe for exploration. And for all its faults, its a game thats managed to stand out longer then most MMOs that came out in the same time frame. While I agree we are not "responsible" for the game being profitable, we ARE the biggest factor in that equation. The libertarian view point would suggest that things must compete, and the best product will win. But the problem with this line of thinking is how it ignores the value of art and culture, and how it can't readily be measured in terms of Economics. Instead, we've been forced to use popularity as a surrogate in the Economic model, and that comes with a hand full of problems.

>

> The continued existence of the game, and the experiences it can provide, are enslaved by an economic model that can't understand nor cares about it. On the other end of the spectrum we have the players and fans, whose only consideration of the financial well being of the game, is the understanding that it will continue to exist. So those who legitimately like the game for its Artistic and cultural value also have to be willing to support it financially. But that relationship between player and business is always a strained one. When the Company (in this instance the Publisher) see value in its game's artistic merits, it will make that the focus of its efforts, with the financial burden something meant to help support that goal. (BTW, whens the last time you visited a museum or historical preserve? Wasn't expecting that moment of clarity, were you?) But when the company only sees the art as an asset to be traded and rented for money..... well...... you pretty much know the state we're in.

>

> Now caught in the middle of all this is the Developer Studios. An artist making a deal with the Devil, in the hopes of fulfilling their desire for recognition, advancement, or sharing a message with the world. Unfortunately it comes with a cost. While it is possible to be successful as an Indie, its kitten hard. Resources are scarce, success is not guaranteed, and fame or failure can be the difference between a maintaining a comfortable life, or falling into poverty. If we've learned anything from Patreon, art itself has not enough monetary value to sustain a living in this society. Its only through the popularity with the masses, large and small, can the financial demands of the life style be met.

>

> Thats the issue we're being faced with. We are in disagreement with the business side of the game; but we also fear the repercussions should symbiosis not be restored. We can't currently afford to let it die, and thats really the only reason we even tolerate this ecosystem. Publishers are main source of capital investment to enable a game to be made. And in return, we feed them money so they can seed other projects to continue the cycle. But as time has gone on, they've turned parasitic..... vicarious and lethal, in a system with nothing that has the power to replace it. Crowdfunding is still in its adolescence, and not yet reliable enough to properly navigate the pitfalls its environment. Independent developers don't have the sheer resources needed to make the kind of projects we're seeing now, and small to medium projects have fierce competition in a market space saturated beyond the capacity for human understanding.

>

> So we are left with a choice..... Do we risk letting the Art die, or do we sacrifice something so it may live? Its eerie how earlier in the day I was watching the Extra credits thing on Frankenstein and the origins of Science Fiction, and in it they had briefly talked about the social, political and economic climate of Industrial England when it was published. The sudden awareness of potential parallels to that point in history, and the state the gaming industry is terrifying to say the least. So it begs the question..... should we just give up and let it die, taking all the potential enrichment is can provide? Or we continue the struggle, in the hopes that in the end, it'll all be worth it?

 

That honestly depends on the publisher..

In EA's case they are so far gone in their malicious and despicable methods that not only should their company be destroyed but it also deserves to be.

Considering they are also the biggest pusher of these methods their destruction would be a huge win for the consumer and a warning to every other publisher in this industry.

The problem is that this is a near impossible feat.. and they know that..

So long as people continue to to pre-order and buy games everyone knows are going to be incomplete disasters at launch.. and throw away tons of money on endless gambling boxes where they will mostly get nothing but trash out of it.. then these practices will not only continue to exist.. but they will also become mainstream.

 

As I keep telling people.. if we had successfully boycotted XBL over a decade ago as I tried to get people to do.. all console gamer's today would very likely be enjoying free online gaming.

 

[Teratus.2859]

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> This is what I've been saying. Gold income from play is obviously gated because you can technically pay cash for it. I had to wipe out almost my entire stock of crafting materials for 2 years just to buy the collectibles for the griffon.

 

HA! You and me both man xD

My wonderful crafting reserves that i've been building up for so long.. pillaged for a single mount..

 

I honestly can't say I regret it though.. I really didn't care much for the mounts when I started obtaining them and pre PoF I didn't even want them in the game..

Once I got that Griffon though.. totally sold me on mounts.

I only wish it could use updrafts.. or allow us to dismount in the air onto our gliders.

[JonnyTrump.4592]

I just want to point out, I don't really think it can be called a substantial discount option if there's no other option and there's only one price shown. What's the original price for a Savannah Monitor, for example? It's surely not the $25 price tag the Reforged Warhound has, so what's the point of reference?

[Hecate.2891]

Meanwhile, WP is deleting gifted mount adoption licenses LMAO

[Donari.5237]

> @Aya.6321 said:

> Oh in case nobody saw in the datamine thread from Tuesday...

> **they're going to release a 30 pack of contracts**

> Probably for half of what it would be if you bought the multiples of 10 contracts.

> I mean, is that even surprising now?

 

Um, you may have missed this, but this whole furor is because of the 30-pack. Its release sparked the controversy. Though somewhat discounted over buying 3 batches of 10, it's well over half price.

 

So no, it's not surprising now that they released a 30 pack. Not at all.

 

(That_Shaman's datamines often include things actually released with the patch, if you didn't realize).

 

[Ohoni.6057]

I don't mind them adding items like these to the gem store, so long as **the price is fair,** and **there is no RNG necessary.** So long as both of those are true, they can sell whatever they want on the gem store. If they break either of those conditions, however, I flip tables.

[Sekkira.3796]

 

It's interesting because it implies that Arenanet base the artist's wages on how well their models do in the gem store.

 

Sure you could say that putting individual skins up for sale means some artists won't get payed as much, which is how it works in the real world if the artists were independent. And you could say that artists get payed equally because income is spread out equally from each contract sold.

 

Either way is a manipulative tactic to get you, the customer to directly pay the wages of some of their employees.

 

Don't give me a sob story about how your artists need to make money. Pay your goddamn artists. You employed them.

[Faowri.4159]

> @Donari.5237 said:

> > @Aya.6321 said:

> > Oh in case nobody saw in the datamine thread from Tuesday...

> > **they're going to release a 30 pack of contracts**

> > Probably for half of what it would be if you bought the multiples of 10 contracts.

> > I mean, is that even surprising now?

>

> Um, you may have missed this, but this whole furor is because of the 30-pack. Its release sparked the controversy. Though somewhat discounted over buying 3 batches of 10, it's well over half price.

>

> So no, it's not surprising now that they released a 30 pack. Not at all.

>

> (That_Shaman's datamines often include things actually released with the patch, if you didn't realize).

>

 

The 30-pack really rubbed salt in the wound. Pressure sales tactics at their absolute worst.

 

I don't know. Working for a bank (in the UK) where Treating Customers Fairly is actual ~regulation~ has made me all the more sensitive to exploitative gaming sales tactics. Anet can do better. At the moment they are choosing not to.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @inubasiri.8745 said:

> 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.

 

They need to do something to make right with the people who have already paid, offering refunds or bonuses to make it up to them (like maybe a discount ticket for the next wave of skins), but they **cannot** permanently lock the current set of skins behind the current acquisition method, because players who want *these* skins would still have no option but to engage in the corrupt system they've locked them behind. It's nice that future skins are less likely to be released like this, but players who want *these* skins need to have a better option available.

[Skyline Crash.6254]

> @"Game of Bones.8975" said:

> What about a "golden adoption ticket" that allows a person to select the specific skin they are looking for?

> I haven't unlocked the griffon yet so I'm also wondering if the adoption works on mount skins that aren't available to you yet? If you don't have the jackal will you still receive jackal skins? or reroll for one of the other three you have available to you?

 

I agree with the golden adoption ticket idea. Just price them at 800-1200 gems each so players can choose to pay more for the mount they want if they don't want to leave it up to rng.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @zealex.9410 said:

> 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.

 

I think the most fair way to break down the existing thirty skins is to sell the 15 most basic skins at 200-250, offer the RNG box at 400, then the next 10 higher quality skins for 600, and then the best 5 skins for 800.

 

That would add up to 13,000 to buy them all out for cash, or 9000 if you bought all the lower quality skins and then bought 15 loot boxes to unlock the rest. That would offer a marginally cheaper method of clearing out the shop than the current offer (by 600 gems), but only marginally, and I imagine the average player would end up spending considerably more to get the specific mounts he wanted.

[Menadena.7482]

> @"Tiny Doom.4380" said:

> > @Menadena.7482 said:

> > > @Vegeta.2563 said:

> > > > @Menadena.7482 said:

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

> > > >

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

> > >

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

> >

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

>

> What time investment? Assuming you're going to finish the story in any case, so not counting that,

 

You do know what "assuming" means, right? I buy expansions for the new maps and mechanics. The story I play until "ok, bored now".

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @troops.8276 said:

> > @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> > > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> > > > @EMTDJ.9042 said:

> > > > To those complaining about the mount skins being RNG, yet were perfectly ok with Pokémon, Yugioh, Magic, Baseball cards, and all other forms of collectable games being RNG, you have no place to complain. People go and spend 25, 50, 100's of dollars at a time, with no real guarantee on what you will get unless the one you need is outside the package or fearured, on these collectable games with packs and tins and no one complains.

> > > >

> > > > No one says to these other companies "I should be able to pick which collectable I get instead of it being blind chance that I get the one I want.", they just go and buy until they get the one they want and then they find another one they want. For the tins and special releases where a much wanted card is featured, you end up paying a lot more, which is what Guild Wars 2 did here with the Jackal. People were saying that they wanted mount skins to be sold separately from each other when the Halloween set came out, that they would pay more if they could just buy one skin rather than have them all grouped together and getting ones they don't use, and that is what they did with the Jackal since it was one of the most requested from there community.

> > > >

> > > > To those saying "Oh this is a p2w or p2p scheme by Arena Net." I say to you, no it isn't... mount skins are not required to play the game and the Jackal and Griffin are not required either, they are extra content that the devs gave us, which they didn't have to. The fact that gems can be bought without paying cash or card also negates this argument. In fact you don't even have to pay cash at all, just earn gold in game and buy gems that way if you wish. The devs don't make any money from gold to gem transactions, but they allowed them anyway.

> > > >

> > > > Some might argue that the price is too high in the gem store. Do you realize how much it costs to make these skins in the first place? You know that game designers have lives and families too right? This is extra content that they didn't need to make or give in the first place. These skins and the gem store is how the game companies pay their employees and the bills on a month to month, week by week, basis. On top of maintaining the game and equipment itself. These gem store transactions are the side hustle of the developers, just to make the game and their lives sustainable. That is, unless you want the cost of games and expansions to go sky high? The gem store is also is how they keep game and expansion cost down, and how they keep the base game free. You won't find that with other games either.

> > > >

> > > > No one complains about it when other companies do the same practices that Guild Wars 2 is doing now. Mind you most of these other companies have been around for ages and have stayed prominent so they must be doing something right. All of a sudden Guild Wars 2 does the same exact concept and people get upset. You all have very little if any concept at all of how business works and don't realize how much Guild Wars 2 is doing for its community compared to other games.

> > >

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

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

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

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

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

> >

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

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

>

> Not exactly related to this but if the system was more like trading cards it could have been quite interesting. The pool of mount skins could be added to indefinitely. Random packs of five could of eventually been introduced. As could different thematic pools, or annually changing sets. In-game achievable mount skin would definitely need to be there as well. Some very rare skins obtainable by various different methods as well. But most importantly of all you could swap them. It would have to be done anonymously though (for Anets sake) and only skin for skin, no moneys. Though you could swap say 5 skimmers for 1 raptor if you wanted for example. I think that would actually be worthwhile for everyone and fun.

 

(Sorry for late answer) Do you mean like an actual trading card system in game?

Now that I saw the idea it cannot be unseen... Steam cards !!! :D

 

Naw but I agree, it'd be fun to have a TP "separated" for them, no gold involved, just looting mounts out of rare stuff or buying "booster mounts" and trading them.

I like the concept, but some people would still call out Anet for trying to make money out of it (duh).

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @Myrdreth.6829 said:

> > @Skye.1572 said:

> > "We won’t change the existing license in a way that would **invalidate the investment** players have made" - ArenaNet PR

> > Oh, like they did with Town Clothes? Remember when they took out an entire feature and replaced it with something that made our purchases completely worthless? They took out all the mix and match customization and dying of them and gave us clothing tonics of fixed outfits and colors to replace the items. They gave us the option of gem refunds for the investment they invalidated if we wanted that instead of the tonics. So.... why can't they do that here? I know why. It's because they want us to gamble for the ones we want, or fork over the $120 to get all of them. It's not our investment they're worried about, it's theirs.

> >

> > It's hard to take this halfhearted PR jargon seriously after reading that line.

>

> I don't understand what's so difficult about just refunding all the players who already got an adoption licence and just let them choose which mount they want. They don't want that, that's all. It's possible, but they simply don't want that it seems.

 

Because the RNG price per mount is lower than their actual value, the value they put on each mount is more than 400 gems.

So by doing what you suggest, you're basically asking everyone who already got mounts to pay more if they want to keep their 30 mounts.

 

And.. it just won't happen.

 

People don't get that RNG is just the trade off for affordable mounts.

 

[Tiny Doom.4380]

> @Menadena.7482 said:

> > @"Tiny Doom.4380" said:

> > > @Menadena.7482 said:

> > > > @Vegeta.2563 said:

> > > > > @Menadena.7482 said:

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

> > > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > >

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

> >

> > What time investment? Assuming you're going to finish the story in any case, so not counting that,

>

> You do know what "assuming" means, right? I buy expansions for the new maps and mechanics. The story I play until "ok, bored now".

 

Fair enough. It's your money. Even counting the time to do the story if you didn't otherwise plan on doing it, though, it still only adds a few hours. The main complaint about the story was that it was too short. I guess I come from a traditional MMO background where a major time investment to get a desirable item was measured in weeks or even months rather than hours. Getting old :pensive: